You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My main concern is I just don’t want to be spending £6- £7K on a car that I’m going to struggle to sell if I ever need to change it.
I spent 6k 70,000 miles ago. I did spend another £1000 isn on leather and alloys but even adding that I've had 6 years and 70k and theoretically could sell the leather and wheels....
I wish I'd got an estate but other than that I've no plans to sell or change for another 70k...
I have a diesel Euro 6 with no ad-blue so it’s not essential to passing the test*
I have noticed that my 2017 diesel returns worse mpg than my 2012 and 2008 diesels if the numbers on the dash computer can be believed.
*whatever that means
Go on Autotrader usa and take a look. If you search for a diesel ford all you’ll see is pages and pages of giant pickup trucks. You can search by cylinders and again you’ll see that 6 and 8 cylinder engines outnumber 4 cylinders hugely. For example 4 cylinder Audi returns two pages. 6 or more cylinder Audi (petrol) returns 12 pages.
I'm not looking at Autotrader, I'm looking at the roads when I go there, which is often. Diesel trucks are a bit of a speciality. Most of them are bought buy people who need to move large equippment - much more common than it is here, because there seem to be more self employed contractors owning their own kit. By far the most common diesels are pickups, and they aren't that common. Audis are also not representative because they are mostly premium cars and in that respect, NA petrols are more common engines. Try searching for Chevrolet, Hyundia, Nissan, Toyota etc. You'll probably find far more 4cyl petrols.
But that's a huge digression. The reason that diesel isn't more popular there is partly due to import tariffs and marketing but also significantly to do with far more stringent NOx limits that go much further back, because of their smog problem which is much greater than ours due to climate.
Now it is. Nox didn’t seem to be an issue to the public until 5 or 6 years ago.
That's because it wasn't apparent how much of an impact diesel was having on towns and cities until recently. Evidence appears, and changes policy. I see no reason to be cynical here.
Why did manufacturers suddenly start investing in small capacity petrol engines though?
My guess would be the development of direct injection petrol making then possible, and the anti-diesel feeling brought on by DPF/EGR/DMF failure worries. That's what started this thing, not NOx levels. The manufacturers would have seen an opportunity to sell something with added value over the standard boring 1.6 NA petrol. People usually don't give much of a crap about pollution do they?
Perhaps supply wouldn’t be an issue if diesels were limited to appropriate applications (lorrys, vans, trucks, boats)
Those are types of vehicles not applications as such.
Diesel is applicable to towing heavy loads and coating on motorways
Pedantry just for the sake of pedantry and yet still agreeing with my point. Impressive STW'ing. Do you think I didn't realise they are types of vehicles or did you just miss the point that generally the application of those vehicles is to move heavy loads? Gah.
I’m not looking at Autotrader, I’m looking at the roads when I go there, which is often.
Right, don't look at any kind of overview...just base your opinion on what you see when you visit your mother in law. Seems legit.
That’s because it wasn’t apparent how much of an impact diesel was having on towns and cities until recently.
But .....if the Americans knew about it "way back" as you put it, then that doesn't add up either.
My guess would be the development of direct injection petrol making then possible, and the anti-diesel feeling brought on by DPF/EGR/DMF failure worries. That’s what started this thing, not NOx levels. The manufacturers would have seen an opportunity to sell something with added value over the standard boring 1.6 NA petrol.
In that case improving diesels would have been the correct move. People are now conditioned to think diesels = green and economical. Petrols = inneficient and polluting. Just look at the absolute shite that gets spouted when someone asks about a small displacement petrol engine. Now manufacturers have to reverse that conditioning. Somehow they managed to produce petrol engines that now reliably produce 150bhp+ from a litre, similar torque, 60mpg in a few years of development.
I’m not looking at Autotrader, I’m looking at the roads when I go there, which is often.
I'm guessing you usually go to the same place(s) though. I was quite surprised but ...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1
Compact-car sales fell 6.1% last year. At the same time, its mid-size counterpart saw sales plummet 11.2%.
In its place, the dominant force in the marketplace is the compact and mid-size crossover SUV. Combined, these two segments account for 35% of all cars and trucks sold in the United States. At the same time, America's insatiable appetite for full-size pickup trucks is alive and well. Even though the segment is made up of just six models, total sales topped 2.2 million.
But …..if the Americans knew about it “way back” as you put it, then that doesn’t add up either.
The USA gets lots of very hot still weather in places. And with increasing car mileage and traffic back in the 70s they had huge, very visible, very obvious photochemical smog problems - far worse than our windy cold countryside gets. So they had to act, because people's eyes and noses were streaming. In this country though it is nowhere near as bad - and mostly only people with breathing problems are affected. The difference is that nowadays we have stricter standards from the EU, and we give more of a shit about vulnerable people. The situation with the US in the 70s was more like the UK in the 50s with coal fires.
Incidentally one thing they did was introduce EGR to petrol engines which made them much less efficient, which is why they ended up with big engines with low BHP.
People are now conditioned to think diesels = green and economical. Petrols = inneficient and polluting. Just look at the absolute shite that gets spouted when someone asks about a small displacement petrol engine.
Never seen anyone spout shit about these - where are you looking?
Somehow they managed to produce petrol engines that now reliably produce 150bhp+ from a litre, similar torque, 60mpg in a few years of development.
A few years of development? They might've been on the market for a few years, but I'll wager they were in development for a lot longer than that. They are all direct injection petrol I think, and I suspect that took a lot of effort to develop, probably requiring some high tech computational modelling. So it could be a case of requiring lots of other engineering tech to be developed before it could be made to work reliably. See also Mazda's direct injection petrol engine. That idea has been around for many years, but the solutions have taken time to arrive at.
I’m guessing you usually go to the same place(s) though.
Nah, we drive all over the place. And I'm always looking at the cars. And my father in law is a petrol head so it's mostly all we talk about. There's a split - people either buy big trucks or SUVs, or they buy normal cars with 4cyl engines, it seems.
Pedantry just for the sake of pedantry and yet still agreeing with my point. Impressive STW’ing. Do you think I didn’t realise they are types of vehicles or did you just miss the point that generally the application of those vehicles is to move heavy loads? Gah.
But its not the same. In addition to trucks diesel is a good choice for anyone that does 95% of their driving doing long motorway miles whilst small petrol engined car's are not. It's a fundamental of the energy that is stored in diesel vs 95 or 98 octane...
But …..if the Americans knew about it “way back” as you put it, then that doesn’t add up either.
Because NoX isn't the be all and end all... though it is very relevant for urban driving because it is a local pollutant vs CO2 which is pretty harmless but is a global pollutant vs trace metals used in Ni Hydride cells that are a someone else's problem localised pollutant.
I'm more inclined towards petrol being redundant in some ways... with diesel hybrids ... using diesel on long motorways and electric in urban... but we will be more likely into fuel cells before that happens.
I’m more inclined towards petrol being redundant in some ways… with diesel hybrids … using diesel on long motorways and electric in urban… but we will be more likely into fuel cells before that happens.
The problem with fuel cells is you still need electricity or fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen for them. And you still need to distribute and store that hydrogen.
It could be a solution to the pollution problem, but I don't think it's significantly better/worse than electricity, and we already have almost perfect infrastructure for electricity (most houses have at least a 13kW supply and if it takes off then there isn't much stopping councils installing charge points in every lamppost which could be a nice earner for them offsetting the lost tax on fuel. Where hydrogen would have to start from scratch (and have new refineries built to produce it, and the cars still have less range than a Tesla (which can charge about as quickly as you can drink a coffee in a service station).
A fuel cell is still a battery, it's USP is that one half of it is quickly re-fillable (hydrogen) and the other half is air. There are other batteries in development that use air as one half of the electrochemical reaction but can be charged in-situ, the advantage of that is you get rid of most of the battery weight, which means it can be bigger, making it's range more than people will ever need, although even a Tesla will get you to the alps with fewer stops than the Human bladder is designed for!
SCR reduces the NOx from diesels greatly - if you set it up to inject enough AdBlue to deal with the NOx, that is. Let's say manufacturers were forced to do this, with proper MOT testing - would diesels still be a 'bad thing' ?
But its not the same. In addition to trucks diesel is a good choice for anyone that does 95% of their driving doing long motorway miles whilst small petrol engined car’s are not. It’s a fundamental of the energy that is stored in diesel vs 95 or 98 octane…
Diesel actually produces more CO2 per kW than petrol (which is more than LPG etc). It's the difference in efficiencies of the direct injection that makes them better.
Direct injection petrol on the other hand should beat diesel. Toyota's next generation of direct injection petrol engines are their most efficient ever.
The problem with fuel cells is you still need electricity or fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen for them. And you still need to distribute and store that hydrogen.
It could be a solution to the pollution problem, but I don’t think it’s significantly better/worse than electricity, and we already have almost perfect infrastructure for electricity (most houses have at least a 13kW supply and if it takes off then there isn’t much stopping councils installing charge points in every lamppost which could be a nice earner for them offsetting the lost tax on fuel. Where hydrogen would have to start from scratch (and have new refineries built to produce it, and the cars still have less range than a Tesla (which can charge about as quickly as you can drink a coffee in a service station).
Weirdly I was at an international congress 2 weeks ago on this very thing. (Someone from work has registered and paid and couldn't go)
I was a bit surprised but the big money (other than Elon's) was backing hydrogen and bypassing electric.
I don't see why using fossil fuels/electricity is a problem so long as it is done cleanly and that's way easier on a big scale than in a car engine.
You CAN fast charge Tesla's (and others) but it significantly impacts battery life.
I was a bit surprised but the big money (other than Elon’s) was backing hydrogen and bypassing electric.
I think 10 years ago this made sense, and the road-map to adoption was nicely laid out if you could produce enough hydrogen you could convert IC engines to run on it as a stop gap (not much different to LPG). So all that was needed investment wise was generation capacity and infrastructure, which could be done with central investment relatively easily (or so they thought). Once hydrogen was cheap and readily available people would pay to have their cars converted before switching to fuel cells when they arrived.
The problem is Hydrogen is really expensive, and really useful on a refinery, so there isn't the supply available to convert the worlds cars to run on it.
Electric cars on the other hand don't need added infrastructure* and the technology is mature enough to be implemented. And given that cars have a ~10 year life cycle on average it doesn't really matter how good fuel cells could be in 15/20/30 years, the potential owners need several new cars before then.
*yes they might need more generating capacity overall, but equally they solve other capacity problems, if everyone has their car plugged in from 6pm till 8am then the grid can use that to even out all the spikes in demand so existing capacity can be run more efficiently.
Diesel actually produces more CO2 per kW than petrol (which is more than LPG etc). It’s the difference in efficiencies of the direct injection that makes them better.
What's your reasoning behind this statement?
I don’t see why using fossil fuels/electricity is a problem so long as it is done cleanly and that’s way easier on a big scale than in a car engine.
Still not easy though.
I though there was simply more calories in Diesel?
Per kg no, per litre yes, cos it's denser (without googling which way round that is, might be wrong). But the increased diesel efficiency is due to the fact you can inject a tiny amount of diesel into air, which you can't do with traditional petrol otherwise it won't burn; and the compression ratio is much higher which makes it more thermally efficient. You also don't throttle a diesel, which means it breathes more easily and creates less turbulence in the intake so it's more efficient there too.
Per kg no, per litre yes, cos it’s denser
Actually, (to be pedantic) its both but its due to energy density (per unit volume) and specific energy (per unit mass)
However the difference a bit trivial compared to
But the increased diesel efficiency is due to the fact you can inject a tiny amount of diesel into air, which you can’t do with traditional petrol otherwise it won’t burn; and the compression ratio is much higher which makes it more thermally efficient. You also don’t throttle a diesel, which means it breathes more easily and creates less turbulence in the intake so it’s more efficient there too.
In terms of environmental concerns the fractionation and refinery is simpler and uses less energy and produces less pollution as well (in most ways you'd measure it).
Hence me saying ... is it petrol that is dead?
IT's not going to beat diesel on a 300 mile motorway run or hauling heavy goods.
Electric or fuel cells are at home on urban ... exactly where diesel sucks... (both pollution and efficiency)
Diesel hybrid seems a good "last mile" choice... The other half changed to a 2L petrol and finds it "under powered" after the 2.2L diesel... (Both Honda) and its better than diesel for her new commute but she'd have been better off with a electric for what she normally drives.
People are now conditioned to think diesels = green and economical. Petrols = inneficient and polluting. Just look at the absolute shite that gets spouted when someone asks about a small displacement petrol engine.
Never seen anyone spout shit about these – where are you looking?
Since I'd have to use the search function you'll have to make it worth my while - how about you pay me 50p for every negative or ill informed comment I find about small petrol turbos?
stevextc
But its not the same. In addition to trucks diesel is a good choice for anyone that does 95% of their driving doing long motorway miles whilst small petrol engined car’s are not. It’s a fundamental of the energy that is stored in diesel vs 95 or 98 octane…
If you did 95% motorway driving get the bus. Or train. Or move out of your home at the motorway service station...but here's the thing a 1.0 petrol can do 60mpg on the motorway and work in the city.
The other half changed to a 2L petrol and finds it “under powered” after the 2.2L diesel…
So you're saying a smaller capacity (and I presume) non turbo petrol feels less powerful compared to a 200cc larger, turbo charged diesel?
Since I’d have to use the search function you’ll have to make it worth my while – how about you pay me 50p for every negative or ill informed comment I find about small petrol turbos?
I thought you meant elsewhere - from my memory comments seem to be universally positive on here. People say 'are they gutless' and everyone says 'no, they're great'.
but here’s the thing a 1.0 petrol can do 60mpg on the motorway and work in the city.
That would be great but anecdotally it seems hard to achieve. Most people seem to get mid 50s on longer runs from small cars. My dad's 1.4 golf TSI did mid 50s on a long run and mid 40s in their small town. They just changed it for a Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost and on their first few town trips it recorded 28mpg. So there's still a lot of room for improvement.
I'd seriously consider a turbo petrol for my next car.
In terms of environmental concerns the fractionation and refinery is simpler and uses less energy and produces less pollution as well (in most ways you’d measure it).
I though the refining of diesel was a problem? As I understand it, there's only so much diesel and petrol in a barrel of crude, and when you have extracted it all you can create more diesel by cracking heavier oils which is hugely energy intensive. So once you demand more diesel than is available naturally (which we already have) diesel has a greater carbon footprint at the refinery. I think it was thisisnotaspoon that brought that up - care to comment tinas?
I thought you meant elsewhere – from my memory comments seem to be universally positive on here. People say ‘are they gutless’ and everyone says ‘no, they’re great’.
Er, that's not universally positive. But, to be clear you're not taking my bet?
That would be great but anecdotally it seems hard to achieve. Most people seem to get mid 50s on longer runs from small cars. My dad’s 1.4 golf TSI did mid 50s on a long run and mid 40s in their small town. They just changed it for a Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost and on their first few town trips it recorded 28mpg.
I'll consistently get 55+ on the flat with roof rails, bike rack etc in the Focus. My feeling is the 6 speed box helps this. I got 49mpg driving to Dublin and back (300ish miles), that's back roads, B roads, motorways and city driving and I overtook everything in front and treated the speed limit like a target everywhere. Our average MPG when we lived in the city was 39. Now living in the country with a bit of city driving the overall average hovers around the mid to high 40s.
I hate to tell you Molgrips, but several of the things you've quoted are wrong.
EGR on a petrol can actually increase fuel efficiency in some conditions. The key one being partial throttle opening, where it creates a slower more controlled burn, meaning the expanding gases create a more optimum force on the piston.
And the US favoured big low output petrols, because IIRC some states based their emission levels on the percentage of pollutants coming out the exhaust, rather than overall emissions, which penalised diesels. So to achieve the same power, they just made bigger less efficient engines to meet the limits, whereas the EU concentrated on pollutants over distance.
The main reason for the upsurge in small compact turbo charged petrols, is emissions. By being able to vary boost pressure, you gain more control of the combustion process over a greater range of power outputs. Petrols are pretty poor while cruising, so with a smaller engine, the engine can work relatively more efficiently while cruising compared to a larger similar power output normally aspirated engine, yet still produce the same power when needed.
Direct injection petrols already exist, but they don't have any real benefits over other fuel injection, but add complexity and cost. Petrol has very little lubricity, so pumps are problematic. The key thing with a petrol is getting consistent fuel/air mixture, so there is not much difference between injecting fuel outside the cylinder, or inside the cylinder, as the key ignition component is spark timing. Unlike a diesel where precise fuel delivery and timing make a huge difference.
Most modern diesels are throttled, and use dual length inlet manifold tracts to increase cylinder turbulence. Throttling helps control the combustion, and the cylinder turbulence increases the burn efficiency, as it helps mix the burning fuel with the available oxygen.
Apologies if it's bin dun, but seen today Toyota say no more diesel cars.
Diesel produces more CO2 per kW because there are more C relative to H in diesel than petrol (and some thermodynamics). Same reason LPG (C5,C4,C3) is even lower CO2, and at the extreme ends of the scale you have coal (almost all C apart from a small bit of very heavy hydrocarbons) and hydrogen (no carbon bonds obviously).
So to achieve the same thermal efficiency a diesel still has to emit more CO2 than a petrol engine.
So if you build a petrol engine with the same thermal efficiency as a diesel (Toyota claim their next gen announced a few weeks back will beat the current most efficient VW engines. Its also claimed it will do it over a very wide range of conditions, not the very narrow band diesels manage it over.) it will emit less CO2.
From what I've read we don't have the infrastructure to all start charging electric cars no where near. A 13A supply just wont cut it for a decent fast charge. And if we all start doing it the grid wont support it. It can barely cope when people put the kettle on during the ad breaks on tv.
From what I’ve read we don’t have the infrastructure to all start charging electric cars no where near. A 13A supply just wont cut it for a decent fast charge. And if we all start doing it the grid wont support it. It can barely cope when people put the kettle on during the ad breaks on tv.
Yes, but most houses have at least a 60amp supply which go unused overnight. The grid could charge your car whenever it has spare capacity as long as it always did it by the time you set off. It could also use the car to feed back into the grid to boil your kettle in the ad break.
Think of electric cars as symbiotic with the grid rather than as just consumers.
Just the emissions cheating scandal and the different USA/EU thresholds were enough to make us consider ditching diesel as we replace our cars. Then we test drove some electric cars and decided neither petrol nor diesel but electric was what we would choose when the time came.
Having said that, the announcement by HMG last year that all petrol and diesel vehicles would be banned by 2040 seemed scaremongering, inaccurate, and very lax. It seemed to create ‘demon diesel’. The headlines it spawned rarely added ’*hybrids not included’. And 2040? It’d be a shocking indictment on innovation in the mass market if petrol and diesel were not minority interests in 2040 for cars. Almost like clinging on to leaded petrol today.
by 2040 im pretty sure anything you buy today and actually use will be scrapped 😉
If you did 95% motorway driving get the bus. Or train. Or move out of your home at the motorway service station…but here’s the thing a 1.0 petrol can do 60mpg on the motorway and work in the city.
Typically the train not only costs a lot more but takes a lot longer.
I potentially have to visit a client this afternoon... its a 45 min drive or 3 hours on the train (each way). I'm potentially having a 1-2 F2F meeting that would see me spending 6 hours on trains and buses. As soon as they confirm I can plan my trip vs me saying what times I can get trains and I'd need to have left already to even make a lunchtime meeting
When I visit my mother its 4hrs driving vs 6 hours on a train ... with the bikes in the car or trying to get them on trains, crossing London etc.
I’ll consistently get 55+ on the flat with roof rails, bike rack etc in the Focus. My feeling is the 6 speed box helps this. I got 49mpg driving to Dublin and back (300ish miles)
I get 49 mpg between tanks in a 2005 3L diesel.... if I really try I can push it to 50...
My mothers almost small petrol used to get very good mpg... but it was burning a litre of oil on a 300mile motorway trip. Ignoring the mpg which wasn't great .. burning a litre of oil in a petrol engine is pretty much just pure pollution.
So you’re saying a smaller capacity (and I presume) non turbo petrol feels less powerful compared to a 200cc larger, turbo charged diesel?
I don't think the 200cc has much to do with a 2003 engine with 220,000 miles on it vs a 2015 one as far as the lack of power feeling. Peak power the petrol probably delivers more BHP when it's revved ... the difference is just in normal driving it doesn't "feel" like it has any go. I barely drive her car but I suspect using the gears more would help but it doesn't change it "feeling" underpowered.
There’s lots of other things that would put me off buying diesel waaaaaay before I got to MOT regulations. I wouldn’t touch one with a barge pole tbh.
Yawn.
I though the refining of diesel was a problem? As I understand it, there’s only so much diesel and petrol in a barrel of crude,
This depends on the crude ... not that I'm saying to do this (as impurities would be a pollution nightmare) but some crudes can literally be put straight into a diesel engine.
The crude itself is obviously controlled by what is in the reservoir but the way it is produced also exerts a huge influence. Technical considerations aside the main control of how it is produced are the economics.
e.g. More wells vs less - enhanced recovery, natural lift or pumps - choke sizes etc. and exactly which part of a reservoir is being produced.
Indeed the most popular model used for production efficiency is a "choke model".... whereby a reservoirs production is constrained by the ability to transport the crude and refinery capacity and the market for a specific crude and products. If there is a use for by products vs a cost then this drives the HOW.
(Quite a lot of reserves of "near diesel" are locked up as strategic reserves because they can essentially be put straight into a tank. )
Refinery power is also a function of economics. Even heavy crudes have enough gas to power the process.
So the summary? If the economics are right then diesel can be produced ... it might not be ideal but it seems better to me than burning a food source!
Toyota say no more diesel cars
Just cars or vans and pick-ups too?
Just cars or vans and pick-ups too?
Ive not seen that said but the implication of the technical stuff they've been releasing is that they're concentrating on efficient petrol engines. Stuff like Atkinson cycle petrol engines (a very high compression ratio with effective variable compression which gives a big leap in efficiency in petrol engines but isn't possible in a diesel).
Think of electric cars as symbiotic with the grid rather than as just consumers.
Very much this. Why pay for a Tesla PowerWall when you can have its functionality for free from your car.
Im actually very intrigued how all this will play out in the medium term in places like here in Australia. Dunderheaded politics aside (oh yes, if we had somewhere to Ozxit from we’d have done it long ago), we’re a relatively small market where for most people most of the time an EV with a two-way feed to/from the grid would work perfectly. This would especially be the case if you could charge at work whilst the sun shines and PV sends electrical production into orbit. But then at night, you’d need to make sure that if the car’s battery was subsidising the grid that it still had enough charge for the next day. No nuclear here, so baseload is coal, gas, or in some cases hydro, with lumpy wind. Increasing pumped storage mind you...
Anyway, I’ve digressed. The problem comes when you have that “once every few months” drive to somewhere very far away. Doubly so if that place is a camp site off road: I don’t think I’d fancy fording a river of any depth in an EV, and clearly charging becomes a huge issue. Yet, as EVs will increasingly suit a lot of the rest of the world, I do wonder what will happen in outlier markets such as Oz. Certainly, current generation EVs would limit most owners several times a year, even if they were suitable the majority of the time. Not that that’s much solace if you’ve run out of charge 400 km shy of Alice Springs on a 45C day....
I hate to tell you Molgrips, but several of the things you’ve quoted are wrong.
I'm sure.. sometimes I forget to add 'as I understand it but I could be wrong' to the end of everything 🙂 All interesting stuff thanks for posting.
Toyota's petrol engine is potentially very interesting indeed. But if petrol becomes more in demand then won't diesel become cheaper and end up levelling it out again?
Here's a question then - how efficient could a range extender generator be made to be? Surely more so than a normal car engine?
Here’s a question then – how efficient could a range extender generator be made to be? Surely more so than a normal car engine?
You’d imagine so, all it would have to do is run at a very specific speed
Quote from Geneva motorshow
You can officially add Toyota to the list of manufacturers dropping dieselfrom their passenger car lineups. The brand has confirmed that it's phasing out diesel passenger vehicles in Europe over the course of 2018, starting with cars like the Auris you see above -- your only choices for the hatchback are a modest 1.2L turbo 4-cylinder or 1.8L and 2.0L hybrid solutions. The company will keep diesel commercial vehicles like the Hilux truck, Land Cruiser SUV and Proace van to "meet customer needs," but that's as far as it goes.
So Toyota are dropping the least popular engine from a few cars.
Diesel was never that hot on Toyota's priority though. I'll be more impressed when VW do it.
I’m looking at buying a 63 plate Audi A3 TDI 150 which has current car tax of £20 ....
ive looked at the 1.4 TFSI but the fuel economy seems really bad , I do 40 miles a day and my TDI current golf of 20 years still achieves 45mpg and I don’t hang about...
Am I a fool?
I do 40 miles a day and my TDI current golf of 20 years still achieves 45mpg and I don’t hang about…
plus you get the added comfort factor of knowing you've probably helped shorten the life of several people and therefore saved the government some money on old-age care...
I don’t hang about…
Am I a fool?
Yes, you are.
Ozxit? Brilliant! The Kiwi's must be quaking.
I think banning diesels will help reduce co2 emission more quickly than if they had hung around as it will increase the rate at which hybrids and EV’s hit the roads. Not all those who would have gone Diesel will gone peteol, some, maybe most, will go for a hybrid or EV. Also some of those who will go with petrol will go for a small capacity petrol car to try to offset the reduced mpg instead of a bigger capacity diesel that will emit more co2 anyway. So all upsides from my point of view.
it will increase the rate at which hybrids and EV’s hit the roads
That and the company car tax thing. In two years you'll start seeing loads of 3yo EVs for sale.
However banning Euro 6 diesels when they can clean out most of the NOx would be silly. They CAN scrub up most of the NOx afaik, but that requires more AdBlue than they currently inject I think. And if testing forced them to inject more AdBlue to the piont you were filling every few K miles, that in itself would put people off.
Oh blimey, I’m not speedy Gonzales..... I’ll ignore those responses and do what I probably should’ve done first of all and read the post from the beginning to get a good idea and learn what I don’t know.
Taken from the new Mazda engine link..
Together, these groundbreaking next-generation technologies synergistically support Mazda’s world-renowned Jinba-ittai driving experience.
The what now?
Also some of those who will go with petrol will go for a small capacity petrol car to try to offset the reduced mpg instead of a bigger capacity diesel that will emit more co2 anyway. So all upsides from my point of view.
CO2 is not an inherently bad thing if we have lots of trees.... the problem is it's a global affect. CO2 produced doesn't limit itself localy whereas NoX mostly does.
What I have to be convinced about is any of these small petrols or petrol hybrids being designed for 250k+ miles.
The carbon footprint for making the car in the first place is not negligible .. it just mostly happens somewhere else often with the land being cleared of trees as well.
What I have to be convinced about is any of these small petrols or petrol hybrids being designed for 250k+ miles.
It's a bit too early to tell long term reliability of the small turbo petrol engines, but hybrids have been around for a long time and have proven to be extremely reliable.
There are loads of Toyota Prius's (Prii?) with well over 250,000 miles on them - check out your local minicab rank.
I know of one local Prius taxi with just under 800,000 miles on it and still going strong. Still on its original engine and gearbox, it has only ever needed normal servicing.
They're dreadfully dull to drive, (and friends will assume you are moonlighting as an Uber driver) but if you want an economical car that'll practically go on for ever, it's hard to beat a Prius.
What I have to be convinced about is any of these small petrols or petrol hybrids being designed for 250k+ miles.
Why? There are fewer moving parts in a Toyota hybrid system than a normal car.
However banning Euro 6 diesels when they can clean out most of the NOx would be silly. They CAN scrub up most of the NOx afaik, but that requires more AdBlue than they currently inject I think. And if testing forced them to inject more AdBlue to the piont you were filling every few K miles, that in itself would put people off.
Is this thing on?
as I posted before, VAG sell Euro 6 diesels with no ad-blue, I’ve got one.
Why? There are fewer moving parts in a Toyota hybrid system than a normal car.
Are there? I'd have thought it contains a normal drivetrain as well as the electric ... but that's not really the issue I see. (Or I think my concern is two overlapping issues)
a) Most (whatever most means) small cars today are just not built with a long life expectancy. It's more like kitchen white goods where the expectation seems to be when it breaks you get a new one.
b) Economic repair is increasingly the reason for scraping. Not that it can't be fixed but that it's just too expensive to fix. Increasingly this seems to be the electronics not the moving parts.
I guess many of us are still capable of changing a strut and wheel bearings etc (or bleeding your brakes) ... etc. but I can't recode a key or fix the bluetooth on my car.
The last car I got rid of was perfectly good mechanically... but the electronics were screwed and fixing them would have far exceeded the value of the car.
Partly I think cars designed for fleets are built to be more robust and partly they remain economic for longer.
Toyota ... (or Honda) are perhaps more exceptions....
Are there? I’d have thought it contains a normal drivetrain as well as the electric
Yeah you'd think, but it's actually very clever - no clutch, no shifting gears. Google Hybrid Synergy Drive, that's what they call it.
a) Most (whatever most means) small cars today are just not built with a long life expectancy. It’s more like kitchen white goods where the expectation seems to be when it breaks you get a new one.
That's rubbish, frankly. Same for kitchen white goods. The number of people selling spares on the internet shows there's a healthy market for people fixing stuff. And having fixed plenty of small cars and home appliances, many parts are replaceable and cheaply available, so they clearly aren't designed not to be fixed. Take a look inside one. Ok so my appliances aren't the cheapest bottom end, but they are a long way from premium.
The last car I got rid of was perfectly good mechanically… but the electronics were screwed and fixing them would have far exceeded the value of the car.
THIS is the fallacy. The market value of the car isn't connected to its utility value. Just because it costs more than the s/h value of the car doesn't mean it's not worth fixing. The idea is in theory that it's cheaper to buy another car of the same value - but for older cars you're just going to end up having problems too.
My Passat is old, but it now has new shocks, bushings and driveshafts, and drives as well (or better, I suspect the aftermarket Sachs shocks are in fact an upgrade) as when it was 3 years old. If I replaced it, I would have old shocks and old driveshafts. My neighbour just changed the engine (ok so he did the work himself) on his 2002 Accord for £150 after the crankshaft seal failed. He now has an old car that is sweet as a nut - better than a £2k replacement would be.
As long as the body's ok, then keep looking after them and don't let other people's opinions of your car (which dictate its value) make you scrap it. People give up on cars as they get old, because they like the look of shiny new ones. This is a bad thing imo.
People give up on cars as they get old, because they like the look of shiny new ones. This is a bad thing imo.
Well, that is the underlying problem ... but its the same with White Goods.
Take a look inside one. Ok so my appliances aren’t the cheapest bottom end, but they are a long way from premium.
Mine are the same .... but "most" consumers (and the clue is perhaps in the name) want a Shiny new one...
The cheaper end are made to be consumable... I had the washing machine in bits 3-4 weeks ago... (Bosch) and had to clean out the pump.
Our (Samsung) TV was free... my brothers old one but developed some lines across it.
I did research online... and it seems I can buy a part that MIGHT fix it but the board is £40... and a new TV is say £250. It still works and I'm dis-inclined to spend £40 that might not fix it and expecting something else to fail anyway. It's a pretty big job time wise... and I'd rather mess with the bikes or car.
A couple of months ago I changed an electric shower... it was only a valve needed replacing but it was something like £2 difference for a complete shower.
Both of these were at least user replaceable and didn't need reprogramming whereas replacing the BT on my car involves not only sourcing a part but then the part needs coding using specific manufacturer tools to replace.
THIS is the fallacy. The market value of the car isn’t connected to its utility value. Just because it costs more than the s/h value of the car doesn’t mean it’s not worth fixing.
The problem was none could find or put their finger the problem cheaply.
Disabling the alarm or auto locking might have helped (though not insurance) ... and the car simply wasn't reliable enough. Even if I did pay for deeper investigation what it might have cost to fix was just a total unknown.
Direct injection petrols already exist, but they don’t have any real benefits over other fuel injection, but add complexity and cost.
From what I can work out that is true - take the old BMW 6 cylinder petrols; the N52 3.0l without the direct injection is considered to be the more reliable car whereas the later N53 has issued with the HPFP, coil packs, injectors plus coking (the latter also seems to be an issue on Audi engines).
When my current company car is due to go back, I think I'll be moving away from diesel because the BIK for anything reasonable is getting expensive - hopefully the Golf GTE is back in production and on the list. A colleague ordered one and its a big saving of a diesel. I'm not convinced that it'd be the best car for my usage from an economt point of view, but the tax saving buys an awful lot of petrol.
I did research online… and it seems I can buy a part that MIGHT fix it but the board is £40… and a new TV is say £250. It still works and I’m dis-inclined to spend £40 that might not fix it and expecting something else to fail anyway. It’s a pretty big job time wise… and I’d rather mess with the bikes or car.
That's TVs though. Electronics are different ballgame. They are made of a couple of parts vastly more complex than any washing machine, so they are not economically fixable because of the way they are manufacturered and brought to market. But that is NOT AT ALL the same as a board meeting in which they agree to make it as hard as possible to fix just to milk the customers for more cash.
Re the cars - our s/h market discourages fixing cars but also the business of repairing and maintaining. Mechanics can't afford to spend hours diagnosing things properly - they need to fit parts and get the car out quickly. There's no obvious way round this.
Maybe if all cars had mandatory long term transferrable maintenance contracts that included repairs and replacement of long term wear parts like shocks and driveshafts it would help...
That’s TVs though. Electronics are different ballgame.
That's partly my point... both washing machines and cars are becoming more dependent on electronics.
They are made of a couple of parts vastly more complex than any washing machine, so they are not economically fixable because of the way they are manufacturered and brought to market.
The washing machine and car are (IMHO) going down the same route. Fixing even the better quality washing machine was more time than it used to be. Stuff just isn't designed to be user maintainable.
But that is NOT AT ALL the same as a board meeting in which they agree to make it as hard as possible to fix just to milk the customers for more cash.
Car manufacturers just want to sell more NEW cars... their market research must indicate that most people who buy used cars are not overly concerned with it reaching 250k miles because they will want another shiny new one long before that. Honda/Toyota seem to have a niche for people who might want to buy a new car when they retire that lasts....
Re the cars – our s/h market discourages fixing cars but also the business of repairing and maintaining. Mechanics can’t afford to spend hours diagnosing things properly – they need to fit parts and get the car out quickly. There’s no obvious way round this.
Maybe if all cars had mandatory long term transferrable maintenance contracts that included repairs and replacement of long term wear parts like shocks and driveshafts it would help…
I agree but we also have legislation that is designed to scrap cars to get people to buy a new one.
Probably more as a consequence than by plan scrap-age schemes then provide a way to buy a new small/cheap car as opposed to a fleet designed car stimulating the economy by way of increasing spending but not by necessity actual helping the environment in the wider sense.
It's only about 10-12yrs since the government advice to councils for traffic lights was to position and time them to use the maximum amount of fuel and hence generate the maximum revenue in towns.
Then we had the push to diesel .. even when obviously inappropriate.
Even now it seems a set of knee-jerk responses... so now its an about face on deisel even when appropriate.
However .. it still seems to me that the primary driver is making people want shiny new cars, washing machines or whatever...
One of the better things was when the Swedish Govt resurrected Saab to make spare parts for the cars already in circulation....
On what is slightly related and bike related ... I just replaced by headset for the same price (marginally cheaper) than two sealed bearings. I didn't actually remove the old headset, basically just used the bearings so now I got a spare star nut, crown race etc. but it seems a similar thing. Like buying a new printer because the ink ran out and its cheaper...
Obviously the pollution in making a new headset is lower than a car but for a car I agree that there needs to be a way for fixing cars to be made more economic.
I've seen a Skoda Yeti I like with the 1.6TDI CR DPF engine? I've done a google search, are they as problematic as they seems? Car is 2014 with 125K on the clock. I wouldn't use the car on small journeys just motorway travel at weekends.