RE/
>Thanks God! I can't understand why North-Americans use cars with so big
>engines, that more than 80 mph simply doesen't run.

Somebody tell me where I'm wrong here:

- Back in the late 50's/early 60's gas was $.30 per gallon.

- I don't remember anybody complaining about the cost of gas back then.

- We've had over 600% inflation since then, so gas at $1.80 in 2004 dollars is
still .30 per gallon in old dollars.

- Last time I priced bottled water at the local CitGo store, the price per
gallon was pretty close to regular gas. A little higher now, but *still*...

- People today are complaining about the high cost of gas.


Am I missing something? Did cars get *that* much better milage without
emission controls?
--
PeteCresswell

 

RE/
>seppo

?
--
PeteCresswell

 

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:16:18 -0400, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>And where do you think the hydrogen is going to come from? One of two
>places:

Not to mention, what is the environmental effect going to be of massive
amounts of hydrogen escaping into the atmosphere? Rest assured this will
happen, hydrogen is notoriously difficult to contain. It is of course
much lighter than air and will head right for the (*gasp*) Ozone Layer!!

We can stick with oil and meet our own needs by developing our own resources,
despite the enviro-*****, then nuke the entire mideast until it glows.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

 

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:18:39 GMT, George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Because the smaller car is more nimble?

Because the larger car holds more people and luggage in comfort?

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

 

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:01:47 GMT, "(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote:

>RE/
>>Thanks God! I can't understand why North-Americans use cars with so big
>>engines, that more than 80 mph simply doesen't run.
>
>Somebody tell me where I'm wrong here:
>
>- Back in the late 50's/early 60's gas was $.30 per gallon.
>
>- I don't remember anybody complaining about the cost of gas back then.
>
>- We've had over 600% inflation since then, so gas at $1.80 in 2004 dollars is
>still .30 per gallon in old dollars.
>
>- Last time I priced bottled water at the local CitGo store, the price per
>gallon was pretty close to regular gas. A little higher now, but *still*...
>
>- People today are complaining about the high cost of gas.
>
>
>Am I missing something? Did cars get *that* much better milage without
>emission controls?

nope.... although the early emissions setups were horrible and did
kill mileage and power.... (go take a '72 car out for a drive then
drive a '73.. huge difference). today's emmissions setups are so
integrated into the engine controls, that removing them would most
likely prevent the engine from running.

-Bret

 

"Bret Chase" <nunya@business.net> wrote in message
newsaj670dkc9ir1g052pnq83fb495944ke0o@4ax.com...
> nope.... although the early emissions setups were horrible and did
> kill mileage and power.... (go take a '72 car out for a drive then
> drive a '73.. huge difference). today's emmissions setups are so
> integrated into the engine controls, that removing them would most
> likely prevent the engine from running.
>
> -Bret

I'd actually say they would make it run worse if removed. It's a bunch of
crap that I don't care for, but an efficient engine is more powerful plain &
simple. Things like cats/evap canisters/gas cap SES lights while making the
engine cleaner don't make it more efficient, so removing those won't make it
run worse. However say removing a O2 sensor will make it run worse, a CTS
sensor. But they are designed so they will still run with a lot of it
removed/inop just because you need to get home/to the dealer. But allot of
the new engines are so fine tuned that running a higher octane gas will make
it run like & can even void the warranty. No more throwing in 89 octane
on a long trip for better mileage!

~KJ~

 

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:49:09 +0200, "Alfistagj"
<alfistagjOnReplyPleaseRemoveThis@chello.nl> wrote:

>REDUCE THE FUEL CONSUMPTION!
>That's the only way to leave something behind for our children when we're
>gone!!

Amen.

 

STOP REPRODUCING. That's the only way to leave something behind for ME and
protect the world from stupidity!

~KJ~

<xymergy@suds.com> wrote in message
news:1tl670l6dlollv3uck0n0ouq9kjcc1oe1g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:49:09 +0200, "Alfistagj"
> <alfistagjOnReplyPleaseRemoveThis@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> >REDUCE THE FUEL CONSUMPTION!
> >That's the only way to leave something behind for our children when we're
> >gone!!
>
> Amen.

 

"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snip ...]
> Because gas milage isn't the only criteria for choosing a car. A Mustang
> might make a better dragster than a Solara, but I've driven a modern
> Mustang, they're no fun at all (can't say about a Solara, I've never
> been in one). The Mustang is a big, sloppy, heavy car with terrible
> turn-in, lots of push, and steering as dead as Lucrecia Borgia. I know
> that one can buy modified Mustangs from the likes of Roush Racing,
> Saleen, etc., which largely correct these shortcomings, but they can
> almost double the price. Might as well buy something real by that
> time....

Let's play fun with numbers. Actual numbers, instead of perceptions.
First, the rationale: "... The Mustang is a big, sloppy, heavy car with
terrible ..."

The numbers (sources - Road&Track, Edmunds):
Vehicle Weight Length
***************************
Mustang GT 3290 183.2
Toyota Solara 3175 192.6
Infiniti G35 3470 186.5
Acura TL 3482 189.3
Volvo S60 3662 180.2

Lemme see here, the Mustang is shorter than all but the Volvo, and lighter
(with a V8 as compared to V6s and a V5) than all but the Solara ...
by quite a bit. I guess in the realm of "cars often discussed herein",
by saying it's heavier and bigger, you're full of beans. Undoubtably, if
compared to Mazda Miata, Honda S2000, etc., yes, it is bigger.

I'd say you didn't drive the Mustang much, or if you did, your head was in
some other place. I'm not a big Mustang fan (repeated for emphasis -
not a big Mustang fan), but I am a fan of reality-based statements, as
opposed
to unabashed bias masquerading as fact. The Mustang is not exactly
deadmeat on a curvy road, either ...

Of the cars listed above, the Mustang would be last on my list if the Solara
wasn't present, too. I agree with your statement about gas mileage not
being
the only criteria. I suspect most folks have multiple metrics by which to
assess
and finally decide on a vehicle. I know I do ... some balance of
performance,
quality, reliability, economy, price, looks, and even the opinions of others
(to a very minor extent). But based on quantifiable parameters.

--
Rick

 

In article <3fLcc.51716$PG5.1856@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com >,
"Rick K" <vroop@dingo-nonsense.org> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [snip ...]
> > Because gas milage isn't the only criteria for choosing a car. A Mustang
> > might make a better dragster than a Solara, but I've driven a modern
> > Mustang, they're no fun at all (can't say about a Solara, I've never
> > been in one). The Mustang is a big, sloppy, heavy car with terrible
> > turn-in, lots of push, and steering as dead as Lucrecia Borgia. I know
> > that one can buy modified Mustangs from the likes of Roush Racing,
> > Saleen, etc., which largely correct these shortcomings, but they can
> > almost double the price. Might as well buy something real by that
> > time....
>
> Let's play fun with numbers. Actual numbers, instead of perceptions.
> First, the rationale: "... The Mustang is a big, sloppy, heavy car with
> terrible ..."
>
> The numbers (sources - Road&Track, Edmunds):
> Vehicle Weight Length
> ***************************
> Mustang GT 3290 183.2
> Toyota Solara 3175 192.6
> Infiniti G35 3470 186.5
> Acura TL 3482 189.3
> Volvo S60 3662 180.2
>
> Lemme see here, the Mustang is shorter than all but the Volvo, and lighter
> (with a V8 as compared to V6s and a V5) than all but the Solara ...
> by quite a bit. I guess in the realm of "cars often discussed herein",
> by saying it's heavier and bigger, you're full of beans. Undoubtably, if
> compared to Mazda Miata, Honda S2000, etc., yes, it is bigger.

My GTV-6 is MUCH lighter and handles much better than a stock Mustang.
It's also WAY more fun to drive and doesn't push nearly as much. Also
the ZF power steering is much more direct feeling and has gobs of
feedback, something mustangs don't have any of.


You have jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to a current car
model as an alternative, and I wasn't necessarily.


> I'd say you didn't drive the Mustang much, or if you did, your head was in
> some other place.

I drove it around Laguna Seca race track almost all day. I thought is
was a piece of S__t. It FELT heavy, it pushed badly, and it was dead
feeling. No thanks.

--
George Graves
------------------
"If God drove a car, it would surely be an Alfa Romeo."
Juan Manuel Fangio
5-time world Grand Prix champion