D
Dougal
Guest
> but they were F all good for off roading 
>
Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?
>
Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
P
Paul S. Brown
Guest
Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>> but they were F all good for off roading
>>
>
> Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?
Bump up the kerb outside the kids private school I think.
P.
>> but they were F all good for off roading
>>
>
> Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?
Bump up the kerb outside the kids private school I think.
P.
A
Anthony Webb
Guest
> > 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)
>
given that hes presumably referring to an LJ80, the closest predecessor of
the SJ, and so probably the last of the suzuki offroaders to be purely
functional and not care about fashion AT ALL (i know the SJ is hardly trendy
but they did start to care about looks.. just not on the vitara scale), i
should imagine it would cross ploughed fields and maybe the odd ravine
without too much discomfort for the driver, passenger, or dairy products.
You could probably even manage 4 milk cans, maybe 6 at a push, depending on
if you had the bench seat version or not.
- /\nthony
> > 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)
>
given that hes presumably referring to an LJ80, the closest predecessor of
the SJ, and so probably the last of the suzuki offroaders to be purely
functional and not care about fashion AT ALL (i know the SJ is hardly trendy
but they did start to care about looks.. just not on the vitara scale), i
should imagine it would cross ploughed fields and maybe the odd ravine
without too much discomfort for the driver, passenger, or dairy products.
You could probably even manage 4 milk cans, maybe 6 at a push, depending on
if you had the bench seat version or not.
- /\nthony
S
Steve Firth
Guest
apk1 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Probably another piece of quality, impartial, non-sensationalist, journalism
As others have said, it was. And why the **** did the useless, lazy, fat
knobhead from the SMMT allow George "****wit" Monbiot to get away with
the pile of lies, propaganda, prejudice and hysteria that he spouted.
Not once did SMMT man mention that 4x4s have better Euro NCAP
performance than small vehicles in pedestrian impacts. Even more sadly
the NCAP man himself either gave a very biased summary or his statements
were cut by Watchdog to only show the bad aspects of 4x4s in a
collision.
Also SMMT man was very weak when it came to defending Monbiots ranting
about MPG and never mentioend that even if Monbiot and the other idiots
have their way and remove all 4x4s from the market the difference it
will make to the vehicle emissions inventory is zilch, nada, not a drop,
bugger all. Because 4x4s account for a maximum of 7% of 20% of total
emissions. That is 1.4% of all emissions come from 4x4s and if those
4x4s are scrapped and replaced with standard saloon cars the maximum
emissions saving to be had is 0.7%.
All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> Probably another piece of quality, impartial, non-sensationalist, journalism
As others have said, it was. And why the **** did the useless, lazy, fat
knobhead from the SMMT allow George "****wit" Monbiot to get away with
the pile of lies, propaganda, prejudice and hysteria that he spouted.
Not once did SMMT man mention that 4x4s have better Euro NCAP
performance than small vehicles in pedestrian impacts. Even more sadly
the NCAP man himself either gave a very biased summary or his statements
were cut by Watchdog to only show the bad aspects of 4x4s in a
collision.
Also SMMT man was very weak when it came to defending Monbiots ranting
about MPG and never mentioend that even if Monbiot and the other idiots
have their way and remove all 4x4s from the market the difference it
will make to the vehicle emissions inventory is zilch, nada, not a drop,
bugger all. Because 4x4s account for a maximum of 7% of 20% of total
emissions. That is 1.4% of all emissions come from 4x4s and if those
4x4s are scrapped and replaced with standard saloon cars the maximum
emissions saving to be had is 0.7%.
All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
R
Rooney
Guest
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:03:03 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:
>All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.
It's sheer, utter jealousy too!
Pile o'crap. As is the whole green bananawagon.
My effin' globe needs warming. Anyway - if it was rue, wouldn't it
liberate Antarctica?
Heh heh - I love my heavy car, and I love Stella (and Grolsch!)
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
wrote:
>All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.
It's sheer, utter jealousy too!
Pile o'crap. As is the whole green bananawagon.
My effin' globe needs warming. Anyway - if it was rue, wouldn't it
liberate Antarctica?
Heh heh - I love my heavy car, and I love Stella (and Grolsch!)
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
A
Austin Shackles
Guest
On or around Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:10:41 +1100, JD <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:
>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
of course they're natural parts of the air. However, they do both cause
greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, and using hydrocarbons as fuel releases
megatons of carbon which has been locked up in fossil fuels since about 3
million years ago or whatever.
The planet has natural carbon and water cycles. What we don't yet know is
the full effect of what we're doing on those cycles, and that includes the
destruction of rain forests which are carbon sinks. The problem is that by
the time we find out the full effect, and decide what to do about it, it
might be too late to do anything. If we alter the climate too much, a large
part of what our food supply chain relies on may stop growing...
imagine, for example, if the american midwest becomes too hot to grow grain,
or china too dry to grow rice...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
enlightened us thusly:
>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
of course they're natural parts of the air. However, they do both cause
greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, and using hydrocarbons as fuel releases
megatons of carbon which has been locked up in fossil fuels since about 3
million years ago or whatever.
The planet has natural carbon and water cycles. What we don't yet know is
the full effect of what we're doing on those cycles, and that includes the
destruction of rain forests which are carbon sinks. The problem is that by
the time we find out the full effect, and decide what to do about it, it
might be too late to do anything. If we alter the climate too much, a large
part of what our food supply chain relies on may stop growing...
imagine, for example, if the american midwest becomes too hot to grow grain,
or china too dry to grow rice...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
A
Austin Shackles
Guest
On or around Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:06:02 +1100, JD <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:
>
>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.
valid stuff about bio fuel. I'm not sure about not classing CO2 as a
pollutant, though. maybe not technically, but CO2 is the major worry from
the global warming POV and reduction of CO2 emissions is a keystone int he
kyoto protocols that certain world leaders are reneging on... mentioning no
Bushes.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
enlightened us thusly:
>
>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.
valid stuff about bio fuel. I'm not sure about not classing CO2 as a
pollutant, though. maybe not technically, but CO2 is the major worry from
the global warming POV and reduction of CO2 emissions is a keystone int he
kyoto protocols that certain world leaders are reneging on... mentioning no
Bushes.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
A
Austin Shackles
Guest
On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:24:43 -0000, "StaffBull"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>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 .
put a 2" lift on it and some bronco grizzlies, and play with it off-road.
YKIMS.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>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 .
put a 2" lift on it and some bronco grizzlies, and play with it off-road.
YKIMS.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
P
Paul - xxx
Guest
StaffBull composed the following;:
> 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.
Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust, or
part of ..
--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
> 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.
Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust, or
part of ..
--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
B
beamendsltd
Guest
In message <[email protected]>
"Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:
> StaffBull composed the following;:
>
> > 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.
>
> Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust, or
> part of ..
>
You'll need the middle silencer and tail pipe.
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems
"Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:
> StaffBull composed the following;:
>
> > 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.
>
> Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust, or
> part of ..
>
You'll need the middle silencer and tail pipe.
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems
E
Elmo Vietti
Guest
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gr4l1t.1kwz2th1ub3mbyN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> Also SMMT man was very weak when it came to defending Monbiots ranting
> about MPG and never mentioend that even if Monbiot and the other idiots
> have their way and remove all 4x4s from the market the difference it
> will make to the vehicle emissions inventory is zilch, nada, not a drop,
> bugger all. Because 4x4s account for a maximum of 7% of 20% of total
> emissions. That is 1.4% of all emissions come from 4x4s and if those
> 4x4s are scrapped and replaced with standard saloon cars the maximum
> emissions saving to be had is 0.7%.
+ The energy consumption in MAKING of the new cars to replace the ones taken
out of the roads.
I recently bought a 86' Rangie (3.5 EFI) and paid special attention to
buying a GOOD
old car which could serve me for years still. I don't payany attention to the so called "lesser" emissions by new smaller cars since
building a new car is a huge effort naturewise! Energy and natural
resources are consumed in vast amounts in that process. Of course you've got
to consider some major cities having problems with smog - there it is
justified to have a newer lesser polluting car. But at least here in the
outbacks of Europe, in the middle of the forests, the pollution per se does
not matter. In some sence, I think that an important stakeholder in this
polluting business is the automobile industry. It is in their interest to
sell new cars and they have find a way to market them.
> All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.
Yup!
Of course 4x4s pollute more, and the older the cars, the more emissions they
have. But we've got to consider the big picture to REALLY save (not the
planet, it will survive us) the human "civilization".
I justify my Rangie by a real need of a 4x4 - not for fun. It's for my work.
I'm a research scientist studying the global climate change and forests in
Finland. So I think know something about pollution and global warming.
Sorry 'bout the English, I'm not a native speaker.
-TimoV
"Pain degreases as nerve damage accumulates" anonymous physiologist
timo.*THISISCRAP*veteli@joens(CRAPTOO)uu.fi
T
The Caretaker ...
Guest
beamendsltd composed the following;:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> StaffBull composed the following;:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust,
>> or part of ..
>>
>
> You'll need the middle silencer and tail pipe.
Cheers, Richard .. do you have any, and what price, roughly.
Seriously, the back box on mine has been 'bashed' a couple of times and
the end pipe is corroded. The middle silencer is held on with some
metal banda-strap (whatever it's called) ..
--
The Caretaker.
www.4x4prejudice.org
A balanced argument.
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> StaffBull composed the following;:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust,
>> or part of ..
>>
>
> You'll need the middle silencer and tail pipe.
Cheers, Richard .. do you have any, and what price, roughly.
Seriously, the back box on mine has been 'bashed' a couple of times and
the end pipe is corroded. The middle silencer is held on with some
metal banda-strap (whatever it's called) ..
--
The Caretaker.
www.4x4prejudice.org
A balanced argument.
P
Paul - xxx
Guest
beamendsltd composed the following;:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> StaffBull composed the following;:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust,
>> or part of ..
>>
>
> You'll need the middle silencer and tail pipe.
Thanks, I'll check your site out.
--
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]>
> "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> StaffBull composed the following;:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust,
>> or part of ..
>>
>
> You'll need the middle silencer and tail pipe.
Thanks, I'll check your site out.
--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
D
Dave White
Guest
In <[email protected]> Adrian 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".
Oh I see, so now when we go off road we have to get a little slip signed
to say we've been off road and then we ARE allowed to use our 4x4s in
towns as well. It all suddenly makes sense, all this crap about
emmissions, pedestrian safety, intimidation etc... is all a cunning
smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.
So, the solution to the problem is actually very simple, turn Hyde Park
into a huge off road play site and make it compulsory for all 4x4 owners
visiting or living in London to drive around the site, say, once a year
to get their special pass that allows the smug, self important curtain
twitchers to allow their neighbours to buy 4x4s because they use them
off road. Why Ken hasn't just announced this instead of banging on about
all this negative stuff I have no idea. There may have to be provision
for a "lesser" off road circuit that allows Subaru and other low ground
clearance 4x4s to get their certificate of "worthiness to own a 4x4" -
maybe cover Oxford street in a 3 inch deep layer of mud an s**t ?
There's certainly enough crap spouted by the environazis to cover most
of London's streets in a 3 inch deep layer.
There was me thinking that this was a completely indiscriminate campaign
against anyone who happened to have a transmission system capable of
driving all the wheels and all the time it's part of a larger plan to
get all 4x4s off road at least once a year ! This is obviously an
extension of previous schemes such as the "minimum of 12 inch ground
clearance speed bumps" and the infamous "articulation testing potholes"
that our Ken has been so keen to install into the streets around his
town.
I wonder why none of this comes across from the campaigners, I mean, I'd
obviously misinterpreted their slogan "drive 4x4s off our roads" silly
me thought they wanted to stop us driving them altogether and in reality
they are actually campaigning for more off road sites - more power to
their elbow I say.
cheers
Dave W.
http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/
> 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".
Oh I see, so now when we go off road we have to get a little slip signed
to say we've been off road and then we ARE allowed to use our 4x4s in
towns as well. It all suddenly makes sense, all this crap about
emmissions, pedestrian safety, intimidation etc... is all a cunning
smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.
So, the solution to the problem is actually very simple, turn Hyde Park
into a huge off road play site and make it compulsory for all 4x4 owners
visiting or living in London to drive around the site, say, once a year
to get their special pass that allows the smug, self important curtain
twitchers to allow their neighbours to buy 4x4s because they use them
off road. Why Ken hasn't just announced this instead of banging on about
all this negative stuff I have no idea. There may have to be provision
for a "lesser" off road circuit that allows Subaru and other low ground
clearance 4x4s to get their certificate of "worthiness to own a 4x4" -
maybe cover Oxford street in a 3 inch deep layer of mud an s**t ?
There's certainly enough crap spouted by the environazis to cover most
of London's streets in a 3 inch deep layer.
There was me thinking that this was a completely indiscriminate campaign
against anyone who happened to have a transmission system capable of
driving all the wheels and all the time it's part of a larger plan to
get all 4x4s off road at least once a year ! This is obviously an
extension of previous schemes such as the "minimum of 12 inch ground
clearance speed bumps" and the infamous "articulation testing potholes"
that our Ken has been so keen to install into the streets around his
town.
I wonder why none of this comes across from the campaigners, I mean, I'd
obviously misinterpreted their slogan "drive 4x4s off our roads" silly
me thought they wanted to stop us driving them altogether and in reality
they are actually campaigning for more off road sites - more power to
their elbow I say.
cheers
Dave W.
http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/
P
Paneat Antenam
Guest
apk1 <[email protected]> wrote:
> About to start..... campaign to rid the streets of 4x4's!!!
The tree hugging wannabees are simply jealous. That's understandable. In
a Land Rover I drive like a king. I got lots of space, can have 6 adult
passengers, the comfort is unsurpassed. But then the tree huggers:
sitting in small sardine cans, barely 4 adults can be transported, not
much space in the trunk. And in wintertime all those 4x2 are ****ing
traffic obstacles for me when my royal 4x4 tries to drive by smoothly. I
also don't want to miss my mighty V8 with lots of horsepower at low rpm
and automatic transmission and air conditioning. I love the softly
buzzing V8 engine while the 4x2 car passengers getting deaf in their 1.2
litre turbo diesels. 4x4 rulez the universe! I am a human being and not
a sardine!
> About to start..... campaign to rid the streets of 4x4's!!!
The tree hugging wannabees are simply jealous. That's understandable. In
a Land Rover I drive like a king. I got lots of space, can have 6 adult
passengers, the comfort is unsurpassed. But then the tree huggers:
sitting in small sardine cans, barely 4 adults can be transported, not
much space in the trunk. And in wintertime all those 4x2 are ****ing
traffic obstacles for me when my royal 4x4 tries to drive by smoothly. I
also don't want to miss my mighty V8 with lots of horsepower at low rpm
and automatic transmission and air conditioning. I love the softly
buzzing V8 engine while the 4x2 car passengers getting deaf in their 1.2
litre turbo diesels. 4x4 rulez the universe! I am a human being and not
a sardine!
S
StaffBull
Guest
Don't mention the 2CV, I did once, but I think I got away with it!!!!!
"Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:03:03 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
>>All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.
>
> It's sheer, utter jealousy too!
> Pile o'crap. As is the whole green bananawagon.
> My effin' globe needs warming. Anyway - if it was rue, wouldn't it
> liberate Antarctica?
>
> Heh heh - I love my heavy car, and I love Stella (and Grolsch!)
>
> --
>
> R
> o
> o
> n
> e
> y
H
hugh
Guest
In message <[email protected]>, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>> but they were F all good for off roading
>>
>
>Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?
>
Hand Throttle hard over to the right.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>> but they were F all good for off roading
>>
>
>Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?
>
Hand Throttle hard over to the right.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
G
Glynderi
Guest
"Steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>
>> Those are all unarguable.
>
> Per mile driven ? Diesels are unarguably more efficient, yes they (can)
> emit soot particles, but they must emit less CO2 than petrol PER MILE.
>
> Steve
This CO2 argument is so thin anyway. Go here:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Robin
A
Austin Shackles
Guest
On or around Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:58:35 -0000, "Glynderi"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>"Steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>>
>>> Those are all unarguable.
>>
>> Per mile driven ? Diesels are unarguably more efficient, yes they (can)
>> emit soot particles, but they must emit less CO2 than petrol PER MILE.
>>
>> Steve
>
>This CO2 argument is so thin anyway. Go here:
>
>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>
>Robin
>
interesting reading.
'course, the use of fossil fuels releases fossil water vapour as well as
fossil CO2.
mind, there's this:
Can you drive your car 30% less?
I venture to suggest that rather a lot of people *could* if they really
wanted to, however:
"Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect
on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy."
which is probably the most telling bit.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>"Steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>>
>>> Those are all unarguable.
>>
>> Per mile driven ? Diesels are unarguably more efficient, yes they (can)
>> emit soot particles, but they must emit less CO2 than petrol PER MILE.
>>
>> Steve
>
>This CO2 argument is so thin anyway. Go here:
>
>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>
>Robin
>
interesting reading.
'course, the use of fossil fuels releases fossil water vapour as well as
fossil CO2.
mind, there's this:
Can you drive your car 30% less?
I venture to suggest that rather a lot of people *could* if they really
wanted to, however:
"Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect
on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy."
which is probably the most telling bit.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)
S
[email protected]
Guest
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:17:39 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
OT but:
I believe this site to be disingenuous, they are considering overall
effect and saying the doubling in CO2 since iron age is insignificant
when it is a small addition to a well balanced system. In fact there
is the possibility it could tip the balance at which point some
positive feedback effect will take over. My personal opinion is that
man made effects are big enough to disturb the system but short term
solar effects are probably acting atm also.
>
>'course, the use of fossil fuels releases fossil water vapour as well as
>fossil CO2.
As I have said to you before, my understanding, and I am no expert, is
this is truly insignificant as there has always been sufficient water
vapour in the atmosphere to capture all the bands of re radiated infra
red that it can capture, so this water vapour system is and always has
been saturated, adding more has no effect
>"Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect
>on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy."
>
>which is probably the most telling bit.
Definitely, industrial growth is completely dependant on using power,
in UK we consume the equivalent of 5 tonnes of oil per person per
year, and I'm not sure whether the 20% electricity we get from nuclear
power is factored into that, so we each consume 1.4kW(t) constantly,
about a third of which is in transport of some sort or other.
Do anything to turn down industrial growth and you risk collapsing an
edifice entirely dependant on confidence that people can pay each
other.
AJH
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
OT but:
I believe this site to be disingenuous, they are considering overall
effect and saying the doubling in CO2 since iron age is insignificant
when it is a small addition to a well balanced system. In fact there
is the possibility it could tip the balance at which point some
positive feedback effect will take over. My personal opinion is that
man made effects are big enough to disturb the system but short term
solar effects are probably acting atm also.
>
>'course, the use of fossil fuels releases fossil water vapour as well as
>fossil CO2.
As I have said to you before, my understanding, and I am no expert, is
this is truly insignificant as there has always been sufficient water
vapour in the atmosphere to capture all the bands of re radiated infra
red that it can capture, so this water vapour system is and always has
been saturated, adding more has no effect
>"Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect
>on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy."
>
>which is probably the most telling bit.
Definitely, industrial growth is completely dependant on using power,
in UK we consume the equivalent of 5 tonnes of oil per person per
year, and I'm not sure whether the 20% electricity we get from nuclear
power is factored into that, so we each consume 1.4kW(t) constantly,
about a third of which is in transport of some sort or other.
Do anything to turn down industrial growth and you risk collapsing an
edifice entirely dependant on confidence that people can pay each
other.
AJH
