Politically acceptable, as endorsed by John Prescott.

You forgot that the bonnet design is such that it probably slices
pedestrians in half.

Exactly the point I used to drive a limo, definatly a bigger footprint than
my landy and certainly not more economical.

interesting reading.

'course, the use of fossil fuels releases fossil water vapour as well as
fossil CO2.

mind, there's this:

Can you drive your car 30% less?

I venture to suggest that rather a lot of people *could* if they really
wanted to, however:

"Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect
on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy."

which is probably the most telling bit.

Which doesn't equate to more pollution.

But what are its emissions like?

Adrian composed the following;:

So why not say what you mean instead of continually referring to 4x4's?

So what?  This has f.ck all to do with emissions and pollutants and the
levels put out.  My 4x4 puts out less pollutant than my neighbours 2wd
car, it burns less fuel as well.

BIG CLUE ... generalisations like you made don't work all the time.

Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.

Adrian composed the following;:

But you keep mentioning 4x4's, therefore lumping us all into the
argument.  At least be feckin' consistent in your arguments>  Do you
mean 4x4's do you mean off-roading 4x4's do you mean 'Chelsea Tractors',
and again, be as specific as you can be.  AFL, I suggest, is not a
hot-bed of Chelsea Tractor afficianado's, so why argue about them here ?

Actually, I've lost the idea of what the feckin' argument is now ... so
I refer back to a part of my post you snipped ... "Who gives a flying
fart, other than the tree-huggers, who's
4x4 does what for the environment really?  Most of the time we're
tearing the ground up anyway (With Land-owners permission) so cackling
among 'ourselves' as to whose is biggest, smallest, cleanest etc just
throws us all into the environ-mentalists hands."

My Discovery, a 4x4, is much more economical than my neighbours much
lighter 2wd TVR.  It is also a cleaner engine from the point of view of
it's emissions ... ;)

And ?

I also know of cars that are bigger and heavier than the new Disco.  WTF
has this to do with emissions and pollutants?

Oh I see, so now when we go off road we have to get a little slip signed
to say we've been off road and then we ARE allowed to use our 4x4s in
towns as well. It all suddenly makes sense, all this crap about
emmissions, pedestrian safety, intimidation etc... is all a cunning
smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.

So, the solution to the problem is actually very simple, turn Hyde Park
into a huge off road play site and make it compulsory for all 4x4 owners
visiting or living in London to drive around the site, say, once a year
to get their special pass that allows the smug, self important curtain
twitchers to allow their neighbours to buy 4x4s because they use them
off road. Why Ken hasn't just announced this instead of banging on about
all this negative stuff I have no idea. There may have to be provision
for a "lesser" off road circuit that allows Subaru and other low ground
clearance 4x4s to get their certificate of "worthiness to own a 4x4" -
maybe cover Oxford street in a 3 inch deep layer of mud an s**t ?
There's certainly enough crap spouted by the environazis to cover most
of London's streets in a 3 inch deep layer.

There was me thinking that this was a completely indiscriminate campaign
against anyone who happened to have a transmission system capable of
driving all the wheels and all the time it's part of a larger plan to
get all 4x4s off road at least once a year ! This is obviously an
extension of previous schemes such as the "minimum of 12 inch ground
clearance speed bumps" and the infamous "articulation testing potholes"
that our Ken has been so keen to install into the streets around his
town.

I wonder why none of this comes across from the campaigners, I mean, I'd
obviously misinterpreted their slogan "drive 4x4s off our roads" silly
me thought they wanted to stop us driving them altogether and in reality
they are actually campaigning for more off road sites - more power to
their elbow I say.

cheers

Dave W.
http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/

Maybe.  But the problem is legislation to tackle the
perceived problems that some people claim "Chelsea
Tractors" cause will very likely impact people who
own off-roaders to use off road.  Except perhaps
ones used solely and truly off road (not registered
for the road, not even used on PROW, not even used
for an *occasional* errand in town, etc etc).

-- Steve

Oh, you mean Sting.

Steve composed the following;:

LOL

<applause>

nah, the 2CV doesn't go back as far as 1928.

It was indeed designed in 1948, though, ISTR.  I grant you, the emissions
and efficiency might have been improved along the way, but since they
stopped developing it at least 20 years ago...

not entirely.  The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it was
all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly behind
since.  I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got a
cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon.  in
terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
carries 4 people same as the 2CV (unlike the Smart, it has to be said.
Though the Smart makes huge sense for urban areas carrying 1 or 2 people.

diesel engines are inherently more efficient, though, I believe, so for a
given power output, they should in fact pollute slightly less.

However, you have to consider the effect of the pollution caused by making
the cars, as well... but there's something to be said for it, from the
exhaust emissions POV - the old engines (older than about 20 years) *do*
chuck out a lot more pollution, hence the lenient levels they're allowed at
MOT time compared with new stuff.  I believe that it's possible, with a good
engine and very careful tuning, to get a Propane engine through the
cat-level MOT test without a cat fitted.  But most probably wouldn't.  My
3.5 V8 passes the test it has to pass easily, mind.

Actually, I reckon it's jealousy on the part of those whose garage is too
small to put one in.

Have a look at Jeep Cherokee alongside almost any MPV - which
is taller?

Richard

With respect sir, they are unlikely to be as high or indeed as large as your
average bus!
Which does more damage a DPV, HGV, or Bus?