Do you happen to know the difference out of interest or is it a qualitative view?

ABC

 

I do not know what the engine changes might be, but US emmisions have always been geared towards reduction in Particulates.

Europeans have concentrated on CO2 emmisions.

So something has to give somewhere.

 

Not according to http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/hd.php

Didn't the UK government "invent" CO2 taxing when it became evident that Diesels produced less "old-style emissions"?

The diesel supplement is now waived if the car achieves Euro 4 emission standard. (535d does).

ABC

 

Listen to me : diesel is a bad sickness : in my country BMW sells almost only 320d, 330d, 530d, 535d ... Sad, very sad ... :thumbsdown:

 

Why do you think they are a 'bad sickness', AlexFW?
Because they are too common in Italy?

 

to be honest i agree with Alex... diesels are bad...
but some people dont mind diesel engines, and with the prices of petrol, i cant blame anyone for picking the diesel,,

 

Why are they "bad"

They produce less C02 than petrol, better for the environment, have marvellous power and torque, can be nicer to drive, are quieter cruisers...

What is it that you don't like about diesel power?

 

Good news, it's about time and I'm a big fan of the BMW diesels - but from a driveability standpoint. The perception about environmental benefits and some of the posts to this effect do however bug me little. Simple fact remains that the reason the diesels can't *currently* be sold in the US is that they fail the emissions tests in the largest markets (right here California most pertinently) - and these are tests that all current petrol engined E60's can and do pass. CO2 may be low (it's not high on petrol engines either) but NOx, another greenhouse gas, is higher and is one reason why BMW diesels do fail the emissions tests. With this in mind, they are not necessarily better for the environment, unless you don't consider NOx to be a greenhouse gas or a hazardous pollutant - it's both. Another angle - the Union of Concerned Scientists claim it takes more energy produce a gallon of diesel compared to a gallon of gasoline (and that the production process itself produces yet more greenhouse gasses). If true, diesel efficiency at the pump is, therefore, perhaps offset to some degree by certain inefficiencies before you ever get to that point. So - drive a diesel because you prefer it, or because market conditions make it the obvious choice (and let's not kid ourselves - if I had to pay $8 a gallon for gas and lived in a market where, unlike in the US, a larger gasoline engine guaranteed poor residual value - I'd prefer diesel too). But let's also not kid ourselves and think we're saving the planet by driving around with diesel engines.

Were you to whack a turbo on to a gas engine, add direct injection, and you've got pretty much the same benefits as diesel, and often at lower cost. In fact, based on a recent interview, one of the main developers of modern common rail injection shares this view. It's turbo charging and DI through common rail and similar systems that provide the real benefit to modern diesels (case in point - drive a prior gen non turbo diesel and tell me how great it is....) and much of the benefit is possible with a gas engine too - but at $7 to $8 per gallon every extra mile counts and that's where a diesel has an edge. Over here in the US it may be a more difficult sell. Personally, I'm delighted that we'll see modern diesels in the US ( and I may very well end up in one) - but are we in the US going to see EU-like levels of diesel market penetration? No - because the market here is, at the end of the day, very different to Europe it's the market that as much as anything makes diesels a more logical choice in much of Europe.

 

diesel engines are becoming faster & faster and much more cheeper to run than 5 years ago.
As you can see ACS uses a 530d to mod and not 530i
http://www.acschnitzer.com/englisch/index.html
So they must be good

 

Yes you are right 5 years ago but not now