A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

rear engine versus mid engine?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 5th 13, 03:24 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 488
Default rear engine versus mid engine?

On 9/4/2013 9:05 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 11:20 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 9/3/2013 3:15 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2013 06:06 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2013 2:33 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cars have changed considerably since the 70s. The cars I
>>>> drove weighed
>>>> in at around a ton or less. The Alfetta GTV that I had
>>>> was a real
>>>> heavyweight at 2400 lbs.
>>>
>>> sold have gotten an alfa gta!

>>
>> I wasn't real interested in that one. A 1970 GTV would
>> have been my
>> dream car.

>
> yes, they're yummy, but my point was that the gta is the
> aluminum lightweight version of the gtv. or so i've been
> lead to believe.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> These days, there are sports cars that weight
>>>> over a ton and a half. You would have thought that the
>>>> cars would have
>>>> gotten lighter. That's the breaks.
>>>
>>> it's all driven by govt mandated "safety" - discretely
>>> lobbied for and
>>> sponsored by the oil industry. that's how we have cars
>>> today, despite
>>> considerably improved engine and combustion technology,
>>> still averaging
>>> the same gas consumption, or worse, than cars from the
>>> 70's and 80's.
>>>
>>> don't believe me? we could all be driving
>>> aluminum/composite cars that
>>> are "safer" for very little extra cost. we could all be
>>> driving cars
>>> with real tubular safety cages, 6 point harnesses and
>>> have mandated
>>> helmets, for very little if any extra cost. instead, we
>>> have cars full
>>> of bull**** "safety" features that can actually be
>>> hazardous [airbags]
>>> and whose increased weights dramatically decrease
>>> maneuverability and
>>> increase stopping distances.
>>>
>>>

>>

>
>


Indeed GTA 163hp over 1600lbs !
Sweet. Or should I say dolce.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.