Pedigree of the Brands - A Different View of the Story... ...Many of us own cars which come from rather famous brands. Plenty of times, even if you hate to admit it, the badge is the main reason to look at a certain car and, in the end, it's the decisive reason in actually choosing the "perfect"model. OK, there ... Continue reading >
100+ years since the invention of the self-propelled car, three new engines battle for a place in the automotive future. Which one do you see in your car 10 years from now?
LATEST LOG ENTRIES:
QUICK STATS:
14th of May 2009 | 14:03 GMT | Alex Oagana
Diesel Power...
STORY HIGHLIGHTS:
- Diesels make up more than 40% of all cars sold in Europe
- They are much less pollutant then they used to be
- Diesel might also make a comeback into the US
... some say that the real diesel revolution started in Europe about 20-25 years ago, and that that era is about to end with the introduction of higher efficient and smaller gasoline engines. Plus, one of the largest car markets in the world, the United States, has steered clear of using diesel engines on a large scale at about the same time when the Europeans were just getting the hang of really improving it.
So it happens that oil-burners are currently making over 40% of ALL the cars sold in Europe, since, unlike the 'mericans, the demand for diesel was also encouraged by a relatively higher cost for gasoline at the pump. In the US it became the complete opposite, since diesel fuel is slightly more expensive than gasoline. Although the European continuous development of diesel engines has put a lot of oil-burner myths to sleep, the Yanks haven't yet jumped into bed with this technology for old times' sake.
Why would that be, you might ask? Well, apparently most Americans still associate diesel engines with farming equipment, pollution and a complete and utter lack of performance. Well, believe it or not, things have really changed for this type of internal combustion engine. Gone are the long trails of black smoke coming out of diesel cars' exhausts, while the noise they make is much less evident than before, with some of them actually sounding good to a gas-freak's ears.
The "diesels are slow" myth is also starting to fly out the window, and this fact has become much more obvious for me right after we tested the BMW 330d xDrive. As we mentioned in the test drive itself, this diesel-powered car is faster than a first generation M3 AND can use only 5.5-6 liters per 100 km (US 42.8-39.2 mpg) while going at highway speeds. It didn't sound or feel like a tractor either. Add all that to a particulate filter that stops over 90% of all those soot particles (Diesel Particulate Matter) and we should have a winner.
No convinced yet? Mercedes-Benz has gone so far as to actually inject a pee-derived substance known as AdBlue, based on urea, into the exhaust system to eliminate even more of those pesky soot particles. Problem is, not even this radical technology is enough to make them as safe for humans as their gasoline counterparts. And yes, I'm well aware of how oxymoronic that sounds, but let's just take a look at some facts about the "benefits" of diesel exhaust to the human body.
There are three distinctive types of soot particles, which are oh-so-much brought into the atmosphere by diesel cars:
- the largest ones, which are larger than 10 microns can get into your nose, throat and even your lungs, causing nasty irritations and maybe some coughing seizure. They are not THAT bad for your health since they can be ejected from the body by sneezing, coughing or by blowing your nose. Plus, particle filters found on most modern European diesels won't even let them come out of the exhaust in the first place;
- the medium-sized ones are around 10 micron and can escape most particle filters, after which they are inhaled straight into your trachea, causing even nastier irritations and coughing. These cannot be ejected from the body with a simple sneeze;
- the finest pieces of soot particles are less than 2.5 microns in size, which makes them pretty much awesome at traveling straight into your lungs. After settling inside you, these particles can cause inflammation and even mutations of the alveoli, technically making breathing heavier and putting more strain on your heart to compensate for the lack of oxygen.
If that's not enough, these devilish particles can also give you asthma, bronchitis (of the chronic kind), can make you more prone to respiratory infections and last, but certainly not least, they can give you cancer. On the good side, there's much less CO2 coming out form a diesel's exhaust, since they use much less fuel than gasoline ones, so the polar ice caps will last longer.
Honestly, I'm not a promoter of either gasoline or diesel (although I have a higher affinity for the sound of gasoline ones), but we should all take another thing into account. Diesel cars use much less fuel that gasolines ones, right? But by becoming the number one fuel in the world for automobiles, diesel's contribution to the end of Earth's oil won't be smaller than that of gasoline, since it takes about 25% more oil to manufacture a liter of diesel fuel than a liter of gasoline. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, along with the fact that the US is on the verge to welcome "highly efficient" diesel engines once again.
Read by 3,916 users | Add comment | Link to this article |
So it happens that oil-burners are currently making over 40% of ALL the cars sold in Europe, since, unlike the 'mericans, the demand for diesel was also encouraged by a relatively higher cost for gasoline at the pump. In the US it became the complete opposite, since diesel fuel is slightly more expensive than gasoline. Although the European continuous development of diesel engines has put a lot of oil-burner myths to sleep, the Yanks haven't yet jumped into bed with this technology for old times' sake.
Why would that be, you might ask? Well, apparently most Americans still associate diesel engines with farming equipment, pollution and a complete and utter lack of performance. Well, believe it or not, things have really changed for this type of internal combustion engine. Gone are the long trails of black smoke coming out of diesel cars' exhausts, while the noise they make is much less evident than before, with some of them actually sounding good to a gas-freak's ears.
The "diesels are slow" myth is also starting to fly out the window, and this fact has become much more obvious for me right after we tested the BMW 330d xDrive. As we mentioned in the test drive itself, this diesel-powered car is faster than a first generation M3 AND can use only 5.5-6 liters per 100 km (US 42.8-39.2 mpg) while going at highway speeds. It didn't sound or feel like a tractor either. Add all that to a particulate filter that stops over 90% of all those soot particles (Diesel Particulate Matter) and we should have a winner.
No convinced yet? Mercedes-Benz has gone so far as to actually inject a pee-derived substance known as AdBlue, based on urea, into the exhaust system to eliminate even more of those pesky soot particles. Problem is, not even this radical technology is enough to make them as safe for humans as their gasoline counterparts. And yes, I'm well aware of how oxymoronic that sounds, but let's just take a look at some facts about the "benefits" of diesel exhaust to the human body.
There are three distinctive types of soot particles, which are oh-so-much brought into the atmosphere by diesel cars:
- the largest ones, which are larger than 10 microns can get into your nose, throat and even your lungs, causing nasty irritations and maybe some coughing seizure. They are not THAT bad for your health since they can be ejected from the body by sneezing, coughing or by blowing your nose. Plus, particle filters found on most modern European diesels won't even let them come out of the exhaust in the first place;
- the medium-sized ones are around 10 micron and can escape most particle filters, after which they are inhaled straight into your trachea, causing even nastier irritations and coughing. These cannot be ejected from the body with a simple sneeze;
- the finest pieces of soot particles are less than 2.5 microns in size, which makes them pretty much awesome at traveling straight into your lungs. After settling inside you, these particles can cause inflammation and even mutations of the alveoli, technically making breathing heavier and putting more strain on your heart to compensate for the lack of oxygen.
If that's not enough, these devilish particles can also give you asthma, bronchitis (of the chronic kind), can make you more prone to respiratory infections and last, but certainly not least, they can give you cancer. On the good side, there's much less CO2 coming out form a diesel's exhaust, since they use much less fuel than gasoline ones, so the polar ice caps will last longer.
Honestly, I'm not a promoter of either gasoline or diesel (although I have a higher affinity for the sound of gasoline ones), but we should all take another thing into account. Diesel cars use much less fuel that gasolines ones, right? But by becoming the number one fuel in the world for automobiles, diesel's contribution to the end of Earth's oil won't be smaller than that of gasoline, since it takes about 25% more oil to manufacture a liter of diesel fuel than a liter of gasoline. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, along with the fact that the US is on the verge to welcome "highly efficient" diesel engines once again.
Subscribe to news |
Print |
Send to friend
14.05.2009 | 23:50 GMT
Alex,
There is so much misinformation here, I almost don't know where to start.
(1) The diesel revolution in the EU is about 10-15 years old; it dates to the introduction of common rail diesel, which reduced emissions, & noise and increased power & fuel efficiency. (2) EU new car sales are more than 50% diesels and have been for years. (3) Diesel fuel has not been historically more expensive than gasoline in the US, at least on a national average, until last year, although that is now changing back to normal as more refineries come on line. (4) The DPF's efficiency is more in the 98/99% range, trapping fine and ultrafine particles. (5) The ultrafine (sub 2.5micron) particles are emitted by all internal combustion engines -- gas, natural gas included (6) Not sure where that 25% more oil for a liter of diesel compared to gasoline comes from, but that's just not true. According to the EIA, a barrel of crude typically yields 19 gallons of gasoline and 9 gallons of diesel (along w/various other products), but that is a function of the refining process.
Michael
15.05.2009 | 07:34 GMT
Hello Michael, thank you for your message.
I can see that you're a diesel promoter, and that is perfectly fine, but I think I should answer your message point by point.
(1)The Common Rail technology first appeared on cars in 1997, on the Alfa Romeo 156, so that is approximately 12 years ago. I said the diesel revolution started 20-25 years ago in the EU because it was the 1980s that really sparked the Europeans' taste for diesel. More and more turbo-diesel engines were starting to appear in those years, making them more powerful and use less fuel. The first turbocharged diesel was launched in Europe in 1979, while the first turbocharged direct injection oil burner appeared in 1986, on the Fiat Croma. TDI, for example, first appeared in 1989. Common Rail gave diesel a huge boost in popularity, but the revolution had started earlier.
(2)EU diesel car sales surpassed the gasoline type ones for the first time in 2007 (53% diesel, 47% gasoline), after which a regress started to happen. Currently, downsizing gasoline engines is the new trend for European manufacturers, starting with the highly successful TSI engines of the VAG Group. More and more manufacturers are jumping on the small, turbocharged, direct injection gasoline engines bandwagon. Also, diesel fuel is becoming more expensive than gas on more and more European markets. This can only mean gasoline is making a comeback.
(3)Actually, according to the EIA, diesel has been more expensive than gasoline in the US since 2004, right at the time when diesel cars were almost passing gasoline ones in Europe. The cost of diesel fuel in the US can only rise since more and more people are starting to take a look at the new "hybrid killers", aka modern diesels. Demand will certainly grow now that all German car brands are preparing their diesel offensive in the US, so the fuel price discrepancy can only increase in the gasoline's favor.
(4)DPF usually achieve about 85% efficiency in removing soot particles. Close to 100% efficiency can only be achieved at full load. I believe my 90% estimation should be cited as not only correct, but also a bit optimistic.
(5) All internal combustion engines emit gasses that can provoke health problems or even death, true, but diesel emitted particles are the deadliest on the short term.
(6) I can't remember my exact source for that 25% figure, but I thought it was common knowledge. Even if the number is inaccurate, more oil IS required to manufacture diesel than gasoline, both you and the EIA are saying that.
Alex Oagana
31.05.2009 | 02:28 GMT
common rail was used first by mercedes benz on trucks (actros) in ''94, "stealed" by bmw in ''95 and then, step by step, used by almost all brands. so don't be so nasty cause you don't know that much. if you say that diesel history started about 25 years ago i'll give you a small example: the eldery GOLF has diesel engines for 30 years....and it wasn't even so far the first. michel was right instead of you when he said that common rail injection projects started about 25 years ago. but you're forgeting adolf diesel's life years..... sorry but you're a bit second hand "story maker" as many others, if it does give you peace on soul.... he-he-he
31.05.2009 | 17:27 GMT
Hello and thank you for your message.
I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, since your message made almost no sense whatsoever.
(1) Common Rail for passenger cars was introduced in 1997, on the Alfa Romeo 156 1.9 JTD, while Mercedes-Benz followed approximately two months later with the C 220 CDI. I was talking about automobile applications, not trucks.
(2)I never said diesel history started 25 years ago, please read more carefully. Oh. and nevermind the "elderly" Golf, Mercedes-Benz introduced the first diesel passenger car in 1936, just so we can be more accurate.
04.06.2009 | 10:54 GMT
I think you are confusing CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, with ozone depleting chemicals such as refrigerants (especially the older ones such as R11). CO2 does not damage the ozone layer, but it does contribute to global warming.
04.06.2009 | 10:59 GMT
That is correct, thank you for pointing that out. I have made the appropriate modifications to the article.
06.06.2009 | 18:31 GMT
I think you should consider that diesel cars can run on "blends" of different fuels, such as used cooking oil and motor oil which would mitigate it's impact on oil reserves, and actually help in environmental disposal issues.
09.06.2009 | 18:03 GMT
There are new refining processes that makes it easier to "choose" different output from heavy parts of the crude oil, Probebly there are a "cost" but it increases valubel products.
http://www.preem.se/templates/page____15.aspx
I think in a near future we will have syntethic diesel made from bio mass. I think it will compare well with bioethanol as It uses nonedibel parts and leftovers.
Lennart
11.06.2009 | 22:41 GMT
Alex, regarding the fact that producing diesel requires 25% more energy than gasoline, you are wrong. Producing gasoline is cheap, but increasing its octane number requires a lot of heat for cracking and re-bounding the molecules in the way you need. That?s why the American gasoline (at least 93 the octane number) is so cheap comparing with the European one (Octane number is 95 and Europeans buy more and more the 98-100 one). Instead, diesel is more a residue from the separation of the oil and needs just a little amount of heat for purifying (gasoline covers the area of only 2 compounds ? heptane and octane, a isomer of the last one being the desired one; instead, diesel covers the compounds with 12-15 carbons and even more, witch are easier to separate from crude oil). You might have that info from the site of an oil company, but that?s fake. Somehow they have to justify the higher price of the diesel and they came with this lie. The problem is that a liter of diesel produces a little more CO2 than the gasoline, but a diesel care still emits less than a gasoline one. I?m a chemical engineer and you have to trust in my words. Oh, btw, the asphalt is a loooooot deadlier than you might think; it causes very easy skin and lung cancer. So, take my advice: buy a countryside house faraway from the road and a clean diesel hybrid, like the future Mercedes C300 CDIi BlueTec Hybrid. :D
13.06.2009 | 04:48 GMT
The best and the only diesel racing car is the 1949 MAP. The quality has never been egalized in its realisation. Better than v16 Auto Union and all Bugatti ever made. Costed 6 millions euros in 1949. 15 World records . Le mans 1950 but not finished. Pictures if needed. Inbevilable car. The only car where all superlatives are true. 4 cylinders 8 pistons. Blower etc... Aeronautic quality. Never an other racing car has reached such a quality..
16.06.2009 | 13:40 GMT
Yeah, the only diesel racing car... how 'bout this one? http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/audi-diesel-win.
18.06.2009 | 02:01 GMT
You don't understand the refining process. When you refine a barrel of oil, you get roughly 20gal of gasoline, and 10gal of diesel. Now, you could say it takes twice as much crude to make that 10 gal of diesel, but you'd be wrong. Cracking is a multistep process that produces petroleum products from most refined to least refined (i.e. Jet fuel to Tar). Each lower grade product is a 'byproduct' if you will of the refining process. You can't really tweak the output that much, therefore you'll get that 10 gal of diesel anyway, you mine as well use it.
Oh, btw, the 'bot catcher' is wrong. Order of operations is "Please excuse my dear aunt sally" (4+6)-7 != 4+(6-7)
01.01.2010 | 12:03 GMT
@eu - wherever you search on internet you are going to find the fact that Italians used for the first time the common rail concept on their mass market production cars so your reference with Mercedes and BMW is quite obsolete and annoying. Sure, all of us we appreciate the German car industry but at least when we are talking about common rail they were on 2nd position after Alfa Romeo (later in the same year Mercedes launch C200 diesel with the similar system)... So, all the diesel fans say a big thanks to Magneti Marelli, Centro Ricerche Fiat and Elasis. By the way, I drove my first common rail diesel engine in 2001-2002 on a Fiat Marea and the feeling was impressive. I was like a racket in traffic through all the others even the car was big (being a break car).
Overall the current fuel based engines are becoming better and better so I don't find any reason to buy a diesel and actually the only cars that fits diesel are big 4X4 that needs huge torque on every start even on normal roads. So, if I'm going to buy a Toyota Landcruiser maybe I will prefer a diesel but for any car less than 1.4 tones a current fuel engine is enough and reasonable.