As I understood it, the general consensus was that your annual mileage had to be circa 15k before it was worth considering a diesel. Chatting to my local indie, whose opinion I value, his take on it was that its not the mileage, but the type of mileage. For stop/start urban miles then forget a modern diesel, but if the journeys you make are say 25 miles, albeit only occasional, with no local stop/starts, then that is acceptable for a diesel.
Obviously, this means 'liking' driving a diesel as opposed to a high revving petrol with two very different driving styles. He had recently tried both the Audi 3.0 and BMW 335 diesels, customer cars a few years old in for servicing, and been very impressed by the low down torque.
So maybe there is something to be said about a big diesel lump, if it suits your kind of low mileage, although I think I will stick with a large petrol lump thank you very much.
|
|
I much preferred the flexibility of 8-valve petrol engines to the 16-valve engines which replaced them. As for current turbo boosted petrol engines, I can't see the point. My latest 1.6 litre turbo petrol is no more economical (despite what the official figures say) than my previous 2 litre non-turbo petrol, and I now have to change down to 5th at 40 mph and to 4th at 30 mph. No wonder it needs 6 gears. All my previous petrol cars were quite happy at 30 mph in top gear.
|
>>I much preferred the flexibility of 8-valve petrol engines to the 16-valve engines which replaced them.
You're so right. In the late 80s I had a 2 litre Cavalier and a Carlton estate (my favourite car ever). I think that engine was probably only rated at 115bhp but in the real world they were fast enough cars, the Cavalier especially (I got clocked briefly at over 120 on the deserted northern end of the M6 in that car at about 6 in the morning; the kindly policemen parked at the top of the on slip reported that they had timed me at speeds of 98-102 to give me a sporting chance with the court).
The engines were tremendously flexible. When the Omega came out later I tested a 2 litre with a 16v 2 litre and about 130bhp, wondering if I would notice the extra power. The car felt slow compared with the Carlton. Ultimately a bit faster no doubt, just no low down pull.
The flexibility was what made them nice to drive. Even my 1979 895cc 4-bhp Polo would haul itself up to speed quite happily, eventually, from 20mph in top gear.
I'm surprised your turbo petrol isn't better - the forced induction should help at lower rpm. Maybe you need a supercharger :-)
|
>> I'm surprised your turbo petrol isn't better - the forced induction should help at lower
>> rpm. Maybe you need a supercharger :-)
>>
What I need is an 8-valve engine.
|
>> What I need is an 8-valve engine.
Without climate control ;)
|
>> I much preferred the flexibility of 8-valve petrol engines to the 16-valve engines which replaced
>> them. As for current turbo boosted petrol engines, I can't see the point. My latest
>> 1.6 litre turbo petrol is no more economical (despite what the official figures say) than
>> my previous 2 litre non-turbo petrol, and I now have to change down to 5th
>> at 40 mph and to 4th at 30 mph. No wonder it needs 6 gears.
>> All my previous petrol cars were quite happy at 30 mph in top gear.
>>
I seem to recall you used to have an 8 valve 306 XSi, L'es, and suspect you are thinking about this engine which was a lovely, torquey thing.
I had the later 16-valve engined version, while a colleague had the 8-valve. I couldn't believe how much more responsive the older unit was, and how much more "guts" it had pretty much everywhere except maybe over the last 1,000 RPM which you never needed to use anyway.
Current turbo-boosted petrol engines exist for emissions / VED reasons, and because they return good figures on the official test routines.
|
I reckon that, for flexibility, the best engine I have ever experienced is the Rover "K" series 1.8 VVC.
That variable valve system provides an immense power and torque band that's perishingly close to flat. Has all the "stick it in 5th at 20mph and floor it" characteristics of a good, old-fashioned, "cooking" 8-valver of 2 litres or more.
They were right. It boosted the peak power by about the same amount as a turbo, but without the penalties of peakiness, vast flat spots and horrific fuel consumption.
Beg, steal or borrow a drive in a car with one L'es. You'll be impressed.
|
I could be wrong but from what I have found comparing my 1.5l Diesel to the 2.0dti of the wifes car is that the smaller (and newer) 1.5l diesel suffers less sooting up if driven just around town compared to the 2.0l.
So maybe there is a case for smaller diesel engines.
However both seem to run smoother if taken for a longer run on the motorway every now and then.
My mileage is around 14,000 miles a year but I am not interested about the cost effectiveness and break even mileage.
I didn't pay lots when I brought the car (brand new), so there is less to loose overall.
I am more interested in how the car drives and I like the ease of driving in traffic (low down torque).
In terms of the type of mileage racked up on the 1.5l , my commute is 36 miles a day to work and back with traffic only at the beginning of my journey.
The 2.0dti has had lots of long drives to Edinburgh and back, maybe that's why it prefers a good blast down the motorway every now and then.
|
I think the annual mileage thing is a canard. What matters in cost terms is the total mileage at which the saving in fuel equals the additional purchase price - if there is one, which isn't always the case. Total cost of ownership, in other words.
Which means you could also make allowance for the higher trade-in value of the diesel, especially if it's a big car, when a petrol model might be very hard to sell on. I came up the other day behind a an LEC like mine, but badged E200. Funny, I thought, don't they start at E220? Then I saw the Kompressor badge on the other side. I wonder how many of those they sold in Europe.
|
>> I think I will stick with a large
>> petrol lump thank you very much.
I drove our project Alfa 156 for the first time last weekend, this being my first experience of a "large" petrol engine in many years.
The 320d delivers probably 90% of the performance using less than half the fuel. But I rediscovered something called throttle response. And a delivery that makes it worth holding on to revs. And I still couldn't tell you (or frankly care less) if the stereo works or not. :-)
Got out of this £300 car with a bigger smile on my face than £28k worth of 320d has ever managed to deliver. I admit, blatting something round farm roads is a bit different to living with it daily. But what a gorgeous noise.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 26 Apr 13 at 09:03
|
You can rationally choose a good turbo diesel for its engine, my 330d proved that to me.
We recently chose a VW 'twincharger' 160PS/118KW TSi because we knew it would do many many short journeys of around 1 or 2 miles which would kill the DPF of the 140PS/103Kw TDi despite our preference for diesel, I hardly drive it but SWMBO uses it for taxiing the kids and such.
The little (1.4) 160PS engine drives like a turbo-diesel with great low end torque so it's not too bad, however we have previously chosen a 2.2CTDi Civic over its VTEC petrol counterpart because of the driving characteristics (when a DPF wasn't fitted).
The trend towards economical petrol turbos makes the petrol vs diesel argument even more difficult, I still believe my 330d to have been the best car I've ever driven and that the notion of the diesel convertible to be abhorrent though.....
|
I do 10-12,000 miles a year. I mostly drive in urban conditions. I drive a diesel which gives me 700 miles from a tank of fuel. My last petrol engined car gave me 300 miles from a tank. The two cars are similar in size and weight (Laguna and Mazda 6). The two engines are both 2.0. Even considering the Mazda was an auto, and the Renault a manual, the difference is eye-opening.
The case, for me, is closed.
|
>> The case, for me, is closed.
>>
My short journey motoring pattern doesn't suit a diesel.
|
Just as well you've got all those shoes and wellies then.
};---)
|
Cost isn't the only thing to consider, I know, but this comparison tool sometimes gives interesting results.
tinyurl.com/cgtqup5 (Warning! Opens in the official Audi website).
Over 5 years, and 10k per year, the 1.8 Turbo petrol is actually cheaper than the 2.0 163PS Turbodiesel by about £700!
Insurance and road tax is projected to be a more on the petrol car, but servicing a bit cheaper.
|
Forester XT with 2.5 turbo petrol engine would have needed a fairly highly tuned 6cyl 3.0 NA Legacy lump to match 260hp (or perhaps the more modestly tuned 3.6 that is in the Outback/Tribeca where its still sold) - doubt that would manage 25-27mpg in mixed driving, and would have been an extra few kg heavier over the nose.
Would sound great though, like a Porsche 911 without the bankrupting servicing bills.
Subaru's flat-four turbo pulls like a TD but keeps running to 6500rpm without breaking sweat.
|
>> Subaru's flat-four turbo pulls like a TD but keeps running to 6500rpm without breaking sweat.
How noisy are these engines at motorway speeds Lygonos? I know that the manuals are fairly low geared.
I'm looking at a 2.0XT this weekend. I would love the 2.5 but have a few worries about some fragility around this engine.
|
>>I'm looking at a 2.0XT this weekend
Top man! - report back ASAP ;)
|
>> >>I'm looking at a 2.0XT this weekend
>>
>> Top man! - report back ASAP ;)
Only looking, mind :)
I'm in the same boat as you, reluctant to give up a reliable jalopy for something which might be worse. But I can't help it!
|
Nearly bought a Golf yesterday, but I'm okay now I've taken my medication.
:}
|
>> Nearly bought a Golf yesterday
That was a lucky escape - you might have incurred the wrath of the Gordon :)
|
Nice one though, only a 1.6, alas, but not a DSG apparently.
www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201304206371017/
|
, but not a DSG apparently.
>>
Best thing going for it then...;) 3 barge poles jobbie if it had that.
i'll be well envious if Corax picks a Scooby up.
The old petrol versus Diesel argument has changed somewhat, Diesels used to be my default choice being simple robust and durable with little to go wrong, indeed you didn't even need a battery on one if you could bump start it, if it had an electric stop you simply took the plunger out.
Too complicated for me now.
Still prefer engines with a absolute min of 500cc per cyl whatever the fuel, Toyotas 3 litre 4 pot and 4.2 6 pot turboDiesels would pull strongly down to stall revs without the slightest murmer.
|
>>Best thing going for it then...;) 3 barge poles jobbie if it had that.
Are they that bad then gb, a lot of people speak well of them (until they go wrong!)
>>i'll be well envious if Corax picks a Scooby up.
What do you reckon on this one guvnor? no turbo, but less to go wrong, I'd only use it to cart about my commode anyway.
www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201304226391595/
|
Nice looking car that Forester D, no mention of service history in the ad so i'd be checking that with a magnifier.
No i don't think the DSG is a bad box at all, nice on the move, its when they go wrong that the fun begins.
I don't like them for junctions or manouevering nor any other auto clutched box come to that my view was tainted in my old job** trying to fine control the things and failing miserably, the one in the lorry i now have at work is bad enough but that me, others like them.
**I recall helping a fellow driver trying to load an automated manual Fiat 500, the car simply didn't have the guts to pull itself up the lorry deck, the engine would only rev enough for the given clutch pressure, so it just sat there.
So my oppo drove the car just onto the back of the top deck and then jammed the brakes on and sat in, i then lifted the deck up to fully level so he could drive the car into its correct position, gawd knows how one of those contraptions would cope with your Cornish 1 in 4's.
Similar fun and games trying to get some automated manuals out of the stops when trying to unload...again someone sits in the car and a n other ratchets the car out of the stop....yes you guessed it, my lad saw someone doing this on his own, ratchetted the car out whilst standing in front of it, course as soon as it left the stops (my lad tried to stop him doing this but he'd reached the point of no return) the steep incline carried it away, he managed to dive overboard and car carried on till it stopped against another car somewhere away down he compund..:-)
You never ever get a single problem with normal TC autos during such things, infinitely controllable and will provide effortless increasing torque untill you have enough.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Fri 26 Apr 13 at 21:53
|
>> gawd knows how one of those contraptions would cope with your Cornish 1 in 4's.
That's what concerns me about automated manuals gb, I could handle it okay but the missus would have kittens if the critter played up on the hills!
The only auto manual I've ever driven was a Citroen C3 which I found quite fun in a way, but I could see swmbo would never get on with it.
The best auto gearbox IMO is the Tiptronic, I've grown to like the one in my Lancer and use it as a clutchless manual quite a lot.
|
>> That's what concerns me about automated manuals gb, I could handle it okay but the
>> missus would have kittens if the critter played up on the hills!
Funny you should say that, one of SWM's mates called to see her the other day.
Our driveway is quite steep, several women and some men who call can't cope with it, and SWM often has to get their cars off the drive for them, as with 99% of people they drive into spaces instead of reversing in, and reversing up and out can be a little daunting for the nervous.
Anyway, the friend in question has a new Avensis, SWM hadn't had the pleasure before, she managed as nothing vehicle wise will ever get the better of her, but i had an amusing blue air punctuated description from her.
I've edited the swearing out and apparently we won't be having a stop start button and we won't be having an electric parking brake...she reckons they are !!!!!, who am i to argue, she said whats wrong with inserting a key and turning it and a normal handbrake...i reckon she's a luddite and should come up to date..:-)
|
Look it over carefully, Dog. Ad says manual sunroof, but other goodies suggest it has the all-weather pack which should include an electric moon roof that opens in two stages.
Could be a simple error, a seller who doesn't quite know his car, mind. Price seems a bit high, my auto Legacy at same age and mileage was valued at 7500 et
Euro by main dealer, and like for like UK cars are usually cheaper than Irish.
Very nice engine and gearbox though, just done 200km in mine this evening and I'd readily do the same again in it...
|
>>Look it over carefully, Dog
I will, Gromit, I'll see if I can get down to Hampshire over the weekend ... unless corax beats me to it ;)
>>Price seems a bit high
All the cars I've looked at over the past few weeks have been high ... £7k + for a 6 year old car :(
I've read on Parkers that a lot of owners are saying they have to use Super-unleaded! but I should imagine that is for early models, I hope.
www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/owners-reviews/subaru/forester/estate-2002/review/5962/
|
>> What do you reckon on this one guvnor? no turbo, but less to go wrong,
>> I'd only use it to cart about my commode anyway.
>>
>> www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201304226391595/
>
I cant for the life of me see the point in selling a 2007 car that drinks fuel by the bucket load, and lashing out another 4 grand on top to buy a 2007 car that drink fuel by the bucket load, and has more miles on the clock.
Can you enlighten me there dog?
|
>>Can you enlighten me there dog?
Of course you're right there Zero, but I just fancy a change after having owned the Lancer for 2 years, I'm still pleased with the car, but I've always been like that where cars are concerned, I've wasted spent 1000's and 1000's on cars over the last 40 years and it's crazy in a way that I'm still like that, but that's me I'm afraid - some people are addicted to drink/drugs/ nick o tene/food/sex/gambling, but I'm just car crazy.
:+}
|
>> Still prefer engines with a absolute min of 500cc per cyl whatever the fuel.
Had a Shogun with a 3.2 4-pot: very agricultural engine, so much so that it spoiled the otherwise grunty powertrain.
|
>> - report back ASAP ;)
Well. I put down a deposit on the car - the advert is gone but it looks like this one.
tinyurl.com/coadtbc
One previous owner, full Subaru service history, 81000 miles. I test drove it, but one niggle I have is that I didn't get to do any high speed cruising, as it was in the middle of Southend with no access to fast roads, I'm not that knowledgeable on the area, and as usual, the car was running on fumes. Four Vredestein Quadracs with very good tread, so hopefully a diligent owner, it seems well looked after.
The engine is totally silent at low speeds, and pulls away nicely with virtually no revs needed, which is nice. Clutch heavier than my car, but didn't really notice it once I got moving. Nice punch in the back when you accelerate hard. And the driving position is great. I'm still having palpitations about giving up my faultless beast, but I guess I'll have to believe in all those happy Subaru owners. I never used to worry this much - must be age. More to follow, whether good or bad :)
|
>>Nice punch in the back when you accelerate hard
Which you wouldn't get in a Lancer unless gb had a momentary lapse of reason coming up behind you in his lorry!
We left here at 8.00am this morning and got back at 7.30pm - long ole drive there and back.
I would highly recommend the dealership to anyone in that area looking for a good used motor.
They were impressed with my Lancer, the condition/mileage and full service history and offered me £3000 for it.
Did I buy the red Sub after both of us drove it around the badlands of Havant in Hampshire + the A3(M)?
Well as I say, we've just got in and settled down to a nice dinner of 2 hot buttered crumpets each,
a cup of tea, and a bowl of fruit topped with Greek yoghurt :(
|
>> Did I buy the red Sub after both of us drove it around the badlands of Havant in Hampshire + the A3(M)?
>> Well as I say, we've just got in and settled down to a nice dinner of 2 hot buttered crumpets each, a cup of tea, and a bowl of fruit topped with Greek yoghurt :(
OOh you are awful. But I like you (wallop).
|
Well thats Corax and Dog off me Christmas Card list.
Both got Scooby's they wanted.
Bah. envious congrats i suppose mumble gripe
:-)
proper reports please in due course gents.
|
Okay, my head is beginning to clear now after all that driving, we both like the two-tone colour of your look-alike Sub in that link corax, leather interior too, unlike the cloth in (Ahem!) mine ;)
Four Vreds as well, where as mine has got 4 cheapo's by the looks of them but, they are literally days old.
I'm glad the Lancer has gorn though, the Sub is SO much better in ALL areas, I should have bought one years ago.
Although I was on the road for over 9 hours I felt less tired having got back home in the Sub than when I arrived in Havant after having driven the Lancer, the seats in the Sub are really comfortable with good lumber support, where as the seats in the Lancer are just seats.
Although mine isn't a turbo, it certainly packs a punch and it reminds me of my old Dolomite Sprint for acceleration.
On the road it feels quite planted, pot holes can knock it off course, but that goes for most SUV's I should imagine,
I couldn't believe the state of the roads 'up country', I'll never moan about the roads in Cornwall again.
This is the first boxer engined car I've owned and I'm well impressed by the torque of the things compared to the in-line engines, he knew a thing or two about engines did Karl Benz en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_engine
Very nice cars and well screwed together, I'm glad I didn't go for the CRV (don't mention the Golf!!)
when is gordon bennet going to 'join the club' I wonder :)
G'night.
|
Ere tis at 6.00am in the Cornish sunshine, not sleeping, but waiting like an obedient dog, for it's next command:
www.flickr.com/photos/43576259@N04/8690992247/
|
>>
>> www.flickr.com/photos/43576259@N04/8690992247/
>>
Have we seen that photo of the motorized karzi before?
|
|
Nice looking motor, Dog. Enjoy.
|
Thanks vić - apologies for it being a 4x4.
^_^
|
|
I'm sure you've realised over the years that I have nothing against 4 wheel drive vehicles. I quite fancy a Forester of that generation myself. A Forester is just a proper estate car with a specialised traction system. An SUV/Chels*a Tractor it is not.
|
>> A Forester is just a proper estate car with a specialised traction system. An SUV/Chels*a Tractor it is not.
That's right vić, it doesn't look like a Chelsea tractor at all at all.
These are the new (Ahem!) tyres the garage had fitted to it before I bought it :(
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1173546
|
>> I'm sure you've realised over the years that I have nothing against 4 wheel drive
>> vehicles. I quite fancy a Forester of that generation myself. A Forester is just a
>> proper estate car with a specialised traction system. An SUV/Chels*a Tractor it is not.
>>
We have our principles. And should they not suit us, we'll get some new ones :-)
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=7279&m=169189
|
Nice try.
Didn't you spot the smiley?
Looks like I've got to spell it out again for the kids at the back of the class.
4x4 is just a traction system. I have no objection to it being deployed in normal cars. Therefore, I have nothing against "4x4s". In fact, I think it's a great idea.
What I do object to though is high fronted, ladder chassis-type agriculturally/commercially derived vehicles which are sold as "lifestyle" choices being bought by people who exclusively use them to drive in urban/motorway environments, where they have anti-social side effects. A Honda CRV falls in to the category which offends my eye, a Forester does not.
It's just my opinion, it's a perfectly valid one, and I have no idea why you are constantly stalking me on the subject and trying to poke sticks in to me about it. You're entitled to swan about in whatever baby-Hummer you like, I'm entitled to grumble about it.
|
>> Nice try.
>>
>> Didn't you spot the smiley?
Yes I did. Didn't you?
You protest too much.
Stalking? Moi?
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 29 Apr 13 at 13:08
|
>> Yes I did. Didn't you?
If you were pulling my leg, you used the wrong smiley to indicate that.
>> You protest too much.
I have no idea what you mean by this, other than you must think I have some kind of suppressed, unrequited love for Toyota Landcruisers? To clarify, I don't. I was sentenced to driving my mother's Daihatsu Fourtrack on the roads for quite some time, and don't wish to repeat the experience again. This is why, in the face of being perfectly capable of buying such a vehicle, I never have.
>> Stalking? Moi?
Yes. Dragging up old posts and quoting them out of context is a reasonable example of that sort of behaviour. I'll withdraw the accusation if you are just leg pulling - it's so hard to tell on the internet without the correct deployment of smileys.
|
>>If you were pulling my leg, you used the wrong smiley to indicate that.
Oh dear God, I forget to use smileys at the best of times, but do you really mean I have to use the right one for each occasion?
What should be used for mickey taking, and when should :-) be used?
I'm sure it would be easier to not bother at all.
|
I can understand the point that Alanović is trying to make Martin,
If I call Mr Z a fat git, it's not really on is it.
But if I include a smiley, that's okay.
^_^
|
>> If I call Mr Z a fat git, it's not really on is it.
>> But if I include a smiley, that's okay.
>> ^_^
I dunno Perro. He calls people worse things than that, for less reason, with never a smiley to be seen.
Smileys are embarrassingly twee and obsequious. But I use them sometimes for fear of being misunderstood for some flourish of bad taste.
|
Tovarishch Sobaka and AC have it right. Smileys are online versions of the body language we can't see over the internet. Well, I'm sure you can use body language on some sorts of websites, but not this one, mercifully.
;-)
|
G'morning D, nice looking car that, looks the part as the squires chariot in the County Seat there.
I'm envious of you and C, the only reason we'd change the Outlander is to get an XT or similar for more oomph for SWM, Mitsi did an Outy 2 litre turbo so that another consideration though having such rare cars is a worry if something serious goes and Mitsi main dealer service dept is not exactly impressive, Outlander being broken are as rare as hens teeth.
If pot holes are knocking the Forester off course it might pay to get all 4 wheels checked for alignment might only be a fraction out, might explain the new tyres?
Mitsi Outlander 1 is very similar in suspension and drivetrain layout and one of its most endearing features (it needs some given its looks which only a mother could love) is that it simply goes where you point it whatever the road surface/camber/pot holes etc at whatever speed or road condition, the half worn tyres are worn evenly on all corners too, the lads Scooby Impreza was similarly determined to go exactly where he pointed it.
You've rediscovered the state of our roads used by commercial traffic again i see, appalling, little wonder that cars need the odd realignment...they could close the Belgian Pave and off road course at Millbrook and simply divert test cars via Ketterings urban main roads.
Glad you're happy with it though....LPG and full rustproofing if you like it enough?
|
>>Glad you're happy with it though....LPG and full rustproofing if you like it enough?
More-than happy with it thanks gb, we don't do enough miles to really warrant an LPG conversion, it used the same amount of go-go juice coming back here as the Lancer used going up, but of course, if I use that extra oomph then I'll have to pay for it at the pumps.
When I say the Sub was thrown off course by the potholes gb, we're talking BIG bu**ers, like.
As for parts, well, there are no 'proper' Mitsubishi dealers down here now, let alone Subaru,
I'm not bothered though (at the moment) I might be brown bread tomorrow anyway ;)
|
>> As for parts, well, there are no 'proper' Mitsubishi dealers down here now, let alone
>> Subaru,
>> I'm not bothered though (at the moment) I might be brown bread tomorrow anyway
Bah, you'll see most of us out i daresay.
Scoobty parts no problem at all via mail order, and i bet you these fellers know exactly where to go to get your car looked after well, might be worth joining up.
www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f75/
|
|
Thanks gb, I 'found' Subfoz.org over the weekend (hence the term Sub) they certainly love em in the states & Canada.
|
>>Scoobty parts no problem at all via mail order, and i bet you these fellers know exactly where to go to get your car looked after well, might be worth joining up.
www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f75/
I dare say you know about this one too gb, I found out my paint colour via the site ... Garnet Red Pearl Metallic :)
www.scoobypedia.co.uk/index.php/Scoobypedia/Scoobypedia
|
>>Garnet Red Pearl Metallic
Same as my old XT - has a subtle flake in the paint that looks great after wash and wax.
|
>> has a subtle flake in the paint that looks great after wash and wax.
Job for the weekend :)
|
>> This is the first boxer engined car I've owned
>>
Would that be the air-cooled one? :-P
|
>>Would that be the air-cooled one? :-P
I hope not FF, but if it does come to that I've got a 'fool' years warranty ;)
|
The engines aren't noisy (depending upon exhaust I guess) - they are the smoothest 4-pot you can get.
My XT manual ran 23mph/1000rpm - it could easily have pulled 33 and I missed a 6th gear which would likely have improved MPG.
Auto runs about 27mph/krpm.
If, by motorway speed, you mean 90+mph mine used to make a wee whistle from the top of the windscreen - common issue fixed with a dab of clear mastic where the edges of the rubber windscreen surround meet.
|
>> The engines aren't noisy (depending upon exhaust I guess) - they are the smoothest 4-pot
>> you can get.
Thanks Lygonos. Standard exhaust for me.
>> If, by motorway speed, you mean 90+mph
I'm not surprised there was a bit of wind noise :)
|
|
I have to say those big Subaru fours are very refined. I drove one in NZ and thought it was a six until I looked.
|
Baby no.2 would have been born on the M9 if it wasn't for the Forester.
110mph on the M-way at 2am felt like 65 in her CRV.
Car was only 4 weeks old so didn't want to push it ;-)
|
I find few things more unpleasant to drive than petrol engines in the 1.6-2.0 litre range. Limited power, no torque, constant gear shuffling, irritating buzz....
At least in a diesel you can rely on third gear to do everything from 18mph right the way through to 80 if needed. They sit at 1600rpm on the motorway, just on boost and an enormous slug of torque on standby if needed. The 1.6 Ibiza I had as a courtesy car needed over 4000rpm in fifth gear to achieve 80, with fuel economy measured in gallons per mile.
Pros? Very quiet. No shudder in the cabin at idle. Umm...
|
>>I find few things more unpleasant to drive than petrol engines in the 1.6-2.0 litre range
Then get a bigger one, a turbo, or an automatic.
Unless you need diesel economy of course.
|
>> I find few things more unpleasant to drive than petrol engines in the 1.6-2.0 litre
>> range. Limited power, no torque, constant gear shuffling, irritating buzz....
>>
I find that in the diesels we have at work, out of puff quickly need change gear all the time, loud rattly. Not all like that but still some rough ones. These are only a few years old so not old bangers.
|
>> I find few things more unpleasant to drive than petrol engines in the 1.6-2.0 litre
>> range. Limited power, no torque, constant gear shuffling, irritating buzz....
My 2003 2 litre petrol Focus was pleasant. It didn't accelerate as good as my current 2013 182ps turboboost 1.6 litre, but it was very flexible at low engine speeds. 130 ps maximum power, lots of torque at low speeds, no "constant gear shuffling" or "irritating buzz", and quite able to see off most diesels of a similar capacity and era.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 27 Apr 13 at 13:57
|
>> I find few things more unpleasant to drive than petrol engines in the 1.6-2.0 litre
>> range. Limited power, no torque, constant gear shuffling, irritating buzz....
>> The
>> 1.6 Ibiza I had as a courtesy car needed over 4000rpm in fifth gear to
>> achieve 80, with fuel economy measured in gallons per mile.
>>
>> Pros? Very quiet. No shudder in the cabin at idle. Umm...
>>
I too have been very disappointed by the naturally aspirated four cylinder cars I've driven in the last decade or so.
The problem is essentially that torque outputs have not increased at the same rate as kerbweights. Specific power outputs have increased as technology has evolved, and torque is probably delivered over a wider rev range, but the actual amount of torque delivered by a a bang up to date naturally aspirated 2.0 petrol engine today is not radically different to one from a 2.0 petrol engine of 25 years ago. The car it's bolted into however will weigh 200-300kg more.
As an example, an injected 2.0 Pinto engine in a 1987 Sierra made 115 PS and 174Nm of torque. The latest incarnation of the 2.0 Duratec in the Focus made a whopping 30PS more, but only 10Nm more torque. A 2012 Focus weighs between 200 and 300kg more than a 1987 Sierra. Hence there is no way the newer car will feel anything like as lively at sensible crank speeds. And that's conveniently skating over the fact that we've moved "down" a class of car.
If we didn't have such severe emissions / fuel cost pressures, I'm sure we'd all be driving big NA petrol engines which produce the torque to cope, but those engines are increasingly irrelevant in the modern world because few people can afford or justify the taxation and fuel costs involved.
Forced induction, petrol and diesel, is the most logical way forward.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 29 Apr 13 at 11:25
|
>> but the actual amount of torque delivered by a a bang up to date naturally aspirated 2.0 petrol engine today is not radically different to one from a 2.0 petrol engine of 25 years ago
+1
Usually naturally aspirated petrol engines provide torque @ 100 Nm/L of displacement.
For diesels, it is around 150 Nm/L (actual figures are usually less than these).
In USA, where fuel is still cheap, people have no problem of running massive engined cars.
It is all down to money.
|
>> If we didn't have emissions / fuel cost pressure, I'm sure we'd all be driving
>> big NA petrol engines which produce the torque to cope, but those engines are increasingly
>> irrelevant in the modern world.
Fair assessment all that, can't disagree,
Those who think outside the box can buy those lovely increasingly irrelevent cars for peanuts, stick an LPG conversion in them and enjoy them for years to come, as a bonus so long as avoiding certain makes they usually have bomp proof real TC autos that last for years and provide driving pleasure in spades.
It never ceases to amaze me that people won't 'invest' £1500 to £2000 in converting the right 6+ cylinder car, yet see it as economic sense to spend £25k+ to get a larger Diesel which costs no less to run and depreciates at a hell of a rate and is fitted with satans own gearbox to boot.
|
>> It never ceases to amaze me that people won't 'invest' £1500 to £2000 in converting
>> the right 6+ cylinder car, yet see it as economic sense to spend £25k+ to
>> get a larger Diesel which costs no less to run and depreciates at a hell
>> of a rate and is fitted with satans own gearbox to boot.
Couldn't agree more.
If I got a job that was home based, or involved a very short commute, I would very much enjoy going out into the marketplace and finding something big-engined, unloved and cheap.
|
>> stick an LPG conversion in them and enjoy them for years to come
How available is the gas, or do you need to seek it out every time you're in an unknown area?
Does it make much difference to the car when driving it? I mean in the same way that petrol & diesel are substantially different to drive.
|
>> How available is the gas, or do you need to seek it out every time
>> you're in an unknown area?
>> Does it make much difference to the car when driving it? I mean in the
>> same way that petrol & diesel are substantially different to drive.
www.filllpg.co.uk/index.php?page=lpg.php
Slow site but worth the wait, prices as up to date as users (i'm one) submit, we have no problems simply pre plan where to buy, the site i believe has a sat nav download but that way beyond me.
Put it this way, i wouldn't fit it to an underpowered car, and its not suitable for direct injection engines, but in a car that has enough power then its fine.
My old MB is a 3.2 24v, though quite a light and fairly small car, yes it loses the sparkle that it has on petrol but more than enough oomph for 99% of driving and easily dispatches overtakes when the need arises...takes about a second to switch between fuels via the dash switch so no problems in normal use.
The engine runs smoother on gas than it does petrol if that were possible, but my converter does say that good German engines are particularly good for conversion, he's very old school by the way.
I'm a convert, i've come away from Diesel after nigh on 30 years due to the increasing complications of the things and the difficulty in getting an auto gearbox not of satans doing..;)
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Mon 29 Apr 13 at 12:15
|
|
Just out of interest popped into Morrisons Wellingborough and filled the Outy up whilst there, LPG dropped from 76.9 to 69.9.
|
But what sort of range can you get from a tank, because surely pre-planning can't always be possible?
Or do the vehicles remain dual fuel so you can still stick petrol in? (I know this is probably a dumb question).
|
>> But what sort of range can you get from a tank, because surely pre-planning can't
>> always be possible?
Well, theres a 60 litre toroidal tank in the Outlander spare wheel well, general running about it needs filling @ 200 miles, which today was 44 litres @ 208 miles, so roughly 20mpg which is about right as it would only do around 23 general running on petrol unless you drive like a saint.
Not a car to run on petrol only unless you have deep pockets.
My MB has an 80 litre tank in the front half of the boot ( i don't need the large boot), invariably its getting down by 250 miles, 300 miles on a run, i've never run it out of gas so don't know exactly how much it will take, most i've ever put in is 60 litres.
MB is much better on a run and it gets driven enthusiastically, reckon its averaging about 23 mpg on gas which is about the same as petrol, as i said above a very successful conversion and i wouldn't hesitate to convert another MB, though if we decide on a W204 new shape C class i will have to make sure they haven't gone to direct injection on the Blue Efficiency range.
LPG tanks don't fill to brim, about 10% less than capacity then the filler cuts off.
>> Or do the vehicles remain dual fuel so you can still stick petrol in? (I
>> know this is probably a dumb question).
Yes, most conversions keep the original fuel tank and the car should always start on petrol and switches over to gas automatically when a pre determined temperature is reached, too cold and the evaporator would ice up.
Some people have had original petrol tanks removed and small ones fitted in order to fit larger LPG tanks, but thats unusual.
If gas runs out or other hiccup the car immediately switches to petrol, and you can freely switch between the two once up to temp.
The sensible owner lets it run on petrol now and again for a while to exercise the system and keep the injectors working well.
|
So you're getting about the same MPG as the original fuel, but with a fuel which is something like 40% of the cost?
How much does a conversion cost all in?
|
LPG should return slightly lower MPG than petrol as it has less energy per litre.
It also delivers slightly less power usually but not to the extent that a driver will readily notice, unless perhaps towing/carrying a lot of weight.
If you tend to be wafting around, not using wide-open-throttle, it should feel pretty much the same as petrol.
The reduced MPG x cheaper fuel generally works out roughly 2/3 the cost of running unleaded.
|
Its currently nearer 45% and does get to around half price quite often.
The Outy came already converted from new, thats probably why its not as efficient burning as the MB as its an 8 year old system, i did get my converter to put a flashlube system on it to help preserve the valve seats, roughly £50.
The MB cost me £1750 to convert, i could have got it done cheaper but as with many things cheapest isn't always best just as the most expensive isn't, and i wanted a sympathetic conversion in keeping with the age and standard of the car.
Flashlube not strictly necessary with MB valve seats but he put a system on for belt and braces, which i wanted anyway.
Many people put the conversion in purely finaincial terms and thats understandable for no one would do it out of choice, but you have to look at it from another perspective too.
Some people also go for the cheapest conversion possible (ebay route even!!), i preferred to have a local recommended chap do the work properly.
It does mean you can drive an unusual pleasurable fully automatic multi cylinder old school car with a real auto slush box for about the overall fuelling cost as an equivalent size Diesel, which is very unlikely to come with a nice gearbox unless you get into MB/BMW/Landcruiser equivalents.
It means in my case i can use my lovely old MB as my daily driver and drive it how it was meant to be without panicking as the fuel gauge plummets.
|
|
Talking about olde technology. I was lent a 1.7 Vauxhall thingy some 4 years ago whilst the van was in for an MOT. It may have been an Astra or a Cavalier, can't remember. It had the Isuzu lump. Although the car was a right dog the flexibility of that engine (and the economy apparently) meant that it was the only engine you ever needed. Totally brilliant.
|
I second the vote for LPG, especially on an older car.
I bought my Volvo 240 that had already been converted years ago. So in effect the coversion was virtually free. It converts a 30 mpg car into the equivalent in money terms of 45 mpg.
With a big torquey engine there is no apparent loss of performance, and it runs just as smoothly on gas as petrol. You need a big car that doesn't matter losing the storage space, and where the additional weight of the gas and tank are immaterial.
I'm not sure that it would be worth paying to do a conversion. That would effectively double the price of the car. I'd work in terms of either a short term pay-back because of a high annual mileage, or else a car you were going to keep for 10 years anyway.
The tax concession on LPG can't last forever, and I don't see more LPG outlets opening, only existing ones closing as stations are re-vamped.
|
>> I second the vote for LPG, .............
The two nearest LPG filling stations to me are 10 miles and 15 miles. Both are on routes that I rarely, if ever, use. LPG wouldn't be any good for me.
www.lpgmap.co.uk/map.php
|
www.flickr.com/photos/43576259@N04/8692236702/in/photostream/
I'd only just noticed you'd changed the car Dog. Looks very smart and workmanlike. Hope it goes well for you.
Our last Subaru was a red one this age/model... i1167.photobucket.com/albums/q631/mr-boombastic/PNY990Y.jpg
Sold quickly after we realised it hadn't the power or weight to safely tow a large Rice trailer. It was a great farm track car without a trailer on though.
|
>>Our last Subaru was a red one this age/model... i1167.photobucket.com/albums/q631/mr-boombastic/PNY990Y.jpg
Very pleased with it so far Fenlander, wifey luvs driving it too, I like the way they seem quite mundane really,
until you get inside and drive the thing ;)
|
Yes, outlet location is crucial. I pass an LPG outlet on my 40 mile trip to work, and there are two others only a few miles off the route.
Of course it depends on tank size. Mine has quite a small tank, so diversion costs have to be factored in. But with the biggest tank (65 litres), or even doubled up, diversions become more worthwhile.
But the question should be easily answered - if you could buy petrol at 80p a litre, would you drive 10 miles to fill up?
|
The old petrol v diesel argument - L'escargot
