|
|
Post by dixinormus on Aug 22, 2024 2:51:27 GMT
Surely you’d want a 2 litre - petrol or diesel - to improve upon the Honda’s shortcomings on long inclines, Al?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 7:07:08 GMT
I think that's a bit of an out-of-date measure dixi, a 1.5 TSI produces as much power, and more torque, than a traditional N/A 2.0. And it's torques wot matters for those inclines. Obvs, yes, a 2.0 turbo diesel would be even better, but I don't like diesel any more, and they're dearer to buy and add even more in the complexity stakes (DPFs etc). The 184 torques of the 1.5 TSI is likely sufficient, coupled with 7 gears, which is 2 more than I'm used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on Aug 22, 2024 7:54:02 GMT
Surprised that WdB hasn’t suggested the BMW 5 series GT hatchback thing..?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 8:00:23 GMT
I've considered that, but they're all too old now to obtain on a PCP from an Approved Used scheme. 3 Series GT might work, but I'm generally bleh about BMWs. Don't see them as value for money. Each to his own.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425 
|
Post by WDB on Aug 22, 2024 8:44:51 GMT
BMW is at its best when it’s defining a genre. The 5 series does this, so does the 3 and so, for my money, do the i3 and iX. Some of their other things — the 1 and most of the X models — feel like trend-chasing me-toos.
But I think the GT cars were genuinely different and appealing to a certain kind of legroom-hungry customer. (Many of those, counterintuitively, in China.) I think the 6GT was dropped in late 2020, so if you can find one, it might fit your finance criteria. Big, though. Really big if only one of your party has the legs to warrant it.
3GT is a more manageable size. The newest on That Site is a 69, so that might work too if you hurry.
Hard to escape leather in BMWs of that age, though.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,811
|
Post by bpg on Aug 22, 2024 9:15:20 GMT
The Shhkoda has considerably more torques than the Honda 250Nm v 174Nm, you'll pay for that at the pumps.
My petrol automatic didn't feel stressed at all going over the St Gotthard Pass, this summer. The turbo doing the bulk of the work hammered the fuel consumption for the ca. 16kms climb. I was looking at 18mpg on the climb at around 40mph behind traffic.
It's not often you'll be in that situation of fully loaded, pulling up mountains. When you are you'll pay for the ease of progress. Eyes wide open and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Aug 22, 2024 9:23:55 GMT
True but for those 10 miles, you used less than one gallon (say £6?). A diesel might have cost you £4? so a £2 difference each way once a year? Who cares?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 9:25:11 GMT
The Skoda Superb was originally conceived to offer improved rear seat comfort and space for the Chinese market, IIRC. I know what you're getting at, that they're generally shorter than us, and you're right. But that's not the point - important people sit in back seats, and to have as much room as possible is a symbol of prestige.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 9:29:12 GMT
The Shhkoda has considerably more torques than the Honda 250Nm v 174Nm, you'll pay for that at the pumps. My petrol automatic didn't feel stressed at all going over the St Gotthard Pass, this summer. The turbo doing the bulk of the work hammered the fuel consumption for the ca. 16kms climb. I was looking at 18mpg on the climb at around 40mph behind traffic. It's not often you'll be in that situation of fully loaded, pulling up mountains. When you are you'll pay for the ease of progress. Eyes wide open and all that. Yes, noted. Not an issue for me. And yes, Dubya, I was using different units for torques, e.g. lb/ft. I thought there was only one...silly of me. Of course Europe will have a better one. |
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on Aug 22, 2024 9:34:22 GMT
Pound-feet! (If we must do furlongs and Fahrenheits.) Pounds per foot is for pricing Cumberland sausage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 9:50:19 GMT
It's the torques Autotrader uses. I shall call them Imperial Torques from now on.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on Aug 22, 2024 9:54:50 GMT
Point is it’s a multiplication (pounds of force, lbf x perpendicular distance, ft) not a division. Hang a 454g weight on the far end of a horizontal spanner 305mm long and the torque on the nut is one pound-foot. Double the weight or the length of the spanner and the torque becomes two lbf-ft.
You’re not alone. Did I mention finding ‘kW/h’ on a National Grid site? They were quite nice about it when I pointed it out.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,811
|
Post by bpg on Aug 22, 2024 10:01:57 GMT
True but for those 10 miles, you used less than one gallon (say £6?). A diesel might have cost you £4? so a £2 difference each way once a year? Who cares? As a one off neither here nor there, simply highlighting the fact turbo petrol engines while offering good levels of torque, especially modern direct injection engines, those improvements come at a cost. If planning a mountain jaunt best add a lot of contingency for fuel. I saw very few EVs going over the tops in both Switzerland and Italy. You'd think they'd be ideal not being propelled by air pumps. The girth of a model Y was hindering progress over the Apennines. |
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on Aug 22, 2024 10:09:37 GMT
If planning a mountain jaunt best add a lot of contingency for fuel. Isn’t that as much about gravity as engine technology? Getting 400kg of load and 1400kg of vehicle up 2000 vertical metres is going to require serious energy expenditure — something like 35MJ of work to do, or about three litres of liquid fuel at 30 percent efficiency. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 10:09:53 GMT
With an EV though you'll gain a lot back on the way down.
|
|
