Really? That was relevant? That was on point?
Look, Frank, normally I like you and enjoy your posts. But you’re acting like a jackass and you need to stop.
How was it not?
Look, tdn, it’s a disgusting story. It’s a story of a man who decided to kill an animal merely because it inconvenienced him. I can think of plenty of valid reasons to kill wildlife, but doing it because it shit in his car when he left his windows down is not one of them. If you believe that my response to that story is acting like a jackass, that’s your privilege.
They have giant squirrells at the Grand Canyon? Still, thats pretty funny.
A few years ago in front of the Louvre, my wife was feeding the birds crumbs from a piece of bread she had. Of course a dozen birds descend like crazy to feed off of the crumbs…until one landed right next to her and snatched the bread from her hand and flew off. (I swear you could almost hear the bird thinking “Yoink!”) Maybe not as funny as the squirrell, but I laughed hysterically.
Exactly as i said. It’s a comparative rating. You do know what comparative means, don’t you?
Let’s remember, shall we, what started the whole thing: elucidator made the following comment:
Instead of just laughing at what was, i’m sure, intended as nothing more than an amusing observation and a humorous suggestion to look at your situation from the bird’s point of view, you turned around and said:
Nice sense of humor there, douchewad.
Also, your response implied not just that your truck is a low-emission vehicle, but that it put NO shit into the air at all. Which is why i made my post, you screaming sack of guano.
So, does an '06 get better or worse emission levels than a '10? If it’s better, then Honda must be about the only manufacturer that does not improve its emission levels over time. You’re making my case for me.
Also, i never contradicted your claim that it was a ULEV, so you can shove that strawman up your tailpipe. I was pointing out that, contrary to your implication, low emissions does not mean no emissions.
It’s true that MPG is not a direct measure of emissions.
However, emissions are, for each car, emitted in proportion to the amount of fuel used. So, all other things being equal, if two cars have equally clean engines but different mileage ratings, the one with lower mileage will emit more pollutants. Is that too hard for your smog-addled pea-brain to cope with?
I don’t give a flying fuck that you own a Ridgeline. I care even less about your day-to-day activities. I recognize that there are good reasons to have a large 4WD vehicle with considerable cargo space. Still doesn’t make 17mpg combined anything other than a really bad fuel efficiency number.
The bird lived. The mirror got broken.
It’s not like it isn’t totally obvious that you were just posting to be an asshole, but pretending for a moment you had some noble outrage over abused wildlife, than why would you reiterate your "disgust’ when the story concludes with me breaking my mirror (thus hurting myself) as a direct consequence of my misplaced anger towards the bird?
The story shows the folly of the viewpoint that you claim to condemn as your motivation for posting.
If you weren’t posting just to be an asshole than why didn’t you modify your stance on the story based on the outcome?
Seeing as it actually supports your viewpoint, and agrees with you, what’s the problem?
You guys better watch your step, Scylla’s got a pellet gun, and he knows how to use it. Sorta.
Yeah, I’m an innocent bystander, and I’m going to be bystanding directly behind him the whole thread. 
You said it means that it’s just “better than average.” That wasn’t and still isn’t true. ULEV means 50% better than average.
Sure. Apparently it’s too complex for you though. Emissions are measured not in fuel used but in miles driven. There is no relationship between MPG and emissions in the standards, so you are exactly wrong. Two cars with equal engines under 2006 California ULEV standards and different MPGs will still produce the same emissions per mile.
Both the EPA and California (ULEV is a CA standard) calculate emissions by assuming 12,000 miles per year of driving.
No. It’s not. I realize your really stupid, but try to understand; 17mpg might be bad for a subcompact car. It is good for a vehicle with 4wd and that hauling and cargo capacity.
I have equivalent bed space and much more cargo space in the Ridgeline than I would in a 2003 f-250 truck extended cab. In the real world I averaged about 14mpg with that truck. In the real world, I am averaging about 22 with the Ridgeline. Check those figures the forums of owners who post their MPG and you will find them consistent.
I have more cargo space than a heavy duty extended cab pickup truck. I have the load and towing capacity of a full sized pickup truck (1,500 and 5,000 pounds respectively.)
I know this because I researched it before I bought, and because it replaced a 2003 f250.
The 17mpg is really good for the capabilities. I looked, and I couldn’t find any other vehicle for the consumer market that could compete on the criteria of price, emmissions, mpg, and even come close to the cargo and hauling capacity.
So no 17mpg is not a bad number.
Great idea for a movie! All the birds, see, start to take revenge against people for…what? Really? No shit? Well, damn…
Oh, really?
Frank:
Yeah, really the unrepentant narrator reinforces the moral. Not having learned his lesson, the implication is that he will continue to hunt the bird, wasting time and effort and only damaging himself.
It’s not exactly a new idea, Road Runner, Elmer Fudd, others seem to have grasped it readily.
Sure, but that’s because the ULEV standards are calculated as absolutes.
The question is whether two engines with the same emissions technology, but with different MPG rates, will produce the same amount of emissions.
So, for example, say that Honda produces a 4-cyl, 1.6L engine and a 6-cyl, 2.5L engine. And say Honda uses exactly the same type of emissions-reducing technology for both engines. If the engine in the first car gets, say 30mpg and the engine in the second gets 20, then surely you agree that the first is burning more fuel every mile than the second. And even if each engine is equally emission-friendly, in terms of its efficiency at releasing emissions, the absolute amount of emissions will be greater for the larger engine than the smaller one.
But this, of course, is all a big hijack based on your original claim, which was that, because your car is a ULEV, it doesn’t shit into the atmosphere at all. As i’ve noted before, and as you continue to conveniently ignore, low emissions does not mean no emissions. You car still shits in the bird’s air, even if it does so at a rate “50% better than average.”
Still, its an improvement, I always thought of him driving a 1500 HP car powered by whale oil and baby harp seal fat, with a vanity plate reading “FK GRN!”
That’s his weekend car - he was talking about his daily commuter.
Does anyone else remember this Far Side cartoon?
If by “absolutes” they actually measure it as opposed to making up shit off the top of their head, then yeah, I guess “absolutes” is fine.
No. that wasn’t the question. Nobody asked that question. The real question that I’m curious about is if this latest attempt to change the issue and hide the fact that you have no clue at all about what you are talking about is going to work, or if you are just going to dig yourself in deeper.
I got ten bucks on “deeper.”
Deeper it is.
No. I do not agree. There are a lot of problems with your assumptions and question. The most basic one is that you have the fundamental principle of the issue backwards.
You seem to think that that which increases mpg also lowers emissions. The truth is much closer to the opposite.
Another problem with your assumption is that you seem to think that you can have the identical emissions technology on a 4 banger as you do on a 6 cylinder.
Still another is that you consider the bolt on portion to be the primary component of emissions control, when in fact it is the design of the engine. That is what will determine the output at the exhaust manifold. That in turn will determine the nature of the appropriate bolt on.
If somebody were to actually try your little experiment and bolt on the catalytic convertor from a 6 cylinder onto a 4 cylinder engine, you are more likely to increase emissions (I’m thinking clouds of black smoke,) while decreasing horsepower, mpg, and all that, if you can keep the engine running.
Speaking generally, a high mpg 4 cylinder engine is going to be dirtier than a lower mpg 6 cylinder engine due to differences in the timing and combustion cycles.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that you basically have it almost completely backwards. Why do you think emissions are measured based on mile travelled rather than by fuel burned?
The equivalence you are trying to draw is false.
Your being stupid (but that seems to be your role, so no surprise.) The point is, that if you are going to propose a vengeance minded bird, seeking recompense for air pollution generated by automobiles, than you would expect that bird to choose one of the most offensive examples of polluting rather than one the least offensive.
Never once even mentioned anything “bolt on.” Not once. Never made any assumption about what catalytic converter goes on what engine. In fact, i specifically made a general comment about “type of emissions-reducing technology,” which can include bolt-on portions as well as the design of the engine itself. The emphasis on “bolt-on” is a product of your fevered imagination, which you should probably devote to lame stories in the future.
That was clearly not the point of your original comment at all.
First, elucidator made a mildly amusing comment, turning it around and positing the bird as the victim of your truck. Rather than simply take it for what it was, you felt the need to assert that, because your truck is a ULEV vehicle, it does not “shit in [the bird’s] air.” But, unless it has a California Smog Score of 10 (it doesn’t), it does, in fact, release crap into the air. The main point of my initial response to you, which still stands, was that low emissions is not the same as no emissions. Something you still seem unwilling to concede.
Anyway, i’m done with you. Keep writing your shitty, three-part stories, if that’s what tickles your fancy. But if they end up in the Pit, you shouldn’t whine when some people don’t just polish your cock out of gratitude for your literary genius.
Is everyone around here going nuts? I never saw Frank be so ridiculous. And really, Scylla, I think you need to stop engaging with mhendo as he is apparently in some other place. Why is he so upset that your story was in three parts? Is it the heat?
So upset about his story being in three parts? That’s what you got from my posts? Are you a fucking moron, or what?
I made one single mention on the three-part nature of the OP, in passing, and said that it seemed a little self-indulgent.
Never once even mentioned anything “bolt on.” Not once. Never made any assumption about what catalytic converter goes on what engine. In fact, i specifically made a general comment about “type of emissions-reducing technology,” which can include bolt-on portions as well as the design of the engine itself. The emphasis on “bolt-on” is a product of your fevered imagination,
[/quote]
It’s an inherent in your stupid assumption which is that you can have a 6 cylinder and a four banger and compare them by equipping them with the same “emissions-reduction-technology.” You can hardly have allowed for engine design as emission reduction technology, since you were positing two different engines, hence different technology while also positing identical technology, now could you?
That bullshit doesn’t fly, either.
That’s not what I actually said.
So do you. You breathe out, right? You flatulate, right? Most other cars emit more shit than mine, right?
So, it’s not logical to assume that a vengeful minded bird intent on imparting a lesson against air pollution would chose one of the least offensive vehicles as a target, is it?
That’s why I said what I actually said. You should actually read it before you quote it.
Praise the Lord! Do you promise? Can I hold you to it? I can think of no greater gift that you could give me than to withhold your stupidity from my vicinity. Thank you.
It does. It really does. It makes me happy. I’d kind of stopped because of shitbirds like you, but then I figured “why not incorporate them and make it interractive?”
Why not? The Pit seems to be the place for it.