Author Topic: Diesel car wins Le Mans 24 Hours (Read 632 times)

Replicant · « **on:** June 18, 2006, 10:59:57 AM »

Audi claim historic Le Mans win

Quite remarkable eh?

beet1e · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2006, 11:36:24 AM »

Excellent, Nexx! And a diesel Audi no less!

Hehe, the legacy V8 diehards are going to choke on this!

Nilsen · « **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2006, 11:41:57 AM »

oh crap! le mans was this weekend?????

i missed it

Dos Equis · « **Reply #3 on:** June 18, 2006, 11:43:06 AM »

I watched during the night as the Vette team clawed back against a 3 lap deficit and overtook the Aston Martin 009 and 007 cars. Late in the night, just before dawn - the Astons blew out their gearboxes. Or one did, and the other got into gravel. Congrats to the Compuware Vettes for winning GT1 yet again. Other than early tire problems due to the excessive stones on the track, the Vette ran perfect.

Nilsen · « **Reply #4 on:** June 18, 2006, 11:50:43 AM »

Cool.

The le mans site says that Renault will enter a V12 diesel next year

beet1e · « **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2006, 12:07:11 PM »

I'm hoping we can see more races involving diesels which burn different oils, such as wheat oil. Although diesels are widely accepted by the motoring public in Europe, other continents have some way to go to get with the programme. Bringing these diesel success stories into the public eye will be a huge step forward. But... if it really takes off, I shall miss the gas price whine threads!

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2006, 12:31:30 PM »

Audi could probably win with a rubber band powered car if they wanted to, with the lack of competition in LMP1 right now.

I'd like to see something really creative, like the CNG hybrid Chrysler was working on a few years back.

Diesel is too dirty for real life use anyways. Particulates and NOx, you know, the stuff that causes smog. They're pretty good on CO2 but that's only important depending on your religious faith.

john9001 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 18, 2006, 01:03:31 PM »

the audi's used a special low sulfur diesel fuel, they said it's avaible in europe now and soon in the states.

BTW the corvette was 1st in class and 4th overall.

guttboy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 18, 2006, 01:09:49 PM »

Funked,

That all depends on the type of diesel engine and fuel that you are using.

I currently own a 2005.5 Jetta TDI...run biodiesel in it when I can use it.

mora · « **Reply #9 on:** June 18, 2006, 01:26:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Diesel is too dirty for real life use anyways. Particulates and NOx, you know, the stuff that causes smog. They're pretty good on CO2 but that's only important depending on your religious faith.

We are not talking about 50 year old technology. Particles are easy to reduce by a particle filter(Otto-engines produce much more harmful smaller particles, btw), and there are several means of reducing NOx up to around 1/10th currently. (key words: de-nox, SCR, urea)

mora · « **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2006, 01:41:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'd like to see something really creative, like the CNG hybrid Chrysler was working on a few years back.

I don't see anything specially creative about that. CNG has been used for years, and hybrids are only viable in city traffic.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 18, 2006, 02:06:55 PM »

The Chrysler vehicle used turbine engines and flywheel batteries. Haven't seen too many road cars with either. And hybrids are viable in any situation where you have frequent decceleration and acceleration. Braking at the end of Mulsanne is a perfect example.

For road use, even if you clean up a diesel, it still can't compete in terms of bhp/kg-dollar. Their popularity has a lot more to do with artificially low diesel prices in certain countries than any kind of technological advantage.

Thud · « **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2006, 02:45:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
For road use, even if you clean up a diesel, it still can't compete in terms of bhp/kg-dollar. Their popularity has a lot more to do with artificially low diesel prices in certain countries than any kind of technological advantage.

Well not artificially low as far as I know, but their is still a considerable Nm/kg-dollar advantage towards petrolburners, besides, turbo-gap has been all but eliminated in advanced diesels so the only thing keeping them back is weight and less civilized power transaction.

mora · « **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2006, 02:52:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
For road use, even if you clean up a diesel, it still can't compete in terms of bhp/kg-dollar. Their popularity has a lot more to do with artificially low diesel prices in certain countries than any kind of technological advantage.

"bhp/kg-dollar" what does it have to do with anything? The technological andvantage is in the efficiency.

Diesel is cheaper to produce because than gasoline because you get more of it from the same amount of crude, and also the refining process is simpler, so it should be cheaper. Even if the fuel prices are identical a diesel is around 25% more economical(efficiency). In the future an important advantage is the ability to use locally produced bio-fuels with a decent EROI(forget ethanol, diesel will run on almost any vegetable oil).

mora · « **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2006, 02:57:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thud
Well not artificially low as far as I know, but their is still a considerable Nm/kg-dollar advantage towards petrolburners, besides, turbo-gap has been all but eliminated in advanced diesels so the only thing keeping them back is weight and less civilized power transaction.

The difference in vehicle mass is 5% at most. I don't see a problem in the power transaction either. Most people here wouldn't notice a difference between a modern diesel and a gasoline.