the_dawggie

Petrol VS Diesel.

They review a number of cars.

Correct comment ...

"So while diesel usually delivers better
outright consumption (and is certainly
the smarter choice for large heavy
4WDs)"

That is the only correct info I could find in their article.

"Petrol, by volume, is one of the most
potent and efficent forms of energy"

Is outright bullshite, it has nowhere near the
energy content of diesel by volume.

John_H

the_dawggie wrote:
>Petrol VS Diesel.
>
>They review a number of cars.
>
>Correct comment ...
>
>"So while diesel usually delivers better
>outright consumption (and is certainly
>the smarter choice for large heavy
>4WDs)"
>
>That is the only correct info I could find in their article.
>
>"Petrol, by volume, is one of the most
>potent and efficent forms of energy"
>
>Is outright bullshite, it has nowhere near the
>energy content of diesel by volume.

Their second statement is correct (the first is questionable if the
consumption is measured by mass... the way it's always done for other
than automotive consumer use).

The energy content of petrol is almost identical to diesel, if not
slightly better... around 42.5 MJ/kg nett.

OTOH black coal shits all over diesel. Some of us even reckon it
smells better. ;-)

--
John H

Jock

"John_H" <john4721@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:dom6b4pi0np4iscv4ep2uc6brlae11a463@4ax.com...
:
:
: OTOH black coal shits all over diesel. Some of us even reckon it
: smells better. ;-)
:
: --
: John H

choof choof drags off the lights? what next!

Noddy

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d8a8506-0ba6-4b29-9f23-45d1a071acd7@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> That is the only correct info I could find in their article.

You mean that's the only part of the article you agreed with.

The rest of the article probably said something like "Diesel is expensive,
the engines are rattly gutless ****s of things that stink to the ****ing
bejesus, and it's nowhere near as inexpensive or enjoyable as running a
petrol engine on lpg", in which case it would *also* be correct but you'd
disagree with that.

Here's a vital factor that you need to understand: No one gives a ******
that you like diesel.

At all.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

veritas

Jock wrote:
> "John_H" <john4721@inbox.com> wrote in message
> news:dom6b4pi0np4iscv4ep2uc6brlae11a463@4ax.com...
> :
> :
> : OTOH black coal shits all over diesel. Some of us even reckon it
> : smells better. ;-)
> :
> : --
> : John H
>
> choof choof drags off the lights? what next!
>
>

Mr Stanley built quite a speed performer - it has been said that no one had
fortitude to hold the throttle open for more that 60 seconds.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

the_dawggie

On Aug 26, 11:38*am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:
> the_dawggie wrote:
> >Petrol VS Diesel.
>
> >They review a number of cars.
>
> >Correct comment ...
>
> >"So while diesel usually delivers better
> >outright consumption (and is certainly
> >the smarter choice for large heavy
> >4WDs)"
>
> >That is the only correct info I could find in their article.
>
> >"Petrol, by volume, is one of the most
> >potent and efficent forms of energy"
>
> >Is outright bullshite, it has nowhere near the
> >energy content of diesel by volume.
>
> Their second statement is correct (the first is questionable if the
> consumption is measured by mass... the way it's always done for other
> than automotive consumer use).
>
> The energy content of petrol is almost identical to diesel, if not
> slightly better... around 42.5 MJ/kg nett.

Nope it's 33 or so/litre. Diesel is higher around 40, Biodiesel can
reach 42/litre.

> OTOH black coal shits all over diesel. *Some of us even reckon it
> smells better. *;-)

Likely does, not sure how good it would be for injectors and fuel
pump though :-)

Athol

the_dawggie <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:38 am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:

>> The energy content of petrol is almost identical to diesel, if not
>> slightly better... around 42.5 MJ/kg nett.

> Nope it's 33 or so/litre. Diesel is higher around 40, Biodiesel can
> reach 42/litre.

I think your eyesight is going. John was talking per kg, not per litre.

From the Bosch Automotive Handbook, 4th edition:
Fuel MJ/kg
regular petrol 42.7
premium petrol 43.5
diesel 42.5
LPG (typical mix) 46.1
propane 46.3
butane 45.6

So, in summary, John is correct in that petrol has a higher energy by
mass than diesel, but LPG is far better than all of them. :-)

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

the_dawggie

On Aug 26, 12:40*pm, Athol <athol_SPIT_S...@idl.net.au> wrote:
> the_dawggie <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 11:38 am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >> The energy content of petrol is almost identical to diesel, if not
> >> slightly better... around 42.5 MJ/kg nett.
> > Nope it's 33 or so/litre. Diesel is higher around 40, Biodiesel can
> > reach 42/litre.
>
> I think your eyesight is going. *John was talking per kg, not per litre..
>
> From the Bosch Automotive Handbook, 4th edition:
> Fuel * * * * * * * *MJ/kg
> regular petrol * * *42.7
> premium petrol * * *43.5
> diesel * * * * * * *42.5
> LPG (typical mix) * 46.1
> propane * * * * * * 46.3
> butane * * * * * * *45.6
>
> So, in summary, John is correct in that petrol has a higher energy by
> mass than diesel, but LPG is far better than all of them. *:-)

Fuel is not sold by a kg though. I can add many kg to my truck,
and it's not going to notice. Fuel or performance wise, so I like
km per litre.
without it is even going to notice.

John_H

the_dawggie wrote:
>On Aug 26, 12:40*pm, Athol <athol_SPIT_S...@idl.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> So, in summary, John is correct in that petrol has a higher energy by
>> mass than diesel, but LPG is far better than all of them. *:-)
>
>Fuel is not sold by a kg though.

Only to the motoring public... most of whom don't even have the brains
to fuel up on a frosty morning like the servos do. ;-)

Nor are they much interested in meaningful objective measurements,
which makes 'em even easier to scam -- think Hiclones, E10, etc. ;-)

Proper engine performance measurements (the ones manufacturers and
engineers use) are always calculated using mass... be it cars, trucks
or aircraft.

Think you'll also find that the bigtime users (shipping, airlines,
etc) do buy their fuel by weight.

--
John H

OzOne

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 1875 -0700 (PDT), the_dawggie
<the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Petrol VS Diesel.
>
>They review a number of cars.
>
>Correct comment ...
>
>"So while diesel usually delivers better
>outright consumption (and is certainly
>the smarter choice for large heavy
>4WDs)"
>
>That is the only correct info I could find in their article.
>
>"Petrol, by volume, is one of the most
>potent and efficent forms of energy"
>
>Is outright bullshite, it has nowhere near the
>energy content of diesel by volume.

Really?

I read that as "ONE OF"...don't you?




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **