If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2006 Vue. 12 miles per gallon? | [email protected] | Saturn | 8 | February 8th 07 04:26 AM |
Rated miles per gallon is total BS! | TOM KAN PA | Chrysler | 40 | April 23rd 05 04:39 PM |
miles/gallon guage? | William R. Watt | Technology | 31 | January 25th 05 07:03 PM |
Gas miles per gallon | Michael | VW water cooled | 19 | October 13th 04 03:56 AM |