Normally, I don't like music interspersed with car videos, because it gets in the way of the awesome. However, these two videos both have excuses, so without further ado:
VS.
I have to say, the Aventador (say it with me! It's FUN!) video has an advantage over the Viper because it includes the sound of the car, as well as the music. The Viper's excuse is that it was recorded in slow motion, so if the sound of the car was included, nobody could tell it was the car they were hearing.
Notice also that the Viper's license plate changes through the video, becoming much funnier in the process. I am typically an opponent of license plates going on the Internet, but this one underscores the point of the car. That point is, of course, a completely unaided (except for those pesky federally-mandated techno doodads like ABS) driving experience that will bite back if you mess up. For that reason, I will never own a Viper. I can't handle the responsibility equivalent of all that (horse)power.
What's your pick?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Gearing
I was going to post this as an example of a silly engine swap in the manner of that LS3 Solstice Coupe that I posted a little while back, but this doesn't count as an engine swap so much as an engine addition. Although adding an engine to a vehicle that already has one (and leaving the old one inside) generally qualifies the creator of the Frankensteinmobile for Official Awesomeness, there is another reason for posting this video.
I remember reading in the accompanying article that the top speed of 140 MPH that was given in this video could very easily be made higher. How, you ask? By simply shifting the road transmission into neutral, to reduce the inertia of turning the engine via the wheels.
When shifting into neutral increases your top speed, that qualifies as awesome.
In this same vein, it's been noted that an oddity of the C5 Corvette Z06 is that it reaches top speed in 5th gear instead of 6th. This is because the 6th gear has a 0:56:1 ratio, and as such is useless for just about anything except cruising. The reason the Z06 can use this excessively high gear is due to its massive low-RPM torque, so it can loaf along the highway at essentially idle RPM. Some Z06 owners have managed to get almost 30 highway MPG with this gear!
Gearing is really quite important. Without various different gears, all cars would be running direct drive, and most engines would have a lot of trouble getting moving with a 1:1 gear. Manufacturers typically put high gear ratios in their transmissions for fuel economy benefits, but this adversely affects performance. A shorter set of gears (i.e. Honda Fit manual) will increase acceleration at the expense of fuel economy. A Fit with a manual transmission I rode in was turning about 2500 RPM at 60 MPH, which likely counterbalanced the FE benefits of the driver's short-shifting and 2nd-gear starts.
The new 2011 Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee have the opposite problem. Their five-speed automatic transmissions are geared so high that the Durango accelerates slowest in its class, with 8.5 seconds to 60 and a 16.4 second 1/4 mile. (source: Motor Trend)
To conclude with one final example, the 2012 Mustang V6 has several optional rear gear ratios. The automatic was previously stuck with the 2.73 rear axle, which transformed the revvy V6 into a slug. For 2012, a 3.31 rear axle is optional on both manual and automatic transmissions, but without selecting it you're going to have to live with the 2.73. The Performance Package is manual only, and includes the 3.31 as standard equipment.
In short, we've seen how the gearing of a transmission means more than the number of gears. We've also found that sometimes it's best to research a but more deeply than you'd like, simply to make sure you're getting the exact same car you loved so much on the test drive.
I remember reading in the accompanying article that the top speed of 140 MPH that was given in this video could very easily be made higher. How, you ask? By simply shifting the road transmission into neutral, to reduce the inertia of turning the engine via the wheels.
When shifting into neutral increases your top speed, that qualifies as awesome.
In this same vein, it's been noted that an oddity of the C5 Corvette Z06 is that it reaches top speed in 5th gear instead of 6th. This is because the 6th gear has a 0:56:1 ratio, and as such is useless for just about anything except cruising. The reason the Z06 can use this excessively high gear is due to its massive low-RPM torque, so it can loaf along the highway at essentially idle RPM. Some Z06 owners have managed to get almost 30 highway MPG with this gear!
Gearing is really quite important. Without various different gears, all cars would be running direct drive, and most engines would have a lot of trouble getting moving with a 1:1 gear. Manufacturers typically put high gear ratios in their transmissions for fuel economy benefits, but this adversely affects performance. A shorter set of gears (i.e. Honda Fit manual) will increase acceleration at the expense of fuel economy. A Fit with a manual transmission I rode in was turning about 2500 RPM at 60 MPH, which likely counterbalanced the FE benefits of the driver's short-shifting and 2nd-gear starts.
The new 2011 Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee have the opposite problem. Their five-speed automatic transmissions are geared so high that the Durango accelerates slowest in its class, with 8.5 seconds to 60 and a 16.4 second 1/4 mile. (source: Motor Trend)
To conclude with one final example, the 2012 Mustang V6 has several optional rear gear ratios. The automatic was previously stuck with the 2.73 rear axle, which transformed the revvy V6 into a slug. For 2012, a 3.31 rear axle is optional on both manual and automatic transmissions, but without selecting it you're going to have to live with the 2.73. The Performance Package is manual only, and includes the 3.31 as standard equipment.
In short, we've seen how the gearing of a transmission means more than the number of gears. We've also found that sometimes it's best to research a but more deeply than you'd like, simply to make sure you're getting the exact same car you loved so much on the test drive.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Repercussions
I dearly hope I haven't depressed any of my readers with my previous post. As you could probably tell, I was browsing AutoTrader Classics while I wrote that post, and came across this gem. Enjoy.
Mixed feelings
This sort of dealer gives me a strange set of emotions. My gut reaction is "that's disgusting, those cars should be inside, being lovingly restored." As I think about it longer, though, I realize that perhaps some of these cars are just fine with their present location, and, perhaps, don't want to be moved.
For example, this '57 Buick has timeless styling, with the unforgettable "Sweepspear" and the "ventiports" on the front fenders. Modern cars simply can't pull this off. Even with the rust and lack of taillights, the car is still gorgeous, and the missing components lend it a spectral air. It retains all the grace and appeal that warrant effusive praise, and although the body of the car has been tarnished with time and the elements, GM's Styling Division's effort can still be seen in all the little details, from the "jets" in the front bumper to the kink in the window area, designed to match the Sweepspear. This is a showroom-quality restored version of the aforementioned Special 2-Door. The lines are unmistakable, and both cars are charming, just not in the same way. Part of me wants to rescue the car and fix it up. Another wants to let it be, and yet... maybe it would be best in a garage, shielded from further damage, but retaining its current appearance, rust and all. If the car could tell someone something, it might say this: "Just because I'm 56 doesn't mean I've lost anything (besides original wheels and tires)."
Imagine it. The heart and soul of '50s America, for $750.
You know what? Maybe it would be best to leave it be, and let it continue its conversation with the '59 Fireflite two cars down. Just maybe.
The truly unfortunate thing is that even if some of these cars don't want to leave that field, some of them are doomed to do so, simply based on what they are. It's not likely the '49 Mercs will be left alone, as they, along with the '51s, are classics of hot-rodding tradition, and will most likely be removed from their present dwelling place, only to be chopped, channeled, sectioned, and have other ghastly things done with their original Henry Ford sheetmetal.
It's not fair.
I want my own garage.
And some money to save a couple of these cars, to park in the garage and stare at. All day.
(edit: Here's the link to this dealership. Seems like it would be a fine place to spend a few afternoons with the cars and some flatbed trailers to take them home. And cash to pay for them, of course. There's a Chrysler Airflow that's definitely worth taking a look at, if only to pity the car. It was rejected by the market at the time, and now its final rejection is that nobody's bought it yet.)
(double edit: Not the same place, but same vein. This 1973 Mustang bears all the signs of an ill-advised hot-rodding attempt. Aftermarket steering wheel? Check. Side pipes? Check. Primer and rattlecan stripes? Check. Bondo everywhere? Check. Aftermarket Edelbrock carb? Check. Engine compartment structural braces? Check. At least it's got at least one decent wheel on it.)
For example, this '57 Buick has timeless styling, with the unforgettable "Sweepspear" and the "ventiports" on the front fenders. Modern cars simply can't pull this off. Even with the rust and lack of taillights, the car is still gorgeous, and the missing components lend it a spectral air. It retains all the grace and appeal that warrant effusive praise, and although the body of the car has been tarnished with time and the elements, GM's Styling Division's effort can still be seen in all the little details, from the "jets" in the front bumper to the kink in the window area, designed to match the Sweepspear. This is a showroom-quality restored version of the aforementioned Special 2-Door. The lines are unmistakable, and both cars are charming, just not in the same way. Part of me wants to rescue the car and fix it up. Another wants to let it be, and yet... maybe it would be best in a garage, shielded from further damage, but retaining its current appearance, rust and all. If the car could tell someone something, it might say this: "Just because I'm 56 doesn't mean I've lost anything (besides original wheels and tires)."
Imagine it. The heart and soul of '50s America, for $750.
You know what? Maybe it would be best to leave it be, and let it continue its conversation with the '59 Fireflite two cars down. Just maybe.
The truly unfortunate thing is that even if some of these cars don't want to leave that field, some of them are doomed to do so, simply based on what they are. It's not likely the '49 Mercs will be left alone, as they, along with the '51s, are classics of hot-rodding tradition, and will most likely be removed from their present dwelling place, only to be chopped, channeled, sectioned, and have other ghastly things done with their original Henry Ford sheetmetal.
It's not fair.
I want my own garage.
And some money to save a couple of these cars, to park in the garage and stare at. All day.
(edit: Here's the link to this dealership. Seems like it would be a fine place to spend a few afternoons with the cars and some flatbed trailers to take them home. And cash to pay for them, of course. There's a Chrysler Airflow that's definitely worth taking a look at, if only to pity the car. It was rejected by the market at the time, and now its final rejection is that nobody's bought it yet.)
(double edit: Not the same place, but same vein. This 1973 Mustang bears all the signs of an ill-advised hot-rodding attempt. Aftermarket steering wheel? Check. Side pipes? Check. Primer and rattlecan stripes? Check. Bondo everywhere? Check. Aftermarket Edelbrock carb? Check. Engine compartment structural braces? Check. At least it's got at least one decent wheel on it.)
BBC on the spot
(The following ultra short and ultra quick essay was written by BBC when he came to the conclusion of the practice ACT, and discovered that he had to write an essay on, of all things, recycling. Cue laughter. This is not exactly BBC's preferred topic. The result is shown below.)
I don't believe that recycling should be mandatory in all cases because it is nigh impossible for some areas of this country.
Typically, recycled objects are considered trash, but it is generally acknowledged that the citizen is allowed to dispose of this refuse in a manner befitting it. Indeed, when an item is considered trash, it is somehow destroyed, and generally without the allowance of a future use beyond eventual incineration.
This does not mean that recycling has no benefits. On the contrary, there are items that could eventually be in short supply - paper, for example - that should be recycled when the citizen need not go to extreme lengths to do so. If the nearest recycling center were fifty miles away, and the citizen in question had no means of transportation, then it would be an infringement upon the citizen's rights granted by common sense. A citizen should not be required to make a day trip to accomplish an objective that, by itself, would only have a small impact on the growing problem of paper shortages. If, on the other hand, many more citizens could be persuaded to recycle more things, more often, then a law requiring recycling might become feasible. For now, though, with the deficit of recycling centers in many areas, it would be impractical to pass such a law.
How, then, would we solve this problem? The solution: greater usage of recycling trucks. In my area, we have no recycling vehicle, only the trash truck. It is almost certain to me that this vehicle takes our waste items to a landfill or similar place, where they will sit until they degrade. In the case of plastic, this could take many years. If it were not for our fire department holding a recycling drive each month, it would be virtually impossible for my family to recycle, and it would be at great personal expense if we did.
Recycling, as it is now, is like a sand pile trying to hold back a ten-foot wave. Currently, only a small percentage of the population of this great country recycles. This lack of participation, along with its inconvenience, is why I oppose a law requiring recycling of all citizens. For major recycling areas, this is what I have to say: why not?
(Oh yeah: this took me about 15 minutes to write. I only had 25 anyway.)
I don't believe that recycling should be mandatory in all cases because it is nigh impossible for some areas of this country.
Typically, recycled objects are considered trash, but it is generally acknowledged that the citizen is allowed to dispose of this refuse in a manner befitting it. Indeed, when an item is considered trash, it is somehow destroyed, and generally without the allowance of a future use beyond eventual incineration.
This does not mean that recycling has no benefits. On the contrary, there are items that could eventually be in short supply - paper, for example - that should be recycled when the citizen need not go to extreme lengths to do so. If the nearest recycling center were fifty miles away, and the citizen in question had no means of transportation, then it would be an infringement upon the citizen's rights granted by common sense. A citizen should not be required to make a day trip to accomplish an objective that, by itself, would only have a small impact on the growing problem of paper shortages. If, on the other hand, many more citizens could be persuaded to recycle more things, more often, then a law requiring recycling might become feasible. For now, though, with the deficit of recycling centers in many areas, it would be impractical to pass such a law.
How, then, would we solve this problem? The solution: greater usage of recycling trucks. In my area, we have no recycling vehicle, only the trash truck. It is almost certain to me that this vehicle takes our waste items to a landfill or similar place, where they will sit until they degrade. In the case of plastic, this could take many years. If it were not for our fire department holding a recycling drive each month, it would be virtually impossible for my family to recycle, and it would be at great personal expense if we did.
Recycling, as it is now, is like a sand pile trying to hold back a ten-foot wave. Currently, only a small percentage of the population of this great country recycles. This lack of participation, along with its inconvenience, is why I oppose a law requiring recycling of all citizens. For major recycling areas, this is what I have to say: why not?
(Oh yeah: this took me about 15 minutes to write. I only had 25 anyway.)
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Downsizing and the Envirowimps, Part II
There I was, all happy at having finished my post from Sunday night, convinced that there was no way I had missed anything obvious.
Crud.
The 1980 Turbo Trans Am used Pontiac's 301 (4.9L) V8 with a turbo strapped on. It was rated at just 185 horsepower for 1980, with a modest improvement for 1981. However, it wasn't intercooled, and was said to be a miserable engine to drive and live with. It made a pinging noise when accelerating hard, and since there was no boost gauge, this pinging noise accompanied imminent catastrophic failure. What an engine.
1980 saw Ford desperate to meet the dreaded CAFE standards, so they debored and destroked the 302 and made the 225. It made tremendously lousy power, from 115 to 122 tire-smoking, asphalt-terrorizing ponies (SAE net). It also got crummy fuel economy, and based on high consumer hatred of the thing, it was killed after 1982. Horrifyingly, it was available in the Mustang, as well as in other Fox-platform cars, including the Mercury Capri (a rebadged and cosmetically modified Mustang), the Ford Thunderbird, Fairmont, and LTD.
This rather attractive little car is a 1986 Ford EXP. Before pronouncing it "awesome", let's have a look at the previous bodystyle:
I like it, but I can also see how it's an acquired taste. The first generation (second picture) was available solely with a 1.6L I4 rated at just 70 HP. However, it was later offered with a turbocharger, boosting power to 120 HP. Car and Driver managed 44 MPG during their lead-footed testing with a non-turbo model, showing that if nothing else, the car got good gas mileage. Oddly, the car had three available transmissions. The first was a 4-speed manual, the second was a 5-speed manual, and the third was (you guessed it) a 3-speed automatic.
The second generation had a 1.9L I4, with the same transmission choices. It made anywhere from 90 to 115 HP, depending on the year and packages on the car. It's interesting to note that the reason Ford was going to replace the Mustang with the Probe (which started production in 1989, so it's really outside the scope of this particular post) was because they had heard that GM was planning to offer the Camaro and Firebird with front-wheel-drive by 1990. They realized that they couldn't offer three FWD sporty coupes (EXP, T-Bird, and Probe), and since the EXP was selling the least, out it went. Tragic, really, as it could have developed into something really worth taking a second look at...
Crud.
The 1980 Turbo Trans Am used Pontiac's 301 (4.9L) V8 with a turbo strapped on. It was rated at just 185 horsepower for 1980, with a modest improvement for 1981. However, it wasn't intercooled, and was said to be a miserable engine to drive and live with. It made a pinging noise when accelerating hard, and since there was no boost gauge, this pinging noise accompanied imminent catastrophic failure. What an engine.
1980 saw Ford desperate to meet the dreaded CAFE standards, so they debored and destroked the 302 and made the 225. It made tremendously lousy power, from 115 to 122 tire-smoking, asphalt-terrorizing ponies (SAE net). It also got crummy fuel economy, and based on high consumer hatred of the thing, it was killed after 1982. Horrifyingly, it was available in the Mustang, as well as in other Fox-platform cars, including the Mercury Capri (a rebadged and cosmetically modified Mustang), the Ford Thunderbird, Fairmont, and LTD.
This rather attractive little car is a 1986 Ford EXP. Before pronouncing it "awesome", let's have a look at the previous bodystyle:
I like it, but I can also see how it's an acquired taste. The first generation (second picture) was available solely with a 1.6L I4 rated at just 70 HP. However, it was later offered with a turbocharger, boosting power to 120 HP. Car and Driver managed 44 MPG during their lead-footed testing with a non-turbo model, showing that if nothing else, the car got good gas mileage. Oddly, the car had three available transmissions. The first was a 4-speed manual, the second was a 5-speed manual, and the third was (you guessed it) a 3-speed automatic.
The second generation had a 1.9L I4, with the same transmission choices. It made anywhere from 90 to 115 HP, depending on the year and packages on the car. It's interesting to note that the reason Ford was going to replace the Mustang with the Probe (which started production in 1989, so it's really outside the scope of this particular post) was because they had heard that GM was planning to offer the Camaro and Firebird with front-wheel-drive by 1990. They realized that they couldn't offer three FWD sporty coupes (EXP, T-Bird, and Probe), and since the EXP was selling the least, out it went. Tragic, really, as it could have developed into something really worth taking a second look at...
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Downsizing and the Envirowimps
The 1980's were an interesting decade for the car fan, and still are today. The American car makers were still trying to regain performance in their cars, due to the forced neutering during the 1973 oil embargo, even though the country had the opposite problem. The EPA's fuel mileage standards also became much tighter during the '70s and '80s, and engines such as the original Chrysler Hemi and the Pontiac Super Duty were dropped due to gas prices. As such, the big V8 became less and less popular as the method for performance, with smaller V6s and I4s becoming the mainstream performance engine. Nowadays, of course, the performance engine lineup runs the gamut from 2.0L I4s to 8.0L quad-turbo W16s, but said W16 manufacturer doesn't have to comply with CAFE standards.
Therefore, with the forces of evil/the EPA and CAFE regulations closing their vile jaws upon that glorious realm that is performance, the manufacturer's mantra changed. Out went "bigger = better", in came "meets envirowimp standards = good enough". Let's examine how this affected the three main ponycars at the time:
Ford Mustang before:
Ford Mustang after:
Chevrolet Camaro before:
Chevrolet Camaro after:
Dodge Challenger before:
Dodge Challenger after:
The Pontiac Firebird doesn't really count, because Pontiac's toujours l' audace had them still building the Super Duty Trans Am in 1974, against anything close to political correctness at the time. For that, I salute them. *salutes*
Anyhow, that's the '70s and they're past. Back to the '80s.
BUT, those cars had V8s, the way they were intended to be. We're talking about cars with V6s and I4s! Onward!
AACK! What's THIS? Well, this one's a Plymouth Sapporo, the twin of the... Dodge Challenger!
Oh dear.
Based on the Mitsubishi Galant Lambda, it used either a 1.6 or 2.6 liter I4 engine, mated to either a 5-speed manual or 3-speed auto. The cars were assembled in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan, where they were shipped over here and sold as either Mitsubishis, Dodges, or Plymouths. You know? This is depressing me. Let's move on.
What a relief! The Chevrolet Cavalier was redesigned for 1988, available in base (VL), RS, and Z24. Unfortunately, I do not have any firsthand experience with any of those trims, but a certain individual I happen to know rather well has a great deal of experience with the Z24 level. It was very good for her, giving her many (mostly) trouble-free miles before selling the car to move on. I actually think I've located it, and it's one of my dreams to some day (after winning the lottery, of course) buy the car, fix anything wrong with it, and give it back to her. That would be downright awesome. Oh, now I'm starting to tear up... let's just finish with this one. The Z24 was available only with a 2.8L V6 with 125 HP, and the car of my acquaintance was a 5-speed manual. The only other transmission choice for that year was a 3-speed automatic, so that 5-speed was probably what made the car as fast as it was. The Z24 trim lived until the 2003 model year, when it was replaced by the somewhat-less-cool-sounding LS Sport trim, which lasted for all of two years until the Cavalier was replaced by the Cobalt.
I know these are also Cavaliers, I'm just posting this for the almost-Ford-Grabber-Orange one.
*cue Psycho music*
FAIR WARNING. Do NOT follow this link if you wish to preserve your eyesight. If you safely withstood that Lagonda up there, then you'll probably be safe to click. Just don't sue me.
I'm pretty much out of good examples without resorting to the Ford Escort RS Cosworth, and those were dedicated rally machines, and those are always insane anyway. They're above this humble blogger's level of society. Oh wait...
You didn't seriously think I'd forget this, did you? Powered by a 2.8 liter PRV engine, the U.S. version only produced around 130 HP, and was available solely with (you guessed it) a 5-speed manual or 3-speed automatic. Neither transmission would overcome the highly restrictive U.S.-spec catalytic converters and softened suspension compared to the Euro-market version, which resulted in DMC quoting 8.8 seconds to 60, and Road and Track not being able to manage better than 10.5. Darn EPA.
In conclusion, we have seen, throughout this blog post, that although the '80s saw some pretty darn good designs come out of it, performance was somewhat lacking. This lack of serious performance continued until about the mid-1990s, when 300-plus horsepower out of a muscle car without forced induction from the factory was no longer confined to the world of fantasy, but instead entered reality once more. Thank the Lord for that. And, withno end in sight 2014 as the likely end of this new age of performance where we can stroll into our local dealer and roll out with 400-plus heart-thumping, asphalt shredding horsepower underneath the hood for just a hair under $30,000, old rivalries can continue for as long as Saturday night cruises exist.
And may they exist for many years to come.
Therefore, with the forces of evil/the EPA and CAFE regulations closing their vile jaws upon that glorious realm that is performance, the manufacturer's mantra changed. Out went "bigger = better", in came "meets envirowimp standards = good enough". Let's examine how this affected the three main ponycars at the time:
Ford Mustang before:
Ford Mustang after:
Chevrolet Camaro before:
Chevrolet Camaro after:
Dodge Challenger before:
Dodge Challenger after:
The Pontiac Firebird doesn't really count, because Pontiac's toujours l' audace had them still building the Super Duty Trans Am in 1974, against anything close to political correctness at the time. For that, I salute them. *salutes*
Anyhow, that's the '70s and they're past. Back to the '80s.
BUT, those cars had V8s, the way they were intended to be. We're talking about cars with V6s and I4s! Onward!
Oh dear.
Based on the Mitsubishi Galant Lambda, it used either a 1.6 or 2.6 liter I4 engine, mated to either a 5-speed manual or 3-speed auto. The cars were assembled in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan, where they were shipped over here and sold as either Mitsubishis, Dodges, or Plymouths. You know? This is depressing me. Let's move on.
What a relief! The Chevrolet Cavalier was redesigned for 1988, available in base (VL), RS, and Z24. Unfortunately, I do not have any firsthand experience with any of those trims, but a certain individual I happen to know rather well has a great deal of experience with the Z24 level. It was very good for her, giving her many (mostly) trouble-free miles before selling the car to move on. I actually think I've located it, and it's one of my dreams to some day (after winning the lottery, of course) buy the car, fix anything wrong with it, and give it back to her. That would be downright awesome. Oh, now I'm starting to tear up... let's just finish with this one. The Z24 was available only with a 2.8L V6 with 125 HP, and the car of my acquaintance was a 5-speed manual. The only other transmission choice for that year was a 3-speed automatic, so that 5-speed was probably what made the car as fast as it was. The Z24 trim lived until the 2003 model year, when it was replaced by the somewhat-less-cool-sounding LS Sport trim, which lasted for all of two years until the Cavalier was replaced by the Cobalt.
FAIR WARNING. Do NOT follow this link if you wish to preserve your eyesight. If you safely withstood that Lagonda up there, then you'll probably be safe to click. Just don't sue me.
I'm pretty much out of good examples without resorting to the Ford Escort RS Cosworth, and those were dedicated rally machines, and those are always insane anyway. They're above this humble blogger's level of society. Oh wait...
In conclusion, we have seen, throughout this blog post, that although the '80s saw some pretty darn good designs come out of it, performance was somewhat lacking. This lack of serious performance continued until about the mid-1990s, when 300-plus horsepower out of a muscle car without forced induction from the factory was no longer confined to the world of fantasy, but instead entered reality once more. Thank the Lord for that. And, with
And may they exist for many years to come.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Silly engine swap
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Don't you love random things?
I ask that because this is a random post. As such, it will include a random video, as I am wont to do.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Bentleys.
They're everywhere. Unfortunately, this is like Bigfoot being everywhere in that I never have my camera handy to snap a picture, but we did see one in a tiny hamlet not too far from here. A Continental. Honest.
Similarly unsubstantiated is my claim to actually be a lawyer in true life, but the difference is that's not true, and I do see Bentleys sometimes.
However, just today, we parked our minivan next to a blacked-out Chrysler 300 with a Bentley-style grille. It was hideous. I didn't feel like torturing my readers with pictures, so I left that alone and moved on into the Statehouse, where my case was tried before... oh, sorry. Wouldn't want you to be bothered with THAT. (no, I didn't do anything illegal)
In fact, I've seen this phenomenon rather a lot: old sedans with excessively large wheels on them. This problem is especially prevalent when driving on I-70, which is chock-full of lousy drivers in Lexus IS-250s and old Chevrolet Caprices with 21" wheels on them. And they go 10 over. This, on a busy freeway where everybody else is speeding, sometimes more so. In fact, there is a lifted Ford Crown Victoria around here (and it's pre-redesign. That's old, even by Crown-Vic standards. We're talking pre-'97 here.) that has somewhere from 22" to 24" wheels on it, as well as 9 stick-on fender vents per side. It has six vents, in two groups of three, on each front fender, and an additional group of three on each rear fender. Evidently, the owner would like us to believe that he has an 18-cylinder engine. Unless he's got one of these stinkers under the hood (and it wouldn't fit), this is patently false.
Overall, this is a pointless trend, and to everyone who spends tons of money modifying a 300 or Caprice to look awful like that, I suggest this to you: just buy one of these.
Similarly unsubstantiated is my claim to actually be a lawyer in true life, but the difference is that's not true, and I do see Bentleys sometimes.
However, just today, we parked our minivan next to a blacked-out Chrysler 300 with a Bentley-style grille. It was hideous. I didn't feel like torturing my readers with pictures, so I left that alone and moved on into the Statehouse, where my case was tried before... oh, sorry. Wouldn't want you to be bothered with THAT. (no, I didn't do anything illegal)
In fact, I've seen this phenomenon rather a lot: old sedans with excessively large wheels on them. This problem is especially prevalent when driving on I-70, which is chock-full of lousy drivers in Lexus IS-250s and old Chevrolet Caprices with 21" wheels on them. And they go 10 over. This, on a busy freeway where everybody else is speeding, sometimes more so. In fact, there is a lifted Ford Crown Victoria around here (and it's pre-redesign. That's old, even by Crown-Vic standards. We're talking pre-'97 here.) that has somewhere from 22" to 24" wheels on it, as well as 9 stick-on fender vents per side. It has six vents, in two groups of three, on each front fender, and an additional group of three on each rear fender. Evidently, the owner would like us to believe that he has an 18-cylinder engine. Unless he's got one of these stinkers under the hood (and it wouldn't fit), this is patently false.
Overall, this is a pointless trend, and to everyone who spends tons of money modifying a 300 or Caprice to look awful like that, I suggest this to you: just buy one of these.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The situation outlined
I'm under a whole lot of pressure right now (like this), so I can't post too much right now (that, and I can't upload my pictures right now). So, I'll outline future posts:
1: Electric vehicles, and the noises they make!
2: The Bentley Continental, how it is constantly imitated, and how they always show up in the middle of nowhere!
3: The definition of the word "woofly"!
4: Funny car names!
And much more, all coming... later.
1: Electric vehicles, and the noises they make!
2: The Bentley Continental, how it is constantly imitated, and how they always show up in the middle of nowhere!
3: The definition of the word "woofly"!
4: Funny car names!
And much more, all coming... later.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Now you know.
This sort of thing has fascinated me for some time. Also, this is a potential way to interrogate people. Stick 'em into the passenger seat and go on the trail. Confession within 10 minutes, we guarantee it!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Big step forward for BBC
I've officially crossed the line into Youtubedom. Behold:
Lousy, I know, but still. My first published video!
Lousy, I know, but still. My first published video!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)