So you have just paid to have your DPF removed....

[Devil2575]

XJ Flyer said:

I've got no problem with people having different opinions to myself.But I do have a problem when they then decide to enforce those beliefs and opinions on anyone else who doesn't agree with them by removing the freedom of choice to do things like throwing the emissions equipment off of a car aftermarket by way of arbitrary decisions dictated by those like our roads 'minister'.

Your problem is that you confuse scientific evidence with opinion.

Any time anyone points out the fact that the actual evidence does not support your opinion you simply ignore it or claim that your own anecdotal evidence is of equal or even greater value.

[XJ Flyer]

Devil2575 said:

XJ Flyer said:

I've got no problem with people having different opinions to myself.But I do have a problem when they then decide to enforce those beliefs and opinions on anyone else who doesn't agree with them by removing the freedom of choice to do things like throwing the emissions equipment off of a car aftermarket by way of arbitrary decisions dictated by those like our roads 'minister'.

Your problem is that you confuse scientific evidence with opinion.

Any time anyone points out the fact that the actual evidence does not support your opinion you simply ignore it or claim that your own anecdotal evidence is of equal or even greater value.

And vice versa.

My case is that we're supposed to be living in a free society.In which case that also means the freedom of choice to disagree and not have your bullst ideology imposed on anyone who chooses to disagree and not believe.Therefore emissions controls and minimising use of fossil fuels etc etc etc should just be something that the believers need to worry about.In which case why would such believers have any interest whatsoever in a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use and the freedoms to do so as have been established in terms of modifications at least.

[Devil2575]

XJ Flyer said:

And vice versa.

My case is that we're supposed to be living in a free society.In which case that also means the freedom of choice to disagree and not have your bullst ideology imposed on anyone who chooses to disagree and not believe.Therefore emissions controls and minimising use of fossil fuels etc etc etc should just be something that the believers need to worry about.In which case why would such believers have any interest whatsoever in a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use and the freedoms to do so as have been established in terms of modifications at least.

The massive difference is that scientific evidence is of infinitely greater value than personal experience and anecdotes. This is a fact that no one who works in any field in science would dispute. Yet you appear to think you know better.

You can disagree with the political decisions made on the basis of the science if you want but don't claim that makes the science rubbish, because it simply doesn't. All it means is that you don't like the political implications of dealing with these issues.

[XJ Flyer]

Devil2575 said:

XJ Flyer said:

And vice versa.

My case is that we're supposed to be living in a free society.In which case that also means the freedom of choice to disagree and not have your bullst ideology imposed on anyone who chooses to disagree and not believe.Therefore emissions controls and minimising use of fossil fuels etc etc etc should just be something that the believers need to worry about.In which case why would such believers have any interest whatsoever in a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use and the freedoms to do so as have been established in terms of modifications at least.

The massive difference is that scientific evidence is of infinitely greater value than personal experience and anecdotes. This is a fact that no one who works in any field in science would dispute. Yet you appear to think you know better.

You can disagree with the political decisions made on the basis of the science if you want but don't claim that makes the science rubbish, because it simply doesn't. All it means is that you don't like the political implications of dealing with these issues.

I couldn't care less about the so called 'science' IE which part of I don't believe it don't you understand.However the part I don't understand is why anyone who believes in the need to minimise fossil fuel use and vehicle emissions would have any interest in a site like this one which 'is supposed' to be all about performance car use in all it's forms.IE it's not a site that's of interest to the eco car user group being that the idea of eco cars and performance cars are totally contradictory.

Therefore as many people who've disagreed with my views on here have done I'm calling troll in the case of all those on this site with your views ( IE against the freedom to modify cars in a way which reverses the priority on emissions over performance in the after marmarket sector ) and it's up to the mods to deal with the issue.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 17th December 22:49

[dav123a]

People be can interested in both its called freedom .It's not as if your car needs to do 8 mpg or less before they let you on here. Neither is it the case the more fuel you use the more of a car fan you are. Now there are even super car hybrids.

[longblackcoat]

XJ Flyer said:

However the part I don't understand is why anyone who believes in the need to minimise fossil fuel use and vehicle emissions would have any interest in a site like this one which 'is supposed' to be all about performance car use in all it's forms.IE it's not a site that's of interest to the eco car user group being that the idea of eco cars and performance cars are totally contradictory.

You may not understand it, but that doesn't mean that you're right.

I like to go fast. I love driving on circuits. I absolutely understand that this is silly, wasteful, and bad for the environment, but I seek to minimise this. If I drive a car for normal use that uses less fuel than another with roughly the same performance characteristics, I'm interested - I like clever engineering. And if my day-to-day car can produce less in the way of pollutants, that's not a bad thing. For 90% of my driving I am Mr Eco Driver…the remaining 10%, however, is another matter.

This still doesn't mean that I want to have lentils for dinner every night and wear a hair shirt, but it's entirely possible to have the view that using up all the fossil fuel as fast as possible really isn't the best idea, and that I'd like city centres to be as clear of pollutants as possible. If that means stopping muppets from modifying their cars to chuck out as much in the way of carcinogens as is possible, fair enough.

I'm not massively keen on DPFs, but they're there for a reason. Don't like them? Fine, just buy a car without one.

[Devil2575]

XJ Flyer said:

I couldn't care less about the so called 'science' IE which part of I don't believe it don't you understand.

I understand it entirely.

The fact that your opinion defies logic is my point.

You might as well tell me that you don't believe that UV from the sun causes skin cancer or that Derek Acorah can actually communicate with the dead.

A rejection of science because it doesn't suit.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 18th December 09:34

[CraigyMc]

Drive Blind said:

Euro 6 is next year I believe so god knows what they will come up with next...

Urea injection (AdBlu) isn't impossible - it's already available on plenty of stuff as an option.

Edited to fix typo.

Edited by CraigyMc on Wednesday 18th December 11:13

[buzzer]

Devil2575 said:

XJ Flyer said:

I couldn't care less about the so called 'science' IE which part of I don't believe it don't you understand.

I understand it entirely.

The fact that your opinion defies logic is my point.

You might as well tell me that you don't believe that UV from the sun causes skin cancer or that Derek Acorah can actually communicate with the dead.

A rejection of science because it doesn't suit.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 18th December 09:34

Never argue with a fool....;)

[With these feet]

longblackcoat said:

I'm not massively keen on DPFs, but they're there for a reason. Don't like them? Fine, just buy a car without one.

Absobleedinlutely. Research, read up and read reviews. The internet has saved me the occasional blunder when buying a car that could cost more than its worth to fix.

The majority of people buy diesels for their apparent superior economy. But as soon as you start driving them like miss daisy, they will block up. Ask the majority of VW Crafter delivery drivers that do short stop start journeys...

My van is an old diesel no DPF, previously I drove a Crafter for 35k (to 45k) with no DPF issues.

Companies such as Tunap have cleaners that when a regen fails, it cleans it out. Not cheap but done with it in situ.
Cheaper than the cost of removal, a new pipe and remap. And certainly cheaper than having to remove it all again to replace with new - and not have an exchange unit to boot.

[RizzoTheRat]

Apparently the Skoda Superb has the capability of fuelling the engine in a way to do a regen cycle when the car's stationary, I can see the point but it's a bit of a waste of fuel. I'm amazed so many people have problems with them, even when I spend a few months commuting 9 miles each way I've not had a problems, surely you have to be doing some seriously short journeys to have problems.

[Mr2Mike]

XJ Flyer said:

And vice versa.

My case is that we're supposed to be living in a free society.In which case that also means the freedom of choice to disagree and not have your bullst ideology imposed on anyone who chooses to disagree and not believe.Therefore emissions controls and minimising use of fossil fuels etc etc etc should just be something that the believers need to worry about.In which case why would such believers have any interest whatsoever in a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use and the freedoms to do so as have been established in terms of modifications at least.

Yeahsodtherulesletsstickittothemanbyrefusingtocommunicateinaclearmanner
Theresclearlynogoodreasontousespacesandcommasandapostropheesasareawasteofoftimeaswell
HoweverIthinkyoumayneedtoadjustyourtinfoilhatasIsuspectitmaybeabittootightandiscausingbrainmalfuction

[buzzer]

Mr2Mike said:

XJ Flyer said:

And vice versa.

My case is that we're supposed to be living in a free society.In which case that also means the freedom of choice to disagree and not have your bullst ideology imposed on anyone who chooses to disagree and not believe.Therefore emissions controls and minimising use of fossil fuels etc etc etc should just be something that the believers need to worry about.In which case why would such believers have any interest whatsoever in a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use and the freedoms to do so as have been established in terms of modifications at least.

Yeahsodtherulesletsstickittothemanbyrefusingtocommunicateinaclearmanner
Theresclearlynogoodreasontousespacesandcommasandapostropheesasareawasteofoftimeaswell
HoweverIthinkyoumayneedtoadjustyourtinfoilhatasIsuspectitmaybeabittootightandiscausingbrainmalfuction

[GC8]

SSBB said:

GC8 said:

This fellow is a proper dhead.

You should have seen him on the F-Type thread.

Or the 32hrs 7min thread, where he spouted complete bks for days. The gist seemed to be that preparation was against the ethos and that he drove faster than Alex Roy in Europe once.

[XJ Flyer]

longblackcoat said:

XJ Flyer said:

However the part I don't understand is why anyone who believes in the need to minimise fossil fuel use and vehicle emissions would have any interest in a site like this one which 'is supposed' to be all about performance car use in all it's forms.IE it's not a site that's of interest to the eco car user group being that the idea of eco cars and performance cars are totally contradictory.

You may not understand it, but that doesn't mean that you're right.

I like to go fast. I love driving on circuits. I absolutely understand that this is silly, wasteful, and bad for the environment, but I seek to minimise this. If I drive a car for normal use that uses less fuel than another with roughly the same performance characteristics, I'm interested - I like clever engineering. And if my day-to-day car can produce less in the way of pollutants, that's not a bad thing. For 90% of my driving I am Mr Eco Driver…the remaining 10%, however, is another matter.

You think something is bad for the environment and is silly and wasteful but you still want to do it and then you come on here preaching such bullst and expect everyone to comply.All because you think that your wish to be 90% eco car supporter is something which you want to enforce on anyone who doesn't agree with you and who wishes to have the freedom which they've had so far to modify a car outside of manufacturer type approval in regards to emissions regulations.

However I find your argument a bit difficult to believe being that it's more likely that you're 100% eco car user and you expect everyone else to comply with your ideas.

[SturdyHSV]

XJ Flyer said:

All of which is just more politically correct bullst put out to suit what the politicians want.That applies both in the case of global warming and in the case of vehicle emissions.

The inconvenient facts in both being that the planet isn't going to end in a Venus type scenario if we continue to burn fossil fuels

,which is why a number of countries who supposedly believe in the scam like Denmark and Canada are arguing about rights to extract fossil fuels in the Arctic and

there is obviously no proven link between vehicle emissions and health or I,amongst others,wouldn't be here today.

As for the believers according to the news reports the recent Antarctic expedition was delayed by -40 temperatures that being mid summer in those latitudes.So just how fking cold to do want it to get.

This is amazing. I broke it up just to space out the nuggets of gold.

Where do you even start? So can I just confirm that your opinion can be summarised as follows:

• Any independent scientific research that you don't agree with is PC bullst put out by politicians.
• It is a fact (albeit an inconvenient one for some) that continuing to burn fossil fuels forever is fine.
• Obviously because you and some other people aren't dead, car emissions aren't harmful.

To the first point, may I open mindedly ask where your opinions are formulated? As in, given that scientific research is bullst, how do you decide on the many facts of life that you hold to be true in order to reject others?

Secondly, how do you know this is a fact (the inconvenient one)? It ties in to point 1 a little, but given that you haven't (presumably) conducted extensive research yourself around the globe over many decades, how do you know that the 'facts' you've opted to base your opinion on aren't just bullst put out by people such as yourself? Just because you agree, you can't be sure that it is correct.

Thirdly, I think we're all happy to agree that you aren't dead, and we can happily assume you have been around cars a lot, either professionally, or just by being alive in this world that is full of cars. As such, you, like many people, have been subjected to vehicle emissions and so are you seriously suggesting that on that basis, clearly they aren't dangerous? People commit suicide by putting a hose pipe from the exhaust into the car? That politician's tool, the evil science, will happily point out to you that some of what is in a car's emissions will kill you, but I'm aware that this is just pap put out by liberal green tree hugging nancy boys right?

Have you ever smoked? Ever drunk alcohol? Ever had any sort of disease? Clearly you've survived that too, so oh look, they aren't dangerous either! Humanity is saved! There are loads of people who smoke who have no problems whatsoever, so clearly it's a fact that smoking is completely harmless, so let's get your kids on 20 a day eh? Why not let them suck a DPF free diesel exhaust pipe while they're at it, as you know for a FACT that it's absolutely fine, as you've clearly survived. Or am I exaggerating a bit too far there? Almost like assuming not allowing removal of emissions systems (like not allowing removal of safety systems) is just the first step towards not allowing you to change your valve caps and hang an air freshener...

Just to be a bit morbid, do you know for sure you don't have some sort of cancer as a result of your life time consuming vehicle emissions? Have you been to that stupid 'science' bastion, a hospital, and had it checked? I have no idea how significant the risk is posed by the carcinogenic particles in vehicle emissions as it's not something I've looked into, so feel free to shoot this bit down too

[GC8]

Whenever I identify another PH member as a massive wally, I stop engaging with them...

[XJ Flyer]

Devil2575 said:

XJ Flyer said:

I couldn't care less about the so called 'science' IE which part of I don't believe it don't you understand.

I understand it entirely.

The fact that your opinion defies logic is my point.

You might as well tell me that you don't believe that UV from the sun causes skin cancer or that Derek Acorah can actually communicate with the dead.

A rejection of science because it doesn't suit.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 18th December 09:34

Or to put it another way you're just another eco bullst supporting troll on a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use.Which hopefully includes the freedom to modify a car outside of it's type approval regarding emissions on an aftermarket basis.

[XJ Flyer]

SturdyHSV said:

XJ Flyer said:

All of which is just more politically correct bullst put out to suit what the politicians want.That applies both in the case of global warming and in the case of vehicle emissions.

The inconvenient facts in both being that the planet isn't going to end in a Venus type scenario if we continue to burn fossil fuels

,which is why a number of countries who supposedly believe in the scam like Denmark and Canada are arguing about rights to extract fossil fuels in the Arctic and

there is obviously no proven link between vehicle emissions and health or I,amongst others,wouldn't be here today.

As for the believers according to the news reports the recent Antarctic expedition was delayed by -40 temperatures that being mid summer in those latitudes.So just how fking cold to do want it to get.

This is amazing. I broke it up just to space out the nuggets of gold.

Where do you even start? So can I just confirm that your opinion can be summarised as follows:

• Any independent scientific research that you don't agree with is PC bullst put out by politicians.
• It is a fact (albeit an inconvenient one for some) that continuing to burn fossil fuels forever is fine.
• Obviously because you and some other people aren't dead, car emissions aren't harmful.

To the first point, may I open mindedly ask where your opinions are formulated? As in, given that scientific research is bullst, how do you decide on the many facts of life that you hold to be true in order to reject others?

Secondly, how do you know this is a fact (the inconvenient one)? It ties in to point 1 a little, but given that you haven't (presumably) conducted extensive research yourself around the globe over many decades, how do you know that the 'facts' you've opted to base your opinion on aren't just bullst put out by people such as yourself? Just because you agree, you can't be sure that it is correct.

Thirdly, I think we're all happy to agree that you aren't dead, and we can happily assume you have been around cars a lot, either professionally, or just by being alive in this world that is full of cars. As such, you, like many people, have been subjected to vehicle emissions and so are you seriously suggesting that on that basis, clearly they aren't dangerous? People commit suicide by putting a hose pipe from the exhaust into the car? That politician's tool, the evil science, will happily point out to you that some of what is in a car's emissions will kill you, but I'm aware that this is just pap put out by liberal green tree hugging nancy boys right?

Have you ever smoked? Ever drunk alcohol? Ever had any sort of disease? Clearly you've survived that too, so oh look, they aren't dangerous either! Humanity is saved! There are loads of people who smoke who have no problems whatsoever, so clearly it's a fact that smoking is completely harmless, so let's get your kids on 20 a day eh? Why not let them suck a DPF free diesel exhaust pipe while they're at it, as you know for a FACT that it's absolutely fine, as you've clearly survived. Or am I exaggerating a bit too far there? Almost like assuming not allowing removal of emissions systems (like not allowing removal of safety systems) is just the first step towards not allowing you to change your valve caps and hang an air freshener...

Just to be a bit morbid, do you know for sure you don't have some sort of cancer as a result of your life time consuming vehicle emissions? Have you been to that stupid 'science' bastion, a hospital, and had it checked? I have no idea how significant the risk is posed by the carcinogenic particles in vehicle emissions as it's not something I've looked into, so feel free to shoot this bit down too

I'm not bothering to argue about obviously entrenched views on both sides.I'm just arguing about the freedon to disagree with a bunch of obviously eco trolls on a performance car site and the freedom to disagree,to the point where the freedom,which has so far existed,to modify a car,outside of manufacturer emissions standards aftermarket,can and should remain.In just the same way that if I choose to use a car which burns loads of fossil fuels because I don't agree with the bullst global warming scam the freedom to do that should remain too.

As for the eco trolls there are plenty of religious zealots out there who'd also wish to impose their type of law on everyone based on so called unarguable 'facts' as they see them.I see the eco zealots as being no different in that regard.

[longblackcoat]

XJ Flyer said:

You think something is bad for the environment and is silly and wasteful but you still want to do it and then you come on here preaching such bullst and expect everyone to comply.All because you think that your wish to be 90% eco car supporter is something which you want to enforce on anyone who doesn't agree with you and who wishes to have the freedom which they've had so far to modify a car outside of manufacturer type approval in regards to emissions regulations.

However I find your argument a bit difficult to believe being that it's more likely that you're 100% eco car user and you expect everyone else to comply with your ideas.

The 4.0 twin-turbo V8 on my driveway would point out that I'm hardly Mr Green!

Just understand this; there's only a certain amount of fossil fuel. Once it's gone, it's gone. So if I drive something sensibly frugal most of the time, that doesn't totally screw up the planet, that just makes me sensible. Yes, I have the 'let my hair down' moments, but it's stupid to do it every day.

I like beer, love it in fact, but only drink 2 days a week. Presumably by your standards I absolutely need to guzzle it down a gallon at a time every night to prove that I'm a real man?