Evidence?
The Japanese just like to make a profit, same as anyone else.
Chris
Evidence?
The Japanese just like to make a profit, same as anyone else.
Chris
My use of "statistics" was not intended to imply anything so formal.
There is a common perception of Japanese car reliability that is unfounded for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that older Japanese cars get scrapped for relatively trivial reasons; they are uneconomic to repair at a much earlier age than others. This applies both to breakdown and accident repair. The information is on the 'net if you care to look.
Some German car brands have sunk like a stone in the reliability charts in recent years, but that's for totally different reasons.
Chris
The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus strongly advises against any more than a mixture of 5% bio - a huge ecological improvement then. :o)
Reliability surveys, owners own experiences, and so on. With any car, you could argue the owners expectations really decide they're expectations and wants of their car, so in reality there's no 100% accurate way of measuring the data.
But I'm sure we're still agreed that the majority of French cars are shit ;)
The big problem with diesel pollution is particulate emission though, isn't it?
AFAIK, biodiesel does not help.
Chris
I thought it was supposed to be carbon neutral?
It is. What has that got to do with particulates?
Chris
I think you are missing the point here. Note in my original post the term "particulate emission."
Diesels produce two exhaust related problems. One is the emission of so-called greenhouse gasses. These contribute to global warming. Bio-diesel is said to be carbon neutral; there is apparently some disagreement about this but it is a widely held view.
The second problem with diesels is that they emit particulate matter. These small particles have nothing to do with global warming, or the generation of greenhouse gasses. They have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to cause harm to humans, contributing to illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. Some scientific bodies believe the emitted particles are dangerously carcogenic.
There is no evidence I can find that suggests bio-diesel reduces these particulate emissions.
Chris
Which can be taken care of and anyway given the choice of particulates versus CO2 emissions, the Government's number one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere to help prevent global warming, when did you last hear them mention particulates?
So there you have it Chris, it looks the ideal solution is a good simple, indestructible diesel-engine, fitted with a particulate filter and burning bio-diesel :o)
Did you read the Wikipedia article your link points to? In particular, section 5 which describes how a DPF regenerates?
If so, perhaps you would care to explain how a "good, simple" diesel engine (presumably one without an ECU), would handle this?
Of course, a disposable filter could be retro-fitted to an old engine; ITYWF the costs of this would soon persuade you to buy something newer!
Where is your source for the statement that "the Government's number one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere"? Or is this just supposition? There is already Europe-wide legislation in place limiting particulate matter:
Also in the same article Citroen and Peugeot have been using particulate filters as standard fit on their vehicles since 2000, so they are obviously a practical proposition, and talking of the extra expense, I seem to recall quite a few moans and groans on that account when catalytic converters were first made mandatory!
You obviously don't possess a TV or radio then Chris, otherwise you would realise that hardly a day goes by without some government minister, expert or even Tony himself rattling on about CO2 emissions being a number one priority, by the same token when did you ever hear any of them ever mention particulates?
However you are detracting from my original point, which was that a 17 yearold diesel engine will run quite happily on 100 % biodiesel, and yet a new vehicle is only capable of running with a five per cent mixture.. which with the very serious concerns there are about global-warming I happen to think is really quite scandalous.
Presumably your argument is that this is a worthwhile trade-off in engine design, because modern engines don't emit as many particulates, which let's face it 'ever- increasing numbers' of fit and healthy people in their eighties and nineties in this country have been inhaling for decade's without apparent harm!.. where as a general and growing consensus of expert world opinion appears to indicate that by far the biggest threat of all of us is global warming.
Have they been using *disposable* filters then? No, I didn't think so... Perhaps it would be helpful if you read *all* the words in my posts before replying?
You haven't quoted your source of information that "the Government's number one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions", as opposed to your statement below that CO2 emissions are *a* number one objective.
I possess several TV's and radios. I also read quality daily newspapers.
The health problems caused by the emission of particulates from diesel engines is frequently discussed, often by Ken Livingstone. Perhaps it is you that needs to modify the type of programme you watch if you wish to become better informed.
But how many people running older diesels *do* use bio fuels? Because of its limited availability, how many actually could if they wanted to?
Disregarding the bio diesel issue on the basis that only a very small percentage of vehicles are actually using it, the newer car will contribute to global warning *much* less than a 17 year old one!
Again, you seem ill-informed. Do some research on the alarming increase in the number of cases of people suffering from lung disease and asthma in city areas. Yes, global warming is a threat that needs, and is being, addressed. It doesn't directly bear on the health of people in the same way that particulate emission does however.
Many of those "fit and healthy people in their eighties and nineties" were also cigarette smokers at some point in their lives. Your argument implies that smoking is not harmful. Do you believe that to be true?
Chris
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.