I have no idea why LPG didn't take off. Probably somewhere between poor installation techs giving it a bad name and Government not committing to keep the duty down to entice more manufacturers to release factory fitted dual fuel petrol lpg cars. Availability can be an issue in places, I've never personally had a problem, though I do occasionally have to stray a mile or 2 from motorways on long trips to get gas. Unless you can justify a huge tank you will fill up more often than you would on petrol.
On newer cars you really need to make sure the car you try to convert has nice hard valve seats or valve saving fluid, else they'll be trouble down the line. Older German petrol cars are ideal.
The safety thing is pretty moot. it's generally much safer than petrol. it's a by product of petrol production and natural gas.
A number of conversions damaged the engine after a few years, I spoke to a taxi driver and that firm had trouble like this.
Also, does anyone make a car that can already run on LPG?
Volvo did, don't know if anyone still does.
It's just the yardstick they picked - so all measurements are done against that irrelevant of what other nasties there are in diesel emissions.
It's like when they removed lead from fuel.Not saying it wasn't a good idea just that the only measure of nastiness became the lead content.God knows what alternative chemicals they had to add to stop pinking - could even be worse than lead - but that doesn't matter because they aren't part of the yardstick measurement.
Cheers,
Nigel
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/11933398_672556146212901_6827670889490129135_n-jpg.629253/ https://www.avforums.com/attachments/12039214_939512682770909_4390587378059404175_n-jpg.629254/
Presumably someone is cooking up a Hitler Gets Bad News video
I wouldn't be overly concerned personally as I believe this will blow over soon enough
I read an article (may be in this thread) about the original tests that caused the initial investigation in the U.S. They had two VW models and said they chose them because one used Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR - the user adds urea which does the chemistry in the exhaust) and one used a NOx trap. That article reckoned the software turned the systems on so they passed the tests. They tested on the road and found NOx levels over 30 times more than tested figures. This is not the same as the general claims that there were no engineering controls and the software somehow provided the testing equipment with incorrect data. That latter version sounds really tricky to me. It does depend how low the limits are since, up to a point as already posted, you can add excess fuel to cool and reduce NOx at the expense of CO2....... I get the feeling the U.S. Limits and the Euro VI limits require engineering controls.
Do we have the definitive events that led to the admission by VW. It happened over a period of somerhing like 18 months since those third party tests being reported to the U.S. Authorities. VW denied for ages before admitting recently.
Over a week old!
I don't wish to be a wet blanket, :
"But diesel is at the heart of VW, it's part of our very DNA."
DNAs role in heredity wasn't confirmed until 1952, in the Hershey-Chase experiment, so I doubt Hitler would have used a phrase like that.
