[Vwdiesel] Honda Diesel

[peter blake]

  Good points by Roger and others about our current insanity of using fuel inefficiently.  I guess I'll stick to my older idi diesels for
now. Thank you all for posting, I've learned a few things in the last
couple of days or so.
Peter

--- On Tue, 1/31/12, Roger Brown <r.c.brown at ieee.org> wrote:

> From: Roger Brown <r.c.brown at ieee.org>
> Subject: Re: [Vwdiesel] Honda Diesel
> To: "vwdiesel at vwfans.com" <vwdiesel at vwfans.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 11:39 AM
> I recall reading a report a few years
> ago stating that "cleaning up" diesel engines may have
> double negative impact on climate change.  The older
> engines/fuel that burned with more visible soot output put
> that soot in the air and that actually reduced heat gain to
> the atmosphere.  So now you refine the fuel more to
> clean it up (more refining = more energy input = more CO2
> output) then it takes more of that same fuel in a given
> engine to produce the same output (your 12% - 20% increase)
> so more fuel burned = more CO2 output. And then you have
> reduced the soot, which looks good to the average citizen,
> but that soot was helping reduce temperature rise.  And
> it is the fuel efficiency of the highest efficiency (diesel)
> engines that is being reduced.
> 
> It is kind of like the cholesterol story, you have good
> cholesterol (HDL) and bad cholesterol (LDL, etc.).  Now
> you have reduced the good cholesterol (soot) and raised the
> bad cholesterol (CO2) and what is the gain?  Seems if
> that were a patient, that patient's doctor would be doing
> something to reverse that trend.
> 
> 
> On 1/31/2012 10:31 AM, James Hansen wrote:
> > Oh, man, I know.  Diesel makes the world go round,
> but gas drives those that
> > think the world revolves around them.
> > 
> > To an end user (me for instance), it would seem that
> great pains have been
> > taken to improve air quality almost solely at the
> sacrifice of efficiency...
> > to the tune of about a 12 TO 25% increase in fuel usage
> moving from tier 2
> > to tier 3 compliance in ag engines.  Pretty much
> the same for other on and
> > off road users with a wide variability in how the
> increased costs get passed
> > on.  Now that we are in tier 4 transitional
> compliance, different technology
> > is being used (urea) which should bring fuel efficiency
> back up... maybe for
> > some anyway (not JD).  But no matter how you look
> at it, efficiency is
> > certainly not high on the want list of the rule
> makers.  Kind of like
> > natural selection, if you don't select for it, you
> don't get it, and nobody
> > in the north american engine market has been big on
> efficiency because it
> > all hangs on nitrogen emissions. Some players have a
> lot of European
> > exposure, which influences their engine design quite a
> bit it would seem.
> > (fiat group- case, NH, etc)
> > 
> > Reasons vary, but mainly it was using EGR.  It's
> like we are now replaying
> > the "smog rules" engines cars used in the 1970's in
> offroad engines.  They
> > use EGR to keep the combustion chamber cool to not make
> NOX compounds, and
> > surprise surprise, you have to use more fuel to get the
> same power. I
> > distinctly remember the parents 1978 bronco that made a
> whopping 8mpg
> > IMPERIAL right out of the box. You could quite easily
> confuse the
> > speedometer with the gauge for the enormous fuel tank,
> both moved in
> > concert, but different directions.
> > 
> > At least those that are now using urea cat in tier 4
> engines are able to
> > bump timing and durations with high boost to get really
> hot combustion, hot
> > combustion chambers make more efficient power, it makes
> the particle trap
> > work better too, then fix the nox with a urea
> cat.  Overall efficiency is
> > much much higher.  Guys that I know that have
> bought the 350K new tractor
> > are quite happy with them- they HAD to get rid of the
> fuel guzzler tier 3
> > junk that it replaced.  A big acre farmer can make
> a tractor payment on the
> > difference in fuel use between tier 3 and 4
> transitional engines.
> > 
> > I wonder Travis, since the EPA has been used as a trade
> manipulator for so
> > long with air quality being the saw, if they would know
> what is good for the
> > environment even if it jumped up and bit them in the
> ass. Personally, I kind
> > of doubt it, it's still more enviropolitics than good
> intelligent use of
> > resources in some kind of sustainable manner.
> > -james
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vwdiesel-bounces at vwfans.com
> [mailto:vwdiesel-bounces at vwfans.com]
> On
> > Behalf Of Travis Gottschalk
> > Sent: January-31-12 11:42 AM
> > To: vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vwdiesel] Honda Diesel
> > 
> > 
> > You mean all the "verage fuel efficiency decreasing in
> ag equipment -
> > various politico-environmental reasons" isn't good for
> the environment? I
> > always wondered how is it that they seem to think that
> more cleaner (but not
> > completely clean) air/fuel is better then a little
> "dirty" air. Isn't being
> > truely "green" just making things more efficient? It
> has to be self
> > sustaining. Also as to the fuel in the US-just because
> there isn't a lot of
> > cars that burn diesel there is plenty of ships, trains,
> Heavy equipment
> > (mines, road construction) and over the road trucks.
> There is more Diesel in
> > the US then you think and the funny thing is because it
> is more effecient
> > then gas. But the individual consumer still chooses
> gas.
> > 
> >         
>            
> > _______________________________________________
> > Vwdiesel mailing list
> > Vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> > http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/vwdiesel
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Vwdiesel mailing list
> > Vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> > http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/vwdiesel
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Roger
> _______________________________________________
> Vwdiesel mailing list
> Vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/vwdiesel
>