NACRO

you were doing so well until the last line!

Luckily my head isn't stuck so far up my own rectum I don't have to resort to that sort of comment- LOL.

I know that they are good cars (the 330D)but do you really think that they are ultimately faster than the petrol equivalent? that's the real discussion here. What is your take on that question?

As for turbo'd jap cars being the be all and end all well obviously they aren't. These diesel drivers are very defensive- I wonder why?

tiggers

Yeah every time you get a diesel you eventually go back to a real performance car

As for a 330D easily outpacing a Scooby - sorry, but I just can't see it. If the drivers are of equal ability the Scoob has got to win the day surely. In many magazine tests there's been little to choose between a well driven Scoob and a well driven M3 in real world A to B conditions so is the 330D faster than an M3?

Having said that maybe The Ring suits the 330D characteristics better than the Scoob.

tiggers.

NACRO

see here for some interesting info regarding track performance of the diesel 330

http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?threadid=236956

You'll see that MattOz manages to lap a good 30 secs faster in his 330D than I manage in my Impreza. So I'm not saying these cars are slow (though I'm sure the driver has more to do with it than anything else) just that they don't fit in with my idea of a "performance car".

The BMW M Division agree with me along with most of the rest of the world. A low revving diesel is never going to give me the sensations I'm looking for in a performance car.


edited cos It didnt make any sense



[Edited by NACRO - 05/08/2003 10:10:09]

tiggers

Anyone ever noticed that the first thing any diesel owner will tell you is how many hundreds of miles per gallon their car can do?

Thinking about it that says it all really!!!

tiggers.

mik

But how do you assess this "performance car" without using performance as the measure?

( BTW - remapped 130PD Ibiza's give 180+ bhp with 300+ lbs.ft. ~ hence the comparison with Clio's )

You've agreed they are as fast, but they don't give the sensations you want in terms of revs, and you can't understand why anyone would want to save money whilst driving a performance car.

Flipside - why do you want to waste money driving no faster, just to satisfy your sensory mis-conceptions of increased speed?

Surely you'd be better driving just as fast in a performance diesel and arranging a Pro to meet you at the end of every journey to give you a BJ? Still cheaper (allegedly)

mik

Or alternatively I'll set your car up:-

A TDi engine with the boost wound back in the mid-range.
A sound system that plays a noise of a Vanquish V12 at 2x rpm (so at 3000rpm it'll make a 6000rpm noise).

You'll go just as fast, and you can satisfy your need to correlate speed with expenditure by throwing £20 notes out the window at paupers.

:P

MattOz

Mik,

You hit the nail on the head when you said......

Quote: "why do you want to waste money driving no faster, just to satisfy your sensory mis-conceptions of increased speed?"

My M5 will do 25 mpg at a steady 85 ish. The 330d will do 52 mpg at the same speed. I will not get to my destination faster in the M5, it'll just have cost me twice as much in fuel.

There are odd occasions where an M5, M3, Scooby etc would be quicker, but these are few and far between, and certainly not on the motorway where I spend a fair amount of time. The M5 was 20 seconds quicker around the Nurburgring, but that's only a second every kilometre. Not that much quicker.

The reason I keep going back to the 330d is that it saves my bank account from those "red" moments and it's a fabulous all rounder. I've enjoyed all my performance petrol cars, but none has given me the satisfaction of the 330d. I enjoy performance, I just dont want to have to pay through the nose for it.

And anyway, if the 330d ever feels too slow, I'll take my Hayabusa out for a spin!

Matt

NACRO

quote: "Flipside - why do you want to waste money driving no faster, just to satisfy your sensory mis-conceptions of increased speed?"

Because I enjoy it? for me the whole point of driving. If I did it as an a-b thing I'd have a diesel.

So the argument has now moved onto to modded cars (the 180bhp remap Ibiza), I guess when you've lost the argument before you've begun you have to resort to those type of cheap tricks.

The main point is that a petrol equivalent car will be faster- if you want to save money and be slower (1 sec per km) then that's great. Other people prefer performance cars.

If I was to drive the diesel, then the petrol equivalent cars I would be faster in the petrol. As the thread is "performance diesels- why?" I would go for the ultimate in performance, not the best bang for buck.
As we have already established if you want to save a few quid buy a diesel, but don't kid yourself it's faster than the petrol engined equiv 'cos it aint.

Diesels the rational choice but as yet not the enthusiasts choice.
Perhaps one day we will see an M power diesel- personally I think it's a few yrs off yet.

NACRO

MattOz regarding your motorway example-

I live in France and have had the opportunity to have a few tussles with various motors coming out of the peage booths- a standing start from 0-130kph (and a bit more). One of the cars I comprehensively destroyed was a 330D saloon. I'd watched the BMW driver trying to keep up on the autoroute so was interested to see what it would do from rest. Not a lot was the answer, he came screaming past eventually at over 200kph on his way to a prison cell I presume- he didn't look happy.
Just out of interest what are the 0-100 times on the 330D? I presume they must be a lot slower than an old classic Impreza like mine?

cookiemonster

> I know that they are good cars (the 330D)but do you really
> think that they are ultimately faster than the petrol
> equivalent? that's the real discussion here. What is your take
> on that question?

A Golf Tdi won a round of the (very hotly contested) VW cup last year on its second or third time out. So, there's nothing in it as far as I can see.

I guess its like comparing turbo'd against N/A - there are pro's and cons to both performance wise. Higher power vs. response, etc.


Anyway here's a slow, boring, performance diesel yesterday (someone else can make it clicky):

http://www.vw-cup.co.uk/images/images03/cars/carspage/golftdix.jpg

mik

So obviously you drive something extremely focused like a Caterfield, or 340R or summat? Or do you have some requirements in addition to enjoyment.

It's not an argument, just a discussion . Yes the TDI requires a remap to get to 180bhp, I agree. We were discussing equivalent petrol vs diesel.... I thought a 180bhp diesel Ibiza vs 180bhp petrol 206GTI or 172Clio was pretty equivalent. VAG are about to release a 2.0 TDI 16V with 175bhp as std.

If you want to compare N/A petrol with N/A diesel ~ you've won!

A TDI with X peak horespower will actually be quicker than a petrol with X peak horsepower, as it's given it's best and is tailing off towards the optimum rpm point. Same is true of a petrol, but to a lesser extent.

I agree. Only thing I'd add is "generally" ahead of "the enthusiast's".

You could say the same for autos, cars with aircon, PAS, ABS, Servo'd brakes etc etc etc.

NACRO

quote: "My M5 will do 25 mpg at a steady 85 ish. The 330d will do 52 mpg at the same speed. I will not get to my destination faster in the M5, it'll just have cost me twice as much in fuel."

By a Saxo diesel then following that line of logic- they will do 65mpg at a steady 85 ish no problem and you'll have saved again over your 330D. Or is the argument somewhat more complex than that?

I think the problem here is the blinkered attitude of the DIESEL owners. They just can't admit that the petrol equiv will be faster. The diesel may provide a better balance of cost/performance but as I keep saying (and the diesel boys can't reply to this) they are slower than an equiv petrol. End of story.

MattOz

Nacro,

Take a standard 330d and a standard Impreza. I guarantee you that down any given road, rain or shine there would be little in it. In fact whichever went first would still be first at the end of the run. I know I've tried it.

A redline is still a redline, whether it's at 4.5k revs or 8k. As a driver, you can still enjoy both cars in equal measure.

Stepping out of a 330d into a 330i, and the petrol version feels breathless, but makes a fantastic noise. In the real world and on track, there's nothing in it.

I can see your point about the noise side of things, as the flat four of the Impreza is certainly more rattly than my 330d engine. A 330i straight six on the otherhand sounds fantastic when rung out. As do the M cars. You can only get this from a petrol engine. You're also right about BMW not making an Md, but then it's highly unlikely that they feel the need to.

Matt

NACRO

quote: "So obviously you drive something extremely focused like a Caterfield, or 340R or summat? Or do you have some requirements in addition to enjoyment."

No I had to compromise and buy an AWD Impreza as I live in a mountain region- actually you trying to deflect the topic onto what I drive demonstrated the weakness of your argument/discussion (it would be pedantic to try and say it was one or the other)

Perhaps the question should be what do we get out of a performance car?

I would say obviously the objective performance (petrol wins here generally)

Sensation (again I prefer high revs and changing gear to in gr flexibility and a low peak)

Handling- diesel engines are heavier therefore if they sit over the front wheels they have to blunt turn in and agility (at least with all the diesels I've driven including the Golf PDTDI)

If the question was "Diesels why?" then I think a lot of the arguments put forward in favour of them ring true, however the question is "Performance diesels- why?" and I still don't know why, it doesn't make any sense to me.

NACRO

regarding the BMW M diesel- I read an article in which the M dept said there would never be such a thing as diesels are not suitable power plants for performance vehicles. It was in Autocar FYI.

I think you're dodging the issue- ultimately which is faster a petrol 330 or a diesel one. Tell me that and we will have the answer to our question.

Also the 330D is a lot slower in a straight line from rest than an old Impreza, the figures prove it, I've seen it first hand. Or is that not the case?

mik

I'm trying to point out that we all have unique criteria. You've selected the Scoob for it's balance of abilities versus your requirements.

Why can't other folks choose a solution for them that has a diesel engine?

They have lower specific outputs than petrol, but you can get powerfuls TDIs. As they don't require a stochiometric mix ratio, they are very easy and cheap to tune.

I'm using "equivalent" as same-ish bhp in my points. Do you mean something else (not picking - genuinely not sure if you mean something else?)

NACRO

Here are some interesting figures

BMW 330D 0-100 22.5 seconds

BMW 330i 01-100 16.5 seconds

These are taken from Autocar.

Here's an interesting one for all the Impreza owners here on scoobynet (an odd phrase that one!)

Subaru Impreza "classic" 0-100 14.6 source EVO magazine


I don't think I need to say anything else- it's clear which fuel is used by the performance car.

Of course the diesel boys will say "real world conditions...yadda yadda yadda"

Well I toasted a 330D on the autoroute and that was real world enough for me. Looking at the figures I can see why.

NACRO

"Why can't other folks choose a solution for them that has a diesel engine? "

They can and in fact I think the VAG PDi engined cars are very fine motors indeed- I've had a 130Pdi Passat and it was every bit as good as the 150bhp turbo petrol passat I owned. The petrol was faster though.

Same with the 330D V 330ci both are great cars that sadly I've never owned. The question here isn't "are diesel cars sh1te?", in my opinion they aren't. The question is "performance diesels- why?" and I still don't understand why? If you want performance get a petrol equiv, they are faster end of story.

ChrisB

http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...193683&Page=11

Scroll down to Kev's post to find this quote:

Kev has a 180BHP Leon Cupra, so that's a 50bhp advantage over me, not to mention it being a 'proper' performance car running on petrol. No wonder I didn't spend most of the weekend in Wales giving him a hard time on a fine mix of A and B roads....

mik

Real world conditions.....yada...yada...yada

I'm not remotely surprised that a 231bhp car is faster to 100 than a 184bhp one of same configuration (new 330d is 204bhp, but will stil be slower of course).

NACRO

I'll bet it is quick, that's the funny thing, diesel owners remind me of small guys in the pub with something to prove always looking for aggro.

I haven't ever said they aren't fast, just that if we are talking about equal drivers in equal model cars, using different fuels then the petrol car will win.

The figures bear this out, various tests bear it out and when someone can present some evidence to the contrary I'll rethink. Until then petrol will be the fuel of choice for my "performance" car.

If you want ultimate performance buy a petrol vehicle, if you want a blend of performance/running cost buy a diesel. Just don't kid yourself that it is quicker.

ChrisB

So we can use the same marker to explain why a Seat TDi beat a Civic Type R head to head in at least one the Austrain touring car races?

tiggers

Could it have been maybe that the driver of the Seat was better than the driver of the Type-R, or maybe the Seat was better set up, or maybe the Type-R had a problem or ...

That is a pretty lame argument. I know that Michael Schumacher in a 330D would give me in an M3 a good caning round any track in the world, but that doesn't make the 330D a better performance car than an M3 does it?

Try again please...

tiggers.

NACRO

No as we are generalising.......we could argue that the regulations allowing a Turbo diesel car to compete against a N/A vehicle are unfair to start with and slanted to produce a winning car powered by diesel. I think that sort of example proves nothing

We could look to the old Golf diesel rally cars that beat quite a few of the petrol equivs. However as we are talking about cars you and I might go and buy................

You have to look for every get out clause you can eh?

The point is that GENERALLY diesel cars will be slower than the same car with a petrol option. The figures bear this out and no amount of posturing or bizarre examples detract from that.

BMW 330D taking over 22 secs to 100! that is a shameful figure for any "performance car " to put in and exactly why I contend that they are not "performance cars"".

mik

You guys are demonstrating myroft-esque abilities to dodge my question regarding your definition of equivalence

I've assumed similar-ish horsepower.

Please tell me what your definition is? We've already agreed that n/a diesel is miles away from n/a petrol (I'd point out that this is due to a lack of BHP due to rpm constraints inherant in a compression ignition engine and that diesel actually has a higher calorific content than petrol but you'd accuse me of fudging the issue.....)

I can only think of one really good "equivalent" example set ~ namely MkIV golfs in TDI150 and 1.8T (150) guises. Actually the TDI has a 100cc advantage so is cheating a bit

You'd argue the petrol is the performance version?

FreeT

It's still not equivalent because one is 1.8 and the other 1.9, also the tdi has way more torque so how is that equivalent, also one costs more than the other, also what is it based on times for in gear every day driving or out and out speed / time ?

Dracoro

Whether it's a diesel or not is irrelevant in ascertaining whether it's a performance car or not. The actual performance is what is used to determine what is and isn't. (this however doesn't mean that the diesels are GOOD performance cars, they're NOT for the time being)

Like all these silly car comparisons, it all depends on the consumer and what their requirements are.

hmm, 'revs' - funny how this is being used in this thread as an argument against diesels & yet flips around when cars like CTR's and s2000's are involved. It purely depends on your driving preference as to whether or not revs are a 'good' thing.

logiclee

Just looking on the Alfa BBS and there was a similar thread.

I have driven these cars although the deisel was the older slightly less powerful version than the new one.

The 156 2.0JTS has 165bhp and 158lbft the 2.4JTD 5 cylinder 20V diesel has 175bhp and 285lbft. These cars will be priced within £1500 of each other and the diesel gets a six speed box. Having driven the current 5 speed 2.4JTD I would say the diesel is the better performance car. Diesel haters ought to try it, I would even say the diesel sounds better with a gruff 5 cylinder burble not unlike an old Audi quattro.

I must say I was very anti diesel until I tried it.

I also get to drive hire cars a lot and if I had to have a Focus or Mondeo the higher output TDCi's are the pick of the range (RS and ST220 excluded. )

Lee

mik

I'm trying to ascertain people's opnion on equivalence. Can't get much closer than 1.9 vs 1.8

TDI has more torque. Yes - so it will have a big flexibility and a slight outright pace advantage.

And costs more. This makes it more of a performance car apparently ~ performance = expenditure

I'm not sure what performance metric we're arguing against to be honest.....I'm answering the allegation that "performance diesel" is an oxmoron 'cos I disagree.

mik

In the past only 2 seater convertibles were true performance cars. If they had more than 4 cylinders.

Turbos have been seen as cheating.

Times are changing folks - I used to be anti-diesel long ago too.