ULEZ (London)

[slowprop]

Luckily Dartford is part of Kent. The ULEZ makes me even less likely to want to go and into London. Mind you we have the Dartford crossing to endure. At least residents get cheap rates though. £10 per annum for up to 50 crossings. Or £20 per year for unlimited.

[bob12]

As I have said somewhere above ... if your car is over 40 years old; is declared to be historic (not sure of the mechanics of that), but throws up on the TfL checker as still not exempt go speak to the nice people at Tfl and ask them why when it meets their criteria for exemption from ULEZ.

I am sure we would all like to hear what they say.

Bob

[Laird Scooby]

This idea may or may not be workable Eric but might be cheaper than paying the ULEZ charge and could still be put down as a business expense. I'll do it as a list as that's the way i've worked it out .

1. Buy a 49cc moped/motorbike

2. Rent somewhere outside the ULEZ to safely park the 940 overnight (preferably a lock-up)

3. Use the moped to travel between home and the lock-up, only paying the ULEZ when you have to drive in to sell honey at market.

As far as i'm aware, mopeds/motorbikes 49cc and under aren't subject to emissions testing, therefore it should (in theory at least) be impossible to charge the ULEZ fee for them. This could, if i've got the idea right, be the best of both worlds for you, no need to buy a Hilux (they're gutless by the way and probably couldn't lug one hive of bees, let alone several crates of honey in jars!) as you'd keep your 940, no paying the ULEZ on a daily basis and potentially keeping a few miles of your 940 - will probably need some more thought on your part to make it fully workable but it's cheaper than moving house or the other options you've suggested.

It might just work.................

[ericbeaumont]

Not a bad combo, LS, although the idea of a moped is not one that warms my heart. On the other hand, leaving London does! Two years to decide.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by ericbeaumont

Not a bad combo, LS, although the idea of a moped is not one that warms my heart. On the other hand, leaving London does! Two years to decide.

Aaaahhh, i had the impression you didn't want to move! That puts a different complexion on things! In that case, find an area within the same commuting time to your main sites (you'll be surprised just how far out of London you'll get as the average speed will be more like 40-50mph than 4-5mph!) with property that is relatively cheap, sell your London house and move to the cheaper proerty with money in your pocket - sooner rather than later before others realise this is a good way of avoiding the ULEZ and do likewise and the price of property in previously "unpopular" locations starts to climb faster than the Apollo rocket!

That would be an added bonus as well, the chances are that properlty outside London will enjoy a boost in values as people realise it's cheaper to live there and commute to where they work or even change jobs.

I suggested a moped as the emissions are not charged as far as i know and you won't need any extra tests to ride it, you can simply get on and go on your car licence. You can even get some 49cc motorbikes that look like a "big" bike but aren't so doesn't necessarily need to be the old sit up 'n' beg moped if that doesn't appeal.
Granted any two-wheeled transport will be chilly in winter but the 940 has a good heater.

Out of those options, if i was in your position i know what i'd be doing and the estate agents wouldn't know what hit them!

[bob12]

... should anyone have read the 'Editor's Comments' in the latest (today's through the letter box) issue of 'Car Mechanics' .. the Editor should have read this Thread and have been more informed about the whole of ULEZ, and all exemptions!! Bob

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

This was a decision heavily influenced by the EU because the more influential memeber states had government funded car manufacturers who couldn't make a petrol lean-burn engine that worked properly but could make diesels that gave, on the face of it, relatively low emissions.

They insisted on 3-way cats to prevent petrol engines....

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Another bad EU-influenced decision on the part of our government, we already had lean-burn petrol engines that met the required emissions without even needing a cat but the French and Germans couldn't make a petrol engine at the time to meet the emissions without the need for a 3-way cat, both countries had government subsidised car manufacturers at the time so it was in their governments interests to be able to sell as many cars as possible. As diesels weren't widely known for being toxic back in 1984 when this all happened, they convinced our government (despite a panel of advisors telling our government it was a bad idea) that diseaesels were the "green" way forward. That or 3-way catalytic converters on petrol engines that pump out H2S (Hydrogen sulphide) gas that itself is highly toxic, not to mention it smells of rotten eggs!

Dave,

I know you're anti-EU, but most of what you're writing here isn't true.

The EU legislation prescribes emissions limits, not a means of achieving them. The EU never forced manufacturers to fit catalytic convertors per se.

What the Euro emissions standards did was introduced limits for emissions including NOx and CO.

Initially, this meant carburettors died out as they couldn't control AFRs effectively enough to allow catalytic convertors a long lifespan while achieving the Euro 1 emissions limits.

Lean burn engines give very high NOx outputs compared to normal petrol engines and therefore were not able to meet the emissions limits given the (affordable) available technology at the time.

Great Britain has always had a veto on EU legislation, and could have blocked the reduction in emissions if our government felt it was in the public interest.

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by tofufi

Dave,

I know you're anti-EU, but most of what you're writing here isn't true.

And to back that up, this article from AROnline, which I'm guessing relates to the engine you're interested in:

https://www.aronline.co.uk/engines/m...eries-engines/

Playing by the new rules
When the design parameters were set for the M16, it was widely assumed in Europe that future vehicle emissions legislation would favour lean-burn engines which reduced pollutant levels by ultra efficient combustion, rather than treating emissions downstream using a catalytic convertor, as was required in the USA, Japan, and other more highly regulated territories.

Not only Rover, but also Ford and Peugeot were investing heavily in new lean-burn engine ranges for the 1990s, but could not have predicted the surge in public concern about environmental matters which arose in the late 1980s, prompted by the effect of acid rain on forestation and a greater understanding of ozone depletion.

Burgeoning support for Green Parties across Europe put pollution control at the centre of the mainstream political agenda, and resulted in the adoption of far stricter standards for the Euro I regulations, applicable from January 1992, than had been widely anticipated.

Making it greener
The result was a set of regulations which made catalytic converters the only option. Although the rigorous new standards were denounced at the time as Green hysteria, and resulted in much abortive work on lean burn engine designs, they did have a sound scientific justification. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) was widely recognised as a major human health risk, leading to respiratory problems and other illnesses. The high temperatures associated with lean-burn combustion increased NOx levels by breaking down nitrogen which then combined with oxygen.

Automotive industry history will record that the cataclysm which lean-burn apologists predicted never happened, and the regulations effectively gave us engines which were generally more powerful and efficient as well as cleaner.

In order to meet the demand of certain European countries, particularly Germany, which offered tax reductions for cars which met the new standards before they became mandatory, Rover produced a catalyst-equipped M16 from the late 1980s. Far from being strangled, power output fell by only 3bhp to 135bhp. The new standards did concentrate Rover’s best minds on the M16’s potential for improvement, and the outcome, revealed at the end of 1991, was the T-Series, or T16.

It's also worth noting that Japanese manufacturers (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) and other European manufacturers (Peugeot, Ford) were also investing in Lean Burn technology as well as Rover.

[DaveMitch]

Hi All,
Found some stuff about retrofitting eu 5 engines from 'Amminex Bluefit' but seems to have not progressed since summer last year..........anyone know of anything of this or similar option ( to retrofit )
Have a 2011 D5 S80 & dont really want ot move it on just yet but once the ULEZ expands next year then cant see a way forward .

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by DaveMitch

Have a 2011 D5 S80 & dont really want ot move it on just yet but once the ULEZ expands next year then cant see a way forward .

Sell it and buy an S80 V8 and have it converted to LPG and register it on the LPG database - no ULEZ fees to pay as it is on "Alternative Fuel". You get to keep the same sort of car you like, you get rid of the diseasel, you retain cheap running costs (LPG is 60-70p/L or maybe less depending where exactly you live), no ULEZ charge and you get all the fun of a 4.4 V8 with AWD - what's not to like?