Particulate Filter

[Danj]

Hi all,

I am thinking of purchasing a 2010 freelander 2.

This car comes fitted with a diesel particulate filter as standard in the UK.

A particulate filter is not avaialble in Australia, even as an option.

Without the filter, the car rates terribly in the green vehicle guide.

Has anyone fitted an aftermarket filter or have experience with these filters?

Any replies appreciated. Really want the car but this could be the dealbreaker.

[BigJon]

Why would the lack of the filter be a deal breaker?

[Danj]

Its a dealbreaker because it only rates 3/10 for air pollution in comparison to 6/10 for others in its class. Is also the only car in its class not to have a particulate filter.

I have a problem with the proliferation of yuppies driving huge, gas guzzling 4wds to negotiate the speed humps at Safeway. I only want a 4wd so I can get to the camping stops my dear little Kia Rio won't go. If I'm going to do this then I want to do it in the most environmently friendly way I can (given car is huge gas guzzling 4wd).

The Freelander suits our needs more than a softroader but yet all softroaders have particulate filters. I believe the freelander to be the most suitable car for what it is to be used for but have an ethical issue with buying a car that is so behind its competitors in regards to the environment.

Hence my question as to an aftermarket particulate filter or experience in general.

Thanks again.

[SuperMono]

I believe the freelander to be the most suitable car for what it is to be used for but have an ethical issue with buying a car that is so behind its competitors in regards to the environment.

I can understand your stance, if we keep failing to take the 'Green' position what is left of the world won't be worth having.
Every little bit does help,.......you over there on the left....stop laughing at me :(

[Junosi]

I'm gonna go ahead and back you up 100% here Danj - I bought a Freelander specifically to run on vege oil (near zero emissions). I think I'd be in the same camp as you if I were looking at buying a new Freelander and it had no particulate filter. My other ride is a LPG discovery which I also wouldn't own if it weren't on LPG (very low emissions)

[Danj]

Thanks guys,

I appreciate the support. Was a bit worried that I would get flamed for being a green girly girl!

[Danj]

By the way Junosi, what the hell is vege oil and how does it work? Please explain...

[Junosi]

Just as it sounds - vegetable oil. I'm running my flandy on used oil free from my local fish & chip shop. They have to pay to dispose of it so don't mind if I take some off their hands - enough to keep me on the road anyways :D

Rudolph Diesel designed the original engine to run on peanut oil I think and fossil fuel diesel came along and made things *easier* and dirtier, but most diesels can still run on vegetable oil just the same (common rails have more problems). There's a few obstacles here and there - viscoscity in winter and going rancid in summer - nothing insurmountable. Some enthusiasts put there chemist hats on and convert the vegetable oil into *bio-diesel* by a fairly simple process using lye and methanol - in a similar process to making soap. The resulting product is almost identical to petro-diesel, the only downside to this is the cost of the lye and methanol - still works out far cheaper than petro-diesel though. Using straight vege oil as I am can cause corrosion issues in the fuel system due to moisture content - as my flandy was relatively cheap I won't mind keeping an eye on it - wouldn't do it to a new one though (or a common rail)

ps I enjoy being a green girly girl amongst my V8 friends - even more when they whine about their fuel bills :)

[Scouse]

If you're 'green', buy a used car & keep it on the road.

There's a hell of a lot more emissions generated in just making a new car than a used will make in the rest of it's life.

[isuzurover]

If you're 'green', buy a used car & keep it on the road.

There's a hell of a lot more emissions generated in just making a new car than a used will make in the rest of it's life.

Not true. IRC emissions during manufacture are about the same as driving 20000km.

Danj, some DPF manufacturers claim their systems can be retrofitted. However I didn't think any vehicles that size in Australia came with DPFs yet???

[Scouse]

Not true. IRC emissions during manufacture are about the same as driving 20000km.

It's estimated that around 20% of a vehicle's total emissions are created during manufacture.

There's a great write up on this in Restored Cars.

[BigJon]

Its a dealbreaker because it only rates 3/10 for air pollution in comparison to 6/10 for others in its class. Is also the only car in its class not to have a particulate filter.

I have a problem with the proliferation of yuppies driving huge, gas guzzling 4wds to negotiate the speed humps at Safeway. I only want a 4wd so I can get to the camping stops my dear little Kia Rio won't go. If I'm going to do this then I want to do it in the most environmently friendly way I can (given car is huge gas guzzling 4wd).

The Freelander suits our needs more than a softroader but yet all softroaders have particulate filters. I believe the freelander to be the most suitable car for what it is to be used for but have an ethical issue with buying a car that is so behind its competitors in regards to the environment.

Hence my question as to an aftermarket particulate filter or experience in general.

Thanks again.

Interesting.

What other cars do think are in the same class?

In what way would you call a Diesel Freelander a "huge gas guzzling 4wd"?

On what grounds do you think the Freelander is behind its competitors in regards to the environment?

[isuzurover]

It's estimated that around 20% of a vehicle's total emissions are created during manufacture.

There's a great write up on this in Restored Cars.

Any source for those data??? Methodology?

Here is some peer reviewed literature that says manufacturing + disposal/recycling = 10%:

Life cycle impact assessment of the average passenger vehicle in the Netherlands
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links
more options
Author(s): Castro MBG, Remmerswaal JAM, Reuter MA
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Volume: 8 Issue: 5 Pages: 297-304 Published: 2003
Times Cited: 7 References: 15 Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: Goal, Scope and Background. In this article, the Life Cycle Impact Assessment of the average passenger vehicle of the Netherlands is performed, with emphasis on the current dismantling and recycling practice in this country. From calculations on recovery rates of the several material streams from ELV (End-of-Live Vehicle) recycling, it seems that attaining the European ELV legislation recycling targets (Directive 2000/53/EC 2000) is very difficult, even for countries with advanced collection and recycling infrastructures such as the Netherlands. An LCA of the current average passenger vehicle of the Netherlands, including a detailed modelling of the recovery and recycling should form a sound basis for comparison with alternative automotive life cycle designs and legislation efforts.

Model and System Definition. An average passenger vehicle is defined, having average weight and material composition. A cradle to grave approach is taken, including all relevant upstream processes for the production of materials and fuels, and the return of the recycled materials to the material cycles in the EOL (End-of-Life) phase. A particularity of this model is the detailed description of the Dutch collection and recycling infrastructure, with current data for the shredding, separation and metallurgical recycling processes (ARN 2000, Barkhof 1998, Chapman 1983, Pilchert et al. 1994, Worrel et al. 1992).

Results and Discussion. According to the Eco-indicator 99 (EI99) (Ministerie van V.R.O.M 1999), the largest environmental impact of the passenger vehicle's life cycle occurs in the use phase over 90% -, due to the combustion and depletion of fossil fuels. This is in agreement of previous studies (Kasai 2000, Kanesaki 2000). Also in the other life cycle phases, the use of fossil fuels is the dominant impact, even for the production phase. Resource depletion due to the use of the materials employed in the vehicle causes a comparatively lower environmental impact, namely due to the high recovery rate and efficiency of the metallurgical recycling, that balances for about 30% the total impacts of the materials production and use. NOx emission was one of the smallest emissions to air in quantity, but was responsible for 36% of the impact of the life cycle, while CO2 was the largest emission to air but caused only 6% of the environmental impact.

Conclusion and Recommendation. Although there is a growing awareness and concern on increasing the recyclability of vehicles, the use phase still has the largest environmental impact of the vehicle's life cycle. A life cycle assessment can be a Sound basis to evaluate and compare design alternatives to increase the sustainabiliry of passenger vehicles. The ASR (Automotive shredder residue) is currently the greatest concern with regard to the recovery targets. It is a large amount of materials (about 32 wt.%), difficult and costly to recycle, and thermal recovery is limited to a maximum of lSwt.% in 1015 by the European ELV legislation. joint efforts from the automotive industry and legislative institutions are required to find a sensible solution. LCA can be a useful tool to support legislative decisions, as purely weight-based recovery definitions are not adequate to evaluate the sustainability of the automobile life cycle.

So - 3 independant studies have found that the manufacturing + disposal/recycling phase accounts for ~10% of whole-of-life emissions.

Average economy for new vehicles inproves by 1.5-2% each year. In 1996 average fuel consumption was 65-70 g/vkm (grams per vehicle km), however has now dropped to 50-55 g/vkm (EU data).

So, if you are talking about buying a 2nd hand post 2000 car in good condition, then it is probably better for the environment to do that. However if you are talking about driving an 80's commodore, it would be better for the environment to buy a new commodore instead. And better still to buy a smaller, more efficient car.

That said, I will never sell or stop driving my 1968 IIA, but I might swap the old tech indirect injection diesel for a newer, cleaner one at some stage...

[isuzurover]

Interesting.

What other cars do think are in the same class?

In what way would you call a Diesel Freelander a "huge gas guzzling 4wd"?

On what grounds do you think the Freelander is behind its competitors in regards to the environment?

I believe the categories and rating system are here:
Information on Green Vehicle Guide Ratings and Measurement (http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/StaticContent/ratings.aspx#b)

The system is seriously flawed. Have a look below. The nissan patrol DX has a 3.0TD engine ONLY, the ST comes with either the 3.0TD (same as the DX) OR a 4.8 petrol. Not only can you not select the petrol option, they have different figures for the same engine!!! They also say "manual" for the ST when it is only available as an auto.



Overall Rating

Vehicle Details

Fuel Type

Fuel Consumption
L/100km
Comb Urban Extra

CO2
g/km
Comb

Greenhouse Rating
(10 = Best)

Air
Pollution
Rating
(10 = Best)
Select All
14732


Land Rover Defender 110 Wagon
2.4L 4cyl (T), Man 6 speed
Wagon, 5 seats, 4WD

Diesel

11

13.5

9.5

291



14571


Nissan UY61 Patrol ST
3.0L 4cyl (T), Man 5 speed
Cab-chassis, 2 seats, 4WD

Diesel

11.4

13.9

10

301



13937


Nissan Y61 Patrol DX
3.0L 4cyl (T), Man 5 speed
Wagon, 5 seats, 4WD

Diesel

10.9

14.1

9.2

288


Land rover diesels:

Overall Rating

Vehicle Details

Release Year

Current Model

Fuel Type

Fuel Consumption
L/100km
Comb Urban Extra

CO2
g/km
Comb

Greenhouse Rating
(10 = Best)

Air
Pollution
Rating
(10 = Best)
Select All
14735


Land Rover Freelander 2 SE TD4e
2.2L 4cyl (T), Auto 6 speed
Wagon, 5 seats, 4WD

2010

Yes

Diesel

6.7

8.5

5.7

179



13118


Land Rover Discovery 3 SE TDV6
2.7L 6cyl (T), Auto 6 speed
Wagon, 7 seats, 4WD

2009

Yes

Diesel

10.4

13.1

8.5

270



14732


Land Rover Defender 110 Wagon
2.4L 4cyl (T), Man 6 speed
Wagon, 5 seats, 4WD

2009

Yes

Diesel

11

13.5

9.5

291




The freeloader seems to shape up well against the competitors...

Overall Rating

Vehicle Details

Release Year

Current Model

Fuel Type

Fuel Consumption
L/100km
Comb Urban Extra

CO2
g/km
Comb

Greenhouse Rating
(10 = Best)

Air
Pollution
Rating
(10 = Best)
Select All
15085


BMW E83 X3 xDrive30d
3.0L 6cyl (T), Auto 6 speed
Wagon, 5 seats, 4WD

2008

Yes

Diesel

7.7

9.9

6.4

206



14735


Land Rover Freelander 2 SE TD4e
2.2L 4cyl (T), Auto 6 speed
Wagon, 5 seats, 4WD

2010

Yes

Diesel

6.7

8.5

5.7

179



9389


Mazda CX-7
2.3L 4cyl (T), Auto 6 speed
Wagon, 5 seats, 4WD

2007

Yes

Petrol 95RON

11.5



273

[Danj]

BigJon, in answer to your questions.

Firstly, I don't know much about cars. I drive a Kia Rio, which I think speaks for itself. I am here looking for advice from those who are more knowledgeable about these matters than I am. But opinions - I've got lots of those!

I am comparing the freelander to other cars as reviewed at drive.com (BMW/Audi/Volvo) and the RACV best cars (VW/Subaru/Renault/Nissan/etc). I don't know if this is correct or not.

I would call the freelander a huge gas guzzling 4wd because it is a 4wd. Ergo it is huge (in comparison to the Kia Rio), and gas guzzling (in comparison to the Kia Rio). I accept that from an environmental platform, some 4wd's are better than others, but surely a 4wd is always going to be bigger, more powerful, and hence less fuel efficent than a smaller car.

I am basing my opinion that the freelander is behind its competitors on the information provided by the dog and lemon guide and the green vehicle guide. If these are flawed than fabulous - problem solved. I would love for someone with expertise to tell me that the freelander is actually one of the best in its class. Then I could stop talking and start driving. Once I learn how to drive a 4wd of course (all though the freelander looks pretty idiot proof - I know, I know, don't say it!)

[dobbo]

BigJon, in answer to your questions.

Firstly, I don't know much about cars. I drive a Kia Rio, which I think speaks for itself. I am here looking for advice from those who are more knowledgeable about these matters than I am. But opinions - I've got lots of those!

I am comparing the freelander to other cars as reviewed at drive.com (BMW/Audi/Volvo) and the RACV best cars (VW/Subaru/Renault/Nissan/etc). I don't know if this is correct or not.

I would call the freelander a huge gas guzzling 4wd because it is a 4wd. Ergo it is huge (in comparison to the Kia Rio), and gas guzzling (in comparison to the Kia Rio). I accept that from an environmental platform, some 4wd's are better than others, but surely a 4wd is always going to be bigger, more powerful, and hence less fuel efficent than a smaller car.

I am basing my opinion that the freelander is behind its competitors on the information provided by the dog and lemon guide and the green vehicle guide. If these are flawed than fabulous - problem solved. I would love for someone with expertise to tell me that the freelander is actually one of the best in its class. Then I could stop talking and start driving. Once I learn how to drive a 4wd of course (all though the freelander looks pretty idiot proof - I know, I know, don't say it!)


Q:


If your so concerned about the environment why are you looking at a brand new car? Do you realize the amount of energy used and pollution created in producing a new vehicle? Carbon neutral my ass.

If you are serious about being "Green" go buy yourself a SWB series Landrover fitted with a 2.25l diesel fitted. They are a part time 4wd, can be run on biodiesel and doesn't use much due to it being as light as anything, it is slow, can be built up from recycled parts (reducing landfill in the process)

A pristine one costs 1/10th of the drive away price on a new Freelander so you could use the extra coin to donate to save the environment.

I am not having a go just stating some facts.

[Junosi]

Give the guy a break. There's nothing wrong with trying to make an eco-friendly choice when purchasing a new vehicle. Saying 'why don't you buy a used whatever...' is irrelevant for many reasons - safety, warranty, comfort, ease of use etc etc. I mean that argument could go on forever until someone suggests we all get back to using bicycles or even walking for the ultimate in thinking green.

All that aside and assuming you are going to be buying a new vehicle - its a good idea to be taking its enviromental impact into account versus its competitors I feel - which I believe was Danj's original intent.

[vnx205]

I don't have a problem with Danj or anyone else wanting to make and environmentally responsible decision when buying a vehicle or any other item.

I have difficulty though, accepting that a single factor such as the presence or absence of a particulate filter would dictate whether one vehicle is more environmentally friendly than another.

In the real world things are rarely as simple as that. It is entirely possible that a vehicle that rates lower on diesel particulates might have more items that are disposed of more frequently when the vehicle is serviced.

It is possible that the plastic used in one vehicle produces more toxic nasties than another if the vehicle happens to burst into flames.

It is far too easy to pick just one obvious factor and ignore a whole lot of others that might not get the same publicity.

You may well be right, but it a rare thing that you can just pick one factor and use that as the entire basis of a decision.

[isuzurover]

Dobbo, while I would like to think my IIA was better for the environment than a newer car, you should read what I posted which proves you wrong unfortunately.



I would call the freelander a huge gas guzzling 4wd because it is a 4wd. Ergo it is huge (in comparison to the Kia Rio), and gas guzzling (in comparison to the Kia Rio). I accept that from an environmental platform, some 4wd's are better than others, but surely a 4wd is always going to be bigger, more powerful, and hence less fuel efficent than a smaller car.


Danj, to compare your Kia Rio against a TD4e freelander 2.
- Your Kia uses MORE fuel (0.1 L/100 more on a combined basis)
- The FL2 is only 0.3 m wider and 0.5 m longer than your kia.

A couple of points to note:

Australia has generally very good air quality, which is why the government hasn't been in a rush to spec diesel exhaust filters. Diesel exhaust filters will actually make your fuel economy slightly worse, as the engine has to work against the back pressure of the filter.

As I posted before, I don't know of a single passenger diesel vehicle (or petrol for that matter) currently available in Australia that comes with an exhaust filter.

Interestingly, diesel soot has a global cooling effect when in the atmosphere.

[dobbo]

Dobbo, while I would like to think my IIA was better for the environment than a newer car, you should read what I posted which proves you wrong unfortunately.

.


In all honesty I cannot see how? Your series was built over 40 years ago, it may not have been the most environmentally friendly car to produce, or run over them 40 years but take into consideration all of the 2nd hand parts used, how many owners it has serviced over the years, lack of A/C, ecu's, plastics in it's production has it really used less energy or resources than a new car. The average new car buyer will buy a brand new car, use it as a tax dodge for 3 - 5 years then buy a new model? Taking into consideration the cleaner manufacturing and running processes the FL2 would only become greener than your SIIA if it was to last at least 15yrs with the same owner. Personally I could not see this happening.

[Scouse]

Dobbo, while I would like to think my IIA was better for the environment than a newer car, you should read what I posted which proves you wrong unfortunately.It proves jack.

I'm not going to enter into an internet research war but it's like everything else that can be discussed. There are 2 sides to every argument.

[isuzurover]

In all honesty I cannot see how? Your series was built over 40 years ago, it may not have been the most environmentally friendly car to produce, or run over them 40 years but take into consideration all of the 2nd hand parts used, how many owners it has serviced over the years, lack of A/C, ecu's, plastics in it's production has it really used less energy or resources than a new car. The average new car buyer will buy a brand new car, use it as a tax dodge for 3 - 5 years then buy a new model? Taking into consideration the cleaner manufacturing and running processes the FL2 would only become greener than your SIIA if it was to last at least 15yrs with the same owner. Personally I could not see this happening.

I can't see how the length of time with the same owner comes into it? Most/all studies just use average vehicle lifespan - irrespective of owner. IRC the average vehicle lifespan in the US is around 13 years. In Australia it would be higher.

I actually think manufacturing methods may have been more efficient for older vehicles. They were built mainly by hand, and if you go back far enough they had wooden frames for the body shell.


It proves jack.

I'm not going to enter into an internet research war but it's like everything else that can be discussed. There are 2 sides to every argument.

I am sorry you feel that way. This is not an "Internet Research War" this is a topic I am quite interested in, and if you could prove to me that I am doing the right thing for the environment by driving my 1968 SIIA I would be very happy. But so far you have posted a single unsupported comment then taken your bat and ball and gone home. Sure there are 2 sides to every argument, but I am yet to hear one from you???

I once had a discussion with the air quality adviser to the Californian government who was responsible for their program to buy back old cars many years ago. I was advocating just what you and Dobbo are - he was dismissive and said that "people who cannot afford to buy a new car would not maintain their old car properly, so they would be worse for the environment"

[HBWC]

Q:


If your so concerned about the environment why are you looking at a brand new car? Do you realize the amount of energy used and pollution created in producing a new vehicle? Carbon neutral my ass.

If you are serious about being "Green" go buy yourself a SWB series Landrover fitted with a 2.25l diesel fitted. They are a part time 4wd, can be run on biodiesel and doesn't use much due to it being as light as anything, it is slow, can be built up from recycled parts (reducing landfill in the process)

A pristine one costs 1/10th of the drive away price on a new Freelander so you could use the extra coin to donate to save the environment.

I am not having a go just stating some facts.

car'nt run them on bio to much as the injectior pump dies from it
but if you installed a 200tdi you'll be fine

[BigJon]

BigJon, in answer to your questions.

Firstly, I don't know much about cars. I drive a Kia Rio, which I think speaks for itself. I am here looking for advice from those who are more knowledgeable about these matters than I am. But opinions - I've got lots of those!

I am comparing the freelander to other cars as reviewed at drive.com (BMW/Audi/Volvo) and the RACV best cars (VW/Subaru/Renault/Nissan/etc). I don't know if this is correct or not.

I would call the freelander a huge gas guzzling 4wd because it is a 4wd. Ergo it is huge (in comparison to the Kia Rio), and gas guzzling (in comparison to the Kia Rio). I accept that from an environmental platform, some 4wd's are better than others, but surely a 4wd is always going to be bigger, more powerful, and hence less fuel efficent than a smaller car.

I am basing my opinion that the freelander is behind its competitors on the information provided by the dog and lemon guide and the green vehicle guide. If these are flawed than fabulous - problem solved. I would love for someone with expertise to tell me that the freelander is actually one of the best in its class. Then I could stop talking and start driving. Once I learn how to drive a 4wd of course (all though the freelander looks pretty idiot proof - I know, I know, don't say it!)


Thanks for your response. I don't want to seem likme I am having a go, I am just trying to understand and therefore help.

If you look at some of the other posts there is a lot of well reasoned argument.

I would like to add that realistically the other cars you have mentioned are not really direct competitors. As I see it, Freelander 2 is a stand alone rather than competitor.

It is superior offroad to all mentioned and a lot more luxurious (and expensive) than some you have mentioned.

It has also been noted that they are very good on fuel, so in no way could they be called gas guzzlers.

I commend you for doing some research over and above believing the anti 4wd hype that is often bandied around by people with no real knowledge, and worse, no desire to educate themselves.

[Danj]

Danj, to compare your Kia Rio against a TD4e freelander 2.
- Your Kia uses MORE fuel (0.1 L/100 more on a combined basis)
- The FL2 is only 0.3 m wider and 0.5 m longer than your kia.

Not looking at the TD4e, just a straight TD4.

And while the measurements may be similar, surely you can appreciate that the 4wd is a much bigger car than a hatchback. And I'm getting rid of it (anyone want one - going cheap).

It is likely that as much as anything my problem is psychological. I have a real issue with the proliferation of 4wds that are bought to do no more than the grocery shopping and the school run. If I had my way, I would legislate that you could only buy a 4wd if you were to use it for its intended purpose (going off road, towing a caravan, boat, etc). The fact that I am considering buying a 4wd is something I am struggling with. I love camping and being in the bush but the poor little rio just isn't cutting it. So what to do????

Many similiar cars (e.g. VW Tiguan) are fitted with a particulate filter and because of this comply with euro 5 standard, rather than euro 4.

I agree that it is not particularly sensible to make a decision based on one component. However it seems that this is the one difference between the freelander 2 and other cars (which don't shape up in other areas).

So what is the verdict? Is the freelander 2 a car with enough environmental cred to allow me to commune with nature with a relatively clear conscience? As I have previously said, I know nothing about cars and get a different answer depending on who I talk with.

Over to you....

[Danj]

Thanks BigJon,

I appreciate your understanding.

I realise that I am coming across as a total doofus.

My freelander is on hold, the dealer is getting angsty and I don't know what to do.

And yes I have to get this particular car as it is the right colour. See..girly girl!

[Danj]

Okay, I think I may have it sorted.

Apparently the particulate matter (that's soot to you and I) is entrapped in the particulate filter. When the filter is full of soot, it is burned off at high temperature and released into the atmosphere as CO2.

So choose your poison.

Diesel has health implications. CO2 has environmental implications.

Me, I'm buying a Freelander 2 (I think). And taking shorter showers!

[B92 8NW]

I have a real issue with the proliferation of 4wds that are bought to do no more than the grocery shopping and the school run. If I had my way, I would legislate that you could only buy a 4wd if you were to use it for its intended purpose (going off road, towing a caravan, boat, etc). The fact that I am considering buying a 4wd is something I am struggling with. I love camping and being in the bush but the poor little rio just isn't cutting it. So what to do????



I personally see no point in buying a 4wd for doing no more than the grocery and school run, though I don't have an issue with it per se. (I don't care what people waste money on:D). If I had no requirement for a 4wd I'd certainly not be spending money on a 4wd to drive around town when there are better handling vehicles about - I often wonder if the soccer mums et cetera in their "around town" Prados and Pajeros have any comprehension of the sacrifice that they have made over a well built european saloon car for example.

I think you'll find immense satisfaction in a 4wd if you like getting outdoors as you mention. Not long ago I was considering getting rid of my Land Rover(s) but I quickly came to realise that no other 2wd vehicle is going to give me the escape that a 4wd can give. Sure, it gets used 80% of the time around town, but it's more practical than having two cars and the other 20% makes it all worth the while.

[isuzurover]

Diesel [soot] has health implications. CO2 has environmental implications.


That is a reasonable assessment, however diesel soot also has environmental implications (albeit some +ve and some -ve).

Why not the TD4e??? Having the engine shut down when not needed will have a greater environmental benefit in australia than a soot filter.

I agree that people shouldn't be able to own a 4x4 unless they can justify a need/use for it. Both of ours get used on a regular basis for their intended purpose, and most days we commute to worrk on mountain bikes.

However, that said, If people who buy 4x4s need to justify their need - people who buy 6.5L V8 HSV commodores should as well - They are much worse offenders - wonder what justification they would have?

[Scouse]

I was advocating just what you and Dobbo are - he was dismissive and said that "people who cannot afford to buy a new car would not maintain their old car properly, so they would be worse for the environment"What on earth does that prove?
I could go out & pay cash for a Supercharged Sport if I wanted to but I have no interest in current cars.
My cars range in age from 13 to 61 years old & they are all perfectly maintained.

Heck, I ride a 34 yo Peugeot bicycle to & from work 3 days a week - maybe I should buy a new bike just in case there's too many emissions from this one.

I barely have time to keep up with the happenings on AULRO, let alone chase around "quotes" to post here.
I base my answers on what I read in magazines. They have done the research & present their findings & it all seems reasonable & logical to me.

[dobbo]

I could go out & pay cash for a Supercharged Sport if I wanted to but I have no interest in current cars.



My birthday is coming up Scottie:D



I am in between, I don't maintain my vehicles as much as Scouse but dependent on my work location and shift I ride my MTB and train it to work, getting exercise and fun money at the same time. My wifes horses have higher running costs per kilometre and would produce more greenhouse gasses than my County in an average week.


Taking into consideration that poly-carbonates don't naturally grow on trees and the amount used in most new "greener" cars is horrendous. I cannot see how a classic car can not be more environmentally friendly.

[Danj]

Why not the TD4e??? Having the engine shut down when not needed will have a greater environmental benefit in australia than a soot filter.

However, that said, If people who buy 4x4s need to justify their need - people who buy 6.5L V8 HSV commodores should as well - They are much worse offenders - wonder what justification they would have?

Not getting the TD4e as I have always driven manuals. In my middle age it is time to kick back and take it easy. Must admit to being at a bit of a loss though. During test drive my left hand around was waving around as if possessed.

You make a good point about commodores. If we got started we could probably clear the roads.

[Junosi]

If you're planning on using a Freelander offroad much you're probably better off with an auto anyways, as it makes up for the lack of a low range gearbox somewhat.

[Jof]

Just to jump on the gas guzzling 4WD bandwagon, the diesel versions of Freelander2, Grand Vitara and X-trail all offer brilliant economy.

I just drove a 2YO Nissan Tiida (aweful thing on the hwy) Ararat - Melbourne -Ararat, and averaged 7.8L/100km (Auto, but still disappointing) then returned in my '99 diesel FL1, got stuck in traffic in Melb but still got 7L/100km.

So a new TD4 FL2 is going to be much more economical and smaller than a VE Commodore, or even a 4cyl Camry.

[tempestv8]

Hi all,

I am thinking of purchasing a 2010 freelander 2.

This car comes fitted with a diesel particulate filter as standard in the UK.

A particulate filter is not avaialble in Australia, even as an option.



According to this website, a 2011 Freelander II in Australia comes with a DPF:

Southern Land Rover Freelander 2 2011 (http://www.southernlandrover.com.au/contents/new-car-search/land-rover-freelander-2-2011.htm?id=50)

So one would think that a 2010 FL II in Australia would be similarly equipped.