Crown

Board: Porsche - 911 - 997 Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Facelift and congestion charge

    Any chance the facelift will produce less than the 225g of CO2 per KM, making it exempt from the Pounds25 congestion charge proposed for London? Or should I take the fact that Porsche is challenging London on this new rule as a sign that it will not? I notice the Boxster and Cayman currently produce 227g of CO2 per KM.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Not a hope in hell. If there was a chance, then you'd see all but the Cayenne and 911 Turbo fall under the 225g/km limit and Porsche would not be wasting the legal fees to challenge that [beep] in the courts.

    For what its worth, I believe that the standard manual Boxter 2.7 is actually rated at 222g/km which makes it eligible for the Pounds8 charge.

    The only answer is to do what I have which is buy a daily driver which is under the limit. I was looking at a Smart FourTwo which will be free if this lunacy is allowed, but its sooooooooo dreadful.

    I think I'll stick to paying Pounds8 a day and drive something bearable. I'm looking at the new BMW 1 series convertible.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    The 3.6 997 is rated at 266g/km. Assuming direct injection results into a 10% saving, it's still 240g/m2, i.e. above the thereshold.
    But there's a rumor the displacement might drop back to 3.4L, in which case the car might barely make the cut.

    The current 2.7 987 makes the cut right now. The facelifted 987 S definitely will as well (254g/m2-10%).

    Moreover, with the torque converter getting replaced with DSG, the Tiptronic version would no longer be at a disadvantage.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Porsche aren't stupid - they know that even if they could get their cars under the 225 figure Communist Ken would just change the 225 figure as he pleases...

    It's just another money grabber and this greedy beast will do *anything* to rob us of our hard earned cash...

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Guys, the 225 g/km threshold is not the only way a car falls within the scope of the charge. I read that if the engine is larger than 3 litres in capacity then that's enough too.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Quote:
    easy_rider911 said:
    Guys, the 225 g/km threshold is not the only way a car falls within the scope of the charge. I read that if the engine is larger than 3 litres in capacity then that's enough too.



    Where will it end?

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge





    Where will it end?



    Everyone on electric motorcycles, that's where!

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    ...PLEASE; then a new tax would just be thought up!

    The CO2 'pollutant' insanity is just another bandwagon to squeeze more money out of us. When that goes away a new 'evil' will be named and taxed accordingly.

    It will only end when money no longer exists even as a concept.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Quote:
    Alex_ said:... The CO2 'pollutant' insanity is just another bandwagon to squeeze more money out of us. When that goes away a new 'evil' will be named and taxed accordingly....



    Of course it is. They must be mulling new taxes when they finally recognize that Global Warming is no more and that the new paradigm is Global Cooling.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    ...well the good news is that the latest betting has Boris as odds on favourite to win the election on 1st May to become London's new Mayor!

    ...and Boris has stated in his Transport manifesto that he would cancel the proposed increase and would conduct a public consultation to re-evaluate the Western Extension...

    Back-Boris_Transport-Manifesto_Link

    Also interesting to hear that the Mayor has been negotiating the terms of his golden parachute...

    Evening-Standard_Ken-In-Line-For-Pounds30k-Tax-Free_Link

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Boris!....Boris!....Boris!.....

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Sad to say, I am afraid it won't end. For some, it will never be enough, whether or not human activities really have a significant impact on earth's temperatures (yes, count me a skeptic as if one applies rigorous scientific tests the man-made global warming hypothesis can still be rejected and a very large number of scientists dispute the grossly simplistic results coming from climate models, where assumptions virtually guarantee the desired results) .

    If the warming of the earth is primarily due to more intense solar activity, then these folks will look foolish in the future, but don't expect them to relax any restrictions that have been implemented. They'll come up with another "justification" for such restrictions.

    Jim

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    I hate beating dead horses, but I feel compelled to correct your erroneous claims.

    Solar activity has remained stable ever since we've had reliable measuring devices (i.e. satellites first launched in the 1970s). At the same time, the rise in temperatures at most wheather stations accelerated. So, solar activity is definitely NOT to blame.

    Moreover, some gases have the odd ability to trap infrared radiation because of their tridimensional molecular structure. Carbon Dioxyde is one of those gases. That has been known since the 19th century. It's been precisely quantified and it is easily reproductible in a high-school physics lab.
    If you don't deny that burning coal, oil and natural gas produces CO2 as waste, if you don't deny that we are indeed burning a lot of coal, oil and natural gas, then you cannot deny human responsibility in global warming.
    That's the bottom line and you cannot get away from that.


    Now, the first question is: is the congestion charge an efficient way to fight against global warming?
    The second question is: is it cost-effective to fight global warming? Don't we have more urgent problems (e.g. running water and proper sanitation in the Third World)?
    And the third question is: is global warming a bad thing at all?

    To which I answer: NO.


    (by the way, the most likely culprit of the acceleration of global warming in the last 30 years is... emission controls! Because we've done a lot to remove soot and aerosols - which has a cooling impact, as they reflect away incoming solar radiation - from exhaust gases since the late 1960s.)

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Yup, agree with all of the above

    Global Dimming is certainly masking the Global Warming issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

    I for one would like a climate like the south of Spain here in the UK, so more warming please. Although by the time that happens we will all be under Draconian rule and will be taxed each time we leave our houses.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Interesting blog:

    Quote:

    Cut CO2 Emissions by 4% - Stop Breathing!
    by matt @ 8:14 pm. Blogged under Science & Technology, Living and Dying

    When we breath we produce Carbon Dioxide (CO2), the more exercise we do the more we produce, so I thought I'd investigate how much CO2 could be saved if everybody in the world breathed half as much for a year. Al Gore has been having the same thoughts too: "We breathe out carbon dioxide, and this in turn causes global warming. I'm going to start holding my breath for two minutes, thirty times per day, in order to combat global warming. I would suggest everyone follow my lead and hold your breath every day. It will prevent the earth from being destroyed." By my own calculations if we all breathed half as frequently we could reduce CO2 emissions by over 1 billion tonnes per year - or around 4% of total global output (25 billion tonnes).

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a waste product made when the body breaks down food for energy (metabolism). The kidneys and lungs regulate the levels of carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonic acid in the blood. Blood carries carbon dioxide to the lungs, where it is breathed out. According to a study by the USDA, an average person's respiration generates approximately 450 litres (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day. I calculate this to be 0.3285 tonnes per year per person. There are over 6.5 billion people in the world (6,557,136,735), which, if they breathed half as much (saving 0.16425 tonnes of CO2 per person per year) would save over one billion tonnes of CO2 (1,077,009,708).

    If we can slow down our metabolism we will breath less, there are several ways to do this:
    1) Exercise less; burn less sugar and eat less food (also indirectly reducing food transport emissions too - but making people a bit fatter and increasing passenger flight emissions). Stop playing badminton and football, start playing dominoes instead.
    2) Sleep more; when we sleep breathing slows, the heart rate also slows. Stages 1 and 2 are light sleep in which breathing is slower than when a person is awake. Stages 3 and 4 are called slow-wave (delta) sleep, in which the person's rate of breathing slows down further. During REM sleep, it is normal to have short episodes when breathing stops (apnea) - even better!
    3) Meditation; the Chinese may be taking a lot of flack for starting up one coal fired power station each week, but they do at least have the edge on the breathing front. Yogic breathing is slow, infrequent and environmentally friendly.
    4) Start a campaign for global non-breathing day - a day which we all spend sleeping in, doing no exercise and meditating. Who needs an economy anyway?




    I suggest we politely ask Ken and Darling to stop breathing all together!!!

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    I suggest UK guys sign this e-petition on the gov site:

    http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/greenstealth/

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Hmmm, OK I know I am going to be in a team of one here, but:

    a) we really do have a GW problem and we just have to accept that we are finally having an impact. Yes, annoying, unfortunate, but given the changes we have been making to the planet in some ways its surprising we didn't have to deal with this before. We just need to be a bit more thoughtful, particularly when we burn stuff - that's all.

    b) I don't mind the increase in C charge. The reason is because I don't think one needs a 997 in the centre of town during the week - a bit of a nightmare in my experience anyway - much prefer an autobahn anytime. Also it probably helps the health of Londoners (quite a bit from one study I saw), and it does provide an example that we should try and make a difference. Everyone that says it won't actually improve Global Warming is correct - it's a political statement - and as long as it helps keep all those Hummers out of the centre of town, I'm fine with that.

    So am I a leftist Ken supporter? No, but I enjoy winding up cabbies by pretending I am!

    SoS.

    Boris races ahead in mayor poll...

    Evening Standard: "Boris races ahead in mayor poll" (17-Mar-2008)

    Boris Johnson has soared ahead of Ken Livingstone in the race to be Mayor, an Evening Standard poll reveals. The most detailed survey yet puts the Tory candidate 12 points ahead, suggesting many Londoners feel it is time for change. The YouGov poll has Mr Johnson on 49 per cent, the Mayor on 37 per cent and Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick on 12.

    Mr Livingstone has been rocked by allegations of cronyism and corruption at City Hall and the London Development Agency leading to the resignation of key aide Lee Jasper.

    His attempts to fight back by discrediting Mr Johnson's transport plans and questioning his competence appear to have had limited impact so far. But polling experts believe the findings say more about the view that Mr Livingstone has over-stayed his welcome than they do about the success of Mr Johnson's efforts to rebrand himself as a serious politician. YouGov questioned a representative sample of 1,005 Londoners online between 12 and 14 March. A total of 17 per cent said they did not yet know who they would support, suggesting there was all to play for.

    Mr Livingstone's vote, according to YouGov, has fallen from 44 per cent in January to 39 per cent in February to 37 per cent. Mr Johnson's has gone from 40 per cent to 44 and 49 per cent today, while Mr Paddick went up from eight to 12 per cent but this month stayed static.

    The change can be explained by Labour voters deserting Mr Livingstone and by Londoners who have no clear political allegiance switching from the Mayor to Mr Johnson. The vote share of the minor parties was more squeezed than ever.

    In today's survey, Mr Johnson was particularly popular among women voters. He also picked up 53 per cent of the 18 to 24-year-olds, compared with Mr Livingstone's 41 per cent.

    He was also ahead of the Mayor among 25 to 34-year-olds and 35 to 44-year-olds and in the over-55s, where he got 53 per cent compared with Mr Livingstone's 29 per cent. The only age group in which the Mayor came ahead was 45 to 54-yearolds where he won 47 per cent to Mr Johnson's 38 per cent. Exactly 50 per cent of the ABC1 social group said they would vote for Mr Johnson, while 33 per cent backed Mr Livingstone and 14 per cent Mr Paddick.

    The Tory challenger could win the race on first preferences because he has a realistic chance of taking more than 50 per cent of the vote. If nobody achieves 50 per cent, the number of second preference votes are added. Mr Johnson got 20 per cent share of second preference votes to Mr Livingstone's 17 per cent.

    A spokesman for Mr Johnson welcomed "these encouraging results," adding: "There is still a long way to go, however."

    A spokesman for the Mayor said: "If the agenda of the election shifts to the key issues for London then Ken will win."

    Evening-Standard_Boris-leads-Mayor-Opinion-Poll_link

    Re: Boris races ahead in mayor poll...

    Interesting - thanks. I quite like Boris - I think he is smarter than he looks and might actually do a good job...

    Paddick just hasn't got enough presence and is too inexperienced to run London, and it may be true that Ken has had his day.

    SoS.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Groom,

    To assure that my response is relevant, and not off-topic, let me cite (and I admit that it is a paraphrase) Herr Dr. Wiedeking, who recently (within the last year) talked about how the global warming rules that the EU wanted to adopt would destroy (I admit to paraphrasing his words) the German auto industry, and I must say that I think (to quote Shakespeare) that he "hit the nail on the head." Certainly, he has a vested interest in keeping Porsche a healthy and viable firm, but I do not believe he would have said what he did if he didn't have strong evidence to support his contention. Certainly, he is no fool. Maybe he has changed his views since then, as politics will have an outcome on how Porsche operates - that is, what types of cars it builds, how much money it makes, and whether it will survive.

    That said, I would only add, with all due respect for your views on the matter, that real science - not politicized science - is based upon skepticism, that is, constantly subjecting current thinking to hard scientific tests. Science is not based upon consensus views.

    Sincerely,

    Jim

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Jim,

    Mr Wiedeking's statement is factual. Yes, limiting manufacturers to 120 g of CO2 per km (fleet average) might destroy the German car industry. But that statement is not about Global Warming. It's about competitors pushing unfair legislation, using GW as a pretext.

    I think you should read that statement again. Mr Wiedeking denies neither the reality of global warming, nor our responsibility in that matter. He merely thinks that the 120 g/km thing and the London congestion charge are stupid. I happen to agree.


    Quote:
    Jim48 said:
    real science - not politicized science - is based upon skepticism, that is, constantly subjecting current thinking to hard scientific tests. Science is not based upon consensus views.



    I definitely agree. But extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary proof.

    For instance, the theory that increased solar brightness is responsible for the recent increase in the average atmospheric temperature is unsupported by solar brightness data in the first place.

    People who keep mentioning that old canard make the Greenpeace crowd appear credible in comparison. That's the last thing we need.

    Re: Facelift and congestion charge

    Dear Groom,

    This is off-topic but I hope to deal with it in a polite and respectful manner to all those who believe I am incorrect. I have seen other interpretations of global temperature studies that indicate there has been no significant change, but even if there has been a warming, the real question is what caused it.

    While I disagree with you on this topic (and I believe the genesis of the restriction on emissions to 120 g of CO2 per km is based upon the theory that human activity causes global warming), I certainly respect your view. I would also suggest that any serious restrictions (such as the 120 g per km of CO2 restriction on fleet averages) would not affect the earth's average temperature (the view that serious restrictions on human activity would not have a significant impact on the global average temperature was stated in the UN IPCC's statement, elsewise numerous credible scientists would never let the IPCC get away with making the strong statements made in that document), then to me the whole agenda is political, and not scientific. I cannot speculate as to the motives of anyone who believes that the evidence demands that the human race take a severe step back in its' standard of living for a speculative, at best, hypothesis, one that has not withstood numerous rigorous tests (the only real way to prove a scientific principle or fact).

    As I said in an earlier message, science is based upon skepticism, not consensus. That skepticism is based upon numerous strict scientific tests, not the results of speculative models or political statments. If scientists cannot reject, in strict numerous scientific tests, the hypothesis that human activity causes global warming, then that hypothesis will prevail. What has disturbed me thus far is the frantic smearing of skeptical scientists who reject, for various scientific reasons as a result of questions they have raised and tests they have conducted, the human-caused global warming hypothesis. I would certainly not include you in this category, as you raise your concerns in a very polite and gentlemanly manner, which is what any true scientist, or individual who understands the scientific method, does.

    I would suggest that we wait before forcing any draconian environmental actions upon those in developed as well as economically developing/advancing countries. In my opinion, the evidence presented thus far for human activity causing global warming is still speculative and not yet firm enough to warrant severe restrictions on human activities. In other words, I think we need a lot more evidence - that is, many more strict scientific tests on the question.

    Regards, and the greatest respect to you for the polite way in which you have responded to my messages,

    Jim

    Porsche wins judicial review of London C-Charge...

    Porsche AG - Press release

    Porsche wins its fight to prevent increase in the London congestion charge


    "Six-figure donation to youth charity after court victory"

    Stuttgart/London. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Stuttgart, and its sales subsidiary Porsche Cars Great Britain, won their fight against the increase in the London congestion charge. The signature of a consent order by an administrative court in London has finally swept the plans of the former Mayor, Ken Livingstone, to introduce an unfair and disproportionate daily charge of Pounds25 per driver in central London off the table. The agreement also included the award of legal costs. Porsche will donate these costs, expected to be a six-figure sum, to the British youth charity Skidz.

    Andy Goss, Managing Director of Porsche Cars Great Britain, said, "We were always confident that our legal case was right and that we would win in the end. The charge was clearly unfair and was actually going to increase emissions in London. Porsche is proud to have played a decisive role in striking down such a blatantly political tax increase targeting motorists."

    Porsche said at the outset that the proposed congestion charge would be bad for London. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London since the beginning of May, accepted that his predecessor's plans were wrong and quite possibly even unlawful. It is therefore a logical step for Porsche to give the legal costs awarded back to the people of London in the form of a charitable donation. The Skidz project trains at-risk young people as car mechanics and reintegrates them into society.

    GO

    7/7/2008

    Porsche-AG_Press-Release_07-07-2008_Link



     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 4/17/24 7:16 AM
    GnilM
    763827 1798
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 4/7/24 11:48 AM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    436167 565
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Cayman GT4 RS (2021) 5/12/23 12:11 PM
    W8MM
    260895 288
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Porsche 911 (992) GT3 RS - 2022 3/12/24 8:28 AM
    DJM48
    257857 323
    Porsche Sticky The new Macan: the first all-electric SUV from Porsche 1/30/24 9:18 AM
    RCA
    82579 45
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Taycan 2024 Facelift 3/15/24 1:23 PM
    CGX car nut
    5325 50
    Porsche The moment I've been waiting for... 2/1/24 7:01 PM
    Pilot
     
     
     
     
     
    876581 1364
    Porsche 992 GT3 7/23/23 7:01 PM
    Grant
    808522 3868
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 2/10/24 4:43 PM
    nberry
    387807 1526
    Porsche GT4RS 4/17/24 8:53 PM
    GaussM
    385823 1452
    Others Tesla 2 the new thread 12/13/23 2:48 PM
    CGX car nut
    368871 2401
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 7/3/23 12:30 PM
    Porker
    366739 797
    Ferrari Ferrari 812 Superfast 4/21/23 8:09 AM
    the-missile
    289853 550
    Porsche Red Nipples 991.2 GT3 Touring on tour 4/11/24 12:32 PM
    Ferdie
    286498 668
    Porsche Collected my 997 GTS today 10/19/23 7:06 PM
    CGX car nut
     
     
     
     
     
    259237 812
    Lambo Huracán EVO STO 7/30/23 6:59 PM
    mcdelaug
    237576 346
    Lotus Lotus Emira 6/25/23 2:53 PM
    Enmanuel
    225605 101
    Others Corvette C8 10/16/23 3:24 PM
    Enmanuel
    220130 488
    Others Gordon Murray - T.50 11/22/23 10:27 AM
    mcdelaug
    167120 387
    Porsche Back to basics - 996 GT3 RS 6/11/23 5:13 PM
    CGX car nut
    139065 144
    BMW M 2024 BMW M3 CS Official Now 12/29/23 9:04 AM
    RCA
    115808 303
    Motor Sp. 2023 Formula One 12/19/23 5:38 AM
    WhoopsyM
    107643 685
    Others Valkyrie final design? 4/28/23 2:45 AM
    Rossi
    99343 219
    Porsche 2022 992 Safari Model 3/7/24 4:22 PM
    WhoopsyM
    83653 239
    AMG Mercedes-Benz W124 500E aka Porsche typ 2758 2/23/24 10:03 PM
    blueflame
    74908 297
    Porsche 992 GT3 RS 3/3/24 7:22 PM
    WhoopsyM
    53229 314
    Motor Sp. Porsche 963 3/16/24 9:27 PM
    WhoopsyM
    24726 237
    Ferrari Ferrari 296 GTB (830PS, Hybrid V6) 1/21/24 4:29 PM
    GT-Boy
    20963 103
    BMW M 2022 BMW M5 CS 4/8/24 1:43 PM
    Ferdie
    19235 140
    AMG G63 sold out 9/15/23 7:38 PM
    Nico997
    16471 120
    129 items found, displaying 1 to 30.