What makes you think things would be different? If you put a theoretically perfect CVT on an engine, and then try to run it for max acceleration, peak torque would be completely irrelevant. It'd be running at peak power all the time. So there goes the diesel's trump card then.
Cheers,
Colin.
Not really - remember, we're talking about diesels with rather high peak power figures. The stock answer to 'why not get a diesel' here is not that it lacks power, but that it runs out of puff too soon and requires a gear change - CVT would make that irrelevant.
cheers, clive
Is that proven?
Therein is the secret. Don't chase the power, massage the torque.
And the D5 / T5 based engines were made without input from Ford. And aren't used in any Fords for now (Focus RS gets the new "T5" engine).
Unlike the shedload of Vectras that share that 1.9 diesel...
And who designed said diesel?
Who builds said diesel?
Fiat just managed to produce such a corker of a lump, GM just had to do a deal to use it.....
But diesels lack power against capacity and weight. 2.4 JTD = 200bhp, 2.5 non turbo Alfa = about the same.
2.4 diesel Volvo=200bhp, 2.5 petrol turbo Volvo=300 bhp.
But torque is a measure of effort, not work! Torque does nothing - power is everything.
Yeah, 'almost' kept up. Notice how Clarkson was driving the smoker and the Stig was driving the petrol one. If the Stig was driving the diesel he would have kept up with Clarkson. If I was a cynic I'd say they rigged it that way; can't have Top Gear showing that diesel is better than petrol, can we? Same as they 'possibly' rigged the Astra VXR thing; it looked like the Stig was deliberately provoking the oversteer in Hammerhead. And which car did he lose? The Golf...
Ouch!
Or making the Alfa Romeo with a tighter power band...
I'd get neither.
It's a superb engine, but if you're committed to not liking turbodiesels for their narrow power band and lack of wanting to rev, you won't like it...
If you do like it, then you need to try and will like the 1.8 litre TDCi donk used in the old model Focus.
Yes, it's an oxymoron. But if you drive a diesel by wringing its neck to
4,500 / 4,750 / 5,000 rpm every change, you don't want a diesel, you want a petrol... :)
Correct.
But they sound great and with some fettling, you can hide the car behind.
To be honest, I like old-school turbo diesels with their relatively low power spread over a wide band. Not as a car for thrapping around in - but as a commuter, they seem pretty decent to drive. I think it's because I've got used to that lazy torque driving the Passat.
(I spent a couple of hours punting around the Brecon Beacons in JackH's
306 DTurbo on Saturday - so long as you didn't want to drive like a nutter overtaking everything in sight, it was quite a pleasant experience)
As Tim says, the peak powers, although impressive for diesels, still aren't up to petrol standards. Also, if the CVT meant you didn't mind a power band as narrow as a diesel, you could design petrol engines even more powerful still.
Cheers,
Colin.
Well, on that bombshell, I propose SteveH starts a self help group...
"Welcome to fight club.
If this is your first night, you have to fight."
Douglas
Politics get into everything, it wouldn't have been very exciting if the stig just blew Clarkson away... comical but not exciting ;)
Up-shifts at 4,500 / 4,750 / 5,000 rpm are called "short shifts". :)
Petrol V8, accept no substitute!
HTH
A
What about a Petrol V10 :) ?
Good point...
Petrol V8, accept no less!
AHave something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required