Forget about LPG
Jimbo
For a start it costs up to £1000 to get a petrol car converted to LPG, and
new cars which are manufactured to run on LPG still command a premium over
their petrol or diesel counterparts.
Then there's fuel consumption. Consider three cars of the same make and
model;
One runs on petrol, it does about 34mpg, engine output 100bhp at 6000rpm,
78lbft torque at 3200 rpm. It produces about 190g/km of CO2
The second one has been converted to LPG. It now does a measly 26mpg,
performance is reduced to 87bhp and 69lbft and produces just as much CO2
The third one is the turbo-diesel model. This does 51mpg, engine output
90bhp at 4000rpm, 143lbft torque at 2000rpm, and produces only 145g/km of
CO2
Cost alone is enough to favour the diesel. Currently in my area the prices
per litre and gallon (4.5 litres) are as follows:
Petrol: 76.9p £3.46
LPG: 40.9p £1.84
Diesel: 76.4p £3.44
Now lets work out the cost per mile for each of these, by dividing the price
per gallon by the number of miles per gallon
Petrol: 346p / 34 = 10.2p
LPG: 184 / 26 = 7.1p
Diesel: 344 / 51 = 6.7p
Admittedly there's not much difference between the LPG and the diesel, but
if you cover 20k miles or more per year the diesel still gives a measureable
saving over LPG. With the introduction of to CO2 based road tax, you would
also get cheaper road tax with the diesel.
Still not convinced? Well, how about the driving experience? As you can see
the diesel delivers good performance even at low revs making for more
relaxed driving and less gearstick-rowing, and will be much more effective
for towing a trailer or caravan, not to mention the longer life of the
diesel engine and higher resale value of the used vehicle.
And don't forget that the government will certainly increase the tax on LPG
as soon as it starts to become popular, so keep an open mind , don't base
your decicion on fuel type purely on the pump prices.
Happy gas-guzzling!
David Woods
news:9aija8$3gf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> Why bother with LPG, it's a complete waste of money? Get a diesel instead.
Tell you what...
You put the exhaust from your diesel through a hose into your livingroom,
I'll do the same for my LPG car. We'll see who dies from poisoning first.
(hint - SuperSer heaters) :-)
It's cleaner. That's why I bother.
Still, with Dubya in D.C. leading the free world, I'm probably pissing
against the wind. You'd go down well over there, though
Slainte
David
--
David Woods - from the Cogitorium | a...@ntlworld.com
Editor - Apollo Flight Journal | history.nasa.gov/ap15fj
John Fitzgerald
"Jimbo" <ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> wrote in message
news:9aija8$3gf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Then after you've done all that, follow any bus or truck or typical ten year
old diesel along a city street which contains stop/start driving. when your
eyes have stopped streaming and the coughing fit recedes you can have a good
hard think about whether you can live with that.
And if you think converting to lpg costs a grand you aren't trying very
hard.
Mark
initially more expensive to buy ( £1200+)!
MARK
Jimbo <ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> wrote in message
news:9aija8$3gf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Austin Shackles
<ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> enlightened us thusly:
>Why bother with LPG, it's a complete waste of money? Get a diesel instead.
>
>For a start it costs up to £1000 to get a petrol car converted to LPG, and
>new cars which are manufactured to run on LPG still command a premium over
>their petrol or diesel counterparts.
>
>Then there's fuel consumption. Consider three cars of the same make and
>model;
>
>One runs on petrol, it does about 34mpg, engine output 100bhp at 6000rpm,
>78lbft torque at 3200 rpm. It produces about 190g/km of CO2
>The second one has been converted to LPG. It now does a measly 26mpg,
>performance is reduced to 87bhp and 69lbft and produces just as much CO2
>The third one is the turbo-diesel model. This does 51mpg, engine output
>90bhp at 4000rpm, 143lbft torque at 2000rpm, and produces only 145g/km of
>CO2
>
>Cost alone is enough to favour the diesel. Currently in my area the prices
>per litre and gallon (4.5 litres) are as follows:
>Petrol: 76.9p £3.46
>LPG: 40.9p £1.84
>Diesel: 76.4p £3.44
I question your figures. LPG has just gone down thanks to a cut in duty of
3p/litre.
Also, a properly done conversion ought to return figures nearer to the petrol
ones - in particular, you ought to get (based on your petrol figures) about
30 mpg, not 26, using modern fuelling techniques and retuning the engine
properly. turbo-diesel doing 51 mpg is maybe a tad optimistic too - I used
to have a non-turbo 1.9 citroen, that returned about 45 regardless of how
driven. Putting 30 mpg into your calculation below gives you 6.1, and if you
then say that the gas is (say) 38p/l, or 172.5 per gallon, you get 5.75.
>Now lets work out the cost per mile for each of these, by dividing the price
>per gallon by the number of miles per gallon
>Petrol: 346p / 34 = 10.2p
>LPG: 184 / 26 = 7.1p
>Diesel: 344 / 51 = 6.7p
>
>Admittedly there's not much difference between the LPG and the diesel, but
>if you cover 20k miles or more per year the diesel still gives a measureable
>saving over LPG. With the introduction of to CO2 based road tax, you would
>also get cheaper road tax with the diesel.
ah, but the new system charges diesels more than "alternative fuels", so even
if your lpg motor is a band higher, it'll still be about the same (I haven't
actually got the figures to hand). I noticed, when looking at the list, that
most of the "factory" LPG motors seemed to ba a band lower than their petrol
equivalents.
>Still not convinced? Well, how about the driving experience? As you can see
>the diesel delivers good performance even at low revs making for more
>relaxed driving and less gearstick-rowing, and will be much more effective
>for towing a trailer or caravan, not to mention the longer life of the
>diesel engine and higher resale value of the used vehicle.
A turbo diesel doesn't really buzz until the revs are over about 2000, and
then redlines at about 4500. My gas-fuelled ford 2.8 pulls well from about
1800 revs up to a redline of 6000+, although I don't often do this, as it's
not kind to the engine, any more than nailing any engine to the redline is.
It does the equivalent of about 60 to the gallon of petrol or diesel (granted
this is because I've got a bulk gas supply, without that it'd be about 40,
quite similar to the equivalent diesel sierra)
>And don't forget that the government will certainly increase the tax on LPG
>as soon as it starts to become popular, so keep an open mind , don't base
>your decicion on fuel type purely on the pump prices.
the Government at present is committed to not raising the duty on LPG for the
next 4 years, or something, I think this is to do with the final point, that
LPG engines pollute less. Okay, maybe not less CO2, but less of everything
else, like Nitrogen oxides, particulates...
Another point: servicing costs are higher on diesels than gas engines -
assuming you do the servicing properly, that is. I used to do a lot of miles
running a taxi firm, and had a spreadsheet which calculated cost per mile
based on *all* the costs, including tyres, air filter, fuel filter, oil and
oil filter, brake pads etc etc, (and fuel, of course). Diesel servicing cost
quite a bit more - more frequent oil changes, fuel filter changes, etc.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
George Orwell (1903 - 1950) Animal Farm
Tom Anderson
<ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> wrote:
>Cost alone is enough to favour the diesel. Currently in my area the prices
>per litre and gallon (4.5 litres) are as follows:
>Petrol: 76.9p £3.46
>LPG: 40.9p £1.84
>Diesel: 76.4p £3.44
In my local garage LPG is 37.9 per litre but, my installer will sell
it for 33p to those who had their installation done by him.
For those buying a new car, if you buy a "recommended" model isn't
part of the cost paid for by government?
I can't comment on miles per gallon figures as my conversion was done
this week. I did top of the tank and the cost reminded me of the
"good old days" :)
Petrol at 2/3 per gallon for 5 star in 1965 when I srtarted out on the
roads. (You tell the kids today that and they won't believe
you)-sorry Monty Python
Best wishes Tom
Tom Anderson
Leighton Buzzard
BEDS., England
Greg
family for 90k after getting it at 105k and always returning a minimum 55mpg
even when doing 90 - 100mph on long motorway runs, it's a great work horse
cheap and very reliable. Shame about some other montego aspects but we
won't go into that... Also I just got my friend an M plate 405 1.9TD estate,
with air con all electric's pas etc, immaculate and for £1,750. This is a
great car, very quiet and smooth, seriously quick overtaking and 4/5 gear
pull, on a par with my 2.8 sierra and far better than my 2.0 Saab 900
classic, it returns 45mpg driven fairly hard and will tow anything. It
produces no visible smoke and does not smell of anything when idling, runs
very well.
BUT, and this is why I am on the LPG group, 'consider this', my BMW 525e 2.7
6-cylinder, more torque than 2 average 2-litre engines from it's
economy/torque tuned low revving engine and 4-speed auto box. On LPG only
it will do about 30mpg average and should have no drop in power due to the
11:1 compression ratio and the LPG only setup with no airflow meter and
different timing etc, it will be even smoother and cost and equivalent 55mpg
to run, riding in this car with it's effortless torque from idle and 10mpg
equivalent better fuel economy I the 405 and montego don't look so good.
The conversion will not take me long, perhaps 6 months, to pay off, as I
will be doing it myself quite cheaply.
Your post has a point, you have to look at the car, the miles you are going
to do and what sort of car you want. If you want a Range Rover or 5/7
series etc LPG is ideal and it is possible to make them run very well if you
go the whole hog, but most of the people on the list are quite happy with
dual fuel.
"Jimbo" <ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> wrote in message
news:9aija8$3gf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Austin Shackles
<jfsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>"Jimbo" <ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> wrote in message
>news:9aija8$3gf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>Then after you've done all that, follow any bus or truck or typical ten year
>old diesel along a city street which contains stop/start driving. when your
>eyes have stopped streaming and the coughing fit recedes you can have a good
>hard think about whether you can live with that.
that's the principal reason why it's cheap fuel, the government is (unlike
the good ol' US of A...)(bunch of gits) at least making an attempt to do
something about pollution, and encouraging the use of cleaner vehicle fuel is
part of this.
When I worked in an organic vegetable packing place, the only forklifts that
were allowed inside the factory or the loading bay were LPG or electric ones.
The diesel one was only for use outside in the yard (allegedly...didn't stop
us using that and the gas one to load 2 trucks at once, if we had the staff,
and the management had gone home...)
>And if you think converting to lpg costs a grand you aren't trying very
>hard.
not so. Granted, a diy conversion can be done for 5 or 6 hundred, using all
new parts, but to get one fitted, especially if it's a modern multipoint ecu
type, could cost as much as 2000. If you plan on keeping the car for some
time, and do a biggish mileage, then it'll pay for itself in a year or three
anyway.
Converting my 2.8 ford, using a simple single point system, cost 1100 fitted
a bit more than a year ago. I also paid about 100 quid to have hard valve
seats fitted, and I reckon that, at a bit more than 20,000 miles a year, it's
already paid for itself.
good news on the gas cost: bulk price down to 21p per litre in accordance
with duty cut, from 24 inc duty ex vat. so now it's
21+2.1+1.05+0.525...erm...24.675. from 28.2.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)
Austin Shackles
enlightened us thusly:
>BUT, and this is why I am on the LPG group, 'consider this', my BMW 525e 2.7
>6-cylinder, more torque than 2 average 2-litre engines from it's
>economy/torque tuned low revving engine and 4-speed auto box. On LPG only
>it will do about 30mpg average and should have no drop in power due to the
>11:1 compression ratio and the LPG only setup with no airflow meter and
>different timing etc, it will be even smoother and cost and equivalent 55mpg
>to run, riding in this car with it's effortless torque from idle and 10mpg
>equivalent better fuel economy I the 405 and montego don't look so good.
>The conversion will not take me long, perhaps 6 months, to pay off, as I
>will be doing it myself quite cheaply.
As I said, if you got it converted by someone else, it'd pay off in 2 years
max.
do you reckon it's safe to go for a pure LPG car? my experiences recently
lead me to believe that there's a risk of being stranded, and you can't
exactly walk to the garage with a can...
recently, I was over in Eire, and managed all bar for about 5 miles on LPG,
despite it not being very common. Had the garage I called in first not run
out of LPG (doubtless a temporary condition) I'd not have needed petrol at
all, but I'm darned glad I had it, being as they had...
I guess a system which removes the 60-odd litre petrol tank, and makes room
for a bigger gas tank would be an idea: I could, on the sierra estate, for
example, remove the petrol tank (underneath the back floor), cut the spare
wheel well out of the boot and substitute a flat floor, and put several small
cylinders under the back of the car, which might, at a guess, get me as much
as 70 litres usable capacity, or say 60 litres with enough space for a
special small petrol tank (say about 10 litres) for emergencies [1]. If I
got the usable capacity up to 70 litres I guess I'd get a range of about 300
miles, which ought to be enough not to run out anywhere, so long as you plan
everything well enough not to run into problems with lack of 24 hours
supplies - most places other than outlying areas have 24 hour petrol/diesel
somewhere within about 15 miles.
[1] in my case, and on this car, I don't want a tank in the car. If you
don't need the boot space, you can get some pretty huge tanks, with useable
capacities up to 90 litres or more...mind you, a 110-litre tank with 90
litres of gas in it isn't light...although, of course, 80 litres of petrol is
a fair weight too.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
Alphonse Karr (1808 - 1890) Les Guêpes, Jan 1849
John Fitzgerald
"Austin Shackles" <aus...@ddol-las.telinco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bv1rctgsdlrtl04g9...@4ax.com...
Sorry Austin my tone must have misled - I am most definitely a proponent of
LPG and an oponent of diesel
Austin Shackles
<jfsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>Sorry Austin my tone must have misled - I am most definitely a proponent of
>LPG and an oponent of diesel
>
I gathered that, and wasn't disagreeing with you, merely amplifying your
point!
In the "turbos" thread is sense from Chris Bennet about how good a modern gas
setup can be...and how bad a crap installation can be, too...
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put
as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8
Jimbo
news:PJ4z6.4824$bL6.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Tell you what...
>
> You put the exhaust from your diesel through a hose into your livingroom,
> I'll do the same for my LPG car. We'll see who dies from poisoning first.
> (hint - SuperSer heaters) :-)
Cold engines or fully warmed up engines? Diesels produce an almost
immeasurable amount of CO and unburnt hydrocarbons even when they are cold
due to their lean burn principle (always an excess of air) and high pressure
injection (good fuel atomisation). Petrol and LPG engines run with a richer
fuel to air ratio when cold, so the production of CO and HC's is inevitable.
Also, because the diesel will be drawing in more air than is needed for
combustion, I should still be getting some oxygen in my living room :o)
Even with hot engines where your LPG car will be producing almost no
nasties, only relativeley harmless CO2 and water, you would die of oxygen
deprevation. On the other hand, there will still be unused oxygen emitted
from my diesel's exhaust, and still no CO or HC's
> It's cleaner. That's why I bother.
I do agree that LPG is cleaner than diesel once the engine is fully warmed
up, but it still uses fossil fuels at a higher rate than diesel engines as
diesels inherently have higher thermodynamic efficiency due to the higher
compression ratio (21:1 on my escort) compared to the average petrol/LPG
engine at about 10:1. That's why diesel engines take longer to reach
operating temperature than petrol or LPG engines. Less energy is wasted as
heat.
> Still, with Dubya in D.C. leading the free world, I'm probably pissing
> against the wind. You'd go down well over there, though
Diesels don't even get a look-in over there, they are perhaps even less
welcome than LPG cars due to their high efficiency. If the entire USA
changed to diesel cars of equivalent performance to their petrol guzzlers
the oil companies USA turnover would be reduced by about 30%. That's why
petrol is cheap over there and efficient vehicles don't get a chance.
In some countries now you can get biodiesel which can be refined from used
cooking oil or directly from crops such as oil seed rape. That is good
because it is CO2 neutral, all the CO2 your biodiesel powered vehicle
produces is absorbed by the plants which make your next tankful. Ideal?!
Hopefully it will be available here in the future.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't possible to easily make gas from
plants is it?
Cheers,
Jimbo the intrepid
Jimbo
news:MU4z6.1086$x33.4...@news2.cableinet.net...
> Then after you've done all that, follow any bus or truck or typical ten
year
> old diesel along a city street which contains stop/start driving. when
your
> eyes have stopped streaming and the coughing fit recedes you can have a
good
> hard think about whether you can live with that.
Any engine which is worn or improperly tuned will create excessive pollution
regardless whether it's petrol, diesel, LPG or any other fossil fuel.
My escort is properly tuned and maintained by me. It has done over 80k miles
and prodcues no smoke except a short puff on cold startup. I've had someone
follow me to verify that after I adjusted the fuelling.
Unfortunately LPG hasn't been very widespead until recently, so as yet we
haven't seen how clean 10 year old LPG cars are. If you think following a 10
year old diesel makes you choke badly, try following any 10 year old petrol
engined car, which are so worn that they burn oil, belching out blue smoke
and running about twice as rich as it should. Even modern petrol cars when
cold are bad. I frequently ride a bicycle and the fumes from the petrol
engines irritate my respiratory system far more than the diesel.
> And if you think converting to lpg costs a grand you aren't trying very
> hard.
I'm aware that the cost can vary depending on the existing fuel system on
the car, and how many bells and wistles the LPG injection to be fitted has,
this was a rough estimate for converting a modern car with mult-point
injection.
regards,
Jimbo
Jimbo
news:9aio8f$c7t$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> Ahh.........dirty deisels put out nasty particulates and are
> initially more expensive to buy ( £1200+)!
Where did you get that figure from? The worst I've come accross has been
about £600 extra, still cheaper than a pukka LPG conversion. In an
increasing number of cases there is little or no difference these days
between petrol and diesel cars as diesel is slowly becoming accepted as a
cleaner more efficient alternative to petrol, attributable largely to
improved engine and injection system design in recent years.
Paul.
Jimbo
>
> >Still not convinced? Well, how about the driving experience? As you can
see
> >the diesel delivers good performance even at low revs making for more
> >relaxed driving and less gearstick-rowing, and will be much more
effective
> >for towing a trailer or caravan, not to mention the longer life of the
> >diesel engine and higher resale value of the used vehicle.
>
> A turbo diesel doesn't really buzz until the revs are over about 2000, and
> then redlines at about 4500. My gas-fuelled ford 2.8 pulls well from
about
> 1800 revs up to a redline of 6000+, although I don't often do this, as
it's
> not kind to the engine, any more than nailing any engine to the redline
is.
Modern diesels with variable geometry turbochargers reach maximum torque at
as little as 1800rpm, a notable example being VW's TDi PD (115bhp at
4000rpm).
I often use hire cars when on business, these are usually petrol, between
1.6 and 2.0 litre. I find these extremely unpleasent to drive as there is no
power until 4000rpm and I find myself using second to initiate overtaking
and having to change up to 3rd half way through the manouvre, where my
Escort would have done the whole overtake in 4th gear. On motorways I fing I
have to change down to fourth or even third to accellerate quickly where my
Escort would have been quite happy in 5th. The same applies with LPG cars.
This is why I much prefer turbo-diesels.
>
> It does the equivalent of about 60 to the gallon of petrol or diesel
(granted
> this is because I've got a bulk gas supply, without that it'd be about 40,
> quite similar to the equivalent diesel sierra)
>
> >And don't forget that the government will certainly increase the tax on
LPG
> >as soon as it starts to become popular, so keep an open mind , don't base
> >your decicion on fuel type purely on the pump prices.
>
> the Government at present is committed to not raising the duty on LPG for
the
> next 4 years, or something, I think this is to do with the final point,
that
> LPG engines pollute less. Okay, maybe not less CO2, but less of
everything
> else, like Nitrogen oxides, particulates...
This is important, particularly in urban areas, but diesels have also now
progressed to a stage where they are beginning to embarass petrol engines. I
heard a rumour, though I can't verify it's truth , that the government would
tax biodiesel at 25p/litre less than ordinary diesel and petrol once it is
introduced here.
>
> Another point: servicing costs are higher on diesels than gas engines -
> assuming you do the servicing properly, that is. I used to do a lot of
miles
> running a taxi firm, and had a spreadsheet which calculated cost per mile
> based on *all* the costs, including tyres, air filter, fuel filter, oil
and
> oil filter, brake pads etc etc, (and fuel, of course). Diesel servicing
cost
> quite a bit more - more frequent oil changes, fuel filter changes, etc.
Agreed, but with a relatively simple car like my Escort, I can do a lot
myself. The main thing is frequent oil changes because of particulate matter
collecting in the oil of diesel engines.
Cheers
Jimbo.
John Fitzgerald
HDI or volkswagen PD engines can be relatively clean, but older engines with
traditional mechanical injection will always overfuel at full throttle, it's
an inherent problem. I also take your point about the nature of their torque
delivery being very strong in the midrange, but I find the power band very
narrow - 1800-4500 then they hit a brick wall. In my petrol car, 4500 is
right in the sweetspot of the torque and also where the variable valve
timing gives it a kick up the backside. Find me an engine with the
cleanliness of an electric motor, the throttle response of a petrol engine
on twin sidedraught carbs, the timbre of a multi cylinder four stroke the
torque of a diesel (only stretched ) and the economy of a moped and I guess
I'll have found the holy grail.
Still fancy LPG in a 155 bhp spark ignition engine as the best compromise
:-/ )
Phil Martin
cold. Then I can explain to you why you are wrong.news:9al85s$e0l$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Phil Martin
traffic on motorway driving. coupled with lpg at 28p per litre duty paid. If
you can beat that with a diesel... Well you cant!
Couple that with comparable engine life of a diesel due to low carbon / acid
contents of lpg. Also increased exhaust life due to less nasty fumes, longer
plug life, much longer oil change intervals etc.
For short journeys it is ideal as unlike petrol it does NOT require cold
enrichment due to the fuel being a gas. A liquid such as petrol which some
condenses on the bores etc of the engine creating the need for extra fuel
for complete burn. Petrol also has the lovely effect of washing away much
needed oil which causes many petrol cars to smoke slightly when cold and
running rich.
c5d
pollution. But like most people (who probably wouldn't admit it) I am driven
by how much money I can save.
At this present time I save money using LPG!!
About £7-8 per tankful compared to Petrol. I do about 1000 miles per week in
a 2.0L Vectra (factory fit LPG) and notice no difference in performance.
Now maybe in 2 years there will be other fuels, or super high MPG diesels,
Hybrids, etc. But at the moment I am happy to use LPG, save money AND
according to some 'experts' pollute less.
Clive
Austin Shackles
<ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> enlightened us thusly:
>"David Woods" <a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:PJ4z6.4824$bL6.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> Tell you what...
>>
>> You put the exhaust from your diesel through a hose into your livingroom,
>> I'll do the same for my LPG car. We'll see who dies from poisoning first.
>> (hint - SuperSer heaters) :-)
>
>Cold engines or fully warmed up engines? Diesels produce an almost
>immeasurable amount of CO and unburnt hydrocarbons even when they are cold
>due to their lean burn principle (always an excess of air) and high pressure
>injection (good fuel atomisation). Petrol and LPG engines run with a richer
>fuel to air ratio when cold, so the production of CO and HC's is inevitable.
>Also, because the diesel will be drawing in more air than is needed for
>combustion, I should still be getting some oxygen in my living room :o)
>Even with hot engines where your LPG car will be producing almost no
>nasties, only relativeley harmless CO2 and water, you would die of oxygen
>deprevation. On the other hand, there will still be unused oxygen emitted
>from my diesel's exhaust, and still no CO or HC's
what about Nitrogen oxides and particulates, though?
>> It's cleaner. That's why I bother.
>
>I do agree that LPG is cleaner than diesel once the engine is fully warmed
>up, but it still uses fossil fuels at a higher rate than diesel engines as
>diesels inherently have higher thermodynamic efficiency due to the higher
>compression ratio (21:1 on my escort) compared to the average petrol/LPG
>engine at about 10:1. That's why diesel engines take longer to reach
>operating temperature than petrol or LPG engines. Less energy is wasted as
>heat.
some time I'm going to have a go at getting a diesel engine to run on liquid
LPG, when I can find one which it doesn't matter if I break it. I still
haven't heard from anywhere that this is impossible, so the only thing to do
is try it :-)
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
Soon shall thy arm, unconquered steam! afar Drag the slow barge, or
drive the rapid car; Or on wide-waving wings expanded bear the
flying chariot through the field of air.- Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
Austin Shackles
<ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> enlightened us thusly:
>"John Fitzgerald" <jfsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MU4z6.1086$x33.4...@news2.cableinet.net...
>
>Unfortunately LPG hasn't been very widespead until recently, so as yet we
>haven't seen how clean 10 year old LPG cars are. If you think following a 10
>year old diesel makes you choke badly, try following any 10 year old petrol
>engined car, which are so worn that they burn oil, belching out blue smoke
>and running about twice as rich as it should. Even modern petrol cars when
>cold are bad. I frequently ride a bicycle and the fumes from the petrol
>engines irritate my respiratory system far more than the diesel.
ah, well, that's all that smelly sulphur dioxide from the CAT...:-)
but we're not talking petrol emissions, here. Petrol has a lot of highly
toxic chemicals in it, (like Benzene). LPG doesn't. Apart from the smelly
stuff, of course, which doesn't all seem to burn, unfortunately.
My car was more than ten years old when I converted it, and doesn't burn
excessive oil, thanks. Just went easily through the MOT test, unburnt HC way
down - allowed limit is 1200, mine was about 350. It was bad last time, but
then it had worn valve guides, which was a temporary affair until the
original heads had been reworked.
>
>> And if you think converting to lpg costs a grand you aren't trying very
>> hard.
>I'm aware that the cost can vary depending on the existing fuel system on
>the car, and how many bells and wistles the LPG injection to be fitted has,
>this was a rough estimate for converting a modern car with mult-point
>injection.
>
>regards,
>Jimbo
>
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
Austin Shackles
<jfsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>Still fancy LPG in a 155 bhp spark ignition engine as the best compromise
>:-/ )
>
works pretty well in the 2.8 injection ford...only 150 bhp on petrol mind
you. don't know what it does on gas, can't afford the time or money to get
it dyno'd ATM.
Austin Shackles
<ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> enlightened us thusly:
>This is important, particularly in urban areas, but diesels have also now
>progressed to a stage where they are beginning to embarass petrol engines. I
>heard a rumour, though I can't verify it's truth , that the government would
>tax biodiesel at 25p/litre less than ordinary diesel and petrol once it is
>introduced here.
that'd still put it higher than LPG, unless the fuel itself was very cheap.
>> Another point: servicing costs are higher on diesels than gas engines -
>> assuming you do the servicing properly, that is. I used to do a lot of
>miles
>> running a taxi firm, and had a spreadsheet which calculated cost per mile
>> based on *all* the costs, including tyres, air filter, fuel filter, oil
>and
>> oil filter, brake pads etc etc, (and fuel, of course). Diesel servicing
>cost
>> quite a bit more - more frequent oil changes, fuel filter changes, etc.
>
>Agreed, but with a relatively simple car like my Escort, I can do a lot
>myself. The main thing is frequent oil changes because of particulate matter
>collecting in the oil of diesel engines.
well, that adds to your running costs. LPG engines, by contrast, keep their
oil very clean, and some people even extend the oil-change intervals.
modern diesels (and modern engines, come to that) are getting more and more
"dealer only" in the servicing area, by making it ever more difficult to work
on them.
The other major point about LPG which is completely missed by the government
grant scheme is that it allows for dramatic reduction in pollution from
older, large-engined cars of the sort that people tend to preserve and
continue using. I for one have gone this route, and although I spend quite a
bit in spares, it still doesn't cost me anywhere near as much as the
equivalent modern turbo diesel would (e.g. Audi A6 with 2.5 TD say).
also, by not buying a new car, I make a small negative contribution to the
pollution caused by the manufacturing process, which is considerable.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditaitons, VIII.16
Austin Shackles
<ph...@muts.freeserve.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>Couple that with comparable engine life of a diesel due to low carbon / acid
>contents of lpg. Also increased exhaust life due to less nasty fumes, longer
>plug life, much longer oil change intervals etc.
anyone found any tendency for the larger amount of water vapour in the LPG
exhaust to rot exhausts?
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
Chris Bennett
> anyone found any tendency for the larger amount of water vapour in the
> LPG
> exhaust to rot exhausts?
This is counteracted manyfold by the lack of corrosive impurities in the
gasses. Most exhaust failures are due to the stuff left behind after
petrol is burned rotting them from the inside out.
--
Chris Bennett
Chris Bennett
> well, that adds to your running costs. LPG engines, by contrast, keep
> their
> oil very clean, and some people even extend the oil-change intervals.
>
Which means that lots of nasty used engine oil is unleashed into the
ecosystem from diesel cars?
Andrew Heggie
<aus...@ddol-las.telinco.co.uk> wrote:
>
>some time I'm going to have a go at getting a diesel engine to run on liquid
>LPG, when I can find one which it doesn't matter if I break it. I still
>haven't heard from anywhere that this is impossible, so the only thing to do
>is try it :-)
Simon Stirley did post some links on this. If you mean you intend to
inject lpg via the diesel injectors with no other means of ignition
then it will not burn. The spontaneous ignition temperature of lpg is
way above that of diesel (which is why it has a resistance to
detonation/knocking/pinking).
Either you must use a mixer and spark plugs in the place of injectors
(and find a way of varying the mixture intake, either with a throttle
body or variable valve lift/timing) or continue to inject a small
amount of diesel to ignite the lpg:air mix, in which case there is
only a small range of operation in which the mixture will burn.
From what I have seen, the only large advantage of adding
(fumigating?)lpg to a diesel air intake is that it increases power in
a similar fashion to opening the max fuel valve of the injector pump,
but without the black smoke.
AJH
malcolm.scott
"Simon Atkinson" <Si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fob0dt0g2c9grdr6e...@4ax.com...
> Austin Shackles said in <o8kuct8sveksgcoo5...@4ax.com>:
>
> >On or around Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:07:04 +0100, "Jimbo"
> ><ji...@escort-diesel.myisp.net> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> >>This is important, particularly in urban areas, but diesels have also
now
> >>progressed to a stage where they are beginning to embarass petrol
engines. I
> >>heard a rumour, though I can't verify it's truth , that the government
would
> >>tax biodiesel at 25p/litre less than ordinary diesel and petrol once it
is
> >>introduced here.
> >
> >that'd still put it higher than LPG, unless the fuel itself was very
cheap.
>
> of the base fuel is still higher than fossil fuel, this will allow the
> price of Bio-Diesel to drop to near the price of ordinary diesel.
>
> I work for an oil refiner (Veg oils!) - they made some bio-diesel a few
> months ago as a test. Easy enough to make in the refinery - but at that
> time it would have to leave the factory at 13p a litre to compete with
> DERV. Why should the refiners bother when they can make food oils and
> get much more per litre. Also the spec for diesel is much tighter than
> the spec for food oils - so it requires much more care in the making.
> --
> Simon Atkinson http://www.raunds.demon.co.uk/
I notice a lot of people on this group are using high consumption vehicles.
While these may be essential work tools for some many could switch to more
economical cars first and then convert those to LPG making a double saving
for themselves, air quality and fuel depletion. A multiple benefit. For
those driving range rovers with kangaroo bars, well words fail me.
Malcolm
Neil J Cummins
>I notice a lot of people on this group are using high consumption vehicles.
>While these may be essential work tools for some many could switch to more
>economical cars first and then convert those to LPG making a double saving
>for themselves, air quality and fuel depletion. A multiple benefit. For
>those driving range rovers with kangaroo bars, well words fail me.
>Malcolm
>
>
>
>
immensely practical (mind you I live in Cornwall not London).
Practically anything will fit in it, I can do the majority of work on it
myself and it will still be running when the majority of contemporary
cars are on the scrap heap, and it's already 18 years old - this was one
of the reasons behind buying it - I don't intend to buy another car for
at least another 10 years. LPG makes it affordable to run. On the
environmental side, not only is LPG cleaner than petrol, it is, as far
as I am aware, a by-product of the petrol refining business which would
otherwise be burnt off.
--
Neil J Cummins
Austin Shackles
<ch...@poweredbygas.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> well, that adds to your running costs. LPG engines, by contrast, keep
>> their
>> oil very clean, and some people even extend the oil-change intervals.
>>
>
>Which means that lots of nasty used engine oil is unleashed into the
>ecosystem from diesel cars?
eh? doesn't follow from what I said.
but yes, used oil from diesels is particularly obnoxious, being blacker than
most things. I hope that it gets disposed of sensibly. having said that,
all used engine oil is nasty, on account of picking up various poisonous
metals from the engine bearings, except, I suppose, from engines with
roller-bearing crank/big end bearings, but they're pretty few and far
between, except in motorcycles.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write -_
I'm with you there, of course: They use the snaffle and the bit
alright, but where's the bloody horse? - Roy Campbell (1902-1957)
Austin Shackles
<malcol...@ntlworld.com> enlightened us thusly:
some people need a large car. My sierra is only just big enough for what I
do - anything noticeably smaller would be too small. Granted, I could have
something less powerful, but that'd mean getting rid of the current one,
which I like, and inevitably spending more on a replacement.
Not all the environmental cost of cars is in the running, either, a
significant proportion of it (and there have been studies on this, although I
forget where just now) is in the manufacture. If I continue to run an old,
though uneconomical car, then that's one less new car required, somewhere
along the line.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
diy dan
Does it actually speeds up corrosion? I'd think with the lower sulpher
content the exhaust system would last longer.
Is this an observation or are you just assuming more steam eq more
corrosion?
Phil Martin
sulphur etc. I think you read backwards
"diy dan" <diy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3AD190CB...@yahoo.co.uk...
Mark
tew catch hup 'cos I been
deelin with the wet land
Ere wot woz ee on abaht?
we done kneed big motas!
It maybe hint illy ere in norfolk
but it done arf get ruf'n muddy
and yew needs all four weels drivin!
BMust be a bloomin towny
or a vicka preachin on loik thet!
We done moan at them woit van men
nor buz drivas in town wen we
go to markit (hint bin lately)
Oh well takes all sorts I supoze1
--
Mark [0|||||||0] Ruddy gurt Jeep
runnin on lpg in Norfolk UK!
mark.h...@REMOVE.THISbtinternet.com
diy dan <diy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3AD190CB...@yahoo.co.uk...
Austin Shackles
<Ne...@neilkath.freeserve.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
not any more, in fact. It used to be, in the old days. Now it's bottled to
sell - mainly for "normal" bottled gas applications, and for central heating,
and increasingly for vehicular use.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
Bungle
> Where did you get that figure from? The worst I've come accross has been
> about £600 extra,
Not looking very hard then.. let me pluck a few figures out of a price
guide...
Renualt Kangoo RXE
petrol- £9485
diesel- £10500 +£1015 for diesel
Peugeot 406 LX estate
petrol (2.0)- £15.895
Diesel (110 hdi)- £17250 +£1355 for diesel
Vauxhall Astra envoy
petrol- £10580
diesel- £11650 +£1070 for diesel
Golf GTi
petrol (2.0)- £14805
diesel (PD)- £16400 +£1595 for diesel
The only cars I could see in a quick scan were Range Rovers and Discoveries,
no price difference whether V8 or diesel...
lets not forget those loverly cancer creating particles that diesels pump
out... they stink! thankfully they invented the recirculate button for when
your stuck behind one... had a diesel once... never again!
Martin White
My old Range Rover auto only does 15 mpg around town (up and down a lot of
hills) on petrol but does 14 mpg on gas which is max about 10% less mpg on
gas as per petrol.
my local place sells it at 35p litre compared to the cheapest unleaded
around here at 76.9p litre (less than half price running on gas). so it
works out somewhere around 30.5 mpg on gas.
To convert this car to a desiel costs anywhere from £1500 upwards to get
somewhere near equivilant power. And now we're talking a much more
complicated engine (turbos etcs).
1. if you want economy .... get a bike.... it uses no fossel fuels (except
in manufacture) and cost piss all to run.
2. if you want a new car to run for 2-3 years then get rid of it ...... a
deseil MAY work out better / cheaper. cos you dont give a shit about the
polution (either petrol or desiel) and just want the lowest cost for your
miles.
3. what about a zero emission car..... electric etc..... there's no such
thing cos something is generating the electric or producing the fuel cell.
LPG IS the future for someone who has an old petrol car which they wish to
keep for what ever reason.
I've got a range rover and a 1968 land rover (V8 and runnign on LPG too)
which I'm happy with. The RR will probably be sold (or go to the scrap yard
in the sky) some day but the 1968 landrover will go on for ever (well most
of it).
Now you'll get the desiel to give me the same power as the V8 landy, but you
can forget you 50 MPG cos it's got all the areo dynamics of a brick - 30 ish
is all you'l get. now to do this you're talking turbos.....
slap one of these (or a supercharger onto the landy) and I'd still prefer
the V8.:))) BTW the V8 landy regularly does 20-22mpg on petrol.... on gas
about 18-20 so about 40MPG cost wise.... much more thank a turbo desiel...
Ultimately its YOUR PERSONEL CHOICE.
BTW
with all the techno junk on desiels these days (turbos etc) could you put
the same stuff on a small petrol engine and get the same performance, power
and mpg???
question...
how many times have you filled your car up and had desiel all over your feet
because some prick has spilled some on the floor.... dont have that with
petrol or LPG
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.247 / Virus Database: 120 - Release Date: 06/04/2001
Andy Laurence
>haven't seen how clean 10 year old LPG cars are. If you think following a 10
>year old diesel makes you choke badly, try following any 10 year old petrol
>engined car, which are so worn that they burn oil, belching out blue smoke
>and running about twice as rich as it should. Even modern petrol cars when
>cold are bad. I frequently ride a bicycle and the fumes from the petrol
>engines irritate my respiratory system far more than the diesel.
um, bollocks! If you were a cyclist, then you'd know that following a
bus is a helluva lot worse than an average 20 year old car. Having
cycled to work down Oxford Street all last year, past Park Lane (the
most polluted street in the country), I can tell you without a doubt
that a diesel is a lot worse on the lungs than a petrol car. If an
LPG car is better than a petrol, then it must be amazingly better than
a diesel.
As far as LPG goes, it's just a petrol engine using different fuel, so
for a view at a 10 year old LPG car, find a decent 10 year old petrol
motor and that'll be about right!
Andy
Austin Shackles
<an...@no.spam.please.worldofminis.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
anything less than antique is going to have to do an emissions-test MOT,
which picks up on unburnt Hydrocarbons, including engine oil. That's why
sometimes old engines won't pass - any significant amount of oil going
through it is enough to make it fail.
LPG engines are still going to be cleaner than the equivalent petrol,
whatever.
gets back to the thing about "well, it still pollutes". of course it does -
but if it pollutes *less*, then this must be better than polluting more,
even if it only produces (say) 10% less pollution, it's still less.
Granted, using fuel cells running on Hydrogen would pollute less still,
providing you use a non-pollutant energy source to extract the H in the
first place, but that technology isn't yet practical, and without huge
government pressure and financial backing, won't be, in my estimation, for
at least 10 years. If we can make a little less pollution NOW by using LPG,
then we should, also, it stretches the fossil fuel a little further.
--
Austin Shackles. www.telinco.co.uk/anshackles my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'
Mark
No I really have enjoyed this thread but speaking from experience lpg is ok
for me
until someone can offer an economical better alternative.
--
Mark [0|||||||0] Jeeping on lpg in Norfolk UK!
mark.h...@REMOVE.THISbtinternet.com
Austin Shackles <austin....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bb2pdtgbamk3t4of9...@4ax.com...