THE DIESEL ENGINE

Hokitika Guardian, 29 July 1931, Page 5

THE DIESEL ENGINE

EXPERTS DISAGREE. ATTITUDE OF ENGINEERS. At the present time the Diesel, or fuel oil, engine is in limited and experimental use, although it seems to have become fairly well established for boats and trucks. Many engineers are confident of its further development and widespread extension, but others question its ultimate: supremacy' in the motor-car field. They challenge the claims made for it by its advocates. This difference of. opinion came out recently at what is described a's- ; ‘a controversial meeting' of the Society of Automobile Engineers in Q.'S.A.;, at which, according To a, report by the Society, ; the ? experts .-took sharply opposite sides.'* Iff was 'maintained by the doubters, for -instance, ‘•that fuel economics provide no mate incentive for developing the Diesel type of engine,” because “the’ price differential between petrol and fuel oil will vanish when- the demaspj for fuel oil increases.” On the other hand, it was claimed • .“that, with no differential existing between light and heavy fuels, possible savings in , fuel cost for a given output' fully justify the development of Diesel engines for automobile use.” : • . . < '■ FUEL REQUIREMENTS. The critics of the Diesel went on to assert that these engines are “very sensitive as to fuel requirements, and that a narrow range of fuel specifications must apply in the preparation of. fuel forj."lb type,’’ whereupon ;the 'Advocates j.of Diesel engines asseverated ; That they, ,wpuldri : ‘‘accept and digest almost' anything from alcohol-.to asphalt.” ; -" j .. .. , ; Other opposed ; Maims as set'.out in •the report are:— That Diesels are particularly well adapted to marine and aircraft use because the heavier file! eliminate fire hazards. That fuel oil for aircraft and marine Diesels is difficult to handle properly to prevent creeping, which results in the .promotion of burning of parts that;are covered by it. y.; That Diesels are bad smokers, the smoke having a very disagreeable,'acrid odour. That; Diesels, prqpei;ly--operqt<3d, smoke less than;; conventiohal.Bet^pl;engines* and :the -exhaust,,is d styeet ;;,andrclean:. ; -.it: ■ That ..’■■valves, jets,, and - -pumps.;-bn •Diesels s are, and are,. ..inherently, source*. of I. continual/.trouble;'"and need • frequent attention;' That these-elements are open Bting,-, day' yin and - day ..out r . wjthout attention 'for thousands" hours; and _ need no' more nursing than .a tet;oiispakli ; i plugs. .'A-:.';'. ■ : . COST OF/ BUILQgNG,, ~, That Diesels must of necessity cost more to build. JTKate Diesels '-.in -quantity production will cost pra'ctically no more than the• conventional engine to, build. That -Diesels must! '-be much ~ hectvktt for a given rating. That Diesels .for a given ; rating- arei no heavier;- ;• •'•' ; That present automobile Diesels have all- the ; desirable* performance characteristics of gasoline engines and som in addition. That present automptivDiesels lack . flexibility, and ‘do ,not perform properly over a desirable speed ana load range. That Diesel development, as now in progress, is up the wrong track . and cannot possibly result advantageouslyThat present-day development of Diesels has a clear course ahead and that the final result will be a happ> blending of features that- now characterise the Diesel and ; wnventional gasoline engine. ... . A paragraph elsewhere states,: Jt was not the fact that Clessie Cummins's Diesel-engined race car used only 2.4 dollars’ worth of fuel in the Memorir. Day event at Indianapolis that was o; primary interest to Detroit engineers. Nor was it hecause the machine av? v aged 86.17 miles' an hour,..*plthougKctfr?& was commented upon favoura.bly.. Th aspect of the Diesel’s ato* discussed is that it rati.;, tbrpugh;i. p entire 500 miles without petrol-engined car has shown / durance in this particular;