Audi rules out Diesel RS models

[blaaah]

Good news.
Audi's Quattro GMBH’s development boss Stephan Reil has ruled out ever making a Diesel RS, and rightly so, saying you need revs to have an exciting car.
Confirming in my view perhaps unintentionally that the whole Audi project to win Le-Mans was just for car sales/marketing purposes rather than a traditional motor-sport ethos. Anything to put a frown on Diesel lovers is news worthy I feel.
Cheers.
👍

 

[sumbrownkid]

Well Audi could have pursued a diesel quattro along with a normal gas powered quattro for the corporate fuel consumption average as well as for that ever growing number of gas conscious drivers.

 

[blaaah]

But not for real drivers who have a passion for performance or adrenalin while on the road.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Ever driven powerful diesel? No? Then hush.

 

[blaaah]

....
Are you saying the Audi boss of Quattro has never driven any of the high power Audi diesel models. What are you thinking? He says they are dull and not for a true sporting range of car. I think everyone can say he has had more experience.

 

[Alex.]

Ever driven powerful diesel? No? Then hush.

I think we both know the heart of performance is with petrol. Yes I have driven powerful diesels.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

It was aimed at Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I wouldn't mind driving around in a well performing diesel, but it would have to come from BMW.. 123d? yes please.

 

[blaaah]

It was aimed at Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I wouldn't mind driving around in a well performing diesel, but it would have to come from BMW.. 123d? yes please.

He was saying your point is invalid no matter who it's aimed at.

 

[tribolik]

If it is invalid how come diesel machines have been winning Le Mans for the past two years? ever seen an onboard lap of the 908 - do you consider it - boring?

And its not just a matter of winning in the pit strategy - they made pole also in the past two years and set the fastest lap times.

But not for real drivers who have a passion for performance or adrenalin while on the road.

So the guys who won Le mans (and a lot of other LMPs races) are not real drivers? what are they robots? sorry but Im also drive a diesel and I consider myself a real driver

 

[blaaah]

If it is invalid how come diesel machines have been winning Le Mans for the past two years? ever seen an onboard lap of the 908 - do you consider it - boring?

And its not just a matter of winning in the pit strategy - they made pole also in the past two years and set the fastest lap times.



So the guys who won Le mans (and a lot of other LMPs races) are not real drivers? what are they robots? sorry but Im also drive a diesel and I consider myself a real driver

I hope you know of the Diesel regulations in Motorsport? It's a bit like the special people in a sports day. (psst lets let them race and we let them win something)
Also even in the faces of racing drivers I have seen who have just won races and get pole position in a diesel car, they look not so thrilled, and their voice shows signs of guilt. They have sacrificed a lot of pleasure by choosing to drive for a diesel powered brand keen to increase their global image.

Not sure how long the trend will continue, but the graph line is already sliding downwards in the amount of support the diesels are getting in the regulations, still ridiculously unfair though.

Ask any racing driver, saying they are guaranteed to get the win in the race, which would they prefer to drive, the petrol or the diesel....

So the guys who won Le mans (and a lot of other LMPs races) are not real drivers? what are they robots? sorry but Im also drive a diesel and I consider myself a real driver

Those drivers got paid a lot of money to drive it, and they knew the car would be a winner or able to win, for the very fact it was a diesel and would beat the petrol.
None of those apply to real life, the petrol always wins in performance terms, prove me wrong, and is more exciting.

All remember the winning drivers saying is, "I don't know when to change gear, I can't hear the engine properly, it doesn't rev."

 

[tribolik]

I hope you know of the Diesel regulations in Motorsport? It's a bit like the special people in a sports day. (psst lets let them race and we let them win something)
Also even in the faces of racing drivers I have seen who have just won races and get pole position in a diesel car, they look not so thrilled, and their voice shows signs of guilt. They have sacrificed a lot of pleasure by choosing to drive for a diesel powered brand keen to increase their global image.

Not sure how long the trend will continue, but the graph line is already sliding downwards in the amount of support the diesels are getting in the regulations, still ridiculously unfair though.

Ask any racing driver, saying they are guaranteed to get the win in the race, which would they prefer to drive, the petrol or the diesel....


Those drivers got paid a lot of money to drive it, and they knew the car would be a winner or able to win, for the very fact it was a diesel and would beat the petrol.
None of those apply to real life, the petrol always wins in performance terms, prove me wrong, and is more exciting.

All remember the winning drivers saying is, "I don't know when to change gear, I can't hear the engine properly, it doesn't rev."

So from what you say real drivers ride bikes - those sure do rev alot

But I get what you are saying - lets be real drives a few more years (until we run out of petrol) instead of fake drivers for more years (because driving a diesel really saves the black stuff a bit expecially high performance machines)

You also say it will change but I dont think so - look at F1 - I wouldnt be suprised if they resort to diesel the way that they are going

 

[MatskiMonk]

Sorry blahh, but I disagree.. petrol may be perceived as the performance choice, but to support ruling it out as a possibility would be short sighted, and I'd say that to Audi-mans face too.

The fact is that not many people have made 'performance' diesels before, and therefore people don't associate diesel with performance... I'm sure if Audi quattro, BMW M, or AMG decided to develop a performance diesel engine, they could, and I'm sure it would have tarmac shredding torque to boot... BMW Alpina have tinkered with diesel performance cars before with good results, though they've never been targetted straight at M segment cars.

The real fact of the matter I think is made plain here, in an interview with the head of BMW M Gmbh... I can't see Audi mans reasons being much different.

BMWBLOG: Without getting into specifics about future cars, do you see alternative drivetrains being available in M Cars? Will we see an electric M hybrid or a diesel M car?

Dr. Kay Segler: Maybe there are two limits when it comes to technologies or drivetrains. Let’s consider drivetrains. The one is if there is a business case and whether it fits within the brand. When you talk electric, just take any electric car and run it along Nurburgring – hopefully you’ll make it back to the start. So it’s another car, with another purpose. So for a race car, that concept doesn’t fit.
When it comes to diesel, we were the one winning first in the Nurburgring 24 hours race with the diesel, and diesel is such is an interesting concept. BMW engines are brilliant from the technology side and it would be an interesting concept, only if the markets were supporting diesel.
It’s a pity that big markets like United States and China are not supporting diesel – all Latin America isn’t really supporting diesel, almost every Asian country is not supporting diesel, including Japan. So then you are basically limited more or less to Europe, especially very strong in Southern Europe- Italy, Spain, so that makes it difficult to run any business case for a diesel concept. But just from the sportiness point of view, diesel is maybe not for a pure racecar, but for performance cars it is very interesting.

 

[AlexGTV]

And may I ask why these territories don't support diesel, to protect producers' interests?

 

[blaaah]

Diesel is one of the worlds top people killers, millions of deaths are attributed to diesel use each year.
You might think China has bad air in the cities, and you would be right, but the cities would not even has alive people in it if they used diesel.

 

[tribolik]

That is strage because most public transportation are diesel and poluit less than most american cars- I know my car does (C2 1400 HDI VTR and about 100 g/km CO²) because I dont pay the tax (>104 g/km CO²) and I know for a fact that the High performance machines you talk about poluit much more.

Im almost certain that 10 cars like my 70hp car poluit less than 1 high powered american muscle car... so I dont think thats it.

Diesel used to be bad for the environment but its the 21 century now and technology has evolved a bit.

EDIT: In fact Ive just been to the citroen site to get my facts straight and my car really puts out <99 g/km CO² and the same car with a petrol engine puts out <134 g/km CO² and <160 g/km CO² (depending on the power) mind you the higher the value the worst it is for the environment... So I would definitly say that you dont have a very good point there... thats history but nowadays it is another story all together.

 

[blaaah]

CO2 is non toxic, we rely on it to breathe. It's not a pollutant.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^Well that is actually under discussion if CO2 is a contaminant or not in regards to the whole global warming debate.

Other than CO2 being buffer of sorts to maintain the pH in our blood, CO2 is actually bad for people in large concentrations.

Then again, what isn't?

 

[tribolik]

CO2 is non toxic, we rely on it to breathe. It's not a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - [ Traduzir esta página ]As the chemically most stable non-condensing greenhouse gas, ..... Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

carbon oxide is non toxic?

I though we where having a more or less serious and more or less intelligent conversation but I give up no use in talking to uneducated people (to say the least)

for crying out loud thats how they measure the polution rate of a vehicle at least in my country

 

[blaaah]

Oxygen is more toxic than CO2.

Use your common sense rather than wikipedia.
Oxygen is what kills us, humans and animals alike.

And don't say go into a room and breathe CO2 while I breathe Oxygen. That is not the point.

The point is that CO2 is harmless but Diesel emissions kill millions.
Sigh... learn something useful in your life.

 

[tribolik]

Go into a room and breathe CO2 while I breathe Oxygen.

 

[blaaah]

Dam.
Right, even if CO2 of current levels doubled it would not effect animal health much, and you could happily breathe it in for hundreds of years if nothing else killed you, but there would be something that killed you, and that something would be Oxygen, it's a highly reactive substance and it works on us and kills us. Alien Scientists on an another world might consider Oxygen planets the last thing to look for when checking for Alien life because of its ridiculously dangerous properties (look what it does to steel), how could Oxygen ever support life, they might think.
It's only because we exist and use the nastiness of oxygen to work for us to give us energy that we think it a "normal" good stuff.

 

[Tornado]

And may I ask why these territories don't support diesel, to protect producers' interests?

Three reasons for the U.S.:

1. Petrol prices in those countries aren't crazily inflated by the governments of those countries like they are in Europe. This makes diesel in the U.S. rare to find, far more expensive then petroleum and far harder/expensive to actually find a car to put it in (because diesels also add significant cost to regular cars as well). Basically, there is no infrastructure, and there is no reason to build infrastructure, and there will never be a reason to build infrastructure.
2. Bizarrely strict emissions laws basically prevented diesels from ever being sold in the U.S. until the past few years. Clean European diesels need the equivalent of clean European diesel fuel, and if they don't get it it was nearly impossible to make most of them pass U.S. emissions standards. And no one ever cared for the U.S. to get clean diesel fuel because no one in the U.S. ever wanted it.
3. In the U.S., this car (as well as some somewhat outdated perceptions that still hold strong):
   
   
   
   Killed diesels for anyone over 40 years old, and when combined with Point 1 has killed basically all interest in any manufacturers ever making a diesel passenger car as anything other than a niche oddity.

Oxygen is more toxic than CO2.

Use your common sense rather than wikipedia.
Oxygen is what kills us, humans and animals alike.

And don't say go into a room and breathe CO2 while I breathe Oxygen. That is not the point.

The point is that CO2 is harmless but Diesel emissions kill millions.
Sigh... learn something useful in your life.

I literally cannot figure out a way to respond to such a mind bogglingly insane thread of logic.




I will, hover, defend something:

That is strage because most public transportation are diesel and poluit less than most american cars- I know my car does (C2 1400 HDI VTR and about 100 g/km CO²) because I dont pay the tax (>104 g/km CO²) and I know for a fact that the High performance machines you talk about poluit much more.

Im almost certain that 10 cars like my 70hp car poluit less than 1 high powered american muscle car... so I dont think thats it.

Diesel used to be bad for the environment but its the 21 century now and technology has evolved a bit.

EDIT: In fact Ive just been to the citroen site to get my facts straight and my car really puts out <99 g/km CO² and the same car with a petrol engine puts out <134 g/km CO² and <160 g/km CO² (depending on the power) mind you the higher the value the worst it is for the environment... So I would definitly say that you dont have a very good point there... thats history but nowadays it is another story all together.

This is actually for a far different reason than you seem to think it is. CO² is a direct result of combustion, and directly related to fuel efficiency. The only reason diesels emit less CO² is because they get better MPG and burn less fuel. It isn't because they are inherently "cleaner" rather than it is just because they use less fuel to do the same work.

However, diesels emit far more NOx and particulates than the equivalent petrol engine (both being the specific reasons that they were practically outlawed in the U.S. for so long), so just because they emit less CO² doesn't mean they are automatically more environmentally friendly.

 

[tribolik]

I know too much pure O2 can drug and harm you but we need it to breath and cars dont send O2 emissions into the atmosphere... they send CO2 so do plants at night while during the day they produce the 02 that we breath... cows also produce CO2 when they fart and with todays modern meat farms it is also considered very armfull to the environment (kidding)

This is actually for a far different reason than you seem to think it is. CO² is a direct result of combustion, and directly related to fuel efficiency. The only reason diesels emit less CO² is because they get better MPG and burn less fuel. It isn't because they are inherently "cleaner" rather than it is just because they use less fuel to do the same work.

However, diesels emit far more NOx and particulates than the equivalent petrol engine (both being the specific reasons that they were practically outlawed in the U.S. for so long), so just because they emit less CO² doesn't mean they are automatically more environmentally friendly.

Thanks

Sometimes I really like to be wrong about something and this is one of those times - Ive learned something today - thanks to you...
But I still think the OP had no valid point...

 

[Tornado]

Sometimes I really like to be wrong about something and this is one of those times - Ive learned something today - thanks to you...
But I still think the OP had no valid point...

Don't worry. While diesels do have a notable problem with particulates and NOx emissions compared to petrol engines, the effect is still only really to the extent that you would have to wrap your mouth around the tailpipe for it to cause much of a difference (and I think NOx emissions on diesels decrease as the engine is broken in).

 

[Terronium-12]

Oxygen is more toxic than CO2.

Use your common sense rather than wikipedia.
Oxygen is what kills us, humans and animals alike.

And don't say go into a room and breathe CO2 while I breathe Oxygen. That is not the point.

The point is that CO2 is harmless but Diesel emissions kill millions.
Sigh... learn something useful in your life.

You can't possibly be that stupid.

 

[Villain]

Oxygen is more toxic than CO2.

Whaaaaaaa.........?

Use your common sense rather than wikipedia.

Now that's just adorable.

Oxygen is what kills us, humans and animals alike.

Care to back this one up?

And don't say go into a room and breathe CO2 while I breathe Oxygen. That is not the point.

I'm pretty sure that is the point.

The point is that CO2 is harmless but Diesel emissions kill millions.

Evidence?

Sigh... learn something useful in your life.

Like how to be an internet troll, for example.

_______________

You can't possibly be that stupid.

Why not?

 

[Terronium-12]

I saw what the second to last statement originally said. Change it back.

As for why not - no one can possibly believe that Oxygen kills you, and then go on to say "And don't say go into a room and breathe CO2 while I breathe Oxygen. That's not the point." What's the point then?

 

[Northstar]

So let me get this straight.

2 Molecules of Oxygen = Death
2 Molecules of Oxygen + 1 Molecule of Carbon = Fine



Sure carbon isn't very toxic, but it's not exactly health food either.

 

[Clark]

I hope you know of the Diesel regulations in Motorsport? It's a bit like the special people in a sports day. (psst lets let them race and we let them win something)
Also even in the faces of racing drivers I have seen who have just won races and get pole position in a diesel car, they look not so thrilled, and their voice shows signs of guilt. They have sacrificed a lot of pleasure by choosing to drive for a diesel powered brand keen to increase their global image.

I'm sorry this is a load of complete utter rollocks. Teams use it because diesel is a relatively undeveloped technology in racing, so they can gain an advantage. They are not like 'special people' as you so insultingly put it. And have you actually ever been to a race or are you pretending? When I've been at the LMS at Silverstone the drivers do not look guilty.

Ask any racing driver, saying they are guaranteed to get the win in the race, which would they prefer to drive, the petrol or the diesel....

Asky any racing driver and they'll choose which ever car is faster.

None of those apply to real life, the petrol always wins in performance terms, prove me wrong, and is more exciting.

More exciting yes, but not necessarily always faster. The R8 diesel road car would've been as fast as the V10.

All remember the winning drivers saying is, "I don't know when to change gear, I can't hear the engine properly, it doesn't rev."

That was what some of the audi drivers said when they first drove the R10, when they'd never really raced a diesel before and had not got used to it.

And Finally, where has this been said that Audi has ruled out RS diesels, there is nowhere on the net that says this. You've provided no proof, and
are probably just creating another thread for the sake of it like usual. Did Yoda tell you to do this?

 

[Prince.M5]

Did Yoda tell you to do this?

I don't know why, but the whole discussion in this thread just made my day!

blaah, could you please provide us some proof of this matter? Thanks.