|
"The XF is a great car but it's not a Jaguar."
I think you'll find it is.
Anyway, back to the DS3 which is what this thread is about, does anyone know why Citroen have developed a policy of having two models in each size (C3/DS3, C4/DS4 etc) when surely the 'sober' model is already catered for by Peugeot, using the same mechanicals?
Citroen have done well in the past with their innovative, even funky models (2CV and DS19 to name but two), but what do the C3 and C4 have that the equivalent Peugeots don't? The DS3 is I think selling well as a Mini competitor, but DSs will need to be good to drive as well as looking different.
|
"The XF is a great car but it's not a Jaguar."
I think you'll find it is.
Dont be pedantic you know what i mean. It may say Jaguar on it but it doesnt 'feel' like a Jaguar. I dont look at it and go 'oooo Jag' i see 'fake Lexus'. Jaguar is dead. Major shame.
And to your question of Citroen having similair models, its a baffling one alot of manufacturers have come up with. Like why do Hyundai to the i10, i20 and i30, why not just miss out the middle one? Why did Ford already have a flagship small car then introduce the Ka? Did they intend to scrap the Fiesta name and bottled it? In turn they've had to make the Fiesta bigger now, which has made the Focus bigger (almost Mondeo sized from ten years ago) and now the Mondeo is...you see the picture.
|
|
Avant, I expect the DS range increases the range and therefore profits. The original DS was a beautiful, avantgarde design. I don't see the DS that way with it's mish mash lines. The DS range does a disservice to the original.
BTW jamie, an XF is no squashed Audi.. Just about every car manufacturer started with round headlights. Anyway, they're still round on an XF. :)
|
|
|
|
Anyway, back to the DS3 which is what this thread is about, does anyone know why Citroen have developed a policy of having two models in each size (C3/DS3, C4/DS4 etc) when surely the 'sober' model is already catered for by Peugeot, using the same mechanicals?
Citroen have done well in the past with their innovative, even funky models (2CV and DS19 to name but two), but what do the C3 and C4 have that the equivalent Peugeots don't? The DS3 is I think selling well as a Mini competitor, but DSs will need to be good to drive as well as looking different.
Because Peugeots tend to be set up slightly more sportily for the younger target audience, Citroëns are softer and are supposed to be slightly cheaper. The DS3 is probably closer to what Peugeot were supposed to represent, however the Peugeot brand (in the non car-buffs eyes) do not have a glorious past in terms of legendary models to bring out a premium funky model. It seems Citroën will now represent PSA's bargain-bucket and top-end models, Peugeots will be the middle-ground repmobiles.
By all accounts the DS3 drives very well indeed without trying to reconfigure your spine (ie from working into non-working) like a MINI. I sat in a DS3 last week – very nice – Might buy my girlfriend one when it's time to replace her C3.
|
|
The DS3 looks like a collection of discarded ideas from stylists' sketchbooks! I suppose it doesn't look too bad if parked between a Nissan Juke and a Ssanyong Rodius.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 02/08/2011 at 00:35
|
|
Well I like the DS3, not sure about the DS4 though. I liked the Juke in piccies but hate it in the flesh - ditto for the Range Rover Evoke. How long before a jacked-up 4WD DS3 appears? Not sure if PSA have a platform unless they bring out a shortened version of the C-Crosser/Mitsubishi Outlander platform and stick a DS(x?) badge on it.
|
|
The XF and new XJ certainly are Jaguars, thank heavens. At last the company has accepted - once more and in whatever ownership - that the future lies in advanced engineering and style, not trying to hark back to an era when most of its models looked swish for the time but were voracious oil burners with mostly filler and chicken wire underneath the paint.
And, yes, I did own a Mk2 and loved it and do now own (and love) a Jaguar with round headlights, walnut veneers, cream leather and a sticky-out boot...
Meanwhile, I don't go much on today's styles but as a resident of France I can't help noticing that the DS3 is selling well and I was impressed the other day when I found myself walking around a new DS4.
|
|
But now that Jaguar are trying to look like Mercedes and Lexus means Jag has lost its unique selling point. What reason is there now to buy a Jaguar instead of any other over engineered carbon fibre box?
|
other oddball cars like the superb Mazda RX8.
Well, it's an oddball, but hardly superb. By all accounts, It immediately becomes apparent why everyone else uses piston engines. The RX8 is inefficient and dirty so it guzzles fuel and requires a complex aftertreatment system to get it within the emissions limits. Familiarity breeds contempt and leads to the erroneous conclusion that because something is different, it is better than the status quo.
|
|
Im not an engineer but even i know the Mazda RX8's underbody engineering is stoneage. I believe Fred Flintstone had a similar setup in his car.
|
|
jamie745, if Jaguar started making cars again with round headlights would you buy one, or did the XF set up spell the end forever? Is that the reason, only, why you think your beloved Jaguars have died?
|
jamie745, if Jaguar started making cars again with round headlights would you buy one, or did the XF set up spell the end forever? Is that the reason, only, why you think your beloved Jaguars have died?
Its not just the headlights, its the whole look and feel of the car. Gone are the headlights, timeless styling, ivory leather interior, walnut dash with a functional layout creating a calming environment for taking on the nations idiot drivers. Now its like a Lexus, or a BMW, or a Merc, or any other overpriced over engineered piece of 'meh' I wouldnt mind so much if Jaguar at least kept one car in the range which was more Jag-like. Have the XF fine, but why not continue with the previous generation XJ for those of us which dont want a Lexus with a Jaguar badge on it?
|
|
|
Mr Flintstone's car must have been incredibly good handling then.
|
|
|
|
other oddball cars like the superb Mazda RX8.
Well, it's an oddball, but hardly superb. By all accounts, It immediately becomes apparent why everyone else uses piston engines. The RX8 is inefficient and dirty so it guzzles fuel and requires a complex aftertreatment system to get it within the emissions limits. Familiarity breeds contempt and leads to the erroneous conclusion that because something is different, it is better than the status quo.
The RX8 is superb because it handles nicely (matched a more powerful bone-shaker of an M3 round Top Gear's test track) and yet still rides acceptably well for a sporting coupé, it's superb because it's a sporting coupé and yet you can comfortably sit four adults in it, it's superb because of the wacky suicide doors which give you practicality along with proper coupé styling. Yes the engine is different, it's not very efficient but then I don't care about fuel economy or plant food emissions – not everybody does. I like the wail of the banshee it gives off at full throttle. Similarly I'd enjoy a big thirsty Mustang V8 sitting under the bonnet of MG ZT. Familiarity breeds familiarity – I like things that are different because they are different not necessarily better – unlike Citroën hydropnumatic suspension that is better and different. How much complex electronics and machenary do modern diesels need to be acceptably powerful, refined and clean enough to be used in passenger cars? A heck of a lot more gizmos than a w***el in the nose of a RX8 needs.
|
|
The overenthusiastic swear censor strikes again. Serves you right for being coa***! (that always cracks me up)
The w***el needs quite a few gizmos to kick it through the NEDC emissions testing. I've never seen a smog pump on a diesel...
if you've got deep pockets fair enough. For most people, 25mpg and £460 grows old pretty quickly. Yes, it breeds homogeneity, but who wants to pay more for less just to be different?
|
|
*Looks at my Post Office receipt for my car tax last week*
Least said about VED bands, the better i think!
*sits in a huff*
|
|
I've never seen a DPF filter on a w***el, nor does it need to be turbocharged to make acceptable power as well as lowering static CR sufficiently to keep the noise at idle down to an acceptable din, nor does it need fancy active engine mounts or a dual-mass flywheel. The diesel is a dirty puny pile of junk of a power unit that needs force-feeding and insulating from the user before being acceptably (to some) refined as a passenger car power unit.
For the price I can't think of a better practical Coupé than an RX8. Okay the Hyundai is cheap but it's not in the same league dynamically.
|
|
Sorry but the facts don't support this. Fundamentally, turbos have only one moving part and are exceptionally compact, light weight and reliable. Virtually every Heavy Duty engine is a diesel and is turbocharged. They clock up huge mileages with very few problems. Forced induction works. Even Honda are reluctantly having to accept this.
All things being equal, lowering static compression increases noise at idle. Diesel compression is being lowered for other reasons.
People get dewy eyed about the w***el because they think it screams to 10,000 RPM. It doesn't. The output shaft spins up to 10,000 RPM. Unfortunately, the rotor spins at 1/3 of the output shaft speed. The w***el is not really a small displacement engine spinning quickly, but a big displacement engine spinning slowly. This, coupled with the horrible geometry of the combustion chamber, gives rise to poor efficiency and high HC emissions (hence the secondary air injection pump). These problems are fairly fundamental and can't be tuned out.
Similar nostalgia surrounds the Saab two strokes (although Saab bought the design from NSU and never designed their own engines or a turbo). Yes, it's a curiosity, but stacked up against comptemporary 4 strokes, it was rubbish. The boring old 4 stroke, 4 piston engine may be ubiquitous but it is ubiquitous for many very good reasons.
|
Fundamentally, turbos have only one moving part and are exceptionally compact, light weight and reliable.
reliable . . .except for BMW ones, yes. BMW makes engines whose performance is second to none, but turbo failure (as reported on this site) is their achilles heel.
|
|
Ive heard of some problems with Volvo turbo's too. I met someone a little while ago with a Volvo XC90 and the turbo's blown three times in a year.
Mind you...he is a first responder for the ambulance service. Which might explain it.
|
|
jamie, the old xj wasn't going to be kept in production for just a few buyers. Jaguar needed to break away from their gradual evolution of the XJ styling otherwise they would end up as another boring manufacturer like Audi. Fortunately Lexus are no where near as good looking as Jaguars. We lead, the Japs to try to copy or imitate.
|
|
Hi,
What happened to the Aussie two stroke engine which was supposed to be really great? And what about the BL/Leyland/Rover gearbox that looked like a half coconut shell with cogs running up and down on the inside wall?
There are probably lots of what seem to be good ideas at the time but don't make it to ordinary cars. I've just remembered a guy who designed a much better suspension for offroaders, one that even Ford said very good. But Ford then said that the inventor would have to design the whole production route before they would adopt it. Does conservatism in car engineering rule the roost?
|
|
Do you mean the Revetec that used a pair of contrarotating cams to move the pistons?
It was a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The con rod/crank assembly works just fine. So it never got anywhere.
Lots of engineering consultancies waste vast amounts of effort and money on various 2 stroke designs that never go anywhere because they didn't bother to look at why similar designs failed in the past. The 2 stroke can't work with a petrol because it won't scavenge when throttled, and it can't work with as an automotive diesel because the ports cause an oil control problem which leads to early wear and clogging of the DPF.
Production lines are expensive to change so there is some inertia toovercome. But the 'no invented here' conspiracy theory is largely just that-a conspiracy theory.
|
|
Why are turbocharged diesel engines across the board - without exception - *much* quieter than the NA variant (of course in the days when there was a choice) lower static CR is the only explanation. Coz it's not exhaust noise that's the problem with diesels, the lower static CR no doubt reduces vibration as well transmitting less noise at idle to the car.
As I said I like the w***el because of the noise, I don't care about efficiency - I'd much rather have a 3.5 litre 150bhp OHV Rover V8 under the bonnet than a vastly more efficient modern 2 litre four cylinder making similar power becaue it's interesting.
For something so fundamentally reliable I could write a book on the number of turbocharger and wastegate failures I'm aware of. Cars are going the forced-induction route because excellent engine management now makes them viable, as most engines are lightly loaded most of the time a small capacity engine will be better on fuel and will therefore emit less plant food keeping the warmist idiots happy. Of course the engines themselves being fundamentally higher-stressed simply will not last as long as larger capacity NA petrol engine. Although turbocharging is kind to the big-ends as the pistons are cushioned on the exhaust stroke.
|
|
I'm going to start another thread beacause this getting way off the original subject.
|
I'm going to start another thread beacause this getting way off the original subject.
And when you do i'll be onhand to take it off topic again *grins* :)
|
|
Sorry.
Hadn't we finished with the DS3 though!
|
Why are turbocharged diesel engines across the board - without exception - *much* quieter than the NA variant (of course in the days when there was a choice) lower static CR is the only explanation. Coz it's not exhaust noise that's the problem with diesels, the lower static CR no doubt reduces vibration as well transmitting less noise at idle to the car.
Turbocharging reduces the ignition delay which reduces the pre-mixed combustion which is what creates the characteristic diesel knock.
The turbine also helps to muffle the exhaust pulses.
The reduction in compression ratio is simply to keep cylinder pressures manageable under boost.
Of course the engines themselves being fundamentally higher-stressed simply will not last as long as larger capacity NA petrol engine.
Long strokes and high RPM are much harder on an engine than boost. Of all the power adders (boring, stroking or revving), turbocharging is the least damaging.
|
|
Running lower static CR means that off boost there's less compression/heat and resulting energy (violence) during the combustion process. Effectively retarding the ignition timing in petrol terms. That's why turbo-charged diesel engines are much quieter at idle. Read Honda's technical blurb on their diesel - what did they mention as the reason for the engine's uncanny refinement? Low CR. Looks like Honda and I are in the wrong on this one.
Modern engines are not long stroke, high piston speeds kill engines not high RPM, that's why you shorten the stroke to handle high revs, peak cylinder pressure is what bends conrods, knocks out big-ends, blows head gaskets. Being revvy has little effect on longevity as long as it's sufficiently short stroke to keep piston speed in check - otherwise Honda petrol cars would be blowing up left right and centre - they go on forever. What manufacturer is currently having problems with their petrol engines prematurely failing? Oh that'll be certain VAG group small capacity FSI engines...
|
|
Without wanting to get too technical and beyond the scope of the forum, reducing compressing compression on a diesel makes it noisier. That was the whole raison d'etre of prechambers-which used very high compression. Perhaps counter intuitively, it reduces noise.
Advertising blurb should be treated with a very large grain of salt. Renault have been extolling the merits of their revolutionary 'square' diesel engine with it's magic 80mm bore*80mm stroke. Which must be very different from VAGs 1.6TDi which also utilises a 80mm bore*80mm stroke!
Honda's engine will use an advanced pre injection strategy to soften the combustion noise-but that is a consequence of using low compression, not the result of it. Quite simply, you set the compression ratio on a diesel as low as will give acceptable cold starting and stable idling. That has always been the case. With common rail, EVERYONE is dropping CR because it allows you to improve the BMEP/peak cylinder pressure ratio.
Modern engines are not long stroke,
Yes, they are. Virtually no one uses under square engines any more. Bore/stroke ratios have been decreasing for years. Virtually every modern engine is undersquare. The Kent Crossflow (famously oversquare) has been out of production for a long time.
Being revvy has little effect on longevity as long as it's sufficiently short stroke to keep piston speed in check
The inertial forces acting on the reciprocating assembly rise with the square of engine speed and, ultimately, will always dominate. Sacrificing the combustion chamber geometry to gain a few hundred RPM is silly.
Oh that'll be certain VAG group small capacity FSI engines...
FSI engines are not boosted...
The problems with VW's FSI engines do not relate to high cylinder pressures.
Look at truck engines. 30 years ago, a typical HGV would use a naturally aspirated 12-14 litre cruising at 2000 RPM. Now they still use 12-14 litre engines running 20+psi but cruise at 1300-1500 RPM. Note how they chose the turbo, kept the displacement, but dropped engine speed.
We really ought to start a new thread before Trilogy complains to Avant!
Edited by unthrottled on 05/08/2011 at 01:03
|
Without wanting to get too technical and beyond the scope of the forum
How would you rate how that went then? On a scale of 1 and....2.
|
|
How high up the fail scale do you suppose it was? Was it a reasonable yet hilarious fail akin to Ken Livingstone's bright idea of the 'bendy bus'? Or higher up the list such as Nissan's designers who upon looking at the finished designs for the exterior of the Juke said 'thats good!"
|
|
Ooh! Probably somewhere slightly above Quashquiche but below a Ssanyong Rodius.
|
|
Oh dear the Ssanyong Rodius. The only car where when trying to offer an alternative of the same level the best one can come up with is 'jump off a cliff'.
|
|
Can't believe the rodius has gotten away scot free on a thread about bad design. Do you think it should be rectified?
|
|
http://photos.autoexpress.co.uk/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_430/car_photo_215313_7.jpg
Anybody who looks at that and goes 'its not THAT bad' should now have a look at it from bang side on.
http://vibeweekly.com/newsite/images/stories/Extreme/CarsUselessthanVitz/Ssangyong_Rodius.jpg
BEFORE anybody clicks on it. I have to warn you all. Once you've seen it, you wont be able to un-see it.
You were warned.
Edited by jamie745 on 05/08/2011 at 02:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
