Apparently on date Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:39:07 +0100, Clive
said:

In message , Sales!
writes

There are hidden factors, an ICE engine produces heat that is used to
keep the passenger compartment warm while the engine is running. Try
keeping the car warm, dry or for that matter cool in summer, using your
battery power source instead of the combustion engine's mechanical or
heat energy and suddenly there's a whole extra load on the alternative
power source that is not at all easy to incorporate.
Showing just how inefficient a petrol engine is.

Show me where a battery powered vehicle is even more efficient than an ICE
engine, then, when adding in the factor of keeping the passenger compartment
warm.

Feel free to include steam power. Or sails. Solar energy is ok too, but be
ready to justify the "sun is nice and warm" argument with something including
going to work on a rainy day and in December when the windows are frozen. Steam
does work.

In message , Dave Plowman
writes
In article ,
Clive wrote:
As you says

"you pays your money an you take
your choosy". Diesels compression ignition have the upper-hand over
electric ignition petrol ignition.

In your opinion. Plenty would disagree. And fuel consumption isn't
everything.

I'f you don't know how, the I.P.
address is real. I don't have anything to hide.

What the f**k you on about?

Can anyone put this into English for me please?
--
Clive

Clive wrote in message ...
In message ,
writes

Sorry , I disagree. The only thing in diesels favour is its lower fuel
consumption. Thats it. Diesels max rpm are limited by the physical
characterstics of the fuel , which results in a lower max power for a
given engine size than a petrol engine (when was the last time you saw
15,000 rpm diesel motorbike engine or a diesel F1 car?) , their
throttle response frankly is rubbish in comparison , they're heavier
and the combustion process at full power is a mess (how many times have
you seen even a new diesel vehicle belching out black soot) and because
of this they can't use catalytic converters and to get any reasonable
power out of a diesel you have to shove on an expensive turbo. Yes
diesels put out more torque than a petrol engine of equiv size but
thats easily solved by different gearing on the petrol. The lack of
power however can't be solved by gearing.

To be honest diesel engines are a prehistoric bit of kit which belong
alongside steam engines in a museum and which only still exist because
of their *slightly* higher fuel efficiency than petrol (and if you
measure it by weight of fuel used and not volume the story isn't so
rosy for diesel as you'd imagine) and slightly less maintence. If
diesel prices were to rise relative to petrol the diesel car (and
possibly other vehicles) would soon vanish off the roads and the sooner
the better IMO.

B2003
I sometimes try trolling, but at least I'm honest about it, and I know a
few facts before I start, the rubbish above shows just how little you
know about the different fuelling systems in current use on just cars
alone.

If thats the best retort you can come up with then either you read your
original argument out of someone elses post or you were doing exactly what
you accused me of doing. So if what I was talking was rubbish how about you
demolish all the points I made?

Perhaps you think diesels can you cats?
Perhaps you think diesel isn't denser than pertrol and so by weight fuel
efficiency is the same?
Perhaps you think the diesel combustion processed is a fine piece of chemistry
under complete control (and the knocking diesels suffer from is obviously
in everyones imagination)?
Perhaps you think diesel engines can rev to very high rpm?
And so forth.

Or perhaps you can't argue any of my points so you resort to insults?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
Clive wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes

Sorry , I disagree. The only thing in diesels favour is its lower fuel
consumption. Thats it. Diesels max rpm are limited by the physical
characterstics of the fuel , which results in a lower max power for a
given engine size than a petrol engine (when was the last time you saw
15,000 rpm diesel motorbike engine or a diesel F1 car?) , their
throttle response frankly is rubbish in comparison , they're heavier
and the combustion process at full power is a mess (how many times have
you seen even a new diesel vehicle belching out black soot) and because
of this they can't use catalytic converters and to get any reasonable
power out of a diesel you have to shove on an expensive turbo. Yes
diesels put out more torque than a petrol engine of equiv size but
thats easily solved by different gearing on the petrol. The lack of
power however can't be solved by gearing.

To be honest diesel engines are a prehistoric bit of kit which belong
alongside steam engines in a museum and which only still exist because
of their *slightly* higher fuel efficiency than petrol (and if you
measure it by weight of fuel used and not volume the story isn't so
rosy for diesel as you'd imagine) and slightly less maintence. If
diesel prices were to rise relative to petrol the diesel car (and
possibly other vehicles) would soon vanish off the roads and the sooner
the better IMO.

B2003
I sometimes try trolling, but at least I'm honest about it, and I know a
few facts before I start, the rubbish above shows just how little you
know about the different fuelling systems in current use on just cars
alone.

If thats the best retort you can come up with then either you read your
original argument out of someone elses post or you were doing exactly what
you accused me of doing. So if what I was talking was rubbish how about
you
demolish all the points I made?

Perhaps you think diesels can you cats?

Don't understand this sentence.

Perhaps you think diesel isn't denser than pertrol and so by weight fuel
efficiency is the same?

I believe diesel fuel is denser than petrol. But fuel is sold by volume, not
mass, and currently diesel and petrol are very similar prices per litre.
Consequently diesel engines are cheaper to run than petrol engines.
(Incidentally, why is it that diesel fuel used to be about half the price of
petrol in the 1970s until the rise of the diesel-engined car, and even until
a couple of years ago it was a couple of pence/litre cheaper than petrol?
Was the level of taxation of diesel increased? Is it more expensive to
produce, relative to petrol?)

Perhaps you think the diesel combustion processed is a fine piece of
chemistry
under complete control (and the knocking diesels suffer from is obviously
in everyones imagination)?

Certainly the combustion process is more refined in modern direct-injection
engines than it was: fuel is now injected over a longer period of time,
rather than in a single instant near top-dead-centre, as it was with
mechanical injectors. This has reduced knocking. But it still is a problem,
I agree, when the engine is cold.

Perhaps you think diesel engines can rev to very high rpm?

No they can't - but if the engine generates max torque and power at lower
engine revs than for a petrol engine, why would you *want* to rev it to high
rpm? Lower rpm means less frictional wear on bearings and less noise, I'd
have thought, though I agree that the peak loadings on those bearings is
probably greater for a diesel.


If the remaining problems with knocking and particulate emission can be
further improved, I'd like to see the diesel engine last for a lot longer: I
much prefer my diesel-engined Peugeot 306 to previous petrol-engined cars.
Depends what you are looking for in a car. Tyre-melting acceleration doesn't
turn me on. But the much better fuel economy (50 mpg as opposed to 35*), the
ability to climb hills effortlessly, to accelerate out of roundabouts and
bends with less need for a gearchange half-way through the acceleration
phase, the excellent 50-70 acceleration, the ability to crawl along in a
traffic jam with no need to keep your foot on the throttle, the much better
cold-starting (and absence of "lumpiness" when cold) - all these are
features that I prefer about a diesel.

* 2.0 HDi engine in Peugeot 306 compared with 1.8i engine in VW Golf Mark 3:
exact figures 49.3 mpg averaged over about 75,000 miles and 37.0 mpg
averaged over about 47,000 miles, respectively.

In message , Boltar
writes

Perhaps you think diesels can you cats?
Perhaps you think diesel isn't denser than pertrol and so by weight
fuel efficiency is the same? Perhaps you think the diesel combustion
processed is a fine piece of chemistry under complete control (and the
knocking diesels suffer from is obviously in everyones imagination)?
Perhaps you think diesel engines can rev to very high rpm? And so forth.

Or perhaps you can't argue any of my points so you resort to insults?
Modern diesels have much higher injection pressures which leads to
better atomisation of fuel leading to lower particulates and better mpg.
Further the newer systems have injection through a phase of five
injections during the burning phase cutting down on the "Diesel knock"
making them far more refined with even higher torque figures. It's
true that due to the high compression pressures needed the diesel engine
is heavier that it's petrol counterpart and that petrol is trying to
improve by using direct injection now. However because of the speed of
burn petrol engines need to be run at high revs to get any torque from
them where as a diesel has (because of a better controlled burn) much
greater torque throughout it's rev range. Another point to mention, is
the continual ideal that diesels are dirty. All fossil fuel engines
are dirty, whether steam (coal) diesel or petrol. A lot used to be
made of the soot from buses due to (normally) incorrect injectors
settings or temporary over fuelling whilst waiting for the turbo to spin
up. It's now recognised that in fact greater danger comes from PM10s,
very small particulates which can't be seen with the naked eye. These
are increasing in modern diesels so most are now fitted with particulate
traps, but petrol engines have always produced them and so are accepted.
One last point, my diesel has a cat.
--
Clive

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
s.com...

(Incidentally, why is it that diesel fuel used to be about half the price of
petrol in the 1970s until the rise of the diesel-engined car, and even until
a couple of years ago it was a couple of pence/litre cheaper than petrol?
Was the level of taxation of diesel increased?

Yes.

Is it more expensive to produce, relative to petrol?

A hard question to answer, but any differences are
small relative to the changes in duty.

In message , Nick Finnigan
writes

Is it more expensive to produce, relative to petrol?

A hard question to answer, but any differences are small relative to
the changes in duty.

I remember one of the fuel companies using the excuse that diesel and
home heating oil were the same fraction, leading to elevated prices in
the winter months.
--
Clive

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Boltar
writes

Perhaps you think diesels can you cats?
Perhaps you think diesel isn't denser than pertrol and so by weight
fuel efficiency is the same? Perhaps you think the diesel combustion
processed is a fine piece of chemistry under complete control (and the
knocking diesels suffer from is obviously in everyones imagination)?
Perhaps you think diesel engines can rev to very high rpm? And so forth.

Another point to mention, is
the continual idea that diesels are dirty. All fossil fuel engines
are dirty, whether steam (coal) diesel or petrol. A lot used to be
made of the soot from buses due to (normally) incorrect injectors
settings or temporary over fuelling whilst waiting for the turbo to spin
up. It's now recognised that in fact greater danger comes from PM10s,
very small particulates which can't be seen with the naked eye. These
are increasing in modern diesels so most are now fitted with particulate
traps, but petrol engines have always produced them and so are accepted.
One last point, my diesel has a cat.

One other point: even with a particulate and catalytic converter, the CO2
figures for a diesel engine are not worse than for one without. You might
imagine that if some carbon was being lost as particulates, it wouldn't be
measured as CO2, whereas with a cat it would be burned to C02 and therefore
measured as such.

Compa

Peugeot 2.0 HDi 90 hp (no particulate filter/cat)

Urban 40.9 mpg
Out of Town 65.7 mpg
Combined 54.3 mpg
CO2 141 g/km


Peugeot 2.0 HDi 110 hp (with particulate/cat)

Urban 40.4 mpg
Out of Town 67.3 mpg
Combined 54.3 mpg
CO2 138 g/km

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Nick Finnigan
writes

Is it more expensive to produce, relative to petrol?

A hard question to answer, but any differences are small relative to
the changes in duty.

I remember one of the fuel companies using the excuse that diesel and
home heating oil were the same fraction, leading to elevated prices in
the winter months.

Which doesn't explain why diesel is now a couple of pence/litre more
expensive than petrol *all year round*, whereas it used to be a few pence
less expensive. It's only a recent phenomenon - probably dating from some
time after the fuel protests and blockade in September 2000.

In message , Dave Plowman
writes
Clive wrote:
I find a lot of people equate engine power with bhp and don't take
torque into account, hence a PP who was witering on about F1 engines.

BHP is the product of torque and rpm. An ideal engine might have the
peak torque and maximum BHP as widely separated, rpm wise, as possible.
F1 engines do about 3 litres to the mile, perhaps you would be happy
with this and an engine that blows up after 500 miles. Personally I
prefer an engine that is fuel efficient and lasts to about 300,000 miles
before needing major overhaul.
--
Charles.