The reasoned argument is that what you claim is so insignificant that no-one will ever experience the consequences of it. The vehicle will always be killed by some other engine related failure before your theory of carbonised oil kills it.
If you're so mechanically experienced, then surely you would know this.
Hang on..... you're going to have to explain this one, 'cos it just makes absolutely no sense.
"There's nowt so blind as those who will not see".
It's all there for you to digest further up the thread, if only you could see past that massive chip sitting on your shoulder, that appears to be fouling your field of vision.
And this isn't me ducking the question... I just happen to have better things to do than regurgitate all the valid points made, when it's patently obvious you will once again refuse to acknowledge *anything* which doesn't quite tie up with some of the statements you presented as fact.
...where modern diesel spec oils contain certain agents to help break down the additional nasties therein.
And the, as I've stated so many times already in this thread, huge number of high mileage diesels out there, still running quite happily on their original engines, are *evidence* that said oils must be doing something right.
The more recent direct injection stuff - they're more efficient - they use less fuel than their predecessors... less fuel being burnt might indicate that less fuel is entering the bore in the first place, meaning, not least if the burn is more efficient, there's less s**te to force through into the oil.
They never tried, or claimed that anything in post 1 was anything but what I claimed. Unless you know different? Please enlighten me!!!
and they are in fact merely continuing to develop
ehhhhhh?
No, what I did was explain simply why they were wrong, using simple easy to follow logic (simple for some it seems!) and some dont like it!
Argue your case using logic and explain why my points are wrong instead of having a tantrum.
Bikes are basically extremely high reving high specific output racing engines, and have large running clearences (although extremely well controlled production tolerances) and make huge power for their non blown capacity at the expence of almost anything else.
They contaminate oil faster than cars do because that was the designers last interest! As was engine longevity. The average bike never sees many more than 30,000 miles and is serviced on very short service intervals. Thats the price you pay for 160bhp per litre! Not practical in a car unless you are a racer, or real enthusiast.
If they were diesel they would be worse still! More soot. (buit less power)
So far, so good, apart from the car-like 8k oil change on my bike.
OK, so why is the gearbox oil in my 2-stroke bike filthy, then?
They try to break down acids for a while, but suspend carbon and other nasties in the oil.
But reasoning says a petrol will still wear less. As I have already explained. You still dont get it!
Correct, but still massively more than a petrol.
Full of clutch plates and moisture but its not jet black with carbon is it!
Err again tell me?
Right!!!
Its quite possible but NOT anything to do with my original post 1 Which said deisels wear faster and they do.
Non turbo vans dont actually have the power to move?
Like the Smart, the Saab 1.8t, the Volvo 2.0t, the Vectra 2.0t and other mainstream performance... oooh sorry, no, everyday non-performance cars.
Well you need your hearing checked then (just had mine done thank you) as there is not one diesel engined car which is quiter than its equivalent price/performance petrol model that I have tried, and I've tried a few. Not at idle, not from outside.
At 70+ mph most of the noise of most modern cars is from wind and tyres, and heavy insulation can mask the engine noise. Why do you think diesel cabriolet's don't sell very well?
it's true though - the thrum at cruising is very wearing. Notice lack of diesel Lexus LS so far.
Right. Wanna do a coast down comparison?
So? They are both similar capacities (actually the capacity favours the diesel) and the same induction systems.
To my mind, that's a representative comparison of the torque and power outputs and characteristics of the two types of engine.
Otherwise, as others have hinted at, it's rather similar to comparing a NA petrol, to a turbo petrol - which a number of marques have in their engine line-ups - and of course, a forced induction engine is going to have some performance advantages over it's NA equivalent.
Whilst the point that some make, that the prevalence of turbo'd diesels engines, versus the relative scarcity with petrol equivalents, is in the main largely true (mainly because most petrol engines don't necessarily need a crutch to make them drivable), where numerous marques do have true equivalency in their engine line-ups, it's more representative to compare their relative characteristics on that basis.
"us"?
Just to clarify, your Ka isn't running some funky diesel conversion, it's a petrol, ain't it?
If it was what you like, and clearly feel is advantageous, why don't you own and drive a diesel?
Don't rub it in, mate ;-)
(mumble...mumble nuther home in Italy... mumble...mumble... XJR for fun... mumble... mumble)
If my Rover 620 is anything to go by, nowt.
No, because it completely blows your argument out of the water.
Really? The Ford Transit 2.5 diesel seems to completely destroy that argument as anyone who has driven both will attest.
Again the Ford Transit 2.5 diesel proves you wrong.
And I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. I wish I still had some left.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.