Call yourselves Car Enthusiasts

Steve

WHITE_P wrote: »

Jeeze stevec, your a bit hard on astraboy, is it a love hate thing or what ?

c'mon, I was just backing up the arguement that some posters on motors are just here to stir sh1t. I post here (albeit sporadicaly - because of work commitments) and I'll try and help people with problems 'cause boardsies have helped me in the past.
I've no beef with anyone here and we'll all be friends in the morning:D

cantdecide

E92 wrote: »

Thanks for quoting me accurately re "for "particulate zapper technology" look into Mercedes Bluetec, or something, technology." which I never said:(:rolleyes:.

Diesel most definately IS a fad. Look at the CO2 emissions of diesels. An Audi A4 1.8 does 169 g/km, a 2.0 TDI does 144 g/km. A diesel pollutes 85% as much of the CO2 a petrol does. Or to put it another way, it offers a 17% reduction in CO2. Yet it is supposedly a wonder fuel that will solve all our environmental problems:rolleyes:. A petrol doing 50 mpg is just as bad for the planet as a diesel doing 56.5 mpg. A diesel doing 50 mpg pollutes as much CO2 into the atmosphere as a petrol that does 44.3 mpg. Again, not very good. The environmental impact is not that much really, because the burning of diesel produces 13% more CO2 per litre burned than the burning of every litre of petrol.

Diesel engines can't be adapted into running on anything else bar biodiesel, which results in your car smelling like a chip shop. Petrol engines can be adapted to run on bio ethanol, CNC, LPG, and of course the holy grail in automotive engineering, hydrogen. Petrol engines always have and always will continue to be able to extract a far higher power per litre ratio than diesels can ever dream of. The fact that most petrols still are able to have as much power as twin turbo never mind single turbo diesels and yet still for the most part have no form of forced induction proves this. It goes without saying that they can be tuned up to offer far more power than any diesel for any given displacement.

Diesel is dearer to buy, and with the new Euro 5 emissions regs, we will soon have to buy diesels that run on AdBlue(Honda have a completely different system with none of this complication though), which needs natural gas and in turn makes diesels even more expensive to buy than they already are. Someone will have to pay for the cost of topping up the AdBlue every time you get the car serviced(so far AdBlue tanks won't be accessible the way a standard diesel tank is readily accessible every time you want to fill up), and because you have to go to the main dealer to get this done it means if you don't want a main dealer to service your car, you now have a car that is a much bigger public health risk(AdBlue gets rid of most of the Nitrous Oxides and Particulates).

The Euro 6 standards for emissions for diesels are exactly the same as those standards for petrols for Euro 4. So diesels in 2014 will be as clean as petrols were required to be in 2005. So in 2014 diesels will be as clean as petrols have been since 2005. The European standards for 2014 diesels are actually easierthan the Tier 2 Bin 5 standards for all fuels in the US(unlike Europe, the US sees sense and makes emissions standards fuel neutral). So much for diesel being green then. In fairness the Carbon Monoxide for diesels is only half that for petrols, but that's the only area that petrols have it easier.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which manufacturer you listen too, they're all saying the same thing at the end of the day: hydrogen, be it in a fuel cell as favoured by most manufacturers, or in an internal combustion engine, as preferred by BMW and Mazda, is most definately the fuel of the future.

As for biofuels, I realise that biofuels have huge question marks over them, the most important of which is how it will affect developing countries, and more importantly, some of the methods as to how the ethanol is generated are controversial to say the least, because depending on how you do it, it can be very environmentally unfriendly to the point you're better off using crude oil. But I have every confidence that manufacturers can solve the problem, because as I say, it has the potential to reduce emissions by 80% overnight. Now that is far more impressive than anything diesel, hybrid or anything else short of hydrogen can do:D.

By the way, I've no problems with diesels performance(I know they can give plenty of petrols more than a run for their money),and to be fair, modern diesels are vastly improved compared to even 10 years ago, much quieter, more power, even better fuel consumption etc.

I'm just merely arguing the case for why we still need petrols and why there is still plenty of good in petrol left;).

Holy carp, E92. There's no denying you can really push the boat out when you want to and by and large, it's pretty well sussed.

However, having not bothered reading this post becasue of it's size I can say also say that yes, you have a lot to say so excuse me while I go and let you get on with it...

Sincerely, I don't mean to offend:)

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

hydrogen, be it in a fuel cell as favoured by most manufacturers, or in an internal combustion engine, as preferred by BMW and Mazda, is most definately the fuel of the future.

Burning hydrogen is not the way of the future. The BMW Hydrogen 7 manages 5mpg when running on Hydrogen vs up to 80mpg from fuel cell powered cars. As is always the case with burning fuel, most of the energy is released as heat and the Hydrogen-7 is no different.

E92

coolbeans wrote: »

Biodiesel chip shop argument doesn't stand up at all. I was driving a tractor to Wexford over the summer. Trailer filled with oil seed rape. Place processes the seed and extract diesel right there on a converted farm. Saw fellas drivin up to a pump in their landcrusiers or octavias, filling up and driving off. Chipshop? No.

As for the US standards on emissions Merc-B are bringing out blue-tec ultra low emission diesels in their E320 CDI. It will meet the notoriously stringent Calfornia emissions laws well into the future.

Ok fair enough. It was something I heard before about something about biodiesels(not even sure where I saw it):D!

The Merc still hasn't passed the emissions tests for California(nor can anything else at the moment, though they have started leasing these cars in California).

BMW will have 50 state cars later on this year for the US(335d and X5 xDrive 35d). Less power than the naturally aspirated 3.0 petrol they make though(265 bhp, the 330i has 272 bhp).

Any Honda diesel that can pass California's standards is cleaner than petrol without a doubt(their standards are fuel neutral, so the lower CO2 emissions make the diesel greener). Anything else is only sort of. Honda have a completely different system which needs no AdBlue or anything else.

All the German makes seem to be using AdBlue, and the rest we don't know what they're doing. AdBlue comes from Natural Gas, a non renewable resource. If there is no AdBlue, then there is no clean diesel, and that could easily happen if you don't use the main dealer for servicing(because the tank is not accessible to ordinary people), and now it's back being dirt again, so it's sort of cleaner. But someone has got to pay for all these technologies, and it won't be the car makers!

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

Burning hydrogen is not the way of the future. The BMW Hydrogen 7 manages 5mpg when running on Hydrogen vs up to 80mpg from fuel cell powered cars. As is always the case with burning fuel, most of the energy is released as heat and the Hydrogen-7 is no different.

Apparently it's very efficient in the Wankel engine as favoured by Mazda!

Not that it makes much of a difference anyway, water is water.

And come on, a Hydrogen 7 is a big barge of a yoke with a 6.0 litre engine, you can't expect BMW to perform miracles:D! Especially when the fuel cells that do 80 mpg are much lighter and have a lot less power. As I said before, hydrogen in internal combustion engines is in very early days, you only have to look at computers to see what can happen with the passage of time(the same can be said about fuel cells I know too), and I'm sure BMW and Mazda will make it work better over time(of course BMW were very busy with developing hydrogen, but had to divert funds to develop a hybrid instead, so that hasn't helped).

coolbeans

E92 wrote: »

Ok fair enough. It was something I heard before about something about biodiesels(not even sure where I saw it):D!

The Merc still hasn't passed the emissions tests for California(nor can anything else at the moment, though they have started leasing these cars in California).

BMW will have 50 state cars later on this year for the US(335d and X5 xDrive 35d). Less power than the naturally aspirated 3.0 petrol they make though(265 bhp, the 330i has 272 bhp).

Any Honda diesel that can pass California's standards is cleaner than petrol without a doubt(their standards are fuel neutral, so the lower CO2 emissions make the diesel greener). Anything else is only sort of. Honda have a completely different system which needs no AdBlue or anything else.

All the German makes seem to be using AdBlue, and the rest we don't know what they're doing. AdBlue comes from Natural Gas, a non renewable resource. If there is no AdBlue, then there is no clean diesel, and that could easily happen if you don't use the main dealer for servicing(because the tank is not accessible to ordinary people), and now it's back being dirt again, so it's sort of cleaner. But someone has got to pay for all these technologies, and it won't be the car makers!

I don't know the ins and outs of adblue but I do know that the Germans have plans to launch it soon in the US so I assume it's passed their laws. You're more up to date than i I suspect.

Anyway do you still think diesel is a fad?

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

The Merc still hasn't passed the emissions tests for California(nor can anything else at the moment, though they have started leasing these cars in California).

BMW will have 50 state cars later on this year for the US(335d and X5 xDrive 35d). Less power than the naturally aspirated 3.0 petrol they make though(265 bhp, the 330i has 272 bhp).

snip

All the German makes seem to be using AdBlue, and the rest we don't know what they're doing. AdBlue comes from Natural Gas, a non renewable resource.
snip

California, Adblue, Euro 6... why do we suddenly care *that* much about one particular fuels (percieved and real) environmental effect?

I purchased the V10 over the 6.0l W12 (same price for both 2nd hand) solely as the V10 is rated to run on B100 (100% Biodiesel). I did this as I like to tinker with things (Had a Water/Meth injected 440BHP Audi S4 before this) and I like the fact its better for the environment, but Im not going to lie and say that was more than a side bonus.

However, my little side project of converting old used oil into fuel completely negates all of the stuff you have posted about petro-diesel (as its so much nicer for the planet) and its something anyone can do. We dont have to plan for cars in 2014 if you care about the environment so much that it drives (lame pun!) your car choice, you can tackle that now. As a side note, its infinately easier as a hobbist to do the BioDiesel thing than the petrol equivilent.

While I appreciate you are largely correct in your very technical assessments, I think the general resentment (that the OP was referring to) that runs through this forum on diesel (and perhaps SUVs etc) has more to do with old notions of tractors, chip van smells, "dukka dukka" noises and personal bias.

coolbeans

You driving a V10 5.0 TDI VW? NICE!

Matt Simis wrote: »

California, Adblue, Euro 6... why do we suddenly care *that* much about one particular fuels (percieved and real) environmental effect?

I purchased the V10 over the 6.0l W12 (same price for both 2nd hand) solely as the V10 is rated to run on B100 (100% Biodiesel). I did this as I like to tinker with things (Had a Water/Meth injected 440BHP Audi S4 before this) and I like the fact its better for the environment, but Im not going to lie and say that was more than a side bonus.

However, my little side project of converting old used oil into fuel completely negates all of the stuff you have posted about petro-diesel (as its so much nicer for the planet) and its something anyone can do. We dont have to plan for cars in 2014 if you care about the environment so much that it drives (lame pun!) your car choice, you can tackle that now. As a side note, its infinately easier as a hobbist to do the BioDiesel thing than the petrol equivilent.

While I appreciate you are largely correct in your very technical assessments, I think the general resentment (that the OP was referring to) that runs through this forum on diesel (and perhaps SUVs etc) has more to do with old notions of tractors, chip van smells, "dukka dukka" noises and personal bias.

Esel

OP: You accusing me of calling myself an enthusiast? Come out from behind my screen and say that! I'll have you sucking diesel in 10 seconds, pal.