Diesel backlash
Discussion
jbsportstech said:
Diesels kick out black smoke that cant be good but all that is forgotten and with dpf the particulates getting so small they cause respotory issues in children.
Petrol engines have always thrown small particulates out as part of their exhaust emissions (so-called PM2.5s - smaller particles and simpler molecular compounds are also available 
) - this is one of the reasons "QUARG 1994" * was so in favour of petrol engines and against diesel engines (it didn't go down well at the time!). But back then, of course, diesel emissions were pretty loosely (if not totally) uncontrolled whereas as catalytic converters had just become mandatory for new cars in the UK so they weren't exactly comparing like for like .Just because we can't see these particles (and molecules), it doesn't mean they're not there (unlike the larger particles from diesel engines which are visible on occasion/sometimes/regularly). Other posters have alluded to these smaller particles getting deeper into the respiratory tract, but it can't be denied that the diesel ones are often more chemically and biologically harmful. In terms of respiratory effects, I'll predict that a switch back to petrol engines will not be the silver bullet the authorities would suggest via the media...
*QUARG stands for "the Quality of Urban Air review group", it's available online (and seems to have finally come of time
.The policy we should be pursuing, and I'm amazed we don't discuss it more widely, is to reduce the need to travel at all - by encouraging work from home or living close to work.
A large chunk of the workforce could do perfectly well working from home, yet they mindlessly commute to and from the office to use the same broadband they have at home!
Think of the fuel, pollution, congestion, health problems and sheer time we could save by tackling this. So why don't we? A simple tax incentive for employers should do the trick.....
A large chunk of the workforce could do perfectly well working from home, yet they mindlessly commute to and from the office to use the same broadband they have at home!
Think of the fuel, pollution, congestion, health problems and sheer time we could save by tackling this. So why don't we? A simple tax incentive for employers should do the trick.....
The policy we should be pursuing, and I'm amazed we don't discuss it more widely, is to reduce the need to travel at all - by encouraging work from home or living close to work.
A large chunk of the workforce could do perfectly well working from home, yet they mindlessly commute to and from the office to use the same broadband they have at home!
Think of the fuel, pollution, congestion, health problems and sheer time we could save by tackling this. So why don't we? A simple tax incentive for employers should do the trick.....
A large chunk of the workforce could do perfectly well working from home, yet they mindlessly commute to and from the office to use the same broadband they have at home!
Think of the fuel, pollution, congestion, health problems and sheer time we could save by tackling this. So why don't we? A simple tax incentive for employers should do the trick.....
ds?As an owner of 3 petrol and one diesel car. I actually; in normal driving prefer the diesel. A twitch of the foot and it launches off. How many put the foot down to the line daily? Yes my fastest car is 4 seconds closer to 60, if pushed but in the real world...
Plus on a run it indicates over 60mpg, even allowing for optomistic calculations this is darn good.
Plus on a run it indicates over 60mpg, even allowing for optomistic calculations this is darn good.
Z.B said:
The policy we should be pursuing, and I'm amazed we don't discuss it more widely, is to reduce the need to travel at all - by encouraging work from home or living close to work.
A large chunk of the workforce could do perfectly well working from home, yet they mindlessly commute to and from the office to use the same broadband they have at home!
Think of the fuel, pollution, congestion, health problems and sheer time we could save by tackling this. So why don't we? A simple tax incentive for employers should do the trick.....
I know what you mean, people only seem to consider the car and not the usage - in the past I've been painted as the eco-destroyer fro driving a 3.0 v6 petrol car which I'd do 6000 miles a year by someone who does 18000 in their 1.6 focus !A large chunk of the workforce could do perfectly well working from home, yet they mindlessly commute to and from the office to use the same broadband they have at home!
Think of the fuel, pollution, congestion, health problems and sheer time we could save by tackling this. So why don't we? A simple tax incentive for employers should do the trick.....
Jimboka said:
I've owned diesels for the last 8 years.
I prefer the way they drive.
I've saved tens of thousands in fuel costs.
I'm not on first name terms with local Esso cashier .
I've not shuttered the much hyped Diesel engine problems , they tend to happen on the internet rather than real life.
I've had a couple of Ford Diesels that were unreliable moneypits. Fortunately my firm paid the bills. I prefer the way they drive.
I've saved tens of thousands in fuel costs.
I'm not on first name terms with local Esso cashier .
I've not shuttered the much hyped Diesel engine problems , they tend to happen on the internet rather than real life.
My Focus 1.8 td estate used to average about 37 mpg.
Go diesel!
McWigglebum4th said:
Seeing the average annual milage in the Uk is less then 9000 miles per year i haven't a clue why diesels are so popular
Actually i do know
People are dumb
My wife works with someone who has a daily round trip commute of less then a mile. She is tradng her petrol car in for a brand new diesel audi to save money.*
Also the focus to the genral public has been CO2, CO2 and CO2 while ignoring the rest of the crap that comes out the back of a car
So while a EV produces 5 times the amount of co2 (technomatt figures) of a petrol V8 it has zero local emission so hopefully people will realise they don't drive 150 miles everyday
I think we will see more and more hybrids that are petrol and capable of running in stealth mode under batteries only
[footenote]* it gets sillier she walks home at lunch to feed the cat[/footnote]
Enjoyed reading that. Sillier and sillier is widespread if my observations are anything to rely on.Actually i do know
People are dumb
My wife works with someone who has a daily round trip commute of less then a mile. She is tradng her petrol car in for a brand new diesel audi to save money.*
Also the focus to the genral public has been CO2, CO2 and CO2 while ignoring the rest of the crap that comes out the back of a car
So while a EV produces 5 times the amount of co2 (technomatt figures) of a petrol V8 it has zero local emission so hopefully people will realise they don't drive 150 miles everyday
I think we will see more and more hybrids that are petrol and capable of running in stealth mode under batteries only
[footenote]* it gets sillier she walks home at lunch to feed the cat[/footnote]
Here's my take on this diesel overkill here in the UK. The UK car consumer, not to be confused with the car enthusiast who usually knows better, have had their brain's grey matter soaked and washed in heavy oil fuel for a decade or more by those we entrust to our beloved Nation's well being. In reality, those we entrust haven't got a clue except they know how to generate revenue in our best interests ... and that of the environment. It has worked and then some. Your story is so very typical of where folks spend a fortune to save money.
Ah John but with my diesel, I only pay two quid VED each year or whatever less ..
. Compare that to your £225 for your 620ti or MGs. True, my 620ti usually gets only 25 mpg ( it's the way I drive it ... could be mid 30s but where's the fun in that. Fun's not allowed apparently ... 
) but, over the past ten years has cost peanuts in maintenance and renewal costs. Unlike the close on thousand quid repair bill for my all knowing friend's VAG diesel to scrape through the MoT. My MGF on the other hand gets mid-30s mpg up to 40mpg irrespective of the way I drive it. So, my fuel bills may be higher than diesel users, but running costs overall are far less expensive including the new petrol MGs I have bought.
A neighbour had a Japanese diesel 4be4 which she uses to tow a horse box. Got talking to her about Diesel fuel consumption. Her Diesel struggles to better 22 mpg with or without the horse boix. A figure I found surprising. She uses a petrol 4be4 now and it costs far less to run.
Diesels, where's the fun in that. Best for marine and rail use in my books.
I bought a brand new 1.4 n/a petrol and got a mere 33 mpg on average. I had little performance and poor economy.
I now have a diesel 1.5 which I average 58.7 mpg in.
It has the puredrive technology and doesn't emit ANY visible smoke even when booted and doesn't smell nasty.
It also has a nice tall gearbox and loads of torque making it usefully nippy but economical.
I now have a diesel 1.5 which I average 58.7 mpg in.
It has the puredrive technology and doesn't emit ANY visible smoke even when booted and doesn't smell nasty.
It also has a nice tall gearbox and loads of torque making it usefully nippy but economical.
I'm currently looking at buying a new car, I'd like an 8th gen civic.
I do 200-230 miles per week. Am I better off with the 2.2 diesel or the 1.8 vtec petrol? I'm reliably informed the 1.8 gets 40mpg on the motorway whereas the diesel 55mpg.
Bringing me to my next question. I have 2 routes to work, the motorway route is 11 miles, cross city is 7.5. My current car I get 36mpg average on the motorway and 27mpg average through the city. Considering the latter is the shorter route, which is the better route for economy overall?
I do 200-230 miles per week. Am I better off with the 2.2 diesel or the 1.8 vtec petrol? I'm reliably informed the 1.8 gets 40mpg on the motorway whereas the diesel 55mpg.
Bringing me to my next question. I have 2 routes to work, the motorway route is 11 miles, cross city is 7.5. My current car I get 36mpg average on the motorway and 27mpg average through the city. Considering the latter is the shorter route, which is the better route for economy overall?
Martin_Hx said:
Due to the recent weather I've had the windows down a lot or the roof down dependant on car. Its always spolit by some smelly black smoked soot checker in front of me, blugh horrible things to follow in traffic
That's why I don't like them. They fecking stink! Nothing worse than walking through an area where a diesel has been sat idling for a few minutes.I go into central London every day for work and the recent publicity is giving me pause for thought whether I really should find a job in the relatively un-polluted confines of Berkshire instead.
Mr Pies said:
I'm currently looking at buying a new car, I'd like an 8th gen civic.
I do 200-230 miles per week. Am I better off with the 2.2 diesel or the 1.8 vtec petrol? I'm reliably informed the 1.8 gets 40mpg on the motorway whereas the diesel 55mpg.
Bringing me to my next question. I have 2 routes to work, the motorway route is 11 miles, cross city is 7.5. My current car I get 36mpg average on the motorway and 27mpg average through the city. Considering the latter is the shorter route, which is the better route for economy overall?
You would use 0.306 gallons on your motorway commute compared to 0.278 going through the city.I do 200-230 miles per week. Am I better off with the 2.2 diesel or the 1.8 vtec petrol? I'm reliably informed the 1.8 gets 40mpg on the motorway whereas the diesel 55mpg.
Bringing me to my next question. I have 2 routes to work, the motorway route is 11 miles, cross city is 7.5. My current car I get 36mpg average on the motorway and 27mpg average through the city. Considering the latter is the shorter route, which is the better route for economy overall?
Piston Heads Commandment number 7. Thou shall hate all oil burners with great and vengeful vehemence with or without evidence so thou shall fit in with the other haters because a bloke down the pub said they are iffy and he is cool and the congregation do not want to look uncool especially when the great prophet Clark of Son might attach an image on the un cool wall.
Z.B said:
Think of the fuel, pollution, congestion, health problems and sheer time we could save by tackling this. So why don't we? A simple tax incentive for employers should do the trick.....
..,and in a PH parallel universe, there are idiots who think that people who use their bikes rather than cars to commute should pay EXTRA tax :-(Here we go again, doing what the ecomentalists do, focusing on just one aspect of the things `they' dont like, and then in with the usual ban it all response, which forms the basis of their biased, narrow ,pointless view of the world.
If any of us wants a glimpse of what is really at the root of all the ecomentalists bleat about, then we only need to have a look in the nearest mirror.
No one mentioned the emissions from houses, so lets knock down all houses, and live in the open. No one mentioned the emissions from industry, so lets ban all industry, and forget about having jobs and money to spend. No one mentioned that the C02 emissions from global computer use now exceeds global C02 emissions, so lets ban all computers. No one mentioned that countries such as China and India with billions of inhabitants use smelly, inefficient PETROL mopeds to move a large proportion of their citizens about. No one mentioned the emissions from electronic entertainment (not to mention the fossil fuel base from which they are made, so lets ban all Xboxes, iPads, Gameboys, Cinemas, televisions etc.
The worlds population has exploded, mainly on the back of fossil fuel use,, and although some might argue that the rate of that explosion is starting to diminish, the bottom line is that the Earths global population is still increasing at rates between 287 and 342 thousand per DAY (Even the UK, a so called western civilized country is adding the equivalent of a town the size of Swindon every year)
So that's up to 342 thousand C02 emitting (the average humans emits 1 tonne of C02 per year just in breathing, before they have even turned an ignition switch) being added to the problem every year.
The moment the p word is mentioned some go into all sorts of weird solutions, including suggesting that those who mention it kill themselves, but that is most probably because they are simply unable to face the truth of the situation. Starting infights between different factions of those who indulge in an activity the ecomentalists don't like, is playing right into their mean biased narrow minded view, and this must always be stamped out at the first signs of it.
If any of us wants a glimpse of what is really at the root of all the ecomentalists bleat about, then we only need to have a look in the nearest mirror.
No one mentioned the emissions from houses, so lets knock down all houses, and live in the open. No one mentioned the emissions from industry, so lets ban all industry, and forget about having jobs and money to spend. No one mentioned that the C02 emissions from global computer use now exceeds global C02 emissions, so lets ban all computers. No one mentioned that countries such as China and India with billions of inhabitants use smelly, inefficient PETROL mopeds to move a large proportion of their citizens about. No one mentioned the emissions from electronic entertainment (not to mention the fossil fuel base from which they are made, so lets ban all Xboxes, iPads, Gameboys, Cinemas, televisions etc.
The worlds population has exploded, mainly on the back of fossil fuel use,, and although some might argue that the rate of that explosion is starting to diminish, the bottom line is that the Earths global population is still increasing at rates between 287 and 342 thousand per DAY (Even the UK, a so called western civilized country is adding the equivalent of a town the size of Swindon every year)
So that's up to 342 thousand C02 emitting (the average humans emits 1 tonne of C02 per year just in breathing, before they have even turned an ignition switch) being added to the problem every year.
The moment the p word is mentioned some go into all sorts of weird solutions, including suggesting that those who mention it kill themselves, but that is most probably because they are simply unable to face the truth of the situation. Starting infights between different factions of those who indulge in an activity the ecomentalists don't like, is playing right into their mean biased narrow minded view, and this must always be stamped out at the first signs of it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff