If you have a diesel car, look out.

[Andy Bennet]

Electric engines arn't

Electric engines don't

[RJH]

The essence of the scientific evidence is, I think, that DPFs are effective at filtering the larger soot particles, but not finer particles (pollution maps including PMM estimates support this).

Variables include where regeneration takes place (town/country), and effectiveness of the PDF (from presence to technology; pre-2007 are worse), and what harm is being done.

All that is known is that deaths related to respiratory illness have gone up. Research suggests a strong link with diesel:

and this little lot (from Doctors Against Diesel):

Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution, The Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Paediatric and Child health (2016), available at:

Understanding the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in London, Kings College London (2015) available at:

Lethal and Illegal: Solving London?s Air Pollution Crisis, Institute of Public Policy Research (2016) Available at:

And this site seems to be on a mission:

I haven't found much evidence supporting the continued use of diesel. Even the SMT are on the fence - at best.

[charles]

There's no such thing as an "electric engine". Ther are electric motors which rely on eelctricity generated elsewhere.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I have neverseen a BMW diesl or Freeelabnder of that engine smoking.

In fact its very rare to see any turbodiesel smoking: with a turbo you always have enough air to fully burn the mixture. And any exhaust carbon can be burnt up quite easily or filtered out.

NOx is a different matter.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Electric engines are, actually.

Electric engines generally do as well.

Ther are few motors that have the same efficiency across the power band. You select the most efficiency where you expect to be operating most of the time.

[tabbypurr]

they can do awesomely in stop-start, but since their overall mpg is worse there is no real efficiency gain.

NT

[RJH]

Try Poplar at rush hour! But larger particulate pollution has gone down. The concern is over the rise in smaller particles.

You're probably right, though - it's going to take a lot more premature deaths over many years before anything is actually done.

[tabbypurr]

At max efficiency it's far from max output, so the engine would have to be excessively large. Everything in car design is compromises & tradeoffs.

Lower compression is the problem with petrol, it means less of the motive energy is harvested.

interesting how we don't hear more about tyre particulates.

Sadly councils show no sign of learning from such cockups. That's the problem with putting people in charge that pay no price for screw ups.

Petrol, diesel & hybrid technologies are all much improving. To act heavy handedly against any one of them merely wipes out a large chance for a better future. So that's what politicians will do.

NT

[tabbypurr]

hint: we normally call those motors rather than engines

[tabbypurr]

Engines are getting steadily more efficient, meaning less junk per mile, so things are being done. I think everyone would like car technology to progr ess faster, but such is life. It has come a long way, and I look forward to it going a long way again. Stamping hard on diesels would of course very m uch set back the possible future clean efficient diesel engine.

NT

[Nightjar]

As in Britain, German cars have to pass a roadworthiness check and I presume that, as with the MOT, an analysis of the exhaust gases would be part of the test.

Visible smoke has long been prohibited by the vehicle construction and use regulations and would result in an MOT failure. It is far more likely to be steam, particularly in cold weather. I only set the air to recirculate if I can smell the car in front, but that is more likely to be a 20 year old + petrol engined car.

[Andrew]

Ford had lean-burn petrol engines all ready for production, but canned them when the EU decided that diesel was the 'future'.

[Andrew]

No ships passed me on the M4 yesterday.

Navigating the TV crews as I passed that cemetary in Salisbury was more tricky than avoiding nerve gas.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, they are really not. At best you get twice the MPG that you did in say the 1950s, and eacxh improvemnt is a massively costly one

[Andrew]

And corrupting the London 'congestion' tax by waving it for so-called low emission vehicles.

If a vehicle occupies space on the roads and it enters the charging zone then the owner should pay. Slap an extra charge for high-polluting vehicles, but don't reward owners of Prius's or the streets will just be clogged with Prius's.

[Huge]

[27 lines snipped]

Irrelevant. All I care(d) about was being penalised for running a diesel. I have no strong opinion about them, but if I start getting taxed and prohibited from taking it places, I'm going to get rid.

You may end up never being able to go anywhere.

[Huge]

You should try going to New York, then. By comparison, London is still a stinking, filthy hole, because of all the evil filth chucked out by black cabs and buses.

[Andrew]

And brains like swiss cheese :-)

[Tim Watts]

All I see is an assertion for that with no evidence that I can check.

Euro 5 which effectively required a DPF came in around 2008/9. Any vehicle older than 9-10 years could be belching smoke.

Many people have had theirs removed:

So I challenge you: how do you know they don't work? Have you been observing smoke from old vehicles or modified vehicles?

[Andrew]

Which tend to have a common theme.

At least one passenger will omit to take his or her diuetics to avoid the need for regular stops, and ends up in A&E, instead of visiting somewhere 'exiting'.