4 ms·
>> better performance than the government allowed My understanding was that this performance came at the expense of more pollution, which is what the gov is re
by yunohn 6y ago
>> better performance than the government allowed
My understanding was that this performance came at the expense of more pollution, which is what the gov is regulating?
- YinglingLight 6y agoYour flaw is the assumption that all, or even most, customers prefer the non-tangible idea of "reducing pollution" to the tangible experience of greater performance.
- yunohn 6y ago>> non-tangible idea of "reducing pollution" That's exactly the problem with the public's understanding of pollution [1]. If they can't see people dying in front of their eyes, they won't believe it... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f...
- toast0 6y agoDifferent pollution, not necessarily more. Tuning the engine for more fuel efficiency generates more nitrogen oxides (above the legal limit in this case) and less carbon dioxide.
- yunohn 6y agoThat's a fair nitpick, but my reply to the parent comment still stands - that the regulation was about pollution, and not engine performance.
- Vrondi 6y agoRight, and many customers would prefer the performance, thank you very much.
- kube-system 6y agoYeah, but most of us -- even enthusiasts -- aren't cutting off their cats to do so.