500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!

Currently reading:
500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about DPF filters, I run two (well three but one doesn't have a DPF) diesel cars and our mini is now over 3 years old we bought it with a couple of thousand miles on the clock and since we've had it, it has never had to do an active DPF regeneration.

How do you know? Active regens happen automatically and unless you notice the increased idle when stationary you'd be none the wiser. The DPF light only comes on if the automatic active regen fails to be completed. Or have you read the data off the ECU?

I explained to a Citroen dealer that I wanted a petrol because I do all city driving and he claimed DPF problems were a thing of the past....

I've had to order a new Renault 1.6 DCi as there's no petrol alternative (unless you count Hyundai and Toyota's 3rd world offerings), it comes with two trubos, CAT, DPF and Adblue. What a nightmare that's going to be after warranty. As a hypermiler I use about half as much fuel as the average motorist, so I won't feel too guilty if I need to 'delete' all that, particularly since the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans still sell diesels with CATs only, at least my car will have been clean for the first half of it's life.
 
Last edited:
How do you know? Active regens happen automatically and unless you notice the increased idle when stationary you'd be none the wiser. The DPF light only comes on if the automatic active regen fails to be completed. Or have you read the data off the ECU?


On the mini the key stores all the information on the engine, servicing, even the fuel in the tank so when you take it into the dealer they put the key in a little reader which updates all that information to their computer system, no need to read the Ecu directly and it was them who tell me it's never done and active regen.

As pointed out our cars don't get used in a way that the dpf is likely to never need to do an active regen
 
Last edited:
Out of interest, why the need for a dual mass flywheel?


They supposedly take the 'shock' out of the transmission so if you have poor clutch jerky clutch control you shouldn't notice this as the flywheel absorbs that shock it also reduces unwanted vibrations and harmonics through the transmission and into the car as well
 
I've just bought a brand new diesel VW and they were extremely careful to explain the DPF filter and make sure that it was suitable for my needs, they also told me stories about people who still insist on buying a diesel and using it to trundle round town once a week and still come back and complain when the fuel economy is crap and the filter clogged.
Well, that VW dealer is right. Some people shouldn't buy a car with a diesel engine since it doesn't fit their driving habits.

But what about these guys with their "sporty" driving style? They all end up closing the EGR valve and removing the DPF, but still they continue buying cars with diesel engines. Why on earth?
 
Well, that VW dealer is right. Some people shouldn't buy a car with a diesel engine since it doesn't fit their driving habits.

But what about these guys with their "sporty" driving style? They all end up closing the EGR valve and removing the DPF, but still they continue buying cars with diesel engines. Why on earth?

Some people see diesels as a way of having a quick car without having to spend too much on fuel. Take my mate for example: the car that would've met his needs the best was a petrol engined supermini. That wasn't good enough for him, so he bought a Brera 2.4 JTD...
 
Many years ago, we bought a diesel Peugeot 205GRD. Excellent car and one of the first small cars with a diesel. This was back in 1984 and Autocar(?) called it, "The sweetest little diesel on the market."

We had her for six or seven years, and clocked up 135,000miles before we moved her on. For a while I was "commuting" to Glasgow from here in Cornwall 500miles each way, and once or twice I made it to Glasgow non-stop.

I swore back then that we would never have a petrol car again as it was perfect. Torque, power, 100mph performance, comfortable, easy to drive, economical ..........

However, since then, I've sworn I would never own a diesel car again!
Why?
Because petrol cars have improved no end. They have all the attributes of of a diesel these days ........... plus they are clean, emit little CO2, quiet, economical ............ and cheaper to run and cheaper to buy.

Diesel?
No way!
Get them off the road.

Regards,
Mick.
 
I know we have full EV's but the mining and manufacturing process still relies on a lot of vehicles with ICE's, so take in their emissions and the emissions of making them and they really are no better than a standard vehicle. Its a vicious circle.

Proponents of this theory never seem to account for the crazy amount of pollution caused buy finding, refining and transporting oil. Those tanker trucks get 2mpg, those tanker ships?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

While it's true that if you consider tail pipe emissions to coal fired EV emissions, the difference is pretty small, in total the EV is around 50% of the ICE. In most countries coal is mined relatively close to where it's used, and car be transported efficiently via rail, and most countries have at least a portion of zero carbon electricity.
 
Because petrol cars have improved no end. They have all the attributes of of a diesel these days ........... plus they are clean, emit little CO2, quiet, economical ............ and cheaper to run and cheaper to buy.



Diesel?

No way!

Get them off the road.


Petrol cars produce 20% more carbon dioxide than Diesel engines! They also produce more CO more hydrocarbons and more nitrous oxide than diesels over the same period.

In addition there are 35 million cars in the UK of which only 9 million are diesel.

Overall the most polluting car if you consider that all new diesel cars manage their particulate emission with a DPF, is a petrol car on top of which their are considerably more petrols pumping out that extra pollution.

The only petrol cars that compete are hybrids which are then resource hungry and complex to make causing much more pollution in the manufacturing process.

Basically the whole argument of petrol v diesel and which is worse is ******** as diesels might kill people but petrols are killing the planet !
 
Petrol cars produce 20% more carbon dioxide than Diesel engines! They also produce more CO more hydrocarbons and more nitrous oxide than diesels over the same period.

In addition there are 35 million cars in the UK of which only 9 million are diesel.

Overall the most polluting car if you consider that all new diesel cars manage their particulate emission with a DPF, is a petrol car on top of which their are considerably more petrols pumping out that extra pollution.

The only petrol cars that compete are hybrids which are then resource hungry and complex to make causing much more pollution in the manufacturing process.

Basically the whole argument of petrol v diesel and which is worse is ******** as diesels might kill people but petrols are killing the planet !

Carbon dioxide is plant 'food', i.e. they use it to grow and do what plants do. It is not a major issue to human health breathing it in from the car in front, but is supposedly causing global warming.

Diesels produce more oxides of nitrogen...and significantly more particulates which is why we now have DPF filters on them. However petrol still contains lead which you don't want inside you neither, together with hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

It takes more crude oil to produce a litre of diesel than petrol. As diesel is heavier we need more tankers to deliver it compared to petrol. But diesels tend to use less of the stuff anyway.

In summary. Both are as bad as each other but in different ways so buy and run whatever car you like and suits your needs. I do and am happy with my choices at the moment.
 
Diesels produce more oxides of nitrogen...and significantly more particulates which is why we now have DPF filters on them.


That's the only part of what you posted with is actually accurate, which had already been established in the thread earlier on ..... And then you came to the same conclusion as me anyway?
 
Last edited:
Well I took my Saab 9-3 1.9 with its trusty Fiat engine for a quick 100 mile round trip up (and down) the M1 today and it did an active regen whilst underway. No noticeable smoke or crap came out of the rear end whilst it did its thing. But then I'm changing the oil and filter in it religiously every 5k miles, I only ever use Shell Nitro Diesel, I clean the MAP sensor and EGR valve every six months and the car has a full intact DPF. Damn, I'm still only getting 54 mpg at 70 mph in sixth, 58 mpg average at 50 mph. I must do better! :p
 
That's the only part of what you posted with is actually accurate

Therefore:
Plants DON'T absorb CO2?
Breathing in CO2 (at the levels in the air we breath) WILL harm you?
CO2 ISN'T contributing to global warming?
Petrol DOESN'T contain lead?
Diesel ISN'T heavier than petrol?

You probably don't even agree people should buy whatever car they want/need. Sorry for killing the planet with my petrol cars. Enjoy life before the diesels kill you.
 
Petrol DOESN'T contain lead?
Hopefully not, since lead destroys catalysts. In the past, before the catalyst era, tetraethyllead or tetraethyl lead (abbreviated TEL) was deliberately added to petrol to boost the octane number.
 
Therefore:
Plants DON'T absorb CO2?
Breathing in CO2 (at the levels in the air we breath) WILL harm you?
CO2 ISN'T contributing to global warming?
Petrol DOESN'T contain lead?
Diesel ISN'T heavier than petrol?

You probably don't even agree people should buy whatever car they want/need. Sorry for killing the planet with my petrol cars. Enjoy life before the diesels kill you.


Plants use CO2 as part of photosynthesis and bind the CO2 in the presence of sun light, in the absence of sunlight they still need to 'breath' and as such then produce CO2. When trees and plants die the CO2 they have bound gets re-released in decomposition.

CO2 causes asphyxia and displaces oxygen in the air with increasing CO2 levels in the air it's perfectly possible that it can cause harm to humans.
And CO2 DOES cause global warming not "supposedly" as you put it.

Petrol DOESN'T contain lead and hasn't don't for a long while.

Diesel is heavier than petrol but your understanding of how petrol and diesel is produced is very wrong. Both fuels are derived from a barrel of oil which is much heavier than both. Out of a barrel of crude you will get a bit of petrol and a bit of diesel along with plastics Tarmac and aviation fuels. Because petrol is much more in demand they use advanced techniques to refine extra amounts of petrol from the diesel fuel within a barrel of crude. So you can make lots of diesel out of a barrel of oil but the demand for the different fuels means it's more costly to produce petrol.

A litre of diesel is heavier than a litre of petrol but by volume a 35,000 litre tanker will still carry 35,000 litres of diesel or petrol you don't need more tankers to move a heavier fuel. You can actually move more weight of diesel over petrol with the same number of tankers...........
 
The only petrol cars that compete are hybrids which are then resource hungry and complex to make causing much more pollution in the manufacturing process.

I suspect this comes largely from oil company data ;) I haven't looked into UK prices, but a Prius battery costs $2400 (after a $600 core refund) here in Australia, you won't get any OEM Dpf for that money, which suggests a Dpf is as resource intensive to produce as a hybrid battery. Furthermore, the use of hybrid tech vastly reduces the need for complex ICE additions (frankly the engine is out of the 90's), and the gearbox is a masterpiece of simplicity. A battery and a pair electric motors and controllers aren't really any more complex than adding direct injection, turbos, intercoolers, DPFs and urea injection to a diesel. Perhaps that's why at least in Australia, a Prius costs about the same as a VW Golf diesel wagon.

[/QUOTE]Basically the whole argument of petrol v diesel and which is worse is ******** as diesels might kill people but petrols are killing the planet ! [/QUOTE]

Yup, the more people we can kill with diesels, the better off the planet will be ;) Whether they realise it or not diesel owners are breathing their own fumes any time they reverse or idle with their windows down, especially the kids in the back seat, and diesel convertibles! LOL
 
Plants use CO2 as part of photosynthesis and bind the CO2 in the presence of sun light, in the absence of sunlight they still need to 'breath' and as such then produce CO2. When trees and plants die the CO2 they have bound gets re-released in decomposition.

CO2 causes asphyxia and displaces oxygen in the air with increasing CO2 levels in the air it's perfectly possible that it can cause harm to humans.
And CO2 DOES cause global warming not "supposedly" as you put it.

Petrol DOESN'T contain lead and hasn't don't for a long while.

Diesel is heavier than petrol but your understanding of how petrol and diesel is produced is very wrong. Both fuels are derived from a barrel of oil which is much heavier than both. Out of a barrel of crude you will get a bit of petrol and a bit of diesel along with plastics Tarmac and aviation fuels. Because petrol is much more in demand they use advanced techniques to refine extra amounts of petrol from the diesel fuel within a barrel of crude. So you can make lots of diesel out of a barrel of oil but the demand for the different fuels means it's more costly to produce petrol.

A litre of diesel is heavier than a litre of petrol but by volume a 35,000 litre tanker will still carry 35,000 litres of diesel or petrol you don't need more tankers to move a heavier fuel. You can actually move more weight of diesel over petrol with the same number of tankers...........

Thanks for finally agreeing that plants use CO2. I'll respect your belief of CO2 being harmful to humans in the air we breath even though I do not agree it will be a major human health issue in our lifetime.

Bear in mind as the petrol sold in the UK is now 5% ethanol there is some offsetting to the extra (you quote 20%) carbon emissions of a petrol engine. Some countries are even using E10 as it's called with 10% ethanol.

Unleaded petrol can still contain very small amounts of lead (and unleaded petrol doesn't account for 100% of petrol used in the world).

Your understanding of my understanding is clearly wrong as I agree with you - due to the extra demand for petrol, UK refineries are geared up to extract more petrol than diesel from a litre of crude oil. Thus, as I say, it takes more crude oil to produce a litre of diesel.

A modern 44 tonne tanker holds upwards of 42000 litres maximum capacity not 35000. They are therefore restricted to weight, carrying around a maximum of 37000 litres of diesel against 41000 litres of petrol, although this varies with temperature and density of the fuel on a daily basis.
 
I suspect this comes largely from oil company data ;)

Yup, the more people we can kill with diesels, the better off the planet will be ;) Whether they realise it or not diesel owners are breathing their own fumes any time they reverse or idle with their windows down, especially the kids in the back seat, and diesel convertibles! LOL


Data comes largely from organisations like green peace who constantly protest over the way companies like Toyota extract rare earth metals to make batteries which are then shipped between mines and factories all over the world before a final product is made and put into a car. Along with the waste products from mining elements like lithium, poisoning the land around the mines killing foliage and wildlife.

If you took away every Diesel engine tomorrow, then infrastructure would collapse, power generation transport of goods on trucks and trains, not to mention public transport which is largely reliant on diesel. Oh and then central heating in a huge number of houses. When you consider that the number of diesel vehicles is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of petrol vehicles which are predominantly private vehicles. It becomes apparent that society could actually do without petrol vehicles.
As diesels now very effectively manage their particulate emissions and have very low levels of NOx emissions in keeping with all European standards I have no more concern about what comes out of a diesel tail pipe than what comes out of a petrol.

When I was a kid we used to walk a mile to school crossing busy roads filled with trucks (with nothing to reduce emissions) all cars ran on leaded petrol and smog and acid rain were things you could witness on a daily basis. Nothing changes dramatically overnight, the air we breath now is dramatically, vastly improved since then and is still getting better today. I don't suspect a lung full of exaust from my own car is going to be any worse than walking down a street of moving traffic or past a bus at a bus stop. Most new cars have stop start technology so stationary isn't so much of an issue. Overall nothing I breath in to day is going to be anywhere near as bad as when I was a kid walking to school. Ultimately you can't argue diesels are the devil while ignoring the damage petrol engines do.
 
Errrrr heating oil is kerosene, not diesel, a small proportion of people heat with red diesel, but it's getting smaller and smaller. We moved in June and have a 1200 litre tank of kerosene in the garden.
 
Bear in mind as the petrol sold in the UK is now 5% ethanol there is some offsetting to the extra (you quote 20%) carbon emissions of a petrol engine. Some countries are even using E10 as it's called with 10% ethanol.

Unleaded petrol can still contain very small amounts of lead (and unleaded petrol doesn't account for 100% of petrol used in the world).

Your understanding of my understanding is clearly wrong as I agree with you - due to the extra demand for petrol, UK refineries are geared up to extract more petrol than diesel from a litre of crude oil. Thus, as I say, it takes more crude oil to produce a litre of diesel.

A modern 44 tonne tanker holds upwards of 42000 litres maximum capacity not 35000. They are therefore restricted to weight, carrying around a maximum of 37000 litres of diesel against 41000 litres of petrol, although this varies with temperature and density of the fuel on a daily basis.


Just to address your points.

1. Diesel fuel in the UK and across Europe contains between 5-10% biofuel as well it's a European directive so their is some of setting of CO2 emissions with either fuel, petrols still produce an average 20% more CO2 than diesels. CO2 causes global warming, makes the oceans more acidic and is responsible for climate change.

2. Unleaded petrol shouldn't contain small amounts of lead as lead had to be added to petrol, the refining process should completely remove any heavy lead particles that are naturally present in the crude oil and in 2013 leaded fuel was banned world wide, lead replacement liquids have to now be added after sale of fuels. Granted that the world is a big place and their may still be some corners of the world that sell a bit of leaded fuel but this is a tiny minuscule fraction of petrol fuel used in the world.

3. Extra demand for petrol over diesel means in order to produce more petrol than diesel refineries take diesel fuel and refine it down further to make petrol through a process called cracking. Basically producing diesel from crude oil is easy but to get the yield of petrol demanded by society diesel has to be refined further to make up the shortfall. So no it doesn't take more crude oil to make a litre of diesel but it takes much more complex and expensive processed to supply the demand for petrol.

4. Aside from the fact your maths on how many litres can or can't be carried doesn't really add up, your argument about tanker use is pointless. tankers are made up of compartments a 44 ton tanker lorry will carry both diesel and petrol at the same time in separate compartments and delivering both fuels to petrol stations.
For safety reasons you cannot drive a tanker about with half full pots as the fuel will slosh about and constantly change the centre of gravity of the truck and make it liable to tipping over, as a result when a station orders fuel they are only allowed to order by the quantity of a full compartment. So say a tanker has 6 compartments, because of the rate of demand for petrol versus diesel the truck may be carrying 4 chambers of petrol and 2 of diesel, all chambers will have to be full and will be emptied at the point of delivery.

It's worth noting that 42,000 litres of diesel fuel will weigh about 35 tons allowing 9 tons for tractor and trailer unit assuming it's a UK 44 ton lorry.

And still non of this is relevant because you still agreed that neither diesel or petrol are any better than the other when it comes to pollution/emissions.

Yes maxi I know heating oil is kerosene however kerosene chemically very close to diesel. Kerosene is comprised of hydrocarbon chains of between 12 and 15 carbon atoms in length and diesel consist is chains of 16 carbon atoms. Emissions wise they're not dissimilar.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top