BBC news - Court puts more heat on diesels

[pearce_jj]

To be fair, the mk1 has it's fair share of EGR and turbo problems.

[dieselV6]

Diesel is unpatriotic for the UK.  The North Sea produces light oil which main produces petrol whereas diesel has to be mainly imported. 

Proposal for London for starters is to charge all cars that cannot meet EUR6 to be charged £10 a day for enetering London last I heard.  Like with company car tax diesel should be charged an extra 3 scale points on road tax IMO because of their dirty emmision particularly in soot ie PM10 and PM2.5s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate which is about three times higher than petrol cars.   Diesel should be phased out until it can be cleaned up or atleast levied and the proceeds reinvested until it get a lot cleaner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards

Tier Date CO THC NMHC NOx HC+NOx PM P***

Diesel

Euro 6 September 2014 0.50 - - 0.080 0.170 0.005 -

Petrol (Gasoline)

Euro 6 September 2014 1.0 0.10 0.068 0.060 - 0.005** -

 

Not sure where you found 3x greater PM emissions, as long since EU5 engines PM standards for petrols and diesels are identical (refer to the table in Wiki), that's why we have to put up with DPF.

If anything, PM emissions of petrol engines are on the increase (direct injection is mostly responsible for this), in fact they can exceed DPF equipped diesel PM emissions by a factor of 3x - 10x.

 

Using diesel is about as unpatriotic as building a decent sized house in the UK instead of lining up UK bankster's pockets with mortgage money for a developer originated rabbit hutch.

 

Brent crude is light oil and it makes producing petrol, kerosene and diesel more profitable, with the exact ratio strongly dependent on distillation column setup at a refinery. The "heavy" parts in crude oil are not petrol, kerosene nor diesel, but bunker fuel, waxes and tar. 

 

UK refineries used to be more geared for petrol as it bore better profits and UK car fleet was indeed petrol based many decades ago. But there is nothing stopping refiners from adjusting the ratio, other than perhaps better profit from creating artificial shortage of diesel, and in some cases vastly obsolete infrastructure that should have been invested in tens of years ago. Refineries are a declining business at the moment, so not much investment is coming in, but just like with UK housing, that does not mean that status quo is good for the country.

 

Taxing and tightening emissions of passenger cars any further makes no sense as the new cars are not the main source of pollution in cities when it comes to NOx and PM in towns. Trucks and buses are dominant contributor in these areas and they should be fixed first. One 4 year old (EU5, so quite clean) bus can emit as much PM as 20 EU5/6 diesel cars (4x higher limit, and 5x more powerful engine), and as much NOx as 50 EU5/6 diesel cars (10x higher limit, 5x more power). No mistake there, fifty up to 5 year old diesel Fabias would emit less NOx in total than is allowed by EU regs for one bus. It gets much worse for older buses and lorries, and of course for vehicles with bypassed / disabled emission control.

 

In my view, EU6 emission regulations for passenger cars were brought in way too early, what should have happened first was tightening emissions for buses and HGVs and road side enforcement of emission limits for existing vehicles. As it stands, we end up with overcomplicated, fault prone and pricey diesels and still not much improvement in air quality.

[pearce_jj]

I read that diesel emission are generally now classed as carcinogenic: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf

 

And, the DPF tends to make the particulate matter from diesels much smaller, meaning the filters have limited effect on health:

 

The particles not trapped by the DPF (released into the air) are mostly ultrafine nanoparticles. These are precisely the particles that present the greatest threat to human health. The mucous membranes of the lungs are better at dealing with larger particles than ultrafine ones. Ultrafine nanoparticles pass easily through the lung's mucous membranes, carrying toxins and carcinogens directly into the bloodstream and circulating them throughout the body.

 

Source: http://www.trolleycoalition.org/dpf.html

 

So much for the GreenLine range!!

[dieselV6]

The ultra fine particles are also emitted by petrol engines, at least direct injection ones, in fact GDI engines emit more of the stuff than diesels. For some reason most anti-diesel propaganda seems to forget that most petrol engines on the new car market are GDI ones.

Edited 23 November, 2014 by dieselV6

[pearce_jj]

Very interesting. Seems this is being solved though with a re-introduction of indirect injection, this paper seems to suggest that the 1.8TFSi already has it.

[lol-lol]

Not sure where you found 3x greater PM emissions, as long since EU5 engines PM standards for petrols and diesels are identical (refer to the table in Wiki), that's why we have to put up with DPF.  If anything, PM emissions of petrol engines are on the increase (direct injection is mostly responsible for this), in fact they can exceed DPF equipped diesel PM emissions by a factor of 3x - 10x.  Using diesel is about as unpatriotic as building a decent sized house in the UK instead of lining up UK bankster's pockets with mortgage money for a developer originated rabbit hutch.  Brent crude is light oil and it makes producing petrol, kerosene and diesel more profitable, with the exact ratio strongly dependent on distillation column setup at a refinery. The "heavy" parts in crude oil are not petrol, kerosene nor diesel, but bunker fuel, waxes and tar.   UK refineries used to be more geared for petrol as it bore better profits and UK car fleet was indeed petrol based many decades ago. But there is nothing stopping refiners from adjusting the ratio, other than perhaps better profit from creating artificial shortage of diesel, and in some cases vastly obsolete infrastructure that should have been invested in tens of years ago. Refineries are a declining business at the moment, so not much investment is coming in, but just like with UK housing, that does not mean that status quo is good for the country.

Taxing and tightening emissions of passenger cars any further makes no sense as the new cars are not the main source of pollution in cities when it comes to NOx and PM in towns. Trucks and buses are dominant contributor in these areas and they should be fixed first. One 4 year old (EU5, so quite clean) bus can emit as much PM as 20 EU5/6 diesel cars (4x higher limit, and 5x more powerful engine), and as much NOx as 50 EU5/6 diesel cars (10x higher limit, 5x more power). No mistake there, fifty up to 5 year old diesel Fabias would emit less NOx in total than is allowed by EU regs for one bus. It gets much worse for older buses and lorries, and of course for vehicles with bypassed / disabled emission control.  In my view, EU6 emission regulations for passenger cars were brought in way too early, what should have happened first was tightening emissions for buses and HGVs and road side enforcement of emission limits for existing vehicles. As it stands, we end up with overcomplicated, fault prone and pricey diesels and still not much improvement in air quality.

 

Indeed the limit for cancer causing particles is the same in grams per kilometer for diesel as petrol at 0.005 gm/km even though the petrol are usually producing more gas and therefore would probably be using more fuel and therefore paying more UK tax (unless they filed up in Calais of course). For Nitrous Oxide diesel are allowed to produce a third more but petrol allowed twice as much Carbon monoxide per kilometer.

 

Where as diesels are costing more and more to meet these new ie EUR6 emission regs where as petrols no have the incredible TSIs and twincharge providing the torque range greater than that of diesels and have closed the fuel consumption gap from what was around only half to two thirds mpg to now around three-quarter to  four-fifth and now with the Acitve Cylinder deactivation available on all VAG marques, except Skoda so far, combined fuel consumption figures of over 60 mpg but performance of 0-60 in 8 seconds where you usually need 180 hp plus for a golf sized chasis to achieve, makes the sense of buying in the UK highly questionable.  Can perfectly understand a diesel on Mainland Europe, ie diesel only 80% the price of petrol, but in the UK where diesel is a few percent more expensive than petrol it appears less and less logical.

 

I think most people would agree that any internal combustion engine that emits more than a certain percentage that the standard it was biult more and also a scrappage scheme for all these old dirty cars seems like a good idea for most and might spur the buying of Honda Civics and Nissan Quasquis biult in volume in the UK (at least for the while until the Japanese think that the UK might seriously leave the EU and they more production to Japan, the Mainland or the host of other countries happy to receive the inward investment). 

Edited 23 November, 2014 by lol-lol

[countryboy]

I read that diesel emission are generally now classed as carcinogenic: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf

 

And, the DPF tends to make the particulate matter from diesels much smaller, meaning the filters have limited effect on health:

 

The particles not trapped by the DPF (released into the air) are mostly ultrafine nanoparticles. These are precisely the particles that present the greatest threat to human health. The mucous membranes of the lungs are better at dealing with larger particles than ultrafine ones. Ultrafine nanoparticles pass easily through the lung's mucous membranes, carrying toxins and carcinogens directly into the bloodstream and circulating them throughout the body.

 

Source: http://www.trolleycoalition.org/dpf.html

 

So much for the GreenLine range!!

Which is precisely the type of particulate emissions that come from petrol engines, you will always get them from engines that burn hydrocarbon fuel. Going the SCR route is the way things seem to be going as the engine is allowed to breathe easier and burn hotter which reduces the particulate, using the after treatment to sort out the resulting high NOx values. We may well see petrol engines going that way even more in the future, they already have the 3-way catalysts.

Ian

[trundlenut]

Also the ultrafine particles tend to go into your lungs then come straight back out again.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[neil_f]

Seems that the diesel driven car is finished as a mode of transport, with all the technology to help emissions (DPF) it's restricting the mpg and hindering the diesel lump, I'm currently running petrol and diesel car and there's about 5-10 mpg difference the 1.6tdi gets 65mpg and the 1.2 petrol i10 gets around 62mpg, the golf was £23,000 and the i10 was £10,000 so is it really economical these days to go for any diesel

Sorry but the golf is a different class to the i10 hence why it costs more so don't think it is a fair comparison. Also My wife has a 1.2tsi monte Carlo and I drive a 2.0tdi seat leon estate. I'll admit the tsi is a good engine but my diesel not only gets better economy (ok only about 5-7mpg but bear in mind it is a bigger, heavier car), has 100bhp more than the fabia and is cheaper for road tax.

[bluecar1]

this is the thing, the mpg is not much better and a £2k more for a diesel

 

so to me diesels are being priced out of reach

[seboni121]

Sorry but the golf is a different class to the i10 hence why it costs more so don't think it is a fair comparison. Also My wife has a 1.2tsi monte Carlo and I drive a 2.0tdi seat leon estate. I'll admit the tsi is a good engine but my diesel not only gets better economy (ok only about 5-7mpg but bear in mind it is a bigger, heavier car), has 100bhp more than the fabia and is cheaper for road tax.

I understand they are a different class but the i10 isn't far behind in comfort , drivability or quality but the premium for having a vw badge seems the main difference, and at nearly £15,000 more but even a specked up polo would cost £6,000 more but the issue is in respect of petrol v diesel and for me now petrol is nearly as economical but diesel vehicles are more £

[neil_f]

I had an octavia vrs tsi before I bought the Leon diesel. The octavia would get 40mpg if driven really gently. Start to use the performance and the mpg would drop to low thirties and worse during town driving. On the other hand the Leon averages 150-200miles more from a tank (and the tank is 5litres smaller on the Leon!). Sit at 85-90mph and the Leon still averages high 40's. All depends on how many miles you do. I loved the octavia and the tsi engine was more exciting than the diesel but doing over 20k miles a year the fuel bills were mounting up. Diesel also holds it's value better when you come to resell.

[bukowski]

Diesel? Petrol? Hybrid? Superconductor...http://www.sciencealert.com/new-technology-could-power-battery-free-electric-cars-within-five-years