Global warming my foot.
Our government has it’s finger in everything under the guise of stopping global warming or global cooling or whatever the crisis of the day is. In reality, our government is made up of a bunch of people who want to save the world but have no idea how it works.
First off, my opinion on the emissions garbage on vehicles today.
In 1990 I had a buddy who owned one of the first Dodge 3/4 tons to have a Cummins diesel engine in it. His 3/4 ton pickup with 4 wheel drive got between 27 and 28 mpg. Today my 2007 Dodge complete with a host of Government mandated garbage trinkets on it gets around 18 mpg. Roughly the global warming idiots mandating all this stuff have caused the same engine to reduce it’s efficiency by approximately 1/3. Had we spent 18 years trying to figure out how to get the 27 mpg truck to deliver 30 mpg, how much better off would we be?
Because my truck gets 1/3 less mileage than it should (as well as millions more like it) 1/3 more fuel has to be hauled by transfer trucks from the pipeline terminals to the stations. One should assume they are at least buring 1/3 more fuel than necessary to haul the additional fuel. Not even taking into account the fact that similar regulations are having similar effects on transfer truck mileage, for sure they’ll need tires more often, more oil changes, etc because they are hauling more fuel. More trucks are probably on the road forcing more road construction and more wear on the pavement surfaces than would otherwise be necessary.
Since more fuel is being needed more oil has to be drilled, shipped, and refined. I don’t know what kind of mileage oil tankers get, but I suspect they burn a serious amount of fuel to sail from the Middle East to the US. Refining oil into fuel costs money. It takes oil to generate the energy to refine oil.
Storage tanks and systems have to be built to hold more oil and fuel. That requires metals which requires fuel/oil to produce, transport and construct.
Diesel engines aren’t alone. My dad has always had a Cadillac or Lincoln in his garage. From the boats he had in the 70’s with the big block V-8’s to the relatively tinky sized STS he has now with it’s matchbox engine. The big boats with the big block V-8’s would get 18 mpg on the highway. The relatively small STS gets 21 mpg. I used to have a Trans Am with a 350 V-8 that would get 27 mpg on the highway. I suspect a similar engine in a car the size of the STS would get 27 mpg at least.
My solution, Remove the Catalytic converters off my diesel engine, ditch the egr valves, get rid of the electronic injectors and go back the mechanical injectors. Get rid of the junk that is costing fuel mileage and strive to get these vehicles to get better mileage. There’s no reason with the technology we have today that diesel pickups should get less than 25 mpg. (Ford’s new diesel gets 11 mpg at best) Take the emissions requirements off and bring back mileage requirements. Given the size of cars today, none of them should get less than 30 mpg and I’d think 35 mpg would be a reasonable goal. It’s possible that it could cut our fuel use by 40% or more. How much better off would we be? The answer is of course a lot.
The fact is, the act of burning fuel is a chemical reaction. Regardless of the trinkets used to burn fuel, it produces a given amount of bi products (pollutants). Figuring out how to burn less fuel would in fact reduce pollution and not increase it.
Skipper
Wrong forum, old chap. This group is about car repair.
The OP could also benefit from a visit to the following site:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html
There are thousands of very intelligent, informed scientists who would strongly disagree with your take on global warming and pollution. I remember as a kid visiting San Francisco in the late '60s. My eyes were burning the whole time there from the car and bus fumes.
Someone needs to crash in the oil company’s safe and find that carburator they are hiding. Yeah, you all know the one I’m talking about. It was on that 1959 Pontiac that slipped out of Detroit by mistake. The 389 V-8 got 50+ mpg…
What you need to do is compare brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) #'s for each engine. The decrease in fuel economy you speak of, which I suspect is highly exaggerated, can be a result of numerous other factors such as vehicle weight, gear ratio, tire size, drag, and engine power. The only way to compare apples-to-apples with a new vs. older engine or any engine, in regards to fuel efficiency is BSFC.
I have actually kept ACCURATE records of my own vehicles over the years. Some examples; 1965 V8 Dodge Dart automatic: typical mileage 17 mpg mixed urban/highway. 1966 Chevelle Malibu 283 V8; typical mileage 18 mixed urban/highway. Both these cars did not have converters or fuel injection. They were old style engines.
My latest car, a Toyota Corolla automatic weighs about the same as the Dodge Dart, has the same interior space, and about the same performance. Average fuel mileage 32mpg mixed urban/highway. The top mileage recorded for this car was 38 mpg on a long country drive.
As others point out, much progress has been made over the years. Even my 1988 Caprice 305 V8, which weighed 1000 lbs more and had a bigger engine than the Dodge Dart, got better fuel mileage, average about 18 mpg mixed city/highway.
The best way to make a point is to start with accurate and verifiable data, not hearsay, and make objective comparisons. A friend of mine was shopping for a pickup to pull his camper. A RELATIVE of his tried to sell him his Dodge Ram V8 truck, which he claimed, got 29.2 mpg!!! I suggested the relative had a long downhill slope when he measured the fuel consumption.
Besides being completely misinformed and clueless about science in general.
Lets start with the Catalytic converter and HOW they got to be mandated by the Government. Back in the 60’s under Johnson people started to really notice the drastic decrease in air quality due to Automobiles. Yes the Automobile had been around for many years, but it wasn’t until after WWII that the industry exploded. Sales increased almost 2000% from after WWII into the 60’s. Thus a 2000% increase in toxic fumes. So the Johnson administration went to the Big-4 and gave them MILLIONS of dollars in tax cuts to come up with a plan to pollute less. After 2 years they came back with an answer…“It can’t be done…Cars are as efficient and pollution free as we can possibly make them.” Needless to say that was a complete lie, and they just raped the American public for MILLIONS. When the Catalytic Converter came along by Owens Corning…and they PROVED how effective it was our government then FORCED the Big-4 to comply. Obviously they weren’t going to do it on their own.
Global Warming…The FACT that almost EVERY SINGLE CLIMATOLOGIST in the WORLD believes that global warming is happening AND that we humans are the biggest contributors to it, any person with reasonable intelligence has to agree that something is going on and should be done to prevent further damage. There’s BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of pieces of data which can be found on-line for everyone to see. I’ll admit there are SOME scientists who don’t believe in Global Warming…Most are on Exxon’s or some Coal companies payroll. It’s like the scientists who work for the Tobacco companies saying that smoking is not only NOT bad for you, but it’s actually good for you.
Global Warming aside…how about just being able to BREATH good air. Air quality today has increased DRASTICALLY since the 60’s. And there are nearly 5 times more cars.
FACT…Cars today get BETTER (MUCH BETTER) gas mileage then they did 40 years ago. Give me ANY car from the 60’s, and find any car today with the same size and weight…and gas mileage will be at LEAST 50% better…And pollute nearly 90% less. Those are the FACTS…DEAL WITH IT.
What does this have to do with vehicle repair and maintenance?
Yes, the only difference between today’s cars and yesterday’s is fuel economy. The vehicle weights are the same; the aerodynamics are the same; the speeds are the same; the number (and frequency), and lengths, of stops are the same. The only things which have changed are the colors.
Added later,
The above is sarcasm of an opposite nature. The irony is that EVERY factor has changed, from the vehicle to it’s use, from yesterday’s car to today’s car. There’s aren’t any similarities to compare.
Your buddy was probably drinking when he told you about 28MPG with a diesel. Or possibly he drove pure highway at speed limit or less with nothing in tow or in the bed(90% of average truck’s life) on a good day.
I do not buy any of it that “old” is better.
I forgot to address that part in my earlier reply.
NO WAY NO HOW did that diesel get 28mpg. NOT even CLOSE. If he got 18 he was doing EXCELLENT. Try posting FACTS skipper…
I agree with you that some of the older cars get equal or better fuel mileage than comparable ones of today. Many years ago a friend of mine had an early 60’s Pontiac LeMan that wouid get a steady 30 MPG and one of my son’s cars is an 80s era Camaro that gets 28 MPG steady as clock even with near 300k miles on it.
As to the global warming issue, there is a lot more to this than many people know; and unlikely to know because TV (a.k.a. idiot box) will not report on it. My son holds a Bachelors in Meteorology and a Masters in Climatology and we have discussions on this issue all of the time. He, like me, is disgusted that so many people buy into such a bogus issue based on tripe printed in TIME magazine, a 2 minute news blurb, or a grandstanding politician.
Statements that nearly all climate scientists buy into the GW theory and the ones that don’t are on the payroll of big oil are utter bunk and are nothing more than echoed tripe being repeated from TV news blurbs, etc.
Even my son has often stated that he would like to know where this poll of scientists was performed as he’s never heard, seen, nor has a clue as to where this info is gleaned. A credible link might help.
(And for what it’s worth one of the leading “climate experts” and Al Gore’s right hand man, Dr. Hansen, is not even schooled in the field. He’s an astronomer.)
I’ve rode in it many times. We fished together and he’d often tow my boat with his truck. We’ve measured it’s fuel mileage many many times and know the difference between the older diesels and newer ones.
I know for a fact that my 1977 diesel tractor uses less fuel for equal work to my 1999 diesel tractor. Both are in the same size classification. The difference is a bunch of emmissions trinkets on the newer one v’s the older mechanically injected engine.
No, not even close to every scientist in world subscribes to the theory of Global Warming, only those looking for a handout of funding from the Gooberment.
And sorry, I did put it in the wrong forum, just made a mistake of not checking the forum line when I submitted it. I didn’t realize if you pushed the topic button while looking at one forum that it would post the topic in a different forum, it was meant for the general forum.
Today’s vehicles ought to all be significantly lighter than yesterday’s vehicles. It is a fact that there are more plastics, aluminum, and thinner metals being used today than ever before. Why should they be heavier? Possibly too many heavy doo dads hanging off the engine to prevent so called global warming. BTW: What’s the temperature today where you are? It’s been unusually cold here for 2 months now.
As for global warming, compare things in general to your own house. In mine on a typical evening I might have a candle burning, my fireplace insert going, and my furnace. All 3 produce heat. The candle, a couple hundred BTU, hardly noticable in a room much less the whole house. The wood burner is about 20,000 BTU, noticable in the room it’s in and a little in the adjoining rooms, but on the far end of the house, no. The furnace, 200,000 BTU’s, it heats the whole house.
The temperature on Earth is and always will be governed by the Sun and how far we are from it which is the Furnace. It’s power output could be compared from the furnace to the candle.
Skipper
While reading MikeInNH’s post I thought of another difference between today’s vehicles and those of WWII. Today’s are much more powerful. For the semi world, 200 HP would have been a lot. Today the norm is probably 4-500. They accelerate faster and go up the mountains faster and burn a lot more fuel.
No, not even close to every scientist in world subscribes to the theory of Global Warming, only those looking for a handout of funding from the Gooberment.
Sorry…but you have no idea what you’re talking about. First off…what Government handout is occurring in Chile, or India, or Brazil. There are HUNDREDS of scientists in these countries doing major research in global warming. What Government Grand money is funding these…Sorry but you haven’t a clue as usual skipper. Chile is seeing first hand the effects of Global Warming.
Second…May daughter is now finishing up her degree in Chemical Engineering at MIT. She works closely doing research with two Chemical engineering professors who are at the forefront of Climatology. My daughter attended a couple of the world conferences with them on the Global Warming issues. Of the 2k scientists there, not ONE didn’t believe that there was Global Warming…and only a handful didn’t agree that man was the main cause. Those 2k scientists account for more then 90% of climatologists world wide.
Today’s vehicles ought to all be significantly lighter than yesterday’s vehicles. It is a fact that there are more plastics, aluminum, and thinner metals being used today than ever before. Why should they be heavier?
No question that we produce lighter vehicles…but of the vehicles that are the same weight…gas mileage is SIGNIFICANTLY better today. I’ll just give two examples of vehicles I’ve owned.
My 1973 Chevy Vega…My wifes 96 Accord was heavier…far far more hp…And go about 70% BETTER MPG.
My 1967 Chevelle …My wifes Lexus is just as heavy…More HP…Faster Acceleration…and about 60% better gas mileage.
Show me the data on vehicles from the 60’s of the same weight as a vehicle today that gets better or the same gas mileage…Just one please.
The temperature on Earth is and always will be governed by the Sun and how far we are from it which is the Furnace. It’s power output could be compared from the furnace to the candle.
Which supermarket tabloid are you getting your science from. First off the earth is in a orbit that’s OVAL. We are the FARTHEST away from the Sun during the months of July and February. So if your theory is true then why isn’t July one of our COLDEST months. Even my 11 year old has more science knowledge then this. It’s not so much the distance the ANGLE. That’s why July is hotter here in the Northern Hemisphere…NOT the distance. Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society???
Which supermarket tabloid are you getting your science from.
It sounds like Fox News to me.
They burn a lot more fuel? Today’s 400-500 hp tractor trailers are much more aerodynamic and are supposed to be more fuel efficient. I used to get about 6 MPG fully loaded to capacity, but normally got about 8-9 MPG. What kind of fuel economy did 200 hp trucks get in the 1940s? Keep in mind that sleeper cabs were illegal back then.
Global Warming…The FACT that almost EVERY SINGLE CLIMATOLOGIST in the WORLD believes that global warming is happening AND that we humans are the biggest contributors to it, any person with reasonable intelligence has to agree that something is going on and should be done to prevent further damage. There’s BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of pieces of data which can be found on-line for everyone to see. I’ll admit there are SOME scientists who don’t believe in Global Warming…Most are on Exxon’s or some Coal companies payroll. It’s like the scientists who work for the Tobacco companies saying that smoking is not only NOT bad for you, but it’s actually good for you.
Nonsense. While you slept, Mike, the tables have turned, and no serious person without a political agenda still believes in global warming. Maybe you spend too much time on Cartalk, and haven’t noticed that the global warming folks don’t even call it GW any more. They have changed to “climate change” hoping everyone forgets they ever said GW.
There have even been people who pretended there was GW, then they retired and were free to speak, and said there never was any serious proof of GW, it was another press hoax like R-12 destroying the ozone layer. They had to go along with the program to keep their jobs.
“Nonsense. While you slept, Mike, the tables have turned, and no serious person without a political agenda still believes in global warming. Maybe you spend too much time on Cartalk, and haven’t noticed that the global warming folks don’t even call it GW any more. They have changed to “climate change” hoping everyone forgets they ever said GW.”
Let’s just keep this local. When did the experts at NASA and NOAA change their minds? Who is more serious and more expert on Global Warming than them? Are they politically motivated? If so, who is motivating them and how? The chief climatologist at NASA was censured just a couple of years ago for talking openly about global warming. It seems that a GW Bush appointee didn’t like that kind of talk.