 | |
Missed opportunity for Ford??
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Missed opportunity for Ford?? -
04-27-2004
, 08:57 AM
|
Adam M wrote: They're as quick as an equivalently powered petrol car, they're more economical, and nicer to drive. If there were a 200bhp Diesel car available for reasonable money, I'd swap my TI in a flash ! What's nice about driving a car that sounds like a tractor at idle? If your car sounds like a tractor when you're inside it, then it's broken ! I don't give a crap what's going on outside. Anyhow, I'm talking about performance Diesels here. 200+bhp Derv lumps, certainly don't sound like a tractor at idle !!!! What's nice about leaving a trail of soot behind you when driving with 'enthusiasm'? If your car covers you in soot when you're inside it, then it's broken ! I don't give a crap what's going on outside. What's nice about having to change gear at 4,500rpm? Everything. You make meaningful power through most of that range - 1500rpm to 4000rpm for example. That's the same reason Turbo Petrol cars are such a nice drive - wide powerband is a good thing ! You still only have 5 (or 6) gears to go through before you hit top speed. It's no different to a petrol car. Agreed a derv with loads of low down push is probably more relaxing to drive, Precisely. but whoever said sporty cars had to be relaxing to drive ?!? Sporty cars ? The only properly sporty diesel I can think of, is the 180bhp Seat Leon Cupra - only available on the continent though. My priorities may be different but it doesn't change most peoples perception of the word 'sporty' - I have no problem with quick diesels, How do you know ? The only quick Diesel in circulation right now, is BMW's 3.0 lump. Once Pug's 2.7 becomes available, and Audi's new one (3.0 I think), then you'll have something to compare it to. Mercedes have one on the way too - or is it already here ? |
expect a lot of bhp n torque.
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom wrote: Adam M wrote: They're as quick as an equivalently powered petrol car, they're more economical, and nicer to drive. If there were a 200bhp Diesel car available for reasonable money, I'd swap my TI in a flash ! What's nice about driving a car that sounds like a tractor at idle? If your car sounds like a tractor when you're inside it, then it's broken ! I don't give a crap what's going on outside. Anyhow, I'm talking about performance Diesels here. 200+bhp Derv lumps, certainly don't sound like a tractor at idle !!!! What's nice about leaving a trail of soot behind you when driving with 'enthusiasm'? If your car covers you in soot when you're inside it, then it's broken ! I don't give a crap what's going on outside. What's nice about having to change gear at 4,500rpm? Everything. You make meaningful power through most of that range - 1500rpm to 4000rpm for example. That's the same reason Turbo Petrol cars are such a nice drive - wide powerband is a good thing ! You still only have 5 (or 6) gears to go through before you hit top speed. It's no different to a petrol car. Agreed a derv with loads of low down push is probably more relaxing to drive, Precisely. but whoever said sporty cars had to be relaxing to drive ?!? Sporty cars ? The only properly sporty diesel I can think of, is the 180bhp Seat Leon Cupra - only available on the continent though. My priorities may be different but it doesn't change most peoples perception of the word 'sporty' - I have no problem with quick diesels, How do you know ? The only quick Diesel in circulation right now, is BMW's 3.0 lump. Once Pug's 2.7 becomes available, and Audi's new one (3.0 I think), then you'll have something to compare it to. Mercedes have one on the way too - or is it already here ? E320 CDi 204 hp, 0-60 in 7.9 and 145mph, isnt shabby, plus with a chip I expect a lot of bhp n torque. |
heavy ass car like that.
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
How do you know ? The only quick Diesel in circulation right now, is BMW's 3.0 lump. Once Pug's 2.7 becomes available, and Audi's new one (3.0 I think), then you'll have something to compare it to. Mercedes have one on the way too - or is it already here ? |
Wonderhow many owners will know that
"Hey Mr snooty Jag owner, your engine isFrench"
--
Dan
http://www.danontherun.com
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
MeatballTurbo <carl.robson (AT) bouncing-czechs (DOT) com> wrote: Wasn't the best of the MKIV Golf GTis actually a GTTDi? No, it couldn't be. Diesels are for people who smell of wee wee. That would be the smell of wee wee from pssing themselves laughing at |
the fuel computer then?
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom wrote: Adam M wrote: They're as quick as an equivalently powered petrol car, they're more economical, and nicer to drive. If there were a 200bhp Diesel car available for reasonable money, I'd swap my TI in a flash ! What's nice about driving a car that sounds like a tractor at idle? If your car sounds like a tractor when you're inside it, then it's broken ! I don't give a crap what's going on outside. Anyhow, I'm talking about performance Diesels here. 200+bhp Derv lumps, certainly don't sound like a tractor at idle !!!! What's nice about leaving a trail of soot behind you when driving with 'enthusiasm'? If your car covers you in soot when you're inside it, then it's broken ! I don't give a crap what's going on outside. What's nice about having to change gear at 4,500rpm? Everything. You make meaningful power through most of that range - 1500rpm to 4000rpm for example. That's the same reason Turbo Petrol cars are such a nice drive - wide powerband is a good thing ! You still only have 5 (or 6) gears to go through before you hit top speed. It's no different to a petrol car. Agreed a derv with loads of low down push is probably more relaxing to drive, Precisely. but whoever said sporty cars had to be relaxing to drive ?!? Sporty cars ? The only properly sporty diesel I can think of, is the 180bhp Seat Leon Cupra - only available on the continent though. My priorities may be different but it doesn't change most peoples perception of the word 'sporty' - I have no problem with quick diesels, How do you know ? The only quick Diesel in circulation right now, is BMW's 3.0 lump. Once Pug's 2.7 becomes available, and Audi's new one (3.0 I think), then you'll have something to compare it to. Mercedes have one on the way too - or is it already here ? E320 CDi 204 hp, 0-60 in 7.9 and 145mph, isnt shabby, plus with a chip I expect a lot of bhp n torque. Wasn't the latest Alpina a twin turbo diesel too? |
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <1gcwh1n.sfop2lvcttpzN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet- urcm (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk says... MeatballTurbo <carl.robson (AT) bouncing-czechs (DOT) com> wrote: Wasn't the best of the MKIV Golf GTis actually a GTTDi? No, it couldn't be. Diesels are for people who smell of wee wee. That would be the smell of wee wee from pssing themselves laughing at leaving all the petrol burners for dead, and still seeing over 50MPG on the fuel computer then? -- |
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
They're as quick as an equivalently powered petrol car, they're more economical, and nicer to drive. If there were a 200bhp Diesel car available for reasonable money, I'd swap my TI in a flash ! What's nice about driving a car that sounds like a tractor at idle? What's nice about leaving a trail of soot behind you when driving with 'enthusiasm'? What's nice about having to change gear at 4,500rpm? Agreed a derv with loads of low down push is probably more relaxing to drive, but whoever said sporty cars had to be relaxing to drive ?!? They're not even stealthy any more due to all the stick on tat. My priorities may be different but it doesn't change most peoples perception of the word 'sporty' - I have no problem with quick diesels, but 'sporty' they are not and I really wish they'd stop labelling them as such. Cant believe i missed this thread! Having just done another road rally in a |
the equivelent petrol engine. Mines not quite quick enough to keep up with
a GTi at the mo though, but as long as the insurance company dont moan too
much, it'll be getting closer by the end of the summer...
If you define sporty on how a car sounds, then you're no better than a
max-power-Nova-driving-turd-burgler. If a TDi engine can produce enough
power to make a car quick then why the hell not use it? As long as its
bolted to a decent chassis and decent suspension (ie not a Golf
) then itcan be sporty.
Just remember about the extra weight in the front, as i seem to have worn
out a set of pads in one night
Definately need those vented discs!!!
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
Tim S Kemp <news (AT) timkemp (DOT) karoo.co.uk> wrote: Steve Firth wrote: Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: [Pug diseasels] The 200bhp 2.7 V6 is reportedly excellent in the Jag Where "excellent" means "a long way behind the competition". The Jag finished third to the BMW and Audi (again) in the last round of magazine reviews. hmmm - autocar rated it as more refined than the BMW and the MB, more economical too, if a little less powerful. Best all rounder. That would be the same Autocar that had to print a retraction of its review of the first S-type and admit that the car was a dog? The same Autocar that published a driving review of a car that the journalist had been unable to drive? |
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
E320 CDi 204 hp, 0-60 in 7.9 and 145mph, isnt shabby, plus with a chip I expect a lot of bhp n torque. sorry thats the estate figures, 151mph and 7.5 secs, thats brilliant for a heavy ass car like that. |
bit of torque, does 0-60 in 9.9 seconds and a top speed of 130mph. And if
you sit at 60mph it'll do 60mpg. A recent tankful of fuel, including about
70% at 3-figure motorway speeds, plus lots of quick back-road hooning,
returned an average of 40mpg.
And that's an engine that's been around for nearly 13 years - well, the
115bhp version was first put in the late shape 100 in October 1991 - mine is
basically an uprated version of that, but essentially the same lump.
It doesn't quite come up to the performance and economy of the latest diesel
engines, but for a 13-year old design it ain't too shabby.
Peter
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
That would be the smell of wee wee from pssing themselves laughing at leaving all the petrol burners for dead, and still seeing over 50MPG on the fuel computer then? |
for dead?
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.