diesel vs petrol power

I'm proper loving the irony of you Entai entering the thread by saying it's been amusing you then coming up with this garbage.
 
We've had this discussion before.

If Top Gear mag call it a hot hatch, then I call it a hot hatch.

Top gear also raced it against a mini cooper, not the cooper s. My deisel leons far faster than your fabia and i wouldnt class it as a hot hatch. Both are warm im afraid
 
[TW]Fox;14220445 said:
99.9% of diesel cars are turbodiesels so I really do not see how this is relevant?


And that is the whole point I am making.

All diesel engines in pretty much every application they are used HAVE to have a turbo bolted to them to be usefull.
Therefore they are modified engines they are not standard un fetered engines.

The vast majority of petrol engines in use in whatever form of transport, do not HAVE to have extra gadgets bolted to them to make them fit for purpose, that is all I am saying.

You cannot in any way compare the power from a standard unfeterd petrol engine to a modified diesel, you have to compare like for like.

Show me one non turbo diesel that will outperform a similar capcity non turbo petrol engine?

Show me one situation where the same amount of tuning and modification has been doen to the petrol engine as to the modified diesel engine (i.e compare turbo diesel to turbo petrol not NA) and show me where the petrol does not completely destroy the diesel.

In every situation where they are side by side, the diesels have to be modified, or in the case of racing applications, have the rules changed, so that they can be competitive.
 
this is something that ive never really understood about BMWs

they've nearly always (up until recently) always been very anti FI. Arguing its an easy route to performance , for use by lazy engineers who cant be bothered to develop their engines properly, and crucially, doesnt deliver as good or linear driving experience as N/A does

myself ? i dont care how its done so long as the end result is good to drive.
 
And that is the whole point I am making.

All diesel engines in pretty much every application they are used HAVE to have a turbo bolted to them to be usefull.
Therefore they are modified engines they are not standard un fetered engines.

The vast majority of petrol engines in use in whatever form of transport, do not HAVE to have extra gadgets bolted to them to make them fit for purpose, that is all I am saying.

You cannot in any way compare the power from a standard unfeterd petrol engine to a modified diesel, you have to compare like for like.

Show me one non turbo diesel that will outperform a similar capcity non turbo petrol engine?

I think thats a bit petty, take the spark plugs of of a petrol engine while you're at it to make it fair.
 
How do turbo diesels compare to the modern small capacity turbo petrols like the Abarth 500 do you think? The turbos add a nice bit of torque, still have the higher rev advantages I'm assuming and have decent fuel economy too.

Mr LoL: I think Honda also have the same stance about forced injection, don't they?

I don't see exactly why but I guess you have to stick by your beliefs!
 
I think thats a bit petty, take the spark plugs of of a petrol engine while you're at it to make it fair.


No that is not fair then.

A petrol engine NEEDS spark plugs to run, it does not NEED a turbo to run and do it's intended job.

A diesel engine should not NEED a turbo if it has been developed and built to do it's job properly.

If it does NEED a turbo to be anything other than useless, then, in my view, it is a flawed design.
 
How do turbo diesels compare to the modern small capacity turbo petrols like the Abarth 500 do you think? The turbos add a nice bit of torque, still have the higher rev advantages I'm assuming and have decent fuel economy too.


Exactly the Arbarth is a good little car with or without the turbo.

Take the turbo off a small turbo diesel engine, and you end up with something that you would be hard pressed to give away.
 
No that is not fair then.

A petrol engine NEEDS spark plugs to run, it does not NEED a turbo to run and do it's intended job.

A diesel engine should not NEED a turbo if it has been developed and built to do it's job properly.

If it does NEED a turbo to be anything other than useless, then, in my view, it is a flawed design.

You could say the same of a petrol with twin cams, electronic ignition or fuel injection. The engine doesnt need them in its basic design but nearly everyone uses all of those now. I dont see you problem with a turbo on a derv its just the way develpoment has taken it.
 
this is something that ive never really understood about BMWs

they've nearly always (up until recently) always been very anti FI. Arguing its an easy route to performance , for use by lazy engineers who cant be bothered to develop their engines properly, and crucially, doesnt deliver as good or linear driving experience as N/A does

This was probably the case in the past, but Variable-Vane and Sequential technology has elliminated a lot of the negatives that turbos brought in the past.
 
A diesel engine should not NEED a turbo if it has been developed and built to do it's job properly.

If it does NEED a turbo to be anything other than useless, then, in my view, it is a flawed design.

I was going to argue, but ive decided to give you some :rolleyes: instead.

Edit - Petrol engines are flawed designs otherwise all cars would have a 1 litre engine producing 450bhp and returning 150mpg with zero emmissions and no maintenence. /Jeremy Clarkson analogy
 
Last edited:
No that is not fair then.

A petrol engine NEEDS spark plugs to run, it does not NEED a turbo to run and do it's intended job.

A diesel engine should not NEED a turbo if it has been developed and built to do it's job properly.

If it does NEED a turbo to be anything other than useless, then, in my view, it is a flawed design.

The thing is, looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, diesel engines are more fuel efficient with very similar performance to the equivalent petrol in some cases - so argueably they are the better engine.

Depending on the application, petrol or diesel could be the better engine so I'm struggling to see the point of this debate. There are very good and very bad examples of each.
 
Haha, no bait was intended!

I don't know enough about the advantages and disadvantages of forced injection to say for sure and since people seem to have a fondness for both NA and FI cars, I had to put the arguably in there!
 
You could say the same of a petrol with twin cams, electronic ignition or fuel injection. The engine doesnt need them in its basic design but nearly everyone uses all of those now. I dont see you problem with a turbo on a derv its just the way develpoment has taken it.


And you get twin cams and electronic injection and other developments on diesels as well, look at common rail for instance, and I have no problem with engines being developed in that way, that is the nature of progression.

Lets look at it this way, if there was a way of developing a NA diesel engine, be as efficient and powerful as a turbo diesel, don't you think someone would have done it by now?

The very fact they haven't, speaks volumes for the basic design flaw of a diesel.

If you look at low capacity petrol engines they can be designed to give as much power as large capacity engines, by the increasing of revs.
Try that with a diesel, and you will not get very far, the very basic principles of diesel, prohibit high revs therefore it is a basically flawed design, that the ONLY way of getting anything from them is by forced induction.
 
Back
Top Bottom