What's YOUR motivation for ecomodding

[actwithclarity]

Surface mining is economical.

[Arragonis]

I didn't want to start the political discussion, its just a stat I found interesting.

As you were

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

How is burning less gas not a good thing ecologically?

It becomes a problem when people start removing exhaust gas cleaning systems (cats, EGR, ...) to reduce their fuel use.
There are worse things coming out the exhaust pipe than CO2.

Though I'm running one myself, diesels aren't the magic solution to using less gas. They bring their own nasty problems.
Though it returns 52 mpg, I wouldn't buy the same car today.

Keeping ancient cars on the road, may be economical for some, but isn't really ecological. Aside from CO2, they pump out a lot more other pollutants than current cars. Compare the emissions standards from the late 1980s / early 90s with today's standards, and you'll see why.

[Fat Charlie]

I wasn't advocating yanking emissions equipment to gain MPG, I was questioning the assertion that "not liking burning gas that you don't have to" is morally inferior to "not liking pollution."

That said, emissions standards should be studied and perhaps scaled. Exhaust PPMs are irrelevant unless they take MPG into account. PPM per mile would be a much more useful standard: a cubic yard of exhaust from an Elantra is not equal to a cubic yard of exhaust from a Mega Cab pickup because the pickup dumps four or five times more exhaust for every mile traveled.

[cfg83]

euromodder -

Originally Posted by euromodder

...

Keeping ancient cars on the road, may be economical for some, but isn't really ecological. Aside from CO2, they pump out a lot more other pollutants than current cars. Compare the emissions standards from the late 1980s / early 90s with today's standards, and you'll see why.

That's why I wish there was a market for *upgrading* emission systems for older cars like mine. I'd like to have my cake and pay for it to. Heck, I wanted to upgrade my 1972 Honda CB350F exhaust, which is ridiculous :


(not mine)

CarloSW2

[slowmover]

Most work over longest life at lowest cost with highest reliability (thus a Cummins-powered Dodge).

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by cfg83

euromodder -



That's why I wish there was a market for *upgrading* emission systems for older cars like mine. I'd like to have my cake and pay for it to. Heck, I wanted to upgrade my 1972 Honda CB350F exhaust, which is ridiculous :


(not mine)

CarloSW2

I can for my I6, and for pretty much any V8 on the market. I'm not sure what is available for I4's

[mcrews]

60 for the fun
40 for the funds

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by cfg83

euromodder -



That's why I wish there was a market for *upgrading* emission systems for older cars like mine. I'd like to have my cake and pay for it to. Heck, I wanted to upgrade my 1972 Honda CB350F exhaust, which is ridiculous :


(not mine)

CarloSW2

had a 66 mustang w a rebuilt 6 cylinder. smogged at 7% of allowable. I'd say that was pretty competative w/ a current car that is at 50-70% allowable

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

I wasn't advocating yanking emissions equipment to gain MPG

No, but it is happening.

Exhaust PPMs are irrelevant unless they take MPG into account. PPM per mile would be a much more useful standard: a cubic yard of exhaust from an Elantra is not equal to a cubic yard of exhaust from a Mega Cab pickup because the pickup dumps four or five times more exhaust for every mile traveled.

Actually, emissions are measured per unit of distance travelled, so they do take the MPG into account.