fuel enconomy

[berj]

Originally Posted by bmussatti

Don't worry about miles per gallon....it's all about smiles per gallon that matters!

Look at what people are willing to spend at Starbucks everyday, or bottled water. Don't worry about gas mileage and fuel costs. IMHO.

I respectfully disagree.. somewhat. My main concern isn't necessarily cost spent on gas (though that's important too) but rather gas consumed and its effect on the environment. Certainly I'm aware of the fact that I'm driving a performance car with the attendant consumption but it's always possible to find a balance. If you can change your driving habits somewhat (without losing the enjoyment of your vehicle) why wouldn't you? You save money at the very least.

If I were getting only 350km per tank on the highway I would definitely go get my car checked out -- from my point of view that's 32 extra litres I'm consuming (my car get's 800 per 64 litre fill). Over the course of a year of steady driving that's at least $800 wasted.

Even with combined city and highway driving I'd expect to get something like 500km on a tank.

I'm not sure about older cars, though.. and everyone's driving style is different.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by berj

I respectfully disagree.. somewhat. My main concern isn't necessarily cost spent on gas (though that's important too) but rather gas consumed and its effect on the environment. Certainly I'm aware of the fact that I'm driving a performance car with the attendant consumption but it's always possible to find a balance. . .

Hi,

OK, this thread has just Officially gotten too weird. Discussing protecting the Environment on a Car Forum is like HandGun Manufacturers promoting their use for Sport.

You're deluding yourself if you think driving a Boxster or any performance car can in anyway be good for the Environment. Such a delusion may provide your conscience with a Feel Good, but that's about all.

Whether you're driving a Hybrid, an F1 Racer, or running a Lawnmower for that matter, every time you use a Gallon of Gas, you're releasing 5 pounds of Carbon into the atmosphere (think of it as throwing a 5lb. Bag of Charcoal out your window)! Do the Math - Gasoline is 80% Carbon and weighs 6.24lbs./Gal., 80% of 6.24lbs. is 4.992lbs.

No, the fact is, you're a Major Polluter, make no mistake about that. It doesn't really matter if you save 10%, then you're only throwing a 4.5lb. Bag of Charcoal out the window for every Gallon burned. Save 20%? Oh Boy, now you're down to 4lbs. No, the fact is, if you burn Gasoline in any form, you pollute. And this includes buying Clothes from Paris or Peaches from Georgia.

For me? I don't care! It's equally delusional to think that the Gas you don't burn won't pollute. Instead, it will be burned by someone else. Most likely some Chinese guy who's forsaken his Bicycle for a Beijing "Heroic", their newest SUV! Personally, I'd rather get the enjoyment from it.

The West's Economies have been fueled by Crude Oil for 100 years, it's the primary reason our Standard of Living has risen so high, so quickly. The Emerging World knows this as well, and they are not going to forego it's use now that their Time in the Sun has arrived. And they haven't even started to really consume yet!

Except for Nuclear, there is simply no energy alternative which has so much energy potential as a Gallon of Crude Oil. I believe we will eventually return to Nuclear Power for providing our energy needs, with or without it's present inherent problems. People will not wish to give up the Standard of Living we now have, in fact, they'll look for ways of increasing it, and this means Energy Consumption. Only Nuclear has the potential to replace Petroleum on a Wide-Scale.

Even you have demonstrated that your Environmental Conscience comes after your own Creature Comforts are met. I mean, it wasn't strong enough to keep you from buying a Porsche. I don't care if you bought a Boxster, just don't pretend you really care about the Environment. In fact, that's some of the problem - millions of people save a Gallon of Gas or recycle their Plastic Milk Bottles and think they're saving the World. Get Real.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99

[berj]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

OK, this thread has just Officially gotten too weird. Discussing protecting the Environment on a Car Forum is like HandGun Manufacturers promoting their use for Sport.

You're deluding yourself if you think driving a Boxster or any performance car can in anyway be good for the Environment. Such a delusion may provide your conscience with a Feel Good, but that's about all.

Whether you're driving a Hybrid, an F1 Racer, or running a Lawnmower for that matter, every time you use a Gallon of Gas, you're releasing 5 pounds of Carbon into the atmosphere (think of it as throwing a 5lb. Bag of Charcoal out your window)! Do the Math - Gasoline is 80% Carbon and weighs 6.24lbs./Gal., 80% of 6.24lbs. is 4.992lbs.

No, the fact is, you're a Major Polluter, make no mistake about that. It doesn't really matter if you save 10%, then you're only throwing a 4.5lb. Bag of Charcoal out the window for every Gallon burned. Save 20%? Oh Boy, now you're down to 4lbs. No, the fact is, if you burn Gasoline in any form, you pollute. And this includes buying Clothes from Paris or Peaches from Georgia.

For me? I don't care! It's equally delusional to think that the Gas you don't burn won't pollute. Instead, it will be burned by someone else. Most likely some Chinese guy who's forsaken his Bicycle for a Beijing "Heroic", their newest SUV! Personally, I'd rather get the enjoyment from it.

The West's Economies have been fueled by Crude Oil for 100 years, it's the primary reason our Standard of Living has risen so high, so quickly. The Emerging World knows this as well, and they are not going to forego it's use now that their Time in the Sun has arrived. And they haven't even started to really consume yet!

Except for Nuclear, there is simply no energy alternative which has so much energy potential as a Gallon of Crude Oil. I believe we will eventually return to Nuclear Power for providing our energy needs, with or without it's present inherent problems. People will not wish to give up the Standard of Living we now have, in fact, they'll look for ways of increasing it, and this means Energy Consumption. Only Nuclear has the potential to replace Petroleum on a Wide-Scale.

Even you have demonstrated that your Environmental Conscience comes after your own Creature Comforts are met. I mean, it wasn't strong enough to keep you from buying a Porsche. I don't care if you bought a Boxster, just don't pretend you really care about the Environment. In fact, that's some of the problem - millions of people save a Gallon of Gas or recycle their Plastic Milk Bottles and think they're saving the World. Get Real.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99

My friend,

You've got a chip on your shoulder the size of your car, poor reading skills and some pretty skewed logic.

1) I never said (read the post carefully) that my car was good for the environment. In fact I stated quite explicitly that I understood the consumption that went along with my purchase. I *did* however, say that there is a balance to be had. Gluttony is an ugly trait. One doesn't need to consume all one can simply because one can. I get enough enjoyment out of my car *without* having to consume every drop of gas that I can afford. Simple as that.

2) You've got a wierd world view when you say that saving 20% on something is trivial. If I can spend $80 on something instead of $100 I sure as hell will. If I can get the same amount of fun out of something and spit out 4lbs of charcoal and not 5 then I sure as hell will.

3) analogy: that $100 the old lady just dropped out of her purse would just be stolen by someone else so I may as well take it. *I* may as well enjoy it rather than someone else. That sort of ethics may work in your world but not mine.

4) You seem to be arguing with someone else (maybe it makes you feel better about *your* consumption.. I don't know) since nothing in what I said implies that I think one shouldn't consume or can life a life without contributing to pollution. But it *is* possible to contribute as little as possible given the life we choose. Everybody's different and to each their own. I was simply describing my particular position. The fact that you feel that I was trying to force you to do as I do is your problem, not mine.

5) I don't know you but just think of this one thing: if you've got kids or know people that do.. they've got to clean up the mess that we make. Certainly we're gonna make a mess but wouldn't it be nice to make a slightly smaller one?

[MNBoxster]

@ Berj,

I think it's you who misunderstand. My reading skills are quite good actually, and the message you convey is one of showing environmental concern for the fact that your consumption is somehow measured. I merely pointed out the fallacy of that type of thinking. I have no quarrel with you, personally or otherwise, I merely think you are unrealistic and uninformed.

I agree that Gluttony for Gluttony's sake is a bad thing, but no one spoke of this at all, this is a new twist you threw into the mix. Realize, Good Intentions do not equate to effectiveness. One may have all the good intentions in the World, but if they are not effective, no real purpose is achieved, only an imaginary one.

I have no guilt about my consumption whatever. I consume and the result is Fun, Jobs, Tax Revenue and of course Pollution. To me, the 1st three outweigh the latter. If that makes me a bad person, well, I am a member of a pretty big club then, and so are you despite whatever you choose to believe. I do not intentionally try to waste fuel, but I do not intentionally try to save it either, at least not for some percieved environmental concern.

You pose the proposition that saving 20% of anything is a good thing, there is nothing but the most abstract logic to this statement. I suspect you'll now try to use the academic arguement that if everybody reduced 20% that real change would take place. There are several problems with this argument.

First, everybody will not do it, meaning that it won't happen and the effort ineffective. You can say it all starts with one, but it has to end up with many more to be effective. And 30+ years of espousing environmental concerns have only seen consumption increase worldwide, so my expectations are not high.

And, you've made no account of the negative effects of such a 20% reduction. Think of all the people who are dependent upon the Oil Industry through the Discovery process, to Recovery, Sales, Distribution and even those people employed in the Environmental Industry who's sustenance comes from Oil. If you reduce consumption, you'll reduce the need for many of these people's jobs. In the short term, this can be more devastating than the gains achieved. Of course, if you are not affected by these, they have no meaning to you, except to say that sooner or later, you or your industry will feel the effects.

Your analogy about the Old Lady's purse is not at all germane to the issue, except again, only in the most abstract of reason.

So far as your item #4, I made no such statements, therse are assumptions on your part and therefore I have no need to address them (perhaps a little reading primer for you is in order?).

Your last argument about future generations does have some validity, but only to a point. Again, effectiveness of a solution has to be factored in. All the legislation and subsequent technical innovation of the '70's to reduce pollution has been more than offset by the increase in numbers of both people and cars.

It may seem fatalistic, but 6 Billion people and counting on this Rock means there are probably no real short-term solutions and no guarantee that any long-term ones will be forthcoming. Everything one does has environmental impact, there's no getting around that, Motorsport is merely my chosen activity.
'Fiddle while Rome Burns' you say, well Nero was powerless to stop the fires, but, at least he enjoyed the music! PEACE!

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99

[Rail26]

Regardless of environmental views, I am glad I am able to get 22 mpg in city driving and 32 mpg on the highway on 91 octane. Do I care about the enviroment? Yes. Do I care that I don't have to spend a lot of clams buying gas? Yes. The Box does much better on gas than the soccer mom SUVs. If they made a electric/hybrid Box that had the same performance would I buy it? Yes.

By the way, I don't proofread or spellcheck my postings, I hope I don't offend the English teachers and hallway monitors that seem to be present on this forum.

[berj]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

@ Berj,

I agree that Gluttony for Gluttony's sake is a bad thing, but no one spoke of this at all, this is a new twist you threw into the mix.

Not at all:

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

For me? I don't care! It's equally delusional to think that the Gas you don't burn won't pollute. Instead, it will be burned by someone else. Most likely some Chinese guy who's forsaken his Bicycle for a Beijing "Heroic", their newest SUV! Personally, I'd rather get the enjoyment from it.

That's gluttony.. ie. I'd better eat it before someone else does.

Originally Posted by bmussatti

Look at what people are willing to spend at Starbucks everyday, or bottled water. Don't worry about gas mileage and fuel costs. IMHO."

Same here. ie. everyone else is eating.. I may as well join in.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

First, everybody will not do it, meaning that it won't happen and the effort ineffective. You can say it all starts with one, but it has to end up with many more to be effective. And 30+ years of espousing environmental concerns have only seen consumption increase worldwide, so my expectations are not high.

I'm sad to see that attitude. It may seem like a platitude but each little piece does help. And 30 years is hardly enough time to wait.. it took us quite some time to get into this situation and it will take time to get out. Seems a little fatalistic to me to just assume that things won't change and thus do nothing. Things like recycling *do* help (eg in the area of landfill use and energy spent on resource extraction). Just look at the area of paper recycling -- something like 40% of newspapers in the US is made of recycled material (and many newspapers took up this initiative voluntarily) do you honestly think we'd be better off *without* that 40%?

I'd personally prefer that my kids (heck even myself) not have to live in a world covered in garbage and I'm damn sure that Michigan is getting tired of taking Toronto's (ie my) garbage even if they are getting paid for the service. So I do my part.. I reduce what I consume and discard (in some areas substantially, in others less so). And by my example many friends have done the same. Any by their example others have done so. It's a simple feedback loop.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

And, you've made no account of the negative effects of such a 20% reduction. Think of all the people who are dependent upon the Oil Industry through the Discovery process, to Recovery, Sales, Distribution and even those people employed in the Environmental Industry who's sustenance comes from Oil. If you reduce consumption, you'll reduce the need for many of these people's jobs. In the short term, this can be more devastating than the gains achieved. Of course, if you are not affected by these, they have no meaning to you, except to say that sooner or later, you or your industry will feel the effects.

I've heard this before and I just don't buy it.. it's a cheap shot and it holds no water. Every bit of technological advancement we've made as been built upon the obsolessence of others and their work. To not do something simply because someone's job will be affected gets us absolutely nowhere. If there's anything our culture has shown is a remarkable ability of people (both individuals and populations) to adapt in such circumstances. And besides, what about all of the people working in the recycling industry? What about all of those researchers working on alternative energy sources? Want to put them out of work?

Then there's the issue of personal financial savings. I've got an expensive car that uses expensive gas. You can bet your ass that I'll be right on the line of enjoyment vs. consumption. It's simply a case of diminshing returns -- 20km/h more speed, faster starts or taking it a bit easy and being able to pocket a little more cash for other things. Like I said before.. it's all about balance for me. Absolutes are no good for anything (yes.. I see the irony in that statement.. but I stand by it)

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Your analogy about the Old Lady's purse is not at all germane to the issue, except again, only in the most abstract of reason.

I disagree. Your argument was that you figured that since someone else was going to use it anyway you'd prefer to use it yourself rather than scaling back your use. Seems the same to me.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

So far as your item #4, I made no such statements, therse are assumptions on your part and therefore I have no need to address them.

Quite right. I apologize. I was simply reacting against the notion that just because I have the car that I have that I don't (and can't) care for the environment and the idea that I don't know the environmental costs of how I live.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Your last argument about future generations does have some validity, but only to the point. Again, effectiveness of a solution has to be factored in. All the legislation and subsequent technical innovation of the '70's to reduce pollution has been more than offset by the increase in numbers of both people and cars.

Exactly my point. Imagine if we didn't have those innovations and attitude changes against which our increased consumption could be offset. That's my whole point. Balance. If we want to consume more (and nowhere have I said that we shouldn't be able to consume) then we must pay the piper in some other area. Simple.

[MNBoxster]

@Berj,

This exchange is pointless. I will never persuade you because you simply will not accept the fundamental concept of my argument, namely, that an ineffective solution is no solution, only wasted effort. In 30 years, we have not reduced the levels of pollution, it has gone up! Admittedly, some CO were reduced, but the overall effect is an increase in the pollution, not a decrease.

The argument that it would have been worse without some measures is like a Politician arguing that money not spent is money saved. It's not saved at all, it is just not spent, there is a fundamental difference.

You must act as your conscience guides you.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99

[berj]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

@Berj,

This exchange is pointless. I will never persuade you because you simply will not accept the fundamental concept of my argument, namely, that an ineffective solution is no solution, only wasted effort. In 30 years, we have not reduced the levels of pollution, it has gone up! Admittedly, some CO were reduced, but the overall effect is an increase in the pollution, not a decrease.

The argument that it would have been worse without some measures is like a Politician arguing that money not spent is money saved. It's not saved at all, it is just not spent, there is a fundamental difference.

You must act as your conscience guides you.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99

You're probably right.. but.. one last thing from my end and that will be that (with no hard feelings.. promise )

You're missing something when you say that even with 30 years of efforts polution has gone up (though in some places this isn't true.. but be that as it may).. it's all about rates.. it may have gone up but it certainly didn't go up as fast as it might have otherwise. And that counts for something. Finite (and damaging) resources consumed more slowly -- that's a good thing (TM) and a good start in my books. Obviously you see it differently.

And you're right.. I won't accept that the various efforts (obviously some more effective than others) we make are wasted. The more we try the more likely we are to find one that really works.

Peace out! I'm going for a drive