On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:51:54 -0700, davea >
wrote:

>> >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.

Lack of torque and poor residuals mainly but insurance also figured. I
didn't have the choice of a 159 in 2001 so the only faster candidate
was the 2.5 V6. This had less torque than the diesel but I wanted big
torque at 1800rpm far more than less torque and more power further up
the rev band. I could have spent less for a V6 as well but I wasn't
tempted..sorry if this doesn't make sense to you but, I no longer lust
after high revving engines to deliver performance in *road* cars. It's
pointless for the kind of driving I do.

>> >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.

Eh..how do you work that out? Go and look up the official figures..the
3.2 has a lower top speed and is slower 0-60 than the Audi.

>>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.

Wrong..as already explained. Indeed a bigger petrol (3.2) doesn't
outperform a *smaller* (3.0) engined diesel in the same market
segment.

> 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.

I don't see the relevance. Alfa only do turbo diesels and normally
aspirated petrols so that's the comparison here. If Alfa did turbo
their petrols, there would be an improvement..but they haven't.

--
Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)