Power vs Torque : Petrol vs Diesel

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

This talk about particualtes is rubbish. As Matt said, it is small fry, and anyone driving a car that uses fossil fuels and does not have zero emissions (and that isnt a hybrid) is in no position to lecture anyone!

There are two types of commonly used fuel in cars today. The first is bad, the second is absolutely lethal, to the point where it's illegal in a lot of the USA.

Talking about particulates is not rubbish.. you are not immune from them. If, and God forbid, you are on your deathbed with lung cancer will you be thinking "ah shur, it could have been anything" and be content to leave it at that.

conneem-TT

maidhc wrote: »

That isn't the point. The point is you don't need to in a diesel. You can overtake without needing to drop a gear, which if nothing else saves a second or two from the manouvre and possibly saves the lives lost from the evil particulates that worry JHMEG so much.



You missed the bit in Toyotas instruction manual which says the fuel consumption computer is inaccurate when going down a hill without throttle! It does say it!

This talk about particualtes is rubbish. As Matt said, it is small fry, and anyone driving a car that uses fossil fuels and does not have zero emissions (and that isnt a hybrid) is in no position to lecture anyone!

By the way the Avensis diesel pulls strongly all the ways to 5000rpm! In fact it is a much more petrol like diesel than anything from VW...e.g. it doesn't really have a wall of torque at 1600rpm -3000rpm and then fall away.

It says in my manual that if you coast in gear, with your foot off the throttle, the engine does not use any fuel, it suggests to do this instead of say coasting to a stop in neutral to improve fuel consumption

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

Never knew that - so JHMEG was right when he said "If you want to keep putting yourself at risk and those around you, keep right on smoking diesel" after all.

And the agument about how many people are killed by diesel fumes and that we should do nothing about it because so "few" are affected is complete bull**** - 336 people died on our roads last year, should we not try and improve road safety and cut the number of road deaths because 336 people in a population of 4 million is let me see....0.0084% of the country's population either:rolleyes:?

Firstly, regarding BioDiesel being the same as diesel but with lower CO2, thats total crap. Secondly, JHMEG doesnt need you patting his back every 3 posts.

Emission Type B100 vs Petro Diesel

Total Unburned Hydrocarbons -67%
Carbon Monoxide -48%
Particulate Matter -47%
Nox +10%
Sulfates -100%
PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)** -80%
nPAH (nitrated PAH’s)-90%
Ozone potential of speciated HC -50%

Yes, NOx goes up, but everything else is way down compared to either petroleum fuel, its unquestionably the better fuel.

Finally, given the danger and deaths associated with diesel, should we question it, yes, but only to the point of getting onto other, greener fuels. Petrol is the same basic fuel with effects that are (to quote an alarmist I know) "lethal" to the environment, but marginally less lethal to people. As I pointed out, using the same "scattergun research" as is quoted here, there are vastly bigger polution targets and wins that we would be better spending time on than this.

Its all about prioritising and if you expect people to accept and believe the 80k per year die from conditions possibly derived from diesel then you have to accept that vastly more people die from coal and wood fires, industrial pollution, shipping etc and that we should fix that first.

But I guess you cant go acting smug on Motoring Enthusiast forums while campaigning to ban firelighters can you?

JHMEG

boards is acting the bol1x again and my original post is gone...

Ironically biodiesel doesn't harm the organism nearly as much as diesel. Google for diesel kills and it's the article about biodiesel not killing nearly as many throat cells as ordinary diesel does.

I disagree strongly with only questioning diesels. Like the Americans it should be banned until car makers make cars that burn diesel as cleanly as petrol burns. Ironically they can make them but are not compelled to sell them in Europe. E92 posted a paragraph a while back from the EU whereby they admitted they fscked up with diesel regulations.

Finally is E92 not allowed express his opinions, just because they happen to be similar to mine?!?

E92

Matt Simis wrote: »

JHMEG doesnt need you patting his back every 3 posts.

In the face of him being hounded for giving the "wrong" opinion on the matter even though he is quoting things from reputable organisations, and only rightly pointing out things like the EU being uber leniant on diesel emissions, of course I'm not going to stay idly by and say nothing. I happen to agree wholeheartedly on that issue. I disagree with him on practically everything else anyway. He hates BMW for a start and lets not go there with hybrids:D!

Matt Simis wrote: »

Emission Type B100 vs Petro Diesel

Total Unburned Hydrocarbons -67%
Carbon Monoxide -48%
Particulate Matter -47%
Nox +10%
Sulfates -100%
PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)** -80%
nPAH (nitrated PAH’s)-90%
Ozone potential of speciated HC -50%

Yes, NOx goes up, but everything else is way down compared to either petroleum fuel, its unquestionably the better fuel.

Indeed it is based on this information. To what you said about x and y being bad for you it's hard not to disagree with it, but there is a preventable solution with diesel....petrol. As for coal and wood fires, well wood is biomass and is therefore renewable. Coal has become smokeless which has greatly reduced smog. I'd be all for renewable energy in favour of fossil fuel energy anyway. There is no need for coal fires anymore. The petrol engine can be adaopted to run on hydrogen. Of course, there are horriffic consequences, but I'm sure that like mobile phones, with the passage of time the current problems with it can be sorted. Sure the first hydrogen carts won't be on sale for what it is 2020? The diesel engine can't be adopted to run on anything other than rapeseed oil.

I just can't see how people can justify diesel getting away with far less stringent emissions rules than petrol. That is my problem.

It is NOT cleaner than petrol once you ignore CO2, that is the only thing I'm arguing with, and even with the Euro 6 emissions standards, petrols will still be greener. I've nothing against the way they drive, yes I prefer the way a petrol drives, but I like them both for very different reasons. Diesel is more useable, petrol will thrill in a way that proper power steering is better than electric power steering! I just don't like the way people think petrols are rubbish when they drive them the way a diesel should be driven, that's all;). If you drive a petrol the way it should to get the performance that is available, it is still better than a diesel IMO.

maidhc wrote: »

By the way the Avensis diesel pulls strongly all the ways to 5000rpm! In fact it is a much more petrol like diesel than anything from VW...e.g. it doesn't really have a wall of torque at 1600rpm -3000rpm and then fall away.

I drove the current Avensis diesel. The 2.0 with the 6 speed box. And my father has the pre facelift 1.8 petrol(which is mechanically identical to the facelifted version). AFAIK your family has the old shape Avensis D-4D(the one dervived from the Carina E) with 110 bhp. To be honest I didn't take it into the upper reaches of the rev range that much, but I thought it was starting to tail off at around 3500 rpm. Could have been my imagination though. With you having one in your family you would clearly be more familiar with the engine than I would, as it was my first time driving it yesterday, though I did drive it for a couple of hours.

Panda Moanium

JHMEG wrote: »

boards is acting the bol1x again and my original post is gone...

Ironically biodiesel doesn't harm the organism nearly as much as diesel. Google for diesel kills and it's the article about biodiesel not killing nearly as many throat cells as ordinary diesel does.

I disagree strongly with only questioning diesels. Like the Americans it should be banned until car makers make cars that burn diesel as cleanly as petrol burns. Ironically they can make them but are not compelled to sell them in Europe. E92 posted a paragraph a while back from the EU whereby they admitted they fscked up with diesel regulations.

Finally is E92 not allowed express his opinions, just because they happen to be similar to mine?!?

When did America ban diesels? Granted, there's next to none to be found there but isn't that just down to the fact that the market has never developed?

There is a certain irony in you putting forward the country that per head of population probably causes more vehicle pollution than any other in the world (and is extremely resistant to change its attitude) to highlight your case for a greener environment....

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

I disagree strongly with only questioning diesels. Like the Americans it should be banned until car makers make cars that burn diesel as cleanly as petrol burns.

Should large petrol engined cars be banned then as they do not burn as clean as small ones? Should cars be banned because they do not burn as clean as push bike?

This has got to be the most shrill and pointless argument ever!

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

Should large petrol engined cars be banned then as they do not burn as clean as small ones? Should cars be banned because they do not burn as clean as push bike?

This has got to be the most shrill and pointless argument ever!

maidhc, wtf are you on about? Large cars burns as clean as small ones, assuming same fuel and same age.

You've got your back up cos you've backed the wrong horse with the Focus, even tho you've backed the right one with the other one.:p:p

JHMEG

Panda Moanium wrote: »

When did America ban diesels?

Until recently no-one had a diesel that burned clean enough.

Marcus.Aurelius

I would have thought our emissions standards were a lot better than the USA for diesels.

Then again, JHMEG's signature tells a different story, but reports thus far only discuss the possibility that diesel may be an emerging carcinogen.

Not to be stuffy and snotty, but until its scientifically proven in an unbiased form, I'm not too impressed.

Animal models are not reliable in this case, as in the article below:

Mauderly, J.L. et al., (1996) "Diesel Exhaust Is Not a Pulmonary Carcinogen in CD-1 Mice Exposed under Conditions Carcinogenic to F344 Rats", Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 30: pp. 233-242

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

I just can't see how people can justify diesel getting away with far less stringent emissions rules than petrol. That is my problem.

See, thats the problem. No one here is/was stating that. This thread was started to show that diesel is "rubbish" for performance. It then turned into a discussion yet again on an inflammatory signature.

Regarding these "people" saying that diesel is greener (hard to imagine this even being accepted after 50 years of diesel=dirty being drilled into our heads) JHMEG has been stating the polar opposite, perhaps in a kneejerk sort of way, that diesel will outright murder people ("smoking the diesel" is the new killer drug it seems, think of the children).

Incidentially, you mentioned that Diesel cannot be adapted to anything but Biodiesel, this is incorrect. Not only (should) does it not need adaptation (should work out of the box) for B100, but diesels will also run synthetic fuels such as FTP (Fischer-Tropsch process) based fuel, for whatever thats worth. Ye Olde Diesels (pre high pressure rails) would of course run on a lot more. My stance continues to be the fuel may be dirty (as with all fossil fuels), however the engine technology has merit.

JHMEG

maoleary wrote: »

I would have thought our emissions standards were a lot better than the USA for diesels.

Quite the opposite.

maoleary wrote: »

Then again, JHMEG's signature tells a different story, but reports thus far only discuss the possibility that diesel may be an emerging carcinogen.

Not to be stuffy and snotty, but until its scientifically proven in an unbiased form, I'm not too impressed.

That's fine. Cigarettes don't cause cancer either otherwise 100% of smokers would get lung cancer. They do however greatly increase the risk.

Marcus.Aurelius

JHMEG wrote: »

That's fine. Cigarettes don't cause cancer either otherwise 100% of smokers would get lung cancer. They do however greatly increase the risk.

Well, the incidence is greatly increased in proper control groups.

When this is mirrored in diesel carcinogenic studies, I will sit up and pay attention, no matter what the conclusion!

EDIT: Do you have any links for that emissions differences between us and the US handy? (I'm not questioning your post, I'd like to see how different we are! Thanks)

JHMEG

maoleary wrote: »

EDIT: Do you have any links for that emissions differences between us and the US handy? (I'm not questioning your post, I'd like to see how different we are! Thanks)

E92 posted stuff before. Google, it's easy enough to find. For starters Euro 5 (our current standard) has diesel pollution levels way above petrol. The US applies the same standards across the board.

What does "Conditions Carcinogenic to F344 Rats" mean?

Biro

craichoe wrote: »

Thank god my g/f has twin boobs and not sequential boobs

Post of the day!

Phaetonman

E92 posted stuff before. Google, it's easy enough to find.

From reading his posts here I wouldn't trust a word that guy says. He hasn't a clue; just some sad BMW fanboy.

Marcus.Aurelius

F344 rats are a strain with a particularly high background incidence of cancer compared to others. see http://www.informatics.jax.org/external/festing/rat/docs/F344.shtml

They are used a lot in carcinogen studies, and I admit the point.

JHMEG

maoleary wrote: »

F344 rats are a strain with a particularly high background incidence of cancer compared to others. see http://www.informatics.jax.org/external/festing/rat/docs/F344.shtml

They are used a lot in carcinogen studies, and I admit the point.

What I actually meant was: did the rats develop cancer and the mice didn't?

Marcus.Aurelius

JHMEG wrote: »

What I actually meant was: did the rats develop cancer and the mice didn't?

If its any easier, here's the abstact:

Differences among laboratory animal species in the pulmonary carcinogenicity of chronic inhalation exposure to diesel exhaust have raised several important interpretive issues. Under similar heavy exposure conditions, it is clear that diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in rats, but not in Syrian hamsters. Previous reports give conflicting views of the response of mice, which is presently considered equivocal. This report describes carcinogenicity results from a bioassay of CD-1 mice conducted in parallel with a previously reported bioassay of F344 rats (Mauderly et al. (1987) Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 9, 208–221). Exposure to whole diesel exhaust 7 hr/day, 5 days/week for 24 months at soot concen trations of 0.35, 3.5, or 7.1 mg/m3 caused accumulations of soot in mouse lungs similar to those in lungs of rats and, like the results from rats, did not significantly affect survival or body weight. In contrast to the dose-related neoplastic response of rats, however, the exposures of mice did not increase the incidence of lung neoplasms. This finding is consistent with other data showing that mice, as well as Syrian hamsters, differ from rats in their lung neoplastic and nonneoplastic responses to heavy, chronic inhalation exposure to diesel exhaust soot and several other particles. Although rodents serve as useful indicators of potential human carcinogenic hazards, it is not yet clear which, if any, rodent species have lung neoplastic responses that are useful for quantitative predictions of human lung cancer risk from chronic inhalation of poorly soluble, respirable particles.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/233

So, as you can see, the rats higher incidence of cancer was not mirrored in the mice in this study, or the hamsters in a previous one.

The issue is that we don't have any decent models to compare to man

JHMEG

So they proved that the couldn't prove anything?

Marcus.Aurelius

JHMEG wrote: »

So they proved that the couldn't prove anything?

I would definitely agree with that!!!

JHMEG

I'm not being a smartass, I'm just not used to reading medical journals!

This kinda threw a spanner in the works:
"it is not yet clear which, if any, rodent species have lung neoplastic responses that are useful for quantitative predictions of human lung cancer"

Spit62500

It might be worth mentioning that benzene in petrol is considered so dangerous in the US that some states have systems that suck up the fumes from the filler hose - the pump won't operate unless the seal is complete. It too is a carcinogenic that is thought to cause lung cancer. I'm not saying that particulates aren't dangerous - just that our kindly legislators don't seem to give a cr*p about the dangers of either fuel....

Matt Simis

Spit62500 wrote: »

It might be worth mentioning that benzene in petrol is considered so dangerous in the US that some states have systems that suck up the fumes from the filler hose - the pump won't operate unless the seal is complete. It too is a carcinogenic that is thought to cause lung cancer. I'm not saying that particulates aren't dangerous - just that our kindly legislators don't seem to give a cr*p about the dangers of either fuel....

Yep, benzene causes Leukemia and other nasty things (like myeloma). Its estimated it kills 10k people per year in the US (via leukemia alone!). 70% of benzene in the atmosphere (in Europe) comes from... petrol automobiles.

Petrol contains upto 1.5% Benzene per volume and this was going to rise (apparently) to 5% per volume in the next few years (this has been curbed now to 0.62 to 1% content). Historically the US identified and limited the amount of benzene in petrol compared to the EU (which seemed a lot less concerned). Where are our petrol scrubbers and warnings about the dangers to mechanics and at fuel stations?

To paraphase, Petrol is allowed to cause leukemia.

TheBazman

Phaetonman wrote: »

From reading his posts here I wouldn't trust a word that guy says. He hasn't a clue; just some sad BMW fanboy.

Dont really think you are in much of a position to make a comment like that with 7 posts. I for one think that e92's thread gives a lot of useful information and he certainly brings a lot to the Motors forum

Robbo

Do you realize that diesel is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

Victor_M

TheBazman wrote: »

Dont really think you are in much of a position to make a comment like that with 7 posts. I for one think that e92's thread gives a lot of useful information and he certainly brings a lot to the Motors forum

+1

E92 is one of a minority of posters on the Motoring forum who actually post useful information.

E92

Matt Simis wrote: »

Yep, benzene causes Leukemia and other nasty things (like myeloma). Its estimated it kills 10k people per year in the US (via leukemia alone!). 70% of benzene in the atmosphere (in Europe) comes from... petrol automobiles.

Petrol contains upto 1.5% Benzene per volume and this was going to rise (apparently) to 5% per volume in the next few years (this has been curbed now to 0.62 to 1% content). Historically the US identified and limited the amount of benzene in petrol compared to the EU (which seemed a lot less concerned). Where are our petrol scrubbers and warnings about the dangers to mechanics and at fuel stations?

To paraphase, Petrol is allowed to cause leukemia.

In the US, JHMEG said that 21,000 are killed by diesel fumes. So diesel is more than twice as likely to kill you in a country where only a miniscule amount of cars are powered by diesel.

To quote yourself that's "small fry". Not that I'm trying to delude myself though. If the US can get the benzene down to those levels, then there's absolutely no reason why we can't.

Couldthis be the link you were on about JHMEG?

I took the liberty of posting this link which you posted in this thread. That one says diesels are 4 to 5 times worse than petrols for NOx and PM.

Actually I quoted part of what it said in the diesel prices thread too.

E92 wrote: »

The EU6 rules which come into force in 2014 will make diesels as clean as EURO 4 petrols.

A Euro 4 diesel can pollute as much as 0.25 g/km of Nitrous Oxide. A Euro 4 petrol is only allowed 0.08, so diesels are more than 3 times dirtier there.

On this site I found the following:

The European Federation for Transport and the Environment (T&E) strongly supports stronger emissions standards but regrets the weakness of the Euro 5 and 6 standards, notably as regards NOx emissions, which it says cause smog, respiratory problems and acid rain. The NGO also deplores the fact that four-wheel drive vehicles (or SUVs) have been allowed an additional three year transition period before having to comply with the new rules. "The Parliament, in its 'wisdom', has concluded that SUVs - these unsafe, antisocial, heavily-polluting cars - should be allowed to pump lethal emissions into the air for an extended period," said T&E Director Jos Dings. He added that the new legislation created an "unbelievable situation" where Euro 6 standards, to be enforced after 2014, will be weaker than those in California and ten other American states (40mg/km for both petrol and diesel cars): "An American consumer can buy a super-clean Mercedes diesel today in their local dealer, while a German will have to wait until 2015 to buy something even remotely similar. There is simply no excuse for allowing Europe to lose its leadership in this area."

Even when we do finally get clean diesels in 6 years time(10 years after the same cleanliness was achieved with petrols), they will be using AdBlue(bar Honda), and when you run out of AdBlue you're back to dirty smelly diesel.

AdBlue comes from Natural Gas, a non renewable resource. Thats very green now isn't it:rolleyes:?

Honda are the only people who will have a clean diesel, but it turns out that these super clean diesels actually aren't a lot better on CO2 than petrol.

I completely agree with you that only the fuel should be taxed. That way you would pay for your pollution. Goes back to why I said diesel should be dearer. If a diesel is 13% better on mpg, then it is actually no better for the planet on CO2(than a petrol), but is much worse for our health and air quality. The current VRT system means that manufacturers will only introduce cars with better emissions standards if there is a reduction in VRT. That's hardly fair. The Government should have made DPFs mandatory too. That would hugely reduce the bad effects of diesels on our health and air quality(in fairness most diesels do have DPFs these days but I know some manufacturers left them out for Ireland presumably because of VRT).

Merc's new DiesOtto engine coming in around 2014(which runs on petrol) will give all the advantages of lower CO2, torque and economy of diesels, combined with the superior power, noise, and refinement of petrols, and then there will be no need for diesel ever again, because burning the same quantity of petrol as diesel emits around 11% less CO2 into the atmosphere.

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

In the US, JHMEG said that 21,000 are killed by diesel fumes. So diesel is more than twice as likely to kill you in a country where only a miniscule amount of cars are powered by diesel.

To quote yourself that's "small fry". Not that I'm trying to delude myself though. If the US can get the benzene down to those levels, then there's absolutely no reason why we can't.

Perhaps I wasnt being clear on that post. My point is that both fuels are "lethal" if we want to brand them that way. The reality is various research has shown them to be of concern to very dangerous. Also petrol doesnt "kill" 10k people, Benzine alone does, of which petrol from road traffic is the major contributor. The amount of people "killed" (again, in theory) by the various other effects of petrol alone would be vastly higher. It would be naive to think otherwise and pointless to start a thread proclaiming fuel x is lethal while ignoring the effects of fuel y. All fossil fuels are bad but measuring the negative effect is far more complex than regurgitating some research (from a vast sea of research) that may prove ones point (a rather shallow victory no?).

I also wholeheartedly think that the figures being thrown around here are small fry compared to other maladies the world faces.

However, surely we can discuss the performance or not of engines and fuels in this forum (a Motors board) without the Eco-terror tactics in sigs and hidden agendas in posts?

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

However, surely we can discuss the performance or not of engines and fuels in this forum (a Motors board) without the Eco-terror tactics in sigs and hidden agendas in posts?

Matt, why are you so relentless in your defence of diesel?