Automotive Perfection

[Ferrer]

Adding a turbo to diesels actually improves economy afaik, and has had the same benefit to certain petrol engines IF strictly driven for economy. Road tests recently cited a mere 7.3 L/100km during steady-state hwy cruising in the 310kw FPV F6 (turbo I-6) which is a figure I doubt you would see from the atmo version

But when you push it... instead even pushing a diesel will yield good results considering the speed.

In Europe for people who want to save money there really is no contest. And diesels can carry quite a lot of speed, especially the newer twn turbo engines.

However as far as emotions are concerned, petrol is the way to go.

[henk4]

Eg regular atmo Falcon 6cyl manuals have similar horsepower to your (modified) C5, and more than enough torque to 'bag it up' off the line, yet typically produce around 85 km/h in 1st gear. In comparison what would the UCP Express top out at in 1st?

In light of the above, where is the diesel 'advantage' in driveability

I usually take off in 2nd....
Driveability is that I have a sixth gear that can take me without any problems from say 70 to 230 kph.
I have been thinking about all of this (and did not follow much of the discussion after my last post here), and I think that you may not classify me as a driver, but as a traveler, who wants to get somewhere in the most comfy way. The diesel engine, in combination of the other aspects of the UCP express greatly contributes to that desire. (And if I would not need the luggage space I would probably have gone for the C6 with the same engine) Revving to to the redline is not part of my driving desire, on the contrary I prefer the low rev push that you get when (not even fully) flooring the the throttle. When accelerating on the motorway in top gear at highly illegal speeds in most countries, there are very few cars that can (or want to) keep up with me, unless they down shift of course, but not having to do that is part of my driving comfort, without having to pay another 1500 for an autobox, which takes 1 liter more per 100 km. I hope you saw my mileage figures for the trip to Geneva, which I think are a very good indication of how performance can be combined with frugality.
I saw Alberts fuel prices, here I just paid 88.4 cents per liter where regular petrol was 1.21, so there is an argument of economy, but that only pays after I have amortised the difference in road tax, which for my car is 2100 Euro per year (same for the LPG cars) and for the petrol version less than 1000. (both figures must seem astronomical to most of you anyway).
All I want to say is that my first reaction was about CMC comment that the Renault Diesel would be the guaranteed way to get the G37 slower. It might be, but looking at the real possibilities of a diesel engine, not to the extent that CMC implied.
Albert, try to get a ride in the Jaguar XF diesel S, when it comes to the showroom. I am really looking forward to see that engine coming to the C6 in the not so distant future.

[Ferrer]

Albert, try to get a ride in the Jaguar XF diesel S, when it comes to the showroom. I am really looking forward to see that engine coming to the C6 in the not so distant future.

I guess I'll have to, and altough I'm sure it'll probably be faster than the old V8 using a lot less fuel, it's hard to say no to the V8's charisma.

[henk4]

it's hard to say no to the V8's charisma.

are you really a marketing victim????

[Ferrer]

are you really a marketing victim????

If I was a marketing victim I'd be all over the diesel.

I know you can't understand it, but sometimes there's more to life than efficiency.

[henk4]

If I was a marketing victim I'd be all over the diesel.

I know you can't understand it, but sometimes there's more to life than efficiency.

as I said before my emotions come from the low rev push (there is no redline on the rev counter....) and doing that all the time will definitely see the mileage go up. (like permanent redlining will do as well)
Anyway, the horror of horrors, the Cayenne Diesel, has 240 BHP. Auto Motor und Sports just tested one and found to its 0-100 time was faster (marginally) than that of the 3.6 liter V6 version, which has 290 BHP. Mileage under test conditions was 12.7 l/100km for the diesel (2400 kg) and 16 l/100 km for the petrol car, which had a 13 km higher topspeed.

[Ferrer]

Anyway, the horror of horrors, the Cayenne Diesel, has 240 BHP. Auto Motor und Sports just tested one and found to its 0-100 time was faster (marginally) than that of the 3.6 liter V6 version, which has 290 BHP. Mileage under test conditions was 12.7 l/100km for the diesel (2400 kg) and 16 l/100 km for the petrol car, which had a 13 km higher topspeed.

Of course objectively, in Europe, diesels do make sense especially if you do a lot of kms.

I tend not to choose cars based on objective reasons though...

[henk4]

I tend not to choose cars based on objective reasons though...

I think we all noticed that.....

[nota]

... it's hard to say no to the V8's charisma.

oooh yeah

YouTube

[LeonOfTheDead]

I committed a major stuff up with my calcs and had to delete and repost after amendment. Sorry about that guys!

Sydney-based 'Wheels' magazine recently published an interesting comparo last November, between LPG Holden & Falcon (6cyls) and the new cylinder-shutoff Honda Accord V6 petrol. During the test their test region's fuel prices were 0.65c p/l for LPG and $1.50 for 91 petrol. (Diesel was more expensive again)

So lets presume your Dad lives in Oz and sells after 100,00kms when the factory warranty expires. And he is (hypothetically) interested in a family-sized sedan, as above.

There were various strengths & weaknesses between each of the vehicles. For example the Honda boot holds 450 litres, while LPG reduces the Falcon boot to a mere 408 litres

But here's the bottom line:

100,000 kms in the Honda would work out at $16,500.
The same distance by Holden equates to under $9,500 - thats a considerable $7k+ saving, representing 20~25% of new car price...


Unfortunately no diesel was included in their comparison. However it seems that an equivalent diesel car would be less competitive in either price, or performance, or fuel cost per mile - or a combination of the above.

Interesting to compare the annual emissions @ 20,000 kms travelled
("based on Wheels fuel road test fuel consumption. LPG = 15.0 grams of CO2/km. 91 RON petrol = 23.8 grams of CO2/km")

5.24 tonnes: Honda petrol
4.77 tonnes: Ford LPG
4.34 tonnes: Holden LPG

those emissions figures are too low comparing them with official ones we are used to.

btw, I would say with smaller engines the gap between a LPG car and a diesel one would be much smaller. Obviously such petrol engines from Oz are large and therefore the fuel consumption higher than an European 4 cylinder 1.8 liter o 2 petrol car, and the LPG helps a lot in improving the mileage in larger engines, as diesel too.
A Fiat Punto equipped with the 1.3 diesel engine consumes a very small quantity of fuel, but it isn't half that the 1.4 consumes. try to compare instead the mileage of an S.klasse equipped with the V8 diesel or the V8 petrol.

[nota]

those emissions figures are too low comparing them with official ones we are used to.

"too low" as in too clean, or not clean enough?

try to compare instead the mileage of an S.klasse equipped with the V8 diesel or the V8 petrol.

well herabouts my own S.klasse V8 on LPG would be cheaper in fuel $ per km than its 'equivalent' 6cyl diesel model-alternative!

different reality > different outcome


perception being that its funny to see diesel so determindly presented as ' universal automotive perfection ' .. defended in particular by lower fuel costs .. apparently disregarding other markets which experience a directly opposite rationale against diesel, and in favour of LPG

[Ferrer]

perception being that its funny to see diesel so determindly presented as ' universal automotive perfection ' .. defended in particular by lower fuel costs .. apparently disregarding other markets which experience a directly opposite rationale against diesel, and in favour of LPG

You know, we are European, we are better than you...

[nota]

You know, we are European, we are better than you...

But you're socialsists! (meaning non Americans)

could be worse

did you like the sound of that Giocatollo?

[Ferrer]

did you like the sound of that Giocatollo?

How not to?

[LeonOfTheDead]

"too low" as in too clean, or not clean enough?

well herabouts my own S.klasse V8 on LPG would be cheaper in fuel $ per km than its 'equivalent' 6cyl diesel model-alternative!

different reality > different outcome


perception being that its funny to see diesel so determindly presented as ' universal automotive perfection ' .. defended in particular by lower fuel costs .. apparently disregarding other markets which experience a directly opposite rationale against diesel, and in favour of LPG

"too low" as "new citycars put out less than 100 g/100 of CO2, how an a full size sedan with a large engine permorm 20?!"

about the S-Klasse I'm considering a modern 400CDI against a 430 (petrol). Surely an LPG equipped 430 would consume way less, but my is that the difference between the mileage of the 400CDI, of the 430 and of an hypothetical LPG 430 would be larger than what you register in a 1.3 or 1.4 citycar.

btw, I don't think in any way a diesel car stands for automotive perfection, is the best (but not perfect) way to commute if you (A) travel a lot, (B) need a lot of boot space, among other local factors, as fuel prices, or the presence of enough LPG station.
in the northern part of Italy LPG is pretty much present in every gas station. Methane (more efficient) is less distributed, but if you go southern both LPG start to disappear from gas station dramatically.

about 15 years ago or so, taxi drivers used to drive LPG cars mainly. now they are all diesels, and I supposed they are quite careful when it comes to running costs.