and off topic about enrgy efficiency

Former Member

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4039359.stm

interesting article

the energy saving lightbulbs, produce more mercury, but thats about it really as thyre enrgy efficient, but one thing is replacing them - air conditioning, huge WASTE of fuel considering some places in summer just elave it on full whack, when that isnt even that nice

Former Member

you know i'm begining to think theres no point cos the big guys just aint listening.
a new landrover sport has just been released ...v8 engine!
why in gods name are such engines still being produced for family cars?

Former Member

because they're still fun to drive. I can't deny I love driving a car with a PHAT engine, it's enourmous fun.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
because they're still fun to drive. I can't deny I love driving a car with a PHAT engine, it's enourmous fun.

see what i mean!

Former Member

i like to hit things and unleash my anger, dont mean i like to hit people

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
i like to hit things and unleash my anger, dont mean i like to hit people

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo

i knew YOU'D like it!

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
because they're still fun to drive. I can't deny I love driving a car with a PHAT engine, it's enourmous fun.

That's fine. So long as people who are prepared to buy such pointless cars are also prepared to pay, say, 5 times the road tax other people use and not protest about it...

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
pointless

Hardly. Cars don't just take you from A to B you know.

Former Member

A car with a disproportionate engine that is used for commutting in flat, well maintained roads or for city use is indeed pointless.

If people insist in buying over-powered, high-pollution vehicles when they don't need them they should made to pay for the privilege.

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
If people insist in buying over-powered, high-pollution vehicles when they don't need them they should made to pay for the privilege.

I agree but on environmental grounds, not because their cars are "pointless". Driving is a hobby as well as a chore for many people and long may that continue.

Former Member

I didn't mean having a car on principle was pointless. I was referring to cars with oversized, overpowered, gas-guzzling irresponsibly big engines that serve only the purpose of massaging its owner's ego. They should size down, or pay the price for their selfishness.

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
I didn't mean having a car on principle was pointless. I was referring to cars with oversized, overpowered, gas-guzzling irresponsibly big engines that serve only the purpose of massaging its owner's ego. They should size down, or pay the price for their selfishness.

And I agree they should pay but disagree that big engined cars are pointless or have the sole purpose of "massaging its owner's ego".

Do you drive?

Former Member

Yes, a small Polo with a 1.2 engine.

And if I lived in the countryside or had high-load requirements I'd be happy to own a high-powered car.

Perhaps I should make it more clear: the law should difference those who have a genuine need for a high-powered car from those who don't.

For instance, those who spend most if not all of their time in a city or big town, and choose to use a 4 x 4 or similar high powered car that was not designed for such use, should indeed attract extra charges.

But I hear what you're saying, and those who have genuine use and needs for a 4 x 4 shouldn't be penalised for it.

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
genuine need

I should clarify too: Chelsea tractors are pointless if used to ferry the kids to school, and do the shopping at Waitrose.

But then what is a genuine need? I want to get a motorbike when I grow up. I'd want a car too so one would be "pointless" but I'd have the bike just for the pleasure of riding it and no better reason than that. I can sympathise with people who have sports cars or powerful cars because its fun to drive them.

Former Member

Well no, it actually makes a lot of sense to have both a bike and a car. I commute on a 50cc scooter and also use it for short trips where no luggage or bags are carried. And for longer distances/holidays/trips etc I use the car.

As for the luxury cars used for pleasure etc, I'm not suggesting that they get banned. But the environmental cost cannot be denied or ignored, and I think it is only fair that their owners are made to pay extra. It's not as if they could not afford it anyway.

Former Member

I think we just about agree then.

And there is a differential in the road tax already, but I guess it should be stricter. The trouble is that it gets harsh on people who bought their cars before the tax was introduced. A slowly increasing tax differential over 10 years would be OK.

Former Member

i have just aquired a ten yr old 4x4 wich has a 2.3 litre diesel engine.
it pulls a trailer with 2 ton of soil easily.
the other day i touched a 100 mph just to see what the thing can do ...it had plenty left to go even faster ...it got to that speed quite rapidly.
so ...why would i need a v8 petrol engine again?
it realy is silly in this day and age.
in fact it's selfish.

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
just to see what the thing can do
so ...why would i need a v8 petrol engine again?

You've answered your own question. You took the Frontera to 100 just for the fun of it. You don't need a V8 in a 4x4 but I can understand someone's desire to have a V8. Driving one is fun.

And your 10 year old diesel is probably as inefficient as a modern V8 anyway...

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish

And your 10 year old diesel is probably as inefficient as a modern V8 anyway...

possibly but i doubt it.
but ...the manufacturers shouldn't be producing new motors that behave like a second hand ten year old motor.
theres not enough oil already ...we are supposed to be changing our habits for the sake of the environment ...that thing we live in and depend on.
it strikes me as highly irresponsible.

Former Member

We should take more care of the environment, I agree. But in the grand scheme of things cars are not big polluters.

Tax them, sure, but ring fence the money for investment in alternatives I say.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
We should take more care of the environment, I agree. But in the grand scheme of things cars are not big polluters.

Tax them, sure, but ring fence the money for investment in alternatives I say.

in total, cars probably more than most other causes together, probably more than industry and electricity generation

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
in total, cars probably more than most other causes together, probably more than industry and electricity generation

And compared to volcanoes on CO2?

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
And compared to volcanoes on CO2?

erm probably not as much but volcanic activy over long periods of time is about the same

the worlds average temperature rising by more than twice last centuries, is surely a worrying sign considering volcanic activity has been about constant

even if you were right, we're making the situation worse, ie smog in LA is that bad you cant see the hollywood sign from half the town due to smog

see personally i think we should just be efficient with oil simply due to the fact it supplies us with most of the chemicals we use etc etc

passing the blame onto nature is just saying "oh we aint doing nothing wrong"

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
erm probably not as much but volcanic activy over long periods of time is about the same

the worlds average temperature rising by more than twice last centuries, is surely a worrying sign considering volcanic activity has been about constant

Some say we're still coming out of the last ice age.

Yeah smog's bad. Cars are polluting and smelly and dangerous, but I wouldn't be without mine. We need cleaner alternatives to the petrol engine no doubt.

Former Member

did you know that the first deisel engine was run on cannabis bio deisel?
and for the first thirty years of deisel engine use?
why ...because they hadn't managed to create diesel from oil/petrol and hemp plants are the easiest and most efficient for production of bio fuel and other oils.

Former Member

No I didn't know that.

But I did a project in the sixth form on biodiesel from oil seed rape (comparing it to other oils) and made a right mess of the lab. It burnt well, so maybe biodiesel is the way forward. (I still have some of the leftovers in the shed at home actually - do you want to test it out for me in yours?)

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
erm probably not as much but volcanic activy over long periods of time is about the same

I can't be arsed to look it up now, but I did a thread on this a few weeks back, there's some information there about the relative impacts. They're not about the same.

Also the planet does go in cycles, we're just coming out of what's been called a mini-ice-age, we can expect some heating up.