HDI em pee gees

[Toms306]

I thought turbos made diesels more efficent , when you're driving in that style of boringness so to compare with the nad is a bit tricky

I'd be interested to see if a rallye style strip out and an eco map could help tip the hdi over the 70 mpg mark , could save a few pennies when doing the cross country driving by me lonesome

My 'new' turbo doesn't even bother waking up till 1800rpm+.....so it won't change the efficency as I don't rev it that high until I'm booting it.

But Tom, you've got a vnt, and completely different gear ratios than an hdi, so you're comparing chalk and cheese...

You can sit at ridiculously low revs comparatively, and have to use less throttle to get places due to the instant spool.

pd engines are newer tech than hdis.


And I'm sorry but 'the 106 is wank and mechanical idi'; expand? It's old tech, but it's very good for what it is. Labelling it as wank is just ignorant considering people buy economical cars to save money. I bought my nad, taxed mot'd and insured it for about 1/4 of the cost of your golf. Now here's a challenge Tom, calculate how may cobwebs will have to form under your accelerator, and how long your beard will be by the time the additional 12mpg your golf gets over my nad will actually offset the ~£2500 extra you spent on your car in the 1st place... Let alone the turbo changes/gearbox changes/mot/tax/insurance costs...

And I bet I have more fun in the nad than you do in your golf

Something as epically slow and really light (I can lift a corner off the floor and I'm not exactly strong lol) as the NAD should have much more mpg than that IMO. It has a reasonably small capacity, but waste's a lot of fuel/energy due to being IDI and mechanical, it probably WAS good in it's time (for people that aren't bothered by speed at all lol) but not really now, it isn't my fault peugeot were stuck 20 years behind VW lol. Yeah I paid £2k for my golf (so you were paid to take your NAD away I assume), but you can get them cheaper.... Dont forget the golf costs less to tax than the NAD, less to MOT than my NAD after seeing its service history lol and only an extra £10 a month for me to insure (both as standard). If I wanted a slow, 12 year old car for lots of mpgs, I'd more than likely go for a polo TDi or similar, for such a small amount extra to pay, the NAD's really aren't worth buying these days imo, unless they're mega cheap, at £450 I think I paid I far too much for mine!!

I will agree with you on one thing though, the NAD was fun to drive, but only because I could start it with my foot flat smoking out my street, then rag the f*ck out of it every morning from cold, fill it with scrap/rubbish/mess etc without giving a crap about it and not bothered about scrathes or dents either. But taking corners, braking or high speed certainly wasn't fun in it! They're still more fun in the golf, and better still in a 306.

Tom... 67mpg out of a mechanical, NA, IDI is absolutely amazing really... The Ricardo Prechamber was developed in the 1960s and 1970s...

The PD EUI system was invented in 2001... Nearly 30 years of Diesel technology and they dropped 2mpg by putting it in a heavier car, but with much better gearing... If advancements carried on like they should, a PD TDi should be doing 70-80mpg...

My car used to do about 55mpg day to day, 60mpg on the motorway...

Dropped 2 mpg average yeah.....but in a much heavier car due to lots of comfortable stuff and also saftey/emmisions crap that the 106 didn't have, with an extra .4 of a litre capacity, bigger/wider wheels, and a non aerodynamic shape with a horrible dead air vaccuum space behind the back end etc etc. But still, 3 times the power, twice the weight - theoretically the golf mpg should be a lot worse than 2 below the NAD then! But really the PD engine (the mk4 one anyway) is now old as well - yes it meters fuel better than the NAD and even the HDi, calcultes really anal things like fuel temperature etc to get the maximum possible efficiency it could acheive.................but unfortunately diesel progress seems to have slowed down and almost stopped now. Petrols are getting so much more effiecient with GDI and both super/turbo charging to small engines, they're now probably quicker and more efficient than our 10+ year old diesels. I'm sure VW could easily make a 200bhp, 80mpg diesel - but they won't, not for now anyway.

Something to think about - I wonder how many MPG you'd get with a mapped PD150 in a 106.