ULEZ

I wouldn’t buy a new ICE engine car myself. Plug in hybrid minimum. I drive 50k+ miles a year and tbh cars don’t need anything more than a big battery with a realistic 200 miles range. However commercial vehicles. Battery just doesn’t make sense unless you go silly high voltage and imo, hydrogen makes sense for commercial applications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopCat1127
However commercial vehicles. Battery just doesn’t make sense unless you go silly high voltage and imo, hydrogen makes sense for commercial applications.
Depends on use.
To my mind, local delivery/frequent stops - Ocado/Amazon/RM/parcelforce etc (yeah and milkman!) it makes perfect sense.
And tradesperson - customer>supplier>customer>home.
But yeah not long distance.
 
Pure battery for that I agree. Needs to be charged via local generation too.

The problem is for us All to have batteries will be damaging to the planet extracting the ”rare earth metals” that the present batteries require.
How long does a battery last, The range gets ever shorter, so we’ll soon have a glut of used electric cars with only 20% of the range, who wants them ? will anyone pay the £1000s required for a new battery, I doubt it.
So then we’ll need to recycle all of the batteries into new batteries…….
And get rid of cars that are only 3 - 5 years old
I think it all short term, no one has considered the bigger picture, or at least not in public.
We need a Hydrogen infrastructure, probably combined with the present Gas infrastructure.
Then cars can be Hydrogen fuel cell powered. That can very similar to the petrol / diesel engines the world already has.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong, feel free to delete if this is in the wrong place or not appropriate . I feel we should be aware of this stuff before we buy our next new car.
 
Hey all so my cougar 1999 is registered as ULEZ due, newer cats don't. From what I can gather its because there is no published data.


"Euro 4 emissions were introduced on all new cars from January 2005 and all newly registered cars from January 2006. To pass Euro 4 standards, petrol cars had to produce CO of no more than 1.0g/km, Total Hydro Carbon (THCs) emissions of no more than 0.10g/km and NOx emissions of 0.08g/km. "

Ford do a certificate of conformity service, you are meant to send a blank email to coc@forddac.co.uk
They came back asked for copy of my v5 and photo of my vin. Got the certificate emailed next day, they are sending a hard copy out.
The emissions are listed as

Exhaust emissions:(g/km)
Test method:
Annex III - 91/441/EEC
CO: 0.400
NOx: 0.036
Particulates: -
HC:0.053
HC+NOx: 0.089

Pretty sure that means the early cats conform.. Going try submitting an exemption to ULEZ

Anyone done this before?
Sounds interesting as my Cougar is 1998 so I'd like to hear how you get on. Also noticed on the my 1998 Jaguar XJ8 had 0 against CO2 on the documents that came with its MOT that was done on Monday.
Post automatically merged:

I agree Mako, My ( Our ) Cougar is 22 years old and is seen as 2.5 litre gas guzzler and not environmentally friendly.
BUT, and it’s deliberately a big BIG BUT.
How much carbon and other environment depleting products are released in the production of new cars, all that metal smelting, all that plastic production ( made from oil )
Has anyone ever considered how much excavation of our planets surface will be needed to excavate the rare earth products it takes to create Lithium Batteries.
I‘ve had new cars, I doubt very much I’ll have another.
I‘ll stick with my 22 year old petrol, I’ll stick with my 10 year old diesel, I’ll stick with another runabout for work and my motorbike for pleasure.

I won’t be contributing to carbon by buying a new vehicle.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has their needs. I respect that.

I will contribute to carbon by running Petrol and Diesel vehicles.
Which is kinder to our planet ? I‘m unclear, I think everyone is, even those who make the rules. I respect that too.
Interestingly my 1962 Herald comes up as Exempt from ULEZ (but not Central Zone) and doesn't even need to have an MOT any more! I'm surprised the cameras can read silver on black number plates! As per performance, I used to get 50 miles per gallon (4-star) out of it and not many petrol cars claim to do that these days. Add to that it is simpler so there there is so much less to go wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
it's exempt as a 40+yo classic (that's not used for 'reward' which would negate that exception) and therefore likely to be low use.
Part of the justifcation for not needing an MOT must be the complication of two-tier testing (fees) due to all the untestable parts on a classic car - emmisions, seat-belt mounting points, ABS and engine management systems etc.
 
it's exempt as a 40+yo classic (that's not used for 'reward' which would negate that exception) and therefore likely to be low use.
Part of the justifcation for not needing an MOT must be the complication of two-tier testing (fees) due to all the untestable parts on a classic car - emmisions, seat-belt mounting points, ABS and engine management systems etc.
In order to pass its MOT, I had to remove its seat belts as they are not retractable. I thought that bizarre because of the danger of being impaled in the chest by the steering wheel shaft or goung through the windscreen, so it must safer to at least be allowed the single strap belt.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: mabo
Quiet a collection you have Carolyn, I fancy a classic car from 62.
It was my grandparent's car. It is ziebarted underneath so that has preserved it from the demon rust. Its turning circle is brilliant and with splendid visibility and being able to see all 4 corners, parking is a doddle. Ideal as a town car and easy to get at everything to maintain. So I don't understand why modern cars have to be so complex and have so many things that can go wrong with them. Garages didn't need specialist equipment or electronics engineers until everything was monitored and controlled digitally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mabo and The Amazon
In order to pass its MOT, I had to remove its seat belts as they are not retractable. I thought that bizarre because of the danger of being impaled in the chest by the steering wheel shaft or going through the windscreen, so it must safer to at least be allowed the single strap belt.
You're less likely to have a frontal impact if you're driving like there's a dagger protruding from the steering wheel.
I assume the Herald's B-pillar is deemed insufficiently stiff to mount a shoulder belt leaving the chosen option of lap-belts.
The owners' club would know if an engineering solution to fitting three-point belts were available if desired, though I suspect most prefer to keep original.
 
Last edited:
I had a Vitesse convertible for a good few years, I fitted the triumph dolomite 1850 engine and overdrive box to it as a temporary whilst I was rebuilding a 2.5 version of the straight 6.
As you say, low tech and simple but arguably requiring more regular maintenance to points etc.