Conference terri::cars_uk

    re-1
    
    What if the diesels themselves are fitted with catalytic converters?
    
    Mikef (interested on two counts - diesel car driver and asthmatic!)
          

	This is a recurring debate, funnily enough there is an article in the 
current issue of Diesel Car magazine, which you would expect to be biased
towards Diesel but wasn't - it didn't mention any side effects of diesel
pollution versus Petrol pollution regarding Asthma.

	The ITV coverage of the BIG Race (London to New York via the Channel
Tunnel and the FROZEN Bering straights) mentioned and the atmospheric pollution
in one area of Siberia through which the Race passed.

	Roughly speaking, the problems trotted out by so called boffins against
Diesel are countered by boffins of equal calibre trotting out reasons why Diesel
is SO much less damaging to health AND the environment.  Nobody really knows.

	This discussion is really a NON starter for the reason given above.

				Malcolm.

    Actually, I'm very sceptical about this diesels exacerbate asthma
    argument. Here in Europe, by which I mean Belgium, France, Holland and
    Germany, there are many more diesel cars representing a far higher
    percentage of cars overall, than there are in Britain. Also, It appears
    to me that there is a higher density of cars in Western Europe than
    there in the UK except perhaps in London itself. If diesels are so
    "bad", I'm sure we'd know about it by now. I suspect there's a partial
    pressure group behind this current scare in the UK.
    
    Laurie.

    A badly looked after diesel could easily be a cause. There are far less
    lorries churning out clouds of smoke but still too many and now there
    are many cars doing the same. Cats on diesels do get rid of the
    emissions but only if the engine is properly serviced.

The poor Gnat West managers !

    Swapping their Jaguar for a Ford can't be that bad when you actually 
    think about who owns Jaguar in the first place !  

    "Yes Mr Ford sales person, I wish to swap my "Ford" XJ6 for a Mondeo Ghia "



;-)

Any comments ?

    
    What about the soot traps,same as they fit to factory chimneys.This
    works along the lines of an electrode plate/plates   charged to
    some high voltage.The smoke  particles are attracted via some kind
    of electrostatic charge principle. When the thing gets clogged,they
    just take them down and dispose of them,and put up a new one. Maybe
    a diesel vehicle could have something similar that gets replaced
    periodically..
    
    FWIW I have a Golf CL 1.9TD with the Umwelt engine. The smoke has
    all but dissapeared,my two previous diesels (Audi 80 1.6,Golf 1.6)
    used to smoke like crazy when you booted them...
    
    
    						Regards Mick

    One thing that mention of these articles does prove.... 
    Hardly anyone (or no one else) in this conference reads 'Carweek' as both 
    these 'news' items were in this journal weeks ago !
    
    In addition to the Nat West Mondeo bit, Carweek commented that
    ultimately it is the private motorist that funds these company car
    discounts,  as in terms of the price a private motorist has to pay for a
    new Ford Mondeo/Escort, etc... Carweek commented that if this type of 
    discount were to be 'abolished', the retail price of the Mondeo (in this 
    case) would come down by approximately �1000 across the board. Of
    course Carweek didn't publish how they arrived at this figure.
    
    Reargards,
    
    Stephen
    
    Ps: For the record this week's Carweek has...
    
    Photos of unsold Ford Escorts sitting in pools of water and in some
    cases 'sprayed with mud'; these cars are in an open air storage pound 
    belonging to the Perrys Ford dealership.
    
    Photos of the new BMW/MG roadster.
    
    Photos of the new Citroen AX.
    
    A small item about some dealer selling Rover 600s complete with BMW badges
    and grille !
    
    An article about how MPV sales are bringing the price of estate cars
    down.
    
    And for all you 4x4 fans out there next week's issue has the first test
    of the new Discovery... That's the one that looks like a Shogun from
    the front instead of an old Ford Transit ! ;-)
    
    
     

I have been thinking the same as .4 Mainland Europe is at least 10 years ahead of 
the UK in diesel driving, so why aren't they 10 years ahead in Asthma?.

I too believe there is a deliberate campain to discredit diesels going on at the 
moment.

Richard

>>>I too believe there is a deliberate campain to discredit diesels going on at
>>>the moment.

>>>Richard


	Too right Richard, It has been going on for years!

	A few things are certain about Diesel engines:

a. Carbon Monoxide emissions are far lower than an equivilant petrol car/engine.

b. Carbon Dioxide (the major greenhouse gas!) emissions are about 25 - 33% lower
than an equivilant petrol car/engine.

c. Nitrous Oxide emissions are negligible from a Diesel engine.

d. Particulates are emitted from Diesels, especially when accelerating hard,
there is little point in trying to deny this, BUT they have NEVER ever been
proved to be carcenigous (sp?).

e. Particulate traps are being developed for car Diesel engines, one of the VW
range has, I believe been so fitted.

f. Diesel fuel contains NO lead, unlike "unleaded" petrol.

g. Diesel engines without a "Cat" are basically less environmentally unfriendly
than petrol engined cars running on "unleaded" (which does NOT mean that it has
no lead!) petrol with a Cat.  I chose the words on the first line very
carefully.

	This new bit about Asthma, I have to admit to knowing nothing about this.

				Malcolm.

    
    re.9 must be a member of the diesel marketing board :-)
    
    The discussion about diesels and asthma centred around particulate 
    emissions. There is ample medical evidence of the effects of soot,
    smog etc on respiratory complaints.
    
    a.n. other Richard.

    One mag I glanced through stated that although private diesals sales
    had greatly increased they still only account for 1.7% of diesals on
    the road.  The rest are commercials and that these are the worst
    offenders.
    
    The article also stated that a major cause of pollution was from cars
    with damaged or faulty cats as there was no way that the driver could
    tell that his/her car was pumping out unprocessed exhaust.
    
    MB
    

    Another emission that needs to be considered is benzene, a proven
    carcinogenic.
    
    The WHO says there is _no_ minimum safe emission for benzene.
    
    Comparing the benzene emissions of unleaded petrol and diesel gives a
    ratio of about 10:1 per litre used.  After taking account of
    comparative fuel consumptions I think this means an even better ratio
    when you look at emissions per mile travelled.

	There is, apparently 2 full pints of Benzene (a KNOWN carcinogenic
substance) in every 10 gallons of Petrol, leaded or unleaded.

	On the subject of unleaded petrol, unleaded only means that no
additional lead is present, it still HAS lead in it.  Diesel has even less.

				Malcolm.

    
    Given that petrol and diesel come from the same source and that neither
    has lead added,  why should one have more lead than the other?
    
    Richard.

    A small amount of a lead compound is added to petrol to improve its
    anti-knock characteristics, that is to make it burn rather than
    explode.

    re .15
    
    Lead is not added to unleaded petrol. To improve the anti-knock
    characteristics, they now use a different blend of distillation
    products, (and also tune engines to use a slightly lower octane fuel).
    
    I could believe that petrol and diesel have different amounts of lead.
    The crude oil is separated (by fractional distillation) into different
    components with different boiling points. If there are lead compounds
    in the crude oil with boiling points roughly the same as that of
    petrol, then you will get more of the lead in petrol than diesel. It is
    also possible that some lead gets introduced into the petrol during the
    refining process (E.g. some of the catalysts used in 'cracking' might
    contain lead). It may be such traces of lead that resulted in the
    discovery that adding additonal lead tetra-ethyl would improve the
    anti-knock properties of petrol !
    
    Andrew

    While we're talking about petrol etc., can anyone tell me how to
    convert RONs into UK petrol grades. All the cars I've had have
    specified the minimum petrol grade to be used as 95 or 98 RON. However,
    pumps in the UK only seem to state some British Standard number.
    
    Terry

    Last night I read an article in New Scientist which indicates that
    Diesel is genuinely more injurious to health than petrol; it also
    provides data supporting the "fumes cause asthma" debate.
    
    The work revolves around stuff called PM10 (so called because the stuff
    is made up of particle matter (PM) with a size less than 10 microns).
    
    There is some pretty convincing data that shows that when airborne PM10
    levels rise, breathing disorders and, ultimately, deaths from
    cardio-pulmonary related disorders rise correspondingly.  This is still
    a contentious set of data, but the scientific community is lining up
    behind it.
    
    As you may have guessed, vehicles are a significant contributor to
    PM10, with diesels being more culpable than petrol engines.
    
    The US Government is sufficently concerned about this problem that it
    has set maximum targets of PM10 at (working from memory here) 150
    �g/m�.  On a bad day in major British cities, the PM10 levels can rise
    to between 500 and 800 �g/m�.
    
    This is doubly concerning as the scientific community have, as yet, no
    idea what it is about PM10 that kills - other than hypotheses about
    clogging up the lungs or checmical reactions.
    
    Perhaps we should have a new advertising campaign - 
    
    	"Switching on your engine kills".
    
    Yours gloomily
    
    Jon

	The report was commissioned by the government to discredit Diesel fuel
for road vehicles in an attempt to forestall the pressure that is building for
Diesel fuel to be taxed at a lower rate than "unleaded" petrol.

	This pressure is building on the government because everything has to be
transported, to a greater or lesser degree, by Diesel fueled haulage which puts
up the cost of living each time the tax is increased.

	In reality, by whatever set of measurements are used, Diesel is cleaner
than any form of petrol.

	If one takes individual measurements, ie. NOx emissions, then a Diesel
engine will produce more than a well maintained FULLY de-toxed catalized petrol
engined comparable car.  However, after two years, it has been found that one
third of all catalizers are no longer functioning and as a result, the petrol
engined car then produces slightly more NOx emissions than the Diesel.  Diesel
engines tend to hold their state of tune for very long mileages.

	I'll bring in a report that almost completely debunks the claims of that
QUARG report, and try and type it into here, but it is long.

				Malcolm. 

>Diesel engines tend to hold their state of tune for very long mileages

I can attest to this, I was once stuck behind a lorry spewing out black smoke
for over 100 miles!

Dave.

    
    re .19
    
    I see that the diesel fan club is *still* operating :-) We'll be on
    to global warming next...
    
    Are you contesting wether PM10 is bad for your health or wether diesel 
    vehicles produce it?
    
    Richard.
    

	I am only contending the suggestion that ONLY Diesel Engines produce it.

				Malcolm.

    Catalysts aren't cheap and as has been pointed out aren't necessarily
    that reliable, but we should encourage them 'cos things are worse
    without.
    
    As for PM10, I remember a Volvo truck promo a while back where they
    showed something called a Cityfilter. This is a simple readily
    maintainable device much like an air filter which goes on the exhaust
    rather than the inlet. They showed the effect of truck exhaust on a
    white handkercheif held across the exhaust, with and without the filter.
    Without: lots of gunge on hankie after a few seconds, as expected.
    With: no visible gunge after a very much longer test.
    
    Conclusion: Filters on diesels are cheaper and more maintainable than
    catalyts on petrol. So if PM10 is a problem, let's get our diesels
    filtered ASAP.
    
    regards
    john

    I remain unconvinced that catalysts are a good thing. Catalysts were
    developed to solve the smog problem in places like Los Angeles. It is
    my understanding that a catalyst equipped car uses more fuel, produces
    more CO2 but less NOx, I don't believe they have any effect on
    particulates. Again it is my understanding that a lean burn engine, or
    two stroke produce less overall pollution. This is also before one
    considers the pollution created manufacturing the catalyst itself.
    Governments were also duped with airbags - these were developed to
    solve the problem of Americans who do not wear seatbelts.
    
    Andrew

    
    	Re.24
    	As a Diesel driver, I completely agree about the filters on Diesel
    exhausts.  I read, can't remember where now, but these filters are a
    bit on the large side (or something similar) that prevents them being
    used on cars.
    
    	Re.25
    	I agree with you too, Andrew, there is a lot of hype about so many
    things concerning cars - petrol or the more environmentally friendly
    engined ones ;^)  The cleanup of car Diesel engines hasn't really begun
    yet (catalysts etc. can usefully be fitted to Diesel engines too) for
    the simple reason that they are inherently better than petrol engines
    up until now and the foreseeable future.
    
    				Malcolm.

    Excuse me ............
    
    Re: .23 "	I am only contending the suggestion that ONLY Diesel
    Engines produce it.    Malcolm."
    
    Who suggested that then?  My note reads:
    
    "As you may have guessed, vehicles are a significant contributor to
    PM10, with diesels being more culpable than petrol engines."
    
    which seems to contain the implication that petrol engines produce PM10
    too.
    
    Jon

.17>    While we're talking about petrol etc., can anyone tell me how to
.17>    convert RONs into UK petrol grades. All the cars I've had have
.17>    specified the minimum petrol grade to be used as 95 or 98 RON. However,
.17>    pumps in the UK only seem to state some British Standard number.
    
    So, nobody knows what a RON is then ?

RON is Research Octane Number, or some such.

I know in France petrol pumps have two sets of numbers, .e.g. 95 / 85
for normal unleaded, and 98 / 88 for super.

The BS number shown on pumps simply tells you the petrol complies with
some standard or other - I don't know if this relates to stars or
octane.

In the UK, you can now only buy three types of petrol (I think)-
Leaded 4*,	(95 octane)
Unleaded	(95 octane)
Super unleaded	(98 octane)

I remember the days when you could get 2*, 3*, 4* and 5* petrol.

In some other countries (Denmark? Sweden?) you can also get unleaded 92 
octane. I suppose other grades will be available to.

Peter.

    
    
    Just to add another dimension

    
    What I was going to say was...
    
    On the radio 4 programme "Science Now" a few weeks ago there was an
    item about one researcher who said he thought that the increase in
    asthma was caused by diet and not fuel exhaust emissions.....
    
    Ian.
    

    This is probably a good a place as any to ask...
    
    Just recently my 405 Turbo Diesel has started to generate rather
    a lot of the black smokey stuff under acceleration.
    
    Its only done 42k and has had regular services (thank you Mr Ralph :-)
    
    Is there anything that can be done to stop the smoke? (and don't say
    less of the right foot!).
    
    Jc
    

    Jc
    
    As far as I know its usual behaviour under hard acceleration with a
    diesel for plumes of the black stuff to appear in the rear view mirror.
    
    Its a design feature so that even though you can't burn anyone off at
    the lights at least you have the pleasure of leaving the poor s*d
    behind you gasping for air.
    
    Seriously, my Cav TD has always had this undesirable feature. I don't
    think its a problem.
    
    Royston (wheeze)

My experience is limited, but both diesel cars I've driven (Peugeot 405
1.8?TD and Cavalier 1.7TD) have produced a very thick black smog under heavy
acceleration!  Both vehicles were fairly low mileage, so, as we say in
our trade, `it's not a bug, it's a feature'!

Chris.

    My 1.9TD Pug 405 does exactly the same. It's worse under two particular
    circumstances: 1) when the engine hasn't properly warmed up (not
    recommended), and 2) when it's been pottering in traffic for a while.
    Mine only does it under any circumstance for the first few yards of
    *hard* acceleration, and not really at all between say 70mph and 100mph
    in 5th.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    
    I've found that some brands of Diesel smoke and/or smut more than
    others. In my experience Murco and BP are particularly bad.
    
    Try other brands and see what levels of murkiness they generate!!
    
    Andy

    Thanks for the .last-few...
    
    It has always smoked a biit - just rather worse this past week.  I did
    fill up in Sainsburys rather than Tesco (and then noticed it was 3p/l
    cheaper in Tescos - it has gone down again to 49.9 in Newbury) - maybe
    its just Sainsburys using murco (murky?) fuel - I'll try a tank of
    Tescos premium brew and see if it reverts back to the usual levels of
    smoke.
    
    Jc
    

    John,
    
    
    	I've driven diesels now for 10 years and yes the amount of smoke
    generated is directly proportional to the quality of fuel. I personally
    won't buy Tesco or Sainsbury's diesel because a couple of winters ago
    the Pug 205 refused to start. This was due to the lack of anti-wax in
    the fuel. I poured boiling water on the injectors and she started OK. On
    confronting the manager I was told, in no uncertain terms, that you got
    what you paid for. ie budget price - budget fuel.
    	In my experience the best diesel is Esso's Diesel2000 brew - little
    or no smoke and more mpg, unfortunately there is no local garage to me
    so currently I use Shell's diesel, it hardly smokes in either the 205 
    or 405.
    
    	Regards,
    		Norm
                    

    I buy the cheap stuff and I've never had a problem with the fuel
    waxing, and it's colder here in Belgium that the UK. To stop diesel
    waxing up, simply add a litre of unleaded petrol to a full tank.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    Jc (of snowy barbeque fame - I remember),
    
    My 405 of similar age surprised me for the first time last week.  I was
    in 4th with a warmish engine and reasonable acceleration when I noticed
    a batmobile-cloak-like cloud behind me.  
    
    But...I just returned to fuelling in Tesco's in Basingstoke now that
    they have returned to sensible prices.  So I concur with other noters
    that cheap fuel is the problem, except in my case I will continue to
    buy it!
    
    Cheers-Ken

    He remembers my snowy Barbie!  I've a big one now - real bricks!
    
    FWIW,  I've filled up a couple of times with the cheapest in Newbury
    and no more signs of the sooty stuff.  Maybe it was a bad batch that
    went to Blasingsmoke :-)
    
    Jc

    Glasgow yesterday:
    	Unleaded	46.9
    	Diesel		47.9
    
    

    	I've been using Sainsbury's City Diesel for several months now, it
    has dramatically reduced the amount of smoke.  I have to be cruel to
    the car now to produce black smoke.
    
    				Malcolm.

    re-1
    
    Have you any info on what the difference is between 'normal' and 'city'
    diesel?  Does it affect performance? (dont all laugh...).
    
    Mikef

    >difference is between 'normal' and 'city'
    
    Yep, city is more expensive by one or two pence a litre.
    
    I'm afraid my company car only runs on the very cheapest available
    diesel. This is currently obtained from 'price watch' Esso stations
    that are still giving vouchers and give bonus points for my GM card.
    
    Royston

    I tried a tankfull of Sainsbury's City Diesel whilst I was in the UK
    this weekend. It's 2p a litre more expensive than ordinary diesel.
    Subjectively, it seems to make the engine smoother, and quieter, and
    there is definitely no smoke. I tried to make mine smoke and couldn't.
    Objectively, it seems to be of a slightly lower calorific value, ie. I
    seem to have got slightly fewer MPG. I think I'll use it now and again,
    but I'll stick to the cheap stuff most of the time.
    
    Laurie.

    	Normal Diesel has a Sulphur amount of something like 5 PPM, the new
    regulations that are coming into force fairly soon (if not already in
    force now) call for about .2 PPM, which the new MOBIL CLEAN just, but
    only just meets.  Sainsbury's CITY Diesel has only about 0.02 PPM. 
    These figures are only from memory, but it gives some idea of the
    relationships - CITY Diesel has only about one tenth of the maximun
    under the new regulations - like it is ten times better in this
    respect than the next best Diesel fule supplier.
    
    				Malcolm.

Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 6 February 1996  Motoring

                          

How the dirty diesel is cleaning up its act
===========================================

By John Langley
===============

   SALES of diesel cars went into reverse in Britain last year after a
decade of steady growth. Worries over the health hazards from the
microscopic particulates, or grains of dust, in their exhaust emissions, have
put the diesel in the dock.

Reports have suggested that such particulates, though not just from diesel
exhausts, could be causing or hastening up to 10,000 deaths a year among
people with lung or heart complaints.

Sales were also hit by suggestions that tax on diesel fuel could be increased
by a special pollution levy in last November's Budget. It did not happen.
Instead, Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, gave notice that he intended to
slap an extra 4p a litre on super-unleaded petrol because of its higher
content of benzene, a recognised health hazard.

The result of all this adverse publicity was that new registrations of diesel
cars and off-roaders fell from 431,047 in 1994 to 405,079 last year. Their
share of a slightly larger total market was down from 22.5 per cent to 20.8
per cent.

The relatively high second-hand price of diesels, which had been
comfortably higher than those of equivalent petrol models, also took a slide.
The diesel premium on "residuals", as the trade calls them, had been one of
the main attractions of the oil-burners for the big company fleet buyers.

Conversely, of course, lower second-hand values now make the diesel even
more attractive to the used car buyer looking for an economical runabout.
Despite the blip in the sales charts, some engineers still remain confident
about the diesel car's long term prospects. Particulates apart, they argue that
the diesel is intrinsically more economical and less polluting than its petrol
rival, which has been under intensive development for much longer.

Diesel enthusiasts still believe that much of the opposition to the
oil-burning engine is due to the murky impression created by earlier,
outdated designs and especially the smoky exhausts associated with
clapped-out buses and lorries.

Most new-car diesels are now fitted with oxidation catalysts, which help to
reduce particulates. Manufacturers are also developing more sophisticated
electronic engine management systems and exhaust gas recirculation
systems as well as "after treatment" particulate traps to filter the emissions
further.

Much bigger versions of these traps are already available for buses and
lorries at �2,000 to �3,000 a time, but operators are reluctant to spend
money on them without Government tax concessions. 

The other big hope is the introduction of cleaner fuel, with lower levels of
the sulphur that helps to create the formation of the harmful particulates.
Unlike the lead that was added to petrol, sulphur is not needed for diesel
engines, but the cost of removing it at the refinery increases the price at the
pumps. It is suggested that this more refined, low-sulphur fuel should be
taxed at a lower rate.

Manufacturers are already working towards meeting proposed new European
standards that would further cut emissions. The expectation is that
improved combustion technology in new direct-injection engines will burn
the fuel even more efficiently so that there will be fewer harmful emissions
coming out of the exhaust pipe.

Ford, which has a big investment in diesel production at its UK plants
supplying the whole of Europe, is planning to follow Volkswagen's example
by offering a diesel version of the Escort Cabriolet. The company set up a
panel of experts 12 months ago to address concerns over particulate
emissions.

Its engineers are working with world-renowned Ricardo Engineering, based
at Shoreham, Sussex, on the development of a modular range of new
high-speed direct-injection diesel engines for cars. They have already built
a lightweight 1.3-litre turbocharged three-cylinder intended eventually for
the new sub-Fiesta sized city car due out later this year.

The new engine is said to be capable of 85mpg in town use, and up to
100mpg in favourable conditions, with good performance. The target is to
match the refinement of equivalent petrol engines. "It is very smooth and
quiet and you won't see any smoke coming out of the back," one of the
engineers assured me.

The diesel's main environmental and economic advantage is of course its
fundamental lean-burn fuel economy. Because it burns less fuel, it also
produces about 20 per cent less carbon dioxide, one of the major global
warming "greenhouse" gases, than an equivalent petrol engine.

Jurgen Stockmar, Opel/Vauxhall's engineering director, also has faith in a
new generation of direct injection diesels giving outstanding economy as
well as cleaner emissions, despite current concerns over particulates.

He predicts that diesel cars will account for between 30 and 40 per cent of
the European market by the turn of the century.

Work is also going ahead on the direct injection lean-burn petrol engine. Mr
Stockmar says they strongly believe in its future but there are still problems
to be solved, despite the claims of some Japanese manufacturers.

He predicts that around the turn of the century, new technology could result
in a petrol engine giving lean-burn high economy across the whole range of
speeds and type of use. And that could really ignite the petrol versus diesel
debate.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 26 September 1995  Motoring

                          

Making the tiger in your tank run and run
=========================================

Can petrol ever compete with diesel on economy? Honest 
=======================================================
John tests 'mighty mpg' models
==============================
    
IN TRYING to introduce the Americans to the merits of diesel car
motoring, Peugeot once ran an advertisement: "If you really want to save gas,
buy a car that doesn't burn any".

Now Honda is saying the opposite - presenting its new British-built Civic
VTEC-E as a viable alternative to diesel. The ads claim 58.6mpg, with an
asterisk that refers to a footnote that this is the Government figure for a
constant 56 mph and that a touring average is more likely to be 45.7 mpg.

Just to prove you don't need VTEC-E technology to achieve impressive
figures, Vauxhall has an economy special, the Astra 1.6 E-Drive, which does
an even better 57.6 mpg at a constant 56 mph but a worse touring average of
42.1 mpg.

Not to be outdone, the diesel camp have mustered direct injection, once
found under the bonnet of the Maestro and Montego, and now located
between the front wheels of the VW Golf - 74.3 mpg and 55.6 mpg are the
respective consumption figures. Volvo has adopted a modified Renault diesel
engine for the 460, for which 64.2mpg and 46.1mpg are claimed. 

But the most economical diesel, the Citroen AX, recently had a power hike
which increased its consumption to a shocking 78.5 mpg and downright
disgraceful 61.9 mpg.

These are the Government figures. But the question I am frequently asked
is: "What do they do in real life?"

First, the Honda. There's plenty to like about it: twin airbags, strong doors,
an alarm/immobiliser, a decently adjustable driving position, a proper boot, a
gorgeous looking engine and excellent build quality. And an all-in,
on-the-road price of just 12,380.

But as for the VTEC-E bit, it's really two cars in one, with a yawning gap
between them. The idea is that at low engine speeds and small throttle
openings, four of the eight inlet valves remain almost closed. Run the car at
between 1,500 and 3,000 rpm, and up to around 75 mph, and you will achieve
excellent economy. 

You can, in fact, make reasonable progress keeping the dashboard "ECON"
light on, until you come to a hill or need to overtake. And it's this, I fear,
that will lead to the Honda VTEC-E becoming the car we all dread getting
stuck behind.

On slight motorway inclines, that 75 mph will need to drop to as little as 55
to keep the light shining. On A-roads, you don't just think twice about
overtaking, you think better of it altogether. Some performance is there, but
to find it you need to drop down two or three gears and rev the engine to
5,500 rpm, which is completely out of character for the driver who likes to
potter at 2,000-3,000 rpm. There is virtually nothing to be gained in
between.

So, at first sight of a hill, typical VTEC-E owners are going to lift off the
accelerator, anxious not to lose sight of the green economy light. They'll sit
in the centre lane of motorways watching the light instead of their mirrors,
and when they pull out to overtake, they'll lift off again as soon as the ECON
light goes out. They'll stagger up inclines trying to keep the green light
glowing, creating queues of trucks and knock-on accidents miles beind - all
in the name of economy. All in an attempt to achieve the 50 mpg-plus the
car is capable of, if you drive it like a snail.

Other irritations? Only minor ones. There's no wash/wipe position on the
wiper switch - you have to wash, then wipe. The
double-wishbones-all-round suspension offers good handling and
roadholding - better than an Astra's, but not in the same league as any
Citro�n ZX or Peugeot 306. And it has a rorty, snorty sounding engine, like a
real performance car when you start it up or drop down a couple of gears.

On balance, it's a very pleasant, well-built car, exactly right for people who
want economy, safety and lightweight controls, but don't either need or want
to drive anywhere quickly. Over 530 miles, I got 46.7 mpg.

Next, the Astra 1.6 E-Drive, available as the Astra Atlas for as little as
10,080 on the road with three doors and a sunroof. Like the Honda, it sounds
a bit rorty when you start it up. Unlike the Honda, it's nice and punchy at low
speeds and will even pull in top gear at less than 30 mph (the secret is a
decent 94.4 lb ft of torque, or pulling power, at a lowly 2,800 rpm). I was very
pleasantly surprised by the engine of this car. Driving at similar speeds and
on similar roads to the Honda, I managed a highly creditable 47.8 mpg.

So, 46.7 and 47.8 mpg for the petrol drinkers. How would the diesels stack
up?

First the Volvo 460, from which I was expecting great things. Diesel Car
magazine had achieved more than 50 mpg from one, and my first fill-up
showed an astonishing 55.7 mpg. But I obviously can't have filled it to the
brim, because over the next 321 hard-pressed miles, consumption sank to
37.24mpg.

Another 228 miles saw it jump back to 49.03, but the damage had been done.
My overall average was an unwonderful 44.54 mpg. Mitigating
circumstances? Well, the gutsy engine does tend to egg you on a bit, so I was
probably driving the Volvo 5-10 mph faster than the Honda or the
Vauxhall.

Next, the VW Golf CL TDI. There's no denying the Golf CL is a Plain Jane
car. Mine had a height-adjustable driver's seat and rev counter (both
standard), metallic paint and an electric sunroof (both extra). I had to wind
my own windows and twiddle a knob on each door to adjust the mirrors.
And there was no airbag, but they all have one now. I didn't care. It's a
brilliant car.

Stuck in a traffic jam through some complicated road works on the A40 I
found out just how good. When the traffic moved I plopped the car into first
and let the clutch out at idling speed. The car simply pulled away. Next time,
I tried it in second. The car pulled away. Even shifting into third and fourth,
without touching the accelerator, the car would pull away strongly without
stalling.

Translate this into normal road-going performance and you experience
none of the "turbo lag" of other turbodiesels. You never find yourself in an
embarrassing and dangerous black hole with no power to pull yourself out of
it. The Golf TDI storms off from 10, 20 or even 0 mph as eagerly as a dog
after a rabbit. In 4th gear at 45 mph it will simply steam past a slow-moving
truck.

Get up to speed and you find that 2,500 rpm gives you 75 mph in fifth gear, a
good recipe for economy. Put your foot down and an unseen force hurls you
forward. Not in the same way as a Porsche, of course. But easily the equal of
many a GTi, without the high engine revs, the noise and the fuss. What it
doesn't do is handle or brake like a GTi. The handling you can get used to -
it's better to "gather" the car than push it. But, with such strong
performance, the non-ABS disc and drum brake set-up isn't quite up to the
job. Again, you make allowances. But I'd expect to get through front pads a
bit more often than with an all-disc system.

Driven with such enthusiasm, you'd expect a penalty. But there wasn't one.
Though I didn't quite match the touring average I still managed 53.66 mpg.
You could say smiling all the way past the petrol station.

Lastly, the Citro�n AX 1.5 Debut: a simple car in the 2CV tradition, with
practical features such as a completely removable back seat. 

Despite the power hike to all of 58 brake horsepower, it's more of a
school-runner than a mile-eater, but it still keeps up with M40 traffic, and
it's no sweat at all to drive several hundred miles in one go. I managed 56.2
mpg, and blame the M40. Driven on 60 mph-limited and camera-policed
A-roads, I'm sure fuel consumption would have been well into the 60s.

So there's your answer. In the real world, a couple of petrol cars have moved
the goal posts, but there isn't a petrol car in the Golf or AX class that gets
anywhere near the diesels' impressive abstinence . . . yet.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

    	Nice one Laurie, thanks for typing (or whatever) those two in for
    our edificashun.
    
    	The Diesel Car Magazine, actually challenged Honda over that advert
    of their's about doing the circuit of the M25, remember that one? 
    Diesel Car repeated the exercise (I think that both were a Golf direct
    injection diesel and the Honda VTEC) and drove them both as in "real
    life."  If I remember correctly, the Golf did something like 50% more
    MPG than the Honda - AND the guy who drove the Honda was a Honda garage
    owner - the Golf driver was one of the magazine staff.
    
    	I can't remember figures now (it was about a year ago) but I think
    that the Honda only managed something in the upper 30s MPG, whilst the
    Golf did something in the upper 50s.
    
    				Malcolm.

    No probs Malcom. Oh, and me type that lot in? No chance! It was
    downloaded from the Electronic Telegraph.
    
    Cheers, Laurie$WEB_wanderer.