A TDi to trash all petrol Golfs on earth!?!?!

[iball]

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

[Bodhi]

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.

[Pimpster]

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.

[golfvr6]

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.

[Pimpster]

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.

[S11EPS]

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.

[golfvr6]

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.

[golfvr6]

I still think the 1.8T petrol engine will still be far more tuneable the diesel lump.
Sorry S11 EPS  

[S11EPS]

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.

[golfvr6]

Nice one S11EPS!  
Is that aimed at anyone in particular that owns an mk3 8v gti?