Rich_w

Yup. Lancia










I imagine that wasnt that economical though.

James

anyone know what gearbox was on that r10?

imho the only box worth having with a peformance diesel is a tip-tronic!

AlexF

No it won't sadly.

Petrol is almost out place to go - once everything is small and turbocharge thats about it.

Diesel on the other hand has MILES of development left in it. Have you heard of VVT on a diesel? Nope - not YET. It makes the same difference on a diesel as it does on a petrol. There just is no need to - consider need is driven by both emissions and customers.

The other point you refer to is petrol DI - Mitsubishi have been playing with that for years. Now its common on BMW's, MINIs, VAG etc etc. By directing the mixture to circle around the spark plug (wall guided with massive EGR for example) you can put very very little petrol into the combustion chamber and it will still ignite reliably.

Just my 2p worth!

Alex

Rich_w

I think you're "mostly" right I have a disticnt feeling that sadly Diesel will become ever more mainstream. Despite it being terrible to the environment and to peoples health!!

We'll probably see Petrol become seen as the performance fuel. And manufacturers will use it in their high end vehicles. So you'll always have Petrol Ferraris/Porsches etc. But BMW and Merc will limit it to the M and AMG cars. And VAG for example will limit it to the Golf GTis and TT's of this world.

The backbone of their ranges will be predominately Desease-hell!

rs_fiesta

They are having a deisel class in next years British Rally Championship dont think many will enter .

After seeing the Golf and ZX (in the link on the first page) rallying in the 90s all i can say is CRAP.One of the best bits of watching rallying is the noise and deisels sound like a bag of spanners and people in summer wont be waring masks for the dust in the forests it will be because a smelly deisel is driving past

Benni

Why wont it be? Not arguing like as i dont know just thought it would ?

foreigneRS

if the diesel was quicker, it must be because it had more power (generally, ignoring any weight issues, traction etc).

you can't have more power from a diseasel than from a petrol unless you're burning more fuel. simple as that. especially as diesel has a lower calorific value than petrol (less energy per kg).

the only reason that diesels are often quoted as giving more mpg as because most driving (and particularly the EC standard driving cycles) is done at part load where diesels run a very lean mixture (as can direct injection petrols as described by AxelF).

so, on the strip, the diesel was definately not getting beter mpg than the petrol, although it probably would on the way home

AlexF

Rick - why is diesel SO much worse for your health, please explain!

Nick are you sure about that calorific vaule statement?

Alex

foreigneRS

Alex - no, but it sounded good

it seems that the calorific value of diesel and petrol are quite similar

jammy86

The calorific value of all hydrocarbons is more or less the same. I did it all last year in one of my modules.

The problem is efficency. Diesel has no more energy in it that petrol. But we combust diesel at much higher compression ratio's than we do petrol, as it was much easier to keep the thicker oil from detonating at high CR's The effect of high CR is that it increases the BMEP (force) on the piston, hence diesels have high torque outputs.

The health problems associated with it are that you need to choose if you want to make mainly CO2 or NOx emmission, and so put the correct post combustion filter or cat in. As i mentioned before the CAAI looks to eliminate NOx emmisions.

The other problem are pp10's (i think they are called) I dont know much about them but as I understand it they are large enough molecules to lodge in the cells in your lungs and prevent oxygen transfer.

I dont think we'll see petrol die out as quickly as we think. Theres alot of development being done at the moment to massively improve efficency. The car manufactures need to be meeting CO2 emmission by 2008 which they wont meet and then if they dont meet even strickter regulations by 2012 then they wont be allowed to sell within the EU. Thats why I'm gonna go into engine development after uni, as its guarenteed work/cash.

JAmes

Bobby Singh

I must admit I'm very happy with my golf diesel 150 - which has been remapped (made 200hp 315lbf·ft). For everyday use I think its perfect and it still does 400miles per tanks.

Charlie Chalk

iTrader: (1)

Made me laugh that

AlexF

good good


From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:

NOx, CO, PPMs

than petrols!!

Alex

jammy86

when they come out the factory, yes. whens the last time you saw a petrol spewing out black smoke? but otherwise running perfectly fine.

JAmes

Alan s1

Alot of the OFF ROAD Landrovers IE bowler tomcat ect RUN TD5 and 300TDI Motors in them Go EVERY WELL

www.awdc.co.uk not alot of info

Heres a pic of a bowler tomcat

GARETH T

thats a wicked photo aswell,, i bet thats a V8 petrol though

AlexF

What you can see does you no harm...

Alex

gingeRS

indeed, its only soot

its the CO that harms, and the amount our diesel truck engines make at work would put pretty much any car on this board, or any other to shame

Rich_w

Heres a simple example most people will understand.

Take a 2.0 Litre Turbo Petrol put it in shipping container. Get in the car with the window down. Shut the container up and start the engine.
You WILL NOT DIE.

Take a 2.0 Turbo Diesel repeat the test.
You WILL die.

Thats all for now.

Jim Galbally

so how comes thats how people commit suicide in movies?

gingeRS

why????

diesels produce, on average, less carbon monoxide than there petrol
equivalents

and thats the poisonous one

Stavros

perfectly useable, hence why that was one of the best GrpB rallycars.

why would you need any control methods other than mechanical anyhow?

If it REALLY does switch from one to the other its a bizzare and poor setup IMO, as there no need, unless there is some economy reason for it.
Ive seen all the diagrams, but im not convinced yet thats how its done on them, and all the bullshit about how the lancia one worked is reason enough for me to be suspicious.

And you can feel the "step" on any performance car on earth TBH, turbo or not. As something comes into the powerband theres a sudden step of performance.
The whole point of twincharging is to give the drivability at all rpm a normally aspirated or turbo 1.4 of the same bhp would NEVER have.

AlexF

wtf?


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the container is air tight you die either way!

Alex

Alan s1

Ummmmmmmmm not 100% sure but you maybe right I LOVE the V8s IE thats why i got the Discovery BUT sayong that i have Driven my m8s Landrover 90 With a TD5 engine thats been Chipped / Full front Intercooler ect ect and it does'nt hang about

Also if your intreasted the BOLWER TOMCAT is in the For sale part on www.awdc.co.uk @ ony £10,250 i will one day own for road use but there only got 2 seats

seand

that's not a bad price for the machine. would love a wildcat though!!

jammy86

It was not useable on the road. Rally cars arent useable on the road. Not for 99.999% of the public, and since its the public that buy these cars....

Poor setup? are you talking shit? or you just thick? The point of the super charger is perfect, engineers have spend ages and millions on this. Do you really think there is no point? Do you think VW like pissing away cash on new engines to meet regulations when the old ones worked fine?

The point of it is to keep the compression ratio constant throughout the rev range and so improve the BMPE and so efficency.

JAmes

Stavros

WHY was it not useable on the road? Give me a reason? Not the usual internet bollocks about it, even these websites about the car all seem to be wrong.

Thick/Talking Shit? No, switching from one to another is pointless unless there some economy reason i cant fathom, there certainly only performance disadvantages from doing so.

Have you any real knowlege of the VW system or twincharging itself, or are you just abusing me cause its the internet and can say anything you like?

The VW diagrams show the charger before the turbo, and in that case it deffo needs a supercharger bypass as it will strangle the turbo otherwise (unless it was higher flowing than the turbo, which would make the turbo quite pointless) as its a sealed unit, but im not convinced it really works like that.
Offers less performance advantages to the way the Lancia worked, so cant see why really?
If the SC was clutched and disengaged at high revs i can see some slight reliability/economy advantages, but still in expense of twin charging it properly...

Twincharging is a FANTASTIC idea, im not saying that, im saying the "switching" thing is bizzare.

So please, tell me why the Lancia wasnt useable, and why the VW switching point is a benefit to its performance.

jammy86

The theory behind the twincahrge is that the constant CR allows the engine to operate at an optimised efficency level. This is whats done for NASP cars. when you charge you increase the CR and so you decrease it to allow for this extra rise caused by the charger. Decreasing the CR then causes the engine not to opperate at an effective point when not on boost. This is commonly seen when people put massive turbo's on which dont kick in untill higher up in the rev range.

I belive the CR of the TSI is 10:1, with boost of 2.5bar.

The system works by: low-mid RPM the SC (+ve displacement i think) runs off the crank (drawing power from the engine) and provides the engine with pressureised air so that the lowered compression ratio is raised to a higher one (~3.47 psi of boost is a cr raise of 1) where the engine can run at higher efficency due to the higher combustion pressure and tempreatures. Once the exhaust gasses are able to sping up the Turbo (centrafugal compressor, needs about 20000rpm before any pressure rise) and the turbo is providing boost the SC switches off and decouples itself from the crank (to stop drawing power from the engine, increase efficency) The SC is bypassed and the trubo keeps the CR high and provides topend power.

The problem Lancia had was that the mechanical coupling between the SC and the crank was no good, it didnt last long enough to be put into a production vehical, but I assume was adaqute for motorsport use. This switch has now been replaced by a electrically controlled system which is much more repliable and should be able to meet the required service life. The other major factor when it was released was cost. Over the last 20 years the cost of production of turbochargers has decreased significantly, the cost of superchargers has too decreased but not by as much due to less investment. Evidently it was neither cost effective or reliable enough to make a production car.

The reason that VW (and other companies) have had to look into technologys like this (constant CR for charged engines, VVT, camless engines, pressure-hybrids, exhaust-gas-reuse, redundant cylinders, direct injection) is that the EU legislation says the by 2008 all manufacturers will be producing no more than 140 g of CO2 per Kilometer on a Standard European Drive Cylce, accross the range of their cars. If they fail to meet this in 2008 (which they will fail to do) then by 2012 they must meet a further reduction of 20g/k on SEDC. If they dont meet these regulations then they will not be allowed to sell cars within the EU.

The VW TSI engine I think is producing ~169. The 2ltr FSI-T (golf GTI) egnine is ~200. Though the power of the TSI isnt far off the FSI-T. Wether or not its nearly as driveable I dont know or if the figures are real life reflections, but the EU dont care about that either. The fuel efficency is said to be 20% lower for the TSI, given the current oil costs I think this is quite important for every day cars.

JAmes