Resale value is something that worries me too. I found my Fabia GL2 had a relatively good trade in value because of the fuel economy and tax free status. Whilst the fuel economy on my Octy GL3 is fantastic, it won't be quite so attractive if the Road Fund rules change!

Particulates are almost zero in Euro5 compliant cars with DPF,

Unfortunately whilst that is a widely held belief (promoted by the car industry)  , dpf cars actually produce more harmful particulates than non dpf cars because the particulates they produce are smaller and can pass deep into the lungs*

 

The difference between co2 emissions and nox/particulate emissions is that Co2 emissions will kill people in years to come , nox and particulates are killing people today

 

 

*http://www.vcoe.at/tl_files/vcoe/uploads/News/VCOe-Factsheets/Factsheets/2013-02_VCOe-Factsheet_Ultra-Feinstaub.pdf_engl.pdf

People all too often confuse "environmental" with "Human Health" issues.

 

The planet largely doesn't give a toss about NOx and soot, it's just bad for humans.

Unfortunately whilst that is a widely held belief (promoted by the car industry) , dpf cars actually produce more harmful particulates than non dpf cars because the particulates they produce are smaller and can pass deep into the lungs*

The difference between co2 emissions and nox/particulate emissions is that Co2 emissions will kill people in years to come , nox and particulates are killing people today

*http://www.vcoe.at/tl_files/vcoe/uploads/News/VCOe-Factsheets/Factsheets/2013-02_VCOe-Factsheet_Ultra-Feinstaub.pdf_engl.pdf

The fact sheet in this link states the main causes of harmful particulates are older diesel engines, construction equipment without particulate filters and direct injection petrol engines...

The fact sheet in this link states the main causes of harmful particulates are older diesel engines, construction equipment without particulate filters and direct injection petrol engines...

Unfortunately i couldnt cut and paste the bit i wanted , but there is plenty of other evidence on the net if you search

 

 

Like this

 

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/March/04030802.asp

 

Low-emission diesel engines emit nanoparticles that could be more harmful to human health than the dark exhaust fumes produced by older models, a study by researchers in Germany and Italy has found. 

Nanoparticles from newer diesel engines are 5-20nm across and penetrated lung tissue more deeply than older engine exhaust particles, which are around twice as large.

Its a difficult call...we mustnt forget that petrol cars output alot of CO (which is hugely poisonous) and carciogenic compounds like Benzine....and with diesel yes particulate filters have resulted in smaller particles which could well cause more harm but they are now outputting far fewer of them which can only be a positive thing all in all.

The truth is petrol and diesel powered vehicles are contributing to the death of us and our environment as they have been for years and in most respects are equally bad power sources. Diesel probably still just edges it as the best of a bad bunch in that comparitively most diesel cars burn far less diesel than petrol cars burn petrol. I prefer petrol cars and if I were buying my own wheels again id probably go petrol for the sake of it but that would be on the understanding Id probably be burning more of it.

Its interesting times though.....with Tesla doing some much for the electric car (and with the Model E or whatever they'll call it coming out...though id wager it wont be "affordable" rather an electric 3 series/C Class/Jag XE rival) and the potential for fuel cell cars to become a reality at some stage I think we are on the cusp of big change but unless my work start offering low CO2 petrol cars or performance oriented hybrids like the Golf GTE I'll stick with diesel I think.

Rather than batteries, I reckon nuclear powered synthesis of methanol is the answer

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy

The fact sheet in this link states the main causes of harmful particulates are older diesel engines, construction equipment without particulate filters and direct injection petrol engines...

 

and the recommendation of the report is to fit DPF filters to vehicles & machinery without them.

 

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/March/04030802.asp

 

Low-emission diesel engines emit nanoparticles that could be more harmful to human health than the dark exhaust fumes produced by older models, a study by researchers in Germany and Italy has found. 

Nanoparticles from newer diesel engines are 5-20nm across and penetrated lung tissue more deeply than older engine exhaust particles, which are around twice as large.

 

This report concerns Euro IV (Eu4) diesel engines that generally didn't need DPFs to achieve the particulate level.

The emissions could be controller by more advanced combustion control leading to more burn't fuel and smaller particles.

 

The idea of a DPF is like a catalyst so that when the soot which is collected in the DPF is heated to very high temperatures it oxidises to turn the solid soot particles into gasious form: C +O2 = CO2

For sure this isn't a 100% transformation & some of the soot will be emitted but its got to be better than not having a DPF.

The DPF is actually a form of carbon capture on a very small scale. It's a shame the captured carbon then has to be burnt off to clear the filter. In practical terms the amount of carbon would be so small as to have almost no affect on CO2 emissions though.

and the recommendation of the report is to fit DPF filters to vehicles & machinery without them.

 

 

This report concerns Euro IV (Eu4) diesel engines that generally didn't need DPFs to achieve the particulate level.

The emissions could be controller by more advanced combustion control leading to more burn't fuel and smaller particles.

 

The idea of a DPF is like a catalyst so that when the soot which is collected in the DPF is heated to very high temperatures it oxidises to turn the solid soot particles into gasious form: C +O2 = CO2

For sure this isn't a 100% transformation & some of the soot will be emitted but its got to be better than not having a DPF.

Well how about this report that compares both.

 

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jir/2014/138751/

 

DPF is a sticking plaster fix to a more fundamental problem , convincing the buying public of that is another matter, the car makers have put billions into convincing people otherwise. Truth be told most people dont give a **** , they have more interest in the money in their pocket than any impact on health

Well how about this report that compares both.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jir/2014/138751/

 

DPF is a sticking plaster fix to a more fundamental problem , convincing the buying public of that is another matter, the car makers have put billions into convincing people otherwise. Truth be told most people dont give a **** , they have more interest in the money in their pocket than any impact on health

 

Still not convinced a car without a DPF is better for peoples health.

It doesn't compare the amount of particulates emitted.

I'm sure the particulates emitted by a car with a DPF are 10 or 20x less than a car without.

 

Car manufacturers just sell what people want, like any business.

They would quite happily go back to Euro3 emissions levels as this would make the cars cheaper, more reliable & less complicated.

However, the emissions regulations boards in Europe, Japan & the US decide on these levels which in the end dictates the kind of technology engine manufacturers will be developed/used.

 

If governments keep lower taxes for diesel fuel & diesel vehicle duty people will keep buying them as there still isnt a competitve technology when you compare pence/mile.

Edited 3 June, 201511 yr by Gabbo