Peugeot 4007: back to the past!

[Woodcutter]

Yes ... the least bad ... to move 2 Tons in town ...

I was talking about the engine, not what's around ...

Then it could be even worse if he had already developed the pantone / water injection

we all know since Radasse2000 (the return ...) that it's impossible!

[Woodcutter]

Hop, little digging up of the post to invite you to go read this:
http://ecologie.caradisiac.com/Les-anti ... tement-160

Seen the "exponential market" and others "excellent sales"in anticipation, I think we haven't left the hostel yet ...

To be compared with the release of the IPCC report ...

[Woodcutter]

Here, just to answer myself above, here is an example to follow for Delanoë if he wants to limit large 4x4s and other voracious vehicles in the city center:
http://ecologie.caradisiac.com/Richmond ... de-C02-786

[zac]

Hello

I really liked the salesperson's response "it's not the number of driving wheels, but the size that determines the pollution".

very sickly chuie, with my 2 legs and 100kg should I kill myself to avoid polluting; or is it better that I assassinate 2 of 50kg (it is the same weight but there are 4 legs).

@+

[agukha]

4 times more expensive,
x
4 times more polluting.

Not bad ...

But it lacks the "small machine" ... then pkoi not something like this:

4 times more expensive,
x=small craft:]
4 times more polluting.

With a small device in another "police" obviously ...

This is exactly the kind of reflex that makes me wary of environmental movements, while I agree 100% that this is a most important subject!

That some people get a good conscience by driving in prius, while a study (which of course must be decried by most pro-ecologists) would indicate that over the full life cycle / construction / recycling / etc, this vehicle would have an ecological balance sheet worse than one of the symbols of pollution, the famous hummer, it's still a pity isn't it?
Turn off the tap while washing your teeth, of course it's good, but the real problems are primarily to be seen in agriculture.

Eating meat apparently is also terribly devastating for the environment, the soil, the soil, the greenhouse effect, or even for certain the problem of feeding hungry countries, given the mass industry which must feed our refrigerators!

Is it better not to eat corn (which I believe is a tropical plant at the base), limit yourself to meat once a week, and have an effect 1000 times greater than turning off the tap on brushing your teeth?

Of course there will always be assholes to always buy useless things in fashion and be able to park on the sidewalk in 4 * 4 is important and it's so chic!

But instead of attacking the "4 * 4" without any distinction, I am sure that a good number of these large unsuitable but recent machines consume less than the always valiant 205 that we have had for 20 years!

Symbols are good, they are practical, they speak more, but, on the one hand, too much, it ends up convincing people that the "evil" is only the piece of plastic which one shakes in front of the factory, and on the other hand it does not solve the basic problems ...

Anyway, that's my opinion!

[Woodcutter]

In the series "I'm fat but I don't take care of myself (yet?)", here is the 2006 list of sales of" cars "in the US:

2006 winners in the United States

1) Ford F Series 796 039
2) Chevrolet Silverado 636 069
3) Toyota Camry 448 445
4) Dodge RAM 364 177
5) Honda Accord 354 441
6) Honda Civic 316 638
7) Chevrolet Impala 289 868
8) Toyota Corolla 272 327
9) Nissan Altima 232 457
10) Chevrolet Cobalt 211 449

Little riddle: calculate the mass and the average consumption of the 3 elephants from this list ...

Taken from The Auto Blog.

[Woodcutter]

[...] But instead of attacking the "4 * 4" without any distinction, I am sure that a good number of these large unsuitable but recent machines consume less than an always valiant 205 that we have for 20 years!

Difficult to answer without a more specific example but I am almost sure that not ...

[Woodcutter]

Well, I checked on the basis of a 205 D, the only one that remained in the files, and it is NO, and by far ...

[agukha]

[...] But instead of attacking the "4 * 4" without any distinction, I am sure that a good number of these large unsuitable but recent machines consume less than an always valiant 205 that we have for 20 years!

Difficult to answer without a more specific example but I am almost sure that not ...

For example, my 309 1.6l fire consumed 12 / 13l, I just saw that the 205 with the same engine consumes the same after some research in forums, I looked at the consumption of what remains for me the first symbol of the useless 4 * 4 "mode": the Rav4, which is not the biggest, it is on, and which is given for 7 to 9l depending on the engine.

Now a smaller 1.2l style engine on a 205 should not consume as much, but I would be curious to see the pollution it generates, however, manufacturers have improved over the past 20 years, not to mention the fact that a new engine is necessarily a winner.

[Woodcutter]

[...] but I would be curious to see the pollution which it generates on the other hand, the manufacturers improved for 20 years, without counting the fact that a new engine is inevitably winner.

If we talk about pollution, it's not the same thing anymore ...



Otherwise, to always stay at "4 * 4", a quick tour of the site http://www.crash-test.org/ allows to see that in the test called "Pedestrian shock" practiced by EuroNCAP, 4 * 4 and SUV are doing less well overall than sedans ...

The "aggressiveness" of this type of vehicle is therefore not just a legend (urban ...)