if americans like torque, why not buy diesel engined cars?

Got some interesting BMW diesel specs on this page
[url]http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_101567/newsarticle.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Slickholden]Got some great fuel figures out of that car... 195kw 345Nm running on 91 unleaded fuel. Average fuel used was 9.1l/100... Best of 8.3l/100.. Large car 1700kg with 4 and boot full i was pretty happy with that.. And it will buzz too 100kp/h in under 8 seconds.[/QUOTE]
And for comparison Vs a 6 cyl diesel...
[QUOTE]3.0-litre turbo-diesel engine fitted to 3 Series models including the 3 Series Coupé, now also EU4 compliant. This engine is rated at 150 kW and 410 Nm of torque between 1,500 rpm and 3,000 rpm.

On-road performance is similarly breathtaking. The 330Cd accelerates to 100 km/h in 7.2 seconds (7.4 auto) and reaches a top speed of 242 km/h in manual guise. Fuel consumption is just 6.6 litres/100km according to the ECE combined cycle. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=juggs]theres no diesel cars that make the kind of torque we're lookin for.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]BMW’s range-topping turbo-diesel engine is the V8-powered 740d with a maximum output of 190 kW and maximum torque of 600 Nm of torque between 1,900 rpm and 2,500 rpm. Average fuel consumption in the ECE cycle is 9.7 litres/100 km.[/QUOTE]

P4g4nite
That was almost three year old information...
Apart from the 286 BHP 3,0 litre engine but the 7 range now has 220 KW and 700 nm (515 lbft) of torque at 1750 Rpm, from a 4.4 litre engine.
Compare the Viper 8.3 liter engine, it has 712 NM at 4200 Rpm....

Foxes.

[QUOTE=P4g4nite]Foxes.[/QUOTE]

or badgers?

[url]http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/[/url]

hur??

I'd really like to drive a BMW 130d or a 535d. I've heard they are good. Plus, it would be cool to learn to drive in one.

I prefer kangaroos.

[img]http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/33848776/8004699[/img]

i luv my john dear 2010!
[IMG]http://www.yesterdaystractors.com/gallery/a211_smokey2010.jpg[/IMG]
as you know diesels have excellent emisions...:D

Actually, I think diesels are a fantastic idea, and I believe are actually a better solution than hybrids in many ways. I love low-revving engines, and diesels fit the bill nicely, with extra fuel economy, to boot. You see quite a few here in Texas, I would estimate fully 1/3 of the VW's I see here are TDi models, and of course diesel pickups are popular here too.

The rest of the nation, I think, has a bad taste in their mouths largely because of that GM 350ci diesel abomination that they foisted on the public in the late 70's/early 80's. There were other pretty bad diesels in this era, but none quite so under-engineered and widespread as the aborted boat anchor that Oldsmobile built for GM.

Also, the EPA has an outdatedly negative view on diesel emissions, although ironically, they are partly to blame! American diesel has a relatively high sulfur content, mostly because the EPA never told anyone not to refine it better. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy by now.

CARB is...well, it's CARB, and they're nutty, what more can I say. To some degree, it's because of CARB that I got into classic cars (which admittedly pollute more) in the first place, so I wouldn't have to deal with them, and I know others who have done the same and also make quite a living dodging CARB regulations. That's what you get when you not only have such strict regulations on things, but regulations that don't always keep pace with new developments and other potential solutions to problems.

[QUOTE=henk4]P4g4nite
That was almost three year old information...
Apart from the 286 BHP 3,0 litre engine but the 7 range now has 220 KW and 700 nm (515 lbft) of torque at 1750 Rpm, from a 4.4 litre engine.
Compare the Viper 8.3 liter engine, it has 712 NM at 4200 Rpm....[/QUOTE]
Pieter I think it's unfair to compare a turbocharged engine to a normally aspirated one. I'd like to see what kind of torque would a N/A 4.4-litre diesel would manage...
[QUOTE=kingofthering]I'd really like to drive a BMW 130d[/QUOTE]
Such a thing doesn't exist... :confused:

[QUOTE=Ferrer]
Such a thing doesn't exist... :confused:[/QUOTE]
Hey I don't live in Europe.

i didnt know a 130d existed, in the Uk the best is either a 120d or a 130i

found it, I have decided I want a BMW 535d or a 120d. Damn model numbers confuse me.

As Henk4 and I were discussing in another thread:
[url]http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537&page=4[/url]

[quote=Henk4]It never fails to amaze me that modern diesel cars are so geared to what is generally be considered the American style of lazy and relaxed driving, and still there is this in-built prejudice against them...
[/quote]

[quote=culver]
Not quite a built but they are slowly becoming more popular. Some people claim it's because we had bad experience with diesel cars in the late 70s and early 80s. I don't buy that. Too many people now wouldn't know the difference. Lots of people like diesel pickups. Personally I think its more mundane factors. First, our emissions laws haven't been very diesel friendly. That keeps a lot of the car companies from wanting to bring them over. Why put all that marketing effort into a diesel if California might get a bug up it's tail pipe and pass new emissions laws that diesels can't meet? It also didn't help that we had higher sulfur content in our gas for quite some time (now changing).
The other reasons are more economic. Diesel engine options cost a lot yet generally don't provide anything more than better mileage. While gas was cheep (and still isn't too expensive) people were happier saving the up front cost. While the new diesels are much better my impression (little first hand experience) is that they aren't really better than many of the gas offerings but for fuel economy. They are very torquy but don't rev much. I think for many people they might go too far in the other direction as compared to the ultra high reving s2000. Also, we can get that extra low end torque via more displacement which costs little in comparison to a smaller displacement motor. Why bother with a torquy 2.0L I4 when I can get a 3L V6 for less. I think when VW was offering the diesel Jetta it costs as much as the 1.8T or VR6 motor (one or the other).
Anyway, while the newest ones are smooth and quick they really aren't any smoother or quicker than most of the gas options. The engines cost more and diesel fuel costs more. It doesn't make for a very compelling case in the US. I suspect with out some major change in market forces (fuel costs, lower up front costs) diesels will never become as common as they are in Europe. Their are some arguments for them but they aren't that compelling in the US market. [/quote]


and my reply

[QUOTE=Ferrer]Pieter I think it's unfair to compare a turbocharged engine to a normally aspirated one. I'd like to see what kind of torque would a N/A 4.4-litre diesel would manage...[/QUOTE]
I think it's quite irrelvant since ALL diesels are turbocharged these days. Except for a few rare cases.