Second Life Forums Archive - Key an SUV

Juro Kothari

Like a dog on a bone

Join date: 4 Sep 2003

Posts: 4,418

12-20-2005 19:56

I have also pointed out the inconsistent viewpoint of those people who think that SUV's are generally worse for the environment than other types of vehicles that get similar fuel mileage and also pollute the environment. So far, no one has directly rebutted that statement with relevant data. Juro has pointed out that the Expedition is a polluter, but has not shown ratings for the worst of the vehicles in the passenger van class or the pick-up category.

Aurael, actually I quoted figures for the vehicle you mentioned you own: the Explorer, not the Expedition.

I pulled up the figures from the EPA site for what is probably the worst passenger vehicle sold: the Lamborghini Murcielago - excuse me for a moment while I wipe the drool from my face. The Lambo gets a score of 2, whereas your Explorer - which is definately not among the worst offenders for SUV's got a score of 1. So, your 'average' SUV scored lower than the 'worst' car.

Beyond that score, don't forget that SUV's and trucks are not required by law to meet the same emmissions standards as cars are. So, in the big picture, that SUV is starting to look even worse. Here's a nice bar graph that shows how big the differences are in what pollution levels are allowed by vehicle type:

Notice that the green bar for cars and small trucks is far less than the bars for Medium and Large trucks. That gives a visual reference for how much more SUV's and trucks are allowed to pollute.

I also pulled figures for the worst passenger van and the winner was the Ford E350, with a score of 1. The worst minivan was the Mazda MPV with a score of 2 - I should not that the next worst minivan was the Chevrolet Uplander with a rating of 6. Minivans actually seemed to score very well compared to mid- and large- SUV's and trucks.

_____________________

Aurael Neurocam

Will script for food

Join date: 25 Oct 2005

Posts: 267

12-20-2005 20:08

From: Juro Kothari

I pulled up the figures from the EPA site for what is probably the worst passenger vehicle sold: the Lamborghini Murcielago - excuse me for a moment while I wipe the drool from my face. The Lambo gets a score of 2, whereas your Explorer - which is definately not among the worst offenders for SUV's got a score of 1. So, your 'average' SUV scored lower than the 'worst' car.

Thanks for that. Now we're getting down to some meat, as opposed to "performance art".

Would you post the link to where you're getting this data? I'd love to see it for myself.

(my Explorer is a '95... I don't remember the exact numbers on the smog test, but they were mostly very low.)

Thanks.

_____________________

Juro Kothari

Like a dog on a bone

Join date: 4 Sep 2003

Posts: 4,418

12-20-2005 20:48

Here's the link. The Explorer I quoted before was a 2003 model, it seems they don't have a score listed for a 1995 - but it was rated at 11.1 tons of annual greenhouse emmissions, while the 2003 was 11.6. The 2003 model was a V-8, while the 1995 was a V-6, so there is clearly improvement being made - just not as much as I'd personally like to see.

_____________________

Ulrika Zugzwang

Magnanimous in Victory

Join date: 10 Jun 2004

Posts: 6,382

12-20-2005 22:29

From: Juro Kothari

Here's the link. The Explorer I quoted before was a 2003 model, it seems they don't have a score listed for a 1995 - but it was rated at 11.1 tons of annual greenhouse emmissions, while the 2003 was 11.6. The 2003 model was a V-8, while the 1995 was a V-6, so there is clearly improvement being made - just not as much as I'd personally like to see.

Great stuff, Juro. It's amazing how some good-old-fashioned data can instantly make a point.

~Ulrika~

_____________________

Chik-chik-chika-ahh

Aurael Neurocam

Will script for food

Join date: 25 Oct 2005

Posts: 267

12-20-2005 22:58

From: Juro Kothari

Here's the link. The Explorer I quoted before was a 2003 model, it seems they don't have a score listed for a 1995 - but it was rated at 11.1 tons of annual greenhouse emmissions, while the 2003 was 11.6. The 2003 model was a V-8, while the 1995 was a V-6, so there is clearly improvement being made - just not as much as I'd personally like to see.

Yes, Ulrika, it can make a point: I believe this supports my opinion:

The Aerostar from the same year puts out 9.3 tons... that's only a 17% difference.

The Dodge Caravans from the same year (most popular mini-van ever)? as much as 9.8 tons. Only 12% less.

Compare this to the Toyota I had... 6.0 tons, which is 46% less.
Hyundai Elantra, VW Jetta: 7.6 tons. 32% less
Ford Escort: 6.6 tons: 41%

So yes, minivans are slightly less polluting than SUV's, but also have smaller engines. However, they're still half again MORE polluting than compact passenger cars.

_____________________

Ulrika Zugzwang

Magnanimous in Victory

Join date: 10 Jun 2004

Posts: 6,382

12-20-2005 23:50

From: Aurael Neurocam

Yes, Ulrika, it can make a point

Juro took you to school, conclusively settling this argument and undermining your credibility as one who can deliver anecdotal data with any accuracy at all. I will give you credit for being a good sport, rolling with the stream of contrary data and trying to spin it to save face.

Right-wing pundit: 0
Fact-toting visionary: 1

(I mean, he has a graph for crissake!)

~Ulrika~

_____________________

Chik-chik-chika-ahh

Juro Kothari

Like a dog on a bone

Join date: 4 Sep 2003

Posts: 4,418

12-21-2005 10:49

From: Aurael Neurocam

Yes, Ulrika, it can make a point: I believe this supports my opinion:

The Aerostar from the same year puts out 9.3 tons... that's only a 17% difference.

The Dodge Caravans from the same year (most popular mini-van ever)? as much as 9.8 tons. Only 12% less.

Compare this to the Toyota I had... 6.0 tons, which is 46% less.
Hyundai Elantra, VW Jetta: 7.6 tons. 32% less
Ford Escort: 6.6 tons: 41%

So yes, minivans are slightly less polluting than SUV's, but also have smaller engines. However, they're still half again MORE polluting than compact passenger cars.

You're right, Aurael. I did some looking into this and, to my surprise, minivans were classified as 'light trucks' - which means that they also get to slide through that safety and emmissions loophole. It's kind of shocking to me that a vehicle designed specifically for families is allowed to fly through with less strict safety standards.

That website (www.fueleconomy.gov) is a great resource to compare vehicles and understand the impact your next potential purchase may have.

I think both you and Ulrika agree that, when possible, it would be great if people would take mass-transit.

Here's an interesting little tidbit that is an example of the darker side of big-business: In the 1920's, Los Angeles had the most extensive interurban light rail system in the world - with over 1500 miles of track and reaching as far as out as San Bernardino.

In 1921, GM posted a loss of $65M and the executives felt that the auto market was saturated and they needed more customers. At this time, only 1 in 10 Americans owned an auto and 90% of all trips were taken using trolleys/streetcars. In 1922, GM established a special unit that was in charge of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and busses.

GM employed several tactics to accomplish this goal. First, they went to Southern Pacific, owner of the L.A. electric rail system and threatened to divert the lucrative automobile freight contracts to rival rail companies. Next, they persuaded those companies to convert the electric rail lines to bus lines. GM then went to several banks who supplied capital to many of these electric railway companies and GM offered these banks millions in deposits and persuaded their rail custmers to convert to busses.

The final tactic GM used was to form several holding companies that bought up the remaining electric rail companies and dismantled them, replacing the systems with noisy, dirty busses. When GM was unable to buy the company, they simply bought the executives by giving away free Cadillacs to those who converted to bus lines.

The unfortunate part of this is that because of this action, we now have an infrastructure that is built around the auto and trying to reverse course and rebuild all of those mass transit systems will be a huge cost, if it can be done at all.

_____________________

Chance Abattoir

Future Rockin' Resmod

Join date: 3 Apr 2004

Posts: 3,898

12-21-2005 10:57

From: Juro Kothari

The unfortunate part of this is that because of this action, we now have an infrastructure that is built around the auto and trying to reverse course and rebuild all of those mass transit systems will be a huge cost, if it can be done at all.

Slowly... The lines have been expanding at a snail's pace. The Gold Line was completed a couple of years back and the Orange Line was just put in a month or two ago. The Orange Line represents an odd midway point. Half the cost of a new train line, it's a series of extended buses that run on train schedules and have their own dedicated roadways and lanes. I'd still prefer trains, but in earthquake country a train-like busline is not a bad idea.

_____________________

"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey

Aurael Neurocam

Will script for food

Join date: 25 Oct 2005

Posts: 267

12-22-2005 12:36

From: Ulrika

Juro took you to school, conclusively settling this argument and undermining your credibility as one who can deliver anecdotal data with any accuracy at all. I will give you credit for being a good sport, rolling with the stream of contrary data and trying to spin it to save face.

How funny that I got exactly the opposite. Did you even READ my post? Minivans are almost as bad as SUV's. Juro's data illustrates that. My experience also supports that.

Are you seriously being bitchy just for its own sake, or do you really believe the insanity you're spewing?

Right-Wing nutcase: 0
Sanity: 1

From: Juro Kothari

You're right, Aurael. I did some looking into this and, to my surprise, minivans were classified as 'light trucks' - which means that they also get to slide through that safety and emmissions loophole. It's kind of shocking to me that a vehicle designed specifically for families is allowed to fly through with less strict safety standards.

Thanks, Juro.

I dont' think it's so much about families vs commercial. It's about engine size. A 4000lb van or SUV requires more engine to push it around than a 1800lb sub-compact. Bigger engines pollute more because they use more fuel: as my research indicated, the actual output of my Explorer vs my Paseo is almost double. My Ford's gas mileage is about half. That's enough to me to lead me to believe that the pollutants expelled is pretty much directly proportional to the fuel consumed, and the fuel consumed is pretty much proportional to the mass of the vehicle.

_____________________

Aurael Neurocam

Will script for food

Join date: 25 Oct 2005

Posts: 267

12-22-2005 12:45

From: Juro Kothari

Here's an interesting little tidbit that is an example of the darker side of big-business: In the 1920's, Los Angeles had the most extensive interurban light rail system in the world - with over 1500 miles of track and reaching as far as out as San Bernardino.
...In 1922, GM established a special unit that was in charge of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and busses.

I'm a fervent supporter of rail travel. I rode a metro rail system for a while to get to work, and I loved it. It didn't really save money: It cost more than the mileage on my car would have cost, but since the commute was 120 miles, I loved the fact that I could relax and read on the trip.

I've read this story before, and it sickens me. This is one area where free enterprise just doesn't work.

_____________________

Aurael Neurocam

Will script for food

Join date: 25 Oct 2005

Posts: 267

12-22-2005 13:40

From: Ulrika Zugzwang

Right-wing pundit: 0
Fact-toting visionary: 1

I forgot to thank you for the promotion:

from http://www.well.com/user/jct/sageglo.htm
Pundit: A learned man. Also used as a honorary title.
It's nice to know that you think of me as a learned individual and wish to honor me.

_____________________

Paris Cellardoor

Jefa del Cartel

Join date: 28 Dec 2003

Posts: 867

12-22-2005 15:36

Osama loves your SUV!

_____________________

La Realidad

FUGWB

kaia Ennui

Registered User

Join date: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 349

12-23-2005 12:33

i live in a van down by the river. if you key it i will break your legs.

_____________________

www.NocturnalThreads.com
Latest News and Fashion, Blahg , Photo Galleries and RL store with SL humor on tees and GingerDead merchandise

www.GingerDead.com
webcomic of kaia Ennui - updates weekly

Key an SUV
Juro Kothari Like a dog on a bone Join date: 4 Sep 2003 Posts: 4,418	12-20-2005 19:56 I have also pointed out the inconsistent viewpoint of those people who think that SUV's are generally worse for the environment than other types of vehicles that get similar fuel mileage and also pollute the environment. So far, no one has directly rebutted that statement with relevant data. Juro has pointed out that the Expedition is a polluter, but has not shown ratings for the worst of the vehicles in the passenger van class or the pick-up category. Aurael, actually I quoted figures for the vehicle you mentioned you own: the Explorer, not the Expedition. I pulled up the figures from the EPA site for what is probably the worst passenger vehicle sold: the Lamborghini Murcielago - excuse me for a moment while I wipe the drool from my face. The Lambo gets a score of 2, whereas your Explorer - which is definately not among the worst offenders for SUV's got a score of 1. So, your 'average' SUV scored lower than the 'worst' car. Beyond that score, don't forget that SUV's and trucks are not required by law to meet the same emmissions standards as cars are. So, in the big picture, that SUV is starting to look even worse. Here's a nice bar graph that shows how big the differences are in what pollution levels are allowed by vehicle type: Notice that the green bar for cars and small trucks is far less than the bars for Medium and Large trucks. That gives a visual reference for how much more SUV's and trucks are allowed to pollute. I also pulled figures for the worst passenger van and the winner was the Ford E350, with a score of 1. The worst minivan was the Mazda MPV with a score of 2 - I should not that the next worst minivan was the Chevrolet Uplander with a rating of 6. Minivans actually seemed to score very well compared to mid- and large- SUV's and trucks. _____________________
Aurael Neurocam Will script for food Join date: 25 Oct 2005 Posts: 267	12-20-2005 20:08 From: Juro Kothari I pulled up the figures from the EPA site for what is probably the worst passenger vehicle sold: the Lamborghini Murcielago - excuse me for a moment while I wipe the drool from my face. The Lambo gets a score of 2, whereas your Explorer - which is definately not among the worst offenders for SUV's got a score of 1. So, your 'average' SUV scored lower than the 'worst' car. Thanks for that. Now we're getting down to some meat, as opposed to "performance art". Would you post the link to where you're getting this data? I'd love to see it for myself. (my Explorer is a '95... I don't remember the exact numbers on the smog test, but they were mostly very low.) Thanks. _____________________
Juro Kothari Like a dog on a bone Join date: 4 Sep 2003 Posts: 4,418	12-20-2005 20:48 Here's the link. The Explorer I quoted before was a 2003 model, it seems they don't have a score listed for a 1995 - but it was rated at 11.1 tons of annual greenhouse emmissions, while the 2003 was 11.6. The 2003 model was a V-8, while the 1995 was a V-6, so there is clearly improvement being made - just not as much as I'd personally like to see. _____________________
Ulrika Zugzwang Magnanimous in Victory Join date: 10 Jun 2004 Posts: 6,382	12-20-2005 22:29 From: Juro Kothari Here's the link. The Explorer I quoted before was a 2003 model, it seems they don't have a score listed for a 1995 - but it was rated at 11.1 tons of annual greenhouse emmissions, while the 2003 was 11.6. The 2003 model was a V-8, while the 1995 was a V-6, so there is clearly improvement being made - just not as much as I'd personally like to see. Great stuff, Juro. It's amazing how some good-old-fashioned data can instantly make a point. ~Ulrika~ _____________________ Chik-chik-chika-ahh
Aurael Neurocam Will script for food Join date: 25 Oct 2005 Posts: 267	12-20-2005 22:58 From: Juro Kothari Here's the link. The Explorer I quoted before was a 2003 model, it seems they don't have a score listed for a 1995 - but it was rated at 11.1 tons of annual greenhouse emmissions, while the 2003 was 11.6. The 2003 model was a V-8, while the 1995 was a V-6, so there is clearly improvement being made - just not as much as I'd personally like to see. Yes, Ulrika, it can make a point: I believe this supports my opinion: The Aerostar from the same year puts out 9.3 tons... that's only a 17% difference. The Dodge Caravans from the same year (most popular mini-van ever)? as much as 9.8 tons. Only 12% less. Compare this to the Toyota I had... 6.0 tons, which is 46% less. Hyundai Elantra, VW Jetta: 7.6 tons. 32% less Ford Escort: 6.6 tons: 41% So yes, minivans are slightly less polluting than SUV's, but also have smaller engines. However, they're still half again MORE polluting than compact passenger cars. _____________________
Ulrika Zugzwang Magnanimous in Victory Join date: 10 Jun 2004 Posts: 6,382	12-20-2005 23:50 From: Aurael Neurocam Yes, Ulrika, it can make a point Juro took you to school, conclusively settling this argument and undermining your credibility as one who can deliver anecdotal data with any accuracy at all. I will give you credit for being a good sport, rolling with the stream of contrary data and trying to spin it to save face. Right-wing pundit: 0 Fact-toting visionary: 1 (I mean, he has a graph for crissake!) ~Ulrika~ _____________________ Chik-chik-chika-ahh
Juro Kothari Like a dog on a bone Join date: 4 Sep 2003 Posts: 4,418	12-21-2005 10:49 From: Aurael Neurocam Yes, Ulrika, it can make a point: I believe this supports my opinion: The Aerostar from the same year puts out 9.3 tons... that's only a 17% difference. The Dodge Caravans from the same year (most popular mini-van ever)? as much as 9.8 tons. Only 12% less. Compare this to the Toyota I had... 6.0 tons, which is 46% less. Hyundai Elantra, VW Jetta: 7.6 tons. 32% less Ford Escort: 6.6 tons: 41% So yes, minivans are slightly less polluting than SUV's, but also have smaller engines. However, they're still half again MORE polluting than compact passenger cars. You're right, Aurael. I did some looking into this and, to my surprise, minivans were classified as 'light trucks' - which means that they also get to slide through that safety and emmissions loophole. It's kind of shocking to me that a vehicle designed specifically for families is allowed to fly through with less strict safety standards. That website (www.fueleconomy.gov) is a great resource to compare vehicles and understand the impact your next potential purchase may have. I think both you and Ulrika agree that, when possible, it would be great if people would take mass-transit. Here's an interesting little tidbit that is an example of the darker side of big-business: In the 1920's, Los Angeles had the most extensive interurban light rail system in the world - with over 1500 miles of track and reaching as far as out as San Bernardino. In 1921, GM posted a loss of $65M and the executives felt that the auto market was saturated and they needed more customers. At this time, only 1 in 10 Americans owned an auto and 90% of all trips were taken using trolleys/streetcars. In 1922, GM established a special unit that was in charge of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and busses. GM employed several tactics to accomplish this goal. First, they went to Southern Pacific, owner of the L.A. electric rail system and threatened to divert the lucrative automobile freight contracts to rival rail companies. Next, they persuaded those companies to convert the electric rail lines to bus lines. GM then went to several banks who supplied capital to many of these electric railway companies and GM offered these banks millions in deposits and persuaded their rail custmers to convert to busses. The final tactic GM used was to form several holding companies that bought up the remaining electric rail companies and dismantled them, replacing the systems with noisy, dirty busses. When GM was unable to buy the company, they simply bought the executives by giving away free Cadillacs to those who converted to bus lines. The unfortunate part of this is that because of this action, we now have an infrastructure that is built around the auto and trying to reverse course and rebuild all of those mass transit systems will be a huge cost, if it can be done at all. _____________________
Chance Abattoir Future Rockin' Resmod Join date: 3 Apr 2004 Posts: 3,898	12-21-2005 10:57 From: Juro Kothari The unfortunate part of this is that because of this action, we now have an infrastructure that is built around the auto and trying to reverse course and rebuild all of those mass transit systems will be a huge cost, if it can be done at all. Slowly... The lines have been expanding at a snail's pace. The Gold Line was completed a couple of years back and the Orange Line was just put in a month or two ago. The Orange Line represents an odd midway point. Half the cost of a new train line, it's a series of extended buses that run on train schedules and have their own dedicated roadways and lanes. I'd still prefer trains, but in earthquake country a train-like busline is not a bad idea. _____________________ "The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence." -Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
Aurael Neurocam Will script for food Join date: 25 Oct 2005 Posts: 267	12-22-2005 12:36 From: Ulrika Juro took you to school, conclusively settling this argument and undermining your credibility as one who can deliver anecdotal data with any accuracy at all. I will give you credit for being a good sport, rolling with the stream of contrary data and trying to spin it to save face. How funny that I got exactly the opposite. Did you even READ my post? Minivans are almost as bad as SUV's. Juro's data illustrates that. My experience also supports that. Are you seriously being bitchy just for its own sake, or do you really believe the insanity you're spewing? Right-Wing nutcase: 0 Sanity: 1 From: Juro Kothari You're right, Aurael. I did some looking into this and, to my surprise, minivans were classified as 'light trucks' - which means that they also get to slide through that safety and emmissions loophole. It's kind of shocking to me that a vehicle designed specifically for families is allowed to fly through with less strict safety standards. Thanks, Juro. I dont' think it's so much about families vs commercial. It's about engine size. A 4000lb van or SUV requires more engine to push it around than a 1800lb sub-compact. Bigger engines pollute more because they use more fuel: as my research indicated, the actual output of my Explorer vs my Paseo is almost double. My Ford's gas mileage is about half. That's enough to me to lead me to believe that the pollutants expelled is pretty much directly proportional to the fuel consumed, and the fuel consumed is pretty much proportional to the mass of the vehicle. _____________________
Aurael Neurocam Will script for food Join date: 25 Oct 2005 Posts: 267	12-22-2005 12:45 From: Juro Kothari Here's an interesting little tidbit that is an example of the darker side of big-business: In the 1920's, Los Angeles had the most extensive interurban light rail system in the world - with over 1500 miles of track and reaching as far as out as San Bernardino. ...In 1922, GM established a special unit that was in charge of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and busses. I'm a fervent supporter of rail travel. I rode a metro rail system for a while to get to work, and I loved it. It didn't really save money: It cost more than the mileage on my car would have cost, but since the commute was 120 miles, I loved the fact that I could relax and read on the trip. I've read this story before, and it sickens me. This is one area where free enterprise just doesn't work. _____________________
Aurael Neurocam Will script for food Join date: 25 Oct 2005 Posts: 267	12-22-2005 13:40 From: Ulrika Zugzwang Right-wing pundit: 0 Fact-toting visionary: 1 I forgot to thank you for the promotion: from http://www.well.com/user/jct/sageglo.htm Pundit: A learned man. Also used as a honorary title. It's nice to know that you think of me as a learned individual and wish to honor me. _____________________
Paris Cellardoor Jefa del Cartel Join date: 28 Dec 2003 Posts: 867	12-22-2005 15:36 Osama loves your SUV! _____________________ La Realidad FUGWB
kaia Ennui Registered User Join date: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 349	12-23-2005 12:33 i live in a van down by the river. if you key it i will break your legs. _____________________ www.NocturnalThreads.com Latest News and Fashion, Blahg , Photo Galleries and RL store with SL humor on tees and GingerDead merchandise www.GingerDead.com webcomic of kaia Ennui - updates weekly

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

Key an SUV