- Joined
- 6 Sep 2004
- Messages
- 1,069
- Reaction score
- 71
- Country
More woe for the oil-burners.
- Thread starter chainsaw_masochist
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Fortunately I don't have to go anywhere near London or any other city for that matter, except for the occasional trip to Exeter and I'm pleased to say the congestion charge hasn't reached here yet. It seems that its so expensive to live in London that it won't make much difference to some people.
Sadly diesels are becoming progressively more expensive to run as the pollution laws keep being tightened so by that time most people will be running petrol cars again.
The diesels I run are the first series Hdi's, the 8 valve ones and they are far more reliable and cheaper to run than the current crop, one of mine has done 226k miles and is mostly original including the DMF and clutch and they have no DPF system - I shall stick with them.
Peter
Sadly diesels are becoming progressively more expensive to run as the pollution laws keep being tightened so by that time most people will be running petrol cars again.
The diesels I run are the first series Hdi's, the 8 valve ones and they are far more reliable and cheaper to run than the current crop, one of mine has done 226k miles and is mostly original including the DMF and clutch and they have no DPF system - I shall stick with them.
Peter
In recent years, just when the car manufacturers had made petrol engines as clean and efficient as possible, I wondered at the wisdom of diesels being promoted at the expense of petrol. It seemed that because diesels did more MPG, there was the idea that they were somehow greener.
This seemed to ignore the fact that all older diesels appeared to be very polluting. Diesel exhaust has recently been added to the list of things known to cause cancer.
I really hope that petrol and petrol engine cars are made significantly cheaper to run, so we can go back to having mostly petrol for cars and diesel for commercials. Better for the environment, but also much nicer to drive a petrol car rather than diesel.
This seemed to ignore the fact that all older diesels appeared to be very polluting. Diesel exhaust has recently been added to the list of things known to cause cancer.
I really hope that petrol and petrol engine cars are made significantly cheaper to run, so we can go back to having mostly petrol for cars and diesel for commercials. Better for the environment, but also much nicer to drive a petrol car rather than diesel.
Possibly...
Any time the government comes up with an excuse of "It's for the good of the environment!" as a reason to raise taxes on something I have to take the studies provided with a massive pinch of salt.
Funny how the more fuel efficient, cleaner and long lasting cars get, the more reasons that cars are damaging the environment and should be heavily taxed.
Not banned.
Just taxed.
Sponsored Links
Diesel exhaust being cacogenic has been known for a long time, I ran my first diesel in 1959, it was a Vauxhall Velox which I fitted with a Perkins 4/99 conversion kit, I was warned then about the dangers of diesel exhaust, something about German 'U' boat crews, I'm pleased to say it hasn't affected me yet.
I'm afraid I don't agree with petrol vehicles being nicer to drive, even the diesels made in the '90s had bags of low down torque which meant you rarely had to change gear, I ran Citroen XMs for over 15 years and they would pull smoothly from tickover, no clutch slipping necessary. They have improved them a lot since then, many have similar performance to petrol engines but only use about 2/3 of the fuel.
If you are young maybe something thrashy and brash would suit, but I gave that up about 50 years ago, I like smooth and quiet now.
Peter
I'm afraid I don't agree with petrol vehicles being nicer to drive, even the diesels made in the '90s had bags of low down torque which meant you rarely had to change gear, I ran Citroen XMs for over 15 years and they would pull smoothly from tickover, no clutch slipping necessary. They have improved them a lot since then, many have similar performance to petrol engines but only use about 2/3 of the fuel.
If you are young maybe something thrashy and brash would suit, but I gave that up about 50 years ago, I like smooth and quiet now.
Peter
You've hit the nail on the head. I was hoping for petrol cars to be made affordable to run, but we all know that they will just make diesels more expensive instead.
If you are young maybe something thrashy and brash would suit, but I gave that up about 50 years ago, I like smooth and quiet now.
Yes, you've guessed, I'm a 47 year old delinquent.
Seriously, nothing could be further from the truth. Until recently, I was a fully paid up member of the Rover P4 Drivers Guild, and my current car is 28 years old.
I just prefer the smoothness and quietness of petrol engines, they even smell better. For me. nothing would spoil a quality car more than a clanking, oil burning, heavy diesel engine. A neighbour has a diesel Jag estate and a friend has a really noisy diesel Alfa. For these two particular marques, I think they have really missed the point of Jag or Alfa ownership. Not saying it's the same case for all makes.
There's a reason why Rolls Royce don't make a diesel.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/customers-say-no-diesel-rolls-royce
Everyone's different, but for me, one of the best sounds is a big V8. A petrol V8.
I to like the sound of a V8 or even a straight 6, I had a BMW 5 series with a 6 cylinder oil burner, it sounded nice but in their efforts to make it feel like a petrol engine they had ruined it, the low down torque was so poor I kept stalling it, and the best fuel consumption I could get was 47 mpg against about 55mpg for my much older design Citroen XM. The IDI engine in that would pull smoothly from tickover.
I will admit that some diesels still are noisy outside but you can't hear the engine in the car, certainly not with Citroen and Peugeot cars anyway, most of the late V6 diesels are quite, some very quiet but the majority are considerably better on fuel than their petrol counterparts.
Peter
I will admit that some diesels still are noisy outside but you can't hear the engine in the car, certainly not with Citroen and Peugeot cars anyway, most of the late V6 diesels are quite, some very quiet but the majority are considerably better on fuel than their petrol counterparts.
Peter
Twenty years ago when there was a lot of talk about the sudden increase in asthma, especially in children, I said that this was due to the vast, and relatively rapid, increase in small diesel engine vehicles on the road. Looks like my opinion was correct, and now there is a half-hearted, but pocket-hitting attempt to reverse a twenty-year trend!
I think I have a foot in both camps here. After a string of company diesel Peugeot 807s, someone cocked-up and ordered me a petrol one. It was AWFUL!!! Slower than the diesel (in any practical sense of the word), LESS refined, and did a good 10 miles to the gallon less than the diesel. Yes, you could make it perform a BIT quicker than the diesel, but only by ragging the living daylights out of it in every gear.
On the other hand though, I have a 25 year old petrol Alfa V6...
...which is an utter joy to redline at every available opportunity.
Like everything else, I think there are good and bad examples of each sort of engine. The PSA petrol engines do nothing for me. Very lacklustre engines that run out of puff at about 5000 revs, such that there's just no point in going anywhere near the redline. Italian petrol engines, on the other hand, seem so willing.
The sad truth of the matter though, is that diesels are worse for oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions, petrols are worse for CO2 an unburned hydrocarbons. Alas, no easy answers.
On the other hand though, I have a 25 year old petrol Alfa V6...
...which is an utter joy to redline at every available opportunity.
Like everything else, I think there are good and bad examples of each sort of engine. The PSA petrol engines do nothing for me. Very lacklustre engines that run out of puff at about 5000 revs, such that there's just no point in going anywhere near the redline. Italian petrol engines, on the other hand, seem so willing.
The sad truth of the matter though, is that diesels are worse for oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions, petrols are worse for CO2 an unburned hydrocarbons. Alas, no easy answers.
Bearing in mind the recent scandal uncovered by the Yanks, the "woes" just keep on coming.
Rather ironic that the land of the gas-guzzler should highlight how environmentally-unfriendly the cars are that are produced by those clever Jerrys.
Rather ironic that the land of the gas-guzzler should highlight how environmentally-unfriendly the cars are that are produced by those clever Jerrys.
Last edited:
We need to keep a sense of perspective though. The Yanks have historically never given a %^*! for fuel economy and CO2 emissions, but have long been concerned with air quality. I think this has a lot to do with LA being one of those cities whose geography means it is especially prone to "wallow" in a bowl of it's own pollution. They had cats long before we did in Europe, for example, and they have never really embraced diesel - partly because petrol is cheaper there, partly because they don't get penalised for high fuel consumption or CO2 emissions. Over the last couple of decades, the EU has rather taken its eye off the ball when it comes to air quality because it has been trying to reduce CO2 emissions. Diesels are great for that, but bad for air quality. They're just two separate problems and neither car gives the best of both worlds, unfortunately.
Also, althought the headline figures of "40 times over the permitted limit" sound dreadful, this is 40 times "a very small number". As the worldwide investigation continues, I think we'll find that MOST diesels will be found to be exceeding the limits under "normal, real-life" driving conditions. This may not be as a result of "cheating", it might simply be the limitations of the vehicles. They can ONLY JUST scrape through the current "Euro 6" type approval tests as it is. I wouldn't mind betting that the emissions from a "cheating" VW would still actually be better than those from a typical 5 year old diesel that wasn't cheating - and probably better than some new ones! Not that this excuses the cheating, of course, but it needs to be seen in perspective. What I fear will happen is that there will be a public outcry, politicians will instruct regulators to tighten up inspections, lots of cars will be found to be wanting, and then we'll get:
(a) even tougher emissions tests (and random spot checks) for manufacturers and
(b) higher taxes (petrol AND diesel) when the MPG (and therefore CO2) figures start to reflect reality more accurately.
That's the trouble with governments, they seem to think that all problems can be solved by simply taking more tax off people!
(a) even tougher emissions tests (and random spot checks) for manufacturers and
(b) higher taxes (petrol AND diesel) when the MPG (and therefore CO2) figures start to reflect reality more accurately.
That's the trouble with governments, they seem to think that all problems can be solved by simply taking more tax off people!
The vast majority of diesel exhaust comes not from cars, but buses, taxis, lorries, heavy plant and trains, and of course aircraft run on kerosene which is similar to diesel fuel, so the actual percentage of pollution from cars is quite small although some of the polluters don't discharge their exhaust on the roads in towns, that's the real problem with cars, and of course petrol engines are not devoid of harmful gas emissions especially as they don't burn fuel as efficiently as diesels, the real problem is the concentration of internal combustion engines in a relatively small space.
The only real solution is to get traffic moving more freely so it doesn't generate as much pollution or everyone move into the country so it gets dispersed before being inhaled. As neither of these are likely to happen we are stuck with the problem. The real answer for urban areas is electric vehicles as they are virtually emission free, the harmful gasses being expelled from power stations or better still from renewable energy. A large proportion of second cars in urban areas don't do more than about 20 miles a day so a vehicle with less range and top speed would be much cheaper to produce if people could be persuaded away from the apparent necessity of running a Range Rover in central London.
Peter
The only real solution is to get traffic moving more freely so it doesn't generate as much pollution or everyone move into the country so it gets dispersed before being inhaled. As neither of these are likely to happen we are stuck with the problem. The real answer for urban areas is electric vehicles as they are virtually emission free, the harmful gasses being expelled from power stations or better still from renewable energy. A large proportion of second cars in urban areas don't do more than about 20 miles a day so a vehicle with less range and top speed would be much cheaper to produce if people could be persuaded away from the apparent necessity of running a Range Rover in central London.
Peter
I have no "inside" information, but if people like COMEAP are to be believed,
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/comeap-reports
getting on for 40% of airborne NOx is from vehicle exhausts. Trucks and buses have their own (quite tough) standards to meet, but typically, they have longer working lives than cars, so we tend to see more older ones than cars. Taxis are just cars, from a regulatory point of view. They have to meet the same emissions requirements. Again, we see more visibly smoking taxis, but that's particulates rather than NOx and the fact that they tend to have done big miles. What I think might be under-reported are emissions from small plant on building sites. Freeing-up traffic flow, MIGHT help, but it might just make driving more appealing, so that more of us do it and the status quo returns.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/comeap-reports
getting on for 40% of airborne NOx is from vehicle exhausts. Trucks and buses have their own (quite tough) standards to meet, but typically, they have longer working lives than cars, so we tend to see more older ones than cars. Taxis are just cars, from a regulatory point of view. They have to meet the same emissions requirements. Again, we see more visibly smoking taxis, but that's particulates rather than NOx and the fact that they tend to have done big miles. What I think might be under-reported are emissions from small plant on building sites. Freeing-up traffic flow, MIGHT help, but it might just make driving more appealing, so that more of us do it and the status quo returns.
Sponsored Links
