[Closed] What does the future hold for diesel cars?

What rumours?

I bought a Skoda Fabia Scout 1.6 diesel about 18 months ago.

In hindsight, I would buy the petrol version now.

I like the drive ability of the diesel, but for my changed usage the extra cost of the diesel fuel and premium for the Diesel engine just isn't worth it.

The VED is £20 per year, I believe that as long as I own the car this won't change.

Have considered changing the car to a diesel, however, having spent the thick end of £14k on the new car I should probably keep it.

Can't see too many people choosing a diesel in the future, unless they are driving at least 20,000 miles a year.

Do prefer to drive a diesel for any longer journeys though, round town and shorter journeys I prefer the petrol engine.

Ought to sell it now before the diesel becomes unpopular and the values drop considerably.

I can only hope they do - I've just spent a couple of months persuading my other half that petrol makes more sense for her 10mile commute and with lower purchase price and fuel price it will make up for the lower mpg... just as she placed the order diesel and petrol prices levelled off together (in fact the local filling station had diesel 1p cheaper for a day!) - I'm now hoping this is a short term thing caused by the russian affair and normality will be restored!

Since our 'Leaders' have roughly no interest at all in our health and well-being, I expect very little to happen. Maybe a little pissing around at the edges of tax boundaries, but nothing that might actually make a difference.

It would seem horribly unfair

congestion charge
fuel duty ladder
way above inflation increases in existing tax bands
etc.

all apply/applied to existing cars

I'd expect more of the same for existing cars, new registrations will be where any massive hike in tax would happen.

Oh, wait...

[i]extra cost of the diesel fuel[/i]

What extra cost? I have a petrol car and a diesel, I don't find one has better 'drive ability' than the other. One is more fun but thats because its a small car with a 2 litre engine.

extra cost of the diesel fuel

What extra cost?

Unless you were born in the 90's and never bought petrol until last month Diesel has pretty much always been ~10% more expensive than petrol. It'll go back again too.

[edit, it's too early in the morning, I meant born in the 2000's! which is a scary thought!]

I found it difficult to find a petrol, small estate car recently. So many seemed to be diesel, most with daft low miles on them, or uber complex turbo and a supercharger from VW group. We preferred the Fabia Estate, and looked for 1.4 flavour - could not get a (half) decent one, so ended up with the Seat ST.

Diesel has it's place - big miles, big vehicles. But it is more polluting and not appropriate for so many people's needs. Frustratingly we had an 'eco' drive that focused purely on mpg - and a tax system that supported it.

We need to look again at how we support more public transport, bikes, electric bikes, electric mopeds, small cars, petrol and electric etc, and stop being purely about mpg and £20 tax.

I say that as a diesel car owner.

We need to look again at how we support more public transport, bikes, electric bikes, electric mopeds, small cars, petrol and electric etc, and stop being purely about mpg and £20 tax.

Whilst NOx, SOx, pm10 etc are an issue, there have been huge gains made on those in the last 20 years, many orders of magnitude in some cases, yet mpg (and it's inverse correlation with CO2) has only improved by about 20%, if that? And most of those gains have been in selling people smaller engines (very few 2.0 petrol engines on the market anymore, whereas not so long ago you could buy a 2.5 V6 Mondeo, it's now a 2.0 diesel or 1.6 turbo petrol).

Just bought a 12 year old VW Diesel. It does an actual 52mpg on a run and costs £145 to tax. I looked at several petrol cars of that age but the road tax was more and the fuel consumption considerably less.
As what must be an Old Fart, I think that diesel is cheaper than petrol and there are 10 French Francs to the Pound. This may not have been the case recently but now diesel has fallen below petrol on most forecourts.
As to what is kinder to the environment, I am dubious about the claims for clean electric as most of our power comes from coal and gas. See[url= http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ ]Electrical Production[/url]

If you thrash a Euro 6 diesel engine it doesn't meet emissions requirements. *feigns surprise*

Same thing happens with a dinky petrol engine, which even when driven by my vicar-like right foot struggles to make 30 mpg.

Some manufacturers have demonstrated that they can still meet the targets at motorway speeds so it's theoretically possible; the government's weight should fall on the others who are merely fudging the test.

Diesel cars are still out selling petrol mainly due to company cars which is still the main market for the UK. The tax regime for company cars hasn't really changed and looking at the lease car market the best deals are available of diesel cars by a long a margin so they are expecting higher returns on these vehicles too. This shows no real movement in the diesel market with both new and second hand cars commanding a higher premium over their petrol equivalent.
You will and do see higher emission controls on diesel engines and I would expect MOT's to get much tougher to get the older more polluting vehicles off the roads. This along with smaller capacity diesel engines will be the future of the mid size and above cars.
The smaller car market is already changing to turbo petrol engines delivering equivalent MPG's to their diesel alternatives which again is reflected by the new models available and what lease companies are offering deals on.
The diesel engine is a long way from being obsolete in the car market and there is no real world alternative in the haulage industry.

@Flaperon makes a good point - real world emissions and mpg just do not meet manufacturer claims, based on the lab tests. Some proper 'real world' tests over 10k when they launch a new car is what is needed.

I would also like to know the running costs (financial and environmental, especially with how many complex parts they 'eat') of low miles modern diesels compared to simple petrol.

It not just the haulage industry. You can't really run medium sized of bigger van on peterol without going along the yank route of huge engines that will cost so much to run

You will and do see higher emission controls on diesel engines and I would expect MOT's to get much tougher to get the older more polluting vehicles off the roads.

I doubt it, it would kill off the classic car. Car's for the most part are disposable goods, they get to 20 years old and fall apart, there's not a huge need to legislate older ones the road as the number of older ones is tiny. Even when discussing bangernomics these days it's all DPF's, EGR's etc, not old PD diesel's.

We'll make much bigger gains by reducing car usage than by improving their efficiency. Even with big weekend trips I would/do save more CO2 by commuting than I would swapping to a 70mpg diesel.

[i]Unless you were born in the 90's and never bought petrol until last month Diesel has pretty much always been ~10% more expensive than petrol. It'll go back again too.[/i]

Yes I know that but the difference in putting a full tank in is minimal anyway, maybe £3 max, hardly a game changer is it?

Who knows, it's 'usually' a gradual thing - and in the UK a huge percentage of new cars are bought as company cars - at the moment a few mpgs here, or a few pence per litre there won't make much difference - anyway most people seem to have caught on to the fact that small engine petrol cars are best for city driving and diesel cars for anything else - well if MPG is your concern anyway, but when it comes to Company Cars BIK is big deal breaker and diesel is better - most people looking at a company car list see a tiny engine petrol version which couldn't pull a greased stick out of a dogs arse and theoretically could do 40mpg, or a 2.0 diesel with 140, 170, even 180bhp and tug's worth of torque and will do 50mph - if they change the tax rules than people with move with them - I wouldn't mind a petrol for a change, but it would have to be a turbo charged one, after a decade of diesel driving I find petrols harsh and flat, you've got to tear the arse out of them to get moving.

I've recently bought two new cars and one a big diesel (2.5ltr) and one a petrol (1.8ltr) Prices round our way (both London and Hampshire) have seen diesel costs drop below petrol and by 1-3ppl.
Honestly for me I'm not bothered, I choose a car for its use not really for it's fuel efficiency or type.

HTH

Yes I know that but the difference in putting a full tank in is minimal anyway, maybe £3 max, hardly a game changer is it?

10% in my car is £6-£7, in a big estate or 4x4 it'll be >£10. Until Fiat developed the computer controlled common rail system in the 90's (and until it caught on 10-15 years later) that 10% margin was a significant part of the difference between a petrol and diesels MPG.

Car's for the most part are disposable goods, they get to 20 years old and fall apart,

Average scrappage age is 13 years apparently.

"how we support more public transport, bikes, electric bikes, electric mopeds, small cars, petrol and electric etc, and stop being purely about mpg"

THIS x 100.

It has to be a co-ordinated network though . no point sticking on extra trains if theres no buses from the station to the industrial estates where folks work. people will not use them.

where i used to live - everyone inthe growing village wanted to use the train to travel to work. The one train that went to the city and the one train that returned at night - they were not even 8hrs appart. GREAT PLANNING.

Scotrails attitude was - we might review it at the next time table setting session. i believe now 4 years later there are more trains stop there.... but i just moved - it was less hassle.

ton miles for your average car/l fuel is rediculous - 4 seats , massive boot. Carrys 1 person and their lunch about 6 miles. a moped would do the same thing but that would require a massive culture shift -

"Average scrappage age is 13 years apparently."

Ignorance and boredom causes that mostly - folks dont realise a cars actual worth because its so easy to buy another cheaply - which in turn means that new car prices are too cheap.....

As what must be an Old Fart, I think that diesel is cheaper than petrol and there are 10 French Francs to the Pound.

Car's for the most part are disposable goods, they get to 20 years old and fall apart,

Average scrappage age is 13 years apparently.

I've only owned two from new, one was scrapped at 7 (185k miles) and the other at 12 (120k miles) as both were well beyond economical repair.

The VED is £20 per year, I believe that as long as I own the car this won't change.

Is this right? We have a car with the same engine (1.6 Skoda TDI) that was bought partly because the road tax was cheap and the economy was enormous compared to the petrol. Our plan was to run it until it was dead but the thought of the tax going up lots in the future is unsettling.

"The VED is £20 per year, I believe that as long as I own the car this won't change."

Believe away . Doesnt mean it will happen.

It does sound unlikely that they'd give people a break just because they already own the car, bought based on the knowledge at the time...

The (preferable) future:

[img] [/img]

Average scrappage age is 13 years apparently.

Is this right? We have a car with the same engine (1.6 Skoda TDI) that was bought partly because the road tax was cheap and the economy was enormous compared to the petrol. Our plan was to run it until it was dead but the thought of the tax going up lots in the future is unsettling.

Well my 1.6 petrol from '06 (i.e. tax was based on engine size not CO2/economy) has been creeping up by £5-£10 each year. But in reality £200 a year is a drop in the ocean of car running costs (otherwise I'd sell it and buy a similar car in the newer tax brackets). Personally I'd like to see it abolished and replaced with road pricing. People might not flinch at their commute costing £5 in petrol as that's effectively a sunk cost to them since they filled up last week (and insurance, MOT, VED, depreciation, servicing etc are sunk costs), but if you got up in the morning and the choice was a £2 bus or £5 car journey into the town center?

Very real debate suggesting they will be banned from Paris, similar moves possible in London/UK. We already have the "low emissions zone" which means hefty charges for older vans.

My sense is there are too many diesel cars to ban them from city centres. I get stiffed £500 for VED for my car so I can see a time when diesels get charged a similar amount. I'm a bit lost as to why they where ever encouraged as pollution is clear for all to see. (FYI I drove a diesel for 120k over 7 years great car/engine but not particularly environmentally friendly)

We'll make much bigger gains by reducing car usage than by improving their efficiency. Even with big weekend trips I would/do save more CO2 by commuting than I would swapping to a 70mpg diesel.

We've looked into using public transport instead of a car a few times now. I lost the love of driving a long time ago and now look at the time sat on the roads as a waste of my time when I could be doing something else. Thought using public transport would be the answer but public transport was always more expensive and for an 8 mile journey would take nearly 2 hours which I might as well walk if I had that amount of time available. Would love to cycle to work but no showers or even a proper sink makes it impossible when I sweat like a pig at the best of times. This leaves us with only one option which is to continue to use the car. I expect this is similar to most peoples experience outside of London. I don't expect it to change anytime soon whilst the governments concentrate on getting fast connections between the North and South yet we have such poor public transport that you can't get to the outskirts of your own city in the time it takes you to travel from Leeds to London.

The upcoming changes to VED won't affect older cars.

New diesels are needing ever more complicated stuff to meet emissions regs. When it was all about CO2 they were fine, then particulates were the target and DPFs were needed - now lots of current and upcoming models will need the faff of Adblue to be compliant.

Exclusion zones in cities will be main thing but that will only be London for now and it's quite a few years away.

craigxxl
we have such poor public transport that you can't get to the outskirts of your own city in the time it takes you to travel from Leeds to London.

This is why I'd welcome any sort of ban of cars from Belfast city centre. It's at bursting point as it is. When I used to commute through it I would spend 40-50 minutes in the car each way to cover 10 miles or I could cycle and get there in 18-25 minutes. I'm guessing most large towns and cities are similar.

It'd be no skin off my nose, whenever I do go into town to shop or whatever I park 1-2 miles away from the city centre shops anyway despite having two toddlers, double buggy and all the tat that comes with that.

But I can't see any serious, meaningful efforts to curb or ban any cars in the near future, you only have to watch the way people park in Tesco to get an idea of their psychology....they'll spend 5 mins hunting for a space nearest the door then execute a 9 point turn to squeeze themselves into a bay so they don't have to walk 100 yards.

As to what is kinder to the environment, I am dubious about the claims for clean electric as [b]most of our power comes from coal and gas. SeeElectrical Production[/b]

Spurious argument though.

Even if you are producing the elec in a dirty manner, you've removed a few layers of inefficiency.

With fossil fuel in the car you still have all the dirty production and refining of the material, dirty distribution*, and you then reduce the efficiency even more by burning it locally, and polluting locally

With Electric you still have the dirty production, but distribution is cleaner*, end use at the vehicle is more efficient, and the local pollution is lower/null.

Couple that with the fact that over time Elec generation is getting cleaner and can potentially be done in the future VERY cleanly its an improving situation. Production of the fossil fuels we burn can't get cleaner in the same way, and can't get much more efficient, and burning fossil fuels locally in an engine is never going to get to the same efficiency levels.

In a move to electric vehicles the *only* place you need to focus on emissions and big improvements in efficiency is at generation (and battery production), where are with fossil fuels it's through the entire chain, and the same gains just aren't there to be made.

* This part always makes me chuckle, we burn massive amounts of fuel just transporting fuel around, both in production, national distribution, and then carting reserves of it around in our vehicles to burn later.

Elec has minimal transport cost in distribution and a fully charged battery weighs no more than an empty one, so you're not doing any extra work moving around your fuel reserve.

Not sure where you're all based buy by me in the Midlands Diesel is now 4-5p per litre cheaper than Petrol now.

for the time being due to euro being on its arse i believe.

Spurious argument though.

Even if you are producing the elec in a dirty manner, you've removed a few layers of inefficiency.

With fossil fuel in the car you still have all the dirty production and refining of the material, dirty distribution*, and you then reduce the efficiency even more by burning it locally, and polluting locally

With Electric you still have the dirty production, but distribution is cleaner*, end use at the vehicle is more efficient, and the local pollution is lower/null.

You lose about 8% in electrical transmission. And you lose a lot I charging/discharging (20-30%).

Couple that with the fact that over time Elec generation is getting cleaner and can potentially be done in the future VERY cleanly its an improving situation. Production of the fossil fuels we burn can't get cleaner in the same way.

In a move to electric vehicles the *only* place you need to focus on emissions and big improvements in efficiency is at generation (and battery production), where are with fossil fuels it's through the entire chain, and the same gains just aren't there to be made.

* This part always makes me chuckle, we burn massive amounts of fuel just transporting fuel around, both in production, national distribution, and then carting reserves of it around in our vehicles to burn later.

Elec has minimal transport cost in distribution and a fully charged battery weighs no more than an empty one, so you're not doing any extra work moving around your fuel reserve.

Electric may be better in the long term, but in the short term it's a con.

Yes they can, there are projects underway to re-inject the CO2 produced into the gas reservoirs the fuel comes from.

These are mainly projects where CO2 is injected to enhance oil recovery. The last I heard of the north sea rig where they were injecting co2 to get rid of the stuff the project had been halted.

Well, the generation might be more efficient than an IC engine, but..........

Energy production is more efficient at plant than it is in an ICE.

eg: natural gas in a power plant is about ~60% efficient, coal is worse ~45%,

But an ICE using petrol is ~25-35% efficient,

The vast majority of the energy is lost as heat in both cases, but it's always going to be easier to capture waste heat in plant than a car engine, and this can be put to further use for generation or community heating etc. Increasing overall efficiency of the system.

Even an electric car using the dirtiest of generated electricity trumps ICE in both efficiency and emissions in the entire chain.

And electricity generation can get both more efficient and more renewable, and at power plant scales the gains are big and central, as all vehicles running off that elec suddenly are more efficient, if/when we get to the stage that most vehicles are electric then it means small gains at generation are realised by every vehicle on the road. Improvements in ICE tech are smaller, and not central, they certainly don't act retrospectively like above.

You lose about 8% in electrical transmission

Not into nitpickng, but I thought it was more like 6%?
How much is lost overall in transport and distribution of the fossil fuels? Genuine question as I don't have figures, nor can I find anything reliable to quote. There's also assumptions in there about where the generation occurs and how it is delivered.

Yes they can, there are projects underway to re-inject the CO2 produced into the gas reservoirs the fuel comes from

All very admirable and I support projects like that, but it cannot get to the same efficiency overall, it can get better, but it can't get far enough IMO.

as above, I don't have a figure to hand, but I doubt a tanker burns >8% of it's cargo.

No, but you are still using fuel to move fuel, and then move an empty tanker back and with the vast amounts we move around it all adds up. Local generation, renewable generation, and the fact you don't have to physically move the fuel around can only be a positive?

The point I was making is that it's a bit of an odd concept isn't it, using fuel to move fuel? In an ideal world you'd generate Elec as close as possible to point of consumption and minimise any losses you can.

So what you're actually doing is carrying round a 550kg empty fuel tank (rather than a 50kg full one).

Indeed, perhaps not the best example on my part!

Electric may be better in the long term, but in the short term it's a con

Exactly my point, but we won't get there in the long term without starting on the path to getting there.

Long term clean(er) generated electric power is the only viable solution both from an efficiency and emissions POV.

The point I was making is that it's a bit of an odd concept isn't it, using fuel to move fuel? In an ideal world you'd generate Elec as close as possible to point of consumption and minimise any losses you can.

Coal has to get to the plant, usual by ship and train.
Gas has to b sent down a pipe (requiring compression).
Electrons have to be pushed by a voltage, hence my point, the tanker hasn't burnt 8% (actually 7.7% in the UK national grid according to wiki) of the fuel.

Exactly my point, but we won't get there in the long term without starting on the path to getting there.

Long term clean(er) generated electric power is the only viable solution both from an efficiency and emissions POV.

Regardless of the details I think we agree on the outcome. I'm just not sure if EV are the sticking plaster on the way to a lower transport future weening people off petrol before weening them off transport entirely, or if it's ahead of it's time and going to put a huge strain on the national grid and our generating capacity.

As an anecdote on the side a colleague used to run a consultancy specializing in micro generation schemes (mostly solar, wind etc). He came across a Tomato farm in the Tees Valley that heated it's polytunnels with IC gas powered engines. Seems counter intuitive but gas is a fixed price 24/7, electricity generation is priced almost minute by minute, so in the evenings and over winter he could heat his greenhouses (and pump them full of hot, moist, CO2 filled air) at a profit. The colder the weather got,t he more the electric price rose, the more he heated the greenhouses (and the better his crop), and the CO2 was absorbed by the crop!

Would love to cycle to work but no showers or even a proper sink makes it impossible

Coal has to get to the plant, usual by ship and train.
Gas has to b sent down a pipe (requiring compression).

That's exactly what I mean, we spend far too much time and energy moving fuel around just to burn it somewhere else when we should be looking at renewable and in-situ generation that minimises losses at every stage, including transport.

Electrons have to be pushed by a voltage, hence my point, the tanker hasn't burnt 8% (actually 7.7% in the UK national grid according to wiki) of the fuel.

If we could get to the point where the only fuel/energy transport we have to worry about is pushing electrons from A to B, I think we'll have won!

I'll take the optimistic approach and hope that the rate of improvement and investment will increase exponentially, keeping any sticky-plaster changeover issues as brief as possible, just as soon as people start realising it's where we need to end up 🙂

I like the sound of the Tomato farm, that's some decent thinking there, now if only it could be extended and done elsewhere with local renewable/clean generation...I'm off to dream of my Mr Fusion reactor...

8 miles?

Don't get me started Del, I know people who drive < 2 miles to work despite it being slower and more expensive than walking/riding/roller skating, they're just stuck in their ways...

8 miles?

Some of us need to be stink free for the day.
How hilly or mucky the commute is is a big factor.
I do have a shower - shared between a hundred folk on the business park, so usually go for sink and shower from a can. It raises eyebrows...but does work.

baby wipes.

+1 on the baby wipes.

[i]The upcoming changes to VED won't affect older cars.[/i]

Hmm, you reckon?

01-Oct-06 12m Car Tax 300.00
01-Oct-07 12m Car Tax 300.00
17-Sep-08 12m Car Tax 402.50
30-Sep-09 12m Car Tax 405.00
30-Sep-10 12m Car Tax 425.00
30-Sep-11 12m Car Tax 425.00
25-Sep-12 12m Car Tax 460.00

My wife's old car - bought new in 2006...

I tried the baby wipes before but it doesn't really work when you sweat like a pig, you just end up pushing sweat about.
I work in an office full of mainly young women and they just ended up whining all day about the smell and spraying perfume around the office. I think most of it was playing acting but the boss took it more serious even though he admitted he couldn't smell anything. I now have my window wide open regardless of the weather and guess what they now whine about being cold. When the boss talked to me about the window being open I just said it was to stop me getting too hot and smelling.
Like I said I would love to cycle to work, along with my running, it would speed up reaching my weight goal.

01-Oct-06 12m Car Tax 300.00
01-Oct-07 12m Car Tax 300.00
17-Sep-08 12m Car Tax 402.50
30-Sep-09 12m Car Tax 405.00
30-Sep-10 12m Car Tax 425.00
30-Sep-11 12m Car Tax 425.00
25-Sep-12 12m Car Tax 460.00

My wife's old car - bought new in 2006...

That's for one car? Petrol or diesel?

It's a big hike. I'm not really familiar with the 'new' tax bands, as I'm still rolling on pre 2001 simple tax, where there's only two tax bands. And the only rises are about level with inflation. And I would've thought that's how current cars would be dealt with if tax were to raise for new diesels, but maybe not?

[i]That's for one car? Petrol or diesel?[/i]

Freelander 1st gen auto diesel.

We bought it pre the (then) new tax co2 regime - it ended up twice the tax cost of my car, a 1998 V8 535i...

Just making the point that Govt can easily change ANY tax cost.

Just making the point that Govt can easily change ANY tax cost.

They didn't though did they. The Freelander fell under the high emission rules that cars after 2001 came under the prices for the high emission ones increased overtime. Just how they were meant to.

^ That makes more sense. I did think about delving into the world of modern cars for a second ... now I'm not so sure. Seems complicated to me.

When I was a lad...

We try not to use the car, it's definitely an occasional use thing and we have thought about getting shot of it completely but it does have its uses (mostly biking holidays!). If Diesel was effectively killed of with tax though I think that would drive me over the edge to do so as I would not have another petrol car.

[i]They didn't though did they. The Freelander fell under the high emission rules that cars after 2001 came under the prices for the high emission ones increased overtime. Just how they were meant to[/i]

Yes, but the rule came in after the car was bought (new), so the same can happen again and they could double/triple the tax on all diesels and apply it retrospectively.

FWIW the 2007 model reduce its co2 by a couple to get below the 'top' tax. Her current one has twice the bhp, does the same mpg but the tax is less than half the old one.

The upcoming changes to VED won't affect older cars.

Hmm, you reckon?

01-Oct-06 12m Car Tax 300.00
01-Oct-07 12m Car Tax 300.00
17-Sep-08 12m Car Tax 402.50
30-Sep-09 12m Car Tax 405.00
30-Sep-10 12m Car Tax 425.00
30-Sep-11 12m Car Tax 425.00
25-Sep-12 12m Car Tax 460.00

My wife's old car - bought new in 2006...

Yes, but the rule came in after the car was bought (new), so the same can happen again and they could double/triple the tax on all diesels and apply it retrospectively.

It was 2005 wasn't it?

I don't see modern diesels dumping great clouds of soot out under acceleration as older ones do and the three cyl engine in mine is quite petrol like in its revyness. My wife commutes 20 miles ew so 50mpg+ makes a real difference both cars are £30 per year in tax and a tank of fuel usually lasts me a month.

What I find inefficient is the size of many new cars, I get cars from work quite frequently and they just seem to get bigger each your, presently have a zafira tourer which is like a spaceship and completly pointless most of the time.

If i was to apply a new tax scale for vehicles it would reflect the cars size and weight as much as its emmisions.

Our present personal cars will last for the next 6/7 years then we will hopefully get electirc cars powered by our own electricity from solar panels on the house roof.

We'll make much bigger gains by reducing car usage than by improving their efficiency.

This is what worries me. Knowing how our governments love an easy target with the moral high ground as a back-up. It will just end up another tax stick to beat the poorest with, with the usual f$$k-em mentality because it doesn't affect them and they can afford it, nice empty roads for the well heeled to bowl about on at everyone's expense.

They have pretty much got away with the astronomical rises in car tax unopposed under the ruse of saving the environment! again the majority of us living and working in the present/real world have our incomes savaged from all angles, with next to f$$k all realistic alternatives, just sanctimonious preaching from those who it suits and doesn't affect.

As said before, diesel still rules the roost for fleet cars.

When choosing my new company car, I really wanted something like an A3 with the 1.4TSI petrol engine, but even though the actual cost of the car us much lower than some of the diesel variants, I couldn't get the trim / spec I wanted so have ended up with another diesel. BIK didn't really cone into now the modern petrols are so good, but the higher lease values killed it for me,

As a personal buyer I'd be wary of the tech required in modern diesels to meet the current legislation. Further diwn the l e, it will cause issues.

My current 10 year old golf tdi will should last a few years yet then I'm guessing electric/hybrid may well be a serious option but we don't long journeys more than a few times a year.

For my van I can't see anything other than diesel for now

I thought developed world are more environmental conscious but what I find is truly surprising as diesel cars are all over the place. Ya, like preaching to developing and 3rd world to be environmentally clean ... what a joke.

In Thailand practically all cars, unless they are massive haulage trucks, are dual fuel with LPG and guess what people favour LPG all the way with petrol and diesel as backup.

In Malaysia, majority of household cars are petrol while all taxis are LPG (dual fuel favouring LPG all the way) and there is hardly any household cars running diesel, because they would have to apply for permit to drive a diesel car which is not cheap. Most diesel engine cars/4x4 etc are usually registered as business vehicles with permits.

In Singapore, if I can recall it is the same as Malaysia in terms of fuel but then if you want to buy a new car you need to bid for a permit and that will normally cost as much as the new car. Most household cars are petrol btw.

The Philippine is rather relax with fuel selection and I think petrol is still the favourite when I was there. However, the poorer people would go for diesel ... not sure about LPG there.

Indonesia and other S.E. Asia nation I don't know. Brunei is petrol coz petrol is very cheap.

Now, if the UK govt really wants to get clean emission then they should favour LPG because electric cars are still in their early days to be considered by people.

I drive a petrol Toyota Corolla automatic and the fuel consumption is obviously not as good as diesel but if I were to buy new I would convert it to LPG dual fuel.

😯

The future for diesel is OK I think, me brother works at jaguar/land rover - seems the private ownership of cars is what will be changing future

banks - Member
The future for diesel is OK I think, me brother works at jaguar/land rover - seems the private ownership of cars is what will be changing future

I'm not so sure; my best friend works for the environment agency in London and is under the impression that Diesel is responsible for a notable reduction in life expectancy...

The whole fuel consumption-tax-CO2 system needs a shake up. The consumption figures that manufacturers quote are a joke at best and really don't reflect how cars are driven. None of the cycles reflect cruising at 70 on the motorway for instance.
Two cars at our house: 1.4TSi Ibiza and a 2.0 Diesel Astra estate. The Ibiza usually returns high thirties and the Astra high forties but the Ibiza has much lower tax. The official Ibiza figures are all around 60. The only way I can get it over 40 is on an A road run driving like a nun.
Here's a thought: tax company cars on the fuel consumption they actually achieve. That might have many positive results, like fewer un-necessary journeys, less tear-arsing around and the drivers would soon find which cars are actually easy to get good consuption out of in real-world driving.
They'd still chose Diesel mind. Doh.

Diesel is responsible for a notable reduction in life expectancy...

Ay? Life expectancy is rising fast?

LPG should be the solution before alternative fuels are developed/matured ... 😮

Amadias - i find the concept of a 3 hour fuel stop odd.

Electric cars still in infancy. Fine for pootlibg about the big smoke - not so good for driving the highlands of scotland

As for the lower price of diesel to unleaded on the forecourts at the moment, apparently two main reasons, one being seasonal demand, or lack of for heating oil. The other is that Saudi Arabia have just recently opened their new refinery which has enormous capacity and they've gone and turned the taps fully open.

How much oil is there exactly under the Middle East?

Do you suppose that once we've drained all the oil out, of everywhere, there will be no more plate tectonics as we've taken all the lubricant away?

Life expectancy is rising due to prevention/treatment of the major killers of a few decades ago. Most have us have family members who would be long dead without their statins, stents, rat poison and cancer treatments.

[url= http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/12/health/diesel-fumes-cancer/index.html ]Diesel fumes cause cancer[/url]. Diesels with particle filters produce less soot but still produce soot. The soot that is produced is very fine and we breathe it. Then there's the diesel and petrol vapour which get through the cats and filters, because no engine burns all of its fuel.

The 3% BIK surcharge drops off diesel next tax year for company cars, so they will become even more popular. Though our list is already 99% diesel so no change here.

If i was to apply a new tax scale for vehicles it would reflect the cars size and weight as much as its emmisions.

Given that most engines are quite similar in their efficiency, the emissions per km figure pretty much achieves that.