More hybrid figures...

Autocar last week did a comparison test between a Lexus GS450hSE, (hybrid) BMW 535D (diesel) and Merc E500 (petrol) Each was meant as an example of a 'state of the art' power unit in a luxury car. All were of course autos. As expected, the 5.5 litre petrol Merc had the best performance and by some margin. The BMW and Lexus were very close. But it's - as usual - the fuel consumption in the real world that is of interest. Here are the results starting with the official government ones.

BMW Lexus Merc Urban 25.9 31.7 16.7 Extra Urban 44.8 39.2 34.4 Combined 35.3 35.8 24.6

Real world:- Town 18.7 21.7 13.7 Motorway 31.0 29.0 20.6 Country 27.5 24.6 20.0 Test overall 26.3 25.9 16.3

So as usual, the 'official' figures bear no relation to real world driving conditions, and favour the hybrid.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)
Loading thread data ...

but remember to add in the exhaust emissions to the equation.

the Toyota drive train emissions and driveability are really nice, try driving them, the Toyota Lexus system is lovely.

as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the winter and 55 plus in the summer. plus low tax and congestion charge.

Apparently though on long term running costs a hummer beats the lot!!!!

mrcheerful

Reply to
mrcheerful

The message from "mrcheerful ." contains these words:

I get 45mpg out of my elderly Audi and that's without the environmental expense of producing a new car.

Reply to
Guy King

Yep. My wife's car gets 62mph and only costs 40 quid in tax.

I'm definitely in favour of much more punitive taxation for the higher classes. However, I hope they don't get too arsey with 7 seat Group E vehicles. I bought the lowest emission 7 seater I could find (and afford), which was a Zafira 2.0DTi. It had 4g/km too much for Group E. However, as its use often means that we don't need to run two cars for a journey, I bet, on average, that it saves us CO2 over a 5 seater Group D. I hope that this is eventually taken into account when the tax differentials ramp up.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

I'd suggest he checks his figures accurately. The Prius is even further away from its 'official' figures in real world use. Those official figures have recently been revised downwards in the US after many complaints. Hasn't happened here yet as they're so rare on UK roads.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

This is the same Autocar which said the Prius did an average of 23mpg - what a belly laugh that was. Yep, they did say that. What a laugh that was. The emissions on the Lexus will be way down on the IC engined cars to the point that 6 Lexus will be the equiv to one of the crocks and also the noise of it will be whisper quiet, while diesel cars should be banned on noise alone.

The Tesla does 130mpg equiv and is silent and zero emissions.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Same as me.

Only if you leave it on the drive.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

And probably pollutes like hell ruining lungs by the million..

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

I suggest you eff off as you are an idiot.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

That's zero at the point of use, of course. The energy still has to come from somewhere and /all/ energy production has /some/ environmental impact.

Reply to
Guy King

The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Well, it's cat equipped and passes its particulate test each year by a considerable margin.

Of course it pollutes, all forms of transport, except possibly walking barefoot pollute. It's questionable whether the pollution caused by making a new car for me would be greater than the pollution caused by me running a well maintained old car.

Reply to
Guy King

Why?>

I am definitely in favour of punitive FUEL taxation, but leave the cars alone...

Fuel savings comes from all the little cars NOT doing the school run, NOT doing a supermarket run EVERY DAY and not doing 100 mile commutes every day.

Not from some poor old aristo who takes out the Roller once a week to visit Harrods..or the Range Rover to go grouse shooting.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

By taxing at a rate that is greater than proportionate to use, you are more likely to affect behaviour.

I just think that the number of seats in a vehicle should be taken into account to some extent, as the extra seats will take other vehicles off the road, reducing effective emissions. Obviously, this can't be overdone, or people will simply buy cars with more seats that they don't need. By dropping a band by having 7 (or possibly 6) seats or more, or rising a band by having 2 seats or less, the market will actually be less distorted and the tax more in line with the likely CO2 emissions per person/km.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

Except that it doesn't work. People who want to have big, fuel consuming cars will pay for them.

I am not sure that that's a logical conclusion. It might be if you were comparing buses of different sizes. However people use their cars as a family for the most part. They don't generally provide a local bus service, except in cases such as a very long run to school where it might encourage lift sharing among neighbours.

Is it a question of seats or space though? I like to have a large vehicle so that I can take stuff around easily. However, I don't want that many seats.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Of course. To prevent that, you'd have to ban them, which I do not propose. However, I would like them to pay much more than proportionally more. That money I would like to see invested in CO2 neutral energy technology.

Also, it would deter a good number of people as well. Only the real petrol heads will continue with a Group G car. Lots of people would be put off and buy something less damaging.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

Which means its pollutes a little than without.

A new car does nor pollute so much at point of use.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Yep. And saves miliosn of lungs in ueban areas.

Some a hell of lot more than others.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

I think the solution is to make people drive Ford GT40s like Jeremy Clarkson. Single digit mpg figures when used in anger but it only works for

1 day in every 10 so the average emissions are better than a hybrid.
Reply to
Dave Baker

The problem with your solution is that few could sleep with all the alarms going off outside the window.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

That's why it would be better to put the tax onto fuel in the form of a higher VAT rate rather than vehicles. Those consuming more fuel and used more often would attract higher cost.

Not sure about that. Taxation typically does not alter behaviour to any great extent for any length of time; the exception being the Lottery, which seems to attract the gullible.

Reply to
Andy Hall

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.