Missed opportunity for Ford??

Yeh, they also say it's the "ultimate driving machine" that's boolocks as well.

Which primary school was that then?

There's a world of difference between driving enthusiastically (i.e. to have fun on the roads) and competetively (i.e. in a rally) - to me anyway. I guess I need to put more effort into my enthusiastic driving.

Ah, what YOU want. Most people want a sporty car to sound sporty....not sure I'd describe a de-silenced V8 as 'sporty', more 'menacing' :) And I like btw..

What does that have to do with 'sport' labelled diesels not sounding sporty?

BMW derv sounds nice, and it revs pretty well too. Only one (yet) that does.

Even with decent airflow it (the airflow) will reduce as you slow down, funnily enough you slowing down fast makes the brakes hotter so you're back to relying on componentry .. larger surface area of disc, vents etc... Agreed that decent airflow will help greatly when your moving again and cool them off enough for the next time you need them.

I'm going way off topic here. Back to my point:

Recent influx of diesel cars with big alloys & bodykits are NOT sporty at all...and sound cack :) Without bodykits and other assorted tat they are stealthy, economical and potent performers.

A

Chipped 318d? Even more confusing for those you leave behind.....

that landcruiser engine makes 150bhp or less, which is utter utter s**te, that ford V6 is inefficient and also s**te

Yep.

OK, I'll try not to.

Yes, lets.

Yep.

Huh ? Derv makes 150bhp, 0-60 in 8.5 seconds, and will crack 135mph. Petrol makes 150bhp, 0-60 in 8.3 seconds, and will crack 135mph.

Performance is almost identical - this was my point all along !

Except that at eight and a half seconds, it's almost exactly the same as the petrol car !

Anyway, this is a moot point. 0-60 time is a meaningless indicator of performance. In-gear and through-the-gear times are what's important, and the Derv matches the Petrol.

Who cares ? First of all, only a complete dumbass buys a brand new car. No matter what your budget, there is always a better used car for your money. Secondly, the Golf is pants. If I had to choose between a Golf or a Focus, I'd take the Focus everytime !

Why the (Turbo) ? All decent modern Diesel lumps are Turbocharged - it's part-and-parcel. Normally-aspirated Diesel lumps are rubbish.

A slug ? Er, the in-gear times annihilate those of the Petrol car ! Go and look for yourself !

Yeah.

I agree that torque is everything, but ONLY for a given power figure ! The headline power figure is all important - but once you've met that requirement, then the more torque, the better.

That would be plenty nice :)

Which word didn't you understand ?

No, it's power alone. Power is simply a measure of torque x rate. But you already know that !

If you have a 200bhp engine and a 150bhp engine, then the 200bhp engine will give better performance. It doesn't matter HOW much torque the 150bhp engine has - it's 50bhp down on the other !

But you already know all this !

You can't have one without the other ! Power is torque x rate.

What's your point ?

I repeat : "Unless you've got a stupid power curve, it's the bhp figure that defines performance"

If you have a 200bhp engine and a 150bhp engine, then the 200bhp engine will give better performance. It doesn't matter HOW much torque the 150bhp engine has - it's 50bhp down on the other !

But you already know all this !

Nope. I drive a turbo petrol car.

What? You do realise that that is nonsense, don't you? If the diesel is heavier, then it has a disadvantage.

Not really. The Exploder weighs 1900kg, whereas the landcruiser weighs

2600kg. Giving the ford a 700KG ballast, it should hit 60 in 14 secs, whereas the toyota manages it in 12.6.

Engine size is essentially irrelevant for turbo cars.

Er, yes it is. 0-60 is essentially the same (tdi = 8.4 secs, 1.8T =

8.2secs), but in-gear times for the tdi are hugely quicker for the TDi. On track, the difference would be pretty nominal, but on almost any road, the TDI would leave the 1.8T for dead.

If you are comparing 0-60 times alone, which are not the diesel's forte, then only the ST170 and the RS are quicker. The ST170 is about £1k cheaper at purchase, but you'll recoup that difference in fuel in under 2 years just on fuel, plus the residuals for the TDI 150 are very good.

Again, not a fair comparison. The 330 has 231BHP, the 330d has 204Bhp.

Alternatively, comparing the 320d with the (more expensive) 320i:

320d 320i power 150Bhp 168Bhp 0-60 8.4 8.5 0-100 23.8 25.7 30-50 4.1 5.8 50-70 7.8 9.8 econ 40mpg 30mpg This comparison also favours the petrol, but the diesel consistently outperforms it, is cheaper to run, has a greater range and is significantly nicer to drive when not caning it. You'd be mad to go for the petrol.

As an aside to this :

Civic Type-R makes 200bhp, and 195Nm. My 620TI makes 200bhp, and 240Nm.

Guess which is quicker (assuming you row the gearbox, and drive around sounding like a wasp with it's 'nads trapped in a vice)

The TIs extra torque, does nothing at all for it's performance - it merely makes it (much) nicer to drive.

Comparing in gear times between petrols and diesels is a waste of time too. The usual 50-70 in 4th gear is biased towards diesels just because they produce their power lower in the rev range.

James

Sorry, I should have said "the through-the-gears times..."

Why would you stay in 4th gear when doing a 50-70 sprint ?!?!?!

Whoosh, watch those goalposts move...

I understood all of them, however you appear to be inventing new physical units.

These figures will apply only at the peak of the power curve, which the engine will not usually be at.

An engine is *usually* more powerful across the whole graph, i.e. your 200 bhp engine may be 100 bhp at 3000 rpm, while the 150 is 75 at the same speed. However, you can have "stupid power curves" where you have to rev the engine to

8000 rpm before it comes on cam and delivers the high power, and at lower engine speeds you've compromised all the low down power to get that high peak (headline) figure. So, you can easily get the situation where a less tuned engine is delivering a lot more power all the way from 20 mph to 55 mph, and is only inferior from 55 to 60 when the other engine comes on song.

It's usual to find the peak power also means more power further down the curve when comparing similar engines, but once you are comparing turbo-diesel and petrol engines, there is no reason to think the peak power tells you about the shape of the curve. In particular, the curve on a turbo diesel is a lot flatter than a peaky, high power petrol engine will ever be. This means it gives the higher power over a large spread of vehicle speeds, and this means it will be accelerating more quickly over sections of the 0-60 journey than the same power petrol engine, and this can easily mean a shorter 0-60 time even though the peak power is lower.

Personally, I don't want a diesel because they're heavier and less powerful than petrol engines, albeit they do about a third again miles per gallon all else being equal. If someone can make a diesel that is about the same weight and peak power as a petrol engine, I'd prefer that.

You know exactly what I mean !