"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might
find there are a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

One proposal from the Mayor of London is within the boundaries of the
North and South circular roads. And an awful lot of people live within
those.

I thought it was the whole of London (as in all of the 32 boroughs), except
the bits of the M25 that are inside.

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

If you do a small annual milage, the fuel costs may not be the major one.

No

I don't know if it still true, but when I drove a diesel the more frequent
servicing requirements cost me more than I ever saved in fuel

tim



--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities;

well no

but there's going to be a large overlap

A car which "lives" inside the polluted area is bound to be driven in the
polluted area.

that they are cars that live outside the polluted area that also drive there
is likely to be just noise

And I'm taking the whole Greater London area as the marker here, not the CC
Zone

tim

On 17/04/17 13:07, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

If you do a small annual milage, the fuel costs may not be the major one.

No

I don't know if it still true, but when I drove a diesel the more
frequent servicing requirements cost me more than I ever saved in fuel

I found servicing to be far less.

Just a few filters every year. No plugs to speak of.

tim



--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

In message , Richard
writes
"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message ,
Capitol writes
Realistically, rule of thumb, a car loses 30% of its price on sale,
then a further 10% of it's price per 10K miles per annum. At 100K
miles, or 10 years, it is essentially worthless. If you pay more than
this, that's your loss.

Well, I'm still in the market for a 10yo diesel automatic Disco.

Yes, essentially worthless, and I have the appropriate cash waiting.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-sear...us=1500&postco
de=so151aa&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%20 New&onesearchad=New&mak
e=LAND%20ROVER&model=DISCOVERY%203&year-from=2007&year-to=2007&fuel-type
=Diesel&transmission=Automatic

£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

If the govt can get the price under £1k, I promise I'll never drive or
park in Central London again.

Interesting that the Kings College London guide to air pollution only
says "In recent years the average level of nitrogen dioxide within
London has not fallen as quickly as predicted.".

I can't see why urea injection couldn't be made cost effective and,
having been ordered to wash the car this weekend, I am more convinced
than ever before that tyres and brakes are the source of 10 times the
particulates produced by engines. Just look at the wheels and mudguards.

My bet is that we will have chaos and confusion and that pollution won't
fall.

But the sooner Mrs May bans diesels from London Brum and Leeds, the
better.


--
Bill

Bill wrote:
£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
newshound wrote:
Exactly. How long before you won't be able to drive it to any city
centre hospital. (Because it is in a city centre, rather than because it
is a hospital).

I'd not dream of driving to my local large hospital. Costs too much to
park there.

The problem is that if you need to take someone ill to hospital (maybe even
to A&E) there isn't really any alternative to driving there. The patient is
unlikely to be well enough to negotiate public transport. And a taxi from a
village or town to the city with the hospital would be prohibitively
expensive. Then when you get there you have to pay extortionate
over-a-barrel because-we-can parking charges, because the NHS "free at the
point of use" founding principle doesn't apply to transport/parking.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Bill wrote:
£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!

except that there were dozens of them

tim

"Bill" wrote in message
...
But the sooner Mrs May bans diesels from London Brum and Leeds, the
better.

My wife works in the centre of Leeds. Trains from where we live are
infrequent (once an hour) and public transport involves tedious changes. So
after trying everything else, she drives to the city centre and parks in a
multi-storey: at least then she can set off home as soon as she gets out of
a meeting instead of waiting for the next bus/train, and can divert around
traffic hold-ups.

But whereas her car meets the latest Euro emissions standard (6?), mine, at
nearly 9 years old, doesn't. So she'd never be able to take my car to work
(to give it a long run or to prevent accumulating quite so much mileage on
her car) unless she was prepared to pay the surcharge.

So, now that the multi-storey payment is due for renewal, and now that a
park and ride is finally about to open up on our side of Leeds, she's going
to use that instead: at least the P&R car park will hopefully be outside the
city-centre pollution boundaries.

I am very annoyed that the government has reversed its previous pro-diesel
stance. My car is old enough that the effect on the resale value is
negligible (the car is probably only worth a couple of hundred quid on the
second hand market). We no longer use the car as the main car (eg for
holidays and other long-distance journeys), so the better fuel economy is
less important.

But I *like* my diesel: it is a *much* easier car to drive because it has
the low-end torque to crawl in traffic with no accelerator, controlling the
speed entirely on the clutch, and it will pull in a higher gear, which means
that you are not forever having to change into second gear when accelerating
out of a roundabout - and it's much easier and smoother to change from 6th
to 3rd than 6th to 2nd. Also the engine is quieter (despite being a diesel)
because it runs at a lower speed (2500 rpm rather than 4000 rpm at 70 mph),
and the car has plenty of 50-80 acceleration (for overtaking) which the
equivalent petrol model lacks.

If manufacturers could make a petrol engine that drove like a diesel, I'd
have the best of both worlds.

tim... wrote:

I don't know if it still true, but when I drove a diesel the more frequent
servicing requirements cost me more than I ever saved in fuel

A service every 20,000 miles doesn't seem that frequent to me.

Modern DI engines can go a long time between services.

Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter. ;-)

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

"tim..." wrote in message news



"Richard" wrote in message
news
"Bill" wrote in message ...
[snip]

Well, I'm still in the market for a 10yo diesel automatic Disco.

Yes, essentially worthless, and I have the appropriate cash waiting.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-sear...sion=Automatic

looks likes the 7 grand in different expectations between buyer and seller
is his problem

Heck, there's one for 5 grand - bit of DIY needed:
q
NON RUNNER,SUSPECTED CAMBELT BROKEN+NON RUNNER........NO OFFERS..full black
leather interior,satnav+ motorway mileage .with FSH, cambelt changed @ 105k
miles
/q

Cambelt failure after 15k miles?

On 17/04/17 13:42, Capitol wrote:
Bill wrote:
£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!

Not for a good top of the range disco in good shape.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 17/04/17 14:01, NY wrote:
If manufacturers could make a petrol engine that drove like a diesel,
I'd have the best of both worlds.

They could. Its called a 5 litre V8..



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

In article ,
NY wrote:
I'd not dream of driving to my local large hospital. Costs too much to
park there.

The problem is that if you need to take someone ill to hospital (maybe
even to A&E) there isn't really any alternative to driving there. The
patient is unlikely to be well enough to negotiate public transport.
And a taxi from a village or town to the city with the hospital would
be prohibitively expensive. Then when you get there you have to pay
extortionate over-a-barrel because-we-can parking charges, because the
NHS "free at the point of use" founding principle doesn't apply to
transport/parking.

Surely if someone is so unwell they need to travel many miles to a large
hospital, you'd call an ambulance?

--
*Constipated People Don't Give A Crap*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Bill wrote:
£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!

except that there were dozens of them

Capitol is likely only talking about the cars he knows about. A 10 year
old Lada my well be worthless. Even a new one.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
NY wrote:
But I *like* my diesel: it is a *much* easier car to drive because it
has the low-end torque to crawl in traffic with no accelerator,
controlling the speed entirely on the clutch, and it will pull in a
higher gear, which means that you are not forever having to change into
second gear when accelerating out of a roundabout - and it's much
easier and smoother to change from 6th to 3rd than 6th to 2nd. Also the
engine is quieter (despite being a diesel) because it runs at a lower
speed (2500 rpm rather than 4000 rpm at 70 mph), and the car has plenty
of 50-80 acceleration (for overtaking) which the equivalent petrol
model lacks.

4000rpm at 70 mph? That sounds more like a '60s vehicle.

If manufacturers could make a petrol engine that drove like a diesel,
I'd have the best of both worlds.

Since your dislikes seem to be all about changing gear etc and high revs
at cruise, a decent auto? My old BMW auto was under 2000 rpm at 70 mph.

--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
NY wrote:
I'd not dream of driving to my local large hospital. Costs too much to
park there.

The problem is that if you need to take someone ill to hospital (maybe
even to A&E) there isn't really any alternative to driving there. The
patient is unlikely to be well enough to negotiate public transport.
And a taxi from a village or town to the city with the hospital would
be prohibitively expensive. Then when you get there you have to pay
extortionate over-a-barrel because-we-can parking charges, because the
NHS "free at the point of use" founding principle doesn't apply to
transport/parking.

Surely if someone is so unwell they need to travel many miles to a large
hospital, you'd call an ambulance?

You really are a moron. Why tie up an ambulance for a broken limb? Oh, I
forgot - you're a selfish prick.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:25:22 +0100, Capitol wrote:

charles wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
I hear an MP is suggesting a scrappage scheme for diesel cars.

If there are 31 million cars on the road and 38% of them are diesel,
does he really think a £100m scheme providing an average of £8/car is
going to cut it?


especially if the car was worth quite a bit. Last year, I traded in a 3yo
Mazda estate (for a new one) and I got £15k in part exchange


That's not what it's worth, thats what a dealer is prepared to pay to
get rid of a car from his stock! Realistically, rule of thumb, a car
loses 30% of its price on sale, then a further 10% of it's price per 10K
miles per annum. At 100K miles, or 10 years, it is essentially
worthless. If you pay more than this, that's your loss.

Garage prices are weird. I've actually bought a 2nd hand car form a garage, used it for a year, then sold it privately for more!

--
"Beam me aboard, Scotty!" [-] "Will a 2 X 4 do, Captain?"

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:32:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

I hear an MP is suggesting a scrappage scheme for diesel cars.

If there are 31 million cars on the road and 38% of them are diesel,
does he really think a £100m scheme providing an average of £8/car is
going to cut it?

Why get rid of diesel and not petrol cars? Diesel are more efficient.

--
I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:23:53 +0100, Bill wrote:

In message , Richard
writes
"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message ,
Capitol writes
Realistically, rule of thumb, a car loses 30% of its price on sale,
then a further 10% of it's price per 10K miles per annum. At 100K
miles, or 10 years, it is essentially worthless. If you pay more than
this, that's your loss.

Well, I'm still in the market for a 10yo diesel automatic Disco.

Yes, essentially worthless, and I have the appropriate cash waiting.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-sear...us=1500&postco
de=so151aa&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%20N ew&onesearchad=New&mak
e=LAND%20ROVER&model=DISCOVERY%203&year-from=2007&year-to=2007&fuel-type
=Diesel&transmission=Automatic

£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

If the govt can get the price under £1k, I promise I'll never drive or
park in Central London again.

Interesting that the Kings College London guide to air pollution only
says "In recent years the average level of nitrogen dioxide within
London has not fallen as quickly as predicted.".

I can't see why urea injection couldn't be made cost effective and,
having been ordered to wash the car this weekend, I am more convinced
than ever before that tyres and brakes are the source of 10 times the
particulates produced by engines. Just look at the wheels and mudguards.

You've got mudguards? 90% of cars seem to lack this very important feature and spray muddy water everywhere.

--
I was explaining to my wife last night that when you die you get reincarnated but must come back as a different creature. She said I would like to come back as a cow. I said you're obviously not listening.

On 17/04/2017 14:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 14:01, NY wrote:
If manufacturers could make a petrol engine that drove like a diesel,
I'd have the best of both worlds.

They could. Its called a 5 litre V8..



They do. They are called petrol hybrids.

On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

On 17/04/2017 10:27, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

"the diesel is preferable to the petrol engine."

Are you mad ?. There is no financial argument at all for
a diesel doing an annual mileage like that.

On Sunday, 16 April 2017 20:25:32 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
I hear an MP is suggesting a scrappage scheme for diesel cars.

If there are 31 million cars on the road and 38% of them are diesel,
does he really think a £100m scheme providing an average of £8/car is
going to cut it?


especially if the car was worth quite a bit. Last year, I traded in a 3yo
Mazda estate (for a new one) and I got £15k in part exchange


That's not what it's worth, thats what a dealer is prepared to pay to
get rid of a car from his stock! Realistically, rule of thumb, a car
loses 30% of its price on sale, then a further 10% of it's price per 10K
miles per annum. At 100K miles, or 10 years, it is essentially
worthless. If you pay more than this, that's your loss.

My forty year old 104K miles car is worth £19,000. (Approx)

On 17/04/17 15:58, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

That's fine by me and I drive diesels.

Given the **** state of the roads, I'd rather pay extra ON CONDITION the
money is ringfenced and goes directly to where it belongs.

It's also fair: more duty paid = user doing higher milage and/or a low
efficiency vehicle.

The only thing it does not address is particulate emissions that could
be anywhere from practically zero (new vehicle) to clouds of black smoke.

Scrap VED at the same time.

On 17/04/2017 13:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 13:07, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graeme wrote:
snip

If you do a small annual milage, the fuel costs may not be the major
one.

No

I don't know if it still true, but when I drove a diesel the more
frequent servicing requirements cost me more than I ever saved in fuel

I found servicing to be far less.

Just a few filters every year. No plugs to speak of.


Plugs last 40K miles in most modern cars and only cost a few quid
each. That's once every 8 years for a 5K car.

Have you see the state of pollen filters on cars driven in stop/start
traffic where most of the vehicles are diesel ?. That's what you are
breathing in.

On 17/04/17 15:58, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.


I do suffer from astham wuite badly.

Oddly enough it was better when there was more pollution around

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

Except petrol engines are ultimately no better.

And the tax is on te car, nit the fuel isn't it? So high mileage rich
people dont suffer, just the poor elderly retired person who cant afford
a new car, gets stamped on for road tax on a vehicle he scarcely drives



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 17/04/2017 16:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 15:58, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.


I do suffer from astham wuite badly.

Oddly enough it was better when there was more pollution around

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

Except petrol engines are ultimately no better.


I'm afraid not where NO2 is concerned. Even a modern EU6 diesel
driven in real world traffic, as opposed to a 'test rig' will
produce several times as much as a petrol engine.

On saturday I came home from Epsom and as I passed the hospital
a 56 plate BMW X5 shot out in front of me and accelerated away
and I literally had to switch the heater to recirculate because
so much stinking black smoke was coming out of its twin
exhausts.

Diesels (in cars) are the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

Andrew wrote:

I'm afraid not where NO2 is concerned. Even a modern EU6 diesel
driven in real world traffic, as opposed to a 'test rig' will
produce several times as much as a petrol engine.

On saturday I came home from Epsom and as I passed the hospital
a 56 plate BMW X5 shot out in front of me and accelerated away
and I literally had to switch the heater to recirculate because
so much stinking black smoke was coming out of its twin
exhausts.

A 56 plate car is likely to only be EU4 standard

On 17/04/17 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

The (proposed) scrappage scheme is geographically based, so your figures
are irrelevant.

So to be even vaguely worthwhile (a grand or two) it will need to be
highly selective, applying to 0.5 to 1% of all cars?

Presumably these will be in marginal constituencies, then ...

It will be the usual mess. Based on age or whatever, rather on the worst
polluting vehicles. Which aren't always going to be the oldest.


Shouldn't we _not_ be rewarding car manufacturers with opportunities to
make more sales of vehicles? They themselves should be funding the
scrappage, not the tax payer.

Should all tax payers _not_ be subsidising those lucky enough to be in
the situation of nearly buying a new car? It's like Solar panels and FIT.

Scrappage is a discount of a *new* vehicle, the type of purchase that
devalues by a similar or worse amount in days when first driven off the
forecourt.

As a lot of folks are a bit wiser than that, I'd rather something was
done on secondhand trades. Was it? I wasn't watching the 2009 scrappage
thing that closely.

A new equivalent for my 2004 diesel lump with similar fuel/pulling
performance would be a smaller engine with a necessary turbo charger.
Sod it, I'll be going electric...

.... and ten years time, will be the electric vehicle scrappage event.
Car electromagnetic field emissions seriously harming the directional
finding abilities of Pigeons we'll be told ...


--
Adrian C

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The only thing it does not address is particulate emissions that could
be anywhere from practically zero (new vehicle) to clouds of black smoke.

Sadly, NOx appears to do a lot of damage, and you can't see it.

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On saturday I came home from Epsom and as I passed the hospital
a 56 plate BMW X5 shot out in front of me and accelerated away
and I literally had to switch the heater to recirculate because
so much stinking black smoke was coming out of its twin
exhausts.

Diesels (in cars) are the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

The high performance diesels do seem to be a particular problem. Could be
a much smaller one which has to work harder for most of the time is much
cleaner overall?

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Andrew
writes
"the diesel is preferable to the petrol engine."

Are you mad ?. There is no financial argument at all for
a diesel doing an annual mileage like that.

All I will say again, again and again is that my petrol auto Omega did
40 mpg on long runs, but 7 to 9 mpg moving elderly people in start, long
stop, start, long stop etc. a few hundred yards at a time to shops,
clinic, shops, our home, their home and so on. Always "full choke".
The diesel auto Disco did about 25 mpg, the diesel Octavia does about
35mpg, or 65 on a long run if we are lucky with the lights.

For my use, the standard diesel argument has it back to front.

I'd have thought a normally aspirated diesel hybrid might be a
reasonable starting point, although weight might lead to tyre
particulate problems.

Are all the gas power stations needed for electric vehicles NOx free?

--
Bill

On 17/04/17 18:11, Bill wrote:
In message , Andrew
writes
"the diesel is preferable to the petrol engine."

Are you mad ?. There is no financial argument at all for
a diesel doing an annual mileage like that.

All I will say again, again and again is that my petrol auto Omega did
40 mpg on long runs, but 7 to 9 mpg moving elderly people in start, long
stop, start, long stop etc. a few hundred yards at a time to shops,
clinic, shops, our home, their home and so on. Always "full choke".
The diesel auto Disco did about 25 mpg, the diesel Octavia does about
35mpg, or 65 on a long run if we are lucky with the lights.

For my use, the standard diesel argument has it back to front.

I'd have thought a normally aspirated diesel hybrid might be a
reasonable starting point, although weight might lead to tyre
particulate problems.


Turbos reduce particulates. You get the power not from dumping in fuel,
but from lots of extra air instead.

Are all the gas power stations needed for electric vehicles NOx free?

Nope. Its present in gas turbine exhausts (jet engines) as well.

The only design of combustor I ever heard that got round the problem was
a coal burner that mixed iron oxide with the coal, and then burnt the
combination, leading to molten iron, pure CO2 and lots of heat.

Then the molten iron was reacted with air to reform iron oxide. Of
course THAT process probably introduces NOx as well..

Coal power stations used scrubbers to rip out sulfur dioxide. Probably
NOX can be scrubbed to nitric acid.

Nuclear is so much cleaner...

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Harry Bloomfield wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Because of the hotter combustion temperatures, diesels emit
more NOx, which seems to be the main point of issue ATM.

Partially solved at low engine speeds by an EGR, problem is
that the EGR's on a diesel need to be regularly cleaned out and
no manufacturer has them on their service list to be cleaned.

Why not ?

The net result is a diesel engine with a choked up intake system.

There must be a reason no manufacturer has them on
their service list to be cleaned if it really was that simple.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has sorted
out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might find there
are
a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.

Bet that doesn’t happen given how many commercial vehicles are done that
way.

Richard wrote:

Heck, there's one for 5 grand - bit of DIY needed:
q
NON RUNNER,SUSPECTED CAMBELT BROKEN+NON RUNNER........NO OFFERS..full
black leather interior,satnav+ motorway mileage .with FSH, cambelt
changed @ 105k miles
/q

Cambelt failure after 15k miles?

Yep, crappy Jag/Peugeot V6 Diesel derivative. When it was first
introduced on the S-Type it had various problems that put it in the
"Cars to Never Buy" box but it seemed to actually gain problems when
they put it in the Disco.

Apparently dealers have been heard to utter "it's had a good innings"
when presented with broken ones at 50k miles. The great British car
industry - still thinking it's 1956.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 13:42, Capitol wrote:
Bill wrote:
£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!

Not for a good top of the range disco in good shape.

The pricing of second hand Land/Range Rovers is utterly surreal compared
to other 4x4s. There is *no* such thing as a "good" one for a start. I
reckon the price is entirely held afloat by all this "best off roader by
far" nonsense[1] - it's certainly not mechanical quality as, to a man,
there's very rarely been something built in Solihull that doesn't
require endless replacement parts.

I look after various cars and Land Rover parts quality is, frankly,
crap. My favourite is various ally castings that rot away. God knows
where the got the raw stock (Fred's Scrappie probably) but they must
have given it to some local die-caster who'd never heard of any of the
modern pressurised casting processes. Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.


[1] It always amuses me that people say BMW bought Rover for Land
Rover's "off-road" know-how. At the time there wasn't enough technology
to justify buying one car and stripping it down to see what was what,
let alone bother buying the company.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 4/17/2017 10:51 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with a
bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted
out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might find there
are
a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

Quite possibly, but the problem is that none of us know, as yet.

Exactly. How long before you won't be able to drive it to any city centre
hospital. (Because it is in a city centre, rather than because it is a
hospital).

Thats never going to happen, because so many of the commercial
vehicles that have to be able to visit city centers are diesels. The Torys
are never going to be stupid enough to ban all of those in any city
center, Labour hasnt got a hope in hell of being in govt any time
soon now that the whole of Scotland has gone SNP. The Greens
and other loonys havent to a hope in hell of ever becoming the
govt and there isnt even any possibility of the EU imposing that
sort of terminal stupidity now.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 17/04/2017 10:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:

Did they not develop a particulate filter some years ago, for this
problem,
or is the issue that its very costly to make and needs to be cleaned
out too
often.

They did and any diesel car under about 7 years old will have one, they
are not ideal for cars that only do short journeys as they don't get the
opportunity to "burn off" the ash they collect, they certainly do stop
the visible blue/grey clouds out the exhaust. I'm not sure what the
smallest particles the DPFs collect is, PM10 seems to be the size
complained about, and they won't stop the NOx.


I had a diesel 10 years ago that had a cat and didn't emit much in the way
of NOx and I never saw any smoke from the exhaust. I don't know why they
stopped them.

Of course there are quite a few cars about where the idiots have removed
the filters and even gone as far as replacing them with fakes to get
through the MOT. Better tests are needed to get them off the road

Nope, NOx testers that can be used by the MOT
tester have been around for a long time now.

preferably along with their drivers.

Even sillier than you usually manage.