Seldom see "smoke belchers" anymore * Why not?

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Nomen Nescio, Aug 14, 2005.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Pooh Bear Guest

    That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern
    vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing
    in their favour.

    Graham
     
    Pooh Bear, Nov 18, 2005
    #41
  2. Nomen Nescio

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Hi Graham...

    With all due respect let me refute that... vehicles certainly aren't
    becoming more efficient, quite the opposite. Ever since the mid to
    late 80's efficiency has been dropping.

    However, even if I could agree with you, how about the landfill
    situation? If we're trying to turn the entire continent into one
    massive dump - we're off to a pretty good start.

    Conspicous consumption. Let's use up all the world's natural resources
    today, and let future generations fend for themselves. If they can.

    Course I'm from the waste not want not generation, so...

    Take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Nov 18, 2005
    #42
  3. Nomen Nescio

    Guest Guest

    And a 1953? Hudson Hornet TwinH (7X?)with the road draft tube
    replaced with a PCV was reportedly able to pass proposed 1978
    emmission regulations in 1974 when all the manufacturers were crying
    it could not be done. 170 HP 308 cubic inch flathead six (7.2:1 CR?)
    with dual intake manifolds in a high state of tune.
     
    Guest, Nov 18, 2005
    #43
  4. Nomen Nescio

    Steve Guest

    Even if that were to be absolutely true, it doesn't account for the fact
    that 90% of new cars suck. They're soulless identity-less jellybeans
    with no "character" and with built-in obsolescence, or else they cost
    $40k or more. And a lot are all of the above.
     
    Steve, Nov 18, 2005
    #44
  5. You are guessing and assuming -- incorrectly. Your first error is in
    assuming that there's a fine, delicate balance between the resource
    consumption and emissions caused by the manufacture of a vehicle on the
    one hand, and the resource consumption and emissions caused by the
    operation of that vehicle on the other. If that were the case, then the
    fuel economy of the manufactured vehicle could possibly swing the balance.
    However, in fact, there is no such fine balance. The manufacture of the
    vehicle from raw materials is very much more energy-intensive and
    polluting than the operation of that vehicle over its lifetime. Such is
    the difference that the fuel economy and emissions characteristics of the
    vehicle are trivial in the calculation.

    Your second error is in assuming that fuel economy has been increasing
    lately. Remember, in the US, the overall on-road fleet fuel economy has
    been *decreasing* over the last two decades.

    DS
     
    Daniel J. Stern, Nov 18, 2005
    #45
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.