[SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn

[rescue at sunhelp.org]

    Actually you would be polluting less walking or 
riding a bicycle..so there!  Removing some the anti-
pollution crap on the car will increase gas mileage 
without increasing pollution if you keep the engine 
tuned.  I had a 73 Corolla with 1.6 l engine and a two 
speed automatic (yep, no typo).  It got 29.5 mpg on the 
highway and 26-27 average.  It also passed the 85 CA 
standards before I got rid of it after 185,000 miles.  
When it went through inspection they always had to test 
the exhaust system because "your car doesn't pollute 
enough".  My present car is not as good in mpg as that 
car, but far better than SUVs....and it has been off-
road more.  If we were really serious, a external 
combustion Stirling engine would be better if you want 
it fossil fueled.  BTW, I think the record for mileage 
is 358 mpg but you wouldn't want to drive that vehicle 
or they way it was driven.
> It seems to me that there is no one in the U.S. who
> is REALLY concerned about mileage, the environment,
> gas prices, energy, tree hugging, any of that stuff, if you
> drive ANY vehicle back & forth to work with only one
> person in the vehicle.(except MAYBE a fuel efficient cycle)
> 4 people in a car getting 10 mpg is lots better than 1 in a
> vehicle getting 25 mpg.
> AND I am not playing hole-e-yer-than-thou cause I drive a
> Mark VIII and it only gets about 20 if I keep the foot light.
> We all know that higher prices force economy, but we just
> don't want to see those prices.
> Les
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cyrus M. Reed" <reedc at cc.wwu.edu>
> To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 6:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn
> 
> 
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Reagen Ward wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 07:17:54PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> >
> > > I'm lucky when the '58 gets 10-12mpg. If I hit the hammer a lot that
> number
> > > drops to 7-8. But I do my part, too... the 2000 gets around 30 when
> driven
> > > right. Should those of us who preserve history (drive classic cars) get
> a
> > > price break on gas?
> >
> > I've heard an interesting theory:  Old gas guzzling classic cars burn
> > less total energy than it would take to make a new car, so you're better
> > off with an old car if you're wanting to conserve energy.
> >
> > Dunno if it's true, but it sounds good.
> 
> Don't forget that energy is not the same as pollution.  10kW/hr of power
> from a hydroelectric plant is not the same as 10kW/hr of power from a coal
> or natural gas powerplant, IMHO.
> 
> Also consider that leaded gas also puts out a lower amount of harmful
> emissions than unleaded gas for short trips.  The catalytic converter
> doesn't heat up as much as for longer trips, and unleaded gas actually
> burns less clean on it's own than leaded.  Now think about a short trip to
> the grocery store in an SUV... I'll bet that at 7mpg, there aren't many
> long trips made in those monster SUV's.  Ick.
> 
> -Cyrus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue