The government have won. Selling my diesel for a petrol.....
Discussion
According to Wikipedia, direct injection petrol engines release ten times the particulates of a Euro 6 diesel. So would a rush to switch back to modern petrols really improve urban air quality?
Also, if the authorities focus mainly on cars, doesn't that ignore domestic gas boilers, aircraft flying over city centres, massive cruise ships and diesel train engines (e.g. in Southampton), and of course buses and taxis?
And that's before you consider the micro-climate, such as people smoking in enclosed spaces. Such as, you know, their homes.
My point is this: to demonise privately owned owned diesels as the cause of urban pollution simply repeats the mistake of the past. Namely, that if you just look at one thing (it used to be CO2, remember) you simply create another problem.
Also, if the authorities focus mainly on cars, doesn't that ignore domestic gas boilers, aircraft flying over city centres, massive cruise ships and diesel train engines (e.g. in Southampton), and of course buses and taxis?
And that's before you consider the micro-climate, such as people smoking in enclosed spaces. Such as, you know, their homes.
My point is this: to demonise privately owned owned diesels as the cause of urban pollution simply repeats the mistake of the past. Namely, that if you just look at one thing (it used to be CO2, remember) you simply create another problem.
Brave Fart said:
My point is this: to demonise privately owned owned diesels as the cause of urban pollution simply repeats the mistake of the past. Namely, that if you just look at one thing (it used to be CO2, remember) you simply create another problem.
Very true.Modern diseasals aren't necessarily the polluting problem in comparative terms with other fuels. (Apart from when the DPFs fail).
And on that point its easy to see many older diseasals on the road with failing/failed DPFs chunking out huge black clouds of smoke on acceleration.
Added to that diseasals are used for large vehicles (HGVs, buses etc.), that due to their engine size and required power/torque to overcome the inertia of the vehicle, they pollute quite heavily.
Whilst I've still got a 100 mile per day commute plus extra driving duties, I'll be keeping my wonderful, economic, 100% reliable 1.6 diesel Volvo V60. It's still very much the right tool for the job and has been for the last 130k miles.
More fool anybody who is tricked into spending much more under the threat of paying a little bit more.
More fool anybody who is tricked into spending much more under the threat of paying a little bit more.
Recently written-off BMW 525d estate (with the lovely straight 6 turbo-diesel 194bhp) replaced with 2007 BMW 120i - 170bhp - 2 litre petrol.
The 120i has a better power to weight ratio and feels like a go-kart to drive - very nippy and a fair bit quicker off the mark compared to the 525d.
Only downer is replacing 38mpg in the 525d for 30mpg in the 320i. I did once do a 120 mile drive and drove like a district nurse all the way - just managed 34mpg, but after sitting on the M5 at 60 with most lorries coming past me, I saw the error of my ways.
I didn't much like the 1 series - it was bought mainly because SWMBO had always wanted one - have to say it's growing on me though.
In CAR magazine, they featured what they felt were the top 10 engines ever. The BMW 3 litre straight 6 turbo-diesel was the only oil burner on the list, along side the Porkers, the Fezzas, the McLarens, AMGs etc.
The 120i has a better power to weight ratio and feels like a go-kart to drive - very nippy and a fair bit quicker off the mark compared to the 525d.
Only downer is replacing 38mpg in the 525d for 30mpg in the 320i. I did once do a 120 mile drive and drove like a district nurse all the way - just managed 34mpg, but after sitting on the M5 at 60 with most lorries coming past me, I saw the error of my ways.
I didn't much like the 1 series - it was bought mainly because SWMBO had always wanted one - have to say it's growing on me though.
In CAR magazine, they featured what they felt were the top 10 engines ever. The BMW 3 litre straight 6 turbo-diesel was the only oil burner on the list, along side the Porkers, the Fezzas, the McLarens, AMGs etc.
Brave Fart said:
According to Wikipedia, direct injection petrol engines release ten times the particulates of a Euro 6 diesel. So would a rush to switch back to modern petrols really improve urban air quality?
Also, if the authorities focus mainly on cars, doesn't that ignore domestic gas boilers, aircraft flying over city centres, massive cruise ships and diesel train engines (e.g. in Southampton), and of course buses and taxis?
And that's before you consider the micro-climate, such as people smoking in enclosed spaces. Such as, you know, their homes.
My point is this: to demonise privately owned owned diesels as the cause of urban pollution simply repeats the mistake of the past. Namely, that if you just look at one thing (it used to be CO2, remember) you simply create another problem.
Depends on what emission you focus on - NOx is still a very diesel specific problem, of course Adblue is used in some (majority now) regards to reduce it. Also, if the authorities focus mainly on cars, doesn't that ignore domestic gas boilers, aircraft flying over city centres, massive cruise ships and diesel train engines (e.g. in Southampton), and of course buses and taxis?
And that's before you consider the micro-climate, such as people smoking in enclosed spaces. Such as, you know, their homes.
My point is this: to demonise privately owned owned diesels as the cause of urban pollution simply repeats the mistake of the past. Namely, that if you just look at one thing (it used to be CO2, remember) you simply create another problem.
I think people still "cling" to the fact that particulates only come from diesel fuel, thanks to the media and some regards that the WHO uses interchangeable terms from "diesel fuel particulate matter" to other studies that specify just "particulates", not directly "diesel" ones.
Reality is they come from vast amounts of sources in vehicles. PM comes from diesel yes, but has been massively reduced in recent time with DPF's, petrols when this whole thing came out were really still mostly PFI not DI. GPF's should help reduce that, better injectors and targeting can massively help avoid the issues of the creation as well. Problem is the PM is smaller, harder to filter and therefore potentially more dangerous.
Do not forget either that particulate matter will also come off components like tyres and braking systems as well, so in that regard even EV's and other vehicles are not helpful.
Irony is of course if we take a DPF due to the lower running temperature of a diesel will need to inject significantly more diesel to increase the temperature (if relying on such methods to increase the temperature as opposed to the older wet systems that used eolys fluid), therefore reducing MPG and ultimately creating more CO2.
Whatever method of transport you think of none of them when running (ignoring the sources of power used to create them or deliver etc.) can be considered emissions neutral as even the ones running on electricity (from a cuddly neutral source just for the sake of fun, unlikely in the UK) for example will still produce particulates.
Edited by Ninja59 on Tuesday 23 January 14:11
swisstoni said:
Funny we don’t hear much about the hole in the ozone layer any more. Hope it’s ok
You need better news sources. NASA have been covering the ozone layer's recovery for years now. Amazing what happened when we stopped using CFC.Also lead free solder has been reducing lead levels in water tables in many countries that are still used as the developed worlds rubbish dump.
You don't read about this kind of thing in the Daily Mail.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff