Clio 172 mk2
Yep...them diesels are quick, easy to be caught out !
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
200bhp Petrol vs 200bhp Diesel
- Thread starter Michael172
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 200
Yep...them diesels are quick, easy to be caught out !
cock mobile.
Petrolheads = urrr petrol car.
Diesels, even modern diesels don't drive like petrol cars, and I will curse the day I ever have to own one
And diesels do have narrow power bands and petrols have a much wider power band.
If the engines are both turbo producing exact bhp and torque for arguements sake I'd say the petrol all day long.
But the diesel will always make more torque?
Diesel powe bands are much better from 2 till 44 they make about 75% to 100% power have a look what a 172 makes at 3.5 to 7k. Its all about maximiming adverage power the diesel have the greater adverage power.
But now you're comparing (I think) a Turbo Diesel and a N/A Petrol, hardly fair.
I know what you are saying, the diesel will produce more torque if it's the same bhp, but we all know it's not just about peak output, it's how it's delivered across the range, etc etc.
ForceIndia
ClioSport Club Member
Gentlemans spec 200
Petrolheads = urrr petrol car.
Diesels, even modern diesels don't drive like petrol cars, and I will curse the day I ever have to own one
And diesels do have narrow power bands and petrols have a much wider power band.
If the engines are both turbo producing exact bhp and torque for arguements sake I'd say the petrol all day long.
Too hard to compare it otherwise to be honest.
Bit of a sweeping statement. Most of the VAG 2l diesels have as much of a useful power band as a CTR, it's just much lower down the rev range. BMW 3l diesel also revs quite well.
Meg on pistonheads £6995
some truth, MUCH ignorance!
have any of you diesel haters even driven the latest type such as BMW 320d or Meggy dCi 16v??
Having driven many, many, old-style diesels (Cavalier 1.6 up to and including the Td5 Disco and VAG PD 100-160 range), pre-yr 2000ish designs are mostly crude, heavy, noisy and generally crap to drive.
a run-in and re-mapped new shape 320d or Meggy dCi 175 would make you think twice about criticism
and as for a re-mapped 330d/535d, prepare to sh*t your pants!
have any of you diesel haters even driven the latest type such as BMW 320d or Meggy dCi 16v??
Having driven many, many, old-style diesels (Cavalier 1.6 up to and including the Td5 Disco and VAG PD 100-160 range), pre-yr 2000ish designs are mostly crude, heavy, noisy and generally crap to drive.
a run-in and re-mapped new shape 320d or Meggy dCi 175 would make you think twice about criticism
and as for a re-mapped 330d/535d, prepare to sh*t your pants!
Why isn't it fair? Most diesel (infact there few none) are turbo and most petrol are none turto but anway just to be fair
http://www.nextcar.com.au/i.volkswagen.golf.gti.2005.power.torque.jpg tahtsa 200hp GOld gti official curve
6k =200hp 3k = 87hp (or 43.5% of the power it makes at 6k) adverage of that what 73% power in the rev range.
A diesel well I'm hvaing to use a BMW since its the only one I can find quick
http://www.autoblog.com/media/2007/03/bmw_diesel_dyno.jpg
150 (err no idea whats) at 4.4k and 90 at 2.2k (or 60% the power that it has at the 4.4k so adverage power is 80% which=looking above is what 10% more adverage power?
So the diesel wins, it make more torque and hp in a power band on one set of rpm to another than the petrol even the new FSI VAG one. The diesel makes a much better power curve the petrol.
For all posting here this is an interesting post
http://www.allardmotorcompany.com/pages/atmr/petrol-vs-diesel/petrol-vs-diesel.asp
Same thing as were discumssing just done by a proper company compairing 200hp same model cars diesel vs petrol.
cock mobile.
Edde: I'm never gonna win this as my knowledge is just not anywhere near as comprehensive as yours! 
What can I say, I just don't like them, I can see why people do like them, they just aren't for me!
But I will finish with this, black kro, if there is soooo much ignorance, and the DCi 175 is soooo good, why does it say you want a PETROL R26
What can I say, I just don't like them, I can see why people do like them, they just aren't for me!
But I will finish with this, black kro, if there is soooo much ignorance, and the DCi 175 is soooo good, why does it say you want a PETROL R26
What can I say, I just don't like them, I can see why people do like them, they just aren't for me!
But I will finish with this, black kro, if there is soooo much ignorance, and the DCi 175 is soooo good, why does it say you want a PETROL R26
Value for money wise the R26 is great has a LSD and a little rear spolier etc and cheaper to buy with more HP out the box so its undersandable.
Each to there own diesel vs petrol threads though.
Adey.
ClioSport Club Member
y is a diesel block heavier?
Nissan 350Z
Amazing how many people here dont seem to know what they are talking about, and this is coming from someone who is no expert.
OK, same power, same weight, etc etc...
In a straight drag race, the cars SHOULD be identical, if they have the same power, weight and driver.
Of course, its obviously never going to be that straightforward.
People keep going on about diesels PEAK torque. Notice that word, PEAK torque? Thats what a diesel will produce for maybe a couple of hundred RPM in its entire rev range.
Not only that, but petrols can rev higher. That means they can run shorter gearing. That means their torque deficits at the wheels are either dramatically reduced or eliminated completely.
All that then remains is the fact a diesel produces peak torque at a lower point in its rev range. All that is useful for is low end RPM performance, not flat out performance.
There is so much misinformation in this thread.
However, it will NEVER be that straightforward. Diesels lumps are heavier (they require stronger components due to the torque the motor produces). You will rarely ever find two cars that are identical enough on spec sheet to be able to prove this definitively.
Incidentally, isn't it funny how generally, you can get a good idea of how fast / quick a car is by looking at power and weight figures. However, you cannot get ANY idea how fast something is by looking at torque figures. Torque figures barely matter at all when comparing two cars flat out.
Fact is though, any self respecting keen driver would choose petrol over diesel, unless they were on a tight budget, as petrol cars sound better, and drive better.
OK, same power, same weight, etc etc...
In a straight drag race, the cars SHOULD be identical, if they have the same power, weight and driver.
Of course, its obviously never going to be that straightforward.
People keep going on about diesels PEAK torque. Notice that word, PEAK torque? Thats what a diesel will produce for maybe a couple of hundred RPM in its entire rev range.
Not only that, but petrols can rev higher. That means they can run shorter gearing. That means their torque deficits at the wheels are either dramatically reduced or eliminated completely.
All that then remains is the fact a diesel produces peak torque at a lower point in its rev range. All that is useful for is low end RPM performance, not flat out performance.
There is so much misinformation in this thread.
However, it will NEVER be that straightforward. Diesels lumps are heavier (they require stronger components due to the torque the motor produces). You will rarely ever find two cars that are identical enough on spec sheet to be able to prove this definitively.
Incidentally, isn't it funny how generally, you can get a good idea of how fast / quick a car is by looking at power and weight figures. However, you cannot get ANY idea how fast something is by looking at torque figures. Torque figures barely matter at all when comparing two cars flat out.
Fact is though, any self respecting keen driver would choose petrol over diesel, unless they were on a tight budget, as petrol cars sound better, and drive better.
coz they made out of a heavier metal. Most modern petrols are made out of aluminium i think to save weight.
I think a diesel has a fiercer combustion so the engine is made from stell as it can handle higher temperatures, not entirely sure by memory but i think that is correct.
I think a diesel has a fiercer combustion so the engine is made from stell as it can handle higher temperatures, not entirely sure by memory but i think that is correct.
As well as my Clio I have a Golf MK4 GT TDI PD 150 miltek system de-cat, uprated injector nozzles, FMIC and jabba stage 2 map running 223bhp and 360 lbs ft torque.
It has a Sachs uprated clutch and I can launch it in second gear and run 0-60 in 6.2 secs, so your traffic lights theory goes out the window! I know its not your average TDI but I can beat petrols of similar power and have beaten a Leon Cupra R and a few CTR's up santa pod 1/4 mile strip it runs the 1/4 in 14.4 @ 96mph........fact is Diesel has come a long way in performance I have had some great petrol motors such as the Pug GTI-6 , 172 but none come near the feeling of power and speed I get from the Golf TDI.....My 300bhp S14 Silvia was only running 14's up the strip it feels faster than that too!
Granted it cannot handle like the Pug and 172 and never will due to the heavy lump but that torque and throw you back in the seat power is amazing id never go back to petrol after owning my Jabba Golf TDI! It also never drops below 45mpg even after strip racing so cheap to run too insurance is group 13, also get cheap tax
It has a Sachs uprated clutch and I can launch it in second gear and run 0-60 in 6.2 secs, so your traffic lights theory goes out the window! I know its not your average TDI but I can beat petrols of similar power and have beaten a Leon Cupra R and a few CTR's up santa pod 1/4 mile strip it runs the 1/4 in 14.4 @ 96mph........fact is Diesel has come a long way in performance I have had some great petrol motors such as the Pug GTI-6 , 172 but none come near the feeling of power and speed I get from the Golf TDI.....My 300bhp S14 Silvia was only running 14's up the strip it feels faster than that too!
Granted it cannot handle like the Pug and 172 and never will due to the heavy lump but that torque and throw you back in the seat power is amazing id never go back to petrol after owning my Jabba Golf TDI! It also never drops below 45mpg even after strip racing so cheap to run too insurance is group 13, also get cheap tax
BMW M4; S1000 RR
pbirkett, that was an entertaining read for a Friday afternoon.
I'm assuming 80% of the "bone-petrol head" responses on here are from people who've only ever experienced a diesel engine in a van, or a crane, or whatever other HGV you see wandering the streets of your nearest development.
The question in the thread.... Wait I can copy and paste it's right in front of me.
200bhp Petrol vs 200bhp Diesel
Now, bhp is simply an equation, as we should all hopefully know, for work done based on torque and engine speed.
So surely if you have a 200bhp NA petrol vs a 200bhp turbo petrol, they should accelerate in the same manner... Unfortunately most would think that, however as a few people have pointed out, 200bhp is simply the PEAK POWER.
As you're accelerating, you're not always at peak power, and more low down torque, means more low down power, so going back to the NA vs Turbo petrols, the turbo will naturally have more low down power (depending on boost) and thus accelerate faster than the 200bhp NA.
So surely, if two identical cars have the same 200bhp peak power, they should accelerate fairly similarly, that's true too, but as I've already covered, extra low down torque helps big time.
Generally speaking, a 200bhp diesel will have twice that in torque, whereas an NA petrol might have the same figure.
So whilst both cars are midway through the rev range, the diesel will be accelerating a hell of a lot faster than the petrol. There you go.
If you want the closest example I can think of at the moment, here you go.
BMW 320d vs 320i - Note that the diesel has a 13bhp benefit.
BMW 330d vs 330i - Note that the diesel has a 27bhp defecit.
I'm assuming 80% of the "bone-petrol head" responses on here are from people who've only ever experienced a diesel engine in a van, or a crane, or whatever other HGV you see wandering the streets of your nearest development.
The question in the thread.... Wait I can copy and paste it's right in front of me.
200bhp Petrol vs 200bhp Diesel
Now, bhp is simply an equation, as we should all hopefully know, for work done based on torque and engine speed.
So surely if you have a 200bhp NA petrol vs a 200bhp turbo petrol, they should accelerate in the same manner... Unfortunately most would think that, however as a few people have pointed out, 200bhp is simply the PEAK POWER.
As you're accelerating, you're not always at peak power, and more low down torque, means more low down power, so going back to the NA vs Turbo petrols, the turbo will naturally have more low down power (depending on boost) and thus accelerate faster than the 200bhp NA.
So surely, if two identical cars have the same 200bhp peak power, they should accelerate fairly similarly, that's true too, but as I've already covered, extra low down torque helps big time.
Generally speaking, a 200bhp diesel will have twice that in torque, whereas an NA petrol might have the same figure.
So whilst both cars are midway through the rev range, the diesel will be accelerating a hell of a lot faster than the petrol. There you go.
If you want the closest example I can think of at the moment, here you go.
BMW 320d vs 320i - Note that the diesel has a 13bhp benefit.
BMW 330d vs 330i - Note that the diesel has a 27bhp defecit.
CB600FS
Firstly your comparing petrol BHP to diesel BHP which are totally different, as said earlier in the thread it'd probably be more fair to compare say a 180bhp Derv to a 200bhp Petrol.
We're on about a 200bhp Diesel, go out in a Megane DCI RS, and tell me it only produces power for a few hundred RPM, they pull from idle right the way round, in every gear.
The diesels bound to have more torque, which is the ability to turn, so its bound to have a lower peak that a petrol which has a lower torque, so needs more umpf to get rolling surely?
Same car, bound to have virtually identical top end, diesel would probably destroy the petrol once rolling, from say 100 to top end. Thats without dropping down a gear aswell.
The last diesel you drove was that Skoda in 1983 right?
FN2 Type R +MK6 Golf
Mr birket i dont agree.If you ever get a chance to drive a 535D do it.Although they cost a lot more than your average car you can see where the technology is going......
Look at le-mans for christ sake,that thing obliterated every high end super tunned petrol car going,so things are moving on
ian
Look at le-mans for christ sake,that thing obliterated every high end super tunned petrol car going,so things are moving on
ian
BMW M4; S1000 RR
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Discussing 200bhp diesel vs 200bhp petrol is pointless, diesel hp for hp is faster.
Which you buy is up to you and only you. Which you prefer out of the following.
Going fast.
Sound and..... Well that's the only thing I can come up with that a petrol has over a diesel.
Which you buy is up to you and only you. Which you prefer out of the following.
Going fast.
Sound and..... Well that's the only thing I can come up with that a petrol has over a diesel.
Revs.
I'm seriously considering a diesel as my next car, see what all the fuss is about. Plus I'm getting old and lazy and can't be arsed revving the nuts off a car to get it to move anymore.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
But the gearing is lower... apart from 1st, the top speed in each gear isn't that different.
And? :S
Diesel peak power and torque is so low down the rev range that there is no need to rev the nuts off it to get into the power band and get it going! Which, at the moment, really appeals to me.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
And? :S
Diesel peak power and torque is so low down the rev range that there is no need to rev the nuts off it to get into the power band and get it going! Which, at the moment, really appeals to me.
Peak torque is in the low revs, peak power is nearing the redline on many of the newer units.
And? :S
Diesel peak power and torque is so low down the rev range that there is no need to rev the nuts off it to get into the power band and get it going! Which, at the moment, really appeals to me.
Peak torque is in the low revs, peak power is nearing the redline on many of the newer units.
The point i'm making here is that performance is available from low down which is good for lazy people like me who can't be arsed anymore lol.
Spot on...I can't believe we're back on this f**king topic again. How many times? For the love of god, torque is NOT the be all and end all, gearing and revs matter too. Think of it this way, torque is the force that the engine can apply to turn the wheel/gearing. Lots of torque means that it can turn this easily, but it doesn't mean it can turn it faster. Hence diesels are good for cruising and pulling stuff (tractors
) etc etc. So if a car, like the new CTR, can turn its engine at 8000+ rpm it doesn't need lots of torque, just good gearing because it can appply lots of smaller amounts of force more quickly. Don't get me wrong, the modern diesel engine is superb, but most of you are talking about turbo diesels. So why is no one comparing a 2litre turbo diesel to a 2litre turbo petrol??
These days there is f**k all in it, but you have to remember that gearing (and weight) are nearly as important as both BHP and Torque.
And that's my two pennies worth, can't believe that I've been drawn into one of these arguments.... must only just have got up lol
WHy don't we compaire well simple realson most diesle are turbo most petrol arn't and if you actualy read this theread I gave the turbo petrol a fair review and used a very modern FFSi golf engine as the example.
Yes wieght and Hp matter but were discussing engine and a gold tdi weights the same (realy) as a fsi turbo petrol one.
CTR need to be reved to the limiter all the time then to make its power which is not effieicne tand do you drive like that all the time I bet you don't.
^Yeah but they didn't all used to be turbo diesels did they
Hence lots of smaller turbo petrol engines cropping up now. You miss another point to having a high reving engine, which is you can drive it like a 1.3 around town if you want to... I did read the thread, I didn't think you gave a particularly fair review.
Hence lots of smaller turbo petrol engines cropping up now. You miss another point to having a high reving engine, which is you can drive it like a 1.3 around town if you want to... I did read the thread, I didn't think you gave a particularly fair review.
^Yeah but they didn't all used to be turbo diesels did they
Hence lots of smaller turbo petrol engines cropping up now. You miss another point to having a high reving engine, which is you can drive it like a 1.3 around town if you want to... I did read the thread, I didn't think you gave a particularly fair review.
And petrol never used to be able to rev so what your point?
Whats not fair an FSI 2.0T VAG engine quite modern engine infact very very modern the BMW 3.0 was the only diesel one I could find quickly and is infact a older generation unit.
^Yeah but they didn't all used to be turbo diesels did they
Hence lots of smaller turbo petrol engines cropping up now. You miss another point to having a high reving engine, which is you can drive it like a 1.3 around town if you want to... I did read the thread, I didn't think you gave a particularly fair review.
And petrol never used to be able to rev so what your point?
Whats not fair an FSI 2.0T VAG engine quite modern engine infact very very modern the BMW 3.0 was the only diesel one I could find quickly and is infact a older generation unit.
Bike engines?
I can't be arsed with this, another wonderful cliosport thread...
Bike engines?
So you think we should compaire a 200hp bike engine with a diesel ? or are you saying the at that an engine which could rev but since the threads about cars well err what does bikes have to do with it?
Old car engines ie the RR silver shadow made 48hp at 1250rpm since were compairing modern cars what the heck does the past matter.
Nope.
I like some banter I asked a quickion was to what you meant about bike engines since they as far as I could see where irrelevent in a car discusion so asked if you were talking about the face I mentioned older cars couln't rev.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Your points are flawed, it's not an opinion that out of 2 cars with identical peak power (fastest point of acceleration), the one with more power lower down that's being used whilst it's trying to reach that pinaccle that is 200bhp
rolleyes will accelerate faster until they get to that point, at which point they'll accelerate the same, then shift, then the diesel I mean car with more power midrange will accelerate harder again.It's not hard to understand really is it.
Ah I see...
It's early mate, I get annoyed easily when I've just woken up
I thought we were comparing petrol and diesel engines? Not just what they were in??
Doesn't matter anyway. No one will ever win this argument. They are just two ways of getting the same thing done in slightly different ways. Personally I like the high revving engines. But each to their own...
Laters... :rasp:
It's early mate, I get annoyed easily when I've just woken up
I thought we were comparing petrol and diesel engines? Not just what they were in??
Doesn't matter anyway. No one will ever win this argument. They are just two ways of getting the same thing done in slightly different ways. Personally I like the high revving engines. But each to their own...
Laters... :rasp:
BMW M4; S1000 RR
And to try and cover the turbo petrol vs turbo diesel debate.
Run of the mill TDs vs TPs will be pretty much the same in the terms of performance (if they have the same peak power outputs). But the diesel will be more efficient and have more bottom end power.
So here is a 450bhp turbo petrol owning a 500bhp NA petrol for those who say midrange torque doesn't matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF5YoAz67DM
Run of the mill TDs vs TPs will be pretty much the same in the terms of performance (if they have the same peak power outputs). But the diesel will be more efficient and have more bottom end power.
So here is a 450bhp turbo petrol owning a 500bhp NA petrol for those who say midrange torque doesn't matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF5YoAz67DM
Your points are flawed, it's not an opinion that out of 2 cars with identical peak power (fastest point of acceleration), the one with more power lower down that's being used whilst it's trying to reach that pinaccle that is 200bhp
It's not hard to understand really is it.
It seems to be, as no one seems to understand that it's power spread across the gearing that does the accelerating. Anyway, off to the movies... byeee
BMW M4; S1000 RR
That's all this thread seems to be about rather than discussion imo.
Your points are flawed, it's not an opinion that out of 2 cars with identical peak power (fastest point of acceleration), the one with more power lower down that's being used whilst it's trying to reach that pinaccle that is 200bhp
It's not hard to understand really is it.
The fastest point of acceleration is NOT at the point of peak power.
How does the BMW diesel win? You seem to be suggesting that 400Nm at 2000rpm is better than 280Nm at 5000rpm, when it clearly isn't.
Stick both of those engines in identical cars and the VW engined one is faster.
