STUPID UNNECESSARY VEHICLES

[P E T E F A G E]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:25:02 -0700, Jonathan Ball <[email protected]> wrote:

|P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
|>
|> "Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|> news:[email protected]...
|>
|> | > >If you're going to lie, at least lie in such a manner that you

|> | >
|> | > 7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive exhaust in the ML.
|> |
|> | Who cares? The point is that one way or another, it's not the "same" engine.
|>
|> So if someone puts different exhaust tips on their car all of a sudden their engine changes?
|>
|> That's a hilarious bit of "logic"
|>
|> Regardless, you're incorrect.
|
|I suspect there are some other tuning changes.

You are clueless then.

But that is understandable given your posts.

 

[Road Glidin' Do]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:56:39 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>You are clueless then.
>
>But that is understandable given your posts.

Not surprised to see you're such an arrogant, little, socially-stunted, ***** in general. This
Net's for you!

--
Instead of weaving, I should have been reloading (remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI 83 Nighthawk

eBay "About Me" page: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/xidos_canada/ Share yourself:
http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp Bike videos: http://xidos.ca/VideoView.asp Home page:
http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/ Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/ FLT Tech
Info: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Bikes/tech.html

 

[Terry Morse]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> p.s. Many more examples available by request.

Toyota Highlander, for one. Same engine as the Camry V6.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:22:34 GMT, [email protected] (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:

|On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:56:39 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
|<[email protected]> wrote:
|
|>You are clueless then.
|>
|>But that is understandable given your posts.
|
|Not surprised to see you're such an arrogant, little, |socially-stunted, ***** in general. This
Net's for you!

Well I guesss most folks are "little" when compared to your redneck fat ass.

Can't discuss the issue, so you have to prove once again that you're all chapped about not
understanding how to use simple filters, eh?

Is it time for you to post more pictures of more skanky chicks on your hilarious website?

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Daniel Stern
Lighting wrote:

>> bulk that blocks others' view of traffic
>
> By this argument, only Priuses, Insights and *maybe* Civics would be permitted on the road. A '96
> Chev Caprice Classic constitutes a view-blocking behemoth to the driver of a following Insight.

This is a stretch. SUV's are actually more blocking in view than semis. When I have an SUV along
side of me at an intersection my view of cross traffic is totally blocked. With trucks like semi's
there are gaps and one can see under the trailer. With cars it's possible to see through their
windows. SUVs, and the larger pickups are lose-lose in the vision department.

The problem with 'SUVs' really light trucks in general is that there are far too many of them out on
the roadway. They shouldn't be banned but rather the choices that existed for people to get those
jobs done and still use a passenger car need to be returned to the market, the fettering of
regulation removed. It is my opinion that the market will over time return to a more sensible level
of light truck production as a percentage of total vehicle sales given alteratives.

The bad thing is instead of removing the regulation that had the effect of removing choices from the
market there will likely be more legislation of poor quality that will create something even worse.

 

[Marc]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:

>So, the point stands that manufacturers will stick the same engine in everything they can in an
>effort to avoid designing and certifying a new engine, as well as for ease of manufacturing.

They have to recertify for every vehicle. Similar engines are used because of manufacturing costs.
They use the same bore spacing shared in V6 and V8s in many cases to keep down design and
manufacture costs, but that doesn't mean that the shared "platform" of the two makes the V6 and the
V8 the "same" engine.

The engine in the Mercedes looks to be quite similar. That is rare. Usually there are differences
far in excess of what would result from only exhaust differences. Compare the American trucks to the
cars of the same sizes. They have widely varying numbers.

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

[Marc]

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote:

>More examples of SUVs that use the same engines as passenger cars available by request.

Then I request. All the American shared engines I've seen have different enough specs that it could
not be reasonably caused by minor exhaust differences. What American trucks share the same engine
with a car?

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
> >So, the point stands that manufacturers will stick the same engine in everything they can in an
> >effort to avoid designing and certifying a new engine, as well as for ease of manufacturing.
>
> They have to recertify for every vehicle. Similar engines are used because of manufacturing costs.
> They use the same bore spacing shared in V6 and V8s in many cases to keep down design and
> manufacture costs, but that doesn't mean that the shared "platform" of the two makes the V6 and
> the V8 the "same" engine.
>
> The engine in the Mercedes looks to be quite similar. That is rare. Usually there are differences
> far in excess of what would result from only exhaust differences. Compare the American trucks to
> the cars of the same sizes. They have widely varying numbers.
>
> Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>

What they have when the same engine is shared between the two, is different gearing in the
transmission. Little more.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> > "bull-bars" that dice pedestrians like french fries
>
> This problem does not exist outside North America, because government standards in much of the
> rest of the world contain stringent pedestrian-protection requirements totally absent from North
> American safety regulations.
>

Not to mention, it's a myth. I would like to see the proof that hitting a brush guard causes any
more damage than having part of a body go though a grill or headlamp lens.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0304100145350.12881-100000 @alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
[email protected] says...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Brent P wrote:
>
> > The problem with 'SUVs' really light trucks in general is that there are far too many of them
> > out on the roadway. They shouldn't be banned but rather the choices that existed for people to
> > get those jobs done and still use a passenger car need to be returned to the market, the
> > fettering of regulation removed.
>
> AGREED! If GM, for instance, were to bring the Australian RWD Caprice over in sedan and wagon
> forms, I suspect they would sell every last one they could build.
>

If Toyota would bring over any of the Land Cruisers they sell in Austrailia I suspect they would
sell every last one for twice the MSRP. What's your point?

> > It is my opinion that the market will over time return to a more sensible level of light truck
> > production as a percentage of total vehicle sales given alteratives.
>
> Agreed here, too.
>

So your both wrong. Or is 50 years of the truck outselling the car just a fad?

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> >
> > 2> "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is not a
> > 2> guiding philosophy of America.
> >
> > > That wasn't the philosophy implied by the statement.
> >
> > Certainly it was. Look beyond the superficial meaning of the words. It's about removing
> > determination of needs (and, by extension, of wants) from the individual. That is *exactly* the
> > philosophy espoused when somebody begins *****ing about people driving SUVs they "don't need".
>
> Not at all. Keep the demagoguery out of the argument.
>
> The fact is, SUVs impose negatives on others, many of which have been mentioned: bumpers that
> crash through car bodies at shoulder height, headlights that glare in eyes because of their great
> height, front "bull-bars" that dice pedestrians like french fries, bulk that blocks others' view
> of traffic, etc etc.
>

Oh narrow minded one, could it be that you micro mobile crs are the problem and should be removed
fromt he road due to the danger they pose to their occupants? What am I saying, there's only one
side to an argument and it's up your ass right?

> We do this with all sorts of things. We are able to implement reasonable restrictions on personal
> choices without becoming a police state. There's no need to demand so much personal freedom that
> we become an anarchy.

2 dozen 1000lb. tin cans buzzing around me on the highway is anarchy.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >More examples of SUVs that use the same engines as passenger cars available by request.
>
> Then I request. All the American shared engines I've seen have different enough specs that it
> could not be reasonably caused by minor exhaust differences. What American trucks share the same
> engine with a car?
>
> Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Ford Escape/Ford Focus Chevy,GMC S-10 S-15 pickups,Jimmy, Blazer/Astro Vans Chevy S-Truck/Pontiac
Fiero Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Celica

It's more prevelant in Japanese models actually but you didn't ask that.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Road Glidin' Do]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:41:06 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:22:34 GMT, [email protected] (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>
>|On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:56:39 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
>|<[email protected]> wrote:
>|
>|>You are clueless then.
>|>
>|>But that is understandable given your posts.
>|
>|Not surprised to see you're such an arrogant, little, |socially-stunted, ***** in general. This
>Net's for you!
>
>Well I guesss most folks are "little" when compared to your redneck fat ass.
>
>Can't discuss the issue, so you have to prove once again that you're all chapped about not
>understanding how to use simple filters, eh?
>
>Is it time for you to post more pictures of more skanky chicks on your hilarious website?

Use all the words you like, ***-whatever; it's clear you argue like a punk and I'd say that's far
more enlightening.

--
Instead of weaving, I should have been reloading (remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI 83 Nighthawk

eBay "About Me" page: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/xidos_canada/ Share yourself:
http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp Bike videos: http://xidos.ca/VideoView.asp Home page:
http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/ Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/ FLT Tech
Info: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Bikes/tech.html

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:53:02 GMT, [email protected] (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:

|On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:41:06 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
|<[email protected]> wrote:
|
|>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:22:34 GMT, [email protected] (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
|>
|>|On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:56:39 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
|>|<[email protected]> wrote:
|>|
|>|>You are clueless then.
|>|>
|>|>But that is understandable given your posts.
|>|
|>|Not surprised to see you're such an arrogant, little, |socially-stunted, ***** in general. This
|>Net's for you!
|>
|>Well I guesss most folks are "little" when compared to your redneck fat ass.
|>
|>Can't discuss the issue, so you have to prove once again that you're all chapped about not
|>understanding how to use simple filters, eh?
|>
|>Is it time for you to post more pictures of more skanky chicks on your hilarious website?
|
|Use all the words you like, ***-whatever; it's clear you argue like a |punk and I'd say that's far
more enlightening.

LOL.

Hissy fit or just plain old post humping? I think both.

p.s. the "***-whatever" is a nice touch, even if it is junior high material and a bit homophobic for
such an old guy as you are but hey, you're a redneck so it's expected.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 01:25:55 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

|"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|>More examples of SUVs that use the same engines as passenger cars available by request.
|
|Then I request. All the American shared engines I've seen have different |enough specs that it
could not be reasonably caused by minor exhaust |differences. What American trucks share the same
engine with a car?

ML55, ML320, Lexus RX300, BMW X5, Honda CRV, Nissan Pathfinder, Toyota Rav4, etc., etc.

Most of the American SUVs that I'm familiar with use engines from their truck series.

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
>> > "bull-bars" that dice pedestrians like french fries
>>
>> This problem does not exist outside North America, because government standards in much of the
>> rest of the world contain stringent pedestrian-protection requirements totally absent from North
>> American safety regulations.
>>
>
> Not to mention, it's a myth. I would like to see the proof that hitting a brush guard causes any
> more damage than having part of a body go though a grill or headlamp lens.

Take a plastic grill or thin piece of AL sheet in your right hand and hit your left arm with it. Now
take a steel pipe and do the same.

 

[Daniel J Stern]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Marc wrote:

2> More examples of SUVs that use the same engines as passenger cars
3> available by request.

> Then I request. What American trucks share the same engine with a car?

Well, lessee here.

Every Dodge pickup truck and SUV with a 225 Slant-6 until that engine was discontinued from
passenger car use in 1984.

Every Dodge pickup truck and SUV with a 318 V8 until that engine was discontinued from passenger car
use in 1989.

Every Dodge pickup truck and SUV with a 360 V8 until that engine was discontinued from passenger car
use in 1981.

Every Jeep pickup truck and SUV with a 258 Six until that engine was discontinued from passenger car
use in 1987.

Every Jeep pickup truck and SUV with a 2.8 litre V6.

Every Jeep pickup truck and SUV with a Chrysler 2.5 litre Four.

Every Chevrolet or GMC pickup truck and SUV with a 4.3 litre V6 until that engine was discontinued
from passenger car use in 1996.

Every Chevrolet or GMC pickup truck and SUV with a 5.0 litre V8 until that engine was discontinued
from passenger car use in 1996.

Every Chevrolet or GMC pickup truck and SUV with a 5.7 litre V8 until that engine was discontinued
from passenger car use in 1996.

Every Ford pickup truck and SUV with a 2.3 litre Four

Every Ford pickup truck and SUV with a 300 Six until that engine was discontinued from passenger car
use in 1983 (or so)

Every Ford pickup truck and SUV with a 302 V8 until that engine was discontinued from passenger car
use in 1997.

Every Ford pickup truck and SUV with a 351 V8 until that engine was discontinued from passenger car
use in 1983.

And a great many more recent and older models, besides.

DS

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Daniel J Stern wrote:

> Every Ford pickup truck and SUV with a 300 Six until that engine was discontinued from passenger
> car use in 1983 (or so)

Ford's inline sixes were in two families with a surprising lack of cross-over. The design was
particularly similiar and simple visual inspection would lead one to believe they were of the same
family. It's only when one starts getting into ford inline sixes do the differences between the
'truck six' and 'car six' come to light.

The truck six was offered in 230 and 300cid displacements if I remember correctly and the biggest,
noticable difference is in the head. The truck six has a removable intake manifold, the car six has
it cast as part of the head. Heads cannot be swaped sadly.

The car six is far more varied, it comes in 120,170,200,and 250 cid versions in the USA. It went to
ford of austraila in the 1960s and the 250cid version then took a much different path of
development.

In the USA this engine family was neglected with 1bbl carbs and the like until it was put out of
service in the 1980s, like you say sometime around 1983 or so... I believe it was available in one
fox-chasis badge mobiles in 84 or 85, but around then.

In austraila it was developed into a base performance engine. First with the cross flow head, later
the engine was effectively redesigned with an overhead cam, etc. However these new overhed cam
engines as I understand borrowed considerably from the stout 250cid's bottom end focusing design
intention where it was needed, in the head.

The engine lives on to this day in the falcon line down under with what I consider impressive
power for what was in the USA, the grocer-getter economy engine of the falcon, maverick, fairmont
and mustang.

I've also read online lately there may be a way to convert US 250 blocks to accept one of the aussie
heads that is newer and more advanced than the cross flow, don't remember if it was a push rod with
fuel injection or one of the OHC ones... I'll have to find that again.

If I ever go to austrailia I better have a cargo container to fill with cars and parts for the
return journey

 

[Daniel J Stern]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Brent P wrote:

[Fox chassis]

> In the USA this engine family was neglected with 1bbl carbs and the like

> In austraila it was developed into a base performance engine.

There was a lot of that going around -- Chrysler Corp. let the SLant-6 die an agonizing death of
strangulation in the USA. In Australia, it was developed quite enthusiastically until its
replacement in 1970 with the Hemi-6, which started out on American drawing boards but was abandoned
here and given to the Australians to play with. And play they did -- the Hemi-6 powered Australia's
quickest and fastest cars for many years.

DS

 

[C. Deforrest Sm]

Marc <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Then I request. All the American shared engines I've seen have different enough specs that it
> could not be reasonably caused by minor exhaust differences. What American trucks share the same
> engine with a car?

SOHC 4.6L V8 in the Ford F150 + Ford Crown Vic/Lincoln Town Car/Mercury Grand Marquis de Sade. (Oh,
call it a "Triton" all you want, but that is the same bloody engine...)

cds