Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison
6844 messages, Last post on Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: captain2 (Nov 18, 2008 9:38 am) Okay, okay...before we get in trouble...back to the topic at hand! 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lmandrews (Nov 13, 2008 1:29 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Nov 18, 2008 8:35 am) Don't forget Holly dual pumpers, high rise intakes, Hooker headers, dual point distributors, 4:11 rear ends, solid lifters,4 bolt mains,etc....I bought a new Z 28 in 1969...$3995 with a 5 yr/50k warranty....Gas was 0.28/gallon then...ran Sunoco 260 in that beast....as you mentioned earlier...many V-6's today can out perform and out run those old muscle machines... |
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Nov 17, 2008 12:23 pm) the better the acceleration times, not necessarily the torque." Obviously you've not driven any late model diesel powered vehicles recently. Take the E-320 CDI as an example. Maximum torque for this 3.0L motor is 400 ft-lbs from 1600-2400 rpms. Horsepower is only 210 at 3800 rpm. What this means is that almost all the time, it is within that maximum torque band. In other words, at most speeds it is almost always in the maximum torque range no matter what the speed. There is no need to down shift to accelerate faster as you must do with the 3.5L gasoline motor to gain maximum power and acceleration. The gasser has 268 horsepower, but not until 6000 rpm. Torque is much less at only 258 ft-lbs but not until 2400-5000 rpm. 0 to 60 mph for the 3.5L gasser is 6.5 seconds. The diesel 3.0L is only one tenth of a second slower at 6.6 seconds. With the diesel, there is maximum torque before you begin to move off the starting line, and if you are not careful, there is much wheel spin. I don't think the gasser will spin the tires at all. Now what happens when you are cruising at highway speeds and you want more acceleration as in wanting to pass? With the diesel, you simply tickle it slightly, and because you are already in the maximum torque range, you accelerate faster than the 3.5L gasser will do unless you floor the gasser and drop at least two or three gears. With the diesel, there is no need to floor it or downshift it at all. In fact, doing so might mean you would accelerate slower. Not only is the 3.0L diesel motor slightly smaller than the gasser (3.0L vs 3.5L) but it has an extra 142 ft-lbs torque (a 55 percent increase) and that is what makes it more powerful and at the same time, it gets a minimum of at least 25 percent better fuel economy while doing so. So much for the discussion of torque and acceleration. If the diesel were the of the same displacement as the gasser, the gasser would then be slower 0-60 compared to the diesel. Similar figures can be found while comparing the VW gas/diesel line. Also in the Dodge, Ford, Chevy/GMC pickup trucks line. Just wait until other maufactures bring their diesel powered vehicles to market. |
|
|
Replying to: donna388 (Nov 18, 2008 8:42 pm) Maybe you'd like to explain why the VW TDIs have always (and continue) to be slugs relative to their gas engined bethren? Despite more of that precious torque, could it be that the diesel does not have the ability to turn into useable HP fast enough??? But, we do agree on one thing, the diesel should make a comeback, as soon as those technologies that make things like the CDI so good (and unobtrusive) can become available in less costly vehicles - until then we'll just have to 'put up' with the VWs, I guess. |
|
|
Replying to: donna388 (Nov 18, 2008 8:42 pm) actually have, a MB ML320CDI SUV, and as I said it was quite remarkable and unobtrusive - in short, quite undiesel- like. The only thing that made it quite obviously a diesel - compression braking - when you let off the accelerator it's like you turned the car into a 100 mph headwind. Drivability has not generally been the diesels problem however because of all that low end torque as you say, acceleration, stink, and clatter - now those are things that should improve with these new generation 'clean' diesels as they become available. May continue to be a hard sell over here in the states though, too many folks remember those Oldsmobile 98s with that infamous 350 diesel.
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Nov 20, 2008 7:37 am) Audi Q7 3.0 TDi Test Drive and then you have this one as well... Audi 5.9 V-12 TDi |
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Nov 20, 2008 7:37 am) Are you saying a diesel has a lot of compression braking? Not without an exhaust brake. The air inlet on a diesel is wide open. No way to close it like a gas engine. So, very little compression braking. |
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Nov 20, 2008 7:37 am) That depends on which gasoline motor you are comparing the diesel to. If you compare the TDI with the standard gasoline 2.5L five cylinder engine, that's not necessarily so. The just available and at your VW dealers now here in Estados Unidos is the Jetta Sedan and Sport Wagen with a 2.0L TDI (Turbo diesel injected.) With 236lb/ft torque at 1750 -2500 rpm, and 140 hp at 4000 rpm, it may be a trifle slower 0 - 60 compared to the standard 5 cylinder 2.5L gasoline engine with 177lb/ft torque at 4250 rpm and 170hp at 5700 rpm. Look what you need to do with that five banger gasser to get to the maximum hp/torque rpms. This is with their standard available gas engine. FE is but 20 city and 29 highway with an automatic. The TDI is always right there on that fat torque plateau where you spend most of your time, and again, there is no need to downshift to get good acceleration. FE is 29 city/40 highway, but members over on Fred's will give you a big discussion as to those FE figures being far to low when compared to what actual owners are receiving mileage wise. I read there about mileages in the low 30s in the city and mid to high 40s on the highway. Some even speak of 800 mile tanks. Yes, VW does have their turbocharged 2.0L gasoline 4 cylinder with 200 hp, but it will not achieve the FE of the TDI. It must have premimum fuel. Over yonder, VW has that same short block TDI producing much greater power, but alas, they won't bring that one over here to the N A continent. Drop by your eager VW dealer and test-drive one. I think you are in for a surprise. Regarding the infamous GM 350 diesels of 1978, I bought a new '79 Cutlass Cruiser Wagon (ordered it loaded) and it was something else indeed. Had it for two years and only 17K miles, and I did not experience the problems that many people had with theirs. It was a real slug. No turbo and no lock up T/C and only a three speed TH350 trans. That motor was nothing more than a halfbred. A converted gasoline engine. One can only imagine what a 5.7 liter modern diesel engine would be like today given the advances in diesel engine design. Simply look at the Duramax, especially the newly designed 4.4L yet to come out version. A not to swift diesel either was the 4.3L six cylinder GM diesel I had in my front wheel drive '82 Buick Century. Many problems with that one. Piston slap (GM replaced two pistons under warranty) a governor retainer ring failure in West Yellowstone. It had to be towed to Billings and was repaired at no charge under the emissions warranty. Tranny lost second speed when I kicked it down to pass in the four corners area of Navajo country and I drove it clear back to California with only first and third gears and lockup. Too much torque, as that motor had the most torque of any of the engines being put in front of that tranny at that time (recall the four clyinder iron duke and the 3.0L sixes?) Funny how GM always puts their vehicles in the hands of the public to 'prove up' their product. They wonder why they are in BIG TROUBLE now! I digress, Sorry.
|
|
|
Replying to: allavalons (Aug 25, 2008 8:47 am) "Unfortunately telling people they should think differently just doesn't work, and yes, perception is reality in the market. Nameplates like BMW, and Mercedes earned those reputations...." Yeah, and now they've spent the last decade frantically un-earning them, and people have begun to notice -- which is why the dull, reliable and service-oriented Lexus brand has moved into the void so successfully. "Perception is reality"? Yes, If you're buying their stocks or handicapping their sales, yes. If you're buying their cars, no -- reality is reality. The reality of the Hyundai Genesis is big room, rear drive, full options, extreme quiet, and modern engines. There are only two parts of the physical car that fall notably short of its lux-brand competitors: the fake wood and the slanty-H logos. Which means, unless you're fanatical about timber, you're not objecting to the owner's experience driving the car -- you're objecting to the reaction of spectators. As for me, I hope they all hate it so I can drive in comfort and luxury for thousands off. Screw 'em. "As I said, a large V-8 is where everyone has been, but is not where everyone is going, and those folks looking for that big V-8 are the very folks that are comfortable with the Lexus, BMW, Infinity, etc." Even accepting your premise of handicapping the popularity of the cars, this comment misses the point. When Lexus and Infiniti models like the GS and the M offer a choice between V6 and V8 power, very few buyers actually buy the 8. It's there as a halo choice, for image. You'll notice that the excellent Acura RL died like a dog, in large part because it didn't have that halo to mesmerize people who'd end up getting the V6 anyway. Hyundai fully expects, and so do I, that most Genesis buyers will choose their excellent V6. In short, in all regards EXCEPT image, the V8 simply isn't very important, and even Hyundai has always known it.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Buick Lucerne
2010 Chevrolet Impala
2011 Dodge Charger
2010 Ford Taurus
2010 Hyundai Azera
2010 Toyota Avalon
2010 Nissan Maxima
2009 Pontiac G8
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
