# How many would like a diesel?



## MIDRVR (Mar 17, 2008)

*Audi Turbo Diesel*



BlueC said:


> For those that don't like the sound of diesels, go to a Le Mans race and listen to Audi's prototype. Out of all of the cars racing, it was by far my favorite car to listen to. Sounded like a jet.
> 
> I would love to have a diesel, specifically a turbo diesel.


I've seen the Audi LeMans car several times and had a chance to look it over briefly with the cowl off. The filter for the exhaust is what would make this engine 50 state legal. It is a great engine and it really runs! I think anyone would be pretty satisfied with a street legal version of this diesel.


----------



## ukboi (Mar 1, 2008)

last time I drove a diesel it was a 90 Vauxhall (GM) Astra estate and it was a nasty piece of work, slow, noisy but it stood up to miles of abuse. By all accounts diesel technology has improved and they are more efficient, cleaner and powerful than their predeccesors. I would consider another diesel but the the price of diesel has to come down before I go derv again.


----------



## jwac (Dec 2, 2006)

bsell said:


> The local tire guy's dad can't hardly keep rear tires on his 530 TDS due to the huge amount of torque down low. Aren't they almost as quick as the M5 to boot?


Not even close. Diesels do have mountains of torque but they conversely have less hp/L. Torque is the rate at which hp is applied, so diesels can apply hp "faster", but there's less hp there to begin with.

For example, the upcoming 335d has loads of torque - 425 lb-ft at 1750 rpm, but only 265 bhp. So despite having way more torque than a 335i, it can only do 0-62 in about 6.2 secs, compared to the 335i doing it in 4.8-5.2 secs. Plus, the diesel's redline is much lower (boo), the engine will never sound like a BMW inline-6 (boo), and it will rev tractor-slow by comparison (boo). Fuel economy is expected to be 23/33, compared to 17/26 for the 335i. The 335d is basically a 328i but crappier, more expensive, and Steptronic-only.

Yuck. Send it back. :thumbdwn:


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

jwac said:


> Not even close. Diesels do have mountains of torque but they conversely have less hp/L. Torque is the rate at which hp is applied, so diesels can apply hp "faster", but there's less hp there to begin with.
> 
> For example, the upcoming 335d has loads of torque - 425 lb-ft at 1750 rpm, but only 265 bhp. So despite having way more torque than a 335i, it can only do 0-62 in about 6.2 secs, compared to the 335i doing it in 4.8-5.2 secs. Plus, the diesel's redline is much lower (boo), the engine will never sound like a BMW inline-6 (boo), and it will rev tractor-slow by comparison (boo). *Fuel economy is expected to be 23/33, compared to 17/26 for the 335i. * The 335d is basically a 328i but crappier, more expensive, and Steptronic-only.
> 
> Yuck. Send it back. :thumbdwn:


Diesel is currently 20% more than regular gas. Therefore the MPG is the same for non diesel when you factor in fuel costs.

However, since the demand for diesel is expected to increase globally, mostly because of Chinese power plants, I see diesel being about 30-40% more than regular gas in the future. So I think we are too late bringing diesels here. Yeah it has torque and you can tow a boat, but 99% of the consumers won't care.


----------



## Saintor (Dec 14, 2002)

> Torque is the rate at which hp is applied, so diesels can apply hp "faster", but there's less hp there to begin with.


Your definition of torque couldn't be wronger, but it is correct that HP is what matters when accelerating, at any speed. This is made possible by torque and/or gearing. I don't want to see that formula that kids love to play with again.


----------



## craigr (Dec 17, 2006)

AK said:


> I think this column over at Car and Driver sums up the situation pretty good:
> 
> http://www.caranddriver.com/feature..._when_the_world_is_running_short_of_it_column


But congress is putting the squeeze on car manufacturers for better fleet mpg. If BMW were to throw in a couple diesel options in the mix it just might be the cheapest way for BMW to meet the new laws without having to go hybrid. Which I think is a passing fad. BMW doesn't care if it might cost their owners more to drive their diesels as long as BMW mets the new MPG requirements.

craig


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

craigr said:


> But congress is putting the squeeze on car manufacturers for better fleet mpg. If BMW were to throw in a couple diesel options in the mix it just might be the cheapest way for BMW to meet the new laws without having to go hybrid. Which I think is a passing fad. BMW doesn't care if it might cost their owners more to drive their diesels as long as BMW mets the new MPG requirements.
> 
> craig


Ah, this does and does not make sense.

If BMW builds diesels to help with their average, they must sell them to consumers for them to count. If consumers do not buy them because of the cost of diesel, then the plan won't work.

Using diesels to improve CAFE averages across the corporate line only works if folks actually buy them. I don't see American's who buy $40-$80k cars caring much about diesels.

Hybrids and diesels belong in Corollas and Rabbits. Cars designed to be cheap to buy and operate.


----------



## jwac (Dec 2, 2006)

Saintor said:


> Your definition of torque couldn't be wronger, but it is correct that HP is what matters when accelerating, at any speed.


Fine. Torque is the moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.


----------



## craigr (Dec 17, 2006)

sdbrandon said:


> Ah, this does and does not make sense.
> 
> If BMW builds diesels to help with their average, they must sell them to consumers for them to count. If consumers do not buy them because of the cost of diesel, then the plan won't work.
> 
> ...


I agree with your does and doesn't statement. Yet in the world of percentages maybe being able to sell 150 diesels might just get BMW into the proper MPG range. Of course you might have to stop selling the M5s. But wait a minute maybe turn the V10 into a twin turbo diesel. Now that would be interesting. Sorry got carried away.

craig


----------



## StarrDlux (May 18, 2008)

what makes you think diesels get better mpg when you are making 265bhp versus the petrol at the same 265bhp 3.0?

i agree they make better mpg at steady cruise and idle but i seriously doubt if i drove that diesel the mpg would suck butt.

Same with a prius i'd probably get 20mpg because it would be at WOT 100% of the time.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

StarrDlux said:


> what makes you think diesels get better mpg when you are making 265bhp versus the petrol at the same 265bhp 3.0?


Diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline. That's one of the reasons you get better mileage with it.


----------



## galahad05 (Aug 11, 2007)

I just paid $66 for a fillup this past Friday. Huge jump.

That 335d is starting to sound better and better to me. Talk about almost having your cake and eating it too...


----------



## galahad05 (Aug 11, 2007)

AK said:


> Diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline. That's one of the reasons you get better mileage with it.


Plus, they run much much much higher compression ratios (typically around 30 to 1), thus are more adiabatically efficient. Translation: more like an ideal heat engine, which is what an internal combustion engine is, approximately.


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

AK said:


> Diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline. That's one of the reasons you get better mileage with it.


Between the engine technology to remove sulfur and the diesel processing, I suspect it takes more energy to make 1 gallon of diesel and burn it efficiently.

10 years ago diesel contained more energy and it was burned with no emission standards. Now the amount of energy to produce and burn it takes away any gains of the past.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

sdbrandon said:


> Between the engine technology to remove sulfur and the diesel processing, I suspect it takes more energy to make 1 gallon of diesel and burn it efficiently.
> 
> 10 years ago diesel contained more energy and it was burned with no emission standards. Now the amount of energy to produce and burn it takes away any gains of the past.


So does it actually cost the refinery a measurable amount of energy to extract the sulphur? There's obviously some cost considering how much more expensive Diesel has become over the past couple years. Time to start planting fields of soybeans and start harvesting some Biodiesel


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

AK said:


> So does it actually cost the refinery a measurable amount of energy to extract the sulphur? There's obviously some cost considering how much more expensive Diesel has become over the past couple years. *Time to start planting fields of soybeans and start harvesting some Biodiesel*


I am not sure that will work. If you use beans, corn, etc. Farms grow less food for human consumption thereby raising the food costs. So in the end we may pay less for fuel but more for food.

If the government mkes sure that there is ample farming for food and keep farming for bio fuel separate, it might work then.


----------



## spockcat (Oct 25, 2007)

Emission said:


> I'd like to see a diesel X5. I drive the V10 diesel Touareg, and it rocked. :thumbup:


I've owned a Touareg V10 for almost 4 years now. It was really nice when the fuel was equivalent in price to regular gas during the summer months or equivalent in price to premium gas during the winter months. But that doesn't seem to be happening now.

The engine itself is great. Really powerful. You can feel the difference over the V8 gas motor in the same car.

However, for economy, I think that only people who drive lots of miles per year (think 25k to 50k) are going to make out owning a diesel. This is because they are doing a lot of highway miles where diesel really shines. For people who drive less and do a lot of city type driving (stop and go), you are better off with a hybrid.


----------



## roadkillrob (Aug 11, 2006)

galahad05 said:


> I just paid $66 for a fillup this past Friday. Huge jump.
> 
> That 335d is starting to sound better and better to me. Talk about almost having your cake and eating it too...


A 335d won't save you a dime - it will carry a premium (probably 2k or more) and at the price of diesel over gas, it pretty much washes out the milage gain.

I have also heard that our refining process is different than in Europe and not geared towards deisel production (and it would take a decade to change it) and since we currently utilize almost all diesel fuel refined, if diesel cars take off in the US, the price of deisel will sky rocket! I think I will stick to gas for now!


----------



## Johnny Lee (Feb 5, 2008)

I'm actually waiting for the diesel x5 that is coming this fall so count me in:thumbup:


----------



## BMW318i_E36 (Mar 18, 2006)

I would, infact if its coming out for real, i'll go place a order, love diesels !


----------



## ///M-Furby (Mar 2, 2009)

If I would have thought about it, when buying my car, I would have bought diesal. I think better fuel economy = win.


----------



## swartzentruber (Sep 29, 2008)

I think it's almost certain we'll see some smaller diesels from BMW over here eventually, otherwise I doubt they'll be able to make the necessary MPG improvements over the next few years. The 335d, while an awesome diesel, is also basically a performance diesel, and ain't getting it done in the MPG dept. A few smaller diesels in the 1 or 3 could offset a lot of 5/7/M sales.

I owned a diesel vw jetta wagon for a bit over a year, and really liked the engine (and this was a 90hp model mind you), but it was not a good fit for my short commute. I had a lot of fun in an A3 tdi rental in Germany a month ago, though, and was frankly shocked at how little we spent on fuel (particularly after putting close to 3k on the odometer). I'd definitely consider a diesel if I started a longer commute.


----------



## enc0re (Nov 26, 2006)

I _really_ want my next 3er to be a 4-cylinder diesel (323d ?). If it were available, I'd put down a deposit _today_, assuming I could get ED Invoice + $1K and reasonable lease/finance subsidies.

I'm jonesing so bad, I'm even tempted by the 335d. But that car has _way_ more motor (and fuel consumption) then I'm looking for. Don't get me wrong, power is great. However, with the silly highway speed limits in this country (70 mph, WTF?), what's the point? 200HP is more than enough for US roads.


----------



## vadim (Nov 6, 2007)

I would buy one if it were available with a stick.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

enc0re said:


> I _really_ want my next 3er to be a 4-cylinder diesel (323d ?).....


for some reason, they have not yet put this engine in a 3er.

i'm really hoping they bring the smaller diesels over, too.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

d geek said:


> for some reason, they have not yet put this engine in a 3er.
> 
> i'm really hoping they bring the smaller diesels over, too.


Amen. A a 4 cylinder diesel or heck even the 330d would get my attention. I have a 335i - it's a decent car - but I'd much rather a lighter, more fuel efficient diesel BMW next time.


----------



## jkp1187 (Jul 2, 2008)

They seriously need to bring the 4-cyl turbodiesel from the 123d/323d over to the USA. 200 HP/296TQ? 40 MPG? It would work wonderfully in the 3er station wagon, or perhaps that X1 they keep talking about. 

If the 123d coupe had been available in the USA, it would've been a tough choice between that and the 135i for me.


----------

