| Author |
Message |
Spezialist
Banned
Joined: July 01, 2005
Posts: 1941
|
 Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Why can't you use a Super Beetle F.I. system? that stuff is cheap and plentiful used. Your tank would have to be modified a bit and you could use the exhaust from the same engine.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mstatedog
Samba Member
Joined: January 11, 2003
Posts: 242
Location: East Coast of Mississippi
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| you could run your car off of biodiesel...but that would make more people eat french fries and make my health insurance go up...so I guess we would all lose anyway... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vedauwoo
Samba Member
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: 188
Location: Boulder, Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The best thing you can do to reduce your "carbon footprint" is to never fly.....simply put, a one way voyage on a jet eats up your entire allowance for a year. That is to say, there are plenty of other things you can change in your lifestyle that will have more of an effect than worrying about your VW, which gets better gas milage than many "new" cars do.
I love my 1967 Ford F-250, that gets 15-17 MPG.....beating brand new Ford of the sam class by 3 to 4 MPG.....and people give ME dirty looks while they drive to the airport for their 16th flight this year! lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Spalding
Samba Member
Joined: February 19, 2005
Posts: 2519
Location: . . . in denial.
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vedauwoo wrote: |
| . . . I love my 1967 Ford F-250, that gets 15-17 MPG.....beating brand new Ford of the sam class by 3 to 4 MPG. |
I think the difference in the carbon footprint of one vehicle over another is negligible in the grand scheme of things, and that if one is worried about their carbon footprint the better option is to drive less. That said, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that your '67 F-250 had more carbon emissions/mile than the newer truck with the lesser mpg, because the newer truck has a catalytic converter and all the other emissions equipment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bciesq
Samba Member
Joined: April 13, 2005
Posts: 495
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Spalding wrote: |
| Vedauwoo wrote: |
| . . . I love my 1967 Ford F-250, that gets 15-17 MPG.....beating brand new Ford of the sam class by 3 to 4 MPG. |
I think the difference in the carbon footprint of one vehicle over another is negligible in the grand scheme of things, and that if one is worried about their carbon footprint the better option is to drive less. That said, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that your '67 F-250 had more carbon emissions/mile than the newer truck with the lesser mpg, because the newer truck has a catalytic converter and all the other emissions equipment. |
I see people using the phrase "carbon footprint" in connection with catalytic converters and I am reminded of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
My understanding of "carbon footprint" is that it "refers to the amount of carbon dioxide — a potent greenhouse gas — that is given off by an organisation or an individual burning fossil fuels." See http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-car1.htm
The catalytic converter on newer vehicles targets following gases:
| Quote: |
Carbon monoxide (CO) - a poisonous gas that is colorless and odorless
Hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - produced mostly from unburned fuel that evaporates. Sunlight breaks these down to form oxidants, which react with oxides of nitrogen to cause ground level ozone (O3), a major component of smog.
Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, together called NOx) - contributes to smog and acid rain, and also causes irritation to human mucus membranes |
See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm
Carbon dioxide *isn't* one of the gases that is reduced by a catalytic converter. In fact, the oxidation catalyst actually takes carbon monoxide and bonds it oxygen forming *additional* carbon dioxide. See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm
Beyond that, modern engine management that places a premium on heating up the cat as soon as possible can lower gas mileage (and therefore raise carbon dioxide emissions) even more.
Now, I'm not saying the catalytic converters are bad, but I think that it's important for people to understand the distinction between reducing smog and reducing greenhouse gases, i.e., the carbon footprint. Since I live in an area where smog isn't much of a problem, and since greenhouse emissions for cars are more or less directly correlated with gas mileage, perhaps driving my old car that gets around 25 mpg in mixed driving isn't something that I should be ashamed of.
Sorry if this came off as an unprovoked rant, but I had a heated debate with a co-worker who drives a Toyota "Pious" and I guess I am still a little sensitive on the subject.
_________________
'73 Thing -- making 45 mph exciting again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Spalding
Samba Member
Joined: February 19, 2005
Posts: 2519
Location: . . . in denial.
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
That may be, but I think it can be useful in discussion to think of cars in terms of a carbon footprint, i.e. the amount of carbon emissions created by that car in all of its life cycles, from manufacture, through use, to recycling/scrapping. As far as the catalytic converter not reducing C02, I stand corrected.
| Quote: |
| Sorry if this came off as an unprovoked rant, but I had a heated debate with a co-worker who drives a Toyota "Pious" and I guess I am still a little sensitive on the subject. |
Living in Los Angeles, I must endure that crap all day long. As fodder for any similar encounters you might have in the future, have a look at the article HERE.
A snippet:
| Quote: |
Spinella spent two years on the most comprehensive study to date – dubbed "Dust to Dust" -- collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a car from the initial conception to scrappage. He even included in the study such minutia as plant-to-dealer fuel costs of each vehicle, employee driving distances, and electricity usage per pound of material. All this data was then boiled down to an "energy cost per mile" figure for each car.
Comparing this data, the study concludes that overall hybrids cost more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. But even more surprising, smaller hybrids' energy costs are greater than many large, non-hybrid SUVs. . .
. . . Spinella's finding that a Hummer on the whole consumes less energy than a hybrid, than even some smaller hybrids, and non-hybrids has infuriated environmentalists. And on its face it does seem implausible that a gas-guzzling monster like a Hummer that employs several times more raw material than a little Prius' could be so much less energy-intensive. But by and large the dust-to-dust energy costs in Spinella's study correlate with the fanciness of the car – not its size or fuel economy [emphasis mine] . . .
. . . One of the most perverse things about U.S. consumers buying hybrids is that while this might reduce air pollution in their own cities, they increase pollution – and energy consumption -- in Japan and other Asian countries where these cars are predominantly manufactured. "In effect, they are exporting pollution and energy consumption," Spinella says. |
What could be less fancy than a Thing? Drive your Things, everyone. Be proud, and tell those Pious drivers to pound sand!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Epperson
Samba Member
Joined: January 12, 2005
Posts: 2262
Location: Alameda, CA
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Spalding wrote: |
| As fodder for any similar encounters you might have in the future, have a look at the article HERE. |
I'm very interested in such reports, Captain. My wife and I are just starting discussion on which new (to us) car to buy. However, that Dust to Dust report is a bit smelly.
- A scientific study done my a market research firm? eh?
- On their "about us" page, they clearly say "Clients include major automobile manufacturers." Though the report does say they wanted to do it without outside funding or any bias.
- The report also says, "perhaps in time we'll release our data in technical terms." So, this report is not backed up. We have to take it on face value. It has been, however, trumpeted on several websites that seem friendly to the oil industry. In a report this complex, you can hide anything in the details.
Since the report goes into detail such as how workers get to and from the plant (train? car? what kind of car?) one way to fix it is to fix how to get the workers around.
The report also looks into the the cost of changing tooling for new designs and the impact the designs have on mechanics and other systems. It includes the cost of design, and the cost of getting those designers to work everyday. Looking at it that way, ANY new design looks bad. If hybrids were the norm, older gas engines would be more expensive in this category.
It looks at vehicle life, then modifies it by demographics and how likely that demographic is likely to get in an accident, then adjusts for that. So, if you drive your car longer than the average "life", you've blown the curve. If you're less likely to get in an accident, you've blown the curve. But then the report has broad labels for individual cars - in the report "Mustang" is a single model, but a 2003 Mustang is a far different beast than a 1967 Mustang. The report doesn't say if it's averaging or using data on new cars.
Here's a graph from the report:
This is the clincher for me. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics and this is a classic case. So, this graph looks like hybrid cars are only good for gas mileage, but horrible everywhere else. But look closer. It's a graph comparing the percentage of energy used in each stage of a cars life - percentage of what?!? Well, if you add up all the blue numbers, you get 100% - this is showing how each stage compares to the overall life of the car. So really, the blue line and red line don't relate to each other. It's actually only saying that the hybrid uses less energy in fuel economy than other areas - well, duh! If both cars cost the same to build, sell, replace and recycle then the hybrid uses less energy by this chart. Interestingly, if you leave off the "non-recycle" column, all the hybrid numbers go lower (it is a percentage). Since all the colums except fuel economy and non-recycle have the exact same relationship, I would bet that the numbers behind the data are identical. A nice bar chart with the original numbers (NOT percentages) would be more accurate and a valid comparison.
This reminds me of the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) studies that Microsoft put out a few years ago. They said that yes, getting free software is cheaper initially, but if you look at ALL areas (installation, training, support, (cost of trainers, cost of support staff, cost of training the trainers, cost of supporting the supporters, etc etc)) then it isn't cheaper. What it ends up being is a report on how much it costs to change anything. If you want it to look worse, you simply go into more detail (cost of the miles traveled by the trainer's trainer's massouse). I saw once where someone did a similar report on the TCO of a coffee pot and made the joking arguement that you simply can't afford that new $10 pot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bciesq
Samba Member
Joined: April 13, 2005
Posts: 495
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
The devil is in the details. Money quote:
| Quote: |
| As for Hummers, Spinella explains, the life of these cars averaged across various models is over 300,000 miles. By contrast, Prius' life – according to Toyota's own numbers – is 100,000 miles. |
In other words, in order to make the Hummer appear economical, the author had to stretch it's life span out to three times that assumed for the Prius.
Don't get me wrong, I think the author has a point in that hybrids don't make much sense economically or environmentally (at least with current technology). But in order to make a sensationalist claim re: the Hummer vs. the Prius, I think he overreached a bit.
_________________
'73 Thing -- making 45 mph exciting again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Epperson
Samba Member
Joined: January 12, 2005
Posts: 2262
Location: Alameda, CA
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just noticed the same stat, bciesq. Note that in the PDF it says:
http://www.nvo.com/cnwmr/nss-folder/automotiveener...entary.pdf
| Quote: |
The Prius registered an energy-cost average of $3.25 per mile driven over its expected life span of 100,000 miles. Ironically, a Hummer, the brooding gian that has become the bete noir of the green movement, did much better, with an energy-cost average of $1.95 over its expected 300,000 miles.
|
Don't know if it's linear, but if it is then the Hummer would be at $5.85 for 100,000 miles! Note that referenced article leaves the mileage bit out to stretch the truth even further:
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml
| Reason.org wrote: |
| For instance, the dust-to-dust energy cost of the bunny-sized Honda Civic hybrid is $3.238 per mile. This is quite a bit more than the $1.949 per mile that the elephantine Hummer costs. The energy cots of SUVs such as the Tahoe, Escalade, and Navigator are similarly far less than the Civic hybrid. |
Looks like CNW is just a tool for the automotive industry. Poke around their website a bit, Art's got listed his new boat ("Electricity scares the tar out of me," he claims - is that why electric-hybrid cars are bad?) to shuttle the "staff" to the new island "conference room", his new '06 flamed Crown Victoria. Note that his "staff" only have 3 e-mail addresses - most of them are simply "mailroom" - not a real address.
Feh! Gonna stop reading this stuff now. It's just pissing me off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Towel Rail
Horizontally Opposed
Joined: April 15, 2005
Posts: 4622
Location: SE CR IA US NA PE
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Going back to the Pious, Jeremy Clarkson has a funny bit on them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdBVwwRgThU
(YouTube videos are permissible if they contribute to discussion rather than being pointless, right, Brian?  )
_________________
1974 Thing -- under the knife
1967 Beetle -- spring/summer/fall driver
1996 Subaru OBW (EJ22, 5-speed, AWD) -- winter car, 3-seasons "don't feel like biking today" car
049 > 070 > 053 > 009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Spalding
Samba Member
Joined: February 19, 2005
Posts: 2519
Location: . . . in denial.
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
C'mon guys. It's the 21st century. Bolstering one's ethical and intellectual position with hyperbole, sham arguments, and heavily massaged statistical data is de rigeur. Don't burst my bubble.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bciesq
Samba Member
Joined: April 13, 2005
Posts: 495
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Spalding wrote: |
| C'mon guys. It's the 21st century. Bolstering one's ethical and intellectual position with hyperbole, sham arguments, and heavily massaged statistical data is de rigeur. Don't burst my bubble. |
Sorry if I'm in a pedantic mood today -- it's not directed at you, Cap. The signal to noise ratio on this issue (and many others) is just too low for my tastes these days.
_________________
'73 Thing -- making 45 mph exciting again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Spalding
Samba Member
Joined: February 19, 2005
Posts: 2519
Location: . . . in denial.
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bciesq wrote: |
| Sorry if I'm in a pedantic mood today -- it's not directed at you, Cap. The signal to noise ratio on this issue (and many others) is just too low for my tastes these days. |
Thank you. I shall continue to describe my Thing as humble and efficient.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Epperson
Samba Member
Joined: January 12, 2005
Posts: 2262
Location: Alameda, CA
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bciesq wrote: |
| Captain Spalding wrote: |
| C'mon guys. It's the 21st century. Bolstering one's ethical and intellectual position with hyperbole, sham arguments, and heavily massaged statistical data is de rigeur. Don't burst my bubble. |
Sorry if I'm in a pedantic mood today -- it's not directed at you, Cap. The signal to noise ratio on this issue (and many others) is just too low for my tastes these days. |
x2 Bciesq. Didn't mean to get down on you Capt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Spalding
Samba Member
Joined: February 19, 2005
Posts: 2519
Location: . . . in denial.
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian Epperson wrote: |
| x2 Bciesq. Didn't mean to get down on you Capt. |
Nice to feel the love, but seriously I didn't feel bagged on. If I post something that's bogus, I want to be called on it. Gently. Heaven knows I'm ready to jump in when others make dubious claims. I'm all about - well, let's say mostly about facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
