Why a lot military vehicles are petrol?

S

Stelios

New Member
Diesel can be stored for a very long time without any problem and it is easier to produce. Also diesel engines last longer, usually require less maintence and have lots of torque. Petrol truck example: Volvo C303
 
Stelios said:
Diesel can be stored for a very long time without any problem and it is easier to produce. Also diesel engines last longer, usually require less maintence and have lots of torque. Petrol truck example: Volvo C303
Click to expand...

Europeans seem to prefer petrol but a large proportion of the rest of the world does use diesel.
From memory and this may be incorrect but I think the last new petrol engine entered service with the US military in the 1980s.
 
Stelios said:
But, is there any good reason to use petrol engines?
Click to expand...

I would guess a mix of tradition and logistics would be the probable answer, until WW2 petrol was the most common option as supply chains, transport and storage were geared toward that and it is never easy to do large scale changes once there is a functioning system in place.
 
During my time in the military both RAF and TA, most vehicles were petrol powered, only the bigger and heavier trucks were diesel as well as aircraft refuellers.

Then began the move to diesels the Bedford MK 4x4 and 2.5 diesel Landrovers, I believe there was also a diesel motor bike in the pipe line for convoy control and dispatch riders.

Personally I am a huge fan of diesels for a number of reasons, they tend to run cooler then a petrol engine, typically, a diesel is 20 to 30 per cent more efficient than an equivalent petrol engine. ... Diesel engines emit more noxious gases and CO2 per litre of fuel used than petrol-powered cars. However, because diesels use less fuel, they can emit less CO2 over time as well as being more reliable.
 
I would say the majority of military vehicles are now diesel powered. especially when they are designed to withstand IED's and provide with some shell fragment/projectile protection.

There is another advantage to use diesel instead of gas/petrol. If a vehicle is hit by a projectile, gas/petrol tends to burn easier than diesel
 
A lot of diesel vehicles are starting to be phased out in favour of more economic petrol, hybrid and electric varients.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I would say the majority of military vehicles are now diesel powered. especially when they are designed to withstand IED's and provide with some shell fragment/projectile protection.

There is another advantage to use diesel instead of gas/petrol. If a vehicle is hit by a projectile, gas/petrol tends to burn easier than diesel
Click to expand...

The Advent of self sealing fuel tanks and inert foam filled tanks have reduced the instances of gas/petrol combustion significantly.
 
Independent tests show Mercedes C220d emits 0mg/km of nitrogen oxide on the road, while BMW 520d emits just 1mg/km; legal limit is 168mg/km
The latest diesel models from Mercedes, Vauxhall and BMW emit almost no nitrogen oxides, or NOx, even in the toughest real-world on-road tests, according to independent research.

The German automobile club (ADAC) conducted on-road RDE (real driving emissions) tests of a number of petrol and diesel models to assess their cleanliness, and found many models dramatically undercut the 168mg/km currently allowed under Euro 6d Temp rules.

The diesel Mercedes C-Class C220d actually emitted no NOx whatsoever during the on-road tests, while the BMW 5 Series 520d emitted just 1mg per kilometre. An Opel (Vauxhall) Astra with a 1.6-litre diesel engine also impressed, emitting just 1mg/km of NOx, while the Citroen Berlingo BlueHDI 130 emitted just 7mg/km. In some cases, the diesel cars tested emitted less NOx than equivalent petrol models.

These the findings echo work showcased by Bosch in early 2018 that revealed on-road NOx levels could be cut to as little as 13mg/km. NOx emissions have been at the heart of the debate around diesel, with research linking them to everything from asthma and pulmonary conditions, to heart disease and dementia.

Mercedes told Auto Express the C-Class's result was partly due to "exhaust after-treatment close to the engine and...multiple exhaust gas recirculation" on the company's OM 654 diesel engine. Mercedes added: "Our goal for 2020 is to get to average NOx emissions of around 30 milligrams per kilometer in RDE drives of Level 2."

The findings from the ADAC, who are the equivalent of the British AA, will be welcomed by vehicle manufacturers, who have reportedly been facing battles to get their cars to comply with the on-road RDE element of the WLTP (worldwide harmonized light vehicles test procedure) tests. The results also come against a backdrop of legal wrangling related to the legality of RDE limits.

On road RDE NOx limits are set at 80mg/km (milligrams per kilometre) for diesel cars, and 60mg/km for petrols. In order to allow manufacturers time to get their vehicles compliant with the tests, and allow for inaccuracies in the PEMS (portable emissions measurement systems) used during the on-road RDE tests, ‘conformity factors’ – which allow cars to emit more than those limits – were set.
 
The latest Koenigsegg (Jesko) is a dual fueled car. It can go on both gas/petrol and E85 (ethanol) The power output is even greater when it goes on booze.

The civilian world is trying to replace the fossil fuels with bio-fuels. The military will be forced to follow, but can the armed forces do it? Is Tesla developing a battery driven MBT? It will be a problem to recharge it. :p
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The latest Koenigsegg (Jesko) is a dual fueled car. It can go on both gas/petrol and E85 (ethanol) The power output is even greater when it goes on booze.

The civilian world is trying to replace the fossil fuels with bio-fuels. The military will be forced to follow, but can the armed forces do it? Is Tesla developing a battery driven MBT? It will be a problem to recharge it. :p
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the argument over recharging vehicles to me it is no different to refueling a car, you look at the fuel guage and refuel/recharge when necessary.
I currently have an Audi E-Tron and the only difference between that and the A8 I had previously is the time it takes to charge vs filling it with petrol but for the most part that happens while I am sitting at an office desk instead of a gas station and charging systems are improving all the time.

With regard to a military vehicle it would probably make sense to use modular fuel packs where spent fuel packs are simply replaced with full ones in the field.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I really don't understand the argument over recharging vehicles to me it is no different to refueling a car, you look at the fuel guage and refuel/recharge when necessary.
I currently have an Audi E-Tron and the only difference between that and the A8 I had previously is the time it takes to charge vs filling it with petrol but for the most part that happens while I am sitting at an office desk instead of a gas station and charging systems are improving all the time.

With regard to a military vehicle it would probably make sense to use modular fuel packs where spent fuel packs are simply replaced with full ones in the field.
Click to expand...

It takes longer to recharge an electric/battery powered car than refueling a car. If we have electric MBT's, APC's, IFV's, and all other armored vehicles in an army and add the amount of vehicles that need to be recharged at the same time. In addition to that, the army needs to bring chargers where ever they go when the civilian infrastructure is most likely damaged or even destroyed so the army cannot rely on the local power grid to get electricity.

I think the military will go for Bio-Diesel to replace the current diesel powered vehicles. I like ethanol for civilian cars, Sweden has now a newer ethanol based on leftovers from the logging industry.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It takes longer to recharge an electric/battery powered car than refueling a car. If we have electric MBT's, APC's, IFV's, and all other armored vehicles in an army and add the amount of vehicles that need to be recharged at the same time. In addition to that, the army needs to bring chargers where ever they go when the civilian infrastructure is most likely damaged or even destroyed so the army cannot rely on the local power grid to get electricity.

I think the military will go for Bio-Diesel to replace the current diesel powered vehicles. I like ethanol for civilian cars, Sweden has now a newer ethanol based on leftovers from the logging industry.
Click to expand...

I think they will go down a different path and use a mixture of Hydrogen and Electricity.

As for electric charging, there are already 250kw chargers out there that can recharge a car in 30mins and 350kw are expected this year, pulse charging allows much faster charging without stressing batteries and battery technology it improving all the time.

I would not be surprised if within 10 years electricity isn't the only option for light vehicles with only the very heavy transport vehicles using liquid hydrogen.
 
MontyB said:
I think they will go down a different path and use a mixture of Hydrogen and Electricity.

As for electric charging, there are already 250kw chargers out there that can recharge a car in 30mins and 350kw are expected this year, pulse charging allows much faster charging without stressing batteries and battery technology it improving all the time.

I would not be surprised if within 10 years electricity isn't the only option for light vehicles with only the very heavy transport vehicles using liquid hydrogen.
Click to expand...

I am somewhat skeptical toward electric/battery powered cars. Batteries don't respond well to cold temperatures. Another reason for my skepticism is if we replace all fossil fueled cars with electric cars, we will experience a power shortage when we are deactivating our nuclear plants. We need to get rid of fossil fuels and I think different countries can after their own assets get functional alternate fuels. Sweden and other Nordic countries have a lot of forests and a logging industry. The "leftovers" from it can be used to produce ethanol
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I am somewhat skeptical toward electric/battery powered cars. Batteries don't respond well to cold temperatures. Another reason for my skepticism is if we replace all fossil fueled cars with electric cars, we will experience a power shortage when we are deactivating our nuclear plants. We need to get rid of fossil fuels and I think different countries can after their own assets get functional alternate fuels. Sweden and other Nordic countries have a lot of forests and a logging industry. The "leftovers" from it can be used to produce ethanol
Click to expand...

The negatives of electric vehicles are slowly being ironed out.
My Audi is currently doing 550km from a charge and takes roughly $4 to charge, the Q7 is about 650km per tank and takes about $160 to fill.
The biggest negative is the charge time 30 minutes to get to 80% with the 100kw fast charger however, there are 150, 300kw chargers on the way.

I expect that in the long term the military will head down the electric path once batteries have improved and it wouldn't surprise me to see modular power packs so instead of requiring a giant generator there will be pre-charged battery packs.

Regarding ethanol, NZ has a ton of forestry as well and we currently make ethanol from dairy farming waste but don't use it in our fuel.
 
MontyB said:
The negatives of electric vehicles are slowly being ironed out.
My Audi is currently doing 550km from a charge and takes roughly $4 to charge, the Q7 is about 650km per tank and takes about $160 to fill.
The biggest negative is the charge time 30 minutes to get to 80% with the 100kw fast charger however, there are 150, 300kw chargers on the way.

I expect that in the long term the military will head down the electric path once batteries have improved and it wouldn't surprise me to see modular power packs so instead of requiring a giant generator there will be pre-charged battery packs.

Regarding ethanol, NZ has a ton of forestry as well and we currently make ethanol from dairy farming waste but don't use it in our fuel.
Click to expand...

NZ seems to have a better gov than Sweden. We have chargers in our urban areas, but not many in rural areas. Setting up these chargers go very slow and that makes having an electric/battery car more complicated for those living on the country side

So the Kiwis prefer to drink it instead? That's understandable

We have buses and semi trucks powered by some sort of a natural gas from our waste plants. It seems working pretty well, except for an increased fire hazard when they are involved in traffic accidents. You are probably right about batteries.

You mentioned hydrogen earlier, I think that is a pretty good idea for heavy traffic and the military
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
NZ seems to have a better gov than Sweden. We have chargers in our urban areas, but not many in rural areas. Setting up these chargers go very slow and that makes having an electric/battery car more complicated for those living on the country side

So the Kiwis prefer to drink it instead? That's understandable

We have buses and semi trucks powered by some sort of a natural gas from our waste plants. It seems working pretty well, except for an increased fire hazard when they are involved in traffic accidents. You are probably right about batteries.

You mentioned hydrogen earlier, I think that is a pretty good idea for heavy traffic and the military
Click to expand...

Hehe yes are one of the largest beer drinking nations per capital in the world unfortunately I think we tend to drink for the wrong reasons and it is a major contributor to our high family violence and suicide rates.

I have always wondered why we never added ethanol to our petrol if for no other reason than to lower the cost of petrol but it has since been pointed out that 70% of the cost of petrol is tax so the last thing the government will do is encourage cheaper fuel.
 
MontyB said:
Hehe yes are one of the largest beer drinking nations per capital in the world unfortunately I think we tend to drink for the wrong reasons and it is a major contributor to our high family violence and suicide rates.

I have always wondered why we never added ethanol to our petrol if for no other reason than to lower the cost of petrol but it has since been pointed out that 70% of the cost of petrol is tax so the last thing the government will do is encourage cheaper fuel.
Click to expand...

Alcohol and other drugs contribute to domestic violence. We have pretty high rate of domestic violence and drunk drivers.

Sweden has two different octane of gasoline, 95 and 98. We add ethanol into it, even the ethanol fuel has 15% gasoline in it, I guess that's for preventing us from drinking it. We have what they call bio-gasoline and bio-diesel. I don't know how they make the first one. The latter one can be produced by crops, but I'm not sure how
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Alcohol and other drugs contribute to domestic violence. We have pretty high rate of domestic violence and drunk drivers.

Sweden has two different octane of gasoline, 95 and 98. We add ethanol into it, even the ethanol fuel has 15% gasoline in it, I guess that's for preventing us from drinking it. We have what they call bio-gasoline and bio-diesel. I don't know how they make the first one. The latter one can be produced by crops, but I'm not sure how
Click to expand...

You can make bio-diesel from almost anything you can extract oil from, it isn't much more than making the oil pH neutral and adding a bit of methanol to bump up the octane rating.
Bio-fuel is a fermentation process to produce a low grade ethanol (85-90%), crops (usually corn) are broken down through an enzymatic fermentation process.

Neither method is all that efficient however bio-diesel at least repurposes a waste stream, NZ uses dairy factory waste streams, lactose (milk sugar) is fermented to make ethanol and I imagine Sweden uses enzymes or chemicals to break down forestry waste into cellulose to ferment into ethanol.
It is a surprisingly easy process although I have always believed methanol and not ethanol would be a far cheaper and easier fuel to manufacture as you could generate it from waste plants, farm run off and sewage systems by converting methane to methanol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top