diesels please!

[Kev2442]

Just here to ask something about it :
As in France a petrol engine is heavily handicaped, how could it be insteresting to sell it here as it wouldn't sell well ? It would be a shame to avoid it until diesels...

[rpmpowered]

diesel please

[nouky]

http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/en/aut ... llenge.pdf
read this and you will see why diesel are not that important, and japan is not an isolated case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone

[sc90]

http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/en/automobile/attachement/00_tmgs_challenge.pdf
read this and you will see why diesel are not that important, and japan is not an isolated case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone

Maybe for late game, not for early and mid game time.

[benceboc]

http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/en/automobile/attachement/00_tmgs_challenge.pdf
read this and you will see why diesel are not that important, and japan is not an isolated case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone

Still, it is the most common engine type around europe. I hope the devs will treat diesels as a priority after they released the game (and had their well deserved break). I just can't imagine a car company tycoon without diesels.

[Bishop]

also remeber that japan isnt a huge island, with lots of densely packed cities and not a lot of greenery. diesels can burn cleaner and produce less harmful emissions, even if it means a little soot.



twincharged mercedes om617 in a 300sd.

[darkjedi]

Diesels do not burn cleaner. they produce less CO2 because they are more effiecient, but besides the soot, theyalso produce lots of NOx that are very harmful. nitrogen oxides are orange/ brown gasses with a powerful stinging smell, and are powerful carcinogenics. small cars do not produce that much NO or NO2 , but larger vehicles like trucks and busses are very harmful.

[FordManFromHell]

For us end-users the only real advantage that the diesel has vs petrol is its better fuel economy, and to tell the truth, that diesels better fuel economy really takes its toll on diesel engines torque range and horsepower when compared to a petrol engine.

I still think that Automation should get diesel engines though, maybe as a free DLC or something. But at this point the most important target should be to actually concentrate on finishing the game, rather than adding more stuff into it.

[darkjedi]

That's exactly what diesels produce: wide torque and power bands. top hp is not that high on a stock engine, but produces more overall power. tipicaly it has 80% hp from half of the rev range. a petrol usualy has about half. they have other advantages: are more silent on the highway, are able to pull heavy vehicles without fuss. an example: a BMW 540 has considerably more power than 535d, but is only marginaly faster than the 535d which has 2 less cylinders, also uses half as much fuel and has a range of 1000 km.
Diesels are a must, but later in the game's completion.

[nouky]

http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/en/automobile/attachement/00_tmgs_challenge.pdf
read this and you will see why diesel are not that important, and japan is not an isolated case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone

Still, it is the most common engine type around europe. I hope the devs will treat diesels as a priority after they released the game (and had their well deserved break). I just can't imagine a car company tycoon without diesels.

try ferarri or lotus

[FordManFromHell]

@darkjedi. Here are some numbers from Ford:

Petrol: 2.0 litre straight 4 petrol engine 202 PS @6000 rpm and 320 Nm @1750-4500 rpm http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/ ... car=219296.

Diesel: 2.0 litre straight 4 diesel engine 163 PS @4000 rpm and 340 Nm @2000-3250 rpm http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/ ... car=219230.

Between those engines the top torque range (2750 minus 1250 = 1500) is 120% better on the petrol engine vs the same sized diesel engine, the 20 Nm top torque difference is pretty much irrelevant since its only about 6% difference compared to a 120% difference. But on the otherhand the horsepower difference between those engines is far from irrelevant. The same pattern between petrol and diesel engines can be seen on every modern Ford engines, unless of course you try to compare a 1.6 litre petrol vs 2.0 diesel.

And btw, that’s not even the most powerful 2.0 litre Ecoboost engine from Ford.

try ferarri or lotus

I would add Aston Martin, Lamborghini and maybe Rolls Royce to that list as well.

[darkjedi]

what ford is doing now with their petrols is not very natural. Volkswagen has tried this before with the 1.4 tsi and it resulted in an angine that is not very reliable. where the diesels are working "relaxed". they use a low revving turbo to provide torque from low down and restrict top end power. if you charge 2 bars in the same engine , power rises to 190 hp with no other mods. changing ECU maps will increase it to 235 hp. If you try this with the petrol youend up with a similar power, but you will only use 98 petrol and the engine won't last very much. the torque range as you see it is linked to rpm strictly, but if you look at percentage of total rpm, the story changes. pure hp is not the whole story. And the current diesels have technology from 2003 in place. Modern petrols have the newest available tech. Wait for an improvment in diesels, then you will see what happens. the newest 3.0 l diesel from BMW has 313 hp, the 3.0 l petrol has 320. Ford diesels are not really the ones to look at.

[FordManFromHell]

Yes, I mean clearly those Ford's powerful Ecoboost engines are very unnatural and therefore they must be unreliable, because otherwise it is very much impossible to out perform equally sized diesel engines, especially in the torque department. Since dont we all know that diesel engines have the biggest torque and the widest torque range of all the engines, for ever and ever. Amen.

Btw, here's the International Engine of the Year 2012 winner http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/ieoty.php Yep, it's Ford's "unreliable" Ecoboost as #1

Here's the best new engine 2012 http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/new_engine.php It's that "unreliable" Ecoboost again.

Here is the best sub 1-litre category 2012 winner http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/sub_1.php#1 Ecoboost.

What can I say, they obviously dont consider reliability as a crucial subject in the International Engine of the Year -awards, because if they would consider reliability as a crucial subject, the Ford's "unreliable" Ecoboost engine would have never won anything. Right?

[darkjedi]

I don't think you understand what reliability means. Engines of the year are rated for power/l, efficiency, emissions,elasticity, mass and refinement. that does not make an engine realiable. I seriously doublt that a 3 cyl 1.0l 120 hp buzzer will last more than 130-140 k km until a rebuild is necessary. I did not say diesels are better , but certainly they are not worse. each has a different ideal apllication. I also did not say that Ford makes bad petrol engines. actualy they are quite good and reliable, but these recent ones i realy don't like. The diesels on the other hand are not so great.
The 1.4 tsi VW used are prone to piston failure. they also won the engine of the year title.

My honda uses 8.5-9.0 liters of fuel / 100 km in the city. the 1.0 ecoboost manages 7.5 , not that much of a difference considering my honda was made 13 years ago and has an engine double in size. A 1.6 ti-vct uses about 9l in the city and 6l on the highway. there is a difference here , but I will always take the 1.6 because it will last a lot longer.

[FordManFromHell]

As I already said, the only really meaningful advantage that the diesel engine has over the petrol engine, is that it is more economical than the petrol engine (I will tackle the reliability stuff later on). Also if you would take some time and take that BMW’s 6cylinder diesel engine you brought up, and compare it to Ford’s 3cylinder petrol (Ecoboost) engine in a good old Nm/litre fashion and look at the torque stuff, you will once again see the same results what I pointed out for you before: Diesel has bit more top torque vs petrol, but the petrol has MUCH better torque range vs the diesel. In fact in this comparison the Ford petrol engine has over three (3) times better top torque area vs the BMW diesel engine! Whilst the BMW diesel engine only manages about 24% more top torque (Nm/litre remember) than the Ford petrol engine. And just so that we wont forget; that’s “just” a 3cylinder Ford engine vs the 'all mighty' straight6 from Bayerische Motoren Werke.

Those calculations are done from cold hard numbers and everyone can check them out and just simply do the math. What comes to reliability, anything that you have stated about any engines reliability (like that Ford’s 3cylinder) however seems to be more of an opinion than a cold hard fact, so I would not take those numbers you simply throw out of your head very seriously. Although I do know that generally diesel engines are hailed as very reliable engines, but when talking about “normal” cars and “normal” car buyers, you must put everything into perspective: Unless you only buy new car (or just new engine) ones your current car’s engine has literally blown to pieces, then it should not matter too much does the engine in your car last for 1 000 000 km or "just" 600 000 km, because you buy a new car long before that engine is going to blow to pieces.

Not saying diesels would be completely worthless, since they have their place in the automotve world and as I allready said; therefore also in this game. I was more like just pointing out what is truly their strenght vs petrol engines, and that strenght is the better economy, not exactly the torque stuff people seem to falsely think. Also if you really insist, you can add in the fact that you can do more km with diesel engine before the engine is completely annihilated, although that is a "bit" far fetched plus for the diesels, since as far as I can see, todays engines easily tend to last the cars lifetime and more, so it does not play virtually any role in any normal condiditions.