this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
617 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
2854 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Valmond@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Polluting as hell though, or so I imagine?

Even in Sweden catalysators were not mandatory before like 1986 IIRC.

The rest is awesome though ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜Ž

[โ€“] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And what are the pollution costs of even manufacturing a new vehicle, VS one that's already in place?

We can't manufacture our way to using fewer resources.

[โ€“] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

We can't manufacture our way to using fewer resources.

Why not? Seems like a pretty simple formula: if it costs X amount of resources or pollution to save Y amount of resources or pollution per unit time, the break-even point is whenever Y times time exceeds X.

[โ€“] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

You can, though. There are many lifecycle analyses using actual data to calculate the tradeoff point.

[โ€“] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

This depends a lot on how much the one already in place pollutes, vs the new one.

For an EV vs a slightly older ICE, on your average western power grid (so not fully renewable, but not fully coal either), it takes just a few years till the EV's total lifetime emissions are less.

[โ€“] histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh yea it's a straight pipe diesel ain't anything good for the environment gonna put a slightly more modern engine in it at some point for some more power the 1.6l in it currently only makes like 50 horse so when I do that it'll be a little better but still not great

[โ€“] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well there are a bunch of reliable late 90s and early 2000s German engines that would make that thing ridiculously fast compared to now, pollute less, burn less fuel, and would be pretty easy to maintain.

Long as you avoid all the ones with known pitfalls and research standalone ECU options first of course.

I'm partial to Mercedes engineering myself, I'd tell you to use an OM646. But there's nothing wrong with an M47 or a VW 1.9 tdi either. The PD version of the tdi is slightly more complex than the oldschool versions (66 and 81 kW), but would get you ridiculous performance and fuel economy considering how little your car weighs.

Of course if you had more space in there, I'd suggest an OM648 or M57, but I don't think you'd get an inline 6 to fit. MAYBE an OM647 since it's an inline 5?

[โ€“] histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

You can get a inline 5 in it cause I know you can fit a o7k or a vr6 lol. my plan was to swap it to a TDI I actually have an 01 TDI sitting here for it just don't have the money currently to finish it but once i do, this TDI is actually supped up some pushing 20+ psi of boost not the I will probably run that much since I plan to daily it but it can