Turbo Tax Forum
Carlos Beirise
GPT-4-turbo will be better for generating code and doing basic text transfomations with decent reliability.
GPT-4-0314 can have a chance of solving certain problems that gpt-4-turbo will never be able to tackle.
Asking for a friend: what should he fear about a 2016 Cayenne Turbo with 60k on the clock? Would be a daily driver for someone who wants to be seen with this as his daily driver, LOL. City and highway, no trailer towing, no mudding.
Stack of maintenance records should show about 12 oil changes and not four. If it shows four, walk away. It was owned by someone who wanted to be seen driving a Cayenne Turbo and didn't want to actually keep it up. It's a maintenance barometer.
My dad traded his 2016 in for a new one at 70,000 when the fuel pump started going out. I think that was going to be over $2000. Couldn't do it yourself because it had to be calibrated by the dealer. Is that needed on other cars or is Porsche just making it needlessly complicated for service revenue?
For all the hype about German quality and engineering, it is really no better built than any Japanese, Korean, or American vehicle. The plastics creak. The switches break. The nav system is a joke. Parts fail and as a bonus, when they do you get to pay stupid prices for them because German. I currently have an intermittent CEL for a contaminated connection in the DEF system. Book time to fix it is apparently a ridiculous number of hours because the entire back of the car has to come off so you can pull the DEF assembly to get to the offending connection. $800 alternators and $700 HVAC blower motors will probably stop me from buying another German car for the rest of my life. I have now owned 2 and they don't live up to their hype.
1st Gen Cayenne turbos are anything but "bulletproof". Besides the coolant pipe issue they've got issues with bore scoring, bad turbo seals and a variety of other expensive issues. Mine was burning 1 quart of oil every 500 miles and that was not uncommon at all! Hence me getting rid of it.
On the 2nd Gen's the transfer case is a known weak point and will break. Various other things like variocam bolts, etc. These can take fairly deep pockets to maintain and if he's coming from a Japanese car background I'd caution him to pass on it. If he's used to German car ownership and has the stomach to handle 4 digit service bills with some regularity then go for it.
Apart from this, make sure it uses regular ol' iron brakes. They could have the hellaciously expensive tungsten-carbide brakes (which look like ordinary brakes so be careful!), or worse yet one of history's greatest economic red flags, carbon brakes on a street car.
2014 and up require a scan tool to reset the inspection service intervals. Mine is wanting a 100k service now. No way to reset it without spending money on VCDS or OBD11. I'm debating if turning off the warning is worth the money.
Multiply the negative issues from Toyman and Docwyte and divide the positives by 2. Good looks for an SUV, comfortable ride and lots of power. Expensive maintenance and it will need maintenance. Overcomplicated and a few battles won by accountant vs the engineers.
I've really only had one issue with my TDI Touareg. Actuation of the EGR cooler. They replaced the whole thing twice. It's basically an intercooler for the EGR. Even though it's still under warranty I've decided to let my 'little light shine' rather than go back to the dealership a third time. I still love it and plan to get an aftermarket tune in the near future.
To provide present and potential members of the TurboFord community with a reliable, up-to-date reference source for 1980s 2.3 turbocharged Fords, as well as any additional information that might be relevant to turbocharged Ford owners.
As far as I can tell the OSM wiki page on junction=roundabout ( :junction%3Droundabout ) does not mention channelized roundabouts, a.k.a turbo roundabouts ( _roundabouts ), which are growing like mushrooms in some parts of Europe.
Lanes in such a roundabout are spiraling out. It is normally required for a driver to chose the correct entering lane based on the desired exit. Usually it is not possible to make a full circle, i.e. to exit on the same road as entered - but there may be exception for some of the approaching roads.
You need to distinguish the original Dutch type with physical separation between lanes (so they are often drawn as separate lines), and eg German ones with road markings only. I have seen a few of the former.
I tested the result for this roundabout using the three routers on osm.org. The routing works fine IMO and actually tells exactly on which lane to enter the roundabout, and how you are guided over the junction.
I imagine a navigation app or device could base a proper lane detail view on this information.
It would be very nice to help users get into the correct lane at these roundabouts. We American drivers are still learning how to use roundabouts, even single-lane roundabouts, and could use all the help we can get.
This one appears to have been implemented for purposes other than can be achieved by the design.
The design increases throughput on the major road, by banning manoeuvers on the roundabout; at the same time increasing safety. For motorised traffic, that is. If you mix in level cycle crossings and level pedestrian crossings, you lose much of the advantage.
In my wider vicinity, there are some large multi-lane roundabouts where it is possible and permitted (and sometimes necessary) to change lanes. The lanes start from the central island and lead outwards, although it sometimes happens that an exit of the roundabout does not get its own lane if the exit is not important enough.
Yes, this is not a multi-lane roundabout. I only used it as an example of a physically separate right lane, which can occur in combination with a multi-lane roundabout, such as here in Dublin (still in the U.S.):
In that case I woud not map these lanes as separate ways.
If changing lanes on the roundabout is possible and even necessary, that defeats the very idea of the turbo roundabout: choose before you enter, do not change lanes on the roundabout, and you are led to the right exit without any manoeuvre.
Dutch mappers are rapidly converting roundabouts from two-lane roundabouts with one ring mapped as change:lanes=nono to detailed turbo roundabout mapping with separate lanes on the roundabout.
We resolved some minor issues regarding names, highway level of bypass lanes, explicit give_way nodes or not, and turn restrictions on the roundabout which are implicated by the geometric layout. No major issues; rendering and routing look fine.
Another Dutch rule: jurisdiction is that traffic on the roundabout has to stick to the arrows on the chosen presort lane. This is the basis for some movement restrictions on the roundabout that are not physically impossible. After all, the physical separation has gaps, or nobody could enter the roundabout at all.
Sometimes this rule leads to this absurd situation: two vehicles, moving exactly in the same way exacly the same lane, approaching a choice: exit now or continue to the next exit; then one is allowed to continue, while the other MUST exit, just because it came from a different approach. We did not tag conditional turn restrictions based on the presort lane you came from!
The Lance is an amazing airplane. I've owned three Senecas over thirty years and the Seneca shares the same fuselage with the Lance and Saratoga. It's the largest cabin you can get without pressurizing the airplane. As for turbo vs non-turbo: I've owned 8 airplanes. Four have been turbocharged. Three Seneca's and my latest, a turbo Arrow. I'll take the turbo any day. Climb rate improves as you climb. Cruise improves as you climb. You can get O2 if you want (I have O2 and use it a couple of times each year) but I can go to 12,500 if I need to, like getting over Ohare Airport Class B. I can climb to 20,000' to get over weather if I have to, and I do once in a while. Hot in the summer as in high density altitude? The turbo will handle it. I can think of no downsides to having a turbo that negate all of its positives. For me, turbo every time.
As to turbo vis non turbo maintenance wise.
There are a number of areas where you can get bit on Maintence other then then engine.
I think the over all condition of the plane when you get and how you operate the aircraft will dictate your maintenance costs more than the engine in it.
Cessna mounted the turbo to the airframe and not the engine in the 400 series twins. The only way it works at all is a system of red hot bellows to account for the vibration of the engine vs airframe. Subject to some expensive AD's.... I think it also has given turbo's a bad rap. The Piper system is not complicated like this.
93ddb68554