Is diesel dead?

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

Thank you maidhc for finally admitting that the only reason diesel is better is cost thanks to our Government subsidising the price of a more complex and costly fuel type that happens to be better on one emission(CO2), but much worse for all the emissions that are as bad for us as smoking fags are.

At least fags only kill one person, and it is your choice to try and kill yourself faster, while I've no choice in breathing in diesel fumes and neither does anyone else have that choice in being killed faster and having a less healthy life.

I'm not absolutist one way or the other. I own a petrol and a diesel. Right now Co2 seems to be a huge problem, and the diesel is the lesser of the two evils. Really though I don't care about emissions, I care about what the car is like to drive and how much it costs to buy/run.

mukki

what an annoying thread to read, your like a gang of women bickering

Hagar

I think the future of diesel is bleak purely from a cost point of view.
The Govt takes a huge take rake from both petrol and diesel, not the same take admittedly. With times getting tough and prices rising the average motorist (petrol) will economise where he can, take the odd bus, train, car sharing, whatever. This will affect the tax take to the State. From the Govt. point of view it makes more sense to increase the tax take on those who cannot economise this way ie the commercial hauliers, 99% diesel. It's what has happened in the Britain and the Irish Govt have never been slow to take up any new idea which brings in taxes. The motorist in his diesel car will be caught up in this and end up paying a higher price for fuel than his petrol counterpart.

GG66

Robertr wrote: »

Interesting article from WhatCar?

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=233064

The results are that you would have to drive 170,000 kms before you make your money back on the diesel!!!

I'd have more confidence of doing 170,000 kms in a diesel than a petrol and I intend to.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

I'm not absolutist one way or the other.

That must be a new word?!

maidhc wrote:

Really though I don't care about emissions

Are you a smoker? What did you think of smoking in pubs?

peasant

JHMEG wrote: »

Are you a smoker? What did you think of smoking in pubs?

No, no, no ...not the smoking ban. Stick with the topic at hand.

barryfitz

GG66 wrote: »

I'd have more confidence of doing 170,000 kms in a diesel than a petrol and I intend to.

95 1.3 corolla 184000 MILES so far. No Propultion components ever replaced (me touches all the wood around me):p
I think that kind of negates your point.

Marcus.Aurelius

barryfitz wrote: »

95 1.3 corolla 184000 MILES so far. No Propultion components ever replaced (me touches all the wood around me):p
I think that kind of negates your point.

Doubt you can beat some of the Carina E turbodiesels (slow though they may be) with >500,000 miles on them.

Was in a taxi recently with 585,000 miles on the way, 1994 Carina E, and the other week was in an old merc 300D taxi with 320,000 miles.

barryfitz

il probably be an old man by the time I clock up 500000 miles on her so if I remember what a computer is il let you know whether she can do it or not.

E92

Funnily enough it's actually petrol cars that are more durable these days on the whole, a lot of common rail diesels give injector problems and that leaves you with a bill of over €1000. Some diesels like BMW's have turbo failures as well. Though there are examples of both types that are troublesome and good, but in general petrols seem to be more durable.

As for CO2 maidhc I completely agree that this, and other Governments have decided that it is the big issue, but in reality the Earth has been cooling down in recent times, even though we're polluting more CO2 than ever before, so why are we getting worried about that instead of our own well being, apart from the fact that it will save us money to buy something that has a lower CO2 rating?

Oil is meant to be hitting $150 a barrel before July btw.

As petrols get more and more efficient, and they are thanks to VAG and BMW with direct injection and forced induction, petrols will start increasing their power advantage and crucially claw back a lot of the lost ground on CO2 emissions, which are directly related to fuel consumption, so the tide will start to turn in favour of petrol once again, in fact it already has in countries like Germany.

zilog_jones

Regardless of environmental concerns, surely CO2 emissions are a better way of comparing cars for taxation purposes than engine size? Considering engines are generally getting bigger yet increasing in efficiency i.e. they aren't really worse in any respect compared to their predecessors, I think the new system is justified. It's the next best thing to just taxing fuel IMO.

Marcus.Aurelius: I thought the Carina E diesels were naturally aspirated?

E92

Don't get me wrong, CO2 based taxation is much better than cc based, at least it makes the distinction between cars that are actually more fuel efficient and will in time get rid of Irish specials like a 1.6 Avensis, Mondeo etc, all I'm arguing is that focusing on CO2 alone and ignoring all the ill affects of diesel power is highly irresponsible at best and playing with peoples' lives at worst.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, CO2 based taxation is much better than cc based, at least it makes the distinction between cars that are actually more fuel efficient and will in time get rid of Irish specials like a 1.6 Avensis, Mondeo etc, all I'm arguing is that focusing on CO2 alone and ignoring all the ill affects of diesel power is highly irresponsible at best and playing with peoples' lives at worst.

But I think the point is the scientific community have pretty much decided that co2 is a massive problem, and one far bigger than particulates, for now at least. Maybe this will change, but I don't see any grounds right now to say that promoting low co2 cars is somehow wrong.

Bee

E92 wrote: »

Funnily enough it's actually petrol cars that are more durable these days on the whole, a lot of common rail diesels give injector problems and that leaves you with a bill of over €1000. Some diesels like BMW's have turbo failures as well. Though there are examples of both types that are troublesome and good, but in general petrols seem to be more durable.

As for CO2 maidhc I completely agree that this, and other Governments have decided that it is the big issue, but in reality the Earth has been cooling down in recent times, even though we're polluting more CO2 than ever before, so why are we getting worried about that instead of our own well being, apart from the fact that it will save us money to buy something that has a lower CO2 rating?

Oil is meant to be hitting $150 a barrel before July btw.

As petrols get more and more efficient, and they are thanks to VAG and BMW with direct injection and forced induction, petrols will start increasing their power advantage and crucially claw back a lot of the lost ground on CO2 emissions, which are directly related to fuel consumption, so the tide will start to turn in favour of petrol once again, in fact it already has in countries like Germany.

I have personally seen a certain major motoring organisations itemised breakdown figures and what you say is simply not true. Diesel engined cars are way ahead in reliability over their petrol counterparts.

I do agree with you as regards costly repairs if someone is unfortunate enough to suffer a major fault but the figures show that diesel engines have less failures and lower maintenance costs by far

The reason diesel is more efficient is because it contains more energy than petrol with an advantage of 30%

I do agree we are going to see some interesting petrol engines with diesel characteristics but my guess is the future will be hybrids

The earth is warming as it always has had a variable climate, the average impact of mankinds Co2 is nothing as bad as the EcoNuts proclaim

Co2 is a benign gas that constitutes only 0.04% of the Earths atmosphere. At worst mankind is responsible for 4% of 0.04%! A whole lot of zeros and the rest is Natures, the tiny end result is reduced by another huge factor because as the climatologists on the UN's politically biased IPCC comittee have been forced to show and as anyone with a decent undertanding of climatology knows, the main greenhouse gas is water vapor. the best science shows it has 30 times the impact of the other major greenhouse gas, Methane.

The total worldwide C02 emissions by mankind is only 0.15% of all of the greenhouse gases.

The man made "Global Warming" industry spurned on by highly theoretical research by climate experts combined with the politically biased non scientific "summarisers" in the UN's IPCC attempts to say mankind is the only one responsible for climate change, utter non scientific bollocks!

The Global Warming nutters have ignored the historical record of Earth's past warmings that bears has no relationship with the scientific information that is freely available

anyone see some info on the Opel insignia ( the replacment for the Vectra) new engine, its supposed to use compression ignition like a diesel up to 3000rpm and then spark ignition kicks in after that?

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

Thank you maidhc for finally admitting that the only reason diesel is better ..

I still dont understand why you two (and you know the who the other one is ) insist on making everything black and white. How can petrol(/diesel) be "better". That would imply its greater in most if not all areas you can measure. It isnt, because such a thing is impossible.

Petrol
Higher BHP, faster top speed, faster on small cars and lighter engines which leads to lighter cars and all the benefits it brings.
It has less torque (retarded gear comments ignored, come on guys, pub talk for the pub please)
Lower economy despite an order of magniture more engines and research
Slower 0-60 and general performance on heavy vehicles (see A8 4.2 TDI vs 4.2 Petrol)
Great exhaust note
Faster 0-60 on small to mid range cars, generally
Higher engine temp output is harder on other components (ie Turbos)
Enviromental, concerns bad for planet, better for humans.

Diesel
Torque king - general feeling of performance due to more instant acceleration. Faster overall on heavy vehicles
Low RPM orientated powerband is easier drive around towns, backroads etc
Better fuel economy and lower Carbon footprint
Can run Veg Oil and Biodiesel
Few performance engines, only BMW Twin Turbo, VAG V10 and V12 TDI, all of which could be considered only first attempts.
500BHP (750 ft/lbs Torque) V12 TDI shows the potiential for massive performance and still returns 23mpg on 2.5ton cars.
Enviromental concerns, bad for humans, better for planet.
Cheaper to buy (dont care why...) eg TT TDI version

E92

maidhc wrote: »

I don't see any grounds right now to say that promoting low co2 cars is somehow wrong.

No, but saying that because a car is good on just one emission that it somehow is green is similarly equally wrong.

If diesel is so hunky dory then why can't manufacturers make diesels that are clean enough for sale in the US, which ironically has the toughest emission standards of anywhere in the world?

The answer is simple; the manufacturers have achieved a massive hoodwink when it comes to promoting cars that are supposedly cleaner over here, and the key word is supposedly, because petrol always has and still is greener than diesel, by quite some margin too.

@MattSimis: you ignored many of the other benefits of petrol, but here they are:

:cheaper to build than diesel
:smoother in my experience
:quieter(yes they still are)
:per unit consumed produces roughly 11.5% lower CO2 emissions than diesel by that I mean a 50 mpg petrol is no worse for our carbon footprint than a diesel that does 56.5 mpg
:less complex
:can be adapted to run on bio ethanol up to and including E100, LPG, CNG, and even hydrogen
:lighter, therefore they're better to drive and are more carbon friendly to build

Bee wrote: »

anyone see some info on the Opel insignia ( the replacment for the Vectra) new engine, its supposed to use compression ignition like a diesel up to 3000rpm and then spark ignition kicks in after that?

That engine won't be coming till early in the next decade, but it will burn petrol as efficiently as diesel does, it can get as much energy out of the fuel as a diesel engines can, and Merc are also developing something similar, Merc call it "DiesOtto" while GM are calling it HCCI(Homogeneous Charge Compression Injection) and as the name suggests it combines the combustion processes of both petrol and diesel engines, but the main thing is that it actually runs on petrol;)!

The other big benefit of HCCI is that NOx and PM are lower than even a conventional petrol, and don't even need a catalytic converter to deal with these pollutants, and CO and HC are no worse than a standard petrol engine(though they are nothing like as bad as PM, NOx and CO2 are).

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

(and you know the who the other one is )

Me me me, please, pick me!

Matt Simis wrote: »

It has less torque (retarded gear comments ignored, come on guys, pub talk for the pub please)

This shows your whole misunderstanding of reality. "Peak torque" means nothing when you have a gearbox.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Higher engine temp output is harder on other components (ie Turbos)

Huh? 10:1 compression in a petrol vs 25:1 in a diesel.. tell me which is harder, requiring diesels to be overbuilt.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Low RPM orientated powerband is easier drive around towns, backroads etc

Not this again. A 2.0L petrol will do the same. If you don't like changing gears get an automatic.

A lot of the rest is true, or just not too badly wrong. I've only corrected the worst bits.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

I don't see any grounds right now to say that promoting low co2 cars is somehow wrong.

Back in the 1950s they said the same about smoking.



I think they found out later they were kinda wrong about that one.

copacetic

Matt Simis wrote: »

Cheaper to buy (dont care why...) eg TT TDI version

Not true, the diesel of most cars is still dearer that the petrol equivalent, i.e you are saying the TT TDI is cheaper than the petrol? It isn't.

The 1.8T is cheaper that the TT TDI by a fair bit, and since diesel is dearer than petrol you never make the money back unless doing tens of thousands of miles a year.

Same with bmw 320i v 320d, the diesel has gotten much cheaper than it was and is arguably better, but isn't cheaper or anyway near as cheap as the petrol.

JHMEG

Bee wrote: »

Diesel engined cars are way ahead in reliability over their petrol counterparts.

Top 3 most reliable cars, by number of warranty claims
1. Honda Accord
2. Subaru Forester
3. MX-5

Ahem, eh, none of these models feature a diesel engine.

Cionád

Can the mods add the diesel v petrol debate to the fog light ban please. The same arguments get thrown around every week.

JHMEG

Cionád wrote: »

Can the mods add the diesel v petrol debate to the fog light ban please. The same arguments get thrown around every week.

If you don't like it don't read it?!

E92

Hasn't the Honda S2000 come top in satisfaction surveys time and time again?

And let me see that features an engine "so unreliable" because it is a) petrol and b) can rev to 9,000 rpm? I thought petrols don't last, no:eek:?

If anything diesels should be more reliable since petrols operate continuously at much higher engine speeds than diesel because they do their best work at the upper reaches of the rev range and also because the gearing is much shorter in a petrol as well.

zilog_jones

JHMEG wrote: »

Ahem, eh, none of these models feature a diesel engine.

The Honda Accord 2.2 i-DTEC diesel would like to have a word with you. I'm not taking any particular side on this argument though...

bbability

copacetic wrote: »

Not true, the diesel of most cars is still dearer that the petrol equivalent, i.e you are saying the TT TDI is cheaper than the petrol? It isn't.

The 1.8T is cheaper that the TT TDI by a fair bit, and since diesel is dearer than petrol you never make the money back unless doing tens of thousands of miles a year.

Same with bmw 320i v 320d, the diesel has gotten much cheaper than it was and is arguably better, but isn't cheaper or anyway near as cheap as the petrol.

That's a lame argument. The one thing you've got to remember is a car has no value once it leaves the forecourt. Its not an investment in terms of a return on your money.

Second point is even with the price of diesel running an average of 5 to 8 cent a litre dearer than petrol at the moment, a petrol car will be back to the petrol station quicker than its diesel counterpart. My passat gives me at least 1000km to 65 litre's of diesel. 90 euro at the last fill on Saturdayat 1.39 per litre. A petrol equivalant may cost 5 to 7 euro less but a petrol car will only give you around 700km if your lucky to a tank!

Just back from Italy where the cheapest fuel prices were 1.51 per Litre for diesel and 1.46 for petrol.
9 out of 10 of the rental cars in the car park was diesel.


Diesel rules even if, even if you are doing small mileage around town.

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

Me me me, please, pick me!
This shows your whole misunderstanding of reality. "Peak torque" means nothing when you have a gearbox.
..
Not this again. A 2.0L petrol will do the same. If you don't like changing gears get an automatic.
..
A lot of the rest is true, or just not too badly wrong. I've only corrected the worst bits.

That wasnt much of a correction compared to your usual spiraling freefall..

Please educate me on how torque means nothing thanks to the magic of gears. As of today I drive a car with 605ft/lbs of torque (and it has tip box out of the a 550BHP Porsche too, boo hiss), but apparently the magic of gears makes up for a massive torque deficit. How much smaller a petrol engine could I get that could move 2.6 tons of metal with the same pace? At 25-28mpg. Seriously, go for it.

You live in theory while I drive reality, Id put you in my car so at least you would have a benchmark of a fast diesel, but Id be afraid you would go all Vanilla Sky car crash scene on me .

Matt Simis

copacetic wrote: »

Not true, the diesel of most cars is still dearer that the petrol equivalent, i.e you are saying the TT TDI is cheaper than the petrol? It isn't.

The 1.8T is cheaper that the TT TDI by a fair bit, and since diesel is dearer than petrol you never make the money back unless doing tens of thousands of miles a year.

I was actually referring to the fact in general diesel vehicles, thanks to misguided or misleading environmental concerns has gotten cheaper while petrol has increase in cost. And I was comparing the 2.0 TDI TT to the 2.0 TFSI TT (obviously). And the 1.8 Petrol TT is just €555 cheaper ("a fair bit cheaper") to buy new than the TDI and costs €280 per year more to tax. The 2.0 petrol is even more expensive to buy and tax. Are we even looking at the same price list?


EDIT to your below reply as Im not posting the same thing twice. Im looking at Audi Chris's Audi price list for July. Flicking through the 2.0TFSI on the TT and A6 is more expensive to buy and tax than the 2.0TDI. Both new engines. Im not going through it line by line.

copacetic

bbability wrote: »

That's a lame argument. The one thing you've got to remember is a car has no value once it leaves the forecourt. Its not an investment in terms of a return on your money.

Second point is even with the price of diesel running an average of 5 to 8 cent a litre dearer than petrol at the moment, a petrol car will be back to the petrol station quicker than its diesel counterpart. My passat gives me at least 1000km to 65 litre's of diesel. 90 euro at the last fill on Saturdayat 1.39 per litre. A petrol equivalant may cost 5 to 7 euro less but a petrol car will only give you around 700km if your lucky to a tank!

Just back from Italy where the cheapest fuel prices were 1.51 per Litre for diesel and 1.46 for petrol.
9 out of 10 of the rental cars in the car park was diesel.


Diesel rules even if, even if you are doing small mileage around town.

it's hardly a lame argument, a poster above said diesel cars are cheaper, i was simply pointing out they aren't. hardly lame?

if the car has no value when it leaves the forecourt why pay more for the diesel if you never make the extra back?

As for your point, it is lame. It doesn't make any sense. Why does diesel 'rule' for small cars? So you get longer between trips to the petrol station? Is that the only reason?

Your 1000 to 700 miles per tank is not true either for modern cars.
eg new A4 2.0TDI (much more effiencent that your car) gets 51.4mpg the 1.8T gets 39.8, both have a 14.1 gallon tank.

So you will get 724 mile to tank from diesel and 561 from the petrol. About 23% more when the petrol is running 9% cheaper.

It would take you about a lot of tankfuls to make the extra cost to buy worth your while, not sure why you don't understand that.

copacetic

Matt Simis wrote: »

I was actually referring to the fact in general diesel vehicles, thanks to misguided or misleading environmental concerns has gotten cheaper while petrol has increase in cost.

again not true, bmw petrols have come down 10% in price under new legislation as have most new audi petrol engnes.

peasant

Well, this diesel is near dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEl-oyEmxcU

and this thread is beginning to sound the same