Print Page | Close Window

Car Advice!

Printed From: Just Flight Forum
Category: Just Chat
Forum Name: Just Chat - General Discussion
Forum Description: Forum for shootin' the breeze about subjects not relating to Flight Simulation or aviation
URL: http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5574
Printed Date: 17 Sep 2019 at 4:57am


Topic: Car Advice!
Posted By: MartinW
Subject: Car Advice!
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 9:37am

Chaps...

 

I have an Escort 1994. The paint work is faded, and there's a water leak that collects in the passenger foot well, thanks to a rusty hole under the battery.

 

It's not all bad new though, as it has a fairly new gearbox, with hardly any mileage on it since it was replaced, all new brake pipes, new battery and an engine that’s only done 60,000 from new.

 

I want to get rid of it, as I have a degree of arthritis in both knees and the clutch and brake are a bit heavy for me.

 

But I obviously wouldn't be too keen to sell it privately with welding required under the battery. So I am considering one of those 'Cash for cars' outfits that advertise.

 

Has anybody had any experience with them, or have you any other advice on a way to get the best price.

 

I haven’t sold many cars so would appreciate your advice.

 

Thumbs%20Up




Replies:
Posted By: 767nutter
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 11:50am

How long has it been since you had an MOT? Before i go further im just wondering as you describe the clutch being a bit heavy, which could mean you may need a new clutch fitted, which if you do, sorry to say, but it will lower the value more.



Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 11:54am
It has a full MOT, and the clutch is fine. You would regard it as light, however, as I have arthritis in both knees I need a super light hydraulic clutch which this isn't.


Posted By: Mrbobo
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 11:58am

Hi Martin

These Cash for Cars companys will not give you a fair price for your car! I tried them for a laugh and it came out at £2,000 when I paid nearly £4,000 for my car!

When you describ the clutch as heavy this is the first but early sign of the clutch being replaced! To be honest I wouldn't change it on a 94 Escort.

Do you have a price you want to sell it for?

Have you thought about selling it as scrap or to a spare parts dealer?



Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 12:26pm

 Big%20smile

 

Lads... don't get obsessed about the clutch.

 

As I said above, you would regard the clutch as light, anybody would. However, I have arthritis in both knees.

 

The clutch is relatively new, along with new brake pipes, new brake hoses, a new battery and a reconditioned gearbox.

 

I'm competent with car maintenance so am also confident the clutch is in perfect working order.

 

Have you thought about selling it as scrap or to a spare parts dealer?

 
Yes, this is pretty much my intention. I don't expect anything more that £200 or so. With the welding required beneath the battery, it would be quite expensive to fix. Any purchaser would probably use it for the engine which is in excellent condition, gear box etc.
 
I will get a quote from a cars for cash company, but if any one has had any experience of selling older cars on ebay,or any other options I'd be interested in your experience and advice.


Posted By: Mrbobo
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 12:34pm
Haha ... sorry it took me about 10 minutes to post my first post and you had already posted back!
 
Well have a look in your local paper to find a scrap dealer! We have loads of people down here that will buy you car off you for a small price! I wouldnt worry about the passenger side hole! My mates dad sold his M reg escort van for £150 with a huge rust hole in the passenger footwell! The guy said he would weld it and sell it on or use it as parts!


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 12:37pm
M reg escort van for £150 with a huge rust hole in the passenger footwell!
 
Now thats what I wanted to hear. Thumbs%20Up
 
I should get more than that then considering the low mileage and new parts.
 
However... How long ago was that?


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 12:40pm
Thinking of your knees, ever thought about going over to an automatic?
 
We tried an auto the other week and I liked it very much (had command shift as well so could switch to semi automatic if you wanted). Very light and easy, one foot operation for most of the time. Mrs Magic Man prefered to stay with a manual though (although that is still a lot lighter than the previous).


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 12:48pm

Yes, if I was buying a new car that would definitely be an option Magic.

 

Thing is though, my wife leaves her car with me and rarely drives it. She pretty much leaves the car with me as mine. It's a Fiesta and it has a super light clutch, [hydraulic] the seat position is higher as well so the angle my knees are at is different which is much better.

 

Mrs Magic Man prefered to stay with a manual though

 

Is that Manual from faulty towers? ....

 

Sorry but I must congratulate myself for that one. Big%20smile

 

 



Posted By: Mrbobo
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

M reg escort van for £150 with a huge rust hole in the passenger footwell!
 
Now thats what I wanted to hear. Thumbs%20Up
 
I should get more than that then considering the low mileage and new parts.
 
However... How long ago was that?
 
Mabye a few months ago! People are still looking for scrap or "spare parts cars" as people are looking for a cheap fix!
 
Im sure you have a local scrappy or local gypsy!


Posted By: Hot_Charlie
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by Magic Man Magic Man wrote:

Thinking of your knees, ever thought about going over to an automatic?

We tried an auto the other week and I liked it very much (had command shift as well so could switch to semi automatic if you wanted). Very light and easy, one foot operation for most of the time. Mrs Magic Man prefered to stay with a manual though (although that is still a lot lighter than the previous).


Both my cars are auto (one of which also has the "tiptronic" type sequential semi auto capability, is diesel and does 55-60mpg) . Can't see the point of manuals really, unless you're really picky on the fuel economy - or want a diesel Vauxhall (diesel auto Vectras lose about 10mpg with an auto box. Quality engineering!).

If I buy a sports car, it'll probably be manual (the last one was), but really I don't see the point otherwise. I'd prefer most cars to be auto too. It would give some drivers sooo much more spare capacity to drive well, rather than being a moving menace.


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 6:45pm
Originally posted by Hot_Charlie Hot_Charlie wrote:

[QUOTE=Magic Man]I'd prefer most cars to be auto too. It would give some drivers sooo much more spare capacity to drive well, rather than being a moving menace.
 
It wouldn't make much difference to be honest with you! Dead


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: twright
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 7:08pm
Whilst on the subject of cars i'll be looking for one soon as I turn 17 in May! Looking for something like a Fiesta or a Corsa, but the thing that really is catching me out is insurance! I've got several quotes for a variety of different cars and of different age cars and most have been in excess of £3000!! Do you guys have any recommendations or advice on cheap car insurance or the best cars to get that are cheaper to insure?

-------------
Kind regards,
Tom


Posted By: Hot_Charlie
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 7:29pm
Originally posted by In Kontrol In Kontrol wrote:

Originally posted by Hot_Charlie Hot_Charlie wrote:

[QUOTE=Magic Man]I'd prefer most cars to be auto too. It would give some drivers sooo much more spare capacity to drive well, rather than being a moving menace.

 

It wouldn't make much difference to be honest with you! Dead


True. A fair proportion the people on the road shouldn't be in control of a car full stop.


Posted By: Hot_Charlie
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 7:33pm
Originally posted by twright twright wrote:

Whilst on the subject of cars i'll be looking for one soon as I turn 17 in May! Looking for something like a Fiesta or a Corsa, but the thing that really is catching me out is insurance! I've got several quotes for a variety of different cars and of different age cars and most have been in excess of £3000!! Do you guys have any recommendations or advice on cheap car insurance or the best cars to get that are cheaper to insure?


Get something cheap, undesirable by chavs, and shop around for your quotes. By all means use the comparison sites, but don't take them as gospel.

My first insurance, a decade ago, was a shade over £800, so today I probably wouldn't expect too much change from £1500.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 8:18pm
Have we finished helping me then? Big%20smile
 
You filthy hijackers! Wink


Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 8:38pm
Quote and most have been in excess of £3000!! Do you guys have any recommendations or advice

Yes. Either wait until you're older (I didn't start driving until I was 21) or realize that car insurance is bloody expensive for your age group and live wth it.

My first car insurance on a brand new car, fully comp, was £1000.

Don't go for Fiestas/Corsas - they're "boy racer" cars. They may be cheap cars but very expensive to insure. They also get nicked a lot, too. Ouch

Best regards,
Vulcan.


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 8:45pm
Martin, what are you going to get instead?


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 8:46pm
Quote Whilst on the subject of cars i'll be looking for one soon as I turn 17 in May! Looking for something like a Fiesta or a Corsa, but the thing that really is catching me out is insurance! I've got several quotes for a variety of different cars and of different age cars and most have been in excess of £3000!! Do you guys have any recommendations or advice on cheap car insurance or the best cars to get that are cheaper to insure?
 
 
Try a Fiat! I'm using a 2001 Punto with around 40,000 miles, and it's still going strong! Replaced the timing belt last week. Star


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 8:50pm
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:


Don't go for Fiestas/Corsas - they're "boy racer" cars.


Really? I've never driven anything slower than a Corsa... they suck... the biggest engine they have is 1.6 I think.. how racy can that possibly be? Why would insurance be expensive given the lawnmower engines they have?


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 8:55pm
Originally posted by Dambuster Dambuster wrote:

Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:


Don't go for Fiestas/Corsas - they're "boy racer" cars.


Really? I've never driven anything slower than a Corsa... they suck... the biggest engine they have is 1.6 I think.. how racy can that possibly be? Why would insurance be expensive given the lawnmower engines they have?
 
Young people tune these so-called 'lawnmower' engines, and if done right it can prove to be quite powerful. Combine the fact that a well placed tree can split one in half, deadly but effective.


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: twright
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 9:06pm
Sorry Martin, didn't mean to hyjack your topic!
 
Yes Corsas and Fiestas are definitely the two most popular. They're not that fast, but you only have to look at the way they're driven to find out why insurance is so expensive!! My cousin paid about £1700 for his first year (two years ago). He had a 12 year old Nissan Micra!


-------------
Kind regards,
Tom


Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2009 at 9:49pm
Quote £1700 ... He had a 12 year old Nissan Micra!

He was royally done! Shocked  The car can't have been worth that!!

Best regards,
Vulcan.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 9:01am
Originally posted by Dambuster Dambuster wrote:

Martin, what are you going to get instead?
As I said above to Magic Dambuster [and thanks for handing my thread back to me Wink] nothing, I drive my wifes car. Smile


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 9:02am
Don't go for Fiestas/Corsas - they're "boy racer" cars. They may be cheap cars but very expensive to insure.
 
Vulcan's at it again! Big%20smile


Posted By: Mrbobo
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by Dambuster Dambuster wrote:

Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:


Don't go for Fiestas/Corsas - they're "boy racer" cars.


Really? I've never driven anything slower than a Corsa... they suck... the biggest engine they have is 1.6 I think.. how racy can that possibly be? Why would insurance be expensive given the lawnmower engines they have?
 
Wrong.....you can get a 1.8 SRi which is Rapid
 
As insurance goes I paid £2500 for my first year! I have about a month left till I have to renew so my first quota was £1300ish which is getting better!
 
The Fact is that young male drivers cause alot of accidents and thats why the insurance will always be high, no matter what car you get!
 
I bought a 2004 3 door 1.2 SXi 16v Corsa for my first car! I paid £3800 and he had done 48,000 miles! Had warranty tho.
 
My mate got a 1.0 3 door 2003 Corsa for £3000 with 33,000 mile on the clock!
 
I have had no problem with my corsa and love it! Its a great little run about car and thats all you need at 17/18!
 
Heres my beast!
 


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 3:41pm
Right that's illegal for a start you young thug, it has no number plate.
 
I'm sending Ross round to arrest you. Big%20smile
 
Always knew kids were trouble.
 
In case anyone's still interested in my topic, now mutated into a different form by teenage hooligans... my cars now gone. And I admit it was an emotional moment. Cry


Posted By: Mrbobo
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 4:15pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

 
In case anyone's still interested in my topic, now mutated into a different form by teenage hooligans... my cars now gone. And I admit it was an emotional moment. Cry
 
How much you get for it?


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 6:09pm
It's a secret!


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 7:31pm
Mrbobo, sorry that's still a small engine...


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 9:33pm
Dambuster are you smoking pot you stupid fool? What size engine do YOU expect a young person to have? Angry

-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 9:55pm
I'd call a 2.0, 200 bhp engine, powerful enough... that's what I have under the hood by the way. More power you have, the better off you are.
Thanks for the insult.


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2009 at 10:25pm
You don't understand. You really think young drivers (17-20) are going to be able to afford to run 2 litre engined cars? I think not, hence why they have 'lawnmower engined' cars.
 
And you're not necessarily better off with a bigger engine either, bigger engines tend use more fuel. Yes they may be faster but you'll be filling up more often!
 
My engine's 1.2 or 1.4 (not sure) but it certainly isn't slow, still, if all you're using it for is to go from A to B like moi then small can be beneficial. 


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: 767nutter
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 6:26am
Originally posted by Hot_Charlie Hot_Charlie wrote:

Originally posted by twright twright wrote:

Whilst on the subject of cars i'll be looking for one soon as I turn 17 in May! Looking for something like a Fiesta or a Corsa, but the thing that really is catching me out is insurance! I've got several quotes for a variety of different cars and of different age cars and most have been in excess of £3000!! Do you guys have any recommendations or advice on cheap car insurance or the best cars to get that are cheaper to insure?


Get something cheap, undesirable by chavs, and shop around for your quotes. By all means use the comparison sites, but don't take them as gospel.

My first insurance, a decade ago, was a shade over £800, so today I probably wouldn't expect too much change from £1500.
 
Twright, the maximum size engine you would want as a first car is no higher than a 1.4.
 
Also i do not know who you have been trying to get insurance from but when i got my 25 1.4 it only cost me £600 and that was fully comp too.
 
Young people tune these so-called 'lawnmower' engines, and if done right it can prove to be quite powerful.
 
You can never tune an engine below a 1.4 in the ''right'' way. For starters when the car rolled out of the factory the car was designed for that engine and the engine was designed to go a certain speed. This equals to the fact that if you tune a engine it can be powerful, but not for long, it will wear the engine out much quicker. Other things you might have to replace if you tune up a engine may be; air filter, exhaust, suspension, throttle body, etc etc, its very expensive to do. You will be better off buying a car with a bigger engine after forking out all the dosh
 
And you're not necessarily better off with a bigger engine either, bigger engines tend use more fuel. Yes they may be faster but you'll be filling up more often!
 
Not with the new Jag XF your not, it's new 3litre diesel engine can get nearly 50mpg.  My 1.4 averages about 42mpg. But yes in most cases bigger engines uses more fuel.
 


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 8:56am

I'd call a 2.0, 200 bhp engine, powerful enough... that's what I have under the hood by the way. More power you have, the better off you are.

 

Dambuster... you are a boy racer hooligan.

 

You can never tune an engine below a 1.4 in the ''right'' way. For starters when the car rolled out of the factory the car was designed for that engine and the engine was designed to go a certain speed. This equals to the fact that if you tune a engine it can be powerful, but not for long, it will wear the engine out much quicker

 

I assure you that you can!

 

Yes, engine wear will be greater 'if you drive it to the max' but you can of course drive sensibly and have the extra performance in reserve.

 

There are plenty of highly tuned, small engine, cars still on the road after many years.

 

As for the air filter, it  may have to be the fuel injection that was modified as well as the [cheap] filter, and perhaps the engine management system 'chipped' in addition and maybe exhaust modifications. Cars breath, a free flow exhaust manifold helps, more air in more gasses out. Brakes and suspension may also be required depending on the state of the components already fitted. Modern cars tend to have very good brakes, and suspension is better than it was also, so for a mild tune they may be sufficient.

 
Extreme tuning is a different proposition. Then you can go bonkers with high lift cam shafts and polishing and porting heads etc. And bigger pistons.
 
Sometimes with modern cars just chipping the engine management system can give a handy boost.
 
 


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 11:27am

2.2 litres or beastiness here...! And she is a real beast. Like Dambuster, we smile as we cruise along and pass little whimpy engines screaming at high revs just to move...WinkBig%20smile



Posted By: Mrbobo
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 11:54am
Originally posted by Magic Man Magic Man wrote:

2.2 litres or beastiness here...! And she is a real beast. Like Dambuster, we smile as we cruise along and pass little whimpy engines screaming at high revs just to move...WinkBig%20smile

 
I'm sure my little corsa could still beat most 2 litre cars! Its about the driver not the car!


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 2:12pm
Well my insurance is no where near what you guys have for your 'economical' corsas and fiestas... those numbers seem very very expensive indeed. Well of course, we don't live in the same country so one can't really compare.
Yeah Magic, I know how you feel, people hate me (does car hating ring a bell? ) for driving a car, it's like I'm a criminal, a murderer...


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 4:03pm

2.2 litres or beastiness here...! And she is a real beast. Like Dambuster, we smile as we cruise along and pass little whimpy engines screaming at high revs just to move...WinkBig%20smile

Forgive me magic magic man, but aren't you the individual that proclaims to be a law abiding motorist and never brakes the speed limit?
 
If so, and given that very few people drive slower that the speed limit, how do you actually achieve that pray tell? Wink
 
 


Posted By: dodgy-alan
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 4:54pm
Do yourself a favour bud, Buy yourself a Skoda Felicia or Fabia, both excellent reliable cars. if you want more info check (or czech) out the club website, www.southcoastskoda.com.Big%20smile

-------------
The light at the end of the tunnel is a freight train coming the other way !


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 10:29pm
Skoda , does anyone here find them hot? Good looking?
Just ask Clarkson & Co, they'll put them all as 'seriously uncool' (speaking of which, does anyone here know when the show will be back on? On what channel?) on their wall, nah but it is true that there's some VW technology involved so they're ok reliability wise.


Posted By: Hot_Charlie
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 10:36pm
Originally posted by Dambuster Dambuster wrote:

Skoda , does anyone here find them hot? Good looking?
Just ask Clarkson & Co, they'll put them all as 'seriously uncool' (speaking of which, does anyone here know when the show will be back on? On what channel?) on their wall, nah but it is true that there's some VW technology involved so they're ok reliability wise.


SOME VW technology eh? Skoda Octavia - it's a VW Golf with a bigger boot a different body, and a couple of grand off the price. Who'd have though 10 years ago a Skoda would also have the most advanced gearbox available in a family car either?

As for small Skodas, the old model Fabia can't be faulted. You can even get a hot hatch version of it which is only Gp9 (still prohibitively pricey for a new driver! ), and does 53mpg. . Some decent other Fabias - a 1.2 Classic is Gp1!


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2009 at 11:23pm
Originally posted by Mrbobo Mrbobo wrote:

I'm sure my little corsa could still beat most 2 litre cars! Its about the driver not the car!
 
I could drive over your little Corsa...Big%20smile
 
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

2.2 litres or beastiness here...! And she is a real beast. Like Dambuster, we smile as we cruise along and pass little whimpy engines screaming at high revs just to move...WinkBig%20smile

Forgive me magic magic man, but aren't you the individual that proclaims to be a law abiding motorist and never brakes the speed limit?
 
If so, and given that very few people drive slower that the speed limit, how do you actually achieve that pray tell? Wink
 
 
 
When they are struggling to climb hills...Wink Yep, never break the limit intentionally.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 8:33am
Yeah right, you blew it there speed merchant! Wink
 
Diesels have rubbish torque anyway, unless you have a whopping turbo it won't compete with an equivalent petrol engine. Excuse me while I guffaw. .
 
naturally aspirated diesels tend to lack power at the top of the speed range. Snigger!
 
It's a bit like driving a farmers tractor. Evil%20Smile


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 9:27am
Sorry Martin, disagree... How does 350NM sound? VW's 170bhp 2.0 TDI is brilliant with loads of torque compared to the petrol version. Diesels ARE known to have more torque than petrol engines, just go check it out for yourself.


Posted By: twright
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 9:40am

Thanks for the help guys!

I went out looking for cars yesterday. Particularly liked the Fiesta 1.25 Zetec. Sat in one and felt it was one of those cars you can see all the corners of (which I want for a first car)! Also like the Renault Clio (newer shape). Doesn't look like insurance will be any cheaper than £2000, i've got lots of quotes for lots of different cars. 


-------------
Kind regards,
Tom


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 11:04am
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

Diesels have rubbish torque anyway, unless you have a whopping turbo it won't compete with an equivalent petrol engine. Excuse me while I guffaw. .
 
naturally aspirated diesels tend to lack power at the top of the speed range. Snigger!
 
It's a bit like driving a farmers tractor. Evil%20Smile
 
Umm, exactly. How many petrol farmers tractors are there pulling heavy loads...? Most modern car diesels are turbo enabled.
 
Ours has 400 Nm (295 lb ft) of torque available at 2000RPM and has a variable nozzle turbocharger.
 
Real power...Wink


Posted By: twright
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 11:07am
If you lived anywhere near me that would have been nicked off your driveway within a month!

-------------
Kind regards,
Tom


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 12:42pm
Originally posted by Magic Man Magic Man wrote:

Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:


Diesels have rubbish torque anyway, unless you have a whopping turbo it won't compete with an equivalent petrol engine. Excuse me while I guffaw. .

 

naturally aspirated diesels tend to lack power at the top of the speed range. Snigger!

 

It's a bit like driving a farmers tractor. Evil%20Smile

 

Umm, exactly. How many petrol farmers tractors are there pulling heavy loads...? Most modern car diesels are turbo enabled.

 

Ours has 400 Nm (295 lb ft) of torque available at 2000RPM and has a variable nozzle turbocharger.

 

Real power...Wink



Ditto. One example I love is the Audi Q7 V12 TDI... 500 bhp, 1000NM of torque.


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 1:08pm
Pfffft. Now this is torque!
 


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 1:10pm
Originally posted by Dambuster Dambuster wrote:

Diesels ARE known to have more torque than petrol engines, just go check it out for yourself.
 
Hence why large vehicles and trucks have them. Geek
 


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 4:00pm
You amateurs done't know what you are torqueing about.
 
 

Quote For commercial uses requiring towing, load carrying and other tractive tasks, diesel engines tend to have better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque - torque characteristics. Diesel engines tend to have their torque peak quite low in their speed range (usually between 1600–2000  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_per_minute - rpm for a small-capacity unit, lower for a larger engine used in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck - truck ). This provides smoother control over heavy loads when starting from rest, and, crucially, allows the diesel engine to be given higher loads at low speeds than a gasoline engine, making them much more economical for these applications. This characteristic is not so desirable in private cars, so most modern diesels used in such vehicles use electronic control, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_geometry_turbocharger - variable geometry turbochargers and shorter piston strokes to achieve a wider spread of torque over the engine's speed range, typically peaking at around 2500–3000 rpm.

See what I mean Mr Magic [speed merchant] Man? As I said previously, rubbish in a road car without a Turbo charger. Wink
 

I should explain further as magic gets confused sometimes. Snigger, snigger!

 

I said diesels have lower torque in relation to an equivalent petrol engine.

 

That’s lower torque ‘in the higher part of the rev range’, where you need it in a road car.

 

It's hardly equivalent is it with fancy modified pistons, clever electronics and a massive turbo charger, to make up for the lower torque. [In the higher part of the rev range]

 

So why bother with all that technical trickery to make up for the deficiencies so you can have a diesel road car… just get a petrol one.

 

 Magic’s smelly Freelander is ideal for pulling a trailer full of cow manure though. Evil%20Smile

 


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 5:10pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

You amateurs done't know what you are torqueing about.
 
No matey, it is you who are talking out of your exhaust pipe I'm afraid... 
 
Quote
 See what I mean Mr Magic [speed merchant] Man? As I said previously, rubbish in a road car without a Turbo charger. Wink
 
And as I said you'd be hard pressed to find a diesel "road car" without a turbo charger. 
 
Quote

I should explain further as magic gets confused sometimes. Snigger, snigger!

 

I said diesels have lower torque in relation to an equivalent petrol engine.

 
Except they don't... A simple front page search of Google will give you plenty ( http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=torque+in+petrol+engine&btnG=Google+Search&meta - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=torque+in+petrol+engine&btnG=Google+Search&meta =) It is you who is confused matey. You'd have to go up to a large petrol engine with corresponding fuel thirst and emission output to get the same sort of torque. Why do you think all the 4x4 makers sell diesels in the first place? Because they provide huge amounts of torque at low revs. If you want a similar powered petrol version then you are looking at 2.8/3.0 litres engines or more.
 
Quote

That’s lower torque ‘in the higher part of the rev range’, where you need it in a road car.

 
No you don't, that's wasted torque since you don't need all that turning force at such high revs, you need it in the low revs to be able to get to the high revs in the first place...
 
Quote  

It's hardly equivalent is it with fancy modified pistons, clever electronics and a massive turbo charger, to make up for the lower torque. [In the higher part of the rev range]

 
Read first, diesels have the higher torque where it matters and the rest is the same for both, you'd get turbo's and 'clever electronics' on those large engine petrol trucks.
 
Quote

So why bother with all that technical trickery to make up for the deficiencies so you can have a diesel road car… just get a petrol one.

 
No more technical trickery than a modern petrol equivalent and they have better torque than an equivalent petrol contrary to your belief, can be more economical than an equivalent petrol and are a all round hardier engine.
 
Quote
 Magic’s smelly Freelander is ideal for pulling a trailer full of cow manure though. Evil%20Smile
 
Not smelly at all, you need to catch up with the 21st century. And yes, it can pull that trailer because it has the better torque...Big%20smile I'll remember to dump some out the back when you are struggling up those hills in second gear, screaming away at high revs to keep up .


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 5:23pm
How about we have a test?
 
Get 2 engines, 1 diesel and 1 petrol and see which one rips someone's arm off using torque first! (obviously at the same RPM to make it fair). Tongue.


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 6:45pm
Must I add that Diesels can't generally go over 4500 rpm vs 6500 rpm on petrol engines. To be honest, I never drive at high revs (since I get the power I need at low revs).


Posted By: dodgy-alan
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 7:14pm
Originally posted by Hot_Charlie Hot_Charlie wrote:

Originally posted by Dambuster Dambuster wrote:

Skoda , does anyone here find them hot? Good looking?
Just ask Clarkson & Co, they'll put them all as 'seriously uncool' (speaking of which, does anyone here know when the show will be back on? On what channel?) on their wall, nah but it is true that there's some VW technology involved so they're ok reliability wise.


SOME VW technology eh? Skoda Octavia - it's a VW Golf with a bigger boot a different body, and a couple of grand off the price. Who'd have though 10 years ago a Skoda would also have the most advanced gearbox available in a family car either?

As for small Skodas, the old model Fabia can't be faulted. You can even get a hot hatch version of it which is only Gp9 (still prohibitively pricey for a new driver! ), and does 53mpg. . Some decent other Fabias - a 1.2 Classic is Gp1!


My Particular Skoda has NO VW technology in it at all, Its 22 years old and still runs as sweet as a nut, the front suspension has been dropped, the camber altered, It handles like a go-kart. in addition the head has been skimmed and ported and the carb re jetted. still returns 35 mpg and great fun to drive.



-------------
The light at the end of the tunnel is a freight train coming the other way !


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2009 at 9:05pm
Good brakes as well to be parked on a hill like that...


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 9:38am

This was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but seen as you're getting argumentative again... [I thought I was bad Confused ]

 

And as I said you'd be hard pressed to find a diesel "road car" without a turbo charger.   

 
Exactly my point, to make up for the deficiencies at the top end they fit a turbo, which provides power at the top end.

 

As for your handy Google links, er... yes, they produce more Torque at the low end [low revs] but to compensate for the lack of torque at the top end, compared with a petrol engine, they fit turbo chargers and torque electronic control and shorter piston strokes. As I said, an unmodified diesel without the technology I just mentioned has less torque at the top end.

 

No you don't, that's wasted torque since you don't need all that turning force at such high revs, you need it in the low revs to be able to get to the high revs in the first place...

 

No it’s not wasted torque actually Magic, without it you will never achieve the higher speeds. In a petrol engine the option to ‘change down’ and increase revs and torque is always there, plus the higher top speed advantage.

 

You were extolling the virtues of your diesel engine, in regard to out performing other cars on the road, why do you think F1 cars are devoid of diesel engines and rev at an astonishing 18,000 rpm.

 

Quote Formula 1 Power figures are known but jealously guarded, but 800bhp seems to be a good average these days. That's an awful lot from a three-litre engine, but surprisingly little of it is due to the amount of torque they produce - the ability to achieve very high revs is far more important.

 

It's clear from all this that the best way of getting power from an engine is to persuade it to produce lots of torque at very high revs.

 

 

http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/technical/636.asp -  

Quote "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*.

 

You might overtake with your diesels low end torque quite impressively at low speed, but I match that with my petrol engine by dropping to a lower gear and revving higher, and then of course due to my higher torque at high revs I achieve a higher top speed.

 

Notice they fit turbo’s and shorter piston strokes to diesels to give them a higher torque at the top end, but they don't bother to modify petrol engines to match a diesels torque at the lower revs. Simply becuase they don't percieve an issue.

 

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html -  

I think you are in love with diesels, quaint really. Big%20smile

 

Being serious for a second... Diesels have a lot of advantages in this environmentally friendly age, and a diesel designed with a turbo charger and other measures to increase torque at the top end. To make up for the deficiencies inherent in the technology, have a lot going for them. Therefore if economy and reliability is the priority it's prbably a good choice.

 
Now onto Freelander reliability... .
 


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 1:07pm

Freelander 1 reliabiliity was perhaps suspect, more with the original 1.8 petrol versions though, not the 2.0 diesel - never had any issues with ours. Onto a Freelander 2 now which is even better...

And you're still out with the above anyway since, as you said yourself, we're not speeding so any extra torque (which you still don't get in a petrol unless you're looking at a large engine) at those high speeds will not be used... Tongue


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 3:35pm

What slow speeds, only pansies like you drive everywhere like a snail.

 

which you still don't get in a petrol unless you're looking at a large engine

 

You do actually, it’s called a gear lever, you change down and access the higher torque at the top end.

 

Its apples and pears, if you compare a turbo diesel 2.0 litre with a turbo petrol 2.0 litre I wonder what the max talk would be?

 

I know the Audi A5 2.0 petrol has approaching the same torque as you quote for your Freelander WITHOUT a turbo.

 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 5:09pm
I'm giving up petrol and diesel, this is my next engine...
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7945318.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7945318.stm


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 5:21pm
Excellent. I don't think I've ever heard the ignition like that before


Posted By: twright
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 5:55pm
Would it be possible to have a car engine that ran on Jet A (kerosene)? I love the smell of Jet A fuel!!

-------------
Kind regards,
Tom


Posted By: 767nutter
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 7:29pm

I assure you that you can!

Yes, engine wear will be greater 'if you drive it to the max' but you can of course drive sensibly and have the extra performance in reserve.

 

Ok martin lets get something straight, unless you are willing to spend a hefty amount or are rich and tuning is a hobby then yes you can tune engines under 1.4 the right way. Plus what would be the point of tuning an engine if you are just going to have the extra power in reserve? My engine isn't tuned in anyway, my maximum rpm on the tachometer is 9K, red line starts at 6.5K, so i can take it upto 6K as much as i want as they are designed to rev that high, no problem, this is enough power for me, because as soon as my car goes past 4K my valves open for that extra boost.

Lets look at me. If i want to get a bit of power out of mine ( say just 50-100bhp extra ) here is a basic list of what i'll need:

Pipercross Viper Induction Kit £189.99

Manifold, sport cat, and cat back system. £800+

Suspension Kit to lower my suspension by 15-20mm. £298.99

Brakes, for me the most common (and from what I can tell easiest) up grade for the spongy brakes that come on all smaller engines is the 262mm upgrade from larger engined Rovers/MGs, For more powerful brakes, the 282mm upgrade from ZR160s and ZS180s is an easy one to do. But not cheap

Insurance: Oh dear, insurance companies hate tuned cars, add about 30-60% extra on what you would normally pay.

And heres some brilliant quotes from the MG-Rover.org Forums, ( bear in mind this isn't just for MG or Rover owners this is for all sorts of car owners. )

''If youve got a 1.8 or a 1.6 tuning a is viable. If you have a 1.4... Dont''

 

''TB's, manifolds, exhausts, induction kits are expensive when added up and don't even return much power considering the cost.''


''Much, infact very much, would need to be changed to do the job right.
As a quick run down:

Turbo
oil & water feeds
intercooler
piping
ECU, probably have to go aftermarket
manifolds
injectors
wiring
gearbox
pistons
rods''

and perhaps the engine management system 'chipped' in addition

Chips generally do not work for engines under 1.4, Most you will get is 20+bhp.They trick the ECU into thinking its cold all the time, and the ECU pumps more fuel in to warm the engine. This is bad. Your engine will sieze.

 

 

MartinW, Magic Man, In Kontrol heres a nice little note about torque from the MG-Rover forums, this is based on all vehicle types.

http://google.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188462



Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 8:40pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

I know the Audi A5 2.0 petrol has approaching the same torque as you quote for your Freelander WITHOUT a turbo. 

 
350nM compared to 400nM...? Smile
No turbo? What does the T in TFSI stand for...?Wink


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 9:03pm
It's a 2.0 TSI, very nice stuff indeed... But it sucks in more fuel than a 2.0 (CR not PD) TDI... Also look at the bhp/NM ratio, it's entirely different from a same size diesel...


Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2009 at 9:37pm
Originally posted by 767nutter 767nutter wrote:

MartinW, Magic Man, In Kontrol heres a nice little note about torque from the MG-Rover forums, this is based on all vehicle types.

http://google.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188462

 
Thanks for that pointless thread about torque that I already know and wouldn't have spent 2 years at college learning about...Thumbs%20Down


-------------
Welcome to whinging Britain...


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2009 at 8:45am

Ok martin lets get something straight, unless you are willing to spend a hefty amount or are rich and tuning is a hobby then yes you can tune engines under 1.4 the right way.

 

Exactly, you can then, who said anything about money? I didn’t.

 

Plus what would be the point of tuning an engine if you are just going to have the extra power in reserve?

 

My point, is that if you utilise it's maximum capability all the timelike a boy racer maniac, then wear will be quicker, but power is most useful in emergency situations, or when overtaking on long stretches of country roads. I'm 51 you see, not a boy racer that leaves tyre marks on the road.

 

By the way, I'm not advocating small engine tuning, just made a point that it is possible to tune small engine cars. The reason I made that comment was because you said...

 

You can never tune an engine below a 1.4 in the ''right'' way.

 

it will wear the engine out much quicker

 

You can ‘tune the engine the right way’ and rate of engine wear is down to the way the owner drives it.

 

It’s a bit like overclocking CPU’s, yes your CPU will theoretically wear quicker but it depends on the degree of overclock and whether the reduction in lifespan is beyond the time you would replace it or not.

 

When I was a lad, I had a friend with a very highly tuned mark one Escort; it lasted for years, no premature engine wear for him at all. Rust killed it not engine wear.

 

 

I must say you young lads are get very assertive about this stuff. Big%20smile



Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2009 at 8:56am
Originally posted by Magic Man Magic Man wrote:

Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

I know the Audi A5 2.0 petrol has approaching the same torque as you quote for your Freelander WITHOUT a turbo. 

 
350nM compared to 400nM...? Smile
No turbo? What does the T in TFSI stand for...?Wink
 
Probably not the car I'm thinking of then smarty pants.
 
Hear you go, and as this ridiculous debate concerning something I care very little about, concerned performance...
 
Now shut up before I nip down to Wales and crush your Freelander with a Challenger tank.
 
Quote

Petrol

Still the best choice for performance when driving, petrol is the most popular fuel with motorists across the UK. 

Pros:
• Responsive
• Quieter than diesel
• Petrol engines are generally cheap to repair
• Faster revving

Cons:
• Petrol engines are less environmentally-friendly than their diesel counterparts
• It’s non-renewable
• Produces more CO2 than other fuel types

Each type of petrol has its own research octane rating (RON). The higher the number, the better performing the petrol is. It essentially falls into four main categories:

1. Unleaded
The most common type of petrol, this has a RON of 95.

2. Super Unleaded
Much like unleaded, but with 98 RON it gives your vehicle better performance.

3. Leaded Four Star and Lead Replacement Petrol (LRP)
Leaded fuel was removed from sale back in 2000 and replaced by LRP. This fuel is basically 97 RON unleaded petrol with an additive to give the valve seat protection, which some cars need.

A valve seat is a surface inside a car’s engine, which rests against the air intake or exhaust valve when the valve is closed – so to stop it from moving out of place and possibly reducing the engine’s efficiency.

LRP is generally only used for vintage vehicles so is less common.

4. High Performance
Cleaner and more powerful than super unleaded, high performance fuels are also more expensive. BP Ultimate is currently the most advanced fuel in UK petrol stations, with 102 RON.

High octane racing fuels are available in specialist motor stores, with prices going up to £7 per litre for 110 RON types.

But the difference between super unleaded and high performance fuels is marginal and more obviously noticed in supercars and other high performance vehicles.

Summary:
Best for driver’s who enjoy optimal performance and a smooth ride.

Diesel

Diesel is becoming more popular, due to its efficiency benefits over petrol and its lower CO2 emissions.

Pros:
• Stays in each gear longer, helping with acceleration and reducing the need for gear changing
• High engine efficiency
• Lower CO2 emissions
• Some high performance fuels are available in diesel

Cons:
• Diesel engines are louder than their petrol counterparts
• Results in a less smooth ride
• More expensive than petrol by a couple of pence
• Higher Nitrogen Oxide (an air pollutant) emissions than petrol

Summary:
More environmentally friendly and economical for long distance drivers.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/CARS/buying/diesel_or_petrol.jsp - http://www.autotrader.co.uk/CARS/buying/diesel_or_petrol.jsp


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2009 at 8:58am
I've had the pleasure of riding in a new diesel Freelander and its so smooth and quiet that you'd think it was a petrol!

The noise/smooth ride argument was valid several years ago but the modern
diesel engines are far more refined

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2009 at 9:02am
It said diesel engines are louder though, rather than the car itself.
 
The Freelander probably has good sound proofing, although I'm sure the engines themselves are quieter than they used to be. My old bosses Diesel sounded like a double decker bus, quiet inside though.


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2009 at 12:58pm
Quote Best for driver’s who enjoy optimal performance and a smooth ride.
Define "optimal performance"? under which circumstances? As for "smooth ride", depends on the car. Modern diesels give as "smooth [a] ride" as their petrol counterpart and with longer time between gear changes and better torque in the low end when pulling away, could quite argue the opposite in fact...Smile
 
Quote but power is most useful in emergency situations
I seem to remember back when we were discussing speed limiters in cars that someone dismissed my counterpoint to having a speed limiter because it took away that power that is "useful in emergency situations" and were all in favour of having them and effectively taking away that option...Wink


Posted By: 767nutter
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2009 at 7:09pm
Originally posted by In Kontrol In Kontrol wrote:

Originally posted by 767nutter 767nutter wrote:

MartinW, Magic Man, In Kontrol heres a nice little note about torque from the MG-Rover forums, this is based on all vehicle types.

http://google.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188462

 
Thanks for that pointless thread about torque that I already know and wouldn't have spent 2 years at college learning about...Thumbs%20Down
 
Oh your welcome, nice to see manners about. I only put that down because you three were talking about torque and thought it would be useful. And sorry but Cars or Mechanics were not on your interest list so had no idea you studied tech at college.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 9:12am
Quote
 
Best for driver’s who enjoy optimal performance and a smooth ride.
Define "optimal performance"? under which circumstances? As for "smooth ride", depends on the car. Modern diesels give as "smooth [a] ride" as their petrol counterpart and with longer time between gear changes and better torque in the low end when pulling away, could quite argue the opposite in fact...Smile
 
I think you've lost it I really do. I thought I had a problem with being argumentative but you take it to a whole new level.
 
Torque at low revs isn't relevant when you can change down in a petrol engine and access all of the petrol engines torque you like. Have you ever driven a manual transmission [petrol]? I'm sure you have, then you know that when you accelerate you can change down and increase revs to whatever you like 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000 revs, take your pick, therefore accessing all the torque from your petrol engine you like.
 
Why do you think Ferrari's, Lamborghini's Bugatti Veyrons, and all top super cars have petrol engines?
 
 
Quote
but power is most useful in emergency situations
I seem to remember back when we were discussing speed limiters in cars that someone dismissed my counterpoint to having a speed limiter because it took away that power that is "useful in emergency situations" and were all in favour of having them and effectively taking away that option...Wink
 

 

There’s a big difference in driving on the road where 'nobody' has a speed limiter and roads utilised by vehicles that 'all' have speed limiters.

 

Currently, there are no speed limiters, therefore overtaking manoeuvres are frequent, and often way above the speed limit during the passing manoeuvre. It was in that context, in today’s ‘no speed limiter’ environment, with a considerable variability in relative speeds, that I made that comment.

 

In a world where we all had speed limiters in our cars we would be hardly likely to attempt to overtake an old granny [Or Magic man] driving at 30, if we know we couldn’t go any faster. Power would be less relevant.

 

More importantly, You know as well as I do that the comment was made, not in regard to road safety, but in regard to the suggestion that a tuned car must be driven that way or the tuning was a waste of time, and that my comment was merely an example of why those that favor car tuning don’t subscribe to that point of view. And to illustrate that a tuned car does not have to be driven to the max all the time.

 

I don’t know whether extreme argumentativeness is an OCD thing Magic Man but it’s quite frankly bizarre.

 

And I thought I was argumentative. Confused

 


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 12:33pm
Ummm, ditto Big%20smile
 
Quote
Torque at low revs isn't relevant when you can change down in a petrol engine and access all of the petrol engines torque you like.
Except if you are pulling off from a stand still or are already going slow, can't change down from 1st - then you're only option is to rev real high...
 
Quote
when you pull away you can increase revs to whatever you like 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000 revs, take your pick, therefore accessing all the torque from your petrol engine you like.
 
Which is not doing the engine any good at such high revs - and you still won't get the same torque as a comparable diesel, two different types of engine. If you need high torque then you want it available at low speeds/revs and a diesel is better for that.
Quote
 
Why do you think Ferrari's, Lamborghini's Bugatti Veyrons, and all top super cars have very large petrol engines?
- there, fixed that for you Wink - Because they need the high revs.
 
Why do you think all vehicles that need huge amounts or torque, e.g. trains, tanks, trucks, ships etc. have diesel engines and not petrol engines? (forgetting those that have gas turbines)
 
There we are, all over...
 
Quote And I thought I was argumentative
If you post again it proves you are... and a big girl as well.Thumbs%20Up 


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 12:45pm

If you post again it proves you are... and a big girl as well.

 

And you post that after the nonsense that preceded it knowing it would incite me to respond.

 

Sorry magic man but I think you are a bit of a...

 

I've lost all respect for you.

 

Except if you are pulling off from a stand still or are already going slow, can't change down from 1st - then you're only option is to rev real high...

 

Huh! Exactly, rev higher and access all the torque you like. Try sticking your foot on the accelerator from a standstill to perhaps 6000 RPM! There's that much torque your tyre rubber will be left on the ground and the neighborhood will be in a shroud of acrid smoke.

 
Requiring high torque from a standstill is an infrequent requirement anyway in terms of engine wear. Unless you are a maniac.

 

Why do you think all vehicles that need huge amounts or torque, e.g. trains, tanks, trucks, ships etc. have diesel engines and not petrol engines? (forgetting those that have gas turbines)

 

Because they pull a heavy load, they don’t accelerate rapidly.

 

Your objective is to obviously win points, argue for competitive reasons, to win an argument, dragging up past comments regrading speed limiters, rather than to determine the truth.

 

Childish! I thought better of you.



Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 12:58pm
SleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepySleepy

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: 767nutter
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 2:26pm
Which is not doing the engine any good at such high revs - and you still won't get the same torque as a comparable diesel, two different types of engine. If you need high torque then you want it available at low speeds/revs and a diesel is better for that.
 
Petrol engines can be revved upto 6k as much as they like ( as long as the engine is big enough and upto temp as the thermal shocks sent through can damage the engine  ) mine can be revved upto 6k easily enough as the cut off point do not come in until about 7.2k while red line is 6.8k.
 
Diesels are not always better, the torque on my dads 1.9tdi drops after about 4.8k considerably.
 
The post about torque in the mg-rover forums say that if you had a diesel and petrol, same engine size, gearbox, etc the diesel will win a drag race but only by a split second. so really not much difference.


Posted By: Hot_Charlie
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 3:25pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:


Why do you think Ferrari's, Lamborghini's Bugatti Veyrons, and all top super cars have petrol engines?


Because they're driven by petrolheads. Dieselheads doesn't have the same ring.

PS. Tell Audi that... R10TDi, Le Mans winner? R15TDi, possible Le Mans winner? They've also made a R8 TDi Le Mans, which may go into production (although would upset aforementioned petrolheads!) .


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 4:23pm
I could comment on that Hotty, but Vin Diesel would be back. Disapprove
 
We should all drive Toyota Aygo's. Plenty of power for normal driving from it's super economical [61mpg] 998cc engine with variable valve timing, plus low insurance and dirt cheap tax. [£35 per year]
 
Not far off the same 0-60 time as my old [now crushed] 1.6 16v Escort. And the same as the 1.3 Fiesta I drive now, which is perfectly adequate.
 
I'd consider one if I were buying new.
 


Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 4:39pm
Quote Higher Nitrogen Oxide (an air pollutant) emissions than petrol

Summary:
More environmentally friendly and economical for long distance drivers.

Contradiction?

The secret is getting a large (2.5L or greater), 5 or 6 cylinder engine. 4 cylinder diesels are rubbish.

Best regards,
Vulcan.


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 8:14pm
No they're not. Yeah like 1.2 liter ok, but a nice 2.0 TDI is pure robust mechanics. 170bhp and 350NM, how's that rubbish?


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by 767nutter 767nutter wrote:


Diesels are not always better, the torque on my dads 1.9tdi drops after about 4.8k considerably.

Well that can't be true...I had a Golf V 1.9 TDI and the max rev you could do was 4500, so that's a bit hard to believe... Still don't understand why people love to rev up their engines though. Everyday I see people starting their cold engines and revving them to 3k,some are even more retarded and take them to 5-6k... then when the engine burns 10 liters of oil every mile and eventually disintegrates they say brand x is crap, don't buy them...
Well I have a message for you pal, learn how to treat your car properly, also learn to respect noise levels in the neighborhood.


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 8:53pm
Quote Everyday I see people starting their cold engines and revving them to 3k,some are even more retarded and take them to 5-6k
 
My car has to be taken up to at least 3k revs in order to make any real progress. Yes you shouldn't thrash a cold engine but 3k rev isn't particularly high on a petrol engine...


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2009 at 8:59pm
Ouh... depends on the engine I guess... It is high for my petrol engine though, it does its job fine between 1500 and 2500 rpm. But then, there are some honda engines that go up to 9000, yes 9000 rpm, and 3000 won't really matter. But yeah, you get the picture, not saying people should learn mechanics, just saying, if you treat it bad, it'll let go, Toyota or not.


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 8:54am
I think the real problem is how little we are taught when learning to drive. My girlfriend knows absolutely nothing about cars, how they work and what to watch out for. She didn't even realise that she should pull over straight away if the engine temp rises above its normal level...that I find very scary!

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 9:18am

Reminds me of my brother in law and his old air cooled engine many years ago. He was overheating in the summer sunshine, slap bang in the middle of the West Midland Safari Park.

 

He wasn't alone; others were having the same issue as a result of the heat, and idling for an extended time observing the animals. I watched in shock, as he, and the others jumped out of their cars while they cooled down... right next to a group of white rhino’s seprated by wooden logs no more than six inches high. They actually walked up to them, within a foot or two, until a jeep with a park official drove past and screamed at them to get back in their cars. Big%20smile



Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

Why do you think all vehicles that need huge amounts or torque, e.g. trains, tanks, trucks, ships etc. have diesel engines and not petrol engines? (forgetting those that have gas turbines)

 

Because they pull a heavy load, they don’t accelerate rapidly.

 
Exactly - they need huge amounts of torque at low revs. Who said anything about rapid acceleration.
 
Quote
Your objective is to obviously win points, argue for competitive reasons, to win an argument, dragging up past comments regrading speed limiters, rather than to determine the truth.

 
Nope. You've argued the toss with pointy plenty of times in the past and then got quite insulting when he wouldn't give in to you - were they for points of competitive reasons?. Perhaps I am argumentative, but then that makes you no less the same...
 
Quote

Childish! I thought better of you.

Okay, fine, I'm done here...


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 2:07pm
Can't believe Vin Diesel's still at and had to have the last word. Big%20smile
 
I only ever argue to get at the truth never to beat anyone, my old pal pointy does exasperate me in regard to GW at times though I must admit. Wink


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 2:11pm
He didn't - you did!

Shocked


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 2:15pm
Shocked No you did!


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 2:45pm
Pot kettle black... Nuke

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Hot_Charlie
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 3:25pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:


We should all drive Toyota Aygo's. Plenty of power for normal driving from it's super economical [61mpg] 998cc engine with variable valve timing, plus low insurance and dirt cheap tax. [£35 per year]


We should. If I were buying a new car now it may well be one of the Aygo/C1/107 family.


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 3:54pm
A certain SimUK owns an Aygo!

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 3:57pm

£14.00 of LPG fills the tank ..and will take you 270 miles ..

Road tax for 12 months is just £15.00 under the November Budget rules.

Shocked
 
£8500 though!


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 4:22pm
Yes it would take you quite a while to make enough savings to cover the cost of the car

-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2009 at 9:05pm
Those cars scare me... Seem so flimsy.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2009 at 8:48am
I believe they are everything but Flimsy Dambuster. Very good crash rating and air bags everywhere, ABS as well of course.
 
Seems small cars are far safer than the used to be. Of course the bigger the car the better though I suppose, bigger crumple zones etc.


Posted By: 767nutter
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2009 at 10:21am
Originally posted by Dambuster Dambuster wrote:

Originally posted by 767nutter 767nutter wrote:


Diesels are not always better, the torque on my dads 1.9tdi drops after about 4.8k considerably.

Well that can't be true...I had a Golf V 1.9 TDI and the max rev you could do was 4500, so that's a bit hard to believe... Still don't understand why people love to rev up their engines though. Everyday I see people starting their cold engines and revving them to 3k,some are even more retarded and take them to 5-6k... then when the engine burns 10 liters of oil every mile and eventually disintegrates they say brand x is crap, don't buy them...
Well I have a message for you pal, learn how to treat your car properly, also learn to respect noise levels in the neighborhood.
 
Well that can't be true...I had a Golf V 1.9 TDI and the max rev you could do was 4500, so that's a bit hard to believe
 
Sorry my mistake i meant 3.8 Embarrassed but truth be told the company vehicles i drive they are diesels and one we have can rev upto 5k before just bouncing on the line.
 
Still don't understand why people love to rev up their engines though. Everyday I see people starting their cold engines and revving them to 3k,some are even more retarded and take them to 5-6k
 
taking a petrol upto 3k while cold is fine, it also depends how much workload you put on the engine, if you were putting your foot right to the floor on the accelerator pedal but still changing at about 2-2.5k that can do as much damage as thrashing it while cold. While my engine is cold i only push about halfway down and always change before 3k, i only take it upto about 5.5k max after 15-20mins solid driving so the engine is hot enough. ( and only if i am in a rush )  as the only downside to revving the engine high is that it uses more fuel.
 
Well I have a message for you pal, learn how to treat your car properly, also learn to respect noise levels in the neighborhood
 
I treat my car properly, the k series can be revved as much as you want it too as long as everything is upto check, i service mine every six months or 7500miles, instead of the recommended 12 months or 15000miles. It has passed every MOT no problem.
Also you should use the full rev range on occasion to blow the cobwebs out. I.E burn the carbon off, prevent sticky valves, help stop the pistons getting carbon build up on the crowns e.t.c..
Driving like a granny all the time can sometimes do more harm than good. As a friend who is a mechanic says; he gets people about 50years+ ( martin i am not aiming this at you by the way ) bring in their car for a MOT and because they always keep the revs low rubbish has built up in the exhaust, etc, and it fails the emissions test. So he or a colleague take it for a spin on a dual carriageway and thrash it out.
 
Also dambuster i live out in the countryside, and take the country roads to work, so no neighbourhood noise levels for me thank you very much.
 


Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2009 at 2:05pm
I hope you didn't think I was aiming this at you, I was just talking about the typical driver who doesn't know much about mechanics, (well I don't either, but at least I know what not to do) the type I see everyday. shoot out like a rocket from our driveway while they know very well that there are people in their gardens or kids playing etc....
Yeah, about revving up your engine when it's warm, I do that occasionally, especially with the TDI, what you said is quite true.



Print Page | Close Window