Does vortec engine mean good?

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>>>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a par
>>>>> with a Stratus in size.
>>>>
>>>> You've got to be joking.
>>>
>>> He's more or less correct, in the real world if maybe not in the EPA's
>>> fantasy world of car size classifications.
>>
>> I am not sure now you rate car sizes
>
> I use real-world heuristics like "How free or cramped am I at the feet,
> legs, hips, shoulders, arms, in the driver's seat, passenger's seat, rear
> seat?".

Me too, but I have not had a chance to sit in a new Impala and I've never
tried the 4 door Stratus. I have tried a 300 and agree with Consumer
Report's assessment that "the claustrophobic cabin and limited outward
visibility are detractions."

>> fueleconomy.gov
>
> Their numeric figures would be relevant if we wished to fill the passenger
> compartment with a fluid.

Did you read the explanation of what the passenger volume means? You cut it
out of the reply, so maybe you did not bother to read it. Here is the
relevant part again -

"The interior volume is measured using SAE Recommended Practice J1100 as per
EPA Fuel economy regulations, reg. 40 CFR 600.315-82 "Classes of Comparable
Automobiles." Automobile manufacturers calculate the interior volume of
their vehicles and submit this information to EPA.

"The SAE procedure calculates interior volume from many height, width and
length dimensions inside the vehicle, including head room, foot room, seat
width, etc....."

It does not sound like a straight "fluid volume" like you are implying. I
certainly recognize that different people find a car with a particular
interior arrangement more comfortable than another, supposedly larger car.
However, the numerical differences between the Stratus and Impala are simply
too large to give any credibility to the claim that the Stratus is almost as
big as the Impala. Here are the basic measurements of the three from
Edmunds.com:

Measurement Impala 300 Stratus
Front Head Room: 39.4 in. 38.7 in. 37.6 in.
Front Hip Room: 56.4 in. 55.9 in. 52.5 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 58.7 in. 57.7 in. 55.2 in.
Rear Head Room: 37.8 in. 38.0 in. 35.8 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 58.6 in. 57.7 in. 54.7 in.
Rear Hip Room: 57.2 in. 55.9 in. 53.1 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.3 in. 41.8 in. 42.3 in.
Rear Leg Room: 37.6 in. 40.2 in. 38.1 in.

Of these three cars, the 300 is the only one I have actually sat in. And it
was not particularly spacious and the sight lines for a tall person like me
were undesirable. The numbers say the Impala has the largest interior of the
three. Until I actually sit in one, there is some doubt, but it seems to me
if you are claiming the Impala is in the same size class as a Stratus, then
you need to say the same thing about the 300. The Ford 500 feels much larger
than the Chrysler 300, except I dislike the way the wheel well cuts into the
passengers foot space. Interestingly on the drivers side, they provide a
dead pedal which compensates somewhat. They should add one on the passengers
side as well.

> Since we don't, they don't mean anything in the real world. You want to
> argue? Fine, but I get to pick our respective venues: I will be in a 288
> cubic foot room 6 feet wide by 6 feet deep by 8 feet high. You will be in
> a 512 cubic foot room 64 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 4 feet high. That
> gives you an advantage of 224 cubic feet. I'll even let you have the
> opening arguments.

What has this got to do with the discussion of which car is larger? Surely
you don't mean to imply that there are these sort of radical dimensional
differences exist between cars? Is this one of those famous strawman
arguments?

Ed

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, C. E. White wrote:

>>> fueleconomy.gov
>>
>> Their numeric figures would be relevant if we wished to fill the passenger
>> compartment with a fluid.
>
> Did you read the explanation of what the passenger volume means?

Yes, it's another of SAE's laughable standards that takes a bunch of real
measurements, applies assorted handwaving to them and comes up with a
composite number that doesn't mean anything.

>> Since we don't, they don't mean anything in the real world. You want to
>> argue? Fine, but I get to pick our respective venues: I will be in a
>> 288 cubic foot room 6 feet wide by 6 feet deep by 8 feet high. You will
>> be in a 512 cubic foot room 64 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 4 feet high.
>> That gives you an advantage of 224 cubic feet. I'll even let you have
>> the opening arguments.
>
> What has this got to do with the discussion of which car is larger?

It was a lengthy way of saying that 64 cubic feet of which 58 are
usable yields an *effectively* larger car than 104 cubic feet of which
49 are usable.

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, C. E. White wrote:
> >
> >>>>> I couldn't tell you about it, but an Impala, to me, is more on a
par
> >>>>> with a Stratus in size.
> >>>>
> >>>> You've got to be joking.
> >>>
> >>> He's more or less correct, in the real world if maybe not in the
EPA's
> >>> fantasy world of car size classifications.
> >>
> >> I am not sure now you rate car sizes
> >
> > I use real-world heuristics like "How free or cramped am I at the
feet,
> > legs, hips, shoulders, arms, in the driver's seat, passenger's seat,
rear
> > seat?".
>
> Me too, but I have not had a chance to sit in a new Impala and I've
never
> tried the 4 door Stratus. I have tried a 300 and agree with Consumer
> Report's assessment that "the claustrophobic cabin and limited outward
> visibility are detractions."
>
> >> fueleconomy.gov
> >
> > Their numeric figures would be relevant if we wished to fill the
passenger
> > compartment with a fluid.
>
> Did you read the explanation of what the passenger volume means? You
cut it
> out of the reply, so maybe you did not bother to read it. Here is the
> relevant part again -
>
> "The interior volume is measured using SAE Recommended Practice J1100
as per
> EPA Fuel economy regulations, reg. 40 CFR 600.315-82 "Classes of
Comparable
> Automobiles." Automobile manufacturers calculate the interior volume
of
> their vehicles and submit this information to EPA.
>
> "The SAE procedure calculates interior volume from many height, width
and
> length dimensions inside the vehicle, including head room, foot room,
seat
> width, etc....."
>
> It does not sound like a straight "fluid volume" like you are
implying. I
> certainly recognize that different people find a car with a particular
> interior arrangement more comfortable than another, supposedly larger
car.
> However, the numerical differences between the Stratus and Impala are
simply
> too large to give any credibility to the claim that the Stratus is
almost as
> big as the Impala. Here are the basic measurements of the three from
> Edmunds.com:
>
> Measurement Impala 300 Stratus
> Front Head Room: 39.4 in. 38.7 in. 37.6 in.
> Front Hip Room: 56.4 in. 55.9 in. 52.5 in.
> Front Shoulder Room: 58.7 in. 57.7 in. 55.2 in.
> Rear Head Room: 37.8 in. 38.0 in. 35.8 in.
> Rear Shoulder Room: 58.6 in. 57.7 in. 54.7 in.
> Rear Hip Room: 57.2 in. 55.9 in. 53.1 in.


> Front Leg Room: 42.3 in. 41.8 in. 42.3 in.
> Rear Leg Room: 37.6 in. 40.2 in. 38.1 in.

Notice these numbers. They say that the cabin of the Impala is about 1/2
inch shorter in length than the Stratus. The Stratus does have a
narrower body though. Measurement wise the 300 and the impala are VERY
close.

>
> Of these three cars, the 300 is the only one I have actually sat in.
And it
> was not particularly spacious and the sight lines for a tall person
like me
> were undesirable. The numbers say the Impala has the largest interior
of the
> three. Until I actually sit in one, there is some doubt, but it seems
to me
> if you are claiming the Impala is in the same size class as a Stratus,
then
> you need to say the same thing about the 300. The Ford 500 feels much
larger
> than the Chrysler 300, except I dislike the way the wheel well cuts
into the
> passengers foot space. Interestingly on the drivers side, they provide
a
> dead pedal which compensates somewhat. They should add one on the
passengers
> side as well.
>
> > Since we don't, they don't mean anything in the real world. You want
to
> > argue? Fine, but I get to pick our respective venues: I will be in a
288
> > cubic foot room 6 feet wide by 6 feet deep by 8 feet high. You will
be in
> > a 512 cubic foot room 64 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 4 feet high.
That
> > gives you an advantage of 224 cubic feet. I'll even let you have the
> > opening arguments.
>
> What has this got to do with the discussion of which car is larger?
Surely
> you don't mean to imply that there are these sort of radical
dimensional
> differences exist between cars? Is this one of those famous strawman
> arguments?
>
> Ed
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steve W." > wrote in message
...

>> Measurement Impala 300 Stratus
>> Front Head Room: 39.4 in. 38.7 in. 37.6 in.
>> Front Hip Room: 56.4 in. 55.9 in. 52.5 in.
>> Front Shoulder Room: 58.7 in. 57.7 in. 55.2 in.
>> Rear Head Room: 37.8 in. 38.0 in. 35.8 in.
>> Rear Shoulder Room: 58.6 in. 57.7 in. 54.7 in.
>> Rear Hip Room: 57.2 in. 55.9 in. 53.1 in.
>
>
>> Front Leg Room: 42.3 in. 41.8 in. 42.3 in.
>> Rear Leg Room: 37.6 in. 40.2 in. 38.1 in.
>
> Notice these numbers. They say that the cabin of the Impala is about 1/2
> inch shorter in length than the Stratus. The Stratus does have a
> narrower body though. Measurement wise the 300 and the impala are VERY
> close.

I am not sure about the cabin being 1/2 inch shorter, since the leg room
measurement is not a straight front to rear measurement and seat
configuration palys into the number (and interestingly, Consumer Reports
quotes a lower front leg room number for the Stratus). However, that is the
only dimension where you can make an arguement that the Stratus is close to
the same size as the Impala. Clearly the Impala's cabin is much wider and
TALLER (2 inces or so).

Anyhow, I think you now can see that the Implala is evey bit as large a car
as the 300 (and Charger and Magnum). So Steve Mackie's comment that you had
to be joking when you climed the Impala was close to the same size as a
Stratus is true - right? Either that are you need to make the same claim for
all the current Chrysler "large" cars.

Ed