| Author |
Message |
Matt O'Toole
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:00 am Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
Frank Kemper wrote:
| Quote: | AFAIK BMW once introduced the BMW 316g compact, where g stands for
"Gas", which does not mean "gasoline" but "compressed natural gas" or
something like that.
The other day I saw an interesting thing introduced by Citroen. In
France many houses are heated with gas, they also do the cooking and
the heating of water with natural gas (It is the same in Germany).
Citroen has now introduced its C3 (small 4 door compact car, slightly
smaller than a VW Golf) in a gas version, which is sold together with
a small compressor, which allows filling up the car from your home
gas source. This may cure the main problem with CNG cars in europe,
the lack of filling stations.
|
Ford and GM both sell propane/gasoline dual fuel cars and trucks in the US, and
Honda sells a CNG Civic. Propane is common for home/farm use, away from gas
lines. I have noticed a lot of propane vehicles in Texas and the Midwest. CNG
is still very rare for private vehicles, but it's quite common for fleet
vehicles in gas-rich states like California. The problem with CNG for private
vehicles is that there are no commercial refueling stations, and home
compressors cost several thousand dollars. Then there's the limited range,
which ruins the appeal for most buyers.
Matt O.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Plowman (News)
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:34 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
In article <Xns95B982A0288ADeldosampleman@130.133.1.4>,
Frank Kemper <spam-muelleimer@gmx.de> wrote:
| Quote: | New Diesels are fast, but they are not necessarily sporty.
|
Absolutely. That's what I dislike about them. In give and take driving
they're fine, and promise so much. But can't deliver in the same way as a
decent BMW petrol engine does.
--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harri Holopainen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote:
...
| Quote: | image here and Diesels really don't fit that. Finally, Diesels rean't
|
re:sporty image: new 535d: 276hp, 550Nm, 6.5 sec 0-60 mph. one can
also easily chip-tune a 330d into similar numbers, which leave 330i's
far behind, especially in torque. there's also VW Touareg V10 TDI
available, which gets 0-60 mph in under 8 seconds. and that's a 2.5
ton SUV. not to mention old MB 300D turbodiesels which can quite
easily be tuned to 300hp range.
| Quote: | that much cheaper to run here than gasoline engines, so there's no huge
push to convert.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Plowman (News)
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
In article <ecDtd.4$752.719@news.uswest.net>,
Ramone Cila <dontw@nt.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | Since I doubt few will tow heavy with a 3 series and figure most are
looking for sporty response, the increased torque levels are irrelevant
given the already better response of the 3.0 petrol.
|
In most give and take driving in traffic, the diesel can feel more lively
due to the much higher torque at low revs.
--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Kemper
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:51 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
harri@hybrid.fi (Harri Holopainen) haute in die Tasten:
| Quote: | re:sporty image: new 535d: 276hp, 550Nm, 6.5 sec 0-60 mph.
|
New Diesels are fast, but they are not necessarily sporty. And one should keep in mind
the potential of a turbocharged three litre petrol engine. IMHO it is no surprise that
BMW fits its M-cars with high-reving naturally aspirated petrol engines. They feel most
sporty.
Frank
--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact
Citroen - Made in Trance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Plowman (News)
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
In article <imGtd.18$752.1393@news.uswest.net>,
Ramone Cila <dontw@nt.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | not wanting to start the inevitable hp vs. torque discussion, but
torque is still the force which accelerates the car :)
Sure, but if it does that slower than the less expensive petrol engine
and then runs out of breath at high speeds/rpms, where horespower kicks
in, who cares what its' torque levels are...unless towing is a concern.
It could have ten times the torque levels of the petrol car, but if it
wasn't capable of greater acceleration the American market will probably
react indifferently to it.
|
Think you're a bit confused about torque and BHP. BHP is simply a product
of torque and revs. So doesn't exist independently. Torque will usually
peak someway beneath the maximum power, but if it fell off rapidly enough,
the two could *conceivably* occur at the same rpm. The difference between
diesels and petrol engines is that the torque peak on a diesel occurs at
lower rpm, and the rev range where useful torque is produced may well be
lower. Hence commonly higher gearing. However, in these heady days of
variable valve timing, forced induction and maybe even variable
compression ratios, nothing is set in stone.
--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Plowman (News)
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:31 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
In article <KrGtd.19$752.1443@news.uswest.net>,
Ramone Cila <dontw@nt.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | In most give and take driving in traffic, the diesel can feel more
lively due to the much higher torque at low revs.
I haven't driven the 535D, but I have the 530D, and that was not my
experience. Compared to the petrol 530i, it didn't spin as freely or
generate an equal amount of liveliness in stop and go.
|
It certainly won't spin as freely which is why I mentioned give and take
traffic. In such traffic in the UK, my BMW (petrol) never gets a chance to
spin anyway. ;-)
I was reasonably impressed with my test drive of a 530D auto - it felt
slightly more lively at town speeds than my current 528.
--
*I was once a millionaire but my mom gave away my baseball cards
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramone Cila
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:20 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
"Harri Holopainen" <harri@hybrid.fi> wrote in message
news:X6Atd.278$KW4.223@reader1.news.jippii.net...
| Quote: | Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote:
..
image here and Diesels really don't fit that. Finally, Diesels rean't
re:sporty image: new 535d: 276hp, 550Nm, 6.5 sec 0-60 mph. one can
also easily chip-tune a 330d into similar numbers, which leave 330i's
far behind,
|
Must be a conversion thing, because here in the states the 330i has been
testing at 5.9 to 6.1 for 0-60 mph......that beast 6.5 odesn't it? And top
speed in the petrol cars will also be better.
| Quote: | especially in torque.
|
Since I doubt few will tow heavy with a 3 series and figure most are looking
for sporty response, the increased torque levels are irrelevant given the
already better response of the 3.0 petrol.
If they are not going to be significantly less expensive to run here in the
states then they better be significantly faster and responsive (because cost
is higher)...and they fail in both tests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harri Holopainen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
"Ramone Cila" <dontw@nt.spam> wrote:
...
| Quote: | Must be a conversion thing, because here in the states the 330i has been
testing at 5.9 to 6.1 for 0-60 mph......that beast 6.5 odesn't it? And top
|
6.5 sec was for the 5 series diesel... 330d gets 7.2. the point is
that a turbocharged (diesel) engine is much easier to tune compared to
a naturally aspirated engine. of course if BMW decided to make a
turbocharged 3-liter gasoline engine, that'd be a different story
entirely :)
| Quote: | speed in the petrol cars will also be better.
especially in torque.
Since I doubt few will tow heavy with a 3 series and figure most are looking
for sporty response, the increased torque levels are irrelevant given the
already better response of the 3.0 petrol.
|
not wanting to start the inevitable hp vs. torque discussion, but
torque is still the force which accelerates the car :) in a modern
turbodiesel, the max. torque is obtained from 1500 rpm. this means
that the car accelerates instantly when pedal is pressed, without the
need to downshift or rev the engine. the max. torque of 330i is
300Nm/3500 rpm, and for 330d the numbers are 410Nm/1500 rpm.
| Quote: | If they are not going to be significantly less expensive to run here in the
states then they better be significantly faster and responsive (because cost
is higher)...and they fail in both tests.
|
hmmm. regarding the responsiveness: have you driven a modern
turbodiesel lately? I find them very responsive, but I agree that the
relatively low rev limit of a direct injection engine does not feel
very sporty. The acceleration does, however :) and a lot of people
apparently refuse to believe how fast even a mildly tuned turbodiesel
actually is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Plowman (News)
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:00 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
In article <41B75430.121552A7@sbcglobal.net>,
Raybender <raybender@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Since a normally aspirated gasoline engine doesn't develop either
torque or horsepower until relatively high rpms
|
Please. Any motor of any type which works and turns develops both torque
and bhp. At any rpm. If it developed neither, it wouldn't turn. It only
needs to develop just slightly more than its losses through friction, etc,
of course.
Torque is simply a measurement of weight and distance without time being a
factor. Add time to the equation and you get BHP.
To get BHP from torque use this formulae.
2 x pi (22/7 or approx 3.142) x torque (ft.lbs) x rpm (revs per minute)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
33,000
Do this and you'll find out the BHP your engine is developing at maximum
torque. Which is always less in practice than the peak bhp. As is the
torque, generally, at maximum bhp. The torque you can also work out at
peak BHP by using this formulae.
--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dori A Schmetterling
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
Don't appear to have them (yet) in North America...
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Harri Holopainen" <harri@hybrid.fi> wrote in message
news:L5Etd.337$In2.303@reader1.news.jippii.net...
[...]
| Quote: |
hmmm. regarding the responsiveness: have you driven a modern
turbodiesel lately? I find them very responsive, but I agree that the
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramone Cila
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:55 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
"Harri Holopainen" <harri@hybrid.fi> wrote in message
news:L5Etd.337$In2.303@reader1.news.jippii.net...
| Quote: | "Ramone Cila" <dontw@nt.spam> wrote:
..
Must be a conversion thing, because here in the states the 330i has been
testing at 5.9 to 6.1 for 0-60 mph......that beast 6.5 odesn't it? And
top
6.5 sec was for the 5 series diesel... 330d gets 7.2. the point is
that a turbocharged (diesel) engine is much easier to tune compared to
a naturally aspirated engine. of course if BMW decided to make a
turbocharged 3-liter gasoline engine, that'd be a different story
entirely :)
|
| Quote: |
speed in the petrol cars will also be better.
especially in torque.
Since I doubt few will tow heavy with a 3 series and figure most are
looking
for sporty response, the increased torque levels are irrelevant given the
already better response of the 3.0 petrol.
not wanting to start the inevitable hp vs. torque discussion, but
torque is still the force which accelerates the car :)
|
Sure, but if it does that slower than the less expensive petrol engine and
then runs out of breath at high speeds/rpms, where horespower kicks in, who
cares what its' torque levels are...unless towing is a concern. It could
have ten times the torque levels of the petrol car, but if it wasn't capable
of greater acceleration the American market will probably react
indifferently to it.
Remember, Americans aren't going to buy the BMW diesel because of fuel
efficiency because the difference isn't that great, the car has a large
premium on it, and whatever efficiency does exist will necessitate 60 or 70
thousand miles of driving before it compensates for the added engine cost.
Basically after 70,000 miles it is a cost wash, with less performance and
fun.
| Quote: | in a modern
turbodiesel, the max. torque is obtained from 1500 rpm. this means
that the car accelerates instantly when pedal is pressed, without the
need to downshift or rev the engine. the max. torque of 330i is
300Nm/3500 rpm, and for 330d the numbers are 410Nm/1500 rpm.
If they are not going to be significantly less expensive to run here in
the
states then they better be significantly faster and responsive (because
cost
is higher)...and they fail in both tests.
hmmm. regarding the responsiveness: have you driven a modern
turbodiesel lately?
|
Everyday.
| Quote: | I find them very responsive,
|
Not in comparion to petrol engine.
| Quote: | but I agree that the
relatively low rev limit of a direct injection engine does not feel
very sporty. The acceleration does, however :)
|
But the gas engines in the cars were are talking about have more, or better,
acceleration and don't charge an additional premium for the engine.
| Quote: | and a lot of people
apparently refuse to believe how fast even a mildly tuned turbodiesel
actually is.
|
The issue isn't fast....it's how fast in comparison to a less expensive
petrol car with much greater fun factor and responsiveness. I wouldn't pay
more money for a slower, less enjoyable car, when my purpose for buying the
car was driving joy and involvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramone Cila
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:01 pm Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d1a1ec2eadave@davenoise.co.uk...
| Quote: | In article <ecDtd.4$752.719@news.uswest.net>,
Ramone Cila <dontw@nt.spam> wrote:
Since I doubt few will tow heavy with a 3 series and figure most are
looking for sporty response, the increased torque levels are irrelevant
given the already better response of the 3.0 petrol.
In most give and take driving in traffic, the diesel can feel more lively
due to the much higher torque at low revs.
|
I haven't driven the 535D, but I have the 530D, and that was not my
experience. Compared to the petrol 530i, it didn't spin as freely or
generate an equal amount of liveliness in stop and go.
The 535D is supposed to be a different animal, but once again with the price
increase one could consider the 545, rather than the 530, as an alternative
and have far more response, speed, liveliness and *fun*.
If the BMW diesels cost the same as the gas cars (like Mercedes do) then
they would have a better chance here, but given the average of 18% cost
increase for the diesel people aren't going to agree that fuel efficiency
will make up the difference and still be satisfied with the performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raybender
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:21 am Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
Harri Holopainen wrote:
| Quote: | not wanting to start the inevitable hp vs. torque discussion, but
torque is still the force which accelerates the car :) in a modern
turbodiesel, the max. torque is obtained from 1500 rpm. this means
that the car accelerates instantly when pedal is pressed, without the
need to downshift or rev the engine. the max. torque of 330i is
300Nm/3500 rpm, and for 330d the numbers are 410Nm/1500 rpm.
|
Sorry to "start" the discussion, but this is such a common error that I've got to
reply. It is easy to show from Newton's second law that POWER (hp) produces the
acceleration - NOT torque. The reason you think it is torque is because that for
any given rpm, the engine with more torque (i.e. the diesel) ALSO produces more
hp at that rpm - hence greater acceleration.
Different people have different driving styles. Since a normally aspirated
gasoline engine doesn't develop either torque or horsepower until relatively high
rpms, you have "that delay" off-the-line until you get the rpms up (or pop the
clutch at high rpm). Lots of people either don't like revving to higher rpm
(dunno why) or don't like the necessary delay compared to a diesel.
Result is people that like shifting a low rpms tend to prefer diesels, or large
V8's. People that like to rev to high rpm will extract all the horsepower (and
required acceleration) from a smaller 6. Neither is right or wrong - just
different.
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramone Cila
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:22 am Post subject:
Re: BMW diesels for Cadillac? |
|
|
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d1a2c366bdave@davenoise.co.uk...
| Quote: | I was reasonably impressed with my test drive of a 530D auto - it felt
slightly more lively at town speeds than my current 528.
|
That I understand, but the 530 is a different animal than the 528. The
engine really changed the car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in