Diesel kritisch? Drehmoment --- Dichtung oder Warheit? | Posts 16+

Hello, I just wrote to the great Dipl.-Ing. and informed him that a gasoline engine emits more CO and HC than an old diesel engine from 1992.
I also told him that a diesel engine produces fewer pollutants than a gasoline engine, because it also consumes less fuel.
I'm looking forward to the response, if he even bothers to reply.
Great coincidence, Bertil.

Okay, everyone, give him a good hard time, that's what will get through to him. Just like kids, really...

Let him have his opinion; you have yours, and that's enough. Gremlins KLICK3 is the best thing you can do with your website.

Hello,

I don't come here often, but I wanted to chime in and say that I don't entirely share the enthusiasm for diesel.
Don't be so hard on the poor guy (even if he has some strange opinions). I also drive a TDI and am impressed with the performance/fuel consumption ratio.
Regarding driving characteristics, revving pleasure, and the usable rev range, a diesel engine is inferior to a gasoline engine. The same applies to the poor acceleration from a standstill. The fractions of a second it takes for the turbocharger to spool up can be quite annoying. The narrow rev range is also a mood killer. What's the point of a huge amount of torque if you have to shift at 4000 RPM? The diesel has its place as a comfortable, low-revving engine, but it will never be a sports car. A continuously variable transmission (CVT) could certainly compensate for the disadvantage of the narrow rev range. Nevertheless, the gasoline engine has its place, as long as there are no rev-happy diesels without turbo lag .
I'm still a diesel fan! Diesel for the brain and gasoline for the heart .

Regards,

Maciek.

Hi,

Okay, since I started this discussion, I'd like to say something about it.

He converts the diesel engine's output to that of a gasoline engine using the transmission ratio. It's not entirely wrong at first glance, but the execution... see the thread by "Donalexo"... I completely agree with him.

Quote:

Compared to the gasoline engine, the diesel is highlighted for its "high torque," "rapid torque increase," and "a lot of power to the wheels." To be upfront, most of this is nonsense, as is one of the conclusions, that the diesel would be particularly recommended as a tow vehicle for caravans.

The author has never pulled a heavy trailer uphill with a modern diesel engine and then performed the same exercise with a gasoline engine of comparable power. He should reconsider his understanding of the torque issue.
He continues to accuse all NKW manufacturers of lying when they use diesel engines due to their "load-carrying" characteristics.
Okay, dear DC, MAN, Renault, Scania, Volvo, ... from now on, there will only be gasoline engines .

I personally view diesel engines with great skepticism, but unfortunately, for various applications (long distances, towing, etc.), I don't see any alternative. Why should I, as someone who tows, buy a large gasoline engine that is far too big for 95% of my annual mileage (and therefore consumes far too much fuel) just to cover the 5% of my total driving where it might be beneficial?


Attacking or writing to the author is pointless. He has his opinion and will not be swayed from it. Let it go and make up your own minds.

hi,
but that's the best, isn't it?
The link from Greenpeace is not working .
greetings

Maciek wrote:

The diesel engine has its merits as a comfortable and quiet option, but it will never be a sports car.

I wouldn't claim that a diesel car lives up to the performance of a sports car.

Quote:

.... Nevertheless, the gasoline engine still has its place, as long as there are no rev-happy diesel engines without turbo lag

.

You can also find turbo lag in turbocharged gasoline engines, and the engine speed contradicts the principles of a diesel engine and the type of fuel used.

Hi there,
What should one think about?
The problem will resolve itself.
if there's nothing left that we can burn (e.g., oil).
Furthermore, several comet impacts have been predicted for the year around 2800.
So, happy driving (preferably in a Lupo 3L ), and keep it up.
greetings

Well, if he's already gone to the trouble of creating a website and everything else, he's probably not going to be easily convinced...

I am also in favor of Klick3 .

As far as I've read the post, it's not entirely wrong.
By mixing obvious facts with a bit of imagination and a certain bias, one can certainly arrive at these kinds of conclusions.

More interesting than the "normalized" diagrams, which are essentially correct, is the comparison of the specific fuel consumption (liters/kWh). The advantage of a diesel engine cannot be denied when looking at this metric. Furthermore, it should be noted that car engines are typically operated under partial load conditions, which is more favorable for diesel engines. Finally, the type of engines used for comparison is also a factor. Engine displacement is only relevant in relation to the (nonsensical) engine displacement tax.
Regarding emissions regulations, it might be worthwhile to investigate the emissions levels of a gasoline engine outside of the standard test cycle.
Finally, the exhaust emissions test at TÜV, whether for gasoline or diesel vehicles, is based on only a few measured parameters.
Regarding the higher energy content of diesel compared to gasoline, it should be noted that producing gasoline requires a greater energy input than producing diesel, which effectively negates this argument.

I'm not a fan of either diesel or gasoline engines, and when you compare things like responsiveness, usable rev range, and smoothness, the gasoline engine is clearly the superior choice.
However, if you're one of those people who prefers not to rev the engine too much, and you prioritize fuel efficiency, a decent range, and relatively low operating costs, then a diesel is the only option for you.

When comparing modern diesel engines to those from 25 years ago, the progress is undeniably significant. And despite potential issues with soot emissions, it cannot be denied that oil resources are limited.

If I were to choose, I would rather advocate for the gasoline engine or the fuel cell, although I don't want to start a discussion about hydrogen production at the BSZ (Berufsschule Zentrum) right from the beginning.

Regarding direct injection in gasoline engines, the current progress lies more in the fact that some manufacturers are phasing out these engines (Mitsubishi; Renault). In terms of fuel consumption, they are not competitive with diesel engines, but they have certainly matched, if not surpassed, diesel engines in terms of manufacturing costs and complexity.

Best regards, Reiner.

PS: If my Fabia TDI had a 100 HP gasoline engine, I probably would still be pulling a trailer (which is admittedly slightly overloaded ) today...

Hello,
Just like the sluggish acceleration. The fractions of a second it takes for the turbo to spool up can be quite annoying. The narrow rev range is also a mood killer. What's the point of having massive torque if you have to shift at 4000 RPM? The diesel has its place as a comfortable cruiser, but it will never be a sports car. A continuously variable transmission (CVT) could certainly eliminate the disadvantage of the narrow rev range. Nevertheless, the gasoline engine has its merits, as long as there aren't any high-revving diesels without turbo lag .
I'm still a diesel fan! Diesel for the brain and gasoline for the heart .

Regards,

Maciek

You can avoid turbo lag if you let the engine warm up properly. When starting, you can keep the engine running at a slightly higher RPM, or when revving the engine to around 2000 RPM, you can release the clutch, as the turbo will have already built up its boost (according to my boost gauge).
The turbo lag is only annoying (if it's annoying at all) when, for example, you're driving slowly in 3rd gear and suddenly want to accelerate fully. I actually find that it makes it more fun; there's a brief moment to brace yourself, and then it takes off .
'Of course, you can't apply the tricks for avoiding turbo lag with automatic transmissions. That's why it bothers me a little bit with the V10 TDI in the Touareg, because it has a rather long reaction time and a Tiptronic transmission.'

The argument about shifting at 4000 rpm doesn't hold up because the diesel engine's transmission is usually geared differently. In other words, with a diesel, you'll typically be in 3rd gear at 120 km/h, just like with a gasoline engine.

Despite the higher torque, the diesel engine is not inferior to a comparable gasoline engine (due to the longer gear ratio, it provides more power in the lower RPM range).

The noise levels of diesel and gasoline engines are now on a similar level (diesel engines are often balanced more smoothly). The interior of a Golf IV TDI is probably even quieter than that of a Golf IV gasoline engine (the 1.6 16V is incredibly loud inside). Revving ability and noise: Well, anyone who drives around town at 6,000 RPM, while I drive my diesel at 1,500 RPM, is probably not a good person. Regarding gear ratios: That's true, which is why the acceleration figures are also on a nearly equal level (my Passat TDI, as a 66 kW TDI, is 0.4 seconds faster to 100 km/h than the 66 kW gasoline engine, but that's because the TDI builds its torque earlier). Torque values aren't everything.

Best regards, WarLord.