On Mon, 25 May 2015 08:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 5/25/2015 8:26 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 18:18:34 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:08:19 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

My sports car supposedly will do 175 mph, but I've never had it above
110. Route 4 has County Mounties and Staties *everywhere*

===

Want to try again with another imaginary possession?

The Maryland DMV has no record of you or your wife owning any such
vehicle.

Bull. It's the prime mover of the boat. You should see the combination whipping
through Calvert County at 110 mph!


What will we ever do for entertainment when Krause kicks the bucket?

===

If the history of Usenet is any guide, some other nut job will jump up
to take his place. There seems to be an endless supply.

On Mon, 25 May 2015 08:28:58 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 5/25/15 8:26 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 18:18:34 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:08:19 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

My sports car supposedly will do 175 mph, but I've never had it above
110. Route 4 has County Mounties and Staties *everywhere*

===

Want to try again with another imaginary possession?

The Maryland DMV has no record of you or your wife owning any such
vehicle.

Bull. It's the prime mover of the boat. You should see the combination whipping
through Calvert County at 110 mph!



Would that be you towing your tinny motel room down Route 4 towards the
Navy Rec Center? Do the rest of the campers there, some of whom are not
white, know you are a racist?

It's not a great idea to drive at excessive speeds through the county,
but, hey, you're an exceptional guy, so...go for it.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On Mon, 25 May 2015 08:28:58 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 5/25/15 8:26 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 18:18:34 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:08:19 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

My sports car supposedly will do 175 mph, but I've never had it above
110. Route 4 has County Mounties and Staties *everywhere*

===

Want to try again with another imaginary possession?

The Maryland DMV has no record of you or your wife owning any such
vehicle.

Bull. It's the prime mover of the boat. You should see the combination whipping
through Calvert County at 110 mph!



Would that be you towing your tinny motel room down Route 4 towards the
Navy Rec Center? Do the rest of the campers there, some of whom are not
white, know you are a racist?

It's not a great idea to drive at excessive speeds through the county,
but, hey, you're an exceptional guy, so...go for it.

Harry, you're the one talking about doing 110 in your 'sports car'.

Whoops. Forgot to say 'thanks' for the compliment.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 23:15:08 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Username wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 19:24:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2015 18:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Whatever is being measured, it isn't likely that car is delivering 46
mph at 90 mph. Period.
===

Ignoring your drunken typo, let's do the math. If a car is getting
46 miles per gallon at 90 mph, that means it is burning 2 gallons per
hour. 2 gph with a gasoline engine implies about 20 horsepower (10 hp
for every 1 gph - good rule of thumb). It seems unlikely that even a
slinky car like a 'vette could do a sustained 90 mph with only 20
horsepower. More likely it was either a transient reading or some
sort of glitch in the instrumentation.

I had the instant MPG on my old LeBaron and it was fun to peg it at
99MPG ... coasting down the Sunshine Skyway bridge. It would be
interesting to see how long he could keep up that number at 90



99mpg is probably the highest it would read. Coasting would be much higher!

Highest it reads. But is infinite pretty much. Has a de fuel solenoid.
So coasting shuts off fuel to the engine on modern EFI.

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:54:54 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

Not likely since it was out of gear, hence "coasting". I am not even
sure the Chrysler has a rear pump in the transmission.
In 1986 I am not sure the EFI was all that smart anyway.

My cars coasting in neutral do not get 99 mpg these days.

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:32:30 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:54:54 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

Not likely since it was out of gear, hence "coasting". I am not even
sure the Chrysler has a rear pump in the transmission.
In 1986 I am not sure the EFI was all that smart anyway.

My cars coasting in neutral do not get 99 mpg these days.

How long did you coast?
This was off the Skyway bridge so I was able to maintain 70-75 for
well over a mile maybe close to 2.
As soon as you put it back in gear the mileage came down pretty fast.
It was still in the high 20s tho driving at that speed on the flat.
It was one of my favorite cars, as unlikely as that may seem.
.

My cars show 99 if coasting downhill or backing on on the highway. Put in
neutral and see 60-70 mpg. Hill is some of those things you saw in NZ.
Not in Florida. ;(

On 5/26/15 3:20 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:15:43 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:32:30 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:54:54 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

Not likely since it was out of gear, hence "coasting". I am not even
sure the Chrysler has a rear pump in the transmission.
In 1986 I am not sure the EFI was all that smart anyway.

My cars coasting in neutral do not get 99 mpg these days.

How long did you coast?
This was off the Skyway bridge so I was able to maintain 70-75 for
well over a mile maybe close to 2.
As soon as you put it back in gear the mileage came down pretty fast.
It was still in the high 20s tho driving at that speed on the flat.
It was one of my favorite cars, as unlikely as that may seem.
.

My cars show 99 if coasting downhill or backing on on the highway. Put in
neutral and see 60-70 mpg. Hill is some of those things you saw in NZ.
Not in Florida. ;(

That is why I needed the bridge. Maybe there is something that makes
your car use more gas. I only know what I saw and I did it many times.



Gee, I wonder how many MPGs my garden tractor would get coasting down
that bridge? I think it is an 18 hp twin cylinder engine.

On 5/26/15 7:00 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:28:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Gee, I wonder how many MPGs my garden tractor would get coasting down
that bridge? I think it is an 18 hp twin cylinder engine.

Does it have a flow meter, speedometer and a computer analyzing the
results?

I doubt it will return the MPG of my Honda when it is actually running
around the yard. My 18HP tractor uses more than a GPH and I doubt it
goes much more than 15 MPH with the deck off.

That is one of the EPA complaints about small engines on lawn
equipment. They are huge polluters and not very efficient, compared to
a modern car. The 2 strokes on weedeaters and chainsaws are even
worse.



I have the Kawasaki Dual Chamber Flux Capacitor Engine in my garden
tractor and have no need for those gauges...there's an *app* for that!

I recall reading in the manual that the tractor is geared for a maximum
speed of 7 mph, or something like that.

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 3:48:47 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/24/2015 11:23 PM, Username wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/23/2015 11:51 PM, Username wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/23/2015 6:44 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 5/23/15 1:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 5/23/15 11:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:45:49 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
Got talked into a test ride today in a 2015 Corvette
convertible (don't
ask) at a dealership while I was waiting for something else
and was
impressed and disappointed. I was impressed with the car's get
up and go
and its cornering abilities...very nice. I was disappointed
with the
seeming hugeness of the car from the exterior and the
relatively tiny
passenger space inside. I was disappointed with the garishness
of the
interior, and the fit and finish of some items. I didn't like
the seats
all that much, and I thought the car rode, well, hard.

The sticker price on the car was $80,000. Dunno what it might
sell for...

Be this has what to do with boating?

Hey it is an overpriced chunk of fiberglass, with an oversized
engine,
sold to people with an over riding desire to boost their self
esteem.
Sounds like a lot of "performance" boats they sell.

Lots of cars are overpriced. At least the Corvette is fun
to,drive. Have
a friend with a new vette. Says ease up to 90 mph and it goes in
to 4
cylinder mode and averages 46.5 mpg. Car ride hard? How many
soft riding
cars handle worth a crap.



I know you won't understand this, but there is a difference
between a
firm-riding car and a hard-riding car. Also, there are plenty of
cars
that are fun to drive. Oh, and your friend is bull****ting you
about
getting 46 mph at 90 mph while the car is running on four
cylinders and,
even funnier, you believe it.

Of course you know all. Very aerodynamic vehicle. Does not take a
lot of
power to maintain speed.


Oh, I wasn't disputing that half a Corvette engine could drive the
car to
90 mph. That's still more than 200 hp, right?

The bull**** is the miles per gallon claim. I suspect the car's
computer
is confused by the shutdown of four cylinders and is reporting three
times the MPG the drivetrain is actually producing.

I think it measures fuel flow, so hard to be confused.



I don't understand why anyone would be interested in 48 MPG running on
half the engine in a performance oriented car like a Corvette. Then
again, I wouldn't want a Corvette. I've driven three. The first (and
probably the best that I can remember) was an early 1950's model ..
can't remember if it was a '54 or '55, but I know it had a six
cylinder engine. I was only 16 years old and the owner of the garage
I worked at
in the summer had it in storage. He got it out one day and let me
take it for a spin.

The second was a mid 70's model. Horrible. Handled terribly, shook,
quaked and knocked the fillings out of your teeth.

The third was a new one that I test drove about 3 years ago when half
thinking of getting another toy. Much improved but still did nothing
for me.

By far the best performance orientated vehicle I've ever owned was a
2002 Porsche 911/996 twin turbo. 450 hp, six speed manual
transmission, all wheel drive and still got 18 mpg around town and
22-24 mpg on the highway. The ride was firm but not harsh
and it handled like it was on rails. Best engineered automobile I've
ever driven.

I had to get rid of it though. If I had kept it much longer I would no
longer have a driver's license.



Wasn't the M5 easier to run too fast?


Both the Porsche and the M5 were too tempting to run too fast. That's
why I wouldn't have a license today if I still had either of them.

The M5 was fast (500 hp) but lacked the "feel" of the Porsche and was
far too complicated and computer dependent for it's own (and the
owner's) good.

For sports/performance cars of this type I am not a big fan of
automatic, sequential transmissions. The M5 would shift automatically
or you could control shifting manually using the stick or the paddles.
Still wasn't the same as the Porsche with a conventional 6 speed and
clutch. As far as pure acceleration the Porsche was faster.

The biggest difference was in normal, around town driving. The M5 felt
like a stiffly sprung BMW 535 but at 30-40 mph the Porsche still felt
like a sports car.




My current tow vehicle is an ML550. The X5 50i I replaced was like your
Porsche and the new car like the M5 - a very different "feel". It's the
only thing I don't like about it but there is a significant difference.
I notice it immediately if I hit an off ramp just a little faster than
I'm used to.

As far as speed, I'm lucky to be in an area where 80 is the norm so as
long as I'm not the fastest on the road, I'm fine. The police here seem
to really like to target the new-generation pony cars anyway.


Speaking of pony cars ... I had a new (in 2008) Mustang "Bullitt" for a
while. Long story as to how I happened to acquire that one. It was
a surprisingly fast and good handling car. Not in the same league of
the BMW M5 or the Porsche but at about 1/4th the price not bad at all.

I was satisfied with my two Lincoln Mk. VII LSC's one was an 89 and the last was a 92. Way cool for what they were.

On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:28:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 5/26/15 3:20 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:15:43 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:32:30 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:54:54 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

Not likely since it was out of gear, hence "coasting". I am not even
sure the Chrysler has a rear pump in the transmission.
In 1986 I am not sure the EFI was all that smart anyway.

My cars coasting in neutral do not get 99 mpg these days.

How long did you coast?
This was off the Skyway bridge so I was able to maintain 70-75 for
well over a mile maybe close to 2.
As soon as you put it back in gear the mileage came down pretty fast.
It was still in the high 20s tho driving at that speed on the flat.
It was one of my favorite cars, as unlikely as that may seem.
.

My cars show 99 if coasting downhill or backing on on the highway. Put in
neutral and see 60-70 mpg. Hill is some of those things you saw in NZ.
Not in Florida. ;(

That is why I needed the bridge. Maybe there is something that makes
your car use more gas. I only know what I saw and I did it many times.



Gee, I wonder how many MPGs my garden tractor would get coasting down
that bridge? I think it is an 18 hp twin cylinder engine.

Will it out run your 'sports car'? That's the question.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.