[billybobble]

Some obvious negatives of a diesel are:
the filth (partially fixed with a DPF)
the smell (apparently not fixed yet)
the clattery noise (much better than they were)
the horrors of getting diesel on your tyres e.g. at a bend and nearly or actually crashing
ditto but on your feet/hands, though you don't crash LOL

Coils failing is some sort of con, but hey.

Maybe it's not so much diesel v petrol as CI v SI (compression v spark ignition). Some petrols are now more like diesels: direct injection and CI.

What !!!!!!!!! :shock:

 

[evolution]

So my theories of Government conspiracy are unfounded then? How awful!

PCVRach - it's always the way man, I bet as soon as you get rid of your diesel motor they will announce they are cutting prices

 

[busterbulldog]

Petrol,v8,supercharged,simple. drinking heavily 2nite.

 

[glenn h]

There's a lot to be said for sails, but sailing ships don't cut through the sea quickly enough or reliably enough for the bean counters. Ironically, some of the old steam ships were much faster than modern diesel powered ships. The old QE2 was much faster than her replacement, and the old Isle of Man steam packet ferries used to cross from Liverpool to Douglas in about 2½ hours, which is not much longer than the high speed vomit comet they are running now. (Also known as the Olympic Torch because it never goes out in winter. :wink: )

There are suggestions that modern sails could be used to help propel some cargo ships in open sea, (with diesel power), but this would only be useful on slower vessels.

NN[/quote]

The QE2 did 32 knotts. So does the QM2. They are both ocean liners whereas QV and QE are vista class ships doing just 23knotts each.
Glenn.

 

[PCVrach]

evolution my company is relocating, just found out after buying the V8. will be doing an extra 54 miles per day!

My luck goes on and on ...................

Fortunately they are paying travel costs, though with the highest band being 1.5 litres may not fully cover the Jag. Am thinking of going LPG therefore, petrol performance with diesel costs (well better actually). Knowing my luck they would increase the duty on LPG two weeks after paying for the conversion (£1200-1500 I'm led to believe)

Still at least I will get to drive the beauty, seems a waste just to commute 6 miles round trip a day

So to add my 2 coins (for what it is worth), I would buy a 4.2 (STR if feeling flush) V8, should be cheaper than a diesel (if you do the mileage to warrant it) so offset savings to LPG it, making it in real terms similar to diesel fuel cost, possibly firming up the value of the car and with more performance if needed!

That's what I would do, if I were you given my track record of luck, I would do the exact opposite of me :wink:

 

[PCVrach]

Buster, like your thinking

Glenn don't know that much about ships, other than they can make me feel queesy One thing I do know, may be a good tip for someone - I paid a small amount (£8 IIRC) to upgrade to first class when crossed to France last time. Nice pleasent lounge to sit in, but more importantly, was first on, and therefore first off the boat. You will beat the traffic at the other end if you get there early :wink:

 

[upstream]

I bought a 1999 3.0 Auto last week. This evening I had an around town drive of around 20 miles. Interestingly although the spec (on parkers guide) indicates that during urban driving the fuel consumption is around 17mpg I appeared to be averaging around 24.5. If I can maintain that sort of level around town on a regular basis I'll be very happy indeed ;-)

 

[telferstr]

Hi Gixer103,
Have you bought an S-type yet from the list you made on your last post?
Just wondered.
I'm finding my manual 2.5 V6 Petrol is doing okay. Now on 70000miles and running very well
A recent journey of 180miles saw a fuel return of 32.3 mpg, a mix of A Roads and Motorway, with 3 passengers and some luggage.
So don't rule out a good petrol. I do around 10000miles per annum.
Oh, and also consider a manual version as a very good option to the sometimes troublesome Auto Boxes.
Regards,
Telfer.
PS Now taking cover from the auto brigade :mrgreen:

 

[PCVrach]

Actually iirc the autos are slightly higer geared so at motorway speeds the economy is the same if not better than a manual

Only ever had 2 cars with gearbox faults, 1 manual and 1 auto and both RENAULTS

:lol:

 

[upstream]

Maybe I'm missing something here but since the auto v's manual debate seems to have come up again I thought I'd pitch in...

Firstly I should say that I'm a real advocate of auto's. For me driving a manual would be like still carrying around an A to Z in my car instead of using a Sat Nav - sure I could spend an inordinate amount of time planning my journey beforehand and memorising every turn and yes it may give me more "control" (debateable) but personally I'd rather just put the postcode into my sat nav and follow the prompts.

ok... back to the gearbox thing...

Around 20 years ago people used to say that auto's use a lot more fuel. I can understand how many years ago, auto boxes were a lot more primitive than they are now and often had only three gears. Nowadays (and I'm no mechanic) I can't see how that could be true. My understanding is that modern auto boxes receive a huge amount of real time data from sensors measuring such things as engine speed, load, driving style, temperature, vacuum etc etc and that this data is used to ensure that gear changes occur at the optimal time. If this is the case then surely a computer controlled auto would be able to achieve better fuel consumption from a car than even the most experienced driver who would be changing gears intuitively, rather than using actual data.

Perhaps someone who knows about this sort of thing could explain.

Thanks in advance.

 

[PCVrach]

Has that been discussed before [tongue in cheek]? :lol:

 

[Naughty Nigel]

ok... back to the gearbox thing...

Around 20 years ago people used to say that auto's use a lot more fuel. I can understand how many years ago, auto boxes were a lot more primitive than they are now and often had only three gears. Nowadays (and I'm no mechanic) I can't see how that could be true. My understanding is that modern auto boxes receive a huge amount of real time data from sensors measuring such things as engine speed, load, driving style, temperature, vacuum etc etc and that this data is used to ensure that gear changes occur at the optimal time. If this is the case then surely a computer controlled auto would be able to achieve better fuel consumption from a car than even the most experienced driver who would be changing gears intuitively, rather than using actual data.

Perhaps someone who knows about this sort of thing could explain.

Thanks in advance.

Automatic gearboxes lose some efficiency owing to the use of a torque converter, which takes the place of a clutch in a manual box. A clutch provides a solid drive once engaged, and is effectively 100% efficient. However, a torque converter drives the car via the gearbox oil, and so slips all the time. The idea is that when pulling away from a standstill, the engine can run at higher speed, hence delivering maximum torque, which is delivered via the torque converter at low, or zero RPM. A dry clutch does much the same thing, but gets very hot, and will burn out if overheated. (This is why automatic gearboxes get hot, and need their own radiator/oil cooler. Hence, the wasted energy is dissipated as heat through the gearbox oil.)

Most torque converter slip (and hence inefficiency) occurs at low engine speed, but as engine speed increases, the converter effectively 'locks up', so efficiency is improved. However, most recent automatic gearboxes (for the past ten years or so) have locked up the torque converter automatically, by means of a wet clutch, above certain engine speeds, so the drive is just as solid as the dry clutch in a manual box.

In terms of efficiency, I would say a modern automatic box, like the six speeder used in the S-Type is only fractionally less efficient than a manual box. (They do have to pump oil all of the time, and have a lot of large rotating parts, which must reduce efficiency somewhat.) However, they do usually change gear at the right engine speed, and don't make the engine labour, so for most drivers, I would say an automatic box probably delivers better fuel efficiency and engine life. There is also no clutch to burn out!

As for the driving experience, I drive both manual and automatic at the moment, but prefer the automatic. My only reservation is the matter of being in the right gear for a quick overtake, but that is easily overcome with the J shift. Furthermore, for most people, gear changing is probably quicker and more decisive than a manual, so overtakes should be quicker and hence safer.

NN

 

[upstream]

Wow - That answers my questions perfectly, thanks for that! Just a quick question though...

You mentioned the "S type 6 speed auto box". Is that only with the post 2002 cars or do the earlier ones have six gears too?

Thanks again for such a comprehensive response

 

[Naughty Nigel]

I believe the earlier models had a Ford five speed box, but much the same applies.

GM automatic gearboxes have 'locked up' for at least 12 years to my knowledge, (it was a big selling point at the time), so I expect Ford boxes were much the same.

The reason that older auto boxes were only three speed is that control was nearly all mechanical rather than electronic. Furthermore, most engines in those days had a fairly flat torque curve, (mostly 8 valve petrol engines), so with a three speed box with a torque converter was sufficient for most purposes. Modern, multi valve engines with narrower power bands demand more gears.

NN

 

[04str]

The earlier autobox cars (before VIN 45254) are Ford 5R55N 5-speed. The later are ZF 6HP26 6-speed. ZF claim reduced fuel usage and specific programming for extra efficiency used when cruise control engaged.

TCC (torque convertor clutch) lock-up has been standard on most autoboxes for many many years.

Vast numbers of English drivers of manual cars believe they get excellent fuel economy and change gears excellently under all circumstances (but just stand and listen near road junctions, hills etc LOL).

 

[upstream]

This is interesting - I have lived in Australia and whilst not as common as in the US market, Automatics occupy a much higher portion of the market as compared to the UK. I'm not sure why that is - perhaps a cultural thing more than anything else.

 

[04str]

Maybe fuel was cheap there? When autoboxes were low efficiency they got a reputation for worse mpg and wherever fuel is costly that can be regarded as mattering more. The boxes have got a lot better (and people do not drive manuals anything like as well as they like to believe) but it is hard to change perceptions.

All a bit moot when driving a modern car full of fairly unnecessary heavy items like seat motors, window motors, air vent motors and wow does the list go on. Funny how that list describes soooo many modern cars, but the jag is heavier (and larger) than most.

Says me.... with an STR!!

 

[Naughty Nigel]

This is interesting - I have lived in Australia and whilst not as common as in the US market, Automatics occupy a much higher portion of the market as compared to the UK. I'm not sure why that is - perhaps a cultural thing more than anything else.

Big, torquey engines, cheap fuel ..........

If you have ever driven a Ford Cortina Estate 1.3 automatic with three speed box you might understand why, with our culture of small(er) engines and high fuel costs automatics have not been universally popular here in the UK. :lol: (The terms 'skin' and 'rice pudding' come to mind.)

Automatics have always cost a good bit more too, (usually at least £1,000 on showroom price), and have tended to reduce resale values, so there is another reason.

It is only in recent years that automatic gearboxes have been developed to suit smaller engines, without penalising fuel economy. WIth more people spending more and more time in stop-start traffic, and fewer people knowing how to drive properly, the automatic gearbox has finally come of age.

And of course electric cars won't need any gearchanges at all.

NN

 

[chad52]

Just read through this thread & now i am wondering, shall i keep my x type 2.0 D... I bought my s type yesterday thinking i would get a least 35 to the gallon round town. I do short journeys of about 15 miles a day with the odd run thrown in at least once a week. I used to get 38/40 ish mls to the gallon in my x type & on one trip from portsmouth to birmingham the computer said it was doing 61 to the gallon. But that said I,ve been driving around in my S type today & i love it.............................

 

[g0mrl]

It is presumably significant that the XF 2.2D only exists with the 8 speed Auto box, when one of the design criteria was to produce an economical car. I had one (and hated it), but it would do 50+ mpg on the motorway at 70 mph. It wasn't all that good around town. Now I have an S-Type 2.7D again, I can tell you that it uses much the same fuel around town as the XF, and got 47.1 mpg on a 2x120 mile run, which was mainly motorway. I did seriously wonder about a petrol S, but this very nice car cropped up. Also, re auto boxes. the performance figures for manual and auto 2.5 petrol S-Types are markedly different; I suspect a 3 litre petrol would be much better.