The death of diesel?

ba_barabus

http://m.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/diesel-dominance-threatened-eu-emissions-rules

Forthcoming EU 6.1/6.2 regulations are going to make buying new diseasel vehicles much more expensive than at the moment, I've heard that between four and six oxygen sensors will be needed on each vehicle alone to monitor emissions along with ever more fancy catalysts.
By the time the EU7 regs come out diseasel will be dead in the water surely? I for one will REJOYCE AT THAT NEWS, but wonder at just how strict the European regulations need to get before petrol engined cars suffer similar fate?

allthedoyles

Thought it was only trucks and buses under the spotlight .

A regular filter change should do the trick

ba_barabus

allthedoyles wrote: »

Thought it was only trucks and buses under the spotlight .

A regular filter change should do the trick

5 oxengen sensors and Irish motorists who struggle with a basic oil change and you think they'll regularly change a filter?

Matt Simis

Desktop link (;) ) http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/diesel-dominance-threatened-eu-emissions-rules


Whats great about this news is it will prevent diesels from taking marketshare in all regions outside Europe, so those peoples will never have to suffer the extensive and poorly understood/publicised negative effects of particularities. Diesel's legacy will be the asbestos or lead or mercury of the future.

Klaus Schmidt, director of vehicle engineering for start-up Chinese brand Qoros (and previously head of chassis development at BMW’s M division), said he, too, thought diesel engines would markedly decline in importance by the end of the decade, citing ever more stringent pollution regulations as the cause.

Someone in his position and experience likely is going to be fairly on the ball on such things, so its not just Autocar's opinion (which can be fairly random and poorly researched).

Sobanek

But what would you rather? 6 cylinder diesel or 4 cylinder petrol?

Matt Simis

Sobanek wrote: »

But what would you rather? 6 cylinder diesel or 4 cylinder petrol?

I see where you are going... but being honest, more cylinders on diesels doesnt mean the same to me as more on a petrol. The difference in sound isnt as dramatic, nor is the smoothness increase which on a diesel is better tackled with more turbos.

Then there is the fact there is now a such thing with current state of the art, as an amazing sounding and and not hampered with laggy response/compromised tuned 4pot Turbo, such as the AMG A45, a 360bhp, 4pot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSuEp00Sekk

It sounds amazing, drives amazing. There is no 6pot Diesel that comes close to that as a whole package (rev range, power, sound, poppy up/down shift maddness).
Review (and granted the A45 would be even better in RWD vs AWD, but the engine seems superb)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOA5YN6ryz4

This isn't the first time this has come up. Merc have stated that they will most likely abandon diesel engines by the end of the decade because it will simply be too expensive to make them, not to mention too complex.

However this isn't good news for petrol fans either as more start stop tech and cylinder deactivation tech and much more technology will appear in petrols over complicating them.

Most of the tech in petrols is to reduce consumption because of ultra high fuel taxes, if car makers made more engines that run on LPG it would cut down on a lot more emissions.

But an end to diesel once and for all would really be a good thing.

We will most likely see a flood of plug in hybrids then for sure.

This inevitably means more and more full electric cars, range will be over the 200 mile barrier by then and ultra fast charging will most likely give us 5-10 min charging on a public charger that is. You'll likely see electrics get cheaper than diesel and with costs to fuel far cheaper that along with greater range might finally change the minds of the public.

I would like to see a greater emphasis on cleaning up commercial vehicles as they are far filthier than cars. Up in Dublin City last week the filth coming out of commercial vehicles was disgraceful, especially Dublin Bus. The Air quality in Dublin City is very poor imo, but not just Dublin City.

I was in the city and this Dublin bus came by spewing out lots of black smoke and left a cloud lingering for about 1 minute choking everyone, it should not be allowed. This smoke is especially dangerous to public health.

Commercial DOE I believe is a farce and commercial owners get away with a lot more.

A change to LPG for commercial use would greatly clean up air quality.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Sure Dublin Bus do their own doe exams so that is half the problem

Oh and of course the obligatory ... NOOOOOOOOO dont take away the daysul!

Better buy all the oil burners I can now so!

_Kaiser_

The problem with this idea is that until electric cars can deliver the range of a modern diesel, they're not an effective substitute

Forget the tax issue - Irish obsession with it aside. A diesel is supposed to be for those who do large mileage and don't want their pockets emptied by the cost of a petrol equivalent.

So the answer (as ML says) will be more electric cars and over-complicated petrols with tech to improve range.

2 issues right there...

- As the two-tier tax system has shown, if enough people move to "cheap tax" cars, the government will simply hike those rates too to make up the shortfall (you don't REALLY think cheap/free electricity, cheap/zero VRT/tax, free parking will last once the number of vehicles on the road increases do you?). The government doesn't care about the trees, just the revenue lost

- overly-complicated petrols = more to go wrong = higher costs of ownership as they become equivalent tech-wise to the modern diesel. Instead of the current "if you're not doing the mileage buy a petrol" argument, it'll be "if you're not doing the mileage buy an electric"

Net result, either way not much will change for the average motorist who in Ireland is far more concerned about the tax bill and fuel costs (short term thinking) than saving the trees.

(and yes, given that it seems DB/CIE is teetering on the edge these days, I can't see them scrapping 800 buses and buying hybrids/electrics either)

Kaiser2000

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The problem with this idea is that until electric cars can deliver the range of a modern diesel, they're not an effective substitute

Range is part of the problem, lack of public interest is another. By the end of the decade the range will be over 250 miles, Tesla is promising an affordable 200 mile range ev in 3 years, and they will do it. What tesla consider affordable though is another matter.

Range is suitable for the majority of people as it is and the fast charge network can allow people cover much greater distances. We're some time away from 500 mile range and even if we had, charging it in any meaningful time is another matter, however Tesla can replace 250-300 miles in under an hour over lunch. I think that kind of range is the sweet spot for electrics along with faster charging.

If you got 250-300 miles range and a super charger can replace 100 miles in 20 mins, I don't think people need more than that. But if needed Tesla owners can cover 500+ miles easily in a day with a 1 hr stop for a bite to eat.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- As the two-tier tax system has shown, if enough people move to "cheap tax" cars, the government will simply hike those rates too to make up the shortfall (you don't REALLY think cheap/free electricity, cheap/zero VRT/tax, free parking will last once the number of vehicles on the road increases do you?). The government doesn't care about the trees, just the revenue lost

Yes and no, the Government got an extra 20 million as a result of the off the road changes.

There is also water charges and property tax on the way with much less need to simply screw the motorist more.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- overly-complicated petrols = more to go wrong = higher costs of ownership as they become equivalent tech-wise to the modern diesel. Instead of the current "if you're not doing the mileage buy a petrol" argument, it'll be "if you're not doing the mileage buy an electric"

The Prius is one of the most technologically complicated cars out there and it has proven to be one of the most reliable cars in the world. So more technology doesn't always mean it will go wrong but most likely make it more expensive.

In fact the Prius is proving to be far more reliable than many modern diesels but the general public in Ireland still believe that diesel is better than the Prius.

No doubt a fully electric car will be cheaper in the not so distant future.

The Leaf already can be got for 20,990 Euro's for the basic spec and 24,000 For the more advanced model with more efficient heater and other goodies. So it's very competitively priced compared to similar diesels, but with a tiny fraction of the running costs.

The Chevy Spark EV will come in around 21 K and be as fast 0-100kph as the Golf GT TDI DSG 180 hp but for a fraction of the cost.

The Spark will also have an 0-80% charging in 20 mins compared to the Leaf 30 mins. The leaf charging time varies with temperature while the spark battery will be heated and cooled probably one reason for the faster charge time.

There are other EV's to be released in 2014 such as the Mercedes B Class Electric (with Tesla electrics), The BMW I3 and the E-Golf.

Matt Simis

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The problem with this idea is that until electric cars can deliver the range of a modern diesel, they're not an effective substitute

Forget the tax issue - Irish obsession with it aside. A diesel is supposed to be for those who do large mileage and don't want their pockets emptied by the cost of a petrol equivalent.

While all true, its largely irrelevant to the point of this news and thread; diesels are extremely bad for people and environment while slightly better for Ozone (than petrol). Emissions standards are catching up to this and diesels by and large will become unable to maintain commercial viability and make the grade.

The cost difference in isolation however (which is driven by taxation not base product cost) is a far lesser problem for society. US transport was doing just fine using big petrol trucks as their fuel was far cheaper due to entirely different taxation setup.

If we really want to find an alternative to dirty imported diesel, then countries with LPG or Gas reserves can exploit them as a pro-domestic economy / low tax / pro local jobs option, as can countries with land to spare for Ethanol or Biodiesel production. Not only do these have the aforementioned advantages, they also are dramatically better for the environment; in both production, refining, transport and finally combustion.

ytareh

That new Chevy Spark EV looks VERY interesting .But at est £21k sterling surely we'll be paying closer to 30k.Even USED Nissan leafs on carzone.ie are listed at 25850....THEY claim to have 100miles range and 1.50 charge cost from home socket...A car with negligible fuel costs at low 20ks purchase would surely pay for itself in a few years BUT is that when the horrendously expensive batteries would degrade ?

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

If we really want to find an alternative to dirty imported diesel, then countries with LPG or Gas reserves can exploit them as a pro-domestic economy / low tax / pro local jobs option, as can countries with land to spare for Ethanol or Biodiesel production. Not only do these have the aforementioned advantages, they also are dramatically better for the environment; in both production, refining, transport and finally combustion.

Indeed LPG is a very viable alternative especially for commercial diesel vehicles who pollute on a far greater scale.

Biofuels I don't believe are good for the environment as the production of rapeseed etc is bad for the land and it takes up land for crops, livestock etc.

LPG is plentiful and is a by-product in the production of petrol and diesel. I think it's also burned off on oil rigs because there is too much of it.

John_Rambo

Deleted User wrote: »

he Air quality in Dublin City is very poor imo, but not just Dublin City

Who tells you this stuff?

Dublin city has cleaner air than most capitals. In fact Dublin city has cleaner air than the rest of the country. You're forgetting that that bus carries lots of people, elsewhere in the country each little diesel car has only one person in it.

ytareh

ytareh wrote: »

That new Chevy Spark EV looks VERY interesting .But at est £21k sterling surely we'll be paying closer to 30k.Even USED Nissan leafs on carzone.ie are listed at 25850....THEY claim to have 100miles range and 1.50 charge cost from home socket...A car with negligible fuel costs at low 20ks purchase would surely pay for itself in a few years BUT is that when the horrendously expensive batteries would degrade ?

I read somewhere, but I can't find atm that the spark is rumoured to cost 25,000 Euro's then subtract grant of 5,000 = 20,000 But there hasn't been an official announcement yet, Irish dealers will no doubt add on a few bob for themselves.

Even 21-22K for a claimed 7.5 second 0-100 kph car is pretty good even if the Spark is not everyone's cup of tea.

Compare that to an almost 36,000 Euro Golf DSG GT TDI 180 HP with less spec and with minute running costs for the Spark EV, think 50 Euro's in diesel = 2400 and more electric miles, add to that free public charging. Sure the Golf will travel much further but I don't think I could justify shelling out so much on a Golf and having maintenance and diesel to pay for on top of that and for range I would most likely need just a few times a year.

One of the reasons it's cheaper is because they used some components used in the Volt/Ampera.

There is only one problem for now and that is there will be very few if any SAE combo fast chargers compatible with U.E/E.U Electric cars. And I don't know yet if there will be an adapter for the current CHAdeMo chargers.

The advantage of the SAE chargers is they will allow up to 140 kw charging, capable of charging future ev's in 5 mins or less, that's a bit down the road yet though. As I'm sre the first gen of SAE chargers won't be 140 kw capable.

The battery will be more advanced than that in the Leaf, it will be heated and cooled and also have a longer life Though exactly is unknown.

What people need to know is that if the Leaf battery lasts 80K miles to 80% doesn't in any way reflect what the Mitsubishi I-Mev battery will last, nor any other electric car, there are just too many differences that it will not be possible to tell.

As for the cost, car makers are keeping very quiet about it but Tesla at time of purchase of a Model S offer buyers a brand spanking new 85kwh battery for only 8,000 USD in 8 years time.

The Leaf battery is 24 kwh and the Spark ev is 20-21 ish, and Zoe is 20-21 kwh

The cost remains unknown but in 8 years time the cost should have fallen a lot.

New buyers are not likely to care as they will most likely have flogged it in 3 years long before there might be issues, PCP deals should be particularly popular for electrics as the monthly repayments are a lot cheaper. PCP is proving to be very successful in Ireland.

One think I'd really like to see is Euro car makers offer fast chargers to dealers like Nissan did only have them where you can charge 24x7.

Nissan dealers expect you to come in and ask to use the chargers and wait until they activate them and they are all locked behind gates that you can't access after business hours.

The likes of BMW, Mercedes and VAG can well ford to spend a few million on chargers. This is what Tesla is doing.

MuppetCheck

Why are you comparing a Spark to a Golf? Surely you are just doing that to show a vast price difference to add weight to your argument? Picking the most expensive alternative you can find if anything just takes away from what is an already decent argument. There's no need to be so sensationalist. Compare it to a car the same size and performance as a Spark and it would be much more convincing. Just my opinion.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Who tells you this stuff?

Dublin city has cleaner air than most capitals. In fact Dublin city has cleaner air than the rest of the country. You're forgetting that that bus carries lots of people, elsewhere in the country each little diesel car has only one person in it.

Sure carrying more people is always good but it's no justification for having a fleet of filthy buses either.

Indeed Ireland's air quality is cleaner than a lot of other places it still shouldn't ignore the amount of dirty commercial diesels on our streets.

I can tell you Dublin Cities air quality is far worse than that of Carlow Town's.

However where I live coal burning fires are rampant, mainly because people think solid fuel is cheaper than oil ? I don't think it is but that's for another thread. I'd never part with my oil heating.

MuppetCheck

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Why are you comparing a Spark to a Golf? Surely you are just doing that to show a vast price difference to add weight to your argument? Picking the most expensive alternative you can find if anything just takes away from what is an already decent argument. There's no need to be so sensationalist. Compare it to a car the same size and performance as a Spark and it would be much more convincing. Just my opinion.

I'm picking two cars of similar performance, find me another spark or golf sized car with a diesel 0-100 kph of 7.5 seconds.

John_Rambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I can tell you Dublin Cities air quality...

I think Dublin wins when it comes to clean air. I have been in Carlow town on a winters night. It's smelly and dirty from the coal fires.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/dublin-tops-air-quality-index-map-243502.html

"While Dublin gets the highest score of one on the air quality map, the west coast scores three"

Jesus.

I hope it doesn't come to that. After this car I'll never go petrol again. I'm sick of driving slow, thirsty petrol's when you can have a car that's fuel efficient and faster to boot.

I don't get why people say petrol's are faster because I've never found that to be the case.

Smoky coal is banned in Carlow Town.

The bad air is the first thing I notice in Dublin City coming from the country, and not that Carlow Town would be exempt from it Dublin is a lot more congested.

Solid fuel fires are a problem and should be completely banned, there is no need for it in this day and age.

But we were actually talking traffic weren't we ? and diesel ?

John_Rambo

Jesus. wrote: »

I don't get why people say petrol's are faster

They say it because it's a fact!

MuppetCheck

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm picking two cars of similar performance, find me another spark or golf sized car with a diesel 0-100 kph of 7.5 seconds.

Seat Leon - much, much cheaper.

Skoda Octavia - much cheaper.

Compare cars the same size - there's the Ibiza FR diesel.

John_Rambo

Deleted User wrote: »

The bad air is the first thing I notice in Dublin City coming from the country

That's in your mind! Dublin coastal air is clean! It's a scientific fact, it's tested all the time be the EPA!

Anyway, back on topic... Deisel is good where it's needed, public transport, machinery, large transport, farm work etc...

Jesus.

Jesus. wrote: »

I hope it doesn't come to that. After this car I'll never go petrol again. I'm sick of driving slow, thirsty petrol's when you can have a car that's fuel efficient and faster to boot.

I don't get why people say petrol's are faster because I've never found that to be the case.

Well if you're to compare a petrol with equal power and torque they won't be slow.

It just so happens most petrols are non turbo.

I would never go from the CRV 2.0L 150 hp petrol to the Diesel because the petrol is far smoother and sounds far better. If I want economy I'd convert it to LPG.

The CRV is very lively when you put the foot down to over take it pulls very strongly with no turbo lag or narrow torque band. It's got power right through the rev range. And it's the non i-vtec

At slower speeds it's got decent torque for relaxed driving and power at the top when you need it. I'd really like to drive a vtec.

ION08

The anti-diesel sentiment is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.

Of course it doesn't occur to some people that other's may actually just prefer driving Diesel's in the same way other people prefer petrol.

I'm not saying I do, but my dad for example does. He doesnt care if a diesel car is more expensive than a petrol equivalent. He just prefers the diesel characteristics more, he would just much rather a 2.0 TDI as opposed to a 2 litre petrol, particularly NA - He actually appreciates the lower end grunt and the narrower power band which means you dont have to rev them high to get power or to overtake. He also prefers the heavier / more solid feel associated with Diesel's and the fact that he doesn't need to visit the petrol station every week. - even if it is "false economy" in the sense that you pay more for the car but less at the pumps. He just has an aversion to having to fill up a car every ~ 350 miles.

My point is that not everyone is a pursit who prioritises a six cylinder symphony.

Peoiple have different tastes and saying things like you'd "rejoice" at the death of diesel is just plain daft. Nobody is making you drive a diesel, by all means enjoy your petrol powered 525i if that's what youre into but statements like that just reek of resentment.

At the end of the day its not the fault of Diesel cars that various Governemntal regulatory bodies are asphyxiating them to past breaking point! - and if that is the case, its only a matter of time before petrols suffer the same fate and we're all driving around in electrical blenders.

Heck, its happeneing already to petrol's aswell ... Harp on all you want about the smoothness and reliability of petrol over diesels, but if you havent noticed BMW 6 pots are becoming a thing of the past and being replaced by 1.5 3 cylinder engines turbo petrol engines blown to within an inch of their lives.

Compare a 2.0 tdi to a 2.0 tfsi. Not a tdi to a straight petrol.

Guarantee you'll have no trouble over taking in a 2.0 tfsi.

I've driven diesels for years and if you don't have the torque then you got to rev the nuts out of them.

ION08

Deleted User wrote: »

Compare a 2.0 tdi to a 2.0 tfsi. Not a tdi to a straight petrol.

Guarantee you'll have no trouble over taking in a 2.0 tfsi.

I've driven diesels for years and if you don't have the torque then you got to rev the nuts out of them.

Yeah true but then there goes the argument of petrol's being cheaper to buy and paying a "premium" for a diesel equivalent.

What if my Dad whos' nearly 60 wants a Golf?? .... He's looking at buying a 2.0TDI ... Should I suggests he gets a 2.0 TFSI aka a GTI for 40 odd grand ??

ION08

ION08 wrote: »

Yeah true but then there goes the argument of petrol's being cheaper to buy and paying a "premium" for a diesel equivalent.

What if my Dad whos' nearly 60 wants a Golf?? .... He's looking at buying a 2.0TDI ... Should I suggests he gets a 2.0 TFSI aka a GTI for 40 odd grand ??

No not at all, I'd rather buy a 535D a few years old rather than a new boring old 2.0 l tdi golf, not saying its a bad car, but I'd rather better for the money.

Big Nasty

What enables a modern 2L Diesel to give such low emission results? Is it the DPF?

MuppetCheck

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Seat Leon - much, much cheaper.

Skoda Octavia - much cheaper.

Compare cars the same size - there's the Ibiza FR diesel.

A Middle of the range spec Octavia dsg 2.0l tdi is over 28 k and slower 0-100 kph than the spark ev.

I haven't checked the seat but I'm sure it will cost more also, electrics are usually high spec also.

The Leon 180 hp Diesel is 28K and no dsg option for the 180 hp TDI.

ION08

Deleted User wrote: »

No not at all, I'd rather buy a 535D a few years old rather than a new boring old 2.0 l tdi golf, not saying its a bad car, but I'd rather better for the money.

So would the auld lad and so would I tbh! The Golf was just an example derived from your 2.0 TFSI suggestion, he's not really in the market for a Golf, let alone a new one.

That said, if he was offered the choice between a 535i or 535d, he'd go for the 535d without hesitation.

Anyway, my point wasn't to compare Diesel vs Petrol, as that's been done to death. I just wanted to point out that some people here seem to have such a passionate dislike for Diesel's that it can come accross as resentful sometimes and a reminder that some people - as crazy as it seems - actually drive Diesels out of personal preferance would you believe, not just to save a few pennies at the pumps!

Matt Simis

Big Nasty wrote: »

What enables a modern 2L Diesel to give such low emission results? Is it the DPF?

It depends on the emission you are referring to. Low CO2 is achieved via lower combustion of fuel per km (as it actually produces more CO2 per litre) than petrol.

The DPF is there solely to capture particulates, which are invisible (1 micron) and pass into/through your lung tissues. DPFs from new are not 100% efficient and they degrade over time. They also dont capture the very smallest size PM.


While we may talk of how cheap diesels are to run or how some people like the high but spikey torque delivery.. its irrelevant when talking about health and appropriate Emission control. The reason we have so many diesels (and their love) is because of inept "Green" parties across Europe who due to their lack of understanding jumped on the C02 and "Climate Change" bandwagon, shifting a technology which should have been a component of transport into its primary mode without any consideration to its unique health threats. There was also lack of assessment of the effects of moving from indirect to direct injection (affects petrols too). This is the true cost:

The effects of inhaling particulate matter that have been widely studied in humans and animals now include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, respiratory diseases, birth defects, and premature death. The size of the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Because of their small size, particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less (PM10) can penetrate the deepest part of the lungs such as the bronchioles or alveoli. Larger particles are generally filtered in the nose and throat via cilia and mucus, but particulate matter smaller than about 10 micrometers, referred to as PM10, can settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health problems.

There is evidence that particles smaller than 100 nanometers can pass through cell membranes and migrate into other organs, including the brain. It has been suggested that particulate matter can cause similar brain damage as that found in Alzheimer patients. Particles emitted from modern diesel engines (commonly referred to as Diesel Particulate Matter, or DPM) are typically in the size range of 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometer). In addition, these soot particles also carry carcinogenic components like benzopyrenes adsorbed on their surface. It is becoming increasingly clear that the legislative limits for engines, which are in terms of emitted mass, are not a proper measure of the health hazard. One particle of 10 µm diameter has approximately the same mass as 1 million particles of 100 nm diameter, but it is clearly much less hazardous, as it probably never enters the human body — and if it does, it is quickly removed. Proposals for new regulations exist in some countries, with suggestions to limit the particle surface area or the particle count (numerical quantity).

80%+ of cars in Ireland and 70%+ in EU are Diesels. Air quality metrics do not measure particulate matter, think of this when walking along (or sitting in traffic) a street in a major city area and worse still, think of its affect on children. With that in mind, can anyone really be "happy" with the low Tax and higher MPG..

Big Nasty

Matt Simis wrote: »

It depends on the emission you are referring to. Low CO2 is achieved via lower combustion of fuel per km (as it actually produces more CO2 per litre) than petrol.

The DPF is there solely to capture particulates, which are invisible (1 micron) and pass into/through your lung tissues. DPFs from new are not 100% efficient and they degrade over time. They also dont capture the very smallest size PM.


While we may talk of how cheap diesels are to run or how some people like the high but spikey torque delivery.. its irrelevant when talking about health and appropriate Emission control. The reason we have so many diesels (and their love) is because of inept "Green" parties across Europe who due to their lack of understanding jumped on the C02 and "Climate Change" bandwagon, shifting a technology which should have been a component of transport into its primary mode without any consideration to its unique health threats. There was also lack of assessment of the effects of moving from indirect to direct injection (affects petrols too). This is the true cost:




80%+ of cars in Ireland and 70%+ in EU are Diesels. Air quality metrics do not measure particulate matter, think of this when walking along (or sitting in traffic) a street in a major city area and worse still, think of its affect on children. With that in mind, can anyone really be "happy" with the low Tax and higher MPG..

So effectively a DPF is a way of helping diesels achieve 'good' emissions figures where in reality they're belching this sh1t out every time they 'clear' themselves?

MuppetCheck

Deleted User wrote: »

A Middle of the range spec Octavia dsg 2.0l tdi is over 28 k and slower 0-100 kph than the spark ev.

I haven't checked the seat but I'm sure it will cost more also, electrics are usually high spec also.

The Leon 180 hp Diesel is 28K and no dsg option for the 180 hp TDI.

Apologies, I meant the vrs and fr versions, equivalent to the gtd figures you posted. Dsg is available, and I don't think it would be more than the 10k difference between that and the gtd either. More like 2k thus halfing the difference for a much, much better car than the spark. Plus the final pricing of the spark isn't in for Ireland and I'd believe you'd have to pay for than the price quoted in your comparison.

I'd rather drive the Leon diesel as opposed the POS spark, whatever drive train is in it.

MuppetCheck

Big Nasty wrote: »

So effectively a DPF is a way of helping diesels achieve 'good' emissions figures where in reality they're belching this sh1t out every time they 'clear' themselves?

Sure when it clogs nothing will be coming out;)

Matt Simis

Big Nasty wrote: »

So effectively a DPF is a way of helping diesels achieve 'good' emissions figures where in reality they're belching this sh1t out every time they 'clear' themselves?

In a manner yes and during normal operation they arent 100% efficient and as the old/current Emission weighting is by total mass over distance (eg 100g/km) not by individual size per PM (<10micron) they werent doing a good job anyhow as the design goal was incorrect.

Under these conditions, the total number
concentration of particles larger than 23 nm (as measured upstream of the evaporation tube)
increased by approximately 475 times when the PMP-PN concentrations increased
moderately (about 2.5 times). Anderson [10] has also observed some passive regeneration
occurring at 120 kph, following an active regeneration event. PMP PN emissions were found
to be at the same or slightly higher levels to those under active regeneration. This slightly
increase of PMP-PN concentrations could be associated with the reduced filtration efficiency
of the DPF due to consumption of the soot cake.

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/16409/1/reqno_jrc64870_jrc%20report%20_%20particle%20emissions%20during%20regeneration.pdf

Still a Net gain, but not that good and have the effect of removing larger, visible PM (soot) giving a false sense of safety and cleanliness.

Big Nasty

So diesels are 'dirtier' than we've been led to believe?

How does a diesel perform on emissions with the dpf removed?

Matt Simis

Big Nasty wrote: »

So diesels are 'dirtier' than we've been led to believe?

How does a diesel perform on emissions with the dpf removed?

Yes but this has been known for about 4years now.

Without a DPF, CO2 is slightly actually lower (the DPF itself is an exhaust restriction, regen costs fuel etc) and all other emissions are pretty much the same. Its job is to capture then burn off PM, which isnt an emission in the traditional sense.

The particles not trapped by the DPF (released into the air) are mostly ultrafine nanoparticles. These are precisely the particles that present the greatest threat to human health. The mucous membranes of the lungs are better at dealing with larger particles than ultrafine ones. Ultrafine nanoparticles pass easily through the lung's mucous membranes, carrying toxins and carcinogens directly into the bloodstream and circulating them throughout the body.

The DPF does not have a significant effect on nitrogen oxide emissions. NOx is the second of the two most harmful constituents of diesel exhaust. NOx has a toxic effect on red blood cells, and it combines with moisture in the lungs to form nitric acid. Exposure to nitrogen oxides can cause or exacerbate respiratory problems. NOx adsorber catalysts to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions are still in the development stage.

http://www.trolleycoalition.org/dpf.html

Big Nasty

Dirty cvnts! :eek:

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

It depends on the emission you are referring to. Low CO2 is achieved via lower combustion of fuel per km (as it actually produces more CO2 per litre) than petrol.

The DPF is there solely to capture particulates, which are invisible (1 micron) and pass into/through your lung tissues. DPFs from new are not 100% efficient and they degrade over time. They also dont capture the very smallest size PM.


While we may talk of how cheap diesels are to run or how some people like the high but spikey torque delivery.. its irrelevant when talking about health and appropriate Emission control. The reason we have so many diesels (and their love) is because of inept "Green" parties across Europe who due to their lack of understanding jumped on the C02 and "Climate Change" bandwagon, shifting a technology which should have been a component of transport into its primary mode without any consideration to its unique health threats. There was also lack of assessment of the effects of moving from indirect to direct injection (affects petrols too). This is the true cost:




80%+ of cars in Ireland and 70%+ in EU are Diesels. Air quality metrics do not measure particulate matter, think of this when walking along (or sitting in traffic) a street in a major city area and worse still, think of its affect on children. With that in mind, can anyone really be "happy" with the low Tax and higher MPG..

Nice one Matt, nice bit of research. Must have took a bit of time.

The sad thing is the amount of older diesels on the road that will be there for a long time yet, especially filthy commercial vehicles.

The current system that promotes diesels will not change in a hurry as Co2 is seen as a far greater threat.

Jesus.

ION08 wrote: »

The anti-diesel sentiment is so thick here you could cut it with a knife. Of course it doesn't occur to some people that other's may actually just prefer driving Diesel's in the same way other people prefer petrol.

Absolutely. Its just personal preference at the end of the day. I prefer driving diesels far more than petrols for all the reasons your father does. I've never actually owned a diesel although family members including herself indoors have always owned one so I've driven them extensively.

And I always hate getting back into my petrol motor afterwards!

Scortho

ION08 wrote: »

The anti-diesel sentiment is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.

Of course it doesn't occur to some people that other's may actually just prefer driving Diesel's in the same way other people prefer petrol.

I'm not saying I do, but my dad for example does. He doesnt care if a diesel car is more expensive than a petrol equivalent. He just prefers the diesel characteristics more, he would just much rather a 2.0 TDI as opposed to a 2 litre petrol, particularly NA - He actually appreciates the lower end grunt and the narrower power band which means you dont have to rev them high to get power or to overtake. He also prefers the heavier / more solid feel associated with Diesel's and the fact that he doesn't need to visit the petrol station every week. - even if it is "false economy" in the sense that you pay more for the car but less at the pumps. He just has an aversion to having to fill up a car every ~ 350 miles.

My point is that not everyone is a pursit who prioritises a six cylinder symphony.

Peoiple have different tastes and saying things like you'd "rejoice" at the death of diesel is just plain daft. Nobody is making you drive a diesel, by all means enjoy your petrol powered 525i if that's what youre into but statements like that just reek of resentment.

At the end of the day its not the fault of Diesel cars that various Governemntal regulatory bodies are asphyxiating them to past breaking point! - and if that is the case, its only a matter of time before petrols suffer the same fate and we're all driving around in electrical blenders.

Heck, its happeneing already to petrol's aswell ... Harp on all you want about the smoothness and reliability of petrol over diesels, but if you havent noticed BMW 6 pots are becoming a thing of the past and being replaced by 1.5 3 cylinder engines turbo petrol engines blown to within an inch of their lives.

It is a motors forum full of petrol heads.
Diesel has its value, long distance driving etc.
That said I would never stop someone buying a diesel for short distances if they prefer diesel.
However I would ask why they want diesel.
If it's for the massive savings that some harp on about and they're only doing 6000 miles per year, then yes I will point out that petrol is more suited to them as they aren't going to see the savings they think they'll see

My mother who drives feck all miles loves Diesel engines as she finds them easier to drive.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Scortho wrote: »

It is a motors forum full of petrol heads.
Diesel has its value, long distance driving etc.
That said I would never stop someone buying a diesel for short distances if they prefer diesel.
However I would ask why they want diesel.
If it's for the massive savings that some harp on about and they're only doing 6000 miles per year, then yes I will point out that petrol is more suited to them as they aren't going to see the savings they think they'll see

My mother who drives feck all miles loves Diesel engines as she finds them easier to drive.

Diesel has its values other than those listed.
It sounds tractory, oodles of torque, and also the schmoooke!

:P

Plus you cant (really) remap a petrol!

Scortho

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Diesel has its values other than those listed.
It sounds tractory, oodles of torque, and also the schmoooke!

:P

Plus you cant (really) remap a petrol!

All true.
However if someone's doing 6k miles a year and coming on saying they're driving a 1.25 fiesta and looking to change to a diesel to save money, it's only right to inform them that they need to take the pencil out and do some quick calculations!

corkgsxr

Whenever I get into herself coupe im amazed how quiet it is.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Scortho wrote: »

All true.
However if someone's doing 6k miles a year and coming on saying they're driving a 1.25 fiesta and looking to change to a diesel to save money, it's only right to inform them that they need to take the pencil out and do some quick calculations!

Yeah that's a different story tbf.

I don't drive diesels to save money (hell, I get 18-20mpg unless on a run) I do it because I prefer diesel

Matt Simis

What really bothers me is what has become known as a 'diesel engine' is a limited crippled version of Rudolf Diesel's vision.
They were meant to be (and to a degree were) reliably robust and run on a range of domestically/locally produced fuel types with a heavy slant towards biofuels, which are far cleaner and safer when combusted.

Modern compression engines are none of these things, running on dirty imported mineral oil from hostile regions, fragile and thanks to kludges like DPF's can only run one fuel type.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Plus you cant (really) remap a petrol!

What are you on about!?
The 540i remaps to 310bhp from 288 (NA).
Remapped my 250bhp allroad to 330bhp (FI).
My 265bhp S4 to 440bhp (with RS4 turbos).

Did you mean naturally aspirated petrols? You can tune them but no easy mode gains.. but petrols had turbos/chargers long before diesels did. Its as easy to remap a FI petrol as diesel.

TestTransmission

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Plus you cant (really) remap a petrol!

Yeah,you can...

Scortho

TestTransmission wrote: »

Yeah,you can...

Its tongue in cheek to me lads.
Can only get around an extra 15 bhp with a basic remap without going crazy on the engine.
Whereas with a turbo diesel jtd engine you can easily remap it up 40 bhp.


If anyone can show me how to get an extra 30 bhp, please tell me!:D

Matt Simis

Scortho wrote: »

Its tongue in cheek to me lads.
Can only get around an extra 15 bhp with a basic remap without going crazy on the engine.
Whereas with a turbo diesel jtd engine you can easily remap it up 40 bhp.


If anyone can show me how to get an extra 30 bhp, please tell me!:D

Go compare a SDI diesel to a NA petrol and TDI to FI petrol.. then update numbers.

I already posted on an 80bhp increase on a petrol..