Prev: Vauxhall Ampera - would you consider one?
Next: Bumper scuff repair
From: Dave Plowman (News) on 9 Jul 2010 04:54
In article <89n519Fj1mU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> That's because you buy Vauxhalls. Ford TDCi is a completely different
> beast. I can leave it in 4th gear at 40MPH, shove my foot to the floor
> and out accelerate a BMW 328i from 40-70 and not even have to change
> gear.

That's assuming the BMW doesn't change gear either? So not much of a test.

A better one would be if it out accelerated the equivalent BMW diesel.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman dave(a)davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
From: Tunku on 12 Jul 2010 19:15
JC <invalid(a)invalid.com> wrote in news:4aod36prl5pkvu2ih7kse4o1kmsbokpjt2@
4ax.com:

> I find diesels more economical than petrol and more drivable. Power
> "low down" is where you want it unless you want to drive like a boy
> racer.
>

I don't know why you bother to drive with an outlook like that. You would
be much more suited to a bus. Petrol is more economical for my driving, and
I like transport where the power comes in at 7000 rpm and redlines at 11000
rpm.

--
The above post may contain traces of irony
From: DavidR on 16 Jul 2010 11:45
"AstraVanMann" <peter(a)swerveweb.com> wrote
>
> Indeed, and the economy of most modern diesels versus the lack of
> driveability and the utter shite powerbands *really* makes me wonder what
> the point is.

What's this "shite powerband" and "lack of driveability" are you referring
to?

I would understand somewhat if the petrol engine you have in mind is
powering a chassis 15 to 20 years old but it's important to bear in mind
that modern cars have all had the McDonalds diet. Petrol engines just
struggle to pull this extra weight unless kept well stirred, which is not a
recipe for driveability.

When I changed car a year ago I had got bored of a heavyweight car with thin
petrol engine so I looked back to the Citroen BX. Simply put, there is no
current 1.6 petrol car with equivalent performance. A big capacity increase
(with attendant tax, fuel, insurance & wife considerations) or TD was the
only way to go.


From: DavidR on 16 Jul 2010 12:16
"Gio" <x(a)x.co.uk> wrote in message

>I just wondered if anyone else had noticed that diesel cars seem to be
>producing more smoke than they used to? When they reduced the sulphur
>content and produced the 'city diesel' mixes years ago there was a big
>reduction in smoke but of late it seems to be getting worse.

It's possible that you could be seeing a so called "tuning box" in action.

Basically, a manufacturer sets the maximum fuel delivery to only use about
70% of the oxygen in the cylinder so gives a lot of potential to turn up the
wick.

As far as I can tell, all the box does is to sit between the fuel pressure
sensor and ecu such that it tricks the ecu into raising the pressure. Very
crude but apparently effective if smoke and durability is of no concern.


From: AstraVanMann on 16 Jul 2010 16:24
"DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote:
>> Indeed, and the economy of most modern diesels versus the lack of
>> driveability and the utter shite powerbands *really* makes me wonder what
>> the point is.
>
> What's this "shite powerband" and "lack of driveability" are you referring
> to?

It's my recent [temporary] acquisition - a 2007 Transit 350 Jumbo 2.4TDCI
140PS. Utterly gutless below 1500rpm, going over 3000rpm doesn't achieve
much extra. It's an uber-precision thing to keep it in the powerband. Can
occasionally be satisfying on a straight bit of road where you hold 3rd gear
and boot it to make the lights before they change (I'm thinking Bath Road in
Slough coming in from J7), but on the whole it's crying out for a good
autobox, which is a shame as Ford don't do such a thing.

> I would understand somewhat if the petrol engine you have in mind is
> powering a chassis 15 to 20 years old but it's important to bear in mind
> that modern cars have all had the McDonalds diet. Petrol engines just
> struggle to pull this extra weight unless kept well stirred, which is not
> a
> recipe for driveability.

Well indeed. Dunno where the petrol reference comes in though. That's why
I drive a 96/N Xantia Activa. Does 130mph and 30-35mpg, though not
neccessarily at the same time.

> When I changed car a year ago I had got bored of a heavyweight car with
> thin petrol engine so I looked back to the Citroen BX. Simply put, there
> is no current 1.6 petrol car with equivalent performance. A big capacity
> increase (with attendant tax, fuel, insurance & wife considerations) or TD
> was the only way to go.

BXs are great, and light as anything too. Most modern stuff is too heavy.
I'd need really careful consideration to buy anything vaguely modern.

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Vauxhall Ampera - would you consider one?
Next: Bumper scuff repair