Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations

oldfarmer50 · August 2015

ab348 said:
Yes, the lack of color in interiors is a shame. Even where choices are offered, they usually involve just a splash of color on a black base. The Mustang is like this - color inserts in the seat facings and center of the door panel with the rest of the interior being all black. Many other cars are similar. Sad.

One thing about those '55/'56 Ford two-tones is that about 90% of them seem to involve a color over white. I have seen a black/yellow one locally along with a pink/black. I always thought the aqua they offered would look great with a black two-tone but I have never seen one of those.

There is a lovely yellow '57 Ford 2-door HT locally that was at the car show here last week that is still owned and driven by the original owner - 57 years along!

You asked: (I know somebody did a few days ago)

I understand that in the more upscale models they have inserts in the door panel that match the seats. Mustang also offers a cashmere interior for the rich roadrunner type buyer.

Not sure getting the ceramic was the wisest choice but i couldn't stand another all black interior

jpp75 · August 2015

laurasdada said:

I only have a rear fog on my XF. I thought that odd. Let there be light.

My S60 only has rear fogs as well, can't say I've missed the front ones, but I've never used the rear ones.

snakeweasel · August 2015

ray80 said:

Perhaps more significant is they have to offer buybacks on 500,000 vehicles

My guess is "Fix It Again Tony" is not out of date.

snakeweasel · August 2015

abacomike said:
Back to my pet peeve - the price of gasoline. A barrel of oil has dropped $13 a barrel over the past 6 weeks ($47.00 a barrel right now) and a gallon of gasoline has not dropped a penny here in South Florida during that same time period (6 weeks). When I was paying $2.37 a gallon for PUG, oil was priced at $42.00 a barrel, but as soon as oil went up $1-$2 a barrel, PUG jumped 40-50 cents a gallon and continued rising consistently.

So someone tell me there is no manipulation of gasoline prices now!!!!

I know it's been a few days since this was posted so can I ask how the prices are holding up now? I have noticed a good 20 cents or more drop around here over the last week.

snakeweasel · August 2015

graphicguy said:
Been saying it all along. There is NO GOOD fundamental reason for gas prices to be where they are. Excuses aside, the world demand for oil has either plateaued or is falling. Oil storage facilities are stocked to the brim, to the point we don't have anywhere else to put it. With current efficiencies in place, vehicles that use gas have made tremendous MPG gains and alternative fuel vehicles have been, and will continue to be, on the rise..

There is a lot more that makes up the price of gas than the price of crude oil. Crude oil has to be transported, refined and then transported at least one more time. And our ability to refine oil into gasoline isn't as good as it should be, it's almost impossible to build a new one these days and upgrading existing ones is very difficult.

And, the U.S. is oil independent.

The U.S. is only oil independent if oil is above $50/gallon. Our oil is hard to get and hence is expensive to pull out of the ground. If oil sells for $47/barrel and it costs us $50 to pull that barrel out of the ground we will stop drilling and start importing again.

snakeweasel · August 2015

andres3 said:

That's a pet peeve of mine in regards to gov't agencies like the NHTSA and insurance agencies like the IIHS that profit from proliferating the myth that SPEED KILLS!

I know I will get blasted for this on this forum but that is not a myth. There are many studies that support the premise that driving faster is more dangerous. Lets start with a scientific basis, the force an object exerts increases by the square of the increase in speed. Hence a car going 60 MPH is exerting 4 times as much energy as the same car going at 30MPH and therefore will take 4 times longer to stop. That same car going 90 MPH is exerting 9 times as much energy and so will require 9 times the stopping distance. Since going faster increases the speed at which a collision occurs it will result in more damage and a greater chance of injury.

Not to mention that the faster a car is going the harder it is to control and it is harder to maneuver out of a straight line (try taking a curve at increasingly faster speeds and see what happens). Plus is becomes easier to push the car into an out of control situation, either by drivers action or by road conditions or actions taken by other drivers.

Per the WHO a 1 km/h increase in speed will result in a 3% increase in the risk of an accident involving injuries and a 4-5% increase in the risk of a fatal accident.

The NTHSA also have come to similar conclusions as well as the European road safety observatory, Purdue University. Several other studies have suggested a strong link to increase speed and the likelyhood of accidents.

snakeweasel · August 2015

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well Americans are a ....ahem...."large" people, so maybe that accounts for it. I know my friend Bill was railing about the Fiat 600 because "I can't fit in the damn thing"---is this really the car's fault entirely?

Well being 6 foot 2 and a good healthy weight (not overweight) with slightly broader shoulders than the average man my height I will say that there are more than a few cars I will stay away from simply due to the fact that I feel cramped in them. The Miata and the Mini are two examples.

snakeweasel · August 2015

driver100 said:

I wonder how much protection those bumpers would give?

Why are they even called bumpers these days...if you touch anything it costs $1000 to fix them?

Not much protection, cars today are designed to sacrifice themselves for the safety of passengers. They are designed to crumple up to absorb the shock of the impact. So a sedan from 1960 would suffer less damage than a sedan from today in the same accident, but those inside are more likely to walk away from today's sedan.

snakeweasel · August 2015

abacomike said:
I am the realtor with an exclusive listing for the country of Uruguay on the continent of South America. I am of "German Ancestry" (Arian of course, dumkoph) and would be more than happy to submit your offer in German Marks (we don't accept Euros) to the People's Demokratik Government of Uruguay.

Now what were you offering Heir Fezo?

Didn't Germany dump the Mark and start using the Euro?

snakeweasel · August 2015

Michaell said:
I've learned that upgrading the thickness of the pad makes a huge difference when it comes to carpet replacement.

Upgrading the padding is more important than upgrading the carpet, so if you are only going to upgrade one do the padding. However don't get padding that's to thick as it will make cleaning the carpet a nightmare and may wear out the carpet faster.

snakeweasel · August 2015

Mr_Shiftright said:
Depends if they are good fog lights and if they are aimed correctly. They need to be diffuse and aimed low. Those eBay bolt-ons are not going to cut it.

suydam said:
In heavy fog those fog lights are a life saver. I won't buy a car without them.

The thing about fog lights are that every car I see fog lights on the lights are white. think about it, how can white fog lights make you more visible than your white head lights. Especially in daylight when white lights can be lost in a fog (which my some strange coincidence is white). I like fog lights but I want them to be amber (yellow) in color, they can be seen much better in foggy conditions.

snakeweasel · August 2015

Michaell said:
You east coasters and your teeny tiny states - I can drive 2200 miles to CA and back and hit only 5 states - CO, UT, AZ (for about 40 miles), NV and CA.

I remember traveling back east and driving through 3 states after work - MD, DE and NJ.

I will be going to VA later this month (just outside DC), that's 730 miles one way and I will be going through 6 states IL, IN (although I usually wouldn't admit it), OH, PA, MD and VA. However if I wanted to add about 150 miles (just a guesstimate) I could do it in only three states IL, KY and VA.

abacomike · August 2015

@snakeweasel

Snake, as per my post about Uruguay, I used some "German" comments and the Mark as a reference to the 1940's and 1950's when German officers responsible for the Holocaust found refuge in Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia to avoid being tried as war criminals after WWII.

abacomike · August 2015

Just got off the phone with my son's SO. I am flying both of them here to South Florida on Sept. 3rd for 5 days. I had to give her my credit card info. I am "sooo..." looking forward to having them here. Their coming had s big influence on why I rushed to replace the carpeting next week.

imidazol97 · August 2015

snakeweasel said:

I wonder how much protection those bumpers would give? Why are they even called bumpers these days...if you touch anything it costs $1000 to fix them?
Not much protection, cars today are designed to sacrifice themselves for the safety of passengers. They are designed to crumple up to absorb the shock of the impact. So a sedan from 1960 would suffer less damage than a sedan from today in the same accident, but those inside are more likely to walk away from today's sedan.

I just saw an example of this on my way to a cruise in. A Camry of the previous g generation had a back end smashed. Looked like the fenders got puffed out. Front of a Malibu didn't show much damage. No coolant dripping.

Looked like one of those speeding too fast for conditions and hit Camry which had slowed for ramp traffic.

oldfarmer50 · August 2015

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well Americans are a ....ahem...."large" people, so maybe that accounts for it. I know my friend Bill was railing about the Fiat 600 because "I can't fit in the damn thing"---is this really the car's fault entirely?
Well being 6 foot 2 and a good healthy weight (not overweight) with slightly broader shoulders than the average man my height I will say that there are more than a few cars I will stay away from simply due to the fact that I feel cramped in them. The Miata and the Mini are two examples.

So....this is you Snake?

robr2 · August 2015

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:
Depends if they are good fog lights and if they are aimed correctly. They need to be diffuse and aimed low. Those eBay bolt-ons are not going to cut it.

suydam said:
In heavy fog those fog lights are a life saver. I won't buy a car without them.

The thing about fog lights are that every car I see fog lights on the lights are white. think about it, how can white fog lights make you more visible than your white head lights. Especially in daylight when white lights can be lost in a fog (which my some strange coincidence is white). I like fog lights but I want them to be amber (yellow) in color, they can be seen much better in foggy conditions.

Front fogs are not meant to make your car more visible. Rear fogs are.

Front fog lights are designed with a wide beam pattern with a sharp cutoff at the top. Fog lights are designed to light up the road under the fog so you can see. Yellow lenses tend to reduce light output by about 15%. They work best with only the parking lights as headlights will bounce back off the fog.

nyccarguy · August 2015

@Michaell - I averaged about 20 mpg for the trip. A few tanks were 19 & my best tank was close to 23. Once you leave the NY Metro area, speed limits increase to 60, 65, & 70. For the most part, I had the cruise set at 75 to and kept up with the flow of traffic.

The states here are close together. I can drive 5 miles up a road near my house and be in New York. To give you an idea of my drive, less than 15 minutes south of me on the parkway is the NY State border, another 1/2 hour west is the NJ Border, and after about 2 hours I'm at the PA border. PA is shorter north/south than it is east/west. I then drive through very skinny parts of VW & MD before I hit VA.

On on the way home, I95 runs through a small 12 mile stretch of Delaware, then I have to drive the long way up NJ which is about 2 1/2 hours from the southern tip to the GEorge Washington Bridge (NY border).

berri · August 2015

Ima, that '62 Pontiac is a nice looker. I like the early and mid 60's Pontiac's, but personally I always liked the 61 over the 62. In 62 I'd probably take the Oldsmobile instead, although my favorite 62 is the Cadillac. Now I can't really say why, just subjective. But the 60's show what a talented stylist and design manager Bill Mitchell was. His car styling that decade often blew the competition away.

berri · August 2015

Didn't Germany dump the Mark and start using the Euro?

The German Mark was usually a high value currency, so I think Germany, being a big export economy, loved moving over to the less premium to the US dollar Euro. That's why despite Merkel's tough talk, I expected they wouldn't bring down Greece. I also think that Germany's outsized economy and trade is a reason some of the other trading economies like the UK and Scandinavian countries did not adopt the Euro since they may have felt moving over to the Euro would cede even more financial advantage to Germany.

dino001 · August 2015

snakeweasel said:

I know I will get blasted for this on this forum but that is not a myth.

I don't want to blast you. Just explain, why Germans suffer fewer deaths on their (per appropriate unit) highways, where cars go routinely ove 100 mph, typical cruising speed being 90 mph, or so? Mind you their traffic is denser than ours. In fact, Germany may be the safest country in Europe, the only one without formal speed limits, except when posted, which is usually at more dangerous spots, or during rain. Also, Germans are very law abiding, i.e. because there are no limits in their good stretches, they trust when the government places a limit somewhere else, it must be for a reason.

http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/02/germanys-fatal-accident-rate-is-less-than-half-of-ours-despite-driving-at-155-mph

The causality between speed and death may be physical (if you have accident at higher speed, you will likely suffer more injury), but the relationship between higher transportation speeds and fatalities is absolutely NOT proven. The set of variables and results is far more complex.

mako1a · August 2015

If Americans had to pass the German drivers license test...we'd be a nation on horseback.

abacomike · August 2015

I recall an episode of "Top Gear" when the guys were on the Autobahn doing a sustained 100+ mph. All the drivers were in the right lane and only used the left lane for high speed driving or passing. That would be refreshing down here in South Florida where the older drivers would be ticketed for hogging the left lanes doing 15-20 mph under the speed limit.

cdnpinhead · August 2015

mako1a said:
If Americans had to pass the German drivers license test...we'd be a nation on horseback.

That is absolutely the truth.

stever · August 2015

The UK's traffic fatality rate is less than Germany's. The UK has a speed limit max of 70 mph. (links to Wikipedia)

Therefore, speed kills.

houdini1 · August 2015

stever said:
The UK's traffic fatality rate is less than Germany's. The UK has a speed limit max of 70 mph. (links to Wikipedia)

Therefore, speed kills.

Interesting list. Cuba, with all those old cars with no safety equipment, probably not even seat belts, has a lower traffic fatality rate than the U.S. Of course, they probably never drive over 30 mph.

abacomike · August 2015

houdini1 said:

The UK's traffic fatality rate is less than Germany's. The UK has a speed limit max of 70 mph. (links to Wikipedia) Therefore, speed kills.
Interesting list. Cuba, with all those old cars with no safety equipment, probably not even seat belts, has a lower traffic fatality rate than the U.S. Of course, they probably never drive over 30 mph.

And they certainly do not have major traffic jams nor super-highways with high speed limits!

graphicguy · August 2015

Just to put oil companies and the money they make in perspective, Exxon just posted a $1 BiLLION DOLLAR profit and gained a $1 per share. And, that's with supposedly depressed oil prices. The U.S. is indeed oil independent. No price for a barrel of oil is worth risking one American life for as we've done in the past.

To sum up, oil companies are making money....LOTS OF MONEY! The days of risking American lives on the whims of some country we used to buy oil from are over....as it should be.

bwia · August 2015

berri said:
Didn't Germany dump the Mark and start using the Euro?

The German Mark was usually a high value currency, so I think Germany, being a big export economy, loved moving over to the less premium to the US dollar Euro. That's why despite Merkel's tough talk, I expected they wouldn't bring down Greece. I also think that Germany's outsized economy and trade is a reason some of the other trading economies like the UK and Scandinavian countries did not adopt the Euro since they may have felt moving over to the Euro would cede even more financial advantage to Germany.

Not sure about the Scandinavian countries but I believe the reason the UK did not adopt the Euro is perhaps it has more to do with its imperial image of its once global dominance.

The image of the queen appears on all denominations of the British currency. That is not unusual, per se, but the Queen's picture also appears on most of its former colonies currencies, including Canada, Australia, etc. So it would be a contradiction for the UK to dump the image of the Queen and subjugate itself to a despised European power yet expect other countries to continue to idolize the Queen.

snakeweasel · August 2015

robr2 said:
Front fogs are not meant to make your car more visible.

My understanding is that they are supposed to improve the visibility of the car being driven, else why use them in daylight? This is to be able to be seen by oncoming traffic in situations where being able to determine lanes may not be the best due to visibility. Supposedly the water droplets in the air absorb shorter wave lengths better than longer wave lengths so colors near red work best but since you couldn't use red then orange and yellow work best.

snakeweasel · August 2015

dino001 said:
I don't want to blast you. Just explain, why Germans suffer fewer deaths on their (per appropriate unit) highways, where cars go routinely ove 100 mph, typical cruising speed being 90 mph, or so? Mind you their traffic is denser than ours.

Faulty logic here, it has long been discussed on these forums that the Germans have a much stringent licensing and testing system them we do here which results in much better and capable drivers. Better drivers there are making safer roads. That does not mean that reducing the speed there will not result in lower fatalities.

dino001 said:
The causality between speed and death may be physical (if you have accident at higher speed, you will likely suffer more injury), but the relationship between higher transportation speeds and fatalities is absolutely NOT proven. The set of variables and results is far more complex.

I do believe it has been strongly supported that there is a relationship between higher speeds and fatalities. When Congress repealed the nationally mandated speed limit the states that increased their speed limits on rural Interstates saw about a 15% increase in fatalities on rural Interstates. During the same time period those states saw no increase in fatalities on rural non interstate roads and states that did not increase speed limits saw no increase in fatalities on rural interstate highways.

robr2 · August 2015

graphicguy said:
Just to put oil companies and the money they make in perspective, Exxon just posted a $1 BiLLION DOLLAR profit and gained a $1 per share. And, that's with supposedly depressed oil prices. The U.S. is indeed oil independent. No price for a barrel of oil is worth risking one American life for as we've done in the past.

To sum up, oil companies are making money....LOTS OF MONEY! The days of risking American lives on the whims of some country we used to buy oil from are over....as it should be.

To be honest, that quarterly profit was their worst in five years.

Everyone begrudges oil companies but if many of you look in your mutual funds you will find plenty of oil company stocks there. But nobody complains about the profits they make on those investments.

stever · August 2015

In addition to the more stringent driver's license requirements, Germany has tough vehicle inspections too. Stuff like a rust spot can keep your car off the road (per more Wikipedia browsing anyway). After reading the forums and Edmunds Answers for years, Shifty and I can tell you that there's a lot of people out there driving unsafe beaters.

robr2 · August 2015

snakeweasel said:

robr2 said:
Front fogs are not meant to make your car more visible.
My understanding is that they are supposed to improve the visibility of the car being driven, else why use them in daylight? This is to be able to be seen by oncoming traffic in situations where being able to determine lanes may not be the best due to visibility. Supposedly the water droplets in the air absorb shorter wave lengths better than longer wave lengths so colors near red work best but since you couldn't use red then orange and yellow work best.

As I noted, the primary goal of fog lights is to illuminate the roadway under the fog. They do have the secondary benefit of visibility to other driver but because their reach is so short, they aren't the best for that.

My understanding is that the water droplets reflect back the light, not absorb it. That's why fog lights are aimed to illuminate the ground under the fog. If one is driving in heavy daytime fog, the lights will help illuminate the roadway for a short distance. But one must still not outdrive their lights no matter the conditions.

dino001 · August 2015

snakeweasel said:

dino001 said:
I don't want to blast you. Just explain, why Germans suffer fewer deaths on their (per appropriate unit) highways, where cars go routinely ove 100 mph, typical cruising speed being 90 mph, or so? Mind you their traffic is denser than ours.
Faulty logic here, it has long been discussed on these forums that the Germans have a much stringent licensing and testing system them we do here which results in much better and capable drivers. Better drivers there are making safer roads. That does not mean that reducing the speed there will not result in lower fatalities.
dino001 said:
The causality between speed and death may be physical (if you have accident at higher speed, you will likely suffer more injury), but the relationship between higher transportation speeds and fatalities is absolutely NOT proven. The set of variables and results is far more complex.
I do believe it has been strongly supported that there is a relationship between higher speeds and fatalities. When Congress repealed the nationally mandated speed limit the states that increased their speed limits on rural Interstates saw about a 15% increase in fatalities on rural Interstates. During the same time period those states saw no increase in fatalities on rural non interstate roads and states that did not increase speed limits saw no increase in fatalities on rural interstate highways.

Essentially, if speed kills, then we should put a 30 mph limit everywhere. Let's see, if that helps.

stever · August 2015

>But one must still not outdrive their lights no matter the conditions.

I think that's a key point - one school of thought is that front fogs make drivers less safe because they think they can go faster in lousy conditions. (another Daniel Stern link)

Michaell · August 2015

Folks, I've recently started a blog about the ownership experience of our new Subaru. You can find it here:

http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/35957/subaru/outback/michaells-2015-subaru-outback-3-6r#latest

houdini1 · August 2015

robr2 said:

snakeweasel said:

robr2 said:
Front fogs are not meant to make your car more visible.
My understanding is that they are supposed to improve the visibility of the car being driven, else why use them in daylight? This is to be able to be seen by oncoming traffic in situations where being able to determine lanes may not be the best due to visibility. Supposedly the water droplets in the air absorb shorter wave lengths better than longer wave lengths so colors near red work best but since you couldn't use red then orange and yellow work best.
As I noted, the primary goal of fog lights is to illuminate the roadway under the fog. They do have the secondary benefit of visibility to other driver but because their reach is so short, they aren't the best for that.

My understanding is that the water droplets reflect back the light, not absorb it. That's why fog lights are aimed to illuminate the ground under the fog. If one is driving in heavy daytime fog, the lights will help illuminate the roadway for a short distance. But one must still not outdrive their lights no matter the conditions.

That has certainly been my first hand experience while driving in fog. Front facing fog lights are very helpful, and operate just as you described.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2015

That's the way my "6 light" system works---the fogs shine down low and allow me to see (especially) the edge of the road on the right side; the headlights throw light out to the front, and I use the driving lights to throw light out a little further side to side. Of course, I would never have all 6 on in fog.

bwia · August 2015

Question for the experts:

If kerosene is cheaper and burns more slowly than gasoline--why don't cars use kerosene instead of gasoline as the major propellant? As far as I know, commercial airplanes use kerosene, with some additives of course, as their only fuel.

By comparison, automobiles use either gasoline or diesel. Since kerosene is cheaper and less volatile than gasoline it would it would suggest that kerosene would be fuel of choice. What am I missing?

snakeweasel · August 2015

They may not drive that much either. Notice that they are one of the many "N/A" in the death rate per 1 billion km.

dino001 · August 2015

Kerosene has low both octane number (resistance to uncontrolled selfignition, like gasoline) and cetane number (ability to self-ignite under well-controlled circumstances, like diesel), which makes it unsuitable for piston engines. Essentially, neither here, nor there. I guess that's why you don't have kerosene piston engines. They'd knock like crazy and be noisy.

snakeweasel · August 2015

robr2 said:
As I noted, the primary goal of fog lights is to illuminate the roadway under the fog. They do have the secondary benefit of visibility to other driver but because their reach is so short, they aren't the best for that.

Since fog usually touches the ground it would be hard to illuminate the roadway under the fog.

oldfarmer50 · August 2015

bwia said:
Question for the experts:

If kerosene is cheaper and burns more slowly than gasoline--why don't cars use kerosene instead of gasoline as the major propellant? As far as I know, commercial airplanes use kerosene, with some additives of course, as their only fuel.

By comparison, automobiles use either gasoline or diesel. Since kerosene is cheaper and less volatile than gasoline it would it would suggest that kerosene would be fuel of choice. What am I missing?

Not sure of the thermodynamic properties of gas vs kero but I seem to remember that kerosene has fewer BTUs per gallon than gas so there's the storage issue.

Gasoline was originally a waste product of kerosene production and was dumped in the river because there was no market for it. Was it Ford or Rockerfeller that figured out that it would be a good fuel for the new fanged horseless carriages just coming into use?

snakeweasel · August 2015

dino001 said:
Essentially, if speed kills, then we should put a 30 mph limit everywhere. Let's see, if that helps.

Well a 30 MPH speed limit would essentially drop the fatalities on the road dramatically. However what I am trying to get across is that it is more dangerous to drive at higher speeds, understanding this would help reduce the fatality rate simply by people adjusting their driving habits based on it. There is also a trade off between risk and economic viability.

dino001 · August 2015

snakeweasel said:

dino001 said:
Essentially, if speed kills, then we should put a 30 mph limit everywhere. Let's see, if that helps.
Well a 30 MPH speed limit would essentially drop the fatalities on the road dramatically. However what I am trying to get across is that it is more dangerous to drive at higher speeds, understanding this would help reduce the fatality rate simply by people adjusting their driving habits based on it. There is also a trade off between risk and economic viability.

At least we agree that lowering legal speed is not an answer for every problem we encounter in road transportation. Speed kills became an easy answer for many officials to absolve them from doing things that may be more difficult.

snakeweasel · August 2015

bwia said:
Question for the experts:

If kerosene is cheaper and burns more slowly than gasoline--why don't cars use kerosene instead of gasoline as the major propellant? As far as I know, commercial airplanes use kerosene, with some additives of course, as their only fuel.

By comparison, automobiles use either gasoline or diesel. Since kerosene is cheaper and less volatile than gasoline it would it would suggest that kerosene would be fuel of choice. What am I missing?

Not sure if I can completely answer this question but I do believe that early on some cars ran on kerosene, but today's cars it would be hard to. Being less volatile could be a draw back, but I am not sure.

As for being cheaper, kerosene is a byproduct of refining oil into gasoline. However you could refine oil into kerosene and get a byproduct called gasoline. So my guess if we converted all cars to kerosene today in a few years someone will be asking "since gasoline is cheaper why don't we use that as a fuel of choice?". My guess is that since most oil was being refined into kerosene over 100 years ago that's exactly what some people said and started using the cheaper gasoline to run the cars they were building/using.

snakeweasel · August 2015

oldfarmer50 said:
Gasoline was originally a waste product of kerosene production and was dumped in the river because there was no market for it. Was it Ford or Rockerfeller that figured out that it would be a good fuel for the new fanged horseless carriages just coming into use?

Actually gasoline in pre car days was used as a solvent, fuel and a treatment for lice (which BTW I would NOT recommend). And wasn't Carl Benz's first car (or was it his brother Karl Benz?) powered by a gasoline engine?

isellhondas · August 2015

Speaking of safety, I read a Facebook entry from a Honda Tech who is buried in work replacing Takata airbags that were recalled. He said some of the owners are in panic mode, fearing that they may be hurt if their airbag deployed yet the cars they bring in are often junkers.

He's had 350,000 miled up piles of junk come in with bad ball joints, CV joints that are ready to come apart and tires with the steel cords showing.

When these issues are brought to the customer's attention do they have them attended to Nope, just replace tha airbag since I don't have to pay anything. Don't worry about the other pressing safety items!

snakeweasel · August 2015

dino001 said:
At least we agree that lowering legal speed is not an answer for every problem we encounter in road transportation. Speed kills became an easy answer for many officials to absolve them from doing things that may be more difficult.

Well speed is part of the equation that no matter what we do to reduce all the other problems the fact is the faster you go the more risk involved. This is something you cannot ignore regardless of what happens regarding the other "problems".

Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles