Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,778 
|
Post by Rob on Apr 24, 2021 0:16:10 GMT
Even some designs of DPF had a fall-back mode.... DPF is getting blocked and no high speed driving to get exhaust hot enough to burn it off. So hey lets dump diesel into the exhaust to help. But there's still some particles. And lets not forget some of that diesel (I am of course referring to Mazda) ends up in the sump.
I switched to petrol engines knowing they are better than diesel in 2014. Wish I'd switched back sooner.
The future of course will be..... electric of some form. But maybe not BEV.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on Apr 24, 2021 1:51:09 GMT
It started with catalytic converters introduced to petrol engines in the early 90s. Bump up the price of the car with the introduction of precious metals and retard the ignition while pushing up fuel consumption so we have to buy more of that too.
Latest wheeze is E10 petrol, lower calorific value than E5 or petrol without any ethanol, increasing fuel consumption so we need to buy more and GPFs on direct injection petrol engines.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on Apr 25, 2021 9:02:46 GMT
Not sure that’s fair, BPG. Fossil fuels were the only option 30 years ago, and it was clear that something had to be done about the local pollution they created. The lean-burn engine was supposed to be one answer, possibly without the fuel consumption penalty, but that went the way of Betamax. Catalytic converters have hardly been the reliability disaster the Telegraph types told us they would be.
And if E10 petrol doesn’t go quite as far as E0, it’s still going some of that distance with energy obtained (recently) from the sun, not from an oil well. That’s still a net gain. And yes, it costs more per unit distance, but fossil motoring is still too cheap to cover its environmental costs, so that’s an idea we should get used to.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on Apr 25, 2021 9:11:10 GMT
Why did lean burn go the way of Betamax? I recall at the time Toyota were on the verge of launching a 1.6 petrol which could average 40mpg at a time when anything over 30 was considered good. The introduction of catalytic converters knocked that back to 27mpg.
I'm not questioning the cleaning up of the air just the demonising of one crude oil derived fuel over another. None of them are ideal.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on Apr 25, 2021 9:23:14 GMT
Every time a new filter or technology is introduced that is going to solve all the ills it consumes more fuel and costs more. Every now and again I'd like some carrot instead of more stick.
In 1975 my dad bought a new Fiat Coupe 1.3 petrol with 4 speed manual gearbox. That car averaged 26/27 leaded mpg. Roll on to 2021, I've got a 2.3 petrol catalytic converter, GPF equipped automatic Euro 6d something out other that runs on E10 currently averaging 19.something mpg.
Edit: my car weighs around 2.5 times what that car in 1975 weighed. How long before spare wheels become mandatory due to smart motorways or suchlike? Every advancement in propulsion efficiency is met with additional weight gain canceling out the efficiency gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Apr 25, 2021 11:51:17 GMT
In about 1985 I had a Fiat Uno 1.3. I drove to Bath from Manchester at moderate pace at got 45mpg. Probably using 4 star fuel.
Roll on 36 years and I drove to Grantham and back at high speed in a much larger Mini Clubman 1.5 turbo petrol auto. Got 39mpg. Would have got over 45mpg if I had driven at the speeds I had in the Uno. That is progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Humph on Apr 25, 2021 12:04:59 GMT
Thing is, back in the dark ages, everyone was trying to go as fast as they could on the motorways. No cameras, and the police had the grace to paint great big orange stripes on their cars so you could see them in plenty of time.
That in and of itself didn't do a great favours to fuel consumption. Now, it's more or less necessary to keep to the posted limits or very close to them if you don't want to risk your licence. Couple that with increased traffic density and by default you're just not pressing the right pedal as hard as often.
|
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on Apr 27, 2021 2:50:25 GMT
Friend of mine buys a new Merc every 3 years or so. He’s currently eyeing up a new A220d. Doesn’t need diesel but it’s a car in stock with a big discount. Guess worrying about the dpf is irrelevant if you are only going to keep the car 3 years/20,000 miles...
Didn’t ask him if it needs AdBlue as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by Humph on Apr 27, 2021 9:26:18 GMT
I've just had a minor Homer Simpson "Doh" moment. As discussed above, there's no gauge to tell you when you're running low on AdBlue on my car. So you either have to wait until it runs out and nags you, or top it up when you "think" it's in need.
Anyway, when the car was new, it did 13,000 miles before it needed a top up. I put 10 litres in as recommended in the manual, and have done that ever since when required.
But, I've averagely only got between 7 to 10 thousand miles between fill ups. Couldn't quite understand why the first tank lasted so much longer.
5 years into being with the car, this morning I decided to find out how big the AdBlue tank was. Apparently it's 25 litres. Guessing it had 15 or so litres in it when delivered.
That might explain it...
🤓
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on Apr 27, 2021 9:38:49 GMT
The central heating system in our house has an issue with the pickup pipe. There's roughly 2,000 litres of heating oil still in the tank, I suspect the engineers did not recalibrate correctly last year when they did some work in the tank. I have had to resort to filling up jerry cans with diesel, an expensive way to run a central heating system. Not having a gauge on the jerry can I've started weighing them to know how much fuel is left before swapping over. A litre or water weighs around 1kg, a litre of diesel is about 750g.
I'm not suggesting you weigh your car Humph to work out the level, just another load of useless information collected along the way and shared.
|
|
|
|
Post by Humph on Apr 27, 2021 9:40:55 GMT
I guess I could just use a garden cane or something as a dipstick. But y'know, they can be dodgy those things...
😜
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on Apr 27, 2021 9:45:44 GMT
All joking aside I just wouldn't. You know some is going to drip into the boot somewhere. A drip of diesel is bad enough, AdBlue I imagine is a whole other load of interior perfume I don't want in my car.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,778
|
Post by Rob on Apr 27, 2021 12:53:21 GMT
AdBlue is also corrosive. Probably why the tank in Humph's car is 25 litres and why they say put in 10 litres, i.e. never over fill it. Humph filler is in the boot I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Humph on Apr 27, 2021 13:26:01 GMT
It is, underneath the false floor. Really handy that, as I discovered when it ran out of the stuff in the middle of France at 04.00hrs with the car full of holiday gear.
Anyway, I was just going to top it up today ( long run tomorrow ) with 5 litres but I've put 15 litres in now and there's room to spare. Should be good for a long while.
|
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on Apr 27, 2021 19:15:04 GMT
I never knew that AdBlu tanks were so big! I thought they were washer-bottle sized, say 5l. That’s like having a second fuel tank on board.
Another 20-odd Kg of mass to lug around... manufacturers are taking the piss. Well, giving it. But you know what I mean!
|
|
