Random Thoughts Thread

[trinacriabob]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

The 265 is a garbage motor.

Why?  If the PMD 350 and 301 were okay, why is the 265 not okay?  Power issues or mechanical issues? It would certainly be better than the 231 that was standard that year, IMO.

[trinacriabob]

Is a ladybug landing on something supposed to mean good luck?

Here's one on my car after parking it and shutting the door.

 

You don't see this often.  With cameras at our disposal 24/7, I took a photo of it.

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, trinacriabob said:

Why?  If the PMD 350 and 301 were okay, why is the 265 not okay?  Power issues or mechanical issues? It would certainly be better than the 231 that was standard that year, IMO.

301 & 265 are low-deck motors, strangulated by design and walled-off from sharing far better engineered factory parts that would waken them up a little. Basically nothing interchanges between the shunned 265/301 and all other PMD V8s. 350 is great, these 2... no.

I am aware you gravitate towards 'lil chuggers' - serviceable engines that exhibit good longevity & reliability. Just note you can get those characteristics in something with more than 135 HP ('77 Safari 2bbl 301 growing up).

Edited August 30, 2021 by balthazar

[Robert Hall]

The GM small displacement V8s of the late 70s-early 80s all seemed to be very low on power..the Pontiac 265 had 120hp, the Olds 260 had 110hp, the Chevy 262 had 110hp, and the Chevy 267 had 120hp... I assume they were an attempt to get better gas mileage. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Robert Hall

[loki]

32 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

The GM small displacement V8s of the late 70s-early 80s all seemed to be very low on power..the Pontiac 265 had 120hp, the Olds 260 had 110hp, the Chevy 262 had 110hp, and the Chevy 267 had 120hp... I assume they were an attempt to get better gas mileage. 

with the early 80's v6 3.8L(231) also putting out ~110hp..it's also about low redlines. if your redline is at 4500rpm, that castrates all but the torquyest motors... also probably low 8:1 compressions

[A Horse With No Name]

On 8/27/2021 at 1:22 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Maybach couldn't even keep itself open as its own brand... 

I'm surprised that trucking company hasn't gotten a tap on the shoulder from Mercedes-Benz yet. 

Even funnier.... I browsed their website and they use almost exclusively Volvo trucks and not Freightliners... 

Different markets.  S-Class Maybach is all about soft, posh, silent.  Sure they have good horsepower... but that isn't the point... the point is the built in champagne cooler in the back. 

V-Series/Blackwing are performance vehicles. 

Both have their place.

I would love a CT6-V Blackwing, but I certainly wouldn't refuse an S-Class Maybach either.  I LOVE the two-tone they can come in. 

See, that's why I love this forum. Music, travel, cars, motorcycles....my mind gets opened. 

That being said, I am a performance car guy. V all the way for me. 

 

10 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

Is a ladybug landing on something supposed to mean good luck?

Here's one on my car after parking it and shutting the door.

 

You don't see this often.  With cameras at our disposal 24/7, I took a photo of it.

That's awesome

 

On 8/28/2021 at 3:21 PM, Robert Hall said:

Today was a day when having a pickup truck would have been useful.   I want to replace my back sliding screen door-- it's a standard size, 35.x X 77.x inches, lightweight.   But it's at least 4-5 inches too long to fit in my Jeep w/ the back seat folded down and driver's seat forward.   If I had a flip-up rear window like my old WJ GC had, it would have fit.    Ordered one from Home Depot, the delivery charge is more than the item itself...c'est la vie..

In doing measurements, I realized the cargo area of my GC with the backseat folded down is actually about 10 inches longer than the length of the bed of my neighbor's Ridgeline w/ the tailgate up. 

Have Ranger, will travel. Can be bribed by good Italian food and good conversation. 

[A Horse With No Name]

On 8/28/2021 at 11:13 PM, balthazar said:

Proper shout out to Tri-tones! 

 

The Green Buick in the last pic is just to die for. Thanks for posting this up. 

[balthazar]

 OEMs reduced displacements trying to increase MPG and had no contingency plan to maintain power levels. It’s also the general state of the industry/tech; this is when a ferrari did a high 15 sec 1/4 mile.

[ccap41]

On 8/28/2021 at 11:45 PM, balthazar said:

How does this even happen? 

Also, what's going on with the rotor and two calipers, on what looks like the front? I assumed that was the parking brake but isn't that always on the rear? I guess with the damage it could still be the rear. 

[balthazar]

Are there parking brake disc calipers?

[Drew Dowdell]

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

The GM small displacement V8s of the late 70s-early 80s all seemed to be very low on power..the Pontiac 265 had 120hp, the Olds 260 had 110hp, the Chevy 262 had 110hp, and the Chevy 267 had 120hp... I assume they were an attempt to get better gas mileage. 

 

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

 OEMs reduced displacements trying to increase MPG and had no contingency plan to maintain power levels. It’s also the general state of the industry/tech; this is when a ferrari did a high 15 sec 1/4 mile.

They were being lazy.  Even though the first oil crisis happened in 1973, they didn't take that as a sign of the times and start developing more efficient engines.  The Cadillac 8.1 remained in production until the end of the 1976 model year run. They replaced it with a 7.0 liter but still put old fashioned carbs (180hp) on it in base form. The fuel injected form it got 195 hp. The Olds 5.7 in the '76 Seville also got 180hp though at a higher RPM than the 7.0. 

[ccap41]

I thought there have been... But this is a modern Alfa so I wouldn't think so. Good point there. 

[balthazar]

29 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

They were being lazy.  Even though the first oil crisis happened in 1973, they didn't take that as a sign of the times and start developing more efficient engines.  The Cadillac 8.1 remained in production until the end of the 1976 model year run. They replaced it with a 7.0 liter but still put old fashioned carbs (180hp) on it in base form. The fuel injected form it got 195 hp. The Olds 5.7 in the '76 Seville also got 180hp though at a higher RPM than the 7.0. 

You well know it takes time (esp traditionally) to change course / bring out brand new architecture.

Cadillac started evaluating a smaller Cadillac in 1970. In the spring of '72, Cadillac dealers were polled at 3.5:1 in favor of a smaller model, and in '73, actual development work began.

But there was still strong legacy customers who wanted real full-size cars; they had to balance their demographic). I think Cadillac executed very well this immediate period, the home run of the Seville, and the downsizing of the '77 senior cars (body & engine), and of course the 3rd home run with the '79 Eldorado.

Yes, I think a more expanded application of FI would've been a plus, tho the early Sevilles did have some issues with there FI system that perhaps the limited usage (Seville / Eldorado initially) were well-paced.

 

[G. David Felt]

Very cool take on a modern updated version of the A-team van with a current SAVANA van and the front from a Sierra 1500. This rocks and I think people would like it. I could so see an EV version of this.

[G. David Felt]

Thought of @balthazar when reading this and looking at the photo's.

1969 Plymouth Road Runner Convertible 383 Manual Flaunts Matching Numbers - autoevolution

[balthazar]

Put a roof on it, change the color, drop it back 10 years and make it a Chrysler. ?

[Robert Hall]

Sweet Road Runner.  Not old enough for Balthy, though...and it doesn't have tailfins. 

[Drew Dowdell]

47 minutes ago, balthazar said:

You well know it takes time (esp traditionally) to change course / bring out brand new architecture.

Cadillac started evaluating a smaller Cadillac in 1970. In the spring of '72, Cadillac dealers were polled at 3.5:1 in favor of a smaller model, and in '73, actual development work began.

But there was still strong legacy customers who wanted real full-size cars; they had to balance their demographic). I think Cadillac executed very well this immediate period, the home run of the Seville, and the downsizing of the '77 senior cars (body & engine), and of course the 3rd home run with the '79 Eldorado.

Yes, I think a more expanded application of FI would've been a plus, tho the early Sevilles did have some issues with there FI system that perhaps the limited usage (Seville / Eldorado initially) were well-paced.

 

Fuel injection had been around for decades by '76.  If it was an option on a '58 Plymouth Fury, it should have been standard on a Cadillac 3 years post fuel crisis in '76.  You and I both know that just slapping a TBI on a previously carbureted engine takes the bare minimum of engineering to do.  Heck, I can retrofit my 307 today for about $1500 or about $312 in 1976 using aftermarket parts... GM's total cost would likely be less than half of that and they would have passed that on to consumers as a "new fuel saving technology that increases power".    Also, making the 500 the standard engine in all Cadillacs (minus Seville) in 1975 was extraordinarily tone deaf on Cadillac's part. 

Cadillac did introduce the 425 as a new engine.  While the overall design was based on the 472/500, with the smaller displacement they were able to shave 100lbs off the block.  But the fact that the carbed 425 made the same horsepower as the FI 350 should have told them something right there.  In 1980, the Seville got a fuel injected 368 (it was the 8-6-4) with 145hp, but in California it got the fuel injected 350 and even though it was smogged for California emissions, it still made 180hp, carbed and unsmogged versions also made 180 hp. 

But outside of Cadillac it was just as bad. They weren't spending money on development.. it was the era of malaise after all. Most of the "new" engines of this era are just lipstick on old pigs that failed to keep up with the times. 

[balthazar]

"Around"; sort of.
Optional on '58 Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto & Chrysler, then gone.
Optional at Pontiac '57-58, then gone.
Optional at Chevy '57-65, then gone.

Cadillac Seville had FI standard from '76-on. 425 had it optional in '78-79, but it was dropped on the 368 in '80 (came back in '81-on).

Big span of years... closer to 2 decades in most cases, without FI.

- - - - -
RE power figures; yes- the 425 had the same HP and TRQ as the FI 350. FI on the 425 raised the HP from 180 to 215, but TRQ rating stayed the same. In an ideal arch, Cadillac should have kept development dollars trained on FI, kept the 368 in the RWD cars and turned the output number in the other direction. Instead they panicked in the V8-6-4 spotlight and dropped the 368 / rushed the 4100.
 

33 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Also, making the 500 the standard engine in all Cadillacs (minus Seville) in 1975 was extraordinarily tone deaf on Cadillac's part. 

This was a move to raise output in light of falling power numbers on the 472. In operational reality, it made no difference to owners (472<>500).

34 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

In 1980, the Seville got a fuel injected 368 (it was the 8-6-4) with 145hp, but in California it got the fuel injected 350 and even though it was smogged for California emissions, it still made 180hp, carbed and unsmogged versions also made 180 hp. 

V8-6-4 was '81.
Seville actually had the 350 diesel standard starting in '80, a terrible move (105 HP / 205 TRQ).

Edited August 30, 2021 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

ah, yup, I did get the year off for the 8-6-4 in the Seville, but the power numbers are the same.  The gas 368 was a zero-cost option... so "standard" didn't really mean any difference... it's just the box that got checked by default.

[balthazar]

And I had a year off; Cadillac started offering FI in '76 on the 500. 215 HP / 400 TRQ.

- - - - -
From what little I've read, the 368 was a good engine, and even those who disabled the V8-6-4 also had a good-running, reliable V8. Just: only 150 HP / 265 TRQ as a 4bbl.

[Robert Hall]

Those '50s FI experiments were mechanical fuel injection, I believe?  I guess they weren't successful and had cost or functional issues which prohibited taking them mainstream...it is interesting that automakers continued with old, proven cheap approach of carbs for so long... 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

Chrysler's was electronic but yes; problematic. They were also expensive options.

30 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

it is interesting that automakers continued with old, proven cheap approach of carbs for so long... 

And circular steering wheels - why use such ancient tech so long?? ?
 

- - - - -
'58 Chrysler FI set-up, prolly worth at least 10 grand: 

'58 Belvedere wearing 'fuel injection' script, supposedly only 1 of 2 Belvi's built with that option : 

Edited August 30, 2021 by balthazar

[Robert Hall]

Just now, balthazar said:

Chrysler's was electronic but yes; problematic. They were also expensive options.

And circular steering wheels - why use such ancient tech so long?? ?

Circle is the best shape for a use case of a steering wheel, haven't really found a way to improve upon it.

 As far as engines go, It's amazing how much maintenance was needed to keep vehicles going in the olden days...points, rotor caps, carburator adjustments, plugs, lifter adjustments...and at low mileage intervals.  Today's engines are more complex but require much less frequent adjustment/maintenance. 

[balthazar]

I thought 1 silly comment deserved another. ?
 

1 minute ago, Robert Hall said:

It's amazing how much maintenance was needed to keep vehicles going in the olden days...points, rotor caps, carburator adjustments, plugs, lifter adjustments...and at low mileage intervals.  Today's engines are more complex but require much less frequent adjustment/maintenance. 

Yes; times actually change. Some things get much better, others get much worse.

Imagine having to got thru 3 or 4 steps on a computer screen to turn on your wipers... instead of turning a simple knob. ?

[Robert Hall]

13 minutes ago, balthazar said:

 

Imagine having to got thru 3 or 4 steps on a computer screen to turn on your wipers... instead of turning a simple knob. ?

That would be horrible.  I think that does happen w/ the newest Teslas, though.  I like interiors with conventional controls for the common use cases--lighting, wiping, radio volume/channel, HVAC... and leave the less used actions to the touch screen.   FCA did a good job w/ balancing the practical button-based controls w/ the touch screen, and with redundancy, IMO.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

GMC does a nice job of that, too.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

And I had a year off; Cadillac started offering FI in '76 on the 500. 215 HP / 400 TRQ.

- - - - -
From what little I've read, the 368 was a good engine, and even those who disabled the V8-6-4 also had a good-running, reliable V8. Just: only 150 HP / 265 TRQ as a 4bbl.

If it was done right, then yes.  A lot of forums will tell you to just snip a wire and it disables the system and while that's true, it also means you don't get torque converter lockup so your fuel economy suffers and eventually (I hear) you do damage to the torque converter and/or transmission.  Apparently one needs to route that wire back under the dash and tap it into another wire there so you get the full transmission functionality back. 

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Those '50s FI experiments were mechanical fuel injection, I believe?  I guess they weren't successful and had cost or functional issues which prohibited taking them mainstream...it is interesting that automakers continued with old, proven cheap approach of carbs for so long... 

 

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

Chrysler's was electronic but yes; problematic. They were also expensive options.

And circular steering wheels - why use such ancient tech so long?? ?
 

- - - - -
'58 Chrysler FI set-up, prolly worth at least 10 grand: 

'58 Belvedere wearing 'fuel injection' script, supposedly only 1 of 2 Belvi's built with that option : 

 

That just points back to my original statement of laziness. They didn't want to spend money to develop technology that all of us can see was a big improvement to both performance and fuel economy, and eventually reliability. 

It took Ford until the 80s as well... but when they finally got around to it, the results were drastic.  The '83 Continental had the carbed 302 with 131 horsepower and 230 lb-ft. By 85 they added throttle body fuel injection that brought hp to 140 hp and 250 lb-ft. In '86 they went to multi-port fuel injection and that brought power up to 150 hp and 270 lb-ft in the Continental, but with other modifications could go as high as 225 hp / 300 lb-ft in Mustangs with less restrictive / dual exhausts. That big of a swing on essentially the same block shows what they could have done had they just put fuel injection on there in the first place instead of stubbornly sticking with carbs.

I can attest from personal experience that the '85 Continental with throttle body fuel injection was good for 26 - 27 mpg highway. 

GM didn't fair as well because they went on the misguided trip of downsizing engines (something they're repeating today) to gain fuel economy and they went so far that not even adding fuel injection could help. Tiny 135 hp HT4100 V8s with 190 lb-ft of torque trying to move Sedan Devilles and Fleetwood Broughams and working so hard it defeated any fuel economy gains they might have gotten. It took multiple upsizings of the engines to get back to... 4.9 liters just to get 200 hp and 275 lb-ft... and those required premium to do it.   

The Chevy 350 went through a similar metamorphosis as they added fuel injection ranging from 145 hp in 1976 to up to 330 hp in the LT1 in 1996. 

[balthazar]

1976 > 1996 = 20 years. There’s a TON more going on than merely FI there.

I get your point, and it’s fun to play ‘what if’, but it’s far from just GM that walked this path.
In ‘76, how many brands besides VW and Cadillac had FI?

[regfootball]

21 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

All nice photos but thank you for this one, whereby a really big and "edgy" Grand Prix gets whittled down to a very manageable Grand Prix - sort of like a drop from a full-size Cadillac into a Seville, but not quite that drastic.

From '78 to '80, this G-body was possibly the nicest one, getting even better in '81.  But, then, that same year, the reskinned Cutlass Supreme coupe variants gave it a run for its money.  At that point, it became a question of subtleties, customer preference, and customer loyalty.  Except for "CCC," you couldn't go wrong.

- - - - -

Here's an '82 GP shown from a dynamic point of view:

It stayed true to the inspiration of its '73 to '77 dashboard:

Loved this car.  Probably best when, of the engine choices, equipped with Pontiac's 4.3 L V8.

Don't get me started ...

here is a picture of the interior design studio, working on laying out the unique 'circles cut into a plywood wall' dashboard layout design.

 

 

 

 

 

[G. David Felt]

@balthazar seems you can charge even more for your truck if you wanted to sell it as Diesel truck/suv production has stopped at GM due to chip shortage. Already Dealers are jacking up prices.

GM Temporarily Stops Production Of 3.0-Liter Duramax Due To Parts Shortage | Carscoops

[trinacriabob]

10 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Cadillac did introduce the 425 as a new engine.  While the overall design was based on the 472/500, with the smaller displacement they were able to shave 100lbs off the block.  But the fact that the carbed 425 made the same horsepower as the FI 350 should have told them something right there.  In 1980, the Seville got a fuel injected 368 (it was the 8-6-4) with 145hp, but in California it got the fuel injected 350 and even though it was smogged for California emissions, it still made 180hp, carbed and unsmogged versions also made 180 hp. 

But outside of Cadillac it was just as bad. They weren't spending money on development.. it was the era of malaise after all. Most of the "new" engines of this era are just lipstick on old pigs that failed to keep up with the times. 

A lot of good info.  I recall the 425.  It shed a lot of cubes ... and weight.  It could have made for a nicer and more respectable experience if they had put basic fuel injection on it.  They did so 2 years prior for the Seville.

The malaise at Cadillac during the Roger Smith years was a real black eye for the division.  There was the 8-6-4, the initial problem ridden aluminum 4100 V8, their use of the diesel, and their use of Buick's 252 c.i. 4 bbl. as an option for those trying to squeak into a more basic Cadillac.  It was funny to see a 4.1 L (252 c.i.) V6 in an Eldorado that was otherwise slicked up with a padded landau roof and fancier wheels.

It took the division moving along from the 4.1 L to the 4.5 L to the 4.9 L V8 during the '80s to ratchet things up toward better engines by Cadillac for their new FWD products and using 5.0 liter V8s using the Olds blueprint for RWD boulevardiers to "right the ship."

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, trinacriabob said:

It could have made for a nicer and more respectable experience if they had put basic fuel injection on [the 425].  They did so 2 years prior for the Seville.

 

10 hours ago, balthazar said:

425 had it optional in '78-79

 

[balthazar]

I don't know the year of this ad : 

[Robert Hall]

^ looks like a ‘67-68 Olds 88/98 dash. 

[A Horse With No Name]

On 8/27/2021 at 5:15 PM, balthazar said:

@David : you only show 1 factory paint job, tho Robert hit all 3.

Most factory 2-tone jobs follow hard body lines or have delineating trim (ala the F-150).
I just find the Maybach's 'break line' to be arbitrary & awkward, esp how it hits the headlights. Doesn't look factory to me, it looks like a 'one-off'.

Doesn't look attractive to me. 

[A Horse With No Name]

interesting times we live in from ana viation standpoint. 

 

 

[surreal1272]

9 hours ago, balthazar said:

I don't know the year of this ad : 

Most likely the 70s and that "tech" goes back to the 1960s, as far as GM is concerned. 

 

ERGS (per Wikipedia)

Electronic Route Guidance System (ERGS) was a 1970s era government sponsored in-vehicle navigation and route guidance system used in the United States. ERGS was the initial stage of a larger research and development effort called the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). Other programs include Japan's CACS and similar projects in Europe.

ERGS was a destination oriented system that required a human driver to enter a destination code into the vehicle system. The vehicle communicated with an instrument intersection where the destination code was decoded and routing information was sent back to the vehicle.^[1]

 

 

^{And in 1966,}

^{https://www.wheels.ca/news/1966-in-car-navigation-system-looks-very-familiar-today/}

[trinacriabob]

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

interesting times we live in from ana viation standpoint. 

Argh.

Airlines are starting to use the Airbus 321-LR Neo to cross the Atlantic.  It's single aisle. TAP Air Portugal is already using it for that service, along with their Airbus 330.  I prefer the latter.

The news about Alitalia is soul crushing.  I'm hoping it's a reorg rather than completely ceasing to do business.  So many memories.  All good.  I love their livery.  Our family always got good service aboard their planes.  And they had the coolest 747s.

Watch it all the way until the end, when the take-off takes the jumbo toward Manhattan.

Their fleet of 747s was named after resorts in different parts of Italy:  Portofino, Cervinia, Capri, Taormina, Porto Cervo, Cortina d'Ampezzo, etc.

Beautiful.

Edited August 31, 2021 by trinacriabob

[A Horse With No Name]

4 minutes ago, trinacriabob said:

Argh.

Airlines are starting to use the Airbus 321-LR Neo to cross the Atlantic.  It's single aisle. TAP Air Portugal is already using it for that service, along with their Airbus 330.  I prefer the latter.

The news about Alitalia is soul crushing.  I'm hoping it's a reorg rather than completely ceasing to do business.  So many memories.  All good.  I love their livery.  Our family always got good service aboard their planes.  And they had the coolest 747s.

Watch it all the way until the end, when the take-off takes the jumbo toward Manhattan.

Their fleet of 747s was named after resorts in different parts of Italy:  Portofino, Cervinia, Capri, Taormina, Porto Cervo, Cortina d'Ampezzo, etc.

Beautiful.

That livery is beautiful on the 747. 

Alitalia ahd a fair amount of Airbus in its fleet. 

 

Vintage Tube Pre amp, gorgeous, beyond my budget. 

https://skyfiaudio.com/collections/preamps/products/luxman-cl35-mkiii-vintage-tube-preamplifier-with-telefunken-tubes

 

 

 

[A Horse With No Name]

Jacky Icxx, BMW he raced back in the 60's...

 

[G. David Felt]

Want to order a Ford Bronco, must visit a dealer as Ford has paused taking reservations online for now as current model year deliveries will now stretch into 2022 for the first year release model.

Ford stops taking online reservations for Bronco SUV - The Automobile Blog (automobiledot.com)

Ford temporarily stops taking online reservations for Bronco (clickondetroit.com)

Ford Bronco Online Reservations Paused As Production Challenges Mount (fordauthority.com)

2021 Ford® Bronco SUV | Reservation Explained

[G. David Felt]

WOW, watching the videos in this story is just crazy seeing the train demolish the wind turbine blade and the semi.

Watch a freight train slam into truck carrying a wind turbine blade in Texas (msn.com)

[G. David Felt]

All Chevrolet Bolt and Bolt EUV have had production suspended initially due to the Chip Shortage, but clearly the fact that all Bolts including the Generation 2 Bolt and Bolt EUV are to be recalled for new battery packs and controllers awaiting LG ability to fix the problem with the battery packs and ship replacement packs for 142,000 existing auto's and then enough to begin assembly again. Seems currently GM EV production is dead till mid September, but many believe it will go farther into fall.

Chevrolet Bolt EV And Bolt EUV Production Temporarily Halted (insideevs.com)

GM temporarily stops making the Chevy Bolt after latest recall - The Verge

Amid Bolt EV recall, GM CEO emphasizes multiple future battery options (greencarreports.com)

Seems BOLT owners, especially the first few years will really benefit as they get a new battery pack with an 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty and 8% more drivable range.

GM Chevy Bolt EV battery fix could bring many owners more range than they originally had (greencarreports.com)

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, David said:

WOW, watching the videos in this story is just crazy seeing the train demolish the wind turbine blade and the semi.

Watch a freight train slam into truck carrying a wind turbine blade in Texas (msn.com)

Expensive mistake. 

26 minutes ago, David said:

All Chevrolet Bolt and Bolt EUV have had production suspended initially due to the Chip Shortage, but clearly the fact that all Bolts including the Generation 2 Bolt and Bolt EUV are to be recalled for new battery packs and controllers awaiting LG ability to fix the problem with the battery packs and ship replacement packs for 142,000 existing auto's and then enough to begin assembly again. Seems currently GM EV production is dead till mid September, but many believe it will go farther into fall.

Chevrolet Bolt EV And Bolt EUV Production Temporarily Halted (insideevs.com)

GM temporarily stops making the Chevy Bolt after latest recall - The Verge

Amid Bolt EV recall, GM CEO emphasizes multiple future battery options (greencarreports.com)

Seems BOLT owners, especially the first few years will really benefit as they get a new battery pack with an 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty and 8% more drivable range.

GM Chevy Bolt EV battery fix could bring many owners more range than they originally had (greencarreports.com)

My good friend scott and his wife nahve a bolt, they love it. Were they to fix the battery problem, i could see owning one. 

1 hour ago, David said:

Want to order a Ford Bronco, must visit a dealer as Ford has paused taking reservations online for now as current model year deliveries will now stretch into 2022 for the first year release model.

Ford stops taking online reservations for Bronco SUV - The Automobile Blog (automobiledot.com)

Ford temporarily stops taking online reservations for Bronco (clickondetroit.com)

Ford Bronco Online Reservations Paused As Production Challenges Mount (fordauthority.com)

2021 Ford® Bronco SUV | Reservation Explained

From a guy who hated Ford a couple of years ago, to today....Ford is getting a lot right now. Bronco and Mach E for two. Now they jsut need an EV Bronco., 

Horoscope...

[A Horse With No Name]

Italian food in a nut shell. 

Funny...

 

Jehovas witness...

[Robert Hall]

2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Jacky Icxx, BMW he raced back in the 60's...

 

Mr Ickx and Derek Bell at Rennsport Reunion, Laguna Seca 2015.  Was such a fun event.  

[A Horse With No Name]

[balthazar]