Is diesel cleaner than petrol (to burn)

snaps

What with all this new EU stuff coming out that diesel cars need to be punished for climate change etc etc, I was always under the impression diesel was cleaner than petrol to use?
So what exactly are these EU monkeys prattling on about?
Is it just another cash cow (as diesel cars are very popular now), or are the emmisions on diesels that bad?

Interslice

snaps wrote: »

What with all this new EU stuff coming out that diesel cars need to be punished for climate change etc etc, I was always under the impression diesel was cleaner than petrol to use?
So what exactly are these EU monkeys prattling on about?
Is it just another cash cow (as diesel cars are very popular now), or are the emmisions on diesels that bad?

They smell worse.

Johnny K

When you say emissions you refer to emissions of CO2 however this is not the only emission and diesel burnt is supposed to produce particles which are detrimental to people's health when you breathe them in.

Into The Blue

Lower carbon dioxide, but much higher nitrogen dioxide, so this will be used us the next cash cow/danger to the planet.

snaps

Interslice wrote: »

They smell worse.

They certainly do. I've a vw Passat 1.9tdi 2002 and that smells a lot worse than my Citroen C5 1.6hdi I had.

650Ginge

snaps wrote: »

What with all this new EU stuff coming out that diesel cars need to be punished for climate change etc etc, I was always under the impression diesel was cleaner than petrol to use?
So what exactly are these EU monkeys prattling on about?
Is it just another cash cow (as diesel cars are very popular now), or are the emmisions on diesels that bad?

EU monkeys but your the one that thought diesel is cleaner than petrol???.

Special Circumstances

snaps wrote: »

I was always under the impression diesel was cleaner than petrol to use?

This interests me - how do people form this opinion? Media? Green policies? I'm not having a go at you, I would genuinely like to know how people were herded into this one.

snaps wrote: »

So what exactly are these EU monkeys prattling on about?

To take an extreme example. Take something like ethanol in one container and filter used chip oil in another. One is very combustible and burns off cleanly. One is a fecker to get going and burns off with smuts of black smoke and leaves residue. (I'm guessing a bit here).

One of these fuels can be used in a diesel engine.

Take a look around you the next time you are in city traffic. That work van with the horrible cloud coming out the back?? Do you honesty think "that's petrol because it's dirty"? That passat or mondeo cruising along with intermittent smuts of black smoke??? You think that's clean???

Why would anyone with any scientific credibility encourage more and more and more diesel engines in an urban environment? (For sure they have applications where they are the best choice, this is not an anti diesel rant, it's an anti ill thought out greeny waffle rant)

Do you consider yourself an environmentally conscious person snaps?

snaps

Well in the uk some diesel cars have zero road tax because of emmisions?
That's where I based my opinion on.

I am actually quite environmentally friendly, but I won't be rushing out to buy an electric car or change my engine choice.

I recycle nearly everything and burn more wood than coal at winter.

snaps

Also I know this EU ruling or whatever it is mainly targets big city's, so if the diesel pollution is that bad in city's, will kerosene and oil central heating be punished too as that's effectivally the same thing?

Voodoomelon

The cheap tax has made everyone believe that diesels are cleaner. It also has everyone thinking they're more reliable and the only sane choice. Incentives makes people believe certain things, whether they're true or not.

snaps

Voodoomelon wrote: »

The cheap tax has made everyone believe that diesels are cleaner. It also has everyone thinking they're more reliable and the only sane choice. Incentives makes people believe certain things, whether they're true or not.

It was only time when the diesels got so popular they would become a dirty enviromental pest and then thus become a new cash cow for green taxes.

Special Circumstances

snaps wrote: »

Well in the uk some diesel cars have zero road tax because of emmisions?
That's where I based my opinion on.

I am actually quite environmentally friendly, but I won't be rushing out to buy an electric car or change my engine choice.

I recycle nearly everything and burn more wood than coal at winter.

Good, an environmentally conscious person should be able to see the bigger picture on vehicle emissions.

Where do you stand on CO2 emissions from vehicles?
a) the biggest threat humanity has ever faced, it must be reduced no matter what the implications? No matter what soot smuts and particulates we must create to reduce CO2?
b) a non toxic gas used by plants to photosynthesise and produce oxygen? But a non toxic gas that is easy to measure/tax.

mickdw

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Good, an environmentally conscious person should be able to see the bigger picture on vehicle emissions.

Where do you stand on CO2 emissions from vehicles?
a) the biggest threat humanity has ever faced, it must be reduced no matter what the implications? No matter what soot smuts and particulates we must create to reduce CO2?
b) a non toxic gas used by plants to photosynthesise and produce oxygen? But a non toxic gas that is easy to measure/tax.

This is what I never understood. Why is co2 regarded as the big enemy? And even if levels need to be controlled, why not allow the average man in the street to offset his car emissions by planting trees etc.
I wouldnt mind setting a few trees if it meant I got free tax on a porsche.

MadYaker

Diesel is less refined than petrol, thats the reason its cheaper to buy. But it burns a lot dirtier. Lower CO2 than petrol but higher amounts of other toxic gases. Thats why London and a few other cities were (are?) considering banning diesel engines altogether.

Special Circumstances

snaps wrote: »

It was only time when the diesels got so popular they would become a dirty enviromental pest and then thus become a new cash cow for green taxes.

Were diesel engines not always regarded as agricultural/industrial implements to be used where torque and efficiency outweighed the noise and filth?

snaps

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Good, an environmentally conscious person should be able to see the bigger picture on vehicle emissions.

Where do you stand on CO2 emissions from vehicles?
a) the biggest threat humanity has ever faced, it must be reduced no matter what the implications? No matter what soot smuts and particulates we must create to reduce CO2?
b) a non toxic gas used by plants to photosynthesise and produce oxygen? But a non toxic gas that is easy to measure/tax.

I do agree with pollutions need to be cut.

The problems I have with new eco powered cars is that there is no choice, the ones that are available are far too expensive.

Car manufacturers aren't really racing out new affordable electric or hybrid cars to compete with cheaper carbon emmiting equivelants.

At the end of the day motorists are always going to be held at ransom by governments looking for extra revenue.

SpaceTime

The big issue with diesel is it requires excellent maintenance to avoid particulate generation and that simply doesn't happen in the real world.

Petrol is much more distilled, so burns much more cleanly, but Diesel engines give you more power for less CO2 (although petrol is catching up)

Basically you're choosing between increasing particulate emissions (diesel) which are damaging to human health or increasing CO2 emissions (petrol) which is more contributions to global warming and climate change.

The law prioritised CO2 emissions through tax breaks for low CO2 cars such saw a spike in diesels and a major decline in air quality. This is a huge issue in mega cities like London and Paris where it's actually created a major problem.

Special Circumstances

mickdw wrote: »

This is what I never understood. Why is co2 regarded as the big enemy? And even if levels need to be controlled, why not allow the average man in the street to offset his car emissions by planting trees etc.
I wouldnt mind setting a few trees if it meant I got free tax on a porsche.

Naive greenies get their knickers in a twist over the planet warming ( this has never happened before like). They campaign to reduce CO2.

Do European auto manufacturers at the time respond with:
a) yes diesel has less co2 but lots of nasty implications that we haven't figured out how to solve. Jesus why do you think we use petrol for the desirable models?
b) we have a competitive advantage here over Japanese manufacturers. yeah we can definitely iron out a few small niggles no problem, city air, be grand like. Why do the Japanese not encourage diesel use in their very dense urban environments? Because they are silly. Diesel, diesel, diesel uber alles

snaps

Hasn't the big European car manufacterers decicided to phase out diesel engines and concentrate on small turbo charged petrol engines instead?

I thought I read or heard here on polish media that Mercedes and the french brands are going to do this.

Here in Poland there's a high percentage of diesels on the road. I think France has a huge diesel percentage on the roads.

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Good, an environmentally conscious person should be able to see the bigger picture on vehicle emissions.

Where do you stand on CO2 emissions from vehicles?
a) the biggest threat humanity has ever faced, it must be reduced no matter what the implications? No matter what soot smuts and particulates we must create to reduce CO2?
b) a non toxic gas used by plants to photosynthesise and produce oxygen? But a non toxic gas that is easy to measure/tax.

Its obviously (b) but there is a whole industry behind (a). It will take a few years yet until they 'refine' their arguments to come full circle.

visual

It's all cow ****e.

All this is means nothing other than taxes.

The biggest green house gas generator is cows farting and we are planning on having increased herd sizes and higher milk production

so squabble all you want between petrol and diesel it's about extracting as much tax out of motorist

the shift towards diesel with better mpg and cheaper tax. Revenue take was lowered became a issue. So force as many back to higher tax by getting them to switch back to petrol or higher taxes on diesels. As they can get the diesels on emissions introduction of a levy.
Ignore the fact that in cities that busses stuck in traffic is a big contributor and traffic management consists of delaying traffic flow by ensuring you drive stop start

want cleaner cities put in proper roads that can take the volume so vehicles aren't constantly stuck in stop start traffic for 2 hours each morning and evening.

Green policies are a tax and unnecessary burden on everyone.

gctest50

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Were diesel engines not always regarded as agricultural/industrial implements to be used where torque and efficiency outweighed the noise and filth?

bigger problem is the really tiny particles
- too tiny your lungs to filter out so some end up straight in your blood

househero

mickdw wrote: »

I wouldnt mind setting a few trees if it meant I got free tax on a porsche.

A few thousand trees?

Mechanical Clocktail

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Naive greenies get their knickers in a twist over the planet warming ( this has never happened before like). They campaign to reduce CO2.

The planet is not undergoing a natural climate change fluctuation. It is anthropogenic and there is no debate around that. It is also happening at a rate that will hugely damage ecosystems we rely on and precipitate the extinction of many species. It's not a laughing matter and people like you are the reason things will get worse.

I don't condemn anyone for using fuel but sheer ignorance is something else. Something will give in the next decade or so. Hopefully the divestment campaigns with regard to the oil industry that are currently on the go make an impact.

househero

visual wrote: »

The biggest green house gas generator is cows farting and we are planning on having increased herd sizes and higher milk production

Stop reading newspapers, they make you stupid.

The cows farting study was taken out of context. Did you read the study? It's since been thrown out as scientifically unrepeatable (bollox).

C02 was never the enemy. Taxing higher c02 cars increased new (lower c02) car sales. Which Germany benefitted from greatly and the government from new car registrations.

Mechanical Clocktail

househero wrote: »

Stop reading newspapers, they make you stupid.

The cows farting study was taken out of context. Did you read the study? It's since been thrown out as scientifically unrepeatable (bollox).

C02 was never the enemy. Taxing higher c02 cars increased new (lower c02) car sales. Which Germany benefitted from greatly and the government from new car registrations.

Carbon emissions are a huge problem. People using the issue to turn profit instead of tackling the problem is something else again. It's not a case of either/or.

Mechanical Clocktail

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

It is anthropogenic and there is no debate around that.

There is a huge debate around that.

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

people like you are the reason things will get worse.

Always ends up as attack the messenger.

Mechanical Clocktail

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a huge debate around that.

There isn't any debate, let alone huge debate. The only debate there is is generated by a minority of vested interests. A handfull of shills vs. 99.9% of the scientific community. I know the science involved in warming and there is no debate around it at all, but maybe you would like to provide some respectable references as to this "huge debate"?

Mechanical Clocktail

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

The planet is not undergoing a natural climate change fluctuation. It is anthropogenic and there is no debate around that. It is also happening at a rate that will hugely damage ecosystems we rely on and precipitate the extinction of many species. It's not a laughing matter and people like you are the reason things will get worse.

I don't condemn anyone for using fuel but sheer ignorance is something else. Something will give in the next decade or so. Hopefully the divestment campaigns with regard to the oil industry that are currently on the go make an impact.

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

There isn't any debate, let alone huge debate. The only debate there is is generated by a minority of vested interests. A handfull of shills vs. 99.9% of the scientific community. I know the science involved in warming and there is no debate around it at all, but maybe you would like to provide some respectable references as to this "huge debate"?

No. I'm not engaging.

Mechanical Clocktail

Deleted User wrote: »

No. I'm not engaging.

Not engaging with reality. Of course you're not, you don't have a leg to stand on. Ignorance, as I've said. I won't say anymore unless you want to go ahead and do some research and then get back to me about this mythical debate. Good luck with that.

CiniO

650Ginge wrote: »

EU monkeys but your the one that thought diesel is cleaner than petrol???.

But is it EU monkeys?

From what I can see, only UK and Ireland introduced taxation system strongly encouraging diesel cars.

I haven't seen that in other EU countries really.
There it's mostly based on Euro emission norms, which limit poisonous gases.
Like German Umweltzone environmental zones limiting older more poisoning vehicles into city centres (especially diesel) which were in place for quite a while.

Leonard Hofstadter

The latest diesels, the supposedly 'clean' Euro 6 ones, are only required to be as clean on Nitrous Oxide as a Euro 4 petrol. Euro 4 petrols were available as far back as 2001, and were compulsory from 2005 onwards.

So, they're not that clean at all. Then there is the well documented issue with particulates; petrols don't produce any (unless they are direct injection, which admittedly the majority of new ones are), diesels do.

One other myth is that diesel produces less CO2 than petrol. It does by virtue of the fact that typically it is 30% more fuel efficient than an equivalent petrol (though the gap is narrowing all the time). BUT, a litre of diesel contains 13% more CO2 than a litre of petrol. You wouldn't think that from the way the two fuels are taxed, though, but those are the facts.

A 50 mpg petrol is just as good for the planet as a diesel that does 56.5 mpg, but is far, far better for our health. The fact that the average four cylinder petrol is far nicer to drive than the average four cylinder diesel is just an added bonus from an enthusiast's perspective.

I'm pleased to see that this year there has been a slight shift back to petrol, while diesels are still clearly the favourite, with 70% of the market, this is down from last year's 74%. Long may the shift back to petrol continue.

househero

Why not charge a flat rate of road tax for all cars

And put pollutant tax on fuel

If your car uses less fuel or you drive less, you pollute less and pay less tax

househero

CiniO wrote: »

But is it EU monkeys?

From what I can see, only UK and Ireland introduced taxation system strongly encouraging diesel cars.

The UKs north sea crude oil is more suited to diesel fuel production.

CiniO

househero wrote: »

The UKs north sea crude oil is more suited to diesel fuel production.

But while UK encourages people to drive diesels, but diference between low CO2 diesel and high CO2 petrol in road tax is not that big there.
Also diesel fuel is actually more expensive than petrol, so that's another incentive gone.

Looks like Ireland is the country with taxation system encouraging diesel cars to the highest extend in the EU with horrendous rates of motortax for high CO2 cars (over 10 times more expensive than low CO2 diesel) and cheaper diesel fuel at the pumps comparing to petrol.

househero

househero wrote: »

The UKs north sea crude oil is more suited to diesel fuel production.

That explains the UK but what's Irelands excuse? Copy the UK and further gold plate it.?

ninty9er

snaps wrote: »

What with all this new EU stuff coming out that diesel cars need to be punished for climate change etc etc, I was always under the impression diesel was cleaner than petrol to use?
So what exactly are these EU monkeys prattling on about?
Is it just another cash cow (as diesel cars are very popular now), or are the emmisions on diesels that bad?

To answer the original question, every litre of diesel burnt generates more emissions, however most diesel engines burn fewer litres per 100km. g/100km is the measure on vehicles, however there is a g/l argument for higher pump taxes on diesel.

CiniO

ninty9er wrote: »

To answer the original question, every litre of diesel burnt generates more emissions, however most diesel engines burn fewer litres per 100km. g/100km is the measure on vehicles, however there is a g/l argument for higher pump taxes on diesel.

You are talking about CO2 emission, which is not poisonous at all, so it's irrelevant to OP's question.,

ninty9er

CiniO wrote: »

You are talking about CO2 emission, which is not poisonous at all, so it's irrelevant to OP's question.,

Also NOX missions

househero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That explains the UK but what's Irelands excuse? Copy the UK and further gold plate it.?

Yea I don't understand that. Brown envelope job lads hahaha.

Special Circumstances

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That explains the UK but what's Irelands excuse? Copy the UK and further gold plate it.?

The Green party. Too busy ramming diesel cars and CFL light bulbs down our throats to stop the country being sold out. Oh sorry, the tax free bikes were a decent idea in fairness.

Hachiko

snaps wrote: »

What with all this new EU stuff coming out that diesel cars need to be punished for climate change etc etc, I was always under the impression diesel was cleaner than petrol to use?
So what exactly are these EU monkeys prattling on about?
Is it just another cash cow (as diesel cars are very popular now), or are the emmisions on diesels that bad?

diesels are dirty, smell awful and have very nasty and naughty (cancerous) emissions.

On the flip side they have lower co2 emissions and thats why every man and his dog in Ireland is buying them because low c02 = cheaaap tax

long and short of it is buy a petrol if you want more refined civilised motoring, if you are used to farming go buy a diesel.

My car has a nifty auto recirculate function part of its climate control, without fail every time I am behind a diesel it switches from outside air to recirculate, its a nice feature and stops all that nasty crap getting into my cabin.

Hachiko

captainspeed wrote: »

The latest diesels, the supposedly 'clean' Euro 6 ones, are only required to be as clean on Nitrous Oxide as a Euro 4 petrol. Euro 4 petrols were available as far back as 2001, and were compulsory from 2005 onwards.

So, they're not that clean at all. Then there is the well documented issue with particulates; petrols don't produce any (unless they are direct injection, which admittedly the majority of new ones are), diesels do.

One other myth is that diesel produces less CO2 than petrol. It does by virtue of the fact that typically it is 30% more fuel efficient than an equivalent petrol (though the gap is narrowing all the time). BUT, a litre of diesel contains 13% more CO2 than a litre of petrol. You wouldn't think that from the way the two fuels are taxed, though, but those are the facts.

A 50 mpg petrol is just as good for the planet as a diesel that does 56.5 mpg, but is far, far better for our health. The fact that the average four cylinder petrol is far nicer to drive than the average four cylinder diesel is just an added bonus from an enthusiast's perspective.

I'm pleased to see that this year there has been a slight shift back to petrol, while diesels are still clearly the favourite, with 70% of the market, this is down from last year's 74%. Long may the shift back to petrol continue.

alas, most of the general public will still buy diesels for reasons only known to them, mostly what they hear in a pub on what latest diesel car the neighbor got.

Petrols have a superior rev band over diesels too, once diesels get over the initial torque band that sees them blast away at lights (and leave people in a plume of soot) they quickly run out of steam where most petrols can freely rev up high into the 7k/8k range in comfort.

Special Circumstances

Hachiko wrote: »

My car has a nifty auto recirculate function part of its climate control, without fail every time I am behind a diesel it switches from outside air to recirculate, its a nice feature and stops all that nasty crap getting into my cabin.

That is a great feature! Wish mine had it. Hate being stuck behind them, I have to manually switch mine to recirc. And get ahead of the filthy f**kers ASAP.

shedweller

Hachiko wrote: »

alas, most of the general public will still buy diesels for reasons only known to them, mostly what they hear in a pub on what latest diesel car the neighbor got.

Petrols have a superior rev band over diesels too, once diesels get over the initial torque band that sees them blast away at lights (and leave people in a plume of soot) they quickly run out of steam where most petrols can freely rev up high into the 7k/8k range in comfort.

Thats fierce civilised driving there. Your point is valid of course, but getting your engine up to those rpms means danger for you and everybody around you. Well, i cant imagine a garda would be too happy about it.
As for diesels being dirtier. Yup. But i'm spending waay less per year to commute to work in my diesel car vs petrol. I have way too many bills to pay.

Special Circumstances

shedweller wrote: »

Thats fierce civilised driving there. Your point is valid of course, but getting your engine up to those rpms means danger for you and everybody around you. Well, i cant imagine a garda would be too happy about it.

????????
I know a lot of people think that revving a car over 2.5k rpm will result in instant death, but I had expected posters in a motors forum to realise that there are genuine cases where high rpm are better and, contrary to RSA dogma, higher speed is safer.

shedweller

Special Circumstances wrote: »

????????
I know a lot of people think that revving a car over 2.5k rpm will result in instant death, but I had expected posters in a motors forum to realise that there are genuine cases where high rpm are better and, contrary to RSA dogma, higher speed is safer.

An example or two would be great. Real world stuff, not nurburgring stuff.
And if you're having to redline the car to overtake then you shouldnt have a licence.
Bear in mind i do rev my own car now and then but not all day!
And how the fcuk is higher speed safer? You're familiar with physics, no? Read up on it.

snaps

The governments must be laughing. They know that everyone is buying diesels so they just know what will be the next tax cash cow. Either slap a levy on diesel at the pumps (will hit hgvs) or a levy on the motor tax. Its win win for the governments......while Joe soap sits at home thinking "why did I buy that diesel yoke"!

Special Circumstances

shedweller wrote: »

An example or two would be great. Real world stuff, not nurburgring stuff.
And if you're having to redline the car to overtake then you shouldnt have a licence.
Bear in mind i do rev my own car now and then but not all day!
And how the fcuk is higher speed safer? You're familiar with physics, no? Read up on it.

Whats the acceptable rpm to stop revving at? 50% of ecu limited rev range? 75%? On those occasions when you need to gain speed (shpeeeeed!!! You'll kill us all with the shpeeeeed! !!!) quickly like.

I'm not a huge fan of people who lumber out onto the motorway at 70 or 80 kmph ( shur high shpeed kills like) having dutifully changed up at 2k.

Kilometer long overtake wouldn't be my idea of safe driving but shur hey... shpeeeeed kiiiiiilllls!!!

Foxhole Norman

shedweller wrote: »

An example or two would be great. Real world stuff, not nurburgring stuff.
And if you're having to redline the car to overtake then you shouldnt have a licence.
Bear in mind i do rev my own car now and then but not all day!
And how the fcuk is higher speed safer? You're familiar with physics, no? Read up on it.

My car doesn't hit peak power until 6K and I enjoy hitting that every day! Cars are made to be revved, it does the engine no harm once it's warmed up.

ianobrien

shedweller wrote: »

And if you're having to redline the car to overtake then you shouldnt have a licence.

You want max power when overtaking. If that means redlining it you redline it. You need the maximum power as you want to be travelling for as little time as possible in the other carriageway.

Or we could do it your way and spend 30 seconds in the opposite carriageway when overtaking. Which is safer?