America's "Meanest" Vehicles

[usmctopgun]

H2 comes in 7th. Funny thing is when you open MSN webpage, the photo they have w/ the article is the Hummer stating "12 cars w/ the worst environmental impact".
MSN Article

[Arizona Hummerboy]

I just love this part, ( The H2 is based on the Chevy Tahoe and has a more usable interior than the H1. Ride and handling are fairly civilized, with exceptional off-road ability.)

I just love owning a high dollard Tahoe

These people need to dig there heads out of there buts when they write these reports.

[VTSTOMPER]

ok, these tards are re-running the same story from last year. Way to go gang!

[PARAGON]

Originally posted by usmctopgun:
H2 comes in 7th. Funny thing is when you open MSN webpage, the photo they have w/ the article is the Hummer stating "12 cars w/ the worst environmental impact".
MSN Article

I'm a light green driving a vehicle that's mean.

[Marcmedic]

I wonder how many Durango owners are dealing with the tree huggers since it scored lower than the H2?

[Fever]

We may be #7 on the Mean scale but were obviuosly the most photogenic. We're #1, we're #1

[Fastest H-Town Realtor]

Wait-You mean that my uber-polluting H2 is actually greener than the VW Tourag? Now thats funny!

[tanklizard]

I looked a little further than the article and I didn't like what I saw. This list is produced by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and this page describes how they calculate their ratings:
The ACEEE's Green Book® Methodology

My biggest problem right of the bat is they don't test anything! They take information from the EPA and auto makers and apply their mathematical formulas to them. They don't actually test anything.

At first glance their rating methods seems reasonable, the form a rating based on tailpipe emission, fuel economy, and vehicle mass. But when you read into each category you find they've tacked little extras on.

Any reasonable person would assume they use EPA certified standards for the vehicles they rate but they don't.

In real-world driving, tailpipe pollution (CO, HC, NOx, and PM) can be as much as 3 times higher than the nominal grams-per-mile (g/mi) emission standard to which a vehicle is certified. These excess emissions occur for a variety of reasons: inaccuracy of the tests; malfunctioning emission control systems; and deterioration of the catalytic converter and other components. Therefore, we apply adjustment factors, similar to those used in EPA's vehicle emissions calculation models, to determine the expected lifetime average emissions for vehicles meeting a given standard.

Okay, I'm a little confused. It looks like the EPA standards aren't good enough for them, so they apply adjustment factors and come up with a new higher emissions rating (without physically running any tests.)

Rating vehicles on fuel economy seems very reasonable at first, the more fuel the vehicle uses the more emissions it produces. Then they say they're measuring:

fuel-cycle criteria emissions (air pollution due to producing and distributing the fuel)

They do something similar when it comes to vehicle weight:

Vehicle weight is used as the basis for estimating manufacturing impacts.

So now they're not only measuring pollutants a vehicle produces, their also trying to measure the pollutants produced creating and transporting fuel for the vehicle as well as pollutants produced when making the vehicle. The key word here is trying, where are they getting the information on how much pollutants are produced creating and transporting fuel? I hope that information is more accurate then what they use to determine pollutants produce making the vehicle. They make this disclaimer:

Standardized, model-specific data on the environmental damage of vehicle manufacturing are not available.

Then they come up with a formula based on averages and try to measure it anyway.

To sum it all up, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy didn't do any tests at all for this list. They took information from other sources (primarily the EPA), applied their questionable formulas to it, and produced these "results." This is nothing but junk science and the worst part is our tax dollars paid for it.

We all know the vehicles on this list aren't "green" friendly and I'm not trying to prove their not. My problem is, why is the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy producing this list (based on the EPA's work)when there is already superior information available for the EPA. Sounds like another government agency trying to justify its existence.

[tanklizard]

I sent this to the editor of their auto section. i'm sure they'll never show it but I can try.

[PARAGON]

Tank, you put way too much effort in to that. Not a knock, just they don't deserve your time.

Mainly, they use, as you pointed out, adjustment factors, but fail to use common sense adjustment factors. Mainly, annual production number of each vehicle line, average annual miles driven by each vehicle line.

See, if they were really interested in actual impact, they would have offered an actual study that provides balanced information that makes sense. But, in this day and age, excerpts and headlines is all that is needed to garner limelight. No one will call you to the mat on backing the up the factual information.

In the overall scope of the world what is the true impact that the Lamborghini Murcielago, Bentley Arnage, Maybach 57S, or the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano have on the environment, all the way from manufacturing to everyday driving. Due to the low production numbers and the very few miles driven, it's ludicrous to suppose that these car lines somehow compare to a Dodge Durango or Dodge Pickup which have much higher production numbers and are daily drivers.

[tanklizard]

Originally posted by PARAGON:
Tank, you put way too much effort in to that. Not a knock, just they don't deserve your time.

No problem, if I hadn't wrote it down I would have spent the rest of the day thinking about writing it.

[PARAGON]

Originally posted by tanklizard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PARAGON:
Tank, you put way too much effort in to that. Not a knock, just they don't deserve your time.

No problem, if I hadn't wrote it down I would have spent the rest of the day thinking about writing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ShaggyX]

Originally posted by tanklizard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PARAGON:
Tank, you put way too much effort in to that. Not a knock, just they don't deserve your time.

No problem, if I hadn't wrote it down I would have spent the rest of the day thinking about writing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OCD?

[tanklizard]

Originally posted by ShaggyX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tanklizard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PARAGON:
Tank, you put way too much effort in to that. Not a knock, just they don't deserve your time.

No problem, if I hadn't wrote it down I would have spent the rest of the day thinking about writing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OCD? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grrr, now I'll spend all of lunch thinking of a good come back.

[GLBLWARMR]

The only problem I have is the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words." Half the people will see the article headline and the picture of our lovely H2 and say "No surpise there" and continue on with their worthless day talking how they knew the H2 was bad for the environment.

Now we will have more misinformed retards making stupid comments. Granted, "Me love stupid people. They fun to watch when panties in a bunch!!!" They need to change the picture to reflect the #1 vehicle and leave us out of it.

Semper Gumby!!!!

P.S. I got a kick out of this paragraph.

The Ram SRT10's position at the top of the list made us wonder if the ability to create large volumes of tire smoke contributed to the low score received by the performance pickup. While the SRT10 may not haul much cargo, it is as fun to drive as any exotic sports car, and just might be worth the disdainful stares from the hybrid-driving members of your neighborhood block watch.

[Mr. I - Man]

I'm a light green driving a vehicle that's mean.

X2

[KenP]

Well, we do call ours Big Nasty.

[H2Buff]

How can a YukonXL and a Suburban have different scores? The way I understand it they are both produced in the same factory only they use different grills and badging.

[MovinH2]

Originally posted by Fever:
We may be #7 on the Mean scale but were obviuosly the most photogenic. We're #1, we're #1

X2. Why isn't the worse in the pic?

[PARAGON]

Originally posted by KenP:
Well, we do call ours Big Nasty.

Around here we have a sandwich called the Big Nasty. Seems everybody has their own versions now and have renamed but the menus still say Big Nasty -

THE BULLDOG (formerly the Big Nasty)
Tender roast beef, kielbasa, spicy jalapeno pepper cheese, our own bbq sauce with your choice of toppings. 6.99 4.99

"The Big Nasty"
Choice roast beef served open-faced on a toasted 12: wheat hoagie with McAlister's "Come-Back Gravy", topped with grated cheddar and Swiss Cheese and green onions.