Do people hate diesels?

s0ck · 29 Jul 2007 at 15:39

Dolph said:
swapping between a Pug 106 diesel...

Suddenly, it all makes sense

oweneades · 29 Jul 2007 at 15:43

Having owned quite a few diesels (all vag) I must say I do quite like them however as with anything there are also the downsides.

+

Economy
Low(er) tax than an equivilant petrol
Decent mid range punch (judging by a 1.9TDI 130 Fabia vRS)

-
Noise
Noise
Noise
Narrow power band
Noise etc

I have also noticed how having a diesel lulls you into a false sense that because you feel like you are going fast you automatically assume you are.

Now I am picking up my new car on Friday which is a Suzuki Swift sport and compared to my current car (leon 1.9TDI stylance) it doesn't *feel* as quick due to its lack of torque however on the test drive nailing it away from a junction it was considerably quicker than my current car despite not feeling it. In fact it made my car feel quite slow afterwards.

Lopéz · 29 Jul 2007 at 18:40

I don't hate diesels but I don't like them. The power delivery doesn't suit me, and I don't like the noise. People say they are smooth and quiet now but that's largely untrue - I heard a new Audi A4 diesel do a full-blown start the other day and it sounded like someone tumbledrying gravel, it really did.

Stonedofmoo · 29 Jul 2007 at 18:42

DannyW said:
Theres a Citreon van at my work 1.9 D its aweful only has about 60 bhp and its top speed is like 75, runs like poo aswell until its warmed up

There isn't a single n/a diesel engine out there that is worth driving imo. They are all gutless.

L0rdMike · 29 Jul 2007 at 18:45

Stonedofmoo said:
There isn't a single n/a diesel engine out there that is worth driving imo. They are all gutless.

Yep my mums 1.8D has a massive 59BHP.

triggerthat · 29 Jul 2007 at 19:11

Weird how VW still produce the SDI.

clv101 · 29 Jul 2007 at 19:21

wohoo said:
I can get 33mpg in my ST, my mate in his 150bhp A3 TDI, gets about 45 generally, considering his A3 cost more to buy in the first place, im not sure if the Diesel is offering much of a cost saving overall, residuals will be better mind.

That's not fair. Comparing "can get" with "gets generally". Your numbers suggest the diesel is 45% more efficient. The official combined cycle figures for the two cars are 30mpg for the ST and 51mpg for the 140bhp A3 or 48 for the 170bhp (the 150PD engine was never used in the A3 as far as I know). Meaning instead of the 45% difference your numbers show the diesel is actually 70% more efficient (60% better for the 170bhp).

Sure it's possible that you drive like a granny and get 33 and your mate drives he like he stole it and only gets 45 but that, as I say, isn't a fair comparison.

AndrewPE28 · 29 Jul 2007 at 21:32

Not sure I understand this narrow power band rubbish. Mine is a Vectra 1.9 CDTI 150, currently running around 190bhp and 300 ft/lb torque. It's quick, quiet and fuel efficient.

Yes is blows smoke out, but who cares, it's got lower emmisions that most petrol cars, in fact the tax is on £135 a year as it's so low.

L0rdMike · 29 Jul 2007 at 21:37

AndrewPE28 said:
Yes is blows smoke out, but who cares

Do you know what crap is in all that smoke?

Lopéz · 29 Jul 2007 at 21:38

AndrewPE28 said:
Not sure I understand this narrow power band rubbish. Mine is a Vectra 1.9 CDTI 150, currently running around 190bhp and 300 ft/lb torque. It's quick, quiet and fuel efficient.

It's not rubbish. Your car could have enough torque to pull down a block of flats but the power band is still narrow.

Yes is blows smoke out, but who cares, it's got lower emmisions that most petrol cars, in fact the tax is on £135 a year as it's so low.

I care, smokey diesels are nasty to drive behind.

sloth · 29 Jul 2007 at 21:41

clv101 said:
That's not fair. Comparing "can get" with "gets generally". Your numbers suggest the diesel is 45% more efficient. The official combined cycle figures for the two cars are 30mpg for the ST and 51mpg for the 140bhp A3 or 48 for the 170bhp (the 150PD engine was never used in the A3 as far as I know). Meaning instead of the 45% difference your numbers show the diesel is actually 70% more efficient (60% better for the 170bhp).

Sure it's possible that you drive like a granny and get 33 and your mate drives he like he stole it and only gets 45 but that, as I say, isn't a fair comparison.

Very true. In my ST normal mpg was 22-23. In my new Civic diesel I've had 48-50mpg for the past 2 months. Thats comparing normal driving to normal driving - pushing on, but not thrashing or taking it easy.

Thats 218% more efficient. 140bhp instead of 225bhp, but still. :eek:

clv101 · 29 Jul 2007 at 21:46

sloth said:
Thats 218% more efficient.

...I'd call it 118% more efficient (to be comparable with the 70% more efficient I calculated above).

sloth · 29 Jul 2007 at 21:57

clv101 said:
...I'd call it 118% more efficient (to be comparable with the 70% more efficient I calculated above).

Your maths skills > my maths skills.

blueboy2001 · 29 Jul 2007 at 22:09

L0rdMike said:
Do you know what crap is in all that smoke?

Mainly Carbon particulates I should imagine. There will be some NOx gases as well, but you won't see them.

NickXX · 29 Jul 2007 at 22:11

blueboy2001 said:
Mainly Carbon particulates I should imagine. There will be some NOx gases as well, but you won't see them.

Guess it sucks to be behind me then. Oh well

Azagoth · 29 Jul 2007 at 22:15

Prefer petrol, but have a '02 Mondeo 2.0LX TDCi.

Dolph · 29 Jul 2007 at 22:21

sloth said:
Very true. In my ST normal mpg was 22-23. In my new Civic diesel I've had 48-50mpg for the past 2 months. Thats comparing normal driving to normal driving - pushing on, but not thrashing or taking it easy.

Thats 218% more efficient. 140bhp instead of 225bhp, but still.

But you don't get your own free pursuing band of hippies, I use mine to carry luggage...

[TW]Fox · 29 Jul 2007 at 22:29

Gribs said:
So there's no reason to own a diesel unless you're cheap as a turbo petrol does everything better other than economy.

Could you please recommend me a BMW 5 Series turbo petrol alternative to a 535d? Thanks.

blueboy2001 · 29 Jul 2007 at 22:32

I can see it from both sides - I like modern diesels but I can understand why some people don't.

From a pure driveabilty point of view diesels make sense because as a percentage of the motoring public very few will use the full powerband of a petrol engine, so a narrower more condensed powerband is actually more useable for the majority. Obviously amongst motoring enthusiasts you are going to get a far greater percentage of people who will use their engine power to the full.

I find small NA petrol engines incredibly frustrating to drive - anything with less than about 120bhp just feels flat and gutless and as you rev it you just seem to get more noise rather than any meaningful progress. A 90BHP diesel is sprightly by comparison, even though it may ultimately be slower - it just takes so much less effort to extract the performance. Years ago I swapped from a 90BHP Xantia to a 115BHP Focus and it just seemed to be much more of an effort to drive.

I do find the narrow powerband a touch frustrating on my ST TDCi at times but its only really from a standing start where you need to stir the box quickly - once its moving 3rd and 4th are good for anything from 20-90mph. Diesels are more responsive at motorway speeds too - yes, you can shift down if you have a petrol but most of the time having done a 12 hour+ day the ability to waft home at 100mph doing 2500RPM in 6th gear without too much effort is nice.

If I had to give my diesel up, which I am considering doing, it would have to be for a turbo petrol or a 6 cylinder car, the latter of which will probably use twice as much fuel.

PMKeates · 30 Jul 2007 at 01:48

blueboy2001 said:
If I had to give my diesel up, which I am considering doing, it would have to be for a turbo petrol or a 6 cylinder car, the latter of which will probably use twice as much fuel.

Fuel produces fun imho!