"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
03/08/2019 at 11:29 • Filed to: Whimsy, The True Facts
1
26|
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
03/08/2019 at 11:29 • Filed to: Whimsy, The True Facts | 1
| 26 |
Wow this !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! is an awesome car! Sure it’s impractical, but you buy it for fun, not for practicality! A nyone who buys it has great taste.
Wow this !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! is a terrible car! It’s so impractical; you can’t even do any real work with it! And you should only buy a pickup for purely utilitarian purposes, then hate yourself for needing that pickup. Anyone who buys this for fun is a terrible person with inferior genitals. Unlike my genitals, which are amazing, and by extension make me an amazing and virtuous person.
Milky
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 11:41 |
|
chaozbandit
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 11:53 |
|
|
For Sweden
> chaozbandit
03/08/2019 at 11:55 |
|
Sure but can it tow a boat?
Future ND Owner
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 12:01 |
|
Spending money to have fun, while not harming anyone else, is fine.
Spending money to have fun, where a good portion of the “fun” is derived from purposefully harming others, is bad.
The cayman
has an intact emissions system that hasn’t been illegally and recklessly modified for “lulz”. When the owner of that truck rolls coal for fun they are putting the lives of those driving around them at serious risk.
Plus, that F-650 gets single digit mpgs while the cayman gets 21/30.
benn454
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 12:06 |
|
I never did understand peoples’ preoccupation with the genital size of anyone who doesn’t drive a beige appliance.
Oh, wait. Yes I do. Jealousy and/or projection.
|
For Sweden
> Future ND Owner
03/08/2019 at 12:06 |
|
I’m interested in how you determined that the emissions systems is illegally and recklessly modified, and what is the lowest MPG number that doesn’t harm anyone else.
nermal
> Future ND Owner
03/08/2019 at 12:07 |
|
The truck is a 2006 - Diesel emissions requirements changed on 2007.5 model years, thus making the 2007 and older versions more valuable (at least according to the people selling them) . Most prior had zero exhaust aftertreatment, as it wasn’t required. Can’t remove something that wasn’t there!
KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 12:17 |
|
For the same price , personally I’ll take sportscar impracticality over lifted diesel bro truck impracticality any day but then again people are free to choose what they want to do with either.
|
Future ND Owner
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 12:20 |
|
The two huge aftermarket vertical exhausts sticking out of the bed were my first clue.
|
benn454
> Future ND Owner
03/08/2019 at 12:22 |
|
¯\_()_/¯
|
For Sweden
> Future ND Owner
03/08/2019 at 12:28 |
|
Are those illegal and reckless?
|
Future ND Owner
> nermal
03/08/2019 at 12:31 |
|
If the truck hasn’t been modified to roll coal, then I have no issue with it.
The presence of the two aftermarket vertical exhausts are why I assume that it has been modified.
PS9
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 12:42 |
|
There’s no way to get hundreds of HP more out of a diesel without significant increase in emissions. More air -> more fuel -> more emissions. Stoichiometry. The stock 5.9 makes 270 something, but this guy claims to be getting 500 out of it. Just a cursory look at the mods needed to do that reveal that a critical component - an upgraded turbocharger - cannot be shipped to california. If it’s not even legal to ship the component there, then certainly a truck equipped with it in California would not be smog legal. I think it’s fair to call putting a non-shippable component on your truck that makes it produce illegal levels of smog reckless.
It’s also true that emissions regulations vary from state to state, but just because you live somewhere that doesn’t care about diesel particulate matter doesn’t mean mods like these aren’t still harmful to you or others.
|
For Sweden
> PS9
03/08/2019 at 12:43 |
|
The truck is in Pennsylvania.
|
PS9
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 12:44 |
|
It’s also true that emissions regulations vary from state to state, but just because you live somewhere that doesn’t care about diesel particulate matter doesn’t mean mods like these aren’t still harmful to you or others.
|
For Sweden
> PS9
03/08/2019 at 12:47 |
|
It also doesn’t mean it is harmful to you or others. California has plenty of regulations that harm the environment , like depleting the Owens Valley and rent-control measures that discourage population density.
|
PS9
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 13:10 |
|
It also doesn’t mean it is harmful to you or others.
Diesel exhaust of any amount is harmful, period. It is a group one carcinogen with a positive link to bladder cancer , as well as containing several other substances that are actively harmful to humans as identified by the IARC. Any non-zero amount of it is bad. More of it is worse. These mods will produce more diesel exhaust, therefore they are harmful to you and others.
California has plenty of regulations that harm the environment, like depleting the Owens Valley and rent-control measures that discourage population density.
Not really seeing what this has to do with whether or not mods on a diesel truck are harmful, reckless or illegal . Diesel exhaust is carcinogenic in humans, so mods that increase our exposure to that can be said to be harmful and reckless. They are also at least illegal in one state, and yes, the laws still must be followed there even if it has some other laws you don’t like . It must also be true that Ford could not produce a truck with emissions levels this one has, since it would have to get EPA certification before being able to sell it anywhere in the united states, and this truck would certainly not be able to get that.
|
For Sweden
> PS9
03/08/2019 at 13:14 |
|
If we are going with the absolutist approach to emissions, I am happy to mock anyone who doesn’t drive an electric car charged by their personal solar panels.
Eric @ opposite-lock.com
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 13:33 |
|
There are no practical purposes for that truck. It’s built, like many trucks, as compensation.
I’d love to have an off-road truck now that I live somewhere one would be useful, but don’t have the disposable income to do so. It would be mildly lifted on bigger tires, 4x4, and I’m not sure which engine, but it’d be aimed directly at the use I plan for it. These types of “builds” rarely leave pavement, if ever.
|
For Sweden
> Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/08/2019 at 13:34 |
|
Almost all enthusiast cars have no practical use.
|
Eric @ opposite-lock.com
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 13:36 |
|
I could easily commute in the Porsche above. It would even get decent fuel economy in that application.
|
For Sweden
> Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/08/2019 at 13:51 |
|
You can commute far more practically with a Prius or a bus.
|
chaozbandit
> For Sweden
03/08/2019 at 13:56 |
|
Do kayaks count
VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely
> For Sweden
03/09/2019 at 00:38 |
|
... what happened here? Did someone hurt you?
|
For Sweden
> VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely
03/09/2019 at 00:41 |
|
Humanity hurts me, yes.
|
VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely
> For Sweden
03/09/2019 at 00:57 |
|
It hurts me too. Can we form a support group