what diesel?
Gav
At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without losing
out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
Looking to spend about 8k on something about 3/4 years old.
cheers
Iain Dingsdale
"Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
pug diesels are pretty good, you might be able to get a 406 HDi for that.
ive got a mondeo td which i really like, 8k would get you a mk3 2.0 TDCI,
the new ones are meant to be very good
8k would also get you a nice passat TDi PD, the new VW diesels are very good
indeed
>
> cheers
>
>
F- Red
says...
>
> "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> > Anyone here driving a diesel that they would really recommend?
> >
> > At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without losing
> > out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
> >
> > Looking to spend about 8k on something about 3/4 years old.
>
>
> pug diesels are pretty good, you might be able to get a 406 HDi for that.
>
Worth having a lurk on
news:alt.autos.peugeot
before you commit to buying one of these, good engine
but the build and reliability is CRAP..
VW or Skoda, if you are not badge snob would be my preference
--
F-Red
Iain Dingsdale
"F- Red" <F-...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.190c8d518...@text.news.ntlworld.com...
i would personally go for a VW group car, skoda probably being the best VFM
but are they doing the new PD engines for skodas yet? my dad had a 406 and
its been fine so far
>
> --
> F-Red
DervMan
Eight grand will get you something much newer than that. But I suppose it
depends on what you want, what you need, and what you're prepared to drive.
When you write "small hatchback" do you mean a supermini sized car, such as
a Corsa, Fiesta, or Ibiza? Or do you mean something from the Focus or Astra
class (which I think you do)?
To be fair, there are very few lemons in the Mondeo size class. I'd
heartily recommend the Peugeot 406 HDi, but opt for the 110 model if you
can, or the 2.2. However, note that the 406 is a saloon, so if you need
hatchback versatility, you might want to look elsewhere. The Xantia is,
however, a hatchback, has the same engines, and is a great car, plus it
depreciates quickly, so you can get a later one at a great price. Only
downsides that I can think of on the Xantia are the seats are not always
comfortable (depends on the model and your shape), and the suspension /
driving can feel a bit remote, which is not to all tastes.
I've seen a few Rover 75 2.0 CDTs kicking about with a tempting price tag.
Although disliked by some magazines because they are a bit soft, to be fair
this probably isn't an issue for most people. Performance is a bit tame,
but they are seriously refined machines and the automatic is a peach.
If you can get comfortable behind the wheel of the previous generation
Vectra and you do a lot of motorway miles, the 2.0 or 2.2 diesel models are
inexpensive, and good long haul machines. The later cars drive much better
than the earlier machines, and because of the new model, they're
inexpensive.
I have a soft spot for Mondeo diesels and I'm hugely biased towards them,
but unless you can get a current generation TDCi, we'll skip these. :)
The VAG products benefit from a great range of engines (the TDI), but I
consider VW and Audi to be expensive and staid for what they are, but again
I'm biased because every VW and Audi dealership has been snooty with me.
Some have even lied, /cough/ implied incorrect facts about their products.
Seats and Skodas are good machines, though, but the Octavia has a Golf sized
interior so might be a bit small for what you want. I'd also avoid the SDI
models, since they're lethargic.
Indeedy, thinking about the rest, such as the Laguna, yeah they're all
probably good enough, so I suppose it depends on what you want - comfort,
handling, performance . . . interior space . . .
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Oliver Keating
No.
> At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without losing
> out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
Wrong. LPG is the way.
> Looking to spend about 8k on something about 3/4 years old.
Do a search on autotrader for LPG, I think you will be surprised at the
choice. LPG converted vehicles are cheaper to buy (used), get better economy
(in pence per mile), have better power (well depends on what you go for, but
better economy *and* power than diesel is possible). Also, if you are lucky
you will be congestion charge exempt, and while you may not think that
applies to you, just wait until the scheme is rolled out nationally. Oh, and
not that anyone cares, its between 50 and 500 times cleaner than diesel ;)
> cheers
>
>
Iain Dingsdale
"Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> > Anyone here driving a diesel that they would really recommend?
>
> No.
>
> > At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without
losing
> > out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
>
> Wrong. LPG is the way.
there is no right or wrong, lpg conversions dont have the range of diesel
cars, diesels are better for towing, and some people prefer the driving, you
loose the boot space with lpg...
DervMan
news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
Wrong, get a LPG diesel. More power than either, better economy than
either, bosh, job's done.
LPG's biggest weaknesses are that the engines are not so efficient on LPG,
you need to carry around FOB tanks with you that robs you of boot space and
adds to the weight, and the big question marks over future tax treatment.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Oliver Keating
"DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7u4ik$4ilgr$3...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> > > Anyone here driving a diesel that they would really recommend?
> > choice. LPG converted vehicles are cheaper to buy (used), get better
> economy
> > (in pence per mile), have better power (well depends on what you go for,
> but
> > better economy *and* power than diesel is possible). Also, if you are
> lucky
> > you will be congestion charge exempt, and while you may not think that
> > applies to you, just wait until the scheme is rolled out nationally. Oh,
> and
> > not that anyone cares, its between 50 and 500 times cleaner than diesel
;)
>
>
> Wrong, get a LPG diesel. More power than either, better economy than
> either, bosh, job's done.
I think the thing about economy is somewhat dubious. It depends how much
more power you require ;).
Do you happen to know what the emmissions of an LPG diesel are like?
> LPG's biggest weaknesses are that the engines are not so efficient on LPG,
Well, that is not quite true. The engines are no less efficient, it is just
that LPG has a lower volumetric energy density than petrol. Efficiency is
measured in terms of how much energy in the fuel is converted into motive
power, and on that basis, LPG can be marginally better as it gives a cleaner
burn.
> you need to carry around FOB tanks with you that robs you of boot space
and
That is a disadvantage, but hopefully LPG-only vehicles will become
commonplace before too long. I would be quite happy to have an LPG only
vehicle, I haven't needed to run on petrol in yonks.
> adds to the weight
Whats an extra 50kg? That is no more than having a child on board.
>, and the big question marks over future tax treatment.
The Government has made it clear that the most environmentally friendly fuel
widely available will be taxed the least. The freeze on fuel duty ends in
2004, but it is likely increases in duty will not exceed inflation. The
hydrogen fuel economy is a very long way off.
> --
> The DervMan
> www.dervman.com
>
>
Oliver Keating
"Iain Dingsdale" <i.din...@exeter.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3ea28...@news1.vip.uk.com...
>
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> > > Anyone here driving a diesel that they would really recommend?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without
> losing
> > > out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
> >
> > Wrong. LPG is the way.
>
> there is no right or wrong, lpg conversions dont have the range of diesel
> cars
As I said, do a search on autotrader, youd be surprised. Also, if you do the
conversion yourself you can convert any petrol car.
> diesels are better for towing
Get a larger engine for that.
>, and some people prefer the driving,
Masochists?
> you
> loose the boot space with lpg...
True, but there are ways around this, like getting rid of the spare (and
using special foam in the instance of a flat). Or ripping out the petrol
fuel tank
Iain Dingsdale
"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
news:b7u6rn$aub$1...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> "Iain Dingsdale" <i.din...@exeter.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >"Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> >news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> >> news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> >> > Anyone here driving a diesel that they would really recommend?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> > At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without
> >losing
> >> > out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
> >>
> >> Wrong. LPG is the way.
> >
> >there is no right or wrong, lpg conversions dont have the range of diesel
> >cars, diesels are better for towing, and some people prefer the driving,
you
> >loose the boot space with lpg...
>
yerrr........
>
>
> --
> "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
> The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
> [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
>
>
Gav
> news:alt.autos.peugeot
> before you commit to buying one of these, good engine
> but the build and reliability is CRAP..
> VW or Skoda, if you are not badge snob would be my preference
Quality is something I am worried about, at the moment. I have always had
japanese cars because of quality but they dont seem to make great diesels in
my budget unless I look at older or higher mileage cars.
I have a micra so most cars will be big enough, but now that the micra has
got my insurance back down below extortionate figures Im looking to trade it
in for something that will last me about 5 years and still be worth more
than scrap value at the end, hence going for a diesel
I have also been looking at 5door civics and primeras (both previous shapes)
and similar cars. Doesnt seem to be too many octavias or toldeos (my choice)
on the market without high mileages or dubious histories; they are a good
car and people tend to hang on to them.
That reminds me of a story I heard about a 99T Octavia tdi taxi in the uk
that has done over 600,000 miles with only regular servicing and a new turbo
after 500,000. Not bad!
Thanks for the suggestions Derv man; you really know your stuff.
G
Gav
LPG interesting.
I am more than a little dubious about lpg, they are still a petrol engine
and I feel that diesel engines are much more reliable and hardwearing and
cheaper to run in terms of servicing and insurance costs as well as resale
value.
I am also dubious of the governments promises with regard to lpg, deja vu
anyone?
G.
DervMan
Nope, actually, not. But I do know that they're so powerful, they have to
have a proper child-proof mesh on the air intake, to prevent sucking up
kiddies and suchlike.
> > LPG's biggest weaknesses are that the engines are not so efficient on
LPG,
>
> Well, that is not quite true. The engines are no less efficient, it is
just
> that LPG has a lower volumetric energy density than petrol.
Petrol engines converted to dual fuel are less efficient on LPG *and* LPG is
less dense, heh.
> Efficiency is
> measured in terms of how much energy in the fuel is converted into motive
> power, and on that basis, LPG can be marginally better as it gives a
cleaner
> burn.
>
> > you need to carry around FOB tanks with you that robs you of boot space
> and
>
> That is a disadvantage, but hopefully LPG-only vehicles will become
> commonplace before too long. I would be quite happy to have an LPG only
> vehicle, I haven't needed to run on petrol in yonks.
Agreed. These were promised years ago . . . no sign yet. Just more fuel
fuels.
> > adds to the weight
>
> Whats an extra 50kg? That is no more than having a child on board.
I guess that would depend on the vehicle, but it's also where the weight it
put. 50 kg on a smaller Ka makes a bigger difference.
> >, and the big question marks over future tax treatment.
>
> The Government has made it clear that the most environmentally friendly
fuel
> widely available will be taxed the least. The freeze on fuel duty ends in
> 2004, but it is likely increases in duty will not exceed inflation. The
> hydrogen fuel economy is a very long way off.
I still smell a big rat. And a large deficit in the Governments account . .
. and easy victims . . . car drivers.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
F- Red
> "Iain Dingsdale" <i.din...@exeter.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >> Wrong. LPG is the way.
> >
> >there is no right or wrong, lpg conversions dont have the range of diesel
> >cars, diesels are better for towing, and some people prefer the driving, you
> >loose the boot space with lpg...
>
>
Don't think so, 95% of the worlds oil fields have now past their peek
available production level.
It Wont be that long till we are all running on rapeseed oil.
--
F-Red
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7u58u$9gg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7u4ik$4ilgr$3...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> >
> > I think the thing about economy is somewhat dubious. It depends how much
> > more power you require ;).
> >
> > Do you happen to know what the emmissions of an LPG diesel are like?
>
> Nope, actually, not. But I do know that they're so powerful, they have to
> have a proper child-proof mesh on the air intake, to prevent sucking up
> kiddies and suchlike.
LOL. Even so though, it is a quite complex system, your probably better off
installing a nitrous system on a petrol car ;)
> > > LPG's biggest weaknesses are that the engines are not so efficient on
> LPG,
> >
> > Well, that is not quite true. The engines are no less efficient, it is
> just
> > that LPG has a lower volumetric energy density than petrol.
>
> Petrol engines converted to dual fuel are less efficient on LPG *and* LPG
is
> less dense, heh.
No they are not. GRRR
I will repeat efficiency is a measure of energy in versus energy out. And
LPG does slightly better than petrol. Diesels do slightly better, mainly
because of a higher compression ratio.
Now the next thing to consider is the MPG figure, diesels are the best
because they have the highest energy density followed by petrol, and then
LPG.
If we bought fuel at the pumps by mass instead of by volume, LPG would
appear to be more efficient, as it has a higher mass energy density than
petrol. So the business about efficiency is arbritary until you consider the
energy in the fuel to begin with.
> > Efficiency is
> > measured in terms of how much energy in the fuel is converted into
motive
> > power, and on that basis, LPG can be marginally better as it gives a
> cleaner
> > burn.
> >
> > > you need to carry around FOB tanks with you that robs you of boot
space
> > and
> >
> > That is a disadvantage, but hopefully LPG-only vehicles will become
> > commonplace before too long. I would be quite happy to have an LPG only
> > vehicle, I haven't needed to run on petrol in yonks.
>
> Agreed. These were promised years ago . . . no sign yet. Just more fuel
> fuels.
Slowly slowly we are seeing cars like the Ford Focus 1.8 lpg, which is the
same price as the Focus 1.8 Tdci
> > > adds to the weight
> >
> > Whats an extra 50kg? That is no more than having a child on board.
>
> I guess that would depend on the vehicle, but it's also where the weight
it
> put. 50 kg on a smaller Ka makes a bigger difference.
But if you are running with an empty petrol tank....
> > >, and the big question marks over future tax treatment.
> >
> > The Government has made it clear that the most environmentally friendly
> fuel
> > widely available will be taxed the least. The freeze on fuel duty ends
in
> > 2004, but it is likely increases in duty will not exceed inflation. The
> > hydrogen fuel economy is a very long way off.
>
> I still smell a big rat. And a large deficit in the Governments account .
.
> . and easy victims . . . car drivers.
Yeah, but basically the uptake of LPG has been poor. The optimistic
projections are for 250,000 vehicles by 2005, but out of 22 odd million
vehicles thats not a lot. No gaping hole in the budget for some time, and I
expect congestion charging will replace fuel duty in the future.
> --
> The DervMan
> www.dervman.com
>
>
Oliver Keating
>
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7u58u$9gg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> LPG interesting.
>
> I am more than a little dubious about lpg, they are still a petrol engine
> and I feel that diesel engines are much more reliable and hardwearing and
> cheaper to run in terms of servicing and insurance costs as well as resale
> value.
LPG is much cleaner than petrol, and the oil in a converted engine will be a
lot cleaner as a result. In fact, it is said you can get away with changing
the oil only every 20,000 miles in an LPG car (compared to 6,000 for a
diesel).
I changed my oil at 10,000 miles, and it wasn't black in the slightest, it
looked like the new oil, but slightly off colour, I was amazed - usually it
is thick sludge.
Cleaner oil means the engine wears less hard.
And resale values are getting better all the time, and if you buy a used
(already converted) car then you could experience flat depreciation as it is
believed that when the public become more accustomed to LPG, converted
vehicles will command quite a premium over their petrol counterparts.
And LPG is sooooooo much more environmentally friendly than diesel
> I am also dubious of the governments promises with regard to lpg, deja vu
> anyone?
Been fairly good so far. Grants towards conversion, half price fuel,
congestion charge excempt, what more could you want.
>
> G.
>
>
Oliver Keating
"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
news:b7u6rn$aub$1...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> "Iain Dingsdale" <i.din...@exeter.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> >> news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> >> > Anyone here driving a diesel that they would really recommend?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> > At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without
> >losing
> >> > out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
> >>
> >> Wrong. LPG is the way.
> >
> >there is no right or wrong, lpg conversions dont have the range of diesel
> >cars, diesels are better for towing, and some people prefer the driving,
you
> >loose the boot space with lpg...
>
>
While in the USA, this is pretty much already the case, it is not in Europe.
In the USA, very tight emmissions regulations basically mean most diesel
cars are not available, not that Americans have a great affection for
diesels anyway. I don't think manufacturers care too much because diesels
wouldn't sell very well, as Americans are suspicious in the same way the
English are suspicious of LPG.
However, in Europe the situation is different. Not only does diesel give
better economy than petrol, it is cheaper - a double whammy which makes it
very popular - more so than here.
So the UK sits in the middle of Europe and the USA on this issue. I think a
ban in Europe would be difficult, but if they continue to ratchet up
emmissions limits (like Euro IV) then diesels are going to have an
increasingly hard time.
Of course another fact is that diesel cars do have lower CO2 emmisions, all
European countries are trying to get those figures down and are hence
cutting diesel more slack than the USA (who don't give a hoot about CO2).
My vote is more efficient petrol cars. One of the problem about diesels is
that manufacturers thing that if you want an economical car, you'll buy a
diesel. And haven't really worked hard to make petrols more economic.
Mark
>>
>> LPG interesting.
>>
> Been fairly good so far. Grants towards conversion, half price fuel,
> congestion charge excempt,
>
> what more could you want.
A sustainable source for the bloody stuff ?
Julian Stafford
> And LPG is sooooooo much more environmentally friendly than diesel
Can't let you get away with that I'm afraid, an LPG powered vehicle has
nowhere near the same Specific fuel consumption of Compression ignition,
engine efficiency is not in the same league. So mile for mile the LPG emits
greater amounts of green house gases and depletes the earths reserves of
crude at a greater rate.
WRT Diesel and the pricing policy, why are this government out of step with
pretty much the whole of western Europe I wonder? Can I suggest it's because
they don't really have much vision, simply because of shocking advice from
their scientists.
The answer long term really has got to be a sustainable fuel like
Bio-Diesel, If the Govt gave the same tax concessions to bio D as it does to
LPG (which won't last, Govt's can't be trusted) then LPG would finish
virtually overnight.
Julian.
Julian Stafford
> I suggest you do a Google search for "nitrobenzanthrone" and another
> one for "diesel ban". (78,000 hits...)
>
> For myself, I would definitely like to see them banned unless they
> are fitted with particulate traps and catalysts.
You could also do a google on 'benzene,' a component of petrol and a
powerful carcinogen.
WRT particulates, remember that there is growing evidence that it is the
smallest invisible (less that 10 microns I think) particulates that are the
most damaging to health, petrol engines are just as guilty for emitting
these as Diesels.
Julian.
DervMan
> "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b7ualg$4d24c$1...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7u58u$9gg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b7u4ik$4ilgr$3...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
>
> > >
> > > I think the thing about economy is somewhat dubious. It depends how
much
> > > more power you require ;).
> > >
> > > Do you happen to know what the emmissions of an LPG diesel are like?
> >
> > Nope, actually, not. But I do know that they're so powerful, they have
to
> > have a proper child-proof mesh on the air intake, to prevent sucking up
> > kiddies and suchlike.
>
> LOL. Even so though, it is a quite complex system, your probably better
off
> installing a nitrous system on a petrol car ;)
Heh. Less fun with nitrous 'cos you only use it in small bursts.
> > > > LPG's biggest weaknesses are that the engines are not so efficient
on
> > LPG,
> > >
> > > Well, that is not quite true. The engines are no less efficient, it is
> > just
> > > that LPG has a lower volumetric energy density than petrol.
> >
> > Petrol engines converted to dual fuel are less efficient on LPG *and*
LPG
> is
> > less dense, heh.
>
> No they are not. GRRR
>
> I will repeat efficiency is a measure of energy in versus energy out. And
> LPG does slightly better than petrol. Diesels do slightly better, mainly
> because of a higher compression ratio.
>
> Now the next thing to consider is the MPG figure, diesels are the best
> because they have the highest energy density followed by petrol, and then
> LPG.
>
> If we bought fuel at the pumps by mass instead of by volume, LPG would
> appear to be more efficient, as it has a higher mass energy density than
> petrol. So the business about efficiency is arbritary until you consider
the
> energy in the fuel to begin with.
It would, yes, but we don't, we buy it in volumes, heh.
> > > Efficiency is
> > > measured in terms of how much energy in the fuel is converted into
> motive
> > > power, and on that basis, LPG can be marginally better as it gives a
> > cleaner
> > > burn.
> > >
> > > > you need to carry around FOB tanks with you that robs you of boot
> space
> > > and
> > >
> > > That is a disadvantage, but hopefully LPG-only vehicles will become
> > > commonplace before too long. I would be quite happy to have an LPG
only
> > > vehicle, I haven't needed to run on petrol in yonks.
> >
> > Agreed. These were promised years ago . . . no sign yet. Just more
fuel
> > fuels.
>
> Slowly slowly we are seeing cars like the Ford Focus 1.8 lpg, which is the
> same price as the Focus 1.8 Tdci
Yes, we are, but the Focus LPG is probably heavier than the TDCi, and is
slower in everyday driving (more so, I should think, than the normal
petrol).
> > > > adds to the weight
> > >
> > > Whats an extra 50kg? That is no more than having a child on board.
> >
> > I guess that would depend on the vehicle, but it's also where the weight
> it
> > put. 50 kg on a smaller Ka makes a bigger difference.
>
> But if you are running with an empty petrol tank....
And took a dump before you went out? Okay, slightly flippant, but it still
makes a difference.
> > > >, and the big question marks over future tax treatment.
> > >
> > > The Government has made it clear that the most environmentally
friendly
> > fuel
> > > widely available will be taxed the least. The freeze on fuel duty ends
> in
> > > 2004, but it is likely increases in duty will not exceed inflation.
The
> > > hydrogen fuel economy is a very long way off.
> >
> > I still smell a big rat. And a large deficit in the Governments account
.
> .
> > . and easy victims . . . car drivers.
>
> Yeah, but basically the uptake of LPG has been poor. The optimistic
> projections are for 250,000 vehicles by 2005, but out of 22 odd million
> vehicles thats not a lot. No gaping hole in the budget for some time, and
I
> expect congestion charging will replace fuel duty in the future.
The uptake has been poor, and to be fair I'm not entirely sure why, given
the benefits. Perhaps it's because it's not a "wonder fuel" as it was
initially promised, and perhaps it's because there are so few LPG-only cars,
or because modern diesels are better to drive than they always were (and
taking a choice between, say, a 130 PS 50 mpg diesel or a 130 PS 33 mpg
petrol, I'd take the turbodiesel on account of better range and torque).
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Oliver Keating
"Julian Stafford" <julian....@bransonairline.net> wrote in message
news:0ozoa.960$%21....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7uesi$a2b$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > And LPG is sooooooo much more environmentally friendly than diesel
>
> Can't let you get away with that I'm afraid, an LPG powered vehicle has
> nowhere near the same Specific fuel consumption of Compression ignition,
> engine efficiency is not in the same league. So mile for mile the LPG
emits
> greater amounts of green house gases and depletes the earths reserves of
> crude at a greater rate.
No it does not! 2 Facts:
LPG emits between 11-13% less CO2 than petrol cars. So it emits LESS
GREENHOUSE GASES! People often get confused about the volumetric efficiency,
if we sold fuel by weight it would seem that LPG was much more efficient.
As for crude, some 90% of LPG is wasted- burnt off at source - that is
criminal, we have to utilise all our resources.
> WRT Diesel and the pricing policy, why are this government out of step
with
> pretty much the whole of western Europe I wonder? Can I suggest it's
because
> they don't really have much vision, simply because of shocking advice from
> their scientists.
The whole of western Europe has focused its eyes so much on global warming
it has forgotten about local pollution. They have failed to realise that
diesels are dirty and need to be stopped!
> The answer long term really has got to be a sustainable fuel like
> Bio-Diesel, If the Govt gave the same tax concessions to bio D as it does
to
> LPG (which won't last, Govt's can't be trusted) then LPG would finish
> virtually overnight.
Yeah but this is down to local vs global pollution. And I am sorry but if
you live in a city local pollution is what takes priority.
In any event, there are calculations to suggest bio D is not sustainable -
if we plastered the countryside it would only be 7-9% of our needs.
> Julian.
>
>
Oliver Keating
"Mark" <Spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:mhzoa.958$%21....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
to mention it is a great untapped resource at present as most of it is
wasted.
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7uel8$bqn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7ualg$4d24c$1...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b7u58u$9gg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b7u4ik$4ilgr$3...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
>
> >
the
> > same price as the Focus 1.8 Tdci
>
> Yes, we are, but the Focus LPG is probably heavier than the TDCi, and is
> slower in everyday driving (more so, I should think, than the normal
> petrol).
Don't diesels have a severe weight disadvantage over their petrol
counterparts? I heard that it was around 100kg, and hence small diesel cars
have been slow to take off.
The uptake has been poor because:
1)People are extremely selfish. They don't care about environmental
consequences. When comparing diesel and LPG (which for practical purposes
are very similar), they don't even give a second hoot about the environment.
2)People don't know about lpg
3)LPG vehicles are often not available to test drive.
4)People, especially in Britain are afraid of anything new.
> --
> The DervMan
> www.dervman.com
>
>
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> writes:
> >
> >"Mark" <Spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >news:mhzoa.958$%21....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> >> Oliver Keating webm...@o-keating.com typed:
> >Hydrogen cars are a long way off.
>
> In what way is hydrogen sustainable? Does it come from hydrogen trees?
Perhaps
> it's extracted from the farts of lentil eating fuckwit greenies?
Hydrogen is more sustainable than oil.
In 35 years it is likely that we will have our first nuclear fusion power
plants. These will be able to power giant electrolysis machines to generate
hydrogen.
The great thing about hydrogen is that while fuel-cell technology is the
most efficient way to utilise it, it can be burnt in an internal combustion
engine just like petrol - fuel cells need not speed the end of exciting cars
;)
> >LPG is an excellent stop gap measure. Not
> >to mention it is a great untapped resource at present as most of it is
> >wasted.
>
> True. But as soon as it becomes popular it will be taxed as heavily
> as any other motor fuel.
Possibly, but that is a very long way off. Sufficiently far off that when
considering what car to get it shouldn't enter the equation.
Also I rekon that in the future congestion charging will replace fuel duty.
PeterE
Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
>> as any other motor fuel.
>
>Possibly, but that is a very long way off. Sufficiently far off that when
>considering what car to get it shouldn't enter the equation.
But an upsurge in take-up would rapidly alter the equation.
>Also I rekon that in the future congestion charging will replace fuel duty.
"be generally imposed on top of fuel duty" is likely to be nearer the truth.
And congestion charging, unlike fuel duty, gives no benefit for better fuel
economy - unless it ends up being warped, with multiple bands based on CO2
emissions, to give a crude simulacrum of fuel duty that costs far more to
administer and leaves much greater loopholes gaping.
--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."
Oliver Keating
"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b7uoi9$kgt$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> >> True. But as soon as it becomes popular it will be taxed as heavily
> >> as any other motor fuel.
> >
> >Possibly, but that is a very long way off. Sufficiently far off that when
> >considering what car to get it shouldn't enter the equation.
>
> But an upsurge in take-up would rapidly alter the equation.
Maybe, maybe not, but just look at the sketisism LPG has met in this group -
I suspect this applies across the country.
> >Also I rekon that in the future congestion charging will replace fuel
duty.
>
> "be generally imposed on top of fuel duty" is likely to be nearer the
truth.
Possibly, I expect it will be imposed on top of petrol/diesel duty, but
probably not on top of LPG duty. This is how everyone can use LPG without
there being a hole in the budget. And people still using petrol/diesel will
pay twice.
> And congestion charging, unlike fuel duty, gives no benefit for better
fuel
> economy - unless it ends up being warped, with multiple bands based on CO2
> emissions,
I very much suspect that this is how congestion charging of the future will
occur. There is one benefit to CO2 based charging - it means that hopefully
the poor will pay less than the rich, as the rich tend to have gas guzzlers.
> to give a crude simulacrum of fuel duty that costs far more to
> administer and leaves much greater loopholes gaping.
?
The company car tax CO2 thing seems to be working
PeterE
>
>"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:b7uoi9$kgt$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> True. But as soon as it becomes popular it will be taxed as heavily
>> >> as any other motor fuel.
>> >
>> >Possibly, but that is a very long way off. Sufficiently far off that
when
>> >considering what car to get it shouldn't enter the equation.
>>
>> But an upsurge in take-up would rapidly alter the equation.
>
>Maybe, maybe not, but just look at the sketisism LPG has met in this
group -
>I suspect this applies across the country.
With some justification - if you only do an average mileage, a 30% saving on
fuel costs balanced against the initial installation cost, and reduction in
performance and boot space, just doesn't stack up. And if you really want
the economy, most people will buy a diesel.
>> >Also I rekon that in the future congestion charging will replace fuel
>duty.
>>
>> "be generally imposed on top of fuel duty" is likely to be nearer the
>truth.
>
>Possibly, I expect it will be imposed on top of petrol/diesel duty, but
>probably not on top of LPG duty. This is how everyone can use LPG without
>there being a hole in the budget. And people still using petrol/diesel will
>pay twice.
Rest assured, once the LPG car parc becomes significant, the duty/CC
benefits will be eroded.
>> And congestion charging, unlike fuel duty, gives no benefit for better
>fuel
>> economy - unless it ends up being warped, with multiple bands based on
CO2
>> emissions,
>
>I very much suspect that this is how congestion charging of the future will
>occur. There is one benefit to CO2 based charging - it means that hopefully
>the poor will pay less than the rich, as the rich tend to have gas
guzzlers.
Surely exactly the same is true of fuel duty - which is much cheaper and
easier to collect, and gives less scope for evasion.
>> to give a crude simulacrum of fuel duty that costs far more to
>> administer and leaves much greater loopholes gaping.
Even the untaxed, unlicensed scrotes still have to pay fuel duty.
>The company car tax CO2 thing seems to be working
In what sense? AFAICS it seems to be encouraging a large-scale shift to
diesel, which isn't exactly your favourite fuel.
It's a classic case of the principle that if you measure one thing,
manufacturers will adapt and even warp designs to improve performance
against that yardstick.
DervMan
> "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b7uhs8$4eapi$1...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7uel8$bqn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b7ualg$4d24c$1...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b7u58u$9gg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > > "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:b7u4ik$4ilgr$3...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > > "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:b7u2lc$7fe$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> > >
> > > Slowly slowly we are seeing cars like the Ford Focus 1.8 lpg, which is
> the
> > > same price as the Focus 1.8 Tdci
> >
> > Yes, we are, but the Focus LPG is probably heavier than the TDCi, and is
> > slower in everyday driving (more so, I should think, than the normal
> > petrol).
>
> Don't diesels have a severe weight disadvantage over their petrol
> counterparts? I heard that it was around 100kg, and hence small diesel
cars
> have been slow to take off.
Aie, they used to, but as for small diesel cars not taking off? Look
around. Peugeot 205, Fiesta, Corsa, Nova, Citroen AX etc. etc. etc.
Modern, small diesels (i.e. your Peugeot 206 1.4 HDi) carry minimal extra
weight compared to their petrol brethern, or in the case of some models,
have almost-similar weight 2.0 petrol donks (206 again).
Did you read the article I have on www.dervman.com regarding diesel and
small cars?
Perhaps, but given the "tree hugging" image, I suppose it's understandable.
And if somebody really cared about the environment, they'd not be running a
car anyway.
> 2)People don't know about lpg
No, people know, but they're probably misinformed. That is, of course,
assuming that LPG conversions are not less robust than "normal" cars, that
LPG is easy to get hold of, and the conversions are cheap to do.
> 3)LPG vehicles are often not available to test drive.
Far too true.
> 4)People, especially in Britain are afraid of anything new.
Hmm, I disagree with this. Personally, I won't buy anything without testing
it, so reason 4 is a big no-no.
You forgot these reasons why:
5) small cars are more and more popular, and LPG is less suitable for
smaller vehicles owing to gas tank size and weight issues.
6) people who live and drive in the city a lot don't do sufficient mileage
to cover the conversion cost in a reasonable number of years.
7) modern diesels are quicker, quieter, cheaper and cleaner than ever
before, and there's less faffing around with conversions, you just fill up
and go.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
DervMan
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Julian Stafford
> One trusts that your chemistry is better than your (nonexistent) debating
> skills.
Better to have bad debating skills than to post blatent hyperbole IMO, see
below.
> Meanwhile, in the real world, diesels pump out huge clouds of particulates
> coated in the most carcinogenic substance yet discovered by mankind.
You see what I mean? For gods sake, that sort of hyperbole convinces nobody,
you just sound like a big kid.
Julian.
Julian Stafford
> LPG emits between 11-13% less CO2 than petrol cars. So it emits LESS
> GREENHOUSE GASES! People often get confused about the volumetric
efficiency,
> if we sold fuel by weight it would seem that LPG was much more efficient.
Nope, look at the CO2 figures for the duel fuel Astra and the TDi version,
IIRC the TDi is better. Note I used the word _specific_ fuel consumption
(i.e.
Kgs/BHP/Hour) The Diesel engine will always outperform spark ignition.
Think about it, are we going to see LPG trucks, locomotives, diggers,
tractors, ships? I doubt it simply because the economics do not allow.
> The whole of western Europe has focused its eyes so much on global warming
> it has forgotten about local pollution.
I think that it is more important to ensure that the ice-caps remain intact
than worry about some snotty kid with breathing disorders.
They have failed to realise that
> diesels are dirty and need to be stopped!
Come on, how can they have all failed to realise this fact, why don't you
write to them all and tell them?
> Yeah but this is down to local vs global pollution. And I am sorry but if
> you live in a city local pollution is what takes priority.
Debatable IMO, if the ice caps melt said city will be underwater so your
argument becomes academic. We are trying to preserve the planet for future
generations I assume?
Julian.
Oliver Keating
> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
> >
> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b7uoi9$kgt$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> True. But as soon as it becomes popular it will be taxed as heavily
> >> >> as any other motor fuel.
> >> >
> >> >Possibly, but that is a very long way off. Sufficiently far off that
> when
> >> >considering what car to get it shouldn't enter the equation.
> >>
> >> But an upsurge in take-up would rapidly alter the equation.
> >
> >Maybe, maybe not, but just look at the sketisism LPG has met in this
> group -
> >I suspect this applies across the country.
>
> With some justification - if you only do an average mileage, a 30% saving
on
> fuel costs balanced against the initial installation cost, and reduction
in
> performance and boot space, just doesn't stack up. And if you really want
> the economy, most people will buy a diesel.
There is more like 40% saving in fuel cost, and with a proper job there is
*no* reduction in performance!
> >> >Also I rekon that in the future congestion charging will replace fuel
> >duty.
> >>
> >> "be generally imposed on top of fuel duty" is likely to be nearer the
> >truth.
> >
> >Possibly, I expect it will be imposed on top of petrol/diesel duty, but
> >probably not on top of LPG duty. This is how everyone can use LPG without
> >there being a hole in the budget. And people still using petrol/diesel
will
> >pay twice.
>
> Rest assured, once the LPG car parc becomes significant, the duty/CC
> benefits will be eroded.
Well, maybe but that ain't gonna be for some time.
> >> And congestion charging, unlike fuel duty, gives no benefit for better
> >fuel
> >> economy - unless it ends up being warped, with multiple bands based on
> CO2
> >> emissions,
> >
> >I very much suspect that this is how congestion charging of the future
will
> >occur. There is one benefit to CO2 based charging - it means that
hopefully
> >the poor will pay less than the rich, as the rich tend to have gas
> guzzlers.
>
> Surely exactly the same is true of fuel duty - which is much cheaper and
> easier to collect, and gives less scope for evasion.
The prime external cost to transport is congestion, encouraging more fuel
efficient vehicles comes secondary to reducing congestion, and fuel duty is
very bad at affecting congestion.
> >> to give a crude simulacrum of fuel duty that costs far more to
> >> administer and leaves much greater loopholes gaping.
>
> Even the untaxed, unlicensed scrotes still have to pay fuel duty.
Yes it is easy to implement. It also hits the poorest the hard, and those
living in remote communities. Fuel duty is far from perfect.
> >The company car tax CO2 thing seems to be working
>
> In what sense? AFAICS it seems to be encouraging a large-scale shift to
> diesel, which isn't exactly your favourite fuel.
No fiar enough, they should have made the penalty for diesel much more
severe than 3%. Maybe 7% or so.
> It's a classic case of the principle that if you measure one thing,
> manufacturers will adapt and even warp designs to improve performance
> against that yardstick.
In some cases I agree. CO2 emmissions can be optimised for test conditions
rather than real world conditions. But the new driving cycle tests are
getting better, and I find the official fuel consumption (extra urban)
figure is pretty accurate.
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> writes:
> >
> >"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b7uma1$hq2$2...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> >> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >"Mark" <Spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >> >news:mhzoa.958$%21....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> >> >> Oliver Keating webm...@o-keating.com typed:
> >
> >> >Hydrogen cars are a long way off.
> >>
> >> In what way is hydrogen sustainable? Does it come from hydrogen trees?
> >Perhaps
> >> it's extracted from the farts of lentil eating fuckwit greenies?
> >
> >Hydrogen is more sustainable than oil.
>
>
> Hydrogen is a transport medium. It isn't "sustainable" at all, in any
> way, shape or form.
Ok, this is getting silly now.
If you can generate electricity sustainably, then hydrogen is a sustainable
fuel.
Please elaborate your counter point.
Oliver Keating
>
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7ui1n$cek$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > LPG emits between 11-13% less CO2 than petrol cars. So it emits LESS
> > GREENHOUSE GASES! People often get confused about the volumetric
> efficiency,
> > if we sold fuel by weight it would seem that LPG was much more
efficient.
>
> Nope, look at the CO2 figures for the duel fuel Astra and the TDi version,
> IIRC the TDi is better. Note I used the word _specific_ fuel consumption
> (i.e.
> Kgs/BHP/Hour) The Diesel engine will always outperform spark ignition.
> Think about it, are we going to see LPG trucks, locomotives, diggers,
> tractors, ships? I doubt it simply because the economics do not allow.
Yes fair enough, diesel emits fewer green house gases, that is not in
dispute. But LPG emits few green house gases than petrol.
My point is that LPG offers an excellent compromise-
-Petrol is generally locally clean but emits the most CO2
-Diesel is locally very unclean but emits the least CO2
-LPG is the most locally clean, and emits an intermediate amount of CO2.
So my point is that LPG does help reduce CO2 emmissions. Its not as good as
diesel, but it is so much cleaner than diesel at a local level that the CO2
penalty is a price worth paying.
In any event, transport only contributes to 10% of CO2 emmissions.
> > The whole of western Europe has focused its eyes so much on global
warming
> > it has forgotten about local pollution.
>
> I think that it is more important to ensure that the ice-caps remain
intact
> than worry about some snotty kid with breathing disorders.
>
Well, that depends on you POV. People are actually dieing of pollution,
several tens of thousands annually. Not to mention asthma as you pointed
out.
While Global Warming seems to me pretty much proven, we are still a long way
off ice cap disaster, and in any event I am unsure if switching all our cars
to diesel would make any difference.
> They have failed to realise that
> > diesels are dirty and need to be stopped!
>
> Come on, how can they have all failed to realise this fact, why don't you
> write to them all and tell them?
>
>
> > Yeah but this is down to local vs global pollution. And I am sorry but
if
> > you live in a city local pollution is what takes priority.
>
> Debatable IMO, if the ice caps melt said city will be underwater so your
> argument becomes academic. We are trying to preserve the planet for future
> generations I assume?
It won't be much good preserving the planet if we are all dead from
particulate fumes ;)
> Julian.
>
P.S. Do you have an electric car?
>
>
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
> news:b7unur$e76$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Don't diesels have a severe weight disadvantage over their petrol
> > counterparts? I heard that it was around 100kg, and hence small diesel
> cars
> > have been slow to take off.
>
> Aie, they used to, but as for small diesel cars not taking off? Look
> around. Peugeot 205, Fiesta, Corsa, Nova, Citroen AX etc. etc. etc.
>
> Modern, small diesels (i.e. your Peugeot 206 1.4 HDi) carry minimal extra
> weight compared to their petrol brethern, or in the case of some models,
> have almost-similar weight 2.0 petrol donks (206 again).
>
> Did you read the article I have on www.dervman.com regarding diesel and
> small cars?
I have now ;)
But I heard the Yaris D-4D has a 100kg weight penality over the petrol?
.> >
> > The uptake has been poor because:
> >
> > 1)People are extremely selfish. They don't care about environmental
> > consequences. When comparing diesel and LPG (which for practical
purposes
> > are very similar), they don't even give a second hoot about the
> environment.
>
> Perhaps, but given the "tree hugging" image, I suppose it's
understandable.
>
> And if somebody really cared about the environment, they'd not be running
a
> car anyway.
DAHLhahoofihgaohoihggsjgtjfslkgjs;lkfgslkh!
This kinda attidute really annoys me. Why is it always "all or nothing"? The
best way in life is to take a *balanced* viewpoint. One can have a car and
be environmentally conciencious, a car is an important part of life, but so
is the environment. We must be looking for a compromise which is niether
tree hugging nor petrol head.
> > 2)People don't know about lpg
>
> No, people know, but they're probably misinformed. That is, of course,
> assuming that LPG conversions are not less robust than "normal" cars, that
> LPG is easy to get hold of, and the conversions are cheap to do.
I am not sure. Here (on this group), and I suspect your friends (just
because of your website) everyone is interested in cars. But out there in
the "real world" where people don't follow the developments of the latest
streetka with great interest, I just don't think it has really occured to
people.
Although people have heard of it, I don't think people realise that LPG is
just as practical as petrol or diesel, they still associate it with
something on "Tommorows World".
> > 3)LPG vehicles are often not available to test drive.
>
> Far too true.
>
> > 4)People, especially in Britain are afraid of anything new.
>
> Hmm, I disagree with this. Personally, I won't buy anything without
testing
> it, so reason 4 is a big no-no.
Well, I dunno. Take mobile phones. People who had them to begin with were
ridiculed. Now everyone and his dog has one.
> You forgot these reasons why:
>
> 5) small cars are more and more popular, and LPG is less suitable for
> smaller vehicles owing to gas tank size and weight issues.
Maybe, but even so, there is still a large chunk of the market buying big
cars quite suitable for LPG.
> 6) people who live and drive in the city a lot don't do sufficient mileage
> to cover the conversion cost in a reasonable number of years.
Fair enough. But my point above remains.
I mean its estimated that there are 90,000 LPG cars in the UK. On ~22
million cars that is really crap. You would expect a higher percentage to do
galactic miles and have a large car.
> 7) modern diesels are quicker, quieter, cheaper and cleaner than ever
> before, and there's less faffing around with conversions, you just fill up
> and go.
Yeah but its still bloody dirty. I was beginning to believe the stuff in the
press about diesels getting better. Then the other day, a Mercedes E diesel,
"02" registered pulled out of a junction just outside my house, foot
probably down quite hard. Huge puff of choking smoke came out of the back.
If a brand new Mercedes diesel is that dirty I don't hold much hope out for
anything else. Diesel will always be dirtier than other fuels, it is
inherent as it is less refined.
> --
> The DervMan
> www.dervman.com
>
>
>
>
PeterE
>
>"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:b7utj3$oek$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:b7uoi9$kgt$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>on
>> fuel costs balanced against the initial installation cost, and reduction
>in
>> performance and boot space, just doesn't stack up. And if you really want
>> the economy, most people will buy a diesel.
>
>There is more like 40% saving in fuel cost, and with a proper job there is
>*no* reduction in performance!
All reports I have read say that there *is* a reduction in performance. And
in an effort to compensate for that you press the loud pedal harder.
>> >> >Also I rekon that in the future congestion charging will replace fuel
>> >duty.
>> >>
>> >> "be generally imposed on top of fuel duty" is likely to be nearer the
>> >truth.
>> >
>> >Possibly, I expect it will be imposed on top of petrol/diesel duty, but
>> >probably not on top of LPG duty. This is how everyone can use LPG
without
>> >there being a hole in the budget. And people still using petrol/diesel
>will
>> >pay twice.
>>
>> Rest assured, once the LPG car parc becomes significant, the duty/CC
>> benefits will be eroded.
>
>Well, maybe but that ain't gonna be for some time.
But it will happen if LPG usage becomes more widespread. IMV apart from the
duty advantage it's an inferior fuel to both petrol and diesel in every
practical respect.
>> >> And congestion charging, unlike fuel duty, gives no benefit for better
>> >fuel
>> >> economy - unless it ends up being warped, with multiple bands based on
>> CO2
>> >> emissions,
>> >
>> >I very much suspect that this is how congestion charging of the future
>will
>> >occur. There is one benefit to CO2 based charging - it means that
>hopefully
>> >the poor will pay less than the rich, as the rich tend to have gas
>> guzzlers.
>>
>> Surely exactly the same is true of fuel duty - which is much cheaper and
>> easier to collect, and gives less scope for evasion.
>
>The prime external cost to transport is congestion, encouraging more fuel
>efficient vehicles comes secondary to reducing congestion, and fuel duty is
>very bad at affecting congestion.
Unless set at punitive levels, congestion charging will be too. The
experience of central London, with already very high levels of PT usage, is
totally unrepresentative of what is likely to happen in the rest of the
country. People don't sit in traffic queues for fun, you know. PT only
accounts for about 13% of total passenger mileage, and is already often
bursting at the seams. It is in no position to take up much of the slack,
and never will be. People will either grit their teeth and pay more, or
choose to drive elsewhere.
>> >> to give a crude simulacrum of fuel duty that costs far more to
>> >> administer and leaves much greater loopholes gaping.
>>
>> Even the untaxed, unlicensed scrotes still have to pay fuel duty.
>
>Yes it is easy to implement. It also hits the poorest the hard, and those
>living in remote communities. Fuel duty is far from perfect.
Indeed, it's far too high.
But if road pricing is used to supplant some of fuel duty, it will simply
encourage driving on quieter, less congested roads.
>> It's a classic case of the principle that if you measure one thing,
>> manufacturers will adapt and even warp designs to improve performance
>> against that yardstick.
>
>In some cases I agree. CO2 emmissions can be optimised for test conditions
>rather than real world conditions. But the new driving cycle tests are
>getting better, and I find the official fuel consumption (extra urban)
>figure is pretty accurate.
In my experience, and I am very far from being a lead-footed driver, the
official "combined" figure represents the best fuel consumption achievable
from smooth driving in uncongested conditions. The "urban" figure is
realistic for urban environments. The "extra urban" figure is mythology.
Oliver Keating
> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
> >
> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b7utj3$oek$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:b7uoi9$kgt$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> With some justification - if you only do an average mileage, a 30%
saving
> >on
> >> fuel costs balanced against the initial installation cost, and
reduction
> >in
> >> performance and boot space, just doesn't stack up. And if you really
want
> >> the economy, most people will buy a diesel.
> >
> >There is more like 40% saving in fuel cost, and with a proper job there
is
> >*no* reduction in performance!
>
> All reports I have read say that there *is* a reduction in performance.
And
> in an effort to compensate for that you press the loud pedal harder.
Wrong. There is no reduction in performance *in a properly tuned/installed
system*
> >
> >Well, maybe but that ain't gonna be for some time.
>
> But it will happen if LPG usage becomes more widespread. IMV apart from
the
> duty advantage it's an inferior fuel to both petrol and diesel in every
> practical respect.
And what about the third, or is it now half of kids that have asthma?
> >>
> >> Surely exactly the same is true of fuel duty - which is much cheaper
and
> >> easier to collect, and gives less scope for evasion.
> >
> >The prime external cost to transport is congestion, encouraging more fuel
> >efficient vehicles comes secondary to reducing congestion, and fuel duty
is
> >very bad at affecting congestion.
>
> Unless set at punitive levels, congestion charging will be too. The
> experience of central London, with already very high levels of PT usage,
is
> totally unrepresentative of what is likely to happen in the rest of the
> country. People don't sit in traffic queues for fun, you know. PT only
> accounts for about 13% of total passenger mileage, and is already often
> bursting at the seams. It is in no position to take up much of the slack,
> and never will be. People will either grit their teeth and pay more, or
> choose to drive elsewhere.
Congestion charging is not about getting people to use PT. It never has
been, and it never will be. It is about getting people to make *fewer
journeys*.
If you can convince about 15% of people that their journeys are not really
necessary you have done it - because congestion is self clogging - each
extra 1% of traffic in a congested zone ads much more than 1% to total
journey times, as once traffic ceases up, people spend more time on their
journeys and the problem self-perpetuates.
Now the say on TV and propoganda that it is about getting people to use
alternatives, but its all rubbish. A move to restrict people's mobility
would be seen as very unpopular.
In irony though, most people in London now accept that the £5 charge
actually *improves* their mobility.
> >> >> to give a crude simulacrum of fuel duty that costs far more to
> >> >> administer and leaves much greater loopholes gaping.
> >>
> >> Even the untaxed, unlicensed scrotes still have to pay fuel duty.
> >
> >Yes it is easy to implement. It also hits the poorest the hard, and those
> >living in remote communities. Fuel duty is far from perfect.
>
> Indeed, it's far too high.
Lets not start this discussion!
> But if road pricing is used to supplant some of fuel duty, it will simply
> encourage driving on quieter, less congested roads.
Good. Your point?
> >> It's a classic case of the principle that if you measure one thing,
> >> manufacturers will adapt and even warp designs to improve performance
> >> against that yardstick.
> >
> >In some cases I agree. CO2 emmissions can be optimised for test
conditions
> >rather than real world conditions. But the new driving cycle tests are
> >getting better, and I find the official fuel consumption (extra urban)
> >figure is pretty accurate.
>
> In my experience, and I am very far from being a lead-footed driver, the
> official "combined" figure represents the best fuel consumption achievable
> from smooth driving in uncongested conditions. The "urban" figure is
> realistic for urban environments. The "extra urban" figure is mythology.
Well, I have managed to get the "extra urban" figure with no problems on
several cars. But I have a sense on how to drive for economy which I know
many lack ;)
You don't have to drive excessively slowly, you just have to correctly
manage your cars momentum and rolling resistance.
But I would say the ex-urban figure is an upper limit.
P.S. If you drive down a motorway at a very steady 70mph, you should get the
ex-urb figure no problem.
PeterE
>And
>> in an effort to compensate for that you press the loud pedal harder.
>
>Wrong. There is no reduction in performance *in a properly tuned/installed
>system*
Official Vauxhall brochure says otherwise.
>> >Well, maybe but that ain't gonna be for some time.
>>
>> But it will happen if LPG usage becomes more widespread. IMV apart from
>the
>> duty advantage it's an inferior fuel to both petrol and diesel in every
>> practical respect.
>
>And what about the third, or is it now half of kids that have asthma?
What about them? All expert opinion is that the key causes are fitted
carpets, double glazing, central heating and household dust mites.
"Air pollution does not cause asthma"
"There is no correlation between levels of vehicle emissions and asthma
incidence"
from 1995 Department of Health Study on the Causes of Asthma, by Dr Kenneth
Calman, Government Chief Medical Officer.
>> >> Even the untaxed, unlicensed scrotes still have to pay fuel duty.
>> >
>> >Yes it is easy to implement. It also hits the poorest the hard, and
those
>> >living in remote communities. Fuel duty is far from perfect.
>>
>> Indeed, it's far too high.
>
>Lets not start this discussion!
Why not? It's absolutely extortionate. It's the most expensive road fuel in
any major developed country.
>> But if road pricing is used to supplant some of fuel duty, it will simply
>> encourage driving on quieter, less congested roads.
>
>Good. Your point?
If the total tax take is unchanged, but some roads cost more, and others
cost less, people will drive more on the lower-cost roads. More rural
industry, more rural commuting, more cars hurtling down country lanes and
annoying the CPRE.
>> In my experience, and I am very far from being a lead-footed driver, the
>> official "combined" figure represents the best fuel consumption
achievable
>> from smooth driving in uncongested conditions. The "urban" figure is
>> realistic for urban environments. The "extra urban" figure is mythology.
>
>Well, I have managed to get the "extra urban" figure with no problems on
>several cars. But I have a sense on how to drive for economy which I know
>many lack ;)
>
>You don't have to drive excessively slowly, you just have to correctly
>manage your cars momentum and rolling resistance.
>
>But I would say the ex-urban figure is an upper limit.
>
>P.S. If you drive down a motorway at a very steady 70mph, you should get
the
>ex-urb figure no problem.
I have spent a year doing about 75% of my driving on the motorway doing 50+
miles a day, usually between 55 and 75 mph in busy but free-flowing
conditions. And I achieved about the combined figure for the car in question
(which in fact was the best sustained economy I have ever got from a petrol
car). Except on controlled "economy run" conditions the extra-urban figure
is completely unachievable.
JackH
> "Julian Stafford" <julian....@bransonairline.net> writes:
>> You see what I mean? For gods sake, that sort of hyperbole convinces
>> nobody, you just sound like a big kid.
> Actually, I'm a chemist, or at least, I was. And I stand by my
> statement. I don't want to breath the crap your car emits merely so
> you can save a few quid.
Tough... and with any luck you'll choke on a cocktail of said crap and your
own bile sooner rather than later.
Care to show any figures that indicate for instance, that France has extra
high rates of respiratory and cancer related health problems?
--
JackH
Simon
the 2.2, 137 hp is Awesome, dont rate the 2.0 90bhp also using a
tuning box 25% more power can be gained
Oliver Keating
> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
> >
> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> >> All reports I have read say that there *is* a reduction in performance.
> >And
> >> in an effort to compensate for that you press the loud pedal harder.
> >
> >Wrong. There is no reduction in performance *in a properly
tuned/installed
> >system*
>
> Official Vauxhall brochure says otherwise.
What a difference of 0.5 secs in the 0-60 time? Your not gonna notice, IMO
that is Vauxhall being conservative. There is no inherent reason why LPG
vehicles should have inferior performance. The limiting factor in
performance is how much oxygen you have available for combustion.
> >> >Well, maybe but that ain't gonna be for some time.
> >>
> >> But it will happen if LPG usage becomes more widespread. IMV apart from
> >the
> >> duty advantage it's an inferior fuel to both petrol and diesel in every
> >> practical respect.
> >
> >And what about the third, or is it now half of kids that have asthma?
>
> What about them? All expert opinion is that the key causes are fitted
> carpets, double glazing, central heating and household dust mites.
>
> "Air pollution does not cause asthma"
> "There is no correlation between levels of vehicle emissions and asthma
> incidence"
>
> from 1995 Department of Health Study on the Causes of Asthma, by Dr
Kenneth
> Calman, Government Chief Medical Officer.
I am unconvinced. Rates of asthma are higher in cities than it rural areas,
and I do admit there are a lot of factors at play, which makes it very hard
to pinpoint exact causes.
But just use common sense - its pretty clear.
> >> >> Even the untaxed, unlicensed scrotes still have to pay fuel duty.
> >> >
> >> >Yes it is easy to implement. It also hits the poorest the hard, and
> those
> >> >living in remote communities. Fuel duty is far from perfect.
> >>
> >> Indeed, it's far too high.
> >
> >Lets not start this discussion!
>
> Why not? It's absolutely extortionate. It's the most expensive road fuel
in
> any major developed country.
A few years ago I started this thread in uk.transport, and it exploded into
perhaps a record-breaking 494 posts!
Thank god for google:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=19990107
195331.06070.00009032%40ng04.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%2
6ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3D%2522oliver%2Bkeating%2522%2Buk.transport%2B5
00%2525%2Bpetrol%2Btax
Also more recently:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=cd333vst
mttk5shti25hnabog0aehgmmio%404ax.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%2
6ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3D%2522oliver%2Bkeating%2522%2Blpg%2Bpetrol%2Bt
ax
Have a look, if you still want to start a thread on this thorny issue,
please post a new message to the group and I promise to reply ;)
> >> But if road pricing is used to supplant some of fuel duty, it will
simply
> >> encourage driving on quieter, less congested roads.
> >
> >Good. Your point?
>
> If the total tax take is unchanged, but some roads cost more, and others
> cost less, people will drive more on the lower-cost roads. More rural
> industry, more rural commuting, more cars hurtling down country lanes and
> annoying the CPRE.
In a way that is exactly what we want, a better distribution of road traffic
to maximise the effectiveness of the current road network. I support the
idea of satellite based congestion charging (but that again is another
thread!).
Hmm, variable speed driving, especially in traffic is unlikely to yield good
results. When you lift right off the throttle to slow down, that is fairly
inneficient, as the engine is still burning fuel but not getting any power
from it. Then when you put your foot down to accelerate to keep pace that
also is an efficiency killer. Of course if you ever need to brake you have
lost the game!
Like I said, a rock steady 70mph will get you the e-u figure. I suspect if
you go even slower (56mph) it may be possible to slightly better it, but I
don't have the patience for that!
But I agree, when your driving in traffic the e-u figure does become very
hard to achieve, unless you leave a gaping gap between you and the car in
front. (much to the annoyance of whoever is behind - why? I don't know,
people seem to think that by driving 2 feet from the driver in front they
will get there sooner!)
Oliver Keating
"Steve Firth" <usene...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ftqp63.1180j99aznrizN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Oliver Keating <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
> > If you can generate electricity sustainably, then hydrogen is a
sustainable
> > fuel.
>
> is?
Because hydrogen technology needs a lot of development
> Hydrogen production has f*** all to do with electricity, unless and
Look, why must you people swear so much? We have enough from Huge, and
especially as it is so uncessary in discussions like this.
> until almost every other alternative has been exhausted this will remain
> true.
It does have something to do with electricity, a fuel cell is a much better
battery than conventional batteries. And not only that, the fact that it can
be refueled rather than having to wait overnight for a recharge makes it as
practical as conventional fuels (potentially).
> --
> end.
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> writes:
> >
> >"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b7uro1$jhp$1...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> >> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> writes:
>
>
> >> Hydrogen is a transport medium. It isn't "sustainable" at all, in any
> >> way, shape or form.
> >
> >Ok, this is getting silly now.
> >
> >If you can generate electricity sustainably, then hydrogen is a
sustainable
> >fuel.
>
> all. It's like saying electricity is sustainable.
Isn't that the point of electric cars? I mean if electricity comes from
sustainable sources then it *is* sustainable.
> All H2 is is a way of
> getting the energy from A to B. It still has to be manufactured in some
> way, either by cracking oil or by electrolysis of water and the energy
> for doing *that* has to come from somewhere.
Yeah but it can come from renewable sources. You can't make petrol from
renewable sources at all. Ok, bioD complicates the argument, but as I have
said before, bioD is not the total answer because (as I have said before)
there isn't enough land on the planet for all of our needs.
DervMan
news:19910e38.03042...@posting.google.com...
> How about the Citroen C5 this is a hatch.The Hdi 2.0 110bhp is great
> the 2.2, 137 hp is Awesome, dont rate the 2.0 90bhp also using a
> tuning box 25% more power can be gained
If you can get one for eight grand . . . hmm probably can, it's a Citroen.
Nothing wrong with the HDi 90, it just needs an intercooler! :)
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> writes:
> >
> >"Steve Firth" <usene...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1ftqp63.1180j99aznrizN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >> Oliver Keating <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Look, why must you people swear so much? We have enough from Huge, and
>
> determined ignorance annoys us?
Sometimes I think you are the most unreasonable person on usenet, with a
totally uncompromising attitude towards *everything*, almost like Jeremy
Clarkson but much worse.
The problem is that often one gets is that intellegent people grow up
surrounded by plebs, and never meets another of his own kind. This breeds a
contempt for other people (hence your "fu**wits"), and extreme arrogance,
demonstrated above.
Please remember, not everyone is utterly stupid!
Oliver Keating
> Oliver Keating <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
> > > Umm right, and the reason that Norway doesn't have a hydrogen economy
> > > is?
> >
> > Because hydrogen technology needs a lot of development
>
> Hydrogen was once widely used to provide illumination in theatres (look
> up "limelight"). Using hydrogen as a fuel is fraught with few more
> problems than using methane as a fuel. Cars could run on hydrogen with
> little change - that they don't tells us a lot about the viability of
> hydrogen as a fuel.
Well, BMW is planning a hydrogen production car for 2005. But the refilling
infrastructure is, well non existant.
> > > Hydrogen production has f*** all to do with electricity, unless and
> >
> > Look, why must you people swear so much?
>
> F*** knows and I'll thank you *not* to make unmarked changes to material
> that you pretend was written by me.
*my* posts. *my* editorial.
> If your prissy upbringing prevents
Lol, at least I have grown up, unlike some people round here.
Look, as I said, why is it necessary to swear so much? You are obviously
intellegent, but your language makes you sound like a pleb. It would be
acceptable to speak like that in a debating society, so why is acceptable on
usenet?
Also, kids can quite easily read this stuff, and while you may be happy to
have your kids behave like loud-mouth brats, not everyone does.
> you from quoting material verbatim then don't quote it.
>
> > We have enough from Huge, and
> > especially as it is so uncessary in discussions like this.
>
> "We"? Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder?
LOL. I very much doubt I am the only who objects.
> > > until almost every other alternative has been exhausted this will
remain
> > > true.
> >
> > It does have something to do with electricity, a fuel cell is a much
better
> > battery than conventional batteries.
>
> Only in some circumstances. Fuel cells fall far short of being useful in
> many ways. They produce water as an exhaust product - less than ideal in
> laptops and mobile phones - or indeed most electronic/electrical
> equipment.
The prime problem with fuel cells is their size, this is why they cannot be
used in laptops, and indeed why much development needs to be done for cars.
But the exhaust is not a problem, you can just store it in a seperate
container in the case of electronics, it can be a sealed system.
>They are expensive to produce, and likely to remain so given
> the metals used in their construction, they are a disposal headache,
> they don't last for as long as their proponents pretend, and despite
> many years of development their penetration into the market has hardly
> been significant. Contrast this with NiMH and LiIon batteries which
> rocketed into the market with much less development.
Yeah, but the amount of power that you need to store up to give an
acceptable range and speed to a motor car is just not possible with
conventional batteries. Hydrogen has a much higher energy density.
> > And not only that, the fact that it can
> > be refueled rather than having to wait overnight for a recharge makes it
as
> > practical as conventional fuels (potentially).
>
> Boll*cks. Pure unadulterated, badly thought out, missing the bleeding
> point boll*cks.
?
I was trying to demonstrate the advantages over straigh electricty. A fuel
that can be poured in is much more practical than something needing
charging, or heavy battery replacement.
> You shy away from thinking about *where* the hydrogen is going to come
> from. Here's a clue, it is unlikely that hydrogen for fuel cells will
> ever come from electrolysis while a source of hydrocarbons remains on
> the planet, be that source fossil or bio-fuel. It is simply far cheaper
> to crack hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen than to produce hydrogen by
> electrolysis.
Yes yes, but the same is true of electricity generated for electric cars. It
could be generated by renewables but it is cheaper to burn coal. It is up to
the government to introduce sufficient fiscal incentives to ensure the
former occurs.
> If it were feasible to produce hydrogen by electrolysis cheaply, Norway
> with its hydroelectric power and the lowest electricity production costs
> in Europe (possibly the world) would be a net exporter of hydrogen
> today. It isn't, because companies like BOC can make hydrogen cheaper
> using methane or petroleum as a feedstock.
That is just a market issue. Government can change fiscal structure to
correct for external costs.
> Given that hydrogen is simply window dressing to disguise the true
> source of the fuel, it's a pointless technology used to confuse complete
> dunderheads into thinking that it is an environmentally sound
> technology. It isn't and it's unlikely that it ever will be.
Fair enough, but is there any CO2 produced in the manufacture of hydrogen? I
mean people say its likely that if hydrogen becomes commonplace, it will
still remain side-by-side with conventional fuel for several decades.
> If you want an environmentally sustainable road fuel then it is more
> likely to be bio-diesel than hydrogen.
bio-D is likely to be part of the solution yes, but it will not be *the*
solution by itself, there is just not enough land - the efficiency of
converting energy from sunlight into bio-D is not sufficiently high.
> --
> There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable
> and praiseworthy.
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Oliver Keating
Therefore
> > it's no more renewable than petrol.
>
> And of course petrol *can* be made entirely from renewable sources, just
> as much as hydrogen can.
Explain how?
>And now the latest idiocy from the fuel
> celladvocates is that fuel cells can run (inefficiently) on alcohols, or
> more specifically methanol.
>
> So we could conveniently ignore the toxicity of methanol, by inhalation,
> which makes it damned dangerous to advocate its use as road fuel. We
> coudl ignore tthe fact that it's more efficient to burn that same
> methanol in an IC engine, we coudl even ignore the fact that methanol as
> a fuel is predicated not by technical limitation but by farcical
> governmental restrictions on the sale of ethanol as a fuel. And we could
> shove our heads up our arses and forget that the production of ethanol
> is likely to be expensive and require more land than the production of
> bio-diesel and then hydrogen *may* look like a useful fuel.
>
>
> Oh my arse it does. It's still NIMBY technology a whitewash for the
> conscience and nothing more.
>
Look renewable electricity is no a certainty. I happen to know something
about the developments in nuclear fusion, and I can say with certainty that
this will happen, and in under 35 years we will be bringing the first power
stations online. It will solve all our power needs in one fell swoop. Energy
will be abundant to generate hydrogen etc. etc. as not only is fusion
completely clean, it has the potential to be very cheap, as you can build a
reactor which never needs to be refuelled - yes the fuel in the walls lasts
for its lifetime.
It is a brave future, and we need to work to utilise electrical power.
Of course, what happens to aircraft - thats a more interesting question
PeterE
Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
>
>"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:b7v6k3$pgr$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
>> >
>>
>> What about them? All expert opinion is that the key causes are fitted
>> carpets, double glazing, central heating and household dust mites.
>>
>> "Air pollution does not cause asthma"
>> "There is no correlation between levels of vehicle emissions and asthma
>> incidence"
>>
>> from 1995 Department of Health Study on the Causes of Asthma, by Dr
>Kenneth
>> Calman, Government Chief Medical Officer.
>
>I am unconvinced. Rates of asthma are higher in cities than it rural areas,
>and I do admit there are a lot of factors at play, which makes it very hard
>to pinpoint exact causes.
>
>But just use common sense - its pretty clear.
Common sense is often wrong - common sense used to say that stomach ulcers
were caused by stress and poor diet, but science showed they were caused by
a virus.
And common sense suggests that as vehicle emissions have declined
dramatically over the pst 30 years, while the incidence of asthma has
greatly increased, the two can have nothing to do with one another.
Tell me why two of the countries with the highest rate of asthma in the
world are sparsely-populated New Zealand and the remote South Atlantic
island of Tristan da Cunha, which hardly has any road traffic.
Scientist after scientist has shown that there is no correlation between
pollution levels and the incidence of asthma.
It may be a plausible myth, but it's 100% wrong.
>> If the total tax take is unchanged, but some roads cost more, and others
>> cost less, people will drive more on the lower-cost roads. More rural
>> industry, more rural commuting, more cars hurtling down country lanes and
>> annoying the CPRE.
>
>In a way that is exactly what we want, a better distribution of road
traffic
>to maximise the effectiveness of the current road network. I support the
>idea of satellite based congestion charging (but that again is another
>thread!).
If we were serious about CC as a means of cutting congestion we would also
relax planning restrictions in low CC areas. But most of the proponents of
CC are also strongly in favour of draconian planning constraints, which
suggests they see it as a lever to force people to use buses. Basically,
it's nothing to do with relieving congestion and everything to do with
screwing more money out of drivers and promoting "modal shift".
And does ANYONE seriously believe that general road-user charging would be
introduced in a way that was remotely close to being revenue neutral?
Oliver Keating
> Oliver Keating <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Firth" <usene...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1ftrl72.kvbbqs1sadol8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > > Oliver Keating <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, BMW is planning a hydrogen production car for 2005. But the
refilling
> > infrastructure is, well non existant.
>
Few problems in life are technical nower days. They are usually economic.
> > > > > Hydrogen production has f*** all to do with electricity, unless
and
> > > >
> > > > Look, why must you people swear so much?
> > >
> > > Fuck knows and I'll thank you *not* to make unmarked changes to
material
> > > that you pretend was written by me.
> >
> > *my* posts. *my* editorial.
>
> My posts, my content, your Bowdlerism. You are changing my words without
> annotation to indicate that you have done so to match your view of
> morality. That makes you a censorious c*** in my book, and as such
> someone who is less worthy of respect than the average nematode.
>
Well, whatever
> > > If your prissy upbringing prevents
> >
> > Lol, at least I have grown up, unlike some people round here.
>
> The evidence of your posts belies your claim. Did you employ someone to
> paste over the words of Chaucer and D H Lawrence that you find
> unacceptable? Do you read only the bowdlerised versions of Shakespeare?
> Is Marlowe's Faust to be obliterated with Tippex? If you know the words
> well enough to be able to recognise them from a line of asterisks are
> you not a hypocrite to feign to be shocked by them? If someone is an
> innocent, how can they take offence at the language?
>
> > Look, as I said, why is it necessary to swear so much?
>
> You mistake possibility for necessity.
So why do it?
> > You are obviously intellegent, but your language makes you sound like a
> > pleb. It would be acceptable to speak like that in a debating society,
so
> > why is acceptable on usenet?
>
> Intellectual snobbery is as vile and absurd as anything in this life.
> Particularly when it is preached by someone who is proving himself to be
> hard of thinking. Your analysis of the fuel problem and the use of
> alternative fuels has been both shallow and glib. This is not a platform
> from which to cast stones at anyone elses reputation.
Why is it that some people on usenet find it necessary to adopt such an
agressive (not to mention arrogant) stance? I am not interested in having a
slag-off match with you.
> > Also, kids can quite easily read this stuff, and while you may be happy
to
> > have your kids behave like loud-mouth brats, not everyone does.
>
> It's for the children is it?
Well that is just one example. Not everyone likes swearing and the general
attitude that comes with it.
> > > you from quoting material verbatim then don't quote it.
> > >
> > > > We have enough from Huge, and especially as it is so uncessary in
> > > > discussions like this.
> > >
> > > "We"? Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder?
> >
> > LOL. I very much doubt I am the only who objects.
>
> I very much doubt that anyone gave you a mandate to speak on their
> behalf. Where did you get the arrogance to believe that you could speak
> for others or the moral cowardice that made you shirk from declaring
> that you speak only on your own behalf. Do not use "we' where the only
> permissible pronoun is the perpendicular.
I think it is reasonable for me to believe, without being arrogant, that I
am not the only person who finds it unecessary to swear every two words.
Especially when talking about something as civilised as fuel types.
> > > > > until almost every other alternative has been exhausted this will
> > > > > remain true.
> > > >
> > > > It does have something to do with electricity, a fuel cell is a much
> > > > better battery than conventional batteries.
> > >
> > > Only in some circumstances. Fuel cells fall far short of being useful
in
> > > many ways. They produce water as an exhaust product - less than ideal
in
> > > laptops and mobile phones - or indeed most electronic/electrical
> > > equipment.
> >
> > The prime problem with fuel cells is their size, this is why they cannot
be
> > used in laptops, and indeed why much development needs to be done for
cars.
> > But the exhaust is not a problem, you can just store it in a seperate
> > container in the case of electronics, it can be a sealed system.
>
> You're not keeping up with developments. Fuel cells can be made at very
> small sizes, and the exhaust is still a problem. Did you bother to think
> about the problem of storing water vapour (and the technology needed to
> condense it to a liquid) and the volume that would need to be stored?
Well, it easy to condense water, but anyway we are straying off topic.
> > >They are expensive to produce, and likely to remain so given
> > > the metals used in their construction, they are a disposal headache,
> > > they don't last for as long as their proponents pretend, and despite
> > > many years of development their penetration into the market has hardly
> > > been significant. Contrast this with NiMH and LiIon batteries which
> > > rocketed into the market with much less development.
> >
> > Yeah, but the amount of power that you need to store up to give an
> > acceptable range and speed to a motor car is just not possible with
> > conventional batteries. Hydrogen has a much higher energy density.
>
> Missing the point again, possibly wilfully. Hydrogen fuel cells have
> been under development far longer than LiIon, yet LiIon is a marketable
> product, fuel cells are not. Why is it that given a level track, fuel
> cells have yet to enter commercial use?
Fuel cells are much more complicated. Anyway most of the barriers are now
economic, cheaper materials need to be found for their construction, and
their wieght needs to be sorted out.
> I'll spell it out for you. Because it is simply not economic for fuel
> cells to supplant battery technology.
I don't disagree. But battery technology is clearly not good enough for
cars, just look at what happened to the Ford Th!nk.
> > > > And not only that, the fact that it can be refueled rather than
having
> > > > to wait overnight for a recharge makes it as practical as
conventional
> > > > fuels (potentially).
> > >
> > > Boll*cks. Pure unadulterated, badly thought out, missing the bleeding
> > > point bollocks.
>
> Your edit has been replaced by the original. An English court of law has
> found the term "boll*cks" to be perfectly acceptable use of the English
> language and you are not fit to over rule their decision.
Whatever!
> > ?
> >
> > I was trying to demonstrate the advantages over straigh electricty. A
fuel
> > that can be poured in is much more practical than something needing
> > charging, or heavy battery replacement.
>
> No, you said it made it as practical as conventional fuels. Since the
> fuel for a fuel cell cannot be poured, but must be absorbed into a
> Zeolite in order to achieve an incredibly low energy density and that
> durign that exchange there needs to be careful management of the
> temperature profile of the zeolite in order to avoid runaway thermal
> conditions, it is complete bollocks to claim that it is in any way
> practical or convenient.
To the end user!!!
> > > You shy away from thinking about *where* the hydrogen is going to come
> > > from. Here's a clue, it is unlikely that hydrogen for fuel cells will
> > > ever come from electrolysis while a source of hydrocarbons remains on
> > > the planet, be that source fossil or bio-fuel. It is simply far
cheaper
> > > to crack hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen than to produce hydrogen by
> > > electrolysis.
> >
> > Yes yes, but the same is true of electricity generated for electric
cars. It
> > could be generated by renewables but it is cheaper to burn coal. It is
up to
> > the government to introduce sufficient fiscal incentives to ensure the
> > former occurs.
>
> More drivel, yes the government can tax the shit out of every
> alternative but hydrogen. The government can also face joining the dole
> queue at the end of its term in office. The country can look forward to
> being uncompetitive in the world market should such a policy ever be
> attempted.
With Mr Bush now firmly behind the Hydrogen economy, provided fiscal
incentives are (relatively) harmonised, then there won't be a problem to do
with national competativeness.
> > > If it were feasible to produce hydrogen by electrolysis cheaply,
Norway
> > > with its hydroelectric power and the lowest electricity production
costs
> > > in Europe (possibly the world) would be a net exporter of hydrogen
> > > today. It isn't, because companies like BOC can make hydrogen cheaper
> > > using methane or petroleum as a feedstock.
> >
> > That is just a market issue. Government can change fiscal structure to
> > correct for external costs.
>
> Glib and wrong. The government cannot legislate to overcome the laws of
> physics.
No but it certainly can influence economics. Why are people using LPG?
Technically it is an inferior fuel, but because of fiscal incentives people
*are* using it.
> > > Given that hydrogen is simply window dressing to disguise the true
> > > source of the fuel, it's a pointless technology used to confuse
complete
> > > dunderheads into thinking that it is an environmentally sound
> > > technology. It isn't and it's unlikely that it ever will be.
> >
> > Fair enough, but is there any CO2 produced in the manufacture of
hydrogen?
>
> You mean you don't know, you can't work it out but you feel that you are
> qualified to tell others that they should use hydrogen as a fuel. I
> despair. Yes production of hydrogen creates as much, if not more CO2
> than burning the same amount of fuel in an IC engine. Hydrogen fuel
> achieves nothing beyond moving around the location of the emissions.
Unless generated from renewables...
Can't the by products be burnt in a diesel engine or sommat?
> > I mean people say its likely that if hydrogen becomes commonplace, it
will
> > still remain side-by-side with conventional fuel for several decades.
>
> "People".
>
> Nice specific term there.
People "in the know"
> > > If you want an environmentally sustainable road fuel then it is more
> > > likely to be bio-diesel than hydrogen.
> >
> > bio-D is likely to be part of the solution yes, but it will not be *the*
> > solution by itself, there is just not enough land - the efficiency of
> > converting energy from sunlight into bio-D is not sufficiently high.
>
> Fine phrases, no content. You are asserting as fact something which is
> far from factual.
If we plastered our UK land with bioD growing it would only give 9% of our
needs. Admittedly that might change on a global scale but the picture is not
that rosy. We need to grow food too.
Oliver Keating
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> writes:
>
> >Look renewable electricity is no a certainty. I happen to know something
> >about the developments in nuclear fusion, and I can say with certainty
that
> >this will happen, and in under 35 years we will be bringing the first
power
> >stations online.
>
Yeah but we are at break-even now. In the next phase called ITER, it is
certain we will push beyond break-even, this should be build within 10
years, with $100 million commited/year from China, France, USA, UK and
another country. It will be a reasearch facility - not a power station.
> >It will solve all our power needs in one fell swoop. Energy
> >will be abundant to generate hydrogen etc. etc. as not only is fusion
> >completely clean,
>
> No it isn't. The reactor materials are heavily neutron irradiated.
The half life is around 200 years. That is a manageable problem.
Conventional fission waste has a half life into tens of thousands of years -
that is not manageable.
> >it has the potential to be very cheap, as you can build a
> >reactor which never needs to be refuelled
>
> Huh?
>
> > - yes the fuel in the walls lasts
> >for its lifetime.
>
> "Too cheap to meter", eh? Now where have I heard *that* before....
Where?
> (And lest you think I am too cynical, I would love you to be right. But
> I suspect you aren't. And you're definitely wrong about the technology.)
Oliver Keating
> Oliver Keating <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
> > > And of course petrol *can* be made entirely from renewable sources,
just
> > > as much as hydrogen can.
> >
> > Explain how?
>
Sounds expensive/uneconomic. Everyone will be using bioD instead.
> > >And now the latest idiocy from the fuel
> > > celladvocates is that fuel cells can run (inefficiently) on alcohols,
or
> > > more specifically methanol.
> > >
> [snip]
> > Look renewable electricity is no a certainty.
>
> Presuming that you mean "now a certainty" and not "not a certainty" then
> you're rather out of touch. I used to live in the town that was first in
> the Uk to have electric lighting entirely from a renewable source and
> indeed predating that was the very first use of electric lighting in a
> building, entirely from a renewable source. Swan achieve this in 1878,
> the
?
Was there more?
> > I happen to know something about the developments in nuclear fusion,
>
> Given the rest of your statement below, I sincerely doubt this. Would
> you care to expand on the depth of your knowledge and your involvement
> in nuclear fusion? I was recently able to visit the site of the new
> Joint European Tokamak in Ispra, Italy. The scientists working on that
> project aren't stupid enough to claim self-sustaining fusion within 25,
> 30, 35 or even 50 years. Let alone commercial exploitation which could
> take another 25 years minimum from demonstration of viable fusion
> containment.
We should have within the next 10 years, ITER constructed, which will be the
first reactor to provide a net output of energy. Will cost 5 bn Euros,
funding has been confirmed by an international consortium of countries.
> FWIW, I used to share a flat with someone working on JET in 1980. The
> same claims were made then of commercial power within 35 years, here we
> are 23 years later and still commercial power is 35 years away. What a
> surprise.
A lot has been learnt from JET, if there had been sufficient funding
previously, then I rekon your flat mates claim would be true.
> > and I can say with certainty that this will happen, and in under 35
years
> > we will be bringing the first power stations online.
>
> Bollocks. Give a definitive source that supports your airy-fairy
> optimism. Pons and Fleischman doesn't count.
Haha
> > It will solve all our power needs in one fell swoop. Energy
> > will be abundant to generate hydrogen etc. etc. as not only is fusion
> > completely clean, it has the potential to be very cheap, as you can
build a
> > reactor which never needs to be refuelled - yes the fuel in the walls
lasts
> > for its lifetime.
>
> This is also complete bollocks, unless the lifetime of the reactor is to
> be measured in picoseconds.
The conventional way of injecting fuel into a reactor has used like a gun
system, but that is quite inneficient. In the future, the holy grail is to
have continuous fusion (also gives less stress on reactor). For this, the
fuel is stored in the walls, and neutron bombardments liberates the fuel.
> And tell me, how have you solved the problem of disposing of the waste
> material at the end of the life of the reactor?
Waste is produced in small quantities and only 200 year half life - that is
a manageable problem.
> > It is a brave future, and we need to work to utilise electrical power.
>
> Umm magnificent hollow rhetoric, absolutely devoid of content.
>
> > Of course, what happens to aircraft - thats a more interesting question
>
> Stick to the point.
ow.
Kevin B
>
> At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without losing
> out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
>
> Looking to spend about 8k on something about 3/4 years old.
>
> cheers
>
I'm extremely happy with my Astra, especially the fuel consumption
of 55mpg for combined urban and motorway. (daily runs to work
28miles on urban and 20 on motorway with slow moving heavy traffic.)
See spreadsheet at:
http://www.qa.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/diesel.htm
Personally, I wont buy a petrol engined car again.
Kevin B
Peter Balcombe
"Kevin B" <a...@aup.aup.eu> wrote in message
news:nRYoa.29380$Pj.221...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Don't overlook the Toyota Avensis - I'm pleased with my V reg TD estate -
reliable if a little boring but spacious enough. I get about 40 mpg on
mainly short runs / urban use.
>
>
>
PeterE
Gav wrote in message ...
>Anyone here driving a diesel that they would really recommend?
>
>At the moment I have a small hatchback, I want a bigger car without losing
>out to the petrol pumps so I figure a diesel is for me.
>
>Looking to spend about 8k on something about 3/4 years old.
Try a SEAT Toledo or Leon, or Skoda Octavia, with the 110 PS TDi engine.
Loads of kit, and plenty of poke.
Mike G
>
> Oliver Keating wrote in message ...
> >
> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> And common sense suggests that as vehicle emissions have
declined
> dramatically over the pst 30 years, while the incidence of
asthma has
> greatly increased, the two can have nothing to do with one
another.
Does that mean the total emission by all vehicles or does is
just refer to cleaner vehicle emission stds, because it ocurrs
to me that there are many more vehicles on the road today than
there were 30 years ago. So even if true, it could still mean
that total vehicle polution has increased.
Just a thaught as it sounds a little ambiguous. Could mean
either.
Mike.
Gav
Dervman, how do you rate the Astra 2.0TD LS (2000 new shape) and the Primera
2.0TD (2000 previous aggressive headlights shape).
What would the Primera (90bhp on datasheet) be like on a motorway? The 14
seconds to 60 suggests that town driving may be sluggish but all the taxis I
have ever been in have never felt this way :D
Am I right in thinking that mpg figure of 43 (which seems low for a diesel)
is more optimistic than a petrol engines mpg figure, I dont have a heavy
right foot but I do like to make progress. All the petrol cars I have ever
had only manage their mpg figures on long runs or under the most careful of
driving.
cheers
DervMan
> "DervMan" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b7u24k$4dot4$2...@ID-136275.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Gav" <dil...@boltblue.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7to0u$cgd$1...@news.boltblue.com...
> <snip>
>
> Dervman, how do you rate the Astra 2.0TD LS (2000 new shape) and the
Primera
> 2.0TD (2000 previous aggressive headlights shape).
Nicer and nice. Heh.
> What would the Primera (90bhp on datasheet) be like on a motorway?
Just peachy. It'll cruise at 70 or higher all day and all night.
> The 14
> seconds to 60 suggests that town driving may be sluggish
Erm, no, not really, indeedy the standing start acceleration times are, well
to be frank, a bit useless. Power and torque to weight ratios are of more
relevance.
> but all the taxis I
> have ever been in have never felt this way :D
Heh. You were sober enough to tell? When I've been in a taxi, they've all
felt far too fast, but that's the alcohol and not me, heh!
> Am I right in thinking that mpg figure of 43 (which seems low for a
diesel)
> is more optimistic than a petrol engines mpg figure
Not really. This is an older generation, indirect injection turbodiesel
engine. It's about par for the course.
> I dont have a heavy
> right foot but I do like to make progress.
Right . . .
> All the petrol cars I have ever
> had only manage their mpg figures on long runs or under the most careful
of
> driving.
What ruins fuel consumption is a cold engine (not a diesel issue) and
changes of speed (with a turbodiesel, use the turbocharger a lot and you'll
get disappointing returns).
So, yes, it could be. You should still save 25% compared to the 1.6 petrol,
in theory, but in practice, it depends on how you drive it. I could limit
the Mondeo to 2,300 rpm and still cruise to work at 60 with no problems, and
typically record 46 mpg, or I could "drive normally" and get 44. My ex-boss
couldn't cruise, he sort of aimed for a speed, and constantly overshot it
both sides. :( His fuel consumption figures were appalling. I could
maintain the same average speed as him but use 20% less fuel . . . :)
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Darren Peters
Without wishing to become embroiled in the petrol vs diesel 'debate, diesel
owners might like to look at this:
http://www.veggiepower.org.uk/main.htm
(I've no commercial interest in this site)
To slightly oversimplify, most if not all diesels can be run on vegetable
oil or old fryer fat with some modifications. Clean vegetable oil is CO2
neutral (CO2 given off = CO2 absorbed by the oilseed) and generally
pollutants are lower than with diesel.
Okay, interlude over, back to the arguing :)