Maserati & Diesels

"I've never understood why people buy expensive cars and them skimp by buying noisy, smelly rattly Diesel engines but if there is a choice then fine."

We all have a right to an opinion however ill informed, but given my experience the engine in my car is none of the above.
 
I agree, I love big diesels. For an everyday car a big diesel is just about perfect; powerful, quiet, economical, stuffed with torque and easily tuneable. What's not to like?
 
keith said:
"I've never understood why people buy expensive cars and them skimp by buying noisy, smelly rattly Diesel engines but if there is a choice then fine."

We all have a right to an opinion however ill informed, but given my experience the engine in my car is none of the above.
Click to expand...

Please don't state that people have a right to their opinion and then state they are wrong. I have driven petrol and diesel QPs and Ghiblis and prefer the petrol but fully accept that the diesel suits you better. A right of choice is at least offered by Maserati which is good for it's customers. Personally I wish they did 4WD QP/Ghilbi in RHD but that's another story.
 
Surely all I was doing was stating an opinion about your opinion? And again in my opinion I would suggest that not many people who have driven diesels, certainly at this end of the market, would categorise them as you described.
But in any case at the end of the day who doesn't like a bit of healthy debate, after all diesel or petrol we all have Maserati's and want the company to succeed so they continue long into the future.
 
Indeed. We may have to differ on that one.

What is interesting is how Maserati develops the QP/Ghibli given it's traditional long product life cycles. For MY17 we saw the base petrol get another 20PS and for MY18 the S petrol is getting the extra 20PS that the Levante has. This leaves the diesel engine with the single turbo same power output as at launch. I wonder whether they will dual turbo it at some stage?

Here is the factory link for the diesel production. As well as the 275PS (202KW) engine there is a 250PS (184KW) one that is sold in some markets too:

http://www.vmmotori.com/automotive/automotive-en.html
 
I wholeheartedly agree that FCA need a twin turbo D in the Ghibli. Whilst I like the engine in mine I think it should be at least equal to the BMW -35d on offer out there. Im not sure how much engineering an extra turbo would take
 
I tend to agree with Keith on one car, the Ford Mustang. It comes in two flavours 5.0 litre with 416bhp or the 2.3 four cylinder twin turbo. I know which one everyone should have, otherwise whats the point of it?
 
I still don't understand the desire to buy a diesel unless you are doing more than 20k miles per year. The petrols are more characterful, not having to resort to artificially generated noise, and fit the marque better. Anyone who has one want to explain the reasoning?

I don't doubt that the various shenanigans that are done to reduce diesel omissions do bring the measured pollutants down to reasonable levels but the particulates seem to get through the testing. Yes a DPF helps with that but how many vehicles have we seen on the roads dumping clouds of black s**t out of the exhaust when they put the power on. This includes cars that were fitted with a DPF from new, but have perhaps had it bypassed as a cheaper fix than replacing it. People are cheap and if there is a way around something that is cheaper than the right fix they will do it and undo the good work done to keep the omissions down.

I still think that diesel has limited shelf life and will be replaced by full electric in the next 10 years. Petrol, and petrol hybrid, will continue for a while longer to cope with those situations where charging may be an issue.
 
Certainly.. I do around 22k miles a year, and intend keeping the car over 5 years, maybe up to 7 or 8..
Assuming 40mpg (D) and 20mpg (P) at a price of 120 and 119p respectively, over 5 years it would cost £15,000 less in the diesel, up to 8 years would be close on £25,000 less.
Don't get me wrong I love the petrol and previously I had a 156 GTA and covered 160k miles in 10 years and loved it. I put far more petrol in than the price I paid for the thing!
 
MrMickS said:
I still don't understand the desire to buy a diesel unless you are doing more than 20k miles per year. The petrols are more characterful, not having to resort to artificially generated noise, and fit the marque better. Anyone who has one want to explain the reasoning?

I don't doubt that the various shenanigans that are done to reduce diesel omissions do bring the measured pollutants down to reasonable levels but the particulates seem to get through the testing. Yes a DPF helps with that but how many vehicles have we seen on the roads dumping clouds of black s**t out of the exhaust when they put the power on. This includes cars that were fitted with a DPF from new, but have perhaps had it bypassed as a cheaper fix than replacing it. People are cheap and if there is a way around something that is cheaper than the right fix they will do it and undo the good work done to keep the omissions down.

I still think that diesel has limited shelf life and will be replaced by full electric in the next 10 years. Petrol, and petrol hybrid, will continue for a while longer to cope with those situations where charging may be an issue.
Click to expand...

Well to turn your argument on its head for a moment.
Why not choose the Diesel over the Petrol. Setting aside the 'S' and comparing the standard petrol. In terms of refinement there is little to choose once the Diesel is warmed up, in fact it may in general driving be a little quieter. Although as you point out the albeit artificial exhaust sound, in Sport mode sounds deeper as it's been electronically tuned to sound like a V8, and I don't notice any criticism being levelled at BMW for doing the same with their i8.
In terms of performance, whilst the standard petrol post quicker acceleration times, in real driving it's not noticeable, in fact the Diesels generous torque could even be more relevant.
As for running costs, they speak for themselves.
Are my comments painting a biased position for the Diesel... maybe so, but at the same time it's not the terrible alternative some suggest.
 
keith said:
Although as you point out the albeit artificial exhaust sound, in Sport mode sounds deeper as it's been electronically tuned to sound like a V8, and I don't notice any criticism being levelled at BMW for doing the same with their i8.
Click to expand...

You mustn't visit the same places I do. I've seen quite a bit of criticism of this, and the artificial noises they pipe into 3/4/5 series in sport mode. If its not making a nice noise then damp the noise, the artificial noise is just that. Sadly, as we move to electric, I can see this becoming the norm :(
 
Just seen the C4 News piece from the Spanish car show.

They compare real on the road emissions from diesel cars against the current EURO 6 engine limits...guess who's cars were worse?

Fiat at 15x the limit when tested on the road!!!
 
It was on Top Gear where they compared the old 6 cylinder cayman with the new 4 cylinder turbo. To achieve the economy you had to drive like you nan. Now apart from Urby, who does that?
I'm hoping the diesel scrapped comes into force. My old Seat doubles in price when I fill it...
 
Further to my last BMW and Mercedes do a BIK tax dodging hybrid that return low co2 in the laboratory but in reality achieve nowhere near the government figures. Look up the C350e plug in hybrid or the BMW 330e. They're a two fingers in the face of environmental legislation.
 
midlifecrisis said:
Further to my last BMW and Mercedes do a BIK tax dodging hybrid that return low co2 in the laboratory but in reality achieve nowhere near the government figures. Look up the C350e plug in hybrid or the BMW 330e. They're a two fingers in the face of environmental legislation.
Click to expand...

It's these, and the Lexus, that forced the change in road tax for electrics and hybrids.

Manufacturers always look to game the system to the benefit of their customers in order to persuade them to buy their cars. The whole start/stop thing does pretty much nothing to your fuel consumption or emissions, unless you crawl through a large metropolis, but it does help to shift the emissions from one and to a lower one on the testing regime.

The way to counter this is to have more real world like testing. That way if the manufacturer does try and play the system at least it will have a real world benefit rather than a theoretical lab based one.
 
The trouble with "Real world" is it is so variable. Why would a manufacturer spend a fortune on R&D only to find unfavourable wind conditions on a certain day.
The answer is lab testing that reflects real world driving. Already weight and drag is factored in. What they really need is a fixed acceleration rate at a reasonable level. Instead of crawling off the lights and taking half an hour to get to 30 it should be set at a reasonable but defined rate.
Also not sure why there isn't a figure for cruising at 70mph..!
 
Haha.. I certainly don't!
What these news tests will bring (they are now available), is that all the climate targets for the EU in particular will be spectacularly missed.
If you sell 1,000,000 Ford Focus's (I will resist calling them Focii ;) ) @ xg CO2 and then suddenly you say, hang on a second its now 4xg CO2 then you are going to have a major problem...
This is the proposed test..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_harmonized_Light_vehicles_Test_Procedure
 
It's a bonanza for governments with emissions based taxation though. Suddenly all of those low costing cars fit into higher brackets and they can blame the car manufacturers for 'fiddling' the tests [emoji6]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top