Article on Diesel usage

[Stuart]

interesting article on our fuel of choice here. As they say, I think it's far from dead. It's just that everyone bought small petrol cars what with the car scrapage scheme
Some interesting figures on how a barrel of crude breaks down.

Is diesel dead?        - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/gre ... -dead.html

[smokyjoe]

Hi Stuart,

This article is very interesting to me being on the other side of the Big Pond. I always thought that more Diesel was available per unit of crude than Gasoline and that made Diesel cheaper to produce (and lower priced if you don't include the tax). Up until the 1980's here in the US, Diesel was cheaper than gasoline at the pumps. It is interesting to me that the UK seems to have followed the same trend as here in the US in favor of bigger engines and more horsepower. I don't think that here in the US there are many new cars available with under a 2.2L engine and I think our VW Diesel is 2L. There are not any new Diesel cars in the US that would lend themselves to having their engine transplanted into a bike. Our Smart Car has a lousy stinking gas engine, they were selling for $22,000 US when first introduced and people were paying a premium to be among the first to buy one. I talked to them just for fun and they said (as of last year) that they had no plans of selling the Diesel in the US due to marketing issues, whatever that means. So we are stuck with old generator and tractor engines and for the few brave souls willing to build a beast that would probably far outweigh a fully-decked out Harley trike, the venerable old VW 1.6L Diesels.

We had our "Cash for Clunker's" here in the US which I think is basically the same as the UK "scrappage". The "gov'ment" (namely US Taxpayers) gave $4500 (I think) for any gasoline burning car newer than somewhere in the 1980's that got less than 18 MPG (US) (I think). I visited a lot to see the cars that were traded in. Among them were a few nice Volvos 1995 and newer, a VW Passat 2002, a number of newer Mercedes and many cars that were a lot nicer than what my wife and I are driving. There were about 200 cars but I didn't see many "real clunkers" by my definition. I think that as far as reducing pollution this whole thing was a farce as if I could have traded in my wife's 10MPG car for one of those in the lot that got 18MPG the world would have been far better off and so would we. We can't afford a new car, even with the $4500 "tradein".

All of these cars had to have the drivetrains scrapped by law. No part of the engine or drive could be sold, but I guess it was a boon to anyone needing body or interior parts.

[Diesel Dave]

The difference in running costs between petrol and diesel have narrowed greatly.

The advent of fly by wire ECU petrol engines have given the petrol engine huge gains in effeciency, most small town cars will return 60mpg imperial in petrol form and about 4-5mpg more in diesel.

Engine lifespan is comparable (or immaterial as they are both capable of over 100,000 miles which is all a new buyer will consider) but the diesel suffers in weight and manufacturing cost.

From the details regarding crude breakdown, it looks like the petrol/diesel balance was maintained when most cars were petrol and trucks diesel, we bucked the trend when economics made small diesel cars viable but this is now being rebalanced.

We could say that biodiesel, could be the saviour of the engine but there are valid reasons why this is a bad move especially when we (for economic reasons) tip the market to such an extent that countries who cannot feed themselves turn valuable farmland over to oil for export production.

At the end of the day, I ride a dieselbike because it offers fuel effeciency and engine longevity, but I also have a little Honda that tops 70mph and 130mpg, he next generation is known to top 163mpg in fuel injected form. If Honda cotton on to doing this further up the range then the economics of dieselbikes could dissappear quickly.

[andrewaust]

Petrol or LPG gas will not power lorries or heavy machinery including locomotives.

If it is a conspiracy to rid the Diesel out of existence it most likely has a sinister reason. We know the Diesel engine can run on any light oil, fair enough some piston crowns need to be modified with a stainless steel swirl chamber and top to raise the heat to burn off deposits "mostly in direct injected engines" and more likely to occur in diesels running at light loads such as a motor car.

I won't go to heavily into it, but my B.S meter is going off the scale, another global elite scam? I'll let others decide.

In the article it says injection pumps etc are failing, that's because the D**kheads have taken the Sulphur out of the diesel directly or indirectly purposely knowing it would kill old engines to herald in the common rail engine. How many brain cells would be needed to come to the conclusion that taking a main lubricant out of a fuel that needs a lubricant would case premature failure of parts.

I'll say I am truly sick of mainstream media bureaucratic B.S putting forward for a reason other then what they really need to say.

I say "Andrew English" spit out the real reason for the article. I don't brainwash that easily.





A = NOT HAPPY !!!!

[Snave]

It's nothing compared to the failures of marine engines caused by the Californian unilateral legislation to ban Heavy Fuel Oil vessels from their terrritorial waters unless they are running on low-Sulphur fuel, for which the engines and injection systems were not designed. There will be an ecological disater caused by such shortsighted `green` measures. And that is one of the merits of the Diesel that doesn't get the press it deserves - the torque advantage means lower rpm for a given torque level - and fewer `bangs` between the lamp-posts translates directly into greater fuel efficiency per cycle, as well as lower stresses on reiprocating parts increasing longevity. Aside from the fuel choice, it's inherently a `greener` engine choice for the long-haul (time, and distance)...

Also it's far cheaper to bring a diesel motor `back to life` than the equivalent petrol engine so while initial costs might be higher, lifecycle costs can be lower. We deal in marine diesel systems that have run 20 hours a day for up to three years between services. Largely, it's the contamination in the fuel and the environment that causes most failures and fall-off in performance. That, and ill-advised meddling. The same is not true of petrol engines, except for the meddling..!

[sbrumby]

I will just add a bit to this post. I find the figures hard to believe. As I travel the motorways daily, I would estimate 1/3 of all the traffic are trucks, most of these are doing about 7mpg compared to the cars 40mpg. Add to this most of the railway trains, they wont do a fantastic mpg, all tractors,all plant, the list goes on and on. So if the breakdown of crude is correct there must be a lot of petrol being stored. What people are buying at the moment, the whole industry is mostly based on fads. The motorcycle world is the worst. If Ducati bring out a new model thats 5bhp better than the current one there will be a rush to buy, most will never be able to use this power but it looks the part. People who buy a BMW 5 series will probably be pleased with their buy but will have a shock when the headlight blows, £959 just for one side, thats not including the controler £161. When that car is 10years old it will get scraped purely because it will be too costly to repair.

[John]

... At the end of the day, I ride a dieselbike because it offers fuel effeciency and engine longevity, but I also have a little Honda that tops 70mph and 130mpg, he next generation is known to top 163mpg in fuel injected form. If Honda cotton on to doing this further up the range then the economics of dieselbikes could dissappear quickly.

The Honda innova (NFA) 125 is certainly competitive with our diesel Yanclones for fuel efficiency, but this would not translate up to larger capacity petrol bikes. To begin with, the Honda is some 70 kgs lighter than even a petrol Enfield, let alone a diesel. It presents a smaller frontal area & wind resistance due to its low ride height & lower mass. The engine is designed FOR a bike, with all the emissions & performance technology that entails. It is efficient BECAUSE it has a tiny engine, not just because it is especially technologically efficient per se. Although to be fair, its range of beneficial attributes adds up to a very efficient overall package. But we Yanclone disciples don't do too badly. Imagine the following example;
We fit a Honda NFA 125 into an Enfield, with its sludge filled 1940's gearbox & extra 90? kgs of weight. We replace its modern ecu controlled electronic fuel injection system with a primitive mechanical system with steam age flyweights for governing & fuel metering control. We gear the engine with extraordinarily & inappropriately tall gearing for the engine output & torque, - say 80 mph, so that the engine is continously labouring in top, & requires full throttle operation even at modest speeds, - just as we tend to do with our diesels. What do you suppose the mpg would be then?
Alternatively, we fit a Yanclone into an Innova (NFA). We gear it appropriately for its 8.5 bhp continuous output. Say, 50-52 mph, - allowing the governor to rein in fuelling according to road conditions even at maxmum rated speed, as the engine can now easily sustain 3600 in top, even against moderately adverse gradients. We run the engine's power through a modern, efficient, OIL filled gearbox.. No grease allowed! I think 225 - 240 mpg (imperial) sounds about right.

[zarquon]

We had a "competition" between a diesel bike and a innova 2009 here in germany. Reinhard and Dieter started for a 1600km ride in 24 hours to get iron butt approved. Both bikes made it. In the end the diesel has consumption of 1,99l per 100km and the Innova of 2,47l per 100km.
Thats a 25% plus for the Innova, but it is still the bike with the lowest fuel consumption you can buy.

[Sphere]

Eisen Arsch (Iron Butt): http://www.dieselkrad.info/?q=en/node/52

German: http://www.innova-forum.de/topic,1488,- ... -2009.html
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gU6ad2ebYA
Route: http://maps.google.de/maps?f=d&source=s ... e=UTF8&z=7

[zarquon]

Yeah, one of the very few Articles I also posted in english on my site. Shame on my that I forgot this

[TedV]

Congratulations on the saddle sore. I ran one back in september on my 1995 CB250. 19.6HP of 1960's style air cooled goodness. Averaged 52 mpg US, at 65 mph average on the road, finishing in 17 hours 40 minutes. In contrast my Jetta TDi gets 48 mpg carrying 4 people.

Ford USA says they are not offering the Fiesta or Focus diesel in the US and are not offering as many diesel pickups because diesel fuel costs more than gas, people wont buy them. Yesterday my diesel cost $3.27/gal 92 octane was $3.29 and regular 87 octane was $3.05/gal US. Cost per mile an 87 octane gas car would have to get 44.8 mpg US to equal cost/mile of my 48 mpg US diesel. It has 302,000 miles on it and drives like a VR6 after injectors and chip change Mods done at 135k miles on the odometer. Draw your own conclusions.

[Stuart]

Appreciate that the Innova has great MPG figures but its not a motorcycle. It's a moped. Thought behind this site for me is its possible to have a proper motorcycle that'll do about twice the MPG of a petrol machine. That's it really. And when everyone is starving cos they're creating ethanol from large quantities of food crop the Diesel biker will still be able to run his essentially multi- fuel machine on a variety of oils and still look the part. Unlike moped riders

[John]

[quote="Diesel Dave"]The difference in running costs between petrol and diesel have narrowed greatly.

The advent of fly by wire ECU petrol engines have given the petrol engine huge gains in efficiency, most small town cars will return 60mpg imperial in petrol form and about 4-5mpg more in diesel.

Petrol engines have certainly become more efficient in recent years, but then, unlike the diesel engine, there was far greater scope for them to do so. The best modern automotive diesels are now 45% thermally efficient, which is nothing short of incredible for a high speed engine. Up to about 10 years ago, the best you could hope for from a petrol engine was 30%. Now, the best petrol engines with compression ratios of circa 12:1, is about 35% thermal efficiency. Slightly less than the old indirect injection diesels in the age of mechanical injection. I think your view of comparative consumption in the real world is rather pessimistic, Dave. Consumption figures given in brochures is usually found to be very far from the mark in actual experience. And diesels tend to get far closer to the quoted figures than petrols.
There is another factor to consider. The power output of petrol engines relative to capacity, has risen very slowly in recent years, while diesel power outputs have risen dramatically. Today, we have 2 litre diesels giving out 180 bhp AND 70 mpg!! (BMW) We have 94 bhp Fiat diesels of a mere 1248cc. Comparable to modern 1.4 petrols. It is pretty obvious that some of the efficiency gains of modern diesels are being directed into excess performance, rather than being channelled back into fuel savings.
Even so, recently, a road test of a VW Golf Bluemotion 1.6 Tdi, & a Ford Focus Eco 1.6 TDCi were conducted around a test track at a steady 60 mph by gps over several hundred miles. The Golf averaged 76 mpg, & the Ford, a staggering 85 mpg. Petrol engines, even with hybrid technology, still have a pretty long way to go in my opinion.
Although I do wonder where efficiency is being lost in relation to older cars. Perhaps weight. I once owned a Citroen AX indirect injection diesel of 1360cc, 53 bhp. (non turbo, 820 kg) I travelled 250 miles down to Cornwall with its associated hills at a steady 50 mph, being as light on the pedals as I could, & was rewarded with a brim to brim consumption of 106 mpg! You won't find any modern diesel car capable of that, not even the 800cc Smart. I could easily average 85 mpg in normal driving at steady speeds. I think there is too much greed for performance these days. We can't have it both ways!

[Sphere]

I'm sure you can hypermile a 1.4D AX to 30km/l but I don't see many on spritmonitor that get that. Also the Golf VI is easily 400 kg heavier. With a 2008 Skoda Octavia Combi you can effortlessly attain 22km/l which is the same as a Smart 800. I don't understand that.

[Stuart]

John, I think that old Citroen Ax of yours sports the same engine as my Pug 106 (1360cc) seen here: https://www.dieselbikeforum.com/view ... =36&t=1596
I do a lot to keep this little car going because, as you say, the fuel consumption figures are excellent