Diesel fuel actually cheaper than unleaded again here

only compared to diesels with filters...

thats the same comparing a commen rail diesel ( thats with a turbo ) to a turboless gas car.

a normal diesel and a normal gas car compared and the diesel will loose.

 

A "normal" diesel vehicle has direct injection, turbocharger, and a DPF. An indirect injection, naturally aspirated diesel is not "normal" it is 1980's technology. Your comparison it no different then if I said you are "only" comparing gasoline cars with catalytic convertors on fuel injection.

Adding direct injection and a turbo will not help gasoline emissions. The turbocharger will increase combustion chamber temperature and increase NOx. Direct injection will increase particulates. However, direct injection and turbocharging are becoming increasingly common as part of the push for greater fuel economy and lower CO2 emissions. Direct injection will become standard over the next decade just like fuel injection replaced carburetors in the 1980s.

You can continue to ignore PM emission from gasoline cars if you want, it doesn't make it go away. At least in October you will have to ignore certification results from the EU's emissions testing.

 

funny because i here a lot about new clean diesel jetta's where there is talk about commen rail diesel ( injection and VGturbo ) and this being NEW for the diesels in the uS

when in gas cars you have smaller PM like you say with gas cars.
then with diesel cars and PDF you also get these smaller PM.. so then you have diesel AND gas emitting those smaller PM.

and in oct. i dont have to ignore because IF i buy a new car this wil already get the new laws about emission and therefor i can not ignore it.

i now one thing when i bike around town and are behind a NEW clean diesel i still prever to be behind a 1990 petrol car just because of the smell and the exhaust working on my throat ..

 

Common-Rail is new for Volkwagon because they used to use their own proprietary Pumpe-Duse injection system (PD). The just switched to common-rail because the PD injection system couldn't meet current emission standards. Other diesel manufactures have been using common-rail injection systems for more than 10 years

I think you misunderstood me. Gasoline engines put out smaller sized particle of soot. They put these small particles out in large numbers especially under full load and when the temperature is cold.

Diesel engines used to put out large sized particles of soot. These particles were large enough to be seen. Now with Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) diesel engines put out smaller size particles of soot and smaller numbers of these particles.

What I am saying (and the EPA) is that gasoline vehicle put out a larger number of these small particles than a diesel vehicle with a DPF.

It is true that in October any new car you purchase will have to meet Euro V emissions. However in October you will still be saying that diesels are dirty horrible cars even if gasoline vehicles produce more soot than diesel vehicles and someone has official certifications to prove it. I haven't seen any evidence that you will ever change your mind about diesel vehicles no matter how clean they become.

A "new" diesel sold in the EU today doesn't have to have a DPF so it could be putting out as much soot as an older car. In October 2009 the amount of particulates allowed will decrease from 0.025 g/km to 0.005 g/km. Diesel will be allowed to admit 5 times less soot. For Euro 5 both diesel and gasoline cars with direct injection will have to meet the same regulation for particulates. (Gasoline vehicles without direct injection will still be allowed to produce unlimited amounts of PM)

 

I checked fuel prices today and 87 octane gasoline is now more than diesel fuel.

87 Octane ---- $2.159 (Up from $1.989 last week)
Diesel -------- $2.069 (Up from $2.059 last week)

All is right with the world again!

 

The full article requires either a subscription or purchase of this particular article.

The abstract only mentions that emissions of PCDD were measured with and without a DOC. No mention of a DPF. I'm sure you're aware that current generation of diesel LDVs and pickup trucks have both DOC AND DPF emission controls.

Did the full article discuss testing with a DPF?

 

Do you have a reference for this?

I am aware of at least a half dozen research papers that demonstrate that DPF is highly effective over the entire particle size range, especially in the nanoparticle size category, even while in active regen.

 

Sorry, I failed to realize the site was subscription, I have an account with them

Yes, tested with DOC/DPF. There was no stastically significant difference in TCDD emissions vis-a-vis motor oil chlorine content. I think they wanted to put to rest the question of if motor oil chlorine content was contributing to diesel - and gasoline motor - TCDD emissions

For the layperson, one may ask "why is chlorine in motor oil?" The short answer is that chlorine is NOT present in modern motor oils

Chlorine may be present as an additive, especially in those gimmicky additives you see for sale that promise to magically fix engine leaks, restore a worn out motor to like-new spec, or run without motor oil for 100 miles (Two words: bull and S***!)

The chlorinated additives are things like chlorinated hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, and chlorinated parrafin material. In one respect, they work like traditional EP additives, like the proven ZDDP.

No modern mass market motor oil contains chlorinated components. The big problem is that once added to a motor, the high temps, acidic environment, can result in the chlorinated additives causing *extreme* internal corrosion issues.

Not only that, those wonderful chlorinated additives will attack modern seal material, such as valve stem seals, gaskets, etc, guaranteeing a leaky motor

Matter of fact, the US Military specifically forbids any use of chlorinated additive.

The authors of the report didn't look into engine damage as a result of using chlorinated additives. That problem is well understood and needs no further exploration. They realized some well meaning but ignorant owners may dump in a bottle of that magic stuff, and wanted to see if the chlorinated additives contributed to TCDD emissions above and beyond what was already put out

The answer: no.

 

On the topic of light duty and heavy duty diesel engines fitted with DOC/DPF, it really seems to kill the fuel economy advantage. As an example, when Mercedes introduced their "R" to Canada, engine choices were a V6, V8, and turbodiesel V6.

Mercedes Canada promised fuel economy on the highway of around 40-45 miles per Imperial gallon, pretty impressive for a 5,000 lb car. Final results were 34 miles per Imperial gallon highway

I know a couple of folks who tow luxury 5th wheel campers. They both had early 1990's vintage 1 ton dually Dodge pickups with the Cummins inline 6. These were pre-emission and although noisy and smokey, got pretty amazing fuel economy. Towing they had no problem getting 13-15 mpg, solo around 20

They liked the looks of the new Dodge pickups last year, decided it was time to upgrade, and got the new Cummins High Output offered. Towing down to their favorite place near Yuma, they were sorely disappointed.

The new Dodge Cummins has plenty of power, but absolutely awful fuel economy. They averaged 5-7 mpg towing, and 14 mpg solo. Their old trucks were getting pretty ratty and worn, but they now kick themselves for getting the new ones

 

I suspect your friends' drop in fuel economy has more to do with the fact that from the early 1990's to 2009 Dodge more than doubled the horsepower of the Cummings turbodiesel than a DPF.

1989 to 1995 ---------- 160 HP --------- 400 lb-ft
2009 ------------------- 350 HP --------- 650 lb-ft

I've driven in early 90's dodge truck with a turbo diesel within the last year and it was painfully slow to accelerate. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes 15 to 20 seconds to go from 0-60.

I've not driven a new Ram diesel but I have driven a 2006 Ford F250 Powerstroke almost daily for work. It accelerated faster than my cars and was way faster than a 3 ton truck should ever be. We got 15 to 18 mpg around town solo and light towing and about 20 mpg on the highway solo. That is a mix of people driving and the company paying for fuel.

 

Good point about the hp/torque, but these are elderly folks. They're not hot rodding at all. They were completely satisfied with the early generation Cummins in their old Dodge pickups

You'd think with the same trailer behind, towing at the same speed (55-60 mph) at the very least it would get similar fuel economy