Seek info about road tax

Once you've spent a lot of time driving larger petrol engined cars the smaller capacity engines lose a lot of their appeal.

That's not to say that smaller engines can't be very good indeed, but I'm a fan of the bigger stuff. I don't like 99.9% of diesels either.

The current BMW 3 litre diesel must be present in more than 0.1% of diesels - what's wrong with that one?

Zathras gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Which version? x25d, x30d or x35d? They're all "the current BMW 3 litre diesel", but very different to drive.

And implies that people who choose Diesel Mondeos, Passats, Kia Magentii, SsanYong Rodiuses and Rover 75s of their own accord can possibly enjoy driving, which quite clearly isn't the case.

What's wrong with any of them other than the x35d often being attached to an auto box?

They're diesels.

(And auto transmission is quite often the only way to make diesels almost tolerable, don't have to row the autos along with the gearlever..)

Sorry I don't understand. Taking a middle of the road variant from my list, what's wrong with the engine in a 2009 330d? Too slow? Too noisy? Too smoky? Too unrefined?

Why would you 'row' a 2009 330d? With the available performance, it's trivial to block change and chop the rowing by half. I do concede that

6 gears is nonsense for that engine and can lead to rowing if you're an unskilled driver who doesn't block shift.

However, I don't see the point of having a sporty car with a standard auto box. If you wanted a lazy-driving settee on wheels then fair enough but I've not often heard of BMWs described as soft and supple enough for that. More often it's complaints of the opposite.

We've been through this a million times. Turbo Diesels have very narrow useable torque 'bands', so to get decent progress you have to change gear a lot. In the better modern turbodieseasels with their 7 speed autoboxes diesels inherent and unavoidable drawbacks are not as obvious they are in a manual diesel.

The apologists who go on about modern car diesel engines having loads of torque obviously haven't driven anything that has proper 'always available' torque. Try a Bentley Turbo R back to back with a Merc diesel and you'll be shocked at how agricultural the diesel engines power delivery is - even compared to a 20 odd year old petrol.

Of course, if you're an inexperienced driver you're not going to know what is good and what is hype.

I don't see the point in having a car with a diesel engine other than cheapskatery.

Having owned over 200 cars, and having driven what must easily be 5000 by now, I know what I like and it's not diesel engined.

So why didn't you buy the V8 A6?

I'm seriously considering an RS6 next.

No you don't as they're geared taller to compensate/take advantage. Also unlike a petrol car, when overtaking one merely has to plant down the right foot and take advantage of the far better torque that's delivered lower down.

I doubt you'd call me inexperienced. My Mondeo 2L TDCi 130 has better mid-range acceleration than my wifes Mitsubishi FTO V6 2L with 180BHP on tap.

Depends. If you drive it like a petrol, like my wife drives mine, you'll be disappointed. Drive it as its supposed to be and you won't.

In a diesel you plant the right foot and wait for something to happen. They're quick if the turbo is already spooled up, they're slow if you have to wait for the turbo to get going. Hence my comment earlier about auto turbo diesels being a bit less horrible to drive than the manual ones.

It's simple. I want *instant* reactions from my cars. Diesel engines

*cannot* physically provide this. So I don't like them.

I've done plenty of miles in TDCi Mondeos and other diesels, I know how to get the best out of them, but their best isn't as good as a good petrol. They're adequate. Not bad, but not as enjoyable as a petrol.

With VNT turbos being around since last century, a turbo can be installed to spool up at quite low revs. Lag shouldn't be an issue unless the car manufacturer has chosen not to eliminate it. IIRC, some petrol turbo cars in the past had unfortunate amounts of turbo lag so this wasn't only a diesel issue.

..you've never been in, let alone driven a 2009 330d then?

The 330d manual does 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. There can't be too many gear changes in *that* time or is that not decent progress?

50-75 in 4th is 4.8s. Who needs an auto?

..the 325d (detuned 330d engine). Almost 300lb-ft at 1300rpm. How much more 'available' do you want?

A Bentley! Not even knowing which Merc you're comparing it too, that comparison sounds a bit too much like apples and oranges.

But I dare say a lot of petrols don't compare well with that motor either so I don't see the use of that argument.

Ok..as an experienced driver, clear away the hype and tell me what's wrong with the diesel engine in a 2009 330d because it doesn't appear, to me, to have a narrow torque band.

Some people, me anyway, like the way a good diesel performs on the roads we have today. Others may value their lower emissions.

With more turbo petrol cars coming along, admittedly, the choice is getting better but it hasn't always been that way unless you wanted a Saab or an ugly Group 20 car.

However, if the point is about not being able to afford the car I really want then..yes I can't afford an Enzo. That doesn't make me a cheapskate - just skint, surely?

I've no issue with that. However, I'm sat in a 3 litre diesel BMW thinking about what you say and can't help thinking "Eh? What's he basing his claims on - it certainly can't be something like this?".

In message , Zathras writes

IME, even the Audi's that used the same v8 lump as the Rolls Royce and Bentley didn't drive as smoothly as the Crewe built stuff.

>

Clint Sharp gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Sorry, what ARE you on about?

Bentley use a VAG lump - but it's a V10 and has never been near a R-R badge.

The old R-R/Bentley pushrod v8 might owe a chunk to Chrysler, but was never used in an Audi - or anything else.

I'm not sure I get this *instant* business, at least unless you are comparing with mahoosive NA petrol engines. It was interesting comparing the 2.0 petrol in the cross-country missile estate with the

130pd td lump in the passat. The CCME was vastly better to drive, of course, and it was actually slightly the quicker of the two, but it was much harder work to keep it on the boil. If, whilst out trundling along, you find yourself stuck behind a tootler and have to wait for an opportunity to overtake, in the NA petrol you would have to sit in a low gear at >4000rpm in order to have better pickup than the TDi does at cruising revs. In reality I'd instead sit in a higher gear and change down when I could overtake. There is of course a lag of maybe 0.5s as the turbo spools up, but that is no more than the time required to change down in the NA petrol, so neither has functionally instant response.

The thing I've found about swapping between nominally similarly powerful petrol/diesels is that each makes the other feel slow - lack of top end punch vs lack of mid range grunt.

On balance, given a similar power output, I'd take the diesel - it's just a more relaxed way to get the same performance. Given a similar peak torque, I'd take the petrol, every time.

Albert T Cone gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

'course, that's the crux of the argument.

I'd far rather drive a long-stroke torquey slogger of a petrol engine than a short-stroke revvy buzzbox.

Does anyone do these? Last time I came across a serious long-stroke engine was in a Bedford (IIRC) campervan..oooh..twenty or so years ago (and it was an old relic then).