Why are petrols 'dirtier' than diesels?

NIMAN

If you look at the CO2 emission figures for cars, we have diesels around 90g whereas the best petrols tend to be around 110g upwards, resulting in higher road tax of course.

No I know that diesels employ DPFs to lower the emissions, as diesel is dirtier than petrol.

So if petrol starts off cleaner than diesel, how come we can't fit some sort of DPF to petrols to get their emissions down? Surely if we can get diesel to 90g then we should have petrol cars in the 80g ballpark?

colm_mcm

Co2 isn't dirty.

NIMAN

Right?

So if diesel is meant to be the dirty fuel, why are its emissions lower?

Seth Brundle

NIMAN wrote: »

Right?

So if diesel is meant to be the dirty fuel, why are its emissions lower?

It depends on the emissions that you test for.

colm_mcm

NIMAN wrote: »

Right?

So if diesel is meant to be the dirty fuel, why are its emissions lower?

You're only measuring co2 though, there's a lot more than that coming out the pipe. This is news to the EU it seems.


Simple and probably incorrect analogy. But it's like comparing burning tyres and burning wood. You can't assume that the tyres are producing more co2.

NIMAN

So petrols are dirtier than diesels for a certain gas? And its the one we base our tax system on?

Rusky rusky

NIMAN wrote: »

Right?

So if diesel is meant to be the dirty fuel, why are its emissions lower?

Lower CO2 and CO, but loads more NOx and soot, hence dirty

colm_mcm

Yes, they produce more co2. As in the stuff you breathe out.

Pugzilla

Diesels are dirtier. Just looking at the exhaust smoke is enough for a layman to draw that conclusion.

martyc5674

NIMAN wrote: »

So if petrol starts off cleaner than diesel, how come we can't fit some sort of DPF to petrols to get their emissions down?

That would be a PPF surely?

NIMAN

colm_mcm wrote: »

Yes, they produce more co2. As in the stuff you breathe out.

So we are measuring a harmless gas?

Special Circumstances

Clean Diesel lol. I assume you worship at the church of VAG.

EU "environmental" policy is weighted to favour the engines the french and Germans are good at and punish manufacturers with zero demand for diesel in their home markets.

It's an economic policy disguised as an environmental one. I don't even think any green with an ounce of common sense thinks they are better for the environment any more. But people will buy them as long as they make economic sense due to subsidy on subsidy for dervs and penalty on penalty for petrol.

Also, of course there are the fetishists who believe a 4 pot diesel is simultaneously whisper quiet and sounds better than a petrol, depending on which argument they are countering.
This is of course why every manufacturer makes sure to use the sound from a 4 pot diesel in their advertising, audis r8 to the moon ad being the most recent example..... lol.

Toyotafanboi

NIMAN wrote: »

So we are measuring a harmless gas?

No, it's nore like Co2 is long term bad but NoX is short term bad.

Co2 is bad news for the polar bears but NoX is bad newd for anyone that lives in a built up area.

Special Circumstances

NIMAN wrote: »

So we are measuring a harmless gas?

Plants absolutely must have it to photosynthesise.


Honestly. .. is this news to you? Surely you are just winding us up?

Special Circumstances

Pugzilla wrote: »

Diesels are dirtier. Just looking at the exhaust smoke is enough for a layman to draw that conclusion.

I can tell you are not a member of the Green party! I have to wonder... what else do they believe in if they believe diesel is good for you.

Special Circumstances

Buy diesel, it's good for you! It's so clean!*




*terms and conditions apply. Even our latest regulations on diesel are prehistoric compared to petrol on anything but co2. Even we don't believe the results of the light touch tests. Here, have a subsidy, did we mention they are clean?

Leonard Hofstadter

Petrols are worse for the planet (higher CO2 emissions), so reducing the amount of CO2 is desirable. Diesels are dreadful for human health (cancer and respiratory problems), this has been proven many times over but the EU chooses to ignore it.

Sesshoumaru

Most people buying diesels don't do huge mileage. The average daily trip for a European car driver is something as low as 30 to 40 kilometers per day. Diesels are good for people who cover a lot distance. I think petrol PHEV cars like the BMW 330e or Hyundai Ioniq will be much more suitable for most of these people. For sure they won't get anywhere near the claimed fuel economy figures on long journeys, but most people won't be using them for long journeys and in and around cities they'll use next to no fuel.

It will be better for the environment and better for people living in cities not to have to inhale cancer fumes from diesel cars.

Atlantic Dawn

Diesels don't undergo any measurement of emissions for the NCT, pure crazy carry on.

CiniO

NIMAN wrote: »

So we are measuring a harmless gas?

Pretty much.
CO2 exists in air we breathe at rate of around 0.039%.
Trees and plants use it for breathing and convert it to oxygen.

NIMAN

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Diesels don't undergo any measurement of emissions for the NCT, pure crazy carry on.

Surely this can't be right.

Every car in the NCT that I seen gets soimething stuck up its exhaust pipe.

You saying they don't do that on diesels on the NCT?

CiniO

Special Circumstances wrote: »

EU "environmental" policy is weighted to favour the engines the french and Germans are good at and punish manufacturers with zero demand for diesel in their home markets.

You are saying that it's EU environmental policy to favour low CO2 engines which are mostly diesels.

But what policy is that?
Only few countries in EU have motoring taxation favouring low CO2 cars (f.e. UK and Ireland). Most don't (including Germany and France)

CiniO

NIMAN wrote: »

Surely this can't be right.

Every car in the NCT that I seen gets soimething stuck up its exhaust pipe.

You saying they don't do that on diesels on the NCT?

They do.
But for petrol engines they check all content including CO, NoX, etc...
For diesels they only check smoke.

jimgoose

NIMAN wrote: »

Right?

So if diesel is meant to be the dirty fuel, why are its emissions lower?

You emit CO2 as well. You need a cat.

jimgoose

CiniO wrote: »

They do.
But for petrol engines they check all content including CO, NoX, etc...
For diesels they only check smoke.

Correct. And what they actually test is smoke density. No gas analysis, Lambda derivation, nowt.

CIP4

CO2 concentration globally are very high with the mean at 403 ppm for January measured by Mauna Loa Observatory 450 ppm means dangerous climate change its climbing by 2 ppm ish per year. So CO2 is very bad in terms of climate change but it's not going to make you sick. Diesels give of more NOx compared to petrols when comparing two brand new cars but over the life of the car a petrol produces more NOx as when the catalylic converter becomes less efficient it emits more NOx than a diesel. Diesels produce a more consistent amount the cat saves a petrol but on a bench with no exhaust system the petrol produces more NOx. NOX is more lung respiratory issues than causing cancer either way it obviously only causes issues if it's inhaled in strong concentrations over a period of time.

Petrols produce Carbon manoxide during warm up which is a lethal gas diesels don't. Petrols produce far more volatile organic compounds compared to diesels the likes of benzene petrol produces alot more off which is one of the worse carcinogens going around I mean it's benzene that gives you cancer from smoking cigarettes absolutely lethal worse than NOx in my opinion.

So ultimately to me they are as bad as each other both have positives and negatives but to turn around and say a diesel will give you cancer and petrols are far cleaner is laughable :pac:

Special Circumstances

CiniO wrote: »

You are saying that it's EU environmental policy to favour low CO2 engines which are mostly diesels.

But what policy is that?
Only few countries in EU have motoring taxation favouring low CO2 cars (f.e. UK and Ireland). Most don't (including Germany and France)

Euro regulations only requires dervs to be as clean as a petrol from the last century or whatever. Under very predictable test conditions with lots of wiggle room. For a limited time only, until the dpf can be removed because they just don't work for a lot of people. Never to be functionally tested ever again, unlike a catalytic converter would be. Of course the newest regs were found to be too bothersome for the manufacturers even with light touch testing and various workarounds so the regs will be derated to be less stringent than the ones they replace.

I dunno man.... sure sounds like the odds are being stacked in favour of diesel at very high levels!

Leonard Hofstadter

CiniO wrote: »

You are saying that it's EU environmental policy to favour low CO2 engines which are mostly diesels.

But what policy is that?
Only few countries in EU have motoring taxation favouring low CO2 cars (f.e. UK and Ireland). Most don't (including Germany and France)

France has a CO2 'bonus/malus' system on new cars, depending on the claimed CO2 output a levy like VRT (or rebate) is applied.

Then there is the legally binding CO2 targets, the car fleet has to average 130 g/km since 2015 and it is due to go down to 95 g/km by 2020, and 75 g/km by 2025. So even if the various Governments aren't doing anything, the manufacturers are obliged to get CO2 down. The targets are completely unrealistic and hopeless, and while I certainly don't condone what VW did, if we're going to be serious about cleaning up cars then we need to move away from a system that favours filthy, dirty, polluting diesels and towards lower CO2 petrols (ones that actually are lower in the real world). They also need to be realistic and won't favour small capacity engines that only work on paper.

In addition, the targets set need to be realistic and achievable, and won't result in unintended consequences, such as increased NOx and PM pollution (after all, while diesels are filthy, dirty, things, remember that the new generation direct injection petrols pollute particulates just like a diesel does - old school port injection petrols do not).

Special Circumstances

jimgoose wrote: »

You emit CO2 as well. You need a cat.

Egr to reduce the methane exhaust emissions. I'm nearly certain the greens would buy into it. The fundervmentalists would be well on for something that deviant, environment benefits or not! "2% vrt reduction if I wear a snorkel terminating in my rectum? Sign me up!"

jimgoose

CIP4 wrote: »

...Diesels give of more NOx compared to petrols when comparing two brand new cars but over the life of the car a petrol produces more NOx as when the catalylic converter becomes less efficient it emits more NOx than a diesel. Diesels produce a more consistent amount the cat saves a petrol but on a bench with no exhaust system the petrol produces more NOx...

It does if it's a two-stroke with a melting piston!

Correctly-running petrols operate at much lower temperatures and pressures than turbodiesels, and produce an order of magnitude less NOx. And with downstream oxygen sensors and proper, regular emissions testing, degraded cats don't get ignored for long.

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

Petrols are worse for the planet (higher CO2 emissions), so reducing the amount of CO2 is desirable. Diesels are dreadful for human health (cancer and respiratory problems), this has been proven many times over but the EU chooses to ignore it.

They arent ignoring it hence Paris and London have plans to ban diesels from their city's by 2025 I think. Absolutely rotten things, you couldn't pay me to drive one.

Cordell

jimgoose wrote: »

You emit CO2 as well. You need a cat.

A cat actually increases CO2 emissions by burning excess CO and unburnt fuel.

CO2 - safe to breath in in small quantities, but dangerous to the planet. You actually breath out CO2, and it's the thing that makes fizzy drinks fizzy.
CO - extremely toxic, this is what kills you if you don't service the boiler or clean the chimney. Cat turns it into CO2
Unburnt fues (HC, hydrocarbons) - extremely toxic and carcinogenic. Cat turns them into CO2 and water.
NOx - irritant. Cat turns them into oxygen and nitrogen(78% of our air is nitrogen).
Soot - stays in your lungs forever. The reason we have the dreaded DPF.

Petrol engines are by design less effective than diesels, hence higher CO2 emissions. But cleaner, they only emit minute quantities of NOx and soot.

Nonoperational

So much hyperbole here it's unreal. Whatever your view on either fuel, we have made huge strides on emissions. Lung cancer rates are decreasing in most parts of the world and if people stopped smoking they'd drop off exponentially. You'd want to be camped out sucking the exhaust off your TDI every night to do anything comparable to smoking.

Modern engines are relatively clean and miles cleaner than they were. The dishonesty of VAG is another matter. But you'd be extremely naive to thing all manufacturers of any engine type aren't massaging the tests to the max of their ability to hit the numbers.

Special Circumstances

captainspeed wrote: »

France has a CO2 'bonus/malus' system on new cars, depending on the claimed CO2 output a levy like VRT (or rebate) is applied.

Then there is the legally binding CO2 targets, the car fleet has to average 130 g/km since 2015 and it is due to go down to 95 g/km by 2020, and 75 g/km by 2025. So even if the various Governments aren't doing anything, the manufacturers are obliged to get CO2 down. The targets are completely unrealistic and hopeless, and while I certainly don't condone what VW did, if we're going to be serious about cleaning up cars then we need to move away from a system that favours filthy, dirty, polluting diesels and towards lower CO2 petrols (ones that actually are lower in the real world). They also need to be realistic and won't favour small capacity engines that only work on paper.

In addition, the targets set need to be realistic and achievable, and won't result in unintended consequences, such as increased NOx and PM pollution (after all, while diesels are filthy, dirty, things, remember that the new generation direct injection petrols pollute particulates just like a diesel does - old school port injection petrols do not).

I agree with most of what you say, but if anyone was actually interested in the environment rather than manipulating polar bears to increase the revenues of governments, car manufacturers and their employees, then they would place very very very strict regulations on how long a car should last at a viable average repair cost. Warranties would be forced to be longer. Manufacturers would be forced to recall and fix bullsh1t engineering flaws in europe. .... insurers would be forced to give reasonable rates for annually tested cars....

CIP4

jimgoose wrote: »

It does if it's a two-stroke with a melting piston!

Correctly-running petrols operate at much lower temperatures and pressures than turbodiesels, and produce an order of magnitude less NOx. And with downstream oxygen sensors and proper, regular emissions testing, degraded cats don't get ignored for long.

I still wouldn't be convinced tbh. Yes diesels do produce more NOx emissions than a petrol engine in terms of what comes out the tail pipe if both are running perfectly but the amount of petrols that run perfectly on the roads are fairly small the limits are fairly generous at nct yet car after car scrapes by so most cats are not perfect or even near it and oxygen sensors act up too. Plus you get into combustion temperatures and stochiometric balances and again many cars would be off. So the diesel produces more but depends on nothing the petrol depends on a lot of auxiliaries to get its figures down.

Also petrols produce less NOx yes with the exhaust system however as I said both engines stripped down running on a bench with no auxiliaries the petrol produces more NOx. I did a research project on that very topic a few years ago based on emissions figures from stripped down petrol and Diesel engines this is without the exhaust systems and from the testing carried out in various universities that was the results in any of the academic papers I looked at. But your right in the fact that a perfectly operating petrol car will produce less NOx than a diesel one. But now with the introduction of Urea scrubbers that's not going to be true for long either.

JohnBoy26

CIP4 wrote: »

I still wouldn't be convinced tbh. Yes diesels do produce more NOx emissions than a petrol engine in terms of what comes out the tail pipe if both are running perfectly but the amount of petrols that run perfectly on the roads are fairly small the limits are fairly generous at nct yet car after car scrapes by so most cats are not perfect or even near it and oxygen sensors act up too.Plus you get into combustion temperatures and stochiometric balances and again many cars would be off. So the diesel produces more but depends on nothing the petrol depends on a lot of auxiliaries to get its figures down.

Also petrols produce less NOx yes with the exhaust system however as I said both engines stripped down running on a bench with no auxiliaries the petrol produces more NOx. I did a research project on that very topic a few years ago based on emissions figures from stripped down petrol and Diesel engines this is without the exhaust systems and from the testing carried out in various universities that was the results in any of the academic papers I looked at. But your right in the fact that a perfectly operating petrol car will produce less NOx than a diesel one. But now with the introduction of Urea scrubbers that's not going to be true for long either.

You have evidence to back this up?

Atlantic Dawn

CIP4 wrote: »

I still wouldn't be convinced tbh. Yes diesels do produce more NOx emissions than a petrol engine in terms of what comes out the tail pipe if both are running perfectly but the amount of petrols that run perfectly on the roads are fairly small the limits are fairly generous at nct yet car after car scrapes by so most cats are not perfect or even near it and oxygen sensors act up too. Plus you get into combustion temperatures and stochiometric balances and again many cars would be off. So the diesel produces more but depends on nothing the petrol depends on a lot of auxiliaries to get its figures down.

But the diesels are not measured at all at NCT.

Del2005

CIP4 wrote: »

I still wouldn't be convinced tbh. Yes diesels do produce more NOx emissions than a petrol engine in terms of what comes out the tail pipe if both are running perfectly but the amount of petrols that run perfectly on the roads are fairly small the limits are fairly generous at nct yet car after car scrapes by so most cats are not perfect or even near it and oxygen sensors act up too. Plus you get into combustion temperatures and stochiometric balances and again many cars would be off. So the diesel produces more but depends on nothing the petrol depends on a lot of auxiliaries to get its figures down.

Also petrols produce less NOx yes with the exhaust system however as I said both engines stripped down running on a bench with no auxiliaries the petrol produces more NOx. I did a research project on that very topic a few years ago based on emissions figures from stripped down petrol and Diesel engines this is without the exhaust systems and from the testing carried out in various universities that was the results in any of the academic papers I looked at. But your right in the fact that a perfectly operating petrol car will produce less NOx than a diesel one. But now with the introduction of Urea scrubbers that's not going to be true for long either.

Who runs a car without an exhaust?

Every person who comes on here saying that their DPF has died due to the fact that they bought the wrong engined car is advised to just remove it. The same people who buy the wrong engined car will just bypass or not bother refilling the pee tank as they are buying for cheapest motoring not the environment, since an EV would suit most people's driving but costs more to buy.

CIP4

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

You have evidence to back this up?

No I don't since the NCT don't release exact details on failures. However the average age of the Irish fleet is 8.83 years so I think it's fair to say that most will not be operating perfectly in terms of emissions. As in perfect ideal stochiometric balanced reactions, operating temperatures, catalytic converters and all sensors being 100% accurate after over 8 years on the road.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

But the diesels are not measured at all at NCT.

No there not only a smoke test but then the level of emissions the diesels produce are more consistent as there is no cats to reduce the emissions in the first place so whatever testing is done in the factory is seen as sufficient where as I said earlier a petrol engine can deteriorate dramatically over its life hence why it's tested so it does make sense when you think about it.

Atlantic Dawn

CIP4 wrote: »

No there not only a smoke test but then the level of emissions the diesels produce are more consistent as there is no cats to reduce the emissions in the first place so whatever testing is done in the factory is seen as sufficient where as I said earlier a petrol engine can deteriorate dramatically over its life hence why it's tested so it does make sense when you think about it.

Tell that to the cyclist or person walking who gets belted out of it with a cloud of black death from a diesel car when someone puts their foot down on a diesel being driven completely incorrently on short trips ie most idiots who bought them in Ireland purely for the cheeeeeeeeep tax.

CIP4

Del2005 wrote: »

Who runs a car without an exhaust?

Every person who comes on here saying that their DPF has died due to the fact that they bought the wrong engined car is advised to just remove it. The same people who buy the wrong engined car will just bypass or not bother refilling the pee tank as they are buying for cheapest motoring not the environment, since an EV would suit most people's driving but costs more to buy.

The engines with no exhaust system are lab tested not driven on the road so by testing the engines with no exhaust system you can tell worse case scenario which produces the worse emissions so that would replicate a completely failed cat on a petrol engine. They are starting to test for DPF's in the next few years in the NCT they have already started doing it in the MOT so that will remove that loop hole. The cars will go into limp mode if you don't refill the Urea tank.

CIP4

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Tell that to the cyclist or person walking who gets belted out of it with a cloud of black death from a diesel car when someone puts their foot down on a diesel being driven completely incorrently on short trips ie most idiots who bought them in Ireland purely for the cheeeeeeeeep tax.

Oh I'm completely against these smokey diesel that have clouds of black smoke out of them so I'd agree fully with you there. Any diesel I've had have been well maintained and used for their correct purpose and honestly not none were the slightest bit smokey no black smoke at all ever. Petrols do seem to be catching on again so hopefully all the town drivers will go back to buying them and let diesels be used for their actual correct purpose.

Del2005

CIP4 wrote: »

The engines with no exhaust system are lab tested not driven on the road so by testing the engines with no exhaust system you can tell worse case scenario which produces the worse emissions so that would replicate a completely failed cat on a petrol engine. They are starting to test for DPF's in the next few years in the NCT they have already started doing it in the MOT so that will remove that loop hole. The cars will go into limp mode if you don't refill the Urea tank.

I'd still rather stand behind a petrol with no exhaust than a diesel.

MadYaker

A lot of people don't seem to realise that petrol is just a more refined version of diesel, so it burns cleaner.

Special Circumstances

CIP4 wrote: »

The engines with no exhaust system are lab tested not driven on the road so by testing the engines with no exhaust system you can tell worse case scenario which produces the worse emissions so that would replicate a completely failed cat on a petrol engine. They are starting to test for DPF's in the next few years in the NCT they have already started doing it in the MOT so that will remove that loop hole. The cars will go into limp mode if you don't refill the Urea tank.

Not functionaly tested, just for decorative purposes. Will water in your urea tank do to fool the system, or does it have to be piss?

You're not really convincing me!

jimgoose

MadYaker wrote: »

A lot of people don't seem to realise that petrol is just a more refined version of diesel, so it burns cleaner.

If you mean it's a considerably heavier fraction of petroleum than petrol then yes, that's true. Roughly it goes by molecule size, starting with heavy fuel oil which boils off at around 350C, up through DERV, kerosene, naphtha and then petrol.

Special Circumstances

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

You have evidence to back this up?

Also, CIP4, when you're backing this "shur petrol is terrible people don't keep their cars running right at all, sure the cats are tested and people fail but tis very very very easy to pass", could you also back up the implied "diesels are much better looked after, never run without emissions control equipment and the tests they face are much tougher"

I just don't think I'd be cut out for the cognitive dissonance involved in owning a diesel.

My diesel is simultaneously very quiet and sounds better than petrol. And shur nobody cares what it sounds like inside the car.

My diesel is very good on emissions with all the latest regulations met. I'll be laughing now once I fill the Urea tank with water, blank the egr and remove the dpf.

Special Circumstances

MadYaker wrote: »

A lot of people don't seem to realise that petrol is just a more refined version of diesel, so it burns cleaner.

On the topic of similar liquids, Adblue / urea is concentrated piss. Or is that a little inconvenient to point out.


The efficiency pros and emissions cons with diesel are as much or more to do with how it burns rather than what it was derived from.

beauf

There was a good uk tv programme which I can't find might have been ch4 dispatches which studied the increases use of diesels and the effect in uk cities and peoples health. The also did a study between a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian to see which was exposed to the most pollution.

Interesting stuff.

CIP4

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Also, CIP4, when you're backing this "shur petrol is terrible people don't keep their cars running right at all, sure the cats are tested and people fail but tis very very very easy to pass", could you also back up the implied "diesels are much better looked after, never run without emissions control equipment and the tests they face are much tougher"

I can't link academic journals as they are password protected and only for student use and obviously in college you can only use academic sources not general webpages. I could throw up a comparison table but you'd probably say it was made up so no point. But I think I'll leave it at this anyway as I'm clearly not explaining it in a way that it can be understood.

But my actual core point on the whole thing brand new diesel and petrol car petrol better. Average fleet age 8 year old petrol and diesel in average running condition not perfect 100% from the factory condition the diesel is better.

But aside from that I'm not arguing for diesel not even slightly I'm saying both have pros and cons and one is as bad the other. Also just remember if they ban diesels in the morning that petrols will be hot on their heals. Boards solution to emissions issues we will ban the 'dirty diesels' and everyone can drive around in petrols and save the world :pac: forgetting the fact that they produce HC, CO, CO2, VOC and NOx. Anyway that's my outlook on it I'm not going to change anyone's view on it here but that's fine I'd of linked the proof if I could have. But it has nothing to do with me having a diesel I have no preference between the fuel type I'll probably get a petrol next once my milleage drops off a bit.

Special Circumstances

CIP4 wrote: »

I can't link academic journals as they are password protected and only for student use and obviously in college you can only use academic sources not general webpages. I could throw up a comparison table but you'd probably say it was made up so no point. But I think I'll leave it at this anyway as I'm clearly not explaining it in a way that it can be understood.

But my actual core point on the whole thing brand new diesel and petrol car petrol better. Average fleet age 8 year old petrol and diesel in average running condition not perfect 100% from the factory condition the diesel is better.

But aside from that I'm not arguing for diesel not even slightly I'm saying both have pros and cons and one is as bad the other. Also just remember if they ban diesels in the morning that petrols will be hot on their heals. Boards solution to emissions issues we will ban the 'dirty diesels' and everyone can drive around in petrols and save the world :pac: forgetting the fact that they produce HC, CO, CO2, VOC and NOx. Anyway that's my outlook on it I'm not going to change anyone's view on it here but that's fine I'd of linked the proof if I could have. But it has nothing to do with me having a diesel I have no preference between the fuel type I'll probably get a petrol next once my milleage drops off a bit.

If you can find a credible source that shows diesels are generally better maintained, rarely run without any or all of the various emissions controls deactivated and face tougher tests (equivalent even) over their lifetime, I will pay whatever subscription to read it.

If we're doing a like for like comparison like with those awful petrols that are carelessly maintained, and only barely scraping basic emissions tests compared to diesels with their cats that give awful rate of failure and degradation versus diesel emissions equipment.