Forum menu
All diesels are starting to look pretty questionable now, the affects on public health are so great that it would be reasonable to ban them from cities etc
Residually when so many schools are close to main roads etc
That'll never happen though, the government wouldn't want to piss off that many people and businesses
And similar because my 120d does not include any "blue" technology (urea), I can be assured that the outcomes I'm getting are real and mechanically arisen then?
Dunno what you mean there - the urea is to reduce NOx in the exhaust after the engine, so the engine can be tuned to run more efficiently in the first place.
Having an older vag vehicle I was feeling a bit left out so fitted a straight through exhaust and blanked the egr valve..
[i]Plus Bosch would have had to provide the software to even allow it to do this in the first place - now Bosch's defence will be that it was provided for development purposes and to be fair to them it is not their call to implement it in production, but they would have known about it. [/i]
Didn't I read that Bosch had warned VW not to customise the code, back in 2007?
Yep, found it.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-diesel-emissions-cheating-in-2007/
Ah ok - yeah, there we go, so it was supplied as a 'demo' software. Still surprised there wasn't further warnings (there may have been, who knows) as Bosch have to receive the calibration in order to 'industrialise' it for flashing to the ECUs they supply.
Maybe we'll find out, maybe we wont.
Why would Bosch even have created it? What purpose would it have served?
If I were transport minister right now, I'd be creating a mahoosive spereadsheet to work out how much VAG owes the UK economy in back taxes.... I wouldn't charge the owners, they bought their cars in good faith.
Why would Bosch even have created it? What purpose would it have served?
Could have been intentionally for this purpose just to see how well it would work? Could have been intended as a way of running 2 seperate cals in different conditions and an unfortunate consequence is that it could be used to cheat tests?
Either way, if Bosch denoted it as test software it should never have been used for a production calibration. Bosch add in all sorts of things to software at manufacturers requests to trial systems so it's no surprise they made it for VW, but it's pretty bad that VW defied Bosch and got it productionised (although Bosch probably could have quite easily put a stop to it....)
I think he's talking about big trucks hauling cargo not pick-up trucks. A lot of pick-ups will be petrol.
It's called rolling coal, look it up on YouTube, I'd like to say a country full of contradictions, but I'd rather say a country full of @/-;€%<~#|\\_}{<%####,>#>*^^^%%<<~,?!!€$¥{][{........ Pardon my French.
Looks like no one will have to pay higher VED in the UK....
Bit of a shame as it cheats the system if you allow one manufacturer to effectively get away with a lower VED banding. As for VW buyers, they could have just sued VW for the difference. So the only people who benefit at the end of the day are VW.
Looks like no one will have to pay higher VED in the UK
I never expected to be.
I'm even more amazed, the recall is now optional in the UK. The Government has now effectively approved of VW's defeat device.. You are under no obligation to get your car fixed so can carry on polluting with complete impunity. The only missing statement is one saying they'll take no action against VW over the defeat device.
^^^ But in practice all they're doing is deleting irrelevant software. It's not going to do anything else so why would UK government be bothered whether it was done.
Not clear what they'll do exactlyy. The expectation is that whatever the fix is it will reduce pollutants which ought to be made a compulsory fix (esp given the VED band is based on it).
Currently the SW switches off pollution reduction once the car is driven in 'non test' mode, so any non fixed car is over-polluting.
Mind you, the Tories have never given a f*** about the poor (who disproportionately suffer pollution at higher levels) or the environment and always favoured big business, so no real surprise.
Given the governments response I suspect the 'recall' will just remove the 'device' as they call it, which seems odd given it only functions in very specific circumstances that are unlikely the be replicated on the road - now if they said the recall made the cars produce the published level of pollutants that would be a different story.
But it's not our test so WGAS, EU testing is Co2 based not NOx.
EU testing is Co2 based not NOx.
Nope. EU tests cover CO2 and NO*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars
EU testing is Co2 based not NOx.
CO2 isn't legislated per vehicle, it is only legislated as a fleet average. NOx IS legislated per vehicle for tailpipe emissions.
As for the suggestion of electric cars as a green alternative. Not as far as CO2 goes they aren't. The Nissan Leaf, a small car, gets around 130g per mile. Most recent petrol/diesel cars the same size would beat that.
The 130g figure comes from this blog entry.
http://www.jaffacake.net/dx/nissan-leaf-hidden-emissions
Seems about right. According to a Nissan Leaf users forum the car gets around 3.8 miles for each Kwh. In the UK electricity generation is around 500g per Kwh. So 500/3.8 is 131g per mile. In ideal conditions of course. I'd guess that in winter or summer where battery power is being used to heat or cool the car the CO2 per mile would increase quite a bit.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electricity-emissions-around-the-world
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=8489
It's far more complicated than that irc... Do the costs of using petrol/diesel for instance include the co2 generated from fossil fuels in refining and extracting the petrol/diesel? Usually the quoted co2 figure for a car is just the co2 produced from burning the (already refined) fuel.
Likewise the quoted CO2 figure for a Leaf is just the CO2 produced from burning the already refined extracted coal/gas. I agree it's complicated, just pointing out electric cars are nowhere near CO2 free. Moving a big lump of metal around is always going to use a lot of energy.
Of course not, electric simply shifts the problem elsewhere. However, a lot of the variability comes down to WHAT is producing the electricity, there will be a massive difference between coal and nuclear before you even look at renewables.
You are under no obligation to get your car fixed so can carry on polluting with complete impunity.
Likewise I'm under no obligation to upgrade my Euro IV diesel. In fact I could buy anything up to the highest (most polluting) tax band if I wanted to. I'm not sure what your point is here, are you more bothered by people effectively getting a tax break or by the fact that people are legally allowed to drive cars that pollute more than they claim?
As for diesels in general, I bet you still get several times more crap coming out the back end of a bus than any car. I'd be surprised if PCV's even break even on pollution per average occupant the way most seem to be run.
Bit of a shame as it cheats the system if you allow one manufacturer to effectively get away with a lower VED banding. As for VW buyers, they could have just sued VW for the difference. So the only people who benefit at the end of the day are VW.
It's not a shame at all, it means I can carry on killing kittens for a mere £30 a year, huge relief.
I ordered a Passat GTD (loads of extras added) on the 4th June for delivery on 1.10.2015, they told me about 5 weeks ago(before the scandal was known) that it will be delayed. It will not be built until, not delivered, built in week 52 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if they knew what was to come or is it just a coincidence, who knows?
They gave me some bullshit that a company that supplies some major parts to build of the Passat in Europe had burnt down.
Not sure if I want the Passat now 🙁
Black cabs, I would LOVE to know how much crap comes out the back of one of them when they burp big black clouds on take off!? Always wondered how they get an mot.
On VED generally, I wondered if the tax should be mileage based (at the pump only? Or at year end?). I pay £290 per year for my evil Subaru, but do 5000 a year at most. Mr Salesman pays £0 VED for his cuddly VAG but does 50000miles...
Or do you think his tax at the pump is fair enough?
I've always thought that abolishing VED and increasing fuel duty to compensate is a good idea. Amount of fuel that you put in has to be a pretty good indicator of the amount of CO2 that comes out. Plus you get rid of the cost of administering the tax system, and make tax evasion much harder. Cars run pretty well without tax, but less well without fuel.
The obvious flaw in the plan is that it involves the phrase "increasing fuel duty", therefore rendering any sensible and logical discussion of the problem impossible.
pdw, i agree, 1p per litre would cover, impossible to avoid, zero administration charges, the people who use the roads the most pay the most, (more or less, anyway).
im struggling to see any real downsides to it.
Other than it makes travel in rural areas, already woefully under-served by public transport, even more expensive?
pdw - MemberI've always thought that abolishing VED and increasing fuel duty to compensate is a good idea. Amount of fuel that you put in has to be a pretty good indicator of the amount of CO2 that comes out. Plus you get rid of the cost of administering the tax system, and make tax evasion much harder. Cars run pretty well without tax, but less well without fuel.
I'd be opposed to it based on the fact that there's already 60p (?) per litre on fuel already which I think is farcical. Also, from a psychological point of view a person/family buying a car will certainly be swayed if they have the option of buying a car with £30 VED or £110 VED. In real world terms the difference they are paying might be negligible if that tax was added to the fuel, but it'll be a bigger encouragement to chose the green option if they can see that tax on the car. 1p on the fuel will just be perceived as part of the overall fuel cost.
If that makes sense.
Also, from a psychological point of view a person/family buying a car will certainly be swayed if they have the option of buying a car with £30 VED or £110 VED
But that argument is history. From April 2017 it is a flat rate £140 VED, other than a few quid extra in year 1 which I suggest won't mater. If you can afford a brand new car a few quid either way on VED won't sway you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-excise-duty/vehicle-excise-duty
I agree with abolishing VED and adding it to fuel duty. 1p per litre is too low though. Taking the £140 VED. A q12k per year driver in a 50mpg car uses 240 gallons per year. Or 1091L.
12k miles by 1091L gives 11p per liter to replace VED with extra fuel duty.
Well, cars have to get more expensive to run if we want to influence what technologies car manufacturers invest in to develop. Clearly the diesel dream was not the correct dream, more of a nightmare as ultimately it's done more harm to the environment and peoples health. The future has to be in electric and hybrid cars, so more and more tax/cost has to be loaded onto fuel to coax drivers out of petrol/diesel cars and into electric and hybrid cars. We also need to re-evaluate our use of cars and maybe for some journeys we should be using public transport more and maybe changing from our love of large shopping centres, to more local smaller shops to avoid the need for driving out to the supermarket for your weekly shop. Scrapping VED and loading up tax on fuel seems the best option to me. VED is pointless as a tax on emissions as someone who drives 6k miles a year pays the same as someone who does 150k per year. That is just stupid, and adds a bureaucratic burden which has to be paid for too.
11p/litre duty in place of VED is nothing.
Here the price has varied by way more than that in the last year both up and down, to the extent that I thought the pump had a dicky display when I tanked up the other day.
€1.32/litre (for 98 octane), when it has been as high as €1.76. Plus it varies by about 1/3rd of that 11p just by day of the week (fuel price always goes up thursday evening and down monday, presumably because more people tank up at the weekend?).
VED could be used far better by taxing cars based upon the environmental impact of manufacture, repair and disposal
The true picture of a transport should not just be what comes out of the exhaust pipe.
Having low emissions out of the tail pipe may well be as big a cheat as the VAG (and others) fiasco
Anyhow the impact isn't just limited to NOx or CO2.
@sas I am in a similar situation paying £500 a year for a car in which I do 3-5000 miles a year and a good chunk of that is outside the UK. The problem with taxing fuel further is that it becomes a tax bourne by those living in rural areas. I think a balanced approach much like we had before makes sense. It's certainly annoying I pay £500 whilst a mate with a VAG 2TDI with cheat device and stop/start which he turns off pays a tiny fraction of that
As a comparison cars in Singapre have to pay 10 years of emissions costs upfront, this is roughly £20k and after 10 years you must buy it again or export the car. They also have VAT rate for cars of 100% and road tolls everywhere. A standard Golf costs about £60-70k. The roads are still packed and many people have cars worth more than their homes (a Lamborghini of which there are many costs about £400k)
adding it to fuel is a very bad idea, you can guarantee it would be done in a way which costs you more unless you do very low mileage.
then there is also the fuel used that isn't used on the roads, my trackday car is purely for track use so not taxed. the 60+ litres i used at oulton park on tuesday would of been even more expensive and for the 9/10 trackdays i do a year the yearly cost would be a big extra. then there would also be the increased diesel cost to tow the car there behind my van.
just doing one of my hobby's would easily cost more than it would to tax both vehicles.
certainly annoying I pay £500
You could have bought a different car of course.
The problem with taxing fuel further is that it becomes a tax bourne by those living in rural areas.
Don't see a problem. You choose to live miles from anywhere you accept higher travel costs. Can't say I've noticed any tendency for rural drivers to choose small economical cars. Fuel costs can't be that much of a problem.
Anyway you only start losing after 12k miles or so. An extra 8k miles above that with 10p per L extra would only cost an extra £20 or so.
If the idea is to influence behaviour and get people to use cars less then not everyone is going to be happy.
I'd be opposed to it based on the fact that there's already 60p (?) per litre on fuel already which I think is farcical.
Which is exactly my point for why this will never happen. Overall, on average, we could pay less tax (excluding current tax evaders from "we") thanks to less administration and no longer subsidising tax evaders, yet you're not prepared to entertain the idea because you think that the tax on one particular aspect is already "too high".
Can you really not separate the issue of whether the total amount of tax collected is too high, from whether that amount is collected efficiently and fairly?
bigfoot - Member
...just doing one of my hobby's would easily cost more than it would to tax both vehicles.
Ever thought of taking up cycling instead? 🙂
Sorry, irresistible. 60 litres in a day? we need a pic.
even cycling needs fuel to miss out the boring road miles on the way to the trails, the closest i ride to home is about 6 miles away. when your that close to decent lakes trails no point riding the crap stuff at home.
here's your pic
[img] 
[/img]
yamaha R1 engine that does about 12mpg when being hammered around the track.
Can you really not separate the issue of whether the total amount of tax collected is too high, from whether that amount is collected efficiently and fairly?
but it wouldn't be "fairly" for the people like me who have to buy fuel for use not on roads.
then there is also the fuel used that isn't used on the roads, my trackday car is purely for track use so not taxed. the 60+ litres i used at oulton park on tuesday would of been even more expensive and for the 9/10 trackdays i do a year the yearly cost would be a big extra. then there would also be the increased diesel cost to tow the car there behind my van.
So you've got a track day car, and do 9/10 weekends a year. 60 litres per weekend.
Let's say, the additional tax on fuel was way over what's been estimated and increased the price by 20p a litre.
You reckon that would be a "big extra" cost on what you already spend ?
About an extra £100 a year. Hardly a big addition to what it must already cost is it ?
Especially when you consider that the price of fuel has dropped 20p/litre in the last 12 months anyway.
but it wouldn't be "fairly" for the people like me who have to buy fuel for use not on roads.
But part of the argument for tax on fuel and abolishing VED is to reduce CO2 production by reducing the use of cars. Your fuel produces CO2 whether you are on road or not.
Think of it as taking one for the team. An extra £6 fuel cost on your track day to save the planet.
Some of those rural types might just have been born there and work in poorly paid jobs there. The countryside isn't really just a playground for people who've got bored of making money in the city and have seen a lifestyle they like the look of in a magazine.
People in the countryside drive 4x4 s because they generally need them to get somewhere or pull something, not just because some footballer has one that they've seen in the chat mag or to compete with their neighbour.
Also - track day fuel use. Why shouldn't you pay if it's still chucking out pollutants?
We should just get everyone to move to the cities and let the land go wild then. It would work until folk got hungry.