Fuel prices

You make it sound so good. I'm surprised you don't quit your job and
join them. Actually, just putting aside your jealousy of people who
don't have an income from work for a moment, I'm talking about infant
mortality rates triple those of western countries, almost 20% of
children suffering from malnutrition, 1/3rd of the population without
adequate sanitation, 97% of the sewerage in the country going untreated
and 1/6th of the population without access to adequate drinking water.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

The reason this thread got onto diesel vs petrol was because Toosmoky
introduced the VW Golf turbo diesel which you then said had less
economically impact than a similar petrol model. Now you've shifted the
focus of your comparison to heavy transport vehicles? WTF? Paddling
with the current is more economical.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

I didn't shift my comparison to heavy transport vehicles.

I said that 'the intended use of most diesel vehicles is A to B
transport', and in fact I'd go further to say 'the intended use of
almost all vehicles is A to B transport'.

It is a small minority of people who care more about a cars
acceleration/top speed than they do about running costs.

You have (wrongly) assumed that because I mentioned the word transport I
was talking about heavy vehicles (I wasn't).

I still haven't seen anyone produce any figurers that show that the TCO
of similar petrol engined vehicels is less than that of diesel vehicles.

I'm quite happy to look at examples outside the BMW 320i/320d, MB
180CDi/200 and Golfs but nobody has raised those either.


G-S

 

I remember an old street machine column where they talked about a home
dyno whereby they hooked a torque wrench to one of the flywheel bolts,
and I (and they) know what you're thinking, and anyway how far it flung
the torque wrench was an indication of it's power at a given rpm.

Well they would, untill you take into account the gear ratios available
and the narrow rpm band they are able to be productively kept within.

I like it - I tend to look at it (not in isolation mind you) as a
measure of how effectively they are using the fuel and air. I know that
capacity and ve are still the heavyweights of the argument, but some do
manage a little better than others.


--
John McKenzie



admin@loopback
$LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost

$USER@localhost

 

Yep, specific torque (Nm / litre -- multiplied by the boost, if
applicable) is the one that tells you that.

It's not looking at torque (Nm per engine) in complete isolation
though.

 

well that says a lot about you then doesn't it
so why would you stay if it's a shithole full of bogan retards in VL/VNs

idiot

Kev

 

if it's so good why aren't more people doing it??
cause it's not as good as you may think
everyone I have ever known(exept for one) who was on a Govt payment
hated/hates it
and some initially liked the idea of going surfing every day, until he
was the only one left and ended up getting a job and then wondered why
he waited so long

because no matter what at the end of the day you have lots of spare time
but absolutely no money to do anything but sit and watch TV

and as for the one person(a couple actually) who likes it
they have 7 fucking kids and make more money than I do and have someone
to do their housework/babysitting for them
they are also losers

Kev

 

But 2.7Tonnes of landcruiser behind a heavy steel bullbar is much more
suited to that task


Kev

 

138 is only around 2.2L-2.3L isn't it

so less than 60hp for an engine that size sounds about rite for that ere


Kev

 

Only a true fuckwit would believe what they read in those "emails for
the braindead"

just learn to live with the fact that you will NEVER see $1.10/L again
nothing the public can do will ever change that and only those with no
understanding how the Oil industry works believe they can change it


Kev

 

Here's the original claim you're still trying to spin....

Which you've now reduced to just two comparative examples!

So how about you now provide us with the figures that support the
original claim... engine performance figures, and emissions from the
'green vehicle guide' ought do for starters. Here's the portal....
http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/gvgpublicui/Staticcontent/ratings.aspx
Or.... http://tinyurl.com/2p38e3

 

How about you do your own research!

I provided some examples that support my arguments, you've yet to
provide any that support yours.

Feeling lazy?


G-S

 

ewwww... not aus.pedestrian !



G-S

 

You are sounding just like your sig
a smack-head

 

It's your claim, not mine! But since you obviously haven't done
yours....

B180CDI (CVT) scores an Air Pollution Rating of 5 (with 10 being the
best possible score). B200 (CVT) scores 6.5.

Neither make the top fifty vehicles, though the B200 manual does (8.5
out of 10). No diesel gets a look in.

You provided absolutely nothing but a totally subjective opinion and
(eventually) examples you claim support it. The first one clearly
doesn't.

))

 

Of course
but the abusers will always be the losers
and even worse they usually end up resenting anyone who had a go and has
something to show for it



Kev

 

That is the air pollution rating though, not the total environmental
cost. Given that the average life expentency of diesel engined vehicles
is in excess of 50% greater than that of petrol engined vehicles the
TCEO drops significantly. Remember that the manufacturing emmissions
are a significant portion of the total emmisions and that being able to
keep and run a vehicle longer reduces that.

I never claimed that 'air pollution' was was I was discussing either

It supports my argument, not what you are now claiming my argument was.

Smiles are a good thing

G-S

 

NICE. Who said that ?
JL
Sounds like redgum

 

Of course not, but it reduces the incentives for them to do it - do you
have any idea what the fines are for corporations if they're actually
caught ? Ask Pratt, his hip pocket is a little lighter lately.

JL
(it's bloody hard to prove but by heavens they go you like a rabid dog
if they manage to prove it)

 

Dunno, Theo's telling that story, but I will bet a $100 they're cheaper
in 5 years time (in real terms) when someone is due to replace them than
they are today.

JL
2 reasons - one there will be aftermarket alternatives and 2 the
technology for batteries is going forward at an explosive rate