Diesel cars (toxic tax) announced

Sporky

The Cactus is a small/medium hatchback - I know it's a question of interpretation, but I suspect it doesn't qualify as "decent sized" in this context.

You can get a VW Touran in petrol at 128g/Km, so there are some options, but even that's not exactly big.

crunchman

ICBM said:

crunchman said:

If you live in London, you would be an idiot to buy a car now that you are going to get charged a fortune to drive into London in a few years.

Not if you're looking for a cheap car that you expect to last for less than five years. In that case, an old cheap diesel makes the most sense - since their value has now fallen - which will have precisely the opposite result to that intended. By holding off the date for the rule change they have encouraged the buying of exactly the worst possible kind of cars, in that it's beyond the life expectancy most people would expect to get out of an old car.

The T-charge that is coming in as an interim measure from October this year will still apply.  That will make it stupid to go out and buy anything pre Euro IV (2005).  Even with a residents discount it will still cost £1 per day.  If you drive regularly then the extra £300 or so per year would be enough to make it worthwhile looking for something post 2005.  The post 2005 car would cost more to buy though, and you would think twice about a diesel with the ULEZ due in less than 2 years.  Your idea might make sense for drivers who don't drive regularly but they aren't the major problem anyway.

Personally I wouldn't have the clause for residents, but I can't imagine any mayor doing anything that is guaranteed to lose him tens of thousands of votes at the next election.  it's better bringing it in with that clause than not bringing it in at all.

Stevepage

ICBM said:

Axe_meister said:

We had a 7 seater Volvo estate as a kid. Most MPVs I've been in (and 4x4s) have had a piddling little boot. Yes they have height but very little floor space.

I'd agree about the smaller MPVs, but the big ones with seven seats have huge boots when the seats aren't up. I can get an Ampeg 6x10" bass cab in the boot of the Grand Scenic, across the space with the head behind it and the shutter over the top. The guitarist in my band has a Volvo estate and is constantly amazed by how much bigger the Renault is. No way I'd go back to an estate car until I'm not doing this sort of thing any more.

More than happy with the room in my Mondeo Estate. My drummer has an older model Mondeo for the same reason.

Would have a Chevy Suburban if I could afford it though

Sporky

I'd have a Tatra 815, expedition spec, but I think the tax might be a bit much - it's only Euro IV at best.

Plenty of room inside though. The band could play in it, just back it up to the stage door...

Cirrus

The worst day of my life was when I realised I could fit my gigging rig (Mesa 2x12 combo, Pedalboard, Gibson big coffin Explorer Case, Les Paul and Strat etc) into my wife's fiesta.

Made me question everything.

hywelg

crunchman said:8

hywelg said:

crunchman said:

 When those drivers come to replace their car they would be idiots to buy a diesel.  I'll stand by that.

No, not idiots, just constrained by contradictory rules.

Unless you have £30k to burn you will be buying s/h. Lets face it, most people will buy a secondhand car. I'm not flush with cash enough to throw away the 35% deprication in years 1 and 2. So ingrained is diesel that you will find precious few bigger vehicles in petrol versions 2-3 years old.

And show me a petrol  vehicle of a decent size that is lower than 130g/km CO2?. Again government rules mean I need to be below that to claim a proper capital allowance rate for the business use. Otherwise its a derisory 8% write down, which means you can never claim it all.

http://www.comparison.citroen.co.uk/co2emissions/select/lead?kee=633111

That model was introduced in 2014 so it ought to be possible to find one second hand.  I imagine that there will be limited quantities for a year or two, but intelligent buyers will have been seeing the writing on the wall for diesel for a while so there should be some out there.

Link doesn't go to a model just to a comparator page.

crunchman

hywelg said:

crunchman said:8

hywelg said:

crunchman said:

 When those drivers come to replace their car they would be idiots to buy a diesel.  I'll stand by that.

No, not idiots, just constrained by contradictory rules.

Unless you have £30k to burn you will be buying s/h. Lets face it, most people will buy a secondhand car. I'm not flush with cash enough to throw away the 35% deprication in years 1 and 2. So ingrained is diesel that you will find precious few bigger vehicles in petrol versions 2-3 years old.

And show me a petrol  vehicle of a decent size that is lower than 130g/km CO2?. Again government rules mean I need to be below that to claim a proper capital allowance rate for the business use. Otherwise its a derisory 8% write down, which means you can never claim it all.

http://www.comparison.citroen.co.uk/co2emissions/select/lead?kee=633111

That model was introduced in 2014 so it ought to be possible to find one second hand.  I imagine that there will be limited quantities for a year or two, but intelligent buyers will have been seeing the writing on the wall for diesel for a while so there should be some out there.

Link doesn't go to a model just to a comparator page.

Sorry. When I had it, it was on a page for the Grande Picasso.  I double checked the link and it worked earlier.  The browser must have cached the settings I chose.

Anyway, the petrol Grande Picasso comes in at 115 or 116 g/km depending on exactly which one you go for.

hywelg

Unfortunately it's not big enough for me, need more load height. Same as all current mpv's where the seats fold down. 


And it's a Citroën! 

Evilmags

The law of unforeseen consequences should be taught at birth. The government rejected a move to diesel because of particulates in the 80s. 

Cirrus

So, if you've got a diesel that gets realistically 65mpg, how bad does the fuel economy of a petrol car have to be before it's worse? Or is it never worse, because on balance 20 gallons of petrol is still better that a pipette of diesel gases?

Garthy

Cirrus said:

So, if you've got a diesel that gets realistically 65mpg, how bad does the fuel economy of a petrol car have to be before it's worse? Or is it never worse, because on balance 20 gallons of petrol is still better that a pipette of diesel gases?

A golf 1.6 TDI punts out NOx69:0 mg/km, a 6.2 litre Corvette with a Supercharger puts out NOx 27:0 mg/km. 

I cannot find a petrol car that gets anywhere close to the Golf (as an example) for pollutants, and remember that NOx figure is the fiddled one. 

I've copied the figures and formatting from a green car website, it was just quicker and easier on the phone.

Bucket

It's possible to run cars on used vegetable oil, say from a chip shop.

I'm not sure why more people don't do so?

Garthy

Bucket said:

It's possible to run cars on used vegetable oil, say from a chip shop.

I'm not sure why more people don't do so?

A 1997 Citroen maybe, but ultimately it clogs the fuel injectors, which for a 1990s French tractor isn't too bad, but for a modern diesel with piezo injectors it would be catastrophically expensive, they're bad enough with the fuel they are actually designed to use. They also utterly reek of manky deep fat fryers.

Sporky

Garthy said:

A golf 1.6 TDI punts out NOx69:0 mg/km

Is that with AdBlue?

crunchman

Garthy said:

Cirrus said:

So, if you've got a diesel that gets realistically 65mpg, how bad does the fuel economy of a petrol car have to be before it's worse? Or is it never worse, because on balance 20 gallons of petrol is still better that a pipette of diesel gases?

A golf 1.6 TDI punts out NOx69:0 mg/km, a 6.2 litre Corvette with a Supercharger puts out NOx 27:0 mg/km. 

I cannot find a petrol car that gets anywhere close to the Golf (as an example) for pollutants, and remember that NOx figure is the fiddled one. 

I've copied the figures and formatting from a green car website, it was just quicker and easier on the phone.

I think the actual figure is probably about 6 to 8 times the fiddled one so you are probably looking at somewhere over 400 mg/km - compared with 27 mg/km for the big petrol engine.

ICBM

Garthy said:

Bucket said:

It's possible to run cars on used vegetable oil, say from a chip shop.

I'm not sure why more people don't do so?

A 1997 Citroen maybe, but ultimately it clogs the fuel injectors, which for a 1990s French tractor isn't too bad, but for a modern diesel with piezo injectors it would be catastrophically expensive, they're bad enough with the fuel they are actually designed to use. They also utterly reek of manky deep fat fryers.

Plus the massive amount of hassle. You have to collect, store and filter the fat, and undertake some DIY chemistry - it's nowhere near as simple as just putting cooking oil into the tank. So it might work if you're the kind of person who likes the idea of self-sufficiency and has the time and space to do this sort of thing, but for the average urban driver it's a non-starter.

And as far as I know it still produces the NOx and the particulates anyway, so there's almost no benefit from a pollution point of view, it's just the CO2 from fossil that's avoided.

Sporky

crunchman said:

Garthy said:

Cirrus said:

So, if you've got a diesel that gets realistically 65mpg, how bad does the fuel economy of a petrol car have to be before it's worse? Or is it never worse, because on balance 20 gallons of petrol is still better that a pipette of diesel gases?

A golf 1.6 TDI punts out NOx69:0 mg/km, a 6.2 litre Corvette with a Supercharger puts out NOx 27:0 mg/km. 

I cannot find a petrol car that gets anywhere close to the Golf (as an example) for pollutants, and remember that NOx figure is the fiddled one. 

I've copied the figures and formatting from a green car website, it was just quicker and easier on the phone.

I think the actual figure is probably about 6 to 8 times the fiddled one so you are probably looking at somewhere over 400 mg/km - compared with 27 mg/km for the big petrol engine.

So are we now saying that NOx is the only important thing? Only that leads to just as daft a rabbit hole as saying CO2 is the only important thing, with everyone driving supercharged V8s to pay less tax.

I also think some verifiable figures would be handy here, not "found it on a website" "multiplied it by 8 for you"...

Cirrus

Sporky said:

crunchman said:

Garthy said:

Cirrus said:

So, if you've got a diesel that gets realistically 65mpg, how bad does the fuel economy of a petrol car have to be before it's worse? Or is it never worse, because on balance 20 gallons of petrol is still better that a pipette of diesel gases?

A golf 1.6 TDI punts out NOx69:0 mg/km, a 6.2 litre Corvette with a Supercharger puts out NOx 27:0 mg/km. 

I cannot find a petrol car that gets anywhere close to the Golf (as an example) for pollutants, and remember that NOx figure is the fiddled one. 

I've copied the figures and formatting from a green car website, it was just quicker and easier on the phone.

I think the actual figure is probably about 6 to 8 times the fiddled one so you are probably looking at somewhere over 400 mg/km - compared with 27 mg/km for the big petrol engine.

So are we now saying that NOx is the only important thing? Only that leads to just as daft a rabbit hole as saying CO2 is the only important thing, with everyone driving supercharged V8s to pay less tax.

I also think some verifiable figures would be handy here, not "found it on a website" "multiplied it by 8 for you"...

Thanks @Garthy  and @crunchman for your efforts!

And @Sporky , that's the point I'm trying to get my head around. So any petrol will emit a negligible amount of NOx compared to any diesel, which is certainly a point against diesels full stop.

So what of the other emissions? On balance, overall?

Maybe it would be better for the environment if we all emitted loads of NOx and killed loads of people, hence reducing overall consumption of resources on the planet. 

sweepy

Petrol engines are so efficient that they are nearly on a parity with diesel, factor in other costs such as servicing and fuel prices and the Petrol versions just edge it 

crunchman

Sporky said:

I also think some verifiable figures would be handy here, not "found it on a website" "multiplied it by 8 for you"...

When the whole VW scam blew up, it was widely published that the average diesel was producing 6 to 8 times the official figures.  Some of them are actually higher than that.  There were articles in the Evening Standard and Guardian (and possibly elsewhere) a day or two ago where the government's former chief scientific advisor was quoted giving a figure 12 times higher for at least some vehicles.  I was probably being conservative multiplying by 6.