MrSix, With you being so into diesel (Which is fine, the world would be boring if we couldn't have arguments about things
) I was hoping you'd at least not trot out the torque line.
Surely you must know how torque works? Big torque flywheel figures are only really useful for telling other people on the internet how great diesel engines are.
It is power that dictates how quick a car really is - the torque figure tells you how the power is delivered. High power/low torque = peaky, revvy power delivery, Low power/High torque = low down shove with limited rev range, with other mixes being somewhere in between. And its somewhere in between which is what I like. I don't like Honda VTEC engines, for example (but I won't be found going LOL NO TORQUE, as to do so would demonstrate a gross lack of understanding)
An engine with 400lb/ft of torque doing just 2500rpm is dumping the same torque on the road as an engine with half that doing 5000rpm, surely? This is why your average Formula 1 car has less torque than a Golf diesel. It's also why my Citroen Xantia weighed the same as a Civic Type R, had the same torque figure as a Civic Type R yet was so much slower it was unbelievable.
Flywheel torque figures alone are meaningless because between the flywheel is separated from the wheels by...... a gearbox. Which acts as a torque multiplier? This is why a Honda S2000 has 'no torque' but is really fast. This is why a Skoda Fabia diesel has loads of torque but is really slow. This is why racing cars have high revving petrol engines (Le Mans doesn't count because its endurance racing where the rules greatly favour diesel, it is not a level playing field). This is why the WRC is full of petrol cars not diesel cars.
One of the biggest benefits of high torque but comparatively low power is that it's more relaxing/effortless to drive. You don't need to use the gearbox so much to get the most out of the engine. But this is the sort of thing you appreciate in something like a big barge rather than a fast road hatch. Surely for fast road driving you WANT to engage with the car and stir the box? It's not exactly a chore to be in the right gear for the performance you want - its part of enjoying driving. It's also made irrelevant with a decent automatic box anyway, as the box ensures you are in the right gear which negates most of the low-down-torque benefits anyway.
The issue I have with diesel is that a diesel powered car is almost always something you buy out of necessity and then try to convince everyone (including yourself) you bought because you genuinely wanted. Whereas a petrol equivalent tends to be something you bought because you wanted it, therefore such self-justification isn't required.
EddScott is a prime example of this. (Sorry to use you
) He has recently purchased an Audi A4 2.0 TDI 170 without even viewing it before buying it. Even before it had arrived he had begun the transition to diesel evangelised - about a car he'd never driven! He has no idea how it drove, having never driven a car with the 170bhp engine in it, but he was already in full swing trying to convince himself and others he didn't want a 2.0TFSI anyway. It's just bonkers. What's wrong with saying 'Yea, a 2.0T would have been nice but the fuel economy was too little for me so I had to buy the diesel'? Why does it always have to be about how much torque it has and how in the real world it's basically a V8 and how the 4 cylinder VAG TDI engine is the second coming of your preferred prophet? Nobody really buys a 2.0 TDI because they like the engine they buy it because they either need it or they feel they need it.
Which moves me nicely onto my next car. My next car (though a few years off I'd imagine) is likely to be a 530d. Is this because it's way better than a 535i? Is this because it has huge piles of torque? No. None of these things. It's because for every 1 535i there are 100 530d's and in order to be able to get exactly the sort of spec I want I'd need to order a new 535i which is something I simply cannot afford to do. So, I'll probably buy a diesel instead, because money prevents me buying the petrol car I'd rather have and money prevents me availing myself of something bonkers like a used 550i. Quite why this must be taboo I've no idea. Everyone is desperate to avoid the main reason they bought a diesel - because the budget didn't run to the petrol version. You as well - would you seriously have bought a Leon TDI if a Leon Cupra R carried identical costs? Of course you wouldn't.
And this moves onto my final point -why diesels frustrate me. They are usually bought because they are perceived to be the better financial choice, even if this isn't the case. It's the default choice. Do 4k miles a year around town? Get a diesel. Do 15k a year and have a budget of £2500? Buy a complex, unreliable diesel that'll generate lots of bills because it's a few mpg better than the reliable petrol one one. etc etc. This last one will be irrelevant in 10 years mind, as todays new petrol engines are as bad for complexity as the diesels.
You'll find no complaint from me when somebody buying a car to do 20k a year or something wants a diesel. They need a diesel. They'll get recommended a diesel by me. A diesel is a tool - a tool for a job. Sometimes it's the right tool for the job. Often its the wrong tool for the job.
And seriously, the clattery noise at the lights thing. Man thats annoying.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
