Detroit Rescue Plans Revealed

Darn, Steve - I hate to disagree with you because you just totally
vindicated me in your previous post (regarding some cars being worse
than others in this regard), but from my polishing of my Concorde
headlights over the years, I have to say it is 98+% a surface phenomenon.

First it starts with the UV coating (a clear coat of some type - not
sure how much alike or different it is from normal auto paint clear
coat. Then - yes - as you say - you will polish (or sand as the case
may be) thru the UV coating (it is a few thousandths thick, and I will
concede that you may need to polish thru its entire thickness
initially). However, once that thin layer is gone, my experience says
that the surface is exposed to the air and/or sunlight is whats going to
oxidize. Polish thru that microscopically thin surface, and you're back
to almost the factory water-clear appearance.

 

The problem is that you put enough drops into the bucket - or in this
case, take enough drops out, and pretty soon the bucket is empty. I
also heard it described as having a bathtub half full of water and you
fill a bucket from one end of the tub and pour it into the other end of
the tub.

As the late Senator Everett Dirksen used to say: "A billion here, a
billion, there; pretty soon you're talking real money".

I like it!

 

And don't forget they paid Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition's ransom
money too. What was it - something like $700 milion?

 

Maybe, but I think the public hates the auto executives AND the
unions.

Partly because people figure that if the banks they've put their money
in fail, they lose too.

 

You don't get it do you? It isn't about the number of speeds. It's about
the torque curve and the gear ratio. You can have 100 speeds and not
achieve any better mileage. In fact - those 6 speeds do not achieve better
mileage than a comparable GM car with a 3 speed with OD. Nor are they
quieter while they are reving at 10,000 rpm's.

The problem with your statement is that there is no "all things being
equal" when you are talking about engines that make torque and those that
do not.

It isn't a matter of cheapening out. Certain engines will require more
gears in order to keep them reving in their torque range. Others have a
wide enough torque range that they don't require this band-aid.

Bull. I've owned far too many GM's over far too many years for someone who
does not know what he's talking about to get away with that crap. Since my
92 Park Ave Ultra with a super charged 3.8l, I have never achieved less
than 30+ on the highway out of a GM six cylinder. That Park Ave was pure
luxury, had more power throughout the entire driving range than any
Japanese car, and it got 32 on the highway, 24 around town.

Please learn something more than what you read on the internet if you're
going to debate reality in a group where people actually have first hand
experience and know what they are talking about.

You make yourself look so foolish by assuming things. I have no use for
Chrysler products at all. I hate them. That said - those interiors are no
different than what is typically found in Japanese cars. That was the only
point I made in response to your baseless claim.

I'll give you this one on a technicality. I was referencing torque-ier
American engines in general, and your preceeding comment did specifically
reference Chrysler.

 

This. I can tool around all day in my '55 Stude and only use second and
fourth. If you've got bags of torque all the way from off idle to 5K,
you don't need gears.

What *will* get you better mileage is gear *spread* - I'd probably get
better mileage on the highway if I swapped the 4-speed for a 3/OD, the
three speeds would nicely take the place of the four that I have, and
the OD would drop my revs at cruise. If a 5-speed and a 6-speed have
the same gear spread, and the engine is flexible and torquey, the
6-speed just adds weight and complexity for no real benefit.

nate

 

A 6-speed will let you have an extra overdrive gear with higher
gearing, so better fuel economy.

I assure you, they do. Read some road tests.

Now you're being ignorant.

Are you claiming the 3.3 L V6 has more torque than the 3.8 L? The 2.7
L V6 has more than the 3.5 L?

So? I'm talking about tests with the same cars, drivers, and
conditions. You're giving me anecdotes.
 

Please learn what actual tests are, what "same conditions" means.

Then you've either never set in both, or you're blind.

 

Good Lord - you really do not get it. Please go study up and then come
back and post. You're making a complete fool of yourself by trying to talk
about things you don't understand at all.

Please do. You will be surprised at what you find is really being reported
- as opposed to what you wish were being reported.

No - unlike you, I have actually driven cars like the ones being discussed.

Where in the hell does that come from? Please take additional courses in
reading comprehension while you are studying up as previously recommended.

No - I give you real world experiences that are quoted every day by people
who actually drive cars and don't just read magazines. So - you tell me,
how many Toyotas and Hondas get the same or better mileage than those GM
vehicles with documented evidence of mileage, with those same standards of
luxury, comfort, power, etc.

Please show those tests, those same conditions, etc. Please demonstrate
the various GM models that were tested against the various other
manufacturers. You can't and you're proving yourself to be nothing more
than a mouthpiece for your favorite magazine.

Au contraire on both points. You just want too much to believe that the
Japanese cars are somehow, so much nicer. Fine - believe what you wish,
but dont' expect a rebuttal when you say stupid things here.

 

To certain people, the facts don't matter - what's important is that the
narrative has to be right (think "Duke rape case"). The facts could
agree with the conclusion or could contradict the conclusion - doesn't
matter. What's important is the narrative that leads to the desired
conclusion.

 

It's lloyd. You expect him to understand that the number of speeds is
irrelevant to the ratios?

 

Do you understand why you add gears to a transmission?

I have. So it's your turn, put up or shut up. Cite some road tests
which show a 3-speed/OD GM car getting better mileage than a
comparable model with a 6-speed.

If you think any passenger car revs to 10,000, you not only have not
driven any cars, you haven't not even imagined driving any cars.

You claimed only engines with lower torque require a 6-speed.
Chrysler puts the 6-sp with the 3.8 V6 in minivans, but a 4-sp with
the 3.3 L. By your own "logic", that means the 3.3 L must have more
torque. Same for the 3.5 vs 2.7 L. Do you stand by your original
claim?

And I give you experiences by professionals who compare cars under the
same conditions, who are objective. Again, you give me anecdotes.

Most. Does your library carry Car & Driver? Consumer Reports?

Don't expect to be taken seriously when you give me anecdotes and I
provide objective data from professionals.

 

So Brent, guess you still think the 2-speed Powerglide is great, huh?

 

So Lloyd, guess you still think a rusted chevy vega is great, huh?*
*an illustration of Lloyd's typical dishonest debate tactics, there is
no basis if fact regarding the loaded question, just like I've never
offered an opinion on 2-speed powerglide transmissions.

Anyway Parker, there's no reason that a 2 speed transmission couldn't
have the same net gearing to the drive wheels in '2' that a 6 speed has
in '6'. It would not probably be an ideal car to drive, but the gearing
with regards to 'overdrive' need not be any different because it has
fewer speeds. You don't need to have 'X' speeds to have overdrive. The
two are not related.

The reason to have more gears is to keep an engine in a specific rpm
band. This is done for performance of the 0-60 kind, not the mpg kind in
most cases. Additional gears come at weight/complexity penalty. It's not
a matter of engineers in the past being unable to design one. As
materials improve that penalty is lessened.

The idea of overdrive for fuel economy is about highway study-state type
driving. One could get around town on 3 speeds just fine, but out on the
highway have the same OD gear for fourth as a six speed.

Here are some ford transmission gear ratios:
http://www.hardcore50.com/technical_articles/GearRatios.htm

Notice how there is no relationship between the ratio of the last gear
and the number of gears in a transmission.

Take particular note of the two 6 speed manuals. One is set up for first
gear acceleration the other is set up for low rpm highway crusing.

Throw on top of this that the final drive, the ratio of the diff plays a
significant role in what the effective gear ratio is.

 

If Car & Driver and Consumer Reports are your source for "objective data
from professionals", then you are fucked.

 

Yes, you could have 100 speeds and not improve the economy, but the
transmission ratios are vitally important in the way a car performs and
in the economy.

You need to stay within the most economical band of RPM for the
engine, and a properly designed transmission helps you do this.
It helps you optimize the mileage you can get from a particular engine/
tranny setup IF done properly.

Traditional 3 or 4 speed trannies (manual) were still 1:1 in high gear.

It isnt that way any more. You can have one or more overdrive gears.

A shitteaux 3 speed automatic can give you good mileage or TERRIBLE
mileage if not matched to the characteristics of the engine.

Lloyd is not wrong, IMO. But we are dealing with some mighty broad
assumptions

 

I do lloyd, and that is what makes your comments so ludicrous. You clearly
do not. The number of gears is totally irrelevant.

Take it another step lloyd. Take your basic GM 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder
car. Take a current Malibu or Impala. Compare the real world mileage of
these cars to your car of choice. Take a 10 year old Malibu or LeSabre.
Compare those to your dream car of today.

lloyd - this is not my first encounter with you in a usenet newsgroup. I
could not care one bit less whether you take me seriously or not. The word
objective is not something you should ever use in a sentence that
associates it with you.

 

Not really. The assumptions were (as stated by lloyd...) that the 3sp/OD
was inferior and did not provide the economy of a 6 speed. While what you
state above is true, it's somewhat irrelevant since the GM trannies do a
very good job of keep the car within its power band. I agree that one
could potentially argue that they could re-gear first for more off the line
power in some models (4 cyls), but even at that, it's not horrible, it's
just not snappy.

The whole point of this discussion was not about sitteaux 3 speed
automatics - it was about GM's tranny.

 

The only way more gears can give better mpg is in conditions where speed
varies constantly up and down such as city driving.

The new CVT transmissions such as found on the Caliber do not get better
mpg. The CVT effectively is infinite gears yet the Calibers mpg is
subpar compared with other vehicles with traditional transmissions in
its class. My guess is that the power loss through the CVT is more than
any gains from the ideal ratio being achieved.

 

The new CVT transmissions such as found on the Caliber do not get better

I have a Caliber with the 2.0/CVT and get 27-30 around town, and 33-34
on the highway, much better than our two PT Cruisers got!
--

 

The only way more gears can give better mpg is in conditions where speed
varies constantly up and down such as city driving.

The new CVT transmissions such as found on the Caliber do not get better
mpg. The CVT effectively is infinite gears yet the Calibers mpg is
subpar compared with other vehicles with traditional transmissions in
its class. My guess is that the power loss through the CVT is more than
any gains from the ideal ratio being achieved.[/QUOTE]

They say about a 5% advantage for the CVT in urban driving. Little
difference on the highway. The only comparison I can find is to a
stick shift, a comparison to a regular auto is needed.
According to the EPA figures the Nissan CVT setup is significantly more
efficient than Chryslers; looking at the 2.4 L Caliper vs the Rogue.