OT: Internal Combustion Breakthrough?

Page 5 of 7  

[snipped a whole bunch of weak-assed attempts at being funny/ intellectual.]

You're kidding, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:52:33 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

You need to look up the definition of ad hominem. You are so far off the mark that you're beyond amusing, to downright funny.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than the Falcon.

What of it? This was when they really started to tout these vehicles and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful bill of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about the miniscule mileage (and some of us did).

No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. Even Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer.

They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor performance.
Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious cargoe".

There sure are - and they all come under CAFE.
This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got.

P D Q
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PDQ wrote:

Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. At one time the standards were lower for AWD, but that has not been the case for at least a decade (incidentally, Audi discovered that AWD actually gave _better_ gas mileage in the original Quattro--had something to do with some fine point of tire dynamics IIRC).

Shame that it wasn't transferred to Iraq. The "insurgents" don't seem intimidated at all. In any case, since the real Hummer was never produced by any Big Three automaker it remains irrelevant to any discussion of their attitudes toward fuel economy. I find 18-wheelers to be much, much more intimidating than Hummers, but then my normal daily transporation is such that I lose in a collision with a Pinto.

Who, Volvo?

I don't remember any such "hype" coming from anybody but Volvo and Saab and occasionally Mercedes. Ford tried it once and it hurt their sales.

Further, the SUVs come under CAFE as well.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

I shall leave you with this:
CAFE, as originally enacted excluded vehicles based on a truck platform.
This caused the rise of SUV et al as a basic means of people transport.
At some future date subsequent to 1978 the act was amended to include the light truck platform.
This is about the time that the big 3 again began to complain about their inability to attain the newly mandated efficiency and Congress, in its wisdom, gave extentions.
How interesting it is to note that everything comes back to politics and big business.
Adieu.
P D Q
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This caused the rise of SUV et al as a basic means of people transport.
At some future date subsequent to 1978 the act was amended to include the light truck platform.
This is about the time that the big 3 again began to complain about their inability to attain the newly mandated efficiency and Congress, in its wisdom, gave extentions.
How interesting it is to note that everything comes back to politics and big business.
Adieu.
P D Q ================ Am I being too much of a pedant to point out that it's the buyer, not the lawmakers or manufacturers, who values the "truckness" of the trucks used in personal transportation roles? In the way back time machine, I recall my high school buddies pissing and moaning about the emissions crap burying the engine; the mandatory catalytic converters; the truck chassis on the Blazers and Jimmies. As far as I can tell, none of those attitudes have changed in the intervening 35 years. (In that sense, it's your parent's fault. Your relevant attitudes were already entrenched before you were even presented with the choice.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess GM didn't know about the government requirements?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What part of the word "average" don't you understand? Did the GM dealer show up at your house with a gun and make you buy a van with a V8 engine? If you want to blame someone for GM selling a van in 1978 that got 10mpg, you can go find the nearest mirror.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd wrote:

What part of "required" don't you understand? There is no way the average GMC truck got 17 mpg. My little bitty GMC van only got 10!
Did the GM dealer

Nope, I had no problem getting 10 mpg. I loved the van, much better than any car built by anyone. MPG was a NON ISSUE to me.

Why would I blame GM for anything other than selling me a GREAT van. This thing gave me ZERO trouble for the whole 14 years I owned it. My very next NEW vehicle was a 2001 GMC pickup and it is the nicest vehicle I've ever owned. Had a few minor problems at first all under warranty. It has a big V8, 4 wheel drive and it gets 19 mpg on the road loaded, 13 in the city empty, in the summer...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean your little bitty GMC van with what looks like a GVWR of 6800 lbs and a roughly 6 liter V8? From what I can tell, CAFE requirements didn't include light trucks until 1979. In any case, if your van had a GVWR of over 6000 lbs, it would have been exempt anyway. And of course, the calculated MPG doesn't necessarily correlate to real-world numbers.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd wrote:

No, my little bitty GMC van was a 1500 and had a small 305 cubic inch engine. I have no clue how many liters 305 CI is. America was not yet Amerika in 1978.
From what I can tell, CAFE requirements didn't include light trucks until 1979.
Who knows, just that my response was to the requirement for light trucks to average 17 mpg in 1978. I didn't say my 1979 van got 10 mpg. My wife's 1979 Caddy got around 10 mpg though, in the real world though, possibly not the same as in the world of government gobbledygook.
In any case, if your van had a GVWR of over 6000 lbs, it would have been exempt anyway.
It didn't, and it was definitely considered a light duty truck.
And of course, the

That's possible. "They" could require every vehicle sold to get 1000 mpg but if that is a fake number, or that number converted to a "real world number" of 10 mpg, then who really cares other than those that do not live in the "real world"? What I do know is my "real world" light duty, 1978 GMC van got 10 mpg and from my recollection, no one much cared, certainly not me.
At any rate, now that we live in a government controlled, socialist country, I think Big Brother should ban cars altogether as a waste of resources, considering cars do nothing a truck can do, but a truck does everything a car does, plus a ton more.
Beyond that, I don't see why any woodworker, other than perhaps pen turners would not own a truck for all the reasons listed in my previous post.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, that's so hard: 305/61. It's almost exactly 5 liters. You're obviously not a car guy. Anybody following sports cars and/or Formula One since the '50s would know that.

Wow, misspelled the word appearing twice in one sentence half the times. Abrasive AND ignorant.
Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant.
C'mon lightweight, give me your best shot. I'll never see it, though, as you've just been demoted to the "never read because they're ignorant buffoons" list.
Buh, bye.
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LRod wrote:

Whelp the guy that thought my 305 was a 6 liter V8 should have done the math... is that your point?

Obviously. This is a wood working group.

I was a car guy in the 50's and 60's, and I didn't give a crap about sports cars or Formula One then either. I guess in your mind a "car guy" is into sports cars and Formula One?. I'd call that rather ignorant.
But, more to the point at hand, my little bitty GMC van WAS considered a light truck, are you arguing that point, or just being ignorant and abrasive for the hell of it?

Glad you managed to pick up on that... I'd hate to waste abrasive and ignorant on someone too ignorant to pick up on it...

So you did just chime in to be ignorant and abrasive and nothing else.

That's good, at least I see why you're ignorant, abrasive probably just come naturally...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There... fixed it for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't speak for Rod, but I can speak for me. It was my hope you would take the gentle hint and tone it down, rather than up the ante.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MikeWhy wrote:

If calling someone ignorant and abrasive is a "gentle hint" then I took the hint and went with it.
Thanks for the insight though...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PDQ wrote:

My 2001 GMC 4 wheel drive V8 pickup truck got 19 mpg on a trip with 4 LARGE adults and about 10 cases of beer, 5 cases of pop, food clothes and misc stuff packed in the bed. It gets 13 mpg around town, less in 4 wheel drive... still, not running on water.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

It's possible. I saw similar idiocy at Xerox and Tektronix.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Look what they did to the water carburator! Where have you been...
Actually, I think some billionaire oil tycoon paid a spook to bury the water carburator guy in the bottom of some huge oil tanker, otherwise we wouldn't be caring much about engine efficiency would we.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LD wrote:

True, otherwise we would be driving around on tap water...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.