Cyprus-Forum.com

[devil]

Switzerland has just introduced a severe law requiring filters to be fitted to diesel engines on road vehicles http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php?topic=53

It would make life a lot more pleasant if the same were introduced here!

[Mikros]

Devil, all new technology diesel engines available even here have the so called particulate filters that are doing what the article says, trap most of the unhealthy gases and much more including the demise of old-diesel-smoke. Examples are the HDi diesel engines in Peugeots, Citroens, Fords, Mazdas, Jaguars, Volvos, Alfa Romeos, Saabs etc. and many more. If you have any specific request, I can give you the information.
What they have though is an increase in Maintenance Costs, that is the filter itself usually has a kind of fluid used to accelerate/help this process and in some cases you need to fill-it up after a few 000s of kms (70-80 I think). Then after some more 000s you either have to replace this filter, or in some engines "clean" it. This process usually costs more than 200CYP...
The only "problem" is that you need to fill-up with high quality fuel (clean, no add ons like water as it is usually the case in some stations), that sometimes is missing from fuel stations in Cyprus.

Personally I dont mind about these costs, hence I have such an engine in my car for many other reasons other than the above.

[Sotos]

Aren't diesel engines supposed to be better for the environment than petrol ones?

[devil]

Mikros,

1. a particulate filter does nothing to gases. As the name implies, it is designed to remove particles, ie solid matter in suspension.

2. if you had read the link, you would know that the measure is retroactive for existing vehicles, so that all the clapped-out trucks and buses that are imported into Cyprus after having done 250,000 km, would have to be fitted with a £3000 filter

Sotos

3. you are a victim of propaganda. A 2 l diesel will emit less CO2 per km than a catalysed 2 l petrol engine, but is less powerful, all other things being equal. However, it will emit 3 or 4 times as much dangerous pollutants, including carcinogenic material, even when brand new. An old, worn, diesel is worse than a pack of cigarettes. A trap will remove 95% of the particles, but still lets polluting gases through and, if fitted to a worn engine, will still let through more than a petrol engine.

[dms007]

No diesel is not good for the environment.
Petrol is also not good for the environment but it is better than using diesel.

Diesel has got more particles in the emission compared to pertrol.

[Sotos]

How about bicycles? Have you heard about the bicycles taxi company that will operate on the Limassol beach road? Maybe thats the solution!

[dms007]

The government should introduce more public transport and reduce the price of the tickets.
That way there would be lesser private vehicles on the roads.

[Mikros]

You are in some ways wrong. Both types emmit polution gases, Diesel engines have higher NO gases, where as petrol ones have higher CO2, among the other gases. It is commonly agreed between the various countries, to use the CO2 emmision to classify whether a car is pollutant or not.
Devil, a new high tech diesel is not less powerful than a respective petrol one. To measure how powerful an engine is is not a measure of bhp (brake horse power) and also at what revolutions/min is this max value achieved as well, the amount of torque and at what revs/min is this achievable. Nowadays diesel engines are more powerful than petrol ones, plus more economical. A particulate filter does actually do to the gas emmitted from the exhaust, because by removing the particles, you have cleaner gas out of the exhaust.

From PSA website:
European leader in diesel engines
Thanks to an innovation strategy focusing on the engine itself and on pollution control technology, PSA Peugeot Citroën has forged a reputation as the leading diesel manufacturer in Europe.

In the early 1990s, diesel engines were criticised for excessive noise and vibration, and for their polluting particulate emissions. PSA Peugeot Citroën responded by pursuing research to develop a new generation of high pressure direct injection diesel engines using common rail technology. Since their launch in 1998, more than 4 million HDi engines have been produced. Their success is based on:

- Fuel consumption 20% lower than a prechamber diesel engine, resulting in an equivalent reduction in CO2 emissions
- Enhanced driveability thanks to torque available at low engine speed, with noise and vibration levels comparable to those of a petrol engine
- Excellent environmental performance thanks to the precise combustion control of common-rail technology and efficient pollution control systems.

This technology, which is at the cutting edge of efforts to reduce fuel consumption, was combined in 2000 with a new pollution control system, the diesel particulate filter system, that traps all diesel particles - whatever their size - and reduces emissions to barely measurable levels (0.004 g/km, the equivalent of a petrol engine). In a world first, the diesel particulate filter system (DPFS) was introduced on the Peugeot 607. It now equips the Peugeot 307, 406 and 807, and the Citroën C5 and C8. In time, it will be offered on all Peugeot and Citroën models.

PSA Peugeot Citroën has already sold more than 800,000 vehicles that emit less than 120 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

The PSA Peugeot Citroën range of diesel engines:

* The 1.4 HDi 90 bhp, one of the least polluting engines, with CO2 emissions of 110g per km or less;
* The 1.6 HDi 110 bhp, fitted as standard with the DPFS;
* The 2.0 HDi 136 bhp;
* The 2.2 HDi 136 bhp;
* The V6 HDi 2.7 l 200 bhp, first mounted on the Jaguar S-Type.

All the Group's diesel engines, apart from the 2.2 l 136 bhp, have been developed in partnership with the Ford Motor Company under a cooperation agreement with PSA Peugeot Citroën.

[devil]

You are in some ways wrong. Both types emmit polution gases, Diesel engines have higher NO gases, where as petrol ones have higher CO2, among the other gases. It is commonly agreed between the various countries, to use the CO2 emmision to classify whether a car is pollutant or not.

This is a political move, not scientific. NOx gases are far worse for the health than CO2, which is harmless (you breathe out CO2).

In sunny countries, NOx are particularly dangerous, as they combine with HC emissions in a photochemical reaction to form highly toxic ozone, which is a precursor to "summer smog". Go to any large tropical or semi-tropical city with heavy diesel traffic, eg Mexico City, Cairo, Bangkok, Delhi, Bangalore, Manila etc, to experience this in trumps and even Nicosia on some days. Without NOx, this could NEVER happen. Many people die and suffer permanent lung damage because of this.

CO2's only negative side is that it is a greenhouse gas.

3,000,000 people die each year from fuel-related causes (WHO estimation) but none directly from CO2 emissions.

[VEX8]

Sorry peeps. I don't know anything about the diesel Vs petrol pollution controversy. Just bumping up my star rating. Carry on.