Hey guys am I alone in switching my engine off in heavy traffic, at traffic lights, not only does this reduce my emissions but my MPG is obviously increased. You don't need to spend thousands of pounds for this technology by buying a BMW, simply use your key.

I'm doing my bit for the environment

Des

Don't do it at lights, but have done it when stuck in tailbacks and it's obvious no-one's going anywhere anytime soon. I'm sure there was a discussion on here ages ago that concluded you need to have your engine off for a certain amount of time (i.e. minutes, not seconds) before you offset the amount of fuel you need to use to restart the engine...

Another nail in the coffin of Welshy's beloved stop/start?

If I know I'm going to be stood there for more than 30 seconds I'll switch off.

Less than that it's not worth it

I'll only switch off if likely to be stationary for more than a few minutes. I'd be surprised if switching off at traffic lights actually benefits fuel economy? I'm also not sure that constant stopping/starting does much good to the engine and related components.

Well most people do not do this & if you do this all the time with a std starter motor it will wear out more quickly.

The citroens & BMW Stop start have very much beefed up starter motors.

Clearly though it is sensible to switch it off - Its a crying shame why black cabs with engines even new are not even Euro 3 std... running all day long.

I can get my ASZ-engined Fabia vRS to save a ton of carbon a year, just like a Prius, simply by using 20% biodiesel.

I also switch off if I know I'm not going to movng any time soon.

I think a few more car companies will take up this kind of 'stop start' technology in the next few years (especially because it make their cars average carbon emissions look even better on paper?) As has been mentioned , starting an engine takes a bit more fuel that merely running it on idle (for the same amount of lapsed time) so it does come down to how often it is made to restart. Switching off whilst in a jam thats going no-where is a good move though , if not for the planet , certainly for the wallet!

Id have to say the biggest fuel & time saving device you could buy is sat nav - linked to traffic master that way you will be routed round any congestion and if your in an unknown area it saves waster fuel when you have gone the wrong way.

Note I do not have it.

Also if more firms permitted working from home suddenly you remove vast amounts of congestion & vast amounts of carbon emmissions from less use of the car.

Other options are for your company to pay for a bus route which picks up staff along the way so all you have to do is walk to the pick up point - not possible for all staff but its an option.

Also web cams should be used a lot more instead of wasted time & money & carbon emmissions travelling to any meetings

Also if more firms permitted working from home suddenly you remove vast amounts of congestion & vast amounts of carbon emmissions from less use of the car.

So true! Also, if I was to work at home, I'd save

It has been proved that most home workers work in total more hrs than they would in the office.

Many start at 8am while commuters are still in traffic, they may watch a tv show in the morning etc however they continue to work much later than they would if in the office.

Also if you have a very young family it allowes mothers to work at home& fathers to actually be in the same building as their little one and experiance some of the growing up he would other wise miss out on.

Personnaly, i'm enjoying the warmer weather

Also if you have a very young family it allowes mothers to work at home& fathers to actually be in the same building as their little one and experiance some of the growing up he would other wise miss out on.

You don't have kids, do you?

So true! Also, if I was to work at home, I'd save

Turning engine off when stationary for more than about a minute is good practice.

That said, the whole carbon footprint thing makes me laugh.

'I'm not flying this year, I'm driving round the UK to reduce my carbon footprint' (Smug). - Well the plane is still flying because the airlines make the vast majority of their money from cargo, not passengers - even in a 'passenger' jet. So by driving you're compounding the problem and having a crap holiday too!

Make your own mind up...

Agreed 100%. Trouble is, your company has to make sure your house etc is safety assessed etc before you can do it. They'd have to provide desks and stuff to make it legal. I've looked into this as our team at work wanted to implement more WFH.

Really? Most of our developers WFH & as long as they sign to state their environment meets the relevant criteria it's up to them to sort it, not the company

Really? Most of our developers WFH & as long as they sign to state their environment meets the relevant criteria it's up to them to sort it, not the company

Likewise. We're allowed to do it if we have a good reason (eg, I was having a washing machine delivered and needed to be home), but it's the exception rather than the rule..... One member does it permanently however, as he finds the commute from Aberdeen to Southampton a bit much, and he's had a desk, chair, monitors, etc provided for him by the company.

Chris

As per my last post in the totally-hijacked GT TDI thread, I'm off - enjoy the debate!

Seeing as I'll be finishing my job soon and handing back my beloved fuel card I'll have to fork out for my own diesel so I'll look into the bio-diesel option, where can I purchase it from?

Also as well as Welshy's tip on satnav saving fuel the same could also be said of TPM tyre pressure monitoring, I'm terrible for keeping my pressures up, most of the time forgeting. Might be worth investing in a TPM system for the Fabia once my tyres need replacing.

So we have switch of in heavy traffic, Satnav, bio diesel, TPM. Anymore to add?

Des

So we have switch of in heavy traffic, Satnav, bio diesel, TPM. Anymore to add?

- Clear out all the junk from the car you don't use/need

- Fold the rear seats down - makes the car faster allegedly

Chris

- Fold the rear seats down - makes the car faster allegedly

Chris

True story, I know someone who took the rear seats out of a 1.0 Metro (D reg) to make it lighter & therefore quicker. Not that stupid you could say, but the same individual took the wing mirrors off to 'reduce drag' He wrote it off jumping a hump-back bridge

Worryingly, the same individual now drives a Scooby :eek:

Edit: On topic: Though our WFH crew work at home about 50% of the time we haven't provided any kit for them because they are classed as office-based. Might have to check the legality of everything...

I've been leaving mine on when parked, waiting, washing it on the drive, ect, seeing as we've had the coldest May bank holiday on record and now I'm EVER so panicked global warming has suddenly reversed,(wonder why it never made the papers though... must be due to the fact that theres no money in it...) and we must do all we can to keep up with the cows/china/india/USA ect and try to produce just that little bit more CO2....

I can get my ASZ-engined Fabia vRS to save a ton of carbon a year, just like a Prius, simply by using 20% biodiesel.

I also switch off if I know I'm not going to movng any time soon.

My new blend from my new (Albeit not entirely reliable yet...) supplier runs 100% with no issues....

IDGAF about carbon emmisions. Ice core samples have proven that historically, carbon dioxide levels begin to rise after the planet has been through a period of sustaned warming for around 800 years, and within 300 years of the CO2 starting to rise the global temperature starts to decline. Therefore, one could assume that CO2 is actually a global cooling gas. You also have to consider that over 95% of CO2 is completely natural, and mans contribution is therefore very small. The proportion of that contribution attached to human transportation is less than 1% of global CO2, so all this carbon reducing that the tofu-sandal wearing green nutters want us to believe in order to justify new taxation will have a virtual zero effect on either warming or cooling, whichever happens. Agriculture is much more damaging to the atmosphere, with methane being 27x more contributary to warming than CO2. Don't tell Gordon Brown though or he'll put a tax on my sirloin steak dinner. The Earth will heat up, and then it will cool down, as it has done for millions of years. It will however always continue on a slow and inexorable rise in temperature as we are in close proximity to a star which is also inexorably heating up, and there's sweet FA we can do about that. As the Sun's comfort zone passes the Earth by, much as it passed Venus by, it will heat up to the point where life cannot exist, and we have absolutely no say in the matter. The planet has been much warmer than it is today (the whole planet was tropical at the time of Pangea) and much, much cooler. Back in the 70's there was scientific panic predicting an ice age following a brief downward blip in the current warming trend which proved to be unfounded. Coincidentally, the current warming trend has been underway for about 600-700 years, and CO2 is on the rise. Can anyone see a pattern emerging. I'll end this post with a question. Has anyone seen a news article in the last few years which hasn't mentioned taxation as a way to control global warming ?

IDGAF about carbon emmisions. Ice core samples have proven that historically, carbon dioxide levels begin to rise after the planet has been through a period of sustaned warming for around 800 years, and within 300 years of the CO2 starting to rise the global temperature starts to decline. Therefore, one could assume that CO2 is actually a global cooling gas. You also have to consider that over 95% of CO2 is completely natural, and mans contribution is therefore very small. The proportion of that contribution attached to human transportation is less than 1% of global CO2, so all this carbon reducing that the tofu-sandal wearing green nutters want us to believe in order to justify new taxation will have a virtual zero effect on either warming or cooling, whichever happens. Agriculture is much more damaging to the atmosphere, with methane being 27x more contributary to warming than CO2. Don't tell Gordon Brown though or he'll put a tax on my sirloin steak dinner. The Earth will heat up, and then it will cool down, as it has done for millions of years. It will however always continue on a slow and inexorable rise in temperature as we are in close proximity to a star which is also inexorably heating up, and there's sweet FA we can do about that. As the Sun's comfort zone passes the Earth by, much as it passed Venus by, it will heat up to the point where life cannot exist, and we have absolutely no say in the matter. The planet has been much warmer than it is today (the whole planet was tropical at the time of Pangea) and much, much cooler. Back in the 70's there was scientific panic predicting an ice age following a brief downward blip in the current warming trend which proved to be unfounded. Coincidentally, the current warming trend has been underway for about 600-700 years, and CO2 is on the rise. Can anyone see a pattern emerging. I'll end this post with a question. Has anyone seen a news article in the last few years which hasn't mentioned taxation as a way to control global warming ?

Absolutely brilliant man... someone with intelligence for once, and not panic knee jerk reactions... everything you say here is fact, unlike the poeple who have NO PROOF man made CO2 is effecting the earth...(all propoganda to make goverments money and halt the developing world) people cannot look back on our weather records, and CO2 production (what 200 years?!) and comment intelligently, they need to look back hundreds of millions of years, and ice cores can do that effectively... as for taxation? like I said, there's no money in someone saying "cars don't effect global warming"...

great stuff corradoboy

Brilliant post Corradoboy

PS Keeping your windows closed in the car saves MPG (and , therefore CO2 emissions)