Explain to me (in simple terms) this hate for diesel?

Governments were obsessed in the late 90s/early 2000s with CO2, which meant things like NOx (which is 300x more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere and sticks around the longest) and extremely dangerous particulates were completely ignored. Both of these are produced in huge amounts more than a petrol engine.

When it comes to driving them - 98% of diesels on the road sound awful, with the other 2% sounding "alright". Low displacement diesels are generally rubbish to drive with the engines not being smooth at all and deliver their power in lumps. Diesels don't rev much more than 4-5krpm. Diesels are marginally heavier. Diesels are generally pretty boring.

Don't get me wrong, if you gave me a nice 530/535d it would be great, but I'd always choose a 528/535i over them if all things were the same.
 
darknite;30483096 said:
But, I drive a 200hp diesel car, I like the power etc and IF i changed to petrol I would want something equivalent performance wise. So how does this make sense?

2 litre diesel, £110 tax, 129g co2 0 - 60 8.5 seconds and I get about 45mpg from it.

Ok so

2 litre petrol, £195 tax, 197 co2 0 - 60 7.8 seconds which gets a bit over 27mpg


I was looking at more sensible 1.5 lite diesel which I know will get more closer to 60mpg for the commute I do. The closest petrol I can find will do about 41mpg.


Best petrol MPG 1.0T EcoBoost 125 43.4mpg
Best diesel MPG 1.5 TDCi 105 ECO 60.5mpg
Click to expand...

Right you drive a 200BHP diesel (is it a 3 litre?) and you state if you changed to petrol you would want "something equivalent performance wise"

So why are you looking at a 1.0T ecoboost?
Or a 1.5 diesel?

Or even a 2 litre diesel for that matter?

Then you go on to state "2 litre diesel, £110 tax, 129g co2 0 - 60 8.5 seconds and I get about 45mpg from it.

Ok so

2 litre petrol, £195 tax, 197 co2 0 - 60 7.8 seconds which gets a bit over 27mpg"

You do realise that 0-60 7.8 and 8.5 aren't really the same thing performance wise? The petrol is faster and I can therefore imagine has more power therefore it's never going to be as economical.

If your going to use a 2 litre petrol (with a turbo) then compare it to a 2.5 litre diesel or even a 3 litre diesel. Which will likely cost you £5K+ more than the petrol That £5K+ you spend more on the diesel car to buy in the first place you will never see back in fuel savings unless you do 20K+ miles a year.

Basically what is it that you want? Do you want 200BHP? because it doesn't look like it if your looking at a 1.0 ecoboost. Or do you want a cheap to run car? Also how many miles per year do you do?

Diesel makes sense for some but not others. We need a much clearer picture. Currently your all over the place.
 
darknite;30483096 said:
2 litre diesel, £110 tax, 129g co2 0 - 60 8.5 seconds and I get about 45mpg from it.

Ok so

2 litre petrol, £195 tax, 197 co2 0 - 60 7.8 seconds which gets a bit over 27mpg
Click to expand...

If you're going to compare, at least do it somewhat like-for-like. I imagine the 2.0 TDI isn't very powerful, but let's suggest it's around 150 to 170BHP. Now compare it to a similar (i.e. turbo) petrol which is also 2 litres:

2.0 TSI, £145 VED (who cares?), 143g/km CO2 (plant food), 0-60 6.5 seconds, 45mpg

Or how about a 2.0 NA instead, if you insist?

2.0 SkyActiv, £110 VED (same as your diesel), 129g/km CO2 (oh look, same as your diesel but no NOx), 0-60 8.8 seconds, 51mpg

Now let's really go like for like, based more on power and performance. Let's take a smaller turbo petrol with similar torque and power to the average 2.0 diesel:

1.4 TSI, £30 VED, 118g/km CO2, 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, 55mpg

The petrols are cleaner, rev nicely, don't sound like skeletons making love in a filing cabinet, are fun to drive and return equally good MPG without worrying about EGRs, DPFs and filling up with urea for the exhaust. Your post focused on the 'environment', but even there diesel loses out significantly. Both fuels will emit CO2 at similar levels, but even if we accept this is a problem the diesels are spewing out a lot more besides.

Plus it's not all about exhaust emissions. Both vehicles will take up an absolute ton of resources and cause a mass of pollution during the mining, refining and build processes (metal, batteries, tyres, power generation and use etc) before you even get to the fuel.

You ask about the 'massive hate' for diesel, when in truth most of it will come from driving enthusiasts who just plain dislike the way they drive. Add in their NOx and particulate emissions (even during DPF regen) and their bork factor due to ridiculously impossible emissions targets, and there you have it. Just get a V8 and enjoy it. :D
 
Resources aren't really that much of a problem. Most stuff on modern cars is re-usable.

EVs on the other hand... They need a lot more rare materials and nasty chemicals. That is going to be the next big problem after liquid fuels eventually die off. Unfortunately, energy isn't free either.
 
I do a lot of walking/running on country lanes.
Diesels stink and make my lungs burn. Petrols don't. Not very scientific but is enough for me to know that they're not good.
Even the minister who signed off on the CO2 tax system has admitted it was a huge mistake and NOx / particulates should have been considered too. The sooner diesel numbers are reduced on the roads the better in my opinion.
 
I just spent a week in Melbourne, which is just as busy as here in Central London. The difference there is that the gov hasn't been shoving diesel down everyone's throats for the last decade and the air quality is noticeably better for it. The difference is night & day.
 
Nasher;30483786 said:
Resources aren't really that much of a problem. Most stuff on modern cars is re-usable.

EVs on the other hand... They need a lot more rare materials and nasty chemicals. That is going to be the next big problem after liquid fuels eventually die off. Unfortunately, energy isn't free either.
Click to expand...
It's hard to compare the environmental impact of producing 10,000 litres of fuel VS 192 lithium cells.

Whilst mining lithium is hardly a green activity - mining oil in such enormous volumes has a huge environmental cost.

Oh, and I don't get charged for collecting the decay of hydrogen into helium. Although I'll expect there will be an environmental tax on that soon enough.
 
Forum mod;30483868 said:
I just spent a week in Melbourne, which is just as busy as here in Central London. The difference there is that the gov hasn't been shoving diesel down everyone's throats for the last decade and the air quality is noticeably better for it. The difference is night & day.
Click to expand...

Same in the US. Though the city I visited (Las Vagas) smelt slightly of jet fuel the entire time. I suspect the gasses from the airport linger over the city :P
 
Modern Diesels with DPF filters are not too bad. The emissions from Aircraft are horrendous at present even modern Jet engines are huge pollution producers.
 
Forum mod;30483868 said:
I just spent a week in Melbourne, which is just as busy as here in Central London. The difference there is that the gov hasn't been shoving diesel down everyone's throats for the last decade and the air quality is noticeably better for it. The difference is night & day.
Click to expand...

London has triple the population density and 10 million more people than Melbourne.

The main difference being fuel costs aren't generally as large a % of peoples income. People don't get caught up on if they buy a petrol/diesel car unless you're driving a lot of KM which you wouldn't in the city.

However it is enough of a cost for production of V8 saloons to be ceased as nobody was buying them.
 
Berger;30484504 said:
London has triple the population density and 10 million more people than Melbourne.

The main difference being fuel costs aren't generally as large a % of peoples income. People don't get caught up on if they buy a petrol/diesel car unless you're driving a lot of KM which you wouldn't in the city.

However it is enough of a cost for production of V8 saloons to be ceased as nobody was buying them.
Click to expand...

V8s are all over the place in OZ
 
woppy101;30484588 said:
Well when I was over there in October you couldn't move for the things in Brisbane and Sydney
Click to expand...

Selective perception perhaps, they were different to what you see and in the city maybe more due to affluent buyers racing them around, same as you would find in London.
 
Dis86;30484727 said:
Probably cos everyone rips out their EGR valve, hollows out their DPF and remaps the hell out of them!
Click to expand...

probably because the new ones are bad enough with a lot of that stuff, my step ma recently got herself a mk3 fabia (moving from a mk1) and despite "on paper" moving from 100 to 105 brake (1.9 down to 1.4 tdi) the practical power difference is rather lacking unless you're hammering it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom