Quite interesting comparison between an old petrol (23 years old) and younger diesel (2009) in regards to all sorts of emissions.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust

 

 

Very interesting

I read that too.

 

Surprise, a £200 250,000 kilometre 23 year old petrol is an awful polluter!

 

Whereas 3 or 4k gets you an 8 year old modern diesel that isn't 

 

Daily Mail style sensationalism on the BBC!

 

It does seem the scrappage schemes need to target old petrols as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 October, 20178 yr by camelspyyder

What was interesting is that an old petrol (23 years old) does NOT beat a younger diesel (2009) despite all the demonstration of diesels

But a 2009 diesel beats a diesel model from last year

Next few years models will probably be better due to the more stringent testing

It seems to me that the regulators dropped the ball somewhere in the past few years and now are trying to shift the blame to consumer (or manufacturers who took advantage of the incompetent regulators). 

Handy if he just said, 23 year old car from 1994, and save those that can not count having to work it out.

Emissions Analytics seem to like the general public thinking they are a small independent company.

Is that small as in the number of employees?

Those involved that previously worked for Haymarket Media Group (owners of Publications, Autocar, Whatcar, Pistonheads and many others) so ex employees of Lord Michael Heseltine , so might just have some interesting contacts in Government and past Elected members, or just access to their ear, unless they are deaf dumb, blind, and just do not give a damn.

You might think that the current Secretary of State for Transport might get his lazy butt on the case of the VW Group and actual Pollution Post Fix of the 1.2 Million UK vehicles that have had defeat devices removed so far.

 

Small Independent UK company evidence from testing maybe more reliable than that carried out for the 2nd biggest car manufacturer in the world, 

and approved by the German Authorities.

Edited 17 October, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

2 hours ago, Headinawayoffski said:

Handy if he just said, 23 year old car from 1994, and save those that can not count having to work it out.

Emissions Analytics seem to like the general public thinking they are a small independent company.

Is that small as in the number of employees?

Those involved that previously worked for Haymarket Media Group (owners of Publications, Autocar, Whatcar, Pistonheads and many others) so ex employees of Lord Michael Heseltine , so might just have some interesting contacts in Government and past Elected members, or just access to their ear, unless they are deaf dumb, blind, and just do not give a damn.

You might think that the current Secretary of State for Transport might get his lazy butt on the case of the VW Group and actual Pollution Post Fix of the 1.2 Million UK vehicles that have had defeat devices removed so far.

 

Small Independent UK company evidence from testing maybe more reliable than that carried out for the 2nd biggest car manufacturer in the world, 

and approved by the German Authorities.

 

Any mention of cgon in that article? 

^^^ 

Forgot about that planet saver, 

there was a good opportunity missed to use their product back to back on the tests and seen just how much it reduced emissions on the 8 year old and 23 year old vehicles.

The comment from Lawrence that badly tuned petrol cars emit blue smoke made me raise an eyebrow.

7 hours ago, S00perb said:

But a 2009 diesel beats a diesel model from last year

 

Not good reading for Nissan Renault.

Edited 17 October, 20178 yr by moley

So basically euro 4, 5 and 6 are one big con,

 

Didn't see that coming much

2 minutes ago, Volvomeg said:

So basically euro 4, 5 and 6 are one big con,

 

Didn't see that coming much

Why do you think they're a con?

 

The regulations were driven by an identified need to improve air quality and/or reduce CO2 emissions. Manufacturers figured out how to do an end run around the testing protocols, but you can't condemn the intent of the regulations for that. People always try to find ways to weasel out of rules, regulations and laws, but it doesn't mean that the regulations, etc. were misadvised or unfounded.

The irony is that if manufacturers had actually met Euro 5 regulations properly, Euro 6 limits probably wouldn't have been as tight as they are.

 

Each iteration of the regulations has been based on air quality monitoring: if euro 5 had been met as regulators intended, air quality would have improved more than it did, and would have led to less agressive limits in Euro 6.

Coincidentally, the EU are currently issuing a funding call for the final pillar of the current research programme (Horizon 2020*) which includes environmental issues. I have a feeling Euro 7 regulations are likely to emerge from this block of research.

 

*Included under 'Societal Challenges' here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/#c,calls=level3/t/EU.1./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.1./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.4./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.1./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.1./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.2./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.3./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.4./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.5./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.6./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.3./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.1./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.4./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.5./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.6./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.7./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.4./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.5./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.7./0/1/1&level2/t/Euratom/0/1/1&+PublicationDate/asc

The problem is the governments have spent 15 years telling everybody diesel are best thing since sliced bread without looking at all the facts and figures,

 

There now trying to do the same with hybrids and electric without looking at the wider enviromental impact again and usuing dieselgate to do it,

1 hour ago, chimaera said:

The regulations were driven by an identified need to improve air quality and/or reduce CO2 emissions.

That's all well and good, but the EU failed to carry out any independent testing and relied on the manufactures to comply to the regs. 

once all the diesels are gone they will move the goalposts and focus on the ultra fine particulates that come from petrol engined cars, we will then have exhaust filters on the petrol cars before they are outlawed for good.

6 minutes ago, VRS Mike said:

once all the diesels are gone they will move the goalposts and focus on the ultra fine particulates that come from petrol engined cars, we will then have exhaust filters on the petrol cars before they are outlawed for good.

If that becomes the new 'most dangerous to human health' emission then it would be fair enough to try to reduce it, no?

 

I do think there's far too much fuss about killing humans with emissions though; it's not like we're an endangered species. Way too many of them really.

31 minutes ago, Wino said:

If that becomes the new 'most dangerous to human health' emission then it would be fair enough to try to reduce it, no?

 

I do think there's far too much fuss about killing humans with emissions though; it's not like we're an endangered species. Way too many of them really.

If it only killed humans, fair enough. But it kills cute kittens as well!!!!!!!!!!

Theresa May MP / PM really needs to say to Chris Grayling MP & Michael Gove MP sit down with Emissions Analytics and others and see why the new EU Testing is still total crap reject it and have post BREXIT UK Manufactured or Imported vehicles giving real low emissions or get Philip Hammond MP to have the tariffs on them up by 300%, especially any manufactured by North American Manufacturers. GM, Ford etc

 

The EU Manufacturers, rest of the world and UK ones could have 2 years to get their cheating backsides into line with what the UK Government want in low emission vehicles.

 

DfT / DVSA always bumping gums on DPF's and Cats and MOT's, and the law and enforcing.

Simples, get more road side testing, or Council Test Centres and run more vehicles through them, 

do testing / inspections and give the Registered Keeper 24 hours to have the vehicle as it should be or off the road until 

it gets and passes a full IVA / SVA type test.

The Government just need to spend money, create jobs and not always have Private MOT Centres do the investments, 

and the tests not really fit for purpose.

(less sticking probes in other vehicles exhausts / the car being tested not even at the test centre.)

 

 

Edited 18 October, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

3 hours ago, VRS Mike said:

once all the diesels are gone they will move the goalposts and focus on the ultra fine particulates that come from petrol engined cars, we will then have exhaust filters on the petrol cars before they are outlawed for good.

I only ever saw the report in print, but there was some work done back in the days before desulphinated diesel (and petrol) so pre-EC1 that showed that 50% of PC10s were from brakes and tyres. Desulphination alone reduced diesel related PC10s by 90%.

16 hours ago, Volvomeg said:

The problem is the governments have spent 15 years telling everybody diesel are best thing since sliced bread without looking at all the facts and figures,

 

There now trying to do the same with hybrids and electric without looking at the wider enviromental impact again and usuing dieselgate to do it,

It'll take a while but eventually we'll be reading stories about heavy metal pollution and chemical waste from scrapped electric vehicles or from the mining of the lithium etc. And the solution will be to add VAT/Duty/Tax onto the owners.

 

IT'll take 10yr or so but it'll come.

16 hours ago, Volvomeg said:

The problem is the governments have spent 15 years telling everybody diesel are best thing since sliced bread without looking at all the facts and figures,

 

There now trying to do the same with hybrids and electric without looking at the wider enviromental impact again and usuing dieselgate to do it,

That's an easy thing to say with the benefit of hindsight.

 

The problem then (and it's a worse one now) is the continued increase in CO2 emissions, and diesel engines are a good solution to that problem for road transport. The problem is the potential for diesel engines to be high emitters of NOx: the NOx limits in Euro 5 and Euro 6 were set with this in mind, based on air quality measurements at the time.

 

With the benefit of hindsight we can see where the regulatory failing was: the EU allowing individual member states to oversee the type approval process (I'm not sure if a company is obliged to undertake approval in its 'home' state). Some states earn a significant percentage of GDP from the automotive industry and might be persuaded to be a little more lax on some things than other member states. I'm fairly sure that responsibility for in-service testing also rested with the member states. It's not hard to imagine that manufacturers looked around for the least stringent country for type approval for their vehicles. Similar to how owners might look around for MOT centres that have a reputation for letting cars through more easily.

 

Part of the fallout from Dieselgate is that the EU is now tightening its grip on the type approval process and reducing the autonomy of individual member states within the process. No doubt the anti-EU crowd will bleat about EU control as this takes hold, yet it's a consequence of some delinquency on the part of the member states.

 

There are already average CO2 limits in place for manufacturers, currently at 130 g/km (phased in from 2012 to 2015) and set to be reduced to 95 g/km by 2021. We can expect hybrid technology to become standard in order to achieve this. The current limit will also become effectively tougher as a result of the WLTC and RDE tests being introduced to replace NEDC.

 

Euro 7 may not see much change in emissions limits from where they are now, but again the change in test procedures and protocols will achieve a real-world reduction. Hybridisation will also reduce the contribution of internal combustion to the vehicle's performance, resulting in lower per kilometre values of harmful emissions, in much the same way that it's lowering overall CO2 emissions.

 

And yes, there is going to be a problem with end-of-life management of batteries as hybrid and electric systems take over. However, we already have recycling infrastructure in place for these due to the WEEE regulations: battery technology in cars is pretty much the same as is used in phones, tablets and laptops. WEEE is likely to be extended to cover these, making the manufacturers responsible for recovery and recycling of the batteries.

 

There is also a lot of research happening now on alternatives to lithium ion battery technology, the most promising being a switch to sodium instead of lithium. We already have a large supply of sodium in seawater, and extraction from that is a lot cleaner than mining lithium. The biggest issue facing sodium at the moment is not being able to cope with as many charging cycles as lithium, but people worldwide are working on this.

 

One of the neat things about electric propulsion is that as and when battery technology improves, owners should be able to upgrade without having to change the entire car.

So many have short memories like Lord Deben,  does he even remember his real name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gummer 

http://sancroft.com 

http://valpak.co.uk 

What Did Gummer Know About The Risks Of Diesel_ _ NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT.mhtml

Edited 18 October, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

The issue with all of this being that the Regulations were watered down and had holes big enough to drive a truck through because...

*  The Motor Manufacturers are a seriously powerful lobby group in the EU.

*  The big players are all French & German.  Forget the Japanese/Far Eastern players, it’s BMW/Merc/VAG who run this game.

*  The EU is really run by both Germany & France.  Both have major car makers & job concerns in powerful positions - and that includes the Trade Unions within those Corporations (up to 50% of Boards of Directors are Union Appointees)

*  Governments would not admit to the emissions balls up because it made for embarrassing Carbon footprint headlines.

*  The Motor Industry promised to clean up their act, found it cost them too much and did and end run around the weakened rules.

*  Successive Governments put it in the too hard bucket.

*  Gaining worldwide agreements for common emissions standards, or even just EU ones, is nigh on impossible.  A set of real world tests were supposed to be in place by 2015 but it still hasn’t happened and won’t whilst the Motor Industry holds the power it does.

 

In the US the EPA dropped mpg figures by 25% to get nearer real-world and it was classed as a ‘conspiracy to get more tax from fuel’.  Being the US I don’t suppose too many of us were surprised by the conspiracy theorem, but it shows just how big a challenge this is.

On ‎18‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 08:08, VRS Mike said:

once all the diesels are gone they will move the goalposts and focus on the ultra fine particulates that come from petrol engined cars, we will then have exhaust filters on the petrol cars before they are outlawed for good.

 

Or the ultra fine particles that come from rubber tyres, brakes, tram wheels, human skin etc.  So electric vehicles will have some problems and Hybrid vehicles are no solution either.  

A major source of organic particle polution is polyester clothes.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfibers-plastic-pollution-oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads