Fuel consumption is the primary reason for using diesels in endurance racing - not performance.
You can carry the same amount of fuel but make fewer pit stops.
Fewer pit stops far out weight any performance penalty.
Last edited:
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Polo 1.2 TDI Bluemotion
- Thread starter minerva
- Start date
Fuel consumption is the primary reason for using diesels in endurance racing - not performance.
You can carry the same amount of fuel but make fewer pit stops.
Fewer pit stops far out weight any performance penalty.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
Granted, but the mill in this year's winning Audi did cover 4,838.3 km in 24 hours of near flat-out running.
And I wholeheartedly agree thatthe performance of a purpose-built race car doesn't translate to our everyday cabbies, but it goes towards what I said earlier regarding the development curve of petrol vs diesel over the last decade or two. Eventually the funky bits that currently allow diesels to dominate endurance racing will start filtering down to mundane Polos and not-so-mundane 335d Beemers.I just get almost disheartened when people scoff at diesels seemingly just for the sake of it. There's no longer any reason to, and depending on what one wants from one's car modern diesels can offer just as much enjoyment as their petrol counterparts. It's a great time to be a motorhead, as the availability of brilliant diesels just widens the scope for finding a car that puts a smile on one's face... be that smile rev- or torque-driven.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
LCBXX
Honorary Master
I seriously doubt whether a GTi will would out-accelerate the GTD from 3rd-gear onwards. The 96KW TDi Polo out-accelerated the G5 GTi in 4th gear, for example.
Last time I checked, vehicles have to be in gear to accelerate unless they're coasting downhill.
Seriously though you can't compare in-gear acceleration figures because the gearboxes have different ratios so that would be comparing apples to oranges.
Besides that if you want to accelerate you can always shift down and leave the GTD in the dust.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
Last time I checked, vehicles have to be in gear to accelerate unless they're coasting downhill.
Seriously though you can't compare in-gear acceleration figures because the gearboxes have different ratios so that would be comparing apples to oranges.
Besides that if you want to accelerate you can always shift down and leave the GTD in the dust.
:twisted:
But in the GTD you wouldn't need to; you can just ride that wave of torque... And you can most certainly compare in-gear acceleration such as, say, 100 - 140km/h in 5th just as an indicator of tractability... that the gearing differs is moot; the resultant ratios between crankshaft and wheels matters not a jot when you're behind the wheel. Again, it comes down to what one wants from a car... I'd rather just put my foot down and surge forward than drop two gears and send the engine screaming to the red line. There are certainly cars to satisfy either inclination.
Look, can we call an end to this exchange now? I don't think either of one of us is really arguing, and I'm quite happy with my post count.
Agreed.
I wanted to purchase a Polo 1.9 TDI a year ago but couldn't find one for less than R100K with less than 100000km on the clock so I have nothing against diesel (except sitting behind a badly tuned one in traffic and having to gasp for fresh air).
Purchasing a turbo diesel vehicle with 100,000km+ on the clock and no maintenance plan, probably isn't the best financial decision.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
Heh... reminds me of the indignant looks I'd get after leaving something like a Polo GTI or Fiesta ST in the dust with my Cupra TDI (one-time company car)... the TDI Cupras sold locally didn't have particulate filters fitted.
LCBXX
Honorary Master
You should have bought mine! Sold it for R88k with 92,000km on it before I bought the Civic.
They were well-equipped too, compared to the Polo Sportline. I aaaaalmost traded mine for a Ibiza Cupra at Auto-Africa, glad I didn't since VWSA fscked up and decided to pull the Seat brand 14 months later.Heh... reminds me of the indignant looks I'd get after leaving something like a Polo GTI or Fiesta ST in the dust with my Cupra TDI (one-time company car)... the TDI Cupras sold locally didn't have particulate filters fitted.
seanyp00h
Expert Member
Still don't see the big problem with VW pulling SEAT out of the country (Except for SEATS not being sold new here anymore). We still get serviced by VW and plus we have "limited edition" cars
Naks
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 6,068
I'd still have done it, under the skin it's a VW anyway.
LCBXX
Honorary Master
If this was Europe, having a limited edition car would be useful. In this country, the most commonly sold car holds it value the best, whereas the rarest ones have plummeting values. I remember the Ford Mondeo ST220 - awesome car with strong resale value, until FordSA stopped importing it. Value dropped so sharply that some guys never broke even with the finance until the last 3 months of a 60month loan.Still don't see the big problem with VW pulling SEAT out of the country (Except for SEATS not being sold new here anymore). We still get serviced by VW and plus we have "limited edition" cars
I can't afford the 2nd-hand value knock that came with the withdrawal. Not when you want to drive something else every 5 years.
Naks
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 6,068
BobsLawnService
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
I think that the problem with SEAT was that VW priced them higher than VWs when in actual fact they are sold as being their budget brand in the rest of the world.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
This was the public perception... but investigation would've shown you that the cars sold locally were much better spec'd than their European counterparts. The difference in price was justified, but in retrospect it was a poor strategy. It was however only part of a product introduction and marketing strategy that was a balls-up from beginning to end.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
The exact ins and outs nobody outside of the VWSA directors will probably ever know, but there were undoubtedly a number of contributing factors. I think SEAT Spa. successfully sold the brand to VWSA as something that would catch on quickly, which it didn't. There's the not insignificant issue of the Rand having comprehensively seen its arse against the Euro between the times of SEAT's local introduction and demise. There's the point that Bob mentioned just prior - that local cars were quite highly spec'd, which made their prices seem out of whack with where they were positioned in Europe. Bottom line is it was a very bitter pill to swallow for us that were involved with the brand at dealer level.
If they were still locally represented, I have no doubt I would've been driving this now:
SaiyanZ
Executive Member
My sister bought a 1.6 Seat Ibiza back in 2007. Still has it. I remember picking it up from the showroom. Quite nippy for a 1.6.
BobsLawnService
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
The story I heard was that VW SA did not want to position SEAT as a budget alternative to VW because they were scared that SEAT would cannibalize the Polo/Mk1 Golf market so they positioned it as a premium brand and priced them too high. The cars didn't sell so VW SA turned to VW HQ said “We told you so.“. Since the brand was making a loss VW HQ had to allow VW SA to drop SEAT.