Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

t16 alternative

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    the main advantage of ME driving a diesel over a petrol is that a (good) petrol engine will make sweet music as you go through the gears especially if you have a sports exhaust, this makes driving conservitively very difficult for my lead feet. A diesel (L-series specifically) only makes nice sounds when you really thrash it and even if you do the economy is still in the region of 35mpg rather than the 23 i was getting from 2.0i monty

    Comment


    • #17
      haha!
      i have a perkins maestro.....put a straight thro 50mm stainless exhaust with a plastic performance back box and it sounds like a WRX deep chugging noise but not too loud or harsh...the kids think its a WRX and look bemused when they see its an old maestro lol

      The perkins has a very high final drive and i drove up to newcastle u tyne [from Evesham] and 100miles back on a [ private road]3/4 of a tank doing more speed than what you probably should...the alternator died past manchester in the dark and i got towed back further improvement on the mpg pmsl

      i was running on veg oil mix for a while until the 4th injector blocked...i had mixed white spirit but...had a heat exchange metal pipe before fuel filter over the engine but thats another story....

      its true diesels have expensive turbos and engines costing more outlay pumps bugger up after certain mileage and need servicing quicker....oily smelly hands at the pumps etc and takes longer to recoup costs and ppl dont hang on to them to make it profitable....until you run em on chip fat / cheap chite chocolate lol
      20L veg oil drums used to be £8 back in 2006! lol
      Last edited by guussi; 23rd September 2009, 08:47.
      0-60 in 8.2 hours 1/4mile in time for breakfast but the rust wins hands down

      Comment


      • #18
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

        Certainly diesel engines lose the least energy from fuel consumed. IMO a diesel will always cost less over the same journey than pretty much any petrol engine if driving at low revs and in top gear. It cost me half as much to travel at 70 mph all the way without harsh acceleration to the south coast in my diesel than the petrol maestro too. Have to say though, the o-series turbo is really quite bad on fuel anyway and it generates a lot of heat, evaporating fuel along the way.

        1989 MG Maestro Turbo no.399


        1994 Maestro Clubman Turbo Diesel

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by John S View Post

          the o-series turbo is really quite bad on fuel anyway and it generates a lot of heat, evaporating fuel along the way.
          The O serise turbo would be a lot beter on fule if it was of a crosflow desing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Looking at this another way if you want to do an l series conversion and tune it to around 160 it will cost you much more than a T series conversion which will start at 180 at worst!

            Bit of a no brainer really!

            Comment


            • #21
              And the T series conversion is easier! (I speak from experience!)
              www.maestroturbo.org.uk - The Tickford Maestro Turbo Register
              www.rover200.org.uk - The Rover 200/400 (R8) Owners Club
              www.roverdiesel.co.uk - My Rover Diesel Site

              Comment


              • #22
                Ok, now it is working after a few erm, teething problems shall we say, I can confirm the L series is a great engine conversion/upgragde to do from the perkins. We installed a mechanical pump variety so it has very similar wiring requirements to the prima. Even with just a few tweaks on the pump it will outrun the prima. Mainly on the turbo as it spools up much earlier cutting out all that lag from the T2.

                However for the wwwwoooommmpphhhh, nothing is going to get close to the T series!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by John S View Post
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

                  Certainly diesel engines lose the least energy from fuel consumed. IMO a diesel will always cost less over the same journey than pretty much any petrol engine if driving at low revs and in top gear. It cost me half as much to travel at 70 mph all the way without harsh acceleration to the south coast in my diesel than the petrol maestro too. Have to say though, the o-series turbo is really quite bad on fuel anyway and it generates a lot of heat, evaporating fuel along the way.
                  the industry school of thought now apparently is to run the engine hotter to take advantage of better MPG... presumably metal more expansive less friction...but some of us will think its so the engine's life will be shorter thus boosting more projected sales....as ppl scrap rather than fix head gasket failures....thats if ppl can be bothered to replace numerous cheap electric components designed not to last well till past the 3yr warranty...at £150 p/h to fix
                  0-60 in 8.2 hours 1/4mile in time for breakfast but the rust wins hands down

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I don't think it is primarily about heat. The industry is looking to get a cleaner burn of fuel as efficiency is a real selling point these days.

                    So they have increased the pressure of the fuel injection which in return creates higher temps.

                    Anyone who talks about diesel car being more expensive to buy is missing the point. The initial purchase price is not the real killer, it is the constant drip drip out of your account in fuel which really tells you wether you can afford the car or not!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X