RE: Alpina XD3 and XD4 go on sale with 516lb ft

[underphil]

C.A.R. said:

Are you having a laugh?

The AMG-Line is a trim level for a start, but yes, that is a 'performance diesel' I suppose compared with the run-of-the-mill C220.

But never mind whether you'd get a pasting "in-gear" (you would get destroyed btw) it would also get shafted doing a standing start, despite being 'much lighter'.

0-60 C250D = 6.1s
0-60 ST-3 = 6.7s

comparing RWD with FWD is hardly apples:apples

[996GT3_Matt]

C.A.R. said:

Are you having a laugh?

The AMG-Line is a trim level for a start, but yes, that is a 'performance diesel' I suppose compared with the run-of-the-mill C220.

But never mind whether you'd get a pasting "in-gear" (you would get destroyed btw) it would also get shafted doing a standing start, despite being 'much lighter'.

0-60 C250D = 6.1s
0-60 ST-3 = 6.7s

No I am not having a laugh, it is a genuine question for someone who has owned an array of both diesel and petrol performance cars. You have not, but thanks all the same however for copying & pasting your chosen statistic to back up your point.

Perhaps my question was a little vague or confusing, because the absolute performance differential (hard data) is not what I concerned with, more how other diesel engines ‘feel.’ Based on my very limited exposure to diesels, the Mercedes unit (whilst perfectly suited to its application in an automatic C class) is devoid of character and this would therefore deter me from considering another diesel.

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

[aeropilot]

996GT3_Matt said:

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

They do to a point, but, I think you're missing the point with the rev freely fixation.......that's not what a 'performance' diesel is all about.
It's about monster torque, and the performance comes from keeping the engine in that torque band, not trying to rev it.
That's why in the real world on the road, a 'performance diesel' with a ZF8 auto (or similar) is such a weapon, especially with 700Nm of torque.

If you try and drive a diesel engine the same way as a petrol engine, let alone a n/a petrol engine, that's simply not understanding the basic way these engines deliver their performance.

[Ares]

aeropilot said:

996GT3_Matt said:

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

They do to a point, but, I think you're missing the point with the rev freely fixation.......that's not what a 'performance' diesel is all about.
It's about monster torque, and the performance comes from keeping the engine in that torque band, not trying to rev it.
That's why in the real world on the road, a 'performance diesel' with a ZF8 auto (or similar) is such a weapon, especially with 700Nm of torque.

If you try and drive a diesel engine the same way as a petrol engine, let alone a n/a petrol engine, that's simply not understanding the basic way these engines deliver their performance.

Never can understand the fixation of wanting a car that needs to be revved excessively highly to extract maximum performance.

[996GT3_Matt]

Ares said:

aeropilot said:

996GT3_Matt said:

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

They do to a point, but, I think you're missing the point with the rev freely fixation.......that's not what a 'performance' diesel is all about.
It's about monster torque, and the performance comes from keeping the engine in that torque band, not trying to rev it.
That's why in the real world on the road, a 'performance diesel' with a ZF8 auto (or similar) is such a weapon, especially with 700Nm of torque.

If you try and drive a diesel engine the same way as a petrol engine, let alone a n/a petrol engine, that's simply not understanding the basic way these engines deliver their performance.

Never can understand the fixation of wanting a car that needs to be revved excessively highly to extract maximum performance.

There is no fixation, want or need! Merely an occasional desire to enjoy a car’s performance.

Indirectly you have answered my question, so thank you.

[aeropilot]

996GT3_Matt said:

Ares said:

aeropilot said:

996GT3_Matt said:

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

They do to a point, but, I think you're missing the point with the rev freely fixation.......that's not what a 'performance' diesel is all about.
It's about monster torque, and the performance comes from keeping the engine in that torque band, not trying to rev it.
That's why in the real world on the road, a 'performance diesel' with a ZF8 auto (or similar) is such a weapon, especially with 700Nm of torque.

If you try and drive a diesel engine the same way as a petrol engine, let alone a n/a petrol engine, that's simply not understanding the basic way these engines deliver their performance.

Never can understand the fixation of wanting a car that needs to be revved excessively highly to extract maximum performance.

Merely an occasional desire to enjoy a car’s performance.

Which is much more accessible in a performance diesel.....precisely because there is no need to rev the engine beyond the point the torque curve falls away.

[Avalyn]

Ares said:

Never can understand the fixation of wanting a car that needs to be revved excessively highly to extract maximum performance.

Because to a lot of people it's fun ..

Nailing the throttle at low revs, and feeling the car start to dig in, maybe a VTec like cam change at 5K or so, or the howl of a flat 6, the rate of change of acceleration as you put on more revs/speed and the length of time you spend in that gear. For me that's pure joy.

I get no joy from an 8 or 9 speed box (almost CVT like) and the continual steady acceleration, no matter how quick it is.

It's not about numbers, or what's more efficient or faster, because I suspect in 99% of cases a turbo auto, diesel or petrol is quicker.

Quicker isn't always more fun

[Burnham]

I agree with the posters above re. torque, more of the power is available more of time (or earlier, is maybe a better way of putting it).

When Im driving my wifes S3 I don't enjoy it as much as my D3 as to get the best out of it you have to be wring its neck. It draws attention, drinks fuel and Im just....well, not 19 years old anymore I guess.

[Ares]

996GT3_Matt said:

Ares said:

aeropilot said:

996GT3_Matt said:

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

They do to a point, but, I think you're missing the point with the rev freely fixation.......that's not what a 'performance' diesel is all about.
It's about monster torque, and the performance comes from keeping the engine in that torque band, not trying to rev it.
That's why in the real world on the road, a 'performance diesel' with a ZF8 auto (or similar) is such a weapon, especially with 700Nm of torque.

If you try and drive a diesel engine the same way as a petrol engine, let alone a n/a petrol engine, that's simply not understanding the basic way these engines deliver their performance.

Never can understand the fixation of wanting a car that needs to be revved excessively highly to extract maximum performance.

There is no fixation, want or need! Merely an occasional desire to enjoy a car’s performance.

Indirectly you have answered my question, so thank you.

Enjoying a cars performance and revving highly are mutually exclusive events though?

I gain maximum performance from all 510 of my horses without going much above 6,000rpm?

[996GT3_Matt]

aeropilot said:

996GT3_Matt said:

Ares said:

aeropilot said:

996GT3_Matt said:

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

They do to a point, but, I think you're missing the point with the rev freely fixation.......that's not what a 'performance' diesel is all about.
It's about monster torque, and the performance comes from keeping the engine in that torque band, not trying to rev it.
That's why in the real world on the road, a 'performance diesel' with a ZF8 auto (or similar) is such a weapon, especially with 700Nm of torque.

If you try and drive a diesel engine the same way as a petrol engine, let alone a n/a petrol engine, that's simply not understanding the basic way these engines deliver their performance.

Never can understand the fixation of wanting a car that needs to be revved excessively highly to extract maximum performance.

Merely an occasional desire to enjoy a car’s performance.

Which is much more accessible in a performance diesel.....precisely because there is no need to rev the engine beyond the point the torque curve falls away.

You are simply reinforcing all of the positive characteristics of diesel, which I wholly concur with. Daily commuting, congestion.. I get it.

My opening gambit was to question whether there is actually any joy to be had from extracting all of this torque? The responses seem to conclude not.

I hold no gripe with diesel whatsoever and I fully see the merits, but it remains a white good product for me perfect. Perfect for powring larger, and or luxurious vehicles but not a thing of joy.

[longblackcoat]

996GT3_Matt said:

C.A.R. said:

Are you having a laugh?

The AMG-Line is a trim level for a start, but yes, that is a 'performance diesel' I suppose compared with the run-of-the-mill C220.

But never mind whether you'd get a pasting "in-gear" (you would get destroyed btw) it would also get shafted doing a standing start, despite being 'much lighter'.

0-60 C250D = 6.1s
0-60 ST-3 = 6.7s

No I am not having a laugh, it is a genuine question for someone who has owned an array of both diesel and petrol performance cars. You have not, but thanks all the same however for copying & pasting your chosen statistic to back up your point.

Perhaps my question was a little vague or confusing, because the absolute performance differential (hard data) is not what I concerned with, more how other diesel engines ‘feel.’ Based on my very limited exposure to diesels, the Mercedes unit (whilst perfectly suited to its application in an automatic C class) is devoid of character and this would therefore deter me from considering another diesel.

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

I genuinely enjoy the engine in my wife's C350CDI - sounds good enough, isn't a horrible rattler, and accelerates in a nice linear way. Unlike the booooooost you get from a C/E 220 or 250 (nothing, nothing, then lots), it feels rather more like a big naturally aspirated engine.

It still doesn't feel like a sports car engine, but then it's not supposed to.

[Ares]

Avalyn said:

Because to a lot of people it's fun ..

Nailing the throttle at low revs, and feeling the car start to dig in, maybe a VTec like cam change at 5K or so, or the howl of a flat 6, the rate of change of acceleration as you put on more revs/speed and the length of time you spend in that gear. For me that's pure joy.

....or a turbo..?

[996GT3_Matt]

longblackcoat said:

996GT3_Matt said:

C.A.R. said:

Are you having a laugh?

The AMG-Line is a trim level for a start, but yes, that is a 'performance diesel' I suppose compared with the run-of-the-mill C220.

But never mind whether you'd get a pasting "in-gear" (you would get destroyed btw) it would also get shafted doing a standing start, despite being 'much lighter'.

0-60 C250D = 6.1s
0-60 ST-3 = 6.7s

No I am not having a laugh, it is a genuine question for someone who has owned an array of both diesel and petrol performance cars. You have not, but thanks all the same however for copying & pasting your chosen statistic to back up your point.

Perhaps my question was a little vague or confusing, because the absolute performance differential (hard data) is not what I concerned with, more how other diesel engines ‘feel.’ Based on my very limited exposure to diesels, the Mercedes unit (whilst perfectly suited to its application in an automatic C class) is devoid of character and this would therefore deter me from considering another diesel.

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

I genuinely enjoy the engine in my wife's C350CDI - sounds good enough, isn't a horrible rattler, and accelerates in a nice linear way. Unlike the booooooost you get from a C/E 220 or 250 (nothing, nothing, then lots), it feels rather more like a big naturally aspirated engine.

It still doesn't feel like a sports car engine, but then it's not supposed to.

Thanks, this the kind of context I am looking far.

Call if ‘free revving’ or ‘sonorous’ whatever you will, but I imagine that the six cylinder variants are a little more pleasurable.

I’ve read good things about the 640D for example, but it’s always useful to experience feedback from the end user.

Matt

[aeropilot]

996GT3_Matt said:

My opening gambit was to question whether there is actually any joy to be had from extracting all of this torque? The responses seem to conclude not.

Which responses?

I've spent almost 40 years only driving n/a and petrol turbo engines until getting my first diesel, a 40d X5 last year, and it's 650Nm of torque certainly makes me giggle, given the way it shoves over 2Te down the road at a pace that it really shouldn't and with a nice 6 cyl diesel growl...... but then, I adore large capacity V8's, so I 'get' big torque engines, whether they are petrol or diesel.

[Avalyn]

longblackcoat said:

I genuinely enjoy the engine in my wife's C350CDI - sounds good enough, isn't a horrible rattler, and accelerates in a nice linear way. Unlike the booooooost you get from a C/E 220 or 250 (nothing, nothing, then lots), it feels rather more like a big naturally aspirated engine.

It still doesn't feel like a sports car engine, but then it's not supposed to.

And I think that's exactly why no one is ever going to agree on this subject.

You prefer a nice linear acceleration, I'd much rather have some off boost/on boost behavior like an old Scooby, nothing, nothing, bang lol ... is it faster, no, efficient, no, frustrating when off boost, yes .. for me is it much more exciting, absolutely

No one is wrong or right, just we end of driving what each of us finds preferable.

Unfortunately I appear to be in the minority, and we're moving (diesel and petrol) towards boosted, autos, with linear acceleration. Maybe to prepare us for the days of electric cars ..

[aeropilot]

Avalyn said:

You prefer a nice linear acceleration, I'd much rather have some off boost/on boost behavior like an old Scooby, nothing, nothing, bang lol ... is it faster, no, efficient, no, frustrating when off boost, yes .. for me is it much more exciting, absolutely

Can't argue with that, as I spent a lot of time back in the 1980's driving Saab 900 Turbo's......

Even now, I find myself looking down instinctively to look for a manic boost gauge needle flicking back and forth which is no longer there.......

[Avalyn]

I think a good analogy for me is flying ... when you're on the runway, the pilot builds up some boost and releases the brakes - that initial acceleration is exciting, however once the rate of change of acceleration become linear (I guess after you take off to cruising speed, what would that be? 150 - 600 mph?) you've no actual sense of the change of speed. It's dull. You may be compressed into your seat a wee bit, but it's nothing like that initial whey hey!

Part of the fun in an old school turbo motor, is the off boost behavior (I'm not talking about turbo lag here either) .. you had to be in the right gear, if you wanted to really go you had to be in 2nd at 30. If you were caught in 3rd/4th there wouldn't be much go. Nowadays where all cars have so many gears, and are mapped to have torque from 1,250-1,500 revs you're never caught out. It's all just mash the pedal .. too easy

[Ares]

Avalyn said:

I think a good analogy for me is flying ... when you're on the runway, the pilot builds up some boost and releases the brakes - that initial acceleration is exciting, however once the rate of change of acceleration become linear (I guess after you take off to cruising speed, what would that be? 150 - 600 mph?) you've no actual sense of the change of speed. It's dull. You may be compressed into your seat a wee bit, but it's nothing like that initial whey hey!

Part of the fun in an old school turbo motor, is the off boost behavior (I'm not talking about turbo lag here either) .. you had to be in the right gear, if you wanted to really go you had to be in 2nd at 30. If you were caught in 3rd/4th there wouldn't be much go. Nowadays where all cars have so many gears, and are mapped to have torque from 1,250-1,500 revs you're never caught out. It's all just mash the pedal .. too easy

Good analogy, but then you lose it. You still get that shove, wherever in the rev range it is. Gearing has nothing to do with it, whether it is you or the autobox, box will hold onto the gear for as long as is needed to maximise performance. You'll still get your shove. Regardless of fuel.

[Ares]

996GT3_Matt said:

No I am not having a laugh, it is a genuine question for someone who has owned an array of both diesel and petrol performance cars. You have not, but thanks all the same however for copying & pasting your chosen statistic to back up your point.

Perhaps my question was a little vague or confusing, because the absolute performance differential (hard data) is not what I concerned with, more how other diesel engines ‘feel.’ Based on my very limited exposure to diesels, the Mercedes unit (whilst perfectly suited to its application in an automatic C class) is devoid of character and this would therefore deter me from considering another diesel.

Perhaps my lack of enthusiasm for diesel is constrained by my limited exposure, so I am genuinely interested as to whether BMW et al produce ‘better’ engines which rev more freely and therefore appeal more to the enthusiastic driver?

Forget fuel.

You're comparing a dull low-to-mid range saloon with a hot hatch, then citing the dull low-to-mid range saloon doesn't feel as spritely and fun as a hot hatch.

It's nothing to do with the fuel.

[Oily76]

ZX10R NIN said:

Alpina use a twin turbo set up & their residuals seem to be doing just fine.

Alpina residuals are indeed depressingly good, and that's in the unlikely event of you finding one for sale. I'd love a used B3S Touring, hen's teeth.