Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Advertisement

Top bloggers

Advertisement

Tue
Feb 19 2008

Porsches don't pollute

Hilton Holloway

It now looks like Porsche will be seeking a judicial review of the Mayor of London’s decision to bring in a £25 per day charge for vehicles in Band G. Porsche have written a letter to the Mayor and, if he doesn’t reply in 14 days, they will head – expensively – for the courts.

Andy Goss, MD of Porsche UK, says the "massive congestion charge increase is quite simply unjust." A spokesman for Mayor replied that "No-one is allowed to throw their rubbish in the street and Porsche should not be allowed to impose gas-guzzling, polluting cars on Londoners who do not want them.”

There’s a very serious point to be pursued here. Porsche, and the rest of the car industry, must wrest back the meaning of the word pollution from the grip of the Green spin machine. Gas-guzzlers they maybe (though I’d bet the average Porsche does far fewer miles in a year than the average Mondeo), but they certainly aren’t polluters.

Like all modern petrol-fired units, Porsche engines are as clean a whistle. Indeed, if you replaced all 21,000 black cabs with 21,000 Cayennes, inner London’s air quality would improve massively overnight. Recently, a blogger pointed out that when his imported Dodge Durango 5.7-litre V8 was tested by VOSA, the equipment could barely register pollutants from the engine.

What matters in the city centre is air quality and London’s is probably the worst in Europe. Worst because of the use of big diesel engines, in big heavy vehicles, trapped in stop-start traffic. And that’s nothing to do with Porsche, or any other car maker.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Hilton Holloway

Has two product design degrees and used to design mountain bikes. Realised that cars were a lot more interesting in 1990, and has been writing about them ever since.

Comments

ThwartedEfforts February 20, 2008 9:24 AM

I'm sure VOSA's machine was barely able to register the 5.7-litre V8 was even in the same room, but I'd still not want to spend too long under the tailpipe. What do you think is rushing into those eight cylinders at a rate of one imperial gallon every 15 miles? Coffee?

While the issue of pollution in London will always be diesel-centric, let's not forget who's making all the greenhouse gases here. Americans and their fuel-inefficient cars are responsible for more than one fifth of all US energy-related emissions, and for almost HALF the total carbon dioxide pumped from exhausts into the atmosphere each year.

No, the London rules paradoxically won't change London air. But they do send a message.

os993 February 20, 2008 3:45 PM

£25 per day, £125 per week, £6500 per year...in some cases the car might not even be worth £6500.  This is a ludicrous charge, as is the whole congestion charge scheme.  Who would buy a Landrover, Jaguar or an Aston?  I expect most of the sales are via London. Thats british car industry dead and buried!

Jon Hardcastle February 20, 2008 5:06 PM

Who said that londoners do not want polluting cars? Has there been any evidence to back up these claims? Not coming from London I would be very interested in the findings, as these will almost certainly impact on other major cities in the long run.

eekamouse February 20, 2008 7:39 PM

I just totally object to the continuing use of "congestion charge" rather than plain old TAX. It's clearly not about congestion given it's linked to CO2 not size or time of day or other options.

Bottom line the scheme costs more than it rakes in so first they expanded it to the point where people in West London are in evening though it's a good 5 miles into London proper...

They are still not making money from it so now they've put it up - and they know poeple who drive cars >225g/km will pay and people who drive <120g /km cars don't work in central London....

This is policy being made on the hoof based on the economic performance of the scheme.

big x February 20, 2008 8:59 PM

As clean as a whistle? In fact Porsches like all cars produce a heady cocktail of poisons and carcinogens inevitable from the cobustion process.

Bigger engine produces more Nitrogen dioxide which affects our DNA and causes cancer.

There is no need for such things in our city centres.

Perhaps Autocar might like to do an article on harmful car emissions rather than concentrating on C02 which is a harmless gas.

hamishl February 20, 2008 9:00 PM

It does seem an exorbitant charge, but then, how many cars in that bracket are going to be used everyday? And do Porsche assume that their customers have no interest in more efficient engines? They're supposed to be leaders in technological innovation. The 911 is a triumph of engineering over, well, everything.

godbotherer February 21, 2008 1:11 AM

Surely anyone that drives a Porsche in central London is sending only one message and that's "I'm phallicly challengened and want to display the fact that I've spent 70k+ on a car that will never go more than 40mph".  The more tax these profligate morons contribute the less I have to.  What was the question?

Griffin911 February 21, 2008 1:18 AM

Ken seems to think that this will put people off buying `guzzlers`, it won't, it just won't. I still find it funny that Ken won't accept Cayenne's and Range Rovers but will accept a long haul flight around the world to promote something that no-one could possibly care less about. In that flight, he spewed out more co2 than the average car will in one year. Progress for you.

ThwartedEfforts February 21, 2008 8:43 AM

Having just read Hilton's other post on this subject, I realise how easily he's picked up on artful comments from posters and mingled them with his actual blog to make them sound like facts. Duped seems the most appropriate term.

For example, the poster who originally made the stupid Durango claim said that the car had "zero emmissions" and immediately went on to say that London's Mayor has a "Left wing, Gay/Lesbian or Black agenda". Sounds like a reputable source of anecdotes to me, right?

Another poster then stated that "All vehicles ... account for just 0.6% of man-made omissions", which doesn't really explain how the transport sector remains responsible for 20% of all greenhouse (GHG) emissions and 40% of all volatile organic (VOC) emissions. Google it. The figures are even higher in the States, even though they all drive zero-CO2, zero-emission trucks like the Durango there. How odd.

In any case, CO2 is just one component of the GHG soup that comes out the back of cars, and as someone commented above yesterday, the fact its presence might not register in an arbitrary test doesn't mean that the NOx, HFCs, PFCs and other chemicals have mysteriously vanished.

Bottom line: you don't need to sit in London traffic in a 5.7 litre anything. Get real.

clewsy February 21, 2008 11:52 AM

If I drove a 'gas guzzler' which emitted >225g/km of CO2 I'd save myself the £6k congestion charge and spend £14.5k on a Mini Cooper D, spend £35 a year for the road tax and slip smugly in to central London for free due to the fact my new car emitted 104g/km of CO2.

Producing a car is a big part of its carbon footprint (up to a tonne of CO2, depending on who you choose to believe), so forcing me to buy another car (which is fine by me, as I can afford to buy and maintain a Porsche so I'm not exactly short of a bob or two) may not necessarily be the best solution.

Whenever I'm not in Central London I'll drive my 911 - which produces 280g/km of CO2 - and so let's say I do 5000 miles a year in my Mini commuting.

5000 miles PA in Mini = 832 kg of CO2

Manufacture of Mini = 1000 kg of CO2

5000 miles PA in Porsche = 2240 kg of CO2

Total CO2 reduction PA (worst case, assume I replace the Mini every year) = 1308 kg of CO2

Sounds great doesn't it Ken, you've saved London from over 1 Tonne of CO2.  But wait.... I’ve driven in London for free for a year (depriving you of £6k if I'd have driven my Porsche - or £2k if you'd left the congestion charge at £8 - and I'm in a diesel which produces more harmful particulates than a petrol engine.

We already have a tax for cars that produce lots of CO2 - it's called road tax (which would cost me £300 PA on my 911) - and we already pay per mile to drive on Britain's roads - it's called heavily taxed fuel, which I would spend lots of money on when I drive my 911.

It's nowhere near as clear-cut as Ken would like us to think.  Smacks of a case of politics over practicality to me.

Sibbo February 21, 2008 8:54 PM

The air quality would improve immeasurably as all those taxis with their archaic engines would be removed from the roads. Don't forget also that the London taxi would be in band G if Ken had not given them an exemption. it wouldn't pay to alienate the London cabbie would it? Not such a populist and easy target as the 911 driver.

jerry99 February 22, 2008 10:47 AM

However clean a car it adds to congestion. Whilst commuting by car is often optional delivery of goods by trucks and use of taxis is not.

Taxing commuters out of their cars in turn eases congestion for delivery vehicles and taxis and thereby cuts their emissions.

A few years ago Hong Kong replaced diesel taxis and buses with LPG to reduce petrochemical smog trapped by its harbour.

The commercial vehicle pollution needs to be tackled but the use of private vehicles, however clean, for commuting within a city cannot  improve vehicle flows overall.

The Master February 22, 2008 5:12 PM

I have a great many axes to grind with mayor Gollum:

What has CO2 got to do with CONGESTION?

Where was my right to vote on the introduction of bus lanes, resident parking, cycle lanes,20mph zones, humps, narrowed roads etc?

You call certain vehicles "gas guzzlers" but you don't apply the same terminology to household boilers, or large structures such as buildings. How much energy does it take to run the mayor's HQ?

Londoners "don't need to drive cars"-except when they work for the councils, TFL, C-charge or the construction industry! then they can run around town for the sole purpose of obtaining money with menaces.

I say it's time the mayor and the "green" lobby got on their bikes!

JJBoxster February 22, 2008 9:25 PM

ThwartedEfforts - while you're splitting hairs you're right to say I was wrong saying vehicles account for 0.6% (less than 1%) of total atmospheric CO2... it's actually 0.5%.

And just get your figures straight too please. You say "the transport sector remains responsible for 20% of all greenhouse gas.." That's 20% of the total 100% man is responsible for inc. industry, houses etc which amounts to 3.6% of atmospheric CO2 levels... over 96% of CO2 comes from natural sources. What you going to do about that, tax the birds, tax the rodents, tax the volcanos and tax the Polar Bears!!

JJBoxster February 22, 2008 9:29 PM

Register your disgust at this loser Livingstones abject failure to manage anything without throwing £Billions at a 'problem' he hasn't solved..  by signing Porsche's petition here:

www.porschejudicialreview.co.uk

JJBoxster February 24, 2008 3:45 PM

The 'spokesman' for Ken/TFL states "No-one is allowed to throw their rubbish in the street and Porsche should not be allowed to impose gas-guzzling, polluting cars on Londoners who do not want them."

As Clewsy posted the Mayor and TFL haven't done their sums on 3 counts;

1. Taxis are exempt (throwing rubbish on streets)

2. Buses are exempt (throwing more rubbish on streets)

3. Ken/TFL haven't conducted a survey to gauge Londoners opinions on what they do want on their streets. Maybe they should check!

mazza101 March 4, 2008 4:47 PM

Sorry, it doesn't matter how good your article is, but with laughably inaccurate headlines like 'Porsche's don't pollute', you are doing no favours.  Sure, Porsches may not pollute much if you factor in their average mileage.  I love 'em too, but they DO pollute.

Frankly these half-cocked headlines just give Ken all the ammo he needs against the car lobby for a good head-start.   It's pretty ironic considering you encourage Porsche to 'wrest back the proper meaning..'.  Please be a little more thoughtful with the headline choice.  It masks some excellent points.

Similarly, when thinking about electric cars et al, putting the term 'zero-emissions' in parentheses, doesn't make it any less dubious: their may not be emissions coming from the car's exhaust, but there are emissions coming out somewhere (coal-fired power-station anyone?).  I'd certainly agree that running these cars in a city is going to improve air quality.  But if the London driving charges focus primarily on air quality, then London will grind to a halt with Priuses.  Ken also needs to get his message clear - is it congestion or emissions?  Hopefully both!

Tailpipe March 12, 2008 1:50 PM

The extent ot which intelligent folk, not just those living in London, have contributed common sense reasons to reject Mayor Livingstone's additional tax on Londoner's suggests to me that Autocar really needs to champion this cause.

I think the mayor is deranged. He is simply pursuing his own anti-car agenda to deny people freedom of choice. His actions are a serious threat to democracy. If we alllow him to dictate what cars we can and cannot drive, what's next? Limiting the number of kids we can have?

I will never drive a Porsche, but what seems most unfair about this tax is that it isn't based on actual road usage only potential CO2 output. Many Porsche drivers pollute less than other drivers because they only drive their cars a few thousand miles a year. A mini driver, for example, doing 15,000 miles a year would put out more CO2. This tax hasn't been thought through.

JJBoxster March 20, 2008 1:19 PM

Who is the largest pollutor in London? My bet is its Ken and Transport for London and their tree-hugging love of buses, not Porsche or Exec cars.

Don't laugh at Ken and TFL's total failure to achieve any congestion or pollution target in London as these figures show they've achieved nothing despite charging the motorist £250M a year and that doesn't include the huge sums of our money central Govt sunk into CC to start the scam, sorry scheme.

Since the scam, err scheme was introduced in late 2002 cars entering the zone have declined 36%, vans declined 13%, Lorries and others declined 13%. Taxis have increased visits by 13% and buses have increased by 25%.

CONGESTION - Congestion and average speeds in London during 2007 are back to almost their identical levels pre-CC in 2002. Similarly average speeds in 2002 of 14mph increased to 16mph but again are now back to 14mph in 2007. So no change to congestion and no change to average speeds. In fact the London Evening Standard has been testing independently set routes and claim Av. speeds have dropped 2005-12mph, 2006-8mph and 2007-6mph.

BUSES GOING SLOWER - Average speed of Buses in the CC Zone. 2002-11mph, 2003-12mph, 2004-11mph, 2005-10.5mph, 2006-10mph.

POLLUTION - Concentrations of PM10 diesel particluates (known to be cancerous) and NOX have not changed one iota from 2002 to 2007 and indeed 'kerbside' particulate levels have got worse.

Whatever 'benefit' Ken and TFL targeted for reducing private cars visiting the CC zone has ground to a standstill as buses and taxis have filled the void and returned congestion and pollution levels back to 2002 levels.

So both in terms of congestion and pollutiion, despite £250M a year spent on the scam, sorry scheme, Ken and TFL have achieved precisely nothing. So who is the biggest polluter in London?

Well there's little doubt now it's Ken and TFL's policy for buses which have almost the identical CO2 output per passanger as a car! Whether you drive or take the bus the net effect is no difference. Ken/TFL you have alot to answer for.

JJBoxster March 22, 2008 6:58 PM

Porsches Don't Pollute - Part II.

Car Exhausts consists of:

Harmless:

- Carbon dioxide (CO2)

- Nitrogen (N2)

- Water vapor (H2O)

Pollutants:

- Carbon monoxide (CO) *

- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *

- Nitric oxide (NO) *

- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *

- Particulate matter (PM-10) *

- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

How Catalysts Work. auto.howstuffworks.com/question66.htm

Klaaz April 3, 2008 5:03 PM

What a load of rubbish Holloway is writing. Per mile, a Porsche does pollute more than a supermini. No doubt about it, and everyone knows. If Porsche really is that technical wunderkind, they should start making lighter cars which pollute far less than the current range (Cayenne, anyone?). Porsche should copy the Lotus approach. Light and fun. But Porsche seems to have missed that boat, and now they are faced more and more with the consequences of a series of failed business decision.

And maybe, their cars would get a bit slower. Who cares about an acceleration time of 5 seconds compared to 3.8?  

Holloway is probably more concerned about the fact that maybe half of the magazine can't be filled with ever faster Porsches anymore. I mean, do we really need a (full) test every time Porsche launches a new spoiler? It would mean less track time, more real cars. The horror!

And for the debaters about how much man contributes to global warming: yeah, it's all hopeless. Let's do nothing.

I'm not Ken's biggest fan btw, he is simply making a case, and the good people of London can vote fo him or his opponents.

JJBoxster April 29, 2008 10:48 PM

Klaaz, you may be missing the point here. Planet Earth doesn't give a stuff about CO2 levels and never has in 420,000 years.. get it?

So yes "doing nothing" about CO2 (ie. nothing) because nothing is happening (check last 10yrs static temperature) and because you can't do anything (ie. man cannot control temperature) is an eminently wise idea.

Trying to do something aout a whole lot of nothing is a really, really, really dumb idea.

Get it yet Einstein?

drivenfromtherearplease August 7, 2008 11:00 PM

Who actually needs a 2 tonne leviathan offroad vehicle which does not have the ability to fit proper offroad tyres?

Just get a Land Rover defender should you need it and a real porsche for driving!

Oh and that goes for all other suedo 4x4s too. Not because of the green aspect, just because!

Why? When do you actually need it? Go on tell me. There is probably a less than 1% number of total UK drivers who REALLY require them and thats fine by me. The rest of you please tell me what pleasure you get from them as I cannot fathom it out even the Cayenne X5/6 and RRSport are less usefull than a lukewam hot hatch as far as fun is concerned.......let alone a sorted city car.

Used to have so much fun blatting about Clifton in an Aygo leaving these blobs standing in traffic and squeezing passed the parked obstacles, superturbo injectified lumps of aluminium idling away getting hot under the collar with the blobs inside in airconned darkened glassware.

Ah windows down three pot singing up the rev range howling and echoing off the panels sipping the fuel and one huge smile at the destination.

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue -

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>