Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
03-26-2008, 01:37 AM
#1
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 1,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
You know Challenger made the list as one of the meanest....
This guy knows where it's at and can articulate that.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...01/1149/AUTO01
[quote]Rex Roy: Car culture
Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
If I happen to hold an opinion that is politically correct, it's coincidence. For instance, I believe in personal responsibility, hate socialism, love God and recognize the general goodness of our country. My reluctance to embrace another PC view surfaced as I reviewed a new best/worst list of vehicles by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The selection criteria of this Washington, D.C., advisory group focuses on vehicular environmental impact as seen through the lens of global warming. That's another topic on which I'm definitely not PC.
Before the hate mail starts, let's get a couple of things straight: I'm in favor of health-related automotive emissions regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency spearheaded decades ago. Thanks to these mandates, today's cars are 95-99 percent cleaner-running than the average vehicle from 1967. Smog is bad. Clean air is good.
I also like driving an efficient car. My current daily driver is a small, fuel-sipping two-seater. The fact that I'm consuming less matters not a whit as experts on oil reserves know that the world isn't running out of oil within the next century. For me it's about conserving economic green.
No practical beliefs
But practical considerations aren't driving the ACEEE's list. It's driven by the belief that carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. automobiles are causing global warming. That belief is so wrong it's just painful to think about.
Advertisement
A 2007 report from the United Nations concluded that livestock produce far more C02 emissions than the world's entire transportation industry. So if man-made C02 (including that from farming/ranching) causes global warming, wouldn't becoming vegetarians save the planet faster than driving smaller cars? A new paper from researchers at The University of Chicago thinks so.
ACEEE director Therese Langer explained that the "Greenest" and "Meanest" Vehicles for the Environment for 2008 were developed to help consumers make good choices when it comes to purchasing a vehicle that is less damaging to the environment.
The ACEEE's picks can be found at www.GreenerCars.org. Not surprisingly, their "Greenest" cars are tiny vehicles with even tinier engines. Hybrids make the cut, too. Their "Meanest" list includes full-size trucks and SUVs, but is dominated by high-performance low-volume models such as the 250-mph Bugatti Veyron and Bentley Azure -- cars that emit fewer harmful emissions in 5,500 miles of driving than painting a room in your home with a gallon of water-based latex paint.
What truly worries me about this cabal is that organizations like ACEEE help drive environmental policy. Support for such policies often gain strength by identifying and demonizing a convenient enemy. In this case, vehicles that use more fuel are dangerous to the Earth.
Say goodbye to V-8 engines
The PC/global warming tsunami is already restricting future automotive product development. General Motors Corp. recently killed a new V-8 engine program, citing imminent C02 emissions regulations. Other examples are legion.
Never before have cars offered so much performance, quality and practicality. In addition to today's stellar performers such as the Corvette Z06 and Ford Mustang GT500, the Dodge Challenger SRT8 (coming this spring) and Chevrolet Camaro (2009) are just around the corner.
But if the PC trend mirrored in the ACEEE's green and mean list continues, this golden age of horsepower will pass quickly.
In other words, if you want a vehicle with eight (or more) thumping cylinders, get one soon. In another 10 years, the greenies will have helped regulate t
This guy knows where it's at and can articulate that.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...01/1149/AUTO01
[quote]Rex Roy: Car culture
Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
If I happen to hold an opinion that is politically correct, it's coincidence. For instance, I believe in personal responsibility, hate socialism, love God and recognize the general goodness of our country. My reluctance to embrace another PC view surfaced as I reviewed a new best/worst list of vehicles by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The selection criteria of this Washington, D.C., advisory group focuses on vehicular environmental impact as seen through the lens of global warming. That's another topic on which I'm definitely not PC.
Before the hate mail starts, let's get a couple of things straight: I'm in favor of health-related automotive emissions regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency spearheaded decades ago. Thanks to these mandates, today's cars are 95-99 percent cleaner-running than the average vehicle from 1967. Smog is bad. Clean air is good.
I also like driving an efficient car. My current daily driver is a small, fuel-sipping two-seater. The fact that I'm consuming less matters not a whit as experts on oil reserves know that the world isn't running out of oil within the next century. For me it's about conserving economic green.
No practical beliefs
But practical considerations aren't driving the ACEEE's list. It's driven by the belief that carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. automobiles are causing global warming. That belief is so wrong it's just painful to think about.
Advertisement
A 2007 report from the United Nations concluded that livestock produce far more C02 emissions than the world's entire transportation industry. So if man-made C02 (including that from farming/ranching) causes global warming, wouldn't becoming vegetarians save the planet faster than driving smaller cars? A new paper from researchers at The University of Chicago thinks so.
ACEEE director Therese Langer explained that the "Greenest" and "Meanest" Vehicles for the Environment for 2008 were developed to help consumers make good choices when it comes to purchasing a vehicle that is less damaging to the environment.
The ACEEE's picks can be found at www.GreenerCars.org. Not surprisingly, their "Greenest" cars are tiny vehicles with even tinier engines. Hybrids make the cut, too. Their "Meanest" list includes full-size trucks and SUVs, but is dominated by high-performance low-volume models such as the 250-mph Bugatti Veyron and Bentley Azure -- cars that emit fewer harmful emissions in 5,500 miles of driving than painting a room in your home with a gallon of water-based latex paint.
What truly worries me about this cabal is that organizations like ACEEE help drive environmental policy. Support for such policies often gain strength by identifying and demonizing a convenient enemy. In this case, vehicles that use more fuel are dangerous to the Earth.
Say goodbye to V-8 engines
The PC/global warming tsunami is already restricting future automotive product development. General Motors Corp. recently killed a new V-8 engine program, citing imminent C02 emissions regulations. Other examples are legion.
Never before have cars offered so much performance, quality and practicality. In addition to today's stellar performers such as the Corvette Z06 and Ford Mustang GT500, the Dodge Challenger SRT8 (coming this spring) and Chevrolet Camaro (2009) are just around the corner.
But if the PC trend mirrored in the ACEEE's green and mean list continues, this golden age of horsepower will pass quickly.
In other words, if you want a vehicle with eight (or more) thumping cylinders, get one soon. In another 10 years, the greenies will have helped regulate t
__________________
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
03-26-2008, 07:15 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
All the doom sayers telling us everyday how inefficient V-8's are should check out the latest comparison of the import twins: STI vs. EVO. Everytime you see a report on these cars it's always how great they perform and great bang for the buck. Hmmm. Fuel economy shows 17/23 on the Subaru and about the same on the Mitsu. Wow, great fuel economy from a 4cyl that runs 13.5 sec in the quarter. The import guys say the Challenger weighs too much right? Hmmm, tested weight of the Subaru was 3540lbs!?! From a compact car??? Bang for the buck? Subaru tested at 39K, nearly 36K to start. Evo was about 2K less. R/T Challenger will be under that, outperform them both and get 16/23 for the stick. Point of this is, both cars are advertised for their performance. AWD has some inherent advantages concerning traction but it sucks the fuel down. Why buy a 4cyl if the fuel economy is the same or less than an 8 cyl and still doesn't offer as much performance?? Ok, rant off, just tired of hearing how V-8's are so bad and small engines are so good. Today's V-8's are light years ahead in refinement as the guys points out in this article. I don't think anyone on this board wants to see the day when Tata Nano size vehicles are the only choice for everyone.
03-26-2008, 07:30 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
If Tata nano's rule the streets i will be on pissed off guy. Sorry for the language, but i really hate those cars and love big V8's like the challenger has.
03-26-2008, 08:49 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 2,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
I still get a laugh about the idea of "global warming."
The first Earth Day was in 1970 (I know this because I was in ninth grade and we had to do a bunch of Earth Day-related stuff for science class). At the time, there had been several colder-than normal years, and one of the big issues being talked about was the idea that all the particulate pollution in the atmosphere was reflecting too much sunlight back into space, so the earth was heading toward a new ice age.
This, of course, didn't happen.
Now, after several warmer-than-normal years, the particulate pollution in the atmosphere (apparently the same stuff that was there in the '70s) is trapping too much heat inside the atmosphere, instead of letting it flow out into space, so the earth is heading toward a new overheated age.
Yeah. Right. Wonder how they're going to explain it the next time things get cooler than usual for several years.
The first Earth Day was in 1970 (I know this because I was in ninth grade and we had to do a bunch of Earth Day-related stuff for science class). At the time, there had been several colder-than normal years, and one of the big issues being talked about was the idea that all the particulate pollution in the atmosphere was reflecting too much sunlight back into space, so the earth was heading toward a new ice age.
This, of course, didn't happen.
Now, after several warmer-than-normal years, the particulate pollution in the atmosphere (apparently the same stuff that was there in the '70s) is trapping too much heat inside the atmosphere, instead of letting it flow out into space, so the earth is heading toward a new overheated age.
Yeah. Right. Wonder how they're going to explain it the next time things get cooler than usual for several years.
03-26-2008, 09:12 AM
#6
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 1,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
Yeah, let them prove somewhat capable of prognosticating near term events, before they start going large scale.
They can't predict the weather, and we're going to believe the can predict the climate change?
Charlatans!
They can't predict the weather, and we're going to believe the can predict the climate change?
Charlatans!
__________________
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
03-26-2008, 05:20 PM
#7
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
It will be a cold day in h*ll when I take the word of a lying politician (Gore, who stands to make millions) that global warming is real. This is, in my opinion, one of the biggest hoaxes feed to the American public. The end result is they will make a ton of money and we the people will pay for it.
03-27-2008, 05:35 AM
#9
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 1,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
Yep. Read State Of Fear by Crichton. Good education, ending gets a little mooshy, almost like he was 700 pages in and decided.."I have to end this thing, the end"
__________________
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
03-27-2008, 06:46 AM
#10
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
Sometimes this stuff gets me a little emotional. I am not a big subscriber to the global warming thing either. One known fact is that the planet has undergone climate "cycles" throughout millions of years. To assume that humans have changed the whole balance in less than 100 years is highly questionable at best. I think it goes back to a money grab thing. Some people stand to make a lot of money if they can generate enough fear and urgency into something that's speculation at best. As we want to keep this site clean I can't use the proper description for Mr. Gore so fill in the blank with your favorite word. All this being said, I'm still getting my Challenger :-)