Car adverts to carry cigarette style CO2 warmings

I'm going to pick the more "polluting" cars to make up for all the hippies.

Kind of like: "For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three!"
 
Scottly said:
Okay, but I think the major problem going forward is that these are the wrong things to be comparing if your goal is CO2 and fuel efficiency,
Click to expand...

I quite agree. However, CO2 and fuel efficiency were not my goal. Fuel efficiency was a consideration, but not a priority - just that it was able to return more than 30mpg on longer trips.

What's your definition of 'comfortable' in this context?
Click to expand...

A car which is designed to cruise at 155mph is running smoothly at low engine speed at 70mph. My 5 Series cruises effortlessly at the legal speed limit. It is a very pleasant place to be on a long trip as a result. You don't feel rushed or hurried, it's very nice. I can travel 350 miles and get out afterwards feeling refreshed and not like I've just suffered an ordeal. The same cannot be said of cars with small engines and low top speeds where the constant droan of an engine almost at maximum attack becomes tiring. A byproduct of the fact it is geared to 155mph means that, in top gear at 70mph, it returns fuel economy you'd not expect from a 3 litre petrol engine.

stockhausen said:
Do you mean that a car with the specification you have described must have necessity be more comfortable than a car capable of a measly 0-62 time of only 12 seconds and only capable of exceeding the national speed limit by 50%?
Click to expand...

No, I don't quite know where you've arrived at that from.

I had many requirements from my car when I selected it - SOME of those requirements related to performance, OTHERS related to comfort.

I did not want the most comfortable car on the market and neither did i want the most powerful car on the market. By setting criteria I was able to chose a car which was the best compromise for my needs. I was merely saying that some of these criteria were indeed acceleration, speed and engine power.

Please do not get too hung up on me saying it had to have a high top speed for comfort reasons - I included that merely so you didn't get the wrong idea and think I was some sort of maniac who went rocketing about British motorways at over 100mph. I don't.

I suspect that if you looked a little harder, you would be able to find yourself a comfortable car that didn't do 0-62 in 7 seconds and wasn't capable of 145mph - I think that comfort may not have been a significant factor in your choice of car.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I could have done - infact other models in the range I chose from are more comfortable, but as stated I went for the best blend of performance and comfort and economy to suit my needs.

Incidentally, did your chosen car have nice soft suspension as well?
Click to expand...

No, it has M Sport Suspension with 18 inch low profile wheels. It's an interesting contrast to the other car I drive, which DOES have nice soft suspension.

High speed and rapid acceleration is not a rational basis for selecting a road car.
Click to expand...

For you. My point is that different people have different requirements and expectations from cars. Just becuase performance is not a concern for you does not mean others should be banned from driving simply becuase it is a concern from them.

The bottom line is simple - I wanted a car which, to me, would be everything I'd possibly want out of a car. It needed to be comfortable on long trips and provide reasonable fuel economy (Reasonable for ME - I set 35mpg as a reasonable figure for this purpose) but it also needed to be interesting to drive and handle well off the Motorway. It needed to have affordable running costs but also enough performance to give me a bit of excitement when driving and enable safe and effortless overtaking.

I think its helpful to also point out that for me, a car is not simply a method of transporting myself from A to B without getting wet. It is also a hobby for me and a source of great enjoyment. I enjoy talking about them, cleaning them, keeping them in good order, driving them, etc etc. If I simply wanted to get from A to B in a timely fashion I suspect my criteria for car selection would be entirely different.

But this doesn't mean I'm about to suggest that anyone who selects a car based on criteria I don't personally use myself should be banned from driving. Such a statement is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
what is it with all the trolls in here?

The most important factors for me when buying a car are handling, speed, and looks. In that order, and i'll buy the one which best fits those requirements within my budget. Couldn't give two ****s about CO2, fuel economy forms a part of the decision but only because it has a very direct effect on the wallet.
 
Ignore, it was not worth the keyboard presses once I re-read what I wrote!
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;11831533 said:
A car which is designed to cruise at 155mph is running smoothly at low engine speed at 70mph. My 5 Series cruises effortlessly at the legal speed limit. It is a very pleasant place to be on a long trip as a result. You don't feel rushed or hurried, it's very nice. I can travel 350 miles and get out afterwards feeling refreshed and not like I've just suffered an ordeal. The same cannot be said of cars with small engines and low top speeds where the constant droan of an engine almost at maximum attack becomes tiring. A byproduct of the fact it is geared to 155mph means that, in top gear at 70mph, it returns fuel economy you'd not expect from a 3 litre petrol engine.
Click to expand...

So basically, your definition of comfort is engine noise? I don't see how you'd feel more 'rushed and hurried' just because you're driving a car with a lower top speed - if you're keeping to speed limits it won't affect the time it takes to get to a destination.

[TW]Fox;11831533 said:
For you. My point is that different people have different requirements and expectations from cars. Just becuase performance is not a concern for you does not mean others should be banned from driving simply becuase it is a concern from them.
Click to expand...

Maybe not banned, but your choice of car indirectly affects me and everyone else because of the emissions that come out of the tailpipe. In the terms of the subject of this thread, you're essentially arguing that your personal right to have a 'fun' car outweighs the need to reduce CO2 emissions for everyone. I think you'll find that you don't have a very defensible position on this matter.

The problem is largely that cars are marketed (and have been for decades) as if faster means better. Look at how we idolise racing drivers. Unfortunately this is at odds with the ongoing situation, there needs to be a rebranding of the car such that more efficient and environmentally friendly cars are seen as 'better'. It's already happening, look how the Prius and other hybrids have been a success, and BMW's latest ad campaign which tries to convince you that they only emit rainbows.

Unfortunately for you, I think the enthusiast motorist's days are numbered, at least until they make an equivalent car that runs on cow dung or something.
 
Scottly said:
So basically, your definition of comfort is engine noise?
Click to expand...

No, I explained above - it is merely ONE FACTOR. Lots of things add up to give a car which can be described as comfortable. One of these things is whether the engine is revving its guts out or totally unstressed at the speed limit, for ME. And given its ME who selected my car, it's the opinion of me that matters.

I don't see how you'd feel more 'rushed and hurried' just because you're driving a car with a lower top speed - if you're keeping to speed limits it won't affect the time it takes to get to a destination.
Click to expand...

It's not about time, it's about how you feel. Go and drive 100 miles in a Mercedes E Class or a BMW 5 Series and then go and do the same drive with a car with a top speed of 120mph - perhaps a Ford Focus or something. It will feel different, trust me. Whether its a difference you care about is entirely your opinion.

Maybe not banned, but your choice of car indirectly affects me and everyone else because of the emissions that come out of the tailpipe. In the terms of the subject of this thread, you're essentially arguing that your personal right to have a 'fun' car outweighs the need to reduce CO2 emissions for everyone. I think you'll find that you don't have a very defensible position on this matter.
Click to expand...

I don't need to defend my position. I am entitled to buy whichever car I want.

The fact is, however, that my CO2 emissions are quite noticeably below that of the average driver. If you wish to look somewhere for some blame for high C02, I am not that person.

Even if I wasn't, you do realise that if everybody in the UK stopped driving tommorrow, the net effect on world carbon emissions would be so slight it wouldn't even register?

Do you not think that mass deforestisation in South America, China opening a new coal fired power station every WEEK and the Arabs building indoor real snow ski-slopes in the desert kinda makes me driving into town in a 3 litre car a bit of a non issue?
 
Last edited:
Maybe not banned, but your choice of car indirectly affects me and everyone else because of the emissions that come out of the tailpipe.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.

You watching Sky has created more emissions than 10,000 miles worth of driving of 100 cars:rolleyes: Car emissions are next to nothing compared to the emissions when they are built - 5 mpg and 35 mpg make no practical difference when you consider the effort in:

- extracting iron ore from the Earth's mantle
- changing iron ore into metal
- ferrying it backwards and forwards between mine, melting factory, and car factory
- the energy spent in forming/cutting/applying the metal such that it becomes part of the car
- all the energy in extracting oil and turning it into plastic
- all the natural ingredients to create tyres
- all the glass

etc etc etc

The emissions from the production are far higher than any driving can accumulate in 10 years.

Hence, Sky is more damaging than car driving, because those Satellites don't walk up into the sky by themselves. Fuel economy/CO2 emissions are a lie.
 
Ex-RoNiN said:
Hence, Sky is more damaging than car driving, because those Satellites don't walk up into the sky by themselves. Fuel economy/CO2 emissions are a lie.
Click to expand...

I agree, there are things that pollute more than cars. They also should be encouraged to move towards efficency. But cars also make their contribution, emissions aren't a 'lie'.

The point that I am trying to make is that marketing cars in terms of their efficiency is a good step forward, which is where this kind of thing as well as tiered road tax come in.

e: and FYI some rocket launches are in fact carbon neutral, a mix of LOX and hydrogen fuel is used and the only emission is water vapour. So it depends what type of rocket was used.
 
Scottly said:
e: and FYI some rocket launches are in fact carbon neutral, a mix of LOX and hydrogen fuel is used and the only emission is water vapour. So it depends what type of rocket was used.
Click to expand...

Do you have much of a grounding in science/chemistry? I am guessing not. Go and research the effect of the mass emission of water vapour into the atmosphere.
 
Scottly said:
The point that I am trying to make is that marketing cars in terms of their efficiency is a good step forward, which is where this kind of thing as well as tiered road tax come in.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree - what I took issue at was the ridiculous suggestion that people who buy cars based on performance should be banned from driving and that car manufacturers should be banned from publishing details of engine power and performance figures.

There is no need to implement command and control based instruments to strive towards a more efficient vehicle fleet. Market based instruments, like taxation, will do the job without such rules being required.

People are far less annoyed if they personally decide they'd like a more efficient car rather than find the car they want to buy is banned or whatever.

I don't disagree with the tiered taxation system, either, and infact have supported it in the past (For NEW vehicles, it is pointless and punative to apply it to existing cars).

Kudos for ignoring all the points I made before Ronin even posted - speaks volumes really.
 
Becuase he's an ecowarrior, he doesn't really know what he's talking about which is why he has to selectively reply to posts and ignore the more complicated ones or the ones that don't suit his agenda.

What car do you drive, Scottly?
 
Scottly said:
no u
Click to expand...

You lose more and more credibility by the second. This is a car enthusiast forum filled with intelligent people. This eco rubbish based on nothing but ignorance will not wash here, and isnt wanted. Go back to GD.
 
[TW]Fox;11834975 said:
What car do you drive, Scottly?
Click to expand...

cosy_coupe.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom