|
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in
news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > 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? -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in
news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > 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? -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > > > >>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. > > 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 |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > > > >>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. > > 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 |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>jim beam wrote: > >>> > >>>>need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover > >>>>fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. > >>> > >>>I thought it was Ford's idea to run the tyres with an absurdly low presure? How > >>>can Firestone be liable for a design defect by the car maker ? > >> > >>It was and it just made the problem worse by hastening the failure of > >>tires while not fixing the real culprit, vehicle design. > >> > >>Better ideas from Ford??? Not likely... > > > > > > I think the next model Explorer had a wider track which is what the design > engineers > said it needed all along but the bean counters wouldn't have it. Shadows > of Pinto > style thinking again. > > > Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop > cars.. I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here is virtually unheard of. Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>jim beam wrote: > >>> > >>>>need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover > >>>>fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. > >>> > >>>I thought it was Ford's idea to run the tyres with an absurdly low presure? How > >>>can Firestone be liable for a design defect by the car maker ? > >> > >>It was and it just made the problem worse by hastening the failure of > >>tires while not fixing the real culprit, vehicle design. > >> > >>Better ideas from Ford??? Not likely... > > > > > > I think the next model Explorer had a wider track which is what the design > engineers > said it needed all along but the bean counters wouldn't have it. Shadows > of Pinto > style thinking again. > > > Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop > cars.. I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here is virtually unheard of. Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46539EBC.98F2A30@hotmail.com... > > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > > > > > >>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. > > > > 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. > Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush zone". Saludos, Earle |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46539EBC.98F2A30@hotmail.com... > > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > > > > > >>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. > > > > 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. > Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush zone". Saludos, Earle |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-8BFE4F.16161421052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com... > In article <1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>, > bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > 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. > > 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. > |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
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. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-8BFE4F.16161421052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com... > In article <1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>, > bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > 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. > > 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. > |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46539F26.C3CCCA14@hotmail.com... > > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > >> >> >> Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop >> cars.. > > I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here > is virtually > unheard of. > > Graham > > I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria that is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with the fuel tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of the car being hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming gasoline - reminiscent of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago. http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an explanation. Mike |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46539F26.C3CCCA14@hotmail.com... > > > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > >> >> >> Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop >> cars.. > > I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here > is virtually > unheard of. > > Graham > > I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria that is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with the fuel tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of the car being hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming gasoline - reminiscent of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago. http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an explanation. Mike |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Jeremy" <nospam@please.com> wrote in
news:5gN4i.208091$6m4.62925@pd7urf1no: > 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 > 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. 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. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Jeremy" <nospam@please.com> wrote in
news:5gN4i.208091$6m4.62925@pd7urf1no: > 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 > 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. 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. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Jeremy wrote:
> 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> |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:32 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands