The ONLY problem is, with a diesel, is the noise.... Period
General M-Jet / T-Jet argument thread !!
- Thread starter T-Jet 120
- Start date
Currently reading:
General M-Jet / T-Jet argument thread !!
Everyone keeps saying a remapped Mjet will blow away remapped Tjet, but has anyone got any figures?
Obviously a Tjet is faster 0-62 standard but anyone got any timing slips or 0-62 times for the two remapped?
Stock Tjet = 8.9seconds
Mapped Tjet = ?
Stock Mjet = 9.5seconds
Mapped Mjet = ?
Cause theres a thousand pound difference between a Tjet and Mjet.
Obviously a Tjet is faster 0-62 standard but anyone got any timing slips or 0-62 times for the two remapped?
Stock Tjet = 8.9seconds
Mapped Tjet = ?
Stock Mjet = 9.5seconds
Mapped Mjet = ?
Cause theres a thousand pound difference between a Tjet and Mjet.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 13,617
- Points
- 2,161
TJet doesnt map good at all at the mo.... So....no competition!
But roughly what figures are we looking at?
Due to the 1.9 going out and the 1.6 coming in soon do we know how well that engine will map? Would a smaller engine not map as well as the 1.9?
Last edited:
Shouldn't mention 0-62. M-jetters start turning purple and spitting how irrelevent it is compared to in gear acceleration. :devil:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 13,617
- Points
- 2,161
Cant help I'm afraid. The tuning specialists will have to get stuck in to see what the 16 valve diesel motor will do.
Haha I met Kris AT Red Dot, he knows the MJet as well or better than anyone Beany TBH! He can fit in any tiny car lmao! I need every single horse I got pullin my GPS!
yes yes i'm a shortarse
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,694
- Points
- 322
Wouldnt it be more logical to compare the 1.3 16v M-Jet vs the 1.4 16v TJet
(in the GP anyway)
1.3 16v M-jet:
-90bhp
-200NM torque
-109mph
- 11.5's 0-60
-1145kg
1.4 16v T-jet
- 120bhp
-206nm torque
-124mph
- 8.6's 0-60
-1155kg
(in the GP anyway)
1.3 16v M-jet:
-90bhp
-200NM torque
-109mph
- 11.5's 0-60
-1145kg
1.4 16v T-jet
- 120bhp
-206nm torque
-124mph
- 8.6's 0-60
-1155kg
Last edited:
Whys this so that the Tjet can win?
1.2 FTW!
1.2 FTW!
The standard Mjet was timed by Autoexpress at 8.9 and the Tjet 8.5 seconds 0-60, if I remember correctly.
A remap will knock around 1.5 seconds off that time on an Mjet.
Haven't a clue what a tuned Tjet will do after mods....but one's never come past me yet!
A remap will knock around 1.5 seconds off that time on an Mjet.
Haven't a clue what a tuned Tjet will do after mods....but one's never come past me yet!
think this is a pointless thread really, coz the posters on here are going to be bias towards their own cars!!!
i personally would prefer the t-jet, but then i'm a petrolhead through and through!!
i personally would prefer the t-jet, but then i'm a petrolhead through and through!!
think this is a pointless thread really, coz the posters on here are going to be bias towards their own cars!!!
i personally would prefer the t-jet, but then i'm a petrolhead through and through!!
No...just stating facts....
I admit my Mjet sounds like a tractor and handles like a barge...still enjoy driving it though, big time!
The standard Mjet was timed by Autoexpress at 8.9 and the Tjet 8.5 seconds 0-60, if I remember correctly.
A remap will knock around 1.5 seconds off that time on an Mjet.
Haven't a clue what a tuned Tjet will do after mods....but one's never come past me yet!
7.6 seconds for a 0-60 on a mapped Mjet then?
Hi folks!
M-Jet or T-Jet? Yes, they accelerate fast. But are they smooth? I would go ahead and venture the idea that the 1.4 16v aspirated engine with its 90 HP will give both turbos a round for their money provided it is kept high through the revs. This plus there is no match for the smoothness of an aspirated engine. It is always there, always ready.
What? The turbos are already pulling like a truck @2000rpm? True - but for how long? I mean, the aspirated one pulls LONGER! It makes all the difference in the world! Ask any real racer! Between two similar cars (in terms of power) you pick the one with the max torque as high up through the range! It's not nonsense! Yes - for day to day you want that 200Nm@1900rpm, but for racing for winding roads, the 150Nm@4800rpm will pull you through faster. (Still, such a car is not forgiving at all. Miss a gear and your out of contention.)
I'd like to see a remapped 1.4 16v with a hollow crankshaft, lightweight cam shafts, lightweight pistons and increased compression ration! It's probably breach the 7000rpm border (reaching into Honda teritorry).
Anyone seconds this opinion?
M-Jet or T-Jet? Yes, they accelerate fast. But are they smooth? I would go ahead and venture the idea that the 1.4 16v aspirated engine with its 90 HP will give both turbos a round for their money provided it is kept high through the revs. This plus there is no match for the smoothness of an aspirated engine. It is always there, always ready.
What? The turbos are already pulling like a truck @2000rpm? True - but for how long? I mean, the aspirated one pulls LONGER! It makes all the difference in the world! Ask any real racer! Between two similar cars (in terms of power) you pick the one with the max torque as high up through the range! It's not nonsense! Yes - for day to day you want that 200Nm@1900rpm, but for racing for winding roads, the 150Nm@4800rpm will pull you through faster. (Still, such a car is not forgiving at all. Miss a gear and your out of contention.)
I'd like to see a remapped 1.4 16v with a hollow crankshaft, lightweight cam shafts, lightweight pistons and increased compression ration! It's probably breach the 7000rpm border (reaching into Honda teritorry).
Anyone seconds this opinion?
Well on subject of racing rules have been written to allow diesels to be competitive for example the lowered the rev limits in GT cars to stop them revving into the stratosphere to generate their power. Also the diesel touring cars are allowed to run turbos the petrol cars don't. Also the main lesson from watching the Seats in in BTCC this year was its blisteringly fast in a straight line while ruining its tyres in the corners due to being poorly balanced. In a few races the diesel was beaten by the previous years petrol car driven by a privateer. Oh that and the were they least reliable cars on the grid.
Petrol engine technology had been largely neglected by many manufacturers as they concentrate on diesel so many units on the market now are well past their sell by date...most of them come with ford badges on 98bhp 1.6 anybody? no? But I see the T-Jet style of engine along with the Volkswagen TSI units and renaults 1.2 TCE as being the future of petrol engines. Small capacity, high revving, but a turbo for better mid range shove and outright power. Hopefully manufacturers will put as much resources into these as they did into making diesels bearable. Okay there is a fuel consumption penalty and slower in gear figures, however if you use the gear box for what its meant for and change down then its no slower and tbf those who drive their T jets gently seem to get around 40mpg which isn't bad. And these are just a 1st generation of more economy minded turbo petrols they'll get better.
I prefer not to get on the train as it costs more to ride it than it should and the benefits are marginal/unclear when the time comes to chop in swift it'll be a T-jet if I go for a GP.
Last edited:
VTEC territory is 8.25k rpm standard, chuff knows what they would go to with the limiter off.
**** poor torque down the rev range though...same as the clio's and citroens too... Got thrash the knackers off them to make decent progress. Good fun, but can be tiresome.
**** poor torque down the rev range though...same as the clio's and citroens too... Got thrash the knackers off them to make decent progress. Good fun, but can be tiresome.
Last edited:
I'd like to see how much that would cost, might as well just go and buy an Abarth?
Pretty much agree with you their. Some of the new petrols are getting very economical and can still keep up with the equivalent priced diesel, whilst being a smaller capacity turbo, or normally aspirated of a similar capacity. BMW / Mini are also producing some good petrols, although they have very good diesels too.
Diesels tend to be the best cars to pile on the miles and quick diesels are pretty quick, probably quick enough for most people as a road car.
Petrols are definitely the best for total performance - No contest. Compare like for like capacities, purchase costs, etc. and the petrol will p*ss all over the diesel - Think Golf 2.0GT TDi / 2.0GTI.
On the fuel economy subject, modern petrols are not as bad as they are made out. My ST will do 42mpg on a long run to work, factor in that petrol is slightly cheaper than diesel and the fact that diesels are more expensive to buy in the first place and you will see that unless you are doing big miles then its not always worthwhile.
The only reason for owning the Mjet was the fact I did 25k mikes a year.
The only reason for owning the Mjet was the fact I did 25k mikes a year.
God is this still going on.
The only reason diesels win at Le Mans and in touring cars is they are allowed to run turbo's, in fact in touring cars when first introduced they were allowed to run unlimited boost. If you follow motorsport Audi were going to pull out of Sports car racing altogether unless rules were changed to allow turbo's deisles in meaning diesels had a chance. FIA relented as at that time there were no manufacturer teams in Sports Car racing and needed a manufacturer to give the series some much needed headlining stuff to attract the crowds again.
Although car design has improved immensely and LE Mans has been modified the main straight, the Jaguar that won at Lemans again in 1989 was doing over 240mph top end, today's Audis top out at about 205 with there more torque but less BHP, torque gives acceleration but BHP V's drag gives top end.
And another example, the a modern 2008 2L SEAT Touring car running unlimited turbo boost was still slower than a 2L Sierra Cosworth Touring car running unlimited boost in 1986! Progress, nope, its just got slower and more boring, much like diesel driving.
As has been stated the rules have been massaged to allow diesel to compete with petrols because if given the exact same set of rules petrol will always win.
As I have already stated on this thread the T-jet is nearly 160kgs (can't be bothered looking back but its something line 1080 V's 1240kgs) lighter as tested by Auto Italia, all the extra weight is over the front wheels and therefore its can't defy the laws of physics and be as good on a tack or cross country, who gives a toss about straight line speed sitting on a motorway, I can't say I have ever found motorway driving fun, I guess I need to drive a diesel to do that :devil:
Has anyone on here actually conducted a back to back road test of both models and be in a position like Auto Italia to give a serious input into the debate?
Fuel economy is not be all and end all, again look at things like extra weight and torque of M-jet means front tyres get much harder work out meaning wear rates are higher, front suspension is the same on both models therefore later in life the rubber bushes will go earlier in M-Jet, not an issue with new cars but will be 6 years or so down the line will be, its never as simple as just fuel, M-jet dearer to buy as well, takes a long long time to make up the differance.
Everyone loves the car they bought, otherwise why buy it in first place, but I doubt everyone will every come to agree on which is better, but hey that's what forums are for, debate
Last edited:
