UK Diesle - Government killing it?

AudiTom · Feb 16, 2017

Hey people,

I'm sure if you own a diesel you must have seen in the media about upping the zone range,
banning diesel's and so on.

I have asked this on other forums and come to the conclusion that it won't really effect cars outside of central London.

this is good because I love my v6 TDI and there's no petrol out there with 40mpg and can make 300bhp if I want to stamp on the peddle,

however, has this affected anyone else or can you bring light to the situation?

h5djr · Feb 17, 2017

I have an 2014 A3 2.0TDI-184 s-tronic quattro and have just ordered another one to replace it. I never go to Central London so any ban would not effect me personally. But it is typical of our Government to use an overall ban. I visit Germany quite a lot and they have an Umwelt system where cars that have the latest type of diesel engine have a green sticker in the front window that can be issued by the vehicle testing system. With this sticker you are allowed in to any town or city. Without it you are not allowed in to many cities. This allows the 'cleaner' diesels in but keeps out the less clean older diesels. A much better arrangement than a blanket ban on all diesels especially as a few years ago the government were promoting diesels as a way of improving the environment as they produce less C02.
As long as Audi make a decent powerful diesel version of A3 I will continue to buy one. An excellent car.

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

h5djr said:
I have an 2014 A3 2.0TDI-184 s-tronic quattro and have just ordered another one to replace it. I never go to Central London so any ban would not effect me personally. But it is typical of our Government to use an overall ban. I visit Germany quite a lot and they have an Umwelt system where cars that have the latest type of diesel engine have a green sticker in the front window that can be issued by the vehicle testing system. With this sticker you are allowed in to any town or city. Without it you are not allowed in to many cities. This allows the 'cleaner' diesels in but keeps out the less clean older diesels. A much better arrangement than a blanket ban on all diesels especially as a few years ago the government were promoting diesels as a way of improving the environment as they produce less C02.
As long as Audi make a decent powerful diesel version of A3 I will continue to buy one. An excellent car.

My one would definitely fail a emissions test. Dpf less

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Retroman · Feb 17, 2017

It is all mainly political virtue signalling. China has some of the most polluted, smog filled cities on the planet and yet hardly any diesel cars. The motor car tends to be the "whipping boy" of the Green brigade

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

Its hard being a petrolhead in the uk. In america they would probably just laugh at the thought of green zones

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Retroman · Feb 17, 2017

I would guess that having a so called "green zone" in Europe allows you to claim a big wedge of cash from some EU slush fund :butterfly:

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

Had some guy on reddit telling me to buy a lexus gs450h and said its faster than my 3ltr tdi...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Orange225 · Feb 17, 2017

Does that mean London isn't getting another delivery of anything in the future, seeing as every delivery van/wagon is a diesel

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

I think a 3rd of all cars are desil.
I like my 3ltr tdi shes reliable as hell and can be fun to drive. Lots of tourq and power.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

DrEskimo · Feb 17, 2017

h5djr said:
I have an 2014 A3 2.0TDI-184 s-tronic quattro and have just ordered another one to replace it. I never go to Central London so any ban would not effect me personally. But it is typical of our Government to use an overall ban. I visit Germany quite a lot and they have an Umwelt system where cars that have the latest type of diesel engine have a green sticker in the front window that can be issued by the vehicle testing system. With this sticker you are allowed in to any town or city. Without it you are not allowed in to many cities. This allows the 'cleaner' diesels in but keeps out the less clean older diesels. A much better arrangement than a blanket ban on all diesels especially as a few years ago the government were promoting diesels as a way of improving the environment as they produce less C02.
As long as Audi make a decent powerful diesel version of A3 I will continue to buy one. An excellent car.

While I don't think the ban itself will affect diesel owners outside the cities, I think the ban is having implications on the overall public opinion of diesel cars, which could then see a reduction in popularity and therefore hit resale value...could be wrong though, but this is the first year in a long while that has seen petrol cars outsell diesels...

I agree that the overall ban is a horrendous move by the government after they spent years promoting and providing cheaper VED incentives to get people to switch to diesels. Were so concentrated on Co2 emissions that they willfully ignored the impact of other emissions and now have the cheek ask the motorist to suffer as a result of their inability to properly govern...nothing new there though I suppose...

Like your comment about Germany though and distinguishing between older and newer diesels. I think that is much fairer. Of course there is still the issue that there is high variability in testing emission results and real world emissions across diesel cars (ironically its the VAG diesels that have the cleanest real world emissions for their EU6 cars!), but that will soon be addressed by the Governments push towards real world emission testing in 2017. Assuming of course any of that does take off....

Retroman said:
China has some of the most polluted, smog filled cities on the planet and yet hardly any diesel cars.

And....? That's not evidence that diesels don't contribute to poor air quality, that's just evidence that poor air quality can be caused by other means.

Loads of people get lung cancer who don't smoke...that's doesn't mean that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer does it?

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

DrEskimo said:
While I don't think the ban itself will affect diesel owners outside the cities, I think the ban is having implications on the overall public opinion of diesel cars, which could then see a reduction in popularity and therefore hit resale value...could be wrong though, but this is the first year in a long while that has seen petrol cars outsell diesels...

I agree that the overall ban is a horrendous move by the government after they spent years promoting and providing cheaper VED incentives to get people to switch to diesels. Were so concentrated on Co2 emissions that they willfully ignored the impact of other emissions and now have the cheek ask the motorist to suffer as a result of their inability to properly govern...nothing new there though I suppose...

Like your comment about Germany though and distinguishing between older and newer diesels. I think that is much fairer. Of course there is still the issue that there is high variability in testing emission results and real world emissions across diesel cars (ironically its the VAG diesels that have the cleanest real world emissions for their EU6 cars!), but that will soon be addressed by the Governments push towards real world emission testing in 2017. Assuming of course any of that does take off....

And....? That's not evidence that diesels don't contribute to poor air quality, that's just evidence that poor air quality can be caused by other means.

Loads of people get lung cancer who don't smoke...that's doesn't mean that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer does it?

Its a good point.
But if they have to get rid of diesels they should do the taxis and buses and lorrys first. My 6 hours of driving a week is not going to do alot to the environment.

All the cabs parked up ticking over with there old engines splutteeing soot and nox.

Lorrys do long distances all the time meaning one lorry journey probably dose more harm than my year of diving my 3ltr.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

rbdazza · Feb 17, 2017

this truly frustrates me. i run 100% bio yet other than the savings get no acknowledgment. the stats speak for themselves, whilst NOX goes up slightly everything else emissions wise is reduced!

see below table for running 100% bio:

Average % Change ... PM -47.19.. HC -67.36 .. CO -48.11 .. NOx 10.29 .. SO2 -100.00 .. CO2 -76.40

DrEskimo · Feb 17, 2017

AudiTom said:
Its a good point.
But if they have to get rid of diesels they should do the taxis and buses and lorrys first. My 6 hours of driving a week is not going to do alot to the environment.

All the cabs parked up ticking over with there old engines splutteeing soot and nox.

Lorrys do long distances all the time meaning one lorry journey probably dose more harm than my year of diving my 3ltr.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Spot on with Taxi's. To be fair they are trying to tackle trains and buses by switching to electric/hybrid.

Lorries are a tricky one. Firstly they arent typically allowed in inner cities, so as far as contributing towards air pollution they aren't really a factor. Secondly, they are typically doing long distance motorway speeds where emissions are low. I also imagine finding a realistic alternative from diesels for large HGVs is going to be tricky given the distance and weight.

Arguably using diesels for HGVs is the most suitable, since they have low CO2 and do exactly the sort of miles a diesel is designed for. Their high NOx emissions are in low populated areas, such as motorways, so are of little consequence.

So its really cars, taxis and vans they have to target.......

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

DrEskimo said:
Spot on with Taxi's. To be fair they are trying to tackle trains and buses by switching to electric/hybrid.

Lorries are a tricky one. Firstly they arent typically allowed in inner cities, so as far as contributing towards air pollution they aren't really a factor. Secondly, they are typically doing long distance motorway speeds where emissions are low. I also imagine finding a realistic alternative from diesels for large HGVs is going to be tricky given the distance and weight.

Arguably using diesels for HGVs is the most suitable, since they have low CO2 and do exactly the sort of miles a diesel is designed for. Their high NOx emissions are in low populated areas, such as motorways, so are of little consequence.

So its really cars, taxis and vans they have to target.......

Tbh most "hybrids" use materials that in themselfs are bad for the environment.

Apparently makeing a prius for example. The materials they need and make cause alot of pollotion more than a desil would in its life spam.

So imadgen how much pollotion is made to create a hybrid bus.

Heres a thoght make petrol cheaper and i would happily switch haha.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

rbdazza · Feb 17, 2017

AudiTom said:
The materials they need and make cause alot of pollotion more than a desil would in its life spam.

i'm not convinced that is fact. would be interested to see your figures though

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

rbdazza said:
i'm not convinced that is fact. would be interested to see your figures though

here you go

Building a hybrid car is almost exactly the same as building a conventional car, requiring high-tech and highly automated assembly lines. This type of manufacturing process requires tremendous inputs of energy, particularly the forging of materials like steel, aluminum, glass and plastic. Interestingly, lightweight vehicles can sometimes be more energy-intensive to build than heavier cars because lighter metals like aluminum are harder to forge than stainless steel [source: Moon]. Experts estimate that 10 to 20 percent of a vehicle's total lifetime greenhouse gas emissions are released during the manufacturing stage alone [source: California Energy Commission].

Batteries are an essential component of hybrids. Regenerative braking lets hybrids generate and store their own energy to power the vehicle at low speeds and while idling. Unfortunately, both nickel-hydride batteries and the newer lithium-ion batteries rely on the mining of nickel, copper and so-called rare earth metals. The production of lithium-ion batteries account for 2 to 5 percent of total lifetime hybrid emissions and nickel-hydride batteries are responsible for higher sulfur oxide emissions, roughly 22 pounds (10 kilograms) per hybrid compared with 2.2 pounds (about 1 kilogram) for a conventional vehicle [sources: Samaras and Burnham et al].

There are additional environmental concerns related to those rare earth metals, like those used in the magnets of hybrid batteries. In recent years, rare earth metals like lithium have been imported almost exclusively from China, which was able to lower its prices enough to monopolize the industry [source: Strickland]. One of the reasons China could sell lithium so cheaply was because it widely ignored environmental safeguards during the mining process. In the Bayan Obo region of China, for example, miners removed topsoil and extracted the gold-flecked metals using acids that entered the groundwater, destroying nearby agricultural land. Even the normally tight-lipped Chinese government admitted that rare earth mining has been abused in some places. A regulator at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in China went so far as to tell The New York Times, "This has caused great harm to the ecology and environment" [source: Bradsher].

you can get the idea. heres a link on it http://science.howstuffworks.com/sc...-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

rbdazza · Feb 17, 2017

fair enough, but that only states manufacturing a hybrid takes the same emissions as a ICE car. and slightly more environmental impact. it doesnt then go into total cost, i.e. over 100k miles post manufacturing.

what about fully electric? and even with everything else. you are at least taking the emissions away from cities and creating it elsewhere.

dont get me wrong, i dont want either. i want my heavy oil engine running on renewable, co2 (almost) neutral fuels that i knock up in me shed at 2am with a case of lager

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

rbdazza said:
fair enough, but that only states manufacturing a hybrid takes the same emissions as a ICE car. and slightly more environmental impact. it doesnt then go into total cost, i.e. over 100k miles post manufacturing.

what about fully electric? and even with everything else. you are at least taking the emissions away from cities and creating it elsewhere.

dont get me wrong, i dont want either. i want my heavy oil engine running on renewable, co2 (almost) neutral fuels that i knock up in me shed at 2am with a case of lager

We need that bio desiel haha.

But also thinking that the car gets shiped from japan to god knows where else, all that transport pollotion.

Think our german cars are made in Germany and sent straight to here. Not as bad as shipping ur prius to multiple factorys.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

DrEskimo · Feb 17, 2017

AudiTom said:
here you go

Building a hybrid car is almost exactly the same as building a conventional car, requiring high-tech and highly automated assembly lines. This type of manufacturing process requires tremendous inputs of energy, particularly the forging of materials like steel, aluminum, glass and plastic. Interestingly, lightweight vehicles can sometimes be more energy-intensive to build than heavier cars because lighter metals like aluminum are harder to forge than stainless steel [source: Moon]. Experts estimate that 10 to 20 percent of a vehicle's total lifetime greenhouse gas emissions are released during the manufacturing stage alone [source: California Energy Commission].

Batteries are an essential component of hybrids. Regenerative braking lets hybrids generate and store their own energy to power the vehicle at low speeds and while idling. Unfortunately, both nickel-hydride batteries and the newer lithium-ion batteries rely on the mining of nickel, copper and so-called rare earth metals. The production of lithium-ion batteries account for 2 to 5 percent of total lifetime hybrid emissions and nickel-hydride batteries are responsible for higher sulfur oxide emissions, roughly 22 pounds (10 kilograms) per hybrid compared with 2.2 pounds (about 1 kilogram) for a conventional vehicle [sources: Samaras and Burnham et al].

There are additional environmental concerns related to those rare earth metals, like those used in the magnets of hybrid batteries. In recent years, rare earth metals like lithium have been imported almost exclusively from China, which was able to lower its prices enough to monopolize the industry [source: Strickland]. One of the reasons China could sell lithium so cheaply was because it widely ignored environmental safeguards during the mining process. In the Bayan Obo region of China, for example, miners removed topsoil and extracted the gold-flecked metals using acids that entered the groundwater, destroying nearby agricultural land. Even the normally tight-lipped Chinese government admitted that rare earth mining has been abused in some places. A regulator at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in China went so far as to tell The New York Times, "This has caused great harm to the ecology and environment" [source: Bradsher].

you can get the idea. heres a link on it http://science.howstuffworks.com/sc...-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

An increase of 2-5% seems quite small...

The advantage of using less fuel, and shifting a lot of the pollution from the cars in inner cities, to the power plants (which may or may not be 'dirty) surely outweighs this...

In fact, you missed off the last paragraph of that article, which goes on to prove this...

'Although hybrid vehicle production is more energy-intensive and results in higher production emissions, hybrid vehicles are still the greener choice overall. Read more about hybrid lifetime emissions on the next page.'

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

DrEskimo said:
An increase of 2-5% seems quite small...

The advantage of using less fuel, and shifting a lot of the pollution from the cars in inner cities, to the power plants (which may or may not be 'dirty) surely outweighs this...

In fact, you missed off the last paragraph of that article, which goes on to prove this...

'Although hybrid vehicle production is more energy-intensive and results in higher production emissions, hybrid vehicles are still the greener choice overall. Read more about hybrid lifetime emissions on the next page.'

Theres 4 pages on the site. I linked
Alot of arguments go for and agenst.

But im sticking with my oilburner.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

DrEskimo · Feb 17, 2017

AudiTom said:
Theres 4 pages on the site. I linked
Alot of arguments go for and agenst.

But im sticking with my oilburner.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Yea petrol for me too. Of course if someone offered me this hybrid...I might change my mind....!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/jalopn...a-910-horsepower-1641287583/amp?client=safari

The idea of using hybrid batteries for boosting performance of a big petrol while also giving you pure EV in traffic would be perfect for me.

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

DrEskimo said:
Yea petrol for me too. Of course if someone offered me this hybrid...I might change my mind....!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/jalopn...a-910-horsepower-1641287583/amp?client=safari

The idea of using hybrid batteries for boosting performance of a big petrol while also giving you pure EV in traffic would be perfect for me.

Haha one day eh

tbh mate i dont go to many heavy traffic areas im up at 5am for work and home at 6 both no traffic

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

DrEskimo · Feb 17, 2017

AudiTom said:
Haha one day eh tbh mate i dont go to many heavy traffic areas im up at 5am for work and home at 6 both no traffic

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Was about to say you're lucky...then thought you have to get up at 5am...!

Could be worse...you could be commuting by train...

AudiTom · Feb 17, 2017

DrEskimo said:
Was about to say you're lucky...then thought you have to get up at 5am...!

Could be worse...you could be commuting by train...

Ahh my work i have to go all over the country. But yes im glad i dont use the train's much haha. I like getting up for work lol.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

A4A4 · Feb 17, 2017

Orange225 said:
Does that mean London isn't getting another delivery of anything in the future, seeing as every delivery van/wagon is a diesel

Also No emergency services, No public transport since these all run on Diesel!

Yet another bright idea from a dim government

Crazyfool · Feb 21, 2017

I enjoy my V6 Merc, it's a lovely drive, but I still wish it was a petrol equivalent. It might be the quickest at 250bhp and possibly the most economical car I've owned, but it hasn't swayed me away from a petrol. I'd go back any day.

I drive into London on accessions, so it may affect me. The thing is, I've got the choice of the Merc or my 21 year old V6 Audi cabriolet. I wonder which is the greener vehicle!

Despite petrol sales increasing, I can't imagine manufacturers are going to bow down to the ban. Surely it's a challenge to improve their engines; without fiddling with the ECU of course!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Retroman · Feb 21, 2017

No doubt that when it comes to "sportiness", fun and "driver engagement" a petrol car is better than diesel

martin1984 · Apr 4, 2017

other cities and towns will impose diesel tax just as a way to make up money due to govement cuts

Gazwould · Apr 4, 2017

Simply outrageous .

Andyb5tdi · Jun 3, 2017

This is a very interesting thread.

I don't trust our government as far as I could throw them, and do wonder how much of this is to do with raising money and how much is due to improving the environment/ people's health.

The main travelling I do is to work, 9 miles a day and we'll away from the city.

I drive my A4 1.9Tdi for the most part which returns 42+ mpg.

As I see it one benefit to the government is that petrol cars are less efficient than diesels so petrol use will increase dramatically and we all know that fuel be it petrol or diesel is heavily taxed, so the more we use, the more the government makes in tax.

As I understand it, the main "problem" they are trying to combat is Nitrogen dioxide.

Does anyone actually know how many deaths in the UK are caused by Nitrogen dioxide?

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017

If I have read this correctly, this article suggests that the figure could be 11,000 per year, (while deaths from alcohol are 21,000 and deaths from smoking are 78,000)

After much reading it seems that rapeseed oil/ vegetable oil gives similar levels of Nitrogen dioxide so for this goal it wouldn't prove much benefit( although notably vegetable oil produces much less carbon dioxide, which contributes to the greenhouse gases)

I think lpg conversations on petrol cars will increase significantly. Then watch the oil companies/ government raise the price as they have with diesel as it has become more popular.

Maybe making hydrogen and oxygen from water using renewable sources such as wind/ water power and having cars that could burn it with the only waste product being water could be an option?

Who knows what the answer is, but you can bet the government will be looking to make money from it!

DrEskimo · Jun 4, 2017

Andyb5tdi said:
This is a very interesting thread.

I don't trust our government as far as I could throw them, and do wonder how much of this is to do with raising money and how much is due to improving the environment/ people's health.

The main travelling I do is to work, 9 miles a day and we'll away from the city.

I drive my A4 1.9Tdi for the most part which returns 42+ mpg.

As I see it one benefit to the government is that petrol cars are less efficient than diesels so petrol use will increase dramatically and we all know that fuel be it petrol or diesel is heavily taxed, so the more we use, the more the government makes in tax.

As I understand it, the main "problem" they are trying to combat is Nitrogen dioxide.

Does anyone actually know how many deaths in the UK are caused by Nitrogen dioxide?

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017

If I have read this correctly, this article suggests that the figure could be 11,000 per year, (while deaths from alcohol are 21,000 and deaths from smoking are 78,000)

After much reading it seems that rapeseed oil/ vegetable oil gives similar levels of Nitrogen dioxide so for this goal it wouldn't prove much benefit( although notably vegetable oil produces much less carbon dioxide, which contributes to the greenhouse gases)

I think lpg conversations on petrol cars will increase significantly. Then watch the oil companies/ government raise the price as they have with diesel as it has become more popular.

Maybe making hydrogen and oxygen from water using renewable sources such as wind/ water power and having cars that could burn it with the only waste product being water could be an option?

Who knows what the answer is, but you can bet the government will be looking to make money from it!

There is a common misconception that when papers cite premature deaths as a result of NOx, that you will have people keeling over dead after walking through taxi rings, or that people's death certificates will have 'Cause of Death: Diesel'.

I'm sure you can appreciate how farcical these are, and indeed that the people publishing these scientific articles and reports are not quite that stupid to think this is the case either...!

Basically, NOx has been shown to be a risk factor. People who are exposed to high levels of NOx appear to have a greater chance of death from things like lung and cardiac related diseases. This is not unlike smoking. Now we all now accept that smoking is causal of lung cancer, lung function and cardiac disease. People who smoke have an increased risk of these diseases compared to those who do not. In much the same way, people who smoke do not suddenly drop dead due to having a cigarette, and someones cause of death is not 'smoking', but we can research the association between those diseases and exposure to smoking and quantify, on average, how much longer people would live had they not smoked.

This is where the number of premature deaths come in. You can extrapolate the number of lives lost by the exposed group, and then use that estimate on a population wide basis. As I'm sure you can appreciate, quantifying this number would largely vary on the study sample, the size of the effect found for that particular study, and the method of extrapolation to wider populations.

What the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other bodies attempt to do, is to aggregate all those studies to get a more precise estimate.

For me personally, the answer lies in technology. Embracing new limitless technologies that can provide renewable energy without any of the drawbacks of currently available energy sources. The answer is to provide far more funding into science and technology and of course R&D. Concepts like nuclear fusion are incredibly exciting, and yet apparently the US spends more on dog grooming than it does on R&D into a potentially limitless and clean energy solution...!

Couldnt agree more with your final sentiment though. Whatever happens, the government will tax it to high water. Nothing is free! My problem is they lack the foresight and initiative to look at alternatives. Then of course there is the lobbying....I think you only need to see what is happening with Hinckley Point C to see that Chinese investors have far more power than we the electorate do on guiding central government. I'm not against nuclear power by any means, but the sheer cost of not only building that power station, but the likely cost of the energy we would have to bare to even consume it is just ludicrous...! The current crop of nuclear stations, while much safer, and boast a dramatically reduced death toll compared to coal and gas, still have issues guarding with nuclear material and indeed disposing of its waste. I would much rather see such vast sums of money being invested in other technologies, and in particular, energy storage.

Andyb5tdi · Jun 4, 2017

I fully agree with what your saying, and we should be providing a better, safer and cleaner environment for our children to grow up in, and frankly the idea that the Chinese are building a power station for the UK is a very worrying prospect! What is equally worrying is that we live just the other side of the estuary from where it is being built!

I agree we should be providing a damn sight more funding for cleaner fuels, but don't believe that will happen while the oil companies are still pulling oil out of the ground and making millions in the process. Yes the harp on about the environment from time to time, but never let it get in the way of their profits!

What ever happens to new ideas, often they get quietly bought up and shelved.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, governments are run but money and greed, not by morals and doing things because they are the right thing to do :-(

Andyb5tdi · Jun 4, 2017

Edit: I ment to add to my post above, is adblue effective against what they are deeming to be the issue here?

Gazwould · Jun 5, 2017

Yes it's a better system that doesn't inhibit full oxygenated combustion .

So less soot and more power and mpg .

But it does have it's reliability issues

AudiTom · Jun 13, 2017

Wow, thought this thread died but I'm late to the party anyway,
I Have noticed the dessy ban is a hoax I asked multiple engineers that work for the government and one even is a bus mechanic, all state it won't happen they just ordered more diesel buses and work cars

I also would put I have driven petrol cars since 2015 I tried my fair share of petrol cars, all my mates ride v6 petrol and other creations. they all get a wow out of the power of the v6 tdi. especially in the 0-60 60-100 its a good car for me as of the mpg I'm in it all day

but it's nice to be able to cruise her with good mpg for work, and when you go for a drive with your mates it's nice to have that power at your disposal I can put them down in a race for a while until the enevitable. so I chose it for the efficiency and power.
If I was building a race car then obviously petrol is the choice... basically I have an executive taxi on steroids (400 bhp and counting) will post a build log soon when I'm 100% happy (keeps the good mpg from 2 settings on the dynamic ECU, i can choose eco and i can choose a sport mode with the remap settings)

also, the government are adding another runway to Gatwick. I doubt our desiels are going to make much difference than another lane of aeroplanes a day

Gazwould · Jun 13, 2017

Indeed how can they kill off the more mpg , torque and lower CO2 engine .

Just improve the aftertreatment particulate and NOx systems .

AudiTom · Jun 13, 2017

Gazwould said:
Indeed how can they kill off the more mpg, torque and lower CO2 engine.

Just improve the aftertreatment particulate and NOx systems .

Well my friend that would require some common sense and initiative on behalf of our government, sadly this is why it will never happen :sign wow:

DrEskimo · Jun 13, 2017

Gazwould said:
Indeed how can they kill off the more mpg , torque and lower CO2 engine .

Just improve the aftertreatment particulate and NOx systems .

I agree that would be ideal, but I take the VAG scandal as a clear indicator that they are struggling to do exactly this.

They couldn't get it under EU targets without using AdBlue (although they tried by cheating...) and while they can now get under the targets under test conditions with AdBlue, many cars still fail in real world conditions. In real world testing, they are still miles off...

So they could continue to develop further, but when you have the prospect of EVs in the future with even longer ranges, even more (and instant) torque, and zero emissions of any kind, you begin to wonder why you would keep betting on a losing horse...? I know where I would start investing personally...

Not to mention the reliability/logistical issues with current aftermarket treatments, why would customers want even more to worry about?

AudiTom · Jun 13, 2017

well if your like me you get a bent emmisons test anyway (dpf delete) and with a good map (darkside dev) no noticable smoke theres a little when i start up for 5 seconds but i put that down to old fule left in the engine once its warm its fine.

basicaly nobody will know unless you look

h5djr · Jun 13, 2017

DrEskimo said:
I agree that would be ideal, but I take the VAG scandal as a clear indicator that they are struggling to do exactly this.

They couldn't get it under EU targets without using AdBlue (although they tried by cheating...) and while they can now get under the targets under test conditions with AdBlue, many cars still fail in real world conditions. In real world testing, they are still miles off...

So they could continue to develop further, but when you have the prospect of EVs in the future with even longer ranges, even more (and instant) torque, and zero emissions of any kind, you begin to wonder why you would keep betting on a losing horse...? I know where I would start investing personally...

Not to mention the reliability/logistical issues with current aftermarket treatments, why would customers want even more to worry about?

EVs no emissions - apart from the CO2 emissions from where ever the electricity is being generated. I do volunteer work for a conservation charity which displays 'zero emissions' on it's electric vans and other vehicles. The only problem is that these vehicles are re-charged from the national grid and that produces a lot of CO2 from it's power stations. If the numbers of EV's increase will we need more power stations to meet the demand.

EVs may well be suitable for local journeys but I have just been on holiday to Germany. A total of 460 miles each way and without the need to fill up in either direction. When I did fill up in Germany using diesel costing 23p per litre less than un-leaded petrol and it took around 5 minutes. When EVs can match that then I may well consider one but I don't thing it will happen in my lifetime. With all the concentration in the UK in particular on NOX emissions we no longer seem to be considering the CO2 emissions. Perhaps one day we will have healthier people but with not planet for them to live on!

UK Diesle - Government killing it?

Registered User

Well-Known Member

Registered User

Audi A3 2010 Sportback 2.0 TDI 170 (CBBB engine)

Registered User

Audi A3 2010 Sportback 2.0 TDI 170 (CBBB engine)

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Owner of a Shiny Daytona

Lead boot

Audi A3 2010 Sportback 2.0 TDI 170 (CBBB engine)

Registered User

Registered User

B5 1.9TDi AFN

Registered User

B5 1.9TDi AFN

B5 1.9TDi AFN

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Well-Known Member

Similar threads