For those who didn't click: Aviation engines. Not car engines.
> Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited is a British luxury automobile maker which has operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW AG since 2003
...
> The Rolls-Royce Motor Cars subsidiary of BMW AG has no direct relationship to Rolls-Royce-branded vehicles produced before 2003, other than having briefly supplied components and engines. The Bentley Motors Limited subsidiary of Volkswagen AG is the direct successor to Rolls-Royce Motors and various other predecessor entities that produced Rolls-Royce and Bentley branded cars between the foundation of each company and 2003, when the BMW-controlled entity started producing cars under the Rolls-Royce brand.
The "actual" Rolls-Royce company with a lineage going back to the beginning of the brand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Holdings ) has exited the car business, and nowadays makes jet engines, gas turbines, and nuclear reactors.
If anyone has ever seen a timeline diagram of their corporate structure I'd be very interested to see, just to get a sense of how much more of a clusterfuck it is than the tidbits I know about.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/41414/rimac-just-bought-bugatt...
Volkswagen group has been said to have slated the sell-off of Ferdinand Piëch's "favorite toy" since his death in 2019. . . . The complicated corporate ownership structure of Bugatti-Rimac places Rimac Group as the majority stakeholder of the endeavor with 55 percent of the control. Volkswagen-owned Porsche retains the other 45 percent of ownership. Above Rimac Group sits another number of shareholders, beginning with CEO Mate Rimac who controls 37 percent of the company. Porsche controls 24 percent of Rimac Group, Hyundai has 12 percent, and "other investors" amass the remaining 27 percent.
And it all goes back to the Porsche and Piech families, which still own a majority share in VW.
But to me the most fascinating of them all is when Porsche tried a short-squeeze on VW stocks to both acquire VW and make countless billions in the process but that failed due to the... 2008 financial crisis. Without the crisis hitting, Porsche (the company, not the family) was acquiring VW.
Their short squeeze failed and Porsche lost an insane amount of money on their temporarily worthless VW stocks (the VW stock lost 75% of its value between 2008 and 2009, something insane like that) and then... VW had to rescue Porsche by acquiring Porsche.
But then as of late Porsche spun off out of VW again.
It's mindboggling stuff.
The best description I've read about Porsche (the company) is: "The hedge fund that happened to also sell cars".
https://www.hagerty.com/media/automotive-history/the-beast-j...
That being said, it's by no means a given, modern diesel engines are highly optimized and might have trouble with kerosene/SAF, especially given the different lubrication qualitities. Old diesel engines, however, should be fine, they can run on pretty much anything.
Edit: Actually it's more likely that I just forgot the nickname, but yeah.
Post-scandal, fewer manufacturers are selling them in the US, but there are millions sold every year worldwide in plain old passenger cars.
Source: I own a diesel car, Kia Cee’d 1.6L
But yes "clean diesel" took off on the EU (somewhat) but in the US diesel means dirty smelly trucks/buses
So all in all, a modern diesel is pretty clean. Not as good as a modern gasoline car, but still reasonably ok and massively better than old diesels.
There is nothing inherently requiring diesel cars to be slow.
It never became popular in the US, although there are still a few cars there that run in diesel.
Diesel engines are typically more reliable and cheaper to run than gasoline. More low-end torque also made them easier to drive with a manual gearbox.
They never became common in the US partly because of differing emissions requirements.
(I checked as I didn't believe it was half, but I see there's significant variation by country.)
They tend to have a bit better economy but an higher price, so in the end it depends on how long you keep them and the difference is not that positive in countries that tax both fuel the same, like Switzerland.
Modern gasoline engines have a few more tricks though and reduce the gap (like very high top gear, direct injection etc.).
I believe this effect is small compared to the alternative, which is that partial loads have dramatically excess air. That excess air isn't involved in the combustion, but still gets heated and pumped through the exhaust. That energy loss exceeds the pumping loss through a throttle on a part loaded engine.
Obviously the ideal case for both engine types is that you run it at a lower RPM whenever you need less power out. Unfortunately, that has other downsides (mostly slower response when you floor-it). Luckily, hybrid electric systems mitigate much of that downside by providing rapid response with electricity and allowing your engine to sit at 1000 rpm and 80% throttle in a super high gear while cruising 70mph on the freeway.
Have you heard about Dieselgate?
They need less fuel than petrol, but one issue is that they don't lend themselves well to 100% city driving because this can lead to costly diesel particulate filter repairs as they clog up. Diesel cars automatically regenerate the filters (burn the muck to ash) as you drive e.g. over 40 mph for >25 minutes or so. (depends on car model) You should drive like that at least once a month.
However, where I live, longer distance driving is pretty common.
They're falling out of favor with rising diesel prices since covid and of course EV's. Companies here go full EV nowadays for several reasons, public image only one of them.
I'd also like to go electrical but seems like we're still stuck for yet a few years because they still don't offer charging poles in apartment garages very liberally, and for any kind of convenient EV use, it honestly builds upon the fact that you can charge it overnight close to home.
It's rare enough that I often get very concerned gas station attendees warning me that I'm "accidentally" putting diesel in my car.
And all multi-fuel engines the military tried, e.g. in the Chieftain (if memory serves well), were rather underwhelming and ran mostly on diesel anyway.
Old disel engines are fine with all kinds of stuff, modern ones a lot less.
Interesting, haven't heard of that. But yes, I can imagine with diesel containing heavier hydrocarbons than kerosene, there could be a buildup of soot deposits on the hot parts of the engine. Might also be some certification issue, that if you operate with out-of-spec fuel then you need to overhaul the engine before it's considered flight worthy again (even if there might be no problem with the engine per se).
Then again, don't these naval ships with gas turbine engines run on something like standard light marine diesel oil?
> And all multi-fuel engines the military tried, e.g. in the Chieftain (if memory serves well), were rather underwhelming and ran mostly on diesel anyway.
The Chieftain engine was designed to be "truly" multi-fuel, being in principle capable of running on both diesel, petrol, and anything in between like kerosene.
If you limit the multi-fuelness to diesel and the current day narrow cut kerosenes that are used as jet fuel, it's a much simpler problem.
E.g. Western military diesel vehicles tend to be specced to run on diesel or JP-8 (the military variant of standard Jet A-1 jet fuel, with a few additives). And aviation diesel engines used in some GA aircraft tend to be certified for Jet A-1 (and they are often modified versions of standard automotive diesel engines).
There's also the difference between "will it work" and "will it work for continual use".
RR's aero engines are generally very well-regarded.