#901
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Conditions for Thinking
On 5/23/2011 12:45 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
T+m Sherm/n wrote: A. Muzi wrote: T m Sherm n _ wrote: And notice how most of the scientific and industrial advancements came from places where it was cool enough to think properly. Osaka? Houston? What ever came out of Houston in the pre-air-conditioning era? Petroleum products. Evil smells. Chalo Better than Tom DeLay. Of course, maybe DeLay is an evil smelling petroleum product. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Ads |
#902
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Diesel Luxury
On 5/23/2011 11:46 AM, Ron Ruff wrote:
On May 22, 2:46�pm, Frank wrote: He was very pleased with the fuel mileage, but never with the level of luxury, etc. in the vehicle. �His complaint was always "Why do they assume that everyone who buys an efficient car wants it to be cheap?" He said he'd gladly pay more to get better soundproofing, more comfortable seats, better climate control, etc. Then buy a Mercedes diesel... Or even a current VW diesel, which are much more luxurious than the Golf I (aka Rabbit) of 3-3½ decades ago. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#903
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Diesel Luxury
T∅m Sherm⊄n wrote:
Ron Ruff wrote: Then buy a Mercedes diesel... Or even a current VW diesel, which are much more luxurious than the Golf I (aka Rabbit) of 3-3½ decades ago. I am told that 21st century VWs are some of the most quickly self- composting cars ever made. I understand that one of their most common failures is locking the owner out of the gas tank when the fuel door release mechanism breaks. At some point, it no longer matters how good and efficient an engine is, if it is wrapped in a vehicle without a will to live. Chalo |
#904
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Diesel Luxury
On May 23, 9:46Â*pm, Chalo wrote:
T∅m Sherm⊄n wrote: Ron Ruff wrote: Then buy a Mercedes diesel... Or even a current VW diesel, which are much more luxurious than the Golf I (aka Rabbit) of 3-3½ decades ago. I am told that 21st century VWs are some of the most quickly self- composting cars ever made. Â*I understand that one of their most common failures is locking the owner out of the gas tank when the fuel door release mechanism breaks. At some point, it no longer matters how good and efficient an engine is, if it is wrapped in a vehicle without a will to live. I have the same impression about VWs. But I must admit, I buy cars so seldom that I don't consider myself an expert. (One of our cars is a 2004 bought new, the other is a 1990 bought used, on which I've averaged just 4000 miles per year for something like 15 years.) But car reliability is one topic I think Consumer Reports handles well. Rather than relying on their "experts" or their sometimes shaky testing, they poll thousands of subscribers about their actual experience with cars they own, in detail. Picking cars by reference to their poll results, shown in their annual car issue, has worked well for us. - Frank Krygowski |
#905
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rolling Excrement
On 5/23/2011 8:46 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
T∅m Sherm⊄n wrote: Ron Ruff wrote: Then buy a Mercedes diesel... Or even a current VW diesel, which are much more luxurious than the Golf I (aka Rabbit) of 3-3½ decades ago. I am told that 21st century VWs are some of the most quickly self- composting cars ever made. I understand that one of their most common failures is locking the owner out of the gas tank when the fuel door release mechanism breaks. The 1975 Plymouth Gran Fury we inherited had rear doors that only opened from the outside and front doors that only opened from the inside at less than 5 years of age. There were also air leaks around the door handles since the car was new. In addition, the first engine (360 c.i. V8) failed at 10K miles, and the second engine at 90K miles (rod bearing), despite normal oil change intervals and never being run hard. The front seat on the driver's side was shot by this time [1]. The body panels rusted through so much that the trunk (with a lumpy floor that limited usefulness) was no longer usable after 6 years. And the engine would often stall after running just enough to get the car out into the intersection. And of course, the car was ugly, space inefficient, slow [2], poor handling, and a fuel hog [3] from the day it came off the assembly line. Wonder how all the Mopar heads feel about Chrysler only being able to survive by being twice put on corporate welfare at taxpayer expense, then the carcass being sold to FIAT? At some point, it no longer matters how good and efficient an engine is, if it is wrapped in a vehicle without a will to live. I still get a creepy feeling when I see the odd surviving 1970's "Detroit" full size sedan or coupe - like seeing a crocodile close up. [1] By comparison, the driver's seat on my 1994 Civic looked almost new after 11 years and 160K miles. [2] A miserable 155 hp @ 3600 rpm [4] and a middling 275 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm from a 5.9L engine. [3] 10 to 13 MPG in real world use. [4] A contemporary Honda CVCC engine scaled up to similar displacement would have put out more than 250 hp. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#906
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Diesel Luxury
On May 23, 9:46Â*pm, Chalo wrote:
T∅m Sherm⊄n wrote: Ron Ruff wrote: Then buy a Mercedes diesel... Or even a current VW diesel, which are much more luxurious than the Golf I (aka Rabbit) of 3-3½ decades ago. I am told that 21st century VWs are some of the most quickly self- composting cars ever made. Â*I understand that one of their most common failures is locking the owner out of the gas tank when the fuel door release mechanism breaks. At some point, it no longer matters how good and efficient an engine is, if it is wrapped in a vehicle without a will to live. Chalo I can't speak for the newest ones, but I think that the mid-80s through early 2000s VWs are possibly some of the most highly underrated (and durable) cars of those eras. They got a horrible rap while I've had nothing but excellent luck with many examples of each. And yes, I considered my '02 GTI to be very luxurious, they did a great job "upscaling" the A4 models. I considered that car to be more of a small GT than a "hot hatch" like my '84 (A1) GTI that I'd had before. Both great cars but very different personalities, really sharing only the engine block and the nameplate. nate |
#907
|
|||
|
|||
OT - False Flag
On May 22, 6:53*pm, john B. wrote:
The difference in traffic flow between all SUV's and all small cars would not be a dramatic as you think. The next time you stop at a light behind a line of cars watch their brake lights. The major slow down isn't the length of each car it is the delay time from the time one car starts to move until the next moves. Narrower cars... need narrower lanes. And small simple cars are less likely to be driven long distances. Volkswagen was the first maker to try a "small car" and while they did very well selling in the U.S. they certainly didn't take over the market and even today, with high energy costs, the BIG cars still sell very, very well. Which leads one to the idea that there is reasons other then efficient use of energy for buying a certain car. Like keeping up with the Jones, for example. I gave all the completely sensible reasons earlier for why we have huge vehicles. If we want small and efficient cars, and a safe place to use them, then it must be legislated. Check out this website for many examples of small and light cars from back in the day: http://microcarmuseum.com/tour/fiat-multipla.html Don't get too overheated. Of course I'm aware of energy grids and peak load leveling and the other schemes the power companies use to supply electricity as required, but tripling loads in a short time (I think 10 years was the suggested time in the article) it would be extremely costly and probably in L.A. impossible to accomplish city wide within a reasonable time. All of his premises were wrong. Cars with 300mpge will not crash the grid. It is easy to say "New Technology" but usually quite another thing to actually implement it. There really isn't any technical obstacle. It's political. |
#908
|
|||
|
|||
OT - False Flag
On Tue, 24 May 2011 08:10:12 -0700 (PDT), Ron Ruff
wrote: On May 22, 6:53*pm, john B. wrote: The difference in traffic flow between all SUV's and all small cars would not be a dramatic as you think. The next time you stop at a light behind a line of cars watch their brake lights. The major slow down isn't the length of each car it is the delay time from the time one car starts to move until the next moves. Narrower cars... need narrower lanes. And small simple cars are less likely to be driven long distances. Small simple cars... does this imply that people will purchase a second car for the trips? Narrow cars... Are you saying that roads will be too narrow to allow trucks to navigate them or will be have swarms of mini-trucks also? Volkswagen was the first maker to try a "small car" and while they did very well selling in the U.S. they certainly didn't take over the market and even today, with high energy costs, the BIG cars still sell very, very well. Which leads one to the idea that there is reasons other then efficient use of energy for buying a certain car. Like keeping up with the Jones, for example. I gave all the completely sensible reasons earlier for why we have huge vehicles. If we want small and efficient cars, and a safe place to use them, then it must be legislated. Check out this website for many examples of small and light cars from back in the day: http://microcarmuseum.com/tour/fiat-multipla.html I was alive and kicking back in the day. The Fiat 600 and the Mini were immensely popular while all the others were relegated to the "I wouldn't want one of those" category. Strange that whoever made the list neglected to nominate the VW Bug which was the really popular tiny car. Don't get too overheated. Of course I'm aware of energy grids and peak load leveling and the other schemes the power companies use to supply electricity as required, but tripling loads in a short time (I think 10 years was the suggested time in the article) it would be extremely costly and probably in L.A. impossible to accomplish city wide within a reasonable time. All of his premises were wrong. Cars with 300mpge will not crash the grid. Oh? Do these vehicles run on moon beams and never need to be recharged. I once worked for a bit in the power generating plant on a medium sized air base. You could see the load ramp up when people woke up in the morning and turned the lights on. It is easy to say "New Technology" but usually quite another thing to actually implement it. There really isn't any technical obstacle. It's political. As I pointed out above. Small cars have been sold in the U.S. both the Fiat 600 and the Volkswagen Bug come to mind and while they both sold in quantities they never "took over the market". Your political solution,"Vote for ME and I will ensure that large evil cars will be banished from the road" is not a campaign promise that would tend to get a bloke elected in America. |
#909
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Fair and Living Wages
AMuzi wrote:
Lead battery terminals oxidize the same as they ever did so if you want the thing to work at minus 30C an annual September cleaning is indicated. Interestingly that seems not to be the case in all parts of the world... -- MfG/Best regards helmut springer panta rhei |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jobst | Phil H | Techniques | 83 | July 13th 11 12:53 AM |
Jobst- we mightl never know | Cicero Venatio | Racing | 8 | February 12th 11 08:23 AM |
When Jobst ... | Steve Freides[_2_] | Techniques | 1 | January 20th 11 09:28 PM |
Jobst | Brad Anders | Racing | 20 | January 19th 11 05:31 PM |
Jobst | TriGuru55x11 | Rides | 1 | January 19th 11 01:13 PM |