A luxury car with a diesel engine is an oxymoron.Not if said diesel is a luxury car with a big engine.
The *only* thing that diesels do better is economy. *Everything* else is better with a petrol engine.
A luxury car with a diesel engine is an oxymoron.Not if said diesel is a luxury car with a big engine.
Nope. Popular misconception.And torque
Care to back that up then?Nope. Popular misconception.
Yup look @Wildefalcon has picked out all the good traits of cars after input from the forum , Just needs a bit of welding to combine them all in the perfect long commute high comfort cruiser@cardiffrob Area you any closer to a decision after all this?
And so the conclusion:
OP needs a VW group car with a Volvo seat and a V8.
Care to back that up then?
yawn. Same old tired saying by a self-identifying "petrolhead". Have you owned one?A luxury car with a diesel engine is an oxymoron.
The *only* thing that diesels do better is economy. *Everything* else is better with a petrol engine.
IMHO you need to think a little more simplistically...Yep.
Firstly you are largely comparing implementations rather than inherent. Inherently NA petrols have a higher BMEP (which can be used to compare engines regardless of capacity or type) than NA diesels. Of course when you increase the boost you up the effective capacity and with a diesel there is also very little downside to increasing boost (and many upsides, including making economy *better*) which has the effective result of increasing the torque.
Diesels also *HAVE* to make more torque because they can't rev due to a number of issues, primarily for road cars it's timing issues (as the window for injection is vanishingly small) and also because the cylinder pressures are higher the crank, piston etc have to be heavier which also limits speed and at the same time allows more torque. So making their torque at the lower end is a *choice* in implementation to get power. Primarily diesels are also helped through being longer stroke vs their petrol counterparts. Again this is a *choice* rather than inherent but as longer stroke means more torque (at the expense of less power and ability to rev) they generally are designed that way.
In that respect "diesels have more torque" is correct, in the majority of implementations they do.
But that then brings us to the second point, gearing. The crankshaft torque is an irrelevance when they have to be massively up geared to have any rev range. Yes, many diesels will make lots of torque in 1st gear but a petrol engine in an equivalent state of tune will make more power and more torque at the wheels because it can run 1-2 gears lower than the diesel (for example at maximum torque it may still be in 2nd while the diesel is in 4th).
So yes, many diesels will have massive figures at the crankshaft for playing pub top trumps with, but by the time it's got to the wheels it's all evaporated through the magic of gearing hence it's a popular misconception that they *actually* have more torque.
Thanks for some explanation. If I've interpreted it correctly (and I'm willing to be proven wrong) then what you're saying is that if you build an identical diesel and petrol engine then the petrol will be more torquey. Well fair enough and how utterly moronic. Each engine is designed to the characteristics of its fuel.Yep.
Firstly you are largely comparing implementations rather than inherent. Inherently NA petrols have a higher BMEP (which can be used to compare engines regardless of capacity or type) than NA diesels. Of course when you increase the boost you up the effective capacity and with a diesel there is also very little downside to increasing boost (and many upsides, including making economy *better*) which has the effective result of increasing the torque.
Diesels also *HAVE* to make more torque because they can't rev due to a number of issues, primarily for road cars it's timing issues (as the window for injection is vanishingly small) and also because the cylinder pressures are higher the crank, piston etc have to be heavier which also limits speed and at the same time allows more torque. So making their torque at the lower end is a *choice* in implementation to get power. Primarily diesels are also helped through being longer stroke vs their petrol counterparts. Again this is a *choice* rather than inherent but as longer stroke means more torque (at the expense of less power and ability to rev) they generally are designed that way.
In that respect "diesels have more torque" is correct, in the majority of implementations they do.
But that then brings us to the second point, gearing. The crankshaft torque is an irrelevance when they have to be massively up geared to have any rev range. Yes, many diesels will make lots of torque in 1st gear but a petrol engine in an equivalent state of tune will make more power and more torque at the wheels because it can run 1-2 gears lower than the diesel (for example at maximum torque it may still be in 2nd while the diesel is in 4th).
So yes, many diesels will have massive figures at the crankshaft for playing pub top trumps with, but by the time it's got to the wheels it's all evaporated through the magic of gearing hence it's a popular misconception that they *actually* have more torque.
Go for the Golf for the 500 mile journey. The fiesta would be fine for local pootling about and an occasional long trip but it will soon get tiresome driving that little thing all that distance.Had a look at a Diesel Golf Estate and a Petrol Fiesta. Both under £3k. Still undecided so I'm still browsing the adverts.
Had a look at a Diesel Golf Estate and a Petrol Fiesta. Both under £3k. Still undecided so I'm still browsing the adverts.
Why on earth would I want to own one? I've driven plenty of diesels and find them hateful. Just all round deeply unpleasant to drive. I'd rather pay more to not suffer a diesel.yawn. Same old tired saying by a self-identifying "petrolhead". Have you owned one?
Sis has an Audi q5(?) 2.0 diseasel.Why on earth would I want to own one? I've driven plenty of diesels and find them hateful. Just all round deeply unpleasant to drive. I'd rather pay more to not suffer a diesel.
Your definition of "deeply unpleasant" is different to most people's, then by all means I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just saying that it's not necessarily an opinion shared by others.Why on earth would I want to own one? I've driven plenty of diesels and find them hateful. Just all round deeply unpleasant to drive. I'd rather pay more to not suffer a diesel.
Had a look at a Diesel Golf Estate and a Petrol Fiesta. Both under £3k. Still undecided so I'm still browsing the adverts.
How many gallons of engine oil did it us in that time ?Really depends what you want and your budget.
I've just done 1,830 miles in 2 days in my diesel A6, totally comfortable and it did ~42mpg mostly doing 80mph on cruise. No car i'd rather have, the thing eats up the miles.
I had a 54-plate MK4 1.9 estate. Brilliant car, did 60mpg on the motorway, totally reliable.