Restaurant damaged by car.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Do escape lanes work?
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 05:38 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going >>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg >>is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations. > So which bit of the fact that diesels almost always have better mpg than > petrol engines for a given engine size and vehicle weight is confusing > you? <sigh> D'you mind awfully at least READING the subthread? Ta.
From: Brimstone on 19 May 2010 05:45 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:ht0ao2$a20$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:35:06 +0100 > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague >>>> generalisations. >>> >>> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly >>> how >>> petrol is more efficient than diesel? >>Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient". > > The general meaning of "efficient" for internal combustion engines is the > amount of fuel it uses to do a given task. Unless you have a new one for > us... > One definition of "efficient" is that people read sub-threads before gobbing off.
From: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 07:18 On 19 May 2010 09:38:16 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >saying: > >>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going >>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg > >>>is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations. > >> So which bit of the fact that diesels almost always have better mpg than >> petrol engines for a given engine size and vehicle weight is confusing >> you? > ><sigh> D'you mind awfully at least READING the subthread? Ta. Some of us have work to do and don't have time to read the reply you wrote to someone else�. But I assume you're talking about this: >Hence why I didn't say petrol _was_ "more efficient" than diesel, merely >pointed out that definining efficient as "CO2 and mpg only" was short- >sighted. > >It ignores noise, NOx, particulate and other emissions, the increased >environmental impact of manufacture and lifetime maintenance of the more >complex injection and emissions equipment plus other components and a >variety of other factors. in which case please explain to me which bit of the sentence I wrote: "But going purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg..." confused you. Oh incidentaly: >B'sides, a barrel of crude oil isn't something that can be converted into >one product or the other. It distills into a mix of products. If petrol >stopped being used, there'd be significant wastage. Same if diesel >stopped being used. is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just over 50% of oil is used for fuel products. Go and learn something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry) B2003
From: GT on 19 May 2010 08:24 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:E-adnfUKNKFSUm_WnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bf2a6da$0$5870$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:85fn1qFgk9U12(a)mid.individual.net... >>> boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >>> saying: >>> >>>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot >>>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment. >>> >>>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current >>>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol >>>>>emissions. >>> >>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going >>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time >>> >>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations. >> >> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly >> how petrol is more efficient than diesel? > Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient". This was already defined - MPG, or miles per gallon. How far the vehicle can be driven on 1 gallon of fuel.
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 08:30
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >><sigh> D'you mind awfully at least READING the subthread? Ta. > Some of us have work to do and don't have time to read the reply you > wrote to someone elseÂ. Another one who uses usenet as a write-only medium, eh? You're in good company, what with the Duhgling. > But I assume you're talking about this: > in which case please explain to me which bit of the sentence I wrote: > > "But going purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg..." > > confused you. It didn't. Clearly, my reply has terminally confused you, since you seem to have totally the wrong end of the stick. Like I said... >>Hence why I didn't say petrol _was_ "more efficient" than diesel, merely >>pointed out that definining efficient as "CO2 and mpg only" was short- >>sighted. > Oh incidentaly: >>B'sides, a barrel of crude oil isn't something that can be converted >>into one product or the other. It distills into a mix of products. If >>petrol stopped being used, there'd be significant wastage. Same if >>diesel stopped being used. > is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just > over 50% of oil is used for fuel products. Correct. The rest is used for lubrication, for... And why? Because the different fractions aren't interchangable. |