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?

On 16/04/17 18:32, 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?

Virtue signalling is about concepts, not sums.


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 16/04/2017 18:32, 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?


Who is going to pay for the ones on the Island of Sodor?

--
Adam

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

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 16/04/17 18:40, ARW wrote:
On 16/04/2017 18:32, 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?


Who is going to pay for the ones on the Island of Sodor?

Any idea what happened to Diesels 1 to 8?

--

Jeff

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
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?

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

tim

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.

On 16/04/17 20:25, 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 100k 13 year old car is still worth 3 grand


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 16/04/2017 20:25, 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.

I've not changed a car for a good few years, but did a maths modelling
of 2nd hand car prices a very good few years ago... as part of an Open
University project (using some reliable data and Glass's Guide). At
that time... a ten year old mini was worth more than a ten year old jag.
Trade in prices are also miss leading. I'd bought a new mini, cash, at a
good discount but saw a year old one at a nearby garage for more! A
friend inherited his fathers car, as when he took it in as a trade in,
the salesman walked round, thought, and then offered a trade in value,
but then walked round again, and offered more off the new car if he took
the old one away!

Jim

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 ...

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.
--
Bill

On 16/04/2017 19:35, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 16/04/17 18:40, ARW wrote:
On 16/04/2017 18:32, 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?


Who is going to pay for the ones on the Island of Sodor?

Any idea what happened to Diesels 1 to 8?


Privatised and given new numbers?



--
Adam

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?

Yep, he really is that stupid.

"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...sion=Automatic

Well, I think to be honest they would need to limit this to the very
polluting.

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.

Its interesting, living near an industrial estate, to note that you can
stand right by modern diesel exhausts and they do not smell or make smoke
etc, but if its a few years older, such as you might find in post office
vans, you are choking in seconds.
Modern diesels are a lot better, just not as much better as the perfect
test results would have you believe of course.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
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?

On 17/04/17 10:06, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:23:02 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well, I think to be honest they would need to limit this to the very
polluting.

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.

Its interesting, living near an industrial estate, to note that you can
stand right by modern diesel exhausts and they do not smell or make smoke
etc, but if its a few years older, such as you might find in post office
vans, you are choking in seconds.
Modern diesels are a lot better, just not as much better as the perfect
test results would have you believe of course.
Brian

AIUI modern diesel cars have a filter to take out the PM10 or PM2
carbon particulates. But like any filter, after a while it gets 'full'
and starts to choke. Again AIUI, it requires a longish run from time
to time to get the filter hot enough to burn off the carbon. If you
only ever do short runs, you may have problems.

I have a ten-year-old diesel (Ford Fusion). It has no filters of any
sort. When I replace it, I'll get a petrol car, simply because I only
do short journeys and the obligatory carbon filter would probably get
bunged up. I don't particularly relish having to drive an unnecessary
and longish journey, weekly, simply to clear it.

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.

They consume urea.

Which need regular topping up.




--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

Chris Hogg laid this down on his screen :
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. The net result is a
diesel engine with a choked up intake system.

On 17/04/2017 10:16, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Chris Hogg laid this down on his screen :
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. The net result is a diesel
engine with a choked up intake system.

That's at least one on my breakdowns explained. Dunno why they swapped
it a second time after 2000 miles on a different breakdown.

--
Adam

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.

--
Graeme

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.

On 17/04/17 10:06, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:23:02 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well, I think to be honest they would need to limit this to the very
polluting.

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.

Its interesting, living near an industrial estate, to note that you can
stand right by modern diesel exhausts and they do not smell or make smoke
etc, but if its a few years older, such as you might find in post office
vans, you are choking in seconds.
Modern diesels are a lot better, just not as much better as the perfect
test results would have you believe of course.
Brian

AIUI modern diesel cars have a filter to take out the PM10 or PM2
carbon particulates. But like any filter, after a while it gets 'full'
and starts to choke. Again AIUI, it requires a longish run from time
to time to get the filter hot enough to burn off the carbon. If you
only ever do short runs, you may have problems.

I have a ten-year-old diesel (Ford Fusion). It has no filters of any
sort. When I replace it, I'll get a petrol car, simply because I only
do short journeys and the obligatory carbon filter would probably get
bunged up. I don't particularly relish having to drive an unnecessary
and longish journey, weekly, simply to clear it.

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.



I've had 2 10 year old cars with DPFs and they've been fine - one
sometimes demands a long run to clear it then is OK for ages.

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).

On 17/04/2017 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've got a diesel. I hope that Blackpool bans them.




--
Adam

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).

"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).

The point is being missed. They don't want to ban them, merely charge extra
for you to drive in their ****ty centres.

In article ,
Jim Chisholm wrote:
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.

I've not changed a car for a good few years, but did a maths modelling
of 2nd hand car prices a very good few years ago... as part of an Open
University project (using some reliable data and Glass's Guide). At
that time... a ten year old mini was worth more than a ten year old jag.
Trade in prices are also miss leading. I'd bought a new mini, cash, at a
good discount but saw a year old one at a nearby garage for more! A
friend inherited his fathers car, as when he took it in as a trade in,
the salesman walked round, thought, and then offered a trade in value,
but then walked round again, and offered more off the new car if he took
the old one away!

You can only generalise about such things. Individual models may or may
not follow this pattern. Most dealers have trade contacts that take older
cars off their hands.

--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

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

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.

--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

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

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Its interesting, living near an industrial estate, to note that you can
stand right by modern diesel exhausts and they do not smell or make
smoke etc, but if its a few years older, such as you might find in post
office vans, you are choking in seconds.
Modern diesels are a lot better, just not as much better as the perfect
test results would have you believe of course.

I'd say you need to be driven round London, to see which vehicles you can
smell in a traffic queue. Frequently newish ones. And then see the clouds
of smoke many produce if they accelerate hard.

The problem being the tests they have to pass either as new vehicles or at
MOT time do *not* represent real world driving conditions.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

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

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.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

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

In message
Huge wrote:


[snip]


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.

No, and there are also other factors, like our council ramming through
legislation to apply a 150ukp levy on top of the residents parking
permit. The fact that the majority of the most polluting vehicles live
in the more salubrius bits of the boro, and therefore generally are
parked off-road seems to be totally irrelevant to them. Wether they view
it as a cash-cow, or just lefty virtue-signalling I don't know.

*******s.
--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England

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.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

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

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.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

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

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.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:49:05 +0100, 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.

Not doing much for their secondhand value either.

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
preferably along with their drivers.

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.


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 16/04/17 18:32, 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?

I would be very happy to get £8 for my old banger
TW

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
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.

Surely in an emergency you'd simply ignore the rules, the 'ban' won't
prevent a vehicle from actually entering the prohibited area, it will
just slap a fine on the owner.

--
Chris Green
·

"Richard" wrote in message
news
"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...sion=Automatic

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

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 17/04/17 10:06, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:23:02 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well, I think to be honest they would need to limit this to the very
polluting.

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.

Its interesting, living near an industrial estate, to note that you can
stand right by modern diesel exhausts and they do not smell or make
smoke
etc, but if its a few years older, such as you might find in post office
vans, you are choking in seconds.
Modern diesels are a lot better, just not as much better as the perfect
test results would have you believe of course.
Brian

AIUI modern diesel cars have a filter to take out the PM10 or PM2
carbon particulates. But like any filter, after a while it gets 'full'
and starts to choke. Again AIUI, it requires a longish run from time
to time to get the filter hot enough to burn off the carbon. If you
only ever do short runs, you may have problems.

I have a ten-year-old diesel (Ford Fusion). It has no filters of any
sort. When I replace it, I'll get a petrol car, simply because I only
do short journeys and the obligatory carbon filter would probably get
bunged up. I don't particularly relish having to drive an unnecessary
and longish journey, weekly, simply to clear it.

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.

They consume urea.

Which need regular topping up.

the need to have a little pot that you **** in

tim