Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

MikeT
Posts: 4838
Joined: 11 Jun 2007, 16:17
x 185

Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by MikeT » 27 Jan 2015, 13:30

They say things happen for a reason (though I just blamed bad luck); in not finding the ideal C5 diesel I've been searching for over the last several months. But I now wonder if it was a blessing in disguise?

For those that missed it last night http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /59670-003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Channel4 used the fear-factor, predicting their "research" and resultant program may see diesel cars massively devalued almost overnight (and the cost of usage rocketing) and it's left me rethinking the wisdom of my choice.

So I invite discussion and comments (if only to give me more food for thought :P )
Last edited by MikeT on 27 Jan 2015, 19:31, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Stickyfinger
Donor 2016
Posts: 9608
Joined: 28 Mar 2013, 22:05
x 637

Re: Channel4 Dispatchs The Great Car Con

Post by Stickyfinger » 27 Jan 2015, 13:53

I do not think the changes will be major for FAP'd cars

I think a central city charge is fine, it is the way they do things these days.....but why would you get a diesel if you lived in a city ?, it has always been a dumb choice and always will be. TAKE A Bus/Tube/Tram/Train/Park'n'Ride.....90% of the time its quicker and cheaper anyway.

Maybe the owner of a 8 seat VAN purchased to take her fracking multiple kids to school and go shopping should look towards contraception, hate to think how many nappies she has used....MAKE your spoiled little kids WALK and order from Waitrose ONLINE .....cut out 50% of YOUR pollution you STUPID idiot ! (said to her)

At higher revs FAP'd diesels are fine as they can get nice and hot internally which greatly increases the combustion of particulates and CO2...DPF Exhaust recirculation ect

Figures and examples are presented at O level standards.....that was a "Mums Net" special

Any changes will be quite slow, maybe a TAX rise on new cars, a 2ltr 2002 C5 doing 60mpg will pay that easy anyway.
Given you will not have a car of that age much more than 5 years anyway, I would still go with it.
A 3ltr Petrol on LPG however, I would go for that if ever I found one as I can make my own methane....YEHHH, free fuel !

User avatar
spider
Posts: 3949
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 15:28
x 63

Re: Channel4 Dispatchs The Great Car Con

Post by spider » 27 Jan 2015, 16:58

Not convinced too much about "low emission bus" stickers as I've seen a few belching out quite a bit.

Interestingly when there was that Bus strike in London ages ago, the Nitrogen Dioxide levels dropped substantially, even though I suspect more taxi's and cars were being used... hmm..

User avatar
DickieG
Monaco's youngest playboy
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 10:15
x 12

Re: Channel4 Dispatchs The Great Car Con

Post by DickieG » 27 Jan 2015, 19:10

I watched the program and thought it was a load of old tosh, typically poor journalism where they grab a headline, tell one side of the story and find some gullible mum to be awfully shocked that her car throws out more pollution than the manufacturer states, oh for heavens sake is that the best they could do :roll:

One good thing the program mentioned was that occupants in vehicles inhale far more pollution than other methods of transport such as walking or cycling (the lowest) which makes a mockery of driving the little darlings to school each day.

Give it a few more years and a similar story will be told about the particulates from petrol cars which are a quarter of the size of diesel ones so are therefore more easily absorbed into your lungs.

elma
Posts: 3745
Joined: 13 May 2007, 02:17
x 212

Re: Channel4 Dispatchs The Great Car Con

Post by elma » 27 Jan 2015, 19:50

DickieG wrote: One good thing the program mentioned was that occupants in vehicles inhale far more pollution than other methods of transport such as walking or cycling (the lowest) which makes a mockery of driving the little darlings to school each day.
I'd like to see that verified. Modern cars nearly all have a cabin filter which should address that. I grew up in London, mostly cycling around, and I just don't believe this at all. The lungs are more susceptible to contaminants when exercising as well because the bronchioles of the lungs relax to enhance airflow.

I believe all this stuff is propaganda aimed at steadying Tax revenue to the predictions the treasury makes. As far as burning fuel goes, burning is bad full stop. Weather we crack diesel into petrol (an energy using process which pollutes) or just burn it as diesel is irrelevant.

The hype on electric is bull as well unless we can get all our power stations onto "green" energy. How would you feel knowing that your new car doesn't generate any CO2 or NOx from the exhaust but is responsible for X tonnes Nuclear waste a year? Or maybe if you live nearer a coal or gas plant it's worse, energy is lost sending electricity down wires so you need to produce more than you use. If the electric supplier predict demand incorrectly the energy only gets used to vibrate electrons in wires anyway because no one is plugged into it. Thats kind of the beauty of cars having an engine and alternator, it keeps inefficiencies very low.

Guy Martin said something which always comes to my mind when I think about this. "heres an old Scania 500, good engine and with a good driver it'll do 10Mpg. Heres the modern equivalent which has all its euro emissions stuff to make it greener, it does 8Mpg with the same driver. Can anyone explain to me how using more diesel to move the same weight the same distance in the same time is better for the environment?" That won't be word perfect, but he definitely pointed it out and I can't answer him. Heres a link if you'd like to hear it from him

My solution would be non ownership of cars. We're far to capitalist to ever accept it but if we want to make a worthwhile impact on the environment all cars should be modestly engined pool cars. Not only would fuel be saved by people better planning but valuable materials would be saved which are just as significant a worry as exhaust gasses. Yes my idea has it's problems and wouldn't really work in our society but I'm yet to hear a better and realistic one.

User avatar
Stickyfinger
Donor 2016
Posts: 9608
Joined: 28 Mar 2013, 22:05
x 637

Re: Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by Stickyfinger » 27 Jan 2015, 20:25

Guy Martin said something which always comes to my mind when I think about this. "heres an old Scania 500, good engine and with a good driver it'll do 10Mpg. Heres the modern equivalent which has all its euro emissions stuff to make it greener, it does 8Mpg with the same driver. Can anyone explain to me how using more diesel to move the same weight the same distance in the same time is better for the environment?" That won't be word perfect, but he definitely pointed it out and I can't answer him. Heres a link if you'd like to hear it from him

As the 8 miles per hour new engine produces 70% less pollutant, that is an easy calculation if you ignore the consumption of the base oil and the building of the new truck, its shipping etc....... but from a localised pollutant point of view we are better off with the new one

elma
Posts: 3745
Joined: 13 May 2007, 02:17
x 212

Re: Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by elma » 27 Jan 2015, 20:45

Thats true but with all the figures we are given we have to ignore a lot and trust assumptions. If I were granted access to all the relevant data and ran an impartial study I predict that over a certain mileage there would be an emissions benefit, which would be negated up until that mileage for any particular vehicle. I would like to see that mileage in the performance figures for all cars, however manufacturers will never allow that data out of their safes unless legislation requires it. The big question to me is over the average life of that particular vehicle type is there any improvement in it's pollution output and the total energy expended in said life. If the improvement comes at 500,000 miles then it makes sense on commercial vehicles but it could be 1,500,000 miles for all I know or even 1,500.

Locally I cannot argue, but the whole point of this particular avenue of engineering is so we can continue to use transport in the way we are accustomed without running out of fuel or Oxygen. I can only see solid evidence that we have done the opposite by increasing fuel use and adding more parts to vehicles. The lack of clarity on this matter is one of the many reasons I will not buy a car manufactured for the Euro or American market after 1998. I just don't trust engineering commissioned and sold by politicians.

User avatar
Stickyfinger
Donor 2016
Posts: 9608
Joined: 28 Mar 2013, 22:05
x 637

Re: Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by Stickyfinger » 27 Jan 2015, 21:13

Very true on the figures, with conflicting sources rata rata.. always the same for us mortals.

regarding modern technology.....I think you are unfair to the engineers, given very stiff parameters they have produced for Europe world beating cars with world beating capabilities with fabulous reliability and amazing designs that push the car farther forward in both comfort and safety. Whist doing that they reduce the chemical dangers of their use beyond what only a few years ago people laughed at as imposable.

addo
Sara Watson's Stalker
Posts: 7098
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:38
x 2

Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by addo » 27 Jan 2015, 21:21

I think cars need to be less reliable. And dearer. And fuel a whole lot dearer.

After all, whilst we can navigate to our heart's content in climate-controlled loungerooms, we end up getting fatter, lazier and more sucked into notions of entitlement. I put the heater on when I'm wearing four sweaters, up to then it's not needed. If we all looked at energy use more stringently, it might mean a re-evaluation of what the hell we do with our time, our lives, our money.

User avatar
Stickyfinger
Donor 2016
Posts: 9608
Joined: 28 Mar 2013, 22:05
x 637

Re: Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by Stickyfinger » 27 Jan 2015, 21:51

just get the "fat ones" to cut the wood to heat themselves, problem solved in about two weeks flat whatever they eat whilst doing it :lol: :)

elma
Posts: 3745
Joined: 13 May 2007, 02:17
x 212

Re: Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by elma » 27 Jan 2015, 22:13

I like that idea.

I have a lot more opinions on this subject but I think it's time to let someone else have a say before this becomes Elmas great climate rant.
FWIW though I think just keep driving whatever you like, especially if it's V8. We're not going to be able to forever, thats why I got the 2.2 VTEC out of my system a few years ago. I knew it was a poor decision, but I also knew I may not get another chance.

addo
Sara Watson's Stalker
Posts: 7098
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:38
x 2

Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by addo » 27 Jan 2015, 22:52

V8? Bugger that for a lark - get a V12! One of my dream cars is either a 400i or 365 Ferrari (depending on budget at the time). :mrgreen:

User avatar
DickieG
Monaco's youngest playboy
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 10:15
x 12

Re: Channel4 Dispatchs The Great Car Con

Post by DickieG » 27 Jan 2015, 22:59

elma wrote:
DickieG wrote: One good thing the program mentioned was that occupants in vehicles inhale far more pollution than other methods of transport such as walking or cycling (the lowest) which makes a mockery of driving the little darlings to school each day.
I'd like to see that verified. Modern cars nearly all have a cabin filter which should address that. I grew up in London, mostly cycling around, and I just don't believe this at all. The lungs are more susceptible to contaminants when exercising as well because the bronchioles of the lungs relax to enhance airflow.
I can't for the life of me see any way a cabin/pollen filter can be expected to filter out pollution other than say pollen plus the odd leaf,,,

Think about the logic, a cyclist has vehicles passing them so is therefore in the path of exhaust pipes for moments with breaks in between whereas a car follows the one ahead constantly with the ventilation/heater fan drawing in air directly from the path of the vehicle ahead made worse by the airflow from the vehicle ahead being drawn towards the centre of the vortex = directly into the heater inlet.

elma
Posts: 3745
Joined: 13 May 2007, 02:17
x 212

Re: Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by elma » 27 Jan 2015, 23:07

A decent cabin filter filters to below a micron and has active charcoal in it which will neutralise or capture all the nasties.
I can see your logic but I've done both and I disagree that cyclists get less of it. Do a decent run around London and you can brush the pollution off of yourself if you survive.

In the case of my non ac Xantia though with no filter it may be worse than cycling, but I have trouble believing it.

Hell Razor5543
NOT Alistair or Simon
Posts: 9403
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
x 644

Re: Channel4 Dispatches The Great Car Con

Post by Hell Razor5543 » 27 Jan 2015, 23:41

I agree that statistics can be manipulated to enhance any point you want to make. However, I recall one clever suggestion that Jeremy Clarkson came up with. He made the comment that all sports car makers quote their 0 - 60 and 0 - 100 mph times. He suggested that it would be a good idea to quote their 100 - 0 and 60 - 0 mph times, as this is much more important.