RE: EU Kills 1.8-litre Lotuses
Discussion
otolith said:
What I would like to see is how well the EU test cycle figures correlate with what people actually get in day to day use of the cars - which would reveal to what extent manufacturers are indulging in cycle-beating measures which improve test performance without benefiting users.
Might be interesting to find the official CO2 figures for all the cars in the PH MPG wiki.
+1 Might be interesting to find the official CO2 figures for all the cars in the PH MPG wiki.
Mr Gear said:
bencollins said:
Mr Gear said:
bencollins said:
O/T I do hope the EU gets round to independently testing these CO2 figures, because they are currently b
ks-lies supplied by the manufacturers.
Are they really? Where's The Wookie when you need the big walking carpet...?ks-lies supplied by the manufacturers.RobM77 said:
I am reasonably well read in the subject thank you. How animals are kept is a seperate issue. It's perfectly possible to keep pigs, cows, sheep and chickens in humane conditions without adding a vast amount to the eventual retail price. Meat is extremely nutricious, and whilst it's possible to survive without it, it's a key source of many essential vitamins and minerals for a balanced diet.
Vegetables can be grown here, yes, but take a look at the label when you buy veg in the supermarket. I know that plenty of mine (most, in fact) comes from abroad by air freight, whereas all of my meat is from the UK. That's just what's on offer in my local supermarket.
I'm not trying to claim that either meat or veg is better for the environment, just trying to respond to the initial criticism of humans eating meat. We're designed to chew and digest the stuff, and the way we rear and kill animals for meat is far more humane than other carnivores. I suggest you read up on it ;-)
"the way we rear and kill animals for meat is far more humane than other carnivores". That is such a daft argument for intensive farming. Meat is far too cheap and we eat far too much and as a result animal welfare suffers. As a child with my parents a local large chicken would last a week. The amount of meat that we eat in the West is not down to necessity, it is down to greed.Vegetables can be grown here, yes, but take a look at the label when you buy veg in the supermarket. I know that plenty of mine (most, in fact) comes from abroad by air freight, whereas all of my meat is from the UK. That's just what's on offer in my local supermarket.
I'm not trying to claim that either meat or veg is better for the environment, just trying to respond to the initial criticism of humans eating meat. We're designed to chew and digest the stuff, and the way we rear and kill animals for meat is far more humane than other carnivores. I suggest you read up on it ;-)
"plenty of mine (most, in fact) comes from abroad by air freight". Don't where you are shopping but I buy UK sourced food from supermarkets etc. If it is imported don't buy it, although the sustainability of air freighted veg is complex and sometimes importing can be more sustainable.
"We're designed to chew and digest the stuff". We are opportunists like other chimps and apes, however we do not have claws, proper incisors for ripping flesh, our digestive system is closer to a herbivore than a carnivore. Our jaws can move from side to side like herbivores and we have teeth designed for chewing vegetable matter. We are able to eat an omnivorous diet but can survive without meat as you state.
otolith said:
The route to sustainable food production is mixed agriculture - including raising animals for meat or dairy. Chasing "efficiency" leads to artificially fertilised monoculture. Veganism does not fit at all with small scale organic farming systems, nor with eating local in temperate climes.
Otolith, fair points. However it is the amount of meat that we eat that needs to be tackled and the animal welfare. The present intensity and intensiveness of meat production in the West is not sustainable. RobM77 said:
Mr Gear said:
bencollins said:
Mr Gear said:
bencollins said:
O/T I do hope the EU gets round to independently testing these CO2 figures, because they are currently bks-lies supplied by the manufacturers.
Are they really? Where's The Wookie when you need the big walking carpet...?ks-lies supplied by the manufacturers.So why making it more complex by taking it out on the road seems like a good idea to some people, I don't know.
B10 said:
RobM77 said:
I am reasonably well read in the subject thank you. How animals are kept is a seperate issue. It's perfectly possible to keep pigs, cows, sheep and chickens in humane conditions without adding a vast amount to the eventual retail price. Meat is extremely nutricious, and whilst it's possible to survive without it, it's a key source of many essential vitamins and minerals for a balanced diet.
Vegetables can be grown here, yes, but take a look at the label when you buy veg in the supermarket. I know that plenty of mine (most, in fact) comes from abroad by air freight, whereas all of my meat is from the UK. That's just what's on offer in my local supermarket.
I'm not trying to claim that either meat or veg is better for the environment, just trying to respond to the initial criticism of humans eating meat. We're designed to chew and digest the stuff, and the way we rear and kill animals for meat is far more humane than other carnivores. I suggest you read up on it ;-)
"the way we rear and kill animals for meat is far more humane than other carnivores". That is such a daft argument for intensive farming. Meat is far too cheap and we eat far too much and as a result animal welfare suffers. As a child with my parents a local large chicken would last a week. The amount of meat that we eat in the West is not down to necessity, it is down to greed.Vegetables can be grown here, yes, but take a look at the label when you buy veg in the supermarket. I know that plenty of mine (most, in fact) comes from abroad by air freight, whereas all of my meat is from the UK. That's just what's on offer in my local supermarket.
I'm not trying to claim that either meat or veg is better for the environment, just trying to respond to the initial criticism of humans eating meat. We're designed to chew and digest the stuff, and the way we rear and kill animals for meat is far more humane than other carnivores. I suggest you read up on it ;-)
"plenty of mine (most, in fact) comes from abroad by air freight". Don't where you are shopping but I buy UK sourced food from supermarkets etc. If it is imported don't buy it, although the sustainability of air freighted veg is complex and sometimes importing can be more sustainable.
"We're designed to chew and digest the stuff". We are opportunists like other chimps and apes, however we do not have claws, proper incisors for ripping flesh, our digestive system is closer to a herbivore than a carnivore. Our jaws can move from side to side like herbivores and we have teeth designed for chewing vegetable matter. We are able to eat an omnivorous diet but can survive without meat as you state.
otolith said:
The route to sustainable food production is mixed agriculture - including raising animals for meat or dairy. Chasing "efficiency" leads to artificially fertilised monoculture. Veganism does not fit at all with small scale organic farming systems, nor with eating local in temperate climes.
Otolith, fair points. However it is the amount of meat that we eat that needs to be tackled and the animal welfare. The present intensity and intensiveness of meat production in the West is not sustainable.My point is that meat farming doesn't have to be cruel. I also agree, we eat too much meat in the West (an Asuan diet is better for us). Personally, I would like to see farming livestock in cruel conditions banned, with for example a five year period for farmers to comply. If free range meat is more expensive, then perhaps those that buy trolley loads of it should cut down a bit. The truth is though that meat is good for you, and farming it doesn't have to be cruel.
Right - back to cars!
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 22 June 12:36
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 22 June 12:48
B10 said:
Otolith, fair points. However it is the amount of meat that we eat that needs to be tackled and the animal welfare. The present intensity and intensiveness of meat production in the West is not sustainable.
In some respects I agree. You have to be careful of the propaganda, though - PETA likes to throw around figures based on US farming practices which are not really relevant to European consumers. You can't lump US grain-fed beef in with British or NZ grass fed lamb, for instance.JHS said:
we seriously need to leave the E,U.
COME WHO WANTS TO SIGN THE PETITION !!!
I'm no Europhile, but anyone who thinks emissions regs are a bad thing is an idiot. COME WHO WANTS TO SIGN THE PETITION !!!
Anyone who can remember what London smelled like in the 1960s will know what I am talking about. I went to La Paz in Bolivia a couple of years ago and the air was so thick with smog that you could literally see it in the air. Without someone saying "this is the limit" we'd still be living in that smog in this country right now. As the tech moves forward, why not make the tests tougher and kill off polluting engines? We don't need them any more. It isn't going to kill the Elise. They will just get a more modern engine on the job. What's not to like?!
Mr Gear said:
JHS said:
we seriously need to leave the E,U.
COME WHO WANTS TO SIGN THE PETITION !!!
I'm no Europhile, but anyone who thinks emissions regs are a bad thing is an idiot. COME WHO WANTS TO SIGN THE PETITION !!!
Anyone who can remember what London smelled like in the 1960s will know what I am talking about. I went to La Paz in Bolivia a couple of years ago and the air was so thick with smog that you could literally see it in the air. Without someone saying "this is the limit" we'd still be living in that smog in this country right now. As the tech moves forward, why not make the tests tougher and kill off polluting engines? We don't need them any more. It isn't going to kill the Elise. They will just get a more modern engine on the job. What's not to like?!
Mr Gear said:
It isn't going to kill the Elise. They will just get a more modern engine on the job. What's not to like?!
While I'm generally in favour of measures that improve those emissions directly injurious to health, what I don't like is that the convergence on small capacity turbocharged three and four cylinder engines is very, very boring. otolith said:
Mr Gear said:
It isn't going to kill the Elise. They will just get a more modern engine on the job. What's not to like?!
While I'm generally in favour of measures that improve those emissions directly injurious to health, what I don't like is that the convergence on small capacity turbocharged three and four cylinder engines is very, very boring. otolith said:
what I don't like is that the convergence on small capacity turbocharged three and four cylinder engines is very, very boring.
Indeed. Although another 3p on the price of a litre of petrol (that's the effect of a 2.5% rise in VAT) from January seems likely to increase the pressure in that direction.With the price of oil also set to rocket as the world moves out of recession a tank of fuel is going to look pretty expensive.
kambites said:
I think the Elise will be the last thing to suffer significantly from this. The current engines are already utterly lacking in character.
I may get lynched for this, but so is the K-series. The only kind of four cylinder engine I really like is a screamer, so the unit fitted in the R has something to commend it. Unfortunately, it really isn't the best example of its sort, the Honda K20 being a much more charismatic engine. I'd still take the Toyota lump over an equivalently powerful turbocharged unit, though.
Mr Gear said:
So why making it more complex by taking it out on the road seems like a good idea to some people, I don't know.
Driving it independently on a test track reflecting mixed driving until it runs out of fuel seems like a good way to test how much a fuel a car uses, putting it on rollers does not. Given the fiddled results we see presently, i must be right kambites said:
otolith said:
Mr Gear said:
It isn't going to kill the Elise. They will just get a more modern engine on the job. What's not to like?!
While I'm generally in favour of measures that improve those emissions directly injurious to health, what I don't like is that the convergence on small capacity turbocharged three and four cylinder engines is very, very boring. One other thing: what makes am Elise isn't its engine. Take the glorious straight six out of my Z4 Coupe and replace it with a naff engine and it would be a dull car; put a naff engine in an Elise and it'd still be great.
RobM77 said:
kambites said:
otolith said:
Mr Gear said:
It isn't going to kill the Elise. They will just get a more modern engine on the job. What's not to like?!
While I'm generally in favour of measures that improve those emissions directly injurious to health, what I don't like is that the convergence on small capacity turbocharged three and four cylinder engines is very, very boring. One other thing: what makes am Elise isn't its engine. Take the glorious straight six out of my Z4 Coupe and replace it with a naff engine and it would be a dull car; put a naff engine in an Elise and it'd still be great.
Mr Gear said:
bencollins said:
Mr Gear said:
bencollins said:
O/T I do hope the EU gets round to independently testing these CO2 figures, because they are currently bks-lies supplied by the manufacturers.
Are they really? Where's The Wookie when you need the big walking carpet...?ks-lies supplied by the manufacturers.bencollins said:
Driving it independently on a test track reflecting mixed driving until it runs out of fuel seems like a good way to test how much a fuel a car uses, putting it on rollers does not. Given the fiddled results we see presently, i must be right
And how do you propose getting consistent and repeatable results doing this given the effect of different weather conditions, temperatures etc?Edited by uncinqsix on Tuesday 22 June 22:22
Any of the latest performance 1.4 or 1.6 engines is objectively better than the NA 1.8 in the Elise;performance,economy,emissions,tunability,etc.-the small engines with character are getting illegal,so let's be happy that the new ''dull'' ones are superior in every other regard!
The only exception is the Clio 200's engine,but most likely the next hot Clio will be packing turboed 1.6...
The only exception is the Clio 200's engine,but most likely the next hot Clio will be packing turboed 1.6...
mainaman said:
Any of the latest performance 1.4 or 1.6 engines is objectively better than the NA 1.8 in the Elise;performance,economy,emissions,tunability,etc.-the small engines with character are getting illegal,so let's be happy that the new ''dull'' ones are superior in every other regard!
The only exception is the Clio 200's engine,but most likely the next hot Clio will be packing turboed 1.6...
The Exige 1.8 is better than the the 1.6s thoughThe only exception is the Clio 200's engine,but most likely the next hot Clio will be packing turboed 1.6...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff