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

[ahmett]

I'm a cyclist ......... as most of you know .......... and each and every diesel vehicle on the road chucks out black smoke when they overtake me.

Each and every one.

Brand new or old.
They ALL do it.

Regards,
Mick.

you should see how much black smoke ships chuck out = ) The fuel they run is a much cheaper version of diesel = ) Oh and a medium size ship at sea uses about 10 tonnes of it a day of sailing = )

Basically, I agree cars should be as clean as possible, but modern diesel cars are much cleaner than many things in the world = )

 

[Mick F]

Yep!

One frigate I served on (mid 1980s) had a "tonnes per hour" readout in the control centre.
Can't remember the figure but she would do about 35knots flat out using four gas turbines - two RR Olympus and two RR Tyne.

I did the maths on it once when we were hurtling along and was very very astonished at the gallons per mile figure. More like gallons per yard!

These days, ships are very economical and cleaner too thank goodness.

This, though, bares no resemblance to a single occupant in a diesel car chucking out muck into the skin and lungs of the pedestrians nearby and the cars and cyclists following.

Thanks,
Mick.

 

[AGH1965]

I'm a cyclist ......... as most of you know .......... and each and every diesel vehicle on the road chucks out black smoke when they overtake me.

Each and every? Modern diesel cars with DPF don't smoke! (The only exception is during regeneration of the DPF, but that only occurs occasionally, at least if the car is used the way it is intended to be used.) Look into the exhaust tailpipe of a modern diesel car and you see clean metal. Do the same with a modern petrol car and you look into a black hole.

 

[Mick F]

Nope.

Petrol cars have blackish tailpipes if they've been used infrequently or for short journeys. Go on a long drive, and they are clean.

Modern diesels aren't as bad as old diesels, but they still chuck out black stuff when the accelerate away. Each and every one of them. New or old, still the same.

TTFN
Mick.

 

[AndyRKett]

I'm a cyclist ......... as most of you know .......... and each and every diesel vehicle on the road chucks out black smoke when they overtake me.

Each and every one.

Brand new or old.
They ALL do it.

1. You're not the only cyclist in the world.
2. We've already established you're anti diesel
3. What a load of rubbish
4. Watch the video below of two huge unnecessary Diesel engines SUVs and tell me where the plumes of black smoke are bellowing from their exhaust

[ame]http://youtu.be/yJIoD0IIV-I[/ame]

5. We've (I've) already established euro 6 emission standards for petrols and diesels and the requirements of all new diesels in euro6 is to emit no more particular matter than a petrol so no not every diesel as you claim chucks out black smoke. And petrols still chuck out loads of invisible carcinogenic hydrocarbons.

 

[AGH1965]

Petrol cars have blackish tailpipes if they've been used infrequently or for short journeys. Go on a long drive, and they are clean.

No, they are not! I bet the exhaust tailpipe of your TA doesn't get clean, not even after a 200 mile journey on the motorway, unless you clean it yourself. You must be living in Memory Lane. In the times of leaded petrol the exhaust became grey during a long journey. That looked clean, but it wasn't. In reality the grey finish was a thin layer of lead oxides. Very healthy....

 

[MarginWalker]

Well, this thread has strayed well away from the original topic but it's been interesting to see the variable opinions on diesel engines and their environmental impact. Until this thread developed I was pretty well set on the path of replacing my 7-year Skoda Fabia 1.9 TDi with a turbo petrol, solely due to the (perhaps misguided) perception that my efficient yet DPF-free turbodiesel harms the environment more than a modern petrol; however, I'm now having some doubts. The Fabia has been great in every way, 60k on the click, is very well maintained and runs brilliantly with sufficient poke when needed, returning at least 50 mpg (more like 60 mpg on long journeys) all the time.

I'd be very interested in hearing a few responses to the following question: stick or twist?

 

[puntofan01]

Well, this thread has strayed well away from the original topic but it's been interesting to see the variable opinions on diesel engines and their environmental impact. Until this thread developed I was pretty well set on the path of replacing my 7-year Skoda Fabia 1.9 TDi with a turbo petrol, solely due to the (perhaps misguided) perception that my efficient yet DPF-free turbodiesel harms the environment more than a modern petrol; however, I'm now having some doubts. The Fabia has been great in every way, 60k on the click, is very well maintained and runs brilliantly with sufficient poke when needed, returning at least 50 mpg (more like 60 mpg on long journeys) all the time.

I'd be very interested in hearing a few responses to the following question: stick or twist?

I'd keep the Fabia. It's a perfectly nice car, and if it still drives fine and meets your needs, why bother changing it?!
I bought my current car last April, and I have every intention of keeping it as many years as I possibly can.

 

[UFI]

4. Watch the video below of two huge unnecessary Diesel engines SUVs and tell me where the plumes of black smoke are bellowing from their exhaust

http://youtu.be/yJIoD0IIV-I

HA! and LOL! 1:20, visible black smoke from the Rangie. Thanks

Anyone who thinks DPF diesels don't smoke simply doesn't WANT to see it.

Diesel passenger cars only exist because of the fuel taxes in Europe, without those incentives, they'd have never been developed. If you live in a country where fuel is taxed the same across the board, the reason to go diesel for most people will disappear.

The reason EU6 regs call for lower particulates in diesels than petrols is because the regulators know that manufacturers will simply tune their cars to the NEDC cycle (where engine loads are moderate), while out in the real world, they're still going to smoke (run rich at high engine loads) and put out pollutants. Any time Twinair fuel economy comes up people complain that the official tests don't represent the real world and that Fiat cheated, well it's the exact same test that's done for CO2 and Euro certification.

 

[Mick F]

No, they are not! I bet the exhaust tailpipe of your TA doesn't get clean, not even after a 200 mile journey on the motorway, unless you clean it yourself. You must be living in Memory Lane. In the times of leaded petrol the exhaust became grey during a long journey. That looked clean, but it wasn't. In reality the grey finish was a thin layer of lead oxides. Very healthy....

I concede that point.
You are correct, I was down memory lane.

 

[MarginWalker]

I'd keep the Fabia. It's a perfectly nice car, and if it still drives fine and meets your needs, why bother changing it?!
I bought my current car last April, and I have every intention of keeping it as many years as I possibly can.

I always regarded the Fabia as a keeper and I know that the 1.9 TDis are capable of doing starship mileages. Literally nothing has gone wrong with it in 7 years and as the top-spec estate version it has and does all I need.

Only the lack of a DPF niggles me, though some would consider that an advantage I guess...

 

[zanes]

I'd keep the Fabia. It's a perfectly nice car, and if it still drives fine and meets your needs, why bother changing it?!
I bought my current car last April, and I have every intention of keeping it as many years as I possibly can.

Yeah, this. Give the thing some TLC (regular servicing) and run it into the ground.

It's my current plan with the swift.

 

[AndyRKett]

HA! and LOL! 1:20, visible black smoke from the Rangie. Thanks

Anyone who thinks DPF diesels don't smoke simply doesn't WANT to see it.

Aside from the fact I asked "where are the plumes of smoke" (I don't consider a little wisp of grey smoke on very heavy load to be plumes and it certainly isn't black.) petrol cars are perfectly capable of producing smoke in the same way as in that video, you could argue that anyone who thinks that petrols don't smoke simply doesn't want to see it. If I was to follow your pattern of reason then the 2004 Honda Accord I followed this morning bellowing out smoke at idle is representative of all petrol cars.

Clearly we've reached the end of all reasoned argument and you've progressed onto belligerent narrow mindedness, completely unwilling to evaluate any evidence presented other than your own findings from two vehicles which may or may not be similar.

With emission standards more or less the same for petrols and diesels, petrol cars being no more or less complicated that diesels but fuel economy figures CO2 figures and cost of fuel for diesel being significantly lower, you're still arguing that petrols are somehow better? When the argument all a long is one is no better than the other, (although in the grand scheme of things diesels are possibly ever-so slightly cleaner in euro 6)

I'm pretty certain their is no point in continually presenting you with evidence for you to just ignore it and blather on more about your vans and your 'experience'

 

[puntofan01]

I always regarded the Fabia as a keeper and I know that the 1.9 TDis are capable of doing starship mileages. Literally nothing has gone wrong with it in 7 years and as the top-spec estate version it has and does all I need.

Only the lack of a DPF niggles me, though some would consider that an advantage I guess...

I wouldn't let the lack of a DPF bother you tbh. If people are quite happy to drive around in supercharged range rovers and other completely pointless suvs without feeling any guilt, I wouldn't worry about your little Fabia.

 

[UFI]

Aside from the fact I asked "where are the plumes of smoke" (I don't consider a little wisp of grey smoke on very heavy load to be plumes and it certainly isn't black.) petrol cars are perfectly capable of producing smoke in the same way as in that video, you could argue that anyone who thinks that petrols don't smoke simply doesn't want to see it. If I was to follow your pattern of reason then the 2004 Honda Accord I followed this morning bellowing out smoke at idle is representative of all petrol cars.

So you're down to arguing shades of grey? It's not that easy to see grey smoke against a grey background, I'd estimate there's very quickly 2 cubic metres of it - you just don't see that from a petrol unless it's been tuned that way- the only late model factory petrols that I see put out smoke are Lambos and the like. Problem is my Nissan Skyline (factory tuned to run rich and spit flames) doesn't even meet EU1 regs but produces less smoke than that RR, so it's taken EU5 and they still haven't matched the dirtiest petrol car I've owned, and yes I feel bad for those who have to follow me, but it's mostly a track day car.

Emission standards might be the same for petrol and diesel, but that doesn't mean the toxins they produce are and their affects on humans are - diesel fumes are a class 1 carcinogen and if you can smell it, you're being poisoned, if you can't smell it, that's just because the particles are too small for the human nose to detect. I cannot find a single source that suggests petrol fumes, while no doubt harmful, are as harmful as diesel. It's still possible to buy a simple petrol (no turbo - no DI) 4 cylinder car, which means the diesel is far more complicated (as you know a diesel adds turbo, intercooler, EGR cooler, DPF, Adblue (at least some EU6), DI - and I think all EU6 diesels will have stop start). CO2 figures are only 10% lower per distance traveled (and frankly this is complete nonsense because every time the world oil price drops, large car sales go up - suggesting that in the real world diesel just makes people buy bigger - it has no affect on actual CO2 from passenger vehicles) . In some places (like here where taxes are equal on petrol/diesel), diesel is the most expensive fuel at the forecourt (even 'truck diesel' more than regular unleaded). On the subject of forecourts, petrol bowsers aren't surrounded by a nasty oily mess, that you then track into your cars carpets.

I don't know why my 'experience' is any less valid than yours? We can't all live 30 miles from work then buy a diesel to do our bit. Which goes back to the CO2 argument, diesels just mean people can afford to have longer commutes too, and if diesel is cheaper than petrol, that just encourages more CO2 again (if you have a budget of 20 pounds a week for fuel, can you make more CO2 with a diesel?).

So we can agree, diesel fumes are more toxic to humans, the overall petrol energy cycle is slightly worse for total environmental impact, but it's completely offset by taxation differences and human nature.

 

[Goudrons]

It's probably true this thread has deviated slightly, but a good point has been made regarding diesels and reliabilty.

Some years ago everyone started running around in places like Kyoto worried about CO2 levels and various govenments at the time started fingering cars as a problem (or more like a problem they could be seen to effect).

Ours and a few other govenements all decided new, modern cars are less polluting, hence the scrappage scheme and revised road fund license scales to account for CO2 produced by these new vehicles.

Modern diesels, pound for pound produce lower CO2 levels than petrols, so buyers took them to heart, who wouldn't?

Turns out CO2 is only part of the picture and the eye had been taken off the ball in regards to NOx and other nasties in particulates of diesels and the fact diesels started selling far better than they ever considered.

So now there's far more on the road than anyone back then considered, chucking out pollutants no one back then really considered would be an issue either.

So the tide started to turn and manufacturers needed to try and keep control of these pollutants as each new Euro reg required them to.
It's partly these controls that make them less reliable than diesels of yesteryear.

You can trace the tightening emission controls over the last few Euro ratings.
Like between Euro 4 and 5, emission control devices that had to be fitted then had to be linked to the engine management system, hence EGR operation on Euro 5 cars throw a fault light when faulty (or interfered with), Euro 4's didn't.

I say partly these controls, but the fact is the modern common rail system (Which Fiat started to develop but ran out of cash and flogged it to Bosch) isn't as robust as the older injection systems.

Ford actually built in a system of failure (early TDCi's) on their electronic injectors so they needed replacing/overalling after around 80,000 miles or so.
They did this via electronic "coding" after x amount of injections, the coding became "lost" and expensive servicing was needed.
This was their attempt to make them operate efficently as they knew the service life wasn't as long as older injection nozzles, but owners thought it as a heist!

They also rather strangley, increase one of the major pollutants, NOx by the way they run, the more efficent they became, the more NOx got produced.
This is due to the fact they run so lean and with little or no fuel at times (on the over run they will inject no fuel) this causes very high combustion temps which proliferates NOx production, hence EGR operation is used to send exhaust gases (with little usuable O2 in it) back around the engine and cool combustion.

Another thing was to make them appeal to more buyers and drive more comfortably, so lots of development went into the noise, vibration and harshness of them, with limited success.
The likes of Dual Mass Flywheels became popular in smoothing out the torque spike and it's impact on the crankshaft, but no one can argue they last as long as a solid one!

So what was once considered a fuel for tractor drivers and tightarses has become a bit of a hit with everyone and caused a problem, the attempts to solve them haven't been as reliable as they need to be.

So what's next?
Will we be forced out of them one way or another?
Seems some people are already trying.
http://www.easiertoleaseplan.co.uk/fleet-issues/general-interest/parking-surcharge-for-diesel/

 

[UFI]

It's probably true this thread has deviated slightly, but a good point has been made regarding diesels and reliabilty.

You can add excessive DPF regens causing melted pistons to the list. This was a problems with VW Crafters and no doubt has happened to others (including a drivings school 500 MJ I suspect, although I don't know if we ever got a definitive answer).

I think cars in general reached the peak of reliability around 2000 though.

Australia had a brief affair with the idea of lowering CO2, but passenger diesels only account for 3.3% of the market this year, as there is no tax advantage to skew the market. It's just a shame commercials make up so many vehicles on our roads.

 

[Goudrons]

I think cars in general reached the peak of reliability around 2000 though.

The term "we've never had it so good" springs to mind.

Sure, some aren't as robust as they once were, but overall cars are more reliable and require less servicing and are somewhat cleaner than they ever were.
They are now more accessible to more people as well, what with cheap deals, PCP and the likes.

Which is a worry!

Everyone has one (or two, or three) and they are used more often and no matter what seems to be done, their use is on the incline and it doesn't look like stopping (no matter how much road Boris gives the cyclists)

I live in the centre of London and have watched the congestion charge, the low emission zone and fancy dan buses make not a jot of difference to the air quality, more polluting less just isn't cutting the mustard!

As already said, diesels will get the first wave of the attack, whether by tax or the fact they can't make and sell them clean/cheap enough.
I honestly think we'll have seen the rise and fall of diesels in quite a short space of time.

But it won't be long before petrol follows and I'm affraid the alternatives won't be ready or viable (I won't feckin' pedal!)

 

[Mick F]

As already said, diesels will get the first wave of the attack, whether by tax or the fact they can't make and sell them clean/cheap enough.
I honestly think we'll have seen the rise and fall of diesels in quite a short space of time.

But it won't be long before petrol follows and I'm affraid the alternatives won't be ready or viable (I won't feckin' pedal!)

Utterly agree with you.

The last time I visited London was the LAST time. In fact any big city gets the thumbs down from me even though I know they are the power-houses of the economy. City dwellers are welcome to it, and thank you for being there.

You may not pedal, but I commuted by bicycle for quite some years and nowadays I ride a bike for pleasure and leisure. I am also a driver, and have driven many different cars over the past (nearly) 50 years and if an electric car was available at a reasonable cost, I'd have one immediately and sell my lovely 500TA.

Regards,
Mick.

 

[AndyRKett]

I'm not going to bother arguing with every point that's been made because most of them have already been discussed and countered.

Diesel emission standards are now more or less the same as petrols

Diesels produce on average 20% less co2 than petrol cars, this is what has driven taxation and the uptake on diesels, that and the huge increase in fuel costs over the last few years.

NOx emission..... Diesels produce more NOx and NO2 over and this level remains largely the same over the life of the vehicle. Petrols produce less NOx initially but as they get older this increases and over the life of the vehicle petrols produce more NOx and NO2

Diesels produce more smoke visible and particulates however standards are the same and petrols also produce particulates in small quantities, petrols also produces a large number of hydrocarbons which are also class 1 carcinogens.... So is the sun and so are some cancer drugs and a multitude of other substances and chemicals we encounter every day.

The complexity of petrols is increasing exponentially at the moment many manufacturers are bringing out 3 cylinder small capacity turbos just to meet petrol emission standard, this means turbos balance shafts and intercooleres (how an intercooler is complex I'm not sure?) petrols have vapour control systems and egr systems and complex fuel injection and valve timing systems dual mass fly wheels multiplate clutches etc etc yes you can buy a basic fiat 500 but look at the problems fiat created trying to get the 1.2 to meet euro 6 standards, I would expect the 1.2 and engines like it to disappear with euro 7.
Yet despite all of this both petrols and diesels are far more reliable now than they where before. It's not that long ago that most diesels suffered from fuel pump failures now pumps are much smaller run at much higher pressures, and rarely fail.

So I continue to evaluate all the evidence available and without using opinion, or stacking the deck, make a proper unbiased decision that overall petrols are no more or less reliable than diesels no more or less complicated no different in terms of running costs and do not differ largely in the emissions they expel