GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: mk3tdi on 29 January 2004, 12:31
-
OK
I am both a Veedub and TDi fan, but there is a project in the making that should silence the critics forever...
One of the reasons I am now driving a tuned Golf TDi is that a deal feel through :( to buy the first diesel-engined sports car ever, the "Weasel"...( ??? err.. like Westfield and Diesel, get it ;))
This was a sensation when it hit the road back in 1992: a bright red wide-bodied Westfield fitted with a 1.8 litre Ford turbo-diesel engine, tuned to 125bhp and 180lb ft of torque using the expertise of Richard Wilson. Plus a handy turbocharger and intercooler from a Sierra Cosworth ;D All in a car lighter than an original mini, with a centre of gravity lower than an Oompa-Loompa... yeehaa!
Whilst 0-60 in 6 seconds and 60mpg was quite respectable, especially in 1992, it was the Ferrari Testarossa beating 30-70 time that nailed this oil-burners true colours to the mast.
So the deal fell through, but I did end up in contact with a guy building himself the next generation of Turbo Weasel, John. I blame him solely for my affiliation to the Mk3 Golf TDi. He has run his since new as an everyday car and trailer-puller. Racked up over 220k miles so far without a problem - no surprise for a well-maintained Veedub.
Except he is pushing out 190bhp from an original 90bhp engine, (albeit detuned to 150bhp for road use) yes this car does a lot of trackwork too. And he expects it to last a lot longer, which is why I am copying him :)
But I digress, the interesting thing is what this guy is doing with a 130bhp PD TDi engine...
I believe he has it up to 220bhp, with enough torque to tow an oil tanker, and it will push another 50bhp with propane injection!
But he is not going to drop this into a heavy Golf. Like Diesel engines, Westfields have come a long way. So it will end up in a lightweight modern Westfield, setup to handle all that power. I would estimate around 470kg weight, so with 270bhp you do the maths!
If you have ever heard of the venerable fire-breathing Westfields fitted with 4.0 Rover V8 engines, they trounced everything in a straight line but with a heavy engine were understandably a hairy experience round the corners. Actually, you could drive them everyday without changing gear. 3rd was enough to pull off quick and break 100mph! Well, this TDi-powered Turbo Weasel will have much more power, tons more torque, and still be lighter and better balanced!
Added benefits: 60/70 MPG plus, rather than 20mpg from a V8 Westie (or dare I say it hard-driven VR6? :P) particularly useful when you have a small tank or do track days. Seriously, don't know about you lot but in a crash I would rather have diesel than petrol leaking around me.
So, I think that is gonna be one car to hail up for the Veedub crowd when it's up and running. One for Westfield too, except many owners are vehemently anti-Diesel, the luddites! ;D
Any thoughts guys? ;)
Ollie
-
still makes the wrong noise ;D
-
Sorry but Westfield are rubbish.
Their last single was pants and they're all poofs.
-
yes agreed... that "CLATTER CLATTER CHUG CHUG" noise puts me off.. ive had a diesel... and NEVER AGAIN will I have one, until they irradicate that noise
-
hmmm.... was that a pun on Westfield the group or did you mean something else by their last single? ???
Westfield cars are synonymous with affordable supercar performance and the best of crazy British sports cars in the spirit of St. Colin Chapman. We rule the world in this arena! They will also thrash anything I have seen on these pages, and that's as a big VeeDubs fan.
As for the noise, if you decide to hate something you will! :) Every great car has it's foibles, that's why people put up with constant faults and ?3k clutch services to drive a Ferrari. God knows Westfields and Sevens have practical limitations. Bear in mind that you only hear "clatter" at tickover. Tuned TDis rev higher than normal too.
Finally, if you are referring to crappy old diesels then ok, did you own a modern common-rail TDi? The modern PD variants in the Mk4 Golf are from a different planet to other diesel engines...
Of course, if noise was everything I'd swap the Golf for a Triumph TR6! :P Also I learned to drive on the 2.0 16v, neither that or the 8v is a terribly impressive noise as performance petrol engines go :o I much preferred the old 5cylinders I've driven :P
(VR6 owners you can sit more smugly through this discussion!)
By the way, have you ever heard a tuned FORD (yes Ford!) Crossflow or Zetec engine, on carbs, in a Seven or Westfield? Or a twin bike-engined car? Sat inches from the ground, exhaust at your elbow, racing smells - low flying they call it!
I suspect you would then think your Golfs sound pretty lame in comparison!
It's all a matter of taste ;D
And driving...enjoy!
-
Even the modern common rail diesel engines sound like Massey Ferguson's. I've driven my father's 320d, yes it's torquey, but the stupidly narrow power band and the fact that a BMW really should rev past 4500 revs marred the experience somewhat. The engine sounds O.K (for a diesel), but the clatter at start up and when cold ruin the image somewhat, anyone who's heard a 6 cylinder 3 series fire up will know what they're missing.
Diesel engines are useful for commercial and people who view driving simply as a method of getting from A to B. I'm sorry, but the rest of us are quite happy with petrol thankyouvery much.
-
Diesel engines are useful for commercial and people who view driving simply as a method of getting from A to B. I'm sorry, but the rest of us are quite happy with petrol thankyouvery much.
Sorry mate, but I have to disagree. I have a PD 150 and i don't fall in to either of the catagories that you suggest.
Whilst my diesel may clatter on start up once you get it rolling in second it looses a lot of its diesel soundtrack. I do 35-40k miles a year, so believe me, if it sounded shi!t, it would be gone by now.
Besdies, the 8v engine in your golf isn't exactly a stunning aural masterpiece in itself either - just a bog basic 4 cylinder noise. The only people that can criticise the diesel noise without being hypocrites are V5 and VR6 owners, as they have the only decent sounding Golfs as standard.
Speaking for myself, I think the sound of my turbo whsitling more than compensates for the noisy idle.
Frankly, I can't see how you have the nerve to criticise the PD engines when they would humiliate your 8v, narrow power band or not - unless you are heavily modified, you would not see which way I went!!!! ;D
-
Does that mean i can say diesels are crap? :-*
-
It certainly means that you can say your VR6 sounds a hell of a lot better - I'm the first to admit that a V6 sounds awesome, especially when being thrashed to within an inch of its life, yes!
Still doesn't mean diesels are crap though! ;D
-
When did VW produce the first PD?
-
There was a diesel with 110bhp available at launch of the Mk 4 (May 98), not sure if it was a PD engine or not.
The 115bhp PD was introduced in October 1999
The 130bhp PD was introduced in June 2001
The 150bhp PD was introduced in December 2001
-
I'm sure all the diesel engines weren't that powerful before the pd was introduced.
Part of the reason the PD is such a powerful engine for a diesel is the extremely high pressure injection. This drastically improves the combustability of the diesel.
-
You're right, they weren't that powerful before the PD engine.
-
want there a 100 bhp diesel?
-
The 100bhp is a newer PD variant. The 110bhp was a variant of the 90bhp engine.
As noted in my previous postings, both of these are seriously over-engineered and detuned, coupled with the simple fact that forced induction engines are cheaper to tune...
If I had unlimited funds and drove short distances half of me would prefer a VR6. But half the appeal of the Diesel for me IS it's Q-Car appeal and the two fingers up at people who think their petrol cars MUST be quicker.
It's the same reason a bog-standard de-badged M5 is so much cooler than a tarted up body-kitted, chipped 320i. Wolf in sheep's clothing rather than Ewe in a miniskirt and high heels...
I must confess I would be too embarassed to drive around in a GTi or 16v with any bodykit or visual mods, UNLESS it was a seriously sorted car with a huge power hike. Ever heard of "All the gear and no idea"?
The common-rail TDi is an engineers dream in efficiency. My car, I hope, is as far from what the Max Power (some prefer Max W**ker) brigade drive as possible.
;D
-
Diesel engines are useful for commercial and people who view driving simply as a method of getting from A to B. I'm sorry, but the rest of us are quite happy with petrol thankyouvery much.
Sorry mate, but I have to disagree. I have a PD 150 and i don't fall in to either of the catagories that you suggest.
Whilst my diesel may clatter on start up once you get it rolling in second it looses a lot of its diesel soundtrack. I do 35-40k miles a year, so believe me, if it sounded shi!t, it would be gone by now.
Besdies, the 8v engine in your golf isn't exactly a stunning aural masterpiece in itself either - just a bog basic 4 cylinder noise. The only people that can criticise the diesel noise without being hypocrites are V5 and VR6 owners, as they have the only decent sounding Golfs as standard.
Speaking for myself, I think the sound of my turbo whsitling more than compensates for the noisy idle.
Frankly, I can't see how you have the nerve to criticise the PD engines when they would humiliate your 8v, narrow power band or not - unless you are heavily modified, you would not see which way I went!!!! ;D
Quite easily. In my opinion the VW PD engines, whilst yes very powerful (for a diesel), still sound clattery when they drive past, and you can spot them from the petrol variants a mile off. Refinement wise they are still some way off BMW's diesel engines. The only reason you don't hear it is all that sound insulation that makes the standard Mk4 chassis a boggy mess.
I'd take a humdrum 4 cylinder note (although I do enjoy the 8v's throaty engine note when pushed) over the chugging of a diesel any day - the only way I'd drive one is if my company forced me to.
-
Refinement wise they are still some way off BMW's diesel engines.
So what? The four cylinder VW engine is some way off BMW four cylinder engine refinement wise. Why are you making comarisons with other manufacturers cars?
We have already established that the diesel is noisier than its four cylinder counterpart but its blatantly not as noisy as you suggest. If it were, how was the diesel Mk4 able to outsell its petrol counterparts? Would VW be expecting 60% of its mk5 sales to be diesel if they were as noisy as you suggest?
I personally think that you're trying to justify your cars dismal performance by attacking a clearly superior car on its one achillies heel - the noise.
You'll have to let me know your number plate so that I can smile and wave as I 'clatter past' - Then you can stuff it down as many gears as you like, liven up your humdrum 4 cylinder note to its 'throaty roar' and try desperately to keep up, which you won't, because your car is a wimp.
One thing you haven't mentioned - which surprises me - is the amount of black crap us diesel boys chuck out the back. This does surprise me because you will ALWAYS be stuck behind a PD engined car, choking on said crap, until you buy something with an engine that will manage to pull the skin off a rice pudding.
-
Well said ;D
The PD engines are ground breaking diesels and are very fast.
What is the obsession with BMW?
What performance do the BMW diesels produce?
I don't think they do a 1.9 litre that produces 150bhp, but i'm sure you will put me right if i am wrong.
I would rather have a PD 150 over a 8v any day.
:D
-
BMW's most basic diesel produces 150bhp out of 2.0 litres, easily pushed up over 200bhp if tuning is your thing. Refinement wise it is leagues ahead of the "ground breaking" PD diesel engines (even their ole 2.5 litre turbodiesel units that got phased out in 97 were smoother than the PD's.). The fascination with BMW? Apart from them being a country mile ahead of anything else coming out of Germany (911's possibly excepted depending on whether you like them or loathe them I suppose), they make pretty much the best powerplants on sale today. I merely compared the PD engine to BMW's efforts as you seemed to be of the opinion they were the peak of diesel innovation, which clearly, they aren't.
I didn't only single out the PD for its clattery note. If you'll notice, I referenced it dodgy handling (because at the end of the day, the PD is still a Mk4, and inherits the wallowy vague handling of its siblings - GTi models included) and limited rev range (it's still a diesel). The 150 may leave the 8v for dust (though hardly by as much as you are suggesting - not until third gear do they start pulling away, however their lead normally lasts til the next corner), but thats what I have my 16v brethren for. In the mean time, very few 130s or 115's get away, and I am rarely stuck in the black fog behind a silver TDi (do they make any other colours?) as you suggest (I'm normally past them and off).
Why do diesel Golfs outsell petrol golfs? Have you seen the current petrol engine lineup? An anemic 1.4 and 1.6 and then nothing til the GTi models. And we all know how horrendous the Mk4 petrol GTi's are. That and the increasing number of fleets going diesel only purely on cost concerns add many to the diesel sales tally.
Anyway, I'm going to go out and rev my engine to 5000rpm just for the hell of it. Because I can, you see, and also so I can marvel at the 2000rpm I STILL HAVE LEFT. Man, life must suck when it finishes at 4500 :/
-
The BMW 2.0L diesel is producing the same performance as 1.9L VW unit. Its all down to personal preference.
Both engines could be tuned to 200bhp, i wouldn't recommend it though as long term reliability or even short term is likely to suffer.
BODHI,
Some people like BMWs , some don't. I personally don't think they are as good as Audi. We will have to agree to disagree.
SHALL WE LEAVE IT AT THAT?
-
Can I just say that latest breed of BMW 6 cylinder diesel engines and Mercedes 5 & 6 cylinder diesel engines actually produce a nice noise, not up to the standard of a petrol V6 or straight 6 but still aurally pleasing. I think they're pretty powerful too.
Just out of interest a MK3 16v v Mk4 PD 150, I think I'm right in saying they both have 150 bhp presumably the torque of the diesel would mean that it will be quicker in a straight line than the 16v?
Thanks
-
PD 150 does 0-60 in 8.6, the 16v does it in 8 dead, so no, the PD won't be faster.
Anyway as an interesting post-script to this I took my GTi into my local VW dealership to have a new timing belt and spark plugs fitted, and the courtesy car they gave me was a Bora Sport 1.9 TDi PD 130. It was bloody rapid between 2000 and 3500rpm in just about any gear, however after that I ran out of good things to say about it (apart from the 6 speed gearbox and the central armrest in the front - I enjoyed those). The handling, whilst initially very grippy, kinda ran out of ideas he harder you pushed it, the engine note was horrible (sounded "ok" inside, open the window - hey you're in the fastest taxi ever), the lack of anything above 4000rpm grated after time, and the turbo whistle, which I was looking forward to was drowned out by the diesel rattle. In conclusion, I could probably cope with one if my company said I had to go derv, but otherwise it has confirmed to me that if you have the choice it's petrol all the way. Seeing 190mpg on the economy computer was a nice novelty, but I soon got that down to a far more petrol like figure :)
I was bloody happy to get the GTi back tho. What grated even more than the diesel engine in the Bora was the horrible mushy break pedal, the complete lack of feel from the other pedals, and over-light, uncommunicative steering. Slight hint Volkswagen. Brake pedals which apparently lack any recoil pushing against your foot suck. They suck ballz.
-
I dunno Bodhi - i have to disagree. 0-60 is a pretty pointless speed test, and if we're talking over which is faster overall i'd go 150TDI over the MK3 16v every time.
A friend of mine was given a 150bhp TDI for 2 months whilst awaiting his ordered company car - a Mk4 1.8T- 150bhp. He said the diesel annihilated the petrol golf in speed terms and was so much quicker everywhere.
I had a 306xsi that would keep pace with a Mk3 16v no problems, but when i tried to keep up with another guy i knows 150bhp TDI i would get absolutely creamed.
Torque is definitely the everyday figure the tells you how a car drives.
-
Not strictly true. I would go for the BHP figure, as to have high BHP you will have high torque at high rpm.
High torque at low rpm won't make you go fast, high torque at high rpm will make you go fast.
-
duuno about that mate, a Honda S2000 has something like 156 Ib/Ft of torque. Not a lot when you consider it has 240bhp. Its fast, but you better be right with the gearchanges.
With a torquey diesel you're going to be quicker in the real world in 99% of conditions.
-
Pimpster has it bang on (I know I'm bound to say that, I've got a PD150)
The 0-60 time is a useless indicator to everyday performance. Once I leave for work in the morning, I don't stop for an hour and fifteen minutes before I arrive at work. So what relevance does the 0-60 time bear on my journey? Answer, none at all.
What indicates real-world performance is your ability to overtake in-gear, in which the PD cannot be beaten by any standard golf unless its running a VR6 lump, because of its torque.
Bodhi, whether you like having to change gear at 4k rpm or not doesn't make it a slow car, its still fast. OK, so you don't find it as pleasurable as hanging onto the revs and bouncing off the limiter at 7000 rpm, but that's subjective, not objective. Objective is which is faster, which is the PD
Additionally, whilst the 8.6 second 0-60 time is what VW publish for the PD, pick up any mag that has done an independant test and you'll see 8 seconds dead for the PD and some have managed high 7's.
As for the 0-60 time you quoted for the 16 valve, where did that come from? As we learnt form an earlier post, the VW claimed 0-60 for a Mk3 16v is 8.7 not 8.0 seconds. Thats in the handbook. This makes it slower than the PD150 across that benchmark. I also doubt whether a Mk3 16v (of which the youngest is now getting on for 6 years old) is still capable of re-producing the times it was capable of when new. They may loosen up as they get older, but that doesn't automatically equate to quicker.
Frankly, I'd put money on which was faster over any performance benchmark, and if you turn up to a meet with a strip, then I'll show you by just how much.
Alternatively, if you want to come on a track day, I'll be happy to demonstrate just how 'poor' the brakes are and how the 'soggy' handling affect a lap. Just bring your Bi-noc-ulars mate, you'll need them to see which way I go.
Speaking just for myself, I think you are one of the many blinkered people that can't stand to be driving a car that can be beaten by a lowly diesel. But please, don't feel bad, there's lots of you out there. Join a self-help group and together you can discover that the Mk3 16v isn't at the top of the pile anymore. Not saying the PD is, but it is faster.
-
Yep , i go along with that. However as we discussed before, what makes a car fast is high torque at high rpm.
The pd engines do produce good torque at relatively high rpm for a diesel, this why the bhp is quite good for a diesel.
In short, the reason the pd engines are more powerful than older diesels is of course the turbo and the extremely high pressure injection, which drastically improves the combustability of the diesel.
Petrol is obviously more combustable than diesel so this why petrol engines have always been a lot more powerful than diesel engines in the past.
The bridge between petrol and diesel engines is certainly closing.
-
I still think the 1.8T petrol engine will still be far more tuneable the diesel lump.
Sorry S11 EPS ::)
-
I totally agree, you can go much further tuning a petrol car than you can a diesel, I've never disputed that.
My bone of contention with petrol Vs diesel is everyone assuming diesle cars are sh!t, without having put any proper miles on one.
I have driven a lot of fast cars (I mean proper fast)in my 11 years of driving, and I consider myself enthusiastic about cars and driving. So, would I really drive this car if it was bad? No, I wouldn't.
I openly admit they are noisy (compared to the petrol cars) and chuck a load of gunk out of the exhaust and that petrol cars are more tuneable, but for real world driving (ie, overtaking someone at 80 miles an hour when they move out of the way, without the need for stuffing down loads of gears, or overtaking a lorry without the fear of putting pistons through the bonnet because I'm bouncing off the limiter) it is exceptionally good at what it does.
Most people attack diesels on their known weak points (noise and exhaust emmissions) because its the one straw they have to grasp to. Its a way of people trying to justify driving a slower car, and to me its laughable.
-
Nice one S11EPS! :D
Is that aimed at anyone in particular that owns an mk3 8v gti? :D
-
;D
Not me, would never aim those sorts of comments at anyone in particuclar, that would break JV's 'keep the peace' request.
It was a general comment posted to anyone who'll listen to my rantings ;)
But if a certain owner of a certain Golf wants wants to take note, that would be good ;D
-
What ya on about, a mk3 8v will piss all over your pd 150 :D
-
having opened the can of worms i'd like a word on durability
someone said that tuning will drastically affect the durability of the TDIs, not necessarily...
i'll see how my car goes, but the aforementioned Golf John drives runs 150bhp on the road and 190bhp in extensive track use, from an original stock 90bhp engine on a Mk3 which had done over 210k miles a year ago
so I think maintenance and sympathetic modifications are the major factors in durability, not final power output per se
however, the law of diminishing returns applies, the more you mod them the more you spend to counter the knock-on effects, and gains are finite... i think 150bhp is about optimum for the old 90bhp engine
glad to see the debate raging on... and GolfVR6 is far more open-minded than i thought! ;D
-
Thanx
I do think the new diesel engines are impressive performance wise. However , how much more can you get out of an already very high compression engine?
This will always be the limiting factor on a diesel, it is the high pressure injection systems in use that have made these engines as powerful as they are.
-
I've never had the opportunity to drive a PD Golf of any shape or form unfortunately, but I figured it would be quicker in gear than the 16v, though Evo quote the 16v 0-60 time as 7.9, but that's beside the point. I'm a growing diesel fan, the latest engines are very impressive, my dad has always been a petrol head and for about the last 25 years has not had a car with less than 6 cylinders mainly because of the noise and performance, but even he has been swayed and just put an order in for a Merc E-class 320CDI!
If I was in the market for a Mk4 golf I have to admit I wouldn't even bother considering the petrol engine versions (unless it was an R32) as the diesels just make more sense from every angle, never mind, due to circumstances I'll just make do with my 16v, though I must admit I do love it to bits, and that's coming from a tuned Astra Coupe Turbo that I had before, the torque on it was amazing 4th gear at 30 mph and it would out accelerate most other cars you see on the road everyday and 4th would take you on to 130+ if I remember correctly. The beauty of the engine was that the peak torque came in at 1900rpm and stayed all the way to 6500 ish I think. In the real world torque matters more than bhp I think.
What is it they say, bhp is pub talk, torque wins races or something like that.
-
The figure that most performance parts manufacturers quote is brake horsepower (BHP) increase. This is probably the most widely used term for describing how well (or not) that an engine is performing. While the BHP figure is a good basis to determine how well an engine is performing, it is not the best to indicate how strong the engine is. BHP indicates the rate at which an engine will produce power, i.e. the more BHP the quicker you can move through the rev range while on the road. The other (and ultimately more important) figure to know is the torque output. Torque is a measure of energy transmitted at an angle perpendicular to a point of origin, or turning force generated at the crank.
So, what is the difference? Well, the more torquey an engine, the easier it will be to tow heavy loads, overtake at motorway speeds and drive uphill, etc.. The more BHP, the quicker you will be able to accelerate or change speed. One of the lesser know facts amongst the automotive world is the difference between petrol and diesel engine cars. What you will normally find with petrol cars is that the power (BHP) and torque (lb/ft) figures follow each other quite closely. For example, an Mk2 GTI 8V Golf has a stock power output of 112BHP and torque of about 120lb/ft. Diesel engines however, follow a different trend. The process of burning diesel produces more energy than petrol, but has been deemed somewhat less desireable because of higher emission levels (until recently) and higher noise levels. Diesel cars can usually produce torque figures that are around double their power figures. For example, the new Passat 2.0 TDI produces 130BHP and over 200lb/ft torque. What you tend to find is that a petrol engine will have more power than a diesel engine of similar displacement and aspiration, but the torque delivery is totally the other way round. This is why the Mk4 TDI kit car caused so much of a stir in the WRC, where its 300lb/ft engine was a cause for concern amongst its predominantly petrol based competition. Uphill, there was no stopping it.
Diesel technology has progressed over the last couple of years, meaning emissions are now at an all time low and in some cases lower than some petrol engines. But they are still quite noisy. Manufacturers seem to be stuffing their diesel cars full of sound proofing, which only reduces the power to weight ratio of their cars. Modern cars are getting heavier, not lighter, but a lot of this is due to ever changing laws meaning more and more safety features. Safety is a big seller of cars. Fortunately, car manufacturers are making their engines more powerful to cope with the extra loads, and this seems to be an even bigger seller!
So, when the time comes for you to buy a new car (you won?t be selling the GTI though, right?) would you consider a diesel? Just think of the bags of torque at your disposal. Improved fuel economy. ARE YOU MAD? IT?S A DIESEL! Get back in your GTI and go for a long drive.
Read my thread above
-
Yep torque is what you feel, but torque at low rpm won't make you go fast, at high rpm it will.
High rpm and high torque = high bhp.
So i would go on that figure.
-
Power to the Diesel 8)
Who loves paying an outrageous 70%++ tax on fuel ?
No spark plugs, distributors, timing issues ...
As for that Torque ;)
All Torque and no Traction ?
-
No timing issues? how about pump timing?
diesel engines are unlikely to outperform petrol engines because diesel simply isn't as combustable as petrol.
Sorry lads ::)
-
Pimpster has it bang on (I know I'm bound to say that, I've got a PD150)
The 0-60 time is a useless indicator to everyday performance. Once I leave for work in the morning, I don't stop for an hour and fifteen minutes before I arrive at work. So what relevance does the 0-60 time bear on my journey? Answer, none at all.
What indicates real-world performance is your ability to overtake in-gear, in which the PD cannot be beaten by any standard golf unless its running a VR6 lump, because of its torque.
Bodhi, whether you like having to change gear at 4k rpm or not doesn't make it a slow car, its still fast. OK, so you don't find it as pleasurable as hanging onto the revs and bouncing off the limiter at 7000 rpm, but that's subjective, not objective. Objective is which is faster, which is the PD
Additionally, whilst the 8.6 second 0-60 time is what VW publish for the PD, pick up any mag that has done an independant test and you'll see 8 seconds dead for the PD and some have managed high 7's.
As for the 0-60 time you quoted for the 16 valve, where did that come from? As we learnt form an earlier post, the VW claimed 0-60 for a Mk3 16v is 8.7 not 8.0 seconds. Thats in the handbook. This makes it slower than the PD150 across that benchmark. I also doubt whether a Mk3 16v (of which the youngest is now getting on for 6 years old) is still capable of re-producing the times it was capable of when new. They may loosen up as they get older, but that doesn't automatically equate to quicker.
Frankly, I'd put money on which was faster over any performance benchmark, and if you turn up to a meet with a strip, then I'll show you by just how much.
Alternatively, if you want to come on a track day, I'll be happy to demonstrate just how 'poor' the brakes are and how the 'soggy' handling affect a lap. Just bring your Bi-noc-ulars mate, you'll need them to see which way I go.
Speaking just for myself, I think you are one of the many blinkered people that can't stand to be driving a car that can be beaten by a lowly diesel. But please, don't feel bad, there's lots of you out there. Join a self-help group and together you can discover that the Mk3 16v isn't at the top of the pile anymore. Not saying the PD is, but it is faster.
I don't feel in-gear acceleration times are a good reflection of a car's performance taken on their own tbh, they only indicate short bursts of acceleration, and give very little idea of how the performance is sustained, unless you look at every gear between every speed. 0-60 covers a much larger speed interval, hence gives you a better idea of the spread of the performance (as do 0-100, 0-125 and for proper quick cars, 0-180). Now I will admit the diesel will give much better in gear acceleration than the 16v, yet by the time the 16v gets to 60 it's ahead (Evo quoted 7.9 for the 16v and 8.7 for the PD150). I'm willing to bet that's because the 16v has a wider rev range to work with, hence requiring less gearchanges. Whilst a diesel does really rip between 1500 and 3000rpm, its doesn't rip for very long, at which point is becomes asthmatic and weezy. But then of course you can always slot another gear. But why should you have to? A powerful petrol engine will whip round nearly is quickly (I'm using a 325i/328i as a benchmark here - I'm sure something such as a Clio 172 or an R32 will be similar) and then keep on going, sustaining the performnace for longer without a break for a new gear.
Anyway vr6 has hit the nail on the head, diesel engines will never be more powerful than petrol - it's a simple fact. I also doubt we'll ever see a diesel Lambo or Ferrari (we may see a diesel Porsche - after all, they built a bloody SUV), or a diesel Formula 1 car (I doubt Williams Massey Ferguson would have much success).
S11EPS, I fail to se how you can try and take the high ground, as you essentially tried to turn the debate round into a "My car is better than your car" debate, which is not only extremely childish, but also not even close to my original intentions. They aren't even in remotely the same class tbh, being an ever so slight price difference between a PD150 and a Mk3 8v. Strange then, that I consciously chose to buy an 8v, yet I can never ever see me doing the same with a PD150. There are far too many better and indeed faster cars availible for a similar price point (sorry to dissapoint you tho, they don't have VW or indeed BMW badges on the front). Oh and you won't need to demonstrate the poor handling and soggy brakes, I've already experienced plenty of those in the Bora. Which tragically enough is supposed to be a better drive than the Golf. Dear oh dear Volkswagen, you really stuffed up the Mk4 Golf. Luckily it looks like the Mk5 is going to undo some of the damage, the GTi in particular, is looking awesome.