 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / June 2007Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org Add acetone and K&N and this baby will go 290 mpg : ) > Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org > Add acetone and K&N and this baby will go 290 mpg : ) > >> Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org Watch out for fuel saving actions, though. If the tires are properly inflated and you drive smoothly, you will have to ride the brakes to keep the tank from overflowing. I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so its automatic Just a guess: The fluids in a traditional automatic transmission would rob that 8 HP Evinrude of precious power. Instead, they use a manual transmission and add electronic solenoids and switches to change the gears whenever the software calculates the optimal (i.e. most fuel efficient) shifting point. Maybe? But then, I'm sure Dan G would say, "All things being the same, you don't have a clue what you are talking about." >I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an > automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so > its automatic Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's "Automatic!" So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue! "jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> found these unused words: >Just a guess: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so >> its automatic Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission? > Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic > transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's > "Automatic!" > > So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue! No. "jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> found these unused words: >Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same >as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue! Tomato -vs- (whatever you Brits use) > No. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> >>> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue! > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an > automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so > its automatic Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting mechanism. The normal automatic transmission has significant losses associated with it, amounting to approx 5-10% of power throughput. What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it. > > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission > > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting > mechanism. No, it's not. An automatic transmission is simply one that's automatic and doesn't require the driver to shift. It can take on any form--for example, like the Prius's power split device. Or a belt-driven CVT. Or even the Honda automatic transmission, which is nothing like the GM trannies. > What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and > strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it. Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission. >> > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission >> > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission. or as bizarre as honda's no clutch motorcycles. I think your wrong. A manual transmission with an "automatic shifting mechanism" is still a manual transmission. In an automatic transmission the transmission IS automatic (I hate to state the obvious for you). The transmission in the VW replaces the gear shift with hydraulic actuators, which aren't an integral part of the transmission. You could theoretically remove the actuators and put a gear shifter in making it fully manual again. You could not do this with an automatic transmission. You stating that a manual transmission with an automatic shifting aparatus on it makes it an automatic transmission is like saying if your passenger shifts your manual transmission while you stear makes your manual transmission an automatic. >> > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission >> > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission. > I think your wrong. A manual transmission with an "automatic shifting > mechanism" is still a manual transmission. It's not. "Manual" means it is controlled by the hand. If the hand does not control the transmission's gear changes, then it is not a "manual". If no driver input is required to effect gear changes (or ratio changes), then it is an automatic, regardless of the actual mechanism that performs the ratio changes, or how those ratios are supplied in the first place. > In an automatic > transmission the transmission IS automatic (I hate to state the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gear shifter in making it fully manual again. You could not do this > with an automatic transmission. Sure you could. The Model-T's planetary unit operated just that way, but with a pedal instead of a hand control. If you wanted to, you could probably retrofit a Turbo Hydramatic so as to operate it by the use of pedals, just like the Model-T. The various planetary overdrive units that have been installed on manual transmissions through the years were manually operated by pressing a switch with your hand.  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > I think your wrong. "you're" as in "you are". > A manual transmission with an "automatic shifting > mechanism" is still a manual transmission. no it's not. any transmission with an automatic shifting mechanism is an automatic - by definition. > In an automatic transmission > the transmission IS automatic (I hate to state the obvious for you). nonsensical garbage! <time wasting ends here> I guess it boils down to the way each individual views things. I tend to think along the same lines as Jeremy: If the insides of the transmission are fully automated, fluid controlled, and use a torque converter instead of a clutch, I call it an automatic transmission. On the other hand, if the gears are physically enguaged/disenguaged with levers and actuators and/or requires a clutch, that is a manual transmission in my book - no matter how many gismos are bolted on top to do the shifting. Back to the main article: Greg Wilson (the author) says the VW has a " 6-speed manual transmission that shifts automatically." It sound like Mr. Wilson also views this as a manual transmission, but is pointing out that the operator may have no control over the gear selection (other than Park, Reverse, Neutral, and Drive). The lesson here is: If someone is trying to sell you a car that says it has an automatic transmission, the Buyer may want to ask for more details. Otherwise, he may get a vehicle that comes with someone in the passenger's seat to shift the gears for him! :) ~JP http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm On May 23, 10:26 am, "jp2express" <jp2mail-tempfo...@noSpamyahoo.com> wrote: > I guess it boils down to the way each individual views things. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Otherwise, he may get a vehicle that comes with someone in the passenger's > seat to shift the gears for him! :) yeah, seems to be basically a semantics issue, to me "automatic transmission" is a specific methodology, as different from a hydrostatic, a centrifugal, or any of the other methodologies that alter gear ratios without intervention from the driver, and a manual transmission is likewise a specific methodology. however, that's the engineers perspective, the english majors perspective is "what does the word manual mean?" and that's fair too, and no call for insulting anyone. A+ > ...the english majors perspective is "what does > the word manual mean?" and that's fair too, and no call for insulting > anyone. > On May 23, 10:26 am, "jp2express" <jp2mail-tempfo...@noSpamyahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the word manual mean?" and that's fair too, and no call for insulting > anyone. bullshit. i'm an engineer, and method's go nothing to do with it. it's the effect achieved that matters. you can have your transmission controlled by a cage of hamsters if achieves the "automatic" effect without manual intervention. Obviously, being an engineer does not make one bright or open minded. > bullshit. i'm an engineer, and method's go nothing to do with it. it's > the effect achieved that matters. you can have your transmission > controlled by a cage of hamsters if achieves the "automatic" effect > without manual intervention. > Obviously, being an engineer does not make one bright or open minded. from that statement, i have to assume that you're not an engineer. in which case, arguing about "automation" is a pointless exercise. >> bullshit. i'm an engineer, and method's go nothing to do with it. it's >> the effect achieved that matters. you can have your transmission >> controlled by a cage of hamsters if achieves the "automatic" effect >> without manual intervention. I am a Software Engineer, bright and open minded. Therefore, so being an engineer must not be where those traits come from. The topic wasn't even about whether or not we were dealing with automation. It is how the term "Automatic" is used in the automotive industry. You might want to go back over some of the older posts to refresh your memory. Did you get your degree from an accredited University? Which one? >> Obviously, being an engineer does not make one bright or open minded. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> controlled by a cage of hamsters if achieves the "automatic" effect >>> without manual intervention. > I am a Software Engineer, that explain a lot. > bright and open minded. evidently not regarding "automation". > Therefore, so being an > engineer must not be where those traits come from. eh? are you e.s.l. perchance? > The topic wasn't even about whether or not we were dealing with automation. > It is how the term "Automatic" is used in the automotive industry. You might > want to go back over some of the older posts to refresh your memory. er, you may want to read my previous posts. > Did you get your degree from an accredited University? Which one? i found my degrees in the mens room after a party. one still smells a bit strong. but it's ok, i can pose as a rocket surgeon on usenet. unless i get it wrong of course. now, "Therefore, so being an engineer" what does "automation" mean again? >>> Obviously, being an engineer does not make one bright or open minded. >> from that statement, i have to assume that you're not an engineer. in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> controlled by a cage of hamsters if achieves the "automatic" effect >>>> without manual intervention. > > I am a Software Engineer, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >>>> controlled by a cage of hamsters if achieves the "automatic" effect > >>>> without manual intervention. "automation" means machines performing functionality that had previously een performed by people. "automatic transmission" is used in the automotive industry to indicate a specific type of self-shifting transmission. "automatic transmission" is also used to indicate any transmission that changes gear ratios without human intervention by certain pompous shitheads who can never seem to admit that 2 people can look at the same thing and come to 2 different conclusions. >>> I am a Software Engineer, >> that explain a lot. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > who can never seem to admit that 2 people can look at the same thing > and come to 2 different conclusions. self-induced myopia or name-calling doesn't change facts. > >>> I am a Software Engineer, > >> that explain a lot. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > self-induced myopia or name-calling doesn't change facts. Nor does slinging poo create them. It isn't an insult to call a poo flinging moron a poo flinging moron, it's an accurate label. What's this bullshit doing in this newsgroup. I come here to try to learn something about my Toyota and lately all I've seen is bullshit about Volkswagens. Who gives a sh.t about Volkswagens or Hondas or anything other than Toyotas. Cut the bullshit and say something about Toyota trucks or take it to an appropriate newsgroup. jack >> >>> I am a Software Engineer, >> >> that explain a lot. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >>>>> Obviously, being an engineer does not make one bright or open minded. >> >>>> from that statement, i have to assume that you're not an engineer. in >> >>>> which case, arguing about "automation" is a pointless exercise. >> >>>>>> bullshit. i'm an engineer, and method's go nothing to do with it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Nor does slinging poo create them. It isn't an insult to call a >poo flinging moron a poo flinging moron, it's an accurate label. > What's this bullshit doing in this newsgroup. I come here to try to learn > something about my Toyota and lately all I've seen is bullshit about > Volkswagens. Who gives a sh.t about Volkswagens or Hondas or anything > other than Toyotas. > Cut the bullshit and say something about Toyota trucks or take it to an > appropriate newsgroup. You must be new to usenet. You need to pop a beer and get over it...... >> What's this bullshit doing in this newsgroup. I come here to try to >> learn something about my Toyota and lately all I've seen is bullshit [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You must be new to usenet. You need to pop a beer and get over it...... Maybe his "Delete" key is broken... JT > What's this bullshit doing in this newsgroup. I come here to try to learn > something about my Toyota and lately all I've seen is bullshit about > Volkswagens. Who gives a sh.t about Volkswagens or Hondas or anything > other than Toyotas. Who gives a sh.t about Toyotas ? Talk about dull cars ! Graham In alt.autos.toyota Jack <jmehauph@yahoo.com> wrote: > What's this bullshit doing in this newsgroup. I come here to try > to learn something about my Toyota and lately all I've seen is > bullshit about Volkswagens. Who gives a sh.t about Volkswagens or > Hondas or anything other than Toyotas. Cut the bullshit and say > something about Toyota trucks or take it to an appropriate > newsgroup. jack We agree with the top-poster. All of you clowns talking about Volkswagens and Hondas should take it to alt.politics.gwbush or something like that. cordially, as always, rm > In alt.autos.toyota Jack <jmehauph@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > rm Who is "we?" Cain'tcha jis uze da "delete" key or iz yo' glasses bad two? JT >What's this bullshit doing in this newsgroup. I come here to try to learn >something about my Toyota and lately all I've seen is bullshit about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >appropriate newsgroup. >jack If you feel so strongly, why did you cross-post to two Honda groups? Elliot Richmond Itinerant astronomy teacher >>What's this bullshit doing in this newsgroup. I come here to try to learn >>something about my Toyota and lately all I've seen is bullshit about [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Elliot Richmond >Itinerant astronomy teacher Hey! I just hit the reply button. I didn't particularly want it to go any farther than the toyota group but I suppose that there are people that feel the same in those groups too. If I hurt your feelings please accept my most sincere apologies. Jack >>>>> I am a Software Engineer, >>>> that explain a lot. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Nor does slinging poo create them. It isn't an insult to call a > poo flinging moron a poo flinging moron, it's an accurate label. so self-induced myopia or name-calling doesn't change facts. "jim beam" wrote... > self-induced myopia or name-calling doesn't change facts. You have waited too long and said too much to start sounding educated now. Give it up. You're a boneheaded, redneck freakshow and your wife is literally itching to find someone that can please her. >> I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual >> transmission that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting > mechanism. Yes... > The normal automatic transmission has significant losses > associated with it, amounting to approx 5-10% of power throughput. Not quite that much any more. This was true in the days of the Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic (1940), and the Buick Dynaflow (1948). These days it's almost 100% efficient. And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting. > What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and > strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it. The gearbox setup is unimportant. You can have a selective-shift sliding-gear box, constant-mesh dog-clutch box, or a planetary unit or anything else, all automatically controlled. You can have a non-automatic planetary unit too, like the Ford Model-T's. (I'd be inclined to call that one a "manual", but the pedants among us would insist on the more correct term "pedal".) Bendix first developed an automatic clutch in 1932. This was offered on regular manual-style transmissions on several US makes. These worked well when set up properly, but were hideously high-maintenance, finicky and unreliable. The primary reason automakers eventually reverted to planetary gearboxes for automatic operation was that it was practically impossible to impose automatic control on a regular sliding-gear or constant-mesh manual-style box with the technology of the day. These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990. The technology may eventually filter down to plebeian road cars one day, but that day would have to come once the mainstream automakers decide to replace their entire transmission tooling. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in news:Xns9937B54D67FDEtegger@ 207.14.116.130: > And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the > SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine > power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting. ...Plus slippage at idle and on acceleration. I forgot that. Slippage at idle is a fundamental function of the fluid coupling, and the reason it was adopted in the first place. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for modern day manual transmissions? I'm not trying to rag on anyone; I just want to know what the manufacturers are doing these days. It seems like a lot of companies are building things that can be sold for very little, but the consumable parts are becoming more expensive than the original item (like printers and 4-blade razors). > These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a > manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or > semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the > Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990. > Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. fluid > changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? The very fact they need any maintenance at all will do that. > I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been > serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for > modern day manual transmissions? I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission. Graham >> I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been >> serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for >> modern day manual transmissions? > > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission. Check the seals for leaks, change oil every 10 years. > >> I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been > >> serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Check the seals for leaks, change oil every 10 years. I don't even recall an oil change requirement on manual boxes from the last few decades. Graham A/T are more expensive right at the point you purchase the car. Manual transmissions need some gear oil as well but not as particular as an automatic > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission. Fluid must be replaced at regular intervals. This will be specified in the maintenance table for your car. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission. > > Fluid must be replaced at regular intervals. This will be specified in the > maintenance table for your car. The last one I recall making any oil change requirement was a high-end 1970 model. I should have said that oil level checks are a maintenance requirement of course. Graham >> > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual >> > transmission. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The last one I recall making any oil change requirement was a high-end > 1970 model. Such a directive exists for all Toyotas and Hondas for the last several decades. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I should have said that oil level checks are a maintenance requirement of > course. Have you actually checked any manuals? My 06 Civic Si certainly has scheduled service for replacement of the manual transmission fluid. Can't give you a set schedule, since it is on the maintenance minder, but it will come up and need to be done. >> I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission. > >Fluid must be replaced at regular intervals. This will be specified in the >maintenance table for your car. toyo reccomend 60k miles on my supra. i did it when i bought it, i'm sure the fluid had never been changed before that. love the toy 5 speed and mine is slick and easy. > Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. > fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs. Filter replacements are not usually required if the fluid is changed regularly. > I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not > been serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. So do I. But I seriously doubt any of those boxes would last 300K miles. It is to the credit of the manufacturers that trannies last as long as they do with the neglect and abuse many people throw at them. > Has this been > changed for modern day manual transmissions? No. Fluid changes are always desirable regardless of transmission make or model. Lubricant quality deteriorates over time regardless. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. >> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? > > Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs. the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in addition to clutch packs. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/automatic-transmission4.htm the modern "semi-auto's" with full auto control use a single dry plate clutch to shift and individual dog clutches on the ratios like a standard transmission. > Filter > replacements are not usually required if the fluid is changed regularly. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No. Fluid changes are always desirable regardless of transmission make or > model. Lubricant quality deteriorates over time regardless. >>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. >>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in > addition to clutch packs. Toyota went bandless in the '70s. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. >>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Toyota went bandless in the '70s. i thought they were still planetary. i tried looking briefly for toyota gearbox drawings last night but couldn't find anything. do you have any links? >>>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. >>>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > i thought they were still planetary. Planetary yes, banded no. The two are not mutually inclusive. All bands or clutch packs do is affect which part(s) of the planetary gearset is/are allowed to turn. I also discovered the Chrysler A604 transaxle is also bandless. I have posted to rec.autos.tech asking for more examples of bandless auto gearboxes. > i tried looking briefly for > toyota gearbox drawings last night but couldn't find anything. do you > have any links? Not online. I read that in a factory shop manual. Toyota had some banded trannies and some bandless ones. I think the Toyota A40 was the first bandless. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. >>>>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > trannies and some bandless ones. I think the Toyota A40 was the first > bandless. i'd still love to see how they go bandless - with planet gears mounted in an annulus, a band clutch is the natural solution. "Volkswagon unveils car that gets 2.82 miles to the gallon." :-) It's called the _T_O_U_R_E_G_ :-) 'Curly' > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil. >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >> > Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil. What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil" goon squad. The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators, especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy really doesn't matter to grieving families. Mike >>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Mike f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets 50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50 to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these. Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need forced communist compliance at all. >>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need > forced communist compliance at all. Interesting thread for a Honda site, like who cares. > Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash > test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. hehe Yeah, but when you're sitting there with a broken neck, breathing and eating through a tube, you'll want the Nanny State to take care of you at no cost--which means taxpayers like me funding the rest of your miserable life. f.ck you. >>Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash >>test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > f.ck you. In this case, the need is to get rid of the nanny guv'ment. Sometimes, I wish we could turn the clock back to 1970 with regard to what guv'ment spends money on... JT (Abused Taxpayer) >> Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash >> test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > f.ck you. People still do that you idiot. Safety devices don't prevent that. > f.ck safety, Don't do that. > Drive right and you won't need it. Rubbish, you can be killed by someone driving into you. > Safety is just a protection scheme invented by the American car companies to > keep out the competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. The problem is that the US idea of safety is 'make it big and heavy'. The proof that this isn't necessary (or even particularly safe either btw) can be seen in every car made outside the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx Graham > f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a > protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need > forced communist compliance at all. You can "drive right" as much as you like, but it won't necessarily save you from the dope who isn't. >>>>Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need > forced communist compliance at all. I tend to agree as all the regulation that currently exists has totally got out of hand. Life has risks. It's that simple. When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. My old '83 Honda Civic FE gets over 40 mpg in mixed driving, has functioning brakes, seat belts, horn, wipers and lights. That's all the "safety" related equipment that's really needed. The BIG problem is the NUT behind the wheel. Hard to fix that... JT > When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; > Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public thinks heavy vehicles are safer. Graham >> When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; >> Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Graham Not everyone in the USA believes heavier is safer. No one is safe when you are hit by a big scary truck. The best answer is to learn to drive and drive defensively. SignatureScott in Florida > Not everyone in the USA believes heavier is safer. Trucks are heavier and by your statement below indicates, safer. > No one is safe when you are hit by a big scary truck. Trucks aren't scary, people who think trucks are scary are scary. > The best answer is to learn to drive and drive defensively. The only part of your post that is correct. >>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; >>>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No one is safe when you are hit by a big scary truck. Heh heh... I tell friends with modern plastic that the only thing soft on my 1964 Studebaker T-Cab are the tires and that I take advantage of other's crush zones... > The best answer is to learn to drive and drive defensively. Absolutely! That's why I have no qualms driving an older Civic. JT >>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; >>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Graham If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than the lighter should the two tango. Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic. JT > >>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; > >>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than > the lighter should the two tango. The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold true for the people inside. > Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President > with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic. Whereas in fact you're far worse off. Graham > > >>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact > > >>comes out; [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Whereas in fact you're far worse off. Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush zone". Saludos, Earle >>>>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact >>>>>comes out; [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Earle Egg-Zact-Lee! <G> JT > >>Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Egg-Zact-Lee! But then again they may not. A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones. Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very unsensible. Graham >>>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Graham indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the passenger shell to be uncrushable. > > A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its > > occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the > passenger shell to be uncrushable. For clarification for the benefit of the unconvinced, the slow deformation of the crush/crumple zones provides relatively gentle deceleration compared to a vehicle that doesn't bend much. The crumpled metal may be what saved your life ! It's like they act as a cushion in an accident whereas in stiff vehicle it's like hitting a brick wall because there's no 'give'. Graham >> > A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on >> > its [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > because > there's no 'give'. True, but if I'm driving a stiff vehicle with no give, but I crash into one that has plenty then I'm still protected, like hitting a barricade that crumples on impact. If I hit a rock wall or some other object with no give then I better hope I'm not going very fast. The crush zones of both vehicles together matters more than which vehicle crushes, unless you're donating your passenger compartment as part of that crush zone. > Graham > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that has plenty then I'm still protected, like hitting a barricade that > crumples on impact. So you've got time to chosew hich car you're going to hit when you crash ? Hit another stiff car and you're as badly off as hitting the brick wall. Why are Americans never ever capable of thinking where their stupid ideas totally fall down ? And why do you engage in this insane rush to buy ever heavier cars to 'protect' yourselves whilst moaning about the ever-increasing cost of running them because you're making them more fuel thirsty. Do please THINK ! Graham >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Graham I think that it is YOU who misunderstands here. Consider the fact that Honda Civics which once were small now weight at least a 1,000 lbs more than their original models. More weight demands more HP to move 'em around. All this (for the most part) in the name of safety when a good dose of common sense would suffice. Add to this, consumers demands for more room and performance. There is no guv'ment regulation stronger than that which exists in the US. Hell, I would prefer to have a EN1 engine in my '82 & '83 Civics rather than the EJ1 but such was not permitted. Oh, when you mention heavier and "stiff" cars, you're venturing into vintage tin, not today's SUVs. I will be the first to concede the rationale behind owning SUVs is practically no rationale at all... JT The combined zones of two vehicles will not prevent serious injury, or death, if the terminal speed of the collision is too high. As one who designed crumple zone in the automotive industry, I can assure you properly belted passenger, riding is a vehicle in which the passenger compartment was no intruded upon, can and do die if the terminal speed of the 'third collision,' where one organs strike the skeleton, is too high. mike >>> indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the >>> passenger shell to be uncrushable. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >> Graham >>>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; >>>>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap. JT > Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap. Plenty more haven't. Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ? Graham >> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Graham Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are. JT > >> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are. No argument with that. It's a shame it's not taught as part of driver training in the USA AIUI. The other one I like that's now included in the UK test is hazard recognition. Graham >>> When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out; >>> Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > JT reality is, it's not weight, it's ability to protect the passenger cell that matters. if the passenger cell fails, and unfortunately, that happens in a lot of those big heavy older vehicles, the occupants are going to have the local coyotes and vultures poking about inside their vehicle quite actively if the crash is not detected soon enough. which european car goes 150 mpg? i can't find it in google and intrested to know more. is diesel banned in the US or just discouraged due to emissions and taxes? and you can't buy any in the market Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50 > to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these. > Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash > test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need > forced communist compliance at all.- Hide quoted text - > which european car goes 150 mpg? i can't find it in google and > intrested to know more. There isn't one. > is diesel banned in the US or just discouraged due to emissions and > taxes? and you can't buy any in the market It seems to be discouragement through regulation. Graham > f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a > protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need > forced communist compliance at all. I'm not the one you need to convince. Emissions and safety regulations in the US are nearly as old as I am. The US tort system almost requires safety regs; if you are driving a vehicle with inadequate side impact protection and Elmer Fudd t-bones your vehicle because he wasn't watching where he was chasing that wascally wabbit, should he be responsible for the increased injury to you that stems from the substandard design? But 120-150 mpg diesel hybrids? I'm not familiar with anything like that. VW made the Lupo 3L using all the tricks to get the fuel consumption down to 3 liters per 100km, barely half the 150 mpg claim, and hybridization isn't likely to improve on that. Stupid laws of physics. The public everywhere is going to have to adjust to a cruel fact of transportation: not all the energy is used to get from point A to point B. Cooling and heating, and even lighting, take an increasing toll as the energy expenditures for travel decrease. Hybrid owners are already complaining. Mike > f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a > protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out > the competition. If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well. The domestics are losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace GM in the #1 position in a few years? SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a >> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out >> the competition. > > If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well. that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete, detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it. now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve, it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching themselves wondering what the f.ck people were buying those dumb-a.s vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb bastards. they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart. > The domestics are > losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace > GM in the #1 position in a few years? > >> f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a > >> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace > > GM in the #1 position in a few years? Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a hammer. These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n other words, our cushioned american a.ses make crap cars because our union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what they're worth. > > > The domestics are > > > losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace > > > GM in the #1 position in a few years? > > Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts > to $1500/vehicle Good Lord ! That would translate in UK equivalent terms to a US productvity rate for auto workers of only about 2 vehicles per year ! I suspect the US auto compnaies could save *VAST* sums of money by operating their own clinics and hospitals and recruiting health workers as direct employees. Graham In message news:46548144.9BE786A@hotmail.com, Eeyore sprach forth the following: > I suspect the US auto compnaies could save *VAST* sums of money by > operating their own clinics and hospitals and recruiting health workers > as direct employees. not if the hospitals were unionized. >>>> f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a >>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what > they're worth. it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap. On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: >>>>> f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a >>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention > in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap. Jim, one (not the only one, of course) of the reasons that poor decisions are made in these areas is the cost. The average cost added by health care and retirement packages for for laborers in the 'Big 3' is $1350; for Toyota, that figure is right at $100. *PER VEHICLE*. The American manufacturers can't get to Toyota's level under the strictures they operate within, but things could improve. Meanwhile, think about the process and engineering improvements that could be made with, say half of that $1250 per vehicle available. Yes, they made their own bed; there was a time when they could have made smarter decisions and avoided this hole. But at that time, most people in the decision making process believed that the status quo would prevail forever. They aren't in a position to make better engineering decisions now. They are hoisted on their own petard. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." –- Thomas Jefferson > On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > by health care and retirement packages for for laborers in the 'Big 3' > is $1350; for Toyota, that figure is right at $100. *PER VEHICLE*. i don't think i buy those numbers. land, construction, utilities, materials, labor, etc., are all phenomenally expensive in japan. they have no natural resources and have to import everything. with our cheap abundant land, natural resources, and one would have thought, superior technology [we put a man on the moon remember] i simply cannot believe that it costs more to produce a vehicle here. unless there's something /seriously/ wrong with management and they can't control costs. blaming unions is just smoke designed to cover for total lack of balls in sorting problems out - if they exist. need more argument? look at europe. germany has unions /way/ more restrictive than us or even japan. labor over there is ridiculously expensive and they only have a 35 hour week!!! so how do they get anything done? automation!!! every time i see financial news footage on tv showing detroit auto workers assembling vehicles by hand, /i/ see stunted and stupid management that doesn't have the brains or the balls to sort out their production technology. bleating about costs? i don't buy it. > The American manufacturers can't get to Toyota's level under the > strictures they operate within, but things could improve. Meanwhile, > think about the process and engineering improvements that could be made > with, say half of that $1250 per vehicle available. how many man-hours per vehicle? > Yes, they made their own bed; there was a time when they could have made > smarter decisions and avoided this hole. But at that time, most people > in the decision making process believed that the status quo would > prevail forever. so fix it now!!! bleating about pensions liability relief and tax concessions don't fix the problem - lack of addressing their fundamental management paralysis is the problem. > They aren't in a position to make better engineering decisions now. They > are hoisted on their own petard. they could fix it today. make the decision and execute. voluntary redundancy. hiring freeze. overtime freeze. small salary increase for the remainder. then AUTOMATE. the financial markets will underwrite /substantial/ one-time charges if it means these morons get their act back together. and getting back to costs, the german unions were faced with the reality of suicide or cooperation. they chose the latter. and now management and unions work closely so remaining workers are highly paid but also highly productive. there has to be a way, but i don't see detroit even trying. > > On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > paid but also highly productive. there has to be a way, but i don't see > detroit even trying. everything you are suggesting has been looked at and failed. The unions block attempts at automation, the unions block hiring freezes and overtime freezes, the government typically steps in and caves to labor in the disputes. An example of the insanity of us unions was the dockworkers strike a few years back, they were striking due to BAR CODES!! because they thought it would make some jobs redundent. As another, trains to this day have a conductor, the conductor was the guy in the caboose who operated the brake. when is the last time you saw a caboose? however, when the automated brakes came into play, the union threw a hissy and made them keep the conductor. the unions in europe are nothing next to our own. >>> On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: >>>>>>>> f.ck safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > everything you are suggesting has been looked at and failed. when? how hard did they try? and what choice do the unions have if the auto manufacturers collapse? > The unions block attempts at automation, the unions block hiring > freezes and overtime freezes, so what choice do they have if the industry collapses? 'cos their precious jobs are sure gonna disappear quick if there's no industry left to work in. > the government typically steps in and > caves to labor in the disputes. great, prop up the insanity. sort the problem, don't band-aid it. > An example of the insanity of us unions was the dockworkers > strike a few years back, they were striking due to BAR CODES!! > because they thought it would make some jobs redundent. wow, where do you get your information? i live by one of the affected ports. the unions didn't strike, they were locked out. and it wasn't bar codes, it was hiring of non-union labor to do inventory management rather than train existing labor. > As another, trains to this day have a conductor, the conductor > was the guy in the caboose who operated the brake. when is the last > time you saw a caboose? however, when the automated brakes came into > play, the union threw a hissy and made them keep the conductor. > the unions in europe are nothing next to our own. you've never been there evidently. i have, and i have family there. unions there are /way/ more entrenched and expensive. yet they make more for less. it ain't a union problem bud. > > everything you are suggesting has been looked at and failed. > when? how hard did they try? and what choice do the unions have if the > auto manufacturers collapse? Every time there's a new automation technology out, and right up to the strike line. Do you seriously think they are having cars hand assembled because they like it? don't think much of the plant engineers do you? > > The unions block attempts at automation, the unions block hiring > > freezes and overtime freezes, > so what choice do they have if the industry collapses? 'cos their > precious jobs are sure gonna disappear quick if there's no industry left > to work in. they don't believe it'll happen. > > the government typically steps in and > > caves to labor in the disputes. > great, prop up the insanity. sort the problem, d |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message