Author Topic: "Rollin' Coal"?  (Read 31654 times)

Ian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Location: South Korea
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2014, 06:45:10 PM »
This is interesting and I'm all for counter-intuitive facts, but can anyone provide a source to back up these claims and give details as to the exact difference?

Hedge_87

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
  • Age: 32
  • Location: South central ks
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2014, 10:06:37 PM »
All I have is anecdotal evidence.  I know that means nothing on this forum however I doubt anybody has done any actual studies on the issue.the money isn't there (who is going to fund a pro diesel movement now a days).

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2014, 10:57:40 PM »
This is interesting and I'm all for counter-intuitive facts, but can anyone provide a source to back up these claims and give details as to the exact difference?

The proof is in the published mpg stats which are available on auto review sites.  3/4 ton trucks have gone from 20+ mpg (some early 90s models could get 30), down to sub 15 mpg.  From there, it's just a matter of calculating the mols per gallon of hydrocarbons turned into CO2.


SMP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NRW, Germany
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2014, 06:29:59 AM »
This is interesting and I'm all for counter-intuitive facts, but can anyone provide a source to back up these claims and give details as to the exact difference?

The proof is in the published mpg stats which are available on auto review sites.  3/4 ton trucks have gone from 20+ mpg (some early 90s models could get 30), down to sub 15 mpg.  From there, it's just a matter of calculating the mols per gallon of hydrocarbons turned into CO2.
This may be a point, but there are several other options for this: Heavier/larger trucks, less areodynamic, changed test cycle and so on. Maybe, it's because people buy "cool" trucks and not fuel-efficient trucks.
Maybe it makes sense to compare fuel consumption over the years by cars which where supposed to be fuel efficient, like a Prius, (in Europe, it would make sense to compare some compact class car like VW Golf [eg. Mk3 vs. Mk7])

I have one main question:
Can't the police do anything against this rollin' coal? In Europe (esp. Germany) they could seize the trucks.

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2368
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2014, 07:54:34 AM »
How does point B work?

Hedge_87 got it right.  Newer "clean" diesels are ~50% less efficient than their sooty cousins.  They produce more pollution per mile driven than their smoke belching ancestors...but it's invisible so people buy into the BS about them being better for the environment. 

It's not too different from the old 35-40 mpg gas "clunkers" the government destroyed to get people to upgrade to cars which get 25-30 mpg.

Please identify these 35-40 mpg gas "clunkers."

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2014, 08:10:58 AM »
This is interesting and I'm all for counter-intuitive facts, but can anyone provide a source to back up these claims and give details as to the exact difference?

The proof is in the published mpg stats which are available on auto review sites.  3/4 ton trucks have gone from 20+ mpg (some early 90s models could get 30), down to sub 15 mpg.  From there, it's just a matter of calculating the mols per gallon of hydrocarbons turned into CO2.
This may be a point, but there are several other options for this: Heavier/larger trucks, less areodynamic, changed test cycle and so on. Maybe, it's because people buy "cool" trucks and not fuel-efficient trucks.
Maybe it makes sense to compare fuel consumption over the years by cars which where supposed to be fuel efficient, like a Prius, (in Europe, it would make sense to compare some compact class car like VW Golf [eg. Mk3 vs. Mk7])

The "[so-called] 'clean' diesels get worse fuel economy" idea is also true for VW Golfs and Jettas. The MK6/MK7s tend to get about 10 mpg less than the MK4s. (I know this anecdotally -- I own a MK4 and am a member of TDIClub -- but you could look somewhere like fuelly.com to verify.)

Oh, and you know what the best part is? MK4 VWs can safely run 100% biodiesel, making them carbon-neutral and therefore (by that measure, at least) better than even an electric car charged by electricity from a non-renewable-fuel power plant. The "clean diesels" will blow their fuel system if you try to use much more than about 10% biodiesel in them. I'm happy to trade a little bit of soot for that!

Please identify these 35-40 mpg gas "clunkers."

  • 1989-1991 Honda CRX HF
  • early-90s Geo Metro XFi
  • 1992-1995 Honda Civic VX
  • late-90s Honda Civic HX
  • etc.

(Technically, at least the top two don't count because they got better fuel economy than the "35-40 mpg" you asked for!)

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2014, 08:54:04 AM »
I thought the whole cash-for-clunckers thing mandated that you purchase a vehicle that got xx MPG MORE than whatever vehicle you traded in?

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Location: Denver
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2014, 10:05:46 AM »
Please identify these 35-40 mpg gas "clunkers."

  • 1989-1991 Honda CRX HF
  • early-90s Geo Metro XFi
  • 1992-1995 Honda Civic VX
  • late-90s Honda Civic HX
  • etc.

(Technically, at least the top two don't count because they got better fuel economy than the "35-40 mpg" you asked for!)

Those cars also weigh about 600lbs less than today's Civics too.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8798
  • Registered member
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2014, 10:09:25 AM »
Please identify these 35-40 mpg gas "clunkers."

  • 1989-1991 Honda CRX HF
  • early-90s Geo Metro XFi
  • 1992-1995 Honda Civic VX
  • late-90s Honda Civic HX
  • etc.

(Technically, at least the top two don't count because they got better fuel economy than the "35-40 mpg" you asked for!)

Those cars also weigh about 600lbs less than today's Civics too.

Cars with more than 18 MPG did not qualify for Cash for Clunkers. edit: are you talking about a different program?  If so, which?

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1891
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2014, 10:22:48 AM »
That video is hilarious.

I have a diesel truck which only gets used when stuff needs to be hauled but I've never seen a wisp of black smoke from the exhaust. I do admit it's fun to drive and almost magical how much power they can make with so little fuel burned. My F250 gets better mpg than the Tacoma it replaced and the loads I have hauled with the F250 would literally crush a Tacoma.

You sound like you actually use your truck and more importantly would never modify it to dump in more gas just to produce the black smoke to blow at people on bikes and in small cars. I think you're good. :)

Ben.alexander

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #60 on: June 30, 2014, 02:43:40 PM »
I swear almost immediately after I saw this internet article someone did this to me as I was biking up a hill in the city. 

I wasn't even mad, just amazed at this internet meme come to life and at the ridiculousness of me, on my bike, accomplishing the same amount of work as this absurdly enormous vehicle: moving one person, pretty slowly, in traffic. 

I run a small business, and we recently bought a (very) used diesel box truck for our work, which we baby like crazy, but also use all the time for actual work.  I can't imagine the thought process behind buying something that puts you in crazy debt, then adding tens of thousands of dollars of obnoxious nonsense to it, just so you can annoy random strangers.  Diesel engines can do SO MUCH WORK!  Stop using them to transport your lazy butt! Antimustachian indeed.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #61 on: July 01, 2014, 12:10:49 AM »
This is interesting and I'm all for counter-intuitive facts, but can anyone provide a source to back up these claims and give details as to the exact difference?

The proof is in the published mpg stats which are available on auto review sites.  3/4 ton trucks have gone from 20+ mpg (some early 90s models could get 30), down to sub 15 mpg.  From there, it's just a matter of calculating the mols per gallon of hydrocarbons turned into CO2.
This may be a point, but there are several other options for this: Heavier/larger trucks, less areodynamic, changed test cycle and so on. Maybe, it's because people buy "cool" trucks and not fuel-efficient trucks.
Maybe it makes sense to compare fuel consumption over the years by cars which where supposed to be fuel efficient, like a Prius, (in Europe, it would make sense to compare some compact class car like VW Golf [eg. Mk3 vs. Mk7])

I have one main question:
Can't the police do anything against this rollin' coal? In Europe (esp. Germany) they could seize the trucks.

Jack took care of most of the answers, but there are a few things to add:
Clean diesel laws significantly reduced the mileage of heavy trucks.  It's easy enough to google that, and the specs on those vehicles haven't changed much over the years.  Efficiency is also down on other diesel powered equipment like tractors and generators. 

On smaller engines, the cars/trucks did get a little heavier, because many of the manufacturers were forced to use ~10% larger engines to meet the goals.  Aerodynamics have improved over the boxy styles used from the seventies through nineties, as have the efficiency of drive trains with locking torque converters and more gears to keep the engine at an efficient rpm.  Modern vehicles should be able to do much better rather than worse, and they do in other countries.

Police can ticket drivers for excess smoke, but in many places its legal to blow as much as you want for ten seconds.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1673
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #62 on: July 01, 2014, 08:10:18 AM »
It's not too different from the old 35-40 mpg gas "clunkers" the government destroyed to get people to upgrade to cars which get 25-30 mpg.

Wow, that would have been really awful had it actually happened. Cash for Clunkers rebates were only eligible for vehicles that averaged 18 MPG or less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

 

Reepekg

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Age: 34
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2014, 04:01:02 AM »
This is interesting and I'm all for counter-intuitive facts, but can anyone provide a source to back up these claims and give details as to the exact difference?

The problem with the claim that "pollution increased with emissions regulation" is that you need to specify what pollutant you are talking about. Here is more of the story:
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php

Particulate matter (black smoke that is generally bad for your lungs) went from 0.6 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.01 g/bhp-hr in 2010
NOx which causes smog went from 6.0 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.2g/bhp-hr in 2010
Unburned hydrocarbons went from 1.2 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.14g/bhp-hr in 2010
SOx emissions decreased to near zero with Ultra-low sulfur fuel, CO emissions are down, etc. So basically, all kinds of nasties were reduced.

Now, there is no doubt these reductions came at the expense of fuel economy because of the various technologies used. This means that if you only care about CO2, then you can wistfully recall the 90's. The concern about CO2 is relatively recent, however, and 2018 or 2020 emissions standards are right around the corner.

If you think these emissions reductions were a bad idea, I invite you to go to a big city in any third world country still using old engines and take a big whiff.

Finally, Hedge_87 is right about the new stuff being in the shop more often, but this is part of a larger discussion about how vehicles are getting more and more complex/computerized in every way. Even your tires have sensors in them now.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2014, 05:19:34 AM »
Okay, this "rolling coal" thing is pretty stupid.

Still, I couldn't help but laugh at the part of the video where they smoked out the "smug Prius driving socialist."


BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2014, 07:41:46 AM »
Cash for Clunkers had an mpg limit, you couldn't turn in an old Geo Metro for the credit because it got too high mileage. Hell, my 23mpg car at the time didn't qualify because it was too efficient

Yeah, cash for clunkers was a disaster.  All it did was let rich people trade in their old SUVs for new, slightly more efficient SUVs.  The normal people out there with old 20mpg cars looking to move into 40-50mpg vehicles got no help.

seanc0x0

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2014, 03:51:57 PM »

The problem with the claim that "pollution increased with emissions regulation" is that you need to specify what pollutant you are talking about. Here is more of the story:
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php

Particulate matter (black smoke that is generally bad for your lungs) went from 0.6 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.01 g/bhp-hr in 2010
NOx which causes smog went from 6.0 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.2g/bhp-hr in 2010
Unburned hydrocarbons went from 1.2 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.14g/bhp-hr in 2010
SOx emissions decreased to near zero with Ultra-low sulfur fuel, CO emissions are down, etc. So basically, all kinds of nasties were reduced.

Now, there is no doubt these reductions came at the expense of fuel economy because of the various technologies used. This means that if you only care about CO2, then you can wistfully recall the 90's. The concern about CO2 is relatively recent, however, and 2018 or 2020 emissions standards are right around the corner.

If you think these emissions reductions were a bad idea, I invite you to go to a big city in any third world country still using old engines and take a big whiff.


On the topic of pollutants, I was recently behind a sweet looking '70s Buick that was obviously someone's pride and joy. The thing I noticed most, though, was just how much that thing smelled. Really made me appreciate how much modern emission control systems take out of the exhaust. I ended up switching the ventilation system to recirculate until they turned off the road I was on.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2014, 04:07:53 PM »
This is interesting and I'm all for counter-intuitive facts, but can anyone provide a source to back up these claims and give details as to the exact difference?

The problem with the claim that "pollution increased with emissions regulation" is that you need to specify what pollutant you are talking about. Here is more of the story:
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php

Particulate matter (black smoke that is generally bad for your lungs) went from 0.6 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.01 g/bhp-hr in 2010
NOx which causes smog went from 6.0 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.2g/bhp-hr in 2010
Unburned hydrocarbons went from 1.2 g/bhp-hr in 1990 to 0.14g/bhp-hr in 2010
SOx emissions decreased to near zero with Ultra-low sulfur fuel, CO emissions are down, etc. So basically, all kinds of nasties were reduced.

Now, there is no doubt these reductions came at the expense of fuel economy because of the various technologies used. This means that if you only care about CO2, then you can wistfully recall the 90's. The concern about CO2 is relatively recent, however, and 2018 or 2020 emissions standards are right around the corner.

If you think these emissions reductions were a bad idea, I invite you to go to a big city in any third world country still using old engines and take a big whiff.

Finally, Hedge_87 is right about the new stuff being in the shop more often, but this is part of a larger discussion about how vehicles are getting more and more complex/computerized in every way. Even your tires have sensors in them now.

Your stats are nice, but don't account for the lower emissions in older engines due to the low sulfur fuel, nor do they account for the pollution created in producing the extra gallons of fuel burned in the new engines.

Rather than comparing with a third world inner city with no pollution controls, a fairer comparison would be Europe, which has similar pollution controls and fuel, yet much higher mileage per gallon of fuel consumed.  There are some definite advantages to modern engines, but the American versions aren't near as good as some others.

Reepekg

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Age: 34
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2014, 10:22:03 PM »
Your stats are nice, but don't account for the lower emissions in older engines due to the low sulfur fuel,
An emissions regulation (low sulfur fuel) that reduces emissions from both old and new engines further contradicts the claim that "pollution increased with emissions regulation"

nor do they account for the pollution created in producing the extra gallons of fuel burned in the new engines.
This is why emissions quantities are measured in grams of pollutant per brake horsepower hour (if you run an engine of a certain size/power for an hour, you get x amount of pollution). It is independent of fuel consumption.

Rather than comparing with a third world inner city with no pollution controls, a fairer comparison would be Europe, which has similar pollution controls and fuel, yet much higher mileage per gallon of fuel consumed.  There are some definite advantages to modern engines, but the American versions aren't near as good as some others.
This is almost entirely attributable to the difference in average diesel passenger vehicle size/mass. If you were to compare similarly powered diesel tractors or construction equipment from Europe and America, fuel economy would be comparable.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2014, 11:02:34 PM »
Your stats are nice, but don't account for the lower emissions in older engines due to the low sulfur fuel,
An emissions regulation (low sulfur fuel) that reduces emissions from both old and new engines further contradicts the claim that "pollution increased with emissions regulation"

nor do they account for the pollution created in producing the extra gallons of fuel burned in the new engines.
This is why emissions quantities are measured in grams of pollutant per brake horsepower hour (if you run an engine of a certain size/power for an hour, you get x amount of pollution). It is independent of fuel consumption.

Rather than comparing with a third world inner city with no pollution controls, a fairer comparison would be Europe, which has similar pollution controls and fuel, yet much higher mileage per gallon of fuel consumed.  There are some definite advantages to modern engines, but the American versions aren't near as good as some others.
This is almost entirely attributable to the difference in average diesel passenger vehicle size/mass. If you were to compare similarly powered diesel tractors or construction equipment from Europe and America, fuel economy would be comparable.

Your first point only measures tailpipe emissions.  You're ignoring the drilling, transport, and refining of the extra fuel, as well as the decrease in energy density.

Your second point still ignores the changes in fuel over time.  You'd need test data using modern fuel on older engines for an equal comparison.

Your third point is simply not true.  US and European models of the same car built on the same assembly line have very different rates of fuel consumption. 

viper155

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #70 on: July 14, 2014, 05:01:54 PM »
Same 'tude as the holier-than-thou enviro nut cases, just flipped 180.  At least these clowns aren't trying to stick a gun in your face to force you to hew to their preferred actions.

Meh....

Stupid is as stupid does, be it these knuckleheads or the vegan freaks.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/casselberry-mom-refused-to-take-child-to-hospital-over-vegan-beliefs/26657244

Bravo!

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #71 on: July 15, 2014, 10:42:33 AM »
Your stats are nice, but don't account for the lower emissions in older engines due to the low sulfur fuel,
An emissions regulation (low sulfur fuel) that reduces emissions from both old and new engines further contradicts the claim that "pollution increased with emissions regulation"

nor do they account for the pollution created in producing the extra gallons of fuel burned in the new engines.
This is why emissions quantities are measured in grams of pollutant per brake horsepower hour (if you run an engine of a certain size/power for an hour, you get x amount of pollution). It is independent of fuel consumption.

Rather than comparing with a third world inner city with no pollution controls, a fairer comparison would be Europe, which has similar pollution controls and fuel, yet much higher mileage per gallon of fuel consumed.  There are some definite advantages to modern engines, but the American versions aren't near as good as some others.
This is almost entirely attributable to the difference in average diesel passenger vehicle size/mass. If you were to compare similarly powered diesel tractors or construction equipment from Europe and America, fuel economy would be comparable.

Your first point only measures tailpipe emissions.  You're ignoring the drilling, transport, and refining of the extra fuel, as well as the decrease in energy density.

Your second point still ignores the changes in fuel over time.  You'd need test data using modern fuel on older engines for an equal comparison.

Your third point is simply not true.  US and European models of the same car built on the same assembly line have very different rates of fuel consumption.

First, emissions standards in the US and Europe are not the same. Generally speaking, the US standards are "easier" for gasoline engines to meet, while European standards are "easier" for diesel engines to meet.

Second, US and European models of the same car are not necessarily the same. Continuing the example of compact VWs, in the US the Golf MK4 came with the following engine choices (roughly, in order of increasing fuel consumption):
  • 1.9L I-4 diesel (turbocharged)
  • 2.0L I-4 gas
  • 1.8L I-4 gas (turbocharged)
  • 2.5L I-5 gas
  • 2.8L VR-6 gas
  • 3.2L V-6 gas

In Europe, buyers could pick any of the above (except maybe the 2.5L) and also had the choice of several other engines, including the following:
  • 1.4L I-4 gas
  • 1.6L I-4 gas
  • 1.9L I-4 diesel (non-turbocharged)

When considering any given vehicle model sold both in the US and Europe, on average the European version has a smaller engine, is more likely to be a diesel, and is more likely to have a (more efficient) manual transmission.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #72 on: July 16, 2014, 04:49:12 PM »
"and is more likely to have a (more efficient) manual transmission."

I didn't even know you could still buy a manual tranny (that's what we used to call them, but in the last 30-years, the word has taken on a new meaning) transmission in the USA anymore, other than on a sports car?

Maybe on a really low end entry level car?  Would you have to special order it?

I learned how to drive on one, but it's been over 30 years since I last used one.  I'd probably make a serious mess of trying to drive one today.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 04:51:30 PM by libertarian4321 »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #73 on: July 16, 2014, 05:53:08 PM »
"and is more likely to have a (more efficient) manual transmission."

I didn't even know you could still buy a manual tranny (that's what we used to call them, but in the last 30-years, the word has taken on a new meaning) transmission in the USA anymore, other than on a sports car?

Maybe on a really low end entry level car?  Would you have to special order it?

I learned how to drive on one, but it's been over 30 years since I last used one.  I'd probably make a serious mess of trying to drive one today.

I think they're mostly extinct on full-size trucks (except the Diesel Ram 2500), minivans (except the Mazda5), SUVs (except the Jeep Wrangler), and front-wheel-drive medium-to-large sedans, but they're still available on most interesting cars.

By the way, in my opinion there's no such thing as a "really low end entry level car" anymore. Even the smallest, cheapest ones are very full-featured, reliable, and more expensive then they should be. (For example, the Hyundai Accent is almost 50% more expensive than it was just 10 years ago!)

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #74 on: July 17, 2014, 12:20:01 AM »
Your stats are nice, but don't account for the lower emissions in older engines due to the low sulfur fuel,
An emissions regulation (low sulfur fuel) that reduces emissions from both old and new engines further contradicts the claim that "pollution increased with emissions regulation"

nor do they account for the pollution created in producing the extra gallons of fuel burned in the new engines.
This is why emissions quantities are measured in grams of pollutant per brake horsepower hour (if you run an engine of a certain size/power for an hour, you get x amount of pollution). It is independent of fuel consumption.

Rather than comparing with a third world inner city with no pollution controls, a fairer comparison would be Europe, which has similar pollution controls and fuel, yet much higher mileage per gallon of fuel consumed.  There are some definite advantages to modern engines, but the American versions aren't near as good as some others.
This is almost entirely attributable to the difference in average diesel passenger vehicle size/mass. If you were to compare similarly powered diesel tractors or construction equipment from Europe and America, fuel economy would be comparable.

Your first point only measures tailpipe emissions.  You're ignoring the drilling, transport, and refining of the extra fuel, as well as the decrease in energy density.

Your second point still ignores the changes in fuel over time.  You'd need test data using modern fuel on older engines for an equal comparison.

Your third point is simply not true.  US and European models of the same car built on the same assembly line have very different rates of fuel consumption.

First, emissions standards in the US and Europe are not the same. Generally speaking, the US standards are "easier" for gasoline engines to meet, while European standards are "easier" for diesel engines to meet.

Second, US and European models of the same car are not necessarily the same. Continuing the example of compact VWs, in the US the Golf MK4 came with the following engine choices (roughly, in order of increasing fuel consumption):
  • 1.9L I-4 diesel (turbocharged)
  • 2.0L I-4 gas
  • 1.8L I-4 gas (turbocharged)
  • 2.5L I-5 gas
  • 2.8L VR-6 gas
  • 3.2L V-6 gas

In Europe, buyers could pick any of the above (except maybe the 2.5L) and also had the choice of several other engines, including the following:
  • 1.4L I-4 gas
  • 1.6L I-4 gas
  • 1.9L I-4 diesel (non-turbocharged)

When considering any given vehicle model sold both in the US and Europe, on average the European version has a smaller engine, is more likely to be a diesel, and is more likely to have a (more efficient) manual transmission.

Same car with a different engine is normally correct.  In terms of HP at the wheels, they're approximately equal, with a smaller engine needed on the European models due to the increased efficiency without the American emissions equipment.  Diesels tend to be most efficient when they're run at the ragged edge of producing soot (lugging the engine with minimal positive intake pressure).  In Europe, that's acceptable, while the US dictates so clean of exhaust that the manufacturers are forced to inject more air via the turbo and run at higher rpms to meet standards.  What this means to the consumer is decreased engine life, and energy loss as they're compressing much more air than the engine needs to make reasonably clean power.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #75 on: July 17, 2014, 10:19:36 AM »
Same car with a different engine is normally correct.  In terms of HP at the wheels, they're approximately equal, with a smaller engine needed on the European models due to the increased efficiency without the American emissions equipment.  Diesels tend to be most efficient when they're run at the ragged edge of producing soot (lugging the engine with minimal positive intake pressure).  In Europe, that's acceptable, while the US dictates so clean of exhaust that the manufacturers are forced to inject more air via the turbo and run at higher rpms to meet standards.  What this means to the consumer is decreased engine life, and energy loss as they're compressing much more air than the engine needs to make reasonably clean power.

Although differences in emissions equipment may reduce the US-spec engine's output by one or two horsepower, the effect is not nearly as large as you describe. The smallest European engine in my example makes 20-30 HP less than the smallest USA-spec engine, and that large a gap can only be explained by the fact that Europeans are more inclined to accept slower acceleration (the slowest MK4 Golf in America might take 10 seconds to get to 60 MPH; the slowest one in Europe might take 15 or 20 and that's considered acceptable).

By the way, I've never heard the claim that the US-spec engine's tuning for emissions at the cost of efficiency also resulted in reduced engine life before, and I'm skeptical. Can you cite a source for that claim?

seanc0x0

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #76 on: July 17, 2014, 10:45:50 AM »
"and is more likely to have a (more efficient) manual transmission."

I didn't even know you could still buy a manual tranny (that's what we used to call them, but in the last 30-years, the word has taken on a new meaning) transmission in the USA anymore, other than on a sports car?

Maybe on a really low end entry level car?  Would you have to special order it?

I learned how to drive on one, but it's been over 30 years since I last used one.  I'd probably make a serious mess of trying to drive one today.

I think they're mostly extinct on full-size trucks (except the Diesel Ram 2500), minivans (except the Mazda5), SUVs (except the Jeep Wrangler), and front-wheel-drive medium-to-large sedans, but they're still available on most interesting cars.

By the way, in my opinion there's no such thing as a "really low end entry level car" anymore. Even the smallest, cheapest ones are very full-featured, reliable, and more expensive then they should be. (For example, the Hyundai Accent is almost 50% more expensive than it was just 10 years ago!)

Just about the only vehicle I'd consider 'low-end entry level' these days would be the Nissan Micra: http://www.nissan.ca/en/cars/micra  But even there, it jumps up quite a bit if you want AC or power windows.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #77 on: July 17, 2014, 11:34:09 AM »
Same car with a different engine is normally correct.  In terms of HP at the wheels, they're approximately equal, with a smaller engine needed on the European models due to the increased efficiency without the American emissions equipment.  Diesels tend to be most efficient when they're run at the ragged edge of producing soot (lugging the engine with minimal positive intake pressure).  In Europe, that's acceptable, while the US dictates so clean of exhaust that the manufacturers are forced to inject more air via the turbo and run at higher rpms to meet standards.  What this means to the consumer is decreased engine life, and energy loss as they're compressing much more air than the engine needs to make reasonably clean power.

Although differences in emissions equipment may reduce the US-spec engine's output by one or two horsepower, the effect is not nearly as large as you describe. The smallest European engine in my example makes 20-30 HP less than the smallest USA-spec engine, and that large a gap can only be explained by the fact that Europeans are more inclined to accept slower acceleration (the slowest MK4 Golf in America might take 10 seconds to get to 60 MPH; the slowest one in Europe might take 15 or 20 and that's considered acceptable).

By the way, I've never heard the claim that the US-spec engine's tuning for emissions at the cost of efficiency also resulted in reduced engine life before, and I'm skeptical. Can you cite a source for that claim?

Horsepower ratings are skewed between your examples, as they're dependent on rpm.  Since diesels run at lower rpms, their ratings aren't a direct comparison to gas engines which turn much faster.  A 200hp diesel, for instance, will easily out pull a 300hp gas engine because it has more torque, which is why big trucks are invariably diesel. 

The higher rpms in US spec diesels cause them to wear faster.  If a piston is rated for X many cycles, why would you expect it to last more cycles in a fast turning engine and less cycles in a slow turning engine?  Added stress from forced induction is also tough on components.  When you cram twice as much air in the cylinder, it does burn cleaner, but you're also compressing it 40:1 rather than 20;1.  It's simple physics.  There's also the factor of pressurizing the fuel to tens of thousands of pounds per square inch.  Would you expect a 10k psi pump and injectors to last longer than a system which only needs to provide a few hundred psi? 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #78 on: July 17, 2014, 12:21:13 PM »
Horsepower ratings are skewed between your examples, as they're dependent on rpm.  Since diesels run at lower rpms, their ratings aren't a direct comparison to gas engines which turn much faster.  A 200hp diesel, for instance, will easily out pull a 300hp gas engine because it has more torque, which is why big trucks are invariably diesel. 

Well, if you want to be picky about it, sure.

In that case you could just compare the least-powerful gas engines with each other (European 1.4L vs. American 2.0L) and the least-powerful diesel engines with each other (European 1.9L non-turbo vs. American 1.9L turbo). Regardless, my point (that there exists a drastic overall power difference, too large to be explained only by emissions differences, which manifests itself in multi-second 0-60 time differences) stands.

The higher rpms in US spec diesels cause them to wear faster.  If a piston is rated for X many cycles, why would you expect it to last more cycles in a fast turning engine and less cycles in a slow turning engine?  Added stress from forced induction is also tough on components.  When you cram twice as much air in the cylinder, it does burn cleaner, but you're also compressing it 40:1 rather than 20;1.  It's simple physics.  There's also the factor of pressurizing the fuel to tens of thousands of pounds per square inch.  Would you expect a 10k psi pump and injectors to last longer than a system which only needs to provide a few hundred psi?

As far as I'm aware, the US-spec 1.9L turbodiesel (e.g. "ALH") has exactly the same redline (5000 rpm) as the European-spec 1.9L turbodiesel (also 5000 rpm). In fact, here's the total extent of the difference between the European and American 1.9L (MK4 rotary-pump) turbodiesels (from the tdiclub.com FAQ):

Quote
On North American models, the turbocharger is a variable-vane type. On European models, the turbocharger is a conventional wastegate type. The North American A4 engine is essentially a Euro 110hp A4 engine but with engine controls optimized for emissions rather than performance.

In other words, VW apparently compensated for the power loss due to extra emissions requirements by using slightly higher-capacity components, also more-or-less canceling out any difference in reliability (other than the variable-vane turbo actuator, which can occasionally get gummed up).

Regarding the injection pump and injectors: the US-spec manual-transmission ALH engine comes with a lower-pressure fuel pump and larger injectors, while the US-spec automatic-transmission ALH engine comes with a higher-pressure fuel pump and smaller injectors. I've never heard anybody claiming a reliability difference between the two (although the transmission itself is another story!).

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #79 on: July 17, 2014, 03:31:07 PM »
I didn't even know you could still buy a manual tranny (that's what we used to call them, but in the last 30-years, the word has taken on a new meaning) transmission in the USA anymore, other than on a sports car?

Maybe on a really low end entry level car?  Would you have to special order it?

Around here (Ohio/Michigan) manual trans cars (sporty and not) are readily available on the dealer lots.  Not as numerous as auto trans cars, but they are there.  American brands it's harder to get a manual trans since certain models it's not even an option.  Foreign brands it's rare to find a model that doesn't have it (oddly, it seems to often be the entry-level model that's auto only).

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #80 on: July 17, 2014, 04:15:54 PM »
Foreign brands it's rare to find a model that doesn't have it (oddly, it seems to often be the entry-level model that's auto only).

It really depends on the "style" of the car company. Companies that make cars for people who use a car as an appliance (e.g. Mercedes, Lexus, Lincoln and Buick) sell nothing with a manual transmission, while companies that have a reputation for making "driver's cars" (e.g. BMW, Mazda, Honda and VW) sell almost everything with a manual transmission.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #81 on: July 20, 2014, 12:09:20 PM »
Now I know we need to raise the gasoline tax.

You mean the diesel tax.  Actually, lets just institute an idiot tax.
That would mean the end of all money problems for the countries. But in a democracy it will never come. You know, the majority rules...

Quote
100% biodiesel, making them carbon-neutral
Biodiesel is not carbon-neutral. Even if all the fertilizers, harvest machines etc. would be made by carbon neutral biodiesel.
In fact to grow the plants so much forest is destroyed, that biodiesel can have a more negative Co2 impact then "normal" diesel. Also rising prices on basic eating things in poor countries. (well, here too, but you dont need 60%-100% of your income for food)
« Last Edit: July 20, 2014, 12:16:10 PM by LennStar »

AlmostIndependent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Anchorage, AK
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #82 on: July 20, 2014, 04:03:09 PM »
I'm not even sure what to say about this. It is so completely idiotic that I have no idea where to begin.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #83 on: July 21, 2014, 01:59:22 PM »
Quote
100% biodiesel, making them carbon-neutral
Biodiesel is not carbon-neutral. Even if all the fertilizers, harvest machines etc. would be made by carbon neutral biodiesel.
In fact to grow the plants so much forest is destroyed, that biodiesel can have a more negative Co2 impact then "normal" diesel. Also rising prices on basic eating things in poor countries. (well, here too, but you dont need 60%-100% of your income for food)

"More negative CO2 impact than 'normal' Diesel?" That's such an extraordinary claim I'd expect it to come from an oil industry shill.

Also, although the merits of planting new crop acreage specifically to produce biodiesel may be debatable, the real benefit of biodiesel is that it's what you do with the oil (or your rendered chicken fat, or whatever) that's left over after you've already used it for cooking.

unix_kung_fu

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #84 on: July 21, 2014, 02:21:36 PM »
The quotes from those people in that article seriously sounds like an Onion article. But this is reality. Wow.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #85 on: July 22, 2014, 06:37:24 AM »
Quote from: Jack
the real benefit of biodiesel is that it's what you do with the oil (or your rendered chicken fat, or whatever) that's left over after you've already used it for cooking.
Unfortunately that oil is normally not used to drive anything. Specifically speaken it would be tax evading. At least if you use the one you buy for cooking before cooking. Not sure about used. Not many try this because it damages the engines bc of all the other stuff floating in it. And even big citchens don't have so much used oil that it would be enough for their employees. Its cheaper and more practical to use other regenerative means.

the math is really simple: To "outgrow" the CO2 that comes out of an rainforest acre if used for crops (cut down trees and other green stuff, but most important the C02 in the soil itself), you would have to use the soil for 120 years to grow e.g. corn. Not accounting for fertilizers which you need after a few years in rainforest areas (thats why it gets burned down instead of sold wood: To make a rich soil for a very few years). And also not accounting for the life diversity lost etc.
Also you would need the space of more then one earth just to grow the plants you would need for biodiesel. current, not-mustachian use ;)

tl;dr: biodiesel is no solution, currently its more a problem.

btw: The most effectice way to get CO2 out of the atmoshpere is to re-water lost swamps. They take up a huge amount of CO2 in a short time with near to nothing cost.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 06:42:55 AM by LennStar »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #86 on: July 22, 2014, 07:50:37 AM »
Quote from: Jack
the real benefit of biodiesel is that it's what you do with the oil (or your rendered chicken fat, or whatever) that's left over after you've already used it for cooking.
Unfortunately that oil is normally not used to drive anything. Specifically speaken it would be tax evading. At least if you use the one you buy for cooking before cooking. Not sure about used. Not many try this because it damages the engines bc of all the other stuff floating in it. And even big citchens don't have so much used oil that it would be enough for their employees. Its cheaper and more practical to use other regenerative means.

Of the two commercial, licensed, tax-paying biodiesel distributors in Metro Atlanta, both use oil that comes from "waste" feedstocks. One uses oil collected from restaurants, and the other buys from whoever is cheapest, which is usually stuff made from fat collected from chicken processing plants (Gainesville, an hour or so NE of Atlanta, is the "chicken capitol of the world.")

Sure, there does exist biodiesel made from "virgin" (not previously used for cooking) soybean oil. However, a large fraction (I'd guess "most," but don't want to go find the data to prove it) of the oil used to make biodiesel is, in fact, recycled.

the math is really simple: To "outgrow" the CO2 that comes out of an rainforest acre if used for crops (cut down trees and other green stuff, but most important the C02 in the soil itself), you would have to use the soil for 120 years to grow e.g. corn. Not accounting for fertilizers which you need after a few years in rainforest areas (thats why it gets burned down instead of sold wood: To make a rich soil for a very few years). And also not accounting for the life diversity lost etc.

Nobody is cutting down rainforests to grow biodiesel! You're confusing it with the farming practices around ethanol. And I agree, ethanol fuel (especially from corn) is stupid, but biodiesel is much, much better.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #87 on: July 22, 2014, 08:27:43 AM »
Quote from: Jack

Nobody is cutting down rainforests to grow biodiesel! You're confusing it with the farming practices around ethanol. And I agree, ethanol fuel (especially from corn) is stupid, but biodiesel is much, much better.
Ok, then we have a name problem.
Here in germany biodiesel is called everything made from plants (which mostly means ethanol). And the 5%/10% in the fuel are NOT from used stuff. I think if you collect everything even then it was less then 1% of used fuel.

Ther references from taxes was on "buy cooking oil in the supermarket and put it into your car to burn", which is in germany, and as far as I know everywhere, tax avoiding because on supermarket oil there is no fuel tax (whatever it is called in your place).

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #88 on: July 22, 2014, 09:43:34 AM »
Quote from: Jack

Nobody is cutting down rainforests to grow biodiesel! You're confusing it with the farming practices around ethanol. And I agree, ethanol fuel (especially from corn) is stupid, but biodiesel is much, much better.
Ok, then we have a name problem.
Here in germany biodiesel is called everything made from plants (which mostly means ethanol). And the 5%/10% in the fuel are NOT from used stuff. I think if you collect everything even then it was less then 1% of used fuel.

Ther references from taxes was on "buy cooking oil in the supermarket and put it into your car to burn", which is in germany, and as far as I know everywhere, tax avoiding because on supermarket oil there is no fuel tax (whatever it is called in your place).

Ethanol fuel is alcohol (and used in spark-ignition engines, the kind that normally use gasoline), while biodiesel is a mixture of lipids (and used in compression-ignition, i.e., Diesel, engines). It's essentially the difference between sugar and fat.

Ethanol comes from plants like corn, sugar cane, beets or (ideally) switchgrass/cellulose), while biodiesel comes from plants like soybeans, rapeseed (a.k.a. Canola), or (ideally) algae.

In the US, fueling your car with cooking oil from the supermarket would technically be tax avoidance just like in Germany, but would also be a moot point because cooking oil costs more than diesel fuel (bio- or petroleum) and therefore would therefore be stupid anyway.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #89 on: July 25, 2014, 01:19:06 PM »
There's also the problem of biodiesel not working in the winter.  If you're fine with no groceries when it's cold out, then by all means make the switch to 100% biofuels. 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #90 on: July 25, 2014, 08:59:40 PM »
There's also the problem of biodiesel not working in the winter.  If you're fine with no groceries when it's cold out, then by all means make the switch to 100% biofuels.

A couple years ago when we had a warm winter, I made it through on B100 (in Atlanta) with no problems. In normal years, I fill up when I get to half a tank and alternate between B100 and dino-diesel, so that it averages out to B50.

Admittedly, if you live somewhere cold you might have to switch to B20 (or even full-dino, or kerosene if you're in the arctic) in the winter. But still, every little bit of non-fossil fuel helps.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #91 on: July 26, 2014, 12:21:33 AM »
There's also the problem of biodiesel not working in the winter.  If you're fine with no groceries when it's cold out, then by all means make the switch to 100% biofuels.

A couple years ago when we had a warm winter, I made it through on B100 (in Atlanta) with no problems. In normal years, I fill up when I get to half a tank and alternate between B100 and dino-diesel, so that it averages out to B50.

Admittedly, if you live somewhere cold you might have to switch to B20 (or even full-dino, or kerosene if you're in the arctic) in the winter. But still, every little bit of non-fossil fuel helps.

Straight diesel doesn't flow in the northern part of the US during the cold months, and needs to be blended with kerosene to work.  B20 is even worse.

In Atlanta or Miami, you could probably get away with B100 most of the time, but B10 will leave you stranded in Chicago, Denver, or in the middle of Kansas.  If your injector pump is fuel lubricated, it can be a $5k lesson to be careful about where you fill up.

stripey

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Age: 119
  • Location: Australia
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #92 on: July 26, 2014, 02:54:00 AM »
"and is more likely to have a (more efficient) manual transmission."

I didn't even know you could still buy a manual tranny (that's what we used to call them, but in the last 30-years, the word has taken on a new meaning) transmission in the USA anymore, other than on a sports car?

Maybe on a really low end entry level car?  Would you have to special order it?

I learned how to drive on one, but it's been over 30 years since I last used one.  I'd probably make a serious mess of trying to drive one today.

I think they're mostly extinct on full-size trucks (except the Diesel Ram 2500), minivans (except the Mazda5), SUVs (except the Jeep Wrangler), and front-wheel-drive medium-to-large sedans, but they're still available on most interesting cars.

By the way, in my opinion there's no such thing as a "really low end entry level car" anymore. Even the smallest, cheapest ones are very full-featured, reliable, and more expensive then they should be. (For example, the Hyundai Accent is almost 50% more expensive than it was just 10 years ago!)

Just about the only vehicle I'd consider 'low-end entry level' these days would be the Nissan Micra: http://www.nissan.ca/en/cars/micra  But even there, it jumps up quite a bit if you want AC or power windows.

I find this interesting, as there are obviously some cultural differences. Although a great deal of cars in Australia are autos, manual transmission is very common and most people learning how to drive do so in a manual, as taking the driving test in an automatic transmission car only allows for a limited car license. Most of the people I know drive a manual car, and (although I protest the stereotype and the sentiment entirely) there still is the perception that auto transmission is something for women who can't drive very well. Of the four cars I've owned, only one was an automatic-- I disliked the feeling that I had less control whilst driving around hairpin turns and on muddy unsealed roads, and I will only purchase another auto under duress.

Given the price of fuel in Australia, the concept of "rollin' coal" is unbelievably stupid to me.

Hedge_87

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
  • Age: 32
  • Location: South central ks
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #93 on: July 26, 2014, 06:07:05 AM »
I like the idea of making people take a driving test in a manual transmission car. It amazes me how many can't do this simple task.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #94 on: July 26, 2014, 10:25:29 AM »
I like the idea of making people take a driving test in a manual transmission car. It amazes me how many can't do this simple task.

Well, sure.  Many families don't even have a manual car to practice in.  :-)  My parents wouldn't let me learn a manual until I passed the test in an auto!

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #95 on: July 26, 2014, 12:28:02 PM »
Quote from: BlueMR2
My parents wouldn't let me learn a manual until I passed the test in an auto!
Now thats a real BS here. Instead of just learning to run, you first learn to limp on one leg and then are allowed to use the other one.

btw: In my whole life I sat only one in an automatic and I don't know anybody who drives one. Or better, I dont know that they do it, I don't ask these things :D 
Statistically autos are on an all-time high with 28% of new cars having one (germany).

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3314
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #96 on: July 27, 2014, 08:22:59 AM »
The rollin' coal crowd seems entrenched in a bleak us-vs-them anti-city-folk attitude. 

They've chosen an alarmingly disruptive way to express this sentiment. 

Theirs is a tactic of assured mutual destruction.  Okay - not exactly... but the thought of polluting the air so that everyone suffers makes me think of the people who run up the bill when splitting the check: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/friend-takes-liberty-of-ordering-$40-worth-of-appetizers-for-the-table/msg344888/#msg344888
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 09:27:28 AM by Malaysia41 »

Left Bank

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Location: Bend, OR
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #97 on: July 27, 2014, 09:38:32 PM »
An answer to "Rolling Coal" ?
http://jalopnik.com/upset-about-rolling-coal-stop-whining-and-fight-back-w-1601766411

From the above link:

"What I'm thinking is that massive, multicolored clouds of colored powder could be released. There's even a source for just this sort of thing, and it's even called Hippie Powder. Holy crap, that's perfect. What would piss off the guy who just rolled coal on your Prius more than getting a rainbow of retaliatory clouds of some shit called Hippie Powder?

Just picture it. You're (well, a hypothetical Prius-driving you, maybe) driving around in your Prius, minding your own business, when some jackass in a lifted bro-truck rolls coal all over you. Instead of getting all teary-eyed and clenching your little, smooth, new-media fists, how good would it feel to flip a switch and go all Hindi-color-festival-of-Holi on his ass? Make the fucker look like part of a My Little Pony background and get the hell out of there."

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #98 on: July 28, 2014, 07:12:22 AM »
I like the idea of making people take a driving test in a manual transmission car. It amazes me how many can't do this simple task.

Well, sure.  Many families don't even have a manual car to practice in.  :-)  My parents wouldn't let me learn a manual until I passed the test in an auto!

yeah, as much as I wish I knew how to drive a manual, there was not one in my household/neither of my parents drove one when I was in high school, so that would have been a colossal pain in the ass. :/

An answer to "Rolling Coal" ?
http://jalopnik.com/upset-about-rolling-coal-stop-whining-and-fight-back-w-1601766411

From the above link:

"What I'm thinking is that massive, multicolored clouds of colored powder could be released. There's even a source for just this sort of thing, and it's even called Hippie Powder. Holy crap, that's perfect. What would piss off the guy who just rolled coal on your Prius more than getting a rainbow of retaliatory clouds of some shit called Hippie Powder?

Just picture it. You're (well, a hypothetical Prius-driving you, maybe) driving around in your Prius, minding your own business, when some jackass in a lifted bro-truck rolls coal all over you. Instead of getting all teary-eyed and clenching your little, smooth, new-media fists, how good would it feel to flip a switch and go all Hindi-color-festival-of-Holi on his ass? Make the fucker look like part of a My Little Pony background and get the hell out of there."

THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE IDEA

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: "Rollin' Coal"?
« Reply #99 on: July 28, 2014, 10:16:36 AM »
I like the idea of making people take a driving test in a manual transmission car. It amazes me how many can't do this simple task.

Well, sure.  Many families don't even have a manual car to practice in.  :-)  My parents wouldn't let me learn a manual until I passed the test in an auto!

yeah, as much as I wish I knew how to drive a manual, there was not one in my household/neither of my parents drove one when I was in high school, so that would have been a colossal pain in the ass. :/

You know how I learned to drive a manual? I test-drove a couple of cars with them (including an hour or so "extended test drive" in one), then bought a brand-new* car with one and drove it home in rush-hour traffic.

I have a car-club friend who had her car swapped from automatic to manual (the auto was dying; swapping was cheaper and better than replacing the auto) during a meet 4 hours away from her house. I gave her 15 minutes or so of lessons and she drove herself home. (Admittedly, this was on a VW diesel, which is probably the easiest manual to learn in because it's got enough torque to not stall when starting from a stop without having to push the accelerator.)

The point is that not having a manual transmission car to practice on before you buy one is not a valid excuse. Just go buy one and you'll have no choice but to learn (quickly)!

(*I say that not to invite a facepunch (it was pre-MMM, after all), but rather to emphasize how confident you have to be to not worry about screwing up something expensive.)