Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel
Discussion
B'stard Child said:
Here now - try finding a family car sized car like a Passat with a petrol engine
4 years ago we wanted an Audi A4 as our sensible family car and ended up with a diesel. We've just got rid of it and bought a Passat Estate. In order to meet our requirements (parking sensors, nav, less that 55k miles and 13 plate or later) we had a choice of diesel or diesel.The Passat will do around 5k miles a year, and we've just had some big bills on the Audi (£1200 for a flywheel/clutch etc and the turbo was on its way out) so a petrol would have been preferable but it just wasn't an option.
We will possibly downsize in a couple of years so a petrol will hopefully be an option.
Funkycoldribena said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Perhaps. Of course the new EVs bring with them a different set of environmental problems.
But it seems for now and into the future our need to move about in our own little private, wheeled boxes will impart some kind of detrimental environmental effect. I think it will boil down to the lesser of the evils. It'll never be properly sorted till we have fusion and the ability to teleport.
Im looking forward to the 'Show us your teleporter' and 'Banger teleporters 1-5k' threads.But it seems for now and into the future our need to move about in our own little private, wheeled boxes will impart some kind of detrimental environmental effect. I think it will boil down to the lesser of the evils. It'll never be properly sorted till we have fusion and the ability to teleport.
With John and Sid and Meg
John stole Megan's heart away
And I got Sidney's leg.
wiggy001 said:
4 years ago we wanted an Audi A4 as our sensible family car and ended up with a diesel. We've just got rid of it and bought a Passat Estate. In order to meet our requirements (parking sensors, nav, less that 55k miles and 13 plate or later) we had a choice of diesel or diesel.
The Passat will do around 5k miles a year, and we've just had some big bills on the Audi (£1200 for a flywheel/clutch etc and the turbo was on its way out) so a petrol would have been preferable but it just wasn't an option.
We will possibly downsize in a couple of years so a petrol will hopefully be an option.
IF you do 5k in a diesel how does the pollution compare to someone who does 15k or 20k in a avg size family petrol Car. Surely at some point the annual mileage of a Car has to be considered. I do less than 7k in three Cars 2 petrol 1 diesel and that costs best part of £900 a year.The Passat will do around 5k miles a year, and we've just had some big bills on the Audi (£1200 for a flywheel/clutch etc and the turbo was on its way out) so a petrol would have been preferable but it just wasn't an option.
We will possibly downsize in a couple of years so a petrol will hopefully be an option.
jjgreenwood said:
That's mainly because the fleet market which accounts for nearly 70% of new car sales insists on diesel. MPG is a big cost for them and the company car tax being based on emissions affects the end user.
Exactly. The fleet market was pushed down the diesel route by CO2 tax policies in around 2001/2. This had a knock on effect to the used private market, and also to the range of cars manufacturers offered, especially in larger size vehicles. It is a quick and easy thing for governments to change environmental benchmarks and policy and also relatively easy for consumers to respond.
However, car and catalyst manufacturers have much longer product cycles. So the last 10 or 15 years has been spent researching and developing new, efficient and quiet diesel engines and associated environmental controls (catalysts, particulate filters etc). Then building new plants or production lines. Fuel retailers have invested in re configuring forecourts with more diesel pumps. Oil refineries have to be built or modified to produce the changed product mix (and in the case of Shell Haven, one of the issues that hastened its closure and demolition was producing too much petrol and not enough diesel).
Then the government say 'We've moved the goalposts' and it all starts over again.
However, car and catalyst manufacturers have much longer product cycles. So the last 10 or 15 years has been spent researching and developing new, efficient and quiet diesel engines and associated environmental controls (catalysts, particulate filters etc). Then building new plants or production lines. Fuel retailers have invested in re configuring forecourts with more diesel pumps. Oil refineries have to be built or modified to produce the changed product mix (and in the case of Shell Haven, one of the issues that hastened its closure and demolition was producing too much petrol and not enough diesel).
Then the government say 'We've moved the goalposts' and it all starts over again.
Henners said:
Re: the revenue aspect, is there a big obvious reason why we don't just bin car tax and add it onto fuel duty? (obviously aware the government will run away with that a bit, but you get the idea).
To deter people from buying polluting (or whatever is deemed by the current environment fad) in the first place? They seem to be moving in that direction with the 2017 VED changes. Large upfront tax and then a flat annual tax (£140) after that. Only wish they it evened out a bit for cars before 2017 ..Henners said:
Re: the revenue aspect, is there a big obvious reason why we don't just bin car tax and add it onto fuel duty? (obviously aware the government will run away with that a bit, but you get the idea).
Based on past experience if they put VED on fuel duty again they'd simply reintroduce VED in a few years' time whilst keeping the increased duty.Funkycoldribena said:
Rovinghawk said:
Henners said:
Re: the revenue aspect, is there a big obvious reason why we don't just bin car tax and add it onto fuel duty? (obviously aware the government will run away with that a bit, but you get the idea).
Based on past experience if they put VED on fuel duty again they'd simply reintroduce VED in a few years' time whilst keeping the increased duty.But why do this at all when you can have two bites at the pie? That's why the government won't do anything about it...they have several taxes on the driver whose screws can all be turned.
wiggy001 said:
B'stard Child said:
Here now - try finding a family car sized car like a Passat with a petrol engine
4 years ago we wanted an Audi A4 as our sensible family car and ended up with a diesel. We've just got rid of it and bought a Passat Estate. In order to meet our requirements (parking sensors, nav, less that 55k miles and 13 plate or later) we had a choice of diesel or diesel.The Passat will do around 5k miles a year, and we've just had some big bills on the Audi (£1200 for a flywheel/clutch etc and the turbo was on its way out) so a petrol would have been preferable but it just wasn't an option.
We will possibly downsize in a couple of years so a petrol will hopefully be an option.
fido said:
Henners said:
Re: the revenue aspect, is there a big obvious reason why we don't just bin car tax and add it onto fuel duty? (obviously aware the government will run away with that a bit, but you get the idea).
To deter people from buying polluting (or whatever is deemed by the current environment fad) in the first place? They seem to be moving in that direction with the 2017 VED changes. Large upfront tax and then a flat annual tax (£140) after that. Only wish they it evened out a bit for cars before 2017 ..King Herald said:
fido said:
Henners said:
Re: the revenue aspect, is there a big obvious reason why we don't just bin car tax and add it onto fuel duty? (obviously aware the government will run away with that a bit, but you get the idea).
To deter people from buying polluting (or whatever is deemed by the current environment fad) in the first place? They seem to be moving in that direction with the 2017 VED changes. Large upfront tax and then a flat annual tax (£140) after that. Only wish they it evened out a bit for cars before 2017 ..It's just another opportunity taken to jump on any passing bandwagon, cause obfuscation and distract from things that really matter and the truly rotten job our governments are doing.
REALIST123 said:
It's just another opportunity taken to jump on any passing bandwagon, cause obfuscation and distract from things that really matter and the truly rotten job our governments are doing.
Thus I rarely ever vote, because the government always wins. Doesn't matter which one gets in, they are all the same, different methods to the same end.
r11co said:
There's more than enough documentary evidence floating around from the time to suggest that the mandating of catalytic converters was a stitch-up driven mainly by the oil companies as they knew that (based on scientific knowledge at the time) it would put a cap on engine fuel efficiency as it forced an air/fuel ratio (and therefor efficiency) much lower than lean burn engines would have been capable of.
In the decade when lead was being removed from petrol (not a bad thing at all IMO) this was being done to clear the path to cats because the lead would react with the cats and make them inoperative - the fuel companies weren't giving a s
t about the environmental issues as they knew that down the line an 'environmental' development would be obliged to be fitted to all petrol engines that had the side effect of drastically slowing their decline in profits.
Can you point me towards some of that evidence? I ask as particularly back when 'cats' were being brought in, that petrol in particular was seen as a waste-product by oil companies and no real 'earner'.In the decade when lead was being removed from petrol (not a bad thing at all IMO) this was being done to clear the path to cats because the lead would react with the cats and make them inoperative - the fuel companies weren't giving a s
t about the environmental issues as they knew that down the line an 'environmental' development would be obliged to be fitted to all petrol engines that had the side effect of drastically slowing their decline in profits.King Herald said:
Don't the government set emission levels at what they consider acceptable and make the manufacturers conform? How rapidly are they allowed to move the goalposts? I mean, five years is a bit short a period to totally change their view on saving the planet, or is it the VW fiasco that has mainly drawn attention to diseasels of late?
Emissions/environment is a smokescreen; I could have driven my V8 Jaguar for the rest of my/its life & not caused as much environmental damage as producing a new Totota Aygo/Prius.jurbie said:
Seems sensible to me. I bought a 2 year old diesel which had just 9500 miles on it which I doubled in 4 months. I think that justifies me owning a diesel but what the previous owners excuse was I have no idea although I suspect the £20/year VED may have had an influence..
Or the having maximum torque at around 2,000 rpm .. ability to pull away in second, go round most corners in fourth.Some people like that
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff