Slashdot Mirror

uhhh... what? are you kidding me? M3 skidpad number is 0.98 and the 335i skidpad is 0.87

Surely:

http://example.com/articles/man-bites-dog [example.com]

is vastly superior from the user's point of view to:

http://example.com/cgi-bin/article.php3?PHPSESSID=0983sdf0er888fsd&article_id=73522 [example.com]

Which one are you going to remember? Which one would you rather read over the phone?

So, you agree with me, right? The short URL is better than the obnoxiously long one.

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, I'm complaining about URLs that are so long that they become difficult to use. I'm complaining about URLs that are so long that you need a URL shortening service like bit.ly to use them in common contexts, which is not the case with your man-bites-dog example. I'm talking about URLs that are so long that you can't even read them in your browser because they don't fit in the location bar. I'm talking about URLs like this 150-character long mess, that I can't even paste into Slashdot as plain text because Slashdot won't accept a string that long. Such URLs aren't practical. Nobody can remember them, read them on the phone, or type them in without getting them wrong. That much text in a URL isn't designed for human consumption, it's there for SEO.

Actually, it's worse. Car and Driver did a test comparing the two, and they found that text messaging while driving is worse than driving while intoxicated.

The reason? My guess is that when you're driving buzzed, at least you're (hopefully) giving the road your undivided attention.

But then, there's studies that have found that driving immediately after waking from a sound sleep is worse than drunk driving. Shall we make that illegal too?

Case-driven legislation doesn't do any good; it just gives officers excuses to pull over people they don't like the looks of. California already has legislation which makes it illegal to do anything while driving that may distract you or compromise your control of the car; the law specifically gives the examples of smoking and eating. I've never heard of someone geting a ticket for eating or smoking while driving, though. Why do we need ANOTHER law about talking while driving, or typing while driving? Is there a law that specifically prohibits reading while driving? If there is, does it refer to "printed matter" and give me a loophole to enjoy my Kindle while driving? But what if I'm using Text-to-speech? I might be distracted when the automated voice gets the cadence wrong, and glance at the page. But if that's illegal, what about books on tape? And if I can't listen to an audiobook, maybe I shouldn't listen to the radio? I know I missed an exit because I was too busy singing along to the Into the Woods soundtrack one time. Just imagine what COULD HAVE happened.

Or... maybe the problem is that we haven't taught people how to drive properly and take some damned responsibility for the piloting of thousands of pounds of metal at speeds faster than any human can travel unassisted. Maybe you shouldn't have to take a Transportation Engineering course to learn what affects stopping distance or why you shouldn't go around a curve too fast. Maybe our driving courses and tests should see how people do on the freeway.

Maybe the problem isn't the technology, but the skill of the user.

On the one hand, texting while driving is about as dangerous as drinking and driving. It takes eyes and concentration off the road and puts everyone else at risk. It is an activity that ought to be illegal.

Actually, it's worse. Car and Driver did a test comparing the two, and they found that text messaging while driving is worse than driving while intoxicated.

The reason? My guess is that when you're driving buzzed, at least you're (hopefully) giving the road your undivided attention.

If it's bandwidth you're after, an E63 AMG wagon probably has more. The Veyron will have substantially better ping times, though. ;)

I don't know. I think Car and Driver did a pretty thorugh debunking ethanol as a viable gasoline here. In short, it takes more energy to make ethanol than it creates. Food shortages and engine damage aside, I don't think this is the way to go.

It's just a huge tax subsidy, and always will be unless and until there is some huge genetically engineered solution. And once that happens, the fun part comes when they make a mistake and wipe out a good part of the food chain. Try containing a successful genetically engineered mistake! I dare ya!

I suppose it could work in an economy 1/14th the size of the US. But here, we're going to need a much better, bigger solution. Syngas could be the answer. This is the idea of taking all of our organic waste, you know, plastics, food scraps, whatever, cook them and then turn it into ethanol. But that would have to be a lot of syngas.

I'd include a good citation on the syngas, but I'd have to search for the article I read, which would take time - sleep is a higher priority at the moment.

There is no light rail system in the world that can compete with a hybrid car in terms of environmental friendliness. Take a look at Patrick Bedard's article "Save Energy, Take the Car" from the December Car and Driver. '"Most light-rail systems use as much or more energy per passenger mile as the average passenger car, several are worse than the average light truck, and none is as efficient as a Prius,â writes Randal Oâ(TM)Toole in a new study from the Cato Institute titled âoeDoes Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?"' http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/save_energy_take_the_car_column

In fact, the productivity difference between unionized workers at American car corps and nonunionized ones at foreign car corps, all working at American factories, is negligible. In 2008, Chrysler tied with Toyota for #1, and the American/foreign corps alternated for position the rest of the way down.

The American corps, despite their productivity, did lose money on each car. Which is not because of the unions, but rather mismanagement.

Bankrupt carmakers will not sell as many cars (as surveys this year have shown the large majority of consumers agree), because consumers depend on them to honor warranties and service contracts which will be dropped. Airlines don't sell those ongoing obligations, so that comparison is a load of crap. But bankruptcy will let carmakers drop their pension obligations, meaning those workers will have worked for less up front, getting robbed of the labor they sold just to get screwed once they can't take that labor back or threaten to withhold more of it.

The government should loan the UAW enough money to buy each of Ford, Chrysler and GM, on the condition that they break up their autoworker union monopoly along the lines of the manufacturers. Or let Chrysler go out of business (it's not publicly traded, so its failure won't shock the stock market), then loan GM and Ford money to buy its assets, including its labor contracts, and compete without the redundancy that isn't providing useful competition at that third competitor. But practically all the top execs at those three corps have to go, because they've proven that they can't run a car corp, just rip them off for huge salaries running them into the ground.

An SUV is basically a big car body bolted to a truck frame.

Well, some SUVs are (usually the larger ones), while the smaller "crossover" vehicles, like the CR-V, Rav4 and Forester, are Unibody constructions. As for trucks, the Honda Ridgeline is built on a Unibody platform.

The million dollar price tags on the McLaren F1 and Ferrari Enzo paid for a lot more than carbon fiber construction and crash engineering. The Mosler MT900S is made from carbon fiber, weighs 2500 lbs, and costs $190,000. It passes US safety and emissions standards, and a lot of that cost and weight goes into a big V8 engine and engineering a high performance sports car. Nobody has ever tried building a carbon composite economy car, but there have been affordable fiberglass bodied cars like the Meyers Manx.

Sounds like New Rome, OH. Also: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/town_without_pity_feature

Actually you are incorrect. Diesel cars are allowed in the US: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/2008_new_car_reviews/2008_volkswagen_jetta_tdi_first_drive_review And VW has had several of their cars using Diesel here in the US for a while.

Disclaimer: IANAL

We can examine a previous case, between Chrysler and General Motors. When GM released the H2, Chrysler claimed that the slotted grill on the H2 was too similar to that of the Wrangler. This link is all I could find on it

From what I read, since Chrysler used to own the Hummer, but transferred the rights of the Hummer to GM, they had no case, as the H1 contained a similar grill as well. So, it is not unusual for an automaker to defend the look of their car as a trademark, as we have established. This can be extended to the calendar, in that people are now making a profit from the image of the car, which is Ford's trademark. They are not licensed, and are therefore infringing. If we look at your example of a car for sale, they are not selling the image of the car, but rather the car itself. They are not making money off of the image, and are therefore not infringing. Again, I re-iterate, IANAL

I bet you can't back that up with any facts.

According to Southern California Edison, the electricity needed per mile for passenger cars is at least 0.46 kilowatt-hour. For the whole U.S. vehicle fleet, that works out to 1.16 trillion kilowatt-hours. You'll need 32 quads of coal, which is twice the energy actually consumed in 2000 with gasoline.

As for global-warming implications, the use of hydrogen from coal instead of gasoline would produce a 2.7-fold increase in carbon emissions.

Of course, all of today's electricity doesn't come from coal. But even with the current mix of sources, including natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind, that much hydrogen would raise our carbon output to about twice the 2000 level.

There is no magic bullet for clean cars unless you invent a new type of energy altogether, or if you don't mind driving around with a nuclear reactor under the hood. It is mind boggling how many people think electricity just comes from nothing and is "clean energy".

link: http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/9978/the-case-for-nuke-cars-its-called-hydrogen-page2.html

With a vehicle like this, getting out of the crater would have been a cinch.

Stickerboy is right. Look up the size and curb weights of your 91 Civic vs. a current one. The articles below cover the topic of bloat.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11310/the-stee ring-column-minicars-i-dont-see-no-stinking-minica rs.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20070604/AUTO01/706040309/1148/AUTO01

The cars you speak of are likely MUCH lighter and smaller than their current versions.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11310/the-stee ring-column-minicars-i-dont-see-no-stinking-minica rs.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20070604/AUTO01/706040309/1148/AUTO01
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s0600 3.htm

I'm actually impressed by some of the mileage improvements that automakers can still manage despite increasing size and weight. I used to have a 91 Toyota Camry V6: 2.5L 156 hp V6, curb weight of 3087 lbs and EPA rating of 18/24. I replaced it w/a 2002 Nissan Maxima: 255 hp 3.5L V6, curb weight of 3218 lbs, EPA rated 20/26. That's pretty impressive to me: a much larger car that weighs 131 lbs more, has 99 hp more yet is EPA rated 2 mpg better for city and highway.

The EPA test is actually pretty accurate if you drive exactly like the test cycle, but the test conditions are nothing like real world driving. The city cycle averages about 21mph with very mild acceleration. The cold start occurs at 75 deg F (cold starts in colder weather burn much more gas). The A/C and heater are not used. The highway test has a similar leisurely pace. It averages 48mph with mild acceleration. Anyone merging and driving in freeway traffic that slowly would be a serious road hazard.

See here for more info about it.

I was just reading about the Prius and the opening line from an article in Car and Driver caught my eye that made me think about your ignorant statements.

From http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/7066/toyota-p rius.html:

The Prius is squeaky new for 2004, except for the philosophy behind it and the 370 patents covering its mind-numbingly complex drivetrain.

And yet that, sir, is a theory that explains observable phenomena. Theories are the basis of science, and one of the principles of science is that theories are also questionable and sometimes fallible. For many years, it was held that the theory of the Sun and all other objects revolved around the Earth was also infallible and it took someone challenging it and being excommunicated to fall.

The truth is that we don't know. The system of climate on this planet is massively complex, and reacting to it with simplistic attitudes will result in knee-jerk reactions that will probably, in the grand scheme of things, have very little effect on the overall outcome. Several truths that we can debate, though, are in your points.

Point 2 - "Automobile pollution is probably the single biggest cause though." Says who? This is a matter of debate, as industry and power plants pump more than a little into the atmosphere. Further, CO2 - which is a greenhouse gas - is largely produced by Mother Nature herself through the process of life. It's something like 29:1 in favor of Mother Nature pumping it out. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and there's a lot of that in the air. Human effects are arguably minimal.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/2502/patrick-b edard.html

Note page 2 of this article, in which the numbers are discussed - and references are provided.

Point 3 - "This has been going on for a very long time." Again, climatology is a trending process. Humanity has only had the power to emit pollution on any scale for around 200 years, give or take, while the planet is several billions of years old.

So, sorry, but I'm a skeptic about people who think that 1mpg or a recycled plastic bag will save the planet. Call me a fatalist, but I think the planet will outlive you, me, and probably our species just fine without any misguided reactions at all.

Yup. And it's not entrapment:

"...bait cars are not considered entrapment because the thieves do not have to take them."

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11179/the-bai t-cars-of-modesto.html

Entrapment is when a cop comes up to you and says "You wanna buy some weed?" or "I'll pay you to kill my wife." I think what the MPAA is doing here is closer to entrapment than not--yeah, in the same way, you don't have to download that file, but on the other hand, by putting it in their shared folder and/or posting a tracker, what they're doing is more like "offering" than "leaving laying around." But the fact that it's not a "real" file doesn't matter, any more than the fact that you bought oregano or baby powder from an undercover cop will help your case. The intent is clear.

That said, I think they could do a lot more damage to torrents overall by worsening the signal:noise ratio than by going after infringers.

It actually makes more sense to use L/100km than MPG and it's ilk. MPG tends to psycologically inflate differences for fuel-efficient vehicles while hiding the real inefficiences in those that gulp gas.

See this article.

Until recently it would have been hard to find a comparison between a hybrid and non-hybrid that are sufficiently similar in other respects (similar size, same body style, and similar equpment from the same manufacturer). Now we can compare the standard Honda Accord with its hybrid version. Oops, that doesn't support your statement. Maybe the hybrid Camry, whose designers put more emphasis on fuel economy than the Accord's, will. Nope.

Something just sounds fishy about this; like a scheme to power your car with it's own exhaust.

Yes, cars have changed dramatically in the last 20 years. More power, more amenities, much safer and easier to drive, but according to Car and Driver magazine, fuel efficiency hasn't changed much in 25 years

The claim that this service provides anonymity and immunity to logging is only true in a very limited sense!

I wonder how long it will be until a government sets up their own honeypots? A few things: I remember seeing a show about the police in, like, Chicago or something, sending out letters to hundreds of crooks with outstanding warrants, telling them that they won tickets to a superbowl party. Scores showed up and they were all arrested.

Also, Car and Driver has this cool article about car theft in Modesto. (Lotsa meth = lotsa cars thefts. It's a really fun article, I recommend it.) The police set up "bait cars" (cars that are attractive targets for theft; i.e., unlocked with the keys in them) and wait for crooks to steal them. The interesting point is on page 2: "bait cars are not considered entrapment because the thieves do not have to take them." Similarly, any government could set up a darknet to lure pirates--it's not like you have to join and infringe copyright.

Ethanol, or any biofuel, will be hard pressed to replace oil.

Here is an excellent analysis by Car & Driver. I don't know if there numbers support your numbers but the analysis arrives at pretty much the same conclusion.

Yes, I do.

several in fact.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11185/fish-sto ries-from-the-operators-of-traffic-scameras.html

http://thenewspaper.com/news/11/1189.asp

http://thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp

and that took me 10 minutes to dig up.

The answer to your hydrogen question is of course another question that is currently unsolved by all the manufacturers and environmentalists. Where will the hydrogen come from? Right now the bulk of hydrogen comes from Natural Gas. Nice for the ozone layer, bad for our dependence on foreign oil. Your other option is to crack water. Those molecules are VERY stable and it takes a LOT of energy to split them. And once you've done that fuel cells waste 30% of their energy to heat. There's a great article in Car and Driver about this. People talk about Hydrogen as if it's a SOURCE for energy; it's not. It's merely a storage medium. Nope, the only way we can move to a Hydrogen economy would be to build a whole 'lotta nuclear power plants.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id =27&article_id=9978

Here's my math. My car (a Honda CRX HF, a very fuel-efficient car from 1988) currently gets 52 miles per gallon. I use it about an hour per day -- let's say I use one gallon of gas per day, which is about right. With a fuel-cell vehicle of similar size, this should be equivalent to about 0.5 kilograms of hydrogen.

My south-facing roof is 4x20 meters, or 80 square meters. Bright sunlight has 1020 watts/square meter, according to wikipedia, and current photovoltaics are 12% efficient, so the usable electrical output of a roof full of solar cells ought to be 9kW. This is borne out with an example: the bp 2150s solar cell gives 150 watts nominal maximum power, is 80x160cm (1.28 square meters), so the roof area accomodates about 60 panels, total output about 60*150=9kW.

If they work 6 hours per day, that's 54 kilowatt-hours. How much hydrogen will this produce? According to whatever web page I could turn up at the moment, it takes 39 kilowatt-hours to make a kilogram of hydrogen, or 78 kilowatt-hours at 50% efficiency. So my roof should be able to generate 0.7 kilograms per day.

Wikipedia says that solar panels cost about $4 per watt, which would give a cost of $36k for the panels. This is obviously way beyond feasibility, and renders my statement that the capital costs could be recouped in 10 years untrue. Is this what you meant by "better redo your calculations"?

You might also say that the cells wouldn't produce full power all the time (clouds), or that my roof isn't a good mounting place (no movable cell arrays). All of these are reasonable objections, I suppose. But the cells would also be working on days I don't drive, and I think 50% electricity-to-hydrogen conversion figure is low.

"I don't know where you live, but in Los Angeles I can't believe that they issue a single inappropriate traffic ticket in any given year."

California is pretty fair to motorists compared to most states. Try the Midwest or Texas. Lots of blatant speed traps all over the place. Places where the speed limit drops suddenly for no good reason except to fleece motorists for their money. Read the story of New Rome Township here and here.

Instead of controlling engine speed with the throttle as normal cars do, the genius gizmo adjusts the final-drive ratio to lug the engine, thereby adjusting the burden as necessary to hold revs at the right place on the power-output curve. If the driver calls for low speed, which is a light (and inefficient) load, it can blend in some battery-charging load that it's been saving up. And if the battery is charged, it can shut off the engine and move the car up to 42 mph without it.

It appears I was wrong about the particulates... This explains in more detail. I'm not too sure I agree with the doom-and-gloom but perhaps the US has such poor fuel that this is true.

No flame intended, it's just human nature.

I'm curious, how much exactly did you pay for your Prius?

Here's a quote from a Car and Driver article that summarizes what I was getting at: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id =15&article_id=8427&page_number=1/

The buzz today is about the miracle mileage makers called "hybrids." Wearing a Toyota Prius has become such a sought-after badge among the greenies that some dealers have been asking $5000 over the $21,290 sticker. Does this make economic sense? Buy some other frugal car for 20 large--say it gets only 30 mpg of $2 gas instead of the Prius's 55 mpg (that's the EPA's combined city and highway number)--and that five grand premium on the price of the car applied to gas will take you 75,000 miles. The Prius will have been driven 165,000 miles by the time enough dollars are saved on gas to overcome that extra starting cost.

No flame intended, it's just simple truth.

Here's a quote from a Car and Driver article that summarizes what I was getting at: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id =15&article_id=8427&page_number=1/

The buzz today is about the miracle mileage makers called "hybrids." Wearing a Toyota Prius has become such a sought-after badge among the greenies that some dealers have been asking $5000 over the $21,290 sticker. Does this make economic sense? Buy some other frugal car for 20 large--say it gets only 30 mpg of $2 gas instead of the Prius's 55 mpg (that's the EPA's combined city and highway number)--and that five grand premium on the price of the car applied to gas will take you 75,000 miles. The Prius will have been driven 165,000 miles by the time enough dollars are saved on gas to overcome that extra starting cost.

Here is a very interesting article on the future of alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles. I found it to be very informative. I also like BMW's idea at the end of the article.

Both Autoweek http://www.autoweek.com/ and Car & Driver http://www.caranddriver.com/ have had some excellent reviews about Honda's new top-o-the-line Honda Accord Hybrid V-6. Both magazines noted that, for buyers who want to get more MPG for their money without something as unconventional looking as an EV1 or a Prius, the Accord may fit the bill.

Not to mention the fact that the new hybrid Accord sits at the TOP of the Accord lineup for Honda. Friggin' $30K for a hybrid V-6, but you DO get 255HP and a nice car.

I wonder, though, if this prices what could be a very nice, standard hybrid sedan out of the reach of the consumers that Honda hopes to reach -- those that want something "normal" instead of a stylized Prius. Certainly, the Civic hybrid is an excellent, cheaper alternative, but it's not nearly as roomy, and for long trips, it's gonna be cramped/inadequate, say, for a family of 4.

The Ford Escape Hybrid has also gotten lots of good press from these magazines. And the hybrid Lexus RX400 (2006? yes? no?) is supposed to be a marvel of hybrid innovation and luxury technology.

I guess we'll have to see how the hybrid phenomenon goes forward. I thought this morning, as I sat behind a Civic Hybrid on my morning commute, about how soon hybrids are going to NOT BE ENOUGH to help with an emerging energy crisis. This while I'm listening to an NPR report on the US Senate vote on drilling in ANWAR for oil. It's going to be an interesting next few years, I'm afraid. Hope my rather inefficient Subaru Forester doesn't become a MPG killing liability.

IronChefMorimoto

Basically, people were paying $525 a month to lease a car that cost nearly 1.5 million each to build. Small wonder they liked them, and small wonder that GM scrapped them.

Car manufacturers do it all the time. Classic nameplates on new vehicles that have nothing in common with the originals.

Chevrolet Impala
Dodge Charger
Hummer H2
Hummer H3

I'm sure though this time next year Honda will be holding that title when the new hybrid Accord comes out, which by the way will be built with a higher output engine than what will be avialable to the conventional versions and gets 40% better gas millage.

Actually the engine is the same, the car just has more power because there is an electric engine assisting it. Check the specs on the last page of this review:

You might want to read the rest of the review too, there's some interesting tech at work. Personally I think this is more interesting than a hybrid purpose built to break a speed record... and I'm not sure if they really did, it looks like the Accord Hybrid can already do 131mph.

Those who are interested in reading more about how the record attempt came about should go check out the write-up at Car and Driver.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id =4&article_id=8695

For everybody arguing over diesels vs. hybrids I'd suggest reading the frugalympics comparison test by Car and Driver. Jetta TDI vs. Prius vs. Civic Hybrid vs. Toyota Echo. Some interesting results there.

You are old. Yes a WRX Sti has a 4 cylinder engine... with 300 horsepower. Being a 4 cylinder that means the car weighs very little. As most intelligent people know, low weight and high power means one thing: SPEED. And the WRX Sti goes fast. Very fast. This all applies to the Lancer EVO as well, which has a similar setup in addition to being one of the best handling cars ever made. Period. In stock form, the WRX and Lancer can beat most cars on the road today. With some relatively inexpensive mods, these cars are world beaters, easily producing well over 400 horsepower and doing 0-60 and quarter mile times that nearly match far more expensive, heavily modded 800+ horsepower Hennessey Venom Viper's and Lingenfelter Corvette's. Don't beleive me? Ask Car and Driver, that particular Lancer EVO pumps nearly 500 horsepower out of it's 4 banger.

Hate to break it to you, but a stock 4 cyclider WRX will do 0-60 in just over 5 seconds. An STi or Lancer EVO will smoke your HEMI powered RT in every way straight from the factory. Bolt on a few grand of mods and these cars are well into supercar territory with sub 4 second 0-60 times and 11 second quarter mile's. You would have to do a hell of a LOT of work and spend a heck of a lot more money to bring your heavy assed Dodge up to the acceleration and handling characteristics of these so called "pocket racers". Then there is the fact that at the end of the day you will still have a Dodge, with al of its quality and reliability problems.

Actually, for the US market, Smart will be importing a Smart SUV http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id =30&article_id=8033&page_number=1 . Only Canada will get the micro car.

The Smart car is not designed for the US market and would never meet Federal regulatory requirements.

I don't know if you're from the US, but even in NJ, AC sure is nice to have if you like being dry and comfortable while driving in the summer.

BMW has active steering. It can change the gear ratio of the steering rack depending on speed and make minor corrections for crosswinds. That's not the same as steer by wire. It does feel weird (review here ), but at its heart it's still a mechanical steering linkage. The hybrids like the Prius do have brake by wire because they combine regenerative braking and the discs and drums.

Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Automobile and Road and Track. Being a former mechanic, I love cars. Once a gearhead, always a gearhead. ;-)

I too am a Car and Driver subscriber, and you can now check out their newest offshoot magazine Boost - dedicated exclusively to compact sports car tuning. Interestingly I saw no mention of it in C&D, and ran across it randomly at the magazine rack. Worthwhile for all the real gear heads out there.

The only magazine I've held on to over the years is Car and Driver. The people that write for it really love and understand cars, and they're not afraid to give a bad review with its call for.

I really like the editorials at the beginning where the editors sound off about things that bug them. And the reader feedback section is about 50/50 people criticizing them and praising them. They basically let it all hang out, and I like that.

I, of course, can't afford a nice car (as the aging Ford Taurus in my garage will attest). But I very much enjoy reading about them. It's kinda like playboy for car people. You know that centerfold will never be yours, but you can read through her turn on's and imagine...