BF2S Forums Incase you didn't know, I'm Sa... (car suggestions)

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

I concur, 45-50mpg+, plenty of torque and usually decent bhp.

EDIT: Budget BTW?

Usually poor bhp compared to petrol equivalents.

Torque increase usually makes up for it, increases accelleration, and for a first car you aint going to be going over 70mph anyway so top end speed is pointless, unless you wanna lose your license in the first 2 years.

Last edited by m3thod (2009-02-20 10:29:00)

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Torque increase usually makes up for it, increases accelleration, and for a first car you aint going to be going over 70mph anyway so top end speed is pointless, unless you wanna lose your license in the first 2 years.

But they don't have good bhp, like you said. I have a 2 litre engine in my car, that produces 165bhp - find me a diesel (of the same engine capacity) that comes close to matching that.

They feel nasty to drive too. Especially for a hatchback. Little hatchbacks should be nippy and fun. Diesels are not nippy and fun.

I'd say your 165bhp probably only manages what 30mpg combined tops? If you drive it carefully (in which case why have 165bhp) I can rev the tits off mine, have fun with it's puny 70bhp (yes you can have fun, corners can be taken too fast even in a low power car ) and get 50mpg, and his main point was good fuel economy.

Plus my car is an example of probably one of the weakest engines you can get in a diesel form.

Oh and for comparison, Peugeot 207 1.6l HDi Sport, 110 bhp, Torque 180 lbs/ft, 56mpg combined.

Bertster7 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But they don't have good bhp, like you said. I have a 2 litre engine in my car, that produces 165bhp - find me a diesel (of the same engine capacity) that comes close to matching that.

They feel nasty to drive too. Especially for a hatchback. Little hatchbacks should be nippy and fun. Diesels are not nippy and fun.

I'd say your 165bhp probably only manages what 30mpg combined tops? If you drive it carefully (in which case why have 165bhp) I can rev the tits off mine, have fun with it's puny 70bhp (yes you can have fun, corners can be taken too fast even in a low power car ) and get 50mpg, and his main point was good fuel economy.

Plus my car is an example of probably one of the weakest engines you can get in a diesel form.

Oh and for comparison, Peugeot 207 1.6l HDi Sport, 110 bhp, Torque 180 lbs/ft, 56mpg combined.

About 32mpg I think. I get less than that, 'cos I like to rev it quite hard when I get the opportunity.

Ultimately, you drive a 207 diesel - which gives very little frame of reference. I drive a lot of small peugeot diesels (never a 207, but a 206, 106, 306 and 307). They're all horrible to drive.

Bertster7 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Usually poor bhp compared to petrol equivalents.

Torque increase usually makes up for it, increases accelleration, and for a first car you aint going to be going over 70mph anyway so top end speed is pointless, unless you wanna lose your license in the first 2 years.

But they don't have good bhp, like you said. I have a 2 litre engine in my car, that produces 165bhp - find me a diesel (of the same engine capacity) that comes close to matching that.

They feel nasty to drive too. Especially for a hatchback. Little hatchbacks should be nippy and fun. Diesels are not nippy and fun.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Wait, who are you?

The Sheriff wrote:

Punto's are good

But they don't have good bhp, like you said. I have a 2 litre engine in my car, that produces 165bhp - find me a diesel (of the same engine capacity) that comes close to matching that.