Seek info about road tax

#31

Duncan Wood wrote:

Quote:

I don't see the point in having a car with a diesel engine other than
cheapskatery.

Having owned over 200 cars, and having driven what must easily be 5000
by now, I know what I like and it's not diesel engined.

So why didn't you buy the V8 A6?

I'm seriously considering an RS6 next.

--
Pete M - OMF#9

'62 Rover P4 100
'61 Rover P5 3 litre
'78 Escort 1300 Sport
'99 Audi A6 V6 Quattro Avant

"It's an Alfa, it will go wrong, it will piss you off, why should your
Alfa experience be different from everyone else's.
Now get back out there and swear at it before something else breaks."

#32

In article <hbvust$tln$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Pete M says...

Quote:

We've been through this a million times. Turbo Diesels have very narrow
useable torque 'bands', so to get decent progress you have to change
gear a lot.

No you don't as they're geared taller to compensate/take advantage. Also
unlike a petrol car, when overtaking one merely has to plant down the
right foot and take advantage of the far better torque that's delivered
lower down.

Quote:

Of course, if you're an inexperienced driver you're not going to know
what is good and what is hype.

I doubt you'd call me inexperienced. My Mondeo 2L TDCi 130 has better

mid-range acceleration than my wifes Mitsubishi FTO V6 2L with 180BHP on
tap.

Quote:

Having owned over 200 cars, and having driven what must easily be 5000
by now, I know what I like and it's not diesel engined.

Depends. If you drive it like a petrol, like my wife drives mine, you'll
be disappointed. Drive it as its supposed to be and you won't.

--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

#33

Conor wrote:

Quote:

In article <hbvust$tln$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Pete M says...

We've been through this a million times. Turbo Diesels have very narrow
useable torque 'bands', so to get decent progress you have to change
gear a lot.

No you don't as they're geared taller to compensate/take advantage. Also
unlike a petrol car, when overtaking one merely has to plant down the
right foot and take advantage of the far better torque that's delivered
lower down.

In a diesel you plant the right foot and wait for something to happen.
They're quick if the turbo is already spooled up, they're slow if you
have to wait for the turbo to get going. Hence my comment earlier about
auto turbo diesels being a bit less horrible to drive than the manual ones.

Quote:

Having owned over 200 cars, and having driven what must easily be 5000
by now, I know what I like and it's not diesel engined.

Depends. If you drive it like a petrol, like my wife drives mine, you'll
be disappointed. Drive it as its supposed to be and you won't.

It's simple. I want *instant* reactions from my cars. Diesel engines
*cannot* physically provide this. So I don't like them.

I've done plenty of miles in TDCi Mondeos and other diesels, I know how
to get the best out of them, but their best isn't as good as a good
petrol. They're adequate. Not bad, but not as enjoyable as a petrol.

--
Pete M - OMF#9

'62 Rover P4 100
'61 Rover P5 3 litre
'78 Escort 1300 Sport
'99 Audi A6 V6 Quattro Avant

"It's an Alfa, it will go wrong, it will piss you off, why should your
Alfa experience be different from everyone else's.
Now get back out there and swear at it before something else breaks."

#34

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:34:12 +0000, Pete M
<pete.murray (AT) SPAMFREEblueyonder (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

In a diesel you plant the right foot and wait for something to happen.
They're quick if the turbo is already spooled up, they're slow if you
have to wait for the turbo to get going.

With VNT turbos being around since last century, a turbo can be
installed to spool up at quite low revs. Lag shouldn't be an issue
unless the car manufacturer has chosen not to eliminate it. IIRC, some
petrol turbo cars in the past had unfortunate amounts of turbo lag so
this wasn't only a diesel issue.

--
Z

#35

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:25:40 +0100, Pete M
<pete.murray (AT) SPAMFREEblueyonder (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Zathras wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:39:40 +0100, Pete M
pete.murray (AT) SPAMFREEblueyonder (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Zathras wrote:
What's wrong with any of them other than the x35d often being attached
to an auto box?

They're diesels.

Sorry I don't understand. Taking a middle of the road variant from my
list, what's wrong with the engine in a 2009 330d? Too slow? Too
noisy? Too smoky? Too unrefined?

(And auto transmission is quite often the only way to make diesels
almost tolerable, don't have to row the autos along with the gearlever..)

Why would you 'row' a 2009 330d? With the available performance, it's
trivial to block change and chop the rowing by half. I do concede that
6 gears is nonsense for that engine and can lead to rowing if you're
an unskilled driver who doesn't block shift.

We've been through this a million times. Turbo Diesels have very narrow
useable torque 'bands', so

...you've never been in, let alone driven a 2009 330d then?

Quote:

to get decent progress you have to change
gear a lot.

The 330d manual does 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. There can't be too many gear
changes in *that* time or is that not decent progress?

50-75 in 4th is 4.8s. Who needs an auto?

Quote:

In the better modern turbodieseasels with their 7 speed
autoboxes diesels inherent and unavoidable drawbacks are not as obvious
they are in a manual diesel.

The apologists who go on about modern car diesel engines having loads of
torque obviously haven't driven anything that has proper 'always
available' torque.

...the 325d (detuned 330d engine). Almost 300lb-ft at 1300rpm. How much
more 'available' do you want?

Quote:

Try a Bentley Turbo R back to back with a Merc diesel

A Bentley! Not even knowing which Merc you're comparing it too, that
comparison sounds a bit too much like apples and oranges.

Quote:

and you'll be shocked at how agricultural the diesel engines power
delivery is - even compared to a 20 odd year old petrol.

But I dare say a lot of petrols don't compare well with that motor
either so I don't see the use of that argument.

Quote:

Of course, if you're an inexperienced driver you're not going to know
what is good and what is hype.

Ok..as an experienced driver, clear away the hype and tell me what's
wrong with the diesel engine in a 2009 330d because it doesn't appear,
to me, to have a narrow torque band.

Quote:

I don't see the point in having a car with a diesel engine other than
cheapskatery.

Some people, me anyway, like the way a good diesel performs on the
roads we have today. Others may value their lower emissions.

With more turbo petrol cars coming along, admittedly, the choice is
getting better but it hasn't always been that way unless you wanted a
Saab or an ugly Group 20 car.

However, if the point is about not being able to afford the car I
really want then..yes I can't afford an Enzo. That doesn't make me a
cheapskate - just skint, surely?

Quote:

Having owned over 200 cars, and having driven what must easily be 5000
by now, I know what I like and it's not diesel engined.

I've no issue with that. However, I'm sat in a 3 litre diesel BMW
thinking about what you say and can't help thinking "Eh? What's he
basing his claims on - it certainly can't be something like this?".

--
Z

#36

In message <g4e8e59nkngpjr53jadm3dscnmh3hfvav1 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Zathras
<webnewsgroup (AT) nospamthanks (DOT) hotmail.com> writes

Quote:

Try a Bentley Turbo R back to back with a Merc diesel

A Bentley! Not even knowing which Merc you're comparing it too, that
comparison sounds a bit too much like apples and oranges.

and you'll be shocked at how agricultural the diesel engines power
delivery is - even compared to a 20 odd year old petrol.

But I dare say a lot of petrols don't compare well with that motor
either so I don't see the use of that argument.
IME, even the Audi's that used the same v8 lump as the Rolls Royce and

Bentley didn't drive as smoothly as the Crewe built stuff.

Quote:

--
Clint Sharp

#37

Clint Sharp <clint (AT) clintsmc (DOT) demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quote:

IME, even the Audi's that used the same v8 lump as the Rolls Royce and
Bentley didn't drive as smoothly as the Crewe built stuff.

Sorry, what ARE you on about?

Bentley use a VAG lump - but it's a V10 and has never been near a R-R
badge.

The old R-R/Bentley pushrod v8 might owe a chunk to Chrysler, but was
never used in an Audi - or anything else.

#38

Pete M wrote:

Quote:

Having owned over 200 cars, and having driven what must easily be
5000 by now, I know what I like and it's not diesel engined.

Depends. If you drive it like a petrol, like my wife drives mine,
you'll be disappointed. Drive it as its supposed to be and you won't.

It's simple. I want *instant* reactions from my cars. Diesel engines
*cannot* physically provide this. So I don't like them.

I'm not sure I get this *instant* business, at least unless you are
comparing with mahoosive NA petrol engines. It was interesting
comparing the 2.0 petrol in the cross-country missile estate with the
130pd td lump in the passat. The CCME was vastly better to drive, of
course, and it was actually slightly the quicker of the two, but it was
much harder work to keep it on the boil.
If, whilst out trundling along, you find yourself stuck behind a
tootler and have to wait for an opportunity to overtake, in the NA
petrol you would have to sit in a low gear at >4000rpm in order to have
better pickup than the TDi does at cruising revs. In reality I'd
instead sit in a higher gear and change down when I could overtake.
There is of course a lag of maybe 0.5s as the turbo spools up, but that
is no more than the time required to change down in the NA petrol, so
neither has functionally instant response.

The thing I've found about swapping between nominally similarly powerful
petrol/diesels is that each makes the other feel slow - lack of top end
punch vs lack of mid range grunt.

Quote:

I've done plenty of miles in TDCi Mondeos and other diesels, I know how
to get the best out of them, but their best isn't as good as a good
petrol. They're adequate. Not bad, but not as enjoyable as a petrol.

On balance, given a similar power output, I'd take the diesel - it's
just a more relaxed way to get the same performance. Given a similar
peak torque, I'd take the petrol, every time.

#39

Albert T Cone <a.k.kirby (AT) durham (DOT) ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Quote:

On balance, given a similar power output, I'd take the diesel - it's
just a more relaxed way to get the same performance. Given a similar
peak torque, I'd take the petrol, every time.

'course, that's the crux of the argument.

I'd far rather drive a long-stroke torquey slogger of a petrol engine
than a short-stroke revvy buzzbox.

#40

On 26 Oct 2009 10:42:41 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

I'd far rather drive a long-stroke torquey slogger of a petrol engine

Does anyone do these? Last time I came across a serious long-stroke
engine was in a Bedford (IIRC) campervan..oooh..twenty or so years ago
(and it was an old relic then).

--
Z