# Diesel..... it has a lot to answer for



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

I've been going through Autotrader/Pistonheads looking at mid sized cars, ok, cheap cars. Diesel seems to have killed off any half decent petrol cars. Other thaan BMW and the odd V6 petrol i cannot find anything that i fancy as a cheap car.

It seems the new breed of diesels that don't last all that long have killed off any 10 year old petrols.


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

Surely the desirability of diesels means good petrols are even cheaper than they should be?

Look hard and pokey saloons can be bagged for peanuts.

Or is it just a random pop at diesels again?


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Mazda RX8's are very cheap at the moment

What you after?

e46 330i's are cheap, older Jags with the 4.2 V8 are cheap too, Mondeo ST220?

Otherwise its stuff with Turbos like 1.8T S3's, Seat Leon 1.8T, Octy MK1 vRS, all use the same basic engine which can be tuned to an easy 230-270bhp dependent on which car.

The cheapest fast car at the moment would be an early 2001 (I think) Leon Cupra with the 1.8T engine (180bhp) for about £2K max and then for under a grand you will see 265bhp.


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

just a pop at diesels, don't get me wrong some of the diesels are nice, Jag V6, BMW 6cylinder Audi V8, VW V10, i'd happily own any of them. I was looking at the current shape Mondeo and with the exception of the 2.5T which would be a little too expensive to run there isn't a good petrol engine in the range. Granted there are the new eco boost engines but they are still outside of the 7k budget. In fact i'm looking at it two ways, either a 1k budget for something cheap and cheerful or 7k if i was to replace the main car.


----------



## Deano (Jul 7, 2006)

after driving to devon, pottering round for a week and driving back to lancashire on less than a tank, I cant badmouth diesels sorry. :lol:

decent (big engined) petrols started to die around ten years ago as thats when fuel became daft money. so really OPEC and the government have a lot to answer for. I'd go for chuckability rather than power. a clio 172 or similar. the integra r is a bit of a bargain now.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

There is a new breed of petrols coming though, think VAG's Tsi engine in the new Polo/Fabia and Ford are starting to finally catch onto the small capacity petrol turbo engine.

The TFSi VAG unit is by far the best 4 pot petrol, unreal MPG for the performance. The new Golf GTi with 211bhp will do an easy 45mpg on the motorway and about 36mpg around town, with a remap producing 260bhp with no loss of MPG.

BMW also produce some great but overlooked petrol engines and when they put the turbos onto the petrol models then we will see some fun and competition between VAG and BMW petrol engines.

200bhp 1.4's that do 45-50mpg are only a few years away.


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

After driving around Ireland in a wheezy petrol with no torque, i can't see an argument for a petrol.


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

Gruffs said:


> After driving around Ireland in a wheezy petrol with no torque, i can't see an argument for a petrol.


well i can when the EU shaft a DPF in a diesel up your ar*e. :lol:


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

I hope that the petrol makes a comeback, I agree some of the new breed of smaller 4 pot turbos are coming along nicely but its going to be a good few years before they are at budget level. With diesels being popular it seems to have reduced the market for cheap runabouts.

I need to swap either the Polo (so less than 1k to spend) or the Cupra (7k to spend) I want to be able to carry some bikes on the back and for it to be comfortable. I really don't want another VAG car, I want something different. So at the moment i'm looking at just replacing the Polo. I've actually considered a Toyota Avensis or Citreon C5 ... having said that 2.5 Mondeos are nice and cheap but i'm unlikely to get 30mpg out of one of thise .....


----------



## bigmc (Mar 22, 2010)

Ninja59 said:


> well i can when the EU shaft a DPF in a diesel up your ar*e. :lol:


DPF are easy enough to remove and increase mpg by about 10-15% when removed, I'll not have another petrol until they can achieve diesel like torque and mpg figures.

The Mondeo V6 can get mid 30s if driven sensibly, I get 32-33 average out of my 3.2 vectra.


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

I can't afford to love close enough to my work for the DPF to be an issue.

My question is, If VAG can do a TFSI twin charger for petrol that effectively turns a 1.4 into a 2.0 but keeps the 1.4 economy, Why can't they twin charge or super charge a diesel? More air would get even more energy out of the diesel molecule.


----------



## pooma (Apr 12, 2008)

I like petrol, but unfortunately with a 2ltr turbo to run so does my car.

It would appear the motor industry hasn't given up on petrol and they are becoming more and more efficient, I agree with Robertdon777 in that we aren't far off a 200bhp 1.4 doing 50 to the gallon, thing is diesel are already there with those HP and MPG figures all be it from a larger engine.

I think our next purchase will be diesel when the Mrs comes to change car next year.


----------



## bigmc (Mar 22, 2010)

Gruffs said:


> I can't afford to love close enough to my work for the DPF to be an issue.
> 
> My question is, If VAG can do a TFSI twin charger for petrol that effectively turns a 1.4 into a 2.0 but keeps the 1.4 economy, Why can't they twin charge or super charge a diesel? More air would get even more energy out of the diesel molecule.


No need when a 2.0 diesel can provide double the torque of an equivalent powered petrol, be quicker and return brilliant mpg.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Capacity vs Capacity if both are N/A or both are Forced induction the petrol will always be quicker (even if the diesel has more torque)

So it just depends on what you prefer to drive. But as stated above there are already 200bhp diesels that do 50mpg so petrol has a long way to come to catch up, but once BMW enter the game I think the technology will race forward between the German companies.

I'm a petrol fan, and don't do enough mileage for a diesel (which makes me happy). If I was doing more miles then diesel would be the only way. Now in 5 years time that might not be the case, I may have the option of a 250bhp Petrol car that will do 50mpg. Yes the diesel will also have 250bhp and do 65-70mpg but I'd choose the petrol for my mileage.


----------



## pooma (Apr 12, 2008)

SteveTDCi said:


> I hope that the petrol makes a comeback, I agree some of the new breed of smaller 4 pot turbos are coming along nicely but its going to be a good few years before they are at budget level. With diesels being popular it seems to have reduced the market for cheap runabouts.
> 
> I need to swap either the Polo (so less than 1k to spend) or the Cupra (7k to spend) I want to be able to carry some bikes on the back and for it to be comfortable. I really don't want another VAG car, I want something different. So at the moment i'm looking at just replacing the Polo. I've actually considered a Toyota Avensis or Citreon C5 ... having said that 2.5 Mondeos are nice and cheap but i'm unlikely to get 30mpg out of one of thise .....


Under a grand, nice engine, comfy and a little different, I know I'm biased and probably get flamed but

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201134411438841/sort/priceasc/usedcars/model/600/make/rover/postcode/dh78tx/quicksearch/true/page/3/radius/1500?logcode=p

30 mpg is achievable but realistically more like 25.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

bigmc said:


> No need when a 2.0 diesel can provide double the torque of an equivalent powered petrol, be quicker and return brilliant mpg.


Try the VAG TSi unit (new one) one thing they don't lack is Torque, remember its not all about peak Torque figure its about how long they produce it for over a rev range.

If I have an engine that has 700nm of torque but only for 2K revs it wont be as quick as something that has 450nm but produces that figure for 6K's worth of revs, unless you have a gearbox with 15 speeds etc.

Too many people figure a car is better because one produces xxxbhp and another has 20bhp more.

One example is an Astra VXR 240bhp = No quicker than a Golf Gti DSG with 197bhp, peak figures are mis-leading.

Look at Qtr mile times for a VXR compared to an Astra GSi 16v, not a lot in it. Now the VXR has a huge BHP/Torque advantage but the weight its piled on kills the advantage.

(not slating Astra's BTW - I like them and own one)


----------



## DampDog (Apr 16, 2011)

robertdon777 said:


> There is a new breed of petrols coming though, think VAG's Tsi engine in the new Polo/Fabia and Ford are starting to finally catch onto the small capacity petrol turbo engine.
> 
> The TFSi VAG unit is by far the best 4 pot petrol, unreal MPG for the performance.


I picked up a 1.2Tsi Polo in April after parting with my 10 year old Polo 1.9TDi Sport. And have to say it's a bit of a revalation, it pulls very well from 1200revs up and cruises happily at 70mph while sitting at about 2100 revs which is less than my old diesel. For a 1.2 it's astonishing, I kid you not you could easily mistake it for a 1.6-1.8 motor under the bonnet. It's does not have as much ultimate torque as my old diesel, but it does it all very smoothly and quietly. So far I'm seeing about 42-43 knocking about, which is pretty good.

From what I've read very high efficiency small petrol engine are going to be the way forwards. With direct injection and small efficient turbos. IIRC the 1.2 and 1.4 Tsi are the first engines to have electronically controlled wastegates on the turbos as opposed to being pressure operated.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Rover 75's are a great buy - 180bhp V6's, not sure what the MPG is like


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

FLOL at complaining about the fact that the currently massively overweight and oversized Mondeo doesn't have a hot version. Just because Ford haven't made a fast Mondeo doesn't mean that petrol has been killed off! BMW, Audi, Volvo, Vauxhall and Mercedes all make quick petrol motors and have done for years. BMW 330i, 335i, Audi A4 3.2, Vauxhall Vectra VXR and Volvo S60R, all reasonable motors with some guts and all have examples in that price bracket!

Diesel's killed nothing, it's people who think that petrol is over that have.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3092530.htm

Always loved these.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

The new Merc SLK 350 has 300bhp and did 30mpg on a recent car mags test, figures like this were unheard of 5 years ago. 

There isn't many diesels that can claim those figures, try a 535D and the MPG figures can be shocking, better than a 545i yes but still shocking.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

OvlovMike said:


> http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3092530.htm
> 
> Always loved these.


Great car for the money.


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

OvlovMike said:


> http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3092530.htm
> 
> Always loved these.


yum  but prefer to take the estate version


----------



## Flair (Dec 11, 2010)

OvlovMike said:


> FLOL at complaining about the fact that the currently massively overweight and oversized Mondeo doesn't have a hot version.  Just because Ford haven't made a fast Mondeo doesn't mean that petrol has been killed off! BMW, Audi, Volvo, Vauxhall and Mercedes all make quick petrol motors and have done for years. BMW 330i, 335i, Audi A4 3.2, Vauxhall Vectra VXR and Volvo S60R, all reasonable motors with some guts and all have examples in that price bracket!
> 
> Diesel's killed nothing, it's people who think that petrol is over that have.


It does, the titanium sport. I drove a black and white one at ford and they was both stunning with extra styling kit they had. They was both tricked out display models every option and the 2.0 ecoboost engine with 236bhp and 250lbs ft, the only draw back is the fancy new autobox but even with that it was no slouch and quite a pleasure to drive.


----------



## Laurie.J.M (Jun 23, 2011)

The people who say smaller engines are always more efficient need to drive some of these cars on a road before making those claims, my 1.2 Corsa does the Same MPG as my mother's 2.0 Honda CR-V automatic (about 26-28), this is not because I'm some boy racer it's because the engine isn't big enough for the car and you have to work it hard just to move. The CR-V is not much faster than my car but once you've got it up to speed it's really easy to maintain it where as my car you either have to go in a lower gear and get it up to about 4000 rpm to get the into the 'power' part of the engine (what there is it), or you can go in a higher gear and go at lower RPM but you have to mash your foot down because there's no torque. Diesels are better suited to lower RPM driving as that's where all the torque is. With most smaller petrol cars your best of going for the larger engine or the diesel with more torque.

The test's that are done to get these MPG figures are done in a sterilized laboratory on a rolling road, they follow a pre set routine where they accelerate up to certain speeds using a certain amount of throttle and changing gear at a certain RPM, and they only go as high as 50 mph which isn't very realistic. If you tried to accelerate from 0-50 mph using 1/4 throttle and changing up a 2500rpm on an actual road in most small capacity petrol cars you'd be lucky to get there, even if you did it would take forever.


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

bigmc said:


> No need when a 2.0 diesel can provide double the torque of an equivalent powered petrol, be quicker and return brilliant mpg.


But why not make that treble or 4 times by twin-charging diesel? Is it to get people back into twin charged petrol cars, then back to twin-charged diesels?



robertdon777 said:


> Capacity vs Capacity if both are N/A or both are Forced induction the petrol will always be *quicker *(even if the diesel has more torque)


Would you like to qualify *quicker*?


----------



## DampDog (Apr 16, 2011)

I have to agree some of these small 'ECO' cars are hideous to drive. Had a go in a friends Pug 106, the little 1ltr 3 cylinder jobbies. It's an instrument of torture. Had to laugh with it's tiny engine and skinny eco tyres, my mate pulled up on a fair incline at a set of lights. The car is so light it just sat there unable to get it moving. No torque at low revs so couldn't pull away slowly, as soon as he got the revs up skinny little wheels just spun in the wet and we sat there. Quite funny really, got it moving eventually.

I ran my diesel Polo for 10 years and loved it, new Polo is nice too, just different. It's "horses for courses" I wouldn't condemn a diesel or petrol simply because I didn't like it. If you looked at it logically anything that does more than 70mph is a waste of money, a 1.0ltr anything would do that. But how boring would that make the world.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Flair said:


> It does, the titanium sport. I drove a black and white one at ford and they was both stunning with extra styling kit they had. They was both tricked out display models every option and the 2.0 ecoboost engine with 236bhp and 250lbs ft, the only draw back is the fancy new autobox but even with that it was no slouch and quite a pleasure to drive.


236bhp and 250lbs ft is only just on a par with the lowest of cars on that list - the 330i. That's not hot, it's reasonable... It's also a ****load heavier and bigger than the 3, comparing more in size with the 5.


----------



## TubbyTwo (Apr 14, 2011)

Problem with Diesels is you just dont get the same fun of being able to roar through the gears.

Im currently driving a TDCi Focus "sport" with a laughable 113hp. Its killing me. Have driven a remapped Bora TDi but its just not the same to me.

Diesels are a workhorse car to me nothing else, they sound horrible and just lack any sort of driving enjoyment.

For a 2nd fun car its always going to be a Petrol.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Laurie.J.M said:


> The people who say smaller engines are always more efficient need to drive some of these cars on a road before making those claims, my 1.2 Corsa does the Same MPG as my mother's 2.0 Honda CR-V automatic (about 26-28), this is not because I'm some boy racer it's because the engine isn't big enough for the car and you have to work it hard just to move. The CR-V is not much faster than my car but once you've got it up to speed it's really easy to maintain it where as my car you either have to go in a lower gear and get it up to about 4000 rpm to get the into the 'power' part of the engine (what there is it), or you can go in a higher gear and go at lower RPM but you have to mash your foot down because there's no torque. Diesels are better suited to lower RPM driving as that's where all the torque is. With most smaller petrol cars your best of going for the larger engine or the diesel with more torque.
> 
> The test's that are done to get these MPG figures are done in a sterilized laboratory on a rolling road, they follow a pre set routine where they accelerate up to certain speeds using a certain amount of throttle and changing gear at a certain RPM, and they only go as high as 50 mph which isn't very realistic. If you tried to accelerate from 0-50 mph using 1/4 throttle and changing up a 2500rpm on an actual road in most small capacity petrol cars you'd be lucky to get there, even if you did it would take forever.


You need to compare a Forced induction with a Forced induction though. You ever driven a N/A diesel? oh my, I'd rather a 1.0L British Leyland A Series engine!.

Have a go in a Polo 1.4Tsi (180bhp), 1/4 throttle will walk away from a 2.2cdti Honda at 3/4 throttle


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Gruffs said:


> But why not make that treble or 4 times by twin-charging diesel? Is it to get people back into twin charged petrol cars, then back to twin-charged diesels?


Supercharging a diesel affords nothing that a diesel seeks to achieve. They sap power constantly, producing power only when the engine requires it. A turbocharger only really creates minimal drag, and provides no obstruction when the engine is under very little loads, so effectively delivers 'free' power.

The twincharged petrol uses two small chargers - a supercharger to deliver performance, and the turbo to boost the economy. It's why the twincharged motors deliver less economy than the turbo-only equivalents.

The other factor is that the turbochargers operate based on engine load, so don't require engine speed directly to produce boost. Superchargers spool up based on engine speed, so perform more effectively over a wider range of RPMs (specifically petrol engines, as diesels rarely have this characteristic).


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Gruffs said:


> Would you like to qualify *quicker*?


Capacity vs Capacity Petrol engine will produce better results

Example: 2.0 N/A Petrol vs any 2.0 N/A Diesel in the same car

or in Forced induction, many 2.0L Petrols will produce 300bhp easily not may 3.0L forced induction Diesels get near that

A Seat Leon Cupra R with only 265bhp is quicker than any 2.0L Diesel on sale today.

I think BMW have the quickest 2.0L diesel in the 123d, great car great engine but not very powerful for a 2.0L engine.


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

robertdon777 said:


> Capacity vs Capacity Petrol engine will produce better results
> 
> Example: 2.0 N/A Petrol vs any 2.0 N/A Diesel in the same car
> 
> ...


Granted. For BHP.

Put the same comparison on a 40% incline ignoring traction from the tyres, we'll say that's infinate. Petrol still "quicker"?


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

Yes.

I had a 450bhp 2.7litre Petrol. If you can find me ANY properly road legal diesel car that could pull that incline at the same speed as that did, I'll go without alcohol for a whole week. Closest I'm aware of is the Q7 V12 TDI, which has 50 more horses and a little over 100 more torques, but weighs a shedload (nearly 1000kg more!) so I reckon it'd be a very close call... And that's over twice the capacity!


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

Here's the closest comparison I have yet found.

335i vs 335d - both 3 litre, bi-turbo sixes.

The 335i easily has the legs flat out from a start, the 335d's mega torque flings it out of bends better. Both are very good cars, they just do a similar thing rather differently - go quickly. The 335d just pips it by 0.1s, however the figures in the table show how standard cars can vary - basically they are VERY close.










I think it's four pot diesels in stuff like VAG, GM and Fords that have given common rail diesels a bad name. I had swirl flap failure at 38k miles in my otherwise excellent 1.9CDTi 150 Astra - if it hadn't been under warranty, the bill would have been horrendous. My mate's high mileage Focus (mk2 TDCi) has just had DMF failure - at least a grand in a car not worth much more than £3k. Older BMW 320ds often went pop. VAG engines are known for failure, Honda CDTis blow up gearboxes, etc, etc.

But very few six (and above) pot diesels seem to give much trouble.


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

335dAND110XS said:


> But very few six (and above) pot diesels seem to give much trouble.


Five.


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

OvlovMike said:


> Five.


Only one I can think of is the D5 in the Volvo?


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

335dAND110XS said:


> Only one I can think of is the D5 in the Volvo?


Yep, and it's frankly an epic engine. It might not be the most powerful horse in the stable but at 205bhp it's no slouch, and even more importantly I get over 50mpg combined - and the Mrs can get over 60mpg out of mine on the motorway. It's had it's mechanical foibles but none particularly spectacular and given the number of them out there pulling 1500kg+ caravans I don't think it's too bad a show!


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

I am a big fan of D5 engined Volvos - I was fairly close to getting a V50 at one point but the serious bhp and torque through the front wheels worried me (our Astra diesel with 150bhp was bad enough at times!). I really rate Volvos though - stylish, subtle, well made and able to make their fellow country-mates Saab look very silly indeed.

An XC70 with the D5 unit would be a cracking motor for most people I reckon and the C30 with it goes like merge off a shovel (I had my butt handed to me on a plate "racing" one up a long dual carriageway hill on the Astra).


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Gruffs said:


> Granted. For BHP.
> 
> Put the same comparison on a 40% incline ignoring traction from the tyres, we'll say that's infinate. Petrol still "quicker"?


Well I'd take my chances with my production standard 2.0L producing 340bhp Evo 8 vs a 2.0L Diesel 123d

I could step up to a Scooby Cosworth with 400bhp but I want to give the diesel a chance.

If we step up to 3.0L capacity the gap gets even bigger because I'm getting on for 550bhp and a production car diesel with a 3.0L will be 315bhp (A6 Diesel)

Don't care what the incline is, the petrol will be long gone.

Capacity vs Capacity the Petrol will always be quicker, not saying you can't have a quick diesel ie 335, Audi 3.0, Jag 3.0, etc. But I don't think petrol engines are dead yet, the best imho are yet to come (thinking BMW 2.0 turbos).

Remember the diesels of today are only good because of the Turbo technology, once manufacturers use the technology on petrol engines again, you will see much better petrol powered cars.


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

I think petrols are actually making a bit of a comeback. Diesel technology seems to be stalling a little, petrols seem to be advancing well.

Which 3 litre petrol kicks out 550bhp?!

Diesels are very easily re-mappable but beyond that, you can't tune them much more. Petrols can be tuned to silly figures - again the 335d gets to 350bhp/515lbs-ft with a good remap but that's it. A 335i can be modded up to nearly 500bhp. Yes it's very pricey stuff but still possible. 

Good diesels are great but they all have weaknesses.

Have to admit though that with the torque fast diesels produce, not a lot can keep up when climbing a loooong hill. Definitely the powerful diesels trump card. Robert - an FQ400 produces over 400bhp from a 2 litre ;-)


----------



## carrera2s (Jun 28, 2009)

I love petrols!

Sold a 2005 Audi S4 4.2V8 18-20mpg and fabulous
Bought 2004 BMW 535D M Sport Touring 32-35 mpg

Both auto`s

Performance wise no real differance, both great cars:thumb:


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

That was the kind of comparison i was after. Thanks



OvlovMike said:


> Yes.
> 
> I had a 450bhp 2.7litre Petrol. If you can find me ANY properly road legal diesel car that could pull that incline at the same speed as that did, I'll go without alcohol for a whole week. Closest I'm aware of is the Q7 V12 TDI, which has 50 more horses and a little over 100 more torques, but weighs a shedload (nearly 1000kg more!) so I reckon it'd be a very close call... And that's over twice the capacity!


That's practically impossible as people who buy 450bhp cars are *usually* disparaging about diesels so the market is not there and has never been exploited.
_
As i understand it, the petrol molecule is easier to vapourise than the diesel one. This means the combustion is slower and that is what limits the RPM of the engine. But, ultimately, there is more energy obtainable from combusting the diesel molecule than the petrol as it is the heavier fraction. So surely, there are more efficiency gains to be made from deveoping diesel engines than petrol?_

EDIT: Having done a bit of reading, it has more to do with the stroke needed to complete the combustion limiting the number of repetitions and therefore revolutions.

Unless, the car buying market is not determined by effciency and common sense but things like "noise"?

After all, if the object of a race is to cover the distance required in the minimum time possible, Which fuel would you use? Le Mans has done wonders for diesel tech, i wonder what F1 could do for it?


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

robertdon777 said:


> Well I'd take my chances with my production standard 2.0L producing 340bhp Evo 8 vs a 2.0L Diesel 123d
> 
> I could step up to a Scooby Cosworth with 400bhp but I want to give the diesel a chance.
> 
> ...


That is capacity versus capacity comparison granted but take your tongue out of your cheek sir!


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

335dAND110XS said:


> Which 3 litre petrol kicks out 550bhp?!
> 
> Have to admit though that with the torque fast diesels produce, not a lot can keep up when climbing a loooong hill. Definitely the powerful diesels trump card. Robert - an FQ400 produces over 400bhp from a 2 litre ;-)


Yeah but the FQ400 would never make it up the hill, the turbo would never spool up:lol:

Don't think there is a 3.0 producing that at the moment but there are 3.8's producing 600bhp and 3.6's producing 550 but you get what I mean.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Gruffs said:


> That is capacity versus capacity comparison granted but take your tongue out of your cheek sir!


OK:thumb:


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

carrera2s said:


> I love petrols!
> 
> Sold a 2005 Audi S4 4.2V8 18-20mpg and fabulous
> Bought 2004 BMW 535D M Sport Touring 32-35 mpg
> ...


Would be interesting to compare real world new S4 (superchared V6) and a 535D.

I love the 535D's but the new S4's do 30mpg and are quicker than the older 4.2 V8's.

Those 4.2 V8 S4's are bloody cheap now.


----------



## DIESEL DAVE (Jul 26, 2007)

Deano said:


> decent (big engined) petrols started to die around ten years ago as thats when fuel became daft money.


Exactly right !


----------



## gex23 (Mar 6, 2009)

I find the new breed of small displacement FI engines a little boring if i'm honest, shame the revvy NA engines seem to be a thing of the past in the current climate - so much more exciting IMO.


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

robertdon777 said:


> Would be interesting to compare real world new S4 (superchared V6) and a 535D.
> 
> I love the 535D's but the new S4's do 30mpg and are quicker than the older 4.2 V8's.
> 
> Those 4.2 V8 S4's are bloody cheap now.


Current S4 is a very decent motor and it even handles quite well.

Faster to 60 and 100 than a 535d (or even the quicker 335d ;-) ) and grippier too but many will always prefer RWD - me included.

A car I rather like is the stealthy 3.0T A6 Avant - not sure how is drives but over 300bhp and super subtle. Audis of late have annoyed me (Dad has three uR Quattros which were excellent - recent ones seem to have been marketing rather than driver led) but a couple seem to FINALLY be decent motors for those that like more than a nice dashboard.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Yeah new S4 will be a bargain at 6 years old, not as much a bargain as an Insignia VXR though.

The VXR's don't seem to produce the figures a 320bhp 4wd car should though, the S4 seems to be in a different performance league to it, whilst having much the same power etc.


----------



## TubbyTwo (Apr 14, 2011)

gex23 said:


> I find the new breed of small displacement FI engines a little boring if i'm honest, shame the revvy NA engines seem to be a thing of the past in the current climate - so much more exciting IMO.


I went to a trackday last year and got chatting to a guy with a TDi golf, was remapped, hybrid turbo this, performance exhaust, the lot.

he had spent loads and loads on it £15k+

My £2k Mr2 Turbo ruined it with the added bonus of not sounding like a broken tractor at the same time.

There is a place for diesels and that wasnt it.


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

robertdon777 said:


> Yeah new S4 will be a bargain at 6 years old, not as much a bargain as an Insignia VXR though.
> 
> The VXR's don't seem to produce the figures a 320bhp 4wd car should though, the S4 seems to be in a different performance league to it, whilst having much the same power etc.


Evo seem to rate their long termer (an estate) quite well apart from the very poor brake disk life (my Astra also had disks made of cheese). i'd much rather have an S4 though!

Tubby - an old and rather tired argument. The Golf (assuming mk4) has a poor chassis and is a FWD hatch with an "old tech" diesel.

Try similar with against a mapped 335d/123d and see how you fare. You may possibly be quicker in a straight line but the BMs won't try and fling you into a wall every time you take a bend quickly. My mate's mk2 MR2 turbo was a truly shocking little car. Quick but lethal.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Another good sleeper is the 2.8T in the Insignia (4x4 also) 260bhp but it must be de-tuned, so this is an easy 350bhp engine in what looks like a 1.9CDti package.

Cheap aswell 11K will get you an Elite model (all the nice spec bits) on an 09 plate!


----------



## carrera2s (Jun 28, 2009)

robertdon777 said:


> Would be interesting to compare real world new S4 (superchared V6) and a 535D.
> 
> I love the 535D's but the new S4's do 30mpg and are quicker than the older 4.2 V8's.
> 
> Those 4.2 V8 S4's are bloody cheap now.


Dont know about cheap! My S4 was Avant 2005 B5 with 60000 on and sold for £15000 then bought 535d for £13000 with 67000 on and mint!:thumb:


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

There's an A6 Allroad for sale (just a sign in it's window) with the 2.7T engine on an X plate near me for £2250!! Not seen the mileage (probably massive) but that's a LOT of car for the cash!!

Better watch out for those Insignias!


----------



## TubbyTwo (Apr 14, 2011)

335dAND110XS said:


> Evo seem to rate their long termer (an estate) quite well apart from the very poor brake disk life (my Astra also had disks made of cheese). i'd much rather have an S4 though!
> 
> Tubby - an old and rather tired argument. The Golf (assuming mk4) has a poor chassis and is a FWD hatch with an "old tech" diesel.
> 
> Try similar with against a mapped 335d/123d and see how you fare. You may possibly be quicker in a straight line but the BMs won't try and fling you into a wall every time you take a bend quickly. My mate's mk2 MR2 turbo was a truly shocking little car. Quick but lethal.


Not at all, I found it quite easy to drive at speed, did many a track day and never had any problems so either your mate cant drive or his was setup badly. Mine was more than capable of holding/passing considerably more expensive machinery both on straights and the twisties. It was an all round fast car, not a straight line sprinter, wheres the fun in that?

Depends what you want from a car I guess, anyone car drive their car fast in a straight line, it takes little or no skill. The amount of times I get the " you should get one and chip it, they are devestating in gear" line thrown at me its unreal. whoopie you can overtake cars in a straight line in 5th gear. Have a medal.

For info I have driven both the 335d and the 335i as friends and relatives have them and I honestly still think a 335d on track would be easy prey, Its not the best handling car I have driven tbh just an average sports coupe with a decent engine.

Would still have to pick the Petrol version over the Derv tho, personal preference, I like to use the rev range when i want to have fun. :driver:


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

carrera2s said:


> Dont know about cheap! My S4 was Avant 2005 B5 with 60000 on and sold for £15000 then bought 535d for £13000 with 67000 on and mint!:thumb:


The Avants do fetch more but that's still cheap for the amount of car it is. Many of the older ones are going for 10K.


----------



## carrera2s (Jun 28, 2009)

robertdon777 said:


> The Avants do fetch more but that's still cheap for the amount of car it is. Many of the older ones are going for 10K.


Agree older usually means cheaper!:thumb:

S4 sounded fantastic and was auto but thirsty!

535D torque is addictive and effortless overtaking.


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

TubbyTwo said:


> Not at all, I found it quite easy to drive at speed, did many a track day and never had any problems so either your mate cant drive or his was setup badly. Mine was more than capable of holding/passing considerably more expensive machinery both on straights and the twisties. It was an all round fast car, not a straight line sprinter, wheres the fun in that?
> 
> Depends what you want from a car I guess, anyone car drive their car fast in a straight line, it takes little or no skill. The amount of times I get the " you should get one and chip it, they are devestating in gear" line thrown at me its unreal. whoopie you can overtake cars in a straight line in 5th gear. Have a medal.
> 
> ...


Well if you look at the test results I posted, it gets 1:22.7 at Bruntingthorpe beating the 135i, 335i, S2000 (what I'd call a "proper" track car), Lexus ISF and many other cars I'd say should be quicker. Not bad for a soot chucker :thumb:

My mate was a decent driver who'd done a fair bit of advanced training. I've done a fair bit too and thought it was pantaloons. The mk3 MR2 however was one of the sweetest handling cars I've driven - just needed more poke.

There will ALWAYS be the "my 45 pence car beats a £200k super car" argument; Impreza owners seem particularly keen on it. But whatever the 0-60 or bhp outputs , an old battler is still an old battler. I'm not obsessed with new cars but there comes a time when a car it simple a bit too old to be desirable. Unless it becomes a classic which a mk2 MR2 will never be.

I'm not under any illusions - quick as it may be, its still a soot chucking auto hearse (it's a black estate) BUT it did 400 miles on a tank to North Wales two weeks ago and was an absolute hoot on the Llanberis pass. To arrive grinning after 400 miles of driving (with a 20 minute stop) is pretty impressive.


----------



## TubbyTwo (Apr 14, 2011)

Agree with you there on the Mk3 mr2, excellent chassis, poofs engine


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Depends who's driving too.

I swear i've never seen anything on a road as fast as a Fiesta Zetec S (new shape) the one I tried to follow the other day... 

If I'd been in an Evo fq400 that Fiesta would still of left me, purely because the driver had a death wish and didn't need his license.


----------



## TubbyTwo (Apr 14, 2011)

robertdon777 said:


> Depends who's driving too.
> 
> I swear i've never seen anything on a road as fast as a Fiesta Zetec S (new shape) the one I tried to follow the other day...
> 
> If I'd been in an Evo fq400 that Fiesta would still of left me, purely because the driver had a death wish and didn't need his license.


very true! :driver:

Probably stolen


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Probably a Diesel too!


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

TubbyTwo said:


> Agree with you there on the Mk3 mr2, excellent chassis, poofs engine


WHY didn't the use the 190bhp vvti engine from the Celica?!!!


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

robertdon777 said:


> Probably a Diesel too!


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

I remember not being able to shake a 106 GTi when in my mk4 R32 Golf - the driver was amazing and I felt very silly!

Conversely an RS6 Avant couldn't shake off in the Golf on very twisty roads - too much weight I reckon.


----------



## TubbyTwo (Apr 14, 2011)

335dAND110XS said:


> WHY didn't the use the 190bhp vvti engine from the Celica?!!!


no idea would have sold much better if they had I would think. The import only ones from Japan came with a 200hp vvti lump.


----------



## Kriminal (Jan 11, 2007)

335dAND110XS said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> *I remember not being able to shake a 106 GTi when in my mk4 R32 Golf - the driver was amazing and I felt very silly!*
> Conversely an RS6 Avant couldn't shake off in the Golf on very twisty roads - too much weight I reckon.


^ I experienced that kinda problem MANY a time in my TT. The number of cars who left me standing at the lights, and they were only puny little motors, was amazing. Could be because I was more concerned about flicking any debris of the road onto my paintwork....that's my excuse anyway


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

335dAND110XS said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> I remember not being able to shake a 106 GTi when in my mk4 R32 Golf - the driver was amazing and I felt very silly!
> 
> Conversely an RS6 Avant couldn't shake off in the Golf on very twisty roads - too much weight I reckon.


Its was a blur, it was that fast I couldn't see the badge too well, I think I closed my eyes because I thought he was going to crash:doublesho

Mind you not many things could keep up with my 1.0L Metro but I was 17 at the time with one way of driving - 45bhp flat out!!!, remember overtaking about 5 cars in 1 move on a 40mph road, I'm sure the oncoming driver didn't appreciate my skills!


----------



## DampDog (Apr 16, 2011)

335dAND110XS said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> I remember not being able to shake a 106 GTi when in my mk4 R32 Golf - the driver was amazing and I felt very silly!


That's the nub of it, no point at all in having power reserves and limpet like handling really. Actual "on road" performance is limited to way beyond what a car could do safely on a track. Even relatively modest cars will keep up with the big guys. (they won't get past, but they'll still be there) Plus "Big and powerful tends to mean 'heavy' too.


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

My first car was a 1.3 Marina. An old lady in a wheelchair could out-drag that PoS.

The 106 GTI thing definitely taught me a thing or two (the car before the R32 was a similar Saxo VTR) about driver ability levelling the playing field. The guy was about 40ish, in a car with less than half the power yet very hard to keep up with. He had serious balls on the corners, his lines were perfect and he clearly had plenty of track hours under his belt. My bellowing R32 was having a nightmare keeping up (I really was gunning it)!

However (and this sounds UTTERLY ridiculous) on my drive back from North Wales recently I encountered an AM DB9 Vantage driven by a very aggressive portly middle aged man. It's a car I've seen several times locally driving pretty badly. On a very fast, sweeping section of a local dual carriageway the road cleared and we both floored it. I won't say what speeds we hit but suffice to say it was "a lot" Could he shake me in his £140k super car? No he could not. Time and time again he floored it and we stayed level. One thing powerful soot chuckers do well is accelerate at high speeds due to large torque numbers.

The guy may have been a driving goon (I suspect he is) but it shows how a bit of driving nous can make all the difference.

I'm off to get skanked by a Perodua now...


----------



## DampDog (Apr 16, 2011)

335dAND110XS said:


> I'm off to get skanked by a Perodua now...


Rofl...:lol::lol::lol:

Perdodua "Kelisa" Gods own car...:lol::lol:

How can you not love a car that bad?

http://www.perodua.co.uk/kelisa.htm


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

It would, at the very least, be the rip roaring "Nippa..."


----------



## OvlovMike (Jul 19, 2011)

On the Mister Poo front, why couldn't they use the supercharged lump from the Corolla Compressor?


----------



## DIESEL DAVE (Jul 26, 2007)

Quickest thing I`ve had/drove was a new remapped 2.0 tdi mk 5 Golf GT 4 Motion, instant pick up and power.
Saw off some spicy motors and still could manage 50 mpg.


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

335dAND110XS said:


> Only one I can think of is the D5 in the Volvo?


Land Rover used to make a TD5 which is a lovely sounding engine:thumb:


----------



## 335dAND110XS (Dec 17, 2010)

Ross said:


> Land Rover used to make a TD5 which is a lovely sounding engine:thumb:


Errmm - I used to be a Geotec engineer and did 1000s of miles in 110 TD5s - I can't remember thinking "phwoarr this sounds a bit fruity"

I remember usually arriving at my destination half deaf and numb, doing a days work then driving back!

Mind you our TDCi engine in our 110 is pretty awful for noise and probably worse than the TD5 aurally. Works well though.


----------

