T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2232.1 | | WOTVAX::FIDDLERM | The sense of being dulls my mind | Fri Mar 04 1994 13:08 | 6 |
| re-1
What if the diesels themselves are fitted with catalytic converters?
Mikef (interested on two counts - diesel car driver and asthmatic!)
|
2232.2 | Re base note. | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Fri Mar 04 1994 13:46 | 17 |
|
This is a recurring debate, funnily enough there is an article in the
current issue of Diesel Car magazine, which you would expect to be biased
towards Diesel but wasn't - it didn't mention any side effects of diesel
pollution versus Petrol pollution regarding Asthma.
The ITV coverage of the BIG Race (London to New York via the Channel
Tunnel and the FROZEN Bering straights) mentioned and the atmospheric pollution
in one area of Siberia through which the Race passed.
Roughly speaking, the problems trotted out by so called boffins against
Diesel are countered by boffins of equal calibre trotting out reasons why Diesel
is SO much less damaging to health AND the environment. Nobody really knows.
This discussion is really a NON starter for the reason given above.
Malcolm.
|
2232.3 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Information Super do what? | Fri Mar 04 1994 14:51 | 10 |
| Actually, I'm very sceptical about this diesels exacerbate asthma
argument. Here in Europe, by which I mean Belgium, France, Holland and
Germany, there are many more diesel cars representing a far higher
percentage of cars overall, than there are in Britain. Also, It appears
to me that there is a higher density of cars in Western Europe than
there in the UK except perhaps in London itself. If diesels are so
"bad", I'm sure we'd know about it by now. I suspect there's a partial
pressure group behind this current scare in the UK.
Laurie.
|
2232.4 | | WARNUT::ALLEN | It works better if you screw it in.. | Fri Mar 04 1994 15:35 | 4 |
| A badly looked after diesel could easily be a cause. There are far less
lorries churning out clouds of smoke but still too many and now there
are many cars doing the same. Cats on diesels do get rid of the
emissions but only if the engine is properly serviced.
|
2232.5 | Re base note | AYOV20::WARREN | The man with no plan | Fri Mar 04 1994 15:38 | 12 |
| The poor Gnat West managers !
Swapping their Jaguar for a Ford can't be that bad when you actually
think about who owns Jaguar in the first place !
"Yes Mr Ford sales person, I wish to swap my "Ford" XJ6 for a Mondeo Ghia "
;-)
Any comments ?
|
2232.6 | What about soot traps like on chimneys ? | GMTNET::SYSTEM | SYSINIT-F-NOPAYRISE | Fri Mar 04 1994 16:02 | 15 |
|
What about the soot traps,same as they fit to factory chimneys.This
works along the lines of an electrode plate/plates charged to
some high voltage.The smoke particles are attracted via some kind
of electrostatic charge principle. When the thing gets clogged,they
just take them down and dispose of them,and put up a new one. Maybe
a diesel vehicle could have something similar that gets replaced
periodically..
FWIW I have a Golf CL 1.9TD with the Umwelt engine. The smoke has
all but dissapeared,my two previous diesels (Audi 80 1.6,Golf 1.6)
used to smoke like crazy when you booted them...
Regards Mick
|
2232.7 | | TRUCKS::BEATON_S | I Just Look Innocent | Fri Mar 04 1994 16:28 | 38 |
2232.8 | Why only in the UK? | TOMMII::RDAVIES | Amateur Expert | Fri Mar 04 1994 16:32 | 7 |
| I have been thinking the same as .4 Mainland Europe is at least 10 years ahead of
the UK in diesel driving, so why aren't they 10 years ahead in Asthma?.
I too believe there is a deliberate campain to discredit diesels going on at the
moment.
Richard
|
2232.9 | My two penn'orth again! | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Mon Mar 07 1994 16:10 | 36 |
|
>>>I too believe there is a deliberate campain to discredit diesels going on at
>>>the moment.
>>>Richard
Too right Richard, It has been going on for years!
A few things are certain about Diesel engines:
a. Carbon Monoxide emissions are far lower than an equivilant petrol car/engine.
b. Carbon Dioxide (the major greenhouse gas!) emissions are about 25 - 33% lower
than an equivilant petrol car/engine.
c. Nitrous Oxide emissions are negligible from a Diesel engine.
d. Particulates are emitted from Diesels, especially when accelerating hard,
there is little point in trying to deny this, BUT they have NEVER ever been
proved to be carcenigous (sp?).
e. Particulate traps are being developed for car Diesel engines, one of the VW
range has, I believe been so fitted.
f. Diesel fuel contains NO lead, unlike "unleaded" petrol.
g. Diesel engines without a "Cat" are basically less environmentally unfriendly
than petrol engined cars running on "unleaded" (which does NOT mean that it has
no lead!) petrol with a Cat. I chose the words on the first line very
carefully.
This new bit about Asthma, I have to admit to knowing nothing about this.
Malcolm.
|
2232.10 | | MILE::JENKINS | Norfolk enchance | Mon Mar 07 1994 21:25 | 8 |
|
re.9 must be a member of the diesel marketing board :-)
The discussion about diesels and asthma centred around particulate
emissions. There is ample medical evidence of the effects of soot,
smog etc on respiratory complaints.
a.n. other Richard.
|
2232.11 | Private cars a small problem | WARNUT::BIDDULPHM | | Thu Mar 10 1994 15:08 | 11 |
| One mag I glanced through stated that although private diesals sales
had greatly increased they still only account for 1.7% of diesals on
the road. The rest are commercials and that these are the worst
offenders.
The article also stated that a major cause of pollution was from cars
with damaged or faulty cats as there was no way that the driver could
tell that his/her car was pumping out unprocessed exhaust.
MB
|
2232.12 | What about benzene? | WELSWS::HILLN | It's OK, it'll be dark by nightfall | Thu Apr 21 1994 17:35 | 9 |
| Another emission that needs to be considered is benzene, a proven
carcinogenic.
The WHO says there is _no_ minimum safe emission for benzene.
Comparing the benzene emissions of unleaded petrol and diesel gives a
ratio of about 10:1 per litre used. After taking account of
comparative fuel consumptions I think this means an even better ratio
when you look at emissions per mile travelled.
|
2232.13 | Loads of Benzene in Petrol! | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Fri Apr 22 1994 16:13 | 8 |
|
There is, apparently 2 full pints of Benzene (a KNOWN carcinogenic
substance) in every 10 gallons of Petrol, leaded or unleaded.
On the subject of unleaded petrol, unleaded only means that no
additional lead is present, it still HAS lead in it. Diesel has even less.
Malcolm.
|
2232.14 | Lead astray? | MILE::JENKINS | Norfolk enchance | Fri Apr 22 1994 22:58 | 5 |
|
Given that petrol and diesel come from the same source and that neither
has lead added, why should one have more lead than the other?
Richard.
|
2232.15 | | WELSWS::HILLN | It's OK, it'll be dark by nightfall | Mon Apr 25 1994 12:18 | 3 |
| A small amount of a lead compound is added to petrol to improve its
anti-knock characteristics, that is to make it burn rather than
explode.
|
2232.16 | | FORTY2::PALKA | | Mon Apr 25 1994 15:43 | 18 |
| re .15
Lead is not added to unleaded petrol. To improve the anti-knock
characteristics, they now use a different blend of distillation
products, (and also tune engines to use a slightly lower octane fuel).
I could believe that petrol and diesel have different amounts of lead.
The crude oil is separated (by fractional distillation) into different
components with different boiling points. If there are lead compounds
in the crude oil with boiling points roughly the same as that of
petrol, then you will get more of the lead in petrol than diesel. It is
also possible that some lead gets introduced into the petrol during the
refining process (E.g. some of the catalysts used in 'cracking' might
contain lead). It may be such traces of lead that resulted in the
discovery that adding additonal lead tetra-ethyl would improve the
anti-knock properties of petrol !
Andrew
|
2232.17 | What's a RON ? | NEWOA::FIDO_T | Conation is the key | Mon Apr 25 1994 16:23 | 6 |
| While we're talking about petrol etc., can anyone tell me how to
convert RONs into UK petrol grades. All the cars I've had have
specified the minimum petrol grade to be used as 95 or 98 RON. However,
pumps in the UK only seem to state some British Standard number.
Terry
|
2232.18 | Look out, there's PM10 about | KERNEL::MORRIS | Which universe did you dial? | Mon Apr 25 1994 17:56 | 32 |
2232.19 | Same Professor that produced the QUARG report was it? | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Tue Apr 26 1994 16:54 | 23 |
|
The report was commissioned by the government to discredit Diesel fuel
for road vehicles in an attempt to forestall the pressure that is building for
Diesel fuel to be taxed at a lower rate than "unleaded" petrol.
This pressure is building on the government because everything has to be
transported, to a greater or lesser degree, by Diesel fueled haulage which puts
up the cost of living each time the tax is increased.
In reality, by whatever set of measurements are used, Diesel is cleaner
than any form of petrol.
If one takes individual measurements, ie. NOx emissions, then a Diesel
engine will produce more than a well maintained FULLY de-toxed catalized petrol
engined comparable car. However, after two years, it has been found that one
third of all catalizers are no longer functioning and as a result, the petrol
engined car then produces slightly more NOx emissions than the Diesel. Diesel
engines tend to hold their state of tune for very long mileages.
I'll bring in a report that almost completely debunks the claims of that
QUARG report, and try and type it into here, but it is long.
Malcolm.
|
2232.20 | | VANGA::KERRELL | Brace up for Bournemouth | Wed Apr 27 1994 11:49 | 6 |
| >Diesel engines tend to hold their state of tune for very long mileages
I can attest to this, I was once stuck behind a lorry spewing out black smoke
for over 100 miles!
Dave.
|
2232.21 | Like it Dave, like it! | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Wed Apr 27 1994 15:17 | 0 |
2232.22 | Clarification please | MILE::JENKINS | Norfolk enchance | Thu Apr 28 1994 04:14 | 11 |
|
re .19
I see that the diesel fan club is *still* operating :-) We'll be on
to global warming next...
Are you contesting wether PM10 is bad for your health or wether diesel
vehicles produce it?
Richard.
|
2232.23 | Neither! | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Thu Apr 28 1994 16:41 | 4 |
|
I am only contending the suggestion that ONLY Diesel Engines produce it.
Malcolm.
|
2232.24 | Filters cheaper+more maintainable than catalysts | BRUMMY::WALLACE_J | | Thu Apr 28 1994 17:36 | 18 |
| Catalysts aren't cheap and as has been pointed out aren't necessarily
that reliable, but we should encourage them 'cos things are worse
without.
As for PM10, I remember a Volvo truck promo a while back where they
showed something called a Cityfilter. This is a simple readily
maintainable device much like an air filter which goes on the exhaust
rather than the inlet. They showed the effect of truck exhaust on a
white handkercheif held across the exhaust, with and without the filter.
Without: lots of gunge on hankie after a few seconds, as expected.
With: no visible gunge after a very much longer test.
Conclusion: Filters on diesels are cheaper and more maintainable than
catalyts on petrol. So if PM10 is a problem, let's get our diesels
filtered ASAP.
regards
john
|
2232.25 | | BAHTAT::DODD | | Thu Apr 28 1994 18:34 | 11 |
| I remain unconvinced that catalysts are a good thing. Catalysts were
developed to solve the smog problem in places like Los Angeles. It is
my understanding that a catalyst equipped car uses more fuel, produces
more CO2 but less NOx, I don't believe they have any effect on
particulates. Again it is my understanding that a lean burn engine, or
two stroke produce less overall pollution. This is also before one
considers the pollution created manufacturing the catalyst itself.
Governments were also duped with airbags - these were developed to
solve the problem of Americans who do not wear seatbelts.
Andrew
|
2232.26 | No tongue in cheek here! | SUBURB::POWELLM | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be! | Fri Apr 29 1994 17:12 | 16 |
|
Re.24
As a Diesel driver, I completely agree about the filters on Diesel
exhausts. I read, can't remember where now, but these filters are a
bit on the large side (or something similar) that prevents them being
used on cars.
Re.25
I agree with you too, Andrew, there is a lot of hype about so many
things concerning cars - petrol or the more environmentally friendly
engined ones ;^) The cleanup of car Diesel engines hasn't really begun
yet (catalysts etc. can usefully be fitted to Diesel engines too) for
the simple reason that they are inherently better than petrol engines
up until now and the foreseeable future.
Malcolm.
|
2232.27 | Not quite offended yet :-) | KERNEL::MORRIS | Which universe did you dial? | Fri May 06 1994 17:51 | 14 |
| Excuse me ............
Re: .23 " I am only contending the suggestion that ONLY Diesel
Engines produce it. Malcolm."
Who suggested that then? My note reads:
"As you may have guessed, vehicles are a significant contributor to
PM10, with diesels being more culpable than petrol engines."
which seems to contain the implication that petrol engines produce PM10
too.
Jon
|
2232.28 | | NEWOA::FIDO_T | Conation is the key | Fri May 06 1994 18:20 | 6 |
| .17> While we're talking about petrol etc., can anyone tell me how to
.17> convert RONs into UK petrol grades. All the cars I've had have
.17> specified the minimum petrol grade to be used as 95 or 98 RON. However,
.17> pumps in the UK only seem to state some British Standard number.
So, nobody knows what a RON is then ?
|
2232.29 | I think.. | HEWIE::RUSSELL | Just a SAP fall guy... | Fri May 06 1994 20:10 | 20 |
| RON is Research Octane Number, or some such.
I know in France petrol pumps have two sets of numbers, .e.g. 95 / 85
for normal unleaded, and 98 / 88 for super.
The BS number shown on pumps simply tells you the petrol complies with
some standard or other - I don't know if this relates to stars or
octane.
In the UK, you can now only buy three types of petrol (I think)-
Leaded 4*, (95 octane)
Unleaded (95 octane)
Super unleaded (98 octane)
I remember the days when you could get 2*, 3*, 4* and 5* petrol.
In some other countries (Denmark? Sweden?) you can also get unleaded 92
octane. I suppose other grades will be available to.
Peter.
|
2232.30 | n | UBOHUB::AUSTIN_I | | Mon May 09 1994 18:57 | 3 |
|
Just to add another dimension
|
2232.31 | Who do you believe? | UBOHUB::AUSTIN_I | | Mon May 09 1994 19:19 | 9 |
|
What I was going to say was...
On the radio 4 programme "Science Now" a few weeks ago there was an
item about one researcher who said he thought that the increase in
asthma was caused by diet and not fuel exhaust emissions.....
Ian.
|
2232.32 | | COMICS::CORNEJ | | Tue Sep 12 1995 21:29 | 12 |
| This is probably a good a place as any to ask...
Just recently my 405 Turbo Diesel has started to generate rather
a lot of the black smokey stuff under acceleration.
Its only done 42k and has had regular services (thank you Mr Ralph :-)
Is there anything that can be done to stop the smoke? (and don't say
less of the right foot!).
Jc
|
2232.33 | | COMICS::SHELLEY | Thats all I have to say about that | Tue Sep 12 1995 22:14 | 13 |
| Jc
As far as I know its usual behaviour under hard acceleration with a
diesel for plumes of the black stuff to appear in the rear view mirror.
Its a design feature so that even though you can't burn anyone off at
the lights at least you have the pleasure of leaving the poor s*d
behind you gasping for air.
Seriously, my Cav TD has always had this undesirable feature. I don't
think its a problem.
Royston (wheeze)
|
2232.34 | | CBHVAX::CBH | Lager Lout | Wed Sep 13 1995 02:39 | 6 |
| My experience is limited, but both diesel cars I've driven (Peugeot 405
1.8?TD and Cavalier 1.7TD) have produced a very thick black smog under heavy
acceleration! Both vehicles were fairly low mileage, so, as we say in
our trade, `it's not a bug, it's a feature'!
Chris.
|
2232.35 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Tyro-Delphi-hacker | Wed Sep 13 1995 12:17 | 8 |
| My 1.9TD Pug 405 does exactly the same. It's worse under two particular
circumstances: 1) when the engine hasn't properly warmed up (not
recommended), and 2) when it's been pottering in traffic for a while.
Mine only does it under any circumstance for the first few yards of
*hard* acceleration, and not really at all between say 70mph and 100mph
in 5th.
Cheers, Laurie.
|
2232.36 | Try switching your brand of smoke | CHEFS::JEPSON_A | | Wed Sep 13 1995 13:04 | 7 |
|
I've found that some brands of Diesel smoke and/or smut more than
others. In my experience Murco and BP are particularly bad.
Try other brands and see what levels of murkiness they generate!!
Andy
|
2232.37 | | COMICS::CORNEJ | | Wed Sep 13 1995 13:34 | 11 |
| Thanks for the .last-few...
It has always smoked a biit - just rather worse this past week. I did
fill up in Sainsburys rather than Tesco (and then noticed it was 3p/l
cheaper in Tescos - it has gone down again to 49.9 in Newbury) - maybe
its just Sainsburys using murco (murky?) fuel - I'll try a tank of
Tescos premium brew and see if it reverts back to the usual levels of
smoke.
Jc
|
2232.38 | The Esso sign means less smoke | KERNEL::PETTET | Norm Pettet CSC Basingstoke | Mon Sep 18 1995 11:56 | 18 |
| John,
I've driven diesels now for 10 years and yes the amount of smoke
generated is directly proportional to the quality of fuel. I personally
won't buy Tesco or Sainsbury's diesel because a couple of winters ago
the Pug 205 refused to start. This was due to the lack of anti-wax in
the fuel. I poured boiling water on the injectors and she started OK. On
confronting the manager I was told, in no uncertain terms, that you got
what you paid for. ie budget price - budget fuel.
In my experience the best diesel is Esso's Diesel2000 brew - little
or no smoke and more mpg, unfortunately there is no local garage to me
so currently I use Shell's diesel, it hardly smokes in either the 205
or 405.
Regards,
Norm
|
2232.39 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Tyro-Delphi-hacker | Mon Sep 18 1995 13:05 | 5 |
| I buy the cheap stuff and I've never had a problem with the fuel
waxing, and it's colder here in Belgium that the UK. To stop diesel
waxing up, simply add a litre of unleaded petrol to a full tank.
Cheers, Laurie.
|
2232.40 | Agreed 405+Tesco=Clouds | CHEFS::SURPLICEK | | Wed Sep 27 1995 15:58 | 12 |
| Jc (of snowy barbeque fame - I remember),
My 405 of similar age surprised me for the first time last week. I was
in 4th with a warmish engine and reasonable acceleration when I noticed
a batmobile-cloak-like cloud behind me.
But...I just returned to fuelling in Tesco's in Basingstoke now that
they have returned to sensible prices. So I concur with other noters
that cheap fuel is the problem, except in my case I will continue to
buy it!
Cheers-Ken
|
2232.41 | | COMICS::CORNEJ | | Wed Sep 27 1995 16:18 | 7 |
| He remembers my snowy Barbie! I've a big one now - real bricks!
FWIW, I've filled up a couple of times with the cheapest in Newbury
and no more signs of the sooty stuff. Maybe it was a bad batch that
went to Blasingsmoke :-)
Jc
|
2232.42 | unleaded cheaper in Glasgow | CHEFS::SURPLICEK | | Fri Sep 29 1995 14:52 | 5 |
| Glasgow yesterday:
Unleaded 46.9
Diesel 47.9
|
2232.43 | Try City Diesel, the results are worth the extra. | CHEFS::POWELLM | The x3030 contractor. | Thu Jan 25 1996 18:33 | 5 |
| I've been using Sainsbury's City Diesel for several months now, it
has dramatically reduced the amount of smoke. I have to be cruel to
the car now to produce black smoke.
Malcolm.
|
2232.44 | | CHEFS::FIDDLER_M | The sense of being dulls my mind | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:34 | 6 |
| re-1
Have you any info on what the difference is between 'normal' and 'city'
diesel? Does it affect performance? (dont all laugh...).
Mikef
|
2232.45 | | COMICS::SHELLEY | Thats all I have to say about that | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:44 | 9 |
| >difference is between 'normal' and 'city'
Yep, city is more expensive by one or two pence a litre.
I'm afraid my company car only runs on the very cheapest available
diesel. This is currently obtained from 'price watch' Esso stations
that are still giving vouchers and give bonus points for my GM card.
Royston
|
2232.46 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Tyro-Delphi-hacker | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:11 | 9 |
| I tried a tankfull of Sainsbury's City Diesel whilst I was in the UK
this weekend. It's 2p a litre more expensive than ordinary diesel.
Subjectively, it seems to make the engine smoother, and quieter, and
there is definitely no smoke. I tried to make mine smoke and couldn't.
Objectively, it seems to be of a slightly lower calorific value, ie. I
seem to have got slightly fewer MPG. I think I'll use it now and again,
but I'll stick to the cheap stuff most of the time.
Laurie.
|
2232.47 | I hope this gives the idea. | CHEFS::POWELLM | The x3030 contractor. | Mon Jan 29 1996 18:00 | 10 |
| Normal Diesel has a Sulphur amount of something like 5 PPM, the new
regulations that are coming into force fairly soon (if not already in
force now) call for about .2 PPM, which the new MOBIL CLEAN just, but
only just meets. Sainsbury's CITY Diesel has only about 0.02 PPM.
These figures are only from memory, but it gives some idea of the
relationships - CITY Diesel has only about one tenth of the maximun
under the new regulations - like it is ten times better in this
respect than the next best Diesel fule supplier.
Malcolm.
|
2232.48 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | I like Chris | Thu Feb 08 1996 12:48 | 110 |
2232.49 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | I like Chris | Thu Feb 08 1996 12:52 | 155 |
2232.50 | "Petrol" and "Economy" are relatively exclusive terms! | CHEFS::POWELLM | The x3030 contractor. | Thu Feb 08 1996 15:57 | 16 |
| Nice one Laurie, thanks for typing (or whatever) those two in for
our edificashun.
The Diesel Car Magazine, actually challenged Honda over that advert
of their's about doing the circuit of the M25, remember that one?
Diesel Car repeated the exercise (I think that both were a Golf direct
injection diesel and the Honda VTEC) and drove them both as in "real
life." If I remember correctly, the Golf did something like 50% more
MPG than the Honda - AND the guy who drove the Honda was a Honda garage
owner - the Golf driver was one of the magazine staff.
I can't remember figures now (it was about a year ago) but I think
that the Honda only managed something in the upper 30s MPG, whilst the
Golf did something in the upper 50s.
Malcolm.
|
2232.51 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | I like Chris | Thu Feb 08 1996 16:51 | 4 |
| No probs Malcom. Oh, and me type that lot in? No chance! It was
downloaded from the Electronic Telegraph.
Cheers, Laurie$WEB_wanderer.
|