Diesel vs Petrol

sebdangerfield

missile wrote: »

I should have said that car won Le Mans three times in a row, gee thanks for pointing out other victories :rolleyes:
Don't take yourself so seriously - no one else does:rotfl:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You're right. Audi making a diesel to win an endurance race means diesel's are great! You're an advertising god send! We love torques!!!!

goldspanners

pgilc1 wrote: »

I'd suggest injection systems, turbo (- if your petrol car has one), head gasket, ECU, gearbox problems, and then any significant electric issue would blow your £200 theory.

I still think a well maintained diesel will give very little trouble. My dad ran a Vauxhall Astra TD for 250,000 miles and it had no issues at all (it still had the original exhaust!), but often services are scrimped on and cheap fuels used.

i have a 1.6 petrol focus. i can do most jobs on it myself so my £200 theory is about right, i didn't say everything, i said most things,and most of the things on your list could all be done by myself for under £200.

an old astra is using old technology that is full proof. try out a new astra with thte cdti engine for 250k miles and see how many silly faults you get that cause the vehicle not to start.

an old diesel will start with the most basic ingredients, some air, some fuel ,some compression. then it starts and runs all day.
an newer more advanced diesel needs all these things aswell but they must all be measured and must all be within certain parameters,too much or too little of one thing and it won't work,or a faulty sensor of some kind and it won't work.
older diesels also needed to have the right mixture of everything but it would accept much wider variables.

i work on older and newer diesels regularly and i see the old diesels with space ship hours on them and very little things causing faults,but i also see the new expensive diesels and the faults they get, the customer doesn't see all of these yet as warranty hides most of them but when it doesn't they are in for a shock when thier relaible diesel cost them a fortune and won't start due to a black box that costs £2000 to replace,or an injector that costs £500 (each). an injector for the older engine would have cost £100 and the black box simply wasn't there.

missile

sebdangerfield wrote: »

missile wrote: »

But similarly, the petrol A3 can do 0-60 in 6.4 seconds whilst even the most powerful diesel can only do it in 7.4 seconds...... mmmm feel those extra torques in that slower, expensive to maintain car!

Meanwhile, the most powerful 2.0Tfsi has 260 ish bhp and 5.3 secoonds to 60 compared to the most powerful diesel with less than 170. From the company who've won 15 lmc events with a diesel race car, why don't they use diesel in their perfomence road cars?

You are stating your opinions as fact.

the main reason hire companies used diesels more was because of public demand and resale

and you know this to be true because .........
What evidence can you produce showing an A3 2.0TDI(170) is more expensive to maintain than the 2.0TFSI. The diesel and is much more ecconomical and the petrol needs serviced more frequently.
7.4 to 60 is not fast enough for you?
My Audi A3 TDI will still be "cruising" up the motorway at 70 mph and half way to John O'groats whilst your S3 is stopped for fuel again and half way to it's next service:rotfl:

why don't they use diesel in their performance road cars?

They do> http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/audi-tt-diesel

missile

sebdangerfield wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You're right. Audi making a diesel to win an endurance race means diesel's are great! You're an advertising god send! We love torques!!!!

I would suggest endurance racing is a very good yard stick to use for comparison :A

goldspanners

missile wrote: »

I would suggest endurance racing is a very good yard stick to use for comparison :A

but only if your comparing the same thing.

sebdangerfield

You are stating your opinions as fact.

No, I'm quoting performance figures supplied by parker's as fact coupled with my own experience of owning both high powered petrol and diesel vehicles where the cost to maintain the 335d far exeeded the cost to maintain, for example, a car like a Noble M12 (which was also far older and higher mileage.

the main reason hire companies used diesels more was because of public demand and resale and you know this to be true because .........

.....because I'm a partner in AVC Ltd, a car hire company not far from Wolverhampton city centre.

What evidence can you produce showing an A3 2.0TDI(170) is more expensive to maintain than the 2.0TFSI. The diesel and is much more ecconomical and the petrol needs serviced more frequently.

Evidence to show problems on A3 2.0Tdi here

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=dpf+problems+audi+2&meta=&aq=0&oq=

and here

http://uk-mkivs.net/forums/p/190800/1241779.aspx

Evidence of the cost to replace here £1500

http://www.tyresmoke.net/forum/audi-a3-s3-cabrio/110851-170-sportback-dpf-problems.html

Also, the servicing for both cars is variable so the diesel does not need to be serviced less. :rolleyes:

7.4 to 60 is not fast enough for you?

Not personally, no.
However, I was talking about performance cars and the fact that in diesel/petrol equivalents the petrols are mainly more powerful and quicker. 7.4 seconds to 60 does not make a performence car! and Niether is an Audi TT tdi a performance car! :rotfl:

missile

I'm quoting performance figures supplied by parker's as fact

Any schoolboy can quote performance figures, I never disputed those. Where does Parkers say A3 2.0TDI(170) is more expensive to run and maintain than the 2.0TFSI?

my own experience of owning both high powered petrol and diesel vehicles where the cost to maintain the 335d far exeeded the cost to maintain, for example, a car like a Noble M12 (which was also far older and higher mileage

I believe you critiscised others for not comparing like for like?
Thanks for the three links. If I post four links to problems with S3s would that prove they are less reliable and cost more to maintain?

sebdangerfield wrote: »

7.4 seconds to 60 does not make a performence car! and Niether is an Audi TT tdi a performance car! :rotfl:

Says the man who bought a bmw 335d :rotfl:

Also, the servicing for both cars is variable so the diesel does not need to be serviced less. :rolleyes:

You are ......... being less than honest
The Audi Variable Servicing (AVS) Intervals programme, means that each Audi gets the maintenance it needs, when it needs it. Depending on how – and where – the individual drives, the interval can be up to 19,000 miles/24 months for petrol engines, up to 22,000 miles/24 months for the V6 TDI diesel and up to 30,000 miles/24 months for 3 and 4 cylinder TDI diesel engines.
I hope you will agree, this proves my point that an Audi A3TDI(170) will need serviced less frequently than an Audi A3TFSI, when both are driven in the same manner.

hillcats

VAG Diesels Rule !

(grabs coat, runs to hide before wacked.... LOL!)

ahillsy

Pedal power ftw! :T

negg

Diesel is definitely the best for performance.

I can't decide which is my favourite diesel though: Ferrari, Maserati, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Lamborghini ... oh hang on ... if diesel was best for performance where are their diesel burners?