Bluetec MPG
#77
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta, Southern California
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Late Built 2005 W-211 E-320 CDI
Say What?
All this point to one thing for sure. For the saving of a few trees in the next 500 years we are obligated to buy more expensive, less reliable, harder to repair cars and trucks for the State of California. When we are trying desparately doing this good deed the good folks in India and China are busy burning coal to negate our efforts.
It makes a lot of sense for North Americans to spend money going bio-diesel and E85 to boost the price of corn and beef and support the Kee-Ko-Ko Summit agreement.
It makes a lot of sense for North Americans to spend money going bio-diesel and E85 to boost the price of corn and beef and support the Kee-Ko-Ko Summit agreement.
run our fine state down for leading the way when it comes to automobile pollution.
Had you been here and seen the terrible smog that occured over Labor Day weekend in the mid fifties
that made the killer fogs of London seem like a clear day, you would appreciate the legislation
that has brought cleaner vehicles to not only California, but to the US and Canada as well.
Look at the progress in Europe.
We have cleaner diesel vehicles now that are not only cleaner, but more economical as well.
As far as not being as dependable, I will argue that they are indeed reliable.
If you want to drive a twenty five year old slow and smelly 240D with no power or pickup, be my guest.
But do not run down progress, as it is the wave, and to try and fight the future is simply plain stupid!
If it weren't for our state, there would still be road draft tubes, leaded gasoline, no cats, and we'd
still be driving big engined cars that get only ten miles per gallon on prem. leaded gasoline.
Do you think you could 100K miles on the original spark plugs back in the 1950s?
Followed an older car that is still in good shape but almost makes you
sick from the smell of what's coming out of the tailpipe lately?
And it is now running on unleaded. Can you imagine what it would smell like on the old leaded fuel?
I read everything you have written on these forums, and YOU love to pollute
with big clouds of BLACK SMOKE and SOOT. IS THAT BEING RESPONSIBLE?
Do you feel that Canada is "out-of-line" for banning two stroke outboards?
Why do you suppose they did that up there? Think about that for just one moment!
We here in N A cannot control what the people in China or India do now can we?
But WE CAN CONTROL WHAT WE SAY and DO HERE, can't we?
Think about what I have said. Reflect!
#78
No doubt that for good or bad, California does drive emissions. I am all for using technology improve power and efficiency in our cars. I remember when everyone was screaming about catalytic converters and converting cars back to regular gas. Now, they're not even an issue. As Green E-300 noted, spend some time in Central America or Asia and try to take a deep breath, or walk around an hour without getting physically dirty.
#79
Considering I've never driven 60 mph no matter which contry I am in, this is not too bothersome.
#80
Which emission control do you mean actually? The diesel particulate filters have existed quite some time in Europe, perhaps initially not on all countries but definitely in Germany before the US and today probably on most European countries (some probably later than US).
I'm afraid this Bluetec name is confusing, as long as there is no add-blue, the US E320 Bluetec must be equal to e.g. the German E320 CDI (if you give part numbers, I can check).
I'm afraid this Bluetec name is confusing, as long as there is no add-blue, the US E320 Bluetec must be equal to e.g. the German E320 CDI (if you give part numbers, I can check).
#81
I'm a lot more cynical when it comes to the emissions on diesels in the US. The reasons diesels now have to be cleaner than gasoline engines is US corporations can no longer keep them from coming here en masse.
Europe has had the 56mpg Honda Accord diesel, 78 mpg VW Lupo, 46 mpg 230 cdi, Braubus tt v8 CDIs etc. Hell, even Lambos are looking at pluging diesels into the Gallardo(sp), almost 600 ft\lbs of torque is hard to beat. The main reason we haven't gotten the cars here is there are a few people that would miss the fuel profits of SUVs etc if people started driving a wide range of vehicles that averaged 30 mpg city.
Europe has had the 56mpg Honda Accord diesel, 78 mpg VW Lupo, 46 mpg 230 cdi, Braubus tt v8 CDIs etc. Hell, even Lambos are looking at pluging diesels into the Gallardo(sp), almost 600 ft\lbs of torque is hard to beat. The main reason we haven't gotten the cars here is there are a few people that would miss the fuel profits of SUVs etc if people started driving a wide range of vehicles that averaged 30 mpg city.
#82
I'm a lot more cynical when it comes to the emissions on diesels in the US. The reasons diesels now have to be cleaner than gasoline engines is US corporations can no longer keep them from coming here en masse.
Europe has had the 56mpg Honda Accord diesel, 78 mpg VW Lupo, 46 mpg 230 cdi, Braubus tt v8 CDIs etc. Hell, even Lambos are looking at pluging diesels into the Gallardo(sp), almost 600 ft\lbs of torque is hard to beat. The main reason we haven't gotten the cars here is there are a few people that would miss the fuel profits of SUVs etc if people started driving a wide range of vehicles that averaged 30 mpg city.
Europe has had the 56mpg Honda Accord diesel, 78 mpg VW Lupo, 46 mpg 230 cdi, Braubus tt v8 CDIs etc. Hell, even Lambos are looking at pluging diesels into the Gallardo(sp), almost 600 ft\lbs of torque is hard to beat. The main reason we haven't gotten the cars here is there are a few people that would miss the fuel profits of SUVs etc if people started driving a wide range of vehicles that averaged 30 mpg city.
#83
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta, Southern California
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Late Built 2005 W-211 E-320 CDI
Yes and No
I am more than aware of the many problems with those engines.
I had absolutely no problems at all with the Olds, probably parially because it was a Cutlass Cruiser
Wagon, and one of the two vehicles from GM that came factory with the TH350 transmission.
Can you imagine a 4400 pound Cadillac Seville with that puny TH200 transmission? My uncle had a 78' 98 Olds, but he was very easy on his cars and never had any tranny problems, but there were many others who did!
Now the Buick was a different story. Both the trans and the motor failed!
The transmission while I was many miles from home on vacation, but I still had first and third gears,
and it completed the 1000 miles back to California from Navajo country driving it like that!
But when the governor retainer ring failed on the Rossa-Master injection pump seven miles out of West Yellowstone (never saw such clouds of white smoke in my life!) that really was a different story.
We were able to limp back into town, and called the Buick Olds GMC etc dealer in Bozeman. The car was towed 90 miles to Bozeman and repaired under emission warranty "free of charge" and we were on our way again. Only lost about a half day on that failure. That towed ride was something to enjoy! 90 miles in only one hour! That Chev 3500 tow truck with a 454 didn't even know that the front wheel drive Buick was trailing along behind for the ride. The dealership was extra quick also and had it fixed gratis and 'out-the-door' in only two hours. No charge for anything including the towing.
Now I do know and acknowledge that many others did have all kinds of problems with the GM diesels.
Blown headgaskets, camshaft failures, broken conrods, piston problems.
I forgot the time when I had my wife leave the Buick at the dealer while she was out of the country and could do without the car. It had terrible piston slap, especially when it was first started in the morning. They replaced the front two pistons, and after having pulled out all six pistons, proceeded to put the other four back into the block USING the SAME ORIGINAL RINGS. I didn't know that was possible, but there were no problems.
The Olds diesl was what I and many others referred to as a "half-breed."
That meaning that it was a 'converted gasoline motor' and not designed from the beginning as a diesel motor.
I think that the 4.3L V6 Buick motor was designed from the beginning to be a diesel.
(Six cylinder head hold-down bolts instead of the customary four being an example.)
The bestest problem with the GM diesels was and is the General Motors ongoing
habit of placing the product into the customers' hands to 'prove it up!'
Once they do correct all those problems which always are discovered and the public
has suffered and the vehicle is finally built correctly, they will then discontinue it.
And they wonder why they are in trouble.
Last edited by Green E-300 DT; 06-15-2007 at 11:27 AM.
#84
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta, Southern California
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Late Built 2005 W-211 E-320 CDI
True, but Sad
in the Rose Garden and declared that we needed to improve our fuel economy straight accross
by twenty (20) percent and then proceeded to plug ethanol (E-85) as the 'way to go.'
We have diesel powered cars here and now that get thirty (30) percent better fuel
economy and he is only asking for twenty (20) percent, but he ignores that little fact.
I wonder why?
He could have talked diesels without all the hidden expenses involved with producing
ethanol which does not get as good fuel economy as straight regular unleaded.
Do you suppose he's 'pro-business?'
Last edited by Green E-300 DT; 06-15-2007 at 07:47 PM.
#85
That is his sister. Not a fan of the show, but I am a fan of her!
I'll keep this one brief.
One need not be a far-leftie to accept the findings of science.
One need not be a far-leftie to accept the findings of science.
#86
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
I love America! I love Sanjaya even more!
Sicko Moore should have been dead a long time ago with his body mass index.
Pity.
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
UR a friend Mr Green
You, who have probably never been to the greatest state on earth are too damn quick to
run our fine state down for leading the way when it comes to automobile pollution.
Had you been here and seen the terrible smog that occured over Labor Day weekend in the mid fifties
that made the killer fogs of London seem like a clear day, you would appreciate the legislation
that has brought cleaner vehicles to not only California, but to the US and Canada as well.
Look at the progress in Europe.
We have cleaner diesel vehicles now that are not only cleaner, but more economical as well.
As far as not being as dependable, I will argue that they are indeed reliable.
If you want to drive a twenty five year old slow and smelly 240D with no power or pickup, be my guest.
But do not run down progress, as it is the wave, and to try and fight the future is simply plain stupid!
If it weren't for our state, there would still be road draft tubes, leaded gasoline, no cats, and we'd
still be driving big engined cars that get only ten miles per gallon on prem. leaded gasoline.
Do you think you could 100K miles on the original spark plugs back in the 1950s?
Followed an older car that is still in good shape but almost makes you
sick from the smell of what's coming out of the tailpipe lately?
And it is now running on unleaded. Can you imagine what it would smell like on the old leaded fuel?
I read everything you have written on these forums, and YOU love to pollute
with big clouds of BLACK SMOKE and SOOT. IS THAT BEING RESPONSIBLE?
Do you feel that Canada is "out-of-line" for banning two stroke outboards?
Why do you suppose they did that up there? Think about that for just one moment!
We here in N A cannot control what the people in China or India do now can we?
But WE CAN CONTROL WHAT WE SAY and DO HERE, can't we?
Think about what I have said. Reflect!
run our fine state down for leading the way when it comes to automobile pollution.
Had you been here and seen the terrible smog that occured over Labor Day weekend in the mid fifties
that made the killer fogs of London seem like a clear day, you would appreciate the legislation
that has brought cleaner vehicles to not only California, but to the US and Canada as well.
Look at the progress in Europe.
We have cleaner diesel vehicles now that are not only cleaner, but more economical as well.
As far as not being as dependable, I will argue that they are indeed reliable.
If you want to drive a twenty five year old slow and smelly 240D with no power or pickup, be my guest.
But do not run down progress, as it is the wave, and to try and fight the future is simply plain stupid!
If it weren't for our state, there would still be road draft tubes, leaded gasoline, no cats, and we'd
still be driving big engined cars that get only ten miles per gallon on prem. leaded gasoline.
Do you think you could 100K miles on the original spark plugs back in the 1950s?
Followed an older car that is still in good shape but almost makes you
sick from the smell of what's coming out of the tailpipe lately?
And it is now running on unleaded. Can you imagine what it would smell like on the old leaded fuel?
I read everything you have written on these forums, and YOU love to pollute
with big clouds of BLACK SMOKE and SOOT. IS THAT BEING RESPONSIBLE?
Do you feel that Canada is "out-of-line" for banning two stroke outboards?
Why do you suppose they did that up there? Think about that for just one moment!
We here in N A cannot control what the people in China or India do now can we?
But WE CAN CONTROL WHAT WE SAY and DO HERE, can't we?
Think about what I have said. Reflect!
I am an old school Libertarian (not one of those Commies that hijacked the name) that believe in the great late Milton Friedman. The market is the best in dictating what is acceptable to us, what we can tolerate and for us diesel heads, what we drive. E85 engines are nuts. 25% less economical in mileage. No pumps. Food resources are diverted to cars resulting in higher food prices. Diesels are great. Yet California is bickering about NXO and carbon monoxide emissions (I think Europeans are cleaner with one and NA the other) and decided to ban diesel engines in there existing form.
In Toronto our Harvard educated, British born and very left-wing mayor, his Worship David Millar is proposing to ban all lawn mawers and leaf blowers by 2010!
If you are careful down south Mr. Green, you will pay through your nose for basic requirements if ***** quality politicians have their ways.
#88
Valid points across the board here, some points to consider coming from someone who lives in Germany & California, two very resrtictive places to own a car, with entirely different restrictions.
The major difference between these two places is that California simply limits your personal freedom in a misguided effort to save the environment, while in Germany the costs are factored in so that you want to, but still have the choice.
Example: here, fuel is cheap but instead we have hilarious speed limits [that I almost universally ignore (school and residential areas excepted)], and horribly inefficient cars with little restriction on modification even to the point that is becomes dangerous. Think of the giant SUVs being driven by women not 5 feet tall and spoilers and $5 body kits coming off the crappy cars they are duckt taped to. While in Germany there is much less speed restriction but fuel is expensive, and modification is highly prohibited. Also, there are extensive automotive inspections to make sure your car is running properly.
So, here we drive inefficient poorly running cars slowly, while there there are much more efficient, properly running cars that can be driven as fast as the drivers want, with the understanding they will pay for their consumption at the pump.
My point, fuel is too cheap here for anyone to care about saving it. Why tune up your car or change your air filter. Need 24s on your suburban, sure! Gasoline is cheaper than good water here, people are not paying for the damage to the environment.
All that being said, I am not left wing in the least, but I do have a concern for the environment. I maintain my cars to the highest possible level, but I love to drive quickly, so I consider that an indulgence I conciously pay for.
The major difference between these two places is that California simply limits your personal freedom in a misguided effort to save the environment, while in Germany the costs are factored in so that you want to, but still have the choice.
Example: here, fuel is cheap but instead we have hilarious speed limits [that I almost universally ignore (school and residential areas excepted)], and horribly inefficient cars with little restriction on modification even to the point that is becomes dangerous. Think of the giant SUVs being driven by women not 5 feet tall and spoilers and $5 body kits coming off the crappy cars they are duckt taped to. While in Germany there is much less speed restriction but fuel is expensive, and modification is highly prohibited. Also, there are extensive automotive inspections to make sure your car is running properly.
So, here we drive inefficient poorly running cars slowly, while there there are much more efficient, properly running cars that can be driven as fast as the drivers want, with the understanding they will pay for their consumption at the pump.
My point, fuel is too cheap here for anyone to care about saving it. Why tune up your car or change your air filter. Need 24s on your suburban, sure! Gasoline is cheaper than good water here, people are not paying for the damage to the environment.
All that being said, I am not left wing in the least, but I do have a concern for the environment. I maintain my cars to the highest possible level, but I love to drive quickly, so I consider that an indulgence I conciously pay for.
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2007 GL320 CDI, 2001 TJ Rockcrawler, 2005 Scoobie STI
An interesting little tidbit to answer the original question...
Apparently the US Department of Energy will be revising the EPA fuel economy listings on all cars as of 2008 to better fit the real world driving habits of todays drivers. The current standards were set in the 60s. I saw it on this weeks MotorWeek TV.
You can actually go to the DOEs web site and compare the EPA mileage listing of what the window sticker says versus what the new rating is on the web for vehicles from 2008 back to 1985...
Here is the link...
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
As for the 2007 E320 Bluetec, the revised mileage is now listed at 23 city, 32 Highway, 26 Combined. You will find that ALL cars revised numbers are lower.
The old numbers were based on driving at no more than 60 MPH with the A/C off etc. Now the numbers are based on up to 80 MPH... I bet if you cruise your E320 on a flat freeway at 60 MPH with the A/C turned off and the windows up you will probably see 37 MPG from the original estimates... Give it a try! I can get 27 MPG out of my 2007 GL 320 CDI by doing this, even though the window sticker says 25 Hwy... But if I cruise at 75 MPH on the free way with the A/C blasting, I get about 23.5 MPG
Apparently the US Department of Energy will be revising the EPA fuel economy listings on all cars as of 2008 to better fit the real world driving habits of todays drivers. The current standards were set in the 60s. I saw it on this weeks MotorWeek TV.
You can actually go to the DOEs web site and compare the EPA mileage listing of what the window sticker says versus what the new rating is on the web for vehicles from 2008 back to 1985...
Here is the link...
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
As for the 2007 E320 Bluetec, the revised mileage is now listed at 23 city, 32 Highway, 26 Combined. You will find that ALL cars revised numbers are lower.
The old numbers were based on driving at no more than 60 MPH with the A/C off etc. Now the numbers are based on up to 80 MPH... I bet if you cruise your E320 on a flat freeway at 60 MPH with the A/C turned off and the windows up you will probably see 37 MPG from the original estimates... Give it a try! I can get 27 MPG out of my 2007 GL 320 CDI by doing this, even though the window sticker says 25 Hwy... But if I cruise at 75 MPH on the free way with the A/C blasting, I get about 23.5 MPG
#90
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
2015 E250 BT 4M
So, here we drive inefficient poorly running cars slowly, while there there are much more efficient, properly running cars that can be driven as fast as the drivers want, with the understanding they will pay for their consumption at the pump.
My point, fuel is too cheap here for anyone to care about saving it. Why tune up your car or change your air filter. Need 24s on your suburban, sure! Gasoline is cheaper than good water here, people are not paying for the damage to the environment.
All that being said, I am not left wing in the least, but I do have a concern for the environment. I maintain my cars to the highest possible level, but I love to drive quickly, so I consider that an indulgence I conciously pay for.
My point, fuel is too cheap here for anyone to care about saving it. Why tune up your car or change your air filter. Need 24s on your suburban, sure! Gasoline is cheaper than good water here, people are not paying for the damage to the environment.
All that being said, I am not left wing in the least, but I do have a concern for the environment. I maintain my cars to the highest possible level, but I love to drive quickly, so I consider that an indulgence I conciously pay for.
Your observations of the differences in attitude between Germany and the USA are so true !
Imagine if sales of clean diesel cars in NA rose to the same level as Europe !
The US would no longer have to import any oil from the Middle East.
Geopolitics would never be the same.
Consumers would save billions of $$ and the environmental benefits would be considerable.
#91
No more so than that to which I was responding.
Oh, I'd say at about the time that there is irrefutable evidence that the science is on the mark....for example, it used to be acceptable to dump mercury into streams. In Japan, this was done widely. You can view the results of this here:
Then, as now, scientists reached a "consensus", that mercury causes birth defects. Then, as now, there was emperical, measurable evidence that they were right. Should the politicians have disregarded the evidence then?
Or what about cigarette smoking? Even though recently released (via court cases, not voluntarily, mind you) documents clearly show that the tobacco were aware back in the '50's that cigarettes were health hazards, tobacco companies bought a bunch of scientists to claim that cigarettes were safe, to obfuscate the science and slow government intervention. It worked, for a time, until the scientific and medical communities prevailed.
Um, no, not really, as a quick perusal of every major scientific journal related to the topic will tell you, as would a visit to NOAA's website, or NASA's website,, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or Science Magazine, or the Department of Defense, The American Meterological Society, The National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc, etc...
Actually, you originally wrote it's like gravity, not "candy corn" (which frankly makes no sense at all ), and as someone else pointed out, we do know how it (gravity) works, and we do all have a direct effect on it, as we all have mass, and any mass has an affect on any other mass, regardless of size differences. You have a gravitational affect upon the earth, just as it has one on you; the difference is, its greater mass affects you a lot more than you affect it.
A few salient points:
1) this was not done by the BBC, it was done on Channel 4, different animal entirely. If you'd like to know what the BBC has to say about climate change, click here and here:
2) the show to which you refer was immediately called out in the British press for numerous inaccurate, false claims; in fact, scientists whose work was cited in the piece went on record as saying that the producers of the piece altered their data:
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece
Here is a letter to the producers of the film, and to Channel 4, from Carl Wunsch. Dr. Wunsch is an MIT Professor who was interviewed in the film and presented as being a "global warming skeptic". He states, flat out, that the producers of this film deliberately misrepresented his statements. With reference to his letter, he writes:
In the letter itself, Dr. Wunsch writes of the film "The Global Warming Swindle.":
So two of the "skeptical" scientists featured in the film are on record as saying that the film either falsified their data or misrepresented their views, or both.
I'll pass.
Here's another piece from the British press detailing the major errors of the piece:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...cle2355956.ece
More rebuttals:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...032575,00.html
http://www.chase-it.com/climate/The_...A_Rebuttal.pdf
Another piece which used cherry picking, misrepresentation, and distortions to obfuscate the issue, using the same debunked arguments from the above listed piece.
No, it isn't (also click here for Science Magazine's debunking of the "no consensus" canard), but you keep right on believing what vested interests are paying people to tell you what to think. I find it humorous that the Scientists who work in this field and who back up their findings with measurement evidence are assailed as "biased", but a tiny minority of scientists who are funded by oil companies are The Word, The Truth, and The Light, with no hint of bias despite a clear financial conflict of interest.
Just a few days ago, it was reported that Greenland is melting at a rate three times faster than predicted by scientists, and this comes on the heels of a similar report released last month which reported that the Artic ice cap is *also* melting three times faster than predicted.
Lastly, here is a compilation of the most prevalent myths propagated and the research debunking them:
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...uration%3Along
Then, as now, scientists reached a "consensus", that mercury causes birth defects. Then, as now, there was emperical, measurable evidence that they were right. Should the politicians have disregarded the evidence then?
Or what about cigarette smoking? Even though recently released (via court cases, not voluntarily, mind you) documents clearly show that the tobacco were aware back in the '50's that cigarettes were health hazards, tobacco companies bought a bunch of scientists to claim that cigarettes were safe, to obfuscate the science and slow government intervention. It worked, for a time, until the scientific and medical communities prevailed.
A few salient points:
1) this was not done by the BBC, it was done on Channel 4, different animal entirely. If you'd like to know what the BBC has to say about climate change, click here and here:
2) the show to which you refer was immediately called out in the British press for numerous inaccurate, false claims; in fact, scientists whose work was cited in the piece went on record as saying that the producers of the piece altered their data:
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece
However, Dr Friiss-Christensen has issued a statement with Nathan Rive, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and the Centre for Climate Research in Oslo, distancing himself from the C4 graph. He said there was a gap in the historical record on solar cycles from about 1610 to 1710 but the film-makers made up this break with fabricated data that made it appear as if temperatures and solar cycles had followed one another very closely for the entire 400-year period.
"We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless," Dr Friis-Christensen said.
"Secondly, although the commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming," he said.
"We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless," Dr Friis-Christensen said.
"Secondly, although the commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming," he said.
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---which is that global warming is both real and threatening.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.
I'll pass.
Here's another piece from the British press detailing the major errors of the piece:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...cle2355956.ece
More rebuttals:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...032575,00.html
http://www.chase-it.com/climate/The_...A_Rebuttal.pdf
Another piece which used cherry picking, misrepresentation, and distortions to obfuscate the issue, using the same debunked arguments from the above listed piece.
Just a few days ago, it was reported that Greenland is melting at a rate three times faster than predicted by scientists, and this comes on the heels of a similar report released last month which reported that the Artic ice cap is *also* melting three times faster than predicted.
Lastly, here is a compilation of the most prevalent myths propagated and the research debunking them:
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...uration%3Along
Last edited by Improviz; 06-17-2007 at 10:53 AM.
#92
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
Not so fast Derek
You are absolutely bang on !
Your observations of the differences in attitude between Germany and the USA are so true !
Imagine if sales of clean diesel cars in NA rose to the same level as Europe !
The US would no longer have to import any oil from the Middle East.
Geopolitics would never be the same.
Consumers would save billions of $$ and the environmental benefits would be considerable.
Your observations of the differences in attitude between Germany and the USA are so true !
Imagine if sales of clean diesel cars in NA rose to the same level as Europe !
The US would no longer have to import any oil from the Middle East.
Geopolitics would never be the same.
Consumers would save billions of $$ and the environmental benefits would be considerable.
#93
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
Valid points across the board here, some points to consider coming from someone who lives in Germany & California, two very resrtictive places to own a car, with entirely different restrictions.
The major difference between these two places is that California simply limits your personal freedom in a misguided effort to save the environment, while in Germany the costs are factored in so that you want to, but still have the choice.
Example: here, fuel is cheap but instead we have hilarious speed limits [that I almost universally ignore (school and residential areas excepted)], and horribly inefficient cars with little restriction on modification even to the point that is becomes dangerous. Think of the giant SUVs being driven by women not 5 feet tall and spoilers and $5 body kits coming off the crappy cars they are duckt taped to. While in Germany there is much less speed restriction but fuel is expensive, and modification is highly prohibited. Also, there are extensive automotive inspections to make sure your car is running properly.
So, here we drive inefficient poorly running cars slowly, while there there are much more efficient, properly running cars that can be driven as fast as the drivers want, with the understanding they will pay for their consumption at the pump.
My point, fuel is too cheap here for anyone to care about saving it. Why tune up your car or change your air filter. Need 24s on your suburban, sure! Gasoline is cheaper than good water here, people are not paying for the damage to the environment.
All that being said, I am not left wing in the least, but I do have a concern for the environment. I maintain my cars to the highest possible level, but I love to drive quickly, so I consider that an indulgence I conciously pay for.
The major difference between these two places is that California simply limits your personal freedom in a misguided effort to save the environment, while in Germany the costs are factored in so that you want to, but still have the choice.
Example: here, fuel is cheap but instead we have hilarious speed limits [that I almost universally ignore (school and residential areas excepted)], and horribly inefficient cars with little restriction on modification even to the point that is becomes dangerous. Think of the giant SUVs being driven by women not 5 feet tall and spoilers and $5 body kits coming off the crappy cars they are duckt taped to. While in Germany there is much less speed restriction but fuel is expensive, and modification is highly prohibited. Also, there are extensive automotive inspections to make sure your car is running properly.
So, here we drive inefficient poorly running cars slowly, while there there are much more efficient, properly running cars that can be driven as fast as the drivers want, with the understanding they will pay for their consumption at the pump.
My point, fuel is too cheap here for anyone to care about saving it. Why tune up your car or change your air filter. Need 24s on your suburban, sure! Gasoline is cheaper than good water here, people are not paying for the damage to the environment.
All that being said, I am not left wing in the least, but I do have a concern for the environment. I maintain my cars to the highest possible level, but I love to drive quickly, so I consider that an indulgence I conciously pay for.
I love the simple big block push rod overhead valve V-8s that enable ordinary American "salarymen" to enjoy 8 cylinders without skimping on their weekend steaks and beer. I have never been to Germany but in the UK ordinary people drive tiny cars with shockingly small engines (1,200 cc to 1,600 cc) with stick shifts to save fuel. Cost of living is high and income lower than the USA. Their gasoline is the highest in Europe.
I like it the way it is in North America. I like Pamela and Sanjaya.
#94
I am a closet tree-hugger and open Anti-Hypocrite League of North America member. I do not want to die from inhaling noxious substances but at the same time I do not want to be dictated to by any white pubic haired non-inhaling non ejaculating president and his present wife either.
I am an old school Libertarian (not one of those Commies that hijacked the name) that believe in the great late Milton Friedman. The market is the best in dictating what is acceptable to us, what we can tolerate and for us diesel heads, what we drive. E85 engines are nuts. 25% less economical in mileage. No pumps. Food resources are diverted to cars resulting in higher food prices. Diesels are great. Yet California is bickering about NXO and carbon monoxide emissions (I think Europeans are cleaner with one and NA the other) and decided to ban diesel engines in there existing form.
I am an old school Libertarian (not one of those Commies that hijacked the name) that believe in the great late Milton Friedman. The market is the best in dictating what is acceptable to us, what we can tolerate and for us diesel heads, what we drive. E85 engines are nuts. 25% less economical in mileage. No pumps. Food resources are diverted to cars resulting in higher food prices. Diesels are great. Yet California is bickering about NXO and carbon monoxide emissions (I think Europeans are cleaner with one and NA the other) and decided to ban diesel engines in there existing form.
But California has damn good reasons to regulate air quality, and they are not regulating just for the sake of regulating. If you go back and review the data from those days where leaded gasoline was widely available and there were no pollution controls on cars, it quickly becomes apparent why action was required (and if you review present-day data about air pollution, you can see why it is still required: three of the top ten most polluted cities in the USA are in California, and Los Angeles is the worst city in the nation).
And the market wasn't going to regulate in that case, because 1) unleaded gasoline was more expensive to produce than leaded, which would make consumers less likely to switch willingly; 2) emission controls cost money to add, which would make it less likely that the auto manufacturers would add it of their own free will (hell, they fought seat belts tooth and nail!); and 3) there was, and still is, a clear public health hazard.
Now look at the benefits: there is no lead in gasoline, which, if you have small children, you can very quickly find reason to be thankful for; the air is cleaner (cars today are something like 1/50th as polluting as the cars of yesteryear); we get fantastic performance with reasonable fuel economy. The sky didn't fall, automotive and gasoline manufacturers and retailers are still profitable (provided they actually make and sell cars that people want to purchase, that is), and we all breathe cleaner air.
Similarly, next year the Bluetec will be 50-state certified, meaning that it will provide the same level of performance, etc., yet produce less pollution.
What's the harm with that, exactly??
In Toronto our Harvard educated, British born and very left-wing mayor, his Worship David Millar is proposing to ban all lawn mawers and leaf blowers by 2010!
If you are careful down south Mr. Green, you will pay through your nose for basic requirements if ***** quality politicians have their ways.
If you are careful down south Mr. Green, you will pay through your nose for basic requirements if ***** quality politicians have their ways.
I am all for stopping unnecessary regulation, but in cases where there is a clear public health benefit involved, I cannot see how one could argue that allowing the pollution to continue unchecked is a good thing for the public--unless your sole concern is economic, ignoring all health risks.
With this mindset, we could simply start allowing companies to start dumping pollutants, unflitered, into streams and waterways, because it is expensive for them to (gasp) not pollute. Rubbish. There are other concerns besides economic ones to include in this equation.
Last edited by Improviz; 06-16-2007 at 05:51 PM.
#95
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta, Southern California
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Late Built 2005 W-211 E-320 CDI
Well Said . . .
Well Said
Sounds like you might have been here, but not necessarily like I was from the more or less beginning.
I remember one terrible smog attack period in the fifties when
I worked in a gas station at PCH and El Segundo Blvd.
The Smog was so think that you could not see half way accross LAX towards Century Blvd, a
distance of only one mile. The temperatures for four days straight was in the 110 range.
You couldn't begin to breath properly.
It was impossible to catch a good breath without causing yourself to cough.
Can you imagine what it would be like by now without unleaded fuel and cat. convertors
and given the even larger numbers of vehicles now on the road?
I think California now has over 25 Million registered cars and trucks.
Sounds like you might have been here, but not necessarily like I was from the more or less beginning.
I remember one terrible smog attack period in the fifties when
I worked in a gas station at PCH and El Segundo Blvd.
The Smog was so think that you could not see half way accross LAX towards Century Blvd, a
distance of only one mile. The temperatures for four days straight was in the 110 range.
You couldn't begin to breath properly.
It was impossible to catch a good breath without causing yourself to cough.
Can you imagine what it would be like by now without unleaded fuel and cat. convertors
and given the even larger numbers of vehicles now on the road?
I think California now has over 25 Million registered cars and trucks.
#96
The problem is that at this point the regulation is so misguided. The idea that trucks weighing over 5000 pounds can be completely written off one's taxes makes people care very little about getting 8 mpg. I recently had an American rental car (brand new) that supposedly got 27 or 29 mpg highway, yet driving 90% highway I got 19.5. The cars we can legally drive burn so much fuel, while giving HOV stickers to hybrids (completely eliminating any benefit they could provide) makes me believe that cleanliness is not the reason we cannot drive the CDI/Bluetec models in Ca yet. I cannot fathom that the World Green Car is dirtier than all the garbage on the roads here, and not clean enough for our use.
Arnold personally endorsed the Bluetec days before changing regulations that prevent is from being sold here. The hybrid producing manufacturers have very active lobbyists that are quite focused on making diesels slow (or not) in coming, fully aware that they will (hopefully) lose market share.
A note on hybrids, why does nobody ever consider the environmental impact of those batteries, both producing and disposing of them? I'm waiting until the first lot of hybrids becomes 10 years old and we have to deal with a serious hybrid disposal problem.
Arnold personally endorsed the Bluetec days before changing regulations that prevent is from being sold here. The hybrid producing manufacturers have very active lobbyists that are quite focused on making diesels slow (or not) in coming, fully aware that they will (hopefully) lose market share.
A note on hybrids, why does nobody ever consider the environmental impact of those batteries, both producing and disposing of them? I'm waiting until the first lot of hybrids becomes 10 years old and we have to deal with a serious hybrid disposal problem.
#97
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
North Americans do not like hybrids
[QUOTE=Untertürkheim;2277854]The problem is that at this point the regulation is so misguided. The idea that trucks weighing over 5000 pounds can be completely written off one's taxes makes people care very little about getting 8 mpg. I recently had an American rental car (brand new) that supposedly got 27 or 29 mpg highway, yet driving 90% highway I got 19.5. The cars we can legally drive burn so much fuel, while giving HOV stickers to hybrids (completely eliminating any benefit they could provide) makes me believe that cleanliness is not the reason we cannot drive the CDI/Bluetec models in Ca yet. I cannot fathom that the World Green Car is dirtier than all the garbage on the roads here, and not clean enough for our use.
Arnold personally endorsed the Bluetec days before changing regulations that prevent is from being sold here. The hybrid producing manufacturers have very active lobbyists that are quite focused on making diesels slow (or not) in coming, fully aware that they will (hopefully) lose market share.
Honda just stopped making its Accord hybrid. It is powerful and good on fuel. It does not sell. NA buyers have spoken loud and clear. No battery cars.
I agree lobbyists use tree-hugging enthusiasts to achieve their goals. NA car makers do not have a viable alternative to good European diesels. Honda and Toyota sell diesels in Europe and all over the world. These engines are cleaner in some way (I think it is CO2 emissions) than is required in the USA. If they are good enough for the rest of the world and most states what is wrong with the 3 states?
Arnold personally endorsed the Bluetec days before changing regulations that prevent is from being sold here. The hybrid producing manufacturers have very active lobbyists that are quite focused on making diesels slow (or not) in coming, fully aware that they will (hopefully) lose market share.
Honda just stopped making its Accord hybrid. It is powerful and good on fuel. It does not sell. NA buyers have spoken loud and clear. No battery cars.
I agree lobbyists use tree-hugging enthusiasts to achieve their goals. NA car makers do not have a viable alternative to good European diesels. Honda and Toyota sell diesels in Europe and all over the world. These engines are cleaner in some way (I think it is CO2 emissions) than is required in the USA. If they are good enough for the rest of the world and most states what is wrong with the 3 states?
#98
Honda just stopped making its Accord hybrid. It is powerful and good on fuel. It does not sell. NA buyers have spoken loud and clear. No battery cars.
I agree lobbyists use tree-hugging enthusiasts to achieve their goals. NA car makers do not have a viable alternative to good European diesels. Honda and Toyota sell diesels in Europe and all over the world. These engines are cleaner in some way (I think it is CO2 emissions) than is required in the USA. If they are good enough for the rest of the world and most states what is wrong with the 3 states?
I agree lobbyists use tree-hugging enthusiasts to achieve their goals. NA car makers do not have a viable alternative to good European diesels. Honda and Toyota sell diesels in Europe and all over the world. These engines are cleaner in some way (I think it is CO2 emissions) than is required in the USA. If they are good enough for the rest of the world and most states what is wrong with the 3 states?
Americans do like hybrids, by the way...they are breaking sales records.
#99
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
The Accord Hybrid was canceled for two reasons: (1) It didn't get great mileage; the electric motor only providing more power. It was not capable of running on electric power alone like Toyota/Nissan and Ford hybrids. (2) The entire Accord line is being replaced in a matter of months anyway. There will be a diesel in the US line-up instead of a hybrid.
Americans do like hybrids, by the way...they are breaking sales records.
Americans do like hybrids, by the way...they are breaking sales records.
Hybrids work best in tiny tinny dinky cars totally unsuitable for big Americans.
Most Toyota hybrid buyers only want to make a statement, some celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Canada's hippie David Sue-Sue-Kee.
#100
I cannot say if you are right about the Honda Accord hybrid not being able to run on electric power alone. The only car like that is a hybrid made by GM with an Ecotec 2.4 liter engine. Besides, Honda still makes smaller hybrids (Civic size). The real test comes when oil is back to US$50 per barrel. If hybrids still sells without all the government rebates then Americans must like hybrids. Jimmy Carter's oil crisis disappeared with Ronald Reagan in the White House. The first sign of life for the motor car was the arrival of the last carburetted 210 horse 302 cubic inch motor.
Hybrids work best in tiny tinny dinky cars totally unsuitable for big Americans.
Most Toyota hybrid buyers only want to make a statement, some celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Canada's hippie David Sue-Sue-Kee.
Hybrids work best in tiny tinny dinky cars totally unsuitable for big Americans.
Most Toyota hybrid buyers only want to make a statement, some celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Canada's hippie David Sue-Sue-Kee.
It really is a shame that many of the more mainstream hybrid cars went in the wrong direction. Instead of producing hybrids with eqivalent power to their gasoline counterparts and huge increases in efficiency, many have (and are going) the way of the Accord and producing a 250 - 300 hp equivalent car with substantial increased cost and only modest economy gains. The new Lexus LS600h is only supposed to get about 20 mpg. If it was 'only' as powerful as the LS450 and got in the 30s, then they'd have something. Same with the Lexus GS and Rx hybrids. GM is able to get 25% better fuel economy with their hybrid Tahoe despite using the 350hp engine from the Escalade and 2500 series trucks. My '04 with the 5.3 has plenty of power for a big, ponderous truck; if I could have the same space, towing, and power with 40% better economy, I'd seriously consider it. They should be able to accomplish this with a 6 cylinder, not the largest engine they have.