Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looking at the limitations imposed by State speed limits, I still find it hard to justify motor vehicle engines exceeding 2,5/3.0 liters which would certainly bring down the consumption of gas and valuable resources which are being burned up daily.
Many vehicles on the road today with engines smaller than 3.0 liters amply provide sufficient power, acceleration, comfort and all the bells and whistles of cars normally considered to be of superior categories/bigger engines, meet with safety requirements and because they are considerably lighter do less damage to the communications infrastructure that provides less taxpayer money on road maintenance.
While I know I will be shouted down by the power hungry 0-60's in 3 seconds types, I do believe that a more practical approach should be sought by the Administration and auto manufacturers to support smaller engine use.
Those wishing to have larger cc's/horsepower and etc could either be subject to the following:
For those buying vehicles in excess of 3.0 liters-
a: For fun; - subject to a slight tax increase
b: For work/farm/business vehicles: having justification would not
require additional taxation
c: Collectors: Taxed in Collectors license
d: Government/service vehicles: Not taxed
How does one feel about a proposal or lobbying in the administration for a general reduction in the size of engines for the sedan/wagon/smaller sports car /SUV categories for a real change in fuel conservation measures for the future?
My reasons for suggesting this are that I see so many high cc engines that really have no justification (i.e. the high school kid with the "cool" 5,7 liter V8 that he drives 2 miles to school in and his main use is for weekend "fun" time) that could be amply performed by a very much cooler looking 1,8 liter engine......would be a lot faster in many cases if he is looking for that little extra....
I would appreciate any comments or opinions......
You've got to be kidding to expect car happy Americans to follow this idea!
The ral probelm is that in fact charity makes government efficancy look excellent;ask bill gates;clinton and buffet. Lokig at governamnts effects on automaibles what you see is what has driven up the cost on vehciles like no other to include so called idot proof features. Its the Nanny efect of governamnt. Its like those proposing that we demand more mialeage than can be enginerred ;it leads to compauter controlled gas pedals; and more non-engine run assecories. It leads to methnol in gasoline that gets less gallons from a barrel of crude tha other additives and less mileage. It becomes a political football for special interest to feed on rahter than effcient development.Most of all its lead to a cost in vehciels that far out sweep any benefit to the public welfare and leads to more mistuned;oil burning clunkers on the raodway that many experts say contribute 90% of the pollution from automobiles.No governamnt ineffeciency is no thig like charity spending in either its cost to the nation or damage to the economy.
I don't feel the least bit guilty about driving an 'inefficient' vehicle. I'll drive whatever I want to drive as long as I can afford it. It's my business, not yours.
The sad thing is that politicians think just like this.... Somehow displacement magically equates to fuel economy. There are thousands of other factors aside from final displacement that contribute to the fuel economy of a vehicle. If anything this ridiculous idea should be based on vehicle mass.
So ignoring fact of matter how could you possibly rationalize this as a possibility in the US? This harebrained idea just sounds like typical amateur armchair environmentalist garbage. No fact, no critical thought, no study, no consideration of civil rights... just cavalier blurted out nonsense with warm and fuzzy intentions. Fail.
Word.
My 2003 F150 has a 4.2L v6 that still can get ~24 MPGs on the highway hauling way more than any of those Euro econoboxes can AND is ULEV rated...in other words, it can do way more than a 1990 3 cylinder Geo Metro AND runs CLEANER, to boot.
There is just no rational comparison between European and US driving needs and habits. Euros live on top of each other, have skinny streets, and squeeze like sardines into smaller houses. We're not Germany with 82 million people crammed into a piece of land the size of Montana! I've got to make a round-tripping this weekend from Houston to Tallahassee hauling some scooters and other gear back here for a diabetic dad and his ladyfriend...no matter how people try to paint it up, a Smart Fortwo isn't the cure-all for everything. Get over it, folks.
Children are getting airway deceases at an alarming rate and people are getting sick a lot more because of the local pollution inner city and close to cities. Driving more efficient, more frugal cars with ample functionality, will severely cut the pollution levels in inner city environments.
I seriously doubt this. Car emissions are so clean any more that in many cities the air coming out the tailpipe of a late-model car is actually cleaner than the air getting sucked through the intake. We're already well along the flattened portion of the diminishing returns curve for what we can do to reduce emissions from passenger cars. Trucks and buses may be another story, but the EPA has recently made diesel emissions requirements much more stringent, so that should start paying off dividends in a few years. But in the meantime, every dollar someone wants society to spend on making extremely clean cars even cleaner would provide much, much greater yields if it were spent dealing with emissions from coal-fired power plants.
My 2003 F150 has a 4.2L v6 that still can get ~24 MPGs on the highway hauling way more than any of those Euro econoboxes can AND is ULEV rated...in other words, it can do way more than a 1990 3 cylinder Geo Metro AND runs CLEANER, to boot.
There is just no rational comparison between European and US driving needs and habits. Euros live on top of each other, have skinny streets, and squeeze like sardines into smaller houses. We're not Germany with 82 million people crammed into a piece of land the size of Montana! I've got to make a round-tripping this weekend from Houston to Tallahassee hauling some scooters and other gear back here for a diabetic dad and his ladyfriend...no matter how people try to paint it up, a Smart Fortwo isn't the cure-all for everything. Get over it, folks.
You should seriously consider updating... well actually just get some knowledge on the subject, if you think the Smart ForTwo is what Europeans drive to haul things, you're sorely mistaken, hell you rarely see them around at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
I seriously doubt this. Car emissions are so clean any more that in many cities the air coming out the tailpipe of a late-model car is actually cleaner than the air getting sucked through the intake. We're already well along the flattened portion of the diminishing returns curve for what we can do to reduce emissions from passenger cars. Trucks and buses may be another story, but the EPA has recently made diesel emissions requirements much more stringent, so that should start paying off dividends in a few years. But in the meantime, every dollar someone wants society to spend on making extremely clean cars even cleaner would provide much, much greater yields if it were spent dealing with emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Quote:
Carbon monoxide exhaust, diesel fumes, and soot also impact asthma. "Atlanta is a notoriously congested city," Swartz says. "But during the 1996 Olympics there was a large reduction in traffic. There was also a reduction in hospitalizations [from asthma]." The study concluded that the reduction in traffic created a reduction in ozone pollution, which in turn reduced the number of acute asthma attacks.
Additionally, a British study published June 2003 in the journal The Lancet says children may be at increased risk of severe asthma attacks if exposed to nitrogen dioxide air pollution (such as that found in vehicle exhaust and gas grills) before they suffer a viral infection from a cold of flu.
Asthma rates vary across the country. Studies have shown that people of low-income, minorities, and children living in inner cities have higher rates of asthma. Besides urban areas, asthma is higher in areas that have large farming operations. "Major farming operations have a lot of truck and equipment traffic going on. These vehicles put out tremendous amounts of diesel," Swartz says. "The higher levels of pesticides, higher levels of diesel—we see some startlingly high asthma rates."
LOS ANGELES (Sept. 20) -Living near a freeway may mean more than the annoying rumble of cars and trucks: For children, it brings an increased risk of asthma, according to researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.
That said, who's suggesting an either or situation? With increased revenue from car purchases or car use, you'd free up money to clean up industrial pollution as well.
You should seriously consider updating... well actually just get some knowledge on the subject, if you think the Smart ForTwo is what Europeans drive to haul things, you're sorely mistaken, hell you rarely see them around at all.
That said, who's suggesting an either or situation? With increased revenue from car purchases or car use, you'd free up money to clean up industrial pollution as well.
Your reference is babyzone.com?
Aside from that, all of their findings were done experimentally only. X amount of toxic fumes in the air with Y amount of people in the hospital at the time.
You want to see some pollution to really worry about? http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3392849,00.html (broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
