A recent article in the New Scientist claimed that newer diesels pollute exactly the same as pre 2006 diesels in Real Operating Conditions.
The claims some manufacturers have made about modern diesels have been proved to be unsubstantiated and manipulated by cheat software so it's a status quo according to New Scientist.
I must declare to have a bias towards older diesels as having experienced a modern Golf 1.6 tdi , I reverted to an older 1.9tdi PD which in my opinion is a far better engine with superb pull from low speeds that appears lacking in the later VAG engines.
|
A recent article in the New Scientist claimed that newer diesels pollute exactly the same as pre 2006 diesels in Real Operating Conditions. The claims some manufacturers have made about modern diesels have been proved to be unsubstantiated and manipulated by cheat software so it's a status quo according to New Scientist. I must declare to have a bias towards older diesels as having experienced a modern Golf 1.6 tdi , I reverted to an older 1.9tdi PD which in my opinion is a far better engine with superb pull from low speeds that appears lacking in the later VAG engines.
I've never heard any claims that Euro 4 (pre 2006) diesels pollute more than Euro 6 ones.
Power/torque is often the first casualty of tighter emissions regulations so no surprise if a PD engine drives better than a CR one.
|
|
|
|
I must admit I found the pull of my old 1.9pd 100 Superb I way stronger than a 1.6 MKII 1.6CR (also 100) Superb II I test drove - didn't like it ( I bought a petrol instead! saving a few thousand pounds) .
However from when I bought the 2003 Superb I at 23k miles way back in 2005 if you floored it at night you could see some smoke illuminated by the car following - you don't get that on a recent diesel (that still has it's DPF!)
Edited by Big John on 21/10/2017 at 22:45
|
- you don't get that on a recent diesel (that still has it's DPF!)
Don't get it from my Landcruiser either, which being 2005 has no DPF.
Whene DPF's regenerate at night what's the scene like when seen i the glare of following headlights?
|
Whene DPF's regenerate at night what's the scene like when seen i the glare of following headlights?
I've known too many people who have had DPF problems (to be fair and some who haven't in 100,000's of miles) . With the latest diesels you have SCR as well. I'm not sure I want a car with a multiple £1000(to replace) chemical factory attached to the hottest part of the car - what could possibly go wrong!
Sticking to petrol for now (saying that GPF's being introduced this year)
|
|
I run an old 2005 euro 4 diesel - the venerable 4D56T 2.5 litre Mitsubishi in our old L200 truck. This was the last old school IDI diesel with a mechanical distributor injection pump with electronic control before Mitsi went to common rail systems.
It just has a catalytic converter, no DPF.
It doesn't emit smoke of any colour, even on a cold start and passes the technical inspection pollution smoke test here in France every year with a reading of less than measurable smoke.
Our other motor is the 2.2 180 hp Accord which is euro 5 + DPF and performs exactly the same!
Progress! - Isn't it wonderful?
|
|
What I really find hard to understand is that 10 - 15 years ago when we were being encouraged to buy deiesal cars the scientists did not know about the diesel engine emission.
It strikes me like that it is just like the passive smoking situation were we are told if a non smoker sees someone else smoking they too are at risk of cancer, heart failure, lung damage.
We have seen a huge decline is smoking over 40 years and bans starting with airlines to work places, to all indoor public places with a promise of some sort of health utopia that smoking related diseases will go away.
Yet we have seen an increase in these diseases often despite advances in health car, yet smoking continues to be blamed for this??? I must add here I am a non smoker it is just that I do not buy the passive smoking argument.
yet we seem to have something similar with cars and diesel engines with figures of thousands of deaths being given out and an excuse to bring in taxes just penalises older cars indiscriminately and so often these people that can least afford to pay.
|
|
What I really find hard to understand is that 10 - 15 years ago when we were being encouraged to buy deiesal cars the scientists did not know about the diesel engine emission
They did know.. the politicians of the time worried aboiut CO2 emsssions more.
It strikes me like that it is just like the passive smoking situation were we are told if a non smoker sees someone else smoking they too are at risk of cancer, heart failure, lung damage.
We have seen a huge decline is smoking over 40 years and bans starting with airlines to work places, to all indoor public places with a promise of some sort of health utopia that smoking related diseases will go away.
Smoking diseases can take decades to show effects...
And the rest of what you write is assertion with few facts...
|
|
Government statistics on health are unreliable - doctors are required to allocate a wide range of diseases and conditions to a single cause, which then becomes another statistic - but the reality is that many such conditions have a variety of causes and no way of knowing which one was the cause in a particular patient, if indeed only one thing was the cause.
Two years ago, I was diagnosed with COPD and Asthma, incurable progressive lung disease - from my own history, I know it might have been caused by 1) smoking 2) genetics 3) chemotherapy drugs 4) exposure to the chemical industry 5) road fumes pollution, 6) living in cities - there's probably others - I was asked one question, have I ever smoked and because I had until 30 years ago the cause of my COPD was officially smoking.
I think the same is happening now with the "official" statistics for lung diseases causes by car NOx - a load of b****x in my view.
|
Government statistics on health are unreliable - doctors are required to allocate a wide range of diseases and conditions to a single cause, which then becomes another statistic - but the reality is that many such conditions have a variety of causes and no way of knowing which one was the cause in a particular patient, if indeed only one thing was the cause.
Two years ago, I was diagnosed with COPD and Asthma, incurable progressive lung disease - from my own history, I know it might have been caused by 1) smoking 2) genetics 3) chemotherapy drugs 4) exposure to the chemical industry 5) road fumes pollution, 6) living in cities - there's probably others - I was asked one question, have I ever smoked and because I had until 30 years ago the cause of my COPD was officially smoking.
I think the same is happening now with the "official" statistics for lung diseases causes by car NOx - a load of b****x in my view.
I think there's something in what you say, RT.
My wife suffered from asthma for years, a diagnosis which, a few years ago, suddenly became COPD. When she was a teenager back in the late 60s, and after being hospitalised for six months due to a very serious spike in her lung condition she was actually told by a consultant that smoking was good for her because it "opened up her airways".
A few years later, when she was an adult, tobacco became the Devil's Weed, and thus responsible for every problem she, and people like her ever suffered with.
She gave up smoking about ten years ago and the diagnosis became "historical asthma exacerbated by smoking." However, "have you ever smoked" still features in the set of questions which accompany any new medical examination, because if the answer is "yes" then the diagnosis becomes much less complicated.
Maybe those examinations should include the question "have you ever sat with your lips around the exhaust of an old diesel whilst the engine is running" (joke).
Edited by argybargy on 22/10/2017 at 10:56
|
Government statistics on health are unreliable - doctors are required to allocate a wide range of diseases and conditions to a single cause, which then becomes another statistic - but the reality is that many such conditions have a variety of causes and no way of knowing which one was the cause in a particular patient, if indeed only one thing was the cause.
Two years ago, I was diagnosed with COPD and Asthma, incurable progressive lung disease - from my own history, I know it might have been caused by 1) smoking 2) genetics 3) chemotherapy drugs 4) exposure to the chemical industry 5) road fumes pollution, 6) living in cities - there's probably others - I was asked one question, have I ever smoked and because I had until 30 years ago the cause of my COPD was officially smoking.
I think the same is happening now with the "official" statistics for lung diseases causes by car NOx - a load of b****x in my view.
I think there's something in what you say, RT.
My wife suffered from asthma for years, a diagnosis which, a few years ago, suddenly became COPD. When she was a teenager back in the late 60s, and after being hospitalised for six months due to a very serious spike in her lung condition she was actually told by a consultant that smoking was good for her because it "opened up her airways".
A few years later, when she was an adult, tobacco became the Devil's Weed, and thus responsible for every problem she, and people like her ever suffered with.
She gave up smoking about ten years ago and the diagnosis became "historical asthma exacerbated by smoking." However, "have you ever smoked" still features in the set of questions which accompany any new medical examination, because if the answer is "yes" then the diagnosis becomes much less complicated.
Maybe those examinations should include the question "have you ever sat with your lips around the exhaust of an old diesel whilst the engine is running" (joke).
I can't criticise the medics - they focus on cure if there is one and treatment otherwise - for so many things, it doesn't matter what caused it in the first place.
As ever, the problem is with those who use statistics to promote their own theory without understanding those statistics.
|
|
As an asthma sufferer all my life (I was diagnosed with it [mild allergy to host dust mites] when I was about 7; I'm now in my mid-40s), I know that certain things other than being in a dusty room (especially sleeping) make my condition worse:
- Hot, humid, still weather. Dry but hot weather on its own is fine, at least as breathing is concerned;
- Being near farms that predominately grow cereal crops and possibly some veg oil plants. I think this is due to the amount of pollen they produce and dust around harvest time;
- Being near heavy traffic, and particularly diesel vehicles. I always notices this when I've been working in London as opposed to other areas (even agricultural ones like where I live). It can also be really bad at enclosed train stations (e.g. London Kings Cross) which regularly use diesel trains which are started well before departure (especially the old HSTs).
- My condition is always BY FAR at its worst between the end of June and early Septemeber, when many of the above are combined (working in one polluted [also the extra ozone], hot, humid area and living in a small country town next to several farms growing cereal crops.
When I go on holiday to rural Cornwall (mainly livestock farms and little in the way of cereals/veg oil plant crops grown) in early September, on almost all occasions, all my symptoms stop within a couple of days (assuming the place I'm staying has been cleaned ok). The air even feels cleaner, not that horrible taste on your tongue when walking through an are with heavy traffic. By the time I return home, things are back to 'normal' until the following summer - I barely need my (reliever) inhailer until the following early summer. Note that I don't suffer from hayfever, or at least not very much.
In my youth (well, up to when I moved out from my parents' house in my early 30s), it didn't help that my Dad smoked, though I did often stay away (in my room) when he did so, and he did have one of those 'air purifiers' (probably only a small level of help). I would say, after a decent level of improvement from my mid-teens until my late 30s, my condition have got worse again (though not as bad as when I was much younger), and I think much of that is to do with the amount of pollution from vehicles, and especially from all the extra diesels on the roads.
Just my opinion based on my own experiences, no scientific basis.
|
|
They did know.. the politicians of the time worried aboiut CO2 emsssions more.
The politicians at the time were being assured by the motor industry that other pollutants, particulates and NOx, would be dealt with by PF's and selective catalysation. The industry, possible abetted by political horse trading, failed to deliver particularly with NOx.
|
|
No apology required - let's have some honesty here - has anyone tested a diesel car's polution output during a DPF regen? There's no such thing as clean diesels. Modern diesels just store up polution and then dump it occasionally when no one's looking, at speed on A roads or the motorway. Even then they still ouput more particulates - filtered or not.
|
|
On Daily Politics yesterday 23 Oct it was said that the London charge icrease on older cars will cut emissions by less then 1%, it was also said that 60% of the gases come from traffic. They also explained that no one dies from traffic pollution
|
|
In 2010, diesel cars (not taxis, buses or trucks) accounted for just 11% of London's NOx - the average diesel will be better than that now.
HGVs contributed the same 11% and domestic gas appliances contributed more at 13%
policyexchange.org.uk/why-london-needs-a-boiler-sc.../
|
No apology required - let's have some honesty here - has anyone tested a diesel car's polution output during a DPF regen? There's no such thing as clean diesels. Modern diesels just store up polution and then dump it occasionally when no one's looking, at speed on A roads or the motorway. Even then they still ouput more particulates - filtered or not.
Comment appreciated.
I still believe that diesels are signifcant net contributors to poor air quality, particularly in cities, but given the way things are usually conducted on this forum a bit of evidence based comment might have put over my point a little better.
Edited by argybargy on 25/10/2017 at 10:41
|
I still believe that diesels are signifcant net contributors to poor air quality, particularly in cities, but given the way things are usually conducted on this forum a bit of evidence based comment might have put over my point a little better.
The fact that most commercial vehicles, taxis, buses, vans, coaches, trucks are diesel your are right, but the debate is whether such measures as the London tax on older vehicles is justified?
Let use not forget that the levels of pollution in london that are deemed to high are only reached at certain times on a few days each year
|
|
A recent issue of the New Scientist magazine ran an article about the early days of motorised buses in London. The article contrasted the reliability (good) of the electrically driven buses against that of the diesel/petrol engine driven ones (poor). It also quoted contemporary accounts of the noise and smell of the engine driven buses as conrasted to the relative silence and no smell of the electric ones. The thing that killed the electrically driven buses, according to the article, was due to the fraudsters that ran them. I was impressed by the time that it took to change the batteries - 3 minutes.
I remember riding on the trams in Manchester when I was a child and being put off by the metallic screaming of the wheels and the rail tracks. I recently rode on the Manchester tramways and was impressed by the quiet progress.
|
|
I can remember using Derby's trolley buses in the late '60s, still the originals from the '20/30s, and was quite impressed with their quietness and obvious ability to pass obstructions - the wires weren't visually attractive but a modern trolley bus network would still suit some cities.
|
|
Let use not forget that the levels of pollution in london that are deemed to high are only reached at certain times on a few days each year
New research says different and that the area covered by the new LT doesnt cover the worst polluted roads so I can see it may be extended to cover a larger area
TFL were talking about extending the CC anyway fairly soon, so I suspect the LT will cover the same area, which is also expected to reach the M25 which TFL are pushing the government to allow
|
I still believe that diesels are signifcant net contributors to poor air quality, particularly in cities, but given the way things are usually conducted on this forum a bit of evidence based comment might have put over my point a little better.
The fact that most commercial vehicles, taxis, buses, vans, coaches, trucks are diesel your are right, but the debate is whether such measures as the London tax on older vehicles is justified?
Let use not forget that the levels of pollution in london that are deemed to high are only reached at certain times on a few days each year
I guess most politicians experience the effects of professional OCD at some time or other during their careers.
Sadiq Khan probably has a whole host of things he would like to do in London, but can't because they are too expensive or politically toxic. So like others before him, he chooses something he CAN control, and plays the pollution card.
Doesn't necessarily mean he's totally wrong to do so, of course.
|
|
Doesn't necessarily mean he's totally wrong to do so, of course
Of course not, though with his plans of so many cycle superhighways, London may come to a standstill due to the area taken up by the width of cycle lanes.
Glad I no longer go into London, traffic was bad enough years ago
|
|
"Glad I no longer go into London, traffic was bad enough years ago"
London is great these days - just don't drive there.
|
|
I wasn't offended at all. You are entitled to an opinion and an occasional rant, it's part of the rules!!!! Big John, my Skoda Superb 1.9PD TdDi was 130bhp, was yours a different engine?
I currently have a new diesel, but I tow and need the torque and power. Horses for courses.
Cheers Concrete
|
I wasn't offended at all. You are entitled to an opinion and an occasional rant, it's part of the rules!!!! Big John, my Skoda Superb 1.9PD TdDi was 130bhp, was yours a different engine?
I currently have a new diesel, but I tow and need the torque and power. Horses for courses.
Cheers Concrete
My Superb was the 1.9pd 100. Also lets be clear - it only smoked a tiny bit when you really provoked it (foot to the floor and pulling up to the rev limiter and it did this from when I bought it at 18months old with just over 20k miles on it - always sailed thorugh the MOT). Not sure if this was a feature of the Pumpe Deuse overfuelling when you needed max power but it wasn't wear.
This was (and still is under new ownership) an outstanding car making a comfortable mile muncher. Even though it was only the 100pd it pulled really well from low revs and was amazing on continental motorways being capable of 650 mile+ on a tank. The new owner managed 800miles out of a tank but he is clearly a gentler driver than me!
I could see the need for diesel tourque if you tow but I don't and I've got re-used to petrol and am loving the turbo version which pulls well from 1500rpm (not quite as good as the 1.9pd) but I'm addicted to the extra "zap" as the rev counter moves north. I like driving both the diesel and the turbo petrol - they are just "different"!
Edited by Big John on 26/10/2017 at 20:52
|
I wasn't offended at all. You are entitled to an opinion and an occasional rant, it's part of the rules!!!! Big John, my Skoda Superb 1.9PD TdDi was 130bhp, was yours a different engine?
I currently have a new diesel, but I tow and need the torque and power. Horses for courses.
Cheers Concrete
You're very kind, but one or two did take exception.
As stated above, my next "rant" will have the safety net of some empirical enforcement. If I can be bothered, that is.
|
"Glad I no longer go into London, traffic was bad enough years ago"
London is great these days - just don't drive there.
I dont know many that say that now about the rat race city of smog and dirty streets lol
|
|
Thanks Big John. I had no idea there were two versions of the 1.9PD TDi. We obviously had similar experiences from such a great car with a great engine. On a long run and driving steadily I could average 62mpg. Outstanding from a car that size. Regularly topped 700 miles between fill ups. Used 4 litres of top up oil in 212K miles. Like yours the smoke did billow out the back under heavy acceleration, but I was only aware of it if there was a car behind with headlights on. Shame that engine had to bite the dust.
If I was not towing I would certainly have a small petrol car for my use. I only do about 8K miles a year these days.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
|
|
|
