Do Aston Martin cars really pollute badly?
Discussion
The CO₂ emissions of my car are stated by the DVLA as 328 g/km.
The only time that we see exhaust emissions information, is following an MoT.
These are example figures for my garden rubbish workhorse car, a 1995 repmobile.
Carburettor not fuel injection, although it does have one catalytic converter.
Fast idle;
CO% vol. 0.01 (max allowed 0.20)
HC ppm 1 (max allowed 200)
Lambda 1.011 (allowed 0.97 to 1.03)
Figures for V8 Vantage.
CO% vol. 0.01 (max allowed 0.20)
HC ppm 6 (max allowed 200)
Lambda 1.01 (allowed 0.97 to 1.03)
Both cars seem to be far below the stated limits permitted, so are they polluting?
Very similar figures for both cars.
If ULEZ has anything to do with HC ppm (if that is a measure of particulates), then the Vantage is exempt (6 ppm),
whereas the repmobile has to pay (1 ppm).
I am mystified by the whole system.
ULEZ is nothing to do with CO2 - that is just to work out your RFL liability. CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
Jon39 said:
...I assumed perhaps incorrectly, that HC (is that hydrocarbons?) can take the form of particulates. ...
The V8V of course has a much larger engine than the repmobile (1.8 inline 4), so why are the MoT emission figures almost identical ?
I cannot understand why.
The Vantage is 14 years younger (a cleaner engine perhaps?), but with an engine almost 3 times the size.
The HC (hydrocarbons) is measured in ppm (parts per million) so even if the two numerical figures were the same (and in your quoted example the Aston is higher anyway) you would have more HC coming out of a 4.7 litre engine than one around a third of the capacity.The V8V of course has a much larger engine than the repmobile (1.8 inline 4), so why are the MoT emission figures almost identical ?
I cannot understand why.
The Vantage is 14 years younger (a cleaner engine perhaps?), but with an engine almost 3 times the size.
Edited by Techno9000 on Wednesday 18th October 20:25
Calinours said:
ULEZ is nothing to do with CO2 - that is just to work out your RFL liability. CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
Try breathing pure CO2 for a while, let us know how you get on. ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
dokkodo said:
Fusion777 said:
Try breathing pure CO2 for a while, let us know how you get on.
Try breathing without it.CO2 is one of the most vital gasses of all life, it is certainly NOT a pollutant.
Fusion777 said:
Calinours said:
ULEZ is nothing to do with CO2 - that is just to work out your RFL liability. CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
Try breathing pure CO2 for a while, let us know how you get on. ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
It’s interesting how some stuff that used to be pretty much universally understood is now in debate. I’m not alone in never considering CO2 a pollutant. It’s a naturally occurring gas vital to all life - without it there would be no life on earth. If CO2 is to be considered a pollutant then any living thing can therefore, by extension, be considered a pollutant.
The above is unrelated to the current debate about climate change and the fact that the additional human activity produced CO2 in the atmosphere (considered to be between 3-5% of the total) is scientifically accepted to unnaturally accelerate natural climate change. Any ecosystem can be tipped out of balance, from a little aquarium to the entire planet, as a result of external or internal factors.
It seems that the key point that those who argue the case would cite is that simply having too much of something automatically make it a pollutant, especially if one takes the updated definitions which run along the lines of “pollution is anything that is ultimately detrimental to life” - but it’s a dangerous belief. As pointed out above, if a dam bursts and you find yourself underwater trying to breathe it you will die. Does that make water a pollutant?
Oxygen is perhaps the best example. We can’t live without it just as a tree can’t live without CO2. But breathe pure oxygen and it will kill you, as would breathing pure Nitrogen (and yes also CO2). In fact Oxygen, being so reactive, as well as keeping you alive is also doing its best to damage you (Oxidants, free radicals) during every second you are exposed to it. It does the same to our precious cars too (corrosion).
So if we are to argue that one of the constituent gases of the air that we breathe is a ‘pollutant’ to the planet, then the one I might have to plump for is oxygen
And if we are purely focussed on ‘greenhouse gases’ as pollutants, then by far the biggest is water vapour!
The above is unrelated to the current debate about climate change and the fact that the additional human activity produced CO2 in the atmosphere (considered to be between 3-5% of the total) is scientifically accepted to unnaturally accelerate natural climate change. Any ecosystem can be tipped out of balance, from a little aquarium to the entire planet, as a result of external or internal factors.
It seems that the key point that those who argue the case would cite is that simply having too much of something automatically make it a pollutant, especially if one takes the updated definitions which run along the lines of “pollution is anything that is ultimately detrimental to life” - but it’s a dangerous belief. As pointed out above, if a dam bursts and you find yourself underwater trying to breathe it you will die. Does that make water a pollutant?
Oxygen is perhaps the best example. We can’t live without it just as a tree can’t live without CO2. But breathe pure oxygen and it will kill you, as would breathing pure Nitrogen (and yes also CO2). In fact Oxygen, being so reactive, as well as keeping you alive is also doing its best to damage you (Oxidants, free radicals) during every second you are exposed to it. It does the same to our precious cars too (corrosion).
So if we are to argue that one of the constituent gases of the air that we breathe is a ‘pollutant’ to the planet, then the one I might have to plump for is oxygen
And if we are purely focussed on ‘greenhouse gases’ as pollutants, then by far the biggest is water vapour!
Edited by Calinours on Thursday 19th October 16:26
Fusion777 said:
Calinours said:
ULEZ is nothing to do with CO2 - that is just to work out your RFL liability. CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
Try breathing pure CO2 for a while, let us know how you get on.
On that basis water is a pollutant. Try sticking your head in a bucket of water for an hour...
Water is a killer if you take too much over a short period of time. Not that long ago a US radio station ran a competition, the prize being a gaming console whereby contestants were given glasses of water and told not to use the toilet. The winner took the Wii home and then subsequently died of water intoxication.
https://insiderexclusive.com/radios-deadly-stunts-...
So yes taken without moderation, many things can be deemed a killer ... I dont' however, see CO2 as a pollutant.
Calinours said:
ULEZ is nothing to do with CO2 - that is just to work out your RFL liability. CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
ULEZ is mainly about Oxides of Nitrogen, but also particulates from diesel engines. It’s why the limits for petrol are Euro 4 (and why a gaydon aston is OK) but it’s Euro 6 for diesels, hence if diesel you need something post 2016 using ad blue
Try breathing pure CO2 for a while, let us know how you get on.
On that basis water is a pollutant. Try sticking your head in a bucket of water for an hour...
Water is a killer if you take too much over a short period of time. Not that long ago a US radio station ran a competition, the prize being a gaming console whereby contestants were given glasses of water and told not to use the toilet. The winner took the Wii home and then subsequently died of water intoxication.
https://insiderexclusive.com/radios-deadly-stunts-...
So yes taken without moderation, many things can be deemed a killer ... I dont' however, see CO2 as a pollutant.
Calinours said:
...updated definitions which run along the lines of “pollution is anything that is ultimately detrimental to life” - but it’s a dangerous belief
Life is detrimental to life. Therefore life is a pollutant. Therefore all living things must be killed.Evidently in a former life I was Captain Kirk and debated with computers until they exploded
To address the original question:
It is moot. Even if our Astons were horrifically polluting (which they aren't), they are so few in number it doesn't matter. But then again, ideology and the need to be seen as virtuous trumps such minor matters as statistical significance.
It's a similar situation with a lot of the 'green'/'climate change' policy being enacted by governments throughout the Western world. For example, here in Canada, if we were to eliminate CO2 emissions overnight, it would make no meaningful difference to global emissions. But our betters in government have decided to go all-in on emissions reduction anyway, all the while kneecapping our economy while BRICS nations pee themselves laughing. The ultimate irony is that (inevitably) these policies are essentially useless for their stated purpose; they are well behind in their reduction targets, but well ahead in wrecking our reputation as trading partners with bigger economies such as Germany and Japan, making our country an unpalatable environment for corporations to do business, and making life increasingly unaffordable and miserable for our own citizens.
If I didn't know any better I'd say our politicians have been sniffing too much CO2.
It is moot. Even if our Astons were horrifically polluting (which they aren't), they are so few in number it doesn't matter. But then again, ideology and the need to be seen as virtuous trumps such minor matters as statistical significance.
It's a similar situation with a lot of the 'green'/'climate change' policy being enacted by governments throughout the Western world. For example, here in Canada, if we were to eliminate CO2 emissions overnight, it would make no meaningful difference to global emissions. But our betters in government have decided to go all-in on emissions reduction anyway, all the while kneecapping our economy while BRICS nations pee themselves laughing. The ultimate irony is that (inevitably) these policies are essentially useless for their stated purpose; they are well behind in their reduction targets, but well ahead in wrecking our reputation as trading partners with bigger economies such as Germany and Japan, making our country an unpalatable environment for corporations to do business, and making life increasingly unaffordable and miserable for our own citizens.
If I didn't know any better I'd say our politicians have been sniffing too much CO2.
Edited by quench on Thursday 19th October 17:48
For OP, don’t sweat it. Assuming a baseline position of all of us not wanting to take unnecessary risks with our precious planet (CO2) AND not poison the locals in cities (a very different thing; ie tailpipe particulates, NOX) - then your fully catalysed fuel injected modern-ish petrol car doesn’t ‘pollute’ any more than any other modern car, likely, in fact, a great deal less as ‘pollution’ per se is really down to miles driven, especially as a high proportion of PM actually comes from tyres and brakes….
Just enjoy it with a clear conscience.
Forget the arguments about CO2, it is a harmless gas and the amount produced by the teeny tiny global fleet of rarely driven AM is far beyond absolutely and utterly insignificant even in the debate about UK transport, let alone the global debate about how to reduce CO2.
Only when there are no more cows, no more planes, no more ocean going container ships AND everyone else is in an electric car, then and only then you can begin to feel any qualms about creating a little more food for plants and algae with your car.
If you remove or butcher all the catalysts (as many of us do, usually just for a bit more noise) perhaps, as our US pals might say you might get a slight demerit…
It is a fact that the cars of today (by that I mean anything petrol car sold in this millennia) are over 99% cleaner in terms of ALL the real pollutant nasties, the oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), soot (PM), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Suphir Dioxide (SO2), lead and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) than cars from most of the last century. Lead and sulphur were removed from fuels decades ago. It’s actually quite an achievement. We’d just got the ICE engine right before it’s being consigned to the dustbin of history, but I guess the steam engine engineers said the same thing.
Soooo, conclusion is you only perhaps need to feel a slight twinge of pollutant emission guilt if you very regularly drive around in something from the last millennia - but even then modern fuels offset half the effect.
We have already come a very long way, the eco crazies tend to forget that, mainly cos most of them haven’t been alive long enough to understand it. I for one wouldn’t want to go back, ‘Life on Mars’ style to the streets and fumes of the 1970s, that decade of smog and innocence, a time when youngsters thought of Gary Glitter and Jimmy Saville as cool hip dudes…
Every time I fire up my 1979 5.3litre V8 (which alone produces about a pint ls worth of unburned HC, like any other car of its day, OK OK, maybe a teensy bit more than the average of the day) and then try to get it to idle on its own, I am reminded of just how far we have come as I rush to exit the garage before I pass out…
Just enjoy it with a clear conscience.
Forget the arguments about CO2, it is a harmless gas and the amount produced by the teeny tiny global fleet of rarely driven AM is far beyond absolutely and utterly insignificant even in the debate about UK transport, let alone the global debate about how to reduce CO2.
Only when there are no more cows, no more planes, no more ocean going container ships AND everyone else is in an electric car, then and only then you can begin to feel any qualms about creating a little more food for plants and algae with your car.
If you remove or butcher all the catalysts (as many of us do, usually just for a bit more noise) perhaps, as our US pals might say you might get a slight demerit…
It is a fact that the cars of today (by that I mean anything petrol car sold in this millennia) are over 99% cleaner in terms of ALL the real pollutant nasties, the oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), soot (PM), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Suphir Dioxide (SO2), lead and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) than cars from most of the last century. Lead and sulphur were removed from fuels decades ago. It’s actually quite an achievement. We’d just got the ICE engine right before it’s being consigned to the dustbin of history, but I guess the steam engine engineers said the same thing.
Soooo, conclusion is you only perhaps need to feel a slight twinge of pollutant emission guilt if you very regularly drive around in something from the last millennia - but even then modern fuels offset half the effect.
We have already come a very long way, the eco crazies tend to forget that, mainly cos most of them haven’t been alive long enough to understand it. I for one wouldn’t want to go back, ‘Life on Mars’ style to the streets and fumes of the 1970s, that decade of smog and innocence, a time when youngsters thought of Gary Glitter and Jimmy Saville as cool hip dudes…
Every time I fire up my 1979 5.3litre V8 (which alone produces about a pint ls worth of unburned HC, like any other car of its day, OK OK, maybe a teensy bit more than the average of the day
) and then try to get it to idle on its own, I am reminded of just how far we have come as I rush to exit the garage before I pass out… Edited by Calinours on Thursday 19th October 20:35
Calinours said:
For OP, don’t sweat it. Assuming a baseline position of all of us not wanting to take unnecessary risks with our precious planet (CO2) AND not poison the locals in cities (a very different thing; ie tailpipe particulates, NOX) - then your fully catalysed fuel injected modern-ish petrol car doesn’t ‘pollute’ any more than any other modern car, likely, in fact, a great deal less as ‘pollution’ per se is really down to miles driven...
Well said. It's curious how cars are still demonised as 'gas-guzzling planet destroyers' even though after decades of legislation and fine (expensive) engineering they bear no relation to their ancestors that may have warranted that description.If anyone should suggest that my car 'pollutes' I'll ask them how many children they have.
dokkodo said:
Fusion777 said:
Try breathing pure CO2 for a while, let us know how you get on.
Try breathing without it.CO2 is one of the most vital gasses of all life, it is certainly NOT a pollutant.
And try breathing pure Nitrogen for a while, or even pure Oxygen for a while.
See how you get on.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff