Thread: 62 mpg!
View Single Post
  #16  
Old 10-05-2010, 03:10 PM
rancherman's Avatar
rancherman rancherman is offline
Dodge Ram Forum Senior Member!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Central Nebraska
Age: 52
Posts: 268
Gender: Male
Vehicle: My DD is '97 Dodge Ram 1500
Trim Level: Sport
Color: Black
Engine: 1994-1997 360ci (5.9L) Magnum V8 230hp
Rep Power: 5
Rep:171
rancherman has a spectacular aura aboutrancherman has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubstar View Post
its easily achievable... maybe not as easy in the north american market for trucks / suv's but the majority of europe / japan drive vehicles that are easily capable of 40 mpg plus now so taking them to 60 odd isnt a far stretch.

for example.. here the most fuel efficient mid size salon is claimed to be the ford fusion hybrid.... but in the europe you can buy a turbo diesel mondeo (same size) that * all over the fusions mpg, yet the big manufacturers dont sell these vehicles over here (every company has loads of excellent fuel efficient cars that they simply dont sell here)
I have read this too.^^^^
just a couple of years ago. VW said they have a sedan capable of 75 mpg. Turbo diesel I think. It wouldn't pass emissions...here in US.
So a 'detuned' version now making 40-45 mpg is here in the States.

Can anyone please explain to me, how two cars going down the same road, where one is using almost half the fuel than the other, will pollute more???

Some have tried to explain to me that the 'formula' to compute emissions is actually based not only on % of pollutants in a sample exaust.... but also factoring in mpg as well.

Therefore, the more the vehicle gets for mpg, the 'cleaner' it must be. (per mile)


If vehicle "A" gets 35 miles per gallon.... and emits (this is just a wild guess here) 2 pounds of 'nasty' per mile

Using the formula that epa has intact means Vehicle "B" that gets 70 mpg must have only 1 pound of nasty per mile.

Which to me make some sense, if half the fuel is being burned per mile, shouldn't it make half the pollution? But to disallow because it is 'dirty' compared to something getting half the ecomomy doesn't make sense.
but then again..... what in gov't makes sense anyway?

Heck, if one car @ the 2 pound level of nasty per mile is good, why not let one in getting double the milage, putting out 1.75??
Reply With Quote