diesels please!

[darkjedi]

Yes , you are right about the ecoboost; it's only a subjective opinion since the engine just appeared on the market. only time will tell how reliable it is for sure. the 2.0 l ford engine can produce even more torque , but is electronicaly limited to appear as an appealing flat line, than a spike and to extend clutch life. The thing is the larger the engine is , the less specific torque is makes. the bmw 3.0 diesel makes use of 3 different size turbos to produce power trough the rev range, the petrol only uses one twin scroll. their acceleration is exactly the same; so in this case the performance is the same. now it's just a matter of preference. a more silent, longer range , relaxed driving car or a more responsive, noisier and thrilling engine that has less range.

Regarding the 1.0l , it's an estimation based on expierience and studies. the engine is forced to produce that power, therefore will wear a lot faster. maybe it won't fail, but in a few years it won't have much of the original power. averagily tuned engines will hold on to the power for longer periods of time.

[Water77]

I think ecoboost will last just as long as their naturally aspirated engines do. Why would they not think about how long it was going to last? I am sure that Ford uses parts that can withstand more abuse in the engine than they use in their naturally aspirated engines. I do not see why they would risk their reliability reputation so it just doesnt make sense that they would develop an engine that wouldnt last long so I am pretty sure that they know what they are doing. After all they sure as hell do not want to get their old reputation back.
FORD : Fix Or Repair Daily.

[FordManFromHell]

Yes, car manufacturers usually do cut torque peaks to expand the life expectancy of clutch and such, and surely diesel engines torque range might also be cutted to give it a similar top torque range that the petrol engine has, by cutting down its top torque. But as we have seen before; the torque between same sized petrol and diesel engines are pretty close (with diesel just and just getting the upper hand in there) but the real difference is in the fact that the diesel engine lacks the consistency of the petrol engine to produce torque (and also horsepower) trough out the rev range, and that alone is the reason of why diesels torque range cannot be cut to be as big, and at the same time as wide as the petrol engines torque range. Simply put, in that sense alone, the diesel engine is quite clearly inferior when compared to petrol engine, and that’s pretty much that.

Also saying that bigger engines produce inherently less torque in the sense of Nm/litre than smaller engines do, sounds pretty unbelievable to me..

I also tried to avoid of this becoming a question of which manufacturer has/uses a better turbo technology in their cars, and that’s the reason why I originally grabbed my both examples of same sized engines, with equal cylinder count, diesel and petrol engines from the same manufacturer. Also if you are trying to state something like that the BMW has some fancy turbo technology vs Ford, then the scale should lean (even) more towards the Ford and its 3cylinder 1 litre Ecoboost petrol engine when compared to BMW’s 6cylinder 3 litre diesel engine in a sense of Nm/litre.

Bottom line: Same turbo technology and same engine size: The diesel is going to be more economical than the petrol, but at the same time the petrol has much better torque range and much more horsepower than the diesel does.

So the question is the same old: Do I want to get more power or better fuel economy?

PS. I really don’t care if you have decided to try and speculate in a negative sense about the possible expected life expectancy of the Ford’s 1 litre Ecoboost. But I will say you this: I bet they don’t too often elect engines as the best of the year in multiple categories, and then the elected engine would later on turn out to be notoriously “unreliable” in some way. That could only be described as a highly unlikely episode.

[darkjedi]

I see you only understand the numbers and fail to comprehend the depth of the problem. the 2.0 ecoboost is tuned for high torque to appeal to everyday drivers. the diesels are tuned for best economy and emissions. i will give some examples and you draw your own conclusioins regarding torque:

My passat 1.9 tdi came with 130hp and 320 nm stock. after an ecu mod, power rose to 163 and torque to 400 nm between 2100-3600 and this is on stock turbo (1.6bar)
A friend has a golf with the same engine, but with a 2.0 bar turbo and larger intercooler. his car can put out 215hp and a limited torque to 450.
another friend has a mk5 GTI with a 2.0 TFSI. with considerable mods,he increased power from 200 to 272 hp and torque from 300 to 380
some guy i used to race with had a 530d. stock was 230 hp, 500 nm. after being modified it put out 350 hp and 660 nm.
the audi v12 TDI has 500 hp and 1000 nm .
why don't they use petrol in trucks? since petrols can also make large torque figures? can they make 2600 nm? or 3200nm?

LE: car manufacturers do not produce turbos. they are made by subcontractors like garret. all companies have the same turbo tech available to them.

[FordManFromHell]

Yeah I admit it, I look at the numbers about HP & Nm and look at the torque range and then come up with an educated conclusion of which engine in overall is more powerful. Based on those given numbers, based on facts. It might not be the most complete way of comparing engines, but it sure beats the hell out of some foggy claims without literally ANY justification what so ever about some engine being “unnatural” and therefore unreliable. Or that it would be anything more than just a wild guess talking about the “depth of the problem” stating that the Ford’s Ecoboost engines are tuned for high torque to "appeal everyday drivers", whilst at the same time the diesel engines would be tuned for best economy and emissions.

So it is true when you say that I just look at the numbers. But since I personally don’t see any point in just making stuff up, I must to look at the numbers to be able to make educated conclusions.

There are no petrol engines in tractors or trucks simply because of the fuel economy, and also partly because of the longer lifespan diesels has vs petrol. Both engines (petrol and diesel) are surely capable of producing enough torque for the truck and for the tractor, its just that the diesel is more economical to use than the petrol, its simple as that. But since like for instance tractors and cars are completely different beasts, if some solution (diesel) is overwhelmingly better solution for tractor, it does not mean that the same solution (diesel) would necessarily also be overwhelmingly better solution also for the car.

[dervectra]

I just imagine a diesel in Automation...
No matter how what Engine it is (V8, I4 and so on) it will sound like a tractor or you'll only hear a turbo screaming
Also I don't think that diesels will be very exciting - as the Rev Limit is pretty much nailed at ~6000RPM because of physics and they are quite heavy, but it could be useful for Economy Vehicles

Greetz
Pyrlix

Not exciting ?

You never drive a BMW 335 or a Mercedes with an 420 CDi thats a lot of fun

[Dario]

This is'nt very exciting for ya?

[Arvarik]

Yep, the Audi R10 TDI is a really awesome car.

Check the links below for more information about the R10 TDI and its successor the R15 TDI.

Audi R10 TDI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10_TDI

Audi R15 TDI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R15_TDI

[nouky]

of the 3 audis tdi in the le mans 2011, none came to the finish line if i remember right.

[FordManFromHell]

I just imagine a diesel in Automation...
No matter how what Engine it is (V8, I4 and so on) it will sound like a tractor or you'll only hear a turbo screaming
Also I don't think that diesels will be very exciting - as the Rev Limit is pretty much nailed at ~6000RPM because of physics and they are quite heavy, but it could be useful for Economy Vehicles

Greetz
Pyrlix

Not exciting ?

You never drive a BMW 335 or a Mercedes with an 420 CDi thats a lot of fun

Im sure those are nice cars, but if talking about power, I would personally take equally powered (or more like superiorly powered) petrol engine over the diesel engine any day of the week. Diesel engines are just so.. diesel , and also they dont sound very good .

of the 3 audis tdi in the le mans 2011, none came to the finish line if i remember right.

Also back in the day when they actually managaged to win something, it was more so because of the rules. It looked almost like as the guys who made the rules in Le Mans, wanted to see diesel engine to win the race.

[sc90]

Ford dude you just sound like you dont want diesels added to Automation at all -_-

[Arvarik]

of the 3 audis tdi in the le mans 2011, none came to the finish line if i remember right.

Nope, thats not right. One of the Audis won the race. The other two Audis did not finish. Thats right.
Source?
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_24_Ho ... ace_result

[Kubboz]

sc, I want diesels, could make for a nice challenge. Imagine having to build a diesel powered supercar and actually managing to sell it.

[darkjedi]

Want to see a big ass diesel; If you have the chance watch a Deltic in motion. Pretty impressive, even after 50 years.

[sc90]

sc, I want diesels, could make for a nice challenge. Imagine having to build a diesel powered supercar and actually managing to sell it.

id stick with making family cars with oversized turbo'ed diesels XD