Audi rules out Diesel RS models

[Stotty]

PMSL at some of the stuff in here

Anyhow, on topic...

Diesel is a great fuel for commercial vehicles, most family cars and big saloons, but it has absolutely no place in sports cars or racing cars.

Throttle response and noise are essential parts of a sports car, and diesel is rubbish on both of these.

The reason Audi and Peugeot have won Le Mans with diesel engines is the regulations don't make for a level playing field.

 

[Omnis]

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.

Someone's been sniffing too much half & half.

 

[Stevisiov]

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.

Actually it is, ever wondered where the word carbohydrate came from?

You can't really simplify chemistry like that, it doesn't work. Two examples of a substance with the same chemical make up, but with a different structural layout can actually portrait different characteristics.

An extreme example would be isomers with identical chemical formula, one which is completely harmless to humans, one which is potentially deadly.

That's an example of how changing the structural layout of a molecule can completely change it, adding atoms to a molecule, especially those of a different element can completely change the characteristics of that molecule beyond recognition.

Chlorine and Flourine gas has been used in warfare, but you can add it to relatively simply molecules, making it completely safe even to ingest, CFC's are a good example of this.

It's worth pointing out some of what Blaaaah can be portraited as factually correct, but used in this context is utter lunacy.

He's correct, oxygen is very toxic too us, but only in strong concentrations, although if he took the same approach to CO2, then it ought to be pointed out that, high concentrations of CO2 are also very toxic.

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

^This. Any driver that doesn't choose the fastest car, does so because another car may be easier to drive, and even that isn't likely.

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

Yes, but the V10 petrol was naturally aspirated, the Diesel was a bigger V12 and was naturally aspirated. For a given size and aspiration, the petrol equivalent should always be faster, petrol as a fuel is more suited to high performance cars than diesels ever can be.

 

[blaaah]

I meant in time Oxygen kills us, it oxidises our cells, we die of old age, old age is death from oxygen. In the same period of time until your 98 years of age, breathing in the "high" levels of CO2 will not kill us at all. And by "high" I mean 0.039% of the air we breathe. If CO2 levels doubled from what they are now, which is already high, that is still only less than 0.08% of the air we breathe. It's not as harmful as oxygen.
I really despair we apparently sane people consider the worst thing to come out of their car is CO2.

I wish more people used their brains.

......
And of course a racing driver will choose the fastest car, that's why I said "guaranteed to win the race". The racing driver would have the fastest car, but he gets to decide, does he want the fastest car to be petrol or the fastest car to be diesel....
My view is that petrol will be chosen.
In fact it would be Petrol not just in pleasure, but they are much more reliable.
Especially of you made the rules fair.
Which engine would break first a 500bhp 2.0 petrol turbo, or a 500bhp 2.0 diesel turbo?

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Let me put an example here.. BMW 120i versus BMW 123d.

BMW 120i
1365kg
170bhp @ 6700
210nm @ 4250
top speed 224km/h
0-100km/h 7.7s

BMW 123d
1485kg
204bhp @ 4400
400Nm @ 2000
top speed 238km/h
0-100km/h 6.9s

And just for fun, let's put in 120d too..

120d
1440kg
177bhp @ 4000
350nm @ 1750
top speed 228km/h
0-100km/h 7.5 seconds

Heck, even 118d outperforms 120i everywhere else than top speed.

From this, we can see that same car can be faster with diesel engine. And let's not even speak of emissions where the modern gasoline engine is much more inferior.

 

[Stevisiov]

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

CO2 is toxic, just not at the concentrations found in air. It's a by-product of our respiration, but not one that is particularly good for us, high levels of CO2 in the blood can kill us.

Oxygen is more toxic than CO2.

*Citation needed*

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

Hold on no, oxygen keeps us alive, excessive quantities of oxygen can kill us, much in the same way excessive quantities of oxygen can kill us.

Dam.
Right, even if CO2 of current levels doubled it would not effect animal health much.

This is true, it would require a tenfold increase, before we started to see adverse health problems in humans, I'm less confident about eco-systems though.

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.

This is utter gibberish. Yes oxygen is highly reactive, but that is largely the reason why its so vital to us. Oxygen isn't gradually corroding us like steel, it takes significantly concentrated oxygen levels before this starts to become an issue for us. I find the notion that you seem to think our ageing is solely related to oxidation, well, amusing.

 

[blaaah]

Let me put an example here.. BMW 120i versus BMW 123d.

BMW 120i
1365kg
170bhp @ 6700
210nm @ 4250
top speed 224km/h
0-100km/h 7.7s

BMW 123d
1485kg
204bhp @ 4400
400Nm @ 2000
top speed 238km/h
0-100km/h 6.9s

And just for fun, let's put in 120d too..

120d
1440kg
177bhp @ 4000
350nm @ 1750
top speed 228km/h
0-100km/h 7.5 seconds

Heck, even 118d outperforms 120i everywhere else than top speed.

From this, we can see that same car can be faster with diesel engine. And let's not even speak of emissions where the modern gasoline engine is much more inferior.

Are you having a laugh with the engines you are choosing? They are not the same.

 

[Stotty]

Let me put an example here.. BMW 120i versus BMW 123d.

BMW 120i
1365kg
170bhp @ 6700
210nm @ 4250
top speed 224km/h
0-100km/h 7.7s

BMW 123d
1485kg
204bhp @ 4400
400Nm @ 2000
top speed 238km/h
0-100km/h 6.9s

And just for fun, let's put in 120d too..

120d
1440kg
177bhp @ 4000
350nm @ 1750
top speed 228km/h
0-100km/h 7.5 seconds

Heck, even 118d outperforms 120i everywhere else than top speed.

From this, we can see that same car can be faster with diesel engine. And let's not even speak of emissions where the modern gasoline engine is much more inferior.

In the example above, you can't really compare the 123d with the 120i as the 123d is far more expensive... you'd need to take something like the 125i and compare that to the 123d. Although I'd also agree that although the absolute gap between the 120i and 120d isn't that big, the real world performance gap would be much bigger due to the torque advantage the 120d has.

But the 1er isn't a sports car, and diesel almost always makes a better fuel for normal cars.

The emissions side is a bit misleading due to the way governments have chosen to measure them... you're absoluetly correct that diesels have lower CO2 emissions, but they have much higher NO2 and particulate emissions.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Are you having a laugh with the engines you are choosing? They are not the same.

2 liters of displacement, 4 cylinders.. 120i is the best performing gasoline 4-cylinder engine, and 123d is the best performing diesel, which obviously wasn't really needed as even the 118d could match the 120i..

 

[Stevisiov]

I wish more people used their brains.

If you made you point clear from the offset, people wouldn't so confused as to what you are trying to say

I meant in time Oxygen kills us, it oxidises our cells, we die of old age, old age is death from oxygen. In the same period of time until your 98 years of age, breathing in the "high" levels of CO2 will not kill us at all.

That's a very misleading statement. Oxygen is only a factor, it's not simply a case of oxygen kills us. Our cells have the ability to replicate, our ageing issue is more related to DNA damage,gene structure and radiation can play a big factor in this DNA damage. It's not fully understood yet as to exactly what is responsible for our ageing, there appear to be a number of factors.

Yes higher oxygen levels does appear to accelerate ageing, but we are talking about increasing oxygen concentrations by large factors to see a noticeable effect. If you increased CO2 levels by the same factors, it would arguably be more deadly, not in terms of ageing, but on the basis that it would make breathing more difficult.

And by "high" I mean 0.039% of the air we breathe. If CO2 levels doubled from what they are now, which is already high, that is still only less than 0.08% of the air we breathe. It's not as harmful as oxygen. I really despair we apparently sane people consider the worst thing to come out of their car is CO2.

I agree with this bit, slightly higher CO2 levels poses no immediate threat to our health, and CO2 is one of the nicer substances we could see coming out of our exhaust.

The main problem with CO2 is we do produce a lot of it, and while it's not a particularly strong greenhouse gas, we do produce enough of it, to be causing potential climate problems down the line.

 

[DQuaN]

Once again I'm struggling to determine between trolling and ignorance, i'm leaning towards the latter. Sorry blaaah but you need to read up on your biology and chemistry. You can't possibly expect people to take you seriously when you blurt out such unbeleivalby wrong and laughable facts. Read the reactions from the members here, take a step back, and have a think about it.

 

[barski427]

I have to say that having driven very fast road cars and raced a great deal of petrol powered racing cars, that Diesel can be exciting. My Land Rover Defender Td5 has 220bhp and puts more of a smile on my face than 90% of all of the cars I have driven. It depends totally on the car/driver combination and what they are both capable of! In my opinion, Diesel is a great power source (its my job as a Diesel tuning company's test driver to exploit it on a daily basis) and a great Diesel will always be better than an average petrol. Audi's TDI Le Mans programme may have been a marketing strategy, but in the process has refined Diesel technology as we know it and, when all said and done, they did win Le Mans which is no small feat!

As for RS Audi's - remember the Mercedes Benz C30 CDI AMG? Nope? Enough said!

 

[sumbrownkid]

I meant in time Oxygen kills us, it oxidises our cells, we die of old age, old age is death from oxygen. In the same period of time until your 98 years of age, breathing in the "high" levels of CO2 will not kill us at all. And by "high" I mean 0.039% of the air we breathe. If CO2 levels doubled from what they are now, which is already high, that is still only less than 0.08% of the air we breathe. It's not as harmful as oxygen.
I really despair we apparently sane people consider the worst thing to come out of their car is CO2.

I wish more people used their brains.

......
And of course a racing driver will choose the fastest car, that's why I said "guaranteed to win the race". The racing driver would have the fastest car, but he gets to decide, does he want the fastest car to be petrol or the fastest car to be diesel....
My view is that petrol will be chosen.
In fact it would be Petrol not just in pleasure, but they are much more reliable.
Especially of you made the rules fair.
Which engine would break first a 500bhp 2.0 petrol turbo, or a 500bhp 2.0 diesel turbo?

No what kills us is determined by what you eat, your genetics, and possibly fate (war, accident, suicide). Oxygen though in large amounts are not beneficiary to the Human body, is less toxic than CO2 would be. CO2 is mostly a waste product produced in respiration that needs most of it expelled so the plants and the trees can breathe that.

Age has more to do with cells constantly replicating, splitting apart, and dying. And each time they do that these little things called telomeres shorten the DNA, which in turn through a very complicated process, reduces the new cell's life span, and in turn, our life span.

Back on topic.

If Audi was serious about it's clean diesel image they would've developed a diesel version of the RS or Quattro models. Today is owned by the gas conscious driver, not the passionate one. The passionate will always have the weekends though.

 

[blaaah]

There is not a car engine in the world where the diesel is more powerful than the petrol equivalent. Equivalent means same displacement and aspiration.
Its a simple statement.

For example is there a 2.0 diesel standard road car with over 400bhp? No, but the EVO has been providing that in a 2.0 petrol for years, straight from the dealer.

Give me a list of all the best powerful car diesel engines, and using the same displacement I can give a petrol engine with far more power.

 

[sumbrownkid]

There is not a car engine in the world where the diesel is more powerful than the petrol equivalent. Equivalent means same displacement and aspiration.
Its a simple statement.

For example is there a 2.0 diesel standard road car with over 400bhp? No, but the EVO has been providing that in a 2.0 petrol for years, straight from the dealer.

But does it sell other than the couple odd hundred perhaps?

If I were looking around and saw a 2.0L 400 bhp EVO for a competitive price, I'd take it in a heart beat. But if I were to look at the mpg this car has, I may put the check book away.

I agree that petrol > diesel in performance, but in terms of mpgs as of late diesel > petrol.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

There is not a car engine in the world where the diesel is more powerful than the petrol equivalent. Equivalent means same displacement and aspiration.
Its a simple statement.

For example is there a 2.0 diesel standard road car with over 400bhp? No, but the EVO has been providing that in a 2.0 petrol for years, straight from the dealer.

Give me a list of all the best powerful car diesel engines, and using the same displacement I can give a petrol engine with far more power.

With the exception that EVO is turbocharged. and FQ400 that you're referring to is sold out limited model.

 

[blaaah]

Are you saying petrol engines are not allowed to be turbocharged?
Lol.
Anyway forget the EVO400,.
Statement still stands any current car engine on sale now, the petrol equivalent (size/aspiration) is always more powerful.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Well, you keep saying that petrol engines are performing better, so why no handicap, eh?

 

[blaaah]

handicapping proves the superiority of petrol, if that is what is needed to allow diesel to be more powerful.

........
Current EVO on sale has a 360bhp 2.0 petrol version. So will stick on that one until a 2.0 diesel offers more power on sale currently.

 

[sumbrownkid]

handicapping proves the superiority of petrol, if that is what is needed to allow diesel to be more powerful.

........
Current EVO on sale has a 360bhp 2.0 petrol version. So will stick on that one until a 2.0 diesel offers more power on sale currently.

But an equivalent diesel with the same displacement and turbocharged will have more torque.

In terms of torque then diesel > petrol/gas.

 

[blaaah]

But an equivalent diesel with the same displacement and turbocharged will have more torque.

In terms of torque then diesel > petrol/gas.

The EV0 400 had more torque than any other diesel engine of the same size.

 

[daan]

The EV0 400 had more torque than any other diesel engine of the same size.

and a 4000 mile service interval.

Anyway, what happened to "forget the EVO400"?

 

[Tornado]

I meant in time Oxygen kills us, it oxidises our cells, we die of old age, old age is death from oxygen.

For example is there a 2.0 diesel standard road car with over 400bhp? No, but the EVO has been providing that in a 2.0 petrol for years, straight from the dealer.

I have to question your labeling of a special limited edition version of what is already a performance specialty car engine as an engine of a "standard road car."

 

[MatskiMonk]

Blah, I have to say you argument is a little strange:

You are trying to make the point that no one sells a diesel engine of equivalent configuration that is as powerful as a petrol engine.


.. well yes, the whole reason for this discussions is why don't manufacturers make performance diesels....

.. they don't... thats why we can't give examples that fit your criteria, the argument is whether or not they should.

 

[blaaah]

and a 4000 mile service interval.

Anyway, what happened to "forget the EVO400"?

I'm afraid you are wrong on that, it was at least a 12k mile service interval longer than some performance diesels. You might be thinking of the old original EVO400.
I brought it back as a new point was made on torque and I had that info from memory without having to look up a new bit of info.

 

[blaaah]

.. they don't... thats why we can't give examples that fit your criteria, the argument is whether or not they should.

Someone changed the argument.
Audi could fit in a massive diesel engine to give enough performance. But it would sound awful, be so much more heavier that the handling would be not good enough to what it could be just by using petrol engines. And it be be more expensive than the petrol for being less good overall.
Not that I don't think there is a market for that, it would sell in Europe, but it would be just for people who like diesel and not for people who want a great car at it's best. Anything diesel, is not a car at it's "best".

 

[Tornado]

But it would sound awful, be so much more heavier that the handling would be not good enough to what it could be just by using petrol engines. And it be be more expensive than the petrol for being less good overall.

These are all statements that you cannot possibly begin to support.

 

[land sea air]

Good news.
Anything to put a frown on Diesel lovers is news worthy I feel.
Cheers.
👍

are you just trying to be intentionally antagonistic?

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

Simply not true, for some people a good diesel performance car can provide this.

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

It's your opinion which you are entitled to, don't try to claim someone Else's is invalid

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.

now you're just outright lying, put up some reliable stats for that

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

clearly you are on drugs...

 

[blaaah]

I think you're disabled.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

I think this thread has gone far enough. As fun as it was to watch, there's no need to go to personal attacks.