swirl flaps??

[thedweeb]

Didnt mean to set the hare running................sorry

[X5Sport]

You didn't set any hares running really, this issue comes up regularly in one form or another and always kicks off some form of debate. All is good - well in my humble view anyway.....and it keeps a focus on it for new members who may never have heard of these bl@@dy flaps on any BMW they own. We know we're safe with the X5, but others........

It was a similar subject a year or so back that woke me up to the problem and that our E46 was fitted with them - and for now still is.

[IanP]

[quote=""X5Sport""] especially given the level of emissions from diesel-engined shipping, diesel powered trains and aircraft. I used to work with someone who was an engineer in the Merchant Navy and the emissions from these big ships are astronomical with little if any filtering at all, yet at present they get away with it. Diesel engines in other parts of the developing world are still filthy as are petrol engines. BMW refused to sell diesel cars in some markets not because of type approval issues, but because the fuel was too dirty as it was high sulphur and would damage their engines.
:[/quote]

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but marine diesels are amongst the most efficient internal combustion engines ever built, with plant efficiencies of over 50%. Been using camless engines for years, with variable injection and valve timing. And you want to see the paperwork I have to go through everytime anything to do with combustion gets changed on the engine, never mind the 4 different types of fuel I have on the ship. As I speak we used 87830 litres of fuel to move 85000 tonnes 470 miles at 18.8 knots (about 22 mph). Engine is putting out about 25000 bhp. At 60 rpm...........

[X5Sport]

And the CO2/Smoke etc emissions from that would have been.............? Efficient they may be, but there still needs to be improvements made on the emissions controls - particularly on older, or perhaps 'less responsibly' operated vessels. Your vessel may have carbon catchers and smoke controls, but an awful lot don't. In terms of shifting large cargoes, there probably is no other (sensible) way I agree, but that doesn't mean immunity which is why aircraft and shipping are now being looked at more closely.

Europe has just tried to do something about the air side, and China, the US and a couple of others have cried foul and are threatening tit-for-tat measures. Funny that! They're the worst polluters and yet still won't address the issues because of the cost - financial and political.

Man may be clever, but we can also be so dumb!! I just wish there was a straightforward answer, but there isn't and until some form of tech breakthrough I guess we're stuck with fossil fuels. Don't misunderstand me, I'm no tree hugger (driving the car I do, I couldn't be!!), but at present there just is no alternative way, but that doesn't mean hitting the wrong targets - us motorists.

Not having a go honest. Just having a bad day.....need to have a lie down and a Valium..

[IanP]

Smoke . No smoke or I get arrested. Seriously. And you want to see what the poor thing burns, the council wouldnt put it into a pothole. The sulphur content of the fuel is dropping and one day we will catch up with road vehicles. But its a lot more expensive

[X5Sport]

There was bound to be a catch. Same as costs for Chinese made products are going to climb now slavery wages are being dealt a blow. Perhaps we'll get some jobs back now too..

Take it steady out on the briny..

[thedweeb]

[quote=""IanP""][quote=""X5Sport""] especially given the level of emissions from diesel-engined shipping, diesel powered trains and aircraft. I used to work with someone who was an engineer in the Merchant Navy and the emissions from these big ships are astronomical with little if any filtering at all, yet at present they get away with it. Diesel engines in other parts of the developing world are still filthy as are petrol engines. BMW refused to sell diesel cars in some markets not because of type approval issues, but because the fuel was too dirty as it was high sulphur and would damage their engines.
:[/quote]

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but marine diesels are amongst the most efficient internal combustion engines ever built, with plant efficiencies of over 50%. Been using camless engines for years, with variable injection and valve timing. And you want to see the paperwork I have to go through everytime anything to do with combustion gets changed on the engine, never mind the 4 different types of fuel I have on the ship. As I speak we used 87830 litres of fuel to move 85000 tonnes 470 miles at 18.8 knots (about 22 mph). Engine is putting out about 25000 bhp. At 60 rpm...........[/quote]
Please Lets see some pictures of the ship.....

[X5Sport]

Don't they call the engines on these things 'Cathedrals' because they're so big?

[IanP]

No swirl flaps

[jaynana]

Is that an engine or a factory? ppl can work IN it!

[IanP]

Yes, unfortunately we will be inside it on Monday

[X5Sport]

Now THAT'S an engine.......the pistons probably weigh as much as an 'X'!!

At least you don't have to worry about the auto box either!