How old is your machine?
-
@lucas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Sure, people get used to bad interfaces, just like a lot of people are really used to CLIs. At least I can recognize it's bad.
It not quite the same thing really. I would liken it to using Winamp Classic over something like iTunes.
There are other reasons anyway why manual is preferred over here one of them is that petrol prices are quite expensive.
If you don't want to pay for fuel buy a Tesla. Power requirement is around 250-300 Wh per mile, so a typical sunny day with a decent photovoltaic array should provide enough juice for about 50 miles.
-
@Ronald said:
If you don't want to pay for fuel buy a Tesla.
Least I could pay for a Tesla model S is $62,400.
My 1995 Daihatsu Mira (660cc three cylinder EFI engine, 5 speed manual transmission) cost me $3500 used and now has about 290,000 km on the clock, 150,000 km of which are mine. An engine rebuild cost me $1100, plus 15 services at under $200 each, plus a few other things I'm sure I've forgotten makes $5000 max for maintenance. It uses no oil between services, and between 4.5 and 6 litres of fuel per 100km: 5.2 is typical. So with fuel at $1.30/litre (an overestimate of the average cost here over the years I've owned it) that's roughly $10,000 worth of fuel. TCO so far, ignoring registration and other stuff that the Tesla would share: well under $20,000.
My plan is to keep running the Mira until I can buy a comparably sized used electric with similar range and a lower TCO/year. Which, given the rate electrics are improving, will probably happen right about the time the Mira starts regularly costing more than $200 to service.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It also depends on the engine displacement . A 4-cyl will generally match transmission speed m...
I can't believe I actually just experienced that cliche moment where one's eyes glaze over.
Thank you, morbs, thank you.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@HardwareGeek said:
I'd simply aim it at 47°38'N, 122°07'W;
Keep it under 3 megatons and we're cool.
It'd be pretty fun to turn the refugees away, come to think of it.
-
@Groaner said:
There are also a few cases where the ability to pick a certain "gear" is useful. Say you're going into a curve at ~60 MPH, but you want to power through the turn without losing momentum and without accelerating too much. At that speed, in my car, that's going to be 6th gear if my foot is just light enough on the pedal to maintain velocity. If I push down, the shifting algorithm will downshift into 3rd, 4th or 5th, typically a function of how far down the pedal is being pushed, and as you might imagine, that can be hard to get just right. 3rd gear will be a little too much power, and 5th too wimpy. The computer can't read my intentions two seconds out (nor can it predict how sharply I want to take the turn... or can it?), but if I tell it I want 4th gear, I don't have to worry about unexpected shifts while in turns.
And that's one of the few times a manual might be better. Really, though, most autos can be used the same way. If you drive it for awhile, you should have a feel for where the shift points are.
@Groaner said:
When I got my car the salesman said, "The transmission's sealed, good for 200k miles, they don't really want you touching it." Time will tell how correct he was.
Yeah, I find those "no maintenance" transmissions interesting. My main concern is that even synthetic ATF breaks down over time, so God knows what it's doing after 50k miles. I have an older transmission and I drain and change the fluid every 30k. It runs a bit hot, though, and tends to burn up even synthetic fluid rather quickly. (And the previous owner let transmission fluid get to the point where it looked like used engine oil. Ugh.)
@Groaner said:
There's also the often-mentioned advantages of less power loss and better gas mileage, but if you trust the factory flywheel HP numbers for the manual/auto engines they put in my car (426hp vs. 400) and the dyno numbers (~350rwhp vs. 320), the difference in power loss is what, 18% vs. 20%? I see a lot of automatics with equal MPG numbers to manuals these days. It's diffcult to understand why some people still clutch to such archaic technology.
Yeah, there's little-to-no power loss or MPG loss in a modern auto with lock-up TC. And given that so many people who buy manuals want "sporty" driving, they're not getting good MPG anyway. And autos are great for quick acceleration, especially considering torque multiplication and if they have a large number of gears. (It sounds like yours has 6 or 7 gears. I know there are a few 6-speed autos out there, now, and MB has had 7-speed autos as standard on many cars for awhile.)
-
@flabdablet said:
@El_Heffe said:
In the U.S. however, it appears that automatics are more than 90%.
That's mainly because burning as much fuel as quickly as possible is a US national sport.
Look, if you really care about MPG, you're not going to be using a manual, anyway; you're going to be using a CVT. That said, modern autos are nearly identical to manuals in terms of efficiency. For the majority of drivers, you'd probably get worse MPG out of a manual.
-
@flabdablet said:
As is roll-starting after you've been a dickhead and parked with your lights on...
I just carry a jumper battery for that. I'd do that in a manual, too, because push starting is usually impractical and, depending on circumstances, dangerous.
@flabdablet said:
...just because you felt like turning the engine off and coasting down that fabulous hill in neutral.
For someone who gets onto people about wasting fuel, you sure are happy to do it yourself. (Albeit a very tiny amount of fuel, but that's what you complained about as well.) If you let it coast down a big hill in gear, you're not going to use any fuel, whereas restarting is going to burn up some. Also, it's less wear on your ignition components.
@flabdablet said:
Driving a manual is just more fun, because it feels like exactly what it is: exercising a physical skill.
I suppose. I usually find it tedious.
-
@flabdablet said:
@blakeyrat said:
Even automobile fans on this forum have time-pods. How's life back there in 1985?
Consumer Reports isn't a very credible source of car-related information. It's basically a magazine for thick people. I don't know where the hell they're getting their numbers, but they're full of shit.
-
@lucas said:
There are other reasons anyway why manual is preferred over here one of them is that petrol prices are quite expensive.
How is it you people are so far behind the times? Automatics get better MPG than manuals. Now, in some particular models that may not be true, but that's because of particular trade-offs that were made during engineering (maybe the auto generates more HP, or has very tall gears, or what-have-you.) If you go buy a car that is marketed as super fuel efficient (hybrid or not), guess which kind of transmission it won't use? It will be either CVT or auto.
-
@Ronald said:
If you don't want to pay for fuel buy a Tesla. Power requirement is around 250-300 Wh per mile, so a typical sunny day with a decent photovoltaic array should provide enough juice for about 50 miles.
Solar panels also cost money. They also need frequent maintenance and they decline in efficiency at a pretty steady rate.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
@blakeyrat said:
Even automobile fans on this forum have time-pods. How's life back there in 1985?
Consumer Reports isn't a very credible source of car-related information. It's basically a magazine for thick people. I don't know where the hell they're getting their numbers, but they're full of shit.
I'd imagine they measured it when they drove the cars for their respective reviews, though that could easily have been biased, even subconsciously... you can't exactly perform a double-blind trial on this.
-
-
@electronerd said:
I'd imagine they measured it when they drove the cars for their respective reviews, though that could easily have been biased, even subconsciously... you can't exactly perform a double-blind trial on this.
They only measure to the nearest MPG, which is somewhat suspicious. I'm also curious how they measured it--OBD, filling it with gas and seeing how far it drove, etc..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@electronerd said:
I'd imagine they measured it when they drove the cars for their respective reviews, though that could easily have been biased, even subconsciously... you can't exactly perform a double-blind trial on this.
They only measure to the nearest MPG, which is somewhat suspicious. I'm also curious how they measured it--OBD, filling it with gas and seeing how far it drove, etc..
Looks like they use a flow meter on the fuel lines. Not sure where they get the distance measurement, but if they drive at least 10.0 miles, odometer readings would be enough for significant figures
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
If you don't want to pay for fuel buy a Tesla. Power requirement is around 250-300 Wh per mile, so a typical sunny day with a decent photovoltaic array should provide enough juice for about 50 miles.
Solar panels also cost money. They also need frequent maintenance and they decline in efficiency at a pretty steady rate.
A decent Tesla with all the bells & whistles comes to about $96,000. It's not a solution to the price of fuel, it's a classy way to tell Big Oil to fuck off.
People who are on such a tight budget that they care about the price of fuel don't justify that I put on my keyboard the wear and tear of writing a serious piece of advice about being thrifty. I'm a diva not a fucking couponer.
-
@Ronald said:
A decent Tesla with all the bells & whistles comes to about $96,000. It's not a solution to the price of fuel, it's a classy way to tell Big Oil to fuck off.
I'd much rather tell Tesla to fuck off than the oil companies. Especially considering I'm only going to get to about "Fuck o--" before I run out of juice. And I'd have to buy solar panels (Big Solar--another group I'd sooner like to tell to fuck off) or else I'd just be using oil again to power the damn thing.
@Ronald said:
People who are on such a tight budget that they care about the price of fuel don't justify that I put on my keyboard the wear and tear of writing a serious piece of advice about being thrifty. I'm a diva not a fucking couponer.
Yeah, I don't get it either. Can't they just sell off some of their portfolio? They might take a hit on the bonds, but they'll make up for it since equities are on a rocket ship to the Moon.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
A decent Tesla with all the bells & whistles comes to about $96,000. It's not a solution to the price of fuel, it's a classy way to tell Big Oil to fuck off.
I'd much rather tell Tesla to fuck off than the oil companies. Especially considering I'm only going to get to about "Fuck o--" before I run out of juice. And I'd have to buy solar panels (Big Solar--another group I'd sooner like to tell to fuck off) or else I'd just be using oil again to power the damn thing.
Electric cars are nice because it's hard to house a nuclear power plant inside a car.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
A decent Tesla with all the bells & whistles comes to about $96,000. It's not a solution to the price of fuel, it's a classy way to tell Big Oil to fuck off.
I'd much rather tell Tesla to fuck off than the oil companies. Especially considering I'm only going to get to about "Fuck o--" before I run out of juice. And I'd have to buy solar panels (Big Solar--another group I'd sooner like to tell to fuck off) or else I'd just be using oil again to power the damn thing.
Electric cars are nice because it's hard to house a nuclear power plant inside a car.
False dichotomies are fun!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
So with fuel at $1.30/litre
You bastard, you pay less for gas than me.
My choice of car means I pay a lot less for fuel than most car owners. And yes, I do feel unbearably smug every time I see some sad poseur waiting for his $50,000 potency surrogate to suck down its full $120 load as I drive up, fill from nearly empty, pay my $30 and leave.
-
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
So with fuel at $1.30/litre
You bastard, you pay less for gas than me.
My choice of car means I pay a lot less for fuel than most car owners. And yes, I do feel unbearably smug every time I see some sad poseur waiting for his $50,000 potency surrogate to suck down its full $120 load as I drive up, fill from nearly empty, pay my $30 and leave.
I never saw your car but I would definitely pay that $90 premium to not drive that piece of shit.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Emmett Brown got one inside a DeLorean DMC-12's engine compartment and still had room for the IC engine. Just take out the time circuits and the IC engine, put in an electric motor, and connect the reactor to that. Of course, I'm not sure you can get plutonium in just any drug store in YOUR 1985...@Ronald said:
A decent Tesla with all the bells & whistles comes to about $96,000. It's not a solution to the price of fuel, it's a classy way to tell Big Oil to fuck off.
I'd much rather tell Tesla to fuck off than the oil companies. Especially considering I'm only going to get to about "Fuck o--" before I run out of juice. And I'd have to buy solar panels (Big Solar--another group I'd sooner like to tell to fuck off) or else I'd just be using oil again to power the damn thing.
Electric cars are nice because it's hard to house a nuclear power plant inside a car.
-
@Ronald said:
A decent Tesla with all the bells & whistles comes to about $96,000. It's not a solution to the price of fuel, it's a classy way to tell Big Oil to fuck off.
More like a really stupid way.Hey Big Oil!! Instead of giving you $20,000 over the next 10 years I'm going to give Tesla $90,000. I really showed you!!
No thanks. I'll just buy the gasoline and tell Tesla to fuck off. Which isn't really necessary because they'll probably be out of business in a few years anyway and you'll be stuck with an expensive paperweight that you can't give away.
-
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
You Americans and your fixation on your 'cars. I've driven an American car once - a 2003 LTD Crown Victoria that was apparently a former police car. I wasn't impressed. It was fast, sure, but it felt like driving a rocket couch because there was just no "feel" of the road. It was also a great bloody beast, it'd probably seat about 35 refugees and still give them room to dance and play the violin.@flabdablet said:
So with fuel at $1.30/litre
You bastard, you pay less for gas than me.
My choice of car means I pay a lot less for fuel than most car owners. And yes, I do feel unbearably smug every time I see some sad poseur waiting for his $50,000 potency surrogate to suck down its full $120 load as I drive up, fill from nearly empty, pay my $30 and leave.
-
@flabdablet said:
My choice of car means I pay a lot less for fuel than most car owners.
No, I'm saying that you pay less per-liter.
-
@drurowin said:
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
You Americans and your fixation on your 'cars. I've driven an American car once - a 2003 LTD Crown Victoria that was apparently a former police car. I wasn't impressed. It was fast, sure, but it felt like driving a rocket couch because there was just no "feel" of the road. It was also a great bloody beast, it'd probably seat about 35 refugees and still give them room to dance and play the violin.@flabdablet said:
So with fuel at $1.30/litre
You bastard, you pay less for gas than me.
My choice of car means I pay a lot less for fuel than most car owners. And yes, I do feel unbearably smug every time I see some sad poseur waiting for his $50,000 potency surrogate to suck down its full $120 load as I drive up, fill from nearly empty, pay my $30 and leave.
The fact that it was a former police car just means that the suspension was damaged after years of abuse as police cars carry lots of heavy equipment. It's like having a girlfriend who used to be a prostitute - odds are that not only her virtue is loose.
This being said, big comfy cars like a Crown Vic are excellent when you spend a lot of time in the car such as in constant heavy traffic or while doing long trips, because it's like seating in your living room: when you get to the destination you are relaxed and fresh, unlike sports cars who take a toll on you every time you turn a corner or drive over the tiniest leaf. You can cross railroad tracks at full speed with a Crown Vic (or a big Lincoln or a big Buick) without noticing it (as long as there is no train).
But that's only a small category of American cars. I used to have a 1986 Ford Mustang GT (5.0L) just like this one. What a beast, yet not a big car. But my favorite of all times was a Camaro Iroc Z that I only had for a few months until some moron truck driver crashed into it in a parking lot. That car was totally awesome, once in a while I think about buying an old one and fix it, but the problem with old muscle cars is that stupid people have been abusing them for years so just about everything has to be replaced or fixed, it gets expensive.
-
@drurowin said:
You
Americansbloody Yanks and your fixation on your 'cars.If we're going to go through this routine, there's a certain way I expect you to sound.
@drurowin said:
a 2003 LTD Crown Victoria
Dude, WTF? Normal people don't drive Crown Vics. They're just police cars and for really old people. And they're definitely not the kind of car somebody would show off.
Also, I never said American cars are particularly fun. We make a good truck, although talk about a beast--driving an F-350 or a Sierra 3500 is like navigating a hollowed-out blue whale. They're quite beautiful monstrosities, although I must say I despise anyone who buys one and then gets it lifted, puts on Metal Mulisha shit and a bunch of stickers and never takes the piece of shit off the road. A pickup should be filthy and dented to hell in the first year.
We make very effective economy and mid-size cars, too. Effective, but not fun. Most SUVs nowadays are just glorified mini-vans (which is all most ever were--just a way to haul lots of kids and stuff, but without the minivan's depressing looks.) As far as fun cars, we don't have many. I've driven a 2012 Mustang and I didn't love it. It was okay, but it didn't really fill me with glee.
(A side rant: why are American sports cars all stuck in retro mode? They all look like some hideous mix of 70s and future technology. The original designs are beautiful partially because of their position in history; you can't just copy that and expect it to work nowadays. If you're going to ape the original designs, just go all-out and copy them wholesale. I don't like the "Hey, it's a 70s Dodge but covered in plastic and weird, out-of-place curves" look. Ugh.)
If you want a fun car, the best all seem to be German. The Germans still seem to understand the idea that a car should be fun first, sexy next, and practicality and efficiency should be way down the list.
-
@Ronald said:
I used to have a 1986 Ford Mustang GT (5.0L) just like this one. What a beast, yet not a big car. But my favorite of all times was a Camaro Iroc Z
The IROC Z was a pretty car, but the fucking 3rd gen Mustangs were awful looking. Really, the 80s were an incredibly bad time for styling. The 90s Mustang wasn't a work of art, but at least it doesn't trigger my gag reflex like the 3G does.
@Ronald said:
That car was totally awesome, once in a while I think about buying an old one and fix it, but the problem with old muscle cars is that stupid people have been abusing them for years so just about everything has to be replaced or fixed, it gets expensive.
Stop being poor. I'm sure you could find a fixed-up one with new parts in great condition for less than $40k. You just want to make sure they've replaced some of the original parts. Most importantly, the engine: find one that has a new fuel-injected Chevy SB. Carbs are shit, and unless you want to spend all of your time fucking with the damn thing, just buy one with fuel-injection. You'll get more power, more fuel efficiency and more reliability that way.
A newer transmission might be necessary, too, especially if you're looking for an auto. A lot of those autos only have 3 or 4 gears and were rather clumsy hydraulic affairs. A modern transmission should give better performance and efficiency. Also, it wouldn't hurt to have an upgraded brakes for better stopping power.
Some people will bitch that it's not authentic, but fuck those people.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
That car was totally awesome, once in a while I think about buying an old one and fix it, but the problem with old muscle cars is that stupid people have been abusing them for years so just about everything has to be replaced or fixed, it gets expensive.
Stop being poor. I'm sure you could find a fixed-up one with new parts in great condition for less than $40k. You just want to make sure they've replaced some of the original parts. Most importantly, the engine: find one that has a new fuel-injected Chevy SB. Carbs are shit, and unless you want to spend all of your time fucking with the damn thing, just buy one with fuel-injection. You'll get more power, more fuel efficiency and more reliability that way.
A newer transmission might be necessary, too, especially if you're looking for an auto. A lot of those autos only have 3 or 4 gears and were rather clumsy hydraulic affairs. A modern transmission should give better performance and efficiency. Also, it wouldn't hurt to have an upgraded brakes for better stopping power.
Some people will bitch that it's not authentic, but fuck those people.
Nah I have another car project higher in the list: a muscle K-Car. Yes, that means getting an old Plymouth Reliant (station wagon is a must) and replacing everything with high-performance shit but while keeping the same exterior look. A guy I know did that with a Ford Escort 89, including all kinds of electronics; so much in fact that there appear to be a glitch somewhere and overnight the battery will drain...
Those cars are like demagnetized chicks magnets.
-
@Ronald said:
I never saw your car but I would definitely pay that $90 premium to not drive that piece of shit.
/me feels insufferably smug
-
@flabdablet said:
@Ronald said:
I never saw your car but I would definitely pay that $90 premium to not drive that piece of shit.
/me feels insufferably smug
Hey you should buy that book: Voluntary Simplicity. Which, funny enough, has a price tag of $203.
-
-
@Ronald said:
@flabdablet said:
@Ronald said:
I never saw your car but I would definitely pay that $90 premium to not drive that piece of shit.
* Ronald feels insufferably smug
Hey you should buy that book: Voluntary Simplicity. Which, funny enough, has a price tag of $203.
I see a couple for $15, a few in the $70s..
-
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
If I was to be able to ask for a single American car to be able to have here (and have converted to drive on the correct side), it'd be a 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT Fast-back. That thing would get ALL my money sunk into fixing it up and making it a chicken magnet.@Ronald said:
That car was totally awesome, once in a while I think about buying an old one and fix it, but the problem with old muscle cars is that stupid people have been abusing them for years so just about everything has to be replaced or fixed, it gets expensive.
Stop being poor. I'm sure you could find a fixed-up one with new parts in great condition for less than $40k. You just want to make sure they've replaced some of the original parts. Most importantly, the engine: find one that has a new fuel-injected Chevy SB. Carbs are shit, and unless you want to spend all of your time fucking with the damn thing, just buy one with fuel-injection. You'll get more power, more fuel efficiency and more reliability that way.
A newer transmission might be necessary, too, especially if you're looking for an auto. A lot of those autos only have 3 or 4 gears and were rather clumsy hydraulic affairs. A modern transmission should give better performance and efficiency. Also, it wouldn't hurt to have an upgraded brakes for better stopping power.
Some people will bitch that it's not authentic, but fuck those people.
Nah I have another car project higher in the list: a muscle K-Car. Yes, that means getting an old Plymouth Reliant (station wagon is a must) and replacing everything with high-performance shit but while keeping the same exterior look. A guy I know did that with a Ford Escort 89, including all kinds of electronics; so much in fact that there appear to be a glitch somewhere and overnight the battery will drain...
Those cars are like demagnetized chicks magnets.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
A decent Tesla with all the bells & whistles comes to about $96,000. It's not a solution to the price of fuel, it's a classy way to tell Big Oil to fuck off.
I'd much rather tell Tesla to fuck off than the oil companies. Especially considering I'm only going to get to about "Fuck o--" before I run out of juice. And I'd have to buy solar panels (Big Solar--another group I'd sooner like to tell to fuck off) or else I'd just be using oil again to power the damn thing.
Electric cars are nice because it's hard to house a nuclear power plant inside a car.
False dichotomies are fun!
Okay, let me take you through the magical land of convoluted logic:
- Electric cars use electricity instead of gasoline
- Power plants generate electricity
- Using fossil fuels is bad for the environment
- Nuclear power plants are very clean
- Power plants are generally larger than a four-door sedan
- Putting a large thing inside a smaller thing is generally very difficult
- Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
- Therefore, electric cars are better
-
@morbiuswilters said:
How is it you people are so far behind the times? Automatics get better MPG than manuals. Now, in some particular models that may not be true, but that's because of particular trade-offs that were made during engineering (maybe the auto generates more HP, or has very tall gears, or what-have-you.) If you go buy a car that is marketed as super fuel efficient (hybrid or not), guess which kind of transmission it won't use? It will be either CVT or auto.
Fuel efficiency is probably more to do with weight of the car anyway and aerodynamics than the transmission type tbh, cars in Europe tend to be smaller than those in the US. There probably been a load of money put into making automatics more efficient.
-
@lucas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
How is it you people are so far behind the times? Automatics get better MPG than manuals. Now, in some particular models that may not be true, but that's because of particular trade-offs that were made during engineering (maybe the auto generates more HP, or has very tall gears, or what-have-you.) If you go buy a car that is marketed as super fuel efficient (hybrid or not), guess which kind of transmission it won't use? It will be either CVT or auto.
Fuel efficiency is probably more to do with weight of the car anyway and aerodynamics than the transmission type tbh, cars in Europe tend to be smaller than those in the US. There probably been a load of money put into making automatics more efficient.
He's talking about manual vs automatic versions of the same car
-
@blakeyrat said:
@PJH said:
Your argument presumes that the shit you're making up is true. The more colloquial term for this is straw man. Why don't you shut the fuck up for once instead of going through all the argumentative fallacies one by one. Again.@blakeyrat said:
Let me guess:
No. You're being a hypocrite if you first complain that other people read assumptions (AKA "making shit up") in what they write, then go on yourself to do it to others.
Not that this will surprise others of course.Look. If your shit is broken, the solution isn't "use the CLI!" the solution is "fix your shit!"
-
@drurowin said:
If I was to be able to ask for a single American car to be able to have here (and have converted to drive on the correct side), it'd be a 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT Fast-back. That thing would get ALL my money sunk into fixing it up and making it a chicken magnet.
Why the heck would you do that? If you want small, semi-sporty and mid-engined from the 1980's, you live in a country where they sold the Lancia Montecarlo and the Fiat/Bertone X1/9.
Besides, the '88 Fiero is the one to get. Better suspension and brakes.
-
@Ben L. said:
Okay, let me take you through the magical land of convoluted logic:
- Electric cars use electricity instead of gasoline
- Power plants generate electricity
- Using fossil fuels is bad for the environment
- Nuclear power plants are very clean
- Power plants are generally larger than a four-door sedan
- Putting a large thing inside a smaller thing is generally very difficult
- Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
- Therefore, electric cars are better
I know what you were trying to say, and it's silly. Electric cars are inefficient, expensive and more harmful to the environment than ICEs. We just had this discussion, like, a month ago. If you really care about the environment, just get a hybrid. They're relatively cheap, reliable, can actually drive longer than their average refueling time, and better for the environment. Yay.
-
-
@electronerd said:
He's talking about manual vs automatic versions of the same car
I lost track a while ago tbh.
-
@lucas said:
Fuel efficiency is probably more to do with weight of the car anyway and aerodynamics than the transmission type tbh...
Well, sure, but we're comparing different transmissions in the same vehicle model.
@lucas said:
There probably been a load of money put into making automatics more efficient.
Yes. Although most of it isn't that complicated: autos had poorer fuel efficiency due to torque converters and tall gears. Nowadays, lock-ups TCs and 6+ speed transmissions have allowed autos to catch up and even overtake manuals in some models.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
(A side rant: why are American sports cars all stuck in retro mode? They all look like some hideous mix of 70s and future technology. The original designs are beautiful partially because of their position in history; you can't just copy that and expect it to work nowadays. If you're going to ape the original designs, just go all-out and copy them wholesale. I don't like the "Hey, it's a 70s Dodge but covered in plastic and weird, out-of-place curves" look. Ugh.)
Boomers that are retiring (and have the disposable income) buy them to try to recapture their youth or for nostalgia reasons.
Also, the best thing about the Crown Vic Interceptors is that people get out of your way, or generally stay behind you. Nobody wants to pass an Interceptor, no matter the speed.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
We make a good truck, ... although I must say I despise anyone who buys one and then gets it lifted.... A pickup should be filthy and dented to hell in the first year.
Far worse, IMHO, are people who buy a truck and get it lowered. There is nothing stupider than a vehicle built for hauling cargo that has so little ground clearance that it bottoms-out if you put a feather in it.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@morbiuswilters said:We make a good truck, ... although I must say I despise anyone who buys one and then gets it lifted.... A pickup should be filthy and dented to hell in the first year.
Far worse, IMHO, are people who buy a truck and get it lowered. There is nothing stupider than a vehicle built for hauling cargo that has so little ground clearance that it bottoms-out if you put a feather in it.People actually do that? Really?
I'm sorry, not used to people being dumber than I assumed.
-
@NoOneImportant said:
I thought there was only one prototype 88 Fiero built, and that 86/87 was the last production year. And this is if I wanted an American car.@drurowin said:
If I was to be able to ask for a single American car to be able to have here (and have converted to drive on the correct side), it'd be a 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT Fast-back. That thing would get ALL my money sunk into fixing it up and making it a chicken magnet.
Why the heck would you do that? If you want small, semi-sporty and mid-engined from the 1980's, you live in a country where they sold the Lancia Montecarlo and the Fiat/Bertone X1/9.
Besides, the '88 Fiero is the one to get. Better suspension and brakes.
-
@dhromed said:
Isn't that how you Americans refer to the females of your society, as "hens" or "chickens"?@drurowin said:
chicken magnet.
I don't even
-
@drurowin said:
@dhromed said:
Isn't that how you Americans refer to the females of your society, as "hens" or "chickens"?@drurowin said:
chicken magnet.
I don't even
- dhromed isn't American
- "hens" was at one point used, rarely, but it's not been used for over 50 years
- "chicken" is not the term you were looking for, and the one you were looking for is "chick"
-
@locallunatic said:
Ah, all right. Read you loud and clear, good buddy.@drurowin said:
@dhromed said:
Isn't that how you Americans refer to the females of your society, as "hens" or "chickens"?@drurowin said:
chicken magnet.
I don't even
- dhromed isn't American
- "hens" was at one point used, rarely, but it's not been used for over 50 years
- "chicken" is not the term you were looking for, and the one you were looking for is "chick"
So in America, the females of your society are "chicks", and "hen" is an archaic term. What other terms of false endearment are commonplace/popular? "Babies"? "Whores"?
Perhaps I will modify an automobile so that it is a baby magnet.
-
@drurowin said:
Ah, all right. Read you loud and clear, good buddy.
So in America, the females of your society are "chicks", and "hen" is an archaic term. What other terms of false endearment are commonplace/popular? "Babies"? "Whores"?
Perhaps I will modify an automobile so that it is a baby magnet.
I usually refer to them as either canines or farm implements.
