Thread: Particulate Filter

Originally Posted by dobbo

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.

Originally Posted by Scouse

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"

Originally Posted by dobbo

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

Originally Posted by 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!)

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, 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....

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!

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!

Originally Posted by Danj

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). 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.

Originally Posted by Danj

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?