Advantages v disadvantages of a diesel!!!

Make up your mind. You've said in a previous post that gear oil doesn't get contaminated and need never be changed but now you accept it can and therefore does?

Wrong again, because without an equally low state of tune same capacity petrol engine to compare it too its totally meaningless just like the last time you mentioned it.

Yes but i said GEARBOX and they dont have clutches in them. You are confused again...

N obody ever claimed it did. You cut the rest of this discussion to try and confuse things and save face. Please get a life.

Would you like me to quote the relevent messages?

Perhaps if you stopped using that bag of shit excuse for a usenet client and got one that threaded conversations properly, you wouldn't look like an arse by posting that diesel engines mean blacker oil in the middle of a subthread about gearbox/diff oil colour.

I thought you said you had a clue?

Automatics do and some of the new fangled tiptronic/paddle type ones do too.

Why not work with a 50BHP 1 litre petrol engine? Plenty of them to use as a comparison.

You knew exactly what i meant and are still trying to score points so you dont look such a tit.

Ahhh - you got a 620 with the Honda engine though.

Average BHP for 2.0 engines (petrol NA) = 136 Average for 2.0 (diesel NA) = 72

2.0 turbo diesel =133 2.0 turbo petrol =210 bhp

Source: Dervy's datasheet.

What's the matter? Don't like me playing the pedant game with you the same as you are with me?

OK...my old Rover 420 which my brother now has doing Driff to Pontefract 5 days a week.

Right... so this will be why most of my bikes, being 600cc sports bikes which tended to redline at 12 to 13k and tended to knock out around 100bhp at the crank, have invariably had a 4k oil service interval, but my current bike, an 1100cc tourer also with 100bhp at the crank, and one which redlines at 8k, *and* which is manufactured by the same maker as most of the 600s I've had, only needs the same rated oil changed every 12k, will it???

As others have pointed out, diesel in itself is actually a lubricant of sorts... and you can keep labouring this point time and time again, yet you don't come up with anything solid to explain why it is so many diesels give trouble free motoring engine wise, and for what are considered to be high mileages in many cases.

It's the real world putting your theories to the test, and coming up with results on the whole, are at direct loggerheads with your claims, and which prove you're not entirely correct.

It's a bit like someone continuing to subscribe to the 'fact' that the world is flat, even though several people have previously gone out, set sail, and actually seen for themselves, it is in fact round in reality.

So you keep telling us - you do realise that all cars, no matter how many miles they've covered since new, once they're over three years old have to pass an MOT every year, don't you... and that part of that test is one that tests the emissions of each vehicle... and the odd bent MOT being given aside, all the high mileage diesels out there still being legally driven on the roads, will have passed these tests, and thus would not, if the engines in question were that worn.

'Hurrah!' ;-)

Not really if we're discussing diesels in general, which your initial post appeared to be.

Now I like this... where exactly, am I stating I have 'personal finance problems' within this post???

I'll state once and for all, I drive what I want, because I want to, not because I have to, and having weighed up why whatever, is the right choice at that time in life, for me.

Even at the pocket money end of the market, you can have your pick of all sorts of relative elderly exotica for the same, if not less, money, than something not quite as 'extravagant'.

And the post has everything to do with the discussion of diesels, and where someone is highlighting perceived disadvantages of them overall, others are merely giving examples that go against 'burgermans diesel charter', as laid out in this thread... not only that, but you've argued beyond the original vague points you made, and others are within their rights to debate such points, drawing on proven *evidence*.

Except it wasn't, but whatever.

Only if you've not re-engineered the car to suit any major changes to it that would affect the car in these respects.

LOL

So *you* keep saying... and fortunately, what turns specifically you on and off, isn't the benchmark for the rest of us.

I respect the fact that you personally don't have much of a thing for whatever, but stating that thus, the same applies for everyone else, is pigheaded to say the least.

It's you doing the old classic, as in the stating of ones opinion as fact, I'm afraid. Some of the points you've raised are valid, but they alone don't add more weight to the more biased belligerant stuff you've been coming out with.

Yes... everyone has the same needs as your apparent ones, when it comes to their daily transport...

What the hell does that have to do with anything - I'm talking *road cars*, dear boy... do you have a small penis by chance, only you appear to be trying to give yourself a confidence boost in here, with some of the 'oh, but your opinion is invalid, merely because I did all this other stuff before I came a cropper once to often, and look where it's got me...'

I've driven enough road cars in my time, not least FWD ones, to know what is, and what isn't all that, compared to its contemporaries... and that 306 was as good in this respect, as all the good reviews its had over the years.

Aye, my rails aren't hand rails...

I'm afraid it is in the context of 'we offer car x in this level of trim, with these engine options', if you bother to do an overall scan of the market both today, and right the way through to it, from the mid 90s.

Except they did in their droves in the past, and it's mainly down to the big advances made in terms of power vs economy available when you use a lump enhanced by stuff like direct injection and turbos, that the former isn't available - the modern TDis and HDis of this world, offer more performance,

*and* more economy, over their predecessors, and this isn't always dependent on how leadfooted you are with each, either.

Yes, you could do a direct comparison like that if you like... and it's not one that at all reflects the reality of diesels vs petrols in the market place today or even yesterday, is it - not only that, but you've been more than happy to cite that the turbos on diesels make them more unreliable elsewhere in this thread, thus you've accepted it as part of the overall picture.

You want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these... a discussion that takes into account how said items are actually utilised in the real world, and how differences between them help us make our choices when choosing one or other in the *real* world, is very relevant.

Money which overall is subsequently recouped and then some by way of lower running costs...

...and invariably does that much less to the gallon - I worked it out the other week that the new diesel Panda Multijet 1.3 is around 30% better on fuel overall, compared to its slower 1.2 petrol sibling.

Take into account the longer term picture, and it works out to be something that won't depreciate as much overall, and will use that much less fuel in the time you have it. It worked out to be cheaper to own over three years taking all financial factors into consideration, than the cheaper 1.2.

Are we?

Really?

So you're now saying the third point you raised is irrelevant as well then, yes?

An engine is only possibly 'slower', when it's being used in an application, after all...

Whilst no rocket ship, the Berlingo 1.9D I had a few months ago, moved along quite happily under its own steam... not only that, but it also did it quite happily even when loaded up to the roof with stuff.

Anyway... enough.

I accept you're no fan of diesels, but life is too short to spend hours arguing the toss with a brick wall who has no intention at all of debating anything, other than in the sense of shutting their eyes and shouting everyone else down in the hope that what they say will be accepted by all and sundry.

...which isn't a turbo'ed petrol, is it?

Same engine as the turbo'd though.

But without the turbo.

Yes but not directly. Tourers are like car engines with tight running clearances, and close fitting pistons and rings etc. Because outright power is not an issue for them.

The 13000 rpm motor has by definition got to have larger running clearances, thinner rings etc to allow it the freedom from oil drag etc as its basically a production racing engine and as such more crap gets past the rings and so oil gets dirty faster. If you tightened up the gaps it would be slightly less powerful, and its very competitive as you know.

The same does not apply to car engines as diesels and petrols rev to 5 and

6 - about the same, and a look in any haines manual will show you they have the same running clearances.

Unburned diesel is a bad lube, but it would still wash the proper oil film off if it made it to the cylinder wall, but it doesent, it burns as it leaves the injector or you have worse problems!

and you can keep labouring this point time and time again, yet you

Anyone can claim a "high mileage" its meaningless unless you compare it against an equivelent petrol as its anothedr testimonial... Anyone for magnets? They work cos i say so...

But thats the point - you havent!

No its the other way around, we all know that carbon buggers engines and turbos, and diesels are full of it from day one! But because your truck ndoes high mileage you say its better even though you have no petrol truck to compare the wear to after say 500,000 miles.

Again the test for emissions is a)different for petrol and diesel b) not related much to say turbo or crank wear c) not proving f*ck all!

I said so in the very begining. You changed bugger all.

Thats the only reason you could possibly have to prefer them, which you claim to. They are worse in all other respects, and you run scrap yard specials. And have a fixation on fuel economy!

Related to post 1 how again????

You have only shown some diesels that cover high mileage soi far which is only evidence of your understanding of how evidence works is flawed!

No it DIRECTLY effects all sorts of things.

Oh good.

Neither have you. You've proposed a mechanism, yet not provided the real world data to back that up.

How about : what are the failure modes of diesel engines? What proportion of these are due to wear caused by the mechanism you propose?

I suspect the answer for the majority of diesel cars scrapped because of engine failure is one of headgasket, cam belt, water pump and fuel pump, none of which are caused by your mechanism. (oh, yes, and a few with water in the engine..) I also suspect that more cars will have died from non-engine failure, ie the engine has outlasted the rest of the car.

cheers, clive

Can you explain then, how either cars are relevant to the original question then? ;-)