Diesel isn't dead !!!

[Steve A]

Finally some straight talking common sense

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/5421422/why-diesel-isnt-dead-and-you-should-still-buy-new-cars/#comments

[Giniw]

A diesel should be in a ... well in a boat, maybe!
(seriously I have always hated them, I have always hated the smell, long before I could drive a car)

[lotusflasherman]

Somebody who shoves "Fact" in an article so often really pisses me off and that's a FACT !

"Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) fitted to all new diesels since 2011 capture 99 per cent of soot particulates" - made me laugh ... that's until the DPV warning light comes on, and then you boot it to get high revs and some heat and it burns it off as ash and shoves it out the exhaust to atmosphere. Very clean !

[Giniw]

(fact! is fact fact indeed!)

[epipete]

I guess I'm not a petrol head but I have no reason to doubt the claims made in the article, why so cynical?

[lotusflasherman]

I guess I'm not a petrol head but I have no reason to doubt the claims made in the article, why so cynical?

Well it's in the Sun for a start ! Seriously though, very selective with facts chosen. I think I'm just informed ... if diesels are so clean why do they stink so much and throw soot at me when I'm behind one in my Elan?

Is it because in the real world they aren't as clean as Mr Rob Gill would have us believe ... Friday's Guardian ->

"VW, which is the world’s biggest carmaker, admitted that 11m diesel cars were programmed to turn on pollution controls during testing and off while on the road, where they exceeded air emissions limits many times over. " https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/02/vw-scandal-emissions-cheats-could-face-criminal-charges

Well that's 11 million reasons to be cynical.

[John_W]

I agree with you, Phil, but have ethical problems about quoting the Guardian to refute an article in The Sun.

[lotusflasherman]

I agree with you, Phil, but have ethical problems about quoting the Guardian to refute an article in The Sun.

is that because it didn't show girls with big tits?

How about the BBC then ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42876336

[Steve A]

I guess I'm not a petrol head but I have no reason to doubt the claims made in the article, why so cynical?

Well it's in the Sun for a start ! Seriously though, very selective with facts chosen. I think I'm just informed ... if diesels are so clean why do they stink so much and throw soot at me when I'm behind one in my Elan?

Is it because in the real world they aren't as clean as Mr Rob Gill would have us believe ... Friday's Guardian ->

"VW, which is the world’s biggest carmaker, admitted that 11m diesel cars were programmed to turn on pollution controls during testing and off while on the road, where they exceeded air emissions limits many times over. " https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/02/vw-scandal-emissions-cheats-could-face-criminal-charges

Well that's 11 million reasons to be cynical.

It's a shame most of the media sheep have to tar every car maker with the same brush as the guilty VW, knocking the diesel has now become fashionable whether you know what your talking about or not.

[lotusflasherman]

I guess I'm not a petrol head but I have no reason to doubt the claims made in the article, why so cynical?

Well it's in the Sun for a start ! Seriously though, very selective with facts chosen. I think I'm just informed ... if diesels are so clean why do they stink so much and throw soot at me when I'm behind one in my Elan?

Is it because in the real world they aren't as clean as Mr Rob Gill would have us believe ... Friday's Guardian ->

"VW, which is the world’s biggest carmaker, admitted that 11m diesel cars were programmed to turn on pollution controls during testing and off while on the road, where they exceeded air emissions limits many times over. " https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/02/vw-scandal-emissions-cheats-could-face-criminal-charges

Well that's 11 million reasons to be cynical.

It's a shame most of the media sheep have to tar every car maker with the same brush as the guilty VW, knocking the diesel has now become fashionable whether you know what your talking about or not.

Diesel is the proverbial curate's egg - some good parts, some bad. Mr Gill was a bit too heavy on the good and very light on the bad in my opinion. All very good when brand new but a lot aren't.

My son and son-in-law are both 'sparks' and have run a selection of diesel and turbo-diesel vans over many thousands of miles - Citroen Berlingo, Astravan, Ford Connect and currently VW Caddy & Caddy Max. Their wives drive their family cars which are diesel Mercedes E Class estate and Audi A5 Sportback. Both saloon and some vans have had issues with Diesel Particulate Filter warning lights. One of their friends, who runs the garage where I get my MOT's done, told them they need a good blast for more than 30 minutes to get the temperature high enough to burn off the soot - it's called 'forced Passive Regeneration'. If the orange DPF warning light stays on too long it goes to red indicating it's really clogged and goes into Limp mode and you can't reach the revs to blow it out so are up the creek without a paddle. There is a program in the ECU called Active Regeneration that injects extra fuel to increase the exhaust gas temperature but that only kicks in when everything is hot and takes a while to complete so doesn't ever complete on short or urban traffic journeys.

On the 800 mile trip from Calais to Cap d'Agde my son also found the A5 on cruise control would pop up the DPF warning light after a few hundred miles and he would then drive near max revs in a lower gear for about 1/2 hr to heat and blow out the DPF to clear it. Rather upset his expectations for mpg on the trip.

Last October I borrowed the Caddy Max to take kitchen appliances to Cap d'Agde and do a couple of runs to Ikea in Montpellier to buy kitchen cupboards for a total refit. Came back via friends in Bordeaux area so 2,300 miles in total. For a 1598cc non turbo engine it's ability to stay with French fast lane traffic doing over their 130kph on the péage was impressive and the mpg wasn't shabby either, not near the claimed mpg but I was booting it, and so much better than the M100 or Subaru petrol engines could do by a substantial margin. I had been told what to do if the DPF warning light came on but I booted it all the way so didn't see it.

Emissions is 'a can of worms' anyway, even on petrol cars. My Subaru has the EJ25 engine - 2.5 litre, petrol turbo, variable cam timing, and other stuff to give nearly 250 bhp without totally destroying the planet. For the UK we test when the engine is up to temperature. In the US it's required to meet the emission limits on start up so all models, mine included, have a pair of secondary air injection valves and a secondary air pump. Had a CEL that pointed to secondary air valve problems so had to investigate what that gubbins was all about.

When it's first started it takes a few seconds to get info from temperature and lambda sensors and adjust the fueling to optimum so while it's doing that it pumps fresh air into the exhaust for about 40 seconds, supposedly raising the exhaust temperature to get the cat' working quicker. Somebody has suggested it doesn't change what goes to atmosphere but just dilutes emissions with extra air to reduce ppm for the U.S. test equipment. Don't know about that but would ask why are all the UK models driving around with all that stuff they don't need? Some owners are fitting blanking plates across the valve port, dumping the pump and reprogramming the ECU to remove the CEL but only early ECU's can be reprogrammed. Guess who's got the later ECU?

Bearing in mind what is produced from a barrel of crude oil, we'll always need a mix of petrol and diesel engined vehicles or we'll have a surplus of product to dispose of...

[dapinky]

Speaking as an owner of 4 vehicles, each in a different 'class', and each with its own purpose, I can see many flaws in the arguements for and against diesel engines - and comment purely from my personal experience of each....

(1) The Elan is a petrol engine (I think you probably accept that as FACT!) - it is really a 'toy' - although it is kept running all year and is used whenever appropriate.
(2) The Dolomite comes under the remit of a 'Historic Vehicle' - it is cheap to keep on the road as VEL is free, Insurance cost me £44 last year, and after May this year it will be exempt from MOT testing..... designed to run on 4* leaded petrol, but obviously now runs on unleaded...... at 12mpg it isn't environmentally friendly, and I will be using a standard level of tune when it comes out of hibernation to put that back to 30-35mpg as I no longer use it for competition purposes. Cheap motoring!
(3) The Corsa is a 'small' petrol engine with modern emmissions etc and is great for what it is intended for - short journeys, trips into town etc - but not great for long journeys as, despite the claimed 85bhp, it struggles on long inclines and doesn't get anything like the claimed mpg figures in any situation.
(4) The VW T5 van - now this is the main point of this post - considered by the Government as a 'Dirty Diesel'. It is Euro 3 compliant (2005 registration), and would cost a fortune to drive into London (couldn't even get it into Berlin or Paris!). It was made before DPFs became necessary fitment, and on a cold engine produces the statutory puff of black smoke when you accellerate (or hit the turbo on a hot engine).

However, due to the way that the Government classified vehicles, it costs me about £300 a year to tax it - if it had been a later version (with the same 2.5L engine producing 174bhp) it would cost over £520 a year to tax it - the calculations changed with Euro 4 onwards. So a 2006 model with a DPF and less nasty emmissions would actually cost me far more to run (this was one of the reasons that I looked for an older one when I bought it).

I don't use it for many short journeys as Diesels perform far better when warm, and it isn't brilliant for short runs..... but on a longer journey (anything over 25 miles) it comes into its own - comfortable, economical, power and torque apleanty. I can get up to 70mph, stick in in 6th gear on Cruise Control and tootle along at 2000 revs taking long hills in its stride..... and do it all day long. Oh, and get over 40mpg on a mixture of driving - far nearer to 50 on a steady run.

As I don't do huge mileages in it I don't worry about the damage it is doing to the world, as to replace it would cause far more environmental impact with the manufacturing process buying a new one.

From a purely mercenary point of view - the 'scrappage' arguement doesn't hold much water - okay, they are talking of offering £2K to replace my van with a new one - whoopy-doo! That means I would be scrapping a perfectly good vehicle, whilst taking a £10K hit on its actual value, to buy a new one at a cost close to £50K - so where is the incentive in the scheme? If I were to want a new van, and have £50K to spend, then the £2K would make little difference to the deal.

When they manage to produce a power plant that will drag 3 tonnes along at 60mph at 45mpg I will consider if it is any good for me - until then, I'll stick to my bus!!

[MPx]

Being a petrol(only)head I have never ever ever understood how any fellow enthusiast can have been tempted over to the dark side. All of the arguments always run along the lines of "its amazingly responsive, you wouldn't know it was a diesel" and "it does lots of MPG". Variations of the first is effectively admitting petrol is better but Diesel has been made to be OK. Variations of the second are all about being a tightwad - which is perfectly understandable for Mrs AtoB but doesn't in my book carry any weight for an enthusiast on their specialist subject. You don't hear art lovers saying I could have had that Monet but I got a whole set of John Smith's instead for less money and really they're nearly as good.

Despite all of the stories of amazing savings made on the odd 300 mile journey, its well documented that the overall running costs of diesels only makes sense for very high milage users. There aren't very many of them.

Its also the case that for some forms of transport there are relatively few practical alternatives to diesel - Lorries and Buses being the obvious. I've felt for some time that we would generate all the NOX we can handle if we restricted diesels to those large vehicles and banned them from cars which not only has an acceptable alternative in petrol, its actually better.

So when I take over....

[dapinky]

Mike,

Whilst I can see your point of view, I have to justify my diesel purchase.....

..... very few campervans have been made with petrol engines (Mazda Bongo aside!).

There was a petrol version of mine, using a V6 motor, and if I could have found one I'd have had it (I think about 40 were imported, and I don't know how many survive!) - so I was 'lumbered' with a diesel. I therefore went for the most powerful one I could get (with the highest torque figues) to get as best 'performance' as i could.... and whatever people may say, it aint a bad car to drive - but it isn't a revvy petrol engine, it is a different beast, with lots of low-end pull (as it is based on a commercial vehicle, to be expected I suppose) and a top speed far higher than i would want to drive it.

As for overall running costs - well, it's not a lot of difference between the engine types for me doing my own servicing etc (it's an old van doing comparatively few miles a year).

[Steve A]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... ar_exhaust

I found this interesting and unbiased.
I think generally most of the car companies do just enough to get past all the tests they have to at the time,
maybe they should be producing the cleanest engines they can and then be rewarded for doing it.

[HJ2]

Diesel isn't dead indeed
As i just bought a Jaguar XF Diesel

Although very British, it didn't die on me yet
In the light of the discussion: I would legally be able to remove the DPF for more power and reliability, but I decided not to go that route in favour of the planet!

Oh, and although it is my first Diesel: I love it!
(possibly because it has the 600NM 3l engine...

[lotusflasherman]

In the light of the discussion: I would legally be able to remove the DPF for more power and reliability, but I decided not to go that route in favour of the planet!

My son investigated that and found it's illegal in the UK because of EU emission compliance laws so pretty sure will be the same for you . Lots of stuff on the web that says MOT (annual test) is checking for them...
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/diesel-cars-illegally-pump-out-dangerous-pollutants-after-garages-remove-filters-designed-to-cut-a6689191

[HJ2]

Dfp is mandatory only after 2011 in the Netherlands

[lotusflasherman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust

I found this interesting and unbiased.
I think generally most of the car companies do just enough to get past all the tests they have to at the time,
maybe they should be producing the cleanest engines they can and then be rewarded for doing it.

Agree on interesting but I've never seen a webpage with so much clutter and poor presentation on it - makes it difficult to find the salient details... but interesting when you struggle through..

Not sure that comparing a 1994 1.8 petrol Golf that's done 163k miles to a 2009 1.9 diesel Skoda Octavia that's done 77k miles is a fair test but the topic was his car against his dad's. (Interesting to check MOT history on dad's - AK59DVZ)

I found the "But the worst is the Nissan Qashqai .... The Qashqai N-Connecta DCI CVT (1598cc) produces 1.46g of NOx per kilometre. That is more than 18 times Europe's 0.08g/km limit." very interesting ..
and Mr Gill's FACT ( ) about how good current diesels are gets blown out of the water...

Shame about the particulate data being lost ... "There is one big disappointment about the Skoda's test results, I discover a couple of days later - it proved impossible to get an accurate measurement of the particulates emitted.
Molden is happy to say that Melvyn emitted a negligible quantity of particulates whereas the Skoda emitted more, but due to a technical problem I cannot publish the exact value."

Wonder where petrol engines would be now if Lean Burn Technology had been fully developed. Ford's CVH engine of the 80's was running air/fuel ratio around 18:1 and there was talk of achieving 22:1 with significant improvements in mpg & hence reduced emissions. Ford argued that catalytic converters don't run hot enough in the UK for most of the year or for short journeys to do the job they are there for... but the 'Cat lobby' won the day.

Saw this on the Equa site ... "The latest analysis of the EQUA Index data shows that the average daily distance driven in passenger cars is not sufficient for a vehicle’s pollution control system to warm up and become fully functional. The resultant high levels of cold start NOx emissions, from both gasoline and diesel engines, could provide an additional challenge for urban air quality initiatives such as the proposed Clean Air Zones in the UK."

Just what Ford was saying 40 years ago ..

[MPx]

Diesel isn't dead indeed
As i just bought a Jaguar XF Diesel

Nice enough HJ... but so much more enjoyable, as an enthusiast, to have bought one of these...

[MPx]

Mike,

Whilst I can see your point of view, I have to justify my diesel purchase.....

..... very few campervans have been made with petrol engines (Mazda Bongo aside!).

There was a petrol version of mine, using a V6 motor, and if I could have found one I'd have had it (I think about 40 were imported, and I don't know how many survive!) - so I was 'lumbered' with a diesel.

Rationale completely understandable Dave - your petrolhead credentials are undimmed! In fact I have quite a few diesel engines in my various bits of ground-care kit. Tractors are one of those vehicle types where a diesel is operationally a better choice and therefore more fun, ignoring economics.