Never one to follow a crowd, I've been getting increasingly weary of the typical mid-sized-to-large diesel car of late. You know the sort, they tear up the outside lane of your typical M-way, dual carriageway, waiting for you to vacate so they can engage warp drive using that "thumping mid range torque " (copyright- every car mag since about 2000) and move onto the next victim. The motoring press are to blame, having gone from diesel haters to diesel lovers in under a decade and telling us how "in the real world, the torquey diesel is at least as quick as the petrol counterpart".
Well I owned an A3 TDI for six years and enjoyed it on the motorway, but found the experience rather one dimensional. Personally I think we are all being conned. If you look at the performance figures of today's typical two litre diesels, BWM's excepted, in outright poke, they're a bit, well poor. Take the new Insigna 160 CDTI, coming to an outside lane soon. 30-70 is 8.4 seconds, according to autocar. Well friends, your 1988 cavalier SRI took just 8.3 seconds with 130 BHP. From 0-100, The current 140PS A4 TDI is a second slower than the old 130 ps petrol A4 from 2000! Is this really progress? Granted, the diesels have great roll on acceleration on motorways, without changing gear, but some of that feeling of grunt is just down to turbo lag followed by the turbo torque rushing in.
I have found when driving these TDI's that the power comes in one great push and then dissipates far too quickly. If you actually down change when driving your typical petrol car, you won't be short-changed against a diesel. To test my theory I came up behind a typically aggressively driven X Type Jag diesel the other day in my humble 1.6 Focus with just 107 torques (As JC would say). Mr Jag was hassling some poor innocent who then made way. We were going up a reasonable incline at about 75 MPH so I changed down to 4th and waited to be left standing by the "surf of mid range torque" as Mr X Type clogged down his right foot and sent plumes of black smoke way in my direction, as they do. Well, "surprise surprise", as our speed approached three figures, I found that he had failed to shake me off. That really narked him I can tell you.
You see, diesels are great for modern day lazy Europeans who cant be arsed to change gear and want instant go. I think, however, that the outright performance of normal cars is actually getting poorer, because of all the diesels with poor power to weight ratios. Why aren't the so called performance car press telling us this? Yep, if you have a humble petrol car, just stir that gear lever, give it some welly and you wont be short changed against your typical rep-mobile. Then there's the weight of the engine up front. My A3 was just awful at changing direction and other diesels I have driven weren't much better with 100KG of extra iron block up front. The equivalent petrol car feels so much more nimble in the turns. That's before we come to the fumes - even the new ones still seem to make a right whiff! Its not as if many of them are that economical in real world driving and the black stuff costs a fortune.
Sure diesels have come along way and have their place, but the stuff is so expensive and having returned to petrol I am convinced that a petrol engine is a more involving drive. The only exceptions for me are the 6 cylinder BMW's which are frankly superb - but you'd still take an M3 over a 335d, wouldn't you?!
So for all those track day fans, I hope petrol will stay with us for a while yet and let all the lemmings shift to the black stuff. Unless you do 20k miles a year, you're better off with petrol power!
I really enjoyed reading your reflections on the Diesel subject. After reading
this I can assume that for You, driving is not just a matter of transportation
from point A to B, You do care about what's in between. And you want it to be
enjoyable.
But I tend to disagree on the assumption that today's diesel cars are making the
average mainstream car slower. They certainly are contributing to the obvious
weight gain of the average car (therefore degrading the handling) but when it
comes to speed, I think they are doing the opposite. Today's average diesel Golf
has ~140 horsepower. That's more than gen 1 2 and 3 Golf GTi had. BMW now has
2.0 diesel with 200 hp and Mercedes has just released a diesel two-liter with
even more power. 200 hp would be adequate for a 2.0 petrol turbo. And it is no
secret that diesel 1-series and 3-series BMWs are faster than their petrol
counterparts. And for a bigger car or an SUV you're not buying petrol either.
So I am a diesel supporter and, honestly, I am a little surprised about it
myself, because I have never owned a diesel car and I have never desired to have
one.
I know..... maybe because there haven't been many "performance" diesels yet.....
if I could get my hands on a V12 Audi R8 i'd be quite happy to start testing
them! Talking of Audi I may have a new RS6 to play with soon.....
I am by no means a diesel hater, I drove little else for six years, apart from
my wife's 205 GTI 1.9. I just don't like the way the average TDI rep mobile
tries to bully its way past and assume its quicker due to its mid range torque.
Point taken about golf gti gen 1 and 2, but check out the 30-70 figure (my
benchmark for real world performance) and the new Golf TDI trails the Golf GTI
Mk1 and 16 valve mk2(perrhaps the 8 valve too).inferior power to weight ratio,
you see.The Golf TSI 1.4 would be my choice.
Torque and diesels are great if your into mpg, a lazy driver, or just don't want
to work a car, and lets face it, the majority of road users are this case.
Torque instantly "feels" fast, but the long performance figures suggest
otherwise against cars willing to use the gears.
Many can't understand how vtecs can be much quicker than them, but its just a
matter of using all the revs all the time (vtec zone) and "changing
gear"...something that many modern drivers don't want to do. I love revs and
gears, far more feel to being part of driving the car.
There are some good points for diesels and as BMW have shown (and I feel the new
Jag unit will show) you can make decent diesel engines.
But yes, by most accounts, they are hugely over-rated. I fear it's got quite a
lot to do with crappy 'auto boxes modern cars are equipped with. Everyone's
chasing economy and slush boxes are thus never going to down-change unless your
right foot has gone through the floor and will up-change to 9th gear while
you're still at 30mph. This combination perhaps suits diesels better but then
your typical oil burner runs out of steam sooner so it kindda evens out in the
end.
So, yeah, the 'instant' thing is there (for a limited period) but it's nothing
to do with diesels being somehow 'better'. It's just 'auto boxes are naff.
I've driven the Golf 5 1.9 TDI and the feel of its torque is misleading when you
put your foot down it feels as if you're going like a Boeing! But then 1 glance
at the speedo and that misconception is laid to waste not to mention just as you
think you're starting to get somewhere you run out of revs! Oh and lets not
forget the crappy engine tone! I take petrol anyday
Horsepower defines your ability to accelerate (for a given mass). Torque is just
a force measure of the same quantity. Instead of comparing torque figures (which
would require you to know gear ratios, wheel diameters and such) just use HP and
mass of the car and you can work out the acceleration ability.
Petrol cars accelerate faster, in general (my 1.8 Integra Type R can go from
0-60 in about 6 seconds with only 130lb.ft of torque...).
I drove a 2.0 l diesel with 110 HP (Toyota Avensis D4D) recording average
consumption of 6.5 l/100kms - it bothered me the fact that this average turned
to 12 l/100 kms at full throttle for long periods which means only 30 - 40 kms/h
more speed than my normal highway cruse. For the last 14 months I drove a 1.6 l
petrol Zafira with 115 HP - a heavier car and so lacking of torque but with a so
much quitter engine - yet I wouldn't change from petrol in a couple of years for
diesel again since the full throttle average (with only 10-15 kms less than the
Avensis) get's me an 14,5 l/100 kms. this was puzzling to me since my normal
Zafira's cruising average is somewhere between 11 and 12 l/100 kms and the
lowest ever average recorded outside city and not on highway was 9 l compared to
4 l that I get from the Avensis. that's why my next try will be with Ampera - I
hope that one will be quiet too ;)
I see that you said MPH by mistake when you clearly meant to say KPH (yes
officer thats well within the speed limit!).
I really enjoyed reading your reflections on the Diesel subject. After reading
this I can assume that for You, driving is not just a matter of transportation
from point A to B, You do care about what's in between. And you want it to be
enjoyable.
I am by no means a diesel hater, I drove little else for six years, apart from
my wife's 205 GTI 1.9. I just don't like the way the average TDI rep mobile
tries to bully its way past and assume its quicker due to its mid range torque.
Point taken about golf gti gen 1 and 2, but check out the 30-70 figure (my
benchmark for real world performance) and the new Golf TDI trails the Golf GTI
Mk1 and 16 valve mk2(perrhaps the 8 valve too).inferior power to weight ratio,
you see.The Golf TSI 1.4 would be my choice.