On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:11:23 -0400, flobert wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:23:37 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
> wrote:
>
>>Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY
>>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their ****
>>> together on Diesles!
>>
>>You've obviously never driven a Fiat/Alfa JTD or a VAG TDI, then.
>
> nor has he driven a jag, peugeot, citroen, european ford, or indeed
> any car with a MODERN deisel engine in them (as opposed to a NEW
> engine, which is a recently made old design)

What I have driven:
BMW 2002Tii
BMW 325i
'58 M-B Convertible
Fiat 600
Fiat 125 (128???)
'73 911
'88 928
Ferrarri Dino. '73 ("tethered"; the owner was sitting right next to me
looking like a nervous father...)
'73 Volvo 1800ES (mine)
'63 SAAB 3-cylinder 2-stroke (also mine...used to call it Purple Haze,
since the oiling system was broken and had to mix gasil for worst-case
(highway speed) scenarios. Left a blue cloud at stop signs)
'58 Jaguar sedan
'82 Jaguar XJS (again with a 'nervous parent'!)
'70(? '69?) Jaguar XKE (for about 3 minutes around a car lot...)
'78 Alfa Romeo Convertible (open the dictionary and look up 'cowl
shake'...)
'58(? '59?) BMW Isetta, 'coupe' and 'limousine' versions. '68
TVR '75 MG Midget
'73 MGB-GT
'72 Jensen-Healy 4WD
'6something Healy
'74 Triumph TR6
'68 Triumph TR3 (4a?)
'80 Triumph TR8
'74 Triumph Spitfire
'88 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon

That's just the Europeans
Add to that Mustangs, a '63 Corvette Split-window coupe, Camaros,
Firebirds, etc.


And, add to that, just about every model of Toyota imported to the US
since 1968 (except a 2000GT ),and a pile of Nissans from the 510 to the
300Z, and a Mazda Cosmos and rx-7's from '80 to '98.

 

I am not postulating anything, simply stating a fact. Anti SUV haters
aside, the larger the vehicle the less likely properly belted passengers
will be injured or killed in the most common type of accidents, period.
Obviously even a semi looses to a locomotive. Once again the engineer will
likely fair better than the truck driver even without crumple zones. One
simply can not defy the laws of physics.


mike hunt


"tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:aytYe.1058$xc4.300@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com ...
>I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but...
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> One can not defy the laws of physics. In nine out of
>> ten collisions the larger the vehicle the less likely proper belted
>> passengers will be injured or killed, period.
>
> I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics.
>
> However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy?
> What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle?
> Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what?

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:00:45 -0400, flobert wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:40:29 GMT, Vash the Stampede <Trigun@2am.cn>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:35:30 -0400, flobert wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:12 -0400, "Bob Palmer"
>>> <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am from Pennsylvania, over here in the states, and I was wondering how
>>>>everyone in Europe gets along without driving a pickup. I never see any
>>>>pickups on the road over there whenever I watch "The Amazing Race" or news
>>>>stories involving Europe. Are we Americans addicted to pickups for no
>>>>reason? I know most American families survived without them during the '50s
>>>>and most of the '60s. I love small economical vehicles. I am amazed at the
>>>>different makes and models available to Europeans and not to the US market.
>>>>A majority of the vehicles over here that are on the road are gas guzzling
>>>>bricks on wheels.
>>>>
>>> BBC's top gear did a review of an F150 in the UK a few months back.
>>> Actually it was the F150 lightning, but still. Anyway
>>>
>>> Pro - 2/3 seats, qualified for commercial vehicle rates, large load
>>> area, car-like driving position
>>> cons - huge reletively unpowerfull engine, handles like , load
>>> area open.
>>
>>Hmmmm....my boss had a Lightening and I asked for a 'ride', he said "Key's
>>in it" didn't have to tell ME twice.
>>
>>I thought it was a pretty damn good truck for a '68 Corvette!
>>The fact that it handled that well and that fast amazed me.
>
> I have to say, you've obviously never had much experiance with
> high-end vehicles then. Turning is sloppy and vaugue, suspension is
> floaty and nausia inducing, unless its in a sports car where they've
> decided that shock absorbers are a weighty extravigence. Build quality
> is usually poor, and engines are usually detuned to give more torque
> low-down for the ubixuitus slush-boxes to work best.
>
> in 99, i used to drive a 98 TVR cerbera for a daily driver, the speed8
> with the 4.5 I think.

HOLY CRAP!!!! I've never even SEEN one except for the magazines.
Fire-breathing monster, from what I hear...


> I had to make a trip to LA. I was staying with a
> friend, and he let me use his car when i needed to (a brand new, 2000
> corvette) First time i drove it, I thought it was in limp mode. I took
> the cars owner out in it later that day, and said 'can't you feel it?'
> "Feels fine to me". A small fibreglass car with that big of an engine
> should not perform that badly. It was on a par with a delorian, and
> that should say something.
>
>>
>>>
>>> There are *some* pickups, but they're not common, mainly rangers and
>>> hi-lux (a downloadable clip on bbc.co.uk/topgear/ does show them
>>> trying to destroy a hi-lux pickup - a must watch)
>>
>>I've actually seen that on US telly and on the web.
>
> yeah, i gave you the weblink, wasn't sure though if it'd been on the
> discovery channel yet.
>
>>
>> but the drop-side
>>> transit is far more popular. Its not hard to see why either. The load
>>> capacity is greater, the engine more efficient, and, you can drop the
>>> sides, makes it more of a flat-bed with fencing. For everyday work,
>>> you've got a range of vans, of variosu sizes, from car-based ones
>>> capable of taking a full pallet with a car front-end, to long
>>> wheelbase hi-cube vans with a 3.5ton GMVW. Did i mention that these
>>> are enclosed, so hearer to steal from, and also more efficient, since
>>> you've not got the bed's door acting like a 'chute. They're not even
>>> that slow - a standard road legal Diesel transit can manage the
>>> nurenburg ring in just over 10 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>> In short, pickups are too over-engined for family use (engines detuned
>>> for those damned slush-boxes) fuel inefficient, don't drive very
>>> nicely (poor handling and turning circles) and leave anything carried
>>> easily stealable.

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:03:34 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>I am not postulating anything, simply stating a fact. Anti SUV haters
>aside, the larger the vehicle the less likely properly belted passengers
>will be injured or killed in the most common type of accidents, period.
>Obviously even a semi looses to a locomotive. Once again the engineer will
>likely fair better than the truck driver even without crumple zones. One
>simply can not defy the laws of physics.

Or simple practical realities.
You're quite right that in the initial impact they will sustain less
injuries. HOWEVER the vehicles do ahve a tendency to roll afterwards,
as they ride over smaller vehicles, causing much greater secondary
injuries. As someone who's claimed to work in this field, surely you
should know this fact which has been widely known and documented for
over 20 years (and has been a facotr in millitary vehicle design since
the late 20s)

this is why there have been postulations about an 'impact bar' of a
suitable height on all vehciles, so they all impact with each other
with matching strength. Problem is, where do you put the bars on an
elise, and a Land rover defender, so they match?

>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:aytYe.1058$xc4.300@newssvr13.news.prodigy.co m...
>>I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but...
>>
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> One can not defy the laws of physics. In nine out of
>>> ten collisions the larger the vehicle the less likely proper belted
>>> passengers will be injured or killed, period.
>>
>> I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics.
>>
>> However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy?
>> What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle?
>> Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what?
>

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:02:36 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:11:23 -0400, flobert wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:23:37 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY
>>>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their ****
>>>> together on Diesles!
>>>
>>>You've obviously never driven a Fiat/Alfa JTD or a VAG TDI, then.
>>
>> nor has he driven a jag, peugeot, citroen, european ford, or indeed
>> any car with a MODERN deisel engine in them (as opposed to a NEW
>> engine, which is a recently made old design)
>
>What I have driven:
>BMW 2002Tii
>BMW 325i
>'58 M-B Convertible
>Fiat 600
>Fiat 125 (128???)
>'73 911
>'88 928
>Ferrarri Dino. '73 ("tethered"; the owner was sitting right next to me
>looking like a nervous father...)
>'73 Volvo 1800ES (mine)
>'63 SAAB 3-cylinder 2-stroke (also mine...used to call it Purple Haze,
>since the oiling system was broken and had to mix gasil for worst-case
>(highway speed) scenarios. Left a blue cloud at stop signs)
>'58 Jaguar sedan
>'82 Jaguar XJS (again with a 'nervous parent'!)
>'70(? '69?) Jaguar XKE (for about 3 minutes around a car lot...)
>'78 Alfa Romeo Convertible (open the dictionary and look up 'cowl
>shake'...)
>'58(? '59?) BMW Isetta, 'coupe' and 'limousine' versions. '68
>TVR '75 MG Midget
>'73 MGB-GT
>'72 Jensen-Healy 4WD
>'6something Healy
>'74 Triumph TR6
>'68 Triumph TR3 (4a?)
>'80 Triumph TR8
>'74 Triumph Spitfire
>'88 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon
>
>That's just the Europeans
>Add to that Mustangs, a '63 Corvette Split-window coupe, Camaros,
>Firebirds, etc.

I notice a conspicious lack of diesel engined cars there, ven the BMW
diesels (for instance, the 330d is now the most powerful+fastest
3-series)

>
>
>And, add to that, just about every model of Toyota imported to the US
>since 1968 (except a 2000GT ),and a pile of Nissans from the 510 to the
>300Z, and a Mazda Cosmos and rx-7's from '80 to '98.

Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over
the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised
theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry,
its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87
caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie
steel for you.

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:42:22 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:


>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their
>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance
>(number 3, I think!)
>
not a big fan of modern Rally cars. They're getting to be so
sensitive, and delicate, and computer controlled. I'll stick with
6R4's and my fathers old 71 escort rally car.

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:14:51 -0400, flobert wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:42:22 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>
>>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their
>>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance
>>(number 3, I think!)
>>
> not a big fan of modern Rally cars. They're getting to be so
> sensitive, and delicate, and computer controlled. I'll stick with
> 6R4's and my fathers old 71 escort rally car.

Was it '88? '90? '92?

Ford RS200 Rallye car. What a machine!

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:00:34 -0400, flobert wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:02:36 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:11:23 -0400, flobert wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:23:37 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY
>>>>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their ****
>>>>> together on Diesles!
>>>>
>>>>You've obviously never driven a Fiat/Alfa JTD or a VAG TDI, then.
>>>
>>> nor has he driven a jag, peugeot, citroen, european ford, or indeed
>>> any car with a MODERN deisel engine in them (as opposed to a NEW
>>> engine, which is a recently made old design)
>>
>>What I have driven:
>>BMW 2002Tii
>>BMW 325i
>>'58 M-B Convertible
>>Fiat 600
>>Fiat 125 (128???)
>>'73 911
>>'88 928
>>Ferrarri Dino. '73 ("tethered"; the owner was sitting right next to me
>>looking like a nervous father...)
>>'73 Volvo 1800ES (mine)
>>'63 SAAB 3-cylinder 2-stroke (also mine...used to call it Purple Haze,
>>since the oiling system was broken and had to mix gasil for worst-case
>>(highway speed) scenarios. Left a blue cloud at stop signs)
>>'58 Jaguar sedan
>>'82 Jaguar XJS (again with a 'nervous parent'!)
>>'70(? '69?) Jaguar XKE (for about 3 minutes around a car lot...)
>>'78 Alfa Romeo Convertible (open the dictionary and look up 'cowl
>>shake'...)
>>'58(? '59?) BMW Isetta, 'coupe' and 'limousine' versions. '68
>>TVR '75 MG Midget
>>'73 MGB-GT
>>'72 Jensen-Healy 4WD
>>'6something Healy
>>'74 Triumph TR6
>>'68 Triumph TR3 (4a?)
>>'80 Triumph TR8
>>'74 Triumph Spitfire
>>'88 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon
>>
>>That's just the Europeans
>>Add to that Mustangs, a '63 Corvette Split-window coupe, Camaros,
>>Firebirds, etc.
>
> I notice a conspicious lack of diesel engined cars there, ven the BMW
> diesels (for instance, the 330d is now the most powerful+fastest
> 3-series)
>
>>
>>
>>And, add to that, just about every model of Toyota imported to the US
>>since 1968 (except a 2000GT ),and a pile of Nissans from the 510 to the
>>300Z, and a Mazda Cosmos and rx-7's from '80 to '98.
>
> Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over
> the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised
> theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry,
> its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87
> caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie
> steel for you.


Google 'hachiroku'

I have had more Toyotas than anything. Least time owned, 2 years (accident)
Most time owned, 19 years and counting.

Currently...

1985 Corolla GT-S (hachiroku) 256,000 and counting (bought with 10,000
miles in '86)
1985 Celica GT-S, 254,000 nice body, replaced engine last
fall 1988 Supra. Lots of leaks, but a nice running car. A good 5 years
left anyway.

1986 Camry, 83,000 keeps on ticking...

Like Lee Iacocca said in the '80's, "If you can find a better built car,
buy it". So I did, and never stopped. Thanks, Lee!

 

Well, Chrysler improves? I haven't seen it. The service manager at our local
Chrysler dealership says that they can't keep up with all the problems, and
half of the problems don't have a solution yet. Across the street at Honda,
the only backup they have on service is the oil change lane.
"NeedforSwede2" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9c856f33d5ac3498b3f9@news.individual.ne t...
> In article <pan.2005.09.21.04.55.50.183106@ae86.gts>, Trueno@ae86.gts
> says...
>> LOL. I thought Chryslr was getting a leg up from M-B!
>>
> Oh they are.
>
> Chryslers have come on in leaps and bounds, so much that Chrysler/Dodge
> and probably soon Plymouth brands will be seen on UK streets as normal.
> The Neon and PT cruiser are badged Chrysler here, but the 300 Sedan is a
> Dodge.
>
> It is just that Mercedes got the rough end of the stick. Chrysler
> improves, mercedes gets weakened.
> --
> Carl Robson
> Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
> Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:21:52 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:14:51 -0400, flobert wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:42:22 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their
>>>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance
>>>(number 3, I think!)
>>>
>> not a big fan of modern Rally cars. They're getting to be so
>> sensitive, and delicate, and computer controlled. I'll stick with
>> 6R4's and my fathers old 71 escort rally car.
>
>Was it '88? '90? '92?
>
>Ford RS200 Rallye car. What a machine!
yeah, and what a shame the 6R4 metro kept kicking its backside

the escort was a 1971. (hence '71 escort')

most of the 6R4's i've driven were 83-84ish, groupB like the RS200s

 

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:02:14 GMT, A strange species called "tomb"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but...
>
>Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> One can not defy the laws of physics. In nine out of
>> ten collisions the larger the vehicle the less likely proper belted
>> passengers will be injured or killed, period.
>
>I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics.
>
>However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy?
>What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle?
>Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what?
>
>This is an escalation that does not make sense. As others have pointed out,
>all that large vehicles do is endanger the smaller ones. As hard as it may
>seem, one has to think not only egoistically (because that will get all of
>us killed), but also consider what's around you.

This has kind of diverted from my original post a bit. I think that
there is a lack of understanding on both sides of the pond here.

In Britain and Europe we mainly have Smaller economical manual cars
because they are ideal for and designed for our needs.

In the US they mainly have bigger automatic cars and SUVs because they
are ideal for and designed for their needs.

In the UK we don't really need a big car or large engine as we don't
need to do as much driving. In the States they can afford to have
bigger gas guzzlers, they need them and can afford to fuel them.

I don't see what the big deal is. It is all about supply and demand
and market forces. The reason the Americans probably don't think too
much to a fair percentage of the cars made for our market, is because
they are not suitable for theirs and it's the same vice-versa. The
companies that customise cars for different markets, those cars will
do well. There will only be the odd exceptions to that general rule.

One point I would like to add on this whole crash thing, I would say
that the newer a car is the better it will withstand a crash against a
similar sized but older car.

I seem to recall an episode of Top Gear here in the UK where they had
two large 4x4 vehicles and they showed how the newest model just went
straight through the older one in a crash with relatively minor damage
whereas the older one was completely trashed and there could have been
fatalities. That also has to be a factor in crashes from what little
I know. So even if you have an SUV that may be slightly bigger than
the other person on a collision course, you may come out of it worse
if they have a brand new model.

One thing I like about American cars is the seat belt. I was in I
think it was a Saturn, and the seat belts moved across automatically
for me to plug in. Are their any cars in Britain than do this? This is
a serious question. I expect it may just be some of the executive cars
with things like this. This Saturn though I believe that was just one
of their basic cars.

John

 

Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec
engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I am
probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may be too
expensive for my budget.

John

 

John <speedyg@nzales.com> wrote:

> Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec
> engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I am
> probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may be too
> expensive for my budget.

An Alfa is never too expensive..... just look at the depreciation ;-)

--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

 

SteveH wrote:
> John <speedyg@nzales.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec
>> engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I
>> am probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may
>> be too expensive for my budget.
>
> An Alfa is never too expensive..... just look at the depreciation ;-)

lol

 

cupra <NOcupra.sSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> SteveH wrote:
> > John <speedyg@nzales.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec
> >> engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I
> >> am probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may
> >> be too expensive for my budget.
> >
> > An Alfa is never too expensive..... just look at the depreciation ;-)
>
> lol

Sadly true, though.... where else would I get a 155bhp luxury sports
saloon at 6 years old for £2800?

A BMW 320i would be at least double that price, even a half decent A4 or
Passat would be at least a grand to 1500 quid more.

I love my Alfas, but you can never defend the depreciation..... but
that's a good thing, really. Let the company car drivers take the hit,
then buy when they're cheap :-)
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #