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.
My girlfriends father is a director at JCB.... Shall I get their diesel?
... this isn't a tractor racing event
My girlfriends father is a director at JCB.... Shall I get their diesel?
... this isn't a tractor racing event
http://www.jcbdieselmax.com/html/home.php
Doesn't look like a tractor. Althuogh it has a tractor engine. lol.and what exactly would they do apart from disappear at an alarming rate into my rear view mirror?
bring it down to the Cat & Fiddle Lagerlout
hehe
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Morning, I'm getting slightly tired of this stuff now because it just goes around and around, but I'll respond out of courtesy to your question, and also try to avoid rehashing a tired debate. This post will most likely be quite long
Yes I do know what torque is, because I studied HND motor vehicle engineering. As has already been said, it's a twisting force ie. in this context, the twisting force available at the crank. Imagine a 100lb weight on the end of a 1ft long bar attached to the crank, and that is generating 100lbf/ft of torque into the transmission, where some will be lost through general transmission losses, and some would effectively be increased by lower ratios than 1:1 (Diesels tend to have higher ratios to accommodate their lower rev band, so the gearing advantage is less than it would be with ratios more suited to a petrol engine). With little power, the engine can generate that torque but not necessarily very quickly, so in that application it would be ideal for something slow and lumbering that has to carry/tow heavy loads. However, if the engine also generates lot's of power, it can do the same work but much quicker. The relationship between the two is really a bit more involved than that, but that's basically the principle as I understand it.
The nuts and bolts of it are that the smaller and lighter the application, the less important torque becomes. Simply because there is less work to do. It can use high revving power to do it's work very quickly, the best example being a motorbike. Of course, more of each is always better though.
A focus ST has a lot more torque than a Clio 182, and similar power/weight, yet it's no faster to 60mph, probably hardly even to 100mph. It will be quicker in-gear of course, where the torque comes into play. If it's giant torque advantage doesn't actually provide much performance advantage over a small engined NA car, how is a diesel that revs to 4k rpm going to fair?
If we're still debating literally petrol vs. diesel - then like for like, in the same car, any given displacement and cylinder layout, natural or forced induction, remap for remap, the petrol engined car will always pwn the diesel hardcore. Also the petrol will sound better, and generally be more involving. The only conclusion I can draw is that diesel is better for fuel economy. Remember this paragraph is fuel vs. fuel, not car vs. car
You have mentioned before that a "remapped" 330D or some such, can beat a Ferrari 360 down the strip? Which car would you rather be in? Incidentally, how much does it cost to tune these super diesel saloons to such states of tune, and do they retain warranty? I ask because I wouldn't want to be invalidating my warranty on a very expensive brand new car just so I could keep up with smaller engined petrols and change gear at 4k rpm. Better to just buy the petrol in the first place and have more fun for less cost, financially and dynamically.
Ultimately, the diesel technology is getting better all the time, but then so is petrol is it not? When the fossil fuel age is drawing to a close, and a handful of wealthy petrol heads still own classic drivers cars, do you think they're going to be petrol hatchbacks and track cars or super cars, or do you think they're going to be BMW diesel saloons with a copy of Torque Bi-Monthly in the glove box? Who knows? By then, diesel engine technology may have advanced so much that the cars they are in are actually rewarding to drive? . In response to that point, I know you will ask if I've ever driven a 330D. The answer is no and nor do I wish to. I like my engines to rev. Period. However that's getting onto personal choice again, which is probably a good place to end this lengthy geek-fest of a post. Thanks for reading
PS. Someone did mention in some thread ages ago, that petrol will run out before diesel, did they not? I had to laugh at that one, as the though the oil rigs pump Optimax straight out of the North Sea floor :rasp:
Thanks for not lowering the tone as others enjoy.
I am pretty tired of these debates too you know, I like to read them as they can get pretty funny, and I generally reply when someone posts something that makes me say
"Oh dear"
With regard to your brief torque definition. Yes, that's as I understand it. I would have a go myself, but I'd be too tempted to dig the old Maths text books out to get some proper technical terms correct.
With regards to my "330d vs Ferrari 360". I personally would take the 330d. And it cost about £1000 to get it to that state of tune in which it was level pegging "in a straight line from a standstill". With no warranty implications. I think this is impressive to say the least as a Ferrari 360 is 400bhp and weighs less. So perhaps he wasn't trying??? This was on a drag strip... And both cars had about 5 runs, 0-90 in about 9 seconds were the scores, which does imply the 360 was trying.. I personally did not think the 330d would do so well... But it did.
You also have to drive it like a petrol, obviously it will still not scream like a petrol straight 6. But it gives max power at about 5.800rpm (nearly redlining) and max torque at 1800rpm...
You're not alone in calling me crazy, but when owning something like a Ferrari, unless it was an F430 or an Enzo, I would take the equivalent Porsche. Anyway, that's down to personal preference. The point is, how many people could afford to run a Ferrari 360 as a daily driver??? Refilling every 150miles if you're booting it.
This really is a moot point as I don't own a 330d. And am certainly not in the position to do so as I had to sell my 120d as it cost me too much.
Nothing wrong with petrols in my opinion, and I love the sound of a Carrera GT flying by as much as the next person. But for day to day driving, with more ability than a similar engined petrol, why drive anything but diesel in a none-sports car???
You get hard reading about torque? :S
And to be fair we'd have to compair it to a petrol Golf not a 182 etc.
Yep PD 150 remapped got a better time than the 172/182 next to it by a fair margin but then again the 172/182 didn't geta good time.
|I like cars but at the end of the day I have better things to do with money than blow it on a petrol. OWEning a diesel might not be as fun but the money I've saved have allowed me tdo track days etc and enjoy my car more.Basically, if you w**k off about mpg stats, and think you even know what "torque" means, a diesel is for you
I've seen a video of a Seat Leon (4x4 foreign version) with a bottle beat a Ferrari 360 on the drag strip did a stunning time 12 seconds or so I think and smoked like the best of them.
