STUPID UNNECESSARY VEHICLES



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > 2> 7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive
> > 2> exhaust in the ML.
> >
> > > Who cares? The point is that one way or another, it's not the "same" engine.
> >
> > Er...yeah, Jonathan. It is the same engine. A couple of feet of differently-bent exhaust
> > pipework do not constitute a different
engine --
> > no way, nohow. If you intend to continue arguing to the contrary, you
will
> > succeed only in making yourself look (more) ignorant (than you already have).
>
> You don't KNOW that the difference is accounted for by a different exhaust piping. You're
> speculating, and you're doing so only to try to win a rhetorical point.

Well, of course its not the SAME engine, they can only be in one vehicle at a time.

The basic engine of say the Murano is the same as the 350Z, as well as the luxury sports car that
Nissan is making. The engine in the Honda Pilot is lifted from one of their cars, the Mitsubishis
have the same engines as their cars, all in the name of greater ease of manufacturing/profits for
the manufacturer. Its easier to build one engine, and change the tuning than it is to certify a
whole new engine for each vehicle.

The big ole engines in the bigger SUVs are lifted from the full sized pickups and other similarly
sized vehicles. They may be retuned slightly for different applications, but they're still the same
design. I know my F150 engine lives in some Ford Excursions and Expeditions. The 4.6l Ford V8 from
the Mustang was in my roommate's F150 before he sold that truck.

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.

Mike
 
"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Casey Stamper wrote:
>
> 2> you'd better get busy banning 18-wheel cargo trucks from the roads --
> 2> they are a menace to people in huge rapacious SUVs *and* passenger
> 2> cars.
>
> > That's just stupid.
>
> Not actually. If the argument is profferred that SUVs are a menace to those in small cars, then
> the same argument holds for cargo trucks relative to all passenger vehicles. It's a simple matter
> of physics. F=M*AAAAAAAAH! for extremely large values of M.

Only if you also assume that the same kind of driver is driving the 18-wheeler. They, at least, have
to go through a minimal training regimen to be qualified to drive one of those vehicles. I don't
know the figures but I wouldn't be surprised if 18-wheelers have fewer accidents than SUVs.

>
> > 18-wheelers have a function. SUVs, with very few exceptions, do not
>
> In *your* schema of wants and needs, perhaps. However, you do not get a vote in *other people's*
> wants and needs.

I don't get a vote in their needs and wants but I *do* get to express my opinion.

>
> --DS, who does not own an SUV
 
"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.
 
"Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Casey Stamper wrote:
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:p[email protected]...
> > > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > >
> > > > disgusting huge rapacious SUVs are a menace to people in normal
cars.
> > >
> > > That depends upon your definition of "normal", I suppose.
> > >
> > > And you'd better get busy banning 18-wheel cargo trucks from the
roads --
> > > they are a menace to people in huge rapacious SUVs *and* passenger
cars.
> > >
> > > DS
> > >
> > That's just stupid. 18-wheelers have a function. SUVs, with very few exceptions, do not - except
> > as commented on previously.
>
> Huge disgusting rapacious SUVs have a function, but not one that requires that amount of mass.

What function is that?
 
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:

4> 7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive
5> exhaust in the ML.

6> Who cares? The point is that one way or another, it's not the
7> "same" engine.

8> Er...yeah, Jonathan. It is the same engine. A couple of feet of
9> differently-bent exhaust pipework do not constitute a different engine
10> -- no way, nohow. If you intend to continue arguing to the contrary,
11> you will succeed only in making yourself look (more) ignorant (than you
12> already have).

> You don't KNOW that the difference is accounted for by a different exhaust piping. You're
> speculating,

Fair enough, but it is very well educated speculation, which handily trumps your unsupported (by
dint of being unsupportable) assertions.

Take a look at the last four decades' worth of engine offerings and power ratings by the world's
automakers, as those of us telling you you're wrong have done. Then you'll be in a position to do
more than sit there pickin' your nose and stamping your foot and insisting you're right and the rest
of the world is wrong.

DS
 
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, archer wrote:

2> So if someone puts different exhaust tips on their car all of a sudden
3> their engine changes?

> No, but changing the catalytic converter to meet different emissions requirements make a
> difference.

You will not find 7 horsepower by changing the catalytic converter to meet different emissions
requirements.

C'mon along back when you learn what you're talking about.

DS
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "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?

No, but changing the catalytic converter to meet different emissions requirements, or adding a
significantly longer exhaust pipe can easily make a difference.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
 
"Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
| >
| > On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
| >
| > 2> 7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive
| > 2> exhaust in the ML.
| >
| > > Who cares? The point is that one way or another, it's not the "same" engine.
| >
| > Er...yeah, Jonathan. It is the same engine. A couple of feet of differently-bent exhaust
| > pipework do not constitute a different
engine --
| > no way, nohow. If you intend to continue arguing to the contrary, you
will
| > succeed only in making yourself look (more) ignorant (than you already have).
|
| You don't KNOW that the difference is accounted for by a different exhaust piping. You're
| speculating, and you're doing so only to try to win a rhetorical point.

Nope. He's not ignoring anything. It's common sense, which perhaps explains your difficulty with it.

You however, are ignoring the facts:

"The S-Class uses the same 4.3 litre V8 engine as the E430, ML430, and C43, "

http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/00s-class.htm

"The V8 engines

WHAT about the V8s then?

High performance and high technology are the watchwords. The new generation 4,3 litre replaces its
4,2 predecessor but is lighter and more fuel-efficient.

All new generation Mercedes-Benz V8 engines have a common cylinder angle of 90s which allows for
standardised components including crank case, con rods, camshafts, oil sump and timing cases for
ease of assembly.

The 4,3 V8 weighs in at 170 kg which, it is claimed, is up to 20 percent less than some competitors'
similar engines.

It puts out 205 kW at 5750 r/min in the sedan models and 200 kW in the
ML430. Maximum torque is 400 Nm between 3000 and 4400 revs."

http://www.dispatch.co.za/1999/10/26/features/MOT1.HTM
 
"archer" <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
| > "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?
|
| No, but changing the catalytic converter to meet different emissions requirements, or adding a
| significantly longer exhaust pipe can easily make a difference.

Which was the point of my rhetorical question...the engine doesn't change.
 
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0304091421260.28623- [email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, archer wrote:
>
> 2> So if someone puts different exhaust tips on their car all of a sudden
> 2> their engine changes?
>
> > No, but changing the catalytic converter to meet different emissions requirements make a
> > difference.
>
> You will not find 7 horsepower by changing the catalytic converter to meet different emissions
> requirements.
>
> C'mon along back when you learn what you're talking about.

I'm not a car-builder, but I think it's reasonable to expect that changing the exhaust back-pressure
may change the engine's peak HP by
3.5%.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
 
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, archer wrote:

2> You will not find 7 horsepower by changing the catalytic converter to
3> meet different emissions requirements.
4> C'mon along back when you learn what you're talking about.

> I'm not a car-builder

You're right. You're not. C'mon along back when you learn what you're talking about.

DS
 
"Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
t...

> To give you one example, I (had) a friend who owned a
certain Japanese SUV
> with a V-8 and full luxury appointments whose monthly note
and fuel costs
> caused her to pinch and save at every turn. Being a
beginning cyclist and
> ex-fatty (thanks to bicycling, btw), she wanted to stay
fit during winter,
> but couldn't 'cause she couldn't afford a) a trainer or
even b) a headlight
> for her bike, but she could afford that (?) $25-30,000
SUV, to go along with
> her $120K condo. Why? Priorities, I guess, but I figure
she was sold a
> bill of goods, so to speak. She could've been driving a
nice, gently used,
> $10-15,000 sedan and saving for retirement, but her ego
wouldn't let her.

Sounds like half of southern CA to me! I found it quite shocking -- not $25-30k vehicles, but $50k
vehicles, parked outside starter condos ($120k), or worse, rental apartments! I'd like to take Suze
Orman on a tour of these impoverished neighborhoods... but the poor girl would probably die of a
heart attack!

Keep in mind that many of these people don't need to save for retirement -- ultimately, an
inheritance will save their ass. The house that their parents bought in the 60s or 70s on a normal
working person's salary is now worth a million bucks. That's the story of many of my contemporaries
anyway. But not me (sigh)...

Matt O.
 
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> writes:
> Sounds like half of southern CA to me! I found it quite shocking -- not $25-30k vehicles, but $50k
> vehicles, parked outside starter condos ($120k), or worse, rental apartments! I'd like to take
> Suze Orman on a tour of these impoverished neighborhoods... but the poor girl would probably die
> of a heart attack!

What impresses me is the 120k starter condos in southern CA. It's about triple that here in
the Bay Area.

--
Ignasi.
 
"Ignasi Palou-Rivera" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> What impresses me is the 120k starter condos in southern
CA. It's
> about triple that here in the Bay Area.

I know. It's sad what's happened to SF. It used to be a real city, now it's a slum of design studios
and trattorias (with Hummers parked out front).

Matt O.
 
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Some relevant characteristics of the complete engine package might well change. Those could be
> environmentally disadvantageous changes in fuel consumption and/or emissions.

"Might" change. "Could" be changes. Your weasel words fail -- you have absolutely no idea what
you're talking about. You're in over your head. No need to admit it -- it's plainly obvious.

DS
 
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:

> I suspect there are some other tuning changes.

You "suspect", eh, sport? Weren't you the one tossing around tall accusations of speculation just a
couple hours ago?

DS
 
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.
 
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> "archer" <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> | > "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?
> |
> | No, but changing the catalytic converter to meet different emissions requirements, or adding a
> | significantly longer exhaust pipe can easily make a difference.
>
> Which was the point of my rhetorical question...the engine doesn't change.

Some relevant characteristics of the complete engine package might well change. Those could be
environmentally disadvantageous changes in fuel consumption and/or emissions.
 
Casey Stamper wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Casey Stamper wrote:
> > >
> > > "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:p[email protected]...
> > > > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > disgusting huge rapacious SUVs are a menace to people in normal
> cars.
> > > >
> > > > That depends upon your definition of "normal", I suppose.
> > > >
> > > > And you'd better get busy banning 18-wheel cargo trucks from the
> roads --
> > > > they are a menace to people in huge rapacious SUVs *and* passenger
> cars.
> > > >
> > > > DS
> > > >
> > > That's just stupid. 18-wheelers have a function. SUVs, with very few exceptions, do not -
> > > except as commented on previously.
> >
> > Huge disgusting rapacious SUVs have a function, but not one that requires that amount of mass.
>
> What function is that?

What function is what? The function of the huge disgusting rapacious SUV? Its function, 99% of
the time or more, is to transport one stupid slave-to-fashion with more money than sense to or
from work.
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:26:35 -0700, Jonathan Ball <[email protected]> wrote:

|> Which was the point of my rhetorical question...the engine doesn't change.
|
|Some relevant characteristics of the complete engine package |might well change. Those could be
environmentally |disadvantageous changes in fuel consumption and/or emissions.

You idiot.

The engine, in the examples given, didn't change, despite your wild accusations, hand wringing, and
general goofiness.

The engines are the same.

Why is that so hard to understand?

p.s. Many more examples available by request.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.