Rip Van Winkle
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 02:41 AM |
|
|
A dirty word.....
Hey everyone! Hope you're all well. I've just joined the site after picking up "The book" again as it looks like my
circumstances may allow me to have ago at a build.
I've had a bit of an idea, after years of hating Diesel (for no good reason at all), I recently have owned one due to various reasons. And I
must confess to being a bit of a convert.
I've also been bouyed by the news that a Norfolk company, Trident, are to start making a Diesel powered supercar
(http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/286363/trident_iceni_to_launch_at_salon_priv.html).
What are peoples thinkings on a Turbo Diesel powered Locost, and if positive what engines spring to mind (obviously not to pricey...)
Thanks
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 03:32 AM |
|
|
Welcome and no, diesel isn't a dirty word on here as far as I know - the right choice of diesel motor - i.e. not too heavy and anything over 130
hp would make a really fun and quick car and could be very economical depending on how much you boost power. Weight will be your enemy so choose your
motor carefully.
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:32 AM |
|
|
This crops up every so often and i think the general concencus is there maybe while there are no terrible reasons not to there are no really great
reasons why you should. new diesels are much more refined than the stereotypical tanks the name conjours. however they all have very narrow power
bands and which means gear ratios are care fully selected based on the engine and chassis. all modern engines are complex multiplex wiring. most of
all a light weight kit doesn't need masses or torque. I've always believed,whilst its great to do something different, doing it
differently with out care forthought can often lead you down an expensive long and disappointing road.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:45 AM |
|
|
I'm all for it - the only thing I can think of is that the power delivery may not be quite right - turbo diesels generally have bags of low down
torque, and I wonder if you might spin the wheels a bit easily. I'm not sure about mating to RWD gearboxes either (except BMW and Merc, but I
guess they are pretty heavy engines).
Best of luck
Hugh
|
|
|
maccmike
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 08:17 AM |
|
|
years ago I fancied building a rear engined mini with a 2 1/2 ltr audi diesel. Figured the torque would make it rapid.
In something so light though, Im not sure it would actually work with the ''on off'' power delivery.
and you'd need to get the gearing absolutely spot on.
I think you'd be better off with a petrol
|
|
|
pekwah1
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 09:55 AM |
|
|
No, it'll sound like a tractor!
Although i'm a diesel convert for many years now, my sports cars are petrol, it just works better, more response, more REVS!!!!
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 10:33 AM |
|
|
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=247471
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
MarcV
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 11:03 AM |
|
|
I agree on the careful gear ratio choice, but do not so much agree on the whole torque vs horsepower story. In the end it is the torque at the wheels
that will make the car accelerate. The narrow power band by itself should not be an issue and it isn't really that narrow at all, I think most
diesels run high torque from 1500 to 3500rpm, more than a factor 2.
Also modern turbo petrol engines share the same characteristics, very flat torque over a wide rev. range. They seem to be appreciated. Also modern
diesels are complex engines, but so are modern petrols (the downsized turbo charged ones)
I think it comes down to preference. Do you mind the diesel noise (which isn't that apparent on modern ones), the soot, the remarks? Also, the
most modern diesels are alloy blocks as well, weights have come down on these engines.
I have seriously considered it when the tax rules changed overhere (making a diesel 7-type free of tax, where the tax on petrols was increased), but
decided against it based on the price of the new diesels (let's say 2 years old), the hassle of getting these new ones to work without the rest
of the car (electronics) and the fact that I had a petrol engine sitting right there....
So think it over and don't be afraid to be different!
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 11:25 AM |
|
|
At the risk of sounding simplistic, I say you build whatever floats your boat. I like your idea personally. You can put whatever fits in there, and I
am sure, with enough mucking around, get it to work well.
I was going for a Toyota RE-22 engine at first (petrol), in my car, but was talked out of it because it "didn't rev very high, came from a
truck, etc". I regret that, having never had a Nissan engine work properly. I am on Nissan engine number 3 (an SR20DET this time), and have
spent more money than some people make in a year working full time. So go with your idea and expect a few problems along the way. It will be fine.
|
|
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 03:50 PM |
|
|
Yes why not, the whole point of a sevenesque car is to be a bit different. I would choose the Volvo 5 pot D5, bags of get up and go!. Regards Ray
To make a car go faster, just add lightness. Colin Chapman - OR - fit a bigger engine. Chippy
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 03:53 PM |
|
|
IMHO, a diesel is for fuel efficancy, and torque, not for sports type of cars at all
My mondeo 2.0 tdci averages 44-48 to the gallon, pretty well no matter how i drive it, and with or with out a caravan on the back,
It also out accelerated a vw golf, kiddy, who thought he could get me of the lights, and i still beat him, and thats with a caravan on the back!
So stick that engine in a 7, and i doubt it would perform any better, but it would be one VERY heavy lump of metal, (twice pinto weight) to build a
chassis to take the strain, and then you will be in a real pickle, if you ever decieded to go down the petrol route
Just my opinion
Steve
|
|
|
Rod Ends
|
 posted on 30/8/12 at 04:20 PM |
|
|
Turbo Diesel Locost 7 running on veg. oil
|
|
|
MarcV
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 05:22 PM |
|
|
Well, the new alloy 4cylinder turbo diesels weigh in at about the same as the pinto. And with cars also running for example the BMW straight 6, it
seems well possible. Yes, a motorcycle engine weighs less.....
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
I would have a google of the term "vw m-tdi" pretty easy to get 200hp without any electronics.
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
Rip Van Winkle
|
 posted on 30/8/12 at 07:43 PM |
|
|
Cheers guys, more good suggestions! I can see some long nights of research ahead at what sort of set ups I'd need to make stuff work.....
Mwahahaha! 
|
|
|
Rip Van Winkle
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
Love that American guy, he rocks.That looks like a really cool little car.
I checked out the specs on that D5 engine, 180bhp and 280lb/ft of torque.... It propels a 2tonne Volvo to 60 in 8.6 secs, in a car that would weigh
less than a half of that... could be quite spicey!
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
I think that purely from a performance point of view, modern diesels are a perfectly valid option to be considered along with petrols and bike
engines. The power delivery of a diesel is obviously OK for a sports car - ask the Audi Le Mans team. Plus you get easy options for more power with
just chipping and winding up boost. I really think it's down just to personal preference nowadays. And that's where I'm 100% out!
I'd never dream of making a car that is purely for enjoyment with a dagga dagga diesel engine in it. Would absolutely ruin the experience
imhoaap (in my humble opinion as a petrol head) 
I just want to add - stop getting excited about diesel torque figures cos they're big numbers. It's a bit of a pet hate of mine how diesel
heads go on and on about torque! Yes the flywheel torque figures are higher than comparable petrol engines, but flywheel torque is meaningless. That
'advantage' over petrol engines disappears through the different gearing required. E.g: 150bhp/80lbft@10,000rpm bike engine =
150bhp/150lbft@7,500rpm car engine = 150bhp/240lbft@4,000rpm diesel engine. The diesel engine doesn't win cos it has 'more
torques!!!!omg'. Power is a much more meaningful indicator of vehicle performance, power-to-weight ratio much better still. Not torque. The end!
[Edited on 30/8/12 by Liam]
|
|
|
six mad
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
I drive a DPF deleted and remapped E90 330d, around 270 bhp and 500+ ft lb it is very quick and does not feel or sound like a diesel
Best bit is will not go below 40mpg and the torque and way the speedo climbs is fantastic and will
upset many quick petrol powered sports cars.
Diesels will continue to get better and better, go for it.
|
|
|
Rip Van Winkle
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 09:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
I think that purely from a performance point of view, modern diesels are a perfectly valid option to be considered along with petrols and bike
engines. The power delivery of a diesel is obviously OK for a sports car - ask the Audi Le Mans team. Plus you get easy options for more power with
just chipping and winding up boost. I really think it's down just to personal preference nowadays. And that's where I'm 100% out!
I'd never dream of making a car that is purely for enjoyment with a dagga dagga diesel engine in it. Would absolutely ruin the experience
imhoaap (in my humble opinion as a petrol head)
I just want to add - stop getting excited about diesel torque figures cos they're big numbers. It's a bit of a pet hate of mine how diesel
heads go on and on about torque! Yes the flywheel torque figures are higher than comparable petrol engines, but flywheel torque is meaningless. That
'advantage' over petrol engines disappears through the different gearing required. E.g: 150bhp/80lbft@10,000rpm bike engine =
150bhp/150lbft@7,500rpm car engine = 150bhp/240lbft@4,000rpm diesel engine. The diesel engine doesn't win cos it has 'more
torques!!!!omg'. Power is a much more meaningful indicator of vehicle performance, power-to-weight ratio much better still. Not torque. The end!
[Edited on 30/8/12 by Liam]
Some good points in there Liam.
I too am a petrol head, and have played with a few different engines and taught myself about turbocharging etc, and yes, the revs and drama of petrol
are truely a thing that sends shudders down my spine.
I also grew up on a farm... and have a bit of a soft spot for tractors
I'd love to have a shed full of exotic cars, but i'd still have a decent diesel lugger car, and a couple of classic tractors...and a
couple of motorbikes...and a steam engine...and a horse. I know, I'm odd. I like strange things!
|
|
|
Rip Van Winkle
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by six mad
I drive a DPF deleted and remapped E90 330d, around 270 bhp and 500+ ft lb it is very quick and does not feel or sound like a diesel
Best bit is will not go below 40mpg and the torque and way the speedo climbs is fantastic and will
upset many quick petrol powered sports cars.
Diesels will continue to get better and better, go for it.
I like this 
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
Saw I saw the Trident thing at Goodwood a few years back - found this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1049151/The-sports-car-Venice-tank.html
so, wouldn't hold your breath.
If I was building again, I'd go diesel
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Rip Van Winkle
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 09:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
Saw I saw the Trident thing at Goodwood a few years back - found this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1049151/The-sports-car-Venice-tank.html
so, wouldn't hold your breath.
If I was building again, I'd go diesel
ATB
Simon
Ooooh  That sucks, well fingers crossed they've got their act together finally and got it ready for production. It looks like a whole load of
fun. Can only hope.
I know it's not for everyone, and will probably be a quite a headache, but I recon its got legs.
Steve
|
|
|
