58.7 mpg on a 280 mile round trip.
10 December 2012, 06:33 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Well, we've got an old '52 Volvo V40 1.9D. Battlebus. Wife drives it as her daily hack.
Leather everything, 153k on the clock, cost me pretty much banger-money.
Get 650 miles range out of it, with usually something along the lines of 50 ish mpg.
Pretty chuffed with it, but it IS sooooo boring. There's a lot to be said for how soot-chuckers have developed, but I'll stick to my Porker - MUCH more fun
Leather everything, 153k on the clock, cost me pretty much banger-money.
Get 650 miles range out of it, with usually something along the lines of 50 ish mpg.
Pretty chuffed with it, but it IS sooooo boring. There's a lot to be said for how soot-chuckers have developed, but I'll stick to my Porker - MUCH more fun
11 December 2012, 10:26 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Picked up my 535D M-Sport Touring at the weekend, really haven't had that much time to explore it yet but for overtaking it is phenominal. The combination of huge torque and a lightning fast auto means it just never stops accelerating. Just spot the gap, foot to the floor, short pause while it kicks down, then all hell breaks loose I'd say it's faster than my old classic with de-cat.
I'd say it's faster than my old classic with de-cat.
11 December 2012, 07:18 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Because of 430 lb/ft of torque through 2 wheels instead of 4, and a very clever semi-auto box keeping the car at the optimum revs to maximise available torque. My Fabia will keep up with many Scoobs from 30-70, a fact highlighted when a mate in his V5 Type R booted it down a m/way slip road to humiliate me and had to check to his right when he no longer saw me in his rear view mirror 
12 December 2012, 12:02 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but if the Scoob was 400bhp vs the 280bhp of the BMW it would be a no contest given the power and weight difference. Torque is only part of the equation. If it was what determined a straight line match then a Civic Type R would be beaten by every diesel on the road yet is can destroy 90% of diesels out there.
And if that wasn't bad enough you said it demolished the Impreza which would take a huge amount of power to demolish a 400bhp Impreza.
I didn't mention it earlier but my 280bhp classic Impreza can pull out a decent lead on a 335d that is standard and since he's had it chipped its now pretty much a dead heat. However give me 400bhp in my classic and it would again be a no contest. This is from a 30mph+ start.
From a standing start it is a non-contest, my Impreza can simply wipe the floor with it.
Standard car times;
335d 0-60 6.1's / 0-100 13.7's
STI 0-60 5.3's / 0-100 13.3's
So effectively not even close for the standard car and an STi with another 125bhp is going to shave a lot of time off that number.
So like I said, either the STi was under the weather or the driver wasn't so good but clearly if both of the cars are healthy then the Impreza gains a massive advantage.
And if that wasn't bad enough you said it demolished the Impreza which would take a huge amount of power to demolish a 400bhp Impreza.
I didn't mention it earlier but my 280bhp classic Impreza can pull out a decent lead on a 335d that is standard and since he's had it chipped its now pretty much a dead heat. However give me 400bhp in my classic and it would again be a no contest. This is from a 30mph+ start.
From a standing start it is a non-contest, my Impreza can simply wipe the floor with it.
Standard car times;
335d 0-60 6.1's / 0-100 13.7's
STI 0-60 5.3's / 0-100 13.3's
So effectively not even close for the standard car and an STi with another 125bhp is going to shave a lot of time off that number.
So like I said, either the STi was under the weather or the driver wasn't so good but clearly if both of the cars are healthy then the Impreza gains a massive advantage.
12 December 2012, 09:00 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Ask the owner of the Scoob, Sticky Stuff on here, and the owner of the 335D, AlanC, both old WYIOC members, and both excellent drivers. My choice of words may have exaggerated the amount the BMW won by, but it pulled away and never gave up its advantage right to the gearing and electronic limiter restrictions. As I said, the awesome Scoob chassis and AWD system destroyed the BMW on country lanes, but in a straight rolling drag it was left wanting, and when you factor in the average 45mpg as opposed to the Scoobs 16 during the whole trip, on a long journey the BMW driver would be at home with his feet up as the Scoob owner was filling up for the umpteenth time before clocking on to do a shed-load of overtime to pay for it.
12 December 2012, 10:48 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 535D M-Sport Touring
Posts: 3,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 December 2012, 02:21 PM
#40
Aye, sure it may have the "turbo shove" that makes it feel faster. But in the end of the day it ain't quicker than a 3.0+ petrol engine, nor does it deliver power like one.
Proof is my Golf 3.2 n/a petrol, which is about as quick as our 3.0d BMW...but the latter is turbo'd so naturally has more BHP than the Golf as well as more torque. The BMW diesel can feel faster to the uninitiated as it has the shove when the turbo spools up and gives everything in one big chunk (albeit a few milliseconds after planting the right foot, and not for long before another gear is required). A N/A petrol engine has a much more progressive power delivery
The problem I feel these days is the average 4 cylinder normally aspirated petrol engine found in modern cars are very limp wristed and very gutless, whereas the diesel engines today are usually the opposite. Rewind back twenty years and it was the exact reverse; Drive a Pinto engined Sierra ( if you can find one thats still running ok
) and for all its shortcommings it pulls alot stronger than a modern 2.0 petrol engine, despite it having less BHP.
PS:
535d GT: 42mpg over 2400miles (including parking on the M25 for several hours, as well as Rouen).
Golf R32: did 240miles in it on Sunday, mostly motorway...averaged 27mpg 
Proof is my Golf 3.2 n/a petrol, which is about as quick as our 3.0d BMW...but the latter is turbo'd so naturally has more BHP than the Golf as well as more torque. The BMW diesel can feel faster to the uninitiated as it has the shove when the turbo spools up and gives everything in one big chunk (albeit a few milliseconds after planting the right foot, and not for long before another gear is required). A N/A petrol engine has a much more progressive power delivery
The problem I feel these days is the average 4 cylinder normally aspirated petrol engine found in modern cars are very limp wristed and very gutless, whereas the diesel engines today are usually the opposite. Rewind back twenty years and it was the exact reverse; Drive a Pinto engined Sierra ( if you can find one thats still running ok
) and for all its shortcommings it pulls alot stronger than a modern 2.0 petrol engine, despite it having less BHP.PS:
535d GT: 42mpg over 2400miles (including parking on the M25 for several hours, as well as Rouen).
Golf R32: did 240miles in it on Sunday, mostly motorway...averaged 27mpg
Last edited by ALi-B; 12 December 2012 at 02:27 PM.
13 December 2012, 03:32 PM
#42
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: inverness
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONLY would run a deisel if weekly long runs and even then most DPF systems require 2000 rpm + to regenerate.
14 December 2012, 01:38 PM
#44
I don't think the BMW 6pot diesels need many revs to regenerate...seeing that with the 8speed gearbox it spends most of its life at 1500rpm
and I've never seen it artificially hold a low gear, except when the engine is cold or its going up a steep hill. (no problems yet - touch wood
)
Last edited by ALi-B; 14 December 2012 at 01:40 PM.
14 December 2012, 08:44 PM
#45
Now i'm not so sure these diesels add up to be quite as fantastic as many think.
There was a comparison made a few years ago between petrol and diesel mondeos, which in the end showed that somewhere around 100k miles was the break even point.
This was done at a time when diesel was cheaper and all this dpf, dar, dar, dar, stuff that keeps breaking and costing a fortune every 60,000 miles or less was in the equation.
I would be real interested to see the new numbers on a test like this if anyone knows of one that's been done, feel free to post a link.
My rover 25, ok i know it's no bmw 330d, averages around 38/40mpg and i never hang about in it, and its given me 45,000 miles with no major issues.
Point being there are lots of modern petrol engines capable of returning these figures that don't have the problems associated with modern diesels.
I think the manufacturers are pulling a bit of a slight of hand whilst using fuel economy as a distraction, and people are biting without looking at the true overall cost.
There was a comparison made a few years ago between petrol and diesel mondeos, which in the end showed that somewhere around 100k miles was the break even point.
This was done at a time when diesel was cheaper and all this dpf, dar, dar, dar, stuff that keeps breaking and costing a fortune every 60,000 miles or less was in the equation.
I would be real interested to see the new numbers on a test like this if anyone knows of one that's been done, feel free to post a link.
My rover 25, ok i know it's no bmw 330d, averages around 38/40mpg and i never hang about in it, and its given me 45,000 miles with no major issues.
Point being there are lots of modern petrol engines capable of returning these figures that don't have the problems associated with modern diesels.
I think the manufacturers are pulling a bit of a slight of hand whilst using fuel economy as a distraction, and people are biting without looking at the true overall cost.
14 December 2012, 09:58 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 December 2012, 10:19 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask the owner of the Scoob, Sticky Stuff on here, and the owner of the 335D, AlanC, both old WYIOC members, and both excellent drivers. My choice of words may have exaggerated the amount the BMW won by, but it pulled away and never gave up its advantage right to the gearing and electronic limiter restrictions. As I said, the awesome Scoob chassis and AWD system destroyed the BMW on country lanes, but in a straight rolling drag it was left wanting, and when you factor in the average 45mpg as opposed to the Scoobs 16 during the whole trip, on a long journey the BMW driver would be at home with his feet up as the Scoob owner was filling up for the umpteenth time before clocking on to do a shed-load of overtime to pay for it.
A 400bhp scoob left wanting? I'd say this is extremely unlikely.
Anyway back to the topic, I'm not against diesels and have had quite a few over the past 10 years as company cars with a '09 Golf being my last one. When doing lots of miles they make sense although doing round town running they usually don't make any sense whatsoever. The Golf and most diesels are very relaxing on a long journey where as the scoob is tiring and demanding but for everyday driving and the occasional blast the scoob is in a world of its own as the enthusiasts car vs diesels.
The VAG diesels are particularly unpleasant to thrash as the engine really isn't suited to that sort of driving.
A tool for a job or the enthusiasts choice...
16 December 2012, 12:16 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
I bought a 123d Hatchback a few months back and have not long had a DPF-removal and remap carried out... it now has c275/380 and nips along pretty nicely if I'm honest; it's comfy, nice looking (IMO), has a lovely driving position, fairly practical and performance-wise it can see every number on the speedo yet is still just as happy sitting on cruise control returning 45-50mpg if needs be.
Cheers,
Grant
Cheers,
Grant
16 December 2012, 08:34 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: .
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think it's necessary to do actual MPG checks (ie calculating it from the amount of fuel you have to put in against the mileage you've driven) as the computers in cars seem to me to be optimistic.
For example our 2008 1.6TDCi Fiesta always reads 3mpg better on the computer than the actual calculated reading.
And after declaring the tuning box I fitted to the insurers, the extra 20 bhp and 38 ft/lbs, intended purely to get extra MPG, cost us an extra £135 a year. So much for economy!
For example our 2008 1.6TDCi Fiesta always reads 3mpg better on the computer than the actual calculated reading.
And after declaring the tuning box I fitted to the insurers, the extra 20 bhp and 38 ft/lbs, intended purely to get extra MPG, cost us an extra £135 a year. So much for economy!
16 December 2012, 12:00 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
16 December 2012, 01:14 PM
#52
I do think it's necessary to do actual MPG checks (ie calculating it from the amount of fuel you have to put in against the mileage you've driven) as the computers in cars seem to me to be optimistic.
For example our 2008 1.6TDCi Fiesta always reads 3mpg better on the computer than the actual calculated reading.
And after declaring the tuning box I fitted to the insurers, the extra 20 bhp and 38 ft/lbs, intended purely to get extra MPG, cost us an extra £135 a year. So much for economy!
For example our 2008 1.6TDCi Fiesta always reads 3mpg better on the computer than the actual calculated reading.
And after declaring the tuning box I fitted to the insurers, the extra 20 bhp and 38 ft/lbs, intended purely to get extra MPG, cost us an extra £135 a year. So much for economy!
Well, being a French engine, its probably leaking that 3mpg worth of fuel into the sump to compensate for the oil it burns
Obviously computer MPG works on how much the ECU opens each injector, As diesels having no real closed-feedback loop control with regards to fueling (which petrols do) a injector out of calibration or a bit leaky "can" dribble more fuel than what the ECU thinks is being injected, same with having worn tyres - the car thinks its travelled a bit further than it really has.
Last edited by ALi-B; 16 December 2012 at 03:36 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM