A 1.6 engine against a 1.4 turbo one

Trebor16

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It's lunacy to claim that it's a "green" policy when it involves people buying new cars (because of the incentive of lower tax) in order to continue burning as much, if not more, fuel than an old car can manage.

Now you are expanding it from the VED policy to "green policies". If these policies help get older more polluting vehicles off the road then it's not a bad thing. Throw in the better crash worthiness of modern vehicles compared to the cars from 15-20 years ago and you end up with getting the old wrecks off the road.


Are you saying modern cars are not as economical as the cars from the 80's and 90's?

[quote=Joe_Horner}Driving_style_is_very easy to target - put VED on fuel. You drive with a heavy foot = you pay extra. In fact, it accounts for all the variables invoved in one go because (if it's going to be called a green tax) you pay for exactly the amount of CO2 you, yourself, personally, produce.[/quote]


And by doing that you put those in urban environments who need a vehicle to get around at a huge cost disadvantage. or those who need vehicles in connection with their work or business will also end up paying more. Where would these increased costs be passed on? I think you know the answer to that.

Joe_Horner wrote:

No harm to the haulage industry either (the usual criticism of the idea) because it's perfectly straightforward to rebate on their fuel.

So hauliers would get a rebate but what about other business users? Or those who don't have the option of private transport?

Joe_Horner wrote:

It's completely not valid in terms of VED though - which is the context I thought I was clarly speaking in. The VED bands take no account whatsoever of other pollutants (if we accept for a moment that plant food is a pollutant of course).

You have now expanded it to "green policies" so it is perfectly valid.

sh0597

I wouldn't say VED gets old cars off the road. A V12 from the 90's costs the same to insure as an old 1.6 hatchback from the same era. It's helped to kill off some new cars though with the insane 1st year rates for high emissions vehicles.

Gloomendoom

Trebor16 wrote: »

Are you saying modern cars are not as economical as the cars from the 80's and 90's?

Very probably, if you factor in the energy used, the pollution created and the depletion of raw material resources every time a new car is built.

Joe_Horner

Trebor16 wrote: »

Now you are expanding it from the VED policy to "green policies".

Is your memory really so short that you don't remember why they brought in banding based on CO2 emissions? I'll give you a hint - global warming. VED and "green issues" have been intrinsically linked (not by me) ever since.

Are you saying modern cars are not as economical as the cars from the 80's and 90's?

It depends to a great extent on the driver. Clearly I can get better economy in my 1996 2 litre Pug than the OP can in his new 1.7l which, on paper, should be beating the pants off mine. I also had a brand new Colt 1.5 diesel about 5 years back, in which I averaged only 3mpg better (over 35k miles) than the Pug does despite it apparently averaging 60+mpg. Same driving style but very little real efficiency gain.

The apparent improvements are certainly nothing like as high as the industry (and government) would like people to believe.

And by doing that you put those in urban environments who need a vehicle to get around at a huge cost disadvantage. or those who need vehicles in connection with their work or business will also end up paying more. Where would these increased costs be passed on? I think you know the answer to that.

I need a vehicle in relation to my work, and you'll find that it's rural areas (which is exactly where I live, and have for most of my life) that would be hardest hit according to your logic. Urban areas tend to have useful public transport rather than the 3 busses a day (minimum fare £5 single) that we have.

Except that most rural areas have a disproportionately high number of older cars because they also have low wages and high costs, meaing that the workers there can't afford to upgrade for a pretend efficiency / emissions improvement. So a large number of residents would actually benefit if the total revenue was kept the same but spread over fuel. As would the many rural elderly who need transport but only do maybe 2 or 3 k miles a year.

You have now expanded it to "green policies" so it is perfectly valid.

As I've pointed out above 9feel free to look back on the internet for reports when it was proposed if you don't believe me), it wasn't me who linked VED to "green", it was the govt of the day. And it's still not valid because as the system stands I can pump out as much particulates, NO and carbon MON oxide as I like without affecting the VED I pay.

ONLY CO2 is considered for VED banding and CO2 emissions per km are exactly proportional to the fuel economy you get in real life.

If your new diesel car's specs say you can get, say, 55mpg average and that it produces . 136 g/KM of CO2 then, if you find that you only get 40mpg you won't be producing 136 g/km - you'll be producing 187 g/km just like any other diesel car doing 40mpg.

Because of that simple fact the VED system as it stands is essentially biased towards giving cheap access to the roads for those well off enough to buy new cars without fulfilling its clearly stated (when introduced) intention of reducing CO2 emissions.



As for the safety improvements, funnily enough, all of the driving tecniques that can improve your fuel consumption all improve safety as well because it's all about observation, planning and anticipation.

Avoiding accidents is far better than making them more survivable unless you're a no-win-no-fee lawyer, so encouraging people to drive efficiently - and inherently more safely as a result - is a GOOD thing.

JethroUK

dontlikemondays wrote: »

I am thinking of buying a new Chevrolet Trax.

There are 2 options for my price range, the 1.6litre and the 1.4 litre turbo.
I have been told that the turbo is the best option as it has the turbo.
Looking at the stats,
The 1.6LT does 0-60 in 12.3 secs using torque of 155.0 Nm@4000 rpm
The 1.4LT T does 0-60 in 9,5 secs using torque of 200.0 Nm@1850 rpm

Can I therefore take it that although the 1.6 is the bigger engine, overall, the 1.4 is faster and more powerful, which is what I want

Turbo causes the engine to produce about 30% more power

1.4 + 0.42 = 1.82

Never understood why they didn't stick turn is on small petrol engines instead of turbo charging big diesel (tractor) emgines

Of course turbo chargers make the engine work much harder than it wants to and even designed for so they will shorten the life of the engine so you should consider that too

Joe_Horner

JethroUK wrote: »

Never understood why they didn't stick turn is on small petrol engines instead of turbo charging big diesel (tractor) emgines

Because diesels are better suited to turbocharging than petrol.

They're inherently more efficient than petrol, mainly thanks to the higher compression ratios. With a petrol you generally have to reduce the compression ratio (making them even less efficient) if you're adding a turbo in order to avoid detonation, with diesel you don't.

Diesels run without a throttle, so their gas flow is always at maximum for aby given engine speed. That means the turbo is already spooled up even on light load once you get into its operating speeds. A petrol on light load has a big flap stopping air flowing through it. That causes lots of turbo lag for petrol because, when you open the throttle, the airflow has to build up to drive the turbo. The continuous full flow on a diesel also helps to keep the turbo cooler, extending its life.

Diesels are generally heavier built and stronger, and have a lower rev range,, all of which helps to increase their life when taking the extra strain of turbocharging.

Diesels naturally have good torque at low revs (which is why they're used for tractors!) so willl still pull reasonably well when off turbo and give a reasonably smooth power curve. A small petrol turbo will tend to be much more "peaky" in its power delivery because, until the turbo starts to work, it's just a small gutless petrol engine.