Just
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 09:32 AM |
|
|
Diesel engined locost?
Just wondering with all the talk of performance diesels these days and Audi at Le-mans whether anyone has considered or even built a diesel locost?
The cons would appear to be limited revs, noise (wrong type) and setup, but the pros would appear to be torque, economy for a daily drive and sheer
robustness of cooling etc not to mention turbos.
|
|
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 09:34 AM |
|
|
Another con is that diesel engines tend to be that little bit heavier than a petrol engine.....
I agree with you though, it would be kinda handy to have a diesel, but I would have a revvy petrol engine any day....in my eyes its worth paying that
little bit more for an engine that uses a fuel that tastes and smells right!!!!
[Edited on 22/6/06 by tegwin]
|
|
|
graememk
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 09:37 AM |
|
|
i posted this about a year ago. . . no one else liked it then either lol
2.5 v6 audi is what i had in mine but you will also find many 1.9t citroen engines about just mating up to a gearbox would be the only prob
oh and the fact it would weigh as much a 5 pintos
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 09:57 AM |
|
|
the torque and typical power delivery would be the biggest prob in addition to the weight and size of the diesel installations...
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
marcotuinenburg
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 10:01 AM |
|
|
My daily car is a diesel powered Fiat Panda year 2005. The engine isn't very big, only 1300 cc but it's powerfull enough to give you that
push in your back feeling.
The Panda weighs about 970 kilo's.
I think if the gearbox would fit the engine would be a good alternative for a locost.
But first get the Blade powered Indy ready. That probably will give me not a push but a kick in the back feeling.
|
|
|
PAUL FISHER
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
Westfield,did it a few years ago,around 1985,they used the 1.6 turbo diesel,ford unit,did not sell too well though,but if I recall,it did 0 to 60 in
about 6.5 seconds ,which at the time seamed fast,compared with a XR2 I was running at the time.
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 10:36 AM |
|
|
I did hear of someone who put a 1.9 Citroen Turbo Deisel in a Locost and it went like stink...and it did stink!!
The torque was great apparently.
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 10:39 AM |
|
|
I would suggest the 95 BHP version of Citroen's new HDI engine. It is of all alloy construction. The 70 BHP 1.4HDi C3 weighs more than the 1.4
petrol but less than the 1.6. I think the 95BHP C3 HDi is actually a 1.6 diesel.
The small Citroen HDi engine is light and powerful (compared to a std pinto) but it is rare. You can only buy the 95BHP engine if you also have the
top level of 5 levels of trim.
I wonder if you can have the 70 BHP engine remapped or fitted with a bigger turbo.
The other problem with fast diesels is the gearing. allthough 3rd, 4th and 5th are taller to take account of the lower rev limit (and higher torque)
of a turbo diesel, 1st and sometimes 2nd are often about the same as a petrol because they idle at about the same speed and have to pull the same car
away from rest. If yo accelerate from 0-60 in 7 seconds with a 4500 RPM red line, you're going to have to change rear really quickly to get to
60 in 3rd.
|
|
|
minordelay
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 10:43 AM |
|
|
One combination could be to use the sherpa gearbox used with the XUD engine mated to the later dv4 type fitted to 206 306 etc also used in focus and
fiesta. Later versions produce 110 bhp and block is ally. Might be worth a thought.
|
|
|
Lawnmower
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 10:45 AM |
|
|
This has come up a couple of times,
Cons: crap power band
weight,
noise
VIBRATION!!!!
Turbo LAGGGGG, need to stir the gearbox big style to keep it in the power band, as soon as the power kicks in, you need to change gear, Grrrr!!!!
btw my Pug 307 is a 1.6HDI, 110 bhp
[Edited on 22/6/06 by Lawnmower]
|
|
|
Tricky Dave
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 06:27 PM |
|
|
No offence, but surely a locost is meant to be a thrilling, enjoyable driving machine rather than a practical, efficient, smelly oil burner that
sounds like a tractor? I think a diesel engine is totally out of character with the application. I don't like the Audi R10 for the same reason -
you don't go to a race to see cars whooshing past making a noise like a well silenced hoover, you go to be thrilled by dramatic, screaming (or
roaring or thundering - take your pick!) monsters!
The noise and delivery of a revvy petrol engine is as much a part of the se7en experience as anything else, and if you lose that, you're losing
a big part of the fun.
Then again, this is all just IMHO, of course, and if a diesel locost is what's going to give you the biggest hit, go for it!
|
|
|
t.j.
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 07:30 PM |
|
|
Diesels are for Agricultural Tractors! 
Next time someone wants an Elektronic
Don't listen to me i'm using a Ford engine 
[Edited on 22/6/06 by t.j.]
|
|
|
pajsh
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 09:00 PM |
|
|
I'm currently driving a 2.2 Hdi Civic hire car which supposedly has 135 Bhp does 0-60 in 9 sec but still returns 55 mpg when driven not very
carefully by me.
My last car was a 150 bhp Bora TDi which had huge torque and would return 50mpg on a long run at a steady 85-90.
Very sensible, very practical, very impressive but not IMO right for a locost.
Sorry but Diesels are for Daily Drivers.
I used to be apathetic but now I just don't care.
|
|
|
ADD
|
| posted on 22/6/06 at 09:20 PM |
|
|
A saw a hairy fairy greeny that had bought a 2ltr zetec avon and had it converted to a diesel so he could run it on chip pan oil.
|
|
|
