| Author | Message | ||
     Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.75 |
In 2006 I extolled the virtues of diesels and sort of dismissed electric cars All change Ignoring the emissions and going to the real reasons for diesel engines Cheaper to run is the.real reason why people buy diesels Trouble is.that modern common rail engines are not reliable and are.expensive to fix The break even point for a.diesel is 100k miles any less and a petrol engine would have been cheaper If the dual mass flywheel goes and or the fuel pump then the break even point mileage increases Add a particulate filter and it gets worse Fuel pumps are a £1000 dual mass £300 filter £300 Electric cars have come on leaps.and bounds reports of batteries lasting 10 years are common 99% of my travel is less than 40 miles Buying a modern diesel is I would say risky I see loads of petrol cars cheap because every one wants a diesel Saw a new petrol Ford with discount £15950 same spec in diesel £21650 £5500 buys a lot of petrol Plus no dual mass flywheel no high pressure pump no diesel particulate filter (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Benoit Leus Prolific User Username: benoitleus Post Number: 163 Registered: 6-2009 |
I have to agree with you, Bob. I drive a diesel Mercedes E-class but will soon switch over to a hybrid Lexus GS. After testing the Lexus for a few days, it became clear that the MPG in real world situations (traffic, traffic and some more traffic) wasn't any worse than with the Mercedes, but with the added advantage of the smooth running when driving on electrical power alone. Not to mention there is a decent chance that the Lexus will probably be more realiable than the Mercedes. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.84 |
The w123 was the last of the proper mercs After about 1990 Mercedes seam to be of poorer quality I bet you will be quite miffed when you get used to the car as to how good that car is against the merc Japanese electric Rolls I have driven a Lexus 400 thingy andas good as my shadow just different Good.choice (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 236 Registered: 5-2009 |
My '05 E320CDI has been great, but like you say: I am aware of the complexity and potential costs of repairs. So far, so good at 135K miles with 34-35 MPG (US gallons). The entire Diesel industry was built on cheap fuel, with reliability and durability thrown in for good measure, these being a by-product of the precise and robust construction needed for a Diesel to live. The new engines' complexity, driven by emissions regulation, and the added cost of Diesel fuel, are taking away their raison d'etre, no? Smooth and quiet is what I like (mostly). The Buicks are pretty good at this right now. Lexus? Of course. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.89 |
I hear a few diesel horror stories with open wallet surgery from mates still on the tools and they frighten my bank balance which is why when my petrol Jeep 1993 gets bad I shall buy another petrol car Volvos are cheap saw a 245 with carb good nick for £795 well worth a punt 120k miles Every body wants a diesel so petrol cars especially bigger cars are cheap Cars like 245 are so bodgeable diesels arent Diesels when worn are hard to start where as a petrol will accept wear and start 3 things are important for the jeep replacement and they are reliability reliability and will my double bass fit I think that folk will cotton on to the true cost of modern diesels if it goes wrong (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Benoit Leus Prolific User Username: benoitleus Post Number: 164 Registered: 6-2009 |
To be honest, I haven't had any reliability issues with the engine of my Mercedes, but then it's only 4 years old and has done 85.000 miles. However, during the whole 4 years it has been plagued with electronic problems (aircon, electric tailgate, front windows, radio, park distance control, etc...). Last year the car was at Mercedes Belgium's technical centre for a month and a half to try to solve these issues. After it came back, 4 of these electronic problems have reappeared. My previous car was an Audi A6 which suffered similar problems (although not as many). The strange thing is, my wife's Renault Koleos, has quite a lot of electronic gadgets and none have ever posed a problem. Why is it that a German premium car maker doesn't seem able to do what a much less expensive French mass producer can ? | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 237 Registered: 5-2009 |
Sometimes this kind of problem with electronics is caused by something like a bad ground or a bad battery or connection at the battery. These can cause electronics to go crazy. | ||
| Bob Reynolds Prolific User Username: bobreynolds Post Number: 106 Registered: 8-2012 |
Electrical interference from such things as the ignition can also be a pain to diagnose and fix. | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 872 Registered: 6-2009 |
I had all kinds of non-gremlin electronic gremlins with my Jag when the battery was getting weak as well. And by "getting weak" I can't even define what that was, because the car started up without a hitch. I was getting all kinds of spurious messages up to and including "gearbox fault" that all mysteriously disappeared as suddenly as they appeared after the battery was replaced. While I agree with both Randy and Bob as to other possible underlying issues, I agree even more with Benoit with regard to the question, "Why is this?" Automotive electronics are far, far, far from their infancy and you'd think that the necessary design steps to prevent things like interference would be "down to a science by now." I am endlessly amazed, though, that OBD systems don't monitor for electrical fluctuation or other conditions outside normal limits. This shouldn't be rocket science to monitor, but most cars don't seem to beyond alternator output. Even that doesn't mean diddly if the battery negative to chassis connection isn't perfect, which I also found out after the battery replacement. Brian | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 238 Registered: 5-2009 |
I agree with Brian: this stuff adds enormous complexity, with of course some added functionality. How will this stuff ever be repaired when it gets old? And electronics age a lot faster than mechanicals. At work we typically see wholesale replacement of engine control panels after 10 years or so, due to a combination of deterioration and obsolesence (i.e. no more parts for the electronics). I think the most admirable item I have seen on a Car recently is the Autovac fuel pump on a 20/25: marvelous simplicity and functionality, plus superb long-term durability. You find one intact, clean it up and replace a very few gaskets and soft parts, and you have full function restored! Now, try that with electronics. | ||
| Bob Reynolds Prolific User Username: bobreynolds Post Number: 108 Registered: 8-2012 |
Stick to good old classic cars without all the electronic gizmos! There's an elegant simplicity and purity behind mechanical and electro-mechanical mechanisms. They can be seen and understood and repaired. All of today's cars will be off the road in 10 years time when a vital chip fails! Of course, manufacturers don't want cars to last for more than about 15 years anyway, so it's not going to worry them. | ||
| Brian Vogel Grand Master Username: guyslp Post Number: 874 Registered: 6-2009 |
It really is enlightening to hear about the experiences of others, especially those that really differ from my own. My general experience has been that most of the electronics in most of the cars I've owned (and I own all of them well past the 10-year-old mark) is that these hold up as well or better than most other components. When I sold my Jag to a friend a few months ago I stepped even further into the "way back machine" and bought a 1989 Cadillac Sedan de Ville with all-electronic dash as my daily driver. The only problem I've had so far, and it just cropped up, is with the "trip computer" part of the fuel data center. I suspect that after 25 years I may have a cracked solder joint or the wiring harness connected to it has worked loose. For the most part, cars (and that's high-end ones, too) are hauled off to the bone yard long before their electronics are anywhere near to their expiration date. I will absolutely agree, though, that when electronics fail there are very, very few people who have even a clue as to how to diagnose and/or fix them. I, like Blanche DuBois, have always depended on the kindness of strangers (and/or friends and acquaintances) when electronic trouble strikes. Brian | ||
| Bob UK Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.76 |
I used to have a bsa 650 A 10. Bike Which had a magneto The bike used to misfire sometimes Many years later I found out that any Lucas magneto has a service life of.7 years My jeep up to now has had a coil and a ecu (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.82 |
Gizmos in cars such as g meters trip elecsttronics seat memory etc toe are frivolous RR electric seats is about as far as I like I tend to agree with Mr Vogel electronics llast well The failure rate follows a bath tub curve More at first then hardly any then more as age creeps up My budget dictates that the car has to be cheap I see loads of modern diesels in my price range all are.100k miles plus It is these cars that are risky that common rail doesn't last (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Patrick Lockyer. Grand Master Username: pat_lockyer Post Number: 887 Registered: 9-2004 |
Nothing wrong with most of the modern common rail diesel engines IMO if they are run on the premium fuel with correct oil and a spirited run once a week or more. EGRs and DPF etc play up due to the above not being adherd to. Nothing for the latest engines to clock up 300000 miles! Thats easy for a RR on LPG. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.89 |
Pat missed the last comment there,300K on lpg. That is why like lpg so much. Every mechanic that checks out my engine says how quiet and smooth it runs. Money bit even better. Today Boris Johnson mayor of London has announced that in six years time £10 charge per day for diesel vehicles in the central zone plus the normal charge. In my opening posting I ignored the nox emissions. Because I had a tip off which sounded wrong. This is another nail in the coffin for diesel which will eventually follow 2 strokes. It is only the tax that makes the two fuels different in price. By increasing tax on diesel the UK government will push the owners back to diesel. Today someone will have brought a petrol car instead of a diesel. The diesel designers are running out of time to get the nox and soot down with filters that need fast driving to clear them. I cannot see any way to fix the emissions. Petrol engines are so clean now which is solution. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.80 |
Correction. The government will increase diesel tax to drive buyers back to petrol Not diesel. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Jan Forrest Grand Master Username: got_one Post Number: 571 Registered: 1-2008 |
In 'the good old days' diesel engines were designed from the ground up to be stronger and longer lasting while little effort was made to make them quiet. This is why they were mostly found in industrial applications such as trucks and buses. Due to the low rpm torque figures they also tended to be more economical and capable of hauling heavier loads regularly. The price differential between DERV and petrol became just one more consideration. As they became more popular, quieter and less smokey they were installed in cars so it was decided to modify existing petrol engines to reduce weight and improve 'user friendliness'. Unfortunately this has reduced longevity significantly so that they rarely last longer than a similar petrol engine from the same manufacturer. The addition of layer upon layer of electronics that most diesels don't really need has only served to exacerbate the situation. As most of us are aware, Crewe even fitted an experimental diesel engine to one Rolls chassis, but decided that it was too noisy and vibratory for the 'average' RR/B owner so the project was quietly dropped and all but disappeared from history. On the other hand LPG was the fuel of choice when bench testing and running in of all engines for decades. With so many energy alternatives available the future of personal automotive transport is yet to be decided. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.73 |
I reckon it will be electric for short stuff only And petrol hybrid for the people who need more range But having said that there is a new sort of battery that has a separate tank full of charged electrolyte. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Jan Forrest Grand Master Username: got_one Post Number: 574 Registered: 1-2008 |
Currently - at least as far as I know - the most flexible 'battery' is the one that is fed pure hydrogen which is then oxidised to produce electrical current. The only pollutant while in service is water. To date they are very expensive and require relatively vast quantities of rare metals. Fortunately most of them can be recovered and recycled which should mean a significant discount off the cost of a replacement. How this might work out in practice is yet to be seen as the technology isn't in mass production yet. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.84 |
I to thought that hydrogen fuel cell was the answer. But to get hyd.is expensive and 70 % effienct using electrolyses. Which I guess is why it didn't happen. My vision was an electric substation and a hydrogen pump. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 1417 Registered: 4-2003 |
Solar photovoltaic research at my alma mater UNSW in Sydney has been achieving significant advances in the efficiency of Silicon based solar panels and it is my belief the future of the fuel cell car will be enhanced as panel efficiency is further improved and cost of manufacture is also further reduced [look at the significantly lower cost of today's more efficient panels against panels available five years ago]. In Australia, the use of solar panels to generate electricity for electrolysis of a water electrolyte to produce Hydrogen for use as a fuel is a "no-brainer". The main cost input will be the cost of the gas compressor and storage tank needed to store and deliver a highly explosive gas; the area around the compressor, tank and delivery point will most-likely be classified as zone 0 or zone 1 because of the risk of leaks causing an explosion. This will necessitate regular inspection and maintenance to reduce the risk of a leak and the cost will have to be added when determining the true price of the fuel. For this reason, home hydrogen generation systems are unlikely except in remote locations where commercial fuel outlets are few and far between and home generation is a necessity. Fortunately, hydrogen is lighter than air and any escaped gas should quickly disperse in open air reducing the chance of an explosive mixture unless a large amount of gas is escaping; flame ignition at the source of the leak is a greater possibility and this could significantly increase the probability of an explosion due to melting of components in the fuel manufacture/storage system if the flame cannot be extinguished or contained quickly. Other countries may find wind/tide/hydro/geothermal renewable energy sources for hydrogen generation viable if solar is not practical. As far as scarce resources go, a fuel cell car will not require expensive catalytic convertors or diesel DPF filters as fitted to current vehicles and these use significant amounts of rare/exotic elements. Once more resources are devoted to improving fuel cell efficiency and reducing the cost of manufacture, fuel cells will become a real alternative to other energy sources. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.82 |
If the energy source is free such as the sun then the efficiency of electrolysis is not an issue So all systems are go. Hydrogen is as safe as petrol and safer than heavier than air lpg and even natural gas. Both petrol and diesel engines run better so the change to electric can be slow old cats will be fine. The electric battery car is straight forward to convert. All the technology is tried and tested. There is no disadvantages I can see and you can still build race cars (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Jan Forrest Grand Master Username: got_one Post Number: 581 Registered: 1-2008 |
Somewhere 'up' in the Orkneys or Shetlands (I forget which) there is an experimental hydrogen production station for local community use. The electrical energy is supplied mostly from wind powered generators and the hydrogen produced is used to power several cars for use on the few miles of roads on the islands. It has been working for several years and still has a few to go before it's handed over, free, to the community. Already they are considering adding other generators such as solar or wave powered, although solar may a bit hit-and-miss considering their climate! Unfortunately the vast majority of the current supply of hydrogen relies on extraction from ... oil! In theory it's more efficient to store the electrical energy directly, but that takes a lot of weight in batteries even with the best technology available. For fixed location use that's fine, but compressed hydrogen can be stored in a much smaller and lighter form making the resulting transport much lighter so that it takes less energy to make it move. Horses for courses. Did you know that NASA, along with a few private entrepreneurs, have been working on a 'rocket' for orbital use that doesn't carry enough 'fuel' to do much more than get it up about a thousand feet? After that a ground based laser is used to vapourize the internals of the rocket motor to produce enough thrust to take into low orbit. After that much smaller and more efficient secondary jets can be used to manouvre it into the required orbit. Who would have thought that the 'electric' orbital rocket could become a reality in our lifetimes? Mind you: 'They' claimed that we would have virtually free electricity produced from hydrogen (deuterium) fusion by the end of the 50's  | ||
| Randy Roberson Prolific User Username: wascator Post Number: 269 Registered: 5-2009 |
Efficiency is an issue, in that to obtain a given amount of energy a more efficient system requires a correspondingly lower capital investment. | ||
| Jan Forrest Grand Master Username: got_one Post Number: 584 Registered: 1-2008 |
The best current technology requires a higher capital investment. But considering the startup costs of a nuclear power station and the willingness of the private sector to build them ... However the decommissioning costs will be paid for from the public purse ie. yours and my taxes. At least in Oz you don't have to worry about that one while the sun still shines! You lucky buggers. | ||
| Bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 94.197.122.74 |
Money is a human construct merely for accounting. The things it will buy like solar hydrogen stations are real. (Message approved by david_gore) |
