I had a diesel 10 years ago that had a cat and didn't emit much in the way of NOx and I never saw any smoke from the exhaust. I don't know why they stopped them.
Of course there are quite a few cars about where the idiots have removed the filters and even gone as far as replacing them with fakes to get through the MOT. Better tests are needed to get them off the road preferably along with their drivers.
what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.
The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.
I would be very happy to get £8 for my old banger TW
Surely in an emergency you'd simply ignore the rules, the 'ban' won't prevent a vehicle from actually entering the prohibited area, it will just slap a fine on the owner.
looks likes the 7 grand in different expectations between buyer and seller is his problem
tim
>
the need to have a little pot that you piss in
tim
I thought it was the whole of London (as in all of the 32 boroughs), except the bits of the M25 that are inside.
tim
I don't know if it still true, but when I drove a diesel the more frequent servicing requirements cost me more than I ever saved in fuel
tim
well no
but there's going to be a large overlap
A car which "lives" inside the polluted area is bound to be driven in the polluted area.
that they are cars that live outside the polluted area that also drive there is likely to be just noise
And I'm taking the whole Greater London area as the marker here, not the CC Zone
tim
I found servicing to be far less.
Just a few filters every year. No plugs to speak of.
In message , Richard writes
?7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.
If the govt can get the price under ?1k, I promise I'll never drive or park in Central London again.
Interesting that the Kings College London guide to air pollution only says "In recent years the average level of nitrogen dioxide within London has not fallen as quickly as predicted.".
I can't see why urea injection couldn't be made cost effective and, having been ordered to wash the car this weekend, I am more convinced than ever before that tyres and brakes are the source of 10 times the particulates produced by engines. Just look at the wheels and mudguards.
My bet is that we will have chaos and confusion and that pollution won't fall.
But the sooner Mrs May bans diesels from London Brum and Leeds, the better.
To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!
The problem is that if you need to take someone ill to hospital (maybe even to A&E) there isn't really any alternative to driving there. The patient is unlikely to be well enough to negotiate public transport. And a taxi from a village or town to the city with the hospital would be prohibitively expensive. Then when you get there you have to pay extortionate over-a-barrel because-we-can parking charges, because the NHS "free at the point of use" founding principle doesn't apply to transport/parking.
except that there were dozens of them
tim
And there was me thinking that the reason you had to do a long journey from time to time was to burn the carbon off the carbon filter...
My wife works in the centre of Leeds. Trains from where we live are infrequent (once an hour) and public transport involves tedious changes. So after trying everything else, she drives to the city centre and parks in a multi-storey: at least then she can set off home as soon as she gets out of a meeting instead of waiting for the next bus/train, and can divert around traffic hold-ups.
But whereas her car meets the latest Euro emissions standard (6?), mine, at nearly 9 years old, doesn't. So she'd never be able to take my car to work (to give it a long run or to prevent accumulating quite so much mileage on her car) unless she was prepared to pay the surcharge.
So, now that the multi-storey payment is due for renewal, and now that a park and ride is finally about to open up on our side of Leeds, she's going to use that instead: at least the P&R car park will hopefully be outside the city-centre pollution boundaries.
I am very annoyed that the government has reversed its previous pro-diesel stance. My car is old enough that the effect on the resale value is negligible (the car is probably only worth a couple of hundred quid on the second hand market). We no longer use the car as the main car (eg for holidays and other long-distance journeys), so the better fuel economy is less important.
But I *like* my diesel: it is a *much* easier car to drive because it has the low-end torque to crawl in traffic with no accelerator, controlling the speed entirely on the clutch, and it will pull in a higher gear, which means that you are not forever having to change into second gear when accelerating out of a roundabout - and it's much easier and smoother to change from 6th to 3rd than 6th to 2nd. Also the engine is quieter (despite being a diesel) because it runs at a lower speed (2500 rpm rather than 4000 rpm at 70 mph), and the car has plenty of 50-80 acceleration (for overtaking) which the equivalent petrol model lacks.
If manufacturers could make a petrol engine that drove like a diesel, I'd have the best of both worlds.
A service every 20,000 miles doesn't seem that frequent to me.
Modern DI engines can go a long time between services.
Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter. ;-)
Tim
[snip]
Heck, there's one for 5 grand - bit of DIY needed: NON RUNNER,SUSPECTED CAMBELT BROKEN+NON RUNNER........NO OFFERS..full black leather interior,satnav+ motorway mileage .with FSH, cambelt changed @ 105k miles
Cambelt failure after 15k miles?
Not for a good top of the range disco in good shape.
They could. Its called a 5 litre V8..
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.