Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the petrol. I cannot remember the last time
I paid that little. Is this this the cheapest going?

Richard

Tricky Dicky wrote:
Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the petrol.
I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this this the
cheapest going?

petroprices.com says the cheapest nationally (on Wednesday) was:
Unleaded 98.9p
Diesel 96.9p
LPG 47.7p

Theo

Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the petrol.

Discovered the reason that saisnburys here has massive queues is not due
to the lower price, but that a nearby asda has dug up their forecourt
for replacement, sainsburys meanwhile have decided to replace their
pumps in blocks of four, making it worse ... so lately I've been going
to tesco for diesel @97.7p

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Discovered the reason that saisnburys here has massive queues is not due
to the lower price, but that a nearby asda has dug up their forecourt
for replacement, sainsburys meanwhile have decided to replace their
pumps in blocks of four, making it worse ... so lately I've been going
to tesco for diesel @97.7p

There seems to be a rush on to replace the underground tanks. Several
local ones are being done at the same time. Very bad planning, I'd say.

There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't have
to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to think
ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where housing might
make better profit from the land.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Andy
Burns wrote:
Discovered the reason that saisnburys here has massive queues is not
due to the lower price, but that a nearby asda has dug up their
forecourt for replacement, sainsburys meanwhile have decided to
replace their pumps in blocks of four, making it worse ... so lately
I've been going to tesco for diesel @97.7p

There seems to be a rush on to replace the underground tanks. Several
local ones are being done at the same time. Very bad planning, I'd say.

There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't have
to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to think
ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where housing might
make better profit from the land.

Replacing tanks is expensive, so you need to be selling a large quantity of
fuel to stay in business. In this pair of villages we once had 5 places
selling fuel, now there's only one. Yes, one on the largest site has
bebcome a block of flats, but the others are still in the motor business,
but they don't sell fuel.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Discovered the reason that saisnburys here has massive queues is not due
to the lower price, but that a nearby asda has dug up their forecourt
for replacement, sainsburys meanwhile have decided to replace their
pumps in blocks of four, making it worse ... so lately I've been going
to tesco for diesel @97.7p

There seems to be a rush on to replace the underground tanks. Several
local ones are being done at the same time. Very bad planning, I'd say.

There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't have
to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to think
ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where housing might
make better profit from the land.

Not a problem round here (rural Cambridgeshire, villages and small
towns). In fact they recently rebuilt a BP one in our nearest
town.

On the OP's point, I noticed yesterday in Sainsburys well filling
up that diesel was that price. Don't imagine I'd cheapest in the
country, we aren't normally round here


--
--
Chris French


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:00:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:



There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't have
to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to think
ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where housing might
make better profit from the land.

It is nationwide ,though there were always isolated places where you
had to plan ahead or store fuel.
Now there are many areas that need a 15 to 20 mile round trip to get
some fuel . Where I grew up in Devon in the 60's the local village 2
miles had two garages and within 5 miles there were another six.
All gone now and the nearest pump is 8 miles away.
Reasonable easy to cope with if you still drive regularly in that
direction, it is filling up a can for use in the chainsaw or garden
equipment that is more awkward.


A lot of those places had been set up post WW2 as people left the
forces with some mechanical skills and as car and( tractor) ownership
expanded and became normal they had a good business for their working
life before selling them or passing them to family when they retired
..It is these 2nd and third generation owners who got clobbered by the
difficulty of equipping workshops for todays complex vehicles, , the
increase in service time of vehicles, no profit on fuel and the cost
having somewhere to live because the original owner in retirement was
still living in the Bungalow he built alongside the workshop in 1949
and didn't sell it with the business.

G.Harman

On 29/01/2016 11:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't have
to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to think
ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where housing might
make better profit from the land.

I can think of lots of places (not in London - but that may be the same)
where former filling stations have become hand wash car wash places.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 29/01/16 11:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't have
to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to think
ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where housing might
make better profit from the land.

Yes, since the congestion charge came in all the ones I know inside the
zone have gone. The one on Kings Cross Road became housing several years
ago and the one behind the BT Tower seems to have closed sometime last
year. The one behind Kings Cross Station has gone so my usual convenient
refuelling stop is 10 miles down the A40 at Hanger Lane.





--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
There seems to be a rush on to replace the underground tanks. Several
local ones are being done at the same time. Very bad planning, I'd say.

There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't
have to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to
think ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where
housing might make better profit from the land.

I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that tanks have to be inspected/
replaced every 25? years ?

If true, this might explain why it seems to happen in batches.

Think you're right that the tanks need routine replacement. I'm just
surprised so many of the ones I sometimes use are being done at the same
time.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:
There seems to be a rush on to replace the underground tanks. Several
local ones are being done at the same time. Very bad planning, I'd
say.

There was a time when filling stations were so numerous, you didn't
have to worry about getting fuel when low. But these days you need to
think ahead - even in London. Or perhaps it is just London where
housing might make better profit from the land.

I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that tanks have to be inspected/
replaced every 25? years ?

If true, this might explain why it seems to happen in batches.

Think you're right that the tanks need routine replacement. I'm just
surprised so many of the ones I sometimes use are being done at the same
time.

Perhaps the local authority has suddenly woken up.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

It's because back then diesel was thought to be 'greener' because
diesel engines back then were more efficient. Some countries
(France in particular) therefore taxed diesel at a lower rate than
petrol to encourage take up of (more expensive) diesel cars.
The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same as on petrol.

--
Chris Green
·

In article ,
wrote:
30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

It's because back then diesel was thought to be 'greener' because
diesel engines back then were more efficient. Some countries
(France in particular) therefore taxed diesel at a lower rate than
petrol to encourage take up of (more expensive) diesel cars.
The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same as on petrol.

Think diesel was cheaper in Europe long before 'green' was of interest.
It was probably taxed at a lower rate because it was used by commercial
vehicles. So those willing to put up with a very slow and noisy car got
the benefit too. It's only really in the last 25 years or so that diesels
have matched petrol cars in performance.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

It's because back then diesel was thought to be 'greener' because
diesel engines back then were more efficient. Some countries
(France in particular) therefore taxed diesel at a lower rate than
petrol to encourage take up of (more expensive) diesel cars.
The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same as on petrol.


Yep. France in particular doesn't have much in the way of coal or oil
reserves any it was seen as a way of reducing imports.

Tim

On 29/01/16 16:39, Tim+ wrote:
wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

It's because back then diesel was thought to be 'greener' because
diesel engines back then were more efficient. Some countries
(France in particular) therefore taxed diesel at a lower rate than
petrol to encourage take up of (more expensive) diesel cars.
The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same as on petrol.


Yep. France in particular doesn't have much in the way of coal or oil
reserves any it was seen as a way of reducing imports.

NOt any more, but there was a lot in the 1970s

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3651881.stm



Tim



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:55:10 +0000, wrote:


30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

It's because back then diesel was thought to be 'greener' because
diesel engines back then were more efficient. Some countries
(France in particular) therefore taxed diesel at a lower rate than
petrol to encourage take up of (more expensive) diesel cars.
The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same as on petrol.

I'm sure that 30 years ago petrol and diesel in Hampshire where I was
working were very close and it wasn't unusual for the diesel to be a
couple of pence cheaper. Our fleet of Astras was switched from
petrol to diesel just before with some cars still fairly low mileage ,
I well remember the sluggishness of the diesel after the petrol one.
Had the benefit from buying the 2 year old petrol at a knockdown price
for my Dad, even better was the accounts department was still paying
the same allowance per mile for diesel as petrol so with the better
mileage and lower cost of the diesel we were quids in for a while till
they caught on.
It wasn't until the early nineties when diesel had become more popular
and was no longer dispensed from a pump banished in a far corner of a
fuel station amongst the rubbish bins that the price of diesel started
to go up beyond petrol.

G.Harman

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:55:10 +0000, wrote:


30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

It's because back then diesel was thought to be 'greener' because
diesel engines back then were more efficient. Some countries
(France in particular) therefore taxed diesel at a lower rate than
petrol to encourage take up of (more expensive) diesel cars.
The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same as on petrol.

I'm sure that 30 years ago petrol and diesel in Hampshire where I was
working were very close and it wasn't unusual for the diesel to be a
couple of pence cheaper.

As I said the UK government didn't do what the mainland European ones
did.

Our fleet of Astras was switched from
petrol to diesel just before with some cars still fairly low mileage ,
I well remember the sluggishness of the diesel after the petrol one.
Had the benefit from buying the 2 year old petrol at a knockdown price
for my Dad, even better was the accounts department was still paying
the same allowance per mile for diesel as petrol so with the better
mileage and lower cost of the diesel we were quids in for a while till
they caught on.
It wasn't until the early nineties when diesel had become more popular
and was no longer dispensed from a pump banished in a far corner of a
fuel station amongst the rubbish bins that the price of diesel started
to go up beyond petrol.

It's never been *significantly* more expensive here in the UK, always
at most just a few pence.

--
Chris Green
·

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:57:44 +0000, wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:55:10 +0000, wrote:


30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.



I'm sure that 30 years ago petrol and diesel in Hampshire where I was
working were very close and it wasn't unusual for the diesel to be a
couple of pence cheaper.

As I said the UK government didn't do what the mainland European ones
did.

It wasn't until the early nineties when diesel had become more popular
and was no longer dispensed from a pump banished in a far corner of a
fuel station amongst the rubbish bins that the price of diesel started
to go up beyond petrol.

It's never been *significantly* more expensive here in the UK, always
at most just a few pence.

Greatest diifrential I recall was in recent years where diesel could
be around 9 pence more. More users exceeding refinery capacity was
supposed to be the reason. Since then a lot of people have started to
return to petrol as turbo equipeed small petrol engines have come
along and not a few owners having been bitten by the complexity of
modern diesels with DPF problems and other costly bits.

G.Harman

In article , writes
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

It's because back then diesel was thought to be 'greener' because
diesel engines back then were more efficient. Some countries
(France in particular) therefore taxed diesel at a lower rate than
petrol to encourage take up of (more expensive) diesel cars.
The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same as on petrol.

Diesel was always cheaper than petrol until it began to get very popular
in cars so the government hiked the fuel duty.
--
bert

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:12:14 +0000, bert wrote:

The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the same
as on petrol.

Diesel was always cheaper than petrol until it began to get very popular
in cars so the government hiked the fuel duty.

Which was an artificial distinction, as fuel duty is the same on diesel
as petrol - 57.95p/litre.

In article , Adrian
writes
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:12:14 +0000, bert wrote:

The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the same
as on petrol.

Diesel was always cheaper than petrol until it began to get very popular
in cars so the government hiked the fuel duty.

Which was an artificial distinction, as fuel duty is the same on diesel
as petrol - 57.95p/litre.
Came across this for anyone interested
https://www.theaa.com/public.../Petr...te_gallons.pdf

--
bert

On 31/01/2016 15:34, bert wrote:
In article , Adrian
writes
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:12:14 +0000, bert wrote:

The UK didn't do the same thing and kept the tax rate on diesel the
same
as on petrol.

Diesel was always cheaper than petrol until it began to get very popular
in cars so the government hiked the fuel duty.

Which was an artificial distinction, as fuel duty is the same on diesel
as petrol - 57.95p/litre.
Came across this for anyone interested
https://www.theaa.com/public.../Petr...te_gallons.pdf

Presumed you really meant:

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...te_gallons.pdf

Interesting.

When it comes to CO2 emissions the elephant in the room is that the
volume of crude oil required to make a gallon of petrol or a gallon of
diesel is very different.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

Gosh, was it as long ago as 30 years that diesel was the same or more
expensive than petrol. I hadn't realised that. I'd have thought that 30
years ago diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol - as it always used to
be when it was only lorries and taxis that used it, as opposed to family
cars. Mind you, 30 years ago is 1986 - how time flies! - and I suppose by
that stage there were quite a few diesel cars on the road.

I wish manufacturers would manage to make petrol cars that had the low-end
pull and the 50-70 (and beyond!) acceleration and the slow-revving engine of
diesel: a petrol that drove like a turbo-diesel would be the best of both
worlds.

I've driven diesels for about 15 years and wouldn't go back to a petrol out
of choice (every petrol car I've driven runs out of puff on a motorway and
has pathetic 50-70 acceleration compared with my 1.6 HDi, and you can't let
it pootle along at idling speed with you foot off the throttle in a traffic
jam because you'll stall, so you end up racing the engine and slipping the
clutch). Also 55 mpg rather than 35 mpg is an incentive!

However there is the thought that diesels might not be too good for the
environment.

On 29/01/16 18:20, NY wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

Gosh, was it as long ago as 30 years that diesel was the same or more
expensive than petrol. I hadn't realised that. I'd have thought that 30
years ago diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol - as it always
used to be when it was only lorries and taxis that used it, as opposed
to family cars. Mind you, 30 years ago is 1986 - how time flies! - and I
suppose by that stage there were quite a few diesel cars on the road.

I wish manufacturers would manage to make petrol cars that had the
low-end pull and the 50-70 (and beyond!) acceleration and the
slow-revving engine of diesel: a petrol that drove like a turbo-diesel
would be the best of both worlds.


You can do that, but why make the engine heavier than it need be? To get
power to weight, you either have to up the peak pressure in the cylinder
(higher compression ration or forced induction) or rev the thing more.
Or simply have a bigger enginbe. To change the torque so it moves lower
down, you use a longer stroke smaller cylinder, but then you lose
power..and top end RPM limits..


It can all be done, but the upshot is that manufacturers build to what
most people want.


I've driven diesels for about 15 years and wouldn't go back to a petrol
out of choice (every petrol car I've driven runs out of puff on a
motorway and has pathetic 50-70 acceleration compared with my 1.6 HDi,
and you can't let it pootle along at idling speed with you foot off the
throttle in a traffic jam because you'll stall, so you end up racing the
engine and slipping the clutch). Also 55 mpg rather than 35 mpg is an
incentive!


YoOu can on a 4 litre supercharged Jag....


However there is the thought that diesels might not be too good for the
environment.

Well its not diesels, its lean burn.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 30/01/2016 00:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/01/16 18:20, NY wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this
this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the reverse on
the continent.

Gosh, was it as long ago as 30 years that diesel was the same or more
expensive than petrol. I hadn't realised that. I'd have thought that 30
years ago diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol - as it always
used to be when it was only lorries and taxis that used it, as opposed
to family cars. Mind you, 30 years ago is 1986 - how time flies! - and I
suppose by that stage there were quite a few diesel cars on the road.

I wish manufacturers would manage to make petrol cars that had the
low-end pull and the 50-70 (and beyond!) acceleration and the
slow-revving engine of diesel: a petrol that drove like a turbo-diesel
would be the best of both worlds.


You can do that, but why make the engine heavier than it need be? To get
power to weight, you either have to up the peak pressure in the cylinder
(higher compression ration or forced induction) or rev the thing more.
Or simply have a bigger enginbe. To change the torque so it moves lower
down, you use a longer stroke smaller cylinder, but then you lose
power..and top end RPM limits..

Oh dear, do you mean a longer stroked engine of the same cc, or a bigger
engine through having a longer stroke?

On 30/01/16 00:10, Fredxxx wrote:
On 30/01/2016 00:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/01/16 18:20, NY wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this
this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed
to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the
reverse on
the continent.

Gosh, was it as long ago as 30 years that diesel was the same or more
expensive than petrol. I hadn't realised that. I'd have thought that 30
years ago diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol - as it always
used to be when it was only lorries and taxis that used it, as opposed
to family cars. Mind you, 30 years ago is 1986 - how time flies! - and I
suppose by that stage there were quite a few diesel cars on the road.

I wish manufacturers would manage to make petrol cars that had the
low-end pull and the 50-70 (and beyond!) acceleration and the
slow-revving engine of diesel: a petrol that drove like a turbo-diesel
would be the best of both worlds.


You can do that, but why make the engine heavier than it need be? To get
power to weight, you either have to up the peak pressure in the cylinder
(higher compression ration or forced induction) or rev the thing more.
Or simply have a bigger enginbe. To change the torque so it moves lower
down, you use a longer stroke smaller cylinder, but then you lose
power..and top end RPM limits..

Oh dear, do you mean a longer stroked engine of the same cc, or a bigger
engine through having a longer stroke?

Well that's the point. you can always 'get more' with 'bigger, and
therefore heavier' But the trick is to 'get more' with the same amount
of frictional losses and weight.

Same CC and longer stroke means better low down torque BUT less top end
power.

You can then blow that and get even more low down torque, but still be
stuck with no RPM at the top.

Which is essentially what a turbo diesel is.

But its a heavier option than a revvy petrol engine. For the same power.



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 30/01/2016 00:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/01/16 00:10, Fredxxx wrote:
On 30/01/2016 00:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/01/16 18:20, NY wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:18:25 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Paid 97.7p a litre for diesel today which was 2p cheaper than the
petrol. I cannot remember the last time I paid that little. Is this
this
the cheapest going?

Richard

30 years ago, my father (a European) wondered why UK diesel seemed
to be
unique in being *more* expensive that petrol, when it was the
reverse on
the continent.

Gosh, was it as long ago as 30 years that diesel was the same or more
expensive than petrol. I hadn't realised that. I'd have thought that 30
years ago diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol - as it always
used to be when it was only lorries and taxis that used it, as opposed
to family cars. Mind you, 30 years ago is 1986 - how time flies! -
and I
suppose by that stage there were quite a few diesel cars on the road.

I wish manufacturers would manage to make petrol cars that had the
low-end pull and the 50-70 (and beyond!) acceleration and the
slow-revving engine of diesel: a petrol that drove like a turbo-diesel
would be the best of both worlds.


You can do that, but why make the engine heavier than it need be? To get
power to weight, you either have to up the peak pressure in the cylinder
(higher compression ration or forced induction) or rev the thing more.
Or simply have a bigger enginbe. To change the torque so it moves lower
down, you use a longer stroke smaller cylinder, but then you lose
power..and top end RPM limits..

Oh dear, do you mean a longer stroked engine of the same cc, or a bigger
engine through having a longer stroke?

Well that's the point. you can always 'get more' with 'bigger, and
therefore heavier' But the trick is to 'get more' with the same amount
of frictional losses and weight.

Same CC and longer stroke means better low down torque BUT less top end
power.

Does that mean you get a higher combustion pressure with a "longer"
stroked engine?

You can then blow that and get even more low down torque, but still be
stuck with no RPM at the top.

Which is essentially what a turbo diesel is.

Isn't that a feature of the slower burn of diesel in a cylinder.