Off Topic Anyone keeping their Panda 'for life'?

Currently reading:
Off Topic Anyone keeping their Panda 'for life'?

I suppose the general argument is, environmentally the Earth might be less damaged if everyone drove a small petrol car than a large diesel, the suggestion being that the former is less polluting overall.


1. Is that correct? No idea.
2. Is it practical? In the main, yes.
3. Is it realistic? Whilst there's a need for many people to wear their pride/wealth/insecurities in mechanical jewellery, no. All generations are guilty of this.
4. Was it ever thus? Go back 200 years to the Georgian gent with his two or four-horse carriage.


p.s In the future when we're all wearing silver suits in leccy cars, I'm going to be selling graphene brushes. They'll give you up to some bhp* over carbon ones. Yep. The new K&N.








*none.
 
AB100 I like your business plan...

Same argument applies whatever fuel - petrol, diesel, hydrogen, electric, horse, donkey, slave. Or even pushbike.

Smaller lighter vehicles with most or all seats in use
vs
Bigger heavier vehicles with only a driver.

Still takes more energy to propel a 2 ton SUV than a 500kg microcar, but the issue is more about passenger density.

Less vehicles moving more people is the only logical way forward, but logic is hard to sell to many people.

Of course it'll get even more wierd when driverless cars can make pick-up journeys without even a driver in them, in order to avoid parking problems.
Struggling to see how that will help the environment. Even if they are electric.
 
Yes, I still have got My Panda 100 HP. even through I had to skim the head on her but im not going to sell her. I have got a Dacia Duster but I like having the panda and I dont think really I would part with her. Unless I decide to have an abarth as a small second car
 
Why don't the 'need' diesels? Why are petrols 'needed' any more than diesels? Both are harmful to the environment, they both harm the environment in slightly different ways, and some would argue are equally harmful, higher levels of CO2 from cars contribute more to global warming which has a much bigger global implication, where as the world can survive a few people with asthma pumps......

The current attitude is very much that diesel's are bad, from drivers of petrol cars who are happy to ignore the problems their own cars cause.

Think you may be the one ignoring the issues...it isn't asthma (which petrol engines are linked with too) that scares people so much.

If you take an entirely holistic view all personal transport is bad...can hardly save the world from a Tesla while dumping tonnes of CO2 into the upper atmosphere flying to Australia. However passive smoking is frowned upon and has been banned from public places. Diesel exhaust is as carcinogenic as passive smoking.
 
Last edited:
:slayer:
Think you may be the one ignoring the issues...it isn't asthma (which petrol engines are linked with too) that scares people so much.

If you take an entirely holistic view all personal transport is bad...can hardly save the world from a Tesla while dumping tonnes of CO2 into the upper atmosphere flying to Australia. However passive smoking is frowned upon and has been banned from public places. Diesel exhaust is as carcinogenic as passive smoking.

That's exactly it. Though breathing petrol fumes is also bad, Diesel is so much bloody worse, as you said, same as cigarette smoke and we're all aware of the effects of that.

That's why they should be banned alone. Then the environment.

Petrol isn't the complete solution, electric cars etc are the future but for now reverting to small petrols seems to be the economical way to go. With a turbo, they can give you the thrust some people think is a god given right.

To be honest I don't know why cars aren't hard wired to cut off after 70 or 80 mph in this country, then perhaps people in their big cars wouldnt be such a danger to humanity when on the move. Sigh.
 
Think you may be the one ignoring the issues...it isn't asthma (which petrol engines are linked with too) that scares people so much. .
When you put that in context, Chinese salted fish and talc also are in the same group of carcinogens along with estrogen containing birth control pills which have polluted our water supplies, processed meats and the HPV virus..... I don't believe that petrol exhausts are a breath of fresh clean unharmful air.


StevenRB45;4240277 If you take an entirely holistic view all personal transport is bad...can hardly save the world from a Tesla while dumping tonnes of CO2 into the upper atmosphere flying to Australia. However passive smoking is frowned upon and has been banned from public places. Diesel exhaust is as carcinogenic as passive smoking.[/QUOTE said:
The point I'm making is very much that the media and drivers of petrol cars are very quick to jump on diesel as the route of all evil while ignoring the problems that petrol cars cause, ban all the diesels and the problem isn't suddenly fixed, the biggest consequence of such and action would be a huge increase in CO2. Increasing CO2 and associated global warming has implication way beyond a few wheezy children in Kensington.
 
:slayer:



That's exactly it. Though breathing petrol fumes is also bad, Diesel is so much bloody worse, as you said, same as cigarette smoke and we're all aware of the effects of that.



That's why they should be banned alone. Then the environment.
Yet despite all the evidence and all the deaths over decades of research, they still haven't banned cigarettes? Why do you think that is? It's all for economic reasons and diesel vehicles contribute a damn site more to the global economy that a few cigarettes.

Petrol isn't the complete solution, electric cars etc are the future but for now reverting to small petrols seems to be the economical way to go. With a turbo, they can give you the thrust some people think is a god given right.



To be honest I don't know why cars aren't hard wired to cut off after 70 or 80 mph in this country, then perhaps people in their big cars wouldnt be such a danger to humanity when on the move. Sigh.


Electric cars contain huge amounts of cadmium lithium and other rare earth metals which are not only extremely damaging to the environment to mine and process but also harmful to wildlife and humans (cadmium and Nickle are on the same carcinogenic list as Diesel fumes)

There are a lot of people who legitimately use their cars as speeds above 80mph you can't regulate every aspect of every persons life on a whim or opinion that differs to others, that's what fascism is all about, but also the very reason we have wars going on all over the world, where something as silly dancing is a criminal offence (why would anyone need to dance after all?) and can be even punished with death.

Turn it around, imagine a completely insane petrol head came into power and decided to make it illegal to drive below 60mph and any one caught doing so would face criminal charges and their car crushed, would you be very happy in that world?
 
Yet despite all the evidence and all the deaths over decades of research, they still haven't banned cigarettes? Why do you think that is? It's all for economic reasons and diesel vehicles contribute a damn site more to the global economy that a few cigarettes.




Electric cars contain huge amounts of cadmium lithium and other rare earth metals which are not only extremely damaging to the environment to mine and process but also harmful to wildlife and humans (cadmium and Nickle are on the same carcinogenic list as Diesel fumes)

There are a lot of people who legitimately use their cars as speeds above 80mph you can't regulate every aspect of every persons life on a whim or opinion that differs to others, that's what fascism is all about, but also the very reason we have wars going on all over the world, where something as silly dancing is a criminal offence (why would anyone need to dance after all?) and can be even punished with death.

Turn it around, imagine a completely insane petrol head came into power and decided to make it illegal to drive below 60mph and any one caught doing so would face criminal charges and their car crushed, would you be very happy in that world?

Speeding kills, and is completely unnecessary.

On a track, things are different. In reality, it's a completely stupid gamble to take.
 
Speeding kills, and is completely unnecessary.

Not quite correct. Inappropriate speed is the problem. Too slow can also be a problem, as people get injured trying to get past, or annoyed having to stay behind.

I have in the past travelled at speeds in excess of 130mph, on a quiet motorway. Didn't hurt a bit. But anyone doing 30mph past my house should be taken out and shot!

Of course, with a 60hp Panda, popping along at the speed limit can be exciting enough.
 
The point I'm making is very much that the media and drivers of petrol cars are very quick to jump on diesel as the route of all evil while ignoring the problems that petrol cars cause, ban all the diesels and the problem isn't suddenly fixed, the biggest consequence of such and action would be a huge increase in CO2. Increasing CO2 and associated global warming has implication way beyond a few wheezy children in Kensington.

What transport in the UK does in the context of how screwed the world is doesn't matter a damn unfortunately..we could shut the entire country and the big polluters would pick up the slack in 3 years or less iirc. Unless the whole world decides to do something about it whether or not I choose the green or black pump is immaterial.

So while I agree that more CO2 is a bad thing continuing to allow vehicles that were proven to be clean only on paper as far back as 2011 to continue is just daft.
A study was run on Euro 1 to 4 vehicles both diesel and petrol. In the time of the study the harmful emissions from petrol cars fell 96%, diesels not at all.

The reason for the study was that despite apparently all cars and trucks being cleaner, air quality was getting worse. Now although it's not up to date at 6 years old and 2 Euro standards behind we now have more diesels than ever...and air quality is still getting worse which does rather put the whole "clean" thing to bed.

So yeah to sum up you can keep your panda until the apocalypse it's probably sooner than you'd think....
 
Speeding kills, and is completely unnecessary.



On a track, things are different. In reality, it's a completely stupid gamble to take.



Go look at the statistics and you will see the majority of those killed in road accidents where pedestrians hit by vehicles. Almost all of which were well away from 70mph roads, limiting the speeds of cars to 70mph isn't going to save a pedestrian in a built up area hit at a much lower speed.

Far more people are killed in falls each year and steps and stairs alone kill way more than pedestrians hit by car, stairs are totally unnecessary they should all be replaced by ramps !!
 
Go look at the statistics and you will see the majority of those killed in road accidents where pedestrians hit by vehicles. Almost all of which were well away from 70mph roads, limiting the speeds of cars to 70mph isn't going to save a pedestrian in a built up area hit at a much lower speed.

Far more people are killed in falls each year and steps and stairs alone kill way more than pedestrians hit by car, stairs are totally unnecessary they should all be replaced by ramps !!



Jesus, you'll justify anything with an alternative point of view.

Always interesting, but doesn't tend to progress the discussion.

I always say that illegal drug abuse is bad too, perhaps you have a way of making that out to be the way forward?

Lol.
 
stairs are totally unnecessary they should all be replaced by ramps !!

There's a thought. It'll be a bit steep trying to get to bed at night, unless the ramp runs the whole length of the house, and part of the garden as well.

Should be fun in schools too, let's see the teachers trying to stop the kids sliding down them.
 
Once you become aware of something bad, or something wrong, and you do nothing about it, you become complicit in the wrongdoing.

Read the story of the starfish on the beach.

I don't need to read the story the company I work for used it as a motivational tool a few years ago ;)

I get your point but choosing not to use a car would be the environmentally sound choice. It's not a choice I have available unless I want my commute to take 2 hours on the bus or an hour and a bit on a push bike (but it's very steep on the way back if I had a secure shed I'd probably get an electrically assisted bike) not 30 minutes as it does now. Choices I do have involve walking locally, making a choice not to use my car at least one day a week. Also on the subject of this thread only replacing my car when necessary, making sure it's regularly serviced and in good order with proper Tyre pressures and buying a car that will be low maintenance long term rather than pouring resources into a new vehicle every 2-3 years.

Having studied environmental management at university though I'm perfectly aware I'm rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for my own peace of mind.
 
Last edited:
Diesels are only bad because the government wants something to blame for failed environmental policies and they get an excuse for a handy boost in tax receipts.

Biodiesel was blamed for high NOx emissions but that was information written into an older trucker's magazine discussing some half hearted tests they did on an old worn out lorry. IIRC it actually ran better on bio than it did on normal fuel.

I accept that bio has issues with land usage but my point is the government don't like anything that reduces fuel consumption. Yes, they removed and reduced road tax on cheap to run small cars but overall vehicle and fuel tax receipts dropped significantly more than they expected. It's known the treasury regretted that move.

To support my argument, 8 years ago local authorities were being encouraged to use traffic lights to increase fuel usage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7998182.stm

Quote

Local councils can adopt "green wave" systems of sensors, where vehicles at or just below the speed limit trigger a succession of green lights.
Environmental and motoring groups say carbon emissions will be reduced.
Previously the Department for Transport (DfT) had discouraged the systems which reduce fuel use, resulting in less tax being paid to the Treasury.
But now, rather than seeing green wave systems as a "cost" to the public purse, the DfT views them as a "benefit".
 
I intended to, but it needed new synchro on third gear, a cam belt, service and discs all round. I changed it, and deeply regret it now.

The new Panda 4x4 twinair is not a patch on the old 100HP. In fact I think the new car is not a patch on the old one, for a start its far too big. The deal however was so good it was too good not to take up. My local dealer thinks they made a mistake on the figures it was so cheap. I should get a leat one years free motoring.

Please please please Fiat, do a modern take on the Panda 100, and DON'T use the twin air two cylinder engine! I really miss being able to hear Percy coming home. The true roar of a powerful engine.
 
I intended to, but it needed new synchro on third gear, a cam belt, service and discs all round. I changed it, and deeply regret it now.

The new Panda 4x4 twinair is not a patch on the old 100HP. In fact I think the new car is not a patch on the old one, for a start its far too big. The deal however was so good it was too good not to take up. My local dealer thinks they made a mistake on the figures it was so cheap. I should get a leat one years free motoring.

Please please please Fiat, do a modern take on the Panda 100, and DON'T use the twin air two cylinder engine! I really miss being able to hear Percy coming home. The true roar of a powerful engine.
If they were to make a hot version - which is very unlikely - the 1.4 turbo would be the choice - but I doubt they will make a warmer Panda than the 85 TA - even the 105 is being kept for the 500 it seems. If anything they are reducing choice in the Panda range not increasing it.
I agree, I loved the Panda 169, I had mine for 9 years it's still out there, somewhere... I sold it with 90k on the clock and noticed it's still being fully taxed (on the DVLA site).
I do like my Mk3 though - yes it's larger but it's also more comfortable and I actually like the quirky TA engine - I think I'm showing my age...
 
Back
Top