This is the tale of conflicting opinions, misinformation, financial burden and innovation; no, not the plot from the latest blockbuster, but the demonisation of diesel. Or perhaps the non-demonisation, and therein lies the problem.
Diesel was hailed as the saviour of the planet once, only for it to be proven to be quite the opposite, that it was directly responsible for health problems, poor air quality and premature deaths. Environmental groups looked to discredit it at every opportunity, while other organisations told us that it wasn’t actually that bad.
A raft of legislation was introduced to combat the scourge, and as such, diesel vehicles are all but dead and buried. Except here we are in 2019, and another independent study tells us that the one thing diesels are known for (NOx emissions) may not be a ‘thing’.
Confusion reigns
Just last year, we wrote that the business secretary, Greg Clark, said that despite the ongoing saga of diesel fuel, there is still a place for diesel vehicles, but just a few months later, we’re also reporting that the Ultra-low Emission Zones are being introduced and widened to encompass more of the City of London, particularly targeting diesel, including extra parking charges. It seems that not everyone got the message.
If you’re looking at a new car for the March registration, it would be a brave choice to consider diesel right now.
And yet, a new study by ADAC, Germany’s equivalent of the AA, looked at NOx emissions for 13 of the latest diesel cars available, and their findings suggest that NOx emissions are not just complying with Euro 6 legislation, they’re virtually non-existent.
All thirteen cars were tested at the ADAC laboratory, where they test hundreds of cars each year, and all thirteen were found to be significantly less than the legislation demands, in some cases there were no trace elements of NOx measurable. A number of diesel vehicles all produced less NOx than their petrol equivalent.
It’s worth noting that we aren’t talking about asthmatic, 3-cylinder sub-1 litre engines either – the cleanest vehicle was the Mercedes-Benz C-Class 220d with a 2.0 litre turbodiesel engine (0mg/km), closely followed by the BMW 520d Touring and Vauxhall Astra 1.6D, both 1mg/km.
Real world
Currently, the legal limit is 80mg/km for diesel NOx, but thanks to the 2.1x ‘conformity factor’ the permissible limit is set at 168mg/km until 2020, it will then drop to 1.5x the limit, although there are some legal wrangling’s that could have an impact on that.
As to what this means in the real world … it’s difficult to say. Opinions on diesel fuel have swung like a pendulum over the years, and we’re still waiting to see where that pendulum stops. It’s the uncertainty throughout the industry and government that has led to a decline in sales; thanks to unreasonable taxation due to emission misinformation mainly.
Admittedly, the manufacturers haven’t helped the situation with their knack of extending ranges and minimising emissions. There also seems to be a leaning toward seeing the motorist as easy prey, and the murkier the water, the harder it is to prove a clear case for using diesel vehicles, or at least for not punishing anyone taking the incentivised deals when the government invited them to.
If this new breed of diesel engined vehicles proves to be as clean as ADAC say they are, what would this mean to the ever-increasing charges – T-Zone, congestion charge, ULEZ, VED, parking and fuel? Would there be a relaxation of the relentless pursuit?
Purchasing
Diesel car sales have fallen significantly in the last few years; industry experts say sales dropped by at least 25% in 2018; buyers are being scared off by the unknown, and the extra cost. But could a diesel still work for you?
It’s true that indirect costs are rising, but a modern diesel will be ULEZ safe, and thanks to the fall in sales numbers, they’ve never been cheaper to purchase. Of course, there is a shift away from not just diesel, but internal combustion, so electric vehicles are on the rise, but they don’t quite work for all situations, and that’s before we look at cost implications.
There’s no simple answer as to whether a diesel vehicle is the right choice for you, but there are some considerations to think of – are you a high mileage driver? Are you towing a caravan or trailer regularly? Prefer a big SUV rather than a sporty saloon? Then a diesel could still work for you.
While PetrolPrices.com is, of course, a pro-motoring site, we understand the value of being impartial, of reporting on stories that could have conflicting opinions (diesel especially). It’s for this reason that you’ll find a range of articles regarding diesel, be they pro or anti; purely in the interest of bringing you a balanced view.
Would you consider purchasing a new diesel vehicle in March? Can the manufacturers be trusted to bring us new technology without exaggerating the benefit? Let us know in the comments.
This news still does not help the second hand diesel car market. I can’t afford a new car so my choice today limited to the rather dirty older diesel cars. In fact, I choose to drive petrol cars converted to run on LPG so I can get good equivalent mileage as the price of LPG is much lower than petrol. I am also taking good care of the environment as engines running on LPG are even cleaner than petrol cars.
” I am also taking good care of the environment as engines running on LPG are even cleaner than petrol cars.”
But can you believe that? Was the expert wrong?
Its bloody amazing you can find somewhere to fill up!
I know that whatever is burnt it produces co2, co and other pollutants. Even power stations produce pollution. So electric cars aren’t totally pollution free. Petrol is dirty in different ways than diesel. Co is much more dangerous in the short term than NoX. NoX and particulates could cause deaths in 20 years or so, carbon monoxide can kill in minutes if in high enough concentrations. High buildings, lots of slow moving petrol cars co levels can mount. , has anyone tested the effects of moderate levels of carbon monoxide on the long term health of human lungs?
CO emissions are now close to zero from both diesel and petrol engines, CO2 is essential for life on earth to continue, the real danger is NOx, and pollution from manufacturing, rather than the continued use of vehicles already in existence.
Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere act as a blanket heating the planet. CO2 requirements for plant life are virtually insignificant. Overall very negative effect from rapid temperature increase + ocean acidification + sea level rise. 🙁
You really don’t understand what you say, you are simply repeating the popular mantras. CO2 is not a “blanket” around the earth and it certainly does not heat the earth, I think that might be down to the sun. It is a well mixed gas at 0.04% of the total atmosphere. We have seen no rapid temperature increases for some time, atmospheric temperatures have been stable for around 20 years now. There has been no acceleration in sea level rise for around 200 years and in many places sea level has fallen because of glacial rebound. The oceans are not acidic, never have been and are not becoming so. Climate models are not science and the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, with all the politics that such a term entails.
See http://www.hse.gov.uk. EH40 document which gives occupational exposure limits for all these really nasty substances that are inhalatable. Carbon monoxide is not a lung damaging substance per se but works by blocking oxygen reaching all cells in the body. If levels are high enough your brain is starved of oxygen and you won’t survive. Children are many times more vulnerable than adults due to higher metabolic rate.
M.Snow chartered safety practitioner
You seem a little confused between CO and CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant.
Government advisors keep getting all thing wrong about all vehicles not just cars
Exactly that! They’re advisors and dont have a F****** clue about cars at all!
Not just vehicles either – just bloody EVERYTHING!
I would not consider a diesel vehicle until such time as they are as refined, reliable and clean in use, not just laboratory tests, as petrol engines, and deliver as much performance including throttle response.
Since attempts have been made to clean up diesels and match petrol engine power, the one advantage of long life which they did have has been lost. Few can now reach 100,000 miles without major work.
Test results from any German organisation must be treated with scepticism as the German economy is reliant upon the manufacture and sales of diesel vehicles.
You have obviously never heard of ADAC… They are extremely thorough with their testing and it is done on the road, not in a lab. The claim about the 100K thing is complete rubbish, I’m a mechanic and an MOT tester and FAR more petrol cars fail the MOT with engine problems than diesels, especially now the MIL is part of the annual test!
Err… from the article “All thirteen cars were tested at the ADAC laboratory”.
Who says “few can now reach 100,000 miles” you don`t know what you are talking about,I drove a taxi for a few years & many car type taxis did well above that mileage without major work just normal servicing.
My last diesel got to 21 years old… and 100,000 miles was well in the past! I only got rid as it was a Rover and spare parts became almost unavailable and very very expensive.
I believe it is a fact that Nox vapours, though quite nasty for Human lungs, mainly in urban areas, are NOT what are generally known as ‘greenhouse’ gases. These are very big on the lists of things fouling up our Planet. There is little doubt that properly maintained, modern diesel vehicles are way cleaner in that respect than most petrol powered vehicles. I think it’s best that we do try to save the Planet.
Well said Mike. Greenhouse emissions have gone up in the UK for first time in years!
WHAT NOBODY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT IS WHERE THESE GASES ARE COMING FROM! JUST OPEN UP ADS-B WHICH GIVES A RADAR PICTURE OF THE AIRCRAFT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND SEE HOW MANY THERE ARE OVER SOUTHERN ENGLAND DURING THE DAY-ITS A NEVER ENDING STREAM OVER LONDON. ALL THE PARTICULATES THEY PRODUCE FALL ON US BUT NOBODY GIVES A TOSS AS THE EFFECT ON LONDONS POLLUTION.
Yes Harry, I live with that, in a ruler straight line one and a half miles West of Heathrow’s Northern runway. Plane noise is as bad, generally, as it was 40 years ago but with the number of Aircraft movements 3 times as high as then. Heathrow Airport Owners and staff deny there is much pollution from the Aircraft, in fact, in trying to justify and get the massive further expansion they want, on the Ground and in the Air, they claim innocence of pollution from Aircraft and blame the Road Vehicles, a lot of which traffic is, of course, generated by the Airport but they are all for expanding Ultra Low Emission zones just outside the Airport. At a recent meeting I attended, a consultant they had at the Meeting was slamming Diesels but talking about the possibility of something like electric powered aircraft as though it was just coming over the horizon. Air Transport is increasing massively all the time, but a lot of it is not necessary, just pleasure. It is a precious facility but extremely damaging to numerous aspects of our Environment, World Wide. The right to use it should be ‘rationed’ and its Operators should become much more honest about the damaging effects of their Industry.
re aircraft emissions, not only CO2, Nox and other combustion byproducts, throw in the general contamination caused by fuel dumping on approach, I have a greenhouse in W London, the glass need complete de-greasing every year and that can only come from the skies from aircraft as the pass over.
Add Noise Pollution, especially BA & Virgin, but of course extending the airport over-rides any complaints in pollution when there’s money to be made doesn’t it
Are you sure its not just greenhouse gas 🙂
I agree, everyone talks about the humble car and pollution… what about trains, lorry’s and aircraft not to mention helicopters they are huge polluters. Aviation fuel is one of the lowest and dirtiest fuel produced. The government think their so clever don’t they.
Interesting thought that ‘pleasure’ is thought of as something that is ‘not necessary’ as a reason for increased air traffic. Surely it is the endless business trips, many of which are little more than ‘jollies’, when much of the communication could be done online, that are unnecessary. The whole of human life isn’t based on working.
Good observation Peter L., but my main intended point was that the ‘privilege ‘ of travelling by Air should be ‘rationed’, and especially for the so called business trips that are in fact a cover for pleasure ”jollies’ disguised as vital business travel. Thanks for spotting that and pointing it out.
Harry, Negligible compared to land-based transport. Hysteria.
All coming from MP’s as they balls up Brexit.
These greenhouse gases don’t seem to be working as they should, in spite of a few warm days in February, (last year we were in the grip of snow and ice). The overall trend is stable if not cooling. The whole AGW scam is the reason for the attacks on diesel and petrol cars.
It is being challenged even in Germany: http://notrickszone.com/2019/02/26/climate-scientist-prof-horst-ludecke-tells-german-bundestag-environment-committee-co2-reduction-policy-is-mad/
Do we (British government) not do our own tests?
Can’t afford it, too many on benefits that aren’t entitled to it
We’ve all long accepted that Governments use the motorist as cash cows, always looking to grab every last penny, but could anyone please explain to me why a diesel car should face a higher parking charge than its petrol equivalent.
Simply because the politicians will take any / every opportunity to grab more and more of your hard earned money…
For example.. if you have to buy another car because of legislation, taxation etc… who gets the VAT?
Didn’t know they did. Where is that?
We all know the motorist is a cash cow for government and local authorities. Why all of a sudden is diesel ten pence a litre more than petrol?
Tax tax tax, they make the rules as they go. Furthermore, don’t get me going on so called experts. The world is full of so called scientists, they read a lot but actually know nothing.
Pete. Expert definition. An ex is someone who was once (a has been ) and a spert is a drip under pressure.
That about sums up the entire government in one sentence there Alan hahaha
Not just the government but the whole of parliament and the senior levels of the civil service.
An expert is by definition someone who knows more than others. If they don’t, they cease to be an expert. So complain about non-experts, or people who falsely claim to be experts, but don’t bore us all by parroting Gove, Johnson, and Trump
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
While I always thought the OLD diesels were a pollution factor, I am still certain that a very large percentage of the diesel pollution comes from PSV’s and HGV’s especially when under a heavy load or climbing a hill. You only have to look at the exhaust of these vehicles to see the amount of smoke etc. that is being pumped out. That is something you do not get with a car other than the older taxi’s. This has not been detected due to the inadequacies of the PSV and HGV MOT which only tests the engine emission without ‘load’.
Forget HGV/PSV its cargo ships. According to some estimates 1 cargo ship = 50m cars.
Source; http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182
and;
https://www.dw.com/en/think-diesel-cars-are-dirty-try-ships/a-40278610
Southampton are talking about charging diesels to enter the city, totally ignoring the ships that come in and sit for at least nine hours with engines running. Of course they don’t affect the readings 🤔
Don’t visit, they will soon change their minds when their economy suffers from lack of visitors.
You don’t need an apostrophe to make a plural.
Modern trucks are euro 6, way beyond cars with cats and egr plus adblue to reduce nox. My fully loaded, 44ton, hgv will return around 9.5- 10 mpg so your light weight 1.5 tonne car should be doing 100mpg easily. You see a lot of heat haze with some smoke but this is steam from adblue or regen on the dpf.
I agree with all you say about hgv s.but have an idea to have a distribution centre outside London and all the greenys come and collect there goods on bicycles from there.
As anybody thought about houses that use oil for heating, I do not know the figures but I sure the emmisions with be nowhere as clean as resent diesel engines
Wrong. Modern oil boilers are very efficient and clean.
I’ve heard,on the grapevine,that there is an accessary ‘box of tricks’ that you can fit into the exhaust pipes of the older diesels that can help to reduce the emissions ,to or below, the legal limits that are required by law.I’ve tried to find some information about these devices but can’t find any trace.As a pensioner,and find it quite difficult to run my car,one of these devices will help me keep my car for longer – if I can find out where to get one.Once I loose my car through it failing it’s MoT test through excesive emisions,I will never be able to afford another car !!
As an owner of the very clean Mercedes C220D it is rather galling that I am on the receiving end of a blanket ‘punishment’ for all diesel owners irrespective of age and cleanness. Diesel now is typically 11p per litre more than unleaded, and the clueless politicians’ obsession with a general demonisation of diesels is allowing the oil companies to profit without any guilt, because they’re being green aren’t they?
All ICE vehicles no matter ‘How clean they are’ still produce tail pipe gases. Diesel vehicles will still be around it’s horses for courses but eventually they will die out, you will see the in vintage rallies and we will say Oh they were the days. Don’t feel guilty for driving a diesel now when you want to change to another vehicle cosider the alternatives.
So do horses and humans
based on CO2 emmisions an EU6 diesel is better for the environment than a Li+ battery powered car for at least 10 years.
the ICE is here for a good while yet, and even with the Zero Emmision at point of consumption, the Electricity needs to be generated somewhere and stored, so the costs of the ZOE generation are just passed to the distribution and generation, as well as the Cell manufacture and re-use
But it’s about tail pipe emissions and polution in town centres. Electricity generation is getting greener all the time. Over 50% reusable generation in UK one month last year I saw reported.
Battery manufacturing carbon footprint is, I agree, a challenge. It already being improved rapidly though.
The only way to ensure that the UK has zero electrical generation emissions is to scrap all fossil fuel power stations and make up the shortfall by importing electrical power from abroad until there is enough green electricity to supply the growing trend towards a carbon neutral supply. However with the headlong rush to remove all ICE vehicles by 2040 in favour EV’s the distribution network of supply will not cope with demand solely from the green generation and the distribution system will be totally unable to cope with the demand put on it. To import such a high quantity of electrical power will be costly but at least it will be other countries that will increase their carbon footprint, but not the UK
I have always said CO2 emissions are not a pollutant only Nox and carbon soot there is plenty of scope for filtering these out , even EV’s pollute like all cars they give off brake and tyre dust.
Are you serious? OK – I’ll run with it. Tyre dust yes – obviously, but I would say unimportantly by comparison. Brake dust – nowhere near as much on EVs due to regenerative braking. I rarely use the brakes on my Kona as it will brake to a halt using regen. Nice not have brake dust all over the alloys too!
Phil, no matter how lightly you apply your brakes such particles will be generated due to the fact that as Asbestos was banned from the manufacture of brake pads they and the brake rotors are now made from a softer material and wear at a much quicker rate.
You are absolutely correct in saying that the average increase over petrol is around 11p per litre, but that and much more is tax as diesel is FAR cheaper to produce than petrol.
Diesel and Petrol have IDENTICAL taxation
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the cost of petrol and diesel in the 1970’s.
Diesel was around 2/3 the cost of petrol.
I enquired about why the cost of diesel was now higher, on this website actually and the answer was that it requires a much higher temperature to produce.
HorseS%$t.
Not True!! Both petrol and are heated to the same temperature, well above their boiling points and then cooled and condensed in a fractionating tower. The petrol condenses first then the diesel, further down the tower. http://encyclopedia.che.engin.umich.edu/Pages/SeparationsChemical/DistillationColumns/DistillationColumns.html
No more expensive to produce diesel than petrol. Oil company or retailer rip-off.
Also during the winter period al lot of heating oil is produced for those of us not fortunate to be attached to the gas grid and this makes diesel more expensive.
It is the other way round in the Republic of Ireland Diesel is still cheaper than petrol. Both are around the same level as in the UK but when you convert the Euro price to sterling much cheaper. The only reason that diesel is more expensive than petrol in the UK is extra tax and profiteering by retailers etc
I have never been able to understand why diesel cost more ,After all it’s the waste from the petrol been taken out first
When I had a courier business I did ask once why is diesel more than petrol and was told by the garage manager it is and always have been
I did tell him that diesel was once cheaper and petrol and when the government saw how many diesel car etc was been sold the cost went up
Correct me if I am wrong
there’s your answer, in your first sentence – as a by-product of petrol, there can never be more diesel than petrol, but we now have more diesel cars than petrol, which was never going to be sustainable. laws of supply and demand come into force.
Mr Lanky, 10-11p/litre (about 8%) is a small extra price to pay for a fuel that takes your vehicle at least 20% further than the corresponding petrol-engined model. I respectfully suggest you reserve your protests for aspects that truly penalise you.
Don’t understand your logic??? Surely it’s about the cost of production and not what you gain from it?
We also need to look at the impact of producing, maintenance and end of life disposal of these cars. When are we going to start looking at the whole picture?
Here we go again, they have just put up the taxes on new cars because they are DIRTY, now they find it is untrue, are they going to put the tax back down
NO!
In my opinion, for what it is worth, it is not the cleanliness of the diesel engine that is the main point but the different government bodies taking the opportunity to raise revenue @ the expense of the diesel motorist.
On another note, I like the idea of electric vehicles but they have their own downside. The extra cost translated into distances covered & therefore fossil fuel saving do not equate for the average motorist. No one will publish the mileage required to justify the additional purchase costs of electric vehicles as they did when diesel cars were being pushed as alternatives to petrol.
Mileage requirements not frequently published because most of the car industry is behind the 8 ball and not ready with electric cars so won’t advertise the fact. Can be found if you Google it :). Already the electric Golf is cheaper overall than its ICE brethren (average mileage required). But cycling is unbeatable from a cost perspective and useful for most journeys, not suggesting replace the car, but reduce its use.
Your comment on cycling is correct in the main but in my case I think the savings would/could be multiplied many times then loaded onto the NHS, (unfit pensioner), rephrased (pensioner – not fit)
The new Golf EV might be cheaper overall than its ICE bretheren, but what poultion was there to extract the monerals for the batteries, the transport if those, and the manufacturing process to make them and maintain them ? They are all carefully forgotten.
Time to draw a line under the hysteria regarding diesels and examine the truth. There will be a place for diesels for a long time yet and the popular ethos that electric will solve everything is a fallacy.
In aviation, whilst electric aircraft are a reality, they are slow – there is no option as yet to replace the jet engine for airliners etc and they use Jet A1 which is very similar to diesel – in fact Raptor Aircraft are using an Audi TDi engine in their new aeroplane and yet burning Jet A1 (aviation fuel) in it instead of standard diesel fuel – and it works great!
This is another confirmation that it’s not the diesel engine that’s at fault but the fuel that it uses which is a product of gasolean oil.
When Dr Diesl built the first compression ignition engine which now bears his name he ran it on vegetable oil. Modern Diesel Engines can, with minor tweaks, still run on vegetable oils; and vegetable oils don’t create the harmful gases which are the target of all the so-called “experts” and politicians.
Vegetable oils are actually self-evidently “renewable” as they can be grown commercially, almost anywhere. Thus the Diesel Engine is actually the cleanest means of power generation and the best user of renewables there is.
Sadly, politicians have targeted the Diesel Engine not because they see it as polluting but because its greater efficiency means that the taxes they levy on the “diesel fuel” we buy from fuel stations are proportionately less than on “petrol fuel”.
Surprised by that as I thought that veg oil will contain contain carbon and hence produce Co2when burned. The Nox I thought due to fact that air that contains nitrogen is compressed and burned and that is what is responsible for the NOx, rather than the fuel content. People that say that Co2 isn’t a pollutant or even that it is ok as is a plant nutrient have to bear in mind that like all nutrient it’s having it in the right amounts.
David, I think it’s about where the carbon comes from! Otherwise we would ban all animals, including humans, which produce CO2 from renewable sources.
The compression ignition engine is more efficient because it uses a higher compression ratio (22:1 as against 7.5:1 for a petrol engine) and achieves a higher maximum temperature. It is the higher temperature and pressure which cause more atmospheric nitrogen to combine with atmospheric oxygen to produce NOx. The latest engines achieve better tail pipe figures by removing it from the exhaust gases. .
Its time to draw a line under the hysteria regarding diesels and examine the truth.There will always be a place for diesels, for the foreseeable future anyway, and the fact that electric is not always best should be publicised and the rush to “electrify” all cars should be slowed down.
I recently had my diesel vehicle MOT’d after legally using old cooking oil ( which , as we know is super refined) and the MOT station got an extremely low reading- well below half of the industry requirement. Is it possible that if diesel was more refined, that emissions could reduced significantly- over to you diesel refiners.
I have a diesel Kia Ceed estate. I fill it up with diesel about £55 of fuel every 3 1/2 weeks and my road tax excise is £20 for the year on a 1.6CRDi engine. I defy anyone to say that this is expensive. My Co2 emissions are 47mg/km when compared to that of an Astra estate which is 194mg/km, so I am actually doing my bit to stay green. Cant argue with the Kia’s reliability. Why would I be worried about owning a diesel?
Yes Robert I own a Kia Sportage sat nav 2ltr my tax is £250 my vehicle is a 2016 if I was aware 0f this 3 years ago I would not have spent my money , and went for something different but my finances wont allow that option now
Because Robert, if you live around Manchester our champagne socialist Mayor is looking to implement a clean air zone covering the whole of “Greater Manchester” which, if your vehicle is too old, will cost you between £7 and £100 per day to drive in the zone..
Whats even worse is the mayor, which we voted not to have, is a scouser.
Can someone save Manchester please???????????????
Here we go. Keep it on car you grumpy old git
Not sure what your saying, Ron, or about who? Some of the cobblers and knee jerk reactions we’ve witnessed over many years, about Diesel powered vehicles being so much worse than Internal Combustion Engines powered by other Carbon based fuels, is enough to make any sensible person grumpy!! How about this then – Is the biggest single culprit for damaging our Planet and destroying too many good things on it the huge increase in the numbers of Homo Sapiens wanting to live on it?? Anyone up for being early in the queue for Culling and the Big Clean up??
Same with me. I have a Skoda Octavia 1.6TDI and use about £40 of fuel a month. Road tax is zero because it CO2 emissions are 99 g/km. Whatever I buy now would have an annual road tax of at least £140 so I can’t see me ditching the diesel any time soon.
Robert: You have under-rated the CO2 emissions in the two cases you quoted by a factor of 1000. I am sure you mean 47 g/km and 194 g/km respectively…
I certainly would go for a diesel engine vehicle over a petrol one any day. Now diesel engines have been cleaned up why buy petrol which produces more c02. Therefore, killing off the ozone layer. In other words killing off the whole ECO system, including human life. I believe its a fact that since diesel sales have dropped in favour of petrol. C02 levels are on the increase by some considerable amount. Long live the diesel engine!
CO2 isn’t the cause of ozone layer depletion – does however heat the planet. Weighing up short term vs long impact of old diesel vs petrol is challenging. Need for range of diesel is rare, electric range is ample for most but cycle often even better choice for most journeys.
I’m not sure, I drive a diesel now but wanted a hybrid but there too expensive!
petrol driven or diesel just not sure.
I get good mileage on my car and looking at future costs, could be expensive.
I’ve just ordered a new Diesel SUV, I drive 18000 miles a year and need to be able to tow 1.5 tons, so it’s the logical choice.
The car I chose was the Skoda Karoq, the diesel demo car was showing and average of 42, the 1.5 petrol average was 34…….
And apparently diesels are clean these days, so I’m happy with my choice 😊
This increase in diesel VED is just another lame excuse to obtain more revenue, to fund the HS2 white elephant.
Your right Colin… as latest figure show the current cost of HS2, is now around the £60 billion mark… all to save 20 minutes on a journey to London the vast majority of us will never ever undertake.
A number was touted on the radio yesterday that over £100,000,000 has been spent buying up properties along the proposed routes of HS2, before it even gets the go ahead… WHAT A WASTE!!!!!
………. yes, Trickcy., and Panorama and other documentaries have reported that many property owners on the HS2 route, including home and farm owners who have lived and worked there for generations, have been kicked out with payment offers which come nowhere near the true values of their properties nor what they would need to get another ‘place’ which would match the one being stolen from them ……….. and some of them haven’t even received the payments anyway!!
I paid 54k for a new Diesel car in 2016 with adblue, very clean engine, between the EU & UK they have misinformed everyone about Diesel engines, they no they are clean yet continue to push customers into new technology to boost sales
Whatever the Nox levels per vehicle, the numbers of cars will always damage the environment. In addition the harm done by V W will remain, as companies have become untrustworthy.
Its great, but too late. ICE is dead due to CO2, NOX was a reason for petrol as a preference, but electric is the future and there only remains a tiny % for whom the extra range is needed. Plenty will want the luxury of the range, but don’t actually need it, and this is now the primary policy issue, encouraging people to reset their expectations and prioritise reducing CO2 emissions (not an attractive proposition for the manufacturers). Make opportunities to use bikes more.
What if one is too infirm to cycle or lives in the countryside? There should be different regulations according to need. If one lives in a metropolitan area with good public transport one doesn’t need a car so much. Tax there but not in rural areas where air pollution is low anyway. Stop assuming that people don’t need car parks in towns for similar reasons.
Hi,
As a pensioner using a diesel car to tow my caravan makes sense because I get a better fuel consumption. Now, with all the new legislation and ULEZ’s I feel victimised. My diesel is 16 years old and has only done 90,000 miles. It has been serviced regularly and passes the MOT without any problems. As I am no longer earning a salary and have to use my meagre savings to buy anything large, how am I meant to afford the purchase of a new non-polluting car such as a hybrid or electric vehicle which will struggle to tow my caravan. Once again, this means that the poorer people suffer
We keep hearing how clean electric cars are, but has anyone carried out a comprehensive study that takes in the carbon cost of production and energy used. Also, my understanding is that the production of Lithium is itself causing pollution to the environment. Some production methods use huge quantities of water and the environmental impacts are spiralling. Also, my understanding is that Lithium Ion batteries can only be recharged a certain number of time meaning that in an electric car they may need replacing after 7 years or so. What is the cost of disposing of these batteries safely ? This cost should also be considered when calculating the environmental impact and overall cost of a vehicle.
Think of the cost of replacing a failed battery.. my co worker paid £1300 for a “replacement” battery for his Civic hybrid.
I don’t think Hybrid or Electric cars can tow… so Diesel is your only option
AH, YES, we had coal fires (London SMOG!), Steam trains, etc., Vehicles that would not meet ANY current emissions levels, whilst diesels have come a very long way in reduced emissions, mine is currently ‘EURO5’ classification, the bods that ru(i)n our country do nothing to help the hard working (and retired!) people enjoy the ability to travel freely, be it costly! (TAX,TAX,TAX,TAX,TAX,)
I have a 2.0 diesel Mondeo reg in 2010. At the last MOT bottom line read ZERO EMISSIONS NONE AVAILABLE TO CALIBRATE. Yes it was in capital letters. I tow a caravan with it and do not want to change it for something with less “grunt”.
Richard Johns
what is the problem off running a diesel with veg oil or peanut etc ,that is what they were designed to run on . problem solved
I have always had diesels and always will. Everything is vastly exaggerated demonising diesels while the government fly all over trying to end Brexit in aeroplanes and .massive engined cars. Hypocritical to me. Car .makers have spent billions making diesel engines cleaner with DPF and EGRs. Slowly destroying our engines. But realy there nothing wrong with air quality. If we have a windy day it’s all gone.
I believe the diesel exhaust pollution produced by large cruise and cargo ships is massively greater than that produced by road vehicles.
Is anything being done to reduce this form of pollution ? Or is it in the out of sight out of mind category?
Road vehicles are obviously an easier target to hit.
just returned to UK from Bangkok. if you want to see what real air pollution is like, go take a look!! Its time the truth about all fossil fuels was properly analysed and made known to everyone. Its pretty obvious all the hype about diesel being a bad air pollutant has been construed for ulterior motives, and its bound to be financial, Road tax, insurance and city congestion charges, to name just a few. I cant imagine all the farmers changing their agricultural equipment for electrical powered ones. Then there is the super heavy haulage industry, including cranes etc. how big will the batteries be? Its just creating chaos.
My XE diesel has B ved rating for 109 gms plus excempt ULEZ mostly water from my exhaust better than most petrol throwing out Benzine fumes.
The inmates are running the asylum! They need to get their act together before they go signalling and banning certain vehicles. Surely there are more pressing issues surrounding air pollution and global warming than diesel cars!
Yes Les, the same political tactics as during the Falklands War (I was there). Distract the population with a meaningless but engaging debate and the more important issues may be easier to hide
It’s all a con anyway. ULEZs are just a way of extracting more money from hard-pressed motorists. Those who can afford it, or have expense accounts will still bring their big diesels into cities, and it’s only the poorer motorists who will be hit as usual.
Making new cleaner diesel cars dearer to purchase is surely defeating the object, as people will hang onto their older dirtier ones for longer. Last year I was looking for an older diesel car to tow my caravan, and I found this to be the case. They are now harder to come by and prices are rising, as people are keeping them rather than trading them in. Some people prefer diesel cars for various reasons, such as towing, so surely it should be made cheaper to trade up not dearer?
I have just bought a diesel BMW 4×4. The emissions are less than a lot of cars out there, including my mothers petrol Mercedes! Where i live electric would be very difficult due to the lack of charging facilities and the length of time it would take to charge.
I bought a new diesel in Oct 2015, Euro 6, and more than happy with the engine. Perhaps with the sudden demise, the government will change thier excess taxation back to petrol, just so they dont loose revenue? If they do, then I’ll stick with diesel always. MPG, and TORQUE are far superior than petrol. Electric is so far too expensive for comparable vehicles. But, the increase in VED will make me choose selectively at next new purchase.
Recently I submitted my diesel car for its annual MOT. It came back with an advisory which said “Emissions too low to be recorded”.
Quite happy with my EURO6 diesel. However I will use anything that gives me a good balance of performance, cost and range.
What I don’t understand is Hybrids, surely they are more polluting when running on ICE and having the extra load of all those batteries to lug around? Then there’s all those nasty chemicals in the batteries to dispose of and the batteries only last a few years (just like phones). Then you will get people dumping the cars sooner because at some point it won’t be worth replacing the batteries? How is that ‘greener’?
I have just purchased another new BMW X3 2.0litre D.
I am confident that new range of engines are as clean or even cleaner than some petrol versions.
But the added VED on my car is due to the fact it exceeds £40,000.
The added cost is £350 over and above the annual VED for 5 years .
So we are penalised for wanting to own an expensive car and not for its emissions.
As usual the motorist is an easy target.
You are absolutely right, the extra VED on your car is not about pollution, it is that the so called Political Elite can keep us plebs down. Not calling you a pleb as a derogatory term just as a shortening of plebian, the old Roman term for the population. This issue is not about pollution it is about control.
Unfortunately, until electric vehicles can cover at least 600 miles on a single charge and can be fully charged in under an hour, they aren’t going to be much good for many people. They will never be any good for people who don’t have their own off-road parking spaces outside their homes or their own parking space in a communal car park fitted with charging bays, as they wouldn’t be able to charge their cars. Even with roadside parking outside their own homes, it would be impossible to charge their cars as having an electrical lead crossing a public footpath/pavement is not allowed.
We can only go by government policy. It is there policy to penalise diesel owners and therefore not much we can do. If only those car manufacturers had not lied to everybody, this wouldn’t have been a problem. The problem lies squarely on there shoulders to go back to the government and prove that diesel is safe. Good luck to them.
I have ford focus titanium estate very low emissions, yet like many because it’s diesel fuel companies ripping us off by at 10p a litre more,plus I feel for the delivery vehicle companies they have high prices so then it has to be passed on to stores etc,making food etc dearer.The government is constantly on piggin Brexit that everything else is forgotten hence nothing done. Sad state of affairs,
Im in favour of ditching both the diesel engines and internal combustion engine altogether and start investing in alternate means of car propulsion. with 0% emissions and 0% waste by product!
Hydrogen engine??
when you die…. what zero emission method of transport would be used to transport the coffin? or do yuo expect the mourners to walk the 5/6/7/8 plus miles to the graveside? (Morbid isnt it!).
The problem with the emission of nitrogen oxides by diesels, is due to the high temperature of combustion. If in the pursuit of ever better range and power from petrol engines, the temperature of combustion rises enough in petrol engines, it’ll do exactly the same thing. Even electric sparks generate nitrogen oxides because they are so hot. Air is a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen (plus small amounts – relatively – of other gases). Even lightning produces nitrogen oxides – I’ve seen quotes that variously claim it produces anything from 7% to 15% of the total nitrogen oxides in the air. The very efficiency of the diesel engine is the cause!
What no-one seems to want to do is produce an aftermarket system that can be fitted to your vehicle to deal with the situation.
I’m not in the market for a new diesel because I intend to continue to drive my current (diesel) car for the foreseeable future (I’m moving to Spain and taking it with me). If I do live and drive long enough to need a new car, I’ll have few worries about buying diesel or alternative cars depending on the relevant issues and costs at the time. My Spanish house is out in the country, where the concentration of vehicle pollution is at it’s lowest.
Good point, and a consequence of the manufacturers pursuit to get their diesels into lower UK government VED bands. Smaller capacity engines with high pressure turbo chargers may lower CO2, but it increases N2O due to higher temp. A larger engine that doesn’t need a turbo is probably a better environmental compromise.
Whenever people demonise diesel I like to reference this article, where researchers extract the CO2 from the atmosphere to make diesel. It may only be experimental now, but imagine the impact it would have if the this project was upscaled and the costs were comparable to the current market. It’s how crude oil is obtained that’s having the biggest environmental impact. Projects like this need more funding to prove there is an alternative to drilling or electric, which would cost the global economy trillions to replace all fossil fuel burning vehicles.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
Suggest all diesel owners copy this article to their MP, although doubt it won’t have much effect as they seem to be creating much more pollution than diesel cars at the moment.
My MP only reads his bank statements & the like……if the tosser can read, that is.
There’s nothing dirtier than our ‘government’………..I rest my case m’lud.
I read over a year ago that the German company ‘Continental’ had developed a system which produced clean diesel below the European standards. What happened to that ?
My wife is a Motability car user so even though our annual mileage is low, mpg is important to us. Our current vehicle has a 1200cc petrol engine which returns around 34mpg yet our last car with a 1600cc Diesel engine regularly returned 55mpg.
When we change our car later this year, I hope a diesel will be available to us.
I am an Emissions Engineer and work with gas analysers and particularly the on board emission analysers. I know first hand that new diesel engines are much cleaner now than ever before.
It could even be argued what comes out of a modern car exhaust is cleaner than the air your breathing.
I also work on ambient air quality monitoring stations by the roadside and have seen the decline on CO&CO2 monitors. Mainly what is being analysed now are NO2,NOX PM2.5 and PM10 particulate. Newer Particle Mass analysers now measure a much broader range.
Due to my work i do travel country wide and and carry lots of equipment, currently a diesel car is still by far the most economical vehicle for me and will continue until i am forced to change or there is a similarly cost effective form of transportation.