Advantages v disadvantages of a diesel!!!

How the *f*ck* do you do that?

I've never seen over 35mpg average. Was as low as 27mpg on a run to Manchester just after I bought it.

Erm, you may want to check out my post about the new Alfa 159 2.4JTD. It has more torque, at lower revs, than the 3.2V6.

Heh - well, my knowledge stops there. Y'see, I'm not the one driving the gay car :-)

cheers, clive

Yes indeed, diesels are truly hateful things.

Noisy Coarse The judder on switch off like PeteM says. Narrow power band. Smokey - no matter how new. Twice the servicing. Generally uncouth. Costly to buy. Just awfull really.

However..........

I drive a diesel. Mostly. I do around 2000 miles a month just now, most of which is for work purposes. Basically, the les it costs me to do my job, the more I get to keep of what they pay me for doing the job. The current Audi 80 cost £400, does 48mpg and will always sell for that sort of money. The last car was an equivalent size, only it was a 2.0 petrol and did 29mpg. Sorry - end of decision making process no matter how much I actually hate diesels. And to all those who think this is pikey / pauper / tight arse thinking, you're kidding yourself on. Nobody likes giving the government fuel duty, and the hateful diesel helps to lessen that effect. That and the fact that the car is depraciation proof seals the deal for me I'm afraid.

Now, does anyone know where I can get some AVGAS for the GTM once the new engine goes in - 1.8K series hopefully.

but you do see them on rally stages :)

[...]

Originally in supercharged petrol engines IIRC - DB601/DB603 aero-engines, W196(?)GP car - with the first road use being the 300SL Gullwing.

[...]

Unthrottled petrols such as BMW's Valvetronic have many of the Diesel's light load economy advantages. A petrol engine using sequential turbos, like the best of current high output, broad powerband diesels would be

*much* more powerful (think Skyline...). A

As most people only transport themselves and a briefcase around, and the speed limit is 70, then why don't you drive a Smart, or a Perodua Nippa, or a Prius?

which you get with a petrol turbo engine as well - you driven a non-turbo diesel recently?

'ang on, if the difference is smaller second hand, then that means the residuals are worse!

since when? I just drove gatwick and back in my Zafira (1.8, non turbo) which with my wifes right foot gets 30-34mpg. I got 23.5mpg.

When doing the same run (in over one hour less round trip time) in my 2.0 turbocharged and chipped volvo I get 24mpg. Bear in mind the Volvo on that particular run had its cruise control set at a speed the Zaf can't attain...

Turbocharging does not by itself reduce efficiency, although if the compression ratio needs to be significantly reduced it can do.

You can chip the 1.8T to 215bhp.

Our first Zafira had a chip from its pre delivery inspection.

Slightly more? That'll depend. In any event another 20% range to a rank means filling up less often and for a lot of people that's a good thing.

3) easier to drive around town. 4) easier to drive on the motorway. 5) power assisted steering and air conditioning makes less of an impact to relative performance. 6) quieter at a cruise. 7) much more natural sound. 8) it annoys environentalists. 9) it's annoying you.

Depreciate less.

Immaterial these days.

Slower is irrelevant.

Ditto the above.

Wrong.

Eh? That sounds like Acme Modern Petrol engine to me. Most diesels are quieter at a cruise. Most petrols whine more.

And petrol doesn't smell at all, eh?

That's the drivers' fault.

Engines built for this kind of use.

How do you reason that? The huge capacity battery is fitted such that the engine can cope with everything our climate can throw at it in extreme conditions. Under ordinary conditions battery longevity is equivalent.

Taller gearing allied to large slug of low down grunt means fewer gear changes required.

Who cares? Petrol engines sound like lawnmowers when fired up.

Irrelevant.

No, need the oil changing twice as often.

So how do you want to compare them?

Aspiration and capacity? Power output? Consumption? Torque output? Cost to buy?

For a given power output, the diesel will be easier to drive and more economical for most drivers. For a given fuel consumption, the diesel will be quicker. For a given torque output, the diesel will be slower and more economical. For a given cost, the diesel will probably be slower (depending on the range) and be more economical.

You can't cherry pick what you want to and don't want to compare, eh?

In terms of overall pounds lost the petrol would win. Let's say that roughly speaking the diesel is around £4k extra when new - at 5 years old it might only be worth £1500-2000 extra. But assuming the person is borrowing money, they'd need to borrow a greater amount, and pay more interest, etc etc.

It's a tradeoff between money lost in depreciation and money saved on fuel - money lost on depreciation is much less, if you're buying at 5 years old, and keeping for, let's say, 5 years, than buying new and keeping for 5 years.

Or do what Bob Sherunkle did and get a "banger" - that's virtually guaranteed to lose nothing.

The best fun is, of course, to remove the limiter - there's nothing more fun that cruising past an Audi S3 that's shot past you at VMax a few miles prior...

That's not all that special, given that they do a 225bhp version of it in standard form.

Higher tyre pressures? Gentler technique? Different oils?

Unusually on the fleet, our Audis seem to be more economical than their VW cousins.

Chuffed if I know why though!

Here's bloody hoping! :0