I think you only get charged if it moves i.e the day you drive it in and the day you drive it out, not whilst it is parked.
Sold to me as Euro 6 turns out to be Euro 5+
- Thread starter Stewart J
- Start date
PeteH
Free Member
- Nov 22, 2007
- 6,852
- 9,035
- Funster No
- 900
- MH
- Rapido, 999M.
- Exp
- 18+yrs plus 25+Towing
SORN?.
The whole thing is just an exercise in charging Stealth Taxes anyway. Making the NEW engines Etc; probably polutes the planet 10 times more.!
Not sure what SORN has to do with it.
PeteH
Free Member
- Nov 22, 2007
- 6,852
- 9,035
- Funster No
- 900
- MH
- Rapido, 999M.
- Exp
- 18+yrs plus 25+Towing
Sorry, But just thinking if the vehicle is sorned, It cannot be liable? So if it`s laid up (winterised?) then sorn may be an option?.
- Sep 25, 2018
- 424
- 946
- Funster No
- 56,389
- MH
- Chausson 628eb Ford 170
- Exp
- September 2019
You seem to have gotten yourself into a right panic over this.
Are you really going to spend thousands of pounds changing your MH every couple of years to avoid a relatively small charge on the odd occasions that you might need to enter city centre zones. I could pay for a hell of a lot of trips into central London before it became economic for me to consider changing my van
You are missing the point. I am not in any panic. Without wishing to be clever or conceited our vehicle is already Euro 6.
My point was two fold.
If the original poster of this thread can do a deal to exchange it for a Euro 6 model then it would be a wise investment and they will probably get a very good deal if the dealer made an error.
I can't predict the future anymore than anybody else but Honest John the Daily Telegraph writer says that Euro 6 is what has been the aimed for standard by the EU for some years and that it is likely to be acceptable for at least quite a few years to come.
Who would have thought 2 years ago that diesel cars would be so unpopular now? I believe that will happen with non Euro 6 cars and motor homes etc.
Bear in mind that is it 2030 that the Government is proposing a ban on ALL petrol and diesel cars? In the meantime anything not Euro 6 compliant is going to start to have problems.
No panic, just an honest opinion.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
The current plan is to ban the production of NEW petrol and diesel by 2030 (or actually 2040 is current policy. The key point is that it is for NEW cars.
funflair
LIFE MEMBER
Or add a bit of electric power and make it Hybrid and it's OK, as the 2040 proposal is only related to cars powered by petrol or diesel 100%
Martin
I apollgise if I drew the wrong conclusion. But your posts stating that "Euro 6 will be the only acceptable standard for the future", "it will end in tears", "Euro 6 is the only acceptable standard for the future", "Euro 6 good, Euro 5+ bad", "I wonder if non Euro 6 vehicles will even be sellable" does come across as sensationalising the issue, and suggested that you think Euro 6 is not likely to be superceded any time soon. Personally, I wouldn't bank on that. It will become subject to similar restrictions and penalties to the preceding standards as technology continues to move forwards.
How quickly or slowly that might be is anyone's guess, but as quite a few countries' politicians have made their views known it has concentrated the minds of the motor industry, so innovation might be expected to be quicker than it might otherwise have been. I suspect that was one of the main intentions in publishing the policy documents.
I don't profess to know any more about the future than you, but I see that there are at least two of us contributing to this thread who consciously chose to purchase Euro 5+ vans although Euro 6 versions were available, I suspect for very similar reasons. I'm not sure that I would call buying a Euro 6 model a very wise investment, but then I wouldn't call buying a mechanically propelled vehicle an investment of any kind, apart from a very few vehicles I can think of, none of which are motorhomes or even relatively new. Everything else is more of a depreciating asset in reality.
I also read Honest John's column every week. It's often entertaining, more for the rubbish he comes out with than anything else though
I'm sure anyone with a reasonable amount of mechanical knowledge would agree.I would say that it has already happened even to Euro 6 diesel cars. Manufacturers now have to meet RDE2 by 2021, and non RDE1 compliant Euro 6 diesels are already being taxed more than previously. Nevertheless, Mercedes seem less concerned than you, with two new RDE2 diesel engines being introduced next year, so they obviously believe there is still a market for them. I don't see motorhomes being affected to anywhere near the same degree, they are a completely different animal and I've seen no evidence of reluctance to buy older examples.
2040 is the date proposed in the policy document which, contrary to the sensationalism of the press headlines, sets out a determination that the majority of new cars sold from 2040 will be zero rated for emissions, with the remainder having some zero emissions component in their propulsion. There is as yet no proposal to ban anything other than the sale of new cars powered solely by fossil fuel engines. Even that is not a ban, despite the headlines. It is a determination that the government wants to see the sale of NEW cars being either entirely zero rated for emissions or having a zero emissions component to their propulsion by that date, by inducing both the motor industry to stop the production of petrol and diesel cars, and making the alternative more desirable to the buyers. Buses and lorries are not included and without some major leaps forward it is not feasible in my opinion for current alternative propulsion systems to make great inroads into long distance road haulage for instance. Even if that is what happens diesel will still be available and I can't see it being taxed out of existence because to do so would have undesirable effects on the prices of all the goods transported by road.
It doesn't suggest any proposal to ban the use of petrol or diesel vehicles sold prior to that date. I see its primary purpose as a call to the motor industry to concentrate on the development of zero emissions technology and possibly alternative power sources.
There are huge problems to overcome before that can even be entertained as a realistic proposition, some of which may rely on technology as yet uninvented.
The National Grid have for the last few years been on the brink of capacity just trying to provide sufficient electricity generation to meet demand. They have indicated that even if less than a third of the current UK vehicle parc, which is increasing year on year BTW, were to become electric, it would require a nuclear power station with the capacity of at least the new Hinkley C reactor solely to power that number of vehicles. Solar and wind generation is neither reliable or consistent enough to cut it, and they estimate five new Hinkley C nuclear reactors will be needed just to meet the demand of a 100% electric vehicle transport system. Then there's the supply infrastructure and charging facilities that will need to be installed and upgraded.
I'm not sure that the British public will accept new nuclear power stations being built all across the country. The alternative is of course to generate electricity from fossil fuel, by switching consumption from vehicles to power stations. It doesn't actually solve anything, except perhaps to make the electric car drivers feel smug!
Anyway, this is all 21 years away. If things go according to current government proposals, petrol and diesel will still be available at the pumps. I doubt very much that I'll still have my Euro 5+ MH by then, or even a Euro 6 MH if I went out and bought it tomorrow, which I won't be doing anyway as I would consider it to be a complete waste of money. By the time I might want to change my MH, I expect Euro 6 to be yesterdays standard too.
Anyway, this has gone on much longer than I intended when I started typing. I'm not saying that diesel is without its problems, but its current vilification seems to me to smack more than a little of mass public hysteria from reading sensationalistic headlines (yes, even the good old Daily Telegraph is often guilty of that these days, much to my chagrin).
It reminds me of the "Pick up your Dog Poo" campaign, which round this neck of the woods at least, has resulted in mindless morons collecting their little darlings' faeces in non degradeable plastic bags, and leaving them tied to trees, stiles and gate posts all over the countryside, where after a while they all fall back onto the ground and sit festering in plastic for posterity, instead of decomposing naturally as their creator intended.
Rant over
Allanm
Free Member
- Jun 30, 2013
- 5,431
- 9,193
- Funster No
- 26,730
- MH
- Burstner Harmony TI 736 G
- Exp
- Since 1987
I wouldn’t attach too much credence to the Fiat Mopar website. I put my reg number in (2018 Burstner on a Fiat Ducato) and it told my I had a Jeep Renegade. At least it had a Euro 6 engine,
- Aug 18, 2014
- 26,301
- 159,576
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
They din't 'cheat' they did what was required which was to pass the EU emissions test .They never actually stated that it had to maintain the same emissions whilst in daily use.. That's why they won't pay out like they did to the litigious yanks.
No ulez is 12,50 per day. To get to the Ulez if you do not comply you either have to pay 100 or 300/day. If you are ,like my 100 year old soot blower, LEZ exempt or comply with emissions , but not for the ulez , you can go in the Ulez for 12,50
That might be why they are raising the Lez standards in 2021 ?
Yes for the LEZ .I think the Ulez is going to be for it just being in there ?
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
On the news a couple of days ago Martin that a lot of hybrid cars have NEVER been run in hybrid mode at all, owners can't be bothered.
Last edited:
Yip, agree
- Sep 25, 2018
- 424
- 946
- Funster No
- 56,389
- MH
- Chausson 628eb Ford 170
- Exp
- September 2019
I apollgise if I drew the wrong conclusion. But your posts stating that "Euro 6 will be the only acceptable standard for the future", "it will end in tears", "Euro 6 is the only acceptable standard for the future", "Euro 6 good, Euro 5+ bad", "I wonder if non Euro 6 vehicles will even be sellable" does come across as sensationalising the issue, and suggested that you think Euro 6 is not likely to be superceded any time soon. Personally, I wouldn't bank on that. It will become subject to similar restrictions and penalties to the preceding standards as technology continues to move forwards.
How quickly or slowly that might be is anyone's guess, but as quite a few countries' politicians have made their views known it has concentrated the minds of the motor industry, so innovation might be expected to be quicker than it might otherwise have been. I suspect that was one of the main intentions in publishing the policy documents.
I don't profess to know any more about the future than you, but I see that there are at least two of us contributing to this thread who consciously chose to purchase Euro 5+ vans although Euro 6 versions were available, I suspect for very similar reasons. I'm not sure that I would call buying a Euro 6 model a very wise investment, but then I wouldn't call buying a mechanically propelled vehicle an investment of any kind, apart from a very few vehicles I can think of, none of which are motorhomes or even relatively new. Everything else is more of a depreciating asset in reality.
I also read Honest John's column every week. It's often entertaining, more for the rubbish he comes out with than anything else though
I would say that it has already happened even to Euro 6 diesel cars. Manufacturers now have to meet RDE2 by 2021, and non RDE1 compliant Euro 6 diesels are already being taxed more than previously. Nevertheless, Mercedes seem less concerned than you, with two new RDE2 diesel engines being introduced next year, so they obviously believe there is still a market for them. I don't see motorhomes being affected to anywhere near the same degree, they are a completely different animal and I've seen no evidence of reluctance to buy older examples.
2040 is the date proposed in the policy document which, contrary to the sensationalism of the press headlines, sets out a determination that the majority of new cars sold from 2040 will be zero rated for emissions, with the remainder having some zero emissions component in their propulsion. There is as yet no proposal to ban anything other than the sale of new cars powered solely by fossil fuel engines. Even that is not a ban, despite the headlines. It is a determination that the government wants to see the sale of NEW cars being either entirely zero rated for emissions or having a zero emissions component to their propulsion by that date, by inducing both the motor industry to stop the production of petrol and diesel cars, and making the alternative more desirable to the buyers. Buses and lorries are not included and without some major leaps forward it is not feasible in my opinion for current alternative propulsion systems to make great inroads into long distance road haulage for instance. Even if that is what happens diesel will still be available and I can't see it being taxed out of existence because to do so would have undesirable effects on the prices of all the goods transported by road.
It doesn't suggest any proposal to ban the use of petrol or diesel vehicles sold prior to that date. I see its primary purpose as a call to the motor industry to concentrate on the development of zero emissions technology and possibly alternative power sources.
There are huge problems to overcome before that can even be entertained as a realistic proposition, some of which may rely on technology as yet uninvented.
The National Grid have for the last few years been on the brink of capacity just trying to provide sufficient electricity generation to meet demand. They have indicated that even if less than a third of the current UK vehicle parc, which is increasing year on year BTW, were to become electric, it would require a nuclear power station with the capacity of at least the new Hinkley C reactor solely to power that number of vehicles. Solar and wind generation is neither reliable or consistent enough to cut it, and they estimate five new Hinkley C nuclear reactors will be needed just to meet the demand of a 100% electric vehicle transport system. Then there's the supply infrastructure and charging facilities that will need to be installed and upgraded.
I'm not sure that the British public will accept new nuclear power stations being built all across the country. The alternative is of course to generate electricity from fossil fuel, by switching consumption from vehicles to power stations. It doesn't actually solve anything, except perhaps to make the electric car drivers feel smug!
Anyway, this is all 21 years away. If things go according to current government proposals, petrol and diesel will still be available at the pumps. I doubt very much that I'll still have my Euro 5+ MH by then, or even a Euro 6 MH if I went out and bought it tomorrow, which I won't be doing anyway as I would consider it to be a complete waste of money. By the time I might want to change my MH, I expect Euro 6 to be yesterdays standard too.
Anyway, this has gone on much longer than I intended when I started typing. I'm not saying that diesel is without its problems, but its current vilification seems to me to smack more than a little of mass public hysteria from reading sensationalistic headlines (yes, even the good old Daily Telegraph is often guilty of that these days, much to my chagrin).
It reminds me of the "Pick up your Dog Poo" campaign, which round this neck of the woods at least, has resulted in mindless morons collecting their little darlings' faeces in non degradeable plastic bags, and leaving them tied to trees, stiles and gate posts all over the countryside, where after a while they all fall back onto the ground and sit festering in plastic for posterity, instead of decomposing naturally as their creator intended.
Rant over
Thank you very much for a lucid, well thought out general argument. It is 1.45am here in France so I will be brief but I will just say a few points.
Yes, Honest John does speak much rubbish (his views on left foot braking for automatic cars are particularly laughable).
I do believe (perhaps wrongly) that Euro 6 is safe for the foreseeable future and that Euro 5 etc models will fall foul long before.
I think that due to weight of the damned things that electric power for motor homes is out in the medium term but I also feel that no exceptions will be made for motor homes in the future as far as emissions are concerned.
As I see it we have ten years or thereabouts and that after that we are all going to be in trouble.
I very much enjoyed reading your response and comments.
PeteH
Free Member
- Nov 22, 2007
- 6,852
- 9,035
- Funster No
- 900
- MH
- Rapido, 999M.
- Exp
- 18+yrs plus 25+Towing
Like I said in an Earlier post. Its ALL about taxes and keeping bums on seats thinking up new ways to fleece the motoring public. ie The "Gravy Train"!. MAKING the "New" engines and vehicles, is more polluting that using them, when it comes to the average miles per year of a Motorhome.
Allanm
Free Member
- Jun 30, 2013
- 5,431
- 9,193
- Funster No
- 26,730
- MH
- Burstner Harmony TI 736 G
- Exp
- Since 1987
You have to remember that these Euro standard engines aren’t produced solely for use in low mileage motorhomes, they are designed to be used in the base vehicles, most of which will be left as vans pickups and minibuses and subject to very high mileages including their use in towns and cities which are already suffering from high levels of pollution.
I think motorhome figures are in the minority.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Allanm
Free Member
- Jun 30, 2013
- 5,431
- 9,193
- Funster No
- 26,730
- MH
- Burstner Harmony TI 736 G
- Exp
- Since 1987
Although I agree with making engines less polluting ( the Euro 6 engine has 50% fewer emissions than the Euro 5, so a massive difference in pollutants) there are far more polluting engines in aircraft. With the upcoming possibility of trading more around the world, pollution levels will be even higher when more goods are shipped around the world.
As an example, when we had our Winnebago, someone made a comment that it had a very polluting engine. It did, a 1998 6.5l v8 diesel. Another comment was made about the ability to ship in goods from Australia and New Zealand.
Well, I did some calculations.
I worked out that every flight from Australia to the UK by a Boeing 747 kicked out as much co2 as my Winnebago would produce if I drove 5000 miles per year for the next 75 years.
Maybe they should look at reducing air miles or banning kerosene powered aircraft by 2030.
As an example, when we had our Winnebago, someone made a comment that it had a very polluting engine. It did, a 1998 6.5l v8 diesel. Another comment was made about the ability to ship in goods from Australia and New Zealand.
Well, I did some calculations.
I worked out that every flight from Australia to the UK by a Boeing 747 kicked out as much co2 as my Winnebago would produce if I drove 5000 miles per year for the next 75 years.
Maybe they should look at reducing air miles or banning kerosene powered aircraft by 2030.
- Aug 18, 2014
- 26,301
- 159,576
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
More stringent emissions will have to be introduced on vehicles in London/south/south-east to balance the 3rd runway at heathrow.
Quite agree about aircraft. Your claim of a 50% reduction in pollutants makes it seem like Euro 6 is a massive leap over Euro 5 though, but to put it in context:
Euro 5 and Euro 6 limits for diesel particulate matter are identical at 0.005g/km
Limits for carbon monoxide are also identical at 0.74g/km (both 67% lower than equivalent petrol engines)
The Euro 6 combined hydrocarbon and NOx limit is 38% lower than Euro 5
The Euro 6 NOx limit is 55% lower than Euro 5
Still sounds big, doesn't it! But...
Both Euro 5 and Euro 6 CO limits are 89% less than Euro 1.
Euro 5 combined hydrocarbon and NOx limit is 79% lower than Euro 1, Euro 6 is only a further 3% lower.
Euro 5 NOx limit is 64% less than Euro 3 (no limit specified for Euro 1 or 2) and Euro 6 is another 19% lower.
Just to put "massive" in context! Lies, damn lies and statistics
(Figures applicable to 3.5T commercial vehicles used, as most applicable to equivalent motorhome conversions)
Allanm
Free Member
- Jun 30, 2013
- 5,431
- 9,193
- Funster No
- 26,730
- MH
- Burstner Harmony TI 736 G
- Exp
- Since 1987
Quite agree about aircraft. Your claim of a 50% reduction in pollutants makes it seem like Euro 6 is a massive leap over Euro 5 though, but to put it in context:
Euro 5 and Euro 6 limits for diesel particulate matter are identical at 0.005g/km
Limits for carbon monoxide are also identical at 0.74g/km (both 67% lower than equivalent petrol engines)
The Euro 6 combined hydrocarbon and NOx limit is 38% lower than Euro 5
The Euro 6 NOx limit is 55% lower than Euro 5
Still sounds big, doesn't it! But...
Both Euro 5 and Euro 6 CO limits are 89% less than Euro 1.
Euro 5 combined hydrocarbon and NOx limit is 79% lower than Euro 1, Euro 6 is only a further 3% lower.
Euro 5 NOx limit is 64% less than Euro 3 (no limit specified for Euro 1 or 2) and Euro 6 is another 19% lower.
Just to put "massive" in context! Lies, damn lies and statistics
(Figures applicable to 3.5T commercial vehicles used, as most applicable to equivalent motorhome conversions)
I’m not going to argue that Diesel engines are clean nor am I defending any claims made by manufacturers, they still produce high levels of toxins but my “ massive” claim was for one of the most dangerous emissions, NOx where the permitted level of NOx emitted has dramatically ( massively?) dropped to a maximum of 80mg/km for Euro 6, compared to the 180mg/km level that was required for cars that met the previous Euro 5 emissions standard.
Compared to the max of 60mg/kg that petrol cars achieved with Euro 5 ( unchanged with Euro 6) Diesel is getting there.
I guess there comes a point where some emissions are more difficult to reduce so differences will be small or perhaps they are as low now as technology allows hence the same figures for Euro 5 and 6 regarding dpm’s
Any reduction of pollutants emitted by any means is a good thing
PeteH
Free Member
- Nov 22, 2007
- 6,852
- 9,035
- Funster No
- 900
- MH
- Rapido, 999M.
- Exp
- 18+yrs plus 25+Towing
I upset a lot of people, some years ago, when I pointed out that David Bellamy, had likely caused more atmospheric polution having made a trip to Australia, JUST to accept an award for his "environmental" work.
And whilst I apreciate and am aware that most engines are fitted to the like of "white Vans". In veiw of the relatively small no of miles done by Motorhomers they COULD qualify for an exemption, But that is anathema to your average "Jobsworth" and would produce "Shock Horror" for the "green brigade". After all often Taxis are exempt, but do far more miles and produce far more polution and often never carry more the 2 persons?.
IMV, another case for a Licencing catagory under "B" which would carry both an exemption AND the mass limit of 4t. But it won`t happen, too many jobsworths involved.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
to help put Euro 5 or 6 into perspective. There was some figures a while back that calculated one container ship in 1 year using Bunker Fuel is the equivalent to 50 million cars. Still agree you should go for Euro 6 if that was your expectation/specification.
'By 2020, the maritime industry is poised to shift to diesel from so-called bunker fuel. The heavy, thick fuel has been used in the cargo shipping and cruise line industry for years because it is inexpensive, especially compared to other fuels. After oil has been refined into diesel, gasoline or jet fuel, bunker fuel is what’s left over at the refinery. Effectively, it’s what’s left at the bottom of the barrel'.
'By 2020, the maritime industry is poised to shift to diesel from so-called bunker fuel. The heavy, thick fuel has been used in the cargo shipping and cruise line industry for years because it is inexpensive, especially compared to other fuels. After oil has been refined into diesel, gasoline or jet fuel, bunker fuel is what’s left over at the refinery. Effectively, it’s what’s left at the bottom of the barrel'.
Lot lover
Free Member
As in all things it is not "what is done" but rather "what is seen or more likely what APPEARS to be done".
AFAIK India AndChina account for over one third of the worlds population and the largest number of coal fired power stations. It will take rather more than changing the rules for a handful of motorhomes to counteract that.
Does that make me a racist?
AFAIK India AndChina account for over one third of the worlds population and the largest number of coal fired power stations. It will take rather more than changing the rules for a handful of motorhomes to counteract that.
Does that make me a racist?
Along with every company using the base vehicle as intended? I have my doubts.
That was my point. You can use the numbers between two successive standards to suggest a massive reduction, but if you compare both to the original baseline, Euro 5 was itself a massive reduction and the further decrease due to Euro 6 is much less significant, although of course any decrease is still welcome.
Using phrases such as "a 50% reduction in pollution" is misleading and doesn't help the mass hysteria reaction that some seem to be caught up in, when in fact the reduction is somewhat greater in respect to one particular pollutant, but average across all exhaust pollutants that the standards seek to restrict, becomes a much smaller reduction. "A 55% reduction on NOx emissions" is more factually accurate, but again doesn't tell the whole story.
I'm not picking on you, but just trying to put the figures in context to illustrate how media headlines can distort perception and pander to the "you're all killing my children" brigade, whereas in fact many of those parents are more likely by some magnitude to be killing their children through diet and transporting them from the house door to the school gate without ever letting them use their own two legs, or exposing them to other lifestyle related toxins; even so there are still much greater chances that they will eventually die of other causes unrelated to vehicle emissions.
There are dangers in almost everything we choose to do and they have to be weighed against the convenience, acceptability and necessity of the causes. There will undoubtedly be increased risks of ill health and death to certain sections of the population related to increases in the use of electric vehicles for instance, some related to the processing of the metals and toxic substances used to create and recycle the batteries needed to enable them, and the disposal or storage of the toxins used or created in those processes. We all have to die of something, that's the one thing in life you can be sure of.
How many people buy cleaning substances because they are advertised as killing 99.9% of all known germs, not understanding that even if only 0.01% are left, they will have multiplied exponentially in their thousands if not millions within seconds of putting the bottle back in the cupboard?
No argument with that at all
It is unreasonable and inconsistent policy-making to force ever tougher emission limits and impose heavy "environmental" taxes on road users, while civil aviation gets tax free fuel and is encouraged to expand its operations despite environmental impacts. The proposed third runway for Heathrow even ignores the WHO reports on the risks to health and child development of living near airports. If you fly to Prague for a stag do or hen party that's perfectly acceptable, but driving to Blackpool for the same reason causes premature deaths. Allegedly.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Birmingham City Council has, from what I ahve read, submitted their request to the government to start charging £12 per trip in/out for any vehicles not ULEZ compliant, so Euro 6 diesel and most petrol after 2007.
So anyone going up the A38 to the M6 will get a bill if not compliant.
All for the children. In city centre? There are no schools there.....
There is an outlandish theory that it is to raise money for a broke council.
So anyone going up the A38 to the M6 will get a bill if not compliant.
All for the children. In city centre? There are no schools there.....
There is an outlandish theory that it is to raise money for a broke council.
- Aug 18, 2014
- 26,301
- 159,576
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
Yes 15 year exemption in London for lez/ulez
PeteH
Free Member
- Nov 22, 2007
- 6,852
- 9,035
- Funster No
- 900
- MH
- Rapido, 999M.
- Exp
- 18+yrs plus 25+Towing
What is always overlooked in that calculation. Is that the same Container ship has a Fuel Consumption to goods carried ratio that is virtually Infestiminal. IF proper care is taken the emissions from well maintained marine engines running heavy fuel can be reduced to a level far below that of the Car, Bus, etc;. Changing to Light Fuel is just a "sop" to the pressure from the "green brigade". AND will inevitably put up the costs of freight, which will hit OUR pockets.
Ahh? BUT? if they put restriction on flying, how will your Euro MP then get to Brussels to claim the "Sitting" fee and expenses, and still get home for drinks and Golf?. Or the P-M to have dinner in Berlin with the "Gaffer".
fairford rambler
Free Member
You seem to have gotten yourself into a right panic over this.
With tongue in cheek and on the lighter side of this. On evidence of the railways today I doubt there will be any trains running by then...lol. Strikes, maintenance overruns, leaves on the line, trespassers on the tracks, and flooding, are too name but a few. I would stick with ya motorhome however compliant or non compliant it may be - you can even get the wife to make a cuppa while you are sitting in the traffic
Seeing as there are people still happy to purchase second hand motorhomes that aren't even Euro 1 compliant I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Your Euro 6 vehicle will be subject to the same prohibitions before too long. It isn't a future proof standard set in stone. There is already talk of penalizing Euro 6 engines that aren't also RDE-2 compliant.
My Euro 5+ is currently London LEZ compliant, but would cost me £12.50 a day to enter the ULEZ. Yes, that will change in the next couple of years, but I have no overwhelming urge to drive my MH into London now, so I'm not sure why it should concern me.
My car is ULEZ and LEZ compliant, but given the choice I'd already rather get the train/tube, and when at some future stage it no longer is compliant it will be cheaper to use the train anyway.
Are you really going to spend thousands of pounds changing your MH every couple of years to avoid a relatively small charge on the odd occasions that you might need to enter city centre zones. I could pay for a hell of a lot of trips into central London before it became economic for me to consider changing my van
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Join us or log in to post a reply.
To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun
Join MotorhomeFun
Join us, it quick and easy!
Log in
Already a member? Log in here.