How much does your car drink 11b? And how much does the average SUV uses? I thought that was about +20 liters/100km, i hope you don't use gallons/mile.

With my car, i can easily drive 1000km with a tank of 60l (diesel that is).

Are you saying that they consume alot?

cos apparently this is what SUVs are...

Hehe...nah, it was a combination of mild drunkeness, sleep, and lots of porn. And a bad imagination plus crappy writer's talent, of course.

In that case you'll have a lot of trouble parking or even driving around in European cities...

Not to mention that you'd max out on your credit card limit when you'd be getting gas.

That thing is just plain ridiculous lol...looks like a tourbus for a midget boysband.

lol, that pic is pretty funny.

An SUV is like a cross between a pickup truck and a car. Just really big. Horrible gas mileage. Liters/100KM? WTF? THIS IS AMERICA!

I think the average SUV gets around 15mi/gallon.

that's 6.377li/km.

or 383km on 60 liters. Gasoline, though. We don't really use much diesel in the US.

6 li... That's not even that incredibly high. For an American car of course :p

Whats this??? not incredibly high... ... you might not be as liberal as I thought.

This SUV has
http://www.gmc.com/gmcjsp/yukon/index.j ... Name=index

Fuel Economy(City/Highway): 15/20 miles per gallon

1 US gallons = 3.7854118 liters

I say outlaw the bloody things.

Most sources i find speak in terms of: This SUV doesn't use much with only a 12.2 l/100km usage.
Others go easily to 17l, like thisone.

I think you're example should be 6.377km/l instead of 6.377li/km (if i do the conversion out of my head and trust you on the .377) but i can't blame you for sticking to gallons and miles.
But that would mean you use 100 times as much as i do (6 l/km vs 6 l/100km).. mm something must have gone terribly wrong with my math although i don't see where. If i didn't make any mistake you might want to reconsider your opinion Lac

Hehe. I swallowed that 6 li/100 km too easily that's for sure. I made my own calculations afterwards and came to the conclusions that those fuckers /do/ use a lot of gas.

Anyway, I think it's silly to tell the public they can/should or cannot/shouldn't drive this or that make of car. The government should encourage economic cars. But if we're talking about fucking up the environment I don't think we should just focus on cars and wage some sort of crusade, heavy industry should be a lot cleaner too. Fund research!

This little rant being over, 11b, I know that 'liberal' is 'leftie' in the USA, but in Europe it's nearly equal to 'rich fat bastard with a nice little business of his own'. So, no, I'm not a liberal

I'm not even a leftie I got ganged up on by lefties a few weeks ago because I took down one of their posters that was obstructing the uni-magazine stand. They are so rigid-minded! ew. And they still pretend that 'their comrades' died in the Spanish civil war. At least my comment about him looking mighty young for his age then shut them up for about ten seconds.
So you see, I just get the creeps from rigid-thinkers

Actually heavy industrie isn't the biggest polluter for emitting nasty things in the air. That's just economics: if you put a lot of fumes in the air, it's affordable to optimise this proces to get a better burning proces (putting more oxygen in it). But when you looking at the things emitted by the normal households, the burning proces is incomplete which results in the greater contribution to polluents in the air. Same can be said for cars.
So you would think that industry is the biggest contributer if you see those big chimnees with smoke coming out, but that's not correct.

We also studied the smog in LA a bit, quite nice to see those graphs. If i would live in LA, i'd probably try to only live at night, a lot healthier. That is if you don't get gang-raped or shot in some dark ally of course.

Now we are talking. I agree with you on this.

The world's foundations are rocked to the core

Anyway, I still think governments should make efforts to reduce pollution. This can (imo) be done with purely economic measures, 'guiding' people and companies into greener methods.

Yes of course there is need for action, but action must be based on ration. Like for instance the Kyoto protocol for belgium, i believe we said: hey we'll cut down our pollution with 10%. The only problem is that most industrial compagnies (especially in flanders) had already reduced their outlet drasticly and had optimised their production processes. So they should have taken these efforts in account before signing these ridiculous 10% which we will never make unless half of the industry here closes .

Greener methods sounds very good and i'm totally for it, but those techniques are still in their childhood phase, still need a lot of work on these things like solar power, car that runs on something healthier, ... . I wouldn't count on the governement to come up with the solution, remember that whole farce (last year it was i believe) with that wind-mill park in the sea??

Anyway they should invest more in scientifical research so that i can get a good job .