Are you worried about the future of diesel cars?

Nasher said:
Well for a long time the US didn't have small, fast, European/Japanese cars. The big V8s were the only real option for anything remotely fast. Import laws were always quite strict (and still are for cars not sold in the US). It's kind of a "new" things for them.
Click to expand...

Diesel emissions tests were apparently a lot stricter in the US, hence one of the reasons diesel never really took off (presumably because of fuel costs too). It’s held it’s own for a while for vehicles that need more torque though (one model of Jeep engine and engines in 3/4 and 1 ton pickups - the latter usually bought to tow tons behind them).

The domestic manufacturers (especially Ford) are pushing the smaller turbo engine quite hard now, not just the import brands. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 5.0 V8 in the F150 and Mustang is their last V8. The 2.7 and 3.6 turbod engines are preferred in most cases now, even though fuel economy gains are basically negligible. The 5.0 NA V8, 3.6T And 2.7T replaced a 5.4 and 4.6 NA V8 lineup.


[TW]Fox said:
I like how the ice examples are either a twin turbo V8 or a tiny little hatchback. I wonder how it compares with the cars we really drive?
Click to expand...

Well the comparison is an AWD performance Tesla so the Twin turbo V8 is pretty directly comparable.

The Leaf takes about 5000kg of CO2 to manufacture, assuming 50% fossil fuel energy (which is onviously going to go down) so is pretty comparable to a smallish ICE vehicle on the manufacturing side. That, even if not added to a green energy tariff, would mean a Leaf produces a lot less CO2 over its life than even the smallest ICE.
 
Amp34 said:
Well the comparison is an AWD performance Tesla so the Twin turbo V8 is pretty directly comparable.
Click to expand...

The Teslas performance is massively more than most of its owners really value - most people are not buying them for the blistering performance and they are replacing 3 litre diesel Audi and BMW's in this country, not 4.8 litre twin turbo ones.

You can't buy a Tesla that isn't hilariously fast.
 
Diesels are slow burn so a longer stroke is used to utilise that burn - Hence lower revving engines.

Lorries used to use petrol.
 
[TW]Fox said:
The Teslas performance is massively more than most of its owners really value - most people are not buying them for the blistering performance and they are replacing 3 litre diesel Audi and BMW's in this country, not 4.8 litre twin turbo ones.

You can't buy a Tesla that isn't hilariously fast.
Click to expand...

If you’re buying a P (P stands for performance as you presumably know) 100D then it’s likely you’re buying it for the performance. There are plenty of other non P, non D Model S variants available with less performance and lower CO2 manufacturing requirements.
 
Amp34 said:
If you’re buying a P (P stands for performance as you presumably know) 100D then it’s likely you’re buying it for the performance. There are plenty of other non P, non D Model S variants available with less performance and lower CO2 manufacturing requirements.
Click to expand...

So compare those. I doubt the manufacturing requirements are much different.
 
There won't be any noticeable difference between the models from the manufacturing side of things, much of it is likely to be software differences. The same way VAG have the same cars with either an economy or performance map on the same engine.
 
[TW]Fox said:
So compare those. I doubt the manufacturing requirements are much different.
Click to expand...

Well less batteries and less motors, so at a guess 10% less? Your 530D probably uses about the same amount, but let’s say 10% less, but around half the CO2 emissions of the V8.

So we end up with the a broadly similar lifecycle CO2 per km between the two vehicles. At around 220g/km.

Then the Tesla owner switches to a renewable energy tariff and their lifetime CO2 emissions per km drops to 45, a fifth of your BMW.
 
Amp34 said:
Then the Tesla owner switches to a renewable energy tariff and their lifetime CO2 emissions per km drops to 45, a fifth of your BMW.
Click to expand...

Lets move forward into a world where we all drive EV's.

We don't have enough renewable energy tech to generate the majority of our current power needs - let alone the massive spike in demand when the private vehicle fleet moves to electric. So where is the power to fill the gap coming from and how environmentally friendly is that?
 
We can only generate about 5% more energy than we need right now, so it's already pretty tight.

Whatever we build to generate energy has a big environmental impact of some kind, even "green" stuff.
 
Amp34 said:
If you’re buying a P (P stands for performance as you presumably know) 100D then it’s likely you’re buying it for the performance. There are plenty of other non P, non D Model S variants available with less performance and lower CO2 manufacturing requirements.
Click to expand...


None P Tesla Model S still manage 0-60 in 3.5 seconds which by most peoples standards is still bloody fast. The latest software update has added a "chill" mode which lowers the 0-60 speed to around 7 seconds, still pretty good when compared to most cars available now around that price bracket.

As an fyi the Model 3 will do 0-60 in 5.1 seconds as a non performance edition, so expect sub 4 second times for the P model when they release it.
 
[TW]Fox said:
Lets move forward into a world where we all drive EV's.

We don't have enough renewable energy tech to generate the majority of our current power needs - let alone the massive spike in demand when the private vehicle fleet moves to electric. So where is the power to fill the gap coming from and how environmentally friendly is that?
Click to expand...

For starters those numbers in the initial images are for an area with 50% coal. As was already mentioned the UK power grid is down to around single figures now for coal (Edit: the actual figure as of right now is 21% renewables, 14% coal, 15% nuclear and 50% gas), so that’s already a good start.

(www.gridwatch.co.uk, coal is down to single figures in summer)

Secondly EVs aren’t going to take over overnight, it’s going to take 20-30 years minimum. Renewable energy installation rates are now higher than non renewable (so there’s more renewable electricity capacity being added than fossil fuel capacity) so there’s plenty of scope for it to keep up with EV adoption.

Even if the energy mix stays the same in the UK then an electric car (even a P100D) is still going to release less CO2 over its lifetime than its ICE equivalent, except perhaps in the Midwest US, where it’s perhaps marginal because of the amount of coal generated electricity.
 
MadMossy said:
None P Tesla Model S still manage 0-60 in 3.5 seconds which by most peoples standards is still bloody fast. The latest software update has added a "chill" mode which lowers the 0-60 speed to around 7 seconds, still pretty good when compared to most cars available now around that price bracket.

As an fyi the Model 3 will do 0-60 in 5.1 seconds as a non performance edition, so expect sub 4 second times for the P model when they release it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there’s not a huge amount of difference in performance, but the ICE car chosen is pretty equivelant to the Model S variant in that image.

Point still stands, you buy a “P” variant because of the “performance”. Otherwise you save some cash and buy a non P variant and put up with a “poorer” 0-60.

Edit: autocorrect fail
 
Last edited:
0-60 times aren't really a good way to measure performance though (in general really). EVs often have a good 0-60 time but after that there is just nothing and most don't corner so well either.
 
Irrelevant to the point. You buy the P variant because you want a more performance oriented vehicle, not “just because it’s a Tesla” as was originally stated. (@Nasher)

And just looking it up. Per KWH UK electricity produces about 25% less CO2 than US electricity (on average). The Midwest has a higher rate of CO2 emissions per KWH than most of the rest of the US (around 50% more from what I can see), so all in all the P100D is going to produce around 150 g/km over its lifetime (rather than the 226 in the image), around 25% less than the 530D, just using the normal UK electricity mix.

That gulf is only going to widen in the future.
 
Nasher said:
0-60 times aren't really a good way to measure performance though (in general really). EVs often have a good 0-60 time but after that there is just nothing and most don't corner so well either.
Click to expand...

Handling is important but it's only more important on a track. For normal people doing their normal day to day lives the 20-80 time and throttle response is much more important which EV's are clearly ahead of an ICE. The majority of cars are not produced for petrol heads.

Most EV's that you are referring to (Leaf, Zoe, Ionic, Soul, e-Golf, i3 etc.) also all fall into the category of a 'normal' 'cheap' hatch, non of which are exactly known for their excellent handling regardless of if they are ICE or EV equivalent and are more like 'perfectly fine handling'. Sure you can get a performance version of the Golf but its really not in the same category. You don't really go fast enough on public roads to really test a cars cornering performance in normal driving conditions. As long as it can be considered 'fine' then it is good enough for the masses.


Lets get back to diesel anyway, lets be realistic they are not going anywhere for a few years. Until every model is available in at least a PHEV then diesel will continue to be popular unless it is taxed off the road. It just makes so much sense for a lot of vehicles given whats available on the market currently.
 
Any retrospective changes to tax or fuel duty are not going to solve anything. Lets take the used F10 market.

Currently, for sale on Autotrader, there are 50 petrol powered F10 5 Series and... 3000 diesels. If you want a used exec saloon what are you going to buy? It's either diesel or nothing! There is no alternative unless you decide actually you want a sports car or a small hatchback! It doesnt really matter how much the tax is, unless you are fortunate enough to be factory ordering a brand new car its diesel or nothing.

Whatever they decide to do on Wednesday these cars are not going away soon and anyone in the market for a 1-6 year old 5 Series will face the same issue - petrol models simply don't exist. So what do we achieve? We just end up paying more in tax and nothing changes.

The 'fair' thing to do is increase VED on new registrations but diesels are now cleaner and better than they've ever been, so what is the point in that? There is no sensible answer beyond just letting the problem solve itself - most used diesels will expire at between 10 and 15 years of age and leave the vehicle fleet naturally.

But of course we have to be 'seen to be doing something' so more tax it'll be...
 
I'm totally with Fox on this. A retrospective tax is utterly pointless for the vast majority of diesel buyers. All it will do is maybe cause stupid little cars that shouldn't have been diesel in the first place to become significantly less desirable.
I was in the market 18 months ago for a used exec. I didn't want a diesel. I only ended up with this petrol XJ through sheer luck after I'd resigned myself to having to buy a diesel.
If you want a 5-series, 7-series, e-class, s-class, XF, XJ, A6 or A8 your choice is diesel or one of the 5 petrol models for sale in the entire country (assuming you aren't buying the super-saloon version such as the M-cars, AMGs, RS, or Rs)
 
Fox, I completely agree with you, taxing existing stock is pointless.

As much as I am an advocate for moving to electric doing it too quickly will cause more problems than it will solve. Existing policy seems to be working as intended. All ICE cars have to meet ever increasing emissions regulations. Old dirty cars are leaving the market in their droves every day. Eventually pure ICE simply isn't going to be able to reach the standard anymore and PHEV/hybrid will be the only way forward. The test cycle just needs to be more realistic moving forward and harder to 'game'. That should sort out the bogus mpg ratings also.

There is a positive 'incentive' to go electric if you can make it work with your lifestyle. Though I agree the incentive needs to taper off for cars with a list price over say £40k-£50k. I also think the incentive will actually encourage manufacturers to keep their list prices higher in the future once production ramps up and costs come under control. No one needs £5k off a brand new Merc/BMW/Tesla etc. Again the range test (NDEC) needs to be significantly overhauled because it is just pure fantasy at the moment.

There is a slightly smaller incentive to go PHEV, these will actually significantly reduce a lot of 'in town' emissions if used sensibly. A decent 30+ mile electric range will cover most people's daily driving. Getting PHEV's more affordable opens up a lot of opportunities for people to pollute less when driving and are a really good stop gap to get the masses ready for full electric.

There should be more incentive you get people actually out of cars and onto bikes.

Public transport needs cleaning up as well. Busses and trains just rank most of the time and that's just not what the exhaust pumps out.

A real look at how we can heat our homes in a much more sustainable way without pumping out huge amounts of emissions. Firstly starting with new builds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom