Cars... Let's see who drives what

What is sitting in your driveway?

  • Volkswagen, Audi, or Porsche (all the same fam)

  • Ford Mustang, Escort or Van... (Yeah, one of those party vans)

  • Chevy Camaros, or Cavaliers

  • Volvo box (They are all the same until recently)

  • Honda Civic or an Acura

  • Mazda's of all types

  • Toyota (There is a Supra nut on the board somewhere)

  • Jeep Wrangler (or Cherokee, we won't get too picky)

  • Pickup truck (Big or small?)

  • A cardboard box with stroller wheels. (See also soapbox racer)

  • I don't have a car

Results are only viewable after voting.
so how much would this thread change if we talked about all the cars we owned? i want to drive racerx's porches!!:D

I have driven nearly every car i have owned to it's demise so my list is pretty short.
1966 Chevy Impala - 4 dr
1970 Ford Pinto
1975 Dodge Van - now that was the PARTY VAN!!! bed in the back....
19?? VW Beatle (2) - i loved those cars
197? Cadillac - something about big back seats that is nice
and the current astro mentioned earlier

but if i had my choice today - i would drive a toyota or mitsubishi (already get to drive the subaru);)
 
Ok Ed, again, all good points. Lets agree to disagree on our economics vs. slavery issue, we really can't change each other's opinion on that.

I do appreciate what you've said about the lasting effects of the civil war, I never really thougt of the flag as anything else other than a declaration of war upon the United States. Though I still don't like having one region having a flag, when there is no "southwest" or "Midwest" flag.

So where does Ohio come into this? In my school, they particularly went out of there way to almost villainize lincoln to make sure that we knew, he wasn't freeing slaves for his morals. It wasn't even part of his platform.

Off to scholl for me!:D
 
RacerX - I agree with a lot of what you are saying - and I am from the UK. I have spent quite a lot of time in the US over the last few years.

Firstly - emissions: A car cannot be sold in the US unless it passes the emissions tests. However it does not necessarily follow that because a car failed the tests it is worse for the environment. For example, a small car with a small engine can fail the tests because its % emissions were too high. It still pumps less noxious gases than a large V8 RV that passes the % test. Large cars are popular in the US, and because they burn more fuel then they are pumping more Nitrogen/Carbon based oxides into the atmosphere, as well as other goodies. The fact of the matter is that the US produces the most carbon dioxide compared to any country, no matter how you look at it, and Bush vetoed any international agreement to reduce the levels for economic reasons. I am not saying that other Governments are doing any better, it is just that Bush didn't handle the international press so well.

Leaded Fuel note - unleaded fueld is actually less efficient because leaded fuel comes with a great lubricant (the lead). We (our Governments) have decided that the risk of lead poisoning is less than the increased oxides that the cars are pumping out. A good choice I am sure, but I am just indicating that things are not quite a clear cut as you may think.

Education - I came through the state system in the UK and went to a top University afterwards. I would not like to do that now. In both countries there are good and bad schools. RacerX is correct in looking at empirical evidence: The top universities (to use UK terminology) in the US are much better funded for research purposes and so produce more prize winners. The UK system is not more advanced.

Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone - American kids didn't know what a Philosopher is, so they renamed it
Harry Potter and the Scorcerer's Stone.

Things like that piss off non-Americans the most. A philosophers and a scorcerer are completely different things. Stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Who cares? I don't care. What annoys me about the US Government (not the people) is that it totes its armies around the world in the name of freedom when it is quite clearly in the US's own interests for power. I would not expect them to do anything else however - of course the US Government should look after its own citizens. I suppose that I am more frustrated that my own government seems to care more for immigrants and people in other countries than its own.

I have a lot of US friends. They are intelligent world-wise people. We all know what a US Stereotype is, but we all know what a British one is as well. That does not mean that we should paint everyone with the same brush based upon their countries. I think that people forget that they are two different countries, with different customs, etc. Yes, the language is similar, but they are still different countries.

End of rant.

Roger.
 
Originally posted by testuser
You probably also think the British had saved the day in World War II (let me give you a clue: it started with the D-day invasion).

At least you and I agree about Bush. [/B]
Click to expand...

OK fair enough about the cars. But the way the US is depicted in European media is that it's amongst the worst in the world for emissions. Except for counties like China or Iraq, where they don't care.

As for news paper date and number?... Good grief. I'm not that sad. About 16 months ago?...

Oh and don't get me started on WWII. Hmmm, famously late for every war? How long did you wait until you joined us??? Two years of a five year war? Hmmm. And you only joined after Japan attacked. How long would it have been if they didn't attack.

And no, we certainly didn't do too well in WWII. Especially after we won and then hd to feed Germany as well as ourselves in the middle of a global recession. If it wasn't for Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavia and the other countries that made up the 14 for the Allies. Then we would've been destroyed. Thank God you came in when you did. But it would have been nicer if you came in earlier.
 
phil - sounds like you had a pretty good history teacher. let me clarrify what i mean by economics. the taxation was being set up at the time in such a way that it penalized slave owners in the south because of the vast numbers of slaves that it took to run a profitable plantation. This was the major reason for succession. the confederacy was originally bankrolled by those rich plantation owners who did not want to give up their wealth to other states. In the beginning it was not an issue of slavery, but rather how economic sanctions effected the ablility of slavers to profit. and those sanctions were not intended to put an end to slavery, but rather to raise more money for the federal govt. and the growth of the country. since the south was already losing economic ground to the industrial north, they weren't ready to be the ones to lose their wealth so others could have more. like you, i am not trying to argue the rights or wrongs of the issue, but the perceptions of right and wrong by the people of the time was critical to the issue. so in a sense you are right when you say that slavery was an issue, but it was an economic issue, not a moral issue. in that sense, we are both right.

the civil war was really based upon the same economic principles as the american revolution. a bunch of wealthy men decided they were tired of supporting someone else. nothing much more glorious about it than that. and unfortunately most wars are fought over little more than that with a lot of propaganda to enlist soldiers to the "cause". even bin laden is just another rich guy taking advantage of a situation. i truly believe he thought he would get the support of most of the mideast. but being rich does not mean being smart and he will suffer the fate of the confederacy i am sure. i still feel deep sympathy for so many who got caught up in his holy bull shit. but not for those who think that killing in the name of God is somehow right.
 
And Roger, air pollution is air pollution, whether it is CO2 or lead. They both harm the environment. CO2 leads to global warming, and lead becomes an air pollutant harmful to animals. Lead also precludes the use of a catalytic converter, leading to higher levels of hydrocarbon, oxides, etc.. There are other ways to get the same amount of efficiency (reformulating the gasoline with other lubricants) that does not require lead. It has been done in this country
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree - One type of air pollution is not the same as another. Lead is a lot worse in the short term but will eventually pass through the ecosystem. Yes, CO2 is one of the factors involved in global warming, but remember - we don't even know what global warming is a real effect yet. There have been papers saying that it is real, and papers saying that the extra CO2 will be taken up by plant life in the world. The media have just jumped on one side of the story. I am saying that both these are bad, which we agree on. I am saying that removing lead from petrol was a case of give and take. Yes, other petrol suppliments can get around the need for lead and improve the efficiency of the petrol, but these could in a great deal of cases be used in tandem with lead. There is no getting around the issue that cars pollute heavily, no matter what size of car or what petrol you are using. Yeah, some fuels are better than others, but the effect is marginal compared to the overall pollution.

I am not trying to say that we should have leaded fuels - on the contrary. However I would not believe that everything is as black and white as the media would have us believe. The sad fact that the people who make the decisions in this world (the politicians) and the people who influence them (the media) are not experts.

R.
 
Cool Ed. Cool.:cool:

I do like me history teacher very much. She won the awward for teacher of the year from my district last year. Pretty funny lady. We'll just have to see how I do on the AP though...
 
Originally posted by testuser
I need to have an emissions inspection on my car every 2 years. The US also has slower speed limits which improve fuel efficiency (maximum mpg for highway driving is ~50 mph). Unfortunately, SUVs are not subject to the same stringent regulations
Click to expand...

Have to say I really do admire the fact that your speedlimit is 50/55 as that IS a cars most economical speed.

2 questions:

1. What's an SUV?

2. How can a majority voted candidate not win presidency?

Is it down to the states' majority rather than people votes?

And we have to have our cars checked every year for emissions. Except if the car is less than 3 years old. It's part of an MOT (Motoring ???? ?????) thingamy. Not cheap either. Anyway. Enough bitching.

Hows the weather. What place is the City of Angels?
 
Originally posted by testuser
It's representative; each state sends a number of electorates (the actual number determined by the population of the state) to the electoral college.
Click to expand...

I always thought that the number for each state was equal the total number of Senators and Representatives allocated to that state (so that small states that would only have 1 vote based on the number of Representatives gets 3 votes because every state has 2 Senators).
 
The Mini is coming to Canada!
Click to expand...

I saw a silver one the other day in NJ (nice.) I went and got information on them. very reasonable for a BMW. $16,850 in the U.S., and 26/43 city/highway miles per gallon (don't know what that is in Kilometers. Sorry.) I want one desperately.
 
I drive a five year old BMW 328 compact (I'd prefer the standard version but my hockey bag doesn't fit into it)
 
26mi == 42km
43mi == 69km

42/69 kilometers to the US gallon city/highway respectively.

1 US gallon == 3.8 liters

42km / 3.8 == 11 km
69km / 3.8 == 18 km

11/18 kilometers to the liter city/highway respectively.
 
Little correction: a modified Z3 front axis and the BMW 3series back axis and transitions...

the new mini definitely is a BMW.

 
Has anyone seen that new VW/Porsche SUV? I do not know what to think about it... porsche design... but kinda ugly.
 
Family:

You can trace the history of all three back to each other in many areas. Lets look at Porsche VW connection. Dr. Porsche sold his design for the Beetle (both body and engine) to VW to get enough money to get members of his family out of a French prison (they were there for war crimes... making cars for Germany in WW II was a crime it seems). They started their own company using parts from VW for the engines and the bodies built by Karmann Coach Werks which VW was also using to make some of their cars (VW would later buy Karmann in the late 60's and that would lead to the deal that made the 914-6 a VW-Porsche rather than a Porsche in Europe, but the 356s, also made at the Karmann factory but before VW owned it are a "true" Porsche). The 914 series was sold as a Porsche (both the 914-6 and the 914-4 with the VW 411 engine) here due to the fact that Audi and Porsche worked out of the same dealerships in North America, and Porsche North America thought that they would sell better as Porsche rather than as VW-Porsche.

The Porsche Audi connection can be seen in the fact that starting in the 60's most of the dealerships in North America that sold one type also sold the other. In the mid 70's Porsche started to play around with the idea of a water cooled engine for one of their cars, this would lead at first to the 924 which use both Audi engines and breaks, but would give way to both the 944 and 928 series which used Porsche designed systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top