My first post here and it's whine that I'm sure has been whined about before.
So I was back in England and my brother in law has an Audi A4, a diesel with like 175hp, and it goes like hell. His brother has another A4 Avant Quattro diesel with 270hp and it goes like sh1t off a shovel.
Why do we get fobbed off with the crumby versions? Just sayin' ...
-Sven
Sven,
Welcome to the board and good first post. I don't know all the answers, but I do know this problem was much worse back int he seventies and eighties when we got nothing good!
I think what you were feeling in those Audis was the inherently strong low end torque of the diesels. I believe that if you were to actually measure the 0-60 times, that they would be not as fast as the US-available gas engine versions.
For example, the 2010 Audi A4 2.0 Quattro (gas engine) has a 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds, while this source quotes the 2.5 diesel at 8.9 seconds.
i have driven the BMW 335i and 335d back to back at the bmw performance center. i would take the diesel in a heartbeat! i hope the performance diesel passenger car market expands in the US.
jstein77 wrote:I think what you were feeling in those Audis was the inherently strong low end torque of the diesels. I believe that if you were to actually measure the 0-60 times, that they would be not as fast as the US-available gas engine versions.
For example, the 2010 Audi A4 2.0 Quattro (gas engine) has a 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds, while this source quotes the 2.5 diesel at 8.9 seconds.
You should quote gas mileage ratings of each of the euro models when doing that comparison. Anything under 10 seconds to highway speeds is more than adequate, especially if it FEELS fast (read, Honda's).
jstein77 wrote: For example, the 2010 Audi A4 2.0 Quattro (gas engine) has a 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds, while this source quotes the 2.5 diesel at 8.9 seconds.
Those figures are quite a bit out of date. These are recent for the 3.0L diesel:
CAR: Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro PERFORMANCE: 0-60mph 6.8s / Max Speed 152mph FUEL CONSUMPTION: 36.7mpg (UK Gallon/4.55L) which is 8.1 miles per liter.
Motortrend has the 2.0T 0-60 in 6.5s. The EPA has it at 25 combined MPG (US Gallon/3.79L) which is 6.6 miles per liter.
19% better fuel ecomomy for 3% worse performance 0-60. The midrange pull on that diesel is much better.
I'm sold when they bring them here. I figger unless we whine how will they know?
Anyway, the point of this post was 'why'. Why don't we get the good models? Is there an insurance problem? A lawyer problem? A lack of understanding of the enthusiast market?
I always thought a Scion Tc in RWD with a healthy motor would sell well to the tuner crowd and be great for motorsports. Reminiscent of the AE86. The silver lining in the current fuel pricing crisis (well, my wallet thinks it's a crisis) is that we may see more smaller performance oriented cars.
-Sven
Sven wrote: Anyway, the point of this post was 'why'. Why don't we get the good models? Is there an insurance problem? A lawyer problem? A lack of understanding of the enthusiast market?
Emissions is part of the reason. In Europe, emissions were measured in such a way that made diesels viable - they could be high in some areas if they were very low in others. In the U.S. they are measured as absolutes - can't be high anywhere. Because of the inherently lean running condition, diesels have always had a problem is the NOx readings.
Another reason is because diesel is taxed less than gasoline in Europe, there is more incentive to buy them.
I looked at an A3 TDI at the Toronto Auto Show. I figure it's just about the perfect commuter: good looking, comfortable, and 4.6L/100.
0-60comparisons with diesels are misleading. My TDI Golf is SLOW on the clock, but really doesn't feel slow when actually driving it around town or on the highway.
