As the subject says, really
cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/diesel-scrappage-scheme-way/129012
Maybe they'll give me some money towards my next electric car...
|
|
So - is it time to buy a diesel car?
|
There is no way a diesel scrappage scheme is going to pay enough to convince someone to scrap a fairly new diesel car. If this happens at all, it will surely be aimed at older cars.
But the signal it conveys may impact the resale value of diesel cars.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 3 Feb 17 at 17:57
|
|
Tempted.. but my 10 year old TDi is running spot-on right now, they probably will only give up to £2k which is just not enough for me to change.
|
|
I wonder what will happen when everyone has gone back to petrol. Maybe there will be another scrappage scheme to get people to switch to electric. And then another one from electric to horse and cart.
|
I'd change my old C Class, 12yrs old now, but nothing grabs me. I don't use it much but when I do it's often for 400 mile round trips, on which it'll do an easy true 50MPG. Buying a similar car in petrol and finding it doing low 30's real world would make me weep.
I thought the VAG ACT petrol engines which shut off 2 cylinders might be the answer for cruising use, but apparently they don't have much advantage in practice.
|
>> I thought the VAG ACT petrol engines which shut off 2 cylinders might be the answer for
>> cruising use, but apparently they don't have much advantage in practice.
I could easily get close to 50mpg on a cruise if I tried. The best I've managed is 48mpg over a few hundred miles. About what I used to get in the previous three cars (all diesels).
|
NOx limits for new diesel and petrol engines are virtually the same. No real advantaged to be gained form switching to new petrol from new diesel.
The real difference is between old diesel engines and new. Removal of diesel cars over ten years old would be a significant improvement in NOx pollution levels.
|
"NOx limits for new diesel and petrol engines are virtually the same. No real advantaged to be gained form switching to new petrol from new diesel. "
I've lost sight of the target now; I was under the impression that the main thrust is now against 'particulates'. Is that incorrect?
|
>>
>> I've lost sight of the target now; I was under the impression that the main
>> thrust is now against 'particulates'. Is that incorrect?
>>
There seem to be lots of moving targets:
CO - bad, incomplete combustion, therefore fit catalytic converter, leading to
CO2 - bad, greenhouse gas
NO - bad, therefore convert to
NO2 - also bad
Particulates - formerly just good clean soot, Michael, now bad.
Then there's the environmental cost of constantly recycling cars into new better ones, so expect soon a:
Keepage scheme - to encourage the reuse of old cars for as long as possible.
|
"Then there's the environmental cost of constantly recycling cars into new better ones, so expect soon a:
Keepage scheme - to encourage the reuse of old cars for as long as possible."
Yes, my Astra 1.3 diesel is 10 years old this month and goes as well as it ever has - what's more, it isn't rotting like the 3-year old Marinas of times past; it would be a real shame to scrap it. Being released onto the world in Feb 2007 it is, I am led to believe, one of the last diesels not to be fitted with a DPF; frankly, I took this to be something of a bonus.
This chap in the Telegraph is also wondering where these ill thought-through government initiatives will end.
www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/comment/policy-failures-caused-deadly-pollution-crisis-scrappage-scheme/
|
>> Being released onto
>> the world in Feb 2007 it is, I am led to believe, one of the
>> last diesels not to be fitted with a DPF; frankly, I took this to be
>> something of a bonus.
My March 2008 MB W211 E Class hasn't got a DPF. I too consider this to be a bonus.
|
|
I think it is both. Particulates would also be drastically reduced by getting rid of old vehicles without particulate filters.
|
The old diesels are the problem. I don't think any scrappage scheme would be aimed at the newer ones.
However, never underestimate any Govt.'s ability to cock something up, no matter how good the intentions were.
|
|
Not sure that's the case, I read somewhere that DPFs produce really small particles during regen which are extremely hazardous, more so than the larger particles which older (pre 2007 or thereabouts) would produce, which are also harmful.
|
However, never underestimate any Govt.'s ability to cock something up, no matter how good the intentions were.
Utterly!
|
|
The new urban pollution is caused by trendy wood-burning stoves, not diesels.
|
|
Seems unlikely. Most large urban areas are smoke free zones where the burning of wood is not permitted.
|
>> Most large urban areas are smoke free zones where the burning of wood
>> is not permitted.
>>
I don't think that is true. Wood-burners are exempted appliances.
|
>>>> Most large urban areas are smoke free zones where the burning of wood
>>>> is not permitted.
>> I don't think that is true. Wood-burners are exempted appliances.
We are in a smoke free zone. Burning wood is not permitted. You need to use smoke free fuel. Not that people do. How many will ever be caught?
|
>> We are in a smoke free zone. Burning wood is not permitted. You need to
>> use smoke free fuel. Not that people do. How many will ever be caught?
Smokeless zones were a response to coal burning, particularly low quality coal.
There seem to be exemptions for a huge range of makes/models of wood burner.
smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/appliances.php?country=england
My neighbour burns what smells like coal in his burner but we're not in a smokeless zone. Presumably too rural for it to have been an issue when zones were created in the sixties.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 6 Feb 17 at 17:01
|
|
Yes I'm wrong You are correct. Some wood burners are exempted from the regulation
|
>> The new urban pollution is caused by trendy wood-burning stoves, not diesels.
AIUI that is a misread of the facts.
London's recent smog started with same factors as previous examples back to the great smog of the fifties. The usual westerly airflow was kept at bay for several days by an anti cylone. London's valley situation further restricts air movement.
Woodsmoke, which has a distinct signature on the instruments used to record pollution levels, is certainly a new component in city pollution. But in no way does it's presence exonerate diesel and other 'traditional' pollutants.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/29/pollution-air-quality-london-environment
|
>> Woodsmoke, which has a distinct signature on the instruments used to record pollution levels, >>is certainly a new component in city pollution.
>>
I can smell the domestic wood smoke in my urban area.
Folks seem totally unaware of the old days when to light a fire that had smokeless fuel only, a gas poker or an electric starter( like a paint stripper gun on a stand ) had to be used.
" Rules are for ....."
|
|
For a few years when I go out to put the rubbish out in the evening, I have smelled burning wood and wondered who was having all these bonfires. It was only when a relative in another area also said when they go out for a walk in the evening the air is thick with wood smoke from burning stoves that it 'clicked'. The council say they are allowed to as long as the flue is a certain height above ground as it is classed as sustainable (virtue-signalling).
|
www.westminster.gov.uk/trial-diesel-based-parking-surcharge-low-emission-neighbourhood
This one seems to have passed us by but is probably the first of many.
"In a pilot programme to be introduced by Westminster City Council from 3 April 2017, the charge for pay-to-park bays during normal parking hours will be raised specifically within F zone for diesel cars, some of the heaviest of polluting vehicles. This will apply to visitors into Marylebone, with resident permits remaining unchanged.
"The surcharge will add 50% to the current rate of £4.90 per hour in F Zone. Customers are currently able to Park and Pay per minute up to a maximum of 240 minutes (4 hours), meaning charges will be 8p per minute in real terms and 12p per minute for diesels."
|
Just in case anyone might be interested in views from "the other side", as it were, here is the news from one the regular EV websites. It's basically an aggregation page.
Talks about the Westminster thing, also about Paris (banning some diesels) and Scottish cities (talk of banning all diesel AND petrol within 8 years), etc.
All, of course, from the bias of being pro-electric car. As I say, it might just have something of interest to someone here that isn't me. No worries if not.
fuelincluded.com/news/news/
|
|
I think you already know I have an interest. :-) Thanks for the link, wasn't aware of that site.
|
A purely money making exercise.
If they wanted to be honest they would have raised the prices that diesel cars had to pay and reduced the fees for petrol cars proportionately.
|
Euro VI NOx emissions limits for petrol and for diesel cars are almost the same:
Petrol limit 0.06 g/km
Diesel limit 0.08 g/km
So all this hysteria about diesels being so much worse than petrols is referring to old diesels.
Also, re the extra parking charges, how would they know?? If I parked mine there there is no outward sign it is a diesel, doesn't even have a tax disc with fuel type any more..!
|
>> So all this hysteria about diesels being so much worse than petrols is referring to
>> old diesels.
Isn't there an issue that Euro 6 diesels are not, in real world driving, meeting the NOx target and indeed missing it by a country mile?
>> Also, re the extra parking charges, how would they know?? If I parked mine there
>> there is no outward sign it is a diesel, doesn't even have a tax disc
>> with fuel type any more..!
Quick check against DVLA. The dataset behind vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/ is easily available to Enforcement Officers.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 8 Feb 17 at 08:21
|
That's true, diesels don't always meet the NOx emissions.
Do petrols then hit all their targets in everyday driving? Id guess not. (Im not saying they will be as bad NOx wise, but say CO wise they are worse).
As for the DVLA checks its starting to become a bit bureaucratic isn't it? Why not go the whole hog and just charge for parking on the overall emissions of each vehicle?
|
I'm really not knowledgeable on this so could well be wrong but somewhere above I said
"...I read somewhere that DPFs produce really small particles during regen which are extremely hazardous, more so than the larger particles which older (pre 2007 or thereabouts) would produce, which are also harmful."
My recollection is that, whatever the limits may be, the pollution from newer diesels is considered more dangerous than older ones. Maybe it's not all about the NOx. NOx is what was considered to be the one which was harming the climate. Other pollutants may just kill people.
By the way I wouldn't say that 0.6 and 0.8 are nearly the same. One is 30% higher than the other isn't it?
|
Yes and theres evidence that petrols produce smaller even more dangerous particles than modern diesels.
www.transportenvironment.org/press/new-petrol-engines-cause-more-air-pollution-dirty-diesels
0.6 and 0.8 vs old levels (Euro IV diesels limits were 0.25 vs 0.08 for petrols)
And Petrol Euro VI emit 100% more CO than Euro VI diesels (if we are quoting % wise)
|
So - should I be worried about considering a diesel automatic to replace our Jazz?
Even with our low mileage, mpg and low VED are important to us.
Much to some folk's horror, I really fancy an automatic 1.6D Citroen C4 Picasso ;-).
What is our nanny government going to do next?
|
Don't worry about it if you want one.
I bought another diesel car today.
|
|
I wouldn't worry about changes in legislation. Highly unlikely to be retroactive. I might be concerned that a vehicle with a DPF is not really suitable for low mileage use.
|
>> So - should I be worried about considering a diesel automatic to replace our Jazz?
>> Even with our low mileage, mpg and low VED are important to us.
>> Much to some folk's horror, I really fancy an automatic 1.6D Citroen C4 Picasso ;-).
>> What is our nanny government going to do next?
Make sure you have a really decent stop /start test drive. The EGS box is an acquired taste, and after a CVT I would think it will feel like something from a different century
|
>> Make sure you have a really decent stop /start test drive. The EGS box is
>> an acquired taste, and after a CVT I would think it will feel like something
>> from a different century
>>
Someone told me parallel parking uphill is a bit of a nightmare with the EGS box.
|
Be careful what you wish for Dog..
For a start small petrols are starting to emit more than diesels...
www.driving.co.uk/news/eco-engines-are-among-the-most-polluting-according-to-new-emissions-index/
And this report in the guardian suggests that motor traffic isn't even the biggest source of pollution anyway..
www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/farming-is-single-biggest-cause-of-worst-air-pollution-in-europe
I'm afraid there is a bandwagon for people to jump on that will lead to punitive taxes, that has, as usual not let the facts get in the way
|
An interesting article PR. I had a 'portable emissions measurement system' back in the 80's made by an American company called Alltest which I purchased from a company up in Scotland.
It was in effect a 12v 4-gas analyser which I could have put on the passenger seat to analyse a vehicles exhaust gas under actual driving conditions.
|
All these test methods have faults.
The current EU regs test is obviously flawed as no one can match the figures on the road.
The "real world" tests are not standardized from company to company so cant be compared.
An easy solution IMHO would be a lab based test, with realistic (and defined) acceleration and speeds used.
The regs also need tightening. There is a clause in the EU regs which states that emission control equipment can be switched off to protect the engine. Many makers use this clause frequently (its not the same as VWs cheat device by the way)
|
I don't think you need too much science to ascertain that motor vehicles are the biggest source of pollution in cities and that something needs to be done fairly quickly.
Just try walking through any of our major cities. You cans smell, taste and often see the air pollution
|
>> I don't think you need too much science to ascertain that motor vehicles are the
>> biggest source of pollution in cities and that something needs to be done fairly quickly.
If you check out the pollution levels in the 1950s you will see that stuff has been done.
|
|
It's not all car related, I returned a hire car to a Heathrow perimeter location on a hot, windless, summer afternoon. The whole area stank of raw and burnt jet fuel, not surprising as aircraft use fuel by the ton.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 09:23
|
|
Certainly stuff has been done but a lot more needs to be done if cities are going to be a healthy place to live and bring up children. It's going to cost us money and be inconvenient for many but just walk down Streatham High Street and you realise something has to be done.
|
>> Certainly stuff has been done but a lot more needs to be done if cities
>> are going to be a healthy place to live and bring up children. It's going
>> to cost us money and be inconvenient for many but just walk down Streatham High
>> Street and you realise something has to be done.
>
Indeed, I'd knock the place down, its a crap hole. Back on topic tho, how do we have an increasingly ageing population and severe environmental problems at the same time. Something does not add up.
|
>> Something does not add up.
We've stopped them dying of heart disease and being worked to death, so something else has to get them instead. Ultimately life is fatal and you have to die of something....
|
>> We've stopped them dying of heart disease
There's an element of truth in that. Not that it's a bad thing. But with people surviving heart attacks these days they then live long enough to suffer from forms of dementia, Parkinson's Disease, etc. And therefore incur further costs for care.
|
"how do we have an increasingly ageing population and severe environmental problems at the same time. Something does not add up."
The two are necessarily related are they? Older people f have lived a substantial proportion of their lives in a period when the number of vehicles on the road was substantially less that it is now. It could well be that young peoples lives will be more substantially affected by air pollution than their grandparents.
If you take an illness like asthma it was more or less unknown in children when I was small. I can't remember anyone in my class having it Now a good proportion of young children seem to have nebulisers.
|
Don't know where you lived when small CGN but asthma was not uncommon in Glasgow when I was at school in the 60s.
The air pollution in most big cities in the 50s and 60s was far worse than anything we see now. Yes there were fewer cars but those that there were were far dirtier than anything on the road now, all using either fairly unrefined diesel with no filters or whatever or else leaded petrol.
There were also steam trains, coal fires in many homes & offices, factories building engineering products . You just need to look at pictures of London or Glasgow in the 50s and 60s and the dirt on the buildings to get an idea of the air people of that time were breathing.
And of course the 60%+ of the adult population who were smokers, wherever they wanted.
Compared to then, the air, even in cities, is orders of magnitude cleaner. Not that it can't be cleaner still.
|
There appears to be statistically an increase in asthma over the years but it could be due to any number of reasons including under reporting when there was no cure for the condition.
I used asthma aN example as I was simply trying to show that increasing lifespan as cited by Zero is not necessarily evidence that we do not have a increase in medical problems as a result of air pollution.
|
>> The two are necessarily related are they? Older people f have lived a substantial proportion
>> of their lives in a period when the number of vehicles on the road was
>> substantially less that it is now. It could well be that young peoples lives will
>> be more substantially affected by air pollution than their grandparents.
So the number of vehicles was low, and people died early, the number goes up and they live longer?
>> If you take an illness like asthma it was more or less unknown in children
>> when I was small. I can't remember anyone in my class having it Now a
>> good proportion of young children seem to have nebulisers.
Lots of kids had it, they were called "sickly" nebulisers didn't exist, and they died.
|
|
Yes I accept that. It asthm just an example. All I was saying is that an increased ln life expectancy does not necessarily prove that there is not an increase in illnesses caused by air pollution.
|
Streatham High Street and you realise something has to be done.
>>
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streatham_High_Road
somewhere in london. CGN, is it some sort of emissions high area?
|
>> Streatham High Street and you realise something has to be done.
>> >>
I hope they do a good job like Tolworth Broadway.
Previously
s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/45/50/1455070_7e3d17f4.jpg
The pedestrian under pass was judged to be unfriendly re crime and was closed.
Then the beautification and pedestrian friendly version
i.ytimg.com/vi/02KFdeU_43E/maxresdefault.jpg
l7.alamy.com/zooms/a51b7263ac70446eabe26a2d78449f1f/new-pedestrian-greenway-footpath-along-tolworth-broadway-surbition-dj74p6.jpg
Note the pedestrian friendly set up.
As a pedestrian,where should you safely cross ?
The far end of the shops ?
l7.alamy.com/zooms/d613ad98d69747768f8e913069822402/new-pedestrian-greenway-footpath-along-tolworth-broadway-surbition-dj73mh.jpg
Or It is obvious, When you see the pimpled pavement , that's where to cross plus the road may be slightly higher.
Hey you motorists, those white triangles on the road are to warn you of a ramp.
Do they stop? NO! it is a lottery crossing the road.
www.surreycomet.co.uk/resources/images/5647124.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery
Now here is a surprise.
www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/14842373.Councillors_to_decide_whether_to_build_pedestrian_crossing_on_Tolworth_Greenway/?ref=rss
So £3m spent so far and counting.
www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/14476643.Tolworth_s_Greenway_to_be_doubled_in_length/
|
I have an image in my head of Tabard Street orf Great Dover Street, London, in the 1950's.
The time would have been about 5-6:00pm. I was on the landing/balcony of my 5th floor council flat and we had a pea souper smog event going on.
I couldn't see the actual cars at all, just the dimmer than dim headlights - no HID headlights like the ones on my mighty-fine CR-V back then of course.
I'm no scientist you may have noticed, but I reckon the particle size was much larger back then, and it is the small particulates which have the potential to affect health BIG time these days. That and the increase in traffic of course.
|
I read last week (might have been in Auto Express) that VAG have stopped trying to downsize engines because in the real-world emissions are a lot higher. Something a lot of us already know - making the engine small might lead to low emissions in light loads but in the real world you need to rev it hard to make progress and emissions are much higher.
Even the VAG 1.4 petrol engine is being replaced with a 1.5 litre derivative.
|
|
The midlife update of the Yaris will get a 1.5 engine.
|
Chris Grayling is a first class plonker .
The Government can solve the issue by increasing tax on diesel fuel or increase the Annual License fee.
The fact he does neither means he is not serious... Therefore he is a plonker.
|
>> The Government can solve the issue by increasing tax on diesel fuel or increase the
>> Annual License fee.
Mmm, I suspect that they could also do it by starting all sorts of stories in the press about what could happen to diesel cars which will cause demand to drop massively.
Diesel sales right down, no unpopular legislation or taxation.
And the UK market of media/consumers who love a good drama, that could work both well and quickly.
|
|
And what about all the other engines which use diesel - marine, farming and industry spring to mind. I'm not sure what percentage of diesel usage is cars. Though thinking about it, most of it probably.
|
>> And what about all the other engines which use diesel - marine, farming and industry
>> spring to mind. I'm not sure what percentage of diesel usage is cars. Though thinking
>> about it, most of it probably.
>>
RFL increases targetted at cars would be better I agree.
I would suggest a staggered increase for all new cars registered after (say) 2018 of £150 per year to a maximum increase of £600. And a simialr series of increases on all acrs registered before 2018 of £75 per year to a maximum of £300.
That would largely negate the fuel consumption advantage of a diesel powered car.
Grayling MUST know that. His advisors could do the sums in 30 seconds. So he wants to do something but knows it will be unpopular - so talks the talk only.
|
>> Chris Grayling is a first class plonker .
Absolutely. His performance as Lord Chancellor, where practically everything he did has been reversed in whole or part, was a disgrace. Complete mystery why he was given another senior role.
|
This whole thing is a farce.
When Euro IV was in place diesel NOx limits were 300% higher than petrol.
Now with Euro VI its down to 20%. (0.06 vs 0.08)
Why now?
Its also been proven that downsized petrols are just as bad at exceeding NOx levels as diesels.
|
|
Which is why the tiny turbos days are numbered and the manufacturers are moving back towards bigger petrol engines.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 27 Feb 17 at 08:52
|
>>Which is why the tiny turbos days are numbered and the manufacturers are moving back towards bigger petrol engines.
Which manufacturers?
|
>> >>Which is why the tiny turbos days are numbered and the manufacturers are moving back
>> towards bigger petrol engines.
>>
>> Which manufacturers?
>>
>>
www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K
Plenty more on Google.
|
>> Why now?
Because, Euro 4>5>6 notwithstanding, we still have unacceptably high levels of NOx in inner cities.
Reasons?
1. Still very large numbers of Euro 5 vehicles (NOx limit 0.18) and plenty Euro 4 (0.25) on the road
2. Euro 6 limits (and possibly Euro 4/5 too) are not met in real world city driving.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 27 Feb 17 at 13:34
|
The key is not increasing RFL country wide, wherever you are and wherever you drive.
NOx emissions are greatly increased by slow, stop start driving.
The best response would be reduced inner city use of ICE vehicles, especially older ones.
Controllable by congestion charge or registration based restrictions, for example
|
|
No cars, petrol or diesel hit their targets in 'real world' driving.
|
>> No cars, petrol or diesel hit their targets in 'real world' driving.
OK but current issue is NOx and even at target levels diesels produce 20% more.
How do YOU propose we reduce NOx levels in inner cities?
|
So with my need to buy a new car to me, very,quickly, should I go for a petrol or a diesel ??
Looking at a Galaxy/sharan/Alhambra seen 2 nice,petrol ones within budget, and 1 diesel on the Seat.....the Galaxy seems the best deal ,,but it's petrol .......any negatives on an 07 ?
|
07?
007 is better then you can have the machine guns and the wheels with spiky things in them.
|
Well firstly you decide what the flavor of the month is. It was previously CO2, then particulates, now its NOx's
So assuming it now is the most important issue..
You have a joined up policy on reducing it.
Some sort of phase out of older diesels. Start with Euro III scrappage scheme. Even a phase out of Euro IV (which was in force until Sept 2009) would be difficult at this time. Other places have certain days when older cars are not allowed into central cities (possible interim measure)
Then you decide going forward what your policy is regards taxation and transport policy.
You don't build another runway which will increase air traffic over a city.
And ok your point on NOx target levels and the fact that diesels produce 20% more. Yes this is true. So any penalty on Euro VI diesels must also be applied to Euro IV petrols (so any car up to Sept 2009 must also be "targeted").
|
Well, our daughter and s in law have taken a punt on diesel by buying a pre-registered Hyundai i40 Touring, with 22 miles on it. They are in Northern Ireland, but the car has UK mainland plates, with Hyundai UK as the first keeper.
It is the base S model, but still pretty well equipped. They had a good deal, I think , at £13995, with nearly five years warranty and a sensible price for their clapped out old car.
|
|
That's a really good price i think, quite like the look of them as well. Might have a look around one.
|
www.hyundai.co.uk/dealer/cannon-carrickfergus/used-cars
Towards the bottom of that list - in white, as the black was registered much earlier in 2015
|
|
Small diesels = crap emissions.
|
Rumour of diesel scrappage scheme - Roger.
