Diesel thread

I'll never understand the fascination of engines revving high. My ninja 250 can rev to like 15k rpm but its slow as shit. I'll take a powerful low revving engine then a weak as shit engine that's only better because "muh revs"

justification for muscle cars

It's only worth it for the mileage if you do a lot of highway miles. Driving in the city it doesn't add up. Especially with short trips, an iron block will barely have a chance to get to temperature before you're at you're destination.
Then there's DPF systems which don't get a chance to burn off the carbon unless you drive on the highway

I don't care about revs that much either, but the fact remains power equals torque x rpm and diesels are severely limited in their RPM and hence also power. Yes, they're torquey but they are not very powerful for their displacement

>It's only worth it for the mileage if you do a lot of highway miles. Driving in the city it doesn't add up. Especially with short trips, an iron block will barely have a chance to get to temperature before you're at you're destination.
You are wrong. If you have 2 brand new cars of similar power and weight diesel will consume noticeably less fuel, even if you only drive 5 miles a day.

It might just be noticeable but like I said it doesn't add up. Diesel cars cost more m8 not to mention diesel fuel itself

Heavy lump of iron out front sucks for handling and weight distribution.

Diesel sound is cancerous
Diesel powerband is cancerous
Diesel smell is cancerous
Diesel engine weight is cancerous
Diesel causes cancer faster than petrol
Oh did i mention diesel sound is cancerous?

Because you'll blow what you saved on gas on a fucking dual mass flywheel or on replacing clogged injectors. And your engine won't reach operating temperature in less than 10mins of driving. And the car will feel heavier, especially nose-heavier. And it will sound meh.

Source: I've driven plenty of equivalent gas and diesel sedans.

Diesel makes some sense in people carriers, and is the way to go for trucks and vans. But in a small/medium car, it is inferior to gas engines.

>it will sound meh
youtube.com/watch?v=Qi31hm95x24
KYS

I don't need to tow, and I don't roll coal.

>more torque
Not if the gas engine is the same sieze and manifold pressure.
>more mileage
Depends on your driving profile.
>more reliable
That depends on the manufacturer, there are some gas toyotas with over a million kilometers driving around.
>more masculine engine tone
They sound like shit, also they can´t rev higher than 5000rpm and don´t make much power.

inb4 burger
nope, german

>towing
Towing with electic cars is the best, you don´t need to shift and always have a huge amount of power when needed.

I don't, but there are cases where it's complete garbage.

>powerband
AKA I don't develop enough torque with my petrol so I have to rev a lot.

I work on them for a living and theres still a few reasons why they aren't in every car today
>parts are expensive
>people think they are nosier than gas engine
>people think they still smell like 80s diesels
>heavier
the main reason is because of what people think about them. they are better in almost every other aspect.
they even burn fuel more efficient and cleaner than a gas engine would which is why I'm surprised that the government hasn't hopped onto the idea of having a diesel engine in every vehicle in this day and age of making everything "more green"

> there are some gas toyotas with over a million kilometers driving around
do they have to fill their oil every two days?
if my Toyota even reaches over 100k miles I know I will have to fill the oil every week so it wont burn it all

also I forgot about people who live where it gets cold
>people don't like that they have to put fuel additives so their fuel wont jell up
>harder to get started when cold

I didn´t ask the drivers.
But my Toyota 1KR-FE engine doesn´t need much oil yet.
Maybe you shouldn´t have pushed your engine as hard when it hasn´t reached its operating temperature.

> cleaner than a gas engine
Is that why the exaust threadment systems in diesels are that complex?

Diesels don´t burn clean because of their heterogenic charge.

I can't afford the urea.

Diesel VW
>turn key to 'on'
>wait for glow plugs
>pull cold start timing advance out
>wait for glow plugs
>start engine
>wait for engine to warm up enough to push cold start back in
>drive off
>mash accelerator to floor
>nothing happens except diesel clatter gets a little louder and a black fog appears behind car
>timing belt breaks a mile later
>destroys engine
>Pay $2000 to pass go

Gas Corolla
>turn key past 'on'
>start engine
>be nice to it and wait a few seconds for it to warm up
>drive away
>mash accelerator to floor
>good gas engine noises get louder and you get pushed back in your seat a little
>timing belt breaks a mile later
>slap a new one on and drive it until the wheels fall off 300,000 miles later

Blast it with piss

You seem to have missed the fact many cities have/are thinking of banning diesels from cities entirely because of how toxic the fumes are.

Cool! It sounds like a vapelords Subaru!

Why people get 4 cylinders or diesels in luxury sedans boggles my mind. If you're spending $60k on a luxury car and are too much of a kike to afford the extra $10 a week on gas for a V6 or V8, Why are you buying that vehicle in the first place? Way to archive "ultimate brandwhore look at me" status.

Lol fucking faggot weenie. Just because your shit 250 revs to 15k and makes shit power doesnt mean high revving engine suck. My R6 revs to 16k and hits 70 in first. My CBR929 revs to 11.5k rpm and is also fast. Just cuz ur dumbass bought a 250 dont mean shit. Go buy a faggot harley that revs to 4krpm and still be slower than a 250. Fag lmao

I don't.
1.9TDI for life
youtube.com/watch?v=G04_Si8QG_Q

this is such incredible bullshit, lol

>Diseasel motor explodes

Betcha can't do that petrol faggots!

>more reliable
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

WHAT A FAGGOT

slow

What a crackup
Just killed my 1.9 Golf's sump on the weekend. Starting to really miss the little guy

Diesel Mercedes
>turn key one step
>wait for glow plugs
>start engine
>drive a million kilometers without any issues at all

>Depends on your driving profile.
naw, doesnt

>nope, german
dont you have some bull to prep?

That was back in the early 90s.

>But in a small/medium car, it is inferior to gas engines.
its literally not, retard
its not as fun to drive, but from an objective standpoint they are far, far superior

yeah well my car is from the early 90s
nowadays diesels are shit

I drive a shitty Hyundai Accent 1,5 turbodiesel from 2004 without a particle filter

It goes 50% longer milage than my previous car, yet it costs me 150 dollars extra a year in road tax because it's diesel and because it has no particle filter due to muh emissions.

I save 1500 dollars a year on fuel though, compared to the old car, so there is that.

And it's powerful enough in the low gears to speed away from intersections, but I cannot go from 10 to 100 kilometers/hour in second gear like I could in my old 1,8 125hp wagon.

And i have about 15 kilometers to work, so a modern diesel would take damage from this short trip due to particle filters. This old baby doesn't care about that shit and will probably drive and drive and drive as long as I maintain it.

Diesel is actually LESS economical in the UK unless you do a ridiculous amount of highway miles or low-gear creeping. Diesel fuel is more expensive.

Otherwise, I hate them because of the fucking soot. It gets everywhere. Imagine having a thin layer of carcinogenic black dust on every single surface. That builds up, day after day after day.
I have to keep sweeping it up, or it gets into drifts.

I have a 2006 Silverado 1500 gas with a 5.3L, and a 2006 Silverado 2500 diesel with a 6.6L.

The diesel literally does everything better than the gas does.

>better fuel economy on highway
>usually slightly better fuel economy in city
>much better fuel economy while towing
>can tow waaaay more (and I get it, it's a 1500 vs 2500, but still)
>way fucking faster, loaded or unloaded
>so much torque that at stock I can spin my 33s duratracs like they're bleached slicks
>complete opposite of gutless at any RPM, meanwhile above 2500 RPM the gas engine may as well be a boat anchor
>sounds way fucking cooler, all that turbo hiss
>will likely outlast the gas engine by hundreds of thousands of miles
>turbo brake for towing
>could get EFI live on the diesel and it'll run like a raped ape and get even better fuel economy

Literally the only downsides to it is it's expensive as shit. I'm bout to get the oil changed on it with full Shell Rotella T6 synthetic and it's going to cost me $90 at my buddies shop (I'd do it myself but it's -5 degrees out and I don't need burning hot diesel oil spilling on my hand), meanwhile my gas truck would probably cost ~$25.

Pic related, the 1500.

>I have a 2006 Silverado 1500 gas with a 5.3L, and a 2006 Silverado 2500 diesel with a 6.6L.
>The diesel literally does everything better than the gas does.
So why do you still have the petrol one? Why do you need two of the same vehicle?

And why would a petrol engine which consumes a liquid fuel with a vastly different energy density and who's flame propagation rate is far faster than one consuming DFO be comparable in output if the manifold pressure is the same?

Are you suggesting that a 7.2 litre petrol engine with 30 PSI manifold pressure and the equivalent fuel to match and who's BSFC is far poorer than a DFO plant will output the same net shaft horsepower as a Caterpillar 3126B, a 7.2 litre DFO plant with 30 PSI manifold pressure at rated power? If you are, you very much need to try again.

420 net shaft horsepower from a 7.2 litre petrol engine consuming over two thousand cubic feet per minute of combustion air would require a lambda well into piston in the exhaust pipe lean mixture territory. With a realistic BSFC of .42 and lambda of .82 this plant should be north of a thousand net shaft horsepower. Bit of a difference, yeah?

And before anyone gets upset that ze German was talking torque and not power, please be aware that horsepower is just the output of an algorithm and doesn't really mean too much.

Multiply the power by 5252 and divide by whatever operating speed you wish to see that the torque output is different between the two plants.

Why not keep it? Doesn't cost me anything, I have the space for it, I bought it for $1200 and it's been dead reliable for me, so I'd rather have it as a good backup truck if needed. Likely going to sell it eventually though once I find a decent enough 1st gen D250 Cummins 5 speed.

how's 2nd year engineering going there bud, doing good on finals?

I'd possibly take that as an insult if I hadn't spent twenty two years as a Kalibrierung Techniker.

How's all your DFO knowledge coming from a Cummins the size of a starter motor going, doing good?

I never said they would be nearly the same, I said the gas engine of the same sieze and manifold pressure will have more torque and horsepower than the diesel.

The benifit of the gas engine is the complete combustion, while diesels never use all the oxygen available.
This results in more fuel being able to burn in the gas engine and more torque.
If you would, for whatever reason, run the gas engine as lean as a diesel, you are retarded.

>power is just the output of an algorithm
Power is torque x rpm, you can use different gears to lower the rpm and increase the torque.

Torque alone doesn´t mean shit.

DFO engines can and will use all of the available oxygen at the stoichiometric lambda. The majority of the time however the piston crown temperature is too low to promote total consumption of all DFO and oxygen. If the combustion chamber temperature is sufficient to consume all available DFO and oxygen it is above continuous safe operating temperature. Can't and often don't are two very different things.

And how do you know the petrol engine will develop more torque? Is that true for a 6:1 short stroke side valve F head maxed out at fifty percent VE as it is for a 10:1 pentrood chamber with a VE of greater than eight percent under no pressure? Does the petrol engine use no aftercooler for a toasty charge temperature, or is it ingesting dense ambient air?

A simple answer to a complex question is often incorrect.

Torque (measured) times speed (measured) divided by the constant 5252 which is linked to the belief that 745 Watts is equivalent to the energy exerted by a horse on a grain crushing mill.

Power, a calculated number incorporating speed and is relative means far less shit than a direct measurement of twisting force from a crankshaft who's role is to apply twisting force.

I was talkin about engines as they are normaly are build, 6:1 compression ratios aren´t usual and the bore/stroke ratio doesn´t change the torque much.
Side valved engines are usually used in lawn mowers and stuff, not cars.

My statement was about both engines beeing mostly the same with only different comperssion ratios, pistons, fuel injectiors und ignition system (or lack of one)

Since gearboxes exist you can conver high rpm and low torque to low rpm and high torqe.
The only constant value in this is the power.

Where I live diesel is extremely expensive compared to gasoline- it costs the same as or even more than premium!

Any fuel economy savings are eliminated by the high costs of the fuel itself

6:1 is more common than you think. Rod aspect ratio has more of an effect than you think.

If you mean that two identical engines with an identical swept volume and an identical cylinder head, then the example still can't work. What is ideal for the spark ignition process is vastly different for the compression ignition process.

And again, what is the density of the combustion air? What is the choke limit of the exhaust tract? Is the petrol plant operating at less than 1:1 EMP/IMP? Is the DFO plant operating at greater?

Apples to turnips here.

How can power be a constant if its calculation comprises of two variables and a constant?

Did you read this before clicking post?

modern diesels aren't any more reliable than gas cars.

the old diesels were all mechanical new ones have just as much garbage as gas cars.

autism

Arthritis in the knees and hands and some heart trouble. No autism that's been found so far though that was a rare word when I started out.

Though if it's autism that landed me the gig with MAN I'd say it's a fair price.

Believe and do what you want, not like we are going to meet onboard any time soon.

6:1 compression is insanely low, even my 1983 2-stroke has a higher effective compression ratio.
The bore stroke ratio doesn´t change the torque output of the engine because while decreasing the piston diameter you decrease the force applied to the crankshaft, wich is exactly compensated by the lager lever of the crankshaft.

>What is ideal for the spark ignition process is vastly different for the compression ignition process.
The biggest difference are the compression ratios, bore stroke ratios and the pistons, other than that there are no significant differences affecting the engine power.

>How can power be a constant if its calculation comprises of two variables and a constant?
Both are multiplied with each other, this means you could multiply the rpm with 2 and divide the torque by 2 and still get out the same power.

yeah but ve changes, so it isn't a constant, but it is "constant" in relation to rpm and torque.

>How can power be a constant if its calculation comprises of two variables and a constant?
1. law of thermodynamics

You can convert your power to the same power at differnt rpm.
Not more not less, if you ignore the 1-2% friction losses of two gears for the sake of simplicity.

TL;DR
100Nm @ 9000rpm geared 1:2 and 200Nm @ 4500rpm geared 1:1 are the same.

A 330d is not a 4 cylinder, at least as far as I know.

And they can also get quite fast without having to refuel every 300 km.

youtube.com/watch?v=feyE1fDX_QI

>Not if the gas engine is the same sieze and manifold pressure.
>well if an orange grew on an apple tree and had the characteristics of an apple it would be an apple
in general diesels make more torque, get over it
>Depends on your driving profile.
no it doesn't, cruising in 6th at 2500 burns more than cruising in 6th at 1250
>That depends on the manufacturer, there are some gas toyotas with over a million kilometers driving around.
again, in general diesels are more reliable
>cummins
>detroit
>cat
>paccar
try harder
>They sound like shit, also they can´t rev higher than 5000rpm and don´t make much power.
subjective, can't rev high isn't a bad thing if you're making lots of torque, not lots of power is fine if you make lots of torque..somehow a mere 500hp can pull 65 tons of logs, oh right, i can do that cause i also make 1800 tq

try again you fag, a little more effort this time

they burn the fuel more cleaner than a gas engine does
search it if you don't believe me

>Maybe you shouldn´t have pushed your engine as hard when it hasn´t reached its operating temperature
or maybe Toyota shouldn't have fucked up the piston ring design
google 2azfe

That energy can only be transferred and not created or destroyed? Do you think the plant is ingesting the same amount of chemical potential energy at 9000rpm as it is at 4500? Do you think that the plant somehow broke the second law where entropy in an isolated system only increases?

Not helping you here.

Oh? So a camshaft with high lift early in the cycle, a wide duration with a lobe separation angle of 108 degrees will be ideal for the compression ignition process? Taking into account the slow expansion of gasses found in the diesel process, a high operating speed with a short stroke to ensure that the gas is still expanding when it is discharged from the exhaust valve and wastes valuable heat and pressure will be ideal for the compression ignition process? Shall a circular swirl pattern with focus on aerating the charge upwards towards the spark plug in the combustion chamber aid the compression ignition process which requires the charge to be low in the piston where combustion takes place in a DI process or in a penis shaped swirl on the piston crown in the IDI process? Shall the exhaust tract optimised for scavenging during overlap on the spark ignition process be effective on the compression ignition process who's overlap is but a fraction of that required for SI?

A simple answer to a complex issue is often incorrect.

Mmmm. But if you ask the professionals here, all one must do is use a dividing transmission and a plant outputs the same power from 4500 to 9000. The VE, fuel flow and entropy never change apparently.

If this poster means input and output from a transmission assuming the input is a constant speed, yes. As this thread is yarning about propulsion engines who's speed is variable and as a result the net output is variable, no.

There seems to be little understanding of what is happening in the combustion chamber proportional to load.

Eh.

>pressing buttons in a control room makes me an engineer
try again

>in general diesels make more torque, get over it
a turbo diesel with more displacement tahn a naturaly aspirated engine yes, a naturaly aspirated diesel with tha same sieze as a gas engine no
>no it doesn't, cruising in 6th at 2500 burns more than cruising in 6th at 1250
This depends on the car and driving pofile, just look at the peugeot 107s: spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/36-Peugeot/858-107.html?powerunit=2
A gas powered one with more power than the diesel is the most efficient.
>again, in general diesels are more reliable
The difference between the manufacturers are higher than between the engines.
>subjective
most diesels are nailing...
> can't rev high isn't a bad thing if you're making lots of torque
torque alone doesn´t matter, torque x rpm matters
>not lots of power is fine if you make lots of torque
It is the gearing ratio, not the torque.

>they burn the fuel more cleaner than a gas engine does
>search it if you don't believe me
If they would burn cleaner, why do they produce that much fine dust and NOx?

no.. the engine wont make as much torque at 9 as it does at 4. the efficiency changes, mostly due to piston speed.

> 22 years fitting, calibrating and operating MAN Diesel and Turbo two and four cycle engines for marine propulsion makes me an engineer.

Was that a better try? Does scanning items in the checkout at Walmart make you an economist?

>That energy can only be transferred and not created or destroyed? Do you think the plant is ingesting the same amount of chemical potential energy at 9000rpm as it is at 4500? Do you think that the plant somehow broke the second law where entropy in an isolated system only increases?
I was talking about the energy getting in the gearbox and out of the gearbox, wich is exactly the same.

>no.. the engine wont make as much torque at 9 as it does at 4. the efficiency changes, mostly due to piston speed.
I was talking about 2 differnt engines with the same power but different torque, the output to the wheels would be identical.

If you optimise both for the same rpm range, the gas engine tends to have more power and torque.
If I am wrong show me a naturaly aspirated diesel used in cars producing more than 100Nm/L displacement.

smells like shit
revs like shit
sounds like shit
runs on shit
shit to drive

its just shit man

Then yes, it will be the same minus whatever loss is incurred through the box if the input speed and delivery of torque to the transmission is held constant. The joys of the transmission.

Sure. Nanni 4.220HE which is a Kubota design also used by Kia and Hyundai develops 229NM at 2900 rpm from 2.19 litres.

>If you optimize one engine wrong, the other will be better

This argument is incredibly retarded. Optimizing implies playing to the strengths of a design. Making a gas engine that can't rev is just as idiotic as not tuning a diesel for low end grunt.

Both types of engines have their place. All these dumb shitcunts in this thread need to STFU and appreciate what makes each design great instead of trying to bullshit up a reason that the other shouldn't exist.

While I think of it too, Gardner 6LXB (not 6L3 or 6LB) is rated at 1063Nm shaft from just over ten litres swept displacement, which is eerily similar to an E rated 3208 NA CAT used in Ford and International trucks.

The Nanni 4.220HE has only 152 Nm, according to this source: bootsmarkt.de/index.php/Motoren/Details/2160.html

How peculiar. I have a 4.220HE on the yacht and she is rated at 229Nm at 2900 according to the build plate. Your link also puts peak torque at 3400, again different from the build plate.

Slower response
Super narrow powerband
Slower response
Heavy as fuck
Filthy
Slow as shit

If both engines are designed for the same rpm range the gas engine will normaly outperform the diesel.
Do you have any Source?
Do you have any Source?

>have to keep shifting because my POS tops out at 2k RPM

>a turbo diesel with more displacement tahn a naturaly aspirated engine yes, a naturaly aspirated diesel with tha same sieze as a gas engine no

N/A diesel engines are pointless, diesels benefit immensely from turbocharging and have none of the drawbacks or design considerations that are present in petrol engines. Because knocking isn't an issue, you don't need to fit intercoolers and wastegates and meticulously manage the boost pressure in a diesel engine, so you can essentially run with as much boost as the engine can handle.

They make less CO2 emissions but make up for it with soot, NOx, and sulfur.

Do I have any source? What do you think this is, high school debate club?

Again, believe and do what you wish. Ain't a thing to me.

I'll leave the pro's here to it. Enjoy.

Gas engines benefit from turbos as well, also intercooler are beneficial for diesels too, since they increase their thermal efficiency.
Also the manifold pressure in a diesel is usually limited aswell, if it would increase to much the engine would fail mechanicly.

>I claim something and you have to belive me

>Gas engines benefit from turbos as well

I mean that diesels benefit from them in the sense that there is no reason not to bolt a turbo onto a diesel engine, and none of the limitations or design considerations that you have to take into account when turbocharging a petrol engine are an issue for diesel engines.

>also intercooler are beneficial for diesels too

They're beneficial, but because the charge temperature ultimately doesn't matter, they aren't necessary like they are on petrol engines.

>Also the manifold pressure in a diesel is usually limited aswell, if it would increase to much the engine would fail mechanicly.

Hence why I said "as much boost as the engine can handle". With that said, average unmodified diesel engines run at much higher boost pressures than are possible in petrol engines. Most econobox diesel engines run between 10-20psi.

The problem, you retard, is that no competent engineer would build a diesel for the same rev range as a gas engine for that exact reason. It's why you don't see it happen.

Are you really this dense?

It's about being able to shift and be already at >4k rpm.

Are there any diesel car options left for us burgerlanders?

Diesel Cruze? Haven't seen too many if they even exist.

Recently test drove a Audi A6 3.0 TDI and i really liked it, until i realized ad blue was a thing.

dat diesel V6 tho.