[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by StarScream

1) You need concerted government action to push for higher emission norms. Forget Euro 5 India hasn't even adopted Euro 4 across the country (only in select metros). As the story says till refiners are losing money on diesel sales they have no incentive to upgrade their facilities.

2) Why not blame railways or other diesel users? Because, unless you live next to a railway track, they aren't spewing the muck in your face where you live.

3) I know a little about these things so I can tell you why car diesel engines are deadlier. In an attempt to meet middling emission standards such as ours, they try to burn the fuel as completely as possible and produce the fine particulate that is a carcinogen and is invisible. Cruder diesel engines produce the not so fine visible smoke, which is also bad but not as insidious.

1) Refiners losing money is a weird concept. Why have so many employees then ? Fire them and in case you are consistently losing money, then shut the business down. Its tax payers money they are spending. I simply refute the scenario of losing money. OMC are too much corrupt and inefficient and hence losing money. IOC has a plant in my city and many of my residential society belong to IOC. I know how they work and how they operate.
GOI is on one hand showing loss to grab excessive money and then giving merge subsidies to just claim they are serving the nation.

I apologize for such strong views/language, but that is what I feel.

2) They, in case, pollute. Having a higher exhaust point does not and MUST not allow higher pollution. And whats wrong in improving ?

3) I know one fact that hydrocarbon, when combusted, released CO2 and H2O. Petrol explosion is more dangerous than diesel. Diesel is, IMO, a safer fuel, which is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

[jessie007]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Aren't we missing the woods for the trees? What good is resale if you're dead?

Also diesel will not be cheaper if its not subsidized and the fuel is upgraded to the ultra-low sulfur variety needed for Euro 5 engines to come close to petrol emissions. Simply because ULSD takes more crude oil to produce a liter of fuel, compared with Euro 5 gasoline.

Sorry but I don't see people dying solely due to pollution. I have never read or heard of anybody's death being directly attributed to air pollution. A person suffering from a pre-existing medical condition like Asthama might be more susceptible to pollution though. I can be said that in the long-term pollution might negatively impact the life-span and quality of life.

India is progressing fairly OK till now on the vehicular pollution front and BS V norms will be implemented sooner or later in metro cities and BS IV the rest of India. I understand a mature market like Europe is years ahead with Euro V & VI norms in effect with a stricter criteria. But quite a few countries even in Europe have diesel vehicles contributing more than 50% of total sales and even though they are far more cleaner and traffic density is less - there are no alarming reports and diesel vehicles are not banned or there are no reports of banning diesel vehicles in the future. Even in a highly polluted city like Beijing diesel vehicles are not banned.

Consumption of tobacco and alcohol are directly attributed to far more people dying - but are they banned? No. People die of far more trivial things than pollution. I must say that I don't mean to trivialize the value of life. Long-term effects of pollution can be detrimental but things will not stay static. People are slowly shifting to cleaner vehicles, sales of petrol cars are again gaining momentum, stricter emission norms will come in force, phase III of metro network will become operational by 2016 and this would be of great help in reducing the number of cars getting added to road everyday - it won't take any cars off the road though, traffic will only increase.

Also please note that smog in the winter months (December-January) contributes to trapping pollution and this results in the higher pollution levels in these two months in Delhi. For rest of the 10 months, it should be within acceptable limits overall, few congested areas will remain to be more polluted.

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1) Refiners losing money is a weird concept. OMC are too much corrupt and inefficient and hence losing money. IOC has a plant in my city and many of my residential society belong to IOC. I know how they work and how they operate.
GOI is on one hand showing loss to grab excessive money and then giving merge subsidies to just claim they are serving the nation.

2) They, in case, pollute. Having a higher exhaust point does not and MUST not allow higher pollution. And whats wrong in improving ?

3) I know one fact that hydrocarbon, when combusted, released CO2 and H2O. Petrol explosion is more dangerous than diesel. Diesel is, IMO, a safer fuel, which is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

Beautifully put down bro.

Diesel fuel has a higher compression ratio than a petrol one so the burning should be efficient in diesel Mills than their petrol counterparts.

Hence, diesels cost more to produce and weigh heavier due to material of construction to counteract the power/torque. Diesel's engine of the current are more efficient but with stricter BS norms things should stabilise and stronger action from GOI to monitor Pilton should be put in place.

OMC losing money is hard to digest as the taxes etc paid for a litre of fuel is way way to high add compared to other countries. Inspite of paying such high amount of the GOI & OMC say they are in losses, I wonder what would be the case if fuel were sold at similar prices as other countries. Subsidy is one word that is used to keep the North q of the common man shut.

Anurag.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1) Refiners losing money is a weird concept. Why have so many employees then ? Fire them and in case you are consistently losing money, then shut the business down. Its tax payers money they are spending. I simply refute the scenario of losing money. OMC are too much corrupt and inefficient and hence losing money. IOC has a plant in my city and many of my residential society belong to IOC. I know how they work and how they operate.
GOI is on one hand showing loss to grab excessive money and then giving merge subsidies to just claim they are serving the nation.

I apologize for such strong views/language, but that is what I feel.

2) They, in case, pollute. Having a higher exhaust point does not and MUST not allow higher pollution. And whats wrong in improving ?

3) I know one fact that hydrocarbon, when combusted, released CO2 and H2O. Petrol explosion is more dangerous than diesel. Diesel is, IMO, a safer fuel, which is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

1) I'm all for true liberalization and competition. End the subsidy, open the sector to free and fair competition and market-determined prices.

2) Whoever said a higher exhaust point means you can pollute more? It's just not in the face of people.

3) fossil fuel combustion produces many more things - carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, benzene. But I've never heard of water. That comes from hydrogen fuel cells. The article focuses on one particular lethal emission from diesel. Petrol exhaust contains many harmful things but they are more strictly controlled and that aren't as insidious as the silent killer in diesel. Safety of the fuel has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

I understand it is hard to change mind sets. But I hope facts, science and logic will prevail.

Originally Posted by jessie007

Sorry but I don't see people dying solely due to pollution. I have never read or heard of anybody's death being directly attributed to air pollution. A person suffering from a pre-existing medical condition like Asthama might be more susceptible to pollution though. I can be said that in the long-term pollution might negatively impact the life-span and quality of life.

India is progressing fairly OK till now on the vehicular pollution front and BS V norms will be implemented sooner or later in metro cities and BS IV the rest of India. I understand a mature market like Europe is years ahead with Euro V & VI norms in effect with a stricter criteria. But quite a few countries even in Europe have diesel vehicles contributing more than 50% of total sales and even though they are far more cleaner and traffic density is less - there are no alarming reports and diesel vehicles are not banned or there are no reports of banning diesel vehicles in the future. Even in a highly polluted city like Beijing diesel vehicles are not banned.

Consumption of tobacco and alcohol are directly attributed to far more people dying - but are they banned? No. People die of far more trivial things than pollution. I must say that I don't mean to trivialize the value of life. Long-term effects of pollution can be detrimental but things will not stay static. People are slowly shifting to cleaner vehicles, sales of petrol cars are again gaining momentum, stricter emission norms will come in force, phase III of metro network will become operational by 2016 and this would be of great help in reducing the number of cars getting added to road everyday - it won't take any cars off the road though, traffic will only increase.

Also please note that smog in the winter months (December-January) contributes to trapping pollution and this results in the higher pollution levels in these two months in Delhi. For rest of the 10 months, it should be within acceptable limits overall, few congested areas will remain to be more polluted.

1) air pollution is never listed as a cause of death. It is usually a disease or an aggravation caused by exposure to toxic air.

2) your BS 4 and 5 argument betrays a degree of ignorance about the subject. Like BS 3 and 4 you can't have a dual structure with BS 5. Simply because to meet higher Euro 5 equivalent standards car makers will have to start adding better emissions technology like diesel particulate filters. That tech can't handle lower grade fuel and hence Euro 5 cars won't be able to travel outside of the metros. If you're moving to BS5 standards the whole country has to move together. This challenge is one reason why nothing has moved forward on emission standrds. Euro 3 was to be superseded by euro 4 countrywide sometime back.
As far as Europe is concerned please search for "air quality car emissions U.K." to realize that a fixation with CO2 emissions at the expense of all others has made London one of the dirtiest cities on the continent.

3) who said anything about banning? Is asking for stricter, world-class emission standards akin to banning diesel cars?

4) the phenomena you are referring to during the winter months is called atmospheric inversion. It looks a lot worse then because the pollution mixes with the fog to create visible smog. But particulate matter concentrations in Delhi's air are above WHO and GOI limits throughout the year.
You may not be aware of this but there is an air quality index for Delhi that is methodically and scientifically collected in real time called SAFAR - http://safar.tropmet.res.in/ - it shows that even on a day when it has rained air quality is moderate at best and PM2.5 levels are above the WHO limit of 30ppm and the govt's less stringent limit of 60ppm.

[jessie007]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Aren't we missing the woods for the trees? What good is resale if you're dead?

1) air pollution is never listed as a cause of death. It is usually a disease or an aggravation caused by exposure to toxic air.

Highly contradictory statements in your two posts - No explanation required

Originally Posted by StarScream

2) your BS 4 and 5 argument betrays a degree of ignorance about the subject.

Will not quote the entire points again. But I think there is a general consensus on the fact that stricter emission norms are welcome by the majority and they should be made applicable at the earliest and in the entire country. If such a decision could be taken by public voting, it would have been passed and be over and done with - But it can't? So it will take its due course.

Originally Posted by StarScream

3) who said anything about banning? Is asking for stricter, world-class emission standards akin to banning diesel cars?

I did not say that you mentioned regarding banning - I'm presenting my views and looking at your alarmist opinions, pre-empting your possible stand in future comments

Originally Posted by StarScream

4) the phenomena you are referring to during the winter months is called atmospheric inversion. It looks a lot worse then because the pollution mixes with the fog to create visible smog. But particulate matter concentrations in Delhi's air are above WHO and GOI limits throughout the year.
You may not be aware of this but there is an air quality index for Delhi that is methodically and scientifically collected in real time called SAFAR - http://safar.tropmet.res.in/ - it shows that even on a day when it has rained air quality is moderate at best and PM2.5 levels are above the WHO limit of 30ppm and the govt's less stringent limit of 60ppm.

Thanks for the information and technical jargon. No, I didn't know about 'Safar'. But following is a screenshot from the website you mentioned. I don't see any alarming words like unsafe, toxic, asphyxiating, uninhabitable - not even an 'above average'. What I see is a "Moderate" and two "Good" mentions. Nor are there any alarming colours (any shade of red, orange) representing highly polluted air. I know it rained yesterday and that has an effect on pollution, but this I'm mentioning as you said that Particulate Matter (PM) pollution is above limit "throughout the year". I hope you are not inter-changing the word 'Pollution' with 'Air Quality' now!



Particulate matter might be above limit, even throughout the year - but you won't "die" of it. Also one has to take into account the fact that other than say a traffic policeman or a roadside vendor, no one would be subject to the polluted air for a majority of time during a day - you travel, reach your destination, return to your house, sleep - so if you look at the overall percentage out of 24 hours - only a miniscule amount would be spend in the polluted air outside. Plus since we are living in a democracy, one is free to leave early in the morning to avoid pollution, wear a mask / wet handkerchief, use air-conditioned public transport - buses & metro (be eco-friendly) and there is an option to shift to another less polluted city (if quality of air is so important).

There are levels, standards & rules for everything, but that doesn't mean they are adhered to every-time. I hope you know that most roads in Delhi city have a speed limit of 50 km/hr (other than ring road & some other roads that have a limit of 60 km/hr). No one can adhere to that speed limit - everyone would be willingly or inadvertently breaking the rule.

Another example is the case of blood pressure. With earlier lifestyle, the acceptable normal / healthy limit used to be lower, but now the acceptable limits are higher than earlier, as accepted by most registered medical practitioners. These examples don't justify increasing pollution, but what i'm trying to say is that we are not living in a utopia. One should be ready for change, work towards improvement and not just sit and fret about tomorrow.

Also since you care about pollution so much, it would be interesting to know how you travel everyday - is it an eco-friendly way? I see in your profile that you/your family owns two cars. It doesn't matter whether a car is powered by petrol or diesel - both burn fossil fuels and pollute in varying degrees on different parameters.

I won't reply to any of your future comments, as I'm not the type who wants to have the last word. I want all my posts to be meaningful - Unless my post is 'Thanked', I feel the comments were not valuable enough for the Forum.

Also, I started this thread for comparison between owning a diesel or petrol vehicle and a method of calculating the break-even period. Please don't hijack my thread with pollution related posts. This comment is not directed at just you, it is for all forum members. I too am partly responsible for digressing from my thread topic, but couldn't help it.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by jessie007

Highly contradictory statements in your two posts - No explanation required

I don't see the contradiction - if you're dead, you're dead, whatever the cause.

Will not quote the entire points again. But I think there is a general consensus on the fact that stricter emission norms are welcome by the majority and they should be made applicable at the earliest and in the entire country. If such a decision could be taken by public voting, it would have been passed and be over and done with - But it can't? So it will take its due course.

I agree, my attempt was only to explain it's not going to happen anytime soon.

I did not say that you mentioned regarding banning - I'm presenting my views and looking at your alarmist opinions, pre-empting your possible stand in future comments

the facts aren't alarming? The fact that Delhi is more polluted than Beijing doesn't bother you?

Thanks for the information and technical jargon. No, I didn't know about 'Safar'. But following is a screenshot from the website you mentioned. I don't see any alarming words like unsafe, toxic, asphyxiating, uninhabitable - not even an 'above average'. What I see is a "Moderate" and two "Good" mentions. Nor are there any alarming colours (any shade of red, orange) representing highly polluted air. I know it rained yesterday and that has an effect on pollution, but this I'm mentioning as you said that Particulate Matter (PM) pollution is above limit "throughout the year". I hope you are not inter-changing the word 'Pollution' with 'Air Quality' now!

I did say the monitoring is real time, didn't I? Since I have been aware of this website, may I suggest you look at it for a few more days before forming an opinion. I have been following it and it shows the air quality is poor most days i.e. red. Also refer to the Bloomberg article that started this entire discussion - it takes a yearly average. And I am using the two words interchangeably. I thought in a discussion about air pollution it is apparent which pollution one is referring to.

Particulate matter might be above limit, even throughout the year - but you won't "die" of it. Also one has to take into account the fact that other than say a traffic policeman or a roadside vendor, no one would be subject to the polluted air for a majority of time during a day - you travel, reach your destination, return to your house, sleep - so if you look at the overall percentage out of 24 hours - only a miniscule amount would be spend in the polluted air outside. Plus since we are living in a democracy, one is free to leave early in the morning to avoid pollution, wear a mask / wet handkerchief, use air-conditioned public transport - buses & metro (be eco-friendly) and there is an option to shift to another less polluted city (if quality of air is so important).

Are you a doctor? Because the WHO says it will. And where does the air in your home, office and car come from? Or are they hermetically sealed?

These examples don't justify increasing pollution, but what i'm trying to say is that we are not living in a utopia. One should be ready for change, work towards improvement and not just sit and fret about tomorrow.

Beautiful platitudes. But change can only start when people acknowledge the problem.

Also since you care about pollution so much, it would be interesting to know how you travel everyday - is it an eco-friendly way? I see in your profile that you/your family owns two cars. It doesn't matter whether a car is powered by petrol or diesel - both burn fossil fuels and pollute in varying degrees on different parameters.

I drive. But between the two polluting options I can and do choose the lesser of two evils. The entire debate has been about the downside of diesel that people don't know about and don't realize.

I won't reply to any of your future comments, as I'm not the type who wants to have the last word. I want all my posts to be meaningful - Unless my post is 'Thanked', I feel the comments were not valuable enough for the Forum.

how is ignoring a valid debate meaningful?

Also, I started this thread for comparison between owning a diesel or petrol vehicle and a method of calculating the break-even period. Please don't hijack my thread with pollution related posts. This comment is not directed at just you, it is for all forum members. I too am partly responsible for digressing from my thread topic, but couldn't help it.

I'm so sorry you feel that your thread has been hijacked. One reason could be the title - it doesn't say the economics of diesel vs petrol cars but just diesel vs petrol cars. The discussion started when the article was posted. I thought it touches a very valid point, while many others picked on tangential issues that ignored the essence of it.

[jessie007]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Beautiful platitudes. But change can only start when people acknowledge the problem.

I'm so sorry you feel that your thread has been hijacked. One reason could be the title - it doesn't say the economics of diesel vs petrol cars but just diesel vs petrol cars. The discussion started when the article was posted. I thought it touches a very valid point, while many others picked on tangential issues that ignored the essence of it.

In addition to the platitudes, I have a proverb & and an idiom for you:
1) Charity begins at home
2) Practice what you preach

I see that in your garage you have two quite old vehicles. One - the Honda City Gxi (possibly 2003 model) seems to be not even BSIII, let alone BSIV, and you are talking about BSV implementation?! The other (2007 Santro automatic) is not BSIV, and being an old school automatic is highly inefficient.

We have two diesel cars in our family and both are BSIV. Both have valid PUC (pollution Under Control) certificates and inspite of being heavier than the vehicles you own, are more fuel efficient in realistic driving conditions - since you were talking about the lesser evil!

An eco-friendly and pollution alarmist like you should be the first one to jump onto the cleanest vehicles available in the market. I understand one cannot change cars every year, but BSIV norms have been in effect in Delhi since 2010 and it has been almost 4 years since then! Electric & hybrid vehicles are also available in the market. Another idiom for you - "Put your money where your mouth is". I'm sorry!

Apologies for getting personal, but I just can't stand hypocritcal & scare-mongering comments.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by jessie007

In addition to the platitudes, I have a proverb & and an idiom for you:
1) Charity begins at home
2) Practice what you preach

I see that in your garage you have two quite old vehicles. One - the Honda City Gxi (possibly 2003 model) seems to be not even BSIII, let alone BSIV, and you are talking about BSV implementation?! The other (2007 Santro automatic) is not BSIV, and being an old school automatic is highly inefficient.

We have two diesel cars in our family and both are BSIV. Both have valid PUC (pollution Under Control) certificates and inspite of being heavier than the vehicles you own, are more fuel efficient in realistic driving conditions - since you were talking about the lesser evil!

An eco-friendly and pollution alarmist like you should be the first one to jump onto the cleanest vehicles available in the market. I understand one cannot change cars every year, but BSIV norms have been in effect in Delhi since 2010 and it has been almost 4 years since then! Electric & hybrid vehicles are also available in the market. Another idiom for you - "Put your money where your mouth is". I'm sorry!

Apologies for getting personal, but I just can't stand hypocritcal & scare-mongering comments.

After saying the previous post will be your last on the subject, you've replied - hypocritical much?

I've also realized a few things over this debate. You don't deal with facts very well and then resort to personal attacks. Nonetheless I think this is an important subject and so I will politely engage with you, with facts as my only defense.

So let me clarify a few things. Both my cars are BS3 (2005 and 2007). You can blame team-BHP for educating me about driving a car till its wheels fall off. I do think a car is an expense and changing them regularly (which I used to do every 2 years) is a waste of money.

I actually started reading up about diesel vs petrol when I began considering changing my Honda City. Diesel makes a wonderful case for itself from a running cost/economic perspective. And it seems to be more environmentally friendly given its high mileage and lower CO2 emissions. But I also read that is not the entire story. The lower CO2 is true per km traveled but not per unit of fuel burnt - a common misconception. Considering the sturdier build of the engine and the propensity to travel more when cost is less, you actually end up emitting more CO2.

I also realized that whether Euro 3 or Euro 4, our emission norms aren't equal for both fuels. Diesel is permitted by law to pollute more. To give an example, both my cars underwent PUC checks last weekend. Despite not being Euro 4 engines, they both passed the test, which I assume doesn't distinguish between vehicle age.

The other thing I realized was that there is very little difference between Euro 4, 5 and 6 norms for gasoline engines. So a Euro 4 petrol car is quite advanced, while for diesel there is a massive change in emission characteristics between Euro 4 and 5 and it requires major investment from the oil and car companies. What all this means is that a Euro 3 petrol car may be cleaner or equal to a Euro 4 diesel in terms of its emission characteristics.

After realizing all this and "to put my money where my mouth is" I came to the conclusion that my next car will also be a fuel-efficient petrol. So I've booked a Honda City CVT and I quite like the Vento TSI.

I am not a card-carrying member of Greenpeace as you keep trying to insinuate but I can make more informed choices. And that is why I agree with the article for it raises a critical issue - how government policies have skewed demand to a fuel that has other unintended consequences.

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by jessie007

Apologies for getting personal, but I just can't stand hypocritcal & scare-mongering comments.

Originally Posted by StarScream

After saying the previous post will be your last on the subject, you've replied - hypocritical much?

With No Offence to you both here, the discussion is getting a and more of personal attacks.

Before the Moderators turn their magic wand here lets get back to the topic.

Thanks,
Anurag.

[su1978]

Driving my own Ritz VDI and friends VXI, gave me enough food for thought. Then went through this entire thread. Finally came to the conclusion that it all boils down to one's own choice. Having owned several cars over a period of time, can safely reach to a simple inference that if one is driving around 2000 kms in a month, then also the overall cost of ownership rises by just 1 Rs for petrol cars. I have considered the fact that in a Metro city like delhi, every household has 2 cars or more, and normally people try to stay as close as possible to their place of work and use official cabs/bus etc for going to office. One more aspect that i have kept in mind is that due to family obligations, one would not go out of station every month. Also one should think about the fact that for prolonged standing, there is no effect on petrol car, but for diesel one would have to think twice as have read somewhere that Diesel if not used for a long time, blocks the injectors-(please correct me if i am wrong). However, have not considered the fact about re-sale value as i expect that normally a middle class service holder would keep his car for minimum 5 years. Have also not considered the envoirnmental criteria while writing this post.

Did do a small calculation taking Ertiga VDI & VXI as the benchmark. I am sure that with better reasonings etc, it may get proved that the calculation is wrong, but still for the common plain and simple understanding and as per my experience, i thought that i will take a plunge in this discussion. Attached is the excel sheet which would help in understanding the calculation

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by su1978

Also one should think about the fact that for prolonged standing, there is no effect on petrol car, but for diesel one would have to think twice as have read somewhere that Diesel if not used for a long time, blocks the injectors-(please correct me if i am wrong)

What you say is for the olden day diesel engine that needed to be run everyday to keep it performing. No effect to newer generation diesel engines at all.

The modern day diesel engines are equal to their petrol counterparts.

Anurag.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by su1978

Did do a small calculation taking Ertiga VDI & VXI as the benchmark. I am sure that with better reasonings etc, it may get proved that the calculation is wrong, but still for the common plain and simple understanding and as per my experience, i thought that i will take a plunge in this discussion. Attached is the excel sheet which would help in understanding the calculation

So by your calculations diesel Ertiga had the same total cost of ownership and in scenario 2 actually saved you some money. Right? And this will only increase more in favour of diesel once you factor in the following:

1. Higher resale value for the diesel car even after 5 years of ownership which alone enables the owner to recover a major chunk of that extra money paid at the beginning.

2. The FE difference varies for different cars. For instance a Honda city Petrol returns 11 kmpl whereas the diesel avatar easily touches 17-18. My Altis regularly gives me 18-19 kmpl whereas the petrol counterpart gives only 10-11 kmpl. Ofcourse all these readings are from driving in Delhi.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by jessie007

An eco-friendly and pollution alarmist like you should be the first one to jump onto the cleanest vehicles available in the market. I understand one cannot change cars every year, but BSIV norms have been in effect in Delhi since 2010 and it has been almost 4 years since then! Electric & hybrid vehicles are also available in the market. Another idiom for you - "Put your money where your mouth is". I'm sorry!

Apologies for getting personal, but I just can't stand hypocritcal & scare-mongering comments.

Sorry for quoting this but I believe that was a little uncalled for? I mean first of all to bring such a personal thing up secondly, to quickly latch on to an argument before you have actually thought it out. You do know that by not buying a new car everytime a new emission norm is announced, you actually are making a larger step toward saving the environment right?

Anyway up until then, there were some valid points both you and starscream brought up.

I know this might be a little taboo to say, but I believe diesels ought to exclusively be made available only to the poor, people in the farming industry and for commercial vehicle purposes. Diesel does sound noisy, pollute far more and even contains carcinogens in its exhaust fumes the only advantage is it is more fuel efficient so everytime I see a toff sitting in the backseat of a diesel E-Class, I cannot deny being miffed.

[drmohitg]

I really think that this discussion will never end. It is futile to debate over what pollutes more as the end customer is not going to be bothered about that. Cars are not the only way to pollute our environment and there are a million other ways of doing it right from forgetting to turn off that fan when you are not using it to still using plastic bags. That debate is endless. Infact once I read somewhere on the forum that the shampoo you use is also an extremely efficient way of adding to that pollution as it is highly condensed and contributes its share during that condensation process.

This thread should actually only be focused at the economics of the whole thing. The larger stance of "I pollute less and you pollute more" is never going to win.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

I really think that this discussion will never end. It is futile to debate over what pollutes more as the end customer is not going to be bothered about that. Cars are not the only way to pollute our environment and there are a million other ways of doing it right from forgetting to turn off that fan when you are not using it to still using plastic bags. That debate is endless. Infact once I read somewhere on the forum that the shampoo you use is also an extremely efficient way of adding to that pollution as it is highly condensed and contributes its share during that condensation process.

This thread should actually only be focused at the economics of the whole thing. The larger stance of "I pollute less and you pollute more" is never going to win.

The facts are actually very clear cut, with no ambiguity. They are both dirty fuels - it's just that in India we have made more progress in improving petrol quality to an extent that we will have little issue in moving to higher emission standards. Diesel is an entirely different issue and you and me pay an intangible cost in terms of its health effects.

I discovered this entirely through publicly available research while considering changing one of my cars. My attempt has been to try and share the facts so that I can change some mindsets within the community.

Perhaps I need to start a new thread to do that.