Petrol vs diesel

[badass]

My elderly 1998 A3 1.8T is my first turbo petrol - honestly I really can't tell when the turbo is kicking in at all. In fact the only slight telltale it is there at all is the hiss from the silly dump valve the previous owner fitted.

A valid point however in the case of your car the turbo's barely doing anything. 150 BHP from a 1.8 turbo is very low. In fact, IIRC they were referred as low pressure turbos when they were being sold.
Still, it achieved what they wanted - adequate performance with better efficiency than if they had used a larger or more tuned NA engine.
The later 2.0 TFSI is similar in the feel - just with a lot more added oomph.

[Tafkap]

I've never owned a diesel but always enjoy driving them due to the way they deliver power - I like the pushed back in my seat feeling when I hit the power band at any given gear.

I daresay they're harder on tyres too because of that acceleration, but I do like a hire car when it's a diesel so I can put my foot down and feel the surge of power!

[Biscuit]

Pfffft... petrol turbos

If it aint producing 230BHP+ and making all the lovely whistling noises.... Naturally Aspirated all the way!

[DanceswithUnix]

I've never owned a diesel but always enjoy driving them due to the way they deliver power - I like the pushed back in my seat feeling when I hit the power band at any given gear.

I daresay they're harder on tyres too because of that acceleration, but I do like a hire car when it's a diesel so I can put my foot down and feel the surge of power!

Possibly harder on the tyres because the engine is heavy so harder to drag around roundabouts.

I wouldn't call it a surge of power though as it lasts such a short time. More of a premature acceleration

Another vote for NA engines if you get the chance, but they seem to be on the way out From the choice here, turbo petrol seems the best option.

[herulach]

Possibly harder on the tyres because the engine is heavy so harder to drag around roundabouts.

I wouldn't call it a surge of power though as it lasts such a short time. More of a premature acceleration

Another vote for NA engines if you get the chance, but they seem to be on the way out From the choice here, turbo petrol seems the best option.

High powered ones yes, but I'd take a 1.6tdi over your average 1.8/2l petrol any day of the week. TBH with decent auto boxes (BMW/VAG, merc to a lesser extent) diesels make for a pretty astonishing drive - particularly high powered ones. Go drive a 330d and see how short a time you can accelerate for

[Butcher]

Pfffft... petrol turbos

If it aint producing 230BHP+ and making all the lovely whistling noises.... Naturally Aspirated all the way!

Mine has over 230 BHP, it's fairly restrained on whistles though.

[wasabi]

High powered ones yes, but I'd take a 1.6tdi over your average 1.8/2l petrol any day of the week. TBH with decent auto boxes (BMW/VAG, merc to a lesser extent) diesels make for a pretty astonishing drive - particularly high powered ones. Go drive a 330d and see how short a time you can accelerate for

I'd rather take a middling diesel to a middling petrol simply because the torque makes it easier to drive. Especially if bought for commuting - flat shifting is easier in stop-go traffic.

[DanceswithUnix]

High powered ones yes, but I'd take a 1.6tdi over your average 1.8/2l petrol any day of the week. TBH with decent auto boxes (BMW/VAG, merc to a lesser extent) diesels make for a pretty astonishing drive - particularly high powered ones. Go drive a 330d and see how short a time you can accelerate for

I can see how that would work.

My dad recently bought an auto 2.4l diesel, not had a chance to try it yet. I hated that engine in manual form, only 210bhp but too easy to screech the tyres from standstill and yet power wasn't there if I needed it. When he was thinking of buying I said to give it a test drive as the auto box may knock the rough edges off the diesel performance. He says it is very nice to drive (high praise from a motorcyclist who therefore thinks anything with 4 wheels less than a Ferrari is a bit dull), but I'm not sure I want to switch to an auto box just to make acceptable the power delivery of the engine I don't have to have

I suppose my problem is that the shove in the back from diesels is misleading at best and slows you down at worst. My 150bhp diesel can shove me in the back just like my wife's 250bhp petrol car, so it feels fast, but it really isn't. In her car I can accelerate out of corners, doing the same in mine risks going on boost and having the traction control cut in. Whilst the traction control is really impressive and acts more like a limited slip diff, in a car with only 150bhp it really shouldn't be necessary. The result is the safe cornering speed in my car is lower than in hers because her engine has finesse and mine is a hooligan.

So I am already giving up some of my driving to the traction control electronics, to give up the gearbox as well? Roll on the Google car, let it do the steering, I shall read a book if this is the way forward.

Not that this is so important in a Ford Galaxy mind

[eagle123]

i had a petrol honda jazz, a 57 plate, 1.4 idsi, just recently part exchanged it for a honda civic 2.2 ictdi 59 plate the ex one with all the toys from the dealer. i already read all the pros and cons of the deisel vs petrol, i only do 4500 miles per year, so some posters will suggest get the petrol cos its cheaper.

But having owned the diesel civic for 2 weeks now, my impressions of it is first its smooth, quiet, and powerful, on the motor way the civic built for cruising, on my honda jazz i was driving a steady 70 mph the engine revs will be at approx 3700 rpm, meaning its low geared for the motorway, but the idsi engine is bit like a diesel its more flexible driving in town.

but driving the jazz on the motorway the fuel economy is roughly 40 mpg, driving the civic in 6th gear at steady 70 mph its running at 1700 revs, so more economical, also its gutsy, has the torque, and
can keep up with the traffic.

i find driving the civic enjoyable, its got masses of torque more economical lower running costs, cheaper insurance, and finally its a honda so reliability is better than some brands, also if you sell it
keeps its value better

[DanceswithUnix]

i find driving the civic enjoyable, its got masses of torque more economical lower running costs, cheaper insurance, and finally its a honda so reliability is better than some brands, also if you sell it
keeps its value better

Sounds like you are enjoying the car. How much of that difference is Jazz vs Civic? Bigger cars are usually nicer on the motorway, bigger engines are nicer whether petrol or diesel.

I looked at the Civic last time I bought a car, but the Type-R was just too expensive for me.

[Biscuit]

Sounds like you are enjoying the car. How much of that difference is Jazz vs Civic? Bigger cars are usually nicer on the motorway, bigger engines are nicer whether petrol or diesel.

I looked at the Civic last time I bought a car, but the Type-R was just too expensive for me.

Its [type-r] also hopelessly noisy and uncomfortable on the motorway... trust me

[eagle123]

Sounds like you are enjoying the car. How much of that difference is Jazz vs Civic? Bigger cars are usually nicer on the motorway, bigger engines are nicer whether petrol or diesel.

I looked at the Civic last time I bought a car, but the Type-R was just too expensive for me.

The civic is roughly 25 percent bigger and wider than the jazz, the main difference is that the civic has a wider range of engines you got 2 petrol and a diesel, with the jazz its just 2 petrols. The jazz is a good little run about in town, driving the jazz on the motorway, it can keep up with the traffic, but its low geared so engine revs are more than what you get in the civic, in gear times i got the civic is roughly 0-60 8.7 secs, the jazz is 11 sec or 12 secs, so bit of a difference.

The jazz has sharper brakes, than the civic, the civic doesnt like to be stopped !!

I chose the diesel as you can chip the diesel but if you do chip it dont forget to upgrade the clutch/flywheel and brakes, as the current torque of the civic is good for the standard clutch layout, but if you remap it the torque is increased and the standard clutch cant bear the addtional torque.

in fact the diesel civic is faster to 100 mph than the type r, after 100 mph the type r wakes up and demolishes the civic diesel.
the honda diesel engine is a gem of a engine and unlike other diesel engine this one acts like a petrol engine

[DanceswithUnix]

Its [type-r] also hopelessly noisy and uncomfortable on the motorway... trust me

lol, OK we already have enough of those in the house!

in fact the diesel civic is faster to 100 mph than the type r, after 100 mph the type r wakes up and demolishes the civic diesel.
the honda diesel engine is a gem of a engine and unlike other diesel engine this one acts like a petrol engine

That sounds odd, the [type-r] is supposed to be about 2 seconds faster to 60mph, I can only imagine that gap being wider getting to 100.

[eagle123]

lol, OK we already have enough of those in the house!



That sounds odd, the [type-r] is supposed to be about 2 seconds faster to 60mph, I can only imagine that gap being wider getting to 100.

meant if you had a chipped diesel civic then it will actually take the r type to the cleaners

[Butcher]

meant if you had a chipped diesel civic then it will actually take the r type to the cleaners

That's a bit apples and oranges though, once you start allowing for modifications you can make almost any car faster than any other car (within reason).

The civic 2.2 diesel makes 140 bhp, a remap (aka "chip") would add maybe 40 bhp to that, so that's around 180 bhp, not far short of the type-r's 200 bhp. It would probably be slightly slower than the type-r, but that would depend on gearing.

[Guy]

meant if you had a chipped diesel civic then it will actually take the r type to the cleaners

No, no it really wouldn't.

Certainly not taken to the cleaners! Maybe not much in it I'll give you that but driven properly a Type R would still edge away.