balthazar
-
Posts
40,855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
583
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Garage
Gallery
Events
Store
Collections
Everything posted by balthazar
-
A small one, yes. my I6 F-150 from '94 (regular cab long bed, 2x4) was 3980 lbs.
-
My truck idles about 450, charges about 900. Current pulley is about 3", would have to be less than 1.5" to double the generator speed - nothing like that available. Old Fords also use wider belts (wider than post-war); would have to swap out all pulleys if using a modern-sized substitution. Not feasible. In normal operation, generator-equipped vehicles do just fine as far as charging, even the big delivery trucks seem to do fine, esp if one doesn't have a lot of auxiliary equipment/lights to power. Generator shop told me you could drive a low-load vehicle with a charged battery & no feed from the generator for a day or 2. I'm not sure what (theoretically) changing the pulley size would do- voltage regulator is likewise involved... I don't care for manuals. I'd don't find them enjoyable in general- I like the mysterious magical nature of the hydraulic automatic. In other words; I prefer to shift it & mash it. I can objectively tell you this; so far I'm doing better than my one buddy who drove it, who talks fondly about his old manual Celica, and better than my other friend who'd driven probably 5000 vehicles. Buddy 1 kept loosing steam and having to re-downshift, buddy 2 ground the gears mercilessly. I'm fine on the upshift, just need to acclimate to the proper downshifting procedure. It would help on my truck if one didn't have to yank on that 18" steering wheel like Popeye to pilot the thing at low speed. RE the brakes, it has 14-in & 15-in drums with ample pads, it was engineered for up to 28K lbs and according to 1941 Ford lit, my truck [134" WB COE with dually rear & auxiliary springs] only weighs 3850. Seems hard to believe standing in front of it.
-
If you ever feel like your life is pointless, remember that somebody somewhere is being paid to install turn signals in BMWs.
-
Went 1.2 miles down the road will little drama today. Had 5 out of 6 people walking wave at me going by, only a few of them looked nervous. Seems to be a bit of a attention getter. Once home the generator started acting up again, as it's been apart twice with no obvious cause found, AND it doesn't seem to be outputting like it should - the gen/VR should've been outputting 7.1-7.4, but the battery was at the same 5.9V after the trip.
-
^ Again IMO, on the '54 the rear 'fascia' curves upward/forward to the notch for the taillight, but then goes straight up, then straight/level forward. No 'outcropping'. Versus the '55 where the taillight housing has a clear overhang (of sheet metal).
-
Goin' to the local car shoe tomorra, bringing the COE. If she co-operates by operatin'. Wish me luck! EDIT/UPDATE : went 1.2 miles down the road & back, in a 'pre-flight' test, and everything went fine. Until I got back in the driveway and the generator started it's squealing thing. Not wanting to risk any sort of catastrophic failiure on the planned 9 mile round trip, I abandoned the show. Guess I have to order a new generator. Actually went to the show sans COE, so. many. Mustangs. and Camaros. BO-RING!!
-
Cripes- those poor rear leaf springs!
-
Identifying, with objective certainty, which vintage cars 'have fins' and which don't can get sticky in some instances, but generally speaking; sheet metal must project either upward, outward or rearward from the surrounding metal. Sheet metal must in some way create a projecting edge. A taillight cannot be a fin by itself. In the below pic of 2 Hudsons, the coral & white '55 has fins, the blue '54 does not. Anywy, that's my decades-long analysis of the issue.
-
I prefer cars sitting level, whether high or low. That said, a subtle rake works pretty well when done right. Going to put a slight rake akin to the below on my '59, to accentuate the finnage.
-
^ I'm missing it... - - - - - Bored.
-
Porsche News: Porsche Ponders More Electric Vehicles
balthazar replied to William Maley's topic in Porsche
All U.S. companies have already been investing in EVs, and for years now. -
Everything else being equal that 1.3-in would never register with me. I just checked the 'load floor' of my 2500HD- it's about 36.5" vs. the 34.1 of the Expedition. Negligible, IMO. RE the interior- the stat that the Exp has roughly 11 CF more than the Suburban "largely due to the lower floor" is bunk: 1.3-in times what- 50"x50" = 3250 CI. A cubic foot is 1728 CI, so that 1.3-in lower floor is not even responsible for 2 CF. The other 9.5 CF comes from other compass directions (width, length height), not the 1.3-in lower floor. Make sense?
-
Again: a mere 1.3" difference. Is that all due to IRS, or do rims/tires/frame also contribute here? 1.3-in does not equate to "much easier" in my book, it's negligible. 4 inches or more; now you have an appreciable difference. And that 11 CF is NOT 'largely the result of the lower floor'- 1 cubic foot is 1728 cubic inches.
-
What advantage? 2016 Suburban (130-in WB) RR seat legroom : 39.7" 2016 Expedition (131-in WB) RR seat legroom : 39.1" Rear axle is far enough behind rear seat that suspension design is not going to impact legroom. Even in the Explorer / Tahoe comparison, the Exp only has 0.5-in more RR seat legroom. Load floor is a mere 1.3-in lower in Expedition (could be due to a number of contributing factors), but the Exp has about 9 CF more cargo volume to the back of the 2nd row. Not sure where Ford is picking that up, but doesn't seem to be downward.
-
https://www.dailysabah.com/automotive/2017/04/20/general-motors-auto-plant-in-venezuela-seized-by-government-gm-decries-illegality
-
Swung by my buddy's shop this afternoon- he has a extremely clean '68 New Yorker 4-dr hardtop for sale, pale ice green ext with black vinyl roof, black interior, 440. Power everything. Says it floats like a dream. That'd be totally drivable, anywhere (*there were numerous gas stations) and in possibly better comfort than many MUCH more modern cars. If I take it for a spin tomm, I'll submit a review.
-
They can both be turbo 4s.
-
Jaguar News: What's the Future of the Jaguar XJ?
balthazar replied to William Maley's topic in Jaguar
Don't care for the XJ stylistically- too derivative of a number of other cars, the sum of which just. isn't. anything. special or even upscale. Greenhouse length is also a bit ungainly in profile. Kind of stunning the F-type outsells it- I think that's saying something major there. I think it could be retired with little notice. -
If MB would really devote themselves to a singular engine vision, they could bring out an I8- it would be as smooth as an EV.
-
-
Also cool the video shows the Demon at my local track. Hope to run the B-59 there one day (even tho I also expect to be banned for no roll bar).
- 126 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- 2018
- challenger demon
- (and 4 more)
-
The Demon really is a historic performance milestone. Balthy doffs his cap to the Dodge Brothers. 'Factory installed wheelies'. Yowsa.
- 126 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- 2018
- challenger demon
- (and 4 more)
-
Black chrome is not 'chrome'- it's shiny black paint (visually). Note: even the monochrome purveyors want to call these treatments "chrome", and assumedly this is a few generations from the Baby Boomers pushing the trend. That's because Khrome is King.
-
BWAHAHAHAHAHA - the gulling Mercedes drag car has a 1050 HP….. SB Chevy in it!
- 126 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2018
- challenger demon
- (and 4 more)
-
Cadillac has always had integrated screens, now mercedes is copying them. The non-integration is incredibly weak. - - - - - Putting seat controls onto a screen as above, versus a non-visual control, VASTLY increases distracted driving (unless there's lock-out features for most of the screen controls in 'D').
