diesel v petrol

[jas72]

Ok I've googled this as it's a hot topic amongst my workmates.

I say diesel is noisy, smelly and causing asthma, my colleagues argue that the recent diesel cars are quieter cleaner and do less environmental damage due to their low CO2 emissions.

Also living in Belgium Petrol is 122cents and Diesel is 98cents so a good saving but diesel is taxed more and diesel cars are more costly.

I am of the opinion that my colleagues are just trying to save money and are trying to ignore the harmful effects of diesel in built up areas.

Googleing this subject brings up mixed reviews and I can't find conclusive proof of which one is the "safest" fuel to use both for humans and the environment.

Opinions please?

 

[Phal]

Meh Diesel is more expensive in the UK than petrol >.>

Lucky

 

[Almeda]

Diesel is less harmful to the environment in more ways than you think. The only emission that diesels used to be higher on was NOX, but this is stemmed by the use of a cat in a diesel. Modern diesels produce harldy any emmisions at all.

It also costs less to refine diesel as it appears as a left over from the oil refining process used to make petrol. So there is an energy saving issue there too

 

[D.P.]

Diesels will get you far greater MPG (parents Scenic get 55MPG, beating the pointless hybrid crap), and what is more the engine will last longer and suffer less wear.

 

[PMKeates]

Diesel is less harmful to the environment in more ways than you think. The only emission that diesels used to be higher on was NOX, but this is stemmed by the use of a cat in a diesel. Modern diesels produce harldy any emmisions at all.

It also costs less to refine diesel as it appears as a left over from the oil refining process used to make petrol. So there is an energy saving issue there too

For reference consider a new Toyota Verso:

2.0 D-4D:

CO2: 165g/km
CO: 0.16g/km
NOx: 0.28g/km

1.8 Petrol:

CO2: 179g/km
CO: 0.41g/km
NOx: 0.05g/km

Petrol NOx is much lower.

 

[Mr-White]

just get your self some cooking oil

MW

 

[snowdog]

Diesel puts out way more soot, thats the main prob, at least thats what they're saying on dutch tv , also its the 1st time i hear diesel is more expensive as petrol, even at its most expensive, petrol is still at least 30% more here ( sry just feels kind of very odd to have diesel more expensive as petrol for me)...
Diesel is heavily taxed here tho ( not as in the fuel itself, but the cars...)

Personally i think petrol is better for a light car ( check racing cars, f1, etc etc.. all petrol)
And diesel bettrr for heavy stuff ( all trucks drive on it as far as im aware of self explaining...)


Petrol burns faster ( hence possible to get a lot higher rpm), but isnt self combustant en has a less powerfull explosion.
Diesel has more powerfull explosions, but slower ones, wih limits the rpm the engine can make, and diesel combusts by compressions and heat compareed to spark on petrol cars...

Overall i'd do petrol ( the car anyhow) as i'd just do lpg wich is a lot cheaper to run as diesel...

Overall i'd say petrol is better for envoirement, true it does more co2( hell we breathe out co2), but co2 can be converted to o2 by just planting a lot a lot of trees, while its a bit hard to filter the air outside of soot and NOx .



Also 2.0 diesel and 1.8 petrol is unfair
A 1.6 16 v petrol engine is usually more powerfull as a 2.0 diesel... ( for example toyota corolla e10 ( 1992-1996) has 3 engines, a ( i doubt 0.2 l makes much diff) 1.8 diesel with 72 bhp if i renember correctly, a 1.6 petrol with 114 bhp and a 1.3 petrol with 90 ish i think ( dunno and dont care , i wont ever get a car below 1.6 anyhow), for 1.8 petrol u'd need to campare with a diesel with equal power, at least 2.2 or 2.4 i'd say

 

[Smiley Man]

Also 2.0 diesel and 1.8 petrol is unfair
A 1.6 16 v petrol engine is usually more powerfull as a 2.0 diesel... ( for example toyota corolla e10 ( 1992-1996) has 3 engines, a ( i doubt 0.2 l makes much diff) 1.8 diesel with 72 bhp if i renember correctly, a 1.6 petrol with 116 bhp and a 1.3 petrol with 90 ish i think ( dunno and dont care , i wont ever get a car below 1.6 anyhow), for 1.8 petrol u'd need to campare with a diesel with equal power, at least 2.2 or 2.4 i'd say

i wouldnt call it that unfair, for example:

the new VW passat for example

2 litre petrol:
147bhp
148lbft
16v
132mph top speed
0-60 9.1s

2 litre diesel:
138bhp
236lbft
16v
130mph top speed
0-60 9.5s

chances are the petrol can do 60 in 2nd so in real life conditions the diesel is quicker even though the engine is a few cc smaller and lass less bhp, its all about the torque

 

[Dolph]

i wouldnt call it that unfair, for example:

the new VW passat

2 litre petrol:
147bhp
148lbft
16v
132mph top speed
0-60 9.1s

2 litre diesel
138bhp
236lbft
16v
130mph top speed
0-60 9.5s

chances are the petrol can do 60 in 2nd so in real life conditions the diesel is quicker even though the engine is a few cc smaller and lass less bhp, its all about the torque

You forget that diesel necessitates longer gearing which reduces torque at the wheels (the one place it matters), and is far more likely to be restrictive if pushing hard. The diesel is unlikely to be quicker than the petrol in any real world test apart from entirely random ones where drivers are too lazy to change to the appropriate gear (such as 30-70mph in 5th gear)

 

[Smiley Man]

You forget that diesel necessitates longer gearing which reduces torque at the wheels (the one place it matters), and is far more likely to be restrictive if pushing hard. The diesel is unlikely to be quicker than the petrol in any real world test apart from entirely random ones where drivers are too lazy to change to the appropriate gear (such as 30-70mph in 5th gear)

thats true, whenever someone raves on about an in gear test being quicker in their diesel than my petrol i just say "yeah well i can change gear"

it still proves snowdog's arguement is a bit flawed though, which was the point i was trying to make

i agree pushing hard isnt the same in a diesel, but ive never driven the petrol one to compare but ive seen hundreds of new passat TDIs and 1 FSI so that muct be saying somethign (its a fleet car most likely)

but dont bother buying one my dads is always going wrong

 

[Dolph]

i agree pushing hard isnt the same in a diesel, but ive never driven the petrol one to compare but ive seen hundreds of new passat TDIs and 1 FSI so that muct be saying somethign (its a fleet car most likely)

Yeah, it says the diesels cost much less in company car tax

 

[mrthingyx]

Diesel engines have to be built in a more sturdy fashion because of the forces involved. This necessitates heavy materials in order to keep costs down, which means lower revving engines for the rest of us, too.

Diesel splurges out much larger quantities of micron-size soot particles which are what irritates people suffering with breathing difficulties: it also adds to smog.

Which is better? That will probably come down to which will have fuel available to it for the longest. As bio-diesel - to my knowledge - is quite easy to make, I would put money on diesel being around for longer. According to Audi, Le Mans cars have reached the limit of petrol engines which is why they (Audi) now use an oil-burner to win.

 

[weeble]

An example, from car and driver magazine (can't find link atm) compared a 330i vs a 330d, at current UK prices, which stated that break even point was at 32000 miles, whereby the diesel then become the more economical vehicle.

Additionally, diesel is used by more vehicles - cars, tractors, lorries, boats, ships etc. and wouldn't suprise me if the govnt taxed diesel more heavily in light of this in future.

Personally, I'd currently by a petrol vehicle in the UK, and am looking to do so.

 

[snowdog]

thats true, whenever someone raves on about an in gear test being quicker in their diesel than my petrol i just say "yeah well i can change gear"

it still proves snowdog's arguement is a bit flawed though, which was the point i was trying to make

i agree pushing hard isnt the same in a diesel, but ive never driven the petrol one to compare but ive seen hundreds of new passat TDIs and 1 FSI so that muct be saying somethign (its a fleet car most likely)

but dont bother buying one my dads is always going wrong

Does the passat have a turbo or not (on the diesel)?
Have diesels really that improved compared to 10 years ago??
If it has a turbo that wouldnt be a fair test, i can add a turbo to a petrol too and then it'll shoot forward way faster as the diesel with a turbo...
Renember the small skyline engines wich can do 900+ bhp w/o probs (tanx to the turbo's), i doubt a 2.6 litre diesel will do that power easely, even with 3+ turbo's...

 

[lordrobs]

Which is better? That will probably come down to which will have fuel available to it for the longest. As bio-diesel - to my knowledge - is quite easy to make, I would put money on diesel being around for longer. According to Audi, Le Mans cars have reached the limit of petrol engines which is why they (Audi) now use an oil-burner to win.

Bio-Ethanol as a replacement for petrol is already on the forcourts though so I can't see it effecting things more towards either fuel.

I'm hoping their will be some government incentives to get your car converted to Bio-Ethanol in the near future... possibly coinciding with when I decide to change cars

 

[Simon]

According to Audi, Le Mans cars have reached the limit of petrol engines which is why they (Audi) now use an oil-burner to win.

Limit of the petrol engine rules not the actual engines

 

[POB]

Diesel has a good advantage over petrol is the typical range you can get from a tank, means a lot less trips to the fuel station (which I hate)

 

[Smiley Man]

Does the passat have a turbo or not (on the diesel)?
Have diesels really that improved compared to 10 years ago??
If it has a turbo that wouldnt be a fair test, i can add a turbo to a petrol too and then it'll shoot forward way faster as the diesel with a turbo...
Renember the small skyline engines wich can do 900+ bhp w/o probs (tanx to the turbo's), i doubt a 2.6 litre diesel will do that power easely, even with 3+ turbo's...

yes it has a turbo, the SDI version of that engine is 70bhp or something pretty dire.

a modern diesel turbo is a lot better than a 10 year old one, my friends 306 dturbo (which was a very good engine at the time and is still respectable today) and compared to a modern diesel its noisy (especially at idle), very smokey on a cold start, sooty and not as economical

just what you've got to remember is that the mainstream diesel is turbocharged, and a mainstream petrol is not, thats why comparing the 140bhp diesel turbo to the 200bhp petrol turbo is a bit silly imo

i assume all the comparisons here are comparing a turbo diesel to a N/A petrol, which is a much better representation of eevryday cars than N/A both or turbo both

 

[NickXX]

If we're worried about the environment remember that, being the less refined fuel, a gallon of diesel will require less energy to produce than a gallon of petrol.

The reason I bought my diesel was that I prefered the way it drove compared to the petrol equivalent. Economy wasn't my main concern.

 

[barnettgs]

News from What Car? online, taken from http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=222989

Diesel sales at their highest point

Fuel economy concerns drive diesel sales says SMMT
For many, diesel doesn't save cash, however
Break-even mileage on a Focus is 40k+ miles

More motorists than ever bought diesel cars last month in the search for greater fuel efficiency, but they may not be saving money as a result.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders reckons fuel economy and environmental concerns pushed diesel sales to their highest point so far this year, with four out of every 10 cars hitting the road running on the fuel.

If motorists are hoping to save money at the pump by buying diesels they need to do their sums very carefully, however.

Many motorists may not cover enough miles within a typical three-year ownership period to ever pay off the price premium diesels hold over their petrol counterparts.

Motorists would have to cover around 40,000 miles before they even started saving money in an entry-level diesel Ford Focus, for instance.

Compare our favourite five-door LX-trimmed Focus, a 1.6 16v petrol, with its TDCi diesel counterpart and the break-even mileage shoots up to more than 65,000 miles.

Our choice in the Vauxhall Astra range, second to the Focus in the sale league, is the 1.6 petrol in Club trim. Buy a slower 1.4 diesel and you'll still have to travel more than 50,000 miles to start saving.

If you want similar performance to the petrol, however, you'll have to spend even more on a 1.7 diesel and see 80,000 miles pass by before you put a smile on you bank manager's face.

Even before reading this article, I have Ford Mondeo Diesel for 2 half years which is my first diesel car and I don't think I will buy another diesel unless there's massive saving to be made.

Compared to Ford Mondeo petrol, I only saved nearly £400 per year on 17K a year, not enough for me to make switch because I found petrol engined car more enjoyable to drive with easy revving and also better in tight corners with ligher engines. For a reference, mondeo 2.0 Diesel 115/130HP LX is actually heavier than either petrol V6 2.5 auto or V6 3.0 Ghia! Any diesel cars are nose-heavy!