Random Thoughts Thread

[ocnblu]

1958 Mercury Commuter?

[Robert Hall]

18 hours ago, dfelt said:

At my Cadillac dealership, got the CT6 V on display and I have to say, that is one tight engine bay.

Interesting how the air intake tubes at the front are asymmetrical and length and location.  Strange.       Everything is so tightly packed in there looks like a maintenance nightmare. 

[balthazar]

^ what isn’t on modern vehicles?

[ocnblu]

 

[ocnblu]

 

[ocnblu]

The run from zero to 60 mph in our all-wheel-drive SE test car takes 7.7 seconds, and the quarter-mile is dispatched in 15.9 seconds at 87 mph -

Car & Driver tests the 2020 Ford Escape SE AWD with 1.5L turbo 3 cylinder engine.

They also remark on its enjoyable, distinctive growl.

[Robert Hall]

Random faux woodies...

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

Car & Driver tests the 2020 Ford Escape SE AWD with 1.5L turbo 3 cylinder engine.

They also remark on its enjoyable, distinctive growl.

No doubt the sound of a connecting rod blowing thru the oil pain is distinctive, too.

[daves87rs]

4 hours ago, ocnblu said:

The run from zero to 60 mph in our all-wheel-drive SE test car takes 7.7 seconds, and the quarter-mile is dispatched in 15.9 seconds at 87 mph -

Car & Driver tests the 2020 Ford Escape SE AWD with 1.5L turbo 3 cylinder engine.

They also remark on its enjoyable, distinctive growl.

Just not a fan of the Escape any more. If I wanted a Mazda, I would buy one.

Now the Bronco Scout, on the other hand......

[ocnblu]

4 hours ago, daves87rs said:

Just not a fan of the Escape any more. If I wanted a Mazda, I would buy one.

Now the Bronco Scout, on the other hand......

I thought that too, at first.

[ocnblu]

8 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Random faux woodies

*squints hard*  Is that a VW Touareg with a fake convertible top and woodgrain decals?

[Robert Hall]

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

*squints hard*  Is that a VW Touareg with a fake convertible top and woodgrain decals?

It’s a 1st gen Cayenne.  

[daves87rs]

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

I thought that too, at first.

You might be right...

[USA-1]

On 12/14/2019 at 3:27 PM, oldshurst442 said:

I know what you are saying. And I feel your pain. Im a car guy too after all. And an American car guy on top of that.  But...lets be honest about this whole car culture thing. In reality, cars are meant to be driven (hard).  Cars are meant to be used and abused until that car can no longer give anymore and it ends up in the scrap heap.  We as enthusiasts dont like the term appliance and we as enthusiasts are able to sense which cars are really engineered as appliances and which cars are "special" but in reality, ALL cars are appliances. Even Corvettes and Porsches. And Ferraris.  

On the opposite spectrum of this. When people buy "non-appliance" cars, such as Ferraris and that 1 of 704  Eldorado Broughams, and store them to be garage queens never to see the road ever is not a good thing either.  Like I said, cars are meant to be driven.  (Not that you are saying otherwise...)

It takes (a lot of) money and/or time to restore these things.  Time is money even if you are a mechanic and a machinist... so I could understand why cars like these end up being barn finds... (and Im not saying that you dont understand this either...Im just stating the obvious and just doing my part in communicating and enjoying the conversations we have in here)

If I had a second chance at another career choice (I own a very successful hot dog and hamburger restaurant), Id wanna live in the US in one of those sunny and warm States...and Id learn to be a mechanic and machinist and yeah, Id restore old relics like that (on my own time and them sell them at auctions and stuff). But first, to move to the States, Id join the US Air Force and fly around....make Uncle Sam give me my wings, Make Uncle Sam teach me mechanics and machinery, then maybe possibly be a commercial airline pilot and hot rodder...  

 

Very cool story olds.

I totally agree that many of these cars even if rare get used up and found in a barn because the owner didn't have the green backs or heart to move her to the junk yard, or they are stored as garage queens to later be placed in a car museum...or Jay Leno's Garage. ? "Time is Money" is actually an abbreviated quote I follow.

The full quote is:

“Time is money, and when you waste time you waste money and success you can have; if you just overcome the temptation to be distracted. Don't waste time, be productive, and success will be one step closer.”

 

PS. How dare you call the Corvette or Ferrari an appliance!

[USA-1]

On 12/14/2019 at 12:58 PM, dfelt said:

At my Cadillac dealership, got the CT6 V on display and I have to say, that is one tight engine bay.

Yeah, she's a tight fit. Good thing the turbski's are in the V with Hot V config. You go for a spin?! 

17 hours ago, ocnblu said:

 

????

[G. David Felt]

2 hours ago, USA-1 said:

Yeah, she's a tight fit. Good thing the turbski's are in the V with Hot V config. You go for a spin?! 

Sadly no, did not have the time, though they offered. I will say I did find one thing that blew my mind in a negative way about the CT6 V at $100,000 and that is the gaps and give of the plastic mounting as this white CT6 V had the back seat entertainment systems on the chairs and I was surprised how flimsy they appeared to be attached and the give and gaps around it.

Not what I would expect for the price of this auto. Course I would not have them in it either.

[dwightlooi]

I drove it last week, albeit not crazy hard. It's smooth and quiet with minimal lag. Still, I must say that there is a little more "rubber band" effect than say the VW-Audi CEUC 4.0TFSI. That might be because that engine peaks lower and with less toque (443 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm) and doesn't make as mcuh power 435 hp @ 5,500 rpm. Less boost means less boost rise and a more linear perceived power delivery.

I still think that trying to be more European is a mistake for Cadillac and GM. There is no need to do that. I'll very much prefer that Cadillac stuff their flagships with a "Premium" Pushrod V8 given the features which Chevy had to cut out from the LT2 for cost reasons. Features like individual throttles, Dual Injection and concentric cam dual VVT. A 6.8L V8 with all these features and the LS7 stroke will produce an estimated 550 bhp @ 6,200 rpm with 525 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm. No turbos, no intercoolers, no lag, no extra weight and no extra things to break. With AFM it'll still turn in 16/25 mpg which is good enough and no worse than the LTA 4.2TT.

I'll also get rid of ALL the 3.6L V6es altogether. Full size Sedan and SUV Caddy customers can have a choice between the 2.7L Turbofour or the big V8 depending on their preferences for economy or performance. There is no reason for the 310-335 hp V6 to exist. Crossover and compact customers can choose between the 2.0T and the 2.7T. Very simple power train lineup. Maybe they can upgrade the 2.0T and 2.7L to a "premium" setup exclusive to Caddies and Buicks -- Air-to-water intercooling, individual throttle butterflies and dual injection. The 2.0T should easily make 280-300 hp and the 2.7T 380~420 hp with NO CHANGE to compression ratio and boost pressure (by not running out of breathe at 4,500 rpm).

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by dwightlooi

[USA-1]

7 hours ago, dfelt said:

Sadly no, did not have the time, though they offered. I will say I did find one thing that blew my mind in a negative way about the CT6 V at $100,000 and that is the gaps and give of the plastic mounting as this white CT6 V had the back seat entertainment systems on the chairs and I was surprised how flimsy they appeared to be attached and the give and gaps around it.

Not what I would expect for the price of this auto. Course I would not have them in it either.

Hmm, I didn't sit in the backseat of the CT6-V Blackwing I drove. I've sat in others and don't remember the trim around the screens. I do remember this V interior had polished aluminum trim where there was any shiny trim, real carbon fiber and smooth and suede leather everywhere, very little plastic anywhere. I think it's a steal for $100K when competitive M5's or 7 Series or even MB AMG's are around 40-50 grand more.  

[G. David Felt]

3 minutes ago, USA-1 said:

Hmm, I didn't sit in the backseat of the CT6-V Blackwing I drove. I've sat in others and don't remember the trim around the screens. I do remember this V interior had polished aluminum trim where there was any shiny trim, real carbon fiber and smooth and suede leather everywhere, very little plastic anywhere. I think it's a steal for $100K when competitive M5's or 7 Series or even MB AMG's are around 40-50 grand more.  

I would agree with you as everything was tight and very impressive, the only thing was what I thought was an after thought way of how they installed the rear seat entertainment systems. The V surround mounting was plastic that was an attempt to blend it into the seat but the flimsy nature of the mount left me thinking old GM days of the bean counters.

[USA-1]

7 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I drove it last week, albeit not crazy hard. It's smooth and quiet with minimal lag. Still, I must say that there is a little more "rubber band" effect than say the VW-Audi CEUC 4.0TFSI. That might be because that engine peaks lower and with less toque (443 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm) and doesn't make as mcuh power 435 hp @ 5,500 rpm. Less boost means less boost rise and a more linear perceived power delivery.

I still think that trying to be more European is a mistake for Cadillac and GM. There is no need to do that. I'll very much prefer that Cadillac stuff their flagships with a "Premium" Pushrod V8 given the features which Chevy had to cut out from the LT2 for cost reasons. Features like individual throttles, Dual Injection and concentric cam dual VVT. A 6.8L V8 with all these features and the LS7 stroke will produce an estimated 550 bhp @ 6,200 rpm with 525 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm. No turbos, no intercoolers, no lag, no extra weight and no extra things to break. With AFM it'll still turn in 16/25 mpg which is good enough and no worse than the LTA 4.2TT.

I'll also get rid of ALL the 3.6L V6es altogether. Full size Sedan and SUV Caddy customers can have a choice between the 2.7L Turbofour or the big V8 depending on their preferences for economy or performance. There is no reason for the 310-335 hp V6 to exist. Crossover and compact customers can choose between the 2.0T and the 2.7T. Very simple power train lineup. Maybe they can upgrade the 2.0T and 2.7L to a "premium" setup exclusive to Caddies and Buicks -- Air-to-water intercooling, individual throttle butterflies and dual injection. The 2.0T should easily make 280-300 hp and the 2.7T 380~420 hp with NO CHANGE to compression ratio and boost pressure (by not running out of breathe at 4,500 rpm).

 

The CT6-V I drove didn't seem to have much turbo lag at all, but every car has it's own "personality" too. Although the GM LS/LT OHV V8 engines are hard to beat and pretty bullet proof, the point of the Blackwing engine is that it is hand-built and exclusively a Cadillac engine. It will never be offered in any other GM make and I'm told they may still offer it in the upcoming top of the line Escalade Platinum and/or an Escalade V.

I actually think the NA 3.6L V6 is still a viable offering being that many people don't want a 4 cylinder under the hood, turbo or not, but like you stated they don't want or need a V8 either, so there's still a need for the V6 for the entry Luxury and middle Premium Luxury trim buyers. The 3.0TT V6 that I've driven as well is another good option between the less expensive NA 3.6L and the Blackwing. GM built the 2.7T I4 exclusively to be a truck motor for the new Silverado and Sierra. They could probably re-tune it for luxury car use, but I find it hard to believe Cadillac would want or need to use it. The newer 4 cylinder engines have gotten better, but they still have that course grainy sound and feel that screams econo car. I'm told they sell very few of the 2.0T over the 3.6L and 3.0TT here in the U.S. and they tried to offer the 2.0 I4 PHEV that didn't sell well at all here and it had the same 335hp as the 3.6L and obviously more torque output with the Hybrid setup.

[USA-1]

47 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I would agree with you as everything was tight and very impressive, the only thing was what I thought was an after thought way of how they installed the rear seat entertainment systems. The V surround mounting was plastic that was an attempt to blend it into the seat but the flimsy nature of the mount left me thinking old GM days of the bean counters.

Yeah, like one strange thing here or there that GM engineering tends to miss at the last second and it makes it through the final inspection. Like everything is 98% awesome and there's the one thing that has you scratching your head like, WTF were they thinking here?! LOL!!

[balthazar]

Philadelphia warehouse built in 1851. Looks completely terrifying.

Demolished circa 1969 for I-95 Expressway routing.

Edited December 17, 2019 by balthazar

[balthazar]

[Guest What the hell is that?]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

A Broke Back Hotrod?

[dwightlooi]

On 12/16/2019 at 7:33 PM, USA-1 said:

The CT6-V I drove didn't seem to have much turbo lag at all, but every car has it's own "personality" too. Although the GM LS/LT OHV V8 engines are hard to beat and pretty bullet proof, the point of the Blackwing engine is that it is hand-built and exclusively a Cadillac engine. It will never be offered in any other GM make and I'm told they may still offer it in the upcoming top of the line Escalade Platinum and/or an Escalade V.

I actually think the NA 3.6L V6 is still a viable offering being that many people don't want a 4 cylinder under the hood, turbo or not, but like you stated they don't want or need a V8 either, so there's still a need for the V6 for the entry Luxury and middle Premium Luxury trim buyers. The 3.0TT V6 that I've driven as well is another good option between the less expensive NA 3.6L and the Blackwing. GM built the 2.7T I4 exclusively to be a truck motor for the new Silverado and Sierra. They could probably re-tune it for luxury car use, but I find it hard to believe Cadillac would want or need to use it. The newer 4 cylinder engines have gotten better, but they still have that course grainy sound and feel that screams econo car. I'm told they sell very few of the 2.0T over the 3.6L and 3.0TT here in the U.S. and they tried to offer the 2.0 I4 PHEV that didn't sell well at all here and it had the same 335hp as the 3.6L and obviously more torque output with the Hybrid setup.

Actually, it does. Not a heck of a lot, but noticeably more than very low boost Germans like he Audi 4.0T. The reason is simple. It takes longer to get to 640 lb-ft than it does to 444 lb-ft. That boost rise simply takes longer. The Germans have very tiny turbos reaching only 122 lb-ft per liter vs 152. Boost only reaches 9.5 psi and plateaus from 1,500 to 5,100 rpm.

Anyway, the whole hand built and exclusive to Cadillac thing is bullcrap. You can handbuilt and make exclusive a version of the small block V8 too.

[balthazar]

[ykX]

@balthazar LOL @ McLaren.

First of all, last time McLaren had any meaningful win in Formula 1 was in late 90's

Secondary, in 2018 they had an income loss of over 62 million pounds.

Not the best example of the profitable and forward looking company.  Great engineering in the few supercars they built though.

[Robert Hall]

I wonder when McLaren will build a mid engined CUV...

Edited December 18, 2019 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

Do you really.
- - - - -

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by balthazar

[riviera74]

Electricity is getting cleaner at the power plant because more and more power plants are forgoing coal for other sources.  Coal-fired plants are shutting down, especially compared to the GM EV1 days over 20 years ago.

[dwightlooi]

The solution is simple. A SMALL BATTERY of about 10-20 kWh (30-60 mile range) capable of high current draws. A micro gas turbine generator making about 30 kW (40 hp) capabe of recharging the battery in 20-40 mins with the car stationary or about twice that when it is cruising along gently on the freeway. Who cares if the turbine is fuel efficient? It is only used when you are on a long trip or to "recover" from a stint of very aggressive driving. The important thing is that the turbine is very small, does not need coolant and is essentially maintenance free between time to overhaul. It'll fit in the spare tire well!

The simplest practical design is a 2-stage centrifugal unit that looks like two sequential turbos with a combustor can between the compressor and the turbine, as well as a high speed AC generator on the shaft of the low pressure compressor. It should cost about as much as two turbos and an electric motor. Two centrifugal stages is good for about compressor pressure ratio 10:1~12:1 compression ratio (3.3 x 3.3 to 4 x 4) -- about the same as a modern piston engine. It is no GEnx, but it's good enough. This also ensures that emissions will be about the same as a typical gasoline piston engine. Unlike a Hybrid's ICE, the turbine either operates at optimal speed or not at all. When starting the generator-motor spins the low pressure compressor to about 150,000 rpm and generates a combustor inlet pressure ratio of about 3~4:1 which should be enough for the unit to be self sustaining. Fuel combustion and will spin up the high pressure turbine to speed and bring it to the operating pressure ratio. Start up should take about a minute.

The Driver as a three position switch for the turbine generator -- OFF, ON or AUTO. OFF is pure electric. ON runs the turbine as long as the battery is not full. Auto runs the turbine when the battery drops below 20% (6~12 mile range). Very simple.

[G. David Felt]

19 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

Actually, it does. Not a heck of a lot, but noticeably more than very low boost Germans like he Audi 4.0T. The reason is simple. It takes longer to get to 640 lb-ft than it does to 444 lb-ft. That boost rise simply takes longer. The Germans have very tiny turbos reaching only 122 lb-ft per liter vs 152. Boost only reaches 9.5 psi and plateaus from 1,500 to 5,100 rpm.

Anyway, the whole hand built and exclusive to Cadillac thing is bullcrap. You can handbuilt and make exclusive a version of the small block V8 too.

I would take the Hand built Supercharge V8 over the twin turbo crap any day!

[riviera74]

3 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

The solution is simple. A SMALL BATTERY of about 10-20 kWh (30-60 mile range) capable of high current draws. A micro gas turbine generator making about 30 kW (40 hp) capabe of recharging the battery in 20-40 mins with the car stationary or about twice that when it is cruising along gently on the freeway. Who cares if the turbine is fuel efficient? It is only used when you are on a long trip or to "recover" from a stint of very aggressive driving. The important thing is that the turbine is very small, does not need coolant and is essentially maintenance free between time to overhaul. It'll fit in the spare tire well!

The simplest practical design is a 2-stage centrifugal unit that looks like two sequential turbos with a combustor can between the compressor and the turbine, as well as a high speed AC generator on the shaft of the low pressure compressor. It should cost about as much as two turbos and an electric motor. Two centrifugal stages is good for about compressor pressure ratio 10:1~12:1 compression ratio (3.3 x 3.3 to 4 x 4) -- about the same as a modern piston engine. It is no GEnx, but it's good enough. This also ensures that emissions will be about the same as a typical gasoline piston engine. Unlike a Hybrid's ICE, the turbine either operates at optimal speed or not at all. When starting the generator-motor spins the low pressure compressor to about 150,000 rpm and generates a combustor inlet pressure ratio of about 3~4:1 which should be enough for the unit to be self sustaining. Fuel combustion and will spin up the high pressure turbine to speed and bring it to the operating pressure ratio. Start up should take about a minute.

The Driver as a three position switch for the turbine generator -- OFF, ON or AUTO. OFF is pure electric. ON runs the turbine as long as the battery is not full. Auto runs the turbine when the battery drops below 20% (6~12 mile range). Very simple.

One question: who would build it in high enough quantities for it to be viable in the marketplace?  Also, who would buy said vehicle with this powertrain?

[dwightlooi]

Just now, riviera74 said:

One question: who would build it in high enough quantities for it to be viable in the marketplace?  Also, who would buy said vehicle with this powertrain?

The powertrain is no different from the current "performance" electric powertrains like that on the Teslas or the Taycan. The ONLY difference is a turbine generator and we are throwing out 80% of that 2000 pound battery. The reason you go this route is that going from 20 kWh to 100 kWh (60 mile to 300 mile range) will cost you 1600 pounds. That turbine generator is about 50 pounds; 120 pounds with 10 gallons of gas. It is also about $3000 vs about $30000 for the extra battery capacity.

The key here is that modern turboshaft engines are about 4 hp per (engine) pound. A 40 hp engine will only be 10 lbs. I am budgeting 5 times that because we want a CHEAP engine based on turbocharger technology not million dollar aviation engines., plus I am throwing in a generator.

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, dwightlooi said:

The powertrain is no different from the current "performance" electric powertrains like that on the Teslas or the Taycan. The ONLY difference is a turbine generator and we are throwing out 80% of that 2000 pound battery. The reason you go this route is that going from 20 kWh to 100 kWh (60 mile to 300 mile range) will cost you 1600 pounds. That turbine generator is about 50 pounds; 120 pounds with 10 gallons of gas. It is also about $3000 vs about $30000 for the extra battery capacity.

The key here is that modern turboshaft engines are about 4 hp per (engine) pound. A 40 hp engine will only be 10 lbs. I am budgeting 5 times that because we want a CHEAP engine based on turbocharger technology not million dollar aviation engines., plus I am throwing in a generator.

The long range Performance Tesla 3 battery pack has a weight of 1,054 lbs. so if we drop 80%, that makes it about 210.8 lbs. 

[dwightlooi]

Just now, dfelt said:

The long range Performance Tesla 3 battery pack has a weight of 1,054 lbs. so if we drop 80%, that makes it about 210.8 lbs. 

Let me put it in a simple way for everyone to understand. The problem with electric cars is that the energy density of batteries is horrible. A battery that gets you 300 miles is over 1000 lbs -- closer to 2000 if you count the structure you need around it not just the cells. 10 gallons of gasoline takes you 300 miles in a 30 mpg car and it weighs 60 pounds (the tank weighs less than the fuel)

The way to solve the problem is to make the battery as small as possible and use it as a buffer rather than an energy source. You  then replenish it with the smallest and lightest device that can convert hydrocarbon fuel to electric charge.

Now picture a turbocharger a small car like the CLA45 AMG. That'll flow enough air to make about 400hp and raise the pressure about 3:1. If you take two of those you can raise the pressure about 9:1 and make 400hp without the pistons. If you only need 40 hp, imagine the turbos being 1/10th the size of the CLA45 turbo. Think two little pill bottles!

Edited December 19, 2019 by dwightlooi

[ocnblu]

 

[daves87rs]

5 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

Let me put it in a simple way for everyone to understand. The problem with electric cars is that the energy density of batteries is horrible. A battery that gets you 300 miles is over 1000 lbs -- closer to 2000 if you count the structure you need around it not just the cells. 10 gallons of gasoline takes you 300 miles in a 30 mpg car and it weighs 60 pounds (the tank weighs less than the fuel)

The way to solve the problem is to make the battery as small as possible and use it as a buffer rather than an energy source. You  then replenish it with the smallest and lightest device that can convert hydrocarbon fuel to electric charge.

Now picture a turbocharger a small car like the CLA45 AMG. That'll flow enough air to make about 400hp and raise the pressure about 3:1. If you take two of those you can raise the pressure about 9:1 and make 400hp without the pistons. If you only need 40 hp, imagine the turbos being 1/10th the size of the CLA45 turbo. Think two little pill bottles!

Nuff said. ? 

This is when you will really see mainstream electric cars..

Though a gas engine should never be forgotten. It blows my mind on why they dropped the Volt......

[surreal1272]

Saw this on Facebook. 
 

And yes, I’ll take it in black please. 
 

Edited December 19, 2019 by surreal1272

[trinacriabob]

On 12/16/2019 at 10:55 PM, balthazar said:

Philadelphia warehouse built in 1851. Looks completely terrifying.

Demolished circa 1969 for I-95 Expressway routing.

For a split second, I was thinking East St. Louis.  Then I saw the rowhouses on each side.

You wouldn't want to go in there and look around "out of curiosity."

Heck, there is some "funky" scenery to be seen on the SEPTA train from Philly airport into Center City, and this was within the last year.

[dwightlooi]

5 hours ago, daves87rs said:

Nuff said. ? 

This is when you will really see mainstream electric cars..

Though a gas engine should never be forgotten. It blows my mind on why they dropped the Volt......

They dropped the Volt because nobody is buying them and they are losing money on every single one.

The idea is very simple. Electric Power from the battery only needs to get you to work and back or from the shopping mall and back. That's 30-60 miles round trip for most people. That's 90% of the driving. Everything else is the exception. Fuel Economy doesn't really matter for the exception. It is more important that it be convenient, tiny, light and cheap.

A turbocharger is about $600~700 if YOU buy one. I am pretty sure GM is not paying $600-700 to KKK, Honeywell or Mitsubishi when they buy them in the tens of thousands. A two stage turbine generator is basically two small turbos, one combustor can and a starter generator. There is no coolant, no radiator, no cams, no valves, no lifters, nothing. In aviation engines they BURN the oil and simply top it off as an expendable. If you want to recycle that you'll have an oil cooler, but that's about it. It is totally conceivable that the entire ensemble be under $2000 even in moderate quantities and with today's technology.

[trinacriabob]

Ford stock (F) ... get the F up there ... sheez ...

[balthazar]

4 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

Ford stock (F) ... get the F up there ... sheez ...

You should've bought In when it was $2.xx/share.

[balthazar]

RIP, Junior ~

[trinacriabob]

6 hours ago, balthazar said:

You should've bought In when it was $2.xx/share.

It went down that low?! The company's value is diluted over such a broad base of shareholders.  Still, being under $10 per share when the Dow is at 28,000 is weird.

I remember when I was a young, there was a recession (oil crisis), the catalytic converter had just come out, and GM was offering substantial rebates.  It was a great time to buy a GM car.  Their stock was trading at about $ 34 per share.  Then, within 1.5 years, when the bicentennial came around and they sold over 500,000 Oldsmobile Cutlasses (over 1,000,000 Oldsmobiles across all lines), and not even counting their successes withing other GM brands, GM stock was trading at about $ 65 per share.  The problem is that the most affluent are the ones to more readily have the loose cash and the wiggle room to take more routine chances on the upside when the light at the end of the tunnel looks very dim or is nowhere in sight, like it was in the somewhat recent Great Recession.  Dang, that was ugly.

[balthazar]

It was during the downturn; around '09. I really should have picked some up- I actively thought about it.

$5K would've got one 2500 shares. At -say- $10/share, that would've been a $20K profit. But I put money on Visa instead.

I haven't looked into it, but it is very strange Ford hasn't risen with the tide. If GM is at $35, Ford, one would think, could/should be at at least $20.

Edited December 21, 2019 by balthazar

[trinacriabob]

Love to be driving down the freeway and seeing clean and perfectly balanced alloy wheels on an adjacent car either

- appear to be spinning forward in slow motion, or

- appear to be spinning backward in slow motion

Don't remember much about physics and science, and therefore can't explain why it happens or appears that way, but I like seeing it when I do.

[ocnblu]

Those little sealed cups of fruit always squirt juice out when I open them.  HOW TO PREVENT?

[G. David Felt]

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

It was during the downturn; around '09. I really should have picked some up- I actively thought about it.

$5K would've got one 2500 shares. At -say- $10/share, that would've been a $20K profit. But I put money on Visa instead.

I haven't looked into it, but it is very strange Ford hasn't risen with the tide. If GM is at $35, Ford, one would think, could/should be at at least $20.

Agreed, I have bought Ford stock and sat on it, till after years of no change, I dumped it and even now, small change this is compared to other companies. I have never figured out why Ford over the last 20 years has never really grown in value like others have.

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

Those little sealed cups of fruit always squirt juice out when I open them.  HOW TO PREVENT?

I use a knife to cut them open and eat and not squirt myself. Hate it when that happens.  

[daves87rs]

Ah, finally free from drama for a while. MIL had to move in with is for a few months....and nothing but issues. But she finally gets her own place at the end of the month. And the family and I gave her money for a nice hotel until then....