|
My banger cost £500 - and it costs £0.00 per gallon. Free veg oil from restaurants and caterers. In real life it would do 40+mpg. I do get through a few fuel filters at £5.00 a time, but since it would cost £60 to fill up, the odd filter is not a hardship!
|
Well the car cost £850 two years ago since its a top spec and some Fiesta with four good tyres even without an MOT it will be worth a at least £250 as these cars are stilll desirable. So if it fails the MOT badly and it has to go it will probably cost £300 a year in depcreciation but my dad keeps his cars till they all apart anyway so the real issue would be how much would he have to spend on loan interest compared to savings on fuel.
I replaced the air filter last October so I will replace it again to see if it helps the MPG but I have a feeling the emisions test will decide the cars fate anyway. If it wasn;t for the cheap mechanic I think it would probably cost £1k a year just to keep on the road.
An XUD engine running of veggie oil always sounds appealing but there will be tax issues with it.
|
An XUD engine running of veggie oil always sounds appealing but there will be tax issues with it.
What would the tax issues be?
|
|
Inland Revenue and Customs? The car is used for business.
|
Inland Revenue and Customs? The car is used for business.
Does the 2500 litre limit only allow for personal use? If you can get the oil for free then even if you pay the duty it should still work out cheaper?
|
My old banger gets about 19mpg.
My fuel costs 46.9p per litre.
:-)
|
|
|
|
"Inland Revenue and Customs? The car is used for business. "
No tax issues at all - about 30% of my mileage is business, too.
|
|
|
Inland Revenue and Customs?
HM Revenue & Customs?
|
|
|
|
|
it costs £0.00 per gallon. Free veg oil from restaurants and caterers.
Don't forget how much it costs for you to go and collect it. I'm sure you don't get it delivered free to your house.
|
|
Some does! My daughter brings some home from the pub she works in. The rest I collect on my Sat am trip to Tesco etc., which I'd be doing anyway. And the fuel I'm using to go to Tesco cost nothing .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's time some of the petrolheads on here stopped thinking of fuel simply as money spent at the pump - it's carbon dug up and spewed into the atmosphere as CO2 as well. And doing 30mpg instead of 42 (or whatever) means that someone else (or even you) can't use those missing 12mpg instead. Never mind about the possibility of global warming.
|
|
Which is partly point of the scrappage scheme, sadly the only car my dad can afford on the scrappage is the Tata Nano (he would actually get some cash back!)
|
|
|
It's time some of the petrolheads on here stopped thinking of fuel simply as money spent at the pump - it's carbon dug up and spewed into the atmosphere as CO2 as well. And doing 30mpg instead of 42 (or whatever) means that someone else (or even you) can't use those missing 12mpg instead. Never mind about the possibility of global warming.
I keep to the speed limits, (or even less in bad conditions). solely for reasons of safety and reducing the stress on me as a driver.
If you really, really want to do something about global warming then do something about the inexorable rise in population.
The real problem is not too many cars - it's too many people.
|
The real problem is not too many cars - it's too many people.
LDO - I fully agree with you; I have been saying just that for decades. I carefully said 'Never mind about .. '. I was just pointing out that driving a car which uses twice as much fuel as other similar vehicles is unnecessarily wasteful (and perhaps polluting).
Global warming and CO2 : there seems little doubt that temperatures are rising, and none at all that the CO2 concentration is. My belief is that the biggest cause is that the carbon sinks we rely on (tropical rainforest largely) are dwindling fast and not being replaced. Since the industrial revolution we have burnt coal and then oil, but the trees have always been there to keep the balance.
|
Trees aren't dwindling. They are being cut down to grow Palm Oil to go in your Cadbury's choco bar and to 'grow' carp 'Beef' for the burger industry.
Having just got back from Norway it was interesting to listen to a debate that thinks, that despite all of the doom and gloom that the Glaciers are increasing in size in that general theatre and that temperatures there seem relatively stable. Only passing on what I heard so don't bombard me with questions co's I don't have any answers.
Oh! and the Palm Oil industry is KILLING the Orangutans.
TOOOO many people,
Best regards..............MD
|
|
|
|
Never mind about the possibility of global warming. >>
I'm still very much of the mind that this is a myth.
Global warming (and cooling) has been going on for thousands and thousands of years - long before 4x4s, cars, aircraft etc - and the coldest winters and warmest summers on record were also before current times.
I'm well aware of the possible (inevitable) reaction to these views, but if it was so critical why would the Government even dare, for instance, consider the building of additional airports or boosting car sales through the scrappage scheme?
The demise in car sales arose not because of global warming concerns but a widespread financial mess.
|
|
Stuartli, I agree.
|
Stuartli, I agree >>
In which case, weigh up the evidence and then judge:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=69...7
|
The Norwegians were telling us that there has been an Ice Age every 30-40 thousand years.
MD
|
|
|
|
I'm still very much of the mind that this is a myth. >>
It never ceases to amaze me when people [who are not prepared to subject their views to independent peer review] declare things to be a myth when eminently qualified scientists would hesistate to even hint at such a possibility. Hey, but then the moon landing was faked, so what do I know?
|
|
Still getting a steady 34mpg from the 2.2 Camry which cost £600 18 months ago and so far has cost a few pence for a rear numberplate bulb in repairs. It's still a very pleasant environment to do the daily commute in and comfortably ferried 5 of us down from Scotland to Manchester airport and back a couple of weeks back.
|
|
|
The problem is that the climate zealots won't listen to anyone who opposes their views.
I don't profess to be any sort of expert at all on the subject, but I remain to be totally convinced.
Also see:
tinyurl.com/nep2zk
Some "green" websites plagarise others' views. For instance:
tinyurl.com/ltoa5x and tinyurl.com/mtl9au
(By the way, this is getting away from the subject of the thread!)
Edited by Stuartli on 18/07/2009 at 12:26
|
I get 48mpg, 12 year-old petrol engined car.
It does not do high mileages, so the depreciation element is much more significant for me. (total fuel cost is currently a little over half of the cost to buy the car, after 16 months of ownership.)
Edited by Toyota Red on 18/07/2009 at 13:54
|
|
|
The problem is that the climate zealots won't listen to anyone who opposes their views.
I don't profess to be any sort of expert at all on the subject, but I remain to be totally convinced.
So who is/are the zealot(s)? And what would it take to convince you, Stuart? It doesn't sound as though anyone might.
I don't think anyone can 'prove' that global warming is caused by CO2. Global temps are rising (or maybe you don't accept that either?), CO2 has been accurately monitored for decades, and physics tells us that if the atmosphere contains more CO2 it will retain more heat. It's not proof, but it makes sense. But most people believe only what they want to believe - it's a human trait.
Edited by Andrew-T on 18/07/2009 at 15:56
|
But most people believe only what they want to believe - it's a human trait.>>
It's not a case of that. There was far more pollution both in my younger days and long before that in the industrial towns and areas - I can well remember, for instance, the real pea soupers that used to come without fail each winter as a result, but we haven't had one for at least 30-40 years now.
As has been pointed out a little earlier, global warming suddenly became climate change a few years ago because the circumstances meant such a term was out of date and "climate change" covered all eventualities.
It's true that over a recent period of many years that temperatures have been rising by a fraction of a degree or so in some years, but that only counteracts the times when it's been slightly colder than average.
But these are tiny ripples compared to the really cold and hot periods of our planet's long term history over thousands of years.
|
|
|
|
|
>>It never ceases to amaze me when people [who are not prepared to subject their views to independent peer review]
It's not entirely true, though is it. There is a significant minority of scientists who don't believe in Global warming. But their views aren't peer-reviewed by those who do believe, nor vice versa.
Remember the MMR debacle?
Fleischmann and Pons? From Wikipedia "In September 1990, Fritz Will, Director of the National Cold Fusion Institute, compiled a list of 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries that had reported excess heat, 3H, 4He, neutrons or other nuclear effects.[40]"
In the 1970s the world was experiencing global cooling "as a result of the burning of fossil fuels".
Nobody knows. I absolutely agree that we should not waste the world's resources, but that is quiet another matter.
I also believe that fifty years from now we shall look upon the wind turbines that have splattered the last remote parts of the country in much the same way as we now look upon the 1960s architecture that replaced Georgian buildings. The money proposed to be spent on wind turbines - to provide 20% of our power when they're all working at 100% efficiency, thus in reality providing 5-10% of the nation's power needs - would provide us with sufficient nuclear power stations (based on proven technology) for about 80% of our electricity needs.
|
Fifty years from now we shall look upon the wind turbines ... in much the same way as we now look upon 1960s architecture ...
(Getting a bit off topic) I wonder how people in the 17th/18th centuries looked upon windmills - they were a major source of power then and many, perhaps most, villages had one (or a water-mill). But we love 'em now, don't we? A new thing just takes getting used to.
Have to agree the new ones are on an altogether different scale though; but they do have a certain elegance.
|
>>but they do have a certain elegance. >>
If an over sized and mainly offensive to the eye virtually useless child's windmill appeals to you, then so be it...:-)
At least Scotland is still investing in its hydropower plants, whilst I often wonder why there has not been more development in harnessing the power of sea waves - IIRC it's been proved to be quite efficient.
|
|
|
|
In the 1970s the world was experiencing global cooling "as a result of the burning of fossil fuels". >>
that gem of skepticism debunked:
www.grist.org/article/they-predicted-global-coolin.../
Edited by jbif on 20/07/2009 at 22:28
|
|
|
|
|
Why would the Government even dare, for instance, consider the building of additional airports or boosting car sales .. ?
Silly question. As a week is a long time in politics, it follows that governments address short-term problems first, leaving the long-term ones to next month or (more likely) the other lot after the next election. Global warming won't bother them in their (or our) lifetimes. Lip service is all that is needed just now.
|
When did you last hear the term "global warming"? It's "climate change" now, because the world as a whole isn't warming up. Not for the past decade anyway.
Finite and dwindling resources are reason enough to conserve energy and use it more efficiently, and will, combined with the free market, be the true driver behind a shift in energy policy long before any consensus is reached on artificial emissions limits or caps.
I can't get worried about climate change, and frankly I'm not interested whether it's real or not. It really is the least of our problems right now.
Edited by DP on 18/07/2009 at 16:24
|
1990 mx5 1.6 26mpg mainly short runs and the occasional thrash. Still going strong.
How much pollution does building a new car cause or even scrapping an old car.
Any effect we have on global warming is insignificant considering that there are at least 2-3 new coal fired power stations brought online daily in the far east to searve their massive industrial revolution.
|
|
|
It really is the least of our problems right now.
Nicely summed up, DP. It is not a problem Right Now, and can simply be ignored until next year/decade. It is such a long-term problem that the difficulty of contemplating it can be put off indefinitely.
|
Just got back from a day out to Southport, Ainsdale and Formby covered 105 miles in total and got 52mpg out the car. I would be able to get to London on about £18 worth of fuel which is quite impressive.
Despite high MPG figuresd petrol costs still hurt so in future I think MPG will always be very high on my considerations for a car. I've done 500 miles in it in the past two weeks, something I never imagined doing when I bought the car.
|
>>Just got back from a day out to Southport, Ainsdale and Formby >>
You may well have passed my house..:-)
|
And mine! Hope you enjoyed your day out, Rattle.
I run a 1995 Saab 9000 2.3 lpt CDE Auto, and get an average of 26.9mpg according to the computer thingy. A fairly scary figure, really but I love the car so intend to keep it for as long as I can. Which, given my current financial situation, won't be that long...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
I can't get worried about climate change, and frankly I'm not interested whether it's real or not. It really is the least of our problems right now. >>
So DP can ignore the following, which is aimed at Stuartli.
Stuartli - check the following website and then say which of your soubts is not addressed there:
www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
start with:
www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/#Stages of Denial
Edited by jbif on 18/07/2009 at 19:21
|
Global warming/climate change=utter codswallop. Was happening long before Karl Benz came along. Just another excuse for punitive taxation. When the oil runs out brick up yer windows 'cos they'll bring that tax back.
Faked moon landings. Dear oh dear, conspiracy theories. Mention that to Buzz Aldrin, I'll stand behind you and pick you up when he puts you on your backside, as he has done in the past.
All IMHO, as always :-)
|
At the risk of sounding Blairite, there is a 'third way' of thinking,
It's true that between about 1000 and 1400 AD the weather in this country was warmer than it is now, with a cold phase in between. BUT we need to do what we can to ensure that we don't accelerate the process beyond sustainability. Destroying the rain forests is particularly stupid and dangerous.
Maybe one day someone will find a way of harnessing the gas produced by cows: apparently some research done in New Zealand found that a single cow can emit enough gas (from both ends) in a day to run a small truck for 25 miles.
|
>>Destroying the rain forests is particularly stupid and dangerous.>>
That is absolutely true and something I've mentioned before in these forums.
|
|
|
|
So DP can ignore the following which is aimed at Stuartli.
Yup I can. It is my right as a free human being.
I went on a time management / effectiveness course a couple of years ago, and one of the fundamental rules above and beyond everything else is to ignore the things you cannot influence or change. Even if it's real, I cannot influence it. Therefore worrying about it is irrelevant. If I stop using my car or heating my home tomorrow, not only would my life be instantly less satisfying than it is now, but it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.
Worry away, it's your life. Just don't expect me to.
Edited by DP on 19/07/2009 at 11:27
|
Worry away it's your life. Just don't expect me to.
>>
Worrying is like riding a Rocking Horse..........It will give you something to do, but it won't get you anywhere!
MD
|
|
|
Worry away, it's your life. Just don't expect me to. >>
;-)
!!! Yes, we know, you are not worried. Repeat after me, I am not worried. Look in to my eyes, deppe in to my eyes, I am not .....
Really, I am not ...
;-)
Edited by jbif on 20/07/2009 at 22:32
|
|
|
|
The website involved cannot even spell sceptics...:-)
I'm not alone in being somewhat sceptical in the scaremongering we are fed as with, for instance:
tinyurl.com/l9vrhg
tinyurl.com/ngozzm
|
this thread has gone WELL off topic... But..... heres the way I see things...
Over the last 40 or so years the west has made huge strides in cleaning up its act, with regards pollution.
fishes now swim in the Thames, something which was impossible 100 years ago.
we can (almost) breath in our cities.
my father tells stories of smog so bad he had to follow the white lines, or follow the vehicle in front.
once he followed a chap into his driveway!
Things ARE so much better!
except.... we now get most of our goods from the east - because its cheaper!
But is it?
No.... of course not! not in real terms!
why do I say that?
I believe the west is heading to the worst unemployment figures ever.
But worse than that, why is the east so much cheaper?
Because they do not operate anywhere as cleanly as we do.
the pollution pumped out in the east, is as bad as we were creating 50-60-70 years ago.
it is THIS pollution we should be worrying about.
it is this pollution that will carry on where ours left off.....
in the west, petrol cars are cleaner than they ever have been - even in 10 year old cars most of the exhaust is water!
(I wont start on diesels, as many of you know I think they are dirty with the soot pumped out)
Until the east are made to clean up their act - as we already have - I dont see that we, as individuals, can make one ounce of difference.......
|
My1999 Octavia tdi 110 which I am about to scrappage does around 55mpg and from the original brochure states 143 co2 which in both respects is more "green" than the V50 replacing it.
The scrappage scheme makes financial sense to me for this particular transaction but not green sense.
|
|
Another perfectly good car taken off the roads? Its so sad.
|
Have to agree with you rattle, many good cars are being scrapped under this scheme. Dealer told me that he scrapped a very low mileage volvo that looked like new.
Whats even more crazy is that I thought the scheme was supposed to boost the UK car industry.
I bought a korean car (made in India) under the scrappage scheme and the local dealer apparently only makes a few hundred pound. How does that help the UK car industry? That £1000 of our tax money from the government has mostly gone to Korea!
|
You would be surprised how many foreign cars have parts which are made or designed in the UK. I have a Spannish built American owned Vauxhall Corsa. Most the engine parts are built in Germany. The main engine block was designed by Lotus as was the suspension.
The UK has a massive car industry and I suspect that a lot of foreign cars have many UK designed bits in them.
|
"The main engine block was designed by Lotus as was the suspension."
Sad, isn't it, but not surprising, that it's the suspension that you've had trouble with. "Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious" clearly extends to parts designed by Lotus for others.
|
|
Its the roads more than the car. Lotus just tweaked it to try and make the cornering a bit more stable., I am not exactly sure what input they had on the engine design but I know they had quite a bit of input.
|
|
I may wrong, but Lotus are not even a UK company now?
|
|
Correct they are a part of Proton
|
|
Yes and the workers who work there are mostly living in the UK, much of the research is contracted to near by universities.
|
Some people run bangers because they spend money elsewhere and maybe enjoy bangernomics and cheap motoring - I know I have done - nothing wrong with that.
The simple fact in my opinion is that MOST but not all people run bangers because they cant afford a new car.
For those that cant afford a big chunk of money all at once to buy a new/newish car, buy a cheap car and the additional running costs in a thirstier engine and parts is a form of "credit" i.e you pay it in dribs and drabs as the expense comes up. Simple cash flow. Some people (me) dont like to borrow money as its effectively a form of slavery to get in to a new car and good on 'em. They're not living the lie / keep up with the Jones never never.
All in my opinion.
|
|
Which is exactly what my dad has to do because he would not be able to get cheap credit.
|
|
The website involved cannot even spell sceptics ... >>
Stuartli - If you are skeptical about the correct spelling of the word skeptic, I think your skills at using google should prove very helpful. As for more complex matters such as global warming and climate change, .... ? ;-)
|
I live in the UK, not America..:-)
|
I live in the UK, not America..:-) >.
One world. Climate change does not respect boundaries!
Spelling is the least of worries.
Edited by jbif on 20/07/2009 at 19:11
|
|
|
|
|
>>Silly question>>
It is not a silly question. One minute, for instance, we are being told we are all doomed unless we dramatically cut down on pollution, emissions etc and the next the government is discussing the potential for a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow, not withstanding the attempt to boost new car sales (no doubt keen to placate its voters who work in the car industry).
Mapmaker's post just above yours has probably hit the nail on the head much better than most.
|
Stuart, you asked 'why the government would even dare ...' etc. I simply suggested that the noises they make are aimed at pleasing a significant group of listeners for a short time. Not many of the noise-makers expects to be putting their money or job where their mouth happens to be this week. Especially when a musical-chairs style election is due fairly soon.
I'm not sure whether either side really wants to win just now?
|
Why is it that anyone who 'dares' to question the abundant theories on 'global warning' (or whatever its called this week) is dismissed so arrogantly. All the people on this forum who do so are obviously scientists who have been studying the planet for millenia I take it?
I don't disbelieve the the climate is changing, I'm yet to be convinced cars are the biggest cause of this. Too many vested interests lie in proving these theories.
|
At present we are going through a period when some summers are slightly hotter than normal.
According to this link, the average temperature in September 2006 was 59.7 degrees F beating the previous figure of 58.6 degree F.
The latter figure goes back to 1949...
tinyurl.com/kvsx46
Met Office forecast for 2009:
in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINLU95145220090430
A local slant, in this case for the Coventry area: bws.users.netlink.co.uk/
|
|
|
Snakey, I'm not sure which contributor(s) you see as being arrogant, but your riposte doesn't seem very mild to me either. I suppose all opponents of 'climate change' may be sceptics, while all who think there may be something in it are nincompoops? And just to be pedantic, science as we understand it started around 1650, so only a third of a millennium so far. I have been a trained scientist, tho I am probably pretty outdated now.
I'm yet to be convinced cars are the biggest cause of this
I don't think anyone on here has suggested they are. But they may not be negligible either. A lot of detractors just don't mind (or don't care) that cars may contribute.
Edited by Andrew-T on 20/07/2009 at 15:15
|
If you are a scientist currently working in the field of climate change, I would think it would be a VERY risky thing to even question the causes of climate change.
If you need to put food on the table and have kids, you'd be a fool to jeopardise your job. Your immediate boss would probably drag you in to his/her office for a strip tearing off as he/she has to go with the "current line" as all the research / peer group work points in one direction. Bit like a political party whip - everyone has to sing off the same hymn sheet so to speak.
Ground breaking or contradictory scientific view has always resulted in castigation / outcasting / shunning / imprisonment etc.
Its a closed shop. Not saying the consensus is wrong on this matter, its just that once a wagon is rolling like this its nigh on impossible to stop. Im most definately not a conspiracy theorist, just thinking about the practicalities of it.
|
You'd think that "climate change" was a new discovery(!):
www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
|
You'd think that "climate change" was a new discovery:
Who would? Perhaps it's just that until recently no-one thought it mattered very much - and it seems Stuart still doesn't. As I said before, the rapid disappearance of rainforest may put things in a slightly different perspective - large forests have always been there until the age of industrialisation.
It still may not matter very much - but don't blame me if it turns out that it does. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
