Josh writes: Volkswagen has been found cheating on US emissions tests, but with the Green Blob fiddling everything from Renewables to Global Temperatures, it’s no wonder they thought this was ok. Some like Stephen Glover at the UK’s Daily Mail blame green zealots directly.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
LOL
We do what we can to fullfill regulations and expectations.
climate-change sceptic such as the former
===========================
even the UK’s Daily Mail article has a freudian agenda
VW tried to optimise the fuel economy hence CO2 output.
What must be done, must be done, to save the planet. If that included cheating on NOx measurements, then so be it…
They didn’t actually cheat on the measurement. It was valid and passed as required.
What they did do was shut down some of the smog control process when not being tested.
Diesels use urea injection to control NOX and partly this was done to reduce how often folks had to fill the urea tank (cost and annoyance factors).
A simple software update will fix it, but then sales of urea are going to rise… I expect a strong black market in software archive copies…
If a simple software update will fix it, why did they cheat in the first place, I don’t understand it?
I’m sure that performance and mpg both improved when the pollution control devices were shut off, allowing them to pass the fleet mpg minimums in the US. Owners are not going to be happy when their gas mileage goes down after the software fix, and the deisel doesn’t run as smoothly.
Actually, as a non-owner I find this whole thing amusing; a fraudulant solution to a fraudulant problem.
What they really need to do is to add a button next to the gear changer:
– Californian eco-freak mode
– Drive-able mode
Diesels use urea injection to control NOX
=====================
pissing on the peasants as they drive by.
When distant regimes unanswerable to their subjects impose idiotic regulations to “solve” non-existent problems, the downtrodden peasants will find ways around the lunacy.
The problem, of course, is that VW’s engines under question don’t have urea tanks. It’s going to take more than an EPROM flash to fix this.
They are now aiming for the entire car industry according to SKY news. I think UK, USA, Australia, Europe ect… have completely lost it. Your governments are destroying your countries for AGW
It’s possible to look at it in a different way Eliza (your closing sentence that is). This is a massively sophisticated stealth tax against car purchasers (not manufacturers), with the “taxation” being used to prop up certain middle-class employment numbers, and lower the numbers of cars on roads. The carmakers will still be profitable after passing on the “stealth tax” for new development of engine technology to consumers who figure out the system and stay rich.
The upshot is that what they’re saying, as usual, is f*ck you poor people, walk, ride bikes or take public transportation, like we don’t. We do love you though, so please continue to vote for us, just don’t expect to ever own a car.
… yeah, maybe you are right.
There are two problems with automobiles:
1. People insist on buying new ones.
2. Insurance costs.
On #1:
The `stealth tax` will only affect the purchasers of new vehicles, which only affects the relatively wealthy. The poor will do what the poor have always done, which is, fix the car themselves.
On #2:
There is no solution, and in general lifetime insurance costs are greater than purchase costs for a given `slightly used` low or mid-grade model car.
I’m certainly not indicating that stricter emissions regulation does not negatively affect the automobile industry or does not drive purchaser prices higher. I’m simply arguing that `the poor` will most likely not be affected that much by the regulations.
I grew up fixing cars with my father, and I fix them still… and it was a great father-son bonding experience. And one that I will pass on to the next generation as well.
My grandparents lived through the 1930s Depression. A favorite phrase was, “What Great Depression??” … they were poor and Middle American farmers. And the poor economy at the time did not reach them, as they had not too far to fall.
The moral:
Poor people do not buy new cars. At least that’s been my experience.
The more important question is related to the diminishing returns regarding emissions regulation. It’s likely that present day internal combustion engines are near the peak of possible `cleanliness`, and further regulation will provide no benefit only increased manufacturing costs. However, I firmly reject this particular issue as a class warfare issue.
+97
Yes but we are saving the polar bears. Maybe.
I like Polar Bears, but there again they can be a bit chewy
But I thought we were saving the Mammoths! I stand corrected. We were going to save the Mammoths but then we found they were already gone.
Australia was heading in the direction with Abbott. Unfortunately, we now have a CAGW believer, Turnbull, in the driving seat. Australia, with a struggling economy and record house prices, is now doomed and that will be clear in Paris.
Big Green; Happily killing people “for the planet”. What a legacy these monsters will leave.
An N2 tax?
My first reaction is to find the VW thing very funny indeed, but I guess there is a serious side to this for lots of people.
What is intriguing me is the following
(1) If passing the California Nox tests requires a seriously different engine management profile to that necessary to provide acceptable performance and fuel economy on the road, then re-chipping to pass the test now it’s all out in the open is going to make a lot of VW cars much less satisfactory to own and drive. If the situation in Europe is anything similar (the tests are different, but diesel penetration of the market is 50%+ rather than 3% as in Cal) then it will be a huge disaster.
(2)The same dilemma of test v. road performance faces all manufacturers and I very much doubt that engine management systems VW has are that much different to other makers, combustion chemistry being what it is. I also doubt that VW’s competitors didn’t know what was being done (their R and D depts., and their commercial intelligence must be very deficient if they didn’t). So the question is, why didn’t they blow the whistle? And how are other marques achieving the test and road performance results needed if they aren’t following a similar strategy?
So far as I know only BMW has flatly denied such a strategy and their share price is still way down.
This is only incidentally related to climate change, but it’s a heck of an interesting story, isn’t it?
VW’s engines are diesels; other makers’ (in the US) aren’t.
I find it amusing, because when the stricter emissions regulations were announced in the US a couple years ago, and GM and co were grumbling about how they would have to include expensive urea injection systems to pass, VW was pointed to as an example that meeting the regulations was possible without the extra emissions equipment. We now know that was a sham.
how are other marques achieving the test and road performance results needed
===============
vdub’s aren’t using “blutech”. the other manufacturers inject piss into the exhaust.
they were going to call it golden tech, but though that might be too obvious, so they called it blue to match the blue toilet bowl additive people use in their homes.
I hope they will soon have an “apology sale” so I can pick up a new Golf GTI.
+1 Do they do a diesel GTI? In the States, I think maybe not.
I’m expecting they’ll have a sale on their gas cars too. VW diesels smell funny when it’s really cold out, and I’m in Minnesota, so no diesels for me.
Yes they do have one in the States. I know a person who has one and she is hopping mad about it. Maybe a good opportunity to pick one up for cheap?
oeman50, you’re talking about the TDI, not the GTI. If I lived in a warmer area, I would definitely be looking to pick up a nice TDI from someone who’s “hopping mad”. At a discount of course.
But you won’t be able to drive it long, because it will fail the next emissions test.
Except the emissions tests are non existent in most states!
The Diesel GTI is the GTD. In Europe we have, and it was planned for the US in 2016. But maybe not now. after the smokeswagen affair…
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-volkswagen-golf-gtd-sportwagen-first-drive-review
“This is only incidentally related to climate change, but it’s a heck of an interesting story, isn’t it?”
It’s probably more related to phony climate change (please use the correct terminology) than you think. Many of the buyers of these cars were driven by thinking they were saving the planet through extended mileage. The truth is going to hurt.
Disclaimer: I recently bought a VW GTI for my son (and me a bit). Great car.
GTI isn’t a diesel, so you’ll be okay. Unless the same philosophy of ‘test smart’ chipping has applied to petrol engines as well. That’s a thought. Petrol doesn’t have so much of a Nox problem, as I understand it, but there are other reasons to ‘fix’ tests…
That’s correct. Octane numbers for gasoline (US language) and cetane numbers for diesel go in opposite directions. The higher cetane number regulations were brought in to avoid soot/particulates in diesel exhausts. What could go wrong ?
Google Youtube Keystone Cops ??
I own three vehicles. I like to think my old gassers are saving the planet. They all have 0% pollution—-when the ignition is off, which is 95% of the time. I would dare say my estimated 700K miles over 50 years has contributed less than one 777 flight to Paris. Why do I have three vehicles? Two as daily drivers and one for when AGW dumps a foot of snow on me. To paraphrase Charlton Heston: They will pry my steering wheel from my cold dead fingers.
The VW Jetta is/was also available in diesel.
It’s very related to climate change because in VW’s home market, the EU, emissions limits are much stricter for CO2, than actual pollutants like NOx and SOx, as compared to the US. So when VW wanted to export their diesels which met EU emissions regulations to the US, they had to cheat in order to pass without having to completely redesign the engines.
So, now in order not to emit the true contaminant NO2, they are going to have to reduce mileage and emit more CO2. Some heads are going to explode.
Yep, although given it’s the EPA, the percentage call would be that their NOx max levels are a complete fraud too. The further percentage call for me is that I can’t even be bothered to even research it. If it’s the EPA, it’s probably 97% certain that it’s fraudulent science.
People dropping dead in the street from NOx poisoning, no doubt, especially climate refugees ?
Bingo. I’d be a lot more inclined to care if I thought that the required NO2 emissions were actually set with scientific support instead of pulled out of some green zealot’s backside at the EPA.
Anyone remember the hilariously offensive advert for the VW Diesel Scirocco Top Gear did? It showed people running in the streets, panicked, and then said “VW Sciroco Diesel, Germany to Poland in one tank!”
99 and 44/100ths fradulent
NOx is only a problem in select areas like Los Angeles, Chicago and the Northwest corridor, and even then the problem is more intense on the “Ozone Action Days”. Volkswagen has aptly demonstrated that they have the ability to not only optimize their engines fuel consumption/CO2 as well as optimise for NOx emissions and even the ability to switch between the two modes, it shouldn’t be difficult to program the computers to change modes based on GPS info and or weather alert data to get the low NOx emissions where needed and good fuel mileage where it’s not.
In the UK it is directly linked the ‘climate change’ scam as the Labour government encouraged diesels because it helped meet targets set by Kyoto and our government in Brussels to reduce CO2. Now they talk of putting higher taxes on diesels that are already in use, banning them from cities etc. Whenever governments meddle they usually mess up.
My decision to drive a diesel engine Ford has ZERO to do with climate scams. Its purely economic. The 1.6 diesel gives real world figures of 56 mpg versus 40 mpg from the petrol version
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/b-max-2011
If your decision was truly “purely economic” and you really just wanted to have that little Ford, you wouldn’t have picked your model. Yes, of the two models you describe (56 vs 40) you would save a tad over £700 over three years. And yet if you chose this model ( http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/ford/b-max-mpv/1-4-90-studio-5dr/summary/64890 ) you would save over £2000 over three years…..over the 56 mpg model that is.
That is “purely economic” according to “what car” figures.
Do you think there will be some graf tweaking in the near future
This story is being told in different ways in different news sources. Some are taking delight in being confirmed in their view that business always cheats (i.e. capitalists are evil), which plays well with the CAGW crowd. Horse manure. Others are saying that this is an example of the difficult tradeoffs being required to “save the planet” being abused and frustrated, as the increased NOx emissions are “causing a health crisis in Europe’s cities”. Even more horse manure. (According to the European Environment Agency’s 2014 report on Air Quality in Europe, NOx emissions declined by 30% from 2003 to 2012.) The business pages probably are closer to being right. They report that it was a seemingly clever but ultimately foolish effort to gain a competitive advantage that, now discovered, could seriously harm the company. True. Only a tiny few are noting that the regulatory bodies in Europe and North America share a significant part of the blame for letting this scam go on so long, because they must not have checked the accuracy of their own testing. Bingo!
No getout for VW here. We should all try to obey the law, even if we object to the rationale behind it. If we don’t, we can’t really complain when others disobey or disrespect the laws we do agree with. The trouble is, for that to work the law has to command near-universal respect, and that is increasingly not the case, with so much legislation (e.g. by EPA in USA and by various technical arms of the European Commission over this side) being issued by fiat from bodies with little or no democratic control or review and with partisan and political aim. In UK we may get the chance to escape from the EU (pray we take it!) but how you in USA can escape the EPA might be even more difficult!
Have VW actually broken a law? They admit to cheating, agreed. If the law said they have to pass a test to be legal – and they did – then what is illegal about it?
I’m waiting for the revelation that there is no emission requirements on the road, only to meet specific testing criteria.
I think that about sums up the situation. In the old days before digital engine controls and crazy 6+ exhaust system devices, some of which need to be periodically regenerated, one relatively simple dynamic test was enough to drive lower emissions to help fix city smog. Now, it’s WAY more complex, especially for Diesel cars and light trucks. The laws as written are now too simple.
Is your Golf a little below Par? Is the story on your Polo a little too holy? Emissions testing? You’ve just got to get Pas..sat… 🙂
ha ha very well written
Does anyone have a link to what tests VW was trying to circumvent? Specifically what levels?
Also, anyone have any links to why NO2 is a pollutant – at what levels? Is it lighter than air or heavier?
Just trying to be more educated.
I would be interested in the test criteria myself. Perhaps some impossibly low number completely divorced from reality?
Fast Chemistry:
NO2 + 02 –> NO + O3 (ozone)
NO2+ H20 –> HNO3 (nitric acid) (+ H continuing in a reaction chain)
There is a whole huge chemistry on NOx compounds.
A gasoline engine has the problem that the air-fuel mixture has to be closely controlled. You live and die by the stoichiometric ratio and that is affected by everything.
The problem with a diesel engine is to squirt some fuel into the cylinder at the right time. More fuel, up to a point, delivers more power. It sounds like a much simpler problem than for gasoline. What am I missing here?
You need to worry about the fuel-air mix with a diesel as well. A diesel has a much greater compression ratio than a gasoline engine. The higher pressure causes greater temperatures and both promote the formation of NOx. Running rich cools things down some and lessens NOx formation at the expense of power and economy. Running lean restores power, economy and NOx production. Running too lean gets things too hot and valves burn, and even pistons can get holes burnt through them.
NOx emission standards have driven Diesel CRs lower (down to ~16) though turbocharging offsets the CR drop somewhat.
Diesels operate at higher temperatures, and so are twice as efficient for the same fuel as gasoline engines (the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Hence diesels are the engine of choice for ships, trains (diesel engines drive generators that drive electric motors), and long-haul trucks. But at higher temperatures there are more NOx emissions, due to shifting the equilibrium N2 + O2 + heat = 2NO to the right (LeChatelier’s Principle). Gasoline engines (and jet engines) also produce this NO “naturally”. BTW, the “fresh” smell after a thunderstorm is due to trace amounts of NOx and O3 (ozone) produced during lightning strikes. The high voltage, high current bolts generate extremely high temperatures that break apart N2 and O2 molecules, forming highly reactive N and O atoms that combine with regular air molecules to form noxious compounds “naturally”. Note that legislators have not yet mandated lightning controls.
What you are missing is a knowledge of the evolution of diesel engines. 40 years ago diesels worked exactly as you say which is why buses and trucks pulled away leaving a cloud of black smoke behind them. This was a bad thing for the environment and for your pocket, that smoke is unburnt fuel and is costing you money.
Modern diesels have computerized engine management systems linked to piezo electric injectors that squirt only as much fuel as is needed into the combustion chamber. This is very important if you want your vehicles to work economically and pass emission control tests.
Higher compression ratios for compression ignition engines means higher temperatures are possible; higher temps = greater Carnot cycle efficiency; higher temps (at power) means more nitrogen oxides (NOx) formed. Diesels do, gassers don’t (very much).
Diesels are also easily turbocharged because only air is compressed. Increasing the manifold pressure by 15 psig effectively doubles the displacement. BUT, the peak combustion temps go WAY up and a whole family of nitrogen oxide byproducts form.
CARB (and their lackys, the EPA) have edicted that NOx compounds must be reduced.
Tens of thousands of EPA employees whose jobs are to insure that vehicle emissions of toxic gasses and particulate do not exceed what is stipulated by federal Statutes …. but they are too damn busy writing new restrictions, laws and statutes, …. obsessed with shutting down coal fired power generators …… and forcing “green” energy usage down the throats of the populace.
It’s hard to respect regulatory imposition when it is patently bullcrap.
I own a vehicle containing a Diesel ECOTECH engine manufactured in 2000 which gives me an impressive mpg, especially as I live in the country and hence drive mostly at a constant speed in a straight line.
Here in the UK, we have a system by which the road tax for vehicles is set up as a series of thirteen “bands” of road tax for vehicles in order to incentivize choosing a high mpg (low grams of CO2/km) vehicle.
Under this system my vehicle should seemingly qualify for a discount in road tax.
BUT, included in the system is the bizarre requirement that my vehicle must be first registered after March 2001. No explanation is given.
Hence, as a buyer of a high mpg diesel vehicle which perfectly fits my needs I am charged the old HIGH rate of £225 per year for road tax. I only drive about 4000 miles per year so my contribution to pollutant levels and CO2 via this car is relatively very small.
My mother drives a Prius about 20,000 miles per year and therefore create far more pollution than I do. (Actually her mpg and mine do not significantly differ. So she produces approx 4 times the pollutants each year.) BUT – she pays NO road tax at all.
Why am I being penalized for the fact that my car left the factory several months too early to qualify for the discount.
On top of this observation, we already pay a tax which is precisely commensurate with the quantity of CO2 produced by our engines – because here in the UK we pay a high duty on every litre of fuel bought for road use. And since every litre of fuel completely combusted produces the same amount of CO2. (There are differences depending on whether the fuel is petrol or diesel)
So the financial incentive for not excessively wasting expensive and highly taxed fuel already exists.
And a punitive tax revenue from fuel guzzlers already existed.
Hence, none of this silliness was necessary at all.
Therefore, to any reasonable person the tax band system is both unfair and unreasonable and unnecessary.
Once you have perceived that fact then it is hard to respect the regulatory imposition.
If I could find a way to break the rules in order to make the situation for myself more fair and reasonable, then I would be very happy to break the rules.
That’s the trouble with bullshit.
People struggle to take it seriously.
This story is emblematic of why people become Libertarians. At best, The State is an incompetent mess.
indefatigablefrog September 25, 2015 at 5:36 am
…. but, but, but, as a UK resident aren’t you just supposed to say “mustn’t grumble”??
We quit saying that in my household some years ago.
These days I just, “piss and moan like an impotent jerk and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe.”
Thanks to the Hollywood influence!!!
24 Sept: Guardian: Arthur Nelsen: UK, France and Germany lobbied for flawed car emissions tests, documents reveal
Exclusive: Countries publicly calling for investigations into VW emissions rigging scandal have privately fought to keep loopholes in car tests for carbon emissions
Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show the three countries lobbied the European commission to keep loopholes in car tests that would increase real world carbon dioxide emissions by 14% above those claimed…
“It is unacceptable that governments which rightly demand an EU inquiry into the VW’s rigging of air pollution tests are simultaneously lobbying behind the scenes to continue the rigging of CO2 emissions tests,” said Greg Archer, clean vehicles manager at the ***respected green thinktank, Transport and Environment (T&E). “CO2 regulations should not be weakened by the backdoor through test manipulations.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/uk-france-and-germany-lobbied-for-flawed-car-emissions-tests-documents-reveal
25 Sept: JoanneNova: Camouflage illusions in the matrix: same mysterious temperature, same day, year after year
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/camouflage-illusions-in-the-matrix-same-mysterious-temperature-same-day-year-after-year/#comment-1747726
Errr, I wouldn’t go citing the extremist, right-wing Daily Mail to make any point.
What is ‘extreme’ about the truth? Look, we know that the BBC and Grauniad have tried to outlaw the truth, all in the name of being ‘nice’, but ultimately deception always leads to evil. In reality, it is the BBC and the Grauniad who are the extremists, because deception will always result in increasing death and destruction.
The USSR ultimately collapsed because not one single agency, company or person told the truth. Dissembling and fabrication was the only way to survive (a bit like modern ‘scientists’ weaving Climate Change into every ‘scientific’ paper, whether it is justifies
dmor not). And the result was institutional incompetence, errors, lethargy, industrial decay, economic collapse, starvation and death. The people were only saved by Bush Wings** from those ‘horrible’ capitalists, who insist on telling the truth (sometimes….).
** chicken legs sent from the USA.
weaving Climate Change into every ‘scientific’ paper
========================
spot on. political correctness in action. as in the USSR, truth loses out to politics and collapse soon follows as no one can trust anything they hear.
I think an important point is being missed: Volkswagen should be lavishly praised for its innovative solution to the climate crisis: it has managed fix a huge problem created by errant software (i.e climate models) with a very minor tweak of its own software. Bravo and well done!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/23/hail-vw-heroic-resistants-green-tyranny/
Trust Delingpole to get it right
The man certainly has a way with words:
“Worthy, uncomfortable, and possibly quite unnecessary, a Prius is the motoring equivalent of a colonic irrigation. Whereas the car I drive – my Golf Four-Motion – is much closer in character to a really well administered blow job.”
more great stuff from Delingpole:
“If we want to stand up to this tyranny, maybe the thing we should all do right now is to make sure the next car we buy is a VW. But obviously, only do this if you feel comfortable with the idea of buying a car that feels like oral sex. If the anal douche is more your kind of thing, stick with the Prius or, if you want the premium, bells-and-whistles experience, a Tesla.”
What you are missing is CARB lives in a fantasy of that malignant old spider at the middle, Mary Nichols. We suffer from gasoline mixtures that return 10 percent less mileage in return for some paper reduction of emissions. i’m convinced CARB does not factor in this MPG reduction! They push into a very less than optimal running condition to have a marginal improvement in some emission aspect. This was especially bad with carbureted motorcycles fo the 1980’s, 1990’s 2000’s, that were so lean in the idle and slow circuits as to be really compromised. A rejet and richer needle (For Competition on Closed Course Only! wink wink) would fixed that. Fuel injection is now prevalent and has improved runability, even with Ducati’s.
Every street legal or public land legal motorcycle sold here has to have elaborate equipment added to capture and return miniscule amounts of fuel vapor that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere. We are talking grams per month. This equipment (and the testing) adds something like $1000 to the price of a motorcycle. BTW, this is a cost that is spread out and borne by buyers in all the other states. And, of course, since motorcycles are not inspected in Kali after purchase, this vapor return system is routinely removed, some kind of aftermarket engine control unit and exhaust added. it’s a huge stupid waste.
So they offer to plant a few trees, make a big donation to the green groups, and they’re good to go. That’s how it works in the Green Machine.
…and the Clinton Foundation.
There’s something more fundamental at play here as well.
As with so many other issues that have come to light in recent years we have gone from physical evidence (in this case test the tailpipe emissions) to inspect (and trust) the output from the management system (in this case the car’s internal computer).
When Ontario moved from an actual test of the exhaust gases to plugging into my OBDII port I thought it was bizarre and fraught with opportunities for tampering. But since then so many other things seem to be moving in the same direction.
For example, if I recall correctly a large part of the recent ‘horse meat’ scandal in Europe was down to a move from meat inspectors actually sampling meat to checking the paper trails of previous inspections.
And of course no need to mention the climate debate.
It seems we have a choice to make: we can either control real pollution such as aeorosols which can form smog which is unpleasant and health-damaging, or we can control the fake pollution, CO2. The two are mutually-exclusive.
Yes, Bruce, spot-on. One must stretch the science envelope with fantasy to have it both ways. But enough faith in the new ecology will allow any paradox necessary. Public ignorance of science (beyond what the media dole out) is most of the reason they think both can be reduced simultaneously.
Well, not a hard choice, but a trade-off, and the trade-off that Diesel engines offer is simply the wrong one. Petrol engines are actually quite efficient now – the efficiency gap between them and Diesel engines has narrowed. At the same time, petrol engines seem to be much easier to operate cleanly. I had already eliminated Diesel from consideration for my next car – this story just confirms it.
Yes you are right and only thing which is convincing people to buy diesel now, especially in EU is tax punishment. Where gasoline is taxed more than diesel. Nothing more then market bending.
Diesels work best in ag equipment and towing vehicles. My V-8 diesel delivers better fuel economy and more torque at lower rpms than the V-10 gas alternative in Ford trucks. I would not think of having a diesel car because of the extra cost of the option and in oil changes, double batteries, etc.. I realize the longevity of trouble-free operation used to be the trade-off for the cost, but most gas engines will outlast the practical life of the vehicle nowadays (at 20k miles/year) anyway. For fleet vehicles used for constant steady-state highway use, and >150k miles/year, they still have a niche in the market.
Here’s some good information on this whole issue, with some insight as to where the field is heading:
https://www.erc.wisc.edu/documents/symp07-Kalghatgi.pdf
Dawgtomis – yes, Diesels make sense in trucks and in agriculture. In those settings, NOx emissions are also less of an issue, since they will happen mostly or entirely outside the cities.
Turbo vehicles can correct performance at altitude to that of sea level. Turbo-Diesel cars are wunderbar in mountain towns.
Diesels work best
==============
diesels work best at constant load. gas engines are better suited to acceleration and deceleration.
the theoretical efficiency of diesels is much higher than gas engines. in practice this needs to be reduced to improve the performance to weight ratio. In boats, trains and long haul freight the engine weight is a small portion of the total so diesels are the obvious choice. however, you don’t find many diesels in airplanes.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Sauce for the goose…