On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:11:21 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:05:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That doesn't stop people owning pointlessly large uneconomical cars
for status reasons and/or some irrational belief about safety. Eg my
father has a 2.7 V6 that does 25mpg.


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

But mile for mile, 'don't we all pay for it' environmentally?

One can say that about virtually anything.


Now don't get me wrong, I own (bult) a 1978 1300 Escort based kut car
that currently does 25 mpg and with a poor emissions engine, however
it is used infrequently and for short trips so probably 'pollutes'
less / year than even the best 'catted' vehicle (in fact has only done
500 miles over the last couple of years).

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

I could make the same argument about my use of a diesel 4x4. When I
am in the UK, I mainly work at home, so mileage is low and I could
make the same argument. I don't. I like to drive it, I am happy
to pay for the fuel and road tax and that is that. I don't need my
life run for me.


Now it might even end up
with my old 2L Pinto in there (giving slightly better mpg) but it will
at least be able to run unleaded (once sorted).

I hope you have your life insurance up to date or that you don't get
rear ended.....



The difference when going from the 2L Sierra to this Rover 218SD
(1900) was remarkable fuel consumption wise. 25 mpg became 50, 125
miles for 20 quids worth of fuel became 250! Even with our low mileage
I'm sure we notice the money saved. Now because I (we) don't drive for
fun, to pose or commute, any of our vehicles are generally only used
to get us to places where we also carry stuff or there is more than
one of us. Other than that we walk / cycle (rarely use PT because it's
not convienient in spite of having a bus terminus and two stations
within a 10 min walk).

I believe the bottom line (and in spite of catalysers etc) is the more
miles you can get from each gallon of fossil fuel the better, not easy
to do with something waying 3 tonnes and with the aerodynamics of a
shed?

Now, if you live in the country or places where there is a 'good'
chance of getting snowed / mudded in several times of the year a real
'off roader' (eg Land Rover 110 / Disco / Shogun? etc) with a mid
sized diesel engine might still be acceptable. For (guess) 70% of the
others something that 'looks' like a 4 x 4 (but just 2wd) but built
lighter with a smaller more economical (diesel?) engine would probably
placate their egos whilst polluting less (less fuel burnt / mile =
good). And, so what if it only does 50 mph .. they never leave the
City anyway! ;-)

Can't see it happening though .. if you have the money to afford to
run / maintain such a beast even £1000 / year road tax and fuel at 10/
gallon with make them think about anyone than No1.


This is a bull**** argument. It isn't acceptable to expect people to
justify their personal choice of mode of transport if they are
prepared to pay for it. This is typical Livingstonesque focus on the
wrong issues just for the sake of propaganda and is not addressing the
real issues.






All the best ..

T i m

p.s. There *are* folk out there that make REGULAR good use of say the
seating or load capacity of their 'bigger' / 4x4 vehicles in which
case the mpg can to some degree be justified but surely not as just an
uban taxi ..?


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl