Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.

Michael Pardee wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop
>>>cars..
>>
>>I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here
>>is virtually
>>unheard of.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>>
>
>
> I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria that
> is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with the fuel
> tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of the car being
> hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming gasoline - reminiscent
> of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago.
> http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an explanation.
>
> Mike
>


Yep... Sorta like the Pinto problem of the 1970's.

Ya gotta luv 'em!

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.

Plenty more haven't.

Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
>
> Plenty more haven't.
>
> Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
>
> Graham
>


Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are.

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

> Earle Horton wrote:
> > "Eeyore" wrote
> >>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >>
> >>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
> >>>the lighter should the two tango.
> >>
> >>The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
> >>true for the people inside.
> >>
> >>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
> >>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
> >>
> >>Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
> >
> > Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
> > zone".
>
>
> Egg-Zact-Lee!

But then again they may not.

A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its
occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones.

Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very
unsensible.

Graham

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >
> >> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
> >
> > Plenty more haven't.
> >
> > Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
> Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are.

No argument with that. It's a shame it's not taught as part of driver training in
the USA AIUI.

The other one I like that's now included in the UK test is hazard recognition.

Graham

bill wrote:
> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam > wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Broderick Crawford > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> **** safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out
>>>> the competition.
>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well.
>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete,
>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it.
>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve,
>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone
>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their
>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv
>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those
>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching
>> themselves wondering what the **** people were buying those dumb-ass
>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that
>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and
>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb *******s.
>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart.
>>
>>> The domestics are
>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years?
>
>
> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts
> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for
> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a
> hammer.
> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing
> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with
> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they
> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n
> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our
> union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what
> they're worth.
>
it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on
componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal
favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention
in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop
>>>> cars..
>>>
>>> I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over
>>> here is virtually
>>> unheard of.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria
>> that is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with
>> the fuel tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of
>> the car being hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming
>> gasoline - reminiscent of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago.
>> http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an
>> explanation.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Yep... Sorta like the Pinto problem of the 1970's.
>
> Ya gotta luv 'em!
>
> JT
>
>
i've always wondered that about the mustang - isn't that the gas tank
that hangs down right at the rear where you can get a full-on rupture
shot on collision?

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>> "Eeyore" wrote
>>>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
>>>>> the lighter should the two tango.
>>>> The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
>>>> true for the people inside.
>>>>
>>>>> Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
>>>>> with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>>>> Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
>>> Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
>>> zone".
>>
>> Egg-Zact-Lee!
>
> But then again they may not.
>
> A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its
> occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones.
>
> Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very
> unsensible.
>
> Graham
>
indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the
passenger shell to be uncrushable.

Tegger wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> jim beam > wrote in
>>> t:
>>>
>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>> "jp2express" > wrote in
>>>>> et:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e.
>>>>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs.
>>>> the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary
>>>> geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in
>>>> addition to clutch packs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Toyota went bandless in the '70s.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> i thought they were still planetary.
>
>
>
>
> Planetary yes, banded no. The two are not mutually inclusive. All bands
> or clutch packs do is affect which part(s) of the planetary gearset
> is/are allowed to turn.
>
> I also discovered the Chrysler A604 transaxle is also bandless. I have
> posted to rec.autos.tech asking for more examples of bandless auto
> gearboxes.
>
>
>
>> i tried looking briefly for
>> toyota gearbox drawings last night but couldn't find anything. do you
>> have any links?
>>
>
>
> Not online. I read that in a factory shop manual. Toyota had some banded
> trannies and some bandless ones. I think the Toyota A40 was the first
> bandless.
>
>
>
i'd still love to see how they go bandless - with planet gears mounted
in an annulus, a band clutch is the natural solution.

jim beam wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its
> > occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones.
> >
> > Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very
> > unsensible.
>
> indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the
> passenger shell to be uncrushable.

For clarification for the benefit of the unconvinced, the slow deformation of the
crush/crumple zones provides relatively gentle deceleration compared to a vehicle
that doesn't bend much.

The crumpled metal may be what saved your life ! It's like they act as a cushion
in an accident whereas in stiff vehicle it's like hitting a brick wall because
there's no 'give'.

Graham