Pfeil

How many of us use a calculator while working at a computer? NO How many still carry Atlas maps in your truck? YES How many use a calculator in your old truck while planning your route and gas mileage from old maps while in your antique vehicle? YES, it's attached to my neck, and it's called a BRAIN! It's the best computer ever designed and ever will be designed.

Apparently, Henry didn't learn the lesson either. After WW2 Henry was offered the whole of VW and he turned it down.

I've got one of those phones too, plus some of my friends have them as well. I see a lot of them in town too. Us old timers in Prescott are very stubborn!

Interesting article appeared today; There Is Nothing ‘Green’ About Ethanol A new study shows that the corn lobby’s favorite fuel is worse for the environment than gasoline. A study released this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) revealed that corn-based ethanol is likely doing more damage to the environment than if we used straight gasoline. “Even without considering likely international land use effects,” researchers said, “we find that the production of corn-based ethanol in the United States has failed to meet the policy’s own greenhouse gas emissions targets and negatively affected water quality, the area of land used for conservation, and other ecosystem processes.” In other words, ethanol is a failure. But that’s not what we’re supposed to hear. We have been told since the government forced us to use alternative fuel blends — the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) — in 2005 that ethanol is grand. Putting corn in our gas tanks would reduce our dependency on foreign oil, reduce our carbon emissions, and just make us all around better people. So said the environmentalists. With few exceptions, so said the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates who wander through Iowa every few years. And, of course, so said the media. We were treated to a completely different set of outcomes, the most obvious being that ethanol did not save us any money at the pump. The PNAS study lists several others, obtained from a thorough examination of the RFS in its totality, from the planting of the corn to the processing of the fuel to the pumping of your gas. According to the study, in the years 2008-2016, the RFS led to a 30% increase in corn prices. Prices of other crops rose by 20%, along with a multitude of grocery items that rely on corn. Cereal, anyone? Corn cultivation in the U.S. expanded by 8.7%. And to be clear, this expansion, along with the outsized impact corn has had on food prices, was driven overwhelmingly by the need for corn as a biofuel, not as a food source. Along with all this corn came fertilizers, and there was a nationwide annual increase of up to 8%. Overuse of the land depleted the soil, caused soil erosion, polluted natural water sources, and diverted water from other crops. It takes three gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol. When taking all factors into account, even the use of gasoline to run the tractors that till the soil (which releases carbon into the atmosphere), the PNAS study found that ethanol-treated gasoline is 24% more carbon intensive than conventional gasoline. This finding totally contradicts what the Department of Agriculture had to say about ethanol in its own 2019 study, which found that ethanol was 39% less carbon intensive than gas. Gee, a government study that found a government program was working perfectly. Imagine that. To be fair, the Agriculture Department study did not perform a holistic analysis of the entire RFS program, so its numbers may depend on the context. Or at least, that is probably the argument that ethanol’s staunch defenders will use when asked about the disparity. The Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol lobby group, was more direct in its response to the PNAS study. “Completely fictional and erroneous,” said Geoff Cooper, the group’s president and CEO. Naturally, many who stand to lose something from the disappearance of ethanol will fight to keep it. It’s the law of government inertia. Failure alone does not kill a bad policy. Only enough people accepting the truth can do that. If we truly are serious about creating effective biofuels that will not harm the environment, then we need to be honest about the performance of ethanol. The technology isn’t there yet, but it may be soon. America is by far the world’s largest producer of biofuels, responsible for 47% of global output in the last decade. This is a market we can dominate, if we produce a quality product that does what it says it does. It’s time to admit the failure that ethanol has become, learn from it, and move on.

I'm not talking about war against ourselves!

This reminds me of WW2 tire availability, only one problem there is no war.

Datsun 280 "Z"

7%???📈

The 59-60 bubble top has the best wraparound front windshield, although the dogleg clipped many an owner's knee. Strangely though I drove my 59 Cat for 10 years and never had a problem. 1961 Bubble top "B" body (Chevrolet-Pontiac-Oldsmobile-Buick) =one year only below. The 61 "C" Body (Buick-Olds Cadillac) = one year only (note the "C" pilar difference between "B" and "C" bubble roofs).

"Styling is an OPINION. Everyone has one". I think you've made your 's perfectly clear. Although many of us would not agree.

Which 61 G.M. Bubble top? There are two types.

This is a car that is used for NISSAN executives, and government officials. It's called the NISSAN President. NISSAN started making them in 1965. In Oct. 1989 NISSAN started a new model HG 50 which we here call an INFINITI Q45. I've had experience with the H-150 and the H 250 and the HG 50. In Japan these cars would be considered large, expensive, fast, and not very economical. They are great driving cars. H150 H250 HG50 PGF 50

Therefore, an electric car is really like an external combustion engine except there are more steps converting energy to be used and it doesn't carry along with it it's power and generation source. Pretty inefficient I would say, even if you don't count the precious metals and mining process.

What does an electric motor do? Chemical energy (coal, natural gas, Hydrogen, photo electric, wind) from the power station to batteries. Batteries convert chemical energy to electrical energy

Apparently, Packard has an engine, not a motor!

I mentioned this before; It seems that a motor can include things like an electric motor or an internal combustion engine. The definition of engine does not include an electric motor. External combustion engines are out of the question. Hey Casey Jones, fire up that steam motor doesn't cut it. It's either fire up that steam engine or steam loco. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now, let's consider what Shell Oil Co. says; SHELL ENGINE OILS AND LUBRICANTS Shell is the number one global lubricant supplier, delivering market-leading lubricants to consumers in over 100 countries. Shell Lubricants brings world-class technological insights to its products, offering you the best formulations for your vehicle. Now let's consider what Castrol says; WHICH CASTROL OIL IS BEST FOR MY CAR? When it's time for an oil change, which oil is right for your engine? The answer to that question gets more complex every day. The latest engines are getting smaller and more powerful all the time, and manufacturers are specifying complex full synthetic oils to cope with higher engine pressures and meet fuel efficiency targets. If you're driving a muscle car or a European import, the manufacturer may well specify a full synthetic motor oil. Alternatively, if you're driving an older domestic vehicle, the manufacturer may recommend a conventional oil. However, even though that's the most economical option, a full synthetic will almost certainly look after your engine better. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I said before; It seems that a motor can include things like an electric motor or an internal combustion engine. The definition of engine does not include an electric motor. Interesting that Castrol uses Engine and Motor to describe the same thing in one statement

It seems that a motor can include things like an electric motor or an internal combustion engine. The definition of engine does not include an electric motor. External combustion engines are out of the question. Hey Casey Jones, fire up that steam motor doesn't cut it. It's either fire up that steam engine or steam loco.

Take the window sticker list and look at all of the "packages' of accessories and try to pick and choose what you want (separately) out of the packages. It can't be done.

BUICK 2nd, Class 7 Flying Mile; 8th, Cl. 7 Acceleration CHEVROLET First 33 places, Class 5 Flying Mile; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Big Three Flying Mile;1st, 2nd, 3rd, Cl. 4 Flying Mile; first 18 places, Cl. 5 Acceleration; 2nd,3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, Cl. 4 Acceleration CHRYSLER 1st, Class 7 Flying Mile; 1st, Cl. 7 Acceleration DE SOTO 7th, Class 6 Acceleration DODGE 4th, Class 7 Flying Mile; 4th, Cl. 7 Acceleration; 22nd, Cl. 6 Flying Mile FORD 4th, Big Three Flying Mile; 4th, Class 4 Flying Mile; 36th, Cl. 5 Flying Mile;5th, Cl. 6 Flying Mile; 3rd, Cl. 7 Flying Mile; 8th, Cl. 4 Acceleration; 19th,Cl. 5 Acceleration; 4th, Cl. 6 Acceleration; 3rd, Cl. 7 Acceleration MERCURY 2nd, Class 7 Acceleration; 11th, Cl. 7 Flying Mile; 14th, Cl. 6 Flying Mile OLDSMOBILE 10th, Class 7 Flying Mile; 14th, Cl. 7 Acceleration PONTIAC 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Class 6 Flying Mile; 1st, 2nd, Cl. 6 Acceleration PLYMOUTH 11th, Class 4 Flying Mile; 34th, Cl. 5 Flying Mile; 4th, Cl. 6 Flying Mile;9th, Cl. 4 Acceleration; 3rd, Cl. 8 Acceleration RAMBLER 1st, Class 3 Acceleration; 1st, Cl. 4 Acceleration

I haven't had a Tri-Power car since 1969. One of the Pontiac I have now I built for going around corners and the Q jet does a great job, plus it can give you terrific mileage if you want. A great universal multi displacement carb. not without problems but can easily solved. I would love to put one on my 62 & 63.

[Also, if you can find the information, why did Pontiac try the tripower on their Super Dutys, even to the point of making a factory aluminum tripower intake, and then quickly discard it in favor of a single four or dual 4's, even though the early 60's tri-powers had the larger end carbs?] Two things here I think explain the reason. One, is in NASCAR at that time they only allowed 4bbls. Drag racing was a different story especially late 61, bigger engine, more aggressive cams, better heads, bigger valves, streamline factory exhaust manifolds, allowing of headers in some classes necessitates more carburetion. Still, Tri-Power was the hot street option and out horse powered 4bbl engines in the books and on the dyno when they both had identical head, cam, compression ratios. One nice thing about eliminating multi carbs for NASCAR was Pontiac's development of a good 4BBL intake taken from the 63 aluminum 3BBL intake. The good stock 4BBL intakes won't show up until mid+ 60's with Q-jets......... my favorite carb.

The 1957 347 engine makes 290hp with the 472 camshaft with the 523298 cylinder head @ 10.0 compression with Tri-Power. The 4bbl with the same exact ingredients makes 270HP. Pontiac engineering wouldn't consider the 4bbl for NASCAR and the 886 cam which gave 317hp with Tri Power. In 1958 in Grand National stock car racing, the 370" engine with the #528511 cylinder head with 10.5 compression and the 886 cam and a 4bbl. made 315hp. The Tri Power engine with all the same ingredients makes 330, The FI engine makes 338. Apparently TriPower makes more HP than the 4bbl with the same heads, cam, compression. My Pontiac interchangeability books says the 57-58 Tri Power intake manifolds will interchange.

Most people in the dealership including a sales manager in the 50's, 60's, 70's didn't know about some of the things you could order. My dad and I both ordered or cars out of the zone office.

OH?

Not True. My dad did it, and I've done it no problem.