1 car running for 100 000 hours or 100 cars for 1000 hours...

which would be more economical as far as emissions or is it 6 of 1, half a dozen of the next... ? just wondering and hope someone can answer before it gets closed. didnt wanna put in rtt cos noone would care in there hehehe

someone can help?

assuming that the courier/postman was driving a car

__________________

While your testing your theory out, go and put your mouth around the exhaust pipe and start inhaling.

__________________

...

lolk

well..... thats a somewhat complicated question.

Lets assume each car is the EXACT same car. Do you count in the start up of the car? If so, i would definately think that it would play a heavy roll in adding up numbers of gas used by 100 cars vs. 1 car. Thats one thing in consideration.

__________________

well all same car all city driving [stoppong starting breaking at lights etc.] versus 1 car for 100 000 hours doing same thing

unlimited fuel

Well if the cars are the exact same....the 100 cars are running for the same amount of time as the one car alone. (100 * 1000 = 100,000). Here are some guide lines you need to know:

A) What type of enegry will this car run off of.(Gas, Battery, Solar Energy)
B) If gas what do you know about combustible engines? Does it take more gas/let off more exhaust fums when its being started up?

All in all it should be something dealing with "Startup"..because after its started up should be no difference in Idle Speed. Therefore, the amount of gas consumed after startup will not change.

__________________

theyre the same, trick question I guess.

__________________

well, the more a car runs, the less efficient it will eventually become, because of wear and tear, so i would say that one hundred cars running for a thousand miles each would be more economical.

__________________

+1

The loss in efficiency is going to have a greater effect on the emissions than any change in emissions during startup... remember, we're dealing with thousands of hours here. 100,000 hours = 11.4 years, so running nonstop will have a huge impact on the car.

Absolutely solid point. Good "find." I most definately can agree that there is more involved than purely numbers. Even as it relates to "greenhouse gases" and all that noise. Regardless of ... "maintenance costs."

I guess the next question is.. what is the purpose in asking this question? If there is truly no.. real purpose then why ask?

__________________

but would you want cars that only last 41 days? 41 days = 1000 hours

__________________

Thats not really the question.

Edit: however intresting that fact may be.

__________________

if they are identical and the time driven works out to be the same as far as car/time ratio goes..then its the same. the real question would have to deal with averages of real cars which varies a lot..or else averages within specific types of vehicles like suvs.

also mechanics bring a lot into it..could be the same car but a lot older..the emission controls wouldn't work as well etc.

Which brings up the point (in my mind) whats the point? Why even further question this if this is the response and reprose?

__________________

*chuckles*

haha nice.

__________________

this is what you guys argue about on a saturday night? FUCKIN NERDS

__________________

hahaha.

And I agree with Bluntz. I'd much rather get drunk and masturbate.

__________________

Who says i didn't do that last night? PFFF Fucking amatures. You gotta know how to multi-task ya cunt.

__________________