Not only does that truck race look pathetic, but it looks exceeding dangerous should anything go wrong! Especially for the spectators! That wouldnt be allowed in this day and age in the UK.

The issue is with "high pressure injection" diesels. PD and common rail direct injection diesels produce far more small, nasty particles than older technologies. With cats and DPFs, they are far cleaner in many ways than older engines. Though if you haven't got a DPF, then your car would only be doing 1/2 the job.

 

J.

I'm always dubious of statistics used in such sensationalist journalism.

"fumes from diesel engines may be responsible for about one in four air pollution-related deaths which translates to over 7,000 deaths per year."

So what about the other three quarters?

So the number pulled from the ether for Diesel related deaths each year is 7,000.

 

Well, if we're on death from toxic gasses, released into the air we all breath by individuals who are putting their own lifestyle choices before the health of others, there are almost certainly bigger fish to fry.  How about the one that causes an estimated 100,000 deaths in this country alone..?

 

 

 

Okay, that was trolling. Sorry

Edited 15 July, 201411 yr by Maieth

Quite possible, if the fumes have some toxic effect on the brain.

A quick search brought up that welders can have symptoms of Parkinsons due to manganese poisoning from the welding rods.

 

I agree it's possible, but iirc any link between autism and diesel fumes is entirely unfounded. Citing Autism in this way is pure sensationalism and I find it vile when conditions like this are used only as a weapon in the fight to put ones own opinions across - 'well, cancer doesn't have the same impact in the press as it used to, what else can we scare people with?'  And this sensationalism is dangerous. I know it's a more extreme and public case, but take MMR vaccinations - the wave of parents through the 90s and 2000s that stopped their kids being vaccinated against MMR led to a staggering rise in cases of measles in children over the last few years and the blame can be centred entirely on the falsified claims of just one doctor who falsely linked the vaccine to autism in children without evidence for this own ends.

Yes, diesel fumes are bad for you.  Yes, it's possible there might be links to certain psychological conditions, but suggesting those links without evidence or foundation is just scaremongering.

 

Not trolling at all, I drive a diesel company car and it's petrol equivalent is a much much better car, same as ANY like for like petrol diesel comparison

 

Again, I can agree in principle that, like-for-like, a petrol engine will almost always be more fun than an equivalent diesel model, but stating that all diesels are "slow and dull" comes over as narrow minded. 

There are some excellent diesel engines around that offer plenty of excitement  (admittedly they are a minority), particularly when you move beyond looking at raw power figures and focus on how much they can put down - the 2l turbo petrol that went in the standard golf GTI in 2007, for example, made an impressive 200bhp, 70 more than the PD130, but only offered 207lb/ft of torque to the PD130's 230lb/ft. Undeniably a quicker engine and undoubtedly a lot more fun, but that certainly doesn't make the PD130 dull and slow, especially when that petrol model now comes in at a £3000 (60%) step up in price and will cost you around 70% more in fuel.

Someone best tell the yanks

 

I agree it's possible, but iirc any link between autism and diesel fumes is entirely unfounded. Citing Autism in this way is pure sensationalism and I find it vile when conditions like this are used only as a weapon in the fight to put ones own opinions across - 'well, cancer doesn't have the same impact in the press as it used to, what else can we scare people with?'  And this sensationalism is dangerous. I know it's a more extreme and public case, but take MMR vaccinations - the wave of parents through the 90s and 2000s that stopped their kids being vaccinated against MMR led to a staggering rise in cases of measles in children over the last few years and the blame can be centred entirely on the falsified claims of just one doctor who falsely linked the vaccine to autism in children without evidence for this own ends.

Yes, diesel fumes are bad for you.  Yes, it's possible there might be links to certain psychological conditions, but suggesting those links without evidence or foundation is just scaremongering.

 

 

Again, I can agree in principle that, like-for-like, a petrol engine will almost always be more fun than an equivalent diesel model, but stating that all diesels are "slow and dull" comes over as narrow minded. 

There are some excellent diesel engines around that offer plenty of excitement  (admittedly they are a minority), particularly when you move beyond looking at raw power figures and focus on how much they can put down - the 2l turbo petrol that went in the standard golf GTI in 2007, for example, made an impressive 200bhp, 70 more than the PD130, but only offered 207lb/ft of torque to the PD130's 230lb/ft. Undeniably a quicker engine and undoubtedly a lot more fun, but that certainly doesn't make the PD130 dull and slow, especially when that petrol model now comes in at a £3000 (60%) step up in price and will cost you around 70% more in fuel.

I find the engine in my 535d very dull and only brisk at best, seeing as it is way more powerful than anything you quoted I think I will just take your word for it that those you mention are buckets of fun and really fast.....

 

I find the engine in my 535d very dull and only brisk at best, seeing as it is way more powerful than anything you quoted I think I will just take your word for it that those you mention are buckets of fun and really fast.....

 

Buckets of fun? yeah, pretty much. 

Really fast? Well, compared to 60-70% of the traffic I pass every day, again yeah. Compared to a £30k 535d, of course not. More fun than it? I have no idea, but if they are, I'd mark it down to chassis, weight balance, and other factors, not whether or not it runs on diesel.

But it's all relative my friend. Your previous points were that a direct comparison between a diesel engine and a like-for-like petrol would always see the petrol far outstripping the diesel, and that all diesels were dull and boring. 

I made a comparison of two closely matched engines within the VAG range as an example of a diesel that competes well with its petrol equivalent and still offers good entertainment. Pitching the car I was discussing against something 5 times the price is fairly pointless (except for the obvious pat on the back), but if that's your benchmark, a closer comparison would be the F10's direct petrol equivalent, the 535i, the "much much better car"  I guess.

The petrol lump in the 535i gives 5 more bhp over your 535d's 220bhp, but while the diesel's low down torque kicks in you have 443lb/ft to work with against the petrol's 295.  The end result is two very balanced cars - a shared platform and suspension arrangement give the same kind of ride and handling, while the admittedly higher-revving petrol engine will take an easy-to-ignore 0.1 seconds longer to get you to 60mph. I can't find any consensus on which one comes out better overall - diesel owners seem to like the diesel, petrol owners seem to like the petrol - but, like the vRS and GTi, there's doesn't seem to be a huge amount in it.  

If you're finding the sub 6 second 0-60mph diesel is dull, the petrol doesn't seem likely to be a more entertaining option. Perhaps we should scrap both?

The 535d has 282 bhp.

My error. A pretty carp one too. 

We have a 330d and personally I find it a great car, it has masses of torque and plenty of go from the lights, even with the Golf on the trailer behind it there is enough torque to win most traffic light grand prix. For daily use it provides good economy.

 My 1 series is less powerful but returns 60+ mpg with fairly good driving dynamics, with this kind of economy and performance it amazes me why anybody would consider a small capacity petrol engine especially one that has to drag a big battery and electric motor around.

 I am sure cars/engines will develop from where we are now but in my lifetime I am expecting internal combustion, be it from petrol or diesel as the main form of power for private transport.

Maybe I should also mention I have had a fabia vrs and an octavia both were pretty dull in comparison to the petrol vrs Octy and the 1.8 20 valve polo which I believe would be the petrol equivalent

NOx goes down over an engines life for derv and up for petrol.

Since the article I saw blamed NOx, it's sensationalist trip, probably an excuse to raise taxes.

Not a lot wrong with the Honda 1.6 diesel. 94g co2. Obc mileage 70 mpg, real mpg 63. Civic is a far better car than the critics give it credit for. Kicks my last Mazda firmly in to touch, far better everyday car than the nice at times but totally compromised baby beemer, and better in all respects (except boot space) than the Octavia. If only Honda would mate it with a decent auto box.