Yep, 5 miles from moors,5 miles from sea.

 

 

..and because they are non-American they will get dragged through the mud and be disproportionately punished. The US does not like successful foreign companies that are bigger and more successful than their own.

 

I don't often agree with you but this time I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

 

Will diesel's drop in price because of this, not totally, but added to the fact of the bad name diesel is getting then yes I think there could be an effect on the price of diesel cars. Hopefully it will mean "cleaner" (not fact but how it's seen to diesel) petrol cars will increase in value and for once I've made the right choice by going to petrol lol :P

Yes VW was wrong, but I really think if it was an American motor company this would have been smaller news!

I think diesels which falsely sit within a lower tax band will retain higher value than those who correctly sit higher. I also cannot see the DVLA retroactively increasing CO2/NO2 emissions for registered vehicles, so it will have no direct affect on resale.

 

On the other had it may have a huge affect on new car sales if bands are bumped up a notch or two. VAG may also try to cover their costs with price increases.

 

What could become a further headache for VW is if rival brands sue for loss of income due to their illegal practices. It could end up being a never-ending pull on their resources, as with BP's oil spill.

 

One thing is for sure. Diesel is no longer the environmental choice for combustion engines, and this will affect resales due to higher future tax levies. This ball started rolling long before VW stepped on it's own toes.

 

Petrol-EV's will likely become dominant over the next decade, with full-EV taking a decade or two longer to mature.

No diesels falsely sit in a lower tax band. This problem doesnt affect CO2, it affects NOx. Therefore if it changes anything in Europe (and there is nothing yet to say it has done) it will just mean that VW introduced cars into the EU market that never actually complied with the current regs. Basically something along the lines of introducing a tier 4 compliant engine when it should be tier 5. VW will get fined, and that'll be the end of it. Nothing will happen to our cars, and very few customers will actually care (customers only care about the better MPG they are getting from the diesel), therefore resale values wont be affected in the long term.

 

Oh, and diesels are still the environmental choice. The only reason they dont look it is because everyone is keeping on about NOx right now, and not looking at the overall picture. CO? Hydrocarbons? Yes diesels emit slightly more NOx than petrols, but its not as if petrols dont emit any NOx themselves. Petrols have long since been made to reduce NOx emissions to an acceptable level. Tier 6 now makes diesels bring them down to an acceptable level.

No, but they can file for lost sales caused by VW's fake results. Many consumers will have purchased VW diesels because of their greener more effciient credentials (compative to other brands). This means that other brands will have lost out on sales, and thus market share because of deliberate foul practice.

 

At a time when the world's Governments (finally including the US) are trying to reduce emissions, they cannot allow the world's biggest auto manufacturer to get away with such deceipt. They will come down on VW like a ton of bricks, and every rival will want their share of the spoils.

 

..and because they are non-American they will get dragged through the mud and be disproportionately punished. The US does not like successful foreign companies that are bigger and more successful than their own.

The VWs are still more efficient (if thats what the figures show). That hasnt changed. Efficiency is MPG. This cheat does not affect MPG.

Customers may well have assumed they were buying say a tier 5 engine that complied with NOx regulations, but next to no one will care if it turns out its really a tier 4 engine unless VW are made to do something to all these engines out there. Its exactly the same with any engine.

Ask yourself this question. Your engine (petrol or diesel) turns out to be tier 4 compliant, when in fact it should have been tier 5. It still burns the same amount of fuel as always, and is still more efficient than the competition (bearing in mind all manufacturers have the same tricks for maximising MPG in the official tests, and this cheat has not been shown to affect MPG). Your tax band will not be changing. Are you worried? I bet very few will be worried, because it doesnt really affect them. It only worries VW who may be fined for flouting the regulations. That only changes if VW have to recall EU vehicles, which is probably unlikely. The Americans will, but highly unlikely anything will happen here, even if it is shown the engines didnt comply.

 

Now lets say that this cheat did actually affect MPG (which hasnt been shown yet). If anything, reducing the affect of the emissions gubbins during everyday running will increase MPG. Now who cares? The answer? Even less people, because most will love the fact VW managed to get them a few extra MPG. So unless it was decided to change the vehicles tax band due to now apparently burning more fuel (which is even less likely than a recall (again assuming anything is proved)), next to nobody will care.

 

It'll make next to no difference to diesel sales in the long run, because unless you believe diesels cannot comply with emissions regs (in which case every manufacturer must be doing the same as VW), then this matters little to diesels overall. The majority of diesels will comply with current emissions regs, and people will remain happy that they are getting a more efficient engine (ie burning less fuel).

For sure in the long term diesel (& petrol) is not the future for motoring.

However, technology is always advancing & diesel engines with DPF & SCR already address some of the current concerns about Nox levels.

e.g. US Nox threshold as 1/3 of the levels of european cars today so a 60% N0x reduction in Europe is achievable today.

 

As good as newer turbo-petrol engines are, they still cannot compete price per kilometer with diesel.

 

The real problem today is the governements in Europe have got the balance slightly wrong with the taxation on fuel & VED.

Its too biased towards diesel (as most are based only on C02) so company car owners & joe public will take a diesel because you get a better car cheaper even though they don't need one (low mileage users) because even over short  distances its cheaper to run.

I would expect that they will address this in the future, either through company car bands, VED or most likely additional fuel tax on diesel branded as a "Clean Air Tax".

Regarding your mentioning of American limits. Its interesting to note that a Tier 6 petrol in the EU is able to pump out more NOx than a new diesel currently can in the US, and still comply with EU regs. Petrols green?

 

As for VED bands. Actually they are biased towards hybrids, which are able to provide massively false CO2 figures. Only difference to the VW NOx scandal, is they are legal figures. This then pushes people to buy hybrids when they are not suitable, and pushes companies to make company car drivers take hybrids. The end result is we burn more fuel, and pump out more CO2, CO, and hydrocarbons than necessary.

 

As for a clean air tax on diesel? As mentioned above, until petrols have to emit less NOx than an American diesel this would be a tad unfair. Plus it would be completely ignoring all the other emissions.

Cars are taxed on co2 not on Nox. But it is mostly those who live in high density cities who are losing out - air quality in London is dreadful.

 

London dreadful? Crikey, I hate to think how you describe the likes of the chinese cities then. Even outside the cities.

Take a trip from South Korea to China by sea, and see how the visibility drops and the sky takes on a very smoggy appearance about half way across. You dont see anything that bad in the UK, even travelling to London.

OK London isnt good, but compared to some, its like pure fresh air.

Edited 26 September, 201510 yr by JungleJames

The VWs are still more efficient (if thats what the figures show). That hasnt changed. Efficiency is MPG. This cheat does not affect MPG.

Customers may well have assumed they were buying say a tier 5 engine that complied with NOx regulations, but next to no one will care if it turns out its really a tier 4 engine unless VW are made to do something to all these engines out there. Its exactly the same with any engine.

Ask yourself this question. Your engine (petrol or diesel) turns out to be tier 4 compliant, when in fact it should have been tier 5. It still burns the same amount of fuel as always, and is still more efficient than the competition (bearing in mind all manufacturers have the same tricks for maximising MPG in the official tests, and this cheat has not been shown to affect MPG). Your tax band will not be changing. Are you worried? I bet very few will be worried, because it doesnt really affect them. It only worries VW who may be fined for flouting the regulations. That only changes if VW have to recall EU vehicles, which is probably unlikely. The Americans will, but highly unlikely anything will happen here, even if it is shown the engines didnt comply.

 

Now lets say that this cheat did actually affect MPG (which hasnt been shown yet). If anything, reducing the affect of the emissions gubbins during everyday running will increase MPG. Now who cares? The answer? Even less people, because most will love the fact VW managed to get them a few extra MPG. So unless it was decided to change the vehicles tax band due to now apparently burning more fuel (which is even less likely than a recall (again assuming anything is proved)), next to nobody will care.

 

It'll make next to no difference to diesel sales in the long run, because unless you believe diesels cannot comply with emissions regs (in which case every manufacturer must be doing the same as VW), then this matters little to diesels overall. The majority of diesels will comply with current emissions regs, and people will remain happy that they are getting a more efficient engine (ie burning less fuel).

I never said that VW's cheating led to poorer MPG?

London dreadful? Crikey, I hate to think how you describe the likes of the chinese cities then. Even outside the cities.

Take a trip from South Korea to China by sea, and see how the visibility drops and the sky takes on a very smoggy appearance about half way across. You dont see anything that bad in the UK, even travelling to London.

OK London isnt good, but compared to some, its like pure fresh air.

Indeed. My brother is currently living in Hong Kong and there are days when he can't go outside due to the amount of pollution.

In contrast London is clean. Even compared to Bangkok, London is good!

I never said that VW's cheating led to poorer MPG?

You mentioned efficiency when going on about this little cheat. Efficiency is MPG.

Indeed. My brother is currently living in Hong Kong and there are days when he can't go outside due to the amount of pollution.

In contrast London is clean. Even compared to Bangkok, London is good!

Yep, just flown back from HK. I wasnt actually staying there, but the continual haze you see over china was quite evident over HK. Feel sorry for HK really, because its the dirty/ noisy neighbour that causes all the problems.

You mentioned efficiency when going on about this little cheat. Efficiency is MPG.

I think that you have misinterpreted a small part of my post and got carried away with a long retort. I said "Many consumers will have purchased VW diesels because of their greener more efficient credentials". I used the word efficient to emphasis the way of doing things (spraying urine on exhaust emissions), rather than as a hint towards MPG. Maybe effective would have been the better word to use.

Edited 26 September, 201510 yr by Orville

I think that you have misinterpreted a small part of my post and got carried away with a long retort. I said "Many consumers will have purchased VW diesels because of their greener more efficient credentials". I used the word efficient to emphasis the way of doing things (spraying urine on exhaust emissions), rather than as a hint towards MPG. Maybe effective would have been the better word to use.

OK then, fair do's.

 

Still not sure many drivers purchased their VW diesel because of their NOx emissions though. They buy diesels because of the reduction in fuel costs. Bet 99% couldnt care less if their engine ends up not complying with tier 5. Mainly because most wouldnt know what the NOx figure is of their car (ive only just looked mine up now after nearly 2yrs of ownership, and thats only because of all this talk).

The majority of those claiming they have been duped by VW and want compensation, either dont realise what this cheat envolves, or have seen a good way of making some extra cash.

 

People only see the MPG and CO2 figure, and when they claim their car is green, its because it uses very little fuel. Therefore when the term 'green' is banded about in this argument, people get confused and are unaware what is involved.

Edited 26 September, 201510 yr by JungleJames

London dreadful? Crikey, I hate to think how you describe the likes of the chinese cities then. Even outside the cities.

Take a trip from South Korea to China by sea, and see how the visibility drops and the sky takes on a very smoggy appearance about half way across. You dont see anything that bad in the UK, even travelling to London.

OK London isnt good, but compared to some, its like pure fresh air.

 

London air quality is dreadful, just because somewhere else is worse, the OP's point stands. Air quality in some cities is like the boiling frog syndrome.

Sometimes you have to travel further away (more pollution yay!) to see.

 

If we continually say "don't worry, not as bad as HK", we're not going to leave much behind for our kids.

London air quality is dreadful, just because somewhere else is worse, the OP's point stands. Air quality in some cities is like the boiling frog syndrome.

Sometimes you have to travel further away (more pollution yay!) to see.

 

If we continually say "don't worry, not as bad as HK", we're not going to leave much behind for our kids.

When i say it isnt as bad as the likes of china, I didnt mean we should just rest on our laurels. Not at all. We want to improve of course we do, hence the likes of SCR being a good thing in diesel. Likewise city buses becoming electric, or at least hybrids.

All i was saying is i dont think London is dreadful. But perhaps when you see other places, it skews your perception of what is dreadful. Certainly if London is dreadful, then the likes of the chinese cities, well, there is no word to describe them. Even horrific wouldnt describe them.

Yeah fair enough, I hear you. I wonder what a visitor from (insert name of place with wonderful air quality) would think of our pollution levels? Perhaps they would go home and describe it to their friends as 'awful'.

 

Anyway, I'm partially a hypocrite, I cycle to work 22 miles each way but I still own a diesel vRS which we now know might not be as clean as we thought years ago.

 

I'm tempted by a Golf GTE, wonder if they'll do a diesel one or even better, will Skoda make a hybrid/plug in car soon?

It is interesting to note that there is not one mention of lorries, old buses, vans, taxis, and the fact that according Emission Analytics, if both petrol and diesel engines are cold on start up the petrol engine produces 333% more NOx thgan a diesel vehicle.  Here are some more numbers, if a fully loaded A380 flies to the States the emissions generated are the same as each passenger driving 6 cars in other words 3500 cars these figures are from RR.  Short haul are even worse.  As J Clarkson says today, he could not give a stuff about what come out of the exaust.  The truth is that people are more concerned about loss of part exchange value.

 

Yeah fair enough, I hear you. I wonder what a visitor from (insert name of place with wonderful air quality) would think of our pollution levels? Perhaps they would go home and describe it to their friends as 'awful'.

 

Anyway, I'm partially a hypocrite, I cycle to work 22 miles each way but I still own a diesel vRS which we now know might not be as clean as we thought years ago.

 

I'm tempted by a Golf GTE, wonder if they'll do a diesel one or even better, will Skoda make a hybrid/plug in car soon?

Problem being, hybrids only suit a certain few people. For most, i suspect a diesel would be better.

I would never get a hybrid.

 

You are NOT a hypocrit for buying diesel. This whole thing has been blown massively out of proportion, and petrols arent clean either. I have a Mk3 Octy diesel. Do I feel guilty? No. One because they have not been implicated in this, and two because I understand petrols are just as dirty in their own right.

 

The air quality in London will improve shortly. With the buses getting cleaner, and with the Great Western and MML getting electrified, there will be less diesel trains in London. A lot less. Cars need to be reduced in London full stop. Not just diesels, but petrols as well. The affect diesel cars has on Londons air quality is minimal.

Yeah fair enough, I hear you. I wonder what a visitor from (insert name of place with wonderful air quality) would think of our pollution levels? Perhaps they would go home and describe it to their friends as 'awful'.

 

Would you consider New Zealand as a place with good air quality? If so, I shall find out and see what one thinks of London. Certainly nothing was ever said to me when they were here, but I will ask.

 if both petrol and diesel engines are cold on start up the petrol engine produces 333% more NOx thgan a diesel vehicle.

Is that true?

Wow, that just makes me feel even better. That 333% would go some way to the increased NOx emissions from diesels once warm. In fact, Id go so far as to say a Euro 6 diesel is a lot cleaner than a petrol overal. Im not a twitter person, but trying to keep up with twitter language, I wonder if we could get this trending:

#banpetrols

They may not need to go to court. Look at the BP oil spill where BP was forced to compensate anyone and everyone who could sign their names on a claim form. So far it has cost BP $45Bn and rising. BP could certainly afford the best lawyers but still got screwed. I wonder what hurts the environment most, 10m barrels of spilled crude or 11m cars producing 4 to 20x published NO2 over 8 years or so?

Oh there will be claims, that's pretty much inevitable. Big fines too. But claims for loss of earnings and loss of market share from other manufacturers? I wouldn't have thought so. For several reasons;-

• Only 5% of the 11m cars believed to be affected were sold in the US. About half a million cars. This in a country where there are about 250,000,000 cars on the road. That hardly represents a hefty market share.
• All car makers push the boundaries when testing for emissions and they all know they do. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility for rival brands to be caught up in this yet, especially if regulators begin having a purge or clampdown. Despite their public statements to the contrary, I wonder how many nervous CEO's were scurrying to find out if their own vehicles had been legitimately certified as compliant when the VW news broke?
• Employees move around between companies, some of the instigators may not even work for VW any longer. Imagine if they turned out to be working for GM, Ford, BMW etc? How would that look at the same time said company was pursuing an action against VW?
• Loss of earnings / profit is very difficult to prove, especially if there is no contractual link between parties. This would have more bearing if VW were selling affected engines to another marque, which as far as we know, they aren't.
• Despite what happened with the BP case, the majority of litigants were private claims and the £total of that was less than half of what the incident has cost BP so far. The remainder coming from large fines, capping the well and cleaning up the coastline. I don't know this for certain but i'd be very surprised if there were any large corporate claims signed on a claims sheet. The claimants may not have to go to court, but VW certainly would go if they felt it necessary to defend bogus or frivolous claims.

Germany of course if a different proposition, where almost a quarter of affected cars supposedly are. But how hard would/could the German government come down on VW? Unlikely by vindictively going for the throat in the same way the Yank prosecutors do with overseas companies. VW contributes billions to the German economy, and also keeps many thousands in gainful employment either directly or via its supply chain.

 

While the impact on the environment should not be ignored, it is important to put it into perspective. 11 million cars is less than 1% of all the cars in the world. And that doesn't account for buses, lorries, trains etc. There are also over 500 million cars in the world that are over 10 years old. How many of those will be producing less nox than the affected VW's, and over how many years?

...

I'm tempted by a Golf GTE, wonder if they'll do a diesel one or even better, will Skoda make a hybrid/plug in car soon?

(Off topic really) I was idly looking at the Passat GTE on the web and thought similar.  I currently have a 45 mile each way commute.  The Passat might do 31 miles on electric power, but assuming I couldn't charge at work, that means I would have to do at least 59 miles powered by a 154bhp 1.4 petrol.  Why don't they just use the 1.6D 120 instead?  Possibly the weight of the heavier diesel plus the batteries, but I would still prefer diesel when the batteries are flat.  I think only Peugeot / Citroen do a diesel hybrid. 

And getting even further off topic, the thing that would put me off hybrid would be the necessity to have an auto gearbox.

(Off topic really) I was idly looking at the Passat GTE on the web and thought similar. I currently have a 45 mile each way commute. The Passat might do 31 miles on electric power, but assuming I couldn't charge at work, that means I would have to do at least 59 miles powered by a 154bhp 1.4 petrol. Why don't they just use the 1.6D 120 instead? Possibly the weight of the heavier diesel plus the batteries, but I would still prefer diesel when the batteries are flat. I think only Peugeot / Citroen do a diesel hybrid.

And getting even further off topic, the thing that would put me off hybrid would be the necessity to have an auto gearbox.

Yes indeed....unless you can take advantage of its electric range and have the means to keep it charged then something like a Golf GTD is the better bet. Otherwise you are driving about in a very heavy 150ps 1.4 petrol.

The GTE (Golf and Passat) are very impressive and the petrol engine gives a nod to a more sporting character than a diesel equivalent I guess but both are handicapped both in terms of dynamics and performance by their bloaty kerb weights....for example a GTD is about 1377kg, a GTE a fair chunk over 1500kg....so despite the GTE having 204ps v 184ps of the GTD...they both have nigh on the same power to weight ratio so little difference if any in outright performance (on paper the GTD is still a touch quicker) and the GTD handles better.....I think the GTE has different suspension (taller softer springs) to cope with the additional sprung weight of the batteries.

RE the Passat most people would probably do better to plump for the 190 SCR.

Edited 28 September, 201510 yr by pipsypreturns

Not quite true, the GTE is actually a fair bit quicker than the GTD, its actually been under rated by VW strangely. And having used both for work, Ive never noticed the "extra" weight in the GTE.

 

The battery can be charged when driving, and also from a normal house 3 pin socket, as well as the many free to use charge points out there.

 

The max mileage on electric is also not an issue as the idea is to use electric alongside the ICE engine to lower its mpg. 

 

Hybrid is definitely the way to go at the moment, lower tax, lower fuel bills etc.

 

I can see there being less and less diesel cars made, and the demand falling. If nothing this emissions "scandal" will be an excuse for government's, or whoever to impose higher taxes

I think the fact that all of the hybrids available now are petrol/electric, tells us manufacturers don't see a long term future for diesel.

Not quite true, the GTE is actually a fair bit quicker than the GTD, its actually been under rated by VW strangely. And having used both for work, Ive never noticed the "extra" weight in the GTE.

 

The battery can be charged when driving, and also from a normal house 3 pin socket, as well as the many free to use charge points out there.

 

The max mileage on electric is also not an issue as the idea is to use electric alongside the ICE engine to lower its mpg. 

 

Hybrid is definitely the way to go at the moment, lower tax, lower fuel bills etc.

 

I can see there being less and less diesel cars made, and the demand falling. If nothing this emissions "scandal" will be an excuse for government's, or whoever to impose higher taxes

Thanks for that insight.  Do you know what kind of mpg you get out of a GTE on a longer journey where the battery has been exhausted?  Or is this an impossible question as mixed driving could result in no petrol consumed one day, and lots the next?  All a bit alien to me, though as a company car driver, the low headline co2 would get the BIK rate down - to then be offset by the high list price!  (4 year lease car, so nothing to do until July 2017... .... ....)