Why do we still have petrol cars?

blackbox

What about the disgusting smell?

The smoke and fumes from Diesel exhaust are obviously disgusting, but the smell from the fuel itself is also awful.

If you get it on your hands or shoes at the filling station, the stink lingers in your car for hours.

Good for sales of Magic Trees I suppose!:D

kona

Diesel is crap, has no power until recently are super boring...now just boring and only serves the purpose to fool people into thinking burning this particular fossil fuel is green.

petrol engines are like music, and are quicker and a hell of a lot more fun.

the way i look at it is, if this government says diesel is good, then my common sense tells me to run a mile.

and the smell of petrol is great;):D:D

Matt Simis

blackbox wrote: »

What about the disgusting smell?

The smoke and fumes from Diesel exhaust are obviously disgusting, but the smell from the fuel itself is also awful.

If you get it on your hands or shoes at the filling station, the stink lingers in your car for hours.

Obviously the fuel smells bad (if you use Petro-diesel, BioDiesel doesnt smell) but the exhaust on VAG diesels certainly doesnt smell disgusting. It runs through some scrubbing during the exhaust and just smells strange.. Buses and Trains etc are obviously entirely different in that regard.

craichoe

Matt Simis wrote: »

Obviously the fuel smells bad (if you use Petro-diesel, BioDiesel doesnt smell) but the exhaust on VAG diesels certainly doesnt smell disgusting. It runs through some scrubbing during the exhaust and just smells strange.. Buses and Trains etc are obviously entirely different in that regard.

The Cork to Blarney bus hit 1,000,000 miles 7 months ago and is still going strong running on BioDiesel, but the public transport in general stinks

Longevity wise i think Diesels engines last alot longer.

99-Present day the engines have come on in leaps and bounds too.

You do feel a massive saving when driving 1000km on a trip as opposed to the Petrol on the continent anyway

Matt Simis

kona wrote: »

Diesel is crap, has no power until recently are super boring...now just boring and only serves the purpose to fool people into thinking burning this particular fossil fuel is green.

petrol engines are like music, and are quicker and a hell of a lot more fun.

Crap eh? Can your, presumably petrol, engine pull 155tonnes?
http://dieselblog.net/2006/11/volkswagen-v10-tdi-diesel-tows-a-boeing-747/

Its worth noting the stock V10 TDI is detuned, they flat lined the Torque as it was so high. You can now get the R50 version with the performance "restored":
http://jalopnik.com/cars/sydney-auto-show/volkswagen-touareg-r50-v10-diesel-officially-revealed-310116.php

Diesel is perfectly mated to making big, heavy vehicles move fast. If all you want to do is screw around in a little coupe, then diesel is probably not for you.

But yeah, more torque than a Murcielago LP640 (at 1/3 of the RPM..), thats boring right?

E92

Unquestionably diesels are more reliable than petrols, because they don't rev that high, and develop less power than petrol enginers. They are still heavier than petrol engines, so petrol engines will have better weight distribution and in theory this makes petrol cars more entertaining handling wise to drive than a diesel.

There are advantages to both types of engine really, you can't just say because diesel works well in some cars that it will work in everything, and the same applies to petrol engines too.

Diesels have more torque, many have almost as much power, and often have more power than their petrol sisters, they do much better fuel economy, even though every litre of diesel burnt has 13% more CO2 produced than every litre of petrol burnt, the fact that most diesels will do 30% more mpg is clearly a lot better than the increase from the extra CO2 per unit of fuel produced, they are much lower emitters of Carbon Monoxide than petrols are, they have improved in noise, clatter, overall emissions, power, torque no end compared to before the pre common rail era.

The advantages of petrol power have been explained by me and others in quite some detail already.

E92

Matt Simis wrote: »

Crap eh? Can your, presumably petrol, engine pull 155tonnes?
http://dieselblog.net/2006/11/volkswagen-v10-tdi-diesel-tows-a-boeing-747/

Its worth noting the stock V10 TDI is detuned, they flat lined the Torque as it was so high. You can now get the R50 version with the performance "restored":
http://jalopnik.com/cars/sydney-auto-show/volkswagen-touareg-r50-v10-diesel-officially-revealed-310116.php

Diesel is perfectly mated to making big, heavy vehicles move fast. If all you want to do is screw around in a little coupe, then diesel is probably not for you.

But yeah, more torque than a Murcielago LP640 (at 1/3 of the RPM..), thats boring right?

An engine that produces 277 lb ft at 4000 rpm is equivalent to an engine producing 554 lb ft of torque at 2000 rpm(assuming that gear ratios etc are identical). There is a torque multiplier effect from the engine, which means that when petrols are given plenty of revs, they have just as much torque as diesels, it's just the need a lot more revs to do it;)!

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

An engine that produces 277 lb ft at 4000 rpm is equivalent to an engine producing 554 lb ft of torque at 2000 rpm(assuming that gear ratios etc are identical). There is a torque multiplier effect from the engine, which means that when petrols are given plenty of revs, they have just as much torque as diesels, it's just the need a lot more revs to do it;)!

Well if thats true then surely it applies to diesels also:


When that TDI is at max BHP (3.5k RPM, 290bhp according to that test) its still putting out 380 ft/lbs of torque (down from 553 at 2k RPM). Incidentally just stumbled on this site, really handy for figures and charts:
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?Flap=Graph&ChartsID=675

Im not a fanboy of either engine, I just hate to see mob mentality:p

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

An engine that produces 277 lb ft at 4000 rpm is equivalent to an engine producing 554 lb ft of torque at 2000 rpm(

That's actually not correct. An engine that produces 277 at 4000rpm is equivalent to nothing other than an engine that produces 277. A gearbox has to be added. (Your understanding is not correct)

Matt Simis wrote:

And your pollutant info, while I believe is correct, is being portrayed in a very lobsided manner; we have one fuel that leads to skins cancer and global warming and another that leads to lung cancer and respitory problems... erm pick one?

Petrol is helping, along with diesel, to create global warming.
Diesel is killing people right now, today. Just like cigarette smoking.

Therefore I pick petrol!

The_Conductor

JHMEG wrote: »

Petrol is helping, along with diesel, to create global warming.
Diesel is killing people right now, today. Just like cigarette smoking.

Therefore I pick petrol!

The issue is particulate size. Recent studies have mostly focused on the <1µm particle emissions from diesels, and used that to quantify increased cancer risks. When you compare this with the toluene and benzene pollutants from petrol (petrol is still typically >1% benzene- which is a reduction from the 3.2-3.6% of the mid 1990's), its very much a toss-up as to which fuel is more carcinogenic on combustion. Petrol definitely produces more CO2, versus a small increases in the nitrous oxides for diesel- if you are looking at greenhouse warming. I.e. one produces a greenhouse gas, whereas the other destroys ozone. The advent of catalytic convertors in petrol engines, and far better particulate filters for diesel engines, has changed the landscape somewhat- but its still very much open to interpretation as to which fuel is better or worse from either a health or environmental perspective.

S.

kona

Matt Simis wrote: »

Crap eh? Can your, presumably petrol, engine pull 155tonnes?
http://dieselblog.net/2006/11/volkswagen-v10-tdi-diesel-tows-a-boeing-747/

Its worth noting the stock V10 TDI is detuned, they flat lined the Torque as it was so high. You can now get the R50 version with the performance "restored":
http://jalopnik.com/cars/sydney-auto-show/volkswagen-touareg-r50-v10-diesel-officially-revealed-310116.php

Diesel is perfectly mated to making big, heavy vehicles move fast. If all you want to do is screw around in a little coupe, then diesel is probably not for you.

But yeah, more torque than a Murcielago LP640 (at 1/3 of the RPM..), thats boring right?

well if your going to take stuff out of context, why **** around with crappy internal combustion at all??, whack a rolls-royce trent in your TDi Golf that will have thousand times the power of your diesel.

tbh a Murcielago is boring, to me all supercars are ****, unless they have no power steering, no nothing, just a OTT engine that will make you **** yourself, otherwise no thanks.

a v10 tdi, why dont we get a v10 turbo petrol and see what happens???

diesels are ****, you get more bang for buck from petrol, if you want a powerful diesel to match a petrol it has to be 1)huge 2)turbocharged.
this means more weight.

im not sure power/weight ratio of a diesel engine is???

and that tourag *might* have been standard........(not really)

and we come to this, why on earth would you buy a car because it can tow a 747 with no engines???
sure a tug will do that?? wonder what the damage to the clutch/engine/mounts/brakes etc?????

Matt Simis

Lots of "*****"'s and not a point to be found there Kona, no need to reply to some one so close minded.

PS: I dont have a TDI Golf, I do have a V10 tho.

JHMEG

And the point of being able to pull a 747 is? And the point of having more torque than a lambo is?

kona

Matt Simis wrote: »

Lots of "*****"'s and not a point to be found there Kona, no need to reply to some one so close minded.

PS: I dont have a TDI Golf, I do have a V10 tho.

meh its a opinion,
i know diesel owners get quite attached to them and its funny when thye pull out lots of **** to defend them.
im just winding you up:p

i wonder if aer lingus are stuck for a push back, maybe the pilot will ask the trolley dolly for a shot of her range rover:D:D:p

and you dont reply with a comment "no need to reply as your close minded":D:D

heard some loola talk about him blowin away a DC5 integra with a golf tDI,
i laughed:D:D

bottom line diesel is boring.....when are ferrari dropping one into a car???

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

And the point of being able to pull a 747 is? And the point of having more torque than a lambo is?

It was in response to it all diesel engines being "crap" and "boring". Those are not crap or boring feats, they are interesting and unusual in a petrol dominated forum/thread/world. I genuinely thought that was obvious tho.

All Im trying to highlight is we shouldnt, as motoring enthusiasts, discredit an entire breed of engine until you have tried more than a bog standard 4pot turbo-diesel which never was designed for performance. They are no more exciting than a 1.4L Petrol Polo, nor are they meant to be.

Im speaking from experience and call me smug, but Im pretty confident from the replies most of the diesel bashing was done by those that havent tried both fast diesel and fast petrol.

kona

Matt Simis wrote: »

It was in response to it all diesel engines being "crap" and "boring". Those are not crap or boring feats, they are interesting and unusual in a petrol dominated forum/thread/world. I genuinely thought that was obvious tho.

All Im trying to highlight is we shouldnt, as motoring enthusiasts, discredit an entire breed of engine until you have tried more than a bog standard 4pot turbo-diesel which never was designed for performance. They are no more exciting than a 1.4L Petrol Polo, nor are they meant to be.

Im speaking from experience and call me smug, but Im pretty confident from the replies most of the diesel bashing was done by those that havent tried both fast diesel and fast petrol.

120mph in a 91 mini is quite fast...IN CONTEXT.

it also does 0-60 in around about 7 secs.

NOW

put a v-tec in one and youre laughing, thats fast,scary and wild.

refined who wants refined??? just raw power.

sure diesel engines power alot of heavy machinery, ie ships, diesel electric trains..........but in a small space of a car, they are out of their territory.
pulling a 747 isnt that impressive, for a jeep, sure people pull 737s???

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

It was in response to it all diesel engines being "crap" and "boring". Those are not crap or boring feats, they are interesting and unusual

No, they are interesting alright, no doubt. They are also pointless -- my question asked what the point was.

E92

if you think diesel is slow, then you should just look at this video, and then tell me if diesels are still slow.

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

if you think diesel is slow, then you should just look at this video, and then tell me if diesels are still slow.

You link isnt working for me, but here is another:
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=U-6Fc5CK1As

Porsche Cayenne Turbo (500BHP, 4.8L V8 Twin turbo Petrol) vs Touareg V10 (310BHP, 5.0L Twin Turbo Diesel), if the submitter got the models correct. Its interesting to see the strengths of the engine are in different places, the Cayenne (which on paper is much faster) pulls away as the speed picks up, the V10 was faster off the line.

Wossack

guess e92 meant this vid (one too many letters)



Just out of interest, whats the fastest time a diesel has done the nurburgring?