Advantages v disadvantages of a diesel!!!

Scientific analysis, physics, stores departments say differently...

Sorry but the reputation for long lasting diesels came from busses and trucks. and big boats etc. These make so little power and dont have false long service intervals and are so big they seem to last forever.

Erm, that's not the comparison, though.

If I put my VFR engine in a car, it would be utter s**te to drive as you'd need about 8k rpm on the dial before it started making any sort of progress.

Then you have the engine life to consider - bike engines are very fickle things and need lots of maintenance compared with a car engine.

You're obviously getting totally tied up with this one, so I'd give up now before you make yourself look even more blinkered and stupid than you already have.

Will it do so on the basis of pure performance, though, or bang-for-buck and fuel economy?

Erm, no it comes from my local minicab company who have Octavia diesels, still on original turbos and engines, racking up close on 300k miles now.

Well, you're talking about a diesel being able to lap with 4% of the laptimes of the petrols, whilst lasting an extra 10 laps on the same volume of fuel.

Sounds like a very good compromise for endurance racing.

And the laps aren't exactly short are they....

Yes it is. Its a non turbo petrol engine.

So what, it redlines safely at what 11,000? Effectively its the same as a car engine at 3000 Lots of people fit bike engines in cars because they go BETTER! although not a 750...

They need only oil changes and valve clearances checked every 6,000 to

I should, because you have no idea. You ask me why diesels wear faster and I told you very clearly. You didnt like it, or didnt understand it so called it bollox. You are the idiot.

Err other way round.

Why so?

For some marques, they have equivalents on both sides of the petrol / diesel that are blown (eg Volvo, VAG, Vauxhall).

Depends on the criteria of your use of "equivalent". In what way is comparing engines of similar capacity and induction not equivalent, if they are available in a line up?

Not true for at least 2, probably more marques. Volvo and VAG have both lpt and hpt engines in their line-ups that are of similar, if not the same, displacement as the turbo diesel engines in their line ups. How are they not equivalent for the purposes of comparison?

Why so?

Isn't the way to compare _engines_ based on the capacity and induction?

Otherwise you could use countless other metrics, peak power, peak torque, best mpg...

At least two major marques use both lpt and hpt in their petrol line-ups.

At least two major marques use both lpt and hpt in their petrol line-ups.

Isn't it odd that you hardly ever see petrol cars with that sort of mileage as they are seemingly so much better.

Which proves absolutely nothing. Many petrol engines have gone much longer on real exhaustive test than similar diesels. As tested in depth by Ricardo who do most of the development and testing for major car / bike engines and gearboxes including the japs.

but will they be based on the awesome cross country ability of the Golf floorpan? :-p

Dunno, but Steve Hislop will be driving.

You are again showing your ignorance. Increasinc compression to give the correcxt ratio for either propane or ethanol (brazil) IMPROVES efficiency. As does correcting advance curve and fuelling... You make this too easy!

I never claimed that. What happens is this...

No your understanding is a bit shallow, you are arguing with the wrong guy. I never say ANYTHING that i cannot prove to be true.

Quite possibly in terms of competition.

But like what happened in CART a few years back, when fuel economy and reducing pit stops became a factor - it becomes as dull as ditchwater to watch as a _race_.

In 2004 they were doing 17 laps of Le Mans where as the petrol cars were doing

Most people fit them because they are light, then lots of people find they can't use them on the road because of the lack of low down torque makes them unpleasant when not being raced.

Um, no it ain't.

Local LPG fitter to me has a Jeep Grand Cherokee that produces *more* power on LPG than petrol. Not a huge amount more - around 5 bhp, but more all the same. Mainly because he can advance the timing by around 15 deg when running on LPG.

Don't forget, LPG is around 112 octane and extremely clean burning.

That's the one. :)

...in Germany.

But the petrols still won.

Anyway, still waiting for a valid, non monetary reason why Dr D's evil invention is better than a petrol.