Lets do a turbo-intercooled diesel version of the RB4. Use the 2.5L diesel used by the VW toureg Paris-Dakar Rally Buggies. 200+hp, 500+nm torque and 4WD traction equal rally monster.
About the only diesel I would think might be acceptable; would be trucks. I don't mean those things americans call trucks the rest of us call utes. lol I mean big prime movers. Now that for racing; would be alot of fun.
Yes yes yes. very nice blah blah about the diesel vs petrol jadda jadda
What would a diesel engine bring to LfS that is new?
It has more torque than a petrol one so the acceleration is quicker.
It does not rev as high, but that is what gears are for.
Its fuel consumption is less so you don't have to pit so often. This would be a plus in longer races.
What do people have against diesel engines? Diesels are far better attuned for everyday driving than petrol engines. And the 24hr Le Mans proves without a doubt that they are as good as petrol engines at long races.
Hi,
I don't knowif it's true, but I have read one day that diesel engines need less fuel because diesel fuel has more energy than petrol fuel.
By the way, did you heard about the VW 1.4L TFSI engine, with both supercharger and turbocharger ? It produces 170 hp and 240nm, which is very good for such a little engine, and doesn't use much fuel, compared to other petrol engine of this power, of course
Isn't it a better engine to compare diesel to ?
More torque, but at lower rpms, so you have to gear it differently, meaning your wheel torque is broadly similar to that of a petrol car, thus the performance is similar. Diesels excel in low speed, part load driving, and in-gear acceleration tests (e.g. overtaking lazily).
Diesels are not far better attuned, they are just different, and I don't like them personally. I also don't like the environmental or health problems associated with diesel, but if you listen to the green-mongerers it's only CO2 output that matters, so diesels must be better.
And the only (ONLY) reason the Audi was competative at LeMans was the messed up equivalency rules, giving diesels a massive advantage on an already unlevel playing field - when, and only when, a diesel can compete with a petrol engined race car on the same set of rules will I consider it useful for motorsport. Do you see Diesels in F1? In BTCC? In TopFuel Drag racing? No, neither do I...
You yourself are forgetting that a petrol engines produce particle emissions too. The difference is that the particles produced are much smaller than the ones with a diesel. Now are the smaller particles any more healthy for us than the bigger ones? Or is it just that as we don't see them we think they don't matter.
There has been much research done on the health effects of these diesel particles but very little on the petrol ones.
As for the CO2-craze that is just stoopid. They should be making limits for CO, NOx, HC and the like. With CO2 you can limit the fuel consumption of the engine, but that is about it. The greenhouse effect can just kiss my hairy but! Don't people know that the temperature of our planet is constantly changing? And rapidly at that. Even way before there were people! We just think that WE are so high and mighty that WE can destroy a planet. I've heard of delusions of grandeur but this is ridiculous.
People buy cars for the horsepower but drive them with the torque. That is all you need to know to come to the conclusion that: a diesel is better for everyday use.
You are thinking of the phrase "Horsepower sells motors, but torque wins races".
I agree that petrol engines emit particles, but there are less (known) links with carcinagens, so in my book I'd rather breathe burnt petrol
I also agree that there needs to be more worrying about NOx, CO etc, not just CO2.
And I also agree that the evidence of humans causing global warming is tenuous at best, and positively weak most of the time.
To quote Top Gear, when talking about a fancy Audi, "there's a diesel version too, if you're the sort of person who thinks the Mona Lisa would look good with a beard"
Diesels have their place, and its not in performance cars.
That is simply a vast oversimplification and not strictly true, for reasons I'll rather not explain since it won't be to comprehensible to your average layman.
Remember when renault was forced to abandon its 6 speed gearbox for a 7 speed one due to the silly ban on variable intake lengths? It's strong torque bands that win races (if the car is properly optimised for it of course). Remember those days when the renault had such a significant advantage in sarting and corner exit performance?
As on global warming, last time I checked, this relatively stable climate we're now in is the real freak of nature, not the other way round. Last time I checked, major celestial bodies such as the sun (especilaly) contribute way more to global climate than any efforts of puny little humans. Depletion of the ozone layer is as far as we could possibly do for now.
The point is, based on the latest ice core research, the earth's climate has usually been more like a drunk than a sober man, always wiggling up and down when it comes to the temperature. If you check historical accounts, you'll discover that climate as little as 1000 years ago was way different from today. So the greenies want us to belive that the chinese have somehow manipulated the weather with "excessive firecracker use" 1000 years ago?
The only thing of scientific certainty is that average temperature of the earth's atmosphere will get higher. Anything else is in a purely scientific sense uncertain.
