Re-Tuning G35 engines to run on lower Octane

[lovinmyG]

Hey guys...

Even though I am NEW to this group, I have enjoyed reading everyone's posts. You guys know a heck of a lot more about cars than I do and for that I am grateful!!

With all that has been written about the gas mileage on the G, is there any inexpensive ways/mods to increase gas mileage. I say inexpensive primarily because I am a lonely Project Manager for a tech company here in Atlanta and they don't pay me the big bucks....yet! I have a 05' Sedan, that I absolutely adore, but like many others; I feel that the gas mileage could be better.

ANY advice would be appreciated!

"Be brief, for no discourse can please when too long.

~Miguel de Cervantes~

[Jacko3]

lovingmyG:

In my experience with the Coupe, it apears the mods + using synthetic oil did improve gas mileage and power at the same time. I don't know if this is the case with sedans. The mods I have are the 5/16" spacer, Mrev2 (lower plenum), JWT Pop Charger with Z-tube, and a Stilled True Dual back Exahust. Total cost of parts is about $2K + or - $300. You can install much of it yourself or you can pay a dealership to install them. E-mail me if you need someone to install the parts for you. Just my 2 cents.

[Jacko3]

Telcoman:

Lol, about the retirement stuff. Yep, we shall be taking good care of many. Yes, you are right, I have to be careful about those who will have no issues whipping out that Smith and Wesson in a blink of an eye.

[rn79870]

This thread is a spin off of the fuel economy thread. I hope we can rationally discuss the issues and solutions to the waning supply of fuel. ( Not whining, but examining and discussing a real problem) My point is that mileage is important. It’s a multifaceted issue, and ignorance of the real problem is problematic.

We all know about C.A.F.E. Does it work? Yes, fuel economy standards do work…In 2000 alone, CAFE standards saved American consumers $92 billion, reduced oil use by 60 billion gallons of gasoline, and kept 720 million tons of global warming pollution out of our atmosphere.(*1)

$92,000,000,000, and 60,000,000,000 billion barrels of oil. That’s a lot of saved assets in ONE YEAR. That’s $306 for every man, woman and child in America. Multiply that by 50 years. Money savings is only part of it. Barrels saved is far more important.

Unlimited fuel resources. Not so. Fuel is running out…No, it isn’t a renewable resource. The reserves are finite, and they aren’t making any more. Although the comment was made that the oil would last thousands of years in a previous thread, this is not the case. At least, not according to the experts.

This year, global demand for oil — currently at more than 80 million barrels per day and climbing —( *2)

A lot depends, of course, on just how much oil remains underground. Many of those who fear a production peak is imminent base their forecast on estimates of what geologists call the “ultimate recoverable resource” of about 2 trillion barrels of oil. (*2)

If there are 2-2.7 trillion barrels left, the topping-out point lies somewhere in the 2030s and we have time to prepare. If there are 1 trillion barrels left, the topping-out point is as close as 2008, plus or minus two years, and there is not enough time to make the transition from oil to alternatives without economic trauma. (*3)

The feds reported over 3 trillion barrels, but that may have been flawed. Unfortunately, that 3021 figure includes the oil that has already been consumed. It consists of "undiscovered conventional oil" (732 billion barrels), "reserve growth" (688 billion barrels), "reserves remaining" (891 billion barrels), and "cumulative production" (710 billion barrels) (1). Deduct the 710 billion barrels already consumed, and the remaining oil totals 2311 billion barrels, a figure closer to other estimates. (*4)

He also calculates a "life index" of 40 years for known reserves, using current consumption figures. Using the 891 billion barrels (reserves remaining) figure would reduce that number to 32 years, but there are flaws in that calculation. Making projections based on current consumption is meaningless if consumption is rising (which it is). With a projected annual growth worldwide of 1.9% from 2001 to 2025 (2), the 32 years' supply would decline to about 26 years. (*4)

With 2 + trillion barrels left in known and predictable discovery areas, we’re looking at Topping-out problems as soon as 2030. (+/- a few years). Topping-out, as I understand it, is not running out, instead, it is the point at which we can no longer pump oil sufficient to meet demand. If you remember the gas lines of the mid 70’s this fact alone will cause you to sit up and take notice. I.E. there isn't enough to go around. Imagine what people will do to get fuel then.

I had found a US governmental report that extrapolated a date about 200 years from now for the fuel running out. There were problems with that estimate that proved it over optimistic. I can not find the cite on that at this time.

Needless to say, oil is a finite commodity, and as such, there will be an end to it. One way or the other, the wells are running lower each day.

Foreign oil is a financial drain to the country. This is one of the few things that we have a little control over. We can become knowledgeable and react according to that knowledge. Maybe drive less, or slower, or avoid doing those things which exasperate the problem.

American cars, trucks and SUVs account for approximately 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption. Much of this oil is imported and our foreign oil reliance continues to grow. (*1)

Environmentally, bad mileage, AKA excessive consumption is detrimental to the earth.

For every gallon of gasoline that is consumed, approximately 24 pounds of global warming pollution are released into the air.(*1)

Global warming is bad. Trust me, it isn't something that we really need.

Burning more fuel than necessary is expensive, personally, politically and environmentally. The issue is far greater than a few dollars more or less per day.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t enjoy your car, or even that you should trade in your car on a Civic. I’m just hoping that you might look at the issue a little differently, with an eye to the overall picture.

This is the way I see it, your mileage may, and probably will, vary.

(*1)http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_ve....html

(*2)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5945678/

(*3)http://www.prospect-magazine.c...=7156

(*4)http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...31/52

(edited for spelling)

Modified by rn79870 at 10:50 AM 2/10/2008
Modified by rn79870 at 10:56 AM 2/10/2008

[W661335PF]

Excellent post rn79870! With your permission, I'd like to add another dimension to your point-- global warming ands its effect on poorer nations. Many of the most important diseases in poor countries, from malaria to diarrhea and malnutrition, are highly sensitive to climate and warmer climates allow these diseases to spread more quickly. If, for example, the government is hard-put to find enough water for toilets for the twenty million inhabitants of some larger 3rd world nations even without climate change, what happens if the climate becomes dryer and the rural poor seeking refuge continue to pour into these cities? How can the millions of subsistence farmers in Africa find the capital to import food when desertification robs them of their livelihood? How can the poor of Bangladesh afford to construct the dikes necessary to keep the sea from flooding their low-lying land if climate change results in the rise of global sea levels?

The developed countries, which contain a minority of the world's population, account for 72 percent of current fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions and 84 percent of fossil fuel carbon dioxide accumulated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. While the developed countries, with their relatively small populations, have produced most of the carbon dioxide which produces global climate change, they also have benefited most from the production of carbon dioxide and have the resources to protect themselves from the consequences of climate change.

The developing countries, on the other hand, with their large and rapidly growing populations, have less responsibility for causing global climate change, have received fewer benefits from the production of carbon dioxide, and have fewer resources to protect themselves from the consequences of the resulting climate change.

Essentially, fuel costs are but momentary inconveniences for G-owners, many of which decry the low mpg of their sports car and yet insist on driving as if their behavior had no consequences for the world. Owning the G is not the issue here, it's how responsible we are altogether as stewards of our planet.


Modified by W661335PF at 12:04 PM 2/10/2008

[Beancooker]

Okay, I just wasted too much time editing a ton of BS from this thread. I will now merge all of them together.

IF YOU CAN'T PLAY NICE, AND ARE FORCED TO BE IMPOLITE OR FEEL THE NEED TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, OR WISH TO FLAME SOMEONE, OR JUST WANT TO BE A DOUCHE IN GENERAL, THAT IS FINE BY ME. I WILL BAN YOU WITHOUT HESITATION. I HOPE THIS MESSAGE IS CLEAR ENOUGH. PLAY NICE OR GTFO.

[rn79870]

Thanks for all your efforts beancooker. We'll behave now.

[rn79870]

Essentially, fuel costs are but momentary inconveniences for G-owners, many of which decry the low mpg of their sports car and yet insist on driving as if their behavior had no consequences for the world. Owning the G is not the issue here, it's how responsible we are altogether as stewards of our planet.

It's amazing how so many countries understand this and believe in it, yet the US refuses to recognize it with the attention it deserves. In 1975 Brazil recognized the problems of oil dependency, and responded with the Pró-Álcool program. Now, 32 or 33 years later, the US is thinking that such a program is possibly desirable. I'm afraid that global warming isn't a priority in the US and it well should be. In fact, you can find experts here who differ on whether it even exists.

[W661335PF]

Thanks for all your efforts beancooker. We'll behave now.

Bien dicho!!! Well said.... ditto, ditto

[W661335PF]

It's amazing how so many countries understand this and believe in it, yet the US refuses to recognize it with the attention it deserves. In 1975 Brazil recognized the problems of oil dependency, and responded with the Pró-Álcool program. Now, 32 or 33 years later, the US is thinking that such a program is possibly desirable. I'm afraid that global warming isn't a priority in the US and it well should be. In fact, you can find experts here who differ on whether it even exists.

There was an article in the NYTimes this week which indicated that the development of bio-fuels was more costly and resulted in more greenhouse gases than dyno-fuel. The excellent article entitlted: Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat, appeared here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...87%0A

It seems we are reaching an end of sorts here and that we will all be forced, not by costs or government pressure, but by nature, to retool our approaches to life.

[Jacko3]

rn79870:

Excellent post on fuel economy!

[rn79870]

It seems we are reaching an end of sorts here and that we will all be forced, not by costs or government pressure, but by nature, to retool our approaches to life.

There may be hope for America on the horizon

Saying America must be weaned from its reliance on foreign oil, Senator John McCain of Arizona is renewing his call for a cap on emissions of greenhouse gases as a way to fight global warming.

Senator Barack Obama presented a plan on Monday to decrease the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming by creating an auction system requiring power companies and other industries to pay for their pollution. By the year 2020, he said, emissions would be reduced to levels from 1990.

"It is an outrage that the Bush Administration chose to block the efforts of California, Oregon, and many other states that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles," Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton stated

It appears that one of those three will be the next President. At least they seem more concerned about the problems than the current administration.

[!979TransAm]

Politics should be kept far from this thread, with everyones passion on here it could start a war

I personally have trouble with the idea of global warming as just being the fact we are using fossil fuels. I wouldn't really call my self an envirmentalist but you wouldn't see me starting tire fires either. I did a research paper in high school on global warming and was suprised at what I had found. These kind of climate flucuations have happened throughout history. I also found that a large contribution to polluted are in the atmosphere has been our alarming rate of deforestation over the years. Start cutting chunks out of your lungs and see how long you last, comparable effect on to the earth. Oddly enough Brazil being anti Fossil fuel account for a large percentage of deforestation. Course you can't blame a country for utilizing it's major resource, we don't yell at the Middle East for pumping all the oil they can out of the ground.

Something has to be done about fossil fuels for certain. Until they can do a major switch though we need to see a big improvement in MPG

Just my two cents

[C-Kwik]

C-Kwik:

Wow! In the stable of Nissans, and in the entirety of your mechanical knowledge, you can't figure out which one is little, given that I had said I have over 200,000 miles? Let me help your infallible knowledge---It is not a Nissan Versa. Does that help? I can't imagine anyone not knowing which Nissan is the little one. I guess you would be confused if I also said, my little Toyota.

Uhh? Go back and read up on some Nissan and Datsun history. There are too many small Nissans that could potentially have more than 200,000 miles on them. It could vary on one’s interpretation of “little” as well. Some of the early Maximas can be considered little by today’s standards.

Your speculations about poor driving are totally wrong. You know what I have come to discover, you use your not-so compelling technical knowledge to try to demean people. But you failed on that account! A clutch will smell while driving for no reason. It does not even have to be during shifting or poor shuifting. Please give me a break. Have you ever seen a car catch fire because the clutch just suddenly over heated? Well, I have---twice. I am solidly sure you haven't. So, stop saying things you have no idea about. You are theorist and not a pragmatist. Even the manufactuerers of the cars we drive, who have certified engineers, don't fully understand why the G-35 behaves a certain way in some instances. It takes them time to figure it before sending out a TSB. How much more you, who probably don't work for an auto manufacturer. You think your "howstuffworks" knowledge is real knowledge about cars? Give me a freaking break!

I don’t come here to try and demean people. I try to correct them if they are wrong. If I know or feel something someone else states is wrong I point it out. If one feels demeaned as a result, it’s not my intent. The fact of it is, the truth can hurt.

Nope, I’ve never overheated a clutch before (except when a clutch malfunctions or is in need of replacement). So naturally, I wouldn’t smell it as I’ve given it no reason to. And it most certainly wouldn’t have caught on fire.

My argument here would be that clutches don’t spontaneously catch fire or overheat for no reason. Automakers would have legal problems if they did. In my prior career as an insurance adjuster, I have seen many cases where fuel lines, power steering fluids, oils and transmission fluids caused fires. Never had I ever heard of a clutch catching on fire or starting a fire. Some of which the manufacturers had to pay for.

C-KWIK, OMG you dare to question my physics and chemistry? Are you really serious?

Absolutely I do. Just as you question mine. It's hypocritical to think that you can question one's knowledge and not be questioned yourself. As I said before, you are more than welcome to question mine. But you better be able to back it up.

C-KWIK LET ME TUTOR YOU A BIT ABOUT AIR. SO LONG AS A VACUUM DOES NOT EXIST, AIR WILL FILL ANY SPACE IT COMES IN CONTACT , EVEN IN MILLIMETERS. AND WHEN AIR FILLS ANY SPACE, ESPECIALLY ONE WHERE THERE IS HEAT, IT WILL TRANSFER THAT HEAT in/OUT BY CONVECTION. THERE ARE GENERALLY 3 METHODS OF HEAT TRANSFER---CONDUCTION, CONVECTION, AND RADIATION. I HOPE YOU ARE STILL READING BECAUSE YOU REALLY NEED A STRONG DOSE OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY. STOP SAYING THINGS THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

The point I’m making here is that air is a poor heat transport. The mass of air that exists at sea level is quite small compared to a big hunk of metal (the flywheel and pressure plate) Both the flywheel and pressure plate has a greater ability to absorb more heat and at a faster rate than a small layer of air that could exist between the pressure plate, clutch disc and flywheel.

WHAT IS THE DENsITY OF AIR, SINCE YOU THINK YOUR CHEMISTRY IS SOUND, and in what measurements is that density? AIR IS NOT MADE UP OF A FEW MOLECULES. IT IS MADE UP OF A COMBINATION OF MOLECULES FROM OXYGEN, NITROGEN, HYDROGEN, AND INERT GASES. THERE IS NO CHEMICAL EQUATION FOR AIR, SO HOW COULD YOU SUGEST THAT IT HAS A FEW MOLECULES---WRONG CHEMISTRY?

I never suggested there were few molecules. I stated that there were few molecules in comparison of a liquid or solid of the same volume.

*Edited as this line was incomplete*

The density of dry air at STP [standard temperature(0 degrees Celsius) and pressure(1 bar or about 14.7 psi)] is 1.292 kg/m^3. This does not include any effects of water vapor. Water vapor will reduce this depending on the actual humidity level of the air. But if you read carefully, you’ld find that I said it was a small amount of air compared to a solid or a liquid. Water has a density of about 1000 kg/m^3. Iron has a density of about 7,870 kg/m^3.

Air also has less thermal conductivity than metals and water. Air has a thermal conductivity of about 0.025 watts/meter*Kelvin. Water is at about .06 watts/meter*Kelvin. And Iron is at about 80 watts/meter*Kelvin.

Thermal conductivity and density together make the flywheel and pressure plate a much better medium for transporting heat away from the clutch disc material.

There are a few simple things you can do to simulate the effects I am describing here. The first is probably not feasible in your area, but I’m sure you can imagine the effects. If you stood in nothing but your underwear in 40 degree Fahrenheit air you’ld probably freeze to death if you stayed in it long enough. Try submerging yourself in 40 degree Fahrenheit water. I guarantee you would freeze to death faster in the water. This is mainly because water is denser than air which allows it to absorb more heat and can carry more heat away from your body at a faster rate. A more feasible experiment is to open up your freezer and stick your hand in it. You’ll notice it is cold but you can probably bear it for some time. Now try freezing a block of metal in the same freezer and then put your hand on it. You’ll notice it will feel much colder and if big enough and enough of your hand is on it, you’ll probably want to let go as it becomes painfully uncomfortable very quickly. Again, it is able to carry more heat away faster than air alone.

Christ, some on this blog who have no idea about physics and chemistry, would sheepishly beleive your comments, when in fact, they are developed from pseudoscience. As you can see, from other topics, I am not only sound in business concepts. I am also sound in my sciences. Make sure you say no more about the physical sciences, because I will be there to correct you big time. Stick to cars adn their mechanism, and stop trying to tell us the little science you picked up from Wikipedia.

If you want to prove me wrong, do so by countering the science I am pointing out. Even if all of my sources were Wikipedia based, if it’s accurate, what’s the difference?

And then you speak about racing brakes and venting. Well, the reason why the pumps are used is to increase air flow so that a more efficient heat trasfer from convection is achieved. In the absence of efficient heat transfer, one is left to use increased time, as in the case of my clutch, by seperating the clutch from the flywheel for a period of time, until some type of colling has occured, albeit inefficiently.

The effects from a brake’s cooling vanes are increased by pumping air through it. It takes considerably more time to cool a brake rotor that is stopped than one that is moving at a high rate of speed.

I could also care less if you want to brag about your mechanical skills as you do here all the time. The rest of what you have said is total nonsense. You seem to lack some type of humility in your commentary. Anyway, who cares. All I am saying here is that you should stop speaking about your pseudoscience. I doubt you are that great with mechanical stuff, anyway. I think you are just a theorist at heart. I haven't heard you speak about how to move a wrench on a car just yet.

Again, it’s irrelevant. But if it helps, I’ve built a 500 HP Supra, a 450 HP Supra, Rebuilt the motor on one of those Supras, built a turbo 240sx, upgraded brakes, suspension and stereo equipment in just about everything I’ve owned. I actually spent most of the day yesterday installing a spare tire lock, replacing the diff fluid, transmission fluid belts and oil on the Titan. I may try and change the oil and plugs on my motorcycle today. And I’ve actually replaced 7 clutches on 5 different cars.

I will be reading very closely for your wrong pseudoscience. You just stepped into my turf as far as sciences are concerned. There are very fuew areas in the sciences I am not aware of. One of those areas is combustion, where very few in the sciences actually focus. So, stick to combustion and nothing more. The last time you discussed octane ratings, I said very little becasue that is the area where my science is limited,

I don’t try and claim to know anything. I share what I know and that’s it. Saying you know something is one thing. Showing it is another story altogether.

yOU ARE REALLY INCREDIBLE IN YOUR EXPLANATIONS. hOW CAN ANYONE WHO IS GOOD WITH THE SCIENCES CONCLUDE THAT WHEN TWO SOLID PIECES, A CLUTCH AND FLYWHEEL, COME INTO CONTACT, THAT THE FRICTION BETWEEN THE TWO WILL NOT GENERATE HEAT? THIS IS BAFFLING? I MEAN IN CHEMISTRY, WE SAY THAT AN EXOTHERMIC REACTION WIL OCCUR, AND IN PHYSICS WE SAY THAT KINETIC ENERGY DEVELOPED BY MOVING PARTS, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF INERTIA, WILL GENERATE HEAT.

Most of the time a clutch should experience static friction. This means, the clutch disc, pressure plate and flywheel should be moving at the same speed, essentially locked together. But when starting a car off from a stop and perhaps for very brief moments during shifts, there will be a small amount of kinetic friction (or more accurately sliding friction). Static friction does not generate heat. Kinetic friction does. Kinetic friction should be (if you are driving correctly) a very small percentage of the type of friction a clutch experiences.

I REALLY HAVE TO ASK, WHAT SCIENCE BOOKS DO YOU READ? PLEASE TELL US. I AM EXPECTING YOUR LONG AND PROBABLY UNREWARDING RESPONSE, AS ALWAYS.

I read whatever literature I come across that either sparks my interest or is required of me to accomplish a task. But as with everything else, it is highly irrelevant. What is relevant is the theories and facts of science and applying them to the problem. If you feel I am wrong, that’s fine. But prove it with facts. Throwing out suggestions that my knowledge and perhaps source of knowledge are wrong is not proof of anything. Show me the science that would prove me wrong. I only claim to provide information and knowledge to the best of my abilities and experiences. I’m the first to admit that I can be wrong. But if I am wrong, I expect and hope that someone can do so by making a cohesive technical argument. This is one of the ways that I learn. In fact, a good deal of knowledge I’ve gained over the years is because of that.

[rn79870]

Politics should be kept far from this thread, with everyones passion on here it could start a war

That wasn't political. If anything it points out that the issues we are discussing have made it into the platform of EVERY viable candidate. I don't think you're seeing the elephant in the room here.

Something has to be done about fossil fuels for certain. Until they can do a major switch though we need to see a big improvement in MPG

That's a big part of it.

[rn79870]

!979TransAm

Most of the answers about greenhouse gasses and global warming are here. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html I'm not going to go into several pages of discussion about the problem, you can read what the US EPA has to say about it if you are interested.

[!979TransAm]

RN don't get me wrong I'm not saying global warming is some made up story. I believe this is all just a natural process but thanks to man and pollution we are speeding things along and amplifying it.

And again I was just throwing a joke out there with everyone wound up over something as trivial as gas mileage I can only imagine how some of us would get over things based on belief and opinions of politics. Point being all it takes is for one person to take a side of a candidate you mentioned and bam arguements. Just the truth.

I personally lean towards hydrogen as a good candidate for alternative fuel.

[!979TransAm]

BTW anyone see those tiny smart cars? Interesting engineering there. Withstood all kinds of crash testing, not bad for a tiny car. The frame on that car is a single moulded piece metal.

[telcoman]

BTW anyone see those tiny smart cars? Interesting engineering there. Withstood all kinds of crash testing, not bad for a tiny car. The frame on that car is a single moulded piece metal.

1979TransAm

Check out Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Many similar size cars as well as many other interesting things to see.

Telcoman

[!979TransAm]

Telco I'm sure Someday I will make a stop there

[Jacko3]

C-Kwik:

I am not going to beat a dead horse with you. I ma glad you stuck only to the physics portion of your argument, and not the heat trasfer portion and chemistry portion. I will grant you that the facts you present as fas as density and thermal conductivity is correct. However, you have failed to describe your findings in terms of heat transfer.

First of all, thermal conductivity leads to either cubic expansitivities for gases or linear expansivities for metals. When two pieces of metals or solids are interacting, heat is genrally trasferred between the two metals/solid, and heat is dissipated in either direction of the two friction filled metals or solids. To stop heat from moving by conduction through both metals/solid, seperating both metals so that air or a gas either naturally aspirated or through forced convection (much better technique), is used to dissipate the heat away from both metals.

So, however, poor the heat transfer charcteristics of air is, matters little to the extent that the air truncates the dissipation of heat either way between two solids.

Secondly, your argument fails to show that the most effective way for metals to dissipate heat during a heat transfer process is by contact with a fluid. A fluid is any substance that has viscosity and can exert pressure. This includes gases and liquids. Thus, the more abundant fluid to aid in the effective heat transfer when cooling solid substances is air. It occurs naturally.

While I take you explanations seriously, one is not truely compelled by them. And then, I thought we were done with this argument. So, you are unable to let sleeping dogs lie. And you feel a strong urge to continue to beat a dead horse. Well, to each his own.

I would still love to hear your chemsitry portion of your explanations. Of course, I expect you will study hard to provide a good explanantion. Nonetheless, nice attempt. If I had to give you a grade for your physics, I would assign a greade of 6 out of 10, because you have not satisfactorily provided a robust explanation for the heat transfer process. Read my previous comment again, and read my present comment, and you will come to have a good understanding of heat transfer. I won't even bother you with the mass transfer portion of this whole deal.

[W661335PF]

Guys... guys... please, this really is hurting. It just takes me back to those dreadful days of organic chemistry, bio-physics, applied mathematics, inferential statistics and all that (WOW!!!- now even I sound impressive and knowledgeable-- never mind that, these are fleeting moments for a guy with increasing Alzheimers).

The sad part is that the material learned then is now obsolete!!!

so for now I'll just

[W661335PF]

1979TransAm

Check out Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Many similar size cars as well as many other interesting things to see.

Telcoman

1979TransAm

Check out Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Many similar size cars as well as many other interesting things to see.

Telcoman

I had the pleasure (not for a minute) of renting a Smart Car while in Italy. It couldn't climb the hills of the Amalfi Coast (most beautiful place I've seen in my life), the ride was slow (I think it had <80hp), extremely jarring and rough... and talk about no safety or protection!!! It did well in Rome, Florence, Pisa and the cities though. I'll just as soon keep my G!

[Beancooker]

Glad everyone is enjoying the thread. I guess everyone (including myself) have taken their meds today?

Just kidding, that would imply that I thought you guys werre crazy, and the fact is, I know you all are...

[Beancooker]

Oh, one thing that some of you may have not heard about is the Tesla Roadster. It is fast and cheap to drive (after the initial purchace). I am not eco friendly when it comes to cars, I like power. I would own one of those though. Superbadassed for an electric car.

[Jacko3]

beancooker:

Yep! Tesla electric cars are fast, and they look really nice. I would love to own one too. Problem is, they are super expensive. Currently, the price for one is abot $100K. But I hear they are working on one that will cost about $30K but will travel less miles before requiring charging.

[Beancooker]

Yeah, I'd rock the hell out of one of those. If they had one for $30k, I'd be on that like an Ethiopian on a Big Mac.

[Jacko3]

Beancooker:

You are so funny. Laugh my freaking behind off! A big mac must be a christmas gift to an Ethiopian (LoL!). Do you think they would get scared and experience cognitive dissonance when they see those massive big macs?

Tesla is still ways from making the $30K car. But I will still keep an eye out for them.

[joe603]

I love the Tesla....but my bank account doesn't would be nice though. I found the web site funny...they have a map of how far the range is...for LA and San Fran. lol I wonder who their target market is...

[Beezer]

Jacko, do you talk/write like this all the time? What the heck is cognitive dissonance?