Yeah the fly by wire setup will cut the 'throttle' when the brake is applied.
The only thing I miss about petrol really is the sound, the modern diesel can do everything well enough and not cost a fortune in doing so.
I'm currently building up a 600kg mk1 polo/240bhp 2.1l 16v trackday bitch, do the maths on the bhp per tonne.... but after all the years of the fuel bills and repair costs I don't miss a petrol for day to day use one little bit...
The only thing I miss about petrol really is the sound
I like the way diesels sound. It's just another internal combustion engine, they just sound different. The only reason people **** over engine noises is by association anyway - it's not actually a nice noise.
The only reason people **** over engine noises is by association anyway - it's not actually a nice noise.
Surely that depends on your perspective I love the sound some engines make.
Petrol Turbo's - I used to own one, and have driven a number of Impreza's, including a rally prepaird one with anti lag.
Many of the better sports cars use a normaly aspirated petrol engine to avoid the problems with lag to make the drive through corners smoother and more controlled. The exception to this is rally cars, and the only reason I can see this is because they only use 2 throttle positions, on and off, so therefore it is not crucial for them to balance the throttle.
Diesels must be getting better though as Seat now have the Touring Car diesel, and there are the Audi Le Mans Sports Cars, both of which are wining circuit races.
My own experience of a turbo charged petrol sports car was that it made the torque band incredibly wide (more so than a diesels), and the car pulled with the same surge which ever gear you were in. However, getting the rear end to slide and trying to balance the throttle was just impossible!
IMO people who say they own a 'sports car' arnt really wanting a sports car, just some thing that gives them lots of acceleration and will drive them round a corner quickly without using much skill, hence why you can buy any number of mundane everyday cars dressed up to be 'sports cars'
The best sports car I have ever driven was a friends Caterham, but behind that was a Suzuki Cappaccino. Top speed of 85mph, skinny tyres, very light, excellent brakes, impecable handling with low levels of grip.
The exception to this is rally cars, and the only reason I can see this is because they only use 2 throttle positions, on and off, so therefore it is not crucial for them to balance the throttle.
Errrr not sure thats true, certainly if you watch the pedal movements they are fairly well feathered and controlled and certainly control is taught if you do any rally training, not on-off. Not aimed at you, but the common mis-conception among those who buy a scooby and fit a few toys is that it'll grip endlessly and throttle is a PWM device. Put those people on a rally course and they'd be dead in seconds.
However, getting the rear end to slide and trying to balance the throttle was just impossible!
You're not doing it right! It's a piece of cake if you set it up well, even with a fairly nose-heavy 4WD.
impecable handling with low levels of grip.
Claiming something has impecable handling with very low grip is very odd to me, a good handling car will have more grip than you dare to test, will break away progressively and predictably when it does go and will be smooth to drive. Anyone can make a well balanced but sketchy car, the effort put into getting the chassis stiff and the suspension to keep the wheels planted to maintain grip and give predictable handling is what makes a sports car. Power is pointless without control, part of control is grip.
coffeeking - The rally thing was from speaking and driving (off road) with a mate whos is an ex class champion, and from having a couple of tutored lessons in full on race prepared Impreza's.
In terms handling, this is where many people go wrong. Your talking about road holding, not handling. Modern cars have so much grip that you can never get close to their limits on the public road (safely).
A case in point - on an MX5 forum a bloke has just got rid of his Boxter S and bought a much slower MX5, but he says the MX5 is so much more fun to drive because the level of grip is less, but the chassis still has the same fantastic handling characteristics, and you can push it to its limits at relatively low speeds, this is something I could do in the Cappuccino, and in my current MX5.
I'm with Funkydunc on this.....handling & grip aren't the same thing & you can have one without the other.
My other halfs Ford Ka has skinny tyres and doesn't grip particularly well, but handles excellently. It is such a fun car to drive. My old Fiesta had more outright grip (Mk3 Si) but didn't handle as well and was prone to quite bad lift-off oversteer.
We had a bloke from Prodrive give a lecture about rally cars when I was at uni. I can't remember the exact details of how they did it, but basically they chucked fuel through the engine all the time to keep the turbo spooled up so there was no lag.
Sorry FunkyDunc - very similar background (a couple of individual tutored rally sessions in group N cars, a couple of good long-term rally competitors for mates, currently involved in a spaceframe chassis design for a formula track car) but totally different tuition and feelings here. If you're going on-off you're just not driving optimally - theres a whole scale of throttle use in between that allows you to balance the car better without wasting time or setting up show-off drifts.
And I can only disagree on a personal level with the comments regarding roadholding being different from handling, it's part and parcel IMO. Whether the car is fun to drive is not really related to whether it handles well, and therefore conversely fun cannot be the determining factor of handling. In the end its personal opinion, but it's fun to drive a cheap indoor cart, it doesnt mean they handle well despite having fairly huge grip, but anyone thinking a car that doesnt grip but feels balanced and lively is a good thing seems, IMO, to be barking up the wrong tree. My 205 was fun to drive, but it didnt handle well. Sporty cars are wholely about getting about/round a track quickly, not about testing the drivers skills. You dont see an F1 car maker saying "well it's an amazing handling car, shit grip but by god it feels well balanced" do you?
And sorry stumpy, but having driven a Ka I just can't take that comment seriously - are you trolling? The Ka, good handling? Yes, antilag is creating combustion post-exhaust-valve to maintain turbo pressure, its a fun feature but eats turbos for breakfast 
Did you know the first cars with antilag in the rally champs had 500km turbo replacement regimes
people who say they own a 'sports car' arnt really wanting a sports car, just some thing that gives them lots of acceleration and will drive them round a corner quickly
What else is a sports car other than something that accelerates quickly and goes round corners fast? Something designed for motorsport is a racing car by definition. Sports cars are for 'sport' in an older definition of the word i.e. fun. IMO, naturally.
You sound pretty snobbish about the whole thing tbh. Not everyone wants a thoroughbred. For example, I don't think I'd want to drive a Lotus Elise - aren't they bare bones racing cars that are noisy, uncomfortable and don't even have a stereo?
molgrips - surely a racing car is one designed for track use only, the elise is a sports car - it could be a lot faster if it was designed for track use only, despite the barren interior
molgrips, no I am not been snobbish about it. People will pay big money for bog standard cars that just have a powerful engine shuved in the front, slightly stiffer suspension, and bigget tyres and a badge saying VRS etc etc and because they have never driven a well sorted sports car they think its the dogs. Get them in a sorted rwd car, not even an expensive one and they realise just how far from fun many of the standard big engined fwd cars are.
"What else is a sports car other than something that accelerates quickly and goes round corners fast?"
I agree to some extent, but many cars are too fast and have too much grip for the open road and can only be fully exploited on the track. I would much rather have a car which reaches its limit round a bend at say 40 mph and you can balance it using the throttle and steering, rather than a car that gives the same sensations, but requires you to be doing 60-70mph.
Yeah, sorry coffeeking, trolling as ever....I guess I was wrong. It does handle rubbish.
That's why pretty much all the reviews of it say that the handling is great. Silly me.
I guess coming from the same manufacturer as the Fiesta, Focus and Puma it was destined to handle like a real dog, hey?!
For example, I don't think I'd want to drive a Lotus Elise - aren't they bare bones racing cars that are noisy, uncomfortable and don't even have a stereo?
noisy - yes. the engine is just behind your head, and there is very little sound proofing (if at all), so you hear everything rattling in the wheel arches too (tho to be fair the one i had for a couple of weeks also had an upgraded exhaust that was a little louder than stock)
uncomfortable - depends on your point of view - no it doesnt have big leather armchairs in there, but body hugging, thinly padded seats that i didnt mind spending a few hours in the seat.
Stereo - yep it had one of those - when using the upper reaches of the rev range, you couldnt hear it, but most of the time when just cruising you could hear it over the noise of the car.
(heck the come with Air Con, and the latest ones have a CUP HOLDER! WTF?)
it is a proper sports car, rather than a track car (the track versions being far more 'hard core' like the the S1 exige (not bootspace) the 340r and 2/11 having no roof, doors, interior etc.)
On the other hand a Caterham 7 is a race car, with a few road trimmings, but very stripped out. the only main differance between the road going versions and race versions is carpets.
Bit of a contradiction there FunkyDunc. You seem to poo-poo sporty ish normal cars and then say that slower cars can be more fun. I agree with your last paragraph btw.
Don't forget hot hatches had to be invented, and they were popular because they were cheap, quicker than anything else in their price range and good fun. Just because they aren't pure sports cars doesn't mean they don't have their place. It's true that people who THINK they are Jensen Button just because they have a Corsa SRi or whatever it is these days are misguided of course - but for most people all they want is something a bit nippy which will be great fun for them coming from normal cars. Me included.
Put me in a TT diesel for instance and I would be sure to love it to bits Will I care that it's not as well balanced as an Elise? Of course not. I will care though that it's quicker and better handling than any car I've owned, looks like a sports car and still does 50mpg
Btw on the subject of well-sorted cheap RWD cars - what options do you have? An old BMW, but the servicing and tyres etc are expensive ne c'est pas? Or an MX-5, basically.
Yeah the fly by wire setup will cut the 'throttle' when the brake is applied.
It doesn't on the TT - I tried this morning
All diesels reduce fuelling to zero when you lift off. As do modern petrols I believe.
I guess coming from the same manufacturer as the Fiesta, Focus and Puma it was destined to handle like a real dog, hey?!
If you think they're amazing handling then I can see where you're coming from. Class-leading maybe, but not great handling - they have nothing on a purpose-built sports car, they're just a good shopping car. Lots of journos are quoted as saying the focus has amazing handling, but having driven one in anger I can honestly say I was unimpressed - sure it's better than other cars in its class though, hence the raving.
>>It doesn't on the TT - I tried this morningAll diesels reduce fuelling to zero when you lift off. As do modern petrols I believe.
Yup, all petrols since about 1990 and all common rail deisels cut injection on lift-off, unless specifically used for things like anti-lag.
cut injection on lift-off,
I could have mis-understood the claim mind you...
[quote]Class-leading maybe, but not great handling - they have nothing on a purpose-built sports car[/p]
State the obvious why don't you? Any claim of greatness has to be relative. I mean there's just no point whatsoever comparing a Ford Ka to a Lotus Elise, is there? No-one on Earth would think a Ka would really compare to a proper sports car, there's not much point in even typing something like that. It again just makes you sound like a car snob
Great handling is one thing when you're making sports cars, but to make something that handles better than all its rivals but is still made to a budget, has to have four seats and a boot, has to be comfy enough to collect Granny from the hospital etc etc is quite an achievement tbh and deserves the accolade imo.
coffeeking.....you are right they have handling nothing like a 'purpose built sports car' - oh, wait a minute. That's because they're not.
I think as Molgrips has pointed out, there is an obvious difference in a full blown track car & a car that behaves in a 'sporty' manner on the road.
Perhaps molgrips should have phrased his initial post differently, but I think most people realised what was meant by a 'diesel sports car'. Taking it to extremes and starting to compare everything on the road to Grp N rally cars & 'purpose built sports cars' is kinda missing the point a bit.
And molgrips/M-F yes, there is some confusion I think about the whole braking/fuelling thing. I think all cars will cut off the fuel to the engine with no throttle input & have done for some years. But, my comment was that some cars also cut the fuel to the engine if you still have some throttle input, but press the brakes (as in left foot braking).
I found this out as in my Fiesta I used to brake slightly while driving if I had some rust on the discs the day after washing the car & they sounded graunchy. This is impossible in the Ibiza, as you can't drive with your foot on the throttle & brake. Even the lightest of touches cuts the throttle, so no left foot braking.
I believe that M-F was saying that his TT does indeed still allow throttle & brake inputs at the same time.
I believe that M-F was saying that his TT does indeed still allow throttle & brake inputs at the same time.
Not that I ever actually DO it (I just had to try out of curiosity this morning)
should have phrased his initial post differently
Indeed.. I meant sports car as opposed to hot hatch ie a car that's not just a souped up family car.
Next question - is my Orange 5 Agressive XC, All Mountain or Freeride Lite? 
molgrips, it doesn't matter.
Your Orange 5 won't handle as well as a proper factory built Aggressive XC, All Mountain or Freeride Lite bike. You might as well get a shopper. 
That I was Not that I ever actually DO it (I just had to try out of curiosity this morning)
Are you sure? My understanding is that declaration/engine braking when fuel is not being supplied to the engine is very severe with a modern common rail diesel, to the point of it being very strange to drive. So to stop this the pump/fuel supply still runs very slightly until you brake, where it cuts as engine braking is not longer an annoyance. I thought this was the norm with at least all VW?audi diesel engines.
My Audi does it every time, and it is very very annoying as it takes a while to put the power on again. I have experienced the same with a Golf, A3, Transporter T5, Crafter and Mercedes Sprinter.
But for those of us who know about road positioning, braking zones, apexes, straightening corners, left foot braking would almost all prefer a proper petrol engine that will rev freely up to 7 or 8k+ and give us the flexibility to use the much broader power band and minimise gear changes. They are simply more balanced.
I don't really agree, I haven't bothered owning a petrol road car for around 6 years, and there is no way I would go back. Providing you have 150bhp+ in a diesel they are fantastic drivers cars, and in terms of driving quickly I don't believe a petrol has anything over a diesel.
With regards to gear changes, I disagree, the torque of a diesel allows you to use fewer gears, and top end does not drop off after the power band in the same way a petrol does.
One of the only upsides is that you can heal and toe a little easier in a petrol due it reving-up quicker, although it is not an issue, just requires a little more care.
it takes a while to put the power on again.
Are you sure that's not just turbo lag?
FWIW my Ibiza didn't have any strange characteristics, but that may have been a PD engine, it was a 53 reg.
Are you sure? My understanding is that declaration/engine braking when fuel is not being supplied to the engine is very severe with a modern common rail diesel,
And I was thinking about the whole petrol v diesel performance car argument last night and came to this simple conclusion...
Diesel cars can be very quick and in some circumstances quicker than petrol engines (as I have already stated). But if they were overall quicker, better and more suited to performance cars then, quite simply, why aren't all performance cars diesel?
marketing would be my guess..........generally people want a petrol, rather than a tractor engine in their 'sports' car.
Perhaps that will change over the next few yrs as diesels continue to become more popular/improve.
There's going to be many reasons, including the ingrained thought that oil burners are not for sports cars, but also the image wont sell well, CDs have only fairly recently become a reality capable of decent power etc.
The market is driven by loads of forces, not just pure engineering logic.
So there is mass ignorance from Touring Car drivers (bar a few token diesels), Formula 3000, F2, F1, A1? And the vast majority of cars I see racing are petrol (watch hill climbing all summer) - Ferraris, Lambos, Scoobies, Evos, Westfields, Mini Coopers, Escorts Mexicos....
They would all be better off driving diesels?
Now I am not saying there aren't diesel racing cars, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of racing cars are petrol, right?
State the obvious why don't you? Any claim of greatness has to be relative. I mean there's just no point whatsoever comparing a Ford Ka to a Lotus Elise, is there? No-one on Earth would think a Ka would really compare to a proper sports car, there's not much point in even typing something like that. It again just makes you sound like a car snob
Well you were the one suggesting a Ka handles really well in a thread looking for a diesel *sports car*. As far as I'm concerned a hot hatch isnt a sports car and the original request was for a sports car, not a shopping trolley with above-average-for-class handling. Sorry if I misinterpretted but as far as I can read the original post asks for....
"something with 2 seats and no roof" not a skoda VRS. Theres a massive difference obviously, and leaving the "no roof" aside (screws with chassis rigidity and weight for the sake of wind in your hair, unless very well designed), you're comparing apples and oranges. As soon as you start bringing a Ka into the equation you're downgrading the class of car required (no longera sports car) and THEN say that because its made by the same people as make the focus shopping trolley it must be good handling it doesnt really sit in the original context of requesting a *sports car*.
m_f - there's no ignorance, lots of those manufacturers are experimenting with Ds currently, it IS a viable *alternative*. It just takes a very large shift in technology and knowledge to go from all-petrol to diesel. Some will always stay petrol, others will experiment. Think about your comments regarding the formula series and any organised motorsport - most of these series rules specify the fuel used, no motorsport team would experiment with other fuels in the hopes that the rules may change in the future.
To paraphrase a friend who works for a company subcontracted by Lambo, "lambo are great to work for, they dont consider emissions limits while designing".
Its a huge technological shift in production, sourcing and knowledge - not an easy step to make. Some just wont bother because the differences are fairly small, some will stick with one as its part of their heritage etc. Imagine you have a team of 100 engineers, they all have all of their knowledge based around big honking petrols, know them inside out. Someone suggests making a D engine - where do you get the knowledge? Buy in more engineers? convert some of your others? Take a risk on all that, or just stick to what you know and do well?
Well diesel is not permitted in any of the series you have mentioned for a start.
Formula 3000, is this the 90s already? GP2 replaced it, and has a spec engine.
A1 - see above.
F2 - assume you mean the new palmer series rather than the original, see above
F1 - whilst they can use there own engine they are limited to naturally aspirated 2.4L V8 petrol engines. They also cannot use turbos.
There are actually only a few series which permit non petrol cars, BTCC and ETCC (in which diesel cars have been sucessful race wineers) as you have mentioned, as well as Le Mans (in which they have also been sucessful race winners).
Why are they not more common? I put it down to fashion and the fact that performance diesel is a fairly new thing (really since Golf GT TDI). Also cost, it can be very costly to develop a diesel over a petrol.
Don't forget it wasn't long ago that diesel was something you put ina van or tractor.
I guess our definition of a drivers car differs.
racing cars are petrol, right?
Mostly due to rules, very very few series allow any choice of engine or fuel. If it were permissible to use different fuels then diesel and petrol would not get a look in.
I imagine it will change as time goes on, a diesel single seater series will not be far away imo (think Palmer Audi TDI).
I give up - I have not discounted diesel engines in race cars but the simple fact is that petrol cars are preferred (fair enough, in some classes required). Diesel is allowed in touring cars, it is allowed in hill climbing (anything is allowed there - they have every class going). Fair enough if some of the classes I mentioned no longer run, I was thinking off the top of my head - my knowledge of racing classes is clearly not as good as yours.
I have never doubted diesel is better in some circumstances - I have said so and repeated this too.
How many Le Mans have diesels won compared to petrol?
I have no doubt that diesel technology is vastly improved over what it once was, but still it is not as suitable for a race car as petrol. If it were, quite simply, more performance cars WOULD be diesel. It MAY change in the future and if it does become the better choice, people will buy...
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
