Government announces new diesel plans.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The other big thing to remember is , because of the Governments advise to use diesels years ago ,because they were less harmful , means people did and manufactures products reflect that.


When I was looking for a van , for example, basically there is NO petrol choice, Pickups was another consideration , Petrol versions? Unless you are willing to Import them , No mate.


I would have bought a Petrol because the less complexity and quicker warm up time but there were none available.

I drove a petrol VW LT35 for years - lovely thing it was with its straight six . We also had petrol Land Rovers .
 
I've caravanned for decades ( since the 1970's ) , and so did my dad before me , and towed much larger and heavier vans than most nowadays with quite modestly engined cars ( W110 190 , W115 220/8 , Series 1 petrol Land Rover ) all of which managed just fine .

Later , I towed with W114 280E , W123 280E/TE , W116 280SE , W124 300TE and W126 500SEL . Not a Diesel among them and all effortless .

Earlier caravans towed by my dad included a large Crichton I can't remember the model of , an Eccles Emerald and a Thomson Gleneagle - the last one being the caravan I started towing at 17 . Later I had an Abbey GT418T for years , which I towed with a variety of cars .

Besides caravans , I tow car trailers every so often .
Thats my point there all big engines, where as a smaller diesel (say 1.6/1.8) will do the job just as well so when not towing they don't gulp the gas.
 
Thats my point there all big engines, where as a smaller diesel (say 1.6/1.8) will do the job just as well so when not towing they don't gulp the gas.

Does it matter? There are around 500,000 touring caravans in the UK, only on the road a fraction of the time. There are nearly 37 million vehicles licensed for use on the road, with a very high majority used most days. Any impact of caravans on pollution is insignificant, whether pulled by diesel or petrol engined vehicles.
 
The Tories have got a short memory blaming everything on labour. I remember the Thatcher government kicking the diesel thing off in the 80's. I also remember a tuner friend telling me about oxides of Nitrogen then but it's always money that does the talking.
 
The Tories have got a short memory blaming everything on labour. I remember the Thatcher government kicking the diesel thing off in the 80's. I also remember a tuner friend telling me about oxides of Nitrogen then but it's always money that does the talking.

Something else we can all blame Maggie for then... :wallbash:
 
The Tories have got a short memory blaming everything on labour. I remember the Thatcher government kicking the diesel thing off in the 80's. I also remember a tuner friend telling me about oxides of Nitrogen then but it's always money that does the talking.

Every government blames the previous one... I am sure that Margaret Thatcher blamed James Callaghan's government.....
 
I blame the Picts with their polluting iron smelting.
 
The adoption of diesel as the fuel of choice is more a story of " the road to hell is paved with good intentions" When the choice had to be made to reduce CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change European manufacturers and legislators opted for diesel to achieve this while the rest of the car manufacturing world [mainly the far east and the USA] opted for petrol and or biofuels/gas. From this viewpoint the European technology was a qualified success cars producing less CO2 per mile travelled were indeed manufactured. Qualified because altho emissions were reduced the car population per head of population continued to grow and evidence emerged that while diesel engines gave better CO2/mile figures they came with a new set of health problems from their exhausts. Namely particulates and NOx and this particularly manifested iteself in areas of high traffic and people density. Steps were taken to reduce particulates with the introduction of DPFs and more stringent exhaust emissions but it took time and a gradual build up of
epidemiological evidence indicated that these measures were still ineffective particularly wrt NOx. So we have three related but different issues CO2 reduction, toxic diesel emissions in urban environments and an increasing car population. In hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, the adoption of diesel was perhaps a mistake but initially it was a success for what it was intended for and it was only later problems became obvious. Were politicians to blame? - they have a share of the blame- but it would naive to think it was that simple- the car manufacturing lobby in Europe wields considerable political influence and this undoubtedly played a part. Our predeliction for driving around in heavy 4x4 vehicles with one occupant [ vehicle occupancy rates are seldom mentioned in this context] or removing existing emission controls from engines and exhausts to "increase performance" should not be ignored either. In terms of manufacturers remaining competitive and thus indulging in a "race to the bottom" to achieve certain emission levels [ to the extent of cheating] I don't buy it. There's obeying the letter of the law and obeying the spirit of the law and the same applies to individual car owners. What happened to " das beste oder nichts" Blaming the politicians alone is just a cop out for a wider responsability.
 
Last edited:
That's a good post Grober, I personally never believe anything the Government politicians tell me I am just too cynical I guess and have a good memory :)


But a lot of people do , and bought these cars thinking they were greener.
Like the Bio diesel farming, was a good idea but turns out its probably not so good for the environment - hindsight is a wonderful thing.


I don't agree that nobody in the Government could predict the rise of car ownership though, it cannot be that hard to look at the years before sales figures etc and be able to predict it in a couple of years time.


But I do not think its fair that you should be' punished 'now in increasing taxation if you own a diesel vehicle and made to feel guilty because you listened to what you thought was genuine advise.


Like I have said before , I, after owning a modern diesel (an accord) realized that although great down motorways' /long journeys , most of my driving is in congested traffic and wished I had gone for a Vtec petrol version (in hindsight ).


But when I needed to buy a van for work, there was simply no petrol choice really at all , unless I was willing to import from States/Japan, so had to end up buying a diesel again , and that is simply not my fault I don't think .


And once again EGR DPF failures, high maintenance costs are once again at the back of my mind, but as I needed a Van for work I had no choice.
 
It'll be interesting to see the details of the scrappage scheme if it's announced today. As well as being restricted to the most polluted areas, there was talk of it being targetted at low income families!

So £2,000 off a new car if you're in the right area and your income is low enough? Surely that can't be right. Low income families don't buy new cars, they buy 10-year-old ones! More likely they probably buy the cars that the government wants to take off the road.
 
It'll be interesting to see the details of the scrappage scheme if it's announced today. As well as being restricted to the most polluted areas, there was talk of it being targetted at low income families!

So £2,000 off a new car if you're in the right area and your income is low enough? Surely that can't be right. Low income families don't buy new cars, they buy 10-year-old ones! More likely they probably buy the cars that the government wants to take off the road.

There are new cars available though from around 8k so it may encourage some on a low income to buy a new cheaper car and offset the repayments against lower running costs.

Lets hope the report is realistic.
 
The adoption of diesel as the fuel of choice is more a story of " the road to hell is paved with good intentions" When the choice had to be made to reduce CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change European manufacturers and legislators opted for diesel to achieve this while the rest of the car manufacturing world [mainly the far east and the USA] opted for petrol and or biofuels/gas. From this viewpoint the European technology was a qualified success cars producing less CO2 per mile travelled were indeed manufactured. Qualified because altho emissions were reduced the car population per head of population continued to grow and evidence emerged that while diesel engines gave better CO2/mile figures they came with a new set of health problems from their exhausts. Namely particulates and NOx and this particularly manifested iteself in areas of high traffic and people density. Steps were taken to reduce particulates with the introduction of DPFs and more stringent exhaust emissions but it took time and a gradual build up of
epidemiological evidence indicated that these measures were still ineffective particularly wrt NOx. So we have three related but different issues CO2 reduction, toxic diesel emissions in urban environments and an increasing car population. In hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, the adoption of diesel was perhaps a mistake but initially it was a success for what it was intended for and it was only later problems became obvious. Were politicians to blame? - they have a share of the blame- but it would naive to think it was that simple- the car manufacturing lobby in Europe wields considerable political influence and this undoubtedly played a part. Our predeliction for driving around in heavy 4x4 vehicles with one occupant [ vehicle occupancy rates are seldom mentioned in this context] or removing existing emission controls from engines and exhausts to "increase performance" should not be ignored either. In terms of manufacturers remaining competitive and thus indulging in a "race to the bottom" to achieve certain emission levels [ to the extent of cheating] I don't buy it. There's obeying the letter of the law and obeying the spirit of the law and the same applies to individual car owners. What happened to " das beste oder nichts" Blaming the politicians alone is just a cop out for a wider responsability.

Good points.
 
It'll be interesting to see the details of the scrappage scheme if it's announced today. As well as being restricted to the most polluted areas, there was talk of it being targetted at low income families!

So £2,000 off a new car if you're in the right area and your income is low enough? Surely that can't be right. Low income families don't buy new cars, they buy 10-year-old ones! More likely they probably buy the cars that the government wants to take off the road.

A prime example of the government giving with one hand and and taking with the other.

The Government were debating whether the scrappage fund should be means-tested to be available to those ‘most in need of support.’

They're also considering a targeted scheme for the 5.6 million diesel cars on the roads before 2005.

So if you aren't considered in need of support and your diesel car is less than 12 years old you may not be considered for the scrappage scheme though you were duped by the same government promotion of the diesel engine. An absolute crock, it will be interesting to see what todays announcement brings. My car is has a Euro 6 emission rating, it will be interesting to see how it's affected...:dk:
 
My car is has a Euro 6 emission rating, it will be interesting to see how it's affected...:dk:

I'm sure yours will be fine. Euro 6 reduced NOx from 180g to 80g. Still more than petrol (60g) but nearly on a par.
 
There are new cars available though from around 8k so it may encourage some on a low income to buy a new cheaper car and offset the repayments against lower running costs.

Good point. I suppose I wasn't thinking that cars might cost 8k. But even so, if you're on a low income, and buying on finance rather than cash, is it wise for the government to be encouraging people who may not be able to afford it to take on more debt?

This is what happened with the sub-prime debacle in the US. People who couldn't afford to buy a house were enticed into taking on debt which it was obvious they wouldn't be able to afford. And we all know how that turned out!
 
In the UK low income is likely to mean those earning around minimum living wage, I know a number of unfortunate people in that situation and they can't afford a 1k car never mind 8k. So it's down to what is classed as low income.
 
The Tories have got a short memory blaming everything on labour. I remember the Thatcher government kicking the diesel thing off in the 80's. I also remember a tuner friend telling me about oxides of Nitrogen then but it's always money that does the talking.

Your recollection is at variance with mine.

Diesel used to be cheaper than petrol. ISTR that it was during the late 80s that its price *increased* to parity with petrol.

And diesel cars became considerably nicer in the late 90s and early 2000s.

The big complaint about diesels in the 90s was particulates. And of course the CO2 thing kicked off big time in the 2000s.

The manufacturers responded over that time with technology improvements. I think it was about 2003 that the performance aspect of diesel over petrol started to become a noticeable factor in the market.
 
The majority of car buyers (me included) simply don't have the money to buy new.

So OK I'll swap my 2009 E class now for another E class, Oh look MB have 449 second hand E class vehicles for sale nationwide. Of these 9 (yes nine) are patrol! So I could buy a petrol, well yes if I wanted a C63 or E43. OK I'm in after all they are real nice cars and have an enviable reputation for economy and they are cheap to maintain aren't they? :doh:
 
"race to the bottom" to achieve certain emission levels [ to the extent of cheating] I don't buy it. There's obeying the letter of the law and obeying the spirit of the law and the same applies to individual car owners"


The government set the economy and emissions tests, the manufacturers just follow the rules. OK so the manufacturers probably lobbied Gov but the Gov were stupid enough to go along with the manufacturers. Its been common knowledge for many years that both the economy and emissions tests fail miserably to replicate real world conditions, what have the Gove done about this? Absolutely nothing.

So the manufacturers should have acted with more social responsibility and taken a wider view and not simply followed the rules. Remind me what was the most common excuse from politicians when they were caught fiddling their expenses? Oh yes... "but I followed the rules"!

We do need solutions, we do need engines that pollute less and do more miles per gallon but the idiot politicians we have (of all political persuasions) don't have a clue beyond the usual solution they apply to every problem Make us pay more.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom