Author Topic: Gas $$ Questions (Read 4325 times)

aztec · « **Reply #195 on:** September 06, 2005, 09:05:57 AM »

See Rule #4

lazs2 · « **Reply #196 on:** September 06, 2005, 09:10:11 AM »

beet... the low sulpur you are talking about is about 50ppm or so for eu... Ours will be like 7 ppm BIG difference...

And... Much as we all love to hear about your stay in America in the 70's... I think that I have told you more than once on here that the mid to late 70's... even early 80's were absolutely the bery worst years ever for American cars. It was the smog years..

Nanny forced emmission standards on the industry that were impossible to meet at the time with carburators and mechanicaly controlled distributors... they cut the HP in half and the cars ran so badly that any emission reductions were lost by the mere fact that they burned twice as much fuel and were in a perpetual state of out of tune. Only small 4 cyl cars (which we didn't make) were capable of meeting the new laws.

as for the 67 buick... A skylark is still a big car compared to anything you guys make except a gas guzzling RR or Bentley.. depends on the motor. For instance... you as usual, base things on one thing you have seen... In 67 Buick made a 225 V6 (160 hp) and a 300 V8 (210 hp) and a 340 hp V8 (260 hp) and a 400 V8 (340 hp) and 430 V8 (360 hp) Since you don't know what your buddy had or what shape it was in.....

the sixties were some good cars.. My 67 camaro had 300 hp and got aboutr 23 mpg on a trip.. a 77 camaro would have about 140 hp and get about 14 mpg on a trip.

computers and fuel injection have made it possible to make big motors get good emissions and fuel milage along with good HP.

Anyone who judges U.S. automobiles based on living here and driving the mid 70's vehicles is judging them based on our darkest hours.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #197 on:** September 06, 2005, 09:12:12 AM »

See Rule #5

BigGun · « **Reply #198 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:01:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Now I remember... Volvo bought White in 1981

And I think Ford owns Volvo, or at least controlling interest.

BigGun · « **Reply #199 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:02:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
My dad has a British car, and I would not mind an Aston Martin

I think Aston Martin also owned by Ford.

beet1e · « **Reply #200 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:12:37 AM »

See Rule #5

Ripsnort · « **Reply #201 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:24:05 AM »

I'm doing my part as an American Citizen to cut down on the amount of gas I buy. (Pic editted to make it "Skuzzy-Friendly"

)

Jackal1 · « **Reply #202 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:34:00 AM »

See Rule #5

beet1e · « **Reply #203 on:** September 06, 2005, 11:07:25 AM »

See Rule #4

lazs2 · « **Reply #204 on:** September 06, 2005, 11:09:20 AM »

I guess my point is that you base your whole thought process on American cars on one era that you happened to have some experiance in (the absolute worst in American car history) on one American car that you have heresay evidence on from one person who woned one of indeteminate model with an indeterminate 1 of 5 engine in an indeterminate state of tune..

Basicaly... worthless info. I had a friend that had a 60's jag sedan that when it ran... which was extremely seldom.... it burned a quart of oil every 100 miles. I don't know how you guys afford to put oil in your cars.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #205 on:** September 06, 2005, 11:38:12 AM »

See Rule #5

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #206 on:** September 06, 2005, 11:52:32 AM »

According to the EPA, 13 of 15 of the worst fuel economy 2005 model year cars available in the USA are of European manufacture. 3 are UK brands. The other 2 are USA pickups.

just my 2 cents..

beet1e · « **Reply #207 on:** September 06, 2005, 12:26:41 PM »

See Rule #5

Yeager · « **Reply #208 on:** September 06, 2005, 01:37:13 PM »

you are in violation of BSB protocol.

See rule # 387.1 section Ac143B, paragraph 2a,(b) sentance 73, word 24, letter 3.