One For The Technical Minded

[BeechCustom]

Understood mate and I'm sure you're right. The DVLA don't hold C02 info on cars registered before March 2001 so they can't band them on emissions. Thankfully.

I'm saving £55 per year in VED thanks to being registered before that date.

[Hoovie]

How this system should REALLY work is that the MOT Emissions reading should be used to provide the ACTUAL Co2 Reading which will then dynamically assign the vehicle into the appropriate tax band.

This would work for ANY age car, would reward those owners that keep their vehicles maintained and take account of those that do not.

With the MoT system being fully computerised and linked to the RFL system, there is no reason why this could not be implemented virtually instantly for any 3+ year old cars

[anchorman]

Depends what you are measuring. The VED is based on CO2 which was 230 for your engine. Particulates were 0.003 compared to the 136 engine which was 0.017.

The new SR even with an auto box is 189 (my manual is 154) and the SR particulates are now an astonishing 0.001 compared to my 150 which is 0.017 (unchanged).

[Hoovie]

Depends what you are measuring. The VED is based on CO2 which was 230 for your engine. Particulates were 0.003 compared to the 136 engine which was 0.017.

The new SR even with an auto box is 189 (my manual is 154) and the SR particulates are now an astonishing 0.001 compared to my 150 which is 0.017 (unchanged).

Maybe some combination of the various pollutants? Make it more carrot, less stick! Even if it were Co2 alone, it would still be a valid method to link MoT to RFLP I think.

[local hero]

Depends what you are measuring. The VED is based on CO2 which was 230 for your engine. Particulates were 0.003 compared to the 136 engine which was 0.017.

The new SR even with an auto box is 189 (my manual is 154) and the SR particulates are now an astonishing 0.001 compared to my 150 which is 0.017 (unchanged).

Maybe some combination of the various pollutants? Make it more carrot, less stick! Even if it were Co2 alone, it would still be a valid method to link MoT to RFLP I think.

Sorry to be boring, but 2 identical black cabs same engine same everything, except ones manual + the others auto, Auto roughly £170 more ved than manual, fathom that out!! Stew

[Red Yaris 54]

Depends what you are measuring. The VED is based on CO2 which was 230 for your engine. Particulates were 0.003 compared to the 136 engine which was 0.017.

The new SR even with an auto box is 189 (my manual is 154) and the SR particulates are now an astonishing 0.001 compared to my 150 which is 0.017 (unchanged).

Maybe some combination of the various pollutants? Make it more carrot, less stick! Even if it were Co2 alone, it would still be a valid method to link MoT to RFLP I think.

Sorry to be boring, but 2 identical black cabs same engine same everything, except ones manual + the others auto, Auto roughly £170 more ved than manual, fathom that out!! Stew

On the other side of the coin the Auto version of the 1.33 New Verso S has less VED than its Manual counterpart (£30 as apposed to £90).......Fathom that one out!

I guess that it is the more modern way and Toyota are really trying to cut emissions!

[acetip]

If you mark the handle of the dipstick on one side with a small dab of paint then you will always dip the oil with the stck the same way around.

Reversing the stick can make a difference in the reading on some engines.

I would not put a dab of paint on the dipstick.. It could come off and end up in an oil gallery.. Years ago I was advised to never wipe an automatic transmission dipstick with a cloth that had cotton fibres on it in case they got into the transmission..

When I wipe a dipstick of any type I do it with a clean cloth to remove the oil / Trans fluid then wipe it between My fingertips to make sure its absolutely free of ant fibres... Old habits die hard. I've been doing it that way for years !!

Hi charlie i was talking about putting the paint mark on the part of the handle that you hold on the dipstick not the metal part of the stick.

[CharlieFarlie]

Understood mate and I'm sure you're right. The DVLA don't hold C02 info on cars registered before March 2001 so they can't band them on emissions. Thankfully.

I'm saving £55 per year in VED thanks to being registered before that date.

Understand now ! I did not realise the above ... Thanks.

[ianfish]

Charlie i hate to say this but i have trouble checking my oil, on my cab i have a yellow plastic bit in the end of the dipstick which clearly shows the oil, on my rav one side of the dipstick shows its full the other side shows it needs oil, the dipstick is so shiny i think the oil runs off as you pull it out, i have roughed my dipstick up a bit with emery paper so i get a clearer reading..... is this just me ???? :unsure:

Mine is exactly the same, very difficult to get an accurate reading on the dipstick

[CharlieFarlie]

Depends what you are measuring. The VED is based on CO2 which was 230 for your engine. Particulates were 0.003 compared to the 136 engine which was 0.017.

The new SR even with an auto box is 189 (my manual is 154) and the SR particulates are now an astonishing 0.001 compared to my 150 which is 0.017 (unchanged).

Corrrr ... What have I started ???

My point is that the car did not even register on the emissions machine..

So how come if the Dcat system which is I think a right pain in the arris but in this case doing its job by cleaning up the gasses is rewarded with a high VED rate..

The government brought in these bands to try and get manufacturers to clean up their act or more importantly to clean up the emissions..

So they do it and the rate stays high ?? How so ?????

Most late cars are fairly clean and older cars where the manufacturer's did not have to try to hard were.. Well not..

Beechcustom informs Me that pre 2001 cars are cheaper to tax because they have no ratings (Cheers BC).

So the cars that conform pay more ??

Hoovies idea is brilliant !! But be assured it aint going to happen simply because it will cost the Government money ... Simple as !!

[CharlieFarlie]

If you mark the handle of the dipstick on one side with a small dab of paint then you will always dip the oil with the stck the same way around.

Reversing the stick can make a difference in the reading on some engines.

I would not put a dab of paint on the dipstick.. It could come off and end up in an oil gallery.. Years ago I was advised to never wipe an automatic transmission dipstick with a cloth that had cotton fibres on it in case they got into the transmission..

When I wipe a dipstick of any type I do it with a clean cloth to remove the oil / Trans fluid then wipe it between My fingertips to make sure its absolutely free of ant fibres... Old habits die hard. I've been doing it that way for years !!

Hi charlie i was talking about putting the paint mark on the part of the handle that you hold on the dipstick not the metal part of the stick.

Right .... Errrrr...... OK .......... Maybe I should read with both eyes ??

I will be doing that in future... Cheers !!

[Tony Barnsley]

Does the D-CAT system burn more fuel to eliminate the particulates, NOX and CO . . . In which case it actually produces higher CO2 than a non DCAT engine . . . and the VED bands are related only to CO2 emissions . . . Hence the DCAT having a higher VED rating

[CharlieFarlie]

Does the D-CAT system burn more fuel to eliminate the particulates, NOX and CO . . . In which case it actually produces higher CO2 than a non DCAT engine . . . and the VED bands are related only to CO2 emissions . . . Hence the DCAT having a higher VED rating

Tony. Dont really understand all that stuff. To Me emission are emissions ..

If there is nowt coming owt the there are little or none ???

[cabcurtains]

CO2 comes from the official MPG, so more fuel burn't equals a higher rate of CO2, the higher the CO2 the higher the VED/RFL aka Road Tax. European legislation use CO2 where as the US AFAIK prefer NOX, thats how they still use large clean burn petrol engines, not dirty diesels.

CO2 = Global Warming

NOX = Air Quality

The 180's are great for clean air but are burning a lot of CO2 and diesel to achieve it. The clean petrol is warming the planet but keeping the air clean with less particulates.

[Hoovie]

Does the D-CAT system burn more fuel to eliminate the particulates, NOX and CO . . . In which case it actually produces higher CO2 than a non DCAT engine . . . and the VED bands are related only to CO2 emissions . . . Hence the DCAT having a higher VED rating

I understand it does use fuel in combo with the D-CAT, so result is more fuel burnt - so THEORETICALLY that means more Co2. If that is the case in reality, I don't know. (not that convinced about Co2=Global Warming either)

Apparently the Toyota D-CAT engines are just about the cleanest ICE powered vehicles on the planet as far as fumes go, but if the reward is higher RFL, makes you wonder why bother! More carrots, less sticks please !!

And on the subject of RFL, why do the UK not make some kind of vignette compulsory for foreign registered cars (think Lorrys DO have to pay?) in the same way as it is required in some other Euro Countries? Again, that is something that would be so easy to enforce given the limited entry points for vehicles into mainland UK.

[anchorman]

Does the D-CAT system burn more fuel to eliminate the particulates, NOX and CO . . . In which case it actually produces higher CO2 than a non DCAT engine . . . and the VED bands are related only to CO2 emissions . . . Hence the DCAT having a higher VED rating

Yes it sprays neat fuel into the engine via the 5th injector.

Things that raise CO2 might be;

more power

more cylinders

auto gearbox (more revs)

Toyota have already planned the end of manual gearboxes just as we no longer have manual cold start (choke). It may seem counter productive but it is the only way to control the weak link (driver) and in the long term will control emmissions.

[Manxrav]

Interesting comment Don on Toyota and the Auto box.Possibly the reason why the Yanks are virtually all Auto,s.Never driven an Auto but as Red Yaris says many Auto,s give better Mpg than Manual ones.

Possibly one day our Left hand will become redundant!!!!!

Regards Clare

[Hoovie]

It makes you lazy having an Auto. I occasionally shift my lever into "M" and decide I will use the flappy paddles, but after about 2 changes wonder why I bothered and put back into "D"

I do think a GOOD Auto is the way forward (the US RAVs still just have 4 speed autos which seem a bit dated to me)

[jedi134]

I feel auto box's are good for the engine, the engine never labours/over revs, stalls etc,..... The engine must love the auto box

[Hoovie]

I feel auto box's are good for the engine, the engine never labours/over revs, stalls etc,..... The engine must love the auto box

That is the theory I *thought* was true - and it is the case about stalling and maybe about overrevving in the RAV4 Autos case , and I say maybe as it is meant to change up when the revs go over some point even in manual mode, but doesn't actually seem to in that mode?

FWIW, RAV4 gearing on the 2.2 auto is very high - with about 35MPH per 1000RPM - which is impressive I reckon,

[Gods_gift]

Charlie did your mate with the garage do a pressure/compression test per cylinder too? On your engines that went bang did they blow oil out the breather?

I drove a GL450 today absolute beast of a car 7 speed auto and felt like it could pull an HGV!

I also drove my dads 318i auto and I must say the boxes are better than what I've been used to. Still I wouldn't swap my manual for fuel economy and fun reasons ;)

[CharlieFarlie]

Charlie did your mate with the garage do a pressure/compression test per cylinder too? On your engines that went bang did they blow oil out the breather?

I drove a GL450 today absolute beast of a car 7 speed auto and felt like it could pull an HGV!

I also drove my dads 318i auto and I must say the boxes are better than what I've been used to. Still I wouldn't swap my manual for fuel economy and fun reasons ;)

No fairly sure that was not one of the tests....

No engines as far as I know have actually gone BANG... they just burn oil or blow head gaskets or the usual stuff..

As far as I'm aware no oil out of the breather indicating excessive crank case pressure either...

Whats a GL 450 ??

[Manxrav]

GL 450 is the big Merc 4x4, bigger than an M Class!!!!!

Regards Clare

[Hoovie]

Bit of a bruiser of a motor! I still like the looks of the ML and the 250 would be a good alternative to the RAV4

(and .... I do like the look of the new Audi A5 coupe (apart from the headlights))

[Gods_gift]

Reason I asked about the compression test was to see if oil is getting by the piston rings and into the cylinders. Depending on how the fault occurs on the ring depends on if it pressurises the bottom end or let oil up into the top of the block. It can be a tell if something is going to go wrong with any engine. Also if oil is getting by the rings into the top half of the engine it could be getting blown out the exhaust ports and into the cat. The ring could have a gradual wear that gets worse over time until it fails and everything gets messy.

I'd love to get a 2AD thats gone wassit up and strip it down to see whats happened. I'm guessing sooner or later someone out of warranty will have to to fix it. Be interesting to see if it is head gasket wear or piston ring failure leading oily mess.

The GL is a beast but I like it for the full size 7 seats and tow anything capability.