If you have a diesel car, look out.

[tabbypurr]

If the government did absolutely nothing the aging polluting vehicles will disappear by themselves.

[tabbypurr]

and that can be mostly eliminated with a CVT - unless it's programmed to op erate like a conventional box, thereby losing its advantages. Yes, car make rs are that something or other.

Pumping losses can also be eliminated other ways. Pumping losses are only o ne issue though, petrol can not operate anywhere near diesel's high compres sion ratio, crippling is efficiency. There are however new engine techs tha t do get the compression that high, so hopefully a future generation of pet rol will be a good deal more efficient, possibly obsoleting diesel cars.

NT

[tabbypurr]

obviously it's not infinite

in fact they use less fuel for the job. This is very basic stuff.

NT

[tabbypurr]

Planning policies have who knows how many lives to answer for. If more new towns were permitted to be built the vehicle load on existing ones wouldn't keep escalating so much, ever worsening pollution.

NT

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Nobody in their right mind buys a petrol. Diesel engines last longer and cost less in fuel to run. Why the f*ck do you say diesel is bad?

[tabbypurr]

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

NT

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Only morons and environmentalists. Hang on, same thing. Believe that VW did something wrong.

[tabbypurr]

If we want to move to relatively clean vehicles, and the claimed deaths ind icate we do, the way to get there soonest is to let manufacturers, labs etc work on all types of engine. This maximises the odds of hitting on a great technology. Effectively banning various types simply ends all research on that engine type, thereby much reducing our chances of reaching a satisfact ory engine type soon.

This is a big factor that gets about zero airtime, yet is absolutely key to achieving what we want. Sometimes a bit better is the enemy of the best.

NT

[tabbypurr]

and moving to electric will make total particulates WORSE. Why? If you elim inate 1/6th the particulates by losing the fuel engine, but the car require s twice as much rubber as it weighs twice as much, oops you now have 2x84% = about 170% as much particulate emission.

NT

[tabbypurr]

'did' not 'do'. Yet another green policy.

[tabbypurr]

it also has the prius figures, which are no better than a straight diesel.

NT

[tabbypurr]

If you've ever seen efficiency plots for car engines you'll know that worsening efficiency when thrashed is inevitable. Much worse. If you understand engines reasonably well you'll also know why.

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility. Hybrid engines sounded like a cute trick, but have not delivered.

NT

[tabbypurr]

sorry I withdraw that.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Still do.

[Chris Bartram]

My DPF-equipped VW doesn't smoke, where the 4 before, without one noticeably did. No soot on the back bumper, the tailpipes are clean, even after the NOx fix, which in theory ought to increase particulates.

[Chris Bartram]

I reckon a lot get removed. I believe that DPFs work, until they get clogged by ash, at which point I'd imagine they'd cripple performance.

[dennis]

Quite often when the wife is going somewhere in my car and I take the wifes.

[Chris Bartram]

All of mine except the latest have smoked if booted hard, and left the requisite soot stains on the bumper.

[harry]

"Bunker fuel" or residual fuel oil is even more polluting than any other l iquid fuel.

[Tim Lamb]

Prolly looking for red diesel