balthazar
In Hibernation
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by balthazar
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
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').Because traditionally chrome was always more expensive a finish than paint (or plastic). Look at modern houses- the higher the price tag the more trim it gets. The age-old 'what am I getting for my money?' demand. - - - - - Are you going to make a standing point to associate everything you don't find to your favor as 'the fault of baby boomers'? It's getting a bit long-in-the-tooth already, D. Chrome plating greatly predates the baby boomer generation, as I'm sure you are aware if you review the history. It DOES make the auto richer looking.
Important Information
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.