GET READY FOR Watchdog !

I'm thinking of putting a V8 in the 90. And next month the fuel efficient
Freelander is making way for a larger heavier Discovery!

Why????

Because I bloody well want to and I can!!!!!!!!!!

Stew.

--

1990 LR Ninety 2.5D N/A (Jasmine) with bits on!
2002 Freelander Td4 ES (crap wish I'd never bought, going to p/ex for a
Disco!))
Intersted in facts, not fiction? Look here - http://www.4x4prejudice.org


"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gr2p0z.46v4tva2r8qmN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> was ogling an XJS jag today. lovely motor. longer than the disco, just
>> as
>> wide, 5.3 petrol engine, sod-all to the gallon, and basically, really,
>> it's
>> a 2+2. Where does that come on the scale?
>
> You forgot that the bonnet design is such that it probably slices
> pedestrians in half.
>
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

On or around 28 Jan 2005 08:31:05 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying :

>> valid point, except that the latest engines are considerably more
>> efficient than the one in the 2CV which dates from about 1948.
>
>You're only 20 years out.

nah, the 2CV doesn't go back as far as 1928.

It was indeed designed in 1948, though, ISTR. I grant you, the emissions
and efficiency might have been improved along the way, but since they
stopped developing it at least 20 years ago...

>> they probably imp[roved the carbs and such, but still, it pollutes
>> much more than for example a Smart car, with the same size engine and
>> similar weight.
>
>Umm, no. But that's beside the point.

not entirely. The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it was
all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly behind
since. I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got a
cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon. in
terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
carries 4 people same as the 2CV (unlike the Smart, it has to be said.
Though the Smart makes huge sense for urban areas carrying 1 or 2 people.

>>>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>>
>>>Those are all unarguable.
>
>> wanna bet?
>
>Yes.

diesel engines are inherently more efficient, though, I believe, so for a
given power output, they should in fact pollute slightly less.

>Great. So let's let them ban *every* engine design over about - oooh -
>five years old.

However, you have to consider the effect of the pollution caused by making
the cars, as well... but there's something to be said for it, from the
exhaust emissions POV - the old engines (older than about 20 years) *do*
chuck out a lot more pollution, hence the lenient levels they're allowed at
MOT time compared with new stuff. I believe that it's possible, with a good
engine and very careful tuning, to get a Propane engine through the
cat-level MOT test without a cat fitted. But most probably wouldn't. My
3.5 V8 passes the test it has to pass easily, mind.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:27:00 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> valid point, except that the latest engines are considerably more
>>> efficient than the one in the 2CV which dates from about 1948.
>>
>>You're only 20 years out.
>
>nah, the 2CV doesn't go back as far as 1928.
>
>It was indeed designed in 1948, though, ISTR. I grant you, the emissions
>and efficiency might have been improved along the way, but since they
>stopped developing it at least 20 years ago...

Wasn't the point that the 2cv couldn't be adapted for unleaded the
reason for its demise? I imagine in other respects it was no more
polluting than other small engined cars of the time.

The thing about it and the ami?? was that it could drive all day with
full throttle, like the beetle as well. Whereas other small cars were
more powerful but susceptible to engine problems if over stressed.

AJH

On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
>by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.

actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur oxides
and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different. Slightly less
CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".

Austin Shackles composed the following;:
> On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few
>> emissions by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.
>
> actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur
> oxides and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different.
> Slightly less CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.

Having read a little more into it, I agree. It is fewer, but not
significantly.

My bad.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
>>by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.
>
>actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur oxides
>and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different. Slightly less
>CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.
>
Also less CO
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around 28 Jan 2005 08:31:05 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Austin Shackles ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>>much like they were saying :
>
>>> valid point, except that the latest engines are considerably more
>>> efficient than the one in the 2CV which dates from about 1948.
>>
>>You're only 20 years out.
>
> nah, the 2CV doesn't go back as far as 1928.
>
> It was indeed designed in 1948, though, ISTR. I grant you, the emissions
> and efficiency might have been improved along the way, but since they
> stopped developing it at least 20 years ago...
>
The 2CV actually appeared at the Paris motor show in 1939, but all drawings
were lost during the war, although the prototype was apparently hidden and
survived. It was redesigned after the war, but the design was substantially
the same. So it is essentially a prewar design (as are many aspects of the
S1 Landrover - for example, I think the basic gearbox design is that
introduced by Rover in 1934)

>>> they probably imp[roved the carbs and such, but still, it pollutes
>>> much more than for example a Smart car, with the same size engine and
>>> similar weight.
>>
>>Umm, no. But that's beside the point.
>
> not entirely. The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
> restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it was
> all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly behind
> since. I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got a
> cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon. in
> terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
> carries 4 people same as the 2CV

Perhaps - but can it carry two people and two milk cans across a ploughed
field in comfort? (part of the design criteria for the 2CV)

> (unlike the Smart, it has to be said.
> Though the Smart makes huge sense for urban areas carrying 1 or 2 people.
>
>>>>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>>>
>>>>Those are all unarguable.
>>
>>> wanna bet?
>>
>>Yes.
>
> diesel engines are inherently more efficient, though, I believe, so for a
> given power output, they should in fact pollute slightly less.

Depends how you define pollution - i.e. how you weight different parts of
pollution. It also depends on what fuel you are running on. And efficiency
has nothing (much) to do with pollution. Diesels are inherently more
thermally efficient, mainly due to the fact that they have higher
compression ratio. But thermal efficiency and pollution are not necessarily
related. The major pollution problem from diesels is probably particulates,
which are not a major problem with petrol engines - their major problems
are probably (today) carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen.

The other question is production of carbon dioxide - which is not a
pollutant, and here the question is less clear. Generally speaking diesel
fuel will produce more CO2 than petrol as more of the energy content is in
the form of carbon, but this is offset by the increased thermal efficiency
of the diesel. In the case of both engine types, the net CO2 emission will
be reduced by the use of biodiesel or ethanol blends. Here the diesel has
the clear advantage as they can run on 100% biodiesel without problems,
whereas normal petrol engines are limited to about 20%, and furthermore the
energy efficiency and pollution from production of biodiesel are a lot less
than for ethanol.
>
(snip)

JD

Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:24:02 GMT, "The Caretaker ..."
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Read Staffbulls post .. his 4x4 runs on LPG, so has very few emissions
>>by comparison to petrol and diesel burning vehicles.
>
> actually, that's "slightly fewer", in fact. certainly fewer sulphur
> oxides
> and the like, but the CO2 and H2O are not much different. Slightly less
> CO2, slightly more H2O, I think.
>
How can you describe CO2 and H2O as pollutants? You produce both every time
you breathe. CO2 can be described as a "greenhouse gas" but hardly as a
pollutant, since it is a natural component of air, and as for water .....
JD

([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying
:

> Wasn't the point that the 2cv couldn't be adapted for unleaded the
> reason for its demise?

Not really - since every 2cv runs happily on undeaded - even the ones prior
to the completely new engine in the late 60s/early 70s. Ally heads, y'see.

Got the best of both worlds at the moment - got the 3.9 V8 96ES Disco,
2"lift, shiny new stainless Exhaust and NO CATS!! and still got the 94
300Tdi 3- door Disco bog standard apart from removing the CAT. Removing the
cats on both has made a hell of a difference but much more noticeable on the
300Tdi it blows td5's away.

The stereo is now idle in the V8 - I just listen to the exhaust note!!

I need to get around to selling the Tdi ( I think!) but my reckoning is that
it's depreciated most of it's value so if I keep it a bit longer I'm not
going to loose much more. Common sense says sell it - silly side says keep
it .


"The Caretaker ..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> StaffBull composed the following;:
>> I'm doing my bit for the environment - I run LPG ( nothing to do with
>> cost of course) the V8 sounds bloody amazing now, had a guy build me
>> a stainless exhaust,. awesome!!!
>
> Bastard ...
>
> Heheheh ... I want a V8 for my Disco ..
>
> --
> The Caretaker.
> www.4x4prejudice.org
> A balanced argument.

Exactly the point I used to drive a limo, definatly a bigger footprint than
my landy and certainly not more economical.


--
þT

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On or around Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:02:19 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >They differ significantly from estates only in height. What problem
> >does their height cause?
>
> bugger, I didn't intend to get into this thread.
>
> was ogling an XJS jag today. lovely motor. longer than the disco, just
as
> wide, 5.3 petrol engine, sod-all to the gallon, and basically, really,
it's
> a 2+2. Where does that come on the scale?
>
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> "Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
> Boswell's "Johnson".

I used to get about 80mpg out of my scooters back in the 70's but they were
F all good for off roading

--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around 28 Jan 2005 08:31:05 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>

>
> not entirely. The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
> restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it was
> all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly behind
> since. I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got a
> cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon. in
> terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
> carries 4 people same as the 2CV (unlike the Smart, it has to be said.
> Though the Smart makes huge sense for urban areas carrying 1 or 2 people.
>
> >>>Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
> >>>
> >>>Those are all unarguable.
> >
> >> wanna bet?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> diesel engines are inherently more efficient, though, I believe, so for a
> given power output, they should in fact pollute slightly less.
>
> >Great. So let's let them ban *every* engine design over about - oooh -
> >five years old.
>
> However, you have to consider the effect of the pollution caused by making
> the cars, as well... but there's something to be said for it, from the
> exhaust emissions POV - the old engines (older than about 20 years) *do*
> chuck out a lot more pollution, hence the lenient levels they're allowed
at
> MOT time compared with new stuff. I believe that it's possible, with a
good
> engine and very careful tuning, to get a Propane engine through the
> cat-level MOT test without a cat fitted. But most probably wouldn't. My
> 3.5 V8 passes the test it has to pass easily, mind.
>
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
> reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
> from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

loada bollox that, My series 3 wasn't designed for unleaded but she don't
complain



--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:27:00 +0000, Austin Shackles
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
....
>
> Wasn't the point that the 2cv couldn't be adapted for unleaded the
> reason for its demise? I imagine in other respects it was no more
> polluting than other small engined cars of the time.
>
> The thing about it and the ami?? was that it could drive all day with
> full throttle, like the beetle as well. Whereas other small cars were
> more powerful but susceptible to engine problems if over stressed.
>
> AJH

> but they were F all good for off roading
>

Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?

Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

>> but they were F all good for off roading
>>
>
> Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?

Bump up the kerb outside the kids private school I think.

P.

> > not entirely. The 2CV is held dear by the greenloonies as a model of
> > restraint and economy and environmental conscience, whereas in fact it
was
> > all of these things 30 years ago and has been falling increasingly
behind
> > since. I know a chap who has a small Suzuki, 800 cc 3-cylinder, 's got
a
> > cat and closed-loop fuelling and does god-know-how much to the gallon.
in
> > terms of emissions etc, that's far ahead of a decrepit 2CV, and it still
> > carries 4 people same as the 2CV
>
> Perhaps - but can it carry two people and two milk cans across a ploughed
> field in comfort? (part of the design criteria for the 2CV)
>

given that hes presumably referring to an LJ80, the closest predecessor of
the SJ, and so probably the last of the suzuki offroaders to be purely
functional and not care about fashion AT ALL (i know the SJ is hardly trendy
but they did start to care about looks.. just not on the vitara scale), i
should imagine it would cross ploughed fields and maybe the odd ravine
without too much discomfort for the driver, passenger, or dairy products.

You could probably even manage 4 milk cans, maybe 6 at a push, depending on
if you had the bench seat version or not.

- /\nthony

apk1 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Probably another piece of quality, impartial, non-sensationalist, journalism

As others have said, it was. And why the **** did the useless, lazy, fat
knobhead from the SMMT allow George "****wit" Monbiot to get away with
the pile of lies, propaganda, prejudice and hysteria that he spouted.

Not once did SMMT man mention that 4x4s have better Euro NCAP
performance than small vehicles in pedestrian impacts. Even more sadly
the NCAP man himself either gave a very biased summary or his statements
were cut by Watchdog to only show the bad aspects of 4x4s in a
collision.

Also SMMT man was very weak when it came to defending Monbiots ranting
about MPG and never mentioend that even if Monbiot and the other idiots
have their way and remove all 4x4s from the market the difference it
will make to the vehicle emissions inventory is zilch, nada, not a drop,
bugger all. Because 4x4s account for a maximum of 7% of 20% of total
emissions. That is 1.4% of all emissions come from 4x4s and if those
4x4s are scrapped and replaced with standard saloon cars the maximum
emissions saving to be had is 0.7%.

All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:03:03 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>All this crap about 4x4s killing the planet is sheer, utter, propaganda.

It's sheer, utter jealousy too!
Pile o'crap. As is the whole green bananawagon.
My effin' globe needs warming. Anyway - if it was rue, wouldn't it
liberate Antarctica?

Heh heh - I love my heavy car, and I love Stella (and Grolsch!)

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

StaffBull composed the following;:

> the 94 300Tdi 3- door Disco bog standard apart from removing the CAT.
> Removing the cats on both has made a hell of a difference but much
> more noticeable on the 300Tdi it blows td5's away.

Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust, or
part of ..

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

In message <[email protected]>
"Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote:

> StaffBull composed the following;:
>
> > the 94 300Tdi 3- door Disco bog standard apart from removing the CAT.
> > Removing the cats on both has made a hell of a difference but much
> > more noticeable on the 300Tdi it blows td5's away.
>
> Mine's a '97 Disco 300 Tdi 3 door .. methinks I need a new exhaust, or
> part of ..
>

You'll need the middle silencer and tail pipe.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems