BBC emission tests an "Old Banger"

[Timewaster]

To be fair, it is a 163k mile 1.8 petrol Golf so "Old Banger" is fairly apt.

 

See how it gets on:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust

 

Interesting stats on some other new stuff too.

 

Look away if you drive a Cashcow.

[AlabamaShrimp]

Can you summarise, there's a lot of reading!

[UltraWomble]

Can you summarise, there's a lot of reading!

Old banger not as shit on some emissions as you might expect, but worse on others.

 

Newer ( 2009) DERV better than some even newer stuff that is supposedly Euro 5

 

Bloke scraps perfectly good car for want of a bottom hose.

[castros_bro]

Yes I can,

 

 

Anyone thinking that there is scientific evidence in a media article which uses a sample of one is an utter twat.

[MrDuke]

Except it's not presented as scientific evidence.

 

The main point of concern, is that 'official' tests are still woefully unrealistic, and there's plenty of independent data to back that up.

 

Oh, and he didn't scrap it because of a burst hose.

 

 

 

Threadlock in 5....4....3....

[MikeR]

newer cars are so bloated with extras they are failing real life testing

[UltraWomble]

 

 

Oh, and he didn't scrap it because of a burst hose.

 

Well, all right, they fixed the burst hose then scrapped it (because "dirty") - still in my eyes utter crap - it did seem to me that the burst hose was the deciding factor for binning the Golf off. 

[Timewaster]

The writer says they won't replace the Golf. They now live in London and have no need for a car. They say "it's sad but he's dirty and the world would be better off without him"

It is also a LHD French registered mk3 Golf, so it is hard to see it as a loss to the world.

 

Worth noting that the two main testing companies refuse to do work outside of the circle of manufacturers (or at least with the press).

 

I am a bit torn over the whole thing. I love a gas guzzling V8, I love a classic over a modern but I am appalled when a school bus pulls away from a playground full of 8 year olds and belches a cloud of black poison straight at them.

 

If you think like a normal person, I.E. Not one of us who doesn't care about cars and just want to get where they need to be then how would you feel if it turned out your washing machine was killing all the birds in the garden? wouldn't you just dump it for a new one?

Some mentals on a classic washing machine forum called Twintublickers.com or something would be up in arms and appalled at the whole idea and say Fuck the birds.

 

Also interesting how bad some "clean" moderns are compared to others.

[UltraWomble]

Twintublickers.com 

You realised I googled that, just in case there really was a forum for people dedicated to killing birds with an old Hotpoint twin.

[Bobthebeard]

You realised I googled that, just in case there really was a forum for people dedicated to killing birds with an old Hotpoint twin.

I imagine that Twintublickers.com put into Google came up with a few interesting * suggestions. None of them Hotpoint related.

(Other manufacturers are available)

[Dave_Q]

I think the point of the article was to highlight the deficiencies in the current emissions certification regime, rather than make out that this car or that car is worse or better. 

[AlabamaShrimp]

Bugger

 

[Bren]

Most pollution comes during a cars manufcture.

And this is nothing compared to the pollution coming out of politicians mouths.

They dont give a shit about the environment - the motorist is a taxation cash cow.

[Split_Pin]

Like 92.5% of articles in the mainstream media, there were no surprises.

 

I shall continue to run old chod that nobody else wants because I enjoy it and I despise waste.

[mk2_craig]

I bet the Golf is being scrapped because it needs a ton of work to get it up to MoT standard and the owner can't be bothered with the relative arseache of having it UK registered, as far as they're concerned the car has done its job like an old dishwasher that could now do with a new detergent dispenser.

 

Not something I'd be upset about anyway. Now if that car was a Lancia Delta of similar vintage, different matter

[Timewaster]

Most pollution comes during a cars manufcture.

I like this argument. I've used it myself.

 

Does anyone know if it is true?

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that from manufacture to end of life the greenest car was a Jeep Cherokee due to its life expectancy, basic construction and recyclability.

 

Can't find the article now though.

[flat4alfa]

Same article also discussed here:

 

http://autoshite.com/topic/29634-are-diesels-cleaning-up/page-3

 

and

 

http://autoshite.com/topic/21828-vw-piss-off-the-feds/page-16

[Timewaster]

Same article also discussed here:

 

http://autoshite.com/topic/29634-are-diesels-cleaning-up/page-3

 

and

 

http://autoshite.com/topic/21828-vw-piss-off-the-feds/page-16

 

Bugger.

[flat4alfa]

No it all goes into the pot of wanting to save the Frog Golf

[flat4alfa]

Still no answer from the author!    

[Kiltox]

I wonder how my EU6 petrol gets on - some of the stuff it does is definitely not enviro friendly (idles higher when cold than some old choke 80s stuff!!!!)

[castros_bro]

If you are going to criticise the present system of some governments and organisations setting criteria for vehicle emissions which are related to "pollution" you need to decide your spec, like is exhaust emissions of 50mg of PM10 per km worse then  63ppm of NOX if it also gives a decrease of 15km liter to 13km a liter of 15% ethanol unleaded ?  Then try an stick that in some "real world" driving scenario and regulate the whole thing whilst also taking into account the pollution and energy consumed in making a new vehicle vs keep an older one in use for a longer time.

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but, as before, to base a decision on one or two vehicles in a media article  is pointless.

 

 

I used to maintain and calibrate gas analysers, NOX, CO, THC (not tetrahydrocannabinol)  used for engine manufactures/labs and install engine test rigs.

[garethj]

An interesting article, one of the few to mention particulates from tyres and brakes.  I suppose it's easy for the major manufacturers to rubbish a small, independent test facility for getting shaky results and they may even be correct.  But hopefully it will work to highlight lab conditions are very different to what most of us see every day.

 

One interesting thing they say is that emissions are much worse at busy junctions and I wonder if something could be done about that.  Back in the late '80s there were speed humps put in on a local street.  I knew someone who lived there and he said the increase in noise was massive as cars accelerated away from their 15mph back up to 30 again.  We didn't think about it then, but that probably meant higher emissions as the driver gave it a bootfull again.  I suggest a two-pronged attack:

 

1. Use satnav traffic technology and timed traffic lights to make acceleration needed much less.  Remove current traffic calming as it's a bit of a crude way to solve one problem and makes pollution much worse (particulates from tyres, brakes, some engines idling and the acceleration after stopping).

 

2. All the local authorities should get very good lawyers as it's only a matter of time before someone claims that their child's asthma was made much worse by the traffic calming or lights put outside their school.

[Guest Hooli]

I wonder how my EU6 petrol gets on - some of the stuff it does is definitely not enviro friendly (idles higher when cold than some old choke 80s stuff!!!!)

 

Although you could argue the quicker warm up time that gives gets the cat functioning sooner so reduces emissions over the average* length drive.

[willswitchengage]

I like this argument. I've used it myself.

 

Does anyone know if it is true?

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that from manufacture to end of life the greenest car was a Jeep Cherokee due to its life expectancy, basic construction and recyclability.

 

Can't find the article now though.

 

I think everyone needs to move away from the argument that cars can be recycled - they're far too complex and their construction methods (heavy use of adhesives and parts not designed for disassembly) don't permit recycling in the way that you can separate a ready meal cardboard sleeve and 100% of it comes back next week as your newspaper or whatever. If anything modern designs are more reductive due to the significant use of aluminium in engines and composites meaning that the only realistic material - steel - is now even more diluted. Think we've come 100 years in tyre technology and the best recycling method that exists for them is still re-use in the marine environment as cushions for boats.

 

I read this article earlier this week and the conclusion was the that Octavia was significantly less polluting than the Golf, although still significantly more polluting than the manufacturer claimed. The tests used in the article were very much 'real world' as opposed to lab so it is interesting from that perspective.

 

Still none of it appraises the argument of fundamentally not buying or using a car has the biggest impact

[dollywobbler]

An interesting article, one of the few to mention particulates from tyres and brakes.  

 

Though it falls into the trap of labelling them an electric car issue, even though electric cars have regenerative braking, which means far less work for the wasteful conventional brakes...

[Zelandeth]

Surprised to see that the NOx emissions were higher on the Golf - I thought that was one of the major jobs that the conventional catalytic converter was meant to reduce (in response to the uproar about acid rain etc back in the 90s).

 

Dodgy cat? Or just difference in "acceptable standards" over the years?

[castros_bro]

Surprised to see that the NOx emissions were higher on the Golf - I thought that was one of the major jobs that the conventional catalytic converter was meant to reduce (in response to the uproar about acid rain etc back in the 90s).

 

Dodgy cat? Or just difference in "acceptable standards" over the years?

 

If you use a 3 way cat then when working it takes CO and unburnt fuel and oxidises both so forming CO2 and H2O   Also take oxides of nitrogen and reduced them ie removes oxygen to form nitrogen  BUT  in your MOT there is no test for NOX emissions so if this bit of the cat degrades then NOx will be part of the exhausted gasses.   Has anyone but me taken a cat equipped car for an independent NOX test ?

[forddeliveryboy]

There are suggestions out there that manufacturing of a car pales into insignificance compared with 50,000 galls of fuel burned, which I can understand.

 

But as ever there's more to it - is there any account taken of the unrecyclability of a lot of the plastics or the pollution created by 'black box' printed circuit boards and silicon chips? - which are unbelievably toxic and aren't recycled.

 

Some account should be taken of how thirsty a car is for tyres since they're an appalling pollutant even once finished with, but of course none is so a Tesla is seen as kind to the world on the basis of 'well it's better than a Porsche'. I know people who believe they're god's gift to the environment becoz PV+EV yet keep warm by felling a small forest every winter and fly off on holidays on a whim.

 

I see an Audi 80 or V70 diesel as the opposite of what current opinion would have them as, since they're hugely tough, simple, practical, not filthy-exhausted and go a long way on a bottle of diesel.

 

Particulates from tyres are an increasing concern to medics and air quality experts but ignored by government because the civil servant engineers who report to parliamentary select committees simplify frictional material use along the lines of "if you want tyres to grip then they'll produce particulates" which is an enormous fob-off.

 

Tyre particles don't biodegrade, there's no control over what's in them (think the worst) and are increasing faster than the rate of road miles. Yes, EVs are a good move but exhaust pollution from a rusty steel pipe under a car is only one (increasingly low) source of toxicity.

[willswitchengage]

^

 

It's also worth taking to account the car's 'lifecycle' of course. Mine does a nice and healthy 45mpg, costing about 12p per mile, but the total burdened cost of ownership so far has been about 30p. I've paid for tyres and other parts which have to be made in a factory somewhere, I've insured my car so that somebody else will pay if more parts need replacing through a crash, I've paid road tax so that bitumen and aggregates can be mixed and criss cross the country for me to drive on. The impact of one car is absolutely phenomenal. The really is and never will be ever such a thing as sustainable motoring, just making it less damaging.