Just read this on autoexpress newsletter:
"New green rules could force motorists to pay hundreds of pounds more for their replacement tyres.
If the EU’s latest eco proposals are agreed, owners will no longer be able to shop around for budget brands. Instead, they will have to switch worn-out rubber with the manufacturer’s preferred original make of tyre.
The legislation would apply to vehicles equipped with low-energy rubber, which reduces CO2 output. Owners would have to maintain the type-approval requirements for their cars to pass the MoT test. This could raise the bill for replacing all four corners on some models by more than £100 per tyre. It would also stop motorists using cheaper, quieter alternatives.
The requirements are included in draft legislation designed to reduce average CO2 emissions from all new cars to 120g/km by 2012. Manufacturers will have to reach an average of 130g/km, with a proposed package of ‘complementary measures’ – such as using biofuels, low-energy air-con and low rolling-resistance tyres – cutting emissions by another 10g/km.
Some brands are already type-approving their UK vehicles with eco tyres so the models sit in lower VED and company car tax bands. Peugeot’s 308 uses Michelin EnergySaver rubber to save up to a claimed 4g/km of CO2. But they carry a premium price and, although other brands of tyre are available, the EU isn’t keen to let buyers shop around. A European Commission spokesman said: “We need to stop people replacing these products with ordinary tyres.” He added it would be unfeasible to rate the CO2 benefit from individual eco tyres on each car, and policing a system where motorists could buy eco tyre alternatives would be virtually impossible, unless they were forced to replace like with like."
Budget tyres face shock EU axe
Budget tyres face shock EU axe
Last edited by Simran on Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's just typical of the type of crap that Auto Express try to turn into a story with a sensationalist twist on it!
It has been the case for at least a decade that emissions from cars have been under some sort of attempted control - originally with cats, then with ever stricter Euro I, II, III, IV and now V standards. As cars have got heavier there's been attempts to rein in the increasing weight resulting in ever worsening fuel economy. It's actually quite an achievement that modern cars use less fuel than early cat cars, despite weighing pretty much double.
Car manufacturers have always specified a type of tyre in terms of speed rating, load index and size. OE tyres would also need to meet the manufacturers NVH needs. Now they're looking to improve their rolling resistance (i.e. lower it) to further reduce the CO2 output.
That's all well and good when a car is type approved, but once it's on the market is it fair that car A costs less than car B to tax simply because low rolling resistance tyres were used as part of type approval but have since been swapped for some shoddy budget tyres with the rolling resistance of treacle?
From a UK law point of view, there would have to be changes to a lot of Construction & Use legislation to prevent the owner of a vehicle fitting any tyre they like as long as it's capable of sustained use at 70mph and has an adequate load rating. there's very little check on tyre suitability at MOT, only for damage. It would almost certainly mean that when taxing the vehicle you would have to confirm that the tyres fitted are of the same rolling resistance rating (not currently available, but basically a similar system to speed rating - it doesn't mean you have to always fit the exact same tyre - the tyre industry won't stand for that) as fitted by the manufacturer when the car was new. If it is, take your lower cost tax disc and away you go. If you can't sign that declaration you'd simply pay the next higher tax band for your road tax.
Worth also noting this would only ever apply to new vehicles in some point in the future, so when buying a car you'd walk into the decision with eyes open.
My 10 year old Passat just got a new set of boots fitted - I spent about £275 putting new Continental Sport Contact2 tyres on it - roughly 14% of the car's value. I wouldn't ever consider putting a tyre on my car that isn't at least as good as what the car came out of the factory on (Dunlop SP Sport in this case) and you'll never find a Wanli or similar tyre on a car I'm driving.
It has been the case for at least a decade that emissions from cars have been under some sort of attempted control - originally with cats, then with ever stricter Euro I, II, III, IV and now V standards. As cars have got heavier there's been attempts to rein in the increasing weight resulting in ever worsening fuel economy. It's actually quite an achievement that modern cars use less fuel than early cat cars, despite weighing pretty much double.
Car manufacturers have always specified a type of tyre in terms of speed rating, load index and size. OE tyres would also need to meet the manufacturers NVH needs. Now they're looking to improve their rolling resistance (i.e. lower it) to further reduce the CO2 output.
That's all well and good when a car is type approved, but once it's on the market is it fair that car A costs less than car B to tax simply because low rolling resistance tyres were used as part of type approval but have since been swapped for some shoddy budget tyres with the rolling resistance of treacle?
From a UK law point of view, there would have to be changes to a lot of Construction & Use legislation to prevent the owner of a vehicle fitting any tyre they like as long as it's capable of sustained use at 70mph and has an adequate load rating. there's very little check on tyre suitability at MOT, only for damage. It would almost certainly mean that when taxing the vehicle you would have to confirm that the tyres fitted are of the same rolling resistance rating (not currently available, but basically a similar system to speed rating - it doesn't mean you have to always fit the exact same tyre - the tyre industry won't stand for that) as fitted by the manufacturer when the car was new. If it is, take your lower cost tax disc and away you go. If you can't sign that declaration you'd simply pay the next higher tax band for your road tax.
Worth also noting this would only ever apply to new vehicles in some point in the future, so when buying a car you'd walk into the decision with eyes open.
My 10 year old Passat just got a new set of boots fitted - I spent about £275 putting new Continental Sport Contact2 tyres on it - roughly 14% of the car's value. I wouldn't ever consider putting a tyre on my car that isn't at least as good as what the car came out of the factory on (Dunlop SP Sport in this case) and you'll never find a Wanli or similar tyre on a car I'm driving.
A bit off topic I know, but when comparing "modern" cars to our supposedly "outdated" ones, there was this write up by a guy over here.
As he was going to be so far from home and was in my locality as his destination/halfway mark, he kept in touch with me in case of emergency and the only problems they had related to his mates car, not his 16V.
The write up is a bit of a kick in the teeth for some of these who are always questioning the overall reliability particularly over long trips and in the past few weeks, I've also done a 2000 klms trip with air/con going all the way.
Enjoy!!
Alan S
As he was going to be so far from home and was in my locality as his destination/halfway mark, he kept in touch with me in case of emergency and the only problems they had related to his mates car, not his 16V.
The write up is a bit of a kick in the teeth for some of these who are always questioning the overall reliability particularly over long trips and in the past few weeks, I've also done a 2000 klms trip with air/con going all the way.
Enjoy!!
Well I have just returned from a road trip from Melbourne up to Bundaberg and then down the east coast. We travelled through Tocumwal, Dubbo, Kingaroy, Bundaberg and then back down through Surfers Paradise, Coffs Harbour, Taree, Sydney, Merimbula and then back home. All up over 4000kms of mainly highway driving.
I took my 1990 BX 16Valve and convoyed with a mates 2004 VY Commodore ute and I must say that I was extremely impressed with the Citroen and to a lesser extent the Commodore. Both cars were quite comfortable cruisers and after a full day of driving we were in no way uncomfortable or in any pain. They were quite happy to cruise all day. However, the Citroen really seperated itself from the ute in economy. Despite the fact that it was sitting on 3500rpm instead of the utes 1800rpm all day it was regularly averaging between 7 and 8 L/100kms as opposed to the utes best of 9L/100km. Although the commodore is a 3.8L V6 against the BX's 1.9L 4cyl I would have thought that an extra 14 years of development would help some what in obtaining similar figures.
The only problem with the commodore that was encountered on the trip was a bent rim on the rear of the ute. I was driving and misjudged the width of the bohemoth and ran over a fairly large rock on the road. Thought we got away with it until we noticed the rear tyre had decided to let its air out. We then found a dent on the inside bead of the alloy rim. I still maintain that if it didn't have large alloys with low profile tyres the tyre would have absorbed the impact but never mind. An extra stock wheel was purchased as another spare and everybody was happy.
The BX demanded a little bit more attention in the cooling department. On the way up the weather was about 38 degrees average so of course we decided to enlist in the aircon to keep comfortable. The only problem with this was that the extra load of the aircon seemed to send the temperature soaring. I managed to slow this down a little by taking off the driving lights and increasing airflow but it still wanted to run a bit hot. As soon as the aircon was turned off it cooled to normal temp and sat there quite happily. All the fans are engaging fine and the thermostat was recently replaced.
Just wondering if anyone has any ideas on cooling fixes?
Just thought I'd share some of my thoughts on travelling in a BX. After 4000kms in the beast I would happily do another 4000kms. It also seemed to me that the driver of the ute was quite sick of driving. The frenchies must have done something right.
Cheers
__________________
Mr White Keys
Alan S
Even the Americans are beginning to move away from V8 engines - GM have stated they won't be replacing the Northstar motor for instance.
I'm quite surprised the 'Ute' was only 1l/100km less economical - for nearly twice the engine capacity that's not bad! The Ute will have cat as well, I suspect, which knocks economy a little, but cleans up the tailpipe emissions.
Light weight makes a massive difference to economy - of the mainstream manufacturers only Mazda is making much of an attempt to replace existing models with lighter replacements. I believe both the 2 and 6 replacements just launched are lighter than before, despite being larger overall.
I'm quite surprised the 'Ute' was only 1l/100km less economical - for nearly twice the engine capacity that's not bad! The Ute will have cat as well, I suspect, which knocks economy a little, but cleans up the tailpipe emissions.
Light weight makes a massive difference to economy - of the mainstream manufacturers only Mazda is making much of an attempt to replace existing models with lighter replacements. I believe both the 2 and 6 replacements just launched are lighter than before, despite being larger overall.
i agree with cars having to have the correct speed rated tyres and the way you've explained the rolling resistance tax situation makes alot more sense to me Adrian.You may have misunderstood the quoted post Adrian. (I have the advantage of having spoken personally to him)
The BEST the ute got was that 9L/100 klms (31 mpg) but the 16V averaged 7/8 L/100 klms. (35 - 40 mpg) and the ute was empty.
I know the roads they travelled over and they are better suited to the bigger engined cars as he pointed out with the rpm being only around half of those of the ute. Weight difference also would have been negligble.
I drove a Toyota Hi-lux with basically the same engine over the same route to Canberra a few weeks back and it averaged 12.75L/100klms (22 mpg) IIRC which was also empty but had a heavier body, so modern technology isn't all what it's cracked up to be when they get on a level playing field.
I was not impressed at having to pay almost $400 in fuel that I would have used around $230 in my BX over the same route.
Alan S
The BEST the ute got was that 9L/100 klms (31 mpg) but the 16V averaged 7/8 L/100 klms. (35 - 40 mpg) and the ute was empty.
I know the roads they travelled over and they are better suited to the bigger engined cars as he pointed out with the rpm being only around half of those of the ute. Weight difference also would have been negligble.
I drove a Toyota Hi-lux with basically the same engine over the same route to Canberra a few weeks back and it averaged 12.75L/100klms (22 mpg) IIRC which was also empty but had a heavier body, so modern technology isn't all what it's cracked up to be when they get on a level playing field.
I was not impressed at having to pay almost $400 in fuel that I would have used around $230 in my BX over the same route.
Alan S