The perfect bike is DIESEL??

[bigswifty]

yeah...biodiesel...too bad usa can;t take advantage of its tremenjous acreage to produce industrial hemp==>AN IDEAL CROP FOR BIOMASS FUEL!!!!!

I wonder how long it takes to get there, though...

i bet the diesel bike at the top of the page is actuallyt pretty quick....after all torque is what make the bike go, so if it geared properly it could truly fly with 147 ft.lbs.

[BuzZz]

Diesels don't really make much low end power, the have torque, but they need RPM's to make it. They have short RPM ranges as well, that's why Semi's need 15 gears, and need to be screamed through all of them. They gain RPM slower too, even with a turbo, then you have turbo lag to deal with.

They are built stronger internally, so that's a plus, and they get better fuel economy in equal applications, but when you start tuning them for big power, they become heat sensitive and can melt themselves down if they are run too hard for too long.

I would take a gasoline engine for any bike I owned over an oil-burner any day. Throttle response is pretty high on my list of 'Things I Like'. That pretty much rules out a diesel.

[TechTMW]

I would take a gasoline engine for any bike I owned over an oil-burner any day. Throttle response is pretty high on my list of 'Things I Like'. That pretty much rules out a diesel.

Buzz ....



You're the kinda guy that's keeping the next-gen diesels out of North America. I'm a fan of diesel for a few reasons - they're more mechanically oriented (mechanical injection, compression ignition, etc) and they last longer and are typically easier to maintain. Power was never a big concern in the diesel department.

However! Technology has moved on a bit since the 80's. I'm not going to say that the new gen of turbodiesels are stunningly better than gas engines ... they're not. But it's a small tradeoff to make to have 'slightly' slower acceleration when you are making over 100mpg and touring two-up with a full compliment of gear and luggage.

It's unfortunate that NA is stuck in this rut where people feel that diesels are only suited for big trucks, meanwhile in europe they have 700cc turbodiesel smart cars making 70mpg mixed driving. (no they don't have 13 speed transmissions!!) I think that's great ... but maybe my mind is just muddled after being here for a year.

[BuzZz]

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

I've been driving oil-burners since '85 (furd 6.9's to 7.3 powerstrokes to a couple of 5.9 Cummins including the one one the driveway right now) and while serviceable, you can have 'em. Even bombed, they are not as fun to drive a gas job to me. The only reason I drive them is pure economics. They are more fuel efficient and hold re-sale better, but a gas engine will get my vote everytime. Especially off-road, getting enough wheel-speed out of a diesel is a feat that only cubic dollars can achieve... if then. And it's the throttle lag coming off and on the jam that eats at me the most.

I'm sure the new tech, higher output diesels are fine machines, I know you can't buy a TDI VW for love nor money without a connection here, but I don't ride to save the planet, I ride to get my rocks off. And that's more easily accomplished with a gasoline engine for me.

When Moto GP goes to oil-burners and they develop the engines to the levels of a modern gas jobby, I may have to eat my words, but untill then, I'll keep my spark plugs.

[old-n-slow]

meanwhile in europe they have 700cc turbodiesel smart cars making 70mpg mixed driving. (no they don't have 13 speed transmissions!!) I think that's great ... but maybe my mind is just muddled after being here for a year.

Does this seem good? I would be somewhat disappointed with this fuel consumption considering 2 things; 700 cc's and; "smart car" suggests that it is a combo electric/fossil fuel performer.

I am told that straight diesel vw's are getting 60 on the highway right now and I have a friend that owns a little chevy 3 cylinder that he claims gets 70 mpg on the highway (we are in imperial gallons - or were). Just thinking that the claim of 70 mpg for a "smart car" strikes me as too low to generate much sales considering the additional cost of these things.

[TechTMW]

Does this seem good? I would be somewhat disappointed with this fuel consumption considering 2 things; 700 cc's and; "smart car" suggests that it is a combo electric/fossil fuel performer.

Aye ... The problem is that too many people are concerned with performance, so the cars are tuned with deference to speed (as much as a 700cc diesel will make.) My Figures are in US gallons as well which is a bit better. Also, the Smart is a creation of daimler benz and is NOT a hybrid - it's sole power comes from the dino juice.

I still can't see how anyone could consider 70mpg too low - especially when that's mpg for a CAR ... many of our bikes can't get that kind of mileage, and they are pushing alot less weight. It's tough to meet such critical standards!!

And Buzz, maybe if you tried driving a diesel that wasn't developed in the 70's and intended for heavy-duty usage you might be pleasantly surprised You may not ever get a chance if NA remains diesel-phobic, but the new generation of Benz E-classes generates 224hp @ 3800, 376 ft-lb at 1600-2800 and does 0-60 in about 7 seconds out of a 3-liter Inline 6. My cousin has one and believe me, that thing hauls "O Ring".

[oldnslo]

When I hear of diesel-powered Mustang Gt's, Dodge Vipers and Corvettes, I will pay some attention. As of now, they are just a stinking, major annoyance in life. Those things really need a rectal filter, or else re-route the exhaust into the passenger compartment. Yichh!

[BuzZz]

And Buzz, maybe if you tried driving a diesel that wasn't developed in the 70's and intended for heavy-duty usage you might be pleasantly surprised You may not ever get a chance if NA remains diesel-phobic, but the new generation of Benz E-classes generates 224hp @ 3800, 376 ft-lb at 1600-2800 and does 0-60 in about 7 seconds out of a 3-liter Inline 6. My cousin has one and believe me, that thing hauls "O Ring".

You may very well be right, but as you also said, I may not ever get the chance to drive one here.

So how is that Benz for throttle response? The on-the-throttle, off-the-throttle, on-it-again reactions? I've driven bombed trucks that can run sub 11 second quartermiles, but if you take your foot out of it halfway across an intersection and walk on it again, the calander changes before that power comes back on. I really like the instant GO!!! I get with my sparky motors......

[TechTMW]

It's good on power throughout the range because the turbo is pretty close to being without lag. My cousin lives in Florence, and if you talk to anyone who's driven in Italy, it's like this - on a 4 laner, you've got the left lane zipping along at about 100mph and upwards, then you've got the right lane anywhere from 40 - 70mph ...

In other wordes if someone blazes up behind you in the left lane, road ettiquitte (which is virually unpracticed in the USofA except for Texas maybe) demands that you slide right in order to let faster traffic thru. This means you may have to drop down to about 60 very quickly ... especially because people typically move up behind you when there isn't space for you to get over ... so you gotta drop from 100 to 40 behind some grandma driving a Fiat 500 (as in 500cc's car)

Then of course you want to stomp on it to get back in the fast lane ASAP.

The Benz is more than capable. I have a one liter VW polo (45hp, rarely sees over 70mph) and I also have a 2002 Turbo Beetle. the Benz has more get up and go than the 4-cyl bug. I know it's apples to oranges, but the weight behind the benz makes it that much more impressive.

[Scott58]

The diesel is something I'd buy in a second. I've made bio-diesel out in the garage and it isn't that difficult and your looking at a cost of $1 a gal. Fuel cost savings alone would be more then enough to justify it and with a turbo the bike should go pretty good.