Drivers: How can you love something you hate so much?

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Chalo wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> SULEV are regulatory standards. Read them some time.
>
> "Regulatory", meaning if the standard can be passed on the test bench,
> then it never need be verified with real cars in real world
> situations?

You just don't have a clue regarding the automotive world like most
anti-car zealots, that you've made very clear. I don't have the time
to educate the unwilling. It's not 1972 anymore, get over it.

 

[Rayvan]

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:43:30 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Then you evidently haven't ridden in a Corvette. I have driven mine
> >on round trips of 3500 miles, three different times.
>
> I've ridden my sportbike 400+miles which is infinitely less
> comfortable.
>
> But insofar as performance cars are concerned the Vette is a
> refrigerator dolly with a V8 in it. It's about as reliable as one too.

Is that what those S2000, Boxster and BMW Z4 owners (same price
ranges) say as the Corvette runs past them on all those racecourses?

Dunno, dude. Seems to me the Corvette is a bargain. Same performance
as a Ferrari without the $3,500 (pull the engine) tune-up (every
15,000 miles).

Seems like the Corvette has better engine technology too! 350 HP and
the exact same gas mileage as a Boxster that only has 220 HP (or an
S2000 that only has 240 HP). I forget which rag was comparing road
course times, but the other cars I listed cars were WAY behind
Corvettes lap times. Performance. Isn't that what's important?

Seems the Prodrive Ferarris that were in ALMS last year pulled the
plug because the Corvettes were too competitive. I guess it was
embarrassing for those $1,000,000 cars to get beat by the Chevys week
after week I guess. We won't even count how many Porsche's the
Corvettes overtake each race. Sure the Porsches are in a much slower
ALMS GT class, but it's still fun to see. After all, a 911 cost much
more than a Corvette in the showroom.

BTW, Have you ridden in a C5? *No way* you can say they ride harsh. C4
maybe but a C5 rides like a Lexus! The C5 frame is much stiffer than
the C4 and allowed them to install much softer springs.

I think I can live with the sun visors. Really.

Rayvan

 

[Mark Jones]

"Rayvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:43:30 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Then you evidently haven't ridden in a Corvette. I have driven mine
> > >on round trips of 3500 miles, three different times.
> >
> > I've ridden my sportbike 400+miles which is infinitely less
> > comfortable.
> >
> > But insofar as performance cars are concerned the Vette is a
> > refrigerator dolly with a V8 in it. It's about as reliable as one too.
>
> BTW, Have you ridden in a C5? *No way* you can say they ride harsh. C4
> maybe but a C5 rides like a Lexus! The C5 frame is much stiffer than
> the C4 and allowed them to install much softer springs.
>
> I think I can live with the sun visors. Really.
The one that I have driven on these long trips is a 1994 Corvette.
Not exactly as comfortable as a Lexus, but not really all that
bad. The only real problem is the amount of time it takes to
drive 3500 miles. Anything would make you tired when you drive
that far.

 

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On 11 Aug 2004 17:47:02 -0700, [email protected] (Rayvan)
wrote:

>BTW, Have you ridden in a C5?

Yes. I wanted to lease one. Then I took the test drive and didn't. I
liked the overall rock star sensation but I didn't like the overall
cut corners and compromises.

The Vette is only $20k cheaper than a Porsche. If you have money for a
Vette you have money for a Porsche. Unless you're some two-bit wannabe
living way beyond your means.

>I think I can live with the sun visors.

And that's prolly why GM has gotten away with peddling **** for so
long. I will continue to hold out for the whole enchilada until they
learn to do it right.

I do like that new Mustang coming up in '05. Hope it kicks the Vette's
ass. Hell I *KNOW* it will with a twin turbo kit installed. And if
you're looking for cheap thrills it's kinda hard to top that now that
it has IRS.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores wrote:

> I do like that new Mustang coming up in '05.

The one I saw on the turn table at the chicago autoshow last feb seemed
to have the usual ford cost cutting where most Americans won't notice.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> I do like that new Mustang coming up in '05. Hope it kicks the Vette's
> ass. Hell I *KNOW* it will with a twin turbo kit installed.

You know nothing.

The new Mustang with not have turbos or a blower. The Cobra
won't be available for model year 2005. Cobras are supposed
to be available again in 2006 using a centrifugal supercharger
just like the current Cobras.

 

[Jack May]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I can certainly easily spot an idiot
> > trying pass himself off as knowledgeable.
> >
> > It is so easy to spot a fake.
>
> So what you are saying is that when you are unable to make a coherent
> defense of your opinion, you resort to empty ad hominem attacks?
> You're not a fake, then. You're the genuine article.

I am saying that he keep spouting things that are know to be false. It like
someone coming on here and proclaiming the world is flat. You have to tell
them when they are spouting lies and nonsense or they just keep going eating
everyone's time.

He is out on the extreme of being a habitual liar with incoherent worthless
posts. Its like the crazy people standing on a corner spouting insane
gibberish. You know, like Michael Moore.

 

[Jack May]

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:V_qSc.108077$8_6.102484@attbi_s04...
> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> >>That feat was accomplished with a total of 4 "lanes" of rail. Imagine
> >>what could have been done with a 14-"lane" railroad such as we have
> >>for cars.
> >
> > I'll just look at what IS done on major expressways every day.
>
> 14 lanes moving at 10mph?

With the electronics technology people are developing, the capacity will be
three time larger and run at 80 MPH. It is probably hard for you to
believe, but in this society people work to solve problems

 

[DonQuijote1954]

John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> > But going back to the subject: I don't understand if there are so many
> > drivers in America for who driving is getting from point A to point B,
> > and driving is a chore, to be palliated be eating, drinking, talking
> > on the phone, why do you defend so stubbornly driving as your only
> > option?
> >
> > HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH?
>
> Hey ****wit, we don't hate driving, we hate the fact that you eco-numbskulls
> have made driving a pain by blocking needed expansion of the road system.
> If you want everyone around you to take the train, go live in Manhattan.

Have you thought of bringing order into the chaotic American roads?
Though I know how much you love to spend taxpayers money on roads, it
makes more sense to ENFORCE TRAFFIC LAWS. Who knows, you may be able
to move far more people without spending a single penny. Oh I forgot,
the money saved, we can use on alternative transportation.

If you don't hate driving, then you must hate having alternatives. Or
else you just want to go with the herd...

 

[Mark]

Jack May wrote:

>
> "Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:V_qSc.108077$8_6.102484@attbi_s04...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Russotto
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>That feat was accomplished with a total of 4 "lanes" of rail. Imagine
>> >>what could have been done with a 14-"lane" railroad such as we have
>> >>for cars.
>> >
>> > I'll just look at what IS done on major expressways every day.
>>
>> 14 lanes moving at 10mph?
>
> With the electronics technology people are developing, the capacity will
> be
> three time larger and run at 80 MPH. It is probably hard for you to
> believe, but in this society people work to solve problems

At best anticollision systems will reduce distance between vehicles by
reducing emergency braking reaction time. Following distances may be
reduced to as low as 1.5s depending on vehicle type. This should yield a
theoretical maximum of 2400 vph per lane. Add in lane changes (where a
vehicle effectively consumes 2 lane spaces) and morons who refuse to drive
the prevailing road speed and this theoretical number drops even further.

At best we're left with safer road network and no additional capacity.

Mark

 

[DonQuijote1954]

"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<sQASc.289112$Oq2.57801@attbi_s52>...
> "Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:V_qSc.108077$8_6.102484@attbi_s04...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >
> > >>That feat was accomplished with a total of 4 "lanes" of rail. Imagine
> > >>what could have been done with a 14-"lane" railroad such as we have
> > >>for cars.
> > >
> > > I'll just look at what IS done on major expressways every day.
> >
> > 14 lanes moving at 10mph?
>
> With the electronics technology people are developing, the capacity will be
> three time larger and run at 80 MPH. It is probably hard for you to
> believe, but in this society people work to solve problems

What is the electronics going to give you? An alarm that will beep you
when a car is too close? You just got to ignore it, the same way you
ignore signal lights. People even fail to use simple devices to avoid
holding the phone while driving. But WHEN PEOPLE GIVE A ****, THEY
GIVE A ****. So do the authorities...

 

[Brent P]

In article <sQASc.289112$Oq2.57801@attbi_s52>, Jack May wrote:

> With the electronics technology people are developing, the capacity will be
> three time larger and run at 80 MPH. It is probably hard for you to
> believe, but in this society people work to solve problems

A government controlled speed will not exceed 55mph. It's going to
be the claybrook-like people's wet dream.

Remember, decade after decade they've tried to ingraine people with
the idea that 80mph is inherently reckless.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, DonQuijote1954 wrote:

> Have you thought of bringing order into the chaotic American roads?
> Though I know how much you love to spend taxpayers money on roads, it
> makes more sense to ENFORCE TRAFFIC LAWS. Who knows, you may be able
> to move far more people without spending a single penny. Oh I forgot,
> the money saved, we can use on alternative transportation.

The enforcement priorities tends towards profit and slowing the
transportation system. If it were about getting the most out
of the roads there would be no speeding tickets. People would
either be reckless or not.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Scott en Aztlan wrote:

> And even then, the stock C6's 400 HP and superior handling will lay
> the smack down on the Cobra's 390 HP... And the C6 Z06 will leave the
> Cobra in the dust.

It's very dependent on the driver however. The usual person who buys
a vette can be beaten by someone who can drive decently in mustang.
Sometimes even when all the vette driver has to do is hold the wheel
steady and push his right foot down.

 

[Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:18:57 GMT, "Mark Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The new Mustang with not have turbos or a blower. The Cobra
>won't be available for model year 2005. Cobras are supposed
>to be available again in 2006 using a centrifugal supercharger
>just like the current Cobras.

I guess you're just another one of those polish-n-wax types who thinks
buying a can of Zymol, reading a Car&Driver whilst sitting on the can
and wearing his JP Tods in the footwells makes him an "enthusiast"?

Well this may come as a shock but some people actually do **** to
their cars. Some for example will buy a $20,000 Mustang (or even get
one used), install tons of goodies like higher# fuel injectors, HD
trannies and the aforementioned twin turbo kit and still come out
ahead of the $45,000 plastic fantastic. They don't worry about silly
**** like resale value or "will this void my warranty....
waaaaaaaaaaah!". There's a lot of **** you can add on for $25k. ****
that trumps both the Corvette and the limited edition Cobra.

Of course a Rustang doesn't have snob appeal. But then again neither
does a Vette. Cars are like money, brains and looks. You only have
something to brag about if you compare yourself to the right people.
And the Vette driver better choose his peons carefully.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:49:02 GMT, <OfySc.108974$8_6.39168@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead yahoo (Brent P) wrote:

>>>
>>> SULEV are regulatory standards. Read them some time.
>>
>> "Regulatory", meaning if the standard can be passed on the test bench,
>> then it never need be verified with real cars in real world
>> situations?
>
>You just don't have a clue regarding the automotive world like most
>anti-car zealots, that you've made very clear. I don't have the time
>to educate the unwilling. It's not 1972 anymore, get over it.

No, he's entirely correct. The special processed low-sulpher gasoline
required to meet the standard isn't even available outside of a few
states. The cars are specially prepared for testing. The whole SULEV
is pie in the sky.

There's a very stringent green manufacturing and recycling section of
the regulation too. So even your best examples, under ideal test
conditions, only _just barely_ meet the emissions levels of the
regulation, not the whole thing.

Rest assured there are lobbyists at work right now to make certain all
SULEV or Tier 2 regulations have loopholes large enough to drive SUVs
through.

CARS SUCK!
--
zk

 

[Dave Head]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:19:44 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <sQASc.289112$Oq2.57801@attbi_s52>, Jack May wrote:
>
>> With the electronics technology people are developing, the capacity will be
>> three time larger and run at 80 MPH. It is probably hard for you to
>> believe, but in this society people work to solve problems
>
> A government controlled speed will not exceed 55mph. It's going to
>be the claybrook-like people's wet dream.

If that's so, why do trains run at 80+ and planes run up to around 600?
They're subject to government regulation too, and they're not restricted to 55
mph. They're even controlled by people, whereas this system would be
controlled by the rarely-wrong computerized control.

>Remember, decade after decade they've tried to ingraine people with
>the idea that 80mph is inherently reckless.

Still doing it in Virginia - It's one of the numerous nonsenses that will make
this place a joy to leave when I retire.

Dave Head
>

 

[Lance Lamboy]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:40:10 +0000, Dave Head wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:19:44 GMT, [email protected]
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <sQASc.289112$Oq2.57801@attbi_s52>, Jack May wrote:
>>
>>> With the electronics technology people are developing, the capacity
>>> will be three time larger and run at 80 MPH. It is probably hard for
>>> you to believe, but in this society people work to solve problems
>>
>> A government controlled speed will not exceed 55mph. It's going to
>>be the claybrook-like people's wet dream.
>
> If that's so, why do trains run at 80+

Trains run at 130+MPH and they do it much safer than cars.

> and planes run up to around 600?

Planes can not fly faster than the speed of sound (over the US). This
limit is not for safety reasons, but because the sonic boom is deemed to
be undesirable. Considering only safety, planes could travel much faster
than cars and still have a far superior safety record to cars.

> They're subject to government regulation too, and they're not restricted
> to 55 mph. They're even controlled by people, whereas this system would
> be controlled by the rarely-wrong computerized control.
>
>>Remember, decade after decade they've tried to ingraine people with the
>>idea that 80mph is inherently reckless.

Driving 80+MPH in a standard automobile is inherently reckless.


> Still doing it in Virginia - It's one of the numerous nonsenses that
> will make this place a joy to leave when I retire.
>
> Dave Head
>>

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ **** Cheney

 

[Mark Jones]

"Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:18:57 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The new Mustang with not have turbos or a blower. The Cobra
> >won't be available for model year 2005. Cobras are supposed
> >to be available again in 2006 using a centrifugal supercharger
> >just like the current Cobras.
>
> I guess you're just another one of those polish-n-wax types who thinks
> buying a can of Zymol, reading a Car&Driver whilst sitting on the can
> and wearing his JP Tods in the footwells makes him an "enthusiast"?
>
> Well this may come as a shock but some people actually do **** to
> their cars. Some for example will buy a $20,000 Mustang (or even get
> one used), install tons of goodies like higher# fuel injectors, HD
> trannies and the aforementioned twin turbo kit and still come out
> ahead of the $45,000 plastic fantastic. They don't worry about silly
> **** like resale value or "will this void my warranty....
> waaaaaaaaaaah!". There's a lot of **** you can add on for $25k. ****
> that trumps both the Corvette and the limited edition Cobra.
>
> Of course a Rustang doesn't have snob appeal. But then again neither
> does a Vette. Cars are like money, brains and looks. You only have
> something to brag about if you compare yourself to the right people.
> And the Vette driver better choose his peons carefully.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:18:57 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The new Mustang with not have turbos or a blower. The Cobra
> >won't be available for model year 2005. Cobras are supposed
> >to be available again in 2006 using a centrifugal supercharger
> >just like the current Cobras.
>
> I guess you're just another one of those polish-n-wax types who thinks
> buying a can of Zymol, reading a Car&Driver whilst sitting on the can
> and wearing his JP Tods in the footwells makes him an "enthusiast"?
>
> Well this may come as a shock but some people actually do **** to
> their cars. Some for example will buy a $20,000 Mustang (or even get
> one used), install tons of goodies like higher# fuel injectors, HD
> trannies and the aforementioned twin turbo kit and still come out
> ahead of the $45,000 plastic fantastic. They don't worry about silly
> **** like resale value or "will this void my warranty....
> waaaaaaaaaaah!". There's a lot of **** you can add on for $25k. ****
> that trumps both the Corvette and the limited edition Cobra.
>
> Of course a Rustang doesn't have snob appeal. But then again neither
> does a Vette. Cars are like money, brains and looks. You only have
> something to brag about if you compare yourself to the right people.
> And the Vette driver better choose his peons carefully.

Some people buy a Corvette and modify it. Mine certainly isn't
stock. It is a lot more fun to modify it so it is the way I want it to
be instead of just accepting what comes out of the factory.

One of the mods that can be seen in the 2nd link is the ceramic
coated headers.

http://home.mindspring.com/~mejones/Corvette.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~mejones/VetteMotor.jpg