Advantages v disadvantages of a diesel!!!

But then you lose the less servicing and more reliability argument.

But the SLR can empty it's tank in 17 min, is that "better"?

Yes, you should compare them !

I'm all for comparing everything with everything, regardless of displacement, induction, etc.

The opposite to Burgerman who thinks you shouldn't compare Turbo Diesels with NA Petrols.

Agreed.

Yes, it is ! I'm pro-comparison-of-everything.

Take a 2.0 VTec, and a 2.0 Turbo, both Petrol. I *much* prefer the Turbo to drive. Some people will say "But that's not fair, it has a Turbo ! The VTec makes as much power without one !". But so what ? Unless the two technologies cost

*vastly* different money (which they don't) then it seems a perfectly reasonable comparison to me.

Er, so if you halve the revs, and double the torque, then you don't go slower :)

But you already know this - stop trolling :)

Which is already there, for almost no cost !

What will happen, is that it will cost you about £3000 to pay someone to install the blower !

The Diesel gets a blower in the factory. The V6 does not.

It's that simple - you can't just start modifying the engines, to change the comparison results :)

Er, yes, that's what I just said :)

Both make 200bhp. Diesel does it at lower revs. So by definition, it has more torque.

Which is specifically why I said "real-world performance". You don't change into the optimum gear for every single overtake that you make.

You do full-bore standing starts every time you leave the lights ?

Power. Power. Power. Diesels develop high power outputs by developing lots of torque over a small band, so they may be at max torque from 2000-4000, which would give (say) 200 bhp at 4000 and 100bhp at 2000. Off boost a

200bhp 2.5l diesel is likely to make 1/3 the torque, so at 1500 rpm you could be down to 30-40 bhp.

Petrol car, non turbo, can be tuned to have about 70% torque over a wide (2000-6000) range - so 200bhp at 6000, maybe 100 at 3000, maybe 40 bhp at

1500, that's a 4:1 range, giving better in gear accelleration, yes it won't /feel/ as quick as there's no sudden rush as all that power is developed then goes away again.

Petrol turbo car can be tuned to have 95% torque from 1500-6000, or more. Like the diesel, electronic control will give a constant torque over a wide bad 200bhp at 6000, 100 at 3000, 50 at 1500. Now remind me, why was the diesel faster?

As for gearing, if the useful range of the diesel is such that you need

1500rpm before it gets going and it's all gone by 4000rpm then 1st and 2nd will be short, 3rd all gone by 70, 4th by 90, 5th by 110 and 6th will exist purely for your sanity.

That's not an M division car. woops.

You can add M steering wheel, M body kit and M suspension to a 318. It's still a 318.

And there is other things to look at except the power. For example, in that case, the Vtec would be more economical when you're not driving really hard. Also, being a Honda it'll probly be more reliable than anything you compare it to :)

And the diesel is always at the bottom of the pile...

Brand new Beemer 535d - or a Lada Riva 1.5? Which one is going on the bottom of the pile ;)?

It averaged 44 mpg on a 200 mile motorway round trip, in peak times. My car would have done just over 32mpg in same conditions - a saving of 33% in fuel volume.

So here's the question of course: Say you have £5000, and want an S60. Do you spend 19995 on the 2.0T 180bhp or 22903 on the D5 185bhp? Assume 20k miles per annum...

2.0T - borrow 15000 over 5 yrs at 9.9 apr = 381.54/mth, fuel for 100k miles at 30 mpg = 3333 gallons = 15152l at 90p/l = £13686. 5000+22892+13686 = 41578 D5, borrow 17900 over 5 yrs at 9.9 apr = 455.31/mth, fuel for 100k miles at 45mpg = 2222 gallons = 10101l at 93p/l £9393. 5000+27318+9393=41711

you don't pay interest on fuel!

Bear this in mind as well, the only diesel I've run for a long time (two years) was a 1.7TD cavalier - with my right foot it averaged 34 mpg. 24 mpg out of my petrol car doesn't seem to bad really as it has three times the power of that stupid cavvy.

Yes I know, I mentioned earlier that they have about 15400 calories per lb, which is marginally higher than petrol but this is NOT why they are more economical.

No bang just a controlled burn.

What "accelerant" ??????

Wrong... There is always an exess of oxygen in diesel combustion at anything other full power which is why there is greater economy, as almost ALL the fuel is burned.

Actually at the point of combustion as the diesel is injected they brun rich, as its all fuel, as it spreads out and the injected quantity of fuel is burned completely, leaving all the rest of the unused oxygen in the cylinder - Effectively you are burning at tickover (rattle over? / cruise a small amount of fuel with a full throttle amount of air, and the exhaust contains a vast amount of unused oxygen. That is effectively weak. A petrol on the other hand has the correct amount of fuel added to give a very controlled accurate mix to match the air allowed past the throttle plate, (which your oil burner lacks). So at any one time the mixture in the cylinder is hopefully a parfect chemical mix. Not all air and a wiff of fuel!

So you are wrong.

Then why if they are better are they so slow/horrible to drive, noisy, vibratory, expensive, shorter lived, etc etc...

They are thinly disguised truck engines that some modern technology has tried to disguise.

I notice you extreme lack of technical knowledge is even funnier.

Probably a Honda. CBR? 1000?

Turbocharger costs money. 2.0 engine can make >200 bhp without turbo. Hence petrol engines don't always have turbo.

2.0 diesel without turbo stuggles to make 100 bhp, 100 bhp in average 1400kg car makes for very, very poor performance, hence diesel engines nearly always have turbo and cost more.

Fuel consumption is not in qyuestion it never was. I already stated it was better in post 1 Its the ONLY thing they are better at which is why doiesel fans keep dragging it back into this thread. I was asking for OTHER reasons.

Diesels. and petrols cost the same to manufacture.

A turbo is extra cost no matter how you look at it.

Gentle cruising...

when bmw put a bmw badge on a lada riva, i'll drive that one :)

Having done the Rover 75 meets leafy corner and is rapidly introduced to large tree thing, I'm glad to report that build quality from the 80s Accord to the 2000s 75 changed, a lot.