[Closed] Worth paying a premium for a diesel engine?

Molgrips, that graph shows the TDI's power falling off sharply before the red-line not increasing all the way.

Yeah, that feels about right after driving one. 4k rpm and it's all over bar the shouting. 🙂

And here's a better comparison to the 2.0TDi VW graphs. A 2.0TSi - Petrol Turbo

[img] [/img]

Not quite the same headline torque figure, but look at that huuuuge wide plateau of torque! 1700-5000rpm +!
Makes the diesel engine looke like a 2-stroke!
And the power figure murders the diesel. Bye Bye..... See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!
😀

a different slat, just drove from Cheltenham to Chester via the A5 in my 1.9TDi and got an indicated 73mpg, find me any petrol car that would be remotely comfortable for that journey and give that sort of economy?

mrmo: What kind of speeds were you doing? I don't get anywhere near that in my 1.9tdi on an 80 mile motorway commute.

got 67mpg out of my 1.9 D partner at 70 on the dualer on a round trip without particularly trying to be fuel economic.

your arguement is mute for me PP ill take slow and powerless for that sort of return as long as i can do the speed limit

PeterPoddy - Member

And here's a better comparison to the 2.0TDi VW graphs. A 2.0TSi - Petrol Turbo

Exactly.

My petrol turbo also had a flat torque curve like that. It was fantastic to drive. My TD has a flat spot off tickover, a delay and then a lump of torque which gives a bit of shove, promises a lot ...and then fails to deliver as it dies off fairly quickly.

At ~2000rpm in high gears it does pull quite well. 80-100mph (where conditions allow) is quite quick probably as it stays in the 'powerband' for longer in higher gear, but at medium speeds on back roads it's not that quick.

I'd much prefer a non-turbo 3.0 V6 petrol, but the fuel costs are prohibitive. I'll stick to a tractor for now(and re-consider the petrol/diesel issue when I look to swap) and the purity of a motorbike, which is much more fun.

most of the M5 is 50limits now, then the bit around birmingham to the M54 more 50mph if lucky, more like 40mph, then 60 something on the dual carriageway sections.

I was traveling on the slow side, 60 something rather 70 something it just gives me something to think about on the commute.

Turbo petrols are good for driving, I agree. I thought this was a discussion about NA petrols which are the most common incarnation. I have said on other threads before how I like turbo petrols.

I just care what it feels like when I twitch my right foot

That's my point really - your right foot doesn't know what it's doing.

no matter where you are in the rev range, you've gotta send forms in triplicate to the engine when you want power

Kind of proves my point - you're kind of wrong there. If you are driving over a certain speed the turbo will always be spinning. I can get plenty of instant power from my engine just by keeping the revs up. That's what the S mode on the auto box does, in fat. And it's not fair to say that there's no power under 1.5krpm when the delay is caused by turbo lag not power flat spots. In a NA petrol (unless it's huge) you'll never go anywhere quickly from 1.5krpm ever, whereas by understanding the engine in a TDi you can take off.

And here's a better comparison to the 2.0TDi VW graphs. A 2.0TSi - Petrol Turbo

Do turbo petrols not have lag?

And anyway, why are you worried about the number of rpm? In say a Honda 2.2 CDTi if you just painted over the numbers on the tach with petrol ones you'd NEVER know the difference between it and a turbo petrol.

Molgrips, that graph shows the TDI's power falling off sharply before the red-line not increasing all the way.

That's the limiter. It does tail off *just* fractionally below the actual red line painted on the tach but so what? I was attempting to compare it to the older PD engines which are the ones with a big slug uner 3krpm then a long gradual tail which really is frustrating to drive with when you are trying to say overtake. But again, plenty of fun can be had if you aren't an idiot.

You seem somewhat obsessed with one specific driving style, and with some numbers. You seem to feel that unless the tach needle touches a 6 you haven't achieved something, regardless of how the engine's performed up til that point. Diesels can be just as fun and sporty if you aren't a complete numpty with the throttle.. 🙂

Only diesel disadvantages in my view (and experience) are:

More NOx/particlulate pollution
Heavier engine may affect handling if you are really into it
Higher cost
Increased energy cost in refining possibly.

So the limiter starts to kick in at 4000rpm yet the engine continues to rev to 4500. That's nearly 15% of the rev range. This is not caused by a limiter, but due to turbo constraints. Volkswagen have chosen a turbo that spools early but cannot flow enough air at above 4000rpm, and rightly so.

A petrol turbo will have lag, all turbos have lag. This means that you cannot get instant power. The lack of power below 1500rpm is not due to lag, but due to being below the turbo spool point. Lag and spool are different.

I can see an argument for Turbo Diesels, they provide acceptable performance with good economy. However, I would still spend my money on a larger capacity petrol engine with far better throttle response than either a turbo diesel or turbo petrol. If I were to do more miles I may consider a diesel, but I find petrol engines both more relaxing and more enjoyable to drive.

Not sure you are right about that, Harmitans. The car I fiddled with most was a 1.9 TD IDI all mechanical engine. The limiter was a compound spring arrangement that was set up to gradually reduce fuelling as you approached the red line. One of the favourite mods was to remove the softer of the two springs so that it kept on pulling. Only problem then was that it felt like hitting a wall as you hit the limiter. I think that maybe that's why VW didn't set it up like that. It was also possible incidentally to mod the springs further and get 5.5krpm or so out of the engine.

But what's in a number? Why is 4,000 worse than 6,000 if the gears are longer, so it gets you from say 30-70 in the same time, and if the output curve rises in a similar way?

A big petrol engine could well be lovely to drive.. but they drink fuel. If you care nothing for efficiency, waste, pollution etc etc then knock yourself out.

To me, efficiency is a fundamental engineering principle, so a car that does 25-30mpg is just wrong.

molgrips , a man after my own heart !

a car is a tool not a toy

Unless you are at a track day, in which case I doubt I'd take a diesel. But then I might, just to make a point 🙂

not sure why some people find petorls more relaxing to drive. For me a diesel is much more relaxing (for everyday driving) as theres not as much changing down for overtaking. Mine just cruises along at about 1700rpm and i put foot down and it accelerates straight away. Same with all the modern diesels i've driven recently from Hyundai / Kia 1.6, ford 1.6, VAG 1.6 and 2.0 engines (all diesels).

I found the petrols i've driven recently much more hard work to be enjoyable with having to get the revs higher for any power.

Also super economy on modern diesles amd often lower tax (£35 on the kia and ford ones which were also very good to drive)

I could well be wrong about the limiter, my experience with turbo diesels is based on much larger engines.

Do you have any figures for these modded engines, e.g. dyno charts? I suspect removing the spring will slow down the decrease of torque but it will still be decreasing. Do the diesels that rev to 5500rpm still use the standard turbo? I'm really interested to see how much torque they're producing at those revs.

The problem with 70mph at 4000rpm in a diesel compared to 6000rpm in a petrol is that at 1500rpm in my petrol I have 84% of peak torque available, yet in the diesel you are now at 1000rpm. In the Audi 2.0TDI I drive for work, this means one of 2 things either change down or wait and wait for the turbo to spool then get a big lump of torque. I prefer my car.

My 3.0 petrol engine returns between 30-35mpg. I happily pay for the extra fuel not to drive a diesel.

Hmm interesting point about the need to shift down in a petrol ot overtake, my midget sits at 3k rpm in 4th on the motorway at 60*. Fraction more throttle and it shoots upto 70 for overtaking.

*indicated speed, my parents follow in the focus sometimes and we recon the spedo is bang on, morden cars (i.e. someone hasnt calibrated each speedo individualy) seem to over read by 10%.

If it wasn't for the complete lack of noise insulation (and dire need for another 20hp at arround 3k rpm, 500rpm on the redline and another gear) it makes quite a nice motorway cruiser.

Do the diesels that rev to 5500rpm still use the standard turbo? I'm really interested to see how much torque they're producing at those revs

Not standard turbo.. not standard anything apart from the block 🙂 There is amazingly a really healthy TD and TDi modding scene in the US and Canada...

Harmitans - not sure what you are trying to say there. You may be at a high percentage of peak torque at 1.5krpm in a petrol but from a diesel driver's point of view that's 85% of bugger all. I can get more torque at the same revs in a diesel, then when the revs are higher I get even more.

Diesels have loads more torque than petrol - fact. They also have more power at lower revs. To me that means you can drive more at lower revs, which means a relaxing drive. Having to drop through the gears to get the car moving means extra bother imo.

What I'm trying to say is that I have to change gear less in my petrol car than I do in the diesels I drive.

Whilst a diesel engine has a higher peak torque, the gearbox has to have higher gear ratios due to the lower engine speeds. This results in less torque at the wheels which is what actually accelerates the car. A petrol car has higher wheel torque than a diesel at low rpm and high rpm.

The diesel only has greater wheel torque in the mid range. To me this feels like a narrow power band and hence more gearbox stirring.

Only if you want to sound look a taxi, smell like a chip shop and look like a cheapskate. 🙂

I can't imagine how on earth you drive harmitans. I have always had to change gear more in petrols. Only yesterday I was driving a Mazda 2 petrol. I'd be cruising nice and smoothly at 40mph in top gear; put my foot down and absolutely nothing happened. I'd need third to get moving. In a comparable diesel such as the Seat Ibiza I used to drive, you could be away in 5th at 40mph, and quite quickly too.

So I can't imagine what on earth you are talking about. As for wheel torque - in most diesels I've driven the ratios are maybe 50% longer than in petrol in cruising gears, and the difference is less in lower gears. Torque levels are around 2-3 times as much. So there should still be more wheel torque.

Just checked back to those graphs I posted, and I think the torque curves are wheel torque, which kind of proves me right.

I don't think a 3.0l petrol is in the same class of car as a 2.0 TDi anyway, so comparisons of that nature are moot.

I'm off home now. I reckon I can get the 11 miles home with 23 gear changes. In the diesel I think it would take 37.

The graphs are wheel torque/total reduction versus engine speed. If you re-scaled the graphs so that all the cars were in a gear ratio that allowed them to travel at the same speed at max rpm the 3.0 petrol has more wheel torque than the 2.0TDI through the whole rev range as does the 2.0T VAG petrol. The 2.0 VAG petrol has more wheel torque only at low and high engine rpms.

I agree that a 3.0 petrol and 2.0 turbo petrol will have more torque, of course they will. They are sportier engines in a more expensive class of car. The 2.0 TDi in the Passat is a ubiquitous workhorse engine and not very expensive to buy or run.

If you want to play torque top trumps, I give you the VW Touareg 5.0l V10 TDi with 590ft/lbs or 890Nm at 2krpm. That's over double the torque of the V6 petrol and at lower revs (3.0L V6 265 ft/lbs at 2.5krpm). The TDi is also more powerful and significantly faster, with a 0-62 time of 6.7s versus 8.4s for the petrol. Fuel economy is the same.

You're talking through your arse mate. Comparing like for like, diesel is more versatile and more efficient to boot (edit) than NA petrol.

EDIT again:

If you re-scaled the graphs so that all the cars were in a gear ratio that allowed them to travel at the same speed at max rpm

Wtf? Is that how you drive?

You seem to be contradicting yourself so I wont say any more.

However, I will play top trumps:

Mercedes 6.0 V12 Turbo - 1000Nm. Petrol rules!

**** me they are tin boxes, with wheels, you move along roads in them as long as they go, dont cost a fortune and can cruise along at 75-80 why exactly does it matter.....

I bought my diesel 2nd hand. Granted I could've got a newer / better specced petrol for the same money, but servicing costs seem the same and apart from 18 months ago the price difference between diesel and petrol means it works out better value - a full tank goes a bit further for only a bit more.

I think paying closer to full price I'd probably consider a petrol with stop-start technology. The BMW 116 gets something like 48mpg out of a petrol IIRC.

Whats driven the leaps in diesle performace? Is it trickle down technology from truck engines or the demand for more fuel efficient cars that drive more like petrols?

I sometimes think that whatever you buy (petrol / diesel / hybrid) you pay the same in one way or another either by price of petrol /servicing / initial cost / repairs. Its all a very clever conspiracy by the chancellor / car companies / garage cartels and oil companies - they're all controlled by the 7ft lizards!

In my experience the "incresed fuel economy" is mostly a myth. In my new job I have had a LOT of hire cars in the last year, all newish, whilst at the same time running my 2001 1.6vvti Corolla 110bhp (petrol).
I have 18 months of very accurate fuel consumption data for my Corolla (every bit of fuel in, every mile accounted for).
I have driven the same in every car (watching the instant MPG reading to see how mpg can improve, but occasionally having fun or overtaking when I want to).
My Corolla got 39mpg AVERAGE, with figures ranging from 32 to 49mpg (32 a tank ALL around town, 49 on a trip 4 up, fully loaded 1000 miles to Cornwall).
My current car, Kia Cee'd 1.6hdi EcoDynamic (with stop start modern engine, and quoted 55mpg - 65 mpg) is currently 45mpg.

6mpg difference. Oh WOW - I'll be a millionaire!

I've not had a turbo diesel engine leased to me yet that can average more than 47mpg - and remember this is with IDENTICAL driving using each car at its most economical.

I had a Vauxhall Insignia SRi 1.9cdti estate (auto admittedly) and on a long relaxed trip to the cotswolds and back did 36mpg.

So don't argue the fuel consumption myth with me, I'm sorry it just isn't true, the only increase is swallowed up massively by the extra cost in the first place.

I am getting an Astra 1.7cdti EcoFlex as a permanent comapny car soon.

My Corolla will be sorely missed. 🙁

must depend where you drive ie lots of traffic etc?

I have a 2.0 TDI which gets me average 54mpg, but the petrol car i drive, a 1.4 vtec thing that i dont rev the nuts off only gives me about 42mpg. (both in fairly traffic free rural areas which is most of my driving) Of course the computers could be lying to me!

My results aren't on what the trip computer says, I log all the petrol purchases and odometer readings and enter them into an iPhone app I have. Tank brimmed every time..

Mind you, I do reset the trip computer every time and I find that every car has been within 2-3mpg of what I've calculated each time at the very most.

You seem to be contradicting yourself so I wont say any more

No what I'm saying is for performance, compare like with like. As in, a petrol sports car will clearly be more powerful than a normal family diesel...

So don't argue the fuel consumption myth with me, I'm sorry it just isn't true, the only increase is swallowed up massively by the extra cost in the first place

I'll argue with that, as would most people. Did you know for example that in wintertime they sell diesel that has anti gelling agents in it that reduce fuel economy? Your Kia would be significantly more efficient in the summertime, about 5mpg or more. And your Vauxhall must've had something wrong with it for sure. 36mpg from any of my diesels and they'd have been straight back to the garage. Ridiculous.

My Seat Ibiza got 57mpg in the summer and 53mpg in the winter. Care to explain that if it's such a stupid myth? Your Kia is either rubbish, you don't know how to drive or there's something wrong with it. Oh and petrol pumps aren't that reliable, they vary the point at which they stop filling hugely from pump to pump. It is very much not definitive.

My Passat (comparable to your Insignia) gets 48mpg in the winter and low 50s in the summer although I only did a couple of trips on summer diesel. I'd be seeing 35 or so from a petrol I imagine.

To be honest mate saying that diesel drivers are all stupid and wrong based on your couple of cars is a bit offensive. You should've said something like 'I've not really seen much difference in fuel economy, not sure what's happening there' instead of calling us all wrong and gullible.

Well, people are posting lots of pictures, so I thought I would post up chart of the calculated economy figures I maintained over 121 or so tanks of fuel on my Rover 620 SLDi (I know, shit car).

The first set of results are from when I was driving 70 miles each way to work and back on a dual carriageway. A tank lasted me roughly four days. You can also see the drop to lower economy when I moved house closer to work, leaving me with a drive through town and along a single carriageway A road.

[img] [/img]

There is no way a petrol would have got me the sort of economy the shitty Rover did on the long commute, but a cheap petrol would have done when I moved house.

How was the Kia? Attracted by the long warrenty.

To be honest mate saying that diesel drivers are all stupid and wrong based

When did I say that? Please read my post properly before you accuse me.

on your couple of cars is a bit offensive.

Its actually 11 different cars, over about 20,000 miles in total. 3 petrol, 8 diesel.

And your Vauxhall must've had something wrong with it for sure

Might have, I don't know. I did say it was the SRi, and an auto box, which might explain that..?

I'd be seeing 35 or so from a petrol [b]I imagine[/b]

So you don't actually know at all then? You're just guessing based on no experience, and you argue that [i]I'm[/i] wrong? Strange logic...

Your Kia is either rubbish

I will admit that is very possible! 😉
However, it is exactly the sort of car that the ill-informed masses are ditching their perfectly good petrol cars to buy.

I am comparing like for like though. Take the VW passat as an example, some of the engine options available are 2.0 Petrol, 2.0T Petrol, 3.2 Petrol and 2.0TDI. So the car is the same only the engine is different.

The 3.0 Petrol I refer to is a BMW 330 4 door saloon, I don't see this as a sports car. For the same price and same age I could have an Audi A4 2.0TDI, a car that I consider to be in the same class.

If I did huge mileage I may consider a Diesel but in my opinion the only plus point they have is fuel economy. I prefer everything else about the petrol engine.

How was the Kia? Attracted by the long warrenty

Looks ok (if you don't have very high standards). Nice to sit in and drive, seems good quality inside too for the money. Loads of storage bins etc which make it very useful. However the 1.6hdi engine sounds dog rough (compared to Honda/Vauxhall/VAG, well pretty much everything) and performance is woeful.

It was a surprise when I got in it how good it was tbh, but I drove a new Astra at Millbrook at an invitation only event and it was better in every way than any other car in its class. I preferred it to the A3, Golf, Civic, Focus etc etc which I tested side by side there. Really good engines, handle well, exceptional quality. If I had a choice I'd have a new Astra in a heartbeat.

but in my opinion the only plus point they have is fuel economy

... and if you consider the overall cost of a car (which surely you should be doing if you care about mpg as it's all about the money at the end of the day) then they even have that point unless you are doing monster mileage!

Exactly Rob! It's about choosing a car to suit your needs.

My family told me I should have bought a diesel when I bought the BMW and I explained with figures why they were wrong and they just don't get it. The same people also say how nice my car is to drive!

they just don't get it

I think it's the diesel fumes that have addled some peoples brains.... 😉

Just been looking at this on purely financial grounds (hopefully more subjective). Since am seriously thinking of changing cars.

2009 Passat 170bhp DSG TDI vs 2.0T DSG. Cost difference is ~£3000.

Driving 10000miles per annum (combined 33 petrol vs 46 diesel - seems about right) you would have to drive ~60000 miles to breakeven. Not so bad for a 20K pa driver like myself but for you average 10-12k pa driver it's harder to justify.

Doesn't take into account everything such as residuals, insurance or servicing costs, future differences in fuel etc... but not exactly clear cut no matter which way you look at it.

Residual values of different cars would seem to be more important financially than fuel costs.

If you want to see turbo lag then top gear did a test of the EVO FQ400 againts a fiat diesel car both had to accelerate from 30 mph in 5th the fiat left the Evo for dead and it only just caught up when they got to the end of the straight.

Having until recently owned a 1.9 dci and a 2.0 petrol i can say that as mine wasn't a VW engine, they are know for the lumpy way the deliver power, that the turbo started to wind up at 1200rpm and felt smooth with very little turbo lag where as the petrol just doesn't wind up the smae way until you hit 2500rpm+. For fast driving i would pick th epetrol every day but for relaxed city/motorway driving i would have a diesel for its lazy nature as well as the better fuel economy. The best i have seen in the petrol is 40mpg verse 55 in the diesel and that car wieghed over half a tonne heavier.

If you want to see turbo lag then top gear did a test of the EVO FQ400 againts a fiat diesel car both had to accelerate from 30 mph in 5th the fiat left the Evo for dead and it only just caught up when they got to the end of the straight.

The FQ400 example is not turbo lag either, it's due to the engine being below the boost threshold and being unable to spool the turbo.

The FQ400 example is not turbo lag either, it's due to the engine being below the boost threshold and being unable to spool the turbo.

When did I say that? Please read my post properly before you accuse me.

You said diesel fuel economy was a myth. What I took that to mean was that we are all somehow deluded in thinking diesels are more economical - ie we think they are and they are not, which in turn is like saying we are wrong.

Its actually 11 different cars, over about 20,000 miles in total. 3 petrol, 8 diesel.

And how many cars are on the market?

So you don't actually know at all then? You're just guessing based on no experience, and you argue that I'm wrong? Strange logic...

Well I have owned and driven petrol cars, and so have my mates. I've just never driven a new model petrol Passat which is why I said 'imagine'. I used to own an old one which got 38mpg on only gentle long country drives, no town driving. Published figures for Passats are either 42mpg or 38mpg depending on which power option you go for, and that's the very impressive TSI engine which as I've said before is very possibly a rival to the diesels in the Passat, particularly in terms of emissions. However I don't think this level of technology is widespread yet.

As for a 3.0L petrol being a like for like comparison with a 2.0 TDI, again I don't agree. Fuel costs, insurance and tax must mean it's a more expenisve premium option, surely? What fuel economy do you get in real life?

i can say that as mine wasn't a VW engine, they are know for the lumpy way the deliver power

Not any more mate. That was the old VW diesels, new ones are much better.

I just checked the VW price list - a 1.4 TSi 122hp Passat is £1,100 cheaper than the 110hp TDi, and does 9mpg fewer - 42 vs 51. So about 4 years payback ish based on 12k miles a year. VED savings are £25/year. On the other hand, the Bluemotion version is available at 63mpg and £1700 premium over the 1.4 TSi, which would pay back in 3.5 years ish for fuel - but the VED is £120 per year LESS than the petrol.

Bear in mind this is the one of the most efficient petrol engines out there.. I must say I am actually quite interested in it as an alternative to diesel because of its lower emissions and even power delivery. But as for standard NA petrols - no chance.

And let's not forget, cost is not the only factor here.

regarding the VAG TSI petrol engines, on paper they have good eonomy, but the one i drove for a few hours i found i had to drive it very 'careully' to get the published figures, unlike diesels where i just tend to drive relative to the conditions and trafic and it gives very good mpg.

I've also had a few VAG car dealers telling me that the economy on the TSI isn't as good in real life. Now this could be because they are new engines and a lot of them havent 'run in' so ecomony will improve, or could need some tweaks to the ECU on them as they are new technology.

i can say that as mine wasn't a VW engine, they are know for the lumpy way the deliver power

Not any more mate. That was the old VW diesels, new ones are much better.

The whole point of hte FQ item was to show how poor the car was off boost as it had been total desgined around the turbo.

Harmitans - Member
The FQ400 example is not turbo lag either, it's due to the engine being below the boost threshold and being unable to spool the turbo.

There is a difference. Below the boost threshold the turbo will not spool however long you wait. Above the threshold the time between opening the throttle and the turbo generating boost pressue is the lag time.

If the engine produces enough torque below the boost threshold then the car will accelerate slowly until it reaches the boost threshold, the turbo will then spool and the car will accelerate faster. All the FQ400 example shows is an engine that doesn't have much torque below the boost threshold and a reasonably high boost threshold.

"And how many cars are on the market?"

So do I have to drive every single car on the market to make my argument valid. It's at least better then your comment:

"I've just never driven a new model petrol Passat which is why I said 'imagine'. I used to own an old one "

Ahhh, a direct comparison like I've been able to do?
No.

"And let's not forget, cost is not the only factor here."

Yes I know, diesels drive like crap. If I could choose the car I have I'd go for petrol because:

a) I have learnt how to change gear at an appropriate time (do the diesel advocates really think having to move your hand and press your foot down really stressful?). If you really can't be bothered to change down a gear then I hope you can be bothered to brake!!
b) I like to drive - I don't just have it as a "tool" - Q. - are the bikes you choose the most efficient for how you ride? Don't get me started about singlespeeds!
c) I can tell the difference between different handling cars.
d) I can do maths.

Who cares. If you want a diesel buy a diesel. If you want a petrol buy a petrol.

I run a diesel for work and look forward to driving my wifes petrol polo at the weekends. I have driven more miles in diesel VW's than i car to remember. The end result, its a diesel, end of.

I sell commercial vehicles for a living and diesel rules, but really, for joe bloggs who drives 15k per annum there isnt really a defining argument for or against either engine.

Lets discuss the merits of bigger brakes on your bikes, its a similar ever decreasing circles type argument which gets tedious

Robdob, am I wrong about the Passats? Are the diesels more efficient than the petrols? Yes. No-one apart from you argues this. I showed you some figures which showed that the payback time in terms of money is 40-50 thousand miles, which is what everyone else has been saying all along. So what's your point?

You seem to be making up loads of strange arguments and I am not quite sure why. You are allowed to prefer petrol, that's ok - just don't say wrong things about them not being efficient. That's what I was trying to call you on, really. How else do you explain the 57mpg Seat Ibiza or the 65mpg Bluemotion Passat?

About changing gear - it's effort. Small, but it's there. Otherwise why did people invent automatic gearboxes? Again, you are allowed to enjoy changing gear, as I would if I were faced with a windy mountain road, but again on a motorway it's a different game. I know how to do it, and I am a fine driver from a technical point of view.

Out of interest, why did you bother typing that stupid stuff about me not bothering to brake? Was it really worth it?