As Clarkson said in the Sunday Times yesterday-none of this really matters-and it's amazing what sort of hogwash the media have cooked up. i would be quite happy to buy another VW and if i had the cash-I would buy some bargain VW shares too!
so it doesn't matter if a massive global corporation intentionally breaks the law and intentionally deceives it's customers.........nice one jezza
|
|
Wow - did JC really say that.
VAG, after losing 30% of it's share price last week, have dropped a further 6% this morning, despite board-room oustings and guilt.
Also, the small matter of $18bn liability in USA alone.
The small matter of 600,000 jobs and millions in supply chain.
And they still havent come up with an approved plan to fix the problem - although they're legally compounded to in the USA.
By any meaningful measure, its a catastrophe. The length of this forum thread, and the endless queries piling up in HJ's Agony coloumn (unanswered by VW dealers) are a real-life indicator. Customer trust of VAG diesel products is withering to nothing.
Edited by Sulphur Man on 28/09/2015 at 14:14
|
|
|
|
|
It will matter to many owners if recall and re-programming so the claimed emissions are met leaves the vehicles with the performance of a slug, then if you have to thrash an underpowered/de-tuned vehicle they always use far more fuel in the real world than a more powerful engine running easy.
company i used to work for found the Volvo 420 engines used a lot more fuel than the equivalent Scania 420 of the time (as an average, there were exceptions in both makes), so following a suit's brainwave they had them de-rated to 380 hp to save fuel, guess what happened? they were put back up to 420 in short order.
|
|
|
As Clarkson said in the Sunday Times yesterday-none of this really matters-and it's amazing what sort of hogwash the media have cooked up. i would be quite happy to buy another VW and if i had the cash-I would buy some bargain VW shares too!
I would hardly call a bill starting at £5B something that does not matter.. Mr Clarkson is clearly a very rich man...
|
|
Perhaps, if it is found that each and every other car manufacturer has also been cheating in the emissions tests, then it 'won't matter' so much that VW just happened to be the ones that caused the big news story?
And if that turned out to be the case, would there be any point in fining any of them?
Oh wait a minute...
Fine all the companies, put all of them on the brink, then say that the motor industry is too important to let fail, pay the fines for them out of the public purse in return for taking big stakes in them, wait for the companies to recover a bit, then declare a sale of the stake's shares at an undervalued price in a closed sale where the general public can't buy them..
|
|
HJ was on Radio 2 this evening being interviewed about this very subject.
|
|
what prog (memories of the JY prog there..:-) was that on please Trilogy, wouldn't mind listening to that on i-player.
|
|
Many thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
|
American manufacturers may well push for all manufacturers to be prosecuted and fined as that would advantage them. And I don't see the American public being against this. A nice subsidy to carp American car makers.
|
|
Public information from VW in the USA at vwdieselinfo.com - from the horses mouth.
Edited by sandford on 29/09/2015 at 14:00
|
|
|
|
|
The rhetoric from VW's new boss is already grave, even before the fix plan is submitted.
Müller told leading staff at the company’s headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany, that it was “facing the severest test in its history” and “a long trudge and a lot of hard work,”
Reading between the lines, it sounds like the VW proposed fix will compromise customer vehicles in some way, either through emissions-related taxation, or through diminished performance & economy. The "long trudge and hard work" line is telling...
And still, no other manufacturers implicated. Worth remembering, a diesel X5 passed the same test that the VAG products failed in the USA.
|
The "long trudge and hard work" line is telling....
Not really - it's clear to everyone that this will affect VW's reputation and sales very significantly - how can it be anything other than a long trudge and hard work.
|
|
Will this fiasco put me off buying a VAG product? No, although unlikely to buy anyway.
Should VAG pay owners any compensation? No. Recall? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
It might just mean a lot of hard work and a huge expense on the part of VW.
|
It might just mean a lot of hard work and a huge expense on the part of VW.
True, but better than a quick 'software fix' that just significantly reduces engine power to duck under the emissions limits and endue decades of class action lawsuits, especially in the US where, like with BP, the sums invloved will bear no relation to the problems caused. Better to take it 'like a man' on the chin, be humble, do the proper technical mods as soon as technically possible and try to rebuild trust as best their can.
|
|
Lets be honest here, VAG are only going to do the software fix. They are not going to start rengineering existing cars to make them more efficient.
What they need to do is employ all those software wizzards who live in sheds and make tuning boxes that sell on e-bay. They claim that they make cars more powerful, more economical, cleaner etc etc. Instead of wasting their time in sheds let them do some real work.
|
|
I was more referring to adding AdBlue systems and higher quality CATs on the Euro5 diesels rather than anything major done to the engines themselves - effectively making them 'Euro 5.5' engines (i.e. minus the improvements to the actual engines that are in the Euro 6-rated cars).
If they just do a software fix, this will undoubtedly not wash with owners, as a) if re-mapping changes the emissions to permanently meet the rules and have no appreciable decrease in performance/efficiency, why didn't they do that originally (its not as though cars have computer systems and software as fancy as any PC - probably the equivalent to basic late 90s laptops), and b) if it does significantly affect performance/efficiency, then all that'll happen is VAG get sued on a grand scale, lose the vast majority of the cases at huge expense, and lose any credibility they had left. That, I fear, would lead to their downfall (which is possibly what some of our American friends want).
|
|
How are they going to force owners to take their cars to a dealer for the upgrade. If they are not given the upgrade they will continue to be high polluters. As a lot of these will be less than three years old there will be no checks made on them for an MOT. Even then as far as I'm aware there is no test for NOx emissions during the MOT. If the MOT is changed to include a NOx test then who will want to buy a 3 year year old VAG car on the off chance it only might pass the test.
|
|
|
|
A recent question to this website from an MOT tester suggests that VW Golfs have been cheating the MOT diesel opacity test for some time
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/63531/vw-emissions-scandal-from-an-mot-tester-s-perspective---is-this-of-interest-
|
|
But the diesel MOT smoke test has nothing to do with NOX which is what the VW scandal is about.
How many more daft comments have yet to be made.
|
|
The point is that following this "scandal" the MOT may be updated to include a NOx test so any of the affected VAG engines that don't meet the test for NOx will fail. So buying a three year old VAG diesel car will be a gamble. It will probably also sort out those who have removed the DPF from their cars whether a VAG model or not. Can't come soon enough.
|
|
I think everyone one of us is going to be affected by this in due course at MOT time, whatever make of vehicle we drive.
Those sn*****ing at VW's idiotic and well deserved own goal won't find it quite so amusing i suspect when the changes start and the bills arrive.
|
Those sn*****ing at
Oh for goodness sake, laughing quietly and nastily as we might have once done when Jones minor got caught cheating by the maths master and whacked over the knuckles with a wooden ruler.
|
The point is that following this "scandal" the MOT may be updated to include a NOx test so any of the affected VAG engines that don't meet the test for NOx will fail. So buying a three year old VAG diesel car will be a gamble. It will probably also sort out those who have removed the DPF from their cars whether a VAG model or not. Can't come soon enough.
Having a reduced rev limit in neutral is imminently sensible - my motorcycle's rev limiter cuts in 1,000rpm prematurely if in neutral or when the clutch is pulled in - presumably to reduced stress when being bounced off the rev limiter.
|
But the diesel MOT smoke test has nothing to do with NOX which is what the VW scandal is about.
How many more daft comments have yet to be made.
Daft comments? As people keep trying to tell you, the VW scandal is about a major manufacturer breaking the law and defrauding it's customers by intentionally falsifying test results, then advertising those results to sell more vehicles.
NO2 was the parameter that they eventually got caught out on, the trail that led to the discovery and VW's subsequent admission of a 'cheat' device which is unlawful in many countries including the UK and infact the whole European union.
None of us yet know how any remapping and/or hardware changes will affect the performance of the VW engines involved in the 'scandal'. However, it does seem likely that the previously advertised performance figures will not be true.
The question to HJ from the MOT tester relates to a well known characteristic of many VW product diesel engines when undergoing the diesel smoke test, that they will not rev above 2500rpm. That is not a daft comment, it is a fact. Given VW's admission of cheating and lawbreaking, it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to be questionning the reason for the 'on test' rev limiter. Does it?
|
NO2 was the parameter that they eventually got caught out on,
No its not, .its NOX
The question to HJ from the MOT tester relates to a well known characteristic of many VW product diesel engines when undergoing the diesel smoke test, that they will not rev above 2500rpm. That is not a daft comment, it is a fact. Given VW's admission of cheating and lawbreaking, it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to be questionning the reason for the 'on test' rev limiter. Does it?
If by not reving over 2500 mean't that the car could not meet the criteria for the MOT then it should fail, end of story. Obviously that is not the case since there has not been a story about VW's failing their MOT's by the thousand.
|
NO2 was the parameter that they eventually got caught out on,
No its not, .its NOX
I believe NOx is both Nitrogen Oxide (NO) & Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) combined.
A study in the British Medical Journal found that short term exposure to NO2 increased the number of premature deaths from heart and lung disease
|
NO2 was the parameter that they eventually got caught out on,
No its not, .its NOX
I believe NOx is both Nitrogen Oxide (NO) & Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) combined.
A study in the British Medical Journal found that short term exposure to NO2 increased the number of premature deaths from heart and lung disease
Yes, diesel engines produce more NOx than those that run on petrol. What’s more, around 70 per cent is in the form of NO2, compared with only 10 to 15 per cent when petrol is burned
|
|
May have already been posted but you can check if your vehicle is affected here (assuming that you believe them ;))
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3263648/V...l
Edited by RobertT on 08/10/2015 at 18:01
|
|
I dont understand how VW have been cheating like this and none of the other manufacturers wondered how VW was getting such good measurements. Surely they would have taken a VW car and investigated themselves?
|
I dont understand how VW have been cheating like this and none of the other manufacturers wondered how VW was getting such good measurements. Surely they would have taken a VW car and investigated themselves?
Are their scores better than other manufactuerers though?
|
I dont understand how VW have been cheating like this and none of the other manufacturers wondered how VW was getting such good measurements. Surely they would have taken a VW car and investigated themselves?
Are their scores better than other manufactuerers though?
Well if they arent then why not? I havent seen much info about this.
|
I dont understand how VW have been cheating like this and none of the other manufacturers wondered how VW was getting such good measurements. Surely they would have taken a VW car and investigated themselves?
Are their scores better than other manufactuerers though?
Well if they arent then why not? I havent seen much info about this.
Would you expct the VW scores to be better? They could have just had to cheat the scores as their engines simply aren't as good as other makes whcih si why they had to go to drastic measures.
|
|
Perhaps the others were well aware of the sort of thing VW were doing, and kept quiet for reasons we can only surmise.
|
|
Ive leased a Bluemotion Touran 2.0 Tdi. Its not the cheapest but used to have a Touran before and was happy with it.
I picked the Bluemotion because it was sold as a ' clean engine'
So now, after VW who, lets face it, are not cheap to start with have billy bulled thus making their product rather £ compared to a less greener car.
And lets face it, not for x4 times but x40 emissions so they have lied about their products. Not just told a porky ot stretched the truth but well and truely bullXXitted about their cars where does this leave me?
Is there any reason I CANT return my car early WITHOUT penalty as it was misold under the trade descriptions act?
Because thats EXACTLY what theyve done so I should be allowed to return it with costs to me
|
|
There's nothing clean about any diesel car - the ecoloons have sold the lie that perfectly harmless CO2 - yes the stuff we pump into commercial greenhouses to make plants grow faster is somehow “pollution” - that lie raises billions in green taxes - diesel cars produce less plant food (but tonnes of real pollution) so the taxation system has favoured diesels - we have been sold a pup - well not me - I was saying all this 15+ years ago when we still had relatively clean air to breathe - air quality in UK cities is now disastrous and it's all due to the widespread adoption of diesel cars to reduce the emission of harmless plant food.
|
There's nothing clean about any diesel car - the ecoloons have sold the lie that perfectly harmless CO2 - yes the stuff we pump into commercial greenhouses to make plants grow faster is somehow “pollution” - that lie raises billions in green taxes - diesel cars produce less plant food (but tonnes of real pollution) so the taxation system has favoured diesels - we have been sold a pup - well not me - I was saying all this 15+ years ago when we still had relatively clean air to breathe - air quality in UK cities is now disastrous and it's all due to the widespread adoption of diesel cars to reduce the emission of harmless plant food.
CO2 is not a pollution in the sense that you can see/smell it and it causes visable pollution but ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not a good thing.
|
There's nothing clean about any diesel car - the ecoloons have sold the lie that perfectly harmless CO2 - yes the stuff we pump into commercial greenhouses to make plants grow faster is somehow “pollution” - that lie raises billions in green taxes - diesel cars produce less plant food (but tonnes of real pollution) so the taxation system has favoured diesels - we have been sold a pup - well not me - I was saying all this 15+ years ago when we still had relatively clean air to breathe - air quality in UK cities is now disastrous and it's all due to the widespread adoption of diesel cars to reduce the emission of harmless plant food.
I can't agree with much of that.
The overwhelming majority of scientists not in thrall to big oil think that increasing CO2 is not harmless.
You also need to qualify your statement about air quality. If you are talking about NOx there has beena steady downward trend since 1995 at least.
uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat05...f
What is true is that expected reductions since c. 2004 have been smaller than expected. That was difficult to account for until the recent revalations that diesels have been emitting significantly more than had been assumed.
|
|
Its not just the 'scandal' of the cheating that has contributed to the problems of No2 levels in built-up areas, it is the huge increase in both the number of diesel vehicles and their size (including lorries and vans), particularly in the UK (where diesel cars make up around half of all cars on the road these days, as opposed to far lower before the 2000 mark) that has contributed just as much, if not more.
Given the number of car journeys fell during the recession, we should discount those NO2 figures as under-reading the true maximum figures possible, so once (hopefully) the economy is back to 'normal' again, then increased car/van/lorry jounries will give the 'true' maximum NO2 levels. It should be noted that level in London, where the recession hit less hard and has recovered quicker are way over the safe limits, far worse than most other areas in the UK.
It was one of the contributory factors in me deciding to leave my job working in a very polluted part of central London, as it was starting to have a significant impact on my health, particularly in warmer weather when pollution at ground level is at its worst.
|
|
Who was talking about NOx (although diesel engines (in the real world) do produce much more of that type of pollution than petrol engines.) I’m talking about good old-fashioned real pollution – particulates – there’s is a direct link between the increase in diesel particulates and health issues - DPFs are a con as during regeneration they pile out pollution (including particulates) I bet a DPF regen will never occur while any car is on a rolling road under a light load (ie during an emissions test). Just follow modern, almost new diesel cars and watch the thick black clouds out the exhaust when the driver boots it - I'm sure when lightly loaded on a rolling road they all pass various emissions tests - but in the real world they are the same old dirty pollution machines they've always been. Diesels are a public health hazard - they were fine when used in limited number for trucks and buses but once mainstream passenger cars became diesel we have found ourselves in serious trouble with air quality.
You don't fall for all that warmist nonsense do you? Oh dear... The warmist religion has created millions of scientific jobs right around the world - of course there will be many believers - their livelihood depends on it. Despite the fact that every model has been proved wrong by the recent “cooling period” they still claim their unmodelable – unbacked by facts – mantra to be true – it nothing more than a new godless religion to keep man in his place and to raise taxes. It's the biggest swindle ever to befall modern man.
|
And lets face it, not for x4 times but x40 emissions so they have lied about their products. Not just told a porky ot stretched the truth but well and truely bullXXitted about their cars where does this leave me?
Is there any reason I CANT return my car early WITHOUT penalty as it was misold under the trade descriptions act?
Don't confuse the scandal of EU test procedures which have no relation to real driving with the scandal of VW cheating - the 40x emissions applies to a number of other brands and has occurred because the test is unrealistic.
Don't expect any compensation for the EU test scandal - you can't gio and buy a car from a different brand that's any better.
|
|
I read a reply to a readers question about compensation to owners of affected vehicles, on this site. The question was dismissed as VW are going to supply a free fix to all affected vehicles. Now I understand that our compensation culture has gone to far, "something has gone wrong, whom do I sue", but there are other issues here. My Skoda Superb is affected and I am concerned about other costs.
1) Maybe trivial, but I have to take the time to get to the dealer, maybe take time off work
2) There may be ongoing maintenance costs, I have read £50 a year for topping up urea tanks in the exhaust system, to soak up the Nitrous Oxide.
3) Much more important, fuel efficiency, if this drops by say 5mpg, then that siginificantly increases costs of keeping the car on the road. We wo'nt know about this until after the fixes start to be done.
4) Following on from 3 and most important, is possible reduction in second hand values in the future.
These are all unquantifiable at the moment, but I am cetainly considering joining any class action. I am considering it because I am just furious about VW's dishonesty. The knee jerk reaction for any mistake, in governments, large companies, is to deny it as long as possible. Kick the can as far down the road as you can. When the proverbial hits the fan, hopefully I will have moved on and it will be someone elses problem.
I bought my car second hand in May 14, it seems the problem was already known within the VW hierachy then, so I bought my car when material information affecting it's value, was being hidden from me.
|
|
Rather than all these knee-jerk reactions because everyone's angry, why not wait and see WHAT measures actually WILL be taken to ensure the cars are up the test standards, then decide what, if any, legal action needs to be taken.
So many people are jumping the proverbial guns without any evidence either way. No-one is suddenly going to die as a result of this issue (its NOT a safety-related issue [the pollution issues aside - I am affected as I suffer from asthma]), so why not take a deep breath and wait, otherwise some people are going to get so angry that they'll have a heart attack over what is not a life-or-death issue.
|
|
Thanks for those words of good sense, EA. All we can be sure of is the following:
1 VW will modify affected diesel engines free of charge, but it will take them time.
2 It's too early to say whether the modifications will affect performance or economy: as we've seen, some people are certain that they will, others equally certain that they won't.
3 It's also too early to say whether resale values of VW Group diesel cars will be affected. (I would expect that the longer you keep the car, the less it will matter.)
4 There's no point in taking any legal action unless and until you are sure you have a strong case. Otherwise the only people who will win will be the lawyers. Best to wait until someone else has tried it and succeeded.
|
|
Apart from VW's cheating this issue has reiterated and reinforced the dangers of NOx to people's health. There is ample evidence to prove that it is killing people in the UK. The cost to the NHS is huge too. The Government banned smoking in public places to address the health issues related to smoking, it's now time they did the same for diesel engined cars.
|
|
Ban diesel engined cars in public places?
I must say after having spent the last week or so looking for a second hand car 2006-2008 age range, I find it very frustrating the lack of economical petrol engines. Most 1.6 litre petrol engines cost £180-£205 road tax a year, and there is a frustrating shortage of 1.2 and 1.4 litre turbos from that era. It's no wonder everyone was buying diesels.
Honda petrol engines seem to be more economical than most. Toyotas are very disappointing - for a company responsible forethe Prius it's a shame cars like the 1.6 Auris cost £205 a year tax as the CO2 emmissions are so high.
Edited by Mr Carrot Cake on 11/10/2015 at 18:59
|
I must say after having spent the last week or so looking for a second hand car 2006-2008 age range, I find it very frustrating the lack of economical petrol engines. Most 1.6 litre petrol engines cost £180-£205 road tax a year, and there is a frustrating shortage of 1.2 and 1.4 litre turbos from that era. It's no wonder everyone was buying diesels.
That's because at that age, anyone that wanted/needed an economical car bought a diesel - times and attitudes have changed but the mix of cars sold 7-9 years ago hasn't.
|
|
You're right, it's just a shame the government didnt push envorinmental issues much back in the early 2000s. Something I blame Blair and Brown for.
|
You're right, it's just a shame the government didnt push envorinmental issues much back in the early 2000s. Something I blame Blair and Brown for.
Goes much further back than that, I remember this very conversation in college training as a mechanic, Diesels then spewed out black smoke nearly all the time in the late 60`s/ early 70`s
Same old conversation, different governments, attitudes.
|
You're right, it's just a shame the government didnt push envorinmental issues much back in the early 2000s. Something I blame Blair and Brown for.
Goes much further back than that, I remember this very conversation in college training as a mechanic, Diesels then spewed out black smoke nearly all the time in the late 60`s/ early 70`s
Same old conversation, different governments, attitudes.
To be fair people didnt really start taking the environment seriously until the mid 80s. But by the late 90s everyone knew about global warming and there was no excuse for ignoring pollution. In the 60s they were still using sprayed asbestos in building construction...
|
To be fair people didnt really start taking the environment seriously until the mid 80s. But by the late 90s everyone knew about global warming and there was no excuse for ignoring pollution. In the 60s they were still using sprayed asbestos in building construction...
Some asbestos was installed in buildings even in the 90s!!!
|
To be fair people didnt really start taking the environment seriously until the mid 80s. But by the late 90s everyone knew about global warming and there was no excuse for ignoring pollution. In the 60s they were still using sprayed asbestos in building construction...
Some asbestos was installed in buildings even in the 90s!!!
Not sprayed coatings. And asbestos insulating board production stopped in 1980. By the 90s there really were not any significant asbestos products being used in construction in the UK. But it's a shame it wasnt banned much earlier. Would have saved a lot of lives.
|
You're right, it's just a shame the government didnt push envorinmental issues much back in the early 2000s. Something I blame Blair and Brown for.
Goes much further back than that, I remember this very conversation in college training as a mechanic, Diesels then spewed out black smoke nearly all the time in the late 60`s/ early 70`s
Same old conversation, different governments, attitudes.
To be fair people didnt really start taking the environment seriously until the mid 80s. But by the late 90s everyone knew about global warming and there was no excuse for ignoring pollution. In the 60s they were still using sprayed asbestos in building construction...
The problem then wasnt about global warming, it was about local environmental air pollution rather than global effects, of which I`m still not convinced its our fault
Yes I remember about the asbestos, being a mechanic you had to be carefull of brake/ clutch dust wearing of masks I think came in 1987 ish that I remember
My only problem with this discussion is that once the diesel debate is over they will start on something else, bearing in mind there is no such thing as clean air
|
My only problem with this discussion is that once the diesel debate is over they will start on something else, bearing in mind there is no such thing as clean air
Well, you cant do everything at once. Why not aim for air that is as clean as reasonably possible? If we are able to make improvements then it should be done. the next thing will probably be man man mineral fibres - all that insulation people are stuffing in their attics. The airborne fibres from that are not goof to breathe in. Sweden and the USA are ahead of us on that one...
|
My only problem with this discussion is that once the diesel debate is over they will start on something else, bearing in mind there is no such thing as clean air
Well, you cant do everything at once. Why not aim for air that is as clean as reasonably possible? If we are able to make improvements then it should be done. the next thing will probably be man man mineral fibres - all that insulation people are stuffing in their attics. The airborne fibres from that are not goof to breathe in. Sweden and the USA are ahead of us on that one...
Thats a discussion in itself, different people have different ideas about clean air
No you cant do everything at once, but its taken a heck of a long time to get this far, and as far as London is concerned they reckon on 2030 to clean up the air, its being said that 2020 is too optimistic
I am inclined to agree!
|
You're right, it's just a shame the government didnt push envorinmental issues much back in the early 2000s. Something I blame Blair and Brown for.
They (IMO) and the rest of the EU stupidly ignored the science (available by 1997) that said that NO (and NO2 as a result) was just as bad a problem as CO2 emissions, ironically making the whole situation worse by concentrating solely on reducing CO2 emissions and by using post-combustion 'capture' devices (CATs). More could and should've been done on increasing fuel efficiency, especially at the combustion stage.
|
Apart from VW's cheating this issue has reiterated and reinforced the dangers of NOx to people's health. There is ample evidence to prove that it is killing people in the UK. The cost to the NHS is huge too. The Government banned smoking in public places to address the health issues related to smoking, it's now time they did the same for diesel engined cars.
You can't just arbitrarily ban diesel vehicles from the roads - what's needed is a thorough and competant approach to studies and results from both the nature and degree of effects of all vehicle (and other) gaseous pollutants to see what practical and economic measures can be taken, both in this country and around the world generally (so as not to disadvantage any people or nation too much).
The problem is that HGVs and most vans, for the moment, have to have diesel engines, as they are the only reasonable and economic method of providing them with sufficient power/torque to carry heavy loads at reasonable speeds. Hybrid petrol-electric and plug-electric cars are a a reasonable choice for some situations, but they also come with a cost - the batteries aren't exactly efficient (with little change to battery technology in 100 years), still use some quite nasty chemicals that need expensive treatment to dispose of them safely (which many nations do not do) or, with plug-in hybrids, use an ever dwindling electricity supply to feed a potentially huge demand.
Personally, part of the problem is down to:
- Many nations (but especially small [geographically] ones like the UK) are over-populated and do not have the financial resources to and ability to keep up the construction of homes and infrastructure to cope with all the extra people (whether by immigration [here] or high birth rates [developing nations]);
- People increasingly live further away from their place of work (partly due to item 1 [as well as rich foreigners/investers buying up homes at inflated prices in cities as 'investments' and not homes to live in or even rent out to locals] forcing house prices up) and a greater reliance on goods and services made/bought from further and further away from home. This includes us going in the car to the shops for groceries, something 30 years ago my parents never did, despite being reasonably well off and able to do so - the death of the town centre shops;
- Poor governance from MPs and an unwillingness to listen to and take note of all the facts from scientific studies on pollution and climate change. Scientists themselves have a lot to answer for, given many appear to use scientific studies to justify their opinions, often mainipuating results to suit their own ends/arguments for the sake of pride and to prove rivals wrong. Unbiased and open studies that are designed to just discover definitive facts need to happen. Scientists (and some engineers) need to esnure they stand up to the vested interests of politicians, pressure groups and companies who often have ulterior motives that are not in the best interests of people or the environment as a whole, especially in the longer term.
|
|
You cannot ban Diesels without coming up with a decent alternative, so far there isnt one if you count commercial vehicles as well
I keep hearing people say ban diesels, but when you ask them what do you replace them with they do not answer, so I think people need to be sensible about what they say instead of giving knee jerk reactions to the problem
although people dont agree I can understand why VW did it if they cannot reduce emmisions levels, (i`m not saying its right, only I understand why)
But as a car company has already stated, to reduce emmisions to levels asked for, they need to pass on the cost to the buyer, so if it costs several thousands to do it people will not buy the car, and I think that may have been VW`s worry...
Some car companies have acheived the reduction in emmisions for diesels but others I think are struggling to get there
|
|
Why dont they make more small petrol turbo models?
|
Why dont they make more small petrol turbo models?
They do - seems to be more and more manufactuerers introducing them as well
|
Why dont they make more small petrol turbo models?
Recent non turbo petrol engines are much more efficient than older ones. I think they use higher combustion pressures and fewer cylinders to reduce friction losses. Turbos add performance. But I read that they have higher NOx emissions.
|
Why dont they make more small petrol turbo models?
Recent non turbo petrol engines are much more efficient than older ones. I think they use higher combustion pressures and fewer cylinders to reduce friction losses. Turbos add performance. But I read that they have higher NOx emissions.
Not so sure they are more efficient, engines going back to 70`s were more powerfull than the new ones and had better fuel consumption
I often hear people complaining that a three cylinder unit is worse for economy than the equivalent four cylinder and need more throttle to get any decent power from, personally I have no idea as I wouldnt buy one
I think in certain cases the engine is too small and under more stress than it can reasonably be expected to take
Some companies use friction reduction materials embedded in the metal, say 3 to 4 microns thick which apparently work for some engines, but the pressure is still there
|
Not so sure they are more efficient, engines going back to 70`s were more powerfull than the new ones and had better fuel consumption
Yes, and I'm a monkey's uncle
|
Not so sure they are more efficient, engines going back to 70`s were more powerfull than the new ones and had better fuel consumption
Yes, and I'm a monkey's uncle
Yes, I read that claim and raised my eyebrows.
It's sphercial objects. 100bhp/liter was not achievaable in a normal 1970s car - and fuel consumption was abysmal by modern standards.. Even 1980s cars struggled to give 100bhp liter.. (note : normal cars ,, not expensive supercars)
|
|
Indeed - two strokes aside, motorcycle engines rarely made 100bhp per litre in the 70s - let alone cars! - it wasn't until the 80s that TWO litre engines regularly made over 100bhp. The first mass produced engine to make 100bhp per litre was the Daihatsu Charade Gtti (in the late 80s) - a turbo masterpiece making about 100bhp out of 1 litre - but that was the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
Are there actually any normally aspirated 1 litre engines producing 100bhp?
|
|
The normally-aspirated (NA) ones that I recall that do so or come very close are (not all current models):
Honda: Civic Type R 2ltr (2001-6 & 2007-12 variants @ 196/197 bhp), S2000 (240bhp from a 2ltr NA engine) and maybe one or two others (possibly the Integra and CR-X).
Mazda: RX-8 (both high and low powered variants @ 190/230 bhp) with its w***el 1.3 engine. Lots of power, not much torque, high fuel use and emissions. Like the styling though (hope they make a NA new one).
I'm sure some Ferrari or Lambo V10/V12 NA engined car must be more than 100bhp/ltr.
I can't think of any actual 1ltr NA engines producing 100bhp or more though.
|
I have a VW Up, and routinely get 60mpg. My previous Ford Ka, and Micra averaged about 43mpg. The Up has more power, and is quite perky, albeit a slug compared to a performance car. Your claims are nonsense, modern 3 cylinder engines have higher machining tolerances to allow higher performance. There is a 100bhp version of the Up, not in production, that averages 60mpg. Ford have similar engines in the Focus and Mondeo. I find it odd that petrol engines improved so much within the last 10 years, why not sooner?
What annoys me is people who park their diesel car, and run the engine, polluting the air. They stink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
