Diesel scrappage scheme

Diesel scrappage scheme

Author
Discussion

lord trumpton

7,320 posts

125 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Although the end isn't quite nigh for Diesels - the writing is definitely on the wall.

There is just far too much noise being made about them and their polluting nature.

The Government has just has it's ass whipped over its proposals for future NOX levels, there is the VW Dieselgate, there are mutterings from manufacturers about possible retreat from development of diesel tech, the looming real world emissions testing and obviously the city taxing.

Everything anti derv is gaining traction. I think in 5 years time then diesel residuals will be on the floor

MG CHRIS

9,077 posts

166 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
delta0 said:
caelite said:
Nah it doesn't. There is a visual check to make sure the filter is still where it should be but they dont check it internally (or for most garages, at all). Provided the engine is running right it isnt picked up by the emissions check.
The soot check is a new one. It is purposely intended to catch dpf removals. It is different from the emissions or visual checks.
The diesel emition test is and always has been a smoke test the level 3.5 hasn't changed for years a dpf removed car will pass with ease.

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
First they came for the diesels !!!!!

mario64

126 posts

171 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Fox- said:
Exactly - this isn't quite the 'end of diesel' is it?

Let's look at London - from September 2020, the ULEZ comes into force which by imposing a punitive charge on driving within the zone does effectively 'ban' groups of vehicles from the capital. Is it a diesel ban? No, it's not. It's a pre Euro 6 diesel ban. At the time, this will mean diesels over about 6 or 7 years old. It also bans pre Euro 4 petrol cars. Therefore, it recognises that:
I thought the current proposal for the ULEZ was going to be (i) starting from 1st January 2019 and (ii) an extra £10 a day for all Euro 1-5 cars regardless of their fuel type or emissions? I'm smarting about it because many of the most polluting vehicles like black cabs and busses will be excluded, but my Euro 5 Maserati will cost £1000 a year in new taxes.

Still, if I thought it genuinely would fix London's air pollution problem I would be happy to pay. I think in practice it will make little difference though.

Edited by mario64 on Wednesday 2nd November 21:23

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
First they came for the diesels !!!!!
Can we ask them to remove cyclists from the road next?

CarsOrBikes

1,135 posts

183 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
The dpf check is a visual check, all diesels with a dpf or not emit soot, depending on how driven too, this is why testers can floor them up to ten times and take the best reading. If there is to be a soot test for later cars then a date break will be applied, which no doubt, will exclude cars that may have a dpf built prior to a certain date.

Future of diesel? It won't exactly go, what you'll find, is a merger of fuel tech which is already taking place, diesel rpm's are increasing, emissions are getting lower, petrol cars have very similar injectors and ultra high amplified fuel pressures similar to diesels, and diesel cars have been tested to run marginally better with small amounts of petrol added in development tests, nothing to worry about immediately, although old smoky cars and in particular busses or lorries are likely to suffer pressures of evolution, hybrid busses came from nowhere, watch for lorries soon...........

Only my 2p of course

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
CarsOrBikes said:
all diesels with a dpf or not emit soot, depending on how driven too, this is why testers can floor them up to ten times and take the best reading.
I was very surprised at the ZX's MOT recently - it chucks out a right ol' clag if you give it a bit much welly just below boost. Yet the test was waaaaaaaaaaay inside max on the first rev.

Ian Geary

4,462 posts

191 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Loyly said:
even if politicians don't like what comes out of the exhaust.
Interesting take.

This lot seem convinced the emissions are being personally sanctioned by Teresa May to kill the poor:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/air-pollu...


A lot of it I think is just "anti car", bolted onto whatever argument is nearby at the time (speed, congestion, pollution).

However,

the UK has spent 30 years orientating it's economy to car ownership (despite the Planners attempts to pretend people only need half a parking space)

E.g. homes are no longer rows of terrace housing in walking distance of factories. They are domitory estates encircled by ring roads on the edge of towns, with virtually no transport links apart from roads.

Our work, leisure and retail activities all rely on the car, apart from a few who do live in a busy enough town centre to have "proper" transport options.


I'm not against cleaner cars, but to pretend it is the "car" that is the problem is just luddite.
It is funny watching water melons tie themselves up in knots about electric vehicles (which are just spreading the pollution more evenly around the country).


And the other issue is of course money.

I can well believe reports that the Treasury veto'd attempts to clean up the air. Government I think is quite bad at making joined up spending decisions.

In theory, you could say: 50,000 avoidable deaths and god knows how many lung diseases would save the NHS, say £100m a year. Lets fund the cleaner air measures (subsidies scrappage, huge investment in clean public transport, re-design of roads etc) by taking this out of the NHS's budget.

In practice, the NHS could never bear this level of cut, as the saving would be over time, meaning any extra spending would just have to come from issuing more government debt, which the Treasury have been clear about reducing.


I see some news emerging about £10 charges for [higher polluting] diesels. The government has now got the perfect excuse to do this: it can say "the courts and environemntalists wanted us to act, so we are acting". I'm pretty sure other cities will be following London pretty quickly.


Ian



delta0

2,334 posts

105 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
MG CHRIS said:
The diesel emition test is and always has been a smoke test the level 3.5 hasn't changed for years a dpf removed car will pass with ease.
This is a completely new test for detecting particulates and soot for determining if a dpf is defective. It hasn't come into force yet but will soon.

mario64 said:
I thought the current proposal for the ULEZ was going to be (i) starting from 1st January 2019 and (ii) an extra £10 a day for all Euro 1-5 cars regardless of their fuel type or emissions? I'm smarting about it because many of the most polluting vehicles like black cabs and busses will be excluded, but my Euro 5 Maserati will cost £1000 a year in new taxes.

Still, if I thought it genuinely would fix London's air pollution problem I would be happy to pay. I think in practice it will make little difference though.

Edited by mario64 on Wednesday 2nd November 21:23
1-3 petrol and 1-5 diesel. However this law forces them to extend it to other cities in the Uk now.

Edited by delta0 on Wednesday 2nd November 22:38

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
And yet everyone's installing log (rubbish!) burners - go figure!

daemon

35,724 posts

196 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Lets be honest the government and city councils are jumping on the negative publicity around diesels and using that to raise extra revenue, knowing they're picking on an easy target.

I think theres a move by people away from diesels naturally anyway. There are some good, economical petrol engines about that come close to diesel economy without the growing stigma that diesels have AND are considerably cheaper to buy.

I've been a huge advocate and user of diesels in the past, but if i was doing big miles again, i'd seriously consider a hybrid petrol, rather than a diesel.




Trabi601

4,865 posts

94 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
I'm not sure this is a good thing. Yes, we need to clean up diesel emissions, but I'm not entirely sure where the diesel fraction of the crude distillate will go if we don't burn it. I'm sure there's a clever scientist type out there who can explain what we'll do with it, though!

Surely we *need* to burn fractions from the diesel end of the refining process to ensure we are making best use of a diminishing resource?

Perhaps it can be cracked to make gasoline?

We've invested heavily in GTL (gas to liquid), which massively improves the cleanliness of diesel emissions.

daemon

35,724 posts

196 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Trabi601 said:
I'm not sure this is a good thing. Yes, we need to clean up diesel emissions, but I'm not entirely sure where the diesel fraction of the crude distillate will go if we don't burn it. I'm sure there's a clever scientist type out there who can explain what we'll do with it, though!

Surely we *need* to burn fractions from the diesel end of the refining process to ensure we are making best use of a diminishing resource?

Perhaps it can be cracked to make gasoline?

We've invested heavily in GTL (gas to liquid), which massively improves the cleanliness of diesel emissions.
The biggest diesel polluter by far is the shipping industry. If governments are really committed to cleaning up the environment they need to start there - but then they're not an easy tax revenue target are they?

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
daemon said:
The biggest diesel polluter by far is the shipping industry. If governments are really committed to cleaning up the environment they need to start there - but then they're not an easy tax revenue target are they?
Except it's as much about how much as it is where.

There's a road near where I work, that is uphill, retaining wall on one side, terraced houses on the other. Morning rush hour queues often form down the hill, and it generally sees HGV and general traffic. Its the perfect storm of limited wind effect, queuing traffic and engines underload on an up hill stretch. It's not the busiest road but it is one of the most polluted in the UK outside London.

Athlon

4,998 posts

205 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
delta0 said:
MG CHRIS said:
The diesel emition test is and always has been a smoke test the level 3.5 hasn't changed for years a dpf removed car will pass with ease.
This is a completely new test for detecting particulates and soot for determining if a dpf is defective. It hasn't come into force yet but will soon.
Where are the special notices for this?
What do we do to the smoke head?

The MOT test as it stands tests for particulates and soot already:

http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm

RobXjcoupe

3,151 posts

90 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
I'm sure if you drive a tax exempt historic vehicle you don't have to pay an emission charge into London.

Trabi601

4,865 posts

94 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Except it's as much about how much as it is where.

There's a road near where I work, that is uphill, retaining wall on one side, terraced houses on the other. Morning rush hour queues often form down the hill, and it generally sees HGV and general traffic. Its the perfect storm of limited wind effect, queuing traffic and engines underload on an up hill stretch. It's not the busiest road but it is one of the most polluted in the UK outside London.
Hafod-yr-Ynys Road?

The road network around that area is really poor - dual carriageway from Maesycwmmer to Newbridge, then dumps all the traffic on single carriageways. The climb up from Crumlin is steep and the new road layout with zip merge doesn't appear to have helped - if anything, it has moved the queue from the traffic lights to the hill.

Reality is that a bypass route of dual carriageway standard is needed from Newbridge through to Pontypool.

(Not the thread for it, but the S. Wales economy is being strangled by under-investment in the road network and where there is money to be spent, small-minded valleys NIMBYs have blocked improvements - I'm particularly looking at the residents of Maesycwmmer who seem to want to queue in traffic rather than have road improvements)

delta0

2,334 posts

105 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Athlon said:
Where are the special notices for this?
What do we do to the smoke head?

The MOT test as it stands tests for particulates and soot already:

http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
This is a new test focused on the dpf. It is intended to find a detective dpf. The current test doesn't do this.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Trabi601 said:
Hafod-yr-Ynys Road?

The road network around that area is really poor - dual carriageway from Maesycwmmer to Newbridge, then dumps all the traffic on single carriageways. The climb up from Crumlin is steep and the new road layout with zip merge doesn't appear to have helped - if anything, it has moved the queue from the traffic lights to the hill.

Reality is that a bypass route of dual carriageway standard is needed from Newbridge through to Pontypool.

(Not the thread for it, but the S. Wales economy is being strangled by under-investment in the road network and where there is money to be spent, small-minded valleys NIMBYs have blocked improvements - I'm particularly looking at the residents of Maesycwmmer who seem to want to queue in traffic rather than have road improvements)
A tunnel would be the perfect solution!

Maesycwmmer crawl is a joke and I drive a longer route to avoid it.

There has been a lot of money invested in the Blackwood area and the crumlin lights (which have massively improved the.Newbridge traffic), but you're right that NIMBYism has led.to sporadic bottle necks.

Trabi601

4,865 posts

94 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
A tunnel would be the perfect solution!

Maesycwmmer crawl is a joke and I drive a longer route to avoid it.

There has been a lot of money invested in the Blackwood area and the crumlin lights (which have massively improved the.Newbridge traffic), but you're right that NIMBYism has led.to sporadic bottle necks.
I can't avoid Maesycwmmer most of the time! - if I need to get to the M4, it's either Maesycwmmer or Caerphilly. Even if I find a way around that, I get stuck around Tredegar Park / High Cross or Cwmbran. It's becoming a nightmare and I have to plan my diary very carefully to avoid traffic.

But I drive a filthy diesel, so perhaps deserve all I get wink