I think it is kind of like smoking cigaretts with a filter instead of without, much better for your health almost good for you.
Yes, please do. Let us know when you have studies addressing the current generation of passenger car emissions. Those old heavy industrial diesels are not at all representative of what the new low emission cars do. The old gasoline engines prior to emission controls were quite toxic too. And immediately so, the CO portion alone could kill in minutes. Even ordinary passenger cars put out enough of it to be commonly used for suicide. But we don't normally use those old era gasoline emissions to argue against modern gasoline cars.
I've heard ALL American cars are crap. I remember the AMC Pacer that was released in RHD form but the drivers door was way too big and the passenger door way too small. The car wasn't very economical compared to the competition. OK, that was back in 1976, but I'm sure nothing has changed and I'll stick to my assumption that ALL American cars must still be rubbish. A modern Euro 6 diesel has a NOx emission LIMIT at 0.07g/km compared to a petrol limit of 0.05g/km. The diesel will emit significantly less particulates. They are also more economical. I am not a diesel fan, or wasn't until Euro 6. The earlier Euro 5 limits were 1.2g/km of NOx which was poor. Times change. Five years ago the Prius was much much cleaner than European diesels. Now there's hardly anything in it, other than a hybrid has its engine off crawling traffic. But we now have diesel hybrids too which answers that problem.
DIRECT INJECTION PETROL (gasoline) ENGINES FOUND TO BE WORSE THAN MODERN DIESELS (PETTOL ENGINES NEED SOOT FILTERS TO STOP CANCER-CAUSING EMISSIONS) See? I can use my caps lock too (on my phone no less!) ;-)
Can your phone also post URLs to relevant articles? Or is that absence the fault of the phone operator?
Oh yes they do represent diesels in general! See my answer below. I don't need to. Let me put it this way. When you see a truck going down the street, do you seriously believe 90% of those watching it belch black smoke, know what year it was manufactured? Do you seriously think they care? They will just lump it in with all the other erroneous facts they know, not to mention the price of diesel as well as the diesel premium put on car buying, and do just what my brother-in-law did, bypass IMHO a great car for their purposes and get the gas version. Would I ever consider a diesel for my purposes? Based on what I know about the precariousness of the diesel refinery business in the Northeast, no way in hell. If I lived in the south or midwest, there is probably no better CURRENT technology for long range driving.
Why is there so much hate on diesel, they are a cost effective measure that has a perfect balance of efficiency and performance that gasoline or hybrid cant match.
Really? Take a look where it says: You Spend more; You Save; You Spend more; You Save; Compare Side-by-Side And Adblue or urea!
of coures hybrids are going to beat it in mpg but its mainly aimed for efficiency, where the diesel you can have both Performance with Efficiency in one bundle and you can tow and hull stuff, Adblue is nothing, you only fill it every year at $2.50 per gal at a truck stop, your making it sound like having a traction battery in a hybird is a bad, its no big deal. I have a Mercedes E320 Bluetec (3.0 V6 diesel) I get 30 mpg and one tank of 16.5 gallon last me for 1 months or 550 miles consistently ya sure its not impressive compared to a hybrid but i tell you what it rides and performs better , as for MPG's on fueleconomy.gov you already know it dosen't reflect real world mpg that well.
Let me get this straight you bought an efficient expensive diesel car for 550 miles a month? Good luck with your DPF.
DPF Facepalm* so much misconceptions , Considering that i wanted a E550 as a weekend warrior car i could not stand seeing that 16 mpg staring at me so i bough a E320 BT insted which has more torque then the E550, its a blast to drive and average 30 mpg and it wasn't expansive it was way cheaper then the Prius that i bought I have a long history of having diesel powered cars and its a very unique characteristics, you should test drive a modern diesel.
The Mercedes DPF's are fine. We ran a fleet of Mercs in my taxi company right up past 300k miles and the dpf's were fine. I don't think we had to replace any (unless smashed in accidents or similar). Some Skodas had significant issues with their dpf's, though it depended on which engine was used. The older engines just couldn't handle the emissions I think, whereas the newer engines (even in the same model year) were much better. A similar thing happened back in the early 1990's when the first petrol cars with catalytic converters became due for their first emissions tests. Cars from the 1980's that had just had a cat slapped on and scraped through initial emission compliance were failing miserably only a few years later. Cars that had been designed from scratch to comply with lower emissions were fine. A good example of this was the late model Ford Sierras with a cat and the replacement Mondeos. You still find early Mondeos on the road but all the similar age Sierras failed emissions long long ago and are long gone.
I'm from Europe and almost every car on the road is diesel, I know what it feels like to drive and I don't like it.
I think if they did, they should consider changing the configuration. This might mean a smaller diesel at more or less constant RPM driving a system generator that feeds into a larger battery capacity. Less starts and stops for the engine, and a full time dependence on an electric drive. What it is of course is essentially an electric drive with a generator system.
Green Car Congress: ICCT-sponsored study of in-use testing of 3 Tier2-Bin5, CA LEV-II light-duty diesels finds wide variation of emissions against the limits
Actually a NA diesel would be more reliable, start easier than a gas engine (my manual transmission diesel once warm can be push started in gear, gasser could never do that) And an NA diesel is only about 10% more than a gas engine. NA Diesels handle start/stop cycles much better than gas because they don't need to pour in fuel during start once warm. NA diesels also have a much larger sweet spot on the bsfc graph than even an atkinized gasser, so good fuel economy is just easier. [QUOTE="GrumpyCabbie, post: 1935240, member: 59874] Diesel emission control adds a whole new level of complication. From what some of the posters above are saying, diesel is obviously the fuel of the future as it can be cleaned up better than a petrol. Well if that's the case, bring it on. Diesel will be cleaner than petrol? Great. Diesel cars for long runs and BEV's for local. [/QUOTE] Diesel emission can be eliminated by using a water wash. Far more affective then any of our complex solutions. Sadly no political will and a million excuses why we can't do that. My father worked in the mining industry many years and in the mines they converted everything to diesel because they could clean up the exhaust and there were no carbon monoxide emissions. On a 100 ton ore car they would run the exhaust through a 55 gallon drum of water and had to change every 4 hours. That same technique was ineffective on gassers and the results could be deadly so no Otto cycle in the mine.
Diesel emission can be eliminated by using a water wash. Far more affective then any of our complex solutions. Sadly no political will and a million excuses why we can't do that. My father worked in the mining industry many years and in the mines they converted everything to diesel because they could clean up the exhaust and there were no carbon monoxide emissions. On a 100 ton ore car they would run the exhaust through a 55 gallon drum of water and had to change every 4 hours. That same technique was ineffective on gassers and the results could be deadly so no Otto cycle in the mine.[/QUOTE] That is great and all, but NOX is the problem that makes diesel power trains expensive and unreliable today. Diesel mining equipment isn't relevant to cars. iPhone ?
It is very very relevant. Mining equipment cannot emit any emissions besides co2 and water. Water wash removes all NOx and particulate. That is our goal correct?
