Advantages v disadvantages of a diesel!!!

Let's hope BMW never do a 330Cd M Sport Coupé

woops.

it's an ugly car with an ugly engine that's not really an incentive is it :)

how long did that take you :) and the central part of buying an M bmw is that it's designed from the offset to be one, not have bits bolted onto it afterwards the original M3's had different shells to the normal e30 3 series and went from there

my mate had an S60 D it was marginaly quicker than my twinky sierra i've had the best part of 77mpg out of the sierra on a nice gentle run up and down the motorway and i regularly get close to 600 miles from it's just under 60 litres of fuel i put into it on an iregular basis shit, even round the track it still gave better than 18 mpg all this in a car that is 15 years old, with older technology i put in £25 worth of squirt (at 92.9 p/l) and did nearly 200 miles on that (80 of which was at 120 and 21 of which was round the track)

i still await a diesel i can afford for free to do that :) (ok, so it cost me £120 to put right but other than that nothing has gone wrong apart from normal going wrong stuff)

i will however give the diesel it's due when it comes to eeking out the last remanants of economy in town

10 in the morning the light comes on i got back to the depot that night having covered (40 miles around london) at 7 pm it still had a bit in it (not much but 3 litres is a bit :) )

i think it all comes down to what you want to drive, and when you find something that you like, you will stick to it

or, as one top gear presenter has been quoted as saying "kill tramps on the side of the road"

try and get a diesel now without a turbo then put it up against a similarly speced and priced and engine petrol model in the range you will be pleasantly surprised (especially if you are anti satans fuels)

find me a 200 bhp diesel and I will give you a comparison :)

Some people insist that you need rwd to have fun.

>

The only M worth looking at was the 80's M6 other than that it's back to the

2002.

As are Audi, from what I've read. Based on the VAG V10 TDi lump. Should be interesting, as I can see how a factory TDi effort could quite easily wipe the floor with the petrol cars on fuel economy alone.

Averaged 44mpg? With your regular style of driving?

You *average* around 24mpg from your 2.0T S60 with your regular stlye of driving though, don't you?

So comparing like with like, the diesel will save around 45% on one's fuel bill.

Hear that?

That's the sound of your piss, putting out his bonfire, that is....

Which cost considerably less than one of those shit boxes (!)

Simply because they dont need a turbo just to make it drivable, they compete without.

Err there is no choice. The n/a diesel does not make enough power / exhaust gas to spin a bigger turbo without masses of lag. So high rpm power cant be achieved easily much to the engine / turbo designers disgust. They try with twin turbo setups but without much success.

Is it f*ck! Only the wastegate is opened to reduce boost at a predetermined level. The time and rpm it boosts at depends soley on turbo size and engine exhaust gas quantity, which is low due to the diesels low power output.

Its just fuel injection. Power costs fuel. NO power = cheap to run.

What exactly is your bike? (diesel probably, or close to it...)

No, they dont need a turbo to move!

because they dont need one so are cheaper and more reliable!

Miranda jeeps are rwd I rest my case

>>

my boss had one he said it was more economical doing 90 than it was doing 55 :)

the new v8 from audi has got more power though