Diesel engine wrecked after MOT
jo...@coedana.plus.com
disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
about which he expressed concern at the time. It turned out to need a
new ball joint, so he took it to his (and my) regular service station
to have that done prior to returning it to the MOT station. (I have
every faith in this service station BTW, and have always had (as my
friend has) every satisfaction with them).
After replacing the ball joint, the service station drove it down the
road outside (where by its nature they could not possibly drive the
car hard) when the engine literally blew up after about 500 yards.
Bits came out through the sump and fell on the road - it really was
that bad.
One con rod bearing cap had come off (bolt failed) and that con-rod
had broken in half. It was a wreck.
I gather this is not an unknown incident with diesels following an
MOT, but I suppose it would be very hard to prove that the MOT test
procedure did it.
My friend is a 75 year old pensioner and there's no way he can find
approaching £2000 to repair the car. His daughter is a solicitor so
perhaps she can help. but is there any "case lore" that might help
him?
--
John Gruffydd (Mold, Wales, UK)
Conor
jo...@coedana.plus.com says...
> A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
> disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
> for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
> about which he expressed concern at the time.
There are warnings plastered all over MOT stations on large posters
warning of the risk of potential engine failure on ill maintained or
well worn engines during the MOT. They are revved hard but not redlined
and an engine in a reasonable state should be more than able to handle
it.
The problem you have its that the MOT station displays adequate warnings
PLUS they could argue that the vehicle was not properly maintained
since new and it is then up to you to prove it was which isn't a problem
with FSH.
--
_________________________
Conor Turton
conor....@bigfoot.com
ICQ:31909763
_________________________
Pete Lucas
> A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
> disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
> for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
> about which he expressed concern at the time.
Why? They only rev it to the engine's design-limited speed. It's
*designed* to do those revs!
> It turned out to need a
> new ball joint, so he took it to his (and my) regular service station
> to have that done prior to returning it to the MOT station. (I have
> every faith in this service station BTW, and have always had (as my
> friend has) every satisfaction with them).
>
> After replacing the ball joint, the service station drove it down the
> road outside (where by its nature they could not possibly drive the
> car hard) when the engine literally blew up after about 500 yards.
> Bits came out through the sump and fell on the road - it really was
> that bad.
>
> One con rod bearing cap had come off (bolt failed) and that con-rod
> had broken in half. It was a wreck.
>
> I gather this is not an unknown incident with diesels following an
> MOT, but I suppose it would be very hard to prove that the MOT test
> procedure did it.
IMHO if the engine is in a state where it cannot stand
being run to its' manufacturer-specified design-limited
speed, it is defective.
Your friend should be glad to have had the garage expose
this defect during the MOT, rather than have him find it
out for himself half way through an overtaking manoeuvre
on the open road, or in the outside-lane of the M25...
--
Pete Lucas, First Church of TCP/IP
"Go in peace, my child-process, and SYN no more"
N M
Conor wrote:
> In article <989cst4n2d3i3nds0...@4ax.com>,
> jo...@coedana.plus.com says...
> > A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
> > disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
> > for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
> > about which he expressed concern at the time.
> <SNIP>
>
> There are warnings plastered all over MOT stations on large posters
> warning of the risk of potential engine failure on ill maintained or
> well worn engines during the MOT. They are revved hard but not redlined
> and an engine in a reasonable state should be more than able to handle
> it.
In my experience they rev diesels until the high speed fuel cut off
restricts the fuel flow.
NM
Bagpuss
wrote:
>
>There are warnings plastered all over MOT stations on large posters
>warning of the risk of potential engine failure on ill maintained or
>well worn engines during the MOT. They are revved hard but not redlined
>and an engine in a reasonable state should be more than able to handle
>it.
>
>The problem you have its that the MOT station displays adequate warnings
>PLUS they could argue that the vehicle was not properly maintained
>since new and it is then up to you to prove it was which isn't a problem
>with FSH.
But of course if the engine is out of warranty even a FSH won't help.
If its in warranty go back to the dealer. Components fail, its a fact
of life, you can't do a strip, inspect & rebuild on a standard
sheduled service. Even if you could I doubt you could garantee that
every component would last to the next service. Hell even factory race
engines blow up and they are maticulously maintained & rebuilt or
replaced before every race generally.
PJK
<jo...@coedana.plus.com> wrote in message
news:989cst4n2d3i3nds0...@4ax.com...
> A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had
a
> disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took
it
> for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times
and
> about which he expressed concern at the time
I don't know how long the Xsara has been in production but isn't it a
fairly recent model? Did your friend buy it from new, how many miles
has it done and has it been serviced regularly?
Peter.
jo...@coedana.plus.com
wrote:
>There are warnings plastered all over MOT stations on large posters
>warning of the risk of potential engine failure on ill maintained or
>well worn engines during the MOT. They are revved hard but not redlined
>and an engine in a reasonable state should be more than able to handle
>it.
>
>The problem you have its that the MOT station displays adequate warnings
>PLUS they could argue that the vehicle was not properly maintained
>since new and it is then up to you to prove it was which isn't a problem
>with FSH.
It's an 'R' registered car with a modest mileage (about 40K) and my
friend is its second owner (bought from a Citroen dealership). He is
meticulous about having it serviced. I think we can accept that the
engine wear would be minimal. Short of running out of oil (and that
didn't happen) it's still difficult to see how a bearing cap bolt
could fail, or a con-rod break, simply due to a servicing issue.
Like you, I don't hold out a lot of hope for him unfortunately.
Bagpuss
Just a bolt with a slight imperfection in I'd guess or not correctly
tourqued up in manufacture. If the bearing cap bolt failed then that
would cause all sorts of havoc inside the engine & probably throw the
con-rod.
Has be considered a replacement breakers engine rather than a rebuild?
Or is this what the £2000 estimate would be for?
Simon Worby
wrote:
>IMHO if the engine is in a state where it cannot stand
>being run to its' manufacturer-specified design-limited
>speed, it is defective.
>
>Your friend should be glad to have had the garage expose
>this defect during the MOT, rather than have him find it
>out for himself half way through an overtaking manoeuvre
>on the open road, or in the outside-lane of the M25...
Strange - exactly those thoughts occurred to me when I read the
original post.
If you can't rev and engine up without it giving up the ghost then the
vehicle has a serious safety issue and shouldn't be on the road.
Regards,
Simon Worby
jo...@coedana.plus.com
<s...@lestac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Strange - exactly those thoughts occurred to me when I read the
>original post.
>
>If you can't rev and engine up without it giving up the ghost then the
>vehicle has a serious safety issue and shouldn't be on the road.
That point of view might be acceptable if the car was an old banger
that had covered a huge mileage as (say) a rep's car. It wasn't. It
was (and still looks) in superb condition and had covered only a
modest mileage with two private owners.
AidyF
> that had covered a huge mileage as (say) a rep's car. It wasn't. It
> was (and still looks) in superb condition and had covered only a
> modest mileage with two private owners.
That is irrelevant. Obviously the engine *wasn't* in a good condition
otherwise this wouldn't have happened. To claim against the MOT people you
would have to prove that they were negligent by revving your car, and that
that negligence caused the engine to go. IMHO there is no way you can claim
they were negligent considering they were doing their job and treating the
car in a manner it was designed for.
If they didn't blow it up, your friend would have a few days later.
Davemar
> In article <989cst4n2d3i3nds0...@4ax.com>,
> jo...@coedana.plus.com says...
> > A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
> > disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
> > for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
> > about which he expressed concern at the time.
> <SNIP>
>
> There are warnings plastered all over MOT stations on large posters
> warning of the risk of potential engine failure on ill maintained or
> well worn engines during the MOT. They are revved hard but not redlined
> and an engine in a reasonable state should be more than able to handle
> it.
And its not like the engine is even under load when they rev it.
>
> The problem you have its that the MOT station displays adequate warnings
> PLUS they could argue that the vehicle was not properly maintained
> since new and it is then up to you to prove it was which isn't a problem
> with FSH.
Its not like diesel engines rev very high anyway, I imagine the forces on
a similar sized petrol engine (which I assume in the Xsara is the XU9 series)
would be far greater if it was taken upto the revs capable in a petrol engine
(7500rpm-ish rather than ~4500-rpm).
I assume your friend has either been very unlucky with getting a factory
fault in the engine, or the previous owner did something to the engine which
it didn't like. These Pug/Citreon diesel engines have been round a long time
and are probably the most common car diesel engines around, and major things
like this are very rare.
Being a turboed engine, there is scope for people to fiddle with them to
get more power out of them by upping the boost. This sort of thing can do
some damage if it is done badly or over the top. It might be worth finding
out about as much of the history of the car as possible as despite a FSH,
it doesn't stop the engine getting abused in other ways.
Were there any tell tale noises coming from the engine beforehand?
Does the driver labour the engine a lot? While diesel engines are designed
to run at very low revs, far more so than petrol engines, a lot of labouring
puts extra wear on the bottom end. I'm sure you've all been in minicabs
where the driver sits in 3rd gear all the time, even for pulling away, and
you can hear the big-end rattling as a result.
I recently had my bottom end go (on an engine that is!) after some very high
revving (nearer 8000rpm in this case), but I knew the engine had some
overheating and very low oil incidents in the past and had been making
some naughty noises (which I had misdiagnosed...). The engine had been
looked after well, but a few little incidents had taken its durability
away. A similar thing may have happened to your friend's engine.
I'm sure if anyone really put their mind to it, they could quite easily
knacker an engine within 40k miles - F1 drivers seem rather good at it! :)
You certainly can't blame the MOT place, unless they did something else
to the engine (like drain all the oil out beforehand!) which is pretty unlikely.
I think your best bet is look for a 2nd hand engine, they should be quite
easy to pick up for a reasonable price, as they are used in most modern
Pugs and Citreons now. Just avoid those cowboys flogging recon's in
exchange and mart, you'll just end up with worse than you started with.
JNugent
> jo...@coedana.plus.com wrote:
> > A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
> > disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
> > for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
> > about which he expressed concern at the time.
> > It turned out to need a new ball joint.........
> > After replacing the ball joint, the service station drove it down the
> > road outside (where by its nature they could not possibly drive the
> > car hard) when the engine literally blew up after about 500 yards.
> > Bits came out through the sump and fell on the road - it really was
> > that bad.
> > One con rod bearing cap had come off (bolt failed) and that con-rod
> > had broken in half. It was a wreck.
> > I gather this is not an unknown incident with diesels following an
> > MOT, but I suppose it would be very hard to prove that the MOT test
> > procedure did it.
> IMHO if the engine is in a state where it cannot stand
> being run to its' manufacturer-specified design-limited
> speed, it is defective.
Does that mean that the owner deserves an immediate choice between a £2000
bill and scrapping the car?
If the MOT test cannot cope with testing engine emissions at *normal* engine
speeds, it is *very clearly* over-stringent and being applied over-zealously
and negligently. The test for diesels to be re-examined urgently (and the
emission test waived until a non-destructive testing method can be agreed).
> Your friend should be glad to have had the garage expose
> this defect during the MOT, rather than have him find it
> out for himself half way through an overtaking manoeuvre
> on the open road, or in the outside-lane of the M25...
<FX: hollow laugh>
He should be glad, eh?
Phil Bradshaw
jo...@coedana.plus.com writes
>A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
>disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
>for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
>about which he expressed concern at the time. It turned out to need a
>new ball joint, so he took it to his (and my) regular service station
>to have that done prior to returning it to the MOT station. (I have
>every faith in this service station BTW, and have always had (as my
>friend has) every satisfaction with them).
>
>After replacing the ball joint, the service station drove it down the
>road outside (where by its nature they could not possibly drive the
>car hard) when the engine literally blew up after about 500 yards.
>Bits came out through the sump and fell on the road - it really was
>that bad.
>
>One con rod bearing cap had come off (bolt failed) and that con-rod
>had broken in half. It was a wreck.
>
>I gather this is not an unknown incident with diesels following an
>MOT, but I suppose it would be very hard to prove that the MOT test
>procedure did it.
Especially as they were not involved in the driving (what sort?) when it
self-destructed.
>
>My friend is a 75 year old pensioner and there's no way he can find
>approaching Ł2000 to repair the car. His daughter is a solicitor so
>perhaps she can help. but is there any "case lore" that might help
>him?
>
If there is fault to claim against then an independent forensic
engineer's report is needed for why the rod came off and roughly in what
circumstances. For example, if someone has slopped in some oil after the
event it shows...
--
Phil Bradshaw Not in my name
Keith Walker
To be honest he has no idea how the car was treated before he owned it, and
it could well have been run low on oil (in a local mechanics not long ago who
was chatting to an AA man who had been out to a car which was off the bottom
of the dipstick on oil, yet the driver could not be bothered to top it up as
it was a company car so he was just going to wait for it to go bang). Low
oil, over revving, revving when cold, lugging the engine from low revs,
failing to run it in and any number of similar treatments can cause major
problems.
All the best
Keith
Rob Jones
Davemar <dave...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:638a08f1.01101...@posting.google.com...
> Conor <conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.16304072...@news.claranews.com>...
> > In article <989cst4n2d3i3nds0...@4ax.com>,
> > jo...@coedana.plus.com says...
> > > A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
> > > disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
> > > for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
> > > about which he expressed concern at the time.
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > There are warnings plastered all over MOT stations on large posters
> > warning of the risk of potential engine failure on ill maintained or
> > well worn engines during the MOT. They are revved hard but not redlined
> > and an engine in a reasonable state should be more than able to handle
> > it.
>
> And its not like the engine is even under load when they rev it.
Why not ask the garage for the name of their insurers and policy number and
submit a claim. You've got two chances.
I drive a diesel and know for a fact that diesels are not designed to be
revved when not under load. My govenor kicks in at 4500 ish when on the road
under load but around the 5000 mark on the MOT test when not under load.
Its a farce!!
Steve Walker
"JNugent" <JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9q769l$jsk$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> If the MOT test cannot cope with testing engine emissions at *normal*
engine
> speeds, it is *very clearly* over-stringent and being applied
over-zealously
> and negligently.
Revving within the onboard limiter is normal. That's what happens in road
use too.
> The test for diesels to be re-examined urgently (and the
> emission test waived until a non-destructive testing method can be
agreed).
In your dreams.........
Conor
JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk says...
>
> If the MOT test cannot cope with testing engine emissions at *normal* engine
> speeds, it is *very clearly* over-stringent and being applied over-zealously
> and negligently.
Unfortunately with diesels its not as simple as that. There are quite a
few things that can only show up under heavy throttle..partially
blocked fuel filters being one of them ( the engine burns engine oil if
it can't get sufficient diesel) ..which severly alter the pollution
levels. We've all seen diesels that chuck out loads of black soot under
acceleration yet these would pass on an "idle only" test.
Conor
old.demon.co.uk says...
> For example, if someone has slopped in some oil after the
> event it shows...
It always amazes me that siezed engines have the exact amount of clean
fresh oil in them they require.
nss
> > > In article <989cst4n2d3i3nds0...@4ax.com>,
> > > jo...@coedana.plus.com says...
> > > > A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had
a
> > > > disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took
it
> > > > for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times
and
> > > > about which he expressed concern at the time.
> > > <SNIP>
I took my diesel for MOT recently and yet again I gritted my teeth as I
witnessed my engine being revved way beyond its intended MAXIMUM limit.
Without any doubt the current diesel emissions tests will cause engine
damage.The MOT testers and diesel engine manufacturers cannot fail to be
aware that revving a diesel engine freely (ie. under no load) and relying on
the mechanical governor will undoubtedly result in some degree of engine
damage due to hysteresis (delay) in the governor system cutting off the fuel
to the engine. Such damage of course may only later manifest itself in
engine failure, probably when the engine is put under heavy load as in for
example accelerating to overtake a vehicle, accelerating out of a busy
junction etc...engine failure could prove fatal. IMHO.
Why on earth can't they use a portable emissions analyser that they can put
in the car and drive it around the block a couple of times???
Less future garage business..less engine failures........maybe?
nss
"nss" <seymoore....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:9q85ek$qdp$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
during the test and bring the revs up SLOWLY and let them down slowly?
Phil Bradshaw
<conor....@bigfoot.com> writes
>In article <8cAMfAAh...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>, phil@brads-
>old.demon.co.uk says...
>
>> For example, if someone has slopped in some oil after the
>> event it shows...
>
>It always amazes me that siezed engines have the exact amount of clean
>fresh oil in them they require.
>
dat de one :-)
Simon Worby
>That point of view might be acceptable if the car was an old banger
>that had covered a huge mileage as (say) a rep's car. It wasn't. It
>was (and still looks) in superb condition and had covered only a
>modest mileage with two private owners.
What difference does it make whether it's 2 years old, or 20? Fact is,
if it's unsafe, it's unsafe.
Simon Worby
Simon Worby
wrote:
>If they didn't blow it up, your friend would have a few days later.
Unless, of course, he never bothered revving it up anyway! Seems to be
a bit of a trait amongst diesel car drivers - no wonder they get so
many to the gallon...
Regards,
Simon Worby
Simon Worby
<steve-...@invalid.net> wrote:
>Revving within the onboard limiter is normal. That's what happens in road
>use too.
... usually just at the point where the unwitting
usually-drive-a-petrol car driver is expecting the power to start
cutting in!
Regards,
Simon Worby
David Pipes
<s...@lestac.demon.co.uk> writes
as my modified 16V GTI ever did but it gives around twice the mpg when
thrashed.
Drive diesel - you know it makes sense....
--
DP
'97 A4 TDI 110SE
da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk
Conor
seymoore....@btopenworld.com says...
> I took my diesel for MOT recently and yet again I gritted my teeth as I
> witnessed my engine being revved way beyond its intended MAXIMUM limit.
It must be faulty then as they all have governors in them to limit the
max revs..
Simon Hobson
(in message <9q86hv$8e6$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>):
> Just another small point, why don't they fit a tachometer to the engine
> during the test and bring the revs up SLOWLY and let them down slowly?
Because that would make the test a waste of time. The whole point of the
current test is to measure the maximum smoke density AT MAXIMUM POWER.
Ny revving from idle to max at max power, you get to measure pretty well the
worst case smoke. If you increase revs gently, then you only ever use part
power and don't get any sensible measurement of smoke emmisions.
The whole point is to get the worst smokers off the road.
Simon
JNugent
> nss wrote (in message <9q86hv$8e6$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>):
> > Just another small point, why don't they fit a tachometer to the engine
> > during the test and bring the revs up SLOWLY and let them down slowly?
> Because that would make the test a waste of time.
Really? Is it the purpose of the test to do as much damage as possible and
cost the owner of the vehicle hundreds of pounds, then?
> The whole point of the
> current test is to measure the maximum smoke density AT MAXIMUM POWER.
In that case, it has nothing to do with real world road conditions. Thank
you for confirming that.
> Ny revving from idle to max at max power, you get to measure pretty well
the
> worst case smoke. If you increase revs gently, then you only ever use part
> power and don't get any sensible measurement of smoke emmisions.
> The whole point is to get the worst smokers off the road.
..."the worst smokers" being defined as what (other than buses, I mean)?
The test clearly does not even begin to look for "the worst smokers", and it
seems aimed at "testing" [sic] emissions under conditions which simply
cannot occur on the road (engine speeding up from tickover to full speed in
a few seconds *never happens* in the real world).
Conor
JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk says...
> The test clearly does not even begin to look for "the worst smokers", and it
> seems aimed at "testing" [sic] emissions under conditions which simply
> cannot occur on the road (engine speeding up from tickover to full speed in
> a few seconds *never happens* in the real world).
>
Roger Mills
nothing to supply a load (i.e. resistance to motion), other than the
engine's own rotational inertia.
Roger
JNugent
> JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk says...
> > The test clearly does not even begin to look for "the worst smokers",
and it
> > seems aimed at "testing" [sic] emissions under conditions which simply
> > cannot occur on the road (engine speeding up from tickover to full speed
in
> > a few seconds *never happens* in the real world).
> Actually the test is for emission levels during heavy acceleration.
..then that is exactly what it should test - on the road, under load.
nss
"Simon Hobson" <si...@no-spam.ccomms.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01HW.B7EE254A0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Simon,
Do you agree that the current MOT emissions test is a farce?
Or do you think 'flooring' the accelerator and revving the engine to the
max.. is something the designers had in mind, to test its 'efficiency'?
>
nss
> In article <9q85ek$qdp$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> seymoore....@btopenworld.com says...
>
> > I took my diesel for MOT recently and yet again I gritted my teeth as I
> > witnessed my engine being revved way beyond its intended MAXIMUM limit.
>
> It must be faulty then as they all have governors in them to limit the
> max revs..
Ok [sarcastically] I agree with you Con..er.
Of course we should rev *any* and every engine to the MAX.
Jet aircraft engines should at least be able to rev to twice operational
speed and of course guns should be 'proofed' to the max as well. Everything
should obviously be tested to destruction and why not ... we can always
re-build.........after all.
nss
> In article <8cAMfAAh...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>, phil@brads-
> old.demon.co.uk says...
>
> > For example, if someone has slopped in some oil after the
> > event it shows...
>
> It always amazes me that siezed engines have the exact amount of clean
> fresh oil in them they require.
Strange indeed, unless the engine seized due to for example, cam belt/pulley
failure...perhaps?
My own M reg TD cam belt tensioner pulley failed, luckily without any
apparent engine damage, when the plastic shrouded belt tension pulley [the
plastic outer] gave up the ghost.
Sensible that, with our current plastics technology,.......a plastic engine
part.
Conor
says...
> Ok [sarcastically] I agree with you Con..er.
>
> Of course we should rev *any* and every engine to the MAX.
>
> Jet aircraft engines should at least be able to rev to twice operational
> speed and of course guns should be 'proofed' to the max as well. Everything
> should obviously be tested to destruction and why not ... we can always
> re-build.........after all.
>
SHITHEAD..Don't take the piss out of my name.
Bit of a clueless one aren't you? I'll explain. Diesel engines have
governors fitted, either mechanical or electronic, to restrict the rev
level they can go up to and this is set below the top redline of the
engine. This is because diesel engines can run on engine oil to a point
at high temp when they are worn. Without a governor a worn diesel engine
would rev its balls off until it siezed.
Oh and just a point for further reference..things are tested to
destruction..guns and aircraft engines included.
Conor
says...
>
> "Conor" <conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1631884ee...@news.claranews.com...
> > In article <8cAMfAAh...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>, phil@brads-
> > old.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> > > For example, if someone has slopped in some oil after the
> > > event it shows...
> >
> > It always amazes me that siezed engines have the exact amount of clean
> > fresh oil in them they require.
>
> Strange indeed, unless the engine seized due to for example, cam belt/pulley
> failure...perhaps?
>
them up before the mechanic gets to them in an effort to absolve
themselves from responsibility.
If you had worked on cars for a living you'd know what I mean.
Mark Roberts
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>> Actually the test is for emission levels during heavy acceleration.
>
Surely it doesn't take the volume of injected fuel used at <50 bhp on
the road to blow the engine while it is in neutral.
If any diesel engine was governed to prevent damage at no load
revolutions it wouldn't go very fast on the road; no?
--
Mark
nss
> In article <9q85ek$qdp$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> seymoore....@btopenworld.com says...
>
> > I took my diesel for MOT recently and yet again I gritted my teeth as I
> > witnessed my engine being revved way beyond its intended MAXIMUM limit.
>
> It must be faulty then as they all have governors in them to limit the
> max revs..
ONLY under load, Conner. As you must be aware. The current disel engine
governor will not stop you free revving the engine to destruction. If you
got a diesel car bring it 'round and I'll show you how and why.but you'll be
walking home:-(
nss
A whole day or 2 or 3 or more, to rev Con ners disel till the con rods
popped out or the timing belt snapped or jumped a sprocket
YeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaa
Or the guvnor caught a bad dose of hysteresis.....
Why not test petrol engines likewise.........?
Its the Garage business for me from now on.........loadsamoney.. loadsamoney
Simon Worby
<Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Not this diesel driver, my chipped Audi TDI gets redlined just as often
>as my modified 16V GTI ever did but it gives around twice the mpg when
>thrashed.
A bit (well, a lot!) OT, but how many bhp do you get out of the Audi?
What's the capacity?
Thanks,
Simon
David Husband
<conor....@bigfoot.com> writes
>Oh and just a point for further reference..things are tested to
>destruction..guns and aircraft engines included.
Yes, it's called "destructive testing" !
As an example it is done to new cars during the "type approval" process
where, amongst other things, they are crashed into big lumps of concrete
at varying speeds.
And I spend my working hours trying to "break" complicated software.
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset, United Kingdom
Conor
seymoore....@btopenworld.com says...
> ONLY under load, Conner. As you must be aware. The current disel engine
> governor will not stop you free revving the engine to destruction.
They will but you go quite into the red before the governor cuts in and
most people bottle out first.
N M
nss wrote:
I think you are wrong,
Firstly, I notice from the Citroen Diesel Engine Haynes Manual that there is a
quoted 'no load' maximum speed at which point the fuel cuts off,
Secondly, I know from experience Heavy Truck motors will not rev above the no
load maximum however long or hard the pedal is floored.
Thirdly. The only way I know to over rev a diesel (apart from pissing around
with the pump settings) is to speed downhill in a low gear to a point where the
weight of the vehicle overcomes the fuel cut off.
Regards
NM
David Pipes
<s...@lestac.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:12:26 +0100, David Pipes
><Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Not this diesel driver, my chipped Audi TDI gets redlined just as often
>>as my modified 16V GTI ever did but it gives around twice the mpg when
>>thrashed.
>
>A bit (well, a lot!) OT, but how many bhp do you get out of the Audi?
>What's the capacity?
1.9 litre
Alasdair Baxter
>A close friend of mine (who is not internet connected) has just had a
>disastrous experience with his Citroen Xsara turbo diesel. He took it
>for an MOT, during which the engine was revved hard several times and
>about which he expressed concern at the time. It turned out to need a
>new ball joint, so he took it to his (and my) regular service station
>to have that done prior to returning it to the MOT station. (I have
>every faith in this service station BTW, and have always had (as my
>friend has) every satisfaction with them).
>
>After replacing the ball joint, the service station drove it down the
>road outside (where by its nature they could not possibly drive the
>car hard) when the engine literally blew up after about 500 yards.
>Bits came out through the sump and fell on the road - it really was
>that bad.
To make a successful claim against the MOT station, you would have to
show that they were negligent in the way they tested the car. There
is a Tester's Manual published by the Department of Transport which
sets out in detail how these tests are to be carried out. If the
station acted within these guidelines, you have a very weak case
against them.
Strange as it may seem, you may have a claim against your car's
insurer under the head of "accidental damage". If you can show that
the car was well maintained, this event is every bit as much an
accident as a wheel coming off at speed. Read the wording of the
policy very carefully. I have heard of a case where a motorist
decided to drain the oil from the sump of his car and leave it
overnight without the stopper to drain completely. During the night
someone started the engine with a view to sealing the vehicle. The
engine was ruined and the insurer paid out for a factory reconditioned
engine on the basis of the "theft" provisions in the policy.
>
>One con rod bearing cap had come off (bolt failed) and that con-rod
>had broken in half. It was a wreck.
>
>I gather this is not an unknown incident with diesels following an
>MOT, but I suppose it would be very hard to prove that the MOT test
>procedure did it.
>
>My friend is a 75 year old pensioner and there's no way he can find
>approaching Ł2000 to repair the car. His daughter is a solicitor so
>perhaps she can help. but is there any "case lore" that might help
>him?
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
Simon Worby
<Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>A bit (well, a lot!) OT, but how many bhp do you get out of the Audi?
>143bhp
>>What's the capacity?
>1.9 litre
... which is 75 bhp / litre and around 120 bhp / ton, isn't it?
The former figure is less than many modern normally-aspirated petrol
cars (and wouldn't get close to anything blown - don't Audi get 125
bhp / litre in the TT?) whilst the latter figure is okay but certainly
isn't going to have your average GTi driver quaking in his boots.
I can only conclude that the thrill of such a car (and I hear
souped-up ones aren't cheap) must be the combination of
slightly-better-than-mediocre performance combined with
much-better-than-average fuel economy.
Unfortunately I've never driven one.
Regards,
Simon
PS: Not really sure what the point of this post is; I suppose I'm just
trying to get my head around just why *anyone* would buy a "sporty"
diesel. It's just that one doesn't associate the desire for speed /
acceleration with much concern about mpg figures.
David Pipes
<s...@lestac.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:08:13 +0100, David Pipes
><Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>A bit (well, a lot!) OT, but how many bhp do you get out of the Audi?
>>143bhp
>>>What's the capacity?
>>1.9 litre
>
>... which is 75 bhp / litre and around 120 bhp / ton, isn't it?
>
>The former figure is less than many modern normally-aspirated petrol
>cars (and wouldn't get close to anything blown - don't Audi get 125
>bhp / litre in the TT?)
> whilst the latter figure is okay but certainly
>isn't going to have your average GTi driver quaking in his boots.
Why would I want to do that?
>
>I can only conclude that the thrill of such a car (and I hear
>souped-up ones aren't cheap) must be the combination of
>slightly-better-than-mediocre performance combined with
>much-better-than-average fuel economy.
Performance and economy were not the only criteria I considered when
buying it.
>
>Unfortunately I've never driven one.
Obviously.
>
>Regards,
>
>Simon
>
>PS: Not really sure what the point of this post is; I suppose I'm just
>trying to get my head around just why *anyone* would buy a "sporty"
>diesel.
It's not difficult - try harder.
> It's just that one doesn't associate the desire for speed /
>acceleration with much concern about mpg figures.
*You* don't, others might.
Simon Worby
<Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>The former figure is less than many modern normally-aspirated petrol
>>cars (and wouldn't get close to anything blown - don't Audi get 125
>>bhp / litre in the TT?)
>No idea, is it relevant?
In the sense that it appears to be difficult to get any reasonable
amount of power out of a diesel engine.
>> whilst the latter figure is okay but certainly
>>isn't going to have your average GTi driver quaking in his boots.
>Why would I want to do that?
Why would you spend a lot making a car go quicker (or buying a
relatively quick diesel in the first place) if you didn't want it to
go quickly?
>>I can only conclude that the thrill of such a car (and I hear
>>souped-up ones aren't cheap) must be the combination of
>>slightly-better-than-mediocre performance combined with
>>much-better-than-average fuel economy.
>Performance and economy were not the only criteria I considered when
>buying it.
That's precisely where I was hoping you might enlighten me. You don't
seem to be keen on that idea, and I have no idea why...
>>PS: Not really sure what the point of this post is; I suppose I'm just
>>trying to get my head around just why *anyone* would buy a "sporty"
>>diesel.
>It's not difficult - try harder.
I've tried and failed. So tell me your reasons.
>> It's just that one doesn't associate the desire for speed /
>>acceleration with much concern about mpg figures.
>*You* don't, others might.
What is this - a game of "I bet you can't guess why I like my car"?
I'm genuinely interested; my questions weren't intended to wind you
up, nor are these. Why buy one of these things?
Mudge
>In article <o2vjst4nuanv2qhei...@4ax.com>, Simon Worby
><s...@lestac.demon.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:08:13 +0100, David Pipes
>><Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>A bit (well, a lot!) OT, but how many bhp do you get out of the Audi?
>>>143bhp
>>>>What's the capacity?
>>>1.9 litre
>>
>>... which is 75 bhp / litre and around 120 bhp / ton, isn't it?
>>
>>The former figure is less than many modern normally-aspirated petrol
>>cars (and wouldn't get close to anything blown - don't Audi get 125
>>bhp / litre in the TT?)
>No idea, is it relevant?
>
>> whilst the latter figure is okay but certainly
>>isn't going to have your average GTi driver quaking in his boots.
>Why would I want to do that?
>>
>>I can only conclude that the thrill of such a car (and I hear
>>souped-up ones aren't cheap) must be the combination of
>>slightly-better-than-mediocre performance combined with
>>much-better-than-average fuel economy.
>Performance and economy were not the only criteria I considered when
>buying it.
>>
>>Unfortunately I've never driven one.
>Obviously.
>>
>>trying to get my head around just why *anyone* would buy a "sporty"
>>diesel.
>It's not difficult - try harder.
>
>> It's just that one doesn't associate the desire for speed /
>>acceleration with much concern about mpg figures.
>
>*You* don't, others might.
And for many people who do large annual mileages it's a simple question of
economics.
But now you don't need to abandon any hope of driving enjoyment when
choosing a diesel, and the mid-range acceleration of modern turbodiesels
leaves equivalent petrol cars trailing in their wake (although, as I have
mentioned previously, I no longer have one myself)
If you tried one, you might be pleasantly surprised.
(x-post added to uk.r.c.m)
--
Peter
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
(Edmund Burke)
Networkguy
> economics.
>
> But now you don't need to abandon any hope of driving enjoyment when
> choosing a diesel, and the mid-range acceleration of modern turbodiesels
> leaves equivalent petrol cars trailing in their wake (although, as I have
> mentioned previously, I no longer have one myself)
>
> If you tried one, you might be pleasantly surprised.
It's not just economics.
I drive a Volvo S70 TDi. I believe it uses a variant of the Audi engine.
Kicks out just short of 150-bhp and 230 lb ft torque (that's the important
bit, the T5 only delivers 199 lb ft, the Subaru WRX gives 215 lb ft).
I spend all my time on the motorway (well most of it).
When I came to buy the car, I was looking for a T5 and took it for a test
drive. Great car and a great thirst for fuel as well. Whilst I was at the
dealer, I saw the TDi on the forecourt. It looked the same and had more toys
yet claimed 45-mpg so I borrowed it for a day.
Away from the lights, it is not as quick at the T5 but it isn't bad (0 to 60
in 9 seconds) but once moving it is awesome. Diesels tend to be more relaxed
on the motorway anyway due to the fact that the engine is doing less revs.
But it really comes into its own on the motorway. You can be sitting in 5th
gear at 60-mph, put your foot down and be doing well over 100 in seconds. In
this scenario, most petrol engined cars are all over the gearbox trying to
keep up.
I know that in this scenario, I can leave for dead, the T5, any Subaru and
the Porsche Boxter until I get well over the 100 mark and not even have to
change gear.
On top of this, I still average 42mpg.
Now before anybody starts, I do spend a lot of time in Europe so when I talk
about driving over 100, I am not doing it in the UK. My licence is worth too
much.
So it depends what you want.
If you want to be first away from the lights around town, then you may be
disappointed. If on the other hand you want loads of acceleration on the
open road then a diesel may well do a better job than a petrol.
Why not borrow one for a few days. If you only take it for a 20 minute test
drive, you will not understand as you do have to change your driving style
in a diesel and this will take half a day on its own. You need to understand
where the turbo kicks in etc.
Bagpuss
wrote:
>In article <9qai32$9op$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, n...@btinternet.com
>says...
>>
>> "Conor" <conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1631884ee...@news.claranews.com...
>> > In article <8cAMfAAh...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>, phil@brads-
>> > old.demon.co.uk says...
>> >
>> > > For example, if someone has slopped in some oil after the
>> > > event it shows...
>> >
>> > It always amazes me that siezed engines have the exact amount of clean
>> > fresh oil in them they require.
>>
>> Strange indeed, unless the engine seized due to for example, cam belt/pulley
>> failure...perhaps?
>>
>What I meant is that when engines sieze from lack of oil people fill
>them up before the mechanic gets to them in an effort to absolve
>themselves from responsibility.
>
>If you had worked on cars for a living you'd know what I mean.
I also read in the thread, maticulously maitained....ball joint needed
replacing. These two sound a little mutually exclusive to me, unless
the problem with the ball joint was marginal.
Mudge
>On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:25:12 +0100, David Pipes
><Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>The former figure is less than many modern normally-aspirated petrol
>>>cars (and wouldn't get close to anything blown - don't Audi get 125
>>>bhp / litre in the TT?)
>>No idea, is it relevant?
>
>In the sense that it appears to be difficult to get any reasonable
>amount of power out of a diesel engine.
Clearly the people who design trucks, buses, railway locomotives, ships and
generator sets disagree with this statement.
And while the peak power of a diesel is often less than that of an
equivalent petrol engine, they deliver more power lower down the rev range
where it is likely to be more usable and accessible in normal driving
situations.
Dave Plowman
Mudge <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >In the sense that it appears to be difficult to get any reasonable
> >amount of power out of a diesel engine.
> Clearly the people who design trucks, buses, railway locomotives, ships
> and generator sets disagree with this statement.
Many of these run at a fairly constant speed. And aren't concerned about
driver enjoyment.
--
* Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
David Pipes
<s...@lestac.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:25:12 +0100, David Pipes
><Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>The former figure is less than many modern normally-aspirated petrol
>>>cars (and wouldn't get close to anything blown - don't Audi get 125
>>>bhp / litre in the TT?)
>>No idea, is it relevant?
>
>In the sense that it appears to be difficult to get any reasonable
>amount of power out of a diesel engine.
everything, torque is desirable too.
>
>>> whilst the latter figure is okay but certainly
>>>isn't going to have your average GTi driver quaking in his boots.
>>Why would I want to do that?
>
>Why would you spend a lot making a car go quicker (or buying a
>relatively quick diesel in the first place) if you didn't want it to
>go quickly?
B) 'Going quickly (or quicker)' and making an average GTI quake in his
boots are not necessarily the same thing - though I'm still unsure why
you thought I might have the remotest interest in doing so.
>
>>>I can only conclude that the thrill of such a car (and I hear
>>>souped-up ones aren't cheap) must be the combination of
>>>slightly-better-than-mediocre performance combined with
>>>much-better-than-average fuel economy.
>>Performance and economy were not the only criteria I considered when
>>buying it.
>
>That's precisely where I was hoping you might enlighten me.
I bought an Audi because the shell is galvanised and the idea of a rust
free car is rather appealing.
I bought an A4 because I spent several years reporting on and
photographing Audi's campaign in the British Touring Car and German
Touring Car Championships during which time I drove several variants of
the A4 road car, both petrol and diesel, two-wheel and four-wheel drive,
including taking some on rather rapid laps of the Nurburgring (during
which I passed two Porsches - not bad for a diesel estate [quattro
admittedly]). As a result, I was impressed by the A4's build,
performance, comfort etc.
When the time came to change my car (a modified Golf 2 GTD which was
quick enough over a quarter mile to beat a Golf GTI 8V), I thought the
car which had so impressed me during my time as a journalist would be a
good buy - and it has been.
>You don't
>seem to be keen on that idea, and I have no idea why...
Not at all, you merely mentioned 'thrill' whereas I don't think that
word crossed my mind when choosing the car.
>
>>>PS: Not really sure what the point of this post is; I suppose I'm just
>>>trying to get my head around just why *anyone* would buy a "sporty"
>>>diesel.
>>It's not difficult - try harder.
>
>I've tried and failed. So tell me your reasons.
See below.
>
>>> It's just that one doesn't associate the desire for speed /
>>>acceleration with much concern about mpg figures.
>>*You* don't, others might.
>
>What is this - a game of "I bet you can't guess why I like my car"?
>I'm genuinely interested; my questions weren't intended to wind you
>up, nor are these.
You didn't ask any questions. Now that you have, I've answered them.
>Why buy one of these things?
Summary: adequate performance from engine and brakes for my needs. I
find the suspension too soft but have compromised on that as I
occasionally carry my parents who would not appreciate a firmer ride.
Comfort for the long motorway and autobahn journeys I do, safety
features, build quality, ergonomics, style, air conditioning, luggage
capacity. Plus fuel economy of course.
Nick Finnigan
news:9qeg8d$3ai$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> And while the peak power of a diesel is often less than that of an
> equivalent petrol engine, they deliver more power lower down the rev range
> where it is likely to be more usable and accessible in normal driving
> situations.
Any example numbers please? (I'll accept the ratio of
power to cc so that we can more easily match aspiration
and injection methods, and the only difference is the fuel).
Julian
"Networkguy" <news@network##NOSPAM##guy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:100313873...@hebe.uk.clara.net...
> > And for many people who do large annual mileages it's a simple question
of
> > economics.
> >
> > But now you don't need to abandon any hope of driving enjoyment when
> > choosing a diesel, and the mid-range acceleration of modern turbodiesels
> > leaves equivalent petrol cars trailing in their wake (although, as I
have
> > mentioned previously, I no longer have one myself)
> >
> > If you tried one, you might be pleasantly surprised.
>
> It's not just economics.
>
> I drive a Volvo S70 TDi. I believe it uses a variant of the Audi engine.
> Kicks out just short of 150-bhp and 230 lb ft torque (that's the important
> bit, the T5 only delivers 199 lb ft, the Subaru WRX gives 215 lb ft).
>
thinking of the standard light pressure turbo with 199lb ft.
> I spend all my time on the motorway (well most of it).
>
> When I came to buy the car, I was looking for a T5 and took it for a test
> drive. Great car and a great thirst for fuel as well. Whilst I was at the
> dealer, I saw the TDi on the forecourt. It looked the same and had more
toys
> yet claimed 45-mpg so I borrowed it for a day.
>
> Away from the lights, it is not as quick at the T5 but it isn't bad (0 to
60
> in 9 seconds) but once moving it is awesome. Diesels tend to be more
relaxed
> on the motorway anyway due to the fact that the engine is doing less revs.
> But it really comes into its own on the motorway. You can be sitting in
5th
> gear at 60-mph, put your foot down and be doing well over 100 in seconds.
In
> this scenario, most petrol engined cars are all over the gearbox trying to
> keep up.
>
60 to 100 in seconds? How many? The T5 is quicker than your TD 60 to 100 mph
in top gear according to Volvo. I'm sure it feels very fast though.
> I know that in this scenario, I can leave for dead, the T5, any Subaru and
> the Porsche Boxter until I get well over the 100 mark and not even have to
> change gear.
>
Yours must be much faster than a standard S70 TDi then. All the cars you
list have more torque per kg than your TDi:
S70 TDi - 6.8kg per lb-ft max torque at 3000rpm
T5 - 6.44kg per lb-ft max torque at 2400rpm
Impreza Turbo - 6.28kg per lb-ft max torque at 3600rpm
Boxster - 6.56kg per lb-ft max torque at 4750rpm.
I note that the latest version of your engine puts out another 20lb-ft over
what you quote, but I have used your figures.
Certainly the road test figures don't show a TDi leaving the cars you list
for dead. Perhaps they back off to avoid your smoke?
Julian.
TheFatBoy
> 60 to 100 in seconds? How many? The T5 is quicker than your TD 60 to 100
mph
> in top gear according to Volvo. I'm sure it feels very fast though.
[snippage]
> Certainly the road test figures don't show a TDi leaving the cars you list
> for dead. Perhaps they back off to avoid your smoke?
Wow, look at that - condescension on a newsgroup. Who'd have thought it?
DervMan
To a lesser degree, that's true of all turbodiesels. The Mk. 1 Mondeo TD,
not exactly a model example of the genre, is *far* more flexible and pokey
at 60 mph than the equivalent power 1.6 petrol Mondeo. It's quicker than
the 1.8, V6 and the ordinary 2.0 models, but the Si has lower gearing which
helps it a bit. All this and 44 mpg.
> I know that in this scenario, I can leave for dead, the T5, any Subaru and
> the Porsche Boxter until I get well over the 100 mark and not even have to
> change gear.
>
> On top of this, I still average 42mpg.
>
> Now before anybody starts, I do spend a lot of time in Europe so when I
talk
> about driving over 100, I am not doing it in the UK. My licence is worth
too
> much.
>
> So it depends what you want.
>
> If you want to be first away from the lights around town, then you may be
> disappointed. If on the other hand you want loads of acceleration on the
> open road then a diesel may well do a better job than a petrol.
Or offers the same acceleration with much fewer gear changes . . .
> Why not borrow one for a few days. If you only take it for a 20 minute
test
> drive, you will not understand as you do have to change your driving style
> in a diesel and this will take half a day on its own. You need to
understand
> where the turbo kicks in etc.
Have I not been saying the above for years?
Unfortunately, and this is no offence to petrol heads, some people just have
to drive "chasing revs" and it doesn't matter if the engine produces the
best acceleration between 2,000 and 3,500 rpm, if the needle hits red at
4,750 rpm that's where they'll change up . . .
--
The DervMan
ICQ: 127655772
E-mail Anti-Spam Measures in force.
DervMan
> > >amount of power out of a diesel engine.
>
> > Clearly the people who design trucks, buses, railway locomotives, ships
> > and generator sets disagree with this statement.
>
> Many of these run at a fairly constant speed. And aren't concerned about
> driver enjoyment.
Since when do you need to chase 8,500 rpm (this side of a Type R ricemobile)
for "entertainment?"
DervMan
> > equivalent petrol engine, they deliver more power lower down the rev
range
> > where it is likely to be more usable and accessible in normal driving
> > situations.
>
> Any example numbers please? (I'll accept the ratio of
> power to cc so that we can more easily match aspiration
> and injection methods, and the only difference is the fuel).
You'll usually always squeeze more power per litre from a petrol, and most
manufacturers sell a turbodiesel next to a NA petrol model, but the Golf
range serves as a useful bunch . . .
You have the GTI Turbo, with 150 PS and 209 Nm from a 1.8 litre turbo, or 83
PSl and 116 Nml. Output per litre of 200.
The new GTI PD TD 130 produces 130 PS and 308 Nm from a 1.9 litre turbo, or
68 PSl and 162 Nml. OPL of 230.
Okay, so the VAG group does produce a 225 PS 1.8 litre unit, which obtains
125 PSl and 155 Nml, and an OPL of 280. This engine is only used in the
Audi TT (AFAIK). Or the 180 PS version, used in the Seat and Skoda range
too, with 100 PSl and 130 Nml, OPL of 230.
So, yes, road going petrol engines can produce more power and torque from a
given capacity, but this doesn't make them more efficient. You'd go 35%
further using the TDI130 engine compared to the 180 PS turbo engine . . .
Now if you'd like me to compare a model lineup, we can look at the new
Mondeo. Ford currently sell two 2.0 engines, the DI and the petrol.
The DI: PSl of 58, Nml of 140, OPl of 198. Oh, and 47.9 mpg.
The Petrol: PSl of 73, Nml of 95, OPl of 168 and 35.8 mpg.
The diesel is both more economical and extracts more from a given engine
size. I've not driven a 2.0 petrol new Mondeo, but I can assure you that
the diesel pulls very well at motorway speeds, despite being geared at about
30 mph / 1000 rpm.
Julian
"TheFatBoy" <gr...@gfield.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tDCy7.9142$bO4.175775@stones...
>
Julian
"DervMan" <der...@boshing.intercooled.goodo.turbocharged.diesel.com.uk>
wrote in message news:tsm0f3c...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >In the sense that it appears to be difficult to get any reasonable
> > > >amount of power out of a diesel engine.
> >
> > > Clearly the people who design trucks, buses, railway locomotives,
ships
> > > and generator sets disagree with this statement.
> >
> > Many of these run at a fairly constant speed. And aren't concerned
about
> > driver enjoyment.
>
> Since when do you need to chase 8,500 rpm (this side of a Type R
ricemobile)
> for "entertainment?"
>
Enjoying driving is not about power or torque or lateral G or anything you
can measure with numbers. It is all about how quickly and accurately a car
can respond to your inputs. A good petrol engine has a scalpel-precise
throttle which allows the power to be placed exactly where and when the
driver wants. Even the best diesels have on/off throttles and respond
similarly irrespective of throttle opening.
If you want save some money you can convince yourself that diesels are fun,
but only because that's what you've bought. I've had both and while diesels
are OK for tooling about, you'd never get up at 5am on a Sunday to hit some
Welsh mountain roads with one.
They're economically viable transport and not nearly such a chore to drive
as they used to be, but please stop trying to tell us they are as
entertaining as a good petrol powered performance car.
Count your pennies and be happy with that.
Julian.
TheFatBoy
it?
> >
> If you've nothing worthwhile to add. . . . .
Fuck off? Yeah, I was trying to get that message across to you... Woulda
been a whole lot easier to have just said "Fuck off ya condescending twat"
wouldn't it.
Oh well, ya lives and learns.
AstraVanMan
Personally, I've only ever driven two different types of diesel motor
before, so aren't really one to judge.
I've driven Fiesta vans (Mk3 H-M reg and Mk4 V reg) and they're both pretty
slow, but as long as you don't labour them or try to rev them too high,
they're ok for what they are, but hardly drivers' cars!
Also, I've driven a couple of Nissan Vanettes (2.3 diesel S/T reg) and they
are bloody slow!! But they do the job.
Having read about the economy these modern HDi lumps are giving, and Dervy's
comparison of a Golf GTi turbo with the TDI, I can well imagine modern
TurboDiesels being more than a match for effortless (effective at low-revs)
driving.
I can't say for sure though as I've never driven any particularly powerful
petrol motor or modern turbodiesel either.
Peter
Dave Plowman
DervMan <der...@boshing.intercooled.goodo.turbocharged.diesel.com.uk>
wrote:
> > Many of these run at a fairly constant speed. And aren't concerned
> > about driver enjoyment.
> Since when do you need to chase 8,500 rpm (this side of a Type R
> ricemobile) for "entertainment?"
To me, the way *all* diesels suddenly run out of puff (if they have any
in the first place) is most unnatural - they promise so much then fail to
deliver. I like a linear increase in pull with preferably something
exciting at the end - like an EFI Rover V-8 does.
--
* Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *
The SpySwat
<Pe...@SwerveCLOTHESWeb.com> wrote:
>Having read about the economy these modern HDi lumps are giving, and Dervy's
>comparison of a Golf GTi turbo with the TDI, I can well imagine modern
>TurboDiesels being more than a match for effortless (effective at low-revs)
>driving.
>
>I can't say for sure though as I've never driven any particularly powerful
>petrol motor or modern turbodiesel either.
I've driven BMW's 330d and 330i (diesel and petrol respectively). I
racked up several thousand miles on each.
I'm no great fan of diesel engines, but a colleague insisted that
BMW's turbodiesels were truly excellent - a comment which I felt he
justified on the basis that he owned a BMW 325tds with lots of M-tech
bits on it.
Now, having experienced the 330d, I can confirm that he was quite
right.
The 3-litre diesel engine was excellent. Didn't feel at all like
previous diesels I'd driven (Pug 309, Astra 1.9TD, Transit!). It was
quick, very responsive and difficult to believe that it was a diesel
engine underneath the bonnet. It wasn't that noisy either - 5am
starts only woke a few neighbours, rather than the entire street. ;-)
Having said all that, I do prefer the petrol version, which has it's
faults - it lacks low end grunt, and the exhaust note will definitely
wake the whole street at 5am. The petrol version is much quicker and
it feels it. In my opinion the 330i is much more of a drivers car
than its diesel-based sibling.
YMMV.
The SpySwat
--
Spamtrapped address - remove THIS to reply
Mudge
>In article <9qeg8d$3ai$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Mudge <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >In the sense that it appears to be difficult to get any reasonable
>> >amount of power out of a diesel engine.
>
>> Clearly the people who design trucks, buses, railway locomotives, ships
>> and generator sets disagree with this statement.
>
> Many of these run at a fairly constant speed. And aren't concerned about
>driver enjoyment.
Ah - but he didn't mention "driver enjoyment", he said "reasonable".
And IMHO a good bit of overtaking - something turbodiesels excel at - is one
of the more enjoyable aspects of driving.
DervMan
Err . . . when did I actually write the above? As entertaining as a good
petrol powered performance car. I didn't: I said "since when do you need to
chase 8,500 rpm (this side of a Type R ricemobile) for "entertainment?"
Just realised that my use of the term "ricemobile" might be offensive. It's
not meant to be, indeed I can see that there's a lot going for a VTEC
engine, however if you can get the same mid range poke from a lower powered
engine and use much less fuel . . . that'll do me . . .
> Count your pennies and be happy with that.
I prefer something that had lots of low down grunt - be it a hybrid car,
LPG, diesel, petrol or whatever. I don't care what powers it so long as
it's economical enough to not cost half my salary in fuel costs. You can
get good throttle response (rather, response to the accelerator) from
diesels . . . indeed I'll wager that the throttle response tardiness is
because it's a turbocharged engine, rather than it's a diesel engine.
What fuel the engine burns is irrelevant when determining how entertaining
it is. In recent years, I reckon the most entertaining car I've owned has
to be my Cinquecento 900. Why? Well, because it was responsive to control
input, and - more importantly - you could use all of the power and easily
stay within the speed limit. You *can't* do that in a Civic Type R on the
public road. It has performance over and above what most people think is
"powerful." You can't use all of that power without using a track. Thus,
is it really as entertaining as it could be?
And if you wish to compare the Peugeot 306, which is the more entertaining -
the DTurbo or the XS?
Times are changing: more and more diesels are filtering on to the roads . .
DervMan
Err . . . when did I actually write the above? As entertaining as a good
petrol powered performance car. I didn't: I said "since when do you need to
chase 8,500 rpm (this side of a Type R ricemobile) for "entertainment?"
Just realised that my use of the term "ricemobile" might be offensive. It's
not meant to be, indeed I can see that there's a lot going for a VTEC
engine, however if you can get the same mid range poke from a lower powered
engine and use much less fuel . . . that'll do me . . .
> Count your pennies and be happy with that.
I prefer something that had lots of low down grunt - be it a hybrid car,
LPG, diesel, petrol or whatever. I don't care what powers it so long as
it's economical enough to not cost half my salary in fuel costs. You can
get good throttle response (rather, response to the accelerator) from
diesels . . . indeed I'll wager that the throttle response tardiness is
because it's a turbocharged engine, rather than it's a diesel engine.
What fuel the engine burns is irrelevant when determining how entertaining
it is. In recent years, I reckon the most entertaining car I've owned has
to be my Cinquecento 900. Why? Well, because it was responsive to control
input, and - more importantly - you could use all of the power and easily
stay within the speed limit. You *can't* do that in a Civic Type R on the
public road. It has performance over and above what most people think is
"powerful." You can't use all of that power without using a track. Thus,
is it really as entertaining as it could be?
And if you wish to compare the Peugeot 306, which is the more entertaining -
the DTurbo or the XS?
Times are changing: more and more diesels are filtering on to the roads . .
.
--
Peter Smith
> Thirdly. The only way I know to over rev a diesel (apart from pissing around
> with the pump settings) is to speed downhill in a low gear to a point where the
> weight of the vehicle overcomes the fuel cut off.
Or do what a friend of mine did - over-fill it with engine oil.
For some reason, it got to the point where it started sucking oil down the
valve stems, and running on oil, not fuel.
At this point, the rev limiter didn't work any more, and just started
running free.
He finally stopped it by leaving it in 5th gear, pulling to the hard
shoulder, and heaving the brakes on :-/
Pete.
--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will go to /dev/null
Put pete in place of nospam, or use reply-to header to reply by mail
Peter Smith
JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk says...
> Simon Hobson <si...@no-spam.ccomms.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> > The whole point of the
> > current test is to measure the maximum smoke density AT MAXIMUM POWER.
>
> In that case, it has nothing to do with real world road conditions. Thank
> you for confirming that.
>
Not seen me drive then ;-)
> > Ny revving from idle to max at max power, you get to measure pretty well
> the
> > worst case smoke. If you increase revs gently, then you only ever use part
> > power and don't get any sensible measurement of smoke emmisions.
>
> > The whole point is to get the worst smokers off the road.
>
> ..."the worst smokers" being defined as what (other than buses, I mean)?
I'd define a smoker as being a Mk5 or above Ford Escort 1.7TD. Do these
come with an extra smoke generator, or does it come naturally?
Julian
days.
I see you still have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
Julian.
Julian
"The SpySwat" <use...@spyswat.demon.THISco.uk> wrote in message
news:616mstk5hcb6c6vjj...@4ax.com...
the excessive (to me) amount of smoke I could see in the mirror when driving
it with enthusiasm.
Julian.
David Pipes
<jgph...@blueyonderDELETE.co.uk> writes
>Enjoying driving is not about power or torque or lateral G or anything you
>can measure with numbers. It is all about how quickly and accurately a car
>can respond to your inputs.
1954 Riley RME. I drive each every week and I enjoy driving each equally
though for entirely different reasons, neither of which I relate solely
to how quickly and accurately the car responds - a quite laughable
notion as far as the Riley is concerned.
> A good petrol engine has a scalpel-precise
>throttle which allows the power to be placed exactly where and when the
>driver wants.
I'd be interested to know which of the cars you have driven you consider
to have a scapel-precise throttle and which a ... er....butter knife.
>
>Even the best diesels have on/off throttles and respond
>similarly irrespective of throttle opening.
Could you elaborate? I don't want to agree or disagree whilst I'm unsure
what you mean. To me you seem to be saying that a diesel engine will
accelerate at the same rate irrespective of the position of the throttle
and from personal experience I can't say I've noticed that to be so.
>
>If you want save some money you can convince yourself that diesels are fun,
>but only because that's what you've bought. I've had both and while diesels
>are OK for tooling about, you'd never get up at 5am on a Sunday to hit some
>Welsh mountain roads with one.
I discovered diesels can be fun whilst lapping the Nurburgring in an A4
TDI. You're assuming that what is enjoyable driving for you, is
enjoyable driving for everyone. It's not an assumption I would make.
>
>They're economically viable transport and not nearly such a chore to drive
>as they used to be, but please stop trying to tell us they are as
>entertaining as a good petrol powered performance car.
I'm not aware anyone has though I'd be pleased to have any quotes
pointed out to me.
>
>Count your pennies and be happy with that.
I am and I'm _very_ happy with the money I'm saving.
David Pipes
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
<Snip>
> I like a linear increase in pull with preferably something
>exciting at the end - like an EFI Rover V-8 does.
Julian
"DervMan" <der...@boshing.intercooled.goodo.turbocharged.diesel.com.uk>
wrote in message news:tsm8mu9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Just realised that my use of the term "ricemobile" might be offensive.
It's
> not meant to be, indeed I can see that there's a lot going for a VTEC
> engine, however if you can get the same mid range poke from a lower
powered
> engine and use much less fuel . . . that'll do me . . .
>
Get your derogatory terms right Dervy - a dull everyday jap motor is a
ricemobile, a Type-R or equivalent is a riceracer. Won't do for me, because
like a fit woman with an ugly face, you're missing part of the package. I
want a grunty bottom end and a grin inducing top end.
> > Count your pennies and be happy with that.
>
> I prefer something that had lots of low down grunt - be it a hybrid car,
> LPG, diesel, petrol or whatever. I don't care what powers it so long as
> it's economical enough to not cost half my salary in fuel costs. You can
> get good throttle response (rather, response to the accelerator) from
> diesels . . . indeed I'll wager that the throttle response tardiness is
> because it's a turbocharged engine, rather than it's a diesel engine.
>
Me too, my V8 is torquier than virtually any diesel from 500rpm. If the
difference between 30mpg and 45 mpg costs you half your salary, your salary
is too low or your mileage too high! TD's actually have better response than
NA diesels - it is the nature of the injector/pump design that renders them
largely digital rather than analogue devices.
> What fuel the engine burns is irrelevant when determining how entertaining
> it is. In recent years, I reckon the most entertaining car I've owned has
> to be my Cinquecento 900. Why? Well, because it was responsive to
control
> input, and - more importantly - you could use all of the power and easily
> stay within the speed limit. You *can't* do that in a Civic Type R on the
> public road. It has performance over and above what most people think is
> "powerful." You can't use all of that power without using a track. Thus,
> is it really as entertaining as it could be?
>
I disagree. A large part of the pleasure I derive from driving is aural,
hence my obsession with big V8's and the race tuned twang of my recently
departed Type-R. The only worthwhile thing to do with the sound of a diesel
is to silence it. I used all the power of my Type-R virtually everyday on
the public road and still have a clean licence. By your reasoning your TD is
also too powerful to be easily exploitable - clearly nonsense.
> And if you wish to compare the Peugeot 306, which is the more
entertaining -
> the DTurbo or the XS?
>
I don't think I did wish to compare Peugeots with you as they are invariably
shoddy irrespective of power unit. If I must, then clearly the GTi-6 would
be the entertaining one. Unless one had recently been driving a Mondeo TD,
then I suspect any would excite.
> Times are changing: more and more diesels are filtering on to the roads .
.
>
The more people suffer the rattler, the more I rejoice in my proper cars.
Julian.
Julian
"DervMan" <der...@boshing.intercooled.goodo.turbocharged.diesel.com.uk>
wrote in message news:tsm8ucm...@corp.supernews.com...
;-)
Julian.
Mudge
>
>Get your derogatory terms right Dervy - a dull everyday jap motor is a
>ricemobile, a Type-R or equivalent is a riceracer. Won't do for me, because
>like a fit woman with an ugly face, you're missing part of the package. I
>want a grunty bottom end and a grin inducing top end.
Is that on women, or cars?
Nick Finnigan
news:100316118...@eos.uk.clara.net...
> Even the best diesels have on/off throttles and respond
> similarly irrespective of throttle opening.
Errm....
Nick Finnigan
message news:tsm0f57...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > And while the peak power of a diesel is often less than that of an
> > > equivalent petrol engine, they deliver more power lower down the rev
> range
> > > where it is likely to be more usable and accessible in normal driving
> > > situations.
> >
> > Any example numbers please? (I'll accept the ratio of
> > power to cc so that we can more easily match aspiration
> > and injection methods, and the only difference is the fuel).
>
> You'll usually always squeeze more power per litre from a petrol, and most
> manufacturers sell a turbodiesel next to a NA petrol model, but the Golf
Well, most models only have Turbo diesels and NA petrols.
I wonder why?
> range serves as a useful bunch . . .
>
> You have the GTI Turbo, with 150 PS and 209 Nm from a 1.8 litre turbo, or 83
> PSl and 116 Nml. Output per litre of 200.
> The new GTI PD TD 130 produces 130 PS and 308 Nm from a 1.9 litre turbo, or
> 68 PSl and 162 Nml. OPL of 230.
'Power lower down the rev range' was the issue.
> Okay, so the VAG group does produce a 225 PS 1.8 litre unit, which obtains
> 125 PSl and 155 Nml, and an OPL of 280. This engine is only used in the
> Audi TT (AFAIK). Or the 180 PS version, used in the Seat and Skoda range
> too, with 100 PSl and 130 Nml, OPL of 230.
Which models have intercoolers, and indirect vs direct injection
so we can make a comparison just based on fuel type?
> Now if you'd like me to compare a model lineup, we can look at the new
> Mondeo. Ford currently sell two 2.0 engines, the DI and the petrol.
>
> The DI: PSl of 58, Nml of 140, OPl of 198. Oh, and 47.9 mpg.
> The Petrol: PSl of 73, Nml of 95, OPl of 168 and 35.8 mpg.
>
> The diesel is both more economical and extracts more from a given engine
> size.
And the aspiration and injection are different.
DervMan
> > > > equivalent petrol engine, they deliver more power lower down the rev
> > range
> > > > where it is likely to be more usable and accessible in normal
driving
> > > > situations.
> > >
> > > Any example numbers please? (I'll accept the ratio of
> > > power to cc so that we can more easily match aspiration
> > > and injection methods, and the only difference is the fuel).
> >
> > You'll usually always squeeze more power per litre from a petrol, and
most
> > manufacturers sell a turbodiesel next to a NA petrol model, but the Golf
>
> Well, most models only have Turbo diesels and NA petrols.
> I wonder why?
Please share your observations, then.
> > range serves as a useful bunch . . .
> >
> > You have the GTI Turbo, with 150 PS and 209 Nm from a 1.8 litre turbo,
or 83
> > PSl and 116 Nml. Output per litre of 200.
> > The new GTI PD TD 130 produces 130 PS and 308 Nm from a 1.9 litre turbo,
or
> > 68 PSl and 162 Nml. OPL of 230.
>
> 'Power lower down the rev range' was the issue.
You can ignore these figures if you want . . .
> > Okay, so the VAG group does produce a 225 PS 1.8 litre unit, which
obtains
> > 125 PSl and 155 Nml, and an OPL of 280. This engine is only used in the
> > Audi TT (AFAIK). Or the 180 PS version, used in the Seat and Skoda
range
> > too, with 100 PSl and 130 Nml, OPL of 230.
>
> Which models have intercoolers, and indirect vs direct injection
> so we can make a comparison just based on fuel type?
Oh, right, well in that case we can't compare the engines, because I don't
know of a production petrol unit that uses compression ignition.
> > Now if you'd like me to compare a model lineup, we can look at the new
> > Mondeo. Ford currently sell two 2.0 engines, the DI and the petrol.
> >
> > The DI: PSl of 58, Nml of 140, OPl of 198. Oh, and 47.9 mpg.
> > The Petrol: PSl of 73, Nml of 95, OPl of 168 and 35.8 mpg.
> >
> > The diesel is both more economical and extracts more from a given engine
> > size.
>
> And the aspiration and injection are different.
Well how would you like to compare the engines? We can't compare on
aspiration and injection systems, because I don't know of a turbocharged
direct petrol injection engine. And diesels don't need spark plugs, so we
can't use ignition.
I've compared the specific output figures for a few units and I've taken two
engines of the same capacity as another example. We could compare engines
with broadly similar MPG figures if you prefer, or with identical power
figures, or heh, even with identical torque figures.
You cannot compare two engines that are identical apart from their fuel,
because by their very nature, they'll be different engines.
DervMan
Oh I wasn't trying to slate the Accord Type R. I do think that most of the
performance is superflous on today's roads, I can also see the appeal. But
I also know that you can get the same high gear heave in something like a
Passat / Mondeo / Vectra diesel, pay a lot less for the car in the first
place, cheaper running costs, and (for the Passat) also enjoy decent
residual values.
But they you already knew this.
:)
> > > Count your pennies and be happy with that.
> >
> > I prefer something that had lots of low down grunt - be it a hybrid car,
> > LPG, diesel, petrol or whatever. I don't care what powers it so long as
> > it's economical enough to not cost half my salary in fuel costs. You
can
> > get good throttle response (rather, response to the accelerator) from
> > diesels . . . indeed I'll wager that the throttle response tardiness is
> > because it's a turbocharged engine, rather than it's a diesel engine.
> >
> Me too, my V8 is torquier than virtually any diesel from 500rpm. If the
> difference between 30mpg and 45 mpg costs you half your salary, your
salary
> is too low or your mileage too high! TD's actually have better response
than
> NA diesels - it is the nature of the injector/pump design that renders
them
> largely digital rather than analogue devices.
Any diesel? You're comparing a V8 with a six pot diesel . . . hardly fair.
We should all compare a V8 diesel with a V8 petrol.
> > What fuel the engine burns is irrelevant when determining how
entertaining
> > it is. In recent years, I reckon the most entertaining car I've owned
has
> > to be my Cinquecento 900. Why? Well, because it was responsive to
> control
> > input, and - more importantly - you could use all of the power and
easily
> > stay within the speed limit. You *can't* do that in a Civic Type R on
the
> > public road. It has performance over and above what most people think
is
> > "powerful." You can't use all of that power without using a track.
Thus,
> > is it really as entertaining as it could be?
> >
> I disagree. A large part of the pleasure I derive from driving is aural,
> hence my obsession with big V8's and the race tuned twang of my recently
> departed Type-R. The only worthwhile thing to do with the sound of a
diesel
> is to silence it. I used all the power of my Type-R virtually everyday on
> the public road and still have a clean licence. By your reasoning your TD
is
> also too powerful to be easily exploitable - clearly nonsense.
That's surely very subjective - I find the banal humming of some petrol cars
really annoying, especially those that wheeze and whine along (the Accord
wasn't one that made a disagreeable noise, though).
My TD gets 100% of it's acceleration in top gear inside the speed limit, so
yes, it's exploitable. . .
> > And if you wish to compare the Peugeot 306, which is the more
> entertaining -
> > the DTurbo or the XS?
> >
> I don't think I did wish to compare Peugeots with you as they are
invariably
> shoddy irrespective of power unit. If I must, then clearly the GTi-6 would
> be the entertaining one. Unless one had recently been driving a Mondeo TD,
> then I suspect any would excite.
Shall we compare similar priced Peugeots, then? Perhaps you don't want to
compare Peugeots because the diesels are very popular, and with good
reason - they're good!
For the most part, the 306 is a superior drive to the Mondeo, but the few I
tried were expensive, not built as solid, and offered similar running costs
(service bills were excessive, so despite cheap insurance, they were dear
dos to run). I figured the Mondeo ran the 306 TD well enough to not really
matter with the sort of mileage I was thinking about.
> > Times are changing: more and more diesels are filtering on to the roads
.
> The more people suffer the rattler, the more I rejoice in my proper cars.
:)
DervMan
> > > about driver enjoyment.
>
> > Since when do you need to chase 8,500 rpm (this side of a Type R
> > ricemobile) for "entertainment?"
>
> To me, the way *all* diesels suddenly run out of puff (if they have any
> in the first place) is most unnatural - they promise so much then fail to
> deliver. I like a linear increase in pull with preferably something
> exciting at the end - like an EFI Rover V-8 does.
Ah, yes, true, true. Sadly, there are very few "ordinary" cars out there
that the "typical" UK owner would consider running, that come with V8s.
And there are even fewer V8 diesels . . . :(
When I bosh over to California I'm going to make a point of trying some 8
pot and 10 pot diesel trucks. :)
Dave Plowman
There's a difference?
--
* Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *
The SpySwat
<jgph...@blueyonderDELETE.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"The SpySwat" <use...@spyswat.demon.THISco.uk> wrote in message
>news:616mstk5hcb6c6vjj...@4ax.com...
>> Now, having experienced the 330d, I can confirm that he was quite
>> right.
>>
>> The 3-litre diesel engine was excellent. Didn't feel at all like
>> previous diesels I'd driven (Pug 309, Astra 1.9TD, Transit!). It was
>> quick, very responsive and difficult to believe that it was a diesel
>> engine underneath the bonnet. It wasn't that noisy either - 5am
>> starts only woke a few neighbours, rather than the entire street. ;-)
>>
>> Having said all that, I do prefer the petrol version, which has it's
>> faults - it lacks low end grunt, and the exhaust note will definitely
>> wake the whole street at 5am. The petrol version is much quicker and
>> it feels it. In my opinion the 330i is much more of a drivers car
>> than its diesel-based sibling.
>>
>I couldn't agree more with your assessment. My only niggle with the 330d was
>the excessive (to me) amount of smoke I could see in the mirror when driving
>it with enthusiasm.
Why thank you! ;-)
I drove the 330d very enthusiastically (it was fun, but the sport
suspension may have helped) and I have to say that I didn't notice
much smoke at all - but it had about 12000 miles on it at the time I
drove it.
Was the one you drove new? The 330i which was new, drank oil very
quickly, 1 litre/1000 miles, for the first 6000 miles or so but then
settled down. I did see some smoke, particularly when the engine was
cold. I guess the 330d could be similar.
ACM
DervMan <der...@boshing.intercooled.goodo.turbocharged.diesel.com.uk> wrote
in message news:tsm0f57...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> The diesel is both more economical and extracts more from a given engine
> size. I've not driven a 2.0 petrol new Mondeo, but I can assure you that
> the diesel pulls very well at motorway speeds, despite being geared at
about
> 30 mph / 1000 rpm.
>
> --
> The DervMan
> ICQ: 127655772
> E-mail Anti-Spam Measures in force.
>
>The above statement *diesel ...extracts more power from a given engine* is
not a fair statement. It ignores the fact that the diesel has a turbo and
the petrol Mondeo does not. Run the 2 litre petrol with a turbo and then
compare.
Al
Keith Walker
ACM wrote:
It also ignores the higher energy content of diesel fuel by volume
May as well compare a petrol engine with a nuclear reactor, and say how much
better the nuclear reactor does on a "gallon" of uranium ;-)
All the best
Keith
Julian
"David Pipes" <Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h$xsPlNY+...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk...
> In article <100316118...@eos.uk.clara.net>, Julian
> <jgph...@blueyonderDELETE.co.uk> writes
> >Enjoying driving is not about power or torque or lateral G or anything
you
> >can measure with numbers. It is all about how quickly and accurately a
car
> >can respond to your inputs.
> I don't agree. I own two cars. One is an Audi A4 TDI, the other is a
> 1954 Riley RME. I drive each every week and I enjoy driving each equally
> though for entirely different reasons, neither of which I relate solely
> to how quickly and accurately the car responds - a quite laughable
> notion as far as the Riley is concerned.
>
is that they have carbs. Modern fuel injection systems, metered to within an
inch of their lives and with fuel cut-off on the over-run lack the
continuity of response of many earlier cars such as your Riley. I can't
speak for the RME having not driven one but Pathfinders respond very
accurately and quickly compared to their contemporary peers. Fine sporting
saloons designed when ultimate power was not the goal and driving pleasure
was better understood.
> > A good petrol engine has a scalpel-precise
> >throttle which allows the power to be placed exactly where and when the
> >driver wants.
> I'd be interested to know which of the cars you have driven you consider
> to have a scapel-precise throttle and which a ... er....butter knife.
> >
From my personal experience - TVR's (in-house engines, not Rover derived),
Type-R's, D-Type Jaguars, most Ferraris, any flat engined Porsche without a
turbo, McLaren F1, all six cylinder Alfa Romeos and just about any highly
tuned, non-turbo petrol engine are the sharp ones.
Butter Knives - any TD or NA diesel. Most petrol turbo's with perhaps the
exception of the Lotus V8. Most German saloons, particularly my current
Merc.
>
> >Even the best diesels have on/off throttles and respond
> >similarly irrespective of throttle opening.
> Could you elaborate? I don't want to agree or disagree whilst I'm unsure
> what you mean. To me you seem to be saying that a diesel engine will
> accelerate at the same rate irrespective of the position of the throttle
> and from personal experience I can't say I've noticed that to be so.
> >
By and large diesels have two throttle settings of light acceleration or
full throttle compared to the far wider range of throttle opening that you
get with a decent petrol engine. Of course diesels don't physically have
throttles.
> >If you want save some money you can convince yourself that diesels are
fun,
> >but only because that's what you've bought. I've had both and while
diesels
> >are OK for tooling about, you'd never get up at 5am on a Sunday to hit
some
> >Welsh mountain roads with one.
> I discovered diesels can be fun whilst lapping the Nurburgring in an A4
> TDI. You're assuming that what is enjoyable driving for you, is
> enjoyable driving for everyone. It's not an assumption I would make.
> >
I can't think of many cars with which one could less enjoy the 'ring. A
narrow power band compensated for by high gearing spoils the fun. Add the
Audi's wooden chassis and it's a bit of a downer. Almost any decent petrol
car would have been more fun IMHO. At least you got there cheaply though.
> >They're economically viable transport and not nearly such a chore to
drive
> >as they used to be, but please stop trying to tell us they are as
> >entertaining as a good petrol powered performance car.
> I'm not aware anyone has though I'd be pleased to have any quotes
> pointed out to me.
> >
Try the chap a few posts up with the diesel Volvo who believes it
out-performs the T5 version and Subaru Turbo's and Porsche boxsters.
> >Count your pennies and be happy with that.
> I am and I'm _very_ happy with the money I'm saving.
> --
Good for you - the compromise in driving pleasure is too much for me to
countenance such a move.
Julian.
Julian
"Mudge" <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qfc5s$ch8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Julian wrote in message <100317135...@eurus.uk.clara.net>...
> >
> >Get your derogatory terms right Dervy - a dull everyday jap motor is a
> >ricemobile, a Type-R or equivalent is a riceracer. Won't do for me,
because
> >like a fit woman with an ugly face, you're missing part of the package. I
> >want a grunty bottom end and a grin inducing top end.
>
>
> Is that on women, or cars?
>
Julian.
Julian
"DervMan" <der...@boshing.intercooled.goodo.turbocharged.diesel.com.uk>
wrote in message news:tsmg6s6...@corp.supernews.com...
superfluous though - perhaps we drive on different roads. The Accord has
excellent in gear acceleration that is a match for your diesels at low revs
and provides a high rev buzz no diesel can with it's agricultural 4500rpm
rev limit. The Accord is about a grand more than the top spec euroboxes you
list, is cheap to run according to What Car and enjoys better residuals than
the Mondeo and Vectra and doesn't suffer the awful wooden chassis of the
Passat.
> But they you already knew this.
>
> :)
>
> > > > Count your pennies and be happy with that.
> > >
> > > I prefer something that had lots of low down grunt - be it a hybrid
car,
> > > LPG, diesel, petrol or whatever. I don't care what powers it so long
as
> > > it's economical enough to not cost half my salary in fuel costs. You
> can
> > > get good throttle response (rather, response to the accelerator) from
> > > diesels . . . indeed I'll wager that the throttle response tardiness
is
> > > because it's a turbocharged engine, rather than it's a diesel engine.
> > >
> > Me too, my V8 is torquier than virtually any diesel from 500rpm. If the
> > difference between 30mpg and 45 mpg costs you half your salary, your
> salary
> > is too low or your mileage too high! TD's actually have better response
> than
> > NA diesels - it is the nature of the injector/pump design that renders
> them
> > largely digital rather than analogue devices.
>
> Any diesel? You're comparing a V8 with a six pot diesel . . . hardly
fair.
>
Where does it say I'm comparing it with a six pot diesel? I've driven a Land
Rover fitted with a 6.2 litre V8 GM NA diesel and it did nothing until
1000rpm, then not a lot until 3000rpm and then gave up.
> We should all compare a V8 diesel with a V8 petrol.
>
I was - see above.
How ever banal the noise of a petrol engine, there is invariably less of it.
> My TD gets 100% of it's acceleration in top gear inside the speed limit,
so
> yes, it's exploitable. . .
>
So your TD can't accelerate beyond 70mph? Surely not much of a selling
point.
> > > And if you wish to compare the Peugeot 306, which is the more
> > entertaining -
> > > the DTurbo or the XS?
> > >
> > I don't think I did wish to compare Peugeots with you as they are
> invariably
> > shoddy irrespective of power unit. If I must, then clearly the GTi-6
would
> > be the entertaining one. Unless one had recently been driving a Mondeo
TD,
> > then I suspect any would excite.
>
> Shall we compare similar priced Peugeots, then? Perhaps you don't want to
> compare Peugeots because the diesels are very popular, and with good
> reason - they're good!
>
A subjective opinion. I don't think Peugeots are any good generally though
the sporting ones benefit from fine chassis which in part makes up for the
fact that they, like Fiats are made of tinfoil. Good for a diesel perhaps.
> For the most part, the 306 is a superior drive to the Mondeo, but the few
I
> tried were expensive, not built as solid, and offered similar running
costs
> (service bills were excessive, so despite cheap insurance, they were dear
> dos to run). I figured the Mondeo ran the 306 TD well enough to not
really
> matter with the sort of mileage I was thinking about.
>
I'll take your word for it and hope I never have to drive either again.
Julian.
Julian
"Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tsme44r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
David Pipes
<jgph...@blueyonderDELETE.co.uk> writes
> Fine sporting
>saloons designed when ultimate power was not the goal and driving pleasure
>was better understood.
I don't want to drift way off topic but at least you appreciate why
driving the Riley is a pleasure. For me, the same values remain.
>Butter Knives - any TD or NA diesel. Most petrol turbo's with perhaps the
>exception of the Lotus V8. Most German saloons, particularly my current
>Merc.
Do I take it than that your current 'butter knife' Merc was not chosen
by you? Or do you find it acceptable - a bit like me and a diesel ;-)
>By and large diesels have two throttle settings of light acceleration or
>full throttle compared to the far wider range of throttle opening that you
>get with a decent petrol engine.
Having driven diesels for about eight years I've never noticed that so
either I'm a particularly inattentive driver or it's well disguised.
>I can't think of many cars with which one could less enjoy the 'ring. A
>narrow power band compensated for by high gearing spoils the fun.
Spoilt? No. reduced? Perhaps but I did get a round of applause from
spectating locals for a four wheel drift round a downhill right hander
and passed two Porsches so had a bit of a laugh.
> Add the
>Audi's wooden chassis and it's a bit of a downer. Almost any decent petrol
>car would have been more fun IMHO. At least you got there cheaply though.
LOL, I guess I did but carrying two photographers and all their gear
made the TDI (quattro estate) the perfect car for the trip - plus it was
loaned by Audi so tyre wear round the 'ring was not a concern:-)
>> I'm not aware anyone has though I'd be pleased to have any quotes
>> pointed out to me.
>> >
>Try the chap a few posts up with the diesel Volvo who believes it
>out-performs the T5 version and Subaru Turbo's and Porsche boxsters.
I took that with a pinch of salt, a large one...
>Good for you - the compromise in driving pleasure is too much for me to
>countenance such a move.
There are other factors which are relevant, fuel economy and insurance
premiums are major factors in my choice of car; I simply cannot afford a
car that does 28mpg and costs over £300 to insure as my modified Golf
GTI did.
Perhaps I'm just more easily pleased these days - either that or I've
discovered there are other things in life than driving a car.
--
Julian
> In article <100318682...@eurus.uk.clara.net>, Julian
> <jgph...@blueyonderDELETE.co.uk> writes
>
> > Fine sporting
> >saloons designed when ultimate power was not the goal and driving
pleasure
> >was better understood.
> I don't want to drift way off topic but at least you appreciate why
> driving the Riley is a pleasure. For me, the same values remain.
>
> >Butter Knives - any TD or NA diesel. Most petrol turbo's with perhaps the
> >exception of the Lotus V8. Most German saloons, particularly my current
> >Merc.
> Do I take it than that your current 'butter knife' Merc was not chosen
> by you? Or do you find it acceptable - a bit like me and a diesel ;-)
>
really want to spend my budget on.
> >By and large diesels have two throttle settings of light acceleration or
> >full throttle compared to the far wider range of throttle opening that
you
> >get with a decent petrol engine.
> Having driven diesels for about eight years I've never noticed that so
> either I'm a particularly inattentive driver or it's well disguised.
>
It really depends what you are used to. The throttle action is simply too
clumsy to allow the car to be steered on the throttle, though of course I
understand that is not a design priority with oil-burners.
> >I can't think of many cars with which one could less enjoy the 'ring. A
> >narrow power band compensated for by high gearing spoils the fun.
> Spoilt? No. reduced? Perhaps but I did get a round of applause from
> spectating locals for a four wheel drift round a downhill right hander
> and passed two Porsches so had a bit of a laugh.
>
Another diesel driver who has to tell you he's overtaken/outrun Porsches!
You could enjoy yourself at the 'ring in most things, but an Audi diesel
would be near the bottom of the list given a free choice I suspect.
> > Add the
> >Audi's wooden chassis and it's a bit of a downer. Almost any decent
petrol
> >car would have been more fun IMHO. At least you got there cheaply though.
> LOL, I guess I did but carrying two photographers and all their gear
> made the TDI (quattro estate) the perfect car for the trip - plus it was
> loaned by Audi so tyre wear round the 'ring was not a concern:-)
>
Far from perfect (no offence to Audi's) choice IMHO for a trip to the 'ring
with or without snappers. Undoubtedly cost effective though.
> >> I'm not aware anyone has though I'd be pleased to have any quotes
> >> pointed out to me.
> >> >
> >Try the chap a few posts up with the diesel Volvo who believes it
> >out-performs the T5 version and Subaru Turbo's and Porsche boxsters.
> I took that with a pinch of salt, a large one...
>
Like people who tell you they overhauled a couple of Porsches at the
Nurburgring while executing a four-wheeled drift in a diesel Audi? :-)
> >Good for you - the compromise in driving pleasure is too much for me to
> >countenance such a move.
> There are other factors which are relevant, fuel economy and insurance
> premiums are major factors in my choice of car; I simply cannot afford a
> car that does 28mpg and costs over £300 to insure as my modified Golf
> GTI did.
>
No argument with that. We all have to make the most of the cars we can
afford to run.
> Perhaps I'm just more easily pleased these days - either that or I've
> discovered there are other things in life than driving a car.
> --
Clearly driving is still important to you or you wouldn't be on this group!
Julian.
Peter Smith
Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk says...
> In article <o2vjst4nuanv2qhei...@4ax.com>, Simon Worby
> <s...@lestac.demon.co.uk> writes
> >On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:08:13 +0100, David Pipes
> ><Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >PS: Not really sure what the point of this post is; I suppose I'm just
> >trying to get my head around just why *anyone* would buy a "sporty"
> >diesel.
> It's not difficult - try harder.
>
> > It's just that one doesn't associate the desire for speed /
> >acceleration with much concern about mpg figures.
> *You* don't, others might.
>
I sure as hell do.
I'd have loved to have bought one of the Audi A4 1.9 TDi's! 110bph (IIRC),
but still possible to get over 60 to the gallon?
Suits me!
I didn't realise you could chip them though. _That_ sounds like fun.
Still, I was looking, and people were wanting 13 grand for an N reg high
miler (this was a couple of years ago), when I could get a 12 month old
low milage Mondeo for 2/3 the price.
Maybe I should have looked at the bigger picture :-/
Alan Collier
<jgph...@blueyonderDELETE.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"David Pipes" <Da...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:h$xsPlNY+...@pipeline35.fsnet.co.uk...
>> In article <100316118...@eos.uk.clara.net>, Julian
>> <jgph...@blueyonderDELETE.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>> >Even the best diesels have on/off throttles and respond
>> >similarly irrespective of throttle opening.
>> Could you elaborate? I don't want to agree or disagree whilst I'm unsure
>> what you mean. To me you seem to be saying that a diesel engine will
>> accelerate at the same rate irrespective of the position of the throttle
>> and from personal experience I can't say I've noticed that to be so.
>> >
>By and large diesels have two throttle settings of light acceleration or
>full throttle compared to the far wider range of throttle opening that you
>get with a decent petrol engine. Of course diesels don't physically have
>throttles.
I'm not convinced. If I drive in a diesel car on the motorway at 70
mph, it is not continually switching between ' light acceleration and
full throttle'. If I want to slow down slightly to 65 mph, most
diesels I have driven will do this perfectly smoothly, then keep a
nice smooth 65.
Diesels don't have throttles, but they do have injection systems which
will allow a continuously variable amount of fuel into the engine.
Alan
--
Alan Collier
Chemical & Process Engineering, U Sheffield, UK
.sig undergoing refurbishment. We apologise for the mess.
TheFatBoy
> days.
>
> I see you still have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
>
> Julian.
Man, can't believe how well you get your condescending codswallop across in
text. I have nothing at all to add to the discussion. But then again,
neither do you - the difference is, I know I have nothing to add, whereas
you think you're making worthwhile contributions. Which is bollocks.
Nick Finnigan
Diesels don't physically have throttles, as you explained
in the meantime.
Julian
"TheFatBoy" <gr...@gfield.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cBTy7.6$uH3.500@wards...
say something.
Julian.
>
TheFatBoy
to
> say something.
The arrogant gash spouts shit and belittles people to make a point.