Found out today that 4.0 literally is ulez compliant yet 4.6 isn't So how's that then Should mean 4.0 will be worth more --- as far as p38s go anyway

TfL's data is incorrect. According to them, a post 2000 4.0 litre P38 is ULEZ compliant but a 4.6 isn't. However, the CO2 figures for them are near identical (385 and 398 g/km) and they are both Euro 2 emissions class so neither should be compliant as a petrol car needs to be Euro 4 or higher. For the time being it is a loophole due to their data being wrong but for how long it will remain that way is anyone's guess.

If and it's a big if Everyone in the country didn't pay it and carried on regardless ulez wouldn't exist I blame COVID
99.9% of the population did what government wanted without questions So then they realised they could do more or less whatever they want and population will put up with it .
Funny about the loophole though

You could say that about any law tbh.

ULEZ isn’t concerned with CO2, the only relevant metric for petrol cars is meeting Euro 4 levels of NOx emissions (0.080g/km or less) - hence why the Thor 4.0s are compliant at 0.051g/km.

Where did you find that info from? The VCA vehicle checker (https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx) doesn't show NOx figures for either. If a 4.0 litre is that much below the threshold I would have thought a 4.6 might be slightly higher but not by a huge amount.

If it is NOx they are concerned about, a car running on LPG should be compliant too.....

Richard: 'Unfortunately' (ie deliberately) TfL have simply focused on Euro 4 and Euro 6 for ULEZ purposes:
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ways-to-meet-the-standard

As we know it is not really about clean/er air though, it is about revenue generation for TfL. Over the last year or so NO2 levels in the Expanded (Greater London) ULEZ have reduced by a few percent... and as the experts predicted - but that reduction has been happening for years anyway. To put this in further perspective the last time ULEZ was expanded (out to the North/South Circ.) Khan claimed it resulted in NOx reduction that was 'transformational' - and 45% - whereas when it was measured (independently) it was less than 4%......and there are many similar examples of such PR B/S from Khan/TfL of course too !

PS: As mentioned above NO2 levels have been steadily reducing for decades regardless of ULEZ, but again that does not prevent Khan/Tfl from taking credit for it - or trying to - obviously !
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics/ntrogen-dioxide

Dave, I'm well aware it is about raising an income but it is where they get their information from that intrigues me. Anything that is Euro 4 onwards will have the NOx figures shown on the V5(C), the DVLA data and the VCA website but as a P38 is Euro 2 it isn't shown. So, if Philip has said, it is based on NOx levels, where from or who have produced the figures?

I know the TfL database is often wrong. A former neighbour of mine bought one of the last Rover 75 Estates, brand new, in 2005 but had a personal plate put on it from new. In that case, DVLA issue it with a standard age related plate and transfer the personal plate onto it prior to registration so there is a previous plate to put on it when/if the personal plate is taken off. Putting that personal plate into the TfL checker and it correctly identified the car as a 2005, Rover 75, CDTi, fuel type diesel, Euro 2 but then said it was compliant which it clearly isn't. Last year the personal plate was taken off because the car was going to be sold and it was allocated the original age related plate. Put that into the TfL checker and it said it was a 2005, Rover 75, CDTi, fuel type diesel, Euro 2 so non-compliant. Make sense of that Mr Khan......

In the absence of full Euro 4 compliance, TfL will accept NOx emissions info supplied by a manufacturer in the form of a Certificate of Compliance. Seems to have been quite a popular thing - eg lots of non-Euro 4 petrol BMWs are compliant.

The TfL database is still flawed - their information is taken from the DVLA, but with their own updates and amendments.

Re LPG conversions (and engine swaps, cars with added emissions equipment etc) - when there’s no manufacturer emissions data, the only option is to complete a full rolling road emissions test somewhere accredited by the Vehicle Certification Agency. I’m not aware of anyone having done it on an individual basis, because it’s going to be very expensive; there are recognised retrofit schemes which have been approved - eg for Puma Defenders, but the conversions are not cheap. In TfL’s wisdom, motorbikes can be individually exempted after a rolling road test at an accredited garage.

Well Richard the most obvious answer to the question as to where they 'get their information from' is that (far) too often they don't get it from anywhere (in particular) as it is just 'manipulated/fabricated to suit' ! (And that does not mean just 'transforming' 4% to 45% as I mentioned above either...). Some of their 'misrepresentations' are quite 'subtle' too, such as them quoting a NO2 drop as "up to 4.4%" and then dropping the "up to" in the subsequent 'sound byte' Press Release headlines.."Job done" and all c/o of his City Hall £10m/year PR B/S machine !!
There are many such examples and again it is not a mathematical 'misunderstanding'... it is also down to issues like this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66570024 ... and/or TfL paying Imperial College £800K for a favourable report and they claming it was 'peer reviewed' by the Author (only) ! And asking them for their detailed workings out (calculations) is complete a waste of time: Stonewalling !!

So overall it is best not to expect facts and/or anything like consistency or accuracy in any of the TfL deliberations.....

PS: Quiz Time !! (although probably wasted on here as we folks understand ICEs)

I have asked many now "how much less Pollution - 'on average' - a ULEZ-Compliant car
produces as compared to a Non-compliant one"

Hmmmmm..... 'easy enough' but lots of 'interesting' answers emerge for sure;
(Just that City Hall £10m/year PR B/S machine at work again of course... )

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ANSWER to the Quiz above (?): The compliant cars only produce about half the pollution of the (next band) non-compliant cars
It is both entertaining and revealling to ask folks about all this as, thanks to the PR B/S, there are often clear perceptions that
1) Compliant cars produce 'very little pollution' (!)
2) (Typically) "Non-Compliant cars produce maybe 10 times the pollution of Compliant ones ?" (!!)

"WORKINGS OUT"

ULEZ Minimum emissions standards; For Petrol: Euro 4 (NOx) and for Diesel: Euro 6 (NOx and PM)
ACCORDINGLY:--

PETROL ..........................................
Euro 3 emission limits (petrol)
CO – 2.3 g/km
HC – 0.20 g/km
NOx - 0.15
PM – no limit

Euro 4 emission limits (petrol)
CO – 1.0 g/km
HC – 0.10 g/km
NOx – 0.08
PM – no limit
..........................................

So for the key 'indicator' here - NOx, the limit/level drops from 0.15 to 0.08
.
.
.
.

DIESEL..............................................
Euro 5 emission limits (diesel)
CO – 0.50 g/km
HC+ NOx – 0.23 g/km
NOx – 0.18 g/km
PM – 0.005 g/km
PM – 6.0x10 ^11/km

Euro 6 emission limits (diesel)
CO – 0.50 g/km
HC+ NOx – 0.17 g/km
NOx – 0.08 g/km
PM – 0.005 g/km
PM – 6.0x10 ^11/km
.........................................................................................

So for the key 'indicator' here - NOx -the limit/level drops from 0.18 to 0.08 (g/km) - and for HC + NOx 0.23 to 0.17 (g/km)

Yes, ULEZ is clearly a simple money raiser. On the current criteria, running costs were expected to exceed income by 2026, so I’m sure we’ve got more to look forward to.

Philip: Yes, Pay-Per-Mile (just for London) has been mooted but Khan denys it so it is most probably on the cards (?)

Not sure if you are also in London and/or if you have seen the ULEZ 'JACOBS' Report (from way back in May 2022..) ?
[JACOBS, reknown experts in the (air pollution) field, produced the 'ULEZ Impact Assessment' had produced predictions that the ULEZ Expansion would only make minor (NO2) or negligible (PM) effects: However the report was leaked from TfL.. and Khan's response was simply to further exaggerate the claims of ULEZ benefits - and so aded the Climate Change Emergency as a key ULEZ issue too... ]