|
According to this week's New Scientist, the latest diesels are no less polluting in real world conditions to the ones built around 2005.
So thats a relief, i can carry on driving my 2003 PD TDI with a little less concern.
But with the weight of Hybrid cars which churn up the road suface into particulates and Fire crews uncertain how to deal with a crashed hybid which has battery liquid spilling everywhere, the only solution they propose is walking and cycling in towns. Counter intuitively getting out of cars will reduce your exposure to traffic fumes and pollution.
|
|
Simple - people should buy/use vehicles that are suited to their use:
- High mileage (20-25k miles+ p.a.) in town, no heavy loads (taxis etc) - hybrids;
- High mileage out-of-town, especially on less congested roads (repmobile) - mid-sized diesel;
- Lugging heavy loads/several passengers (more than 4) for min. 15k miles - diesel;
- All other use - petrol engined vehicles, size dependent on usage area (smaller for urban to mid/larger for more out-of-town use).
Not exactly rocket science - its just idiots who buy diesels who drive mileages (even when they bought it) well under 20k miles (often 10k miles or under) just because they believed the sales patter than diesels are great and petrols are bad, and that they give far superior mpg and lower running costs in all circumstances.
Its not as though no-one knew about all this.
|
Simple - people should buy/use vehicles that are suited to their use:
- High mileage (20-25k miles+ p.a.) in town, no heavy loads (taxis etc) - hybrids;
- High mileage out-of-town, especially on less congested roads (repmobile) - mid-sized diesel;
- Lugging heavy loads/several passengers (more than 4) for min. 15k miles - diesel;
- All other use - petrol engined vehicles, size dependent on usage area (smaller for urban to mid/larger for more out-of-town use).
Not exactly rocket science - its just idiots who buy diesels who drive mileages (even when they bought it) well under 20k miles (often 10k miles or under) just because they believed the sales patter than diesels are great and petrols are bad, and that they give far superior mpg and lower running costs in all circumstances.
Its not as though no-one knew about all this.
Sorry but were not all idiots,
what makes me laugh as you mentioned, its been known about since I can remember but all people did about it was zilch and talk
As far as I can see some car makers knew the effects of reducing fuel induction ie loss of power, ie if you take away the amount of fuel needed to run a car at its best you get a poor performing engine (regardless of it being deception) so they decided to make the software to cancel the effects of normal driving ecu map so engine run within test limits
I can understand(but not condone) why it was done as it would cost a fortune to redesign the engines as I gather some are doing, but imagine the complaints these makers would get from drivers with poor performance engines and/or loss of sales
|
|
I'm doing my bit for the environment by getting rid of my filthy 25k miles a year 2.0l diesel and have just ordered a nice clean 5.0l petrol V8 Mustang. Not only will I be making an improvement to air quality but I'll also be giving the government lots of extra tax revenue. How righteous do I feel!
|
I'm doing my bit for the environment by getting rid of my filthy 25k miles a year 2.0l diesel and have just ordered a nice clean 5.0l petrol V8 Mustang. Not only will I be making an improvement to air quality but I'll also be giving the government lots of extra tax revenue. How righteous do I feel!
If you was getting a 2.0 litre I could understand your comment, but bigger tyres/ Brakes is a lot more dust in the air and for the difference it will make to the environment will be a drop in the ocean
I`m going back to petrol next year, but its only because I`m not certain what our government will do to tax diesels and the new petrol is a lot more Hp than mine, environment has been a consideration in my choice but to do any good it needs a lot of people to change (though IMO the only change will be in peoples health) thats assuming of course the particulates from petrol and diesel do actually harm
I cant say I really want to give more tax and didnt think I would hear someone say they feel good about it, funny old world isnt it
As for dieselgate, I still think they did it because they couldnt reach the limits set down, afaik no one else could either?
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about cases where the so-called software fix just reduces fueling, casuing problems when moving off. I was talking about those drivers who bought diesel-engined cars who were doing low mileages (especially in concert with short journeys) who are now expecting £££ in compensation.
I have no problem in people being compensated if they were using a diesel-engined car for the type of use they are designed for. Its not as though people haven't been mis-sold cars before, and as I said, many people stupidly (in my view) believe these liars at the dealerships when they said diesel cars are fine for low mileages/short journeys.
The problem is that dealerships (of all sorts), in my opinion, lie about all sorts of issues and abilities of cars - if we all took them to court about them all and won, they'd be none left as they'd all be bankrupt. Most of the cases to do with being mis-sold about low mileage usage is really one person's word against another. It just takes a bit of common sense to see through the lies, which it seems, many people cannot be bothered to do.
|
I wasn't talking about cases where the so-called software fix just reduces fueling, casuing problems when moving off. I was talking about those drivers who bought diesel-engined cars who were doing low mileages (especially in concert with short journeys) who are now expecting £££ in compensation.
I have no problem in people being compensated if they were using a diesel-engined car for the type of use they are designed for. Its not as though people haven't been mis-sold cars before, and as I said, many people stupidly (in my view) believe these liars at the dealerships when they said diesel cars are fine for low mileages/short journeys.
The problem is that dealerships (of all sorts), in my opinion, lie about all sorts of issues and abilities of cars - if we all took them to court about them all and won, they'd be none left as they'd all be bankrupt. Most of the cases to do with being mis-sold about low mileage usage is really one person's word against another. It just takes a bit of common sense to see through the lies, which it seems, many people cannot be bothered to do.
From experience when I looked at buying a new diesel car, long or short journeys were not even talked about, only performace and fuel economy and I looked at Ford- Audi- Seat and VX but I honestly wasnt happy with any of the salespersons I spoke to, in fact one had the cheek to say when you can afford one come back and ask for me.(I actually was paying full outright cash for a car) because of these attitudes I went to Honda where the reception was totally different
As for common sense, for some people they rely on what they are told because they cannot understand how a car works and talking numbers to some are a waste of time, unless its to do with the wallet
I totally agree with what you have said though
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about cases where the so-called software fix just reduces fueling, casuing problems when moving off. I was talking about those drivers who bought diesel-engined cars who were doing low mileages (especially in concert with short journeys) who are now expecting £££ in compensation.
I have no problem in people being compensated if they were using a diesel-engined car for the type of use they are designed for. Its not as though people haven't been mis-sold cars before, and as I said, many people stupidly (in my view) believe these liars at the dealerships when they said diesel cars are fine for low mileages/short journeys.
The problem is that dealerships (of all sorts), in my opinion, lie about all sorts of issues and abilities of cars - if we all took them to court about them all and won, they'd be none left as they'd all be bankrupt. Most of the cases to do with being mis-sold about low mileage usage is really one person's word against another. It just takes a bit of common sense to see through the lies, which it seems, many people cannot be bothered to do.
The problem is that people ask salemen technical questions - why? They're the last people on earth to know anything technical about cars.
So - were diesels "mis-sold" or did Joe Public simply buy the wrong product ?
|
I wasn't talking about cases where the so-called software fix just reduces fueling, casuing problems when moving off. I was talking about those drivers who bought diesel-engined cars who were doing low mileages (especially in concert with short journeys) who are now expecting £££ in compensation.
I have no problem in people being compensated if they were using a diesel-engined car for the type of use they are designed for. Its not as though people haven't been mis-sold cars before, and as I said, many people stupidly (in my view) believe these liars at the dealerships when they said diesel cars are fine for low mileages/short journeys.
The problem is that dealerships (of all sorts), in my opinion, lie about all sorts of issues and abilities of cars - if we all took them to court about them all and won, they'd be none left as they'd all be bankrupt. Most of the cases to do with being mis-sold about low mileage usage is really one person's word against another. It just takes a bit of common sense to see through the lies, which it seems, many people cannot be bothered to do.
The problem is that people ask salemen technical questions - why? They're the last people on earth to know anything technical about cars.
So - were diesels "mis-sold" or did Joe Public simply buy the wrong product ?
Or were they going to buy diesel regardless of what they were told/not, this could go on
|
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about cases where the so-called software fix just reduces fueling, casuing problems when moving off. I was talking about those drivers who bought diesel-engined cars who were doing low mileages (especially in concert with short journeys) who are now expecting £££ in compensation.
I have no problem in people being compensated if they were using a diesel-engined car for the type of use they are designed for. Its not as though people haven't been mis-sold cars before, and as I said, many people stupidly (in my view) believe these liars at the dealerships when they said diesel cars are fine for low mileages/short journeys.
The problem is that dealerships (of all sorts), in my opinion, lie about all sorts of issues and abilities of cars - if we all took them to court about them all and won, they'd be none left as they'd all be bankrupt. Most of the cases to do with being mis-sold about low mileage usage is really one person's word against another. It just takes a bit of common sense to see through the lies, which it seems, many people cannot be bothered to do.
Would not disagree about dealers but they are not the only reason for mis-buying of diesels. Whenever the same model was available with a choice of petrol or diesel it was the diesel version which was extolled in virtually every road test including many on this web site. That has only started to change since VW dieselgate. When I decided to buy a 2 litre petrol Mazda 3 a few years ago it was against the recommendations of every road test I could find.
|
|
VW have been shown to be a deceitful company, again. They do have a long history of corruption. I still dont understand why people buy their cars from such a company. They do not honour their warranties and will not be paying any compensation to UK owners. Americans will be getting compensation, I wonder why that is?
|
VW have been shown to be a deceitful company, again. They do have a long history of corruption. I still dont understand why people buy their cars from such a company. They do not honour their warranties and will not be paying any compensation to UK owners. Americans will be getting compensation, I wonder why that is?
Because the laws are written differently - VW broke the law in the US and their legal system entitles "victims" to compensation - in Europe, VW tested cars according to EU law and "victims" here are only entitled to recover losses - but since fuel consumption was probably better for not using emission controls, no loss has occurred.
EU law is the guilty party here - Opel/Vauxhall and Fiats pollute more than VWs but they aren't paying compensation either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you think battery liquid will spoll everywhere? SFAIK the electrolyte is virtually a gel.
"NiMH BATTERY BREACHES
It would be rare to see a catastrophic crash sufficient to breach both the battery pack case and the individual batteries. Since the electrolyte is absorbed into the cell plates, it does not normally spill or leak, even if the battery is cracked. If the battery is crushed, it is possible that a small amount of electrolyte would leak (a few drops). Avoid any contact with the electrolyte because of the potential for human tissue damage. If necessary, contact CHEMTREC® [(800) 262-8200, www.chemtrec.com] for the batteries’ material safety data sheets (MSDSs). Toyota, Lexus, and Nissan ERGs contain information regarding neutralizing a battery leak and first-aid treatments for electrolyte exposure. In the unlikely event there is battery leakage at the site, local hybrid car dealers can identify appropriate cleanup contractors."
Source: tinyurl.com/jtoqbmo
|
|
I’ve been reading an article in the New Scientist and it puts the subject of air pollution in a new perspective, at least for me. The article says that a European Commission report from 2010 estimated that in the UK alone the cost equivalent of the lost working days and hospital admissions etc., due to polluted air is five thousand million pounds a year. (Writing £5 billion hasn’t quite the same impact). The article also said that the equivalent of 10,000 deaths per year in the UK alone are caused by nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 30,000 by particulates. It says that the major source of NO2 is diesel engines.
Among the tips on how to protect oneself from harm are, walk or cycle, avoid candles in the house, don’t buy a diesel engined vehicle etc. Walking or cycling seems counter-intuitive but the fumes inside a vehicle are much more than outside it.
The authorities in London are talking about a plan to charge a toxicity levy on diesel engined cars made before 2005 entering the city centre because they are reckoned to produce more pollution than those made after that date. It was also pointed out that the engines produced after that date can pass tests in the laboratory but in real world conditions they are just as polluting. (What this thread is all about).
The 30,000 estimated deaths due to particulates are for air within the EU limits for particulates, but air quality in most of London exceeds those limits regularly. People driving diesel engined cars are not the whole problem. Who has seen a petrol engined bus or lorry ? But, removing diesel engines isn’t going to solve the problem. It also points out that in cities 50% of particulates are from brake linings and 10% from tyres. Another 25% comes from dirt stirred up from road surfaces. So, going to electric and hyrogen engined vehicle isn’t an option.
|
|
The UK government, through the NHS, are very imprecise in attributing causes of illness - as opposed to recording cases of illness - so any "official" statistics about the causes of specific conditions are suspicious.
Ironically, having been diagnosed recently with COPD (lung disease) it wasn't put down to air pollution but the fact that I used to smoke half a lifetime ago - so no account taken of the industries I've worked in or the prescription drugs I've taken, both of which are known to cause COPD.
Air quality in big urban areas is primarily due to the sheer number of people crammed into a small space - this creates temperature inversion which prevents any, and all, toxic substances from dissipating normally - so the real answer is to get more city dwellers to move back out to the contryside.
|
Air quality in big urban areas is primarily due to the sheer number of people crammed into a small space - this creates temperature inversion which prevents any, and all, toxic substances from dissipating normally - so the real answer is to get more city dwellers to move back out to the contryside.
Which means more travel.
As I live in teh countryside the last thing I want is more neighbours. Thankfully teh National Trust which owns property and land behind us stopped that.
I am a fully signed up NIMBY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
