In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-10-03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:23:59 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

If you wish to confuse the issue with questions like that, go ahead.

The car does, however, remain in the so-called "cheat mode",
permanently.

Then it's wrongly named. As it is no longer cheating.

If you like, but isn't it better to try to clarify what's actually
happening rather than score useless points over the wording?

Look who you're arguing with ........

At least he's happy to discuss things rather than just hurl insults around.
But then that never was your way.

--
*I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.

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

"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby which
needs to go under - preferably six feet.

On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

On 03/10/15 17:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should
pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

Actually it has, the whole drive to lean burn diesels was to meet CO2
emissions reductions. OK CO2 doesn't change the climate, but the
recieved wisdom is that it does.


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 03/10/2015 19:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 17:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being
tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should
pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting
worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

Actually it has, the whole drive to lean burn diesels was to meet CO2
emissions reductions. OK CO2 doesn't change the climate, but the
recieved wisdom is that it does.




Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 17:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being
tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should
pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting
worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

Actually it has, the whole drive to lean burn diesels was to meet CO2
emissions reductions. OK CO2 doesn't change the climate, but the
recieved wisdom is that it does.




Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 02/10/2015 19:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:05:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

T he normal mode was high emissions. The cheat mode, test passing.

Precisely.

Then there wouldn't be much point in removing what you wittily describe
as "cheat mode", would there. AISB, that is the mode that will be
extended to cover ordinary use.

Or you remove "cheat mode", retest a sample of affected vehicles in
"ordinary use mode" and re-write the spec and change VED band if
required for new vehicles.


That's my reading, except I would expect cars affected won't be
reclassified as second hand values would fall.

An utterly pointless exercise, and VW come out of it as the
naive/bumbling. But basically intact.

That's what happens when you have the motoring and petrochemical
industries in league with government.

They are hardly in league with the govt when the govt has chosen
to impose emission standards on the industry that are so difficult
to comply with that operations like VW choose to use that cheat.

On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 17:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being
tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should
pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling
with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting
worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

Actually it has, the whole drive to lean burn diesels was to meet CO2
emissions reductions. OK CO2 doesn't change the climate, but the
recieved wisdom is that it does.




Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under.

Maybe, but its far from clear that that would be good for car consumers.

But the government should take a hit too.

Like hell they should. They were the ones that imposed very stringent
emission standards in an attempt to do something about the smog
and health problems that vehicle emissions produce.

Yes, it would have been better if they had themselves done
some real world testing of the kind that did expose the
scam, but it isn't even possible to make govts take any hit
when they didn’t. A demand for that is just naïve silly stuff.

On 03/10/15 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 17:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being
tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels
for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should
pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties
too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling
with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting
worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a
hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change
lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

Actually it has, the whole drive to lean burn diesels was to meet CO2
emissions reductions. OK CO2 doesn't change the climate, but the
recieved wisdom is that it does.




Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason the diesels emit crap is so
as to cause health problems?


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 02/10/2015 19:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:05:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

T he normal mode was high emissions. The cheat mode, test passing.

Precisely.

Then there wouldn't be much point in removing what you wittily describe
as "cheat mode", would there. AISB, that is the mode that will be
extended to cover ordinary use.

Or you remove "cheat mode", retest a sample of affected vehicles in
"ordinary use mode" and re-write the spec and change VED band if
required for new vehicles.


That's my reading, except I would expect cars affected won't be
reclassified as second hand values would fall.

An utterly pointless exercise, and VW come out of it as the
naive/bumbling. But basically intact.

That's what happens when you have the motoring and petrochemical
industries in league with government.

In league with the EU, which is where all this came from.


Must explain why the problem showed up in America.

On 03/10/2015 20:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 17:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being
tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much
crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels
for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should
pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when
it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties
too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling
with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting
worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a
hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change
lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

Actually it has, the whole drive to lean burn diesels was to meet CO2
emissions reductions. OK CO2 doesn't change the climate, but the
recieved wisdom is that it does.




Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason the diesels emit crap is so
as to cause health problems?



Are you seriously asking that question?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass
a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

The whole 'cleaning up emissions' business has everything to do with the
climate change lobby.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

It isn't climate change that is the reason for the emission standards for
diesels.

On 03/10/15 21:30, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 20:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:

Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason the diesels emit crap is so
as to cause health problems?



Are you seriously asking that question?

Well yes., since that is essentially what you seem to be claiming
ME: "Yes but the reason it is emitted, is."
YOU: No, its because of the health problems caused."

Perhaps English isn't a language you know well.

--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested
so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass
a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting
worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

The whole 'cleaning up emissions' business has everything to do with the
climate change lobby.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually managed.

That happened LONG before climate change.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 03/10/15 21:30, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 20:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:

Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason the diesels emit crap is so
as to cause health problems?



Are you seriously asking that question?

Well yes., since that is essentially what you seem to be claiming
ME: "Yes but the reason it is emitted, is."
YOU: No, its because of the health problems caused."

Perhaps English isn't a language you know well.

There was an article in the Telegraph, Monday 28th. Sept. (doctors
diary, James Le Fanu) saying that NOX is not as hazardous as claimed.
Pointing up the lack of proper studies and claiming that 3 hours of
running a diesel engine creates as much particulate matter as a single
cigarette....


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Richard wrote:
This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

The whole 'cleaning up emissions' business has everything to do with the
climate change lobby.

Total ********.

In the UK, it started off with banning the burning of coal in domestic
fires because of smog in London. Long before 'climate change' had been
invented.

Control of vehicle emissions started off in California - again for local
air quality reasons.

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

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

On 04/10/15 10:24, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 03/10/15 21:30, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 20:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:

Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason the diesels emit crap is so
as to cause health problems?



Are you seriously asking that question?

Well yes., since that is essentially what you seem to be claiming
ME: "Yes but the reason it is emitted, is."
YOU: No, its because of the health problems caused."

Perhaps English isn't a language you know well.

There was an article in the Telegraph, Monday 28th. Sept. (doctors
diary, James Le Fanu) saying that NOX is not as hazardous as claimed.
Pointing up the lack of proper studies and claiming that 3 hours of
running a diesel engine creates as much particulate matter as a single
cigarette....


particulates are not NOx

It definitely IS nasty - I always got itchy eyes and a cough after an
M25 run post 1990 or thereabouts.



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 04/10/2015 10:24, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 03/10/15 21:30, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 20:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:

Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason the diesels emit crap is so
as to cause health problems?



Are you seriously asking that question?

Well yes., since that is essentially what you seem to be claiming
ME: "Yes but the reason it is emitted, is."
YOU: No, its because of the health problems caused."

Perhaps English isn't a language you know well.

There was an article in the Telegraph, Monday 28th. Sept. (doctors
diary, James Le Fanu) saying that NOX is not as hazardous as claimed.
Pointing up the lack of proper studies and claiming that 3 hours of
running a diesel engine creates as much particulate matter as a single
cigarette....

What size are the particulates?
We already know smokers are a hazard to health and have known so for at
least 50 years. Its about time there were limits put on them.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 04/10/15 10:24, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 03/10/15 21:30, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 20:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 19:08, dennis@home wrote:

Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Yes but the reason it is emitted, is.



No, its because of the health problems caused.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason the diesels emit crap is so
as to cause health problems?



Are you seriously asking that question?

Well yes., since that is essentially what you seem to be claiming
ME: "Yes but the reason it is emitted, is."
YOU: No, its because of the health problems caused."

Perhaps English isn't a language you know well.

There was an article in the Telegraph, Monday 28th. Sept. (doctors
diary, James Le Fanu) saying that NOX is not as hazardous as claimed.
Pointing up the lack of proper studies and claiming that 3 hours of
running a diesel engine creates as much particulate matter as a single
cigarette....


particulates are not NOx

Even I know that:-)

It definitely IS nasty - I always got itchy eyes and a cough after an
M25 run post 1990 or thereabouts.

Perhaps the post lead fuel formulation?

Just seems a huge fuss if there are no studies to base it on. He does
admit that asthma sufferers are most likely to be affected.

--
Tim Lamb

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:43:35 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:


The whole 'cleaning up emissions' business has everything to do with the
climate change lobby.

You may be right if you are including all the emissions but I thought
this subject referred to oxides of nitrogen, I also thought the
particular significant one was nitrogen dioxide, which has an acrid
smell and is implicated in asthma problems. As it cools it is in
equilibrium with N2O4.

It is these components of exhaust that combine with other chemicals in
sunlight to form a photochemical smog in hot places like california.

I also thought it less of a problem in UK where rainfall is high
enough to wash these nitrogen compounds out as nitrous and nitric acid
(which is a fertiliser in these low dilutions we used it added to
irrigation water for ericaceous plants to counteract the calcium which
made the water alkaline) and there is not enough sunlight to cause the
problem experienced elsewhere.

So while NOx emissions in towns and cities can cause health problems
it is insignificant in the countryside other than making grass grow
more??

AJH

On 04/10/2015 16:03, wrote:


It is these components of exhaust that combine with other chemicals in
sunlight to form a photochemical smog in hot places like california.

I also thought it less of a problem in UK where rainfall is high
enough to wash these nitrogen compounds out as nitrous and nitric acid
(which is a fertiliser in these low dilutions we used it added to
irrigation water for ericaceous plants to counteract the calcium which
made the water alkaline) and there is not enough sunlight to cause the
problem experienced elsewhere.

Sometimes you can see the smog in UK cities.
There is more than enough sun to cause problems.

In article ,
wrote:
The whole 'cleaning up emissions' business has everything to do with
the climate change lobby.

You may be right

No he's not. If you accept the climate change thing, it's said to be
caused by CO2 emissions (greenhouse gas). And many of the emission control
systems on cars increase their CO2 production, not reduce it.

Emission control on cars is about reducing the pollutants which are
directly harmful to humans.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

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

On 03/10/2015 19:08, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 19:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/10/15 17:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/10/2015 16:13, Richard wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message ...

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being
tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as
they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should
pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's
said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting
worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they
should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit
too.

FFS, you and Dennis need to get a grip. It is the climate change lobby
which needs to go under - preferably six feet.

This has nothing to do with climate change you idiot.

Actually it has, the whole drive to lean burn diesels was to meet CO2
emissions reductions. OK CO2 doesn't change the climate, but the
recieved wisdom is that it does.




Actually it hasn't the cr@p emitted doesn't do much to the climate.

Without the CC agenda forcing adaptation of diesel cars (by government
social engineering via the tax system), we would still be back much
closer to the point where 90% of the uk car fleet stock was petrol
engined, rather than the 40% it is now.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Without the CC agenda forcing adaptation of diesel cars (by government
social engineering via the tax system), we would still be back much
closer to the point where 90% of the uk car fleet stock was petrol
engined, rather than the 40% it is now.

I doubt it. Diesels generally give considerably better MPG than petrol on
a commute. So cheaper to run even when diesel cost more than petrol.

At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

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

In article , MM
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:21:34 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , MM
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:31:35 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:08:55 +0100, MM wrote:

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First,
it's cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave
me £3000 for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's
all I need as a runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much.

So why on earth buy a new car? What did your last one have on it -
20k miles?

Peace of mind. New cars tend not to go wrong.

I've had 2 that have failed early in their life: Cortina III
alternator died when the car was about 9 months old leaving wife
stranded on the M1.

Not an Alto, then!

Current Mazda 6 - exhaust gas sensor failure leaving me stranded on the
M6/

Not an Alto, then!

By the way, re the Cortina, when I worked at Ford-Werke, customers always
wanted a Capri built in Germany, not the UK. (You could tell from the
vehicle information plate.)

I doubt if it was because of the build quality - more likely the electrical
componenst which were locally supplied. I had a Lucas headlight relay burn
out. The FoMoCo spare was made by Bosch.

--
Please note new email address:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:21:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
The whole 'cleaning up emissions' business has everything to do with
the climate change lobby.

You may be right

No he's not. If you accept the climate change thing, it's said to be
caused by CO2 emissions (greenhouse gas). And many of the emission control
systems on cars increase their CO2 production, not reduce it.

Emission control on cars is about reducing the pollutants which are
directly harmful to humans.

That was highly selective and disingenuous snipping Dave, I went on to
say just as you do.

The main point being that in the context of the thread VW arranged for
their non adblued engines specifically to show a lower level of
nitrogen oxides when tested compared with normal driving.

My further contention was, and is, that they are a lesser problem in
our climate than in a hot arid one, unless you are preserving
heathland or an aquifer supplying drinking water perhaps.

AJH

On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much the
same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much the
same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Andy


You should try a VW 2.0 tdi engine. Very nice to drive. ;-)

In article , Vir
Campestris writes
On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much
the same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Andy
I think there are. Try a BMW 520 M Sport twin turbo.
--
bert

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means they
are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in
slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much the
same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Particularly the ones that use the same scam that VW has.

On 06/10/15 21:35, bert wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris writes
On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means
they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in
slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much
the same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Andy
I think there are. Try a BMW 520 M Sport twin turbo.

+1.
The most horrible turbodiesel is the ford unit in the Mondeo and IIRC
the Transit. And later Freelanders.

The BMW 2 litre in the earlier Freelander is so much better. Very little
lag and torque is smooth and well maintained up to 4500 rpm, which is
where it tops out.

Skoda diesel also good - is that the VW unit?

I believe the jaguar diesel is also very well sorted.

Variable geometry turbos eliminate the need for twin turbos, and reduce
lag considerably, and there are plenty of tricks you can play to keep
torque flat through a much broader rev band.

However for best results twin turbos are still in vogue/.



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 8:46:41 PM UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much the
same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Andy

I find my astra 2.0 turbo diesel to be much nicer to drive than a standard 2.0 non-turbo petrol (e.g. both in the 150 - 170 BHP range). Turbo lag is there as with any turbo car, but you can give the throttle a blip to wind the turbo up a bit before you pull off.
Power band is a bit narrower (1700 - 4000 RPM) than petrol but the ability to drive in it without revving like a loony is excellent. Makes for a relaxing but "muscular" drive.
You have to be careful to not get stuck below the power band and try to floor it there, else you basically go nowhere until the turbo picks up. That has caught me out a few times, and I would say could actually be dangerous.
Running out of power at the top end has never been an issue for me since I never liked to rev my petrol car up to 6000 RPM to get maximum power anyway, so getting a nice surge of power at 3000 RPM is great.

Of course a 400 BHP turbo petrol is another thing altogether ...

Simon.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:08:51 PM UTC+1, Tim wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much the
same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Andy


You should try a VW 2.0 tdi engine. Very nice to drive. ;-)

I would guess similar to the Astra 2.0 CDTI (165 BHP) ;-)

Simon.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:52:21 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

Turbo lag is there as with any turbo car, but you can give the throttle
a blip to wind the turbo up a bit before you pull off.

Which it won't do, because the volume of exhaust gases when the engine's
off-load won't give any significant boost.

You have to be careful to not get stuck below the power band and try to
floor it there, else you basically go nowhere until the turbo picks up.
That has caught me out a few times, and I would say could actually be
dangerous.

Is there a reason you can't think ahead and change down? Any "danger"
isn't from the turbo's effective range of operation, but from a driver
failing to read the road.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/15 21:35, bert wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris writes
On 05/10/2015 15:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
At one time diesel cars were slow. Modern engine management means
they are
now little different to petrol - but still have an MPG advantage in
slow
moving traffic. The lower VED simply being icing on the cake.

My limited experience of modern diesels is that while they feel much
the same as petrol for a bit you soon realise

- That's because you're driving them on the power band, not the torque
band. Try to drop a gear and nothing happens
- In any case there's horrible turbo lag
- and to round it off the power band is really narrow.

Perhaps some are better than the couple I've tried.

Andy
I think there are. Try a BMW 520 M Sport twin turbo.

+1.
The most horrible turbodiesel is the ford unit in the Mondeo and IIRC
the Transit. And later Freelanders.

The BMW 2 litre in the earlier Freelander is so much better. Very little
lag and torque is smooth and well maintained up to 4500 rpm, which is
where it tops out.

Skoda diesel also good - is that the VW unit?

I believe the jaguar diesel is also very well sorted.

Variable geometry turbos eliminate the need for twin turbos, and reduce
lag considerably, and there are plenty of tricks you can play to keep
torque flat through a much broader rev band.

However for best results twin turbos are still in vogue/.


When did you last drive a Transit? Our motor home has the 140bhp Duratorq
engine. Very nice drive.

Tim

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:15:58 AM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:52:21 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

Turbo lag is there as with any turbo car, but you can give the throttle
a blip to wind the turbo up a bit before you pull off.

Which it won't do, because the volume of exhaust gases when the engine's
off-load won't give any significant boost.

Well it seems to work to some extent ...


You have to be careful to not get stuck below the power band and try to
floor it there, else you basically go nowhere until the turbo picks up.
That has caught me out a few times, and I would say could actually be
dangerous.

Is there a reason you can't think ahead and change down? Any "danger"
isn't from the turbo's effective range of operation, but from a driver
failing to read the road.

Yes of course, a good driver will do that, and I do, but it could catch some people out. And you cannot always predict what will happen, on a roundabout for example.

Simon.

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 01:56:44 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

You have to be careful to not get stuck below the power band and try
to floor it there, else you basically go nowhere until the turbo
picks up.
That has caught me out a few times, and I would say could actually be
dangerous.

Is there a reason you can't think ahead and change down? Any "danger"
isn't from the turbo's effective range of operation, but from a driver
failing to read the road.

Yes of course, a good driver will do that, and I do, but it could catch
some people out. And you cannot always predict what will happen, on a
roundabout for example.

blink Did you really say that?

In message , at 09:28:53 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, Adrian remarked:
You have to be careful to not get stuck below the power band and try
to floor it there, else you basically go nowhere until the turbo
picks up.
That has caught me out a few times, and I would say could actually be
dangerous.

Is there a reason you can't think ahead and change down? Any "danger"
isn't from the turbo's effective range of operation, but from a driver
failing to read the road.

Yes of course, a good driver will do that, and I do, but it could catch
some people out. And you cannot always predict what will happen, on a
roundabout for example.

blink Did you really say that?

My daughter was telling me the other day how one of her friends was on a
driving lesson and as they approached a roundabout he said "turn right",
so she did - straight into the stream of traffic approaching clockwise.

Of course there are at least two roundabouts in the UK where that's
normal - the Swindon Magic Roundabout and its clone in Hemel Hempstead.
I think I saw that the one under the junction where the M40 becomes the
A40 just inside the M25 has been given the same treatment.
--
Roland Perry