images, flash content and probably everithng else.
I love, when I can zoom some little flash game to the fullscreen...

In supaplex, I got to level 104.
But none believed me :(

I have feeling, that some people are bit misinformed about diesels. And as I live in eastern Europe where half of cars are diesel powered, here is some of my experience...

Emissions
There is no black smoke from new diesel cars since EURO 4 emission standard (2005+). Yes, they still smells, but now the EURO 5 are coming so even the smell will probably be the history.
Lots of cars are now equipped with DPF (diesel particulate filter) as standard, so there is no black smoke at any circumstances. Cars without DPF runs lean with lots of recirculated exhaust gases and it has some disadvantages. Mainly no torque off boost and slow reaction at throttle. DPF has problems too (regenerating conditions for the filter, and its plugging)
There are only a few cars with NOx reduction system (MB, BMW, VW... cars sold in US) but with EURO5 coming there will be more. Some tests suggest, they have lower consumption than same car without deNOx system. The engine don't have to run near the stoichio. with huge amounts of recirculated exhaust gases, which spoils the efficiency. It just runs extremely lean.

Reliability
Modern diesel engines are (to say it diplomatically) "fragile". It takes huge amount of technology to made modern diesels as good as they are, and modern technologies tends to break. And they are braking. Some European automakers has lots of problems with it.
Modern Common Rail diesels (and as VW killed the PD, there is nothing else than CR) uses high pressure. And as "high pressure" I mean 1600 to 2000 bars. That is like 23'000 - 29'000 psi
So the pumps producing this pressure are extremely sensitive to lubrication. And with low quality diesel fuel, it can ?grind? (sorry I don't know the right word) and produce microscopic metal particles. As the metal particles comes to the injectors, they brake them sooner or later too.
The injectors alone are fragile too. They can break after around 120-150'000 miles.
Still it hugely depends on quality of the diesel fuel. Lubrication, cleanness, amount of water and more...
Next, we have turbocharger. Diesel engines has tiny turbochargers spinning at huge revolutions (usually 150-250'000 rpm) to reduce or eliminate lag. And of course they break from time to time. Turbos commonly have variable geometry turbine (vgt) and it tends to stop working too. Common effect are, that when driver require maximum acceleration, the turbo cant deliver required amount of air, ECU diagnostics it as a malfunction and falls into emergency mode with reduced power. And if this happen while overtaking, than you are screwed... (It can also happen because of broken injectors, and low pressure in common rail system)
DPF filter. They require specific condition for regeneration. Something like constant speed and load (around 40-50mph), engine at working temperature, warm catalytic converter, working brakes and more. But in usual driving, it can be problematic to reach all required condition, DPF becomes plugged and you are on the way to the service station. This applies only for cars where the regeneration works trough later injection, where the unburned diesel fuel burns comes into the exhaust and burns the soot in DPF. It also requires more frequent oil changes. There are systems with independent injector in front of DPF and there could be fine.
Next. Dual mass flywheel. It smoothen the power coming into tranny. But if you are driving at too low revs you can brake it. And as most of cars here has manual gearbox and most of people are not aware of it...
Ok, that is probably everything important ( = expensive). Fuel pumps costs usualy 700 and more euros, at least 400 for one injector, 700 and more for turbocharger, and around the same for DPF or dual mass flywheel. Bigger, more expensive or luxury car, and the prices will double. Or tripe.
Sulfur in diesel fuel are big problem. It will ruin the catalyst, and some diesel engines uses special cylinder coating (nikasil or similar), witch will be destroyed by sulfur.

It is no longer true, that diesel cars are more reliable than petrol ones. The basic technicals (pistons etc) can be more reliable, but who cares if you have to pay thousands for components that petrol engines just don't have.
But with new wave of downsized, turbocharged, direct injected, huge compression petrols, it will probably be the same. Buy some indestructible V8 while you can :)

Driving.
Modern diesel engines are really similar to the petrols. The working range are wider, they are quieter, and the lag is almost gone.
85% of engines (4 bangers) has maximum torque at 2000rpm, maximum power at 4000rpm, and redline at around 5-5500rpm. You can usually drive it from 1700rpm to around 4500rpm. Bigger engines (3l 4 cylinders at off road cars or V6) usually revs lower.
The amount of noise on highway are usually lower, but it is deep resonating noise and it is more tiring than high revving petrol noise. At idle all 4 cylinders still sounds like sh*t.
There is still some lag, and it always be because of turbo, emissions and fuel pump, but it is no problem. Problem is when the revs falls under 1500rpm, and lots of modern high boost, emission tied engines completely produce only tiny amount of torque there.
One of the problems of diesel cars are that they are producing low amount of waste heat. That is good in terms of efficiency, but really bad in winter. The engine could have problems reaching it working temperature, and it is problem for you (heating), for fuel consumption and reliability.
One winter, I was driving with small 1.4 diesel at city. It was around -10C, the heater was working, but the engine temperature was really low and didn't go up for all time (around 45 minutes). Another, lots of diesel engines cant maintain its working temperature at idle.

And that is probably all. Sorry for the mistakes, I'm not native speaker and don't have time to check it now...

Do you live in the world, where no electricity is required in cloudy days and at night ?
I don't.
You just can't base any significant part of your energy production on uncontrollable sources like sun and wind.

And as far as I know, solar energy is far more expensive.

... is the reason why the solar (and wind) energy has to be supported in most of the Europe, and energy corporation has to buy it for twice the price as energy from other sources !

So, correct me if I don't have it right.
4Ah at 12V gives us 48Wh of energy for one battery.
Tesla battery pack contains approx 50kWh of power, so we need thousand of these SCiB batteries if we want to replace. And as 1 piece weights 1kg, that makes 1 ton together. And as far as I know, tesla's li-ion pack weights about half a ton...

So this seems to be the catch. Same capacity, twice the weight.

My god, I have to read before I post something.

Similar figures are common here. There are few even smaller diesel cars here, with bit better consumption.

Again, if you compare high speed performance, the prius is lot slower.
Top speed of 320d ED is 228kmh, and that is much more than prius.
So it is bit faster off the line, and lot faster at highway speeds.

So if you are, I don't know, going to the vacation with full car, and floors it on highway, doesn't it drains the batteries ?
If I remember right, the capacity of priuses battery pack was around 4-5kWh. It is not much when you are requiring full power.

Man, it is not EGR. EGR has to recirculate the exhaust gases back to the intake. It has to be near the exhaust, and intake manifold. Prius has to have EGR near the engine too, but what is on picture (pipes for hot and one for cold water going to the muffler/catalyst) is some heat recovery independent from egr.

I don't know if I remember it correctly, but doesn't battery pack for tesla costs around twenty thousand $$$ or even more? That is quite a lot.
And what do you men by drivetrain ? Only electric motor, or all the power electronics ?

But there is no such engine (I know of). Wankel offers high power output with low weight, but the efficiency is much worse than standard petrol engine. Expansion doesn't have enough time, compression ratio is low and there are lots of thermal losses due to the high surface area and low volume of combustion chamber. Stirling engine is hugely efficient, but really heavy with low power.
And what more do we have ? Only thing that comes to my mind is "revolutionary" inventions where inventor claims 99.999% efficiency and all he need is lots of cash to make first prototype.

One thing. I read something about tinny gas turbines with lots and lots of efficiency for cars (as generators). And that could be really interesting. Too bad I don't remember where I read it.

I'm not convinced be EV from one reason. I can't imagine to plan my driving and recharging at all. With generator you are unlimited. But EV as only vehicle ? I can't imagine it.
Not to mention problems of EV in cold conditions.

That is how manufacturers measure their fuel consumption numbers, isn't it ?
There is lots of critics here about it, because it doesn't reflects the reality. The numbers are really low, and most users gets their consumption quite higher. Read something about EPA cycle being much more accurate and real.

Ok, in US the situation is probably different. But you just can't sell diesel with density 950 (at 15 degrees) here. Maybe for some really heavy machinery, trains, ships or industrial generators. But not for cars.
And yes, I know the density vary with temperature or "arctic" sort (800-840). Numbers I posted are for summer, at 15 degrees.
And yes, I know that it is just a mixture of carbohydrates with very different characteristics. That is why the norm limits the density at 15 and 40 degrees, destilation figures, amount of sulfur, cetane number, CFPP and much more.

Citroen C3 1.4HDi diesel versus 1.4i petrol. 2001 models
You can easily find them through carfolio.
And you can check long time average for lots of cars here http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/
We have here lots of diesel superminis (or even small sedans) with similar consumption.

Yes, that is probably true. And yes, rolling resistance is much more complicated to be figure out from like this.

I was using the numbers of standard 320d, not 320dED. ED is lot less powerful (aprox 20hp) and 10kg lighter

335d with twin turbochargers has also 300hp. But it is bit heavier than standard 330d. Intercoolers, turbochargers.. you know. Yes, diesels are heavier and less powerful than petrol engines, no doubt about it. But the difference is by far not as big as it was few years ago. Diesel engines with steel engine block and steel head was much heavier. And they are almost completely gone now.

So how do you think normal driving for truck looks like ? In europe it is highway driving at constant speed, more or less constant load for hundreds miles. They are designed to run most of the time near the peak.
And I know the graph. That is why I'm using your averages for car efficiency.

No this is not from wiki. It is from book called "Automobile fuels" (translated)
And as we have norms here for parameters of fuel, that is what our norm says.
petrol : 720-775 kg/m3 at 15 degrees C
diesel : 820-845 kg/m3 at 15 degrees C
So it doesn't average about 15%
Around 10%. And as far as I know, this is valid for whole EU with little differences.

Experience are important, that is no arguing about that.
But did you tested great variety of cars? Where I live there are around 50% of diesels, and I had driven quite a lot a small diesel city car with average 4l/100km (~60mpg). Same car with equivalent petrol engine averaging about 6 liters (~40mpg). In CO2, it is 110 vs 160
Careful extra-urban close to 3 liters.
Quite bigger difference than 5% for eff (in real driving, as you posted) and 10% fuel density (acording to our norm)
And there are LOTS of cars with similar numbers here.

Language barrier. My bad. I didn't know the exact terms in english.
Using (maximum) vehicle dimensions for getting frontal area is wrong. I tried it few times myslef, and it differs significantly from actual numbers.

Yes that is true. But it changes nothing about a fact, that in all reviews and comparison test I read the conclusion was, that priuses tiers have little grip, and bmw is quite sporty with not a one complain about the grip. Latteral G forces 0.78-79 for prius, around 0.9 for bmw (can't find exact number rigt now)
So not all eco tires are equal.

There is no record for prius at carfolio, and our official toyota web doesn't say anything either. So I was using prius wiki page. And as I see now, I was looking at second generation (1317kg) not current (1379kg).
Still, bmw weights (according to their web) 1505kg. So it is 126kg difference.
And modern diesels (including this bmw) are not much heavier than petrol. Aluminum heads and block (with steel cylinder "sleeve"? can't remember the word right now) is usual in new cars. Some diesel engines have whole blocks made from aluminum.
Petrol 320i weights 1445kg. 60kg less then diesel. Prius battery pack weight is around 35 kilograms, and there are electric motor. I would say it could be pretty close to 60kg. So I would say that petrol - diesel weight gain is quite similar to the petrol - hybrid. I don't see any advantage on hybrid side over diesel.

So why the hell doesn't it show over good diesel ?

MUCH faster, heavier bmw, with bigger engine, according to you with much lower efficiency and result is only 90 vs 125 difference in CO2 emissions.
Again, how is it possible.
As I see it, your peer reviewed efficiency numbers for diesel engines are not that accurate after all.

Yes it does.
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/pri_2010.html
To be honest each new diesel are using exhaust gas heat recovery too (water cooler EGR), but not in this extent.

I looked to the book, and our future engineers in school are told even higher number. 45% peak.
What exactly do you mean by normal usage ? I know lots of people which idea of normal usage is 60km at almost constant 90-100 kmh to the work, and back. And they average less then 5 liters/100km in middle sized sedan. And I would say this is quite close to the peak.

Losses at about 15% ? I think this differs a lot from vehicle to another. And for lots of European fwd manual cars the number will be closer to 10% or even less. For mostly automatic rwd US cars it could be even more than 15%
"1-50% on braking and idling." ? Lets talk abut mechanics, not driving style. Cause change the driving style(all you need is little foreseeing and engine braking) the number will be much different. And stop and go systems are offered for lots of new cars, for really little price (~200$).
Do you really want to count in driving ?
So how efficient is prius doing 110mph on German autobahn ? That is absolutely normal usage for most of Germans.

I agree completely.
We have here lots of people ranting about big fuel consumption of new diesel cars. People change their car for for same model, same engine, and the fuel consumption can be 20-30% higher. Only difference is euro3 vs euro4 emission standard. NOx limits have huge impact over the diesels here.

But I recently read a test of some car with urine injection to the catalyst (probably 3litre bmw diesel), and they was surprised by lot lower fuel consumption compared to the same car without the optional system. I think urine can save diesel vehicles :)

It is not that much what you said, but how you said it.
And I don't know why it is that big problem for you, to debate with less educated person. Yes, I'm far less educated in power plants or batteries, you convinced me more or less, and I'm not arguing about it anymore. That seem to me as debate. Or do you willing to debate only with leading experts in problematics?

As it seems to me, you didn't do that much research about European diesel cars. You probably didn't drive diesel for most of your live. So what ? Does that mean you can't talk about diesels ?
You are right, I did not read your peer reviewed research. But I read university scripts about ICE engines. Did you?
And saying : you didn't read that, so you don't know and don't debate here? seems to me quite arrogant. But maybe that is language barrier again.

Last thing. If it is that big problem debating with someone who did not read all your loved papers, just stop it. You don't have to if you don't wont.

My bad, it is only 44.8%
http://tinyurl.com/39mgjwt

The density of petrol varies around 750kg/m3 diesel around 820kg/m3.
So yes, there is a difference, but it is around 10%
And where the hell the 15% efficiency difference came from ?
I'm quoting your post, using your numbers.

And yes, drag areas differs. Prius is smaller. It has also better aerodynamics (0.26 vs 0.27), it has low RR eco tires, it is front wheel drive so there are (few %) less drive-train losses, it is almost 200 kg lighter than bmw (more than 10%), it has brake energy regeneration, it can move only on electricity, and it has some kind of waste heat recovery. ALL advantages (except fuel density) are on the side of prius.
So again how the hell is it possible, if hybrids are 5-10% more efficient than diesels (again, your numbers. 25% vs 30-35%)

No, peak efficiency of diesel engines are about 35-40%. I can take a picture of university scripts (in book version) if you like. Too bad they are not in english.
And what is the difference ? Diesel cars don't idle, brake or run in different than optimal revs? I think they do. And even more then hybrids.
Not to mention that all modern diesels are fuc*ed by NOx emissions limits.

And you are the one, to tell which is which. Wow this is so arrogant, I don't know what to say.

Again, what the hell are you talking about ? Where am I telling anyone what to do ? There is quite a difference between telling someone what to do and writing down an opinion.
And do I understand it right, that you are TESLA chief engineer ?

Yeah. But no chance finding any new english papers.

btw are you from US ? I have tiny little feeling that you may be talking about bit different diesels than me.

Man, what the hell ?
That is exactly what I'm talking about. About EXISTING cars and plants. About average of what we have NOW.
No, super efficient cars will not magically pop-up, but nor your turbines will.

Or should I argue with some turbocharged turbo-compound diesel trucks with almost 50% efficiency ? No. Few trucks doesn't matter, and we are talking about average 20-25% for cars.

This is an argument ?
So what if EVs have them automatically ? Doe's it change anything about the fact, that it will improve efficiency and reduce losses for ICE vehicles?
And you don't need to improve efficiency of ICE to get far better mileage. You can make the car lighter, and reduce losses.

btw have you heard about bmw 320d ? 180 horses and 4.7l / 100km in combined cycle?
Bit more interesting numbers (form me) than 135 hp 3.9l / 100 km from prius.
Can you please explain it to me with your peer reviewed literature? Because diesel (25% eff) should be quite less effective than petrol hybrid cars (30-35%).

And sorry man, I didn't know that only expert in problematics are allowed to discuss here. I know a bit about the cars so I tough I can join the discussion, but I was probably wrong.
And no, I'm not going to pay 30$ for some study just to discuss it with you.

Why did I said that?
Because I tough we are talking about current situation. Yes, in 20 years we will have more efficient plants, but we will have also more efficient cars.
We have numbers about car efficiency from 2007, so we have to talk about power plant (average) efficiency in 2007. Today, one super effective gas turbine doesn't matter. Thousands of old plants does.

And as car manufacturers are under huge pressure to limit CO2 emissions (fuel consumption), the efficiency of cars may go up even faster than efficiency of plants.
Lots of new cars use some form of brake energy recovery, they are automatically turn off engine when you stop, they have low rolling resistant tires, improved aerodynamics, more efficient transmission, special cooling and waste heat management and more.
In 5 years, all new cars will have this technologies. But it is included in the study you mentioned ? I'm not sure.

To be honest, I know nothing about tank-to-something studies.
But as you have to produce petrol or diesel in refinery, you also have to "produce" gas and coal (I suppose it have to be cleaned, refined, transformed, milled)
You have to move the petrol to the gas stations, but you also have to move millions tons of coal to the power plants. Is the difference that big ?

You seems to be an expert in battery problematics so, correct me if I'm wrong.
Faster you charge (or discharge) less efficiency you get. right ?
And the same for charger. Higher the power, means usually less efficiency. right ?
I don't know much about batteries, but this is how it usually works in almost everything.

And in cars, what you need are deep discharge batteries, witch can be charged and discharged really really fast. right?
So as I understand it. You can have battery good in almost everything, but at cost of efficiency. Or good batteries in each aspect (including efficiency), but with really high price tag.

All I want to say is, that it is hard for me to believe that all chargers are 92-93% efficient, and all batteries goes from 94-99.
Standard home electronics battery could have different parameters than heavy duty ones, and standard chargers can by more efficient then some 8 kW heavy duty fast charger.

But latest plants doesn't really matter that much. Most of the plants are still old 40-45%. Yes in 30 years, we can talk about average 60%, but not now. Second thing, around 50% of electricity in US are produced in less effective coal plants. And if you put the numbers together (with 45-50% for power plant efficiency), you will get something around 30-35% That is exactly same as hybrid. btw any sources for the petrol / diesel efficiency numbers? thanks

man, I'm not an expert, but 99.8% of battery charge / discharge efficiency looks like a total BS to me. 1) that would mean, that only 0.2% of electricity used to charge the battery changes to heat. and that is not right, battery pack in hybrids and electric vehicles have cooling. and you don't need cooling for 4kW * 0.002 = 8W of heat produced. it may work for charging with tiny little currents, but you don't wont to charge your car a whole week. 2) you are forgetting the efficiency of charger. and it would be around 80-90%.