Why buy new diesel cars?

[Deleted member 65149]

Ive read through the whole thread and I think the the OP has a valid point that diesels are probably more polluting than was first thought ... However the OP's attitude is unfortunately really sanctimonious.

Thank you for recognising the crux of my argument.

But I object to the "sanctimonious" jibe. If I've given the impression of thinking I'm morally superior to anyone else here then I apologise. That isn't and never has been my intention. I don't think people are idiots (to use another false accusation) for jumping to totally unfounded conclusions, indeed I blame myself for failing to express my views clearly. But I do regret that some people appear incapable of reading what's written by someone they insult instead of building a picture totally based on the negative and insulting remarks of others. But that's what happens in life, a few people say something and soon everyone believes it.

Still, they're only words and everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how unjustified.

I've already had the answer to my original question (several pages back) so I'll leave you all to it. A shame, because I would have enjoyed discussing the deleterious impact of the country's obsession with tests, standards and targets.

 

[whitenemesis]

Statistics can be made to prove anything one wishes them to. Just as 'scientific reports' can sway opinion simply by the way they are reported.

No one ever gets to review the background questions or supporting evidence. By no one i mean 'Joe Public', who is just led by the nose in which ever direction the publisher wishes to take them...

 

[Deleted member 65149]

How else would one interpret the word "gullible"?

Gullible: easily persuaded to believe something, credulous, over-trusting
Idiot: A person with profound intellectual disability having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Not my fault that you can't tell the difference, a difference that's massive.

 

[Fendttrisix]

Googled it without success. All I could find is that Tier 5 (EU stage V) emission standards are due to be implemented in 2019/20. Those standards allow a far higher NOx level for diesels than petrol cars emit today. Are you saying that Diesel engine manufacturers are going to make their engines far exceed those standards, despite the extra production costs and practical hurdles of manufacture within the existing space requirements? Have they already solved the significantly higher maintenance costs currently predicted to be associated with the emission control systems you talked about?

Some diesels in cars already are tier6 compliant. Even the white van man get to drive about with tier6 engines in his van. Most have adblue tanks to fill aswell. Your googling not very good dde02
Euro 6September 20152.2700.1600.1080.082-0.005*6×1011* Applies only to vehicles with direct injection engines

 

[400ixl]

Typical hearing all the diesel lovers continuing to defend their choices with totally ridiculous statements. That's what desperation does. A shame that none of them came up with a single convincing argument other than the possible effects on their own pennies. Accusing me of not listening to their arguments was the funniest of all; what arguments? Other than a couple of early sensible responses from diesel owners, all I heard was denial, denial, denial.

See, this is where you are sat in your own little world only reading what you want to and ignoring everything that takes down your very tainted perspective of the world.

Most people have clearly acknowledged that diesels kick out some nasty stuff including NOx.

However when it gets pointed out that petrol actually kicks out worse nasty stuff of a different kind and therefore actually in the grand scale of killing people are actually the lesser of two evils (smaller turbo petrols excepted) you stick your fingers in your ears and just try to go on the offensive in trying to accuse people of being in denial. When in fact it is you in denial that whilst bad for the environment diesel isn't worse than what you drive.

Are you going to be man enough to confess that actually you concede that your car is more likely to kill than most diesels with its emissions.

Now given the number of diesels out there in comparison to larger capacity petrols, they are a bigger problem, but the fact still remains.

All types of lethal emissions need to be reduced, across all types of engines.

Maybe once the make EGR and GPF's compulsory on petrols and the worst of their emissions are reduced you can climb back on that high horse. In the meantime you come across as being in a high chair.

Still, I have no doubt you will just carry on just how you are, regurgitating everything you read in the daily mail as gospel.

 

[Tim203]

As Knighterrant pointed out buzzwords like oxides of nitrogen are steered by the media. He also was I believe the only one to mention soot particle pollution . I think that is just as concerning and the older mechanical pumps on engines were a lot 'healthier' in terms of particle size compared to common rail, hence particulate filters. The corresponding soot particles from 2000 bar pump pressures are so small they can find their way into the lungs and blood stream more easily. As a carbon based fossil fuel though does this mean that our amazing earth and plant life can break it down more easily? Dunno but we probably should do.

 

[400ixl]

Actually he was complaining about visible soot which is from the older non DPF cars, so he was going the complete opposite way to that argument.

The number of particles has reduced further than the additional damage that smaller ones do, hence why the petrol hydrocarbon particles which are even more easily absorbed are a bigger risk to our health now.

Completely agree that the media are steering the story through sensationalist reporting. But as intelligent human beings, blindly following the tripe they spout should be the last thing we do. Especially if you are going to start a thread on a forum where people may well actually be educated on the subject in order to stop you looking a fool.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Some diesels in cars already are tier6 compliant. Even the white van man get to drive about with tier6 engines in his van. Most have adblue tanks to fill aswell. Your googling not very good dde02

No, still confused. I can't find anything about Tier 6 engines of any kind. I can find lots on tiers 1 to 4, but only for nonroad engines such as generators. Even these I can only find as part of US EPA requirements. Did you really mean Euro 6 standards that came into force in 2014 and the one that I said right at the beginning all manufacturers are struggling to meet on the road? Here's a quote from a recent Auto Express review:

"The industry has previously admitted it can't meet the 2020 diesel pollution targets, and has since been granted "conformity factors" by the European Commission that allow them to pollute over twice the current Euro 6 emissions limits in new emissions tests.
Between 2017 and 2019, new cars will be allowed to pollute up to 2.1 times the current Euro 6 limit, reduced to 1.5 times above the existing limit between 2019 and 2021. Car manufacturers have said the conformity factors are needed to take into account the margin of error in measuring real-world emissions, while also allowing them more time to meet the technical challenges the new regulations demand."

But then perhaps I'm just being gullible and this is all a government ruse to get more taxes from us.

 

[400ixl]

And the same was true of petrol engines. The current regulations had to be relaxed for them to meet the existing standards in order for them to have more time to develop to meet the requirement.

So you are arguing on a president that petrol engines set.

Not good at all for diesel, but please be consistent in your slating.

 

[400ixl]

Targets which are getting measured on are on a global scale with each country having targets to meet. These roll down to various industries based on the country ones, not based on what is that industries actual problem.

So yes, it is all about the wrong targets, but that has been expressed on a number of occasions in this thread which you continue to chose to ignore.

This drives the wrong behaviour and taxes on the wrong things. You then get industry doing stupid things in trying to cheat those measures and getting caught which then just makes the merry go round accelerate further with more focus on the wrong targets and people posting threads like this.

Now if this thread was about all of the types of emissions and which types of engine should we be avoiding due to those emissions then it would have been a sensible thread.

The list for cars / vans would go something along the line of (worst at the top getting better as you go down):

Large capacity Petrol engines
Diesel engines of any capacity
Small capacity (Turbo lean burn) engines
Hybrid Petrols
Electric Vehicles
Hydrogen Powered engines

Put the electric above hydrogen as you don't know how the electricity was produced, but if solar it would be better than hydrogen.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

And the same was true of petrol engines. The current regulations had to be relaxed for them to meet the existing standards in order for them to have more time to develop to meet the requirement. So you are arguing on a president that petrol engines set. Not good at all for diesel, but please be consistent in your slating.

"arguing on a president"! Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned Trump. I wasn't aware that manufacturers of petrol engines were struggling to meet the latest standards as much as those of Diesel engines. IF that's correct, then I'll admit that I've been wrong to slate diesels for their emissions. I think we'd all like to see the evidence for this so we can all learn. It would certainly put an end to one of the diesel v petrol arguments that bore so many.

 

[Tim203]

Completely agree that the media are steering the story through sensationalist reporting. But as intelligent human beings, blindly following the tripe they spout should be the last thing we do. Especially if you are going to start a thread on a forum where people may well actually be educated on the subject in order to stop you looking a fool.

If I contribute towards a thread I try and give factual comments I believe to be true, not look a fool. Actually I am inviting people to supply the facts to the best of their knowledge as well.
On your last post Hydrogen was 2nd to solar on your list. I am happy to be told otherwise but hydrogen as an I.C. fuel can only produce limited power because it too has it's own emission issues . I think this is currently the sticking point on its development.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Let me try one more time. The only real fact is that there's lots of uncertainty over the true impact on health from petrol and Diesel engines. None of us can say which is better because there are innumerable influencing factors including (but very much not limited to) vehicle densities, natural environments, ambient temperatures, engine size, driving styles, vehicle maintenance, distances covered and average speeds. Most of us, including myself, haven't given any consideration to the possible health impacts when choosing which car to buy. We've had no more than extremely limited emission figures, figures that concern our pockets far more than our health. The only certainty here is that using our petrol or diesel motorised vehicles less will reduce any health risks for everyone. Work to improve this situation is taking place, slowly. But it has a long way to go.

It's only natural that we should defend our choices. It's a shame that so many take immediate offence and get aggressive when those choices are questioned. It's a good thing I didn't ask "Why support [insert football team of choice]?"

 

[tec]

I know this has been discussed within many other threads, but I still fail to understand why people continue to buy new diesel powered cars.

So is that it? People just don't care!

New diesel vehicles are actually very clean. :bannana:

 

[Dryce]

New diesel vehicles are actually very clean. :bannana:

.... allegedly

 

[Peter103]

Not clean enough apparently.

 

[Yugguy]

Gullible: easily persuaded to believe something, credulous, over-trusting
Idiot: A person with profound intellectual disability having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Not my fault that you can't tell the difference, a difference that's massive.

.

Really, this is the best you can do? Arguing literal meanings? Noone uses idiot in that way, I doubt many even know the derivation. But if we are going literal, dont let me hear you say "is it lunchtime, I could eat a horse, I'm starving."

You started this thread so you could take the piss out of stupid diesel owners. You know it, we know it

You hoped others would join in so you could have a good old playground mocking session.

When this didn't materialise you got all huffy.

If you want to pick up your bat and ball and go home that's OK.

 

[E55BOF]

It would certainly put an end to one of the diesel v petrol arguments that bore so many.

Like this one...

 

[ftb]

I somewhat agree with OP's thoughts on the subject, however I, as do others, think he is barking at the wrong tree. To start with this is a place for car enthusiasts. Those who see cars as only means of transportation, will not be signing up or talk about them in a public forum. So the very thought that diesel drivers are a gullible lot, can be insulting to some. Like many I chose to drive diesel for its availability, popularity and general economy. I would have no problems buying a petrol car but there wasn't one available in my area at the time. I believe most buy around where they live. Not many would choose to take a day off work or spend a weekend driving 500 miles to see a car when there's hundreds available within 50 miles. People are used to comfort these days and when this changes, so will their purchasing habits.

 

[Lit91]

I tried not to respond to the ridiculous comments, but couldn't help myself here. I think it's you and not me who's missing the point. I asked why people continue to buy new cars that are very likely to be contributing to the deaths of very many people. At no time have I been tree-hugging green and wanting everything banned that may adversely effect our environment. You question my choice of car, well I wanted a V6 Mercedes that wasn't diesel (because I could experience first hand the noxious fumes and deposits thrown out of their exhausts). My C350 was the smallest available and ticked all the boxes for me.

As for the notion that a diesel car that only covers 4000 miles a year and is the sole family car is a sensible healthier option, you are joking aren't you? It's reasonable to surmise that those 4000 miles would mainly consist of short journeys and most of us in the motoring fraternity know that diesels are poorly suited to this.

First you talk about the environment and how much of a positive contribution you make by cycling and only driving your V6 petrol for 4,000 miles a year.

When challenged, it seems no longer to be about the environment but a personal choice of driving a V6 petrol.

Now it may just be me, but something doesn't quite add up here...