On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:12:12 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
fred wrote:
Over the last 10-12 years I've had 4 BMW 7 series. Petrol and diesel.
Petrol got 22-26 mpg.

You didn't do much town/heavy traffic driving then?

--
*Save the whale - I'll have it for my supper*

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

Dailty commute is a mixture of 20% A roads balance city, The motorway bit is just like city driving due to nose to tail stop start traffice most of the way.

With petrol on a long journey with extreme economy style driving I could get 26-28mpg but it was too painful. With diesel self imposed economy type driving produces very little difference over the computers economy style, (I can select economy style from the computer programme instead of comfort, extra comfort, sport or madness)

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 12:13:50 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs, 32
mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of
which
makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I have one car that costs nothing to run in Summer.

really?

summer driving doesn't wear out your tyres (or accumulate miles towards the
next service)

Neat!

tim

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 07:02:09 UTC, fred wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 1:31:33 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/03/17 12:19, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 11:54, fred wrote:
If someones else was buying the fuel I would prefer petrol but having
said that driving diesel is no hardship.


I much prefer diesel - I like the low down torque.

With an auto box who's noticing?

I dont have a real preference.


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

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

There is a difference. Petrol is much smoother and the torque curve is different. Even with and 8 speed auto the difference is noticeable. On paper 0-60 acceleration times may be similar but on the road the difference is noticeable

Electric cars are far better than either.

On 05/03/2017 17:16, wrote:
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 15:13:13 UTC, Another John wrote:
In article ,
"tim..." wrote:

"TheChief" wrote in message
news Hi all

I have been looking at cars today with a view to replacing my
aging Focus.
I have found that the vast majority of mid range cars are that
spawn of Satan known as diesels.

I've just had a thought are you talking about 2nd hand?

well there's a reason for there being an excess of diesels on the market
it's the same one that's causing you not to want to buy one.

Quite. It was on 25th February that Transport Minister Chris Grayling
said:

"People should take a long, hard think about what they need, about where
theyıre going to be driving, and should make best endeavours to buy the
least polluting vehicle they can.
I donıt think diesel is going to disappear but someone who is buying a
car to drive around a busy city may think about buying a low-emission
vehicle rather than a diesel."

That's what he said (apparently). But it was *universally* headlined in
the media, including the now-tabloid BBC outlets, as "Think twice before
buying a diesel, Transport Minister warns"

Thus, at one stroke, ****ing up the car market for millions of diesel
owners.

(As you might guess) I have recently bought a diesel (63-reg Skoda Yeti
--- for the OP 'The Chief': it's damn' good might I add). It's a 2.0l
TDI, 110bhp.

After a lifetime of avoiding diesel because I don't like the noise, and
I like even less the stink, of exhaust and fuel alike.

However I bought this one precisely because of the gist of this thread:
diesels are very hard indeed to avoid. "And anyway: they're much, much
better than they ever were," to quote owners, manufacturers, and dealers
for the last decade or so.

But now Grayling wades in, with his size 14s. There has *never been a
mention* of making allowances for modern engines, with their particulate
filters, and their engine management, in contrast to the guy at the end
of our street who has been driving a clapped out transit since about
1992.

I would suggest that by far the vast bulk of diesel pollution in London
(which is where this all kicked off, of course) is caused by the
thousands of clapped out vehicles that are still driving around (or
sitting around, engines running).

If Chris Grayling wants to do something serious about car pollution, he
should *very forcefully* tighten up the MOT, *and all its testers*.

Diesel John

Afaik vehicle pollution isn't killing people here - it may be a different story in the developing world, but not here. So the best vehicles pollution-wise in the UK are the high mpg achieving ones, which generally means diesel. Having driven modern diesels they're great, I'd choose them over petrols any time.


Do you have a source for that information? I thought in the UK's cities
it's a problem, *causing* many thousands of premature deaths:

https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO...llution-london

Has there been a recent counter to that study (and many like it)?

The government of course is as lost as usual.


They know exactly what they're doing.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 08:46:19 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 05/03/2017 17:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 15:13:13 UTC, Another John wrote:
In article ,
"tim..." wrote:

"TheChief" wrote in message
news Hi all

I have been looking at cars today with a view to replacing my
aging Focus.
I have found that the vast majority of mid range cars are that
spawn of Satan known as diesels.

I've just had a thought are you talking about 2nd hand?

well there's a reason for there being an excess of diesels on the market
it's the same one that's causing you not to want to buy one.

Quite. It was on 25th February that Transport Minister Chris Grayling
said:

"People should take a long, hard think about what they need, about where
theyıre going to be driving, and should make best endeavours to buy the
least polluting vehicle they can.
I donıt think diesel is going to disappear but someone who is buying a
car to drive around a busy city may think about buying a low-emission
vehicle rather than a diesel."

That's what he said (apparently). But it was *universally* headlined in
the media, including the now-tabloid BBC outlets, as "Think twice before
buying a diesel, Transport Minister warns"

Thus, at one stroke, ****ing up the car market for millions of diesel
owners.

(As you might guess) I have recently bought a diesel (63-reg Skoda Yeti
--- for the OP 'The Chief': it's damn' good might I add). It's a 2.0l
TDI, 110bhp.

After a lifetime of avoiding diesel because I don't like the noise, and
I like even less the stink, of exhaust and fuel alike.

However I bought this one precisely because of the gist of this thread:
diesels are very hard indeed to avoid. "And anyway: they're much, much
better than they ever were," to quote owners, manufacturers, and dealers
for the last decade or so.

But now Grayling wades in, with his size 14s. There has *never been a
mention* of making allowances for modern engines, with their particulate
filters, and their engine management, in contrast to the guy at the end
of our street who has been driving a clapped out transit since about
1992.

I would suggest that by far the vast bulk of diesel pollution in London
(which is where this all kicked off, of course) is caused by the
thousands of clapped out vehicles that are still driving around (or
sitting around, engines running).

If Chris Grayling wants to do something serious about car pollution, he
should *very forcefully* tighten up the MOT, *and all its testers*.

Diesel John

Afaik vehicle pollution isn't killing people here - it may be a different story in the developing world, but not here. So the best vehicles pollution-wise in the UK are the high mpg achieving ones, which generally means diesel. Having driven modern diesels they're great, I'd choose them over petrols any time.


Do you have a source for that information? I thought in the UK's cities
it's a problem, *causing* many thousands of premature deaths:

https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO...llution-london

Has there been a recent counter to that study (and many like it)?

The government of course is as lost as usual.


They know exactly what they're doing.

What happens in London is not what happens in the rest of the country.


NT

On 06/03/17 20:30, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/03/2017 06:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lean burn stopped because of NOx emissions.

Diesels are lean unless on full throttle - and they have oxidising cats
to sort that out. Why couldn't that work on a petrol?


It does and it did but you end up with NOX just like you do on a diesel.

I guess its harder to cheat with a petrol

Andy


--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 06/03/17 20:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/03/2017 12:01, NY wrote:
Even if diesels were not more economical, I'd still go for one because
they are nicer to drive: more torque means you aren't having to change
down so far every time you come to a roundabout in order to have enough
acceleration to get back to your former speed after the roundabout.

Even though diesels are more economical, I won't go for one because they
are so horrible to drive: Peak power is at such low revs you're always
changing gear, and there's that turbo lag so nothing happens for a bit
after you put your foot down.

My petrol car will amble along in top at 30MPH (1500RPM) on the flat. Or
I could rev the nuts off it, and be in 1st at the same speed.

Obviously our experiences are different.

Andy
My diesel pulls from 600-4000 rpm. A petrol would pull from 1200-8000 rpm

No flipping difference if the gear ratios are adjusted..


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 05/03/2017 13:25, tim... wrote:


"TheChief" wrote in message
news
Hi all

I have been looking at cars today with a view to replacing my
aging Focus.
I have found that the vast majority of mid range cars are that
spawn of Satan known as diesels.

seriously?

can you really not get every step on the ladder in a choice of either
petrol or diesel

tim



The model I was looking for 1.5 Ecoboost petrol seems exceedingly rare.
Couple that with the estate requirement and rocking horse doodoo just
about sums it all up.

Phil

In article ,
fred wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:12:12 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
fred wrote:
Over the last 10-12 years I've had 4 BMW 7 series. Petrol and diesel.
Petrol got 22-26 mpg.

You didn't do much town/heavy traffic driving then?

Dailty commute is a mixture of 20% A roads balance city, The motorway
bit is just like city driving due to nose to tail stop start traffice
most of the way.

With petrol on a long journey with extreme economy style driving I could
get 26-28mpg but it was too painful. With diesel self imposed economy
type driving produces very little difference over the computers economy
style, (I can select economy style from the computer programme instead
of comfort, extra comfort, sport or madness)

I had an E39 petrol 5 speed auto. 2.8 litres. London only MPG never got
near 20 mpg. Motorway use keeping to just under 80, 32 mpg. Driven gently
on A roads, I've seen nearer 40 mpg. But not how you'd normally drive.

This is the snag with quoting mpg. No two drivers are the same, and no two
roads either.

--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

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

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 12:13:50 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs, 32
mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of
which
makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I have one car that costs nothing to run in Summer.

really?

summer driving doesn't wear out your tyres (or accumulate miles towards
the next service)

Neat!

The harry principle - very common with others too - of taking fuel costs
as the only one with a car. When depreciation can be the biggest one. Or
in his case, the cost of a new battery.

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

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

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


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 12:13:50 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs,
32
mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of
which
makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I have one car that costs nothing to run in Summer.

really?

summer driving doesn't wear out your tyres (or accumulate miles towards
the next service)

Neat!

The harry principle - very common with others too - of taking fuel costs
as the only one with a car. When depreciation can be the biggest one.

to be fair:

depreciation accrues with time

not miles driven (unless well outside of the normal range - either end of
the curve)

tim

On 06/03/2017 21:02, Tim+ wrote:
My petrol car will amble along in top at 30MPH (1500RPM) on the flat.
I think thats about 70 mph in my car. Yours must be horridly frenetic at
any speed.

It's geared to red line at max speed. 70MPH is under half revs. For some
engines that might be frenetic.

As I say, the diesel's I've driven must be different to yours.

Andy

On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:28:21 +0000, tim... wrote:

as the only one with a car. When depreciation can be the biggest one.

to be fair:

depreciation accrues with time

not miles driven (unless well outside of the normal range - either end
of the curve)

If you use any of the car price guides, they'll give you an adjustment
factor (+ve or -ve) for each 1000 miles (or whetever) that the milegae
differs from a nominal annual one. Works anywhere on the curve.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article , Tim+
wrote:

Another John wrote:

...After a lifetime of avoiding diesel because I don't like the noise, and
I like even less the stink, of exhaust and fuel alike.

However I bought this one precisely because of the gist of this thread:
diesels are very hard indeed to avoid. "And anyway: they're much, much
better than they ever were," to quote owners, manufacturers, and dealers
for the last decade or so.

Ha! I bet you believe in the tooth fairy too. ;-)

Yes, in terms of power, smoothness, noise, economy etc. they are very good
now, especially the VW ones. If there is one lesson to be learned from
"Dieselgate" though it's that in real world terms (from the pollution POV),
they all still suck mightily.

Trouble is, who to believe over which is cleaner? Setting standard tests
does nothing to make engines cleaner in everyday driving, it just makes
manufacturers better at making engines that pass one-off tests.



But now Grayling wades in, with his size 14s. There has *never been a
mention* of making allowances for modern engines, with their particulate
filters, and their engine management, in contrast to the guy at the end
of our street who has been driving a clapped out transit since about
1992.

I believe that the "failing" VWs all had particulate filters. They help,
but how much in real world driving?


I would suggest that by far the vast bulk of diesel pollution in London
(which is where this all kicked off, of course) is caused by the
thousands of clapped out vehicles that are still driving around (or
sitting around, engines running).

If Chris Grayling wants to do something serious about car pollution, he
should *very forcefully* tighten up the MOT, *and all its testers*.

Probably wouldn't help much as the standards for MOT don't bear much
relationship to real world conditions.
Setting much higher standards would probably have every three year old
diesel failing.

Blimey Tim I was on the point of saying "I agree with all you say",
which would have been a first!, but happy to say on that last point ...

I meant to say that they should enforce the MOT as it stands, not
necessarily set higher standards: there are hundreds of thousands of
vehicles on the roads which cannot possibly have passed an ordinary MOT
in the last year -- bangers in other words.
Not to mention commercial and public service vehicles, many of which
seem to be *exempt* from emissions standards! It's *there* where the
urban pollution problem lies.

John

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Of course I blame the voters....

IN the EU, there are no voters.

There's another bloody first for me today: I agree with something that
TNP says on the EU!

And I'm a Remainer, or Remoaner as they like to call us, because it's
the kind of pithy, totally inaccurate, talk that they can understand.
{wait wait wait TNP -- let's take this outside, let's not start fighting
in the pub and disturb everyone else!)

John

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/17 22:36, Tim Streater wrote:

Doesn't exist any more - the working class I mean.


Of course they do. How else would you classify a bloke who works in say
a distribution depot on minimum wage (or less if it's some joker of a
company that does "security checks" on your time, not theirs) and
struggles to make ends meet?

[ Flippin eck: I agree with TNP again!! ]

The working class of old were all you say, Tim, but they were prepared
to do something about it (like: think. Like: VOTE).

The modern "working class" are far more interested in being consumers of
whatever overpriced ****e that the corporate billionaires push down
their throats, having told them, via the media, wholly owned by their
chums, that this is something they want/need.

A minority of the old Working Class still exist: they run the big
Unions, and they are as much stuck in the 70s as that long-haired hippy
who lives in my neighbourhood. .... except he doesn't do anyone any harm.

John

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs, 32
mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of which
makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I'd like to know speeds, when people quote MPG. It's very hard (I find)
not to do 80-85 on motorway runs (which are the favourite for good MPG).
The higher speeds would surely negate MPG gains?

(I'm not getting better than about 52mpg on the 300 mile run to Kent
from 't'North.)

John

On 07/03/2017 10:08, wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 08:46:19 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 05/03/2017 17:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 15:13:13 UTC, Another John wrote:
In article ,
"tim..." wrote:

"TheChief" wrote in message
news Hi all

I have been looking at cars today with a view to replacing my
aging Focus.
I have found that the vast majority of mid range cars are that
spawn of Satan known as diesels.

I've just had a thought are you talking about 2nd hand?

well there's a reason for there being an excess of diesels on the market
it's the same one that's causing you not to want to buy one.

Quite. It was on 25th February that Transport Minister Chris Grayling
said:

"People should take a long, hard think about what they need, about where
theyıre going to be driving, and should make best endeavours to buy the
least polluting vehicle they can.
I donıt think diesel is going to disappear but someone who is buying a
car to drive around a busy city may think about buying a low-emission
vehicle rather than a diesel."

That's what he said (apparently). But it was *universally* headlined in
the media, including the now-tabloid BBC outlets, as "Think twice before
buying a diesel, Transport Minister warns"

Thus, at one stroke, ****ing up the car market for millions of diesel
owners.

(As you might guess) I have recently bought a diesel (63-reg Skoda Yeti
--- for the OP 'The Chief': it's damn' good might I add). It's a 2.0l
TDI, 110bhp.

After a lifetime of avoiding diesel because I don't like the noise, and
I like even less the stink, of exhaust and fuel alike.

However I bought this one precisely because of the gist of this thread:
diesels are very hard indeed to avoid. "And anyway: they're much, much
better than they ever were," to quote owners, manufacturers, and dealers
for the last decade or so.

But now Grayling wades in, with his size 14s. There has *never been a
mention* of making allowances for modern engines, with their particulate
filters, and their engine management, in contrast to the guy at the end
of our street who has been driving a clapped out transit since about
1992.

I would suggest that by far the vast bulk of diesel pollution in London
(which is where this all kicked off, of course) is caused by the
thousands of clapped out vehicles that are still driving around (or
sitting around, engines running).

If Chris Grayling wants to do something serious about car pollution, he
should *very forcefully* tighten up the MOT, *and all its testers*.

Diesel John

Afaik vehicle pollution isn't killing people here - it may be a different story in the developing world, but not here. So the best vehicles pollution-wise in the UK are the high mpg achieving ones, which generally means diesel. Having driven modern diesels they're great, I'd choose them over petrols any time.


Do you have a source for that information? I thought in the UK's cities
it's a problem, *causing* many thousands of premature deaths:

https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO...llution-london

Has there been a recent counter to that study (and many like it)?

The government of course is as lost as usual.


They know exactly what they're doing.

What happens in London is not what happens in the rest of the country.


Vehicle pollution happens in every UK urban area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35629034


--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
wrote:

What happens in London is not what happens in the rest of the country.

With all due respect, that's exactly wrong! Unfortunately the UK is now
so deeply London-centric that "they" assume that anything that happens
there happens everywhere, and legislate accordingly.

Even when MPs venture back to their constituencies, they're (mostly)
locked in their little hermetically sealed Westminster capsules,
surrounded by their familiar little coteries of aides and 'researchers'.

J.

In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs,
32 mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of
which makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I'd like to know speeds, when people quote MPG. It's very hard (I find)
not to do 80-85 on motorway runs (which are the favourite for good MPG).
The higher speeds would surely negate MPG gains?

while the engine might like you doing 80mph, the wind resistance goes up as
a square function, so is considerably greater at higher speeds.

(I'm not getting better than about 52mpg on the 300 mile run to Kent
from 't'North.)

John

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

What happens in London is not what happens in the rest of the country.

With all due respect, that's exactly wrong! Unfortunately the UK is now
so deeply London-centric that "they" assume that anything that happens
there happens everywhere, and legislate accordingly.

we go back to TW3's "The whole of Britain was hit by blizzards. Here is a
picture of snow outside the newsroom window". And that was 50 years ago -
it's got worse.

Even when MPs venture back to their constituencies, they're (mostly)
locked in their little hermetically sealed Westminster capsules,
surrounded by their familiar little coteries of aides and 'researchers'.

J.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 08/03/17 18:54, charles wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs,
32 mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of
which makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I'd like to know speeds, when people quote MPG. It's very hard (I find)
not to do 80-85 on motorway runs (which are the favourite for good MPG).
The higher speeds would surely negate MPG gains?

while the engine might like you doing 80mph, the wind resistance goes up as
a square function, so is considerably greater at higher speeds.

So do the new proposed fines

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/776...xt-month-April


(I'm not getting better than about 52mpg on the 300 mile run to Kent
from 't'North.)

John



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 08/03/2017 18:21, Another John wrote:

I meant to say that they should enforce the MOT as it stands, not
necessarily set higher standards: there are hundreds of thousands of
vehicles on the roads which cannot possibly have passed an ordinary MOT
in the last year -- bangers in other words.
Not to mention commercial and public service vehicles, many of which
seem to be *exempt* from emissions standards! It's *there* where the
urban pollution problem lies.

I was stopped in a queue yesterday and a really old bus pulled up next
to me, it had a filler for adblue on it next to the fuel filler.
Obviously an addon rather than being there from new so some companies
are trying to tackle diesel pollution. I don't know if they have to fit
it by law or if the regulatory authority has told them no license if
they don't.

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 14:02:34 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 12:13:50 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs, 32
mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of
which
makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I have one car that costs nothing to run in Summer.

really?

summer driving doesn't wear out your tyres (or accumulate miles towards
the next service)

Neat!

The harry principle - very common with others too - of taking fuel costs
as the only one with a car. When depreciation can be the biggest one. Or
in his case, the cost of a new battery.


There is no oil, oil filters, air filters, clutch, exhaust, gearbox to change. No dynamo/alternator/starter motor.
And the brakes get negligible use.
The only consumable is tyres.

No road tax, subsidised purchase price.
I keep my cars for along time to minimise depreciation and buy them around a year old.

The big snag with electric cars is no ****er knows how to fix them.
Seems to be the same for all manufacturers.

On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 01:00:55 -0800, harry wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 14:02:34 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 12:13:50 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long
runs, 32 mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the
addition of which makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon
next month so that should be interesting.

I have one car that costs nothing to run in Summer.

really?

summer driving doesn't wear out your tyres (or accumulate miles
towards the next service)

Neat!

The harry principle - very common with others too - of taking fuel
costs as the only one with a car. When depreciation can be the biggest
one. Or in his case, the cost of a new battery.


There is no oil, oil filters, air filters, clutch, exhaust, gearbox to
change. No dynamo/alternator/starter motor.
And the brakes get negligible use.
The only consumable is tyres.

I notice you conveniently omitted the battery. Not to mention things such
as wheel bearings.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
The harry principle - very common with others too - of taking fuel
costs as the only one with a car. When depreciation can be the biggest
one. Or in his case, the cost of a new battery.


There is no oil, oil filters, air filters, clutch, exhaust, gearbox to
change. No dynamo/alternator/starter motor.
And the brakes get negligible use.
The only consumable is tyres.

I notice you conveniently omitted the battery. Not to mention things
such as wheel bearings.

And, of course, that electric motor(s) and control gear. And the heating
and cooling systems. And so on. Electrics are often the most troublesome
thing on any car - and this has lots of them, but different.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

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

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 11:09:48 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
The harry principle - very common with others too - of taking fuel
costs as the only one with a car. When depreciation can be the biggest
one. Or in his case, the cost of a new battery.


There is no oil, oil filters, air filters, clutch, exhaust, gearbox to
change. No dynamo/alternator/starter motor.
And the brakes get negligible use.
The only consumable is tyres.

I notice you conveniently omitted the battery. Not to mention things
such as wheel bearings.

And, of course, that electric motor(s) and control gear. And the heating
and cooling systems. And so on. Electrics are often the most troublesome
thing on any car - and this has lots of them, but different.

I didn't mention windscreen wipers either.

In article , Bob Eager
writes
On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 21:02:20 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/03/2017 12:01, NY wrote:
Even if diesels were not more economical, I'd still go for one because
they are nicer to drive: more torque means you aren't having to change
down so far every time you come to a roundabout in order to have
enough acceleration to get back to your former speed after the
roundabout.

Even though diesels are more economical, I won't go for one because
they are so horrible to drive: Peak power is at such low revs you're
always changing gear, and there's that turbo lag so nothing happens for
a bit after you put your foot down.

Sorry, but you're just showing off your lack of experience. I can
assure you that my wife's 150bhp 2L diesel is really quite fun to drive.
The engine is smooth and willing. Of course it doesn't rev like a petrol
engine but if you're trying to rev a diesel like a petrol engine, you're
just driving it wrong.

I too have a 150PS 2 litre diesel - quite a heavy car (5/7 seater). And
it too is quite fun to drive. I have driven a *lot* of vehicles, and I
was pleasantly surprised when I got my first diesel about 4 years ago.
This is the second, and even better.

Only downside is that I managed to mis-fuel the first one TWICE - the
second time defeating a Fuel Angel that I'd fitted!



My son has a BMW 2L twin turbo 520 M Sport Diesel Goes like the
proverbial sh** off the shovel - and it's an auto
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 06/03/17 12:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs, 32
mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of which
makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

My 4WD auto diesel freelander 1 gets around 38 on a run and as low as
27 round town.

My 4 litre V8 Defender petrol did about 11 mpg normal running about,
about 16 on a good steady motorway run at about 65-70
Mind you, its better than a supercharged jaguar, which averaged 11mpg
(and about 11mph) from Apex corner to Putney Bridge one day.

London should be ethnically cleansed.




--
bert

In article , tim...
writes


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 12:13:50 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/03/17 09:45, tim... wrote:

[1] my own figures for when I ran a diesel was 66 mpg on long runs, 32
mpg for town driving - this predated turbo diesel, the addition of
which
makes the numbers a bit closer

My car is horrible around town (26 mpg) but I have a run to Devon next
month so that should be interesting.

I have one car that costs nothing to run in Summer.

really?

summer driving doesn't wear out your tyres (or accumulate miles towards
the next service)

Neat!

tim


And everyone else pays for his fuel.
--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

On 05/03/17 19:37, ARW wrote:
On 05/03/2017 19:30, Tim Watts wrote:

I really think the gov has absolutely no idea what they are doing.

I would not be surprised if you were correct.

Of course I blame the voters....



That and the fact that there are few politicians of calibre any more -
just careerists.

Labour has been taken over (again) by wet liberal types who would
rather solve non problems as long as they can add the label
"diversity" to it - fiddling whilst Rome burns. Corbyn is a joke - a
caricature of Lenin without the character.

He's good at ranting to a crowd but is not a leader.

What happened to the proper Labour party as started by Kier Hardy,
when the remit was to represent the working man?

Doesn't exist any more - the working class I mean.

I always recall the TV program made by John Prescot when he went off to
find the modern day working class
Prescot to young single mother in street
Are you working class?
Response
Oh no, I don't work.
--
bert

In article , Another John
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/17 22:36, Tim Streater wrote:

Doesn't exist any more - the working class I mean.


Of course they do. How else would you classify a bloke who works in say
a distribution depot on minimum wage (or less if it's some joker of a
company that does "security checks" on your time, not theirs) and
struggles to make ends meet?

[ Flippin eck: I agree with TNP again!! ]

The working class of old were all you say, Tim, but they were prepared
to do something about it (like: think. Like: VOTE).

The modern "working class" are far more interested in being consumers of
whatever overpriced ****e that the corporate billionaires push down
their throats, having told them, via the media, wholly owned by their
chums, that this is something they want/need.

A minority of the old Working Class still exist: they run the big
Unions, and they are as much stuck in the 70s as that long-haired hippy
who lives in my neighbourhood. .... except he doesn't do anyone any harm.

John
The big unions of today merely represent public sector employees who in
the 60s and 70s were regarded as a bit of a joke by the real unions e.g.
NUM
--
bert

In article , Another John
writes
In article , Tim+
wrote:

Another John wrote:

...After a lifetime of avoiding diesel because I don't like the noise, and
I like even less the stink, of exhaust and fuel alike.

However I bought this one precisely because of the gist of this thread:
diesels are very hard indeed to avoid. "And anyway: they're much, much
better than they ever were," to quote owners, manufacturers, and dealers
for the last decade or so.

Ha! I bet you believe in the tooth fairy too. ;-)

Yes, in terms of power, smoothness, noise, economy etc. they are very good
now, especially the VW ones. If there is one lesson to be learned from
"Dieselgate" though it's that in real world terms (from the pollution POV),
they all still suck mightily.

Trouble is, who to believe over which is cleaner? Setting standard tests
does nothing to make engines cleaner in everyday driving, it just makes
manufacturers better at making engines that pass one-off tests.



But now Grayling wades in, with his size 14s. There has *never been a
mention* of making allowances for modern engines, with their particulate
filters, and their engine management, in contrast to the guy at the end
of our street who has been driving a clapped out transit since about
1992.

I believe that the "failing" VWs all had particulate filters. They help,
but how much in real world driving?


I would suggest that by far the vast bulk of diesel pollution in London
(which is where this all kicked off, of course) is caused by the
thousands of clapped out vehicles that are still driving around (or
sitting around, engines running).

If Chris Grayling wants to do something serious about car pollution, he
should *very forcefully* tighten up the MOT, *and all its testers*.

Probably wouldn't help much as the standards for MOT don't bear much
relationship to real world conditions.
Setting much higher standards would probably have every three year old
diesel failing.

Blimey Tim I was on the point of saying "I agree with all you say",
which would have been a first!, but happy to say on that last point ...

I meant to say that they should enforce the MOT as it stands, not
necessarily set higher standards: there are hundreds of thousands of
vehicles on the roads which cannot possibly have passed an ordinary MOT
in the last year -- bangers in other words.
Not to mention commercial and public service vehicles, many of which
seem to be *exempt* from emissions standards! It's *there* where the
urban pollution problem lies.

John
Buses in cities should be on CNG
--
bert

On Friday, 10 March 2017 20:17:15 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , Another John
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/17 22:36, Tim Streater wrote:

Doesn't exist any more - the working class I mean.


Of course they do. How else would you classify a bloke who works in say
a distribution depot on minimum wage (or less if it's some joker of a
company that does "security checks" on your time, not theirs) and
struggles to make ends meet?

[ Flippin eck: I agree with TNP again!! ]

The working class of old were all you say, Tim, but they were prepared
to do something about it (like: think. Like: VOTE).

The modern "working class" are far more interested in being consumers of
whatever overpriced ****e that the corporate billionaires push down
their throats, having told them, via the media, wholly owned by their
chums, that this is something they want/need.

A minority of the old Working Class still exist: they run the big
Unions, and they are as much stuck in the 70s as that long-haired hippy
who lives in my neighbourhood. .... except he doesn't do anyone any harm.

John
The big unions of today merely represent public sector employees who in
the 60s and 70s were regarded as a bit of a joke by the real unions e.g.
NUM
--
bert

Mining WAS public sector back then.