Diesel car

[danowat]

I am a self confessed diesel advocate, I drive them for a number of reasons, the biggest being the huge smile that a great slap of 350nm of torque can give you.

It is widely known that sporty diesel varients can now compete, and even exceed the performance of an equivelent petrol car, infact, self-confessed diesel hater Jeremy Clarkson even says so LOL, so it must be true ;).

So, my suggestion is that the devs either "fit" a sporty turbo diesel to one of the existing cars, maybe an XF TDi?, or make a new model.

Not only would they be able to keep up with an equivelent petrol car, they would use less fuel, could make for some interesting "economy" races :).

Dan.

[AndroidXP]

And while you're at it, add some hybrid cars too.

[danowat]

And while you're at it, add some hybrid cars too.

Not sure if thats a stab at sarcasm or not ;).

While hybrids would be good, I do enjoy driving the Prius in GT4, they are not at the proliferation in the car world that diesel cars are at, in fact in the Uk, diesel production cars are now outselling petrol cars....

Dan.

[AndyC]

Sorry but diesels are not to my liking with the main reason being they sound bloody awful.


Andy.

[danowat]

Sorry but diesels are not to my liking with the main reason being they sound bloody awful.


Andy.

A pedantic person would say the petrol engines in LFS don't sound to hot....., but thats not the point.

I knew as I was posting it the idea would get shot down in flames by the petrol-head brigade LOL ;).

Dan.

[cmckowen]

ya just think a diesel would be cool...but the smoke, hey that could be used in race strategy just get infront and cloud everyone up in a black haze ;-)

[danowat]

ya just think a diesel would be cool...but the smoke, hey that could be used in race strategy just get infront and cloud everyone up in a black haze ;-)

Ahh, the good ol' diesel stereotypes, diesel engines have come a LONG way in the last 3 or so years.
They no long produce anymore exhaust smoke than petrol engined car, plus they no longer sound like tractors......

Come on devs, surely it wouldnt be too hard to "tweak" the XF to make it have a diesel engine?.

Dan.

[Takumi_Project.d]

i dont know about diesel but perhaps the UF1 can be turned into electric :D just have a big slot underneath for where the AA battery slots in ;)

[cmckowen]

Hey man i hear u, just yankin ure chain.No it would be good for a diesel in the game. There so many different classes now would be nice to have a diesel version of some.Like u say it cant be too hard.

[danowat]

Hey man i hear u, just yankin ure chain.No it would be good for a diesel in the game. There so many different classes now would be nice to have a diesel version of some.Like u say it cant be too hard.

I know, maybe I need to litter my posts with smillies? LOL.
I knew I would be seriously outnumbered, as diesel engines still are'nt "cool" and they have some pretty hefty stereotypes to break, anyone is welcome to come a drive my car, I reckon it would take about 10 mins for those stereotypes to be but a distant memory ;).
Heck, in this country I couldn't imagine driving anything else, with fuel prices at nearly £1.00 a litre, a 55mpg fuel consumption is a pretty big deal ;)

Dan.

[cmckowen]

ya true hey its an a$$ raping in the UK, got a friend there wit a calibra and d@mn im glad i dnt pay for his petrol! Ya diesels have come a long way from the gravel bathing smokey pits :-) I havent driven a new diesel so i cant swak them. U get good torque steer in iure diesel?
Charles

[danowat]

U get good torque steer in iure diesel?
Charles

err.....that would be a HELL YES ;)

Dan.

[Madman_CZ]

ya just think a diesel would be cool...but the smoke, hey that could be used in race strategy just get infront and cloud everyone up in a black haze ;-)

hasnt anyone seen the honda ad?? :D

[cmckowen]

:razz: oh yes!

[cmckowen]

hasnt anyone seen the honda ad?? :D

No?? what did we miss?

[cmckowen]

oh if its the Accord add yes i saw that one...very clever.The Accord is a sexy beast! :)

[Madman_CZ]

Nah he's talking about the Honda ad with the noisy, dirty diesel engine that transforms into a shiny, clean, flying diesel engine and makes all the animals happy.

Honda are fast becoming one of my all-time favourite organisations of all time. What with the "Cog" ad for the Accord and the crazy billions they burn in their robot development programme, who wouldn't have a soft spot for them? =D


indeed i am ..... good animation, clever add, finally a cleaner diesel



as for the robot development..... i must favour sony's QRIO robot.... just stunning!!!!!

mad:nana:


btw: accord add was great too.. heard it took something like 120 takes to make it work

[Madman_CZ]

back to the topic.... i aint a fan of diesels.. as mentioned above the cars are just way too noisy, the knocking drives me nuts...

most mornings i am frequently woken up my a diesel going past my window ..those BIG LARGE ford vans grrrrrr just drives you nuts when you are a light sleeper...:sleep2:

however a diesel in LFS could be interesting though as sounds are now it would probably wouldnt sound anything like a diesel and yest they would need to add that black stuff it leaves behind... a full grid of diesels smoking could prove interesting lol...

anyway just dont think it would be a feasible idea to add to lfs...

on the robot front....

think Asimo v Qrio would prove as an interesting contest though i have no doubt that Qrio would wipe the floor with Asimo.... Qrio would probably outlast it on battery power.. not to mention qrio's throwing ability.. would bombard asimo with rocks :D

dont forget that size doesnt matter!!!!!!




I thought it would only be weeks before Honda unleashed an army of them on an unsuspecting western world and they crushed the weakling humans into tiny little bits.

judgement day!!!!!!! :scared:


mad:nana:

[Warper]

It is widely known that sporty diesel varients can now compete, and even exceed the performance of an equivelent petrol car, infact, self-confessed diesel hater Jeremy Clarkson even says so LOL, so it must be true ;).


But what kind of petrol car do you compare with what kind of diesel? You compare for example a BMW 530d with a 530i. But thats not a right comparison. Because the diesel is turbocharged and the petrol car isn't. All the people who say that a diesel is as fast as a petrol car forget about that fact.

Don't get me wrong - i love diesel, for example the 530d (i drove one of them many times) but they aren't as fast as comparable petrol cars ;)

But i also would welcome a diesel in lfs.

greetz warper

[cmckowen]

ya theres no way u can just take a 3.0 petrol up against a 3.0 turbo diesel. Its unfair, just look at the torque and thats frightening :tilt:

[danowat]

But what kind of petrol car do you compare with what kind of diesel? You compare for example a BMW 530d with a 530i. But thats not a right comparison. Because the diesel is turbocharged and the petrol car isn't. All the people who say that a diesel is as fast as a petrol car forget about that fact.

Don't get me wrong - i love diesel, for example the 530d (i drove one of them many times) but they aren't as fast as comparable petrol cars ;)

But i also would welcome a diesel in lfs.

greetz warper

Yeah, I know that, its the same arguement all petrolheads use ;).

Fact of it is, a similarly sized diesel engine MUST be turbocharged to reach an equivelent power output of the same sized petrol engine.
Diesel engines just do not produce ANY "power" (read horsepower) unless they have forced induction, they just dont breath very well.
Plus with diesel engines you dont get all the adverese effects of turbo-charging you do with petrol, i.e. massively increased fuel consumption and noticably turbo lag.

Dan.

[danowat]

Ok, how about this for a comparison, you say its unfair to compare like for like engine size due to the turbo fitted to diesel.

Ford Mondeo ST220, 3.0lt V6, 226bhp, 280nm, 155mph, 0-60 7.6secs, 30-60 11.3 secs
£24,300

Ford Mondeo ST TDCi, 2.2lt Straight 4, 155bhp, 400nm, 140mph, 0-60 8.7secs, 30-60 11 secs
£22,600

So, not only is the diesel almost a whopping £2000 cheaper, it will be cheaper to run, insure, ok, so its top speed is a little down, but 140mph is quick enough for anyone outside of Germany, it loses a second on 0-60, but the V6 has 70bhp and nearly a whole litre of displacement more, but the important figure is to 30-60, this is where the increased torque shows, in ingear acceleration tests the diesel would kill the V6.

Is that a bit more of a fair comparison? ;)

Dan.

[cmckowen]

Ya shot dan i was actually lookin for a good comparison...that shows it perfectly.Ya the amount of torque from a diesel is disgustin! :D
Ya put those two on the high way just cruisin and tell them to go....hey Mr petrol just say cheers now to the diesel and see him later when u get ure top speed :D

[Rotary]

mmmm 400nm, of torque :D

What sort of RPM does the Mondeo TDCi get? I'm only use to clunky, smelly, oily 4x4 diesel engines that have bugger all breath after 4000rpm :)

[DodgeRacer]

The only Diesel i could see fiting into LFS is if they added a LMP Prototype-esque type car..but I have a feeling they will stick to fuel.

[Mikkel Petersen]

Mmmhh..

Diesel engines, I would say YES for diesel engines..

My dad got an 1.9 TDI Polo, with 101 bhp producing 250 nm.. 75 kw @ 4000 RPM.

And no, diesel engines does not sound that bad today!

[Racer Y]

uh, Diesel cars sounds like a good idea, but how could you tell? Especially if
the newer diesels perform at the same level as gas burning motors? What would
be there that would make you notice the difference between it and a petrol
powered car?

Hmmm... maybe instead of a turbo charged diesel, a Super charged
diesel instead?
LOL would you have to wait for the glow plug before hitting the "I" key?

In the 1950's Cummings Diesel entered a car in the Indy 500. it was not only the first diesel to race, but the first car at indy with a turbo charger. even though it tore up the track and the driver got pole position, they put the intake in a bad spot and it eventually sucked up all kinds of stuff into the motor and fried it.

Maybe an open wheeled diesel? - with a better intake location :)

[danowat]

uh, Diesel cars sounds like a good idea, but how could you tell? Especially if
the newer diesels perform at the same level as gas burning motors? What would
be there that would make you notice the difference between it and a petrol
powered car?


Well, the biggest difference I would say would be the big increase in torque, that can change the way you drive a car completely, also it might remove some of the stigma still surrounding diesels.

RPM?, well, the power band on my modded TDCi is from about 1500rpm and it doesnt stop pulling till it hits the governer, a shade over 5000rpm ;)

Dan.

[Mikkel Petersen]

LOL would you have to wait for the glow plug before hitting the "I" key?

Glow plug only have to "glow" 1 sec at summertime, and max 5 secs at winter. So you make it sound like something big, when it's nothing.

[Bob Smith]

Heh, would be interesting for longer races. The car is slower on the straights but, like Duracell, keeps going and going and going. Then when you finally need a pitstop, you realise the pit pumps only supply hi octane unleaded :doh:

[DodgeRacer]

Hate to be the party pooper but its energizer that's slogan is keeps going and going and going.....:P

[Batterypark]

As economic and reasonable as diesel engines may be, I've always found them to be very boring to drive - and that's something I don't look for in a racing game, even though it works out there in the traffic.

I've driven around ten cars with turbodiesel engines, and the same goes for all of them... probably the "best" of them was the '05 Audi A6 3.0TDi... but still boring.

I'm not a "petrolhead" though, as I would probably choose a diesel car myself if I was looking for a new car. In a racing simulation, I'm looking forward to driving something exciting, and I'm yet to witness a diesel that could achieve that.

[danowat]

Each to his own, but my latest car is one of the only cars I have owned that gives me a huge smile on my face everytime I drive it, why?, torque and power delivery, the acceleration from 50- as fast as you wanna go, in top gear is awesome.

And yes, I have owned fastish cars in the past, Renualt and Ford turbo's etc etc. ;)

Dan.

[Lord_Verminaard]

Hell yeah, add a diesel car! I'm all for it. Probaby strange to hear from someone in the States, but I'm a big diesel head. Back in S1 days, I used LFSTweak to "create" a TDI-style engine for the XF, with a very similar power curve. It was a blast to drive! Lots of shortshifting and powering out of turns with torque. :)

And to counter the Diesel vs. petrol argument, I've seen Naturally-Aspirated Diesels make more hp than a similar size Petrol engine. A VW Rabbit with a 1.5 N/A diesel with a modified injection pump made about 77 crank hp, when it started with 53. :) Still had stock exhaust, intake, manifolds, etc... and it makes power all the way up to 6000 rpm. Compare the hp/torque curves to a 1.5 petrol engine, and the diesel will win with total "area under the curve" which is what counts. ;)

For a final kick in the pants to you petrol heads, check out this truck that Gail Banks is making- a truck to compete in 24-hour road racing!!!!!

http://www.bankspower.com/DmaxTypeR.cfm

Diesels rule. Imagine a monster like that truck in LFS against the GTR cars. Hehe.

Brendan

[Warper]

Hell yeah, add a diesel car! I'm all for it. Probaby strange to hear from someone in the States, but I'm a big diesel head. Back in S1 days, I used LFSTweak to "create" a TDI-style engine for the XF, with a very similar power curve. It was a blast to drive! Lots of shortshifting and powering out of turns with torque.

NO... if you get a diesel into LFS, please don't let it be a TDI (fuel-injection (http://dict.leo.org/se?lp=ende&p=/Mn4k.&search=fuel-injection)), atleast it should be a commonrail. ;)

Ok... your Mondeo ST Diesel is called Mondeo Titanium. So it's not a ST ;) And 140mph is enough for all non-germans. So it's not enough for me :) Don't get me wrong, but diesel run out of air a bit near to vmax!

greets,
Warper

[danowat]

Ok... your Mondeo ST Diesel is called Mondeo Titanium. So it's not a ST ;) And 140mph is enough for all non-germans. So it's not enough for me :) Don't get me wrong, but diesel run out of air a bit near to vmax!

greets,
Warper

No, the Titanium and the ST TDCi are 2 completely different models......

Dan.

[apo3d]

Ford Mondeo ST220, 0-60 7.6secs, 30-60 11.3 secs

okay maybe you'll think this is a stupid question but i'd rather be stupid for a moment and ask the question than not to ask it (and thus not to know the asnwer).SO:
how come the car goes 0-60 in x seconds but goes 30-60 in somewhat 2x seconds?

[trigun7469]

how about the Audi R8 DIESEL LMP1 car, now that would be a great addition.

[Vain]

I don't think diesel cars fit too much into the game, because they usually rev much less responsive than petrol fueled cars. Though... might be worth the experience... Maybe a XRT-performance-like diesel-car?

Vain

[danowat]

okay maybe you'll think this is a stupid question but i'd rather be stupid for a moment and ask the question than not to ask it (and thus not to know the asnwer).SO:
how come the car goes 0-60 in x seconds but goes 30-60 in somewhat 2x seconds?

I think the 30-60 figures are a "single gear" accelration, wheres a 0-60 figure is through the gears.

Dan.

[jmkz]

A diesel sport car would be cool indeed:)

I've been driving a Golf TDI with 150BHP the past year and it's a blast, and I'm pretty sure it will put up a great fight in race against a similar powered petrol car.

The Golf GTI with 150BHP petrol was actually a bit slower than the Diesel version;)

[branney]

I'm not sure if someone mentioned LPG? Apparently it is less prone to spontaneous detonation, which is what the RON or Octane rating of fuel measures, and so LPG can be used with much larger Turbos and more aggressive engine tuning than Petrol or Diesel!
I would also like to see a diesel. Diesel has more energy in it than Petrol, but it can't go to such high revs, because the flame front travels too slowly for it to fully burn in time. This is why turbos are commonly added in order to increase cylinder pressure and thus burn more fuel per revolution of the engine.

[AlfaLover]

A diesel sport car would be cool indeed:)

I've been driving a Golf TDI with 150BHP the past year and it's a blast, and I'm pretty sure it will put up a great fight in race against a similar powered petrol car.

The Golf GTI with 150BHP petrol was actually a bit slower than the Diesel version;)

Off course, 2 reasons because Golf 150 bhp Diesel is faster than Petrol One,

1- Diesel has Turbocharged, try petrol unit with a turbocharger mmm more than 200 bhp easy , is not at same level of technology.

2- At city and daily use the planar torque curve of a diesel is more easy to take it power than a petrol one, that you need to move engine to rev high to take all its power.

I think introduce diesel cars in lfs is not logical.

[Dj-Aeri]

I want a Jhon Deere tractor for de S2 Final

lol

[AlfaLover]

I want a Jhon Deere tractor for de S2 Final

lol

lol , fastest lap at blgp , mmmm 10 minutes ? lol

[Dj-Aeri]

lol , fastest lap at blgp , mmmm 10 minutes ? lol

And don't forget the beautifull sound of the motor.

[wheel4hummer]

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96781308/K=turbo+diesel/v=2/SID=e/l=VDP/SIG=136a219h4/EXP=1127753211/*-http%3A//www.diesel-central.com/Video/Movies/cynthiana-Ky-open/cynthokentcrowder.wmv

[Warper]

No, the Titanium and the ST TDCi are 2 completely different models......

Dan.

Nope... not in germany. There isn't a ST TDCi at all in germany. How much bhp does the ST TDCi have?

Greets,
Warper

[marsden1002]

Well, my dad used to own a Peugeot 306 Turbo diesel. This was very quick, and went for 117mph, but was hard to make it pick up from 80mph onwards, Thats the problem we had :s

[Lord_Verminaard]

Off course, 2 reasons because Golf 150 bhp Diesel is faster than Petrol One,

1- Diesel has Turbocharged, try petrol unit with a turbocharger mmm more than 200 bhp easy , is not at same level of technology.

2- At city and daily use the planar torque curve of a diesel is more easy to take it power than a petrol one, that you need to move engine to rev high to take all its power.

I think introduce diesel cars in lfs is not logical.

Well, 1, the 150 bhp golf IS TURBO, the 1.8t to be exact. It did come in a 150hp version. Actually, the 150PD diesel "TDI-GTI" is faster than the 180 hp GTI if I remember correctly.

And 2nd, Diesels can rev to 6000 rpm + if tuned properly. The 1.8T, even modified, doesnt do much past 6000 rpm.

Diesels have been showing up in various forms of motorsports lately and are VERY competitive. Also, the fuel economy savings over a long race really play into the strategy and make for some interesting results.

I say go for it. :)

Brendan

[AlfaLover]

Well, 1, the 150 bhp golf IS TURBO, the 1.8t to be exact. It did come in a 150hp version. Actually, the 150PD diesel "TDI-GTI" is faster than the 180 hp GTI if I remember correctly.

And 2nd, Diesels can rev to 6000 rpm + if tuned properly. The 1.8T, even modified, doesnt do much past 6000 rpm.

Diesels have been showing up in various forms of motorsports lately and are VERY competitive. Also, the fuel economy savings over a long race really play into the strategy and make for some interesting results.

I say go for it. :)

Brendan

you cant compare a 2000cc TDi with a modest(i think old) 1800cc Turbo engine ,the VAG (Volkswagen Audi Group) 1800cc is not a good example of a efective engine. i think is the oposite of effectiviness
(is possible you think old tecnology TDi vs Petrol Old Technology ).

the Honda civic 2.0 16V -> 200cv WITHOUT Supercharger.
Alfaromeo 1.6 TS -> 180bhp with autodelta supercharger and tuning
Alfaromeo 2.0 TS -> 230bhp with autodelta superchager and tuning.
www.autodelta.co.uk

[marsden1002]

What diesel cars can rev past 6000 RPM??? I am unaware of any that rev past 5500RPM, and petrol cars can rev way past diesel cars ie

Audi 2.0 FSI = Max power @ 6000, Max torque @ 3500
Honda Accord 2.2 CDTI = Max power 4000 RPM , Max torque @ 2000


The Honda S2000 2.0 produces 240 PS @ 8300,

But, i think we should have a small selection of diesel cars, but when you dont thrash them around for a few miles, they blow black carbon out, like they do in real life :D

[Lord_Verminaard]

Say what?? Well, the TDI is a 1.9 and is quite old technology. The head design is pretty much the same as all of VW's older IDI diesels from the 80's. Direct injection is nothing new, but I guess you could call the fancy computer controls "new technology". And you think the 1.8T is old?? Name another 4-cylinder car with 20 valves and progressive-intake timing?? I worked for VW for two years, I dont think you are going to sneak any VW facts past me. :)

Point is, every car in the world is compared to every car in the world. Sure, some might have advantages in other areas, but why do you think Honda Civics race Camaros on the drag strip? Not the smartest idea for the Honda driver but I've seen a few Civics beat Camaros. (my Camaro, for example) :(

I know a rally team here in the states that races a tuned TDI FWD Golf. They are competing in classes with SRT4 Neons, and Mitsu EVO's, and a few others, some turbo, some AWD, and they are winning many events. Some would say that there is no chance against the EVO but they are making it work somehow. :)

Brendan

[ButterTyres]

Good thread, yeah i think there is scope for diesels in LFS. There could be some smoke from the exhausts, I know people think there is none from the new diesels, but I've followed plenty Mondeo's on the motorway at 80mph plus, when they put their foot down there is a very slight puff of smoke. Not like there used to be on diesels though.

This has all been mentioned in other posts though, rotary engines, LPG, diesel, biofuels, hybrids.... doubt the devs will be finished by 2010 if we keep adding stuff for them to do ;)

[AlfaLover]

Say what?? Well, the TDI is a 1.9 and is quite old technology. The head design is pretty much the same as all of VW's older IDI diesels from the 80's. Direct injection is nothing new, but I guess you could call the fancy computer controls "new technology". And you think the 1.8T is old?? Name another 4-cylinder car with 20 valves and progressive-intake timing?? I worked for VW for two years, I dont think you are going to sneak any VW facts past me. :)

Point is, every car in the world is compared to every car in the world. Sure, some might have advantages in other areas, but why do you think Honda Civics race Camaros on the drag strip? Not the smartest idea for the Honda driver but I've seen a few Civics beat Camaros. (my Camaro, for example) :(

I know a rally team here in the states that races a tuned TDI FWD Golf. They are competing in classes with SRT4 Neons, and Mitsu EVO's, and a few others, some turbo, some AWD, and they are winning many events. Some would say that there is no chance against the EVO but they are making it work somehow. :)

Brendan

The most avanced diesel technology is Common Rail , Mercedes, Honda and a lot of brands use it (except VAG), is more progresive and enlarge a lot engine live (i know of 250000km JTD engines with considerable agresive use, and runs like first day without problems.), (o! a detail this tech was developed by Fiat Group , and sold to Bosch group for build and expand it, Fiat desestimated TDi tech because an abusive use detroy engines).

and i don't talk about FSI. engines... the worst and expensive Direct fuel injection implementation...

Someone says : German knows a lot how to press screws, and Italians says how to do.

I don't continue in this line because this is a offtopic..
mi opinion is , is not needed Diesel engines in LFS.

[Warper]

German knows a lot how to press screws, and Italians says how to do.

You should think twice about your quote. First, not the complete VAG is not using common rail, cause the new Audi diesel's are common rail's, for example Audi A6 3.0 diesel. Second, you shouldn't take VAG, especially Volkswagen as an example for german engineering. I don't know any car manufacture which is more successfull then BMW and Porsche... And what about the third reason: Alfa seems to be your favorite, what about the Top-Manager at Alfa? Italians say how to do? It seems to be exactly the opposite way - a german directs the italian work ;)

Greetz,
Warper

[marsden1002]

Ive seen Audi's puff out quite a bit, when they try to pull away from you. Its not as bad as the oldish days. (my pug used to blow enless amounts out when it has been used around time)



I think a good diesel would be quite good on LFS, but i think if the devs were to put this in, this would come in S3.

OH also. A TDI car can out preform a Petrol car, but thats because the diesel engine has a turbo. A Petrol turbo engine can way out preform a Diesel turbo.

Clarkson proved this with the new BMW. BMW said it could get around faster than a petrol one, and it failed badly

[jmkz]

it's impossible to own "LFS full" since it's not even in BETA phase:p

[Vain]

LFS will stop when no one wants to develop LFS any further. That may be yesterday, today, in two weeks or in 23 years.

Vain

[vpr01]

Ahh, the good ol' diesel stereotypes, diesel engines have come a LONG way in the last 3 or so years.
They no long produce anymore exhaust smoke than petrol engined car, plus they no longer sound like tractors......

Come on devs, surely it wouldnt be too hard to "tweak" the XF to make it have a diesel engine?.

Dan.

I raced a 3 Series BMW Turbo Diesel (M spec) at Bedford Autodrome. With the racing chip, it kicked out a lot of black smoke (not thick mind you). It didnt sound too bad, and was ****ing awesome coming out of the corners with all that torque.

[Nitemare]

i think it's time to ressurect this thread, now that the Audi R10 was revealed...
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/Audi%20R10-2.jpg
it is a successor of LeMans winning Audi R8, and it has a 5.5 l V12 diesel!
(650 hp, 1100 NM (811 lb-ft))

i think this car will prove that diesels are no longer just boring truck engines, like they were before...

btw i saw a footage from testing and there was no smoke from exhaust at all ;)

[audimasta]

Looking forward to watch the R10 in action.... Was it the official launch video u saw? If u have a link to it, posting would be appriciated :D

[Nitemare]

the video was live stream, and it's not available anymore...

but they said there wil be an "on-demand" version after some time...

the link is http://www.audi.de/r10

[audimasta]

Ok, thx... Did u get any idea of how it sounded? I have heard F1 racing boats with diesel engines, and that was really something. Just hoping the R10 will spit out some beatiful tones too.

[Nitemare]

sounds a bit strange, but nice...

engine has a deep tone, but when revved up, you hear more of the turbos whistling than the engine itself...

and Kristensen said that it's harder to drive then petrol cars, because when accelerating in third gear, he can't hear the engine over the wind noise

edit: video of launch (http://www.gff-gmbh.net/projekte/kunden/audi/dsl.asx)

[audimasta]

Thx for the vid! That thing sounded like a plane..... Me likes :nod:

[Lautsprecher[NOR]]

Can't get the link to work. AVI-version?
That whole domain seems to be gone to me.

[overdoped]

I do own a diesel car (BMW 3 Series, 320td 185hp/400NM chipped :nod: ) so I would REALLY welcome sporty diesel engines in LFS.
For ppl thinking that this kind of engines sound like *§$"=§ in general, I'll give you a link to see/hear that:
http://www.eisenmann-technik.de/auspuffanlagen/galerie_detail_id_198_ovs_kat_audio_ovs_rbrk_33.ph p

http://www.eisenmann-technik.de/auspuffanlagen/galerie_detail_id_195_ovs_kat_audio_ovs_rbrk_33.ph p

http://feies.com/bmwblog/images/bmw120d_4.jpghttp://feies.com/bmwblog/images/bmw120d_5.jpghttp://feies.com/bmwblog/images/bmw120d_2.jpg
That nice thing is a BMW 120d (Diesel) Racecar, even the pic is sayin 'Coming soon' so I hope there's a chance for one in LFS. I personally would prefer a car like this make of BMW:

http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/2005/Zolder-2005-08-28-098.jpg
Above link shows a E46 3-series 24h-Racecar of Dunlop Extreme Team
Mad Rear Wing! :headbang:

What do you think? :scratchch

[danowat]

I think even a diesel version of the XF GTi (with an engine like the Skoda Fabia vRS) would be a great addition.

Dan,

[overdoped]

I think even a diesel version of the XF GTi (with an engine like the Skoda Fabia vRS) would be a great addition.

Dan,

Yeah, but with the massive torque and the heavier engine, the FWD's would be even more likely to uuuuundersteer and traction problems will occur (just like in real life) :smileypul

[noob4ever]

And while you're at it, add some hybrid cars too.

lol

haha
i just had a good laugh..

i thought we're racing here...
diesel cars aint really much in racing.. or are they ?

[overdoped]

when it comes to long races, at least in europe they shurely are!
http://motoring.iafrica.com/roadtest/BEHIND%20THE%20WHEEL.htm

In LFS Diesels would fit quite perfect when there are long races, just change your tires and you are done! :)

Even in Le Mans (really famous 24h race) Diesel engines were used successfully! :D Audi R10 is the key

[mysi]

http://www.audi.com/audi/com/en1/experience/motorsport/Audi_R10_TDI.html
:nod:

[overdoped]

Just to be sure, everyone has seen that:
http://mfile.akamai.com/10940/wmv/audi02.download.akamai.com/10940/werbespots/r10_emo_high_cbr.asx

VERY BIG GRIN :headbang:

[Turbocharge]

i know none of you probly have heard a 2 stroke diesel engine....XF Dti two stroke diesel...all wheel drive...probly 250 hp....

[tristancliffe]

Two Stroke diesels aren't that unheard of you know.

[overdoped]

Just found some interesting lines, maybe the devs could arrange another deal with BMW? :thumb:

Gavin Ward, BMW:

"Although diesel racing cars have recently become fashionable it was back in 1998 that a BMW 320d driven by Briton Steve Soper, among others, achieved a landmark victory in the Nürburgring 24 Hours. This is generally accepted as the first victory for a diesel car in a top line international event. Now customers wanting to emulate this success can buy a 120d car with a racing package.
Powered by a 1,995cc diesel engine, the BMW Motorsport-equipped 120d provides 245hp and 450Nm of torque from its modified engine. A lowered suspension with adjustable anti-roll bars and dampers feature along with 332mm front disc brakes with six-piston callipers and 284mm rear disc brakes with four-piston callipers. Lightweight BBS alloy wheels, a full aero package including rear diffuser, and a stripped out weight-saving interior also serve to increase performance."

---> Read more here (http://www.automobilsport.com/bmw-motorsport-120d-diesel-z4-m-coupe-powered-engine-racing-package-price-standard-coupe-features-tank-aerodynamic---9739.html) <---

http://www.automobilsport.com/upload/vln-2006/bmwz4coupeneu2.jpg :schwitz:

[spsamsp]

Sorry but diesels are not to my liking with the main reason being they sound bloody awful.


Andy.

But they'll own any average priced petrol car on the road today!! :)

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

I sympathize with Madman, having been woken up countless times by the rod-rattler near my house.

[spsamsp]

I raced a 3 Series BMW Turbo Diesel (M spec) at Bedford Autodrome. With the racing chip, it kicked out a lot of black smoke (not thick mind you). It didnt sound too bad, and was ****ing awesome coming out of the corners with all that torque.

Torque is what today's diesel owners are buying them for... my dad had a 1.9 A4 Tdi Quattro Sport... and that had the same amount of torque, i believe, as a Boxster S! The only problem is the need to change gear so quickly because of the low RPM

[MyBoss]

Would actually like to see an VW Passat like car in LFS, station wagon, or what its called.

[philipac]

I think its a Brill Idear,

It Means a Diff Driving Style a Diffrent Pit Option and could Make Some Hugly Good Racing,

Instead of Hitting 8K and Changing Gear its a lot Less,

Short Changing and Using the TQ instead of Just Waiting for the Littel Red Light,

Would Love to See a Diesel in LFS,

Would Make For Some Nice Throtel Controle when the TQ kicks In if a RWD,

:D

[Barroso]

Peugeot RC Cup (http://ulisse-64.chez-alice.fr/gpp_2005/rc-cup/IMG_8377.JPG) :smileypul

[iceman kimi]

1- Diesel has Turbocharged, try petrol unit with a turbocharger mmm more than 200 bhp easy , is not at same level of technology.


yes.

put a small turbo in the 220 ST mondeo (or in a 2.0 mondeo - petrol engine).

easily smash the diesel version.
petrol have a better thermal efficiency.

i don't remember the exact percentage but i think is double of the thermal efficiency of a diesel engine.

the only good thing of a diesel engine is the consumption...lower diesel quantity for the same mileage...and the diesel is a little bit cheaper (in italy about 1,10 euro - petrol is 1,35 euro)...

but for sporty cars,diesel is not the better choice...

(audi R10 diesel is helped by the LMP's championship rules)



my 2 cents


(ps:sorry for my bad english!):shrug:

[spsamsp]

Would actually like to see an VW Passat like car in LFS, station wagon, or what its called.

Me too... Real cars always make you feel good!! That's why i like PGR 3 so much!!

[Bluebird B B]

yes.

put a small turbo in the 220 ST mondeo (or in a 2.0 mondeo - petrol engine).

easily smash the diesel version.
petrol have a better thermal efficiency.

i don't remember the exact percentage but i think is double of the thermal efficiency of a diesel engine.

the only good thing of a diesel engine is the consumption...lower diesel quantity for the same mileage...and the diesel is a little bit cheaper (in italy about 1,10 euro - petrol is 1,35 euro)...

but for sporty cars,diesel is not the better choice...

(audi R10 diesel is helped by the LMP's championship rules)



my 2 cents


(ps:sorry for my bad english!):shrug:

I agree, diesel cars are nearly always turbocharged and some have high pressure turbochargers with intercoolers. Also diesel engies have often very sophisticated injection systems to make a diesel go like a petrol...

People should compare such diesel engines with a simular sized petrol engine. the diesel will loose always and will always loose of a simular sized petrol engine with a simular good injection system and turbo charger.

For comparison, a certain real world car has a petrol 1.9 16v liter engine with a low pressure turbo. On paper it has less horsepower and torgue then many modern 1.9 tdi engines. Guess what, the easy to build, durable and reliable petrol car beats them all! Only bigger cars with diesel engines or very high pressure turbo chargers maybe faster. But those diesels use a lot of fuel too!

The torgue all those diesel drivers are talking about:
An petrol engine with direct petrol injection has an identical torgue curve as a diesel car(with or without turbo charger). But the petrol engine will keep going over 5000rpm and wins in the end. Its not the fuel that gives diesel engines the torgue, its the direct fuel injection, the bigger engine displacement(on average) and the turbochargers!

So in the end, please NO to diesel cars into lfs, diesel is not for racing but for fuel economy and sometimes safety. Well thats my opinion.

[tristancliffe]

Firstly, the bit about diesels being twice as thermally efficient as a petrol engine is rubbish.

Thermal Efficiency = (Power x 2) / (bsfc * rev/second), and a diesel will often get higher, but not necessarily.

The sohpisticated diesel injection systems do not 'make it go like a petrol engine', it is primarly a NOx and Knock resistance matter, though of course it helps performance over indirect injection.

However, you are right in saying that similar sized/specced petrol and diesels will almost certainly allow the petrol to win in a straight fight (assuming sensible gearing for both cars). However, as diesels routinely run with a compression ratio of 20:1 or more they can't rev as highly (as the piston and conrod as to be stronger, and thus heavier), which severely limits a diesel in outright performance.

The MAIN advantage with diesel engines is the fact that a diesel isn't throttled. This means there is less low pressure inlet manifold air to perform work on the piston (known as pumping losses) whilst at part load. This, in turn, means that the diesel ends up more fuel conversion efficiency at part load.

For a given compression ratio the diesel actually has a much lower thermal efficiency compared to gasoline, but thermal efficiency increases with compression ratio -> it turns out that a gasoline engine at about 9:1 has the same nu_t as a diesel at 20:1 (very rough figures). Diesel combustion may be roughly simplified to constant pressure heat addition (i.e. the volume varies whilst the pressure stays the same), and this difference in volume during the combustion phase is called the cut-off ratio. As the cut-off ratio increase, so thermal efficiency (nu_t) decreases, thus as power increases thermal efficiency drops - the opposite of a gasoline engine.

Hopefully this will give you an insight into how complex engines are - there is no rule that says diesels are worse than petrols as such. Because of the lack of revs and the constraints that applies to gearing, combined with a heavier engine, and reduced thermal efficiency at WOT means that diesels are not ideal for racing unless the series has rules to contradict gasolines advantage. Diesel however is, from an emissions point of view, and a part load fuel economy point of view, superior (assuming you can trap the carcinagenic particulate soot generated by diesels).

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Now that's a classic high quality Tristan post. :nod:

Well delivered!

Wish I had something to argue with you about, but.... :razz:

[tristancliffe]

Wish I had something to argue with you about, but.... :razz:

Turbo's are crap, and lag is caused by fish in the 'works'. Argue away matey!

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Turbo's are crap, and lag is caused by fish in the 'works'. Argue away matey!

Diesels produce less force over time :razz: :shrug:

(sorry insider)

[Jamexing]

A few things about this post:

Firstly, I've not seen more than 2-3 posters here with genuine understanding of petrol and diesel engines. Too much petrolhead bashing diesels crap in the air.

Secondly, there is still no way to directly compare diesels and petrols even today. This is simply a function of technological history. Petrols had more than a century of incremental developments vs disesels. Automotive diesels used in 4x4s, sedans, etc have remained underdeveloped until the past decade or so. The fact that Common-rail/DDI diesels are such recent inventions proves this.

FYI, GDI (direct petrol injction) is aleready in existance for about a decade (Mitsubishi GDI in Pajeros being the best example). Yes, the 3.5L GDI Pajero engines are about 10% more power and torque and 30% less emmsions than a mechanically equivilant MPI(Multi-point injection) engine. But the real jump is the diesel.

Example:

Mitsubishi Motors Diesel 4D56
-2477cc

The original 4D56 had 147nm@2500 and 72ps@4200, 4700 redline.

The turbo-intercooled of the 4D56 had about 200nm@2000 and 99ps@4000, 4500 redline.

The latest iteration of the 4D56 is built on the same fundamental engine block design turbo-intercooled with the addition of Hyper Common-Rail Injection and DOHC in place of the old SOHC head. The result:

136ps@4000 and 314nm@2000, 4500 redline. 11.8L/100km in URBAN driving mode in a 1890kg kerb weight pick-up truck (new L200 or Triton, depending on the market).

Or one could opt for the power upgrade pack for over 160ps, all while complyig with EU-4 emmison standards.


Note that the basic engine block design and capcity have remained unchanged. And believe me, I've tried the original 72ps engine. though underpowered, it has absolutely no hestitation to rev towards its 4700rpm redline. With turbo-intercooler, high pressure fuel injection and DOHC, itwould obviously rev even better.

Note that diesels are practically more efficient since they run at maximum intake airflow almost continuously, so the only mechanism for rev and power output control is rate of fuel intake. As long as the A/F ratio remians greater than stoichometric, diesel efficiency is always superior to petrol. For diesels, fule consumption is much more directly related to power output.

Also note that turbo petrols are forced to run low compression ratios, which again kills effieciecy. Petrol turbo engines need to run rich all the time to avoid detonation. Diesels actually improve in efficiency with forced induction, since more air only means leaner A/F ratio if fuel intake rate remains static. Or one could simply maintain A/F ratio and enjoy greater performance with no loss in fuel-power efficiency. Try that with a petrol engine and you'll detonate the engine to smitherines.

In lay man terms, diesels get all the benefits of turbos and none of the conmy tradeoffs, a win-win deal. Petrols are heavily compromised in this respect. The fact that diesel blocks and internals are much stronger than their petrol counterparts only ensures superior reliability. in fact, some diesels don't break in completely until over 100,000km.

From the emmisions point, even the oldest NA 4D56 won't smoke or smell, except on cold starts. Note it doesn't even use a soot filter. The smoky diesel syndrome petrolheads blaber about are just the result the result of poor maintainance and injection settings. people are notorious for skipping oil and filter changes and other routine service. I've tried to get a warmed up NA 4D56 to smoke at full throttle at redline (4700rpm). No luck.

Conclusion: Diesels are at the infancy of their development and their superiority over petrol is a technological inevitability.

And please, informed replys only. This is an LFS (aka hardcore sim) forum, not NFS:Most wanted/Underground. Last thing we need is underinformed opinions to ruin the realist atmosphere of LFS.

Hope this helps everyone.

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Very interesting post :scratchch

Everything I've ever read / studied indicated a general increase in fuel economy when fitting a proper turbocharging system to a gasoline engine. Your post seemed to contradict this somewhat, so I have a few questions perhaps you could answer for me to shed some light on the matter:

Isn't the overall mean effective cylinder pressure what really matters in terms of output vs consumption? Therefore who cares if a gas engine has a slightly lower compression ratio to compensate for some intake pressure... Beyond that, one can safely run "standard" compression with less pressure and acheive the same result either way....

The Beta II block in my car has a stock compression of 9.5:1.... I can acheive the exact same result by either:

a) lowering compression to 8.5:1 and running ~11psi
b) running 7psi on stock compression

I didn't do the math, but that should be pretty close.

[Jamexing]

An interesting observation, but easily explained.

Most petrol roadcars IRL run rich due for detonation resistance and easier NOx emmision control. In essence, they have really poor airflow rates for their fuel flow settings. In your case, the turbo simply adds airflow rate to the equation, leaning out the A/F ratios a bit if your fuel rate remains the similiar, causing more complete combustion and thus more power and torque. The lessened need to depress the throttle goes a LONG way to explaining fuel economy increase. Conservation of energy always applies, so there is no free energy, just better extraction of the fuel's potential energy. Hopefully you've not gone TOO lean or massive detonation would result. I've not seen a high pressure turboed petrol car that experiences improved fuel to power conversion efficiency after compression reduction to help the relatively weak petrol blocks and internals to cope with massive cylinder pressures.

Please read the quality post at the top of page 4. Obvioulsy, lower compression reduces thermal efficiency. By the way, high pressure diesel injection improves efficiency by squirting fuel through ultra fine holes(like those many hole in your showerheads but MUCH finer), vastly improving fuel atomization. The true secret to better power effieciency is the more complete burn of diesel. 2 step injection regimes help too.

Conclusion:

Diesel + turbo equals complete synergy.

For already highly tuned petrols running A/F ratios on the leaner side, turbos are guaranteed to reduce efficiency.

[spsamsp]

Sorry but diesels are not to my liking with the main reason being they sound bloody awful.


Andy.

Looking at your profile tells me that you are old enough to drive so there's one question I need to ask you - Have you ever driven a diesel??

My dad has owned 2 and the are amazing!! The Audi A4 1.9 Tdi Quattro was OMG!! It had so much torque (apparently, in low revs it has same torque as a Boxster S!!) and it also looked great with the sporty body kit, Dolphin grey metallic and carbon look to go along with the great Bose sound system - All of the things avaliable in the petrol version too!!

The 2nd diesel was the less exciting but still fun BMW 320D SE (52 Plate) - Not anywhere near as sporty and good looking and handling as the A4 but it was quicker as it only had 5 gears and was fun apart from the fact that the TC cut in way too ferociously and quickly so that stopped the fun a bit!!

My dad said he would stick with Diesels... Now he has a Merc C200 Kompressor Estate which he drifts round corners in and we have the new Audi TT Coupe 1.8T on order (apparently the 1.8T is better and "rawer" than the 3.2 version and has the same engine as the Golf GTI)... As you can see by the post - I speak just as highly about the diesels as i do about the petrols so maybe those of you who aren't sure about diesels should try one or maybe if you tried a turbo-less one then try one with a turbo! I'm sure your views will be different.

Sam (Phew!) :D

Edit: Yes - they may sound awful but some are actually ok sounding - the ones with the bigger engines in particular!!

[Jamexing]

Speaking of diesel sounds, I happen to drive an NA Diesel Pajero and it sounds absolutely beautiful. Who needs ridiculously loud exhausts on some tiny ricer engine when the NA 4D56 already emits extremly throaty sounds? A turbo would attenuate some of the NA roughness, but a freer flowing 2.25inch exhaust would restore the throatiness without the rougher higher frequecy sound spectrum, all while improving power, torque, response and fuel efficiency. All this could be done without exceeding 85dB even at full throttle and oad.

Seriously, 4WD and other private use diesel engines are much better representatives of how good diesels could sound. Please, do not lock yourselves into this diesel sound=UPS truck sound dogma.

Go to the Borla or Magnaflow websites and sample a few turbodiesel exhaust notes. Musical.

[spsamsp]

Speaking of diesel sounds, I happen to drive an NA Diesel Pajero and it sounds absolutely beautiful. Who needs ridiculously loud exhausts on some tiny ricer engine when the NA 4D56 already emits extremly throaty sounds? A turbo would attenuate some of the NA roughness, but a freer flowing 2.25inch exhaust would restore the throatiness without the rougher higher frequecy sound spectrum, all while improving power, torque, response and fuel efficiency. All this could be done without exceeding 85dB even at full throttle and oad.

Seriously, 4WD and other private use diesel engines are much better representatives of how good diesels could sound. Please, do not lock yourselves into this diesel sound=UPS truck sound dogma.

Go to the Borla or Magnaflow websites and sample a few turbodiesel exhaust notes. Musical.

Magnaflow site - I saw an RS4 about 2 days ago and I thought that was the best sounding car i have ever heard... Shove a Magnaflow on the back and omg :x

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Most petrol roadcars IRL run rich due for detonation resistance and easier NOx emmision control. In essence, they have really poor airflow rates for their fuel flow settings. In your case, the turbo simply adds airflow rate to the equation, leaning out the A/F ratios a bit if your fuel rate remains the similiar, causing more complete ombustion and thus more power and torque.

I don't think that makes too much sense, but I could be wrong. I'm not as informed as you appear to be, but I was under the impression that typical modern cars run 14.7:1 edit: A/F ratio most of the time specifically FOR emissions, since stoichometric obviously is complete (theoretical) combustion. It's relatively common knowledge that slightly richer edit: than stoich(not leaner!) mixtures are ideal for edit: higher output alone, new cars with decent heads usually benefit from around 13:1 edit: A/F ratio for higher output at WOT.

My fuel rate at even 7PSI would need to be almost 50% greater (save for less mass due to heating of the air) to maintain ideal combustion, running lean under pressure would be engine suicide.

Please read the quality post at the top of page 4.

You might note that I commented on it immediately after it was written over 2 months ago :shy:

Indeed it is a quality post.

...

Yes, I realise that turbocharging diesels is excellent, and I understand your point about that.

I'm not convinced about the rest of your information yet.
:tilt:

[Jamexing]

I forgot to specify that all the benefits in fuel economy that so called "proper" turbocharging entails the use of low pressure turbos which, for petrols, is about 5-7psi and never more than 10psi. The high pressure turbos such as 1 bar (14.7psi) setups will masssively increase airflow and thus power reliability if compression was lowered (usually to something like 9:1 or LOWER) with the con-rods and pistions replaced with stronger billet/forged units. unfortunately, the lower compression negates some of the thermal effieciency gains of higher intake and effective compression pressure, so from the power per fuel burned point of view, high press. turbos are guaranteed to reduce fuel to power conversion efficiency.

As to why road cars run rich and NOx emmsion concerns. Firstly, one must understand where the NOx comes form.

The NOx is generated due to the fact that air is not pure O2. The spark park ignites the petrol and air mixture, but unfortunately the Nitrogen (air is more than 70% N2!) also gets oxidized in the process, hence NOx. With richer mixtures, there's less oxygen to oxidize N2, thus less NOx. That massively reduces the NOx emmsion problems.

So, how would you deal with the unburnt hydrocarbons? Behold the 3 -way catalytic converter! Catalyses the chemical reactions that change unburnt hydrocarbons, CO and other products of incomplete combustion to much more benign CO2 and H2O.

Another major reason for richness is cylinder cooling and also overall temperature regulation of the combustion chamber. Obviously, regulation of temps is crucial for reliability. Unburnt fuel happens to be a good coolant. The best example I can remember off hand is the 911 turbo engine. It's well known for very rich A/F mixtures at higher revs to stabilize engine temp at the cost of absolute top end performacne. The above reasons of NOx regulation apply too.

One of the problems with lean burn seen in diesels and GDI (aka dieselized petrol) is NOx generation caused by oxygen rich burn. This is currently reduced markedly via NOx scrubbers that deoxidizes NOx to its Nitrogen and oxygen components. The best example of a car with this system is the current 3.5L GDI engine of the European spec Pajero. Obviously, it has also been used and will only bettered for current High Performance Diesels.

As for optimal power, yes, stoich ratios are theoretically ideal, but the real physical limitation is fuel atomization for better fuel to O2 contact and more complete burn. This goes a long way to explaining why diesels benefit so much from high pressure injection sysytems. Practically, just slightly rich ratios are the best compromise for both relability and power. Lets just say I've seen enough dyno shootouts end up in massive engine kabooms due to leaning A/Fs to squeeze that last bhp. As the A/F leans, so does the ignitability, so unless you could massively cool the combustion chamber whilst compression, detonation is inevitable. This is why the GDI engines can run 13:1 comp. ratios and ultra lean 30:1 A/Fs. The direct injection system allows better combustion chamber cooling and avoids preheating fuel at the ports, avoiding detonation.

Ultimately, the otto cycle is limited by the fact that it uses A/F mixtures instead of swuirting fuel at the right moments. Compression can never rise too high since petrol is notorious for spontaneous ignition.

If the current diesel fuel atomizaton improvements continue, the A/F could be adjusted richer and more towards stoich ratios without risk of generating excess soot.

And no, your average econobox does NOT run 14.7:1 comp. ratios, unless it happens to posses diesel like (aka insanely strong) block, head and internals and the aforementioned excellent detination control. More like 10.5:1 on average. For example, the high rev engine that the current NA Lotus Exige uses (from Toyota) has a comp ratio of approx. 11:1 and thats considered on the high side. Don't compare it to your typically weak aluminum alloy econoblocks. That engine block is composed of metal-matrix composites, F-1 technology that was banned with advent of the current V8 engines. If it wasn't banned, redlines would be around 24,000rpm instead of the currently "low" 20,000rpm.

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

First, thanks for the informative post again...

Second you missed my point(s) so I edited my post for clarity.

Any dummy knows normal gasoline "road cars" don't run 14.7:1 compression ratios :hihi:

[Jamexing]

Sorry about that. What you say about the 14.7 stoich A/F ratio is theoretically true. However, one must also consider all the real world factors that properly serviced cars never face. IRL, many owners are notorious for skipping or severely extending routine sevices such as oil changes. Americans (in genegeral, not everyone) have a notorious record of skipping service. So do Malalysians (goes a looong way to explaining why so many diesels smoke so badly there). Asssuming that fuel atomization is near ideal, stoich gives the best power. However, as I've said, fuel happens to be a good combustion chamber cooler. For reliability and safety, OEMs usually err on the safe (aka rich) side. The last thing a car manufacturer needs is to deal with trashed engines.

The restrictive OEM intakes and exhausts to practically eliminate all engine noise doesn't help breathing either. For cars such as Porsche 911 turbos, the ECU is usually setup to run leaner A/Fs at high revs for top end power (if airflow was constant). And again as stated, lower combustion temps are necessary to provide a buffer against typical neglect. But seriously, how many of us would use Mobil 1 5W-30 quality oil on a Toyyta Echo? Lower temps are insurance against such variables.

To seal the point abut rich A/F mixtures, try passing the latest emmsions tests without the cat converter. Your unburnt hydrocarbon concentrations are guaranteed to soar. Emmisions control, even today, is still mostly about after treatment, not ultimate thermal effficiency. Unless your gasoline engine happens to be a GDI or FSI(european manufacturer name for the same tech) running in its lean burn mode, don't expect stoich or close to stoich in anything less highly tuned than the N/A Lotus Exige's engine. Since fuel economy ratings are miles per gallon or liters per 100kms, they are poor pointers when it comes to comparing the power generation efficiencies of engines.

Oh, the GDI ensines run very close to stoich A/Fs when it runs at maximum power mode.

As you all should know, petrols generate maxiumum power efficiency at WOT. But how often can you actually use WOT in your average city traffic? Secondly, even racers don't go WOT whenever on throttle. Try running a WRC Monte Carlo rally stage at WOT only. See you at the bottom of the hill (if we could actually FIND you). Please, don't mistake this as a personal attack. I'm just trying to illustrate a point as clearly as possible.

Thanks for pointing out my oversight, Ball-Bearing Turbo! Hope this lays your doubts to rest. I'll gladly clarify anything that needs clarifying.

[shim]

would be interesting to see a desiel up against a XRT/FXO/RB4

[Bob Smith]

Just make the FXO diesel :p

[Jamexing]

FWD + massive torque curve of turbodiesel = 3 minutes of front tire life :D

[Jamexing]

Here's a great idea:

Lets do a turbo-intercooled diesel version of the RB4. Use the 2.5L diesel used by the VW toureg Paris-Dakar Rally Buggies. 200+hp, 500+nm torque and 4WD traction equal rally monster.:thumb:

[mobiholik]

if you assk me what i think obout a disel cars - i youst say its bullshit !!! you can't race whit disel cars !!!

[Venus]

About the only diesel I would think might be acceptable; would be trucks. I don't mean those things americans call trucks the rest of us call utes. lol I mean big prime movers. Now that for racing; would be alot of fun.

V

[Zipppy]

Some can reach 300 Km/h. my dad's diesel has a limted top speed of 150 Km/h

[ButterTyres]

if you assk me what i think obout a disel cars - i youst say its bullshit !!! you can't race whit disel cars !!!

You can try though - http://www.btcc.net/html/team_detail.php?id=29

[duke_toaster]

I just want that 120d to win a race this year :D

[MadCatX]

Diesel cars race and they can win. For example Audi R10 TDI won 24hrs Le Mans...

[sinbad]

http://www.vw-cup.co.uk/cars.htm
Plenty of diesels in there too.

[ButterTyres]

http://www.vw-cup.co.uk/cars.htm
Plenty of diesels in there too.

LOL Caddy TDI nice one

[nfsjunkie91]

Rather than read the lengthy discussions, I'll just say this:

+1 for diesels.

John Jacob Jingleheimer Smit.

[March Hare]

Yes yes yes. very nice blah blah about the diesel vs petrol jadda jadda

What would a diesel engine bring to LfS that is new?

It has more torque than a petrol one so the acceleration is quicker.
It does not rev as high, but that is what gears are for.
Its fuel consumption is less so you don't have to pit so often. This would be a plus in longer races.

What do people have against diesel engines? Diesels are far better attuned for everyday driving than petrol engines. And the 24hr Le Mans proves without a doubt that they are as good as petrol engines at long races.

[danowat]

I just want that 120d to win a race this year :D

Pretty sure its a 130d, and it was crap at Brands, the only car to get lapped LOL

[ButterTyres]

Pretty sure its a 130d, and it was crap at Brands, the only car to get lapped LOL

The BTCC webby says 120D and I don't *think* there is a 130D out... yet.. (wouldn't mean they don't get to race one of course).

/edit
Just thought, if it was a 130D it prolly would have won lol

[Ricou]

Hi,
I don't knowif it's true, but I have read one day that diesel engines need less fuel because diesel fuel has more energy than petrol fuel.

By the way, did you heard about the VW 1.4L TFSI engine, with both supercharger and turbocharger ? It produces 170 hp and 240nm, which is very good for such a little engine, and doesn't use much fuel, compared to other petrol engine of this power, of course :D
Isn't it a better engine to compare diesel to ?

[danowat]

The BTCC webby says 120D and I don't *think* there is a 130D out... yet.. (wouldn't mean they don't get to race one of course).

/edit
Just thought, if it was a 130D it prolly would have won lol

I too thought it was a 2lt, but I am sure I heard them say yesterday that it was a 3lt :shrug:

[tristancliffe]

It has more torque than a petrol one so the acceleration is quicker.
It does not rev as high, but that is what gears are for.
Its fuel consumption is less so you don't have to pit so often. This would be a plus in longer races.

What do people have against diesel engines? Diesels are far better attuned for everyday driving than petrol engines. And the 24hr Le Mans proves without a doubt that they are as good as petrol engines at long races.

More torque, but at lower rpms, so you have to gear it differently, meaning your wheel torque is broadly similar to that of a petrol car, thus the performance is similar. Diesels excel in low speed, part load driving, and in-gear acceleration tests (e.g. overtaking lazily).

Diesels are not far better attuned, they are just different, and I don't like them personally. I also don't like the environmental or health problems associated with diesel, but if you listen to the green-mongerers it's only CO2 output that matters, so diesels must be better.

And the only (ONLY) reason the Audi was competative at LeMans was the messed up equivalency rules, giving diesels a massive advantage on an already unlevel playing field - when, and only when, a diesel can compete with a petrol engined race car on the same set of rules will I consider it useful for motorsport. Do you see Diesels in F1? In BTCC? In TopFuel Drag racing? No, neither do I...

[duke_toaster]

I too thought it was a 2lt, but I am sure I heard them say yesterday that it was a 3lt :shrug:

It's called S2000 because it's based on the old Superproduction rules and the engine capacity is 2000cc :)

[undertech]

-snip-

[duke_toaster]

The cylinder capacity must not exceed 2000 cm3.
With respect to the bore (Art. 314 of the Super 2000 Homologation form), a production tolerance of 0.05 mm at the level of the fire zone and a wear tolerance of 0.1 mm below the fire zone are authorised, provided that the total cylinder capacity does not exceed 2000 cm3

I think you can bore or sleeve engines though.

[undertech]

:doh: My bad! I thought you were talking about the Honda roadster. Silly, silly me

[March Hare]

I also don't like the environmental or health problems associated with diesel, but if you listen to the green-mongerers it's only CO2 output that matters, so diesels must be better.

You yourself are forgetting that a petrol engines produce particle emissions too. The difference is that the particles produced are much smaller than the ones with a diesel. Now are the smaller particles any more healthy for us than the bigger ones? Or is it just that as we don't see them we think they don't matter.

There has been much research done on the health effects of these diesel particles but very little on the petrol ones.

As for the CO2-craze that is just stoopid. They should be making limits for CO, NOx, HC and the like. With CO2 you can limit the fuel consumption of the engine, but that is about it. The greenhouse effect can just kiss my hairy but! Don't people know that the temperature of our planet is constantly changing? And rapidly at that. Even way before there were people! We just think that WE are so high and mighty that WE can destroy a planet. I've heard of delusions of grandeur but this is ridiculous.

People buy cars for the horsepower but drive them with the torque. That is all you need to know to come to the conclusion that: a diesel is better for everyday use.

[tristancliffe]

People buy cars for the horsepower but drive them with the torque. That is all you need to know to come to the conclusion that: a diesel is better for everyday use.

You are thinking of the phrase "Horsepower sells motors, but torque wins races".

I agree that petrol engines emit particles, but there are less (known) links with carcinagens, so in my book I'd rather breathe burnt petrol :)
I also agree that there needs to be more worrying about NOx, CO etc, not just CO2.
And I also agree that the evidence of humans causing global warming is tenuous at best, and positively weak most of the time.

[wark]

Suggesting cars or types of cars is an exercise in futility. :fap:

[JamesK]

To quote Top Gear, when talking about a fancy Audi, "there's a diesel version too, if you're the sort of person who thinks the Mona Lisa would look good with a beard"

Diesels have their place, and its not in performance cars.

[Jamexing]

Diesels have their place, and its not in performance cars.

That is simply a vast oversimplification and not strictly true, for reasons I'll rather not explain since it won't be to comprehensible to your average layman.

Remember when renault was forced to abandon its 6 speed gearbox for a 7 speed one due to the silly ban on variable intake lengths? It's strong torque bands that win races (if the car is properly optimised for it of course). Remember those days when the renault had such a significant advantage in sarting and corner exit performance?

As on global warming, last time I checked, this relatively stable climate we're now in is the real freak of nature, not the other way round. Last time I checked, major celestial bodies such as the sun (especilaly) contribute way more to global climate than any efforts of puny little humans. Depletion of the ozone layer is as far as we could possibly do for now.

The point is, based on the latest ice core research, the earth's climate has usually been more like a drunk than a sober man, always wiggling up and down when it comes to the temperature. If you check historical accounts, you'll discover that climate as little as 1000 years ago was way different from today. So the greenies want us to belive that the chinese have somehow manipulated the weather with "excessive firecracker use" 1000 years ago?

The only thing of scientific certainty is that average temperature of the earth's atmosphere will get higher. Anything else is in a purely scientific sense uncertain.

[tristancliffe]

That is simply a vast oversimplification and not strictly true, for reasons I'll rather not explain since it won't be to comprehensible to your average layman.I would like to hear your explaination, if only so I can take the mickey when you bring specific 4x4 models into your sentences. It's not that much of an over-simplification at all.
Remember when renault was forced to abandon its 6 speed gearbox for a 7 speed one due to the silly ban on variable intake lengths? It's strong torque bands that win races (if the car is properly optimised for it of course). Remember those days when the renault had such a significant advantage in sarting and corner exit performance?Silly ban? Care to expand? Why was Ferrari usually quicker with the recent engine specs if it had less torque? Remember the days when people remembered that the Renault's corner exit and starting performance was more to do with rearward weight bias than outright engine torque?
As on global warming, last time I checked, this relatively stable climate we're now in is the real freak of nature, not the other way round. Last time I checked, major celestial bodies such as the sun (especilaly) contribute way more to global climate than any efforts of puny little humans. Depletion of the ozone layer is as far as we could possibly do for now. It's no more stable now that it was, it's just that climate change, a natural phenomenon, takes places over thousands of years. And of course 'major celestial bodies' like the sun have more effect on global warning - without the sun it'd be pretty cold. Really, you do say some silly things whilst trying to look clever!

The point is, based on the latest ice core research, the earth's climate has usually been more like a drunk than a sober man, always wiggling up and down when it comes to the temperature. If you check historical accounts, you'll discover that climate as little as 1000 years ago was way different from today. So the greenies want us to belive that the chinese have somehow manipulated the weather with "excessive firecracker use" 1000 years ago?Clearly you haven't been doing the ice core research. I don't think you'll find the 'latest' is much different to the first, but as with any 'data' it's how you interpret it that differs. We've known for [at least]fifty years that ice-ages occur periodically, and that we're coming out of one. The latest research hasn't changed that opinion. In fact, I doubt you have read 'the latest research', unless you happen to read geology papers a lot, and even then it's the interpretation and not the raw data you'd see.
The only thing of scientific certainty is that average temperature of the earth's atmosphere will get higher. Anything else is in a purely scientific sense uncertain.Not a certainty at all. If some models are correct global warming could trigger another ice age and cause massive temperature DROPS in the atmosphere. And besides, there is no such thing as 'scientific certainty', and that's a fact ;)

[JamesK]

Remember when renault was forced to abandon its 6 speed gearbox for a 7 speed one due to the silly ban on variable intake lengths? It's strong torque bands that win races (if the car is properly optimised for it of course). Remember those days when the renault had such a significant advantage in sarting and corner exit performance?Are we talking about truck racing, or have a missed a season of Diesel F1 cars somehow?

You can build torque into a petrol engine by using a longer stroke and smaller bore (amongst other things) without too much trouble but its a bitch getting a diesel engine to rev. Plus they smell bad, headgaskets are a PITA, bleeding the fuel system is a ballache, they make the oil go all yukky and they smoke after comparatively few miles.

The cleanest fuel (environmentally) for internal combustion is Propane (aka LPG), with lower toxic emissions accross the board. But its not suitable for use in smaller low-torque engines.

[RocksGt]

It's nice all of that diesel vs petrol stuff, and I'm on the petrolhead crow I'm afraid :D

But now I think of LFS and fun and I must say that a diesel would be actually nice, cause it would bring new challenges in long races and competition against equal-level petrol cars.

Interesting option, no doubt :nod:

[March Hare]

It seems that hard core racers don't want to change anything. They just want to do the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I was going to write something witty here but can't be bothered.

[JamesK]

It seems that hard core racers don't want to change anything. They just want to do the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.There's plenty of new things that can be done without resorting to derv powered cars ...

[Jamexing]

PERFORMANCE DIESEL CAR, hmmm....

Let's see now... AUDI R10, check! VW toureg 2.5L turbodiesel dakar rally racer, check! 1.9 turbodiesel VW that goes 6000rpm, check! VW toureg V10 diesel that goes to 60mph in under around 8 seconds, check!, BMW 120ci (I think that's the right number, though you can easily check that out), check!.......

Note some here are RACE cars. :D

BTW, if car tech doesn't change, what else? Race drivers aren't going to change much, unless we're heading into mutant/cybernetic supermen??? No tech improvemnet, no change. Simple logic/ common sense. Of course, this won't compute for guys who enjoy the same old outdated boring and pointless/obsolete tech over and over and over...

And tristan should really visit a psychoanalyst/psychiatrist, this guy has a serious attitude problem. Seemed pretty ok for quite a while, and now he's back to his same old silly patterns. :shrug:

And of course, major ice ages do come, but not before a major warming period, if the earth sticks to its usual pattern. Temperature rise can't simply be considered bad, as it negatively affects some but positively affects other areas. As on sun's influence, it's a multitude of factors, from sunspots to solar flare emmisions to proximity (thanks to the earth's nototriously wobbly orbit over geological history). And yes, I read the journals, not the tabloids. :)

Speaking of geology, do you know that the earth's magnetic field is also notoriously unstable? Check some records on magnetic north and you'll discover that its quie different from today's. In fact, there were times when north was south and vice-versa! BUT the worse times were when the poles are swapping aka transients). Imagine what could go wrong in this modern era when grow more hopelessly dependant on GPS, etc.

[tristancliffe]

PERFORMANCE DIESEL CAR, hmmm....

Let's see now... AUDI R10, check! VW toureg 2.5L turbodiesel dakar rally racer, check! 1.9 turbodiesel VW that goes 6000rpm, check! VW toureg V10 diesel that goes to 60mph in under around 8 seconds, check!, BMW 120ci (I think that's the right number, though you can easily check that out), check!.......

Audi R10 - only competative because of equivalency rules
Toureg Dakar car - Diesel required for torque and fuel economy on part throttle
A V10 that's slower than my 1.6 MX-5 to 60mph, wow, must be good
BMW 120ci isn't that much of a performance car, just a daily runabout.

Note some here are RACE cars. :DBut none would be better than a petrol engine of the same size, except perhaps the Dakar car

BTW, if car tech doesn't change, what else? Race drivers aren't going to change much, unless we're heading into mutant/cybernetic supermen??? No tech improvemnet, no change. Simple logic/ common sense. Of course, this won't compute for guys who enjoy the same old outdated boring and pointless/obsolete tech over and over and over...Tech does change, but diesel just has the wrong characteristics to make a decent performance car. Great for towing caravans, not so great for amusing race car drivers.

And tristan should really visit a psychoanalyst/psychiatrist, this guy has a serious attitude problem. Seemed pretty ok for quite a while, and now he's back to his same old silly patterns. :shrug: I'd love for you to expand on that. I stopped having a problem with you when you started posting sensible stuff, and stopped the CONSTANT 4WD references in every post. But now you've started making silly suggestions about diesels and geology.
And of course, major ice ages do come, but not before a major warming period, if the earth sticks to its usual pattern. Temperature rise can't simply be considered bad, as it negatively affects some but positively affects other areas. As on sun's influence, it's a multitude of factors, from sunspots to solar flare emmisions to proximity (thanks to the earth's nototriously wobbly orbit over geological history). And yes, I read the journals, not the tabloids. :) Sunspots, Solar Flares and the eccentric orbit of Earth is not journal material (it probably was 100 years ago though). Read 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' and you'll find an American tourist has written a book that covers this, so it's hardly groundbreaking science.
Speaking of geology, do you know that the earth's magnetic field is also notoriously unstable? Check some records on magnetic north and you'll discover that its quie different from today's. In fact, there were times when north was south and vice-versa! BUT the worse times were when the poles are swapping aka transients). Imagine what could go wrong in this modern era when grow more hopelessly dependant on GPS, etc.Old news - I'd like to think that 99% of the worlds population have known about inverting poles for several years now. It's even been in Hollywood films, and therefore does not demonstrate that you have any special grasp on the topics of global warming. Sorry if that makes me sound like an arse, but I know 8 year olds who know about solar flares, inverting magnetic poles etc. If you were a pilot you'd know what calibrating your magnetic compass to 'true' north is something you do every day as the magnetic pole is that mobile. I think it's somewhere in Canada at the moment.

[Jamexing]

There were a few race only models of diesel BMWs based off road car chassis and engines, though I just can't seem to remember the codes right now... Just check it out. :)

Who said anything about special knowledge what? And dude, you still have some really weird issues with silly drivetrain and engine type irrational hatreds. I appreciate diesels, so do petrols, LPGs, gas turbines, etc. All drivetrains have their place, though 2wd cars are such a known quantity, with 4wWD being a relative latecomer that they've just begun to reap its full potential, especially for performance road car apps.. I'll still like them if they achieve their design goals though.

Silly suggestions? Hmmm..... Didn't know the AUDI QUATTRO was a silly suggestion..... :D No wonder tristan hates 4WDs so much. A bunch of macho men beaten by a... gasp... woman driver! No wonder you're pissed. BTW, I think I've just performeed some simple but remarkably good psychoanalysis. :D

Still remember that in the early 20th centuries that MANY other power plants were vastly superior to petrol otto cycle units we're dogmatically forced to acept as the only way to high performance. heck, there was an electric car that went 160mph in a land speed record! Way before computers and hybrids. (Silicon chip? What silicon chip? :D)

Conclusion? Any drivetrain and powerplant with fundamentally sound design could thrive and dominate given a chance to develop and reach their potential. As for FWDs whopping RWD asses on quite a few moderate to lower powered race series, it just goes to show that hating certain drivetrains is pure stupidity. BTW, FWDs rule gymkhanas, no contest.

The problem isn't me talking about 4WDs. On the other hand, it's all about your impossibly to reasonably justify hatred of certain types drivetrain and engine.

[tristancliffe]

There were a few race only models of diesel BMWs based off road car chassis and engines, though I just can't seem to remember the codes right now... Just check it out. :)I'd rather you presented me with evidence, rather than asking me to do the research for you.

Who said anything about special knowledge what? And dude, you still have some really weird issues with silly drivetrain and engine type irrational hatreds. I appreciate diesels, so do petrols, LPGs, gas turbines, etc. All drivetrains have their place, though 2wd cars are such a known quantity, with 4wWD being a relative latecomer that they've just begun to reap its full potential, especially for performance road car apps... I'll still like them if they achieve their design goals though.I don't hate different drivetrains, I just think they have their places. Diesels, FWD and 4WD are not for performance cars in my opinion, they are for every car cars and farmers.

Silly suggestions? Hmmm..... Didn't know the AUDI QUATTRO was a silly suggestion..... :D No wonder tristan hates 4WDs so much. A bunch of macho men beaten by a... gasp... woman driver! No wonder you're pissed. BTW, I think I've just performed some simple but remarkably good psychoanalysis. :DYou didn't mention the Quattro. Scroll up and look. I have no problem with women beating men, as long as it's on a level playing field. I don't like women doing 'girly' pressups, or having separate athletics events, unless they admit they aren't as good at them :p But there is no reason a women driver can't be as good as a male driver really, it's just that most women can barley operate the pedals :D Anyway, your remarkable psychoanalysis that I don't like 4WD cars because a woman once did well in one is a bit lame really don't you think. I can see why your not a practicing psychoanalyst.
Still remember that in the early 20th centuries that MANY other power plants were vastly superior to petrol otto cycle units we're dogmatically forced to accept as the only way to high performance. heck, there was an electric car that went 160mph in a land speed record! Way before computers and hybrids. (Silicon chip? What silicon chip? :D)Indeed. For years horses were deemed the best. But at the moment there isn't a decent alternative to the OTTO cycle engine for performance motor cars. That will change. Diesel and LPG won't be the replacements, except if politics 'forces' it to, on the bad science that diesel is somehow better for the environment...
Conclusion? Any drivetrain and powerplant with fundamentally sound design could thrive and dominate given a chance to develop and reach their potential. As for FWDs whopping RWD asses on quite a few moderate to lower powered race series, it just goes to show that hating certain drivetrains is pure stupidity. BTW, FWDs rule gymkhanas, no contest.Conclusion? You didn't write anything to draw conclusions from! Any drivetrain can dominate if developed? So, if you develop them all, how come all of them don't dominate? Wait, that's impossible! FWD's might beat the odd RWD in the odd race series where power is limited, but that's not because FWD is inherently better, more because a series' rules give FWD advantages that even RWD can't overcome... I don't hate certain drivetrains, I just find all FWD and 4WD cars extremely boring to drive, although granted some can make crap drivers seem like gods. I'd rather a car told me I was crap and threw me into a tree, rather than pretending it's me being amazing...
The problem isn't me talking about 4WDs. On the other hand, it's all about your impossibly to reasonably justify hatred of certain types drivetrain and engine.Trust me mate, there was a time when every post you wrote, even if it was about windscreen colours or something, would sing the praises of Evos and Imprezas.... on and on, with no regard for the topic or the discussion, you'd just bring 4WDs into the equation. I'm not the only one who noticed, but I am one of the few who answered back knowing that your basic jargon won't scare me or confuse me. You changed, began answered topics sensibly, but in this one you've started being daft again, hence my replies.

[Jamexing]

Me, sing praises to Imprezas? Hmmm..... I thought I told you I didn't like them. :shrug:

Here's the BMW diesel racecars I was talking about:

http://www.racecarsdirect.com/viewlisting.php?view=5506

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/exclusions/supplements/seat/nosplit/btcceco.xml

http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s491/st108449.htm

You accuse me of diesel fanboyism. :shrug: Now you're acting like a complete petrolheaded dogmatist/propogandist? Beats me. More like ou refuse to accept anthing but petrol even if competitive and possibly superior overall alternative pops up. And a driving style that copes with nothing but RWD.

When was the last time I said FWD was superior overall? It's superior for packaging, economy, and some speciallized competitions, or is it just too hard to accept that RWDs are fallible?

And why would you compae the V10 Toureg to an mx-5? A sensible guy would have compared it to something more like a Range Rover/RR sport. What were you smoking? So I'm supposed to be the unsensible one....:shrug:

And was i trying to confuse anyone? Didn't know my "jargon" that confusing. :really:

[tristancliffe]

Me, sing praises to Imprezas? Hmmm..... I thought I told you I didn't like them. :shrug: You get my drift though, right?
Here's the BMW diesel racecars I was talking about:

http://www.racecarsdirect.com/viewlisting.php?view=5506

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/exclusions/supplements/seat/nosplit/btcceco.xml

http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s491/st108449.htm
Right... so a couple of, basically, clubman diesel race cars and you think that's enough to satisfy the argument that diesel is a better race car fuel than petrol?
You accuse me of diesel fanboyism. :shrug: No, I didn't. Can you point to where I said that?
Now you're acting like a complete petrolheaded dogmatist/propogandist? Beats me. More like ou refuse to accept anthing but petrol even if competitive and possibly superior overall alternative pops up. And a driving style that copes with nothing but RWD. No, I'm not refusing to accept it, but I am refusing to pretend that diesel is that alternative, because it isn't. I don't think that makes me a dogmatist nor a propogandist, and the term petrolhead is usually meant to mean 'car-nut', not a preference for one fuel type...
When was the last time I said FWD was superior overall? It's superior for packaging, economy, and some speciallized competitions, or is it just too hard to accept that RWDs are fallible? Of course they aren't infallible. But we are talking from a motorsport point of view, and packaging/economy have little place in that argument...
And why would you compae the V10 Toureg to an mx-5? A sensible guy would have compared it to something more like a Range Rover/RR sport.You were showing me a performance diesel, and I was just saying that it is slower to 60mph than a 1.6 four cylinder hairdressers car. Doesn't sound like a performance car to me. Maybe grannies would like a diesel Taureg, but I'm sure no one under the age of 75 would put one on their list of 'must have performance cars'.
What were you smoking?Benson and Hedges, why? So I'm supposed to be the unsensible one....:shrug: And each post you make confirms it.
And was i trying to confuse anyone? Didn't know my "jargon" that confusing. :really:Ah, but the way you use it is obviously designed to impress. Throwing fancy words needlessly around, trying to make simple facts complicated... that's just my psychoanalysis of you.

Can you remember what the topic was about mate? I can, but I think you've moved off to another subject...

Edit: It's shown James as replying to this thread for 20 minutes now. Clearly not a fast typer ;)

[Jamexing]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm

Interesting test on 2 similiarly weighed and identically powered (245hp, about what the TBO classes are close to). Done by people who could actually drive, of course, which makes it even more interesting. :)

Note the FWD was setup JUST like the FXO. BIG tires front and rear. The RWD was setup in classic FR fashion, with relatively narrow fronts and wider rears (typical RWD staggered set). Basically optimized for each drivetrain. The results are REALLY interesting and may not be what many RWDers might think. (I pretty much expected exactly the same results as they came up with :)) The way LFS tracks are, no wonder the FXO is dominating.

Just one factor as to why I absolutely refuse to oversegregate and overclassify, simply condenming something just because of some personal preferences and opinions.

Fancy words? I was just trying to ensure precision for as well as the english language could provide. :shrug: And it's one thing to simply tell the simple conclusion and another to understand what happens exactly. Like how roll bar induced roll stiffness isn't absolutely the same as that derived form stiff springs.

Anyway, anyone else got more on topic stuff to say? Actually, I'm kind of surprised that this thread has somehow revived itself after so many eons of LFS time. (Note: time counted in miliseconds. :))

[tristancliffe]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm

Interesting test on 2 similiarly weighed and identically powered (245hp, about what teh TBO classes are close to). Done by people who could actually drive, of course, which makes it even more interesting. :)Not read it yet, other than the first page, but how do you know they can drive?

Note the FWD was setup JUST like the FXO. BIG tires front and rear. The RWD was setup in classic FR fashion, with relatively narrow fronts and wider rears (typical RWD staggered set). Basically optimized for each drivetrain. The results are REALLY interesting and may not be what many RWDers might think. (I pretty much expected exactly the same results as they came up with :))Of course you did, because you are amazing. I'll read it later, and reserve judgement for now. I also know the result, but only because it's you that posted it...
Facny words? I was just trying to ensure precision for as well as the english language could provide. :shrug: And it's one thing to simply tell the simple conclusion and another to understand what happens exactly. Like how roll bar induced roll stiffness isn't absolutely the same as that derived form stiff springs. No, FANCY :p
The trouble is that you neither have precision, and nor do you use the English language or terminology (you use the Aussie form of English which is markedly different, and use backwards terminology :p). Sometimes it's better to use simple words to get meanings across, especially when figures of speech, terminology, other language users and what have you are about. I've lost count of the times I thought you were right, only to realise that your understanding of a certain term means you are wrong.
You mean roll bar stiffness is different from spring stiffness? Well I never. I'm glad I realised that. Just think how rubbish cars would be if you hadn't realised that very simple fact... Next you'll be saying that springs and roll-bars work TOGETHER during roll conditions, and effect both static and transient conditions? Well f**k me, you ARE clever...


Just one factor as to why I absolutely refuse to oversegregate and overclassify, simply condenming something just because of some personal preferences and opinions.Erm, one of the few things you DO do is oversegregate and overclassify. And you have been condemning things based on opinion. Like all that geology stuff you pretended to know about, and the bullshit snippets of 'cleverness' that are, on vague inspection, not in the slightest bit clever or insightful... If that isn't opinion (because it certainly isn't fact), then I don't know what jelly is.

[JamesK]

Note the FWD was setup JUST like the FXO. BIG tires front and rear.Nope, the FWD one had skinny tyres at the rear, and the RWD one had the trans on the back axle. Perhaps you should go read the complete article ... which funily enough has been on my website for a while now ;) The author openly states that he is not a racecar driver, therefore you get an unbiased opinion of the differences.

[wheel4hummer]

Why aren't there Pentane or Hexane powered engines?

[tristancliffe]

Probably output, emissions, usage (low boiling points make using such fuels a bit of a pain)... I don't know enough about either to give a definite answer.

[wark]

Anyone remember that old saying: "torque wins races, power sells cars"? :p

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

I think it's somewhere in Canada at the moment.

Figures.

[EeekiE]

Yeah, I know that, its the same arguement all petrolheads use ;).

Fact of it is, a similarly sized diesel engine MUST be turbocharged to reach an equivelent power output of the same sized petrol engine.
Diesel engines just do not produce ANY "power" (read horsepower) unless they have forced induction, they just dont breath very well.
Plus with diesel engines you dont get all the adverese effects of turbo-charging you do with petrol, i.e. massively increased fuel consumption and noticably turbo lag.

Dan.

Diesel engines have the same breathing capability as petrol engines but are usually beefed up with weightier components due to the knocking nature, and very high compression, which is why they don't tend to rev very high, and the whole point of compression ignition is low down chug, so that's what they exploit. This is why they peak lower down IIRC.

You'll also still get the same turbo lag from a turbo diesel, as a similar designed turbo petrol. Most modern turbo cars have very minimal lag.
You're diesel usage will also increase with increased boost as otherwise the engine would make no more power.

I loved the R10 at Le Mans, and have nothing against TDI's but you're telling porkies :tilt:

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Diesel engines have the same breathing capability as petrol engines but are usually beefed up with weightier components due to the knocking nature, and very high compression, which is why they don't tend to rev very high, and the whole point of compression ignition is low down chug, so that's what they exploit. This is why they peak lower down IIRC.

You'll also still get the same turbo lag from a turbo diesel, as a similar designed turbo petrol. Most modern turbo cars have very minimal lag.
You're diesel usage will also increase with increased boost as otherwise the engine would make no more power.

I loved the R10 at Le Mans, and have nothing against TDI's but you're telling porkies :tilt:

Exactly...

Also, with no ignition advance, revs become an issue for that reason as well. A big downfall of compression ignition...

[EeekiE]

Yeah I didn't think of that. It mkes you wonder why they don't adjust "ignition timing" by injecting the fuel earlier? Like a slow injection as it's compressing up, or inject in stages or something?
I'm sure I heard something about the R10's engine and a revolutionary way of injecting fuel. I think it may inject in stages or something? Perhaps for this very purpose. :shrug:

I have nothing against a 'token' Diesel car, although it would be there just for the sake of it. The game certainly doesn't need one.

[soviet911]

out of curiosity why do we care if a diesel is better for our palnet or not since it will be in a game or if its better then a petrol car. :shrug: i would buy S2 immediately if they had a disel car in it. it would be sweet.

[JTbo]

Staged high pressure injection that is I believe, modern electronics now it is possible to do that as there is enough speed. But you can't adjust it as well at with ignition as fuel mixture still needs to be compressed and heated in process to get it detonated, not sure if it is air in most modern ones that is hot and fuel is injected to hot air so it detonates as it is injected, could be that way too, but still adjusting is more limited than in petrol engines, imo.

But does it really matter for LFS? Different engine braking, revving, engine inertia, fuel consumption and power curve, oh yes and sound, would not need much more?

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

I'm not sure if that's something feasible or not, I am not very studied on Diesels at all. I do know that the pressure fuel is injected at is very high, and I think that's due both to the timeframe is has to be injected (one precise point during a stroke vs the better portion of an entire stroke) and also the physical properties of Diesel fuel. It won't ignite properly until compression (and therefore heat) is high enough, and it has to be really fine atomization to work well IIRC (well, just like gasoline I guess....)

edit: geez, WAY too slow.... This was @Eeekie

[Jamexing]

Anyone heard of diesel pilot injection? Fine, high perssure atomized sprays of fuel ignite relatively easliy. Pilot injection is mostly to reduce knock and clatter, but as revs go up it could also be used as a sort of pre-advance. BTW, I've not seen or worked on any diesels that inject fuel at TDC or latter. All have somewhere between 6 - 15 degrees (case dependant of course. Variable for today's eklectronicly controlled disels) advance. How else do you get the fuel to burn in time?

Fine atomization is of course always good for all ICEs. Maximizes power per unit mass of fuel. Current F-1 engines and latest FSIs and GDIs all run high pressure injection to more finely atomize fuel. Hence the trend fo higher pressures and even finer holes...

With modern piezoelectric injectors, control is better than ever. BTW, imagine all the nifty stuf one could achieve by manipulating fuel spray patterns too.

Well, at least some here admit they don't know diesels much, and I'm glad that some here might be happy to know more rather than just bashing one engine type over and over and over..... (gets old)

BTW, when the torque output band to the wheeels simply isn't there, large peak power values do no good, not without super-close ratios or CVT. Given 2 cars with very similiar specs and similiar peak power levels and a given track, the one with the flatter torque band wins, even if its something like say 245hp(peaky) vs 250hp(broad).

There are 3 ways to obtain power, both equally valid. One is via high rpm but small torque levels coupled with high revs. The other is via moderate to low revs but MASSSIVE torque. Ideally, it's with massive troque band AND relatively high revs, though yet to see that happen on too many reasonably priced cars. The torque engine might be heavier, but the torque band would easliy compensate for the fewer but stronger gears. The high rev, narrow powerband engine needs more close ratio but smaller, lighter and weaker gears. The final result is very dependant on the nature of corners encountered.

Durability wise, let's just say some people have trouble trying to break them (turbodiesels) in prooperly. They just don't rev and use them hard enough. In the hands of a short shifter (whilst avoiding knocking, of course), some thake up to 100,000km just to break in.

BTW tristan, some of us got more things to do than louninging around in this forum. Multitasking, anyone? When was the last time I started personally insulting this nutacase first anyway? :shrug:

[tristancliffe]

Well, at least some here admit they don't know diesels muchJust waiting for you to admit the same, rather than stating basic facts as though they are some sort of amazing technological secret.
and I'm glad that some here might be happy to know more rather than just bashing one engine type over and over and over..... (gets old)But of course, you never bash anything. As long as it's a 4WD diesel you'll be happy. And bored.

BTW, when the torque output band to the wheeels simply isn't thereThis sentence doesn't make sense
large peak power values do no good, not without super-close ratios or CVT.Erm, gears won't change the power. If you have no torque, you'll have no power unless you have lots of revs. SO this sentence doesn't make sense either.
Given 2 cars with very similiar specs and similiar peak power levels and a given track, the one with the flatter torque band wins, even if its something like say 245hp(peaky) vs 250hp(broad).Yes, this is true. But you are making the mistake of even bothering to look at the power figures - they tell you nothing, other than roughly being able to guess a top speed... What you need to say is the one with the greatest area under the used part of the torque curve wins, taking gearing into account. If you do this, then no diesel yet conceived beats a petrol engine on the track in fair conditions.

There are 3 ways to obtain power, both equally valid. One is via high rpm but small torque levels coupled with high revs. The other is via moderate to low revs but MASSSIVE torque. Ideally, it's with massive troque band AND relatively high revs, though yet to see that happen on too many reasonably priced cars. The torque engine might be heavier, but the torque band would easliy compensate for the fewer but stronger gears. The high rev, narrow powerband engine needs more close ratio but smaller, lighter and weaker gears. The final result is very dependant on the nature of corners encountered.I love how you say there are three ways, then only mention two. Nice. The two you do bother to mention are very very over simplified.

Durability wise, let's just say some people have trouble trying to break them (turbodiesels) in prooperly. They just don't rev and use them hard enough. In the hands of a short shifter (whilst avoiding knocking, of course), some thake up to 100,000km just to break in.They same can be said for any engine. People pussy-foot around for 5000miles doing no more than 3000rpm, and then wonder why the piston rings never bed in....... To say poor break-ins are limited to turbodiesels is deluded and wrong.

BTW tristan, some of us got more things to do than louninging around in this forum. Multitasking, anyone? When was the last time I started personally insulting this nutacase first anyway? :shrug:Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I was out, firstly making parts for my F3 car, then I went out of a meal with some friends, then went to see the girlfriend, and have only been able to check the forum this morning. If that's lounging around then I obviously feel nothing but envy for you. Oh, and the insults, both from you and me, started a long time ago. The difference is that I don't pretend I haven't insulted you, whilst you are always trying to falsely make out that you are the angel in this 'relationship. As for multitasking, the fact that you have been bitten by this modern buzzword speaks volumes for how impressionable you are, and is why I suspect you jump on every 'new' technological bandwagon. Next you'll be saying that wind power is good for the environment, or that water-based paints are a good thing...

[Jamexing]

Did I say slow break ins ONLY happen with turbodiesels? :shrug: I'm just mentioned that it does happen remarkably often for turbodiesels. Not to mention 300,000km overhaul intervals for some hard working units (towing, off road racing, etc). Tristan and his wild assumptions...

I'm not saying gears change power levels. I'm saying narrow power bands need tight ratios to keep them in their usable rpm range. Maybe tristan is simply too mentally lazy to think about what I mean...

With wide powerbands, you can achieve similiar or superior overall performance with less gears. This is very obvious on the exits of tight turns. No need to shift so often and loose time to gearsifts.

I was just saying for a given peak power, wider powerband is superior overall, irrspective of engine type. BTW, most quantify the width of a powerband via absolute rpm numbers alone. This is VERY wrong.

Lets say a 7000rpm redline engine has a 3000rpm powerband (4000-7000rpm). An engine with a 5000 rpm redline has a 2800rpm powerband (2000-4800rpm), peak power at say 4600rpm and peak torque at 2000rpm, all the while keeping a relatively flat torque curve. Given they both produce the same peak power, the 2nd unit actually has a superiory powerband. Why? Because a larger proportion of the usable revs (idle to redline, assuming both engines have enough torque to idle of in a smooth start) is usable for good acceleration. The 2nd unit could also make do with say 5 instead of the other's 6 gears and still perform similiarly or even better. Of course, I'm saying this is true for all engine types, though tristan might just come up with some wild excuse or assumption just to try to piss off someone he doesn't personally like. And of course, this is rather simplistic, though of course to really understand this needs numerical and graphical data.

This all assumes that aall else is closely matched, of course. Or tristan is again too mnetally lazy to deduce such an obvious assumption.

Multitasking a "new" buzzword? Wow, didn't know that. That word has existed since computer geeks and the idea of concurrency in computers existed, so how?!? If I'm just another join anything new bandwagon guy, then why do hate Windows vitsa so much? It's new, right? Well, it's basically nothing more than a resource hog with no real benefit to date, that's why. I tried and found nothing particluar good about it. Does a great job of turning your multicore Ferrari into a stegosaurus. Again, tristan and his fanboy accusations... :shrug:

I'll let you in on something about me. I used to be somewhat like you, believing RWD and petrol engines are the only way to go for race and general perfomane applications. Petrol engines eem the best not because they are truely fundamnetally superior to all other enigines. It's the result of having enjoyed a seriusly overprivaledged level of development. The more one delves into technological history and scinece, the more apparent it gets. Remmeber flame, ignition, killer exhaust fumes that spew out sulphur clouds, etc? Then again, tristan might not be a student of technological history...

But when alternatives are allowed to develop as well as that particular narrow category of vehicles, any reasonable and logical person is forced to reevaluate things. There's more than one way to achieve a given requirement.

Wind power is good for the environment? What made you think I'll say such a thing? Fact is, they could cause all sorts of trouble, from spoiling the scenery to disrupting wind patterns in undesirable ways. Conservation of energy is always applicable as far as physics can knows, so power form the wind is NOT free.

Solar power? Hmmm, Unreliable, inefficient (best cells typically used are just over 10% efficient!) and HIDEOUSLY expensive. Solution? Not until solar cell efficency goes WAY up. Could take quite a while...

Besides, those reflective surfaces could cause major problems for types that use concave reflectors to concentrate liht onto a tube of fluid...

Geothermal, a great idea if you live in say, Iceland? Your not going to cause much extra change. It's just the use of heat that the earth already spews out itself. Reliable too, since the earths core won't cool down any soon...

All this based on engineering/scientific literature, personal experience of working with them and field expereince from field experiments and real life users.

Anyway, gotta go for now. Work, work, work...

[JTbo]

As I did read solar panels never make more energy that is needed to make them, something along those lines it was, don't know how closely true with wind power plants.

We have some wind power plants in LFS, are they disturbing wind pattern in Blackwood so that you will get less speed from diesel or what was point with those here ? :razz:
I guess, I'm lost again, but could you two just agree to disagree?

[tristancliffe]

Did I say slow break ins ONLY happen with turbodiesels? :shrug: I'm just mentioned that it does happen remarkably often for turbodiesels. Not to mention 300,000km overhaul intervals for some hard working units (towing, off road racing, etc). Tristan and his wild assumptions...You implied it was specific to turbodiesels. Read your post again and you'll see.
I'm not saying gears change power levels. I'm saying narrow power bands need tight ratios to keep them in their usable rpm range. Maybe tristan is simply too mentally lazy to think about what I mean...No, I am sufficiently unlazy to realise that what you originally said wasn't technically accurate. Your new sentence, above, is better laid out, and makes sense.
With wide powerbands, you can achieve similiar or superior overall performance with less gears. This is very obvious on the exits of tight turns. No need to shift so often and loose time to gearsifts.Indeed you can, but so many diesels now have 6 gears, and very narrow powerbands, even though they have flat torque curves, so it's not always so simple. Our Audi, for example, would be awful to drive with 4 gears because it's power band is so narrow, but without being peaky.
I was just saying for a given peak power, wider powerband is superior overall, irrspective of engine type. BTW, most quantify the width of a powerband via absolute rpm numbers alone. This is VERY wrong.I love your little asides - 'by the way, did you know...' Yes thanks, we did.
Lets say a 7000rpm redline engine has a 3000rpm powerband (4000-7000rpm). An engine with a 5000 rpm redline has a 2800rpm powerband (2000-4800rpm), peak power at say 4600rpm and peak torque at 2000rpm, all the while keeping a relatively flat torque curve. Given they both produce the same peak power, the 2nd unit actually has a superiory powerband. Why? Because a larger proportion of the usable revs (idle to redline, assuming both engines have enough torque to idle of in a smooth start) is usable for good acceleration. The 2nd unit could also make do with say 5 instead of the other's 6 gears and still perform similiarly or even better. Of course, I'm saying this is true for all engine types, though tristan might just come up with some wild excuse or assumption just to try to piss off someone he doesn't personally like. And of course, this is rather simplistic, though of course to really understand this needs numerical and graphical data. Actually, you haven't over simplified this at all. It's already an incredibly basic concept that I think every car nut with a vague understanding of gearing and torque will have worked out on their own.
This all assumes that aall else is closely matched, of course. Or tristan is again too mnetally lazy to deduce such an obvious assumption.No shit Sherlock? You mean for any comparison to hold water you have to change just one variable at a time, and keep the others consistent? Blimey....
Multitasking a "new" buzzword? Wow, didn't know that. That word has existed since computer geeks and the idea of concurrency in computers existed, so how?!? If I'm just another join anything new bandwagon guy, then why do hate Windows vitsa so much? It's new, right? Well, it's basically nothing more than a resource hog with no real benefit to date, that's why. I tried and found nothing particluar good about it. Does a great job of turning your multicore Ferrari into a stegosaurus. Again, tristan and his fanboy accusations... :shrug: Fanboy? Of what exactly? I agree about Vista. But, unfortunately, 'multitasking' IS a new buzzword outside of computer speak. As your reference was to my non-computer life, I assume you meant that I should multitask or something. Only in the last four or five years has the term 'multitasking' been used in such social contexts. Or maybe you think computers aren't a modern invention as well?
I'll let you in on something about me. I used to be somewhat like you, believing RWD and petrol engines are the only way to go for race and general perfomane applications. Petrol engines eem the best not because they are truely fundamnetally superior to all other enigines. It's the result of having enjoyed a seriusly overprivaledged level of development. The more one delves into technological history and scinece, the more apparent it gets. Remmeber flame, ignition, killer exhaust fumes that spew out sulphur clouds, etc? Then again, tristan might not be a student of technological history...Sure petrol engines have had more development, but mostly because as a basic concept they are better suited for life in the 20th Century. I don't blindly believe them to be better, and when diesel, or any other source, becomes better then I will want that instead. But petrol is so hugely better at driving cars than diesel on racetracks that I cannot come to any other conclusion. 4WD might be a bit quicker in some cars on some tracks, but they are so boring to drive and race that I can't understand why anyone would want to. I suspect you aren't a 'student of technological history' either, otherwise you wouldn't say stuff like this...
But when alternatives are allowed to develop as well as that particular narrow category of vehicles, any reasonable and logical person is forced to reevaluate things. There's more than one way to achieve a given requirement.There is more than one way, yes. And I do/will re-evaluate things, but there is no contest yet between diesel and petrol for performance cars...
Wind power is good for the environment? What made you think I'll say such a thing? Fact is, they could cause all sorts of trouble, from spoiling the scenery to disrupting wind patterns in undesirable ways. Conservation of energy is always applicable as far as physics can knows, so power form the wind is NOT freeCorrect
Solar power? Hmmm, Unreliable, inefficient (best cells typically used are just over 10% efficient!) and HIDEOUSLY expensive. Solution? Not until solar cell efficency goes WAY up. Could take quite a while... Correct
Geothermal, a great idea if you live in say, Iceland? Your not going to cause much extra change. It's just the use of heat that the earth already spews out itself. Reliable too, since the earths core won't cool down any soon...Correct

Note, all of these could have 400 years of discussion on them, so other readers mustn't draw conclusions from such short sentences.
All this based on engineering/scientific literature, personal experience of working with them and field expereince from field experiments and real life users.Oh, I see. Not only do you personally design and install wind farms and geothermal plants, but you also designed the best diesel engine, work on F1 cars, created the universe...

I love that Americans don't understand irony - James certainly doesn't. Read my posts again with an irony alert, and you'll see James fall for it EVERY time...

Anyway, gotta go for now. Work, work, work...Of course. Don't we all.

[Linsen]

Please, jamesxing and tristancliffe, could you have your discussion where it belongs? In private? Or would you guys be missing the audience?

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

No way, continue it here.
:munching_
:bitehard3

[spookthehamster]

BMW won the Nurburgring 24hr in 1998 with a diesel engine.

Just sayin'...

[herki]

Please, jamesxing and tristancliffe, could you have your discussion where it belongs? In private? Or would you guys be missing the audience?

nah, I like it here :nod:

[z3r0c00l]

Jamexing (http://img.alibaba.com/photo/51219595/Moped_Scooter.jpg) will never be able to form a convincing arguement without matching tristancliffe (http://go.ucsusa.org/hybridcenter/images/2002-Pruis-450x300.jpg)'s mastery of the multiquote addition this forum was gifted last year.

tristancliffe (http://go.ucsusa.org/hybridcenter/images/2002-Pruis-450x300.jpg) will never be able to win because he is always on the defensive, similarly Jamexing (http://img.alibaba.com/photo/51219595/Moped_Scooter.jpg) can not win if he continues to make offensives without checking his facts.

Either Jamexing (http://img.alibaba.com/photo/51219595/Moped_Scooter.jpg) needs to locate a substantial library with a few hundred books on the physics of motorsport, tyre development, new engine technology, and the proper use of English and the formulation of a water tight arguement.

Or, tristancliffe (http://go.ucsusa.org/hybridcenter/images/2002-Pruis-450x300.jpg) needs to do more than prove he knows more than Jamexing (http://img.alibaba.com/photo/51219595/Moped_Scooter.jpg) about the subject matter at hand, and genuinly educate him that we already know about everything he's "revealing" to us, the concequence of which being, he shall stop imbedding simplifications into "n00bs".

My own personal opinion (http://www.motordesktop.com/wallpaper/supercars/TVR%20Sagaris%20-%201024x768.jpg), is that it does not matter even slightly within the Live for Speed context which is better, because real racing, and all it's plus points, stem from every competitor having a vehicle that is as similar to all the others as possible. This premotes tight, competative racing, where technique rather than fuel dictates the order of the cars accross the finish line. Except that I am not "revealing" anything to anyone, because we all already know this.

In conclusion, just because you are using standardised point, counterpoint, conclusion based arguements, does not mean you know what you are talking about. As demonstrated ever so clearly by this very post.

[Jamexing]

This thread is supposed to be about diesels, so let's have a look at some diesels. Unless there's something ineteresting about diesels to say, I'll rather have this thread permanantly closed.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/gcf/newsID/2060911.001/audi/audi-q7-v12-tdi-revealed

Not bad by both diesel and petrol standards. 80+bhp per liter isn't exactly underpowered. With 500bhp and 1000Nm from just 1750rpm to 3000rpm, flexibilty would never be an issue. That kind of peak power it achieves would be impossible if the torque band was absolutely terrible.

Let me remind everyone here that this is an SUV that goes to 100km/h in under 6 seconds. Not slow by any standard. All while meeting Euro V regualtions, sipping 11.9L/100km and generating relatively little noise.

Thi one's even more interesting:

http://automen.blogspot.com/search/label/engines

100hp/L is good even by turbocharged turbo standards. With this kind of power/ torque curve:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_CVOr0TtSP9k/RgWuSvg2uZI/AAAAAAAACZ8/9Rv2AcdRtfM/s1600-h/BMW_diesel_engine_3.jpg

I don't see why modern turbodiesel powerbands are any worse than their turbo petrol counterparts. These days, many turbodiesels have powerbands that make them useful from maximum torque to redline or almost redline.

Note: Don't even look at toyota diesels. They do a great job of reinforcing old diesel stereotypes of great torque but TINY powerbands and complete inability to rev usefully to redline. NO toyota diesel I've driven so far is of any use beyond 3500rpm. Their latest turbodiesel prado carries on this horrible tradtion too:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/1153/2007-toyota-landcruiser-prado-turbo-diesel-gx-gxl-vx-and-grande/

http://prado.toyota.com.au/toyota/vehicle/Specification/0,4668,1712_582,00.html

If you drive toyotas only, you'll be stuck in this "diesels can't rev properly to redline" paradigm forever.

WTH, they make HORRIBLE petrol engines too. Tiny and useless powerbands seem to be a toyota trademark (max torque at 6800rpm and 191ps, anyone?). They've installed a 6 speed manual/5 speed auto for their latest turbodiesel prado, but that won't compensate for a fundamnetally bad power curve.

BTW, I've recently seen a Lexus petrol powered car that has EIGHT gears! Speaking of pure sillyness. With cars like that, it's more vanity (aka me got bigger more than you muhahahaha) than genuine performance/economy. If I remember correctly, only the first 6 gears are actually of any real use. The top 3 are only useful if you drive at constant speed over absolutely flat terrain and No headwind or some taliwind.

Just an interesting car/engined to look at. May Dr Rudolf Diesel finally rest in peace. The irony of all this was that he invented CI (compression ignition) to empower farmers against the oil companies, allowing them to use their own products to generate mechanical power. It's amazing how history has this tendency to come around...

The poor guy was robbed and left for dead in his final days, his corpse found a few days after his supposed death. :(

Wonder what would turbodiesels be like given another 5 years of development. :)

If only we have a V-12 6L 600hp, 1100Nm dieselturbo in LFS in a mid-engined 4wd rally monster. Max power at 4800rpm, 5000rpm redline. Maxiumum torque at 2500rpm, with an optimum powerband from 2500rpm to redline. Maximum mass with driver and full load of 1200kg, 45/55 F/R mass distribution, 4 wheel independant double wishbone suspension with 300mm of maximum travel. Progressive springs and frequency selective bypass (position sensitive) dampers. Spinning all 4 wheels at 100km/h on tarmac (with wet tires). :D

This thread was about the inclusion of diesel cars in LFS, right? Let's keep on topic and bring some positive life to this thread. No point bickering when we could all discuss some interesing automotive stuff for a change.

[EeekiE]

100bhp/L can be acheived easily, and reliably from a Petrol N/A, as in the case of the Civic Type-R, which has a bullet proof engine.
But if you want to compare it versus a sporty production road-going Petrol Turbo, then look at the Evo 8 F***ingQuick400. 200bhp/litre with warranty, and neither of these vehicles are exactly Exotic.

My own Polo is 170bhp/Litre and the only weaklink unfortunately is the gearbox. The engine itself takes it like a man.

[herki]

My own Polo is 170bhp/Litre and the only weaklink unfortunately is the gearbox. The engine itself takes it like a man.
I always thought the "G-Lader" would cause most of the problems in the G40. Is your one reliable?

(http://img.alibaba.com/photo/51219595/Moped_Scooter.jpg) My own personal opinion (http://www.motordesktop.com/wallpaper/supercars/TVR%20Sagaris%20-%201024x768.jpg)
I laughed at that :D

Sorry for OT

[Jamexing]

100bhp/L can be acheived easily, and reliably from a Petrol N/A, as in the case of the Civic Type-R, which has a bullet proof engine.
But if you want to compare it versus a sporty production road-going Petrol Turbo, then look at the Evo 8 F***ingQuick400. 200bhp/litre with warranty, and neither of these vehicles are exactly Exotic.

My own Polo is 170bhp/Litre and the only weaklink unfortunately is the gearbox. The engine itself takes it like a man.

I'm all too familiar with Mitsubishi Lancer Evoltuions compared to most here, and I do agree they are amazing pertrol engines, but people are really missing my point here. FYI, the FQ360 is a much better car overall, with excellent power but none of the severe turbo lag issues coupled with a much WIDER powerband. In layman terms, it's faster when the path gets tight and twisty. 4G63s are hardcore rally engines with the benefits of a development life that's lasted about 2 decades.

Just look back 5 years and all this was unachieveable. BTW, when was the last time you find a turbocharged petrol Mazda MX-5 with 100hp/L?

I'm familiar with those 2.0L engines from Honda with amaing specific power. Looks great on paper, but when you take a good look at their torque bands, they are horrible. Absolutely gutless at low revs, requring copious clutch slip or at least 3000rpm (and a lead foot) if there is any positive gradient.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=2006&make=Acura&model=RSX&trimid=-1

Hmm.....

Max power at 7800rpm, max torque at 7000rpm? If you rev like a nutter 99% of the time that's great.

The classic example is the toyota engine I mentioned earlier: max torque at 6800rpm, max power at 7800rpm. Stalling and knocking are its middle names.

BTW, this makes for an interesting read:

http://www.grandpapencil.com/projects/concepts/diesel.htm

The more one delves into history, the more motives one finds for why NOT to develop diesel as far as it could have. Has a lot to do with bottom lines, etc but the important thing is that anything that has any potential to cut profits shall be suppressed or eliminated with extreme prejudice.

Back on topic, please. So, if anyone wants a diesel car in LFS, please bring forth some interesting vehicles/engines for discussion. We wasted enough time and server space on matters not directly related to the essence of the issue in question.

[tristancliffe]

BTW, when was the last time you find a turbocharged petrol Mazda MX-5 with 100hp/L?

1991 was such a year, when BBR made a 152hp 1.6 MX-5 via the Mazda network (i.e. officially approved and warrantied). But they also did a 200hp version with a few tweaks albeit without manufacturer approval. Various people have already got the 1.6 engine to over 300hp in turbo form, which I guess works out at about 200hp/litre.

Bored of your discussion on diesels as you have completely missed the point, and the history of diesel, and how you think there have been conspiracies to halt it's development are wrong and tiresome... The fact that you haven't managed to provide evidence of a performance diesel that would be better on a race track in equal conditions to a petrol engine just proves my/our point. Skew the rules and anything could win...

[EeekiE]

I always thought the "G-Lader" would cause most of the problems in the G40. Is your one reliable?


I laughed at that :D

Sorry for OT

Yes it was, that's why I swapped it for an Eaton M45 charger :thumb:


Jamexing, I was only quoting BHP/Litre figures because you were; and you were saying they were comparable to good Petrol engines, when they aren't.

The two I mentioned are just passenger cars. There are Porsches with BHP/Litre figures way higher than that of the Civic, with very broad powerbands. There are also F/I cars knocking about with more than 200bhp/Litre that don't have as much lag as the FQ400.
My own Polo pulls like a train through the entire rev-range, and it's a measly 170bhp/Litre. Still, even that makes 80bhp/Litre look puny.

[Jamexing]

Of course, you can double the power of the OEM miata engines. After say, slapping on a big turbocharger (intercooled of course), forged psitons, billet/forged steel/titanium conrods, ...... And hopefully the OEM gearbox doesn't blow up after 500kms of hard use..... Reinforcing the block (if possible) would be a great idea too. I've seen rotaries and even V8s in miatas, but that's another story.

As for the latest 996 turbo, variable geometry turbo does wonders for any engine. And I've seen a fair share of 750hp 996 turboes too. Twin turbocharging and practically rebuilt/redesigned engines. All very impressive. But then, such powerbands were achieved with... drum roll... turbo technology.

BTW, if that polo is going to be discussed, please provide full details (size, peak power/ torque and rpms, redline, powerbands, etc). To compare power per liter with say a 2.0L turbo with something like say a W-16 is plain silly. That silly W-16 from the veyron needed QUAD turbos to generate the required powerband. See what happens when some old corporate fart comes up with arbitrary goals?

If maximum specific power is all that matters here, just get a rotary. 350hp form 1.3L(approx.260hp/L)! Along with a quart of oil every 5000kms, temperamental apex seals, fuel consumption that make SUVs look like econoboxes, ......

As for racing, for better parity between petrol and diesel, use the dakar rally as an example. 2.5L turbo vs. 4.0L petrol. Both finished really well. In fact, it's an achievement just to finish. BTW, the diesel touregs were actually FASTER than the petrol Pajeros over single stages.

Honestly, no one really knows how to setup absolutely fair rules for diesels and petrols, so drop the rule excues. Both engines have their merits and problems, and only time and experience will teach us how to regulate them in a fair manner. As technology is allowed to progress naturally, both engines will only get more equal in terms of performance for a given capacity, induction pressure, etc.

I still rememeber how the mazda rotaries were effectively banned after their winning race. They simply used the rules to cripple it beyond any hope. Wonder what would have happened if they allowed it to develop properly by tweaking the rules over time to allow gradually increased parity among different engines instead of effectively killing it after a single win. I'm perfectly happy with improving parity, but to cripple any new engine to non-competitiveness goes a long way to explaining why all alternatives to petrol engines for performance use were effectively suppressed for a long time. It's like condenming children to slavery before they even had a chance to learn some useful skill/science.

The real question is, do we REALLY want to eliminate all possible rivals to 4 cycle petrol engines for race use, or do we want to allow more engines to develop so all will benefit while justifying motorsports beyond the sheer waste of resources of a gluttonous few?

Please, get back on topic.

[EeekiE]

It is on topic.

A rotary engine is pretty much as far opposite from Diesel as you can get. Probably why they strangled it out of the rule books for use in competition versus regular 4-stroke like you say.

Where did anyone mention the Veyron? Are you trying to compare my Polo to a Veyron? :tilt::D:D:D

The Polo is a baby 1272cc Supercharged 8v engine. It has not been dynoed, but spark advance has been tailed off on the map to stop the suspension turrets pulling away from the bulkhead (needs welding) and to stop it from shredding the teeth on the crownwheel.
So basically, it's a petrol F/I car, with no lag, no flat spots, running at the limits of the current chassis state. Remember, we're discussing engine tech here, not transmission or chassis.

The Veyron didn't NEED Quad turbos.

There are N/A Porsches with over 100bhp/litre with large powerbands.

As for the 750bhp Porsche you mentioned:


But then, such powerbands were achieved with... drum roll... turbo technology.


How do you think TDI's work? Show me a N/A Diesel Race/Sporty engine.

And there's more to broad powerbands than just "turbo technology". There are many things common to all N/A engines that need to be tuned and adjusted to best use the boost and reduce lag. This is engine tuning, not cheating.

[ACCAkut]

Enginetuning is all about getting fresh air into the combustion camber and getting all the burned air out again as fast as possible

[Jamexing]

True. It didn't absolutely NEED quad turbos to get 1001ps. But that's not my real point. My point is after exhasutive testing they discovered that a quad small turbo system was required for a nice and flat torque curve they set out to achieve. It could theoretically do it with one BIG turbo, but packaging and other issues make that a silly option. They tried twin turboes, only to end up with undersirable torque crurves.

Stangle everything that's NOT 4-cycle petrol piston engines? Great idea if you're obsessed with removing all possible alternatives. Also makes racing a technically boring experience. Slowing it down OR removing some other advantage is OK if it evens the odds a bit. To absolutely KILL IT just reaks. At this rate, no alternatie to petrol piston engines will ever show up, no matter how much undeveloped potential there is. Or would we all rather play straight into toyotas marketting hype and make do with the prius?

Ah, WTH, most rather watch a bunch of monkeys on flintstone spec vehicles trying to get each other killed...

Next thing we know the greenies will be even MORE empowered and would finally ge their wish: sliminate all motorsports. Why are people so obsessed with playing into their trap?

Another point is that getting large engines such as 7.3L V8s to rev like Honda's high rpm engines isn't as easy as getting a 2L 4-pot to rev its guts out. The shear difference in rotational inertia makes this comparison impossible.

As for the NA porsches, they've grown proggressively larger in capacity and rpm. Explains both increases in peak power and torque. Sure, their powerbands are quite good, though they're no rally engines. They had the benefit of variable cam timing and lift that's been upgraded and refined over time too. Not to mention decades of tuning and technological experience.

And when did I say turbo tuning is cheating? Of course, it all goes down to getting air and fuel burned as efficiently and effectively as possible. So are the 2 any different in this sense? No. Of course I'm aware of all the mechanical monkey motion they employ with valve timing, lift, etc. And of course, the less the restriction on the airflow paths, the better.

Why turbos? To force more air into the same space, that's why! If airflow rate is thought of as current in an electric circuit, resistance as the engine's inherent airflow restrictions and voltage as the pressure differences, turboes simply get more "current" in via ramping up the voltage. It's a simple but VERY effective method to achieve great power. Well, 4G63s have been reliably generating beautiful power and torque curves WAY before any NA tricks like valve monkey motion, etc were employed. I'm just saying that turbos allow the generation of excellent powerbands relatively more easily, with nothing more than a quick spooling turbo(s) and excellent boost control.

BTW, that polo sounds very non-stock. More like an overtuned monster. Never heard of stock vehicles needing detuning to portect drivelines. I wonder if you removed the cats too. Lag? Of course not. The blower's DIRECTLY connected to the driveshaft! How can there be any lag? Silly comparison vs. turbos. And I'll be more concerned about its durability if I were ou, unless you've gone all the way with internals too. Nothing insideous, just genuine concern for the poor thing. Just that in my experience, I've seen too many such projects end in disaster. :( Thank god you're smart enough to at least try preserve the car by retarding ignition. I'll be happy if you don't and if I happen to be your clutch supplier too. :D

In case you're wondering why there are no performance NA diesels, the reason is quite simple, really. They are already seriously overbuilt, and the extra turbo inducted air is great for everything form boosting power to keeping internals clean, pure synergy. it's simply the simplest way to boost airflow ASAP. Also, no one's ever tried to apply NA only tuning to diesels, so honestly, no one really has an answer to that. All we can be sure of is with today's fuel injection tech, it'll be be MUCH better than the old days.

Just in case you're all wondering, exhaust tuning works great on diesels too. The increase in power and torque from a change of 1.5inch diameter to 2.25 inch exhaust diamtere liberated as much as 10-15% out of both parameters.

So, do you all REALLY believe that the current boosts in turbodiesel power is all because of increasing turbo boost? Thats where its all wrong. TDI, common-rail, idrect injection, all work on the principle of injecting finely atomized fuel at high pressures. Fuel atomization is the key to efficient burn and getting better energy efficiency and less overall pollution.

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

....

Judas Preist, for the love of God......

... :rolleyes:

I know a lot of friendly pillows full of a lot less fluff!

[JamesK]

lol, this is just so funny ... Jamexing is good at sticking his fingers in his ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you!" :D

I don't think he's managed to read and understand any post in opposition to his own so far. Good try though, Eeekie ;)

[EeekiE]

As for the NA porsches, they've grown proggressively larger in capacity and rpm. Explains both increases in peak power and torque. Sure, their powerbands are quite good, though they're no rally engines. They had the benefit of variable cam timing and lift that's been upgraded and refined over time too. Not to mention decades of tuning and technological experience.


Mate you're arguing with your own inner monolouge by the looks of it.

What are you trying to say with the above, and the Veyron examples? That to prove Petrols are no better than Diesels, they shouldn't tune them as much? Or not try so hard? The fact Petrols are better is because they get tuned?

The best way to get alot of power from an N/A engine after everything has been optimised is to increase the RPM it does, thus increasing the amount of work it does in the same amount of time. This practice doesn't work as well with N/A Diesels, which is why the only Diesel engines worth talking about are TDI. The only logical reason you'd want to make a sporty N/A Diesel engine instead of a sporty N/A Diesel engine, is if you wanted to make a sporty N/A Diesel engine. As it just doesn't make sense. Which then brings us F/I Diesel vs F/I petrol.

All you're doing is telling me why Diesels aren't quite as good as Petrols, while arguing the case of Diesels; it doesn't make sense.



BTW, that polo sounds very non-stock. More like an overtuned monster. Never heard of stock vehicles needing detuning to portect drivelines. I wonder if you removed the cats too. Lag? Of course not. The blower's DIRECTLY connected to the driveshaft! How can there be any lag? Silly comparison vs. turbos. And I'll be more concerned about its durability if I were ou, unless you've gone all the way with internals too. Nothing insideous, just genuine concern for the poor thing. Just that in my experience, I've seen too many such projects end in disaster. :( Thank god you're smart enough to at least try preserve the car by retarding ignition. I'll be happy if you don't and if I happen to be your clutch supplier too. :D


I never said it was stock. Please bear in mind the Polo is the grannies version of the VW Golf, it is in no way a sports car.

The reason I mentioned supercharging was because you said a Petrol engine can never have a broad torque curve like a Diesel because of turbo lag (unless you actually tune them properly and use multiple turbos??! but ignore this point for now as it complicates things).
My point was, turbocharging isn't the only option to get a broad powerband on a F/I Petrol engine.

Superchargers aren't bolted to the driveshaft.

Again, I wasn't comparing them versus Turbos. I was comparing them versus Diesels with regards torque band. Stop creating your own arguments.

So long as correct A/F ratio is maintained the internals will be fine. The tuning shop that performed the work has yet to blow up a bottom end from excessive power, and they have engines far more strained than mine.

I have no problems with my clutch. It's a cerametallic paddle clutch, or is that cheating because I found a tuning solution to a tuning problem?

So just once again for completeness:

The whole point of bringing Supercharging into the thread, was to show you that a Petrol engine can have a wide usefull powerband, without having to have a massive Turbo that will lag. (Even though you can have multiple turbos and not the same problem with lag... if you tune your car correctly....?!??? :tilt:)

Add just to round it up, I have no problems with there being a Diesel car put into LFS. But for on the limit seat of your pants racing, I acknowledge that a PROPERLY TUNED Petrol engine that's well suited to it's chassis, along with a decent gearbox always wins.

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Not that it's worth saying anything in this thread, but you one can have a wide useful powerband in a petrol / turbo engine even without lagless supercharging. Almost any modern turbo engine is a good example. 250lb ft from 2000 to 4500RPM is pretty decent, with a power peak at 5800.

[Jamexing]

Not that it's worth saying anything in this thread, but you one can have a wide useful powerband in a petrol / turbo engine even without lagless supercharging. Almost any modern turbo engine is a good example. 250lb ft from 2000 to 4500RPM is pretty decent, with a power peak at 5800.

Good point. I still remember the 70s when any kind of decent turbo response and powerband was nothing but a dream. With advancements such as reduced bearing friction, reduced inertia via superstrong and lightweight materials such as titanium, twin scroll turbos, variable geometry vanes, EBC, etc, so much has changed. My message has always been about letting all potentially good technologies develop properly so we can really know how good/bad they are, not just suppress all alternatives to petrol 4 cycles. :)

Supercharging is a great way to get more power if you want to maintain the characteristic of an engine that already has a broad powerband and don't really need to seriously work on thge top end. This is true for all positive displacement superchargers, but centrifugal types work the same way as turbos too, so that's a different story. But end of the day, if you want as big a peak high rpm power number as possible, a BIG turbo is still the answer. of course you could do a supercharger/turbo dual system, but that just gets horribly complicated. What really limits supercharges is the same reason for their instant response: their direct belt connection to the crankshaft. This adds quite a bit of parasitic drag and there's a limit to how much rpm the belts could take before the get in trouble. More complicated mechanical monkey motion does mean more mechanical parts to worry about. You could control boost pressure with pressure release valves as well like turbos, though you'll still need horribly complicated gearing/clutcihng mechanisms if you really want to control the supercharger speeds properly. With turbos, just vent the right amount of pressure and overspeeding problems are cured. Simple yet very effective, with better mechanical reliability simply because of its simplicity.

BTW, the latest mini cooper s has just changed from supercharging to turbocharging to get better fuel economy while getting more power.

An interesting thing about the 2 fuel types is the parameters that define them. In terms of safety, diesel always win hands down due to lowered likelihood to spontanoulsy ignite in atmospheric conditions. Their quality is defined as cetane (of course there's stuff like unwanted algea, particulate matter, sulphur, etc but lets not dwell on those details for now :)), basically how quickly it ignites in high compression conditions of diesel engines. If it wasn't for the current surge in diesel passenger car use, the fuel type would have been really neglected. Did we have diesel fuel like the 55 cetane BP Diesel Ultimate on the mass market we have these days just 15 years ago? Guess not.

The point is, the real reason why iesel engines still can't rev effectively to as high an rpm yet as petrols has a LOT to do with fuel quality. The real limit is the ability for diesel fuel to ignite ASAP and burn as quickly as possible. With increasing cetane, the diesel can't rev argument really starts to go down the drain. Again, it only goes to show my point that diesels aren't inferior to petrols imply because of their fundamental design. Another case of severely unfair disparities in development. 100 cetane diesel... :D POWERRR!!!!

With petrol, it's about octane. Basically the inability to spontanously ignite. Basically you want the fuel to survive as high a compression ratio as possible before donating on its own. So in this way, the desirable properties are very much opposite. With the ban on leaded perol, a simple shotcut to ridiculously high ocatne (100+MON!) was eliminated, but then they went on to develop new ways to achieve higher octane. All the modern high performance petrol wonders would simply be impossible if the octane of current petrol wasn't so high. Ever tried running the RB26T with 89 MON fuel? A CRIPPLING experience, eh?

Just some interesting things to think about. :)

[Jamexing]

Guy's here's an interesting read:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:MQDCKUnY-pUJ:www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19960901_gen-187.pdf+Biodiesel+cetane&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

Just download the pdf file to read it properly. :)

Note that distilled and oxidized methyl esters have a cetane number practically identical to BP Diesel Ultimate... :scratchch

Also note that Rapeseed Ethyl ester had been measured to as high as as 64.9 cetane on one test paper too. None of them are worse than petrodiesel if cetane is of the essence.

Of course there's a large variance simply because the production of biodiesel is still a relatively underdeveloped, thanks to neglect forced upon by you know whom. the current production methods for biodiesel still favour small scale producers such as farmers. Malaysia has a severe overproduction of palm oil, which coincodentally is great for making quality biodiesel with significantly better cetane than any petrodiesel. Power to developing nations is definitely no good for plans of world domination...

Wonder what happens if the normal diesel cetane reaches 60 (basically when you can't get anything worse than that from the pumps) AND diesel engines get optimized for such high cetane fuel...

Lots of untapped potential. Maybe the poor Dr. was right all along? :scratchch

[EeekiE]

There's no need for them to produce and sell Diesel at the pumps of that quality. Just as there are petrol fuels that far exceed anything you can buy at the pump.

Supercharging vs Turbocharging is a different thread alltogether and it all boils down to personal taste. For road use, I much prefer drivability over chasing numbers.

I think some people need to learn to love something, but not keep trying to prove how superior it is. My car for instance, handles like a pig on ice, goes like shit off a shovel, and stops like Lisa Riley falling down some stairs but I blummin' love it, and wouldn't want to swap it for say a 205 GTI which I acknowledge would be a faster car.

[Jamexing]

There's no need for them to produce and sell Diesel at the pumps of that quality. Just as there are petrol fuels that far exceed anything you can buy at the pump.

Supercharging vs Turbocharging is a different thread alltogether and it all boils down to personal taste. For road use, I much prefer drivability over chasing numbers.

I think some people need to learn to love something, but not keep trying to prove how superior it is. My car for instance, handles like a pig on ice, goes like shit off a shovel, and stops like Lisa Riley falling down some stairs but I blummin' love it, and wouldn't want to swap it for say a 205 GTI which I acknowledge would be a faster car.

Well, I never said that your car is absolutely crap, so? :shrug: And yes, I fully respect your love for your car, believe it or not. I have no personal vendettas against anyone here too. It is also refreshing to see someone who knows the to value their cars and get the most of it too.

Well, diesel fuel quality has improved over the years. ULSD (Ultra low sulphur diesel) is getting more widespread, and BP is already giving a special higher than usual cetane version of diesel. The "magic" additive? High quality biodiesel. :D

I'm quite aware that quite a few people already run 108 Octane fuel for their daily drivers. For petrolheads who tune the shit out of their engines. Would any of those high performance engines work as well as designed without at least PULP (PREMIUM Unleaded Petrol)? Of course not. Just that I've not seen anyone tune diesel engines for high cetane use yet. The results would be interesting to say the least. Fact is, I'm as some of you already know am quite familiar with the 4D56. I can guarantee that they CAN rev all the way to 6000rpm without internal damage. The only problem is that normal 40-45 cetane diesel they're designed to run on simply doesn't burn quickly and efficiently enough to make good power at say 5000rpm. Would be fun to have some 55-60 cetane fuel to experiment with and of course a good 4D56 as a testbed. As for problems such as high EGTs (exhaust gas temperatures), a freer flowing exhaust and improved cooling would fix that. BTW, they already come with heavy duty oil coolers in OEM form too, since they were originally from trucks meant to be worked LONG and HARD. Potential powerbands of say 2000-5800rpm is no joke.

In case you're all wondering:

Bore: 91.1mm
Stroke: 95mm

So in terms of mean piston speed, it's still well under control at 6000rpm.

Well, the usual cetane in europe these days is now 51 cetane, so it's way better than it was.

Look forward to running a fair race between the 2 of us someday, EeekiE! :)

[EeekiE]

Probably unlikely in all honesty as I only tend to play it on a LAN with my friends, or on my own server against a few guys from up the road.

108 Octane isn't really that exotic for petrol, I'm talking about other blends, and some of the Fuels Ferrari used to use in F1 that even had water suspended in the fuel.
And in the world of spark-ignition engines, there are alternatives even to Petrol that can be used to good effect in motorsport.

[Jamexing]

Probably unlikely in all honesty as I only tend to play it on a LAN with my friends, or on my own server against a few guys from up the road.

108 Octane isn't really that exotic for petrol, I'm talking about other blends, and some of the Fuels Ferrari used to use in F1 that even had water suspended in the fuel.
And in the world of spark-ignition engines, there are alternatives even to Petrol that can be used to good effect in motorsport.

Like Niromethane? :D

Methanol power? BIG spark advance + BIG compression = MORE POWER!!! :D

[mitza4rally]

Sorry, but this is the stupidest idea I`v ever heard, THIS IS RACING wats the point of racing if U can`t hear the engine scriming at 8.000 rpm and then U hit the rev limiter dive 4 the next gear and........... ppl pls stop this Diesel racing idea, is rubbish.

Pls don`t ban me 4 this.

[ButterTyres]

cmon have you looked at diesel racing? Le Mans & BTCC & WTC... ok so you cant hear the engine screaming, it hardly ruins it. Makes it different, but doesnt ruin it.

[branney]

i am all for reviving the diesel idea! especially now we have air intake restrictions and weight bias, you can just about make any petrol car in LFS, and check out how different mods would affect it! i have never had a diesel car and i want to see how it would differ

[SidiousX]

diesel car? no . Diesel Audi R10TDI or Peugeot 908?(or any lemans prototype) hell yeah!

[DAG00BER]

i just couldent see it hapening on lfs :shrug:

[deutscher]

I think kind of BMW 123d (204 bhp; 400 nm (the same as the 306 horsepower petrol engine in 135i)) would do very well in Lfs.
Would be interesting to drive against petrol engines.
And, Audi won LeMans with TDi in 2006, 2007, 2008, and Peugeot with Hdi 2nd, so......

[mribrahimali]

:)

really with the diesel engine, it would then have people asking for hill climb tracks to test them out, but diesels would be fun

[Aid]

diesel idea is GREAT i love it
btw..
how dare u to claim diesels sound rubbish?!:) mercedes 123 and 124 300D sounds AMAZING

and 1 more thing... who is going to invent technology that let us virtual races smell the striking fragrance of racing fuel and oil, i need to smell that fumes that makes me go 10% faster

[spenceris]

Diesel idea is wicked!!

To Aid : burn some oil or petrol in your house that will make it realistic :D

[scania]

cmon have you looked at diesel racing? Le Mans & BTCC & WTC... ok so you cant hear the engine screaming, it hardly ruins it. Makes it different, but doesnt ruin it.
engine screaming is sound, sound is energy, more engine screaming=lost more power
I just want to have a car which can send all the power to its wheel, not the other place and waste it

[tristancliffe]

It's not quite like that Scania. F1 engines are loud, but they make a lot of power. Jet engines are loud, but make a lot of power. 1.2l Vauxhall engines are quiet, and couldn't pull the scab off a schoolboy's knee.

Remember that the sound energy is only a tiny proportion of the total energy in the system, most of which is in the form of heat. Barely 25% of the energy comes out as torque/power.

Having said that, the chavs* with big exhausts that reduce the output of their car do increase the amount of noise at the expense of power. All show and no go. One reason why they deserve to be laughed at.

*anyone who fits 'sports' exhausts to a road car.

[scania]

It's not quite like that Scania. F1 engines are loud, but they make a lot of power. Jet engines are loud, but make a lot of power. 1.2l Vauxhall engines are quiet, and couldn't pull the scab off a schoolboy's knee.

Remember that the sound energy is only a tiny proportion of the total energy in the system, most of which is in the form of heat. Barely 25% of the energy comes out as torque/power.

Having said that, the chavs* with big exhausts that reduce the output of their car do increase the amount of noise at the expense of power. All show and no go. One reason why they deserve to be laughed at.

*anyone who fits 'sports' exhausts to a road car.
Because they make more power

25% of 1000ps & 100% of 100ps, which is higher?

I'm talking about efficiency

If we can make 500ps wheel power from 50% of 1000ps energy of fuel, why do we should make it from 5% of 10000ps?

[Zen321]

25% of 1000ps & 100% of 100ps, which is higher?
?

25% of 1000ps = 250ps
100% of 100ps = 100ps

So for now, the standard engine still is 2.5 time more interesting :p

[wheel4hummer]

Having said that, the chavs* with big exhausts that reduce the output of their car do increase the amount of noise at the expense of power. All show and no go.

That's not entirely true. Some exhausts do increase power. Look at this dyno chart (engine dyno, apparently): http://www.spswebpage.com/Dynamometer-Tests/Baseline-vs.-cat-back-exhaust-with-4-chamber-muffler.html

But, that isn't really big exhaust, because that's with a 2in exhaust pipe according to that page, and a chambered muffler. Not the chavy straight-through ones. Although, that's only a 4.5HP increase. It's only chavy if it's a ricer fart can, or if they install performance modifications that only give 5HP on a car with 300lbs of subwoofers and amplifiers. :tilt:

[tristancliffe]

Do 10 more dyno runs and you'll get 10 different figures, probably varying by +-5hp anyway. Sure, some exhausts can improve output (thought they mainly concentrate on the manifold rather than the rear silencer), but they are exceptions in the 'tuning' world.

[scania]

25% of 1000ps = 250ps
100% of 100ps = 100ps

So for now, the standard engine still is 2.5 time more interesting :p
but
If we can make 100ps from 100% of 100ps, why should we make it from 25% of 400ps?

[wheel4hummer]

but
If we can make 100ps from 100% of 100ps, why should we make it from 25% of 400ps?
25% of 400ps is exactly the same as 100% of 100ps. I don't see what this argument is about. I mean, 2.5% of 4000ps is 100ps, but so what? Yay, we all can perform basic math. Yay.

[gohfeld23]

25% of 400ps is exactly the same as 100% of 100ps. I don't see what this argument is about. I mean, 2.5% of 4000ps is 100ps, but so what? Yay, we all can perform basic math. Yay.

The argument is about efficiency. How one achieves said power, how many killojoule from gasoline are efficiency used and what's wasted on heat, sound energy and friction, etc.

A Veyron is a very good example of how shitty and inefficient todays engines are. And that's a "good" engine.

Full power, it uses more then 6.4 liters of fuel per minute (1.7 US Gallon).
One liter of petrol yields 34000000 joules of energy when burnt.
Do your math and convert that to kilowatts and you realize how much energy is used to make a "puny" 1000+ hp in a car.

A coal-fired power station is hundredfold more efficient in terms of energy consumption vs energy output in terms of kW and they are certainly not considered to be the leaders is efficient energy conversion (though it's gotten a lot better in the last 12-15 years)

But that's a bit off topic now :P

[wheel4hummer]

The argument is about efficiency. How one achieves said power, how many killojoule from gasoline are efficiency used and what's wasted on heat, sound energy and friction, etc.

OH! You guys mean the amount of theoretical horsepower contained in a given amount of fuel, then? It makes sense now.

[scania]

25% of 400ps is exactly the same as 100% of 100ps. I don't see what this argument is about. I mean, 2.5% of 4000ps is 100ps, but so what? Yay, we all can perform basic math. Yay.
It is a very big different! it means you need 4 times fuel to finish the same race(or more, because you need extraX2 fuel to blance the extra weigh of the extra fuel)

[tristancliffe]

But it's still not that simple though. Silencing the car, or making the engine quieter almost certainly means more power is wasted as heat and friction (heat) than the noisy engine (where it is lost as sound, obviously).

The efficiency of an engine is roughly around 30% based on calorific value. But even if you burnt gasoline in perfect conditions I doubt you'd get more than 40% efficiency. Burning stuff just isn't efficient. Coal/Oil power stations aren't that much more efficient in reality, though of course they don't have to worry about the mass of the power station being moveable, and can make things strong enough to work at higher pressures.

[scania]

But it's still not that simple though. Silencing the car, or making the engine quieter almost certainly means more power is wasted as heat and friction (heat) than the noisy engine (where it is lost as sound, obviously).

The efficiency of an engine is roughly around 30% based on calorific value. But even if you burnt gasoline in perfect conditions I doubt you'd get more than 40% efficiency. Burning stuff just isn't efficient. Coal/Oil power stations aren't that much more efficient in reality, though of course they don't have to worry about the mass of the power station being moveable, and can make things strong enough to work at higher pressures.
But diesel can be 45%

however, all of Internal combustion engine will be out, air car & electrics car is the future of car. heavy vehicle with long-distance will use a high efficiency External combustion engine or Internal stream engine with electrics hybrid or hydraulic hybrid

[Zen321]

But diesel can be 45%

however, all of Internal combustion engine will be out, air car & electrics car is the future of car. heavy vehicle with long-distance will use a high efficiency External combustion engine or Internal stream engine with electrics hybrid or hydraulic hybrid

About the transfer from calorifical energy. Yes, burning a liters of fuel produces a lot of energy through the form of heat. However, it is not the heat that powers (well indirectly it does) the cars. It is the expansion of thoses gases, which then is transformed into longitudinal force (pistons), which is then changed into rotational force (crankshaft). To the heat is not really used here (even if the heat is the cause of the expansion of gases in the cylinder).

Maybe to improve efficieny should we add a water tank around the exhaust catalyst, so that the heat will make the water boil. This would be, of course, coupled to a steam engine located in the back of the car, which would be linked to the transmission, so that we have extra efficiency ? :p

[scania]

About the transfer from calorifical energy. Yes, burning a liters of fuel produces a lot of energy through the form of heat. However, it is not the heat that powers (well indirectly it does) the cars. It is the expansion of thoses gases, which then is transformed into longitudinal force (pistons), which is then changed into rotational force (crankshaft). To the heat is not really used here (even if the heat is the cause of the expansion of gases in the cylinder).

Maybe to improve efficieny should we add a water tank around the exhaust catalyst, so that the heat will make the water boil. This would be, of course, coupled to a steam engine located in the back of the car, which would be linked to the transmission, so that we have extra efficiency ? :p
someone was do this---the six stroke engine & the Internal combustion steam engine in japan

[Zen321]

someone was do this---the six stroke engine & the Internal combustion steam engine in japan

Damn, I thought I would have been the next invetor of the century :(
Concerning the six-stroke engine, the Beare Head one (there are a lot of six stroke engines) seems to be very interesting. Too bad we can't find more information on the web :(

However, I truly beleive that the next step in motor evolution is the Quasiturbine.

[Alistair]

Sorry, but this is the stupidest idea I`v ever heard, THIS IS RACING wats the point of racing if U can`t hear the engine scriming at 8.000 rpm and then U hit the rev limiter dive 4 the next gear and........... ppl pls stop this Diesel racing idea, is rubbish.

Pls don`t ban me 4 this.
it's not stupid look at these 2 cars
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/peugeot_908hdifap_valencia_2007.jpg
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/audi_r10_lemans_2007.jpg
they fight for the le mans win and they are both diesel and the seat touring cars in the wtcc and btcc wich are winning races regularly are TDI
also the diesel cars are a lot quiker out of the corners. the power you get from a good diesel engine is relentless and theres allways the fule econamey. personally i think we should have a diesel lmp1 car in lfs
and when it comes to noise the lmps are very close to being silent but the volvo 5 cylinder turbo diesel makes a wounderfull noise

[Bluebird B B]

it's not stupid look at these 2 cars
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/peugeot_908hdifap_valencia_2007.jpg
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/audi_r10_lemans_2007.jpg
they fight for the le mans win and they are both diesel and the seat touring cars in the wtcc and btcc wich are winning races regularly are TDI
also the diesel cars are a lot quiker out of the corners. the power you get from a good diesel engine is relentless and theres allways the fule econamey. personally i think we should have a diesel lmp1 car in lfs
and when it comes to noise the lmps are very close to being silent but the volvo 5 cylinder turbo diesel makes a wounderfull noise

Diesels cars are only competitive, because they are allowed to have much higher turbo pressures. The famous torgue of a diesel, is just because diesels always are fitted with an turbo and petrol engines usually not. Get a standaard 2000cc petrol engine with a good (not high pressure) turbo and it will blow away any 2 liter diesel engine. Espacially in torgue in low-rev range! Al the way up to where an diesel engine would blow-up. And don' t get confused by that the diesel might have at some rev a high peak in torgue, that says nothing.

If you compare high performance turbocharged 2 liter petrol engines to high performance 2 liter diesels, the diesel can only match the torgue but will have only about 55% of the HP output of the petrol engine. So overal, the petrol is in other class of performance. Ofcourse, this will also be true for fuel usage :D

So what is the use for lfs to have a diesel in it? I think none! I think it is just a question/wish to have more turbocharged cars in lfs.

The volvo 5 cylinders(with ford-added downgrades), nice engines (diesel and petrol) but outdated :(

[wheel4hummer]

Diesels cars are only competitive, because they are allowed to have much higher turbo pressures. The famous torgue of a diesel, is just because diesels always are fitted with an turbo and petrol engines usually not.

No it isn't. The reason diesel engines have more torque at lower RPMs is because they require higher compression, so the stroke is longer.

[chavm481]

^ good job.

[Furiously-Fast]

Diesel cars will be good for tracks that invole alot of corners (because of torque) and endurance races (because of fuel.) I don't think its useful for me in LFS, so -1.:shrug:

[branney]

About the transfer from calorifical energy. Yes, burning a liters of fuel produces a lot of energy through the form of heat. However, it is not the heat that powers (well indirectly it does) the cars. It is the expansion of thoses gases, which then is transformed into longitudinal force (pistons), which is then changed into rotational force (crankshaft). To the heat is not really used here (even if the heat is the cause of the expansion of gases in the cylinder).

Maybe to improve efficieny should we add a water tank around the exhaust catalyst, so that the heat will make the water boil. This would be, of course, coupled to a steam engine located in the back of the car, which would be linked to the transmission, so that we have extra efficiency ? :p

i thought of that a few years ago, then i was sitting in a waiting room 2 years ago and reading a magazine for recent BMW buyers, where they were actually talking about doing this soon! however it only becomes possible due to new materials which weigh less than the old-fashioned steam engines, otherwise the saved energy would be at the expense of increased weight to move around.

is the VW scirocco in LFS diesel? website says:
Neues Dieselkraftpaket für den Scirocco


Für den Scirocco ist ein neuer Dieselmotor erhältlich. Dabei besticht der neue Vierzylinder-Common-Rail (http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/de3/metacontent/Technik_Lexikon/common-rail-system.popup.html)-TDI (http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/de3/metacontent/Technik_Lexikon/tdi.popup.html) mit hoher Leistung 103 kW (140 PS), geringem Verbrauch und niedrigen Emissionen (Kraftstoffverbrauch: 5,1 – 5,5 l/100km, CO2-Emission: 134 -145 g/km)*, wahlweise auch mit einem 6-Gang- Doppelkupplungsgetriebe DSG. Dieses Dieseltriebwerk erreicht bereits jetzt die ab 2009 in Kraft tretende Euro 5 Abgasnorm.