but diesels and their torque isn't all good, a TDi and a petrol with similar performance the diesel will be straining the drivetrain a lot more as it uses brute force rather than gradual controlled power to get it moving so things like cv joints, bushes, drive shafts, gearboxes, clutches etc will last longer in the petrol. and i don't understand why people say to get the power out of a high performance N/A car you are thrashing it :confused: you are simply driving it how it was made to work and within manufacture's tolerances exactly the same as you are with your diesel, its simply revving higher yet still within the limits set by the people that designed and built the engine.

Mil,

If you won a competition to drive home a brand new 5 Series and could have either the six cylinder 3 litre pertol 530i or the six cylinder 3 litre diesel 535D what would you choose?

If you got to try them both before choosing I 100% gaurantee you would take home the 535D.

The 530i offers good performance and is smooth with a sporty engine note.

The 535D is also smooth with a sporty engine note but the performance is in a different league the surge of torque and power at any revs in any gear is unbelievable.

It's a shame about the confusing dash on the 5 Series or my wifes uncle would have bought the 535D but instead he went for the E320CDi.

In certain model line ups the diesel is becoming engine of choice, the new A8 4.2V8 TDi monster looks good with 326bhp and massive torque and Merc and BMW look like they are starting a Diesel power war with Merc bring out tri-turbo models.

Diesel may be slower burning but it's has a far greater thermal efficiency which means for the fuel you put in you will get more power out of a diesel. The only thing a diesel needs is air to burn in which is why there is a big push for increased turbo technology.

Cheers

Lee

amd i don't understand why people say to get the power out of a high performance N/A car you are thrashing it :confused: you are simply driving it how it was made to work and within manufacture's tolerances exactly the same as you are with your diesel, its simply revving higher yet still within the limits set by the people that designed and built the engine.

Yes but on a diesel you get the same performance without thrashing it.

i.e. 2-3k on diesel is by no means stressing the engine at all and yet you get 90% of the overall acceleration with no loss in economy. To get the same performance from a petrol you would have to be 4-5k + which will use more fuel and IMO is putting the engine under more stress certainly as you reach the 5k mark. Also your comment about not having to thrash a high powered N/A car is accurate, however what would your economy be like if you needed a high powered N/A car to get the same burst of acceleration?! 20 mpg at best whereas the diesel is still mid to high 40's. Also the chances are that if you own a high powered N/A car the it will be fairly costly as the chances are the car itself is upmarket (e.g. BMW, Merc, Audi etc..) so things such as tyres, servicing costs will be more expensive (obviously this statement isn't fact but you get my generalisation I hope).

Also just a note about extra wear and tear by driving a torquey diesel engine I believe is flawed, a manufacturer will of had these cars on test for a long time and certain components will be designed differently to cope with the extra stress under certain conditions, unless you can prove otherwise I would say that is your opinion and not actually a fact, hence why diesels on average do last much longer than their petrol counterparts.

the engines may last longer but how many people on here have had problems with the drivetrain as a whole including bushes etc on the fabia TDi compared to octavia 1.8T??

must admit i haven't looked for my octavia but for my focus the max intermitent rpm was about 6700ish and the max sustained rpm was about 6200ish so revving it to say 5800 was perfectly within its tolerances, you seem hung up on comparing numbers, what is more important is how close you go to the max rpm and how often. for example if(i say if as i don't actually know) the max intermittent rpm for the PD is say 5k then revving it to 4.5k is taking it fairly close to its limit. the max intermittent rpm on the 1.8T is going to be more like 7K so revving it to 6k is actually stressing the engine less, but where it relies more on bhp than torque then it is also putting less stress on the drive train in the end too.

Yes but I clearly said you will go a lot faster revving between 2-3k on diesel without affecting economy than you would in a N/A car going between even something a low as 4-5k.

What I am trying to get at Bengie (no dig at you mate) is that as an overall package a TDi makes more sense for a majority of people, it does 99% of the things a N/A petrol can do but without economy issues and other issues I have previously mentioned, and I would still argue that revving a normal every day car to 6k reguarly isnt healthy even on a petrol, and I agree neither is 4.5k on a diesel, but the difference is on a diesel there really is NO NEED to rev the engine to that level to get the performance (you would also at that point sacrifice economy) whereas on a N/A car to get a good level of acceleration you would, unless as I have again said above you have a high powered N/A car but that again falls usually into the bracket I have already mentioned also.

On the reliability issue I think in todays world things have become blurred.

An old Merc E300D with it's non turbo'd, indirect injection, mechanical pump would run to half a million miles with only the odd oil change.

Some issues have come in with turbo charging and even firms like Peugeot/Citreon have had head gasket issues, but then again so have MGR with the K series petrol.

The Vag 1.9 is old school diesel with some modern technology thrown in and I've seen a few Octy's with 300+k miles. On the other hand Honda reckon they have never had a TypeR engine go bang and they like to rev beyond 8000rpm.

So I think diesel engine longevity is not a clear winner in todays machinery.

For todays roads especially in the UK I don't think you can beet the power delivery of a good TDi. I've always had big powerfull petrol cars with either high output turbo's or large capacity V6's. To use the performance on the road means cogging down a few gears and getting to licence loosing speeds within two gear changes. Modern TDI's give you that kick low down just when you need it accelerating out of a bend or for overtaking without cogging down the gearbox and emptying that petrol tank.

Swapping to two diesels is saving me over

^^

I agree. However Honda really are a testement to engineering and although mechanical issues may not affect the car's performance, the money in your bank WILL.

On the road a 115bhp 2.0 Fabia driver is going to have to work hard to keep up with a Fabia PD100 driver using all the torque (125lbft V's 177lbtf).

Cheers

Lee

I've already raced a PD100, there is only one here (HARDLY any diesel cars here) and I took him easy, even with all the torque he had. Three times I pulled up behind him, see that puff of smoke exit telling me he's flooring it but makes way for me at 100kmph. That's how quick the 2.0 is, I'm tellin' you guys. I did not let him go in anyway, and he always made way. We both ended up at the same destination and as we split ways he gave me the thumbs up. Was a good race, but it isn't a competition with that car because the PD100 is an EASY win. I want to take on a standard vRS with my car. THAT will be interesting,

I think I already put up a post about this though.

As far as driving a modern turbodiesel is concerned, I've already said many times that I would love to. I drove the Ibiza TDi GT and THAT was fun to drive, even at only 90bhp. It was real fun.

Hellfire, the diesel cars makes more sense...in Europe, not here. Nobody uses diesel cars, you see EXTREMELY few, the kind where one would say 'oh look a diesel merc!'...

It's understandable though why diesel is so popular there.

I've already raced a PD100, there is only one here (HARDLY any diesel cars here) and I took him easy, even with all the torque he had. Three times I pulled up behind him, see that puff of smoke exit telling me he's flooring it but makes way for me at 100kmph. That's how quick the 2.0 is, I'm tellin' you guys. I did not let him go in anyway, and he always made way. We both ended up at the same destination and as we split ways he gave me the thumbs up. Was a good race, but it isn't a competition with that car because the PD100 is an EASY win.

You wouldn't have gone sailing passed me in my PD100 :P:rofl:

Chris

You know how they say some dreams come true....

That one wouldnt!

You know how they say some dreams come true....

That one wouldnt!

So true - it's been sold now However, if you want an ***-whooping by a Mondeo smog monster, give me a shout :P:rofl:

Chris

I've already raced a PD100, there is only one here (HARDLY any diesel cars here) and I took him easy.

Didn't I say in a red line race the 2.0 would be quicker.

But 99.9% of driving isn't racing and in the UK there are camera's and police all over the place.

Already this year two UK motoring forum members are currently serving around 5 years each in prison for racing on UK roads.

I could have saved a fair amount of money buying my wife an ex-demo 2.0 Fabia instead of an ex-demo PD100. But the PD100 felt far stronger in normal driving and the extra 20mpg meant I would get my money back within 18 months and that's before considering the PD100's far better resale value.

And for little outlay for a tuning box the PD100 makes over 130bhp and 210lbft.

Cheers

Lee

Theres some good points on both sides in this thread, and i'm glad that people have so far debated this without resorting to insults.

As someone who has gone from a TDI to a NA petrol (of broardly very similar performance AFAICT), I can happily see that there are good points and bad points to both engines.

Whats the advantages of the TDI over the NA petrol? Well the TDI was clearly far more flexible on the motorway, gear dropping was largely unnecesary most of the time and it was easy to despatch almost any NA petrol car that wasn't trying its hardest. Basically I know my Fabia vRS would absolutely destroy the Golf on a motorway if I wasnt driving the Golf to 10/10th's of its capability. And if I was driving that way, even then it'd be hard work to get past. Not only that, but the TDI was a very, very quick point to point machine - sure, it didnt handle anywhere near as good as the Golf IMHO, but it more than made up for it with the bursts of speed it could do coming out of a corner. Finally, on hills, i think the Fabia would shown my Golf a clean pair of heals no matter how hard i tried. Not to mention, the economy, although i'd say it probably wasnt quite as good as I thought it would be, but it was still good - 45 MPG easily obtainable, and that was making fairly good progress too. The torque also makes the car *feel* quick. Well, whether its quick or not, surely a car that feels quick is going to be fun to drive?

Now onto the NA car. Although I find it slower at low revs, if you drive it properly, its basically no slower than the Fabia was most of the time. And because its slower at low revs, when you do want to drive it hard, it quite simply is more fun... i'll get onto why when i look at the disadvantages of both. The handling is better, because the throttle response is more instant and the car does not suddenly kick in with masses of torque so suddenly - more controllable around corners. It makes more noise, so again is more fun. Its easier to launch off the line without leaving half of your tyres on the tarmac. There is no turbo to break, no heatsoak to worry about. The response is more linear, and because there is no turbo lag, the car is actually easier to drive at very low revs (read, town speed, 30 or below).

I disagree with Hellfire when he says the TDI's are much better from low revs. Yes they are from 2000 onwards, but not below this, where they suffer very bad lag until the turbo spools. If the revs are too low, this can be a couple of seconds, and it can make the difference between getting into a gap and not. Because everything happens at low revs on diesels, its sometimes difficult to read the situation without looking at the dials - you may not be aware that your revs are too low and you'll be getting lag, or that they are too high so you have no power left, i've done this a few times, and anyone who is a keen driver will probably have done this. As suggested, the TDI's are not as good handling because of their abrupt delivery of power and torque. Also they dont rev high enough, so corners can pose more understeer than usual IMO. Not only that, but TDI's can tease, they give that initial promise of absolutely insane performance, only to hit the redline as soon as it gets interesting. They shred tyres with their torque, pulling off quickly takes some practice thanks to the short first gears and over abundance of low down power. They just dont sound as good, even the BMW and Alfa diesels still sound like a diesel, just better than most. When you hear a 6 cylinder Alfa GTA, you realise that the diesels still sound lame in comparison...

The NA petrol engines pull cleanly from very low revs, much more so than TDI's, but unfortunately they do need keeping "on cam" to keep up with a TDI. In other words, while they pull cleanly from low revs, dont expect any real performance until you hit about 3500 in most of them. And even though you can keep them on cam, you'll be using a hell of a lot more fuel to do it. Then theres the noise that results from keeping a car on cam - i like it - but some do not. The NA car might ultimately be quicker, but after the initial burst of speed from a comparable TDI, your going to need a lot of road to get past, and your going to be well into licence losing speeds.

So you see, neither is truly better than the other. Its all a matter of preference. To me, it boils down to this: If you want big engine flexibility, effortless and lazy power delivery, and good economy, then go for the TDI. If you are after a focused, involving driving experience, but one that uses more fuel and makes more noise, but creates more excitement, go petrol. If you want some of the best of both worlds, go for turbo petrol. Simple as!

I could have saved a fair amount of money buying my wife an ex-demo 2.0 Fabia instead of an ex-demo PD100. But the PD100 felt far stronger in normal driving

My dad went from a 2.0 litre GTI Golf Mk4 to a Polo Sport TDI PD100, and I agree, the Polo easily feels the quicker car, but it isnt. However, so what... most people wont care, and for me, the PD100 was probably ultimately more deserving of the GTI badge than the Golf was, as in 99% of the case it did feel more alive.

Same with my Fabia vRS v's the Golf GTI 8v. The Fabia felt far quicker most of the time, unless you drive like a hooligan all the time in the Golf. And given that i think a 900 kg Golf with 112 bhp should feel significantly quicker than a 2.0 Fabia with 115 bhp, then I'd say that the vRS would not have too much problem despatching a 2.0 litre Fabia, IMHO.

I had two main reasons for sticking with a 2.0 petrol - noise and pollution. These don't seem to be mentioned much here.

I had two main reasons for sticking with a 2.0 petrol - noise and pollution. These don't seem to be mentioned much here.

From inside the car I found the PD100 to be quieter than the 1.4 and 2.0 Petrol, especially at motorway speeds. Haven't driven a 1.2.

As for pollution, I'll admit I never give it a thought but the PD100 is probably cleaner than my wifes last runabout, a Rover 75 2.5V6 Auto that used to manage 16mpg round town.

Cheers

Lee

Nice post there Paul, although for that last one you need to remember the big weight difference between a 2.0 and vRS, the same way you remember it for the Golf and the 2.0 Fabia

2.0 rules. So does vRS. So do all Fabias. So do all Skodas.

Damn this thread is loooooooooooooong...

I disagree with Hellfire when he says the TDI's are much better from low revs. Yes they are from 2000 onwards, but not below this, where they suffer very bad lag until the turbo spools. If the revs are too low, this can be a couple of seconds, and it can make the difference between getting into a gap and not. Because everything happens at low revs on diesels, its sometimes difficult to read the situation without looking at the dials - you may not be aware that your revs are too low and you'll be getting lag, or that they are too high so you have no power left, i've done this a few times, and anyone who is a keen driver will probably have done this.

Neither a TDi or a N/A petrol will be good from 1,500 revs, but if you rev both from that rev range the TDi will still pull away much quicker as it only needs to rise 200-300 rpm to hit the wave of torque whereas a N/A petrol seems to take forever to get to a usable rpm.

I dont find handling any different tbh either, IMO of course. Maybe I just havent driven a real N/A car yet :confused: however my vRS seems to keep up quite nicely round twisties with my brothers Clio 172, but I would put this down to the driver and not the car .

Finally I believe the gearing on my vRS to be excellent, and although this thread is about standard cars, my remapped furby rev's nicely from 1.6k rpm to 4.5k without much hinderance, also since the rev range is shorter did you ever notice it took the needle longer to go around? look at the ratio's on the 53 reg Fabia vRS, 4th gear 110?

Just IMO

Neither a TDi or a N/A petrol will be good from 1,500 revs, but if you rev both from that rev range the TDi will still pull away much quicker as it only needs to rise 200-300 rpm to hit the wave of torque whereas a N/A petrol seems to take forever to get to a usable rpm.

Agreed, but for simply pootling around town slowly, i still find the petrol more usable (no lag or sudden boosting). But I cant really argue that the TDI's are generally far better from low revs when it comes to *serious* acceleration.

I dont find handling any different tbh either, IMO of course. Maybe I just havent driven a real N/A car yet :confused: however my vRS seems to keep up quite nicely round twisties with my brothers Clio 172, but I would put this down to the driver and not the car .

I thought you had a 172 before? :confused:

Anyway, i've never said the vRS couldnt go around corners quickly, generally i can drive around corners just as quickly most of the time in the vRS as the Golf, but where the Golf (and other petrol hot hatches) win out is that controllability on the limit. The Fabia doesn't have so much of that, end of story - it just cant turn in as quickly as lighter nosed NA petrol rivals as it just understeers too soon. Once the speed is upped thats less of a problem, and the torque really does overcome is relative lack of handling. The Fabia can corner quickly that i do not debate, but it just doenst have the agility and control of its petrol rivals - and thats more about enjoyment than outright speed IMO.

I agree with everything above, FOR ONCE!!! :D

It's my brother who has a 172 not me, i've never owned one. Can't get insured otherwise I would of considered it in place of my vRS, especially now the 182 is out :(

One last thing to note (I have to say this you know I do ) is that my car (admitadly fettled with) does keep pace with much faster cars in outright pace, and on a 0-100 run on several occassions my car DOES pull about a length/2 (not got my measuring tape out) on my brother in his 172. Just to prove this wasnt down to the driver, we switched and the result was the same...

But this discussion is about standard cars so ignore the above please .

Agreed, but for simply pootling around town slowly, i still find the petrol more usable

Ah, pootling! That's me - a pootrol-head!

As far as engine longevity goes, revving a petrol will reduce it's lifespan. Tappety noises and smoke and power reduction will occur much sooner if thrashed all it's life.

It'll turn into a diesel??

As far as engine longevity goes' date=' revving a petrol will reduce it's lifespan. Tappety noises and smoke and power reduction will occur much sooner if thrashed all it's life.

It'll turn into a diesel?? [/quote']

What are you talking about? I had an Opel Omega MV6 before the Fabia for about 130,000kms, I gave it a good trashing for about half it's life and it still performed like new. If you don't maintain your cars they will start to fail. However, taking good car of them, servicing them on time, getting things checked to make sure it's ok (like when I thought I had burned my clutch on my Furby but wasn't so sure, I told the dealer to check it...the pad was all 'just' gone), regular engine tune-ups, the life span won't drop.

Hell my friend's father has this 96 Corolla he's had since brand new, it's got over 300,000kms in it (187,500miles) and still, when you rev it it pulls! Doesn't look like it could but it does! He took care of his car.

It all comes down to the individual, not the car..unless you buy a Peugeot which will then be TOTALLY understandable...

unless you buy a Peugeot which will then be TOTALLY understandable...

Plenty of old 405s still going on very high miles, though admittedly most of the electrics have ceased to work.

And most of them are diesels...

Rob.

As far as engine longevity goes' date=' revving a petrol will reduce it's lifespan. Tappety noises and smoke and power reduction will occur much sooner if thrashed all it's life.

It'll turn into a diesel?? [/quote']

I don