Diesel Vs petrol engine for UK

[Mousetrail]

Do folks have any thoughts to dd on the pros and cons of the two current fuel options?  I'm particularly interested in any anticipated performance or maintenance issues.

1. Petrol cheaper per litre but lower mpg.
2. Diesel politically out of fashion and subject to higher taxation.
3. Currently UK is still more reliant on Russia for diesel than petrol.
4. 

 

[emax]

I'd prefer the Diesel due to it's motor characteristics and higher MPG. The Diesel price in Germany was traditionally lower than for petrol and will hopefully get back to this level.

However, there are serious reasons against a Diesel. The DPF (Diesel Particle Filter) is a source of problems if you don't drive longer distances regularly. The problem is, that there is an exhaust gas recycling system built in due to environmental regulations.  The "recycled" exhaust gas will more and more clog the DPF which is cyclically cleaned at around 600 °C. This cleaning (kind of a burn-free) is triggered by an electronic controller, preferably after or within a longer drive.

If this can not be carried out for whichever reason over a longer time, the DPF will irreversably get damaged, and you have to replace

• the DPF
• the turbo if you're unlucky (and the b57 has two of them)
• and the so called swirl flaps which control the amount of exhaust gas being recycled at a time.

Search the web for what this all is and does. Replacing these parts costs A LOT (really A LOT!) of money.

The distance for this problem to occur may  be 100000 Km or less ... the mileages vary.

On many BMW Diesels it is possible to disable this system, by either reprogramming the respective controller/s, mechanically closing the tube for the exhaust gas recycling or manipulate the swirl flaps unit. This is illegal, I have heard ;-)

But it protects  your engine and saves a lot of energy for the production of spare parts and preserves your car from burning additional fuel.

I don't know whether the newest engine versions are "improvable" in the way I have described. But I am convinced that there will always be people which find, well, a solution. ;-)

Lacking a DPF, petrols don't have this problem.

 

[Triple Seven]

At least you have a choice!

 

[emax]

BTW: Higher tax rates for Diesel are a problem for trucks and commercial transportation (in Europe). This will hopefully protect the lower Diesel tax for a while.

 

[Bazaboy69]

I'd prefer the Diesel due to it's motor characteristics and higher MPG. The Diesel price in Germany was traditionally lower than for petrol and will hopefully get back to this level.

However, there are serious reasons against a Diesel. The DPF (Diesel Particle Filter) is a source of problems if you don't drive longer distances regularly. The problem is, that there is an exhaust gas recycling system built in due to environmental regulations.  The "recycled" exhaust gas will more and more clog the DPF which is cyclically cleaned at around 600 °C. This cleaning (kind of a burn-free) is triggered by an electronic controller, preferably after or within a longer drive.

If this can not be carried out for whichever reason over a longer time, the DPF will irreversably get damaged, and you have to replace

• the DPF
• the turbo if you're unlucky (and the b57 has two of them)
• and the so called swirl flaps which control the amount of exhaust gas being recycled at a time.

Search the web for what this all is and does. Replacing these parts costs A LOT (really A LOT!) of money.

The distance for this problem to occur may  be 100000 Km or less ... the mileages vary.

On many BMW Diesels it is possible to disable this system, by either reprogramming the respective controller/s, mechanically closing the tube for the exhaust gas recycling or manipulate the swirl flaps unit. This is illegal, I have heard ;-)

But it protects  your engine and saves a lot of energy for the production of spare parts and preserves your car from burning additional fuel.

I don't know whether the newest engine versions are "improvable" in the way I have described. But I am convinced that there will always be people which find, well, a solution. ;-)

Lacking a DPF, petrols don't have this problem.

 

[Bazaboy69]

I think the B57 in the Grenadier only has one turbo, it can have one, two, three or four in the BMW s 
They are also starting to put PPFs into the petrol B58 now too but I'm not sure if they clog up as much as the diesel ones 

 

[dominicperry]

I think the B57 in the Grenadier only has one turbo, it can have one, two, three or four in the BMW s 
They are also starting to put PPFs into the petrol B58 now too but I'm not sure if they clog up as much as the diesel ones 

Twin turbo in the diesel, single turbo in the petrol. As per the configurator currently available.

 

[emax]

> They are also starting to put PPFs into the petrol B58 now

I wonder what this is for? The DPF is supposed to reduce/eliminate the soot which Diesels put out. Petrols have a catalyzer to clean the exhaust, and basically no soot problem at all.

And the (very few) particles emitted by Otto-engines are only a 3-minutes matter upon a cold start.

A "PPF" is a ridiculous waste of precious metals and energy - and doesn't make sense to me. Except to erect another barrier against combustion engines.


BTW: The "DPF" abbreviation relates to "Diesel" as a technology. Since the petrol technology is called "Otto Motor", the filter in petrol cars is often abbreviated as "OPF" - which I consider correct.  Just FYI, no nitpicking intended. ;-)

 

[dominicperry]

> They are also starting to put PPFs into the petrol B58 now

I wonder what this is for? The DPF is supposed to reduce/eliminate the soot which Diesels put out. Petrols have a catalyzer to clean the exhaust, and basically no soot problem at all.

And the (very few) particles emitted by Otto-engines are only a 3-minutes matter upon a cold start.

A "PPF" is a ridiculous waste of precious metals and energy - and doesn't make sense to me. Except to erect another barrier against combustion engines.


BTW: The "DPF" abbreviation relates to "Diesel" as a technology. Since the petrol technology is called "Otto Motor", the filter in petrol cars is often abbreviated as "OPF" - which I consider correct.  Just FYI, no nitpicking intended. ;-)

There's plenty of information about PPFs on the internet. Both DPFs and PPFs are intended to improve local polution which is deleterious to health. Of course, if you don't care about that you can hide behind some persecution complex about people erecting barriers to combustion engines. 

 

[Bazaboy69]

https://www.whatcar.com/advice/buying/what-is-a-petrol-particulate-filter-and-how-does-it-work/n19953 seems they don't clog up nearly as much as the diesel ones but they are calling them PPFs

 

[Bazaboy69]

I only learned about PPFs when I had a BMW M140i with the B58 engine, mines didn't have one but you can definitely tell the difference in the sound of them, there was a few videos online testing the performance differences between RS3s with and without PPFs (there was basically none) but they are definitely a common thing these days 

 

[Bazaboy69]

And to answer the original question, I've had the B58 petrol engine with the ZF auto in the M140i that I mentioned and I've had the diesel one with a single turbo (that was manual). Firstly I loved the ZF gearbox, I think in a sports car I would still pick a manual but I honestly don't think there is a better auto box on the market, it really is a good reliable gearbox. The petrol engine is also a very good engine. It's a closed deck engine so very very strong and has been pushed north of 1000hp in the BMW's and the supra. But saying that I absolutely loved the diesel one I had, it genuinely didn't seem like a normal diesel was really good to drive being smooth and with plenty torque and power. Personally if I was to take a guess I don't think the petrol one will manage more than 25mpg in real life in a grenadier but I think the diesel will manage 35mpg easily. I think that's more than enough more MPG to make up for the extra cost of diesel. But hey I was wrong about the turbos in my first post 

 

[emax]

[QUOTE username=Dominic Perry  dominicperry userid=8372267 postid=1332333474]

There's plenty of information about PPFs on the internet. Both DPFs and PPFs are intended to improve local polution which is deleterious to health.
[/quote]
Yes, I know.
I wonder anyway as the difference for cars with a catalysator hardly justifies the effort.

[QUOTE username=Dominic Perry  dominicperry userid=8372267 postid=1332333474]
Of course, if you don't care about that you can hide behind some persecution complex about people erecting barriers to combustion engines. [/QUOTE]
It's ok if you see things differently.

But it is not ok that you imply that I have a 'complex' of whatsoever or that I don't care about health of whoever. You know nothing about me and my background, so I ask myself what's driving you to be offending. 

I do, however, not expect an answer.


As to the barriers.

More on this.

 

[DaveB]

I asked the local distributor why BMW lists the B57 twin turbo at 680NM of torque but INEOS are quoting only 550NM and he said they think it is setup to allow for a wide range of poor quality fuels used in different parts of the world. 
Hopefully it can be adjusted locally to suit the mostly good quality fuel we have in Australia
I would rather have those 130NM back. 

 

[paulN186]

I quickly ran the numbers on 25 vs 35 mpg over 10k miles and its' about £800 a year extra for the petrol which isn't too bad to have the extra power and better noise/ less potential issues but then again the deasil is a mighty fine engine also. What is interesting it how detuned it is to accommodate different fuels around the world. the B58 engine is a solid 400 bhp with a map for 99 ron fuel! now that would be a beast! lol  

And to answer the original question, I've had the B58 petrol engine with the ZF auto in the M140i that I mentioned and I've had the diesel one with a single turbo (that was manual). Firstly I loved the ZF gearbox, I think in a sports car I would still pick a manual but I honestly don't think there is a better auto box on the market, it really is a good reliable gearbox. The petrol engine is also a very good engine. It's a closed deck engine so very very strong and has been pushed north of 1000hp in the BMW's and the supra. But saying that I absolutely loved the diesel one I had, it genuinely didn't seem like a normal diesel was really good to drive being smooth and with plenty torque and power. Personally if I was to take a guess I don't think the petrol one will manage more than 25mpg in real life in a grenadier but I think the diesel will manage 35mpg easily. I think that's more than enough more MPG to make up for the extra cost of diesel. But hey I was wrong about the turbos in my first post 

 

[DaveB]

When talking MPG we need to be clear if we are quoting US MPG or Imperial MPG.
Even though the Grenadier weighs 2.5 metric tons with an 8 speed gearbox and in Diesel it should get reasonable fuel consumption. 
The Diesel engine should get 10-18 Litres per 100kms 
Gallons however are different in the US compared to the rest of the world. 
So
10 L/100KM is 23.5 US MPG & 28.2 Imperial MPG 
18 L/100Km is 13 US MPG & 15.7 Imperial MPG 

In Australia the range is very important as we have to travel long distances 

Sitting on a motorway at 100kmh or 60 MPH it should get 12 L/100KM in 8th gear 
with a 69 litre tank that would be around 690kms range which is not very good. 

I haven't done any figures on the petrol version as I won't be getting one. 

I don't pay for fuel so the price doesn't come into it for me. 

 

[paulN186]

good point i am talking UK MPG, i imagine the tank will be bigger than 69 litre, would expect 80-90 litre? 

Cheers Paul 

When talking MPG we need to be clear if we are quoting US MPG or Imperial MPG.
Even though the Grenadier weighs 2.5 metric tons with an 8 speed gearbox and in Diesel it should get reasonable fuel consumption. 
The Diesel engine should get 10-18 Litres per 100kms 
Gallons however are different in the US compared to the rest of the world. 
So
10 L/100KM is 23.5 US MPG & 28.2 Imperial MPG 
18 L/100Km is 13 US MPG & 15.7 Imperial MPG 

In Australia the range is very important as we have to travel long distances 

Sitting on a motorway at 100kmh or 60 MPH it should get 12 L/100KM in 8th gear 
with a 69 litre tank that would be around 690kms range which is not very good. 

I haven't done any figures on the petrol version as I won't be getting one. 

I don't pay for fuel so the price doesn't come into it for me. 

 

[DaveB]

good point i am talking UK MPG, i imagine the tank will be bigger than 69 litre, would expect 80-90 litre? 

Cheers Paul 

Hi
My current vehicle has 69 litres  which I was stupidly thinking of.
I think you are correct and the Grenadier has 90 litres

 

[d1rty]

I asked about the 90 liter tank at my viewing and the Ineos rep said, maybe a bit larger for production.  This was in North America, so presumably this is enabled for petrol engines by the missing DEF tank.  Just wanted to add that tidbit.

 

[DaveB]

It really needs 120-130 litres in the diesel for Australia. 
My first car was a Mini Cooper back in 1980 and it had dual fuel tanks 
Maybe Grenadier could come with a dual tank option.