My motoring intention

prospect

Dear all,

i am currently planning on importing an early 90's 4 wheel drive from Japan.
It is a 4.2L diesel, and I need it for various reasons, including towing a trailer, and carrying goods, etc.

My plan would be to import it, and immediately convert it to run on PPO, and use it as much as possible.

I would consider this to be a very 'green' motoring solution, (also a good financial solution), because despite its physical size and general perception of 4Wds, it is 100% recycled and running on 100% renewable fuel with 0% harmful emissions. Also, the manufacture stage of the fuel is low in emmissions.

However, am I right in saying that there is absoloutly no incentive from the government for this!

mike65

PPO = Pure Plant Oil yes?

I'm not aware of any grants etc for this kind of conversion.

Mike.

prospect

Correct - PPO = Pure Plant Oil
Sorry, I meant to put that in in brackets.

I find it a bit disgusting. The vehicle can be bought and shipped for approx €6000. But the VRT is going to nearly double that amount, and then I will have to pay over €1400 per annum in road tax! (which ic criminal if you consider the cost of converting the engine to run on PPO is about €1700, just over 1 years road tax!)

Yet, If i buy a brand new hybrid lexus jeep thing, I can get all sorts of vrt and tax concessions, even though it is far less 'green'.

CJhaughey

If you only need it for commercial use then why don't you bring it in as a commercial?
Commercial VRT is €50
That is a big saving.
If its 4.2 it is a Nissan Patrol or Landcruiser 80series
Just be aware that the first generation of 4.2 landcruisers have problematic camshafts.

mike65

Prospect get in touch with the dept of environment, they might be able to tell you for sure.

Mike.

triskell

toyota amazon (landcruiser 120 series)??. You jammy bugger class piece of kit and very high spec. i have toyed with that idea but i ithought it was a shame to convert it to commercial (and theres the nescessary cash problem) best of luck with it, i m only a little jealous.

Do-more

dfaf wrote:

toyota amazon (landcruiser 120 series)??. You jammy bugger class piece of kit and very high spec. i have toyed with that idea but i thought it was a shame to convert it to commercial

You could always convert it to to a "Crew cab" (Bulk head and blanking out rear side windows) saving a bit on VRT and still a 5 seater with cheap road tax and no BIK....

prospect

Sorry for the unclear posts. It is not a commercial vehicle, nor will it be.
It is a passanger vehicle, and will only be used for private & domestic stuff. But hobbies and being the handyman for my family and friends means I am constantly carrying stuff around, and towing a trailer.

It was a Landcruiser 80 series i was looking at. But unless there is an incentive, it would not be worth my while. I will be forced to but a cheaper, older smokey oil burning something or other.

Mike, I did e-mail the Dept. They told me to contact my local motor taxation office. I e-mailed them and they ignored the mail. So I emailed the dept back again saying I had no joy. They returned my e-mail telling me to contact my local office!!!


This small, simple issue is proof that this government has no real interest in enviornmental issues.

CJhaughey

Prospect
What I am saying is that you have a choice when you import a vehicle, either bring it in as a Passenger vehicle and pay a percentage of the OMSP, possibly 33%
OR bring it in as a commercial vehicle/Van, and pay €50
You can get private insurance on a Van and tax is something round 340 per annum.
The difference in price between the passenger and van VRT is huge and would more than cover the cost of fitting a Kit from elsbett and quite a bit of PPO as well.

gonk

prospect wrote:

It was a Landcruiser 80 series i was looking at. But unless there is an incentive, it would not be worth my while. I will be forced to but a cheaper, older smokey oil burning something or other . . . .

This small, simple issue is proof that this government has no real interest in enviornmental issues.

But there is an incentive - there is excise duty relief on the fuel. And I'd have to say, contrary to your first post, this only a somewhat green solution, not a "very 'green' solution". The plant oil is the product of intensive agriculture, which has its own significant environmental impact and requires fossil fuel input. What sort of MPG does a ten-year-old plus 4.2 litre Landcruiser return anyway? Are you sure a modern 4x4 with say a 2.5 litre engine wouldn't in fact be a better solution overall? Consider, say, a crew-cab pickup, which has five seats, but gets significant VRT relief as it's rated as a commercial - these will return in excess of 30MPG - can't see your Landcruiser getting near that, but I'm open to correction.

I'd have to agree with you though that the VRT relief for hybrids is a joke - none of them is any better for fuel consumption than a decent diesel engined vehicle - Dick Roche flaunting his green credentials with his new Lexus hybrid was especially nauseating . . .

prospect

Hi gonk.

I am aware of the fuel incentive, however it is pitiful, as it works out at about €0.84 per litre. You'd have to cover over 30,000 miles to pay for the engine conversion.

If there were proper incentives, e.g. massively reduced VRT and road tax, and limited tax on fuel, and possible a percentage of the cost of the conversion, this would encourage more people to switch, including those who operate the machinery for harvesting the crop and manufacturing the oil. You have to start somewhere.

In financial terms, the 4.2l vehicle would return an effective mileage of 40mpg. And in terms of emmissions, it would be FAR lower than even a modern 1.6L diesel vehicle.

CJHaughy,
Isn't it illegal/naughty to import it as a commercial, when it is a privately owned passanger vehicle.
Although, VRT itself is effectively illegal and I have no respect for it whatsoever, I am not in the habit of tax evasion.

bonkey

prospect wrote:

In financial terms, the 4.2l vehicle would return an effective mileage of 40mpg. And in terms of emmissions, it would be FAR lower than even a modern 1.6L diesel vehicle.

Unfair comparison.

Compare it against a modern, 1.6L diesel also converted to run on PPO to tell which has better emissions.

Incidentally, why a jeep? For towing & large amounts of carrying stuff, I would have said that an estate / station wagon / whatever-its-hip-to-call-them-now would be a better solution.

I've had a lot of Irish people remark on two things that struck them about traffic on Swiss roads:

1) There are far less jeeps than in Ireland
2) There are far more estates than in Ireland

These two factors are not unrelated. For carrying ski's (or any number of other things) a station wagon beats a jeep hands down IMHO.

gonk

prospect wrote:

If there were proper incentives, e.g. massively reduced VRT and road tax, and limited tax on fuel, and possible a percentage of the cost of the conversion, this would encourage more people to switch, including those who operate the machinery for harvesting the crop and manufacturing the oil. You have to start somewhere.

This would not necessarily of itself be a good thing. Plant oil could only meet a small fraction of current demand without massively increased intensive agriculture to supply it. We need also to greatly reduce our energy consumption - hence my skepticism about your 4.2 litre vehicle as a "green" transport solution. IMHO it's not much greener than Dick Roche's Lexus . . . .

prospect

To be fair. The reason it is a 4.2L jeep, to answer both bonkey and gonk, is that it is the most suitable and reliable vehicle I can source for my money.

Regarding the comparing the conversion of the proposed vehicle V's the modern 1.6L diesel, it was in reply to a suggestion that it would be more 'green' to buy a new modern vehicle. Also, with prices, and warranty issues, converting a new car is not an option.

I have also been browsing 2.0L and 2.3L diesel vehicles, and if I could find the right one, it would be fine.

Also, sourcing a used car, and using it is far greener in my mind than purchasing brand new. In effect, you are reycyling an entire vehicle.

Jimoslimos

prospect wrote:

with 0% harmful emissions

0% harmful emissions? Hmmm really, how about asking the cyclist stuck behind you or better still run a pipe from the exhaust into the 4x4 and see how 'harmless' it is.

To be fair though you have made a valid point with respect to purchasing a second-hand vehicle hence saving on manafucturing costs/emissions.

I can't however see the need for such a large vehicle particularly when you admitted it wouldn't be for commercial use but instead private use including 'hobbies'. Sheez what sort of DIY/hobbies do you think you'll be doing that you can't live without a 4x4? - As pointed out earlier smaller estate type car with trailer would be much better, that way you can disconnect the trailer when not in use and save cost(economic/environmental) of dragging a great big hulking heavy 4x4 around.

prospect

Jimoslimos wrote:

0% harmful emissions? Hmmm really, how about asking the cyclist stuck behind you or better still run a pipe from the exhaust into the 4x4 and see how 'harmless' it is.

Well,

I am only quoting what I have read/heard. However, I would point out that whatever is harmful to humans, is not necessarily harmful to the environment.

Jimoslimos wrote:

I can't however see the need for such a large vehicle particularly when you admitted it wouldn't be for commercial use but instead private use including 'hobbies'. Sheez what sort of DIY/hobbies do you think you'll be doing that you can't live without a 4x4? - As pointed out earlier smaller estate type car with trailer would be much better, that way you can disconnect the trailer when not in use and save cost(economic/environmental) of dragging a great big hulking heavy 4x4 around.

I am certainly open to the idea of a larger estate car. I currently have an estate car, but do find it limited in terms of space at times.
Also, to be completely fair, a large diesel estate car is not much smaller or lighter than a 4x4. The only real difference is height, which makes no differenc in enviornmental terms, but makes a huge difference in load capacity.

prospect

did a quick check, a landcruiser V's e-class estate car.

Landcruiser:
Kerb Weight:2080Kgs
Length:190.9inches
Width:73.8inches

E-Class:
Kerb Weight:1785Kgs
Length:192.3inches
Width:71.7inches

Comparison:
Kerb Weight:Landcruiser is 16% heavier
Length:E-Class is 0.7% longer
Width:Landcruiser is 2.9% wider


However,
considering the questions raised above, I will put further consideration to this. But taking the time and effort and investment into account. Longevity is a must.
There is not point in settling for something unreliable or unsuitable which will require replacement in a shorter time, as this defeats the purpose.

CJhaughey

It is not illegal to import a vehicle as a commercial, as long as the vehicle has the rear seats removed then you can black the back windows out and import it as a commercial.
If you need back seats then you will not be able to use this option , however if you are just using it as a van ie. just the front 3 seats in use than it is entirely feasible that you import and use it as a commercial.
I am not suggesting tax evasion I am simply pointing ou an alternative option to you , there are many VW touregs and Porsche Cayennes being imported and used as commercials.
The HDJ 80 Landcruiser is a fine vehicle and will likely outlast many other vehicles of similar vintage and I believe that you are correct in that most of the embodied energy in a car is in its manufacture not the actual running of the vehicle.
I think that a 4x4 is a good choice for Irish roads, once you are off the major roads the road surface and potholes increase dramatically.

bushy...

gonk wrote:

What sort of MPG does a ten-year-old plus 4.2 litre Landcruiser return anyway? Are you sure a modern 4x4 with say a 2.5 litre engine wouldn't in fact be a better solution overall?

I know someone who moved from a 4.2 toyota to a 2.5l , worst move ever in his opinion ,outside of being a gutless wonder , used more fuel on average. Counting the astronomical total fuel use by aircraft/pa , where many flights worth are purely holiday stuff ( which kinda equates with doing hobby stuff in the 4x4 really ) it puts it in perspective i reckon .( Even though air travel is efficient ,747s still take something like 100 tonnes i think )

prospect

CJhaughey wrote:

It is not illegal to import a vehicle as a commercial, as long as the vehicle has the rear seats removed then you can black the back windows out and import it as a commercial.
If you need back seats then you will not be able to use this option , however if you are just using it as a van ie. just the front 3 seats in use than it is entirely feasible that you import and use it as a commercial.
I am not suggesting tax evasion I am simply pointing ou an alternative option to you , there are many VW touregs and Porsche Cayennes being imported and used as commercials.
.

Ahh, thats where the confusion is, I would be using the rear seats aswell. I should have made that clearer at the start, apologies.

I think that there seems to be a bit of a hang-up about 4x4 vehicles, and also large capacity engines.
I personally think that this is the best option for my requirements, and also a much greener motoring solution than 99% of the other vehicles on the road. But the fact that it happens to be a larger than normal vehicle, with a larger than normal engine seems to put people off?

That said,
If i could locate a vehicle that had a smaller engine, but provided enough power, space and versatility for my requirements, I would be more than happy to look into it, but to date the 4.2L LC-80 is the best option.

My original point about the governments lack of real interest in promoting greener motoring still stands.

Jimoslimos

prospect wrote:

My original point about the governments lack of real interest in promoting greener motoring still stands.

So hold on a minute now, you're saying that the government should incentivise a hobby that necessitates having a 4.2l 4x4. Hmmm might be a greener option to find a new pasttime. And if you think that its a greener option than 99% of other vehicles.....well

Also you have a narrow understanding if you think that the only environmental costs of building/running a car are CO2 emissions, burning any diesel fuel produces other toxic fumes and particulate matter(PM10s). Where do you think the plants are going to be grown to sustain PPO production? Deforestation leads to destruction of natural habitats plus a net increase in the amount of CO2.

I'm not saying that PPO isn't a cleaner option than diesel derived from fossil fuel (it is I agree) but that its not a viable environmentally long-term replacement that can be scaled-up to meet the needs of most motorists - until those requirements are met I don't believe any incentives should be given for its use.

So my advice would be get a smaller car (estate with trailer maybe) and anything that doesn't fit get delivered.

prospect

Jimoslimos wrote:

So hold on a minute now, you're saying that the government should incentivise a hobby that necessitates having a 4.2l 4x4. Hmmm might be a greener option to find a new pasttime. And if you think that its a greener option than 99% of other vehicles.....well

Also you have a narrow understanding if you think that the only environmental costs of building/running a car are CO2 emissions, burning any diesel fuel produces other toxic fumes and particulate matter(PM10s). Where do you think the plants are going to be grown to sustain PPO production? Deforestation leads to destruction of natural habitats plus a net increase in the amount of CO2.

I'm not saying that PPO isn't a cleaner option than diesel derived from fossil fuel (it is I agree) but that its not a viable environmentally long-term replacement that can be scaled-up to meet the needs of most motorists - until those requirements are met I don't believe any incentives should be given for its use.

So my advice would be get a smaller car (estate with trailer maybe) and anything that doesn't fit get delivered.

Good points,
However, it is the greenest option.


Also, I have already stated that I have an estate car, and a trailer and it is not sufficient.


What has the fact that the vehicle is 4x4 or evn 4.2L got to do with it.
A 2L 2wd car on PPO is not massivley greener, or produce much less dangerous emissions as far as I can see.

Even if a 2.0L 2wd car was sufficient (an I am not full ruling it out) there is still little incentive for me to switch to a PPO engine.

SeanW

you dont really have to.

Have you considered running a vehicle on biodiesel? There are a small number of biodiesel plants operating in Ireland and you wouldn't need to make such engine modifications to use it - might need to change the fuel filters a bit more and use proportionally more petrodiesel in the mix during the winter months but that's about it.

Capt'n Midnight

gonk wrote:

I'd have to agree with you though that the VRT relief for hybrids is a joke - none of them is any better for fuel consumption than a decent diesel engined vehicle - Dick Roche flaunting his green credentials with his new Lexus hybrid was especially nauseating . . .

:mad:
once someone does a decent diesel hybrid the petrol hybrid will be shown up,
how long does it take to save the extra cost of a Prius over a Diesel Golf (or whatever the equilivant sized cars) including servicing and the the fact that a diesel engine lasts longer than a petrol and probably the battery too

gonk

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

:mad:
once someone does a decent diesel hybrid the petrol hybrid will be shown up

This is on the way from Peugeot, won't be in production until 2010 though. Claimed fuel consumption 82mpg - that's as good as my 175cc bike!

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2006/bw20060328_100063.htm

Capt'n Midnight

COMPETITION AHEAD. The electric engine, which recovers energy during deceleration and braking, would operate up to 30 miles per hour, at which point the diesel engine would kick in. The electric engine would give an acceleration boost when passing other vehicles. If PSA can make hybrid-diesels for a $1,200 premium or less, "the technology will propel sales," says Christoph Stuermer, senior analyst at market researcher Global Insight in Frankfurt. Stuermer and other industry analysts believe manufacturers such as Peugeot may ultimately opt for a less expensive "light hybrid" car, using an electric motor for stopping and starting the auto, but not for propelling it.

On the radio today they were talking about Fords ethanol cars, can use petrol too, but the point is that you'd save about 10c per litre AND you save half the VRT, so the $1,200 would be easily accomodated.

prospect

SeanW wrote:

you dont really have to.

Have you considered running a vehicle on biodiesel? There are a small number of biodiesel plants operating in Ireland and you wouldn't need to make such engine modifications to use it - might need to change the fuel filters a bit more and use proportionally more petrodiesel in the mix during the winter months but that's about it.

Will look into that, cheers
I would not rule out anything at theis point.

prospect

According to the PSA Diesel hybrid article, the Toyota Prius only gets 41mpg!!!!

That is chronic. My 2.oL turbo diesel 150bhp car does 46mpg on average and over 50mpg on a long journey....

prospect

Oki Doki, I did my maths on this. Based on 14,000 miles per annum.

The car I want to change is a Renault, 1.4L petrol.
The vehicle I am considering is a Landcruiser, but for the purposes of financial and enviornmental concerns, I am also going to look at a 1.9L Skoda.

So, over 1 year of motoring:
The Renault would use 1866L of petrol
the Landcruiser would use 2456L of PPO
the Skoda would use 1573 of PPO

So in terms of actual costs to fuel the vehicles for 1 year (based on current prices):
Renault = 1901.45
Landcruiser = 2063.04
Skoda = 1321.35

So the obvious solution in financial and ecological terms is the Skoda, as it is €580 per annum cheaper to run at current fuel prices.
However, there is very little difference between the 4.2L 4x4 and the 1.4L car.