SMART CAR is the Solution

It might work as a city only car.

 

Great, get the better fuel in place first. It can clean up the existing
crop of gross polluting diesels.

It can't happen soon enough. I'm looking forward to the day when there
will be no diesel buses in NYC.

 

Nice theory, but not true either. You have to slash-and-burn a lot of
rainforest to produce enough corn to make biodiesel viable on a
worldwide scale, so I'd say its a net loss :-(

Yes, they do, and always will.

 

They both offer a lot of SUV models with different trim, but very few
unique SUV chassis, making the whole SUV line cheap and easy to build.
Especially since so much of the public truly doesn't seem to realize
that the H2 is just a tarted-up Yukon.

 

I agree, I was speaking from a North America-centric perspective.

nate

 

"Always" seems a bit strong. Amount of CO depends on degree of combustion.
Furthermore, I am not sure how stable CO is in the presence of O2 before it
oxidises to CO2. Any 'offers'?

DAS

 

Another US-centric view. Come on, guys, 99% of you in this NG might be in
the USA and this forum focuses on cars primarily bought in the US, but some
of the issues raised have a global angle and you must try to remember that
there is quite a big world out there, beyond the Pacific and the Atlantic...

;-)
DAS

 

There is? Are you sure?


Matt

 

How so?

The claim was that Ford and GM put "all their eggs" in the SUV basket.

My point was to show that this isn't true even if you JUST look at the
SUV market in the US. Worlwide, SUVs are an even *smaller* share of the
market, so its even less true.

 

Only as strong as "never"

True enough, but the very *best* internal combustion engines in the
world still produce measureable CO emissions. Burners that can avoid
having the flame region come into contact with cold metal that quenches
the flame can approach zero CO (boiler combustors, gas turbines of
certain designs, etc.) but you just can't avoid some degree of quench in
a recipricating internal combustion engine, Diesel or otherwise.

Not very stable... but potentially deadly while its around. Gasoline
engines with catalysts nowdays produce virtually no CO *after* the
catalyst, but there's still a lot there in the exhaust stream before the
catalyst.

 

From a US-centric perspective, it seems that the vast majority of
effort goes toward SUVs and very few new car lines are introduced each
year, if any. Hell, there aren't really *any* good US-made cars
anymore, unless you count some of Chrysler's specialty offerings, or the
Z06 'vette.

nate

 

In real-estate terms, possibly. In atmospheric terms, almost a perfect
circle. There will always be some losses, but the number can't be very
substantial.

I probably overstated with the term "never" but I am reasonably sure
that any CO emissions would be negligible. Remember how much air a
diesel can gulp, almost unrestricted.

--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

 

Point taken

But aren't we entering to split-hair territory with respect to todays
diesels?

--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

 

Sure. Now consider how much more air a diesel draws in relation to any
given amount of fuel sent into the cylinder, compared to a gasoline
engine which must maintain a precise ratio.

--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

 

Wouldn't that mean that with plenty of air any carbon has a better chance of
burning to completion?

Do you have the CO emission figures petrol v diesel (in a MODERN engine?

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

 

I have a 12,000 mile service interval and the petrol users have a 9,000 mile
service interval. I checked that before I bought the car. Yes I use more
oil in a change but I don't need new spark plugs or HT leads, no HT
electrics at all in fact.

 

I don't dispute it.

Thats what I said.

I don't know what engine sizes you can get in the states but here the
Cruiser comes as 2.0l petrol or 2.2 deisel. The torque from the deisel is
far greater than from the petrol making for better pulling ability. I can
accelerate from 50 mph to 70mph in 5th. The petrol driver would have to
change down or wait a couple of hours to catch up.

I stated it would not contribute to global warming, it will still polute but
there is no net gain to CO2 when using a biofuel. The plant absorbs C02 when
it grows and this is then released as the fuel is burnt. Fossil fuels
release CO2 which has been trapped in the ground for countless millenia

John

 

See below.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

FROM DAS: Following on from Opus, the point is that CO from diesel is --
ok, after the catalytic converter, if you like -- no worse than from petrol.
Indeed, I am sure I have read it is less. The only issue remaining is
particulates; these are already much lower than before and declining with
appropriate catalysts and filters.

The question I wonder about is what happens to all those catalytic
converters, whether for petrol or diesel....I know the precious metal can be
recycled, but what about the rest.

 

Your post looked to me like it was part of the line suggesting big
commitment to SUVs. Anyway, I wasn't referring entirely to you.

DAS

 

I read the figures a while ago but the numbers [and the name of the
publication] escape me. I will try searching the net.

--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.