Consider buying American!

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:24:44 -0500, wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:40:40 +0000, wrote:
>
>>END OF LIFE - at least BMW are honest about it having one - unlike a load of US
>>built rubbish I see when I venture forth over there and some of the real crap
>>built in the US over here.
>
>From my experience with American vehicles over 45 years I have been
>driving them, the drive train is pretty solid, it is the geehaws they
>stick in the car to make it sell that is the junk. Plastic dash boards
>and all that pretty interior that falls apart, cheap A/C compressors
>and the rest of the bolt on stuff. That is why it is not unusual to
>still see 25 year old ford trucks on the road, still getting it done.
>They weren't fancy.


I really must agree there. However here in the UK and Euroland the powers that
think they run everybody are paranoid about being GREEN.

One or maybe two of the nicest cars to come out of the US are the Dodge
Challenger - 69 - 74 although the later ones with the horrible front bumper
wasn't that nice and the Dodge Charger 68 - 73

Neither went round corners well and the interiors were total crap as were the
brakes. the new Challenger looks great and has a real hemi but does it actually
go round corners? We don't get the Charger here but if it's anything like the
300 Ugh!

Well that's only 2........... However, our GM division - VAUXHALL - (you
vauxhall the way there and vaux (walk) all the way back!) were total rubbish in
the 1960s Nice looking but rusted away within 3 years and that plastic - super
oiled to begin with and very sumptuous but within 3 years when all the
plasticisers had evaporated away on the glass (yellow misting is not due to
smoking) all the interior simply cracked and fell apart.

--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:12:17 -0800, jim beam > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:59:45 -0800, jim beam > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:05:28 -0800, jim beam
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but that's not the point. if the chain is worn enough to skip, it's
>>>>> being run as a gross polluter. and long before. that is stupid and
>>>>> easily avoided with a belt.
>>>>
>>>> All of this assumes the owner never did a "tune up" or put a timing
>>>> light on it.
>>> cam timing, not ignition timing!!! you can adjust the ignition timing
>>> so it looks right, even when the cam's way off.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Any mechanic with an ounce of knowlege knows timing
>>>> drifts because the chain is wearing.
>>> so why are you arguing that chains are better? belts don't wear
>>> ["stretch"]! their timing never changes!
>>
>> Tell that to a woman that wore "garter belt" or Suspenders the timing that it
>> broke was never hinted at - their stocking simply fell down like your engine
>> does when the belt breaks.
>
>have you ever cut a belt open? not that much rubber in there - it's
>mostly kevlar cord. unless kevlar is used for underwear by english
>chicks, that's a ridiculous analogy.
>

CHICKs?? Well Well - we are getting there. NNo just the analogy of things
breaking but then there is the old adage -if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Airplanes get preventative maintenence as to bridges and other similar things
but cars do not fall out of the sky when the engine stops so people don't do
preventative maintenence.
>
>
>>>
>>>> The other way timing changes is
>>>> "points" but I bet there are kids here who have never seen a point and
>>>> capacitor distributor. Even then, new points, properly gapped, should
>>>> put the timing back in spec. If you are advancing the distributor (cam
>>>> shaft pickup or whatever) you are tracking chain wear.
>>> and with a belt, you don't have to bother! a much superior design concept.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I will agree if your timing is based on a crankshaft pickup you will
>>>> miss this. Considering most of this chain wear is happening in the
>>>> second hundred thousand miles,
>>> no, chain wear is pretty much linear. it's twice as worn at 150k as it
>>> is at 75k.
>>>
>>>
>>>> there will be lots of things beyond cam
>>>> timing that are making your car pollute. I am sure your Hondas are not
>>>> all that clean after the 105k belt change either.
>>> if so, it's not because the cam timing has drifted!
>>>
>>>
>>>> OTOH the new emission controls do a pretty good job. My old 86 LeBaron
>>>> (well over 100k) was burning close to a quart of oil per tank of gas
>>>> (no leaks, no smoke, no black smudge on the bumper) and it still
>>>> passed the emission test. I assume the computer just compensated for
>>>> the oil and leaned out the mix.
>>> no, the catalyst takes care of it. for a while. and cam timing is
>>> nothing to do with oil consumption.
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

In article > ,
jim beam > wrote:
> >>> BMW don't make their transmissions.
> >>>
> >> but they do write their own specifications!!!
> >
> >
> > Well that's easy.........
> >
> > 1. it must work
> >

> actually, that's lower down the list.

> specs are very detailed and very tight. it'll include all the
> materials, their tolerances, their fatigue performance, weight,
> hardness, microstructure, etc., etc. castings even get things like
> their size stability closely defined because some transmission alloys
> permanently change volume with time at elevated temperatures. it's very
> non-trivial.

Maybe. But BMW simply specify their version of a basic design. From ZF etc
if autos. The same basic box as used in many other vehicles. And these
days the differences between them tends to be mainly in the software.
ZF specify what the 'box can handle torque wise by the final two digits of
the model number. 6 cylinder BMWs changed from the 5HP18 to 5HP20 when
they increased the largest engine capacity from 2.8 to 3 litres.
Of course it could be argued that overspeccing the torque handling
capability of an auto will result in longer life. It might - but it also
results in greater weight, size and cost.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:06:16 -0800, Phil Robyn > wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Tony Harding > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) I think you mean to say that "neither statement IS wrong."
>>>>>>> "Neither" is singular,
>>>>>> there are two instances, hence the plural - "neither of these two
>>>>>> statements are wrong". something like "neither do i" is singular.
>>>>> Wrong! The subject of the sentence is "neither", which is singular.
>>>>> Without the qualification ("of these two statements") it would read
>>>>> "neither is wrong" (not "neither are wrong").
>>>> (jim, he's correct)
>>>>
>>> ok, let me re-state for the pedants:
>>>
>>> "neither of these two statements are wrong".
>>>
>>> happy now?
>> No. You should have quit while you were behind. You're just making
>> it worse.
>
>
> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
> what is the correct grammar
Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:38:01 -0500, Mike Scheer > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:06:16 -0800, Phil Robyn > wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Tony Harding > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) I think you mean to say that "neither statement IS wrong."
>>>>>>>> "Neither" is singular,
>>>>>>> there are two instances, hence the plural - "neither of these two
>>>>>>> statements are wrong". something like "neither do i" is singular.
>>>>>> Wrong! The subject of the sentence is "neither", which is singular.
>>>>>> Without the qualification ("of these two statements") it would read
>>>>>> "neither is wrong" (not "neither are wrong").
>>>>> (jim, he's correct)
>>>>>
>>>> ok, let me re-state for the pedants:
>>>>
>>>> "neither of these two statements are wrong".
>>>>
>>>> happy now?
>>> No. You should have quit while you were behind. You're just making
>>> it worse.
>>
>>
>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>> what is the correct grammar
>Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.

That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
answer.
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:

>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>>> what is the correct grammar
>>Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>
>That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
>answer.

Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
such requires a question mark.

Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?
--
Dan.

In article >,
Dean Dark > wrote:
> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?

ITYM 'grammatical' That is the adjective of grammar. ;-)

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:36:57 -0500, Dean Dark >
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:
>
>>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>>>> what is the correct grammar
>>>Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>>
>>That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
>>answer.
>
>Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
>such requires a question mark.
>
>Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?


As I said Dan - we ENGLISH invented the language so we can do what we like with
it unlike the French who are very strict with spelling and pronunciation and the
Spanish who place the ? upside down but then that's not English - is it?
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:
>
>>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we
>>>> ENGLISH
>>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is
>>>> to say
>>>> what is the correct grammar
>>>Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>>
>>That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require
>>an
>>answer.
>
> Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
> such requires a question mark.
>
> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?

White's Law of Syntactic Entropy.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article > ,
> jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> BMW don't make their transmissions.
>>>>>
>>>> but they do write their own specifications!!!
>>>
>>> Well that's easy.........
>>>
>>> 1. it must work
>>>
>
>> actually, that's lower down the list.
>
>> specs are very detailed and very tight. it'll include all the
>> materials, their tolerances, their fatigue performance, weight,
>> hardness, microstructure, etc., etc. castings even get things like
>> their size stability closely defined because some transmission alloys
>> permanently change volume with time at elevated temperatures. it's very
>> non-trivial.
>
> Maybe. But BMW simply specify their version of a basic design. From ZF etc
> if autos. The same basic box as used in many other vehicles. And these
> days the differences between them tends to be mainly in the software.
> ZF specify what the 'box can handle torque wise by the final two digits of
> the model number. 6 cylinder BMWs changed from the 5HP18 to 5HP20 when
> they increased the largest engine capacity from 2.8 to 3 litres.
> Of course it could be argued that overspeccing the torque handling
> capability of an auto will result in longer life. It might - but it also
> results in greater weight, size and cost.

So, like everything else, it's a case of trade offs & good engineering.