The Death of Diesel Engines Finally A step Closer !

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096554_uk-official-says-encouraging-diesel-cars-to-lower-carbon-was-wrong



http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096554_uk-official-says-encouraging-diesel-cars-to-lower-carbon-was-wrong


Any serious motor enthusiast can't argue with me about the end of diesel finally, will be a good for motoring over all.

Truckermal

I suppose you must a over 2 million miles of flawless motoring on your Hotpoint at this stage..:rolleyes:

Bpmull

There are plenty of studies that have shown that older petrols have higher NOx emissions than diesels and that over the life of the car diesels produce lower overall NOx emissions as they are more consistent petrols get progressively worse as they age the cat degrades etc etc.

Anyway last time I checked petrols produce far higher hydrocarbons than diesels that's a fact. One of the main compounds that make up the hc emissions is benzene. Benzene is found in ciggerettes it's highly carcinogenic easily as bad as NOx but all these arguments chose to ignore this. Also there is no hiding the fact that petrols produce more CO2 and CO emissions.

At the end of the day one is as bad as the other diesel isn't as bad as it's made out to be in alot of ways it's better than petrol. So getting rid of diesels won't save the planet.

Cuddlesworth

Bpmull wrote: »

There are plenty of studies that have shown that older petrols have higher NOx emissions than diesels and that over the life of the car diesels produce lower overall NOx emissions as they are more consistent petrols get progressively worse as they age the cat degrades etc etc.

Anyway last time I checked petrols produce far higher hydrocarbons than diesels that's a fact. One of the main compounds that make up the hc emissions is benzene. Benzene is found in ciggerettes it's highly carcinogenic easily as bad as NOx but all these arguments chose to ignore this. Also there is no hiding the fact that petrols produce more CO2 and CO emissions.

At the end of the day one is as bad as the other diesel isn't as bad as it's made out to be in alot of ways it's better than petrol. So getting rid of diesels won't save the planet.

Both types of engine have good points and bad points and suit specific driving styles.

The problem since 2008 is that our taxation system heavily influenced the type of car people were buying solely down to the yearly cost of motor tax. That needs to be changed to create a better market for car users.

Bpmull

OSI wrote: »

I think the general idea behind this recent push is that it's all well and good saving the planet, but it's not much use if we're all dying from lung cancer while doing so.

Well the benzene and other voc that petrols produce will give you as much lung cancer as the NOx. Actually afaik NOx isn't a carcinogenic as such but does cause respiratory problems. The only way to stop the air pollution is ban both.

professore

Particulates created by diesel is especially carcinogenic. I used to be a fan, but modern diesels are expensive and unreliable.

kona

Diesels are filthy, no amount of pfm will change that.

industrial revolution levels of smoke out of some of some of the more poorly maintained ones.

Truckermal

Truckermal wrote: »

I suppose you must a over 2 million miles of flawless motoring on your Hotpoint at this stage..:rolleyes:

Good one, I'll give ye that, made me laugh in work, I needed it, cheers !

Bpmull

professore wrote: »

Particulates created by diesel is especially carcinogenic. I used to be a fan, but modern diesels are expensive and unreliable.

Am no they are not carcinogenic. The issue is that some pm can get deep down in your lungs and affect asthma. Anyway that argument is void with the introduction of Dpf's.

Just as serious as exhaust emissions if not more so is the completely unregulated solid fuel emissions through the Island, in my village the cloud of coal smoke is far worse than any exhaust that has some kind of regulated emissions.

Even in Carlow Town where there is a smoky fuel ban I regularly see smoke coming from chimneys.

Nothing being done about solid fuel which is a very out dated way to heat any home. On oil I'll never go back.

Special Circumstances

The last time this came up we learned that modern diesels are :
VERY refined.
Definitely not noisy.
If they are noisy, then they sound better than petrol engines.


We now know diesel exhaust is just a little tickly (playful like) and definitely not cancer causing.



Tune in next week for - no one would ever delete a dpf, sure diesel technology from all the major marques is fierce reliable.




Walking round Limerick at night smells like burning plastic to me, nothing to do with diesels - dunno is that smokey coal or just mangey ignorant people burning plastic up their chimneys to save on bin costs?

*Kol*

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Walking round Limerick at night smells like burning plastic to me, nothing to do with diesels - dunno is that smokey coal or just mangey ignorant people burning plastic up their chimneys to save on bin costs?

Its the mangey ignorant people burning plastic.

colm_mcm

Let's burn more coal and turf to power electric cars

:rolleyes:

Marcusm

Bpmull wrote: »

Am no they are not carcinogenic. The issue is that some pm can get deep down in your lungs and affect asthma. Anyway that argument is void with the introduction of Dpf's.

I agree re DPFs and asthma, the issue is that early research is showing some level of worrying causation between the nano particles resulting from DPF burn off and more serious diseases, such as lung cancers. Where it gets to none of us knows at this stage.

colm_mcm

colm_mcm wrote: »

Let's burn more coal and turf to power electric cars

:rolleyes:

There is only one coal power station left in Ireland AFAIK and my leccy comes from gas and a mix of renewable.

And because I drive electric at least I use energy as efficiently as possible and that actually makes me feel good, and passing garages. And I have no exhaust.

So I decided instead of talking about it all the time to finally put my money where my mouth is and I'll never go back.

Every 1 US Gallon (3.78 litres) of fuel produced consumes 6 kwh of electricity, over a 60 litre tank that is about 65 miles driving an EV.

This isn't including the energy required to drill which also consumes fuel, then transportation.

dgt

Militant eco nuts. I'm sick of it all.

So what about busses/commercials/ships. How about a petrol hybrid supertanker or an electric jumbo jet?

This is more europe bollox "watch our carbon footprint, we need to be greener" bla bla bla

I'd rather the pollution I can see than the pollution I can't

And you'll never coax me away from indirect diesel cars. I'll just keep polluting all round me. Stick that in your hybrid

Mycroft H

You'll take my diesels out of my cold dead hands. When something that can do 60mpg day in day out comes along cheaply, I'll change.

Irishcrx

God I hate Diesel engines, I get the whole fuel efficient thing but with the smaller engine petrol turbos now becoming more prominent they are catching up.

I just never got people shelling out big money for lovely looking motors (even BMW =] ) and then buying a big filty Diesel engine in it and claiming to enjoy it...no matter what is said torque, power etc you cannot say they sound better than a good straight or v6 engine or even a decent four pot turbo...they just don't.

Jeremy clarkson once said its not always about how quick it gets you there...it's about how it feels as it gets you there..

Autosport

I'll be keeping my diesel thanks

_Kaiser_

This thread reminds me of.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXZeq9eXAys

As Mycroft said, until they come up with something that can do the range at the cost of a modern diesel, I won't be giving mine up either - especially as property/rental prices are pushing people further and further out again - just ask anyone who has to trek across the M50 these days!

dgt

dgt wrote: »

So what about busses/commercials/ships.

They would fall under diesels too wouldn't you think ?

dgt wrote: »

This is more europe bollox "watch our carbon footprint, we need to be greener" bla bla bla

It's E.U-Irish Bollox that got us to the point we tax the most polluting vehicles less only concerned about C02 and not what will actually kill us.

DanWall

Suppose instead of Diesel Electric locomotives we will have Petrol Electric locomotives. (Doesn't sound right)

wotzgoingon

What happened bio fuel. Or even cooking oil for your diesel engine?

Foxhole Norman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

This thread reminds me of.....

As Mycroft said, until they come up with something that can do the range at the cost of a modern diesel, I won't be giving mine up either - especially as property/rental prices are pushing people further and further out again - just ask anyone who has to trek across the M50 these days!

At motorway speeds/driving most Petrols will still return good mpg as long as they're not something underpowered. My 2.5 Petrol was returning ~40Mpg on a trip to Midway and back, calculated too, the computer was only off by +- 1mpg.

Bpmull

wotzgoingon wrote: »

What happened bio fuel. Or even cooking oil for your diesel engine?

I did a college assignment on bioethanol as a transport fuel last year. The biggest problem with it is it often uses food sources as process feedstock this isn't very favourable due to global food shortages. So using food sources as fuel is kind of the main problem and all the land it takes to grow the crops. Although there is certain non food feedstock that can be used too. I had a fairly indept look at the emissions of petrol vs ethanol and the ethanol was favourable over all as a cleaner fuel.

Leonard Hofstadter

The evidence against diesel engines (in terms of their harmfulness to humans) is overwhelming. Also, a diesel produces 13% more CO2 per litre burned than a petrol engine. So a diesel engine that does 20% more mpg than a petrol is only about 6-7% better for CO2.

Petrols aren't as clean as a whistle, but they're a LOT better than diesels for us.

Leaving all of that aside, diesels have their place, for people who drive on motorway and/or drive over 18,000 miles a year. That's what they were designed for and that's what they were intended for, to make life more affordable for those who by necessity or by choice do a lot of driving every year.

They most certainly were NOT intended for Bridie to go down the road for a few messages or to go into town to pick up the kids after school, or for low mileage motorists - but that's what they're being used for at the moment because of Ireland's ridiculous taxation system that is totally skewed towards diesels - both on the new market and secondhand.

Even when manufacturers release low CO2 petrols, people still spend thousands extra on a diesel to save that extra €10 or €20 on car tax (admittedly they'll most likely get the extra cost back come resale time anyway). That's something that needs to change, and the sooner the better for everyone.

visual

Have to knock the diesel as it's far better than some hyped batter car that is always holding up traffic trying to improve its range.
Buy a bicycle or walk and holiday at home if you want to save the planet.

dieselbug

"The Death of Diesel Engines Finally A step Closer !"

Bit of an overstatement I would say. Yes, the diesel car will decline in the coming years due mainly to euro 6 emission regs.
While manufacturers have the technology to reduce nox by a large margin the cost will make it impractible for most I suspect. You dont want to know the cost of the exhaust treatment system on a euro 6 diesel.

On top of this I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the government will think of some way to "discourage" (£££) people from driving diesel cars.

Diesel will continue for commercials and will still be practical for high milers for many years yet.

Anyway, I will cling to my diesel grimly, just cant imagine me driving one of those soft running super efficient modern girly petrols. Give me a smelly manly cracklin diesel every day.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxWAGfuvzQ

_Brian

Someone mentioned earlier that the big problem is diesel cars being sold to te wrong customers.
People who do small milage, round town trips should never be sold diesel cars. They never get the benifet of driving the diesel on long journies and they suffer financially down the road when the DPF blocks early.

Diesels make sense for people driving long journies regularly. We have two cars and drive 70k km's or more a year. There is no way on earth petrol cars would make sense for us.
I see my sister though who does 6 - 8k km's a year with her 2L A4 Diesel and it makes no sense. All short hop drives and she can't get any better than 40mpg.

MetzgerMeister

Most people here know about my "hatred" of diesel engines. I don't actually hate them but I also don't think that their death being a step closer is a good thing. It's quite obvious that they have their place for people doing big mileage. The fact that they can often cause issues is more down to the fact that all you can really get nowadays (at least 95% of the time) is a diesel and in most cases, buying a petrol instead is letting yourself in for trouble come sale time.

I know some will disagree with this but for the majority of people, this is the reality of it.

This country has already killed off the likes of the 6 cylinder or V8 petrol engines. I know I would prefer a 3 litre turbo diesel to a ****ty little 1.6T petrol if I had to make the choice.

Special Circumstances

I think we call agree that apart from 55% off the price of a bike every 5 years, the Greens didn't really achieve anything "green" or beneficial to the public.
"CFL lightbulbs and diesel - they're awesome in every way"

munchkin_utd

funny this thread came up.
There's currently a push in Munich by environmentalists to get increased measures against air polution, mostly caused by diesel particles.
The city is lowering speed limits and considering other measures like being even more stringent on only allowing cleaner diesels into the city, but the environmental lobby is pushing for much more including a total car ban or banning diesel cars completely regardless of their certification.
Intregueingly they are pushing for it through the courts which may bypass any political reluctance to go for the nuclear option.
http://www.merkur-online.de/lokales/muenchen/stadt-muenchen/saubere-luft-stadt-will-mehr-tempo-statt-pruefen-4794084.html

this sort of thing is often off the radar in the likes of Ireland or UK as sure its not a capital city (abeit identical size as Dublin and metropolitan population larger than Ireland) and is far away and any media coverage is in some strange foreign language, but, like a little island off another island off mainland europe kickstarted the smoking ban and government imposed bag tax that spread further afield, if the home of BMW (and Audi only half hour down the road) bans diesel cars then there'd be a reasonable danger the concept could also spread.

If diesel does indeed get banned and they have to produce much more electrics then the cost will come down a lot meaning they can add more Kwh to improve range, this is no bad thing imo, I genuinely believe even the most die hard petrol fan will love driving electric, there is no comparison.

Try it before you knock it.

Bpmull

Deleted User wrote: »

If diesel does indeed get banned and they have to produce much more electrics then the cost will come down a lot meaning they can add more Kwh to improve range, this is no bad thing imo, I genuinely believe even the most die hard petrol fan will love driving electric, there is no comparison.

Try it before you knock it.

Infairness an electric car isn't much use to someone doing 60k or 70k km a year. They will only start to take of when they can do 400-500km range to one charge. This 100km sh!t is useless unless you just drive around town. Diesels have their place as not only in cars, but commercial vehicles, trucks, jeeps, large generators etc etc. while I agree we need to start to phase out diesels but only when petrols are being phased out with them and I recon that another 40 years away at least. Replacing one fossil fuel source of transportation with another isn't sustainable.

You'd sware the way some go on that getting rid of diesels would solve all our problems and stop air pollution. Petrols still produce a huge amount of CO2, HC, NOx, CO. People only ever see the small picture and getting rid of diesels is built up to be so beneficial. In reality comsidering overall global emissions getting rid of diesels will have such a small effect it will almost be unnoticeable.

Foxhole Norman

Plenty of studies have shown that diesel fumes are worse than petrol, petrol may produce more but are less harmful. Diesels should be kept for commercial vehicles, Buses/Trucks and people that do ridiculous mileage. The amount of diesels in Europe confined to cities is ridiculous due to all the tax breaks they got in the past few years.

Bpmull

Bpmull wrote: »

Infairness an electric car isn't much use to someone doing 60k or 70k km a year. They will only start to take of when they can do 400-500km range to one charge. This 100km sh!t is useless unless you just drive around town. Diesels have their place as not only in cars, but commercial vehicles, trucks, jeeps, large generators etc etc. while I agree we need to start to phase out diesels but only when petrols are being phased out with them and I recon that another 40 years away at least. Replacing one fossil fuel source of transportation with another isn't sustainable.

You'd sware the way some go on that getting rid of diesels would solve all our problems and stop air pollution. Petrols still produce a huge amount of CO2, HC, NOx, CO. People only ever see the small picture and getting rid of diesels is built up to be so beneficial. In reality comsidering overall global emissions getting rid of diesels will have such a small effect it will almost be unnoticeable.

C02 doesn't bother me, it won't kill me or give me heart disease, lung disease etc. It's the rest of the crap that comes from exhaust that does bother me.

No for someone doing 60-70 K miles a year Electrics in their current form are not suitable, if that's commute mileage then they should move, if it's commercial then I could see where in the current climate fuel cells and hydrogen could work, but creating the hydrogen is a problem, it wastes huge amounts of energy. And it will cost a lot to build a network, while electricity is everywhere they just need to install the charge points.

I wouldn't have the Leaf if it were our only car, I would if it were just me living alone, we have 2 cars and the Diesel will still be used for the long trips which I'm fine with tbh, and it will keep miles off the Leaf, so in a way I need to drive the diesel for the really long trips. The Leaf is still doing the most daily mileage.

The 400-500 miles rage need though I can't understand , 200 miles and much faster charging would be a real breakthrough, I don't want to carry a huge heavy expensive battery that will take a week to charge at home.

There is another point is most people aren't interested in electrics not just because of range scares but because most people don't care if the car is petrol, diesel, fast, slow, or how it handles, it's just a thing to get them from A to B.

Bpmull

Foxhole Norman wrote: »

Plenty of studies have shown that diesel fumes are worse than petrol, petrol may produce more but are less harmful. Diesels should be kept for commercial vehicles, Buses/Trucks and people that do ridiculous mileage. The amount of diesels in Europe confined to cities is ridiculous due to all the tax breaks they got in the past few years.

The funny thing is that people go on about dirty diesels and that they should be banned. Yet if you put a petrol engine on a bench with a diesel it will produce over 3 times more NOx as well as all other emissions I mention above are higher. However the cat saves the petrol on emissions and NOx a diesel with a cat would have lower emisions than a petrol with a cat including NOx so to say a petrol engine is cleaner than a diesel is incorrect as the petrol is producing more emissions than the diesel it's just the cat that's saving it.

The important thing to know about this is that when a cat is cold it doesn't work at all so when you cold start a petrol engine it's putting out 3-4 times more NOx than a cold diesel. Also if the cat becomes defective which they often do you are producing a serious amount more emissions including NOx than a diesel. Anyway I'm not going to argue it out anymore.

CiniO

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I think we call agree that apart from 55% off the price of a bike every 5 years, the Greens didn't really achieve anything "green" or beneficial to the public.

I though it was 51% and only for those who are on salaries over 33800 p/a

Great so we need more electrics, longer range electrics then and Nuclear ! :-)

Wish I could charge the leccy with wind or solar considering the amount of wind we get but I don't have the and wind turbine installations in Ireland are outrageously expensive to say the least.

1-2 Kwp of Solar would go a long way over the course of a year.

Bpmull

Deleted User wrote: »

Great so we need more electrics, longer range electrics then and Nuclear ! :-)
/QUOTE]

Yep along with hydroelectric, wind, pv, solar. Etc etc. I think hydrogen cars could work with more research. Electric cars will be the most convient form of transport outside of fossil fuels I recon. Ah we will have another 50 years of fossil fuel cars I recon. Having done a few environmental and sustainablity modules in college as much as it kills me to say it there is no longterm future in fossil fuels. But in the short term cars will stay more or less the same. Then when graphene batteries etc are properly developed causing the range of electric cars dramatically increase they will start to take over.

Special Circumstances

I think urban air quality is never going to see petrol or diesel come out as a winner - electric is what has to be developed in densely populated areas. Light rail, trams, electric cars, scooters etc.
Delivery trucks, construction equipment and light agricultural stuff for parks or whatever etc will continue to be a necessary evil.

CiniO wrote: »

I though it was 51% and only for those who are on salaries over 33800 p/a

Yes I think you're right. Used to be a little more I think until USC was reduced a little at some stage?

CiniO wrote: »

and only for those who are on salaries over 33800 p/a

Yes, I was struggling a little to pull something positive out for the greens. I wouldn't say telling people on less than 33k they can spend 1K minus twenty something per cent on a bike is much help really. But hey, chape tax on the new cars and even cheaper bikes for those with more money eh?

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

...But hey, chape tax on the new cars and even cheaper bikes for those with more money eh?

As far as I've observed most of those "Cycle to Work" bicycles were bought by people who heard about the tax incentive and developed the usual "Bucket of Shít" Syndrome*, getting the bikes and then leaving them in a shed ever since. :pac:


* That peculiar psychological condition that often develops when people see something for nothing - even if it's an actual bucket of shít, they're going to want it.

Special Circumstances

Haha, I was delighted with it. And taken completely by surprise that the government would encourage something that they didn't have a load of levies on!

dieselbug

jimgoose wrote: »

As far as I've observed most of those "Cycle to Work" bicycles were bought by people who heard about the tax incentive and developed the usual "Bucket of Shít" Syndrome*, getting the bikes and then leaving them in a shed ever since. :pac:


* That peculiar psychological condition that often develops when people see something for nothing - even if it's an actual bucket of shít, they're going to want it.

Most people I know who took advantage of the bike incentive done so with Santa in mind.

Kensington

captainspeed wrote: »

The evidence against diesel engines (in terms of their harmfulness to humans) is overwhelming. Also, a diesel produces 13% more CO2 per litre burned than a petrol engine. So a diesel engine that does 20% more mpg than a petrol is only about 6-7% better for CO2.

Petrols aren't as clean as a whistle, but they're a LOT better than diesels for us.

Leaving all of that aside, diesels have their place, for people who drive on motorway and/or drive over 18,000 miles a year. That's what they were designed for and that's what they were intended for, to make life more affordable for those who by necessity or by choice do a lot of driving every year.

They most certainly were NOT intended for Bridie to go down the road for a few messages or to go into town to pick up the kids after school, or for low mileage motorists - but that's what they're being used for at the moment because of Ireland's ridiculous taxation system that is totally skewed towards diesels - both on the new market and secondhand.

Even when manufacturers release low CO2 petrols, people still spend thousands extra on a diesel to save that extra €10 or €20 on car tax (admittedly they'll most likely get the extra cost back come resale time anyway). That's something that needs to change, and the sooner the better for everyone.

Unfortunately not for long

Much of the cause of particulate matter in diesel engines is because it burns very lean, at extremely high temperatures under enourmous pressure - not an inherent problem with the diesel fuel itself. A by product of a lean burn at high pressure is you don't burn entirely evenly, your air-fuel mix is under immense compression and these all combine to create extremely small particulates in the less-burnt parts of the mix which get pushed out the exhaust. These are the most harmful in terms of air quality and health.

Now, to petrol, in a bid to drive CO2 emissions down, they're putting very low displacement petrol engines into cars (e.g. Ford 1.0L EcoBoost).
To compensate for the loss of power from the reduction in displacement they're moving to turbocharging and direct injection - essentially a much leaner burn at much higher pressure than a traditional petrol engine (same as diesel technology!) And the by-products are exactly the same - a lean burn at high pressure and particulates pushed out the exhaust from any part-burnt combustion.

Which is ironic really, because now Bridie's new generation petrol engined school runner car is going to be riddled with the same carbon-choked-EGR and blocked particulate filter technology as the "unsuitable diesel" equivalent, giving worse fuel performance and higher maintenance costs than it's previous petrol iteration and just as bad NOx and PM output as its equivalent diesel, all in the name of being green...

Make no mistake, environmental concerns are not at the heart of this change of heart - it's a massive loss of tax revenue from pure CO2-based taxation bands. Start taxing on NOx, PM in addition and costs are going to rise all around, not just for diesel drivers.

Kensington

Kensington wrote: »

Make no mistake, environmental concerns are not at the heart of this change of heart - it's a massive loss of tax revenue from pure CO2-based taxation bands. Start taxing on NOx, PM in addition and costs are going to rise all around, not just for diesel drivers.

I would say that Governments are waking up to the fact that the cost to treat pollution related illness will be far greater than the loss from lower C02 vehicles.

Special Circumstances

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say that Governments are waking up to the fact that the cost to treat pollution related illness will be far greater than the loss from lower C02 vehicles.

Haha - someone elses problem - in Ireland they are only worried about the next election.

So, ultimate efficiency based on CO2 gives nasty air quality side effects whether it's diesel or petrol. An inconvenient truth...

Yes but as the E.U see it C02 is the the greater threat to human health than carcinogenic exhaust emissions or acid rain etc.

I'm much more concerned about the chemicals I'm forced to eat and drink and breath than C02.

Our Government still allows solid fuel to be burnt, and you don't get much more polluting and unregulated and completely backward than this.

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but as the E.U see it C02 is the the greater threat to human health than carcinogenic exhaust emissions or acid rain etc.

I'm much more concerned about the chemicals I'm forced to eat and drink and breath than C02.

Our Government still allows solid fuel to be burnt, and you don't get much more polluting and unregulated and completely backward than this.

Mmm. And those shining beacons of all things Europe in Germany consume over 2% of the worlds coal. Sauce for the goose, wha'?? :pac:

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

If diesel does indeed get banned and they have to produce much more electrics then the cost will come down a lot meaning they can add more Kwh to improve range, this is no bad thing imo, I genuinely believe even the most die hard petrol fan will love driving electric, there is no comparison.

Try it before you knock it.

But what about high milage diesel drivers ??
Surely petrol or electric doesn't cater for this market. If I'm doing 40,000kms a year I'm not going for a petrol car. I'd need at least a 2.0 turbo diesel 120bhp minimum.

It's just niave to think diesels don't have their place.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

But what about high milage diesel drivers ??
Surely petrol or electric doesn't cater for this market. If I'm doing 40,000kms a year I'm not going for a petrol car. I'd need at least a 2.0 turbo diesel 120bhp minimum.

It's just niave to think diesels don't have their place.

Diesels are not necessary, I previously drove a MK II prius that achieved 60 mpg. Which for a petrol automatic using 10 year old technology was quiet remarkable considering many diesel manuals can't average that per tank.

No reason the Germans couldn't have produced hybrids 10 years ago or the French or any other major auto maker.

It's only now we're beginning to see more plug ins such as the Outlander PHEV , though I'm opposed to the outlander being allowed to use the fast chargers which take up an essential charger on a full battery car owner who absolutely needs it, the outlander can continue on the ice !

It should be a rule that if you got an ice under the bonnet you don't use the fast charger.

My opinion is that if you want more electric range go buy a proper electric vehicle.