"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

And that's why they are good for tractors, and nothing else.

Damn - this is worrying - I suddenly find myself in full agreement with
IMM...

What shall I do? ;-)

Look to the heaven as you are now enlightened.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

Huge wrote:

Grunff writes:

Huge wrote:


Immediately obvious you don't know what you're talking about; Clarkson
loathes diesels.

And I agree with him. Filthy, noisy things.

I could never figure out how the government could justify on the
one hand requiring incearsingly tougher emissions standards for
petrols, and on the other encouraging the use of diesel.

Diesel engines are inherently dirty - ever sat behind a brand
new diesel being floored? Big cloud of black smoke.


My feeling exactly.


I agree. They get better after being run in a bit, BUT they all need
some form of exhaust treatment. I have noticed - because I don't do it
often, that If I tackle the M25 in teh daytime, I end up with a
headache, and asthma and a post nasal drip and a raw throat and a cough.

I have tackled it on e.g. Sunday afternoons, with as much traffic, but
mainly private cars, and not had the same result. I drive a diesel, and
its street legal, but I would prefer it to have some form of exhaust
treatment. I have seen busses equipped with such and they don't spew out
anything and don't smell. I think legislation to remove unburnt fuel and
particulates from diesels is long overdue.

On another point, I ish all car ventilation systems were equipped with
pollen and dust fliters to, now that airconditioning has reduced the
need to open windows in summer.

Grunff wrote in message ...

Yes, and all knives should be sold with corks on the ends.

A spigot that denotes diesel and sends a sensor deeper into its tank
would be ideal as most new diesel owners insist on overfilling their
tanks until the penny drops.

A diesel works on pre-ignition and relies on the fact that the fuel is
not of a high flashpoint. This allows a pressure of 25 to 1 to be
utilised and is the reason for their efficiency. Petrol engines used
to run at 10 to 1 using 4 and 5 "star" but these days their
compression ratios are in the range of 6 to 7 or to 1.

Petrol will pre-ignite in the cylinder of a diesel long before the
piston is near Tdc. The resulting pressure will crack a cylinder-head.
In the good old days (and even now if the engine temperature is low
enough) the problem was minimal enough in winter to allow petrol or
preferably paraffin to be used as a solvent. But nasty things can
happen and be very expensive.

A diesel requires as much maintenance as a petrol machine but can run
forever without it as it is not running a caustic fuel. The reason for
pollution from a diesel is lack of maintenance not poor design. If you
see a diesel belching smoke, inform the driver and if you see it doing
so again, inform the police, there is a phone number for such reports;
I believe it goes to your local council.

It is an offence under the clean air act to pollute the atmosphere
with a badly maintained engine of any sort. That's what the MoT
emissions test is set up for.

Michael McNeil wrote:

A diesel requires as much maintenance as a petrol machine but can run
forever without it as it is not running a caustic fuel.

I've never heard the term 'caustic' used in relation to organic
solvents before - what exactly do you mean?


The reason for
pollution from a diesel is lack of maintenance not poor design. If you
see a diesel belching smoke, inform the driver and if you see it doing
so again, inform the police, there is a phone number for such reports;
I believe it goes to your local council.

That would involve stopping just about every diesel driver on
the road, including those in brand new diesel BMWs (supposedly
one of the most refined diesel engines around).


It is an offence under the clean air act to pollute the atmosphere
with a badly maintained engine of any sort. That's what the MoT
emissions test is set up for.

It isn't about them being badly maintained - diesel engines will
all (ok I haven't tested them all, but the vast majority at any
rate) beltch out black smoke *under high load*.

Do you actually have any real life experience of diesel engines??

--
Grunff

Michael McNeil wrote:
Grunff wrote in message ...

STOPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....typing in uppercase, noone will read it.


PETROL IN A DIESEL WILL WARP THE HEAD IF NOT BLOW THE THING AWAY
ESPECIALLY SUCH A STRONG MIX.

Not at 10% it won't.


TAKE THE FUEL LINE OFF AND PUMP IT OUT WITH THE ELECTRIC PUMP OR BUY
ANOTHER ELECTRIC FUEL PUMP FOR SUCH EMERGENCIES FROM A SCRAP YARD.
DRAIN INTO A DRUM AND GIVE IT TO A TREE SURGEON OR SOMEONE WITH A TWO
STROKE MOTOR.

Only if you're of a very nervous disposition, and have little
understanding of chemistry and IC engines.

--
Grunff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Grunff writes:

Huge wrote:


Immediately obvious you don't know what you're talking about; Clarkson
loathes diesels.

And I agree with him. Filthy, noisy things.

I could never figure out how the government could justify on the
one hand requiring incearsingly tougher emissions standards for
petrols, and on the other encouraging the use of diesel.

Diesel engines are inherently dirty - ever sat behind a brand
new diesel being floored? Big cloud of black smoke.


My feeling exactly.


I agree. They get better after being run in a bit, BUT they all need
some form of exhaust treatment. I have noticed - because I don't do it
often, that If I tackle the M25 in teh daytime, I end up with a
headache, and asthma and a post nasal drip and a raw throat and a cough.

That conforms my assumption. You are a basket case.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
om...
Grunff wrote in message
...

Yes, and all knives should be sold with corks on the ends.

A spigot that denotes diesel and sends a sensor deeper into its tank
would be ideal as most new diesel owners insist on overfilling their
tanks until the penny drops.

A diesel works on pre-ignition and relies on the fact that the fuel is
not of a high flashpoint. This allows a pressure of 25 to 1 to be
utilised and is the reason for their efficiency.

Efficiency? A mute word here. A diesel returns higher mileage because a
litre of diesel has a higher CV than petrol, no other reason.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

IMM wrote:

I agree. They get better after being run in a bit, BUT they all need
some form of exhaust treatment. I have noticed - because I don't do it
often, that If I tackle the M25 in teh daytime, I end up with a
headache, and asthma and a post nasal drip and a raw throat and a cough.


That conforms my assumption. You are a basket case.

[English lessons for IMM. 1:]

"confirms" would make sense in this sentence, but "conforms"
doesn't.

--
Grunff

IMM wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here. A diesel returns higher mileage because a
litre of diesel has a higher CV than petrol, no other reason.

[English lessons for IMM. 2:]

"mute" doesn't work here at all - it just makes no sense. The
word I think you're looking for is "moot".

--
Grunff

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:07:54 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

That conforms my assumption. You are a basket case.

Illogical, not to mention the wrong word.

'conforms'?
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I agree. They get better after being run in a bit, BUT they all need
some form of exhaust treatment. I have noticed - because I don't do it
often, that If I tackle the M25 in teh daytime, I end up with a
headache, and asthma and a post nasal drip and a raw throat and a cough.


That conforms my assumption. You are a basket case.

[English lessons for IMM. 1:]

"confirms" would make sense in this sentence, but "conforms"
doesn't.

How do you know?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Chris Hodges wrote:

If you floor a diesel (esp turbo) you get black smoke initally, then it
normally clears. That's visible. Petrol cars chuck out NOx, which you
can't see, but isn't much better from the point of view of pollution.
Basically there's not a lot in it, and anything pollutes more if you
floor it.

Ehem...

[1] NOx are to a very large extent broken down by the cat.
Modern cars (are required to) have extrremely low NOx emissions.

[2] At the concentrations we're talking about, NOx have very
little *direct* effect on human health. They do, however
contribute to smog.

[3] OTOH, the particulates which make up the black smoke are a
known carcinogen, and pose a direct health threat. They are tiny
carbon particles with a rich cocktail of hydrocarbons adsorbed
onto them.

--
Grunff

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:22:41 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

Oh dear. A spell checker would be unlikely to help you. You could start
with a grammar checker, though.
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:58:45 +0100, "harrogate"
wrote:


"Doctor D." wrote in message
...

They will mix just fine, and it will have no adverse effects on
your car (it's a diesel, how much worse can it get anyway??).

I thought this too until I actually tried one. Take a Golf 130 TDi, Megane
120 DCi or Focus 115 TDCi for a spin and eat your words!



I can never understand why the (so-called) motoring journalists of this
world - Clarkson and all that lot - always promote the idea that running a
diesel is all about thrift and low fuel consumption.

Anyone who regularly drives a diesel will tell you this is far from the
case - it's all about laziness, not have to change gear to accelerate, not
having to change gear to go around corners, being able to pull away easily
on ice or snow when the petrolheads are spinning their wheels like
crazy................... and so it goes on. Diesel is all about torque at
low revs and flexibility - provided you don't want to do it in microseconds!

Having had diesel company cars for the last decade I find it difficult to go
back to driving a petrol car again - I keep having to work pedals and move
the gear lever. It's only because of our stupid taxation system that puts
the cost of diesel so high over here that stops diesel cars selling more -
you only have to go across the channel to see the truth of that!.


Well any diesel I have driven, including BMW's finest., all felt like
they had to be rowed along on the gearbox. The low end torque that is
talked about never manifested itself in my presence.

What I really don't understand is why peoplr who buy diesel engined
cars then procedd to drive the sh-one-t out of them. What are they
trying to prove ?

And as for reliability. Diesel engines in boats were ultra-reliable
until they started fitting turbo-chargers and letting them rev higher.
Reliability went out the window, and if you really need an emetic try
reading a repair estimate for a turbo charged Volvo diesel boat
engine.

Paul Mc Cann

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Chris Hodges wrote:

If you floor a diesel (esp turbo) you get black smoke initally, then it
normally clears. That's visible. Petrol cars chuck out NOx, which you
can't see, but isn't much better from the point of view of pollution.
Basically there's not a lot in it, and anything pollutes more if you
floor it.

Ehem...

[1] NOx are to a very large extent broken down by the cat.
Modern cars (are required to) have extrremely low NOx emissions.

[2] At the concentrations we're talking about, NOx have very
little *direct* effect on human health. They do, however
contribute to smog.

[3] OTOH, the particulates which make up the black smoke are a
known carcinogen, and pose a direct health threat. They are tiny
carbon particles with a rich cocktail of hydrocarbons adsorbed
onto them.

--
Grunff


out of curiosity, where do bio-diesel and ethanol stand on the scale of
noxious emmissions? (I mean pure bio-diesel, not fossil fuel mixed with 5%
or 10% bio stuff). What's the downside to them?

cheers
Richard

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

In message , IMM
writes

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
. com...
Grunff wrote in message

Efficiency? A mute word here. A diesel returns higher mileage because a
litre of diesel has a higher CV than petrol, no other reason.


No.
Diesel engines are more efficient for two reasons:
1) Higher compression ratio & higher cylinder pressures are
thermodynamically more efficient.
2) Lower "pumping losses" at part load, i.e. a petrol engine spends most
of its life gasping to draw in air against a partial vacuum due to the
restricted (throttled) inlet. A diesel has free flow air inlet (ignoring
turbos & EGR for simplicity).

--
Steve

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:22:41 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

Oh dear. A spell checker would be unlikely to help you.

How do you know?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:10:33 +0100, Paul Mc Cann
wrote:

Well any diesel I have driven, including BMW's finest., all felt like
they had to be rowed along on the gearbox. The low end torque that is
talked about never manifested itself in my presence.

I drive a diesel Freelander which is really a tractor with a bit of
fancy bodywork bolted on

A few weeks back I got to hire a Mondeo TDCi for a couple of days
whilst my Freelander was in for servicing. I didn't check what was
under the bonnet of the TDCi, but the thing went like lightning
(comparitively to the Freelander) when I hoofed it. I thought "hell,
these petrol engines sure put the diesel to shame!".

When I got home I got the user manual out. This thing I was giving
credit to was a 2L diesel. Went like a steam train on steroids when
you put the hammer down, plenty of grunt and really smooth.

The new TD4 Freelander is a lot better as well.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

In message , Grunff
writes
Michael McNeil wrote:

A diesel requires as much maintenance as a petrol machine but can run
forever without it as it is not running a caustic fuel.

I've never heard the term 'caustic' used in relation to organic
solvents before - what exactly do you mean?


The reason for
pollution from a diesel is lack of maintenance not poor design. If you
see a diesel belching smoke, inform the driver and if you see it doing
so again, inform the police, there is a phone number for such reports;
I believe it goes to your local council.

That would involve stopping just about every diesel driver on the road,
including those in brand new diesel BMWs (supposedly one of the most
refined diesel engines around).


It is an offence under the clean air act to pollute the atmosphere
with a badly maintained engine of any sort. That's what the MoT
emissions test is set up for.

It isn't about them being badly maintained - diesel engines will all
(ok I haven't tested them all, but the vast majority at any rate)
beltch out black smoke *under high load*.


I don't agree. It happens that YOU notice the small proportion of
diesels that are smoky, but the reality is they are quite rare now.
At full power the exhaust should be no more than very slightly coloured,
certainly no were near "belch out black smoke".
Open your eyes, look at some of the lorries as you pass them on the
motorway. All you'll see from the majority is heat-haze from the
exhaust.


--
Steve

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 20:56:42 UTC, "IMM" wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:22:41 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

Oh dear. A spell checker would be unlikely to help you.

How do you know?

Because you have replaced the correct word with another (correctly
spelled) word. A spell checker can't fix that.

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

In message , IMM
writes

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I agree. They get better after being run in a bit, BUT they all need
some form of exhaust treatment. I have noticed - because I don't do it
often, that If I tackle the M25 in teh daytime, I end up with a
headache, and asthma and a post nasal drip and a raw throat and a cough.


That conforms my assumption. You are a basket case.

[English lessons for IMM. 1:]

"confirms" would make sense in this sentence, but "conforms"
doesn't.

How do you know?

You can't conform something, you can, however conform TO or WITH
something
--
geoff

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:08:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



I find that when you start to accelerate and drive quick in turbo diesels
the fuel consumption rockets, far more than the equiv petrol

This is a well known characteristic of the plumbers favourite Transit
Van.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 20:56:42 UTC, "IMM" wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:22:41 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM"
wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

Oh dear. A spell checker would be unlikely to help you.

How do you know?

Because you have replaced the correct word with another (correctly
spelled) word. A spell checker can't fix that.

How do you know?



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:10:33 +0100, Paul Mc Cann
wrote:

Well any diesel I have driven, including BMW's finest., all felt like
they had to be rowed along on the gearbox. The low end torque that is
talked about never manifested itself in my presence.

I drive a diesel Freelander which is really a tractor with a bit of
fancy bodywork bolted on

Sad I know. An automotive engineer neighbour had one and sent it back as it
was naff and broke down a lot.

A few weeks back I got to hire a Mondeo TDCi for a couple of days
whilst my Freelander was in for servicing. I didn't check what was
under the bonnet of the TDCi, but the thing went like lightning
(comparitively to the Freelander) when I hoofed it. I thought "hell,
these petrol engines sure put the diesel to shame!".

When I got home I got the user manual out. This thing I was giving
credit to was a 2L diesel. Went like a steam train on steroids when
you put the hammer down, plenty of grunt and really smooth.

You shold have drove the pretrol one then.

The new TD4 Freelander is a lot better as well.

It can't get any worse can it?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In message , IMM
writes

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

How so exactly ? - a spell checker would recognise both "mute" and
"moot"
--
geoff

In message , IMM
writes

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:22:41 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

Oh dear. A spell checker would be unlikely to help you.

How do you know?

You're beyond help, that's why
--
geoff

In message , IMM
writes
When I got home I got the user manual out. This thing I was giving
credit to was a 2L diesel. Went like a steam train on steroids when
you put the hammer down, plenty of grunt and really smooth.

You shold have drove the pretrol one then.

The new TD4 Freelander is a lot better as well.

It can't get any worse can it?

No, it doesn't seem so, grammar and spelling both in the same sentence
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

How so exactly ? - a spell checker would recognise both "mute" and
"moot"

The original word was misspelt. Duh!!



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes
When I got home I got the user manual out. This thing I was giving
credit to was a 2L diesel. Went like a steam train on steroids when
you put the hammer down, plenty of grunt and really smooth.

You shold have drove the pretrol one then.

The new TD4 Freelander is a lot better as well.

It can't get any worse can it?

No, it doesn't seem so, grammar and spelling both in the same sentence

Perfect guv, perfect. Yer actual estuary Inglish.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes
When I got home I got the user manual out. This thing I was giving
credit to was a 2L diesel. Went like a steam train on steroids when
you put the hammer down, plenty of grunt and really smooth.

You shold have drove the pretrol one then.

The new TD4 Freelander is a lot better as well.

It can't get any worse can it?

No, it doesn't seem so, grammar and spelling both in the same sentence

Perfect guv, perfect. Yer actual estuary Inglish.

Learn some - you need to
--
geoff

In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

How so exactly ? - a spell checker would recognise both "mute" and
"moot"

The original word was misspelt. Duh!!


Your point being ?
How can you blame the spell checker? The word had a spelling which the
spell checker recognised

You can't blame it for your incompetence


--
geoff

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:08:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

I find that when you start to accelerate and drive quick in turbo diesels
the fuel consumption rockets, far more than the equiv petrol

Of course it does. There's only so much extra energy in the fuel, and only
so much extra thermal efficiency in the engine. Beyond that, more power =
more fuel = poorer fuel consumption.

People see figures such as 150bhp, 250lb/ft and 50mpg, and think they can
all be achieved at the same time. Yeah right. (Not saying it's a bad thing
that one engine can achieve all three, however.)

--
John

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM

writes
When I got home I got the user manual out. This thing I was giving
credit to was a 2L diesel. Went like a steam train on steroids when
you put the hammer down, plenty of grunt and really smooth.

You shold have drove the pretrol one then.

The new TD4 Freelander is a lot better as well.

It can't get any worse can it?

No, it doesn't seem so, grammar and spelling both in the same sentence

Perfect guv, perfect. Yer actual estuary Inglish.

Learn some - you need to

Wiv aught me barra, me auld cock sparra. How is that for starters guv?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:10:43 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Efficiency? A mute word here.

But unfortunately you are not mute.

(Hint: the word is 'moot')

I know; spell checker.

How so exactly ? - a spell checker would recognise both "mute" and
"moot"

The original word was misspelt. Duh!!


Your point being ?
How can you blame the spell checker? The word had a spelling which the
spell checker recognised

Maxie, you still haven't got it.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Steve Firth wrote:

While it's true that you get about 30kJ/gram from ethanol as
opposed to 50kJ/gram from octane (don't have a figure for
petrol, but it will be close), the discrepancy isn't so great as
to make ethanol unattractive as a road fuel.


Yes, you're looking at the wrong figure. With ethanol you need to
consider the total energy input to produce the ethanol, not just the
calorific value of ethanol itself. There's the biomass itself, then the
energy input required to distill the ethanol. Compared to biodiesel
(which can be cold-pressed) there's a huge energy input.

Good point - but given the difference in cleanliness of the
output, ethanol still wins as a city fuel, no?

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:

While it's true that you get about 30kJ/gram from ethanol as
opposed to 50kJ/gram from octane (don't have a figure for
petrol, but it will be close), the discrepancy isn't so great as
to make ethanol unattractive as a road fuel.


Yes, you're looking at the wrong figure. With ethanol you need to
consider the total energy input to produce the ethanol, not just the
calorific value of ethanol itself. There's the biomass itself, then the
energy input required to distill the ethanol. Compared to biodiesel
(which can be cold-pressed) there's a huge energy input.

Good point - but given the difference in cleanliness of the
output, ethanol still wins as a city fuel, no?

--
Grunff


I have to wonder about the emissions benefits of ethanol, though.

A scotsman of my acquaintance, one of my co-directors, has run himself on
this fuel for quite some time (he's originally from Fraserburgh - apparently
it's the personal fuel of choice there).

The emissions can be pretty terrible.....


cheers
Richard

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:31:31 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Perfect guv, perfect. Yer actual estuary Inglish.

That I can believe.....

Of course you can. You are from Sarf Landan.

Nope.
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
om...

Grunff wrote in message

...

Yes, and all knives should be sold with corks on the ends.

A spigot that denotes diesel and sends a sensor deeper into its tank
would be ideal as most new diesel owners insist on overfilling their
tanks until the penny drops.

A diesel works on pre-ignition and relies on the fact that the fuel is
not of a high flashpoint. This allows a pressure of 25 to 1 to be
utilised and is the reason for their efficiency.


Efficiency? A mute word here. A diesel returns higher mileage because a
litre of diesel has a higher CV than petrol, no other reason.



No, not so.

Try reading a few engineering texts on Otto cycle theoretical
efficiencies etc.

Higher compression ratios and higher gas pressures equate to higher
efficiency,




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Paul Mc Cann wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:58:45 +0100, "harrogate"
wrote:


"Doctor D." wrote in message
...

They will mix just fine, and it will have no adverse effects on
your car (it's a diesel, how much worse can it get anyway??).

I thought this too until I actually tried one. Take a Golf 130 TDi, Megane
120 DCi or Focus 115 TDCi for a spin and eat your words!



I can never understand why the (so-called) motoring journalists of this
world - Clarkson and all that lot - always promote the idea that running a
diesel is all about thrift and low fuel consumption.

Anyone who regularly drives a diesel will tell you this is far from the
case - it's all about laziness, not have to change gear to accelerate, not
having to change gear to go around corners, being able to pull away easily
on ice or snow when the petrolheads are spinning their wheels like
crazy................... and so it goes on. Diesel is all about torque at
low revs and flexibility - provided you don't want to do it in microseconds!

Having had diesel company cars for the last decade I find it difficult to go
back to driving a petrol car again - I keep having to work pedals and move
the gear lever. It's only because of our stupid taxation system that puts
the cost of diesel so high over here that stops diesel cars selling more -
you only have to go across the channel to see the truth of that!.



Well any diesel I have driven, including BMW's finest., all felt like
they had to be rowed along on the gearbox. The low end torque that is
talked about never manifested itself in my presence.



Hmm. You may not have driven the right ones.


What I really don't understand is why peoplr who buy diesel engined
cars then procedd to drive the sh-one-t out of them. What are they
trying to prove ?



Just trying to get to work on time as fast and as cheap as possible.


And as for reliability. Diesel engines in boats were ultra-reliable
until they started fitting turbo-chargers and letting them rev higher.
Reliability went out the window, and if you really need an emetic try
reading a repair estimate for a turbo charged Volvo diesel boat
engine.


Mmm. I have a turbo diesel, and the engine itself is super reliable.

You need to DESIGN for a turbo, you can't just strap one oin and hope.

I drove a Mondeo TD some time back. Pretty good car really, although the
power band was a tad narrow. Changing down didn't net you extra power
like a petrol: Concversely you could pull in quite high gears rather
well, as long as you were over the turbo kick in level.



Paul Mc Cann