Slashdot Mirror

There were some amazing engines, and amazing engineers, involved in the last-generation WWII fighters. The F8F was cranking out 2100 horsepower on an aircooled engine, without a problem; the Wasp Major used in the B-36 was doing 4300 HP on air-cooling. It was still competitive on both the fighter and bomber sides: it was just *big*.

Water cooling sucked for battle damage, which hopefully isn't a factor in general aviation. But with better engine design -- lighter heads because they don't need all the fins, no need for air ducting -- you can minimize the added weight of a water-cooled system. Plus, if you're really clever, you can derive thrust from your cooling system giving you negative drag from your radiator, making your Mustang go faster than a Spitfire. I don't think I'll ever fly something that's fast enough to take advantage of this, but it's an interesting thought.

The conclusion I draw from planes like the F8F and the Skyraider (2700HP from an air-cooled piston engine, useful career 1950-1970's) and the Mustang is that either air-cooled or water-cooled can work, given enough engineering, but it seems to me that water-cooling has an awful lot of ancillary advantages for GA that probably outweigh the weight penalties.

If it was for road usage, why aren't cyclists also charged?

Aside from the obvious, "well, duh, it's government, it's not supposed to make sense!" rebuke, there is a good reason cyclists aren't charged for road usage: the same reason people aren't charged to use sidewalks: maintenance costs. Here's some interesting numbers for you:

• Mass of an "extreme lightweight sport compact car": 1132kg
• Mass of an average bicycle (random guess): 14kg

Guess which one does more damage to the road? Should cyclists and sidewalk users pay taxes for their usage? Probably, but it's so infinitesimally small, and the majority of users are on the lower rungs of the income ladder, that it wouldn't make much sense, so we just charge taxes the easier and more efficient way: on the biggest (ab)users of the public goods.

Here's a hint to all of you people who drive gas guzzlers: filling up your tank costs $100 not just because your H3 gets 9MPG, but because it does more damage to the road than the hippie's Prius. Try buying a car that is lighter and you won't just get better gas mileage, but probably pay less taxes in the long run because you won't be damaging the roads as much. Better yet, get a bicycle, I hear their MPG is infinite!

I was thinking specifically of this quote, regarding the JGTC GT500 Xanavi 350Z: GT500 cars generate up to 2.3 sustained g and peak as high as 3.0g on some courses in Japan. In this environment the Z's could only muster 1.9g. from here: http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0504_sc c_nissan_350z/index1.html

Real men use a Sawzall.

Point in case.

You're the one who's ignorant. A 13-second quarter mile is not slow by any means.

Fast is fast. You're talking about an exceptionally fast minivan, so your comment hardly merits a response. Nevertheless, a souped up Civic can approach an eleven-second quarter mile.

Did you actually let the page load past the first few pictures? If not, you missed out on the interesting ones. I don't see any massive exhausts, wings or stickers on this vehicle. If anything, it's the exact opposite of the typical rice rocket.

Here is the original article
from SportCompactCar magazine. It is in print in the August issue from 2002.

This is just a silly article from Sport Compact Car. There are a lot of great sites out there for mods, some of them ridiculous, such as a Delorean pick up. I just found out someone from in a forum I attend that they have a Ford Focus running 436 hp at the wheels. Another person got a s2000 down to 2400 lbs, giving them a 10 lbs/HP ratio with a different air filter being the only power mod. I appreciate the effort but slashdot has never been a great place to talk about cars. It's not hopeless, though. Write up something on the Lotus Elise when it arrives in the U.S. and I'll be pleased. :)

On the other hand, the aftermarket is keeping up with the electronicification of cars quite well, from what I've read. Yes, there are a lot of electronics in cars, but that simply means you either work with them or around them now.

In your case, you couldn't install a remote starter because of your antitheft system. So? Perhaps you should choose a different system (if available) that won't interfere with $50 off-the-shelf Pepboys remote starting systems. Yes, you didn't have to make this choice before. Yes, before you could do it all yourself. Well, welcome to the future.

What it really boils down to is that it is still possible to hack your car (as you put it), but the effort and price associated with doing so has increased. That's all. Basing your assumption purely on your own single experience is hardly scientific.

I recommend that you pick up an issue of Sport Compact Car sometime, and see what they're doing. They're not exactly the remote-starter types, but they are doing just about everything under the sun imaginable to everyday vehicles, including full standalone engine management. Yes, it's expensive, but it's most certainly a very cool hack.

What the article doesn't say is the quarter time...probably b/c by then the electric has topped out and the Ferrari has passed it. What about the classic performace mesurement 0-100-0...well it can't even do that. Plus the car is not street legal, it hasn't been crash tested yet. If it will pass its crash tests and run a decent quarter mile...then I will be impressed!