 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Enough of the 2.2 slagging!! |
 
|
|
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018   
|
and breathe...
 |
||
25th Oct 2013 3:03pm |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317  
|
Supacat, don't tell me to argue your points, first, why don't you try to make a point.
Is it for example your point that 1- deliberately immobilising a perfectly functional vehicle is a GOOD thing? 2- farmers should have vehicles which require long drives along the highway to keep them from from becoming clogged up and immobilised? How many farms have you dodged whilst traveling along the motorway lately? You still have not explained how immobilising a vehicle will help reduce particulates in the environment. There is no legislation which requires the vehicle to become immobilised, that is the whole point of the argument, which is "why introduce this dummass technology onto the vehicle in the first place?" ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
25th Oct 2013 4:08pm |
|
| diesel_jim Member Since: 13 Oct 2008 Location: hiding Posts: 6093 
|
I bet if any particular vehicle had something that failed on it (ooh, i don't know, say a cooling system for example) and the driver kept driving on and on and on and eventually the engine siezed, resulting in a new on being needed at vast expense, then I wonder how long it would be for someone to say "hmmm... a safety feature that prevented this from happening could be good"
be it a temperature guage, or in the case of the DPF, stops the engine to prevent damage. |
||
|
25th Oct 2013 4:18pm |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
But diesel_jim,
1- the vehicle will run perfectly without a dpf, even better in fact, and 2- a broken dpf will never cause any damage to the vehicle so your argument that a vehicle NEEEDS to be immobilised when the dpf becomes faulty as safety measure is ridiculous. How will a faulty dpf cause "seizure" Sure, if the radiator blew, or an oil pump, water pump etc, sure, your argument holds some weight, but a DPF? I mean seriously, who would say "hmmm.... a safety feature that prevented this from happening could be good" if the dpf is as about as essential to the vehicle as a bull bar ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
25th Oct 2013 4:28pm |
|
| diesel_jim Member Since: 13 Oct 2008 Location: hiding Posts: 6093
|
I don't know, (and i'm not arguing so stop saying that), maybe you should take it up with LR, seeing as they designed the vehicle with this in built feature.
I certainly didn't say it NEEDED it, but someone at LR ovbiously knows more than we all do. |
||
|
25th Oct 2013 5:17pm |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11324
|
Isn't the issue here that the vehicle was never intended for that use in that environment? Proper ROW vehicles aren't fitted with a DPF as they are neither required nor appropriate. The fault is with whoever allowed it to be used rather than LR, who are required to comply with the relevant laws of the places that their vehicles are sold into. Darren
110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
25th Oct 2013 5:40pm |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
"...are required to comply with the relevant laws of the places that their vehicles are sold into..."
You're right actually, and that is part of the problem. Not too long ago one European country passed laws requiring certain people to wear little yellow stars on their lapels too. I wonder how many Defender owners would pin little yellow stars to their lapels if Brussels passed a law requiring all Defender owners to do so? The traffic of escapees from socialism used to flow from East to West and it seems quite noteworthy that the flow of traffic has reversed of late. I wonder whether Brussels is not one of the reasons for this change of traffic flow? -
What has happened to you guys down there in Europe lately? Standards really do seem to have slipped a lot. ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
25th Oct 2013 6:07pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
Invoking Godwin's Law - I'm now convinced you are a troll
 |
||
|
26th Oct 2013 8:05am |
|
| diesel_jim Member Since: 13 Oct 2008 Location: hiding Posts: 6093
|
|
||
|
26th Oct 2013 8:58am |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
Foiled!!!  ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
26th Oct 2013 10:21am |
|
| def_fid Member Since: 07 Mar 2011 Location: worcestershire Posts: 17 
|
Unfortunately, after 30 years direct involvement with air quality, I can assure everyone that inhaling carbon particles is not good for you. In the USA it has been found that anyone living within 200 yards of a freeway is at massively increased risk of cardio-pulmonary disease in their later years, and anyone with cardio-pulmonary diseases is at increased risk of premature death.
HOWEVER!! By far the greatest contributor of carbon particles is rubber based tyres.1000's of Tons of carbon black are added to tyres for purely cosmetic purposes, it is debatable whether pm2.5 carbon from small diesels contribute as much to the general open air pollution as is claimed by pressure groups. DPF's are no substitute for technical advances in fuel economy, traffic congestion relief and efficient energy storage. Oil Central heating systems are orders of magnitude worse than small diesels, and in the home, carbon from frying, fires, barbecues and candles contribute greater risk because exposure time is longer. DPF's are a political stop-gap and are used because it is easier to legislate than more effective alternatives. BTW I think 2.2 defenders have a regeneration programme built into the ECU therefore are not as susceptible to low mileage use. I love my 2.2, but I'll never sell my 300tdi!  |
||
|
29th Oct 2013 9:51am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17419 
|
Not related to the 2.2 Defender, but apropos the creeping trend of unnecessary technology into vehicles, it is interesting to note the growing problems that emergency and recovery services are having with vehicles such as the RR with electronic handbrakes. When the vehicle fails with the handbrake applied, it seems that it is not easy to release it to move the vehicle. Only last week there was one completely blocking the entrance to a local school, with the AA man in attendance clearly unable to do anything to move the vehicle. Chaos!
I don't have such a vehicle, and I don't know what is involved in releasing the handbrake on a disabled one, but it seems very hard to think of any convincing reason to fit one in the first place. Our European masters, it seems to me, are becoming increasingly detached from reality and legislating simply because they can. It is all rather depressing really. |
||
|
29th Oct 2013 10:15am |
|
| familymad Member Since: 13 Dec 2011 Location: Bucks Posts: 3481  
|
Agree wholeheartedly,
My father owned an S type jag from new. Electronic handbrake. One fine day last year while at 60mph, the battery was sensed to be 'low'. The car applied its fail safe in case of low battery and parked on a hill. HANDBRAKE APPLIED. That ended with them not knowing why they were facing the wrong way on an A road after a large bang and screeching noise was heard. Could have been killed. Needless to say they bought a Fiat Panda as they still fit handbrakes. 1951 80" S1 2.0 1995 110 300TDI 1995 90 300TDI |
||
|
29th Oct 2013 12:31pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
