dont mean to cause any arguments, BUT...
Richard Parker
and polluting engines?? I mean in the UK a 1.6 is considered adequate in
most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
economical!! And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
ever go offroad or need to????
Geoff Miller
"Richard Parker" <richard...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously
> large, thirsty and polluting engines??
Because they *can* be. American gasoline is cheaper, and
American cities and towns, being newer than their European
counterparts by and large, have wider streets. Why make
cars smaller and more efficient when there's no demand to
do so? That would be like people setting their homes'
thermostats to uncomfortably low temperatures in order to
save money on their utility bills, even though they have
no problem paying their _current_ utility bills.
> And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do
> u ever go offroad or need to????
It's all image, and you can't argue rationally with a desire
for image, because such things are irrational by their very
nature.
Geoff
--
"The world is full of idiots. That's what's so frustrating about
anything. The voice of intelligence and reason is drowned out by
the thousands of hollering morons." -- nob...@newsfeeds.com
John_Da...@acm.org
> Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
> and polluting engines??
Because if you can't (or won't) accelerate quickly in situations such as
entering a freeway or when a light turns green, everyone else will cut in
front of you and make you look like an idiot.
Also, air conditioning and automatic transmissions both put extra loads
on an engine. I'm sure AC is needed a lot less in Britain, and I hear
that automatic transmissions are very rare there. (Can you tell me why?
All those roundabouts have got to be a big enough pain without having to
downshift for each one.)
> And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
> ever go offroad or need to????
The people who buy 4x4s and SUVs realize that in an accident, bigger,
heavier cars are safer cars. But US federal fuel-economy standards keep
reducing the size of what may be sold as a "car". SUVs work around this
stupid law.
John David Galt
Christian Huebner
>
> Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
> most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
> of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
> escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
> ever go offroad or need to????
I own a 2000 Chevrolet Camaro SS Convertible
with a LS1 5.7l-V8. Its doubtless the best
car I ever owned, with plenty of torque and
a very reasonable mileage. Cross-country I
use about 9l/100km, in town its 13l/100km.
IMO thats a very reasonable mileage especially
considering that the car to compare it with
would be a Porsche 996.
Its simply an (untrue) cliche that the big
V8s are big gas guzzlers. I lately drove an
Opel Astra for a few days and of course flogged
it mercilessly because the puny 1.6 doesnt offer
any power at all. I used more than 10l/100km
for mixed town/country/autobahn.
The only car with less than 3l I would consider
is the Lotus Elise.
Big engines make relaxed drivers, little engines
make nervous drivers. I dont like being a nervous
driver, so i drive a car with a big engine.
Oh, the main reason why some V8 cars still guzzle gas
is that they mostly are SUVs or have slushboxes (aka
automatic transmission) which make for horrible mileage.
Your computer has too many question marks. Dont try
to post them on newsboards or send them by mail. Print
them out instead and take them to your dealer for a
refund.
Chris
Stephen Dailey
tim...@netcom.com.DELETE-THIS.INVALID says...
> John_Da...@acm.org writes:
> |Richard Parker wrote:
> |
> |> Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
> |> and polluting engines??
> |
> |entering a freeway or when a light turns green, everyone else will cut in
> |front of you and make you look like an idiot.
>
> (as indicated by the badges on the back) but still drive them slowly on
> freeway on-ramps, causing traffic jams as they merge on slowly and cause
> others to make emergency maneuvers to avoid crashing into them.
Even a vehicle with a small engine (and low power/weight ratio) can
accelerate safely if equipped and driven properly. My commuter vehicle
is an '88 Chevy S-10 pickup with the 2.5L engine (I looked it up: 92 HP)
and a 5-speed. I have to use the skinny pedal a lot, but I can safely
merge. I should point out that I avoid freeways if I'm carrying any sort
of a load, say more than a few bags of groceries. :-) I don't even want
to think about how slow that truck would be with an automatic
transmission.
Like you, I find it annoying to be behind someone ahead of me on an on-
ramp in a car with a powerful engine, and they can't decide whether they
actually want to go or not. Grrrrrrr......
===
Steve
Woodinville, Washington USA
smda...@seanet.com
9 Jun 2000, 1901 PDT
Bob Nixon
<richard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
>and polluting engines?? I mean in the UK a 1.6 is considered adequate in
>most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
>of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
>escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
>economical!! And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
>ever go offroad or need to????
>
>
Because we're spoiled rotten colonial brats.
I personally think that smaller is better but american consumers are
basically sheep and love their "like a rock", heartbeat of America"
and other TV ads geared for morons. Buying SUV's, when more
aerodynamic and economical mini-vans or station wagons would be
smarter, is a good example of American stupidity. Also, people buy
full sized FWD pickups and SUV's strictly as status symbols, plus the
false sense of power/security it gives them on the road.
1984 MB 300TD (25-30 MPG)
1992 Toyota Paseo (25-43MPG)
1978 Suzuki GS-1000E (45-50MPG)
2000 Suzuki SV-650 (55-60MPG)
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Timothy J. Lee
|Richard Parker wrote:
|
|> Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
|> and polluting engines??
|
|entering a freeway or when a light turns green, everyone else will cut in
|front of you and make you look like an idiot.
The ridiculous thing is that some drivers have optional V6 or V8 engines
(as indicated by the badges on the back) but still drive them slowly on
freeway on-ramps, causing traffic jams as they merge on slowly and cause
others to make emergency maneuvers to avoid crashing into them.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Dennis Andrew Blazewicz
: Richard Parker wrote:
: >
: > Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
: > most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
: > of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
: > escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
: > economical!! And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
: > ever go offroad or need to????
: use about 9l/100km, in town its 13l/100km.
[snip]
: Oh, the main reason why some V8 cars still guzzle gas
: is that they mostly are SUVs or have slushboxes (aka
: automatic transmission) which make for horrible mileage.
According to MSN CarPoint the 5.7L 320hp V8 with 4-spd automatic overdrive
gets 17mpg city / 25mpg highway.
Your 5 speed, by my calculations gets 18mpg city / 26mpg highway. I would
not be so fast to blame the auto tranny for poor fuel economy.
Dennis
--
'68 Nova SS - 327 - Torque, it's not just for breakfast anymore
'92 Beretta GT - 3.1L - 3T40 - 15x7 Crosslace - 225/50R15 - K&N
'73 Super Beetle - 1600 cc - Stock and Luvvin' It - Fweeeeeeeem
Our Homepage: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umporte0
Bob Nixon
<christia...@sun.com> wrote:
[...]
>Big engines make relaxed drivers, little engines
>make nervous drivers. I dont like being a nervous
>driver, so i drive a car with a big engine.
This is knuckle dragger horse shit mentality. That POS ss ain't nearly
as quick as you would like to think it is and 17MPG city mileage is a
friggin' gas hog no matter how you slice it.
00 SV-650 (0-60 3.2 sec & 60MPG)
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
nmoberg
wrote:
Also, people buy
>full sized FWD pickups and SUV's strictly as status symbols, plus the
>false sense of power/security it gives them on the road.
>
>
>1984 MB 300TD (25-30 MPG)
>1992 Toyota Paseo (25-43MPG)
>1978 Suzuki GS-1000E (45-50MPG)
>2000 Suzuki SV-650 (55-60MPG)
> Bob Nixon
>http://members.home.net/bigrex/
And other people list all their possessions due to some deep seated
insecurity... <G>
dizzy
>Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
>and polluting engines?? I mean in the UK a 1.6 is considered adequate in
>most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
>of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
>escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
>economical!! And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
>ever go offroad or need to????
There is a "bigger is better" mentality in the US. This is something
I've personally never understood.
However, I DO like lots of HORSEPOWER. 8)
Matthew T. Russotto
Thomas W <thomasw...@trade-exchange.co.nz.invalid> wrote:
}Hi Matthew,
}
}[Gas prices are brought down by a foreign policy which supports
}war, dictatorships and mass death :]
}> Actually, it would have been cheaper to let Saddam have
}> Kuwait -- he'd still be selling oil, then.
}
}My point is general. US foreign policy is *heavily* geared to
}ensure supplies of petroleum.
If US foreign policy wasn't geared to protect US interests, I'd be
even more concerned about the US government.
}This has been a strategic consideration behind the backing of
}numerous dictatorships, armed revolutions, Arab dictatorships,
}and such niceties as Pinochet's death squads.
I hardly think Pinochet had much to do with oil. I think you'll find
anti-communism has had more to do with the ugly parts of US foreign
policy than oil does. I don't see what difference it makes, though --
oil is vital whether I pay $1.00/gallon or $10.00/gallon. Oil price
increases won't make the US government benign.
}> And Kuwait is no friend when it comes to oil prices; they were
}> the major agitators against production increases.
}
}More of a friend than they'd otherwise be. Those guys are in
}America's pocket. The US still has combat forces deployed all
}around the Middle East.
The al-Sabah family, unfortunately, is perfectly willing to bite the hand that
saved its collective royal ass. I suppose if I were a Kuwaiti citizen
I'd be proud of their chutzpah, but I'm not.
}[Mountain biker on energy foods :]
}> The petroleum is probably cheaper than the energy drink and
}> powerbars, at least on a mile-per-mile basis.
}
}Food is a renewable resource. Petrol isn't.
At the current level of consumption, food depends on energy. Energy
depends on nonrenewable resources. So this is a difference which
makes no difference.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
KC
<8husvd$51v$5...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>:
>Car makers make what people want to buy. Plain and simple. People have
>been led to believe that large cars are safer and status symbols. So
>thats what they want.
>---------------
> Alex __O
Ingenious marketing sold under the guise of "performance" and/or "safety"
is what convinces people to buy, not a genuine need. It's known as
'manufacturing desire'.
Thomas W
[American and British engineering and assembly seem distinctly
poor :]
> I think this has changed very much within the last few years.
One would hope the build quality is a bit better.
The motor industry has been globally re-organizing over the past
5 years; maybe they took the opportunity to put the cars
together properly.
Still dislike American style suspension. Sofa on wheels is not
what a motor vehicle is meant to be.
[Porsche offers no improvement in performance over the Camaro? ]
> I have driven some older japanese tin and after 5 years they
> also rattle.
Some do, plenty don't. Japanese build quality used to
consistently exceed American; which is why they were trying to
copy all those Japanese work practices, quality circles, etc.
The Porsche engineering is more expensive, but will probably
last twice as long as your Camaro, as well as other benefits. So
the cost/ benefit disparity is not as large as you say.
> Around here you see lots of early-80s US made cars (and most
> of the US made cars back then _were_ junk),
The US has a fine tradition of junk cars!
> If someone calls me 'punk' and 'poser' and other things like
> that I have no reason to take his comments neutrally.
I would categorize your car as more of a 'look fast' than 'drive
quickly' car. Big & loud.
My driving is very quick, without necessarily being fast; most
of it is around the city. I don't need a large engine to drive
rings round 'most anybody else, and choose a non-conspicuous car
to avoid offending people & police.
[World model :]
> I dont have a world model. I happen to prefer big engines to
> puny little ones,
You do have a world model, and it tells you specifically WHY you
have this preference. Is a 2-liter turbocharged motor puny?
> affordable cars to overly expensive ones
> and fun-to-drive cars to boring ones.
These make some sense, in my world model.
> Bob basically said I was a 'born-again German consumer',
> who 'thinks he has the bay area by the hairs' and my choice of
> car was stupid.
I've seen & met most of what exists in this world. I'm generally
skeptical of conspcuous muscle cars and people who drive them.
Maybe you're different?
[Ostrich, head in sand :]
> Either I have missed some postings (our newsfeed is not always
> accurate) or I think I have answered most postings.
Actually, you have answered most. Credit to you.
> If Bob's comments were not personal I don't know what is. I was
> raised to display proper manners and though it may be stupid I
> expect a minimum of manners from other posters. Bob doesnt seem
> to have any.
If someone wears mis-matched socks, or tie-dye hippy rags...
Telling them they are badly dressed is both rude & absolutely
correct.
The truth can hurt, and people need to know it. The objective
though, should be to impart information rather than offend.
> Driving an 80s Mercedes Diesel is going to pollute our
> environment, not help it.
True.
> Also if he wants to make a difference he should be polite
> instead of insulting. The way he writes he wont get anywhere
> in saving the world.
Different standards. The world is rough-and-tumble, I don't find
his blunt approach offensive.
> And if he really wants to do the world a favor he should
> attach the SUV captains instead of normal drivers.
I don't like SUVs either.
[Your world-model is not robust in the slightest :]
> What is my 'world model', as you perceive it (assuming I have
> one) and what's so wrong with it?
Your world model is what supports your choice of car. Not just
numerical performance, but *your* personal traits associated
with car choice.
These personal traits must be modelled either as positive, or as
not applicable to yourself...
Your statement that you don't have a world model, implies that
you instead operate mentally with smaller specific models.
Naturally there are boundaries between these models where they
mis-match or don't fit well; they are not cohesive.
You have been defensive since Bob has found & targetted the gaps
where your mental models of your car, and yourself as a driver,
do not fit together.
Cheers,
Thomas
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Thomas W
> You need to re calibrate your biases to something closer to
> actual..
So American build quality has improved? Hmmm, Japanese cars seem
to deliver a better package anyway.
> What was the American car you had an experience with? Not many
> "rattlers" left.
Do they still drive like sofas on wheels, then?
> Surely you must mean an Eastern Block car.. But that's what's
> great about being insular, you can be very wrong and nobody
> will care..
Porsche have higher engineering standards than just about any
other vehicle manufacturer on the planet. Are you saying an
American car will last longer?
I see 1984 year Porsches, still in good condition.
> Now there is genius at work...
You are correct, my Internet access is at work.
> And what correct points might they be?
Big, heavy, ugly muscle car... and personal/ psychological
inferences from same.
> More genius at full boil..
Are you repeating yourself?
Please don't provide such easy targets for my sarcasm.
[Bob hero of the environment :]
> Please explain what Bob is doing that is so heroic. 2 high
> pollution motorcycles, a diesel that spews black carbon
> particles and a Toyota?
OK, so driving off into the sunset in a cloud of black soot
doesn't win the Greenpeace medal. I don't mind motorcycles or
most Toyotas.
[Evolve out of the gene-pool before then? ]
> More genius..
I *was* a bit rude there.
> No he doesn't, he wants everybody let him do the thinking for
> them.. Big difference.
Some people are better at thinking than others. That's fine, so
long as you know your limits and can openly consider other
people's points & ideas.
[Just keep your mind open. If you can't refute something, it may
be correct :]
> And this from a person who's most profound statement is "rattle
> rattle"
Didn't want to confuse you.
NMoberg, you are wanting to be careful with what you say to me.
nmoberg
> Besides, I like tech stuff and your Duc
>with it's exotic desmo valve gear has real charm & character but the
>oversized push rod Gen III (SBC) is a quintessential icon of American
>mediocrity.
Here is where Bob always comes off like an idiot (isn't that what true
"knuckle dragger" is..?
What is "oversized" about a Gen III V8? It's much smaller than a 4.6
DOHC Ford engine. It produces excellent power and has good economy,
with very low emissions. It is relatively simple and bullet proof. It
has no trouble meeting advertised HP (Bob has blindly ignored the fact
that Ford had to shut down production of the 4.6 due to the engine not
making advertised 320 HP) For Bob it all gets down the size of the
bore in the block and it doesn't have a complex cam/valve
arrangement.. He just can't get past it..
But some of us understand there will always be a place for a motor
that is cheap, reliable, efficient, small, and makes good power.. It
actually may be the best of engineering..
Come to think of it Bob is the real knuckle dragger!
nmoberg
>[...]
>
>>
>>
>> Please explain what Bob is doing that is so heroic. 2 high pollution
>> motorcycles, a diesel that spews black carbon particles and a Toyota?
>>
>
>And you still haven't replied as to what sort of ULTRA CLEAN vehicle you
>drive.
>
>
>
Well they are all substantially cleaner than your list.. And, since
unlike you, I don't feel the need to tell people what they should
drive it's not necessary for me to list them..
Thomas W
> If US foreign policy wasn't geared to protect US interests, I'd
> be even more concerned about the US government.
Geared for short-term economic benefit, rather than long-term
economic or social benefits, international stability, etc.
> I hardly think Pinochet had much to do with oil. I think
> you'll find anti-communism has had more to do with the ugly
> parts of US foreign policy than oil does.
Both have been very significant. Though Reagan and the Clinton/
Gore hypocrisy have been more forward-looking.
> I don't see what difference it makes, though -- oil is vital
> whether I pay $1.00/gallon or $10.00/gallon. Oil price
> increases won't make the US government benign.
Would oil be quite so vital if Americans all drove cars of
either 1.6 or 2.0 litres? These packages are quite capable to
deliver reasonable performance and safety.
> The al-Sabah family, unfortunately, is perfectly willing to
> bite the hand that saved its collective royal ass.
Maybe if the US had actually finished the job and got rid of
Saddam?
While we're on the subject, Milosevic is still there as well.
Maybe he can be bought out with the latest model of American
muscle car... :-)
[Food is a renewable resource. Petrol isn't :]
> At the current level of consumption, food depends on energy.
> Energy depends on nonrenewable resources.
Some significant proportion of food energy, is photo-synthesized
from the sun. Non-renewable inputs can increase harvest but are
not required.
Victor Smith
<thomasw...@trade-exchange.co.nz.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Christian,
>
>[How well do Camaros sell in Germany? ]
>> Not very well, as many Germans think like Bob Nixon (i.e. Geman
>> cars are excellent, all others, but especially US cars are
>> junk).
>
>I like some Japanese engineering, not much experience with
>German... But American and British engineering and assembly seem
>distinctly poor.
>
>Rattle, rattle, rattle.
>
Just quit shaking your head.
Presto! No more rattle!
>> Not really. In Germany if you want bang you need to have lotsa
>> bucks. Cars like the BMW M5 or the Porsche 996 are available
>> and I happen to like the Porsche, but I dont really feel like
>> paying $70000 for a car that offers no improvement in
>> performance over the Camaro.
>
>I'd guess there are significant advantages in quality & life
>span of the vehicle. Rattle rattle rattle is the sound of a car
>falling slowly to pieces.
>
Not really. If not caused by a nearly empty head, persistent rattles
are usually caused by the car owner's laziness and/or incompetency,
which renders him unable to track down the rattle and stop it.
Which brings us full circle back to an near empty head.
Unless, of course, he happens to have one of the millions of
American cars which have coke bottles placed in a frame member by those
nasty auto-worker union swine.
>> I don't listen to Bob Seger, not to Bob Nixon either.
>
>Bob Nixon is moderately correct.
>
Oh yeah? How so? Saying "moderately correct" is saying phttt.
>You can't refute what he says, you aren't willing to take it
>neutrally and think about it later, you aren't willing to accept
>it, so you take the *weak* option of trying to ignore him.
>
So one guy says another's car is a POS, giving no reason whatsoever,
and you think this calls for some "neutral" "refutation".
BWAHAHAHAHAHA.
Hey, this is usenet, buddy, not some bloody tea-party for would-be
intellectuals.
>> He is entitled to think the Camaro is uncool all he wants. He
>> is not entitled to tell me what car to buy.
>
>Yes, he is. He raises some absolutely correct points, and if
>your 'world model' can't answer those you need to revise it.
>
"World model?"
Christian responds to a msg which speaks of "crazy 5 litre U.S. gas
guzzlers' by saying his 5.7 LS1 Camaro gets decent milage.
Nixon responds by calling Christian's Camaro a POS.
And now here you are talking about "world model".
What are you shooting up?
>Ostrich, head in sand? Ever heard of that metaphor? It doesn't
>work.
>
WTF? I don't see Alice around, but there sure is hell at least one Mad
Hatter here.
>> And he is most certainly not entitled to do so in an uncivil
>> and insulting manner.
>
>Slight rough-and-tumble, wasn't really personal and he has
>backed off. But you're still complaining that he's Just Not Fair.
>
You're right on here. Best to just say bugger off, and forget it.
>You own a Real Man TM car, what gives?
>
Hey, I bet you think Christian is festooned with tattoos, wears
sleeveless shirts to expose his heavily muscled arms, has grease
dripping from his hair, and a cigarette constantly dangles from his
sneering lips.
Is that what you saw when you wrote "Real Man TM car?".
It's a damn shame when a man's simple mention of a car brings
out so many loonies. But hey, what's new?
>[Just punching buttons to get folks riled up :]
>> Yeah, thats just about how I perceive him.
>
>He's doing you a favour. His efforts may make the difference of
>a survivable environment for your descendants.
>
>Unless you were planning to evolve out of the gene-pool before
>then?
>
Oooooh. Sounds something like a flame. A little off kilter somehow,
but the trite essential elements are there.
>> Want to come over and beat me up just because I don't share
>> your opinion? I pity you.
>
>He just wants you to think.
>
About what? DOHC Fords with bad valve stem seals?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>> Dont worry, I have a skin about as thick as a rhinoceros'.
>
>No, you don't. Your world-model is not robust in the slightest.
>It's a house of cards, but you can learn IF YOU WANT TO.
>
Careful now. The sublime depth of your puerile comments may hypnotize
any unsuspecting morons reading this.
>Just keep your mind open. If you can't refute something, it may
>be correct. And watch out for Scientologists and religious
>freaks.
>
Yeah, and be especially wary of newsgroup doublespeak.
--Vic
Bob Nixon
Christian Huebner wrote:
>
> I like riding the Ducati _very_ much, but I can't see any reason what it
> has to do with the Camaro or whether I am supposed to own or drive it.
>
The Camaro is an impractical vehicle, considering cars are mainly for
transportation. Goes back to the 17MPG city mileage thing. OTOH, motorcycles
are like a pair of ski's or a set of golf clubs to most but the very poor.
>
> > BTW,
> > the Monster/Dark's 900 & 750 are mainly street fighters (stop light
> > racers with maximum profile appeal) , much like your Camaro.
>
> Hence they are bad? I
>
Didn't say the Duc or Camaro was bad (actually I said the Camaro was a
bargain) but for some reason you want to defend the Camaro and I OTOH think
they're highly overrated macho muscle car-retro's or an anachronism, if you
will.
BTW, since I've revealed my age, how old are you, Chris?
> > Both the
> > 750 & 900 monsters/Dark are old tech (SOHC two valve, bevel cam drive
> > low compression) variants. The 996, 750 SS employ much of the Ducatti
> > super bike technology and much faster but harder to live with, day to
> > day.
> > Gotta' love them Duc's -:)
>
> The pendant to the 996 is the 748, not the 750SS. The Monster
> is quite similiar to the 750SS/900SS except for the fact that
> it has no fairing.
>
> Both the SS and the monster have Desmodue engines 2 Valves/cylinder
> while the 748 and 996 have Desmoquattro engines (4 valves/cylinder).
>
>
Yes, like I said, the monsters and dark use the old (still good design)
design but as you stated, the HP is way down. BTW, check out the March 99
Motor Cyclist for a shoot off between the SV-650 and both the 750 & 900
Monsters. Might surprise you. BTW, since the 70's, Ducs have all had
demodromic valve actuation but in the 90's they went to four valves /
cylinder, conventional cam chain & liquid cooling. The desmo thing (valves
both open & close by the cam, with a weak valve spring for starting) makes
the duc's unique but may well be overkill in this day and age. Plus,
maintenance is expensive and often or 8K miles vs 20K for bullet proof shim
under bucket. Now-a-days some of the Japanese fours have hydraulic valve lash
control. Honda comes to mind.
> The power output of the 748 and 996 is much higher than on the
> respective 750SS/900SS and the Monsters. Both the 750 Monster and
> the 750SS have a bit more than 60 hp, though the SS has fuel injection
> while the Monster doesnt. The 900 Monster has a bit less than 80hp
> and so does the 900SS.
>
> What I can't understand either ist that you approve of the Duc
> (though it is a stoplight racer in your opinion), but not of the
> Camaro (which is the same in your opinion).
>
>
One's a toy and makes no bones about that fact and the other is a car, who's
primary purpose is transportation. Besides, I like tech stuff and your Duc
with it's exotic desmo valve gear has real charm & character but the
oversized push rod Gen III (SBC) is a quintessential icon of American
mediocrity. As you can probably guess now, this is the very reason of my
presence in this thread and the term "knuckle-dragger" for Camaro owners who
either feel it's the best thing since sliced bread or just don't know any
better. I'll take it that you do know better and choose this car for some odd
reason beyond my comprehension. But please feel free to explain the poetry
and passion of your Chevy experience.
> I have never heard anyone else call the Ducati Monster 'stoplight
> racer', as it has less peak power than the japanese bikes. On the
> other hand it is supposed to be better than many sportbikes in
> the twisties, but of course you know better.
>
Nothing wrong with it Chris. It's just a cheaper more practical 'naked' Duc.
The term Street Fighter refers to both an all around (non racing) bike AND in
some circles it infers a Squid stop light racer but so do the ultra fast
600cc bikes but they run some of the best race track times of any stockers.
> As you demand ultimate accuracy it seems that you shouldnt have
> posted this one.
>
>
Come on Chris, I thought you said you were Thick Skinned. Chill -:)
>
Bob Nixon
Christian Huebner
> Hi Christian,
>
> [American and British engineering and assembly seem distinctly
> poor :]
> > I think this has changed very much within the last few years.
>
> One would hope the build quality is a bit better.
>
> The motor industry has been globally re-organizing over the past
> 5 years; maybe they took the opportunity to put the cars
> together properly.
>
> Still dislike American style suspension. Sofa on wheels is not
> what a motor vehicle is meant to be.
I have no idea what US cars you are driving. The Camaro SS is
most certainly the opposite of a sofa on wheels. The Intrepid is
not bad either and even the Town Car (with air suspension)
handles much better and sways much less than you would expect.
> The Porsche engineering is more expensive, but will probably
> last twice as long as your Camaro, as well as other benefits. So
> the cost/ benefit disparity is not as large as you say.
I dont really think so. I expect to drive the Camaro for a long time.
> > If someone calls me 'punk' and 'poser' and other things like
> > that I have no reason to take his comments neutrally.
>
> I would categorize your car as more of a 'look fast' than 'drive
> quickly' car. Big & loud.
What would you call a 'drive quickly' car then?
> My driving is very quick, without necessarily being fast; most
> of it is around the city. I don't need a large engine to drive
> rings round 'most anybody else, and choose a non-conspicuous car
> to avoid offending people & police.
I despise the little whining four bangers in japanese cars. If I
want something that sounds like a vacuum cleaner Ill buy one.
> [World model :]
> > I dont have a world model. I happen to prefer big engines to
> > puny little ones,
>
> You do have a world model, and it tells you specifically WHY you
> have this preference. Is a 2-liter turbocharged motor puny?
Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
rev it to get useable power. I personally prefer displacement
and if necessary superchargers, but buy whatever works for you.
So would you please specify my world model so I find out what
it is like?
> > Bob basically said I was a 'born-again German consumer',
> > who 'thinks he has the bay area by the hairs' and my choice of
> > car was stupid.
>
> I've seen & met most of what exists in this world. I'm generally
> skeptical of conspcuous muscle cars and people who drive them.
You may be as sceptical of me as you want to.
> Maybe you're different?
I have no idea about what I should be different from. From what
you have written so far I doubt we would get along very well,
mostly because you need to tell me what to think and why.
> > If Bob's comments were not personal I don't know what is. I was
> > raised to display proper manners and though it may be stupid I
> > expect a minimum of manners from other posters. Bob doesnt seem
> > to have any.
>
> If someone wears mis-matched socks, or tie-dye hippy rags...
> Telling them they are badly dressed is both rude & absolutely
> correct.
If someone happens to like a different car and you tell them they
are morons because it doesnt fit _your_ opinion of what a car
should be like you are absolutely incorrect and rude to boot.
> The truth can hurt, and people need to know it. The objective
> though, should be to impart information rather than offend.
So you are the keeper of absolute truth about cars? ROFL.
> > Driving an 80s Mercedes Diesel is going to pollute our
> > environment, not help it.
>
> True.
>
> > Also if he wants to make a difference he should be polite
> > instead of insulting. The way he writes he wont get anywhere
> > in saving the world.
>
> Different standards. The world is rough-and-tumble, I don't find
> his blunt approach offensive.
It doesnt get him anywhere, though, except with people who happen
to share his views and want the opposition fleeced. *shrug*
> [Your world-model is not robust in the slightest :]
> > What is my 'world model', as you perceive it (assuming I have
> > one) and what's so wrong with it?
>
> Your world model is what supports your choice of car. Not just
> numerical performance, but *your* personal traits associated
> with car choice.
You seriously think my thinking and perception of the world is
dominated by my _car_? ROFLMAO
> These personal traits must be modelled either as positive, or as
> not applicable to yourself...
On the contrary. I dont try to tell people how to think, especially
not the way you and Nixon do. So you try to fit me into your world
model whereas I just do what I want, enjoy it and tell about it. If
someone wants to buy a Camaro based on what I wrote about
the car, fine. If they dont, also fine. I dont force my opinion on
anyone and I refuse to let you think for me.
> Your statement that you don't have a world model, implies that
> you instead operate mentally with smaller specific models.
> Naturally there are boundaries between these models where they
> mis-match or don't fit well; they are not cohesive.
I would love to see an example for this paragraph :-)
> You have been defensive since Bob has found & targetted the gaps
> where your mental models of your car, and yourself as a driver,
> do not fit together.
Bob did not target anything specific. He raved about Ducati, then
ranted about it as soon as he learned I ride one. He is as uncohesive
as you can be...
Christian
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner wrote:
>
> >
> > I like riding the Ducati _very_ much, but I can't see any reason what it
> > has to do with the Camaro or whether I am supposed to own or drive it.
> >
>
> The Camaro is an impractical vehicle, considering cars are mainly for
> transportation. Goes back to the 17MPG city mileage thing. OTOH, motorcycles
> are like a pair of ski's or a set of golf clubs to most but the very poor.
The Camaro suits the purpose I bought it for. It gets decent mileage (20/26).
You don't need to drive it. So whats wrong with it?
OTOH I like my bike very much, but it is not suited to transport even my
weekly groceries home nor can it take a passenger when carpooling.
> > > BTW,
> > > the Monster/Dark's 900 & 750 are mainly street fighters (stop light
> > > racers with maximum profile appeal) , much like your Camaro.
> >
> > Hence they are bad? I
> >
>
> Didn't say the Duc or Camaro was bad (actually I said the Camaro was a
> bargain) but for some reason you want to defend the Camaro and I OTOH think
> they're highly overrated macho muscle car-retro's or an anachronism, if you
> will.
I say it suits me and I seriously doubt you know me well enough to know better.
> BTW, since I've revealed my age, how old are you, Chris?
I am 33, no tattoos, no cigarette, no bottle of booze in a brown paper bag -
did I forget any important cliches? Oh yes, I have a MSc ...
> > > Both the
> > > 750 & 900 monsters/Dark are old tech (SOHC two valve, bevel cam drive
> > > low compression) variants. The 996, 750 SS employ much of the Ducatti
> > > super bike technology and much faster but harder to live with, day to
> > > day.
> > > Gotta' love them Duc's -:)
> >
> > The pendant to the 996 is the 748, not the 750SS. The Monster
> > is quite similiar to the 750SS/900SS except for the fact that
> > it has no fairing.
> >
> > Both the SS and the monster have Desmodue engines 2 Valves/cylinder
> > while the 748 and 996 have Desmoquattro engines (4 valves/cylinder).
> >
> >
>
> Yes, like I said, the monsters and dark use the old (still good design)
> design but as you stated, the HP is way down. BTW, check out the March 99
> Motor Cyclist for a shoot off between the SV-650 and both the 750 & 900
> Monsters. Might surprise you. BTW, since the 70's, Ducs have all had
> demodromic valve actuation but in the 90's they went to four valves /
> cylinder, conventional cam chain & liquid cooling. The desmo thing (valves
> both open & close by the cam, with a weak valve spring for starting) makes
> the duc's unique but may well be overkill in this day and age. Plus,
> maintenance is expensive and often or 8K miles vs 20K for bullet proof shim
> under bucket. Now-a-days some of the Japanese fours have hydraulic valve lash
> control. Honda comes to mind.
One, why should I care whether the Suzy is better or worse than the Monster?
Two, you don't need to explain desmo to me.
Three, the Duc is fun and whether it's overkill or not is not yours to decide.
Four, I know that the Ducati needs a bit more attention than a crotch rocket.
Five, I dont like Honda. Why should I?
> > The power output of the 748 and 996 is much higher than on the
> > respective 750SS/900SS and the Monsters. Both the 750 Monster and
> > the 750SS have a bit more than 60 hp, though the SS has fuel injection
> > while the Monster doesnt. The 900 Monster has a bit less than 80hp
> > and so does the 900SS.
> >
> > What I can't understand either ist that you approve of the Duc
> > (though it is a stoplight racer in your opinion), but not of the
> > Camaro (which is the same in your opinion).
>
> One's a toy and makes no bones about that fact and the other is a car, who's
> primary purpose is transportation.
The primary purpose of my car is fun. I habitually dont buy boring vehicles.
> Besides, I like tech stuff and your Duc
> with it's exotic desmo valve gear has real charm & character but the
> oversized push rod Gen III (SBC) is a quintessential icon of American
> mediocrity.
The Camaro may be lots of things but it's sure not mediocre. If I had said
I drive a Lexus you wouldnt have said a word, because that's really mediocre.
> As you can probably guess now, this is the very reason of my
> presence in this thread and the term "knuckle-dragger" for Camaro owners who
> either feel it's the best thing since sliced bread or just don't know any
> better.
Your presence in this thread IMO serves the purpose of being able to be
rude. Also I dont know what a knuckle dragger is.
> I'll take it that you do know better and choose this car for some odd
> reason beyond my comprehension.
You got it the wrong way round. I have enough experience to know what
I'm doing and for exactly that reason I bought the Camaro.
> But please feel free to explain the poetry and passion of your Chevy
> experience.
No poetry involved, sorry. Its just fun.
> > I have never heard anyone else call the Ducati Monster 'stoplight
> > racer', as it has less peak power than the japanese bikes. On the
> > other hand it is supposed to be better than many sportbikes in
> > the twisties, but of course you know better.
> >
>
> Nothing wrong with it Chris. It's just a cheaper more practical 'naked' Duc.
> The term Street Fighter refers to both an all around (non racing) bike AND in
> some circles it infers a Squid stop light racer but so do the ultra fast
> 600cc bikes but they run some of the best race track times of any stockers.
I know what a street fighter is. But the question was not whether the Monster
is one but whether its a stoplight racer. Well, you can race it from stoplights
but thats no fun. I prefer the twisties and the Monster is perfect for them.
> > As you demand ultimate accuracy it seems that you shouldnt have
> > posted this one.
>
> Come on Chris, I thought you said you were Thick Skinned. Chill -:)
Being exposed sucks, doesnt it?
Chris
Izzy!
>
> The Camaro is an impractical vehicle, considering cars are mainly for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh-oh... assault on my worldview!
>Goes back to the 17MPG city mileage thing. OTOH, motorcycles
> are like a pair of ski's or a set of golf clubs to most but the very
>poor.
More like a jetski, I think.
Actually, a lot like a jetski, considering many bike riders you
see are rich teenagers who ride them the way they ride their jetskis -
jumping around in traffic, acting like idiots, etc.
Well, many of the sportbikers anyway. I've yet to hear of a 17
year old lusting after a Gold Wing, or an Intruder...
Izzy!
>
> Would oil be quite so vital if Americans all drove cars of
> either 1.6 or 2.0 litres? These packages are quite capable to
> deliver reasonable performance and safety.
Probably. It's not the size of the engine that matters, it's how
much HP you need. HP required equals fuel requirement. I could
probably put a 6- or 7-liter engine in a small aerodynamic car and
get the same MPG as a tiny little buzzbomb engine. If you only need
30hp to maintain speed, that's all the engine is going to be making!
And the BSFC numbers can be better either way, big pushrod or little
DOHC, dependent on factors unrelated to displacement.
And, a 2.0l, moreso the 1.6l, can *not* prodive adequate performance.
Most Americans want to just stuff it from a stop and take off. If the
engine has to get "up on the cam" first, it's a SLUG. That's why the
torque-meister pushrod 3.8 Buick is still a popular engine, as is
the Roots-supercharged version of same.
Izzy!
>
> So American build quality has improved? Hmmm, Japanese cars seem
> to deliver a better package anyway.
The build quality and build design and build materials have all
improved VASTLY. Japanese cars... they're about the same, although
the design and parts are getting cheaper, probably due to MITI
cutting off subsidies.
> > What was the American car you had an experience with? Not many
> > "rattlers" left.
>
> Do they still drive like sofas on wheels, then?
You mean like a Mercedes, or a Lexus(Toyo)/Infiniti(Nissan)?
> Porsche have higher engineering standards than just about any
> other vehicle manufacturer on the planet. Are you saying an
> American car will last longer?
>
> I see 1984 year Porsches, still in good condition.
It's similar to the maintenance deal. Some guy just spent a serious
chunk of change on the world's fastest SuperBeetle, or *course* he's
going to take good care of it. That's why you see things like mid 70's
911s and 914s that have undergone their second or third restoration.
Guy buys a '83 Oldsmobile Slugbox--- ehh, fuck it, I'll just get another
one in four years. Oil change? Every 50,000 miles right?
I did see a 928 (complete, FC, needs work) for $750. I was afraid
to call... those things give me nightmares just *looking* at the
mechanicals. If you ever see under the hood of one, go on and look
for things like where the master cylinder is (UNDER the fender) or
visualise how hard it would be to R&R the timing chain, which has to
be re-adjusted every 2 years if you drive less than (30k?) X miles
per year.
Michael Stone
> Richard Parker wrote:
>
> > Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
> > and polluting engines??
>
> Because if you can't (or won't) accelerate quickly in situations such as
> entering a freeway or when a light turns green, everyone else will cut in
> front of you and make you look like an idiot.
And will probably run you over in the process. Rightly so. Lead, Follow, or get
the hell out of the way.
> Also, air conditioning and automatic transmissions both put extra loads
> on an engine. I'm sure AC is needed a lot less in Britain, and I hear
> that automatic transmissions are very rare there. (Can you tell me why?
> All those roundabouts have got to be a big enough pain without having to
> downshift for each one.)
I have both. What would be the point of driving without A/C, heat, and Auto. Get
a bike. They are very fuel efficient. (hell in the snow though)
> > And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
> > ever go offroad or need to????
>
> The people who buy 4x4s and SUVs realize that in an accident, bigger,
> heavier cars are safer cars. But US federal fuel-economy standards keep
> reducing the size of what may be sold as a "car". SUVs work around this
> stupid law.
And, a 4x4 is unparalleled in the fact that you can drive in 30" high snow
drifts. SUV's are 4x4's for soccer mom's that need a 4x4, but can't afford the
"truck" image. It wouldn't look right for "Soccer Mom" to pull up in her 4x4
Chevy Silverado. But it's perfectly fine in a Dodge Durango. You'd have to be a
Soccer Mom to understand... it's a "we play soccer cause real football is too
rough." kinda thing.
>
>
> John David Galt
--
Michael A. Stone Jr.
------------------------------------------
The Definitive Guide to Speeding Tickets
http://home.att.net/~ma.stone/SPEEDING
------------------------------------------
"This is an age in which one cannot find common sense without a search warrant."
- George F. Will
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." - Confucius
Michael Stone
CAMARO! Porsche is an overpriced wannabe.
I drive an AUTOMATIC (Manual, gross. I need that hand free to work the radio!) 2
wheel drive Dodge Ram full sized Quad cab, with hard top cover. It's a V8. And I
still get 16 MPG.... at 80ish MPH....
Christian Huebner wrote:
> Richard Parker wrote:
> >
> > Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
> > and polluting engines?? I mean in the UK a 1.6 is considered adequate in
> > most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
> > of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
> > escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
> > economical!! And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
> > ever go offroad or need to????
>
> I own a 2000 Chevrolet Camaro SS Convertible
> with a LS1 5.7l-V8. Its doubtless the best
> car I ever owned, with plenty of torque and
> a very reasonable mileage. Cross-country I
> use about 9l/100km, in town its 13l/100km.
> IMO thats a very reasonable mileage especially
> considering that the car to compare it with
> would be a Porsche 996.
>
> Its simply an (untrue) cliche that the big
> V8s are big gas guzzlers. I lately drove an
> Opel Astra for a few days and of course flogged
> it mercilessly because the puny 1.6 doesnt offer
> any power at all. I used more than 10l/100km
> for mixed town/country/autobahn.
>
> The only car with less than 3l I would consider
> is the Lotus Elise.
>
> Big engines make relaxed drivers, little engines
> make nervous drivers. I dont like being a nervous
> driver, so i drive a car with a big engine.
>
> Oh, the main reason why some V8 cars still guzzle gas
> is that they mostly are SUVs or have slushboxes (aka
> automatic transmission) which make for horrible mileage.
>
> Your computer has too many question marks. Dont try
> to post them on newsboards or send them by mail. Print
> them out instead and take them to your dealer for a
> refund.
>
> Chris
--
Michael Stone
> Judging from those remarks you have already "proven" to yourself that
> there is no threat of global warming from oil use (wrong), pollution
> isn't getting worse these days (wrong) and greed is somehow a virtue
> (wrong - unless one is an asshole).
Of course, you realize that the methane produced by cow "emissions" is
more polluting than vehicle emissions. What are "we" doing to reduce cow
emissions? The global warming from cow "emissions" is also higher.
Again... what is done about this threat?
Greed is not a virtue. It is the founding principal on which the free
enterprise system is based. We saw how well Communism and its "share"
philosophy worked. "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." Ambition
to seek improvement is the only way to improve.
> People who do things for no other reason than they "can" are simply
> selfish in the final analysis. When others point this out to them,
> they start throwing out terms like "liberal" and "un-American" which
> makes me wonder what they really stand for.
Selfish is in the eye of the beholder. Is it better to "give" a free
living to other to support "social equality"? We saw it fail elsewhere.
It is hard to NOT "throw out" terms like liberal and un-American.
"Greed", the desire to better one's self, it the basis of American
society. Freedom and reward. Hard work to obtain great power and wealth.
If you sit on you ass, you should not be rewarded for it.
It is the people that "can" that DO. Those that "can not" want those that
can to "share". Too bad. No welfare for the lazy.
> C.E.T.
Izzy!
> > I would categorize your car as more of a 'look fast' than 'drive
> > quickly' car. Big & loud.
>
> What would you call a 'drive quickly' car then?
I have to agree with him. Camaros are too bulky to be really fun
to drive quickly. You have to be psychic to know where the corners
of the car are, you feel the car's mass all the time when trying
to fling it, and the lack of interior room is horrible. You'd have
to be 5'4 to get into a decent driving position.
>
> Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
> rev it to get useable power. I personally prefer displacement
> and if necessary superchargers, but buy whatever works for you.
You simply must try one of the modern turbo'd cars. Boost lag is
nonexistent. On the 1.8t you can't even feel or hear the turbo
kicking in like you used to. Pity. And, the cars they're in
are too big and floaty.
Christian Huebner
> Thomas W <thomasw...@trade-exchange.co.nz.invalid> writes:
> >
> > Would oil be quite so vital if Americans all drove cars of
> > either 1.6 or 2.0 litres? These packages are quite capable to
> > deliver reasonable performance and safety.
>
> Probably. It's not the size of the engine that matters, it's how
> much HP you need. HP required equals fuel requirement. I could
> probably put a 6- or 7-liter engine in a small aerodynamic car and
> get the same MPG as a tiny little buzzbomb engine. If you only need
> 30hp to maintain speed, that's all the engine is going to be making!
> And the BSFC numbers can be better either way, big pushrod or little
> DOHC, dependent on factors unrelated to displacement.
I recently drove an 1.6l Opel Astra with 100hp. Got about 22mpg mix out
of it, because I had to drive it to its limit to get at least reasonable
performance
out of it. I get better mileage with the Camaro. And I hated the whiny
noise
of that ugly little bugger, too.
Christian
Michael Stone
> In article <8hrmad$pbu$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, richard...@btinternet.com
> says...
> >
> >Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large, thirsty
> >and polluting engines?? I mean in the UK a 1.6 is considered adequate in
> >most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
> >of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
> >escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
> >economical!! And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
> >ever go offroad or need to????
>
> Car makers make what people want to buy. Plain and simple. People have been
> led to believe that large cars are safer and status symbols. So thats what
> they want.
Besides... stand next to an Escort and next to a Vette.... which is a better
looking car. PLEASE!!!
Escort... = no cash... geek. Vette = loaded... second childhood.
Not a big comparision.
Rosie O' Donnell is Rosie O' Donnell. If you like that look, well, more power to
you...
But face it, Shania Twain is much easier on the eyes. If you had to pick... the
choice would not be all that hard.
That's human nature. Sexy sells.
Michael Stone
burners" for nothing. The Vette will be much cleaner. Especially with the
California emissions standards.
Bob Nixon wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:46:50 -0500, nmoberg <nmo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, everything I own pollutes far less than everything you have
> >listed..
> >
> I doubt very much if your vette or was it an F body pollutes less than
> the little 1.5 liter Toyota and the diesel pollutes less NOX but more
> on particulates. The motorcycles are indeed greater polluters for
> their respective engine size but a 650cc vs a 5.7LITER car, I
> seriously doubt that. Maybe we could start another thread on this one
> -:)
>
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Michael Stone
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:28:05 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...But don't fool yourself into thinking your safe at speeds over 100MPH when
> >likely, if things go wrong, you'll be just as dead as the guy on the
> >sportbike. And at least he'll only kill himself -:)
>
> I wonder if any of the so-called "safe speeders" are reading these
> words of wisdom? Nixon is not a crook.
>
> C.E.T.
I've never heard anyone claim speeds over 100 MPH are safe. Why is it that you
only refer to 100+ MPH as "speeders", but yet also like to refer to "speeding" as
unsafe? Is 75 MPH on a highway with a median speed of 75 MPH unsafe? What if that
highway has a speed limit of 55 MPH? Which speed is then "safe" as deemed by you?
If you claim anything other than 75 MPH, why is your opinion more "valid" then the
NHTSA, which supports their claim that 75 MPH would be the safest speed with hard
data?
Will you ever respond?
Michael Stone
Bob Nixon wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:06:41 -0700, Christian Huebner
> <christia...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> >Bob Nixon wrote:
> >>
> >> Finally, as a German, I find your lack of affinity for highly focused
> >> and affordable sporting road machines, that have ALWAYS been widely
> >> available to you and your countrymen very confusing?
> >
> >I have driven BMW (dead boring) and Mercedes (also boring)
> >and Audi (the most boring of the three).
> >Porsche is an excellent car, but the price is ridiculous
> >and though I could afford it I just don't want to.
>
> Boring huh. What a BMW 3 series, big Merc sedan or Audi 2.8 ;)
>
> >That you find this confusing somewhat explains your postings
> >though.
>
> Chris, you STILL haven't comprehended my inference. Now, what do you
> suppose I was talking about that you (well maybe not you ) Germans
> seem to follow and love? Sporting road machines infers sport
> motorcycles from BMW, Ducatti, the Japanese big four, Lavarda,
> Moto-Guzzi and Triumph. These machines eclipse your Camaro's
> performance in nearly every way you can imagine, except comfort. Don't
> believe it? Drive that Camaro up 84 (Palo Alto) past I280, on up the
> hill to the HWY 35 junction (Alice's Restaurant). When you see the
> BOYS (not harleys or tourers) heading south or west to the coast, see
> if you can keep up.
>
> Now do you get it. Otherwise, I'm not bothering with any more of your
> follow ups.
>
> >What would you recommend as a sportscar from your excellent
> >experience? A Mercedes-Benz 300TD? What serious sportscars
> >have you driven before, if any?
>
> Actually, I drove a Z28 SS about a month ago. Also, a Mustang Cobra, a
> couple of weeks later. But these really aren't sports cars, now are
> they? To be a sports cars, back seats and some REAL (not just HP)
> performance would be needed. Of US mfgs. maybe only the Viper or
> Corvette would qualify. And in stock form either would be looking at
> the tail lights of a stock GSX-R750 or other SB way off in the
> distance. BTW, Camaro's and Mustangs both have old fashion solid rear
> axles and other nasty compromises.
>
> >And what makes your hate of
> >Camaros so great you find it necessary to flame someone who
> >explained in a reasonable and thoroughly unagressive posting
> >why he likes Camaros? Oh, and what is that mysterious
> >highly focused and affordable sporting machine you are talking
> >about?
>
> Yeah but you were just too thick to figure it out. BTW, I really don't
> HATE Camaro's. I just like to mess with you born again muscle car
> posers -:) Actually, the Z28 is one of the best bargains going but
> somewhat of a KID (kinder) car. Now go back and read this WHOLE
> thread, all the responses.
>
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Michael Stone
> I'd hate to sound like I'm contradicting you, but I guess that's how
> it's going to sound.
>
> 1. Seems to me that the present global warming "evidence" is the same
> sort of game we were given when "we are going into the next iceage" was
> going on 25-30 years ago.
And, like I mentioned... there is more evidence to support that cow
emissions are worse than vehicle emissions.
> 2. Polution INCREASING???? Don't think so? Actually decreasing. Check
> with the info the EPA has collected. They (the EPA) are even lowering
> limits JUST because they CAN. (Oh and getting sued for it too)
That's politics. (but some people get sold on the "party" line)
> 3. And based on your reasoning about doing something BECAUSE you CAN
> makes you a selfish person I guess you are selfish because you posted
> here "BECAUSE you CAN".
(again...the "party" line)
> BTW The term for what you did in #3 is hypocrite. I presume we won't be
> hearing any more from you on this subject.
Never do. Carl can't reply to intellegent, logical debate. It would
require thought and hard evidence.... he doesn't do that.
> Thank you and have a nice day.
>
> "C.E.T." wrote:
> >
> > On 9 Jun 2000 21:24:23 GMT, geo...@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> >
> > >"Richard Parker" <richard...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously
> > >> large, thirsty and polluting engines??
> > >
> > >Because they *can* be. American gasoline is cheaper, and
> > >American cities and towns, being newer than their European
> > >counterparts by and large, have wider streets. Why make
> > >cars smaller and more efficient when there's no demand to
> > >do so? That would be like people setting their homes'
> > >thermostats to uncomfortably low temperatures in order to
> > >save money on their utility bills, even though they have
> > >no problem paying their _current_ utility bills.
> >
> > Judging from those remarks you have already "proven" to yourself that
> > there is no threat of global warming from oil use (wrong), pollution
> > isn't getting worse these days (wrong) and greed is somehow a virtue
> > (wrong - unless one is an asshole).
> >
> > People who do things for no other reason than they "can" are simply
> > selfish in the final analysis. When others point this out to them,
> > they start throwing out terms like "liberal" and "un-American" which
> > makes me wonder what they really stand for.
> >
> > C.E.T.
Michael Stone
> Bob,
>
> > 1. Seems to me that the present global warming "evidence" is
> > the same sort of game we were given when "we are going into
> > the next iceage" was going on 25-30 years ago.
>
> Global warming is not a topic of scientific controversy, it is
> established fact in the *general* scientific community.
The problem being... what is the CAUSE... that is not an established fact...
> There is an ongoing stream of *measured* results of specific
> warming, local climate changes, anomalous weather...
El Nino, La Nina... etc... and there is that pesky "we haven't quite really
reorded wehter patterns all that long" problem.
Keeping in mind that weather records are only about 100 years old.
> Maybe there's going to be an iceage after that. This however is
> not established, accepted, or even a widely considered
> hypothesis.
>
> > 3. And based on your reasoning about doing something BECAUSE
> > you CAN makes you a selfish person I guess you are selfish
>
> Selfish is smart. Ensuring your X-great-grand children have a
> survivable environment is smart. Ensuring your community &
> society survive is smart.
>
> All of these benefit *your* genes.
Survival of the fittest. Adapt or perish.
> > Have a nice day.
>
> Certainly, have a nice 5000 years. Or is what you do going to
> fuck your future just 50 years down the track?
Who cares. I couldn't care less about YOUR future. Just mine.
If any of this were more than mear speculation and spook speak, it might
actually be credible. But, I don't put too much faith in a science that can't
even accurately predict whether it will rain or not. Pigs and birds are still
more accurate than science where the enviroment are concerned.
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Michael Stone
the pinnacle of German engineering....
the car that would allow Germany to rule the world....
the envy of auto manufacturers everywhere...
the car that would change car design everywhere....
the model of all things to follow...
the most popular European export since the Beatles....
the sporty, yet affordable....
Volkwagon Beetle....
Farfugnuken......
Christian Huebner wrote:
> Bob Nixon wrote:
> >
> > Finally, as a German, I find your lack of affinity for highly focused
> > and affordable sporting road machines, that have ALWAYS been widely
> > available to you and your countrymen very confusing?
>
> I have driven BMW (dead boring) and Mercedes (also boring)
> and Audi (the most boring of the three).
> Porsche is an excellent car, but the price is ridiculous
> and though I could afford it I just don't want to.
>
> That you find this confusing somewhat explains your postings
> though.
>
> What would you recommend as a sportscar from your excellent
> experience? A Mercedes-Benz 300TD? What serious sportscars
> have you driven before, if any? And what makes your hate of
> Camaros so great you find it necessary to flame someone who
> explained in a reasonable and thoroughly unagressive posting
> why he likes Camaros? Oh, and what is that mysterious
> highly focused and affordable sporting machine you are talking
> about?
>
> Christian
Matthew T. Russotto
Thomas W <thomasw...@trade-exchange.co.nz.invalid> wrote:
}[Matthew T. Russotto wrote]
}
}> I don't see what difference it makes, though -- oil is vital
}> whether I pay $1.00/gallon or $10.00/gallon. Oil price
}> increases won't make the US government benign.
}
}either 1.6 or 2.0 litres? These packages are quite capable to
}deliver reasonable performance and safety.
Yes, oil would be just as vital. You're talking less than a factor of 2
difference in consumption in the passenger fleet, with absolutely no
difference in the commercial fleet, in air transport, in heating oil,
etc. Besides, smaller engines don't necessarily mean lower gas
consumption; my own 1.8l uses more gas than some 2.1l cars.
}> The al-Sabah family, unfortunately, is perfectly willing to
}> bite the hand that saved its collective royal ass.
}
}Maybe if the US had actually finished the job and got rid of
}Saddam?
And installed who in his place? The US couldn't install a puppet
government in Iraq, not without alienating the entire Middle East
(perhaps excepting Israel), and starting a new round of increased
terrorism. And of course Europe wouldn't like it either.
}Some significant proportion of food energy, is photo-synthesized
}from the sun. Non-renewable inputs can increase harvest but are
}not required.
Non-renewable inputs are absolutely required; we can't go back to
animal and human labor alone without mass starvation.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
KC
<39460873...@worldnet.att.net>:
>Besides... stand next to an Escort and next to a Vette.... which is a
>better looking car. PLEASE!!!
But which car are you likelier to find cute chicks driving?
>Escort... = no cash... geek. Vette = loaded... second childhood.
>Not a big comparision.
Second childhood = mid-life crisis = denial. Escorts have done well for
cash-strapped college students.
>Rosie O' Donnell is Rosie O' Donnell. If you like that look, well, more
>power to you...
>But face it, Shania Twain is much easier on the eyes. If you had to
>pick... the choice would not be all that hard.
How Rosie ended up a mother (*shudder*), I'm still trying to figure out.
No disagreement on Shania, although there are 'chubby chasers' out there.
:-)
Christian Huebner
> "C.E.T." wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:28:05 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >...But don't fool yourself into thinking your safe at speeds over 100MPH when
> > >likely, if things go wrong, you'll be just as dead as the guy on the
> > >sportbike. And at least he'll only kill himself -:)
> >
> > I wonder if any of the so-called "safe speeders" are reading these
> > words of wisdom? Nixon is not a crook.
> >
> > C.E.T.
>
> I've never heard anyone claim speeds over 100 MPH are safe. Why is it that you
> only refer to 100+ MPH as "speeders", but yet also like to refer to "speeding" as
> unsafe? Is 75 MPH on a highway with a median speed of 75 MPH unsafe? What if that
> highway has a speed limit of 55 MPH? Which speed is then "safe" as deemed by you?
> If you claim anything other than 75 MPH, why is your opinion more "valid" then the
> NHTSA, which supports their claim that 75 MPH would be the safest speed with hard
> data?
On the German Autobahns speeds above 100 mph are driven daily
by lots of drivers. Interestingly only very few accidents happen
above speeds of 70mph, even less than would be expected according
to the percentage of drivers who actually drive that fast.
Speed in itself is not unsafe. Speed that is not matched to all
the conditions is. And not paying attention, making phonecalls,
DUI and road rage are even more so.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <chris....@att.net> writes:
> > > I would categorize your car as more of a 'look fast' than 'drive
> > > quickly' car. Big & loud.
> >
> > What would you call a 'drive quickly' car then?
>
> I have to agree with him. Camaros are too bulky to be really fun
> to drive quickly. You have to be psychic to know where the corners
> of the car are, you feel the car's mass all the time when trying
> to fling it, and the lack of interior room is horrible. You'd have
> to be 5'4 to get into a decent driving position.
When did you last drive a Camaro? I am 6'7 and I fit quite well, better
than in most European and especially japanese Ecoboxes.
That you cannot see the corners of the car is true for most cars
nowadays, regardless of whether its a Honda Civic, a VW New
Beetle (ugly bugger) or a Ford Focus.
And I happen to think the Camaro is a lot of fun to drive,
otherwise I wouldnt have bought it.
> > Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
> > rev it to get useable power. I personally prefer displacement
> > and if necessary superchargers, but buy whatever works for you.
>
> You simply must try one of the modern turbo'd cars. Boost lag is
> nonexistent. On the 1.8t you can't even feel or hear the turbo
> kicking in like you used to. Pity. And, the cars they're in
> are too big and floaty.
I tried several modern Turbos, among them the Saab 9-3, Volvo V70T
and the VW Passat 1.8T. No real useful powerband. You need to rev
them to go fast. I was especially disappointed by the Passat.
Christian
dizzy
<chris....@att.net> wrote:
>I despise the little whining four bangers in japanese cars. If I
>want something that sounds like a vacuum cleaner Ill buy one.
>
>Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
>rev it to get useable power. I personally prefer displacement
>and if necessary superchargers, but buy whatever works for you.
These statements show you to be a real automotive genius.
Not.
dizzy
<chris....@att.net> wrote:
>The Camaro may be lots of things but it's sure not mediocre.
It's a cheap POS. Nice panhard rod.
Thomas W
> I have no idea what US cars you are driving. The Camaro SS is
> most certainly the opposite of a sofa on wheels. The Intrepid
> is not bad either and even the Town Car (with air suspension)
> handles much better and sways much less than you would expect.
They're all rather large & heavy. Real drivability & agility
come one size smaller, at around 1250 kilos weight = around 2750
pounds.
[Porsche engineering has benefits :]
> I dont really think so. I expect to drive the Camaro for a
> long time.
I hear Porsche do really well on the racetrack. Haven't heard
that about Camaro :-) or are you referring to really long lap
times?
Not that track racing is a real-world situation. But Porsche is
a whole different level of quality.
> What would you call a 'drive quickly' car then?
Mid size, mid weight, well balanced with tight suspension &
excellent brakes... horsepower anywhere from 100 up.
> I despise the little whining four bangers in japanese cars.
> If I want something that sounds like a vacuum cleaner Ill buy
> one.
Ahh, this kind of 'rationality' is underpinning your world view.
4-cyl engines don't have to whine any more than 8-cyl engines.
Try driving a non-Grandma model. Or use the accelerator pedal,
you're allowed to rev above 2500.
Motorcyle engines are the state-of-the-art in high performance
internal combustion. Ever notice that Japanese manufacturers
dominate the world, with the sole exception of Ducati?
That same engineering advantage applies to vehicle engines,
because that's where the technology comes from.
(Harley Davidson don't count for *anything* but oil leaks.)
> Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
> rev it to get useable power.
Is your problem with launching, or just shifting too early? All
motors have to rev to generate power. You can't launch fast in
anything without putting your foot on the accelerator.
You may not understand turbos. They primarily increase mid-range
torque and power, with top-end gains as an added bonus.
> I personally prefer displacement and if necessary
> superchargers, but buy whatever works for you.
I find simple use of clutch & gas pedals sufficient to launch
quickly, without any preparation or pre-revving. Not racing, but
faster than 98% of street drivers... with a 1.5 liter engine...
> I have no idea about what I should be different from. From what
> you have written so far I doubt we would get along very well,
> mostly because you need to tell me what to think and why.
Mid-sized performance cars are definitely where it's at. Sure
you can go fast in a V12 Mercedes sedan, but the dynamics and
fluidity aren't there.
> If someone happens to like a different car and you tell them
> they are morons because it doesnt fit _your_ opinion of what a
> car should be like you are absolutely incorrect and rude to
> boot.
Dynamics & handling are simple enough, that many of my
statements are more fact than opinion.
> You seriously think my thinking and perception of the world is
> dominated by my _car_? ROFLMAO
No. Your thinking and perception are substantially reflected in
your choice of car, and your talking about it, though.
[These personal traits must be modelled either as positive, or as
not applicable to yourself... ]
> On the contrary. I dont try to tell people how to think,
> especially not the way you and Nixon do.
'How to think' is something which it is enormously useful to
know. You are free to learn from what I say.
Many of my points have been, by contrast, *what* to think, but
you are welcome to consider the *how* behind those.
> So you try to fit me into your world model
There are categories for you already :-)
> whereas I just do what I want, enjoy it and tell about it.
There are categories for you already :-)
> I refuse to let you think for me.
You refuse to consider your own thinking, thus preventing any
assessment of strength, quality, usefulness, and preventing any
improvement.
Not the best Quality Assurance program I have heard of. Your
Camaro gets better quality treatment than that.
> I would love to see an example for this paragraph :-)
Your equating 4-cylinder Japanese engine with a vacuum cleaner.
> Bob did not target anything specific.
Big, heavy gas-guzzlers.
Christian Huebner
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:35:04 GMT, Christian Huebner
> <chris....@att.net> wrote:
>
> >I despise the little whining four bangers in japanese cars. If I
> >want something that sounds like a vacuum cleaner Ill buy one.
> >
> >Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
> >rev it to get useable power. I personally prefer displacement
> >and if necessary superchargers, but buy whatever works for you.
>
> These statements show you to be a real automotive genius.
I dont claim to be an automotive genius. That's more Bob Nixon's
specialty.
And if you find something wrong with my statements, just say what
it is.
Christian
Christian Huebner
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:57:48 GMT, Christian Huebner
> <chris....@att.net> wrote:
>
> >The Camaro may be lots of things but it's sure not mediocre.
>
> It's a cheap POS. Nice panhard rod.
What is a POS?
Christian
Izzy!
> "Izzy!" wrote:
>
> So you cant fit at 6'4 and I can fit at 6'7. Something is weird here.
There is "fit" and then there is "fit with an acceptable driving
posture". One that I cannot obtain with a Camaro. There is no kneeroom
so the seat has to be shoved pretty far back. Then there is a lack of
headroom so the seat has to be reclained a fair bit. Not only is it
rather difficult to drive "with spirit" when reclined so, but the neck
and arms get tired from being bent sharply/outstretched. I can, and
often do, drive my car all day long with no appreciable problems.
> > The Miata is known for its wonderful sporty feel, and a large part of
> > that is driving position and controls placement. Guess where they
> > got that from...
>
> Lotus, I guess, the car being largely influenced by the Lotus Elan.
Sit in my RX-7 and then into a Miata. Uncanny. The only major
differences are radio placement (lower in Miata), shifter placement
(lower/further back in Miata, adopted by RX-7 in 1981), and *four*
eyeball vents in dash versus only two in RX-7. Oh, and the entire
top disappears in the Miata, versus a two square foot section.
>
> Try to see the hood in the New Bug and the Focus.
I'd rather not, honestly. Both are way too squishy-soft and
heavy and dead feeling. Not a good time at *all*.
>
> Not my kind of car. I once drove the Lancia Delta Integrale 16V which
> basically is a Golf-sized rallye car. Its fun for a day, but a horror to
> commute in. Snappy handling, ultra-harsh ride, awesome power,
> unusable powerband (4500-8000rpm), a quick way to lose your
> license. The Camaro is fast, but also fun when driven slowly. Almost
> no Turbo can claim that.
Sounds like a 16V 'Rocco except for the harsh ride part. Torque
steer out the wazoo and no low-end torque. That's why the 1.8t
would be so good in there, it makes boost and torque VERY low, like
a positive-displacement supercharger. As for the torque steer...
call it a mid-commute workout.
But since when is 4500-8000 "unuseable"? :-) Someday I *will*
take a piccy of my tach pegged. There's a flat spot near redline
(7,000) then it starts pulling again. You just learn to never use
5th, and use 2nd and 3rd a lot on the open road.
Bob Nixon
Christian Huebner wrote:
Christian, this is USENET speak for Piece Of Shit (shisha).
However, I don't agree. It's a hell of a bargain and chick magnet
for an 18-25 year old -:)
>
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <chris....@att.net> writes:
> > "Izzy!" wrote:
> >
> > So you cant fit at 6'4 and I can fit at 6'7. Something is weird here.
>
> There is "fit" and then there is "fit with an acceptable driving
> posture". One that I cannot obtain with a Camaro. There is no kneeroom
> so the seat has to be shoved pretty far back.
My seat is all the way back. Maybe your arms are too short.
> Then there is a lack of
> headroom so the seat has to be reclained a fair bit.
No problem with me.
> Not only is it
> rather difficult to drive "with spirit" when reclined so, but the neck
> and arms get tired from being bent sharply/outstretched. I can, and
> often do, drive my car all day long with no appreciable problems.
I dont experience any problems when driving my car either.
>
>
> > > The Miata is known for its wonderful sporty feel, and a large part of
> > > that is driving position and controls placement. Guess where they
> > > got that from...
> >
> > Lotus, I guess, the car being largely influenced by the Lotus Elan.
>
> Sit in my RX-7 and then into a Miata. Uncanny.
Miata is tight for me. RX7 is not an option. Heavy gas guzzler without
any visible advantages. I havent seen any reviews where it even got
halfway decent mileage attributed to it. Also I heard it's low on torque.
> The only major
> differences are radio placement (lower in Miata), shifter placement
> (lower/further back in Miata, adopted by RX-7 in 1981), and *four*
> eyeball vents in dash versus only two in RX-7. Oh, and the entire
> top disappears in the Miata, versus a two square foot section.
Targa is not an option for me either. The Miata's engine is too small
for my liking though I admit its the only japanese car that I like. Its
not very japanese-car-like, which may be the reason. As I said,
its similiar to the Lotus, not to its lackluster japanese siblings.
> > Try to see the hood in the New Bug and the Focus.
>
> I'd rather not, honestly. Both are way too squishy-soft and
> heavy and dead feeling. Not a good time at *all*.
I despise the bug.
> > Not my kind of car. I once drove the Lancia Delta Integrale 16V which
> > basically is a Golf-sized rallye car. Its fun for a day, but a horror to
> > commute in. Snappy handling, ultra-harsh ride, awesome power,
> > unusable powerband (4500-8000rpm), a quick way to lose your
> > license. The Camaro is fast, but also fun when driven slowly. Almost
> > no Turbo can claim that.
>
> Sounds like a 16V 'Rocco except for the harsh ride part. Torque
> steer out the wazoo and no low-end torque. That's why the 1.8t
> would be so good in there, it makes boost and torque VERY low, like
> a positive-displacement supercharger. As for the torque steer...
> call it a mid-commute workout.
The 1.8T is not happy below 2000, while the 350ci-LS1 is perfectly
happy at 1300.
> But since when is 4500-8000 "unuseable"? :-) Someday I *will*
> take a piccy of my tach pegged. There's a flat spot near redline
> (7,000) then it starts pulling again. You just learn to never use
> 5th, and use 2nd and 3rd a lot on the open road.
Do you get more than 10mpg? The RX7 is infamous for bad mileage
and the permanent revving is one of the reasons. A guy told me he
gets about 7mpg in a turbo RX7.
I prefer lots of torque at low rpm which makes for good mileage
and a lot of fun cruising. You cant cruise at 7000rpm.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> Christian,
>
> > I have no idea what US cars you are driving. The Camaro SS is
> > most certainly the opposite of a sofa on wheels. The Intrepid
> > is not bad either and even the Town Car (with air suspension)
> > handles much better and sways much less than you would expect.
>
> They're all rather large & heavy. Real drivability & agility
> come one size smaller, at around 1250 kilos weight = around 2750
> pounds.
The Camaro is about 1500kg and thus barely heavier than a Porsche 996.
The Ferrari 360, probably the best stock sportscar today is about 100kg
lighter than the Camaro. I find the Camaro very driveable and I had a lot of
opportunity to compare. The Miata may feel faster around tight corners
because its steering is a tad more direct but in reality it isnt. Also the
Miata
is unsuited for long trips for its miniature trunk.
> [Porsche engineering has benefits :]
> > I dont really think so. I expect to drive the Camaro for a
> > long time.
>
> I hear Porsche do really well on the racetrack. Haven't heard
> that about Camaro :-) or are you referring to really long lap
> times?
The Corvette beat the Turbo in a track test on the Nuerburgring. I think
the Camaro has a good chance to beat the Carrera.
> Not that track racing is a real-world situation. But Porsche is
> a whole different level of quality.
Not all that different. And if anything goes wrong with the Porsche's
engine or transmission you better have an XXL wallet.
> > What would you call a 'drive quickly' car then?
>
> Mid size, mid weight, well balanced with tight suspension &
> excellent brakes... horsepower anywhere from 100 up.
Have you driven a late model Camaro? And waht is mid-sized
in your opinion? Could you name some models?
> > I despise the little whining four bangers in japanese cars.
> > If I want something that sounds like a vacuum cleaner Ill buy
> > one.
>
> Ahh, this kind of 'rationality' is underpinning your world view.
> 4-cyl engines don't have to whine any more than 8-cyl engines.
> Try driving a non-Grandma model. Or use the accelerator pedal,
> you're allowed to rev above 2500.
What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
> Motorcyle engines are the state-of-the-art in high performance
> internal combustion. Ever notice that Japanese manufacturers
> dominate the world, with the sole exception of Ducati?
Ducati, Triumph, BMW, Buell, Harley Davidson... lots of non japanese
manufacturers out there. Japanese bikes are comparatively cheap but
try to buy parts for a 5-year-old bike. They are meant for a few seasons
and then the scrapyard.
> That same engineering advantage applies to vehicle engines,
> because that's where the technology comes from.
I have not seen a japanese car yet (except for the Miata), which is
in any way exciting or special. The japanese are good at copying,
but the list of japanese inventions in automobile design is very short.
ABS, ASR, disk brakes, seatbelts, OHC, IFS, IRS, Airbag, fuel injection,
whatever, ... NONE of these were invented in Japan.
And the Wankel engine is German, only it was dropped for its bad
fuel economy which it still has at Mazda.
> > Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
> > rev it to get useable power.
>
> Is your problem with launching, or just shifting too early? All
> motors have to rev to generate power. You can't launch fast in
> anything without putting your foot on the accelerator.
My problem is that I dont want to push the car to redline on
every launch. The Camaro pulls stronger at 3000 than the
'super' 1.8T at 6k.
> You may not understand turbos. They primarily increase mid-range
> torque and power, with top-end gains as an added bonus.
I understand turbos very well. The torque graphs dont look impressive
on any of them (except for the Diesels) unless you compare them with
puny 1.8l non-turbos.
> > I have no idea about what I should be different from. From what
> > you have written so far I doubt we would get along very well,
> > mostly because you need to tell me what to think and why.
>
> Mid-sized performance cars are definitely where it's at. Sure
> you can go fast in a V12 Mercedes sedan, but the dynamics and
> fluidity aren't there.
Where what is at? I have not found a 'mid-size performance car'
that I liked. You may like them, but making your opinion the only
valid one is quite ridiculous, isnt it?
> > If someone happens to like a different car and you tell them
> > they are morons because it doesnt fit _your_ opinion of what a
> > car should be like you are absolutely incorrect and rude to
> > boot.
>
> Dynamics & handling are simple enough, that many of my
> statements are more fact than opinion.
Almost all of your statements are opinion as are mine. Unfortunately
you seem to think you are the keeper of the holy grail of automobile
wisdom (which you most certainly are not).
> > You seriously think my thinking and perception of the world is
> > dominated by my _car_? ROFLMAO
>
> No. Your thinking and perception are substantially reflected in
> your choice of car, and your talking about it, though.
So what is my thinking and perception like then?
> [These personal traits must be modelled either as positive, or as
> not applicable to yourself... ]
> > On the contrary. I dont try to tell people how to think,
> > especially not the way you and Nixon do.
>
> 'How to think' is something which it is enormously useful to
> know. You are free to learn from what I say.
ROTFL
> Many of my points have been, by contrast, *what* to think, but
> you are welcome to consider the *how* behind those.
I prefer to think on my own instead of letting someone else doing it
for me. People who seriously think their opinions are the one truth
urgently need good counseling.
> > So you try to fit me into your world model
>
> There are categories for you already :-)
So there are for you.
> > whereas I just do what I want, enjoy it and tell about it.
>
> There are categories for you already :-)
Repetition is an indication of small thinking.
> > I refuse to let you think for me.
>
> You refuse to consider your own thinking, thus preventing any
> assessment of strength, quality, usefulness, and preventing any
> improvement.
You refuse to consider your own thinking, so the same is true
for you. The only difference between us is that you think your
opinion is the one truth.
> Not the best Quality Assurance program I have heard of. Your
> Camaro gets better quality treatment than that.
>
> > I would love to see an example for this paragraph :-)
>
> Your equating 4-cylinder Japanese engine with a vacuum cleaner.
I compared the sound of japanese 4-bangers to a vacuum cleaner.
Either quote me correctly or dont quote me at all.
> > Bob did not target anything specific.
>
> Big, heavy gas-guzzlers.
Not really.
Christian
Michael Stone
> ma.s...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Stone) wrote in
> <39460873...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
> >Besides... stand next to an Escort and next to a Vette.... which is a
> >better looking car. PLEASE!!!
>
> But which car are you likelier to find cute chicks driving?
The Vette. The ugly ones will be driving Escorts.... All the good looking
women have rich boyfriends.
> >Escort... = no cash... geek. Vette = loaded... second childhood.
> >Not a big comparision.
>
> Second childhood = mid-life crisis = denial. Escorts have done well for
> cash-strapped college students.
Exactly. Escort = no money Vette = loaded.
Which is sexier?
> >Rosie O' Donnell is Rosie O' Donnell. If you like that look, well, more
> >power to you...
> >But face it, Shania Twain is much easier on the eyes. If you had to
> >pick... the choice would not be all that hard.
>
> How Rosie ended up a mother (*shudder*), I'm still trying to figure out.
> No disagreement on Shania, although there are 'chubby chasers' out there.
> :-)
True... but, it is simply a chemical reaction. People are attracted by sight,
sense, etc...
There is a great car commercial... What is the primary sense used in "love at
first sight?"
Sight.
No one looks at a man and says "He has a great looking..... sense of
committment".
No one looks at a woman and says "Look at the size of those.... portfolios."
Vision first. The rest comes later.
Michael Stone
> Christian,
>
> > I have no idea what US cars you are driving. The Camaro SS is
> > most certainly the opposite of a sofa on wheels. The Intrepid
> > is not bad either and even the Town Car (with air suspension)
> > handles much better and sways much less than you would expect.
>
> They're all rather large & heavy. Real drivability & agility
> come one size smaller, at around 1250 kilos weight = around 2750
> pounds.
I don't know what you concider to be a Camaro... but 2750 is much heavier than
what my Camaro was.
> [Porsche engineering has benefits :]
> > I dont really think so. I expect to drive the Camaro for a
> > long time.
>
> I hear Porsche do really well on the racetrack. Haven't heard
> that about Camaro :-) or are you referring to really long lap
> times?
For five times the cost, the Porsche should be five times the performance. But,
a decent Camaro with some "minor" adjustments will dust a Porsche.
> Not that track racing is a real-world situation. But Porsche is
> a whole different level of quality.
Depends on just how "stock" the car is. You don't hear of too many people
performing their own modifications to sucky Porsche engines. But grab a zine off
the stand for Hot Rod or such... Camaro engines are easily modified. And once
the "required" limiters are removed... a Camaro becomes a truly impressive
racing machine.
> > What would you call a 'drive quickly' car then?
>
> Mid size, mid weight, well balanced with tight suspension &
> excellent brakes... horsepower anywhere from 100 up.
100 hp... way to low. Kick that hp range into the 200's, and what have you
got... a `Maro.
> > I despise the little whining four bangers in japanese cars.
> > If I want something that sounds like a vacuum cleaner Ill buy
> > one.
>
> Ahh, this kind of 'rationality' is underpinning your world view.
>
> 4-cyl engines don't have to whine any more than 8-cyl engines.
> Try driving a non-Grandma model. Or use the accelerator pedal,
> you're allowed to rev above 2500.
You're right. The Japs make GREAT 4-cyl engines. Their motorcycles are
powerhouses. But a rice burner shouldn't ever be confined into a walled
enclosure.
> Motorcyle engines are the state-of-the-art in high performance
> internal combustion. Ever notice that Japanese manufacturers
> dominate the world, with the sole exception of Ducati?
Which is precisely why sticking four doors around them is like putting a sweater
on a pit bull... it just don't work.
> That same engineering advantage applies to vehicle engines,
> because that's where the technology comes from.
Motorcycle technology doesn't come close to vehicle technology.
> (Harley Davidson don't count for *anything* but oil leaks.)
Tell that to a Hell's Angel...
> > Turbo doesnt make for good driveability. Its a pain having to
> > rev it to get useable power.
>
> Is your problem with launching, or just shifting too early? All
> motors have to rev to generate power. You can't launch fast in
> anything without putting your foot on the accelerator.
Some folks don't get that, though.
> You may not understand turbos. They primarily increase mid-range
> torque and power, with top-end gains as an added bonus.
>
> > I personally prefer displacement and if necessary
> > superchargers, but buy whatever works for you.
>
> I find simple use of clutch & gas pedals sufficient to launch
> quickly, without any preparation or pre-revving. Not racing, but
> faster than 98% of street drivers... with a 1.5 liter engine...
A 1.5L won't touch a nicely modified 383.
<snip>
> Your equating 4-cylinder Japanese engine with a vacuum cleaner.
>
> > Bob did not target anything specific.
>
> Big, heavy gas-guzzlers.
A 4 cylinder can guzzle much more gas than a V8, depending on the driving style
and conditions. On an Interstate with speeds of 80 MPH, the 4 cylinder will be
pushing on all 4 pistons at full blast. Guzzling gas out the a**. The V8 will be
nicely purring along, right about at the idle speed for fourth gear. Using very
little gas. Transmissions can affect gas guzzling as much, or more, than pure
engine size.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Steve M
<chris....@att.net> wrote:
> But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that
> can compete
> with the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car
> the difference
> in mileage will not be significant.
Uhh, could you read that again?
Put it in a comparable car? Do you mean as in weight? Or
performance?
Dunno, off-hand I'd say that put two cars side by side,
with similar performance, put a V8 in one, and a 4banger in
the other, you'll either have:
1. A smaller car with the 2 litre (this'll use less gas)
2. A really crappy V8 (this'll be inefficient)
3. An untuned V8 vs. a large, worked 4 cylinder, in which
case, you'd probably end up with similar mileage, IMO.
The 1.8 might have been doing 3500 rpm, but consider two
things.
1. Higher redline
2. Your talking an engine that's less than 1/2 the
capacity, and it's doing less than double the RPM of the
V8, so I'd guess it'll get better mileage. (Now someone
shoot me down with stats, my brains just stopped)
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Izzy!
>
> The Vette. The ugly ones will be driving Escorts.... All the good looking
> women have rich boyfriends.
Riiiiiight. There are so many problems with this heavily flawed and
microscopic worldview that it's best to just take it out back and
shoot it.
> > Second childhood = mid-life crisis = denial. Escorts have done well for
> > cash-strapped college students.
>
> Exactly. Escort = no money Vette = loaded.
> Which is sexier?
You're assuming that sex appeal is limited to monetary value.
This is fine if you're shallow and vain and only want a "woman"
to parade around, saying "Hey, look who likes my money!" If you're
lucky, she'll kill you and take your stuff and run. If not, you'll
live out your pathetic existence until one day you wake up and
realize you totally destroyed your life and regret everything you've
ever done.
>
> True... but, it is simply a chemical reaction. People are attracted by sight,
> sense, etc...
> There is a great car commercial... What is the primary sense used in "love at
> first sight?"
> Sight.
> No one looks at a man and says "He has a great looking..... sense of
> committment".
> No one looks at a woman and says "Look at the size of those.... portfolios."
> Vision first. The rest comes later.
And then you talk to them and find out they're dumber than month-old
mayonnaise, or all of her opinions and beliefs are whatever her
clique of friends is into at the time, etc. Then you leave them,
and they get all pissed off because their only asset for man-hunting
DOESN'T WORK ON YOU, then they feel weak and helpless, at least
until they meet someone such as yourself.
Izzy!
"Izzy!" wrote:
> >
> > There is "fit" and then there is "fit with an acceptable driving
> > posture". One that I cannot obtain with a Camaro. There is no kneeroom
> > so the seat has to be shoved pretty far back.
>
> My seat is all the way back. Maybe your arms are too short.
I doubt it! I always wear short-sleeves for a reason. I have to buy
"2XL" or "3XL" sweaters, even though I only have an "XL" body, just so
the arms are long enough.
http://www.geocities.com/izzmus/pj-rx-7.jpg
That's me next to my "baby". I look bulky because I'm wearing a 3XL
sweater and a huge jacket - in reality my chest/waist is ~42/29".
> > Then there is a lack of
> > headroom so the seat has to be reclained a fair bit.
>
> No problem with me.
Good for you. But it drives me *nuts* in my '87 RX-7. That's the
last time I get a car with a power (headroom-sucking) sunroof. Good
thing it's an automatic, I doubt I could drive a manual when that
reclined!
> Miata is tight for me. RX7 is not an option. Heavy gas guzzler without
> any visible advantages. I havent seen any reviews where it even got
> halfway decent mileage attributed to it. Also I heard it's low on torque.
Actually, they're not that bad. I'm getting a solid 19mpg right now
(last fill 190mi/9.7g) and that's with typical exuberant WOT whenever
possible/keep the revs on the right side of the tach kind of driving.
But, I can just as easily drive comfortably without ever revving over
2500. Given the amount of bitching about lack of low-end, I was
quite suprised at how much torque there really is. It's not V8 level
but better than most sub 2-liter fours. Better than some fours
larger than that for that matter. The later model N/A 13B engines
are even better for torque. People have likened the GSL-SE model
to a "Big Block" model because it's so easygoing.
It's definitely something that you'd have to like, though. But the
car around it is good enough that I'd enjoy it even if it came with
a piston engine.
> Targa is not an option for me either. The Miata's engine is too small
> for my liking though I admit its the only japanese car that I like. Its
> not very japanese-car-like, which may be the reason. As I said,
> its similiar to the Lotus, not to its lackluster japanese siblings.
It's hard to find a Japanese car that has a soul, unfortunately. Most
of them are just commuter appliances that follow your every command
but never suggest anything themselves.
At the '94 auto show, there were only two vehicles that I could
easily fit without the seat shoved all the way back. One was the new
Dodge Ram. The other was the Miata.
> I despise the bug.
Then it's official; get the RAID, it's time to party!
> > But since when is 4500-8000 "unuseable"? :-) Someday I *will*
> > take a piccy of my tach pegged. There's a flat spot near redline
> > (7,000) then it starts pulling again. You just learn to never use
> > 5th, and use 2nd and 3rd a lot on the open road.
>
> Do you get more than 10mpg? The RX7 is infamous for bad mileage
> and the permanent revving is one of the reasons. A guy told me he
> gets about 7mpg in a turbo RX7.
How much did he modify it? I personally wouldn't want s turbo rotary.
My next used car will be a small early 70's RWD that I will shove a
bridge-ported 12A into. I'm trying to find a decent '72ish Pinto.
Now *that* is a true idles at 2500, starts to make power at 5000,
powerband from 6000 until the tach spins around engine. Weekend
driver. :-)
> I prefer lots of torque at low rpm which makes for good mileage
> and a lot of fun cruising. You cant cruise at 7000rpm.
My last low-rpm cruiser got really horrendous mileage, around 5-6mpg
at times. It got boring, really.
And who says you can't cruise at 7000? It's either that in 4th,
or ~5600 in 5th, and it seems to like the higher revs better.
Maybe when I get headers and a better carb it'll run right through
that air wall, eh?
Izzy!
>
> I don't know what you concider to be a Camaro... but 2750 is much heavier than
> what my Camaro was.
Um.... You mean your Camaro weighed less than, say, a four-door
Ford Focus? Or an Integra. What year was it?
Bernd Felsche
>A 4 cylinder can guzzle much more gas than a V8, depending on the
>driving style and conditions. On an Interstate with speeds of 80
>MPH, the 4 cylinder will be pushing on all 4 pistons at full blast.
Really? Sounds like a moderate cruising speed to me.
>Guzzling gas out the a**. The V8 will be nicely purring along,
>right about at the idle speed for fourth gear. Using very little
>gas. Transmissions can affect gas guzzling as much, or more, than
>pure engine size.
Although a 4 *can* guzzle, the high-speed cruise scenario doesn't
gel - not for cars _designed_ to cruise at those speeds; most
Europeans for example. I know that's only a tiny proportion (about
100 million vehicles on the road) but nevertheless a substantial
proportion of motor cars.
The only way in which you can make a good 4 guzzle is when you're
using all the power continuously; most European cars would require
that you then be cruising at 100mph or more, or be racing on a track.
But when it gets down to the raw numbers of absolute fuel consumption
then the 4 will almost always be more fuel efficient in real life
than a V8 of the same combustion technology. The exceptions
typically arise when cars are under-engined.
--
Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning
Perth, Western Australia
Christian Huebner
> Michael Stone <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >A 4 cylinder can guzzle much more gas than a V8, depending on the
> >driving style and conditions. On an Interstate with speeds of 80
> >MPH, the 4 cylinder will be pushing on all 4 pistons at full blast.
>
> Really? Sounds like a moderate cruising speed to me.
>
> >Guzzling gas out the a**. The V8 will be nicely purring along,
> >right about at the idle speed for fourth gear. Using very little
> >gas. Transmissions can affect gas guzzling as much, or more, than
> >pure engine size.
>
> Although a 4 *can* guzzle, the high-speed cruise scenario doesn't
> gel - not for cars _designed_ to cruise at those speeds; most
> Europeans for example. I know that's only a tiny proportion (about
> 100 million vehicles on the road) but nevertheless a substantial
> proportion of motor cars.
A coworker's Passat 1.8T runs at 3500 rpm at 75 mph, while my
Camaro's V8 runs at 1500 at the same speed. Quite a difference
I'd say.
> The only way in which you can make a good 4 guzzle is when you're
> using all the power continuously; most European cars would require
> that you then be cruising at 100mph or more, or be racing on a track.
Most European cars rev too high at cruising speeds. And most European
cars dont produce enough torque that they can use reasonably long
transmission ratio.
> But when it gets down to the raw numbers of absolute fuel consumption
> then the 4 will almost always be more fuel efficient in real life
> than a V8 of the same combustion technology. The exceptions
> typically arise when cars are under-engined.
Under engined is a funny term. May I borrow it for an apropriate
occasion? But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that can compete
with the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car the difference
in mileage will not be significant.
Christian
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <chris....@att.net> writes:
> > My seat is all the way back. Maybe your arms are too short.
>
> I doubt it! I always wear short-sleeves for a reason. I have to buy
> "2XL" or "3XL" sweaters, even though I only have an "XL" body, just so
> the arms are long enough.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/izzmus/pj-rx-7.jpg
> That's me next to my "baby". I look bulky because I'm wearing a 3XL
> sweater and a huge jacket - in reality my chest/waist is ~42/29".
I seriously doubt I coult even sit in that one.
> > Miata is tight for me. RX7 is not an option. Heavy gas guzzler without
> > any visible advantages. I havent seen any reviews where it even got
> > halfway decent mileage attributed to it. Also I heard it's low on torque.
>
> Actually, they're not that bad. I'm getting a solid 19mpg right now
With how many hp? The turbos are the true successors of carb bigblocks.
> (last fill 190mi/9.7g) and that's with typical exuberant WOT whenever
> possible/keep the revs on the right side of the tach kind of driving.
> But, I can just as easily drive comfortably without ever revving over
> 2500. Given the amount of bitching about lack of low-end, I was
> quite suprised at how much torque there really is. It's not V8 level
> but better than most sub 2-liter fours. Better than some fours
> larger than that for that matter. The later model N/A 13B engines
> are even better for torque. People have likened the GSL-SE model
> to a "Big Block" model because it's so easygoing.
Its nice you like your car. What is good for you is not neccessarily
good for me and vice versa. The absolute truth only exists in Bob
Nixons dreams.
> > Targa is not an option for me either. The Miata's engine is too small
> > for my liking though I admit its the only japanese car that I like. Its
> > not very japanese-car-like, which may be the reason. As I said,
> > its similiar to the Lotus, not to its lackluster japanese siblings.
>
> It's hard to find a Japanese car that has a soul, unfortunately. Most
> of them are just commuter appliances that follow your every command
> but never suggest anything themselves.
Too true.
> At the '94 auto show, there were only two vehicles that I could
> easily fit without the seat shoved all the way back. One was the new
> Dodge Ram. The other was the Miata.
The Miata is a bit tight for me. Tighter than the Camaro.
> > I despise the bug.
>
> Then it's official; get the RAID, it's time to party!
:-)
> > > But since when is 4500-8000 "unuseable"? :-) Someday I *will*
> > > take a piccy of my tach pegged. There's a flat spot near redline
> > > (7,000) then it starts pulling again. You just learn to never use
> > > 5th, and use 2nd and 3rd a lot on the open road.
> >
> > Do you get more than 10mpg? The RX7 is infamous for bad mileage
> > and the permanent revving is one of the reasons. A guy told me he
> > gets about 7mpg in a turbo RX7.
>
> How much did he modify it? I personally wouldn't want s turbo rotary.
Unmodified.
> My next used car will be a small early 70's RWD that I will shove a
> bridge-ported 12A into. I'm trying to find a decent '72ish Pinto.
> Now *that* is a true idles at 2500, starts to make power at 5000,
> powerband from 6000 until the tach spins around engine. Weekend
> driver. :-)
Did you see 'The Bad Seed' in the Hot Rod magazine? Chevette (not
Chevelle) with a 500ci Caddy mill.
> > I prefer lots of torque at low rpm which makes for good mileage
> > and a lot of fun cruising. You cant cruise at 7000rpm.
>
> My last low-rpm cruiser got really horrendous mileage, around 5-6mpg
> at times. It got boring, really.
Well, I get 20/26 ... not too bad for a low-rpm cruiser.
> And who says you can't cruise at 7000? It's either that in 4th,
The squeal of a tiny 4-banger at 7000rpm is not exactly something
you want at cruising.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> In article <394932FC...@att.net>, Christian Huebner
> <chris....@att.net> wrote:
> > But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that
> > can compete
> > with the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car
> > the difference
> > in mileage will not be significant.
>
> Uhh, could you read that again?
> Put it in a comparable car? Do you mean as in weight? Or
> performance?
Comparable shell. Size, weight, ...
> Dunno, off-hand I'd say that put two cars side by side,
> with similar performance, put a V8 in one, and a 4banger in
> the other, you'll either have:
> 1. A smaller car with the 2 litre (this'll use less gas
> 2. A really crappy V8 (this'll be inefficient)
> 3. An untuned V8 vs. a large, worked 4 cylinder, in which
> case, you'd probably end up with similar mileage, IMO.
Thats what I said AFAIR.
> The 1.8 might have been doing 3500 rpm, but consider two
> things.
> 1. Higher redline
By 500 rpm.
> 2. Your talking an engine that's less than 1/2 the
> capacity, and it's doing less than double the RPM of the
> V8, so I'd guess it'll get better mileage. (Now someone
> shoot me down with stats, my brains just stopped)
The mileage is a bit better, but the loss in performance
is much greater.
Christian
Izzy!
> > Actually, they're not that bad. I'm getting a solid 19mpg right now
>
> With how many hp? The turbos are the true successors of carb bigblocks.
Well, stock is ~100hp, but since mine is LIGHTLY modified (simple
timing/carb tricks) and it's still pulling past the top speeds
listed from magazine tests from when it was new, it's probaly a SWAG
of 110-115hp.
Turbo rotaries IMO are too finicky. Plus, there's a point where the
engine is so LAYERED with tubing and hoses and accessory that you
start to dread having to work on it.
> Its nice you like your car. What is good for you is not neccessarily
> good for me and vice versa. The absolute truth only exists in Bob
> Nixons dreams.
I think we can agree on all of this. :-)
> > My next used car will be a small early 70's RWD that I will shove a
> > bridge-ported 12A into. I'm trying to find a decent '72ish Pinto.
> > Now *that* is a true idles at 2500, starts to make power at 5000,
> > powerband from 6000 until the tach spins around engine. Weekend
> > driver. :-)
>
> Did you see 'The Bad Seed' in the Hot Rod magazine? Chevette (not
> Chevelle) with a 500ci Caddy mill.
Abosolutely. I love hack-n-thrash modifications. My favorite mag
used to be 4 Wheel & Off Road until Freiburger went to Car Craft.
The change in CC has been dramatic, been reading it since '85.
Now CC is full of wonderful boneyard-scrounging articles and
stuff like, well like the Bad Seed. Interestingly, an article on
the 500 in CC said that increasing compression the way they did
*will* cause engine destruction, maybe a couple weeks, maybe a
couple passes. It would still be worth it. :-)
>
> Well, I get 20/26 ... not too bad for a low-rpm cruiser.
>
Your little small-block is nothing for torque compared to a big-block
Ford.
My roomie's wagon (472 Cad) gets around 5mpg... but it will rip
a house off of its foundation and drag it up mountains.
floyd rogers
> Why do (mainly) American cars have to have such ridiculously large,
thirsty
> and polluting engines?? I mean in the UK a 1.6 is considered adequate in
> most cars and some can do 0-60 in 10 seconds and can easily appear capable
> of keeping up with these crazy 5 litre US gas guzzlers? Even a US ford
> escort has a 2.1 litre engine where here a 1.6i is quite fast and
> economical!! And as for those ridiculous 4x4's and SUV's......WHY?? do u
> ever go offroad or need to????
Judging by some of the replies in this thread, the reason we Americans
have bigger engines (and cars) is because our swelled heads make it
necessary to have more room and power to transport it around! ;-)
FloydR
Izzy!
> My tired brain says the Camaro fires 6000 times a minute and the
> Passat 7000 times a minute. Not much of a difference there!
What is your fascination with number of power strokes? It is
immaterial. What is important is the the HP required to punch
the car through the air, versus how much fuel that engine requires
to maintain that HP at a given speed. The latter half of the equation
has nothing to do with number of cylinders and everything to do with
BSFC.
> The Passat 1.8T consumes about 8 litre/100km at that speed. The Camaro?
> Probably in excess of 12 if not as much as 20.
Let me see, LS1 Camaro at 75mph, 1 gal/30mi, that works out to
roughly 7.5l/100km. Assuming my quick-n-dirty rounding method
worked out a little optimistic, (60mi/100km, 3.75l/gal) it would
still be 8 or slightly less.
FWIW - a car of mine always got 27mpg because that was the most fuel
it could possibly use. It only made about 80-85hp, so it got great
mileage by default. I don't see why driving a 320hp car lightly
(never making more than 80hp) couldn't return similar mileage.
Bernd Felsche
>Steve M wrote:
>> In article <394932FC...@att.net>, Christian Huebner
>> <chris....@att.net> wrote:
>> > But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that can compete with
>> > the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car the difference
>> > in mileage will not be significant.
>> Uhh, could you read that again?
>> Put it in a comparable car? Do you mean as in weight? Or
>> performance?
>Comparable shell. Size, weight, ...
Why? It's not necessary to have such a big car for a smaller engine.
You can provide the same interior (i.e. FUNCTIONAL) space in a
smaller package which is lighter and easier to manage.
If you do put a smaller engine into a big shell, then the fuel
consumption can still be significantly better; as well as improving
the handling. Compare the V8 and 1.8T Audi A6 for example.
>> Dunno, off-hand I'd say that put two cars side by side,
>> with similar performance, put a V8 in one, and a 4banger in
>> the other, you'll either have:
>> 1. A smaller car with the 2 litre (this'll use less gas
>> 2. A really crappy V8 (this'll be inefficient)
>> 3. An untuned V8 vs. a large, worked 4 cylinder, in which
>> case, you'd probably end up with similar mileage, IMO.
>Thats what I said AFAIR.
>> The 1.8 might have been doing 3500 rpm, but consider two
>> things.
>> 1. Higher redline
>By 500 rpm.
>> 2. Your talking an engine that's less than 1/2 the
>> capacity, and it's doing less than double the RPM of the
>> V8, so I'd guess it'll get better mileage. (Now someone
>> shoot me down with stats, my brains just stopped)
>The mileage is a bit better, but the loss in performance
>is much greater.
Is it? Is the performance really that much better?
For an engine with twice the number of working strokes per engine
rev, the V8 is already at a disadvantage. Add to that the extra bulk
of the engine and dense traffic and you'll quickly change your mind
about performance in terms of point-to-point speeds.
The difference in fuel consumption is most significant in
(sub)urban environments. That's where most cars spend most of
their time.
Bernd Felsche
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> Michael Stone <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>> >A 4 cylinder can guzzle much more gas than a V8, depending on the
>> >driving style and conditions. On an Interstate with speeds of 80
>> >MPH, the 4 cylinder will be pushing on all 4 pistons at full blast.
>>
>> Really? Sounds like a moderate cruising speed to me.
>>
>> >Guzzling gas out the a**. The V8 will be nicely purring along,
>> >right about at the idle speed for fourth gear. Using very little
>> >gas. Transmissions can affect gas guzzling as much, or more, than
>> >pure engine size.
>>
>> Although a 4 *can* guzzle, the high-speed cruise scenario doesn't
>> gel - not for cars _designed_ to cruise at those speeds; most
>> Europeans for example. I know that's only a tiny proportion (about
>> 100 million vehicles on the road) but nevertheless a substantial
>> proportion of motor cars.
>A coworker's Passat 1.8T runs at 3500 rpm at 75 mph, while my
>Camaro's V8 runs at 1500 at the same speed. Quite a difference
>I'd say.
My tired brain says the Camaro fires 6000 times a minute and the
Passat 7000 times a minute. Not much of a difference there!
(I'm assuming that the Camaro isn't a 6-stroke or 8-stroke!)
The Passat 1.8T consumes about 8 litre/100km at that speed. The Camaro?
Probably in excess of 12 if not as much as 20.
>> The only way in which you can make a good 4 guzzle is when you're
>> using all the power continuously; most European cars would require
>> that you then be cruising at 100mph or more, or be racing on a track.
>Most European cars rev too high at cruising speeds. And most European
>cars dont produce enough torque that they can use reasonably long
>transmission ratio.
You have obviously lived a sheltered life far away from variety and
the Autobahn. What does 'rev too high' actually mean as an
_objective_ factor? Or is that your subjective "feel"?
Doesn't a V8 racer which *idles* at over 1000 rpm with a redline
close to 10,000 rpm "rev too high"?
The power output of an engine can only be matched to the power
requirements of the load by a limited number of factors. The most
significant one is speed - at least for gasoline engines, as the
air-fuel-ratio has to remain ignitable. As the power requirements of
a car a fairly low for most of its life, it is more appropriate to
have an engine which is capable of providing such low power levels
at reasonable efficiency.
And what's the importance of a 'reasonably long transmission ratio'?
Nothing! If the car performs adequately for the intended use (and
the 1.8T does that unless weighed down by a Tiptronic) then it
doesn't matter how fast the engine turns at the crank. What really
matters is how quickly you get to where you're going, that you enjoy
the journey and that you don't have to mortgage your grandchildren
to fill the tank.
>> But when it gets down to the raw numbers of absolute fuel consumption
>> then the 4 will almost always be more fuel efficient in real life
>> than a V8 of the same combustion technology. The exceptions
>> typically arise when cars are under-engined.
>Under engined is a funny term. May I borrow it for an apropriate
Under-engined is a very specific term. It basically means that the
engine is always working too hard to propel the vehicle; so hard
that it's frequently required to operate beyond it's peak efficiency
during nominal operation.
>occasion? But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that can compete
>with the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car the difference
>in mileage will not be significant.
A comparable car for a 4-banger would be a Lotus Elise.
A Camaro is that size because of the size of the engine, where
it's located and the drivetrain employed. The size (bulk) of the
vehicle has little to do with it being a "sports car".
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <chris....@att.net> writes:
>
> >Steve M wrote:
>
> >> In article <394932FC...@att.net>, Christian Huebner
> >> <chris....@att.net> wrote:
> >> > But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that can compete with
> >> > the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car the difference
> >> > in mileage will not be significant.
>
> >> Uhh, could you read that again?
> >> Put it in a comparable car? Do you mean as in weight? Or
> >> performance?
>
> >Comparable shell. Size, weight, ...
>
> Why? It's not necessary to have such a big car for a smaller engine.
> You can provide the same interior (i.e. FUNCTIONAL) space in a
> smaller package which is lighter and easier to manage.
You need a reasonable wheelbase and track. Functional space is
not an issue here. Porsche and Ferrari have much smaller engines
than the Camaro, yet the cars are almost as heavy.
> If you do put a smaller engine into a big shell, then the fuel
> consumption can still be significantly better; as well as improving
> the handling. Compare the V8 and 1.8T Audi A6 for example.
The 1.8T is not even in the same ballpark as the LS1.
> Is it? Is the performance really that much better?
Yes, it is.
> For an engine with twice the number of working strokes per engine
> rev, the V8 is already at a disadvantage. Add to that the extra bulk
> of the engine and dense traffic and you'll quickly change your mind
> about performance in terms of point-to-point speeds.
Buy a Geo Metro.
> The difference in fuel consumption is most significant in
> (sub)urban environments. That's where most cars spend most of
> their time.
As I said, buy a Geo Metro (nowadays its called Chevy Metro). Its
fuel consumption is much less than that of any VW 1.8T or whatever.
Christian
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <chris....@att.net> writes:
> > > Actually, they're not that bad. I'm getting a solid 19mpg right now
> >
> > With how many hp? The turbos are the true successors of carb bigblocks.
Eh, only gas-guzzling wise.
> Well, stock is ~100hp, but since mine is LIGHTLY modified (simple
> timing/carb tricks) and it's still pulling past the top speeds
> listed from magazine tests from when it was new, it's probaly a SWAG
> of 110-115hp.
And you get only 17 mpg? Oops.
> Turbo rotaries IMO are too finicky. Plus, there's a point where the
> engine is so LAYERED with tubing and hoses and accessory that you
> start to dread having to work on it.
And you wouldnt get 17 mpg any more either. The rotary engine is interesting
but there are good reasons why noone else builds one.
> > Well, I get 20/26 ... not too bad for a low-rpm cruiser.
>
> Your little small-block is nothing for torque compared to a big-block
> Ford.
330hp and 350+ lb-ft. I guess thats not bad. I can cruise at 1200rpm.
> My roomie's wagon (472 Cad) gets around 5mpg... but it will rip
> a house off of its foundation and drag it up mountains.
Thats mainly because it has a carb while mine has fuel injection.
Christian
Christian Huebner
> > The Passat 1.8T consumes about 8 litre/100km at that speed. The Camaro?
> > Probably in excess of 12 if not as much as 20.
My Camaro uses about 12l/100km while commuting and less than 9
when driving on the freeway at 70. Your experience with big engines
seems to be somewhat limited. The days of 20l/100km in everyday
traffic are long gone.
Sure, If I drive the Camaro to its limits, it will need 20l/100km for the
2 minutes 'til I encounter a cop and go to jail. You can't drive the
Camaro to its limits in everyday traffic. Thats the nice thing about it.
Nobody tries to tell you to buy a Camaro. If you are happy with an
ecobox, drive one. I despise ecoboxes and thus dont buy one.
Christian
Izzy!
> > timing/carb tricks) and it's still pulling past the top speeds
> > listed from magazine tests from when it was new, it's probaly a SWAG
> > of 110-115hp.
>
> And you get only 17 mpg? Oops.
19 now, actually. The harder I drive it, the better the MPG gets.
Ain't complaining. :-)
It's a lot better than a 250hp car that gets 10mpg, or a 80hp car
with a powerband from exactly 3000 to exactly 5500 with nothing on
either side, that got 27mpg. You could floor it in first, in 2wd,
on gravel, from idle, and the tires would not spin until the engine
hit 3000rpm, that's how bad it was.
> > Turbo rotaries IMO are too finicky. Plus, there's a point where the
> > engine is so LAYERED with tubing and hoses and accessory that you
> > start to dread having to work on it.
>
> And you wouldnt get 17 mpg any more either. The rotary engine is interesting
> but there are good reasons why noone else builds one.
Actually, Sachs makes Wankel engines, as do a couple other companies
in Germany. Mazda was the second, and now only, manufacturer to actually
put one in a *car*. (Suzuki did a motorcycle.) Everyone else said
the sealing difficulties were insurmountable at the *same time* that
Mazda was churning out RX-2, RX-3, and RX-4. Yeah, sealing's a major
bitch and is unreliable, that's why mine has 105k on an unrebuilt
20 year old engine and runs even stronger than stock. Total unreliable
shit, those engine!
> > Your little small-block is nothing for torque compared to a big-block
> > Ford.
>
> 330hp and 350+ lb-ft. I guess thats not bad. I can cruise at 1200rpm.
If I had an overdrive trans, I could cruise there in my big-blocks
too. Ah, the downfall of a 3-speed trans.
> > My roomie's wagon (472 Cad) gets around 5mpg... but it will rip
> > a house off of its foundation and drag it up mountains.
>
> Thats mainly because it has a carb while mine has fuel injection.
Actually, it's mainly because roomie REFUSES to fix the ignition
system. Says "oh nothing's wrong with it, it's just the carburetor".
Sheesh. 27 year old plug wires and dizzy cap, and who KNOWS about
the points and condenser, and he thinks it's a carb problem...
Bob Irelan
"Izzy!" wrote:
>
> Michael Stone <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
dizzy
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>A 4 cylinder can guzzle much more gas than a V8, depending on the driving style
>and conditions. On an Interstate with speeds of 80 MPH, the 4 cylinder will be
>pushing on all 4 pistons at full blast. Guzzling gas out the a**. The V8 will be
>nicely purring along, right about at the idle speed for fourth gear. Using very
>little gas. Transmissions can affect gas guzzling as much, or more, than pure
>engine size.
Rarely do I see a post quite this stupid. Duh. "pushing on all 4
pistons at full blast" indeed. LOL! What an idiot!
dizzy
<chris....@att.net> wrote:
>What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
Stupid statement.
>Ducati, Triumph, BMW, Buell, Harley Davidson... lots of non japanese
>manufacturers out there. Japanese bikes are comparatively cheap but
>try to buy parts for a 5-year-old bike. They are meant for a few seasons
>and then the scrapyard.
Triumph. Laugh. Honda makes more cycles in a day than they do all
year. Buell is the same as Harley (literally owned by Harley) BMW
and Ducati are significant but still small niche-market providers.
Face it, dork. The Japanese dominate the world motorcycle market.
Their only real "failure" is Harley kicking their ass in the American
"big bike" market.
>I have not seen a japanese car yet (except for the Miata), which is
>in any way exciting or special.
Then you're an idiot. Another one of these fools who cares first and
foremost not about the car itself, but about his prejudices about it's
country of origin.
>The japanese are good at copying,
>but the list of japanese inventions in automobile design is very short.
Who cares? WOW they didn't invent disk brakes 50 years ago! Their
cars must suck!
>My problem is that I dont want to push the car to redline on
>every launch.
Only a fool makes statements as stupid as the one you just made.
>I understand turbos very well. The torque graphs dont look impressive
>on any of them (except for the Diesels) unless you compare them with
>puny 1.8l non-turbos.
Whether you are impressed or not, your previous statement about having
to "rev (a turbo) to get useable power" was wrong and ignorant.
>Where what is at? I have not found a 'mid-size performance car'
>that I liked. You may like them, but making your opinion the only
>valid one is quite ridiculous, isnt it?
So picky, yet you love your POS Chevy. Amazing.
>Almost all of your statements are opinion as are mine. Unfortunately
>you seem to think you are the keeper of the holy grail of automobile
>wisdom (which you most certainly are not).
No, he just recognizes stupidity when he sees it.
>I compared the sound of japanese 4-bangers to a vacuum cleaner.
Which was yet another stupid statement by you.
Christian Huebner
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:16:40 GMT, Christian Huebner
> <chris....@att.net> wrote:
>
> >What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
>
> Stupid statement.
How so? Apart from the fact that it was supposed to read 'a 10000rpm
Integra R', of course.
> >Ducati, Triumph, BMW, Buell, Harley Davidson... lots of non japanese
> >manufacturers out there. Japanese bikes are comparatively cheap but
> >try to buy parts for a 5-year-old bike. They are meant for a few seasons
> >and then the scrapyard.
>
> Triumph. Laugh. Honda makes more cycles in a day than they do all
> year. Buell is the same as Harley (literally owned by Harley) BMW
Numbers never were an indicator for quality. Whats wrong with Harley?
And Buell may be owned by Harley, but the bikes are quite different from
Harley. Audi is owned by VW, Lotus by Proton, Ferrari by Fiat and Audi
by VW. What about it?
> and Ducati are significant but still small niche-market providers.
Honda built a copy of the 996 (RC51) to finally get the superbike WM
back. Not exactly a recommendation for Honda.
> Face it, dork. The Japanese dominate the world motorcycle market.
Your name is Nixon, isnt it? At least both of you share the fate not
to have been taught proper manners.
> Their only real "failure" is Harley kicking their ass in the American
> "big bike" market.
And Ducati kicking their ass with a mini budget on the superbike
circuit.
> >I have not seen a japanese car yet (except for the Miata), which is
> >in any way exciting or special.
>
> Then you're an idiot. Another one of these fools who cares first and
> foremost not about the car itself, but about his prejudices about it's
> country of origin.
I couldnt care less about the country of origin. I have driven enough
japanese cars to know I won't buy one. You are quite ridiculous throwing
a tantrum ('idiot', 'moron', ...) every time someone happens to have an
opinion You don't like.
> >The japanese are good at copying,
> >but the list of japanese inventions in automobile design is very short.
>
> Who cares? WOW they didn't invent disk brakes 50 years ago! Their
> cars must suck!
They don't suck. They are too boring to even suck.
> >My problem is that I dont want to push the car to redline on
> >every launch.
>
> Only a fool makes statements as stupid as the one you just made.
And why is that? I happen not to like to take off with screaming engine,
there's nothing foolish about that.
> >I understand turbos very well. The torque graphs dont look impressive
> >on any of them (except for the Diesels) unless you compare them with
> >puny 1.8l non-turbos.
>
> Whether you are impressed or not, your previous statement about having
> to "rev (a turbo) to get useable power" was wrong and ignorant.
Show me a turbo that delivers usable power from 1000rpm. Not even
the (awesome) Buick Grand National can do that.
> >Where what is at? I have not found a 'mid-size performance car'
> >that I liked. You may like them, but making your opinion the only
> >valid one is quite ridiculous, isnt it?
>
> So picky, yet you love your POS Chevy. Amazing.
> >Almost all of your statements are opinion as are mine. Unfortunately
> >you seem to think you are the keeper of the holy grail of automobile
> >wisdom (which you most certainly are not).
>
> No, he just recognizes stupidity when he sees it.
Non sequitur.
> >I compared the sound of japanese 4-bangers to a vacuum cleaner.
>
> Which was yet another stupid statement by you.
1.) Learn to behave at least somewhat like a human being.
2.) Calling people stupid 20 times in a posting doesnt show intelligence.
3.) You are a troll, though quite a bad one.
Chris
Christian Huebner
Dont feed the trolls.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> Actually, Sachs makes Wankel engines, as do a couple other companies
> in Germany. Mazda was the second, and now only, manufacturer to actually
> put one in a *car*. (Suzuki did a motorcycle.) Everyone else said
> the sealing difficulties were insurmountable at the *same time* that
> Mazda was churning out RX-2, RX-3, and RX-4. Yeah, sealing's a major
> bitch and is unreliable, that's why mine has 105k on an unrebuilt
> 20 year old engine and runs even stronger than stock. Total unreliable
> shit, those engine!
Sachs doesnt make a car engine. They did a rotary engine for small model
airplanes, but I heard it was discontinued.
Actually the reason NSU stopped the Wankel was not the sealing problem.
That had been solved by then. The main reason was the unquenchable
thirst of the engines. Reliability issues had been there earlier on, long
before Mazda started making RX cars.
> > > My roomie's wagon (472 Cad) gets around 5mpg... but it will rip
> > > a house off of its foundation and drag it up mountains.
> >
> > Thats mainly because it has a carb while mine has fuel injection.
>
> Actually, it's mainly because roomie REFUSES to fix the ignition
> system. Says "oh nothing's wrong with it, it's just the carburetor".
> Sheesh. 27 year old plug wires and dizzy cap, and who KNOWS about
> the points and condenser, and he thinks it's a carb problem...
You may get up to 10mpg, but if you want to come close to 20 you will need
fuel injection.
Chris
Bob Nixon
Christian Huebner wrote:
> dizzy wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:16:40 GMT, Christian Huebner
> > <chris....@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
> >
> > Stupid statement.
>
> How so? Apart from the fact that it was supposed to read 'a 10000rpm
> Integra R', of course.
>
8000RPM.
> > >Ducati, Triumph, BMW, Buell, Harley Davidson... lots of non japanese
> > >manufacturers out there. Japanese bikes are comparatively cheap but
> > >try to buy parts for a 5-year-old bike. They are meant for a few seasons
> > >and then the scrapyard.
> >
> > Triumph. Laugh. Honda makes more cycles in a day than they do all
> > year. Buell is the same as Harley (literally owned by Harley) BMW
>
> Numbers never were an indicator for quality. Whats wrong with Harley?
> And Buell may be owned by Harley, but the bikes are quite different from
> Harley. Audi is owned by VW, Lotus by Proton, Ferrari by Fiat and Audi
> by VW. What about it?
>
You're showing your ignorance ONCE AGAIN Chris. Harley sells well but with
1940's technology and YOU could actually beat them with your umm.. super fast
Camaro. Bruell's can't get out of their own way either. Do yourself a favor and
look up the stats before running off at the mouth, because you're only showing
your ignorance. BTW, Harley's run ET's in the 14's and weigh 600-800LBS and
Bruell do maybe 13's at best. Slow, heavy, poor handling, unreliable, old
fashion junk for dirt bags or wannabe alter ego lawyer dirt bags. Nothing
complicated Chris, just dumb Americans wanting to impress each other. You're a
German, be proud of it and stop trying to be Mr. Hollywood.
>
> > and Ducati are significant but still small niche-market providers.
>
> Honda built a copy of the 996 (RC51) to finally get the superbike WM
> back. Not exactly a recommendation for Honda.
>
Ignorance again. The ONLY reason that Ducatti ruled super bikes for 3 years is
due to the fact that twins are allowed an extra 250cc's. The fours are limited
to 750cc and the twins can have 1 liter. BTW, the Ducatti's dominance is now
history. Honda finally got pissed and did Ducatti one better with the RC-51.
Also Suzuki's GSXR 750 has even been kicking RC-51's butt. The Duc's are now
running 4th or worse.
>
> > Face it, dork. The Japanese dominate the world motorcycle market.
>
> Your name is Nixon, isnt it? At least both of you share the fate not
> to have been taught proper manners.
>
>
You're using my name in every single post is flattering but it also shows just
how thin skinned and immature you really are. Dizzy insults make me look like a
priest.
> > Their only real "failure" is Harley kicking their ass in the American
> > "big bike" market.
>
> And Ducati kicking their ass with a mini budget on the superbike
> circuit.
>
Get your facts straight. This is ancient history. Besides, have you ever ridden
a Harley? They ain't much fun except to look at -:)
>
> > >I have not seen a japanese car yet (except for the Miata), which is
> > >in any way exciting or special.
>
You didn't even like THEM until Izzy sent you to school.
>
> > Then you're an idiot. Another one of these fools who cares first and
> > foremost not about the car itself, but about his prejudices about it's
> > country of origin.
>
> I couldnt care less about the country of origin. I have driven enough
> japanese cars to know I won't buy one. You are quite ridiculous throwing
> a tantrum ('idiot', 'moron', ...) every time someone happens to have an
> opinion You don't like.
>
> > >The japanese are good at copying,
> > >but the list of japanese inventions in automobile design is very short.
> >
> > Who cares? WOW they didn't invent disk brakes 50 years ago! Their
> > cars must suck!
>
> They don't suck. They are too boring to even suck.
>
> > >My problem is that I dont want to push the car to redline on
> > >every launch.
> >
> > Only a fool makes statements as stupid as the one you just made.
>
> And why is that? I happen not to like to take off with screaming engine,
> there's nothing foolish about that.
>
> > >I understand turbos very well. The torque graphs dont look impressive
> > >on any of them (except for the Diesels) unless you compare them with
> > >puny 1.8l non-turbos.
> >
> > Whether you are impressed or not, your previous statement about having
> > to "rev (a turbo) to get useable power" was wrong and ignorant.
>
> Show me a turbo that delivers usable power from 1000rpm. Not even
> the (awesome) Buick Grand National can do that.
>
Show me anything that delivers USABLE power at 1000 RPM. Virtually nothing but
diesel TRUCKS. Even your Camaro needs 1200-1400RPM for 20HP cruising. That's
not what I would consider usable power. Next time watch your tach when you take
off slowly from a light.
>
> > >Where what is at? I have not found a 'mid-size performance car'
> > >that I liked. You may like them, but making your opinion the only
> > >valid one is quite ridiculous, isnt it?
> >
> > So picky, yet you love your POS Chevy. Amazing.
>
> > >Almost all of your statements are opinion as are mine. Unfortunately
> > >you seem to think you are the keeper of the holy grail of automobile
> > >wisdom (which you most certainly are not).
> >
> > No, he just recognizes stupidity when he sees it.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > >I compared the sound of japanese 4-bangers to a vacuum cleaner.
>
Oh, grow up Chris. Watch RONIN if you want to hear some nice engine sounds,
instead of those BLAP, BLAP, dog sounding SBC 's. I'll bet you even think
Harleys sound Waaay coooool.
>
> > Which was yet another stupid statement by you.
>
> 1.) Learn to behave at least somewhat like a human being.
>
> 2.) Calling people stupid 20 times in a posting doesnt show intelligence.
>
> 3.) You are a troll, though quite a bad one.
>
> Well maybe we have a new insult King for Chris to whine about. I'm getting
> jealouus of Dizzy -:)
Bob Nixon
Christian Huebner wrote:
> dizzy wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:44:53 GMT, Michael Stone
> > <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >A 4 cylinder can guzzle much more gas than a V8, depending on the driving style
> > >and conditions. On an Interstate with speeds of 80 MPH, the 4 cylinder will be
> > >pushing on all 4 pistons at full blast. Guzzling gas out the a**. The V8 will be
> > >nicely purring along, right about at the idle speed for fourth gear. Using very
> > >little gas. Transmissions can affect gas guzzling as much, or more, than pure
> > >engine size.
Let's see. A 3600LBS 5.7 liter V8 running 1800RPM at 80MPH vs a 2100LBS 1.5liter 4
running 3200RPM at 80MPH. I guess your not too good at math huh Chris. Weight aside,
the big V8 is pumping over twice the air/fuel volume.
Get a clue Chris. Your Camaro gets maybe 24MPG at 80 MPH vs a 1.5 liter rice burner
doing 40MPG at the same speed. And the situation only gets worse in the city or 16-17
vs 28-32MPG. And don't fudge and tell me you get 20MPH commuting as likely a good deal
is freeway driving.
If you love that Camaro fine but don't try to tell us it's because it's economical.
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner wrote:
>
> > dizzy wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:16:40 GMT, Christian Huebner
> > > <chris....@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
> > >
> > > Stupid statement.
> >
> > How so? Apart from the fact that it was supposed to read 'a 10000rpm
> > Integra R', of course.
> >
>
> 8000RPM.
AFAIR the VTEC redlines at 8000. The R is supposed to redline at 10000.
> > > >Ducati, Triumph, BMW, Buell, Harley Davidson... lots of non japanese
> > > >manufacturers out there. Japanese bikes are comparatively cheap but
> > > >try to buy parts for a 5-year-old bike. They are meant for a few seasons
> > > >and then the scrapyard.
> > >
> > > Triumph. Laugh. Honda makes more cycles in a day than they do all
> > > year. Buell is the same as Harley (literally owned by Harley) BMW
> >
> > Numbers never were an indicator for quality. Whats wrong with Harley?
> > And Buell may be owned by Harley, but the bikes are quite different from
> > Harley. Audi is owned by VW, Lotus by Proton, Ferrari by Fiat and Audi
> > by VW. What about it?
> >
>
> You're showing your ignorance ONCE AGAIN Chris. Harley sells well but with
> 1940's technology and YOU could actually beat them with your umm.. super fast
> Camaro.
Rather show me something I can not beat. And if Harley is fun to ride why should
the riders care whether it can beat a RC51?
> Bruell's can't get out of their own way either. Do yourself a favor and
Buell got some awesome reviews. They are not as fast as the crotch rockets but
again, that was not the idea.
> look up the stats before running off at the mouth, because you're only showing
What stats? Quartermile times?
> your ignorance. BTW, Harley's run ET's in the 14's and weigh 600-800LBS and
> Bruell do maybe 13's at best. Slow, heavy, poor handling, unreliable, old
> fashion junk for dirt bags or wannabe alter ego lawyer dirt bags. Nothing
> complicated Chris, just dumb Americans wanting to impress each other. You're a
> German, be proud of it and stop trying to be Mr. Hollywood.
I dont try to be Mr. Hollywood. Why should I adore Japanese 'technology' because
I am German? Harley and Buell are good bikes
_for_the_purpose_they_are_designed_for_.
A Mercedes Benz S-Class is not as fast on the quartermile as an eye-abuser
(Hayabusa)
but it is an excellent car nonetheless.
Cant you get it through your head that not every motorcycle or car is made for
ultimate
performance? I happen to like performance and yet I can understand the guys
cruising
on their Harleys.
If you can't understand that discussion about it is basically pointless. Buy an
eye-abuser,
because it runs the quickest quartermile.
> > > and Ducati are significant but still small niche-market providers.
> >
> > Honda built a copy of the 996 (RC51) to finally get the superbike WM
> > back. Not exactly a recommendation for Honda.
> >
>
> Ignorance again.
LOL
> The ONLY reason that Ducatti ruled super bikes for 3 years is
> due to the fact that twins are allowed an extra 250cc's.The fours are limited
> to 750cc and the twins can have 1 liter. BTW, the Ducatti's dominance is now
> history. Honda finally got pissed and did Ducatti one better with the RC-51.
Big deal to beat a 10 year old bike with a good copy of itself. Especially when
the top Ducati rider is injured. In Hockenheim a new Ducati rider beat the RC51
:-)
> Also Suzuki's GSXR 750 has even been kicking RC-51's butt. The Duc's are now
> running 4th or worse.
Hockenheim. I saw the race. That Aussie guy could give the Hondas a hard time
even before Carl is back.
> > > Face it, dork. The Japanese dominate the world motorcycle market.
> >
> > Your name is Nixon, isnt it? At least both of you share the fate not
> > to have been taught proper manners.
>
> You're using my name in every single post is flattering but it also shows just
> how thin skinned and immature you really are. Dizzy insults make me look like a
> priest.
Dizzy is a troll and a bad one at that. That he is even worse than you doesnt
mean you still are uncivil and overly agressive.
> > > Their only real "failure" is Harley kicking their ass in the American
> > > "big bike" market.
> >
> > And Ducati kicking their ass with a mini budget on the superbike
> > circuit.
> >
>
> Get your facts straight. This is ancient history. Besides, have you ever ridden
> a Harley? They ain't much fun except to look at -:)
Hockenheim is brand new. I never rode a Harley but obviously people seem
to like riding them. Thay you dont is not an indication that the Harley is a bad
bike.
> > > >I have not seen a japanese car yet (except for the Miata), which is
> > > >in any way exciting or special.
>
> You didn't even like THEM until Izzy sent you to school.
I liked the Miata from the minute I rounded the first corner in one. Unfortunately
it is not suitable for what I need my car for. And please show me the posting
where I said I don't like the Miata. I dislike being misquoted.
> > > >I understand turbos very well. The torque graphs dont look impressive
> > > >on any of them (except for the Diesels) unless you compare them with
> > > >puny 1.8l non-turbos.
> > >
> > > Whether you are impressed or not, your previous statement about having
> > > to "rev (a turbo) to get useable power" was wrong and ignorant.
> >
> > Show me a turbo that delivers usable power from 1000rpm. Not even
> > the (awesome) Buick Grand National can do that.
> >
>
> Show me anything that delivers USABLE power at 1000 RPM. Virtually nothing but
> diesel TRUCKS. Even your Camaro needs 1200-1400RPM for 20HP cruising. That's
> not what I would consider usable power. Next time watch your tach when you take
> off slowly from a light.
I can hit the accelerator at 1000 rpm and the car will accelerate smoothly,
though of course not very fast. If you hit the accelerator at 1000 rpm in an
Integra the engine will die.
> > > >Where what is at? I have not found a 'mid-size performance car'
> > > >that I liked. You may like them, but making your opinion the only
> > > >valid one is quite ridiculous, isnt it?
> > >
> > > So picky, yet you love your POS Chevy. Amazing.
> >
> > > >Almost all of your statements are opinion as are mine. Unfortunately
> > > >you seem to think you are the keeper of the holy grail of automobile
> > > >wisdom (which you most certainly are not).
> > >
> > > No, he just recognizes stupidity when he sees it.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> >
> > > >I compared the sound of japanese 4-bangers to a vacuum cleaner.
> >
>
> Oh, grow up Chris. Watch RONIN if you want to hear some nice engine sounds,
> instead of those BLAP, BLAP, dog sounding SBC 's. I'll bet you even think
> Harleys sound Waaay coooool.
So you decide how an engine may sound and how it may not? And furthermore
you decide which kind of sound I have to like and which I'm not supposed to like?
Grow up.
Actually, a well tuned Harley sounds somewhat cool.
> > > Which was yet another stupid statement by you.
> >
> > 1.) Learn to behave at least somewhat like a human being.
> >
> > 2.) Calling people stupid 20 times in a posting doesnt show intelligence.
> >
> > 3.) You are a troll, though quite a bad one.
> >
>
> > Well maybe we have a new insult King for Chris to whine about. I'm getting
> > jealouus of Dizzy -:)
Poor guy. I am not mean, though. At least 1 and 2 are true for you also.
Whether or not 3 is I cant decide yet, but if it isnt I wouldnt like to be
someone as agressive, patronizing and bad-mannered as you are.
Chris
Thomas W
[Real drivability & agility come one size smaller, at around
1250 kilos weight = around 2750 pounds :]
> The Camaro is about 1500kg and thus barely heavier than a
> Porsche 996.
> The Ferrari 360, probably the best stock sportscar today is
> about 100kg lighter than the Camaro.
Porsche cars are not exactly small, but there is a fair amount
of suspension tuning & chassis design which help to compensate
for that. Such attributes do not apply to the Camaro, of course.
Ferrari best stock sportscar? Temperamental, unreliable, wears
out quickly, even more ridiculously expensive to own than to buy?
And if that wasn't bad enough, the anecdotes I hear are that
Ferarri owners avoid attending the same race days as Porsche
owners; instead having Ferarri-only competition so as not to be
driven round in the corners.
> I find the Camaro very driveable and I had a lot of
> opportunity to compare. The Miata may feel faster around tight
> corners because its steering is a tad more direct but in
> reality it isnt. Also the Miata is unsuited for long trips for
> its miniature trunk.
Thanks for giving us some real comparative comments. Maybe I'm
stereotyping the Camaro somewhat... but there's quite a bit of
reality behind that.
As for the Miata feeling, but not actually being, faster around
corners : Driving is about the experience and dynamics. Absolute
speed is quite irrelevant, except for track racing.
I'll digress on this for a bit...
Any vehicle with fluid handling and good dynamics, which is not
offensively slow, can be fun to drive. 100 hp is entirely
satisfactory in urban areas.
Straight-line driving is trivial anyway. Maneuvers are when the
fun is; corners, curves, intersections and lane changes. And
connecting these together in fluid style.
And, the primary limits for maneuvering are the safety & control
envelopes. Which are influenced not so much by how big your
engine is, but by the chassis, brakes, agility and the skill and
reactions of the driver.
.. and you're probably right about the boot of the Miata. But
in general the Japanese designers have made better use of car
size for interior & boot space, than American designers.
> The Corvette beat the Turbo in a track test on the
> Nuerburgring. I think the Camaro has a good chance to beat the
> Carrera.
Fine, off you go.
[Porsche is a whole different level of quality :]
> Not all that different.
Does your Camaro have the most powerful brakes in production?
Which Chevy models are full-time 4WD sports cars? Where is the
Chevy 400+ hp supercar?
> And if anything goes wrong with the Porsche's engine or
> transmission you better have an XXL wallet.
Which is why I choose mid-size packages which are agile &
affordable. Here's a short list :
- Nissan Primera
- Honda Civic, Integra
- Subaru Impreza WRX turbo
- Mitsubishi Lancer or Galant turbos
Couple of larger ones, but somewhat dubious on these :
- Subaru Legacy RS turbo
- Nissan Skyline 2.0 or 2.5l turbo
[4-cyl engines don't have to whine any more than 8-cyl engines :]
> What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
VTEC is Honda's way to increase power output, by allowing freer
breathing and higher revs.
Personally, I'd go turbo for increased induction & torque even
at mid-low revs. Extra power when you open the throttle, without
those extra 4 cyclinders adding friction & weight.
[Japanese & Ducati dominate motorcycles globally :]
> Ducati, Triumph, BMW, Buell, Harley Davidson... lots of non
> japanese manufacturers out there.
Ducati : great motorcyles. I mentioned them.
Triumph : might be on a comeback trail, after years of cruisers.
BMW : tourers.
Buell : which sports bikes of their, win world titles?
Harley Davidson : fat bike for fat rider. Go nowhere loudly.
They can't come near enough a Japanese sports bike to be pissed
upon.
> Japanese bikes are comparatively cheap but try to buy parts
> for a 5-year-old bike.
The rapid progress of their technology, is what makes them so
infinitely superior.
Also they don't leak oil on the showroom floor, unlike Harleys
until rather recently.
> They are meant for a few seasons and then the scrapyard.
Whereas the Harley Davidson should stay in the scrap yard, where
its technology belongs.
> I have not seen a japanese car yet (except for the Miata),
> which is in any way exciting or special. The japanese are good
> at copying, but the list of japanese inventions in automobile
> design is very short.
OK, they don't make many V8s. And they're not great inventors,
but are catching up. However, they are excellent designers and
make highly functional, efficient cars of which many drive well.
They set a significantly higher standard than American vehicle
designers.
> disk brakes, seatbelts,
These two were invented in America, and suppressed by major car
companies.
Many of the others are German or British inventions.
> My problem is that I dont want to push the car to redline on
> every launch. The Camaro pulls stronger at 3000 than the
> 'super' 1.8T at 6k.
Redline on launch? I'm very dubious about what you're saying
here.
Peak torque on almost any motor is well below redline, generally
around 2800 - 4200 revs. If you launch at 6000, you'll burn the
clutch, for less torque, with nowhere to rev to...
Any other driving tips?
> I understand turbos very well. The torque graphs dont look
> impressive on any of them unless you compare them with
> puny 1.8l non-turbos.
Comparing like with like, you'll find that the turbos are rather
effective.
As for apples and oranges, I find those gearsticks quite
effective to adjust available torque at the wheels.
[Sure you can go fast in a V12 Mercedes sedan, but the dynamics
and fluidity aren't there :]
> Where what is at?
Dynamics and fluidity, which form the essence of any positive
driving experience.
> I have not found a 'mid-size performance car' that I liked.
> You may like them, but making your opinion the only valid one
> is quite ridiculous, isnt it?
Well, here in New Zealand we get a lot of good Japanese cars,
maybe the selection is not so good in America.
As for validity: my facts are pretty strong, and I base my
opinions fairly firmly on these.
Everyone's got an opinion... the notion that these are of equal
value or validity, is just about as smart as Russian roulette.
Cheers,
Thomas
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner wrote:
>
> > dizzy wrote:
> >
Bob, that misquote even beats your world record. As is clearly
visible the above quote was written by Michael Stone. Are you
so blinded by rage and hate that you have to attribute everything
written in this thread to me?
Christian
Thomas W
> Of course, you realize that the methane produced by
> cow "emissions" is more polluting than vehicle emissions. What
> are "we" doing to reduce cow emissions?
Personally, I'm discussing the issue over at rec.cows.driving. I
ask you, politely :-), to limit your distension of that passage,
to reduce the subsequent flatulence.
Intended as *too* over the top, for you to take serious
offense :-)
.. I eat more chicken, fish and vegetables these days. I
believe they're healthier, produce less methane, require much
less crop for animal feeding, and I feel leaner and meaner.
Is that good?
> Greed is not a virtue. It is the founding principal on which
> the free enterprise system is based. We saw how well Communism
> and its "share" philosophy worked. "Greed, for lack of a
> better word, is good." Ambition to seek improvement is the
> only way to improve.
Improvement in a material dimension is fine; until it leads to
neglect or limitation of improvement in social, emotional and
spiritual dimensions.
In the dictionary, I believe you'll find greed has strong
negative connotations. And in reality, greedy people are unhappy
and without friends.
Self-interested might be a better term which can imply positive
interest, not in a specifically monetary dimension.
> Selfish is in the eye of the beholder. Is it better to "give"
> a free living to other to support "social equality"?
Is it better to live in South Africa, where the disposessed mobs
try every night to break into the fortified enclaves?
> It is the people that "can" that DO. Those that "can not" want
> those that can to "share". Too bad. No welfare for the lazy.
I can and do. But I figured out years ago that work & money are
*not* the greater part of life on this planet.
> "This is an age in which one cannot find common sense without
> a search warrant."
'Common sense' being a banner under which much blind stupidity
and prejudice march...
> "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
> - Confucius
You could probably find *quite* some amount of ancient wisdom on
the subjects of greed and charity, if you wanted.
Thomas W
[Would oil be quite so vital if Americans all drove cars of
either 1.6 or 2.0 litres? :]
> Yes, oil would be just as vital. You're talking less than a
> factor of 2 difference in consumption in the passenger fleet,
You are right. But looking at the problems of LA and other car-
dependent cities, I believe some major transport changes are
needed.
1) High-efficiency, low-pollution vehicles (electric?)
2) Wide use of public/ shared transport
I'd be quite pleased to share transport to & from work, if it
was easy to access and had minimal waiting. I'd drive as well,
not as often, but more for pleasure than transport.
> absolutely no difference in the commercial fleet, in air
> transport, in heating oil,
Commercial fleet could move to alternative technologies, heating
doesn't have to be oil. Air transport is probably the most
limited since electric is heavy.
> Besides, smaller engines don't necessarily mean lower gas
> consumption; my own 1.8l uses more gas than some 2.1l cars.
As a general rule, they use less. Lower friction & energy
overheads.
[Maybe if the US had actually finished the job and got rid of
Saddam? ]
> And installed who in his place? The US couldn't install a
> puppet government in Iraq, not without alienating the entire
> Middle East
That's quite perceptive of you.
How about, though, we let the Iranians or Syrians have it? Pick
a moderate faction, make sure they'll be slightly on the
friendly side of neutral... might cut the anti-American rhetoric
out for good.
> And of course Europe wouldn't like it either.
None of the outcomes has smiley faces all over it. But my one
would at least confuse Arab terrorists for a long time :-)
> Non-renewable inputs are absolutely required; we can't go back
> to animal and human labor alone without mass starvation.
Animal feed requirements are 10 - 20 times those required for
humans to eat a vegetarian diet. I'm not a vegetarian myself,
just pointing out that this is not an absolute barrier.
THEN there is the point that mass starvation already exists, and
will exist as the population grows too high. I believe it better
to choose a fairly low 'ideal' world population than have a high
population with pervasive war & famine. 2 or 3 billion seems
good to me.
Christian Huebner
> Hello Christian,
>
> [Real drivability & agility come one size smaller, at around
> 1250 kilos weight = around 2750 pounds :]
> > The Camaro is about 1500kg and thus barely heavier than a
> > Porsche 996.
> > The Ferrari 360, probably the best stock sportscar today is
> > about 100kg lighter than the Camaro.
>
> Porsche cars are not exactly small, but there is a fair amount
> of suspension tuning & chassis design which help to compensate
> for that. Such attributes do not apply to the Camaro, of course.
And in what precise way doesnt that apply to the Camaro, specifically
the SS?
> Ferrari best stock sportscar? Temperamental, unreliable, wears
> out quickly, even more ridiculously expensive to own than to buy?
It beats about anything on the racetrack. Thats what makes it the
best sportscar.
> And if that wasn't bad enough, the anecdotes I hear are that
> Ferarri owners avoid attending the same race days as Porsche
> owners; instead having Ferarri-only competition so as not to be
> driven round in the corners.
Anecdotes. If you have proof, post it. I read enough shootout reports
to know the Ferrari will beat the Porsche on the racetrack.
> > I find the Camaro very driveable and I had a lot of
> > opportunity to compare. The Miata may feel faster around tight
> > corners because its steering is a tad more direct but in
> > reality it isnt. Also the Miata is unsuited for long trips for
> > its miniature trunk.
>
> Thanks for giving us some real comparative comments. Maybe I'm
> stereotyping the Camaro somewhat... but there's quite a bit of
> reality behind that.
How many miles in a 4th gen Camaro (specifically Camaro SS, Z28 is ok,
RS doesnt count) with T56 did you actually drive befor stereotyping the
car?
> As for the Miata feeling, but not actually being, faster around
> corners : Driving is about the experience and dynamics. Absolute
> speed is quite irrelevant, except for track racing.
Yes. And I happen to absolutely like the way the Camaro feels. I
like the Miata, too, and the Porsche 911. But I like the Camaro
most of these cars otherwise I would not have bought it.
What beats me is that in this thread almost everyone seems to know
better what kind of cars _I_ like, than I do. Why is that, may I ask?
> I'll digress on this for a bit...
>
> Any vehicle with fluid handling and good dynamics, which is not
> offensively slow, can be fun to drive. 100 hp is entirely
> satisfactory in urban areas.
I havent found a 100hp car I like to drive. There is one specific 70hp
car I absolutely love to drive but it is not a daily driver and I am
sure noone in here has heard of it.
Of daily drivers I have not tried the 120hp Lotus Elise. I tried the
140hp Miata. I prefer the Camaro.
> Straight-line driving is trivial anyway. Maneuvers are when the
> fun is; corners, curves, intersections and lane changes. And
> connecting these together in fluid style.
> And, the primary limits for maneuvering are the safety & control
> envelopes. Which are influenced not so much by how big your
> engine is, but by the chassis, brakes, agility and the skill and
> reactions of the driver.
And what has this to do with what the discussion is about?
> .. and you're probably right about the boot of the Miata. But
> in general the Japanese designers have made better use of car
> size for interior & boot space, than American designers.
I have not found a japanese car aside of the highly unjapancar-like
Miata, which made any lasting impression on me, let alone a favoable
one.
> > The Corvette beat the Turbo in a track test on the
> > Nuerburgring. I think the Camaro has a good chance to beat the
> > Carrera.
>
> Fine, off you go.
Not interested. I didnt buy the car to race it.
> [Porsche is a whole different level of quality :]
> > Not all that different.
>
> Does your Camaro have the most powerful brakes in production?
> Which Chevy models are full-time 4WD sports cars? Where is the
> Chevy 400+ hp supercar?
The brakes of the Porsche are a little bit better but not much. What
is 4WD good for except for driving on snow? FYI, the worst handling
late model sports car, the Audi TT has 4-wheel-drive. It doesnt make
it any more driveable.
A Camaro with 450+hp is no problem. There is a supercharger for
4th-gen F-bodies, which gives you ~480hp. It costs $2500 I read.
> > And if anything goes wrong with the Porsche's engine or
> > transmission you better have an XXL wallet.
>
> Which is why I choose mid-size packages which are agile &
> affordable. Here's a short list :
> - Nissan Primera
> - Honda Civic, Integra
> - Subaru Impreza WRX turbo
> - Mitsubishi Lancer or Galant turbos
What in the world would I want an ugly, slow, tiny (Civic, Integra),
whiny sedan for?
I sincerely hope you are not serious in calling them sportscars or
comparing them to Camaro, Corvette, Porsche and Ferrari.
> [4-cyl engines don't have to whine any more than 8-cyl engines :]
> > What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
>
> VTEC is Honda's way to increase power output, by allowing freer
> breathing and higher revs.
I tried a VTEC Honda once. No torque and disappointing peak power.
> Personally, I'd go turbo for increased induction & torque even
> at mid-low revs. Extra power when you open the throttle, without
> those extra 4 cyclinders adding friction & weight.
Turbo makes for power at high rpm. Big displacement and supercharger
make for a broad powerband and very much power.
> [Japanese & Ducati dominate motorcycles globally :]
> > Ducati, Triumph, BMW, Buell, Harley Davidson... lots of non
> > japanese manufacturers out there.
>
> Ducati : great motorcyles. I mentioned them.
> Triumph : might be on a comeback trail, after years of cruisers.
The Speed Triple is not a cruiser.
> BMW : tourers.
> Buell : which sports bikes of their, win world titles?
Which of the above-mentioned ecoboxes (Primera, Civic, Subaru...)
has won a world title?
> Harley Davidson : fat bike for fat rider. Go nowhere loudly.
As long as the riders like it, it's okay with me. I only wonder why
_every_
japanese bike manufacturer tries to copy Harley.
> They can't come near enough a Japanese sports bike to be pissed
> upon.
So world domination is about which sport bike is fastest? Forget
it.
> > Japanese bikes are comparatively cheap but try to buy parts
> > for a 5-year-old bike.
>
> The rapid progress of their technology, is what makes them so
> infinitely superior.
The rapid loss of value doesnt exactly make them excellent buys.
And Honda still didnt manage to build a bike that is superior to the
10-year-old Ducati 996.
> Also they don't leak oil on the showroom floor, unlike Harleys
> until rather recently.
Rather leak oil and be able to sell the bike for a decent price
10 years from now.
> > They are meant for a few seasons and then the scrapyard.
>
> Whereas the Harley Davidson should stay in the scrap yard, where
> its technology belongs.
They dont. Look at the resale values. Obviously the vast majority of
buyers attributes more long-term trust to them than the japanese
racebikes.
Dont get me wrong. Honda, Kawasaki and Yamaha may be okay
for what they were designed for, but so are Ducati, Triumph, BMW,
Harley and Buell. Do you seriously think you are smarter than all the
people out there who choose to ride something off-mainstream and
exciting? Please tell me this is only a troll
> > I have not seen a japanese car yet (except for the Miata),
> > which is in any way exciting or special. The japanese are good
> > at copying, but the list of japanese inventions in automobile
> > design is very short.
>
> OK, they don't make many V8s. And they're not great inventors,
> but are catching up. However, they are excellent designers and
> make highly functional, efficient cars of which many drive well.
If someone likes a japanese car he should buy one. If someone
thinks he knows which car someone else should buy better than
the person itself he should find a shrink.
> They set a significantly higher standard than American vehicle
> designers.
No.
> > disk brakes, seatbelts,
>
> These two were invented in America, and suppressed by major car
> companies.
The 1959 Volvo PV444 had stock seatbelts.
> Many of the others are German or British inventions.
Yes. None of them are japanese inventions though.
> > My problem is that I dont want to push the car to redline on
> > every launch. The Camaro pulls stronger at 3000 than the
> > 'super' 1.8T at 6k.
>
> Redline on launch? I'm very dubious about what you're saying
> here.
If you want decent acceleration with a puny 2l engine you need
to rev it high.
> Peak torque on almost any motor is well below redline, generally
> around 2800 - 4200 revs. If you launch at 6000, you'll burn the
> clutch, for less torque, with nowhere to rev to...
'Redline' was not quite what I meant to say, but I wanted to get the
idea across.
> Any other driving tips?
No. You are the one who knows everything better than everyone
else.
> > I understand turbos very well. The torque graphs dont look
> > impressive on any of them unless you compare them with
> > puny 1.8l non-turbos.
>
> Comparing like with like, you'll find that the turbos are rather
> effective.
Find me a turbo which outperforms the LS1.
> As for apples and oranges, I find those gearsticks quite
> effective to adjust available torque at the wheels.
I find the high-revving ecoboxes more than a tad inconvenient.
That you can use the shiftlever to make them rev even higher
doesnt add to the fun...
> [Sure you can go fast in a V12 Mercedes sedan, but the dynamics
> and fluidity aren't there :]
> > Where what is at?
>
> Dynamics and fluidity, which form the essence of any positive
> driving experience.
Oh, I didnt drive a V12 sedan yet, but I can attest to it that a E320
gives a much more fluid and positive experience than, say, a
Primera or a Civic.
> > I have not found a 'mid-size performance car' that I liked.
> > You may like them, but making your opinion the only valid one
> > is quite ridiculous, isnt it?
>
> Well, here in New Zealand we get a lot of good Japanese cars,
> maybe the selection is not so good in America.
I was not talking about japanese cars but about whether you really
think that you know everything better than everyone else. Sure
looks like it judging by what you have written in here.
> As for validity: my facts are pretty strong, and I base my
> opinions fairly firmly on these.
I can't see any strong facts. You are good at having strong
opinions, though.
> Everyone's got an opinion... the notion that these are of equal
> value or validity, is just about as smart as Russian roulette.
IOW you think you are smarter than the rest. ROFL
Chris
Matthew T. Russotto
Thomas W <thomasw...@trade-exchange.co.nz.invalid> wrote:
}Matthew,
}
}[Would oil be quite so vital if Americans all drove cars of
}either 1.6 or 2.0 litres? :]
}> Yes, oil would be just as vital. You're talking less than a
}> factor of 2 difference in consumption in the passenger fleet,
}
}You are right. But looking at the problems of LA and other car-
}dependent cities, I believe some major transport changes are
}needed.
}1) High-efficiency, low-pollution vehicles (electric?)
Electric just moves the problem around while making it worse due to
conversion losses. And adds the various costs of batteries.
}2) Wide use of public/ shared transport
Not going to happen. There's good reasons why it shouldn't happen,
but it's sufficient that it will not.
}I'd be quite pleased to share transport to & from work, if it
}was easy to access and had minimal waiting.
Yeah. Which isn't going to happen except for a small fraction of the
potential users of any public transportation system.
}> And installed who in his place? The US couldn't install a
}> puppet government in Iraq, not without alienating the entire
}> Middle East
}
}That's quite perceptive of you.
It's drop-dead obvious.
}How about, though, we let the Iranians or Syrians have it? Pick
}a moderate faction, make sure they'll be slightly on the
}friendly side of neutral... might cut the anti-American rhetoric
}out for good.
Unfortunately, the US would not get to choose which faction. If the
"coalition" had invited the Iranians in, it would be whichever faction
of Iranians were in power at the time. And the anti-American rhetoric
would start back up as soon as they saw an advantage from it. There's
precious little gratitude in international relations, and none in the
Middle East.
There's a little geographical problem with the Syrians. Not to
mention all the other problems.
As you say, there's no good solution. IMO, we ought to back off on
the sanctions, let Saddam sell oil again, and if he gets belligerant
again... kick him in the ass hard, again. The sanctions don't seem to
be harming him any.
}> Non-renewable inputs are absolutely required; we can't go back
}> to animal and human labor alone without mass starvation.
}
}Animal feed requirements are 10 - 20 times those required for
}humans to eat a vegetarian diet. I'm not a vegetarian myself,
}just pointing out that this is not an absolute barrier.
My ancestors didn't fight their way to the top of the food chain so I
could eat grass. Which, BTW, I can't.
}THEN there is the point that mass starvation already exists, and
}will exist as the population grows too high.
Mass starvation is currently (and has been for many years) a political
problem, not a "there's not enough food" problem.
}I believe it better to choose a fairly low 'ideal' world population
}than have a high population with pervasive war & famine. 2 or 3
}billion seems good to me.
So which 3-4 billion will you kill?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Christian Huebner
>
> [one line of text added to a long fully quoted posting]
Read the netiquette and learn to quote.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> >Camaro's V8 runs at 1500 at the same speed. Quite a difference
> >I'd say.
>
> My tired brain says the Camaro fires 6000 times a minute and the
> Passat 7000 times a minute. Not much of a difference there!
What in the world does the rpm at a certain speed have to do with
redline?
The Camaro has a 6-speed transmission tuned to a top speed of 160+ mph.
The Passat has a five speed for a top speed of less than 130. The Camaro
has a very long 6th designed to reduce rpm at cruising speed.
> (I'm assuming that the Camaro isn't a 6-stroke or 8-stroke!)
Again, non sequitur.
> The Passat 1.8T consumes about 8 litre/100km at that speed. The Camaro?
> Probably in excess of 12 if not as much as 20.
At 75mph the Camaro gets 27 miles to the gallon. That is less than
10l/100km.
> >Most European cars rev too high at cruising speeds. And most European
> >cars dont produce enough torque that they can use reasonably long
> >transmission ratio.
>
> You have obviously lived a sheltered life far away from variety and
> the Autobahn. What does 'rev too high' actually mean as an
> _objective_ factor? Or is that your subjective "feel"?
I did drive enough kilometers on the Autobahn (I guess >50000) that
I exactly know what it feels like to drive there. I usually drove
very fast whenever conditions permitted. Thus of course the engines
of the respective cars ran at high revs.
We were discussing cruising at 75-80mph though. I simply dislike
an engine running between 3500 and 4000 at this speed. High revs
at cruising speed dont help engine life.
> Doesn't a V8 racer which *idles* at over 1000 rpm with a redline
> close to 10,000 rpm "rev too high"?
We were not discussing racecars. Street car considerations do not
apply to them, such as engine life.
> The power output of an engine can only be matched to the power
> requirements of the load by a limited number of factors. The most
> significant one is speed - at least for gasoline engines, as the
> air-fuel-ratio has to remain ignitable. As the power requirements of
> a car a fairly low for most of its life, it is more appropriate to
> have an engine which is capable of providing such low power levels
> at reasonable efficiency.
The efficiency of the LS1 is quite reasonable, thank you.
> And what's the importance of a 'reasonably long transmission ratio'?
Low rpm make for relaxed driving.
> Nothing! If the car performs adequately for the intended use (and
> the 1.8T does that unless weighed down by a Tiptronic) then it
> doesn't matter how fast the engine turns at the crank. What really
> matters is how quickly you get to where you're going, that you enjoy
> the journey and that you don't have to mortgage your grandchildren
> to fill the tank.
LOL. Get a better job if you have to mortgage your grandchildren
if your car consumes 12l/100km on average (Camaro) instead of 10l/100km
(Passat).
> >occasion? But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that can compete
> >with the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car the difference
> >in mileage will not be significant.
>
> A comparable car for a 4-banger would be a Lotus Elise.
The Elise is a very nice little car, but for everyday driving
it is not really suited.
> A Camaro is that size because of the size of the engine, where
> it's located and the drivetrain employed. The size (bulk) of the
> vehicle has little to do with it being a "sports car".
Sure the bigger engine makes an adequately sized car necessary.
The Passat for instance is bigger than the Camaro, though.
Christian
Christian Huebner
> > That had been solved by then. The main reason was the unquenchable
> > thirst of the engines. Reliability issues had been there earlier on, long
> > before Mazda started making RX cars.
>
> ever did fully fix the sealing problem, as the hot setup for rebuilding
> an NSU engine is to use modified Mazda parts for more reliability,
> even though NSU parts are available. There are also people who swap
> the Mazda engine into your Ro80.
Doesnt seem to help the mileage and the car will be essentially
worthless as a classic afterwards. I was told by a Ro80 owner that
unless you do fancy things to the Ro80 engine it is reliable enough.
Only the mileage is awful (as it is on the Mazda rotaries).
> > You may get up to 10mpg, but if you want to come close to 20 you will need
> > fuel injection.
>
> I'm sure it can get mileage that good. He brought it up from Dayton
> on ~12 gallons of fuel. What's mileage from Dayton-Cleveland?
> 220mi or so?
No idea.
> FWIW - I'm not sure about '73, but EFI *was* available on the Cad
> engines in '74.
I meant computerized Multipoint Fuel Injection. The early mechanical
systems were not much better than carbs.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> > And the heaviest Porsches carry an AWD drivetrain. Still lighter
> > than a RWD Camaro. Of course, you pay for all that high-tech alloy
> > to keep the weight down. The Porsche is still markedly smaller
> > outside than the Camaro.
>
> And yet it has more interior room... hmm, maybe because the engine's
> out of the way.
The 996 was weighed in at 1470kg. They say (I didnt check) that
the Camaro SS with the fiberglass body parts weighs a bit more
than 1500kg.
If the Porsche is smaller it's not by much. And Porsche needs to
do lots of fancy stuff to the suspension to correct the tendency
to oversteer. Earlier Porsches were known to be dangerous unless
you happened to be an excellent driver (and even then in bad
road conditions).
> > Pardon the antipodean ignorance: LS1?
>
> LS1, noun: Chevrolet's 325-345hp, 5.7l V8 engine. No relation to
> the old small-block, even the bellhousing pattern has changed.
And its not cast iron but aluminum.
> > But you're diverting the argument... The 1.8T is just as good an
> > engine in the A6 as the V8. It just doesn't go quite as hard, nor as
> > fast; but fuel consumption is much more bearable. Remember the
> > Europeans are paying about US$6/gallon
It depends on what you call a good engine. I call the 1.8T
not a good engine because it needs comparatively high revs
to produce enough power and thus needs to be driven much
harder than the Camaro.
> I was shocked, when I learned that Audi was putting the 1.8t in a
> car as large as the A6. That poor thing must be under boost under
> all conditions except at a full stop.
At least in the Passat it basically is.
> > No thanks. I have a GTI. 5.6l/100km cruising. 0-100kmh in under 10
> > seconds, which is slow by today's standards, but still entirely
> > useful.
>
> Which generation? (Assuming Volkswagen Golf here, am I right?)
If you have _any_ GTI and it consumes less than 6l/100km you either
drive very slowly or you are not telling us the truth. Series I GTIs
were known for spirited performance due to their low weight, but not
particularly for good mileage. Auto Motor und Sport tested it at
9l/100km
IIRC. GTI2 was not any more powerful but much heavier, thus needing even
more gas. GTI3 was a fat pig for an ecobox. GTI4 still is, but now it
has
the 150hp Turbo. It is not too much lighter than the Passat any more,
but at least it is faster than GTI3.
BTW, Golf GTI1 and Opel Kadett C were known as 'black coffins' because
they were fast but extremely unsafe.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> > > out quickly, even more ridiculously expensive to own than to buy?
> >
> > It beats about anything on the racetrack. Thats what makes it the
> > best sportscar.
>
> notoriously evil handling (going by what I'm told here).
I dont believe any of the guys who tell anything here have ever
driven a Ferrari. Its true the models to midd-70s were not easy
to handle and could have used a suspension upgrade. But then try
to handle a '73 Porsche 911 Carrera RS 2.7. The new models, 550,
355 and now the 360 got excellent reviews in the German car
magazines.
> As legend
> goes, even Enzo used to laugh at all the idiots who would buy his
> cars! Their only real purpose was to further the racing efforts.
Not quite true. The 60s Ferrari were mostly competition models
(except for the 250GTE and the America series), which were not
easy to drive but very fast. Luigi Chinetti, Count Volpi, the
Marquis de Portago and many others raced Ferrari sportscars and
did very well with them.
> I think that's what was meant by "temperamental". Not that some
> certain 911's don't have any handling faults either. As one person
> put it, the 911 seems to be a junior high student's study-hall
> concoction:
911 were expert only through '75. Then the suspension became much
softer and the handling easier but the snappy response of the early
models was lost.
> "Hey, I know. Let's make a car with a wheelbase shorter than a
> Jeep Wrangler's, hang a really powerful turbocharged air-cooled
> engine way out behind the *rear* wheels..."
Forget it. The Audi TT is said to be the most awful handling
coupe built today, both in 2WD and 4WD, for the exact reason
that its wheel base is too short to provide stability.
> > Anecdotes. If you have proof, post it. I read enough shootout reports
> > to know the Ferrari will beat the Porsche on the racetrack.
>
> With professional drivers. Meaning, they are better able to work
> around handling faults, and they're been practicing on each corner,
> working slowly up to the fastest times possible. In the real world
> you only get one shot, you either go slow or better know exactly
> what the hell you're doing, with no margin for error. That's the
> difference between a slow but fun car, and a fast but nightmarish
> car.
Ferrari are not any more nightmarish than Porsche.
> > I havent found a 100hp car I like to drive. There is one specific 70hp
> > car I absolutely love to drive but it is not a daily driver and I am
> > sure noone in here has heard of it.
>
> Go on, try us!
RSA/Christian-Huebner Kindred Spirit. That is true, my name is in there
as it is in the title as I assembled the whole car myself.
> > Of daily drivers I have not tried the 120hp Lotus Elise. I tried the
> > 140hp Miata. I prefer the Camaro.
>
> Not sure if I'd want to use the Miata as a daily driver, really.
> Maybe a sunny-day driver, but rainy days are the best for driving
> anyway...
I prefer sunny days as I usually drive with the top down.
Christian
Bernd Felsche
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> Christian Huebner <chris....@att.net> writes:
>>
>> >Steve M wrote:
>> >> In article <394932FC...@att.net>, Christian Huebner
>> >> <chris....@att.net> wrote:
>> >> > But seriously, if you build a 4-banger that can compete with
>> >> > the Camaro's V8 and put it in a comparable car the difference
>> >> > in mileage will not be significant.
>>
>> >> Uhh, could you read that again?
>> >> Put it in a comparable car? Do you mean as in weight? Or
>> >> performance?
>>
>> >Comparable shell. Size, weight, ...
>>
>> Why? It's not necessary to have such a big car for a smaller engine.
>> You can provide the same interior (i.e. FUNCTIONAL) space in a
>> smaller package which is lighter and easier to manage.
>You need a reasonable wheelbase and track. Functional space is
>not an issue here. Porsche and Ferrari have much smaller engines
>than the Camaro, yet the cars are almost as heavy.
The Porsche is about 200 to 300 kg lighter. That's a load of bulk.
And the heaviest Porsches carry an AWD drivetrain. Still lighter
than a RWD Camaro. Of course, you pay for all that high-tech alloy
to keep the weight down. The Porsche is still markedly smaller
outside than the Camaro.
>> If you do put a smaller engine into a big shell, then the fuel
>> consumption can still be significantly better; as well as improving
>> the handling. Compare the V8 and 1.8T Audi A6 for example.
>The 1.8T is not even in the same ballpark as the LS1.
Pardon the antipodean ignorance: LS1?
But you're diverting the argument... The 1.8T is just as good an
engine in the A6 as the V8. It just doesn't go quite as hard, nor as
fast; but fuel consumption is much more bearable. Remember the
Europeans are paying about US$6/gallon
>> Is it? Is the performance really that much better?
>Yes, it is.
In point-to-point driving? Say an average trip of 50km with 80% of
the distance on highways in traffic and the rest in urban/suburban
traffic?
>> For an engine with twice the number of working strokes per engine
>> rev, the V8 is already at a disadvantage. Add to that the extra bulk
>> of the engine and dense traffic and you'll quickly change your mind
>> about performance in terms of point-to-point speeds.
>Buy a Geo Metro.
No thanks. I have a GTI. 5.6l/100km cruising. 0-100kmh in under 10
seconds, which is slow by today's standards, but still entirely
useful.
>> The difference in fuel consumption is most significant in
>> (sub)urban environments. That's where most cars spend most of
>> their time.
>As I said, buy a Geo Metro (nowadays its called Chevy Metro). Its
>fuel consumption is much less than that of any VW 1.8T or whatever.
Don't get those Chevs here. Nobody wants to buy them.
Maybe you missed the other points about car performance which I've
posted... I won't repeat them. Lets just say that ultimate economy
isn't one of the goals or desirable compromise.
Else I'd be pushing to import a TDI Passat. Much better economy
than the Geo Metro junk. And reasonable performance.
Bernd Felsche
>> ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>> > The Passat 1.8T consumes about 8 litre/100km at that speed. The Camaro?
>> > Probably in excess of 12 if not as much as 20.
>My Camaro uses about 12l/100km while commuting and less than 9
>when driving on the freeway at 70. Your experience with big engines
>seems to be somewhat limited. The days of 20l/100km in everyday
>traffic are long gone.
My experience is certainly limited. If not so much by the economics,
then the lack of enjoyment I derive from being at the helm of such a
vehicle.
>Sure, If I drive the Camaro to its limits, it will need 20l/100km for the
>2 minutes 'til I encounter a cop and go to jail. You can't drive the
>Camaro to its limits in everyday traffic. Thats the nice thing about it.
Couldn't drive a 1.8T anywhere near it's limits around here either.
12 seconds and your licence is gone for life, just about! Can't even
give the GTI a decent run except on the track.
>Nobody tries to tell you to buy a Camaro. If you are happy with an
>ecobox, drive one. I despise ecoboxes and thus dont buy one.
My GTI isn't exactly an ecobox. Nor is any 1.8T-engined car.
Bernd Felsche
>ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>> My tired brain says the Camaro fires 6000 times a minute and the
>> Passat 7000 times a minute. Not much of a difference there!
>What is your fascination with number of power strokes? It is
>immaterial. What is important is the the HP required to punch
It illustrates that the V8 is working just as hard as the 4.
>the car through the air, versus how much fuel that engine requires
>to maintain that HP at a given speed. The latter half of the equation
>has nothing to do with number of cylinders and everything to do with
>BSFC.
>> The Passat 1.8T consumes about 8 litre/100km at that speed. The Camaro?
>> Probably in excess of 12 if not as much as 20.
>Let me see, LS1 Camaro at 75mph, 1 gal/30mi, that works out to
Hang on... 30 mpg at 75mph in a Camaro? That sounds optimisitic.
Maybe under _ideal_ conditions. In practice, others report about
26mpg (9l/100km).
>roughly 7.5l/100km. Assuming my quick-n-dirty rounding method
>worked out a little optimistic, (60mi/100km, 3.75l/gal) it would
>still be 8 or slightly less.
7.83 l/100km
You divide the figure into 235.21 for US mpg <-> l/100km
and into 282.48 for UK mpg <-> l/100km
>FWIW - a car of mine always got 27mpg because that was the most fuel
>it could possibly use. It only made about 80-85hp, so it got great
>mileage by default. I don't see why driving a 320hp car lightly
>(never making more than 80hp) couldn't return similar mileage.
Because it's heavier (greater rolling resistance), is a bigger car
(more aero drag), has a larger engine (more internal losses), etc.
Recent SAE papers discussed the significant effect of coolant volume
on typical fuel consumption; for trips less than half an hour,
coolant volume (in the coolant jacket) makes a significant
difference.
Izzy!
>
> Sachs doesnt make a car engine. They did a rotary engine for small model
> airplanes, but I heard it was discontinued.
Actually, they also made lawnmower engines and various-sized
industrial engines. IIRC the emergency backup generator on many
aircraft is powered by a Wankel, because of its power-to-weight
and power-to-size ratios. Curtiss-Wright also did a number of
industrial-use Wankels, but development and production stopped
and was scrapped when John Deere bought 'em.
> Actually the reason NSU stopped the Wankel was not the sealing problem.
> That had been solved by then. The main reason was the unquenchable
> thirst of the engines. Reliability issues had been there earlier on, long
> before Mazda started making RX cars.
NSU was only a couple years ahead of Mazda. And, I don't think they
ever did fully fix the sealing problem, as the hot setup for rebuilding
an NSU engine is to use modified Mazda parts for more reliability,
even though NSU parts are available. There are also people who swap
the Mazda engine into your Ro80.
Yes, mileage sucked, but remember, it was the '70s, EVERYTHING got
bad mileage. Reliability killed the NSU, and nearly killed Mazda
before they solved the problem twofold: Ditch the carbon-aluminum
apex seals and go for slightly heavier but longer-lasting cast iron,
and stop putting the engine in "plebian" cars and instead put it into
a small GT where the engine's torque characteristics could be better
appreciated. (Then again, at least one person has a bridge-ported
REPU used as a *tow vehicle*...)
> > Actually, it's mainly because roomie REFUSES to fix the ignition
> > system. Says "oh nothing's wrong with it, it's just the carburetor".
> > Sheesh. 27 year old plug wires and dizzy cap, and who KNOWS about
> > the points and condenser, and he thinks it's a carb problem...
>
> You may get up to 10mpg, but if you want to come close to 20 you will need
> fuel injection.
I'm sure it can get mileage that good. He brought it up from Dayton
on ~12 gallons of fuel. What's mileage from Dayton-Cleveland?
220mi or so?
FWIW - I'm not sure about '73, but EFI *was* available on the Cad
engines in '74.
Izzy!
>
> Let's see. A 3600LBS 5.7 liter V8 running 1800RPM at 80MPH vs a 2100LBS 1.5liter 4
> running 3200RPM at 80MPH. I guess your not too good at math huh Chris. Weight aside,
> the big V8 is pumping over twice the air/fuel volume.
Not necessarily! If they require the same road horsepower to go
80mph, they will require the same airflow, give or take a couple
CFM. The big if here, is how much road horsepower is required to
move the Camaro versus to move a, hmm, what car weighs 2100 pounds?
None that I can think of that will turn only 3200 at 80mph. Let's
go with that, though. Something that light is most likely an econobox
with a somewhat high beltline and a large "greenhouse", for roughly
equal, possibly more, frontal area than the Camaro. I'll grant that,
even thought it *looks* aero, it isn't all that hot, but an econobox
is even worse. So we have a little rolling resistance advantage
weighed out by aerodynamic disadvantage, PLUS there's the lack of
inertia helpign to maintain the speed. This is pretty important
if the road isn't very flat, but isn't mountainous either. Average,
in other words.
Izzy!
>
> AFAIR the VTEC redlines at 8000. The R is supposed to redline at 10000.
Integra Type-R has a 8600rpm redline. Civic Type R is 8800, IIRC.
(Integra Type R suspension/brakes on a Civic hatchback body, with
the Integra head on a 1.6l block. 185hp @ something stupid-high)
S2000 is a little higher but still in the four-digits.
> I dont try to be Mr. Hollywood. Why should I adore Japanese 'technology' because
> I am German? Harley and Buell are good bikes
> _for_the_purpose_they_are_designed_for_.
> A Mercedes Benz S-Class is not as fast on the quartermile as an eye-abuser
> (Hayabusa)
> but it is an excellent car nonetheless.
Oh jeez, let's not get all logical now.
I'm not a major fan of *any* bike, really, but there sure are a lot
more people on "cruisin'" bikes than "racin'" ones. Profilers? Maybe,
but they also get sportbikes. One guy I talked to said he preferred
his Harley because it was easier to ride long-distance than a racing
bike. Which makes sense, I'd hate to ride a century on either my
racing "roadie" bike, or my old-school low front end mountain bikes.
> If you can't understand that discussion about it is basically pointless. Buy an
> eye-abuser,
> because it runs the quickest quartermile.
There are a few production, street legal cars out there quicker than
any of the Motor Trend centerfold cars (nice to dream about but you'll
never get to drive one :-) ) BUT very few, if any, people would consider
actually driving one except at the track.
Izzy!
>
> Ferrari best stock sportscar? Temperamental, unreliable, wears
> out quickly, even more ridiculously expensive to own than to buy?
You think THAT's bad... there's a guy near me who just bought an
Esprit Turbo. Wow... looks like a Fiero and sounds like a
worn-out Dodge Charger Turbo. That's worth a heap of money! <g>
It's an older one... it's funny to hear him floor it at the
stoplight, then a second or two later you hear the turbo spool up.
Gack!
> As for the Miata feeling, but not actually being, faster around
> corners : Driving is about the experience and dynamics. Absolute
> speed is quite irrelevant, except for track racing.
Oh! But we don't care about having fun, we just want the car with
better numbers, bench-racing is what's fun.
> I'll digress on this for a bit...
>
> Any vehicle with fluid handling and good dynamics, which is not
> offensively slow, can be fun to drive. 100 hp is entirely
> satisfactory in urban areas.
Less horsepower is actually a ball to drive, as you are forced to
drive at WFO most of the time, and take corners at high G just to
maintain momentum.
> .. and you're probably right about the boot of the Miata. But
> in general the Japanese designers have made better use of car
> size for interior & boot space, than American designers.
Yeah, but the Miata needs space for the top, and the battery, and
the Bose subwoofer "snake" if you have that audio system. I'm
amazed at the lack of trunk (sorry, boot) space in that car, it
makes the "well" in a Camaro look cavernous.
> Does your Camaro have the most powerful brakes in production?
Well, they did upgrade from '69-era designed calipers back in '93.
Haven't seen the new, final models, but across the whole line,
including trucks, it appears that GM has discovered that there's
more to brakes than putting softer pads on for more braking power.
> Which Chevy models are full-time 4WD sports cars? Where is the
> Chevy 400+ hp supercar?
Well, there was the GMC Syclone, a 2-seater AWD turbo 12-valve six.
Made a serious hunk of power, forgot the exact numbers. Unfortunately,
it was a compact pickup, and they are scarce and hideously expensive
on the used market as they are so desirable. As for 400+hp supercar...
the ZR-1 in its final years was making 405hp, and the current rumor
is that the LS-1 engine is good for 425-445hp, but Chevy de-tuned it
to 345hp so as not to piss off ZR-1 owners. It is pretty easy to
get that kind of power with simple modifications, so I don't doubt it.
> Which is why I choose mid-size packages which are agile &
> affordable. Here's a short list :
> - Nissan Primera
A what?
> - Honda Civic,
Cheap tinny shitbox, past its prime.
>Integra
Ditto.
> - Subaru Impreza WRX turbo
Unavailable, FOR THE TIME BEING. (woohoo!)
http://www.new-impreza.com
> - Mitsubishi Lancer or Galant turbos
Lancer turbo? Our version of that car (Mirage) is a 1.5l, or
1.8l, FWD shitbox. Galant turbo was overpriced and underappreciated
and was only sold here for a couple years, '91 and '92 IIRC.
What we got was the Eclipse (2+2 hatch, like a large four-seater CRX)
availaible with the 1.8l SOHC (shit), 2.0l DOHC (sorta shit),
2.0l DOHC turbo (okay, 190-210hp), last of which available in FWD
or AWD models. A manager is selling a 2nd-gen one for $7500.
Personally I feel they're too heavy, too bulky, and not enough
interior room, especially thigh room.
> Couple of larger ones, but somewhat dubious on these :
> - Subaru Legacy RS turbo
We got a 160hp turbo Legacy in, I think, 1990 and 1991. No
intercooler, SOHC 2.2l engine. Pulled from market due to lack of
sales. (Bummer) Most seem to have been automatics too.
> - Nissan Skyline 2.0 or 2.5l turbo
*drool* If only...
> [4-cyl engines don't have to whine any more than 8-cyl engines :]
> > What car wouls you suggest? A 1000rpm Integra R?
>
> VTEC is Honda's way to increase power output, by allowing freer
> breathing and higher revs.
Well... VTEC is how Honda is able to use a racing cam, yet have
acceptable low-rpm emissions. There's the "idle lobes", and then
the "main lobes" kick in at about 4500-6500rpm depending on model.
> Personally, I'd go turbo for increased induction & torque even
> at mid-low revs. Extra power when you open the throttle, without
> those extra 4 cyclinders adding friction & weight.
Yes, but if you're in boost all the time...
Said manager gets 8-12mpg in her Eclipse GSX. (The reason she's
selling it!)
Izzy!
>
> > Ferrari best stock sportscar? Temperamental, unreliable, wears
> > out quickly, even more ridiculously expensive to own than to buy?
>
> best sportscar.
Racing drivers can extract the most out of them. Ferraris have
notoriously evil handling (going by what I'm told here). As legend
goes, even Enzo used to laugh at all the idiots who would buy his
cars! Their only real purpose was to further the racing efforts.
I think that's what was meant by "temperamental". Not that some
certain 911's don't have any handling faults either. As one person
put it, the 911 seems to be a junior high student's study-hall
concoction:
"Hey, I know. Let's make a car with a wheelbase shorter than a
Jeep Wrangler's, hang a really powerful turbocharged air-cooled
engine way out behind the *rear* wheels..."
> Anecdotes. If you have proof, post it. I read enough shootout reports
> to know the Ferrari will beat the Porsche on the racetrack.
With professional drivers. Meaning, they are better able to work
around handling faults, and they're been practicing on each corner,
working slowly up to the fastest times possible. In the real world
you only get one shot, you either go slow or better know exactly
what the hell you're doing, with no margin for error. That's the
difference between a slow but fun car, and a fast but nightmarish
car.
> I havent found a 100hp car I like to drive. There is one specific 70hp
> car I absolutely love to drive but it is not a daily driver and I am
> sure noone in here has heard of it.
Go on, try us!
> Of daily drivers I have not tried the 120hp Lotus Elise. I tried the
> 140hp Miata. I prefer the Camaro.
Not sure if I'd want to use the Miata as a daily driver, really.
Maybe a sunny-day driver, but rainy days are the best for driving
anyway...
>
> I have not found a japanese car aside of the highly unjapancar-like
> Miata, which made any lasting impression on me, let alone a favoable
> one.
I've had a few that did, but the impression was purely mechanical-hell
related. To remove a part required removing part X first, but to
remove that, Y had to come out, adding complication upon complication
until it's seemingly easier to just tear out the engine with a winch
and a cutting torch. Boost addiction is a BITCH. :-)
And then there was the wonderful dilemma, to remove the cylinder head
required removal of the P/S pump. Removal of that required removal
of the A/C compressor. Removal of that required removal of the intake
manifold. Removal of *that* required that you first remove the
cylinder head! Recursive disassembly...
Izzy!
> The Porsche is about 200 to 300 kg lighter. That's a load of bulk.
> And the heaviest Porsches carry an AWD drivetrain. Still lighter
> than a RWD Camaro. Of course, you pay for all that high-tech alloy
> to keep the weight down. The Porsche is still markedly smaller
> outside than the Camaro.
And yet it has more interior room... hmm, maybe because the engine's
out of the way.
(sorry, it's the Subaru freak in me)
> Pardon the antipodean ignorance: LS1?
LS1, noun: Chevrolet's 325-345hp, 5.7l V8 engine. No relation to
the old small-block, even the bellhousing pattern has changed.
> But you're diverting the argument... The 1.8T is just as good an
> engine in the A6 as the V8. It just doesn't go quite as hard, nor as
> fast; but fuel consumption is much more bearable. Remember the
> Europeans are paying about US$6/gallon
I was shocked, when I learned that Audi was putting the 1.8t in a
car as large as the A6. That poor thing must be under boost under
all conditions except at a full stop.
> No thanks. I have a GTI. 5.6l/100km cruising. 0-100kmh in under 10
> seconds, which is slow by today's standards, but still entirely
> useful.
Which generation? (Assuming Volkswagen Golf here, am I right?)
>
> >As I said, buy a Geo Metro (nowadays its called Chevy Metro). Its
> >fuel consumption is much less than that of any VW 1.8T or whatever.
>
> Don't get those Chevs here. Nobody wants to buy them.
It's just a rebadged Suzuki Swift.
The "Geo Division" was just GM's center for rebadged imports. The
Metro and the two trucklets (? and ?) were Suzukis, the Prizm is a
Corolla, and the Storm was a "JR" Isuzu Impulse (Piazza?).
> Else I'd be pushing to import a TDI Passat. Much better economy
> than the Geo Metro junk. And reasonable performance.
We do get that, IIRC. They aren't importing many of them, and
also IIRC there's still a long waiting-list to get one. One
definitely doesn't find them in the used-car ads, the people who
buy a diesel tend to keep them until they die or rust away!
For some reason, VW has had good luck selling diesels in the US
when nobody else, possibly save M-B, has been able to.
Izzy!
> It illustrates that the V8 is working just as hard as the 4.
Which is at a smaller percentage of the engine's potential.
> >Let me see, LS1 Camaro at 75mph, 1 gal/30mi, that works out to
>
> Hang on... 30 mpg at 75mph in a Camaro? That sounds optimisitic.
> Maybe under _ideal_ conditions. In practice, others report about
> 26mpg (9l/100km).
In practise, that's also what owners of the Civic Si (160hp VTEC)
report.
> Recent SAE papers discussed the significant effect of coolant volume
> on typical fuel consumption; for trips less than half an hour,
> coolant volume (in the coolant jacket) makes a significant
> difference.
Makes good sense to me. The engine takes longer to warm up if
it has more coolant volume for the displacement, so it'll be
on choke (or electronic equivalent) longer.
Of course, having a larger engine is also important if you live
somewhere cold! There are many small-engined cars out there that
will detectably lose heat from the vents at idle. Having a bigger
engine allows you to have a relatively quick warm-up *and* enough
coolant volume to feed the heater core.