What will happen to petrol/diesel car values after 2045?

Turbolounge

Just curious as to what will happen to internal combustion vehicles after 2045 as they will be phased out on Irish roads, specifically classics that are worth a lot, e.g old Ferraris, 911s. Will they become worthless soon prior to that, as people begin dumping them on the market as they can't be driven on public roads anymore?

biko

That's 24 years away.
I'm still trying to figure out what to do for dinner


But on topic, old cars will still be around and fuel will still be available, perhaps special licence or something.

liamog

Under the previous plans, they said no new NCT certificates for petrol or diesel cars after 2045.
Currently there is an NCT exemption for cars over 40 years old, so presumably the value of a 2005 petrol car will shoot up

Ubbquittious

Hopefully Fine Gael, the Greens and the EU will be nothing but a bad memory at this stage and we'll be able to drive on regardless

Car99

We might all need boats by then . Let's wait and see what happens.

sk8board

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Hopefully Fine Gael, the Greens and the EU will be nothing but a bad memory at this stage and we'll be able to drive on regardless

there will be a synthetic fuels long before then and what ICE cars are around would use that, at very high tax, as would collectable cars.
95% of cars sold today are econobox commodities, so the run out of the last ones would be much quicker than you think, relatively speaking, similar to leaded petrol.

Scrappage schemes will get rid of the bulk of the last remaining ones and they’ll be shipped to countries that are decades behind in their green policies

Car engine sizes are shrinking all the time in the lead up to 2035/45 too. A 2.0l diesel is as big as engines get these days.

Looking at cars from 2011-2021 on Carzone:
- only 6% have engines 2.1L+ and only 1% are petrol.

Once they kill the 2.0L diesel, that’s the ballgame.

e.g the Audi A7 is now 2.0L diesel, down from the 3.0L, and the Tiguan is now 1.0L petrol (!)

Ubbquittious

sk8board wrote: »

there will be a synthetic fuels long before then and what ICE cars are around would use that, at very high tax, as would collectable cars.
95% of cars sold today are econobox commodities, so the run out of the last ones would be much quicker than you think, relatively speaking, similar to leaded petrol.

Scrappage schemes will get rid of the bulk of the last remaining ones and they’ll be shipped to countries that are decades behind in their green policies

Car engine sizes are shrinking all the time in the lead up to 2035/45 too. A 2.0l diesel is as big as engines get these days.

Looking at cars from 2011-2021 on Carzone:
- only 6% have engines 2.1L+ and only 1% are petrol.

Once they kill the 2.0L diesel, that’s the ballgame.

e.g the Audi A7 is now 2.0L diesel, down from the 3.0L, and the Tiguan is now 1.0L petrol (!)

These people are off their fecking rocker. No way is a 2L petrol engine any way big

TrailerBob

I'll still have my 3litre diesel.. possibly running it on camel poo or something by then.. but it'll still run and will be worth a million pounds.

One of those things is grounded in reality...

Values will rise for collectable cars for enthusiasts, which, let's be frank, is a small percentage of the market... everyone else will drive econoboxes powered by pixie dust

sk8board

Ubbquittious wrote: »

These people are off their fecking rocker. No way is a 2L petrol engine any way big

The fleet-average emissions targets for car manufacturers are designed to rise every single year.
The fact that a 2.0L isn’t a big engine isn’t the point - if it was able to meet the efficiency targets, it would still be produced.
Where things get silly is where VW had to cancel the Up because they were selling so many that it actually pushed their fleet average up.
Put the 1.0L petrol in an Up for €13k, or put it in a Tiguan for €45k and sell fewer .....

Cerveza

We will be driving around in battery Dacia Dusters for eternity.

Wibbs

TrailerBob wrote: »

Values will rise for collectable cars for enthusiasts, which, let's be frank, is a small percentage of the market... everyone else will drive econoboxes powered by pixie dust

ICE cars will likely be like how the horse went after cars took off. From workhorses literally, to pampered expensive pets taken out on special occasions and mostly off public roads. If full automation and cloud driven traffic takes off I doubt a vintage car will be let near roads. It would be unconnected, a wild card.

TrailerBob

They still allow horses on the road...

Turbolounge

Wibbs wrote: »

ICE cars will likely be like how the horse went after cars took off. From workhorses literally, to pampered expensive pets taken out on special occasions and mostly off public roads. If full automation and cloud driven traffic takes off I doubt a vintage car will be let near roads. It would be unconnected, a wild card.

Bob Flavin? Either way I think you're right, I'm looking forward to the day we don't have rough noisy 4 cylinder diesels on our roads, instead the only Petrol/Diesel cars around will be decent metal

Leonard Hofstadter

There will be synthetic fuels well before then, which are carbon neutral. Porsche are putting them into production next year, but it will be some years off before they get released to the wider world. No reason to ban old cars then, and no reason to ban the sale of new petrol or diesel cars if the biggest problem with them (the CO2 emissions) is gone.

In the more immediate future, Bosch have developed 'blue' petrol/diesel, which can be run in an existing petrol or diesel car, but there is 20% less CO2.

So petrol and diesel may be down, but they're certainly not out.

Long story short, I'm not worried about not being able to use old cars in 20-25 years time.

Wibbs

TrailerBob wrote: »

They still allow horses on the road...

True, but people are hardly going to the shops and work on the back of them.

Turbolounge wrote: »

Bob Flavin?

I have no idea who that is.

fits

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

There will be synthetic fuels well before then, which are carbon neutral. Porsche are putting them into production next year, but it will be some years off before they get released to the wider world. No reason to ban old cars then, and no reason to ban the sale of new petrol or diesel cars if the biggest problem with them (the CO2 emissions) is gone.

In the more immediate future, Bosch have developed 'blue' petrol/diesel, which can be run in an existing petrol or diesel car, but there is 20% less CO2.

So petrol and diesel may be down, but they're certainly not out.

Long story short, I'm not worried about not being able to use old cars in 20-25 years time.

I was idling at a drive thru at the weekend in my old diesel. Inhaling the fumes from it and the other cars in the queue. I think it will go the way of smoking indoors before long. Living in a rural area I really notice air quality these days. Was plagued with chest infections when I lived in Dublin but haven’t had one in years. They will be gone and long before 2045.

Leonard Hofstadter

fits wrote: »

I was idling at a drive thru at the weekend in my old diesel. Inhaling the fumes from it and the other cars in the queue. I think it will go the way of smoking indoors before long. Living in a rural area I really notice air quality these days. Was plagued with chest infections when I lived in Dublin but haven’t had one in years. They will be gone and long before 2045.

The good news about synthetic fuels is they don't just cut CO2 emissions, they also massively reduce the impact of the other toxic emissions that come out of traditional petrol and diesel engines. Only badly maintained cars (or badly modified ones - the kind of ones that are popular with the 'no smoke no poke' brigade) should produce any noticeable toxic emissions, especially a Euro 6 car onwards (which is anything after 2014). Ironically now that the manufacturers have cleaned up diesel emissions, people want to ban them. The time to ban or discourage their use was back in 2008 when we changed our VRT system, and all the negative consequences that flowed from that.

MetzgerMeister

Any idea if using synthetic fuels will see a drop in power?

Leonard Hofstadter

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Any idea if using synthetic fuels will see a drop in power?

Porsche says they'll get a bit more power! Only 8-10 components in synthetic fuels, versus 40 in petrol or diesel. So more power and net zero emissions, a real win win!

dashoonage

Mine will probably still be going just fine. it will have had 24 DPF's by then but other than that will be just fine.

liamog

I don't think eFuels are an answer for mass market continued use of combustion engines. It's a suitable technology to enable classic cars and heritage vehicles but the thermodynamic limits of combustion means the energy efficiency of eFuels is difficult.

Turbolounge

liamog wrote: »

I don't think eFuels are an answer for mass market continued use of combustion engines. It's a suitable technology to enable classic cars and heritage vehicles but the thermodynamic limits of combustion means the energy efficiency of eFuels is difficult.

Correct. E-Fuels ain't cheap, but for some people, it is/will be worth spending the money on it.

Hellrazer

liamog wrote: »

I don't think eFuels are an answer for mass market continued use of combustion engines. It's a suitable technology to enable classic cars and heritage vehicles but the thermodynamic limits of combustion means the energy efficiency of eFuels is difficult.

Turbolounge wrote: »

Correct. E-Fuels ain't cheap, but for some people, it is/will be worth spending the money on it.

I don't know why we don't use more bio-ethanol in our cars - its cleaner and doesn't produce nox / sulphur dioxide.

Years ago when I worked for Volvo it was the big thing but you rarely see anything over 5% now - back then it was 15%

Ok it costs around double the price of petrol to produce but if it was used more the price would come down.

It should be something that the hippies that want to destroy ICE should look at for the future.

frozenfrozen

Hellrazer wrote: »

I don't know why we don't use more bio-ethanol in our cars - its cleaner and doesn't produce nox / sulphur dioxide.

Years ago when I worked for Volvo it was the big thing but you rarely see anything over 5% now - back then it was 15%

Ok it costs around double the price of petrol to produce but if it was used more the price would come down.

It should be something that the hippies that want to destroy ICE should look at for the future.

led to more Co2 emissions*

*which at the time was worse than anything

Wibbs

I seem to recall that methanol can cause all sorts of issues with some components as it's more corrosive. Maybe that was on older systems?

PaulRyan97

Hellrazer wrote: »

I don't know why we don't use more bio-ethanol in our cars - its cleaner and doesn't produce nox / sulphur dioxide.

Years ago when I worked for Volvo it was the big thing but you rarely see anything over 5% now - back then it was 15%

Ok it costs around double the price of petrol to produce but if it was used more the price would come down.

It should be something that the hippies that want to destroy ICE should look at for the future.

It's not just the cost, it's the environmental impact it's production has. To grow the sugar cane required for it means clearing large swathes of land for intensive agriculture. Since a large chunk of the production happens in Brazil, this means slashing and burning sections of the Amazon for more farmland. The emission savings are negligible.

Bio-ethanol is not a solution, it simply moves the problem to another part of the process. Synthetic fuels have use cases but they should really only be applied where electrification is not possible.

Leonard Hofstadter

Turbolounge wrote: »

Correct. E-Fuels ain't cheap, but for some people, it is/will be worth spending the money on it.

Well one way around this is taxation - will the Government get rid of the carbon tax and other fuel duties to incentivise us to use this fuel over traditional petrol and diesel?

If they really do care about saving the planet they will.

The other side of the argument is that you need economies of scale.

If the only future of synthetic fuels is in aviation and shipping, then the investment and economies of scale won't be there.

But that leads us onto another point. If there was a potential for them to be used in cars (which there is, as Porsche, Mazda and other manufacturers are investing in them), then surely the best way is to ensure that they are a viable option and we roll them out to the 2 billion odd cars in the world as quickly as possible?

I mean, if I can keep running my car and buy any new or newer car with the kind of engine and drivetrain I want, but do it knowing that I'm not creating extra pollution, and I can drive it in anger or whatever way I please, why wouldn't I use a cleaner fuel, especially when the cleaner fuel will give me more power? But it might never happen unless there's enough of a market for it, and if we've decided that combustion engines are dead, then why would anyone invest in a fuel that can remove the carbon emissions without a single new car needing to be made?.

It's a chicken and egg scenario really. In the quest to save the planet by going for EVs, we're prolonging the use of fossil fuels by another 20-30 years. If Governments and manufacturers decided there was a future for combustion engined vehicles, then there is a massive incentive because the returns will be there forever and we get to decarbonise the entire transport fleet - cars, buses, classics, everything, and we can do it quicker. As transport amounts to some 30% of emissions, it's clearly an area ripe for making a massive contribution towards a better world if we do it right, and it's a real win win, we have a greener planet and car enthusiasts can keep driving and enjoying all that is good about the motor car and exciting engines and drivetrain layouts.

That again assumes people are motivated by saving the planet and not ideologically in favour of EVs like the Green party and some Governments are.

Old diesel

Maybe in the long term it might be better for synthetic fuels to drive a power plant to power EVs rather then put it into lots of ICE cars.

That might be the efficient way to manage things.

And ideology is a funny word - people use it to have a go at the person whose view that they disagree with.

As if they dont have an ideology themselves

Edit by possibly better to use synthetic fuels to power a big power plant - i mean that in terms of efficiency - that the amount of synthetic fuel needed at the power station to power 5 EVs could be less then you need to drive 5 ICE cars the same distance

Hellrazer

Wibbs wrote: »

I seem to recall that methanol can cause all sorts of issues with some components as it's more corrosive. Maybe that was on older systems?

There were issues with some seals failing due to the ethanol in them.

PaulRyan97 wrote: »

It's not just the cost, it's the environmental impact it's production has. To grow the sugar cane required for it means clearing large swathes of land for intensive agriculture. Since a large chunk of the production happens in Brazil, this means slashing and burning sections of the Amazon for more farmland. The emission savings are negligible.

Bio-ethanol is not a solution, it simply moves the problem to another part of the process. Synthetic fuels have use cases but they should really only be applied where electrification is not possible.

In all fairness the same could be said about EVs and the mining for minerals used in their construction and the destruction of the environment for mining.

While bio-ethanol might not be the entire solution I feel that it should be part of it and a discussion around it should take place.

Also some environmentalists argue that EVs are worse for the planet than ICE from construction to end of life but there are way too many conflicting views on that to be sure.

Good thread BTW - an interesting one for discussion.

Cabaal

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Hopefully Fine Gael, the Greens and the EU will be nothing but a bad memory at this stage and we'll be able to drive on regardless

Rather foolish to wish we can continue to go on as we are right now and ignore the man made effects on our climate.

But sure, I suppose some people have no problem screwing future generations.

Cabaal

Wibbs wrote: »

ICE cars will likely be like how the horse went after cars took off. From workhorses literally, to pampered expensive pets taken out on special occasions and mostly off public roads. If full automation and cloud driven traffic takes off I doubt a vintage car will be let near roads. It would be unconnected, a wild card.

I'd say you are fairly spot on with that,
Vintage car would be a liability to the driver and others.

For those thinking it'll never happen, I'm sure horse riders said the same and thought they'd always be able to pull wagons and ride on any road they please. Funny how thats very much not the case now.

endacl

What'll happen to young fellas starting apprenticeships to work on those cars?

Turbolounge

endacl wrote: »

What'll happen to young fellas starting apprenticeships to work on those cars?

Assuming you're talking about ICE, they will have to retrain to know how to work on EVs. I'd also imagine many mechanics will be made redundant in the next 20 years as EVs require a lot less maintenance.

Ubbquittious

Cabaal wrote: »

Rather foolish to wish we can continue to go on as we are right now and ignore the man made effects on our climate.

But sure, I suppose some people have no problem screwing future generations.

It won't be the few fellas driving petrol cars in 2045 who will screw future generations. If petrol cars are so bad they wouldn't be saying "lets keep making them for another 15 years before we start phasing them out". In 2008 they conveniently put the whole carbon footprint thing on the long finger for the best part of a decade because the world economy need to be fed

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

It won't be the few fellas driving petrol cars in 2045 who will screw future generations. If petrol cars are so bad they wouldn't be saying "lets keep making them for another 15 years before we start phasing them out". In 2008 they conveniently put the whole carbon footprint thing on the long finger for the best part of a decade because the world economy need to be fed

The easy thing for any Government to do is to postpone the hard decisions and hope the markets makes the decision for them, which is what they did and what is happening now.

galwaytt

Turbolounge wrote: »

Assuming you're talking about ICE, they will have to retrain to know how to work on EVs. I'd also imagine many mechanics will be made redundant in the next 20 years as EVs require a lot less maintenance.

I don't think so. The swapping of oil for electrons will be no less work than the HSE has demonstrated this past week in the paper vs electrons argument.....

Going digital hasn't saved anything, merely changed it...