balthazar

Only a vintage car- modern plastic-dipped junk wouldn't survive a bumper-lift tow.

Trucks had exterior antennas well past the bulk of cars. My generation Silverado still had one. But jimminy smk- the s-class still has a stand up hood ORNAMENT, that everyone outside of Daimler got rid of in 1985!

A LOT of vehicular times; "no reason" merely = 'want'. "This is the perfect size" :

Was leaving a job the other day (residential driveway) when a woman & her son pulled up in a Tesla Model X. He climbed out the pass door while she popped half out the driver's side to talk for half a minute. Mom was dropping him off. As the son moved into the house's back yard and mom finished talking to me, I noted that the kid had forgotten to close the passenger door. Since mom pulled in nose-first, he had to walk around the open door. I glanced away a moment and when I looked up- both doors were closed and the X was backing out. My assumption here is the Model X has power closing doors, and not just from an ajar position but from fully open. When, pray tell, did human beings become so utterly helpless (on their way to useless)?

As you might say "ancient history". It's not the heritage aspect, it's the chintzy execution.

I agree with this, DF, and I believe I pilot the largest daily driver on this board: wheelbase 153", overall length 240". Today I parallel parked in downtown Princeton NJ, and I've had this truck in an inner city parking deck more than once (antenna scraping the overhead concrete 'beams'). I also have frequently slipped in between obstacles I've waited & waited & waited for a smaller CUV to decide if it could fit thru. Some folk blame the size of the vehicle rather than their lack of dedication to improving their skills.

Bentleys in general, and the SUV in particular, are distressingly pedestrian looking. And yikes- all that fireplace mesh screening is incredibly 1-dimensional & cheap.

^ also of tractors :

I appreciate planes, but have never had a desire to own one (or a boat of any sort). But I can still toss up some I appreciate ~ '32-33 Gee Bee : '44 Horten Flying Wing : '46 Northrop YB-35 Flying Wing : '48 XF-85 Goblin, the "Scary Parasite" : a badass that needs no ID :

OK- then we were talking at the question from 2 different POVs. You had stated : The engine can be spinning at 2,000 rpm at both 1/4 throttle and full throttle. In which throttle position do you think the engine is making more torque? whereas I answered : When talking about 'The OEM should take out Engine A and use Engine B because Torque C is more'... we are talking about an engine independent of all other factors that contribute to vehicle performance: transmission, gearing, weight, etc., IE; an engine on a test stand, because we are only comparing power figures. The quote I responded to did not state "in real world driving", it only addressed 'throttle position vs. RPM equating to TRQ'. I specified my parameter for response; an engine on a test stand to eliminate all the other factors (tho I also stated many times it's entirely different in a car, driving on a road). Once you answer my quoted post, I feel we have entered into a debate based on my post and thusly, my terms. - - - - - I did skim thru Chevelle, Miata, VW and BMW forums that touched upon this question, but there was no definitive answer because steady-state dyno testing not only is more difficult to achieve repeatable results with, dynos capable of testing with those programs are few & far between and it is of highly questionable tuning value so it just isn't done. Just watched a LS3 dyno test on Utube: went from the starting 2500 RPM to 7000 RPM in basically 6 seconds: 4500 RPM / 6 seconds is 750 RPMs/second! At WOT, that engine is at exactly 2000 RPM for 0.0013 seconds. Someone measure fuel consumption for 0.0013 seconds at a given RPM point in a WOT run, please, and get back to us here at C&G. The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and inertia. A "lot more"? Perhaps the question needs to be : how much fuel does Engine X ingest at a steady throttle @ 2000 RPMs vs. the 0.0013 seconds Engine X is at 2000 RPM on a WOT run? That's not much time to see a 'lot more' fuel go thru the carb/TB... Appreciate the back-n-forth, DD, hope you're enjoying your weekend!

DD- you are invoking a number of truths (and variables) that still do not support your theory. • RPM is not dictated by throttle alone. In a single engine on a test stand, it pretty much is. In that scenario, it's the only variable (going hand-in-hand with air flow). • The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input. Yes, but a (steady state) 10% throttle and 90% throttle cannot be achieved at the same RPM (except for one half-second of time). A modern engine is not going to hold (per our example) 2000 RPM at 90% throttle. (Well, maybe my flathead...) • The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph. Immaterial to the discussion. "60 MPH" involves the entire vehicle and a host of conditions, including transmission gearing, rolling resistance, .cd, etc. We were talking about engine output alone, not road speed. • As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match. In a ICE, there are optimal ratios for these together, and within 2 otherwise identical engines, they are going to be in a very tight range when tuned for the same outputs. But my example stands- if the throttle position on an idling engine was suddenly open to 100%, why doesn't the engine suddenly develop peak HP at -say= 1000 RPM? The answer is it cannot develop peak HP/TRQ at idel speed because throttle position does not determine output WITHOUT RPM.

I am first & foremost, a Pontiac guy. '38 Pontiac coupe, (2-dr hardtop sketch) '55 Chieftan 2-dr sedan, injected 421 SD, rough but packin' '57 Super Chief Catalina, 455, mild restomod '59 Catalina hardtop, Grand National trim '61 Bonneville 'double bubble' coupe '63 X-400, supercharged 421 '64 Grand Prix, 421 3x2, stock '65 Grand Prix '71 Grand Prix

Your new analogy incorporates the plethora of variables I stated I was omitting- especially transmission, gearing & road variations. I came into this thread on the statement that a given engine makes more TRQ at a specific RPM under WOT than it does under steady throttle. I still counter that a given engine can only make X TRQ @ Y RPM because Y RPM is dictated by throttle (fuel/air). In other words : say Engine X (capable of 6000 RPM) turning 2000 RPM takes 33% throttle. If you start from a stand-still, mash the gas and don't let up until redline, you are still drawing 33% throttle at the 2000 RPM point because the engine cannot and is not drawing full airflow- the pistons aren't moving fast enough yet. Throttle may be @ 100% but AIRFLOW is only @ 33% and thusly, actual fuel flow is in the neighborhood of 33% also. Otherwise that WOT pedal mash would dump a pint of gas into an engine turning 750 RPM idle and bog it to stall/ wash the bores with raw fuel. There is of course an acceleration lag where increased fuel/air "leads" an engine to increase RPM... but the 2 plot curves are very close. We never defined how much different you believe these 2 scenarios would be. I have stated there is some margin of error & acceleration lag... but these are minor factors, numbers-wise. Engine X making 300 TRQ @ 2000 at 33% throttle is not going to make 325 TRQ @ WOT @ 2000. Real world in-car impression is quite different because no driver can analyze a single RPM point in a WOT full-range RPM pass. A WOT pass of course feels stronger than an off-steady throttle mash because of momentum.

IMO- it's Ford '03-22, Lincon '17-22 and Merc never. [snif!]

This would be cool:

An interesting way to look @ it, oldshurst442. Ford started as an independent, could definitely be considered an independent still. Lincoln would be considered 'bought' and no longer an independent (post 1922). Where does that place Merc, tho? It wasn't purchased/merged... :ponder: I've always considered "independents" to be non- Big 3 (F, GM, Chrysler), even Stude-Pack & Hudson-Nash I still file as independents... tho I do see validity in Frisky's definition, too.

I'm still in disagreement on this. A steady fuel air mix that gives 2000 RPMs is set according to engine specs/tune. It's only less power because you are @ 2000 RPMs on a 5000 RPM range, not because to the throttle position. TRQ is a mechanical output of crank revolution driven by combustion in the bores & piston movement. Within a singular engine- that fuel/air mixture is the same if the throttle is at 25% for an hour or 100% for .5 seconds. In that an engine under WOT is only going to be at 2000 RPM for a split second, in this theoretical argument you'd have to measure that TRQ at the EXACT MOMENT the WOT test hits 2000- and ignore 1999 RPMS and 2001 RPMs. I don't believe 1. it's possible to accurately measure this, and 2. that the TRQ number is going to be any different. You stuff more air/fuel in under WOT and the engine is lagging in the combustion cycle to push the pistons faster & faster- this is a graph plot, whereas 2000 RPMs is a single point. I welcome any data that has taken a measured look at this...

'26 Sterling 3.5-ton: '33 Dymaxion: '48 Tucker 48 '52 Hudson Hornet 2-dr sedan, 7-X engine '52 Packard Speedster (one-off): '55 Studebaker President Speedster for bling

Uhh, you mean pre 1926; Mercedes & Benz is a merger.

Wonder if the highly polarizing styling is going to temper sales...

^ 1/43rd of a mile is 123 feet- that's pretty slow!

When talking about 'The OEM should take out Engine A and use Engine B because Torque C is more'... we are talking about an engine independent of all other factors that contribute to vehicle performance: transmission, gearing, weight, etc., IE; an engine on a test stand, because we are only comparing power figures. With that in mind RE the above question : as TRQ is a byproduct of combustion & mechanical leverage, 2000 RPM is 2000 RPM and it takes X fuel and Y air to spin at 2000. Lessen the fuel supply by 1% and the RPM will fall. IMO and experience, an engine spinning at 2000 steady @ 1/4 throttle and one ripping thru 2000 under WOT on it's way to redline would develop the same TRQ at that RPM/ that split second. Where there's a very different set of parameters is a NA engine vs. a turbo one, but above I'm talking about a singular engine, as the question states.

I'd still like a '50s or '60s wagon one day.

Same reason GM left the W-Body Impala 'like that so long' - because the people buying it wanted it that way.

I 'programmed' mine myself- twas easy. I don't recall the exact price... but just googled and see most are less than what I paid. Watch tho- where I got mine they initially handed me the empty FOB case- no electronics. Apparently this is a thing- people replace banged-up exteriors. Both my '04 FOBs seemed to be just worn out- fresh batteries did nothing, cleaning their insides did nothing ('04 has 169K on it). Damned electronics.