People are driven more by personal economy than ecological concerns and I can't blame them for thinking diesels were "greener", despite the warnings about particulates being made for many years now.
I think a lot of buyers take a "well it must be safe if I'm allowed to buy it" approach.
And as I hinted above, us van drivers don't have much choice.
chakaping - Member
...But auto mnfrs better start making decent petrol vans now so that I can afford a secondhand one by the time the UK gets round to it.
we've got an electric van at work, a Nissan something or other.
everyone who drives it seems to like it, and the range for nipping around town all day hasn't been an issue so far.
the lease costs are roughly the same as the fuel costs would be...
Angeldust, no one has denied that we are now more aware, rightly so, of particulates.
But for a long time, diesel was sold as a greener alternative.
And next there are the magnitite particles from petrol engines...
we've got an electric van at work,
I admit I haven't researched them much as they're way out of my budget and I don't do leasing, but I'd be a bit concerned about heading up to NW Scotland or driving across Europe.
I assume they're more suitable for local delivery duties ATM.
You could more immediately get started by banning all Euro 4 vehicles from city centres. Those are far more polluting than Euro 5 and also old enough that it shouldn't affect owners too badly.
You could even run a scrappage scheme to encourage older polluters off the roads.
Manufacturers need to be encouraged to sell cars with better petrol engines. My car cannot be bought with a petrol engine in the UK. The only option on my wife's people carrier is a 1.4 petrol stressed to the max, so we went for the 2.0 diesel. If there had been a decent 2.0 petrol on offer, we'd have gone for that over the diesel.
People are driven more by personal economy than ecological concern
This. Which is why I'm currently driving rather than getting the train and having sleepness nights upset about it after I've stayed up to happily count my extra money.
Public transport needs to be cheaper.
Quite a few UK city centres are moving to charge for petrol and diesel vehicles entering cities, certainly Leeds is. It will not just be diesels that are hit.
Manufacturers need to be encouraged to sell cars with better petrol engines. My car cannot be bought with a petrol engine in the UK. The only option on my wife's people carrier is a 1.4 petrol stressed to the max, so we went for the 2.0 diesel. If there had been a decent 2.0 petrol on offer, we'd have gone for that over the diesel.
Careful though, there are a number of options out there with zero emissions now, one being my BMW 330e which goes like sh!t off a shovel, and does an amazing 20mpg when you drive it fast, yet the government say its very very eco friendly. It is exempt from any London charge, and would be exempt from other city centre charges
I bought my diesel on the basis that it was greener than petrol.
But it's not. It never has been and it probably never will be.
For goodness sake, people.
Green? What does 'green' mean, specifically? Green means green, I suppose?
Diesels DO emit less CO2, that's for sure. But whether or not it's greener than petrol depends on what your criteria for 'green' is, doens't it?
London already has a Low Emissions Zone.. remember back in 2009-10 when all my Mates who owned T4 Vans ditched them because of the Daily Charge (something like £200) was placed upon them. What the Govt failed to do at the time was include Trucks and Lorries in that initiative, clearly back handers and MP's at the time were once again rife.
Idiots are idiots.
Burning any fossil fuel for transportation is by definition Not Green.
Burning any fossil fuel for transportation is by definition Not Green.
And filling a car with batteries is so much cleaner?
You could more immediately get started by banning all Euro 4 vehicles from city centres. Those are far more polluting than Euro 5 and also old enough that it shouldn't affect owners too badly.
That's the way Germany does it. For those cities (and a few conurbation areas) in the scheme, everything pre-Euro3 are banned.
Those are far more polluting than Euro 5 and also old enough that it shouldn't affect owners too badly.
I think there will be a massive uproar if or when they change the rule to only allow Euro4 or newer, unless there is a(nother) scrappage scheme, or a long phase-in period. My car would be affected for sure.
Anyway - more constructively - does anyone know with any degree of confidence how low the NOx and particulate emissions are on new cars with SCR?
Maybe this sort of thing should be done at a higher, Europe wide level. Maybe some kind of Europe wide union with the power to make laws for all to follow? Sounds good!, I'm in
Funny how the diesel pollution issue happened with vehicles complying with EU wide emission regs while the fightback against them is happening at a city level. Maybe there is something for local democracy and sovereignty?
Car manufacturers don't give a chuff except to move new product and hide the fact there's massive over-production in the European car market and that it's only been kept alive by cheap finance and lease plans whereas owners are 'encouraged' to replace vehicles every 2-3 years, the manufacturers buy them back and create inflated residuals in the used-car market. Politicians are at their behest as it sustains employment in their constituencies e.g Nissan's post-Brexit deal.
Will be my last diesal.....bought the last 5 due to the mileage I do/did ....all vw but the last one a 2.0 TDI has just been dire and troublesome
Where we live not owning a car would mean cycling everywhere .... all the bus routes are being stopped, the train journey to get to my work base would take 2hr 30 minutes one way compared to 40 minutes in a car,..,.. so infrastructure needs to be looked at
Not sure about the 1970s we are heading back to the 1870s
@dove not to mention 20% VAT too
It's time we had some properly funded independent research testing cars on the road when new, 5 and 10 years old. Petrol and Diesel across a few different models. Should make this compulsory and at manufacturers expense for all cars which have sold some threshold amount, say 100,000 vehicles ?
Idiots are idiots.Burning any fossil fuel for transportation is by definition Not Green.
Obvious is obvious. There are shades of green though. Expert opinion seems to be that for local air pollution petrol is better.
Note the comment on the BMW 330e - same kind of thing as the Merc 350e (except no estate available). In my mind with these cars they should have used a more economical petrol engine in combination with the electric motor. Whilst over 200bhp is nice, for people wanting better economy even using say a 1.6 turbo would have been a better option.
I was also tempted with a Lexus 300h as that's a petrol hybrid, but they plagued it with a cvt box.
We need viable alternatives to diesel before killing them off.
Just to add when I don't need the car for work I try to cycle to the office (in the middle of Bristol). Public transport as an alternative isn't a great option. Bristol buses being more expensive than in any other city I've got public transport in. Trains aren't any better either - peak train to London from Bristol is now over £200 return. Versus off peak of around £70. Outrageous.
The biggest issue in London is the Public transport vehicles, busses and taxis are by far the worst offenders but there will be Nothing done about them, ever, likewise trucks.
Low emissions zone, hybrid buses, hybrid taxis. All being done right now.
I'm also told that a Euro 6 diesel bus is actually cleaner than a Euro 5 diesel car. Factor in the number of passengers and it's a no brainer.
People are driven more by personal economy than ecological concerns and I can't blame them for thinking diesels were "greener", despite the warnings about particulates being made for many years now.
The economy point should be driven by the ecological concerns though. If diesel is more polluting per mile, then it should cost more to travel a mile in a typical diesel than in a typical petrol car. Likewise, road tax, which as any fule know is based on emissions, should be higher for diesels. You can't make it cheaper to travel a mile by diesel, and make a 2.0 diesel cheaper than a 2.0 petrol to tax and then act surprised that people choose the diesel.
I say that as a diesel owner. I wouldn't buy one now, but I bought it six years ago based at least in part on (emissions) tax and fuel economy, I will fully admit I didn't search out research papers on the effects of fine particulates on health. But I don't do that when I buy anything else.
Outside of a couple of cities (or maybe just London?) in the UK, what choice do I have but private car? Public transport is almost universally useless or non-existent and there is no cycle infrastructure. I use my bike where I can but the constant 'cyclecraft' needed to deal with the UK's hostile roads and arsehole drivers is dispiriting and I completely understand why most people don't even consider riding a bike instead of driving everywhere. Fix that, then by all means sort out the diesel issue, but without an alternative what are people expected to do?
If only there were some kind of transport that emitted little or no harmless gases, kept people healthy, and put a grin on their faces*. If this mode of transport were small and light enough to be carried on public transport for longer distances then so much the better. Obviously if this item were prone to planned obsolescence things wouldn't be quite so rosy.
* obviously I'm not talking about roadies here.
FunkyDunc - Member
Burning any fossil fuel for transportation is by definition Not Green.
And filling a car with batteries is so much cleaner?
Certainly not, but most power stations also burn fossil fuels don't they, but you know that so why pick up on that single point..
My statement reads, for clarity: Burning any fossil fuel for transportation is by definition Not Green.
HTHs
I think there's no doubt that emissions are a problem, particularly from roads in urban areas.
The problem isn't simply down to those naughty diesel car makers though, if tests were adequate (they're not), emissions would be lower. If you truly want air in cities to be a particular quality, don't ban cars based on fuel type, restrict them based on the emission levels - it may be that this is an effective ban on certain types (or all types) of car, but that will encourage people to develop cars that are adequately clean based on the most effective technology.
There are also issues with idling, traffic calming causing heavy footed driving, traffic light phasing often being suboptimal to allow smooth driving and so forth. And, of course, a massive deficit in good infrastructure to allow safe, fast and convenient travel by bike within cities (I challenge anyone to find a cycle path scheme that doesn't take longer to navigate than just sticking to the main roads - which will be likely to be better maintained and gritted in winter etc.)
So in response to the OP, we're massively backwards, particularly at the moment with recent changes to vehicle excise duty (which wasn't a significant cost but was effective in modifying buying behaviour) and fuel duty. But this it isn't simply the case that banning diesel cars would solve the problem (buses etc would still be polluting in cities - and with their age and constant stopping and starting, they contribute significantly)
If only there were some kind of transport that emitted little or no harmless gases, kept people healthy, and put a grin on their faces*.
Ahem, this is stw, not a cycling forum.
bikebouy - MemberThe biggest issue in London is the Public transport vehicles, busses and taxis are by far the worst offenders but there will be Nothing done about them, ever
For buses- Per vehicle, perhaps. Per person, no. And lots has already been done about reduction.
For taxis, lots is already being done in London- from 2018 onwards it'll be impossible to licence a new taxi that can't do zero emissions driving, and private hires will have to be euro 6. And then they all have to have zero emissions capability by 202-something.
But don't let that stop you 😉
I think there's no doubt that emissions are a problem, particularly from roads in urban areas.
The problem isn't simply down to those naughty diesel car makers though, if tests were adequate (they're not), emissions would be lower. If you truly want air in cities to be a particular quality, don't ban cars based on fuel type, restrict them based on the emission levels - it may be that this is an effective ban on certain types (or all types) of car, but that will encourage people to develop cars that are adequately clean based on the most effective technology.
There are also issues with idling, traffic calming causing heavy footed driving, traffic light phasing often being suboptimal to allow smooth driving and so forth. And, of course, a massive deficit in good infrastructure to allow safe, fast and convenient travel by bike within cities (I challenge anyone to find a cycle path scheme that doesn't take longer to navigate than just sticking to the main roads - which will be likely to be better maintained and gritted in winter etc.)
So in response to the OP, we're massively backwards, particularly at the moment with recent changes to vehicle excise duty (which wasn't a significant cost but was effective in modifying buying behaviour) and fuel duty. But this it isn't simply the case that banning diesel cars would solve the problem (buses etc would still be polluting in cities - and with their age and constant stopping and starting, they contribute significantly. And petrol cars might be cleaner but they don't emit flowers and clear running streams, do they?)
chakaping - Member
"we've got an electric van at work"I admit I haven't researched them much as they're way out of my budget and I don't do leasing, but I'd be a bit concerned about heading up to NW Scotland or driving across Europe.
I assume they're more suitable for local delivery duties ATM.
as part of our lease, we get the option of requesting (for free) a diesel van if we think range is an issue.
Autonomous electric delivery vans - that'll really change how things work.
For taxis, lots is already being done in London- from 2018 onwards it'll be impossible to licence a new taxi that can't do zero emissions driving, and private hires will have to be euro 6. And then they all have to have zero emissions capability by 202-something.
And we all know how good the euro emissions tests are for representing real driving conditions. Meanwhile these cars will be producing zero emissions 10% of the time.
Bring it on:
[img] 
:large[/img]
I'm all right, Jack !! 😆
And we all know how good the euro emissions tests are for representing real driving conditions. Meanwhile these cars will be producing zero emissions 10% of the time.
Sure, more could be done, but it's a massive step forward from what we have now. Have you seen the emissions data for a London taxi?!
The key metric to vehicle efficiency and one almost never discussed is weight, regardless of power supply if you control the weight of vehicles you will improve effiency and reduce toxic emmisions.
Obviously those who get hard over electric closing air vents and cars the size of houses will object but there is no reason for such excess and lots of reason to reign it in.
The key metric to vehicle efficiency and one almost never discussed is weight, regardless of power supply if you control the weight of vehicles you will improve effiency and reduce toxic emmisions.
Almost never discussed?
The key metric is emissions - that's the bottom line. Weight is one of the factors, which is why car manufacturers have been reducing weight. I read that Mazda re-routed the wiring in one of their cars and saved something like 3kg of wire. Saves money for them, reduces the car's weight, win/win.
Wait until next year. If it's emissions are above 255 it'll be £2,000 per year.
Only £2000 for the first year, if it is registered after 1st April 2017
Then either £140 every year or £450 per year if the car cost more than £40,000
It'll never stop me moaning about London Public Transport No, in fact I could go on about how bloody awful it is riding around the Capital and breathing in the stink of poorly maintained Public Transport and include Taxis and Trucks and such.
The forthcoming emissions regulations were put back by two years because of the backlash of LT and the body that look after Taxis.. They said "whiney whiney blah di blah" so the Govt caved in and continued to suck their thumbs.
And we all know if you massage the figures to suit your own political leaning, you'll get the answer somewhere underneath that you are looking for.
So moan I will, thanks for pointing that out.
More seriously, there are two significant facts that are important here, and often missed:
1) The rules for EU "air pollution" were changed in 2008. Levels that are considered harmful were HALVED! Our city air quality has in fact been improving year on year across all the major pollutants (CO,NOx,PM) because of less industrial activity, less coal burning in households, and massively better engines in cars and buses/trucks etc. However, because of the new lower limit, some of our towns fail this limit on their worse days (in real terms they are still cleaner than they ever were of course!) You can go here:[url= http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/advgraphs.asp ]LondonAirQuality[/url]
And plot data over the last 20 years for lots of london air monitoring sites
2) Modern diesels ARE cleaner than older ones. Despite all the rubbish spouted in the papers and by people who don't understand the science of vehicle tailpipe emissions (which, is most people). Banning "newly registered" deisels is, of course, idiotic, when banning a single 10 year old one will make something like 10x bigger impact on total tailpipe emissions.
For example, lets compare EU3 and EU6 diesel limits (in g/km):
EU3 (Passenger cars 2000->2005) CO: 0.64 NOx: 0.5 PM: 0.05
EU6 (Passenger cars 2014 onward) CO: 0.50 NOx: 0.08 PM: 0.005
% Reductions: CO: 22% NOx: 98% PM: 90%
Then we get to the fact which the vast majority of people miss, namely:
Tailpipe emissions are NOT linear with engine load
The official test cycle for emisisions is conducted across a range of speed and loads, with a "cold" engine start at the beginning, and a faster, "highway" section at the end of the test. The Tailpipe emissions are collected for the whole test, and averaged out over the distance travelled, hence they are in grams/km.
But a passenger car in our crowded city centre is not under ANY significant load, so it is not running combustion pressures and temperatures sufficient to actually produce, for example any significant NOx. (in fact at idle, it's practically impossible to actually measure the concentration of tailpipe NOx for a typical EU6 passenger car!) And at Idle, the engine AFR will be between 80 and 120 to 1, resulting is extremely low PM emissions too.
So, a gaggle of modern diesel cars in the city centre (those Audi's, Ewoks, BMWs mentioned earlier) will not be contribution in any meaningful way to the local air quality reduction.
IMO, the REAL reason we need to ban passenger cars from our city centres is simply due to a lack of space. Our population density and our classically layed out city plans means there is just no point trying to drive across a modern UK town or city in a private passenger car. All you do is spend 5 hours sat at a red light or in a queue of other people going nowhere fast!
wilburt
The key metric to vehicle efficiency and one almost never discussed is weight
Sorry, but, no, no it isn't.
Vehicle Mass does has a bearing on total tailpipe emissions, but it's not as critical as you might think. This is because energy stored in the vehicles KE is only lost when you brake (to heat in the brakes) so if you are driving for efficiency, you are not braking, so the KE is only lost to drag.
If we are talking about City centre driving, at low average speed and load, the most important factor is actually engine frictional and parasitic losses!
It'll never stop me moaning about London Public Transport No, in fact I could go on about how bloody awful it is riding around the Capital and breathing in the stink of poorly maintained Public Transport and include Taxis and Trucks and such.
Fill your boots: I find it's pretty common for Londoners to moan about something that's better than any other part of the country.
Modern diesels ARE cleaner than older ones
You're right: the latest diesels are only two to three times as bad as they claim to be. You also need to look at the percentage of diesel cars on the road compared with twenty years ago...
So, a gaggle of modern diesel cars in the city centre (those Audi's, Ewoks, BMWs mentioned earlier) will not be contribution in any meaningful way to the local air quality reduction.
Diesel is the dominant source of poor local air quality, because as you say, many of the other sources have been cleaned up or have disappeared. So we need to do something about it.
Reading this slightly guiltily because I've just bought an older diesel estate. But I don't run a company van...
the latest diesels are only two to three times as bad as they claim to be.
Link? I mean actual data not clickbait newspaper articles.
But a passenger car in our crowded city centre is not under ANY significant load, so it is not running combustion pressures and temperatures sufficient to actually produce, for example any significant NOx.
If that's the case, then perhaps 20mph limits would do more than banning diesel? It's so easy to get to 20mp it would force people to stay off the pedal and spend more time in the low NOx zone.
I provided a link the last time we discussed this... I can't find it now so try the forum search.
More seriously, there are two significant facts that are important here, and often missed:
Pfft. Who needs facts when you have the internet.
maxtorque - MemberMore seriously, there are two significant facts that are important here, and often missed:
Now now Max. Stop all this talking sense from an educated and fact based position please.
