have to agree got offered a test drive in one when they come out lol i declined ill keep with the french crap ta

 

My Wife's car is certainly not slow. 150 CDTi Vectra. Faster than any standard WRX 2 litre or 2.5 in terms of accelleration and top speed and it easily keeps up with STi / WRX.
Did 156 bhp first time on Scooby Clinic's rollers. I have another development turbo to go on it which will greatly improve spool and torque. This turbo is only running low boost (for a diesel). Still 40 odd -50 mpg plus depending on town use or distance.

 

I'm going to be doing more miles in the near future and can't really afford to use my Jeep Cherokee for long trips.

Pretty nailed down to an E46 330D. The later 03 onwards have the 204HP engine and 6 speed manual 'box. Mapped they will hit 250HP and 500NM - according to the e46 forums.

 

Now that IS a performance diesel.

 

Great cars..I've had two of them...make sure you remove the swirl flaps though... Cheap fix that could cost a fortune if they fall into cylinder..

Alan..

 

I had a bit of fun with a 335d coupe not so long back. I'm not sure if it was remapped or not but it did shift and there wasn't much between our cars (JDM STI around 350/350). I know they're great in a straight line but what about the twisty bits?

 

They are, indeed ..... Audi drivers are up there too.

You'll not get a Honda bullying their way through ..... no need to, as, the car in FRONT is a HONDA.

Really, I am chuckling here to think people pay £35,000+ for a badge, when they could spend half and have a faster, better built car in the Honda ........ what numpties

 

pslewis let,s not compare Honda,s with BMW or Audi. Yes Audi and BMW are more expensive. I would say a 3 year old Audi or BMW is a better buy than a brand new Honda because after another 3 years they will be worth more than the Honda even though the Honda is 3 years newer. Some say the civic looks quirky but their hiding the fact it,s one of the ugliest cars on the road along side the Fiat multipla

 

I'm sure those who pay £35,000 for the superior car chuckle as they look down on your budget brand hatchback, knowing that their car is quicker, more economical and has lower emissions.
And you don't have to stretch to £35k for the far superior , quicker, better equipped BMW 520D SE. Oh no .OTR price £29430, before the discount you could no doubt negotiate.
It has a co rating of just 123 compared to the 134 the dirtier Honda produces.
55.4 mpg for the Honda 58.9 for the more economical BMW
138 bhp for the Honda 184 bhp from the more powerful BMW.
8.6 0-60 for the Honda, 8.1 for the quicker BMW
Not only does the BMW have a premium badge, its bigger, cleaner, more economical and quicker.
Performance diesels are the way forward, however the premium brands lead the way in performance , economy and emissions, as evidenced above.
Honda, it would appear, have been left trailing.

 

If I had a long daily commute, or infact, any daily commute, which I dont.... I'd definately go for a diesel. However, it'd be a £1k snotter, 3000 years old and run on vegetables or horse sh*t or something, cheaper the better...

There's no way I'd spend big money on a performance diesel, it's like buying a crossover SUV. It's just stupid....

 

Get a racechip from germany m8 plug and play highly recommend we had one in our bm weve just traded for scoob. 320d we ended up with 190 bhp and 394 lbft torque anything over 2000 revs it was away not often i praise diesels but highly noticible difference. And if we could have got it out drive in winter without spinning and going nowhere we would have kept it.

 

This would likely have been a remapped one as I test drove a standard (282bhp 335d saloon) one before my 2.5 sti hawkeye type UK and my subaru was marginally quicker when it had the stock PPP power of 316 bhp. Now it has 356bhp it will be slightly quicker still. In the real world there won't be much in it but flat out in controlled conditions straight or twisties a lightly modified even stock hawk STI will beat it hands down. A 335d is around 232kg heavier (at ~3800lbs = 1727kgs) than a hawkeye too so round twisties it will definitely suffer. It's a grand tourer though. The twin turbo is a good combination and the low down urge is what allows it to keep up with modern petrol sports cars like ours.

I found the 335d to be a lovely car, very nice extremely high quality interior and a very complicated clever computer that even told you when an indicator bulb needed replacing! However it was just plain dull. Sorry but it had no spark what so ever. It was also extremely expensive for what it was. When I was at the dealer the listed e90 v8 M3 was "only" 5k more for similar age/mileage. When you moderately put your foot down (which to be honest most diesel drivers definitely do on their commute) you are doing very low 30 mpg which rather defeats the purpose of buying a diesel. And we are the only country in most of europe where diesel is more expensive that super unleaded. For me a "performance" car needs sound and there isn't a diesel I know which sounds good. So I thought the petrol version 335i would be the perfect alternative..same combination of twin turbo set up better performance, and amazing noise with an aftermarket dual exhaust. Unfortunately there are horrific stories of fuel pumps failing constantly with the petrol version which BMW have been unable to resolve.

 

It's a long running 'joke' on Pistonheads....

 

Couple of problems with the 520D:-

As it's a 5 Series you will need the £1495 eight-speed automatic - you cannot sell a 5 Series Manual. Which now makes the price £31,000.

At 1625kg kerbweight it's a lumbering old tank, not at all nimble and spritely like a Type S Honda!

Reports state that the Steering lacks feel and is very vague .... I like to feel the road, as I did in the Scooby and do in the Type S Honda.

In short, according to the Motoring press it is dull, unrewarding and unexciting - unless you opt for the Variable Damper Control .... adding further cost!!

Nah, I think I'll take my superior Honda Type S and take the £15,000 savings back to the bank laughing my sack off at the numpties who have just been fleeced because they couldn't resist the badge

Oh, yes, most 520D's will be company hacks with 4rseholes at the wheel and shirt swinging from the coathanger in the rear window ..... I'd really rather NOT be associated with such ********* of the road, thanks all the same

 

Pun intended?

 

Thats the one. They saw him coming, and offered him a 'bargain' before they were left with no option but to pre-register the unsold stock.
This has been mentioned on here before, and we've yet to here Lewis admit to it. He continually fails acknowledge this and in his replies he'll continually swerve around it.
It really annoys him that he bought an obsolete Honda. He knows its a poor engine compared to others. He goes on about 'value', yet bought a out-dated new car. My Mrs bought her 1 series at a year old, 5k miles, costs £30 to tax, and 5yrs 50k miles servicing is £250, yet is quicker, cleaner, cheaper to run, has better economy, much better to drive, and will hold its value much better than any Honda. And it cost less than he paid for his.

I have nothing against Hondas. I bought a new one myself the other day. Just finished mowing the lawn.

 

Time will tell ..... every dick drives a BMW and Audi these days ..... it takes someone of vision and an independant spirit to avoid following the flock and buys with wisdom.

The BMW 3 Series outsold the Ford Mondeo ... the Mondeo is the better car.

Such is the way a BMW has become utterly 'common' ... for the common person, Council Estate fodder

 

Still in denial about his car
Still swerving around acknowledging he was done
Still on the offensive
Still on a Subaru forum
Same old lewis.

p.s. I'll let the Mrs that some old non - Subaru driving, Honda loving, Subaru forum troll thinks she's a dick.

 

all bmw drivers are *****,

all because just 1 of them tried to run his missus of the road, i agree some of them can be bad but you cannot tar them all with the same brush.

mickyboy

 

b
So the Honda is superior as its cheaper.
You haven't mentioned any of the other 520D superiorities.
At least you have accepted the BMW is superior.
I respect the fact that you haven't argued for the sake of arguing.
Steering in the Honda great? Quote "However, the Civic's steering doesn't offer quite the same 'hands on feel' and 'connection with the road' as the new shape Ford Focus, feeling a little more imprecise and vague at times."
That's the last shape Focus, by the way. The newer one is even better.
Other points ? Quote:
Known Faults and Reliability - There have been several problems with my Civic which are detailed in Reliability, Faults and Problems below.
Cramped Rear Seats - Whilst the Honda Civic is a small family car it's less adept at carrying 5 adults in comfort on long journeys. 3 adults can get somewhat cramped in the back seat. The middle seat is very narrow and the seat cushion is raised for additional discomfort!
Interior Rattles - These were a problem on the 55 and 06 registration Honda Civic. Factory modifications on the 2007 Civic (56 registration cars) seem to have resolved rattles from the headlining on the ES and EX model (cars fitted with sliding glass roof).
Exterior Rattles - On my Civic, another rattle seems to be caused by the external plastic cover at the base of the windscreen which is in contact with the glass. This noise then transmits into the car through the windscreen, especially when the car goes over bumps in the road.
Rear Visibility Problems - I am pleased to say that I've had no problems with rear visibility when reversing my new Honda Civic into parking spaces. The rear visibility is quite adequate for purpose and the large door mirrors make up for any slight visibility restrictions. However, I find the rear window mounted spoiler (half way up the glass) more annoying on the motorway where it significantly restricts the view of traffic behind.
Fuel Economy - The fuel economy of the new Civic is really rather disappointing. If you drive with a heavy right foot then don't expect much more than 40mpg and cold start short journeys will result in further reduce fuel economy, often as low as 35mpg in winter. Honda's published fuel economy figures for the new Honda Civic don't seem to tally with any form of real world driving. Nor, in fact does the fuel computer which shows the economy to be around 6mpg better than it really is!
The build quality of my particular 2007 UK specification Honda Civic was initially marred by problems with interior trim rattles. The hard ride of the car makes the problem seem worse. Based on my initial ownership experience, Honda have some way to go to eliminate annoying rattles and squeaks from the cabin of the new Civic.
A road test revealed several problem areas (particularly on 55 and 06 registration ES and EX cars) including a poorly designed and fitted interior headlining with more rattles emanating from the internal black plastic surround on the rear hatch. My Civic also had a particularly annoying resonance (buzz) from behind the dashboard at an engine speed of around 1900 rpm (70mph in 6th gear).
The 2.2CTDi Honda Civic is supposed to be around 22% more economical than the 1.8 V-TEC engine models, delivering around 39mpg around town and 55.4mpg in the combined cycle fuel economy tests. That said, the fuel economy is poor compared to a small engine diesel like the Ford Focus 1.6 tdci.
Fuel economy of my new shape Honda Civic Ctdi is relatively poor (for a Diesel car) at around 44mpg with a mixture of short journeys and motorway runs. Around town, on the urban cycle I achieve around 35mpg - again quite poor compared to Honda's official fuel economy figures. If you have a heavy right foot, then expect to get around 30 - 35mpg if you drive the car in a 'spirited fashion'. It's also worth noting that the car's fuel computer seems to over-read by about 5 to 6mpg, so the car actually does less MPG than the Civic fuel computer average shows
It's not all good news though, as the car's rear seats can be cramped for 3 adults.
If you want cheap servicing, don't buy a new Honda Civic! With the first service costing £181 and the subsequent service £230 (including VAT), Honda is taking advantage of their servicing monopoly. Get your Civic serviced somewhere else and risk voiding the Manufacturer warranty if non-Handa parts are used. Be warned!
Unfortunately, in the 4000 miles covered in my 56 registration Civic, I've had problems with the bump stops on the Front Shock Absorbers and with the fuel filler release which refused to open despite pulling on the release catch in the car. These are both common faults with the new Honda Civic and modifications to fix these issues are available from Honda. The shock absorber problem results in a knocking noise when going over bumps and is a common fault on the new Civic, which is usually covered under the manufacturer's 3 year warranty. To fix the Front Shock Absorber fault is a 2.5 hour service operation

In what way is your budget brand, out of date hatchback superior, Pete?
Your car is slower, dirtier, less powerful and smaller.
Why not enjoy it as a small hatchback and stop spouting rubbish about it and making ridiculous claims about its limited abilities which will result in you being embarrassed on the forum.
You must be so disappointed and cross with yourself that you bought the inferior car.

But hey, it was cheap.

 

As far as I can see from this and from my experience in the car that I drove a couple of days ago, unless you buy one of the more expensive, bigger engined diesels and then modify the a**e off it, you have nothing but a mild sporting variation. In other words, the vast majority of cars which come under the heading of 'performance diesel' are doing a injustice to the term 'performance'. They just haven't got the necesary grunt.

 

We all go on about performance but economy plays a big part in motorsport especially. For instance an STI is ultimately quicker than my 123d but will need to stop twice as many times. It would be interesting to see how the two fared over say 4 hours on track.

 

Wow thats impressive.

How much would it cost roughly to get to that power out of the 1.9 diesel Harvey?

 

When you look this good ..... nothing much matters ..... but, add 340Nm of Torque and neck snapping overtaking ability and you have a winner.

Badge snobs need not apply ...

http://www.autocarbe.com/wp-content/...tcc__11696.jpg

 

That's what I was wondering, and how safe is the engine at those power levels?

 

http://www.honda.co.uk/cars/btcc/aboutthecars/

and the Honda BTCC car is not a diesel.

 

You're clearly yearning for something performance orientated, Pete, and would you believe it, it's petrol powered.
Once again you contradict yourself.
Now the Audi Le Mans winner...was that petrol powered?
Oh that's right, Audi, a premium manufacturer was able to develop a world class diesel powered Le Mans winner.
Honda rely on the defunct petrol because their diesel isn't upto the job.

 

If you can do most of the work yourself, not a lot of money for the performance gain.
If you want to copy what I have done this may assist.
The total modification list as I remember, perhaps not quite in order of doing it :
Air box mod. This is claimed to improve breathing and derestrict air box. Cost nothing. 45 mins time.
EGR valve delete. Cost nothing. I hour perhaps.
The tumbler flaps were sticking so I bought a new inlet manifold as the tumbler flaps are integral. This cost around £90 but now I know after experimentation this was unnecessary and I subsequently deleted the tumbler flaps altogether. This messing about was around 1.5 days labour spread over a few weeks but doing it straight off say half a day. I could now build a modified inlet manifold in advance for not a lot of money if I was doing it again.
Engine breather mod. I doubt it added any power. Short lengths of silicon pipe I had kicking about and an empty Royal Purple oil bottle. 1 hr.
I then got a tuning box from CKSpeed. £89.99 This allowed me to increase fueling and made a big difference but I noticed air charge temperatures were an issue (ACT guage £87.50) I still have the CKSpeed box and may experiment further with it for another application.
Hand made custom exhaust. Quiet but totally unrestricted. About £300. 2 days messing about.
I then fitted a Hybrid font mount core and altered the layout a little. GT core sells for £180 plus silicon bends and joiners and some heat wrap. Fitting the FMIC was the best part of a day if everything was to hand before the start.
I cannot remember the power at this point but knocking on the door of 200 bhp and all the groundwork for future developments was done.
I then purchased a SAAB turbo off e-bay for £77 delivered. This is a 17/49 turbo and the same as the 150 Vectra CDTi. The exhaust housing is integral with the exhaust manifold (17) and the front end is 49, ie the wheel size. Obviously I ported the manifold and then got a local engineering shop to machine the compressor cover for the 56 wheel I had picked up on my travels. Total cost was £70.
The 17/49/56 turbo was then fitted followed by a mapping session and the car really flew. There was probably two more mapping sessions elsewhere and the car was around 250 bhp but more importantly just under 400 lbs ft. I was looking at what would and would not work but the first mapper had never done a GM ECU and the second mappers had never gone to anything like this level so it was a major learning curve for everyone involved and we even found sections in the map that were previously unknown. (to us)
There was no recognised tuning path to follow as there is with WRX and STi or EVO for instance and I was very much in the dark as to what would and would not work. The greatest expense came in the mapping sessions for which I was in the hands of others and a lot of my time and some expense was needless in getting this far as it was a try it and see and experimental development. I have no previous small deisle experience which did not help.

I was then persuaded by a friend to try a turbo combination from a BMW 3 litre. This is the graph you see above. This was against my gut instinct as we then used the 17 back end, a 56 BMW cover and machined for a 60 wheel. This has proven to be one step too far because there is marginally more BHP top end and a lot less torque right across the rev range and noticably more torque is needed at low revs. I now plan to build another turbo somewhere in between the 17/49/56 which drove very well and the 17/56/60 but in fairness to that turbo it is shut down to 1.7 bar which I understand is not much for these deisles. Previously I ran 1.95 bar.
I also plan to investigate the vacum operated VNT system to see if there can be any perfection there to give earier spool and torque. A lot will depend on what I come across for not a lot of money that I can utilise sensibly. I thought then that a 3 litre core driven by a 1.9 litre exhaust was ambitios but somewhere in between will be a fantastic combination for destroying Audi TT and BMW Z4 etc.

In the meantime my wife has been tolerant with me borrowing her car and I did say I would stop at 250 bhp so in fairness I think I will make the best of what I have learned, get a shed load more torque and stop with whatever figures I get from a turbo combination I am happy with.

 

harvey, great info.

What does your wife think? Is she 'into it' as well?

 

335G is an impressive car, but when chasing a Subaru round the North Peninnes, it spent the whole day flashing it's traction control warning light, to the annoyance of it's owner.

dunx

P.S. I take great pleasure from wasting these smog-gers in third gear...