The 17 is roller cam too.
Why's it weigh so much more? 50lbs or so?
The 17 is roller cam too.
Why's it weigh so much more? 50lbs or so?
The article and study point out the widespread misconception of consumers and the purposeful misdirection by producers of so-called environmentally friendly products.
Consumers are never given straight facts, only the rosy end product statistics regarding environmental good Vs evil.
The same study would yield similar results with "bio-diesel", methanol blend gasoline, wind turbines, silicon based solar panels, composite wood products and more.
Global warming/climate change is more marketing gimmick than genuine concern and the products offered prove it.
How else do we explain a world where one can brag about driving a Prius while buying prepackaged meals, buying anything at Wal-mart and using Swiffer products at home every day?
Mirage vs. Tesla for carbon footprint comparison seems lame to me. A better comparison would be a comparable EV like the Spark or iMiev - and yes, I know they are both no longer in production. I did a quick google search and didn't come up with numbers, but the small models must surely be better than a Model S with it's juvenile mode. I don't have big issues with Musk or Tesla and am happy we have choices. Just wish Americans currently liked small cars so we could have even more choices.
As flawed as this study is and even though it is common knowledge, it's still nice to have an affirmation that the Mirage is an ecological car among gas burning cars and not just an economical car.
Chevy Bolt would handle that effortlessly. Big range (>350 km in warm weather). I drove one - pretty impressive and lots of fun (torque!).
The 2018 Leaf's range would more than comfortably handle it too (150 miles = 241 km in warm weather).
Of course they're both expensive new, yet they have a depreciation curve like a Mirage's. Better to pick up a used one in a few years.