5 ms·

How casually people here are ignoring NOx and especially PM2.5. It has no DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). You are emitting more than 200 times the amount of pm

How casually people here are ignoring NOx and especially PM2.5. It has no DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter). You are emitting more than 200 times the amount of pm2.5 than a modern diesel. source:https://www.nanoparticles.ch/archive/2011_May_PR.pdf https://www.nanoparticles.ch/archive/2011_May_PR.pdf https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-20-02-oa-0081 https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-20-02-oa-0081 Also this car has only has 60hp.

throw-qqqqq 9mo ago
> Also this car has only has 60hp. And it weighs less than half of the other two (less than a ton), so less power is needed. I agree though, the C15 is slower than the other two, but less than you’d perhaps think. I own a Citroën 2CV. It has some of the same qualities: super robust, incredibly off-roady, simple mechanically, but I take my “regular car” (2017) for road trips > 100km… I’ve done numerous long road trips in the 2CV though, before I got the other car. Some longer than 1000km. I agree with the TFA, that many overestimate their needs, but older cars are also less luxurious - obviously! The post is a hot take, slightly tongue-in-cheek, isn’t it? :)
seabrookmx 9mo ago
It's also unsafe. He's comparing it to a modern Ranger, not the Ranger of the same year as the C15 (which was much smaller and got better fuel economy), and he completely ignores the fact that the Citroen wasn't sold in North America. He seems to imply there would be no appetite for one here but I disagree. In western Canada I see imported Kei trucks everywhere and these fill a similar niche!
- Fischgericht 9mo ago
  Safety is relative. Ranger crashes into C15: Ranger wins, C15 passengers dead. Ranger crashes into human: Ranger wins, human dead. C15 crashes into C15: Tossup. C15 crashes into human: C15 wins, but human is less dead. The whole concept of car upsizing all the time is about that: If you crash into another moving object, you want to be the winner. Understood. Buy a tank.
  - seabrookmx 9mo ago
    My point is that a modern vehicle of the same size is much safer. The Ranger changed size categories but let's take a Tacoma from 2005 and 2025: you're much better off in the new one with it's better crash structure, airbags, etc.
    - kergonath 9mo ago
      > My point is that a modern vehicle of the same size is much safer. The point is that there are not really any equivalent vehicle of the same size. We've just somehow accepted that we needed 3 times as much machine to carry the same amount of human. The other point is that this amount of machine is absolutely not required to do serious work (TM), as most people who bought pick-up tanks like to argue. The C15 is European, but you can make the exact same point with Japanese small trucks, which are also a reasonable solution.
  - fastball 9mo ago
    You can crash into things that aren't other vehicles and don't have people with them, at which point the logic of your trolley problem flies out the window.
aziaziazi 9mo ago
That’s fair if you only account for usage emission. The compared tanks weight 2/3x as much (more ressources to extract, manufacture, transport…) and are made of intricate polymers, composites, wires & electronics… event the metal alloys are very technical (saving them to weight even more) and can’t be recycled into newer car. Old cars are mainly… steel.
Fischgericht 9mo ago
Mine had the HDi engine with DPF and 70hp. Citroën were the first to make DPF standard. Also, I would like to kindly remind you of the concept of "time". This was 25 year ago. The alternatives would have been worse. These days a C15 would be electric. Obviously the OP is tounge-in-cheek, so keep it lightly. But it does have merit: If you wish to measure your environmental footprint, you must look at the total lifetime of car, most importantly the manufacturing part. There is a difference between 900 KG of parts for a C15 vs 1,900 - 2400 KG for a Ford Ranger. These days most PM come from braking. Stopping 2000 KG will obviously cause more emissions from the brakes than stopping 1000 KG. All in all, the point really is: The ratio between weight/size of the car itself and what is inside (people and/or server racks) has gotten completely out of hand. No, you do not need a 2,000 KG tank to move your 50-100 KG of flesh around. It's insanity, no matter if your care about the planet or not.

throw-qqqqq 9mo ago

> Also this car has only has 60hp. And it weighs less than half of the other two (less than a ton), so less power is needed. I agree though, the C15 is slower than the other two, but less than you’d perhaps think. I own a Citroën 2CV. It has some of the same qualities: super robust, incredibly off-roady, simple mechanically, but I take my “regular car” (2017) for road trips > 100km… I’ve done numerous long road trips in the 2CV though, before I got the other car. Some longer than 1000km. I agree with the TFA, that many overestimate their needs, but older cars are also less luxurious - obviously! The post is a hot take, slightly tongue-in-cheek, isn’t it? :)

seabrookmx 9mo ago

It's also unsafe. He's comparing it to a modern Ranger, not the Ranger of the same year as the C15 (which was much smaller and got better fuel economy), and he completely ignores the fact that the Citroen wasn't sold in North America. He seems to imply there would be no appetite for one here but I disagree. In western Canada I see imported Kei trucks everywhere and these fill a similar niche!

Fischgericht 9mo ago
Safety is relative. Ranger crashes into C15: Ranger wins, C15 passengers dead. Ranger crashes into human: Ranger wins, human dead. C15 crashes into C15: Tossup. C15 crashes into human: C15 wins, but human is less dead. The whole concept of car upsizing all the time is about that: If you crash into another moving object, you want to be the winner. Understood. Buy a tank.
- seabrookmx 9mo ago
  My point is that a modern vehicle of the same size is much safer. The Ranger changed size categories but let's take a Tacoma from 2005 and 2025: you're much better off in the new one with it's better crash structure, airbags, etc.
  - kergonath 9mo ago
    > My point is that a modern vehicle of the same size is much safer. The point is that there are not really any equivalent vehicle of the same size. We've just somehow accepted that we needed 3 times as much machine to carry the same amount of human. The other point is that this amount of machine is absolutely not required to do serious work (TM), as most people who bought pick-up tanks like to argue. The C15 is European, but you can make the exact same point with Japanese small trucks, which are also a reasonable solution.
- fastball 9mo ago
  You can crash into things that aren't other vehicles and don't have people with them, at which point the logic of your trolley problem flies out the window.

aziaziazi 9mo ago

That’s fair if you only account for usage emission. The compared tanks weight 2/3x as much (more ressources to extract, manufacture, transport…) and are made of intricate polymers, composites, wires & electronics… event the metal alloys are very technical (saving them to weight even more) and can’t be recycled into newer car. Old cars are mainly… steel.

Fischgericht 9mo ago

Mine had the HDi engine with DPF and 70hp. Citroën were the first to make DPF standard. Also, I would like to kindly remind you of the concept of "time". This was 25 year ago. The alternatives would have been worse. These days a C15 would be electric. Obviously the OP is tounge-in-cheek, so keep it lightly. But it does have merit: If you wish to measure your environmental footprint, you must look at the total lifetime of car, most importantly the manufacturing part. There is a difference between 900 KG of parts for a C15 vs 1,900 - 2400 KG for a Ford Ranger. These days most PM come from braking. Stopping 2000 KG will obviously cause more emissions from the brakes than stopping 1000 KG. All in all, the point really is: The ratio between weight/size of the car itself and what is inside (people and/or server racks) has gotten completely out of hand. No, you do not need a 2,000 KG tank to move your 50-100 KG of flesh around. It's insanity, no matter if your care about the planet or not.