# Diesel to Petrol who has done it?



## Mattgeezer

Pretty bored of my tdi, takes an age to warm up and is pretty noisy so i'm planning to move to petrol, car i have atm is a golf 1.9tdi so will be moving to a golf 1.8t or 2.0tfsi in the mk4 or mk5 gti, 6speed box so should see 30mpg.

Has anyone else made the move? regret it?
Opinions?

Thanks.


----------



## Ross

I did and I don't regret it at all.


----------



## Stu-TDi

I went from a 1.9tdi mk5 golf to a 1.4tsi mk6 golf. Better car, better engine, miles per gallon are just as good as petrol is cheaper than diesel. I get about 55mpg on a good run.


----------



## Grizzle

Made the move last year, from a 525d m sport to an Octavia Vrs TFSI car choices aside

I'm glad i made the move, was seeing 19mpg at lowest and that was just normal town driving, highest around 47 mpg on a trip to Portsmouth, was only doing 8k a year so a petrol was needed aside from cost of fuel we had to service the diesel more reguarly as well.

Octavia is quicker, less noisey, 35mpg town, 43mpg motorway, giving it some stick can see 17mpg but its fun  

At the moment i doubt i would go back to a diesel but miss the 5 series terribly for space and comfort suppose i could a petrol version


----------



## SteveTDCi

I went from an a3 to a Leon cupra, I don't regret it one bit.


----------



## ITHAQVA

Nope, coal burner for me :thumb:


----------



## Leightree

Back in a petrol.... So much more fun .... Straight 6, 3lt helps tho


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

just to play devils advocate Im sure there is a big thread on a member doing this, and regretting it, I know it was mentioned about a different driving style but the lack of torque was a key factor.


----------



## Kerr

I went diesel for years as I was doing big miles and that is the only time it makes sense.

Having driven lots of the common diesel cars on the road I'm never going to accept that a diesel engine is 1) refined 2) enjoyable to drive.

The BMW guys keep arguing over the 335d as being a bit above the rest so I will have to try one of those as some point.

All the rest just sound like cement mixers and usually have horrible power delivery.

If you don't do many miles the cost of buying certain petrol cars will more than offset the difference in fuel.

Diesel engines are fine as long as they in a tractor.


----------



## Kerr

Derbyshire-stig said:


> just to play devils advocate Im sure there is a big thread on a member doing this, and regretting it, I know it was mentioned about a different driving style but the lack of torque was a key factor.


A lot of the modern cars are downsizing capacity and adding turbochargers.

Most have good torque levels with the torque coming in lower than the diesel engines.


----------



## Guest

Moved from a 1.9tdi 150bhp bora sport to a mk5 1.4tsi supercharged turbo golf 170bhp petrol miles better to drive and can get 40mpg and cheaper fuel so no real economy differance alot quieter and. Actually gets warm in winter 

Wont go back to a diesel for my general runaround car 

Do however have a 2.5 dci navara as my 2nd car and goto say i prefer the drive position of that to the golf but its diesel and crap on it so its lose lose if you want good mpg ;0(


----------



## Dannbodge

I've only just moved over to diesel :|


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


> Nope, coal burner for me :thumb:


i have to agree with this, find the ones without a DPF even more fun stops tailgaters. i am a firm believer diesel noise aside (which can be cured pretty much with decent fuel as i have found mine is pretty tolerable at idle and cold) on the move drives fine would barely know unless you go past about 3.5K, bends are more fun i think to with the right delivery not in a great chunk you get to speed nicely out the corners without revving the nuts off it torque is more fun.

oh and queues are less annoying in a manual lift the clutch nice and lazy.


----------



## silverback

i only do about 9 to 10k a year and bought a 520d.i love it.when idle its certianly not refined,but low down grunt and decent MPG did it for me.i only do about 20 miles a day ( to work an back midweek) and the DPF thing does worry me a little,but when i seen the petrol alternatives mpg in a 5series there was no way i was buying a petrol racing tank,i will stick with the dpf,or have them removed.


----------



## Kerr

Ninja59 said:


> i have to agree with this, find the ones without a DPF even more fun stops tailgaters. i am a firm believer diesel noise aside (which can be cured pretty much with decent fuel as i have found mine is pretty tolerable at idle and cold) on the move drives fine would barely know unless you go past about 3.5K, bends are more fun i think to with the right delivery not in a great chunk you get to speed nicely out the corners without revving the nuts off it torque is more fun.
> 
> oh and queues are less annoying in a manual lift the clutch nice and lazy.


What do you drive?

Torque is fun. That's what gives the sensation of acceleration and it makes diesels seem faster than the they really are.

It is also the torque that breaks traction. A lot of the quicker diesels struggle even more to get the power/torque down and chew through tyres quicker.

To make real progress smoothly, smooth power is nicer though.


----------



## Ninja59

c30...


----------



## T.D.K

Derbyshire-stig said:


> just to play devils advocate Im sure there is a big thread on a member doing this, and regretting it, I know it was mentioned about a different driving style but the lack of torque was a key factor.


That would be me 

I went from a 1.9 CDTI (150bhp) diesel engine to a 1.4 turbo petrol engine (140bhp)

I really have to rag the this petrol engine to get it to move quickly, fuel economy is hopeless too...37.7mpg compared to the 1.9 CDTI which did 50mpg however I drove it - which was fast all the time.

Give me a DeLorean, and I would go back and stump up the extra for the derv engine.


----------



## alx_chung

Been toying with the idea as my mileage has gone down but still on the cusp of Derv or Petrol. Would love to change to something fun but doubt I will due to the cost to change.
Alex


----------



## President Swirl

I made an ill advised move from a 306 hdi, ( great car ) to a laguna petrol. The less said about the laguna the better. I had no problem with diesel, far from it, it was just sold to pay off a debt. I have since had only petrol, but would have derv again if the mileage warranted it.


----------



## Kerr

T.D.K said:


> That would be me
> 
> I went from a 1.9 CDTI (150bhp) diesel engine to a 1.4 turbo petrol engine (140bhp)
> 
> I really have to rag the this petrol engine to get it to move quickly, fuel economy is hopeless too...37.7mpg compared to the 1.9 CDTI which did 50mpg however I drove it - which was fast all the time.
> 
> Give me a DeLorean, and I would go back and stump up the extra for the derv engine.


To be fair you have lost 500cc in capacity as well as power. You were never going to have the same performance.

I guess the 1.9CDTI is Fiat's engine in a Vauxhall?

I had a Fiat Bravo for a while and a Vauxhall Insignia with the same engine and the Fiat was bad and the Vauxhall was shocking. Really intrusive diesel clatter through the cabin.

I managed mid 40s out of the Fiat and only 35MPG out of the Insignia.


----------



## T.D.K

Kerr said:


> To be fair you have lost 500cc in capacity as well as power. You were never going to have the same performance.
> 
> I guess the 1.9CDTI is Fiat's engine in a Vauxhall?
> 
> I had a Fiat Bravo for a while and a Vauxhall Insignia with the same engine and the Fiat was bad and the Vauxhall was shocking. Really intrusive diesel clatter through the cabin.
> 
> I managed mid 40s out of the Fiat and only 35MPG out of the Insignia.


Yes that's the engine. I thought it was a amazing unit. A bit clattery but most diesels are on idle to be fair.

It's just not very nippy, I thought the turbo would really give the car a good push when it kicks in, but it doesn't. Apart from whistling, I don't know what the turbo is actually doing.

In fact, the whole engine makes a real roar when you 'push it' but the noise it makes is totally out of sync with how fast the car is gaining speed.


----------



## martyp

I do like the torque you get from even the small diesels (1.9s etc) and you don't need to push them anywhere near as hard as a small petrol engine. Really dislike the narrow power band in diesels although in a auto that's less of an issue.

If I had the choice between a <3ltr petrol or a 1.9 diesel I'd go for the diesel hands down, I don't care about fuel consumption just feel the diesel is nicer as you don't thrash it to make power. 

Although, I'll stick to my V8, tonnes of torque and HP.


----------



## MrHooky

Wife went from A5 2.0TFSI 180 to Evoque 2.2 TDI 150 and the Evoque is nicer to drive. More punchy but don't thrash it as the family wagon.

I went the other way. Leon FR TDI 170 to 3.2 V6. 6 cylinders still gives me the diesel torque but with a wider power band and a lovely soundtrack. Sod the fuel consumption... 

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kerr

Petrol cars are really coming on now too for economy.

The new BMW 328i will be a 4 cylinder 2.0 litre engine producing 245ps and 260lb/ft torque across a large part of the rev range hitting max torque from 1250RPM. 

All the 2.0 diesel engines I've driven have absolutely nothing below 1400-1500RPM.

0-60mph in 5.9 secs claimed with tested times quicker, combined fuel economy is nearly 40MPG and emissions only 149g/km.


----------



## G.P

Kerr said:


> Petrol cars are really coming on now too for economy.
> 
> The new BMW 328i will be a 4 cylinder 2.0 litre engine producing 245ps and 260lb/ft torque across a large part of the rev range hitting max torque from 1250RPM.
> 
> All the 2.0 diesel engines I've driven have absolutely nothing below 1400-1500RPM.
> 
> 0-60mph in 5.9 secs claimed with tested times quicker, combined fuel economy is nearly 40MPG and emissions only 149g/km.


It's a great engine, its also in the 125i. . .


----------



## suspal

i'll stick too my oil burner :thumb:


----------



## bigmc

I went from a diesel to a 3.0 petrol, back in a derv now, torque is much better and mpg is at least double. Bristol to Chester today on <1/4 of a tank.


----------



## Kerr

bigmc said:


> I went from a diesel to a 3.0 petrol, back in a derv now, torque is much better and mpg is at least double. Bristol to Chester today on <1/4 of a tank.


What cars are you comparing?


----------



## bigmc

30.0 vectra gsi and zafira cdti 150


----------



## Kerr

bigmc said:


> 30.0 vectra gsi and zafira cdti 150


Comparing a 1.9 4 cylinder diesel to a 3.0 V6 petrol is never going to be fair in terms of fuel consumption.

Surely 3.0 Vectra is miles faster than the Zafira in pretty much all driving aspects?

Again torque is masking the sense of speed.


----------



## bigmc

No with the remap on the zafira is quicker at <100mph speeds than the vectra and it does 55mpg.


----------



## Razzzle

I went from a 55plate 1.9SRi astra estate to a 06plate focus ST 2.5ltr beast, not regretted it AT ALL.

though I seem to be spending twice as much on fuel and need new tyres its all good :thumb::thumb:


----------



## Kerr

bigmc said:


> No with the remap on the zafira is quicker at <100mph speeds than the vectra and it does 55mpg.


Again not comparing like for like. A remap on a turbo car is a huge advantage.

I've read a lot of people having serious premature engine issues with the Fiat engines after a remap.

I'm amazed you get 55MPG.

I had the same engine in a Fiat Bravo and averaged mid 40s at best and in an Insignia I only averaged mid 30s.

Quickly scanning autoexpress they only averaged 38MPG in their long term test of the Zafira.

Vauxhall only claim mid 40s too and rarely have I ever seen anyone better manufacturer claims for economy.

You must drive like a snail.


----------



## bigmc

Kerr said:


> Again not comparing like for like. A remap on a turbo car is a huge advantage.
> 
> I've read a lot of people having serious premature engine issues with the Fiat engines after a remap.
> 
> I'm amazed you get 55MPG.
> 
> I had the same engine in a Fiat Bravo and averaged mid 40s at best and in an Insignia I only averaged mid 30s.
> 
> Quickly scanning autoexpress they only averaged 38MPG in their long term test of the Zafira.
> 
> Vauxhall only claim mid 40s too and rarely have I ever seen anyone better manufacturer claims for economy.
> 
> You must drive like a snail.


I nearly always achieve more than the manufacturer mpg figures, travelled back at motorway speeds today, not hanging around.


----------



## Mattey h

I went from a diesel to a petrol, then back to a diesel.
Had a 2 litre Citroën c5 hdi ( which was shockingly rubbish) to a v6 mondeo st24 (which I loved) back to a diesel lexus 2.2.
Hated the Citroën, it was the noisiest most unrefined and underpowered car I have ever owned. The only saving grace was the massive boot and the fuel economy on a long run.
Tha st24 was brilliant, 2.5l v6, loads of great noise and lots of get up and go. Fuel economy was shocking though, if you gave it some welly. Loved that car, but mechanical issues forced it's retirement. Swore I would never go back to a diesel.
Now drive a lexus is220d. 2.2 diesel. I love the performance, seems much faster than the v6 mondeo. More torquey. Only downside is the economy. Can't see how a 2.2 diesel can be as uneconomical as a 2.5 v6. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't change the lexus, except maybe for another v6 mondeo, but thought changing back to diesel would save me money. It only averages 30mpg in town driving, even when driving like a granny, and only 43mpg at best running on the motorway. Very disappointed with these economy figures.


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> Again not comparing like for like. A remap on a turbo car is a huge advantage.
> 
> I've read a lot of people having serious premature engine issues with the Fiat engines after a remap.
> 
> I'm amazed you get 55MPG.
> 
> I had the same engine in a Fiat Bravo and averaged mid 40s at best and in an Insignia I only averaged mid 30s.
> *
> Quickly scanning autoexpress they only averaged 38MPG in their long term test of the Zafira.
> 
> Vauxhall only claim mid 40s too and rarely have I ever seen anyone better manufacturer claims for economy.
> 
> You must drive like a snail.*


you forgot the map peoples economy normally increases to.

not being funny you seem to really be anti-diesel in addition i see so many people driving diesels like petrols it is funny.


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> Comparing a 1.9 4 cylinder diesel to a 3.0 V6 petrol is never going to be fair in terms of fuel consumption.
> 
> Surely 3.0 Vectra is miles faster than the Zafira in pretty much all driving aspects?
> 
> Again torque is masking the sense of speed.


fine it may mask some of the speed but that initial shove in a diesel when accelerating does help i mean standard a 2.0D in a C30 has as much torque as a T5 it would not keep up after that bit i know.

the only petrol engine to truly amaze me recently is fords new 1.0 ecoboost. i just worry about long term longevity.


----------



## OvlovMike

Derbyshire-stig said:


> just to play devils advocate Im sure there is a big thread on a member doing this, and regretting it, I know it was mentioned about a different driving style but the lack of torque was a key factor.


But he bought a **** petrol?


----------



## Kerr

Ninja59 said:


> you forgot the map peoples economy normally increases to.
> 
> not being funny you seem to really be anti-diesel in addition i see so many people driving diesels like petrols it is funny.


I'm not anti-diesel as when used in the right circumstances it is fine.

The OP posted that he was bored with driving his diesel and was looking to head to something petrol.

I don't see anybody making a case for diesels being exciting which is what the OP specifically asked.

All diesel drivers talk about is MPG and torque and forget about things that are often more important. Noise, smell, feel and sheer fun.

Too many people buy diesel cars thinking only of fuel economy and quite often if they are an average driver the fuel saving becomes pointless.

Again this thread proves the point. The OP stated his needs and diesel drivers overlook his requirements.

Also you have to worry about the price of diesel long term. As you see over last few years diesel has increased in price much faster than petrol.

From the refinement process of oil 40% becomes petrol and only 23% makes diesel.

With too many diesel drivers in this country we buy loads of diesel from abroad. Now that other countries are starting to pick up on diesels too we are going to see even more of supply and demand effect on the cost of diesel.


----------



## OvlovMike

Ninja59 said:


> fine it may mask some of the speed but that initial shove in a diesel when accelerating does help i mean standard a 2.0D in a C30 has as much torque as a T5 it would not keep up after that bit i know.


******** will the 2.0D keep tabs on a T5, even initially. Driven both, got back in the 2.0D and was wishing it along it was that much slower. Nearly 3 seconds difference 0-62 times says it all


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

a petrol for fun is a great idea but Ive embarrassed alot of quicker cars because Im at 30 mph before them with all my torque, seeing as the max speed limit is only 70 mph and I can change gear like a ninja on speed I still beat them off the line and to 70 lol,

I drive 4 cars 3 petrol,( 1 turbo 380 ish bhp, a N/A on Nos 196 bhp + Nos, a crappy Corsa with 2 ltr redtop in) and the boring Vag 1.9 130 and I have more fun in the diesel then the 380 bhp turbo, why ? because people pull up at the side of a fast car and dont even play, in a diesel they think they have you beat.


----------



## OvlovMike

And to add a relevant post to this thread, I'm making the move from Diesel to Petrol myself. Understandable though, giving in the D5 lump of clatter for something a bit more silly...


----------



## OvlovMike

Derbyshire-stig said:


> a petrol for fun is a great idea but Ive embarrassed alot of quicker cars because Im at 30 mph before them with all my torque, seeing as the max speed limit is only 70 mph and I can change gear like a ninja on speed I still beat them off the line and to 70 lol


They're not trying or they're no use at driving then. Can pretty much guarantee that all of my petrol cars in the last 4 years would have been most of the way to 60 by the time a 130bhp Dullf hit 30.


----------



## Ninja59

OvlovMike said:


> ******** will the 2.0D keep tabs on a T5, even initially. Driven both, got back in the 2.0D and was wishing it along it was that much slower. Nearly 3 seconds difference 0-62 times says it all


i never said it would mike but torque wise they are the same read before slagging off.


----------



## Ninja59

OvlovMike said:


> They're not trying or they're no use at driving then. Can pretty much guarantee that all of my petrol cars in the last 4 years would have been most of the way to 60 by the time a 130bhp Dullf hit 30.


yeah but 3/4's of your cars have/or did have way more power or lighter in the first place. not really a fair comparison. Of late it is almost strange one minute you sing the praises defending the D5 and the mpg doing about XXmph (diesel), next minute you are slagging it off till the cows come home.


----------



## dew1911

Not done it, never intend to here. Trade decent economy in exchange of "smell"??? Try changing the air freshner!

Petrol has no purpose the bottom side of 300bhp, I'd rarther have something that pulls from 1k then have to rev it to 7 just to move.


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> Not done it, never intend to here. Trade decent economy in exchange of "smell"??? Try changing the air freshner!
> 
> Petrol has no purpose the bottom side of 300bhp, I'd rarther have something that pulls from 1k then have to rev it to 7 just to move.


How many decades since you've driven a petrol?

Many of the lesser petrol engines produce maximum torque for large percentages of their rev range.

Far smoother than any 2.0 diesel I've driven where the torque band is very limited.


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> How many decades since you've driven a petrol?
> 
> Many of the lesser petrol engines produce maximum torque for large percentages of their rev range.
> 
> Far smoother than any 2.0 diesel I've driven where the torque band is very limited.


I'm not that old you know  I've driven a range of petrols from a 1.4 Corsa or a 1.2 Mazda 2 to an FN2 CTR and even a TT 225! Also owned quite a range of Diesels from 1.5 none turbo to the 2.4 Volvo, every time I've been glad to get back into a Derv.

The only exception is my mums 1.3 CDTi Corset, but we'll pretend that doesn't exist.


----------



## RisingPower

dew1911 said:


> Not done it, never intend to here. Trade decent economy in exchange of "smell"??? Try changing the air freshner!
> 
> Petrol has no purpose the bottom side of 300bhp, I'd rarther have something that pulls from 1k then have to rev it to 7 just to move.


I guess you haven't ever driven a lotus then. Or a caterham, or an ariel atom or a....


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> I guess you haven't ever driven a lotus then. Or a caterham, or an ariel atom or a....


chalk and cheese comparing an everyday car with almost stripped out racers self-rising flour but point taken.


----------



## RisingPower

OvlovMike said:


> And to add a relevant post to this thread, I'm making the move from Diesel to Petrol myself. Understandable though, giving in the D5 lump of clatter for something a bit more silly...
> 
> Volvo S60 R 2nd - 5th gear. - YouTube


I'll admit the d5 seems to sound clattery at idle in videos but is it that bad when it gets some revs? I'm also struggling to see the point of the r, the t5 seems a more practical ovlov to me.

May even get myself an ovlov in the future and the euro 3 d5s seem like a good practical car to me, no volvo will ever get me excited though.


----------



## dew1911

Ninja59 said:


> chalk and cheese comparing an everyday car with almost stripped out racers rising flour but point taken.


What I was going to say, for a track then there's no beating the above. But for going to work in the middle of winter at -2, I'll take my Volvo everytime.


----------



## Spyder1984

I've gone from an Alfa 147 1.6 ts to the facelift 1.9 jtdm. (Ducati corse) 

The new car made a hell of an impression on me as I didn't want another 147 and certainly not a diesel. 

It's powerful, quick and has a fair mpg improvement. Don't expect a diesel to warm up unless you run on boost! Mine actually cools down on idle!


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> chalk and cheese comparing an everyday car with almost stripped out racers self-rising flour but point taken.


I'm sorry, but if you put a derv in one of the they'd be as fun as castration to drive.


----------



## dew1911

RisingPower said:


> I'm sorry, but if you put a derv in one of the they'd be as fun as castration to drive.


Really? What's won Le Man pretty much hands down for the past few years?


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> I'm sorry, but if you put a derv in one of the they'd be as fun as castration to drive.


i am not saying i would mate, petrol everytime in one but you cannot exactly use it everyday in the same manner.

also, tbh when you sat in a queue (highly likely) in winter or even a public holdiay p*ssing it down tbh i do not want to worrying about whether i have 130 bhp or whatever the f under the bonnet all i want to do is complete the journey safely without incident or avoid incident.

do not get me wrong i went out today in my diesel yes diesel down some nice country lanes within the speed limit doing at times well less than 60mph (for which most of the journey was de restricted) i still had fun and enjoyed the just the fact of being in the car windows down listening to some music enjoying the roads not annoying anyone - then i got stuck in a public bank holiday queue closed the windows and back cruising along.

what i am trying to say is it does depend on your type of fun driving as well - some people enjoy blatting along well in excess of the limit scaring themselves sh*tless get on i will not stop you or my nature of a relaxed fun drive.


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> I'm not that old you know  I've driven a range of petrols from a 1.4 Corsa or a 1.2 Mazda 2 to an FN2 CTR and even a TT 225! Also owned quite a range of Diesels from 1.5 none turbo to the 2.4 Volvo, every time I've been glad to get back into a Derv.
> 
> The only exception is my mums 1.3 CDTi Corset, but we'll pretend that doesn't exist.


Wow. Just wow.

The 1.3CDTi engine is one of the worst I've driven. Gutless and rattles badly.

A CTR needs driven hard to go fast and anyone considering one knows that. You don't buy one to cruise about.

Corsa 1.4 and Mazda 1.2. We are scraping the barrel to kick petrol cars down.

Seriously weak argument I'm afraid.


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> Really? What's won Le Man pretty much hands down for the past few years?


You do know the amount of money that went into the car?

It would be a bit like Man Utd dropping down about 4 leagues.

How many diesel cars offer the performance of an average hot hatch?

What diesels do 0-60mph in low 6secs, 100mph in 15-16 secs and don't cost 40k plus?


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> The 1.3CDTi engine is one of the worst I've driven. Gutless and rattles badly.
> 
> A CTR needs driven hard to go fast and anyone considering one knows that. You don't buy one to cruise about.
> 
> Corsa 1.4 and Mazda 1.2. We are scraping the barrel to kick petrol cars down.
> 
> Seriously weak argument I'm afraid.


Seriously don't give a **** I'm afraid :thumb: I'll quite happily drive my "smelly, noisy, no fun" diesel, if your deluded into petrols then that's your demon to contend with.


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> I'll admit the d5 seems to sound clattery at idle in videos but is it that bad when it gets some revs? I'm also struggling to see the point of the r, the t5 seems a more practical ovlov to me.
> 
> May even get myself an ovlov in the future and the euro 3 d5s seem like a good practical car to me, no volvo will ever get me excited though.


they are not to bad probably cold tbh  the R up to you RP but some do not see a point and think some of the earlier versions are better than the S60R.

tbh i am not about getting excited if it looks nice is comfy and is reasonable fun to drive and does not wind the sh*t out of me then all well fair few euro 3's why a euro 3? PM me if you want RP.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Kerr said:


> You do know the amount of money that went into the car?
> 
> It would be a bit like Man Utd dropping down about 4 leagues.
> 
> How many diesel cars offer the performance of an average hot hatch?
> 
> What diesels do 0-60mph in low 6secs, 100mph in 15-16 secs and don't cost 40k plus?


It also runs in the prototype class, I didn't think there any petrols in that group ? Run it over a much shorter circuit where mpg didn't come into it and then see what happens


----------



## Paintmaster1982

It all depends what you want. At the end of the day i dont think there is such thing as a bad car diesel or petrol these days. Working on the docks some time ago driving the bmw's 4 miles to there storage place the petrols where ****e, Even then 525i etc although had awesomely smooth power curve where dare i say it "boring" in comparison to say a 520d. Yes torque gives you the illusion of speed but i thought thats what a fun car is about, the feeling. 

For a fun diesel i dont think you can go far wrong with the 3.5 td bmw no matter how much of a petrol drinker you are, you need to have a go in one lol they are quick simple as. 

As for petrol again its a different thing all together, revs, torque ect as you all know. 

Ive been driving diesels now for a good few years and when driven the equivelent petrol i always feel a bit dissapointed although they where pretty much matched in terms of speed, the diesel just feels like its got more guts and there for felt more fun. Although i did get to drive a Hredge corrado with a 200+ 1.8 turbo conversion not long ago and that was more fun than the diesel. 

diesels have more usable power. but if you have a petrol with a turbo then there is no comparison in terms of peak torque etc.


I think my post as proved how difficult it is to side either petrol or diesel. Its purely down to your situation and how you drive.



To be honest


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> Seriously don't give a **** I'm afraid :thumb: I'll quite happily drive my "smelly, noisy, no fun" diesel, if your deluded into petrols then that's your demon to contend with.


It's not me that is deluded. You appear to be overlooking facts.

I've driven more than enough cars to come up with a fair opinion.

Comparing engines at like for like levels I think you will find better petrol engines at all levels.

Without any argument a good petrol engine is far more refined than any good diesel.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> Comparing engines at like for like levels I think you will find better petrol engines at all levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even torque? a 2.0 16v petrol mondeo has less torque then a 2.0 tdci doesn't it?
> dont forget torque is what matters ultimately in terms of getting things moving. I think cars should show torque figures more then bhp.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Kerr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing engines at like for like levels I think you will find better petrol engines at all levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even torque? a 2.0 16v petrol mondeo has less torque then a 2.0 tdci doesn't it?
> dont forget torque is what matters ultimately in terms of getting things moving. I think cars should show torque figures more then bhp.
> 
> 
> 
> Normally aspirated v turbocharged car. Not equal.
> 
> Do Ford not do a 2.0 turbo with loads more performance these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dew1911

Equal in terms of price and spec though, Turbo'd petrol engines have not been popular until recently, and are still a long way off.

Even then, if it was a 2.0 Turbo petrol vs. a 2.0 TDCi. I'd take the derv everytime.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

dew1911 said:


> Equal in terms of price and spec though, Turbo'd petrol engines have not been popular until recently, and are still a long way off.
> 
> Even then, if it was a 2.0 Turbo petrol vs. a 2.0 TDCi. I'd take the derv everytime.


i can see what your saying but again it depends what you want and how you drive and what sort of roads you tend to drive on.

like i said earlier if its a petrol turbo then you are on par with a diesel if its an N/A then untill you are at the high end of the revs then the diesel will be quicker in short bursts but altimately the n/a will feel flat although might be as quick. (again down to the feel of the car)

A 2.0 turbo on the other hand id take over the diesel as they have the torque on par with a diesel with the added bonus of having more rev range so you have the best of both worlds.

And ive driven thousands of pretty much every diesel, petrol, turbo'd, bigger cc smaller cc, engine from 03 onwards thats been out to back up my opinion.


----------



## Ninja59

i have to agree with some of the above it does depend on driving style for me personally i love the ease in which a diesel gives so easily the grunt it has despite being "small" by some people mentioned in said thread. in regards to power delivery i do not find it coming in great swaths then nothing and yes i have driven a few like that (a few 1.9 Fiat units in the GP were a little like this some owners even commented about this).

most of the time frankly i rarely go above 2.5K, i do not like revving the nuts off it to get said power so something like a CTR clearly would do my nut in.


----------



## Grommit

I was petrol and my last two cars have been diesel. The BMW is an absolute joy to drive especially on motorway, or at higher speeds as the torque helps when you plant your foot you can overtake with ease, without dropping a gear and razzing the **** out the car if it were petrol.

My next car will be a 335d BMW as I've never heard a bad thing about them. And you get over 300bhp and a shed load of torque. I'll give you that diesel low end is a bit noisy, but once you are up and away it's quiet in the cabin, only road noise. It would take an exceptional car for me to go back to petrol.


----------



## tomah

dew1911 said:


> Not done it, never intend to here. Trade decent economy in exchange of "smell"??? Try changing the air freshner!
> 
> Petrol has no purpose the bottom side of 300bhp, I'd rarther have something that pulls from 1k then have to rev it to 7 just to move.


My first experience with a derv was a 150 bhp Vectra.

Yes, the torque was nice. But it would disappear as fast as it kicked in. Annoying as that was, I could live with it.

What I couldn't live with were the bills. But, that's another story. Basically, unless you're driving long distances regularly, or you're able to buy new every 3 years, forget about a diesel. That is, unless you like driving about in limp mode a lot.

I then had two petrol Honda's. And to be honest, they can be a little annoying. The torque wouldn't pull you out of bed, and unless you like sitting at 6,000rpm all the time, it gets tiring.

However, that doesn't mean all road petrols are all the same. My Octavia vRS is the most pleasant and lively car I've owned. The turbo gives it the pull of a diesel, and yet it revs out like any petrol. It's also pretty economical, averaging mid 30mpg.

I don't hate diesels, but a turbo'd petrol is a far more pleasant thing to drive. :driver:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

when i used to drive bmw's we used to fight over the 335D, 535D and the 635D lol it used to spin just from the torque not the revs lol and i thought that on idle they didnt sound to bad. I had the same speed within a set distance in a 535D estate than i did a M5 estate cranked up to 500 bhp. amazing engines.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

tomah said:


> My first experience with a derv was a 150 bhp Vectra.
> 
> Yes, the torque was nice. But it would disappear as fast as it kicked in. Annoying as that was, I could live with it.
> 
> What I couldn't live with were the bills. But, that's another story. Basically, unless you're driving long distances regularly, or you're able to buy new every 3 years, forget about a diesel. That is, unless you like driving about in limp mode a lot.
> 
> I then had two petrol Honda's. And to be honest, they can be a little annoying. The torque wouldn't pull you out of bed, and unless you like sitting at 6,000rpm all the time, it gets tiring.
> 
> However, that doesn't mean all road petrols are all the same. My Octavia vRS is the most pleasant and lively car I've owned. The turbo gives it the pull of a diesel, and yet it revs out like any petrol. It's also pretty economical, averaging mid 30mpg.
> 
> I don't hate diesels, but a turbo'd petrol is a far more pleasant thing to drive. :driver:


thats exactly what ive been trying to say hahah thanks 

i remember when they went from the older shape VRS to the new one and the new one felt heavy even though it had a bit more cc and a bit more bhp, The older VRS had a better punch to it once the turbo kicked in. I miss my old job  haha


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> Paintmaster1982 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing engines at like for like levels I think you will find better petrol engines at all levels.
> 
> Normally aspirated v turbocharged car. Not equal.
> 
> Do Ford not do a 2.0 turbo with loads more performance these days?
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying every 2.0 petrol mondeo out there has a turbo? people either bought the 2.0 tdci or the 1.8 or 2.0 16v. Your bending the conversation bud lol
> 
> id say before the new eco boost engines there wasnt many every day 2.0 turbo petrol engines, not for your everyday family guys car. So yeah i think it was either the everyday 2.0 tdci would be a typical everyday match against the other side the 2.0 petrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## -Simon-

Got one of each..tbh hard to ignore the torque the diesel turns out, but economy wise the smaller Petrol is a winner...Still a fan on the oil burners at heart though....quite fancy the V10 Le Man Audi :lol:


----------



## The Cueball

I've had one diesel, that was enough for me... don't like them.

I have driven loads, and find my petrol cars more fun, never seen any diesel (mapped, turbo'd, touched by god) able to keep up with me either...

each to their own, and everyone has their reasons and thoughts about what and why they drive what they drive...

nearly bought another diesel last year for my runs to London/Manchester etc, but ended up with the S8... still get 20mpg on the motorway at my cruising speed, so happy with that! :lol:

:thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

The Cueball said:


> I've had one diesel, that was enough for me... don't like them.
> 
> I have driven loads, and find my petrol cars more fun, never seen any diesel (mapped, turbo'd, touched by god) able to keep up with me either...
> 
> each to their own, and everyone has their reasons and thoughts about what and why they drive what they drive...
> 
> nearly bought another diesel last year for my runs to London/Manchester etc, but ended up with the S8... still get 20mpg on the motorway at my cruising speed, so happy with that! :lol:
> 
> :thumb:


haha a 4.2 V8 id say is more fun than most cars out there purely the sound alone is enough to keep me happy haha.


----------



## Ninja59

i know one thing petrol's do not do (well pre-DPF or removed DPF's diesels do well)...:lol: useful for tailgaters.


----------



## JenJen

3.0 V6 petrol to 3.0 V6 weasel to a 3.2 v6 petrol 

Torque for the weasel win, so much so I'm going back to a diesel weasel in the near future but a V6 petrol engine sounds amazing and is affordable!


----------



## RisingPower

dew1911 said:


> Really? What's won Le Man pretty much hands down for the past few years?


And that makes it more fun to drive? It's far heavier than an equivalent petrol engine.


----------



## Ninja59

JenJen said:


> 3.0 V6 petrol to 3.0 V6 weasel to a 3.2 v6 petrol
> 
> Torque for the weasel win, so much so I'm going back to a diesel weasel in the near future but a V6 petrol engine sounds amazing and is affordable!


I know something your doing much sooner dear.:thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> they are not to bad probably cold tbh  the R up to you RP but some do not see a point and think some of the earlier versions are better than the S60R.
> 
> tbh i am not about getting excited if it looks nice is comfy and is reasonable fun to drive and does not wind the sh*t out of me then all well fair few euro 3's why a euro 3? PM me if you want RP.


The t5 can be remapped to ~the same horses or torque as the r, admittedly all through the front wheels though.

Euro 3 for mpg and lack of dpf and swirl flaps. Less to go wrong and cheaper to run, is that not what generally dervs are bought for?


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> i am not saying i would mate, petrol everytime in one but you cannot exactly use it everyday in the same manner.
> 
> also, tbh when you sat in a queue (highly likely) in winter or even a public holdiay p*ssing it down tbh i do not want to worrying about whether i have 130 bhp or whatever the f under the bonnet all i want to do is complete the journey safely without incident or avoid incident.
> 
> do not get me wrong i went out today in my diesel yes diesel down some nice country lanes within the speed limit doing at times well less than 60mph (for which most of the journey was de restricted) i still had fun and enjoyed the just the fact of being in the car windows down listening to some music enjoying the roads not annoying anyone - then i got stuck in a public bank holiday queue closed the windows and back cruising along.
> 
> what i am trying to say is it does depend on your type of fun driving as well - some people enjoy blatting along well in excess of the limit scaring themselves sh*tless get on i will not stop you or my nature of a relaxed fun drive.


Yup, out with the g&t for you old man


----------



## SteveTDCi

dew1911 said:


> Equal in terms of price and spec though, Turbo'd petrol engines have not been popular until recently, and are still a long way off.
> 
> Even then, if it was a 2.0 Turbo petrol vs. a 2.0 TDCi. I'd take the derv everytime.


Having come from a 2.0tdi remapped a3 (golf before with same engine and map) and changing to a cupra tfsi stg1 Map + milltek I would take the cupra every time, the same would apply with any other vw petrol/ diesel. Yes the diesel is smoother on the motorway and that's where they should stay, on a twisty road the diesel can be driven quickly and on the torque but its just so dreary, there is no emotion or character to them, something that cannot be said of most petrol engines. The diesel has killed off the medium sized cars for me, I would never consider one because they are all diesel and they just don't suit my daily grind, if i did 20k a year plus going up and down the motorway then maybe I'd have one.

I've got an Astra 1.7 cdti being loaned in a few weeks so I'll give my opinion on that later. I'm glad petrol is making a comeback, for me diesels have become to complicated and are no longer chep to run. They also struggle to hit there quoted mpg figures something that petrols get much closer to achieving. I'm actually considering swapping to a small petrol car from the cupra, the reasons being cheaper to run, I do 30 miles a day on a mixed route. Something like a twin air 500 will make you smile (read the evo review) and stay within the legal limits, something you struggle to do in a cupra. Then if I do need a big car ..... I'll hire one


----------



## RisingPower

Paintmaster1982 said:


> i can see what your saying but again it depends what you want and how you drive and what sort of roads you tend to drive on.
> 
> like i said earlier if its a petrol turbo then you are on par with a diesel if its an N/A then untill you are at the high end of the revs then the diesel will be quicker in short bursts but altimately the n/a will feel flat although might be as quick. (again down to the feel of the car)
> 
> A 2.0 turbo on the other hand id take over the diesel as they have the torque on par with a diesel with the added bonus of having more rev range so you have the best of both worlds.
> 
> And ive driven thousands of pretty much every diesel, petrol, turbo'd, bigger cc smaller cc, engine from 03 onwards thats been out to back up my opinion.


Dervs only have torque and power because they have turbos, put a turbo on a petrol and they only compete in terms of mpg.

Find me a diesel evo with the same output for an equivalent size engine.


----------



## Kerr

RisingPower said:


> Dervs only have torque and power because they have turbos, put a turbo on a petrol and they only compete in terms of mpg.
> 
> Find me a diesel evo with the same output for an equivalent size engine.


I don't think diesel supporters are taking into account just how much their engine in dependant on the turbo.

Try a normally aspirated diesel and see what you think. Does any car still come with one?


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> The t5 can be remapped to ~the same horses or torque as the r, admittedly all through the front wheels though.
> 
> Euro 3 for mpg and lack of dpf and swirl flaps. Less to go wrong and cheaper to run, is that not what generally dervs are bought for?


meh drive it properly it will be fine tbh the d5 is pretty bulletproof even in later gen forms minus the little rising oil level bit which seems subdued now.

tbh petrols are getting equally as complex now...if you wanted nothing to go wrong you would buy a 105/106 diesel slow as hell but will hit the mpg's and go on and on.



RisingPower said:


> Yup, out with the g&t for you old man


yep i sip my g & t in my flat cap as i go along. clearly a joke.


----------



## Kerr

Grommit said:


> I was petrol and my last two cars have been diesel. The BMW is an absolute joy to drive especially on motorway, or at higher speeds as the torque helps when you plant your foot you can overtake with ease, without dropping a gear and razzing the **** out the car if it were petrol.
> 
> My next car will be a 335d BMW as I've never heard a bad thing about them. And you get over 300bhp and a shed load of torque. I'll give you that diesel low end is a bit noisy, but once you are up and away it's quiet in the cabin, only road noise. It would take an exceptional car for me to go back to petrol.


The 335d is 286bhp in the later high powered models.

I still need to try one.

Don't discount the 335i. Cheaper to buy second hand and faster.

The 335i pulls from below 1000rpm so you get diesel pull down low and petrol performance up top.

It only averages 5mpg less than the 335d.


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> Dervs only have torque and power because they have turbos, put a turbo on a petrol and they only compete in terms of mpg and CO2 output.


 Kerr i do realise that most TD's are reliant on the turbo being there and there are very none turbo'ed bu in fairness most of the time the turbo was/is only there to make it reasonably equal in real terms to the petrol equivalent.

so putting a turbo on a same capacity NA clearly makes the balance unequal again in your argument.


----------



## edthedrummer

Considering changing my RenaultSport Megane 175DCi for a Ford Focus ST....


----------



## Kerr

Ninja59 said:


> Kerr i do realise that most TD's are reliant on the turbo being there and there are very none turbo'ed bu in fairness most of the time the turbo was/is only there to make it reasonably equal in real terms to the petrol equivalent.
> 
> so putting a turbo on a same capacity NA clearly makes the balance unequal again in your argument.


Technology has moved on.

All the manufacturers and downsizing petrol engines and adding turbos.

Given that the models often cost less than diesels it is a completely fair comparison.

Again, check out cars like the new BMW 328i. 2.0 turbo 245bhp loads of torque on a flat band right across the rev range.

0-60mph in 5.9secs and will average 40mpg. Very low emissions too.

On paper looks an amazing car.


----------



## GR33N

Interesting thread even though theres alot of fanboyism going on.

I swapped from a 1.4 Fiesta (80bhp) to a remapped 1.9 TDi (158bhp, 258lb/ft torque). They're never two cars to compare on speed or power as the Fiestas powerband counted for nothing as it never had anything to give. 

After the remap my Golf pulls from 1200rpm to 4500rpm in every gear and theres rarely anything sticking to my rear bumper unless I want it there, I get 45mpg when I really hammer it and 50-55mpg when I dont.

I cant really speak for what is better petrol vs diesel as ive never driven a similarly powered turbo petrol car for any length of time, however I dont feel restricted by the diesel powerband in way shape or form :thumb:

For me SteveTDCi's opinion holds the most value as he seems to have owned similarly powerful vehicles on both sides of the fence. Although what I would say is that I could never afford to run a similarly powerful petrol Golf to my TDi purely based on insurance, but perhaps thats due to me being a younger chap :thumb:


----------



## Ross

Its hard to beat a big petrol engine for fun:thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> meh drive it properly it will be fine tbh the d5 is pretty bulletproof even in later gen forms minus the little rising oil level bit which seems subdued now.
> 
> tbh petrols are getting equally as complex now...if you wanted nothing to go wrong you would buy a 105/106 diesel slow as hell but will hit the mpg's and go on and on.
> 
> yep i sip my g & t in my flat cap as i go along. clearly a joke.


But why would you buy a derv to get average fuel economy? Seems crazy to me.

The dpf seems to lose it around 10 mpg. Screw that.

Damn, a lawyer drinking g&t as they drive?


----------



## The Cueball

Ross said:


> Its hard to beat a big petrol engine for fun:thumb:


better have a drive in an Abarth then! :lol: 

much more smiles per miles than big engines...

:thumb:


----------



## Ross

The Cueball said:


> better have a drive in an Abarth then! :lol:
> 
> much more smiles per miles than big engines...
> 
> :thumb:


I don't want to be mistaken as a girl......


----------



## The Cueball

Ross said:


> I don't want to be mistaken as a girl......


<yawn>

ignorant remarks are pointless....


----------



## SteveTDCi

Ross said:


> I don't want to be mistaken as a girl......


Perhaps cuey could have got a farmers car ... I mean Subaru, they have come a long way since the beginnings when they were sold alongside tractors a ploughs. Call me a 6' 4" girl as I'd have an abarth any day :thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

Ross said:


> I don't want to be mistaken as a girl......


Too late


----------



## RisingPower

SteveTDCi said:


> Perhaps cuey could have got a farmers car ... I mean Subaru, they have come a long way since the beginnings when they were sold alongside tractors a ploughs. Call me a 6' 4" girl as I'd have an abarth any day :thumb:


They're far more interesting and fun too :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> But why would you buy a derv to get average fuel economy? Seems crazy to me.
> 
> The dpf seems to lose it around 10 mpg. Screw that.
> 
> Damn, a lawyer drinking g&t as they drive?


i would not be able to comment as i have no real world evidence

noooo i do not drink that much.


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> i would not be able to comment as i have no real world evidence
> 
> noooo i do not drink that much.


Seems over on the ovlov forums that's pretty much the thinking.

Drunkard, last time I trust an alcoholic for legal advice


----------



## RisingPower

The Cueball said:


> better have a drive in an Abarth then! :lol:
> 
> much more smiles per miles than big engines...
> 
> :thumb:


Hey, to be fair it's a lot of fun, but, a vette? 

Go on, you knew that was coming


----------



## MidlandsCarCare

335D is the only diesel car that impresses me but I'd rather the 335i over it and lose 12mpg as its quicker and sounds a hell of a lot better. 

Some of these comparisons made are pointless as the cars are so different. 

The way I see it is you'd only take the comparable diesel model if you wanted to reduce fuel costs. Lots of diesel drivers seem to be in some false sense of economy which doesn't stack up when mileage driven is low. That said small engined petrol cars are gutless so for non performance cars diesel is a better choice to get a bit of torque.


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> Seems over on the ovlov forums that's pretty much the thinking.
> 
> Drunkard, last time I trust an alcoholic for legal advice


i do not tend to venture into those threads tbh  tend to look after the c30 bunch 

:lol: harsh wait till one of your sessions goes wrong with doug you will come crawling back....


----------



## Paintmaster1982

MidlandsCarCare said:


> 335D is the only diesel car that impresses me but I'd rather the 335i over it and lose 12mpg as its quicker and sounds a hell of a lot better.
> 
> Some of these comparisons made are pointless as the cars are so different.
> 
> The way I see it is you'd only take the comparable diesel model if you wanted to reduce fuel costs. Lots of diesel drivers seem to be in some false sense of economy which doesn't stack up when mileage driven is low. That said small engined petrol cars are gutless so for non performance cars diesel is a better choice to get a bit of torque.


again driven both and yes the 335i is quicker overall I would still say the 335d driving normal feels much quicker. Early deep down grunt is outstsnding. I'd have the 335i though as it can do 170 mpg plus when de restricted


----------



## Ninja59

Paintmaster1982 said:


> again driven both and yes the 335i is quicker overall I would still say the 335d driving normal feels much quicker. Early deep down grunt is outstsnding. I'd have the 335i though as it can do 170 mpg plus when de restricted


that is some serious MPG. :lol:


----------



## Kerr

MidlandsCarCare said:


> 335D is the only diesel car that impresses me but I'd rather the 335i over it and lose 12mpg as its quicker and sounds a hell of a lot better.
> 
> Some of these comparisons made are pointless as the cars are so different.
> 
> The way I see it is you'd only take the comparable diesel model if you wanted to reduce fuel costs. Lots of diesel drivers seem to be in some false sense of economy which doesn't stack up when mileage driven is low. That said small engined petrol cars are gutless so for non performance cars diesel is a better choice to get a bit of torque.


I've got a 335i and average 27mpg which seems to be normal for a normal driver.

Every second weekend I do 130 miles from Aberdeen down to near Edinburgh that involves going through Aberdeen and Dundee. A reasonable amount of stop, starting and speed changing I on that run I can get 35mpg.

The guys on the BMW sites driving the 335d all average low 30mpg. 32mpg does seem to be the average.

Realistically according the facts I see from owners on the BMW site there really is only 5mpg in it.

Doing 12,000 miles a year that will only cost £250 extra.

It just seems odd to me that the 335 both d and I are each others own enemies.


----------



## tomah

Kerr said:


> I've got a 335i and average 27mpg which seems to be normal for a normal driver.
> 
> Every second weekend I do 130 miles from Aberdeen down to near Edinburgh that involves going through Aberdeen and Dundee. A reasonable amount of stop, starting and speed changing I on that run I can get 35mpg.
> 
> The guys on the BMW sites driving the 335d all average low 30mpg. 32mpg does seem to be the average.
> 
> Realistically according the facts I see from owners on the BMW site there really is only 5mpg in it.
> 
> Doing 12,000 miles a year that will only cost £250 extra.
> 
> It just seems odd to me that the 335 both d and I are each others own enemies.


And much more to go wrong in the derv I imagine.


----------



## silverback

MidlandsCarCare said:


> 335D is the only diesel car that impresses me but I'd rather the 335i over it and lose 12mpg as its quicker and sounds a hell of a lot better.
> 
> Some of these comparisons made are pointless as the cars are so different.
> 
> The way I see it is you'd only take the comparable diesel model if you wanted to reduce fuel costs. Lots of diesel drivers seem to be in some false sense of economy which doesn't stack up when mileage driven is low. That said small engined petrol cars are gutless so for non performance cars diesel is a better choice to get a bit of torque.


i just couldnt justify the extra cost of a 523i as opposed to a 520d,when i seen the real life MPG (and i dont mean the absolute lies BMW tell you about "combined") it wasnt even a contest.for sake of a better sounding engine quieter when idle noise,then i will stick with the tractor engine.


----------



## Kerr

Just looking at the international engine of the year awards, I don't see any diesel engines winning the top prize.

The N54 in the 335i won the overall award twice. http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/previous04.html

All the recent engines are all fuel efficient and groundbreaking petrol engines.

Manufacturers are putting more effort into petrol cars these days.


----------



## dew1911

silverback said:


> i just couldnt justify the extra cost of a 523i as opposed to a 520d,when i seen the real life MPG (and i dont mean the absolute lies BMW tell you about "combined") it wasnt even a contest.for sake of a better sounding engine quieter when idle noise,then i will stick with the tractor engine.


Diesels have got a LOT better on noise, my D5 doesn't clatter on idle and is very difficult to pick out as a derv, and growls nicely as the revs rise (as well as the lovely whistle of the Turbo :argie: ).

I drove a Focus ST225 about 6 months after getting the Volvo. For basically the same car underneath, I was completely underwhelmed by the ST. 0-60 is half a second quicker on paper, yet mid range shove meant the D5 would not be that far behind at all.

D5 is cheaper to insure as it doesn't have a performance badge, half the price to tax, and does 38mpg vs the ST's computer saying 18! I'll live with a little extra noise for all that back.


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> Just looking at the international engine of the year awards, I don't see any diesel engines winning the top prize.
> 
> The N54 in the 335i won the overall award twice. http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/previous04.html
> 
> All the recent engines are all fuel efficient and groundbreaking petrol engines.
> 
> Manufacturers are putting more effort into petrol cars these days.


erm i must be going blind...I count at least one every year ending in diesel.


----------



## Ninja59

dew1911 said:


> Diesels have got a LOT better on noise, my D5 doesn't clatter on idle and is very difficult to pick out as a derv, and growls nicely as the revs rise (as well as the lovely whistle of the Turbo :argie: ).
> 
> I drove a Focus ST225 about 6 months after getting the Volvo. For basically the same car underneath, I was completely underwhelmed by the ST. 0-60 is half a second quicker on paper, yet mid range shove meant the D5 would not be that far behind at all.
> 
> D5 is cheaper to insure as it doesn't have a performance badge, half the price to tax, and does 38mpg vs the ST's computer saying 18! I'll live with a little extra noise for all that back.


what for visiting the supposed smelly pump?


----------



## dew1911

Ninja59 said:


> what for visiting the supposed smelly pump?


Supposedly... Maybe my sense of smell just isn't that good


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> Diesels have got a LOT better on noise, my D5 doesn't clatter on idle and is very difficult to pick out as a derv, and growls nicely as the revs rise (as well as the lovely whistle of the Turbo :argie: ).
> 
> I drove a Focus ST225 about 6 months after getting the Volvo. For basically the same car underneath, I was completely underwhelmed by the ST. 0-60 is half a second quicker on paper, yet mid range shove meant the D5 would not be that far behind at all.
> 
> D5 is cheaper to insure as it doesn't have a performance badge, half the price to tax, and does 38mpg vs the ST's computer saying 18! I'll live with a little extra noise for all that back.


Doesn't the D5 struggle low down and need to be worked to move?

I'm not a Ford fan and that engine is thirsty.

The Ford does 0-60mph 1.2secs faster than you and reaches 100mph 4 secs quicker. I'm not following quite where you just about keep up as you run out of grunt at 137mph.

Are you looking at one significant gear roll on somewhere as facts suggest the Ford will beat you with ease.


----------



## Kerr

Ninja59 said:


> erm i must be going blind...I count at least one every year ending in diesel.


You must be blind as you haven't read my post or the overall winner.


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> Doesn't the D5 struggle low down and need to be worked to move?
> 
> I'm not a Ford fan and that engine is thirsty.
> 
> The Ford does 0-60mph 1.2secs faster than you and reaches 100mph 4 secs quicker. I'm not following quite where you catch up as you run out of grunt at 137mph.
> 
> Are you looking at one significant gear roll on somewhere as facts suggest the Ford will beat you with ease.


When the ford needs a drink at the fuel station obviously.


----------



## nick.s

I'm currently contemplating the change from diesel to petrol myself. Mainly because I have had nothing but constant issues with my 1.9 CDTi 150bhp Vectra. DMF failure, swirl flap failure, EGR valve failure...all expensive repairs.

I can get away with petrol given the miles I do. It's rare I do lengthy motorway trips, but, driven sensibly, I can get decent mileage from any car I drive (within the limits of the engine obviously).


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> Doesn't the D5 struggle low down and need to be worked to move?
> 
> I'm not a Ford fan and that engine is thirsty.
> 
> The Ford does 0-60mph 1.2secs faster than you and reaches 100mph 4 secs quicker. I'm not following quite where you catch up as you run out of grunt at 137mph.
> 
> Are you looking at one significant gear roll on somewhere as facts suggest the Ford will beat you with ease.


Don't know where your getting your information from, Parkers lists the 0-60 times as 7.5/6.6, 0.9 seconds, top speed never worries me as it's not something a road car needs.

The costs bit stacks up a lot more though, Tax is £165 vs £270, insurance is a lot cheaper, and 20mpg more easily. The point I was trying to make, which once again your too narrow minded to see, is that two comparable cars, which is the word you keep bleating on about, are very close, and it's not the wide berth that you seem to think it is.

The torque figures tell the story better than BHP, 320nm for the Focus, vs 400 for the C30. I don't have a 30-70 figure for either vehicle to hand, but I think you'll find that it'll tell a more useable story.


----------



## Ninja59

dew1911 said:


> Don't know where your getting your information from, Parkers lists the 0-60 times as 7.5/6.6, 0.9 seconds, top speed never worries me as it's not something a road car needs.
> 
> The costs bit stacks up a lot more though, Tax is £165 vs £270, insurance is a lot cheaper, and 20mpg more easily. The point I was trying to make, which once again your too narrow minded to see, is that two comparable cars, which is the word you keep bleating on about, are very close, and it's not the wide berth that you seem to think it is.


believe those other figures might be on the G'tronic box mate. :thumb:


----------



## dew1911

Ninja59 said:


> believe those other figures might be on the G'tronic box mate. :thumb:


Possibly, parkers does list the 0-60 for the slushbox at 8.1 seconds, and IIRC the torque is cut down isn't it, or was that the T5?


----------



## Ninja59

your quite correct as i distinctly remember a VOC member moaning about this...i have the volvo figures in front of me.


----------



## tomah

nick.s said:


> I'm currently contemplating the change from diesel to petrol myself. Mainly because I have had nothing but constant issues with my 1.9 CDTi 150bhp Vectra. DMF failure, swirl flap failure, EGR valve failure...all expensive repairs.


I feel your pain.

That car drove me away from diesels. Made me hate Vauxhall's, too.


----------



## dew1911

Ninja59 said:


> your quite correct as i distinctly remember a VOC member moaning about this...i have the volvo figures in front of me.


I'm going off the www.parkers.co.uk site then they are both from the same source, didn't have any to hand.

Now, if we involve Polestar.... :lol:



tomah said:


> I feel your pain.
> 
> That car drove me away from diesels. Made me hate Vauxhall's, too.


Didn't need to own one to know to hate pauxhall's...


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> Don't know where your getting your information from, Parkers lists the 0-60 times as 7.5/6.6, 0.9 seconds, top speed never worries me as it's not something a road car needs.
> 
> The costs bit stacks up a lot more though, Tax is £165 vs £270, insurance is a lot cheaper, and 20mpg more easily. The point I was trying to make, which once again your too narrow minded to see, is that two comparable cars, which is the word you keep bleating on about, are very close, and it's not the wide berth that you seem to think it is.


Unless I'm reading the wrong data, you car is 177bhp does 0-60mph in 7.8secs and 100mph in 21secs and top speed of 137mph.

The Focus is 6.6secs tested, 17secs for 100mph and 150mph.

Everyone is fully aware that the fuel consumption on the 2.5l is a very weak point.

Also isn't the Volvo about £3-4k more expensive?


----------



## dew1911

C30 D5 and Focus ST. Figure's there don't list 0-100 or 30-70 (which I see you've ignored the torque point, don't like being proven wrong I take it?)

As for price I bought mine used, as anyone buying new wants their head looking at anyway.


----------



## Adrian Convery

I couldn't own a diesel in the summer, it would annoy me so much as a car enthusiast! Windows down and listening to my Remus just makes me happy!


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> C30 D5 and Focus ST. Figure's there don't list 0-100 or 30-70 (which I see you've ignored the torque point, don't like being proven wrong I take it?)
> 
> As for price I bought mine used, as anyone buying new wants their head looking at anyway.


I don't have those figures at hand.

I'm sure someone could dig them up. I would find it hard to believe that a car that is so much faster is going to struggle anywhere under acceleration.


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> I don't have those figures at hand.
> 
> I'm sure someone could dig them up. I would find it hard to believe that a car that is so much faster is going to struggle anywhere under acceleration.


I don't see why you need conclusive proof, did your wife run away with a Diesel driver or something? Having driven both cars, I can tell you whatever the paper may say, *ON THE ROAD* the ST feels very little different, certainly not enough to make up for the extra costs of getting it there.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Are we comparing manual d5 against focus st ? I would say up to around 90 it would be very close after that the focus would walk it. That's assuming it's the 185 d5 not the euro 3 d5 which feels gutless and over weight in a s60


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> I don't see why you need conclusive proof, did your wife run away with a Diesel driver or something? Having driven both cars, I can tell you whatever the paper may say, *ON THE ROAD* the ST feels very little different, certainly not enough to make up for the extra costs of getting it there.


I don't need conclusive proof.

I have no doubt that the Focus ST will wipe the floor with you in any situation. There might be one little envelope in speed difference where it might be close, but it is clutching at straws in the bigger picture.

I'm honestly baffled how you see otherwise?

The raw pace up to 100MPH is huge and your car does not have the power or torque to pass 137MPH which is a long way behind.

All the magazine reviews about the Focus ST rave about it. The reviews I've scanned about the Volvo don't seem positive and certainly don't even consider it a hot hatch or a performance car.

The second hand values look like it is not a popular car considering you feel it is a real alternative to a hot hatch and is cheaper to run.

I've driven the ST and thought it was ok. It is no match for plenty of other hot hatchbacks on the market.

It seems you are finding it hard to come to terms that in no way shape of form is your car actually comparable to a Focus ST although they are built on the same platform.

I doubt any person seriously considering a Focus ST will be thinking about a Volvo C30 D5 as an alternative.

Although you bought second hand the car was still a far more valuable car new. It looks as if they cost about 20-25% more new but depreciate faster.

Someone has to start the chain and buy new or there would never be cars on the second hand market.

I bet if you did look at new prices, you could probably buy the Focus ST and run it for a few years and when you take into account depreciation the overall cost of ownership would be no more expensive than the Volvo.

Obviously when people start looking at the second hand market it does make for so many variables to take into account.


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> I don't need conclusive proof.


In that case we might as well go no further, your obviously to thick and stubbon to see past the end of your nose. I'm out :thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA

Sorry this thread has got far too serious.

The light channel offers you a brief interlude petrol/diesel heads 






 :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


> Sorry this thread has got far too serious.
> 
> The light channel offers you a brief interlude petrol/diesel heads
> 
> Argument Clinic - YouTube
> 
> :thumb:


well done doug :lol:


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> In that case we might as well go no further, your obviously to thick and stubbon to see past the end of your nose. I'm out :thumb:


LOL. When someone has to become abusive, they know they have lost.

Have a little think....

Explain how your car can lose 1.2secs to 60MPH, it then loses a further 2.8secs between 60-100MPH which highlights the faster the cars go the bigger the gap is becoming and this is highlighted in lack of top speed too.

Where would you expect your car to be faster or match the Focus?

Just try and clear this up.


----------



## dew1911

Your completely missing the point and proving it over and over again by quoting (wrong!) 0-60 figures, widely accepted to mean sweet **** all in road use.

The torque figures I posted tell the story, and the 30-70 time would show us a lot more than the 0-60 ever can. The focus would be pulling ahead by the end of a straight, but coming out of a corner the torque and low delivery point would have the Diesel moving while the petrol's still searching for the right gear to be in.


----------



## ITHAQVA

Oh And one more thing 

As its the Jubilee :thumb:










God bless her! :thumb::thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA

Ninja59 said:


> well done doug :lol:


I had to lighten it up a bit Ninj :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


> I had to lighten it up a bit Ninj :thumb:


totally agreed dear.

can all parties agree to disagree and just leave this thread alone or can some please request it to be locked.


----------



## ITHAQVA

Ninja59 said:


> totally agreed dear.
> 
> can all parties agree to disagree and just leave this thread alone or can some please request it to be locked.


Or I can just post silly pix










:thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


> Or I can just post silly pix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:


i believe you might run out of pics of the queen first dear.


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> Your completely missing the point and proving it over and over again by quoting (wrong!) 0-60 figures, widely accepted to mean sweet **** all in road use.
> 
> The torque figures I posted tell the story, and the 30-70 time would show us a lot more than the 0-60 ever can. The focus would be pulling ahead by the end of a straight, but coming out of a corner the torque and low delivery point would have the Diesel moving while the petrol's still searching for the right gear to be in.


What 0-60 figures are wrong? Lots of sites quote the 177BHP Volvo C30 D5 at 7.7/7.8secs.

The Focus ST has been proven over and over in tests as a 6.5/6.6sec car.

If a driver can't be in the right gear at the right time he can't drive. Blame the driver and not the car. It is not rocket science.

The Focus is easy to drive fast as it does have a good power and torque spread.


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> What 0-60 figures are wrong? Lots of sites quote the 177BHP Volvo C30 D5 at 7.7/7.8secs.
> 
> The Focus ST has been proven over and over in tests as a 6.5/6.6sec car.
> 
> If a driver can't be in the right gear at the right time he can't drive. Blame the driver and not the car. It is not rocket science.
> 
> The Focus is easy to drive fast as it does have a good power and torque spread.


I've posted the link above where I'm getting my figures from, I've yet to see any backing up the claims your trying to make. The D5 has 80nm more torque delivered at a lower point in the rev range, which is always going to give it the kick away.


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> I've posted the link above where I'm getting my figures from, I've yet to see any backing up the claims your trying to make. The D5 has 80nm more torque delivered at a lower point in the rev range, which is always going to give it the kick away.


http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/61251/ford_focus.html

Google for reviews and test drives and there is plenty.

Autocar appear to have removed all their historical road test and they did get 6.5secs and 16.8secs for 100MPH I'm positive of it. It was slower than many of the other hot hatchbacks.

You may also notice that the Focus ST is making maximum torque much earlier than you and for a longer period.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Can we have more pics ?


----------



## dew1911

Notice both figures on that page say "claimed", or once again was that overlooked just to make your point?

But we're back to what I said 10 posts ago, that all the figures in the world do not change how a car feels, and having driven both. Not on a track, or an Autobahn, but an average road. Where 0-60 and 0-100 are about as representative as last wednesdays lotto numbers, the difference between them will not set you on fire, nor does it warrant the extra you will pay just for the one running on Petrol.

No doubt you'll still just spurt figures back at us though


----------



## ITHAQVA

SteveTDCi said:


> Can we have more pics ?


Let me see what i can rustle up  :thumb:


----------



## Trip tdi

I must admit, the new petrols are catching up now, lower torque through the range plus the engines pull more freely, and are lot less nosier than a diesel and the benefit is some petrols out there give decent mpg than before; petrols are very smooth I find.

The Focus ST is very quick car, plus the astra vxr as well, but the Astra suffers from serious torque steer, should of made it 4 wheel drive or a different diff setup plus chassis as well, but there is a new Astra out now.

Best of both worlds, it's got to be the Golf GTI.


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> Notice both figures on that page say "claimed", or once again was that overlooked just to make your point?
> 
> But we're back to what I said 10 posts ago, that all the figures in the world do not change how a car feels, and having driven both. Not on a track, or an Autobahn, but an average road. Where 0-60 and 0-100 are about as representative as last wednesdays lotto numbers, the difference between them will not set you on fire, nor does it warrant the extra you will pay just for the one running on Petrol.
> 
> No doubt you'll still just spurt figures back at us though


Parkers don't test cars. How can your figure be taken as official and you ignore other claims?

Here is tested times of 6.7secs and 16.8 secs before remapping times too.

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evolongtermtests/237880/ford_focus_st_mountune_and_focus_rs.html

All the latest hot hatch back are as quick or even quicker for many.

I struggling to see where your doubt is coming from.


----------



## ITHAQVA




----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> Parkers don't test cars. How can your figure be taken as official and you ignore other claims?
> 
> Here is tested times of 6.7secs and 16.8 secs before remapping times too.
> 
> http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evolongtermtests/237880/ford_focus_st_mountune_and_focus_rs.html
> 
> All the latest hot hatch back are as quick or even quicker for many.
> 
> I struggling to see where your doubt is coming from.


I haven't got a single doubt about what I'm putting as it all comes from personal experience, not just what I've read of the internet  I simply used a known website for figures when it seemed you were so fond of them...


----------



## Kerr

These times were taken from Autocars 0-100-0MPH challenge.
Vauxhall Astra VXR 19.05

Renault Megane F1 20.55

Mazda 6MPS 21.00

Ford Focus ST 21.35

Vauxhall Vectra VXR 22.35

Vauxhall Astra Thurlby 22.65


The Astra Thurby is a 200BHP tuned diesel engine with suspension mods, sticky tyres and amazing brakes.


----------



## ITHAQVA

I bet its at times like these, some of you guys wish you'd taken the blue pill


----------



## dew1911

dew1911 said:


> No doubt you'll still just spurt figures back at us though


God I hate it when I'm right...


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> I haven't got a single doubt about what I'm putting as it all comes from personal experience, not just what I've read of the internet  I simply used a known website for figures when it seemed you were so fond of them...


I've not driven a Volvo C30 D5.

I have driven lots of other diesel and petrol cars though, including the Focus ST.

I didn't need to read the internet to know what the outcome would be but you constantly asked me to prove it and find the facts.

Common sense told me the outcome before I searched.

Now that I found what you asked for you are now twisting that to be irrelevant and rolleyes.

It will be lose lose for me no matter how much I prove you wrong.

I will let you keep in your head your car will challenge a Focus ST and not let facts get in your way.


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> I've not driven a Volvo C30 D5.
> 
> I have driven lots of other diesel and petrol cars though, including the Focus ST.
> 
> I didn't need to read the internet to know what the outcome would be but you constantly asked me to prove it and find the facts.
> 
> Common sense told me the outcome before I searched.
> 
> Now that I found what you asked for you are now twisting that to be irrelevant and rolleyes.
> 
> It will be lose lose for me no matter how much I prove you wrong.
> 
> I will let you keep in your head your car will challenge a Focus ST and not let facts get in your way.


All you've found are numbers that tell half a story at best, and then made the rest up to suit whatever point it is you think your making, as you said yourself, you've not driven both cars.

I do feel you've dragged away the topic for speed though, which isn't exactly all of fun is it? There's more fun to be had at 50mph on a good A-road than 120mph on a Motorway, at which point, the figures you've failed to find (big suprise there) would tell the other half.


----------



## SteveTDCi

ITHAQVA said:


> I bet its at times like these, some of you guys wish you'd taken the blue pill


I'm mixing antibiotics and alcohol, I'm fine ... Oh and I've only got 6% battery left on the iPad. Still the focus st would beat a d5, torque doesn't come into it when you can choose any gear you want. A type r has next to no torque but is still very quick around a track


----------



## ITHAQVA

As they are playing on the palace tonight, the light channel brings you!

MAAADNESSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumb::thumb:


----------



## SteveTDCi

House of fun?


----------



## ITHAQVA

SteveTDCi said:


> I'm mixing antibiotics and alcohol, I'm fine ... Oh and I've only got 6% battery left on the iPad. Still the focus st would beat a d5, torque doesn't come into it when you can choose any gear you want. A type r has next to no torque but is still very quick around a track


So you're saying the focus is really fast if you drive it while you're higher than a kite...Nice one fly boy!!!  Please send my regards to the clouds :wave: :thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

SteveTDCi said:


> House of fun?


Baggy trousers :thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA

SteveTDCi said:


> House of fun?


No, something better :thumb:






All aboard!!!!!!!!!! :thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA

RisingPower said:


> Baggy trousers :thumb:


SHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!, Not so loud about your baggy trousers!!


----------



## RisingPower

ITHAQVA said:


> SHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!, Not so loud about your baggy trousers!!


They have to be baggy to fit what's under them. You should know :argie:


----------



## ITHAQVA

RisingPower said:


> They have to be baggy to fit what's under them. You should know :argie:


:lol::lol::lol: You just lay it on a plate..ya easy slut


----------



## Ross

RisingPower said:


> They have to be baggy to fit what's under them. You should know :argie:


----------



## ITHAQVA

Ross said:


>


Did someone say SAUSAGE!!!!






 :doublesho


----------



## PugIain

RisingPower said:


> They have to be baggy to fit what's under them.


Elephantiasis?


----------



## Kerr

dew1911 said:


> All you've found are numbers that tell half a story at best, and then made the rest up to suit whatever point it is you think your making, as you said yourself, you've not driven both cars.
> 
> I do feel you've dragged away the topic for speed though, which isn't exactly all of fun is it? There's more fun to be had at 50mph on a good A-road than 120mph on a Motorway, at which point, the figures you've failed to find (big suprise there) would tell the other half.


Ok. We will ignore all numbers, all facts, all expert reviews and concede that the C30 D5 is as fast as a Focus ST and will give more fun on an A road.

Happy?


----------



## SteveTDCi

PugIain said:


> Elephantiasis?


Professional shoplifter ?


----------



## Ninja59

just stop it you pair. 

and :lol:


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> Ok. We will ignore all numbers, all facts, all expert reviews and concede that the C30 D5 is as fast as a Focus ST and will give more fun on an A road.
> 
> Happy?


It's not a case of ignoring figures, it's a case of actually thinking for a split second rarther than just gleaning numbers off a website, then acting like your the judge of fun. I don't know weither it's a personal vendetta against me, or my car, but the comments about popularity and value (that had what reference to the thread exactly?) show that it's something personal, and your not going to rest till you think you've won it.

So, amongst the posts from the muppets who can't hold a civil conversation, we've come to the following conclusions:

The Petrol/Diesel debate is not black and white, nor is it electric orange,

That you've got something major against Diesels and the owners of them,

and that there's always going to be differences, it's what makes it fun.

This will run until the oil doesn't and we're all driving around in Hydrogen cars, at which point something else will come along, and it'll all start again.


----------



## ITHAQVA

PugIain said:


> Elephantiasis?





SteveTDCi said:


> Professional shoplifter ?


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Trip tdi

Kerr said:


> Ok. We will ignore all numbers, all facts, all expert reviews and concede that the C30 D5 is as fast as a Focus ST and will give more fun on an A road.
> 
> Happy?


I think you will find the Focus ST will knock the c30 D5 to bits, on the bends plus the A roads as well, the Focus ST engine is a Volvo engine, but detuned to 225 bhp, but the chassis set-up of the Focus is spot on and well balanced.

You what one quick car, I mention a diesel, a BMW 123D chipped, been in one, and it's rapid when going along hard and handles well around the corners.

But the quickest car I have been in and driven was incredibly powerful and tuned highly ,was a Toyota Supra, kicking around 1,300 BHP, a right monster to control and handle, had to be on the ball when I drove that, it's like your on a knife edge, but the best run I had was in Dartford tunnel, nice hearing the Turbos kicking in and the instant acceleration, something special.


----------



## Ninja59

now where did i put those pills**

**cyanide


----------



## Kerr

Trip tdi said:


> I think you will find the Focus ST will knock the c30 D5 to bits, on the bends plus the A roads as well, the Focus ST engine is a Volvo engine, but detuned to 225 bhp, but the chassis set-up of the Focus is spot on and well balanced.
> 
> You what one quick car, I mention a diesel, a BMW 123D chipped, been in one, and it's rapid when going along hard and handles well around the corners.
> 
> But the quickest car I have been in and driven was incredibly powerful and tuned highly ,was a Toyota Supra, kicking around 1,300 BHP, a right monster to control and handle, had to be on the ball when I drove that, it's like your on a knife edge, but the best run I had was in Dartford tunnel, nice hearing the Turbos kicking in and the instant acceleration, something special.


I either thinking you are trying to be funny, or you missed that was sarcasm?


----------



## Grommit

Trip tdi said:


> You what one quick car, I mention a diesel, a BMW 123D chipped, been in one, and it's rapid when going along hard and handles well around the .


yup, that is one great engine. Pretty sure the Alpina D3 uses that engine as a start and then tuned slightly with a straight through exhaust. Probably one of the best engines in the BMW fleet.


----------



## Kerr

You can take Dew1911 now.


----------



## Trip tdi

Kerr said:


> I either thinking you are trying to be funny, or you missed that was sarcasm?


Hi, was not trying to be funny at all, was not aware the previous posts were Sarcasm, I was taking this seriously.


----------



## Ross

Ninja59 said:


> now where did i put those pills**
> 
> **cyanide


Get your DucT TM tape you and gag em:thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Ok ok guys lets call it a draw.

You both lose.

Both the st n the d5 are slow lol


----------



## Kerr

Grommit said:


> yup, that is one great engine. Pretty sure the Alpina D3 uses that engine as a start and then tuned slightly with a straight through exhaust. Probably one of the best engines in the BMW fleet.


The problem is loads of guys get really poor economy with it.

BMW do have some big powerful diesels coming but they are not even bringing them to the UK.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/07/2012-bmw-m550d-xdrive-geneva-2012/

I wonder why with the UK being one of the strongest diesel markets they are not brining it here.

Must be a theory behind that.

It is also stupidly expensive at over 100,000 euro too.


----------



## Ninja59

Ross said:


> Get your DucT TM


loads of it i stored it over winter like a tree rat.


----------



## Trip tdi

Grommit said:


> yup, that is one great engine. Pretty sure the Alpina D3 uses that engine as a start and then tuned slightly with a straight through exhaust. Probably one of the best engines in the BMW fleet.


I was certainly amazed by the torque levels plus the instant acceleration of the BMW, but the one I went in was a chipped one, it was a good drive, less room in the rear I found which was a flaw for me, but engine wise and drive wise, spot on, held the road well I thought, even on runflats


----------



## ITHAQVA

Ross said:


> Get your DucT TM tape you and gag em:thumb:


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Kerr

Trip tdi said:


> Hi, was not trying to be funny at all, was not aware the previous posts were Sarcasm, I was taking this seriously.


Ok. I thought you were aiming that at me.

I don't need to be told.


----------



## ITHAQVA




----------



## SteveTDCi

I need a wee


----------



## ITHAQVA

SteveTDCi said:


> I need a wee


Well, pissss all over this thread & put it out  :devil:


----------



## Trip tdi

Kerr said:


> Ok. I thought you were aiming that at me.
> 
> I don't need to be told.


Sorry, but I honestly don't know what you are on about, I'm very confused


----------



## Ninja59




----------



## Ninja59

SteveTDCi said:


> I need a wee


----------



## ITHAQVA

Trip tdi said:


> Sorry, but I honestly don't know what you are on about, I'm very confused


For you :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

> My life is like a roundabout your always wondering which exit you need.


ahhhhhh.


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


> For you :thumb:


taking a pee.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Arnt bmw doing a triple turbo diesel now?


----------



## Grommit

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Arnt bmw doing a triple turbo diesel now?


Yup. Think it's in the new XM5 diesel. Insane isn't it.


----------



## Ninja59

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Arnt bmw doing a triple turbo diesel now?


the M550D or something not available over here in the 5 but the X6 or X5.


----------



## RisingPower

PugIain said:


> Elephantiasis?


Fraid I have some standards, peugeot drivers aren't gonna find out


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Grommit said:


> Yup. Think it's in the new XM5 diesel. Insane isn't it.


I wonder if it works like a twin but one turbo for low mid and top.end of the rev range


----------



## ITHAQVA

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Arnt bmw doing a triple turbo diesel now?


Diesley identified by their unique sound :thumb: :tumbleweed: I already got my hat n coat :wave: :tumbleweed:


----------



## RisingPower

SteveTDCi said:


> Professional shoplifter ?


At the sausage shop, yes :thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

ITHAQVA said:


> Diesley identified by their unique sound :thumb: :tumbleweed: I already got my hat n coat :wave: :tumbleweed:


Wrap up warm its cold out there lol


----------



## G.P

Mattgeezer said:


> Pretty bored of my tdi, takes an age to warm up and is pretty noisy so i'm planning to move to petrol, car i have atm is a golf 1.9tdi so will be moving to a golf 1.8t or 2.0tfsi in the mk4 or mk5 gti, 6speed box so should see 30mpg.
> 
> Has anyone else made the move? regret it?
> Opinions?
> 
> Thanks.


So, are you going to buy a petrol, or start a new thread to get your answer?


----------



## Ninja59

rp:-


----------



## Paintmaster1982

G.P said:


> So, are you going to buy a petrol, or start a new thread to get your answer?


I think everyone is confused as why and what there car is after this thread haha


----------



## Ninja59




----------



## ITHAQVA

G.P said:


> So, are you going to buy a petrol, or start a new thread to get your answer?


:doublesho:doublesho:doublesho

Hijack button ready & armed :thumb: 










SO


----------



## ITHAQVA

Ninja59 said:


> rp:-


PSML!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ITHAQVA

Grommit said:


> Yup. Think it's in the new XM5 diesel. Insane isn't it.


No Grommit, filling your ass with petrol & setting fire to it is insane :thumb: :devil:


----------



## PugIain

RisingPower said:


> Fraid I have some standards, peugeot drivers aren't gonna find out


If the rest of them are as bad as your standards in men then Id rather not know!
The one with the hairy back and questionable body odour you mentioned *shudder*


----------



## Paintmaster1982

ITHAQVA said:


> No Grommit, filling your ass with petrol & setting fire to it is insane :thumb: :devil:


Speaking from experience by the sounds of it hahaha


----------



## Paintmaster1982

PugIain said:


> If the rest of them are as bad as your standards in men then Id rather not know!
> The one with the hairy back and questionable body odour you mentioned *shudder*


you sound gutted iain haha


----------



## Ninja59

PugIain said:


> If the rest of them are as bad as your standards in men then Id rather not know!
> The one with the hairy back and questionable body odour you mentioned *shudder*


is that not the french way?


----------



## ITHAQVA

:thumb::thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Ninja59 said:


> is that not the french way?


Ninja is that from your secret gallery of French men haha


----------



## Ninja59

jesus grommit


----------



## Ninja59

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Ninja is that from your secret gallery of French men haha


----------



## PugIain

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Ninja is that from your secret gallery of French men haha


Martin would like that,alcohol in one hand and a big baguette in the other.


----------



## ITHAQVA

^^^^^^^ You sure that pic is big enough Ninja?


----------



## ITHAQVA

PugIain said:


> Martin would like that,alcohol in one hand and a big baguette in the other.


:doublesho:doublesho:doublesho:doublesho


----------



## dew1911

And this thread goes to show what DW has become... A place where 5 year olds derail any serious threads that may develop...


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> And this thread goes to show what DW has become... A place where 5 year olds derail any serious threads that may develop...


Not true, only one or two :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


> ^^^^^^^ You sure that pic is big enough Ninja?


i wanted to ensure he saw it


----------



## ITHAQVA

I think they just caught it on the Moon Ninj :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59




----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> And this thread goes to show what DW has become... A place where 5 year olds derail any serious threads that may develop...


And its our way of diffusing threads that seem to get a bit heated :thumb:


----------



## dew1911

ITHAQVA said:


> And its our way of diffusing threads that seem to get a bit heated :thumb:


Aka spoiling a decent thread with mindless drivel. Was a good debate going till some people decided to act like twats.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Yeah two blokes arguing at whos car is the slowrst was dead interesting lol


----------



## PugIain

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Yeah two blokes arguing at whos car is the slowest was dead interesting lol


Haha.Girls hatchbacks at that!


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> Aka spoiling a decent thread with mindless drivel. Was a good debate going till some people decided to act like twats.


Thats your opinion/judgement, i will not resort to targeted abuse as you have.

This is for you to remember me by  










Nite, nite, sweet dreams Honey! :wave:


----------



## Ninja59

PugIain said:


> Haha.Girls hatchbacks at that!


not that far frenchie.


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> rp:-


Nowt like a big sausage


----------



## Paintmaster1982

It could have been a 5 door st which makes all the difference ha ha


----------



## RisingPower

dew1911 said:


> Aka spoiling a decent thread with mindless drivel. Was a good debate going till some people decided to act like twats.


I think you pretty much fulfilled that act all on your own a long time ago :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

Paintmaster1982 said:


> It could have been a 5 door st which makes all the difference ha ha


why did i imagine RP in that costume getting into an STI :lol:


----------



## dew1911

ITHAQVA said:


> Thats your opinion/judgement, i will not resort to targeted abuse as you have.
> 
> This is for you to remember me by
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nite, nite, sweet dreams Honey! :wave:


And posts by yourself and the rest of the motley crew were taking it back on topic were they? I don't know whats worse, the fact you think your funny, or that you think your right.


----------



## RisingPower

PugIain said:


> If the rest of them are as bad as your standards in men then Id rather not know!
> The one with the hairy back and questionable body odour you mentioned *shudder*


I guess the interest in ithaqva was a bit misplaced


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> why did i imagine RP in that costume getting into an STI :lol:


You like my big sausage eh?


----------



## ITHAQVA

RisingPower said:


> I think you pretty much fulfilled that act all on your own a long time ago :thumb:


RP your such a biatch  










:thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

ITHAQVA said:


> RP your such a biatch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:


You told me you liked it that way


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> You like my big sausage eh?


did you see my:-


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Yeah two blokes arguing at whos car is the slowrst was dead interesting lol


It was OTT but harmless.

I couldn't help but notice the amount of time each person spent within the thread. Always the same names along the bottom.

If it is of no interest why not move along and ignore? Why spend so much time reading the thread?


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> And posts by yourself and the rest of the motley crew were taking it back on topic were they? I don't know whats worse, the fact you think your funny, or that you think your right.


Im right at being funny 

Stop being so mean, there are a lot worse things in the world than a little sidetracking humour :thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> did you see my:-


You gone jap on me? Thought you were an ovlov lover, all those big meat balls


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> It was OTT but harmless.
> 
> I couldn't help but notice the amount of time each person spent within the thread. Always the same names along the bottom.
> 
> If it is on no interest why not move along and ignore? Why spend so much time reading the thread?


Mentality of the people involved sadly, They can't seem to understand that.

And Ironically, that's the first thing we've agreed on :lol:


----------



## ITHAQVA

RisingPower said:


> You told me you liked it that way


True


----------



## Ninja59

:lol:

tbh why should i care - i have a view even if i do not wish to voice it i can read freely...some of it was so heated trotting over the same ground i am glad doug lightened the mood for godsake sometimes it is like battle royale on here. lighten up.


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> Mentality of the people involved sadly, They can't seem to understand that.
> 
> And Ironically, that's the first thing we've agreed on :lol:


Good man, i think


----------



## GR33N

I think we should have a derailed thread section on DW, where threads like this go to die/be tastefully SPAM'd :lol:

@ the OP - I bet you didnt imagine the thread would end like this when you set it up did you? :lol:

... p.s. If you did, please select some number for Saturdays Lotto for me

All the best,

Ben 

:lol:


----------



## Mattgeezer

Wow pretty interesting read at 3am in the morning, sadly i dont think the queen nor gents in sausage coustumes will help me in my decision! 

Well i guess if the queen had a say i'd be in a hybrid!


----------



## OvlovMike

Kerr said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> The 1.3CDTi engine is one of the worst I've driven. Gutless and rattles badly.
> 
> A CTR needs driven hard to go fast and anyone considering one knows that. You don't buy one to cruise about.
> 
> Corsa 1.4 and Mazda 1.2. We are scraping the barrel to kick petrol cars down.
> 
> Seriously weak argument I'm afraid.


Indeed. 3.2 TT, 2.0TFSI Golf, 2.7 S4, 1.8 Exige S, Puma 1.7... All cracking examples of cars that are ruined or would be ruined by diesels...


----------



## OvlovMike

Ninja59 said:


> yeah but 3/4's of your cars have/or did have way more power or lighter in the first place. not really a fair comparison. Of late it is almost strange one minute you sing the praises defending the D5 and the mpg doing about XXmph (diesel), next minute you are slagging it off till the cows come home.


The D5 is a fine diesel engine, but it cannot escape the confines of it. It's economical but it does sound a bit clattery, sounds OK (good for a diesel, but only OK as cars go!) and just isn't exciting unless you absolutely have to do MPG.

As my fuel is now paid for, the D5 is a wart on my side and the 5-pot petrol is much nicer to drive. RP, as for the R over the T5 argument, I want something 'special', something rare, something different.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

dew1911 said:


> And posts by yourself and the rest of the motley crew were taking it back on topic were they? I don't know whats worse, the fact you think your funny, or that you think your right.


Arnt you doing the same thing? Moaning about a silly debate over cars the fact that everytime you post moaning about it is taking away from the original post lol Isn't this the motoringzone?


----------



## Paintmaster1982

OvlovMike said:


> Indeed. 3.2 TT, 2.0TFSI Golf, 2.7 S4, 1.8 Exige S, Puma 1.7... All cracking examples of cars that are ruined or would be ruined by diesels...


Pointless argument as some of those cars came with diesels and some didnt.I thibk people are taking this a bit far. I think anycar with a 0-60 time around the 7-8 second mark is fun. The op wanted a fun everyday car.


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Pointless argument as some of those cars came with diesels and some didnt.I thibk people are taking this a bit far. I think anycar with a 0-60 time around the 7-8 second mark is fun. The op wanted a fun everyday car.


The reason the OP found his car to be boring was it drove like a diesel.

Buy another diesel and it is still going to have all the same diesel trademarks.


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Pointless argument as some of those cars came with diesels and some didnt.I thibk people are taking this a bit far. I think *anycar with a 0-60 time around the 7-8 second mark is fun*. The op wanted a fun everyday car.


that was the point of my last post, the fun factor :thumb:


----------



## Kerr

Just because a car is quick, it doesn't mean it is fun or even more so nice to drive. 

There is so much more to consider.


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

Kerr said:


> Just because a car is quick, it doesn't mean it is fun or even more so nice to drive.
> 
> There is so much more to consider.


in your opinion


----------



## Kerr

Derbyshire-stig said:


> in your opinion


So as long as it does 0-60mph in 7 or 8 secs you can ignore factors such as it handles like a barge etc?

Is that really all that matters when buying a car?


----------



## SteveTDCi

If you believe the press then the best handling jag xf is the 2.2 weasel. Which is odd when you consider there is a big v8 in the line up. However it's all due to weight, the 2.2 weighs less than the v8 making a better handling car with less weight over the nose, the same can be said about comparable diesels, so taking a golf gti and a golf gtd, the gti is the better handling car, in the real world there will be little difference between them but change the rules put them on a track and on't limit the top speed the the gtd won't see which way the gti went.

The same applies to 30-70, if you both sit in 5th gear then of course the diesel will win but allow the petrol car to choose the appropriate gear, say third then the petrol will walk it. Yes diesels have a higher torque out put but a petrol has its torque available over a greater rev range. If you look at any kind of racing everyone runs petrol engines with the exception of endurance where fuel economy rules. But if you have ever watched lemans the audis and pugs were silent compared to the proper cars. 

If like me you find the noise part of appeal of Motorsport along with the smell of race fuel, then a silent car that stinks of oil isn't what would make me want to visit a race circuit. A few years ago someone tried running a diesel 1 series in the btcc, it spent all of the time at the back of the field, for the road a 1er diesel is a fine car, in a race it's completely different. 

So you can never really have fun in a diesel ( I've owned 3 in the past) the reason for going to the cupra was, fun, there was the rattling in traffic, the all then nothing power delivery in fist and second. There was the poor fuel economy, yes they were on the motorway but that was it, on my way to work there is a piece of dual carriage way, in the golf/a3 I coul hit a certain speed before having to brake in the cupra I can be traveling 20 mph faster and that's over a 1 mile distance. Every time I drive it te cupra makes me smile. Speed isn't everything either, small petrol engines particularly fiats thrive on being thrashed, the original golf gti .... So if you want to have fun, buy a petrol, if you want to be quick 50-70 and smell of heating oil get a diesel.


----------



## sirkuk

Kerr said:


> Just because a car is quick, it doesn't mean it is fun or even more so nice to drive.
> 
> There is so much more to consider.


I agree.

Insignia Eco Flex is one example for me. It moved once you were in the power band but the turbo lag and long ratio box were infuriating.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## PugIain

Kerr said:


> The reason the OP found his car to be boring was it drove like a diesel.
> 
> Buy another diesel and it is still going to have all the same diesel trademarks.


My car is fun and its a diesel,it handles great and has some clout.
But then I supose it depends on your definition of fun.Im quite happy doing 50/60 round some nice wiggly bits.And laughing at men in little hatchbacks.Which I think should be an Olympic sport.
Id win a gold medal,the "100 metres laughing at men in girls cars".


----------



## G.P

Kerr said:


> So as long as it does 0-60mph in 7 or 8 secs you can ignore factors such as it handles like a barge etc?
> 
> Is that really all that matters when buying a car?


To some yes, Chap I know is not to fussed about handling and only like's straight line stints off the lights, he has an RS3 now, so he has the right car for him.

For me, one of my best trips to Donington was a Rover day, best car of the day was the 214, nobody wanted it as it was considered slow, so I got to drive it most of the day and it was fun to me keeping up with all the others, they did get past on the straight. . .


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> The reason the OP found his car to be boring was it drove like a diesel.
> 
> Buy another diesel and it is still going to have all the same diesel trademarks.


Lol ok did you not read the post on the 3.5d bmws. If you dont think there fun then you have no brain lol


----------



## SteveTDCi

sirkuk said:


> I agree.
> 
> Insignia Eco Flex is one example for me. It moved once you were in the power band but the turbo lag and long ratio box were infuriating.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


But Eco flex is designed for low emissions and mpg, so the ratios are always going to be long to maximise economy. If you tried the more basic version then it might be a different story. Vauxhall are strengthening there diesel line up and actually have quite a few models under the 100km/g limit.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Lol ok did you not read the post on the 3.5d bmws. If you dont think there fun then you have no brain lol


But for the amount you spend you could have a vw up and a used v8 Aston.... Read the autocar review on the m diesel against the m5 :thumb:


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Lol ok did you not read the post on the 3.5d bmws. If you dont think there fun then you have no brain lol


I never said it wasn't.

I've repeatedly said that is the one diesel I still need to try.

Not sure what the OPs budget etc is, but if you are driving a Golf TDi and looking at used Mk4 Golf GTIs a BMW 335d will not be in his budget.

I'm pretty sure all diesel drivers would jump at the chance of a 335d but let's not forget that with a few basic options they are over 40k new.

Also it is a 3.0 twin turbo not a 3.5.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

G.P said:


> To some yes, Chap I know is not to fussed about handling and only like's straight line stints off the lights, he has an RS3 now, so he has the right car for him.
> 
> For me, one of my best trips to Donington was a Rover day, best car of the day was the 214, nobody wanted it as it was considered slow, so I got to drive it most of the day and it was fun to me keeping up with all the others, they did get past on the straight. . .


Again goes back to my earlier post of depends what sort if driving you do day to day and also how you drive. Typically a car that's quick has its sus sorted out for the everyday man to feel it handles well. To be honest most of these new cars are that heavy it doesn't matter what you drive they all are heavy. Weight is the enemy to perfotmance.if you want a good handling car tests quick get a mk2 golf or a pug gti. In my eyes far better cars no money loss and if it goes bang get another one. The amount of people who lose over a grand a year on thete car will no what iam on about lol


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> I never said it wasn't.
> 
> I've repeatedly said that is the one diesel I still need to try.
> 
> Not sure what the OPs budget etc is, but if you are driving a Golf TDi and looking at used Mk4 Golf GTIs a BMW 335d will not be in his budget.
> 
> I'm pretty sure all diesel drivers would jump at the chance of a 335d but let's not forget that with a few basic options they are over 40k new.
> 
> Also it is a 3.0 twin turbo not a 3.5.


Fair do. Any petty 1.8- 2.0 turbo will be on par or better than a 1.9 - 2.0 tdi. You get the torque of a diesel and the performance of a petrol. Turbo is the future. You really need a go in a 335d mate absolutely ace lol


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> I never said it wasn't.
> 
> I've repeatedly said that is the one diesel I still need to try.
> 
> Also it is a 3.0 twin turbo not a 3.5.


So sorry the last time I looked it doesn't say 3.0 twin turbo on the back of a 335d iam fully aware of the fact its a 3.0 twin as is the 335i. Thanks for sort of putting me right lol


----------



## dagoatla

Diesel all the way here, going from a 1.4 auris to a 3.0L landcruiser in a few weeks. Diesel is about 8-10c/L cheaper than petrol though, and diesels are cheaper to tax due to emmissions, so about 75% of new cars are diesel now.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

SteveTDCi said:


> If you believe the press then the best handling jag xf is the 2.2 weasel. Which is odd when you consider there is a big v8 in the line up. However it's all due to weight, the 2.2 weighs less than the v8 making a better handling car with less weight over the nose, the same can be said about comparable diesels, so taking a golf gti and a golf gtd, the gti is the better handling car, in the real world there will be little difference between them but change the rules put them on a track and on't limit the top speed the the gtd won't see which way the gti went.
> 
> The same applies to 30-70, if you both sit in 5th gear then of course the diesel will win but allow the petrol car to choose the appropriate gear, say third then the petrol will walk it. Yes diesels have a higher torque out put but a petrol has its torque available over a greater rev range. If you look at any kind of racing everyone runs petrol engines with the exception of endurance where fuel economy rules. But if you have ever watched lemans the audis and pugs were silent compared to the proper cars.
> 
> If like me you find the noise part of appeal of Motorsport along with the smell of race fuel, then a silent car that stinks of oil isn't what would make me want to visit a race circuit. A few years ago someone tried running a diesel 1 series in the btcc, it spent all of the time at the back of the field, for the road a 1er diesel is a fine car, in a race it's completely different.
> 
> So you can never really have fun in a diesel ( I've owned 3 in the past) the reason for going to the cupra was, fun, there was the rattling in traffic, the all then nothing power delivery in fist and second. There was the poor fuel economy, yes they were on the motorway but that was it, on my way to work there is a piece of dual carriage way, in the golf/a3 I coul hit a certain speed before having to brake in the cupra I can be traveling 20 mph faster and that's over a 1 mile distance. Every time I drive it te cupra makes me smile. Speed isn't everything either, small petrol engines particularly fiats thrive on being thrashed, the original golf gti .... So if you want to have fun, buy a petrol, if you want to be quick 50-70 and smell of heating oil get a diesel.


Again the track has come into it. Track driving isn't real work driving and not everyone drives round with there hair on fire but if you want low end pull and a **** load of torque get a 2.0 diesel or petty with a turbo. I think although my choice would be a petty turbo you can't discount the diesels all together.


----------



## Kerr

What I've found with the vast majority of people is they really have little idea about cars. 

They don't understand handling, speed, torque, looks or anything car related. 

They don't notice that their car is 20 shades of silver or the 20 million squeaks it has. 

20 years ago they just used to go to the local Ford or Vauxhall dealer and buy the latest Focus or Astra and the only consideration was colour. 

For years diesel was cheaper and MPGs was drummed in. 

Now the same people just buy the latest diesel ignoring the fact as an average driver doing average miles in average driving conditions, paying thousands of more pounds for a diesel failing to see it will never be cost effective for them. 

The UK now sells more diesel than petrol cars.


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> What I've found with the vast majority of people is they really have little idea about cars.
> 
> They don't understand handling, speed, torque, looks or anything car related.
> 
> They don't notice that their car is 20 shades of silver or the 20 million squeaks it has.
> 
> 20 years ago they just used to go to the local Ford or Vauxhall dealer and buy the latest Focus or Astra and the only consideration was colour.
> 
> For years diesel was cheaper and MPGs was drummed in.
> 
> Now the same people just buy the latest diesel ignoring the fact as an average driver doing average miles in average driving conditions, paying thousands of more pounds for a diesel failing to see it will never be cost effective for them.
> 
> The UK now sells more diesel than petrol cars.


because the average mileage people do has increased and type of miles people generally do are on dual carriageway and mways. diesel wins.

do not take this the wrong way another consideration at my age is that i could insure the 2.0D fine but some petrols of same capacity/bhp would be more to insure- take into account the lower tax...servicing maybe a little more true there is little in it. i prefer having to fill up less and having to do few revs for the power/torque.


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> So sorry the last time I looked it doesn't say 3.0 twin turbo on the back of a 335d iam fully aware of the fact its a 3.0 twin as is the 335i. Thanks for sort of putting me right lol


It was you who typed 3.5d BMW.

No need to get smart.


----------



## Kerr

Ninja59 said:


> because the average mileage people do and type of miles people generally do are on dual carriageway and mways. diesel wins.


It depends where you live.

Most people I know spend the majority doing short journeys.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> What I've found with the vast majority of people is they really have little idea about cars.
> 
> They don't understand handling, speed, torque, looks or anything car related.
> 
> They don't notice that their car is 20 shades of silver or the 20 million squeaks it has.
> 
> 20 years ago they just used to go to the local Ford or Vauxhall dealer and buy the latest Focus or Astra and the only consideration was colour.
> 
> For years diesel was cheaper and MPGs was drummed in.
> 
> Now the same people just buy the latest diesel ignoring the fact as an average driver doing average miles in average driving conditions, paying thousands of more pounds for a diesel failing to see it will never be cost effective for them.
> 
> The UK now sells more diesel than petrol cars.


I agree. the average Jo who hasn't a clue how a car works or drives willbe more than happy with how a car works and drives and the sensation and feel is great for him/her. Everyone is different, everyone has different ideas of fun and thrills so again its down to who you are and what and how you drive. People who know about cars and torque will understand what's what and but at the end if the day its not what car you drive but how you drive it.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Again the track has come into it. Track driving isn't real work driving and not everyone drives round with there hair on fire but if you want low end pull and a **** load of torque get a 2.0 diesel or petty with a turbo. I think although my choice would be a petty turbo you can't discount the diesels all together.


The reference to motorsport and one other line ... but the rest is road based


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> It was you who typed 3.5d BMW.
> 
> No need to get smart.


But they are classed as 3.5d lol hence why they put that on the back of there cars? I don't see what your saying lol ? They put 3.5d even though its a 3.0 as its meant to have the power of a 3.5d. Not been smart just stating fact.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

SteveTDCi said:


> The reference to motorsport and one other line ... but the rest is road based


Yep your right not sure why the track comes to it lol


----------



## RisingPower

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Pointless argument as some of those cars came with diesels and some didnt.I thibk people are taking this a bit far. I think anycar with a 0-60 time around the 7-8 second mark is fun. The op wanted a fun everyday car.


So you'd buy something like a ford galaxy as a fun car right?


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> But they are classed as 3.5d lol hence why they put that on the back of there cars? I don't see what your saying lol ? They put 3.5d even though its a 3.0 as its meant to have the power of a 3.5d. Not been smart just stating fact.


Oh jeez.

No they don't.

My 335i says 335i on the back and all 335d say exactly that too


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> Oh jeez.
> 
> No they don't.
> My 335i says 335i on the back and all 335d say exactly that too


What are you in about lol


----------



## RisingPower

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Lol ok did you not read the post on the 3.5d bmws. If you dont think there fun then you have no brain lol


They're quick, albeit dull sounding and tbh I don't see what is fun about them.

Cueys abarth, that's fun, an r34 skyline, that's fun, a 335d, it's quick, but that doesn't make it fun.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

RisingPower said:


> They're quick, albeit dull sounding and tbh I don't see what is fun about them.
> 
> Cueys abarth, that's fun, an r34 skyline, that's fun, a 335d, it's quick, but that doesn't make it fun.


lol this is well funny


----------



## Kerr

The biggest taxi firm up here has been dropping diesel cars and replacing them with Toyotas. 

Apparently after a test run of a few vehicles it was better value running petrol cars around a city centre.


----------



## ITHAQVA

:thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> The biggest taxi firm up here has been dropping diesel cars and replacing them with Toyotas.
> 
> Apparently after a test run of a few vehicles it was better value running petrol cars around a city centre.


it will be in city centres obviously that is a stupid argument.


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


> :thumb:


i hope your not inciting DW members to take up using controlled substances in committing crimes under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> i hope your not inciting DW members to take up using controlled substances in committing crimes under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?


Shut it you boring faghag bureaucracy bag


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> What are you in about lol


Are you really not following it?

Nobody calls the 335d or the 335i 3.5.

You are wrong, wrong again and then still want to argue the fact.

As I pointed out as well, I'm a 335i owner and spend a lot of time on BMW forums and not one person other than you would refer to it as a 3.5d.

I'm struggling to see how you can't grasp that?


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> Shut it you boring faghag bureaucracy bag


never knew you could do nursery rhymes? :lol:


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> never knew you could do nursery rhymes? :lol:


Well, you have to address the audience in a language they can understand y'see


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> Are you really not following it?
> 
> Nobody calls the 335d or the 335i 3.5.
> 
> You are wrong, wrong again and then still want to argue the fact.
> 
> As I pointed out as well, I'm a 335i owner and spend a lot of time on BMW forums and not one person other than you would refer to it as a 3.5d.
> 
> I'm struggling to see how you can't grasp that?


oh now I see it your pulling me up on the fact I added a decimal point between two numbers. **** sorry lol intelligence would have known what I meant lol


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> Well, you have to address the audience in a language they can understand y'see


slight issue. i am not a "faghag" whatever this colloquialism means.:thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> slight issue. i am not a "faghag" whatever this colloquialism means.:thumb:


I beg to differ 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=*** hag


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> I beg to differ
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=*** hag


I am not covered in that list.:thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA




----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> oh now I see it your pulling me up on the fact I added a decimal point between two numbers. **** sorry lol intelligence would have known what I meant lol


Lol.

You aren't actually serious?

Every other person would put the decimal point between the numbers to indicate engine size. That is how it is universally done.

I politely pointed the error and you have lost the place with silly excuses.


----------



## Ninja59

ITHAQVA said:


>


i believe that should say you have pissed your pants.


----------



## RisingPower

ITHAQVA said:


>


Too late for that no?


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> I am not covered in that list.:thumb:


Sure


----------



## Ninja59

RisingPower said:


> Sure


yes flour.

you been sifting to much flour recently?


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> Lol.
> 
> You aren't actually serious?
> 
> Every other person would put the decimal point between the numbers to indicate engine size. That is how it is universally done.
> 
> I politely pointed the error and you have lost the place with silly excuses.


I honestly didn't ee what you was on about I couldn't exactly say 35d as it doesn't look right. I think you need to chill Winston lol its only a number and you must have understood what I meant. Intact iam just gonna call your car a 3 3.0 twin turbo just for you lol


----------



## ITHAQVA

:tumbleweed:


----------



## dew1911

And still it continues, I was half wondering weither Ithaqva was drunk last night, sadly not...


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

the threads gone to the dogs so I might as well add to it,
I think the term "having fun in a car" is being lost here, Ive had as much fun in a 66 bhp escort as I did in a 500 bhp cossie going sideways at 110 mph, 2 totally different cars but I can assure you fun could be had in both, a car doesnt have to be a race car to have "fun" in it.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Derbyshire-stig said:


> the threads gone to the dogs so I might as well add to it,
> I think the term "having fun in a car" is being lost here, Ive had as much fun in a 66 bhp escort as I did in a 500 bhp cossie going sideways at 110 mph, 2 totally different cars but I can assure you fun could be had in both, a car doesnt have to be a race car to have "fun" in it.


Yey someone who see's sence


----------



## carlust

Well having had 2 diesels and a a few too many petrols I will say the following

a 2.2Dci 2003 Laguna has a good engine but never seen the economy from it best I got was 40mpg one average totally dissapointed.

Now I have a 2.4JTD 2000 Alfa 156 and I get about 55mpg I must mention it was remapped by the previous owner so I think this would help to better economy.

The P.Filter and the EGR Valve is a pain in the diesels!!!

Now regarding economy on petrols... on personal note the straight six engines do lovvee their petrol.
Had the Supra and the Lexus IS300 stragled to see more than 28mpg on average.
Also they do lack torque... you feel the difference on gear changes especially on auto boxes.

the straight 4's are OKish ...
the V6's are really good on torque and economy and if you find model the disables cylinders when driving in town even better.

V8's are depending ... lol I could easily do 32mpg with my CL500 on motorway and around 20's in town.
But with the 2000 Cadillac STS boy you would be luck you get 14mpg in the best case scenario lol lol.


I personally would not go for a BMW I would prefer a Mercedes CDI if I had to go for diesel, but again this is my personal opinion.
Although I do love the way the Alfa drives and feels.


----------



## Ninja59

dew1911 said:


> And still it continues, I was half wondering weither Ithaqva was drunk last night, sadly not...


trying to enlighten the decimal point.


----------



## dew1911

Ninja59 said:


> trying to enlighten the decimal point.


And looking like a dick head in the process :thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Ninja59 said:


> trying to enlighten the decimal point.


Pmsl haha ace


----------



## Ninja59

dew1911 said:


> And looking like a dick head in the process :thumb:


again i point to my post last night that people on here sometimes really need to lighten up...the other recently addition forum wise is nothing like this it is actually a pleasure to be on rather than this 1/2 wit snipping.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

dew1911 said:


> And looking like a dick head in the process :thumb:


Was worth it. Nice d5 by the way


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> And still it continues, I was half wondering weither Ithaqva was drunk last night, sadly not...


----------



## SteveTDCi

Derbyshire-stig said:


> the threads gone to the dogs so I might as well add to it,
> I think the term "having fun in a car" is being lost here, Ive had as much fun in a 66 bhp escort as I did in a 500 bhp cossie going sideways at 110 mph, 2 totally different cars but I can assure you fun could be had in both, a car doesnt have to be a race car to have "fun" in it.


We're they both petrols  or was the fun in the 66bhp escort a "different" kind of fun, something that ITHAQVA would participate in :thumb:


----------



## Kerr

I'm still curious that the people who have slated this thread have spent all of last night and all of today keeping up with it? 

It is the same names again. 

If you really don't like it, why not move on? Surely something better that suffering being locked into this thread for 8 hours solid.


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

well the cossie wasnt a diesel lol


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> I'm still curious that the people who have slated this thread have spent all of last night and all of today keeping up with it?
> 
> It is the same names again.
> 
> If you really don't like it, why not move on? Surely something better that suffering being locked into this thread for 8 hours solid.


That's these brainless morons for you Kerr, it's like herding cats sometimes.


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

Kerr said:


> I'm still curious that the people who have slated this thread have spent all of last night and all of today keeping up with it?
> 
> It is the same names again.
> 
> If you really don't like it, why not move on? Surely something better that suffering being locked into this thread for 8 hours solid.


I havent, I just saw the state of the last page, I do find you entertaining though if im honest, your the PSlewis of detailing world :buffer:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

dew1911 said:


> That's these brainless morons for you Kerr, it's like herding cats sometimes.


let's keep the name calling out shall we. Some people might think some people have hurt your feelings lol


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> That's these brainless morons for you Kerr, it's like herding cats sometimes.












:wave:


----------



## m1pui

OvlovMike said:


> Indeed. 3.2 TT, 2.0TFSI Golf, 2.7 S4, *1.8 Exige S,* Puma 1.7... All cracking examples of cars that are ruined or would be ruined by diesels...


Opel tried to tickle the idea with the Eco-Speedster and it wasn't reported to have been ****


----------



## Kerr

At the end of the day it is all harmless banter that nobody is going to lose any sleep over. 

I certainly won't lose any, nor will I revert to insults and name calling. 

I find it a bit ironic those who have posted to "calm things" or calling others out for name calling are the ones who have been name calling and who are trying to incite a reaction.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> At the end of the day it is all harmless banter that nobody is going to lose any sleep over.
> 
> I certainly won't lose any, nor will I revert to insults and name calling.
> 
> I find it a bit ironic those who have posted to "calm things" or calling others out for name calling are the ones who have been name calling and who are trying to incite a reaction.


in all honesty mate iam devastated over this decimal point saga. No hard feelings.


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> At the end of the day it is all harmless banter that nobody is going to lose any sleep over.
> 
> I certainly won't lose any, nor will I revert to insults and name calling.
> 
> I find it a bit ironic those who have posted to "calm things" or calling others out for name calling are the ones who have been name calling and who are trying to incite a reaction.


Just people who are unable to take anything seriously, it's what makes this place such hard work most of the time.


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> That's these brainless morons for you Kerr, it's like herding cats sometimes.


Are you sure you don't mean sheep? 

With or without a decimal point if you like, as long as they are WOOLY! :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

dew1911 said:


> Just people who are unable to take anything seriously, it's what makes this place such hard work most of the time.


I take most things seriously i come on here to relax not to moan about whether a car is going to be faster 0-60/0-100 or whatever for pages on end.


----------



## dew1911

ITHAQVA said:


> Are you sure you don't mean sheep?


From Wiki.

*Herding cats* - An idiomatic saying that refers to an attempt to control or organize a class of entities which are uncontrollable or chaotic. Implies a task that is extremely difficult or impossible to do, primarily due to chaotic factors.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

dew1911 said:


> Just people who are unable to take anything seriously, it's what makes this place such hard work most of the time.


Don't tar everyone with the sane brush dude. Do you really take dw seriously? At the end of the day people who clean there cars/bikes etc are a bit odd and then to talk about it. My Mrs thinks iam mental but its what makes a hobby a hobby. Smile and relax


----------



## RisingPower

Ninja59 said:


> yes flour.
> 
> you been sifting to much flour recently?


Actually I am currently baking some bread


----------



## Paintmaster1982

dew1911 said:


> From Wiki.
> 
> *Herding cats* - An idiomatic saying that refers to an attempt to control or organize a class of entities which are uncontrollable or chaotic. Implies a task that is extremely difficult or impossible to do, primarily due to chaotic factors.


Contradiction to the max lol


----------



## RisingPower

dew1911 said:


> Just people who are unable to take anything seriously, it's what makes this place such hard work most of the time.


Lalalala :wave:


----------



## Kerr

Ninja59 said:


> I take most things seriously i come on here to relax not to moan about whether a car is going to be faster 0-60/0-100 or whatever for pages on end.


Fair point, but why not be serious in the other 200 unread topics that are available on DW?

Granted this thread is messy but it has largely been bickering over petrol v diesel which is loosely the topic of the entire thread.

I don't follow the logic of if people don't like it, they feel they have an entitlment to to be wide boys and try and be smart.

Surely it is for the moderators to moderate what it acceptable or not?


----------



## ITHAQVA

dew1911 said:


> Just people who are unable to take anything seriously, it's what makes this place such hard work most of the time.


Thats unfounded, there has only been 2-3 threads that have been hijacked, the rest of the forum has been spared.

And besides which;










Cheerio :wave:


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> Fair point, but why not be serious in the other 200 unread topics that are available on DW?
> 
> Granted this thread is messy but it has largely been bickering over petrol v diesel which is loosely the topic of the entire thread.
> 
> I don't follow the logic of if people don't like it, they feel they have an entitlment to to be wide boys and try and be smart.
> 
> Surely it is for the moderators to moderate what it acceptable or not?


did you not even read my statement it did not say anything like that.

no what people were trying to do was lighten this thread up from the mud slinging about an ST and a D5 that went on and on.

you should know the state of moderators at the moment on here.

but as it seems i am not able to post anything in this thread because i have clearly viewed it to much by your reasoning.


----------



## RisingPower

Kerr said:


> Fair point, but why not be serious in the other 200 unread topics that are available on DW?
> 
> Granted this thread is messy but it has largely been bickering over petrol v diesel which is loosely the topic of the entire thread.
> 
> I don't follow the logic of if people don't like it, they feel they have an entitlment to to be wide boys and try and be smart.
> 
> Surely it is for the moderators to moderate what it acceptable or not?


If it were not mainly childish bickering over .5 of a second difference between petrol and derv, maybe it wouldn't attract childish remarks?

Lalala I hate diesel, it serves no purpose, doesn't really constitute a sensible debate. Nor does calling people dickheads. It only shows you lack the ability to sustain a sensible debate.


----------



## mart.

We change from an A3 TDi to a V50 petrol. 

We got a fully speced petrol V50 £1000 cheaper than the equivalent Diesel ! 

Had the the V50 converted to LPG, cost me £800. 

Cheaper to insure the petrol. Fuel cost are slightly cheaper than the derv, Tax is a little more, service cost's are less. 

HTH.


----------



## Kerr

RisingPower said:


> If it were not mainly childish bickering over .5 of a second difference between petrol and derv, maybe it wouldn't attract childish remarks?
> 
> Lalala I hate diesel, it serves no purpose, doesn't really constitute a sensible debate. Nor does calling people dickheads. It only shows you lack the ability to sustain a sensible debate.


That's the irony of it.

People moan about people being childish, but then turn round and act childish and suddenly that's ok.

I wouldn't dare just spam a thread as I didn't like it.

Even if people don't like what they read, surely the mature thing would be walk on by?


----------



## dew1911

Kerr said:


> I don't follow the logic of if people don't like it, they feel they have an entitlment to to be wide boys and try and be smart.
> 
> Surely it is for the moderators to moderate what it acceptable or not?


That's the problem, some seem to think its all there's, and if they dont like it they just act like retards. It really is a sad state of affairs.


----------



## RisingPower

Kerr said:


> That's the irony of it.
> 
> People moan about people being childish, but then turn round and act childish and suddenly that's ok.
> 
> I wouldn't dare just spam a thread as I didn't like it.
> 
> Even if people don't like what they read, surely the mature thing would be walk on by?


Where do you see me moaning about people being childish? I said, childish comments beget others.

Oh noes, I spammed a thread... with... As useful comments as bickering!


----------



## RisingPower

dew1911 said:


> That's the problem, some seem to think its all there's, and if they dont like it they just act like retards. It really is a sad state of affairs.


Awww did I hurt your feelings?


----------



## dew1911

The whole reason the gentleman's club was created was to be a place where this **** could exist without bothering the rest of the boards, where the 5 year olds could play all they wanted. Yet its dragged out over the rest of the forums still


----------



## ITHAQVA

I currently own my first Diesel & i love it, compared to the E36 16V screamers, the 2.0l D is a very versatile/flexible engine. 

As for fun, I’ve never had so much fun on the Cornish roads as I am now in my little coal burner :thumb:

I think the car/fuel type must suite your driving expectations & style :thumb:

I love both petrol & diesel as they have their own characteristics, comparing diesel to petrol is like comparing two different cars and I prefer to look at each car & the way it drives on an individual basis.

I find it hard to fault most modern cars; fun in a car is about how you perceive it, some people like corners, some like fast straights. Hell some people even like to park their cars on the drive & detail them all day


----------



## RisingPower

dew1911 said:


> The whole reason the gentleman's club was created was to be a place where this **** could exist without bothering the rest of the boards, where the 5 year olds could play all they wanted. Yet its dragged out over the rest of the forums still


Actually I believe it was created as a place to perv over pictures of Scantily clad women.


----------



## Kerr

RisingPower said:


> Where do you see me moaning about people being childish? I said, childish comments beget others.
> 
> Oh noes, I spammed a thread... with... As useful comments as bickering!


I was responding in general to this thread.

Again just because you don't like the thread, why do you then feel the need to partake in it by spamming?

Why is it wrong for two guys to have childish bickering over the topic in hand, but ok for others to take the morale high ground only to be childish and disrespectful?


----------



## RisingPower

Kerr said:


> I was responding in general to this thread.
> 
> Again just because you don't like the thread, why do you then feel the need to partake in it by spamming?
> 
> Why is it wrong for two guys to have childish bickering over the topic in hand, but ok for others to take the morale high ground only to be childish and disrespectful?


I don't mind the thread at all, your and dews childish remarks have proved very amusing :thumb:

Because calling someone a dickhead isn't disrespectful :thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA

Kerr said:


> I was responding in general to this thread.
> 
> Again just because you don't like the thread, why do you then feel the need to partake in it by spamming?
> 
> Why is it wrong for two guys to have childish bickering over the topic in hand, but ok for others to take the morale high ground only to be childish and disrespectful?


If you look at it this way, we are all wrong  :thumb:

Dam! & i thought i was being funny :doublesho :thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

dew1911 said:


> That's the problem, some seem to think its all there's, and if they dont like it they just act like retards. It really is a sad state of affairs.


Seriously your calling someone a retard not good my friend not good at all. At the end of the day the two people who went off topic where the d5 and st owners (might not own either). It was completely taking over the thread and to be honest was a bit boring imo.

Lets all just agree to dissagree, Petrol is on par with diesel and diesel is on par with petrol in every aspect and lets all enjoy the day

I hope the OP has a clear cut of what he wants now hahaha I think he should go for electric haha


----------



## ITHAQVA

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Seriously your calling someone a retard not good my friend not good at all. At the end of the day the two people who went off topic where the d5 and st owners (might not own either). It was completely taking over the thread and to be honest was a bit boring imo.
> 
> Lets all just agree to dissagree, Petrol is on par with diesel and diesel is on par with petrol in every aspect and lets all enjoy the day
> 
> I hope the OP has a clear cut of what he wants now hahaha I think he should go for electric haha


:thumb::thumb:

I think the OP should go & drive both fuels & decide what feels right :thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

nissan leaf is what he wants.


----------



## RisingPower

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Seriously your calling someone a retard not good my friend not good at all. At the end of the day the two people who went off topic where the d5 and st owners (might not own either). It was completely taking over the thread and to be honest was a bit boring imo.
> 
> Lets all just agree to dissagree, Petrol is on par with diesel and diesel is on par with petrol in every aspect and lets all enjoy the day
> 
> I hope the OP has a clear cut of what he wants now hahaha I think he should go for electric haha


Ey what, where did I call anyone a retard? I seem to recall it was certain other people doing the name calling.

Petrol is great for some things, diesels is great for others, they both serve their purposes very well.

Nah, hydrogen fuel cells


----------



## Paintmaster1982

RisingPower said:


> Ey what, where did I call anyone a retard? I seem to recall it was certain other people doing the name calling.
> 
> Petrol is great for some things, diesels is great for others, they both serve their purposes very well.
> 
> Nah, hydrogen fuel cells


sorry mate not got the hang of multi quote lol


----------



## tomah

ITHAQVA said:


> :thumb::thumb:
> 
> I think the OP should go & drive both fuels & decide what feels right :thumb:


Let's remind ourselves of what the OP actually said...



Mattgeezer said:


> Pretty *bored of my tdi*, takes an age to warm up and is pretty noisy so i'm *planning to move to petrol*, car i have atm is a golf 1.9tdi so will be moving to a golf 1.8t or 2.0tfsi in the mk4 or mk5 gti, 6speed box so should see 30mpg.
> 
> Has anyone else made the move? regret it?
> Opinions?
> 
> Thanks.


Seems to be like he's bored of diesel, and going by a lot of people on this thread, quite a few have moved away from diesel to petrol, though for different reasons.

Though some may not be bored with their diesel, the OP is.

The only thing the OP will regret is buying a petrol Golf instead of a petrol Octavia vRS  :thumb:


----------



## Grizzle

36 pages of utter rubbish!


----------



## Paintmaster1982

tomah said:


> Let's remind ourselves of what the OP actually said...
> 
> Seems to be like he's bored of diesel, and going by a lot of people on this thread, quite a few have moved away from diesel to petrol, though for different reasons.
> 
> Though some may not be bored with their diesel, the OP is.
> 
> The only thing the OP will regret is buying a petrol Golf instead of a petrol Octavia vRS  :thumb:


mk1 vrs at that


----------



## ITHAQVA

tomah said:


> Let's remind ourselves of what the OP actually said...
> 
> Seems to be like he's bored of diesel, and going by a lot of people on this thread, quite a few have moved away from diesel to petrol, though for different reasons.
> 
> Though some may not be bored with their diesel, the OP is.
> 
> The only thing the OP will regret is buying a petrol Golf instead of a petrol Octavia vRS  :thumb:


:thumb:


----------



## Ninja59

Grizzle said:


> 36 pages of utter rubbish!


i only make it 9


----------



## ITHAQVA

Ninja59 said:


> i only make it 9


Beehave, we are in the naughty corner


----------



## ITHAQVA

tomah said:


> The only thing the OP will regret is buying a petrol Golf instead of a petrol Octavia vRS  :thumb:


Don't the VAG group use the same engines across the brands? Or are we talking handling characteristics.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

i think the skoda 1.8 turbo (excuse the decimal point) was 190 ish bhp but yeah bar turbos etc they are pretty much the same engines.


----------



## ITHAQVA

With the amount of year’s development that’s gone into the Golf, i would be thoroughly disappointed if the Skoda variant was better. Also a poor show from VW if true, however i know a lot of Golf owners who love them to bits. The Octavia owners don’t seem to shout so loud about their cars, they always look well built & very aggressively priced, I’m surprised there aren’t many more on the road :thumb:


----------



## tomah

ITHAQVA said:


> Don't the VAG group use the same engines across the brands? Or are we talking handling characteristics.


tbh, I don't know all the details. Especially of the newer models.

I think the mk4 Golf GTI only had 150bhp (perhaps except for the special edition, not sure), whereas an equivalent aged vRS had 180bhp.

Plus, the prices mk1 vRS's are going for right now is unbelievable. They're a bargain!


----------



## Paintmaster1982

yeah interesting, the fit and finish from when i used to drive in the mk5 golf era the fit and finish of the new shame octavia was outstanding in my opinion. the ealier ones where not as good but i thought the first vrs was or at least felt more punchy and stronger as you went along the rev range.

I think with the golf there is almost a following as with any vw. My personal choice is the mk3 16v abf, great car not the best at the old handling but build quality is great, fairly comfy, very reliable and more importantly you can work on them yourself if anything goes wrong.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

tomah said:


> tbh, I don't know all the details. Especially of the newer models.
> 
> I think the mk4 Golf GTI only had 150bhp (perhaps except for the special edition, not sure), whereas an equivalent aged vRS had 180bhp.
> 
> Plus, the prices mk1 vRS's are going for right now is unbelievable. They're a bargain!


iam sure the mk1 vrs was 190 but i could be mistaken, and your right someone on here in a diff post pointed out that the mk4 golf also did a run out 180 bhp model.


----------



## ITHAQVA

tomah said:


> tbh, I don't know all the details. Especially of the newer models.
> 
> I think the mk4 Golf GTI only had 150bhp (perhaps except for the special edition, not sure), whereas an equivalent aged vRS had 180bhp.
> 
> Plus, the prices mk1 vRS's are going for right now is unbelievable. They're a bargain!


Thats a good BHP from a 1.8 :devil: :thumb: Single Turbo?


----------



## Paintmaster1982

ITHAQVA said:


> Thats a good BHP from a 1.8 :devil: :thumb: Single Turbo?


yep single turbo. 1.8 20v turbo, same engine as the tt 225 and the S3 225 just a remap difference. you could re map the 180 bhp's to well over 250 bhp with no internal issues.


----------



## tomah

ITHAQVA said:


> Thats a good BHP from a 1.8 :devil: :thumb: Single Turbo?


Yeah, single turbo. Same as the old TT I think.

Very cheap to tweak to 230bhp

I haven't RR'd mine, but I think it's sitting around 225bhp.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

when i worked on the docks it was short bursts around the site, etc the fabia vrs was outstanding best car for the job. loads of low end grunt and hardly any turbo lag. again going to the op that it depends what you want and how you drive. Get a 2.0 petrol turbo and you will be more than happy


----------



## ITHAQVA

Paintmaster1982 said:


> yep single turbo. 1.8 20v turbo, same engine as the tt 225 and the S3 225 just a remap difference. you could re map the 180 bhp's to well over 250 bhp with no internal issues.





tomah said:


> Yeah, single turbo. Same as the old TT I think.
> 
> Very cheap to tweak to 230bhp
> 
> I haven't RR'd mine, but I think it's sitting around 225bhp.


If you can get that many horses & still be reliable that's dam good going :thumb:

I wouldn't mind 225/230BHP from my old coal burner, but i know it would eat the tyres something awful, although i cannot lie the meagre 177bhp it does produce is well balanced, it feels slightly heavy even though it's nimble/sharp on the Cornish roads. Actually my 320D feels like just an Alpina 525 I had for a few days fun. Yep a Racing Tank & i love it :thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA

Paintmaster1982 said:


> when i worked on the docks it was short bursts around the site, etc the fabia vrs was outstanding best car for the job. loads of low end grunt and hardly any turbo lag. again going to the op that it depends what you want and how you drive. Get a 2.0 petrol turbo and you will be more than happy


:thumb:


----------



## Grizzle

A Racing Tank...


lmao!


----------



## tomah

ITHAQVA said:


> If you can get that many horses & still be reliable that's dam good going :thumb:
> 
> I wouldn't mind 225/230BHP from my old coal burner, but i know it would eat the tyres something awful, although i cannot lie the meagre 177bhp it does produce is well balanced, it feels slightly heavy even though it's nimble/sharp on the Cornish roads. Actually my 320D feels like just an Alpina 525 I had for a few days fun. Yep a Racing Tank & i love it :thumb:


Some have pushed it beyond 230bhp, but I think after that it starts to get unreliable without more expensive mods. 220-230 is safe, with no extra reliability issues.

With the right mods, though, they can go beyond that. There's one for sale right now that has been expensively modded out to 280bhp.

However, I really don't know how it gets the power down. Mine struggles as it is, never mind giving it another 50-60 horses.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

tomah said:


> Some have pushed it beyond 230bhp, but I think after that it starts to get unreliable without more expensive mods. 220-230 is safe, with no extra reliability issues.
> 
> With the right mods, though, they can go beyond that. There's one for sale right now that has been expensively modded out to 280bhp.
> 
> However, I really don't know how it gets the power down. Mine struggles as it is, never mind giving it another 50-60 horses.


I always thought you could get that no problem, maybe its the 2.0 turbo iam thinking of. Not been in the vag scene for a while now.


----------



## ITHAQVA

tomah said:


> However, I really don't know how it gets the power down. Mine struggles as it is, never mind giving it another 50-60 horses.


To be honest, as standard the torque can make the rear wheels twitch if you're a little lively with the coal pedal on bumpy wet roads 

But I think the combination of wide run flats, stiff suspension & Diesel torque make you learn to drive it right accordingly. The 320D M-sport Reminds me of a track car sometimes. I couldn't imagine 230 plus BHP, were would you use that power (Castle coombe springs to mind)  :devil:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

ITHAQVA said:


> To be honest, as standard the torque can make the rear wheels twitch if you're a little lively with the coal pedal on bumpy wet roads
> 
> But I think the combination of wide run flats, stiff suspension & Diesel torque make you learn to drive it right accordingly. The 320D M-sport Reminds me of a track car sometimes. I couldn't imagine 230 plus BHP, were would you use that power (Castle coombe springs to mind)  :devil:


ive had that. Also slipped a few times turning into a junction on some spilt diesel and the traction control wasnt quick enough to kick in and the back end swings out big time. Fun though haha


----------



## tomah

Paintmaster1982 said:


> I always thought you could get that no problem, maybe its the 2.0 turbo iam thinking of. Not been in the vag scene for a while now.


Maybe. I'm not an expert either. I just always thought that a safe Stage 1 remap with a Milltek exhaust, etc, was safe to about 230bhp. After that, it's an uprated intercooler, turbo, etc.



ITHAQVA said:


> I couldn't imagine 230 plus BHP, were would you use that power (Castle coombe springs to mind)  :devil:


Sometimes a remap isn't so much about the peak power, as it about giving a smoother power delivery with no flat spots, etc.


----------



## Gruffs

I really don't get all this petrol vs diesel crap. 

Driving enjoyment is about the chassis and how it feels to drive at sustainable everyday pace. If you find you are not in the powerband of either type then YOU ARE NOT DRIVING IT CORRECTLY. 

When you are not thrashing along, and driving as you should on normal roads then MPG is a deciding factor. 

If in your life, you find yourself towing or a weight in the boot or a child in the back that means you have other priorities for your petrol money. Then diesel is a choice. 

Why is it all the top models are petrol? Why should I not enjoy the best chassis because I need or want a diesel engine?

And as for diesel on shorter race distances, BTCC and WTCC?

I'm not for or against either fuel type. Both have merits.

OP for what it's worth, for normal driving on a road unless my mileage dropped to less than 10k per year, I'll never have a petrol family car again. 

However, should I want a convertible or a track car. Where petrol is more common and accessible, then petrol would probably win out.


----------



## RisingPower

Gruffs said:


> Why is it all the top models are petrol? Why should I not enjoy the best chassis because I need or want a diesel engine?


Diesel engines are heavier and I don't think they can yield the same amount of power as a petrol engine, so i'm not sure I can see why a manufacturer would want to do that?

More chassis bracing and stiffer shocks required probably would detract from the handling of the car.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

RisingPower said:


> Diesel engines are heavier and I don't think they can yield the same amount of power as a petrol engine, so i'm not sure I can see why a manufacturer would want to do that?
> 
> More chassis bracing and stiffer shocks required probably would detract from the handling of the car.


what about the previous golf Rs then. Surely the VR6 Lump would be as heavy if not heavier then a 2.0 diesel lump? So i think engine weight is out of the question as the mk4 and 5 R's where great cars dispite the fact that they had all that weight from a VR6 in the front.

Edit: i mean purely in terms of engine weight not engine performance


----------



## nsanity

Just have a look at the new breed of BMW diesel engines. The new 640d 330bhp and a million torques! 0-60 in 5.5 sec. A remap will see a easy 380bhp.

The new M550d (triple turbo technology) is going to be ridiculous too!

I reckon serious development money is being thrown into diesels and in the next few years these are going to change a lot! Manufacturers are now starting to make 'performance' diesels.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

nsanity said:


> Just have a look at the new breed of BMW diesel engines. The new 640d 330bhp and a million torques! 0-60 in 5.5 sec. A remap will see a easy 380bhp.
> 
> The new M550d (triple turbo technology) is going to be ridiculous too!
> 
> I reckon serious development money is being thrown into diesels and in the next few years these are going to change a lot! Manufacturers are now starting to make 'performance' diesels.


and not just performance diesels, As with anything for example the new eco boosts and smaller petrols with turbos. Surely diesel will follow suit and go even more frugal ones these petrol turbos come into the norm?


----------



## RisingPower

Paintmaster1982 said:


> what about the previous golf Rs then. Surely the VR6 Lump would be as heavy if not heavier then a 2.0 diesel lump? So i think engine weight is out of the question as the mk4 and 5 R's where great cars dispite the fact that they had all that weight from a VR6 in the front.
> 
> Edit: i mean purely in terms of engine weight not engine performance


It's 2.8 as opposed to 2.0 right? Same size, diesel would most likely be heavier.

I'm guessing a 2.8 derv would also have less output.


----------



## RisingPower

nsanity said:


> Just have a look at the new breed of BMW diesel engines. The new 640d 330bhp and a million torques! 0-60 in 5.5 sec. A remap will see a easy 380bhp.
> 
> The new M550d (triple turbo technology) is going to be ridiculous too!
> 
> I reckon serious development money is being thrown into diesels and in the next few years these are going to change a lot! Manufacturers are now starting to make 'performance' diesels.


If they could make them a lot lighter, I think that would be serious competition in lighter cars :thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

RisingPower said:


> It's 2.8 as opposed to 2.0 right? Same size, diesel would most likely be heavier.
> 
> I'm guessing a 2.8 derv would also have less output.


nope the vr6 engines in the mk4 n 5 where 3.2. what i meant was if you can put a 3.2 ltr lump in a car the size of a golf and make it go round corners then surely a 2.0 diesel for example will handle the same disregarding the power output and delivery. even if the diesel engine was a 2.2 would it weigh moreore than a 3.2 petty lump?


----------



## RisingPower

Paintmaster1982 said:


> nope the vr6 engines in the mk4 n 5 where 3.2. what i meant was if you can put a 3.2 ltr lump in a car the size of a golf and make it go round corners then surely a 2.0 diesel for example will handle the same disregarding the power output and delivery. even if the diesel engine was a 2.2 would it weigh moreore than a 3.2 petty lump?


Cmooon of course a 3.2 lump is gonna weigh more than a 2.0, or most likely.

In which case though, i'd agree, but i'm guessing it's at least one reason they moved to the 2.0 lump in the r. I thought the r32 didn't exactly corner on rails for the very reason it was such a heavy lump.


----------



## Kerr

nsanity said:


> Just have a look at the new breed of BMW diesel engines. The new 640d 330bhp and a million torques! 0-60 in 5.5 sec. A remap will see a easy 380bhp.
> 
> The new M550d (triple turbo technology) is going to be ridiculous too!
> 
> I reckon serious development money is being thrown into diesels and in the next few years these are going to change a lot! Manufacturers are now starting to make 'performance' diesels.


The UK is not getting the M550d. It also is going to cost over 100,000 euro.

The new M5 is twin turbo and the M3 is rumoured to be triple turbo.

All these turbos are great, but people will get a serious bill when they find they don't last forever.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

RisingPower said:


> Cmooon of course a 3.2 lump is gonna weigh more than a 2.0, or most likely.
> 
> In which case though, i'd agree, but i'm guessing it's at least one reason they moved to the 2.0 lump in the r. I thought the r32 didn't exactly corner on rails for the very reason it was such a heavy lump.


i think it was to do with evil emissions more than the handling or a mixture of both.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Kerr said:


> The UK is not getting the M550d. It also is going to cost over 100,000 euro.
> 
> The new M5 is twin turbo and the M3 is rumoured to be triple turbo.
> 
> All these turbos are great, but people will get a serious bill when they find they don't last forever.


turbo car with stop start control hmmmmm iam sure these manufactures have it sussed but surely it cant be good for a turbo.


----------



## m1pui

Paintmaster1982 said:


> turbo car with stop start control hmmmmm iam sure these manufactures have it sussed but surely it cant be good for a turbo.


Having read through the manual for the other halves, petrol, 1-series that has Stop-Start. The number of requirements that all have to be met before the S-S works probably means that a very small % of owners will ever witness it in action :lol:


----------



## RisingPower

Paintmaster1982 said:


> i think it was to do with evil emissions more than the handling or a mixture of both.


I think it's a mix of both, but the gti has been 2.0 for some time no and handles better than the r32 right?


----------



## Paintmaster1982

m1pui said:


> Having read through the manual for the other halves, petrol, 1-series that has Stop-Start. The number of requirements that all have to be met before the S-S works probably means that a very small % of owners will ever witness it in action :lol:


haha no way so its pretty pointless really. But what if it did work would it harm the turbo over time. I think manufactures dont really care once the car hits the magic 3 year cover. as after then then its big money for them unless its had extended warrenty.


----------



## Ninja59

Paintmaster1982 said:


> haha no way so its pretty pointless really. But what if it did work would it harm the turbo over time. I think manufactures dont really care once the car hits the magic 3 year cover. as after then then its big money for them unless its had extended warrenty.


and even then exclusions lists the size of your face with some is a joke.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

RisingPower said:


> I think it's a mix of both, but the gti has been 2.0 for some time no and handles better than the r32 right?


hmm it depends as the R32 was a 4 wheel drive where as the gti as you know is front wheel drive. Ive driven both but not to the limits so i cant really say for sure. I know the 3.2 tt was a waste of time from the reviews it got and its pretty much the same chassis as the mk4.

Again i think it comes down to how you drive each car. they both would have there own merits.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

Ninja59 said:


> and even then exclusions lists the size of your face with some is a joke.


?? how do you mean?

sorry gotcha


----------



## m1pui

Paintmaster1982 said:


> haha no way so its pretty pointless really. But what if it did work would it harm the turbo over time. I think manufactures dont really care once the car hits the magic 3 year cover. as after then then its big money for them unless its had extended warrenty.


The quick list from the manual, but apparently there's more in reality;
Start/Stop will not function if;
- Outside temp below 3 degrees
- Interior being heated or cooled (Does that mean using the fans?)
- Auto-Air-Con switched on
- Moisture/condensation on windscreen
- Outside temp high (no specific temp mentioned) and air-con running
- Engine not at operating temperature.
- Battery depleted
- After reversing
- Drivers seatbelt not fastened

I think the temperature dependent ones alone could rule out ever seeing it working. She's had her car since March and she _thinks_ it _might_ have Stop/Started once but she doesn't know if it actually did or not


----------



## Paintmaster1982

m1pui said:


> The quick list from the manual, but apparently there's more in reality;
> Start/Stop will not function if;
> - Outside temp below 3 degrees
> - Interior being heated or cooled (Does that mean using the fans?)
> - Auto-Air-Con switched on
> - Moisture/condensation on windscreen
> - Outside temp high (no specific temp mentioned) and air-con running
> - Engine not at operating temperature.
> - Battery depleted
> - After reversing
> - Drivers seatbelt not fastened
> 
> I think the temperature dependent ones alone could rule out ever seeing it working. She's had her car since March and she _thinks_ it _might_ have Stop/Started once but she doesn't know if it actually did or not


shocking i can sort of understand most of them though as if the car is de misting the front screen for one you shouldnt be driving and another reason you dont want the heaters to cut out when the engine turns off.

Engine oil i think would be the most obvious. Every turbo car ive had ive left it a couple of mins before i turn it off. Not sure if it does it any good but ive always thought it helps the turbo


----------



## Grizzle

ITHAQVA said:


> To be honest, as standard the torque can make the rear wheels twitch if you're a little lively with the coal pedal on bumpy wet roads
> 
> But I think the combination of wide run flats, stiff suspension & Diesel torque make you learn to drive it right accordingly. *The 320D M-sport Reminds me of a track car sometimes*. I couldn't imagine 230 plus BHP, were would you use that power (Castle coombe springs to mind)  :devil:


:lol:

WHAT??? PMSL!!


----------



## GR33N

Is this thread still going? LMAO :lol:


----------



## Ninja59

GR33N said:


> Is this thread still going? LMAO :lol:


it has turned into the bunch of old ladies thread.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Paintmaster1982 said:


> and not just performance diesels, As with anything for example the new eco boosts and smaller petrols with turbos. Surely diesel will follow suit and go even more frugal ones these petrol turbos come into the norm?


Diesels have been pushed just about as far as they can go, they will struggle to meet the euro 6 regulations and manufactures have now started to develope petrols using some of the technology developed in diesels. To push a diesel further it's going cost lots more, around £1-2000 per car, diesel will live on in big exec barges but the smaller cars I think will start to die off


----------



## ITHAQVA

Grizzle said:


> :lol:
> 
> WHAT??? PMSL!!


Very stiff Handling etc..:thumb:


----------



## RisingPower

ITHAQVA said:


> Very stiff Handling etc..:thumb:


Urr I think you're a little bit optimistic there


----------



## ITHAQVA

RisingPower said:


> Urr I think you're a little bit optimistic there


----------



## Ninja59

he uses Viagra to make it stiff.


----------



## evil kegs

the stop start on my ford galaxy ecoboost works within the first mile of driving and have not come across at situation when it does not work yet i will have to see what the winter brings


----------



## ITHAQVA

Ninja59 said:


> he uses Viagra to make it stiff.



641guc by ITHAQVA, on Flickr


----------



## Grizzle

ITHAQVA said:


> Very stiff Handling etc..:thumb:


So is a shopping trolley but i still wouldnt say its "a track car...kinda"


----------



## Paintmaster1982

ITHAQVA said:


> 641guc by ITHAQVA, on Flickr


Brilliant lol


----------



## ITHAQVA

Grizzle said:


> So is a shopping trolley but i still wouldnt say its "a track car...kinda"


It was a loose comment, what I mean is as mass produced cars go I think for the average driver it's a little stiff & reactive, the setup as is would be better on near perfect roads/track, however I like its characteristics as it keeps things fun. My last E36 had track suspension & was lowered, my 320D reminds me of the same firm ride with loads of feedback. For me this is more important than loads of horses under the bonnet. Had a run in an Elise last year, it's amazing how much fun a car is without a carpet, felt like driving a small roller-skate, fun, fun, fun!


----------



## PugIain

ITHAQVA said:


> It was a loose comment, what I mean is as mass produced cars go I think for the average driver it's a little stiff & reactive, the setup as is would be better on near perfect roads/track


I think to be honest most cars now a days are far more competent than most drivers would ever find out.Unless you're a complete ham fisted fool.
Most people drive like fannies,braking in corners and stuff.I just sail round most of them at whatever speed im doing going up to them.


----------



## RedUntilDead

silverback said:


> i only do about 9 to 10k a year and bought a 520d.i love it.when idle its certianly not refined,but low down grunt and decent MPG did it for me.i only do about 20 miles a day ( to work an back midweek) and the DPF thing does worry me a little,but when i seen the petrol alternatives mpg in a 5series there was no way i was buying a petrol racing tank,i will stick with the dpf,or have them removed.


slightly off topic so sorry op
I have read lots about dpfs, those that say worry, have they had lots of experience? I have yet to come across anyone who has had problems with one with similar driving to yours. My 320d has a similar life but the exhaust gasses are getting hot enough to burn the crap for sure. At weekends the car gets a blast so I don't worry. If you do worry, go on a run every now and then and force a regen, thats what bm recommend.


----------



## SteveTDCi

I've had 3 go this year, and not all of them have been used on short trips. One thing I have learnt is to keep the fuel tank topped up. The car looks at how much fuel is there and if it's less than 1/2 tank it won't go into regen mode - it just pumps diesel straight through, I certainly wouldn't buy one.


----------



## PugIain

RedUntilDead said:


> slightly off topic so sorry op


Haha have you read this thread??
Ref DPF/FAP,Im glad mine hasnt got one.Although to be fair if you use the car properly and dont just use it instead of your legs for short trips you shouldnt have much problem.


----------



## Ninja59

it depends how they work there are a number of varieties the smaller engined diesels use a dpf with eolys bigger ones do not, some need replacing at XX mileage causing huge servicing costs, others have general problems (mainly due to driving environment).

some big engined diesels have suffered with oil contamination with unburnt fuel being washed into the sump (this is what the D5 suffered with).

only problem i have seen as common generally is the sensors on certain cars being c*ap.


----------



## ITHAQVA

PugIain said:


> Haha have you read this thread??


I dont know what you mean


----------



## tomah

SteveTDCi said:


> One thing I have learnt is to keep the fuel tank topped up. The car looks at how much fuel is there and if it's less than 1/2 tank it won't go into regen mode - it just pumps diesel straight through, I certainly wouldn't buy one.


I didn't know this.

I couldn't understand my experience with diesel. I was always told that if you drive long enough to get warm, you'll be fine. Well my commute was 30 mins each way 4 times a week, and usually a long run on a Sunday, too.

Maybe this was the problem? I'm not in the habit of filling any car to the neck.


----------



## SteveTDCi

It was the RAC guy that told me, this was the first Ford he had been too, most were VW's. This was a FOcus that had spent most of its life on the motorway and it was one trip where it spent an hour & half in London at crawling speeds with next to no fuel in it. Still a new DPF sorted it out, all £900 of it.


----------



## RedUntilDead

SteveTDCi said:


> I've had 3 go this year, and not all of them have been used on short trips. One thing I have learnt is to keep the fuel tank topped up. The car looks at how much fuel is there and if it's less than 1/2 tank it won't go into regen mode - it just pumps diesel straight through, I certainly wouldn't buy one.


Thats good info and I haven't heard that before:thumb: I have lots of people in the game so will ask them their thoughts. I can't imagine how this works, its ecu controlled, not plc? wheres the, rubs chin Roy Hodgson style smiley when you need it?

Oh, no I have not read the whole thread as I could imagine some of the ill informed responses so stayed away on purpose


----------



## SteveTDCi

The dpf issue for only seems to affect the 1.6 tdci 110ps on our fleet, the only 1.8 we had was fine


----------



## PugIain

Thing is,not all modern diesels have FAP/DPF.If you do your homework you can find out which ones.


----------



## Kerr

The BMW diesels suffer too.

I've seen quite a few guys offer the advice to budget having to replace it at some point even when the mileage is not that high.


----------



## Derbyshire-stig

Diesels will kill ya so Petrol is the way . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532


----------



## SteveTDCi

Derbyshire-stig said:


> Diesels will kill ya so Petrol is the way . . .
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532


I've just heard that on the radio  its been know for sometime and trying to reduce the cancerous emissions further (euro 6) is what will kill off the small diesel engine, hence the resurgence in the petrol lump :thumb:


----------



## Gruffs

Eating too much red meat causes cancer. Are we all going veggie?

Sometimes this world is so full of bollucks.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Gruffs said:


> Eating too much red meat causes cancer. Are we all going veggie?
> 
> Sometimes this world is so full of bollucks.


No because the cow's create greenhouse gases and by eating them it offsets the emissions of my petrol fleet, it also helps cuey with his V8's. Besides if i'm going to die of cancer because of eating red meat thats my choice, i don't want to die of cancer because someone wants to hit 50mpg in there diesel Golf when they could have a daisy growing VW Up that sounds like a broken 911 and will do 67mpg +


----------



## dew1911

Derbyshire-stig said:


> Diesels will kill ya so Petrol is the way . . .
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532


Next week there'll be another report saying it actually increases your lifespan... 95% of these so called studies get thrown out.


----------



## Ross

Gruffs said:


> Eating too much red meat causes cancer. Are we all going veggie?
> 
> Sometimes this world is so full of* bollucks*.


"They" give you cancer too........


----------



## Kerr

That is hardly a suprise. 

The black plume that goes for your throat tells you something is wrong. 

Diesel is horrible stuff. It is just the crap burned off early in the refining process to get proper fuel.


----------



## Ninja59

Kerr said:


> That is hardly a suprise.
> 
> The black plume that goes for your throat tells you something is wrong.
> 
> Diesel is horrible stuff. It is just the crap burned off early in the refining process to get proper fuel.


still fuel that serves a huge purpose though, proper fuel get real bitumen is the really heavy stuff.


----------



## Grizzle

Its still a crap fuel though Ninja


----------



## Gruffs

There is more energy in a diesel molecule than a petrol one. It's getting it out that is the hard bit.


----------



## Ninja59

Grizzle said:


> Its still a crap fuel though Ninja


not a crap fuel just a heavier fuel than petrol.not a crap one.


----------



## Grizzle

Gruffs said:


> There is more energy in a diesel molecule than a petrol one. *It's getting it out that is the hard bit*.


Your gettin personal now lol.


----------



## CoOkIeMoNsTeR

I'm still not sure!!!
SWMBO's Td4 is a nice engine, well suited to the Freelander and, when I drive it, I get about 37mpg. She on the other hand is lucky to see 30 coz she can't drive the bloody thing. She insists its not fast enough, but every time I offer to change it for a 2.7T A6 Allroad (What I wanted in the first place!) she says no, she likes her Freebie 

I've normally filled up at the green pump, but I've had a few oil burners, and I have to say, I was impressed with the Megane 1.5 dCi I just sold. But a 1.6 VVT would leave it for dead. I drive a 911 daily, and I love it :argie: But 17 mpg is killing me! Mind you, the Range Rover (3.9 Classic!) is worse. I also had until recently a CLK430 V8, which was just orgasmic (And rotten :doublesho ) but some of these new fangled comman rail diesels are stealing my eye. My first car was a manky Clio 1.9D, and that really was crap, so glad when someone else wrote it off outside school for me, so I got my Landy going, a silken 2.25 petrol. The expression quiter than a sewing machine just didn't do it justice.

I don't see the benefit of these 3 cyl eco diesels though. Rev the nuts of the thing to get worse mpg than a bigger diesel? Or a cleaver new eco petrol, which get over 50mpg on a run? I admit, other Land Rovers I've had for towing have been diesel, but the V8 has just as much torque, and the noise is just epic.

Sooooo, I wouldn't be worried. I'll see you at the green pump 

My rationale? They don't make diesel motorbikes...


----------



## SteveTDCi

3 cylinder Eco petrol will do 60+ on a run, slow down to 60mph and I bet it will crack 70mpg, the vw up I have at the mo is averaging 50 + around town driving it like a teenager


----------



## CoOkIeMoNsTeR

SteveTDCi said:


> 3 cylinder Eco petrol will do 60+ on a run, slow down to 60mph and I bet it will crack 70mpg, the vw up I have at the mo is averaging 50 + around town driving it like a teenager


I actually had VW in mind when I wrote that. Why anyone would by a 1.2 TDi Bluemotion over a 1.2 TSi is beyond me, especially the 105 bhp, which in the Polo has a 6 speed box, so chances of cracking 60mpg @ 60mph? Good I'd like to think. A 1.2 turbo now is like driving a 1.6 petrol from a few years ago.

But if I needed a new car, it'd have to be a Ford. Those ECOboost things are bloody brilliant! Oh no, wait, a VW group TSi with the 7 speed DSG! Surely the best of all worlds, and you don't need to change gear like in one of those manual cars I've heard about


----------



## RisingPower

Gruffs said:


> Eating too much red meat causes cancer. Are we all going veggie?
> 
> Sometimes this world is so full of bollucks.


To be fair it is the WHO and not the usual ******** about some random place that specialises in churning out crap.

Either way, petrols are more fun :devil::lol:


----------



## The Cueball

Gruffs said:


> Eating too much red meat causes cancer. Are we all going veggie?
> 
> Sometimes this world is so full of bollucks.


Well I've stopped going out my house, in case something bad happens to me... I did normally just lie on my bed, but then I heard that people fall out and can die... so now I just stand in the corner and count my life down worrying about everything and asking strangers on the internet how best to live my life and spend my money



:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Oh, and what wax for a red car?!?!?!

:devil::devil::devil::devil:

:thumb:


----------



## darren1229

Have been a die hard diesel fan in the past but just sold my vectra 2.2 dti. not really fussed what i go for next petrol or diesel wise....both have pro's and con's just like anything else. modern day diesels are obviously ten times better than they used to be but its down to personal choice at the end of the day.


----------



## TubbyTwo

only owned 2 Dervs, I would have one for a daily sh*tter but thats about it. I dont find them interested at all, mapped or not, does nothing for me.

I have a Supra TT for my daily, so I have everything I need, more speed and power than 90% of the cars i see day to day.

Although I do find the "green patrol" feel the need to wade in sometimes and tell me how im selfish for polluing our atmosphere, usually from a sandal wearing Prius driver.


----------



## Ross

TubbyTwo said:


> only owned 2 Dervs, I would have one for a daily sh*tter but thats about it. I dont find them interested at all, mapped or not, does nothing for me.
> 
> I have a Supra TT for my daily, so I have everything I need, more speed and power than 90% of the cars i see day to day.
> 
> Although I do find the "green patrol" feel the need to wade in sometimes and tell me how im selfish for polluing our atmosphere, usually from a sandal wearing *Prius *driver.


Which is causing more damage than your Supra:thumb:


----------



## TubbyTwo

Ross said:


> Which is causing more damage than your Supra:thumb:


yep, they have no idea!!


----------



## Paintmaster1982

a car is a car for christ sake it gets you from A to B some faster some more economical than others at the end of the day just be happy to be driving, the car no matter what it is, is an amazing thing enjoy it .... is this thread still going.


----------



## Ross

TubbyTwo said:


> yep, they have no idea!!


They won't like me either driving a thirsty,CO2 spewing Subaru


----------



## ITHAQVA

Paintmaster1982 said:


> a car is a car for christ sake it gets you from A to B some faster some more economical than others at the end of the day just be happy to be driving, the car no matter what it is, is an amazing thing enjoy it .... is this thread still going.


Wise words :thumb:


----------



## TubbyTwo

Ross said:


> They won't like me either driving a thirsty,CO2 spewing Subaru


We are are a dying breed in a world thats heading towards diesel cars and crappy little 3pot eco noddy cars with no soul.

NEVER!


----------



## Ross

I don't mind bigger engined diesel's with actual power,those 3 pot "Eco" boxes must be awful.


----------



## TubbyTwo

proper derv engines like the 3l+ ones would be fun, but would still choose a big displacement petrol tbh.

Just cant beat the noise of a 3l straight 6 and a fully decatted exhaust


----------



## The Cueball

TubbyTwo said:


> Just cant beat the noise of a 3l straight 6 and a fully decatted exhaust


Yes you can... easily!



:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## ITHAQVA

:thumb:


----------



## TubbyTwo

The Cueball said:


> Yes you can... easily!
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:
> 
> :thumb:


That us mere mortals can afford


----------



## KREJ_LANA

my 6.3 merc can return 50mpg... if left to idle

i wish i owned one..dammit


----------



## Paintmaster1982

KREJ_LANA said:


> my 6.3 merc can return 50mpg... if left to idle
> 
> i wish i owned one..dammit


Eh how can it do 50 mpg if sat on idle? surely if its sat there not moving and using fuel on idle then it will be doing 0 mpg?

edit: was that a joke lol this thread has got me deluded lol


----------



## ITHAQVA

Paintmaster1982 said:


> edit: was that a joke lol this thread has got me deluded lol


For you paintmaster, Spam that's relevant ^^^^^ :thumb:


----------



## Paintmaster1982

ace lol.


----------



## Kerr

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Eh how can it do 50 mpg if sat on idle? surely if its sat there not moving and using fuel on idle then it will be doing 0 mpg?
> 
> edit: was that a joke lol this thread has got me deluded lol


Engage gear and the car will move when the engine is idling.


----------



## Grizzle

TubbyTwo said:


> proper derv engines like the 3l+ ones would be fun, but would still choose a big displacement petrol tbh.
> 
> Just cant beat the noise of a 3l straight 6 and a fully decatted exhaust


yes you can a 4.2 V8 Audi :argie:


----------



## Ross

Or.......


----------



## sirkuk

Ross said:


> Or.......


+1

V8 FTW.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Raimon

Reviving this old thread. 2 Years on now. We have got alot more small petrol engines strapped with a small Turbo Charger and with economy just under 40mpg average, and over 40mpg combined.

6 Months ago i got rid off my Vec C 1.9CDTI 150BHP/235ftlb Mapped to 180BHP/300ftlb always did over 50mpg. To a 1.6 Petrol Turbo Insignia 180BHP/170ftlb average 35mpg and most on motorway 50mpg going 60mph all the way 70mile trip. 
My question is can I compare the performance to the 1.9CDTI Vec C Diesel or do i need to compare it to a 1.6 Diesel. If i am comparing to the Vec C Diesel, it will rip the 1.6T backside. The 1.6T has minimum torque at only 170ftlb not sure what rev is peak, but on the mapped diesel 300ftlb comes in at 3000rpm (peak torque), now when i change gears at 3000rpm on the 1.6T, it still feels lack of power. Maybe I need a remap? Book figure 0-60 for the 1.6T is 8.4sec, i timed myself using TorquePro App and can not get that figure only sub 10 secs. On the Mapped diesel 8.5secs everytime, not sure about standard map though. 
On my daily commute to work, dual carriageway, national speed limits, at the traffic lights, next to me is a diesel 2.0 bmw/citroen/vw/vauxhall all same size car as mine, we both pull off, and we both change gears at 3000rpm, i have always been beaten hands down, hard for me to keep up unless i keep the revs higher then change gears later. Economy wise they are getting 50mpg, and driving quicker than me. 
I have my doubts now about getting this small turbo petrol engine, driving it slower and getting less mpg than the derv. 
Ok the good points to turbo petrol now - the drive is very smoother, no shunt of power, higher revving engine, i can instantly select down to the lower gear and rev it to the redline for that burst of power and feel under control, throttle response is good (no need to tap throttle then wait a sec to go with that big burst of power on diesel), and the engine sounds wonderful.

Cheers.


----------



## Franzpan

I made the jump. Doubt I will go back. Had a C30 2.4 D5, loved it. Bags of torque and a good from he engine, nice and rumbly for a diesel. Changed it for a 3.2 TT, totaly different, lacks the torque of the C30 but the power deliver is so much nicer. It just pulls the whole way to the red line, unlike diesel where you get a woosh of power when the turbo kicks in but it tails off at the top end.

Just had my car on a good 140 mile round trip, pushing it the whole way, 29.9mpg which I thought was fantastic.


----------



## pooma

I've done it, Diesel Insignia to Focus ST, don't miss the torque because the 5 pot I have now is by far the torqueiest petrol engine I've driven. 
A nice burble instead of sounding like the number 43 and no DPF worries, was sometimes having to go on a motorway drive for no reason just to have peace of mind. 
Fuel wise I'm getting around 26mpg on my usual driving, mid 30's on a run. Insignia was doing around 34mpg with my usual driving (automatic was sapping the fuel) I can live with that and am happy to pay for the extra fuel for the grin factor I get from the car.


----------



## m2srt

I'm going from an xc60 D5 to an Audi S3 in March. Big horsepower and decent torque means it should be a happy move


----------



## ashton1

I went from A3 1.9 TDI to Astra VXR - hated it, back to Scirocco 2.0 TDi. Yeah noisey but the MPG difference is worth it.


----------



## rory1992

I changed from a seat leon fr tdi to a Megane 265 cup its a totally different animal, I admit I miss the economy but the performance, handling and grin factor more than make up for it


----------



## SteveTDCi

Nice to see people swapping to petrol, I'm sure if people worked out the actual price difference then they would choose petrol every time for the sack of £150 a year


----------



## dann2707

I've gone from a 70mpg diesel seat ibiza with hybrid turbo running around 200bhp to a 33mpg clio 182 with 182bhp (lol obvs) and I couldn't be happier.

I'm putting in more fuel regularly but the sound, the high revs, the fun factor, you can't put a price on that.

Was a bit sick of having to be in the right rpm to drive the diesel, and they feel wayyyyy more faster than what they actually are. Loving the petrol again


----------



## G.P

SteveTDCi said:


> Nice to see people swapping to petrol, I'm sure if people worked out the actual price difference then they would choose petrol every time for the sack of £150 a year


Can't wait to get rid of my diesel, I will miss its 47 mpg but in the long run the petrol will cost me less, I also suspect the cost of diesel fuel will increase quicker than pertrol..


----------



## VW Golf-Fan

I've never owned any diesel cars but have driven plenty.

I don't do huge mileages anyway so it doesn't warrant buying a diesel. I have always had petrol cars & not had any problems.

My current MK6 Golf 1.4 TSI (122) is more than powerful enough for my needs whilst returning decent mpg.


----------



## Frothey

Aren't some manufacturers having problems with these small engined turbo's in bigger cars letting go as they don't like bein driven hard all he time?

Saying that, just changed from a diesel to petrol - just not a small engined one. I'd never go back.....


----------



## VW Golf-Fan

Frothey said:


> Aren't some manufacturers having problems with these small engined turbo's in bigger cars letting go as they don't like bein driven hard all he time?


Not sure but I've always thought it was daft putting a 1.4 TSI in an Octavia or Tiguan for example.

Even Ford are talking of putting the 1.0 Ecoboost engines in the new Mondeo - crazy!


----------



## Raimon

So is my 1.6T engine too small for the insignia?, I think after a remap it will still need to be revved hard to keep up with 2.0 diesels.
Would I need a 2.8t 325bhp insignia Vxr to match diesels mid range torque without driving it hard?


----------



## VW Golf-Fan

Raimon said:


> So is my 1.6T engine too small for the insignia?


I wouldn't have said the 1.6 was too small an engine for the Insignia, just god awful and so underpowered.

The 2.0Litres are much faster and nicer to drive.

But yes I suppose your 1.6 Insignia could benefit from a remap.


----------



## SteveTDCi

Raimon said:


> So is my 1.6T engine too small for the insignia?, I think after a remap it will still need to be revved hard to keep up with 2.0 diesels.
> Would I need a 2.8t 325bhp insignia Vxr to match diesels mid range torque without driving it hard?


Your driving it wrong, petrols need to be dropped down a gear and then they will beat a diesel, change your driving style to suit the car


----------



## Raimon

SteveTDCi said:


> Your driving it wrong, petrols need to be dropped down a gear and then they will beat a diesel, change your driving style to suit the car


Peak power is at 5500rpm, what rev would you say I should change gear normally to keep the power there? I'm thinking 4000rpm maybe.


----------



## Frothey

VW Golf-Fan said:


> Even Ford are talking of putting the 1.0 Ecoboost engines in the new Mondeo - crazy!


That's due to diesels being set to disappear with the euro 6/7 emissions laws, they are trying to show great fuel economy in the VCA test - just a shame they can't replicate it in real world driving where you have to use the turbo!

Maybe Toyota were right all those years ago with those funny battery things they came up with......


----------



## paralla

I changed from a Diesel Scirocco to a Cayman S which is much nicer. The slow warm up of the Scirocco really annoyed me even though it had a 1KW electric aux heater.


----------



## Cookies

I went from petrol to diesel in 1998 and probably won't be going back for a while due to the mileage i currently do, and more than likely will do in the future. 

So it's DERV all the way for me - she's smokey but she's pokey!!

Cooks


----------



## Raimon

*Petrol coming back*

Since the early-mid 2000, diesels have started to flood our uk roads. Do you think petrols are making a come back now, with the new so called efficient turbo charged petrol engines. Soon very rare to see diesel car on our roads.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Kiashuma

Yes, i would'nt touch a modern diesel with a dpf, just something else to go wrong/


----------



## Kerr

Too many people bought diesels for the wrong reasons. 

People are very slow to catch on to things, but it is happening. More people are making the switch back and benefiting from it.


----------



## Raimon

It would be nice to see more petrols on the road, so I don't need to hammer my car around to keep up with 2.0 diesels lol


----------

