|
It's always puzzled me why "emissions-based" road tax only takes into account CO2, one of the many pollutants that an engine will spew out. Petrols fare far better than diesels on a number of other pollutants, but this has never been taken into account. Looks like diesels might soon be seen for the high polluters they are!
|
>>Looks like diesels might soon be seen for the high polluters they are!
Bit slow on the uptake arent they
|
They will always be here while
1/ Diesel is cheaper then petrol (Europe)
2/ The BIK for company cars make them better financially (UK)
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
|
|
Conversely, though, diesels are far better than petrol at many pollutants - just because, unlike particulates, you can't see them, doesn't meant hey're harmless! CO, CO2, HC, benzene and, as some VW/Lucas research a good few years ago showed, NOx as the cars get older.
I still think a new diesel, looking at the overall picture, is less harmful than a new petrol. Let's not forget that petrol engines aren't exactly simple beasts these days, and the likes of VW's TSI units are going to be a diagnostician's wet dream a few years down the line. Has anyone actually conducted any research into how reliable CR and PD systems are? There must be millions of them in European cars, is it just because they cost so much when they do go wrong that we have this idea that they are unreliable?
Pollutants aren't the whole picture too - I've never managed to replicate diesel economy on a modern petrol car, and a recent stint in a 1.4 Micra reminded me that you really have to rev most modern petrols to get them to do anything, unlike the fairly lazy power delivery of a diesel. The Micra was doing 3,600rpm at an indicated 70mph in top, when my old Xantia is thrumming along at 2,250rpm at the same speed. With stats like that, it was no surprise that, on a long run, I got 20mpg less out of the Micra - low 40s compared to low 60s mpg.
Oil is finite, I have no idea why it makes sense to shift to a technology that uses more of it up, even if that technology is cheaper.
|
The latest diesel automotive type engine I have driven is in an Xreg Merc Sprinter that's done 290k. She's fast. Untill I've driven a new car with new CR diesel against it's new petrol counter part it's going to hard to give an accurate appraisle. However, is derv a fuel that should be burnt in a car?
A diesel engine should be flat out at 2400 rpm (high idle, no load) and giving rated power at 2200rpm (sleeves rolled up) and full power/peak torque (sleeves rolled up and shirt off) at 1400 rpm. These are not the characturistics of a car engine. So they build revy oil burners, which are diesels for people that really wanted a petrol.
As for emisions, there are grumblings down on the farm about Tier III engines. Specific fuel consumption is a big deal and selling point when you are expecting your engine to work under full load. Pre Tier III, every brouchure would have referece to specific fuel consumption saying how there brand was better than the other. They don't quote it any more because Tier III = thirst. A major manufacturer of heavy duty engines is having trouble with it's engines in all applications that met Tier III reasulting in terminal engine failures.
Surely as a previous poster mentioned, when should be concerned with fuel consumption not emissions.
For the record, I burn gasoline...
|
|
I raised this thread because I am interested in a Clio 1.2 TCE Turbo - not for me, for 'er indoors. 100BHP and as much torque as the 1.6 Clio but combined 50 MPG.
|
Do you really want a 1.2 engine that been blown, tweaked, cajoaled, whipped, tricked and forced to produce 100BHP Its not right,its not natural, and it wont be driveable with any degree of relaxation.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
Why on earth would anyone buy a 1.2 clio with 100BHP? As a very useful, comfortable and perfectly acceptable an motor car a clio3 needs about 68 BHP and will deliver 50+mpg. If you want a fun fast clio3 you buy a 1.6. If you are a hoolie, and you think you can handle it you buy a 200BHP clio sport.
Does it need ot be more complex that that?
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
The test reports are highly positive, both of the engine and the whole car in general especially build quality and refinement. SWMBO saw it advertised with body kit and thought it looked really nice. It is dangerous to argue against such logic - in our house anyway.
For me, I would go for the 1.6. Force feeding a tiny 1.2 might have implications for long term reliability.
|
For me I would go for the 1.6. Force feeding a tiny 1.2 might have implications for long term reliability.
It certainly will - but with Renault's attitude to customer claims about premature failure, why should they worry? [As long as it "looks nice."]
[Anyone ever see a 2ltr IDE engine make it past 65,000? Or a 100ps VW 1.4 for that matter.]
|
|
|
The test reports are highly positive both of the engine and the whole car in general especially build quality and refinement. SWMBO saw it advertised with body kit and thought it looked really nice. It is dangerous to argue against such logic - in our house anyway.
Mostly right. The clio 3 in our household is a remarkably civilised car. Interior quality is just right. Fortunately she chose the 1.5 dci in 68BHP guise - its a real little peach, and not at all over stressed. She drives it right too, plenty of revs.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it has - diesel is £10 (or £5) more expensive for VED. And diesel gets a 3% penalty on company car tax. Because of the higher smog-forming pollutants.
Not much of a penalty, but it's there.
|
If this (the original post) is true, then the French and German manufacturers, the French in particular, have a serious problem on their hands long-term.
PSA and Renault, whatever you think of them, have a clear lead in diesel technology in many respects, and a very large proportion of their sales are diesels.
When it comes to petrol engines, and turbocharged ones in particular, the Japanese have the advantage. Their petrol technology (Honda in particular) is as far in advance of the French manufacturers' as the French diesel technology is to the Japanese.
In an industry where even a 20% reduction in sales to competitors is enough to turn profits into huge losses, this is a major fly in the ointment surely?
|
Wasn't the differential in VED between petrols and diesels abolished at the last budget?
The 3% company car surcharge is usually more than offset by the lower CO2 output, and didn't apply to cars sold before a certain date a few years ago to encourage early Euro IV adopters.
Technology has a habit of catching up when forced to by legislation and taxation - witness the large increase in the number of diesels that are about to come online with Band B CO2 outputs now that they're only 35 quid a year to tax.
|
|
|
advantage. Their petrol technology (Honda in particular) is as far in advance
Is it? in what way? Are they more economical than anyone elses? Less CO2 perhaps? More power at lower capacity?
Seriously whats special about Honda or Japanese petrol technology?
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
Is it? in what way? Are they more economical than anyone elses? Less CO2 perhaps? More power at lower capacity?
Well let's have a look at Hondas mundane petrol engines for a moment. As an example, the (normally aspirated) 1.8 they put in the Civic revs 1000rpm faster (so the engineering tolerances are closer), delivers the same (in some cases more) power as European manufacturers' (such as PSA, renault and VW) 2.0 offerings (around 140BHP), delivers over 20% better fuel economy (44mpg vs 36mpg) and puts out 152g/km of CO2, against around 180-190 for the 2.0 offerings mentioned.
And which companies have had petrol hybrid powertrains available for coming on for ten years now?
The point is, many people buy French cars for the diesel engines -- price them out of the market, and they're left producing some admittedly stylish to some eyes, but otherwise distinctly ordinary vehicles, with average reliability at best. French manufacturers will be hurt a lot more than most.
|
Fair do's - question answered.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
I have recently moved from a 115 BHP TDI PD Passat (100,000 miles over six years) and before that a 90 BHP Peugeot 306 TD (80,000 miles over 4 years) to a petrol 167 BHP Subaru Legacy 2.0R. This was due to the Passat being written-off in a RTA and the Legacy being the "right-price" when needing a newish, fairly big and reliable estate car quickly!
After 10+ years of constantly driving diesels the Legacy felt like it was a 1.1 even though the engine is 52 BHP more powerful than the Passat. Now I also ride sports motorbikes, so I'm used to high revving engines (upto 14,000 RPM on my 750 Yamaha). But it takes some getting used to having to down-shift from top gear once the revs drop below 2,500 or so to make the Subaru go!
I also hate the 32 MPG as opposed to the 52+ of the Passat.
Now the plus side...............when you do need to get a move-on, the Subaru motor is ace when the the revs go beyond the 4K mark, (and the sound is quite nice too). Also the 4 wheel drive should be made compulsory in all cars as the road-holding has to be experienced to be believed. It really is fantastic. No more smelly exhaust fumes and a delight not to have to search all around every forecourt for gloves when re-fuelling. Driving fast does not affect fuel consumption as much as expected.
However, Subaru are to launch a flat four diesel for the Legacy in March 2008..................I will be booking a test drive.
|
I have had an eye on that scooby diesel as well now for a while - just can't help thinking if this thread does turn out to have some truth in it - then it is all too little tto late for them.
I hope it lives up to our high expectations with it.
|
Following on from 659 there is no joined up thinking, diesel and petrol are the mainstream technologies (hybrid is still a non starter due to embeded carbon) and legislation should be sympathetic to what is actually possible.
It does not make sense spend billions engineering cars to be 5% cleaner when you increase the embebed carbon per vehicle by 10%, even more so if you then tax older vehicle higher because they dont meet the new regs therefore making them less viable thus forcing more people into new vehicles with the correseponding embeded carbon issues.
This is simply a reflection on the crass legislation rather than the true merits of petrol v diesel.
Though ultimately we elect these people, it is down to us.
|
As said above, the only thing that would shift UK buyers from diesels is another change in company car BIK tax .... that's what took me from my old Volvo V40 2.0T (which was a brilliant company car under the old list-price based tax rules) to a Passat B5.5 PD130.
Yes, the PD diesels are gruff and the effective rev range is relatively narrow. But the sheer get-up-and-go makes them very effective on the road, if you don't mind the clanking :-)
Also, you can't whack the VAG diesels on economy .... just done Alnwick (Northumberland) to Cheshire, 4 up and full boot, on-the-road average speed 61mph, and 51mpg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
