How big a factor is the environment to you...

[pow]

Topic says it all... not economics, but environment.

[Flybrian]

What is considered environmental here? Fuel economy? Materials used? Actual emissions? Or just image? I chose the third option, by the way, because cars today are very close to being the cleanest they can ever be with gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines. I believe most US tailpipe emissions standards are equal or even more stringent than those of 'enlightened' European nations and Japan.

[bobo]

For a good part of my working life, I've used public transportation or carpools. Unfortunately, my current job and sometimes irregular schedule does not facilitate it. When I went shopping for my last vehicle, I did research fuel economy ratings and emissions, and I was pleased to find that the Silverado to be among the best in class. However, it's still not great. If there were a cleaner and more efficient but weaker engine offered, I don't think I would go there. But I would spend more money, such as going with a hybrid, if there were reduced emissions and/or better fuel economy. I am chagrined that my IS300 is also rated rather low on fuel economy and emissions.

[balthazar]

Wife's ex- '98 Intrique: NOx-- standard: 625. Reading: 31 HC-- standard: 78. Reading: 2 CO-- standard: 0.44. Reading: 0.00 Sure- there's always room for improvement, but that's a damned clean pipe. Contrast: '59 Buick Invicta (in 1986, mileage circa 97K): NOx-- no test HC-- standard: 1600. Reading: 874 CO-- standard: 10.0. Reading: 6.74

[Cory Wolfe]

Well... I could care less about the environment, but fuel economy is factor for me.

[pow]

What is considered environmental here? Fuel economy? Materials used? Actual emissions? Or just image?

I chose the third option, by the way, because cars today are very close to being the cleanest they can ever be with gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines. I believe most US tailpipe emissions standards are equal or even more stringent than those of 'enlightened' European nations and Japan.

[post="8061"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I mean CO2/greenhouse gas emissions, so fuel economy. As far as localized smog-forming particulates go, most new cars are pretty decent. Global warming poses a stronger threat.

[Petra]

I'm quite comfortable with the knowledge that the typical car of 2005 is several thousand times more environmentally friendly than the typical car of 1955. Take a look at balthazar's comparo, and you'll see what I mean. Seriously, have you followed a 1960s era car lately? No offense, but they smell disgusting! :puke: Would I like my Mercury to get better than 24-something MPG? Absolutely. But there isn't much I can do about it, so I deal with it. If the opportunity comes along for me to buy a more efficient car (that still meets my needs/wants), I'll take it... If I can afford it. Edited September 2, 2005 by Petra

[razoredge]

Ive always cared, never gutted a cat or cursed emissions equipment ... at least on post 86 GM products. I know that waiting until I grow the second head is not the right time. With that mentality we would still be pouring our waste into the rivers and fields and any old were. We always drove smaller gas friendly 4 bangers way back in their day but then we stepped up to Buick V6 powered cars and got the same milage out of even cleaner running cars that were roomier, safer and far more comfortable. Now today Im thinking of going back down to a Ecotec smaller car like the Cobalt but if we did trade the LSS for one it would be well optioned with sunroof, leather too. 22-26 mpg plus requireing high test is not a pleasing thought anymore. Still trading down is a uncomfortable thought, thats why Id get many of the options. I never thought Id consider getting rid of the rare Super Charged LSS :-(

[Nick]

Screw the environment...what has it ever done for me?! :P

[VenSeattle]

Fly's post sums up my opinion.

[Sixty8panther]

Every winter when I'm freezing my ass off up here in New England I think about the environment a lot. I think long and hard about how as soon as spring comes I'm going to fill up my Camaro's tank with Sunoco 94 and burn rubber as I'm dumping out carbonmonoxide into the atmosphere and thus contributing to Global Warming! My idea of an enviromentaly friendly car is a 1969 Camaro that does not leak antifreeze. Edited September 2, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[Endo]

I'd love to drive a more efficient car but if someone is going to spend thousands of dollars on a car it's hard to say that they should have to "settle" for an eco-friendly car instead of one they really want. What the car companies need to do is start making cars lighter. That way they're faster AND more efficient. Everyone wins.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Wife's ex- '98 Intrique:
NOx-- standard: 625. Reading: 31
HC-- standard: 78. Reading: 2
CO-- standard: 0.44. Reading: 0.00

Sure- there's always room for improvement, but that's a damned clean pipe. Contrast:

'59 Buick Invicta (in 1986, mileage circa 97K):
NOx-- no test
HC-- standard: 1600. Reading: 874
CO-- standard: 10.0. Reading: 6.74

[post="8073"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

my 2BBL 2.8L V6 got similarly low readings.... and its carbeurated! :P