Random Thoughts Thread

[ccap41]

No, It's because you guys get so fckn bent out of shape about everything. Loses fun when ppl are overly serious on a forum. 

What "basics about engine output" did I not understand? 

[FAPTurbo]

 

[surreal1272]

4 hours ago, ccap41 said:

No, It's because you guys get so fckn bent out of shape about everything. Loses fun when ppl are overly serious on a forum. 

What "basics about engine output" did I not understand? 

It loses even more fun when folks admit to blatant trolling, actually brag about said trolling, and then act surprised because they get called out for said trolling and try to turn it on everyone else. 

[ccap41]

4 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

It loses even more fun when folks admit to blatant trolling, actually brag about said trolling, and then act surprised because they get called out for said trolling and try to turn it on everyone else. 

I can tell nothing has changed around here. You're still a prick for no reason. 

@Frisky Dingo ^ This is a big reason to not hang out here. 

Edited August 21, 2017 by ccap41

[A Horse With No Name]

4 hours ago, ccap41 said:

No, It's because you guys get so fckn bent out of shape about everything. Loses fun when ppl are overly serious on a forum. 

What "basics about engine output" did I not understand? 

On the other hand, i am happy to see you back....

Sorry I have not been around much the last few days, work has been insane. Getting ready to host an exchange student in my home.  His name is Magnus and he is from Denmark.

On 8/15/2017 at 11:31 PM, daves87rs said:

Very cool!

Very cool indeed!

On 8/17/2017 at 11:57 AM, dfelt said:

One can only imagine!  

...imagine a golden shower of responses...

On 8/18/2017 at 5:33 PM, balthazar said:

NASCAR allowed the Hemi back into competition for '66 (it went RPO that year), but the infamous 426 'Elephant' had to be downsized to 405 CI.

Interesting....

[surreal1272]

37 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I can tell nothing has changed around here. You're still a prick for no reason. 

@Frisky Dingo ^ This is a big reason to not hang out here. 

You're hurting my feelings lol.  I'm merely stating the facts. Funny thing is that there have no issues like that since you (and a few others) left. Coincidence? Certainly doesn't seem like it given your snide remark. 

 

Best of luck to you and your your future endeavors ccap, wherever it may be. 

[ccap41]

7 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

You're hurting my feelings lol.  I'm merely stating the facts. Funny thing is that there have no issues like that since you (and a few others) left. Coincidence? Certainly doesn't seem like it given your snide remark. 

 

Best of luck to you and your your future endeavors ccap, wherever it may be. 

I'm not here to try and hurt anybody's feelings. But I didn't do anything to deserve that response from you.

[surreal1272]

24 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I'm not here to try and hurt anybody's feelings. But I didn't do anything to deserve that response from you.

Didn't realize I needed permission to merely state the truth of what happened before you left. 

 

 

[daves87rs]

13 hours ago, ccap41 said:

No, It's because you guys get so fckn bent out of shape about everything. Loses fun when ppl are overly serious on a forum. 

What "basics about engine output" did I not understand? 

Dammit I do not!! Don't know what you're talking about.! 

Welcome back there cap- how is the Escape treating you?

Edited August 22, 2017 by daves87rs

[A Horse With No Name]

6 hours ago, daves87rs said:

Dammit I do not!! Don't know what you're talking about.! 

Welcome back there cap- how is the Escape treating you?

His escape was totaled, and he bought a Focus.  So his Escape did not escape, sadly...

[Drew Dowdell]

Corners guys.... corners.  Let bygones be bygones.

[A Horse With No Name]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Corners guys.... corners.  Let bygones be bygones.

I still wish ccap liked someone other than Dallas in terms of football....and Surreal likes the Mustang way to much over the Camaro for my tastes....other than that they are both Aces in my book.

[Frisky Dingo]

20 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I'm not here to try and hurt anybody's feelings. But I didn't do anything to deserve that response from you.

Well, at any rate, good to see you back and I hope you stick around. I always enjoyed your posts in the Dream Garage threads. Of which, there are many new ones, btw. 

[A Horse With No Name]

28 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Well, at any rate, good to see you back and I hope you stick around. I always enjoyed your posts in the Dream Garage threads. Of which, there are many new ones, btw. 

Agree on CCAP...and I am way behind on Dream car garage.

[G. David Felt]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/video-explore-the-warehouse-crammed-with-classic-fords/ar-AAqy9kC

Very cool Video and write up on Fords UK Heritage Garage.

To quote the writeup:

There are so many special cars hidden away in Dagenham that picking highlights isn’t easy. How about one of four RS200s, the two Transit Supervans, the mighty Sierra RS Cosworth or the RAC Rally-winning Mk2 Escort RS1800? 

However, this collection doesn’t only cover the exotic and expensive. There are also Granadas, a Mondeo and several Fiesta XR2s. Even the unloved Mk5 Escort gets a spot. So many of us have memories involving these cars, they have become part of our collective conscious. Let’s be thankful Ford is preserving them.

[daves87rs]

16 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

His escape was totaled, and he bought a Focus.  So his Escape did not escape, sadly...

Yeah, I forgot about that.....

 

Though I would like to hear his impressions of the Focus.....

[G. David Felt]

 

 

 

[G. David Felt]

Gotta Love Japanese Commercials especially when they are for US products.

 

[daves87rs]

I think it's about time....

After the loss of a good friend this year- I think it's time to finish the project I put off for so many years-build myself a little pocket rocket.

One thing I love about my Ecotec powered Cavalier is that it is pretty easy to turbo/Supercharge up.....and get it to around 220-240hp. And with an under 3000lb car-should help it scoot quite nicely. Then I have to make sure it can handle the turns after that...

Happy to have a car project again....

[ccap41]

On 8/21/2017 at 11:24 AM, ccap41 said:

 

What "basics about engine output" did I not understand? 

@Drew Dowdell ? 

[ccap41]

On 8/21/2017 at 3:31 PM, surreal1272 said:

It loses even more fun when folks admit to blatant trolling, actually brag about said trolling, and then act surprised because they get called out for said trolling and try to turn it on everyone else. 

So I'm not sure what your issue is with me but you might as well get over it. Since I've been back you've done nothing but follow me around and start arguments, like the above quote.. 

The two things I did first when I came back was read a few threads, "liked" something you said, and then made a post. Not sure where the issue is but I don't get it. It doesn't matter what I say or what my opinion is, yours seems to find the opposite ground. 

[surreal1272]

17 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

So I'm not sure what your issue is with me but you might as well get over it. Since I've been back you've done nothing but follow me around and start arguments, like the above quote.. 

The two things I did first when I came back was read a few threads, "liked" something you said, and then made a post. Not sure where the issue is but I don't get it. It doesn't matter what I say or what my opinion is, yours seems to find the opposite ground. 

You keep telling yourself whatever it is you have to tell yourself. I made my statement and I stand by it. No one is following you around. I was the first one commenting on the Blazer thread so it seems like you are just being paranoid. I, nor anyone else for that matter, are not here just to agree with everything someone says. 

 

And who gives two $h!s about "likes"? You have stated in the past that they are not a big thing so why make that argument now? "Likes" aren't $h!. Your first post here, however, shows the attitude you came in here with. 

 

And for the record, I went back to the actual subject of that thread so...

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

5 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

You keep telling yourself whatever it is you have to tell yourself. I made my statement and I stand by it. No one is following you around. I was the first one commenting on the Blazer thread so it seems like you are just being paranoid. I, nor anyone else for that matter, are not here just to agree with everything someone says. 

 

And who gives two $h!s about "likes"? You have stated in the past that they are not a big thing so why make that argument now? "Likes" aren't $h!. Your first post here, however, shows the attitude you came in here with. 

 

And for the record, I went back to the actual subject of that thread so...

 

I know you commented first, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about I make a post and don't just comment back or respond like a civilized man, you respond with attitude. 

Agreeing 100% of the time blows. But finding something to disagree with 100% of the time is just annoying to deal with. 

Yeah, you went back on topic after you went of topic and made the topic me. 

[surreal1272]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I know you commented first, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about I make a post and don't just comment back or respond like a civilized man, you respond with attitude. 

Agreeing 100% of the time blows. But finding something to disagree with 100% of the time is just annoying to deal with. 

Yeah, you went back on topic after you went of topic and made the topic me. 

Says the person who told me to "GTFO" like I don't have the right to speak. If you don't like me disagreeing with you, that is your problem and your problem alone. 

 

Seriously. You need to get over yourself and move on with your day. 

[ccap41]

Have you never heard somebody say GTFO(not the acronym) in person? Most of the time it isn't a literal yelling of  "Get the f@#k Out". It's more of a " Get the f@#k Outa Here". It wasn't "demanding" you to actually get out of the thread and don't talk. I thought that was fairly obvious, but my apologies if it wasn't. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Lord... didn't I say let bygones be bygones?

IF you must know, it was with regard to throttle position, turbos, and power output.

[surreal1272]

@ccap41--I know it's not a literal thing but it did show the attitude you tried to have with me just because I didn't agree with you. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

No, because you were arguing for no reason.  

You're trying to defend a Bolt being roomier than a Murano and an Edge when it literally is not true. There isn't more head room, there isn't more shoulder room, there isn't more leg room, and there's less hatch space. 

[ccap41]

55 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Lord... didn't I say let bygones be bygones?

IF you must know, it was with regard to throttle position, turbos, and power output.

Yes sir you did. 

Well, it seemed like a fair question to ask what I'm not understanding. While I disagree that I don't understand that, it doesn't matter. You've made it sound like under partial throttle turbos are nonexistent. and it's just a n/a motor. That's where we've disagreed on and I'm surprised of all people you would think otherwise because you've probably driven waaaaaay more vehicles here than anybody else, most likely, more than everybody else combined. I know the little turbo on my Escape kept it from needing downshifts a heck of a lot more than my Focus with zero torque. 

[surreal1272]

57 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

No, because you were arguing for no reason.  

You're trying to defend a Bolt being roomier than a Murano and an Edge when it literally is not true. There isn't more head room, there isn't more shoulder room, there isn't more leg room, and there's less hatch space. 

You are 100% wrong on your "no reason" claim because you clearly don't see the reason why I said what I said, which had nothing to with the Murano vs Bolt roominess. I laid out the problem with your first assessment and you took it as something else entirely. The argument is over and done with. Move on. 

[ccap41]

Then please elaborate so I don't misunderstand. 

[surreal1272]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Then please elaborate so I don't misunderstand. 

See the part of my post where I said "move on" because I'm done with it. 

[ccap41]

You really won't elaborate on how I'm so wrong? 

I replied to somebody else(dfelt)

You replied to me saying 'once a year not working out is a deal breaker for some'

I said 'then get a different vehicle', which you did not agree with. How is that so wrong? If a vehicle doesn't offer enough space for you the only practical thing to do is look at a different vehicle the next size up. 

 

[surreal1272]

 

Move on. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by surreal1272

[A Horse With No Name]

In other news, I have a new love and it is a vintage machine made in Michigan in the 50's....

A 1951 Oliver 159 A Industrial Pattern makers woodworking lathe.  Cabinet shop here in Columbus was shutting down after many years and I got a fantastic deal on the condition that I had the machine removed by the end of the business day. 

Right now it is partially disassembled in my garage awaiting for me to re assemble it and show it some love.

Also have taken in an exchange student, a fine young man named Magnus from Denmark. He will be a sophomore at my daughters high school.

Here is an example of a restored Oliver 159, thinking I will paint mine kind of the dark green Pullman painted their passenger rail cars in the 1930's...

[A Horse With No Name]

16 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Lord... didn't I say let bygones be bygones?

IF you must know, it was with regard to throttle position, turbos, and power output.

I have been wrong about far more than many posters here....but I have learned and moved on.  I find being wrong kind of liberating, because ti gives me the freedom to learn new things.  There is no shame at all in it.

Oliver machinery just has the look...

[Robert Hall]

Neat.. Oliver also made tractors..remember seeing Oliver tractors in E. Ohio farming areas as a kid. 

[Drew Dowdell]

19 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Yes sir you did. 

Well, it seemed like a fair question to ask what I'm not understanding. While I disagree that I don't understand that, it doesn't matter. You've made it sound like under partial throttle turbos are nonexistent. and it's just a n/a motor. That's where we've disagreed on and I'm surprised of all people you would think otherwise because you've probably driven waaaaaay more vehicles here than anybody else, most likely, more than everybody else combined. I know the little turbo on my Escape kept it from needing downshifts a heck of a lot more than my Focus with zero torque. 

This is the wrong thread on this and I intend to start one in the near future... but suffice it to say that I have full proof and will happily present it in an article coming up in a month or two that Ford (And GM, and Honda, and anyone else who is using a turbo) is fooling the driver by way of throttle calibration.   I'll show my full findings in the article, but the long story short is that a naturally aspirated engine runs around 10% throttle at idle while turbo engines run around 20% throttle at idle.  Furthermore, the throttle on a naturally aspirated engine opens less to accelerate, generally less than 40%, while turbo engines generally go well over 50%.   These numbers are not from a "feel of the foot" measurement but from actual throttle position sensor readouts from various cars.   So while your Escape feels like it's not using much throttle to get moving, the truth is that the computer is amplifying the movement of your foot more than it actually moves. The reading also gives me the amount of boost provided when its a turbo engine. 

I bought an OBDII reader to deal with issues on my CR-V, but I found out it will give you the throttle position reading as well which allows me to collect the data relative to different cars. 

I'm aiming for late October to finish the article because I'll have a fleet of cars to test it on in mid october. 

[ccap41]

37 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

This is the wrong thread on this and I intend to start one in the near future... but suffice it to say that I have full proof and will happily present it in an article coming up in a month or two that Ford (And GM, and Honda, and anyone else who is using a turbo) is fooling the driver by way of throttle calibration.   I'll show my full findings in the article, but the long story short is that a naturally aspirated engine runs around 10% throttle at idle while turbo engines run around 20% throttle at idle.  Furthermore, the throttle on a naturally aspirated engine opens less to accelerate, generally less than 40%, while turbo engines generally go well over 50%.   These numbers are not from a "feel of the foot" measurement but from actual throttle position sensor readouts from various cars.   So while your Escape feels like it's not using much throttle to get moving, the truth is that the computer is amplifying the movement of your foot more than it actually moves. The reading also gives me the amount of boost provided when its a turbo engine. 

I bought an OBDII reader to deal with issues on my CR-V, but I found out it will give you the throttle position reading as well which allows me to collect the data relative to different cars. 

I'm aiming for late October to finish the article because I'll have a fleet of cars to test it on in mid october. 

This is very very intriguing to read! So really, the engineers are fooling us which is likely why the small turbo motors aren't showing much real world fuel economy gains. I'm actually very interested in your findings! 

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

This is very very intriguing to read! So really, the engineers are fooling us which is likely why the small turbo motors aren't showing much real world fuel economy gains. I'm actually very interested in your findings! 

Exactly.  While it might feel you are just lightly using the gas pedal, the computer is amplifying that throttle input.  In the case of my Encore, 1/4 pedal throttle is actually over 55% throttle reported by the throttle position sensor.   

It's because of this that small turbos are able to really ace the EPA tests because the EPA test accelerates ridiculously slow, so the turbo doesn't spool up the same way it does in the real world. It's why in the real world, a Fusion 2.0T with less power gets lower fuel economy than a brick shaped 300c 3.6 V6.  One might think they're being gentle in the Fusion, but in reality, the throttle is probably cresting 50% under most acceleration situations just to give good feel.  My grandmother downsized from a Lacrosse V6 AWD to a Regal 2.0T AWD last January, and while she really likes her new car, she has mentioned that the fuel economy is disappointing especially now that she went from a V6 to a 4-cylinder. .... and she drives like a grandmother. 

I'll have a Ford 2.7 EB and a GMC Sierra 5.3, nearly identically equipped, both 6-speed autos, coming up for a test in about 2 weeks.  The results should be interesting. 

[A Horse With No Name]

34 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

This is very very intriguing to read! So really, the engineers are fooling us which is likely why the small turbo motors aren't showing much real world fuel economy gains. I'm actually very interested in your findings! 

There are those of us who have raised teenage sons and are just hooked on the words Turbo and NOS after watching Fast and Furious eleven billion times with our offspring.

 

And yes, very interested as well.

[Robert Hall]

13 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

There are those of us who have raised teenage sons and are just hooked on the words Turbo and NOS after watching Fast and Furious eleven billion times with our offspring.

 

Heh-heh...Turbos were cool in the big 80s when I was teenager...Buick T-Types, Grand Nationals, Saab 900 Turbo, 300ZX Turbo, etc...though Ford 5.0s were my thing then. 

[Robert Hall]

One of the joys of working from home is hanging out with the furkids...

[ccap41]

30 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

One of the joys of working from home is hanging out with the furkids...

OMG you have so many Yorkies!!! 

[Robert Hall]

25 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

OMG you have so many Yorkies!!! 

4 Yorkies--2 girls, 2 boys.  And 2 terrier mixes.  All rescues..love 'em all.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[ccap41]

I know its been awhile but I know you've seen my little girl before.. Yorkies are the best.  

[Drew Dowdell]

3 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

There are those of us who have raised teenage sons and are just hooked on the words Turbo and NOS after watching Fast and Furious eleven billion times with our offspring.

 

And yes, very interested as well.

The reality is, in daily driving around suburbia, you're really just driving a 1.5T minus the T. 1.5 liters in a large compact aren't all that fun.

[A Horse With No Name]

15 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

4 Yorkies--2 girls, 2 boys.  And 2 terrier mixes.  All rescues..love 'em all.

I am then slightly less nuts or more nuts for rescuing 5 cats, including a Maine Coon...

15 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I know its been awhile but I know you've seen my little girl before.. Yorkies are the best.  

Agreed!

[lengnert]

19 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Exactly.  While it might feel you are just lightly using the gas pedal, the computer is amplifying that throttle input.  In the case of my Encore, 1/4 pedal throttle is actually over 55% throttle reported by the throttle position sensor.   

It's because of this that small turbos are able to really ace the EPA tests because the EPA test accelerates ridiculously slow, so the turbo doesn't spool up the same way it does in the real world. It's why in the real world, a Fusion 2.0T with less power gets lower fuel economy than a brick shaped 300c 3.6 V6.  One might think they're being gentle in the Fusion, but in reality, the throttle is probably cresting 50% under most acceleration situations just to give good feel.  My grandmother downsized from a Lacrosse V6 AWD to a Regal 2.0T AWD last January, and while she really likes her new car, she has mentioned that the fuel economy is disappointing especially now that she went from a V6 to a 4-cylinder. .... and she drives like a grandmother. 

I'll have a Ford 2.7 EB and a GMC Sierra 5.3, nearly identically equipped, both 6-speed autos, coming up for a test in about 2 weeks.  The results should be interesting. 

This may in fact be anecdotal, but there is a gentleman that bought a 2.7 F150 (a '16 XTS model) that I work with.  He mainly uses it to tow, as a matter of fact.  By "tow" I am referring to mostly using it to tow with a 12' trailer and hauling scrap metal (a side business for him) and he also uses it for another side business of collecting clothing for a clothing recycling business.  The trailer is attached to his truck more than 50% of the time (if not more than 75%).

With the trailer and the metal or clothing he is usually pulling between 3000 and 5000 lbs total (my guess with the trailer itself and the material on board).

His previous truck was a 10 or 12 year old Nissan Titan that he traded in for the Ford, where the Nissan had over 200,000 miles.

Now to the 'meat' of why this may be germane.....  he definitely drives with a very 'light' go pedal foot.  He does not accelerate fast at all (unless necessary, of course) as he wants to get the mileage and he wants his trucks to hold up long term.  I just asked him what he averages in fuel mileage with this truck and he said in the 18 mpg range.  With the Titan (and he drove very similarly with that truck too which is one of the reasons he was able to make that truck last as long) he said 10 mpg was about the best he could average, with 8-9 mpg being more realistic.

And having experience with the 3.5 motor in the new Ford E vans, as I have used them for the clothing business myself (I volunteer my services as the business is run by a very good friend of mine, and this is how I met the gentleman I am describing).... I know no matter how light on the gas pedal I am with the V8's in the other Ford's I have driven or the GM's, as well, I can never hope to get near the 18-20 mpgs I can get with the 3.5 in the EcoBoost E vans (again, with a very light foot on the gas pedal when accelerating).

That's it.  I know, it is somewhat anecdotal... but, there is no way I would not opt for a smaller displacement turbo V6 as opposed to a bigger V8, in a truck.... unless I knew I was going to be hauling a LOT of weight consistently.

Edited August 30, 2017 by lengnert

[ccap41]

16 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The reality is, in daily driving around suburbia, you're really just driving a 1.5T minus the T. 1.5 liters in a large compact aren't all that fun.

From the way you made it sound on your other post it almost sounds like it isn't really a n/a 1.5 but its more electronically opening the throttle beyond what your foot is therefore it's using some turbo but not really by choice.. I'm not sure if that made sense at all.  

Like, you said a 25% press of the pedal was opening the throttle sometimes 55% so it might be creating a little boost but not necessarily by choice..it's forcing a wider throttle opening therefore most boost.