Diesels accelerating - big clouds of black smoke- explain??

[y2blade]

F i F said:

Has to point this out for the sake of blood pressure at the usually lower level intelligence than normal on this thread. Not just aimed at this poster but many others too.

+1

some real "gems" on here aren't there

the thick twunts should stay away from topics they know F--all about

[blueg33]

BlueMR2 said:

Diesel is just a dirtier fuel correct?

I like the way they have to put a particulate filter on which lowers mpg which is the sole reason to buy one.

Then it spends all its life at 1500-2000 rpm because its driver is clueless and goes into limp home mode unless you go thrash it on the montor way for an hour, removing most of the mpg benefit.

The government needs to get real, stop the co2 tax bullst and start taxing on particulates. Increase diesel fuel to £1.40 a litre for the public and petrol down to 90p.

Maybe a couple of pence extra to remove road tax and that way foreign visitors bringing cars here pay for the tax and a big cut in costs of runing and policing the road tax sysyem. You can't avoid it and you can't forget to pay it. It wont be based on made up emmisions crap it will be based on mpg. So you choice of car and driving style determines how much you pay.

Wow what a post! I am still laughing. Some great joke stuff on PH at the moment

[frosted]

All non dpf cars smoke , some mire than others ( the driver just can't see it )

Ie the dpf self cleaning technique only takes 10 miles or 5 minutes of constant 50mph in 4th or 5th .

I have a dpf vehicle , can vouch it never smokes and it has 170brake

[Rob_F]

frosted said:

All non dpf cars smoke , some mire than others ( the driver just can't see it )

Ie the dpf self cleaning technique only takes 10 miles or 5 minutes of constant 50mph in 4th or 5th .

I have a dpf vehicle , can vouch it never smokes and it has 170brake

Off topic but have you ever noted how long a journey it takes to get a DPF to regenerate, or indeed how many 'city miles' it takes before it needs one?

Would consider one of the speedier diesels but the DPF stuff concerns me as i have very short (handful of miles) commute.

Cheers,
Rob

[frosted]

If I drive at normal speed town speed it can take up to 14 days for the light to come on , at the moment I'm averaging 30mpg and it needs to regenerate every 3-4 days ( that's because I rag it ) mile wise 400 miles if I drive normally and 100 if I don't . My journeys are all within central London if I lived in in Manchester or somewhere like that I wouldn't worry about the dpf

You can remove the dpf , plus a remap to 240 brake on my passsat is 1000 quid

Edited by frosted on Friday 3rd September 17:49

[HellDiver]

frosted said:

it needs to regenerate every 3-4 days

That's pants. There's something wrong with your car.

My Lancer (fitted with a VW 2.0TDI PD 140hp, factory remapped to 170hp) didn't need regenerated once in the time I had it (8 months, 12k). That was mixed motorway, urban and rural driving.

[y2blade]

frosted said:

You can remove the dpf , plus a remap to 240 brake on my passsat is 1000 quid
]

really? home come?

[HellDiver]

y2blade said:

frosted said:

You can remove the dpf , plus a remap to 240 brake on my passsat is 1000 quid
]

really? home come?

DPF bypass pipe, £150.
Remap, £250.
Profit, £600.

[10 Pence Short]

frosted said:

All non dpf cars smoke , some mire than others ( the driver just can't see it )

Ie the dpf self cleaning technique only takes 10 miles or 5 minutes of constant 50mph in 4th or 5th .

I have a dpf vehicle , can vouch it never smokes and it has 170brake

I can see the logic in your post, but not the reality. I've followeed countless brand new DPF fitted diesels that still smoke under heavy load, albeit less than those without.

One observation I do have with modern diesels, is that people seem to drive them much less economically than they should. The high percentage of torque available from low rpms means people don't seem to think one bit about momentum and simply brake/full throttle/brake/full throttle to maintain progress, as it's so easy to do when the power is right there.

You have to wonder what sort of MPG some drivers really get from their diesels when they drive in that way? I wouldn't be surprised to see it dip well into petrol territory.

[V88Dicky]

10 Pence Short said:

frosted said:

All non dpf cars smoke , some mire than others ( the driver just can't see it )

Ie the dpf self cleaning technique only takes 10 miles or 5 minutes of constant 50mph in 4th or 5th .

I have a dpf vehicle , can vouch it never smokes and it has 170brake

I can see the logic in your post, but not the reality. I've followeed countless brand new DPF fitted diesels that still smoke under heavy load, albeit less than those without.

One observation I do have with modern diesels, is that people seem to drive them much less economically than they should. The high percentage of torque available from low rpms means people don't seem to think one bit about momentum and simply brake/full throttle/brake/full throttle to maintain progress, as it's so easy to do when the power is right there.

You have to wonder what sort of MPG some drivers really get from their diesels when they drive in that way? I wouldn't be surprised to see it dip well into petrol territory.

A very good point. Factor in the price of a new diesel v new petrol (equivalent), and the cost of the the actual fuel itself and I'd imagine there's very little in it. A point that was lost on my good mate, when he forked out for a brand new C4 HDi.



That car does about 6K miles per year.

[300bhp/ton]

hora said:

Ok as a PH'er I really should know this but for the purposes of this topic I am asking on behalf of a 'friend' and checking your responses

Every so often I'm behind a diesel that accelarates and either on acceleration a puff of black smoke comes out or (I assume on most I've seen) as the drive comes off the throttle).

Can you explain this to my friend what it is?

...some of them are big- something on the way out (Ford TDCI's for example)?

Smoke is good

[Parrot of Doom]

Mine chucks out a fair amount of smoke, however its often worth it to see the look of surprise on the 4-cylinder diesel tailgating me in lane 3 of the motorway (as I'm passing traffic it should be said). Few believe that a crappy old diesel Mercedes can out-accelerate their Ferrari-beating clattermobiles

[james_gt3rs]

300bhp/ton said:

[the_lone_wolf]

I must be a reet saddo 'cause I think those smoke stacked pickups look superb

[collateral]

Dupont666 said:

V88Dicky said:

Torquey said:

I've never understood when you see some of the sh!te that comes out of diesels how they are so much cheaper on tax?
(well I'm sure the answer is quite simple but i've never bothered to think about it to be honest).

Surely these engine farts are far more polluting than a petrol engine?

Depends on what you class as 'pollution'.

CO2 unfortunately is classed as pollution these days, and taxed accordingly.


True air quality of course, is about particulate contamination, aka proper pollution.....smog.

I used to enjoy racing chavs in my 306 DTurbo when it had been stood for a while and needed a clean... turbo spools up and then it pulls its party piece... soot screen... cue chavs coughing and gagging... cue me coughing and not being able to breath due to laughing so hard!!

God I miss tank...

Not enough boost is the answer to the original question

[otolith]

F i F said:

You DO all realise that petrols also produce particulates don't you?

Just that the particulates they produce are smaller and thus less visible to the naked eye.

It's because of a carefully selected particulate size that diesels show higher particulate production, if a different size were selected the results would be different. In other words the particulates produced by petrol engines are too small to be caught by the measurement process. Doesn't mean that they aren't there or that by weight they may be more.

Heebeegeetee said much the same thing. Can someone provide me with a reference for this?

[HellDiver]

hora said:

Is the VAG diesel a factory fit in the Lancer or is yours 'custom'??? Intrigued!

Current model non-Evo Lancers come with either a VAG 2.0TDI 140hp or the GEMA 1.8VVT petrol. It was factory fit. Mine was a GS3 diesel.

[8400rpm]

V88Dicky said:

10 Pence Short said:

frosted said:

All non dpf cars smoke , some mire than others ( the driver just can't see it )

Ie the dpf self cleaning technique only takes 10 miles or 5 minutes of constant 50mph in 4th or 5th .

I have a dpf vehicle , can vouch it never smokes and it has 170brake

I can see the logic in your post, but not the reality. I've followeed countless brand new DPF fitted diesels that still smoke under heavy load, albeit less than those without.

One observation I do have with modern diesels, is that people seem to drive them much less economically than they should. The high percentage of torque available from low rpms means people don't seem to think one bit about momentum and simply brake/full throttle/brake/full throttle to maintain progress, as it's so easy to do when the power is right there.

You have to wonder what sort of MPG some drivers really get from their diesels when they drive in that way? I wouldn't be surprised to see it dip well into petrol territory.

A very good point. Factor in the price of a new diesel v new petrol (equivalent), and the cost of the the actual fuel itself and I'd imagine there's very little in it. A point that was lost on my good mate, when he forked out for a brand new C4 HDi.



That car does about 6K miles per year.

There's one of those diesel types that sits near me. The second he heard that a site car assigned to someone in here was a petrol, he went off on one about what a stupid idea it is, how a diesel would be a far better choice.

I mentioned that the the extra cost of diesel and cost of the car, it takes thousands and thousands of miles over years for it to pay for itself. He went a bit quiet after thinking about it.

[heebeegeetee]

otolith said:

F i F said:

You DO all realise that petrols also produce particulates don't you?

Just that the particulates they produce are smaller and thus less visible to the naked eye.

It's because of a carefully selected particulate size that diesels show higher particulate production, if a different size were selected the results would be different. In other words the particulates produced by petrol engines are too small to be caught by the measurement process. Doesn't mean that they aren't there or that by weight they may be more.

Heebeegeetee said much the same thing. Can someone provide me with a reference for this?

Well i can't, other than to search the same as anyone else can, because i was only following the diesel argument closely some 10-15 years ago, before th'internet was in widespread use. I used to have to use print for my information. .

The differences in pm production between the 2 types of engine hasn't changed that much AFAIAA, rather than it's now how the pms are dealt with after combustion.

Historically, diesels have always been far cleaner than petrols, but that argument has been closed up now (I think the use of carcinogenic materials like benzene and toluene in petrol should possibly be the biggest concern) and due to the complexity of diesel engines nowadays i recognise that the diesel argument is much weaker.

I've got one 'cos i just don't want a 4 cylinder petrol engine that struggles to do much more than 300 miles on a tank. I'm just not interested.

10 Pence Short said:

You have to wonder what sort of MPG some drivers really get from their diesels when they drive in that way? I wouldn't be surprised to see it dip well into petrol territory.

But they'd be driving as equally uneconomically in a petrol, surely? Though it's true to say that different techniques are rquired for each type of engine.

I still say that whenever i look at the 'our cars' section of any particular car magazine, i can still tell which cars are petrol and which are diesel simply from the mpg figures, I've still yet to be surprised in that fashion.

Whilst some modern petrol cars can achieve good mpg's on a run (I've been impressed by the attributes of MINIs in long term ownership, for instance), i still think it's a bit regrettable that the overall mpg figures for petrol engined cars don't seem to reflect the increases in technology over the years.

Having said that though, maybe the same can be said for diesels too? Our '09 Leon is no or little more economical than our '99 Bora. The Leon however is genuinely quicker, genuinely more advanced with a much better gearbox etc and no doubt genuinely heavier (must check). So in terms of fuel consumption maybe there is no price for technology?

[otolith]

heebeegeetee said:

otolith said:

Heebeegeetee said much the same thing. Can someone provide me with a reference for this?

Well i can't, other than to search the same as anyone else can, because i was only following the diesel argument closely some 10-15 years ago, before th'internet was in widespread use. I used to have to use print for my information. .

The differences in pm production between the 2 types of engine hasn't changed that much AFAIAA, rather than it's now how the pms are dealt with after combustion.

Everything I've seen suggests that diesel engines produce particulate matter in very much larger quantities than petrol engines (with the exception of the new direct injection petrol engines for which particulates will now be subject to emissions limits for the first time). I couldn't find anything saying that the difference was just an artefact of the size range of particles measured, so I was hoping someone could point me to one.

heebeegeetee said:

Historically, diesels have always been far cleaner than petrols

Historically, diesels have always been far dirtier for some pollutants and far cleaner for others.

Diesels have always been worse for NOx and particulates. Petrols have always been worse for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. The regulations have tightened for both and are converging.