First council to introduce a surcharge for owning a diesel engined car?

[Jimrod]

Interesting what you found with your iQ. My citigo has proven to be better than I expected. With a clear run home from work I can see an indicated 74mpg, a lot of people who were shocked that I bought one are now looking at doing similar.

 

I think big engines are finished, and the director of our parent company (who designs engines) also thinks this

 

I think Tesla is going to help make a big impact in motoring with electric motors now they're doing it with serious financial backing. Charging stations popping up more and more over the next few years, cars designed to actually look like cars rather than toys (the previous curse of the electric car, why!?) and real performance with decent range and not ridiculous pricing. They're finally showing the way forward and offering something with real driver appeal rather than just low fuel costs offset by high purchase price.

Edited 19 June, 2015 by Jimrod

[lol-lol]

Same old same old: Government offers incentives to buy low CO2 engines then realise more and more cars are creeping in under the very low tax bands so councils start introducing surcharges to replace the lost revenues... They want their money one way or another.

 

All governments and care companies were told they faced fine here and also in other rmarkets if they did not lower CO2 to less than 120 gm/km to meet Kobe agreement.

 

Cars over 166 gm/CO2 get hammered.     http://www.nextgreencar.com/car-tax/bands.php#q1

 

Car taxation report fromSMMT ..http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/Cebr-Future-of-Motoring-Taxation-report-under-embargo-until-0001-Tuesday-28-April.pdf

 

Bit on future expected local cost ie city charging £10 a day or so for polluting vehicles.

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

I hate the old school buses that I get stuck behind from Aylesbury to Thame - dog slow and always seem to break down (there's always a massive queue built up behind them).

 

There's some pre-2000 Arriva buses I see in Aylesbury/Halton (running the 500(?) route). They don't seem too smokey, but they sound like a tie fighter when they overtake me when I'm on the bike.

 

Geek mode on*

 

The old school buses are often old knackard Leylands, I've seen some over 30 years old! The problem is money (isnt it always?) the buses do 5 miles a day, monday to friday. The council could specify newer buses like some contracts but then it's going to cost them a huge amount more to have the bus company have a £250,000 bus for such little use. 

 

The Halton Camp route is the 50 & 500 goes to Tring and Watford. Both use ex TFL Dennis Tridents, they have a DPF fitted from when they were in London so cleaner then when they were new but I dont think they're clean enough for the low emissions zones now. They do sound pretty beasty, if a little suggish.

[vxh26]

It will be interesting to see what impact the latest moves over diesel cars have on sales, prices and availability. Frankly I think it would be an act of utter insanity for anyone to buy a diesel car nowadays, certainly if they live in or near a major city - no matter how huge the discount.

 

As to Tesla, I think the best they can hope for is that Hollywood decides to remake "Back to the future".

[skomaz]

I tihnk you will find that the larger discrepencies between actual and expected manufacturers figures are usually bigger on the diesels than the petrols, both WhatCar and HonestJohn do losts of data and in rela life, particualrly those who do short journeys ie less than 10 miles or rush hour crawling, in diesels, apart for the additional DPF issues, report poor mpg relatively to expected.

The MX5, and I recently ran and sold a 2 litre one, very nice auto roof arrangment, is poor due to it being non-turbo, which usually improved mpg effeciency by between 10 and 20% so not a valid comparison compared to a turbo diesel.

More useful comparisons, IMO, are like the 105 hp TDI VAG, TDI to TSI or Renault-Nissan Cdi to TCE. A part from the petrol being much nicer to drive the petrols have lower emmision on the key pollutant ie particles and NO and owners report greater satisfaction with general running ownership I have read on this forum and others.

Hi lol

Two things - I wasn't talking about test figures but my actual real life figures. I pay little attention to test figures.

Also the mx5 may not be turbo but in terms of power output it is directly comparable to the diesels I've had so to my mind is relevant. Also bear in mind the mx5 is less than a tonne in weight whereas the other two are dragging around at least 50 percent more.

[skomaz]

It will be interesting to see what impact the latest moves over diesel cars have on sales, prices and availability. Frankly I think it would be an act of utter insanity for anyone to buy a diesel car nowadays, certainly if they live in or near a major city - no matter how huge the discount.

 

As to Tesla, I think the best they can hope for is that Hollywood decides to remake "Back to the future".

Personally I would definitely buy another diesel as I like the way they drive... And I'm not mad B-)

[vxh26]

Personally I would definitely buy another diesel as I like the way they drive... And I'm not mad B-)

They all say that, post a scan of the certificate or it's just your word

[skomaz]

I'm not shouting you down but that solution doesn't really in any way resolve the issue nor is it remotely viable - even aside from pollution issues, cities cannot handle the level of traffic and congestion as it is, I don't agree entirely with demonising diesel cars as part of the main problem is there simply are too many cars on the road and more efforts should be made to cut them down.

Agreed efforts do need to be made to reduce car usage but equally we need think outside the box and do things differently. The shape of the graph of emissions vs speed means that significant benefits can be gained by creating freely flowing traffic compared to the current stagnating flow traffic. However many local authorities, in an attempt to reduce car usage, have deliberately slowed traffic to increase journey times, cause congestion and encourage use of public transport, thereby exacerbating the air quality problems.

Think outside the box, free up traffic, provide a bit of extra capacity in hot spots by changing signal timings or removing restrictions such as bus lanes and you can make a dramatic change in a short space of time that is greater than would be gained by conventional means.

Added to that we should be trying to change the mentality at newer is always better and that we must all drive newer cars with modern technology. Changing cars every few years, as is now pushed through PCP deals and the like simply does not make environmental sense if you look at whole life pollution and emissions. Repairing and maintaining over a long period and changing less frequently creates less overall pollution, even with the rate of change of engine technology. It's one of the reasons that I keep my cars a long time and look after them (aside from it making economic sense as well)

[skomaz]

They all say that, post a scan of the certificate or it's just your word

I can't... I'm too busy looking for hairs on the back of my hands... And talking to the chickens...

But I will admit to being mad about cars...

[lol-lol]

Hi lol

Two things - I wasn't talking about test figures but my actual real life figures. I pay little attention to test figures.  Also the mx5 may not be turbo but in terms of power output it is directly comparable to the diesels I,ve had so to my mind is relevant. Also bear in mind the mx5 is less than a tonne in weight whereas the o'er two are dragging around at least to percent more.

 

MX5's engines were always chosen to be similar to the ethos of the Lotus Elan and other cars it was suppose to emulate and being up to date in terms of engine efficency was clearly not a priority, less than 40 mpg from a engine producing less than 170 hp, compared to the Fabia 2 VRS which the car was  replaced, ie 45 mpg, quarter of a tonne heavier, much less aerodynamic but I engine that is probably about 20% more efficient.  Manufacturer's figures for the MX5 are close to those actually achieved according to the over one hundred owners reporting on HonestJohn realmpg. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/mx5-2005.     Weight is not very important for extra urban consumption but is for urban consumption which effect combined figures.  Fabia 2 VRS will do over 50 mpg on a run despite aero and weight due to very efficeint high compression turbo engine.  Quicker than a two litre diesel and mpg on about 10% less than them therefore only about 5% more expensive on fuel running costs with higher price of diesel in Blighty. 

[Ootohere]

Not complicated these days is it.

 

You have a Salesperson / Manager say from Tesco in a London HQ or say HMRC Offices that needs to go to Aberdeen.

(no idea why the person from Glasgow can not go!)

 

Anyway, not a Flight, not a Train, for some reason they Drive the Jaguar, Mercedes, Audi , BMW or what ever the middle management car is that they get the Tax Incentive to drive.

 

Well Stobbart or some other Haulage Company has a Load going from the London Area to Aberdeen,

lots of loads, not by train but by roads, 

maybe VIA Birmingham maybe direct.

 

So use the Apps, use the modern systems.

Get that Traveller / Manager / Consultants visit covered by them in the passengers seat of a Mercedes Truck Cab rather 

than them travelling up and down the highways clogging the major routes.

 

Obviously London - Aberdeen is an extreme example.

But Tesco Reps or Morrisons, or HMRC or any other Commercial / Business Drivers could move from location to location 

some trips without being in a Personal Company car.

 

When needed the EV cars can be there charging at the Transportation Hubs ready to get them on the shorter trips or back home.

[lol-lol]

I have done about a thousand miles this week and use the car.  I can claim tax relief on the 45/25 pence per miles, car allowance goes straight through the pay packet.

 

No company car tax, tax relief on business miles driven, fuel card so I pay on fuel used as BIK ie driving can be another source of income. 

 

So pick a car that is economical and cheap to buy, ie a circa one litre petrol, totally adequate for long journeys as well as short, does not produce pollution that kill thousands of people per year.

 

If I am going in to a big cities, particularly London, park and ride in by train, ie Reading trains every 15 minutes.  Only allow electric and cars and low Nitrogen Oxides outputting vehicles in to the big cities ie no diesel between the vernal and autumnal equinoxes to help keen the air clean enough to not cause heath problems for millions of people, killing hundreds of thousands per year or so of them across the world or fit SCRs.   

[Ootohere]

You have the likes of London all ANPR'd up, Congestion Charge Cameras and DVLA Paperless 

you see if these are being used as City Cars.

 

So simples where Companies and Companies that are office based in London, not using large AWD 2.5 tonne plus vehicles for

 towing or transporting employees or Customers, Just as Luxury Perks for Directors and Employees, do not give them Tax Advantages running these vehicles.

 

Just ensure they are Registered to the Keeper as Private Vehicles not Company cars if really they are personal big vehicles.

The Same with Luxury & Prestige AWD big Hire and Lease vehicles, 

if they spend there time in Cities then unless they are doing enough miles out with cities Tax them much higher than they are.

Not just £500 VED annually.

 

Tax all vehicles per miles covered, by fuel but also by use of the ANPR or Transponders, 

and tax vehicles used in Cities highest of all.  That is if the Cities have good public transport and high air pollution and Congestion.

[skomaz]

MX5's engines were always chosen to be similar to the ethos of the Lotus Elan and other cars it was suppose to emulate and being up to date in terms of engine efficency was clearly not a priority, less than 40 mpg from a engine producing less than 170 hp, compared to the Fabia 2 VRS which the car was  replaced, ie 45 mpg, quarter of a tonne heavier, much less aerodynamic but I engine that is probably about 20% more efficient.  Manufacturer's figures for the MX5 are close to those actually achieved according to the over one hundred owners reporting on HonestJohn realmpg. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/mx5-2005.     Weight is not very important for extra urban consumption but is for urban consumption which effect combined figures.  Fabia 2 VRS will do over 50 mpg on a run despite aero and weight due to very efficeint high compression turbo engine.  Quicker than a two litre diesel and mpg on about 10% less than them therefore only about 5% more expensive on fuel running costs with higher price of diesel in Blighty. 

 

Shows how much you know...

 

The Mx 5 Mk1 Drag Coefficient = 0.38

The Fabai Mk1 vrs hatch Drag Coefficient = 0.33

 

So the Fabia is significantly more aerodynamic than the MX5, despite the Fabais greater frontal area.

 

Also the MX5 engine wasn't chosen to emulate the Elan's (although it did have new rocker covers fitted for this purpose.  It was actually a non-turbo version of Mazda contemporary 1.6 323 Familia engine with 'modern' injection and control systems that was subsequently enlarged to 1.8 litres - so hardly a 1960's emulation.

 

Try arguing using fact rather that supposition.   

[lol-lol]

Yeh gads, Mk 1 MX5 is ancient history,  Mk 3 MX5 Cd 0.34     http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=126269

Mk 2 Fabia VRS CD 0.345      http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=221045

 

 

Difference being thermal efficiency of the Twincharge engine much greater hence capable of 45 mpg in the combined cycle where MX5 less than 40 mpg despite worse aero, bigger frontal aero due to its much more efficient engine.  Hence CO2 much better in the Twincharge than the nail of an MX engine.  Turbos improve fuel efficiency by over 10% for the same HP, hence the M3, M5s etc going that way and just about every other engine for road use.

 

BSc (Hons) 2-1 (with Thermodynamics at level 2).  

(Ex MX5 2 litre owner and numerous turbo and a supercharged car too.)

 

Can I suggest the writings of Sadi Carnot to you...,.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

High volumentric efficiency and high compression engine (hence the 98 octane in the Twincharge).

[skomaz]

Yeh gads, Mk 1 MX5 is ancient history,  Mk 3 MX5 Cd 0.34     http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=126269

Mk 2 Fabia VRS CD 0.345      http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=221045

 

 

Difference being thermal efficiency of the Twincharge engine much greater hence capable of 45 mpg in the combined cycle where MX5 less than 40 mpg despite worse aero, bigger frontal aero due to its much more efficient engine.  Hence CO2 much better in the Twincharge than the nail of an MX engine.  Turbos improve fuel efficiency by over 10% for the same HP, hence the M3, M5s etc going that way and just about every other engine for road use.

 

BSc (Hons) 2-1 (with Thermodynamics at level 2).  

(Ex MX5 2 litre owner and numerous turbo and a supercharged car too.)

 

Can I suggest the writings of Sadi Carnot to you...,.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

High volumentric efficiency and high compression engine (hence the 98 octane in the Twincharge).

Nope no need... MA (Cantab) CEng MICE... So I also did thermodynamics along with a stack of other stuff and I also still happen to work in engineering leading a Transport Planning department and managing multidisciplinary teams at a global engineering and management consultant, part of which means I deal with air quality and environmental issues every day at work.

I am therefore pretty well versed in the subject so don't get all high horse, rightous and patronising with me please.

Actually, you know what... I can't be bothered with you any more as you'll only annoy me more than you usually do so I'll try and ignore you from now on.

[cheezemonkhai]

Soon to become the norm?

 

Islington think that if you have money you should feel guilty for it (as the majority of them inherited money and feel bad).

If you worked for it, you should feel guilty for having a job that pays it to you.

 

Having lived there, they'll basically tax you for anything and everything and then some more.

I hope they're going to tax the filthy buses that are used on the 4, 341 and other routes that all go through angel and upper street.

[vxh26]

<SNIP>

I hope [islington Council are] going to tax the filthy buses that are used on the 4, 341 and other routes that all go through angel and upper street.

So do I but I'm not quite sure who they would actually tax, perhaps Aviva?

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

Having lived there, they'll basically tax you for anything and everything and then some more.

I hope they're going to tax the filthy buses that are used on the 4, 341 and other routes that all go through angel and upper street.

 

At worst they'll be Euro 4 on the 4 route, although they appear to be surprisingly old (14 years!) for a TFL bus, they normally do 7 years before being chucked out to a outer town, they'll have a DPF fitted now though. 341's look to be 60 plate Enviros so Euro 5. 

[lol-lol]

At worst they'll be Euro 4 on the 4 route, although they appear to be surprisingly old (14 years!) for a TFL bus, they normally do 7 years before being chucked out to a outer town, they'll have a DPF fitted now though. 341's look to be 60 plate Enviros so Euro 5. 

 

Do they run Ad Blue/SCR systems to bring the NO down to more acceptable levels as well as this seems to be the plan for many cities for existing diesel vehicles?

 

I notice some cities are changing the buses to gas powered as that seems to be run cleaner ie almost non NO production and even less CO2 as a higher proportion of water with the lighter hydrocarbons. Also hybrid ones as with deliver truck more so.  Will we get to the stage on WW2 style when the NO and particles reach dangerous levels?

 

 

[Cznski]

Pah, it's all just ways of generating money clothed in the excuse of the environment.

 

[places tongue in cheek] For me I hope diesels do become ostracised in the next 3 or 4 years - last year I bought my (2nd hand) 1.8tsi Octavia and it cost me a good £2-3k cheaper than a comparative age/spec diesel version. If all this scaremongering over diesels comes true then by the time I come to sell it should be worth more than a diesel!

 

As has been said over and over, the only way to solve the "cars are killing polar bears and kittens" problem is to make public transport an attractive option both in terms of price, journey time and convenience. Taxing folk more isn't going to make the slightest difference  in my opinion.

 

I know this is a bit simplistic but if I was going to have to pay an extra £100 for the privilege of owning a car I'd make damn sure I got my money's worth out of it and would probably end up using it more to justify the extra cost of owning it thus defeating the purpose of reducing emissions.