Watching all of this talk about V6 mpg etc I was wondering if anyone had put a dieslel lump into a Cougar?
Just Wondering?
- Thread starter Justin Trevett
- Start date
Someone once tried to, but fortunately UKCougar came to the rescue and stole the car to prevent that happening.
As a side issue, I have a mondy diesel with the 6-speed box and I've wondered if anyone has fitted such a 6 pseed box to a v6 cougar. Motorway cruising would be a doddle then. 70 mph at 2000 rpm.
Wouldn't be much fun - the V6 petrol is pretty low on torque at 2000rpm so every time you came to a hill you'd have to change down to 5th or slow down. The 6-speed in the ST220 is lower geared and cruising RPM much higher than the diesel.
For comparison, my 3.0 X-Type still with a 5spd manual is taller geared than the Cougar, and cruises at 2700rpm at 70mph, and has surprisingly little grunt left over. The 3.0 S-Type with 6speed Auto cruises at 2250rpm at 70mph, and always downchanges if you try to speed up or go up a reasonable hill. Not a problem with a good auto but a PITA if you have to do it manually just to maintain a steady speed!
For comparison, my 3.0 X-Type still with a 5spd manual is taller geared than the Cougar, and cruises at 2700rpm at 70mph, and has surprisingly little grunt left over. The 3.0 S-Type with 6speed Auto cruises at 2250rpm at 70mph, and always downchanges if you try to speed up or go up a reasonable hill. Not a problem with a good auto but a PITA if you have to do it manually just to maintain a steady speed!
I really don't get the diesel bashing you guys obviously haven't driven any distance in a decent BMW diesel I had the pleasure of using one regularly a 335d coupe with the M sport kit(suspension) I'd take it over a lot of the petrol "sports" cars I've driven, I mean most people class the civic type R or focus RS as a sports car both of which I've driven at a comparable age to the BMW and they don't even come close. Likewise even a XKR (first shape) maybe my interpretation of a sports car isn't the same as others but IMO it should have good torque, good handling gain speed rapidly and be involving to drive the BMW was all of these and felt in a lot of ways like a bigger MX5 (series 2) which I have driven and enjoyed immensely.
Some of you should really try a modern diesel in a decent car before you all go on about how rubbish they are it isn't like the cougar is particularly good at anything! It's a nice car with average speed and comfort that handles fairly well!.
JJ
Some of you should really try a modern diesel in a decent car before you all go on about how rubbish they are it isn't like the cougar is particularly good at anything! It's a nice car with average speed and comfort that handles fairly well!.
JJ
not strictly diesel bashing JJ I just don't get why someone would buy a 2.5 litre V6 car and be concerned about the fuel economy, you looked it up before you handed the pennies over right?
- btw just like to clarify I'm not getting at Justin who has shown no such concerns, just as he says, all this talk of MPG...
I took a Vectra C Diesel for a spin a while ago, the higher powered engine, black and on 19"rims, man that thing flew!!!
but I still loves me Coug
- btw just like to clarify I'm not getting at Justin who has shown no such concerns, just as he says, all this talk of MPG...
I took a Vectra C Diesel for a spin a while ago, the higher powered engine, black and on 19"rims, man that thing flew!!!
but I still loves me Coug
My point is more you all are bashing diesels over the cougar but the cougar is not a sports car! It's a tarted up Mondeo, so for a valid comparison go try a st tdci Mondeo and tell me that doesn't work! In a lot of ways it's a better drive than the st220 again I have driven them both. The cougar and a lot of people who bought them especially in the club have had them from a time fuel was below a £1 a litre and I would imagine more recent buyers would expect it to do more than 30mpg which in reality it doesn't for the bulk of us most of us see 25mpg and a few worse than that, the zetec isn't hugely better. Most who buy now buy because it is a decent ish spec car for little money and as pointed out before believe the claims of 30+mpg to be true which on most people's average usage just isn't true.
I also have thought the tdci engine would be a great conversion but you wouldn't ever see the money back unfortunately unless you did it yourself.
JJ
I also have thought the tdci engine would be a great conversion but you wouldn't ever see the money back unfortunately unless you did it yourself.
JJ
I have also driven newer diesels (these have mainly been Beemmers) and they are nothing like the older clunkers that used to be for sale.
Civic Type R and Focus ST/RS/whatever aren't sports cars Jas - they're just hot hatches and nothing more. Likewise, the XK is a true GT, not a sports car. I haven't driven a 4.0 XKR but the 4.2 is very torquey and the 5.0 is savage.
Modern diesels drive a lot better than they used to, but I'd only have one with an automatic gearbox because there just aren't enough revs to stay in gear for any length of time, and you couldn't pay me enough to actually *own* a modern diesel with specific consideration to the increasingly eyewatering repair bills and the increasing frequency with which modern diesels breakdown that both come hand-in-hand with the new found power and refinement.
For a true sports car (e.g. MX-5ish looking thing), diesels just don't make a noise that matches the car. The best you can do with a diesel is try to silence it - they never actually sound pleasant.
Diesels have their place and the BMW straight 6 diesel is a very, very nice engine as diesels go, but whilst I'd be happy to drive one, I still wouldn't want to actually own it and be liable for the long term running costs of such an engine. Petrols are comparitively simple and very reliable next to modern diesels.
Modern diesels drive a lot better than they used to, but I'd only have one with an automatic gearbox because there just aren't enough revs to stay in gear for any length of time, and you couldn't pay me enough to actually *own* a modern diesel with specific consideration to the increasingly eyewatering repair bills and the increasing frequency with which modern diesels breakdown that both come hand-in-hand with the new found power and refinement.
For a true sports car (e.g. MX-5ish looking thing), diesels just don't make a noise that matches the car. The best you can do with a diesel is try to silence it - they never actually sound pleasant.
Diesels have their place and the BMW straight 6 diesel is a very, very nice engine as diesels go, but whilst I'd be happy to drive one, I still wouldn't want to actually own it and be liable for the long term running costs of such an engine. Petrols are comparitively simple and very reliable next to modern diesels.
If you reduced the gear ratio to give a 2000rpm cruise at 70mph instead of 3000rpm, the change in gearing would yield 50% less torque at the wheels compared to what you get at 2000rpm in 5th gear at the moment. Add in to that the fact that the aerodynamic drag at 70mph is more than double what the car needs to overcome to accelerate from 2000rpm in your current top gear, I think all will agree that the 2.5 V6 simply isn't man enough for the job of cruising at 2000rpm at 70mph.
Like I said, the 3.0 AJ-V6 cruising at 70mph gives pretty lack-lustre in-gear performance on the motorway, and that's an engine which is a good bit better developed than the Ford version and puts out 231bhp in X-Type form with variable valve timing and more flexible intake runner length control, both of which substantially improve the mid-range torque over the Duratec - and it still struggles to accelerate the car from 70mph at 2700rpm. I absolutely wouldn't want it geared any taller, or it would be absolutely useless in top gear at legal speeds.
The thing wrong with modern deisels is unless they are driven motorway miles they do not last that long period. they are overboosted to death and if they are driven by "normal" poeple going to the shops and a fortnighntly drive out they b""""" up in no time.
I I did say motorway cruising, not motorway accelerating
I don't disagree that there's a performance compromise but I bet the MPG would be significantly better.
Can you explain to me why you get 50% of the torque at 2000 that you get at 3000 rpm? I'm going to risk going right out of my depth here since I'm no automotive engineer but.. torque at 3000rpm is what, 210Nm and at 2000rpm it's about 190Nm.
But you have only 2/3 of the combustions at 2000rpm (3 per rev = 6000 bangs a minute)that you have at 3000rpm (9000 bangs a minute). So I agree you have less torque but not a massive drop since the torque curve is quite flat, and since the revs is much lower I'm kinda thinking this means better fuel economy - you won't be using as little as 2/3 of the fuel but you will use less.
Anyways, since nobody has done this we will never know for sure what happens but I now await the torrent of correcting posts . .
Cheers
I don't disagree that there's a performance compromise but I bet the MPG would be significantly better.
Can you explain to me why you get 50% of the torque at 2000 that you get at 3000 rpm? I'm going to risk going right out of my depth here since I'm no automotive engineer
but.. torque at 3000rpm is what, 210Nm and at 2000rpm it's about 190Nm.But you have only 2/3 of the combustions at 2000rpm (3 per rev = 6000 bangs a minute)that you have at 3000rpm (9000 bangs a minute). So I agree you have less torque but not a massive drop since the torque curve is quite flat, and since the revs is much lower I'm kinda thinking this means better fuel economy - you won't be using as little as 2/3 of the fuel but you will use less.
Anyways, since nobody has done this we will never know for sure what happens but I now await the torrent of correcting posts . .
Cheers