also remeber that japan isnt a huge island, with lots of densely packed cities and not a lot of greenery. diesels can burn cleaner and produce less harmful emissions, even if it means a little soot.
http://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/attachment.php?thumbnail=3329
twincharged mercedes om617 in a 300sd.
Diesels do not burn cleaner. they produce less CO2 because they are more effiecient, but besides the soot, theyalso produce lots of NOx that are very harmful. nitrogen oxides are orange/ brown gasses with a powerful stinging smell, and are powerful carcinogenics. small cars do not produce that much NO or NO2 , but larger vehicles like trucks and busses are very harmful.
For us end-users the only real advantage that the diesel has vs petrol is its better fuel economy, and to tell the truth, that diesels better fuel economy really takes its toll on diesel engines torque range and horsepower when compared to a petrol engine.
I still think that Automation should get diesel engines though, maybe as a free DLC or something. But at this point the most important target should be to actually concentrate on finishing the game, rather than adding more stuff into it.
That’s exactly what diesels produce: wide torque and power bands. top hp is not that high on a stock engine, but produces more overall power. tipicaly it has 80% hp from half of the rev range. a petrol usualy has about half. they have other advantages: are more silent on the highway, are able to pull heavy vehicles without fuss. an example: a BMW 540 has considerably more power than 535d, but is only marginaly faster than the 535d which has 2 less cylinders, also uses half as much fuel and has a range of 1000 km.
Diesels are a must, but later in the game’s completion.
[quote=“benceboc”]
[quote=“nouky”]http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/en/automobile/attachement/00_tmgs_challenge.pdf
read this and you will see why diesel are not that important, and japan is not an isolated case.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone[/quote]
Still, it is the most common engine type around europe. I hope the devs will treat diesels as a priority after they released the game (and had their well deserved break). I just can’t imagine a car company tycoon without diesels.[/quote]
try ferarri or lotus
@darkjedi. Here are some numbers from Ford:
Petrol: 2.0 litre straight 4 petrol engine 202 PS @6000 rpm and 320 Nm @1750-4500 rpm carfolio.com/specifications/ … car=219296.
Diesel: 2.0 litre straight 4 diesel engine 163 PS @4000 rpm and 340 Nm @2000-3250 rpm carfolio.com/specifications/ … car=219230.
Between those engines the top torque range (2750 minus 1250 = 1500) is 120% better on the petrol engine vs the same sized diesel engine, the 20 Nm top torque difference is pretty much irrelevant since its only about 6% difference compared to a 120% difference. But on the otherhand the horsepower difference between those engines is far from irrelevant. The same pattern between petrol and diesel engines can be seen on every modern Ford engines, unless of course you try to compare a 1.6 litre petrol vs 2.0 diesel.
And btw, that’s not even the most powerful 2.0 litre Ecoboost engine from Ford.
I would add Aston Martin, Lamborghini and maybe Rolls Royce to that list as well.
what ford is doing now with their petrols is not very natural. Volkswagen has tried this before with the 1.4 tsi and it resulted in an angine that is not very reliable. where the diesels are working “relaxed”. they use a low revving turbo to provide torque from low down and restrict top end power. if you charge 2 bars in the same engine , power rises to 190 hp with no other mods. changing ECU maps will increase it to 235 hp. If you try this with the petrol youend up with a similar power, but you will only use 98 petrol and the engine won’t last very much. the torque range as you see it is linked to rpm strictly, but if you look at percentage of total rpm, the story changes. pure hp is not the whole story. And the current diesels have technology from 2003 in place. Modern petrols have the newest available tech. Wait for an improvment in diesels, then you will see what happens. the newest 3.0 l diesel from BMW has 313 hp, the 3.0 l petrol has 320. Ford diesels are not really the ones to look at.
Yes, I mean clearly those Ford’s powerful Ecoboost engines are very unnatural and therefore they must be unreliable, because otherwise it is very much impossible to out perform equally sized diesel engines, especially in the torque department. Since dont we all know that diesel engines have the biggest torque and the widest torque range of all the engines, for ever and ever. Amen.
Btw, here’s the International Engine of the Year 2012 winner ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/ieoty.php Yep, it’s Ford’s “unreliable” Ecoboost as #1
Here’s the best new engine 2012 ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/new_engine.php It’s that “unreliable” Ecoboost again.
Here is the best sub 1-litre category 2012 winner ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/sub_1.php#1 Ecoboost.
What can I say, they obviously dont consider reliability as a crucial subject in the International Engine of the Year -awards, because if they would consider reliability as a crucial subject, the Ford’s “unreliable” Ecoboost engine would have never won anything. Right? 
I don’t think you understand what reliability means. Engines of the year are rated for power/l, efficiency, emissions,elasticity, mass and refinement. that does not make an engine realiable. I seriously doublt that a 3 cyl 1.0l 120 hp buzzer will last more than 130-140 k km until a rebuild is necessary. I did not say diesels are better , but certainly they are not worse. each has a different ideal apllication. I also did not say that Ford makes bad petrol engines. actualy they are quite good and reliable, but these recent ones i realy don’t like. The diesels on the other hand are not so great.
The 1.4 tsi VW used are prone to piston failure. they also won the engine of the year title.
My honda uses 8.5-9.0 liters of fuel / 100 km in the city. the 1.0 ecoboost manages 7.5 , not that much of a difference considering my honda was made 13 years ago and has an engine double in size. A 1.6 ti-vct uses about 9l in the city and 6l on the highway. there is a difference here , but I will always take the 1.6 because it will last a lot longer.
As I already said, the only really meaningful advantage that the diesel engine has over the petrol engine, is that it is more economical than the petrol engine (I will tackle the reliability stuff later on). Also if you would take some time and take that BMW’s 6cylinder diesel engine you brought up, and compare it to Ford’s 3cylinder petrol (Ecoboost) engine in a good old Nm/litre fashion and look at the torque stuff, you will once again see the same results what I pointed out for you before: Diesel has bit more top torque vs petrol, but the petrol has MUCH better torque range vs the diesel. In fact in this comparison the Ford petrol engine has over three (3) times better top torque area vs the BMW diesel engine! Whilst the BMW diesel engine only manages about 24% more top torque (Nm/litre remember) than the Ford petrol engine. And just so that we wont forget; that’s “just” a 3cylinder Ford engine vs the ‘all mighty’ straight6 from Bayerische Motoren Werke.
Those calculations are done from cold hard numbers and everyone can check them out and just simply do the math. What comes to reliability, anything that you have stated about any engines reliability (like that Ford’s 3cylinder) however seems to be more of an opinion than a cold hard fact, so I would not take those numbers you simply throw out of your head very seriously. Although I do know that generally diesel engines are hailed as very reliable engines, but when talking about “normal” cars and “normal” car buyers, you must put everything into perspective: Unless you only buy new car (or just new engine) ones your current car’s engine has literally blown to pieces, then it should not matter too much does the engine in your car last for 1 000 000 km or “just” 600 000 km, because you buy a new car long before that engine is going to blow to pieces.
Not saying diesels would be completely worthless, since they have their place in the automotve world and as I allready said; therefore also in this game. I was more like just pointing out what is truly their strenght vs petrol engines, and that strenght is the better economy, not exactly the torque stuff people seem to falsely think. Also if you really insist, you can add in the fact that you can do more km with diesel engine before the engine is completely annihilated, although that is a “bit” far fetched plus for the diesels, since as far as I can see, todays engines easily tend to last the cars lifetime and more, so it does not play virtually any role in any normal condiditions.
Yes , you are right about the ecoboost; it’s only a subjective opinion since the engine just appeared on the market. only time will tell how reliable it is for sure. the 2.0 l ford engine can produce even more torque , but is electronicaly limited to appear as an appealing flat line, than a spike and to extend clutch life. The thing is the larger the engine is , the less specific torque is makes. the bmw 3.0 diesel makes use of 3 different size turbos to produce power trough the rev range, the petrol only uses one twin scroll. their acceleration is exactly the same; so in this case the performance is the same. now it’s just a matter of preference. a more silent, longer range , relaxed driving car or a more responsive, noisier and thrilling engine that has less range.
Regarding the 1.0l , it’s an estimation based on expierience and studies. the engine is forced to produce that power, therefore will wear a lot faster. maybe it won’t fail, but in a few years it won’t have much of the original power. averagily tuned engines will hold on to the power for longer periods of time.
I think ecoboost will last just as long as their naturally aspirated engines do. Why would they not think about how long it was going to last? I am sure that Ford uses parts that can withstand more abuse in the engine than they use in their naturally aspirated engines. I do not see why they would risk their reliability reputation so it just doesnt make sense that they would develop an engine that wouldnt last long so I am pretty sure that they know what they are doing. After all they sure as hell do not want to get their old reputation back.
FORD : Fix Or Repair Daily.
Yes, car manufacturers usually do cut torque peaks to expand the life expectancy of clutch and such, and surely diesel engines torque range might also be cutted to give it a similar top torque range that the petrol engine has, by cutting down its top torque. But as we have seen before; the torque between same sized petrol and diesel engines are pretty close (with diesel just and just getting the upper hand in there) but the real difference is in the fact that the diesel engine lacks the consistency of the petrol engine to produce torque (and also horsepower) trough out the rev range, and that alone is the reason of why diesels torque range cannot be cut to be as big, and at the same time as wide as the petrol engines torque range. Simply put, in that sense alone, the diesel engine is quite clearly inferior when compared to petrol engine, and that’s pretty much that.
Also saying that bigger engines produce inherently less torque in the sense of Nm/litre than smaller engines do, sounds pretty unbelievable to me…
I also tried to avoid of this becoming a question of which manufacturer has/uses a better turbo technology in their cars, and that’s the reason why I originally grabbed my both examples of same sized engines, with equal cylinder count, diesel and petrol engines from the same manufacturer. Also if you are trying to state something like that the BMW has some fancy turbo technology vs Ford, then the scale should lean (even) more towards the Ford and its 3cylinder 1 litre Ecoboost petrol engine when compared to BMW’s 6cylinder 3 litre diesel engine in a sense of Nm/litre.
Bottom line: Same turbo technology and same engine size: The diesel is going to be more economical than the petrol, but at the same time the petrol has much better torque range and much more horsepower than the diesel does.
So the question is the same old: Do I want to get more power or better fuel economy?
PS. I really don’t care if you have decided to try and speculate in a negative sense about the possible expected life expectancy of the Ford’s 1 litre Ecoboost. But I will say you this: I bet they don’t too often elect engines as the best of the year in multiple categories, and then the elected engine would later on turn out to be notoriously “unreliable” in some way. That could only be described as a highly unlikely episode.
I see you only understand the numbers and fail to comprehend the depth of the problem. the 2.0 ecoboost is tuned for high torque to appeal to everyday drivers. the diesels are tuned for best economy and emissions. i will give some examples and you draw your own conclusioins regarding torque:
My passat 1.9 tdi came with 130hp and 320 nm stock. after an ecu mod, power rose to 163 and torque to 400 nm between 2100-3600 and this is on stock turbo (1.6bar)
A friend has a golf with the same engine, but with a 2.0 bar turbo and larger intercooler. his car can put out 215hp and a limited torque to 450.
another friend has a mk5 GTI with a 2.0 TFSI. with considerable mods,he increased power from 200 to 272 hp and torque from 300 to 380
some guy i used to race with had a 530d. stock was 230 hp, 500 nm. after being modified it put out 350 hp and 660 nm.
the audi v12 TDI has 500 hp and 1000 nm .
why don’t they use petrol in trucks? since petrols can also make large torque figures? can they make 2600 nm? or 3200nm?
LE: car manufacturers do not produce turbos. they are made by subcontractors like garret. all companies have the same turbo tech available to them.
Yeah I admit it, I look at the numbers about HP & Nm and look at the torque range and then come up with an educated conclusion of which engine in overall is more powerful. Based on those given numbers, based on facts. It might not be the most complete way of comparing engines, but it sure beats the hell out of some foggy claims without literally ANY justification what so ever about some engine being “unnatural” and therefore unreliable. Or that it would be anything more than just a wild guess talking about the “depth of the problem” stating that the Ford’s Ecoboost engines are tuned for high torque to “appeal everyday drivers”, whilst at the same time the diesel engines would be tuned for best economy and emissions.
So it is true when you say that I just look at the numbers. But since I personally don’t see any point in just making stuff up, I must to look at the numbers to be able to make educated conclusions.
There are no petrol engines in tractors or trucks simply because of the fuel economy, and also partly because of the longer lifespan diesels has vs petrol. Both engines (petrol and diesel) are surely capable of producing enough torque for the truck and for the tractor, its just that the diesel is more economical to use than the petrol, its simple as that. But since like for instance tractors and cars are completely different beasts, if some solution (diesel) is overwhelmingly better solution for tractor, it does not mean that the same solution (diesel) would necessarily also be overwhelmingly better solution also for the car.
[quote=“pyrlix”]I just imagine a diesel in Automation…
No matter how what Engine it is (V8, I4 and so on) it will sound like a tractor or you’ll only hear a turbo screaming 
Also I don’t think that diesels will be very exciting - as the Rev Limit is pretty much nailed at ~6000RPM because of physics and they are quite heavy, but it could be useful for Economy Vehicles 
Greetz
Pyrlix[/quote]
Not exciting ?
You never drive a BMW 335 or a Mercedes with an 420 CDi thats a lot of fun 
This is’nt very exciting for ya?
Yep, the Audi R10 TDI is a really awesome car.
Check the links below for more information about the R10 TDI and its successor the R15 TDI.
Audi R10 TDI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10_TDI
Audi R15 TDI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R15_TDI
of the 3 audis tdi in the le mans 2011, none came to the finish line if i remember right.
[quote=“dervectra”]
[quote=“pyrlix”]I just imagine a diesel in Automation…
No matter how what Engine it is (V8, I4 and so on) it will sound like a tractor or you’ll only hear a turbo screaming 
Also I don’t think that diesels will be very exciting - as the Rev Limit is pretty much nailed at ~6000RPM because of physics and they are quite heavy, but it could be useful for Economy Vehicles 
Greetz
Pyrlix[/quote]
Not exciting ?
You never drive a BMW 335 or a Mercedes with an 420 CDi thats a lot of fun 
[/quote]
Im sure those are nice cars, but if talking about power, I would personally take equally powered (or more like superiorly powered) petrol engine over the diesel engine any day of the week. Diesel engines are just so… diesel , and also they dont sound very good 
.
Also back in the day when they actually managaged to win something, it was more so because of the rules. It looked almost like as the guys who made the rules in Le Mans, wanted to see diesel engine to win the race.