Wednesday, April 6, 2011
What BBC does when he's bored
Among other things, assuming the weather's clear, I'll go unlock our Mustang and take some pictures.
A snack, so to speak
Typically, when one is hungry before the mealtime, one consumes a snack or similar food item to "tide oneself over" until the meal. Until our metaphorical "meal" consisting of pictures, these should do for "snacks":
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Dealers
Sometimes, our local used car lots make me think of this.
They're nicer than that, but still. The Ford dealer's idea of a way to get people on the lot is to leave their Mustangs running and unlocked (!?), and all the doors open on their Raptor, with balloons tied to everything that you can tie a balloon to. The Hyundai place is worse, though. They used to put the top down on the resident unsellable Pontiac Trans Am convertible, tie pink balloons to everything, and offer everybody a chance to win either an Accent or a dollar. Wow. Wahoo. Hurray.
(hint: other motive for post)
They're nicer than that, but still. The Ford dealer's idea of a way to get people on the lot is to leave their Mustangs running and unlocked (!?), and all the doors open on their Raptor, with balloons tied to everything that you can tie a balloon to. The Hyundai place is worse, though. They used to put the top down on the resident unsellable Pontiac Trans Am convertible, tie pink balloons to everything, and offer everybody a chance to win either an Accent or a dollar. Wow. Wahoo. Hurray.
(hint: other motive for post)
Friday, April 1, 2011
I have a confession to make.
I secretly love the Toyota Prius.
APRIL FOOLS!
Too obvious? OK. I really do love them.
Like this.
Bahahaha.
(picture courtesy [most likely unwillingly] of priuschat.com or something close to that. My sincere [really] condolences for the loss of the vehicle.)
APRIL FOOLS!
Too obvious? OK. I really do love them.
Like this.
Bahahaha.
(picture courtesy [most likely unwillingly] of priuschat.com or something close to that. My sincere [really] condolences for the loss of the vehicle.)
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The War of the Videos, Episode 1
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?
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)