On 27 Jan 2005 14:33:17 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul - xxx (notcheckedever@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>>>> I was trying more to follow the logic of a 2cv "belching out more
>>>> **** than a fleet of Landys"...
>>>>
>>>> Yet to see any Landy manage 40mpg...
>
>>> The point is it does'nt matter how much you do to the gallon it is the
>>> harmful crap you spew out and Most Landy are far more environmentally
>>> cleaner than a 2CV
>
>> Sheeit, isn't this _JUST_ what the feckin' tree huggers want ?
>>
>> 4x4 owners arguing amongst themselves rather than realising we're _ALL_
>> tarred with the same brush anyway, whatever marque we drive.
>
>The point I'm trying to make is that claims as self-evidently wrong as
>those "scorpio" is making are not going to help us in any way, either.
>Quite the opposite, in fact.
>
>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?


What does that have to do with pollution?

>4wd vehicles DO pollute more than 2wd ones - there's more weight, there's
>more transmission losses. Why else would there be selectable 4wd and free-
>wheel hubs?

You need to look at emissions, not your own preconceptions. Number of
driven wheels isn't relevant to weight or emissions.
>
>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>
>Those are all unarguable.
>
>Similarly unarguable is that there ARE a lot of utterly pointless 4x4s in
>urban areas and that they DO cause a big problem,


They differ significantly from estates only in height. What problem
does their height cause?


>and that there ARE a lot
>of utter irresponsible and illegal ****s on trailbikes and 4x4s causing
>damage to greenlanes and the image of greenlaning.
>
>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.

How?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
So Adrian was, like

> StaffBull (StaffBull@spamtrap.staffbull.net) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>>> driving round in 2CV's which belch out more **** than a fleet of
>>>> Landys
>
>>> And the logic there is...?
>
>> do you see people stuffing leaflets under the wipers of 2CV's to try
>> and ban them? nope!
>
> I was trying more to follow the logic of a 2cv "belching out more
> **** than a fleet of Landys"...
>
> Yet to see any Landy manage 40mpg...

My two (1 x 2CV6, 1 x Dyane) never did less than 50mpg, no matter how hard I
towelled them.* I can't see why they should be any less environmentally
friendly than any other non-cat petrol engine. They may not be very
efficient, but then when you're towing round something that weighs as much
as a large book, you don't have to be.

*And you have to. Only problem I ever had was driving in convoy on holiday
with a guy who insisted on doing 25-30 everywhere. Knackered the plugs in
two days. A mechanic friend commented: "You have to thrash these to get the
best out of them. The French are not known for under-driving their cars."
Green for go - no problems after that.


--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
Adrian composed the following;:
> Paul - xxx (notcheckedever@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>>> I was trying more to follow the logic of a 2cv "belching out more
>>>> **** than a fleet of Landys"...
>>>>
>>>> Yet to see any Landy manage 40mpg...
>
>>> The point is it does'nt matter how much you do to the gallon it is
>>> the harmful crap you spew out and Most Landy are far more
>>> environmentally cleaner than a 2CV
>
>> Sheeit, isn't this _JUST_ what the feckin' tree huggers want ?
>>
>> 4x4 owners arguing amongst themselves rather than realising we're
>> _ALL_ tarred with the same brush anyway, whatever marque we drive.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that claims as self-evidently wrong as
> those "scorpio" is making are not going to help us in any way, either.
> Quite the opposite, in fact.

So what? 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?

> 4wd vehicles DO pollute more than 2wd ones - there's more weight,
> there's more transmission losses.

My 4x4 doesn't pollute as much as my immediate neighbours 2wd

> Why else would there be selectable 4wd and free- wheel hubs?

Selectable 4wd makes it a ****-load easier to steer on the road, as do
fwh's, and they do increase economy, but still have feck all to do with
emissions, other than as a by-product in that the engine is likely to be
running under less load, so not using as much fuel. The engines still
put out the same levels of emissions though ...

--
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 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!!!


"StaffBull" <StaffBull@spamtrap.staffbull.net> wrote in message
news:ct94b9$d2h$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> do you see people stuffing leaflets under the wipers of 2CV's to try and
> ban them? nope!
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95EADFDFE8222adrianachapmanfreeis@130.133.1.4...
>> StaffBull (StaffBull@spamtrap.staffbull.net) gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying :
>>
>>> driving round in 2CV's which belch out more **** than a fleet of
>>> Landys
>>
>> And the logic there is...?
>
>


 
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.
 
On or around 27 Jan 2005 14:33:17 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com>
enlightened us thusly:

>
>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. OK, 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.

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

wanna bet? :)

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

>Similarly unarguable is that there ARE a lot of utterly pointless 4x4s in
>urban areas and that they DO cause a big problem, and that there ARE a lot
>of utter irresponsible and illegal ****s on trailbikes and 4x4s causing
>damage to greenlanes and the image of greenlaning.
>
>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.

--
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".
 
On or around Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:02:19 +0000, Rooney <pvrooney@aol.com>
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".
 
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:40:57 +0000, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

>On or around Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:02:19 +0000, Rooney <pvrooney@aol.com>
>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?

Politically acceptable, as endorsed by John Prescott.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
"Austin Shackles" <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote in message
news:h9niv0pplllhvbojkcsi19b8he13fbobjb@4ax.com...
>
> 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.

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.

Steve


 
Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> 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
 
Steve <steve@deletemefirst.zord.co.uk> wrote:

> 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".

Oh, you mean Sting.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
 
Steve composed the following;:
> "Austin Shackles" <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote in message
> news:h9niv0pplllhvbojkcsi19b8he13fbobjb@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

LOL

--
The Caretaker.
www.4x4prejudice.org
A balanced argument.
 
Paul - xxx (notcheckedever@hotmail.com) 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.

My everyday car is a big car. By car standards, it's heavy. It's HALF the
weight of the new Disco.
 
Austin Shackles (austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net) 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 (steve@deletemefirst.zord.co.uk) 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 <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul - xxx (notcheckedever@hotmail.com) 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 (pvrooney@aol.com) 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 <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rooney (pvrooney@aol.com) 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 (notcheckedever@hotmail.com) 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 (notcheckedever@hotmail.com) 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."

 
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
669
dag019
dag019
J
Driving 1700 miles Altrincham to Estepona Spain in 90 2015
Replies
13
Views
837
lightning
lightning
M
Disco 1 Measurements for Rear Door Gap
Replies
14
Views
700
resto_d1
R