Nobody ever worked that out, 3.6l putting out 170 bhp when we can do that in europe with a 1.6l
Here’s a simple one to save massive amounts of energy in the world. Ban air conditioning and everybody who doesn’t like it has to move somewhere cooler. Vegas only exists in the desert because of gambling laws. Change the laws, move it to Vancouver and turn off the mega aircon.
we have enough problems with gambling here, huge Asian community. Our government is still cleaning up the wreckage from the massive amount of money laundering that was occurring here.
Yeah but you’ve got Gassy Jack and Thunderbird Park so it ain’t all bad. And Whiterock 
hahaha don’t forget the steam clock.
I’m barely downtown anymore. except tonight, I’m going to a hockey game courtesy of a friend in low places.
10% power difference at the wheel. Confirmed on a rolling road. Only thing that wasn’t measured is how much fuel was used but in both cases AFR’s were comparable so the amount of fuel was probably similar.
170bhp is great when you’re running around in a Citroen. but it’s shit in a truck. that’s where the torque numbers are more important.
I’d be willing to bet my RV motor (5.7L) is only 250hp. but probably 350-400ft-lb of torque in that motor. enough to pull that 12,000lb beast up through Manning Park. That road is murder on the braking system though.
400 lb-ft of torque is about 540 Nm in metric. You can get 320 Nm with a VW 1.8 4 cyl turbo after a minor tune up.
Not saying you’d ever stick that engine into a 5 metric tonne RV but it starts to illustrate the point on what can be achieved with smaller capacity engines. You’ll often find that these massive engines are really down tuned as well. Compression ratio’s are a lot lower for example.
What bugs me most about modern engines though is the lack of durability that’s now been built in. They’re made of cheese in some instances.
Crude oil processing mainly. I presume the emissions attributions calculations are referring to the engines? If so that’s a lot more complicated isn’t it? There’s the different testing cycles, and the different engines/transmissions.
Not in Japan, pretty sure it’s still true that Honda have never replaced a VTEC engine under warranty. BMW’s VANOS however is a timebomb. Had a Volvo T5 with 270k miles on the first engine and an UNO with 300k on the first engine. Granted in both cases the engines were the only things that still worked 
In the US there’s such a status symbol attached to capacity. First few times I drove there I couldn’t understand why V6 engines with over 3l capacity were so slow when in the UK that would be one of the fastest cars on the road.
Not sure about Honda but Mazda have never had an engine failure, as far as I can recall.
Well, not a piston one.
Wankle is another matter entirely. Been so close to buying an RX8 and doing the engine so many times.
I’m annoyed that you can’t get the CX7 in the UK, other than as an import.
Still, test driving the XC90 Recharge this weekend. Looking forward to it.
Told you before, if I won the lottery would buy an XC90 same day. And sponsor a polar bear to compensate
From the BBC:
Boris Johnson has this morning spoken with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia about the country’s climate pledges.
It comes as pressure grows on the world’s biggest polluters to do more to tackle emissions.
Saudi Arabia is one of the largest oil producers and exporters in the world.
Downing Street confirmed the prime minister pressed Mohammed bin Salman on the need to make “progress in negotiations” taking place in Glasgow.
A spokesman for the prime minister said: “He welcomed Saudi Arabia’s commitment to reach net zero by 2060 and their efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.”
But he added that Johnson also said that “all countries needed to come to the table with increased ambition if we are to keep the target of limiting global warming to 1.5C alive”.
In other news, turkeys are not keen on Christmas.
I can well believe it with those VTEC engines, My friend had one and it went forever. He deliberately killed it in the end as an excuse to get a new car. Solid as. Same with the engines in the Mk1 to Mk3 golfs, Passats etc. They were really solid. Mk4 Golf changed all that with the 1.8 turbo 24 valve. Nice performance, highly tunable etc. but when you get into the nuts and bolts of it there are bits that I personally dont like. The block and head are now alloy (to save weight I guess), the conrods are seriously limited in strength and the valves are soft as poo poo. Some people call them sewing machines.
Them Wankle engines are something but a little flawed sadly on the durability front. I cant make my mind up whether it’s a design issue or this push towards things having a service life so you’re continually shopping.
There’s a big part of me that wants to go back to older cars - a little Peugeot 205 GTi, a Golf Gti or even simplify my 1991 VW T4 van which I went too far on the customising side. The van suits my needs best to be honest and I have looked at converting it to electric. The cost is just way out of range sadly but I’ll keep looking at it I think.
The whole consensus-based process is absurd. In the first 15 years of the COPs, as a matter of routine countries who insisted as a matter of principle that they had no obligations in the UNFCCC process also happily insisted on holding a de facto veto.
There is such a huge cognitive gap between the language of ‘climate emergency’, and the utter incapability of virtually all participants (states, ENGOs, BINGOs) to refrain from inserting other priorities. Climate finance has become a major sticking point, right in parallel with repeated assertions that the 4% of emissions attributable to LDCs means they have no responsibility. I don’t have a particular problem with the idea that they should not bear responsibility, but it does mean they are not actually particularly relevant to solving the problem for precisely the same reason.
The result is this perverse unreality is allowed institutional persistence. Does anyone seriously think that the developed countries, having struggled to reach $100 billion of climate finance per annum since 2015, are now going to aim higher? Precisely which governments would those be? The US just showed up again, happily pointing fingers at China, and everyone who thinks about it for more than about 30 seconds realizes that the US commitments have a likely halflife of 11 months. It has been fifteen years since the idea of ending subsidies and favourable tax treatment for oil and gas was first identified as a priority, and there has been barely any movement on that. Focusing on that was seen as insufficiently ambitious in Bali in 2007, and here we are 14 years later.
my 1990 Civic SI had 350,000km on it by the time it went through myself, my dad and my sis-in-law. front end had a nice little clunk to it by that time but still ran like a champion and just burned a little bit of oil. I loved that car
I saw a 1990 Acura Integra 5-spd come up for sale with a broken timing belt last week, only had 110,000km on it. mint condition otherwise. was $800. I messaged the owner within 45min of the listing and still didn’t get it.
This is a great piece of activism, and rather funny.