If you could run an engine from today, simply without the draconian emissions requirements, you’d see a dramatic difference in MPG.

I find it funny that lefties want to “force” auto manufacturers to increase gas mileage, while also imposing anti-economy emissions schemes–in addition to mandatory safety features. It’s as if they think they can “legislate reality”, as I say. The legislators think they’re above the laws of physics.

I propose that ANY emissions equipment/technology may only qualify as mandatory if they do not harm fuel efficiency. Such things do exist. We haven’t even properly focused on FUEL quality as part of the equation. There are cheap, effective additives and techniques which could increase both fuel economy AND cleanliness–even (especially) for diesel. If we did this, we’d see more innovation and success–and happiness with our System. Increasing cost slightly is one thing–but let’s not decrease fuel efficiency with anything supposedly generating a cleaner burn.

I hear that even the electrolosys water kits people put on, even if they don’t increase mileage, the emissions are much cleaner. Ironically, the reason HHO water kits usually don’t improve mileage is reportedly they make the engine burn so clean, it makes the O2 sensor tell the engine to run richer, and it’s difficult to get around. In California, it’s illegal to modify your air intake system from stock, even if it IMPROVES emissions.

What I’d like to see is a return to low-power engines & manual transmissions, coupled with eliminating counterproductive emissions controls, while keeping all the safety improvements. Oh–that’s a european diesel. Personally, all the planet-saving technologies on Earth don’t mean a thing to me if I don’t arrive to my destination safe and sound.

There is a lot of demand for low-power, manual-transmission diesels. Chrysler makes a stick-shift diesel minivan in St. Louis, and exports it to Europe, and REFUSES to sell it in the US. It gets thirty-some miles per gallon or better. As long as bloggers keep repeating this idea that Americans will only buy muscle cars, mfrs will believe it.

One thing you’ll never hear is a lefty taking responsibility for, even partially, is the reduction in fuel economy over the years.

If you could run an engine from today, simply without the draconian emissions requirements, you’d see a dramatic difference in MPG.

I find it funny that lefties want to “force” auto manufacturers to increase gas mileage, while also imposing anti-economy emissions schemes–in addition to mandatory safety features. It’s as if they think they can “legislate reality”, as I say. The legislators think they’re above the laws of physics.

I propose that ANY emissions equipment/technology may only qualify as mandatory if they do not harm fuel efficiency. Such things do exist. We haven’t even properly focused on FUEL quality as part of the equation. There are cheap, effective additives and techniques which could increase both fuel economy AND cleanliness–even (especially) for diesel. If we did this, we’d see more innovation and success–and happiness with our System. Increasing cost slightly is one thing–but let’s not decrease fuel efficiency with anything supposedly generating a cleaner burn.

I hear that even the electrolosys water kits people put on, even if they don’t increase mileage, the emissions are much cleaner. Ironically, the reason HHO water kits usually don’t improve mileage is reportedly they make the engine burn so clean, it makes the O2 sensor tell the engine to run richer, and it’s difficult to get around. In California, it’s illegal to modify your air intake system from stock, even if it IMPROVES emissions.

What I’d like to see is a return to low-power engines & manual transmissions, coupled with eliminating counterproductive emissions controls, while keeping all the safety improvements. Oh–that’s a european diesel. Personally, all the planet-saving technologies on Earth don’t mean a thing to me if I don’t arrive to my destination safe and sound.

There is a lot of demand for low-power, manual-transmission diesels. Chrysler makes a stick-shift diesel minivan in St. Louis, and exports it to Europe, and REFUSES to sell it in the US. It gets thirty-some miles per gallon or better. As long as bloggers keep repeating this idea that Americans will only buy muscle cars, mfrs will believe it.

One thing you’ll never hear is a lefty taking responsibility for, even partially, is the reduction in fuel economy over the years.

With reference to ChuckL’s comments, aerodynamics play a huge part in a cars economy when cruising and where acceleration is required, mass is the main factor influencing fuel requirements. Of course, gearing (relative to rpm at max. torque), the engines efficiency and the drivers foot mass also play a part, especially the latter.

The efficiency of later, injected engines is far superior to older engines.

If, like in Aussie, you can’t drive at more than 110 kph (68mph) where aero is somewhat limited in its value, an older car with modern mechanicals (retro tech) will give the best of both worlds.

Regards,

Royce R. Vines

“Politicians, are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign

against them.” – Charley Reece (1995)

With reference to ChuckL’s comments, aerodynamics play a huge part in a cars economy when cruising and where acceleration is required, mass is the main factor influencing fuel requirements. Of course, gearing (relative to rpm at max. torque), the engines efficiency and the drivers foot mass also play a part, especially the latter.

The efficiency of later, injected engines is far superior to older engines.

If, like in Aussie, you can’t drive at more than 110 kph (68mph) where aero is somewhat limited in its value, an older car with modern mechanicals (retro tech) will give the best of both worlds.

Regards,

Royce R. Vines

“Politicians, are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign

against them.” – Charley Reece (1995)

…then again, I drive ’92 Jeep Wrangler with a manual transmission and power nothing. As uncomfortable as I’ve ever been in a car, but there are fewer things to break too.

…then again, I drive ’92 Jeep Wrangler with a manual transmission and power nothing. As uncomfortable as I’ve ever been in a car, but there are fewer things to break too.

Notice anything?

Exact same arguments. So where does it end?

If we keep using your logic, in another 50 years we will have 1000hp cars.

This is why alternative energy is not a solution.

The more we have, the more we find an excuse to have (and soon we think we “need” it)

Rethinking what is important, and prioritizing efficiency over luxury are going to be necessary in the coming decades, and now is the best time to start.

Notice anything?

Exact same arguments. So where does it end?

If we keep using your logic, in another 50 years we will have 1000hp cars.

This is why alternative energy is not a solution.

The more we have, the more we find an excuse to have (and soon we think we “need” it)

Rethinking what is important, and prioritizing efficiency over luxury are going to be necessary in the coming decades, and now is the best time to start.

THAT is eco-friendly.