what truck
#93










Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,606

Replacement is still on the cards, though. It's now a question of 'er indoors prioritising the rather long list of projects she has in mind. She can have an extension on the back of the house, one on the front, a bathroom in the basement, a trip to New Orleans over Easter, a new car......
But not all of them FFS!!!
#94
The Beetle can handle drywall. Convertible.
A cop pulled alongside when I had some 16' deck boards sticking up out of it, that made me slightly nervous but all he said was "stick a sail on that and you can tack home".
You can get anything in a convertible.
A cop pulled alongside when I had some 16' deck boards sticking up out of it, that made me slightly nervous but all he said was "stick a sail on that and you can tack home".
You can get anything in a convertible.
#95










Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,606

You can get quite a lot in a Shitfire. The trick is to go to Home Depot very early and come home via the back streets. Particularly if you have most of a 20' ladder sticking out the back.
#96
That was one thing that concerned me, but in fact its not nearly as bad as you might think, and the kinds of emissions involved are relatively cleaner and far easier to control at the source, and in the big picture a car uses about 7 times as much energy in fuel over its lifetime than it takes to build, so with advances in car efficiency its certainly better to buy a new more efficient car than to hold onto a 8 or 10 year old one.
I cant imagine Toyota or Honda are making a lot of money on Hybrids, but you need to start somewhere. Personally I think hybrids are the wrong direction, if you look at European fuel efficiency figures, the hybrids are not the most efficient vehicles. That area seems dominated by small turbo diesels. I found the lack of a small diesel option on my recent car hunt rather frustrating. I guess it depends if you think the focus should be on emissions, or on CO2 alone.
Some of the BMW diesels are due to be heading this way shrtly apparently which can only be a good thing. We used to have a Pug 306TDi Sport in the UK and on one memorable long run through the highlands got an impressive 70mpg. The thing never got less than 55 mpg.
I still have issues with the big 3 not bringing over their European vehicles (except Opel now) if the Japs can do it why not? Ford Europe is the best performing part of the company, so Ford US make a crappy new Focus totally unlike the European one. When will they wake up and see that European stuff sells here?
#97
When will they wake up and see that European stuff sells here?
Honda, with the exception of the old Si have not brought straight euro models over either, and engine options are largely different. I suspect its just us expats who really care.
#98
Interesting stuff, so although 8 times more energy is used propelling the vehicle than in manufacture, manufacture actually releases twice as many toxins into the environment than the vehicles own emmisions over its entire lifetime (whatever that my be, 8-10 years?)
So if we're assuming C02 is a toxin the the latter half of the statement holds true. Correct?
The implicit message is that if you can replace your car with one that is more energy efficient, chances are high that you truly will be reducing your overall environmental impact. However, if you are a person who considers toxic releases more important than energy use, then it is wiser to hold on to your existing car, in order to avoid promoting the manufacture of a new one.
#99
Interesting stuff, so although 8 times more energy is used propelling the vehicle than in manufacture, manufacture actually releases twice as many toxins into the environment than the vehicles own emmisions over its entire lifetime (whatever that my be, 8-10 years?)
So if we're assuming C02 is a toxin the the latter half of the statement holds true. Correct?
So if we're assuming C02 is a toxin the the latter half of the statement holds true. Correct?
"Toxins are released in manufacturing" does not equal "toxins are released into the environment" in any case. Its a controlled (or largely controlled) situation.
As with power generation, its much easier to control things at a large central location and scrub and purify etc than it is to do at tens of thousands of smaller locations.
In that context I dont think CO2 is a toxin anyway? CO might be, but Im not sure about CO2. I think they were probably driving at Lead in batteries, Rubber in tires, Used engine oil etc?
Also as the footnote points out, the amount of toxins is largely irrelevent relative to the nature of the toxin. A small amount of the wrong stuff in the wrong place can have a much greater impact than a large amount of a less toxic material in a less devastating environment.
Besides, if we dont all do something about global warming emmisions very soon then we can make the world as toxic as we like because as a species we wont have a long term future anyway.
Last edited by iaink; Mar 11th 2008 at 7:35 am.
#100
I think it says more about how low the emmisions from a modern vehicle are now, rather than how dirty the manufacturing process is. Plus that study is getting on for 10 years old and in that time things like Hex Chrome and certain toxic flame retardants have been virtually eradicated under RoHS legislation.
"Toxins are released in manufacturing" does not equal "toxins are released into the environment" in any case. Its a controlled (or largely controlled) situation.
As with power generation, its much easier to control things at a large central location and scrub and purify etc than it is to do at tens of thousands of smaller locations.
In that context I dont think CO2 is a toxin anyway? CO might be, but Im not sure about CO2. I think they were probably driving at Lead in batteries, Rubber in tires, Used engine oil etc?
Also as the footnote points out, the amount of toxins is largely irrelevent relative to the nature of the toxin. A small amount of the wrong stuff in the wrong place can have a much greater impact than a large amount of a less toxic material in a less devastating environment.
Besides, if we dont all do something about global warming emmisions very soon then we can make the world as toxic as we like because as a species we wont have a long term future anyway.
"Toxins are released in manufacturing" does not equal "toxins are released into the environment" in any case. Its a controlled (or largely controlled) situation.
As with power generation, its much easier to control things at a large central location and scrub and purify etc than it is to do at tens of thousands of smaller locations.
In that context I dont think CO2 is a toxin anyway? CO might be, but Im not sure about CO2. I think they were probably driving at Lead in batteries, Rubber in tires, Used engine oil etc?
Also as the footnote points out, the amount of toxins is largely irrelevent relative to the nature of the toxin. A small amount of the wrong stuff in the wrong place can have a much greater impact than a large amount of a less toxic material in a less devastating environment.
Besides, if we dont all do something about global warming emmisions very soon then we can make the world as toxic as we like because as a species we wont have a long term future anyway.
Of course there is the train of thought that airbourne pollution other than greenhouse gasses could be beneficial in keeping the atmosphere cooler, also that a warmer climate could lengthen the growing seasons in countries like ours.
I think there'd have to be some very very drastic changes in the climate to eradicate man entirely from the face of the planet, we're pretty adaptable. What no-one seems to be talking about is the massive increase in population with Africa and Asia leading the charge, I feel this is more of a threat to food and water supply than climate change in the long term.
OK, back to the shop to continue building this V8 monster!
#101
V12 or a 3 cylinder gets you there just as quickly in the clogged roads we have here.
#102
On the same subject this is fairly interesting:
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/20...-to-death.html
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/20...-to-death.html
#103
.
#104
In all seriousness China and India through massive development will be the biggest threat to the environment by far and theres no stopping them
How's the Scimitar?
#105








Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,020

How do you know? Per capita, they're still way behind Canada. Basing it on the total output of the country is meaningless - that way Monaco would be the most environmentally-friendly place on Earth, despite all the luxury yachts and monstrous cars.





