http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=21253
They find it only gets about 45 mpg. They recommend buying a diesel instead. And then they shoot the car with some serious guns...

I remember only a few years ago diesel was CHEAP! I think it's uber sneaky that the oil companies jumped the gun on diesel making a come back and it's now almost as expensive as regular fuel! Economy wise it's better but still dodgy of them I think...
Haha, "I'd rather look at a baboon" that's funny...
Guns literally! LOL Oh geez, how awesome. So they dont like it then? hehe
85' 300ZX NA
86' 300ZX Turbo
88' 300ZX Turbo
89' 300ZX Turbo
300ZX Turbo Project
Post Edited (Nov 20, 4:09am)

man i hate that guy,the comments he makes about americans.how we complain about the high prices of gas(in other words).45 miles to the gallon is pretty damn good.the car is not that ugly.i can't stand his pompass attitude.but hey alot of people here like him so i'm going to refrane from saying what i really fill.
Z's are like woman maintenance,maintenance,maintenance!
1971 240Z gunmetal metalic 5sp 4:11 gears in the rear
illuminas and purchased from the original owner w/136k original miles

45 is what my parents car gets, funny thing is that it can pull a good hill better them my 850 Volvo.
I drove it one time and it takes a little getting use to the brakes, but other then that cool, at least if the steering knuckle pin doesn't shear LOL.
signed pseudotechnician view point, Sniper S^$ker, with girly arms : UCC 1-207

zlion
if you want to get good gas milage, get a diesel -- you will get 45 mpg without all that electronics crap and extra weight in batteries
and more power and fun from the car
======
'74 2+2 -- MSA sway bars, Illuminas, Eibach Progressive, Energy Suspension
L28 with MN47, 240Z rods, milled down dished pistons (11.6:1 CR) and 240sx tranny
======
committing suicide in small managable payments

Diesel's are great except they pollute a lot more. There is little doubt they get better gas mileage. Not quite so much hp, but enough torque to make up for it.
19[TT]91
My TT beauty is gone.
2[00]2 Honda 954RR
Suzuki 1200 S; sportscar eater
19[I4]94 Integra GSR Sedan
Long live the Z...
aka SAHTT

"Diesel's are great except they pollute a lot more"
If they burn less per mile, how do they polute more?

Particulate emissions and way higher NOx.

Arent most diesels nowadays cleaner now that we will be getting the new ultra low sulfur diesel fuel? I think diesels should be the next big thing. A lot of the old problems from old diesels are being removed (vibration, filthy exhaust, nosiy). The new diesel fuel is becoming more and more available, and the cars/trucks produce a lot more power (more torque, but still) than their gas powered peers. Given that they are very comparable to gas engines, but offer gas savings of some hybrids, they are a good midway point between the two. Strap a turbo on that diesel and get ready to fly down the road. Like mentioned above, there are no expensive batteries to get when they die. The big advantage of diesels are that the infrastructure to support them is there. There are always diesel pumps. The engines are big/small enough to fit anywhere. Petroleum is still the source of most diesel, so nothing on that end would change. Start strapping some diesels on some SUV's and watch their pretty abominable MPG go from 20MPG to 35+. What I am getting to is that a shift from gas powered to diesel powered is not as brusque or harsh as a change to hybrids...
1985 Nissan 300ZX Turbo "Rose": 85000 miles, 5 Speed, Red/white exterior, Burgundy Interior
Mods: 87 digital dash, 240SX front parking lights

Personally, I'd rather see increased emphasis on WEIGHT REDUCTION than more hybrids or diesels. A '91 Honda Civic VX gets as good or better mileage than a new Civic Hybrid!
If there's one thing I'm disappointed with in newer cars it's that they've REALLY let themselves go in the weight department.

"Particulate emissions and way higher NOx."
That's a part of the polution only. If they burn less per mile, then they polute less.

Hybrid77Z, you aren't making any sense.
Combustion of gas causes pollution. We'll simplify the polution to 'X' for Particulates per gallon avg and 'Y' for NoX emissions per gallon avg. There are more to it but I don't want to confuse "anyone".
We'll say gas gets 20mpg avg in 'cars'.
We'll say, as you mentioned, diesel gets more at 25mpg avg in 'cars'.
If diesel produces 1.2X and 1.2Y in that given mile, the fact diesel produces more mileage per gallon vs gas still doesn't make up for the fact it produces more emissions PROPORTIONALLY to gas.
The real situation is diesel often produces more than twice the emissions per mile than gasoline, even taking the addtional mileage into account.
The new low-sulfer technologies is going to help alot, I hope they improve it substantially and all commercial vehicles use it.
Have you never seen the black soot that comes out of a diesel truck when they get on the gas? Not a lot of mystery there.
19[TT]91
My TT beauty is gone.
2[00]2 Honda 954RR
Suzuki 1200 S; sportscar eater
19[I4]94 Integra GSR Sedan
Long live the Z...
aka SAHTT

45mpg isn't rediculous, but considering my 370lbs 150hp sportbike is averaging 30-33mpg, it sounds pretty damn good to me.
19[TT]91
My TT beauty is gone.
2[00]2 Honda 954RR
Suzuki 1200 S; sportscar eater
19[I4]94 Integra GSR Sedan
Long live the Z...
aka SAHTT

"That's a part of the polution only. If they burn less per mile, then they polute less."
Here's how I see it:
Say that car A gets 10 mpg and car B gets 20 mpg.
Car A emits 5 % NOx and car B emits 10% NOx
So, in 20 miles, car A will burn two gallons. Multiply that by 5% and you get 0.1 "gallons" of NOx (there is actually more because the oxygen came from air)
In 20 miles, car B will burn one gallon, which also emits 10% of a "gallon".
Maybe I'm wrong here, but it doesn't seem to me that MPG and emissions aren't necessarily 1:1
You can have a REALLY out-of-tune Honda civic from the 80's blowing black smoke and still getting 40 MPG that would be polluting a lot more than say a 350Z that is getting 20 miles per gallon.

Say that car A gets 10 mpg and car B gets 20 mpg.
So, in 20 miles, car A will put a gallons into the atmosphere while car B puts only 1 gallon into the atmosphere.
"Total emmissions" is based on MPG, how many gallons are thrown up into the atmosphere per mile. A smoking 40mpg is putting a lot less into the air than a 20mpg 350Z.
Total Polution is TOTAL polution or you're just playing a game and counting only part of it (NOx, COx, etc). Total means total and that's based on total gallons used.

>A smoking 40mpg is putting a lot less into the air than a 20mpg 350Z
Actually no. The WA state emission center tells people that one vehicle that is burning oil or far out of tune will produce the same amount of pollution as ten properly-tuned vehicles. In other words, that smoking 40 mpg car, depending on what is wrong, could be out-polluting several vehicles.
Think of it this way: if the vehicle is burning 1 oz of oil per gallon, versus a happy and tuned car burning only 0.001 oz of oil per gallon, you could be putting a thousand times more crap into the air for each gallon burned.
And of course, every car that pollutes is different. Some are bad, some are not.

"The WA state emission center tells people that ...."
LOL, so what?
You still fail to grasp that putting an extra GALLON of hydrocarbons in the air every 20 miles is a hell of a lot more polution than one extra ounce of hydrocarbons (oil). Just because you don't "see" that extra gallon in the atmosphere does not mean that it's gone.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021022071123.htm
>>Although diesel cars obtain 25 to 35 percent better mileage and emit less carbon dioxide than similar gasoline cars, they can emit 25 to 400 times more mass of particulate black carbon and associated organic matter ("soot") per kilometer [mile].<<

"Personally, I'd rather see increased emphasis on WEIGHT REDUCTION than more hybrids or diesels. A '91 Honda Civic VX gets as good or better mileage than a new Civic Hybrid!"
I agree with that. But in this age of air bags, ABS, and crash tests, I dont think it will be feasible. I think we will do well to stay at 3100lbs.... Besides, it isnt in the manufacturers' interest to design a stripped down car for a niche market. Most of us like a very light car with no features, but the fact of the matter is that the majority love those creature comforts. AC, power seats, 6 speaker stereos, power doorlocks, power window, etc. Even if all those are removed, we still get stuck with all of the mandatory safety stuff, like air bags and ABS, not to mention all the reinforcements that are required nowadays for all types of collisions. It all adds to weight. The only realy way that you could get around that is to make somethihg like that Lotus Elise (or is it Exige). Mostly plastic and glue. Good from a performance point of view, but not something that I would want as a daily driver....
1985 Nissan 300ZX Turbo "Rose": 85000 miles, 5 Speed, Red/white exterior, Burgundy Interior
Mods: 87 digital dash, 240SX front parking lights

I just love those kind of reports. Last week I saw one that said particulates actually REDUCE atmospheric warming by blocking incomming radiation, now here is one says that they increase warming. I also find it completly funny that they say that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for up to 200 years. So I guess that at least half of the CO2 from all the major volcanic erruptions since 1900 is still in the atmosphere? As if.
It's just a game of numbers and TOTAL emissions is based on fuel burn per mile. A 40mpg car is a hell of a lot better for the environment than a similarly driven 20mpg car, even if it needs a ring job.

zlover get your sports bike tuned up. my ZZR600 weighing 430 lbs and with 600 cc of 100HP motor gets 50-55 mpg.
Black soot from the diesel cars is mainly from high sulfer content in the diesel (which will be reduced in US in 2007).
For pollution, if you define NOx and CO as pollution then a car buring at stoichometric and having a cat converter will produce least amount of pollution (properly tuned). Now a car without a cat converter can and will produce 10 to 100 times more of the CO and NOx, and up to 1000 times more if the motor is not healthy and without the cat coverter.
Now if you consider CO2 as a pollutant (like everybody in Kyoto was proposing) then the car that burns more pollutes more
(CO2 is a product of complete combustion)
======
'74 2+2 -- MSA sway bars, Illuminas, Eibach Progressive, Energy Suspension
L28 with MN47, 240Z rods, milled down dished pistons (11.6:1 CR) and 240sx tranny
======
committing suicide in small managable payments

My brother has a Prius. His number one reason to buy it: HOV lane. He has a pretty long ride to work every day. I think he said a seal is already leaking ...
Meant to respond to the main post Mea Culpa
-Pete
1978 Z ATK F54-P79
Drink Sobe No Fear Gold
Tokico Illuminas, Poly bushings,Techno Tuning TC rods. Bad Dog frame rails. Toyota 4 piston calipers & power slot rotors. MSA 2.5” turbo exhaust & K&N cold air intake. H4’s
Post Edited (Nov 20, 4:11pm)

>the comments he makes about americans.how we complain about the high prices of gas(in other words).
Although he's a bit of a dick he kinda does have a point, the fuel is half the price in the U.S vs most other places. I know for a fact that our fuel here in Australia costs twice as much as there, for obvious reasons being that we're miles away from any oil supplies but still.
85' 300ZX NA
86' 300ZX Turbo
88' 300ZX Turbo
89' 300ZX Turbo
300ZX Turbo Project

Hybrids are a joke.
Love or Hate Jeremy Clarkson, he's always entertaining. He's always ragging on americans and american cars, but I like him anyway.
---
Justin T
72 240Z L28, 5-speed
77 280Z 5-speed (t-boned 8-25-04)
80 280ZX automatic(retired)

Zolorin, my bike only has 8k miles and there is nothing to tune up at this mileage. That is not an issue.
Your bike is a cool one, I like the zzr600's a lot, great value. My 954 is a totally different beast though, you are comparing apples to oranges. Although honda's literbikes typically get less mileage compared to other literbike supersports, the best* avg mpg of mixed city/hwy for newer literbike supersports get 35mpg, 45-48 strictly on the highway. The problem is most people can't stand being on a 1k SS overly long on a highway anyways.
I started riding on a 2000 yzf600r many years ago [not that many obviously], and I got similar mileage as you did, 440lbs, 110hp.
19[TT]91
My TT beauty is gone.
2[00]2 Honda 954RR
Suzuki 1200 S; sportscar eater
19[I4]94 Integra GSR Sedan
Long live the Z...
aka SAHTT
Post Edited (Nov 20, 5:20pm)

i here what your saying 300zxt and you agree he's kind of a dick!my father inlaw is rom europe and we talk about this all the time.my understanding is that the transportation set up is alot better there than here in the states.so i would believe that americans would tend to drive more.i'm sure someone 's going to tell me otherwise.either way i have a right to complain about it regardless.the guy is a pompass jerk and makes these sly remarks geared twords americans I HATE THAT.i wish i had all the clips that have been posted.the british tend to think there crap doesn't stink.but hey it's my opinion right freedom of speech in the good ole usa!
Z's are like woman maintenance,maintenance,maintenance!
1971 240Z gunmetal metalic 5sp 4:11 gears in the rear
illuminas and purchased from the original owner w/136k original miles

Clarkson cracks me up.
95% of the time someone rags on 'x', a good portion of that is jealousy. Americans drive a lot because we have no issues crossing state borders, have expressways going EVERYWHERE, have the $ to maintain the cars/gas, and tons of room in between cities!
If you drove 400-500 miles in TX, you'd be lucky if you made if from Houston to El Paso. If you drove that far In Britain in one direction, you'd be swimming!
19[TT]91
My TT beauty is gone.
2[00]2 Honda 954RR
Suzuki 1200 S; sportscar eater
19[I4]94 Integra GSR Sedan
Long live the Z...
aka SAHTT

id go for the tesla 0-60 in 4 seconds and 135 mpg and its electric to boot if i had the extra cheddar id get one check it out at tesla.com
88 300zx shiro...11k miles
88 300zx shiro...48k miles
83 280zxt full restoration...blk and gold
97 hyundai accent gt..bought new. currently 130k and still running strong
Post Edited (Nov 20, 7:38pm)

>You still fail to grasp that putting an extra GALLON of hydrocarbons in the
> air every 20 miles is a hell of a lot more polution than one extra ounce of
> hydrocarbons (oil).
You shouldn't be putting ANY hydrocarbons or pollution into the air. None! A happy car will be producing very very little.
I think you have your definitions mixed up, we're talking pollution, not emissions. "Complete" combustion should not produce ANY hydrocarbons in the exhaust, only CO2 and H20 (carbon dioxide and water). And one gallon of fuel will produce many gallons of exhaust gases. These gases, under complete combustion, are pollution-free.
A properly tuned car will be closer to complete combustion than incomplete. The bad combustion is going to give you CO (carbon monoxide) among other nasty things. When you start mixing in oil, you are producing a ton of partially combusted hydrocarbons and nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds, etc. and producing visible smoke. Anything visible is much worse than the invisible gases. (except for carbon deposits)
Post Edited (Nov 20, 8:50pm)

"Anything visible is much worse than the invisible gases."
Well, carbon monoxide is invisible and deadly. Anything burning fuel at twice the rate is twice as big of "emitter".

n/m
19[TT]91
My TT beauty is gone.
2[00]2 Honda 954RR
Suzuki 1200 S; sportscar eater
19[I4]94 Integra GSR Sedan
Long live the Z...
aka SAHTT

It's not so much about the amount of what comes out the pipe as what is in it. What types of particulates makes a big difference, as some are much more harmful than others.

So a car that makes TWICE the CO2 by getting half the mileage is just fine?
Anyway you slice it, running twice the gas through an engine every mile puts the byproducts into the atmosphere, whether you call them polution or not...

Some byproducts are not harmful, diesel just happens to emit more of the harmful byproducts. There are fuel products for diesels that reduce these particular byproducts and reduce harmful emmissions a great deal. There is all sorts of documentation on the EPA's website. I get the information from the non-attainment area in the region I work.
Your just stating the obvious in your generalization, yes a car that burns twice the fuel over a given distance is putting more byproducts in the air, the important part is how harmful are the products, that's why the EPA breaks it into particulate measurements instead of just calling it pollution.

The EPA is more concened about particulates and NOx (visible smog).
Other organizations are concerned about the CO2 (greenhouse gasses).
Still others try to minimize the poisionous gasses (CO).
Still others want to eliminate oil consumption alltogether.
All byproducts are hated by one group or another so THAT is why I combined it to total emmisions. It's all polution depending on who you talk to so you might as well always use the total emmisions when discussing internal combustion engines.
Mileage matters for all aspects of the equation. Doubling consumption (and total emmisions) is not the way to go.

Mileage matters, but it's not the only consideration. Diesels emit far more particulates and NOx than equivalent gasoline engines despite the deisel's much better fuel mileage.
Post Edited (Nov 21, 2:33pm)

Ok folks - bring me up to speed on my questionable understanding of Botony -
Plants take in C02 - at what point do they not thrive on Co2?
Shouldn't increased Co2 bring increased plant growth? Increased warming more H2O evaporation and hence rain, and hence more plant growth?
Do more Government grants grow more questionable studies?
Do any ten scientists agree on anything?
Do any ten politicians not spend our money on anything anyone realy understands?
Ed and Jeanne's
ZXelda 1981 280 ZXT: ZXena 1990 300 ZX
1941 Buick Special Sedanette (Betty)
1956 Dodge Royal (Dorothy)
1971 Buick Riviera (Rita)
1975 Ford F-150 Stepside (Fiona)
1992 Firebird (Frieda)

>id go for the tesla 0-60 in 4 seconds and 135 mpg and its electric to boot if i had the extra cheddar id get one check it out at tesla.com
Lots of protection from a high speed crash too! :P
85' 300ZX NA
86' 300ZX Turbo
88' 300ZX Turbo
89' 300ZX Turbo
300ZX Turbo Project

Sorry to break the news, but THERE IS NO GLOBAL CO2 reading for the last 100 years. Reading global atmospheric CO2 levels can only be done by satelite and are only recently looking at it. All other CO2 data is not global (local) and is subject to local conditions (wind patterns, rain, season, interpretation, etc).
erzelda wins the cookie since even with the growth in man-used fuels in the last 40 years that plankton, trees, weeds, grass, etc are consuming it within weeks of it being made. Local CO2 emmissions are being handled by global plantlife. Like erzelda said, there is a lot of funding dolars to be had as long as non-scientific politicians are handing it out...

I'm hardly going to take your word for it.
SCIENTISTS are generally much more reliable sources of unbiased info than non-scientists, and the vast majority of atmospheric scientists agree that CO2 levels are indeed rising due to man's activities on this planet, and most also believe that it is affecting the climate, NOW.
As for "there is [sic] a lot of funding dollars...", there is VASTLY more money at stake for those who prefer for us to continue and increase our overconsumption of fossil fuels.
Which is why there's never a shortage of funding for "science" designed from the outset to "prove" that we can burn all we want and don't need to worry about it.

The problem is, as you say, trying to sepparate the zealots from the real science. Personally I don't know what "overconsumption of fossil fuels" really means in a scientific discussion (since that is not a scientific term).