Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
djos wrote:
I'd rather fill up my Mazda 3 every 700 kms and actually enjoy the drive! (That's 7 ltrs per 100 kms)
I was still racing motorcycles back then and that is all I could afford at the time.
Plus I don't recall a Mazda 3 back in the 80's or for that matter cars that could get 7 ltrs per 100 kms
I cant recall the specifics but Im pretty sure my old 1.1ltr '74 Toyota Corrolla sedan (my first car as a student in the very early 90's) got pretty great fuel economy despite only having a 4spd manual gearbox.
djos wrote:
I'd rather fill up my Mazda 3 every 700 kms and actually enjoy the drive! (That's 7 ltrs per 100 kms)
There is no "enjoy the drive" when you're sat on a road that is straight for miles at a time...on something twisty then yes, the petrol might be more fun.
bdr529 wrote:I can never understand it when people say this
Just because the rules favored them.
Anyone could have used a diesel engine, there was nothing in the rule book to stop them.
and if i recall they made the diesel carry less fuel the next year after Audi won
Anyone could use them but given that the engine manufacturers other than Audi at the time were operations like Judd, it isn't reasonable to expect them to throw away their accumulated knowledge and start work on a diesel engine for a small privateer outfit. It's unlikely that a small outfit like Pescarolo can beat a manufacturer as determined to win as Audi , especially when Audi themselves run 2-3 cars and had customer R8's and R10's in the mix as well.
1.1L, that is either funny or sad, I'm not sure which, either way If I had something that small it would be in a bike not a car.
In Canada that '74 Toyota would have rusted away long before the 90's ever arrived.
Last edited by bdr529 on 04 Oct 2015, 07:57, edited 1 time in total.
Cold Fussion wrote:
Anyone could use them but given that the engine manufacturers other than Audi at the time were operations like Judd, it isn't reasonable to expect them to throw away their accumulated knowledge and start work on a diesel engine for a small privateer outfit. It's unlikely that a small outfit like Pescarolo can beat a manufacturer as determined to win as Audi , especially when Audi themselves run 2-3 cars and had customer R8's and R10's in the mix as well.
Some one did give it a go in 2004, 2 years before Audi did, and a private entry no less
Taurus Sports Racing with a Lola B2K/10-Caterpillar powered by a VW Touareg V10 TDI.
1.1L, that is either funny or sad, I'm not sure which, either way If I had something that small it would be in a bike not a car.
In Canada that '74 Toyota would have rusted away long before the 90's ever arrived.
It might have been a 1.3ltr but it was so long ago.
It was a lot of fun to drive as it was very light and rear wheel drive so dirt tracks in the Adelaide hills became rally tracks for me.
strad wrote:Diesel is nasty dirty stuff that we shouldn't be using at all.
I know it doesn't mean too much, but here is an image of the exhaust pipes of my 2 litre VAG diesel car after 52,000 miles. Uncleaned, un-chipped, un-retouched, & in its usual filthy state, as I found today....
Thanks for posting the article Sombrero
As it happens quite often in the real world it's the little guy that comes up with the idea/concept not the big guys, unfortunately they can't afford to see the project through fruition, usually due to lack of money and resources
As for Audi and choosing to go with a diesel, they must have realized there was an advantage with less pit stops over less bhp
They had diesel knowledge and the financial means to see it through, add to that the parallel to market the advances gained through that exercise, You could blame them
So again to think that the rules favored diesels is just foolish, Ian Dawson saw a crack and opened the door and Audi ran through it
Interview from a few years back with Audi Sport's Head Engineer Ulrich Baretzky Note: this is Pre Hybrid and Porsche
Baretzty drops a little nugget part way through (18 min), he says with the knowledge they've gotten in fuel atomization he would like to see Audi apply that tech to a petrol engine before He retires from the sport. I would love to see them do it
Now back to Volkswagen a cheating the EPA rules. Personally I'm not that happy about it, I'v owend 9 VW's over the years,
3x Golf mk1 diesel/petrol & GTI, 1x Jetta mk1, 2x Scirocco mk1, Golf mk2 diesel, Golf mk4 petrol, and 1 Cabriolet mk1.
which I just sold 4 months ago, making this the first time in 30 years that a Volkswagen wasn't park in my driveway.
Besides my personal loyalty to the VW brand, I have stock in the company, not a lot, but enough to be a little pissed off with the sharp drop in share price. and so I not a big fan when I read things like this
Lancaster, 26, can barely bring herself to drive the car, knowing it’s spewing up to 40 times the legal pollution limits,
she thought she was helping the environment when she bought a Volkswagen TDI Jetta in 2009
“I originally purchased it because it was an environmentally friendly car,”
she initially used it to commute between Toronto and Kingston while she was a post-secondary student: Toronto Star
That's the real reason she bought a diesel so she could cover the 520km round trip twice on 1 tank of fuel
According to VW fuel consumption is 5,7 L 100/km but fuel consumption is much higher. 8.0 L 100/km. I drive like any body alls, normally. VW Sharan is family buss, no sports car.
Formula 1 fans should take a look at the second paragraph "On the treadmill, at Lotus".
The Diesel story starts at the last paragraph called "Diesel Pionner !" : very interesting stuff.
As a sportscar fan I enjoyed the full article by the way...
Interesting article. Interesting to see Calum Lockie mentioned. He runs a track day company (Gold Track) in the UK now. Not sure if he still races. Spent a good day with them several years ago - Calum's a nice bloke and lined up several passenger rides for me in some nice race cars including a very nippy F355 - still one of my favourite Ferraris to look at.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
According to VW fuel consumption is 5,7 L 100/km but fuel consumption is much higher. 8.0 L 100/km. I drive like any body alls, normally. VW Sharan is family buss, no sports car.
VW cheat even with fuel consumption!!!
To be honest i think all recent diesels cheat on their economy claims, as do all the so called eco petrols. I was driving 2 diesels a while back, an MG ZT 135+, with what amounts to a 15 year old BMW design engine and a 2013 Bluemotion Passat. Despite the claims that the VW should give a LOT more MPG it actually gave less, unless you drove it like you died when it was about the same. I cant even begin to tell you which was the nicer car, it sure as hell wasnt the german blandbox.
I read that VW is going to update the software in Belgium. I'm putting serious questions if authorities are going to accept that. The issue is by what I gather not solvable due the hardware not up to the task, without compromising heavily on the horsepower and consumption.
On the other hand, the NOx emissions regulations in Belgium should be quite looser then in the US. Still, VW is not going to solve things with a Patch Tuesday.
Engine power will be on a downward slope (just like the value of the car) from the day the vehicle is delivered to you. How will you claim for loss of power?
