Petrol or Diesel

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by StockholmSyndrome

Effectively, yes. Aside from my own natterings about what engine I personally want, it did get me wondering what everyone else's views were on the twilight years of the mass produced IC engine and which (if any) you would all recommend investing in now.

Interesting comment - for my part although i've advocated petrol for several reasons including the potential political reasons, i wouldn't advocate diesel for any reasons. The health reasons are high on my list, not to mention they smell horrible (i agree that a hard-work cat is almost as bad but diesels stink ALL the time) and even the better sounding engines sound like a tin bucket of rusty nuts and bolts in a spin dryer.

I suppose at the end of it it's your money and your choice but petrol (possibly with an LPG conversion to make it kinder to the environment and a lot cheaper to run) would be my choice every time. Besides, i can never really trust a fuel that goes bang when squeezed too hard!

[andy_d]

Originally Posted by StockholmSyndrome

During these strange times we find ourselves living in, nothing is for certain right now.

However, starting with one speculation at a time, I wonder...

If like me, you are investing in a mid 2000's car with a view to keep it on the road for as long as humanly possible, would you buy a petrol or a diesel? Both are getting bad press for their own reasons, but which one in your own opinions will survive the inevitable assault and battery from... well, batteries?

Answers on a postcard please, and your reasons.

petrol

Far less "nasty stuff" pumped out the tail pipe

Servicing - Easier cheaper, and with a bit of home muchanicing :P possible (with a laptop/software/ dice unit if its a volvo)

Fuel costs = lower ,, and will only get lower as the price per L of diesel rises

"clean air zones" are also popping up all over, with a Lot of luck they will weed out the Poorly/non maintained diesel engine things. As a petrol engine its cleaner before you start
(fyi on this , Bham's CLZ lists a Lot of cars that are exempt, a 2004 2.4i V50 IS exempt , ,,)


"not being a sheeple" tho has to rate as THE most important why not to get a diesel engine in a car
they Never were "cheaper" when everything is factored in correctly AND pump out far more nasty stuff (Despite the BS claims made by sheeple and the bleats about dpf/eu soandso)

[andy_d]

Originally Posted by Welton

To be fair; a good plodder and workhorse would be a (dare I say) VAG 1.9 PD engine'd car without DPF etc.

Trouble with 2000's petrol engines is, although simple, they are mostly NA, not very flexible to drive, and suffer poor-ish mpg unlike the new crop of small petrol turbo's which deliver diesel-like performance and decent mpg.

But the 2000 (ish) petrol engines are Still here, And if maintained correctly still in good condition
the Small engine with a turbo to give it "performance" wont be , they Will be scuppered by 60k miles,, never mind the 120k+ a larger petrol engine gets to ,, even with poor maintenance

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by andy_d

petrol

Far less "nasty stuff" pumped out the tail pipe

Servicing - Easier cheaper, and with a bit of home muchanicing :P possible (with a laptop/software/ dice unit if its a volvo)

Fuel costs = lower ,, and will only get lower as the price per L of diesel rises

"clean air zones" are also popping up all over, with a Lot of luck they will weed out the Poorly/non maintained diesel engine things. As a petrol engine its cleaner before you start
(fyi on this , Bham's CLZ lists a Lot of cars that are exempt, a 2004 2.4i V50 IS exempt , ,,)


"not being a sheeple" tho has to rate as THE most important why not to get a diesel engine in a car
they Never were "cheaper" when everything is factored in correctly AND pump out far more nasty stuff (Despite the BS claims made by sheeple and the bleats about dpf/eu soandso)

Originally Posted by andy_d

But the 2000 (ish) petrol engines are Still here, And if maintained correctly still in good condition
the Small engine with a turbo to give it "performance" wont be , they Will be scuppered by 60k miles,, never mind the 120k+ a larger petrol engine gets to ,, even with poor maintenance

Spot on with both responses!

[Zebster]

Originally Posted by StockholmSyndrome

...If like me, you are investing in a mid 2000's car with a view to keep it on the road for as long as humanly possible, would you buy a petrol or a diesel? Both are getting bad press for their own reasons, but which one in your own opinions will survive the inevitable assault and battery from... well, batteries?...

Modern diesel cars are so much cleaner than diesels ever have been (specifically in respect of particulates and NOx emissions) and can now (must now!) meet the same Euro 6 emission standard as petrol cars. However being so much more fuel efficient than petrol means that the CO2 emissions from an equivalent diesel will always be far lower and hence are most likely to be favoured by future governments. On top of this, practically every 'significant' vehicle (including delivery vehicles) currently relies on diesel and it could be a very slow process to convert/switch to electric (and they certainly won't be switching to petrol!). So I reckon that the availability of diesel fuel will outlast petrol by a large margin!

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Zebster

Modern diesel cars are so much cleaner than diesels ever have been (specifically in respect of particulates and NOx emissions) and can now (must now!) meet the same Euro 6 emission standard as petrol cars.

The thing is, it's not just about the measurable emissions, it's also about microparticles that can't be measured yet are much more damaging to health than those from petrol.

Any government with half a brain cell to rub between them will realise this - look at cancer rates from the mid 80s onwards, breathing difficulties - they have all increased since the mid 80s :

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...e#heading-Zero

Why? Because of the increase in popularity of the Devils Fuel (Diesel) - just look at the figures in that link! For example :

Since the early 1990s, incidence rates for all cancers combined have increased by more than a tenth (12%) in the UK. Rates in females have increased by almost a sixth (16%), and rates in males increased by less than a twentieth (2%) (2015-2017).

Before the 90s, many women didn't drive and if they did, they had a small car like a Mini that was obviously petrol. However as they started to drive more in the 90s, they decided they wanted something economical so bought diseasels. Suddenly the rate of female cancer jumps dramatically.
Driving HGVs/PCVs has historically been a male dominated career - look at the relatively small increase in male cancer in the same period.

Yes it could be argued this is coincidence. However i've known of many HGV/PCV drivers who have died of lung cancer and never smoked in their lives. Inhaling diesel fumes from their work vehicle has had the same (possibly worse) effect.

For me, this isn't a coincidence, it's plain and simple cause and effect. In the early 80s in the school library while researching something else, i discovered diesel fumes were known to be carcinogenic. That means that even before the govt were talked in (against very good advice from various sources including a petrochemical company) to adopting diesel as a "green" fuel that someone KNEW diesel was harmful to health.

Now if future governments want to store up trouble for the NHS, keeping diesel is a good way to go about it. It doesn't matter if the measurable emissions from a modern diseasel are as good as a petrol, it's the ones we can't measure and that the DPF misses because they are too small but still incredibly harmful.

[Welton]

Well said, I very often catch a whiff of a modern diesel exhaust and it nearly makes you sick - like an acrid dust is the best way to describe it.

I wonder if an old school diesel's 'particles' would literally blow out the exhaust and fall on the ground whereas 'super filtered' micro particles will waft about in the air stream

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Welton

Well said, I very often catch a whiff of a modern diesel exhaust and it nearly makes you sick - like an acrid dust is the best way to describe it.

I wonder if an old school diesel's 'particles' would literally blow out the exhaust and fall on the ground whereas 'super filtered' micro particles will waft about in the air stream

Thanks, it is nauseating!

That's something i've often wondered as well. Initially if the exhaust stack is vertical, the hot air will carry most of it up but it does drop. I've observed many diesel generators do this while being load-banked, especially if they're just back off hire having run a small load compared to their abilities. That's after the first big black cloud clears!

[Zebster]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The thing is, it's not just about the measurable emissions, it's also about microparticles that can't be measured yet are much more damaging to health than those from petrol.

Any government with half a brain cell to rub between them will realise this - look at cancer rates from the mid 80s onwards, breathing difficulties - they have all increased since the mid 80s :

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...e#heading-Zero

Why? Because of the increase in popularity of the Devils Fuel (Diesel) - just look at the figures in that link! For example :

Since the early 1990s, incidence rates for all cancers combined have increased by more than a tenth (12%) in the UK. Rates in females have increased by almost a sixth (16%), and rates in males increased by less than a twentieth (2%) (2015-2017).

Before the 90s, many women didn't drive and if they did, they had a small car like a Mini that was obviously petrol. However as they started to drive more in the 90s, they decided they wanted something economical so bought diseasels. Suddenly the rate of female cancer jumps dramatically.
Driving HGVs/PCVs has historically been a male dominated career - look at the relatively small increase in male cancer in the same period.

Yes it could be argued this is coincidence. However i've known of many HGV/PCV drivers who have died of lung cancer and never smoked in their lives. Inhaling diesel fumes from their work vehicle has had the same (possibly worse) effect.

For me, this isn't a coincidence, it's plain and simple cause and effect. In the early 80s in the school library while researching something else, i discovered diesel fumes were known to be carcinogenic. That means that even before the govt were talked in (against very good advice from various sources including a petrochemical company) to adopting diesel as a "green" fuel that someone KNEW diesel was harmful to health.

Now if future governments want to store up trouble for the NHS, keeping diesel is a good way to go about it. It doesn't matter if the measurable emissions from a modern diseasel are as good as a petrol, it's the ones we can't measure and that the DPF misses because they are too small but still incredibly harmful.

The addition of benzene to petrol could also have led to a spike in cancers, as could the growing popularity of log burners or even the popularity of smoking to women? Or something else?

Whilst criticising diesels, please do bear in mind that petrol exhaust is also a toxic blend of highly undesirable products. I do believe that once we have mostly made the inevitable switch to either electric or hydrogen fuel cell transport then we shall look back at our currently over-extended use of fossil-fuelled vehicles with a mixture of horror and amusement. But we have always been slow to adapt; I can barely believe that steam engines were still in frequent service as recently as the 1960s!

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Zebster

The addition of benzene to petrol could also have led to a spike in cancers, as could the growing popularity of log burners or even the popularity of smoking to women? Or something else?

Whilst criticising diesels, please do bear in mind that petrol exhaust is also a toxic blend of highly undesirable products. I do believe that once we have mostly made the inevitable switch to either electric or hydrogen fuel cell transport then we shall look back at our currently over-extended use of fossil-fuelled vehicles with a mixture of horror and amusement. But we have always been slow to adapt; I can barely believe that steam engines were still in frequent service as recently as the 1960s!

What do you mean, the addition of benzene to petrol?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

It's present in crude oil so while it may be reintroduced to petrol to improve the octane (anti-knock) rating, petrol will still naturally contain it, as will diesel. However i do agree that any vehicle exhaust contains nasty stuff and on the smoking aspect, in general, whether male or female, that has been on the decline since the 90s, if not earlier. More likely, if benzene is the culrpit of increases in cancer incidents, it is because it is often present in soft drinks.

The popularity of log burners is a tricky one, after all many homes had open fires on which was burned among other things, logs. That was generally before the 1980s but by then central heating had more or less taken over, except in some very old houses.

Interesting though those arguments are, the timeline is generally against them as being an alternative source of increased cancer problems.

Given that diesel fumes are known to be carcinogenic and the timeline, increase in popularity of diesels ties in with increases in cancer.

Maybe the scientists already have worked this out but the various govts around the planet have decided to keep this quiet for fear of the backlash if the general public found out.

Strangely the school library book i referred to where i first found that fact had disappeared the next time i wanted to look something up in it, apparently it was no longer on the curriculum list of books and its replacement had nothing about the negative effects of diesel. It struck me as Orwellian at the time but i put it down to the fact i was studying "1984" for my English Lit - little did i know the first instinct was almost certainly correct!

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?