I think we've migrated from the DCC North Pole thru the Straits of Diesel to the tip of Cape Vehicle and left the OP somewhere back in the Yukon. Perhaps we talked this one through and then some, fellas?
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I guess that this thread effectively ended on page 3.
Or, did it end, for all practical purposes, with OldEngineMan's post on page 1?
Alton Junction
Well, given that the Honda and many of the new "minivands" are as big or bigger than the good old full-size vans of the 70's...
Bigger, bigger bigger - everyone wants bigger. I really don't get it. Compensating for something? One of my ex's coworkers was maybe 5' tall if she streteched a bit - she drove an Expedition. Almost needed a ladder to climb up into it. Silly. She had no kids, and it was just her and her husband.
I've even had someone say, and truly believe, that anythign smaller than say an H2 wouldn;t fit child seats. When my oldest was a baby, I drove a 2 door Z-24. And had no problem putting him in or getting him out of his seat in the back. It was actually harder to get him in and out of my ex's car, a Tempo (which has to be the worst car I was ever directly involved with - hard to service, carb stacked over the exhause manifold so it had a tendency to vapor lock on hot days, an ignition module mounted such that any water getting under the hood would run down into the high tension side, frying the module, etc.) with 4 doors.
I can't win though, GF complains my car is too low, and has trouble climbing int he truck, which is just a stock Toyota Truck, 1993 version. 4WD, but no lift or anything. The seats on that definitely are not on the floor - if new ones are like that, it must be something they introduced specifically for the US market models when they gave them names like Tacoma and Tundra.
I am somewhat disappointed in this one though - never was much impressed by Toyotas, to be honest, when shopping for a small car, I tried a Corolla, about 2000. The doors felt so light and tinny, I ended up with a Civic, it was a much more solidly buiult car. But my truck - the motor and drivetrain are bulletproof, should be good for another 10-15 years easy. Unfortunately the frame is badly rusting out, and I'll be lucky to get mor than another year or 2 out of it. Cheap garbage steel. Dunno what I will repalce it with, I don;t need a truck often but when I do, I need it, so I don;t want to buy anything new or fairly new and spend a bunch of money.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
York1 ATLANTIC CENTRAL My big gripe with most cars is I dislike sitting on a boat cushion on the floor, and my wife's health requires upright seating. I know just what you mean. I know it sounds crazy, because it is, but we bought our Ford Expedition for that reason. When we were looking at cars, my wife sat in the passenger seat of the Expedition and said that was the one she wanted. (I fainted when I saw the price, but it was her money.) She has had knee surgeries and other issues, and she wanted to sit up like in a chair. She also liked the Expedition because it had full motorized controls for the passenger seat -- up, down, back, forth, tilt forward, tilt backward, etc. In most of the other cars we looked at, the passenger seat just slid forward or backward. Of course, we are lucky to get 16 mpg on the highway, but I will gladly pay the mileage since it keeps her happy.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL My big gripe with most cars is I dislike sitting on a boat cushion on the floor, and my wife's health requires upright seating.
I know just what you mean.
I know it sounds crazy, because it is, but we bought our Ford Expedition for that reason. When we were looking at cars, my wife sat in the passenger seat of the Expedition and said that was the one she wanted. (I fainted when I saw the price, but it was her money.)
She has had knee surgeries and other issues, and she wanted to sit up like in a chair. She also liked the Expedition because it had full motorized controls for the passenger seat -- up, down, back, forth, tilt forward, tilt backward, etc. In most of the other cars we looked at, the passenger seat just slid forward or backward.
Of course, we are lucky to get 16 mpg on the highway, but I will gladly pay the mileage since it keeps her happy.
My wife too, both knees replaced, shoulder surgery, so she can't pull herself up out of some "sports sedan", rheumatoid arthritis that now resists most of the medicine.
It makes this car perfect:
It is the second one we have owned - she totaled the first one, and it saved her and the grandchildren.
Here is the first one, I liked the red better:
The FLEX is so practical, it reminds me of when I owned a few of these:
Even the 1963 Nova had a better seating position than most "cars" today. And it had no problem beating those Mustangs and Camaros with their low to the floor seats...........
Sheldon
York1I know it sounds crazy, because it is, but we bought our Ford Expedition for that reason. When we were looking at cars, my wife sat in the passenger seat of the Expedition and said that was the one she wanted. (I fainted when I saw the price, but it was her money.)
Not crazy. It's why a lot of older people buy minivans or things like the toyota Venza, Honda CRV, even the1500 silverados, somewhat, too). Seats are at regular butt-height.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
ATLANTIC CENTRALMy big gripe with most cars is I dislike sitting on a boat cushion on the floor, and my wife's health requires upright seating.
York1 John
zugmannI wouldn't say a BRZ falls under performance. They're nicely balanced, and I hear a blast to drive - but not really fast.
She drives like me, safe and slow. It could have a two cylinder Onan Performer under the hood and she would be fine with it.
She does love that car. I think it is ugly and noisy.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190One of my daughters is that person. She hates people driving unneeded trucks, but she has a Subaru BRZ and her husband has a Camaro SS. They would never dream of owning an economical vanilla sedan because they "need" performance.
I wouldn't say a BRZ falls under performance. They're nicely balanced, and I hear a blast to drive - but not really fast.
SS Camaros are beasts, though. Esp. the new ones. I was never a Camaro/Corvette guy, but these latest ones.... man... Chevy designers are doing something right.
rrinker For the times I need to carry something, like wood for my layout - I have a truck. Not a huge one, bit big enough to carry plywood.
There is a U-Haul place less than five miles from my house.
My wife has their "Truck Share" App on her phone. When I need to haul something big or heavy (12 foot drywall, tile, appliances, etc) we just go scan a 14 foot box truck and drive off for about $50.00 for the day.
With that kind of convenience, and the fact I do not need a truck for work anymore, the Colorado will not be replaced with another truck.
Maybe a Camaro is in my future.
ATLANTIC CENTRALSince FORD is not making any more FLEX'S, I fear the next car will move us back to a mid size SUV.
That is sad. Ford never marketed the Flex like they should have. I always hated them until I rented one. One drive and it became one of my ten favorite cars.
The new Explorers are incredible. Great cars. I average in the high 20s MPG with them on the highway.
zugmannI always laugh when people criticize others for wanting a truck they "don't need". Many of these people have cars that are more performance-orientated.
One of my daughters is that person. She hates people driving unneeded trucks, but she has a Subaru BRZ and her husband has a Camaro SS. They would never dream of owning an economical vanilla sedan because they "need" performance.
My oldest daughter's husband does the same thing Sheldon does now. His Ford truck cost more than my house cost me. It is some giant fully loaded diesel 4 wheel drive four door monster with a leather interior. He calls is a "work truck".
Randy, trick question, what weighs less and gets better mileage, a Honda Odyssey "mini" van or the FORD EXPLORER SUV?
The bias against SUV'S is not based on facts. Most of today's SUV'S are midsize and smaller, they are just tall station wagons.
Well Randy, as I just said above, I would rather have my "station wagon" than an SUV, but SUV'S are the result of government rules decades ago that made it hard for the car companies to continue making useful station wagons .......
My big gripe with most cars is I dislike sitting on a boat cushion on the floor, and my wife's health requires upright seating. I hate cars you fall down into.......big or small.
I've used gensets in the past. The problem was they were just complete junk. If you could get them to work 2 days in a row, it was a miracle. Plus I never liked the dealy in firing up the engines for when you had to yank a heavy track. When doing that, I need the slack stretched out, then I need the engines to go balls-to-the-wall to get it moving. Not taking time to fire up its individual engines - because by that time something else in the consist is going to slip, drop its load, and you ain't moving anything on that attempt. But mostly - it was the quality of the Gensets. Maybe other roads got them fgured out, but ours were ...ugh...
And I have had trucks and an SUV (body on frame) for most of my life. I like trucks. I always laugh when people criticize others for wanting a truck they "don't need". Many of these people have cars that are more performance-orientated. You really don't need that performance, either, but you wanted it. Same here. I like my trucks, my ground clearance, my room... to each their own. Very few automobiles I don't like, really, even if theya re ones I really wouldn't want.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL But, I for one have no use for small cars. We are gravitating towards the desire for smaller cars. I loved my Colorado when I bought it to replace my F-150. I did not think I would, but after 12 years with it, I have liked it just fine. When we replace the Impala, I think a much smaller car will be in order. My only concern is Hurricane Evacutaion. The Impala has a huge amount of room when the rear seat backs are dropped and all the irreplaceable/uninsurable treasures fit inside just fine. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But, I for one have no use for small cars.
We are gravitating towards the desire for smaller cars. I loved my Colorado when I bought it to replace my F-150. I did not think I would, but after 12 years with it, I have liked it just fine.
When we replace the Impala, I think a much smaller car will be in order.
My only concern is Hurricane Evacutaion. The Impala has a huge amount of room when the rear seat backs are dropped and all the irreplaceable/uninsurable treasures fit inside just fine.
I don't know much about the Colorado, we don't see many of them around here.
For me a pickup must have an 8' bed, 4WD, and upright seating. The Toyota trucks I have been in have the seat very lower the floor, don't like that.
I put 240,000 miles on a 2000 F150 before buying the 2015 F250. The F250 already has 120,000 miles.
Since FORD is not making any more FLEX'S, I fear the next car will move us back to a mid size SUV.
95% of the time it's just me in my car. 4% of the remaining, it's me and one other person. I hate giant, heavy cars with a passion. SUVs most of all - 99% of SUV owners have no need for such a big vehicle other than to make some sort of statement. For the 1% that actually do need the room - fine. The SUV crazy is artificial, generated by (once again) people making rules with no concern for consequences. For the times I need to carry something, like wood for my layout - I have a truck. Not a huge one, bit big enough to carry plywood. It's a 5 speed manual, too.
So my main vehicle, while it has a rear seat, you MIGHT put small kids back there. A couple of years ago, I did have my adult children in there - we were all going to eat and instead of taking two cars, they decided to come with us. My oldest is about my size, the younger one is actually an inch or two taller, but skinny. I don't think they will repeat the experience. But sitting in front - plenty of room, nice comfy seats, and it's a blast to drive. A 2012 model, so the giant infotainment screen was optional - glad I do not have it. The original owner optioned in all the performance and handling options but none of the "only for looks" things.
The thing with locomotives, to get back on topic, is that since the market isn;t huge, there's not a lot of demand for innovation. And it's already many times more efficient than highway truck transport. Surely by now, someone has thought of taking the concept of the Genset locos and using two gensets and a modern set of batteries, instead of stacks of lead acid batteries, in place of the third genset. Short term boost for getting a heavy train moving, then the combined power of the two gensets to keep it going. Possibly pure battery power for short engine moves. The thing is, would it actually buy enough fuel savings to offset the cost? It seems that the current answer is no. There's more money to be had, as well as a greater improvement in energy use and environmental impact, by applying this to something far more common, like passenger cars and trucks.
Diesel-hydraulic was not a complete failure in the US. RDCs for one, have fairly standard heavy vehicle torque converter transmissions. They've gone above and beyond, pulling trailer cars in regular service, which Budd never recommended. The road units tested, maybe not so much. US railroads run long, slow, heavy trains, rather than run more trins that are lighter and faster, so the losses in the hydraulic drive, manifested as heat, were too much for reliable operation. Lots of heavy earthmoving equipment is hydraulic drive - it works fine there. Railroad loads are just too great.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut, I for one have no use for small cars.
Lastspikemike Swing axle jacking does not depend on any tire pressure issue. It's a geometry problem. Mercedes Benz partially solved the problem with the 190/300 series in the 50's by introducing a sprung low pivot single side swing axle. If you experience swing axle jacking in a car with perfectly ok tire pressures, as I have, I assure you it is highly entertaining. The early Porsche 911 and the 356 were both highly prone to rear axle jacking. The Corvair, unsurprisingly given the engineering expertise of GM at the time, was perfectly safe in the hands of a reasonably capable driver. On the other hand the 911 could easily kill an expert driver. Nader was completely wrong. In fact, he exemplifies the lawyer incapable of understanding simple engineering but thoroughly understanding the marketing aspect of politics. I, on the other hand...
Swing axle jacking does not depend on any tire pressure issue. It's a geometry problem. Mercedes Benz partially solved the problem with the 190/300 series in the 50's by introducing a sprung low pivot single side swing axle. If you experience swing axle jacking in a car with perfectly ok tire pressures, as I have, I assure you it is highly entertaining. The early Porsche 911 and the 356 were both highly prone to rear axle jacking. The Corvair, unsurprisingly given the engineering expertise of GM at the time, was perfectly safe in the hands of a reasonably capable driver. On the other hand the 911 could easily kill an expert driver. Nader was completely wrong. In fact, he exemplifies the lawyer incapable of understanding simple engineering but thoroughly understanding the marketing aspect of politics. I, on the other hand...
The government report on the Corvair, quietly released a few years later, concluded that after the recall mods, and the redesign, the Corvair was "as safe or safer" than any car in America.......
And we wonder why Detroit was slow to imbrace smaller more fuel efficient cars with inovative designs.......
But, I for one have no use for small cars. I own cars to carry stuff, and people, not just one or two people, and not just one days groceries. I have spent most of my life living in rural areas. Trucks, full sized cars, and station wagons are the order of the day.
My daily driver weighs 8,000 lbs.
From time to time it has to pull the trailer that carries the 1,200 lb GRAVELY tractor.
doctorwayneMy '66 Corvair (before the Chevelle) was more fun to drive than the Chevelle, and a lot faster, too, altough certainly no dragster. It was a much better-handling car, too, which is why I like the curvy roads, I think. Ralph Nader must've had his head up his butt, as that car could take any curve just like a marble down a drain pipe.
From '66 to '68 were the magic years... but by then the hatchet job was doing its work, and like the Edsel no one in the aftermarket or the 'pre-owned motor vehicle' market wanted to touch it.
My only experience with a GM car with big-block and 4:55 was when I visited my godfather in Philadelphia, who had been the Episcopal bishop of all things. He had a pagoda Mercedes, a 230 if I remember, that was always in the shop, so he picked me up at 30th St. in a borrowed yellow Pontiac convertible with the 413 tripower, 4-speed and 4:55. From 0 to 10 that thing was the fastest I'd ever gone; I actually looked back for my stomach which had been left about 10' back there.
The only other car I've ever driven that would do that was the E38 BMW 12, in "sport" mode, where it would only average about 15.7mpg but mamma mia would it go from a standing start up to a gear change! (Of course when in 'regular' it went like a normal car but would get over 28mpg indicated at 82mph on cruise... I think something like $12,000 of the list cost of the car was said to be in various fancy electronic and mechanical things to make it run efficiently at speed). I suspect there are plenty of cars from the '60s that did it too, but I missed them all -- sometimes not by much: I can still close my eyes and remember the guy in the White Castle parking lot who was going to sell me his '71 Hemi Cuda convertible for $1500...
OvermodAlthough there is something to be said for the enjoyment of very fast driving without having to heel-and-toe and double-clutch and keep speeds in gears in your awareness while picking lines and watching the road. And even a good manual transmission can become wearing if you drive in stop-and-go traffic that requires more than one upshift to close gaps...
I'm not bothered by stop and go, although I don't see too much of it around here. I don't mind driving fast, either, but in this day and age, there are few places around here where you can do it for sustained distances.My pleasure is on twisty roads, usually at speeds higher than the limit, but nothing dangerous.
I've owned only two vehicles with automatics (both vans, and both bought used), and both re-sold after less than two months of ownership. They were okay, but I no longer had need of them.I had my share of muscle cars, too, but the novelty wore off pretty quickly when I began to get police escorts on my drive to work. The funny thing was that I only ever bothered once to drag race, beating some guy in a Super Bee. Mine was a '69 Chevelle SS, 396, 375 HP, and 4.55 rear end, the only vehicle I've ever owned that I would consider "quick", and I seldom used it as such. Top speed was a shade over 90mph, and gas milelage on Sunoco's best varied between 4 and 10mpg.
My '71 Datsun 1200 was not quick, but it was faster than the Chevelle, and got 41 mpg on regular. Fast for that car was 93mph and the 93mph was verified by the cop who followed me for almost 15 miles before he pulled me over, but after a fairly long chat about the merits of the car - he was thinking of buying one - he let me off with a $20.00 fine and no demerit points. Nicest cop I've ever met. I kept that Datsun for 17 years, putting well over 300,000 miles on it, and I'd race just about anybody at a stoplight - didn't beat many, but always had a blast.
My '66 Corvair (before the Chevelle) was more fun to drive than the Chevelle, and a lot faster, too, altough certainly no dragster. It was a much better-handling car, too, which is why I like the curvy roads, I think. Ralph Nader must've had his head up his butt, as that car could take any curve just like a marble down a drain pipe. I learned that it was fast when I somehow managed to get onto a highway which was due to open the next day, I think. I don't recall how I got on (or off) without anyone stopping me, but the lady in the seat beside me was a bit skittish when I went into a fairly tight curve at just over a hundred, and pretty-much freaking-out as we exited it at just over 140 (with another 1000rpm before redline).
My current ride, a 16 year-old Mazda 3 isn't especially quick, but it's at least as fast as the Corvair (as witnessed on the speedometer, and likely faster, as it won't automatically cut-out when it exceeds the redline limit). It gets between 30-35mpg, handles even better than the Corvair, and is just a joy to drive, whether on twisty backroads or long and otherwise tedious highway journeys.
The drive-by-wire for cars with standard transmissions has pretty-well sucked the joy out of driving the current cars with standard transmissions, which is a good reason for me to take care of the car I have.
I do like it when these threads keep shifting gears, though, and as one topic fades, another develops...just like having a gab-fest with friends, where the topic ranges all over the place.
Wayne
Randy.
FR70-14 is a steel belted radial tire, from before metric tire sizes.......
Not sure I'df even want to try going that fast on bias ply tires.
Except for 2 instnaces, I've always had a manual car. My first car was an autoamtic, and when my kids were small, we had the requisite minivan, and the second generation ones didn't come with the turbo manual (plus the ex was absolutely hopeless at driving manual). Didn't stay a 1 car family long, I found a second gen RX-7 manual. Got a huge dicount because of "electrical problems" - the wiring harness connector to the warnign light/clock module needed the solder joints reflowed. Took me 5 minutes to fix. Even if the module was friend, a new one and I would have still been ahead on the deal.
And in southeastern PA, home of stop and go traffic - doesn't bother me. Other than the occasional moron. I learned from my truck driver neighbor. You shouldn't have to shift in long lines. Especially since I can hit nearly 60 in my current car in first before hitting the rev limiter. But the main thing is, let the gap get big enough, then cruise just off idle in first, if you do it right, you'll catch up to the alst car ahead of yuou just as the line moves again, opening the gap back up. So stop and go traffic doesn't really bother me.
Overmod ATLANTIC CENTRAL I drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one: Every time you show me that car in that picture I have to stop a moment. Did you say you started with the 327/350hp in that car? Perfect rims and Moons, too...
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one:
Every time you show me that car in that picture I have to stop a moment. Did you say you started with the 327/350hp in that car? Perfect rims and Moons, too...
And the moons were genuine Chevy with the Bow Tie.
The engine was a 283, but it had 327/350 heads and cam which gave it 9.5:1 compression, Edelbrock aluminum intake, Holley 600 cfm with vacuum secondaries, modified ignition curve, breakerless ignition, Hooker headers.
It prefered SUNOCO Premium......
The transmission was a Muncie M20 with the low 1st gear, the rear was 3.08:1
The clutch was the standard Corvette bent finger design supplied with most 327 Vettes.
An unusual setup but it worked well in that light car.
0-60 mph - under 5 seconds
standing 1/4 mile - 14.4 seconds
observed top end on the installed 160 mph Corvette speedometer - 135 mph
All in street trim on FR70-14 tires, thru dual exhausts to the rear corners, Corvair turbo mufflers. Aftermarket anti-sway bars front and rear.
"normal" driving fuel economy - 20 mpg combined/24 mpg highway
Were there faster cars on the street? Sure. Were there faster cars that were also civilized daily drivers like this was? Not many.
The blonde in the front seat is the first wife, and she was already the wife.....
ATLANTIC CENTRALI drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one:
Overmod doctorwayne I'm with you 110% on that one, Randy! Although there is something to be said for the enjoyment of very fast driving without having to heel-and-toe and double-clutch and keep speeds in gears in your awareness while picking lines and watching the road. And even a good manual transmission can become wearing if you drive in stop-and-go traffic that requires more than one upshift to close gaps... There are still plenty of times I enjoy a good manual transmission! (And in trucks, too). But for really quick driving, of the sort where torque-vectoring becomes important, similar optimization of transmission operation is (at least to me) valuable without destroying the joy of fast driving with best controlled acceleration
doctorwayne I'm with you 110% on that one, Randy!
Although there is something to be said for the enjoyment of very fast driving without having to heel-and-toe and double-clutch and keep speeds in gears in your awareness while picking lines and watching the road. And even a good manual transmission can become wearing if you drive in stop-and-go traffic that requires more than one upshift to close gaps...
There are still plenty of times I enjoy a good manual transmission! (And in trucks, too). But for really quick driving, of the sort where torque-vectoring becomes important, similar optimization of transmission operation is (at least to me) valuable without destroying the joy of fast driving with best controlled acceleration
I drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one:
But I do enjoy my FORD FLEX LIMITED with all wheel drive, 6 speed auto w/paddle shfters, and twin turbo Eccoboost.
It is lots of fun driving a station wagon that goes 0-60 in 5 seconds and does 15 second 1/4 mile.
The Nova was only a little faster.......I restored and hot rodded the Nova from the ground up myself at age 20, then drove it for eight years.
doctorwayneI'm with you 110% on that one, Randy!
rrinker ...As for the fast an efficient new automatic transmissions - you'll have my manual when my right arm or left leg falls off! They may shift faster and be more efficient but they aren't FUN. You can have your future sterile people movers and self-driving living rooms....
I'm with you 110% on that one, Randy!
gregc richhotrain I had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere. we figured out how to do remote ops using a Wifi throttle and jmri, remote displatcher display program and a zoom call. just running trains from one staging area to another.
richhotrain I had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere.
we figured out how to do remote ops using a Wifi throttle and jmri, remote displatcher display program and a zoom call. just running trains from one staging area to another.
Rich
richhotrainI had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere.
we figured out how to do remote ops using a Wifi throttle and jmri, remote displatcher display program and a zoom call. just running trains from one staging area to another. also doing remote dispatching using VNC
now that NJ is allowing groups of 10+ to meet in person (with masks), in person op sessions are continueing. but the remote op capability is also being used (hybrid ops) by some operators who don't want to be in person or just save driving.
uninitialized screen that would show occupied blocks in red and clear signal routes in green
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
rrinker Happened on some scanned Gravely brochures - cigar lighters! Those sure were different times. Some of those new all electric (battery) riders have a USB port for charging your phone - what are you doing using your phone while operating power equipment? Running the trains down in the basement? --
Happened on some scanned Gravely brochures - cigar lighters! Those sure were different times. Some of those new all electric (battery) riders have a USB port for charging your phone - what are you doing using your phone while operating power equipment? Running the trains down in the basement? --
I had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere.
Now that would be too cool.
Well, so much for this thread. After that last post, this is going to get shut down.As for the fast an efficient new automatic transmissions - you'll have my manual when my right arm or left leg falls off! They may shift faster and be more efficient but they aren't FUN. You can have your future sterile people movers and self-driving living rooms.
Happened on some scanned Gravely brochures - cigar lighters! Those sure were different times. Some of those new all electric (battery) riders have a USB port for charging your phone - what are you doing using your phone while operating power equipment? Running the trains down in the basement?