GET READY FOR Watchdog !

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Austin Shackles ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>Bigger heavier vehicles - be they 2wd or 4wd DO pollute more than
>>smaller lighter ones. At the most basic, it's very simple to
>>demonstrate. Push a small light car 100yds, then push a Landy 100yds.
>>Which makes you more knackered?

> valid point, except that the latest engines are considerably more
> efficient than the one in the 2CV which dates from about 1948.

You're only 20 years out.

> they probably imp[roved the carbs and such, but still, it pollutes
> much more than for example a Smart car, with the same size engine and
> similar weight.

Umm, no. But that's beside the point.

>>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>
>>Those are all unarguable.

> wanna bet? :)

Yes.

> besides, you have to compare like-for-like. look at the emissions on
> a 50-yera od petrol engine and a brand-new diesel...

Great. So let's let them ban *every* engine design over about - oooh -
five years old.

>>As a recreational activity, we'd be best putting our hands up and
>>agreeing with the ramblers - to a point.
>>
>>Arguing the unarguable, defending the indefensible, is what's harming
>>us most.

> I think you'll find the irresponsible tw*ts are not as many as you
> reckon, though of course the effect they have is huge.
>
> Personally, I reckon that all off-roading is gonna end up on private
> sites, before much longer, except perhaps for a few high-profile
> routes which get enough publicity and maintenance. Which, in the end,
> is no bad thing. If you want to play in the mud and water, do so on
> private land where you don't cause problems.

Indeed. But off-roading is NOT all about playpits. Sure, they're fun.
I've had a whale of a time at Langdale on several occasions. But so's
laning. And that's what the ****s are losing us. Ramblers are not happy
with having exclusive access to 98% or whatever of byways, and are not
clued up enough to realise that it's not the legal, responsible laners
who do the damage. We're the ones that do most of the maintenance to the
BOATs and RUPPs. It's the farm vehicles - which won't be banned - and
the ****s - who'll ignore the ban that do the damage.

But, of course, by that stage, it'll be too late.
 
Steve ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> Until the new ex-townie neighbour complains about the
> noise/mud/spoiled view there too. Just like the "lets buy this house
> next to this big airport dear, they're selling it really really cheap
> ...... and then we can complain like feck about the aircraft noise and
> form a close-the-airport pressure group". Yes townies, in the
> countryside stuff gets chased. Stuff gets eaten by other stuff.
> Stuff dies, often less than clinically cleanly or in an "animal
> hospital" environment. Cockerels crow at dawn. Combine harvesters
> run all hours, often well after dusk. Landrovers are used for what
> they're best at. Oh yes, and **** stinks.
>
> I feel much better now.

<applause>
 
On 28 Jan 2005 08:21:35 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul - xxx ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>> So what? Who gives a flying fart, other than the tree-huggers, who's
>> 4x4 does what for the environment really?
>
>The point is NOT off-roaders used off-road. It's "Chelsea Tractors".
>
>>> Bigger heavier vehicles - be they 2wd or 4wd DO pollute more than
>>> smaller lighter ones. At the most basic, it's very simple to
>>> demonstrate. Push a small light car 100yds, then push a Landy 100yds.
>>> Which makes you more knackered?
>
>> Which has what, and be as precise as you can be, to do with vehicle
>> emissions?
>
>Clue, Paul :- If the engine has to work so much harder to move the vehicle,
>that takes power. Power that has to be created. By burning fuel.

Which doesn't equate to more pollution.

>My everyday car is a big car. By car standards, it's heavy. It's HALF the
>weight of the new Disco.

But what are its emissions like?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

>>Clue, Paul :- If the engine has to work so much harder to move the
>>vehicle, that takes power. Power that has to be created. By burning
>>fuel.

> Which doesn't equate to more pollution.

So what happens to that burnt fuel, then?

>>My everyday car is a big car. By car standards, it's heavy. It's HALF
>>the weight of the new Disco.

> But what are its emissions like?

Not far off those of a Honda CR-V. Which is a much smaller vehicle.
 
On 28 Jan 2005 09:26:07 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying :
>
>>>Clue, Paul :- If the engine has to work so much harder to move the
>>>vehicle, that takes power. Power that has to be created. By burning
>>>fuel.
>
>> Which doesn't equate to more pollution.
>
>So what happens to that burnt fuel, then?

How much fuel and how treated? Heavier cars don't necessarily use more
fuel. Modern 4x4s use less fuel than many older and not so old 4x2s,
and clean up the waste products better too. I get the same mpg from a
4x4 weighing 2 tonnes as I got from the little car I had 4 years ago,
and it's cleaner.
>
>>>My everyday car is a big car. By car standards, it's heavy. It's HALF
>>>the weight of the new Disco.
>
>> But what are its emissions like?
>
>Not far off those of a Honda CR-V. Which is a much smaller vehicle.

You mean more? Or less?


--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Adrian composed the following;:
> Paul - xxx ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>> So what? Who gives a flying fart, other than the tree-huggers, who's
>> 4x4 does what for the environment really?
>
> The point is NOT off-roaders used off-road. It's "Chelsea Tractors".

So why not say what you mean instead of continually referring to 4x4's?

>>> Bigger heavier vehicles - be they 2wd or 4wd DO pollute more than
>>> smaller lighter ones. At the most basic, it's very simple to
>>> demonstrate. Push a small light car 100yds, then push a Landy
>>> 100yds. Which makes you more knackered?
>
>> Which has what, and be as precise as you can be, to do with vehicle
>> emissions?
>
> Clue, Paul :- If the engine has to work so much harder to move the
> vehicle, that takes power. Power that has to be created. By burning
> fuel.

So what? This has **** all to do with emissions and pollutants and the
levels put out. My 4x4 puts out less pollutant than my neighbours 2wd
car, it burns less fuel as well.

BIG CLUE ... generalisations like you made don't work all the time.

Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.

--
The Caretaker.
www.4x4prejudice.org
A balanced argument.

 
Adrian composed the following;:
> Paul - xxx ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>> So what? Who gives a flying fart, other than the tree-huggers, who's
>> 4x4 does what for the environment really?
>
> The point is NOT off-roaders used off-road. It's "Chelsea Tractors".

But you keep mentioning 4x4's, therefore lumping us all into the
argument. At least be feckin' consistent in your arguments> Do you
mean 4x4's do you mean off-roading 4x4's do you mean 'Chelsea Tractors',
and again, be as specific as you can be. AFL, I suggest, is not a
hot-bed of Chelsea Tractor afficianado's, so why argue about them here ?

Actually, I've lost the idea of what the feckin' argument is now ... so
I refer back to a part of my post you snipped ... "Who gives a flying
fart, other than the tree-huggers, who's
4x4 does what for the environment really? Most of the time we're
tearing the ground up anyway (With Land-owners permission) so cackling
among 'ourselves' as to whose is biggest, smallest, cleanest etc just
throws us all into the environ-mentalists hands."

>>> Bigger heavier vehicles - be they 2wd or 4wd DO pollute more than
>>> smaller lighter ones. At the most basic, it's very simple to
>>> demonstrate. Push a small light car 100yds, then push a Landy
>>> 100yds. Which makes you more knackered?
>
>> Which has what, and be as precise as you can be, to do with vehicle
>> emissions?
>
> Clue, Paul :- If the engine has to work so much harder to move the
> vehicle, that takes power. Power that has to be created. By burning
> fuel.

My Discovery, a 4x4, is much more economical than my neighbours much
lighter 2wd TVR. It is also a cleaner engine from the point of view of
it's emissions ... ;)

> My everyday car is a big car. By car standards, it's heavy. It's HALF
> the weight of the new Disco.

And ?

I also know of cars that are bigger and heavier than the new Disco. WTF
has this to do with emissions and pollutants?

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ... ;)
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

 
I'm thinking of putting a V8 in the 90. And next month the fuel efficient
Freelander is making way for a larger heavier Discovery!

Why????

Because I bloody well want to and I can!!!!!!!!!!

Stew.

--

1990 LR Ninety 2.5D N/A (Jasmine) with bits on!
2002 Freelander Td4 ES (crap wish I'd never bought, going to p/ex for a
Disco!))
Intersted in facts, not fiction? Look here - http://www.4x4prejudice.org


"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gr2p0z.46v4tva2r8qmN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> was ogling an XJS jag today. lovely motor. longer than the disco, just
>> as
>> wide, 5.3 petrol engine, sod-all to the gallon, and basically, really,
>> it's
>> a 2+2. Where does that come on the scale?
>
> You forgot that the bonnet design is such that it probably slices
> pedestrians in half.
>
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759


 
On or around 28 Jan 2005 08:31:05 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying :

>> valid point, except that the latest engines are considerably more
>> efficient than the one in the 2CV which dates from about 1948.
>
>You're only 20 years out.

nah, the 2CV doesn't go back as far as 1928.

It was indeed designed in 1948, though, ISTR. I grant you, the emissions
and efficiency might have been improved along the way, but since they
stopped developing it at least 20 years ago...

>> they probably imp[roved the carbs and such, but still, it pollutes
>> much more than for example a Smart car, with the same size engine and
>> similar weight.
>
>Umm, no. But that's beside the point.

not entirely. The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it was
all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly behind
since. I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got a
cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon. in
terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
carries 4 people same as the 2CV (unlike the Smart, it has to be said.
Though the Smart makes huge sense for urban areas carrying 1 or 2 people.

>>>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>>
>>>Those are all unarguable.
>
>> wanna bet? :)
>
>Yes.

diesel engines are inherently more efficient, though, I believe, so for a
given power output, they should in fact pollute slightly less.

>Great. So let's let them ban *every* engine design over about - oooh -
>five years old.

However, you have to consider the effect of the pollution caused by making
the cars, as well... but there's something to be said for it, from the
exhaust emissions POV - the old engines (older than about 20 years) *do*
chuck out a lot more pollution, hence the lenient levels they're allowed at
MOT time compared with new stuff. I believe that it's possible, with a good
engine and very careful tuning, to get a Propane engine through the
cat-level MOT test without a cat fitted. But most probably wouldn't. My
3.5 V8 passes the test it has to pass easily, mind.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:27:00 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> valid point, except that the latest engines are considerably more
>>> efficient than the one in the 2CV which dates from about 1948.
>>
>>You're only 20 years out.
>
>nah, the 2CV doesn't go back as far as 1928.
>
>It was indeed designed in 1948, though, ISTR. I grant you, the emissions
>and efficiency might have been improved along the way, but since they
>stopped developing it at least 20 years ago...

Wasn't the point that the 2cv couldn't be adapted for unleaded the
reason for its demise? I imagine in other respects it was no more
polluting than other small engined cars of the time.

The thing about it and the ami?? was that it could drive all day with
full throttle, like the beetle as well. Whereas other small cars were
more powerful but susceptible to engine problems if over stressed.

AJH
 
On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
>by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.

actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur oxides
and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different. Slightly less
CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
Austin Shackles composed the following;:
> On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few
>> emissions by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.
>
> actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur
> oxides and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different.
> Slightly less CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.

Having read a little more into it, I agree. It is fewer, but not
significantly.

My bad. :)

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ... ;)
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

 
In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
>>by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.
>
>actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur oxides
>and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different. Slightly less
>CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.
>
Also less CO
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around 28 Jan 2005 08:31:05 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Austin Shackles ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>>much like they were saying :
>
>>> valid point, except that the latest engines are considerably more
>>> efficient than the one in the 2CV which dates from about 1948.
>>
>>You're only 20 years out.
>
> nah, the 2CV doesn't go back as far as 1928.
>
> It was indeed designed in 1948, though, ISTR. I grant you, the emissions
> and efficiency might have been improved along the way, but since they
> stopped developing it at least 20 years ago...
>
The 2CV actually appeared at the Paris motor show in 1939, but all drawings
were lost during the war, although the prototype was apparently hidden and
survived. It was redesigned after the war, but the design was substantially
the same. So it is essentially a prewar design (as are many aspects of the
S1 Landrover - for example, I think the basic gearbox design is that
introduced by Rover in 1934)

>>> they probably imp[roved the carbs and such, but still, it pollutes
>>> much more than for example a Smart car, with the same size engine and
>>> similar weight.
>>
>>Umm, no. But that's beside the point.
>
> not entirely. The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
> restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it was
> all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly behind
> since. I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got a
> cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon. in
> terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
> carries 4 people same as the 2CV

Perhaps - but can it carry two people and two milk cans across a ploughed
field in comfort? (part of the design criteria for the 2CV)

> (unlike the Smart, it has to be said.
> Though the Smart makes huge sense for urban areas carrying 1 or 2 people.
>
>>>>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>>>
>>>>Those are all unarguable.
>>
>>> wanna bet? :)
>>
>>Yes.
>
> diesel engines are inherently more efficient, though, I believe, so for a
> given power output, they should in fact pollute slightly less.

Depends how you define pollution - i.e. how you weight different parts of
pollution. It also depends on what fuel you are running on. And efficiency
has nothing (much) to do with pollution. Diesels are inherently more
thermally efficient, mainly due to the fact that they have higher
compression ratio. But thermal efficiency and pollution are not necessarily
related. The major pollution problem from diesels is probably particulates,
which are not a major problem with petrol engines - their major problems
are probably (today) carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen.

The other question is production of carbon dioxide - which is not a
pollutant, and here the question is less clear. Generally speaking diesel
fuel will produce more CO2 than petrol as more of the energy content is in
the form of carbon, but this is offset by the increased thermal efficiency
of the diesel. In the case of both engine types, the net CO2 emission will
be reduced by the use of biodiesel or ethanol blends. Here the diesel has
the clear advantage as they can run on 100% biodiesel without problems,
whereas normal petrol engines are limited to about 20%, and furthermore the
energy efficiency and pollution from production of biodiesel are a lot less
than for ethanol.
>
(snip)

JD
 
Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
>>by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.
>
> actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur
> oxides
> and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different. Slightly less
> CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.
>
How can you describe CO2 and H2O as pollutants? You produce both every time
you breathe. CO2 can be described as a "greenhouse gas" but hardly as a
pollutant, since it is a natural component of air, and as for water .....
JD
 
([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying
:

> Wasn't the point that the 2cv couldn't be adapted for unleaded the
> reason for its demise?

Not really - since every 2cv runs happily on undeaded - even the ones prior
to the completely new engine in the late 60s/early 70s. Ally heads, y'see.
 
Got the best of both worlds at the moment - got the 3.9 V8 96ES Disco,
2"lift, shiny new stainless Exhaust and NO CATS!! :) and still got the 94
300Tdi 3- door Disco bog standard apart from removing the CAT. Removing the
cats on both has made a hell of a difference but much more noticeable on the
300Tdi it blows td5's away.

The stereo is now idle in the V8 - I just listen to the exhaust note!! :)

I need to get around to selling the Tdi ( I think!) but my reckoning is that
it's depreciated most of it's value so if I keep it a bit longer I'm not
going to loose much more. Common sense says sell it - silly side says keep
it .


"The Caretaker ..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> StaffBull composed the following;:
>> I'm doing my bit for the environment - I run LPG ( nothing to do with
>> cost of course) the V8 sounds bloody amazing now, had a guy build me
>> a stainless exhaust,. awesome!!!
>
> Bastard ...
>
> Heheheh ... I want a V8 for my Disco .. ;)
>
> --
> The Caretaker.
> www.4x4prejudice.org
> A balanced argument.


 
Exactly the point I used to drive a limo, definatly a bigger footprint than
my landy and certainly not more economical.


--
þT

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On or around Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:02:19 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >They differ significantly from estates only in height. What problem
> >does their height cause?
>
> bugger, I didn't intend to get into this thread.
>
> was ogling an XJS jag today. lovely motor. longer than the disco, just
as
> wide, 5.3 petrol engine, sod-all to the gallon, and basically, really,
it's
> a 2+2. Where does that come on the scale?
>
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> "Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
> Boswell's "Johnson".


 
I used to get about 80mpg out of my scooters back in the 70's but they were
F all good for off roading :)

--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around 28 Jan 2005 08:31:05 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>

>
> not entirely. The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
> restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it was
> all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly behind
> since. I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got a
> cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon. in
> terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
> carries 4 people same as the 2CV (unlike the Smart, it has to be said.
> Though the Smart makes huge sense for urban areas carrying 1 or 2 people.
>
> >>>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
> >>>
> >>>Those are all unarguable.
> >
> >> wanna bet? :)
> >
> >Yes.
>
> diesel engines are inherently more efficient, though, I believe, so for a
> given power output, they should in fact pollute slightly less.
>
> >Great. So let's let them ban *every* engine design over about - oooh -
> >five years old.
>
> However, you have to consider the effect of the pollution caused by making
> the cars, as well... but there's something to be said for it, from the
> exhaust emissions POV - the old engines (older than about 20 years) *do*
> chuck out a lot more pollution, hence the lenient levels they're allowed
at
> MOT time compared with new stuff. I believe that it's possible, with a
good
> engine and very careful tuning, to get a Propane engine through the
> cat-level MOT test without a cat fitted. But most probably wouldn't. My
> 3.5 V8 passes the test it has to pass easily, mind.
>
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
> reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
> from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.


 
loada bollox that, My series 3 wasn't designed for unleaded but she don't
complain



--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:27:00 +0000, Austin Shackles
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
....
>
> Wasn't the point that the 2cv couldn't be adapted for unleaded the
> reason for its demise? I imagine in other respects it was no more
> polluting than other small engined cars of the time.
>
> The thing about it and the ami?? was that it could drive all day with
> full throttle, like the beetle as well. Whereas other small cars were
> more powerful but susceptible to engine problems if over stressed.
>
> AJH


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
My journey towards an "as good as I can get it" D2
Replies
7
Views
1K
kevstar
kevstar
Popnagel
Power steering failure... Again...
Replies
7
Views
1K
Popnagel
Popnagel
dag019
Are all door latches equal?
Replies
2
Views
647
dag019
dag019
J
Driving 1700 miles Altrincham to Estepona Spain in 90 2015
Replies
13
Views
714
lightning
lightning
M
Disco 1 Measurements for Rear Door Gap
Replies
14
Views
670
resto_d1
R
Back
Top