I think this may depend on the condition of the engine. My recently
purchased MB 300D has ~300000 miles on it, and uses less than a quart of
oil/1000 miles. Yet, when I got it, it had never had the valves adjusted
and consequently left a large black cloud of smoke when I accelerated from
a stop, much to the amusement of my kids. Now it gives off no visible
smoke and is much less offensive smelling to boot. I frequently see
vehicles giving off the clouds of pollution from these engines. Now that I
know it is about a hours worth of adjustment to fix I am much less tolerant
of the polluters.
Gregg
Hilary wrote:
This cvan't go unchallenged. Diesels do emit largish particulates but pretty
small numbers of the smaller particulates. Recent research has shown that
uit is these smaller particulates which less healthy. And it is mostly
petrol engined cars that emit those. Diesel engines emit virtually no carbon
monoxide, 30 0.000000e+00ss carbon dioxide than petrol engines and pretty
similar
figures for the other pollutants. My Citroen CX Turbo diesel estate
regularly does 45 miles per British gallon if driven at less than 70mph on
the motorway, can do 120mph if you required (and miles per gallon never
drops below 30 unless you're towing a caravan). And its load capacity is
800kg 3/4 of a ton.And it is ten years old. It is one of the few cars that
you can get a full width roll of studio background paper in. More modern
diesels are even more efficient. Diesels are not a total cure but until
compressed gas is more widely available in England offer the best
combination of low pollution and performance.
Hilary Stone
John Hermanson wrote:
> In the future diesel engines will come under heavier scrutiny as some of
> their emissions are more carcinogenic than dioxin.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|