[Closed] I want a diesel sportscar

Looking at the specs, the diesel TT (quattro) is only 10kg heavier than the 2L petrol Quattro.
They are both ~100 kg heavier than the 2wd 2L variants, which suggests that the difference in weight/handling has more to do with the quattro drive system than the engine.

Yes, hence:

...I think the heavier engine and addition of 4WD probably takes the edge off the handling balance that they achieved with the 2WD 2.0T.

Generally the 2.0T 2WD variant of the TT has had its handling praised as being pretty good. Handling of the other derivatives usually compares less favourably in most comparative verdicts.

A sports car has bugger all to do with in gear acceleration times, its about being able to keep your momentum going and getting back on the throttle as quick as you can.

I can't say I have driven a performance diesel for a while, the last I drove was a 330d about 5 years ago, and although very quick, you still had to think alot more about planinng gear changes, and anticipating the slight lag.

Of course if some one wants to lend me a nice TT diesel I am willing to be proven wrong 🙂

No, it's okay FunkyDunc - they are briefly quick at 30-50mph.

😉

Seriously - I can see the draw of a performance diesel for most road users - most of them can't drive for toffee when it comes to cornering but are happy to point it on a straight and get past the car in front. And they are good for that.

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.

And if you're driving 'sportingly' most likely on a twisty A road you are going to accelerating from 30 - 50 a lot & its safer for overtaking.

[B]And if you're driving 'sportingly' most likely on a twisty A road you are going to accelerating from 30 - 50 a lot & its safer for overtaking. [/B]

And if you're doing that, you'll be using these things called GEARS.

its safer for overtaking.

Ok look. I like diesels. I like the noise, I like the torque availability, I like cruising at low revs, I prefer the smell and the lower CO2 emissions. I'm not looking for a racing car, just something nippy that handles nicely. I don't care if I'm not the fastest thing on the road, and I don't like having to work through the gears to get anywhere. I like the feeling of accelerating reasonably briskly but [i]effortlessly[/i] at low revs.

Sure I'd like to be able to drive flat out in a really fast car (and yes I know all about braking zones, apexing corners and stuff thanks) but that's just not possible without going on track days. Anyone who does that on a public road should be beaten to within an inch of their lives and have their license taken away. So given that it's a public road with traffic and such, only modest speeds are possible. So there's no point in getting a car that needs twice as much fuel to just tease me with the potential that I won't be able to fill. Burning down sliproads on suburban dual carriageways just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

[i]Sweet handling, well balanced, good pace - the flowing singletrack analogy, is all about light weight and balance - as much the balance of engine revs, speed and chassis handling, as the physical weight balance.[/i]

By that I meant appreciating the flow of a road, not going for absolute maximum speed in a white knuckle road. I am not an adrenaline junky.

I suppose if you are going to get anal about the definition of a sportscar then a GT or roadster is indeed what I want.

And if you're doing that, you'll be using these things called GEARS.

To me, changing up and down all the time is a faff.

Molgrips - I don't think anyone is having a go at you for wanting a diesel (your money, your choice). I think it is more aimed at those that seem to think that diesels offer a better performance solution than petrol engines.

You clearly don't - you just want a strongly pulling, sporty feeling diesel.

🙂

Thankyou MF 🙂

Quite tempted to bin my Passat, steal its engine and try and put it something nippier, on account of how easy it is to tune up the old VW TD.

This thread is a stormer.

Molgrips how about an automatic VW Beetle soft top? It'll waft you down the shops with zero gearchanges, and it won't have enough grunt to spill your chai-latte-mocha-frappucino all over the beige leather seats. They do a special matching handbag for thrashing irresponsible drivers with, and if you sign up before the end of July you get a free course of HRT.

[B]To me, changing up and down all the time is a faff.[/B]

It's also a BIG part of the whole "sports car" thing. 50% of your involvement!

If it's a faff, why not get an auto? 😉

About the only new car I like the look of, and it comes with a Diesel engine option...
[img] [/img]

[i]Anyone who does that on a public road should be beaten to within an inch of their lives and have their license taken away.[/i]

That's me ****ed then given essentially that's how I was taught to drive.

Well a TT may not be a sports car by purists standards but it's better than an auto beetle isn't it?

Bugger off and get back to watching Top Gear repeats on Dave. Wouldnt' want to miss Tw*tson telling you what to think eh?

If it's a faff, why not get an auto?

My other car's an auto. And I like having control, I just don't like having to change gear to get things to happen. I get a choice in a diesel depending on how I feel.

Fingerbike - what's that? The bluesport?

I must admit - that new Scirocco (above) looks great and shares the same engine as the TT in 2.0l Turbo variant (no idea about the diesel, but I would assume it is the same too)

Nobody who has the first clue about driving cars for pleasure listens to anything Clarkson says.

The VW Beetle has been the most popular car in the repressed-tight-fisted-pseudo-sporty sector for 4 years running, it'd be a great choice.

Has anyone here driven a 'new' Beetle?

It feels like you are sat at the other side of a large table trying to look out of the windscreen.

New Scirocco comes with the 2.0 170bhp 258Lbs/ft TDI engine, can get it with the DSG gearbox option too, I'd like to own one one day...
A friend had a TDI engine conversion in a Corrado, went very well, stayed level with the VR6 up to illegal speeds...

The VW Beetle has been the most popular car in the repressed-tight-fisted-pseudo-sporty sector for 4 years running, it'd be a great choice.

It's not at all quick though is it, by anyone's standards? Or sporty. And it looks naff nowadays.

Here's one for you: Leon TDI Cupra vs Golf GT TDI vs the Sirocco?

Been having similar thoughts myself about swapping the Civic Type R and getting a relatively quick diesel. The new Golf GTD is probably top of my list. Looked at the BMW 123D Coupe and Audi TTD and although they look and perform slightly better than the Golf, I think the Golf is the better all rounder (looks, performance, practicality, comfort, etc).

Scirrocco 2.0 TDI GT is also meets the criteria.

Whilst we're on hot hatches, what about the Honda Civic diesel? It's meant to do 0-60 in 8.4 or something.

molgrips - Member
Ok look. I like diesels. I like the noise, I like the torque availability, I like cruising at low revs, I prefer the smell and the lower CO2 emissions. I'm not looking for a racing car, just something nippy that handles nicely. I don't care if I'm not the fastest thing on the road, and I don't like having to work through the gears to get anywhere. I like the feeling of accelerating reasonably briskly but effortlessly at low revs.

+1

we should get a secret handshake or something.

its totally swings and roundabouts!
its like comparing a hardtail to a FS, neither is better, they just do it differently!
some people just cant ride HTs, no matter how hard they try, they dont have the ability to adapt

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.

what a stupid comment

you COULD minimise your gear changes, by reving up to 8k revs,
OR
how about, you could minimise your gear changes by not bothering to change down in the first place, because you have 3 times the torque of an equivelent petrol and dont NEED to. you also have a stonking great turbo, which would be useless to a petrol driving mortal, but as you have embraced the power of the oily stuff, you know exactly where to blip the accelerator* to get the best out of it.

(*not a throttle, throttles are for girls)

1:swings
2:roundabouts
3:swings
4:roundabouts
5:GOTO line1, repeat

Photos are funny aren't they?

Scirocco looks great in press photos, but the ones that I have seen in the flesh look all wrong. Like a squished, flattened Golf with a fat @rse (IMO of course).

On the other hand the Alfa MiTo looks really weird and boggle eyed in photos, but is really quite handsome in the metal. If you really want a hot hatch.... the Alfa MiTo GTA is due out sometime soon, and in the proper traditions of Afla GT[u]A[/u]s, the MiTo will reportedly be lightened as well as being given more power etc.

what a stupid comment

The first is the extra weight making the vehicle unbalanced, meaning slower entry speeds and therefore less momentum and considerably slower exit speeds.

The second being the wonderful thing you keep mentioning - torque. YOu get a sudden rush of power over a very limited rev range - not only does this mean you will be changing gear sooner than the petrol (meaning more loss of time), it also means that you have to get the car much straighter on the exit of a corner before flooring it, otherwise understeer becomes your friend again. That and wheelspin.

But of course you knew all that didn't you?

Agreed on the Scirrocco. Looks great from some angles, but like Feargal Sharkey's face from other angles.

And out of curiosity, I just checked the power output on the TT standard 2.0l turbo (not the higher output 270bhp 2.0l one) v the TT Diesel turbo

The petrol... 200bhp @ 5100-6000 Max torque 280 @ 1800-5000

The diesel... 170bhp @ 4200 Max torque 350 @ 1750-2500

So - a usable 200bhp over a near 1k rev range, as opposed to a short peak of 170 just ONLY at 4200 revs.

And a max torque of 280 over 3200 revs, as opposed to 350 over just 750 revs.

Quite simply, diesels are not as flexible as petrol cars. They just go from 30-50 more quickly sometimes - but the petrol can use its 280 torque over a much longer range than the equivalent diesel - it would be interesting to see how the torque drops off either side of the max power on the diesel...

OR
how about, you could minimise your gear changes by not bothering to change down in the first place, because you have 3 times the torque of an equivelent petrol and dont NEED to. you also have a stonking great turbo, which would be useless to a petrol driving mortal, but as you have embraced the power of the oily stuff, you know exactly where to blip the accelerator* to get the best out of it.

But that's the whole point of this, err, debate... using torque in that way just doesn't work when it come to handling in the twisties. Drop to third, turn in, balance the car on the throttle - doesn't work in any diesel car I've driven. You either drop off boost and end up with a lumpen response mid corner, or get a whole gobfull of torque that unbalances the chassis.

I (foolishly) tried to use engine torque instead of revs for cornering during a test ride of a litre V twin sports bike a few years ago... Yes the V twin motor picked up nicely from low revs / high gear in a straight line - but trying to exit a corner using the engine's ample torque saw me run wide of my planned line and thanking my luck that nothing was coming the other way.

And I do currently drive a diesel car... great when your on the motorway / dual carriageway, big cruising A road. Acceptable / good straight line acceleration, especially for overtaking, but even after 18 months still can't get used to the lumpy (ie unbalanced) power delivery out of corners, at roundabouts, pulling out of junctions etc.

If it wasn't for the Government's biased revenue collection I'd have a petrol engined vehicle

I am enjoying this LOL!

YOu get a sudden rush of power over a very limited rev range - not only does this mean you will be changing gear sooner than the petrol

I dunno about that, in the ones I've driven that's been entirely controllable by the driver. Sure, if you stomp your foot to the boards as soon as you hit the apex it might be a problem, but why do that and cause trouble when you dont' have to? The torque figures are MAX torque, you do have control over it.

You do change gear sooner in the petrol on a long open straight ie if you were on a track - but in real windy country roads where the corners are sharper and the road narrower I think it's better to have torque on tap whenever you need it to avoid more gear changes. DISCLAIMER: I have never driven a well-balanced turbo petrol which as I understand it can have tons of low down torque as well so the above may not apply.

I'm glad I bought a Diesel now because diesel is (in some palces) now the same price as petrol.

Was a different story a year or so ago.

The difference in power delivery does take some getting used to. I had a petrol version of my current car which on paper is the same speed, but the engine felty like it had no guts.

I totally appreciate that you have control - which is why I made the point about the power out of a corner - you have the torque, but you cannot always use it all without potential nasty consequences.

Of course, there will be occasions where a diesel will perform better than a similar petrol car, but I would wager there would be more times a petrol car offers the most flexibility and quicker times.

And I do think that it is only fair to compare like-for-like - so a turbo petrol v the turbo diesel. Or we could go non turbo - but we'd be waiting a week for the diesel to turn up 😉

I had a petrol version of my current car which on paper is the same speed, but the engine felty like it had no guts.

My experiences exactly.

And I do think that it is only fair to compare like-for-like - so a turbo petrol v the turbo diesel.

Not really like for like. Turbos on petrols are pretty much only for sports cars unless it's VW who've quite decently made their turbos cheaply available. On diesels otoh they are pretty much standard. You should be comparing like for like in terms of cost.

Of course, compare like for like running costs the diesel wins hands down 😉 I really don't wanna drive a petrol car that gets 50mpg! (hybrids not included 🙂 )

You should be comparing like for like in terms of cost.

Well the TT diesel is £1,100 more to buy new - I wonder how many miles that equates to before break even? 😉

i agree with that too molgrips 🙂
incidently:

[img] http://weinterrupt.com/wp-content/uploads/stig.jp g" target="_blank">http://weinterrupt.com/wp-content/uploads/stig.jp g"/> [/img]
Mastiles fanny lion?

you also have a stonking great turbo, which would be useless to a petrol driving mortal,

errrrrmmm lots of petrol engined cars have turbos (or superchargers) you know. so you get loads of torque... but also the rev range to use it for longer.

Saabs, mitzy evos, subaru impreza to name but a few.

i found with TD its a case of nothing, nothing...woosh, change gear 1.5k rpm later... nothing, woosh, change gear 1.5k rpm later... nothing...

were as the saab is more nothing...woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh from 2k to 5.5k rpm - and cruising at 2k rpm right at the peak torque point.

personally i'm more of a fan of either naturally asperated or supercharged engines with a flatter torque curve than the surge of a turbo (tho the turbos are great for that shove in the back that give the impression of gaining speed, but dont necessarly increase speed any faster due to the lag of the turbo spinning up)

Molgrips - it sounds more like your after something like a audi TT Diesel, or a Merc. c class coupe diesel auto. since you want the appearance of 'sportyness' without any of the actual attributes of a sporty drive.

LOL if only I were. I have won a fair few kart races in my time though 🙂 Do you think The Stig would drive a TT? I don't 🙂

30-80 in one gear....hmmmm. Check. It's called 3rd gear in my car (and my little car redlines at 4.5k revs).

-m-, my point about the weight comparison is that the emphasis seems to be on the fact that the DIESEL doesn't handle as well as the PETROL due to the extra weight, with the implication being that the diesel is causing this extra weight. Where actually, the difference in weight (apart from 10kg) seems wholly attributable to the 4wd system, not the diesel engine.

I don't really get the whole arguement about which is better petrol/diesel & whether it's better to have a high revving engine with less torque or a lower revving engine with more torque. They are different. And that is that.
Generally the diesel will be longer geared, so the rev range is largely irrelevant. The gears have been designed to make better use of the combination of high torque/less revs whereas in a petrol the gear ratios are such that you make better use of the lower torque/higher revs.

As for the whole left foot braking thing......a lot of modern cars cut the throttle when you apply the brake anyway, so you can't left foot brake - petrol & diesel. And do you really drive that quick on the road to need all that race track stuff??

Molgrips - I wouldn't go near the Honda diesel. Unless they have improved it, a few people at my old workplace had them & reckoned they got <40mpg out of them.

When I was looking for my car I needed something with decent performance & handling, but frugal enough to let me do my 500 mile/week commute without bending over the bank managers desk too often (it's now 600 miles/week). It's all a compromise, but regular 58-60mpg on the commute coupled with a 0-60 of ~9s plus, dare I say it(?) heaps of overtaking wallop, insurance grp 7, decent kit, room for the bike blah blah.....it went to the Ibiza. Looking back now I should have spent a bit more & got the 160bhp Cupra, but hey ho.
If I hoon my car around or do shorter journies, it won't really drop below 50mpg on a tank although I could probably get there if I really wanted. Lowest mpg I have seen is ~45mpg when going to Cornwall last yr with it filled with camping gear & 2 bikes on the roof.

my point about the weight comparison is that the emphasis seems to be on the fact that the DIESEL doesn't handle as well as the PETROL due to the extra weight, with the implication being that the diesel is causing this extra weight. Where actually, the difference in weight (apart from 10kg) seems wholly attributable to the 4wd system, not the diesel engine.

Lowest mpg I have seen is ~45mpg when going to Cornwall last yr with it filled with camping gear & 2 bikes on the roof.

I got about 42mpg on a run back from Newquay earlier this year in my TT, doing an average of around 80mph - two up with a boot full of a week's worth of my wife's shoes.

tis true,
as aforementioned, i dont know about other cars, but mine has to have (iirc) 2 extra pumps to get the fuel up to pressure: 1350 bars!!!
AND, the brakes and other hydraulics require a vacum to work, which in a petrol engine is produced by the engine itself, but the diesel doesnt work in the same way, so it requires an additional pump to keep the vacum up (or down i suppose) to pressure

modern, fancy pants cars will be lighter im sure.
french superduper minis dont come with aluminium engine blocks 😉

(tho the turbos are great for that shove in the back that give the impression of gaining speed, but dont necessarly increase speed any faster due to the lag of the turbo spinning up)

The impression of speed - exactly. Not much point in going super-fast if it doens't feel like it, is there?

since you want the appearance of 'sportyness' without any of the actual attributes of a sporty drive.

No, I want as sporty a car as I can get (for the above discussed touring purposes not racing) that doesn't glug fuel in normal usage. And anything under 45mpg is glugging fuel in my book - over 50 is okay. I was curious as to whether or not diesel sports cars existed, hence the thread.

the brakes and other hydraulics require a vacum to work, which in a petrol engine is produced by the engine itself, but the diesel doesnt work in the same way, so it requires an additional pump to keep the vacum up (or down i suppose) to pressure

That vacuum pressure in a petrol is generated by the engine working against the throttle valve, which wastes more energy than the vacuum pump in a diesel. One of the reasons for the difference in mpg 🙂

[i]I got about 42mpg on a run back from Newquay earlier this year in my TT, doing an average of around 80mph - two up with a boot full of a week's worth of my wife's shoes. [/i]

62 MPG to Nottingham and back with car full of family and holiday crap, 80mph and air con on. I love diesels but will be tempted by a silly car when this one is ready to go. Focus RS is currently making me think about changing back to petrol.

The impression of speed - exactly. Not much point in going super-fast if it doens't feel like it, is there?

since you want the appearance of 'sportyness' without any of the actual attributes of a sporty drive.

No, I want as sporty a car as I can get

One of these then..
[img] [/img]

Or

[img] [/img]

62 MPG to Nottingham and back with car full of family and holiday crap

Fair enough - that is what you would want from a diesel. I was more than a little surprised to get it out of my car!