Why is diesel now bad news?
Discussion
Foppo said:
So we should have got away from diesel years ago.And the Japanese would have been running the show.Thanks to this cartel we are choking to death in our city's.
Is this b
ks or has it got some truth?
Quite a lot of truth in it.Is this b
ks or has it got some truth?I have a fairly strong suspicion that the talks between European car manufacturers and European governments over CO2 taxes and diesel pollution were fairly nakedly protectionist - 'All we need is for you to create a taxation regime that favours Diesel engines and wel'll all do great and pay loads of tax'. An enormous policy failure like we have had in the UK (the government effectively subsidising extremely polluting new cars) really should lead to a review and investigations. Someone f
ked up really badly!ORD said:
Foppo said:
So we should have got away from diesel years ago.And the Japanese would have been running the show.Thanks to this cartel we are choking to death in our city's.
Is this bks or has it got some truth?
Quite a lot of truth in it.Is this b
ks or has it got some truth?I have a fairly strong suspicion that the talks between European car manufacturers and European governments over CO2 taxes and diesel pollution were fairly nakedly protectionist - 'All we need is for you to create a taxation regime that favours Diesel engines and wel'll all do great and pay loads of tax'. An enormous policy failure like we have had in the UK (the government effectively subsidising extremely polluting new cars) really should lead to a review and investigations. Someone f
ked up really badly!Think back to the late 80s and early 90s, and Diesel was one major area where European car manufacturers had a competitive advantage (particularly PSA, Fiat, VAG, Mercedes and BMW) compared to Toyota, Honda and Nissan. That was worth protecting and developing.
Not Daily Mail. Diesel is the fuel of Satan, the quicker its gone from cars the better. Sick of the constant diesel cars on the roads now. Go in other countries around the world and diesel cars are still a big minority and diesel in these countries costs less than petrol.
Too many idiots have jumped on the bandwagon and buy diesels for pointless pathetic reasons and hardly even warrant the mileage.
Too many idiots have jumped on the bandwagon and buy diesels for pointless pathetic reasons and hardly even warrant the mileage.
heebeegeetee said:
This is the problem with only getting your info from the Daily Mail (which is where that source originated from I believe).
To read that article you could think that none of it applies to petrol engines - but it does, petrol engines cause much the same harm, with some difference between the two. It's ridiculous imo to differentiate between petrol and diesel in this regard.
I understand that Paris is looking to ban all internal combustion engines from the central areas, not just diesel.
To read that article you could think that none of it applies to petrol engines - but it does, petrol engines cause much the same harm, with some difference between the two. It's ridiculous imo to differentiate between petrol and diesel in this regard.
I understand that Paris is looking to ban all internal combustion engines from the central areas, not just diesel.
LMAO at blonde, no surprise there eh. I bet she loved her "Deezul"
mightymouse said:
Anyone see the Despatches programe on this last night ?
Horror shock - car does not do MPG that manufacture claims - blonde woman surprised, thinks she's been conned.
NOX emisions high - blonde woman surprised, thinks she's been conned.
Some minister admits ......we was conned...
Horror shock - car does not do MPG that manufacture claims - blonde woman surprised, thinks she's been conned.
NOX emisions high - blonde woman surprised, thinks she's been conned.
Some minister admits ......we was conned...
Ad-blue is used in many diesel cars now. i.e. blue motion, blue efficiency etc.
If petrol engines had the same tech being used on diesels; they would be more powerful and get more mpg. Hence the reason now, many of the newer petrol engines over the past 5 years have downsized.
Many petrols are now employing direct injection, high compression ratios, turbo charging etc which diesels have had for years.
Lead was only used to lubricate certain parts as softer metal was used in parts like cylinder head valve seats.
The manufacturers will get paid for whatever they do, how can it work in any other way? if diesel cars die a death then petrols will be at a premium.
Petrols had cats years before diesels; petrols have had to downsize and take to mulitple, complex turbo arrangements. They have egr sysems too, which also block up. Adblue is not used in cars, but petrol won't work without additives. TEL (lead) was used for about 70 years, even though it was as known to be as harmful to health at the beginning as it was at the end, and indeed it was to negate the harmful effects of this additive that cats were introduced back in the seventies. TEL was replaced by highly carcinogenic substances like benzene, and cats have of course remained.
If petrol engines had the same tech being used on diesels; they would be more powerful and get more mpg. Hence the reason now, many of the newer petrol engines over the past 5 years have downsized.
Many petrols are now employing direct injection, high compression ratios, turbo charging etc which diesels have had for years.
Lead was only used to lubricate certain parts as softer metal was used in parts like cylinder head valve seats.
heebeegeetee said:
ORD said:
Of course it is. They have geared up to sell lots of diesel cars and are gutted that the big diesel scam is coming to an end.
jhfozzy said:
You can almost smell the fear coming off the manufacturers.
"We're almost up to par with the nox emissions of a petrol".
Yes, you are, but only after fitting Cats, DPFs, EGR, SCR, AddBlue etc. Which on the whole costs mega bucks when it goes wrong. But they don't care about that part as it brings in more money for them in parts sales and repairs.
Eh? Diesel is still cheaper than petrol all over Europe."We're almost up to par with the nox emissions of a petrol".
Yes, you are, but only after fitting Cats, DPFs, EGR, SCR, AddBlue etc. Which on the whole costs mega bucks when it goes wrong. But they don't care about that part as it brings in more money for them in parts sales and repairs.
The manufacturers will get paid for whatever they do, how can it work in any other way? if diesel cars die a death then petrols will be at a premium.
Petrols had cats years before diesels; petrols have had to downsize and take to mulitple, complex turbo arrangements. They have egr sysems too, which also block up. Adblue is not used in cars, but petrol won't work without additives. TEL (lead) was used for about 70 years, even though it was as known to be as harmful to health at the beginning as it was at the end, and indeed it was to negate the harmful effects of this additive that cats were introduced back in the seventies. TEL was replaced by highly carcinogenic substances like benzene, and cats have of course remained.
Sounds more truth than balls.
I have a fairly strong suspicion that the talks between European car manufacturers and European governments over CO2 taxes and diesel pollution were fairly nakedly protectionist - 'All we need is for you to create a taxation regime that favours Diesel engines and wel'll all do great and pay loads of tax'. An enormous policy failure like we have had in the UK (the government effectively subsidising extremely polluting new cars) really should lead to a review and investigations. Someone fked up really badly!
ORD said:
Foppo said:
So we should have got away from diesel years ago.And the Japanese would have been running the show.Thanks to this cartel we are choking to death in our city's.
Is this bks or has it got some truth?
Quite a lot of truth in it.Is this b
ks or has it got some truth?I have a fairly strong suspicion that the talks between European car manufacturers and European governments over CO2 taxes and diesel pollution were fairly nakedly protectionist - 'All we need is for you to create a taxation regime that favours Diesel engines and wel'll all do great and pay loads of tax'. An enormous policy failure like we have had in the UK (the government effectively subsidising extremely polluting new cars) really should lead to a review and investigations. Someone f
ked up really badly!Escort Si-130 said:
Not Daily Mail. Diesel is the fuel of Satan, the quicker its gone from cars the better. Sick of the constant diesel cars on the roads now. Go in other countries around the world and diesel cars are still a big minority and diesel in these countries costs less than petrol.
Too many idiots have jumped on the bandwagon and buy diesels for pointless pathetic reasons and hardly even warrant the mileage.
Blimey. Is Jeremy Clarkson now writing for the Daily Mail?Too many idiots have jumped on the bandwagon and buy diesels for pointless pathetic reasons and hardly even warrant the mileage.
Re fuel of satan: If you want to spite your wife by killing yourself and your four children, and you own a diesel car, you have to chuck a petrol lawn mower in the back. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1425857/Fat...
Re other countries: Europe has been using more diesel than us and charged less than us for a very long time.
Bandwagon?: I noticed the rise in use of diesel cars when I was a squaddie in Germany in the late seventies.
Lead: I don't see that it matters why; fact is, petrol has never worked as a fuel in ice without having substances added to it that are known to be very injurious to human health.
ORD said:
Foppo said:
So we should have got away from diesel years ago.And the Japanese would have been running the show.Thanks to this cartel we are choking to death in our city's.
Is this bks or has it got some truth?
Quite a lot of truth in it.Is this b
ks or has it got some truth?I have a fairly strong suspicion that the talks between European car manufacturers and European governments over CO2 taxes and diesel pollution were fairly nakedly protectionist - 'All we need is for you to create a taxation regime that favours Diesel engines and wel'll all do great and pay loads of tax'. An enormous policy failure like we have had in the UK (the government effectively subsidising extremely polluting new cars) really should lead to a review and investigations. Someone f
ked up really badly!roygarth said:
ORD said:
Foppo said:
So we should have got away from diesel years ago.And the Japanese would have been running the show.Thanks to this cartel we are choking to death in our city's.
Is this bks or has it got some truth?
Quite a lot of truth in it.Is this b
ks or has it got some truth?I have a fairly strong suspicion that the talks between European car manufacturers and European governments over CO2 taxes and diesel pollution were fairly nakedly protectionist - 'All we need is for you to create a taxation regime that favours Diesel engines and wel'll all do great and pay loads of tax'. An enormous policy failure like we have had in the UK (the government effectively subsidising extremely polluting new cars) really should lead to a review and investigations. Someone f
ked up really badly!Having said that, for some reason it is a topic where common sense and nornal debate go out of the window. Government subsidising "extremely polluting" new cars? Oh purleese?
heebeegeetee said:
What difference does it make what engines the manufacturers build? I don't see it this way at all, this is nothing more than another example of politicians meddling where they shouldn't.
Except, the reason we buy so many diesels is because of the 'politicians meddling' and giving them favourable tax breaks across most EU countries.Redlake27 said:
Except, the reason we buy so many diesels is because of the 'politicians meddling' and giving them favourable tax breaks across most EU countries.
Ive not been aware of receiving a tax break and the fuel was always more expensive. Throughout Europe the fuel has always been cheaper, but ultimately the manufacturers will always respond to demand, and for a long time diesels were so good that a great many couldn't see the point in petrols.I think the reason the UK is having air quality issues is that we live a lifestyle that the rest of Europe doesn't, there has to be a cost to that (seemingly air quality, obesity and high personal debt) but we're blaming the fuel that Europe has always used more of.
What on Earth are you on about? The air quality problem is literally ALL caused by the diesel fumes from cars, taxis and buses in London. It really is that simple.
As for 'extremely polluting', look up some statistics on how much CO2 and, more importantly, particulates are actually emitted by diesel cars in use (especially after the first couple of years). There is simply too much london traffic to allow any of it to be pumping out those levels of particulates.
As for people knocking out their DPF, that should be an imprisonable offence.
As for 'extremely polluting', look up some statistics on how much CO2 and, more importantly, particulates are actually emitted by diesel cars in use (especially after the first couple of years). There is simply too much london traffic to allow any of it to be pumping out those levels of particulates.
As for people knocking out their DPF, that should be an imprisonable offence.
heebeegeetee said:
Redlake27 said:
Except, the reason we buy so many diesels is because of the 'politicians meddling' and giving them favourable tax breaks across most EU countries.
Ive not been aware of receiving a tax break and the fuel was always more expensive. Throughout Europe the fuel has always been cheaper, but ultimately the manufacturers will always respond to demand, and for a long time diesels were so good that a great many couldn't see the point in petrols.2001 VED rules changed so that cars were no longer taxed on size (which penalised diesels more than petrols as diesels were historically larger than the equivalent petrol). They changed to CO2 based which favours diesels.
Then in 2002 new company car rules came in which charged 15% (of the cars price) for cars under a set amount of CO2 up rising up to 35%. This again favours diesels and also removed the effective requirement to do lots of miles to make a company car worth it. Then the limit for the 15% minimum dropped year on year (155g/km for 2003/2004, 145g/km for 2004/2005, 140g/km for 2005/2006).
At the same time the approved rates dropped from a maximum of 63p/mile (for >2l) for the first 4000 miles (36p after) down to 40p/mile (for all cars) dropping to 25p over 10k.
Now for everything under 2l that meant that you got paid more once you went over ~5400 on the new rules but everyone with a large petrol was screwed.
It's plain from the numbers sold
In 2000, 14.1% of cars were diesel.
By 2007, 40.2%
In 2014, 50%.
heebeegeetee said:
I think the reason the UK is having air quality issues is that we live a lifestyle that the rest of Europe doesn't, there has to be a cost to that (seemingly air quality, obesity and high personal debt) but we're blaming the fuel that Europe has always used more of.
The absolute amounts are actually better than it's been since pre-1970, what has changed though is the limits. http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/report...
● Road transport is the largest source of NOx emissions in the UK, contributing 49% of total emissions in 2000.
● The contribution of road transport to NOx emissions in urban areas is generally higher than the national average. In London, 68% of NOx emissions come from road transport.
● There is evidence for significant amounts of NO2 emitted directly from the tailpipe of diesel vehicles, with levels possibly as high as 25% of total NOx emissions in mass terms.
● NOx emissions from diesel vehicles have also been regulated since the early 1990’s (since 1988 for heavy duty diesel vehicles). These have been tightened up with the introduction of a succession of more stringent EU Directives, currently extending to tougher limits on emissions from heavy duty vehicles sold after 2008 (Official Journal, 1999). However, none of the emission reductions required to meet the tighter standards on diesel vehicles have been as dramatic as the 91/441/EC Directive was on petrol cars in the early 1990s.
● Since the introduction of three-way catalysts, emissions of NOx from petrol cars have decreased below levels from diesel cars of a similar size. Before this, petrol car emissions of NOx were rather higher than for diesel cars.
Fastdruid said:
Really? Are you 15? Have you been asleep since 2000?
2001 VED rules changed so that cars were no longer taxed on size (which penalised diesels more than petrols as diesels were historically larger than the equivalent petrol). They changed to CO2 based which favours diesels.
Then in 2002 new company car rules came in which charged 15% (of the cars price) for cars under a set amount of CO2 up rising up to 35%. This again favours diesels and also removed the effective requirement to do lots of miles to make a company car worth it. Then the limit for the 15% minimum dropped year on year (155g/km for 2003/2004, 145g/km for 2004/2005, 140g/km for 2005/2006).
At the same time the approved rates dropped from a maximum of 63p/mile (for >2l) for the first 4000 miles (36p after) down to 40p/mile (for all cars) dropping to 25p over 10k.
Now for everything under 2l that meant that you got paid more once you went over ~5400 on the new rules but everyone with a large petrol was screwed.
It's plain from the numbers sold
In 2000, 14.1% of cars were diesel.
By 2007, 40.2%
In 2014, 50%.
http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/report...
? Road transport is the largest source of NOx emissions in the UK, contributing 49% of total emissions in 2000.
? The contribution of road transport to NOx emissions in urban areas is generally higher than the national average. In London, 68% of NOx emissions come from road transport.
? There is evidence for significant amounts of NO2 emitted directly from the tailpipe of diesel vehicles, with levels possibly as high as 25% of total NOx emissions in mass terms.
? NOx emissions from diesel vehicles have also been regulated since the early 1990’s (since 1988 for heavy duty diesel vehicles). These have been tightened up with the introduction of a succession of more stringent EU Directives, currently extending to tougher limits on emissions from heavy duty vehicles sold after 2008 (Official Journal, 1999). However, none of the emission reductions required to meet the tighter standards on diesel vehicles have been as dramatic as the 91/441/EC Directive was on petrol cars in the early 1990s.
? Since the introduction of three-way catalysts, emissions of NOx from petrol cars have decreased below levels from diesel cars of a similar size. Before this, petrol car emissions of NOx were rather higher than for diesel cars.
Like the majority of population I've never had a company car, so you're talking a foreign language as far as tax for them is concerned. 2001 VED rules changed so that cars were no longer taxed on size (which penalised diesels more than petrols as diesels were historically larger than the equivalent petrol). They changed to CO2 based which favours diesels.
Then in 2002 new company car rules came in which charged 15% (of the cars price) for cars under a set amount of CO2 up rising up to 35%. This again favours diesels and also removed the effective requirement to do lots of miles to make a company car worth it. Then the limit for the 15% minimum dropped year on year (155g/km for 2003/2004, 145g/km for 2004/2005, 140g/km for 2005/2006).
At the same time the approved rates dropped from a maximum of 63p/mile (for >2l) for the first 4000 miles (36p after) down to 40p/mile (for all cars) dropping to 25p over 10k.
Now for everything under 2l that meant that you got paid more once you went over ~5400 on the new rules but everyone with a large petrol was screwed.
It's plain from the numbers sold
In 2000, 14.1% of cars were diesel.
By 2007, 40.2%
In 2014, 50%.
heebeegeetee said:
I think the reason the UK is having air quality issues is that we live a lifestyle that the rest of Europe doesn't, there has to be a cost to that (seemingly air quality, obesity and high personal debt) but we're blaming the fuel that Europe has always used more of.
The absolute amounts are actually better than it's been since pre-1970, what has changed though is the limits. http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/report...
? Road transport is the largest source of NOx emissions in the UK, contributing 49% of total emissions in 2000.
? The contribution of road transport to NOx emissions in urban areas is generally higher than the national average. In London, 68% of NOx emissions come from road transport.
? There is evidence for significant amounts of NO2 emitted directly from the tailpipe of diesel vehicles, with levels possibly as high as 25% of total NOx emissions in mass terms.
? NOx emissions from diesel vehicles have also been regulated since the early 1990’s (since 1988 for heavy duty diesel vehicles). These have been tightened up with the introduction of a succession of more stringent EU Directives, currently extending to tougher limits on emissions from heavy duty vehicles sold after 2008 (Official Journal, 1999). However, none of the emission reductions required to meet the tighter standards on diesel vehicles have been as dramatic as the 91/441/EC Directive was on petrol cars in the early 1990s.
? Since the introduction of three-way catalysts, emissions of NOx from petrol cars have decreased below levels from diesel cars of a similar size. Before this, petrol car emissions of NOx were rather higher than for diesel cars.
My wife's shopping Leon is about £100 less in ved than my old Boxster, which seems about right to me. The fuel, as we know, has always been dearer, so possibly like the majority of the population, I'm not aware that I've benefited greatly by driving a diesel.
To the best of my knowledge the UK is the only country in Europe that allows trucks to run 24/7 and allows the big shopping centres to do likewise. We're the only country to allow ordinary shops to open 7 days, we provide the absolute bare minimum in alternatives to the motor car, we provide practically nothing for cyclists or pedestrians, we do everything a modern state can to get absolutely the cars on the road as possible, imo.
Sundays in the UK has congestion like ay other day, in my experience that is not the case in Europe. I beleive the shops still don't open all day every Saturday in Germany.
The difference is clear to see, I find it odd on what we choose to blame the consequences on.
heebeegeetee said:
Like the majority of population I've never had a company car, so you're talking a foreign language as far as tax for them is concerned.
Same rules for normal cars as for company cars. Changed to capacity based as to CO2 based. Which is a tax break for diesels.Plus because company / fleet cars are the bulk of the "nearly new" the diesels swamped the second hand market as well.
heebeegeetee said:
To the best of my knowledge the UK is the only country in Europe that allows trucks to run 24/7 and allows the big shopping centres to do likewise. We're the only country to allow ordinary shops to open 7 days, we provide the absolute bare minimum in alternatives to the motor car, we provide practically nothing for cyclists or pedestrians, we do everything a modern state can to get absolutely the cars on the road as possible, imo.
As for providing alternatives? The motorcar is better and our culture and infrastructure has grown to reflect that. Although there are as ever exceptions it's mostly (relatively) poor people and those without a choice (eg in London) get public transport. As an example Tallinn, the capital of Estonia introduced free public transport in 2013 in a bid to reduce carbon emissions (ie get cars off the road).
Want to guess the actual increase in ridership? 1.2% Plus of those were number were those that previously walked.
Source: http://www.citiesofthefuture.eu/free-public-transp...
Fastdruid said:
As for providing alternatives? The motorcar is better and our culture and infrastructure has grown to reflect that. Although there are as ever exceptions it's mostly (relatively) poor people and those without a choice (eg in London) get public transport.
As an example Tallinn, the capital of Estonia introduced free public transport in 2013 in a bid to reduce carbon emissions (ie get cars off the road).
Want to guess the actual increase in ridership? 1.2% Plus of those were number were those that previously walked.
Source: http://www.citiesofthefuture.eu/free-public-transp...
Meantime, our European neighbours have provided good, clean, reliable, punctual alternatives to the car and genuine resources for cyclists which (for decades) we dream up reasons of why we can't.As an example Tallinn, the capital of Estonia introduced free public transport in 2013 in a bid to reduce carbon emissions (ie get cars off the road).
Want to guess the actual increase in ridership? 1.2% Plus of those were number were those that previously walked.
Source: http://www.citiesofthefuture.eu/free-public-transp...
Back in the news again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33254803
For those of you with technical/engineering backgrounds I well recommend going to the ICCT website and having a read of the detail behind this article - plus a couple of other ICCT white papers as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33254803
For those of you with technical/engineering backgrounds I well recommend going to the ICCT website and having a read of the detail behind this article - plus a couple of other ICCT white papers as well.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff