[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference terri::cars_uk

Title:	Cars in the UK
Notice:	Please read new conference charter 1.70
Moderator:	COMICS::SHELLEYELD

Created:	Sun Mar 06 1994
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	2584
Total number of notes:	63384

794.0. "Is speed the ultimate goal?" by UKCSSE::RDAVIES (Live long and prosper) Wed Oct 11 1989 10:57

    The following I've moved as it's worthy of a note of it's own. It was
    in response to the note about modifying your favourite turbo to get n%
    more power/speed out of it.
    
    Richard (mod)
    
    
================================================================================
Note 709.16                     RS BOOST PRESSURE                       16 of 16
SEDSWS::HANCOCK "Ouch,I've just been regionalised!"  60 lines  10-OCT-1989 18:18
                    -< Why the urge to go even faster ???? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    	Someone please enlighten me...
    
    		As  1.   A conservationalist ( I drive a Golf diesel,shortly 
                         to be replaced by an Audi 80 turbo diesel,now
    			 officialy the cleanest car on the road BTW)
    		&   2.   The father of two children (whose lives I value
    			 greatly)
    
    	What is the fascination for this urge to tweak what is already
    an obscenely fast car into what is effectively a guided missile?
     
    	Would someone like to post up the stopping distances required
    for 130 + mph and then justify those sort of speeds on ANY public
    road anywhere ?
    
    	Dont get me wrong,I enjoy cars,I drive a great deal,and I break
    the speed limit (slightly) on occasions ,but the sort of speeds
    that are being generated by these conversions are DANGEROUS.Not
    everyone on the road is as competent a driver as the average DEC
    driver (my missus is living proof of that !)
    
    	The other issue is about pollution/consumption of the earths
     resources. Firstly,someone correct me if I'm wrong,but the RS will
    NOT run unleaded,also,what sort of MPG does a foot to the floor
    RS return ? 20 ? 25   ? In this day and age,nobody should be driving
    a car that returns less than 30,remember the oil wont last for ever,&
    then what will you be driving around in ?
    
    	A sobering statistic:
    
    	In one year,the city of Coventry's road traffic pumps 300 tonnes
    of lead into the atmosphere.Thats one city in one country in one
    year.Now multiply that by the number of cities,and the number of
    countries 	and the fact that the number of cars will double by
    the end of the century and you (and your kids) are breathing that
    stuff !!
    
    	Sobering statistic number 2.
    
    	The lead and sulphur levels monitored in the banks of the M25
    are so high that a mineral mining company would consider mining
    there...
    
    	So,why dont you make the best of an already good deal,and think
    about driving:-
    
    a.   At sensible speeds,not crazy ones.
    b.   Cars that will run unleaded,or preferably:-
    c.   Diesel cars,or cars with catalytic converters (all 1990 AUDI's
    	 have them at no extra charge,and VW have a few models also)
    d.   Economically.
    
    		I dont mean to be a killjoy here,just promoting some
    healthy discussion.As it happens,I like the RS turbo,its one of
    the nicest looking cars I,ve ever seen,and if it had a cat available,
    I'd probably be driving one now!
    
    				Mick

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
794.66	Hmmmm	GRANPA::63654::NAYLOR	Purring again.	`Tue Mar 19 1991 21:30`	28
	After reading 302.97 and .98, it may be time to re-open this topic? Also, my own comments elsewhere about US highway speed limits being broken as a matter of course..... I drove from DC to Boston and back, via New York the other week. Most of the way we did about 60 mph, with occassional bursts up to 75, but generally we "went with the flow". Whether speed for it's own sake is a sensible goal is wide open for debate (I liked my E-type but usually drove it around 60 on the open road as I could get 20 mpg from it at that speed and 130+ equated to around 8 mpg :-( as well as being hazardous to my freedom). I like driving the Alfa, but more for the fun feeling and the sensations of driving along with the top down, the exhaust note roaring behind, et cetera ..... BUT I am also considering buying one of two vehicles, and I found myself looking first at comfort, then speed, then economy. The first vehicle has 200hp and a top speed of around 120. It also turns in less than 10 mpg (US!) when cruising at over 100. The second has 180 hp and cruises at 165 mph, whilst doing about 15-16 mpg (US). It is not as comfortable as the first, nor as big inside, but has infinitely better instrumentation to enthuse the "boy-racer". Now, the drive to Boston took 8 hours (excluding stops) in the Ford. If I buy the comfortable vehicle, it'll still take the same time, but I may arrive more rested, although poorer due to increased fuel consumption (the Ford did 28 mpg overall). If I buy the second (incidentally a few thousand dollars cheaper than the first) it'll take me about 3 hours and I won't have to contend with any serious traffic problems, although weather becomes a major factor! Which should I buy? Brian
794.67		SKIWI::EATON	Marketing - the rubber meets the sky	`Tue Mar 19 1991 23:58`	9
	180hp good for 165mph ??? Must be a motorbike then ? One of the advantages of hi-tech (as opposed to cubic inches) is the ability to provide reasonable horsepower with economy. Someone I know well, who has a 309 GTi regularly drives between Auckland (location of girlfriend) and Wellington (location of his job in Digital) which is 400 miles. He does it in around 5 hours (i.e. average of 80 mph, meaning speeds over 110mph where possible), and returns over 25 mpg.
794.68	Wot are they then ?	UNTADH::LEWIS	Have Bike, will Ski...	`Wed Mar 20 1991 08:03`	12
	Ere, Wot sort of bike has 180bhp ? And only does 165mph ? The Honda CBR gets 165mph out of a mere 140bhp, whereas the new NSR750 (if only my house wasn't already mortgaged) is reputed to do over 200mph from >200bhp :-) Similarly, I haven't ever driven a car that could do 165mph with less than 300 bhp ? So what have you got in mind ? Am�d�n
794.69		JUNO::WOOD	Awaiting new management.	`Wed Mar 20 1991 10:07`	6
	If my interpretation is right the cruising speed of 165MPH is the key factor, but do you have a hangar to keep it in ? Alan ~~~~~~
794.70	Alan got it.	MAMTS2::63654::NAYLOR	Purring again.	`Wed Mar 20 1991 14:28`	37
	Just a little fun for a moment. Cruising at 165 mph with 180 HP is done in a Grumman Tiger - a four-place single-engine aeroplane. :^) For info - the first vehicle is a Cadillac STS. Nice car, but do I really want to spend another $35,000 on another major depreciating asset? Not really, but the test drive afternoon will be fun ..... As to hangar, no I don't have one, but tie-downs are readily available just up the road from our house as Montgomery airpark. Who needs a hangar in this area anyway? About the same number of people who have garages I suspect! Garages are rare here - and I only built mine to house the workshop so I can clear the basement for an office..... The statistics for the plane are interesting ..... Cost, around $28,000, then start adding fancy navigation equipment if needed. Cruise at 165 mph, in a straight line. Fuel consumption is around 9 gph = approx 16-17 mpg. Insurance is $950 per year versus the Alfa at $840 - but I have full NCD on the Alfa, and nothing on the plane, yet. Depreciation on the plane is negligible to slight appreciation. Maintenance is expensive, however. Allow for $2000+ per year. Every 2000 hours (approx), you have to put in a new engine, costing $8000+ Fuel is slightly more expensive - around $2 a gallon for 100 octane low lead, versus $1.27 for 93 octane car fuel. You can get FAA permission to run on car fuel, though. Even so, taken over 300,000 miles the plane is very cost-competitive with other modes of transport, and certainly cheaper than the Cadillac (estimated depre- ciation of $7000 pa to start!). The only bad comparison is that the Caddy is new, whereas the plane is about 15 years old, but their life expectancies are much different - Caddy, about 10-12 years and the plane, another 40 or so. Not really practical in the UK, except for long distances, but in the US there are airfields all over the place, particularly up the eastern corridor, so you can get to within 20 miles of any chose destination. Florida in 8 hours ..... Brian