|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,712
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
Surely I’m not the only one who hates the term ‘modern classic’?
It’s meaningless dirge created by motoring journalists and bought into by the owners of vehicles that fall into that period, to try to increase the validity or worth of their vehicles. What’s more they’re exactly the kind of pre-emissions control cars that emissions control zones are made to control, so making out youre being victimised by driving exactly the type of vehicle they don’t want you to drive there makes you look like a bit of a tw4t.
I happen to own at least 5 vehicles that fit into that category, all 5 being rare or desirable models, but I’m not pretentious enough to try to call them ‘modern classics’ or expect them to be able to go into controlled zones.
One thing that everyone on both sides of the argument seems to totally ignore is the advent of catalytic converters. Surely that should be a major event in the decision of ‘does this car kill the polar bears or not?’ Given they were the first real attempt at reducing exhaust pipe emissions. To me any car with a cat is new enough to be considered ‘clean’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2019 11:17:48 GMT
|
Surely I’m not the only one who hates the term ‘modern classic’? It’s meaningless dirge created by motoring journalists and bought into by the owners of vehicles that fall into that period, to try to increase the validity or worth of their vehicles. What’s more they’re exactly the kind of pre-emissions control cars that emissions control zones are made to control, so making out youre being victimised by driving exactly the type of vehicle they don’t want you to drive there makes you look like a bit of a tw4t. I find it amusing that the author tries to draw a distinction between a Mercedes 500E and a Peugeot 405 diesel, inferring that the Mercedes is a "modern classic" and should be allowed in the ULEZ and the Peugeot is not and should be excluded. So presumably his benchmark for "modern classic" is not solely age-related. I agree that there perhaps should be allowance for individual certification, but that does seem like an administrative headache when compared to just excluding everything pre-Euro 4 and having done with it. Seeing as rolling 40-year historic status has been reinstated, and assuming (hoping) that other councils follow London's example of exempting historic vehicles from ULEZ exclusion, it boils down to moaning about not being allowed to drive a fairly old car (from a high end manufacturer, not those old French bangers) into the city and flout ULEZ restrictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2019 13:35:51 GMT
|
I am constantly irritated by the total lack of distinction between what "kills the planet" - mostly CO2; and what "kills people" - mostly NOx and particulates. Though I'm not sure how worthy of respect much of the alleged science and associated reporting is on the latter.
A Mercedes 500E of a certain age might have a cat and thus be low on the "people killing scale" but fairly catastrophic on the "planet killing" scale whereas a 405 diesel would be the exact opposite. I take the view that there are far too many people in the world and we all have to die of something, but the planet deserves more consideration!
I also seriously wonder what at what point the environmental harm due to the manufacture of a vehicle is outweighed operation of an older, more polluting vehicle, justifying the replacement of old by new.
Yes, I am am the owner of assorted old bangers, some safely (for now?) in the classic bracket being well over 40, but the daily driver being a 23 year TDI with over 300k under it's belt. I'd not dispute that it meets the "wicked people killer" definition being a fairly stinky old thing, but given it's lifetime mpg average being in the 45 - 50 region and that very significant use has been extracted from its carbon footprint, I'd still argue that in planet killing terms it's still greener than many things on sale today.
NIck
|
|
1967 Triumph Vitesse convertible (old friend) 1996 Audi A6 2.5 TDI Avant (still durability testing) 1972 GT6 Mk3 (Restored after loong rest & getting the hang of being a car again)
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,194
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Nov 20, 2019 23:13:41 GMT
|
Surely I’m not the only one who hates the term ‘modern classic’? It’s meaningless dirge created by motoring journalists and bought into by the owners of vehicles that fall into that period, to try to increase the validity or worth of their vehicles. What’s more they’re exactly the kind of pre-emissions control cars that emissions control zones are made to control, so making out youre being victimised by driving exactly the type of vehicle they don’t want you to drive there makes you look like a bit of a tw4t. I happen to own at least 5 vehicles that fit into that category, all 5 being rare or desirable models, but I’m not pretentious enough to try to call them ‘modern classics’ or expect them to be able to go into controlled zones. One thing that everyone on both sides of the argument seems to totally ignore is the advent of catalytic converters. Surely that should be a major event in the decision of ‘does this car kill the polar bears or not?’ Given they were the first real attempt at reducing exhaust pipe emissions. To me any car with a cat is new enough to be considered ‘clean’. Surely Classic cars is the same thing as Modern Classics . It increases the desirability after all .
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,194
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Nov 20, 2019 23:23:15 GMT
|
I am constantly irritated by the total lack of distinction between what "kills the planet" - mostly CO2; and what "kills people" - mostly NOx and particulates. Though I'm not sure how worthy of respect much of the alleged science and associated reporting is on the latter. A Mercedes 500E of a certain age might have a cat and thus be low on the "people killing scale" but fairly catastrophic on the "planet killing" scale whereas a 405 diesel would be the exact opposite. I take the view that there are far too many people in the world and we all have to die of something, but the planet deserves more consideration! I also seriously wonder what at what point the environmental harm due to the manufacture of a vehicle is outweighed operation of an older, more polluting vehicle, justifying the replacement of old by new. Yes, I am am the owner of assorted old bangers, some safely (for now?) in the classic bracket being well over 40, but the daily driver being a 23 year TDI with over 300k under it's belt. I'd not dispute that it meets the "wicked people killer" definition being a fairly stinky old thing, but given it's lifetime mpg average being in the 45 - 50 region and that very significant use has been extracted from its carbon footprint, I'd still argue that in planet killing terms it's still greener than many things on sale today. NIck Harry Metcalfe did a podcast about "pollution" with Chris Harris and Ed Lovett's "Collecting Cars". I'm not CH's biggest fan but the podcast is interesting as are many of the guests on it. I recall Harry speaking about pollution and the idea that it all came down to what came out of the tailpipe. The example he used was someone buying a brand new BMW X5 PHEV every 2 years on a PCP. I think he said that over that time, if you included the manufacturing of it, it contributed towards 18 tonnes of pollution, thus making a 'Green' person one of the worst polluters in the driving world. A 'normal' non-electric car actually contributes much less. As for the interest I am sort of safe: If the Emissions Zone hits my workplace, two out of three of my cars will be fine, and as the pilot post suggested, its' the M3 which won't be. The Mondeo just escapes being a Euro IV petrol and the Merc of course comes under as a historic vehicle. In Germany ironically, all are allowed to enter the cities with an Emissions sticker. The Merc if I still had it (the S124 E320), however, may not have been allowed as I don't think that was Euro II compliant.
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,194
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Nov 20, 2019 23:27:47 GMT
|
Surely I’m not the only one who hates the term ‘modern classic’? It’s meaningless dirge created by motoring journalists and bought into by the owners of vehicles that fall into that period, to try to increase the validity or worth of their vehicles. What’s more they’re exactly the kind of pre-emissions control cars that emissions control zones are made to control, so making out youre being victimised by driving exactly the type of vehicle they don’t want you to drive there makes you look like a bit of a tw4t. I find it amusing that the author tries to draw a distinction between a Mercedes 500E and a Peugeot 405 diesel, inferring that the Mercedes is a "modern classic" and should be allowed in the ULEZ and the Peugeot is not and should be excluded. So presumably his benchmark for "modern classic" is not solely age-related. I agree that there perhaps should be allowance for individual certification, but that does seem like an administrative headache when compared to just excluding everything pre-Euro 4 and having done with it. Seeing as rolling 40-year historic status has been reinstated, and assuming (hoping) that other councils follow London's example of exempting historic vehicles from ULEZ exclusion, it boils down to moaning about not being allowed to drive a fairly old car (from a high end manufacturer, not those old French bangers) into the city and flout ULEZ restrictions. While that is true, I think you also enter of the issue of modifications. Is a classic still classic enough? For example, my Merc has some mods done to it to in my eyes improve it and make it more dailyable if one can afford the fuel cost. That includes Monotube dampers, electronic ignition, different and larger diameter wheels and an ICE system for those long commutes. While it's very tame compared to many builds out there, it may not be in the eyes of the DVLA etc. Keeping it standard is possible, but not easy (CDI boxes for the ignition example are now NLA) and factory 14" tyres in a decent brand are eye-wateringly expensive. While the above is a mild example, I doubt my MGB Sebring, especially if I did an engine swap would have qualified. Yes you can stay quiet, but all it takes for one disgruntled person or an inspector to randomly pick the car as someone here has found out.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2019 23:29:12 GMT by ChasR
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,712
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
Surely I’m not the only one who hates the term ‘modern classic’? It’s meaningless dirge created by motoring journalists and bought into by the owners of vehicles that fall into that period, to try to increase the validity or worth of their vehicles. What’s more they’re exactly the kind of pre-emissions control cars that emissions control zones are made to control, so making out youre being victimised by driving exactly the type of vehicle they don’t want you to drive there makes you look like a bit of a tw4t. I happen to own at least 5 vehicles that fit into that category, all 5 being rare or desirable models, but I’m not pretentious enough to try to call them ‘modern classics’ or expect them to be able to go into controlled zones. One thing that everyone on both sides of the argument seems to totally ignore is the advent of catalytic converters. Surely that should be a major event in the decision of ‘does this car kill the polar bears or not?’ Given they were the first real attempt at reducing exhaust pipe emissions. To me any car with a cat is new enough to be considered ‘clean’. Surely Classic cars is the same thing as Modern Classics . It increases the desirability after all . Classic cars have a clearly defined date cutoff and associated ‘perks’, dictated by their taxation class, so they are a real tangible thing. ‘Modem classics’ don’t have this, they are just modern cars. They’ll be classic if they end up lasting long enough, but crying because they don’t get special dispensation in the meantime is stupid.
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,194
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Nov 21, 2019 12:48:04 GMT
|
Surely Classic cars is the same thing as Modern Classics . It increases the desirability after all . Classic cars have a clearly defined date cutoff and associated ‘perks’, dictated by their taxation class, so they are a real tangible thing. ‘Modem classics’ don’t have this, they are just modern cars. They’ll be classic if they end up lasting long enough, but crying because they don’t get special dispensation in the meantime is stupid. Some would argue those with vehicles a 40 years old (or able to afford them) are smug and like to look down on others . Remember back in 1997 before Labour froze the date, 25 years was the cutoff date. To me, it’s not that black and white. Magazines even back then had ‘modern’ classics in. The freeze back then is probably one reason late 70s and 80s cars of some types rose to value. And also why in other instances logbooks changed hands for hundreds of pounds on the cars which could carry that off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to throw a spanner in the emission works, does anyone remember the old ‘Top Gear’ test where a BMW 5 series ( i think) and a Prius were driven reasonably rapidly around an airfield? The result was that the Prius returned less MPG than the Bm Moral of the story- its not just what you drive, but how you drive it. Admittedly, in most cities its now not possible to drive anything ‘rapidly’🙄
|
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,194
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Nov 22, 2019 18:47:16 GMT
|
Just to throw a spanner in the emission works, does anyone remember the old ‘Top Gear’ test where a BMW 5 series ( i think) and a Prius were driven reasonably rapidly around an airfield? The result was that the Prius returned less MPG than the Bm Moral of the story- its not just what you drive, but how you drive it. Admittedly, in most cities its now not possible to drive anything ‘rapidly’🙄 That was an extreme example but not a bad way of showing things. It was an E90 M3 V8 with a MkII Toyota Prius. The M3 doing that MPG is surprising. The S62 engine, especially in manual form, is not known for its MPG. Quite the opposite actually. It's a very good point you raise. My Mondeo will get 35MPG going to Wolverhampton and back here. The new Evoque my mum hasn't with a 180BHP diesel engine can't do much more. Neither can my dad's 535d, albeit that does have 400kgs more and 60BHP more in the mix. My mate's Focus 1.6 TDCI can't seem to get more than 38! But don't be that fooled. Some modern cars can do silly MPG. A friend's 65 plate Gold 2.0 TDI DSG would do around 65MPG on the run I do in my Mondeo, and even in town does around 50. The Focus TDDIs in MkI guise weren't a million miles off those figures. With my mileage now (20k a year), I think I'm at the breaking point of where a modern may be cheaper to run. But it is nice to have something a little older but moreso, also own it outright, even if it does, in my case, has, bitten you previously (at one point, all 3 of my cars had significant faults, with me barely managing to limp them along).
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 22, 2019 18:49:21 GMT by ChasR
|
|
tofufi
South West
Posts: 1,454
|
|
Nov 22, 2019 19:30:54 GMT
|
Just to throw a spanner in the emission works, does anyone remember the old ‘Top Gear’ test where a BMW 5 series ( i think) and a Prius were driven reasonably rapidly around an airfield? The result was that the Prius returned less MPG than the Bm Moral of the story- its not just what you drive, but how you drive it. Admittedly, in most cities its now not possible to drive anything ‘rapidly’🙄 Don't forget it's not just about MPG (which is directly linked to CO2). It's about NOx, particulates, CO and other nasties which are far more serious in terms of causing poor health than CO2 is. In that regard, modern cars are capable of being much cleaner than anything 90s or before. But depending on how the engine is calibrated, can be pretty bad too. The irony is that engines create most NOx when working hard (higher combustion temperatures). As a result, stop start traffic with lots of acceleration and braking is significantly worse for NOx emissions than driving at a steady speed. Yet councils seem determined to slow traffic and make stop/start driving the norm in towns.
|
|
|
|
voodoo57
Club Retro Rides Member
That's not 2 metres! come a little...Closer!
Posts: 2,755
Club RR Member Number: 137
|
|
Nov 22, 2019 20:47:57 GMT
|
It wouldn't be such a bad thing then to let those with the older classic car to be allowed a modern drivetrain but without the hassle of the dvla and this points system? thus maintaining a little independence but 100% compliance when it comes to emissions ? What do i know..... i could die tomorr.......................
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2019 20:53:35 GMT
|
The other irony is that most of the design measures taken to reduce NOx and particulates actually spoil efficiency and increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
Some of the measures taken to reduced NOx in older diesels (EGR!) also increase particulates. My old A6 is named the Soot Monster due to its ability to cough out a fog bank if hoofed hard after a period of low speed pottering. Disabling the EGR cures this and improves mpg.
Nick
|
|
1967 Triumph Vitesse convertible (old friend) 1996 Audi A6 2.5 TDI Avant (still durability testing) 1972 GT6 Mk3 (Restored after loong rest & getting the hang of being a car again)
|
|
|
|
|
I was told many years ago that the Govt had been lead up the garden path by the catalyst ‘experts’ , and should have been going all-out for lean- burn engines Cant remember who it was told me that, but I'm pretty sure it was somebody who would know
|
|
|
|
tofufi
South West
Posts: 1,454
|
|
|
I was told many years ago that the Govt had been lead up the garden path by the catalyst ‘experts’ , and should have been going all-out for lean- burn engines Cant remember who it was told me that, but I'm pretty sure it was somebody who would know Whichever way you go is a compromise. Lean-burn creates more NOx. But creates less of other pollutants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lean burn would give lowest CO2 but was very problematic for NOx. Also catalyst tech could claim to be proven as had already been in use in the USA for many years. I’m sure vested interests had no influence......
The latest direct injection engines are headed back into lean burn territory with catalysts too now, so full circle. Some of the modern DI engines work really well though not all appear fully sorted in long term reliability terms
Nick
|
|
1967 Triumph Vitesse convertible (old friend) 1996 Audi A6 2.5 TDI Avant (still durability testing) 1972 GT6 Mk3 (Restored after loong rest & getting the hang of being a car again)
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,953
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
|
|
Lean burn would give lowest CO2 but was very problematic for NOx. Also catalyst tech could claim to be proven as had already been in use in the USA for many years. I’m sure vested interests had no influence...... The latest direct injection engines are headed back into lean burn territory with catalysts too now, so full circle. Some of the modern DI engines work really well though not all appear fully sorted in long term reliability terms Nick And the direct injection petrol stuff chucks out harmful particulate matter, so the latest line of them are having gasoline particulate filters fitted in the exhausts I believe modern diesels is PM10, and the direct injection petrol is PM5 matter. Either way, there is always a compromise to be made
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2019 17:44:01 GMT
|
Ah, interesting, hadn’t picked up on the DI petrol engines and particulates.....
Nick
|
|
1967 Triumph Vitesse convertible (old friend) 1996 Audi A6 2.5 TDI Avant (still durability testing) 1972 GT6 Mk3 (Restored after loong rest & getting the hang of being a car again)
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,194
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Nov 24, 2019 18:38:19 GMT
|
Ah, interesting, hadn’t picked up on the DI petrol engines and particulates..... Nick From what I understand, Gasoline Particulate Filters (GPFs), don't suffer as badly as DPFs. They can burn the soot off more easily due to more variables to affect the EGTs like ignition timing etc.
|
|
|
|
|