balthazar

As with everything, the 'bottom line' is worth consideration. 'Tankless' systems are comparitively extremely expensive to buy/install. This, from the oracle of truth Consumer Reports ~ >>"Gas tankless water heaters, which use high-powered burners to quickly heat water as it runs through a heat exchanger, were 22 percent more energy efficient on average than the gas-fired storage-tank models in our tests. That translates into a savings of around $70 to $80 per year, based on 2008 national energy costs. But because they cost much more than storage water heaters, it can take up to 22 years to break even— longer than the 20-year life of many models. Moreover, our online poll of 1,200 readers revealed wide variations in installation costs, energy savings, and satisfaction."<< My B-I-L is in the HVA/C / plumbing business, he said they are around $2500 installed. My last gas water heater (6 yrs ago) was about $300.

The fantasy as I see it is- less energy usage overall will eventually cause INCREASED cost per utilities. They have stockholders to satisfy. It's already been reported that water conservation/more efficient fixtures in some areas have forced rate increases. That individuals aren't/won't see much in the way of savings is no surprise to me. My elec rates are much higher year-over-year on the same usage.

And yet, "without significant competition" GM improved product exponentially during the time period they dominated marketshare, so; no.

I don't think the manufacturer 'group photo' would be much different than it was in the mid-60s. Certainly we would not have all the same dozens of foreign makes we have now, selling but a few hundred/thousand cars a year each... GM would not likely have deviated off to purchasing other 'oddball' makes like saab or portions of subaru- so could the core divisions be even stronger product-wise than they are today? I think so. Pretty open-ended question there, OB.

Don't forget: no aspirational product and a torpedo'd reputation for quality & corporate cover-ups about such.

^ You're in the electrical biz, digital cameras are electric-powered... NO EXCUSE! Cool- there was a dude 5 minutes from me who had a '62 4-spd car w/ 8-lugs just sitting in his rural driveway... silver car in nice shape, but he moved who knows where. I like '62s just fine!

'40- not born yet. '59- not born yet. '64- not born yet. '04- heavy equipment operator/ carpenter.

911 is not a 'bad car' in your opinion, but is it the best of the best & without compromise ?? Could Porsche have made handling more linear and used less erratic steering (I disremember the exact driving complaint in a recent C&D article vs the Corvette)? I love how a car successful in it's segment, is 'proof' it's 'done right'... EXCEPT when it's GM/domestic, where it's 'blind dumb loyalists from 1974' driving sales instead of the car itself.

If I understand cranks correctly here :: Center of gravity should be the same- the journals are only offset around the same centerline- they are not (necc.) larger in radius in a cross-plane design. Likewise, weight will not (necc.) be any greater, as again- journals are shifted around a centerline, not (necc. larger). This is first & foremost a vibration control issue via balance, not size/weight (tho that CAN come into play also).

No way would I want "all people" to buy a Corvette. No way would I want it to appeal to "all people". It's not supposed to. Nothing in it's segment appeals to 'all people' either. And news flash- there is compromise on more than 1 level in any car you could possibly name. There is no such thing as a mass-produced 'no compromise' car.

I don't recall this being posted last year when this piece came out. I kinda like it, tho I imagine the practicality is non-existant. My linkClicky

Just spittin on this side of the DE. We got a 5-min downpour yesterday around noon, then the sun popped right back out. The birch is dropping leaves here already...

I looked at a black Sierra from the late '70s with 9K on it- it was up for auction a few years ago (tho I didn't find out what it went for). It was a real beaut, but I'm not in the market. Besides, these are more for collectors in that I would just use it up (did it fit my needs) as a daily driver.

Camino LS6 ~ >>"You say that as if it were a bad thing - it's called brand equity. That sort of loyalty is something the car has earned, and it is well-deserved. It is a rare car that remains as true to mission as the Corvette."<< >>"This bit is just plain wrong. GM does not need to sell this car to "all people", that would be the death of the Vette."<< Exactly right and exactly right. The relentless unspoken drive to homogenize all cars into one commonality with different badges is a sad commentary on the automotive times.

Damn good price for what amounts to a brand new truck.

I worked one outside job today- about 1pm-8pm; kept in the shade and there actually was a nice breeze at times. It was hot but completely bearable... but I may have been more motivated: what with Monday off, and Tues-Wed off from the heat. I sit that long (5 days) and I get very itchy. If Friday is like today was, I'll be content w/ that.

I used to see their ads when I regularly read Hemmings (and in other mags) - tho I only associated them with Mustang stuff. Tough break, but those that said others will step in are correct. Musclecars & their restos aren't going away until musclecar values consistantly decline- and that's no time in the foreseeable future.

My grandfather used to have one of these. I must admit it had the very striking color combo of a 'copper' body and a dark red/brown top. Now : painfully slow, tremendously floaty, rather boring, but whatever floats yer boat.

IMO- the 3-spoke Chevy wheel is a very clean, functional design- a lot better than some of the other more awkward designs out there. That wheel (above) in the wife's Malibu is nice- nothin 'low rent' about it there (has the leather wrap & the aluminum sections). I've held FAR worse, cheesier & cheaper. But I do find it distressing to see the same wheel used across the Chevy portfolio- that says 'cheap' to me in general. I've been in the 2010 Corvette- it was far better than some make it out to be, but it's not where I would've chose to peg it.

These are the science of combustion efficiency...., is the inclusion of physicalities out-of-place? For example, wouldn't it be legit to include combustion chamber design as a very real factor in efficiency? Partial vs/ fully machined, shape, plug orientation- are not these all factors... or is this broadening the discussion too much ?

I'm afraid it's my fault; after the soggy spring- I demanded a drought. Sorry, have already asked for last weeks' weather (low 80s), but it's on back order. Insane here- I cannot work since my current jobs are pretty much all outside. Sigh.

^ The 'young kids into nissan' are also not into Porsche- which means porsche needs to change up the 911, too. I just don't get the mindset that 'the car doesn't appeal to everyone, so it needs to be remade'. It has not become a respected icon by being fickle on it's own mission.

Wow- the car is "OK", but shave a half inch off here and there, reshuffle the proportions toward homogenization, the rear is too flat yet too 'bulbous' at the same time, raise the car, raise the roof, move the greenhouse, shorten the painfully short overhangs.... and THERE'S a Corvette that I can LOVE !! Buy/admire another car- don't change one you don't into another car.

Needs to grow to 'be competitive'. Porsche '911' is an inch longer.

Mercedes V-12 is a dinosaur that gets 11 MPG and struggles to pass emissions. It's days are also numbered as mercedes limits future installations. Biggest problem by far is dressing a $200K, 600HP V12 sedan in the exact same trim as the $87K, 295HP V6 sedan. Cheap, very cheap.