Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay635703
...Its a heavy, lumbering diesel...
|
In the early days of Diesel cars this is essentially what a lot of companies did - they used truck engines in large capacities in cars. Guess what ? It didn't really work out that well because they drive like, well, trucks really - which is not what most people wanted.
Nowadays a 1.2 TDI makes 70hp which is more or less what it took 2.0 litres to make in the non-turbo, indirect injection, rotary pump days of circa 1990. It also makes far better FE, lower emissions and is a lot quieter. Its also a lot better to drive for most people.
As for reliability and cheapness - yes it can cost more to fix when it does go wrong, but it goes wrong far less. If it didn't then companies wouldn't be falling over themselves to up their warranties from 1-3 years to more like 3-5 even with all that extra expensive technology on board.
I really doubt that a lumbering engine of this type, or even a reduced in size version for cars would make an attractive car for a lot of people. It would be reliable - see how many Merc 300Ds are still around going strong - but would only be something an enthusiast would seek out.
For someone looking for the benefits of a truck - lugging and pulling power, the ability to go to Mars and back reliably and speed / cost of repairs then it really is suitable.
At the same time a 3.0 DCi V6 in a Nissan pickup sold here makes > 400 lb/ft of torque as standard, matches the older engines FE, probably beats it for emissions 'cleanliness' and will drive more like a car. Stick that engine into something like a Suburban or a full size American car with the aero of a small cottage and I think it would turn more heads - same performance and probably 50% better FE. With the wonders of modern Diesels it would also be a lot less truck like in the refinement stakes too. Throw in the 7-speed auto it comes with too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay635703
Many so called fuel efficient cars only get about that, Heck the FIAT 500 here is only about 35mpg, makes you wonder why 30 year old tech in large unaerodynamic vehicles can outperform modern marvels?
|
I can't see a 500 with only 35 MPG, but the bog-standard petrol 500s have pretty old-ish engines - kind of automotive porridge to be honest, like the MINI Cooper non-S.
A 1.3 Multijet (Diesel) will make 67 combined (imp) MPG and the Twin Air (Petrol) is claimed to have 68 mpg combined - although some
people question if it can do that in every day motoring.
But if someone wants to sponsor me for a year, I'll long term test a TwinAir and see if its possible for an ecomodder member
