Diesel's days are numbered.

joe912

if putting kerosene in a car helps it pass the test by lowering emissions why not make it legal to drive on kero

jimgoose

dieselbug wrote: »

My first diesel was an 86 Granada conversion, I stuck a Nissan 2.5 in it from an Urvan.

Now that did make a bit of noise, a form of music really.

Did you replace a Cologne V6?

jimgoose

joe912 wrote: »

if putting kerosene in a car helps it pass the test by lowering emissions why not make it legal to drive on kero

This man is quite right, and I think he should be elected quaaare lively.

rebel.ranter

Yaaay! That is all.

dieselbug

jimgoose wrote: »

Did you replace a Cologne V6?

No, she had a standard 2.0 ohc (remember) on a gas conversion.

I fitted the same engine to another Granada later and she ended her life in a banger race on the track in Rosegreen.

I did have a V6 that I tendered for from the corcoration in Clonmel, she had been abandoned. Most valuable part was the carburettor, big in demand at the time.

Micky 32

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/627c6812-7faf-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0.html



Can't say I'm disappointed myself. Diesel MPG figures have been hugely manipulated by the manufacturers for years.

Even so, the difference is something for them to boast about. I had a 200bhp petrol turbo and now own a 200bhp turbodiesel and it averages 17-18mpg more!

Long Time Lurker

Holy historic thread revival batman.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/uk-france-and-germany-lobbied-for-flawed-car-emissions-tests-documents-reveal

But seriously some of The arguments put forwards agaisnt my (and my like minded allies) original post just look hollow after this. Then it was my suspicion. Now its fact. Diesel numbers are just fallacy and they're killing us faster than we think.

The machine (EU) and its heavily lobbied by the European car industry officials have just caved and submitted on this one. All diesel figures are simply nonsense. The game is up. Petrol is on the way back baby :-)

NIMAN

.. but what if the petrol emission figures are being fudged too!

Long Time Lurker

NIMAN wrote: »

.. but what if the petrol emission figures are being fudged too!

They are. We know this already because of the systems in place in the EU to measure the results. Only problem is though that the diesel deviations are far more skewed. Their NOx emmison levels are off the scale and just weren't been properly monitored and that is really bad for all of us. T' was great news though for Fritz and one in three other Germans who was directly or indirectly employed by the motor trade, mostly diesel engined cars. Me wonders why!

Long Time Lurker

Ironically what the Yanks were measuring (NOx) was always dismissed because their industry is largely big petrol burning cars so they pretty much had a bias on favour of large Co2 emmiting cars. So yes their system was also biased. Small petrols sorts this problem though and in European terms it is far cleaner to the environment than all the diesles we have running around just like in Ireland at the moment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx

R.O.R

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Ironically what the Yanks were measuring (NOx) was always dismissed because their industry is largely big petrol burning cars so they pretty much had a bias on favour of large Co2 emmiting cars. So yes their system was also biased. Small petrols sorts this problem though and in European terms it is far cleaner to the environment than all the diesles we have running around just like in Ireland at the moment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx

Small, direct injection petrols?

http://articles.sae.org/13624/

It may be surprising to learn that the modern gasoline direct-injection (GDI) engines in today’s passenger cars can emit more hazardous fine particulate matter than a port fuel-injected engine (PFI), or even the latest heavy-duty diesels equipped with a particulate filter

The particles that are released by GDI engines are smaller and more varied in size than diesel particles, Storey noted. And since these ultrafine particles (UFPs) are just on the heavy end of smoke size-wise, they can penetrate deeper into lungs, thus posing greater health risks

Just a different way to kill people, but the same net result.

Long Time Lurker

R.O.R wrote: »

Just a different way to kill people, but the same net result.

Oh ultimately yes. Different route and depending on capacities and outputs the speed at which we're killing ourselves will vary. Its just the nonsense about diesel being somehow more environmentally friendly seems to be in the end game. But yeah, freeze to death or burn to death :-)

Leonard Hofstadter

And why do direct injection petrols exist? Because of the bloody CO2 emissions. Direct injection is a way of improving fuel consumption and power at the same time. It works particularly well at improving on-paper fuel consumption when combined with a turbocharger, hence the recent upsurge in car manufacturers offering turbo petrols with direct injection.

Direct injection petrols, while not perfect, do not emit anything like the amount of NOx or PM (they are not allowed to under EU law for starters) that a diesel does. So they are still a big improvement on diesel. But an old school petrol is the cleanest of them all for human health. There are still some available, but sadly they're almost all three cylinder 1.0 NA units, though Toyota still offer port injection petrol engines right across their entire lineup (even in Ireland), the drawback of this obviously is this involves having to drive and own a Toyota though. Some direct injection petrols (for example the new 1.2 turbo Toyota engine) actually can go back to port injection depending on engine load etc.

jimgoose

GDI setups tend to move injector pulse timing farther back into the intake stroke the harder the engine works, as well as increasing dwell-times. This increases the swirl/squish effect, as well as running cooler as the petrol "flashes". So oddly enough, they're at their least polluting, in terms of both NOx and particulate matter, with the toe down past the carpet. So if any of you have invested, or are going to, in one of these things, please think of the children and focking floor it, Fintan!

Micky 32

" Diesel engines produce much less NOx than standard petrol cars of old but twice as much as newer catalysed petrol cars. HOWEVER , catalyst efficiency falls quiet quickly so that after about 30,000 miles NOx emissions from diesel and petrol are quite similiar, after which the diesel pulls ahead ". So with that reckoning over a 10 year life span the petrol will probably have emitted at least the same if not more NOx. That's a comparison for like for like not against a USA 3.0 L suv, Mustang, Dodges and BMW's that does 15-20mpg...

I'm over and back to the USA a lot and on the highways there are an awful lot of 18 wheelers whizzing around at 80+mph with no restricters on them. Every one of them i have seen kick out puffs and clouds of black smoke from there chimneys. It's clear there is no real emissions systems fitted to them and they're making a big deal over a piddly little 2 litre diesel engine with a fairly sophisticated emissions system fitted??

Obviously it is wrong for car makers to fraud people but i think, IMO, someone is rubbing their hands and seeing this as a handy easy way to get a few billion off a rich car company...even at the cost of damaging their reputation..

jimgoose

Micky 32 wrote: »

" Diesel engines produce much less NOx than standard petrol cars of old but twice as much as newer catalysed petrol cars. HOWEVER , catalyst efficiency falls quiet quickly so that after about 30,000 miles...

Nearly all petrol cars with three-way cats include a downstream O2 sensor per-cat, and the OBD-II system will throw fault code P0420 as soon as the efficiency of the cat degrades to a certain level.

Micky 32

jimgoose wrote: »

Nearly all petrol cars with three-way cats include a downstream O2 sensor per-cat, and the OBD-II system will throw fault code P0420 as soon as the efficiency of the cat degrades to a certain level.

Maybe so but the amount of people i see that drive around with the engine light on for ages is quite high due to the high cost of replacing a cat. "Ah sure i'll throw a bottle of diptane in and all will be grand " Also i wonder what the level is before light activation?

jimgoose

Micky 32 wrote: »

Maybe so but the amount of people i see that drive around with the engine light on for ages is quite high due to the high cost of replacing a cat. "Ah sure i'll throw a bottle of diptane in and all will be grand "

Yeah. And oddly enough, I'm told a MIL showing in a petrol car isn't an NCT failure. Go figure. :pac:

Tippjohn

Soon ( if it ever arrives) getting my new Insignia whisper engine with blue NOX converter ( via glorified urea). As diesel has a higher calorific value than petrol and the thing is euro 5 compliant, I have either got an expensive lulu or a good vehicle.
Worked on the original Cats 40 years ago, we knew the platinum was more dangerous than co2 but had to go "european" to destroy the USA lean burn petrol engines. A short appraisal of reality.
Mind you would not have purchased it without a good deal and 5 year warrenty. Let you know how I find it after a month or so.

shedweller

I've been trying to figure out nox emissions lately. I see various graphs and articles saying its about 0.8g/km but on what, a bus or a jaysus polo??
Surely the amount of diesel consumed plays a part? Very difficult info to find.

Tippjohn

There is a wealth of information out there. Most of it rather complex. Simplified it is dangerous to life as is most things. Ignored by car manufacturers who had to design on the basis of know all, know little, coercive civil servents. Those in control said work on CO2, so they did.
No point in trying to be fair and point out other environmental concerns.
To get round the proposed return to petrol engines, the manufacturers, who had put much into producing diesel engines, as demanded, decided to prempt the legislation.
By injecting blue liquid ( glorified urea) into the gases, NOX is converted. Having removed CO2 by catalytic means and by the use of a "soot trap" which incinerates heavy particulate, the new engines are cleaner.
The cost of the technology to make this happen is very high. The products are causing pollution by being manufactured.
The fact that platinum migrates from the converter into the atmosphere( being heavy it drops out) is ignored.
All in all a great sustaining of for platinum commodities in the past when gold etc was dropping.
Cars are very efficient at cruising speed, not so efficient at slow speed. Parking and walking a few hudred yards would save a lot of pollution.
As would turning engines off when stationary ( stop start engines do that already)
Rather than penalise in tax it would be better to encourage users of old cars to buy better ones.

NIMAN

I don't think diesel's days are numbered at all, not unless the Gov's raise road tax dramatically on them. Thats the main reason people buy diesels in Ireland.

jimgoose

Tippjohn wrote: »

...Rather than penalise in tax it would be better to encourage users of old cars to buy better ones.

The car that is already built, and maintained properly, is the car with the least environmentally harmful. I'm reminded of my idjit brother-in-law trying to convince me to do the Wonderful Bill Cullen Coddle-Waddioh Scrappage Scheme to get a new 1.5 diesel Fluence back in 2011. :pac::pac::pac:

Tippjohn

Maintained properly is the clue. However most cars in the last 10 years are very difficult to maintain yourself. Screws and fixings have been made to confound. There gets a time when a car is not ecconomically viable and one thing after the other fails. Parts can be a nightmare with spurious ones abounding.

selectamatic

free pic

Almost everything is transported around the world in these.


image sharing

This is how china creates electricity


pic host

Yet the minute anyone see's one of these it's the ol "think of the environment" argument.

Tippjohn

My thoughts entirely. Why this government penalises 4 million people for emmissions, when a Billion in the East are cooking on open fires and destroying the environment to provide us with junk, defies logic. Our car taxes are really buying bovine emmisions.

jimgoose

Tippjohn wrote: »

My thoughts entirely. Why this government penalises 4 million people for emmissions, when a Billion in the East are cooking on open fires and destroying the environment to provide us with junk, defies logic. Our car taxes are really buying bovine emmisions.

Mmm. We in the "developed" West do seem to be completely in awe of ourselves. :pac:

dr.fuzzenstein

jimgoose wrote: »

Mmm. We in the "developed" West do seem to be completely in awe of ourselves. :pac:

Course, wo wir sind, ist vorn!
But I would argue that we are slightly more environmentally conscious than countries like China and India, who would have built 23 coal powered and 17 nuclear powered stations by the time we decide on what color paper to use for the lunch menu in the cantine at Brussels.
Well, if diesel is dead, i can't wait for those petrol powered airplanes, trucks, tractors, harvesters, buses, trains, ships, diggers, industrial plant, generators and let's not forget:
Houses being heated by diesel and kerosene.
If you're heating your house with that sh*t, there is no cat, no filter and the injection system is crude to say the least. This will push heating costs up just a tiny bit (at least a three fold increase), but you hate diesel, right? If you want to get rid of it, you can't heat your house with heating oil or kerosene.
Diesel cars make up a small percentage of overall use, so to completely eradicate diesel, we would have to get rid of all of the above.
I have written this exact post several times now and strangely enough it gets very, very strenuously ignored every single time by the "diesel is dead" brigade, so I expect the usual deafening silence, followed by someone saying "anyways, dem diesels are terrible, aren't they?"
I will keep this post in a text file and just copy and paste it into this thread from time to time.

EazyD

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Course, wo wir sind, ist vorn!
But I would argue that we are slightly more environmentally conscious than countries like China and India, who would have built 23 coal powered and 17 nuclear powered stations by the time we decide on what color paper to use for the lunch menu in the cantine at Brussels.
Well, if diesel is dead, i can't wait for those petrol powered airplanes, trucks, tractors, harvesters, buses, trains, ships, diggers, industrial plant, generators and let's not forget:
Houses being heated by diesel and kerosene.
If you're heating your house with that sh*t, there is no cat, no filter and the injection system is crude to say the least. This will push heating costs up just a tiny bit (at least a three fold increase), but you hate diesel, right? If you want to get rid of it, you can't heat your house with heating oil or kerosene.
Diesel cars make up a small percentage of overall use, so to completely eradicate diesel, we would have to get rid of all of the above.
I have written this exact post several times now and strangely enough it gets very, very strenuously ignored every single time by the "diesel is dead" brigade, so I expect the usual deafening silence, followed by someone saying "anyways, dem diesels are terrible, aren't they?"
I will keep this post in a text file and just copy and paste it into this thread from time to time.

The commercial use of diesel will of course continue but I don't think anyone can argue that the "diesel movement" has been anything but a total farce.

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

...the "diesel is dead" brigade...

Just in case you were thinking it, I'm not a "Diesel is dead" merchant - I'm more of a "Diesel is somewhat overrated and often mis-sold as the Great Automotive White Hope to people who have no business of it" merchant .