From: OzOne on
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:31:12 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:

>
><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
>news:vlmt46ddggk50u6f58c3mr3b0v89uful1b(a)4ax.com...
>
>> Nope...I'm telling you that anyone with half a brain would choose a
>> larger more comfortable and probably as economical a vehicle.
>
>Uh-huh.
>
>So, while you're still wearing your self appointed "Spokesperson for the
>educated" hat, perhaps you could take the time to explain in some detail
>exactly what it is about a large car specifically that automatically makes
>it "more comfortable" and "probably as economical" as a small one?
>
>Please. I beg you. I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who could do
>with a good pants-pissing :)

Dearest ignorant one....If you are not aware of the reasons why a
large car is more comfortable and probably as economical as a small
one on a long trip, Then neither I nor anyone else would be able to
convince you of it.

Still, I'll give you a few points to ponder
Chassis dynamics
Noise
Engine RPM.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: OzOne on
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:05:43 +1000, "Atheist Chaplain"
<abused(a)cia.gov> wrote:


>
>I really need to put a new sig down here :-)

This one might do

"Arses licked...no need to wipe"




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: person on
"Same reason I ditched the 626 I had before my VN - it was
tiring to drive on country highways. Always fighting with it
to stay on the road, having a B-Double go past was scary,
and every lump & bump got transmitted through"

"Other small cars I've driven long distances have included a
couple of Lasers (KA & one a lot later), a late 90's Barina,
and a brand new mid '00s Yaris"

Three of the cars are Mazdas - horrible, noisy things they are. I
don't know why they're so popular.
And one is a crapulent Vauxhall Corsa.
Hardly indicative of small cars generally.

The pollies cars are all sixes, they're specially made by the factory.

All the cars made in Australia use the same (smallish) seats made by
Lear Corporation, so the size reason for buying a large car doesn't
cut it.
From: John_H on
Scotty wrote:
>"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:8giv4691sum86ft56bil23ln6gefirf3ql(a)4ax.com...
>: Scotty wrote:
>:
>: >Ive tried experimenting with the economy of cruise control and Ive found that I can get better
>: >economy with manual throttle control.
>: >
>: >Unless you are on a dead flat road then cruise aint the best way to use less fuel.
>:
>: Absolutely agree... but I bet you can't maintain the same average
>: speed for the same fuel consumption without the increased risk of a
>: speeding fine when the road isn't flat (or straight)!
>:
>: It's the only real use for the rotten things IMHO. ;-)
>
>Weeeeellll, the trouble is that they throttle up hard on the uphills and do not allow for crests. If
>you have 100ks at the crest then usually you will have excessive speed on the downhill section

Mine will certainly do that if you hit resume approaching the crest,
otherwise it's not a major issue. It holds within 2kph under most
conditions once it's stabilised in cruise control. Others may be
worse (or better).

It does use a lot more throttle under load than I normally would
without cruise control (for a higher average speed but at the expense
of fuel consumption). It also uses a bit less throttle on light
loads, which keeps down the maximum speed but for very little fuel
saving.

In other words it wouldn't be hard to maintain the same average for a
lot less fuel if it weren't for the likelihood of encountering speed
detection devices on the bits where the travelling is easy. :)

--
John H
From: Scotty on

"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:rplv46t7mv8saudhv86j948j033rfgijtn(a)4ax.com...
: Scotty wrote:
: >"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:8giv4691sum86ft56bil23ln6gefirf3ql(a)4ax.com...
: >: Scotty wrote:
: >:
: >: >Ive tried experimenting with the economy of cruise control and Ive found that I can get better
: >: >economy with manual throttle control.
: >: >
: >: >Unless you are on a dead flat road then cruise aint the best way to use less fuel.
: >:
: >: Absolutely agree... but I bet you can't maintain the same average
: >: speed for the same fuel consumption without the increased risk of a
: >: speeding fine when the road isn't flat (or straight)!
: >:
: >: It's the only real use for the rotten things IMHO. ;-)
: >
: >Weeeeellll, the trouble is that they throttle up hard on the uphills and do not allow for crests.
If
: >you have 100ks at the crest then usually you will have excessive speed on the downhill section
:
: Mine will certainly do that if you hit resume approaching the crest,
: otherwise it's not a major issue. It holds within 2kph under most
: conditions once it's stabilised in cruise control. Others may be
: worse (or better).
:
: It does use a lot more throttle under load than I normally would
: without cruise control (for a higher average speed but at the expense
: of fuel consumption). It also uses a bit less throttle on light
: loads, which keeps down the maximum speed but for very little fuel
: saving.
:
: In other words it wouldn't be hard to maintain the same average for a
: lot less fuel if it weren't for the likelihood of encountering speed
: detection devices on the bits where the travelling is easy. :)
:
: --
: John H

With the 4.0 Hilux its pretty easy to wind a few extra kms on. Thats when I use the Cruise, saves
any unnessesary tickets and points loses.

Damn! Im starting to sound like my ole man did 25 years ago!


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: Trucks and right lanes (Vic)
Next: 88 Tarago