As the title suggests, France wants to start phasing out diesel passenger cars, starting with an increase in duty on it next year. Expect a channel port near you to be blockaded soon!
PARIS (Reuters) -- France wants to gradually phase out the use of diesel fuel for passenger cars and will put in place a system to identify the most polluting vehicles, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said.
Next year, the government will launch a car identification system that will rank vehicles by the amount of pollution they emit, Valls said. This will make it possible for local authorities to limit city access for the dirtiest cars.
"In France, we have long favored the diesel engine. This was a mistake, and we will progressively undo that, intelligently and pragmatically," Valls said.
About 80 percent of French motorists drive diesel-powered cars.
Taxation would have to orient citizens towards more ecological choices, Valls said in a speech on Friday. The 2015 state budget measures would seek to reduce the tax advantage of diesel fuel versus gas.
The government has announced it will raise the so-called TICPE excise tax on diesel by 2 euro cents per liter, bringing in 807 million euros to state coffers in 2015.
Valls also said the government was working on plans to widen the number of beneficiaries of a subsidy for the conversion of old diesel engines in areas with anti-pollution plans.
Energy Minister Segolene Royal announced earlier this year that drivers scrapping diesel-powered cars to buy an electric one would be entitled to a bonus of up to 10,000 euros ($13,500).
|
>> Expect a channel port near you to
>> be blockaded soon!
It will be fine, its not the farmers or the lorry drivers affected.
|
|
Raising the tax on diesel? Or is it somehow applicable to cars only?
|
Farmers don't pay tax on diesel in France (they pay less here as well - hence "red" diesel) and French Hauliers reclaim the tax on diesel.
The changes are to a "domestic" tax not commercial use.
So as they wont be affected, they wont care.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 1 Dec 14 at 11:45
|
|
That should do wonders for sales of Renault and Peugeot cars then...
Last edited by: madf on Mon 1 Dec 14 at 11:55
|
|
The proposed duty increase is stated to be two cents per litre in 2015. Assuming they adopt an 'escalator' principle it'll still take a long time to close the gap with French unleaded. They might also consider UK where (although duty is same on fuel station diesel and petrol) market forces put a 3-10p premium on 'gazole' but diesel cars still take around 40% of the market.
|
>> In the UK ....market forces put a 3-10p premium on 'gazole' but diesel cars
>> still take around 40% of the market.
>>
The differentiator in the UK is mainly on company cars, remove the advantage for diesel company cars the market would be radically different within 3-5 years.
Somebody somewhere needs to work out the relative priority of CO2 based global warming and city pollution and all the transport / economy changes that accompany them.
I suspect politicians are the worst people to be in charge of such things, in France or anywhere else
|
I, probably, prefer to drive diesels now, or at least I probably prefer the way a modern turbo diesel drives to the way a low powered petrol car does. And certainly I prefer the usually better fuel economy.
Not that many years ago though I'd have felt very hard done to by having to have a diesel.
All the above said, I don't mind driving "her" Qashqai which is a 1.6 petrol and yet still manages to exceed 40mpg. Doesn't do anything all that quickly mind, but that's not often a problem in real life.
A friend has just replaced a diesel Merc ML with a hybrid petrol/electric Cayenne and the Porsche gets better fuel economy, albeit with much more complex ( and expensive ) technology.
Possibly the way it's going though.
|
>> The differentiator in the UK is mainly on company cars, remove the advantage for diesel
>> company cars the market would be radically different within 3-5 years.
What advantage apart from typically lower CO2 emissions does a diesel have for company car drivers? And besides there is currently a 3% surcharge on BIK rates for diesel cars. But that gets removed soon because diesels cars have to be EURO VI.
And the emissions on my car might not be the lowest but were lower than previous cars. I know this is a petrol turbo so apples and oranges comparison.
I have to say I don't miss having a diesel. But I went from petrol turbo 1.8l to diesels and now back to turbo petrol albeit 1.4l this time. I'd have either a petrol or diesel next time and no doubt things will have changed. Total cost per month is what interests me so a Passat GTE next time could work out cheaper even though list price could be high.
|
>>Possibly the way it's going though.
I see that the UK line-up for the Lexus NX SUV includes a hybrid 2.5 litre petrol engine and a turbo petrol engine, but no planned diesel option.
Quite unusual.
|
>> I see that the UK line-up for the Lexus NX SUV includes a hybrid 2.5 litre petrol engine and a
>> turbo petrol engine, but no planned diesel option.
>>
>> Quite unusual.
Not really unusual because no Lexus has a diesel option anymore. The 2.5 petrol hybrid will be the same as in the IS300h.
|
>> That should do wonders for sales of Renault and Peugeot cars then...
>>
Yes, I should think that the sales of their petrol and electric cars will benefit from this measure. Is that what you meant?
|
A litre of diesel contains more oil than a litre of petrol (it's denser) so why not charge more tax?
Anyhoo, this is likely just a smokescreen to cover the French government trying to shrink its deficit by increasing tax under the guise of 'green' measures.
|
If I can have a decent hand-out to swap my diesel car, which I dislike, for a hybrid then I'm up for the change.
Incidentally, diesel at French supermarkets is today around 1.16 euro per litre, or 93p in real money. What's a cent or two?
|
|
With the help of 20p a litre off petrol today at Tesco, I paid 0.989p/litre. Cheapest I've paid for fuel in a long time :-) But then petrol hadn't been £1.189 for a while either.
|
Go on then one of you clever people, which is/was cheaper per mile to fuel, allowing for inflation.
A petrol car used in 1984 which averaged 30 mpg or a diesel car used in 2014 which averaged 50 mpg.
I really don't know the answer and haven't attempted to research it or work it out but I'm going to wildly guess it's not much different in real terms. But if anyone is smart enough to work it out it might be interesting.
|
I don't care what a petrol car did in 1984 vs a diesel in 2014. A true comparison is petrol vs diesel now with similar performance. So far my decision to go 1.4 petrol turbo is early to make comparisons - I've done some driving that I might not have early on. So far I'd say similar.
Back to your question... inflation has nothing to do with it. Most of fuel costs are tax these days. I bet a slow, non turbo petrol in 1984 did got mpg and diesel was a LOT cheaper.
|
|
France first, then the other EU countries - including the UK - to follow suit? Should make a few billion for the government coffers, yet all done in the aim of being green. Of course.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30381223
>>
>> Why is diesel now bad news?
>>
The political wind has changed direction?
|
Its always been clear to me they have been filthy things, see the clouds of soot in the headlights of a following car and its clear to everyone else its bad news, despite the expensive complicated and sometimes frankly ludicrous attempts to clean the engines up.
The mystery is how they ever got official blessing.
|
>> The mystery is how they ever got official blessing.
>>
There's no mystery to it. Diesels are more efficient than petrol and they help deliver the holy grail of lower CO2 that all the greens insisted that the politicians deliver.
Be in no doubt that petrol cars will soon become the devil again - they too emit NOX, (as well as CO2 - and benzine when you fill then up). And electric cars only move the pollution and by some measure are no better than the best IC engines.
Last edited by: Boxsterboy on Tue 9 Dec 14 at 10:01
|
>> Be in no doubt that petrol cars will soon become the devil again - they
>> too emit NOX,
>>(as well as CO2 - and benzine when you fill then up).
But much much less NOX, I don't see Benzene routinely cropping up in the roadside air quality samples, and more importantly of all the don't emit the lung damaging particulates.
As for being more efficient, they consume considerably more of the oil barrel
>> And electric cars only move the pollution and by some measure are no better than
>> the best IC engines.
A oft told but wrong analogy, we are already producing the pollution for electricity generation. Electric cars will not increase that by much in the scheme of things.
I do wish the fuel cell would hurry up.
|
>>A oft told but wrong analogy, we are already producing the pollution for electricity generation. Electric cars will not increase that by much in the scheme of things.
As soon as electric cars start using a percentage of the energy, they are allocated a similar %age of the pollution and cost, albeit that those things would have existed anyway.
It is far better for the organisations involved to avoid the concept of a fixed level of pollution and environmental cost and insist that it is all entirely variable and allocatable.
|
|
Of course petrol engines emit particulates, just because they are invisible to the naked eye doesn't mean they don't exist. Euro 6 will require GPF to be fitted eventually.
|
>>
>> A oft told but wrong analogy, we are already producing the pollution for electricity generation.
>> Electric cars will not increase that by much in the scheme of things.
>>
I suspect several million of them plugged in at the same time would put the lights out
|
>> I do wish the fuel cell would hurry up.
Toyota has one that's about to be released. But it is very expensive. It's called the Mirai:
www.autoexpress.co.uk/toyota/mirai/89487/toyota-mirai-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-review
It's £63k!!
Maybe Elon Musk has the right idea with larger capacity batteries in the Tesla S? And giving people free electricity from his Superchargers. Not many of them in the UK yet.
The real issue for fuel cell cars is the supply of hydrogen. It can be produced but there is no distribution network. The petrol companies have the experience of distribution but they're hardly going to get involved because they sell petrol and diesel.
|
>>"A petrol car used in 1984 which averaged 30 mpg or a diesel car used in 2014 which averaged 50 mpg.
I really don't know the answer and haven't attempted to research it or work it out but I'm going to wildly guess it's not much different in real terms."
I don't know either, and doubtless my feelings would be proved unfounded, but I can tell you this:
In late 1985 doing over 300 miles a week in a Morris Minor, I didn't get too hung up about fuel costs; I just put in what was required and paid-up.
But a couple of years ago despite having about 6 times the gross salary and a diesel car that did about 62mpg on about 460 miles a week, on every fill-up I felt my teeth grinding in anticipation of the payment till...
Last edited by: Enderman on Mon 1 Dec 14 at 23:24
|
This if it happens will take time - but it'll give the likes of the Daily Mail opportunities to sell copies through scare stories. Whatever happens, there ought to be some concessions to people like Runfer who do high business mileage, but at the same time persuading low-mileage drivers who stay in towns that they don't need a diesel.
One probable result is something I've thought was coming anyway - diesel cars will lose their value faster than they do now, and possibly faster than petrols.
Last edited by: Avant on Mon 1 Dec 14 at 23:01
|
>> persuading low-mileage drivers who stay in towns that they don't need a diesel
Apparently the EURO 6 etc are going to add megabucks to diesels - if low mileage users want to buy them then I welcome their generous VAT donation.
|
>> Apparently the EURO 6 etc are going to add megabucks to diesels
Most diesels on sale now (all?) are already EURO6 compliant. Long term maintenance has implications.
For the last 7-8 (?? or thereabouts ??) years I've not done enough miles to justify a diesel. Forgot business/personal. I'm saying total. Last two years business was negligible... travel I had to do was London and used the train.
But despite the low miles, BIK meant diesel was cheaper overall. We'll see how I do in a petrol (turbo) again. Happy how it drives etc but overall running costs are another consideration.
|
Honestly I think more important than pollution and cost is whether or not you like driving a diesel.
I know we should all be good citizens etc. etc., but it goes too far for me.
Purely by having a car I am, by definition, causing myself expense. One cannot avoid that. My primary desire for a car is not that it should be as cheap as possible, its that i should like it as much as possible, that cost vs function vs enjoyment should be the best bargain [for me] possible. If there are two similar vehicles, only then I will go for the cheaper approach.
So it comes down to would I rather waste 90% of the money on a car I don't like, or waste 100% of the money on a car I do like.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 00:12
|
Snipquote!
>> So it comes down to would I rather waste 90% of the money on a
>> car I don't like, or waste 100% of the money on a car I do
>> like.
>>
Agree with all of that. If I could get a petrol vehicle with the same low down torque as a diesel then I would consider it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 12:54
|
>> Agree with all of that. If I could get a petrol vehicle with the same
>> low down torque as a diesel then I would consider it.
Me too.
|
This might be another of my rose tinted memories but I think cars were more tractable in daily use when they didn't have multivalve engines.
For example, back in the late 80s / early 90s I had consecutively an 8V Golf GTi followed by a 16V one. The latter was a lot quicker but you had to rag it up through the revs to see the benefit whereas the 8V would pull smoothly from low revs, a bit like a diesel.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 13:24
|
More tractable? . I had a series of just post war Rovers which could tick over at under 1,000rpm and pull the car in first gear with no throttle.
My A4 TDI could do the same as can my Jazz auto..
So depends on the car...
|
I got my Mk1 1300 Escort back from Essex by winding up the tickover. It took a long time, but I got there.
The entire bracket arrangement broke so no temporary fix seemed to be possible.
|
>> I got my Mk1 1300 Escort back from Essex by winding up the tickover. It
>> took a long time, but I got there.
>>
>> The entire bracket arrangement broke so no temporary fix seemed to be possible.
>>
I remember swapping the choke and accelerator cables over after the latter broke and using the choke as a hand throttle. It worked to a point but caused a couple of hairy moments !
|
>>It worked to a point but caused a couple of hairy moments !
On one of my Lancias there was "cruise control". This was like a choke which one pulled out to the required setting and then twisted to lock it. It simply pulled on the accelerator pedal.
Abso b***** lootly lethal.
|
|
Back in the 80's when I used to run a motor factors, someone (Moprod possibly) brought out a universal cruise control kit. We decided not to sell them for obvious reasons !
|
My Landrover (1967) has a hand throttle. I think it's really for operating stationary machinery, but it's quite useful as a way of increasing the idling speed a bit on cold mornings.
It works on the throttle linkage, and can be over-ridden upwards but comes into play again on releasing the throttle.
I thought modern cars have electronically-controlled idling speed? My Volvo does (1992).
It idles at 800 rpm, and if I let the clutch in in 1st it just moves at about 5 mph. I can change into 2nd, or even 3rd on a level road, it just drives along by itself with the engine ticking over.
An older car with a carburettor will similarly pull at low speeds, but needs gentle throttle pedal control to increase the mixture flow.
|
We have a new (almost) Civic 1.4 petrol as a loaner at the moment while the Accord is serviced and has its windscreen replaced (another story). It's interesting going back to driving the petrol way with a smallish engine and the (ludicrous) 6-speed gearbox. I quite enjoy wringing its neck a bit though.
We were in the traffic in Limoges after we picked it up and I said to SWMBO: 'Listen to that - it's what a Honda petrol engine used to sound like ticking over: virtually silent'. I couldn't understand why the throttle blipped every time I dipped the clutch at a standstill and then I realised - it has the stop-start system! I can't believe this helps economy day-to-day and I don't like it but the handbook isn't in the car so I can't switch it off. There's a big green button with a picture of a tree and the word 'eco' on it, but I don't dare press that.
On the forecourt at the Honda dealer was a lovely late-80s Legend coupe, exactly like the one we had. 'Not for sale Monsieur,' of course.
|
|
ECO button affects throttle and aircon settings. It stays off or on (even if you turn off the ignition) until you press it again. Stop start override button is in lower dash area in front of the gear lever. It defaults to "on" whenever ignition is switched off. On my 1.8 I am not convinced either makes much difference but I usually run on ECO with stop/start off. I get low 40's - about same as my previous three diesels (Accord, Mondeo, Avensis).
|
|
Cheers for that. It has gone back now but I might jot down my thoughts when I have a minute. The stop-start is useful, I discovered, when someone who has been driving autos for 30-odd years stalls in traffic and it fires up again straight away!
|
My Landrover (1967) has a hand throttle. I think it's really for operating stationary machinery, but it's quite useful as a way of increasing the idling speed a bit on cold mornings.
It works on the throttle linkage, and can be over-ridden upwards but comes into play again on releasing the throttle.
I thought modern cars have electronically-controlled idling speed? My Volvo does (1992).
It idles at 800 rpm, and if I let the clutch in in 1st it just moves at about 5 mph. I can change into 2nd, or even 3rd on a level road, it just drives along by itself with the engine ticking over.
An older car with a carburettor will similarly pull at low speeds, but needs gentle throttle pedal control to increase the mixture flow.
My 1930 Morgan has a hand throttle. And no footpedal at all. Actually quite good to drive, but wouldn't be with modern steering requiring ones hands to move. 270 degrees lock to lock is fine though.
Although the Morgan needs careful throttle opening, not all carburettor equipped cars do, as if an accelerator pump is fitted, one can rip open the throttle and speed up the engine. Try that on the Morgan, it just dies on you.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 16:02
|
A lot of cars had hand throttles in the 1940s - two of my father's cars had them (can't remember if the Hillman did too).
Having owned or driven in adult life a lot of shabby jalopies that didn't really work to original specification, I discovered early on that you have to accommodate yourself to their little ways...
|
>> If I could get a petrol vehicle with the same low down torque as a diesel then I would consider it.
Well the torque on my 1.4TFSI engined Audi is 250Nm between 1500 and 3500rpm. The 1.6TDI has the same max torque but between 1500 and 3000rpm. The 2.0TDI 150PS has 340Nm between 1750 and 3000rpm.
|
And the petrol 2.0 TSI in the Golf GTI and my Octavia vRS has 350Nm at 1500-4000 rpm. In practice it means that there is just as much lowdown oomph as there was in my first VRS, which was a 2.0 TDI.
As said above, it does vary engine to engine. The BMW 2.2 straight-6 that I had in my Z3 was excellent, but SWMBO's Mini Cooper 1.6 is hopeless at low revs. Horses for courses - there are people out there who like using the revs.
|
>> just as much lowdown oomph as there was in my first VRS, which was a 2.0 TDI.
Current GTD/vRS diesel/etc has 380Nm. But I bet you can't tell the difference.
My 1.4TFSI will rev fine and is not coarse like diesels when it does so. But I've not done it much because there's legal limits to obey.
Maybe I need to post an update on my experience of a lowly 1.4TFSI 150PS petrol with 7 speed DSG. So far I'm happy with it. And I didn't like a DSG in a Passat CC 170PS diesel or Golf GT diesel....
... not sure it was a diesel issue. And I think the only time this has been hesitant is when I tried the driving profile as Auto instead of something else like Efficiency or Dynamic. Individual can set engine/gearbox to auto too.
|
Low down ooommmpph?
I had a Pug 405, with an 8 valve 1.9 normally aspirated diesel lump (the XUD) In its time it was a peach. and had shed loads of low down torque. It could pull an aircraft carrier at tick over perfectly smoothly, you could however stick your foot through the floor and it still wouldn't accelerate, unless you got the revs up to 1500 or so.
Torque and tractability is fine, but lack of available horsepower will leave you dangerously in the carp when you need it most.
Modern 16valve Di Turbo diesels bridge that gap. I don't often need to pull an aircraft carrier at tick over.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 24 Mar 15 at 10:12
|
>> >> If I could get a petrol vehicle with the same low down torque as
>> a diesel then I would consider it.
>>
>> Well the torque on my 1.4TFSI engined Audi is 250Nm between 1500 and 3500rpm. The
>> 1.6TDI has the same max torque but between 1500 and 3000rpm. The 2.0TDI 150PS has
>> 340Nm between 1750 and 3000rpm.
>>
If there was a petrol with 420Nm the same as my current diesel then that would be worth looking at.
|
>>If there was a petrol with 420Nm
Audi S6 (4.0 petrol turbo) chucks out 550Nm and revs well past 6500rpm.
Maybe you don't need 450hp though.
|
>> if there was a petrol with 420Nm the same as my current diesel then that would be worth looking at.
How much bhp? What rev range for that torque? I bet variants of VAG's 2.0 petrol turbo would be faster and more flexible. Maybe not more mpg though.
Audis with the 2.5l turbo petrol have about 450Nm torque BTW. And around 335bhp (or should that be PS in this instance?). Available in the RS Q3 for example.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 22:12
|
Still waiting for Honda to get their digit out and show what they can do with a VTEC/Turbo combo....
edit: some guff on t'net www.autocolumn.com/2014/03/hondas-vtech-turbo-engines/
Considering some 2.0 turbo petrols are hitting over 350hp (Merc AMG) these seem fairly conservative outputs although more than 300hp is probably going to be pointless in a FWD machine.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 22:18
|
>> Still waiting for Honda to get their digit out and show what they can do
>> with a VTEC/Turbo combo....
>>
>> edit: some guff on t'net www.autocolumn.com/2014/03/hondas-vtech-turbo-engines/
>>
>> Considering some 2.0 turbo petrols are hitting over 350hp (Merc AMG) these seem fairly conservative
>> outputs although more than 300hp is probably going to be pointless in a FWD machine.
Honda is currently working on a 1.6 litre turbo charged hybrid that generates over 600hp. You'll need to ask Ron Dennis for one tho.
|
|
To be fair my Ram (6litre ish) and Landcruisers (5.7litre and 4litre I think) are all petrol and they all seem to have a fair amount of power at low revs.
|
>> all seem to have a fair amount of power at low revs.
Or torque
|
>> >> all seem to have a fair amount of power at low revs.
>>
>> Or torque
Is not torque one part of what I might describe as "power"?
If not, why isn't it?
|
>> Is not torque one part of what I might describe as "power"?
Power = torque x revs
So in general terms although diesels develop loads of torque compared to a similar capacity petrol*, it's not at high revs, so their bhps aren't much different. The diesel typically has a slower 0-60 because of the limited useful rev range. But keep it in that rev range and the high torque makes it feel quicker than you'd expect if you based your performance expectations on 0-60 time.
* normally aspirated anyway; petrol turbos are better
|
Thank you.
And torque is twisting/turning force?
I must say that for me I like large capacity petrol engines with automatic gearboxes.
I find it all very calm and effortless.
|
>> And torque is twisting/turning force?
Yep.
>> I must say that for me I like large capacity petrol engines with automatic gearboxes.
We've got a manual 1.3.
>> I find it all very calm and effortless.
We don't :)
|
Which typically has the longer stroke? Diesel or petrol?
A small car/engine is great in town traffic, but would cause me to lose the will out of town.
We have a small mitsinissahondoyota thing, God knows what it actually is, but I use it sometimes. Its amazing how often one gets "bullied" in traffic. So much so that it makes me very aware if I ever find myself doing similar when I'm driving one of the larger vehicles.
|
>> my Ram (6litre ish)
Dodge Ramcharger pickup? Like the baddies in No Country for Old Men? Nice FMR.
|
>> Dodge Ramcharger pickup?
All right, perhaps not a pickup but some sort of huge black 4wd-ish looking thing with blacked-out windows then? V8 or V10? I'm only asking. No need to be snooty FMR.
|
>>No need to be snooty FMR.
Did I miss something?
It certainly is a pickup.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 3 Dec 14 at 14:19
|
>>Like the baddies in No Country for Old Men?
Kind of. There was a Bronco and a Ram in that film. Both were older, and smaller, than my Ram which is a twin cab.
I also have an old Chevy pickup which is about a month or so away from getting back on the road - that I fully expect to use about 3 gallons every two micro-furlongs.
|
>> Kind of. There was a Bronco and a Ram in that film.
The film's pretty good, but I was really thinking of the book. In it the car is called a Ramcharger and its engine sound as it idles sinisterly around is described as 'loping', a good word for it actually. Cormac Macarthy is that rare thing, a genuinely great writer.
There is a Chrysler V10, but I suppose your Ram just has a huge V8.
I do dearly love a snorting monster. I'm a bit envious FMR.
|
>> To be fair my Ram (6litre ish) and Landcruisers (5.7litre and 4litre I think) are
>> all petrol and they all seem to have a fair amount of power at low
>> revs.
>>
How much is petrol in Chile ?
|
|
Right now petrol is just about 90p litre. I don't know what diesel costs, I'll look next time I go in a petrol station.
|
>>I don't know what diesel costs,
The result of an exhaustive study of one petrol station that I just passed says 68p
|
>> Right now petrol is just about 90p litre. I don't know what diesel costs, I'll
>> look next time I go in a petrol station.
>>
Does that make it expensive for someone on an average wage there ?
|
Depends what you mean by an average wage. For middle classes and up that's quite a reasonable price.
For the poor, of which there are a lot, its expensive.
There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor here, which the middle classes have only begun to fill over the last 10 years or so.
|
>> >> if there was a petrol with 420Nm the same as my current diesel then
>> that would be worth looking at.
>>
>> How much bhp? What rev range for that torque? I bet variants of VAG's 2.0
>> petrol turbo would be faster and more flexible. Maybe not more mpg though.
>>
150 BHP. Peaks at 1,750 RPM. Average MPG 35 on a brim to brim fill but it is 4 wheel drive.
|
|
Two years ago I requested a 4wd rental from Enterprise in Placerville, CA, whilst staying with friends. At the time they did not have a spare vehicle for our use. I emailed them asking for a RAV4, CRV or similar. Unfortunately, all they had was a RAM Bighorn with the 5.7l V8 Hemi. Four times the size we needed but on New Years Eve I needed a vehicle to go skiing and drive between resorts. Consumption was low. Visibility was good though!i 'out trucked' my friends puny Toyota Tundra 4.7 V8 on that occasion.
|
When my brother used to go skiing in Tahoe he had a Jeep Grand Cherokee. It was the 5.2l V8. He didn't go for the 4.0l because when the weather was bad, you'd not get to Tahoe even with snow chains apparently.
That was only about 220bhp (or thereabouts) I think! Lots of torque and did 0-60mph in about 8 seconds.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 3 Dec 14 at 10:02
|
You only need chains on the roads in that part of the world if you have 2WD. My friends fit winter wheels & tyres onto both their Outback & Tundra. Carry flares, tow ropes, shovels, leccy blankets etc. the only road which regularly closes is 89 from the Y at South Lake up to Homewood. Anyone who has driven around Emerald Bay will know why! Steep ups n downs with severe twisties.
On winter trips into Yosemite we have pulled several cars out of ditches on the western portal approaches. No tyre chains necessary. Just chunky winter tyres, a low ratio gear, and a decent tow rope. Very different conditions to the summer heat waves.
|
|
When I drove up to Tahoe about 15 years ago I struggled to find a reasonably-priced 4WD available to rent. Ended up with a Rav4! Fortunately the roads were clear and I didn't have to put it to the test!
|
|
The hypocrisy of the French truly beggars belief. As it does in so many other areas.
|
>> The hypocrisy of the French truly beggars belief
Yes, a condition peculiar to the French, so rarely seen in England/Scotland/the World, and almost unheard of amongst the politicians of these nations.
/rolleyes
|
|
Quite Lygonos. Actually the British, or rather the English, are world-renowned for hypocrisy and perfidy. Ask any foreigner. Mind you the French run us a close second. It's only to be expected because they are very, very like us. Better nosh, more room, good for their calculating souls...
|
|
Oh, I dunno. In my mainland Europe experience the Brits and the Germans are very alike, while the Brits and the French are very different. Not sure about the Germans and perfidy though...
|
|
It's because you live there Mike, and are therefore constantly aware of what differences there are. But perhaps all European nations are more or less equivalent (rather than identical) to each other.
|
|
Certainly I feel less foreign in Europe than I do in the USA. Shared culture I guess.
|
>>Certainly I feel less foreign in Europe than I do in the USA.
How strange, me too. And yet I spend most of my times in places much more foreign than the US.
I always thought it was something to do with the fact that an apparent similarity makes its actual difference much more noticeable and stand out in contrast.
I like the US very much, but I do always feel foreign, even when I lived there.
|
>> Certainly I feel less foreign in Europe than I do in the USA.
Funny that, isn't it? I've concluded it's something to do with recognising more or less everything in the US from the movies and TV. Gives you the feeling that the real world has gone off somewhere and you've gone through the mirror so to speak into the movies. Quite nice in a way but strangely insecure.
|
>> Certainly I feel less foreign in Europe than I do in the USA. Shared culture
>> I guess.
Seen that suggested before. Less so along Eastern or Western seaboards; much more so as you move to mid-west or deep south.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30349398
It also suggested a scrappage scheme for diesel cars to cut emissions.
|
The net result of which will be to realise that it isn't just diesel emitting pollutants, despite the misleading tag "Nitrogen dioxide is a by-product of diesel engines."
|
If Euro 6 tests were real world driving: eg start from cold and warm up cycle, tehre would be no issue.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Just set the tests to real world.
Job done. ALL diesels off road. And many petrols as well.
|
Euro 6 requires DPF and NOX reduction - in 10 years most diesels cars will be emitting little of either.
Hydrogen fuel cells all well and good, but where's the hydrogen going to come from. Most currently made by steam methane reforming which produces loads of CO2, and still eats up oil / gas. Alternative is electrolysis, but unless that uses 'green' energy it produces loads of CO2 and uses up oil / gas. Can't win really....
|
>> Euro 6 requires DPF and NOX reduction - in 10 years most diesels cars will
>> be emitting little of either.
In 10 years there will be no Diesel cars.
>> Alternative is electrolysis, but unless that uses 'green' energy it produces
>> loads of CO2 and uses up oil / gas. Can't win really....
Its a perfect candidate for electricity generated by wind power. You can't control when you generate wind power, but you can store the hydrogen it produces.
|
I've said on here before that wind farms are ideal for generating hydrogen. You often see them stationary because there is no demand for the energy they generate. You can think of the hydrogen as a storage facility for the wind energy.
So why not decouple them from the national grid and use them to drive the kit that generates hydrogen.
|
"You often see them stationary because there is no demand for the energy they generate. "
I'm not an electrical engineer, so could someone explain to me, please, why it wouldn't be best to turn down the gas generators rather than stop the turbines?
As I write this, wind is supplying 13.7% of grid power - which sounds a decent contribution.
www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
|
>> why it wouldn't be best to turn down the gas generators rather than stop the turbines?
Because the companies running the gas and other power plants want to continue making money. And are willing to pay the owner of the wind turbines to stop them producing power.
|
>> Euro 6 requires DPF and NOX reduction - in 10 years most diesels cars will
>> be emitting little of either.
>>
Untrue.
It requires reductions when engines are warm.
They can do what they like when cold. Diesel engines take up to 10 miles to warm up.
Go figure what happens in London to local car emmissions.
Last edited by: madf on Tue 9 Dec 14 at 13:52
|
Diesel cars could put out clouds of soot when you opened the throttle too wide. If you didn't try to make the car accelerate faster than its capabilities and used a sensitive toe, clouds of smoke were rare.
I would have thought that with modern trick fly-by-wire injection systems that sort of overfuelling would be a thing of the past, but what do I know?
|
>> I would have thought that with modern trick fly-by-wire injection systems that sort of overfuelling
>> would be a thing of the past, but what do I know?
Sometimes it was just soot blown out of the exhaust by enthusiastic use of the right pedal. The Xantia (2000 with mk1 Hdi 110) was quite good at it if you floored the pedal at the NSL exiting previous village to mine on way home. Bit like a squid or cuttlefish.
In the current fleet my Berlingo a Mk 2 (05, IDI, perhaps Euro 3 or 4?) there's the vaguest haze in following cars lights if you pull same trick.
Mrs B's Berlingo, the current model, (63 Hdi 1.6, Euro 5 or 6) there's nothing nada, zilch.
And unlike mine it takes off like a scalded cat.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 Dec 14 at 16:23
|
Well, an ever so slightly warm cat anyway.
;-)
|
So I'm right about the latest small French modern diesels anyway from your account Bromptonaut.
Anything more than five or ten years old won't really have the latest frugal technology. A Xantia is a BX slightly evolved and in drag.
I'd bet everything in these new little PSA engines is finely designed and individual, valves, combustion chambers, turbocharger and its trunking... everything. With a good dollop of slapdash FU here and there if I know the Frogs.
I imagine those Berlingos are economical to run, 50mpg in give and take conditions?
|
>> Anything more than five or ten years old won't really have the latest frugal technology.
>> A Xantia is a BX slightly evolved and in drag.
The first ones were. Classic model change; new body/old mechanicals. Post about 2007 they got the new HDi engine. Much more complex than the XUD but faster, quieter and with better eonomy.
>> I imagine those Berlingos are economical to run, 50mpg in give and take conditions?
>>
Achilles heel is breeze block aerodynamics.
The 05/1.9D can manage 40mpg if treated to light right foot and kept around 65mph/100kph. Foot to floor it will keep the French A-route limit of 130kph all day, but probably 35mpg.
Newer one will do 50mpg if treated with respect; averages a bit over 40 but drops rapidly when hitched to the caravan.
|
>> Newer one will do 50mpg if treated with respect; averages a bit over 40 but
>> drops rapidly when hitched to the caravan.
I have the same engine as your newer Lingo in my 308 and I average mid 55mpg and it will do around 62/3mpg on a run so the aerodynamics must play a big part. I do have a 6 speed box & stop-start (but usually turn that off), am not sure how much difference that makes.
|
DPF works all the time - tail pipe on my Euro 5 307 is completely clean inside.
Not sure about the SCR now being applied to reduce NOX, but as it uses an additive direct into the exhaust I imagine pretty quick - unlike petrol engines that have to run rich when cold, and take a while to get the cat hot enough to start working....
|
>>DPF works all the time - tail pipe on my Euro 5 307 is completely clean inside<<
The one on the Honda (2.2 iDTEC) is as well. I've never seen any sign of smoke from that car. Recently my son followed me for 100-odd miles and he didn't see anything either. It still sounds like the Nuffield Universal 4 tractor I saw working in deepest France the other day though.
I'll consider an offer from a replacement promotion any time.
|
France wants to phase out diesel cars - Zero
