Island Life: BP-Fuelled Rage
205 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
A S,
If we are talking about modern small cars vs modern big cars then the thirst of the small one, no matter how hard you have to drive it up the hills, will be more modest than the larger car.
Not with the motor I had in that escort it won't. A full tank generally got me about 250km, less if I drove it hard. That was open road driving too....
Mine was basically powered by a the equivalent of a works rally engine. Lets just say that economy wasn't a consideration in the design of the motor....
I hear what you're saying though. I made mention of the escort because I didn't want to be equated to some big car driving road hog :-)
-
If a particular type of driver is not courteous, or drives unsafely, it is a driver education issue. This suggests a response aimed at improving driving standards is required. Railing against their vehicle seems a bit stupid, and unlikely to address the issue of driver behaviour.
Doesn't change the fact that aggressive driving in SUVs is inherently much more dangerous to my health than aggressive driving in small cars. Sure, I'd like to see better driver behaviour overall. But given the way SUVs aid and abet aggressive driving - as well as being more dangerous to other drivers, worse for the environment in city-driving situations, etectera - I think it's fair to wish heartily that people stopped driving the bloody things unless they had a need for them. Note that I'm not advocating banning SUVs - they definitely have their uses. I'm advocating people ceasing to use them as a status symbol in the inner city.
-
Mine was basically powered by a the equivalent of a works rally engine.
A father of a mate of mine worked at Ford, and my mate was able to borrow an escort sport that sounds just like this one, for ski trips (a small fleet would head north, of which the Escort was far & away the most imprewssive vehicle - the rest were Hillman Imps, Triumph Heralds & Hillman Super Minxes).
My goodness that car could "go". How his father would have blanched at the treatment he gave it.
-
Keep people off the road?
Well, it'd drop the road toll pretty substantially, wouldn't it? ;)
-
A S,
Keep people off the road?
Well, maybe restrict that to: keep stupid and inconsiderate people off the road....
-
Doesn't change the fact that aggressive driving in SUVs is inherently much more dangerous to my health than aggressive driving in small cars.
Doesn't change the fact that aggressive driving in articulated trucks is inherently much more dangerous to my health than aggressive driving in SUVs.
And so it goes.
Note that I'm not advocating banning SUVs - they definitely have their uses. I'm advocating people ceasing to use them as a status symbol in the inner city.
I wouldn't mind if SUVs (all cars actually) were banned from the city.
-
Rik,
I think the term SUV is part of the problem here.
In the US it applies to 4000kg mammoths like the Chev Tahoe (of which there are a few on NZ roads).
In NZ we seem to be applying this term to anything that looks a bit like a 4 wheel drive vehicle and then bestowing hatred on the driver.
My car, a Ford Territory weighs 2095kg and has a fuel rating of 13.5 litres/100km
A Subaru Outback weighs 1615kg and has a fuel rating of 11.1 litres/100km
A Toyota Previa weighs 1795kg and has a fuel rating of 10.8 litres/100kmThere's not a lot in it in my opinion - people movers and "cool" Subaru's are not much different to my so-called "SUV" (it's really just a Ford Falcon station wagon - does that make it "OK" with you guys??).
Just out of interest, I used to drive a Land Rover Discovery. It was a lovely car, handled like cr*p but had the sort of distinctive looks and character that you can grow quite fond of after a while. And unlike what I have often heard about Land Rovers the thing never broke down. Anyway - at some point I was totting up the amount of fuel I had put in it over the years and I think the total was something like $45,000.00 over about 8 years.
Believe it or not the Territory uses about half the fuel that the Discovery used in around town driving.
-
My bicycle weighs ~12 kg, and has a fuel rating of 0.0 litres/100km.
-
Today's xkcd is strangely relevant.
-
The Territory is still bigger and thirstier than the Falcon which might be fine if you're using the 7 seats and the 4WD, but the fact that you can buy a 2WD Territory with 5 seats, speaks volumes about who is buying them and the manufacturers know it.
The other reason not to own a Territory (or similar) is the horrendous residual value slide that they are experiencing (same goes for the Falcon). Ok if it's a company car I guess. -
Doesn't change the fact that aggressive driving in articulated trucks is inherently much more dangerous to my health than aggressive driving in SUVs.
Given the size of car I drive, the result is going to be pretty much the same whether it's an SUV or an articulated truck. And there are a lot more SUVs around.
-
Doesn't change the fact that aggressive driving in articulated trucks is inherently much more dangerous to my health than aggressive driving in SUVs.
Professional drivers such as bus drivers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, courier drivers, police officers etc tend to have better safety records on the road. Some receive additional training over and above the ordinary person, but they all spend a lot of time driving and as a result tend to be better at it.
-
Given the size of car I drive, the result is going to be pretty much the same whether it's an SUV or an articulated truck. And there are a lot more SUVs around.
What about George & his bicycle Lucy, he's even smaller than your car (presumably), I think if we're going to push this argument we may as well take it right back to him - everything else on the road is a danger to him, ergo, they should get off the road.
Oh wait, I just thought about pedestrians - I think George is a danger to them - bikes should be taken off the road too.
Be a whole lot better for the environment.
Does anyone know where I might find some road accident stats showing what's causing them? I had a quick google, but no joy.
-
<quote>Professional drivers such as bus drivers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, courier drivers, police officers etc tend to have better safety records on the road. </quoite>
SHow me the stats! Maybe it's just my perception that every 2nd road death seems to have involved a car/truck collision.
-
How about this.
1. Most of you will be driving with under-inflated tyres. The pressures quoted in your manual are generally for cold (tyres are warm by the time you get to the petrol station) + the inaccuracy of most guages at forecourts means you are probably sucking down 10% more fuel, let alone the safety issue.
If we paid attention to tyres we could shave 10% off the nations fuel consumption. Overnight. But people just don't seem aware of it.
2. Wind drag effect is exponential (a cube). One implication of this is that if you reduce speed from, say 110 to 95 you will save something like 15% of your fuel consumption. On your 40km commute in the morning you will add less than 5 minutes to your journey.
So there you go - pump the tyres up, slow down and cut your fuel bill by 25%.
-
PS. What are all these anti-4WD wankers rambling on about? I presume they take offence at someone wanting to express their power and success with a big car? Well yes, I did. I thoroughly enjoyed my V12 Jag and then my WRX. And my stupidly fast Suzuki.
Bollox to the lot of you. Now I'm a sad family man with a Previa, but I'm not going to pour scorn on anyone who likes going a bit quick in something a bit heavy or a bit stylish, because I'm comfortable with my masculinity.
I don't regret a drop of the Octane I've burnt in pursuit of pleasure, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone else having a good time. Reminds me of the sanctimonious attitude of the anti drink / drug / yoof whiners: as Douglas Adams pointed out (sort of) I'm sure it's basically that the whingers are pissed off that other people seem to be having more fun than them.
-
Slarty, in my experience, driving at anything less than the speed limit causes a considerable number of other drivers to seem to want to kill me (with no correlation to the size of their vehicle). It's a worthwhile proposition, and perhaps with increasing fuel costs it'll become more culturally acceptable.
-
I'll swap it for one of these.
Ahem. Me & the car salesman
MY FAV(S)Left a 64 pony and a 69 fastback in Kansas.Took the2dr pillarless 56 chev cos it had a better mota.The mid west is a good place to find them as there is no ocean around to rust them.Will probably go back to see if the opportunity is still there.
SUV's..... My man has an old, well serviced hilux surf. Fits a matress in the back for off road,beach,camping,far north dirt roads etc,etc. Now in the city, the back fits his tool box and without a key to open the back window it is safe for all his tools.He often has people in smaller vehicles giving him the fingers and even if I do say so myself, he would have to be the most considerate driver I have come across.To the point of bein' rather anal!(I put it down to his age) We are also able to use my car around town which holds 2 people and the dog thus eliminating any need to transport unnecessarily. Oh, and Andrew L ,my Dad has a fiat bambina,He loves them.Has had about 4.I am amazed at how much he can fit in them.:-) -
The article linked mentions "a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe".
Those are actually heavy enough to have a maximum speed of 90km/h on the open road here. I wonder how many of the people who own them here are aware of this. I wonder how many of the cops know this and enforce it!
-
everything else on the road is a danger to him [the cyclist]
Absolutely. We simply take cars for granted as part of the landscape without even questioning if they're the right thing for the job. Even if there was no risk of collision, every vehicle would still be causing harm to every pedestrian and cyclist through the toxic concoction that comes from the exhaust pipe. Large diesels are the worst, I've been led to believe.
It's not an either/or situation. Cars or bicycles. But we need to optimise our transport system so that the alternative that offers the best result in a given situation is available and practical, and that harms are minimised.
-
My bicycle weighs ~12 kg, and has a fuel rating of 0.0 litres/100km.
I'm reminded of one of David Haywood's posts along the lines of "you don't get energy for free."
Something powers your bicycle (probably your legs), and the energy you need to do that has to come from somewhere (probably food, for which vast amounts of energy was spent in its production ... much of that energy probably from hydrocarbons).
You would use a lot less of that food energy sitting at the wheel of a car/SUV/Tahoe. ;-)
-
I sold my 1990 Nissan Terrano for $2000 and my 1997 Toyota Ute for $7000 and used the money to buy a 1998 Mazda Demio for $8000. The mazda actually has more foot room and more head room than the Nissan Terrano did! This saved me 40% on my weekly fuel bill without changing anything else...
-
Yeah, the cyclist uses about 1/20th the energy (approx 500 kcal/hr from memory). If those calories come from grain fed beef or chicken, the numbers aren't necessarily on the side of the cyclist. Vegetarians and vegans can afford to be smug, the rest not so.
-
Rik,
Yo George
My bicycle weighs ~12 kg, and has a fuel rating of 0.0 litres/100km
My bike weighs 14.2kg (bit heavy as full suspension) and has a similar fuel rating to yours.
However it will shortly be transporting two people along once I have one of these clamped on to it for the wee fella:
But Mrs SUV says I will not be going near any roads with nasty CARS on them (of any size) in case he gets hurt. So I will stick to safe places like Woodhill, Muriwai, Grey Lynn park, etc. Can't wait!
-
Something powers your bicycle (probably your legs), and the energy you need to do that has to come from somewhere (probably food,
Ye but (na but) cos he wouldn't have to drive to the gym to reduce the onset of diabetes( more taxpayer costs) because he got fat driving! Innit!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.