Why is Obama Black?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I asked some time ago why 30 mpg is now considered great mileage. My 1990 CRX got about 35, but the HF version got near 50. We're being screwed. They can do better.

30 MPG is average to poor mileage. It was 1970/80 technology. But management (not union workers) were disciples of TheMercenary. Therefore routinely stifled innovation for their self serving purposes.

Japan, that does less innovation, prospered by putting inside their products technologies that were intentionally stifled by American management.

Meanwhile, so many consumers are so easily manipulated as to think 20 - and later 26 - MPG was great mileage. Mileage numbers would be much worse except that environmental protection (low pollution) laws required management to implement some innovations. Yes, environmental protection hyped by liars for making lower mileage was a reason for 30 MPG in 1970 and later cars.

I was driving a GM 5 speed in 1975. By 1980, GM has eliminated all 5 speeds. Innovation is bad - according to management.

For those outside the US - TheMercenary is hyping, almost word for word, a diatribe by wacko extremists such as Limbaugh. Same people who thought it was good when White House lawyers rewrote science papers. People with so much contempt for the advancement of mankind as to build the Constellation - a manned spacecraft disaster.

A 70 Hp per liter engine was ready for production in GM in 1975. That meant four cylinders replaced all big block V8s. But that also meant innovation and more union jobs. Only management stifled that technology to even create 1991 and 2008 bankruptcies.

[Undertoad]

Modern engines are twice as powerful and efficient as engines 30 years ago, but WE refuse to buy vehicles that could get 45 MPH because WE do not want small, light, unsafe vehicles that do 0-60 in 15 seconds and can't haul shit. A car company that builds them will be seen as cheap and inferior no matter how good the build quality. It is as simple as that.

"They can do better" and "they" do, but the Smart Car (41 mpg, $12k) is not considered "them" because it is not considered "us". "We" would not drive such a thing.

[Lamplighter]

Our upper $ bedroom-community seems a perfect situation for such cars
and only 8-10 miles of 2-lane highway commuter driving.

The west coast distributor of Smart Cars was located in our town,
and a lot were seen on the roads around here.
The City even installed some curbside electric outlets for them.
Now...not so much, and I think UT is on mark about why we are not buying them.

My concern has to do with what happens in an MVA with all the other "tanks" coming down the road.

[tw]

To expand on the stupidity are four wheel drive vehicles. The most dangerous moving vehicle in snow, ice, etc is the four wheel drive. Four wheels driving a vehicle means tires fight each other. It only means more traction to get started. And the most dangerous of all moving vehicles. But when told by a pretty bimbo on Action News that you must have four wheel drive, then a majority are that easily brainwashed.

Like the 260 Hp car (when 1970 big block V-8s only did 160), we *need* to waste more. Gasoline at $8 a gallon is so dirt cheap.

Remember when gasoline went from $0.85 to $2? Remember when so many said SUV sales would drop? Go back and read. One was warning about SUV sales not harmed. Especially those largest SUVs. Why? Gasoline at $6 still costs almost nothing. Do you think logically? Or as deceived as those complaining about prices increasing from $0.85 to $2? Gasoline is so cheap that the $1.15 increase was near zero. And now it is $3 per gallon - still absurdly cheap as SUVs - some of the most dangerous gas guzzlers - continue to increase market share.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Modern engines are twice as powerful and efficient as engines 30 years ago, but WE refuse to buy vehicles that could get 45 MPH because WE do not want small, light, unsafe vehicles that do 0-60 in 15 seconds and can't haul shit.

Which is what the dumbest anti-Americans were saying in the 1970s. To get 24 MPG, they said, we must all drive Pintos. Well my Honda Accord routinely exceeds 30 MPG even in local driving. And Hondas and Toyota are not very innovative.

The difference between an anti-American and those who innovate. The largest Cadillac could easily be doing 30 MPG. Only those trained in fear think fuel economy means smaller.

But again. Put 10 gallons into a car. Well over 8 of those ten gallons is wasted energy. Does nothing to move a car. Since only one in ten gallons does anything productive, then that must always be true? Yes according to myopia from business school graduates and a majority who believe their lies.

Why are we all not driving Pintos? In part, because the Pintos' 21 MPG was how the most myopic viewed a 24 MPG car. Largest Honda's and Toyotas routinely exceed that due to technologies developed in early 1970 in America. But those who said we would all have to drive Pintos were the wacko extremists and George Jr's of their time.

[Undertoad]

Did I really write MPH. I meant MPG. And I said 45 MPG, not 30; so even you, tw, have failed to make the choice of a higher MPG vehicle.

Perhaps you should consider the Chevy Cruze... its engine does 98 HP per liter and gets 36 MPG highway.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

To expand on the stupidity are four wheel drive vehicles. The most dangerous moving vehicle in snow, ice, etc is the four wheel drive. Four wheels driving a vehicle means tires fight each other. It only means more traction to get started. And the most dangerous of all moving vehicles.

I find it very hard to believe a reasonably intelligent engineer could be this clueless about 4 wheel drive vehicles.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I find it very hard to believe a reasonably intelligent engineer could be this clueless about 4 wheel drive vehicles.

If honest, you would have said why it is wrong. You cannot. So we have your cheap shot denial. Four wheel drives traction to get started. Once moving, its wheels fight each other resulting in less traction - especially on ice. Which is why early four wheel drives required the driver to get out and release the hubs.

But then the same bimbos who recommend four wheel drive also recommend those back saver shovels - that are the worst type of snow shovel for a back.

[xoxoxoBruce]

"Get out and release the hubs" is a perfect example of how clueless you are, that shit went out with sword-fighting and knickers. But even ancient setups with manual locking hubs, it's very simple. On bare pavement you use 2 wheel drive. On wet grass, mud, loose gravel, sand, snow, ice, anywhere the traction is iffy, use 4 wheel drive.

OK, with some setups you have to decide to shift into low or high range, depending on what you're doing and what surface you're doing it on, but it's not rocket science. Newer vehicles most people would have use for, don't even have low range, and the all wheel drive setups use viscous couplings and computers to make it a no-brainer.

I'll make it very simple, 4 wheel drive gives you better traction than 2 wheel drive on any less than ideal surface. duh.

Oh and don't tell me that 4 wheel drive can't stop any faster than 2 wheel drive in slippery conditions. Neither I, nor anyone who knows what the fuck they're talking about, ever said it would. So don't blame me for your perception, of the public's mis-perceptions.

While were at it, front wheel drive is generally better than rear wheel drive on slippery surfaces. The advantage of the engine/transmission weight over the drive wheels, is a plus. Losing traction intermittently, front wheel drive just slows, whereas rear wheel drive tends to skew the car under those intermittent traction losses. Again, we're talking about Go, not Stop.

Now in there anything else?

Oh, wait, cornering. Changing direction, you turn the front wheels and the vehicle follows. Front wheel drive pulls the vehicle through the turn, but when the surface is slippery, the lateral grip of the rear tires may not be sufficient to keep the rear of the car from sliding sideways (fishtailing). When rear wheel drive pushes the vehicle through the turn, if the surface is slippery, the lateral grip of the front (steering) tires, may not be sufficient to keep them from sliding sideways (plowing). 4 wheel drive is better at overcoming the low lateral grip on both the front and rear tires.

4 wheel drive is a large improvement over 2 wheel drive, when traction is tenuous. However it is not a cure-all, bad weather, driving solution, nor will it ever be a substitute for driving skills. Fuckups, will fuckup, no matter what.

There, laid out so even an MBA can understand.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

"Get out and release the hubs" is a perfect example of how clueless you are, that shit went out with sword-fighting and knickers.

And still explains why four wheel drive causes less vehicle control. You had to release hubs because ‘always on’ four wheel drive decreases safety when moving. Obviously.

Either each wheel operates independently. And then tires do not fight each other. And then one tire that slips is the only wheel turning. So, four wheel drives interconnect all wheels so that all spin together. So that no one wheel spins with other not spinning. Wheels must be interconnected to that all wheels turn even when one slips.

All wheels interconnected means tires fight each other. But then anyone who knows before posting also knows that four wheel drive means tires fight each other - diminished control. But that is not in myths promoted by advertising.

Yes, four wheel drive means better traction when starting, as I said repeatedly and you agree. Because no wheel can be permitted to spin independent of others. That same interconnection makes the vehicle more hazardous when moving. Tires now fight each other when any one must spin more than any other.

Also correctly noted is the advantage of front wheel drive. Put numbers to it. Front wheel drive means 60+% of body weight on the traction wheels. Any increase to 100% has diminishing returns. Four wheel drive is 100% traction on the drive wheels. So that vehicle can get started. Percentage of body weight on traction wheels is why 60 to 100% is preferred. And why pick-up trucks have poor traction. (Pickup trucks must be filled in back to have traction.)

When stopping, only front wheels do most all braking - for all vehicles - two wheel and four wheel drive. On ice, the driver must decide whether to steer or brake. More braking means less steering. Same for both types - two or four wheel drive.

So that one wheel does not do all spinning, a four wheel drive must 'tie' all wheels together. That means a moving four wheel drive has less traction due to wheels fighting each other. That means front wheels must steer, brake, and fight all other tires for control.

Four wheel drive only to get started. And to have less control when moving. But you cannot tell that to an ego who is sitting higher than everyone else. Advertising told him he is invincible. And both angry and insulting when reality is posted.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Perhaps you should consider the Chevy Cruze... its engine does 98 HP per liter and gets 36 MPG highway.

Go back and read what I posted about the Cruze and the history of a Chevy plant in Lordstown OH that makes it.

[Undertoad]

On wet grass, mud, loose gravel, sand, snow, ice, anywhere the traction is iffy, the tires are fighting the surface more than each other. Maybe you haven't driven one in those conditions? I had the cheapest 4x4 pickup with no load and it was indeed miraculous in snow, including when turning. It had no differential and thus was dangerous in dry conditions.

[jinx]

Newer vehicles most people would have use for, don't even have low range, and the all wheel drive setups use viscous couplings and computers to make it a no-brainer.

[DanaC]

The main problem we have over here with 4 wheel drives, is that they are invariably used in inappropriate places and for inappropriate purposes.

I live in a tiny village; with lanes designed for single lane horse and carriage use. When I walk past the village school the place looks like a fucking 4x4 convention. Massive cars, using massive amounts of petrol, to ferry a small child the ten minutes it takes to get to school. Thereby making the roads significantly more dangerous for any children whose parents elect to walk them to school.

That's one of the problems with using rangerovers and landrovers in a built up, or narrow laned area: in the event that a child is hit, the chances of fatality are that much more if they're hit by one of these cars, which tend to have much higher bumpers and bigger grills.

[Undertoad]

Wow Jinx, that Jeep video is awesome! And points out exactly what's going on. All four tires have to turn at different speeds or not turn at all. In my truck that would have been impossible. Most excellent.