If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
On Jan 24, 10:05*pm, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton" > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >"AD" > wrote in message > .... > >On 20 ???, 01:50, Dean Dark > wrote: > >> On 19 Jan 2011 18:30:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > > >> >"Dean Dark" > wrote in message > >> .. . > >> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:44:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >>>A 2.0L V8? Is there such a thing? > > >> >> Ferrari made one. > > >> >Didn't that one explode a lot? > > >> I don't know. It was back in the late 70s and I think it was built > >> for the Italian market that at that time had some really nutty > >> cc-related taxation laws. > > >> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The > >> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little > >> engine, it was. > > >Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory. > >How much fuel did it gulp then? > > >1600 27-32mpg > >2000 28-32mpg > > >Imperial gallons from Parkers guide. > > >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside > >rear wheel would fold under the car. > > That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner, > which no capable driver would do. *It's the same kind of thinking as > the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because > it will spin out if you do the same thing. In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD... massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer" |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:07:44 -0800 (PST), AD > wrote:
>> >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside >> >rear wheel would fold under the car. >> >> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner, >> which no capable driver would do. *It's the same kind of thinking as >> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because >> it will spin out if you do the same thing. > >In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD... >massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer" .... and that is *exactly* the kind of misguided 'Homer Simpson' type of thinking that I was talking about. Believe it or not, there are many people out there who think that understeer is A Good Thing. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:07:44 -0800 (PST), AD > wrote:
>> >IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside >> >rear wheel would fold under the car. >> >> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner, >> which no capable driver would do. *It's the same kind of thinking as >> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because >> it will spin out if you do the same thing. > >In the best Homer Simpson voice: "Umm, the rear engine layout + RWD... >massive weight resting on the rear axle. I love oversteer" .... and that is *exactly* the kind of misguided 'Homer Simpson' type of thinking that I was talking about. Believe it or not, there are many people out there who think that understeer is A Good Thing. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
"Dean Dark" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton" > > wrote: > SNIP >>> >>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The >>> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little >>> engine, it was. >> >>Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory. >>How much fuel did it gulp then? >> >>1600 27-32mpg >>2000 28-32mpg >> >>Imperial gallons from Parkers guide. >> >>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside >>rear wheel would fold under the car. > > That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner, > which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as > the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because > it will spin out if you do the same thing. For a start not all cars (especially middle market cars in the 1960's) come with capable drivers. More seriously you assume a smooth level surface on the road (even less common in the 1960's) - slide into a bump and the wheel will fold under the car. The fault was relatively easily induced. You did NOT want to be in the car (or near it) when it was. Some 1960's rear engine RWD cars had nightmare handling - my dad used to put a bag of sand in his Renault 8 back in the 60's to counter this. The Hillman Imp was another tricky one. Whilst Porsche have long since sorted the 911 line's "nervous" or "challenging" handling for normal driving, if they do let go then you are in big trouble. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
"Dean Dark" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:54:39 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton" > > wrote: > SNIP >>> >>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse with a 1600 cc straight six. The >>> cylinders weren't *that* much bigger than 250 cc. Sweet little >>> engine, it was. >> >>Hmm, 940kg-2072 lbs, about mazda 2 territory. >>How much fuel did it gulp then? >> >>1600 27-32mpg >>2000 28-32mpg >> >>Imperial gallons from Parkers guide. >> >>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside >>rear wheel would fold under the car. > > That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner, > which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as > the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because > it will spin out if you do the same thing. For a start not all cars (especially middle market cars in the 1960's) come with capable drivers. More seriously you assume a smooth level surface on the road (even less common in the 1960's) - slide into a bump and the wheel will fold under the car. The fault was relatively easily induced. You did NOT want to be in the car (or near it) when it was. Some 1960's rear engine RWD cars had nightmare handling - my dad used to put a bag of sand in his Renault 8 back in the 60's to counter this. The Hillman Imp was another tricky one. Whilst Porsche have long since sorted the 911 line's "nervous" or "challenging" handling for normal driving, if they do let go then you are in big trouble. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:33:57 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> wrote: >>>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse >>>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside >>>rear wheel would fold under the car. >> >> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner, >> which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as >> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because >> it will spin out if you do the same thing. > >For a start not all cars (especially middle market cars in the 1960's) come >with capable drivers. > >More seriously you assume a smooth level surface on the road (even less >common in the 1960's) - slide into a bump and the wheel will fold under the >car. I never had that happen with my Vitesse, and mine was one of the early ones that were much more prone to it than the better sorted later ones. When it did happen, the wheel did not "fold under the car." There simply wasn't that much travel in the rear suspension. It would ride up onto the edge of the tire, hiking the rear of the car up, and then settle back down. >The fault was relatively easily induced. You did NOT want to be in the car >(or near it) when it was. Why not? >Some 1960's rear engine RWD cars had nightmare handling - my dad used to put >a bag of sand in his Renault 8 back in the 60's to counter this. The >Hillman Imp was another tricky one. Whilst Porsche have long since sorted >the 911 line's "nervous" or "challenging" handling for normal driving, if >they do let go then you are in big trouble. Actually, I always thought that the stock Imp handled pretty well. I think that people used to put bags of sand in the front because there was a perceived, but not real, benefit in reducing the positive camber in the front. Ill informed intuition is often seriously wrong. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:33:57 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> wrote: >>>> I had a '66 Triumph Vitesse >>>IIRC the Vitesse had a lethal flaw, whereby in hard cornering the outside >>>rear wheel would fold under the car. >> >> That would only happen if you snapped off the throttle in mid-corner, >> which no capable driver would do. It's the same kind of thinking as >> the people who believe that the Porsche 911 has a "fatal flaw" because >> it will spin out if you do the same thing. > >For a start not all cars (especially middle market cars in the 1960's) come >with capable drivers. > >More seriously you assume a smooth level surface on the road (even less >common in the 1960's) - slide into a bump and the wheel will fold under the >car. I never had that happen with my Vitesse, and mine was one of the early ones that were much more prone to it than the better sorted later ones. When it did happen, the wheel did not "fold under the car." There simply wasn't that much travel in the rear suspension. It would ride up onto the edge of the tire, hiking the rear of the car up, and then settle back down. >The fault was relatively easily induced. You did NOT want to be in the car >(or near it) when it was. Why not? >Some 1960's rear engine RWD cars had nightmare handling - my dad used to put >a bag of sand in his Renault 8 back in the 60's to counter this. The >Hillman Imp was another tricky one. Whilst Porsche have long since sorted >the 911 line's "nervous" or "challenging" handling for normal driving, if >they do let go then you are in big trouble. Actually, I always thought that the stock Imp handled pretty well. I think that people used to put bags of sand in the front because there was a perceived, but not real, benefit in reducing the positive camber in the front. Ill informed intuition is often seriously wrong. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
AD wrote:
>Aside from the refineries not tuned for equal gas/diesel output the >all american aversion to diesels >stems from smell and rough idle or there is more to it than that? Yes, there's also the poor performance. They were slow. Of course, in recent years that has changed some, and you can get them with decent levels of HP. Even now, the low-spinning, "loads of torque down low and less up top" performance is undesirable, at least from my perspective. Personally, I don't even care for the new gas turbo motors, where the fad (enabled by modern engine controls) is to give it a table-flat torque curve. I like to feel the torque rise with RPM (to a point). |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
AD wrote:
>Aside from the refineries not tuned for equal gas/diesel output the >all american aversion to diesels >stems from smell and rough idle or there is more to it than that? Yes, there's also the poor performance. They were slow. Of course, in recent years that has changed some, and you can get them with decent levels of HP. Even now, the low-spinning, "loads of torque down low and less up top" performance is undesirable, at least from my perspective. Personally, I don't even care for the new gas turbo motors, where the fad (enabled by modern engine controls) is to give it a table-flat torque curve. I like to feel the torque rise with RPM (to a point). |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
What I want vs. what the reality could support
dizzy > wrote:
>AD wrote: > >>Aside from the refineries not tuned for equal gas/diesel output the >>all american aversion to diesels >>stems from smell and rough idle or there is more to it than that? > >Yes, there's also the poor performance. They were slow. Of course, >in recent years that has changed some, and you can get them with >decent levels of HP. Much of the American aversion to diesels stems from public perception based on the horrible junk diesel engines that the American car manufacturers came up with in the seventies. Some of these were really dreadful. There were reworked tractor engine designs with enormous amounts of inertia. And then there was the Oldsmobile engine that was a reworked gasoline engine block that was totally unable to handle the high compression it was asked to handle. These cars were all just so awful that, decades later, Americans still won't even think about diesels. >Even now, the low-spinning, "loads of torque down low and less up top" >performance is undesirable, at least from my perspective. Try one of the BMW diesels. They're not like you'd expect at all. However, BMW can't sell the damn things in the US because Americans won't buy diesels. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reality of success | visittosucceed | Technology | 0 | March 15th 09 12:22 PM |
Reality Check-In | teem[_1_] | Saturn | 0 | September 23rd 06 03:32 AM |
Ford GT vs. GT4 (Reality vs. Virtual Reality) | [email protected] | Simulators | 1 | October 12th 05 04:13 AM |
Reality check | Bob Buchanan | Corvette | 66 | September 23rd 04 03:53 PM |