Would you still buy a diesel BMW?

[daemon]

Evanivitch said:

daemon said:

True. Though the real culprits for diesel pollution are the shipping industry.

Lets be honest diesel cars are going to be seen as an "easy target" for government taxes, justified of course by the hysteria being whipped up in the newspapers.

The defence of the diesel engine isn't helped by moronic references about the shipping industry. Diesel ships don't travel within metres of people's front doors.

If you look at some of the most poluted streets in the UK you'll see that none are near ports or shipping lanes...

I'd still buy a diesel if i was doing mostly motorway miles to meetings/hotels in out-of-town locations. Infact that's exactly what I plan to do unless I can find an Ampera nearby.

its not moronic, its very valid. I take it in your little mind it doesnt matter where all those pollutants go - it just goes up in the clouds and goes away does it?

Car owners are an easy target for extra tax revenue and their justification for doing so is based on "helping the environment", when really its about tax revenue end of.

If its all about the local pollution, lets see local government & councils leading by example with effective (and less pollutant) public transport solutions.

Edited by daemon on Sunday 23 April 11:38

[Ahbefive]

bad company said:

Seriously millions of people bought diesels because they thought and were told that they were BETTER for the environment.

Then they must have been quite foolish and neglected to do any research on the subject (or just greedy/selfish/tightarsed and only really cared of the monetary savings). That should not be everybody elses problem to deal with, only the problem of the foolish that got sucked in. Maybe a diesel scrappage scheme would help.

Only a tight, selfish diesel driver would defend diesels, everybody else is fed up of breathing that st in.

Edited by Ahbefive on Sunday 23 April 11:41

[daemon]

Ahbefive said:

bad company said:

Seriously millions of people bought diesels because they thought and were told that they were BETTER for the environment.

Then they must have been quite foolish and neglected to do any research on the subject (or just greedy/selfish and only really cared of the monetary savings). That should not be everybody elses problem to deal with, only the problem of the foolish that got sucked in. Maybe a diesel scrappage scheme would help.

I think the vast majority of people who bought / buy diesels have done so / do so because they have the belief they are cheaper to run.

I dont think that made them foolish and sucked in.

[bad company]

Ahbefive said:

Then they must have been quite foolish and neglected to do any research on the subject (or just greedy/selfish/tightarsed and only really cared of the monetary savings). That should not be everybody elses problem to deal with, only the problem of the foolish that got sucked in. Maybe a diesel scrappage scheme would help.

Only a tight, selfish diesel driver would defend diesels, everybody else is fed up of breathing that st in.

Edited by Ahbefive on Sunday 23 April 11:41

That's a fair few million tight, selfish people then.

[Evanivitch]

daemon said:

Evanivitch said:

daemon said:

True. Though the real culprits for diesel pollution are the shipping industry.

Lets be honest diesel cars are going to be seen as an "easy target" for government taxes, justified of course by the hysteria being whipped up in the newspapers.

The defence of the diesel engine isn't helped by moronic references about the shipping industry. Diesel ships don't travel within metres of people's front doors.

If you look at some of the most poluted streets in the UK you'll see that none are near ports or shipping lanes...

I'd still buy a diesel if i was doing mostly motorway miles to meetings/hotels in out-of-town locations. Infact that's exactly what I plan to do unless I can find an Ampera nearby.

its not moronic, its very valid. I take it in your little mind it doesnt matter where all those pollutants go - it just goes up in the clouds and goes away does it?

Car owners are an easy target for extra tax revenue and their justification for doing so is based on "helping the environment", when really its about tax revenue end of.

If its all about the local pollution, lets see local government & councils leading by example with effective (and less pollutant) public transport solutions.

Edited by daemon on Sunday 23 April 11:38

You've heard of light pollution yes? What does more damage, a spotlight at a secluded rail yard, or a street lamp outside someone's bedroom window?

Noise pollution. What's worse, Glastonbury festival on a secluded farm with willing listeners. Or a regular house party on a normally quiet street of young families and shift workers?

Pollution of all sorts is important to be understood and hopefully reduced. But making useless comparisons to deflect from the real issues is moronic. Location therefore is as important as the emissions themselves.

[335d]

Ahbefive said:

Then they must have been quite foolish and neglected to do any research on the subject (or just greedy/selfish/tightarsed and only really cared of the monetary savings). That should not be everybody elses problem to deal with, only the problem of the foolish that got sucked in. Maybe a diesel scrappage scheme would help.

Only a tight, selfish diesel driver would defend diesels, everybody else is fed up of breathing that st in.

The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser at the time was one of those who thought diesel emissions could be controlled by technology such as DPFs, so I don't think that it was only the foolish / greedy who fell for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/0...

With hindsight we can see that car manufacturers were gaming the test system, but if scientific experts failed to notice that, it seems absurd to expect the public to.

I imagine that your own anger on the subject has just been whipped up recently by the Daily Mail. Perhaps you would like to point us towards your posts from the relevant period where you foresaw the issue?

[Ahbefive]

still trying to defend it, shameless.

[anonymous-user]

Ahbefive said:

still trying to defend it, shameless.

Your continuing refusal to accept reality is what's shameless.

Gordon Brown was strongly advised by David King to encourage the use of diesels which he did. King was honoured by the USA, France and others and is Sir David King for his work on climate change. He proposed that more use of diesels would be 'good' for the climate.

He strongly advocated the encouragement of diesels for quite some time. It's hardly surprising that millions would respond to that encouragement.

Recently he's admitted he made a mistake and apologised; perhaps you should follow his lead?

[bad company]

Ahbefive said:

still trying to defend it, shameless.

You still haven't answered 335d's very relevant question namely:-

Perhaps you would like to point us towards your posts from the relevant period where you foresaw the issue?

When and if you do I just might take your views seriously.

[Ahbefive]

Sorry bit I wasn't on PH when the diesel takeover began. It is quite obvious for anyone with half a brain that diesel is much worse for peoples health than petrol.

If you couln't see that then I can't help your ignorance now, sorry.

[smashy]

Ahbefive said:

Sorry bit I wasn't on PH when the diesel takeover began. It is quite obvious for anyone with half a brain that diesel is much worse for peoples health than petrol.

If you couln't see that then I can't help your ignorance now, sorry.

Yes you were 2010 is the year when diesel sold more than petrol for the first time thing is your an internet sociopath not sure why people are giving you the time of day.

Edited by smashy on Monday 24th April 15:22

[335d]

Ahbefive said:

Sorry bit I wasn't on PH when the diesel takeover began. It is quite obvious for anyone with half a brain that diesel is much worse for peoples health than petrol.

If you couln't see that then I can't help your ignorance now, sorry.

It doesn't need to be on PH - if you want to demonstrate that you haven't simply jumped with on the Daily Mail bandwagon recently, you can point us to your post from the relevant period on another forum or even a published letter.

Arriving after an event on an internet forum and saying 'I knew that would happen' doesn't fly.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Ahbefive]

how ridiculous. Keep clutching at those straws.

If you honestly couldn't fathom it out for yourself that that black sooty stuff that gets pumped out of exhausts and stinks so badly might just be worse for your lungs than a petrol that you can hardly smell let alone see then that speaks vastly about your own naivity, not mine. Have a nice day and get rid of those soot chuckers before tgey are taxed off the roads.

Edited by Ahbefive on Monday 24th April 19:27

[The Stiglet]

335d said:

If I lived in London or drove there frequently, I might think twice about buying a diesel, even a Euro 6 one, but as I don't I would still choose diesel for a larger BMW.

I live in London and it might become a problem for residuals based on the ULEZ and increased parking costs implemented by local councils. If you're in with a lease or PCP deal then there isn't much to worry about as you just hand the car back at the end of the term. The issue would be if you want to terminate early and find that you're in negative equity due to the fall in residual value associated with the flight from diesel. Again, if you own outright then there might be a greater financial loss associated with owning the diesel vehicle come sale time. Perhaps this might be negated when sold outside of the target cities?
I don't know precisely how it will play out but it's enough to have me thinking about jumping from my PCP mid-term and buying a petrol vehicle just to avoid the hassle of having to pay ULEZ fees and getting penalised by the local council in parking permit fees.

[Fox-]

The Stiglet said:

I live in London and it might become a problem for residuals based on the ULEZ

The ULEZ specifically excludes Euro 6 cars by design...

[heebeegeetee]

Fox- said:

The ULEZ specifically excludes Euro 6 cars by design...

Are they excluding, or just charging?

I understand London is going to allow wealthy people to pollute as they wish, and are seeking only to prevent poor people to come and go in the cars of their choice.

Which I'd have thought would fit right in with the great and the good of PH...

[helix402]

This thread is rather off topic now, I'll continue off topic. I found this 2010 Guardian article about "whole life" car emissions, here's an interesting bit:



Therefore by driving an evil diesel BMW made in 2000 I am naughty, but it has done 237k miles. Therefore I am now saving trees and children. (It still has all the original cats and the original egr valve and everything).

[bad company]

I don't see why this thread is running in the BMW section, surely the argument is similar for all manufacturers.

[smashy]

bad company said:

I don't see why this thread is running in the BMW section, surely the argument is similar for all manufacturers.

Interesting point bad company thing is there is a case for it being on here I reckon because a powerful large BMW diesel is an impressive thing from a power to mpg ratio ( thinking my 330d) I dont think can be matched by any other Marque so they are a big consideration.
On a tangent westminster council couldnt care less if your car is 15 years old or Euro 6, car park costs are 50% more than petrol

Edited by smashy on Tuesday 25th April 20:44

[bad company]

smashy said:

Interesting point bad company thing is there is a case for it being on here I reckon because a powerful large BMW diesel is an impressive thing from a power to mpg ratio ( thinking my 330d) I dont think can be matched by any other Marque so they are a big consideration.
On a tangent westminster council couldnt care less if your car is 15 years old or Euro 6, car park costs are 50% more than petrol

Edited by smashy on Tuesday 25th April 20:44

You seem to be saying that BMW diesel engines are better than those from Mercedes, Jaguar and others. I generally agree but I'm sure other PH members would see it differently.