Of All The Half Baked Daft Ideas..

[Albert Tatlock]

I don't disagree that population has a massive impact on the environment. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discourage other environmental initiatives while we deal with the population, it means we should do both. So I dont really get your point of hijacking this thread with overpopulation rants.

1. This thread is about adopting UK vehicle band changes, which are themselves 'calculated' based on current world emissions and 'vehicle environmental impact'

2. 'Environmental Alternatives' represent less than 5% of our generating capacity at the moment. If you really believe we'll have sufficient 'environmental initiatives' (in time) given such increases in population then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

3. This is not a 'rant' or a 'hijack' - overpopulation is the fundamental reason why the number of vehicles/emissions is increasing - hence the 'new tax bands'. If you can't see the link then maybe you should think about it a little more before firing off.

[Cambon]

Compared to what? The average person who replaces their car every 5 years? That would be 4 cars to build and deliver across the world, 4 cars to provide parts for and 4 cars to dispose of!

20 year old car wins hand down!

 

What your saying would be true if that new car was desposed of every 5 years. It isn't, it's sold and used 2nd hand. There's definately a balance to be struck in terms of efficiency and emissions (which we've ignored so far) vs the production costs of a new car, but then cars generally aren't scrapped until they're dead anyway.

 

I'd say a reaonable balance would be to run a smaller more efficient car for 10 years is far more preferable to running your oily old gassbag 20 years.

 

The main problem with that is "run of the mill" cars these days (Renault, Peugeot, Lemon) don't last 10 years. They are designed to last 8 years. It used to be 10. Some cars (E.g. BMW, Lexus) are designed to last 18 years.

 

The other thing I would take issue with you on is calling 20 year old cars gassbags. Most of the smaller cars of 20 years ago were doing better MPG than those today, as a consequence produced less CO2 than their equivalent today (e.g. the Citroen AX 1.0, Lancia Y10 Fire, etc.). The reason is these days the equivalent cars are physically bigger, heavier, fitted with loads of crap they don't need (that adds to the cost and environmental impact) and these days they are asphixiated by catalytic converters that zap the potential power and MPG in order to lower CFCs etc.

 

edit to add

 

ALBERT TATLOCK - Why not just raise the driving age to 18 or 21? That would have a large impact in many areas from emissions to road safety?

[ai_Droid]

Your right, there's some massive gains to be made in reducing atmospheric carbon, and population growth and deforestation are right up there. But these aren't being solved quickly, so we have to do what we can in other areas. I dont see the fact that there are worse offenders means you should do nothing at all about the easy wins.

[ai_Droid]

The other thing I would take issue with you on is calling 20 year old cars gassbags. Most of the smaller cars of 20 years ago were doing better MPG than those today, as a consequence produced less CO2 than their equivalent today (e.g. the Citroen AX 1.0, Lancia Y10 Fire, etc.). The reason is these days the equivalent cars are physically bigger, heavier, fitted with loads of crap they don't need (that adds to the cost and environmental impact) and these days they are asphixiated by catalytic converters that zap the potential power and MPG in order to lower CFCs etc.

 

Agree, I was referring to his 2.9 litre thing

[Amadeus]

Another point that shows how flawed the idea is:

 

Apparently, it's totally ok to drive an old Mini now (998ccm and pretty much unfiltered straight out the back), but if you're thinking about buying a new Mercedes BluTec, a car full of technology to reduce emissions and fuel consumption (like the new E320 BlueTec - 3.0l Diesel, 210bhp and winner of the 2007 World Green Car award) then you're being kicked in the cojones for apparently not being "green" enough.

 

It makes no sense, whichever way you look at it....

[Slim]

It makes no sense, whichever way you look at it....

 

It makes sense lots of ways you look at it, but there are a few exceptions. There are to most rules.

 

That merc was voted the green car because of its remarkably low emissions for a deisel. Thats because deisel engines are normally dirty compard to petrol. It's got bugger all to do with mpg, which was in the low 30's. The 998cc mini would do 50 odd mpg.

[Amadeus]

It makes sense lots of ways you look at it, but there are a few exceptions. There are to most rules.

 

That merc was voted the green car because of its remarkably low emissions for a deisel. Thats because deisel engines are normally dirty compard to petrol. It's got bugger all to do with mpg, which was in the low 30's. The 998cc mini would do 50 odd mpg.

So assuming the Merc and the Mini both do 50mpg - which one do you think throws out more sh*t?

 

It's a proper smack in the face for advances in technology and punishes people for buying new and more advanced vehicles - well done...

 

Now, where do I get a nice Mini with a straight pipe underneath? According to the DoT, that's ok and environmentally friendly...

[Slim]

So assuming the Merc and the Mini both do 50mpg - which one do you think throws out more sh*t?

 

It's a proper smack in the face for advances in technology and punishes people for buying new and more advanced vehicles - well done...

 

Now, where do I get a nice Mini with a straight pipe underneath? According to the DoT, that's ok and environmentally friendly...

 

I'm sure you're not stupid, so why are you revisiting the stuff we've already covered?

 

It's quite simple, what's the mpg and emissions of that 3l merc, and what's the mpg of it if it was a 1.6l merc? That's what you need to be comparing, not some old car that nobody drives any more.

 

Get it? That's not smacking technology advances in the face, thats encouraging smaller leaner cars and not monsterous ego preeners.

[Amadeus]

I'm sure you're not stupid, so why are you revisiting the stuff we've already covered?

 

It's quite simple, what's the mpg and emissions of that 3l merc, and what's the mpg of it if it was a 1.6l merc? That's what you need to be comparing, not some old car that nobody drives any more.

 

Get it? That's not smacking technology advances in the face, thats encouraging smaller leaner cars and not monsterous ego preeners.

Get away from your cars + ego trip, please - there's still such thing as "free choice" you know..

 

And yes, In principle I see your point, but as mentioned earlier somewhere all these advances in technology have to be paid for. So first it's the 3.0 engine, then eventually it will be a 2.2 (like the new C class, which has already won recognition for being "green" in Germany) and then it might trickle down to even something like the Smart. But point is that someone needs to pay for development and research - coming up with all this BluTec and other stuff isn't free - it costs billions. So usually, manufacturers first introduce it to the top-of-the-line models, very well knowing that the people that buy these can afford to and are willing to pay a premium for the newest technology. Once it's starting to pay, it's handed down the line to the smaller models. You don't really think that the 80 grand that a S600 (104k otr) costs more than a C180 (22k otr) is simply because it needs a bit more metal and leather? It's the research and technology in it that drives the price up - if you stopped building what you call "ego preeners" tomorrow but continued development at the same pace as now, then you would probably end up paying 30k for a small city car and I doubt people would be willing to do that.

 

What I wouldn't mind seing, and what would probably save more fuel and emissions than many other things, is a move away from cars overloaded with things we never knew we really needed - dvd players, massaging seats, etc - all stuff that just adds weight and increases fuel consumption - that's why I like that old MKI Golf they still sell in South Africa - a simple, honest car that's light and works well.

 

I really had to laugh when I saw that the Prius comes with Aircon as standard, though - what a green car that is....

[Tempus Fugit]

getting back to the headline subject of half baked ideas, but on a slightly different theme, I am surprised that no mention has been made of the brilliant idea proposed in Tynwald the other day for 'health tourism' where people could come here for their operations with short waiting lists etc., but if that were the case, why are so many people being shuttled to the UK for operations which can't be done here ?. There's something screwy with the logic somewhere !.

[Slim]

Get away from your cars + ego trip, please - there's still such thing as "free choice" you know..

 

No, there isn't, not when it comes to protecting the environment, or to road safety and the laws that currently restrict what you can drive are changing and will change more as the emergency becomes more urgent.

 

And yes, In principle I see your point, but as mentioned earlier somewhere all these advances in technology have to be paid for. So first it's the 3.0 engine, then eventually it will be a 2.2 (like the new C class, which has already won recognition for being "green" in Germany) and then it might trickle down to even something like the Smart.

 

You're just talking out of your arse now. Nobodys stopping them making or selling a 3l engine, but they'll have to be paid for accordinly because of their unnecessary impact on the environment. That's not stifling invention, thats encouraging invention to be focussed on being more efficient at converting fuel to power.

 

 

But point is that someone needs to pay for development and research - coming up with all this BluTec and other stuff isn't free - it costs billions. So usually, manufacturers first introduce it to the top-of-the-line models, very well knowing that the people that buy these can afford to and are willing to pay a premium for the newest technology.

 

Exactly, so they can also pay the extra tax. Early adopters aren't the mainstream.

 

then you would probably end up paying 30k for a small city car and I doubt people would be willing to do that.

 

Care to cite your source on that? I'm calling bullshit I'm afraid. I recon it's the other way around, that manufacturers couldn't afford to build presteige models without selling their mainstream cash cows. Your top of the line car may cost 90 grand, but they only sell a few thousand worldwide, care to do the maths vs a toyota yaris at 8k selling millions?

 

I really had to laugh when I saw that the Prius comes with Aircon as standard, though - what a green car that is....

 

I'm not a big fan of the prius personally, mainly because the lifespan of the batteries really puts its greenery into jepardy, but an aircon in a hybrid is theoretically better than an aircon that runs purely from petrol.

[GD4ELI]

The 998cc mini would do 50 odd mpg.

Dirty engine - I know, mother's got one.

 

Here's an oldish Grauniad story The top 10 green cars

 

The key seems to be the CO2 emissions, top car was 116g/km. The target is about 100g / km.

 

Another interesting link - The lowest MoT emissions reading ever recorded – and it was from a rally car!.

 

FWIW I no longer own a car.

[Brad_Naylor]

Whoever would have thought it?

 

Facts At A Glance

CAR: Mercedes E320 CDI

PRICES: £36,895-£38,695 - on the road

INSURANCE GROUP: 17 CO2 [g/km]: 194g/km

PERFORMANCE: [4dr] 0-60mph 6.8s/ Max Speed 155mph

FUEL CONSUMPTION: [4dr] (urban) 26.7mpg/ (extra urban) 47.1mpg/ (combined) 37.2mpg

STANDARD SAFETY FEATURES: Twin front and side airbags, windowbags, ABS, ESP, Brake Assist

WILL IT FIT IN YOUR GARAGE?: Length/Width/Height, 4795/1799/1439mm (saloon)

[Slim]

Whoever would have thought it?

 

It's certainly impressive, but take the Civic 1.7 Diesel:

 

1.7CTDi 3-dr: 0-60 10.9 seconds; top speed 113mph; CO2 emissions: 134g/km.

 

Urban 42.8 mpg

Extra Urban 65.7 mpg

Combined 55.4 mpg

 

Double the urban mpg, that's the point of this.

[Cambon]

The 998cc mini would do 50 odd mpg.

Dirty engine - I know, mother's got one.

 

Here's an oldish Grauniad story The top 10 green cars

 

The key seems to be the CO2 emissions, top car was 116g/km. The target is about 100g / km.

 

 

 

 

That top ten list is the perfect example of why the new taxes are so unfair. Most of the cars do not fit in the lowest tax category but they are the lowest CO2 producers. This is a seriously unfair tax.

 

The only way to tax CO2 is on useage.

 

Scrap road tax altogether. Add 5p to a litre in tax. IT IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY!!!