Aside from cost, what is the advantage ?
Other than longevity, MPG, and in some countries, fuel costs, why else would you choose to drive diesel over petrol ?
I might for towing, although I'd prefer a bloody great petrol engine. But I'd choose the petrol every time.
Anybody else have a view ?
|
Longevity and mpg are the precise reasons I use a diesel, Mark. But then the car is the major capital expense in my business, and the running costs are by far my largest outgoing. Were I using a car purely for social domestic and pleasure I moght well look at the subject in a different light, but when we first went to diesel about ten years ago we were not only able to put off an intended price rise but we also increased our profits, there was that big a difference in fuel costs. I also find the power characteristics of a diesel suits my personal driving style moreso than petrol.
When the fuel blockages were on the other year diesel was easy to get compared to petrol, so that was a bit of a bonus too.
|
Tom,
During the fuel problems, diesel was blocked here in North Wales. The diesel pumps closed first because it had been commandeered for use by the emergency serivces.
|
|
|
|
Alwyn, they won't have much choice soon, as the emissions machine is going to be linked to the MOT computer inorder to give a certificate.
|
|
|
|
Very much horses for courses, depends on the relative merits of the engines offered by your chosen manufacturer, your driving style and the way you use your car. For me (wedded to PSA cars, 104, 2 BX, 205 and Xantia over 20 years) the advantages of diesel are:-
Starts first time every time,
No hesitation, stalling and general messing about till warmed up,
Much better mid range power,
More refined at cruising speeds,
Both petrol BX and 104 were a handful in traffic due fuel pre vaporising,
Safe low volatility fuel plays explosive vapour at normal temperatures,
Arguably less pollution,
No spark system requiring maintenace and repair,
Economy you concede I think,
Longer life of brakes due enhanced engine braking effect,
Longer life of exhaust due less vapour in waste gasses,
Truck loads of low down pulling power.
Sure there are more, accept that if your chosen manufacturer makes crap diesels (eg Ford) the arguments are different.
|
|
|
|
I don't think the longevity thing holds much water any more. Sure it applies to large, heavy , low revving, mechanically simple diesels as fitted to tractors, trucks and the like. But most of the car diesels are high revving, light weight, and nowadays pretty complicated with a high reliance on electronics. Lets face it, engines of all types seem to last longer than everything else around anyway.
|
|
|
I have, currently, Xantia 2001 Petrol, 4-Runner 2001 Petrol, Dodge Ram 1996 (ish) Petrol = these are the regular ones.
>Starts first time every time,
All of mine do to.
>No hesitation, stalling and general messing about till warmed up,
No waiting for glow plugs; Can't comment about the rest, because I live in a hot country.
>Much better mid range power,
Than my Dodge ? I don't think so.
>More refined at cruising speeds,
Can't see it. All three of mine are perfectly relaxed around the 70/80 mark.
>Both petrol BX and 104 were a handful in traffic due fuel pre vaporising,
I do have that problem with the Xantia sometimes, not with the other two.
>Safe low volatility fuel plays explosive vapour at normal temperatures,
If you're in a situation where the fuel might blow, its probably too late anyway ! I think the A6 would have still exploded. Mind you, if everybody agreed wiht you I guess they would have thrown a Diesel Bomb into it which might not have had the same effect.
>Arguably less pollution,
I am no expert, but I thought diesels were worse at high revs - or was that only the older ones ?
>No spark system requiring maintenace and repair,
These days spark systems rarely give trouble - those bloody computers do though, and diesels have them as well.
>Economy you concede I think
Completely.
>Longer life of brakes due enhanced engine braking effect,
I drive automatics. I assume that there isn't much braking effect with a diesel automatic ? Anyway, I was always told that brake pads were cheaper than gearboxes and clutches.
>Longer life of exhaust due less vapour in waste gasses,
Probably - but that returns to cost, which I [unfairly] excluded.
>Truck loads of low down pulling power.
I could pull your diesel sideways with either of two of my petrol vehicles.
I'm not trying to pull your arguments to pieces offensively, its just that other than cost I *really* can't see what a diesel has over petrol, and I remain unconvinced.
I will say that economically its clear, I bought my sister a diesel recently from some Arthur Daley type I met wandering around the Fens, and she is totally happy with the car, and thrilled with its running costs. Turns out the car was a good buy and the guy wasn't a villain after all.
However, that's all related to dosh.
It seems to me that if you have the money to spare, you're better with petrol.
Mark.
|
Everyone refers to the inventor of the compression ignition engine as being Rudolph Diesel.
However I recall once reading that he was beaten to it by a Scottish engineer. I seem to recall his name was Ackroyd and his invention wasn't patented or developed. (sounds familiar).
Searched the web but can find no reference to him unless I have the name wrong.
alvin
|
|
Yes, I also seem to remember reading something in the civil service motoring journal called Motoring & Leisure. I think the engines were called 'oil engines' but cannot remember who they claimed first developed it.
|
|
|
|
Feel the need of a right of reply here!!
Based this on my own experience in the UK, as you say in a later post you have little experiecne of modern european diesels, that may be the difference,
Taking your comments:
> No waiting for glow plugs;
Less than 10 secs on the 205/BX, goes out before the other diagnostics on the HDi Xant. Just relax and do up your seat belt, check mirrors etc!!
> >Much better mid range power,
>
> Than my Dodge ? I don't think so.
Yor petrol Xantia would be a more valid comparison
> >More refined at cruising speeds,
> (you referred to your big petrol pick up etc
Again I was comparing like for like petrol v diesel BX
.
> >Safe low volatility fuel plays explosive vapour at normal
> temperatures,
>
> If you're in a situation where the fuel might blow, its
> probably too late anyway ! I think the A6 would have still
> exploded. Mind you, if everybody agreed wiht you I guess they
> would have thrown a Diesel Bomb into it which might not have
> had the same effect.
I was thinking spills. Came by a nasty on the French Autoroute last year, petrol and diesel all over the road, I know which was causing the pompiers more alarm!!
> >Arguably less pollution,
>
> I am no expert, but I thought diesels were worse at high revs
> - or was that only the older ones ?
As I said arguably, difficult one cos the pollutants are different.
> >Longer life of brakes due enhanced engine braking effect,
>
> I drive automatics. I assume that there isn't much braking
> effect with a diesel automatic ? Anyway, I was always told
> that brake pads were cheaper than gearboxes and clutches.
I don't hammer it down the box, just anticipate, lift off and watch the speed decay
>
> >Truck loads of low down pulling power.
>
> I could pull your diesel sideways with either of two of my
> petrol vehicles.
Again you are not comparing like with like, your xantia v mine would be the valid comparison
> I'm not trying to pull your arguments to pieces offensively,
> its just that other than cost I *really* can't see what a
> diesel has over petrol, and I remain unconvinced.
I am not offended, I do take issue with your comparisons.
> However, that's all related to dosh.
>
> It seems to me that if you have the money to spare, you're
> better with petrol.
How about substituting burn in place of spare!!!!!
Simon
|
|
|
|
A lot of modern turbodiesels deliver their best combination of power and torque at the sort of speeds most people drive at. So cruising in your diesel on the motorway you have bags more wallop under your right foot between 70mph and 90mph. Even in small capacity applications the latest diesels seem to work better than their petrol counterparts. For example, the Citroen C3 HDI was the nicest of the bunch we tested last week. And, though I haven't driven it, the new Yaris 1.4 D-4D promises on paper to be at least as good. Add the 67.3 mpg combined economy figure for both these cars and it's difficult to make a case for their petrol counterparts.
HJ
|
Petrol= 20% efficient.
Diesel= 80% efficient.
Add this to the less harmful gasses produced and the knowledge that my car will do nearly 600 miles to a tank, then diesel will always get my vote. Finally, 100K on a petrol engine=problems. 100K on a diesel=almost run in.
I rest my case,
Regards,
Ash.
|
Mark
I'm sorry, but hasn't all this been well covered on this forum? I've only been reading/contributing for a few weeks but there's been plenty of debate about the pros and cons of diesel.
Anyway, if you're happy with petrol then stick with it! I've got one of each and appreciate the benefits of both, though the pulling power and economy of the turbo-diesel are very persuasive.
Regards
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
diesel = 80% efficient!?!?! now that i find hard to believe. i haven't got my thermodynamic charts for an ideal diesel cycle to hand to check what it should be at a compression ratio of 20:1, but 80%???
|
I watched a programme on Discovery Channel presented by Robbie Coltrane, i think it was Coltranes Planes and Automobiles. Anyway, he said that Coal is 10% efficient, Petrol 20% efficient, and diesel is 80% efficient. He also said that it's creator Rudolph Diesel was a bit of a depressed bloke, and threw himself of a ship.
Ash.
frank wrote:
>
> diesel = 80% efficient!?!?! now that i find hard to believe.
> i haven't got my thermodynamic charts for an ideal diesel
> cycle to hand to check what it should be at a compression
> ratio of 20:1, but 80%???
|
Ashley,
Surely it is not the fuel that is efficient, it is how it is used and the efficiency of the engine that matters.
And remember, Coltrane is an actor. (with, of course, an interest in brummers)
|
Alwyn,
I'm pretty sure that Robbie Coltrane was actually a diesel fitter or similar.
On his programmes some of the engines he was showing he was talking of when he used to work on them.
Regarding percentage efficiency I'm not sure how you would convert from fuel to efficiency on engines.
Not the same, but an Economic steam package boilers efficiency was easily measured and at 75% efficient using 35 second oil (which is the same as diesel) was considered to be set up correctly.
alvin
|
|
|
|
I think you will find that diesels are around 40% efficient.
And whoever said Ford made crap diesels is behind the times as the new Tdci engines are the equal of VW's Tdi
|
|
I knew i would be picked up on th Tdci, I was speaking of the prvious generation.
|
|
|
|
40%, perhaps, pushing it?
Anyway, we only exist for a short time, so why indulge in masochism?
|
|
|
|
Mark asks... Why would you choose to drive diesel over petrol.
Excellent explicit answers, but.... shouldn't the question be reversed and ask why would anyone choose a petrol engined car today.
Could start with,
1. They are a little quieter.
2. They rev higher, although what benefit this is I'm not sure.
3... can't think of anything else!!!
4. HELP
alvin
|
|
|
|
The highest praise the testers in mags and on the box have for a diesel is to say it is so good you can hardly tell it from (some?) petrol engines.
Still waiting for the diesel Murcielago.
For propelling bulk carriers of course, OK I suppose!
|
|
|
>>I'm sorry, but hasn't all this been well covered on this forum?
Pat, you don't need to apologise.
How diesel works, why its longer/lasting/more economical - yes, covered a lot.
What reasons for driving one other than money, not so far as I know. In any case, the question interested me enough to ask it.
Apparantly it also interested you enough to answer.
|
Not being funny, but I doubt many good modern diesel cars are available where you live....have you driven any? I have a modern TD car, and compared to various cars with a similar sized petrol engine, they just don't compare due to inferior torque characteristics. With a modern diesel, you don't need to rev to nuts of it to make good progress.
I had a drive in my mates newish 1.4 Zetec Fiesta today, quite a smart little car. However it is about 1 second faster to 60 (about 10 seconds compared to 11 for mine), but very little overtaking grunt. Plant your foot down to overtake and the thing picks up like a lethargic tortoise, none of this dropping down a cog or two to go! It is also noisier at higher speeds. Oh yes, also factor is about 38mpg compared to my 49-50mpg for a car about 50%! I would like to see you run a car in Europe with a disgraceful fuel consumption, and still have money left! The typical US attitude of 'land of cheap gas' needs to be buried asap!
|
|
In my post I meant to say "Oh yes, also factor in about 38mpg compared to my 49-50mpg for a car about 50% heavier!" We need an edit function in here!
|
|
|
|
>Not being funny, but I doubt many good modern diesel cars are available where you live...
Probably not. Diesel is not that popular here, even in Landrovers, although it seems it is becoming more so lately. However, there are the occasional BMW or Audi diesel around.
Also, available or not, my experience of diesels, other than trucks and agric. is limited to a Xantia Diesel a few months ago, and then only for a day, and a BMW 525 diesel about 7 years ago for 6 months.
The BMW was fine in that it was similar to petrol. It seemed to have "solid" performance, but I wouldn't choose it over petrol. I didn't hate having it.
>The typical US attitude of 'land of cheap gas' needs to be buried asap!
Are you under the impression that I am an American ? I'm not.
But maybe you're right, my lack of experience with modern diesels means I don't understand what it is like to drive them and their advantages.
Especially since I need to replace a vehicle and my wife asked why my sister is so happy with her diesel.
I know, why don't I ask a question in here about why people drive them ? Oh. I did.
|
|
I do a fair amount of weekend off-roading, jungle type terrain and volcano-bashing (sludgy grey lava mud). My current off road is a petrol but I miss the Mitsubishi diesel I used to have. It used to slog its way out of everything without fuss, even at almost idle speed, whereas the petrol (V-8 auto) makes more of a meal of it, revving and spinning and stalling. I'm more nervous of streams as well than when I had the diesel. The diesel gave me a feeling of confidence I don't quite have now. On the road I would have to say the petrol has it every which way, acceleration, quieter etc.
|
|
|
|
|
p.s. I know we need an edit function, we had one for a brief, yet strangely hilarious, day. However Martyn thinks we can't be trusted. The very idea of us not being trustworthy !!
|
Mark,
So you met the Fen Wizard as well then, there's many a person about here wondering if he is really too good to be true!
To be boringly serious about the diesel thing.......
Without fighting through the pros/cons some of us just like a diesel. There can be a feeling of reliable power not found in petrol cars but.....
Never forget you are a very lucky chap to experience mortoring in the way you do (and long may it continue!), it doesn't include some of the essential factors many have to consider......like cost.
If you take a "focus group" as the parents (mums actually) at our village school perhaps 50% of them need diesel for the economy....and then the fact that the modern diesels start well and drive nicely is a bonus. 40mpg plus on very short runs makes a powerful case for the ordinary "Jane".
What I can't tell you is if in your position I would go for large petrol but we did enjoy all the V8 Rovers we owned when we were young.
Perhaps the best demonstration of the Petrol vs Diesel attitute is the two Land Rover Discoverys I've had in for service/overhaul recently. Broadly similar ages/mileages conditions. The diesel one (30mpg on local runs) would easily sell for £5K+ but the owner of the V8 petrol one (12mpg on local runs) knows he would struggle to sell it at all but £2K or less is all he expects.
People are really voting with their wallets when they are prepared to pay 150% extra for the diesel.
David
|
|
I often think the diesel economy thing is a bit overdone,economy is not just about MPG.Personally cant be bothered with 'filthy coal burners' and if ultimate cheap MPG was an issue would probably buy a LPG conversion.Comes down to what you want really.
|
This debate does widen when you start to consider the LPG factor. Of course a car on LPG will have different driving characteristics to a Diesel or petrol and i am not sure what these are. However if you talk about fuel economy and long term savings, then surely you would be better going for a LPG conversion on a decent new or newish car? In fact i cannot se why LPG has not taken off more than it has, or am i missing some sinister catch about LPG fuel systems?
In france LPG is available for about 31pence lt and you can get a conversion from a registered converter (not some cowboy job) for about £1300, i think in GB something akin is available too, so on comparison LPG does strip diesel of its economy factor even if it does not do the same MPG. Or is there a catch?
|
|
|
|
A couple of questions for the pro-diesel lobby:
1. I'm under the (mistaken?) impression that diesel engines need more frequent filter(?) changes or something. What mileage do you need to do a year before this extra cost is recouped by higher mpg?
2. Although diesel may produce less gaseous emissions, what about the small particles of unburnt fuel - PM10. There's an interesting article at news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1658000/16...m
Andy
|
Get to know your MOT tester and ask him not to do the rev to the limits.
Mine dosn't and said "I never do it as I wouldn't do it to my own car and I'm not going to do it to others, the people who designed this into the MOT test are obviously not mechanically minded and aren't interested if we snap cambelts etc"
alvin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some points.
No internal combustion engine gets to more than about 25% efficiency due to heat losses, friction, etc... whoever said diesel is 80% efficient is plain wrong, no engine gets close.
Second, Ford do make decent diesels these days but have only just started doing so. The TDCi outscores the nasty PSA and VAG diesels on mots counts by being like a petrol to drive.
Third, most things start first time these days, most are reliable, and most are economical. The last car I had a "total failure" on was a Citroen ZX DIESEL in about 1994. This car was so crap in just about every respect that I said I wouldn't buy another diesel until it was the equal of petrol IN EVERY RESPECT - quite simply there isn't one made.
|
Fred Stoat said "This car was so crap in just about every respect that I said I wouldn't buy another diesel until it was the equal of petrol IN EVERY RESPECT - quite simply there isn't one made".
I agree, modern diesel cars are not equal to petrol cars, in fact they are in most ways superior to petrol engines! You might buy one I suppose if it did 30% less to the gallon, ran on a highly volatile fuel, might occasionally misfire when damp or cold, have no guts whatsoever for accelerating in higher gears, drone and buzz at motorway speeds, need to floor it to get up car park ramps and hills etc..... :0)
PS "nasty PSA and VAG diesels " eh??!! I would not base your experience of driving an old IDI, NA car on hi tech diesel engines of today!
|
|
i have just bought a citroen lx td 5 door hatch. n reg. 60.000 miles with full service history for £3500 including £700.00 on px for an old petrol nissan. the test drive was excellent. no rust ace condition with the low milageage. this will be my first diesel. any tips out there from you experienced guys?. and was this a good buy do you think?
|
|
Watch out when filling up, spill any on you're shoes and you'll have to line with the smell for the rest of the day. Only drawback.
|
|
|
|
|
Completely agree having compared A4 1.8t Quattro back to back with the v6 diesel the petrol was the clear winner , i tried very hard to like a diesel due to the excellent fuel economy ,plus the fact i tow a caravan but they are simply not as good .
|
|
|
|
Fuel economy and bags of torque just have to be the main considerations. A good diesel engine will pull from 1000 rpm in 4th at least and possibly 5th. In a pertol you'd have to drop a cog or two to get a car moving.
It is horses for courses since diesels tend to require more frequent servicing usually every 10 - 12k. I don't like the idea of the diesel engine being revved to the limiter at least once during the current UK MOT test. That is scary and they don't take responsibility if they wreck your engine!
|
|
|
Always an excellent thread when the petrol vs diesel debate starts. Some very spiteful anti-diesel stuff though. Notice how generous the diesel guys are to the petrol lovers.
We do at least accept there is some place for the petrol engine in cars.
All I can say really is if you *hate* diesel then I call you the uncle of a short waitress.
David
|
|
|
|
No matter what you think of diesels, the performance is so close to petrol nowadays to warrant serious debate. This is despite the fact that nowhere near the amount of development has gone into diesels in comparison to petrol engines. Most of the advances in petrol engine design are developed by racing teams and manufacturers, particularly in F1. If diesels were used in this competition for a few seasons the engine designers would put them so far ahead of their petrol counterparts that in a decades time petrol engines would be obsolete. And think of the fun when you get a fuel spillage on the track...
|
|
|
> >Much better mid range power,
>
> Than my Dodge ? I don't think so.
>
>Yor petrol Xantia would be a more valid comparison
Well, sort of. Clearly one woudl expect the Dodge to have more power. My point was sort of that maybe it isn't petrol/diesel it could be petrol/big petrol.
> "smooth at cruising speeds"
>Again I was comparing like for like petrol v diesel BX
The Xantia petrol is very calm at the 70/80 mph point.
.
>I was thinking spills.
Oh, ok, well clearly conceded then.
> >Longer life of brakes due enhanced engine braking effect,
>
> I drive automatics. I assume that there isn't much braking
> effect with a diesel automatic ? Anyway, I was always told
> that brake pads were cheaper than gearboxes and clutches.
>
>I don't hammer it down the box, just anticipate, lift off and watch the speed >decay
Nonetheless, only valid in a manual, not an auto. Not a huge difference on brake life, I suspect, and anyway - economics.
> However, that's all related to dosh.
>
> It seems to me that if you have the money to spare, you're
> better with petrol.
Two things; I am not interested in cheaper to run and why since I can work that out for myself. It isn't difficult. Also, it isn't going to be any type of deciding factor, the car itself will be. However, I am interested in the driving experience and why some people prefer them.
My wife has no love of cars. She doesn't care if I pay $1000 for her car or $100,000 - she simply isn't interested in cars enough. She wants the easiest, most pleasant, most functional car to drive which suits her the best way.
My wife has a child and retrievers. My sister has a child and retrievers; my sister has a diesel, therefore my wife wants to know why she shouldn't have a diesel since their requirements are obviously the same - I know, I know, but there is little point in arguing.
The reality is I don't particularly care which is "best". I was trying to find out something about driving one or the other which would point me in a direction.
>money to spare
>How about substituting burn in place of spare!!!!!
Whichever. I do.
|
I assume the kids are too young to drive and that the retreivers have no ascertainable view (if they did would they be dogmatic ;-) )!!
Therefore you just have to look at the car that suits and than try both petrol and diesel versions, you may be surprised at which is the easiest most pleasant and functional to drive.
Chris R has a good point about the ability to trickle the car in low gear without gagging like a petrol, but auto boxes do that quite well anyway.
No more to add really
Simon
|
Simon,
Isn't the dogmatic the gearbox that was an option on the Allegro ?
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
Sadly, regretfully, and despite much thought, I am going to have to ask;
>>All I can say really is if you *hate* diesel then I call you the uncle of a short waitress.
WHAT ??? I have no idea of what you speak. Any chance of a translation or further clue?
|
|
I was about to ask DW for a x/lation as well!!!.
|
Mark,
You did start it.....
"Someone who likes small cars is a female dentist".
So I assume someone who hates diesels may be an uncle of a short waitress.
Simon, If you missed it look at.....
www.honestjohn.co.uk/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=28441&t...1
David
|
My wife is a dentist and likes her Golf GT TDI PD. It's not *that* small a car.
The female dentist has described the following cars:
BMW 3 Series - a bit too big (at the moment)
Mercedes C Class - too big, and old-mannish
VW Passat - too big, and it has a boot
Ford Focus - a bit common
Ford Puma - too impractical
Audi A3 - its just an expensive Golf
Audi TT - nice but impractical, but will there be a sporty diesel?
Skoda Fabia - after a 24 hour test drive, very nice, better than mum's Yaris, but it's a Skoda
Ford Ka - suitable for the dentist's husband, not the dentist, no you can't get a Fabia instead
Our next car will probably be another diesel - they're just great to drive. I hope this helps in the automotive psychoanalysis of the female dentist.
|
|
|
|
|
My comments re VAG diesels were based on the latest PDs - still awful in most respects...
|
|
|
Mark
I've driven a variety of diesels, large and small, though none of the new generation. My current diesel BX is an IDI non-turbo, so it's pretty slow off the mark. But even so the reassuring tug it gives when pulling weight, or at around the 70mph mark is lovely. It's a kind of muscular pull, with hardly any increase in revs. I find it more relaxing to drive, far less hassle around town, where it can do almost everything in third gear if it has to, and generally much more reliable than a petrol. I certainly wouldn't trust a petrol engine of the same age/mileage to start every (and I mean every) time, and not be troublesome as it warms up.
A couple of summers ago the clutch began to fail after an oil leak, making first gear unusable. This was in the Lake District, so hilly. The diesel just did everything in second, including the hardknot pass (1 in 4?). Using the accelerator to crawl in traffic was reminiscent of old petrol days, and not in a nice way. I reckon in order to get a similar relaxed style (I'm not talking about all-out speed or acceleration here) of driving with a petrol engine you need a very big one, and they use a lot of fuel. Bear in mind that a modern fifty-seat town bus only needs a seven litre engine to pull (or push) all that weight. Imagine that in your pick-up truck.
Incidentally, I read a while ago that back in the thirties a diesel-powered car came 13th in the Indy 500. It's still the only car to manage the whole race without a pit stop for fuel. Anybody know the exact year?
Chris
|
|
|
Too quick on the post....
I was going to buy an A4 until I drove the 130PS diesel - how can junk like this ever get released? I have also done the back to back between Audi's V6 diesel and the 1.8T petrol. The diesel delivered a whole 1mpg more in normal running.
All diesels vibrate like hell - I returned a hired 406 HDi because I thought it was faulty, the pedals and steering were vibrating so much.
The only decent diesel I have driven is Ford's TDCI - the design parameters of which seem to have been to make it drive like an LPT petrol....
Take the VAG 1.8T petrol engine, economical, quiet, smooth and shed loads of torque from 1000 revs.
Sorry - 45 mpg on fuel that costs 73p a litre plus £1000 premium plus 25% additional costs on servicing makes the whole life costs of most diesels heigher than the equivalent petrol. And, some of us actaully like not being shaken to pieces and travelling along in calm and quiet.
|
|
|
Mark,
you opened a can of worms with this one !
I suspect that the surge in popularity of diesels in the UK has alot to do with the driving conditions. The extra torque when compared to an equivalent displacement petrol engine make them more relaxing to drive. They could of course choose a larger engined petrol model but that is now seen as anti-social.
BTW. What have you got in the Dodge, the V10 ?
Kevin...
|
|
|
>>BTW. What have you got in the Dodge, the V10 ?
5.9 litre Magnum V-8. Its big enough.
|
> 5.9 litre Magnum V-8. Its big enough.
I think that's what's fitted in a friends Durango, nice lump.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
It found in Durangos.
indestructible is what it is.
|
|
|
