Diesel or petrol?

[henk4]

Finally, I never drove a petrol Stilo, but our diesel, while not falling apart, is made of vibrations.

we have a petrol stilo and apart from falling apart, it also suffered (financially quite painfully) from ignition glitches.

[LeonOfTheDead]

we have a petrol stilo and apart from falling apart, it also suffered (financially quite painfully) from ignition glitches.

which engine was it? just curious, as here basically now onw bought them with petrol engines (just a few underpowered 1.2 16V)
(the old 156 1.9 JTD has a similar problem btw)

[Ferrer]

the crossing light?

Concentrate on fuel savings and performance, you've got higher chances there.

[henk4]

which engine was it? Just curious, as here basically now onw bought them with petrol engines (just a few underpowered 1.2 16v)
(the old 156 1.9 jtd has a similar problem btw)

1.6 16v 100 bhp.

[Revo]

How about some irony.

Unlike petrol drivers, modern diesel drivers are required to drive with high revs every now and then. So all the accumulated soot in the DPF can burn correctly.

In other words - if you want to drive economically, occasionally you have to drive uneconomically. Makes sense.

[henk4]

How about some irony.

Unlike petrol drivers, modern diesel drivers are required to drive with high revs every now and then. So all the accumulated soot in the DPF can burn correctly.

In other words - if you want to drive economically, occasionally you have to drive uneconomically. Makes sense.

so petrol engines do not require a regular "clean-up revving" these days anymore??

[LeonOfTheDead]

so petrol engines do not require a regular "clean-up revving" these days anymore??

Not particularly, if we are considering everyday cars.

The ECU should clean the soot away regardless of how you drive though, so even if you're trying to keep the revs low (and it doesn't mean you are using less fuel) the engine would run on higher revs to do the dirty job.

At the end of the day you burned some additional fuel nonetheless

[henk4]

Not particularly, if we are considering everyday cars.

The ECU should clean the soot away regardless of how you drive though, so even if you're trying to keep the revs low (and it doesn't mean you are using less fuel) the engine would run on higher revs to do the dirty job.

At the end of the day you burned some additional fuel nonetheless

so it does not affect an engine any more, if a car has only been driven by an elderly lady....

[LeonOfTheDead]

so it does not affect an engine any more, if a car has only been driven by an elderly lady....

as with a diesel engine, the ECU drives the engine, not the driver anymore.
Then give an Honda S2000 to my grandma and we'll pay for our actions...

[group c n b man]

Each one has it's pros and cons however I think on the road diesel fuel edges out petrol fuel. And on the racetrack aswell come to think of it!(Audi R10, Audi R15, Peugeot 908). On the motorway a diesel will tickover at very low revs and will get about 65mpg, a petrol engine of the same displacement would get around 45mpg, maybe. Around town, diesel is much easier to drive (assuming both are manual boxes) than a petrol. In a diesel, as I've discovered, there is a "biting zone" as opposed to a "biting point". This means that when waiting at lights or stopped on a hill, you can hold the clutch at the "biting zone" and your other foot on the brake. This allows you to creep forward with complete control, with no fear of embarassment. If you were to do this in a petrol, you would either stall the engine or roll back, both of which are undesirable. Diesel is also more environmentally friendly than petrol. Modern diesels can be incredibly fast and accelerative thanks to the huge torque that they create.
Petrol's only real advantage is when driving for the sheer pleasure of it. The engine sound is far more exciting and nice than diesel which sounds rather boring in comparison. Diesel technology has come on massively in relation to petrol technology in the last 15 years or so, however, petrol is still the fuel of choice amongst most of us enthusiasts. As Leonofthedead said, your heart says petrol but your head says diesel.

[LeonOfTheDead]

A few things wrong.
Diesel isn't more environmentally friendly than petrol. It is indeed facing problems with future emissions laws, while petrol is not.
Second, we aren't talking about a plain field, as a few of the technical solution applied to diesel engines is applied to petrol ones.
About the fuel economy, most diesel achieve their superior figure if driven properly. That's correct with petrol cars as well. The thing is, as a fact, people tend to drive faster in petrol cars rather than in diesel ones, during the span of a whole year and not just on a spirited day.
If you think about of the excellent twin turbo engine from BMW, it achieves plenty of power and torque basically at all rpms. The fuel consumption isn't as good in its diesel counterpart, but the petrol one doesn't have direct injection, VGT turbos and 15 years of experience at its back, just to say the main features.
Have a look at recent turbocharged small petrol engines, like those in the Abarth, and you'll see excellent performance, less lag, and an impressing mileage considering the outputs. Once again with less new technology applied than in diesels, which on the contrary are at a dead point lately (with no major improvement in the foreseeable future).

I like diesel as a daily drive, it's easier and so on, but I can't avoid thinking petrol engine are taking over, quickly.

[jcp123]

so petrol engines do not require a regular "clean-up revving" these days anymore??

Not on injeced vehicles in proper tune. Carbureted ones like mine need to clear their throats now and then though. I had some carbon holding a valve open last spring; ran rough, it was missing, and generally sounded sick. One WOT run and it was cleared, no problems since.

Anyhow, I'd vote for diesel. They are some of the few modern/new cars I'd consider owning.

[henk4]

If you think about of the excellent twin turbo engine from BMW, it achieves plenty of power and torque basically at all rpms. The fuel consumption isn't as good in its diesel counterpart, but the petrol one doesn't have direct injection, VGT turbos and 15 years of experience at its back, just to say the main features.

That's strange, are you saying that BMW has less than 15 years experience in producing (turbo) petrol engines? Apart from the 2002 they already had the 3.3 L in the mid seventies as well...sounds like a bit more than 15 years.
You are probably hinting at the fact that concerted technology development in diesel engines has produced such great results in a relatively short period of less than 15 years. (Common Rail 1998??).
And what would stop BMW from applying these VGT turbos and DI to the petrol car??

[henk4]

In a diesel, as I've discovered, there is a "biting zone" as opposed to a "biting point". This means that when waiting at lights or stopped on a hill, you can hold the clutch at the "biting zone" and your other foot on the brake.

I agree with what you say about using that technique on a hill. You hardly need to use the handbrake any more to get going. To apply this for a light, with a slightly slipping clutch, looks to me rather unnecessary as also clutches do not have eternal life. You will eventually feel the biting point in your wallet.

[lightweight]

Diesel isn't more environmentally friendly than petrol.

It depends on the type of emission examined. For the same performance a Diesel emits less Carbon Dioxide, but more NOx.

About the fuel economy, most diesel achieve their superior figure if driven properly.

That is correct, but it also applies to petrol engines. Porsche claim about 10 lt/100 km for the 3.8 Carrera. Floor it and you will see 3-4 times that figure.

A direct and specific comparison can only be made on equal terms. So, official MPG figures, although differing from real world conditions, can be seen comparatively for the relative consumption of engines.