The DfT / DVSA are flying a kite on the test centres and MOT,s detecting Decat and dpf removal starting soon, the legislation is there obviously, just not all with equipment, but read their press releases and maybe expect roadside checks being stepped up.. The UK government can no longer keep playing 3 monkeys.

Edited 21 December, 20169 yr by Offski

The incentives were indirect and linked to CO2 emissions so far cheaper for road tax to run a more powerful diesel car as only the smallest 'city car' petrols fell into the zero tax band.

 

Emissions-based VED bands were introduced in 2001.  Prior to that, the only tax banding for cars was a lower tax rate for cars with an engine capacity (either fuel) under 1100cc.

 

I'm still struggling to understand what the government did in the 1980s to encourage the take-up of diesel for cars, as Anzio stated happened.

 

The tragedy of all this is that CO₂ probably was/is being reduced significantly by the 'diesel boom'

 

I generally agree with this.

 

if you look at the emissions associated with refining diesel versus petrol, there's another huge environmental plus for diesel. But VW have cocked it all up now and made diesel into a devil that it isn't.

 

Someone once told me that petrol is effectively a by-product of the main process of producing diesel and other industrial and commercial fuel oils from crude.  Maybe not a direct by-product, more that it's made out of what's left after refining the stuff which is required in much larger quantities for the transportation of goods and materials, and for public transport.   Their view was that petrol prices weren't as demand-driven as diesel, because it's basically made and sold in order to squeeze some value out of the leftovers, whereas diesel drivers are buying in the same basic market as shipping operators, road hauliers, railway and bus companies etc.

 

I have no idea how much truth there is in that view.

 

If - as I think is a corollary to that view - diesel used in cars represents a relatively small proportion of the overall consumption of the fuel*, it does make you (well, me) wonder why private cars are the use case now being demonised.

 

* Some quick Googling suggests that this is very much the case.  For example, according to this web site, energy consumption by cars in the US seems to amount to about 1% of the total energy consumption of land-based transportation as a whole; maybe 3% if you include "light-duty vehicles" and "light trucks" as well.  And by no means all of those cars, light-duty vehicle and light trucks will be diesel-powered.  One might almost think that a foreign car maker was being singled out for criticism, while the medium to large truck market - around 60% of which is manufactured in the US, with the rest split between Mexico and Canada - rolls on regardless, despite consuming more than 20x as much energy in use compared to cars, and thus likely being responsible for at least 20x the quantity of harmful emissions.

Edited 21 December, 20169 yr by ejstubbs

Well I will leave the update alone for the moment.  :thumbdown:

Long-term maybe, but I doubt there's an MOT garage in the country with a gas analyser capable of reliably measuring NOx levels. That would be a very expensive upgrade, I think.

 

The tragedy of all this is that CO₂ probably was/is being reduced significantly by the 'diesel boom' and if you look at the emissions associated with refining diesel versus petrol, there's another huge environmental plus for diesel. But VW have cocked it all up now and made diesel into a devil that it isn't.

The trouble is, whilst there is a clear benefit to the planet refining diesel over petrol, this relates to what is being pumped into the atmosphere up a big chimney by a refinery away from densely populated areas. Whereas the NOx is being pumped into your high street or link road at ground level.

The thing with those Chimney emissions is the con that is Carbon Trading & Carbon Reduction Grants and assistance. 

Tax Breaks to supposedly help reduce emissions, still emissions, just supposedly less.

 

Like the help VW got from around Europe to reduce emissions, produce new greener engines, not just cheat the testing.

So the VW Group are being asked for money back from that fraud.

 

ejstubbs,  

how the UK Government helped encourage diesel use was giving tax incentives to use the Diesel that used to cost less than petrol but became more expensive for private motorists but less for Business & Commercial users.

Edited 21 December, 20169 yr by Offski

I thought that the modern diesel took off with direct injection and turbo performance in addition to existing economy.

The journos were onboard also.

We had our 2014 1.6 greenline in for service last month, I said no emissions software update thanks, they said the fix hasn't been rolled out for that model.... Maybe this is a challenge for them, as this is or was their greenest model.

If the French are so insistent on having the mod done, then maybe they will apply this rule at the ferry ports, and ask for a certificate of conformation for all cars entering France, or they will turn you back.

Euro5 didn't need the cheat I suspect

I'm pretty sure it was only needed for California's stricter standards.

I recon the removal is more to do with the appearance of being seen to be doing something to penalise VW.

Euro5 didn't need the cheat I suspect

I'm pretty sure it was only needed for California's stricter standards.

I recon the removal is more to do with the appearance of being seen to be doing something to penalise VW.

If Euro 5 didn't need the cheat, they could have had a fix ready in a week; with 4 days spare for checking!

If Euro 5 didn't need the cheat, they could have had a fix ready in a week; with 4 days spare for checking!

VW have always claimed that outside of th U.S. it wasn't illegal........I can only assume they mean didn't have any effect to enable euro5 ie would have passed without it.

Do they now say differently?.

I think your assumption is miles off.  What they may have meant is something more like "the laws governing the EU testing are so poorly written that we managed to make a complete mockery of the test by using a separate, different emissions control software mode just for the the test, and still not be in a position where we get successfully sued by the owners of the affected cars if we don't compensate them". That's the important US/EU difference from the owners point of view.

 

If the cheat didn't affect the outcome of the EU5 emissions test, it would be possible, in an hour or two, for a talented 6 year old to re-write the software to not invoke the cheat, and the tests would be passed more than a year ago without using the cheat.  That has not happened. Not slightly. Think how much better it would have been PR-wise if VW could have just said, "OK, sorry, but we've fixed it for you now" within a short time of the US news coming out? They would have if they could have, no?

....in which case they've doubled down on deception

I guess VW are not in any rush to do any work that costs them money and can use the complex legal work in numerous jurisdictions involving both government and private litigation to put off the the inevitable expenditures.

Following this rambling thread I am coming to the assumption that my next car will not be German in origin.

Probably Japanese.

Could be a petrol.

 

How about a Mazda CX5

 

Colin

Following this rambling thread I am coming to the assumption that my next car will not be German in origin.

Probably Japanese.

Could be a petrol.

 

How about a Mazda CX5

 

Colin

...sad to say but Mazda are now what Honda should have been when it comes to excitement.

It seems the accountants now run Honda rather than the engineers of the 70s

...How about a Mazda CX5...

No petrol auto, as far as I can see

No petrol auto, as far as I can see

I doubt if there are ANY manual CX5s sold in Australia

No petrol auto, as far as I can see

I had not considered an auto as I am still to to young for one.

 

Colin

I doubt if there are ANY manual CX5s sold in Australia

Tempting as it is, we're probably too late to emigrate now  :think:

 

I had not considered an auto as I am still to to young for one.

 

Colin

Not so long ago I felt that way too.  I wouldn't willingly go back to manual now. 

It seems manufacturers think U.K. buyers are still stuck in the old days.........but they have aircon as normal .

Odd.

Tempting as it is, we're probably too late to emigrate now  :think:

 

Not so long ago I felt that way too.  I wouldn't willingly go back to manual now. 

My auto comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I am 55 and have seen auto boxes develop form fuel thirsty and unreliable to the exact opposite. Next time round it will be a consideration.

 

Colin

The DSG type Auto box is a pleasure to drive and people who get into the he car are amazed at the smoothness of its operation. I've a friend who's just recently taken delivery of a Superb and is blown away with the DSG box.

I had not considered an auto as I am still to to young for one.

 

Colin

Golin, don't knock it until you've tried it!

Age has nothing to do with it, for many years I thought that auto was for those of pensionable age and, although I'm well past that now, I'm totally converted and wish I'd tried it years ago.

With my last Yeti, 140 dsg, I took great satisfaction from the looks on the faces of the boy racers as I left them standing from the traffic lights. So it's not all fuddy duddy for wrinklies. 

After 3 years of DSG driving I'm still surprised at how smooth it is.

Fred

 

I only wish that SUK had done a 1.4 L&K with DSG.