# So, this diesel business...



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

Just wondered what people's thoughts are regarding the diesel situation that they're proposing in London regarding a stealth tax, ahem I mean charge for 'high polluting' vehicles? 

It would seem that diesels pre-2015 (Euro 6) and petrols pre-2006 (Euro 4) will be expected to pay an additional £12 on top of the congestion charge. 

Obviously this will end up affecting a large number of drivers who live in or drive into London. But at the same time, millions of car owners won't be affected at all. 

So, what are your thoughts? 

Can you envisage the diesel market taking a hit? 

I must admit I work in the City and not smelling many diesel fumes would be welcomed but I do feel that car owners have been utterly stitched up by the government and being misled into buying them.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

I think it's all a steaming pile of BS personally. 

Second hand market might take a hit but it could even push up sales of Euro 6 diesels if they're exempt from the increased charges.

We were lied to for years by Labour who pushed dervs and now there's a complete U-turn. If it's so bad, by are Euro 6 exempt? Is there really that much of a difference?


----------



## petemattw (Nov 3, 2008)

perhaps this is a way of driving up new car sales which are over £40k and ergo pay the increased VED that came into affect at the start of this month in order to keep the cashflowing in as I won't buy a new car now because of this stealth tax - purely as it's a matter of principe, why should I pay more because my car cost more, I've already paid more VAT in the first place! SO to stop me keeping my old car, charge me £12 a day more and see if that pushes me to buying a new car which then also has a stealth tax - going to get hit either way really....


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Its and easier option for the government than going after the wood burning stoves etc which seems to be a huge contributor to the pollution and grows year on year.


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

Not just London, expecting other major cities to follow suit.....Manchester, Birmingham etc.

Its also worth noting that councils also want all black cabs to be electric going forward & LTI are close to releasing an all electric cab.

Personally, diesel is no good for your average car user,. For someone who drives 15k miles or less you may as well get a small efficient turbo petrol, or hybrid over a diesel.


----------



## IR655 (Apr 9, 2015)

Here in Sweden we are taxed based on weight/fuel type and CO2 emission of the car and some other parameters.

As an example:

2006 Saab 9-5 1.9TiD - £464/year in tax
2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.0 CRD - £874/year
2013 BMW 320d - £158/year
Newer Lexus 200h's (hybrid) - £32/year

As you can see, owning a diesel SUV is just stupid because of the high tax. But driving a petrol car is almost free in tax/year.

Here they punish diesel owners because the government came to the conclusion that diesel is more harmful than petrol in terms of harmful particles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

It will hit a lot more than just people in London. This will be rolled out across many Cities in one way or another. 

Noises have been made for a long time and people haven't reacted. Now that action has been taken in two measures already, now people are realising this is serious. It's going to hit the confidence and values of diesel sales. I'd be worried owning an expensive diesel car now. I wouldn't wait too long and in hope things stay calm.

The first thing required is to stop people, who live in the most polluted areas, buying diesels when they only do short trips. They dont need a diesel and adds to the problem unnecessarily.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

I agree with what they're doing but the timeframe is far too short.

People need to know this is coming for around 3 years IMO to have chance to change their car etc. I think people have had around a years actual notice?

I've heard of rumours of a diesel scrappage scheme? Which is going to bottom out residuals.

People are still buying dervs though based on saving £100 per year on tax!


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

I suspect this is also a co-ordinated move to push people and manufacturers toward hybrid or electric vehicles. I can well imagine closed door talks with the car manufacturers to crunch the affordability numbers between discounts / scrappage schemes / tax concessions.

The foreseeable future has to be small engined turbo-petrol hybrids, until battery solar / tech finally catches up.

Or until the Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor becomes a reality ...


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Actually it appears it was announced it 2016 and is coming in 2019?

Surely 3 years is enough for the majority to know its coming?


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

GleemSpray said:


> I suspect this is also a co-ordinated move to push people and manufacturers toward hybrid or electric vehicles. I can well imagine closed door talks with the car manufacturers to crunch the affordability numbers between discounts / scrappage schemes / tax concessions.
> 
> ...


Theres a few people on an EV forum that are keeping their old 2nd derv car in anticipation of a scrappage scheme of sorts.

Few grand of the Tesla!


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

Andyg_TSi said:


> Personally, diesel is no good for your average car user,. For someone who drives 15k miles or less you may as well get a small efficient turbo petrol, or hybrid over a diesel.


As much as I agree with you, it's not entirely a solution for everyone.

I have a diesel E-Class in which I only do about 10k a year but 8k of that at least is motorway driving. So I get 50mpg out of it, it's relatively quick, smooth and essentially perfect for a motorway waft.

At the moment at least, I doubt there's much on the market for the £4k I paid for it in either electric or hybrid. 

Also the 15k miles a year point is totally valid but applies more in fuel saving vs price difference new. In the used market at this level, it's less relevant.

I totally agree though that for many drivers they've gone into buying diesels because they see them as good on fuel and cheap on tax. Why are they cheap on tax? Because we were told they're green and green = cheaper!

Friend who I work with was buying a new car, all the family cars they looked at.....diesels. Irony being that on a test drive of a C-Max the DPF failed. Nice low mileage diesel! :wall::wall::wall::wall:

People have been hugely misinformed and I think that for me is where the kick in the balls is. Most people aren't petrolheads who make themselves informed, they go with the majority. Sadly, when you look at many many vehicles out there, people have opted for diesel and as you say, mostly for the wrong reasons.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

3 years notice should be enough though shouldn't it?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

ardandy said:


> Actually it appears it was announced it 2016 and is coming in 2019?
> 
> Surely 3 years is enough for the majority to know its coming?


There is the issue that lots of people will be tied into finance agreements and can't afford to change. The only positive I see is the worst case scenario will be covered by the GFMV on PCP deals. The finance companies will take the hammering stuck with cars worth far less than predicted.

There has been suggestions for many years about diesel. I think they've been really slow to react and have left it too late.


----------



## Simonrev (Nov 26, 2012)

ardandy said:


> 3 years notice should be enough though shouldn't it?


If you are one of the lucky few that can afford to buy new then yes I suppose it is ... unfortunately most average people like myself can only dream of buying new if we want to own the car from day 1.

Yes PCP deals etc can open a door but in todays workplace how many feel confident that they will have constant employment ... and what about those that do high miles where PCP etc don't stack up.

I own a 5 year old car and consider it "new" :doublesho


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Mileage only comes into play if you hand the car back to the finance company.

I'm sure if you knew you needed to replace the car within the next 3 years (or pay the extra for central London) then that's enough time to sell a used car and buy a used car?


----------



## Simonrev (Nov 26, 2012)

ardandy said:


> Mileage only comes into play if you hand the car back to the finance company.
> 
> I'm sure if you knew you needed to replace the car within the next 3 years (or pay the extra for central London) then that's enough time to sell a used car and buy a used car?


You are assuming that there would be the cash there to change up for a new one that qualifies ... but yes in many cases you are right but there are a massive amount of people that just can't afford to ... especially if they bought in to the diesel hype and are perhaps facing sinking residual values on what they have now.

The problem lies with the lies peddled about diesels being the answer for too many years


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

Would be interesting looking at what petrol cars are actually Euro 5? As I would assume there are plenty of euro 4 petrols going to be hammered by this too.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Could be worse.

Move up here where public transport is a fantasy.


----------



## Simonrev (Nov 26, 2012)

ardandy said:


> Mileage only comes into play if you hand the car back to the finance company.


Great if you can refinance the usually rather large balance outstanding on what would be a car worth less than owed due to milage


----------



## Simonrev (Nov 26, 2012)

ardandy said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Move up here where public transport is a fantasy.


I'd take this over big city anyway !! :thumb:

Just means I'll not be going to London any time soon ... and anywhere else they bring it in if I can get away with it


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

ardandy said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Move up here where public transport is a fantasy.


Same down here Andy. Thankful it's not affecting Cornwall as you just can't survive down here without a driving licence.


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

Simonrev said:


> If you are one of the lucky few that can afford to buy new then yes I suppose it is ... unfortunately most average people like myself can only dream of buying new if we want to own the car from day 1.
> 
> Yes PCP deals etc can open a door but in todays workplace how many feel confident that they will have constant employment ... and what about those that do high miles where PCP etc don't stack up.
> 
> I own a 5 year old car and consider it "new" :doublesho


I agree mate. Not everyone wants or can afford to just buy new. The PCP brigade who won't own the car are probably less bothered but some people prefer to buy their cars. In turn anyone who owns a pre-2015 diesel car of value is facing the possibility of the rug being pulled from under them in terms of residuals on it.

However relevant to the individual these changes may or may not be, diesel will become the root of all motoring evil, less people will want one and values will drop.

That said, it could make it a buyers market for people who still require a diesel.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Simonrev said:


> Great if you can refinance the usually rather large balance outstanding on what would be a car worth less than owed due to milage


Part ex or sell privately.

Any car you pile miles on will be worth proportionally less, used or not. If you sell a car for £4000 then you can buy one for £4000? If it affected me when it was announced last year I'd have started making plans last year.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

I'll gladly give up my filthy, evil diesel.
If I'm suitably compensated, original value should buy me a cleaner vehicle.
I'm not however going to be bullied in to doing so, or willing to accept my vehicle is going to be worthless.

I think we'll all soon going to be getting 'were you mislead in to buying a diesel' phonecalls.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## wish wash (Aug 25, 2011)

I run around in a Citroen Nemo, bought it more for throwing the mountain bikes in the back. I don't know if it's a 5 or 6 rating but the emissions is 113g/km which at a guess I think is low. Does 70mpg. Hopefully I won't be affected


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

It's funny that "cleaning" the Diesel engine up, causing the pollution, so the Euro 6 will still contribute. 
The reason is the higher temperature we have to burn diesel to get the catalytic converters to work, this causes a rise in NOX.
The soot,was not a great byproduct but not as harmful. 

I will continue to drive my diesels, as I prefer any diesel above these pumped up petrol engines. 
The moment the whole country changes to petrol, than there will be something in the petrol, you can't win.
En regarding these cities who raise stealth taxes on my vehicles, they will need to do without my spending d services, or my customers need to pay a higher charge.
For London, we charge substantial more, and we will increase.
In the end if companies keep increasing their charges for these cities, we will price people out of the city.


----------



## IR655 (Apr 9, 2015)

wish wash said:


> I run around in a Citroen Nemo, bought it more for throwing the mountain bikes in the back. I don't know if it's a 5 or 6 rating but the emissions is 113g/km which at a guess I think is low. Does 70mpg. Hopefully I won't be affected


I believe anything under 120g/km is considered "eco" so it should be fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

It's not about CO2. Diesels were pushed as the better alternative to petrol due to their inherently low CO2 and better MPG (therefore lower CO2 footprint with regards to fuel creation and transport, etc.). They still are the better alternative for CO2 reduction and climate change, and this was the focus back then. 

As others have pointed out, unfortunately diesels were pushing out other nasties, which have been linked to public health (although the exact extent it has on health is debated...was at a conference at the royal college of physicians and had a very interesting talk from the head of the PHE about pollution and public health and the evidence is mixed in some areas...). 

Anyway, it's natural to see these rises as money making, and even more of a slap in the face given how much they were incentivised but the previous government, but if the link with health risks is true, it's understandable...

And as others have said, diesels aren't suitable for city driving anyway. Hopefully it will stop salesman from selling them to the wrong drivers and people buy the cars that are right for them. Small town drivers with charging capabilities at home get EVs, mix with mostly town and unable to charge at home get petrol, and long motorway journeys get diesel. 

Doesn't have to be a one size fits all!

On a personal level I have always hated the way diesels sound so have always paid not to have one..! Pair that with ridiculously poorly implemented downstream exhaust cleaning tech that fails far too often and requires me to drive a certain way, and you have a car that I would never care to own, but that's just me personally. Horses for courses and all that


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

Simonrev said:


> I'd take this over big city anyway !! :thumb:
> 
> Just means I'll not be going to London any time soon ... and anywhere else they bring it in if I can get away with it


I regularly have to travel from Manchester to London and i just book ahead on Virgin Trains as soon as i can.

Its a real no-brainer.

2hrs and 5mins from Manchester Piccadilly on the train to Euston and then use my Oyster card to hop on and off public transport when i am there at a daily capped rate of about £10 usually.

If i have to travel early for work, then someone else pays, but for myself i get a later morning train and a later evening return and its usually well below £100 return, complete with comp meal / snack and no stress.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2017)

Personally i love Diesel engines, i would only swap my bi-turbo for another diesel never a petrol engine, i love the fact even more now that I'm getting on the nerves of tree hugging pests, they know they can't fight and win the real war so they turn to ruining everyone's lives for a small victory


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

combat wombat said:


> Personally i love Diesel engines, i would only swap my bi-turbo for another diesel never a petrol engine, i love the fact even more now that I'm getting on the nerves of tree hugging pests, they know they can't fight and win the real war so they turn to ruining everyone's lives for a small victory


What are you taking about...?

As already made clear, diesels produce less CO2, so would be preferred by 'tree huggers'.

Only thing large congestion of diesel cars in cities is doing is potentially making an unfortunate person with asthma or pulmonary disease have an even worse day...


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

You know what, regardless of how you feel. Its just boils down to another way to get money out of the motorist.
Wont be long before the era of cheap motoring is at an end & unless your relatively well off you wont be avle to afford to run a car. 'Bangernomics' will be history.

I can remember 25 years ago when the metrolink in Manchester was being introduced, we had a vote.
Choice was.....choose to have the metrolink & we'll have a congestion charge to pay for it. Or choose not to have a congestion charge & the metrolink wont happen.

The public voted against the congestion charge & not have the metrolink. What happened?......the council went ahead with the Metrolink & its subsequent expansion anyway.

Once the metrolink expansion is completed with its new cross city route & I bet you my mortgage we'll have the congestion charge introduced anyway....under the guise of the new 'clean air' in city centre policies.

And lets not also forget that in the never ending desire of planners to introduce more bus lanes, cycle lanes, pedestrianised zones etc that leads to less roadspace & kettling of a growing volume of cars onto the same roads often with changing light sequences....that actually causes congestion & more idling of car engines. They'll then blame the congestion They caused to charge us more


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Horrid, noisy, polluting things. Tax them to the max, price them off the road.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Years from now when electric/hybrids are in the majority they'll just find an excuse to tax/congestion charge them. Let's face it a car could run on fresh air and they'd find a way to tax it.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Even in EV world there are the equivalent of gas guzzlers.

Teslas for example are not as efficient as a Leaf. Mainly due to shear size.

I'm sure that will become a 'thing' eventually. How many mpkwh a car does (miles per kilowatt hour).

I like to think I've best of both worlds. Electric car to save money and the Cooper S for fun and to go 'pop-pop' from the exhaust!

I use to have a derv to save money on fuel but going EV beats that hands down circa £150 per month. Now I see no reason to get a derv, as in pure fun terms petrol is way better and for money saving electric is. Lucky enough to need 2 cars in the house.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

ardandy said:


> Even in EV world there are the equivalent of gas guzzlers.
> 
> Teslas for example are not as efficient as a Leaf. Mainly due to shear size.
> 
> ...


Decent article on PH about hybrids being the next 'diesel'.

https://www.pistonheads.com/feature...etin (23.03.2017)::Main_2&utm_source=20170323

Funnily enough, the discussion in the comment section is also a very good read!


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Toyota have stopped doing dervs in small cars for a while now. Hence the Yaris hybrid rather than Yaris derv.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

JLR diesal engines have been developed with the new regs in mind, according to their Web site. Next gen green car rate my 2L diesal as greener than its petrol equivalant. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

graham1970 said:


> JLR diesal engines have been developed with the new regs in mind, according to their Web site. Next gen green car rate my 2L diesal as greener than its petrol equivalant.
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


The difference between claimed figures and real world is the issue. The average Euro 6 car tested in the real world was 6x over the claimed figures for NOx.

VAG have been slated badly over the last couple of years, but their cars are better than most on the emissions front. I think once people realised how serious the cheating was they were too scared to drag everyone down.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

Next generation green car analyse emitions etc in real world testing. http://www.nextgreencar.com/emissions-calculator/jaguar/xe/53353/

Taken from the above website
http://equaindex.com/

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

graham1970 said:


> Next generation green car analyse emitions etc in real world testing. http://www.nextgreencar.com/emissions-calculator/jaguar/xe/53353/
> 
> Taken from the above website
> http://equaindex.com/
> ...


The Jaguar XE 2.0d was one of the cars pulled up for failing the tests.

Rather than the 80mg/km NOx claimed figure it put out 650mg/km. That's over 8 times worse than claimed.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

And your source is.....?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

I understand it like this. Euro 6 compliance is measured under lab conditions, this is how the manufacturers comply. Real world testing reveals figures different from the 'compliance' figures, therefore the lab conditions need to be replaced by real world conditions to meet compliance. 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

graham1970 said:


> And your source is.....?
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


Every single diesel car tested, in a Government backed test, failed in the real world test. Just Google and you'll find lots of press and figures on the matter. It was also discussed on here and in great depth most places. It was headline news.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-21/car-emissions-all-vehicles-exceed-nitrogen-legal-limit/

The average failure for Euro 6 cars was 6 times the limit. Diesel cars are miles away from where they pretend they are.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> Every single diesel car tested, in a Government backed test, failed in the real world test. Just Google and you'll find lots of press and figures on the matter. It was also discussed on here and in great depth most places. It was headline news.
> 
> http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-21/car-emissions-all-vehicles-exceed-nitrogen-legal-limit/
> 
> The average failure for Euro 6 cars was 6 times the limit. Diesel cars are miles away from where they pretend they are.


http://www.theicct.org/real-world-exhaust-emissions-modern-diesel-cars

Here is one of the original reports in case you want to see the primary source.

Not sure if it was from this report, or another by the ICCT, but this graph depicts the problem of variation between manufacturers of test vs real world emissions.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

graham1970 said:


> I understand it like this. Euro 6 compliance is measured under lab conditions, this is how the manufacturers comply. Real world testing reveals figures different from the 'compliance' figures, therefore the lab conditions need to be replaced by real world conditions to meet compliance.
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


Cars are also failing independent lab/rolling road tests.

The manufacturer figures in the lab were cheating. VAG have been the only ones ripped to bits as their cheat system was found.

On the road VAG cars are no worse than the rest, but on the rolling road tests, with their cheating, they were around the same. That's not possible.

It's manufacturers that choose the lab that carry out the test on their behalf. Obviously the lab is going to try their best to get good figures as they are getting paid to carry out work.

They are all cheating and lying. It's only VAG that have been ripped to bits about it and it is unfair. They are all as bad if not worse than VAG on the emissions front.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

Kerr said:


> Every single diesel car tested, in a Government backed test, failed in the real world test. Just Google and you'll find lots of press and figures on the matter. It was also discussed on here and in great depth most places. It was headline news.
> 
> http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-21/car-emissions-all-vehicles-exceed-nitrogen-legal-limit/
> 
> The average failure for Euro 6 cars was 6 times the limit. Diesel cars are miles away from where they pretend they are.


What is your point bud?
Euro 5 engines fail to meet euro 6 compliance?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## chrisahamer (Mar 10, 2013)

I worry it's going to get worse and worse for bot diesel and petrol but for the moment the government just has the former in their sights. 

We decided to preempt it a bit and got rid of our last diesel car at the end of last year. At one point we had 3 diesel 2 petrol but now it's just 4 petrol. Living in London would have been crap with 3 cars that get charged to go any nearer to the centre than we already are. I think it's all utterly unfair but that's just going to be the status quo now.

I agree that it's not just VAG but they're the ones being lynched, for now. I'm sure it'll get worse as more revelations come out in the future.

On the plus side, the current generation of turbo petrol engines is sublime and the economy / power ratio is much better than it used to be.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

DrEskimo said:


> http://www.theicct.org/real-world-exhaust-emissions-modern-diesel-cars
> 
> Here is one of the original reports in case you want to see the primary source.
> 
> ...


All I see is that lab tests produce different results from real world tests....correct?
Euro 6 compliance is met through lab testing....correct?
Euro 6 diesal engines are exempt from the new to be introduced emissions charge...correct?
http://www.jaguar.co.uk/owners/handbooks-guides/euro-6-compliance.html

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

I don't agree that VAG are being unfairly singled out. There is no evidence that any other manufacturer has been using software or hardware to alter the output of their emissions during the testing procedure. 

I'm sure people would of been chomping at the bit to get another world scandal story similar to the VAG one and so far not a single case has been made....

There is a difference between the disparity of real world figures and test figures, and the cheating VAG did to get cars that couldn't even pass the testing procedure on the road. 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong!


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

graham1970 said:


> All I see is that lab tests produce different results from real world tests....correct?
> Euro 6 compliance is met through lab testing....correct?
> Euro 6 diesal engines are exempt from the new to be introduced emissions charge...correct?
> http://www.jaguar.co.uk/owners/handbooks-guides/euro-6-compliance.html
> ...


Indeed. As you say, it shows the major short comings of the testing procedure in reflecting the true emissions in real world.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

DrEskimo said:


> I don't agree that VAG are being unfairly singled out. There is no evidence that any other manufacturer has been using software or hardware to alter the output of their emissions during the testing procedure.
> 
> I'm sure people would of been chomping at the bit to get another world scandal story similar to the VAG one and so far not a single case has been made....
> 
> ...


The cheat device is the only thing that makes VW more guilty. However all the other manufacturers say their cars have been tested at xxx emissions levels, but they all fail independent tests under the same conditions.

Out on the road they are all bad. People get upset when their real world fuel economy is out by 30%, which is bad enough, but how on earth can a test be inaccurate by 600% on average?

Personally I think once people realised how deep rooted the issue was they realised damage limitation was required. It shouldn't just be VW facing lawsuits as the end result of dirty cars on the road is the same for them all.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> The cheat device is the only thing that makes VW more guilty. However all the other manufacturers say their cars have been tested at xxx emissions levels, but they all fail independent tests under the same conditions.
> 
> Out on the road they are all bad. People get upset when their real world fuel economy is out by 30%, which is bad enough, but how on earth can a test be inaccurate by 600% on average?
> 
> Personally I think once people realised how deep rooted the issue was they realised damage limitation was required. It shouldn't just be VW facing lawsuits as the end result of dirty cars on the road is the same for them all.


To me I draw an analogy to driving tests. Everyone that passes their test has varying degrees of driving ability. Some are good, some are pretty poor, but overall everyone has satisfied a predetermined criteria to drive on the UK roads.

There are arguments about whether the test is strict or encompassing enough, and this is a fair debate. However, it's the current standard.

What VAG have done is the equivalent of cheating the test to get someone a license to drive on the road who couldn't even pass the test. It's a completely different kettle of fish....

There were reports that VAG cars with the cheat device where many many orders higher in terms of real world emissions, which stands to reason as they couldn't even get them low enough to get through the frankly easy testing procedure.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

Kerr said:


> The cheat device is the only thing that makes VW more guilty. However all the other manufacturers say their cars have been tested at xxx emissions levels, but they all fail independent tests under the same conditions.
> 
> Out on the road they are all bad. People get upset when their real world fuel economy is out by 30%, which is bad enough, but how on earth can a test be inaccurate by 600% on average?
> 
> Personally I think once people realised how deep rooted the issue was they realised damage limitation was required. It shouldn't just be VW facing lawsuits as the end result of dirty cars on the road is the same for them all.


Surely to be euro 6 compliant the test pass mark is issued by the independent test facility...not the manufacturer? 
Vw installed software that deliberately altered what the test parameters were designed to test...not cheating but imho criminal.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

graham1970 said:


> Surely to be euro 6 compliant the test pass mark is issued by the independent test facility...not the manufacturer?
> Vw installed software that deliberately altered what the test parameters were designed to test...not cheating but imho criminal.
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


Nope. It never had been the case and it's the same with fuel economy figures too.

The manufacturers pick and pay the company of their choice to carry out tests on their behalf. Quite clearly the company needs to keep the manufacturer happy to get more work.

After the VW scandal one of the TV investigations took cars back to the facilities they were passed. They all refused to carry out tests when asked by the TV company. Wonder why?

When the cars were then taken to a completely independent test facility they all failed badly.

The only place cars have ever passed the test was at these facilities. Nowhere else can the figures be reproduced. I do appreciate that there has to be a margin of error, but to be out by 600% on average is beyond all boundaries of error.

They've all been cheating/lying.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

This provides interesting reading....http://www.caremissionstestingfacts.eu/

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

Kerr said:


> Nope. It never had been the case and it's the same with fuel economy figures too.
> 
> The manufacturers pick and pay the company of their choice to carry out tests on their behalf. Quite clearly the company needs to keep the manufacturer happy to get more work.
> 
> ...


Well, I've just read a department of transportb report that states that manufacturers do not employ any agency to test on their behalf....https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...g2sqBqbYjsyRqb3ng&sig2=su8FFk0c6qvFjRsGn1v5kw

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

graham1970 said:


> Well, I've just read a department of transportb report that states that manufacturers do not employ any agency to test on their behalf....https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...g2sqBqbYjsyRqb3ng&sig2=su8FFk0c6qvFjRsGn1v5kw
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


Can you tell me which bit as I've not got time to read 40 pages just now?

I read the opening that it's dated from April 2016 and the plans are for 2017 after realising that things weren't right.

It comes into effect Septemeber 2017.


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

chrisahamer said:


> We decided to preempt it a bit and got rid of our last diesel car at the end of last year. At one point we had 3 diesel 2 petrol but now it's just 4 petrol. Living in London would have been crap with 3 cars that get charged to go any nearer to the centre than we already are. I think it's all utterly unfair but that's just going to be the status quo now.


I think you've made a wise move there, especially getting shot of so many diesels.

I'm planning to hang onto my E320 CDI but it's the only diesel in our household now. My other half sold her Focus last year. Fortunately the E class is in that bracket where even if it halved in price that depreciation is still not that bad.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

Yeah, it's a pain....I'm on my phone and can't do anything with a pdf.
This highlights the procedure http://www.caremissionstestingfacts.eu/nedc-how-do-lab-tests-work/

Note independent officials that are responsible for the results.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

graham1970 said:


> Yeah, it's a pain....I'm on my phone and can't do anything with a pdf.
> This highlights the procedure http://www.caremissionstestingfacts.eu/nedc-how-do-lab-tests-work/
> 
> Note independent officials that are responsible for the results.
> ...


I've no idea who that website is, but many of the things they say should/does happen doesn't. There's lots of information about the cheats used to gain good figures.

Here's a shorter breakdown of the new Septemeber 2017 guidelines. It's actually a good read.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-ne...missions-figures-the-new-2017-tests-explained

Even under the new rules manufacturers are still allowed to to do their own tests. It is also pointed out how much the manufacturers try to find loopholes.

They've also managed to gain extra wiggle room to fail the tests up to 2021.

The bottom line is the diesel cars on the road are far too dirty. That's the problem that needs addressed. The manufacturers don't need these tests to tell them how dirty their cars really are.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

I agree with your overall conclusions, but I still don't see evidence for what you are claiming with respect to all manufacturers 'cheating' the independent NEDC testing procedure in the same way VAG did...?

I've seen many programmes and reports which can easily reproduce the NOx figures stated by the manufacturers for many diesel cars, including the VAG cars with cheat devices, which show the cars passing under the threshold set by the EU guidelines. 

As already mentioned, the fact that these lab conditions rarely reflect real world driving is a concern, and one that looks set to be addressed as in that article to some degree, but it still doesn't change the fact that what VAG did was very very different, and should be rightfully punished. 

Perhaps there are data and evidence that support the claims you are making, in which case please do share


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

DrEskimo said:


> I agree with your overall conclusions, but I still don't see evidence for what you are claiming with respect to all manufacturers 'cheating' the independent NEDC testing procedure in the same way VAG did...?
> 
> I've seen many programmes and reports which can easily reproduce the NOx figures stated by the manufacturers for many diesel cars, including the VAG cars with cheat devices, which show the cars passing under the threshold set by the EU guidelines.
> 
> ...


I fully agree that the lab conditions don't reflect real world. Apparently the fuel figures are out by 29%. That's bad enough. How can you be 600% wrong, on average, with emissions?

I've not seen many tests that have gained the same results. Most tests I've seen have also failed the official test miserably during independent testing. Some make it, which makes it harder to explain why so many find themselves so far out.

VW needed to cheat to achieve the claimed figure during the test cycle. Other manufacturers simply fail the test cycle. On the road the VW beats many of those cars too.

What logic could explain why VW needed to cheat to pass, but others didn't, yet VW still outperform these other cars in all other tests?


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> I fully agree that the lab conditions don't reflect real world. Apparently the fuel figures are out by 29%. That's bad enough. How can you be 600% wrong, on average, with emissions?
> 
> I've not seen many tests that have gained the same results. Most tests I've seen have also failed the official test miserably during independent testing.
> 
> ...


That's my point, where have you seen other diesels that have also failed their tests? I have not seen any evidence of this?


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

If vw passed these independent tests you claim but still need to cheat the official tests then there's only one conclusion!? 

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

Kerr said:


> I've no idea who that website is, but many of the things they say should/does happen doesn't. There's lots of information about the cheats used to gain good figures.
> 
> Here's a shorter breakdown of the new Septemeber 2017 guidelines. It's actually a good read.
> 
> ...


This is the new testing procedure.
http://www.caremissionstestingfacts.eu/wltp-how-will-lab-tests-work-in-future/
If you click on the questions it takes you to over places of info

This is who they are by the way.
http://www.caremissionstestingfacts.eu/about/
The upshot is that independent testing by lab and real world driving conditions will be carried out from 2017. The testing is done by officials that are ACCOUNTABLE

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

DrEskimo said:


> That's my point, where have you seen other diesels that have also failed their tests? I have not seen any evidence of this?


There was countless articles in magazines and on the TV who all conducted tests after the VW scandal. It has been covered everywhere including on here at the time. As I mentioned earlier the TV documentary went back to the official testing labs with cars the same as they passed and they refused to retest them. They subsequently failed on an independent test facility.



graham1970 said:


> If vw passed these independent tests you claim but still need to cheat the official tests then there's only one conclusion!?
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


They cheated the official one and they didn't highlight the cheat through any of the cars or tests. It was an independent test that noticed the cheat.

The conclusion is their cars failed the test without the cheat and they knew it. They still weren't as bad as many that also passed official tests.

We're going around in pointless circles now. The bottom line is the diesels on the road are far too dirty and far worse than predicted. Action needs to be taken rather than fighting how the test process works. Some manufacturers manage to do significantly better in independent tests than others. There has to be questions how that happens if it's a controlled and calibrated environment.

It doesn't matter that one website contradicts others on how the test is performed. The test has been covered in depth plenty of times before.

Anyway, it's Friday, this is dragging on, and totally missing the main point.


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

Get the GOV to test. No independent laboratories and if they pay them like they seem to be doing to the independents, at least it'll be money in the kitty for us.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> There was countless articles in magazines and on the TV who all conducted tests after the VW scandal. It has been covered everywhere including on here at the time. As I mentioned earlier the TV documentary went back to the official testing labs with cars the same as they passed and they refused to retest them. They subsequently failed on an independent test facility.
> 
> They cheated the official one and they didn't highlight the cheat through any of the cars or tests. It was an independent test that noticed the cheat.
> 
> ...


With all due respect buddy, we're not so much going round in circles as we are hitting a brick wall....!

You are making some rather bold claims that lots, if not all manufacturers are cheating and not actually passing the NEDC emissions test, in much the same way VAG were. I have googled and can't find anything to support this...?

I'm sure if it were the case, many newspapers, least of all VAG themselves, would be plastering it all the front of tabloids and broadsheets alike...!

Contrary to what you have said, here is a study that shows diesels do comply with the emissions target when subjected to the NEDC testing procedure, something you said was not tested.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304423/#!po=34.5588

"The tested diesel and gasoline cars tend to comply on the NEDC with their respective Euro 4-6 NOX emission limits."

Again, the issue is with the fact that the NEDC is not reflective of real world driving, even when driven in the same manner. But the manufacturers are playing by the rules put to them. All except VAG who went above the rules, hence why they are being singled out.

As said, I agree with your overall sentiment, but I haven't found much evidence to support your point that VAG are being unfairly singled out, or that others have been conducting similar hi-jinx.

It's a rather moot point as you rightly say, all the cars are more polluting than the tests suggests and there is high variability across cars, but just wanted to clarify my confusion over the matter! Of course, if you have any information to the contrary, I would welcome it


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

Can't they just agree that cars all pump out noxious fumes and particulates and leave it at that?

The whole VW scandal has hardly cost consumers anything surely, and has mostly been dreamt up by Americans trying to keep VW from attacking their domestic car industry, which, unsurprisingly, quite likes the idea of an imported Saloon which can hit 50mpg...


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

Well, jaguar land rover designed and built the diesel engine that powers my car. They promise that it's as green as green a diesel can be, slightly more nox than a petrol, lower co2 as well. Expert have rated it as green according to factors such as emissions and life of components aswell as fuel efficiency. I trust them, JLR are British... If they are lies then,well....it just wouldn't be cricket😌

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

You'd always like to think a brand isn't telling fibs but let's be honest, the general public get bullsh!tted on most things.

If other manufacturers can't come anywhere close to the figures they're managing in a very controlled environment, in the same way that the VAG couldn't then of course it would lead people to believe they were cheating. Even if it is not as brazen as VAG using a software cheat they are still misleading consumers with these 'independent' tests.

I don't think anyone is naive enough to think they'll get the exact MPG figures that you see the brochure. I recall my granddad telling me this when I was as fairly new driver so it's always been common knowledge but to be so far out on emissions is obviously a concern.

It's a shame the consumers get shafted yet again.


----------



## graham1970 (Oct 7, 2012)

But you can get the quoted mpg if you follow the exact process that the car was tested with...striping the seats out, no driver, rolling road, no wind, no gradients etc etc 😀

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Alex_225 said:


> You'd always like to think a brand isn't telling fibs but let's be honest, the general public get bullsh!tted on most things.
> 
> If other manufacturers can't come anywhere close to the figures they're managing in a very controlled environment, in the same way that the VAG couldn't then of course it would lead people to believe they were cheating. Even if it is not as brazen as VAG using a software cheat they are still misleading consumers with these 'independent' tests.
> 
> ...


But, as in most things in life, if you read the small print you will realise the manufacturers never actually claim that you can realistically achieve those figures:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp

This part is also quite pertinent to the discussion:

Who Does the Testing?
The testing is carried out either by independent test organisations, or by the vehicle manufacturers or importers themselves, usually at their own test facilities.

In the UK, and before the results are officially recognised, the DfT will:

inspect the test laboratories and witness some tests being carried out, or;
check that the figures have been certified by a European member state national authority under the agreed arrangements for mutual recognition of test results.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

well, if there ever was more evidence of persuading people to buy diesel, i'd like to see it, lol

as for my circumstances, i bought one where i pretty much needed to, to make a decent enough living, we all know diesel engines tend to last longer than petrols, so for me thats a good thing, good MPG and with the low VED too, all helps me get by, I'm 2 years into a 4 year loan on it, so then hat do i do? would people pay more to go into London with us? or do i have to swallow yet another cost? maybe I'm just forced to pack it in and find another way of earning?


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

graham1970 said:


> But you can get the quoted mpg if you follow the exact process that the car was tested with...striping the seats out, no driver, rolling road, no wind, no gradients etc etc 😀
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


lolol.

I used to sell new and used cars and always used to tell people the figures in the brochures were for comparison purposes only and not real world figures.

It's the only way they could standardise something as best they could to be able to give consumers a comparison.


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

Have a read of this...

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...onder-fuel-new-asbestos?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-2


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

Interesting article that!

I mean as a worker in the centre of London, I wouldn't complain at not having to smell diesel fumes on a regular basis. 

I think they need to address the balance for those people who own diesel cars and aren't in a position to just scrap them and start over. I mean even if they gave £3,500 value on a scrapped diesel, that only accounts for cars like my old E320! That's a 13 year old car which is worth around that price. Not say, a 2009 diesel that's worth considerably more yet deemed a high polluter. 

Tricky situation really and I suspect could bit a lot of people in the ar$e. 

Now to do my homework on V8s with LPG conversions! haha


----------



## Simonrev (Nov 26, 2012)

Alex_225 said:


> Now to do my homework on V8s with LPG conversions! haha


Got to be the way forward


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

The extra charge for a diesel in London is not the UK Government but Khan's toxic air exclusion zone.

If there was any serious push though to create cleaner air in London then all of the taxi drivers should also be paying but they are not.

Again if real serious then diesels would be totally banned from certain areas to get the air cleaned up but politicians don't do that they just put a tax on it. The problem is not solved but they feel better about having more money to waste on something.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Andy from Sandy said:


> The extra charge for a diesel in London is not the UK Government but Khan's toxic air exclusion zone.
> 
> If there was any serious push though to create cleaner air in London then all of the taxi drivers should also be paying but they are not.
> 
> Again if real serious then diesels would be totally banned from certain areas to get the air cleaned up but politicians don't do that they just put a tax on it. The problem is not solved but they feel better about having more money to waste on something.


http://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-taxi-company-electric-vehicles-uk

Guess that ruins your argument slightly....


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

Well it doesn't but I don't have the figures to hand. There is a very large number of taxis that with a fifteen year expected life will be many, many years before no more exist.

It still remains true that Khan has decided not to impose his tax on taxis.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Andy from Sandy said:


> Well it doesn't but I don't have the figures to hand. There is a very large number of taxis that with a fifteen year expected life will be many, many years before no more exist.
> 
> It still remains true that Khan has decided not to impose his tax on taxis.


Well the government are spending large sums to provide replacement EV taxi's. Your argument is that because they are not including taxi's in the new tax, this is evidence that they aren't serious about air pollution.

I would argue that this shows they are doing even more to address air pollution from taxi's?

I agree, the already licensed taxi's would still be in use for a while, but then without knowing the details about how taxi's are leased, bought or licensed, as well as any potential incentives to make taxi drivers switch to EV alternatives when they are introduced, how do we know how that will be handled and whether that will be problematic?

Without all the information, how can we draw conclusions either way?


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

My original argument was that if Khan was serious about the quality of the air in some parts of London then diesels would be banned and not have a new tax imposed upon them.

I just added taxis as an aside as there is around 20,000 of them. Not an insignificant number of polluters.

I think the new sales in London has shown that the dwellers there have already extensively switched away from diesels to electric.


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

Andy from Sandy said:


> My original argument was that if Khan was serious about the quality of the air in some parts of London then diesels would be banned and not have a new tax imposed upon them.
> 
> I just added taxis as an aside as there is around 20,000 of them. Not an insignificant number of polluters.
> 
> I think the new sales in London has shown that the dwellers there have already extensively switched away from diesels to electric.


LTI have developed an all electric black cab. There is a push to have all black cabs electric. 
Hackney cabs form part of the public transport network, hence why they're exempt..they can legitimately use bus lanes.
If you were to impose the charge on black cabs, you may as well impose the charge on buses


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

I am not sure they are in so far as they are owned by the driver and not the city where the buses are.

I don't think there is any requirement to run so many taxis per day along a certain route either. I think they go anywhere there is a fare to be collected.

From next January all new taxis have to be zero emissions.


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

Some are owner drivers, some are not.
Each council sets the limit on how many hackney plates are issued. Tbis is why the plates are worth a fortune & you have to buy in once someone retires (if they are an owner driver & selling up). The council can issue new hackney plates, but not before an 'unmet demand' survey is carried out & they' ll be strict rules imposed as to who can get the plate. EG.....you can only have this plate if your prepared to buy a brand new £40K cab

They are classed as part of the public transport network. The councils set the fare rates for their area, not the drivers......in the same way tje councils set the bus fares when they ran the buses

Im not including private hire/mini cabs in that


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

You cannot just ban something, you need to get the market to work for you and for it to happen gradually. Economics have to come into play here.

Make the market drive people towards cleaner cars (by taxing dirty ones) and naturally you get a gradual change over.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

ardandy said:


> You cannot just ban something, you need to get the market to work for you and for it to happen gradually. Economics have to come into play here.
> 
> Make the market drive people towards cleaner cars (by taxing dirty ones) and naturally you get a gradual change over.


Yea that's my thoughts too.

Although I'm more in favour of providing tax incentives on the cleaner cars, rather than increasing the tax on dirtier cars. Similar to food. Don't increase the cost of rubbish food, just make healthy food more affordable.

We know it works because the lower VED was a big factor in making people buy diesels! Increase the grants for EVs and PHEVs and make VED free for all zero emission cars, even those +£40k.

If they had just included NOx along with CO2 to calculate the VED, people would of been less inclined to think they were being singled out. An argument could be made that diesel owners have gotten away with cheap VED while petrols have been unfairly singled out, since the focus has been rather arbitrarily based on CO2 only, rather than all the emissions.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

If you wanted to seriously improve Londons air quality, moving Gatwick and Heathrow airports would be a good starting point....


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

ollienoclue said:


> If you wanted to seriously improve Londons air quality, moving Gatwick and Heathrow airports would be a good starting point....


No, absolutely not, that is .... er ..... different, you see.

As is Oxford street being fully lit up 24 / 7 / 365 ... that's quite a different matter also.

They are allowed to waste and pollute, because they employ people.... :devil:


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

Just perusing eBay and out of 646 BMW 5 Series from 2010 upwards for sale, only 22 are petrol. Majority of them are M5's.

Jaguar XFs, for the full model years... 1,256 for sale... 58 Petrol.

Smaller cars seem to be a bit better such as, full model years of 3 series. 4,874 for sale..1,705 Petrol.


----------

