# Big Car + Small Engine



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

Hired a car for a holiday we had last week, I hadn't specified a diesel this time around but got a great deal on a new Insignia SRI.

I'm not a Vauxhaull fan as such, nothing against them but just not been a brand that's ever been on my radar. I was very impressed overall though, interior was comfy, infotainment was genuinely good, great handling (Devon's country lanes) and I think it looks really good...



But, it had a 1.5 turbo charged petrol engine. I believe it has about 165bhp which seems reasonable enough to get it going but I'm not sure I see the point in a small engine being forced to push out more power when the fuel economy was actually not that great.

Ok so a steady run on a motorway it was doing about 45mpg which is reasonable as the car was fully loaded. Round the country lanes, to get it going, you have to rev it up and it shifted well but then the fuel economy dropped and the average across 760 was just 33mpg!

Now I know diesel is evil and kills everything but my old tank will do 50mpg on a run 37-38mpg round town but has 240bhp/420lbs so is much easier to get moving.

So based on that I'm not convinced with small turbo charged engines in larger cars but admittedly this is the first I've experienced. Any thoughts?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I've found the very same issues with some of the smaller engined cars. They need to be worked a bit harder to make the same progress and it does hit the fuel economy.

I've found a few that just aren't geared right for doing 70-80mph and take a real hit at those speeds.


----------



## Andyblue (Jun 20, 2017)

Heard the same about smaller turbo'd engines not giving decent MPG and you having to rev them to get them moving, which as you say then hits MPG again...


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

My cousin recently traded in his tdci ford kuga for a 1.5 ecoboost petrol kuga. The tdci was doing around 38 -40 mpg. The petrol is struggling to stay around 30, dispite the dealer assuring him that it would be the same as the diesel due to 'new technology.'

Definitely not convinced yet. 

Cooks

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## nbray67 (Mar 22, 2012)

My BG workhorse is a Skoda Octavia estate. Petrol 1.0ltr turbo on 3cyls!!

In all honesty, it's a cracking car and shifts when needed. 45+ mpg and I do quite a lot of urban stop/start driving. Not sure a 1.0 3cyl engine would be good for excess miles in the long run though.

It replaced a Seat Leon estate. 1.5d and I much prefer the Skoda.

Our personal car is a 2.0ltr Kuga 180bhp diesel which is around 40+ mpg. The Kuga forum is littered with owners bemoaning the 1.5 petrol on really poor mpg.


----------



## baxlin (Oct 8, 2007)

Self and two sons in law hired cars in France a couple of weeks ago, a diesel Opel small SUV, a Renault Megane GT-line, and me in a Hyundai I30, with the 1 ltr 3 cylinder engine. Opel had family of 5 in it, the Renault 4, just Mrs B and me in the Hyundai.

Fill up at the end of the holiday, Opel 22 Euros, Renault 31 Euros, I30 42 Euros. Ok I did an extra run to the hospital (35 miles according to Waze).

Not very scientific, I know, and diesel is cheaper than petrol in France, but I was a bit miffed!


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

I'm glad it's not just me then as I'm not sure the popularity of this kind of configuration and obviously this was my first experience of a modern turbo charged engine. 

Exactly as described by others though, you could get it to shift if you wound the revs right up and then negatively affect the fuel economy. I did wonder if maybe I'm a bit spoilt driving a 3.2 six cylinder diesel day to day. Thing is with modern diesels now being so much cleaner (ULEZ compliant) I can't see the advantage of a small turbo over a hefty diesel when the fuel economy is similar yet you're down on power/torque. 

As an aside, I bet a high powered or VXR edition of that new Insignia would be excellent. Based on the model I drove.


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Tends to be a fact that for a large / medium car diesel is more economical in terms of mpg. On an environmental basis, I simplify it to a question of petrol is a higher emitter of co2 and if you believe the scientists, contributes to climate change, while diesel pollutes the local atmosphere and damages school kids’ lungs (and anyone else with breathing difficulties). Personally, not being too worried about motoring costs, I believe charity begins at home and wouldn’t drive a diesel if you gave it to me. 


Ps before howls of protest arise, this is my personal view and it is your choice what you drive


----------



## baxlin (Oct 8, 2007)

fatdazza said:


> Tends to be a fact that for a large / medium car diesel is more economical in terms of mpg. On an environmental basis, I simplify it to a question of petrol is a higher emitter of co2 and if you believe the scientists, contributes to climate change, while diesel pollutes the local atmosphere and damages school kids' lungs (and anyone else with breathing difficulties). Personally, not being too worried about motoring costs, I believe charity begins at home and wouldn't drive a diesel if you gave it to me.


That's why we have one of each, a 1.2ltr supercharged Nissan for around town (maybe to be replaced eventually with an EV? or maybe not, time will tell) and a TBH more economical 2ltr turbo diesel for longer trips.

That was the idea, anyway, but as the diesel is a convertible, it's been very tempting during recent weather.......


----------



## slimjim (Mar 22, 2007)

I’ve got the same Insignia automatic 1.6 diesel and get 60mpg , mental for a big car , only 136bhp but it does the business . 
It’s 18 month old 9000 miles and paid £12000 , I get a company car allowance so works out great for me as I actually make money from it.

But if you like cars I wouldn’t buy one , no pleasure from driving it but gets you from A to B cheaply.
Luckily the wife was a 335D X Drive that’s a pleasure to drive .


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

fatdazza said:


> Personally, not being too worried about motoring costs, I believe charity begins at home and wouldn't drive a diesel if you gave it to me.
> 
> Ps before howls of protest arise, this is my personal view and it is your choice what you drive


Perfectly valid opinion to have mate. I only have a diesel because I do about a thousand motorway miles each month and for that kind of driving it's economical but also pleasingly quick. I'd replace it with a V8 though if I moved to petrol.



slimjim said:


> I've got the same Insignia automatic 1.6 diesel and get 60mpg , mental for a big car , only 136bhp but it does the business...
> 
> ....But if you like cars I wouldn't buy one , no pleasure from driving it but gets you from A to B cheaply.


I'd imagine it has a decent amount of torque to get it going though at least? 60mpg is good though and with the size of the car it's good for covering distances.

I will admit, I actually rather liked the drive. Ironically part of that was the engine and the manual gearbox. My daily car is a diesel auto which I spend 99% of my time in it, driving on the motorway. So taking a manual turbo petrol down country lanes for a week was part of of the enjoyment but I actually thought it handled surprisingly well.


----------



## slimjim (Mar 22, 2007)

Alex_225 said:


> I will admit, I actually rather liked the drive. Ironically part of that was the engine and the manual gearbox. My daily car is a diesel auto which I spend 99% of my time in it, driving on the motorway. So taking a manual turbo petrol down country lanes for a week was part of of the enjoyment but I actually thought it handled surprisingly well.


I'm maybe taking bad I had the Mazda 6 Sport Nav 2.2 diesel 180 bhp manual and that was so much more enjoyable car to drive mind you mid 40's mpg was about average. 
I actually bought the Mazda as a cheap company car instead of the BMW, Audi's I had ran in the past and was really impressed .


----------



## garage_dweller (Apr 10, 2018)

Cookies said:


> My cousin recently traded in his tdci ford kuga for a 1.5 ecoboost petrol kuga. The tdci was doing around 38 -40 mpg. The petrol is struggling to stay around 30, dispite the dealer assuring him that it would be the same as the diesel due to 'new technology.'
> 
> Definitely not convinced yet.
> 
> ...


I have a focus estate with the 182 bhp 1.5 petrol engine and average around 40mpg mixed driving.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

Small petrol high reving engines are an easy way to comply with new environmental standards.
There are no other benefits.
A big car needs a big engine. What is the point to drag a big car with a moped engine, if the turbo or supercharger doesn’t kick in you can’t drive it as there is no torque.

We have a diesel for work, what is great for motorways as it will do 80 mpg on distance 
And we have a new hybrid what does 64mpg on a shortish commute

I tried the commute with the diesel, but it drops to 48/51mpg, tried the hybrid on distance and runs 46 mpg

So it’s more to choose the right car for the right circumstances.

It’s black and white, more fuel in = is higher environmental impact!

A diesel is cleaner on long distance = running at constant speed, but has a very high environmental impact in start-stop traffic.


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

Caledoniandream said:


> So it's more to choose the right car for the right circumstances.


I think this is certainly the crux of the diesel vs petrol debate. If it's mostly town driving and stop start, then petrol is a no brainer. Cleaner and at least as efficient around town.

My E Class will do 25mpg round town if the engine is cold, give it a long run which I do four times a month and it achieves around 50mpg. The last petrol car I used for a similar run was my Megane 225 which was a re-mapped 2.0 turbo, which could do about 38-42mpg on a gentle drive. More power, a lot less torque but a lighter car.

I think from my experience currently, if I replace my E Class with something sadly for now it's going to be another hefty diesel powered tank.


----------



## andy__d (Jun 27, 2018)

its pretty Basic
BIG body = Weight
Small engine + turbo to prop it up so it can Move the weight - ****e MPG

and ****e engine life,, as your reving the nuts off a tiny for the body weight thing to get it to move

mpg claims by manuf's are lies, always have been always will be

drive a diesel ,, thank you for polluting the planet for your OWN greed.


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

andy__d said:


> drive a diesel ,, thank you for polluting the planet for your OWN greed.


Bit a harsh statement, yesterday the diesel was the cleanest thing on earth, today are it the big polluters, tomorrow it could be all different again, nobody really knows.

Regarding pollution, my thick farmers brain tells me, " if I put less fuel in it, than I have less pollution, whatever way you turn it" 
A car regardless what petroleum derivatives I use what does 20 mpg, pollute a lot more than a car which does 65 mpg, no ifs or buts.


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

andy__d said:


> drive a diesel ,, thank you for polluting the planet for your OWN greed.


So I'm assuming you don't drive a car powered by any kind of fossil fuel, nor do you live in a house that uses electricity from any kind of fossil fuel either?

You are also vegan due to the impact that farming puts on the environment as well? I also suspect you're not sending this message from Brazil whilst putting our the fires in the rain forest?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I predict a rant. It won't make much sense, but there's a rant coming. :lol:


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Caledoniandream said:


> Bit a harsh statement, yesterday the diesel was the cleanest thing on earth, today are it the big polluters, tomorrow it could be all different again, nobody really knows.
> 
> Regarding pollution, my thick farmers brain tells me, " if I put less fuel in it, than I have less pollution, whatever way you turn it"
> A car regardless what petroleum derivatives I use what does 20 mpg, pollute a lot more than a car which does 65 mpg, no ifs or buts.


Trouble was "yesterday" the standard emissions test specified by the EU bore no resemblance to real world driving and what appeared to be clean in the test lab, was in fact very dirty on the road. Also as I mentioned above low co2 which helped to save the planet was prioritised over noxious emissions which are harmful to the local population.

Depends what you mean by pollution, co2 or nox and particulates. No use saving the planet if the kids all die from asthma


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

fatdazza said:


> Trouble was "yesterday" the standard emissions test specified by the EU bore no resemblance to real world driving and what appeared to be clean in the test lab, was in fact very dirty on the road. Also as I mentioned above low co2 which helped to save the planet was prioritised over noxious emissions which are harmful to the local population.
> 
> Depends what you mean by pollution, co2 or nox and particulates. No use saving the planet if the kids all die from asthma


The challenge is here that NOx mainly get created by high pressure and high temperature (1600+ combustion temperature) this mainly gets created by engines under full load at maximum charger pressure.
This happen less in the cities and more on the "open" road, what the dangerous? Byproduct is of high charged high reving small engines is not really known at the moment, it's a quick fix.
Combustion temperature in these highly tuned engines is extremely high, hence the reason for special spark plugs etc. 
I just wonder if we are flushing the child away with the bath water.

The only fix to the emission problem is a great reducing of vehicles.
When I grow up there was average less than 1 car per 2 households, we are know at 2.4 car per household or maybe even higher. 
You can see it on the roads, parking in the streets and the oceans of cars at workplaces 
We need to reduce this drastically, to avoid that there is no planet left, but pointing a finger to one engine type or fuel is not going to be any solution at all.
It's sticking our head in the sand.


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Caledoniandream said:


> The challenge is here that NOx mainly get created by high pressure and high temperature (1600+ combustion temperature) this mainly gets created by engines under full load at maximum charger pressure.
> This happen less in the cities and more on the "open" road, what the dangerous? Byproduct is of high charged high reving small engines is not really known at the moment, it's a quick fix.
> Combustion temperature in these highly tuned engines is extremely high, hence the reason for special spark plugs etc.
> I just wonder if we are flushing the child away with the bath water.
> ...


Are you sure?

Diesel engines generate nox due to the higher pressures and higher temps under all conditions. If you think there is less nox produced in the cities, then why do cities have real problems with nox?

Also the problem is not the number of cars, but the miles travelled by those cars. I could have 5 cars on my drive, but only use one at a time. Air quality in cities has deteriorated due to too many diesel cars and vans, that is a fact. If all city cars were petrol, then air quality would improve no end.

As for saving the planet, every country needs to do its bit. The uk accounts for about 1% of global co2 emissions. What we do is pretty inconsequential unless countries such as China and the US join in the game.


----------



## andy__d (Jun 27, 2018)

Caledoniandream said:


> Bit a harsh statement, yesterday the diesel was the cleanest thing on earth, today are it the big polluters, tomorrow it could be all different again, nobody really knows.
> 
> Regarding pollution, my thick farmers brain tells me, " if I put less fuel in it, than I have less pollution, whatever way you turn it"
> A car regardless what petroleum derivatives I use what does 20 mpg, pollute a lot more than a car which does 65 mpg, no ifs or buts.


err NO
they never WERE "clean" or "small" polluters , the research has been done and Proven , on Public record since the late 80s. 
That wont change "tomorrow" as you imply.

nothing Harsh about the truth, your problem if you cant/refuse to accept it.
just means those driving one now For the Wrong reasons, fell for the BS marketing, and refuse to admit it,,,

Right reasons would be Lorry's/trucks/trains
not"joe soap" public cars used in heavy town stop start traffic,or taking there child half a mile to school in a 3l diesel SUV,,,

as to your "assumptions" about size of engine making More difference than fuel type,, Thanks for showing how little you know..


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

andy__d said:


> err NO
> they never WERE "clean" or "small" polluters , the research has been done and Proven , on Public record since the late 80s.
> That wont change "tomorrow" as you imply.
> 
> ...


I actually have the right mixture of cars as you can see from earlier posts, diesel for the long distance, hybrid for the shorter commute and stop start traffic.

But you are try telling me that burning 20 litres of petrol in the same time as 1 litre diesel, the petrol has less emissions?
That is what you say, I maybe thick after 45 years in motor trade and transport, but nobody in the whole world is going to make me believe that.


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Caledoniandream said:


> I actually have the right mixture of cars as you can see from earlier posts, diesel for the long distance, hybrid for the shorter commute and stop start traffic.
> 
> But you are try telling me that burning 20 litres of petrol in the same time as 1 litre diesel, the petrol has less emissions?
> That is what you say, I maybe thick after 45 years in motor trade and transport, but nobody in the whole world is going to make me believe that.


See my post earlier about defining pollution or emissions. Diesel is a dirtier fuel than petrol when burnt, it is a heavier oil. Also due to the way it is burned (i.e under pressure and at high temps) it produces more nox. The particulates from diesel are also greater and more dangerous.

Co2 which is generally higher from petrol engines contributes to climate change (if you believe the scientists and although the uk contribution from petrol cars is tiny) but it does not cause problems with local air quality. You might have the right mix of cars for fuel economy, and maybe also for co2 emissions, but your diesel car is causing local air pollution.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

We need to get the right people buying the right car. So many people jumped on diesels concentrating only on the MPG. We've ended up with so many people driving diesel cars in the wrong environment.


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

Is it just me getting confused about the bigger picture?

Is it more or less polluting to make millions of new cars when there are already millions of cars that could be kept running quite satisfactorily if the components had a really long working life and/or were easy to replace and readily available?

I'm thinking total environmental impact/pollution starting from digging the ore etc out of the ground to the finished article rolling off the line. 

How many relatively "new" cars are scrapped a few years into their life because the components have failed and it's not economically viable to mend? Great for business but what are the environmental impacts?

And what about the life of the vehicle to the point where we have to dispose of it and all it's toxic bits?

And I'm only considering the environmental impact - as that's the bit that will kill the planet - not the economics.

Happy to be pointed to some solid/reliable/unbiased research/documents etc.

Andy

PS Rightly or wrongly I've always been in favour of a larger engine doing less "work" than a smaller engine working it's guts out. Possibly something to do with my younger years being exposed to the V8 Rover SD1 advert about using less fuel in the fast lane of the motorway.


----------



## andy665 (Nov 1, 2005)

AndyN01 said:


> Is it just me getting confused about the bigger picture?
> 
> Is it more or less polluting to make millions of new cars when there are already millions of cars that could be kept running quite satisfactorily if the components had a really long working life and/or were easy to replace and readily available?
> 
> ...


How dare you apply common sense and logic by looking at the whole life impact of a vehicle from production to use and through to end of life :thumb:

There have been various studies done but such wildly conflicting results, probably because the people behind the studies have a vested interest in the results

I spent yesterday at a classic car show - lots of lovely old cars that would be considered "unclean and unfit to be on the roads" by many environmentalists but I would not mind betting that the 50,000 mile 50 year old Triumph TR5 had made less of an environmental footprint than a typical modern diesel / hybrid / electric vehicle


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

andy__d said:


> err NO
> they never WERE "clean" or "small" polluters , the research has been done and Proven , on Public record since the late 80s.
> That wont change "tomorrow" as you imply...


 I don't what they where researching in the 80's, there was not really a problem with NOx from Diesel engines, there was hardly any direct injection, we where working with relatively low compression and injection pressure was around 100-120 bar.
Engines had single dose injection, from a basic plunger pump.
Turbo was relatively rare, even on trucks.
The biggest problem was soot, people of my age probably remember Haulage yards full of white smoke ( Gardners, Volvo's and Daf engines) that made your eyes water, and your nose black inside.
Not very healthy, but at least you could cough it up.

In the nineties the first direct injection became more common ground (Audi 2.5 TDI Turbo Direct Injection was one of the first ) 
Injection systems became more complicated, with some injectors now injecting up to 9 times per cycle at a rail pressure of 2500 bar.
This was created to make a more complete a leaner burn, creating a much higher combustion temperature = creating NOx.

But technology hasn't come to a standstill, heavy goods engines have grown from the very common 12 litre to 13 litre to create a more torque engine that is not so much relying on high compression and EGR (exhaust gas recycling) cools the combustion process to a lower temperature = is creating less NOx.

In the last 5 year the NOx output has reduced by 50% for the road Haulage industry (source Department for Transport) 
And the expectation is to reduce it to 83% less by 2025.
So the Diesel is not dead...... yet.

I agree that a Diesel engine is the wrong choice for short distance and start stop traffic, but it certainly has its place in long distance.

I remember the time that there where still petrol powered HGV's on the road, and you should have seen them smoking.

If you think only diesel causes smog, go on a sunny day to San Francisco and see the smog hanging between the hills
California has very little diesel cars and was one of the first places where catalytic converters where compulsory.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

fatdazza said:


> A for saving the planet, every country needs to do its bit. The uk accounts for about 1% of global co2 emissions. What we do is pretty inconsequential unless countries such as China and the US join in the game.


This.

Were constantly pressure. Do this do that, recycle, dont eat meat (as a generation friends would say/joke) etc etc etc

Evertime someone does someone buys a more environmentally friendly vehicle here someone in the USA has just bought a V8!!


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

fatdazza said:


> A for saving the planet, every country needs to do its bit. The uk accounts for about 1% of global co2 emissions. What we do is pretty inconsequential unless countries such as China and the US join in the game.


This.

Were constantly pressured. Do this do that, recycle, dont eat meat (as a vegeneration friends would say/joke) etc etc etc

Evertime someone does someone buys a more environmentally friendly vehicle here someone in the USA has just bought a V8!!


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm driving about in a Seat Leon FR Estate. It's a petrol of some sort. 

It keeps popping up it's running on 2 cylinders mode and the fuel economy is still rather disappointing. Even with stop/start kicking in the fuel economy is less than more powerful cars.


----------



## Lexus-is250 (Feb 4, 2017)

Kerr said:


> I'm driving about in a Seat Leon FR Estate. It's a petrol of some sort.
> 
> It keeps popping up it's running on 2 cylinders mode and the fuel economy is still rather disappointing. Even with stop/start and kicking in the fuel economy is less than more powerful cars.


I looked at them before I brought my new to me one a few months back but they were a bit small for the hounds to go in. There was so little choice for what I was looking for i ended up going diesel even though i didn't want one. Would have ideally wanted another petrol in estate from with a reasonable amount of kit in auto. So little choice.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk


----------



## slimjim (Mar 22, 2007)

Just to upset a few my wife’s got a 335D X-Drive and we love it . Launch mode , over 300bhp and I’m afraid when driving it I don’t care about the economy or the environment.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Kerr said:


> I'm driving about in a Seat Leon FR Estate. It's a petrol of some sort.
> 
> It keeps popping up it's running on 2 cylinders mode and the fuel economy is still rather disappointing. Even with stop/start kicking in the fuel economy is less than more powerful cars.


I had a second one for the week and it felt better. I used it for the exact same distances and trips and it was about 8mpg better.

I really didn't like the extras such as the radar cruise and lane assist.

On a couple of occasions the car slammed on the brakes when I was closing on a car that was leaving on the slip road of a motorway or dual carriageway and I was on the inside lane going straight ahead.

The lane assist just kept butting in for no reason. A little touch here and there wasn't even needed.

I had the AWPR to myself and was curious how it worked. I let it steer for a little bit(my hands right over the wheel) and it gave a little warning to steer. A louder bong was then given, then it gave a massive and loud jolt of the brakes. I **** myself.

It would certainly wake a sleeping driver up..

This Seat seemed a better built car. The Android headunit didn't keep crashing on this one either.

One thing that was really obvious was all the hand controls on these Seats feels really old.

I average 46mpg..


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

I simply would not buy any car that contained a wheezy little engine that was turbocharged to get it to do anything.

Neither diesel nor petrol is any worse or better than the other. If you do a lot of distance driving then a diesel will make sense. If not, then buy a petrol.

The people killing the planet are the folks who are obtaining brand new cars every 2-3 years and thus driving demand for yet more of the things to be built. Just the water consumption resulting from the painting new cars is insane, before you talk about the steel or aluminium or plastic hoiked out of the ground to build them. Not to mention the disposal costs and waste generated during manufacture.

The Americans and people in other countries keep their cars to mileages that would appear stratospheric to us yet they do not magically dissolve or self destruct merely when they reach 150,000 miles and they would be used in harsher conditions, too. A UK car, on the whole, is serviced annually, come what may, uses posh engine oil and pretty posh fuel and is hardly driven many miles a year. To the Americans, a 300 mile trip at -10 degrees would be nearly classed as a daily commute.

People who believe petrol engines are all magically healthier need to go to LA and see what the photochemical haze looks like on a bright day. Petrol engines also emit particulates just like a diesel will.

If the government was serious about air quality then, just for starters, it could insist the haulage industry uses GTL diesel and insists all supplies of red are made up from the same. Only it won't because I suspect the refining capacity doesn't yet exist.

I still fail to see what the point of emissions controls on vehicles really is given that the German government is basically a mouthpiece for their coal industry and they can't get enough of the stuff into powerstations fast enough. A lot of countries on Europe could already be on their way to carbon neutral had planned investments in nuclear power been made, instead the UK switched into burning gas to make electricity.


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

ollienoclue said:


> I.......
> The people killing the planet are the folks who are obtaining brand new cars every 2-3 years and thus driving demand for yet more of the things to be built. Just the water consumption resulting from the painting new cars is insane, before you talk about the steel or aluminium or plastic hoiked out of the ground to build them. Not to mention the disposal costs and waste generated during manufacture.
> 
> The Americans and people in other countries keep their cars to mileages that would appear stratospheric to us yet they do not magically dissolve or self destruct merely when they reach 150,000 miles and they would be used in harsher conditions, too. A UK car, on the whole, is serviced annually, come what may, uses posh engine oil and pretty posh fuel and is hardly driven many miles a year. To the Americans, a 300 mile trip at -10 degrees would be nearly classed as a daily commute........


Thanks.

IMHO that's why we need a full cradle to grave environmental impact (NOT ££££'s cost) of the manufacture/running/disposal of vehicles.

And environmental issues need to be global.

But I suspect there's too many vested interests for that to ever happen.

Andy.


----------

