Is it just me that prefers the drive of a diesel car?

DampDog · 10 Jul 2013 at 09:35

AndyH_Lufc said:
It's a good point but I think it is. If only because, when people say they "prefer diesel", in many cases what they actually mean, is that they "prefer a turbo engine".

Now that many new cars come with the option of small capacity turbo petrols aimed at efficiency, it will be interesting to see if people still prefer the diesel when there's a suitably torquey and efficient petrol equivalent.

What tends to happen is instead of people trying to compare "like for like" diesel to petrol engines (which is tricky anyway) it becomes a game of engine top-trumps, whatever engine you start with we quickly end up bickering about M3's and V10Tdi's.

The truth of it is, in the main we are all spoilt rotten with modern engines regardless whether they are diesel or petrol. They need tiny amounts of maintenance compared with engines from a few decades back. I can remember a time when having the head off and doing a decoke was the norm; not to mention lying on my back hunting for grease nipples. I can even remember my dad starting the car off a cranking handle. I have a wry smile at the notion of rough diesels, the petrols of not so long ago were not that much better.

I tend to buy my cars new and keep them a long time. So when I swapped from the 1.9tdi I spent ages looking for something that was (on paper) as close as I could performance wise.

Outgoing Tdi. 100bhp, 0-60 10.5, 119mph, 240nm (1800-4000)
Incoming Tsi. 105bhp, 0-60 9.6, 118mph, 175nm (1400-5000)

On the road the 1.9Tdi had more pull than the petrol, but in was limited by the narrow power band. Now the petrol though down on sheer pull is much more driveable because of it's wider power band and the way it spins up quicker. Plus it has a 6 speed box which helps stay within the power band. It's is quieter but as soon as you get going in most cars it's wind and road noise that are the biggest factors anyway.

I've enjoyed petrol and diesel, I don't see why people become so polarised against one or the other. I think for the future small super efficient petrol engines rather than diesels will be the way things go.

cuke2u · 10 Jul 2013 at 10:23

OpenToSuggestions said:
I like the low down surge that my remapped Focus has, but it is out of puff by 3000rpm and just feels strained after that. The engine sounds like a Transit at idle and normal (for a diesel) under load.

Nobody 'prefers a diesel' they simply like the surge that a small turbo gives low down.

I really want to test drive something like the Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost 125hp as it sounds like an excellent blend of power, economy, torque and refinement (refinement referring to not being a diesel!).

Hi, I'm surprised that your remap has a ceiling of 3k as I had my Mk4 Mondeo 2.0l mapped and it very freely revved to the red line and performed more like a petrol.
We also have a 1.0 Ecoboost fiesta but with 100ps and too be honest on the open road, ignoring the quoted figures, there is very little difference between that engine and the 125 as the torque is quite similar. What Car and other magazine tests felt the same. Compared to my remapped 1.6 ecoboost focus the fiesta has good urge low down in the rpm and goes quite well. The 3 pot is noticeable though, however it has a pleasant sound to it.

Sasso · 10 Jul 2013 at 10:54

*prepares to be deported*

I quite like the 1.5 CRDI in my rio

for what it is I think it's quite pokey xD really like how if creeping along (and up inclines) I don;t need the throttle, just clutch up a bit and the car pulls itself... can carry on in second too hehe xD

next to no power up to approx 1.6k rpm but as you pass that you feel the engine wind up and put down the power

same with my dads previous a4 1.9tdi, once in that rev range my god it was sweet, just felt it pulling and pulling.

not had a petrol car for years and even then it was a 1.6 escort (which was pretty damn fun!!!!) and a 1.25 fiesta xD

so from my experiences I prefer the diesels I've driven

but aiming to be the owner of a 2.0TFSI within the next month so I imagine I'll quite prefer that to my current diesel

rodenal · 11 Jul 2013 at 09:33

To those harping on about diesel (don't get me wrong I don't mind diesel, it has its place) and getting low 40's to 50mpg - could you honestly say you wouldn't sacrifice a bit of that to be driving a petrol, bmw straight 6?

I drove to work carefully this morning after filling up....

Reset when I filled up so not a long run or scientific comparison but the likes of a 330d, with less power won't get much more than that over the same run. My civic diesel gave me maybe 5mpg more with 40bhp less

Ps yes my pads need changing

paradigm · 11 Jul 2013 at 09:47

If I were only getting 40-odd MPG from it, then yes I'd not have bothered with the diesel at all.

However:

Conanius · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:03

PMKeates said:
Considering that the majority of diesel cars are turbo diesel and the majority of petrol cars are normally aspirated, is that an entirely unfair comparison to make?

This.

We looked at Honda Crv's recently. Petrol offering was a 2.0 ivtec that was smooth, quiet, but felt totally gutless. It got louder as you went up the revs, but not much else. It isn't a 'proper' vtec in the sense of a red top type r unit, and if they had the k24 engine as per in the us, I'd have jumped at it.

The two diesel offerings (older 2.2 cdti, newer 2.2 dtec) were much more powerful engines. The dtec was actually not far off the petrol in terms of engine noise (in terms of refinement over engine note).

When you then consider both Diesel engines remap to over 200 bhp, which can't be sniffed at for a day to day family wagon, the problem gets bigger.

I honestly couldn't justify the petrol over the diesel in that car, and there must be many other cars that have the same problem

Conanius · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:05

paradigm said:
If I were only getting 40-odd MPG from it, then yes I'd not have bothered with the diesel at all.

However:

*good mpg figure*

That is mightily impressive! 2.0 140 on the motorway at 60?

rodenal · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:07

paradigm said:
However:

Which is fair enough - however I've driven (and owned) a number of diesels that simply don't achieve more than 44-50mpg and have about 140bhp. Just not worth it for me

Conanius said:
When you then consider both Diesel engines remap to over 200 bhp, which can't be sniffed at for a day to day family wagon, the problem gets bigger.

Not without extra work they don't - However I agree that in that car the diesel is a better engine

paradigm · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:10

Conanius said:
That is mightily impressive! 2.0 140 on the motorway at 60?

That trip was a 20-odd mile mixture of normal A roads and dual carriageway, so involved a bit of getting back up to speed at roundabouts etc. A mix of 40, 50, 60, and 70 roads, with the final few miles being through 30 limits back home.

Conanius · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:15

rodenal said:
Which is fair enough - however I've driven (and owned) a number of diesels that simply don't achieve more than 44-50mpg and have about 140bhp. Just not worth it for me

Not without extra work they don't - However I agree that in that car the diesel is a better engine

Celtic tuning get the cdti from 138bhp to 193bhp (and 252lb/ft to 292 lb/ft torque increase) and the dtec from 148bhp to 221bhp (and 258 to 299 lb/ft torque increase)

Apologies I was slightly out on the cdti, that does remap to over 200bhp with a new clutch.

They seem to be well respected and real figures, opposed to eBay plug in box rubbish.

Conanius · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:16

paradigm said:
That trip was a 20-odd mile mixture of normal A roads and dual carriageway, so involved a bit of getting back up to speed at roundabouts etc. A mix of 40, 50, 60, and 70 roads, with the final few miles being through 30 limits back home.

Really impressive. I guess it has stop start ? Is it remapped ?

paradigm · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:20

It does have stop-start yes, and no it's not remapped.

I've looked at it, but I'm not willing to risk the warranty at the moment.

Conanius · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:23

paradigm said:
It does have stop-start yes, and no it's not remapped.

I've looked at it, but I'm not willing to risk the warranty at the moment.

Genuinely impressive. Have you done refuel calculations over a tank to see how accurate your trip computer is?

The one on my fabia vrs seems pretty accurate (within a couple of mpg it seems) so no reason to doubt it.

Housey · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:30

I wouldn't want a sports car with a diesel engine, for me it would ruin the entire experience as I want a sense of occasion, a sharp throttle and a nice noise, all vital ingredients I feel. However, on my daily snotter 5 series the diesel suits it really well and offers a real 44mpg on a long run, 6 seconds to 60 and 155mph should I want it. The 8 speed sport auto means it's easy to keep it on the boil and to be fair it doesn't suffer the obvious power drop off when you run it up the higher rev range. For me it depends on the type of car and what you want from it and I learnt long ago there is not a single car that does it all perfectly, all of them are good in one place and less good in the other.

J1nxy · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:31

This is what I don't understand what am I sacrificing by driving a 270+ BHP diesel over an equivalent petrol? The rev range? who cares the thing has 8 gears and if I rev'd out anything over 3rd my license is toast.

The noise? I loved the noise my XFR made but then it was a bloody great v8, but the supercharged 3.0 v6 which is the comparable engine sounds better than the diesel but during normal usage they are both near silent inside the car.

Fuel economy is far better in the diesel, as an average I'm sitting at 37mpg since I bought the car. On long runs I'm into the high 40s but even shorter journeys as into mid-high 30s.

Running costs are the same, the diesel is cheaper to buy and comes better equipped I'm failing to see the draw backs?

Isn't it a case of weighing up the relative merits of each car/engine and then deciding from there rather than jumping to the instant PETROL/DIESEL is better conclusion??

paradigm · 11 Jul 2013 at 10:32

Conanius said:
Genuinely impressive. Have you done refuel calculations over a tank to see how accurate your trip computer is?

The one on my fabia vrs seems pretty accurate (within a couple of mpg it seems) so no reason to doubt it.

I have calculated it manually and it seems to be pretty accurate (within a few % most of the time). I have always seen >750~ miles from a tank too, which ties in with the 55.3MPG average the car has seen thus far.

I got over 800 miles from the tank when I took it to Devon, around Devon, and back home.

rodenal · 11 Jul 2013 at 11:33

Conanius said:
Celtic tuning get the cdti from 138bhp to 193bhp (and 252lb/ft to 292 lb/ft torque increase) and the dtec from 148bhp to 221bhp (and 258 to 299 lb/ft torque increase)

Apologies I was slightly out on the cdti, that does remap to over 200bhp with a new clutch.

They seem to be well respected and real figures, opposed to eBay plug in box rubbish.

Trust me, the ctdi does not make 193 reliably without a new clutch and likely better intercooler. I had a remapped ctdi that was at about 175bhp, it had mullered a clutch before I got it

Dtec I wouldn't imagine is much different

Relentless81 · 11 Jul 2013 at 11:34

Saw a guy in a soft top 13 plate golf today looking super slick in his shades, cap, tunes blaring and blue motion badge on the rear

Saw a TRD GT86 too, disappointing compared to the golf

Conanius · 11 Jul 2013 at 12:13

rodenal said:
Trust me, the ctdi does not make 193 reliably without a new clutch and likely better intercooler. I had a remapped ctdi that was at about 175bhp, it had mullered a clutch before I got it

Dtec I wouldn't imagine is much different

Interesting, lots of the forums seem to support celtic tunings claims. Who was your remap with ?

My understanding on the dtec is the 180bhp lump in the accord is the same as the one in the crv, hence the huge jump.

PMKeates · 11 Jul 2013 at 12:18

350 HP / 700 Nm, 0-60 in 5 and a bit seconds, 175 MPH, two turbos, 1735 Kg, an automatic transmission and this..