CarSPIN Forums

How much is too much for you guys?

I think my cutoff is 100K for a daily driver, maybe 150K for a fun car.

Anything beyond 175K is too much, IMO.

The Accord had 53,000 when I bought it, and that was a huge part of why I bought it over similarly priced Maximas.

My next car will probably have under 50,000 miles and will definitely be under 75,000.


EDIT: Typo.

EDIT 2: Wait, are we talking about how many miles would we buy a car at or how many miles would we sell a car at? The Accord is over 130,000 miles now and it's running strong despite all it's been through. Road tripping with a couple friends to New Orleans tomorrow without thinking twice. How much longer I keep it just depends on my job situation and whether or not I want to buy some property in the next couple years, but I certainly don't feel like it needs to be replaced.

Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 03, 2011, 07:39:04 AM
The Accord had $53,000 when I bought it, and that was a huge part of why I bought it over similarly priced Maximas.

My next car will probably have under 50,000 miles and will definitely be under 75,000.

If any car had $53,000 in it, I would buy it over a similarly priced car.

Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 03, 2011, 07:39:04 AM
The Accord had $53,000 when I bought it, and that was a huge part of why I bought it over similarly priced Maximas.

My next car will probably have under 50,000 miles and will definitely be under 75,000.

If my car had $53k in it I think I would just go buy a new car  :lol:

I won't buy a car with more than 45,000 miles because I put higher than average miles on my car every year.  I have put 50,000 on my Focus in 3 years and I worked from home for nearly a year and barely left the house.  I need the car to last a while.  Once the miles start getting over 100,000 I will start thinking about a new car.  Ford doesn't make this engine anymore and used ones are almost impossible to find so if anything catastrophic, like the timing belt, ever goes then I'm fucked because it's an interference engine.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 03, 2011, 08:46:30 AM
I won't buy a car with more than 45,000 miles because I put higher than average miles on my car every year.  I have put 50,000 on my Focus in 3 years and I worked from home for nearly a year and barely left the house.  I need the car to last a while.  Once the miles start getting over 100,000 I will start thinking about a new car.  Ford doesn't make this engine anymore and used ones are almost impossible to find so if anything catastrophic, like the timing belt, ever goes then I'm fucked because it's an interference engine.

Really? I can still get parts for obscure Honda engines, strange that Ford wouldn't have parts for the SVT Focus.

---------------------------------

I don't know that I could ever buy a brand new car.

Well it depends. If I got the car new and I knew how it was taken care of then I don't care about millage. My MX-5 was my daily driver with well over 200K on it and if it wasn't for the fact that I'm getting older I could still drive it everyday and well past 300K. As a matter of fact I've got such trust in it that I'd drive it across country without any fear at all.

But if I got a used car then I'd like for it to have less miles on it. You never know how someone has taken care of a car.

My next car will likely be new.  I plan on keeping the Mustang for alteast 2 more years. 

It depends on what I'm looking for and how much I'm willing to pay.

If I'm buying a DD used car, around 70k is max. If I'm just buying a beater, probably 130k max. And if it's a project car, I don't care.

I'd say 70-80k max, if it's a fun, non DD I'd go 120-130k.

I bought my car with 309,000 miles on it. Currently it has 370,000 miles on it. The number of miles doesn't matter nearly as much as how well it has been maintained. My next car will likely be new though.

Quote from: TBR on March 03, 2011, 01:37:43 PM
I bought my car with 309,000 miles on it. Currently it has 370,000 miles on it. The number of miles doesn't matter nearly as much as how well it has been maintained. My next car will likely be new though.

jeez, what kind of car do you have again?

First car - 144-175k

Current car - 103-119k

I've had to sink just as much money into the second one as I did the first. I'm not sure this mileage thing really means anything.

Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on March 03, 2011, 01:47:12 PM
jeez, what kind of car do you have again?

1995 Honda Prelude.

It isn't the original engine though. The original owners replaced it at ~275k (not bad).

I don't much care about mileage.  As TBR said, condition and maintenance is key.  Both of my cars feel like they have another 100K miles in them with minimal issues.  I do trust the Mazda a lot more than I trust the Audi though.  I'd drive the Mazda across the country without a second thought tomorrow (it's at ~140K miles). 

I appreciate a low mileage car, but I wouldn't rule out something with 150K for DD status if it's been maintained properly.

Quote from: the Teuton on March 03, 2011, 02:10:15 PM
First car - 144-175k

Current car - 103-119k

I've had to sink just as much money into the second one as I did the first. I'm not sure this mileage thing really means anything.

I think it means much less with late-model cars.  I would expect most any recent car to hit 200K miles with minimal drama.  Maintenance history is where it's at.  I do start to wonder about wiring and electronics though.

I have 245,000 on the Corolla so it all depends on how the car is maintained. But it depends on how much money I'm spending. When I look at used C6 Corvettes I have a limit of 35,000 miles.

I wouldn't worry too much about a used Vette since most owners are over 60  :lol:

RITE! And most of the ones I see in the north are stored all winter anyway.

I bought the 850 with 158,000 miles.  I currently have 176,000 miles on it and it's been fantastic.

Uh, isn't there an option for somewhere between "new" and 50k?

Most of my cars I bought with 120k+ but they were poor guy beaters.

Of my last two cars, the Tacoma I bought with 16k and the Accord I bought new. Next I'll be somewhere in between.

I try to find used cars with around 100 kmiles, but up to 140 kmiles is fine before I start to get nervous. I've never owned a car long enough to get there (though I have bought cars with more than 200 kmiles), but I think around 200 kmiles is when I would start to think about getting rid of it. Depends on the car, of course.

Explorer had 133 kmiles when I bought it, and 142 kmiles now. Porsche about 100 kmiles, about 103 kmiles now. MG who knows. Both the Explorer and Porsche I would trust to get me anywhere I wanted to go.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 03, 2011, 08:46:30 AM
I won't buy a car with more than 45,000 miles because I put higher than average miles on my car every year.  I have put 50,000 on my Focus in 3 years and I worked from home for nearly a year and barely left the house.  I need the car to last a while.  Once the miles start getting over 100,000 I will start thinking about a new car.  Ford doesn't make this engine anymore and used ones are almost impossible to find so if anything catastrophic, like the timing belt, ever goes then I'm fucked because it's an interference engine.

You know you can change timing belts, right? ;)

Quote from: Rupert on March 03, 2011, 08:11:24 PM
You know you can change timing belts, right? ;)

From what I understand, Focuses are a nightmare to work on.  A former co-worker was relaying a horror story of how the engine has to be partially dismounted and dropped out of the bottom of the engine bay in order to change the clutch.

You're talking to a guy whose car has two timing belts, balance shafts, and a clutch change time of over a day at a specialist. ;)

Quote from: Rupert on March 03, 2011, 08:46:53 PM
You're talking to a guy whose car has two timing belts, balance shafts, and a clutch change time of over a day at a specialist. ;)

:lol:

Yeah I don't think anyone can complain about working on cars to you now.

Quote from: Rupert on March 03, 2011, 08:11:24 PM
You know you can change timing belts, right? ;)

Yes, but it is a big expense and apparently a lot of SVTF owners have had it fail prematurely.  I'm hoping it doesn't happen to me before I can put enough money aside to do the replacement. 

Quote from: MX793 on March 03, 2011, 08:44:04 PM
From what I understand, Focuses are a nightmare to work on.  A former co-worker was relaying a horror story of how the engine has to be partially dismounted and dropped out of the bottom of the engine bay in order to change the clutch.

They're not great. The transmission is super heavy and is hard to drop and install. I've done it twice.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 03, 2011, 09:52:28 PM
Yes, but it is a big expense and apparently a lot of SVTF owners have had it fail prematurely.  I'm hoping it doesn't happen to me before I can put enough money aside to do the replacement. 

How much of an expense is it?

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 03, 2011, 09:56:42 PM
They're not great. The transmission is super heavy and is hard to drop and install. I've done it twice.

How much will a shop charge?

Quote from: 2o6 on March 03, 2011, 09:58:22 PM

How much will a shop charge?

$Texas

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 03, 2011, 10:13:49 PM
$Texas

So, all MT Focuses either need new clutches, or have paid insane amounts of $$$ to change it?

Quote from: SVT666 on March 03, 2011, 09:52:28 PM
Yes, but it is a big expense and apparently a lot of SVTF owners have had it fail prematurely.  I'm hoping it doesn't happen to me before I can put enough money aside to do the replacement. 

Makes me glad that both my cars have chains. 

Quote from: 2o6 on March 03, 2011, 10:22:13 PM

So, all MT Focuses either need new clutches, or have paid insane amounts of $$$ to change it?

I don't know about that. The clutch problems are mainly with the SVT model.

Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on March 03, 2011, 10:36:36 PM
Makes me glad that both my cars have chains. 

Both of my cars are belts, but are non-interference engines.  The Mazda is due again at 180K miles, and the Audi will be done as soon as the weather breaks (have the belt and water pump already).

I am surprised there is not some form of standardization for transmission designs.

I needed a new transmission in my Maxima and got a replacement. It was light enough for me to pick up with one hand, and when I got it replaced my mechanic at the time did the job within the timespan it took for me to go see a movie (he said it took him about 1.5hrs). It's slightly less easy but not incredibly so for Hondas. Ford fucked up on that if that is all true.

It depends on the car and my price range of course, but I normally think of 75-100k as too much. I average about 10,000 miles a year of personal driving (maybe less lately) so a 50,000 mile car is almost perfect in that I know I could own it for 5 years before any expensive repairs or maintenance popped up, and a 75,000 mile one is to the point I know I'm going to have to have work done on it, but I could keep it a long time after that if I chose before expensive issues are likely to arise.

Depends on how much I'm paying for the car as well. I bought my car for $20k+fees, with 27k miles. Not too shabby in '07 for a 3-year-old luxury car. My next car will probably be in the $25-30k range, with under 36,000 miles. I would be perfectly fine with a car with 100k miles...if I were paying less than $5 grand for it.

Probably 200,000km/124,000 miles, although I have nothing beyond a mental block limiting me to that figure. That many of you have had relatively trouble-free experiences with high-mileage cars is slowly easing me towards the potential bargains available beyond this 200k figure.

I only buy new and begin consideration for replacement at about 70k.

I like having a warranty, and I like having a car I am relatively certain will be extremely reliable.

I would consider 300 hours on a boat to be too many, but am open to buying used.  ;)

300 hours? That doesn't seem like a lot...

It really is not if you put the hours on and know the level of care put in, but it is for purchasing.  

Typically, 500 to 750 hours is considered a normal life for a drive unit which, depending on make and model, can run as much as $5,000 to replace and $2,500 to rebuild.  

So, you want to be certain you are buying a boat with fewer hours if you can.  Sometimes, however, you run across a boat which has received "A" level maintenance and is in perfect working order at many more hours, but like cars, that level of maint. is far more rare than should be.

When it comes to high hour boats; buyer beware.

Wow, 500 hours is like a car with 30,000 miles, and that's at 60 mph!

Quote from: Rupert on March 05, 2011, 02:51:08 PM
Wow, 500 hours is like a car with, 30,000 miles, and that's at 60 mph!

It's not really the same.  Most of the time boats are run at full throttle.  It's more like running your car flat out for 65,000 miles.

Also, 300 hours takes years and years to reach.  Say your boat is actually running for about 4 hours on a typical day on the lake.  If you go out once a week for the two summer months (8 weeks), then 300 hours will take 10 years to accumulate.  When I was a 18, My buddy and I put 175 hours on the boat in one summer waterkiing all weekend and after work a couple nights every week.  Let me tell you, that's a shitload of hours for one summer.

Hard for me to say, since I've never bought a used car.  I'm considering one now, but since it's not going to be a daily driver, I'm less concerned about mileage.  I'd say I'd put the cutoff for a second car at 120,000 miles and for a daily driver 50,000 miles. 

You've been "considering" one for years. I'm beginning to think it's bullshit. ;)

Man, I've been driving the Audi a lot lately, and it only makes me thing that miles don't really matter much.  It's a freaking tank. 

Quote from: Rupert on March 05, 2011, 06:19:03 PM
You've been "considering" one for years. I'm beginning to think it's bullshit. ;)

I've got to make the money work.  It's all about timing.  I decided that being on my own was more important than buying a sports car.  Prices aren't going quite low enough on the car I want though.  Maybe I'm being too ambitious, but I don't want a Miata. 

I bought the Miata with 22,000 miles on it.

I bought the Protege5 with 25,000 miles on it.  I'm going to be putting the protege5 up for sale this weekend, I think it was 68,000 now.

I guess I like to buy used with under 30,000 miles? :huh:

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=24384.msg1478856#msg1478856 date=1299376813
I've got to make the money work.  It's all about timing.  I decided that being on my own was more important than buying a sports car.  Prices aren't going quite low enough on the car I want though.  Maybe I'm being too ambitious, but I don't want a Miata. 

I thought you were making bank? I don't make that much, but look at my driveway. :lol:

Quote from: Rupert on March 05, 2011, 09:19:51 PM
I thought you were making bank? I don't make that much, but look at my driveway. :lol:

I have a number in my head, and until I see that in my bank account, I'm not making any large purchases.  I'm trying to retire, buy a condo, or something like that. 

Well, then maybe you should change your sig to say, "First addition:", since you haven't the guts to be a real enthusiast and blow your money on cars. :lol:

(http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/8498/0925002003.jpg) (http://img851.imageshack.us/i/0925002003.jpg/)

this was actually taken about 6 months ago. I just turned 65,000 miles on my way home tonight.

I prefer to buy new or late model used with low mileage.  I'm thinking about doing the latter next time around.  But I don't think I'd want a used car with more than around 40k miles.

Well until a few years ago I only ever bought junkers mostly excpet I had a 98 Ram I bought with 15k miles I drove that until it wasn't drivable anymore.  Now we'll probably buy cars with less than 10k or new.

Quote from: MrH on March 05, 2011, 09:03:24 PM
I bought the Miata with 22,000 miles on it.

I bought the Protege5 with 25,000 miles on it.  I'm going to be putting the protege5 up for sale this weekend, I think it was 68,000 now.

I guess I like to buy used with under 30,000 miles? :huh:

Oh wow, your P5 is low mileage.  My car is rolling up on 140K.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 05, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
It's not really the same.  Most of the time boats are run at full throttle.  It's more like running your car flat out for 65,000 miles.

Also, 300 hours takes years and years to reach.  

Well, sort of but not exactly.

They do get run at much higher rpms for much longer periods, I run mine at about 3700 rpms on long runs.   But, we do run her full open sometimes just for fun.    

And 300 hours is a lot of boating.  Mine is an '03 and she has about 450 hours right now, and we boat quite a bit more than the average boat owner.  It has been some time since I calculated it, but it seems to me the multiplier is 70.  So, my boat;  450 x 70 = 31500 miles.

However, the "mileage" is not entirely indicative either since high-hour boats are generally older and have been in the water and sun alot.

3700 RPM isn't that much. The MG can run all day at 75 mph, which is something like 3000-3500 RPM (that RPM in the Porsche would be more like 90+ mph :lol: ).

Quote from: Rupert on March 06, 2011, 12:23:01 AM
Well, then maybe you should change your sig to say, "First addition:", since you haven't the guts to be a real enthusiast and blow your money on cars. :lol:

Yup, financial responsibility is so 1995. 

I bought my daily driver 740iL at 143k miles, as you guys know here. It's over 185k now, and it shoudl make it to 300k. And it's neither a beater NOR did I know how it was treated before I bought it. The dually had 179k on it when I bought it.

Out of the hundred plus cars I've had, only 3 were bought new, and only one other (the Range Rover) had less than 100k on it when I bought it (it was at 60k). Seriously, mileage is not an issue, only condition for the price.

Quote from: Rupert on March 06, 2011, 07:37:06 PM
3700 RPM isn't that much. The MG can run all day at 75 mph, which is something like 3000-3500 RPM (that RPM in the Porsche would be more like 90+ mph :lol: ).

I think we would both agree that the majority of production engines would freak out and die if they had to do that.  

3700 is my best cruising speed for fuel comsumption and ride comfort, and is right about 28 mph and 1.7mpg.

I can run my boat engines at 4800 rpms all day long and they beg for more.   Gas, that is, but that is another thread.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=24384.msg1479439#msg1479439 date=1299513547
Yup, financial responsibility is so 1995. 

Priorities, my man. :lol:

And it's not like I'm irresponsible with money. Almost no debt (student loans), savings, etc.

Quote from: hounddog on March 07, 2011, 02:27:25 PM
I think we would both agree that the majority of production engines would freak out and die if they had to do that.  

3700 is my best cruising speed for fuel comsumption and ride comfort, and is right about 28 mph and 1.7mpg.

I can run my boat engines at 4800 rpms all day long and they beg for more.   Gas, that is, but that is another thread.

No, we wouldn't agree. I think 3700 RPM is fine for most modern and many old cars. 5000 RPM, maybe not so much for the bigger engines.

Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 08:21:42 PM
No, we wouldn't agree. I think 3700 RPM is fine for most modern and many old cars. 5000 RPM, maybe not so much for the bigger engines.

A lot of newer, smaller cars cruise on the highway at that RPM... :lol:

They're also geared retardedly. My old neon was at just below 3K at 60MPH.

My car is at or above 3000rpm at cruising speeds.

It likes to be at ~75mph though.

Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 08:28:01 PM
They're also geared retardedly. My old neon was at just below 3K at 60MPH.

I'm glad you know more about gearing than THOUSANDS OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS!

:wtf:

You never cease to amaze me.

Quote from: MrH on March 07, 2011, 09:47:54 PM
I'm glad you know more about gearing than THOUSANDS OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS!

:wtf:

You never cease to amaze me.

Hey, I could get 40MPG, too.


New MT's feel weird....seems like there should be one more gear or something, especially in small cars. (Although it probably has more to do with acceleration, because my old car was around 1-2 seconds slower, too.)

Gearing is a matter of personal preference, once you get beyond the basics. I like taller top gears, for lower-RPM cruising, since you need very little power to maintain even 75 mph on flat ground. You don't need to be an engineer to understand that.

Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 10:14:12 PM
Gearing is a matter of personal preference, once you get beyond the basics. I like taller top gears, for lower-RPM cruising, since you need very little power to maintain even 75 mph on flat ground. You don't need to be an engineer to understand that.

That's what I miss about my Neon, and what I hate about a lot of new cars. I remember at 65 MPH, I was at 3500 RPM in a new Scion xB, and that car had plenty of power. It was quick, though.

Wait a minute; what happened to the Neon?

Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 10:17:21 PM
Wait a minute; what happened to the Neon?

What? I got rid of it about month ago. It needed a lot of work to keep it running, so I sold it while it was still running fairly decent, and I plan on buying another car in a few weeks when I turn 18.

I could have put a lot of cash into a car I halfway didn't like and was not suiting my needs (needed another set of doors and more space) or I could sell it while it was running and save the next few checks and get something better.

Good.

Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 10:14:12 PM
Gearing is a matter of personal preference, once you get beyond the basics. I like taller top gears, for lower-RPM cruising, since you need very little power to maintain even 75 mph on flat ground. You don't need to be an engineer to understand that.

It takes more power than you think to cruise at 75 mph.

OK, then how much power? And how is that amount of power not available in an RPM range that I would like? How do you know that's not the amount of power I'm thinking of? Since we're speaking in such specifics. :rolleyes:

The Porsche makes 160 hp at 5000 RPM, and even less torque, presumably available around 3000 RPM, and it cruises very well in top gear at 60-80 mph, where the RPMs won't barely exceed 2000.

Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 08:21:42 PM
No, we wouldn't agree. I think 3700 RPM is fine for most modern and many old cars. 5000 RPM, maybe not so much for the bigger engines.

So, you are saying most car engines today would be completely ok operating at essentially 4,000 rpms for hours on end?

Please.

Quote from: MrH on March 07, 2011, 09:47:54 PM
I'm glad you know more about gearing than THOUSANDS OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS!

:wtf:

You never cease to amaze me.

I will agree with 2o6 with regards to the ridiculous gearing in the Neons.  

I had a loaner Neon once and it was geared so that it ran much higher rpms than it should have and sounded like it was on the verge of exploding, but the 40mpg thing; no.  

Best I did in that car was about 27ish.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 06:50:34 AM
I will agree with 2o6 with regards to the ridiculous gearing in the Neons.  

I had a loaner Neon once and it was geared so that it ran much higher rpms than it should have and sounded like it was on the verge of exploding, but the 40mpg thing; no.  

Best I did in that car was about 27ish.

3AT has no overdrive.


I had a 5MT car with the freeway gearing (3.55).

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 06:21:46 AM
So, you are saying most car engines today would be completely ok operating at essentially 4,000 rpms for hours on end?

Please.

Yeah, actually. 4k isn't that much. Hell, even my old 302 woudl do that all day long (like driving at 75 mph from Seattle to Roseburg, Oregon). That's what 4:10 rear gears and 23" tall tires will do for you.. ;)

Most smaller cars are geared to turn about 3500 at 70 mph, and will do that all day long. When redline is at 6-7k or more, 3500-4500 is nothing.

Now, my diesel dually won't even GO to 4k, but that's a different story altogether... ;)

Quote from: ChrisV on March 08, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Yeah, actually. 4k isn't that much. Hell, even my old 302 woudl do that all day long

302 Ford?  Unless it was a balanced and blueprinted or a racing engine you are full of crap. 

Stock 302 redline was about 5200 rpm.

QuoteMost smaller cars are geard to turn about 3500 at 70 mph, and will do that all day long. When redline is at 6-7k or more, 3500-4500 is nothing.

Well, I have to admit that could be possible on a "smaller car" but I have never owned a car that turned 35-4500 rpms on a regular basis. 

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 06:21:46 AM
So, you are saying most car engines today would be completely ok operating at essentially 4,000 rpms for hours on end?

Please.

Are you kidding me?  My car redlines at 7500 and cruises at 75mph at 3200 rpm.  3700 rpm would be 50% throttle.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 08:39:52 AM
302 Ford?  Unless it was a balanced and blueprinted or a racing engine you are full of crap. 

Stock 302 redline was about 5200 rpm.

Well, I have to admit that could be possible on a "smaller car" but I have never owned a car that turned 35-4500 rpms on a regular basis. 

Have you run a 302 at 4000 RPM and then had an engine failure to prove him otherwise?

And it's not just "possible" on a smaller car, most smaller cars run in the ~3500 rpm range on the freeway all the time. You sound like one of those people who will never ever redline their car.

Hell, you sound like Teuton right now.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 08:39:52 AM
302 Ford?  Unless it was a balanced and blueprinted or a racing engine you are full of crap.  

Stock 302 redline was about 5200 rpm.

(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/Rxbg.jpg)

Not stock. 7500 rpm redline (down from 9k when the engine was in the drag car with a different cam and high rise intake). Didn't the 4:10 gear ratio give you a clue that wasnt' talking about a stock vehicle?

(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/rx7eng-new.jpg)

Quote
Well, I have to admit that could be possible on a "smaller car" but I have never owned a car that turned 35-4500 rpms on a regular basis.  

I've owned dozens. My CRX, that RX7 when it was stock, a Hyundai Accent, my SVT Contour, my BMW 2002, various VWs, etc. 3500 at 70-75 mph is normal on most of these cars that are under 3 liters.

Quote from: thecarnut on March 08, 2011, 10:16:21 AM
Have you run a 302 at 4000 RPM and then had an engine failure to prove him otherwise?

No, but I did own a 1985 GT and a 1989 LX Convertible 5.0 so I know more about them and how they behave then most of the people on this board.

At 4,000 rpms the 5.0 sounds like it is nearly explosion, and is clearly not where the engine is at peak performance.  4,600 4,700 was about where the yellow line started, I believe.

QuoteAnd it's not just "possible" on a smaller car, most smaller cars run in the ~3500 rpm range on the freeway all the time. You sound like one of those people who will never ever redline their car.

Hell, you sound like Teuton right now.

:rolleyes: 

How much experience do you have with performance driving again?

Quote from: ChrisV on March 08, 2011, 10:33:07 AM
(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/Rxbg.jpg)

Not stock. 7500 rpm redline (down from 9k when the engine was in the drag car with a different cam and high rise intake). Didn't the 4:10 gear ratio give you a clue that wasnt' talking about a stock vehicle?

Non-stock gears does not automatically equal non-stock engine.  :rolleyes:

We are clearly not talking about race engines, so your point regarding the 5.0 is moot.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 10:35:19 AM
No, but I did own a 1985 GT and a 1989 LX Convertible 5.0 so I know more about them and how they behave then most of the people on this board.

At 4,000 rpms the 5.0 sounds like it is nearly explosion, and is clearly not where the engine is at peak performance.  4,600 4,700 was about where the yellow line started, I believe.
:rolleyes: 

How much experience do you have with performance driving again?

So cruising down the highway with your engine turning 3700 rpm is performance driving now? :wtf:

And every time I drive on the highway my engine is spinning at least 3500 rpm.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 10:37:17 AM
We are clearly not talking about race engines, so your point regarding the 5.0 is moot.

Except the car was a street car, with plates, damn near a daily driver for 5 years like that, and the point was that I drove it from Seattle to Roseburg, Oregon and back, running 3500 rpm the whole way. 3500 was normal street driving, 7500 was race use.

And YOUR statement was "I think we would both agree that the majority of production engines would freak out and die if they had to do that. "

And the fact is, the majority of production engines of the last 20 years have NO PROBLEMS spending all day at 3500 rpm, as most production engines (other than trucks) are not old pushrod V8s.

Quote from: thecarnut on March 08, 2011, 10:49:22 AM
So cruising down the highway with your engine turning 3700 rpm is performance driving now? :wtf:

And every time I drive on the highway my engine is spinning at least 3500 rpm.

You were talking about redlining the car engine, son.


:rolleyes:

For what its worth, I drove about 1000 miles last weekend, most of which was at 3200-3400 RPMs.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 08, 2011, 10:54:04 AM
Except the car was a street car, with plates, damn near a daily driver for 5 years like that, and the point was that I drove it from Seattle to Roseburg, Oregon and back, running 3500 rpm the whole way. 3500 was normal street driving, 7500 was race use.

Except that the engine neither stock to the car, nor retained most of the factory spec parts. 

Your inclusion of a race quality engine is irrelevant to the discussion and therefore moot.

QuoteAnd YOUR statement was "I think we would both agree that the majority of production engines would freak out and die if they had to do that. "

And the fact is, the majority of production engines of the last 20 years have NO PROBLEMS spending all day at 3500 rpm, as most production engines (other than trucks) are not old pushrod V8s.

So engines going back to 1991?

You are so full of shit.

It's okay to admit you're wrong Hounddog.  It won't make you less of a man.

I drove for two days straight with my car turning 3200-3500 rpm when I drove it back from California.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 11:24:02 AM
You were talking about redlining the car engine, son.


:rolleyes:

You make it sound like you never rev the engine above 2000 rpm. :huh:

Quote from: thecarnut on March 08, 2011, 02:04:22 PM
You make it sound like you never rev the engine above 2000 rpm. :huh:

:facepalm:

Quote from: SVT666 on March 08, 2011, 09:45:52 AM
Are you kidding me?  My car redlines at 7500 and cruises at 75mph at 3200 rpm.  3700 rpm would be 50% throttle.

Throttle and engine speed are two different things...

Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 10:55:13 PM
OK, then how much power? And how is that amount of power not available in an RPM range that I would like? How do you know that's not the amount of power I'm thinking of? Since we're speaking in such specifics. :rolleyes:

The Porsche makes 160 hp at 5000 RPM, and even less torque, presumably available around 3000 RPM, and it cruises very well in top gear at 60-80 mph, where the RPMs won't barely exceed 2000.

Well, if it's any indication, my miata takes quite a while to accelerate from 1500 rpm to 2000 rpm in 6th gear (that's from 30 to 40 mph).  You damn near have to floor it.  It doesn't make any appreciably amount of power that low.  Now, keep in mind that drag is proportional the velocity squared.  If you want to gear a miata to stay under 2000 rpm from 75-80, you'd be nearly flooring it the entire time, and wouldn't even be able to maintain speed without down shifting going up a slight hill.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 06:21:46 AM
So, you are saying most car engines today would be completely ok operating at essentially 4,000 rpms for hours on end?

Please.

Late to the party, and others have covered it, but my Mazda turns over ~3700rpm at 75mph.  Over 137K miles, and running strong.  The Audi is geared even shorter.  Runs well at ~200K miles.  Both are small (2.0L four-cylinder and 2.3L 5-cylinder) OHC engines, but aren't particularly high revving engines otherwise. 

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 06:21:46 AM
So, you are saying most car engines today would be completely ok operating at essentially 4,000 rpms for hours on end?

Please.

That's exactly what we're saying, and we've basically proved it.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 11:24:02 AM
You were talking about redlining the car engine, son.


:rolleyes:

I do that a lot, actually. It's fun.

Quote from: MrH on March 08, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
Well, if it's any indication, my miata takes quite a while to accelerate from 1500 rpm to 2000 rpm in 6th gear (that's from 30 to 40 mph).  You damn near have to floor it.  It doesn't make any appreciably amount of power that low.  Now, keep in mind that drag is proportional the velocity squared.  If you want to gear a miata to stay under 2000 rpm from 75-80, you'd be nearly flooring it the entire time, and wouldn't even be able to maintain speed without down shifting going up a slight hill.

What's your point?

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 08:39:52 AM
Well, I have to admit that could be possible on a "smaller car" but I have never owned a car that turned 35-4500 rpms on a regular basis. 

Quote from: Rupert on March 08, 2011, 07:58:36 PM
That's exactly what we're saying, and we've basically proved it.

:huh:

Quote from: Rupert on March 08, 2011, 07:59:03 PM
I do that a lot, actually. It's fun.

Where did I ever say I did not?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Rupert on March 08, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
What's your point?

I did a little experiment tonight.  I put my car in sixth gear, at 35 mph.  It's turning at 1500 rpm at that point.  I waited until I got to a slight hill, and floored it.  The goal was to reach 40 mph (2000 rpm) before cresting over the top.  It didn't even do that.  It struggled to even maintain speed.  Now consider the drag involved when going 70-80 mph.  That's four times the amount of drag.  A miata can't be geared that tall.  It would lose speed at every minor elevation change, all while being floored (which would lead to shit gas mileage).

The claim that a lot of newer cars are "geared retardedly" is ridiculous.  You said gearing is a matter of preference.  It's really not.

My claim wasn't that newer cars have poor gearing.

It is obviously not completely preference. Physics exists, and all that. Gearing is a matter of preference within a certain range (dependent on the car, etc.). Seems pretty obvious to me. :huh:

Quote from: Rupert on March 08, 2011, 11:19:48 PM
My claim wasn't that newer cars have poor gearing.

It is obviously not completely preference. Physics exists, and all that. Gearing is a matter of preference within a certain range (dependent on the car, etc.). Seems pretty obvious to me. :huh:

That was 2o6's claim, so I was also directing it at him. 

And it sure didn't seem pretty obvious to you in this post...

Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 10:14:12 PM
Gearing is a matter of personal preference, once you get beyond the basics. I like taller top gears, for lower-RPM cruising, since you need very little power to maintain even 75 mph on flat ground. You don't need to be an engineer to understand that.

This thread is almost as bad as the CAI,Push rods vs. OHC,flappy paddles vs. manual threads!

Quote from: MrH on March 08, 2011, 11:42:02 PM
That was 2o6's claim, so I was also directing it at him.  

And it sure didn't seem pretty obvious to you in this post...

Uh, "beyond the basics." ;)

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 09, 2011, 01:31:32 AM
This thread is almost as bad as the CAI,Push rods vs. OHC,flappy paddles vs. manual threads!

Nah, this thread is fun.

Plus there has been very little nastiness here.

Why do you have to make a production out of every little thing I post? (Its nice to know the information, it's really nice to know the physics behind it) I mean seriously, I never claimed I knew more or really cared to try to prove anything wrong.....I was simply expressing my sentiments.



But even so, wouldn't the Miata's gearing (and other cars) really be determined by the attitude and idea behind of the car? (A sporty little roadster) I'd imagine that giving it gearing similar to an economy car would make it a lot less fun to drive.


Heck, a lot of small diesel engines are geared much differently than their regular counterparts (I.E, Fiesta Econetic, Polo BlueMotion ect....), so you're saying that there is only one set of perfect ratios for each particular car? I'd imagine that there is some sort of wiggle room built in/engineered in to each particular car; otherwise no one would be able to make "improvements" in the aftermarket or homegrown market. Heck, the automakers themselves wouldn't be able to make improvements!

Yeah, let me wade in here to help out.

First, miles DO mostly matter. Sure anything can be replaced in a car but at some point stuff ages that affects the feel if not integrity of the vehicle; window and trunk seals, body/subframe mounts, structural adhesives (unit-body, windows, etc.), corrosion (especially hidden); and it is a major PITA to deal with.

Second, no car from the factory is geared "retarded." It's geared that way for a reason. In the notable example of small-engine cars, there is a sweet spot between RPM, BSFC and road speed, to maximize MPG. Small engines are much more sensitive to this phenomenon, but suffice it to say that putting lower gears in a Civic isn't necessarily going to yield better MPG even at highway speeds.

Third ANY modern automotive engine will cruise for tens of thousands of miles at 4,000 rpm. The assertion that a (gasoline) boat engine is more durable is generally incorrect. For example, Mercruiser, a huge supplier of gasoline boat engines, still uses the original small and big block Chevy engines that date from the '50s and '60s. Sure they're decent engines but they generally aren't going to be as durable as modern V8s.

Quote from: 2o6 on March 09, 2011, 07:20:47 AM
Why do you have to make a production out of every little thing I post? (Its nice to know the information, it's really nice to know the physics behind it) I mean seriously, I never claimed I knew more or really cared to try to prove anything wrong.....I was simply expressing my sentiments.



But even so, wouldn't the Miata's gearing (and other cars) really be determined by the attitude and idea behind of the car? (A sporty little roadster) I'd imagine that giving it gearing similar to an economy car would make it a lot less fun to drive.


Heck, a lot of small diesel engines are geared much differently than their regular counterparts (I.E, Fiesta Econetic, Polo BlueMotion ect....), so you're saying that there is only one set of perfect ratios for each particular car? I'd imagine that there is some sort of wiggle room built in/engineered in to each particular car; otherwise no one would be able to make "improvements" in the aftermarket or homegrown market. Heck, the automakers themselves wouldn't be able to make improvements!

That's what you don't get.  You're not simply "expressing your sentiments".  You're making completely false claims on something you don't understand in the slightest.  When you get called out on it, this is how you react.  Don't make the claim that a lot of small cars are geared "retardedly", unless you plan on being able to support that.

And you're still arguing with me that the gearing is determined by the "attitude" of the car?  I just gave a perfect example where it has nothing to do with "attitude" or preference like Rupert seems to think it's about.

The fact you're trying to use diesel engines in the same car as a counter example shows how little you understand what you're talking about.  Of course diesels are geared differently...it's a completely different engine and power curve.  :facepalm:

Quote from: thecarnut on March 08, 2011, 10:16:21 AM
Have you run a 302 at 4000 RPM and then had an engine failure to prove him otherwise?

And it's not just "possible" on a smaller car, most smaller cars run in the ~3500 rpm range on the freeway all the time. You sound like one of those people who will never ever redline their car.

Hell, you sound like Teuton right now.

Don't drag me into this, asshat.

Quote from: MrH on March 09, 2011, 09:07:57 AM
That's what you don't get.  You're not simply "expressing your sentiments".  You're making completely false claims on something you don't understand the slightest.  When you get called out on it, this is how you react.  Don't say make the claim that a lot of small cars are geared "retardedly", unless you plan on being able to support that.

And you're still arguing with me that the gearing is determined by the "attitude" of the car?  I just gave a perfect example where it has nothing to do with "attitude" or preference like Rupert seems to think it's about.

The fact you're trying to use diesel engines in the same car as a counter example shows how little you understand what you're talking about.  Of course diesels are geared differently...it's a completely different engine and power curve.  :facepalm:

That still doesn't make any sense, to me. Only a few years ago it was pretty common for customers to order different final drive ratios to suit the needs of the car to them. Heck, my neon had an option like that; the sport model gave you a 3.94 final drive ratio. (with either the 2.0L SOHC or DOHC).

And I'm not talking about diesel versus petrol in those models, I mean diesel vs. diesel. (Seriously. I'm not stupid; I may not know as much as a 5th year engineering student, but I don't live under a rock) Another example: Cobalt XFE versus the regular Cobalt.


It sounds like not only an enginnering problem/dilemma, but a marketing one as well. Customers of late are more willing to trade off performance for fuel economy, and the engineers act accordingly.


I feel that a lot of small cars are geared bad because they lose an economy advantage over a larger car; nearly 4K at 65MPH doesn't make any sense to me, especially with to me no tangible benefit, and the gears behind it are almost irrelevant or unusable for freeway use.

Quote from: 2o6 on March 09, 2011, 09:55:03 AM
That still doesn't make any sense, to me. Only a few years ago it was pretty common for customers to order different final drive ratios to suit the needs of the car to them. Heck, my neon had an option like that; the sport model gave you a 3.94 final drive ratio. (with either the 2.0L SOHC or DOHC).

And I'm not talking about diesel versus petrol in those models, I mean diesel vs. diesel. (Seriously. I'm not stupid; I may not know as much as a 5th year engineering student, but I don't live under a rock) Another example: Cobalt XFE versus the regular Cobalt.


It sounds like not only an enginnering problem/dilemma, but a marketing one as well. Customers of late are more willing to trade off performance for fuel economy, and the engineers act accordingly.


I feel that a lot of small cars are geared bad because they lose an economy advantage over a larger car; nearly 4K at 65MPH doesn't make any sense to me, especially with to me no tangible benefit, and the gears behind it are almost irrelevant or unusable for freeway use.

You just keep digging yourself deeper.  Name a car with 6 gears (or even 5) that runs at 4000 rpm at 65 mph in top gear.

It's not a marketing issue.  I just gave you a perfect example of something that has to be geared short.  I gave you a thorough explanation of why.  And you still are insisting there's no reason for some cars to be geared so short.  Flogging the hell out of an engine at 1800 rpm that makes very little power there will get you terrible gas mileage.  Gas mileage isn't solely dependent on engine speed.  You don't understand these basic concepts, and you shouldn't be making claims like a ton of cars are geared "retardedly" until you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

Quote from: the Teuton on March 09, 2011, 09:25:08 AM
Don't drag me into this, asshat.

Have you redlined your car yet? :devil:

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 08:49:16 AM
Yeah, let me wade in here to help out.

The best thing you can do for yourself, is when you start feeling you "need to weigh in" to take a deep breath, count to "10" and then move to the next page.

http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/fuel-2.html

:facepalm:

Quote from: hounddog on March 09, 2011, 11:18:44 AM
The best thing you can do for yourself, is when you start feeling you "need to weigh in" to take a deep breath, count to "10" and then move to the next page.

http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/fuel-2.html

:facepalm:

You and your website are full of shit.  Cougs knows everything.  You hear me?  E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g!

Quote from: thecarnut on March 09, 2011, 11:06:49 AM
Have you redlined your car yet? :devil:

5,000 RPM, asshat.

Quote from: the Teuton on March 09, 2011, 11:45:19 AM
5,000 RPM, asshat.

That can't be redline....is it?

Quote from: SVT666 on March 09, 2011, 11:25:10 AM
You and your website are full of shit.  Cougs knows everything.  You hear me?  E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g!

(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/lawhog/OH%20MY%20GAWD/rofl1.gif)

You think there is any point in trying to explain the physics behind the force needed to propel a boat through water?

Quote from: hounddog on March 09, 2011, 11:51:55 AM
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/lawhog/OH%20MY%20GAWD/rofl1.gif)

You think there is any point in trying to explain the physics behind the force needed to propel a boat through water?

No.  He knows that already.  He knows more than the boat designer does too, so don't bother posting anything from that dumbass engineer.

True.

:facepalm:

This entire thread is yet another example of the knowledge fail of those who feel that just because they like 'em, buy 'em, drive 'em or build 'em, that that is automatic license to the knowledge of how they actual work.

I had to LOL'd at the pwnage of "experts" not knowing the average marine engine is a pooprod motor dating back to the '50s or '60s. Ha, ha!

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 12:55:30 PM
:facepalm:

This entire thread is yet another example of the knowledge fail of those who feel that just because they like 'em, buy 'em, drive 'em or build 'em, that that is automatic license to the knowledge of how they actual work.

I had to LOL'd at the pwnage of "experts" not knowing the average marine engine is a pooprod motor dating back to the '50s or '60s. Ha, ha!

I full well know my engines are pushrod, but how does that matter?  Many of the most reliable engines ever built were pushrods.

The car dates back to 1885, does that mean all cars are as unreliable as that one was?  Your "logic" of connecting an engine made today with a completely different model made in the 50s or 60s is nonsensical in application, laughable in theory.

Your absolute narcissism blinds you to the fact that you just are not very smart.  

Quote from: hounddog on March 09, 2011, 01:07:26 PM
I full well know my engines are pushrod, but how does that matter?  Many of the most reliable engines ever built were pushrods.

The car dates back to 1885, does that mean all cars are as unreliable as that one was?  Your "logic" of connecting an engine made today with a completely different model made in the 50s or 60s is nonsensical in application, laughable in theory.

Your absolute narcissism blinds you to the fact that you just are not very smart. 

I wouldn't say that.  Cougs is a pretty smart guy.  He's just dumb too.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 09, 2011, 11:46:03 AM
That can't be redline....is it?

Redline is 6,500 or so.

Quote from: the Teuton on March 09, 2011, 11:45:19 AM
5,000 RPM, asshat.

In other words, no.

Don't hate.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 09, 2011, 01:14:44 PM
I wouldn't say that.  Cougs is a pretty smart guy.  He's just dumb too.

If I'm "dumb" what exactly do you call automatic pseudo knowledgists like yourself and hounddog?

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 03:08:43 PM
If I'm "dumb" what exactly do you call automatic pseudo knowledgists like yourself and hounddog?

"We know everything there is to know about energy."

Yup, keep throwin' those insults around there, genius.

:ohyeah:


(by the way, the average marine engine is an outboard)

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 03:08:43 PM
If I'm "dumb" what exactly do you call automatic pseudo knowledgists like yourself and hounddog?

I wish we had a sarcasm smilie. 

You obviously know a lot about a lot, but you also live in a fantasy world.  And because you do know a lot about a lot, you think you know everything...which you don't, and you prove that fact quite a bit on here.  I can provide you with cold hard facts and evidence that prove you're wrong and your only response is "You're wrong because I say so and therefore I'm right".  It's those times that you look dumb...even though you're not.  You're just stubborn as a mule and have a strange perception of reality.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 09, 2011, 05:45:39 PM
I wish we had a sarcasm smilie. 

You obviously know a lot about a lot, but you also live in a fantasy world.  And because you do know a lot about a lot, you think you know everything...which you don't, and you prove that fact quite a bit on here.  I can provide you with cold hard facts and evidence that prove you're wrong and your only response is "You're wrong because I say so and therefore I'm right".  It's those times that you look dumb...even though you're not.  You're just stubborn as a mule and have a strange perception of reality.

Nah, the problem ain't that I'm always right, the problem is people hate getting called out when they're wrong, even if done so in objective, non-acusatory/non-attacking manner.

Here, the assertion that a gasoline boat motor is more durable than a gasoline passenger vehicle motor is simply incorrect. The proof is easy: a certain someone didn't realize that the average boat motor ain't nothing but usually a small block Chevy (like Mercruiser's) and it is objective fact that the new Vortec and LS motors are more durable. These facts are indefeatible.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 05:59:26 PM
Nah, the problem ain't that I'm always right, the problem is people hate getting called out when they're wrong, even if done so in objective, non-acusatory/non-attacking manner.

Here, the assertion that a gasoline boat motor is more durable than a gasoline passenger vehicle motor is simply incorrect. The proof is easy: a certain someone didn't realize that the average boat motor ain't nothing but usually a small block Chevy (like Mercruiser's) and it is objective fact that the new Vortec and LS motors are more durable. These facts are indefeatible.

See.  There you go again.  Marine engines are built to withstand the rigours of marine use.  He even provided proof.  You ignore it just like you ignore all proof that is presented simply because you are too arrogant and stubborn to accept when you are wrong.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 09, 2011, 06:27:53 PM
See.  There you go again.  Marine engines are built to withstand the rigours of marine use.  He even provided proof.  You ignore it just like you ignore all proof that is presented simply because you are too arrogant and stubborn to accept when you are wrong.

I have him on 'ignore' so see no "proof." A bit of Googling shows MerCruiser is using two-bolt Chevy blocks too (not as strong as the 4-bolt block); neither block is as strong as a new V8 design but a two-bolt block is WAY weak relative to a LS3.

Feel free to prove me wrong.  :huh: 

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 05:59:26 PM
Nah, the problem ain't that I'm always right, the problem is people hate getting called out when they're wrong, even if done so in objective, non-acusatory/non-attacking manner.

Here, the assertion that a gasoline boat motor is more durable than a gasoline passenger vehicle motor is simply incorrect. The proof is easy: a certain someone didn't realize that the average boat motor ain't nothing but usually a small block Chevy (like Mercruiser's) and it is objective fact that the new Vortec and LS motors are more durable. These facts are indefeatible.

Ugh.  :facepalm:

How much more dumb can you possibly be?  Every single thing you just wrote is wrong.

Here, I will even do the research for you, you lazy fucking retard;

From the US Marine Engine site;
"?We do not sell automotive engines as marine engines; automotive engines cost less to rebuild but they lack the power necessary for boats and consume more fuel."
http://www.usenginesinc.com/marine-engines.html
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/fuel-2.html
http://www.marineenginedigest.com/specialreports/marinevauto.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_7368324_difference-marine-engine-automobile-engine_.html
http://marineengineguide.blogspot.com/
http://www.volvopentamarineengines.com/marine-engines.html
http://www.gm.com/vehicles/innovation/powertrain-technology/engines/specialized/marine/marine_engines.jsp

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 07:45:08 PM
I have him on 'ignore' so see no "proof." A bit of Googling shows MerCruiser is using two-bolt Chevy blocks too (not as strong as the 4-bolt block); neither block is as strong as a new V8 design but a two-bolt block is WAY weak relative to a LS3.

Feel free to prove me wrong.  :huh: 

From Hounddog:

Ugh. 

How much more dumb can you possibly be?

Here, I will even do the research for you, you lazy fucking retard;

From the US Marine Engine site;
"?We do not sell automotive engines as marine engines; automotive engines cost less to rebuild but they lack the power necessary for boats and consume more fuel."
http://www.usenginesinc.com/marine-engines.html
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/fuel-2.html
http://www.marineenginedigest.com/specialreports/marinevauto.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_7368324_difference-marine-engine-automobile-engine_.html
http://marineengineguide.blogspot.com/
http://www.volvopentamarineengines.com/marine-engines.html
http://www.gm.com/vehicles/innovation/powertrain-technology/engines/specialized/marine/marine_engines.jsp







BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

I'm considering purchasing a 1990 Volvo 760 Turbo wagon for not a whole lot.  It has over 200k miles and is in tip top shape.

Quote from: CJ on March 09, 2011, 08:12:50 PM
From Hounddog:

Ugh.  

How much more dumb can you possibly be?

Here, I will even do the research for you, you lazy fucking retard;

From the US Marine Engine site;
"?We do not sell automotive engines as marine engines; automotive engines cost less to rebuild but they lack the power necessary for boats and consume more fuel."
http://www.usenginesinc.com/marine-engines.html
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/fuel-2.html
http://www.marineenginedigest.com/specialreports/marinevauto.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_7368324_difference-marine-engine-automobile-engine_.html
http://marineengineguide.blogspot.com/
http://www.volvopentamarineengines.com/marine-engines.html
http://www.gm.com/vehicles/innovation/powertrain-technology/engines/specialized/marine/marine_engines.jsp

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

I'm considering purchasing a 1990 Volvo 760 Turbo wagon for not a whole lot.  It has over 200k miles and is in tip top shape.

This post is education on three fronts.

First, this post explains why engineering is the third highest paying field (behind medicine and law).

Second, I'm starting to understand how ChrisV periodically comes absolutely unglued. I don't really come unglued but sometimes I see things on this forum that are very flat-earthy.

Third, this post again shows that anyone looking for misinformation, myth, misunderstanding, and violent rejection of data, fact and reality, all as it concerns the world of automotive enthusiasm, need look no further than any one of hundreds of automotive forums.

Now, I proceed to eviscerate this post:

First link. Note one scintilla of technical information. The closest "evidence" presented I can find is: "Our boat engines are built to last."

Second link. LOL - first sentence says, "Marine engines are generally based on commonly used automotive blocks." Then we have such mythical BS as "Valves are generally heavier duty like in trucks" and "The head is usually heavier with larger water passages."

Third link. LOL - second paragraph says, "The biggest difference is that marine engine cylinder blocks are based on heavier-duty truck blocks." The problem is said "truck" block pictured is indeed the original small block Chevy; meaning, a modern truck block will be much stronger than a truck block from the '70s or '80s.

Fourth link. No technical information save for, "Marine engines are larger and more heavy-duty to withstand a constant load." Uh, you mean like the "truck block" dating back to 1955 mentioned in the previous linkn.

Fifth link. The Volvo Penta 8.2L is simply the GM 502 crate V8. That is indeed a new design and not related in any way to Chevy's older (and weaker) 396 - 454 big block V8s of old.

Sixth link. Those engines Vortec 6.0L and LS3 noted are the new more durable engines of which I speak. Another gem is yet provided: "The same engine that powers your GM truck or SUV is specialized to create the unparalleled performance you can expect in a GM marine engine."


*****************************************************************************************************************************************

If you turkeys knew what makes and engine more "durable" this would not have you types trolling and otherwise losing your cool. Also, it would help if you turkeys had actually turned a wrench, too.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 09:27:00 PM
First, this post explains why engineering is the third highest paying field (behind medicine and law).

And why I own an engineering consulting firm.  ;)
(With offices in New Jersey, Phoenix and Chicago)

QuoteIf you turkeys knew what makes and engine more "durable" this would not have you types trolling and otherwise losing your cool. Also, it would help if you turkeys had actually turned a wrench, too.

Wow, how scathing.  So now you know my entire employment history as well.  Amazing.

I am not even certain where to begin with you so called "evisceration."  Utterly laughable.   Utterly and completely laughable.  

I guess you really are smarter than every other person in the world, including the Mercruiser engineer who very clearly states that Mercruiser designed the new engine from the block up as a marine engine.

And, please, feel free to show me the data, fact and or reality you claim I so "violently reject."

I'm not even sure who is arguing what at this point. Does Cougs think that marine engines are the exact same thing as car engines? Does hounddog think that car engines are so fragile that they'll fall apart if you run them at 3500 RPM for a few hours straight? :huh:

Quote from: Rupert on March 10, 2011, 01:47:38 AM
I'm not even sure who is arguing what at this point. Does Cougs think that marine engines are the exact same thing as car engines? Does hounddog think that car engines are so fragile that they'll fall apart if you run them at 3500 RPM for a few hours straight? :huh:

+1.

Quote from: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 11:30:07 AM
Except that the engine neither stock to the car, nor retained most of the factory spec parts. 

it was a street engine, and I was laughing discussing it. Notice the smileys, fuckface?

QuoteSo engines going back to 1991?

You are so full of shit.

yeah. And longer. ANY smallish engine had to turn those RPMs due to gearing to run highway speeds, even little pushrod aircooled VW engines. My '70s Japanese cars did it all teh time, from the '70s Civics to the various Mazdas. ALL the mini trucks had to in order to do freeway speeds. The '72 BMW 2002 and the '81 BMW 320i did. The '86 CRX Si did, as did my '85 Corolla GTS.

It's common and normal for most smaller engines to have to turn those speeds. Just a fact. Youre wrong. Period.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 07:02:53 AM
it was a street engine, and I was laughing discussing it. Notice the smileys, fuckface?

Street?  :rolleyes:

With racing parts.

Quoteyeah. And longer. ANY smallish engine had to turn those RPMs due to gearing to run highway speeds, even little pushrod aircooled VW engines. My '70s Japanese cars did it all teh time, from the '70s Civics to the various Mazdas. ALL the mini trucks had to in order to do freeway speeds. The '72 BMW 2002 and the '81 BMW 320i did. The '86 CRX Si did, as did my '85 Corolla GTS.

It's common and normal for most smaller engines to have to turn those speeds. Just a fact. Youre wrong. Period.

LOL

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 07:02:53 AM
it was a street engine, and I was laughing discussing it. Notice the smileys, fuckface?

Oh, you mean the ones from the first post?  

Fuckface?  What are you, 9?  

Quote from: ChrisV on March 08, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Yeah, actually. 4k isn't that much. Hell, even my old 302 woudl do that all day long (like driving at 75 mph from Seattle to Roseburg, Oregon). That's what 4:10 rear gears and 23" tall tires will do for you.. ;)

Most smaller cars are geared to turn about 3500 at 70 mph, and will do that all day long. When redline is at 6-7k or more, 3500-4500 is nothing.

Now, my diesel dually won't even GO to 4k, but that's a different story altogether... ;)

Quote from: ChrisV on March 08, 2011, 10:33:07 AM
(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/Rxbg.jpg)

Not stock. 7500 rpm redline (down from 9k when the engine was in the drag car with a different cam and high rise intake). Didn't the 4:10 gear ratio give you a clue that wasnt' talking about a stock vehicle?

(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/rx7eng-new.jpg)


I've owned dozens. My CRX, that RX7 when it was stock, a Hyundai Accent, my SVT Contour, my BMW 2002, various VWs, etc. 3500 at 70-75 mph is normal on most of these cars that are under 3 liters.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 08, 2011, 10:54:04 AM
Except the car was a street car, with plates, damn near a daily driver for 5 years like that, and the point was that I drove it from Seattle to Roseburg, Oregon and back, running 3500 rpm the whole way. 3500 was normal street driving, 7500 was race use.

And YOUR statement was "I think we would both agree that the majority of production engines would freak out and die if they had to do that. "

And the fact is, the majority of production engines of the last 20 years have NO PROBLEMS spending all day at 3500 rpm, as most production engines (other than trucks) are not old pushrod V8s.

Next time you should consider maybe using a couple smilies before you go all postal.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: GoCougs on March 09, 2011, 05:59:26 PM
Here, the assertion that a gasoline boat motor is more durable than a gasoline passenger vehicle motor is simply incorrect. The proof is easy: a certain someone didn't realize that the average boat motor ain't nothing but usually a small block Chevy (like Mercruiser's) and it is objective fact that the new Vortec and LS motors are more durable. These facts are indefeatible.

You haven't given objective fact that the new Vortec or LS are more durable. You've only made an assertion. And until there are 50+ year old Vortech and LS motors still powering their original vehciles, there are no "objective facts" that they are more durable. More efficient? Definitely. More reliable? Possibly, though not definitevely proven. More durable? Not so much.

If Nippondenso built a widget that always lasted exactly 100,000 miles then fell apart, it would be reliable but not durable. If Bosch built a widget that on average lasted 300,000 miles, but might fail anywhere between 0 miles and 1,000,000 miles, it would be durable but not reliable. You need to provide proof of durability before claiming victory in calling people out.

Quote from: hounddog on March 10, 2011, 07:50:53 AM
Oh, you mean the ones from the first post? 

Fuckface?  What are you, 9? 

Most of the time.

Quote
Next time you should consider maybe using a couple smilies before you go all postal.  :rolleyes:

I did. In the first post that you got all bent about and continued to be bent about.

Simply put, YOUR statement was "I think we would both agree that the majority of production engines would freak out and die if they had to do that."

And that's factually wrong. Demonstrably and proven factually wrong. For decades. Admit it and we can move on to bashing Cougs.  :ohyeah:

Quote from: hounddog on March 10, 2011, 07:39:51 AM
LOL

Serious. If you can prove otherwise, have at it. otherwise, as I sad above, admit you were wrong, and we can move on to more important things, like calling out Cougs on those marine engines.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 09:09:21 AM

Simply put, YOUR statement was "I think we would both agree that the majority of production engines would freak out and die if they had to do that."

And that's factually wrong. Demonstrably and proven factually wrong. For decades. Admit it and we can move on to bashing Cougs.  :ohyeah:

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 09:10:40 AM
Serious. If you can prove otherwise, have at it. otherwise, as I sad above, admit you were wrong, and we can move on to more important things, like calling out Cougs on those marine engines.

I guess you missed this;

Quote from: hounddog

Quotefrom: Rupert on March 08, 2011, 07:58:36 PM
That's exactly what we're saying, and we've basically proved it.

Quotefrom: hounddog on March 08, 2011, 08:39:52 AM
Well, I have to admit that could be possible on a "smaller car" but I have never owned a car that turned 35-4500 rpms on a regular basis.

:huh:

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 09:07:17 AM
YOu need to provide prrof of durability before claiming victory in calling people out.

He cannot be bothered with such incredibly mundane details as proof.

Yay.  Now we're all friends and we can all gang up on Cougs. :rockon:

Quote from: hounddog on March 10, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
He cannot be bothered with such incredibly mundane details as proof.

When you're GoCougs you don't need proof.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 07:02:53 AM
it was a street engine, and I was laughing discussing it. Notice the smileys, fuckface?

That car doesn't count because it's an autotragic. :devil:

4th gear in the AOD was about the same ratio as the 5th gear in the Mazda 5 speed it replaced, so rpm at speed was the same after teh conversion as it had been before. Of course, that made the top speed gearing limited, and thus no higher than it had been before the conversion. It just got there a lot quicker. ;) (and didn't blow apex seals doing it)

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 09:07:17 AM
You haven't given objective fact that the new Vortec or LS are more durable. You've only made an assertion. And until there are 50+ year old Vortech and LS motors still powering their original vehciles, there are no "objective facts" that they are more durable. More efficient? Definitely. More reliable? Possibly, though not definitevely proven. More durable? Not so much.

If Nippondenso built a widget that always lasted exactly 100,000 miles then fell apart, it would be reliable but not durable. If Bosch built a widget that on average lasted 300,000 miles, but might fail anywhere between 0 miles and 1,000,000 miles, it would be durable but not reliable. You need to provide proof of durability before claiming victory in calling people out.

False. You don't need to wait "50 years" to determine the efficacy and durability of a design; engines or otherwise. It's called "engineering." Now amount of blustering or experience is a suitable replacement.

False. The LS engines are much more durable owing to basic engineering fundamentals, not simply because I notify everyone of this fact. For example, the LSx engines use deep skirt block (extend below crank center line), six-bolt main caps, larger main journals; the list goes on and on.

The LS engines are much more durable than the (original) small block Chevy. If you disagree on these facts, you're on the side of wrong. Please do this shameful thread a favor and don't be on the side of wrong.

Quote from: SVT666 on March 10, 2011, 10:01:18 AM
Yay.  Now we're all friends and we can all gang up on Cougs. :rockon:

Well, the problem you three have is you're not all that knowledgeable and some of you are even catastrophically ignorant.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 10, 2011, 10:35:50 AM
Well, the problem you three have is you're not all that knowledgeable and some of you are even catastrophically ignorant.

(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/lawhog/OH%20MY%20GAWD/rofl1.gif)

Yet another false assumption based soley on narcissism.

Still waiting for something to show that any of your assertions with respect to marine engines are accurate.  :huh:  I suspect, however, you will simply provide nothing, as always.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 10, 2011, 10:34:11 AM
False. You don't need to wait "50 years" to determine the efficacy and durability of a design; engines or otherwise. It's called "engineering." Now amount of blustering or experience is a suitable replacement.

Ahh, the old fallacy of "I have numbers and a theory, therefore I know better better than real world results."

Cougs, if engineering math did that so well, there's never be engineering blunders. And everything, at every price point, would work perfecly all the time.

There's a reason my motto is "I don't have a degree. I just fix the things people with degrees fuck up."

QuoteFalse. The LS engines are much more durable owing to basic engineering fundamentals, not simply because I notify everyone of this fact. For example, the LSx engines use deep skirt block (extend below crank center line), six-bolt main caps, larger main journals; the list goes on and on.

You can list specs all you want. But if in the real world, they don't last as long, then they are not as durable. The fact that it's quite common for old iron chevy small blocks to hit a million miles and last for 40-50+ years in service mean that they are PROVEN durable, something that your ability to spout specs and theory will NEVER do. You have your narcissistic head so far up your ass you can't see that.

I've seen it way too many times with engineers... "I don't kow why it did that, the numbers say it should have worked!"

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 11:31:46 AM
Ahh, the old fallacy of "I have numbers and a theory, therefore I know better better than real world results."

Cougs, if engineering math did that so well, there's never be engineering blunders. And everything, at every price point, would work perfecly all the time.

There's a reason my motto is "I don't have a degree. I just fix the things people with degrees fuck up."

You can list specs all you want. But if in the real world, they don't last as long, then they are not as durable. The fact that it's quite common for old iron chevy small blocks to hit a million miles and last for 40-50+ years in service mean that they are PROVEN durable, something that your ability to spout specs and theory will NEVER do. You have your narcissistic head so far up your ass you can't see that.

I've seen it way too many times with engineers... "I don't kow why it did that, the numbers say it should have worked!"

You're right, we should just let you guys, without engineering degrees, design things.  For every engineer out there that designs something, there's countless CAD guys and technicians who think they could do it better.  There's a reason people get a degree in it.  There's a reason there are countless successful examples compared to a handful of "blunders".  You act like there's some sort of wacky wizardry that goes into mechanical design, and that it only works once in awhile.  That just isn't the case in the slightest.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 11:31:46 AM
Ahh, the old fallacy of "I have numbers and a theory, therefore I know better better than real world results."

Cougs, if engineering math did that so well, there's never be engineering blunders. And everything, at every price point, would work perfecly all the time.

There's a reason my motto is "I don't have a degree. I just fix the things people with degrees fuck up."

Sure, sometimes designs don't work as intended. This is not one of those times.

Actually I'm both a mechanical engineer plus I know quite a bit about engines in general, and I have torn down both (many) small block Chevies and an LS1.

Quote
You can list specs all you want. But if in the real world, they don't last as long, then they are not as durable. The fact that it's quite common for old iron chevy small blocks to hit a million miles and last for 40-50+ years in service mean that they are PROVEN durable, something that your ability to spout specs and theory will NEVER do. You have your narcissistic head so far up your ass you can't see that.

I've seen it way too many times with engineers... "I don't kow why it did that, the numbers say it should have worked!"

LOL - "quite common for old iron chevy small blocks to hit a million miles." C'mon, stop yer trolling.

The attributes I listed are indefeatable; my hunch is you (and others) simply don't understand them. Such as it is, I can't teach these things over the 'Nets.

BTW, you've seen nothing with engineers, and you don't fix anything that engineers mess up.

Quote from: MrH on March 10, 2011, 11:45:15 AM
You're right, we should just let you guys, without engineering degrees, design things.

Not saying that. I'm saying you cannot just spout theory and not acknowledge real world results.  Simple fact is, until you PUT it in the real world, your theory has little credibility and no actual proof. You can say, "well, we engineerd this to these specs and this tech is stronger, etc, the numbers show it to be so" and then put it in the real world and it fails HARD. The best engineers in the world have it happen to them. Sochiro Honda said success is 99% failure. If the specs were all it took to ensure success, then success would be 0% failure, as you wouldn't NEED to test in the real world.

How fucking hard to grasp IS this?

Once you get out of school, you'll know it, if you give yourself practical, real world experience.

IN the real world, the Vortec and LS so far have proven to be almost AS durable, but there's no real world proof that they are MORE durable. And spouting specs won't change that. Durability is strength over time, and the old iron small block has a LOT more time on it's side to prove durability. And until somehting else puts in MORE time, then it can't be proven to be MORE durable. It might be EXPECTED to be more durable, but it hasn't done so yet.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 10, 2011, 02:30:48 PM
Not saying that. I'm saying you cannot just spout theory and not acknowledge real world results.  Simple fact is, until you PUT it in the real world, your theory has little credibility and no actual proof. You can say, "well, we engineerd this to these specs and this tech is stronger, etc, the numbers show it to be so" and then put it in the real world and it fails HARD. The best engineers in the world have it happen to them. Sochiro Honda said success is 99% failure. If the specs were all it took to ensure success, then success would be 0% failure, as you wouldn't NEED to test in the real world.

How fucking hard to grasp IS this?

Once you get out of school, you'll know it, if you give yourself practical, real world experience.

IN the real world, the Vortec and LS so far have proven to be almost AS durable, but there's no real world proof that they are MORE durable. And spouting specs won't change that. Durability is strength over time, and the old iron small block has a LOT more time on it's side to prove durability. And until somehting else puts in MORE time, then it can't be proven to be MORE durable. It might be EXPECTED to be more durable, but it hasn't done so yet.

You haven't given real world results or any proof like you think you have.  You're stupid anecdotal stories are just that.  Anecdotal and statistically insignificant.  All you said was "it's quite common for old iron chevy small blocks to hit a million miles".  That's your proof?

And these engineering blunders aren't because the numbers are wrong, it's because the engineer overlooked something.  And we're only limited by our computational power at this point in terms of testing things and the estimation of our mathematical models.  We're needing less and less real world testing.

Once you get in school, you'll know it, if you give yourself practical, real knowledge.

How fucking hard to grasp IS this?

Quote from: MrH on March 10, 2011, 02:40:26 PM
You haven't given real world results or any proof like you think you have.  You're stupid anecdotal stories are just that.  Anecdotal and statistically insignificant.  All you said was "it's quite common for old iron chevy small blocks to hit a million miles".  That's your proof?

You're right. I forgot that you are incapable of seeing them around you. Durability as a FACT is all in how the end product lasts. If you don't already know how many old iron V8s are running around for decades, then you simply don't know much about cars and trucks in general. Like Cougs.

Personally, I think you DO know that those old iron block V8s are all around you doing work, and doing work for a long time, and you're just being disingenuous.

QuoteAnd these engineering blunders aren't because the numbers are wrong, it's because the engineer overlooked something.

So which is it, the engineer made a mistake in the numbers, so the numbers are wrong, or he made a mistake interpreting the numbers so the end result came out wrong? Which of those makes the engineer correct vis a vis the real world result?

QuoteAnd we're only limited by our computational power at this point in terms of testing things and the estimation of our mathematical models.  We're needing less and less real world testing.

Completely agreed. MUCH better precision is being created, especially with new manufacturing techniques. Projections are better and expectations are better as a result. I said as much. And the end result is definitely more EFFICIENT (which in automotive engineering, where most of the effort is going). Doesn't mean the durability is going to match or exceed in real world use as what's already out there. It's definitely more efficient, and at least as reliable (though with more failure points, there have been some issues). But long term durability has yet to be proven, as not enough time has passed.

Again, durability has a time component to it. It should be blatantly obvious, but until it HAS lasted longer, it HASN'T lasted longer. Even if it's EXPECTED to. Someone that's trained for a marathon, and is in better shape then a previous winner, is expected to do better at the marathon, but until they've actually FINISHED, it's still only an expectation, not a fact.

But again, you need to read my response above discussing the difference between durability and reliability.

This ChrisV lecture about how engineering does or should work is all sorts of surreal (i.e., abjectly mythical).

Quote from: GoCougs on March 10, 2011, 03:46:36 PM
This ChrisV lecture about how engineering does or should work is all sorts of surreal (i.e., abjectly mythical).

Sort of like when you made your claims the Chinese jet would not fly for at least a year because "you know jets?"

:rolleyes:

Quote from: GoCougs on March 10, 2011, 12:04:00 PM

Actually I'm both a mechanical engineer plus I know quite a bit about engines in general, and I have torn down both (many) small block Chevies and an LS1.

Quote from: GoCougsThis entire thread is yet another example of the knowledge fail of those who feel that just because they like 'em, buy 'em, drive 'em or build 'em, that that is automatic license to the knowledge of how they actual work.

:clap:

Talk about comedic irony made out of pure 24k gold, and incredibly self descriptive. 

How many more months until that Chinese fighter takes off now, BlowCougs?

Oh my.

:popcorn:

Quote from: hotrodalex on March 10, 2011, 06:12:10 PM
Oh my.

:popcorn:

Pass me a box too HotRod!!!

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 10, 2011, 06:29:00 PM
Pass me a box too HotRod!!!

Might need a whole bucket!

Quote from: hotrodalex on March 10, 2011, 06:49:00 PM
Might need a whole bucket!

Yep! I'll bring the Sodas!

Quote from: hounddog on March 10, 2011, 07:50:53 AM
Next time you should consider maybe using a couple smilies before you go all postal.  :rolleyes:

You're one to talk, buddy-boy. :lol:

Quote from: Rupert on March 10, 2011, 08:24:12 PM
You're one to talk, buddy-boy. :lol:

Hey, I have been working on that one.  :huh:

[insert the fuck you hippie douchebag hoser smilie here, then cram it into whatever cram hole your species typically crams things]

:evildude:

We have an extra cramming hole for reefer and potato chips.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 10, 2011, 03:46:36 PM
This ChrisV lecture about how engineering does or should work is all sorts of surreal (i.e., abjectly mythical).

:clap:

That summed up my reaction to ChrisV's post beautifully.

Quote from: MrH on March 10, 2011, 10:16:18 PM
:clap:

That summed up my reaction to ChrisV's post beautifully.

If he really knew how it was done, he'd be one.

He also missed completely the definition of "durable" too.

Quote from: Rupert on March 10, 2011, 09:56:54 PM
We have an extra cramming hole for reefer and potato chips.

:lol:

Quote from: hounddog on March 10, 2011, 11:00:29 AM
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/lawhog/OH%20MY%20GAWD/rofl1.gif)

Yet another false assumption based soley on narcissism.

Still waiting for something to show that any of your assertions with respect to marine engines are accurate.  :huh:  I suspect, however, you will simply provide nothing, as always.

And, yet, no "proof" from the almighty BlowCougs, just as everyone here expected.

As usual, the blowhard half-wit is all talk and hot air.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 10, 2011, 03:46:36 PM
This ChrisV lecture about how engineering does or should work is all sorts of surreal (i.e., abjectly mythical).

Pretty much like everything to come out of your mouth, eh?

Go back and read the quote SVT has in his sig.

Quote from: ChrisV on March 14, 2011, 05:27:27 PM
Pretty much like everything to come out of your mouth, eh?

Go back and read the quote SVT has in his sig.

Considering I consistently demonstrate that I know more than you about engines, automotive technology, and science and engineering in general, where does that leave you?

Quote from: GoCougs on March 14, 2011, 07:27:01 PM
Considering I consistently demonstrate that I know more than you about engines, automotive technology, and science and engineering in general, where does that leave you?

I know where it puts you;

nar?cis?sism   /ˈnɑrsəˌsɪzɛm/ 
[nahr-suh-siz-em]

?noun
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.



Oh, and still waiting for a shred of proof with respect to your claims about marine engines. 

I suspect, however, you will never man up here because you never do.

So back to the topic... my limit is mostly in the mid 20s to high 30s because I rack up miles quickly with my commute. I'm not sure I would go lower than the mid 20s since there's something I don't trust about a car someone has had for less than that. It makes me think they didn't care all that much for it if they were wanting to dump it so fast.

If I could swing the cost of the vehicle I wanted, I would buy new.

Whoa! Is this the week of long-lost member returns?

Quote from: Rupert on March 25, 2011, 08:08:24 PM
Whoa! Is this the week of long-lost member returns?

We'll know when Lazerous and Sander the Shark show up again.

Have to keep people on their toes!

Slonoma had 260k when I bought it, and I relied on it for work.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 14, 2011, 07:27:01 PM
Considering I consistently demonstrate that I know more than you about engines, automotive technology, and science and engineering in general, where does that leave you?

:popcorn:

How interesting that no new information is provided for by BCougs on marine engines.  ;)

Quote from: Submariner on March 27, 2011, 11:23:36 AM

:popcorn:

Lancer of boils.

:lol:

Quote from: Submariner on March 27, 2011, 11:23:36 AM

:popcorn:

Nah, ChrisV's an alright cat. He knows a lot but he's just one of those guys who likes being the Big Dog in the room, and when he's not, he can easily get unglued. 

Quote from: GoCougs on March 14, 2011, 07:27:01 PM
Considering I consistently demonstrate that I know more than you about engines, automotive technology, and science and engineering in general, where does that leave you?

Hahahaa! Only to yourself, Cougs. You don't "demonstrate" shit to anyone else here. Oh, and your little engineer buddy whose panties are in a twist over having theories slagged over real world results.

If you guys did it right the first time, you'd never improve on anything. But you LEARN things through putting theories into the real world and seeing what really happens. Chew on that a while.

Quote from: ChrisV on April 28, 2011, 10:15:03 AM
If you guys did it right the first time, you'd never improve on anything. But you LEARN things through putting theories into the real world and seeing what really happens. Chew on that a while.

You're the man now dog

:facepalm:  If I could only use one facepalm ever, this would be it.

Why.....why did this thread come back!?

Engineers are a special breed...

Quote from: ChrisV on April 28, 2011, 10:15:03 AM
Hahahaa! Only to yourself, Cougs. You don't "demonstrate" shit to anyone else here. Oh, and your little engineer buddy whose panties are in a twist over having theories slagged over real world results.

If you guys did it right the first time, you'd never improve on anything. But you LEARN things through putting theories into the real world and seeing what really happens. Chew on that a while.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you're still bent ~6 weeks later?

Also, who is my "buddy" exactly?

As to the thread title: A car cannot have "too much miles."  It can have too many, but...