Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 11th May 2008 Change Date

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Doing a ton: it's the £100 petrol tank



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 March 2008
THEY are renowned for guzzling gas, hogging city roads, blocking parking spaces and being a safety menace to pedestrians.
And now soaring fuel prices mean the cost of filling up many 4x4 vehicles has hit £100 for the first time, burning an ever bigger hole in their owners' deep pockets.

But new figures show that, despite financial encouragement from the Government for motorists to switch to smaller cars, sales of 4x4 vehicles are still increasing.

Last year 176,290 were sold in the UK, compared with 175,809 the year before, according to the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

More were sold in January this year than in the same month in 2007, suggesting sales are still on an upward curve.

Dealers in Scotland confirmed there was no let-up in demand for 'Chelsea tractors', despite the recent hike in fuel prices.

The Automobile Association says the average cost of a litre of diesel now stands at a record 114.25p, while petrol costs 106.75p a litre. That makes diesel 7.49p more expensive than it was at the start of the year and petrol 5.1p more. The cost of filling tanks that can hold 90 litres is now around £100.

A spokesman at Arnold Clark Toyota in Glasgow, which sells top-of-the-range Toyota Land Cruiser V8s, which have 93-litre tanks, said there was little sign of potential buyers being put off by rising fuel prices.

"We've actually completely run out of them at the moment," he said.

At Pentland LandRover in Edinburgh, where high-end Range Rovers cost around £70,000, a spokesman said sales were still healthy, despite rising costs.

"From bone-dry empty you are looking at up to £100 but fuel prices do not have a major effect."

Chief executive of the Scottish Motor Trade Association, Douglas Robertson, said any dip in new car sales was likely to be replaced with extra used car purchases as the models became more popular.

"To be honest, the cost of running them is not that important to most of the people who buy them. If you are spending £60,000 on a car then you can probably afford a few more pence on petrol."

Michael Durno, a Glenlivet farmer, drives a Toyota Land Cruiser 3.0 with an 87-litre fuel tank. With the average local price of diesel at £1.16 a litre, a full tank of fuel now sets him back an eye-watering £100.92.

"But I use my 4x4 to get around the fields, and I need the pulling power for the trailer. For this kind of job you don't really have an option.

"I think that we are being penalised for the problems of the cities, and all those Chelsea tractors, as they call them. The Government are just clamping down on them to get the Brownie points."

Ministers have tried to crack down on the most polluting cars by increasing car tax for gas-guzzlers. From April 2009, drivers of the most polluting cars will pay vehicle excise duty of £440 compared with £400 at present.

Then, from April 2010, people buying new models that are the most polluting will pay vehicle excise duty of £950 as a 'showroom tax' in their first year of owning the vehicle, and after that will pay vehicle excise duty of £455 per year.

A Scottish Green Party spokesman said: "Even with the changes in the Budget, the real climate costs remain hidden for all the most polluting vehicles, not just 4x4s.

"Ministers should be working with their EU colleagues to set tougher limits on emissions, as well as cutting fares on the public transport alternatives.

"In the future, we'll look back on the fad for urban 4x4s with disbelief, like we do now with industrial asbestos or dumping waste at sea."

Driving down emissions

Alternative fuelling methods:

HYBRIDS

Hybrid electric vehicles employ a high-efficiency, very-low-emissions petrol engine, an electric-motor generator and a battery pack. They maximise power efficiency by reclaiming energy during deceleration. The Toyota Prius, the world's best selling hybrid, costs £17,000-£20,000, but delivers an impressive 65.7mpg.

LPG

Liquefied petroleum gas emits about 20% less CO2 than petrol and less harmful particulates than diesel. Conversion costs £1,500-£2,000, but LPG costs only about 50p a litre.

Defiant despite the eco-critics

EVENTS organiser Mary Cameron bought a Land Rover Discovery a year ago and would not now be parted from her treasured vehicle despite the rising costs.

The young businesswoman, who runs Carnival Chaos Productions, uses her 4x4 for her daily commutes between her home in the Borders village of Lilliesleaf and her offices in Edinburgh.

It has become an essential tool for her work and for her leisure time – she is a horse rider and the car is big enough to pull a horse trailer comfortably – even though the cost of filling the tank is now approaching £100.

"The diesel is expensive to get me up and down from the Borders and it usually costs me around £80 to fill up. In reality, though, it's probably more – I stop at £80 because I think that's enough."

She accepts that fuel costs are likely to keep on rising. "I believe in paying for quality. I feel very safe in the Land Rover and will replace it with another one when the time comes.

"The only problem is that it can be a bit of a problem to turn around in a cul-de-sac.

"And one day a lady accused me of having a big, gross, silver vehicle, implying I was being environmentally unfriendly by driving it. But I didn't see why I had to explain myself."

The full article contains 966 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 March 2008 7:19 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Fuel prices
 
1

Vincent-W,

23/03/2008 00:25:57
They are little more than a fashion accessory.
2

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/03/2008 00:28:00
My Landcrusier is LPG'd with a 100 litre tank, I'm paying £45.50 for a full tank and get circa 360 miles per tank. I filled it up once with petrol en route to getting the LPG fitted in Cardiff, (Polish guy-eight hours-£1200). Bish bosh, it's nearly paid itself back in six months.
3

Fifi la Bonbon,

23/03/2008 00:33:50
Well anyone thinking about hiring that young woman's events management company will know they can put pressure on her prices, what with her grasp of economics and the fact she feels she can afford to waste such a lot of money on that kind of car for that kind of commute. She could always get a nice Fiesta.

And I sincerely hope the proper authorities are taking a good look at the use of red diesel.
4

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/03/2008 00:37:44
Yep a Fiesta will certainly pull a horsebox...well down hill possibly.
5

truthsleuth,

23/03/2008 00:48:26
Isn't it odd
Here we hear that no matter how much fuel costs go up they will not affect purchase of these vehicles and that they will be bought at any price.
I hope Alistair and Gordon are listening these 4x4 advocates should be made to put their mouth where their trousers are.

Come Alistair put the tax on fuel and 4x4 purchase up double it these lot are ripe for pickin.
6

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/03/2008 00:54:31
Sigh, I agree that unless you really have no need for them in city or town environments you should think about something more suitable, but for us bumpkins with outdoor things to do they are vital.

This week I've loaded and dragged about ten tons of timber for the stove, I've carried 2 adults, four kids, a dog and a full shopping. I've taken three kids and four bikes up to the 7 stanes, I'll be down the beach tomorrow (weather permitting) for some kite buggy fun, ....try doing that in a Mondeo.

You can't taint all 4wd drivers with the same brush. It's like Thatch saying bus users are losers.
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/03/2008 01:17:21
And wait until they have to pay the new increased,
'road-tax'...'HA HA'

should NOT be used in town's anyhow, they are country vehicles!
8

Vincent-W,

23/03/2008 01:33:54
#6 - yep did all that with my zafira.

also in the big snows of 1987 my 2CV outperformed numerous 4x4s - so bog off - it's all about fashion!
9

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 23/03/2008 01:47:20
So if these things are so vital for country-dwellers, how did people survive before they existed?
10

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/03/2008 01:52:36
Vincent-W @#8,

gotta agree! I have had my 'fill-of-cars', from the

"gas guzzlers' costing 15years ago at £20,000,00!

To our now meek Fiat Punto,

You know what,? its the best!

44MPG, nips in and out anywhere, steer it with you pinkie, park it near anywhere!

NO Baby yet, but we have the 'Baby-seat' for my DYW work, so don't need a 4X4 to transport children!

If I needed a car to say, go to London from Edinburgh, then I would just hire a 'posh Mob-eel'(motor)!
11

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 23/03/2008 02:16:45
The yanks say it best:-

SUV = Socially Unresponsible Vehicle
12

Abesaidwhat,

Minnesota 23/03/2008 02:29:59
For me freedom in a democratic society is all about choice, and paying for it.

Perhaps we should all think about our overall fuel consumption before we ostracise drivers of one particular type of vehicle, on the basis of their fuel efficiency, and debatable safety records. I think a bus is even better at "guzzling gas, hogging city roads, blocking parking spaces and being a safety menace to pedestrians", at least I would not like to be hit by one.

Looking forward,the overall efficiency of the vehicle fleet is changing. Hybrid vehicles are here now, and hydrogen power, and the driverless car are on the way.

The private individual (since they first saddled a horse) has been prepared to invest heavily in private transport. They have not been prepared (recently) to make the same investment in public transport.



13

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 23/03/2008 02:55:34
Hello All,

Splendid posts from a bunch of Neo-Fascists (Enviro-Fascists, Politically Correct Fascists), city dwellers, and mindlessly empty headed numpties of the worst sort!

You short sighted lot are truly vacuous when it comes to reality. All those hybrids need NEW batteries about every 5 YEARS; those are lead-acid batteries people, VERY bad for the environment and MUST be disposed of 'properly', and even then they STILL cause some nasty pollution.

Further, if one battery goes bad, the ENTIRE LOT must be replaced.

But none of you NF's bother yourselves with such FACTS; all you want to do is to whine and point a NF finger at folks.

You can't work a farm, a ranch, or a small patch of ground (acre or more) by using a Mondeo, Punta, or Fiesta: you'd made 2 or 3 trips for every ONE trip of a proper 4x4.

Further, when off pavement (which is MOST of the type of driving for farms, ranches, wood country), your Pocket Cars simply bog down and you need to call a tow truck (which adds MORE pollution into the air, yes?) to pull you out!

Get a grip on your NF hatreds people and start looking at the world the way it really is, rather than what you 'feel' it should be.

Cheers from the Rockies
14

Jason,

Japan Alps 23/03/2008 03:27:49
Couple of weeks ago I was using a Forester having inserted the fuse to switch to front wheel drive (rather than 4x4) trying to improve fuel economy. And it got stuck going up hill in snow. Got out, pulled the fuse, and back in 4x4 it moved off from a standstill. Bottom line, four-wheel drive gets you through where two-wheel drive gets stuck. Perhaps I've stumbled on the answer; FWD for normal driving, 4x4 when the going gets tough. But FWD on a Turbo Forester is like taking two big dogs for a walk with them pulling in opposite directions.
15

Guga II,

Rockall 23/03/2008 04:01:26
There are quite a few comments here from idiotic townies who don't really need a car at all. However, living in remote areas, 4x4's are essential. Have any of these townies ever been to a remote part of the country, or ever seen the state of some of our roads?

I presume also, that these same ignorant townies, if they ever did go to a remote area and got themselves stuck in the mud or similar, would refuse a pull out from a 4x4. They will also refuse to go to agricultural or horse shows, no doubt, given the fact that 4x4's are needed to pull horse boxes or other large trailers.

It is all very well coming down on "Chelsea tractors", but that is not why people in the country have 4x4's. Moreover, there are quite a few "sporty" type cars that have a far higher fuel consumption that any 4x4. How much road tax does the likes of Betty Windsor pay for her "gas guzzling" Rolls Royce?

Maggie Broon is just jumping on a populist band waggon; just as he is doing with proposed taxes for so-called global warming.
16

Guga II,

Rockall 23/03/2008 04:02:36
Incidentally, you can't convert a diesel engine to LPG.
17

Guga II,

Rockall 23/03/2008 04:04:34
#11 Obviously you never venture very far out of Brisbane, unless you're going directly to Sydney. Obviously you'll never see very much of the country with an attitude like yours.
18

Guga II,

Rockall 23/03/2008 04:06:39
#8 There is no way that you inverted skip, i.e. 2CV, outperformed a 4x4 in deep snow, unless you flipped it upside down and used it as a sledge.
19

Hmm ...,

23/03/2008 07:00:02
... `A Scottish Green Party spokesman said: "Even with the changes in the Budget, the real climate costs remain hidden for all the most polluting vehicles, not just 4x4s.

`"Ministers should be working with their EU colleagues to set tougher limits on emissions, as well as cutting fares on the public transport alternatives.

`"In the future, we'll look back on the fad for urban 4x4s with disbelief, like we do now with industrial asbestos or dumping waste at sea."'

Trust the eco-loonies to get their pitch in, despite the fact that CO2 is the ONLY significant element of emission - the antidote is more trees which convert it back into oxygen, THE essential component of life!

However, they are not so much concerned for the planet (they wouldn't resort to unjustifiable propaganda otherwise) as proponents of the politics of envy - the neo-fascists who want to ban everything they can't have.

A major benefit of 4x4s in town is their ability to cope with the pothole-strewn roads without wrecking the car's suspension - something that is now costing Edinburgh City Council hundreds of thousands of pounds. High profile tyres and good suspension travel is ideal for Edinburgh's city streets. But most people have 4x4s for a towing or rural need - like the lady from Lilliesleaf and the farmers posting above - should they really need another car for town? Don't be daft!
20

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/03/2008 07:03:54
AS long as fuel bills can be set against tax these people will use gas guzzlers.
21

11+failed,

the pans 23/03/2008 07:46:13
Is there no end to the rubbish we read from the the great unwashed greens and the other pathetic lot of failures who would drag everyone else down to their miserable level of existence.
I don't want a 4X4 but I am tempted by road humps, dangerously driven small cars and the antipathy exhibited towards them by the green brigade to buy one. As for 65.7mpg from a Prius, only in the salesman's dreams. In a run from London to Switzerland the Prius did 48.3mpg while an accompanying 2 litre BMW was over 50mpg.
22

ddmc,

23/03/2008 07:52:26
#18 i've seen a 2cv outperform 4x4's in an offroad trialing event, not snow but a lot of mud, not road tires either but the weight to power ratio of the 2cv outdoes most 4x4's
23

Vincent-W,

23/03/2008 08:15:49
Guga - in the big snow of '87 I got to work from Drymen to Glasgow, across country, in my 2CV passing, 4x4s which were stuck at the side of the road. Oh the joy!

Like most of your posts - utter drivel!
24

beckypumps1,

Fife 23/03/2008 08:29:45
Is this about emissions or envy .I personally use lpg and have done for a number of years (last 4 cars) but if I lived in the country side up some muddy road and drove a converted 4x4 should I not be allowed to drive it in the city? Maybe I should also have an old mini running on leaded fuel with worn piston rings for city driving after all its small so it must be clean.

Come on people show a bit of inelegance here it’s down to emissions and the whole energy equation, how much energy and materials will go into making and decommissioning the car in the first place.
25

Unimpressed one,

23/03/2008 09:01:18
"A Scottish Green Party spokesman said: "Even with the changes in the Budget, the real climate costs remain hidden for all the most polluting vehicles, not just 4x4s."

Just as 'real climate change' remains hidden from the views of the sane majority.
26

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/03/2008 09:04:26
I drove over a 2CV once, we only noticed it a week later at the car wash.
27

The Strategist,

23/03/2008 09:17:29
And not a single penny of the extra fuel tax is actually going towards clean engine R&D.
28

Gothic Rose,

23/03/2008 09:20:20
13#N eanderthal75.
Oh I do see,the way it is.
29

Upbeat,

23/03/2008 09:32:43
The most polluting vehicle is the one that has its engine running and is going nowhere because thousands of others are attempting to do the same thing at the same time. Look at any urban centre in Britain.

The best solution to curb fuel use by private motorists is to get them to use their car less and use public transport more.( They could also relearn how to use a bicycle carrier basket etc.and walk !)

The one social measure that Government should be addressing is to reverse the increasing encouragement given to superstores, at the expense of small local shops. At the very moment that a concerted attack is being made through the fuel price on all motorists, we see the post office removing access to their services away from local communities. This is jeopardising small shops everywhere.

There is nothing wrong with a 4x4 in the right place. In truth it is now the ideal vehicle for most outside big centres of population due to the state of the roads. Without a 4 x 4 it would be necessary to hire in lorries and vans to deliver stuff that can be colleted, it would be necessary to make twice as many journeys to distant shopping complexes and industrial suppliers in most parts of the country.

Try to name the car that can cope with three bags of animal feed,a bag of fertiliser and one of grass seed a bag of dog food, family shopping for two- three weeks as well as tow a trailer loaded with over a ton of fencing materials and you might see my point.

The best soluton to improper ownership is a postcode based tax to drive urban registered 4x4's off the streets of Britain.
30

M.T.,

23/03/2008 09:42:11
There is already a £200+ fuel tank in an H.G.V. (Heavy Goods Vehicle).
These vehicles are used to transport food, clothes, fuel and all other items necessary for us to live. In one working day. one H.G.V. will provide the treasury with well over one hundred pounds in fuel tax + VAT alone.
Everyone pays this cost when they purchase food, clothes, fuel and all items necessary for us to live.
31

M.T.,

23/03/2008 09:46:04
The H.G.V.'s have very low emissions due to modern technology. What is the governments excuse for taxing their fuel so high?
32

M.T.,

23/03/2008 09:47:17
Fashion accessory or greed!
33

Goat Boy,

23/03/2008 09:56:07
I see that the Scotsman has its anti 4x4 head on again. I normally find this as a measure of ignorance and lack of understanding. A quick Google and you will find the FoE site that lists that lists the top 20 polluters (I assume they mean CO2) and there isn't a single 4x4. Another site (The Good Human – sounds green) lists top 10 gas guzzlers and it includes 1 4x4 - but it also includes the Audi A8, the Vauxhall Vectra, the Golf V6, the Mazda 3 and wait for this one...the Mini S Convertible.

You will find the DfT website provides you with the lowest emitters for specific classes of car. The top compact 4x4s range in emission of 159-202 g/km. Then take a look at the top 8 executive cars (BMW and Audi) - they range from 174-204g/km. So why is the 4x4 always victimised as being the problem? There is no mention of executive cars in this article.

Why is it bad to own a 4x4 in the city, but it’s okay to commute 100 miles a day in a Golf? And why do newspapers always dwell on CO2, when roadside pollution is the NOW problem. What about the fine particulate material from the “eco-friendly” diesels. Or the increasing levels of ozone in our cities.

A Scottish Green Party spokesman said: "Even with the changes in the Budget, the real climate costs remain hidden for all the most polluting vehicles, not just 4x4s.” Well said the Green Party Spokesman.
34

Rob me blind,

Peterhead 23/03/2008 09:56:07
Its not only 4x4s its all cars and buses and lorries oh and that will have an effect on everything we buy. Well done UK PLC rip off Britton is still here.
35

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/03/2008 10:01:21
#29 Well said Upbeat. A post code based tax, ideal solution. Obviously I'll need some form of white flag when I visit town.
36

Goat Boy,

23/03/2008 10:01:42
MT 31: The Polluter Pays Principle is a principle in international environmental law where the polluting party pays for the damage done to the natural environment.

The more you pollute - the more you pay. Simple.
37

Guga II,

Rockall 23/03/2008 10:07:21
#23 In your dreams.
38

calum,

23/03/2008 10:17:33
Here we go again, the anti-everything crowd are at it again. Yes, I have a diesel 4x4, live in a semi-rural area, work in a rural area, undertake emergency call-out, have a large caravan for family holidays which I use the 4x4 for towing, spend my leisure time in MY country re-investing MY money in the Scottish tourist economy, am taxed to the hilt for the privilege and the po-faced "green" crowd are still at it. And still, I have to justify my lifestyle to a bunch of green-eyed monsters.
BTW, just to get the anti-caravan crowd at it as well, a recent survey revealed that, as a group, caravanners are the most eco-concious when it comes to recycling and the David Bellamy awards for environmental sensitivity in sites are world-reknowned for their innovative approach to the leisure/envoronment mix.
39

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/03/2008 10:53:25
#38 Sir, I salute your indefatigability in the face of the vehement anti-caravan lobby, particularly that headed up by the imbeciles at Top Gear.
40

Shionnach,

23/03/2008 11:20:28
The only fair solution to deal with the gas guzzling brigade is to classify vehicles into two categories, "Personal Transport" and "Special Purpose"

All vehicles that produce more than 150g co2 per km will be classed as “Special Purpose” and must be fitted with the 56mph speed limiter as currently fitted to HGV's.

All vehicles that produce lower emissions will be classed as "Personal Transport" and allowed to observe speed limits as they currently do.

This system would be fairer than the current road tax system as those who need large 4x4s to tow heavy trailers, caravans or take children to school etc will still be allowed (non of these people should be doing over 56mph anyway)

I guess over powerful cars and 4x4’s will just not be popular anymore, no matter how wealthy!
41

calum,

23/03/2008 11:23:18
#39 - "indefatigability"?!? ......you not George Galloway by any chance?
42

mr angry,

ayrshire 23/03/2008 12:00:02
A lot of sad envious people posting here today. Sad losers go and work hard enough so that you too can afford a nice BMW 4x4 and put £70-£100 in the tank when required. Much better than being bitter twisted losers.
43

Upbeat,

23/03/2008 12:03:59
40 Shionnach

Your proposal falls down on two counts.

First you confuse the use to which a vehicle is put with the CO2 it produces.

Secondly your idea will simply encourage the owners of a 4 x 4 to own a second vehicle to use for longer journeys. Bearing in mind that how much energy goes into creating any vehicle, probably more than it will consume in its mechanical life, this is a non starter if the aim is to encourage more efficient use of energy.
44

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 23/03/2008 12:09:57
Many years ago I was one the very few drivers who managed to get from Selkirk to Hawick in deep snow. As I was driving a Ford Popular I was very pleased with myself until I discovered the one of my front tyres was in shreds and I had to buy a new wheel to get home.
At times like that 4 x 4's are a bit more suited to the conditions and I feel for the country dweller who is being penalised for the vanity of the city dweller.
45

Shionnach,

23/03/2008 12:33:50
#43 Upbeat

The CO2 threshold would dictate smaller lighter fuel-efficient vehicles.

The vast majority of 4x4's are completely unnecessary, the very few people who would be forced into running two cars would be more than offset by the vast majority who would simply opt for smaller vehicles. (And large heavy fast saloon cars are totally unnecessary)

My wife recently insisted on a large estate car (202g /km) her argument was she felt threatened by all the big 4x4’s. If we could get rid of the unnecessary big vehicles (yes I know we will still have lorries and buses) may be she too would go for a small environmentally efficient tin can (135g) like I drive!
46

Professor22,

lochgelly 23/03/2008 13:07:42
DONT BELIEVE THE ANTI 4X4 HYPE

http://www.4x4prejudice.com/

Well, I did my bit, I sold my BMW 530D Auto Tourer 30 mpg, that Nasty CO2 polluting expensive car and got a nice big Nissan Pathfinder which is more economical than my BMW, has more space for my large dogs, can tow the caravan better, can handle the muddy fields that my son decides to take his motocross bike too

AND

As a Voluntary Support member, I am willing to lend my myself and my vehicle to help those in need of meals (on wheels) and recovery when conditions apply.

Oh, BTW, the Pathfinder does go offroad but is not my main offroad vehicle. I have a modified Discovery for that purpose. Both my vehicles are legendary dirty and for the privalege of the above I pay more tax on excise, fuel and insurance.

WHAT, I have two 4x4s, Yes! So I will expect the baying mob to turn up at my door with torches and pitforks soon then :-)

Gordon, please tax away, the more people become frightened of the 4x4 the more choice that becomes available on the forecourts at lower prices. All the more for the serious 4x4 to take advantage off.



47

Sgurr,

23/03/2008 13:57:05
Professor22 - yes, but you own a caravan, thus marking you out as a spoon. Just sell it and buy a phat-boy range rover. You'll soon feel much better.
48

Upbeat,

23/03/2008 13:58:49
If inefficent use of a motor vehicle were to be defined in relation to the average speed possible in the rush hour within 5 miles of the registered keeper's address, this will define the regions of the country where a postcode premium on VED should be paid. ( The Dutch already operate a regional levy . This is added to the Road Tax which is itself based on a combination of engine size and permitted Gross weight.)

Perhaps a harsh regional levy on private cars, (not registered for business use ), which affects all regions of the country where congestion makes it impossible to maintain an average speed within 25 % of the prevailing speed limit at rush hour, will sort the equation of vehicle type/use out for all time.

A whole new government department could be set up, to administer this scheme. This concept will help cheer up the employment secretary on the eve of a significant downturn in the economy. Meanwhile the Transport Secretary will have something new to point towards. Something that is quite certain to absorb yet more of our hard earned tax for little apparent gain.!
49

Joey Pica,

... The Asylum 23/03/2008 13:59:02
#45 Shionnach wrote:

"My wife recently insisted on a large estate car (202g /km) her argument was she felt threatened by all the big 4x4’s. If we could get rid of the unnecessary big vehicles (yes I know we will still have lorries and buses) may be she too would go for a small environmentally efficient tin can (135g) like I drive!"


10,000 miles a year in a 135g/km car pollutes more than doing 5,000 miles in a 202k/km car! Most 4x4 do a leaser mileage than a car.

The actual figure of 135gm/k is mis-leadind - 'cause a boy racer with 3 passengers, giving it loads of wellie will likely pollute at over 200grams per kilometre travelled.

As to "environmentally efficient" there is no such vehicle. ALL vehicles pollute, some less than others - based on fuel used for the distance traveled.
50

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 23/03/2008 14:04:21
Hello again,

I'd like to point out that if common sense were a requirement for this debate, both PM Brown and the anti-4x4 proponents would be chucked from the forum!!!

I would like to point out that some of us on both sides of the Pond, are beginning to enter the Bio-Diesel and WVO (Waste Veggie Oil) sphere. My goal is to run on SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) for the majority of the Summer, and hopefully the early Fall, once I get a good diesel again (I unfortunately sold my 7.3L V-8 Ford/Navstar diesel Supercab 4x4, as I needed the cash, it got 17mpg-21mpg, and that was with a heavy iron electric liftgate on the back. 14ft long with a Topper/Canopy and it did some heavy lifting for hunting, towing, and hauling).

Running on SVO cuts the diesel usage, better utilizes waste oil, and will cut my costs significantly-since it's 80 miles ROUNDTRIP for me to go to the grocery store, clothes store, cinema, etc.

All the Neo-Fascists screaming for everyone to use public transport, illustrates quite clearly their ultra arrogance, arrogance, and sheer stupidity: a LOT of folks do NOT have access to public transport.

Further, many, many people who live in cities cannot take public transport because of their jobs: including transport time and work time, they would spend a MINIMUM of 12 hours under way, and that's AFTER they got ready to head out the door!

My Ex-Wife, who is a nurse, would have to spend 16-18 TOTAL hours underway and at work, BEFORE getting home again, should she be required to use public transport.

Such a schedule is NOT humane in any sense of the word.

Cheers from the Rockies
51

Upbeat,

23/03/2008 14:14:04
45 Shionnach

The very idea of producig and clogging the streets with smaller lighter less CO2 emitting vehicle types should be seen for the oxymoron that it is.

It is the very nature of the production process, that smaller lighter vehicles consume equally large human, industrial and distribution resources during production. But, small as they are, they can only ever transport less. Small vehicles still occupy road space for travel and parking. These small vehicles still pollute, arguably more than large ones if the potential pollution per Kg carrying capacity figure is established. (This incidentally,is why a 44 ton LGV is so efficient.) Anyway small cars are an equally damaging cause of congestion as large ones, and are a negative force in places where each load-efficient vehicle would be more valuable to society by virtue of its dual role.
52

Loki - The Scourge of the Schemies,

EH1 23/03/2008 14:45:01
The only reason I have a Land Cruiser is that it sits high. High enough for the exhaust emissions to pour into the windows of all those Fiesta-driving sanctimonious nonentities who cannot afford a proper motor car and therefore feel it necessary to criticise the free choice of those who can.
My driver tells me that black cabbies seem to re-discover courteous driving habits when in the near vicinity of very large vehicles such as mine.
Peep peep!
53

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 23/03/2008 15:27:25
Sadly in a few years time it'll be £200 to fill up a tank, then £300, £400 and so on as global oil production declines year on year. Google 'peak oil' if you doubt. Rather interestingly those who have the 'me me' attitute to consumption are hastening the day when they and their children will have to walk again.
54

Shionnach,

23/03/2008 16:20:54
#45 Joey Pec Wrote:
"Most 4x4 do a leaser mileage than a car."

Not at all, there is no difference between average annual mileage of 4*4s and other types of cars,

#51 Upbeat wrote:
"These small vehicles still pollute, arguably more than large ones if the potential pollution per Kg carrying capacity figure is established."

True, but too many vehicles are being used at a fraction of their carrying capacity. example, a woman a few doors away drives one of those Porsche Off road things, 500bhp, 3 Tonnes, and she giggles that it gets less than 10mpg. As far as I know she drops the kid off at school (½ mile away) and goes shopping, (all while on her mobile phone). It is crazy to argue she wouldn't pollute less if she had a 130g/km tin can mobile!

Now, road tax, cost of fuel, depreciation will never make any difference to people like this, but a 56mph speed limiter would have her into a smaller car tomorrow, and the rest of us would feel a dam site safer!


55

Hmm ...,

23/03/2008 16:26:35
... sounds as though you are falling for the propaganda, Ghost (53) - you shouldn't confuse oil production with availability. The oil companies say that they have as much in their declared reserves today as they have produced since the start of the 20th Century - and as much again not yet declared. So they are about oe third of the way through the oil that they know about and have a claim to.

They plan production to meet demand and maintain a high price, which in itself makes yet further reserves commercially available. Canada alone has huge amounts of shale oil which is becoming commercially viable as the global price increases.

The current price is out of balance because China and India are now bidding for huge amounts not originally scheduled - but don't ecpect the oil companies to increase production to meet that need, reducing the price again!
56

mac the tyke,

23/03/2008 16:54:10
Everyone is so hung up debating issues of gas guzzling and polution and seem to be missing the real story. Governments are obviously not interested in the green agenda otherwise they would pressure motor manufacturers to be further down the road to eliminating the petrol/diesel engines currently supplied. Just think how old the concept of the internal combustion engine is and what scientific advances have been made since they were first introduced.
It is in the interest of the international oil giants and producer countries to allow high prices to flourish thereby increasing their revenues and government taxes.
It is so convenient for oil producers and governments to have you all bogged down, debating these side issues and thus assigning no responsibility to them for finding the solutions.

An interesting read is "The Ages of Gaia" by James Lovelock - It occurs to me that this green crusade has become like a religion with politicians all jumping on the bandwagon - each more holier than his/her predecessor.

My family runs 2 cars, both relatively economic, but if people can afford and want to buy and run vehicles which have low mpg stats, let them. When I last looked, we were still supposedly living in a democracy despite the attempts of our political leaders to change this.
57

Joey Pica,

........Pedants Garage 23/03/2008 17:26:19
In Repy to: #54 Shionnach,

Taken from a survey of 200,000 UK vehicles:

Upper-medium cars (e.g. Toyota Avensis, Audi A4, etc) One- to three-year-old upper-medium cars averaged 16,400 miles each year – the highest of any car sector in the UK.

The average mileage drops off after 3 years and has fallen even more for higher polluting cars due to fuel being around £5 a gallon.
Large cars (e.g. Vauxhall Omega, BMW 5 Series, etc) The average mileage for one- to three-year-old large cars was 15,900 miles.

4x4s (e.g. Honda HRV, Range Rover, etc) The average annual mileage for vehicles in the 4x4 segment up to three-years-old was 12,400 miles
58

T M,

LA, USA 23/03/2008 17:39:39
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
59

Upbeat,

23/03/2008 18:12:17
54 Shionnach

It seems your words might be better addressed to the person who lives a few doors down the street from you, than to the majority of owners of 4x4 vehicles who actually do use them for the purposes for which they were designed.

It is a fault of Government now that the propaganda and social stigm,a they wish to attach to vehicle use has become misrepresented. Just because there are those who can afford the status symbol but have no use for its capabilities, this does not mean that those who need the workhorse but cannot afford to be taxed much higher, should have to do without.

When it is quite possible to build a vehicle that will last an average of 25 years, before becoming uneconomical ( Land Rover have been building such vehicles for years )Building longevity into any vehicle is not good for jobs or the flow of money through the ecomomy. Not building things to last is wasteful , but they do not speak of this environmental cost...now do they ?

Why should it make better sense for the planet and its future, to replace every car comppletely each 7 years on average.
BTW The average age of the two vehicles outside my house is over 34 years. Due to their long lifespan they are possibly as efficient as it is possible to get in terms of the carbon footprint of anybody's annual motoring. But your ideas would have me scrap these and replace them with new a tin box on wheels that might itself be more valuable as scrap metal soon after the London Olympics in 2012.
60

T M,

LA, USA 23/03/2008 18:15:34
#56 Finally someone who seems to be able to be objective.
61

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 23/03/2008 18:26:55
How many 4x4's equate in CO2 emissions to a return flight betwixt say Edinburgh and London, or Tenerife?
62

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 23/03/2008 18:33:52
#55 Take off the blinkers! War in Iraq! 1 million dead and why? Do you think it's about democracy? It's all about securing increasingly scarse oil reserves for the west. That £100 tank of petrol already has a body count attached to it! North Sea oil output peaked in 1999 and 45 of the world's 55 or so oil producing regions are now in decline. Where are the new Garwar sized fields that are needed to meet demand? There are none. The last big discovery announced with lots of hoo-ha will keep the earth going for 6 hours at current consumption rates. Oil isn't going to run out anytime soon, but it is going to increase in price to reflect the increasing scarsity. Of course there comes a point when it uses more energy to continue trying to extract oil from depleted fields than you get back from the oil produced. At that point the oil will never be produced no matter how high the price rises! It is right to expect the price to rise to £200, £400, £800, £1,600 etc etc.

ps 25 years in the oil industry here!
63

Shionnach,

23/03/2008 18:55:45
Upbeat

You will note from my original suggestion that speed limiters would be fitted to all vehicles that produce more than a certain level of co2/km. Therefor I am not particularly targeting 4x4’s, although a great deal of 4x4s would fit in this category, there would probably be more saloon cars, in fact I am even targeting my wifes new car!

A speed limiter would not stop someone buying a vehicle that was truly needed, just off put those who buy as a status symbol. It is a bit like an arms race out there, the more bigger heavier vehicles on the road the more one feels the need to also have a large bulky vehicle. We are turning into America

I totally agree with your comments on the life span of vehicles, people are obsessed with buying new ones. Cars could easily be built to last 20 – 30 years, but whats the point they just bin them off after a couple of years. It is back to the status symbol problem!

BTW I had a series 2a for many years, by all accounts its still going (perkins engine now) the old 2¼ petrol was a bit shocking at 17 to the gallon ?
64

Upbeat,

23/03/2008 19:18:27
63 Shionnach

Thank you, the original point is clear again.

I suspect that for your former old 2 A Land Rover, 56 mph is on the aspirational " things to do" wish list :-). No harm there then !

For the older series ones, however,this figure would still be somewhat over restrictive , in my experience. And they are small and they don't represent too much of a comfort zone for hugely long journeys either ;-)
65

Joey Pica,

...Priory Clinic Annexe 23/03/2008 19:28:03
Shionnach,

I used to do 34,000 just to and from work (my private car, Ex's paid for by my employer) that equates to 1000 gallons of petrol. £5 grand at the pumps - £3 grand to Alistiar Darling. Car cost £25 grand so about £4,000 VAT. I am now retired, I drive a 24 year old Landrover about 1,500 Kliks a year - about 200 quid a year in petrol. so the the net loss to the treasury is about £9,600 over three years. They need people to use their cars otherwise they will have to tax something else.
66

Joey Pica,

......Landrover Heaven 23/03/2008 19:35:02
Upbeat,

There is a certain joy in driving slow, knowing that you will not be suffering 3,000 grand a year depreciation. Road Tax is still only £185 and insurance about £100 - I've got a L/H drive Lightweight and would not swap it for a modern car.
67

Shionnach,

23/03/2008 20:29:48
64 upbeat

Yes the series ones did not have the luxurious interior of the 2a

Joey Pica, agreed, the government just uses enviromental concerns as an excuse for more taxes

68

Rob M,

Edinburgh 23/03/2008 20:45:49
The first sentence states "a safety menace to pedestrians" however this is a myth, as national stastics show that the pedestrian killed and seriously injured rate for these vehicles is considerably lower than average.
69

geekpie,

forfar 23/03/2008 21:10:37
The overall cost of motoring fell in real terms by 10 per cent between 1997 and 2006, according to govt figures, while the cost of rail travel rose by 6 per cent and bus travel by 13 per cent.

Petrol is much, much too cheap.
70

bumpkin,

23/03/2008 21:32:06
i once took my pigs to market on the bus, but the enviromental health put us off, and we had to walk all the way home.
next i tried the fiat punto, but i had to make 10 trips of 50 miles to get my 60 pigs to market. 1 used 50 litres of petrol.
then i woke up and used my landcruiser, taking all 60 pigs in one trailer, using 12 litres of deisel.
Donating 12 x67p duty to A. Darling in the process, to waste on new labour bullshit.
71

Joey Pica,

.............. 23/03/2008 21:49:20
geekpie wrote:
"The overall cost of motoring fell in real terms by 10 per cent between 1997 and 2006, according to govt figures,"

Fuel costs actually rose in real terms by 18% upto 2007 and since have risen by upto 25 pence a litre since.

Cars have become cheaper to buy in real terms due to over production and a competative market and when the gas guzzlers hit £400 road tax a year - will fall even more.

The government figures are based on average wages which grew by 100% between 1997-2007 but them again the average human has one testicle and one ovary!
72

Pro Libertate,

Stirling 23/03/2008 22:19:46
Yet another bunch of inaccurate twaddle!

Can somebody please explain to me why ALL 4x4's have suddenly become 'gas guzzlers'? I own a modest 4x4 and the cost to fill the tank is only ~£55, not the £100 touted in the article. I do not consider it a 'gas guzzler' as:
1) It runs on diesel, a fuel that is much cheaper to produce and significantly more fuel efficient than petrol,
2) The emmissions from this vehicle are NOT that different from a petrol fueled 2.0L Ford Focus or a 1.6L VW Golf - two of the most popular cars in the UK.
3) The MPG quoted in Parkers for mine is 39, compared to 39 for the Focus and 38 for the Golf.

However the Road Tax on mine this year is £210 compared to £170 for the Focus and Golf. Hardly fair.
If the Government was truely trying to reduce CO2 emissions, they would be banning an the petrol guzzling school runs and a lot of the cheap, half empty, flights from low budget airlines.
Seems to me the Gordon (he of the massively small brain) has found yet another easy target.
73

Shionnach,

23/03/2008 23:22:03
39 is NOT good these days, I have a tin can (well actually its not that well built, more like a cheap plastic tupperware box) that does high 60's.
Mind you virtually wrote it off last year when I hit a pheasant, new bumper, new lower grill, new radiator and air conditioning system, ( the pheasant lost a few feathers but was otherwise ok)
God knows what would happen if I had a head on with a defender 110 fitted with winch and bull bars !
74

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 10:27:23
Shionnach ..." God knows what would happen if I had a head on with a defender 110 fitted with winch and bull bars !"

Yes ..."He" does !

So do I ...but I'm not wishing to be held responsible for scaring you !

Best advice...don't go there.
75

Goat Boy,

24/03/2008 12:00:28
Reading the comments above, it appears that there are quite a few of you who think that you are eco friendly because you are using diesel instead of petrol. Well, you may well emit less carbon dioxide, but there are substances in your exhaust gases that could have far more serious implications for pedestrians (especially children). Take a look at the link below: the first line reads “The emissions from diesel engines pose both immediate and long term effects on human health, particularly on Children”. Diesel exhaust ranks among the air pollutants that the US Environmental Protection Agency declares pose the greatest public health risks.

Try this link for more information. http://www.healthyschools.org/documents/Issues_in_Focus_Diesel.pdf

And if you don’t want to believe the Americans, try the British Medical Journal: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7199/1686

76

Rob M,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 12:49:29
75
With reference to http://www.healthyschools.org/documents/Issues_in_Focus_Diesel.pdf in the United States there are very few diesel cars and the problem highlighted refers to the emissions from buses and trucks and the BMJ reference http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7199/1686 is now almost 9 years old.

The EU has recognised that there is a concern and the EURO emission regulations EURO II (Jan 1998), EURO III (Jan 2001), EURO IV (Jan 2006) have meant the toxic emissions from cars has been going down progressively.

Thus we should be encouraging people to get rid of their old cars and also phase out the older buses and lorries.
77

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 17:09:18
76 Rob.

"Thus we should be encouraging people to get rid of their old cars and also phase out the older buses and lorries"

We don't have to do anything of the sort. Most cars on average do not last more than a decade...in fact many do not even last 7 years.So scrapping perfectly viable cars and trucks is no option at all.

You completely overlook the environmental cost of replacing hundreds of thousands of vehicles before they are worn out.

Emissions from vehicles are very far from being the biggest problem. The largest single global problem is the vehicles themselves.The enormous waste of energy and materials ( oil) that is tolerated in the " I must have the latest model" , "I won't be seen in an old car" philosophy. The Western world is the biggest culprit. This unregulated waste is the most damaging aspect of the whole issue. It is the sheer number of Vehicles the growing afluence and market for them, and the vast industry necessary to replicate and "feed" them (not vehicle emissions) that occupies the top spot in the list of environment concerns worldwide.

78

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 17:53:38
In a short search I find no figures that reveal if the advances in vehicle technology are fast enough to offest the growth in vehicle numbers worldwide.

Figures reveal that in the decade to 2001 the fuel efficency of vehicles improved by around 10 % on average. In the same period the number of vehicles on the roads of the world increased from 450.000,000 to 600,000,000 ( around 25% ) This figure was projected to double in the next 30 years to 1.2 billion.

No one can argue that something has to be done to reduce emissions. But even if vehicle emissions are cut by 30 % ( and it is becoming increasingly difficult to advance technology by this magnitude.) the number of additional vehicles - regardless of how fuel efficient and well engineered they may be - will actually increase the overall pollution by NO2 and CO2 from the increased number of them..

We are pedalling forwards on a rolling road that is carrying us backwards.

The only solution is massive disincentives to own and use a private car. The developing world will resist all such polically inspired efforts. "Peak oil" wolrdwide will not come soon enough to prevent an increase in atmospheric damage from vehicle use. The £100 tankful is but an insignificant marker along the way to unaffordable motoring.
79

bumpkin,

24/03/2008 18:24:53
no one on thjis thread seems bothered by the fact that some people run a 4wd because their business demands it. So no matter the road tax or deisel price, they will still be needed, even if totally unaffordable.
Just remember , next time you need rescued from a flood or snow drift, the guy who gets you home.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In