Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

M PLATE CROWN VIC!!

On other news, thank god for RockAuto. Although I must say that finding things on parts numbers on the shops I frequent is quite odd (Usually goes like "I need a shock absorber for my Tercel wagon")
 
What test would need to be fleshed out? Surely the countless years of being used for police and taxi service proves it's worthiness?
 
93Flareside said:
What test would need to be fleshed out? Surely the countless years of being used for police and taxi service proves it's worthiness?
Click to expand...

Accessory, suspension, exhaust and other component manufacturers would and do still sometimes use CVs (and older vehicles) as test mules and they qualify for manufacturer plates in many states. It's not just factories that need to do testing.
 
93Flareside said:
What test would need to be fleshed out? Surely the countless years of being used for police and taxi service proves it's worthiness?
Click to expand...



GM famously used a Pontiac GTO well into the 90s at it's Arizona test facility in some fashion.
 
Rant incoming... It's no secret that there is being used wast amounts of time and money on making cars "greener", because of the constant changes in regulation. But is it really worth it?
If 15% of the global emissions comes from the transport sector, and about a third of that is from personal transport, that leave under 5% of the total emission is from private cars. Is it really worth regulating those 5% as much as we are doing, and forcing the cost of producing cars up? Or is it just a way for politicians to make it look like they are doing "good"? If we didn't regulate as much, manufactures would be able to keep the cost down, and still focus on creating more efficient cars, and not just cars which can live up tests. It would also make newer cars cheaper, and therefore make it possible for more people to change out their old and ineffective cars. More importantly it would give more room to focus on some of the more important sectors, like energy. - What do you guys think?
 
Average Guy said:
Or is it just a way for politicians to make it look like they are doing "good"?
Click to expand...

Mostly this. If you frame everything any politician ever does in this way, you're rarely far from the mark.

Though in some localities, personal transport does have a very large impact on environmental conditions. Think: LA smog.
 
EyeMWing said:
Mostly this. If you frame everything any politician ever does in this way, you're rarely far from the mark.

Though in some localities, personal transport does have a very large impact on environmental conditions. Think: LA smog.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this argument as well. But even then, is it really worth regulating the entire industry?
 
Well, isn't that why CARB exists? The whole country doesn't have to abide by those stringent rules but, every car sold today still meets it.
 
EyeMWing said:
Mostly this. If you frame everything any politician ever does in this way, you're rarely far from the mark.

Though in some localities, personal transport does have a very large impact on environmental conditions. Think: LA smog.
Click to expand...

emissions are not the same as efficiency, emissions controls make sense efficiency requirements don't
 
I don't fully agree. If you don't have efficiency requirements, what drives people to reduce energy consumption? Increasing cost for fuel is kind of a shitty way to do it.
 
Well, there's two different goals, I think, right? They generally go hand in hand, but I don't think it's unreasonable that one might want to reduce consumption because it reduces strain on the grid, reduces some costs for everyone because less infrastructure is needed, possibly dependence on foreign energy, and many might be OK if at the end, there was no emissions improvements (like let's say they reduced emission standards to help cars be more efficient so it became a zero-sum game).

Going the other way, only caring about emissions without caring about reducing the demand doesn't really work logically (I'm not saying there are illogical fools out there) because end-user emissions are only a tiny part of the overall emissions required for the massive "machine" that brought the energy to you.
 
Last edited:
93Flareside said:
I don't fully agree. If you don't have efficiency requirements, what drives people to reduce energy consumption? Increasing cost for fuel is kind of a shitty way to do it.
Click to expand...
You already got it, the price of fuel is going to drive it, fossil fuels are finite by their very nature and the price naturally goes up. People who are price conscious will always go for more efficient choices, and people who aren't won't.

- - - Updated - - -

NecroJoe said:
because end-user emissions are only a tiny part of the overall emissions required for the massive "machine" that brought the energy to you.
Click to expand...
CAFE standards don't apply to any of that machinery, only the end-user. Kind of the whole point OP was trying to make.
 
Exactly. In my optic it would be much more useful to regulate the manufacturing process. The amount of emissions we save on the end user of cars is just way to small compared to the amount of regulations on the topic.
 
I don't always race people... but when I'm merging onto the highway and there's a Shelby F150 behind me, well...

Inside my head I could hear Brian's voice: "Don't do it LeVeL! He's got over a hundred grand under the hood of that car!"

But I did it. And I lost. All I could hear was the supercharger whine. Apparently those things have 700hp. I need NOS, two of the big ones.
 
I hear Coco has two of the big ones. :wicked:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top