[Closed] Diesel news

The link mentions eu law.I guess Enola May can just ignore that now and let the cars pollute as much as she likes. After all she mustn't upset the car manufacturers.

Bloody EU forcing clean air on us. Sooner we are out of this mess the better.

Ahh but, EU innit.

Brexit means two fingers dunnit.

EU law or not this looks like a perfectly good reason or excuse for the government to raise taxes. I bought a petrol mainly mainly because I didn't want to do any potential damage to my kids lungs, but I was wary about a tax like this coming in.

I have a crystal ball, it's old, and takes ages to warm up, but I just gave it a shake, and the mists of prophecy tell me that our government really doesn't care, and **** all will be done about the premature deaths of 40,000 people a year.

(An extra 2p on a litre of diesel counts as '**** all')

Paris Mayor (Socialist) is talking of banning Diesels altogether. She has already been closing roads, reducing speed limits and in summer banning cars with even or odd numbered registrations on alternate days

Sounds like a lovely place for a bike ride.

Grenoble has just introduced windscreen stickers to differentiate which vehicles can and can't be used when NOX is high.

The odd-even thing in Paris predates the current mayor by at least a decade. Paris is the proof that the latest diesels produce just as much NOX as the old ones, despite most of the pre-EGR diesels being in the breakers NOX levels haven't gone down.

Having read the case, the government got a kicking for assuming modern euro 6 spec diesels NO2 emissions only exceed their lab results by 2.3 times in the real world. Everyone else thinks more like 4 or 5!

Bloody EU forcing clean air on us. Sooner we are out of this mess the better.

I did wonder if that might actually be the case.

The government has accepted the ruling, which I assume means they have to go away and [i]revise[/i] the UK strategy for meeting EU limits on emissions...

Could they not drag their feet for 24 months and then quietly call no longer needing to comply with EU limits on emissions, because the UK is no longer in the EU, a "strategy"?

I don't think anything will change for another 20 years. I think like it's getting worse, the colour of my pollution mask filters don't lie.

Stop buying diesels? I imagine a great deal of stw'ers drive VAG diesels.

Can I also add in a grump about the lying, cheating and swindling car manufacturers? They also promised and sold diesels as a way of reducing co2, and gave us test 'proof' of how clean all the sensors, valves and extra bits made modern euro5/6 diesels.
We now know it wasn't just VAG too.... Most were at it.

London will have an ultra low emission zone by 2020. We need them outside London though.

As I understand it the government is in breach of UK law, and also intending to incorporate EU standards into UK law en masse with one bill so it can't wiggle out of this one. Fingers crossed.

Stop buying diesels?

Haven't bought one in seven years!

They also promised and sold diesels as a way of reducing co2, and gave us test 'proof' of how clean all the sensors, valves and extra bits made modern euro5/6 diesels

Diesels are lower in CO2 though. Sure, they aren't as low as the claimed figures, but that's also true of petrol. As for 'proving how clean' their diesels were - really? Do you know anyone who actually checked NOx figures for potential car purchases before say 18 months ago? Was there any advertising showing low NOx figures for cars?

And those same lying cheating manufacturers have developed SCR (AdBlue) to actually properly reduce NOx by a lot (whether or not it's what they claim is another issue - it is a lot lower). And don't forget, those same manufacturers also introduced fuel injection for petrols years ago, which means town centres don't smell like petrol any more.

They also promised and sold diesels as a way of reducing co2, and gave us test 'proof' of how clean all the sensors, valves and extra bits made modern euro5/6 diesels.

Well, yes, but until recently, all the focus has been on particulate matter and CO2 from diesels. Thus for the last 25 years, making diesels 'cleaner' has only related to PM and CO2. It's always been known that various NOx species are respiratory irritants, but there's been a groundswell of new data over that last 5 or so years to show its effects are more severe than previously thought, so it's climbed up the priority list.

The really unforgivable thing is the cheating, but it's a failure of the regulatory system to control the industry really.

but it's a failure of the regulatory system to control the industry really.

Well in VW's case it was a failure of the company, but the fact tests aren't fit for purposes is a failure of the regulatory system you are quite right.

molgrips - Member

Haven't bought one in seven years!

Have never bought one, never will. I despise Diseasal.

One of the things that Margret Thatcher got right was her astute observation that basing emissions solely on CO2 would drive the increase in diesel which was far worse for everything else. She was a chemist and knew full well what she was talking about.

I disagree mol, it's not a failure of the company. It's outright, willful decption and they should be nailed to the wall for it.

BUT, they could do it because the regulatory system is both weak and insufficient.

And those same lying cheating manufacturers have developed SCR (AdBlue) to actually properly reduce NOx by a lot (whether or not it's what they claim is another issue - it is a lot lower).

They developed technologies in response to mandatory requirements, lied about the results, and produce cars that still exceed the official result by 2 or 3 times. Not exactly a cause for celebration, is it?

They developed technologies in response to mandatory requirements

Well that's true.

But I don't think they can be entirely blamed. It's one of those 'everyone was doing it' things. The degree of fudging of tests escalated gradually over the years. Car companies were put in a difficult position.

Toyota have put a lot of work in over the years too, they developed an electric RAV4 in the US for Clinton's electric car programme, and they also created the hybrid car market more or less from scratch because they wanted to make more efficient cars. US car drivers used to be happy with 25mpg because that's what was on offer, and Toyota could've sat back and flogged millions of cars that did 30mpg. The fact that they made them that did 50mpg meant that fuel economy is now a big area of improvement.

Of course sales have a lot to do with it, but there's more than one way to approach increasing sales and Toyota did a good thing.

Glad to hear that petrol cars are good for kids' lungs.

Creating an effective, reliable public transport [b]network[/b] will be significantly more effective in reducing pollution compared to upgrading vehicles to euro 6, or changing to petrol. But making it a requirement for euro 6 vehicles is cheap and easy for the government as its transport operators and you and me who pay for new vehicles. Investing in transport requires a lot of cold hard cash and thinking, planning and general effort - no one likes that.

*network being key

As for 'proving how clean' their diesels were - really? Do you know anyone who actually checked NOx figures for potential car purchases before say 18 months ago? Was there any advertising showing low NOx figures for cars?

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

But I don't think they can be entirely blamed. It's one of those 'everyone was doing it' things. The degree of fudging of tests escalated gradually over the years. Car companies were put in a difficult position.

Obviously the existing test is a problem, but we can be pretty sure that the manufacturers are already working on ways of getting around the new test.

Marketing

Ah yes. Feel free to blame the marketing departments.

I was thinking of the engineering and strategy departments.

I'm not aware that many customers contact the engineering and strategy department when buying a car - we rely on marketing and press. The subliminal messages have been all about how 'green' and 'eco' the 'wonderful' new engines were/are.

I agree. But whilst we're handing out blame, I'd reduce portion sizes for some in engineering. But not all.

Anyway, VW bashing aside, I knew this would come one day.

I've planned to get a petrol next time for a long time now, I don't drive in many city situations and my diesel gets a lot more MPG than it's petrol version but I fancied a change.

I would rather go with corporate responsibility with large corporations. 😉

I've been considering petrol too, after having been in my mate's now ancient 1.8T Octy and feeling how well it pulls. A nice TFSI would do nicely. Shame to have to use more fuel overall but I can afford it.

I can't tow with a Prius, which is a shame, but I can tow plenty with a Passat GTE. Shame they're FORTY GRAND though 🙁

[i]One of the things that Margret Thatcher got right was her astute observation that basing emissions solely on CO2 would drive the increase in diesel which was far worse for everything else. She was a chemist and knew full well what she was talking about. [/I]

But it was the Govt that 'forced' many folk into diesels by linking company car tax to co2. Even back in 2006 I was pretty much the only one at work who took a petrol car.

And the constant climb in fuel prices pushed must other high-mileage folk into diesels too.

Bottom line, they make the 'rules' and we follow them.

With the exception of VW, I don't think anyone really cheated. A test was set, engineers worked to ensure their vehicles met that test, and it took lawmakers an awfully long time to react to the fact that it was known that tests were a woefully bad representation of the true level of contaminants.

Both particulates and NOx have been reduced under test conditions due to new vehicle regulations, it's not like NOx hasn't been a factor until now.

I would add to this, though, the qualification that I'm sure there is plenty of lobbying from car manufacturers, leading to the wilful ignorance of the massively inadequate emissions tests.

Edit - I used to work developing diesel fuel injectors, and at least for trucks, from the company I worked for, I can assure you there was no cheating on the part of the engineers, there was a desire to develop a fuel injection system that met statutory requirements and there was an awareness (from company training materials among other things) of the problems associated with air pollution from diesel engines.

I was in a showroom recently poking a new Zoe that is claimed to do 400km and will definitely do the round trips I do most. The first electric car that's viable without providing levels of performance I don't want (Tesla). So from the Fluence which was a nice drive until it came to a premature halt to a viable electric car it's taken Renault only 5 years.

With the exception of VW, I don't think anyone really cheated.

Strictly speaking, you are correct. This is what they did:

1. Pump up tyres the tyres
2. Remove the passenger door mirror
3. Optimise emissions performance for the test vehicle speeds and gear change points
4. Disconnect the battery
5. Tape up panel gaps
6. Use low viscosity lubricants

Seems reasonable compared with having the engine go into a specific low power, low emissions mode when the bonnet is open. Having to drive around with the bonnet open if you want the car to produce the emissions it did on test is pushing the acceptable.

With the exception of VW, I don't think anyone has been caught.

I like my cars, I like diesels but I like the fact that the combustion engine is seeing the end of its life in my life time.

I've just been Googling the bonnet open cheat which was discovered but failed to find which manufacturer did it, VW's cheat was a lot more complicated and relied on using the information from multiple sensors to detect a test.

I wonder what they'll do about all those diesel trains, diesel HGVs, diesel buses, diesel backup generators, diesel farm equipment, etc? Anyone who's ever stood on a platform at Birmingham new street knows the eye watering fumes those trains pump out. I suspect we'll ignore them and pretend it doesn't happen.

Nothing to worry about

https://www.ft.com/content/eba2818c-23f8-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

Diesel trains are a rare sight on the East Coast line.

I wonder what they'll do about all those diesel trains, diesel HGVs, diesel buses, diesel backup generators, diesel farm equipment, etc? Anyone who's ever stood on a platform at Birmingham new street knows the eye watering fumes those trains pump out. I suspect we'll ignore them and pretend it doesn't happen.

The dominant source of poor urban air quality is diesel vehicles, of which passengers cars are the largest contributor.

They are bringing in the medium combustion plant directive and National Grid are excluding diesel from a lot of lucrative power contracts going forward, both to combat diesel farms and the recent rush to install 20MW farms to take advantage of the demand response opportunities up for grabs the last two years which they didn't foresee driving investment in diesel farms.

One of the things that Margret Thatcher got right was her astute observation that basing emissions solely on CO2 would drive the increase in diesel which was far worse for everything else. She was a chemist and knew full well what she was talking about.

She also didn't want catalytic converters as they stuffed up lean burn engines which were being developed and starting to put in big mpg numbers, and also didn't work for 40% of the time in the northern hemisphere because of not getting to operating temperatures for much of the typical journey time.

It was the german car manufacturers that wanted cats as they couldn't redevelop their big engines to be clean in the required timescale.

Diesel trains are a rare sight on the East Coast line.

You may think that, but you are wrong. it is now close to 50% diesel on express services, add in freight, and the diesel engines are well in the majority.
VTEC have 14 diesel HST sets, and 30 electric Class 91's for the express services.
South of Peterborough, electric is more prevalent due to the amount of outer-suburban electric units. North of P/boro, you'll have Hull Trains, Grand Central, Cross Country and East Midlands who all run diesel trains.

They are spending quite a lot of money electrifying the great western line.

Yes, electric to Bristol/Cardiff, but the majority of express trains will have a diesel engine too for when they go past Bristol. They dont publicise that.Efficient is not a word to use for the use of such rolling stock - every 120 miles between London and Bristol they are carrying 20 tons+ of dead metal, which will only get used if the train carries on past Bristol. It;s a farce forced upon them by the Government department who have told them what train they are to have.

South of Peterborough, electric is more prevalent due to the amount of outer-suburban electric units. North of P/boro, you'll have Hull Trains, Grand Central, Cross Country and East Midlands who all run diesel trains.

That's the Midlands.

No, HT and GC run trains to KX, North of Peterborough, there are more diesel than electric trains, as Cross Country and other service jon the East Coast line to go North.
The point still stands, the express services from Kings Cross are nearly 50% diesel.

According to Virgin who operate East Coast the HST are 2/3 electric not exactly rare I suppose.

Interesting point on this. I am looking to get a big estate as next company car. 3 choices are e class merc, a6 and volvo v90. The volvo doesnt have a petrol engine (yet but the hybrid coming is £££££) the only petrol merc is the 350 amg bonkers version and the A6 is the same. I aint getting a superb before someone suggests that.... too utilitarian and looks awful. so to get a premium large estate i am forced to go diesel. This coming from a hybrid lexus i loved for 3 years, all because i need a big boot.

Why does it have to be 'premium' estate?

The EU released Air Quality directives in 1996 with limits for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air in 1999.
In 2001 Gordon Brown reduced the tax on diesel cars, despite a 2010 compliance target for the 1999 limits, it's no wonder that the EU has acted

Is this the one and only Maggie aprieciation thread on STW??

Drac - Moderator
Why does it have to be 'premium' estate?

Because he wants one?

Because he wants one?

Would the company pay for a T6 Multivan 2.0 Tsi, Steve?

Personally I'd rather drive a Grand Scenic Tce, S-Max 1.5 petrol or Touran Tsi than any big diesel.

nickjb - Member
Pretty much sums up the UK attitude to cars and driving.

Bobbins. There's nothing wrong with wanting to own a luxury or premium object, no matter what it is, car, bike, watch, or a pair of moleskin trousers.

I aint getting a superb before someone suggests that.... too utilitarian and looks awful. so to get a premium large estate i am forced to go diesel

Not really forced though is it? You choose your own criteria.

[i]every 120 miles between London and Bristol they are carrying 20 tons+ of dead metal, which will only get used if the train carries on past Bristol[/I]

20 tonnes, I'm guessing you're just referring to the diesel (generator) rather than the whole engine?

Personally I'd rather drive a Grand Scenic Tce, S-Max 1.5 petrol or Touran Tsi than any big diesel.

Cupra 290 ST would be my choice. 🙂

Glad to see the government is finally going to take action on this. Diesel should have been heavily restricted years ago. The noise they make is another form of pollution as well

-

Yes, electric to Bristol/Cardiff, but the majority of express trains will have a diesel engine too for when they go past Bristol. They dont publicise that

They do - I knew about it.

It;s a farce forced upon them by the Government department who have told them what train they are to have.

I assumed it was lack of funding to electrify the rest of the track?

I was having a similar chat with the guys in the garage when I picked my (shame) diesel Mondeo up yesterday.

They told me that the so called ultra clean diesels (BMWs were quoted) do chuck out less N and black smoke, but the gases they chuck out instead are horrible, eye stinging things. No idea what they are but if they upset them so much, they can't be good for the environment either.

The sooner we can move on from the internal combustion engine the better, although I do find it strange that we've had to turn to France for the building of the new Hinckley? Surely we have enough capable people on this island to build it ourselves?

do chuck out less N and black smoke, but the gases they chuck out instead are horrible, eye stinging things

Generally it's the NOx that are irritants. The SCR converts these into N and water. N is pretty inert, it's 70% of the air around you.

Oh and there used to be a problem with sulphur dioxides in diesel smoke but now ultra low sulphur diesel is everywhere it's less of an issue afaik.

So not sure what they are talking about.

The sooner we can move on from the internal combustion engine the better, although I do find it strange that we've had to turn to France for the building of the new Hinckley? Surely we have enough capable people on this island to build it ourselves?

We did have a working design (Westinghouse AP1000) and the necessary people, but sold it all off. So now we're going to build a design that isn't operating anywhere in the world, and in Finland is ten years late and three times over budget.

I can't find it on the Net but a journo on a German channel was claiming diesels emit gases other than CO2 which are also greenhouse gases and that the total greenhouse effect of a diesel was as high as other fuels, but with carcinogenic ultra-fine particles (that get deep into the lungd) that LPG and petrol engines don't produce.

On another French programme the journo compared a particle filter with a sieve. If you sieve soil most goes through, just in small lumps than if you throw it off the shovel.

Trust me Molgrips, they were very adamant that some of the emissions coming out of the new low emission diesel engines are nasty (although not tested via the MOT emissions test) and they really don't like working on them because of this. I believe them as this is their job 6 days a week.

Trust me Molgrips, they were very adamant that some of the emissions coming out of the new low emission diesel engines are nasty

I'm sure they were but I want science not assertions of garage mechanics 🙂 They may be right, but I need more data.

Seems plausible to me that eye-stinging fumes from an SCR equipped engine would be ammonia. So perhaps not all the ammonia is used in the catalysis process, but because there's no emissions test for it they don't care.

[quote="ransos"]1. Pump up tyres the tyres
2. Remove the passenger door mirror
3. Optimise emissions performance for the test vehicle speeds and gear change points
4. Disconnect the battery
5. Tape up panel gaps
6. Use low viscosity lubricants1: yup, to the max plated pressure, which isn't actually that high. 38 psi on mine, tyres are rated to 56 IIRC.
2: nope
3: yup, but without mucking around with driveability too much
4: nope
5: nope
6: nope

A lot of the loophole have been plugged over the last few years. I've heard of one manufacturer who used to run two space savers on the driven axle to minimize rolling resistance. These days it's "as the car comes out of the showroom" and "in the state it's in when you turn the key". So AC is on, DRLs, heated window in some cars and so on.

Some manufacturers who have continually over egged it have paid massive fines over the last 10 odd years. Many are also in a flat panic over the VAG thing as they *know* they have some nasties hiding in the ECU and they have only a few windows to fix it.

This is all made possibly by the terrible standards.

[i]This is all made possibly by the terrible standards. [I/]

Testing regime, not standards.

Standards, Regimes, Protocols.

Doesn't matter.

They are all badly written, full of loopholes and bear no resemblance to what the customer actually does.

Which is why companies (and newspapers, and people on here) can bang on about diesels exceeding emission limits by a million percent. And suchlike.

Except they don't. They hit the targets if you test "properly".

A lot of the loophole have been plugged over the last few years. I've heard of one manufacturer who used to run two space savers on the driven axle to minimize rolling resistance. These days it's "as the car comes out of the showroom" and "in the state it's in when you turn the key". So AC is on, DRLs, heated window in some cars and so on.

That's what the SMMT say, and they would, wouldn't they! This report says different:

On another French programme the journo compared a particle filter with a sieve. If you sieve soil most goes through, just in small lumps than if you throw it off the shovel.

Yup you sieve soil to let the good bits through leaving stones, weed roots and grubs behind that you don't want.

Just go for a walk or bike and you'll see what diesels really emit. Clouds of black stuff at the traffic lights grand prix from even the most resent diesels. Hoof it and they're filthy, and lots of people hoof it. A brand new T6 went past me on the way up the Aubisque recently foot to the floor with a grey haze in the air behind it.

[quote="Ransos"]That's what the SMMT say, and they would, wouldn't they! This report says different: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/Real%20World%20Fuel%20Consumption%2 Um, 3 year old report, based on 4, 5 and 6 year old data.

Just go for a walk or bike and you'll see what diesels really emit.

No, you won't. It's not as if all polution is visible, you should know this!

Edukator - Reformed Troll
Just go for a walk or bike and you'll see what diesels really emit. Clouds of black stuff at the traffic lights grand prix from even the most resent diesels. Hoof it and they're filthy, and lots of people hoof it. A brand new T6 went past me on the way up the Aubisque recently foot to the floor with a grey haze in the air behind it.

Ignoring the pedantry that molgrips has beaten me to (well, maybe not pedantry as NOx vs smoke tends to be a trade-off)... If it's been chipped it will probably emit far more nasties - the the extent that if 1% of people chip their cars (or have faulty ECUs/injectors) that could easily wipe out the benefits of newer engines (if they performed similarly to test) on the other 99% of vehicles. It's particularly bad on diesels as to get more power you just chuck more fuel in until it smokes intolerably.

Having said that, riding along a suburban road on a cold morning when everyone's car is idling to get some heat in to defrost the windows, despite a lack of smoke there is a pretty formidable choking smell.

or outside a railway station with the constant rattle of 50+ idling taxi engines...