crazy280

you say tomayto, I say tomahto

Hey, easy there big fellow, I wasn't trying to insult you I have no preference for either setup, and I totally understand what you mean about cruising at high rpm, etc, but I still think laziness is responsible for not wanting to drop a gear every now and then. If you don't like shifting, maybe you should get an automatic? Nothing wrong with that, many people do it. My point is that while I do enjoy the instant response of say, a chevy 350, I wouldn't knock a turbo car just because it needs to be shifted more, becuase that doesn't bother me. (then again I'm still a "youngen" lol ) Like I said, it comes down to personal preference.

I agree with Sparky, the JDM Silvia s15 is the closest decendant to our s30 Z: its a relatively light, high powered, affordable sports car. Heck, it even looks more like a Z than the 350z does. But that doesn't mean I dislike the 350z.

It sounds like those who hate turbo'd cars are the same people who hate high revving cars, for the same reasons. And it occurs to me that its because they are lazy drivers: driving turbos/high revvers quickly requires a little extra effort to keep the engine in its powerband that some people would rather not deal with. Obviously both types (big n/a and small turbo) are competitive in racing, so this discussion is more about personal driving preference. I have driven a number of large displacement n/a v8s, as well as smaller displacement turbos, and I like them BOTH for different reasons. The large displacement N/A makes it easy to drive fast, b/c you don't have to worry about rpms/gears as much and you always have instant torque, while the turbo is more docile at low rpm and better on gas at low rpm, with the bonus of "up the boost- up the power". BTW, the fastest car (stock) I've ever had the honor of driving was a newer 911 turbo. The car was awesome: there was no lag, no problem hooking, and it had instant power whenever I wanted it. That was with the 3.6L twin turbo F6 making around 420 hp DIN. ps: Phantom, 1968 was pretty much around the peak of the muscle car era, sounds like you are confusing it with the mid-70's.

I think 240jz has the right idea with the "Riemann Sum". We should use that technique to estimate the horsepower in an engines useable powerband, which is usually the area between peak torque and peak horsepower, but in real life it's actually determined by what rpm your transmission drops you into when you shift into each gear. So we need to know the gear ratios of the tranny attached to the engine to figure the powerband of each gear, then use the Riemann Sum to get the area of the horsepower for that powerband, then multiply that number by the gear ratio, seperately for each gear. You'd end up with a sort of mathematic "map" of that engine's total real-world power. You would list the power as "total horsepower x rpm for each gear". This method takes into account not only "mechanical advantage of gearing" for high revving engines, but also "horsepower under the curve" for beefier engines. It would look something like this: 1st gear: 10,000 2nd gear: 7,000 etc. I would love to calculate an example for this but my brain is tired now ........... Anyone?

Horsepower is what is truly important for performance, but big trucks with diesels aren't designed for performance, only hauling capability, so the designers focus more on torque. Again, there is an excellent tech article at http://www.v8914.com

In that "perfect world" example, the car which peaks at 6500 rpm would be equal to the car which peaks at 5000 rpm, since your "rules" state that they would be kept at peak rpm at all times. This means that the 6500 rpm car would be geared 1.3 times higher (numerically) than the 5000 rpm car at all times to compensate for the rpm differences ( 6500 / 5000 = 1.3 ), which means torque at the wheels remains the same for both cars at all times: 300 HP / 5000 RPM * 5252 = 315.12 LB/FT with 1:1 gearing = 315.12 300 HP / 6500 RPM * 5252 = 242.4 LB/FT with 1.3:1 gearing = 315.12 Of course, like you said, its only hypothetical and the real world is more complex. Another great example of this, as well as an excellent explanation of hp/torque is given on this site: http://www.v8914.com You have to read ALL the way through the page to get the answer.

Some newer cars come with computerized yaw control, for example the non-american-market Mitsubishi Evolutions. It works by controlling the power to each of the four wheels, individually, during cornering. Pretty amazing stuff!

Thats a good idea, but you can't really claim the mpg of just the engine, it depends on what car you put it in.

My friends and I have sort of an inside joke about Best Buy employees after an experience we had there, heres what happened: We went to apply for a job there once, and were told to take a "phone interview" which was an automated questionaire that determines if you are worthy of being hired there. Basically, they asked if you EVER did ANYTHING wrong, like steal a grape from the grocery store, and if you told the truth and said yes, you wouldn't get the job (who are they kidding, EVERYONE has done something like that in their life). So basically, we figured they don't want HONEST people to work there, only those who are willing to lie in the phone interview....maybe they give you a raise if you lie and cheat more.... and having innocent customers arrested, boy that must mean a promotion is in order!

PUKE!! oh, excuse me... WTF is that thing? The worst part is that the owner probably thinks its the tightest car ever...

Sounds like fun hunting in Wisconsin! But what if you have a nasty neighbor who doesn't like you, or doesn't like your cat, he could just shoot your cat and remove its collar, post-mortem, and claim it wasn't wearing a collar, and get away with it scot-free!

I'd say go for it. My buddy has a 1970 914, black, with a 2.0 and dual webbers. That thing is a lot of fun, handles like a gokart. They are very light (2080 lbs) and mid-engined. With the v8 you'd be a rocket ship! BTW the radiator goes in front when the conversion is done

Bastaad, don't feel too bad. If you killed an Evo, that's better than killing a '99 Cobra, cause they're faster than the '99 stang, even though they are less powerful. They run low to mid 13's at around 100mph, because of the all-wheel drive they get the most killer launch possible, which gives them the good e.t. but they don't have the power for a better trap speed. So if you beat one, consider yourself proud!

Sooo true! Add to that list: 5 newbie posts asking how much it costs to do a lightbulb swap

FWIW, I'd be all ears if you gave me some of that inside info. I think you're right, we should just agree to disagree. As for calling GWB a bastard- that was meant to be funny, not serious

Okay, I'm back. Mikelly, I don't mean this as an insult in any way, but you have been so sensitive in the past, I don't think I could say anything without you taking it personally and exploding at me (no offense meant bro, but you jumped to conclusions WAY too soon last time we debated). I'd rather not get banned from this site. If you tell me its okay and you won't go postal, then I will gladly respond to you in a civilized way, deal? Otherwise, please don't mention me in your posts, as I haven't been mentioning you in mine. Moving on, this is a general response here, its the dillema with evidence: I've noticed a certain pattern emerge in the thought process of those who agree with the war. If evidence comes out against the war, then the source must have a liberal agenda, damn those cowardly, peace-nick, socialist bastards! If evidence comes out in favor of the war, well then by golly it must be God's word! LOL All theatrics aside, I'm not saying that I'm innocent of these types of thoughts, its human nature. Even though I'm fairly liberal, I try to stay independant thinking (case in point: I blame both political parties, for this war, not just GWB). Anyhow, the point is, I'll take the head weapons inspector's word over some unnamed "insiders" that you guys apparently must know. When all's said and done, there were no weapons. There's even a US government WMD report out that confirms this (they will "continue the search" but officially do not believe there are any to find). So obviously old Hans was a credible source. Pparaska, We may disagree, but at least I'm saving you from the boredom of taxes, right? Okay, after some of your posts calling the UN "blind pacifists" and calling those who oppose the war "hand wringer", I got the impression that you have a grudge with these people. Sorry if I pegged you wrong, but it sure sounded that way. I also said I was passionate about politics and religion, but obviously so are you. This is where you say "but I don't let it cloud my logic", right? My problem is not my logic, its my "use of lanuage" if you know what I mean. I said "lost my temper" referring to my response to JMortensen's post earlier, sorry if that wasn't clear. Now, I want to get to the core of this debate, because we're all just running in circles here, my self included. You mentioned "dual-use" weapons/infrastructure. This is the stuff American contractors sold Saddam in the '80s to take on the Iranians. We didn't need weapons inspectors to tell us he had it. And we know today that the inspectors were right, no WMD's. So you see, Saddam lacked the capability to do any more damage than any other "evil regime". Less than many, actually. And meanwhile Al Quaida was tearing it up worldwide. So my point is, if Saddam was a horrible threat, then Iran was worse, etc, and why did we go to war with Iraq? Ok, we've established it wasn't to get the WMD's. So, lets say we did it to free the Iraqis. This is a noble cause, after all. So should we have invaded the country to save them? IMO, no. There were other ways. We've all read a Tom Clancy novel or two (its just a joke, don't start ) But seriously we should have done covert ops. We could have accomplished the same task without as much slaughter; there wouldn't be such a terrorist insurgency in Iraq, responsible for the current bloodshed. Ok, since we didn't need to resort to war to free the people, now you might say the war was part of GW's "master plan" of sending a message to other nations and "spreading democracy" in the middle-east. But I say we could have sent the same message without invading Iraq. Taking down the Taliban was an excellent opening to our "message", and we should have followed up with a swift boot to Al Quaida (don't put words in my mouth- this is not for "retaliation" any more than attacking Iraq was "retaliation" for Bush's daddy), follow this by a careful bullet in Saddam's forehead (j/k, this is not nessecarily how we'd get him LOL ), and top it all off by telling Isreal to straighten up and fly right (you'd like that anyhow). That would have been a great message. And you could even throw in threatening to cut off the UN funding if they don't grow some balls (I agree that they haven't been doing enough). What makes you think sending 150,000 troops after Bin Laden would have been a waste? How many did it take to find Saddam? About the 400 billion - if it would be a waste on Al Quaida then its a waste on Iraq. We should have kept the money and sent in the assassins. GW's so busy filling his contributors' pockets with tax breaks that we're making record deficits, lacking healthcare and losing dollar value worldwide. We could use that money right now. But no, instead, Bush's "attack terrorism on all fronts" has become "bring a bunch of terrorists to Iraq and then create a bunch more terrorists". Great plan... See, there's no way this war was our only option, which brings it all back to my original idea that my values, the values I learned from Jesus Christ, are to preserve human life. I can't find any way around it. If you disagree with my religious views, that's fine- this is a free country. But from reading your posts I doubt you disagree with saving lives. (you mentioned "caffeteria christian", which is funny becuase I call GWB an "amway christian" LOL for example, how can he be "pro-life" but hold the record for most death penalties? not to mention how he takes from the poor and gives to the rich. that fake BASTARD! but I digress ...). Like I said it all comes down to the fact that you thought the war was unavoidable, and I didn't. I'm glad to know you believe in diplomacy, honestly. But I don't get what made Iraq any more of a war cause (in your eyes) than North Korea, Iran, Syria or China. We have put in just as much time/effort in exhausting diplomacy with them as in Iraq. But we aren't at war with them, and we shouldn't have declared war on Iraq. Oh well, I'm getting tired of saying it, but now that we're in this mess we have to clean it up. BTW, I never said for sure that you were a Republican. What I was trying to say is I wouldn't be surprised if you were, since all I hear you complaining about is the far-left. But if you're a moderate that's great. Lets hear some outrage over the looney-right once in a while too, man

Man.... Pete, Mike, John, you're gonna have to slow down a minute. It took me 20 minutes just to read the newest posts, where do you find the time for all this? I don't know about you guys, but I have a life outside of hybridz LOL. I WILL get back to you though, have patience

amen, brother

Adam Carola ("the man show") also has a replica BRE 510. I saw it on tv.

Sounds like you guys have a personal vendetta with the "anti-war" movement, but you have GOT to stop confusing me with an anti-war activist or a pacifist. I'm not afraid to whoop some @ss- IF necessary. Sorry if I lost my temper earlier. Politics and religion (inextricably linked forever) are subjects I am very passionate about (probably the same for everyone reading this), and it can be hard to accept others' views. JMortensen, Its okay, I'm over it; we all got worked up about it. I know what you mean (about your John Stewart reference), it also frustrates me that people would not want success in Iraq at this point. The whole deal with honoring the troops is that I'm not fundamentally against the idea of war as long as its a last resort, so I don't disagree with the need for soldiers, or those who choose to be one. If I found it necessary I would enlist myself (but never under the leadership of Bush, lol). Like I said, the only ones to blame are the leaders. Some people can't understand that perspective (like the soldier who wrote that piece of trash you quoted) and consequently they get pretty pissed. I would too if I thought someone was bad-mouthing me. Pparaska, I don't disagree with much of what you are trying to say. I think it all comes down to one difference though - I never saw any evidence proving that war was the only option left open for us to solve the situation in Iraq. Obviously you thought it was the only option, and I don't doubt it has to do with your party affiliation, and you taking the Administrations' word for it, just like Congress did. Fair enough. However, Hans Blix (sp?) gave an interview shortly after the war broke out, talking alot about how the inspectors were having a hard time in years past, but were beginning to make progress in the months/years before the war. He said if they were given just a few more months they could have gathered the evidence they needed to show that there were no weapons/weapons programs (which we eventually found out the hard way anyhow). This Administration did exactly what every other Administration would have done: make excuses until the evidence is too great against them, then change their mind, justifying the war as freeing the Iraqis. Great, they needed to be freed anyhow. But like you said so yourself, we could have used covert action to drop Saddam's regime and avoid most of this mess. If you justify going to war in this case, and you blame anyone who would have been "inactive", then you cannot justify NOT going to war with every other country/situation similar to Iraq in the world at this very moment. You would be contradicting yourself. For example, Iran actually DOES have WMD's, and a weapons program, DOES sponsor terror openly (including AL QUAIDA), and IS a perpetrator of human rights violations. So shouldn't you gear-up and go fight Iran? What about North Korea? What about the slaughter in Sudan? What about Fidel Castro? What about the AIDS epidemic? What about Gaza Strip? etc, etc, etc..... In my oppinion, we should have stuck to the original plan and focused on BIN LADEN, who murdered 3000 of our people, not to mention the countless other acts of terror his group is responsible for. I don't buy for one second that we are as devoted to finding him as we could be when 400 billion dollars and *how many* troops are going to Iraq becuase of the insurgency we excited. I think Al Quaida was/is slightly more of a priority than Iraq, since they actually attacked us. I am in no way invalidating the lives we saved in Iraq by removing Saddam, the Iraqi people are just as important as anyone else. You keep acting as though I don't care about the murders Saddam's regime committed (even though I keep mentioning them). These were horrible attrocities, and needed to be stopped. However, Saddam's threat to the world was not as great as Al Quaida (remember: no weapons). We could have made Bin Laden an example of how we deal with terrorists, and then moved on to Saddam. To this day Al Quaida has still been active, and that outrages me just as much as when Saddam was in power. But I don't hear any Republicans speaking out about it. The thing is, I understand that this is a complex world, and that sacrifices must be made, just as Christ gave his life for our sins. Even though its hard to accept, I also know that in some cases, war is the only thing that can save lives in the long run. But I also know that some people in this world are very gung-ho and make brash decisions to go to war, leading to inevitable loss of life, such as this current war started by our government. Notice I said "government". I'm not just blaming GWB (even though I can't stand him), I'm blaming all the leaders who voted for the war, Republican and Democrat alike. Now that we're there, all I can hope is that the new Iraqi government will keep getting stronger, and we can slowly withdraw our troops in place of their own, so they are standing on their own two feet, allowing us to go find Al Quaida with full force. I'm praying for success in Iraq, but I still despise the leadership in Washington.

1) No way around it, this was a WAR. Unless you call a janitor "custodial engineer". 2) If, as you said, nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved more lives than it took, that would mean it was the less bloody route (which you said isn't always right?), but that's a whole 'nother debate. Saddam had no weapons, and no weapons programs in action. At the most all he had were plans to start programs in the future. The weapons inspections were going fine. Search the non-tech board for threads started by JohnC (he always gets these debates goin' good) or "Iraq War". Theres plenty, and I don't know how to link anyhow. 3) I never got an explanation for your mention of other random deaths. Our gov. didn't cause them, what relevance is that to my argument? I don't hear you complaining about the millions of people in Africa dying of the AIDS epidemic right now, so are you responsible for those millions of deaths, via "inaction"?

Mod Edit: some stuff deleted. How you can respect the troops while opposing the war: I was against going to war with Iraq. Not because I am anti-war. Not because I am a coward. But because I believe if you can avoid war, you should. If you can't avoid it, you can't avoid it, but if you can, you should. If this makes me a coward, I suppose Jesus Christ was also a coward? In the case of the Iraq war, it was avoidable, so I was against it. I was FOR the cause (at the time it was disarming Saddam and finding WMDs, then later it became freeing the people, both good causes), but I was against going to war to do so (we should have done it diplomatically, this has been said repeatedly already). But I can't stop the government and they went to war. When your country is at war, you would have to be an IDIOT to not want success in the mission, or your country would suffer the consequences. Again, it was a good cause, I just didn't want war, well now we were in war, nothing I could do about it, so of course I want success since it will bring a good cause about (if we didn't succeed it would be all for nothing, and there would be huge retaliation, who knows what?). So we need good people to fight for us, and it takes a brave man to go to war. I respect that, and I respect someone willing to die for their country, or someone else's freedom. That analogy of firefighters and cops, etc, does not apply. In our case, the analogy would be more like this: if the fire is the war, and the firefighters are the soldiers, then there has to be someone who started the fire (whoever started the war). So I guess in the case of Iraq that would be our government. I opposed starting the fire, but since it is now blazing, I support the firefighters who put it out. When the war began, the soldiers followed orders and went to Iraq. Okay, they could have just disobeyed orders and not gone over there to begin fighting. But we had already declared war on Iraq, so if they did not go, we would have been attacked on our soil for declaring war. So either way, there would have been war, and they chose to do the honorable thing and go fight it. I can't say whether any particular soldier wanted to start the war or not, but I would disagree with them if they did, however it does not detract from their purpose in all of this. In the end we must blame our leaders.

Mod Edit: deleted

Exactly why I said "arguable". We also supplied his army with the weapons they needed in the '80s. Personally, I can't say we were responsible for his actions though.