Environmentalists despise Performance Cars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSX-R
  • 41 comments
  • 1,481 views
N

NSX-R

Messages
813
As we all know, every environmentalist hates SUVs. They consider them as lazy, fat, and somehow involved with terrorism (don't ask me, I read it from somewhere). I have heard that they despise them so much that a small group of them sprayed SUVs with "comments" and burned 20 Hummer H2s in the dealership. I don't know if these rumors are true or not, I just heard of them.

That got me thinking, do they hold the same opion on performance cars? They do consumes considerably amount of fuel. Would they use some radical methods to express their anger like blowing-up cars? I am not saying that they are out-laws or anything remotely close to that, but is it a possibility that they would hate it so bad that some political or worse, physical actions must be taken for them to be calm?:nervous:
 
That's something that I always catch myself thinking about. If I won the lottery, I don't think that any car I would ever own would be an SUV (even if I had a rough car budget of one or two mil), simply because I love my winter and I'd be doing my part in keeping our air clean.

Now then I look at the figures that the rest of the stable would produce, and it's not so shiny either, which is pretty funny actually. So I guess I'd just be doing my part in keeping the roadways less cluttered with my lightweight, small cars instead of large useless lumps of metal.
 
It would make sense that they would hate the sportscars that get fuel economy that is often worse than full-size SUVs, but I really cant say.

Ive been known to be the anti-environmentalist, so I often give the finger to the people in the Prius and other hybrids. I'm used to getting 8MPG when fooling around in my Dad's '68 Camaro, so gas mileage really hasent been a concern of mine.
 
Because high performance sports cars are on the roads in such few numbers (unlike the massive amount of SUVs) they don't have as much of an impact.

I'm not saying that the environmentalists don't care, it's just that there arn't that many to complain about.

Oh, and that mass H2 burning, is true. It happend at a dealership near here. (But not 20 here, 5 or so.)
 
On the burning of SUVs thats true, I've heard that on the news a long time back. I did a quick search and found some articles of interest.
http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2003/ELF-FBI-$2_5M-SUVs23aug03.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/60minutes/main1036067_page3.shtml
http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/articles.php?a=653
http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2003/ELF-SUVs-Covina-CA23aug03.htm

I don't know of performance cars being targeted, maybe because they are CARS, even though their MPG rivals that of SUVs.
 
Environmentalists generally complain about everything that can kill our joy. When something they see or hear that raises a red flag to them, we as car people get screwed over.
 
The funny thing is half these kids were born too late to appreciate how dirty the air has become over the last 15 years. Go into london then when you go home at night clean out your nose with a q-tip. You will then see loads of dirty black stuff. Stuff that you wouldnt have gotten if you were out in the countryside.

As for them burning sports cars I think theyre too dumb to do that. First off all many sports cars have different sized of engines and some are very efficient and secondly because most sports cars get rarely driven. Most 911's and ferraris that you see in auto trader are like 3 years old with only 11k miles on them.

SUV's are bad no matter what. Even hybrid SUV's are bad. They might be as effiecent as a average car now but why not use that technology in a car instead.
 
They probably don't like them, but seeing as they are much less used than everyday SUV's, they don't prioritize them.

I'm a bit of an enviromentalist myself.
 
As Gil pointed out a long time ago, an SUV gets better fuel economy per person than a performance car. A city Bus gets maybe, 5-6 mpg? but it's ok because they carry several people. The most efficient forms of transportation are usually the ones that can carry large numbers of people. (If that made any sense:boggled: )
 
High-Test
As Gil pointed out a long time ago, an SUV gets better fuel economy per person than a performance car. A city Bus gets maybe, 5-6 mpg? but it's ok because they carry several people. The most efficient forms of transportation are usually the ones that can carry large numbers of people. (If that made any sense:boggled: )
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people who drive their SUVs solely by themselves... and I also know some two-seater-owners that usually offer friends rides.
 
NSX-R
I know a lot of people who drive their SUVs solely by themselves... and I also know some two-seater-owners that usually offer friends rides.
Click to expand...
99.9% of SUV's I see are full of one person. SUV's are not bought because they can carry tons of people, they're bought for the same reason they use so much gas.

They're freakin huge, thus people feel safe in them, which in turn causes them to drive like crap, because they'll be "safe" in a wreck.

Environmentalists just have an extra reason to complain, and more power, instead of the average sports car owner that gets cut off countless times in traffic by Hummer H2's driven by fat 40 year old women on their cell phones.

I say good for the Environmentalists, for actually being on our side for once.
 
MistaX
99.9% of SUV's I see are full of one person. SUV's are not bought because they can carry tons of people, they're bought for the same reason they use so much gas.

They're freakin huge, thus people feel safe in them, which in turn causes them to drive like crap, because they'll be "safe" in a wreck.

Environmentalists just have an extra reason to complain, and more power, instead of the average sports car owner that gets cut off countless times in traffic by Hummer H2's driven by fat 40 year old women on their cell phones.

I say good for the Environmentalists, for actually being on our side for once.
Click to expand...

But you never know. I assume that they aren't really enthusiastic about sports cars either... I'm afraid that when SUVs go extinct, they might turn on our precious cars...
 
NSX-R
But you never know. I assume that they aren't really enthusiastic about sports cars either... I'm afraid that when SUVs go extinct, they might turn on our precious cars...
Click to expand...
Unless for some odd reason everyone starts buying sports cars, it won't happen.

I'd say big sedans are next on the chopping block, after SUV's have died out.
But by that time, all of us will be running E85, and they'll generally have nothing to complain about. Except maybe the overuse of corn, or some utter garbage like that.

And don't think of saying "OH NO ALTERNATIVE FUELS DISASTER NO PERFORMANCE NOOOOOO"

Cars are faster on E85.
 
Does E85 mean Ethanol-85? I just saw that in a GM commercial the other day.

How could it replace gasoline exactly? Does it still produce CO2 and oxides of surfurous and nitrogen?

I don't know if GM can really pull it off...
 
NSX-R
Does E85 mean Ethanol-85? I just saw that in a GM commercial the other day.

How could it replace gasoline exactly? Does it still produce CO2 and oxides of surfurous and nitrogen?

I don't know if GM can really pull it off...
Click to expand...

Yes, Ethanol 85. GM was not the first, Ford's actually been doing it for years.

It still produces "environmentally unfriendly" gases, but in a much smaller amount. It'll shut them up about the lack of oil, and the quest for more, definately.

E85 has an octane rating of 104-108, equivilent to current race gasoline.
It's much, much, much cheaper than gasoline.

The only problem with E85 is you use 10%-15% more fuel than you would with gasoline, but with the price difference, the performance gain, and shutting up the environmentalists on every count, I can deal with the loss.

I can't stand the thought of eliminating the common combustion engine, and with E85, we won't have to.

And we'll be faster doing it.
 
NSX-R
Does E85 mean Ethanol-85? I just saw that in a GM commercial the other day.

How could it replace gasoline exactly? Does it still produce CO2 and oxides of surfurous and nitrogen?

I don't know if GM can really pull it off...
Click to expand...


E85 is 85% etahanol and 15% gasoline. This fuel when burned produces less NOX and Sulphurous components. It still produces CO2 (maybe more) because it is a by-product of burning.
 
How come we are not using it!? Is the oil companies stopping it?

According to red70mach1, it still relies on gasoline somewhat, but heck, we are one step closer!
 
NSX-R
How come we are not using it!? Is the oil companies stopping it?

According to red70mach1, it still relies on gasoline somewhat, but heck, we are one step closer!
Click to expand...
I never said it wasn't gasoline. It is 15% standard gas, but 15% is 85% less than you're putting in your car now.

Why arn't we using it? It takes alot, actually.

First off, companies have to make it. And alot of it. There comes the study on how to mass produce it. (Costs Money)

Then, gas stations have to put in the tanks, and other equipment for it. (Costs money)

And further, car companies have to build cars that use it, and aftermarket companies, build conversion kits. (Costs money)

Lastly, people have to buy the cars. (Which cost money)

They've been building the cars for years, but the stuff itself is hard to find, at the moment.

Obviously no one wants to put out money they're afraid of making back. I'm sure the big gas companies are afraid if they put so much into E85, and it fails, they just blew 50 billion dollars in putting tanks in every gas station, and making tons of the stuff that won't be used.

Although, in all honesty, I can't find a single reason E85 would fail, except one.

People fear change.
 
CPU Retune. Teflon coated fuel lines, Teflon lined fuel tank, New Fuel filter.

That's about it. Seriously. That'll run at max $1000 right now, I'd guess. When there's mass produced kits for it, a few hundred bucks.

Worth it, in the long run.
 
They are really showing some effort now to popularize E85 with the commercials and all... With the gas price appearing to be high, I think most pf the population will consider it without much resistance.
 
NSX-R
They are really showing some effort now to popularize E85 with the commercials and all... With the gas price appearing to be high, I think most pf the population will consider it without much resistance.
Click to expand...

The only reason I really like it is that you go faster, for less.
When I first saw it on TV about a year ago (On a show called Motorweek)
They did a test with a Flex Fuel Ford Taurus. When they got to the performance testing, I was expecting the car to be 5 or 6 seconds slower, because, after all, it is an alternative fuel. I was shocked when it ran nearly a second faster in the 1/4 running E85. And that's in a sedan. An economy sedan.
 
I remember back around late '97 or early '98, Ford showed a blown Mustang called the Super Stallion. When run on gas it ran 545HP and on E85 it ran at 585HP. There is performance potential in this fuel. I would like to use it in my '70 Mach 1 if it safe on original fuel system.
 
NSX-R
I have also read somewhere that it helps to maintain your car, maybe reduce wear? Is this true?
Click to expand...
Keeps the fuel tank/fuel lines clean. That's why you want to start with a fresh tank, lines, and fuel filter.

If you just go fill your car up with E85, with no conversion, your fuel filter will be completely clogged in a short period of time.
 
Man! E85 sounds great! Lower emission rate, synthetic fuel, lower cost, and most importantly more potent! Can't wait! Let's just hope environmentalists will not glue their eyes to the worse mpg data. They should look at the low emission rate.
 
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php
I have to say, that site is full of garbage.
As much as I support E85, I definately don't like these people:
"This website has been supported by funds from the Department of Energy Clean Cities Program"

If you read through the FAQ, they basicly tell you to buy a new car, and say it's impossible to convert.
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id36.html That guy, with a crappy Buick, converted with a chip.
That site is so sketchy
 
Ther aren't that many cars right now on the road that are flex-fuel and also there aren't many filling stations that has E85 in their pumps. I live here in California's State Capitol and don't see any stations that carry. The ones listed in my state are private facilities with no public access. The one state that has E85 stations with public access is Nebraska, because of all those cornfields when driving through the highways.
 

Latest Posts

Back