How about another video, with sound

If it were a 2.0, it would sound just the same

Actually the 2.0 sounds meaner, especially with the filter on, smply because it's a petrol and you don't hear taka taka You will see in the video.

If it were a 2.0, it would sound just the same

Errm, what's your point.. of course they sound different. I like the roar my 3-cylinder diesel makes, and the takataka at idle.. some people have serious issues with diesel engines though..

Errm, what's your point.. of course they sound different. I like the roar my 3-cylinder diesel makes, and the takataka at idle.. some people have serious issues with diesel engines though..

I'm one of them, but then I do know the goods and bads of both of them. I'm not saying I will never drive diesels, I have driven them, both normal pick-ups and TDi Ibizas, but if I had a choice between a NA petrol and turbodiesel given to me, I'd pick the petrol. The smoothness of a petrol-engined car will never be had in a diesel car.

The smoothness of a petrol-engined car will never be had in a diesel car.

Best you don't tell Honda that! Accord CTDi anyone?

Best you don't tell Honda that! Accord CTDi anyone?

Or a BMW 330/530/535D, Audi A8 V8TDi etc, etc.

The 535D is better than any BMW petrol except for the M Sports.

Cheers

Lee

Economy-wise, maybe. But performance wise, and ride-drive quality-wise, a diesel can never outdo a petrol. A personal opinion. Maybe I need to sit in more modern taka takas to understand. Thing is, I live here, so I don't see the point in diesel since all cars have petrol SINCE it's bloody cheap...only trucks use diesel here, and diesel costs 25% more than petrol per gallon.

What I will agree with in this though, is that the word 'Diesel' is a much muhc muhc cooler word than boring 'Petrol'...'Diesel' sounds tough...I like....

Performance wise though...turbo-petrol vs turbo-diesel...TDi put to shame.

I have a feeling everybody is going to jump me now...

I love you all :grouphug:

Economy-wise, maybe. But performance wise, and ride-drive quality-wise, a diesel can never outdo a petrol. A personal opinion. Maybe I need to sit in more modern taka takas to understand. Thing is, I live here, so I don't see the point in diesel since all cars have petrol SINCE it's bloody cheap...only trucks use diesel here, and diesel costs 25% more than petrol per gallon.

As others have said, diesel engines have come on in leaps and bounds and my Mondeo sounds and drives much more like a petrol than the all or nothing power of the Fabia. The Honda is apparently very petrol like which is reflected in the refinement and (comparitively) low torque figures ... I heard the Honda chief engineer hated the takataka as much as you and fixed it But, I agree with you, if petrol was that cheap here, I'd be enjoying a nice big N/A car or a turbocharged petrol over the diesel any day

Chris

It's a question of investment as I said previously - there's been comparatively very little money put into diesel technology. For Honda to do what they've done (Mil - you can't tell the difference, honestly!) shows the path that diesels are going to take.

Imagine, a quiet, free revving diesel with 45+ mpg and no idle clatter, yet diesel torque - this is the very near future.

It's a question of investment as I said previously - there's been comparatively very little money put into diesel technology. For Honda to do what they've done (Mil - you can't tell the difference' date=' honestly!) shows the path that diesels are going to take.

Imagine, a quiet, free revving diesel with 45+ mpg and no idle clatter, yet diesel torque - this is the very near future.[/quote']

Hmmm....gotta try one of those out for myself then...

Technology is improving, also new alternative fuels like biodiesel will make the future even more interesting. Also new injection technology will make the cars more quiet and powerful, for example the new 170bhp 2.0 tdi with piezo injectors is already supposed to be quieter than current 2.0 tdi as it will inject 5 times instead of current 2 times per cycle.. It's true however that the cost difference between diesel and petrol fuel is getting narrower now that diesel cars are so popular.. Also heavier taxation of diesel powered cars makes sure that petrol car is still a very tempting choice even when thinking economy, at least where I live anyway (you have to drive 30tkm per year just to make it worhwhile getting a diesel)... Still thinking about petrol 1.8t, in a car like ibiza that would be very fast indeed when chipped and fuel economy is not bad for the performance you get (200+ bhp & more if willing to invest)..

edit: btw, my powerbox has arrived at post office today so I think I may do a little video also if I have time (have to feed the baby, change the diapers & all).. not very high performance maybe but I think it will still be good fun.

not very high performance maybe but I think it will still be good fun.

You'll be surprised at just how much difference it makes Only problem is, give it 3 months and you'll be used to it and wanting more

Chris

the 535D is awesome, twin turbo diesel with massive power and torque for a standard car.

agree a twin turbo petrol would be more fun though

Performance wise though...turbo-petrol vs turbo-diesel...TDi put to shame.

:

Bit of a general statement there mate, I dont think the fact that a petrol car has a turbo means its automatically faster than a diesel. As you know its down to power, torque, gearing etc that determines which car is faster rather than which cars have turbos.

I have been able to pull away from my friends Scooby WRX on several occasions in my diesel. Also, would the MK4 Golf 1.8T 150BHP put the MK4 Golf 150BHP TDI to shame? I doubt it, even Evo mag state that the Golf dervs are faster so the fact that a petrol car has a turbo means nothing really.

.

agree a twin turbo petrol would be more fun though

Isn't that what Maserati's are in to ?

Bit of a general statement there mate' date=' I dont think the fact that a petrol car has a turbo means its automatically faster than a diesel. As you know its down to power, torque, gearing etc that determines which car is faster rather than which cars have turbos.

I have been able to pull away from my friends Scooby WRX on several occasions in my diesel. Also, would the MK4 Golf 1.8T 150BHP put the MK4 Golf 150BHP TDI to shame? I doubt it, even Evo mag state that the Golf dervs are faster so the fact that a petrol car has a turbo means nothing really.[/quote']

Petrol is a fast burning fuel while diesel is not. No, a 150bhp turbo petrol will not necessarily beat a 150bhp turbo diesel. However, it comes down to the point where diesels can never be 'naturally aspirated' to perform in lines with performance petrol cars. For example, the Fabia vRS. For it to even HAVE that torque that it has and the power at 130bhp, it NEEDS the turbo. It NEEDS the turbo to move. Without the turbo it will move like a truck.

That's the advantage NA petrol cars have over turbodiesels. You can have an NA car manufactured to produce the SAME power as the most powerful turbodiesel, and it will have also the higher chance of winning giving the lightweight advantages petrols have.

Bengie, just how powerful is the 535d? 270bhp? Twin-turbo? Of course, to move that 1800kg weight around it NEEDs those turbos to work, one of which is probably smaller to reduce the start-off lag and a bigger one to keep the bloody thing goin' at higher speeds. A naturally aspirated 530i petrol with 258bhp and weighing 1500kgs will fly to 100kmph in under 6.5 seconds, the same as the 535d, and that car needs a twin turbo to perform the same.

A BMW 645ci? a 545i? Naturally aspirated V8s that rocket them to 100kmph in 5 seconds and 180kmph to 200kmph in under 2 seconds (I kid you not, I've seen it happen with in my father's car). Those cars will rape your wonderful 535d. And not only that, you slap on twin turbos on to them and they'll eat porsches for breakfast.

So you see, turbodiesels may work for most people in Europe given the pricing advantage in fuel (well...prolly not anymore since TDis became popular), they may have the torque advantage, but the point is they will ALWAYS need a turbochargers to move. Otherwise, you'll only be drivin' one hell of a pretty truck. Diesels will never be able to make full use of the torque advantage they have simply because of the very small rev range they can operate on.

Oh well.

Petrol is a fast burning fuel while diesel is not. No' date=' a 150bhp turbo petrol will not necessarily beat a 150bhp turbo diesel. However, it comes down to the point where diesels can never be 'naturally aspirated' to perform in lines with performance petrol cars. For example, the Fabia vRS. For it to even HAVE that torque that it has and the power at 130bhp, it NEEDS the turbo. It NEEDS the turbo to move. Without the turbo it will move like a truck.

[/quote']

This has nothing to do with your point I was refering to though, which was 'Performance wise though...turbo-petrol vs turbo-diesel...TDi put to shame'. I was merely pointing out that this statement was wrong

At the moment petrols are the performance choice, but I do not believe this will always be the case, they are catching up very quickly.

It is only with the advent of low torque, small capacity petrols that rev ranges have been lengthened, as modern 16v units produce nothing at lower revs, no torque, no power. Compare a 10 year old petrol to a modern diesel and the rev ranges are the same - modern diesels rev to 5000, higher in some cases. With more and more money and research they will improve as petrols did, yet they have an advantage - torque.

As previously mentioned, BHP is simply a mathematical derivative of torque - no torque, no power, whatever you do. So by starting with a very high torque engine and making those advances, you have the potential for much higher power outputs.

Wait 10 years and you'll see

Duplicate

For example, the Fabia vRS. For it to even HAVE that torque that it has and the power at 130bhp, it NEEDS the turbo. It NEEDS the turbo to move. Without the turbo it will move like a truck.

Why is that a problem? My car wouldn't go fast without any wheels, but it has wheels, because it was designed to use them. Your car wouldn't handle very well without a power steering belt, but it's ok because it's designed to have one.

Sure, without a Turbo Diesel cars wouldn't be very fast, but they are designed to have a turbo. They're not exactly bolt-on items anyway. So how can you say Diesels aren't good because they use a certain technology as standard?

And on a personal note, please stop using the term 'rape' in your boasts. It's incredibly unpleasant and unnecessary.

I wonder what the longest ever thread is

Gotta be the oil one?

Ho hum.

And on a personal note' date=' please stop using the term 'rape' in your boasts. It's incredibly unpleasant and unnecessary.[/quote']

No problem, apologies if I caused any offense by using it, I'll refrain from using it as of now.

I wasn't saying diesel cars a cr@p. I've never said so and never thought so. I just prefer petrols, and knowing the fact that diesel cars need turbos to perform as well as NA petrol cars is enough to tell me which is the one that is 'king' (again, in my opinion).

Don't take me for an a$$hole, but I just think petrol cars are better.

Don't take me for an a$$hole, but I just think petrol cars are better.

Nobody's got a problem with voicing an opinion on here - otherwise we're all as guilty

Yes N/A petrol is superior, it's a much more explosive fuel than diesel hence it's always going to be in supercars etc (I know they do diesel supercars now btw ).

But, for 99.9% of the population, a diesel is just as quick, much better economy, if serviced correctly should be more durable, needs less rev's to get it moving making overtaking much safer and has better residuals than it's petrol counterparts.

Not everyone wants to thrash the nuts off their cars, and like I said above for everything bar 0-100's etc the diesel is a preferable option and when you give it a decent engine like the BMW has or mine remapped, it will put most CTR's to shame. And think of it this way, when you touch 130 mph and the CTR gradually goes by I am still doing 36 mpg whereas they will be in the low 20's.

I do like N/A cars, I think they are great and modern advances such as FSi etc make them very economical however they are simply not as usable as a diesel, especially when driving from low rev's, and Mil I honestly think you need to try out a modern diesel such as a VAG PD engine, the turbo lag is near nothing (literally .5 of a second below 2k rpm) and when above 2k when the turbo is spinning already there is none or such a small amount that I cannot tell, and neither can anyone else who has driven my car (I also think the PD engine sounds quite meaty and free revving for a diesel) .

I understand peoples arguement about the cost of petrol compared with diesel, but diesel is actually much easier to refine than petrol and costs a lot less to make, it's just another government taxation.

I'm not taking you for anyything Mil, I can agree totally that the noise a Petrol Car makes is a lot nicer than most Diesel engines, and personally I wanted a Petrol when I was shopping for my car. But Diesel just worked out cheaper, and the Furby vRS still makes me smile. The engine may not be as good or as fast as some Petrol engines, but the Car as a whole gives me the enjoyment that makes it worthwhile - as I'm sure the 2.0 does for you.

Horses for Courses I suppose. The Diesel gets me to work and back every day while still being fun on some B roads at the weekends. And all this with a fuel economy I can afford on my Ex-student wage. Perhaps in a few years my next car will be a Petrol, and I may love it more than my Furby. Until then I think we will just love our own cars

and thank you.