Advantages v disadvantages of a diesel!!!

And there's been >300bhp turbo 2.0s for many many years now, even italian ones...

... you want that Ghibli Cup, don't you...

And it has a turbocharger, therefore can burn more fuel at lower revs by stuffing more air into the cylinder (and therefore more soot, more wear etc)

When you show me one that is of a comparable size to my Golf TDI estate that could have been had for the same money secondhand, and which returned 65mpg at times, 45mpg at absolute worst, you may have a point.

You appear to mistake me for yet another who regards their car as something to make up for a small penis, with.

Last one I drove, was my Berlingo.

It wasn't the fastest thing on gods earth, nor was it the most economical... but it did the job reliably, and was pleasant to drive.

But you miss another point... when was the last time you saw a turboed petrol car, that had been turbo'ed specifically to enable it to be more economical - they're added on for performance purposes, every time, and they tend to be spooling up at much higher revs than the diesel equivalent.

With a TD, they're there to give more shove when needs be.

Take a VAG TDI like I had, and the turbo is, IIRC, actually electronically controlled.

Net result is it's ramming air and fuel down the engine throat in a more controlled fashion, hence why modern TDIs, as well as running much higher fuel pressures, are able to maintain really good economy figures when driven appropriately, and by comparison with their petrol powered brethern, and give more poke than their predecessors, when floored, and this doesn't necessarily mean they're that juicy when floored either.

A golf 1.8 none turbo petrol has about the same power as a TDi estate and will get 70-75% of the economy. Making the price difference a big difference to make up.

Mate of mine has a Golf TDI estate - it feels fast until you change gear. And my penis is fine, thank you.

Ahhhh a francophile diesel fan. You do know that your penis can be used for things other than urinating don't you?

I run older cars, and I'm not having a poxy potential death trap like a Perodua Nippa.

I need space for stuff like shopping... we take the olds out from time to time, we have children I have to transport. I have cause to transport stuff that wouldn't fit in the back of any of those, and that aside... a SMART, when I have a nice big motorcycle that's far more interesting and fun to ride when I don't need to do any of the above?

LOL

The mark four Golf GTI. The Peugeot 406. The Rover 620. All as economical or more economical with a turbo than without.

[...gas-guzzling turbots...]

Economy tends to be drop away rapidly when completely nailed.

I'm told I should get ~16mpg @ 165mph cruise on the A-bahn but only ~6mpg @ VMax of c.172mph...

I'll let you know in a couple of weeks. :)

A

Ooooh - amazing, electronic controlled turbos - like the ones on just about all modern turbo petrol cars (including my own). My car has also returned

40mpg (not with me driving). Wow.

Lets look at some numbers shall we?

Golf diesel sport estate 130PS at 4000rpm, 228 lbft at 1900 rpm - so probably develops max torque over a 2:1 range, maximum acceleration therefore would be from (say) 20 to 40 in second, 30 to 60 in third, 45 to

90 in fourth etc (guessing).

Golf 1.8T sport estate 150PS at 5700 rpm, 155 lbft at 1750 rpm - so that's bags of torque (not as big bags as the diesel) over a 3:1 range - giving a decent 15-45 in second, 25-75 in third etc - much more useful in everyday life. Ever wanted to overtake a line of traffic? Oh and it's 500 quid cheaper.

Same story here: Volvo S60 185bhp D5 295 lb ft from 2000-2750 and peak power of 185 bhp at 4000 rpm, versus 2.0T with 180bhp at 5500, and 177 lb ft from

1900 to 5000 rpm - again you're going to do more gear changing in the diesel. Note the 0-62 time of the diesel is quicker, but I bet it does 62 in second, the 2.0T doesn't. And the petrol one is 3000 quid cheaper - so it's better to drive and saves you 3000 quid and the interest on the finance of that 3000 quid...

Well, the modern dCi parked outside my house is a noisy, clattery thing.

But if speed kills then the Nippa must be really safe ;)

Seems that a Fiat Doblo is your ideal car then!

WTF have you been driving??? Before getting company cars I was a regular hire car user and was given all kinds of petrol and diesel cars to use. In every case the diesel was cack compared to the petrol version by the same manufacturer apart from once. I was given a Skoda Fabia 1.9TDi and it was pretty good until the revs ran out.

Say it like it is: you don't have a clue what forced induction means or does, do you?

Tom De Moor

Do you need a co-pilot?

I have a forced induction car in there.....

It's all a load of bollocks about comparing TDs to non turbo petrols, considering turbo is standard on a diesel these days.

All I'm saying is that the general consensus is that the pick of the range in 159 terms is the 2.4JTD.

I never thought I'd see AutoItalia write that about an Alfa.

Do wha..? I'd imagine they have just the same envy / inferiority / obsession as the rest of us - probably more so. Well, all else being equal. ;)

Really? It wasn't obvious??? ;-P

Justin.

[...]

Insewerance means no co-pilot and the flight engineers seat is spoken for.

If you can equip yourself with passage to Zeebrugge and the right wedding invite in Malmö there is a spare seat... :)

A

I like a coffee every 300 miles/2 hours anyway - might as well fill the tank.

Nope, that's automatic, not diesel.

Nope, that's powerful, not diesel.

Nope, that's powerful, not diesel.

Nope, that's high geared, not diesel.

Nope, that's V8, not diesel.

That's V8 more than diesel.

Nahh, all's well under my bridge. :)

[...]

Slower is illelephant.

A