Motorists face threat of £120 for letting their engines idle!

[sludgeguts]

I consider my diesel to be quite modern - 06 plate 1.9jtd. I drive 3.5 miles to work through rush hour traffic - although why it's called 'rush hour' when you can barely get above 30...
Anyhoo, there's barely any heat coming out of the vents.
On these cold mornings I always sit in the car eating my porridge & drinking coffee whilst the car is warming up, but I would rather let the engine come up to temp - there's enough stresses on an engine as it is, taking it from sub zero to high combustion temps in an instant - not to mention the acute lack of lubrication (as the oil is quite thick).
In fact, somewhere in my engine is a little squeak when cold which goes after a few minutes & the oil is warmed up and getting around the engine.

According to the stats on parking heaters, whilst they use fuel to warm the engine, you actually save in the long term because a warm engine with nice runny oil is cheaper and easier to start and run than a cold engine.

 

[Percyhahn]

poeple wont have to worry about this in a few years now that stop/start technology is in new cars. so cars started to warm up, will effectively not be on anyway? though i must say, i had a punto evo as a courtesy car last monday while my girl was in, and the stop start caused me to stall a couple of times, id put my foot down to go, and there wasnt a response to begin with, so i just switched engine off and back on. is that normal with stop start? overall compared to my gp im not a fan of the punto evo

 

[wegi]

Well, Boris Johnson needs to just p**s off doesn't he?

They take road tax from us and overcharge us for fuel and then say we can't do what we want with it?

Also, what is to happen if you have a dead battery and are having to charge it up a little bit, because if you switched it off you'd have to bumpstart it again...?

The whole thing is ridiculous. Fumes don't matter anyway. We're all going to die in 2012 because Godzilla is gonna eat us all.

 

[dave]

if everyone stops flying to holiday and goes butlins instead, be a lot less polution than turning a few cars off

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

also does he realise that it uses more fuel to start and engine than to let it idle for a short period.

No it doesn't

 

[Prilliant03]

if everyone stops flying to holiday and goes butlins instead, be a lot less polution than turning a few cars off

Nope.

A Boeing 747 in level flight does an amazing 2.5 miles on a gallon of fuel. And it can carry 400+ passengers plus their luggage and tonnes of cargo while doing so. So the ammount of fuel used per passenger mile is vastly superior to anything even the most economical car can manage.

Also, melting ice caps and the flooding of Holland is vastly preferable to the prospect of a holiday in Butlins

 

[ChrisUK]

if everyone stops flying to holiday and goes butlins instead, be a lot less polution than turning a few cars off

That would be all well and good if butlins wasn't crap.

And :yeahthat: the biggest contributor is unregulated industry which account for a whopping 75% of ALL output.

 

[ben]

But unless those people in Butlins didn't drive around at all, they'd probably create more pollution anyway.

 

[sledge]

Shadey? A few weeks ago you were banging on in several threads about every possible way to save even the most miniscule amount of fuel possible. Magnets, H2O genertaors, home brewed bio-fuel.....the full monty....and how important saving as much as possible was to you. In fact if memory serves you were almost boasting about your MPG figures.

NOW...you admit you are happy to let your car tick over on the drive WASTING the stuff

OH.....my aching ribs!!!

 

[dave]

That would be all well and good if butlins wasn't crap.

And :yeahthat: the biggest contributor is unregulated industry which account for a whopping 75% of ALL output.

its not crap if we allowed a party

 

[arc]

Shadey? A few weeks ago you were banging on in several threads about every possible way to save even the most miniscule amount of fuel possible. Magnets, H2O genertaors, home brewed bio-fuel.....the full monty....and how important saving as much as possible was to you. In fact if memory serves you were almost boasting about your MPG figures.

NOW...you admit you are happy to let your car tick over on the drive WASTING the stuff

OH.....my aching ribs!!!

I think he posts and then comments in a way to spur on debate / discussion. Tis good

 

[custard]

Nope.

A Boeing 747 in level flight does an amazing 2.5 miles on a gallon of fuel. And it can carry 400+ passengers plus their luggage and tonnes of cargo while doing so. So the ammount of fuel used per passenger mile is vastly superior to anything even the most economical car can manage.

Also, melting ice caps and the flooding of Holland is vastly preferable to the prospect of a holiday in Butlins

can carry,not the same as is carrying. should i times my Mpg by 5 as my car can carry 5 people?
also you are talking about level flying at altitude
what about take off and landing?

 

[hmallett]

A Boeing 747 in level flight does an amazing 2.5 miles on a gallon of fuel. And it can carry 400+ passengers plus their luggage and tonnes of cargo while doing so. 2.5 miles per gallon in cruise? I'm sceptical of that, but I don't have the numbers to refute it. However, every plane journey starts with a takeoff, which you can't ignore.

If you use Boeing's own numbers for the 747-8 (the newest and most economical 747), it has a maximum usable fuel capacity of 64,055 U.S. gallons, and a maximum range of less than 9500 nautical miles. That makes 6.7 U.S. gallons/nautical mile, or about 0.14 miles/gallon.

The 747-8 will carry 581 passengers when configured as two classes. So 0.14 mpg for 581 passengers is 81 miles per gallon per passenger.

The Fiat 500 Multijet apparently does 72 mpg combined. It can carry 4 passengers. That makes 288 miles per gallon per passenger.

So the ammount of fuel used per passenger mile is vastly superior to anything even the most economical car can manage.

False, I reckon.

Boeing's figures direct from Beoing's website. Fiat's figures direct from Fiat's website.

 

[Prilliant03]

Clearly I have been misinformed, and I stand corrected.

That's still a pretty incredible economy figure for the 747, and don't forget it is also carrying tonnes of luggage, freight, mail etc.

The 500 Multijet may be exceptionally frugal, but it cannot carry 4 people, plus all the luggage they would need for a fortnights holiday.

Anyway, would you really want to travel 9,500 nautical miles in the back of a 500? That would be worse than Ryanair

 

[Eklipze3k]

Take a Panda then, more spacious

 

[ben]

The Fiat 500 Multijet apparently does 72 mpg combined. It can carry 4 passengers. That makes 288 miles per gallon per passenger.

Are those figures based on 4 people in the car though?

So will it get 72mpg if the car is full with the 4 people AND suitcases?

 

[hmallett]

Are those figures based on 4 people in the car though?

So will it get 72mpg if the car is full with the 4 people AND suitcases?

The figures for the 500 aren't stated, though I doubt it is fully loaded.
For comparison though, the figures for the 747-8 are maximum range, which will be full of fuel, and not at maximum payload (possibly even with an empty plane). The 747-8 hasn't actually been certified yet, so some of the performance figures aren't available.

 

[arc]

Why are you comparing plane MPG to car MPG? They're two very different vehicles for very different tasks!!

 

[ben]

Dave started it

But it is interesting to know values - for example instead of taking an 8 hour bus down south, I'll take the one hour plane....

 

[Prilliant03]

Dave started it

But it is interesting to know values - for example instead of taking an 8 hour bus down south, I'll take the one hour plane....

See? We do agree on some things