So you have just paid to have your DPF removed....
Discussion
XJ Flyer said:
I'm not bothering to argue about obviously entrenched views on both sides.I'm just arguing about the freedon to disagree with a bunch of obviously eco trolls on a performance car site and the freedom to disagree,to the point where the freedom,which has so far existed,to modify a car,outside of manufacturer emissions standards aftermarket,can and should remain.In just the same way that if I choose to use a car which burns loads of fossil fuels because I don't agree with the bulls
t global warming scam the freedom to do that should remain too.
As for the eco trolls there are plenty of religious zealots out there who'd also wish to impose their type of law on everyone based on so called unarguable 'facts' as they see them.I see the eco zealots as being no different in that regard.
Fair enough mate, wish I hadn't bothered now! I am wholeheartedly with you on the anti-religion front, and being a selfish childless under 30, I couldn't give less of a crap about the environmental impact of my cars, so don't assume I'm disagreeing with you because I want to stop you doing what you're doing. I couldn't care less, I only waded in because I genuinely wished to gain an insight into your reasoning, as I can't wrap my head around it, and I prefer to be able to understand stuff. t global warming scam the freedom to do that should remain too.As for the eco trolls there are plenty of religious zealots out there who'd also wish to impose their type of law on everyone based on so called unarguable 'facts' as they see them.I see the eco zealots as being no different in that regard.
XJ Flyer said:
Or to put it another way you're just another eco bullst supporting troll on a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use.Which hopefully includes the freedom to modify a car outside of it's type approval regarding emissions on an aftermarket basis.
Factually incorrect, but then that's a postion you seem to occupy regularly.t supporting troll on a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use.Which hopefully includes the freedom to modify a car outside of it's type approval regarding emissions on an aftermarket basis. I'm not an environmentalist and I am a petrolhead.
What I am is a scientist and an engineer so while I may have a strong interest in performance cars (despite being stuck in diesel s
t box through current financial constraints) I also have an understanding of the enivironmental impact of cars. Just because I like fast cars doesn't mean that I don't care about the potentially serious health effects that they can have. Health effects that are not opinion, but fact.Devil2575 said:
Factually incorrect, but then that's a postion you seem to occupy regularly.
I'm not an environmentalist and I am a petrolhead.
What I am is a scientist and an engineer so while I may have a strong interest in performance cars (despite being stuck in diesel st box through current financial constraints) I also have an understanding of the enivironmental impact of cars. Just because I like fast cars doesn't mean that I don't care about the potentially serious health effects that they can have. Health effects that are not opinion, but fact.
I think he's gone I'm not an environmentalist and I am a petrolhead.
What I am is a scientist and an engineer so while I may have a strong interest in performance cars (despite being stuck in diesel s
t box through current financial constraints) I also have an understanding of the enivironmental impact of cars. Just because I like fast cars doesn't mean that I don't care about the potentially serious health effects that they can have. Health effects that are not opinion, but fact.
Sorry to hear you're stuck with a diesel at the moment, I'm sure you'll be back in with the real men soon
longblackcoat said:
XJ Flyer said:
You think something is bad for the environment and is silly and wasteful but you still want to do it and then you come on here preaching such bullst and expect everyone to comply.All because you think that your wish to be 90% eco car supporter is something which you want to enforce on anyone who doesn't agree with you and who wishes to have the freedom which they've had so far to modify a car outside of manufacturer type approval in regards to emissions regulations.
However I find your argument a bit difficult to believe being that it's more likely that you're 100% eco car user and you expect everyone else to comply with your ideas.
The 4.0 twin-turbo V8 on my driveway would point out that I'm hardly Mr Green!t and expect everyone to comply.All because you think that your wish to be 90% eco car supporter is something which you want to enforce on anyone who doesn't agree with you and who wishes to have the freedom which they've had so far to modify a car outside of manufacturer type approval in regards to emissions regulations.However I find your argument a bit difficult to believe being that it's more likely that you're 100% eco car user and you expect everyone else to comply with your ideas.
Just understand this; there's only a certain amount of fossil fuel. Once it's gone, it's gone. So if I drive something sensibly frugal most of the time, that doesn't totally screw up the planet, that just makes me sensible. Yes, I have the 'let my hair down' moments, but it's stupid to do it every day.
I like beer, love it in fact, but only drink 2 days a week. Presumably by your standards I absolutely need to guzzle it down a gallon at a time every night to prove that I'm a real man?
As for the beer issue it's more a case of someone who likes a drink,however much they choose to drink telling everyone that prohibition should be brought back because a) it's harmful or b) the beer is all running out or a combination of both.
That's assuming that they aren't just prohibitionists pretending that they like a dink to give themselves credibility when preaching for drinkers to comply with their bs ideas.
Devil2575 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Or to put it another way you're just another eco bullst supporting troll on a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use.Which hopefully includes the freedom to modify a car outside of it's type approval regarding emissions on an aftermarket basis.
Factually incorrect, but then that's a postion you seem to occupy regularly.t supporting troll on a site that's 'supposed to be' all about performance car use.Which hopefully includes the freedom to modify a car outside of it's type approval regarding emissions on an aftermarket basis. I'm not an environmentalist and I am a petrolhead.
What I am is a scientist and an engineer so while I may have a strong interest in performance cars (despite being stuck in diesel s
t box through current financial constraints) I also have an understanding of the enivironmental impact of cars. Just because I like fast cars doesn't mean that I don't care about the potentially serious health effects that they can have. Health effects that are not opinion, but fact.t then how can you possibly also then believe that it's ok for you to be a so called 'petrol head'.As for diesels as I've said it would be ironic if the government uses the penny pinching diesel st box user base as an excuse and trojan horse to drive through a load of type approval regulation aftermarket.Which would have obvious implications,in regard to the freedom of the 'petrol heads',concerning their use of performance cars and the aftermarket modifications which have routinely been carried out,so far without any issues or problems from government.
currybum said:
XJ Flyer said:
Global warming,emissions,the oil is running out blah blah it's always predictably one or all of those.If that's what you really want to believe that then go on believing it.
Why would you have to "believe" it? There is plenty of data available so there is no reason why you can't go out and actually "know" the facts.
No leap of faith required.
XJ Flyer said:
currybum said:
XJ Flyer said:
Global warming,emissions,the oil is running out blah blah it's always predictably one or all of those.If that's what you really want to believe that then go on believing it.
Why would you have to "believe" it? There is plenty of data available so there is no reason why you can't go out and actually "know" the facts.
No leap of faith required.
t artists, so he'd be no better off for providing some data for you to ignore?Again, I don't know to what extent global warming is happening, I've tried to read / watch things on both sides to get a balanced view, but it doesn't really interest me enough to have stuck, so I can't comment. I was just pointing out you wouldn't believe anything he provided anyway, it'd be dismissed as 'just another' piece of 'evidence' put out by political correctness gone made from brussels damn EU the shape of bananas immigration Diana bankers bonuses area 51 ghosts religion nonsense put out by 'the man' to try and control us into following the liberal green lentils trees hippys communist politicians big brother whatever the hell it is that's apparently behind it all despite no evidence but oh wait they control the evidence maaan as we're not part of the solution we're part of the problem what have you.
XJ Flyer said:
Which would have obvious implications,in regard to the freedom of the 'petrol heads',concerning their use of performance cars and the aftermarket modifications which have routinely been carried out,so far without any issues or problems from government.
What do you mean by freedom? Can I lead you through these next questions at least?
1. Do we at least agree that everyone can't be left to do what they want all the time? Surely you'll agree there?
2. Do we at least agree with the 'fact' that this country is a democracy, governed by elected officials who one way or another represent 'the majority'? Or is that all put forward by 'the politicians' and really it's run by McDonald's?
3. You're a 'petrol head', agreed?
Based on 1, 2 and 3 being 'facts' (by which we mean things you agree with, as this thread has established) then unfortunately, you're in the overwhelming minority, and your opinion is irrelevant. There is no such thing as freedom of the kind you seem to think exists. You're allowed to do what you want whilst the majority allows it, once they don't, well, tough.
currybum said:
XJ Flyer said:
Data such as what exactly.I've previously asked the believers on here to provide the exact mathematical conversion factor being relied on by the believers which shows the direct link between the minute increase in C02 levels and temperature increase on a percentage basis for both.So far no surprise there's been no answer because there is no direct link.
Given that the data available to the public takes up thousands of pages scientific paper, complied with millions of man hours by people who work on this for entire careers, I’m not surprised that no one has been able to convince you in a single forum post on demand. For unbelievably complex problems we pay scientists to do research and come to a consensus. and 97% of those people agree If you think you are cleverer than those experts by all means review their research papers and ask them questions directly refuting their conclusions (which is how peer reviewed science works).
Just putting your fingers in your ears and telling everyone you “don’t believe it” is no different to the people who still say we were created by a old guy in the sky 6000 years ago.
t global warming scam so it should be easy enough for you to provide the exact figures,showing a direct mathmatical conversion factor which shows a link,between the minute amount of CO2 which exists in Earth's atmosphere,let alone the even more minute addition caused by fossil fuel burning,and climatic temperature variation.The fact is,not surprisingly,you can't because there is no real link whatsoever. SturdyHSV said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which would have obvious implications,in regard to the freedom of the 'petrol heads',concerning their use of performance cars and the aftermarket modifications which have routinely been carried out,so far without any issues or problems from government.
What do you mean by freedom? Can I lead you through these next questions at least?
1. Do we at least agree that everyone can't be left to do what they want all the time? Surely you'll agree there?
2. Do we at least agree with the 'fact' that this country is a democracy, governed by elected officials who one way or another represent 'the majority'? Or is that all put forward by 'the politicians' and really it's run by McDonald's?
3. You're a 'petrol head', agreed?
Based on 1, 2 and 3 being 'facts' (by which we mean things you agree with, as this thread has established) then unfortunately, you're in the overwhelming minority, and your opinion is irrelevant. There is no such thing as freedom of the kind you seem to think exists. You're allowed to do what you want whilst the majority allows it, once they don't, well, tough.
currybum said:
lowdrag said:
How many time do I have to tell you children; DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I suffered on another thread, and I suggest you get on with your own discussion.
What..are you saying that the internet isn't for arguments?currybum said:
Given that the data available to the public takes up thousands of pages scientific paper, complied with millions of man hours by people who work on this for entire careers, I’m not surprised that no one has been able to convince you in a single forum post on demand.
For unbelievably complex problems we pay scientists to do research and come to a consensus. and 97% of those people agree If you think you are cleverer than those experts by all means review their research papers and ask them questions directly refuting their conclusions (which is how peer reviewed science works).
Just putting your fingers in your ears and telling everyone you “don’t believe it” is no different to the people who still say we were created by a old guy in the sky 6000 years ago.
what has the man made up climate change or warming scam got to do withFor unbelievably complex problems we pay scientists to do research and come to a consensus. and 97% of those people agree If you think you are cleverer than those experts by all means review their research papers and ask them questions directly refuting their conclusions (which is how peer reviewed science works).
Just putting your fingers in your ears and telling everyone you “don’t believe it” is no different to the people who still say we were created by a old guy in the sky 6000 years ago.
Removing your DPF !! What a strange direction this thread has gone
dpf. a device that is supposed to clean the PM10 and PM2.5 (approx) from the exhaust and reduce carcinogenic lung problems thus appeasing the 'Green Movement'.
reality. an unreliable blockage that clogs and causes owners lots of monetary heartache when the car 'isn't driven properly' as if driving the car the way the owner wants to drive it isn't proper...
removing dpf. a way of removing the financial heartache of a deliberately unreliable blockage in the exhaust and releasing power, reliability and economy into an engine that wasn't originally designed to be strangled.
dpf. a noble thought implemented appallingly to the benefit of car manufacturers and dealer engineering shops.
Much like the exhaust back pressure valve, manufactured from small girders and welded together with mechano parts, installed in my old Lotus that was designed to get the car through Californian emission regulations but fitted to my English car sold in Maidenhead.
reality. an unreliable blockage that clogs and causes owners lots of monetary heartache when the car 'isn't driven properly' as if driving the car the way the owner wants to drive it isn't proper...
removing dpf. a way of removing the financial heartache of a deliberately unreliable blockage in the exhaust and releasing power, reliability and economy into an engine that wasn't originally designed to be strangled.
dpf. a noble thought implemented appallingly to the benefit of car manufacturers and dealer engineering shops.
Much like the exhaust back pressure valve, manufactured from small girders and welded together with mechano parts, installed in my old Lotus that was designed to get the car through Californian emission regulations but fitted to my English car sold in Maidenhead.
Edited by Oilchange on Thursday 19th December 20:39
Guess what both these cars have in the exhaust pipe? Still quite rapid.
So it's not like a DPF is the restrictive equivalent of making your exhaust system 1" across. There is however a time and a place for DPFs and regardless of what certain people think. There IS a correct way to drive a car equipped with one and if you don't do that sort of driving. You have the WRONG car
Edited by Rich_W on Thursday 19th December 21:22
Oh I'm fine really with my DPF and it causes me little or no issue. As you say, it's just part of the driving technique.
Of course London cabs now have them fitted. Having said that 15 or 20 of them in a row going nowhere in Long Acre, Covent Garden yesterday made you wonder what good they were doing.
Of course London cabs now have them fitted. Having said that 15 or 20 of them in a row going nowhere in Long Acre, Covent Garden yesterday made you wonder what good they were doing.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff