> >Is performance the first thing you consider when buying a diesel?
>
> Yes.

If performance is your thing why not get the 3.2 V6 159. It's faster
than the diesel you can't argue with that.

> >I wouldn't say so. 9 times out of 10 people going for a diesel want
> >economy first, obviously.
>
> That depends on the car..surely? For example, an Audi A4 3.0 TDI
> Quattro (chosen as a car with a reasonable diesel engine and serious
> performance) *can* be had for 28000UKP if you can survive the
> minimalism. It does 153 mph and 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. That Audi would
> not be bought for economy!

That'll be the 1 out of 10 that would opt for the diesel! Alfa can't
match that for spec for there equivalent diesel but the 3.2 petrol
can.

>There are economy petrol and diesel cars
> but there are also sporting petrol and diesel cars and some people
> don't seem to be able to grasp that diesels can be sporting (even
> though a diesel won Le Mans).

I can grasp it and have many a shot in fast diesel cars, nothing
against them. Point I'm making is the equivalent sized petrol will
always outperform it. Why do you think manufacturers put turbo's in
most of the diesels, it's to make up for the lack of power to start
with. Put a turbo in the equivalent petrol or leave it naturally
aspirated and IT WILL outperform it. Look at your own example of the
Audi.

> But the diesels sell rather well and the salesman would be presenting
> it as an obvious alternative.

But I stated I didn't want a diesel car because of the price of the
stuff here, I don't do a lot of miles so it's not worth it for me. He
still pushed so I left!