Consider buying American!

jim beam wrote:

>> If course if your accellerating the front wheels tend to come off the
>> ground pulling weight off the drive wheels not transfer the weight to
>> the drive wheels.
>
>tell that to this guy:
>http://theoldone.com/articles/Larrys...rrys_Civic.htm

Idiot.

jim beam wrote:

>eh? what about all the civics, integras, preludes, rabbits, etc. that
>get raced every weekend all over the country? what about the fwd
>winners i see down at the track?

Idiot.

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.

Nope. Both clearly wrong, stupid.

>in the wet, fwd is a big advantage because
>the weight is over the driving wheels.

That does not make what you wrote before correct, dummy.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:26:50 -0800, 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. there's no real cost
>difference between the two.
>
>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. 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.

And it is not like chains never fail prematurely or catastrophically
anyway. The chains in those old Saturn engines were notorious for
failing at ridiculously low mileage. Saturn dealers touted the chains
as being superior to Honda's belts. Can you imagine how the owners
felt when they were spending big bucks on a new chain long before the
neighbor's Honda even needed a routine belt change.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:34:26 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>>>> http://theoldone.com/articles/Larrys...rrys_Civic.htm
>> no comment i note.
>
> It just looked like a guy who should have bought a faster car to begin
> with. I know guys who hot rodded VWs and Vegas too.
> I think you folks call it "rice"

eh? did you read who the guy is???

http://theoldone.com/about/default.asp
http://www.theoldone.com/articles/

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:34:26 -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.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:31:59 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>>>> if you're using cheapo belts, even 60k is sticking your neck out. i'm
>>>> talking oem honda - they're rated to 105k. and failure rate at that
>>>> mileage is less than 1 per million.
>>> Good, Thanks I guess I don't need a belt.
>>
>> ??? all this info is free online. why wouldn't you check before
>> launching a criticism?
>
> Because I have seen recomendations everywhere from 60,000 to this
> 105,000 for when to replace the belt. Everyone swears they have a good
> reason.

why wouldn't you listen to honda? their service manuals are pretty much
as authoritative as you can get.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:43:32 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>>> It is a lot of blind faith to put in a rubber belt.
>> how odd. methinks you put a lot of faith in the rubber seals in your
>> braking system - why the disparate religions?
>>
> It is why you have TWO separate brake systems. (at least before the
> ABS system) You can lose your brakes without a 100% chance of
> totalling your car but if I lose this belt I have been guaranteed a
> 100% chance of totalling my engine.

wrong answer. dual circuit is because of hydraulic problems, not rubber
problems.

the point is, your "rubber belt" is the same kind of technology that
holds race tires together at 160+ mph, that suspends elevators in modern
buildings, that provides reliability and precision in extreme
applications in countless machines all over the world, every day. don't
trivialize something that you don't properly understand.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:09:49 -0800, jim beam
> wrote:

>Tony Harding wrote:
>> BaJoRi wrote:
>>>
>>> "swllz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony Harding wrote:
>>>>> tater wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>>>>>>> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>>>>>>> they need, they are going to go under. Consider buying an American
>>>>>>> car.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> American cars are crap. Made by unionists more worried about when
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> next coffee break is than making quality cars. They've negotiated
>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>> right out of jobs as the big auto makers cut back. It's not
>>>>>> possible to do business that way and compete on a world wide economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hardly the workers' fault - Honda & Toyota employ American
>>>>> workers and turn out quality vehicles. This is a management failing.
>>>>
>>>> It is very true. The top management in GM should be blamed. GM
>>>> assemble line workers do not make much more than assemble line worker
>>>> in TOYOTA. They just assemble what have been planed and designed by
>>>> management. The top management in GM take home a huge salary and
>>>> bouns compare to TOYOTA or HONDA top management.
>>>
>>> What are the annual healthcare and retirement benefit costs for GM and
>>> Ford, owing to the UAW contracts, as compared with Honda and Toyota?
>>> So to say that those Japanese companies take care of their empoyees as
>>> well as the Big Three is an outright lie.
>>
>> Wake up, dude, Japan, along with every other first world country with
>> the exception of the US, has universal health coverage and retirement
>> benefits, so Japanese companies, et al., have no direct health care
>> and/or retirement costs. Makes for quite a competitive advantage,
>> doesn't it?
>
>eh? so who pays for it all then? it wouldn't be taxes would it? is
>there some way japanese companies don't pay tax where american ones do?

They probably pay more tax, but the amount they pay toward health care
(in taxes) is less than what American companies pay in health
benefits. This is because health care is far more expensive in the US
than anywhere else.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:26:06 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:56:08 -0500, wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:39:49 -0800, jim beam
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Generally speaking it's not possible to make an efficient non interference
>>>>> engine. If it was everyone would.
>>>>>
>>>> indeed.
>>> A lot of manufacturers have, what they didn't do is squeeze out a few
>>> extra HP by running the engine at 8000 RPM
>> I still love to drive my '94 GS-R. If I didn't, I would have gotten
>> rid of it long ago. I will take the remote risk of catastrophic
>> engine failure to the certainty that I will hate the car a year after
>> I buy it and suffer catastrophic depreciation when I get rid of it
>> prematurely. So far, with 170,000 miles (and a fresh timing belt), I
>> would say I am winning the bet.
>
> I have owned about 30 cars/trucks and about a dozen motorcycles in the
> 46 years I have been driving. I never got emotionally involved with
> any of them.

46/30 = 1.53 years per vehicle. and you're bleating about reliability
of belt driven cams??? how do you find the time to drive them the
mileage necessary for it to be a concern???