Diesel engine query

Road-Hog

I've heard a good number of people recently (none of whom are in the motor trade)say that the newer type/ generation of Diesel engines i.e those from 2011/12 onwards are not good for 250,000 miles plus like their predecessors were, 150,000miles being a more realistic expectation. Can anyone verify if there is any truth in such rumours.

Bpmull

I wouldn't really say there is any truth in that at all. As it all depends on how well it's maintained and how it's driven. There was probably less to go wrong on older diesel as they had no dpf or dmf etc. but then realistically any car can do any mileage it's just about when it becomes uneconomical to repair it. So even a newer diesel that's well minded used for its purpose ie not just driven around town Is capable of going for more than 150k miles.

jprboy

Some say it's built-in obsolescence:

the policy of deliberately limiting the life of a product in order to encourage the purchaser to replace it

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Built-in+obsolescence

Doesn't just apply to cars

derry

Deisel manufactuers changed the Diesel fuel formula and it now makes the diesel engines wear out faster .They now in some engines recycle the exhast fumes back into engine for reburn ad get better MPG with that but it has some negative effects .The old diesel formula fuel was 100% diesel fuel.The old engines were not common rail worked at lowwer fuel pressure in the injectors and the injectors would fire once per 2 revolutions of piston of that engine .The fuel did not burn fully and the excess fuel gave a lot of extra lubrication to the pistons and valves and so forth ..The newwer diesel fuel has ~7% bio fuel in it .This is because the old diesel fuel had high sulfer content which the new Particle filters can not handle .Removing the sulfur removed lubrication of the Diesel fuel for the fuel pumps .To put lubrication back into the diesel fuel required adding the 7% bio fuel. However the bio fuel does not have anything like as good a lubrication quality so parts wear out faster .Changing to old diesel such as red diesel would result in wrecking the Particle filter. The engines now often fire several small injections into piston rather than one to get better burn and better MPG and the extra lubrication to pistons is lost similar to petrol engine which burn dry and results in faster wear of pistons .The Bio fuel often gets corrupted if it is heated up .In heavy city traffic the diesel fuel goes into common rail and most fuel is heated up in the common rail above the not engine and as fuel demands are low the most the hot fuel will return to tank .The hot corrupted Bio fuel wrecks the engine faster .If driving always on motor ways the majority of the fuel is burnt up and the bio fuel corrupted issue is looking to be less likely.When fuel is burnt in the engine some 80% the fuel is ejected into the exhaust stack .Some diesel engines will take this hot still burning in the exhaust stack fumes and put it back into the engine to add extra fuel to it and return it .This results in better MPG but hot burning fuel is hard in engine parts and the lubrication qualities of the fuel. So the short reply to this is there looks to substantial evidence that modern diesel engines will on average have a much reduced life span .Also for city driving they look to be disaster . Good luck the new petrol cars are returning very good MPG with the more likely better results in lowwer service costs .They took the wonderful 1990 era diesel solutions which could do 500,000 miles easy and killed it dead .

Derry

Stella Virgo

^^^^^^
any chance you might use paragraphs the next time....;)

corglass

People love to complain about modern diesels. Granted they have their issues, but let's not forget the positive. Immense toque and great mpg in 'heavy' modern cars.

If you're doing any half decent mileage and willing to service them properly yourself they're a pleasure and will easily do 250k km +

ytareh

Stella Virgo wrote: »

^^^^^^
any chance you might use paragraphs the next time....;)

Thanks for the very informative post Derry .

George Dalton

corglass wrote: »

People love to complain about modern diesels. Granted they have their issues, but let's not forget the positive. Immense toque and great mpg in 'heavy' modern cars.

Exactly!

People like to get all misty eyed talking about the good old reliable diesels from years ago but the fact is that the game has moved on massively since then and these days nobody would actually be willing to put up with a noisy, smokey, underpowered diesel engine that needs servicing every 6k miles, no matter how reliable it was.

kermitpwee

George Dalton wrote: »

Exactly!

People like to get all misty eyed talking about the good old reliable diesels from years ago but the fact is that the game has moved on massively since then and these days nobody would actually be willing to put up with a noisy, smokey, underpowered diesel engine that needs servicing every 6k miles, no matter how reliable it was.

I wouldn't agree with that George, there is still a market for these older reliable diesels. The service interval on modern diesels is way too long imo. No offense George intended.

HandsomeDan

derry wrote: »

Deisel manufactuers changed the Diesel fuel formula and it now makes the diesel engines wear out faster .

So FOS.

Are you Jim Corr by any chance?

OP, a modern diesel will easily do 150k miles ffs

quadrifoglio verde

While modern diesels will do the high milage, the liklihood of them breaking the 250k mike barrier is reduced on the newer ones compared to the ones of yesteryear.
While a dmf replacement is overly expensive on a five year old car relative to the value of the car, a dmf replacement on a 12 year old car more than likely is.

Markcheese

In someways should we be looking at the wholelife cost of the engine, old diesel engine lots of servicing and more fuel and dirty (smokey) but long life.
Modern one needs less servicing,and less fuel but more bits to repair long term (dpfs,injectors,dmfs,ect)
Look at trucks and tractors ect. to see the trend, they're all modern engines because it's fuel use that counts.

Bang_Bang

jprboy wrote: »

Some say it's built-in obsolescence:

the policy of deliberately limiting the life of a product in order to encourage the purchaser to replace it

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Built-in+obsolescence

Doesn't just apply to cars

Correct, we do it where I work, 10 years ago the realisation that our products were too good, so we redesigned them to die after a certain amount of cycles. I'ts common practice these days in modern manufacturing and actually it's a philosophy of some quality guru's. The Japanese use a different quality philosophy than the west.

Getting back to the Diesel, I think derry is right there, I could never understand why the old 1.9 TDi was removed by VAG, now I know, it lasted too long and was very reliable. I knew a guy who had an Audi 80 1.9 TDi and he had over 450,000 miles on it and the last I heard he was still driving it.

Galwayguy35

What's classed and an older diesel engine?

Mine is a 2004 TDI Golf, I'm at 186 k and am hoping to reach and even pass the 250 k mark if I can.

I've replaced the clutch and gearbox but the engine is running like a top, never gave any trouble at all.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

corglass wrote: »

People love to complain about modern diesels. Granted they have their issues, but let's not forget the positive. Immense toque and great mpg in 'heavy' modern cars.

If you're doing any half decent mileage and willing to service them properly yourself they're a pleasure and will easily do 250k km +

Really?
Diesel MPG (real world, not manufacturer figures) haven't increased much in the past 10 years.
A mark4 diesel golf will easily top 55-60 mpg on an extra-urban cycle. I know because I had a 2001 diesel golf and it did those figures on motorway drives. My 2010 skoda superb TDI with supposedly modern technology, low emissions, chape tax etc only did 3-5 mpg at a push more.

Add in that, to get that small increase in MPG, we've had to put up with many new anti-emissions crap like DPFs, and running on ultra high compression and stressing the engine more to reduce life. I've seen 10-15 year old vag cars with 500k miles+ - can't see many modern diesels reaching that.

Even the old jap diesels were better - if less economical. I've a 95 diesel carina outside with 425k miles on the clock which will do 45 mpg easily, and on pretty much anything flammable that can be found.

HandsomeDan

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Correct, we do it where I work, 10 years ago the realisation that our products were too good, so we redesigned them to die after a certain amount of cycles. I'ts common practice these days in modern manufacturing and actually it's a philosophy of some quality guru's. The Japanese use a different quality philosophy than the west.

Getting back to the Diesel, I think derry is right there, I could never understand why the old 1.9 TDi was removed by VAG, now I know, it lasted too long and was very reliable. I knew a guy who had an Audi 80 1.9 TDi and he had over 450,000 miles on it and the last I heard he was still driving it.

450k in that thing, the poor guy. The 1.9 TDi was replaced because, by modern standards, it's a crappy engine.

Manus compete against one another. if they don't update long in the tooth products they wont' stay in business. Simples.

Bang_Bang

HandsomeDan wrote: »

450k in that thing, the poor guy. The 1.9 TDi was replaced because, by modern standards, it's a crappy engine.

Manus compete against one another. if they don't update long in the tooth products they wont' stay in business. Simples.

Neigh say anyone I know that owned one. I remember some guys I work with complaining that the 2008 2.0 VAG Diesel was a pile of crap compared to the 1.9 TDi. i'm not a mechanic so I don't know why, but I remember loads of debating over it during lunch hour.

corglass

Best diesel engine of the last 20 years guys? All things (mpg, reliability, ease of maintenance, power etc.)

2.0 Toyota diesel (1993-1997)
2.0 TD Toyota (1997-2001)
1.9 VAG (pre 2001)
1.9 TDI (post 2001)
2.0 TDI (post 2005)
Any other contenders?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

You're forgetting a few great diesels, the famous ford 7.3 v8 diesels (both IDI and powerstroke), the chevy 6.2 detroit diesel to name but two.
Also the 2.0 TDI should not be on a great engine list!

dgt

XUD
Fiat/Sofim diesel
Mercedes OM series
Cummins BT series

Real diesel engines I'll probably get shot down for by dimwits who haven't a clue :rolleyes:

Markcheese

Weren't most of those engines dropped because they couldn't hit emissions standards... Also modern cars are getting bigger and heavier with more safety gear as well as creature comforts, more weight means juice needed to push it along...
Also we're driving faster, (well I am ) with a lot more dual carraigeway /motorway kms...
I use way more fuel per km driving on motorways than I do on regular N roads at 80/90 kph ...
Would we put up with the performance from an old 2 litre straight diesel ...as opposed to a modern yoke...

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Markcheese wrote: »

Weren't most of those engines dropped because they couldn't hit emissions standards... Also modern cars are getting bigger and heavier with more safety gear as well as creature comforts, more weight means juice needed to push it along...
Also we're driving faster, (well I am ) with a lot more dual carraigeway /motorway kms...
I use way more fuel per km driving on motorways than I do on regular N roads at 80/90 kph ...
Would we put up with the performance from an old 2 litre straight diesel ...as opposed to a modern yoke...

Aside from the sound, there was not much performance difference between my straight diesel '95 carina and my '10 Superb TDI.
I don't think that these "advances" are as widespread as you and others think!

Yes, modern diesels can do well in a fake staged emissions test but in the real world it's not happening mate.

IMO.
I mean the build quality has improved a lot with impact protection, rust protection IMO and so on, but it's not an mpg improvement

Gazzmonkey

corglass wrote: »

Best diesel engine of the last 20 years guys? All things (mpg, reliability, ease of maintenance, power etc.)

2.0 TDI (post 2005)

VAG 2.0L PD TDI ??

Supposed to be a terrible engine, but they replaced it with a 2.0L CR TDI engine around 2008, much better engine.

Markcheese

Would a diesel hybrid be a goer, the engine wouldn't have to be responsive, the electric motor could do the acceleration ... Just a good steady plodder-getting fuel efficiency and low emissions...or would it be too pricey ..

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

VAG 2.0L PD TDI ??

Supposed to be a terrible engine, but they replaced it with a 2.0L CR TDI engine around 2008, much better engine.

Still not worthy of a great diesel engine list!

Markcheese wrote: »

Would a diesel hybrid be a goer, the engine wouldn't have to be responsive, the electric motor could do the acceleration ... Just a good steady plodder-getting fuel efficiency and low emissions...or would it be too pricey ..

I'm amazed that there's been no diesel electric offered yet. In theory it is the most economical use of the fuel. Diesel generator to supply electricity to power the wheels and charge the battery. Combined with a kinetic energy harvesting system, over 100 mpg could well be possible!

bazz26

Isn't the Citroen DS5 available as a diesel hybrid?

MuppetCheck

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

VAG 2.0L PD TDI ??

Supposed to be a terrible engine, but they replaced it with a 2.0L CR TDI engine around 2008, much better engine.

Some versions of the 2 litre were fine bar the injectors and even then I don't think it affected all versions either but they probably weren't sold in high numbers here - 2 litre Mark V's, Leons, Alteas etc.

The CR version is probably one of the most reliable diesel engines out there at the moment.

Markcheese

http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/en/content/hybrid4-technology-diesel-hybrid-engines-psa-peugeot-citroen-0

Peugeot 3008 and Citroën c5
Seems like a practical idea but no idea how good it is and they don't seem to be trumpeting it's fuel efficiency or low co2 figures ,
Kind of surprised it's a hdi engine though it might be the old non turbo yoke ...

HandsomeDan

Markcheese wrote: »

http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/en/content/hybrid4-technology-diesel-hybrid-engines-psa-peugeot-citroen-0

Peugeot 3008 and Citroën c5
Seems like a practical idea but no idea how good it is and they don't seem to be trumpeting it's fuel efficiency or low co2 figures ,
Kind of surprised it's a hdi engine though it might be the old non turbo yoke ...

HDi is the PSA CR engine.

Chimaera

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Aside from the sound, there was not much performance difference between my straight diesel '95 carina and my '10 Superb TDI.
I don't think that these "advances" are as widespread as you and others think!

Yes, modern diesels can do well in a fake staged emissions test but in the real world it's not happening mate.

IMO.
I mean the build quality has improved a lot with impact protection, rust protection IMO and so on, but it's not an mpg improvement

There's the thing though.

Modern cars weigh much more than old ones. They have lots of accessories that draw power from the engine (aircon, etc). They're also saddled with emissions control systems that frequently hurt fuel economy.

Yet for all that they're equalling or bettering the economy of diesel cars from 20 years ago. So yes, the modern diesel engine is a far better thing than its ancestor.

Chimaera

derry wrote: »

Deisel manufactuers changed the Diesel fuel formula and it now makes the diesel engines wear out faster .They now in some engines recycle the exhast fumes back into engine for reburn ad get better MPG with that but it has some negative effects .The old diesel formula fuel was 100% diesel fuel.The old engines were not common rail worked at lowwer fuel pressure in the injectors and the injectors would fire once per 2 revolutions of piston of that engine .The fuel did not burn fully and the excess fuel gave a lot of extra lubrication to the pistons and valves and so forth ..The newwer diesel fuel has ~7% bio fuel in it .This is because the old diesel fuel had high sulfer content which the new Particle filters can not handle .Removing the sulfur removed lubrication of the Diesel fuel for the fuel pumps .To put lubrication back into the diesel fuel required adding the 7% bio fuel. However the bio fuel does not have anything like as good a lubrication quality so parts wear out faster .Changing to old diesel such as red diesel would result in wrecking the Particle filter. The engines now often fire several small injections into piston rather than one to get better burn and better MPG and the extra lubrication to pistons is lost similar to petrol engine which burn dry and results in faster wear of pistons .The Bio fuel often gets corrupted if it is heated up .In heavy city traffic the diesel fuel goes into common rail and most fuel is heated up in the common rail above the not engine and as fuel demands are low the most the hot fuel will return to tank .The hot corrupted Bio fuel wrecks the engine faster .If driving always on motor ways the majority of the fuel is burnt up and the bio fuel corrupted issue is looking to be less likely.When fuel is burnt in the engine some 80% the fuel is ejected into the exhaust stack .Some diesel engines will take this hot still burning in the exhaust stack fumes and put it back into the engine to add extra fuel to it and return it .This results in better MPG but hot burning fuel is hard in engine parts and the lubrication qualities of the fuel. So the short reply to this is there looks to substantial evidence that modern diesel engines will on average have a much reduced life span .Also for city driving they look to be disaster . Good luck the new petrol cars are returning very good MPG with the more likely better results in lowwer service costs .They took the wonderful 1990 era diesel solutions which could do 500,000 miles easy and killed it dead .

Derry

Man, I could smell the stink of bull$hit off this post a mile off.

First off, the fuel standards used here are set by CEN, a body that specialises in standards. The standards are devised by CEN in consultation with governments and industrial stakeholders. In the case of fuel standards the main stakeholders are the DFIE manufacturers and the fuel suppliers.

The main changes made to fuel standards in the last 20 years have involved the removal of sulphur compounds from diesel to reduce the emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. SO2 is a significant contributor to acid rain, so its removal is a good thing.

There was a downside in that sulphur helped with the lubricity of the fuel. That lubricity had to be added back in, and the standard revision that eliminated sulphur from diesel also continued to mandate a specific level of lubricity: the fuel manufacturers had to find additives to maintain the lubricity level. Interestingly the best lubricity enhancer that can be added to diesel is biodiesel, which is mandated through the biofuels directive.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation is used to reduce combustion temperatures, which reduces the formation of NOx emissions. Again, a significant culprit for acid rain. In the past EGR was problematic because older diesel engines were sooty. This coupled with crankcase ventilation systems which routed back to the engine's intake often resulted in a gunky mess blocking up the intake. Interestingly, removing sulphur from the fuel substantially reduced soot output too.

derry

Chimaera wrote: »

Man, I could smell the stink of bull$hit off this post a mile off.

First off, the fuel standards used here are set by CEN, a body that specialises in standards. The standards are devised by CEN in consultation with governments and industrial stakeholders. In the case of fuel standards the main stakeholders are the DFIE manufacturers and the fuel suppliers.

The main changes made to fuel standards in the last 20 years have involved the removal of sulphur compounds from diesel to reduce the emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. SO2 is a significant contributor to acid rain, so its removal is a good thing.

There was a downside in that sulphur helped with the lubricity of the fuel. That lubricity had to be added back in, and the standard revision that eliminated sulphur from diesel also continued to mandate a specific level of lubricity: the fuel manufacturers had to find additives to maintain the lubricity level. Interestingly the best lubricity enhancer that can be added to diesel is biodiesel, which is mandated through the biofuels directive.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation is used to reduce combustion temperatures, which reduces the formation of NOx emissions. Again, a significant culprit for acid rain. In the past EGR was problematic because older diesel engines were sooty. This coupled with crankcase ventilation systems which routed back to the engine's intake often resulted in a gunky mess blocking up the intake. Interestingly, removing sulphur from the fuel substantially reduced soot output too.

First you claim I say is is BS and then you say the same as me in mildly different way .What you smoking . Clearly you dont understand the Chicken and egg problem. In this case the the problem was simple sulfur fuels would destroy the new particle filter the car manufactures devised to reduce soot . The governments under pressure from the environmentalists were demanding soot free cars . The solution was to remove the sulfur from the diesel . The idea that Bio diesel adds the lubrication is flawed . The original sulfur rich fuel had the best lubrication period . The bio diesel solution was sticky patch solution to problem the new sulfur deficient fuel caused . So When I say it is the motor manufactures that needed fuel formula changes and you rant sh1t about government motor manufactures and fuel suppliers it splitting hairs they all have to sing from the same song sheet to ensure the right fuels get to the right cars . In nut shell modern diesel fuels formulas in ROI and most of the EU have much less lubrication qualities and your engines will wear out faster . I dont give a rats a$$ about acid rain tripe the forest in Germany they told me 1980 would be destroyed by acid rain by ~2000 are still there and the acid rain problem was all invented crap.

Recirculation of fuel was done for getting better MPG period end of story .about 80% of fuel is still burning as it exits the engine . If this fuel continues to burn outside the engine it will waste this fuel and will also create more NOx and other bad things which in the case of petrol engine the CAT will burn up. Recirculating this still burning fuel back into the engine will help burn this fuel again and help MPG . As side effect is that NOx will be less . Some engines will recirculate the same fuel up to five times . Now if you think putting burning fuel back into a engine will not have detrimental effects to the engine wear in the long term then your clearly not smoking my fumes from my 1993 ~300,000 kilometer 2 liter Toyota Carina many of which have done over ~500,000 miles ~800kK in the 1990 era when diesel fuel was real diesel fuel and real cars did not recirculate crappy fumes back into their inyards .

The dirty little secret of the modern diesel is they took a great technology and F****D it up on purpose to get people to replace cars more often .

Thats not counting the other harder to prove methods like softer metals in engines, rubber and plastic hoses that perish faster more corrosive brake fluid oil to eats brake pipes faster and the unnecessary extra electronics made with chips that have life times of 7 years designed to be too expensive to replace seven year later when they go AWOL .

Its not just diesels that wont go as far it petrol cars also with the many tricks they do to get cars to turn to scrap heaps at 7 years old with 100,000 kilometers on the clock


let me guess your problem you want to keep the resale of your Diesel car higher... ha ha


Ralf

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Ok Jim Corr
TL, DR

I'm a poet
And I didn't even know it!

dgt

Any diesel I've had, I've disconnected the EGR. Its resulted in better MPG. Its to clean up emissions, not to save suel

Go figure

Poulgorm

I suspect that many of the contributors on here who are singing the praises of modern diesel engines are, either mechanics or garage owners.

George Dalton

Poulgorm wrote: »

I suspect that many of the contributors on here who are singing the praises of modern diesel engines are, either mechanics or garage owners.

Your point being?

ianobrien

I suspect that many of the problems are down to the owners through improper use and/or cheap dirty fuel.

Diesels have moved on from being able to burn any liquid fuel (diesel, kerosene, cooking oil, any flammable liquid) with the tolerances needed for that to being designed for diesel only and not the diesel/kero/water mix that can be found in some tanks. The primary users of diesels in Europe are high mileage users thus the emission control systems are designed for high mileage users (DPF regeneration for example). Given the Irish attitude to servicing ("I'm not paying €60/€80 for just the oil when I can get some for a tenner" - It's not the same spec people!) it's no wonder that engines are giving trouble for some owners/users.

The driver for the changes to diesels are emissions, smooth torque curve with no turbo lag and power.

CJhaughey

Biodiesel also has bad effects on rubber components, newer cars probably have more resistant components but older machines often suffer rubber components failing from the effects of biodiesel.
I would say that modern diesels are remarkable in their ability to produce big power and torque through advanced and super high pressure injection but this comes at a price which is servicing on or before the recommended interval and with high quality oil.
Gone are the days when an old diesel could run for years with minimal maintenance, these days its service on time with high quality oil or suffer the consequences.
I am also of the opinion that diesel fuel here is of variable quality, the refinery in Whitegate is ancient and incapable of producing consistent quality fuel.
Its been losing money for years and will likely be shut down soon.

Markcheese

CJhaughey wrote: »

Biodiesel also has bad effects on rubber components, newer cars probably have more resistant components but older machines often suffer rubber components failing from the effects of biodiesel.
I would say that modern diesels are remarkable in their ability to produce big power and torque through advanced and super high pressure injection but this
comes at a price which is servicing on
or before the recommended interval and
with high quality oil.
Gone are the days when an old diesel could run for years with minimal maintenance, these days its service on time with high quality oil or suffer the consequences.
I am also of the opinion that diesel fuel here is of variable quality, the refinery in
Whitegate is ancient and incapable of
producing consistent quality fuel.
Its been losing money for years and will likely be shut down soon.

Was told last week it's losing around 1million a week.... So when their contract is up it won't last long (unless theirs a whacking great subsidy paid
out..) Phillis 66 recently took it off the market as well ...

Chimaera

derry wrote: »

First you claim I say is is BS and then you say the same as me in mildly different way .What you smoking . Clearly you dont understand the Chicken and egg problem. In this case the the problem was simple sulfur fuels would destroy the new particle filter the car manufactures devised to reduce soot . The governments under pressure from the environmentalists were demanding soot free cars . The solution was to remove the sulfur from the diesel . The idea that Bio diesel adds the lubrication is flawed . The original sulfur rich fuel had the best lubrication period . The bio diesel solution was sticky patch solution to problem the new sulfur deficient fuel caused . So When I say it is the motor manufactures that needed fuel formula changes and you rant sh1t about government motor manufactures and fuel suppliers it splitting hairs they all have to sing from the same song sheet to ensure the right fuels get to the right cars . In nut shell modern diesel fuels formulas in ROI and most of the EU have much less lubrication qualities and your engines will wear out faster . I dont give a rats a$$ about acid rain tripe the forest in Germany they told me 1980 would be destroyed by acid rain by ~2000 are still there and the acid rain problem was all invented crap.

Recirculation of fuel was done for getting better MPG period end of story .about 80% of fuel is still burning as it exits the engine . If this fuel continues to burn outside the engine it will waste this fuel and will also create more NOx and other bad things which in the case of petrol engine the CAT will burn up. Recirculating this still burning fuel back into the engine will help burn this fuel again and help MPG . As side effect is that NOx will be less . Some engines will recirculate the same fuel up to five times . Now if you think putting burning fuel back into a engine will not have detrimental effects to the engine wear in the long term then your clearly not smoking my fumes from my 1993 ~300,000 kilometer 2 liter Toyota Carina many of which have done over ~500,000 miles ~800kK in the 1990 era when diesel fuel was real diesel fuel and real cars did not recirculate crappy fumes back into their inyards .

The dirty little secret of the modern diesel is they took a great technology and F****D it up on purpose to get people to replace cars more often .

Thats not counting the other harder to prove methods like softer metals in engines, rubber and plastic hoses that perish faster more corrosive brake fluid oil to eats brake pipes faster and the unnecessary extra electronics made with chips that have life times of 7 years designed to be too expensive to replace seven year later when they go AWOL .

Its not just diesels that wont go as far it petrol cars also with the many tricks they do to get cars to turn to scrap heaps at 7 years old with 100,000 kilometers on the clock


let me guess your problem you want to keep the resale of your Diesel car higher... ha ha


Ralf

Oh my, your persecution complex is pretty strong.

I did not repost your bilge with a mild twist. Your post was full of factual errors.

In the interests of sparing your blushes further, I've done 2 university degree theses on biofuels, biodiesel in particular. I know what I'm talking about here, you clearly don't.

Sulphur was removed from diesel due to its contribution to air pollution, acid rain in particular. The soot reduction was incidental though welcome. It was removed long before particulate filters were on sale.

Biodiesel's lubricity enhancing properties are well established. A quick search of the scientific literature will show this.

EGR is an emissions reduction technology. It tends to reduce fuel economy since it moves the engine away from its maximum efficiency.

While we're talking about efficiency, diesel engines are about 40 % efficient i.e. about 40 % of the fuel's energy is converted into mechanical power. The rest is lost as heat (as the second law of thermodynamics demands). Theoretical maximum efficiency for a diesel cycle is less than 60 % so we do pretty well.

And no, I'm not trying to preserve the value of a modern diesel car - I'm driving a '99 Passat TDI. What I am trying to do is tackle ignorance and misleading information. There are reasons to be wary of modern diesel fuel and diesel engines, but making stuff up doesn't help the discussion.

ianobrien

Markcheese wrote: »

Was told last week it's losing around 1million a week.... So when their contract is up it won't last long (unless theirs a whacking great subsidy paid
out..) Phillis 66 recently took it off the market as well ...

It's a long time since I worked there in the labs.......

debabyjesus

dgt wrote: »

Any diesel I've had, I've disconnected the EGR. Its resulted in better MPG. Its to clean up emissions, not to save suel

Go figure

Same here clean everthing out then blank that fcuker off. Whats the point in intercoolers if you pump hot exhaust back in at the end.

Afn and xud best diesels going. Vag afn being my favourite, easy mod, great mpg, ultra reliable.

dr.fuzzenstein

corglass wrote: »

Best diesel engine of the last 20 years guys? All things (mpg, reliability, ease of maintenance, power etc.)

2.0 Toyota diesel (1993-1997)
2.0 TD Toyota (1997-2001)
1.9 VAG (pre 2001)
1.9 TDI (post 2001)
2.0 TDI (post 2005)
Any other contenders?

Ford 1.8 (previously 1.6) diesel engine.
Between the 1980's 1.6 up to my current '06 1.8 and many inbetween I drove many hundreds of thousands of kilometers and never had a single issue with that engine. Had two of the 1980's 1.6 VAG diesel engines and they fell apart and where pissing every fluid at the end as well as burning gallons of oil.
The Ford unit burns next to none, less than a liter in 20k km. The current one has done 300k km and, apart from a leaky fuel line, never gone wrong or missed a beat.

CJhaughey

corglass wrote: »

Best diesel engine of the last 20 years guys? All things (mpg, reliability, ease of maintenance, power etc.)

2.0 Toyota diesel (1993-1997)
2.0 TD Toyota (1997-2001)
1.9 VAG (pre 2001)
1.9 TDI (post 2001)
2.0 TDI (post 2005)
Any other contenders?

Toyota 12-HT
Probably the best diesel engine Toyota ever fitted to the Landcruiser.

JohnBoy26

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Ford 1.8 (previously 1.6) diesel engine.
Between the 1980's 1.6 up to my current '06 1.8 and many inbetween I drove many hundreds of thousands of kilometers and never had a single issue with that engine. Had two of the 1980's 1.6 VAG diesel engines and they fell apart and where pissing every fluid at the end as well as burning gallons of oil.
The Ford unit burns next to none, less than a liter in 20k km. The current one has done 300k km and, apart from a leaky fuel line, never gone wrong or missed a beat.

You must of had 2 poorly maintained, abused engines with very high miles because those old vag diesels were excellent where reliability was concerned.

jimgoose

debabyjesus wrote: »

Same here clean everthing out then blank that fcuker off. Whats the point in intercoolers if you pump hot exhaust back in at the end...

I believe the idea is to actually lower combustion temperatures thus emitting less nitrogen oxides. The modern ones use coolers on the recirculated gas.

jimgoose

derry wrote: »

...if you think putting burning fuel back into a engine will not have detrimental effects to the engine wear...

I'd say burning fuel is something engine internals are just going to have to put up with for another while! Granted this is relative new on the induction side, but I would imagine the modern turbo diesel use similar high-temp alloys for inlet valves as well as exhaust valves, not to mention manifolds, to cope with the modern EGR setup.

dr.fuzzenstein

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

You must of had 2 poorly maintained, abused engines with very high miles because those old vag diesels were excellent where reliability was concerned.

I did buy them with high mileage already on them, not sure about the maintenance. The one thing I'd say about them, they where overstressed in a VW T3 Transporter.
Having said that, I would like to try VAG diesels in the future, wouldn't mind owning a Passat or A4 estate with the 1.9 diesel and see what they're like.

But as far as indestructibility is concerned, if I had to buy a car with an engine that I KNOW will get me to the ends of the earth, will do decent MPG, won't burn much oil, is powerful enough to do the job, well I already have.
1980's Ford Escort Breadvan with the 1.6 (ok, not powerful and the car was terrible), 2 '04 TDDI Focuses, 1 '00 Focus TDDI and the current '06 CMax TDCI (115 hp), I have done 100k km or more in each of them and so far, touch wood, very little has gone wrong with the cars and nothing's gone wrong with the engine.
Ford is very much the overlooked contender here.

Poulgorm

George Dalton wrote: »

Your point being?

They make a hell of a lot more money maintaining diesels rather than petrol engines.

Gazzmonkey

Poulgorm wrote: »

They make a hell of a lot more money maintaining diesels rather than petrol engines.

Would there be more diesels than petrols in the country? if so, then that would be one reason why!

Assuming your statement was correct that is

GTDolanator

dgt wrote: »

XUD
Fiat/Sofim diesel
Mercedes OM series
Cummins BT series

Real diesel engines I'll probably get shot down for by dimwits who haven't a clue :rolleyes:

Yes,but how about a big durty detroit 2 stroker?

absolute filth...but i love em!