Bush said "America is addicted to oil!"

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> di wrote:
>
>> Then why is the drilling activity at an all time high right now.
>
> You mean more previously off-limits
> areas are being screwed up by drilling
> than ever before.

do you have any examples?


>
> As for actual oil production, domestic
> production has been declining every year
> since 1970. It's been almost 30 years
> since any significant deposits were
> discovered anywhere, let alone the
> US.
>
> Robert
>

It's a case where all the cheap oil has been extracted, what's left is very
expensive to recover,

 

[n5hsr]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> n5hsr wrote:
>> "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>How many rear-engined cars do you see on the road today? The only other
>>>>>rear-engined car that was made in large numbers was the beetle --
>>>>>another truly awful design that was obsolete long before it became
>>>>>popular. The idea that a more popular Corvair could have helped the US
>>>>>auto business is absurd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If I were you, I'd double check the cars at Indy before I opened my
>>>>mouth and stuck my foot in like that.
>
>>>Those are mid-engine cars, which is a different design. The corvair was a
>>>rear-engine, air-cooled car like the beetle and early Porsche models.
>>
>>
>> But show me ONE indy car that has FWD and an engine in the front. There
>> aren't any. If FWD is so superior, then why not?
>
> Superior for what? Mid-engine cars are generally better for open wheel
> racing, something that has been widely recognized for at least 50 years.
> It has everything to do with weight distribution.
>
> Both FWD and rear engine create more space for passengers and cargo for
> the simple reason that they eliminate the driveshaft/differential/axle
> assembly. This makes for more compact and lightweight designs for a given
> carrying volume.
>
> Front heavy cars tend to understeer, while rear heavy cars oversteer.
> Oversteer is generally the more difficult characteristic to control, and
> the more foreign one to drivers accustomed to understeering cars.
>
>> The point that I think is being made here is after Nader's book, Detroit
>> basically stopped innovating at all.
>
> Correlation does not prove causality. In any case, Detroit didn't "stop"
> innovating in the 60's, they hadn't done much innovation in the preceding
> decades. The US auto industry was/is very conservative --
> conservative institutions (or individuals) don't handle change well (by
> definition).

True, the basic mechanics of an engine did not change significantly from
1930 or so until the 1970's. The materials may have improved somewhat, but
the components in a Model A Ford differ very little from the components
under the hood of a pre-emissions Chevy Caprice. . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[n5hsr]

"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> Correlation does not prove causality. In any case, Detroit didn't "stop"
>> innovating in the 60's, they hadn't done much innovation in the preceding
>> decades. The US auto industry was/is very conservative --
>> conservative institutions (or individuals) don't handle change well (by
>> definition).
>
> I worked for a company that sub-contracted to one of the big three, doing
> computer work. One of the reports printed was the window summary for the
> car, it's a big, complex report (it's actually about 2 inches wider, then
> what you see, the remainder has the dealer pricing. It prints one page
> for each car, in 1983 I suggested that instead of printing this rather
> volumous report on impact ( band ) printers, which meant having a printer
> and operator dedicated to this task, they use the laser printer, which is
> about 10 times faster, and sitting idle for about 3 hours a day. In 1992
> I bought a car from this company, they were still printing it on the band
> printer, although they did change it, a couple of years later. Gee, it
> took them 11 years to put this suggestion in place!
>
> The big three are dinosaurs, if you lop off their tail, it takes so long
> for the pain message to get to the brain, that they bleed to death first.
>
> W

I've often refered to the American Big Three as Dinosaurs. Big, slow and
eventually exstinct.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[n5hsr]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>> The Corvair itself isn't what would have done it - it would have been
>>> only the first step (like the Beetle was for VW and Porsche). Think
>>> what the next generation of Corvair might have been - and what the
>>> other automakers might have come out with to compete against it.
>>
>>Following the VW/Porsche model (air-cooled, rear engine) with more cars
>>after the Corvair would have only taken the US car makers further down
>>the wrong path. History has shown that the winning formula is
>>water-cooled FWD, at least with current materials and specs.
>
> Something that VW was way ahead on because of their experience with
> rear-engine cars. Pretty much the same thing, with steering.
>
>> VW
>>abandoned both rear engine and air-cooling a very long time ago, and
>>Porsche finally got rid of air-cooling, but still clings to rear engine
>>in its 911 derivatives, but that's about it.
>
> Like I said, it's not just the air-cooled rear-engine configuration -
> but the sporty, light, efficient car that was killed. It was a flawed
> car in a lot of ways, but it was the first step in what could have
> been a very different direction for Detroit.
>
>>You can (obviously) make rear engine work, but it has a host of
>>drawbacks, which is why it hasn't been mainstream ever, and has been
>>steadily fading even among the diehards. One of the most severe
>>drawbacks is the handling quirks it introduces, something the Corvair
>>was justly criticized for.
>
> It was "different", but it would outhandle most of the cars of the day
> easily (which isn't saying much). The "rollover problem" that Nader
> used to demonize the car was blown way out of proportion, and was
> fixed by the time his book came out.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

Hey, I drove a 62 Corvair for several years. By '62 they had the rear
fixed with a transverse spring, and we never had any problem with our car
doing even close to what Nader suggested it would do. The only real problem
with the 62 Corvair was getting those twin non-slaved carberettors to work
together. . . . . Tuning was a *****.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[n5hsr]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> n5hsr wrote:
>> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> n5hsr wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you think I'm trying to figure out a bicycle to ride the 3
>>>> miles to work . . . .
>>>
>>> What's to figure out? For three miles, it almost doesn't matter
>>> WHAT you ride.
>>>
>>> Bill "really" S.
>>>
>>
>> Does to me. I still own a Schwinn Suburban, but I can no longer
>> swing my leg properly over the bar because of an injury to my hip 3
>> years ago. And I don't have all the money in the world, so I'm
>> looking for a good used Schwinn either mixte or girls frame and
>> nothing fancy, either. Remember this is going to be just slogging
>> along. No racing. Just get me and my 20 lbs of computer gear there
>> and back.
>
> Ah. Sorry, hadn't seen the part about your hip situation. Hope you find
> something you can mount without too much difficulty (smart-ass comments
> sure to follow?), as I'm sure the daily "slog" will be therapeutic (and
> hopefully fun!) for you. Good luck.
>
> Bill S.
>

Yes, I'm only 48 and already I have to be careful of my hip. Had a quad
bypass last year, too, so could use the excercise. . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[n5hsr]

"Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Gooserider wrote:
>>> "Violet Tigress" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> > ********
>>> > How many suburbans will ever actually do what they wer designed to do?
>>>
>>> Very few, but for people who need them there is no substitute.
>>
>> I doubt that. It sounds too much like "But Mommy, I _NEED_ an MP3
>> player!!!!!"
>>
>> Somehow, people survived - even prospered - Before Suburbans.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Suburbans have been around for a LONG time, Frank. They just used to be
> the domain of the rancher and the work crew. People who legitimately NEED
> a Suburban cannot do without it.
>

I had a cousin who had one back in the '70's and he needed it for his
business. I had a friend that was a missionary pastor here in the US and he
needed a 454 to be able to safely tow the trailer he had, nothing else had
enough torque.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote:

> FWIW, I agree with landotter on some points. I disagree with him on
> other points. But like him, I don't fit into the simplistic, neat
> classifications that various demagogues demand.
>
>
> Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that landotter's
> posts are much more intelligent and rational than Sorni's and di's
> typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope Sorni and di don't
> think they're being persuasive!


I'd ask when namecalling ("lying asshat", whatever that means,
"murderer", "criminal", etc.), character assassination ("alcoholic"),
and unsupported assertions ("gutted the [Texas] educational system")
became intelligent and rational discussion but it would be pointless.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Sorni]

max wrote:
> "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> di wrote:
>
>>> One of the reasons people buy SUVs is so a collision with another
>>> car will cause them to be less injured - consequently, causing the
>>> other person to be more injured. The cost of excess injuries to
>>> those in smaller vehicles should be assessed and added to the SUV's
>>> cost.
>>
>> Why not a tax on the smaller vehicles to defray the additional cost
>> of medical injuries for their occupants in a collision with a SUV,
>> makes just as much sense, depending on your point of view.
>
> Black's Law refers to this as the tort of Tui Facies Interdictum Mei
> Pugnus.

Allow me to translate: "Pungent penguin feces are black, too."

HTH, BS

 

[Chuck]

On 2006-02-07, n5hsr <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>> The Corvair itself isn't what would have done it - it would have been
>>>> only the first step (like the Beetle was for VW and Porsche). Think
>>>> what the next generation of Corvair might have been - and what the
>>>> other automakers might have come out with to compete against it.
>>>
>>>Following the VW/Porsche model (air-cooled, rear engine) with more cars
>>>after the Corvair would have only taken the US car makers further down
>>>the wrong path. History has shown that the winning formula is
>>>water-cooled FWD, at least with current materials and specs.
>>
>> Something that VW was way ahead on because of their experience with
>> rear-engine cars. Pretty much the same thing, with steering.
>>
>>> VW
>>>abandoned both rear engine and air-cooling a very long time ago, and
>>>Porsche finally got rid of air-cooling, but still clings to rear engine
>>>in its 911 derivatives, but that's about it.
>>
>> Like I said, it's not just the air-cooled rear-engine configuration -
>> but the sporty, light, efficient car that was killed. It was a flawed
>> car in a lot of ways, but it was the first step in what could have
>> been a very different direction for Detroit.
>>
>>>You can (obviously) make rear engine work, but it has a host of
>>>drawbacks, which is why it hasn't been mainstream ever, and has been
>>>steadily fading even among the diehards. One of the most severe
>>>drawbacks is the handling quirks it introduces, something the Corvair
>>>was justly criticized for.
>>
>> It was "different", but it would outhandle most of the cars of the day
>> easily (which isn't saying much). The "rollover problem" that Nader
>> used to demonize the car was blown way out of proportion, and was
>> fixed by the time his book came out.
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $795 ti frame
>
> Hey, I drove a 62 Corvair for several years. By '62 they had the rear
> fixed with a transverse spring, and we never had any problem with our car
> doing even close to what Nader suggested it would do. The only real problem
> with the 62 Corvair was getting those twin non-slaved carberettors to work
> together. . . . . Tuning was a *****.
>
>

Try a Corsa model with 4 of them. Of course the cure for that was the
manifold replacing them with 1 - 4bbl carb.
>

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey
([email protected]) wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Following the VW/Porsche model (air-cooled, rear engine) with more cars
> >after the Corvair would have only taken the US car makers further down
> >the wrong path. History has shown that the winning formula is
> >water-cooled FWD, at least with current materials and specs.
>
> Something that VW was way ahead on because of their experience with
> rear-engine cars. Pretty much the same thing, with steering.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. VW came very close to going broke in the
early seventies as a result of making naught but variations on the
Beetle theme. OK, there /was/ the K70, but hardly anyone bought one and
it was in any case just a thinly-disguised NSU. The Mark 1 Golf was
their saviour, but did nothing technically that the likes of Fiat and
BMC hadn't already been doing for quite some time.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And
the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries
of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and
to them it is the holocaust."

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>
>>It ain't easy to build a refinery *anywhere* in the US, just as it
>>ain't easy to drill for new oil *anywhere* in the US.
>
>
> There is no 'new oil' anywhere in the US, so
> drilling for it would be pretty silly.

If you're not going to be able to drill for it, why look too
hard? If you don't look, how would you know?

There's certainly tons of oil sands in Montana and Alberta
to supply US consumption rates for a century or so.

Of course that's not "drilling" for oil. It's "digging" for
it.

>>Had ExxonMobil more refinery capacity, they'd have made a lot more
>>money on top of their record breaking performance of last quarter.

> Really? Got any kind of support for that or
> are you just throwing it out.

Check the NPR archives for last week. I heard it during discussions
of ExxonMobile's record 4th quarter profit announcement. Probably
the evening business report.

And of course there's basic supply/demand economics.

You have a hot item to sell? Can't keep up with demand? Build a
new factory. Make more money.

Pretty basic stuff.


SMH

 

[Stephen Harding]

di wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>>It ain't easy to build a refinery *anywhere* in the US, just as it
>>>ain't easy to drill for new oil *anywhere* in the US.
>>
>>There is no 'new oil' anywhere in the US, so
>>drilling for it would be pretty silly.
>
> Then why is the drilling activity at an all time high right now.

I was referring to new oil fields, not increased activity in
already known ones.

Not certain what the poster I was replying to is referring to.

I don't believe all the oil in North America has already been
tapped though. It is very difficult to actually create new
oil drilling fields in the US now.

And no new refineries have been built in 20 years. I'm sure
the oil companies would love to build a few more though,
given the near inelastic demand for the stuff in the US.


SMH

 

[Peter Cole]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Following the VW/Porsche model (air-cooled, rear engine) with more cars
>>after the Corvair would have only taken the US car makers further down
>>the wrong path. History has shown that the winning formula is
>>water-cooled FWD, at least with current materials and specs.
>
>
> Something that VW was way ahead on because of their experience with
> rear-engine cars. Pretty much the same thing, with steering.

While I never owned one, I've been under the hood of a lot of beetles
(my brother was a VW mechanic). I did own a succession of FWD VW's,
starting with the original US Golf (Rabbit) and did a lot of my own work
on them -- the 2 types of car were about as fundamentally different as
any. In the Corvair design (big beetle), Chevy just picked the wrong car
to copy. It was hot stuff in the 30's, though.


>>VW
>>abandoned both rear engine and air-cooling a very long time ago, and
>>Porsche finally got rid of air-cooling, but still clings to rear engine
>>in its 911 derivatives, but that's about it.
>
>
> Like I said, it's not just the air-cooled rear-engine configuration -
> but the sporty, light, efficient car that was killed. It was a flawed
> car in a lot of ways, but it was the first step in what could have
> been a very different direction for Detroit.

Detroit was never about performance, efficiency or safety. Despite their
size, they never did much innovation. They were always about cost of
production and marketing. They killed a lot of people with their
cost-cutting foot-dragging.

>>You can (obviously) make rear engine work, but it has a host of
>>drawbacks, which is why it hasn't been mainstream ever, and has been
>>steadily fading even among the diehards. One of the most severe
>>drawbacks is the handling quirks it introduces, something the Corvair
>>was justly criticized for.
>
>
> It was "different", but it would outhandle most of the cars of the day
> easily (which isn't saying much). The "rollover problem" that Nader
> used to demonize the car was blown way out of proportion, and was
> fixed by the time his book came out.

The handling problem is a well known issue with "swing axle" designs.
When a rear wheel becomes completely unweighted in a hard turn, the
wheel can camber in sharply -- the solution (a $4 leaf spring) was
eliminated by GM cost-cutting -- which was what Nader was pointing out.
I owned a car with a very similar design (Fiat 850), it exhibited the
same problem, I fixed it with an after-market "anti-camber" spring.

Most people credit Nader with extending the life of the Corvair, feeling
GM didn't want to admit their mistake, even though there was never much
support for the car. It's indisputable that GM knew about the handling
problem but didn't fix it ($4) until the 5th year of production.

Nader is a favorite conservative whipping boy. He had the nerve to gum
up the works of free enterprise -- and the temerity to smear a great and
good US corporation -- boo hoo. Creeping socialism! The nanny state!



>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that landotter's
> > posts are much more intelligent and rational than Sorni's and di's
> > typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope Sorni and di don't
> > think they're being persuasive!
>
>
> I'd ask when namecalling ("lying asshat", whatever that means,
> "murderer", "criminal", etc.), character assassination ("alcoholic"),
> and unsupported assertions ("gutted the [Texas] educational system")
> became intelligent and rational discussion but it would be pointless.

Whether we like it or not, there are a lot of rude insults thrown about
on Usenet. They're directed at other posters, and public figures, and
corporations, and ethnic groups, and political parties, etc. Some of
them, no doubt, are false. ;-)

But comparing two posters, if one gives _only_ insults and wisecracks
while the other uses insults, wisecracks, facts and explanations, the
second poster is exhibiting more intelligence. He's probably going to
be more persuasive than the first guy.

..... well, depending who he's trying to persuade. I like to pretend
that people respond to facts and logic, although I know that's often
not the case.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that
>>> landotter's posts are much more intelligent and rational than
>>> Sorni's and di's typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope
>>> Sorni and di don't think they're being persuasive!
>>
>>
>> I'd ask when namecalling ("lying asshat", whatever that means,
>> "murderer", "criminal", etc.), character assassination ("alcoholic"),
>> and unsupported assertions ("gutted the [Texas] educational system")
>> became intelligent and rational discussion but it would be pointless.
>
> Whether we like it or not, there are a lot of rude insults thrown
> about on Usenet. They're directed at other posters, and public
> figures, and corporations, and ethnic groups, and political parties,
> etc. Some of them, no doubt, are false. ;-)
>
> But comparing two posters, if one gives _only_ insults and wisecracks
> while the other uses insults, wisecracks, facts and explanations, the
> second poster is exhibiting more intelligence. He's probably going to
> be more persuasive than the first guy.
>
> .... well, depending who he's trying to persuade. I like to pretend
> that people respond to facts and logic, although I know that's often
> not the case.

I invite you to re-read the thread, Frank. I made one comment /in passing/
(actual post -- not just "insults and wisecracks" -- was directed at person
who said we should stop "antagonizing Iran"), and terravermin went off on a
long, insulting rant (hardly "intelligent and rational") WAY out of
proportion to the remark. If he's that easy to wind up, why not tweak him a
little?

I think if YOU were honest you'd admit that you're filtering your judgements
through your political viewpoints, which is fine. But I'm hardly the one
who started with the crude, personal invectives in this particular
(ridiculous) thread...

Bill S.

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
>
> I invite you to re-read the thread, Frank.

I just re-skimmed the sub-thread leading up to my remark above.
Granted, I'm not the final arbiter of Usenet debate, but it sure looks
to me like landotter's posts are much more substantive.

> I made one comment /in passing/
> (actual post -- not just "insults and wisecracks" -- was directed at person
> who said we should stop "antagonizing Iran"), and terravermin went off on a
> long, insulting rant (hardly "intelligent and rational") WAY out of
> proportion to the remark. If he's that easy to wind up, why not tweak him a
> little?

I understand the temptation to tweak others. I guess I think you get
one type of "point" for that, but a different type of "point" for
saying something substantial. And I think the substantial points are
more important.


> I think if YOU were honest you'd admit that you're filtering your judgements
> through your political viewpoints, which is fine.

I'll freely admit that I have very little respect for George W. Bush,
or for the neo-cons that surround him. But do keep in mind, my
political beliefs and other attitudes are _not_ a good match for either
party. I don't believe I've ever voted a straight ticket in my life.

> But I'm hardly the one
> who started with the crude, personal invectives in this particular
> (ridiculous) thread...

I think, if we dig back, we'd find the first two Usenet posts went
something like this:

1) Welcome to Usenet!

2) Who the f**k are you to tell me that, you jerk???

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>
>> I invite you to re-read the thread, Frank.
>
> I just re-skimmed the sub-thread leading up to my remark above.
> Granted, I'm not the final arbiter of Usenet debate, but it sure looks
> to me like landotter's posts are much more substantive.
>
>> I made one comment /in passing/
>> (actual post -- not just "insults and wisecracks" -- was directed at
>> person who said we should stop "antagonizing Iran"), and terravermin
>> went off on a long, insulting rant (hardly "intelligent and
>> rational") WAY out of proportion to the remark. If he's that easy
>> to wind up, why not tweak him a little?
>
> I understand the temptation to tweak others. I guess I think you get
> one type of "point" for that, but a different type of "point" for
> saying something substantial. And I think the substantial points are
> more important.
>
>
>> I think if YOU were honest you'd admit that you're filtering your
>> judgements through your political viewpoints, which is fine.
>
> I'll freely admit that I have very little respect for George W. Bush,
> or for the neo-cons that surround him. But do keep in mind, my
> political beliefs and other attitudes are _not_ a good match for
> either party. I don't believe I've ever voted a straight ticket in
> my life.
>
>> But I'm hardly the one
>> who started with the crude, personal invectives in this particular
>> (ridiculous) thread...
>
> I think, if we dig back, we'd find the first two Usenet posts
> went something like this:
>
> 1) Welcome to Usenet!
>
> 2) Who the f**k are you to tell me that, you jerk???

And then you'd chime in to insult poster #1. :-D

Bill "OK, I'm done" S.

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> I was referring to new oil fields, not increased activity in
> already known ones.
>
> Not certain what the poster I was replying to is referring to.
>
> I don't believe all the oil in North America has already been
> tapped though. It is very difficult to actually create new
> oil drilling fields in the US now.

All the oil under the US has been located. There
are only so many places it could be, due
to the geologic reality of petroleum. We know
where these places are, and every last
inch has been explored. Let me repeat that
oil production has been declining in the US
since 1970. This is not due to environmentalists
or govt. regulation hamstringing the oil
industry.

> And no new refineries have been built in 20 years. I'm sure
> the oil companies would love to build a few more though,
> given the near inelastic demand for the stuff in the US.

If they would love to build them, they would
build them.

Robert

 

[The Wogster]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Following the VW/Porsche model (air-cooled, rear engine) with more
>>> cars after the Corvair would have only taken the US car makers
>>> further down the wrong path. History has shown that the winning
>>> formula is water-cooled FWD, at least with current materials and specs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Something that VW was way ahead on because of their experience with
>> rear-engine cars. Pretty much the same thing, with steering.
>
>
> While I never owned one, I've been under the hood of a lot of beetles
> (my brother was a VW mechanic). I did own a succession of FWD VW's,
> starting with the original US Golf (Rabbit) and did a lot of my own work
> on them -- the 2 types of car were about as fundamentally different as
> any. In the Corvair design (big beetle), Chevy just picked the wrong car
> to copy. It was hot stuff in the 30's, though.
>
>
>>> VW abandoned both rear engine and air-cooling a very long time ago,
>>> and Porsche finally got rid of air-cooling, but still clings to rear
>>> engine in its 911 derivatives, but that's about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I said, it's not just the air-cooled rear-engine configuration -
>> but the sporty, light, efficient car that was killed. It was a flawed
>> car in a lot of ways, but it was the first step in what could have
>> been a very different direction for Detroit.
>
>
> Detroit was never about performance, efficiency or safety. Despite their
> size, they never did much innovation. They were always about cost of
> production and marketing. They killed a lot of people with their
> cost-cutting foot-dragging.
>

The biggest problem with air-cooled is that it doesn't work well under
extreme cold (when water cooled cars can dump excess heat into the
cabin), or extreme hot weather, with traffic, when the amount of cooling
air flow can be rather limited.

As for Detroit, suppose you build a car, and you make 75,000 of them,
and you find, that in an extremely rare situation, the car will explode.
You know that the number of cars that will explode per year is, 10,
you can fix the problem in a recall, but it costs $2,500 per car to fix.
So the cost of law suits because of exploding cars is, $15,000,000 per
year, for the 10 years the car will last, total cost $150,000,000 or you
can fix the problem, but it will cost $187,500,000 total. Forget
conscience, you can save $37,500,000 by letting people die in exploding
cars. Yes, this did really happen.

W

 

[gds]

The Wogster wrote:
> >
>
> The biggest problem with air-cooled is that it doesn't work well under
> extreme cold (when water cooled cars can dump excess heat into the
> cabin), or extreme hot weather, with traffic, when the amount of cooling
> air flow can be rather limited.
>
> As for Detroit, suppose you build a car, and you make 75,000 of them,
> and you find, that in an extremely rare situation, the car will explode.
> You know that the number of cars that will explode per year is, 10,
> you can fix the problem in a recall, but it costs $2,500 per car to fix.
> So the cost of law suits because of exploding cars is, $15,000,000 per
> year, for the 10 years the car will last, total cost $150,000,000 or you
> can fix the problem, but it will cost $187,500,000 total. Forget
> conscience, you can save $37,500,000 by letting people die in exploding
> cars. Yes, this did really happen.
>
> W

Yep, but I loved my little Pinto.

Candyapple red with a sun roof. It was pretty much the only car I could
afford while in graduate school. And I learned it even handled pretty
well in the snow and ice of New England winters.
I bought mine just after the news came out on the exploding gas tanks.
So, in my case there was at least (involuntary) disclosure by Ford.