OK, OK, it's the devil's fuel - everyone knows that, especially on here, but I've had my fair share of tractors
The current theme seems to be that "this govt" or "that govt" got it wrong, pushing everyone to get diesels, apparently. Yes, they give out particulates, and they aren't very good for squirrels et al, but why the sudden move to condemn the devil?
For example, if I replaced the 180 black horses in my Transporter with, say a 230 petrol-powered horses from a Golf GTI (not as much torque, but you get the idea - I don't care about power in a diesel - it's all about torque), then I reckon it would have similar performance. With me so far?
I get about 32mpg out of the van now on a long run. If I stuck a petrol engine in it, from experience of driving the same model of petrol and diesel cars in the past, I reckon I'd get something like 22mpg - maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, but who cares for the purpose of this illustration.
I know that the new BMWs, for example, give mental consumption out of a gallon of diesel and petrol, but the diesel will always give more mpg than the petrol.
So I now have a petrol van which isn't killing hedgehogs, but it's using nearly 50% more fuel than the oil-burner (320 miles would cost 10 gallons in the tractor and 14.5 gallons in the petrol).
Surely that's a shed-load worse than having a diesel-powered van with a Diesel Particulate Filter fitted?