GET READY FOR Watchdog !

beamendsltd composed the following;:
> 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.

Cheers, Richard .. do you have any, and what price, roughly.

Seriously, the back box on mine has been 'bashed' a couple of times and
the end pipe is corroded. The middle silencer is held on with some
metal banda-strap (whatever it's called) ..

--
The Caretaker.
www.4x4prejudice.org
A balanced argument.

beamendsltd composed the following;:
> 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.

Thanks, I'll check your site out.

--
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 <[email protected]> Adrian wrote:
> Paul - xxx ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>> So what? Who gives a flying fart, other than the tree-huggers, who's
>> 4x4 does what for the environment really?
>
> The point is NOT off-roaders used off-road. It's "Chelsea Tractors".

Oh I see, so now when we go off road we have to get a little slip signed
to say we've been off road and then we ARE allowed to use our 4x4s in
towns as well. It all suddenly makes sense, all this crap about
emmissions, pedestrian safety, intimidation etc... is all a cunning
smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.

So, the solution to the problem is actually very simple, turn Hyde Park
into a huge off road play site and make it compulsory for all 4x4 owners
visiting or living in London to drive around the site, say, once a year
to get their special pass that allows the smug, self important curtain
twitchers to allow their neighbours to buy 4x4s because they use them
off road. Why Ken hasn't just announced this instead of banging on about
all this negative stuff I have no idea. There may have to be provision
for a "lesser" off road circuit that allows Subaru and other low ground
clearance 4x4s to get their certificate of "worthiness to own a 4x4" -
maybe cover Oxford street in a 3 inch deep layer of mud an s**t ?
There's certainly enough crap spouted by the environazis to cover most
of London's streets in a 3 inch deep layer.

There was me thinking that this was a completely indiscriminate campaign
against anyone who happened to have a transmission system capable of
driving all the wheels and all the time it's part of a larger plan to
get all 4x4s off road at least once a year ! This is obviously an
extension of previous schemes such as the "minimum of 12 inch ground
clearance speed bumps" and the infamous "articulation testing potholes"
that our Ken has been so keen to install into the streets around his
town.

I wonder why none of this comes across from the campaigners, I mean, I'd
obviously misinterpreted their slogan "drive 4x4s off our roads" silly
me thought they wanted to stop us driving them altogether and in reality
they are actually campaigning for more off road sites - more power to
their elbow I say.

cheers

Dave W.
http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/

apk1 <[email protected]> wrote:

> About to start..... campaign to rid the streets of 4x4's!!!

The tree hugging wannabees are simply jealous. That's understandable. In
a Land Rover I drive like a king. I got lots of space, can have 6 adult
passengers, the comfort is unsurpassed. But then the tree huggers:
sitting in small sardine cans, barely 4 adults can be transported, not
much space in the trunk. And in wintertime all those 4x2 are ****ing
traffic obstacles for me when my royal 4x4 tries to drive by smoothly. I
also don't want to miss my mighty V8 with lots of horsepower at low rpm
and automatic transmission and air conditioning. I love the softly
buzzing V8 engine while the 4x2 car passengers getting deaf in their 1.2
litre turbo diesels. 4x4 rulez the universe! I am a human being and not
a sardine!

Don't mention the 2CV, I did once, but I think I got away with it!!!!!


"Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

In message <[email protected]>, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>> but they were F all good for off roading
>>
>
>Was someone suggesting using 4x4s for off roading? How do you do that?
>
Hand Throttle hard over to the right.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

"Steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>
>> Those are all unarguable.
>
> Per mile driven ? Diesels are unarguably more efficient, yes they (can)
> emit soot particles, but they must emit less CO2 than petrol PER MILE.
>
> Steve

This CO2 argument is so thin anyway. Go here:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Robin

On or around Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:58:35 -0000, "Glynderi"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> Diesels don't pollute less than petrols. They pollute differently.
>>>
>>> Those are all unarguable.
>>
>> Per mile driven ? Diesels are unarguably more efficient, yes they (can)
>> emit soot particles, but they must emit less CO2 than petrol PER MILE.
>>
>> Steve
>
>This CO2 argument is so thin anyway. Go here:
>
>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>
>Robin
>

interesting reading.

'course, the use of fossil fuels releases fossil water vapour as well as
fossil CO2.

mind, there's this:

Can you drive your car 30% less?

I venture to suggest that rather a lot of people *could* if they really
wanted to, however:

"Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect
on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy."

which is probably the most telling bit.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:17:39 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

OT but:

I believe this site to be disingenuous, they are considering overall
effect and saying the doubling in CO2 since iron age is insignificant
when it is a small addition to a well balanced system. In fact there
is the possibility it could tip the balance at which point some
positive feedback effect will take over. My personal opinion is that
man made effects are big enough to disturb the system but short term
solar effects are probably acting atm also.

>
>'course, the use of fossil fuels releases fossil water vapour as well as
>fossil CO2.

As I have said to you before, my understanding, and I am no expert, is
this is truly insignificant as there has always been sufficient water
vapour in the atmosphere to capture all the bands of re radiated infra
red that it can capture, so this water vapour system is and always has
been saturated, adding more has no effect

>"Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect
>on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy."
>
>which is probably the most telling bit.

Definitely, industrial growth is completely dependant on using power,
in UK we consume the equivalent of 5 tonnes of oil per person per
year, and I'm not sure whether the 20% electricity we get from nuclear
power is factored into that, so we each consume 1.4kW(t) constantly,
about a third of which is in transport of some sort or other.

Do anything to turn down industrial growth and you risk collapsing an
edifice entirely dependant on confidence that people can pay each
other.

AJH

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

> is all a cunning
> smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.

No point in owning one otherwise....

On 30 Jan 2005 21:28:32 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave White ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
>sounding much like they were saying :
>
>> is all a cunning
>> smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.
>
>No point in owning one otherwise....

I need mine to take the kids to school!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

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

>>> is all a cunning
>>> smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.

>>No point in owning one otherwise....

> I need mine to take the kids to school!

Why a 4x4? Why not a car or - if there's a lot of kids - a people carrier?

On 30 Jan 2005 22:13:55 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying :
>
>>>> is all a cunning
>>>> smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.
>
>>>No point in owning one otherwise....
>
>> I need mine to take the kids to school!
>
>Why a 4x4? Why not a car or - if there's a lot of kids - a people carrier?

People carrier? Where would my street cred be?!?
The desired feeling of superiority can only be had in a 4x4. It also
comes in handy for taking the horses to shows and camping in wild
places.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

On or around 30 Jan 2005 22:13:55 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying :
>
>>>> is all a cunning
>>>> smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.
>
>>>No point in owning one otherwise....
>
>> I need mine to take the kids to school!
>
>Why a 4x4? Why not a car or - if there's a lot of kids - a people carrier?

I'd like to see a people-carrier cope with the route I do taking kids to
school (not mine, paid w*rk for the council). Complete with about 10 miles
a day on unsurfaced road.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>On or around 30 Jan 2005 22:13:55 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
>enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>saying :
>>
>>>>> is all a cunning
>>>>> smoke screen to ensure that everyone that owns a 4x4 uses it off road.
>>
>>>>No point in owning one otherwise....
>>
>>> I need mine to take the kids to school!
>>
>>Why a 4x4? Why not a car or - if there's a lot of kids - a people carrier?
>
>I'd like to see a people-carrier cope with the route I do taking kids to
>school (not mine, paid w*rk for the council). Complete with about 10 miles
>a day on unsurfaced road.
4x4 People Carrier such as the Espace?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

Adrian wrote:
> Similarly unarguable is that there ARE a lot of utterly pointless
> 4x4s in urban areas and that they DO cause a big problem

*Do* they? What problem do they cause that a large
saloon or MPV does not also cause?

-- Steve

Adrian wrote:
> The point is NOT off-roaders used off-road. It's "Chelsea Tractors".

Maybe. But the problem is legislation to tackle the
perceived problems that some people claim "Chelsea
Tractors" cause will very likely impact people who
own off-roaders to use off road. Except perhaps
ones used solely and truly off road (not registered
for the road, not even used on PROW, not even used
for an *occasional* errand in town, etc etc).

-- Steve

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 00:40:30 -0000, "Steve Hunt" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Adrian wrote:
>> Similarly unarguable is that there ARE a lot of utterly pointless
>> 4x4s in urban areas and that they DO cause a big problem
>
>*Do* they? What problem do they cause that a large
>saloon or MPV does not also cause?
>
>-- Steve
>


It's their height, man! They are higher. They take up more air.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

On or around Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:46:40 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 00:40:30 -0000, "Steve Hunt" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Adrian wrote:
>>> Similarly unarguable is that there ARE a lot of utterly pointless
>>> 4x4s in urban areas and that they DO cause a big problem
>>
>>*Do* they? What problem do they cause that a large
>>saloon or MPV does not also cause?
>>
>>-- Steve
>>
>
>
>It's their height, man! They are higher. They take up more air.

Actually, I reckon it's jealousy on the part of those whose garage is too
small to put one in.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588

In message <[email protected]>
Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 00:40:30 -0000, "Steve Hunt" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Adrian wrote:
> >> Similarly unarguable is that there ARE a lot of utterly pointless
> >> 4x4s in urban areas and that they DO cause a big problem
> >
> >*Do* they? What problem do they cause that a large
> >saloon or MPV does not also cause?
> >
> >-- Steve
> >
>
>
> It's their height, man! They are higher. They take up more air.
>

Have a look at Jeep Cherokee alongside almost any MPV - which
is taller?

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