General 1.3 diesel or 1.4 petrol ?!?

Currently reading:
General 1.3 diesel or 1.4 petrol ?!?

The current EU stance on diesel cars has not gone down at all well with motor manufactures who are gearing up to seriously kick back at EU politicians who for years have pushed the benefits of diesel over petrol.

Paris is the first city to talk about banning diesel cars but the French government owns a big stake in Peugeot which most of peugeots sales come from diesel cars and Diesel engine technology.

Basically this attack on diesel in France is very much cutting off their own nose.

What I'm saying is don't count your chickens, at this stage their are some rumblings about diesel being bad but their is so much weight in the form of manufactures and share holders and oil companies who will back diesel to the bitter end so I can't see diesel cars going anywhere soon.

The 1.3 Diesel engine is a fantastic little engine which half a dozen other manufactures are buying and selling well in their own cars while fiat are selling the 500 as a little town run around better suited to the petrol engines, but if you expect to do more than 30 miles a day then the you can't really do better than the 1.3 diesel.

Plus that 1.3 diesel is very much under tuned so really opens up with a little tinkering to far more power and torque putting those petrol engines to shame

Good reasoning all round, on both sides of the argument, but it reminds me of the scientist who was asked if the rate of technological progress would now slow down as it seems we have made all the big discoveries already. He said that we are only scratching the surface, and there is much more yet to discover.

The questioner then replied, ‘That means that the extent of our present knowledge is only surpassed by the extent of our present ignorance.’

Don’t reckon diesel development has reached its peak yet. The major manufacturers are pouring so much into diesel development that we may be a little premature in arguing that it's a lost cause.
 
I don't for one minute think that it's a lost cause. I'm sure the manufacturers will sort it.

Trouble is, what about the diesel cars at the moment? Millions of them pushing out particulates and nitrous oxide.

I ride a bike - as many of you know - and the muck that comes out of the tailpipes of diesels as they floor their throttles to pass me is astounding. And I don't mean old diesels, I mean even this year's models.

As for NO, it's invisible, but the muck isn't and I often see a black sooty stripe on the roads near junctions.

If the manufacturers can sort out the muck - and don't tell me that DPFs sort it because they don't because they burn the muck - and can sort out the NO, I'm sure diesel vehicles will have a future.

Until then, diesels are a bad investment.

Regards,
Mick.
 
The restrictions may come sooner than you think.

Anyone here from Islington?

The council's FAQ section makes interesting reading.

Irrespective of the health arguments & technical merits, this is an obvious opportunity for councils to increase their revenue whilst also appearing to be environmentally aware.

This combination will be irresistible to many other local authoritites and I strongly suspect many similar schemes will not be far behind. The charge may only be an additional £96 now, but I'm sure most folks could make an educated guess which way that's likely to be heading.

Anyone care to predict the future trade in value of a 5yr old diesel 500 with the DPF light on?
 
Last edited:
A few interesting SMMT facts to throw into the mix:

Power stations are the biggest contributor, with one coal-fired plant producing as much nitrogen oxide as 42million modern diesel cars - four times the number currently on the road.

The SMMT noted that without diesel, average fuel use for new cars in the UK would be 11per cent higher – adding an extra £315million per year in fuel bills for British drivers.

Since 2002, buyers choosing diesel have prevented almost 3 million tonnes of CO2 from going into the atmosphere.

Don't reckon diesels will be banned anytime soon.
 
Going back to topic, lol! aaron500, I would go for petrol every time. I used to have the old 60 bhp 1.2 8v in my old Punto mk2b, and I now have the 1.4 8v in my Grande Punto. Both are fantastic little engines, with a surprising amount of zip, and a lot of character. I'd imagine the 1.4 16v in the 500 would be superb.
 
A few interesting SMMT facts to throw into the mix:

Power stations are the biggest contributor, with one coal-fired plant producing as much nitrogen oxide as 42million modern diesel cars - four times the number currently on the road.

The SMMT noted that without diesel, average fuel use for new cars in the UK would be 11per cent higher – adding an extra £315million per year in fuel bills for British drivers.

Since 2002, buyers choosing diesel have prevented almost 3 million tonnes of CO2 from going into the atmosphere.

Don't reckon diesels will be banned anytime soon.

They may have prevented 3 million tonnes of CO2, but how many tonnes of soot have they produced instead? Plus, how much pollution will have been generated by manufacturing all the failed EGR valves that diesels are notorious for...
 
I'd imagine the 1.4 16v in the 500 would be superb.

It's not massively quick to be honest and doesn't offer much in the way of torque compared with a small turbo petrol. However, there's plenty of fun and smiles if you keep it in the power band as much as possible, taking it up to 4000 rpm (or maybe a little more (y)) in each gear. No turbo lag of course, and the engine sounds great. Same sort of fun factor as that offered by the Panda 100hp - it's pretty addictive :cool: I must say I've been very impressed with the reliability of the 1.4 - no problems whatsoever in 7 years. Mine runs with Denso iridium spark plugs - seem to make it smoother and a bit more responsive. I leave Sport mode on all the time as I like the way it tightens up the steering feel. It's a good car is the 1.4 Sport.
 
It's not massively quick to be honest and doesn't offer much in the way of torque compared with a small turbo petrol. However, there's plenty of fun and smiles if you keep it in the power band as much as possible, taking it up to 4000 rpm (or maybe a little more (y)) in each gear. No turbo lag of course, and the engine sounds great. Same sort of fun factor as that offered by the Panda 100hp - it's pretty addictive :cool: I must say I've been very impressed with the reliability of the 1.4 - no problems whatsoever in 7 years. Mine runs with Denso iridium spark plugs - seem to make it smoother and a bit more responsive. I leave Sport mode on all the time as I like the way it tightens up the steering feel. It's a good car is the 1.4 Sport.

My 2008 Grande Punto Eleganza 8v isn't the fastest thing on 4 wheels, but it's still plenty quick enough, and it does have a lovely engine. :)
 
Power stations are the biggest contributor, with one coal-fired plant producing as much nitrogen oxide as 42million modern diesel cars - four times the number currently on the road.
This may be true, but, and it's BIG but, power stations aren't on the streets. Diesel vehicles are, and they pump out NO out of their tail pipes straight into the lungs of the following vehicle plus all the passing pedestrians and cyclists.

I'm no chemist, but perhaps the NO is absorbed/converted in the atmosphere eventually?

Regards,
Mick.
 
I ride a bike - as many of you know - and the muck that comes out of the tailpipes of diesels as they floor their throttles to pass me is astounding. And I don't mean old diesels, I mean even this year's models.

As for NO, it's invisible, but the muck isn't and I often see a black sooty stripe on the roads near junctions.

If the manufacturers can sort out the muck - and don't tell me that DPFs sort it because they don't because they burn the muck - and can sort out the NO, I'm sure diesel vehicles will have a future.

Until then, diesels are a bad investment.

I agree, Mick. I had a diesel 159 and the back of it was frequently coated in a fine black dust. For a large heavy car the diesel is a good idea for performance and economy, but I'm not convinced it's necessary for a small car, and it brings the penalties of mechanical complexity (gone are the days of diesels being more reliable than petrol) and this inherent dirtiness of burning a less-refined fuel.

Coal-fired power plants are a separate issue, they're a disaster, and China is building them at a huge rate. Again, the problem is the fuel itself. I'm happy to point out that NZ uses mainly hydro, geothermal, and wind turbines. There are several European countries leading the way with 'alternative' energy sources. I thought England had mostly nuclear power plants. We're not allowed those...

I believe the way forward (for vehicles) is to make a diesel engine that runs on petrol :) don't laugh, Hyundai are trying to do exactly that! High-compression, compression-ignition, and therefore the thermal efficiency of a diesel with the clean-burning fuel of petrol. I believe this is possible with modern engine management - would have rattled itself to pieces in the past, but if the petrol-air mixture is injected at just the right time, it should work.

-Alex
 
Last edited:
Going back to topic, lol! aaron500, I would go for petrol every time. I used to have the old 60 bhp 1.2 8v in my old Punto mk2b, and I now have the 1.4 8v in my Grande Punto. Both are fantastic little engines, with a surprising amount of zip, and a lot of character. I'd imagine the 1.4 16v in the 500 would be superb.

It has more of a burble than the 8v, seems a bit more lively (I've had a Grande Punto as well) and quite a bit more power (100bhp vs 77bhp). (y) reality is that these little engines are much easier to work on than the diesels, cambelts are not a big problem, and apart from head gasket problems on earlier examples of the 16v motor (Punto Mk2 1.2 16v 80bhp in particular), there's not much else that's been known to go wrong...

Not as powerful as the turbo version, of course :eek: but quite sufficient for a little car used mainly in town.

-Alex
 
Last edited:
Good reasoning all round, on both sides of the argument, but it reminds me of the scientist who was asked if the rate of technological progress would now slow down as it seems we have made all the big discoveries already. He said that we are only scratching the surface, and there is much more yet to discover.

The questioner then replied, ‘That means that the extent of our present knowledge is only surpassed by the extent of our present ignorance.’

Don’t reckon diesel development has reached its peak yet. The major manufacturers are pouring so much into diesel development that we may be a little premature in arguing that it's a lost cause.

This is true, too.
If there was some way to 'afterburn' the soot, in a different kind of combustion cycle, then problems would probably be solved. The current problem of NOx emissions, however, results from the nitrogen in the air being combusted, so only a catalytic converter will reduce that. And catalytic converters produce more CO2.

We're basically trading off one problem against another... with the only universal solution being to drive smaller vehicles and use less fuel. Which is what we all do by driving 500s (y)

-Alex
 
they pump out NO out of their tail pipes straight into the lungs
At first I didn't understand, since I thought you meant the opposite of YES.
icon_redface.gif


Exhaust gases of diesel and petrol engines contain NO (nitric oxide) and NO2 (nitrogen dioxide). Therefore it's more common to speak about NOx.
 
I believe the way forward (for vehicles) is to make a diesel engine that runs on petrol :) don't laugh, Hyundai are trying to do exactly that! High-compression, compression-ignition, and therefore the thermal efficiency of a diesel with the clean-burning fuel of petrol. I believe this is possible with modern engine management - would have rattled itself to pieces in the past, but if the petrol-air mixture is injected at just the right time, it should work.

I don't know (/care) about Hyundai, but VW and Honda have been working on this for some time. Even if they match thermal efficiency, they won't match economy as diesel fuel contains more BTUs per litre than petrol. Diesels also produces more CO2 per unit of fuel as a result.

I think these HCCI/ PCCI engines are going to have essentially the same problems as modern diesels regarding reliablity though. DI petrols are already problematic enough.

In Australia at least, diesel passenger car sales are plummeting after a surge of new previously unavailable diesels landed here about a decade ago. It seems once bitten twice shy. More expensive to buy, service and (locally) more expensive fuel and the MPG savings don't translate to financial savings.

Diesels are fun to drive, but not really any different to something like a Twinair Turbo.
 
Tesla?
If Elon Musk can crack the storage gremlin so that batteries would give, say, a thousand mile range between charges, then electric cars would be 'in'.
For the sheer performance, I would buy one.
 
Absolutely.

A 1.2 produces 23.4g/ CO2 per litre burned.

A MJ produces 26..2g/ CO2 per litre burned.

:rolleyes:

It all depends how you judge.
If fuel was measured by weight instead of volume, the figures would be very different.
 
Last edited:
It all depends how you judge.
If fuel was measured by weight instead of volume, the figures would be very different.

If fuel economy was measured by weight instead of by volume, the economy figures would be different too.

By any rational analysis, the most modern diesel cars produce far more dangerous pollutants than the most modern petrol ones.
 
Last edited:
Too true.
With petrol lighter than diesel, you would get more bang for your buck.
Maybe if this had been the standard when cars first hit the roads, we would never have seen the development of diesels.
All goes to prove that there is often more than one way of looking at things.
 
Back
Top