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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
On 9/2/2013 11:02 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 4:37 PM, dsi1 wrote: >> On 8/31/2013 2:12 PM, Nate Nagel wrote: >>> On 8/31/2013 8:06 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>>> On 8/31/2013 1:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But it's got FWEEM! >>>> >>>> I would hate that to be the last sound I ever heard. That thought is >>>> too >>>> horrible to contemplate. >>> >>> I like fweem, it's a friendly, nostalgic sound. >>> >>> Only flatmotor I ever had was in a 914 with a Bursch steelpack exhaust >>> though, that didn't fweem, although it too was a pleasing, happy sound. >> >> My brother had a beautiful 914. I didn't care for the goofy shift >> pattern but I liked it a lot. > > Some would argue that a beautiful 914 doesn't exist (it really isn't > the best looking design) I understand that most people wouldn't agree with me but I've always liked clean and simple lines on a car although that C-pillar was a design flaw. Removing that and adding a traditional soft top would have made it truly beautiful. > > I actually really liked the shift pattern; it works exactly like the old > 3-speed shifters sold for drag racing, both 1-2 and 2-3 are a straight > line motion with your hand because of the spring loading. I don't know if anybody has any business doing drag racing in a 914. I used to have a Ford Capri that had reverse in that same position. Oddly enough, there was no lock out on the shifter and I would shift it into R instead of 2nd until I got it through my thick skull that the light spring loading was the only thing preventing that embarrassing crunch. It was a learning process that Capri owners had to got through. Because of that, I didn't trust other people driving that thing. > > nate > |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
On 9/3/2013 5:35 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 11:02 AM, Nate Nagel wrote: >> On 9/2/2013 4:37 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>> On 8/31/2013 2:12 PM, Nate Nagel wrote: >>>> On 8/31/2013 8:06 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>>>> On 8/31/2013 1:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But it's got FWEEM! >>>>> >>>>> I would hate that to be the last sound I ever heard. That thought is >>>>> too >>>>> horrible to contemplate. >>>> >>>> I like fweem, it's a friendly, nostalgic sound. >>>> >>>> Only flatmotor I ever had was in a 914 with a Bursch steelpack exhaust >>>> though, that didn't fweem, although it too was a pleasing, happy sound. >>> >>> My brother had a beautiful 914. I didn't care for the goofy shift >>> pattern but I liked it a lot. >> >> Some would argue that a beautiful 914 doesn't exist (it really isn't >> the best looking design) > > I understand that most people wouldn't agree with me but I've always > liked clean and simple lines on a car although that C-pillar was a > design flaw. Removing that and adding a traditional soft top would have > made it truly beautiful. I agree, and the vinyl covering was even worse... if that was removed it looked OK. It did look surprisingly much better than the very similarly shaped Triumph TR7. > >> >> I actually really liked the shift pattern; it works exactly like the old >> 3-speed shifters sold for drag racing, both 1-2 and 2-3 are a straight >> line motion with your hand because of the spring loading. > > I don't know if anybody has any business doing drag racing in a 914. I > used to have a Ford Capri that had reverse in that same position. Oddly > enough, there was no lock out on the shifter and I would shift it into R > instead of 2nd until I got it through my thick skull that the light > spring loading was the only thing preventing that embarrassing crunch. > It was a learning process that Capri owners had to got through. Because > of that, I didn't trust other people driving that thing. > With a 4-cylinder 914, you could drag race at every stop light if you wanted I kind of miss it today, but I live in DC-land, the car would literally be invisible in a sea of SUVs... nate |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
In article >,
dsi1 > wrote: > On 8/31/2013 6:51 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > > > > The safest vehicle always... > > > > > > ...I mean ALWAYS... > > > > > > ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. > > > > > You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to > bring it down to zero risk. That's true... ...but not very important. > Hanging your feet in front of practically > the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being > crippled. Not necessarily. It depends much more on the qualities of the structure that is in front of you. > My guess is that a computer controlled car will probably be > the safest automobile ever made. Almost certainly. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
On 9/3/2013 1:42 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > With a 4-cylinder 914, you could drag race at every stop light if you > wanted The Capri would be more my style and my guess is that it could take on a 914 in a drag race. I had the first model body with the 2.0 L engine. It was a little embarrassing because it had nerf bars instead of a front bumper. Evidently that was legal at the time because I never got stopped for it. The ride was a little harsh and the springing was so non-compliant that you could feel the car move sidewards on rough roads. That's OK, I was in my twenties and my body could take it. No so today. That's the breaks. > > I kind of miss it today, but I live in DC-land, the car would literally > be invisible in a sea of SUVs... > I don't think that I've seen a single 914 in our town. That's too bad. > nate > |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
On 9/3/2013 7:28 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >, > dsi1 > wrote: > >> On 8/31/2013 6:51 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> >>> The safest vehicle always... >>> >>> >>> ...I mean ALWAYS... >>> >>> >>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. >>> >> >> >> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to >> bring it down to zero risk. > > That's true... ...but not very important. > >> Hanging your feet in front of practically >> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being >> crippled. > > Not necessarily. It depends much more on the qualities of the structure > that is in front of you. I guess that if you live in a world where price is no object, anything is possible. > >> My guess is that a computer controlled car will probably be >> the safest automobile ever made. > > Almost certainly. > |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
In article >,
dsi1 > wrote: > On 9/3/2013 7:28 AM, Alan Baker wrote: > > In article >, > > dsi1 > wrote: > > > >> On 8/31/2013 6:51 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > >>> > >>> The safest vehicle always... > >>> > >>> > >>> ...I mean ALWAYS... > >>> > >>> > >>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. > >>> > >> > >> > >> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to > >> bring it down to zero risk. > > > > That's true... ...but not very important. > > > >> Hanging your feet in front of practically > >> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being > >> crippled. > > > > Not necessarily. It depends much more on the qualities of the structure > > that is in front of you. > > I guess that if you live in a world where price is no object, anything > is possible. Not really. You're assuming that in order for the structure to be good, the cost must be high, and that's just not so. There are lots of high-performance (and not-so-high-performance) mid-engined cars and lots of them are more than adequately structured for a frontal crash. Having the engine in front of you doesn't guarantee safety in a frontal crash and having the engine beneath or behind you doesn't guarantee tragedy. > > > > >> My guess is that a computer controlled car will probably be > >> the safest automobile ever made. > > > > Almost certainly. > > -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
On 9/3/2013 7:58 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >, > dsi1 > wrote: > >> On 9/3/2013 7:28 AM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> In article >, >>> dsi1 > wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/31/2013 6:51 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The safest vehicle always... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...I mean ALWAYS... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to >>>> bring it down to zero risk. >>> >>> That's true... ...but not very important. >>> >>>> Hanging your feet in front of practically >>>> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being >>>> crippled. >>> >>> Not necessarily. It depends much more on the qualities of the structure >>> that is in front of you. >> >> I guess that if you live in a world where price is no object, anything >> is possible. > > Not really. You're assuming that in order for the structure to be good, > the cost must be high, and that's just not so. > > There are lots of high-performance (and not-so-high-performance) > mid-engined cars and lots of them are more than adequately structured > for a frontal crash. > > Having the engine in front of you doesn't guarantee safety in a frontal > crash and having the engine beneath or behind you doesn't guarantee > tragedy. I would think that the engine in front makes it harder, not easier, to design a proper crumple zone - assuming safety in a frontal crash is your first priority. I don't doubt that manufacturers think about frontal crashes, but there's lots of other factors that go into design of a car as well (weight distribution, etc.) nate |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
On 9/3/2013 1:58 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > Not really. You're assuming that in order for the structure to be good, > the cost must be high, and that's just not so. > > There are lots of high-performance (and not-so-high-performance) > mid-engined cars and lots of them are more than adequately structured > for a frontal crash. This will be the third time that I've tried to make it clear that I'm not talking about the crash worthiness of mid-engined cars. I'm talking about the wisdom of sticking the driver in the front of the car. Are you trolling? The Fiat X1/9 was a pretty crash worthy mid-engine automobile but it did so at a cost. It had one of the shortest wheelbases of any car sold here but weighted in at over 2200 lbs. > > Having the engine in front of you doesn't guarantee safety in a frontal > crash and having the engine beneath or behind you doesn't guarantee > tragedy. > |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
On 9/3/2013 8:22 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 1:58 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> >> Not really. You're assuming that in order for the structure to be good, >> the cost must be high, and that's just not so. >> >> There are lots of high-performance (and not-so-high-performance) >> mid-engined cars and lots of them are more than adequately structured >> for a frontal crash. > > This will be the third time that I've tried to make it clear that I'm > not talking about the crash worthiness of mid-engined cars. I'm talking > about the wisdom of sticking the driver in the front of the car. Are you > trolling? > > The Fiat X1/9 was a pretty crash worthy mid-engine automobile but it did > so at a cost. It had one of the shortest wheelbases of any car sold here > but weighted in at over 2200 lbs. Which is pretty flyweight by today's standards, actually. I think the Lotus Elise may beat that but I'm not thinking of anything else off the top of my head. The googs tells me that the Subaru BRZ weighs over 2700 lbs, and pretty much anything else of any interest likely weighs over 3000 lbs. nate |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
rear engine versus mid engine?
In article >,
dsi1 > wrote: > On 9/3/2013 1:58 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > > > > Not really. You're assuming that in order for the structure to be good, > > the cost must be high, and that's just not so. > > > > There are lots of high-performance (and not-so-high-performance) > > mid-engined cars and lots of them are more than adequately structured > > for a frontal crash. > > This will be the third time that I've tried to make it clear that I'm > not talking about the crash worthiness of mid-engined cars. I'm talking > about the wisdom of sticking the driver in the front of the car. Are you > trolling? The driver in a Toyota Previa was NOT "in front of the car. Even a cursory examination of a picture from the side shows that the driver is still well behind the front of the car. Further ahead than in most vans? Sure. But it's not like the driver's feet were 3" behind the bumper you know... > > The Fiat X1/9 was a pretty crash worthy mid-engine automobile but it did > so at a cost. It had one of the shortest wheelbases of any car sold here > but weighted in at over 2200 lbs. Actually, its original curb weight was a little less than that, but that's one of the lighter cars sold at that time. > > > > > Having the engine in front of you doesn't guarantee safety in a frontal > > crash and having the engine beneath or behind you doesn't guarantee > > tragedy. > > -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rear Engine Plate... | jimmyleadfoot | Technology | 7 | March 5th 10 10:15 PM |
Engine rust during non-use (Synthetic oil versus conventional) | Built_Well | Technology | 9 | October 8th 07 11:41 PM |
Engine in the Rear. | Bill Berckman | VW air cooled | 9 | July 3rd 07 01:25 AM |
Rear Engine Brace | [email protected] | VW air cooled | 1 | June 15th 07 10:06 PM |
1998 Ford Explorer, Engine squeak/chirp from top rear of engine. | 4XMadness | Ford Explorer | 5 | October 28th 06 04:30 PM |