Advantages v disadvantages of a diesel!!!

Er, what is this mythical 2 LITRE DIESEL that you speak of ?

Nobody uses normally aspirated Diesels these days !

So what do you compare the 2 LITRE PETROL car with then ?!?! You can't just leave it on it's own !

So ?

Only because, being cheaper to run, the Diesel will *win* over X miles !

So ? As above, even with that, the Diesel will still be cheaper after X miles !

No, nobody gives two hoots what the actual *fuel* itself is ! What they care about, is the price, the performance, the economy, the reliability, etc. etc. No Diesel lover would discount a petrol car if it offered equal economy, equal performance, equal price, etc. etc. just because it ran on petrol !

It's the *results* of the fuel choice that are important - not the fuel choice itself !

But it doesn't, because the similarly sized Diesel engine has a Turbo on it ! It clearly makes much more torque than the normally aspirated Petrol engine that you refer to.

Exactly ! And they all *do* have a Turbo - that's *why* they're good. Nobody is saying NA Diesels are good - because, er, they're s**te.

Eh ?

Factory-fitted items are never "cheating".

But it doesn't ! That's the whole point !

No ! Stop this madness !

Cost to Turbocharge a normally aspirated Diesel car : £200, because it's done by the factory, during the build process, as standard.

Cost to Turbocharge a normally aspirated Petrol car : £2000, because it's got to be done by a skilled mechanic, with a whole *bunch* of custom-built parts, over a period of many many hours.

Er, because that's how cars are sold. The more powerful they are, the more they cost. Roughly speaking, the more upmarket you go, the more power you get.

Good. Bigger is better.

Yep. Both the Diesel and the Petrol engine, have a cost directly related to the power they produce. This is why, as Albert says, peak power is good thing to judge equivalence on.

Yep. This is a point in Petrol's favour.

Which is standard on the Diesel, for minimal cost.

No it can't ! See above ! If I were to apply a Turbocharger to my current

Normal engines = Turbo Diesel = Normally Aspirated Petrol = 70bhp per litre or whatever.

Performance engines = Forced Induction Petrol = VTec = Exotica = 100bhp per litre or whatever.

See ?

I'm a subscriber - it's a great magazine !

Yes, that's exactly what it's for.

My VVT-equipped 3.0 V6, makes an extra 5Nm *lower* in the rev range, an extra 13bhp *higher* in the rev range, AND it's (officially) more economical than the pre-1999 none-VVT version.

Well, I think VAG might still do with the SDI. Not a bad engine if it's only to be used around towns, and *never* needed to climb steep hills at speed, or at all.

Erm, petrol engines can be turbocharged at the factory. Lots of people are doing it, and have been doing it for years, on both high-performance and not so high performance models. Ask PSA, VAG, Volvo and Saab, and probably others. Oh, Subaru - there's another.

Yes, but you could have bought it with the 2.0T engine (they do that in the

And it would be worth it, except it'll still be French

You missed out Mitsubishi, Mercedes, Ford, Vauxhall and Rover...

I mentioned Vauxhall in another thread though, I'm sure of it.

But what turbocharged petrols do Ford use, other than the one in the RS and the new ST - I was talking more about manufacturers that have a bit of a range on high performance and not-so-high performance models. I suppose Merc could count with their supercharged engines in varying states of tune, even though they're not turbocharged.

Obviously a non turbo 2 litre diesel.

Yep, that what I said in post 1 It is its only advantage.

Not unless you do as many miles as a taxi, truck, train, bus, etc. Its why you find deseasels in these places.

I do its greasy smelly and more expensive!

Diesel = more to buy, more expensive fuel, more frequent servicing in almost every case.

Always worse cc for cc.

Post 1 economy is better over a long long distance.

Diesels are less reliable, you have not read this thread have you...

Yep they would and do, its a religion you see!

If the deseasel has a turbo then the petrol can have one too if we want to compare like for like, we have already been here read back.

Exactly. Turbos cost. they are an adition to an engine. So you have to compare turbo both or non turbo both.

So comparing a 2litre turbo petrol car to a 2 litre turbo diesel is entirely valid then.

Yes but they do. You are choosing to compare it to one that doesnt...

As it is on a petrol.

Never seen a factory turbo car?????????????????????

??? Eh

Not true.

But they dont! And even if they did (and they dont) it has nothing to do with my post!!!

Its standard on loads of petrols too! And the ones that dont have one (because petrol engines are already better) are proportionally cheaper!

Then do as you do with a diesel, by a factory fitted one with your next car.

Ford's ST and RS as you mention, don't think there's any mainstream ones. Mercedes A class has a 2.0 turbo petrol.

That was the whole point of VVT though init? better economy and performance.

Argh. Scary. They told me the old A210 was something best treated with a lot of respect...

Richard

Ford Transit anyone?