Not many know that diesel is indeed a lot better petrol. Various noted reviewers, and enthusiast auto magazine editors will now swear by them. Everyone hated it. Yes, they all said, "Diesel engines, they should be in trucks and tractors and stay there! Why disease our passenger cars?" But they all ate their words after taking different examples for a drive. Diesel engines, with "common-rail" technology, uses much higher injection pressures than Rudolf's original creation, by far! Some people are unaware of CRDi even today, and refuse to accept it's superiorities over petrol. Yes, petrol had the horsepower advantage, but was left miles behind by the torque ratings...
Enter generation 3 common-rail. These 3rd gen common rails have destroyed petrols entirely - in terms of power, torque, fuel economy, and even acceleration and top speed! Petrol's only saving grace today is their level of refinement and engine clatter, diesel's inherent and only drawback. But, looking at where BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi have reached with their diesels, it's truly an eye-opener. A petrol will have about a tenth of it's torque rating (in Nm) of it's displacement (in cc) - a 3.0L petrol will have, on an average, 240bhp and 300Nm of torque. A 3rd gen 3.0L CRDi on the other hand, will have about the same power, but more or less 500Nm of torque! There are also blown versions which have power outputs of 285+ bhp and 580+ Nm, from a "measly 3000cc"! Yes, I know what you're thinking, put two turbos on a 3.0 petrol and it'd make 6 million horsepower too, but then it boils down to economy! The turbo petrol's brimmed fuel tank would last you only till you got the damn thing out of the garage and around the first bend down your neighborhood. The diesel would still deliver about 12 kilometres to the litre.
Another commendable effort, which I'd like to bring to the fore, is Mercedes-Benz' bio-diesel endeavor. Thy've been at it for a few years at their plant on Pune's outskirts, and their "C220 BDI" as I like to call it, is definitely IMO the way forward. Yes, it doesn't quite give the same range as diesel, or the power output, but when it costs half as much, does that minor difference in power and torque matter at all?
Which brings me to electrics. A lot of top journos have spoken about this issue. The Honda Civic Hybrid, the GM Volt et all. The batteries that are used to power these things are made of extremely complex materials, which have to be sourced from various locations worldwide. The mines, for some materials, are major pollution causers in the first place, so in actual fact, the pollution caused in making the batteries, is far more than the emission savings from the actual car, years after it has been used! Yet, somehow, petrol-electric hybrids seem to be the path chosen by most manufacturers pursuing hybrids. My question is, why not a 1.0L twin-turbo 3 cylinder diesel, coupled to a smaller, less complicated electric system that would still output about 80bhp and bucketloads of torque, and still deliver in the region of 50 or more kilometres to the litre, genuinely!
It's not that diesels are unclean or noisy or polluting anymore. They're not. Period. We need to get rid of the old carbon-belching IDi and Di engined models and make way for common-rail ones, to truly see the difference. A very good example is Audi's R8 V12 TDi supercar. It is directly derived from their LeMans dominating R10 TDi that has destroyed, mutilated and humiliated it's petrol competitors, from the very first time it showed up. Many years and consecutive victories later, it's still hammering on. Well, back to the R8. This road car has a 5934cc, twin-turbo charged V12. It makes 500bhp (507PS) and 1000Nm (102kgm). It propels the car from 0-60mph (0-96.5kph) in under 5 seconds, and goes on to post a top whack of over 200mph (321.86kph), all while still delivering 9 kilometres per litre!
That, the R8 V12 TDi, the world's first diesel-powered supercar, is my way of saying, "I REST MY CASE!"
Hail diesel! \m/
