2.0 HDI 16 valve

ZXturbo_Aura · Post by **ZXturbo_Aura** » 20 Jun 2004, 00:06

looking at the figures for the latest 1.6 16v hdi, its impressive,giving out 110!! i think there should be a 16v version of the 2.0 hdi, dont you think? imagine the output of that compared to other manufacturer's 2 litre diesels!

wheeler · Post by **wheeler** » 20 Jun 2004, 00:16

there is a 2.0 16v HDi engine,it's fitted to the C8.i think its still a 110bhp though.

bencowell · Post by **bencowell** » 20 Jun 2004, 01:42

There is also the new 2.0 HDI which gives 136bhp but the same torque as the QE2.
Doing the maths shows the same (ish) output per litre as the 1.6 110.
I have the traditional 2.0 HDI 110 8 valve in my C5 which has a powerbox to get about 130bhp. Nice

np · Post by np » 20 Jun 2004, 03:55

My dad has a 406 hdi 110,reckons mine pulls better than his(lighter i suppose)improvement on his 90 hdi though!
i can remember a time when sierras had a 2.3d with about 60bhp!!cutting edge at the time,
Cavalier 1.6d,50bhp,lovely!!!
People still say diesels are slow,115bhp in mime & more torque than a Mondeo V6! Its not slow!
goes to show how td technology has caught up,136bhp from 2.0,that what most main stream petrols put out.Plus the fact of torque,and about 15mpg more.I know what i`m stickin with!!!

VisaGTi16v · Post by **VisaGTi16v** » 20 Jun 2004, 04:14

my first car, a visa diesel, 1769cc 60bhp (i think) was a great motorway car. You basically put your foot to the floor, left it there and it would do 85-95 depending on the gradient, perfect for the M4

Have to watch it with the zx as its too easy to go madly over the limit.
Would be nice to try a modern diesel, last time I drove any type was my parents zx avantage td about 4 years ago

np · Post by np » 20 Jun 2004, 04:34

I would like to have tried the last Golf 1.9 pd tdi 150bhp.I bet that would fly.Even better,chip it.170bhp odd i think!!!All from 1.9 ltrs

Post by **philhoward** » 20 Jun 2004, 04:40

One chap at my old workplace had a Vectra SRi V6, but had a go in a 150hp Golf; he swapped as soon as he could as he reckoned the Golf was MUCH faster (especially round corners)...

bencowell · Post by **bencowell** » 20 Jun 2004, 18:29

I understand the 1.9 VW diesels have a narrow power and torque band. Because you are forced to keep the revs between 2 and 3000 many VW owners report huge economy. However, the HDI is supposed to be nicer to drive.

ItDontGo · Post by **ItDontGo** » 21 Jun 2004, 15:11

I hate diesels. Diesel engines feel like they have too much inertia as they dont like to change speed quickly. I dont care how fast they go they will always be 'orrible.

DaveC · Post by **DaveC** » 21 Jun 2004, 17:09

The Golf diesels are ok, but the problem now is, with all the new powerfull diesels, is that the power to weight and torque to weight ratios are not getting much better!
The GTTdi Golf 150 has got alot of weight to lug around. Big 17 or 18 inch rims and heavy discs to stop it all make 1500kg alot to lug around!
Throw in 4wd on the tdi audi's and the power gains only become apparent at 80mph plus when the aerodynamic drag starts to effect the speed alot!
The overall effect of 150bhp is good, but not THAT much more rapid than say a Hdi110 engine in say a 306 would be!
Imagine the old 205 td with the new 2 hdi engine and 136 bhp. It'ds be as fast as the 205 1.9gti and have over two times the mid range torque punch!
Even the new 206 GT tdi thingy only has 120 ish bhp, when there are tuners who offer 150bhp on the old hdi110!!! I'm sure we could have some wodnerfull cars powered by diesel out there, but the problem is that we are getting more power and torque, but more weight. Instead of using the old engine or the 1.6hdi, why not throw in the 2.0hdi and overboost etc, get a porper Peugeot diesel hot hatch.
The only exception I've seen is the Seat Leon tdi thingy, with the Gold Tdi PD150 engine, chip that to 170bhp in a one and a bit tonne car and you'll have a car that'd eat a Subaru Impreza WRX for breakfast on the straights!
Lets just hope Peugeot do the same and get a 150+bhp diesel engine for the 206 that can run upto 170+ bhp on overboost or something.
Diesel engines are good, just Peugeot don't realise them. Just look how much of a performance car the old 306 tdi is becoming now for tuning up and stuff. If they realeased that in 1995/6 with 120bhp and a huge intercooler it would have been a world first hot hatch diesel! But no, and they are doing it again now, by putting the 1.6 hdi in the 206 and then only putting the big grunty engine (2.0 same as the old hdi90, so same size!?) in the big fat heavy cars!
Hmmmmm
Dave

aido · Post by **aido** » 22 Jun 2004, 03:10

yeah cars are getting heavier,that applies to both petrol and diesel. the latest diesels have superior torque outputs to the equivilent petrol engines,and for that matter petrol engines of a greater engine capacity.take for example tha alfa 147 gta,3197 cc ,250 bhp, 221 lb/ft, 50-70 in top = 8.5 sec. ,24.3 mph/1000rpm in top gear,kerb weight 1360kg. Alfa 156 jtd 20v,2387cc,175bhp,284lb/ft,50-70 in top =7.8sec, 33.5mph/1000rpm in top gear,kerb weight 1385kg. So we can see from this,and that is just one example,that diesel engines are more than a match for the petrol engine in terms of midrange performance,the area that counts most. how would the 147 fair if it had the gear ratios of the diesel alfa? even worse!

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 22 Jun 2004, 19:13

People buy diesels for fuel economy, that is their "purpose", hence they have tall gearing for good economy. If you were after performance you would buy a petrol car with shorted gearing, because its the power that makes the car accelarate not the torque. Its all well and good saying that a given diesel has more torque and will do 50-70 in top gear faster than the petrol, BUT if the petrol was in a lower gear (i.e. in a 30-70 through gears benchmark) it would be producing more power and would out accelarate the diesel. The petrol engine can and will rev higher than a diesel and produce more power than it, even if it is a relatively low performance petrol.
Diesels need a turbo to be acheive power that can be compared to a non-turbo petrol. Now if we compare like with like, i.e. turbocharged petrol engines with turbocharged diesel engines, the diesels don't have anything like the performance of the petrol i.e. where are the 160 bhp/litre diesel engines to match the 160bhp/litre petrols (Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0 Turbo Evo VIII MR FQ-320 320 bhp from 2 litres 160bhp/litre)? Cutting edge diesel is around 80 bhp/litre.
Diesels are noiser, produce more vibration, are heavier, have a shorter power band and rev to less revs than typical petrols and to acheive anything close to petrol performance require more complexity. Worse than that, when you fill your diesel up your hand ends up smelling of diesel.
I have a diesel, in fact two neither one is a modern common rail diesel engine. Unless petrol engines make a miraculous improvement in fuel economy I'll be sticking with diesel. I get 600 miles out of a tank, without a bigger fuel tank no petrol is even going to get close to that.

DaveC · Post by **DaveC** » 23 Jun 2004, 17:59

Wow, that Alfa example really puts it in perspective! That is a long top gear too. If it used the GTA gearbox it'd fly!!! Mind you, top speed would suffer, as would your clutch foot if you wanted to keep it on the boil

But yeah, the petrol GTA Alfa would blow the JTD one away on a track, but on the road, when you can't take the racing line, and can't run at Vmax and use all your cornering grip etc, the diesel is king, don't have to drop a gear, just put your foot down and away you go!
On the road you have to expect the unexpected, ie, a horse rider, a push biker, parked truck round a blind bend. In a diesel you can slow down in a high gear, in anticipation, see it's clear, and boot it and ride the torque, the petrol suffers here and you have to change down. If you drive a petrol to get the best from it, you'd be changing gear lots. That isn't as important as a turbo diesel, or a turbo petrol.
I'm sticking with diesel for every day too, but you can't beat a big capacity naturally aspirated petrol for outright top end grunt and low-down torque with no lag

Seya
Dave

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 23 Jun 2004, 22:13

As the Americans are very fond of saying "There ain't no replacement, for displacement", but the majority of large American engines are 2 valves per cylinder with pushrods. Fuel economy just isn't an issue in the states, where as we have expensive fuel so we have smaller more fuel efficient engines.

aido · Post by **aido** » 24 Jun 2004, 16:12

kowalski,people used to buy diesels for economy reasons, now they buy for economy and performance. sure you are quite correct diesels need turbos, but so what,what would a subaru imprezza be without such a device? . you say compare like with like,ok golf gti 1.8 turbo,150 bhp,golf tdi 150 pd,150 bhp, petrol 0-60 7.9 diesel 7.8 and the diesel would have probably had an extra gear change on that run. in gear times: petrol 30-50 4th gear 6.8 sec. 50-70 5th gear 8.2 sec. Diesel 30-50 4th gear5.8 sec ,50-70 5th gear 7.1sec. These times are despite the diesel having to pull much taller gearing. the more torquey the engine the taller gears it can pull,but surely you know this. you are right in saying that the power band is narrower with diesels and its a shame but with loads of torque this is offset.bmw raced a 2.0 litre turbo diesel against petrol engines a while ago and it wiped the floor with them,that was round a race track ,not in the real world. likewise vw entered a golf rally diesel and i think that came 2nd in one of the races despite it being the only derver. bhp sells,torque wins races! I dont want to sound at odds with you mate,not at all, but people still think that diesels are slow,technology has changed that.[:)]