MooseRacer

There's no reason why BMW themselves couldn't make it for around the same price as a 530d.

There's certainly no reason why BMW couldn't make it, but it sure as hell would cost more than a 530d.

NACRO

Quote: "OK, it's more expensive (£41k vs £32k for a 530sport"

OK then as money seems to be no object I'll take a Ferrari Enzo over any diesel production car you care to mention. Except of course that's totally ridiculous. A bit like the BMW comparison you mention.

A single test in EVO about one car hardly proves your point. I've read the article and the car sounds very nice indeed. However you can go faster for less cash in a petrol car you can go and buy from a dealer.

Quote: Now are you going to admit that this is a fast diesel car, or are you going to retreat once again to mumbling about the wrong tyres and jet engines

Firstly that's a cheap shot, you've mentioned so far a prototype and a car priced 9K above its competitor- seems like you are the one mumbling nonsense to me. I've been accused of not reading what people have put here- it seems like the same thing could be said of you. I've never said that diesels couldn't be fast, just that you can go faster for similar/less cash with a petrol power plant. To me that's the essence of performance motoring how fast for how much cash.

edited as the price differencial of the cars was wrong! silly me

[Edited by NACRO - 8/19/2003 11:57:06 PM]

NACRO

Cletteridge said quote: "Admittedly, there aren't that many diesels made today with performance in mind "

Exactly. You agree with my point of view entirely then.

cletterridge

Well sort of. My point is that although there aren't that many being made, there are still some so you can't completely write off diesel power as a route to performance cars.

The issue of performance diesel engines costing more than their petrol equivalents will evaporate in the near future as the costs of recent (last 5-10 years) developments start to pay off in terms of sales and production volume. Remember your Impreza has thirty years of forced induction petrol engine development behind it - the diesels have barely half that.

mik

I'd mentioned the Alpina D10 before too since Alpina is recognised as a manufacturer in it's own right, and therefore it's not a modified car

Unfortunately it's very expensive, but that's mainly due to the fact that it's an Alpina, and has umpty squillion things modified over and above the oily lump. Then add the Alpina Kudos factor into the price ....

A simple remap from "Upsolute" takes an older version of the 530D (for example) from :-
193bhp to 221bhp
and
302lbs.ft to 354 lbs.ft

PS. I know this is "modified" .

All for the princely sum of £290.

NACRO

Guys, roll on the days when they can make high performance diesel engines that can beat their petrol equivalents and rev freely. As someone who enjoys driving performance cars there can't be enough of them. Whatever their powerplant.

quote: "A simple remap from "Upsolute" takes an older version of the 530D (for example) from :-
193bhp to 221bhp
and
302lbs.ft to 354 lbs.ft

PS. I know this is "modified" .

All for the princely sum of £290."

Any idea of what the performance of this will be? Could this be done to a 330D too? Will it then outperform the petrol cars in the range. I know of a good upgrade for older petrol Imprezas too, cost £60 from a nice man on here, is called the scooby ecu and liberates a similar amount of performance to your £290 mod. I'm willing to bet the result would be a tad quicker than our notional 530D as well.

mik

Any idea of what the performance of this will be?
No figures. Sorry.

Could this be done to a 330D too?
Oh I doubt it...I'll go and check....blimey, yes it can!

Will it then outperform the petrol cars in the range.
Yes. All of them with lower outputs.

I know of a good upgrade for older petrol Imprezas too, cost £60 from a nice man on here, is called the scooby ecu and liberates a similar amount of performance to your £290 mod.
Marvellous. Have you done it?

I'm willing to bet the result would be a tad quicker than our notional 530D as well.
If it provides higher outputs then.....drum roll.... I'd suspect so. But since you were comparing 330D and 330i I would have thought a better comparison would be a remapped 330i, which can't compete

NACRO

So it will be faster than a 330i for just £290?

That's got to be a bargain. We need to see proof of that though really rather than internet talk. Anyone got here got one? Raced a 330i? Beat it? Run a better 0-100 time?

Tell all here.

quote: "I know of a good upgrade for older petrol Imprezas too, cost £60 from a nice man on here, is called the scooby ecu and liberates a similar amount of performance to your £290 mod.
Marvellous. Have you done it?"

Will be doing it very soon when the chap is a little less busy!


Just another quick question- aren't diesel powerplants heavier than their petrol equivalents? Meaning more output needed for the same power/weight ratio.

john banks

Is the D10 left hand drive, and still marginally (0.4s) slower to 100 than a bog standard 330i? And should it not be compared to an M petrol car? Maybe if they put the D10 in the 330d it would be the same to 100 as a 330i? (obviously much quicker in gear unless you happened to be in the right gear in the petrol ).

330i still sounds a lot nicer, my neighbour just chopped his 330i for a 330d and he used to waft by turbine smooth every morning, now he clatters by. I know the 330d is good, but it still clatters a bit.

NACRO

regarding the diesel powerplant issue- I just looked at the weights and for the 3 series BMW there is just 10 kilos in it. So we can discount that then in the case of the beemers at least.

JMP

I dont know what is the limit in 0-100mph when car is considered as sporty? My Golf PD130 with a remap to around 180-190hp makes it go 0-100mph in 18s. Stock figure was around 22-23s. Its not a sports car but I am happy with it which is what matters. Oh, and its a bit lighter than 1.8T model too.

If we compare Golf diesel and petrol equivalent stock cars, the diesel is starting to look good. By comparing PD150 to 1.8T with 150hp or PD130 to 2.0l (or whatever) 130hp engine to each other, the diesel car is quicker.

Just for reference about the diffrence between PD150 and 1.8T:
http://www.pharnet.clara.co.uk/pd130.jpg

NACRO

Doesn't the TDI 150 cost as much as a petrol GTI180? not the petrol 150 which is cheaper?

Which of those 2 is faster?

If you modified (chipped) them which would be faster?

I've actually shifted my point of view somewhat due to the strength of argument backed up with facts that some of the diesel boys have put up here. I regard 18's as pretty good 0-100, about on par with a SAXO VTS in terms of times. It's just that you can go faster, cheaper in a petrol car. Therefore I regard them as the superior "performance car".

Remember we are not talking about which is the better cruiser, ownership prospect or co car tax saver. Just speed for cash layout.

LG John

A VTS will not do 18s as standard! The old MKIs were 22.4 and the MKII (x reg) ones were usually about 20s (there is a lot of debate ) I agree though, the VTS is quick, anything slower is heading towards warm territory.

JMP

I havent consired about the costs, I thought the issue was if we have two cars with similar amount of horsepower, diesel and petrol, which of them is faster.

There are many ways of looking at this. Mostly the diesel costs more to buy but it has lower running costs which evens things out. Im probably going of the topic but since the diesel costs here 0.7 euros/l and gasoline 1.1 euros/l, choice was easy for me when I drive a lot.

About comparing the 180bhp 1.8T to PD150. The 180bhp petrol is a bit faster, but sure it should be since it has more power

EDIT: Oh and about the chipping aspect (PD150 vrs 1.8T) , I think the petrol engine will gain more power, but its a close call. I havent seen too much dyno runs for the PD's to be sure. So with this in mind, the petrol will be faster with less dollars.

EDIT2: One more thing The PD130 is pretty cheap to buy and responds to chipping better then PD150, which basicly evens them out in terms of performance, as the PD150 is heavier too. So this is a fairly good option when talking about Golfs.

[Edited by JMP - 8/21/2003 8:17:12 PM]

LG John

Most REVO'd 150s hit 200bhp on the rollers with near on 300lbft of torque Not bad for £500 and REVO is by no means the cheapest option You are right though that comparitivly speaking the 130 makes more sense as REVO can take it to 190bhp (ish) which is a massive gain for £500.

NACRO

Quote: "I havent consired about the costs, I thought the issue was if we have two cars with similar amount of horsepower, diesel and petrol, which of them is faster."

That's an interesting way of looking at it- in fact you've got me thinking that we should be considering that as well. It's just that it could be a little unfair unless we look at identical cars using the two powerplants. The Golf seems an interseting car to do this with.

I also think that as you live in Europe (like I do) that diesel starts to make a lot more sense as it is so cheap. In the UK it is about the same price as petrol.

Just as an interesting side note for anyone who's followed the thread my girlfriend and I are considering a TDi 150 4 motion LHD as our second car. I'm just wavering between that or a SKoda VRs at the moment. So this debate is of real interest to me.

worley

I'm awaiting delivery on a Bora PD150 Sport (end Sept)

Before I bought it, I read all the debates, test drove all petrol and diesel alternatives and decided on the Bora because:

(1) Less time at the garage
(2) Less money spent on petrol
(3) Less CO2 (less tax)
(4) Easy driving
(5) Can get on petro-chem sites

Note: Being an ex-scooby owner I am not looking forward to the drop in performance, but ultimatley it will beat most rep-mobiles without breaking a sweat.

Nik

Stevie

Wurley,

Dont worry about lack of performance compared to Scoob. I sold my STi7 last year and bought an Ibiza TDi 130 Sport last month. I'll probably only have it for 6 months but 55mpg on the way to work and a far easier 80-100mph on the motorway is appealing. Oh, and it's far more fun than the STi ever was on B roads I am tempted by the Cupra R diesel next year but cant see them discounting the price much at launch. ( I bought my 130 at £12600 rather than £13700ish.

Only downside is a I have not been to the Ring this year but this is soon to be addressed.

NACRO

Quote: "Oh, and it's far more fun than the STi ever was on B roads"

In what way-I've test drove the Ibiza and it had appallingly bad handling, numb steering and massive body roll. Have you modified it? Or perhaps you prefer a challenge.
Handling is very subjective though so if you prefer it then good for you. I imagine that in a non-subjective test it would have less grip and be far slower though.

Dracoro

Nacro - he didn't say it was faster or handles better, just that it was more FUN.

Stevie

The damping can be a little erratic, and I agree that the STi was faster and more composed. The Ibiza is standard but I think it handles bloody well for a FWD car. Body roll is negligible, did you drive the TDi Sport? I imagine the rest of the range to be awful. I was just impressed with it's hot hatch ish handling, the equipment level, and the torque of the engine, so I bought one.

Whilst the Scoob was quicker on technical B roads, I found to really get the car to feel like it was working, the speeds were bordering on ridiculous. I still get an awful lot of fun but at lower ultimate speeds.

Not a scientific test, but 3 times a year I drive from home to a village near Cardigan. It is about 160 miles. I have had a standard MY97, 250bhp MY01 and STi7. The quickest time to date is in the Ibiza, 2nd quickest my 260bhp Land Rover, closely followed by the MY97. We are only talking minutes in it, but it frightened me!!

NACRO

You are right that speed and fun don't always go hand in hand. I had an old slow 318 E30 BMW I inherited from my mother and it was stil the most fun car I ever had simply because it oversteered everywhere even in the dry.

It was the Tdi Sprt I drove and it had a lot of body roll and felt the steering felt so numb I had no confidence in it. I imagine once you get to know the limits it becomes more inspiring.

mik

Nacro - that was a point I touched on earlier. Take 2 identical cars, one a TDI with (for the sake of argument)150bhp, the other a petrol with 150bhp (be it turbo or otherwise).

The TDI will be faster.

Peak power dictates the optimal rpm for acceleration. The engine isn't providing it's strongest shove at this rpm (that's dictated by torque output), but it's providing optimal blend of engine torque and gearing advantage to provide optimal acceleration.

As a TDI gives lots of torque at low rpm, it's accelerating hard at this point. Acceleration tails away quite sharply towards peak power rpm.

A petrol car - particularly a modern turbo petrol has a far flatter torque curve. Torque still peaks below peak power of course, but it doesn't tail off as sharply. Acceleration is therefore pretty strong, tailing off gently as you reach peak power rpm.

The acceleration of the TDI is therefore stronger up to the point of peak power, so it'll be quicker.

This is part of the reason why something like a TDI150 isn't that far behind a petrol 180 on the road.

The only time the 180 petrol can take it's advantage is when it's very close to peak power rpm ~ which is do-able on something like a 0-100 sprint, but not so easy when there's a few bends and undulations going on.

NACRO

That's a very interesting point- if we accept that it's true then as soon as they can get the output and rev limit of diesels a lot higher they will be the more "complete" performance car. I'm still not entriely convinced though- I couldn't face being beaten buy a hatch costing 3K when I'd spent over 15 on a golf.

I think I'm convinced to some extent that diesels can offer good performance in certain arenas. I still don't think ultimately they are that fast yet (in terms of REAL fast cars). I can see it coming though.

mik

And that's the biggest "constraint" with TDI's.

Without spark ignition it's very difficult to advance the burn to allow high rpm. Current systems do multiple injection pulses & obviously advance the injection point, but you have nothing like the advance control you do with a petrol engine.

I'm not sure anyone will get round that issue in the short term - diesel doesn't ignite with a spark.

ScoobyJawa

Flipping eck Chris what have ya started

Not read the whole thread and to be honest don't care. You buy a car that suits your needs wants and thats all that matters! If you're happy with it matey then nice one. And these new bread of diesels sure have a bit of poke.

[mumble]bl00dy oil burning rattly crap [/mumble}

Joke BTW

NACRO

quote: "You buy a car that suits your needs wants and thats all that matters! If you're happy with it matey then nice one. And these new bread of diesels sure have a bit of poke"

I think we all agree with that- we were just having a mostly good natured discussion about the merits of both power plants. I'm still of the opinion that they are compromised power plants that cause cancer, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. I'm also aware they make some financial sense, particularly outside the UK. Which is why I may be buying one.

mik

So you can get cancer?

NACRO

They put out large amounts of particulates unfortunately- these are linked with cancer. Of course you can get filters for that but that costs more and they won't be compulsory for a few yrs yet.

Out of the remit of our discussion though.

krbenson19@sw-cc.com

I am sure that one of the german marques is thinking of making a v10 tdi with 500 bhp and nearly 1k of nm of torque! aint being nasty but id rather that over a scoob neday!