Cobb got nailed by the EPA

[K4fxd]

(Planes, boats, passenger vehicles, commercial trucking, etc) only contributes 15% of Global emissions.

My educated guess is that airplanes are 10 to 13% of that. But gotta put bubba in jail for hot roddin his truck

Sponsored

 

[CarmeloS]

I owned one. Bought it new: 1987 CRX HF, the high mpg model, 5 speed manual transmission. There were three models: the regular CRX, the CRX HF that I had with a smaller more fuel efficient engine, and the sporty CRX Si which was the performance model. Mine lasted 270k miles when I sold it to its next owner. By then it was fairly gone and the plastic body panels had hardened brittle in the Texas sun after all those years... I have no idea how one could survive until today unless it has always been stored protected inside. Most of the body was lightweight plastic.

My CRX HF was EPA rated 53 mpg on the hwy and I actually got that multiple times on long trips when driving 55-60ish mph just out of curiosity to see how high it could really get. Normal hwy driving at 70 it got 48 mpg every time. In town mileage was usually an honest 42; sometimes a little less, but never below 40 unless I played hard with it. It had no power though - if I was going up a minor hill or incline on the hwy I could choose to keep it in 5th gear or have A/C, but not both... It had NO power in 5th gear LOL. To keep the A/C on I had to downshift to 4th gear going up hills.

As previously posted, that technology went out with several hundred added pounds of airbag and safety equipment now required by regulations. Mine weighed 1800 pounds and I could back up to its rear bumper, squat down to grab it behind me, and lift it up off the ground. I can't do that with this Mustang LOL.

Swap in a K-series, shave some more weight where you could and it'd be a monster while also being more efficient. Shame cars got bloated as time went on

 

[CarmeloS]

My educated guess is that airplanes are 10 to 13% of that. But gotta put bubba in jail for hot roddin his truck

Also don't forget Volcanos emit a ton of CO2 into the Atmosphere, negating all that the Watermelons think they're doing

 

[Brooski1]

Does anybody else remember the Honda CRX car from the 80’s. Got 50
mpg and wasn’t any smaller then these little cars I see today.
I had one with 130k ( when cars didn’t last like today ) and still was getting 45 mpg.

what happened to that “ technology”

That technology was slow and weighed a lot less than today's cars. I looked it up and an 84 CRX accelerated from zero to 60 in 10.0 seconds and weighed 1800 pounds. Today's Civic Si does the zero to 60 in 6.6 seconds and weighs almost 3000 pounds. No wonder it struggles to get 40 mpg.

 

[CarmeloS]

That technology was slow and weighed a lot less than today's cars. I looked it up and an 84 CRX accelerated from zero to 60 in 10.0 seconds and weighed 1800 pounds. Today's Civic Si does the zero to 60 in 6.6 seconds and weighs almost 3000 pounds. No wonder it struggles to get 40 mpg.

So like I said, take a K series from the Si and swap it in a 90s Civic/CRX, then you get the best of both worlds

 

[Strokerswild]

I owned one. Bought it new: 1987 CRX HF, the high mpg model, 5 speed manual transmission. There were three models: the regular CRX, the CRX HF that I had with a smaller more fuel efficient engine, and the sporty CRX Si which was the performance model. The HF had a 1.3 liter engine and the other two had 1.5 liter engines with the Si 1.5 liter sporting several horsepower upgrades.

Mine lasted 270k miles when I sold it to its next owner. By then it was fairly gone and the plastic body panels had hardened brittle in the Texas sun after all those years... I have no idea how one could survive until today unless it has always been stored protected inside. Most of the body was lightweight plastic.

My CRX HF was EPA rated 53 mpg on the hwy and I actually got that multiple times on long trips when driving 55-60ish mph just out of curiosity to see how high it could really get. Normal hwy driving at 70 it got 48 mpg every time. In town mileage was usually an honest 42; sometimes a little less, but never below 40 unless I played hard with it. It had no power though - if I was going up a minor hill or incline on the hwy I could choose to keep it in 5th gear or have A/C, but not both... It had NO power in 5th gear LOL. To keep the A/C on I had to downshift to 4th gear going up hills. The regular CRX and certainly the Si model were probably able to keep the A/C on, but got less mpg... I think the Si was rated at 35 mpg (?) but don't trust my memory.

As previously posted, that technology went out with several hundred added pounds of airbag and safety equipment now required by regulations. Mine weighed 1800 pounds and I could back up to its rear bumper, squat down to grab it behind me, and lift it up off the ground. I can't do that with this Mustang LOL.

Great little cars. When I was in college, the Automotive Engineering department had an HF that had been donated by Honda and was the subject of experiments and modifications to net even higher mileage than Honda claimed. They worked, but I don't recall exactly to what degree. I drove it many times as it became an errand runner for the department and loved that thing, it was fun to drive around town and easy on gas. What a concept....

 

[K4fxd]

it was fun to drive around town and easy on gas. What a concept....

Our bloated mustangs with 450 HP are getting 30 MPG on the freeway.....

 

[CarmeloS]

I didn't even realize you responded to me, i thought you just quoted me.

So why can't I buy a new TDI, or get a Diesel option for my Bronco?
Because Americans are not fond of diesels and never have been, we don't like them and associate them with big smoke blowing semi trucks. VW almost broke into the US market and made us like diesels, the dieselgate scandal scared everyone off. Contrary to what you hear in this eco-chamber of a website, people want clean cars. The primary complaint with diesels is that they are dirty.

Ford doesn't sell a diesel Bronco because nobody wants it. There is no deeper meaning.

Had Dieselgate had happened during Bush or Trump, we'd be driving Diesel Bronco's and other vehicles, although it also ties into the EPA Choking out Diesel for the last few decades

Why do we need the complicated systems? Reduced power/economy/reliability for what, tailpipe emissions? As long as it's not coal rolling, who's hurt?

Because you don't have a personal right to pollute the air, just because you can't see the emissions does not mean they don't exist. Asbestos seems like a miracle material, people felt fine for decades after working with it until they started dropping like flies. Emissions from engines are linked to cancer, birth defects, inflammatory diseases, and are known to be detrimental to the environment. There is evidence backed peer reviewed research to support these assertions. This is not my opinion.

But how bad is the pollution? We're not talking the diesels coal rolling, just they were fine as they were.

And who got hurt from that? Unlike a Tesla that spontaneously combusts, I know of no one who get hurt from diesels. They didn't deserve to be crucified, Mike, and they should have fought back rather than bow and submit.

Who got hurt? Everyone got hurt, you got hurt, VW decided that the health and wellbeing of the entire world was not worth the money they'd have to spend to fix their mistake. Like I said before, just because you personally do not understand the long terms effects of exposure to unregulated emissions from IC motors does not stand as evidence that the risk isn't real. High smog areas see higher than average instances of cancer and all the items I listed above. This isn't a matter of opinion.

Decades ago textile mills dumped poisonous waste into our water supplies, decimating ecosystems and putting toxic materials into our water. We are STILL working to remove them, PFAS are giving people caner to this day, they don't break down and don't go away. These chemicals were dumped into the environment by Dupont and they have still not paid the price. At the time it seemed fine, nobody was getting hurt so who cares? This is what VW did with dieselgate, they fucked us.

Meanwhile look at Europe, they all drive diesels and are fine, so what gives? Same with certain parts of Asia with their diesel powered suv's. Again, it was timing, as had that had happened during Bush or Trump, slap on the wrist fine and that's it. They were crucified as they threatened EV's, as who'd wanna Tesla when a TDI cost less and went further.

I trust a dieselgate TDI more than I would ever an EV
ok.

Just youtube EV spontaneous combustion, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Really comes back to Fed Govt shouldn't have any role in what should be state issues. If Cali wants to be all Tyrannical and FL is all laid back, Fed Govt should just focus on delivering the mail and protecting us from Enemies Foreign and Domestic, period.

 

[shogun32]

Really comes back to Fed Govt shouldn't have any role in what should be state issues. If Cali wants to be all Tyrannical and FL is all laid back, Fed Govt should just focus on delivering the mail and protecting us from Enemies Foreign and Domestic, period.

to a point. But even detroit would blanch at the thought of having to come up with 50 different ECU tunes or hell even just 3. So some universality is desirable in the interests of "commerce". Would be fun if all car makers simply boycotted California. Maybe then the peasants would burn Sacramento down with their "elected" officials inside, and put an end to this malarky.

 

[markayash]

That technology was slow and weighed a lot less than today's cars. I looked it up and an 84 CRX accelerated from zero to 60 in 10.0 seconds and weighed 1800 pounds. Today's Civic Si does the zero to 60 in 6.6 seconds and weighs almost 3000 pounds. No wonder it struggles to get 40 mpg.

It wasn't made to be fast..Had manual doors etc and was cheap. They did make a SI model

 

[Strokerswild]

Our bloated mustangs with 450 HP are getting 30 MPG on the freeway.....

Well, mine doesn't....

That CRX was tiny and chuckable, which our tanks are not.

 

[Epiphany]

So we blow up the Nord Stream pipelines, play dumb, and cause the following...

"In the area, the leaks would only affect the environment where the gas plumes in the water column are located. A greater effect is likely to be the climate impact caused by the emission of 150 thousand tonnes (330 million pounds) of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.[42][173][174] The released volume is approximately 0.25% of the annual capacity of the pipelines, an amount nearly equal to the total release from all other sources of methane in a full year across Sweden.[175] The leaks caused Sweden's emissions to increase rather than decrease, risking an EU fine.[176]

A Danish official said these Nord Stream gas leaks could emit a CO2 equivalent of 14.6 million tonnes (32 billion pounds), similar to one third of Denmark's total annual greenhouse gas emissions.[177][178]

The methane emissions from the leaks are equal to a few days of the emissions from regular fossil fuel production,[179] and one third of the daily emissions from agriculture.[174] However, the leaks set a record as the single largest discharge of methane, dwarfing all previously known leaks, such as the Aliso Canyon gas leak.[179][180]

A weather station in Norway logged an unprecedented 400 parts per billion (ppb) increase from a base level of 1800 ppb.[181] Equipment measured no increase in atmospheric methane at Bornholm.[182]

Scientists from several European countries have analyzed the impact on marine ecosystems. The shockwave is stated to have killed marine life within a radius of 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) and damaged the hearing of animals within 50 kilometres (31 mi). An estimated 250,000 tonnes (550 million pounds) of seafloor sediment containing lead and tributyltin used in anti-fouling paint have been lifted up.[183] Additionally, the area is contaminated from the dumping of ammunitions and chemical weapons.[184]"

But we have the EPA and Justice Department go after Cobb, fining them millions of dollars for manufacturing "defeat devices" sold to automotive enthusiasts here in the US.

Sounds legit.

 

[shogun32]

So we blow up the Nord Stream pipelines, play dumb, and cause the following..

but Russia! *wipes spittle* Putin bad!
Bangs shoe on desk.

 

[CarmeloS]

to a point. But even detroit would blanch at the thought of having to come up with 50 different ECU tunes or hell even just 3. So some universality is desirable in the interests of "commerce". Would be fun if all car makers simply boycotted California. Maybe then the peasants would burn Sacramento down with their "elected" officials inside, and put an end to this malarky.

Didn't people buy Computers from neighboring states when Cali was like "It's too powerful" or something?

Can happen again

 

[TonyT930]

I fail to see how either of those two issues have any relevance with each other. One is an intentional subversion of federal law, the other is accidental.

I think what he is trying to say is that the ev vehicles consume electric and that electric is produced by burning fossil fuels among other sources. Then you have nuclear power producing which produces major environmental hazards of their own like contaminated nuclear waste. With that said, I don't know what the answer is, but I'm not convinced ev are any better for the environment when looking at the big picture. Idk. Thoughts?

Sponsored