Can't say never driven one, might be a bit laggy though?

And a small diesel isn't?

Should be quite sprightly! Autocar have tested one and loved it.

And a small diesel isn't?

Should be quite sprightly! Autocar have tested one and loved it.

I'm not interested in the small diesels or small petrols to be honest, i prefer diesels and petrols 1.9 upwards. The 1.2 turbo petrol would be a nice engine for the polo alright.

While I will accept that humans may have an impact, I believe that it's more to do with deforrestation than CO2 production, in conjunction with the world's natural cycles.

What I do object to, is being taxed to promote being green while inhabiting a tiny little island, while China are producing far more CO2 than even the US! And when the rest of the developing world catch us and all want cars (which Mr Tata has now started... thanks! ), things are going to get worse. I object to the blanket "petrol is evil, tax motorists" standing of the government.

I agree entirely!

The combination of increased CO2 production and the decrease in forests that would normally be absorbing the CO2 is a classic f**k up :(

I also object to being taxed more for actually contributing less. I pay three times as much road tax as someone who can drive six times further than me every year. What a great idea that is Tax the miles AND the emissions, not just the emissions

I agree entirely!

The combination of increased CO2 production and the decrease in forests that would normally be absorbing the CO2 is a classic f**k up :(

I also object to being taxed more for actually contributing less. I pay three times as much road tax as someone who can drive six times further than me every year. What a great idea that is Tax the miles AND the emissions, not just the emissions

If we still had the trees, then it wouldn't be so bad. I just think people are trying to tackle the wrong thing. At it's most basic we need more trees not less cars/planes/boats etc.

If we still had the trees, then it wouldn't be so bad. I just think people are trying to tackle the wrong thing. At it's most basic we need more trees not less cars/planes/boats etc.

I think settling somewhere in the middle of those two propositions would work

I think settling somewhere in the middle of those two propositions would work

Well, as I said... at it's most basic! One problem at a time mate!

More people would use public transport if it was viable. My current commute takes just 10 minutes, and I am looking at cycling once the weather figures out what it wants to do. Public transport would be a ten minute walk to a bus stop that goes in the right direction, followed by a 25minute and 15 minute bus ride, followed by another 10 minute walk. It's just not viable! And I feel will never be viable aside from the very large major cities in this country, due to the way towns and cities have been built up. But that's another issue!

If there where not so many Tofu eating beardy soap dodging hippy vegetarian's around we would be in a better place.

Most of the greenhouse gas is methane emitted from cows, the simple answer ..... eat the feckers ...... and any non meat eating tofu wielding pansy that refuses should have a "non using teeth what they are meant for ..... eating meat and saving the world from methane emissions" tax.

Thats how I see it :D:D:D:D

I'm standing for election, any votes?

Well, as I said... at it's most basic! One problem at a time mate!

More people would use public transport if it was viable. My current commute takes just 10 minutes, and I am looking at cycling once the weather figures out what it wants to do. Public transport would be a ten minute walk to a bus stop that goes in the right direction, followed by a 25minute and 15 minute bus ride, followed by another 10 minute walk. It's just not viable! And I feel will never be viable aside from the very large major cities in this country, due to the way towns and cities have been built up. But that's another issue!

10 minute walk? Is that all?

I'm in London so do the tube to a station that leaves me a 20 minute walk to work, or a 10 minute bus ride. I don't mind walking though, if it's not pi55ing down. In London I reckon it takes at least an hour to get anywhere by Public Transport, no matter what the TFL website says

10 minute walk? Is that all?

I'm in London so do the tube to a station that leaves me a 20 minute walk to work, or a 10 minute bus ride. I don't mind walking though, if it's not pi55ing down. In London I reckon it takes at least an hour to get anywhere by Public Transport, no matter what the TFL website says

That's the issue! I'd go mental with an hour's commute by public transport

It's not so bad for me at the moment because my tube's at the end of the line so I get a seat, and it only takes 20 minutes.

Some people come to work from the other side of London, and that would pi55 me off :thumbdwn:

What was the orignal topic of this thread anyway?

It's not so bad for me at the moment because my tube's at the end of the line so I get a seat, and it only takes 20 minutes.

Some people come to work from the other side of London, and that would pi55 me off :thumbdwn:

What was the orignal topic of this thread anyway?

Something about tractors I think?

A summary of key points:

- India and China (and that whole region, basically) need to back off the fossil fuel usage

- Pedro and co need to stop cutting the Amazon down

- The government needs to stop extorting us hard working people

So anyway, this wall at 4k in 6th...

So anyway, this wall at 4k in 6th...

Top speed of the vehicle mate/ECU tomfoolery, have you not been reading?

So anyway, this wall at 4k in 6th...

I thought it was 6k in 4th?

My commute takes 7 minutes by bike when I'm not rushing, more like 5 if I'm in a rush. As for tax - Ireland has moved to a CO2 based taxing system now, but my 2005 car is still taxed based completely on the engine size, so €582 for the 1.9 - if it was taxed on the current emissions based standard it would be €156...

I'd like to see the cost of owning a car made as low as possible so people would be able to buy cars that are actually roadworthy and meet their needs while making the cost to fuel the car higher, to give the same tax income, but the people who burn more fuel (Releasing more CO2) end up paying more tax. As a low mileage driver it really annoys me how much I have to pay between tax and insurance just to keep the car parked in my driveway most of the week...

As for trees preventing global warming, the primordial Earth had atmospheric CO2 levels somewhere around 7%. A lot of this CO2 was trapped in the formation of fossil fuels as well as very slow geological processes where it was mineralised. Planting trees doesn't really trap CO2 long term unless the plant matter does end up as fossil fuel in the future. Most forests are carbon neutral rather than net sinks of CO2. Planting trees where none previously existed will cut carbon, but can't deal with the millions of years worth of trees that are being burned as fossil fuel.

Incidentally for Ireland to fuel itself using sustainable sources (Biodiesel) I saw a figure of something like 3 or 4 times the land area of the country needing to be planted with fuel crops. Ireland's population density is a lot less than the UK's so it's really barking up the wrong tree to try this as a stand alone solution. Biomass methane generation promises to be a better solution anyway.

The hydrogen power idiots are the worst thing to ever happen the energy for transport debate though. Take a relatively inert, high power density easy to handle and store fuel like petrol/diesel and replace with a gas that must be stored highly compressed to get any energy density, is highly reactive and explosive (It's not too dangerous if its leaking slowly as it's so light it disperses to a very low concentration very quickly), almost impossible to seal properly into a container the molecules are so small and takes enormous amounts of energy to produce in the first place because it has to be electrolysed from water, so all the power that comes out of the burning/reacting the hydrogen has already had to be put into it to create it (Assuming perfect efficiency, which isn't possible either). This is before accounting for there being no delivery infrastructure for Hydrogen anywhere except about 5 stations in California.

The plug in petrol or diesel hybrid is as far as I can gather the best solution for most people's transport needs. I think the US average is less than 30 miles a day for driving (And is more than most of Europe, though Ireland is close thanks to probably the worst set of planning laws in the known universe allowing people to put houses anywhere they like provided they know the local county councillors, making long commutes common and public transport impossible), so the battery would be more than enough to run most people's cars without burning any fuel for day to day use, while they could still road trip on the weekend without worrying about recharging times and finding suitable power connections. Also far more places have an electricity supply that could charge a car than there are petrol stations, so hybrids give more fuel sources rather than less. Anyway enough ranting ...

I thought it was 6k in 4th?

That's a more manly amount of revolutions!

If there where not so many Tofu eating beardy soap dodging hippy vegetarian's around we would be in a better place.

Yes and no, see below.

Most of the greenhouse gas is methane emitted from cows, the simple answer ..... eat the feckers ...... and any non meat eating tofu wielding pansy that refuses should have a "non using teeth what they are meant for ..... eating meat and saving the world from methane emissions" tax.

Thats how I see it :D:D:D:D

I'm standing for election, any votes?

The simple answer would be not to farm and then eat cows. Growing crops for food is far more efficient than raising livestock. Unfortunately (as I love a 16oz steak as much as the next man) that would make us vegetarians, see above.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

I think that's enough on that subject!

Best quotes ever (The Bloodhound SSC is the follow on to the first supersonic car (Thrust SSC) and is hoped to take the land speed record past 1000 mph - that's each timed 1 mile run in 3.6 seconds :surprised ):

"BLOODHOUND SSC’s annual CO2 output is the equivalent of driving 64 684 miles in an average car."

"BLOODHOUND SSC’s annual CO2 output is equivalent to that of 4.12 cows."

BLOODHOUND SSC and the environment

Yes and no, see below.

The simple answer would be not to farm and then eat cows. Growing crops for food is far more efficient than raising livestock. Unfortunately (as I love a 16oz steak as much as the next man) that would make us vegetarians, see above.

Stop being so rational man

Think of it, with the Vegans we could raise a Hemp or hessian tax as well. Maybe it will become like the Flesh series in 2000AD, now we are talking, Dino burgers and robot soya cow's that grow "meat" on their ribs then it's just harvested.

Sorry, I have been in the channel islands all week, nice close knit communities here and I am going stir crazy.

Best quotes ever (The Bloodhound SSC is the follow on to the first supersonic car (Thrust SSC) and is hoped to take the land speed record past 1000 mph - that's each timed 1 mile run in 3.6 seconds :surprised ):

"BLOODHOUND SSC’s annual CO2 output is the equivalent of driving 64 684 miles in an average car."

"BLOODHOUND SSC’s annual CO2 output is equivalent to that of 4.12 cows."

BLOODHOUND SSC and the environment

DEATH TO COWS!!!!!!

What the hell was the topic???

People also forget that I'm not just blindly diesel-bashing. I bought a Fabia vRS new. Ran it for 9 months and 15,000 miles. Got bored of it being nothing-nothing-BANG-nothing-change-up. Traded it in for an Octavia vRS

I have sipped at the devil's fuel, and prefer the proper stuff!

You ran a 1.9 TDI PD with 130bhp for 9 months and you think that means you "know it all" in relation to the performance of Turbo diesel engines?

Tried any other VAG TDI's i.e. 2.0TDI range or even any of BMW's "tractor engine" offerings 123d, 330d etc.....?

I'm not just blindly petrol bashing either, owned plenty of both with my best engine so far being the 2.0 TFSI found in the Octy (would have another TFSI engined Octy like a shot if I had the cash) .

Just because (for me) that's my best engine (to date) it doesen't mean that diesels are **** and when someone posts anything "good" about diesel engine performance I jump in telling them to get a "proper" engine if they want power, performance etc.....

You ran a 1.9 TDI PD with 130bhp for 9 months and you think that means you "know it all" in relation to the performance of Turbo diesel engines?

Tried any other VAG TDI's i.e. 2.0TDI range or even any of BMW's "tractor engine" offerings 123d, 330d etc.....?

I'm not just blindly petrol bashing either, owned plenty of both with my best engine so far being the 2.0 TFSI found in the Octy (would have another TFSI engined Octy like a shot if I had the cash) .

Just because (for me) that's my best engine (to date) it doesen't mean that diesels are **** and when someone posts anything "good" about diesel engine performance I jump in telling them to get a "proper" engine if they want power, performance etc.....

I never proclaimed to know it all, merely explaining my thoughts. I've tried lots of different diesels. The common thing is that they are all nothing-nothing-BANG-change-up. Never-liked them.

I'm just glad at the moment I have a choice in the matter.

I never proclaimed to know it all, merely explaining my thoughts. I've tried lots of different diesels. The common thing is that they are all nothing-nothing-BANG-change-up. Never-liked them.

I'm just glad at the moment I have a choice in the matter.

You obviously haven't. The only two deisel engines I've experienced that are "all nothing-nothing-BANG-change up" are the 1.9TDI PD 130bhp and the 2.0TDI PD 170bhp. The 2.0TDI in 140bhp guise is very smooth and progressive, as are all the modern Derv engines from BMW

Explaining your thoughts?

"It's a diesel, if you want high speed get a proper car"

"It's got a tractor engine" etc, etc, etc..............

Real deep thinking and critical analysis there Babs

Plenty of diesels out there capable of getting to 60mph in less than 7 seconds and with top speeds of 140mph .... I'd say that was quite a quick car, may not be as fast as some petrols, but still faster than a lot, and in this day and age of high fuel prices and road tax an option for the keen driver to "have their cake and eat it"

In fairness it wins due to economy not speed

Are you saying it's neither "fast" or a "performance" car?

Who said anything about winning?