[sam_little]

lots, that's no bid deal for a heavy duty one ton truck with a diesel. And they get better a better MPG then you would think.

Sorry... wasn't talking about diesel trucks. If you have a diesel, work it, or have some huge trailer, then I get it. I see all of the benefits of a good truck when needed, but I don't want some jackass telling me that they are no worse for the environment than a 40 mpg people mover.

 

[JRB]

I had an 89 F250 with 289,000 miles on it when it was totalled in a wreck.

 

[sam_little]

I had an 89 F250 with 289,000 miles on it when it was totalled in a wreck.

What do you think your avg. mpg value was?

 

[JRB]

What do you think your avg. mpg value was?

18.5 mpg - that is an average with the better part of half of those miles with at least a 20' cattle trailer on it.

 

[jimmydean]

 

[sam_little]

18.5 mpg - that is an average with the better part of half of those miles with at least a 20' cattle trailer on it.

Cool, so some quick stats:

At your rates and mileage, you consumed 15,621 gallons of gas over the lifetime of the truck. That gives 41 tons pure carbon released, based on 5.26 lbs of carbon per gallon based on a molecular weight ratio of 18:96, Hydrogen:Carbon, with an average gas gallon weight of 6.25 lbs. When bonded with oxygen to form C02, your 41 tons comes to about 151 tons of atmospheric CO2. Not meant to be critical, just food for thought.

It is easy for an individual to think their car has little effect when a low and simple number like MPG is thrown around. There is more to it, as I'm sure all of you are aware, but the extrapolated numbers aren't something most people see very often. Again, I see trucks as necessary; my car would croak under the weight of a cattle trailer.

I don't know the carbon and energy costs of producing a new car, but I'd like to. I often hear the argument that buying a new car may generate more waste than driving an old car with half the fuel economy. Anyone have any idea?

 

[def]

I use my Subie that gets ~28mpg, but when we get a half inch or so of snow , I've got to pull out the big guns and use my...

It's also fun in the woods when someone wrecks the trails. I drive over and wreck their trucks..

He man, I already claimed the feller buncher along w/ my skidder.

I see you've got the goofy euro star wars version though, so its ok. I prefer mine that tears up the precious slopes, causing unimaginable ersosion and compaction as well as leaving big slash piles everywhere. (-insert dr. evil laugh here)

 

[spookydave]

sam, just a question here. How much Hydrogen:Carbon is released when the tree huggers recharge thier hybreds? I kinda think those are a joke when my old Metro got better millage. I was getting 52mpg with that.

BTW, I built Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers for the past 16 years. I've cleaned more air then everyone you know will breath in a lifetime.

 

[JRB]

Cool, so some quick stats:

At your rates and mileage, you consumed 15,621 gallons of gas over the lifetime of the truck. That gives 41 tons pure carbon released, based on 5.26 lbs of carbon per gallon based on a molecular weight ratio of 18:96, Hydrogen:Carbon, with an average gas gallon weight of 6.25 lbs. When bonded with oxygen to form C02, your 41 tons comes to about 151 tons of atmospheric CO2. Not meant to be critical, just food for thought.

It is easy for an individual to think their car has little effect when a low and simple number like MPG is thrown around. There is more to it, as I'm sure all of you are aware, but the extrapolated numbers aren't something most people see very often. Again, I see trucks as necessary; my car would croak under the weight of a cattle trailer.

I don't know the carbon and energy costs of producing a new car, but I'd like to. I often hear the argument that buying a new car may generate more waste than driving an old car with half the fuel economy. Anyone have any idea?

In addition, I killed one dog (felt bad), one deer, created a pile of erosion by driving in the mud, and had a fuel leak for the better part of 30,000 miles. The good news is, I only changed the oil every 15 - 20,000 miles. I am sure that helped. To get the A/C working, I vacuumed the R-12 out and put R-134 in. I had some pretty bad ethics back then, but I made my living with that truck. Pretty sure I set a set of tires on fire that were on it too. We chained them together, poured diesel on them, lit them, and then drove around a harvested milo field to burn the stubble.

 

[sam_little]

In addition, I killed one dog (felt bad), one deer, created a pile of erosion by driving in the mud, and had a fuel leak for the better part of 30,000 miles. The good news is, I only changed the oil every 15 - 20,000 miles. I am sure that helped. To get the A/C working, I vacuumed the R-12 out and put R-134 in. I had some pretty bad ethics back then, but I made my living with that truck. Pretty sure I set a set of tires on fire that were on it too. We chained them together, poured diesel on them, lit them, and then drove around a harvested milo field to burn the stubble.

Do you have any pictures of yourself from that era? I just want to see if the mental picture of a crazed redneck hauling around a flaming field in an F250 are accurate.

 

[dump]

holy mother:

 

[SilentJ]

Cool, so some quick stats:

At your rates and mileage, you consumed 15,621 gallons of gas over the lifetime of the truck. That gives 41 tons pure carbon released, based on 5.26 lbs of carbon per gallon based on a molecular weight ratio of 18:96, Hydrogen:Carbon, with an average gas gallon weight of 6.25 lbs. When bonded with oxygen to form C02, your 41 tons comes to about 151 tons of atmospheric CO2. Not meant to be critical, just food for thought.

Cool. I just got kicked off on a project that will see sixteen Cat G3616 (21,000 cu. in. 4735hp V16) gas compressors installed:
Emissions for one unit:
79kg of NOx
284kg of CO
750kg of total hydrocarbons

Per day.

 

[dump]

wow... I guess mining is big business!

Especially large bucket-wheel excavators, over 200 meters long and up to 100 meters in height, are used in German strip-mining operations, and are the largest earth-movers in the world. These tremendous machines can cost over $100 million, take 5 years to assemble, require 5 people to operate, weigh more than 13,000 tons, and have a theoretical capacity of more than 12,000m³/h.

 

[JRB]

Do you have any pictures of yourself from that era? I just want to see if the mental picture of a crazed redneck hauling around a flaming field in an F250 are accurate.

I'll have to get a scanner going. I will say that I was a redneck, although not really crazed, and never hauled around a flaming field. We just always had good ideas when we drank in the middle of the day.

 

[SilentJ]

We chained them together, poured diesel on them, lit them, and then drove around a harvested milo field to burn the stubble.

I thought we were the only ones that did that! Another good way to do it is to bungy a tiger torch to the back of a quad and rip around - caught the quads tire on fire once...that was bad.

 

[JRB]

I thought we were the only ones that did that! Another good way to do it is to bungy a tiger torch to the back of a quad and rip around - caught the quads tire on fire once...that was bad.

hahaha - yeah - it's a good idea to use ample lengths of chain.

 

[Toshi]

I'm sick of the small minded people who contribute to SMUG by claiming they drive "environmentally friendly" . My wife and I share an F-150 (5.4L Triton) with a towing package which we use to tow a 6000# travel trailer to events and camping. We drive rough fire roads to many trail heads and camping spots. A subi WRX or honda CRV isn't going to cut it. By not having a second vehicle reduce our "footprint" on the environment in all sorts of ways.

I offset the not so good gas mileage by bike commuting two day a week, and usually riding the bus one, so my effective commuting gas mileage is better than most. On the days I drive to work there is a good chance I'm giving a co-worker a ride home, so I'm carpooling part of the time too.

that's nice that you use your truck for towing (imagine that), but using it fully doesn't make it any more environmentally friendly. the environmentally friendly course of action would be to not have the 6000 lb trailer in the first place

<--- drives wrx. bought the car without a catalytic converter and actually put one on at my own expense.

 

[JRB]

I forgot - my Ford had dual straights on it, and I knocked the catalytic converter out. It rocked.

 

[justsomeguy]

A mpg snapshot from when my car was stock and got better mpg (also forgot to reset the computer so the average is on the high side since it included about 25 miles of leasurely driving). I've seen it get as low as 5.3 mpg.

 

[JRB]

A mpg snapshot from when my car was stock and got better mpg (also forgot to reset the computer so the average is on the high side since it included about 25 miles of leasurely driving). I've seen it get as low as 5.3 mpg.

Nice - you should pour oil on your bike and let it drip off onto the trail while you ride too.

 

[black noise]

My 40 is not much better than your 20. However, my extra 20 miles to the gallon, multiplied by the driving population of the US, makes a big difference. Not to throw out a HUGE generalization, but you folks in the 15-20 mpg trucks tend to be a bit conservative; think of the gas savings as a security issue if you don't care about (or for) the environment.

Oh yeah, and if your truck is getting 20 mpg, it isn't THAT old, so gimme a break on the "new car" argument. Also, how many folks do you know bragging about their F350 hitting 250,000 miles?

I was just pointing out that if someone buys a new Prius they shouldn't be acting super smug because they're "environmentally friendly". I don't know what you think my "new car" argument is, but it's that building a car takes huge amounts of energy and materials and that often cancels out the benefit of 20 extra mpg. A car is a car. A Prius supports the oil industry, freeways, and suburban sprawl as much as a Ford truck. That's all I was saying.

My shuttle car is in the shop at the moment, I'll take a picture of it when I get it back. BTW, it gets 20mpg but it also has somewhere around 400k miles on it and I rarely drive it, so there.

 

[spookydave]

my drag boat would use over 2.5 gallons of fuel in only 1,320 feet. That includes idle time at the lights and a very short trip to the trailer.

 

[syadasti]

A mpg snapshot from when my car was stock and got better mpg (also forgot to reset the computer so the average is on the high side since it included about 25 miles of leasurely driving). I've seen it get as low as 5.3 mpg.

Its a Porsche odometer? I figured high-end sports cars were even less pratical/worse for the environmental than most SUV/trucks ink:

Supercars and ultra-luxury are the worst out there I would guess.

 

[sam_little]

building a car takes huge amounts of energy and materials and that often cancels out the benefit of 20 extra mpg.

Perhaps, which is why I asked in my next post if anyone had information on the specifics of energy and resource consumption associated with auto construction. But, if we take Loco's truck for example, getting a "new car" could result in savings (of pure carbon, not even CO2) on the order of tens of tons. Granted there is mucho waste and pollutants generated in the manufacturing process, from mining the metals, fossil fuels for plastics, running the robots that build our cars, to painting the cars. However, I wonder what the offset is.

A car is a car. A Prius supports the oil industry, freeways, and suburban sprawl as much as a Ford truck. That's all I was saying.

Also right (kind of), except I wasn't talking about the industry, sprawl, or freeways. I was talking about carbon emissions and miles per gallon. Something that gets 40 mpg, versus 20 mpg, produces half of the emissions (and probably less, as they are often fitted with more rigorous emission control devices, due to more strict regulations). That also makes us half as dependent on foreign oil (well, not half, as there are plenty of other uses for foreign oil, but the point is there).

so there.

Yup.

 

[justsomeguy]

Its a Porsche odometer? I figured high-end sports cars were even less pratical/worse for the environmental than most SUV/trucks

On the flipside, driving with with two bikes on the roof averaging 91 mph between St. George Utah and The outskirts of Las Vegas, I got 21 mpg.

It's all about how much time you spend at WOT. Being flogged at the track leads to really, really low mpg.

 

[I Are Baboon]

I use my Subie that gets ~28mpg, but when we get a half inch or so of snow , I've got to pull out the big guns and use my...

It's also fun in the woods when someone wrecks the trails. I drive over and wreck their trucks..

Hey that looks kind of like an Ed 209

 

[Rip]

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!

Woah Canyonero!

Woah!

 

[captainpolution]

this is what i do all day and i never go anywhere

4 inches of lift
soon to be 32" MT's with new wheels

i get like 16mpg now and i guess after i get the new shoes and wheels. rockerpanel protection and rack, like 13 or 12?

 

[maxyedor]

this is what i do all day and i never go anywhere

4 inches of lift
soon to be 32" MT's with new wheels

i get like 16mpg now and i guess after i get the new shoes and wheels. rockerpanel protection and rack, like 13 or 12?

Go to a lower range set of gears in the axle diffs, beleive it or not it really helps mpg aswell as drivabliliy. On my rover I went from 28s and 3.55:1 gears to 32s and 4.11:1gears and gained lots of acceleration, and only lost .5mpg, I ran with the 32s and 3.55:1 gears for a month or two and got 8-10, wich sucked.

 

[macko]

I get about 17 mpg w/o bike on top. That's pretty bad, in my opinion. Then again, the truck does have damn near 95,000 miles on it plus the added weight of the camper shell and the wind drag from the rack. I guess it could be worse...

 

[captainpolution]

Go to a lower range set of gears in the axle diffs, beleive it or not it really helps mpg aswell as drivabliliy. On my rover I went from 28s and 3.55:1 gears to 32s and 4.11:1gears and gained lots of acceleration, and only lost .5mpg, I ran with the 32s and 3.55:1 gears for a month or two and got 8-10, wich sucked.

yea it has 3.73's in there now.

im not too worried about mpg so much yet. re-gearing is gonna be a pain in the ass and thats pretty much it

only thing im complaining about is the fact that is has a d44a in the rear and i have the option of ONE locker for the back and i would have to get a new carrier and **** for it cause its not compatible with the one thats in it, bastards

 

[jrfor0]

3.8L V-6, AWD, 21mpg
BRAAAAAAAP
I LOVE IT!!

 

[Reactor]

that's nice that you use your truck for towing (imagine that), but using it fully doesn't make it any more environmentally friendly. the environmentally friendly course of action would be to not have the 6000 lb trailer in the first place

<--- drives wrx. bought the car without a catalytic converter and actually put one on at my own expense.

Just trying to point out that not everyone that drives a big truck is recklessly destroying the environment. Anyone driving a car to work can make a major impact by bike commuting, carpooling and using the bus as often as possible.

If you include my bike commuting, bus riding, carpooling my weekly average MPG for commutting is probably better than yours. On a good week I use less than 5 gallons to commute 200 + 50 miles of car pooling so my effective MPG for a week of commuting is 50. That's a hell of a lot better than even a WRX. Yeah it would be even better if I had a WRX but then I couldn't tow the trailer my wife wanted. I'd be perfectly happy with tent camping.

As for the converter, it's the law, since before teh dawn of WRX's.

 

[Reactor]

I was just pointing out that if someone buys a new Prius they shouldn't be acting super smug because they're "environmentally friendly". I don't know what you think my "new car" argument is, but it's that building a car takes huge amounts of energy and materials and that often cancels out the benefit of 20 extra mpg. A car is a car. A Prius supports the oil industry, freeways, and suburban sprawl as much as a Ford truck. That's all I was saying.

My shuttle car is in the shop at the moment, I'll take a picture of it when I get it back. BTW, it gets 20mpg but it also has somewhere around 400k miles on it and I rarely drive it, so there.

Bingo. All those people living in multi-car families should drastically lower their SMUG output.

 

[BAH]

I'm guilty, but I only use it for mtn bike and snowboard excursions

 

[maxyedor]

I'm guilty, but I only use it for mtn bike and snowboard excursions

You need a few more bikes

 

[syadasti]

More User Commercials

Make your own commercial

 

[fatosbiker]

I'm guilty, but I only use it for mtn bike and snowboard excursions

Dude if you have that many passengers in your vehicle then you deff qualify for the HOV lane. Good job!