Home > Off Topic > With all the fuss about diesel, return to petrol engines? |
|
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
I am no petrochemist, but I vaguely remember that when distilling crude oil, diesel is produced at a much lower temperature than petrol, so it would make sense that it is cheaper to produce.
|
||
24th Sep 2015 9:59pm |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
It all depends on what you want it for, if you want something to Lord it over everyone else and your not doing any kind of mileage then petrol is a very good choice. If you are covering silly miles and towing, heavy things ( what idiot would do that in a ffrr ) then a diesel is the only real consideration, or, an LPG power SC and lots of big LPG tanks
|
||
25th Sep 2015 8:24pm |
|
RR2008HSE Member Since: 06 Jan 2013 Location: British Columbia Posts: 2932 |
I love my petrol, but 24000 miles and the heavy trailer is what diesels were made for! Not that we got a choice around here... |
||
26th Sep 2015 11:53pm |
|
ebajema Member Since: 24 Mar 2011 Location: New Plymouth Posts: 4782 |
I had a diesel car before (old Peug) and nearly bought a TDV8 iso of my current 5.0 SC. And I bought the SC because of turbo issues with the TDV8, nothing else.
|
||
27th Sep 2015 5:39am |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
I personally think that the electric + internal combustion generator, not a hybrid, look the best way to go at present, they are returning 200 mpg without any of the draw backs associated with total electric power. If you were to couple that with regenerative braking, and possibly solar top up, I think that you would have a winning combination. Provided that they can solve the spontaneous combustion battery problem , God knows a ffrr is flammable enough without any extra help
|
||
27th Sep 2015 8:17am |
|
stan Site Moderator Member Since: 13 Jul 2010 Location: a moderate moderated moderator moderating moderately in moderation Posts: 35274 |
i was behind a bus yesterday in chelmesford and when it stopped its engine switched off, when the traffic started moving you could hear an electric engine kick in and start moving the bus to about 10mph and then the petrol engine started..saves the large amount of 'start from stop' engine fumes i suppose.. ... - .- -.
|
||
27th Sep 2015 8:20am |
|
ebajema Member Since: 24 Mar 2011 Location: New Plymouth Posts: 4782 |
For the short term I agree with you that some form of very efficient and low emission use of fossil fuel, especially natural gas would be the best way to go. That is why I liked the C-X75 Jag concept with the turbine as a "range extender" / charger. Then again, if you have the Tesla S with the growing supercharger network, you can already do a lot of driving now. And if you translate it to trucks and busses that do a lot more miles, in those you can also stick a lot more batteries. I wonder if you make it mandatory, like the Norwegians, to switch public transport (in their case taxis) to full EV, whether it is actually possible to do so. Granted it is only Oslo for now (well 2016 no more registration of fossil fuel taxis if I remember correctly) so not a hell of a lot of cars and they are already bringing in the taxi charging network. I think a lot of people don't know what is possible and the "vested interests" are (not surprisingly) kicking up their heels and I don't blame them. It will be hard for all those vested interests to change quickly. Although it would be better for the earth to cut fossil fuel burning much faster (and turn vegetarian / vegan) it is hard. However, the cost of not changing fast enough, could be much much higher. If you just look at the cost to society of health issues and associated cost of fossil fuel related emissions and you start taking those into account (which I grant is very hard to do) then you may find out that it makes even more sense to speed things up but because we don't have reliable data (that I'm aware of) it is hard to justify. And although even the IOCs are slowly acknowledging that renewables will become "more important" (Ben van Beurden Shell) they are still very slow. I wonder if we would start the same process with the IOCs as was done with the cigarette companies (and car companies) how much faster the change would go. But again, I fear that politics and big corporations are very tightly linked together, just look at the number of ex-politicians that become some kind of big corporation hanger oner after leaving politics.............. MY 2010 5.0 SC Galway green and sand interior!! Have the Faultmate MSV2 Extreme to be tinkering with the settings etc. !! |
||
27th Sep 2015 11:17am |
|
ebajema Member Since: 24 Mar 2011 Location: New Plymouth Posts: 4782 |
For the short term I agree with you that some form of very efficient and low emission use of fossil fuel, especially natural gas would be the best way to go. That is why I liked the C-X75 Jag concept with the turbine as a "range extender" / charger. Then again, if you have the Tesla S with the growing supercharger network, you can already do a lot of driving now. And if you translate it to trucks and busses that do a lot more miles, in those you can also stick a lot more batteries. I wonder if you make it mandatory, like the Norwegians, to switch public transport (in their case taxis) to full EV, whether it is actually possible to do so. Granted it is only Oslo for now (well 2016 no more registration of fossil fuel taxis if I remember correctly) so not a hell of a lot of cars and they are already bringing in the taxi charging network. I think a lot of people don't know what is possible and the "vested interests" are (not surprisingly) kicking up their heels and I don't blame them. It will be hard for all those vested interests to change quickly. Although it would be better for the earth to cut fossil fuel burning much faster (and turn vegetarian / vegan) it is hard. However, the cost of not changing fast enough, could be much much higher. If you just look at the cost to society of health issues and associated cost of fossil fuel related emissions and you start taking those into account (which I grant is very hard to do) then you may find out that it makes even more sense to speed things up but because we don't have reliable data (that I'm aware of) it is hard to justify. And although even the IOCs are slowly acknowledging that renewables will become "more important" (Ben van Beurden Shell) they are still very slow. I wonder if we would start the same process with the IOCs as was done with the cigarette companies (and car companies) how much faster the change would go. But again, I fear that politics and big corporations are very tightly linked together, just look at the number of ex-politicians that become some kind of big corporation hanger oner after leaving politics.............. MY 2010 5.0 SC Galway green and sand interior!! Have the Faultmate MSV2 Extreme to be tinkering with the settings etc. !! |
||
27th Sep 2015 11:18am |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
I would have thought that an electric + diesel generator would be the "cleanest way", only because it's easy to get diesel engines to run vegetable oil (that's what they were invented for), and this would give you a sustainable refueling option. Plus as you are not reliant on charging points, it would act as a normal vehicle and just drive no waiting for the batteries to charge, no I forgot to plug it in.
|
||
27th Sep 2015 12:09pm |
|
Zirconblue Member Since: 16 Apr 2015 Location: Kent Posts: 1277 |
There's only a limited supply of used Veg oil, so you end up with Rape being planted everywhere to use for making new stuff which then reduces the amount of land for growing food. - Low net CO2 but over all not very green. (in fact it's yellow. ) |
||
27th Sep 2015 1:11pm |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
Nuts, peanuts Yesterday I couldn't spell Engineer... Today I are one!
|
||
27th Sep 2015 3:30pm |
|
Mikey Member Since: 10 Jan 2008 Location: Dundee Posts: 1751 |
I do wonder why we never heard more from LR about the ERAD (Electric Rear Axle Drive) system http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/concept-...rover-erad Low Emission engine at the front driving 2 wheels, and an electric motor at the back driving the rear wheels, giving electric propulsion, and 4WD when needed |
||
27th Sep 2015 3:40pm |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
That's only a part time system, we have progressed beyond that WW2 tech A few years back Jeep produced a prototype that had 4 electric motors one in each hub, and 4 wheel steer, if memory serves my correct it could turn with in its own length ie \-/ on each axle, plus the usual crab and 4 wheel steer, looked rather odd, but dam handy off road or at the supermarket Yesterday I couldn't spell Engineer... Today I are one!
|
||
27th Sep 2015 4:01pm |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
|
||||
27th Sep 2015 4:04pm |
|
|
All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis