Consider buying American!

Mike Scheer wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> dizzy wrote:
>>> still just me wrote:
>>>
>>>> For 9999 out of 10,000 drivers, FWD makes more sense.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> Unless you're
>>>> into throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no
>>>> advantages and some serious disadvantages.
>>>
>>> Wrong again.
>>>
>>
>> neither statement are wrong. in the wet, fwd is a big advantage
>> because the weight is over the driving wheels. rwd's can easily spin
>> out with doofus behind the wheel.
>
> (1) Have you ever tried to recover a skidding FWD in icy conditions?
> The physics are all wrong.

yes i have. no it isn't.


>
> (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.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article > ,
> jim beam > wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article > ,
>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>> advantages of belts include much better timing precision and quieter
>>>> operation. the only disadvantage is not allowing for idiots that
>>>> can't look at their mileage every 7 years.
>>> Strange the way then that most makers are going back to chains.
>>> Despite them costing far more - the main reason for belts in the first
>>> place. Cost cutting.
>>>
>
>> no, belts offer the advantages cited before. and it's a big deal that
>> belts don't stretch allowing timing to drift.
>
> They don't stretch but just break or jump a tooth instead. Result -
> wrecked engine. BTW, 'timing drift' due to chain stretch is insignificant.
> If it were, two sided tensioning would be easy to implement.
>
>> there's no real cost difference between the two.
>
> Really? Then how come they first appeared on cheap cars?
>
>> the only reason manufacturers are going back to chain is because there's
>> a certain select bunch of whiners that bleat about the expense of doing
>> belt changes. every 100k+ miles.
>
> There are *very* few belts that have a service life anywhere near this.

not true any more. most cars don't specify belt change as a service
item, but they do as part of the 100k mile "tuneup".

but you're right in that a lot of aftermarket belts are 60k.


> And fewer that would risk leaving it that long even where the maker
> claimed it did.

like people that change their oil every 3k miles?


>
>> and from a bean counter's viewpoint,
>> it's much better to have a motor go 150k on a chain, then become a
>> sluggish noisy p.o.s., than have a honda motor go 300k or 400k on
>> replaceable belts with no noticeable degradation.
>
> The bean counters are more likely to cream themselves over the lovely
> maintenance costs associated with belts.

paradoxically, no. that motor will be maintained and kept running
almost indefinitely because it's "just a service item". chains otoh are
"engine rebuild" and most consumers throw in the towel at that point and
buy a new vehicle - just what a bean counter wants.


>
> True they have some advantages but not for road going engines.
>

In article >,
Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:

> > > no, belts offer the advantages cited before. and it's a big deal
> > > that belts don't stretch allowing timing to drift.
> >
> > They don't stretch but just break or jump a tooth instead. Result -
> > wrecked engine.

> Only if it's an interference engine. If it's not, you coast to the side
> of the road, call for a tow, and have it fixed.

Is there currently any non interference type made? If so I'll bet it's a
donk.

--
*Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it*

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

In article > ,
jim beam > wrote:
> > The bean counters are more likely to cream themselves over the lovely
> > maintenance costs associated with belts.

> paradoxically, no. that motor will be maintained and kept running
> almost indefinitely because it's "just a service item". chains otoh are
> "engine rebuild" and most consumers throw in the towel at that point and
> buy a new vehicle - just what a bean counter wants.

There's at least one Vauxhall (GM) available in the UK where the engine
has to come out to change the belt. If this is the case it would be little
more overall cost to change a chain. And in practice less since it would
have a greatly longer life.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
>> >
>> > They don't stretch but just break or jump a tooth instead. Result -
>> > wrecked engine.
>>
>> Only if it's an interference engine. If it's not, you coast to the side
>> of the road, call for a tow, and have it fixed.
>
>Is there currently any non interference type made? If so I'll bet it's a
>donk.

Most all turbo-motors are non-interference. Not sure about the rather
unusual (at 10.2:1) new BMW 3.0L...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article > ,
> jim beam > wrote:
>>> The bean counters are more likely to cream themselves over the lovely
>>> maintenance costs associated with belts.
>
>> paradoxically, no. that motor will be maintained and kept running
>> almost indefinitely because it's "just a service item". chains otoh are
>> "engine rebuild" and most consumers throw in the towel at that point and
>> buy a new vehicle - just what a bean counter wants.
>
> There's at least one Vauxhall (GM) available in the UK where the engine
> has to come out to change the belt. If this is the case it would be little
> more overall cost to change a chain. And in practice less since it would
> have a greatly longer life.
>

how much longer is "greatly longer"? put numbers to it. and define the
degree of wear considered "acceptable".

In article > ,
jim beam > wrote:
> > There's at least one Vauxhall (GM) available in the UK where the
> > engine has to come out to change the belt. If this is the case it
> > would be little more overall cost to change a chain. And in practice
> > less since it would have a greatly longer life.
> >

> how much longer is "greatly longer"? put numbers to it.

On average over 4 times longer than a belt. Some may never need changing
throughout the service life of the engine.

> and define the degree of wear considered "acceptable".

If it's quiet with the engine hot?

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

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

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote:
> >>
> >> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > They don't stretch but just break or jump a tooth instead. Result -
> >> > wrecked engine.
> >>
> >> Only if it's an interference engine. If it's not, you coast to the
> >> side of the road, call for a tow, and have it fixed.
> >
> >Is there currently any non interference type made? If so I'll bet it's a
> >donk.

> Most all turbo-motors are non-interference.

As I said, donks. ;-) The low compression used for most turbos means their
efficiency is poor.

> Not sure about the rather unusual (at 10.2:1) new BMW 3.0L...

Apart from BMW, obviously. ;-)

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article > ,
> jim beam > wrote:
>>> There's at least one Vauxhall (GM) available in the UK where the
>>> engine has to come out to change the belt. If this is the case it
>>> would be little more overall cost to change a chain. And in practice
>>> less since it would have a greatly longer life.
>>>
>
>> how much longer is "greatly longer"? put numbers to it.
>
> On average over 4 times longer than a belt. Some may never need changing
> throughout the service life of the engine.

1. it's more like 1.5 times.
2. "service life of the engine" is the whole point of going back to
chains - "uneconomic to repair" means new car. belts keep an engine
going as long as it'll run. chains, especially long run chains on
overhead cams, turn the engine into an inefficient, polluting p.o.s.


>
>> and define the degree of wear considered "acceptable".
>
> If it's quiet with the engine hot?
>

ridiculous.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:59:01 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>>>> eh? understeer means you turn the wheel more relative to the centerline
>>>> than over-steer, but it doesn't mean the car doesn't corner.
>>> Like you turn the wheel and nothing happens?
>>> What do you call it when the front weels lose contact with the
>>> pavement?
>> as i suspected, you're confused - losing contact with the pavement is
>> /not/ understeer.
>
> Perhaps not technically correct usage of the term. Again I appologize.
> Let's just call it over reliance on 2 wheels to control and propel a 4
> wheel vehicle.

which is all you have with rwd unless you're drifting! you want to do
that on the off-ramp in my neighborhood? watch that blue light in your
mirror and see what happens.


> Certainly if you never get out on the edge, you will think FWD is
> great but once you lose it your car is ballistic (in the Newton sense)

i am familiar with newtonian mechanics thanks. unless you're drifting,
there is no disadvantage with fwd. and having the weight over the
driving wheels delays drift onset, and that /is/ an advantage.


> I don't drive that aggressively these days and it doesn't snow here
> but I am not thrilled at the amount of torque steerr I get in my
> straight line acceleration either.

eh? didn't you say you had a prelude? doesn't it have equal length
driveshafts??? if so, you don't have real torque steer, merely traction
differential - as you would expect. if you had a sensor connected to
rwd, you'd feel the same there too.


> The other FWDs I had were fairly
> tame vehicles but this Prelude will hop the left front tire.

so what? my crx will do that on the inside tire on any hard gas-down
corner, left or right. if it was rwd, that tire would just spin unless
it was fitted with a lsd. in the wet, you'd be drifting.


> If you
> were acellerating out of a turn like you would on a RWD you might not
> actually get out of the turn.

bull****.


> Drifting is out of the question, you
> have no control of the rear end

no, it's the front end. sliding tires offer little friction - therefore
sliding front tires mean you can't corner(*). but for "normal" road
use, the fact that fwd delays the onset of any slide means this is not
an issue.

* have you ever seen fwd's being rallied? not much friction there. if
you have, you'll realize that fwd is actually great in the hands of
someone that knows how to drive it. not as good as 4wd though, hence
domination of vehicles like subaru in that arena.