https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...esel-engine-UK

On 10/03/2018 09:41, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...esel-engine-UK

Surely, a reduction in supply is only going to increase the value of any
diesel that you own. It's not as if garages are going to stop selling
the fuel, given the number of white vans around.

On 10/03/2018 10:39, newshound wrote:
On 10/03/2018 09:41, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...esel-engine-UK


Surely, a reduction in supply is only going to increase the value of any
diesel that you own. It's not as if garages are going to stop selling
the fuel, given the number of white vans around.

The reduction in supply is due to reduction in demand - no-one in their
right mind will buy one so prices will go through the floor.

On 10/03/18 11:03, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 10:39, newshound wrote:
On 10/03/2018 09:41, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...esel-engine-UK



Surely, a reduction in supply is only going to increase the value of any
diesel that you own. It's not as if garages are going to stop selling
the fuel, given the number of white vans around.

The reduction in supply is due to reduction in demand - no-one in their
right mind will buy one so prices will go through the floor.

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value


--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 3/10/2018 9:41 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...esel-engine-UK

good dirty dirty things ......

--
Resisting Freemasonry for 39 years .....
All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in
their own education.....
I have rarely if ever found anyone out of whom I could not extract
amusement or edification....

On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 10/03/18 11:03, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 10:39, newshound wrote:
On 10/03/2018 09:41, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...esel-engine-UK


Surely, a reduction in supply is only going to increase the value of any
diesel that you own. It's not as if garages are going to stop selling
the fuel, given the number of white vans around.

The reduction in supply is due to reduction in demand - no-one in their
right mind will buy one so prices will go through the floor.

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

If it were not for the bad press that diesels have got recently and the fear
that some cities will ban them or make you pay extra, I'd definitely buy
another diesel. I much much prefer driving a diesel and I like the lower
fuel consumption and hence greater range on a tank of fuel.

My car is coming up to 10 years old and is starting to cost fir repairs to
the anti pollution system. I will be gutted when eventually have to get rid
if it and replace it with a petrol which is gutless and has a noisy high
revving engine (unless I get a powerful engine).

I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range and 5
minute refuel time as ICE cars. I mainly make fairly short journey nowadays
but no way would I get a car that didnt have the ability to make a longer
journey if i needed to eg if our main car was ever off the road or bith my
wife and i needed to make" long" (greater than 100 mile) journeys at the
same time.

On 10-Mar-18 11:59 AM, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.

Make diesel more expensive and the RPI goes up. Almost everything we buy
is moved by diesel powered commercial vehicles. In 2015, HGVs and vans
in the UK consumed 11.7 million tonnes of diesel fuel.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 10/03/2018 12:36, Nightjar wrote:
On 10-Mar-18 11:59 AM, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.

Make diesel more expensive and the RPI goes up. Almost everything we buy
is moved by diesel powered commercial vehicles. In 2015, HGVs and vans
in the UK consumed 11.7 million tonnes of diesel fuel.


Very good, Sir Humphrey, in that case ban diesel cars from city centres?
Or impose a 60MPH speed limit for diesels on motorways. /Jim Hacker

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 10-Mar-18 11:59 AM, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.

Make diesel more expensive and the RPI goes up. Almost everything we buy
is moved by diesel powered commercial vehicles. In 2015, HGVs and vans
in the UK consumed 11.7 million tonnes of diesel fuel.

and a lot of railway locomotives are diesel powered.

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels pariahs.
I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 10/03/2018 12:53, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 12:36, Nightjar wrote:
On 10-Mar-18 11:59 AM, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.

Make diesel more expensive and the RPI goes up. Almost everything we
buy is moved by diesel powered commercial vehicles. In 2015, HGVs and
vans in the UK consumed 11.7 million tonnes of diesel fuel.


Very good, Sir Humphrey, in that case ban diesel cars from city centres?
Or impose a 60MPH speed limit for diesels on motorways. /Jim Hacker

OK, so clean air motorways.

Perhaps petrol cars should not be able to engage a gear until the cat
has warmed up too.

On 10/03/2018 12:22, NY wrote:

My car is coming up to 10 years old and is starting to cost fir repairs
to the anti pollution system. I will be gutted when eventually have to
get rid if it and replace it with a petrol which is gutless and has a
noisy high revving engine (unless I get a powerful engine).

I would love to go back to a petrol engine.


--
Adam

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 10-Mar-18 11:59 AM, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.

Make diesel more expensive and the RPI goes up. Almost everything we buy
is moved by diesel powered commercial vehicles. In 2015, HGVs and vans
in the UK consumed 11.7 million tonnes of diesel fuel.

and a lot of railway locomotives are diesel powered.

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels pariahs.

but it did

you can't rewrite history

tim

charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels pariahs.

Maybe not, but it sure as hell dented a lot of folks trust in all emission
standards and testing. Frankly, I dont believe that VW were the only ones
fiddling the tests, they were just pretty clever at it.

Were being told that the latest standards are just fine and everything is
hunkydory again and yet given the yawning gulf that was exposed between
€œreal world€� emissions and €œtested€� emissions Im not sure Im in any hurry
to believe that things are necessarily €œfixed€�.

Tim


--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article ,
NY wrote:
If it were not for the bad press that diesels have got recently and the fear
that some cities will ban them or make you pay extra, I'd definitely buy
another diesel. I much much prefer driving a diesel and I like the lower
fuel consumption and hence greater range on a tank of fuel.

That would easily be sorted by altering the tax paid on diesel and petrol,
in the favour of petrol.
And by buying a car with a large enough tank - just how far to you need to
drive before stopping for fuel?

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

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

In article ,
NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

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

In article ,
charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels pariahs.
I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main source
of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful pollutant in
this case.

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

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

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Very good, Sir Humphrey, in that case ban diesel cars from city centres?
Or impose a 60MPH speed limit for diesels on motorways. /Jim Hacker

OK, so clean air motorways.

Perhaps petrol cars should not be able to engage a gear until the cat
has warmed up too.

You'd live in a very odd place if you could access a motorway before the
cat. has heated up.

--
*ONE NICE THING ABOUT EGOTISTS: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.

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

In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 12:22, NY wrote:

My car is coming up to 10 years old and is starting to cost fir repairs
to the anti pollution system. I will be gutted when eventually have to
get rid if it and replace it with a petrol which is gutless and has a
noisy high revving engine (unless I get a powerful engine).

I would love to go back to a petrol engine.

If you want a small petrol engine that pulls like a diesel find one with a
turbo or supercharger. It's that which makes the difference.

If you really want to define gutless, think of older small diesels before
turbos became the norm.

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.

But unless you have a very large wallets, you go well away from the
motorway to refuel

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.

--
Adam

On 10/03/2018 14:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Very good, Sir Humphrey, in that case ban diesel cars from city centres?
Or impose a 60MPH speed limit for diesels on motorways. /Jim Hacker

OK, so clean air motorways.

Perhaps petrol cars should not be able to engage a gear until the cat
has warmed up too.

You'd live in a very odd place if you could access a motorway before the
cat. has heated up.

That's my point, for the school run etc, the exhaust will be emitting
the most pollution.

By the time you get to the motorway the exhaust will be at its cleanest.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 12:22, NY wrote:

My car is coming up to 10 years old and is starting to cost fir repairs
to the anti pollution system. I will be gutted when eventually have to
get rid if it and replace it with a petrol which is gutless and has a
noisy high revving engine (unless I get a powerful engine).

I would love to go back to a petrol engine.

If you want a small petrol engine that pulls like a diesel find one with a
turbo or supercharger. It's that which makes the difference.

If you really want to define gutless, think of older small diesels before
turbos became the norm.

True. The very first diesel I drove was a Golf many years ago. It didn't
have much pull. It was no match for my 1.8 petrol Golf.

Bu they've improved to the extent that I'd regard a turbo as an essential
part of a diesel, whereas it's optional on a petrol unless you want ****-hot
acceleration.

But for an even bigger example of gutless... I was loaned a Pug 2008 (the
SUV-wannabe that's based on the 208) by the garage while my car was in for
work. It had a 1.2 3-cylinder engine and it was major effort to get it
moving from rest, and then engine throbbed and barked (yes, that's the best
word to describe the noise it made) as I set off or when I accelerated out
of a roundabout. The engine also ran at about 3,500-4000 rpm at a normal
60-70 mph which made it very noisy.

OK, that was an exception: a heavy car with a *very* underpowered and
therefore high-revving engine. But even a supposedly powerful car can
suffer. Another garage loan car was a petrol Pug 306 with IIRC a 1.8 engine.
Its 0-60 acceleration was superb - to the extent that I had to be careful
not to overcook things when setting off at junctions. But on the motorway it
was painful. It had virtually no 50-70 acceleration (I tried 5th, then 4th,
then 3rd gear) and even in top the engine was screaming away. No match for
my diesel 306 which didn't have quite the 0-60 but had considerably better
50-70 which is where it really matters on a long motorway journey where you
may get stuck behind a slower vehicle and then need to accelerate hard to
get past it when moving into a lane where other cars are wanting to do way
above 70 and you want to overtake and then get back to Lane 2 as fast as
possible.

I wonder if manufacturers will ever develop a cat which can turn NOx (NO,
NO2) into something less harmful. I think DPFs have reduced the amount of
particulates, but it's the NOx that is the lingering problem for diesels..
I'm not sure what is is about compression-ignition that produces higher NOx
than spark ignition. Maybe its simply that they are very lean burn, whereas
petrol engines are stoichometric - they have an accurate petrol:air ratio
rather than a great excess of air relative to fuel with diesel.

On 10/03/2018 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels pariahs.
I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main source
of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful pollutant in
this case.

Next they'll be banning gas boilers. They are not far behind with their
NOx emissions in city centres.

On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that
is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

NY wrote:

I'm not sure what is is about compression-ignition that produces higher NOx
than spark ignition.

Im pretty sure its just down to cylinder pressure and consequent
combustion temperature.

Nitrogen is pretty inert but the hotter you heat it the more NOx you get,
petrol or diesel. Diesels just have a bit of a head start on the
combustion pressure/temperature.

Maybe its simply that they are very lean burn, whereas
petrol engines are stoichiometric - they have an accurate petrol:air ratio
rather than a great excess of air relative to fuel with diesel.

That may be a factor too but I think it stems from the high cylinder temp
primarily.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that is
10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Yes. My Pug 308 1.6 HDi will do about 750 miles on a 60-litre tank at 70.
The fuel economy is better at a steady 70 than at a variable 30-60 on
single-carriageway roads. (OK, it's better still at a steady 50!).

I've never actually done 750 miles because I've always made sure I refuel
while there's still a bit of fuel left in the tank. But I did a 700 mile
journey (250 miles from old house to new one, then a break then 250 back to
the old one, then part of the way back to the new house - while transporting
things while we were moving house) and the trip computer was still
estimating another 50 miles left in the tank. That was almost all on
motorways or dual carriageways.

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
NY wrote:

I'm not sure what is is about compression-ignition that produces higher
NOx
than spark ignition.

Im pretty sure its just down to cylinder pressure and consequent
combustion temperature.

Nitrogen is pretty inert but the hotter you heat it the more NOx you get,
petrol or diesel. Diesels just have a bit of a head start on the
combustion pressure/temperature.

Ah, for some reason I'd always thought that diesel engines ran a lot cooler
than petrol engines. Higher pressure but lower combustion temperature.
Evidently not.

On 10/03/2018 15:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that
is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that
time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

Can you not last 10 hours without a ****?


--
Adam

On 10/03/2018 15:26, Tim+ wrote:
NY wrote:

I'm not sure what is is about compression-ignition that produces higher NOx
than spark ignition.

Im pretty sure its just down to cylinder pressure and consequent
combustion temperature.

Hence why I don't understand why water injection for diesels has never
taken off. I presume its not as simple as it may seem.

"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that
is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that
time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to your
willy?

No-one said it was 700 miles non-stop. But it may be 700 miles with much
shorter breaks than you'd need to allow for refuelling an electric car.

A petrol or diesel pump adds energy to the car at a phenomenal rate. Petrol
and diesel are each about 35 MJ/litre
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) so if you put in 60 litres in
5 minutes. that's a rate of 35,000,000 * 60 / 300 J/sec (ie W), or 7 MW.

That''s a serious amount of electricity that you'd need to charge an
electric car with to equal it. Even if the charging process was 99%
efficient, that's still 70 kW of waste heat you've got to dispose of.

OK, it's not quite a fair comparison because electric motors are more
efficient than petrol/diesel engines so you wouldn't need to take onboard as
much energy. But it's still a lot of energy needed in a short period of
time.

You may only need to do 100 miles in a day, with all night (or many hours
during the day while you are at work) to recharge. But if you ever need to
do a longer journey, you may have to re-plan your day if you have to factor
in a recharge stop of maybe 6 hours somewhere in the day. Swappable
batteries would be one way, but cars tend not to be designed with the
batteries in an easy-to-remove tray and there's the age-old problem of
swapping clapped-out batteries that don't hold as much charge for new ones
which will hold more - I'm sure a comparable problem existed several
centuries ago when stage coaches swapped horses several times on a journey:
you may end up getting something much better (or worse) that you had before
(leaving aside the short-term problem of tired horses that will be fine
after a night's rest).

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 10/03/2018 15:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that
is 10
hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in that
time
for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount of
fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at say
80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to your
willy?

Can you not last 10 hours without a ****?

Only if I drink virtually nothing on the journey and for several hours
beforehand.

I think the furthest I've driven without a stop was Southampton to York
which is about 5 hours and I didn't have any coffee for breakfast and just a
few sips of water on the journey. And I was glad to get to a loo at the end
of the journey!

"Fredxx" wrote in message
news
On 10/03/2018 15:26, Tim+ wrote:
NY wrote:

I'm not sure what is is about compression-ignition that produces higher
NOx
than spark ignition.

Im pretty sure its just down to cylinder pressure and consequent
combustion temperature.

Hence why I don't understand why water injection for diesels has never
taken off. I presume its not as simple as it may seem.

Water injection for diesels. That sounds intriguing. I'll have to look up
what that's all about. I wonder if it needs a large amount of water in
addition to the diesel fuel?

In article , NY
wrote:
"Andy Bennet" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 10/03/2018 15:12, ARW wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
I wish electrics had advanced where they had the same 700 mile range

You'll actually drive 700 miles without a stop? Even at 70 mph, that
is 10 hours solid driving. Most would expect to stop at least once in
that time for a comfort break and likely a meal. So could re-fuel
then.

And if not doing a long journey silly to carry around a large amount
of fuel.


Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

Cornwall and back without stopping (other to drop my friend off) is
something I do quite often. That's just over 700 miles round trip at
say 80 MPH.


Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

No-one said it was 700 miles non-stop. But it may be 700 miles with much
shorter breaks than you'd need to allow for refuelling an electric car.

A petrol or diesel pump adds energy to the car at a phenomenal rate.
Petrol and diesel are each about 35 MJ/litre
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) so if you put in 60 litres
in 5 minutes. that's a rate of 35,000,000 * 60 / 300 J/sec (ie W), or 7
MW.

That''s a serious amount of electricity that you'd need to charge an
electric car with to equal it. Even if the charging process was 99%
efficient, that's still 70 kW of waste heat you've got to dispose of.

OK, it's not quite a fair comparison because electric motors are more
efficient than petrol/diesel engines so you wouldn't need to take onboard
as much energy. But it's still a lot of energy needed in a short period
of time.

You may only need to do 100 miles in a day, with all night (or many hours
during the day while you are at work) to recharge. But if you ever need
to do a longer journey, you may have to re-plan your day if you have to
factor in a recharge stop of maybe 6 hours somewhere in the day.
Swappable batteries would be one way, but cars tend not to be designed
with the batteries in an easy-to-remove tray and there's the age-old
problem of swapping clapped-out batteries that don't hold as much charge
for new ones which will hold more - I'm sure a comparable problem
existed several centuries ago when stage coaches swapped horses several
times on a journey: you may end up getting something much better (or
worse) that you had before (leaving aside the short-term problem of
tired horses that will be fine after a night's rest).

but who owned the stage coach horses?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels
pariahs. I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main
source of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful
pollutant in this case.

Next they'll be banning gas boilers. They are not far behind with their
NOx emissions in city centres.

But no particulates.

Think is if you walk past any queue of cars in London, you always smell a
diesel or two. And many smoke if they accelerate moderately hard. Some
older ones, a lot.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

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

In article ,
ARW wrote:
Are you built like a camel or do you have an attachment connected to
your willy?

Can you not last 10 hours without a ****?

You have to remember the age of many on here. Prostates like footballs.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

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

On 10/03/18 11:59, GB wrote:
On 10/03/2018 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No oner will buy new ones, but old ones hold value

As the evidence on health risks rises, there may come a time when the
govt. decides to price them off the road by hiking the road tax or
taxing diesel fuel.


The evidence on health ri9sks hasnt chamged in 20 years.

What has changed is that cars are lasting too long and manufacturers
benefit from enforced scrappage







--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 10/03/18 15:36, NY wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...

NY wrote:

I'm not sure what is is about compression-ignition that produces
higher NOx
than spark ignition.

Im pretty sure its just down to cylinder pressure and consequent
combustion temperature.

Nitrogen is pretty inert but the hotter you heat it the more NOx you get,
petrol or diesel.Â* Diesels just have a bit of a head start on the
combustion pressure/temperature.

Ah, for some reason I'd always thought that diesel engines ran a lot
cooler than petrol engines. Higher pressure but lower combustion
temperature. Evidently not.
they are more eficient so ythe actual engine block is likely to run
cooler BUT not the combustion chanmber itself


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On Saturday, 10 March 2018 15:13:47 UTC, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

If you want a small petrol engine that pulls like a diesel find one with a
turbo or supercharger. It's that which makes the difference.

If you really want to define gutless, think of older small diesels before
turbos became the norm.

True. The very first diesel I drove was a Golf many years ago. It didn't
have much pull. It was no match for my 1.8 petrol Golf.

Bu they've improved to the extent that I'd regard a turbo as an essential
part of a diesel, whereas it's optional on a petrol unless you want ****-hot
acceleration.

But for an even bigger example of gutless... I was loaned a Pug 2008 (the
SUV-wannabe that's based on the 208) by the garage while my car was in for
work. It had a 1.2 3-cylinder engine and it was major effort to get it
moving from rest, and then engine throbbed and barked (yes, that's the best
word to describe the noise it made) as I set off or when I accelerated out
of a roundabout. The engine also ran at about 3,500-4000 rpm at a normal
60-70 mph which made it very noisy.

OK, that was an exception: a heavy car with a *very* underpowered and
therefore high-revving engine. But even a supposedly powerful car can
suffer. Another garage loan car was a petrol Pug 306 with IIRC a 1.8 engine.
Its 0-60 acceleration was superb - to the extent that I had to be careful
not to overcook things when setting off at junctions. But on the motorway it
was painful. It had virtually no 50-70 acceleration (I tried 5th, then 4th,
then 3rd gear) and even in top the engine was screaming away. No match for
my diesel 306 which didn't have quite the 0-60 but had considerably better
50-70 which is where it really matters on a long motorway journey where you
may get stuck behind a slower vehicle and then need to accelerate hard to
get past it when moving into a lane where other cars are wanting to do way
above 70 and you want to overtake and then get back to Lane 2 as fast as
possible.

lot faster than some things I've driven then

I wonder if manufacturers will ever develop a cat which can turn NOx (NO,
NO2) into something less harmful. I think DPFs have reduced the amount of
particulates, but it's the NOx that is the lingering problem for diesels..
I'm not sure what is is about compression-ignition that produces higher NOx
than spark ignition. Maybe its simply that they are very lean burn, whereas
petrol engines are stoichometric - they have an accurate petrol:air ratio
rather than a great excess of air relative to fuel with diesel.

higher burn temp means more of the N2 reacts.


NT

On 10-Mar-18 4:20 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 10/03/2018 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:

Just because VAG fiddled some tests shouldn't make all diesels
pariahs. I've been a diesel car driver since 1990.

All the measurements made in city centres say diesels are the main
source of harmful pollutants. CO2 not being regarded as a harmful
pollutant in this case.

Next they'll be banning gas boilers. They are not far behind with their
NOx emissions in city centres.

But no particulates.

Think is if you walk past any queue of cars in London, you always smell a
diesel or two. And many smoke if they accelerate moderately hard. Some
older ones, a lot.


So, do what they have done in numerous city abroad - ban cars that don't
or can't display a sticker showing they comply with a minimum emissions
standard.

--
--

Colin Bignell