The Forward Look Network
The Forward Look Network
Search | Statistics | User Listing Forums | Chat | eBay | Calendars | Albums | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

RIP Chrysler
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forward Look NON-Technical Discussions -> 1955-1961 Forward Look MoPar General DiscussionMessage format
 
mikes2nd
Posted 2018-05-30 11:15 PM (#564282)
Subject: RIP Chrysler


Expert

Posts: 3056
200010002525

Its been kicked around in the dirt enough i guess, time to bury it...

Well Dodge is still around at least, they havent run it into the ground yet... yet...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/could-chrysler-be-killed-this-friday/ar-AAy2mSb?ocid=spartanntp

 

 



Edited by mikes2nd 2018-05-30 11:16 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
34 Airflow
Posted 2018-05-31 12:04 AM (#564283 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Veteran

Posts: 149
10025
Location: Echuca
I hope that this turns out to be untrue on the 1st June!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
miquelonbrad
Posted 2018-05-31 12:06 AM (#564284 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 1637
100050010025
Location: Hay Lakes, Alberta, Canada
Dodge will be axed eventually too, as a name anyway. The "conversion" of Dodge trucks to the Ram nameplate only ensures that...
Top of the page Bottom of the page
58Jackie
Posted 2018-05-31 12:14 AM (#564285 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Regular

Posts: 67
2525
Sad... Good car companies going to an end, only to be replaced with the crap cars of today; no power, no fun, and to the point of driving themselves taking the joy out of actually driving the car. My daily driver is from 86, and a good reason why is cause I like to feel in control at all times and not some computer driving my car, or telling me what to do...

You sure that Dodge will be going out soon too? I hope not, as they seem to be really the only hope of new car hot rods coming back, with already the Hellcat and the intro of the new Demon.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
drosera88
Posted 2018-05-31 6:55 AM (#564293 - in reply to #564285)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Elite Veteran

Posts: 1001
1000
Location: San Antonio TX
This news has been long coming. I know Ford recently announced they would be discontinuing all their cars (except the Mustang) to focus (no pun intended) on trucks, SUV's, and crossovers.

The American companies slacked off in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's and let the Japanese car makers over take them in sales and quality in the sedan market. Really disappointing since we just recently started getting really great looking cars like the Camaro, Fusion, Challenger, etc. that don't look like the conservatively styled Japanese cars or the Korean cars which are high quality knockoffs of Japanese and European cars. They're up to par now, but it's too little too late
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-05-31 9:43 AM (#564303 - in reply to #564293)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
Let me get this straight ..... dedicated chrome and metal sculpture fans,
lamenting the decline of the American Tupperware blob car makers ???

US carmakers gave up building CARS over 40 years ago and have been
passing off pure sh!t on the public ever since. Of course, that seems to be
what the public sucks up and pays full retail for. But to lament the loss at
this point ? The time to cry about losing the American car was 1970. That
ship sailed LONG ago !
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Lancer Mike
Posted 2018-05-31 12:26 PM (#564309 - in reply to #564303)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50002000100050025
Location: The Mile High City

Doc, on style - you have a point.  However, in terms of reliability, comfort, safety, and performance, the newer cars are far-and-away superior.

The loss of the Chrysler and Dodge namplates will mean our cars are truly orphans.  That is a lament.



Edited by Lancer Mike 2018-05-31 12:28 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-05-31 2:08 PM (#564318 - in reply to #564303)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
Doctor DeSoto - 2018-05-31 9:43 AM

Let me get this straight ..... dedicated chrome and metal sculpture fans,
lamenting the decline of the American Tupperware blob car makers ???

US carmakers gave up building CARS over 40 years ago and have been
passing off pure sh!t on the public ever since. Of course, that seems to be
what the public sucks up and pays full retail for. But to lament the loss at
this point ? The time to cry about losing the American car was 1970. That
ship sailed LONG ago !


I second that.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-05-31 2:14 PM (#564319 - in reply to #564309)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
Lancer Mike - 2018-05-31 12:26 PM

However, in terms of reliability, comfort and performance, the newer cars are far-and-away superior.


Reliabilty!!!! What an utter nonsense. This discussion comes up once in a while and all has been said by me, leaving not much to say for the brainwashed new car crowd.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
wizard
Posted 2018-05-31 2:58 PM (#564320 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Board Moderator & Exner Expert 10K+

Posts: 11554
5000500010005002525
Location: Southern Sweden - Sturkö island
Since 2007, I have driven 40000 miles with my '60 Saratoga - Engine never opened up, transmission never renovated. I'd say that that's a reliable car.
2013 I changed all the brake cylinders - the brake linings seems to be the original ones.
The comfort is very good and the ride is excellent.

They knew how to make good reliable things in the old days - now a days everything has a best before date and that has passed for many products when we buy them.

I can admit the in on point moder cars wins big time over classic cars; safety

For me, it doesn't matter if Chrysler will be terminated - it's a huge disgrace to be owned by FIAT (who would ever thought that would be possible???)

Top of the page Bottom of the page
C-300
Posted 2018-05-31 3:23 PM (#564322 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: RE: RIP Chrysler


Extreme Veteran

Posts: 486
100100100100252525
I have just as much fun in my American (Canadian) Tupperware blob car as I do in any of my old ones. In fact, it's far more reliable, comfortable, and has more power than all of my old cars. It doesn't make me dislike the old cars any less.

Even if the Chrysler nameplate disappears, we will still have great memories and a portfolio of cars that we can enjoy.

Aaron




(IMG_8733.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments IMG_8733.jpg (75KB - 13 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Sonoramic60
Posted 2018-05-31 4:42 PM (#564324 - in reply to #564309)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler


Elite Veteran

Posts: 1178
1000100252525
Lancer Mike - 2018-05-31 12:26 PM

Doc, on style - you have a point.  However, in terms of reliability, comfort, safety, and performance, the newer cars are far-and-away superior.

The loss of the Chrysler and Dodge namplates will mean our cars are truly orphans.  That is a lament.



Mike --
Aw, come on. Being an old fudd whose wife made him get a part-time job to get him out of her hair, I went to work for a car rental company moving cars around two days a week since I like automobiles. This does give me the opportunity to get into virtually all new cars and I must say this, they do get better gas mileage than my old jobs, and they may have some safety features mine don't (neither the BTB nor MD2 has seat belts, but mine are made of REAL steel!), and with A/C they have one additional creature comfort, but as to the performance of those hopped lawnmowers. . . no way! I did drive a company Vette down from Denver (I kept it under 120) and a Challenger R/T (up to 90, but it was on the way to the COS airport), but the rest are just transportation. For driving fun you can't beat good ol' American fins, chrome, and loud V-8s. I love to encounter a "tuner" or ever a "Beamer" in one of my behemoths as they are always surprised at the way they move (even the "C" will chirp the tires going from second into third).
There are newer cars, but darn few new automobiles.
Joe Godec
'57 Chrysler 300C, '60 Fury SonoRamic, '65 Vette Fuelie, '65 Sport Fury 426-S/4-speed
Top of the page Bottom of the page
mikes2nd
Posted 2018-05-31 4:46 PM (#564325 - in reply to #564284)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler


Expert

Posts: 3056
200010002525

miquelonbrad - 2018-05-31 12:06 AM Dodge will be axed eventually too, as a name anyway. The "conversion" of Dodge trucks to the Ram nameplate only ensures that...

 

they were moving to move everything to Chrysler, i think they will move it all to Dodge now.

 

 

Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-05-31 5:48 PM (#564333 - in reply to #564320)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
wizard - 2018-05-31 2:58 PM

Since 2007, I have driven 40000 miles with my '60 Saratoga - Engine never opened up, transmission never renovated. I'd say that that's a reliable car.
2013 I changed all the brake cylinders - the brake linings seems to be the original ones.
The comfort is very good and the ride is excellent.

They knew how to make good reliable things in the old days - now a days everything has a best before date and that has passed for many products when we buy them.

I can admit the in on point moder cars wins big time over classic cars; safety

For me, it doesn't matter if Chrysler will be terminated - it's a huge disgrace to be owned by FIAT (who would ever thought that would be possible???)



I was told, when I bought my 60 Fury in 1988, "those old yank cars are trouble, its not gonna last, don't buy it..... I also learned in mechanic school pushrod V8s are garbage.

Well, now 30 years later I still drive my 60 Fury with an engine that was never opened since August 18 1959 that never made any problems whatsoever. Rear axle and PS system still untouched and perfect working too (OE seals still in place not leaking), like all the instruments/locks, etc. The front wheel bearings are still OE, never replaced.

That machine still runs like new, likes to rev like a 1 liter dohc sportsscar engine and delivers all the power and torque you want in a heartbeat. Those "reliable" new cars from 88 are long gone. Saw my folks and buddys buying new cars every 5-8 years.

My brother just had his 2013 $$$$$ CLS AMG Mercedes towed for the second time. Like the Merc before his previous Merc, the merc before his current one he had to sell due to electric/mechanical trouble.

Hot summer night here, just returned from a cruise in my 330 000+ miles Fury. Occasional bursts to 140 mph as if it's nothing, with pedal left. Drives like on rails. A dream. No other car can deliver that feeling of freedom and comfort and no other car sounds better. I praise the 383. That from an abused car that i bought for a few bucks as a teenager.
And for me, no new car feature comes equal with a simple vent window and 360° vision. New cars are not only ugly, they are trouble that no one is able to fix, after 6-10 years.

Not only is my 60 the most reliable car you could wish for, the list of new cars, several times more expensive, it smoked in the 30 years is endless. Safety is all what has been improved in new cars.

And no, it is not my only old Mopar. I know these cars well. A Mopar big block, T-flite and 8.3/4 are the manifestation of reliabilty.



Edited by 1960fury 2018-05-31 7:00 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-05-31 5:58 PM (#564334 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany

One thing I'd like to add, the problem are not the old cars, it's the people. The people shouldn't blame their ignorance and neglect on these fine cars.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-05-31 10:53 PM (#564350 - in reply to #564334)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
When Mopar abandoned the razor-sided styling they had for the "Fuselage"
look, I knew it was the end. All the other mfr's. had their own versions of
bloated roadkill styling. It was the end. Between a meddling Federal govern-
-ment and their restrictions and a fountain of creative thinking that had run
dry, the American car market was ripe for a swift kick in the crotch, and the
Japanese were right there to deliver the blow. And the American consumer,
moronic as they are, signed on at full retail for the bullsh!t being fed them
through advertising and safety advisories that "those old cars were icky and
bad" and that new was the only way to go. Most consumers drank the Kool-
Aid and still parrot the same BS today.

I would be humiliated and embarrassed to be seen in a post-70 American
car. I don't give two sh!ts if "they" claim it is "safer". Safer than what ? And
let's see the REAL data to prove it ! "Safe" is a myth and a lie. We are never
"safe". Anyone familiar crime or a war vet knows what the REAL world looks
like, and knows we are never really "safe". So, why impose the lie upon one's
self to pay full retail for a Tupperware POS and tell yourself that now you are
"safe". It's utter bullsh!t ! When that bread van or steel truck takes you out,
that Tupperware tub is going to squash like a bug, crash bags, seat belts, crumple
zones and all.

I'd rather live life to the fullest than die a safe death in a bed after a life of selling
out, compromise, and lack of courage.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
drosera88
Posted 2018-06-01 1:36 AM (#564355 - in reply to #564350)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Elite Veteran

Posts: 1001
1000
Location: San Antonio TX

Doctor DeSoto - 2018-05-31 9:53 PM When Mopar abandoned the razor-sided styling they had for the "Fuselage" look, I knew it was the end. All the other mfr's. had their own versions of bloated roadkill styling. It was the end. Between a meddling Federal govern- -ment and their restrictions and a fountain of creative thinking that had run dry, the American car market was ripe for a swift kick in the crotch, and the Japanese were right there to deliver the blow. And the American consumer, moronic as they are, signed on at full retail for the bullsh!t being fed them through advertising and safety advisories that "those old cars were icky and bad" and that new was the only way to go. Most consumers drank the Kool- Aid and still parrot the same BS today. I would be humiliated and embarrassed to be seen in a post-70 American car. I don't give two sh!ts if "they" claim it is "safer". Safer than what ? And let's see the REAL data to prove it ! "Safe" is a myth and a lie. We are never "safe". Anyone familiar crime or a war vet knows what the REAL world looks like, and knows we are never really "safe". So, why impose the lie upon one's self to pay full retail for a Tupperware POS and tell yourself that now you are "safe". It's utter bullsh!t ! When that bread van or steel truck takes you out, that Tupperware tub is going to squash like a bug, crash bags, seat belts, crumple zones and all. I'd rather live life to the fullest than die a safe death in a bed after a life of selling out, compromise, and lack of courage.

I think we all agree that the styling of these old cars is unmatched, and that they are just as reliable as new cars with proper maintenance. Classics are also just as safe to drive when it comes to mechanical failures as long as you keep up with maintenance. Modern cars are the winner by a huge margin in collisions though. 

Old cars don't have crumple zones to slow the car down more gradually in a collision and this means the passengers are subject to higher g-forces. The steering columns are not collapsible and there are no airbags; taking a steering wheel to the chest an face in a collision will break bones and possibly cause major internal injuries as your internal organs violently collide with your rib cage. Your brain will do the same thing as your organs causing a concussion from the impact with your skull. There are also no headrests which is especially bad nowadays when you got some idiot texting and driving behind you; a high speed rear end collision is likely to break your neck, cause a deadlly basilar skull fracture, or break your spinal cord resulting in death or paralysis. Seat belts are an obvious advantage as well; getting ejected or bouncing around the inside of the passenger compartment is incredibly dangerous.

That said, nothing's perfect, and some crashes are just not survivable, but you see people surviving crashes nowadays that would have been fatal 50 years ago. Driving these cars is just a risk I'm willing to take. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

Top of the page Bottom of the page
LostDeere59
Posted 2018-06-01 11:31 AM (#564365 - in reply to #564355)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 322
100100100
Location: Hilltown, PA
^^^^^ This is a great post and an even better link that perfectly illustrates how much safer modern cars really are.

Doc - you and I are often in agreement on things, but this is one time I have to emphatically disagree with you. As a technician, tow operator, and firefighter, I can attest to how much less injury and death occurs in modern cars due to the vast and effective improvements in safety. Overall incidents may be rising depending on location, but this is simply a result of ever increasing volume of vehicles on the road. On a case-by-case basis you are SUBSTANTIALLY less likely to be injured or killed in a vehicle collision today than as late as the 1990's.

Of course the best way to avoid injury or death is to avoid having a collision in the first place, and those of us driving these cars tend to be more aware and wary on the road - which is part of the reason we can insure these cars for so much less than a new car. Unfortunately we don't always control our destiny - like the sniper's bullet, that distracted tanker driver who center punches your door at an intersection won't come with a warning. Given the choice I'd rather be in my 2003 Grand Marquis (or better yet my wife's 2011 Outback) than my Desoto - I love the Desoto but she simply doesn't have the ability to protect me the same way the newer cars will.

I get it though - lots of folks want to believe the older cars were better in every way, and won't be convinced no matter what anyone says. Since it's your choice I certainly won't impugn your right (or anyone's) to believe what you want, and make your decisions accordingly. I would only suggest that since people tend to respect the opinions of guys like you, that you be careful what kind of Kool-Aide you're handing out . . .




Gregg
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-01 5:45 PM (#564380 - in reply to #564365)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
LostDeere59 - 2018-06-01 11:31 AM

^^^^^ This is a great post and an even better link that perfectly illustrates how much safer modern cars really are.



Gregg


Not at all. First of all, yes, new car are safer, after all, after 50 years they should have at least one advantage, but that crash test with the 59 was rigged.

Everyone with common sense knows, in a crash test MASS and INERTIA is everything. The 59 had no engine or transmission, was rusty and a bare bones car with no option. The 2009 was optioned to the max with AC, etc. The 2009 should have competed with a car in its priceclass. It didn't. SO..... Did the Idiots who rigged this "Test" and wasted a classic car, that was supposed to show how good their ugly new car is knew about that? You bet, they did.

That brings up the question, what else has been rigged? You bet if they do a rigged test, they do not stop on one end. A little cut here and there can make a dramatic difference. So, FACT is, this Crash-"test" proves nothing. Would love to see (not really) a 60 Imperial sedan with AC to be the opponent. It would look different.

And finally, I prefer active safety over passive safety. A featurs that prevent an accident, since accidents are always a nightmare, safe car or not, the best is 360° vision. All new cars, even cvts, lose in that field against old cars. Anyway, new car lovers, keep driving your pc plastic junk cars you can type text messages in safely, since it has air bags, and leave the old cars to the enthusiasts.

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-01 5:51 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KcImperial
Posted 2018-06-01 6:46 PM (#564384 - in reply to #564380)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 2415
2000100100100100
Location: Kansas City, KS
1960fury - 2018-06-01 4:45 PM

...

Everyone with common sense knows, in a crash test MASS and INERTIA is everything. The 59 had no engine or transmission, was rusty and a bare bones car with no option. The 2009 was optioned to the max with AC, etc. The 2009 should have competed with a car in its priceclass. It didn't. SO..... Did the Idiots who rigged this "Test" and wasted a classic car, that was supposed to show how good their ugly new car is knew about that? You bet, they did.

...

Without getting in the middle of the whole new vs old safety debate, I thought the same thing when first seeing that video back in 2009.
The Bel Air did in fact have an engine and transmission in place. It was an inline 6 cylinder.
You can hopefully see it better in the two photos below. Note the blue valve cover.

The cloud of dust at impact is credited as road dirt from the Bel Air not rust.
I don't have absolute scientific proof for this other than statements from the IIHS.
I have cleaned a few frames in the past and know it's almost impossible to get all the dirt out of every nook and cranny.

As far as mass, there were only 205 pounds difference between the vehicles.
The Malibu weighs 3430lbs and the BelAir 3225lbs so the newer vehicle did have a very slight advantage of basically carrying an extra adult American as a passenger.
The was a mere 40 mph frontal offset crash test




(IIHS13.jpg)



(IIHS12.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments IIHS13.jpg (152KB - 14 downloads)
Attachments IIHS12.jpg (126KB - 13 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-01 8:22 PM (#564388 - in reply to #564384)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
Okay, I got that info from a Chevy website and I only see something blue in that picture, anyway, an inline 6 is not a V8 and that "only 205" pounds is a huge difference and can start a chain reaction of bending metal that otherwise would have never happened. Also an inline 6 is easier to push away than a big 348 wedged in between the frame and firewall and I've never seen a 30, 40 or 50 year old rust free 59 Chevy.
Rust, even if it's surface rust, enlarges the surface of the metal, with other words, it weakens, or softens the metal (that is why i hate unnecessary sand blasting) Also, it is important where the weight is placed. For instance, if 99% of the weight would be in the front bumper (I know that's not possible, just to show what I mean) it would slice through the other car like butter and protect the parts behind it. So that loaded 2009 vehicle clearly had an advantage. I stand to what I said. To make it a fair test both vehicles should be in the same price class.

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-01 8:26 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
hemidenis
Posted 2018-06-01 8:48 PM (#564389 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 3577
20001000500252525
Location: Northen Virginia
This is a long thread to read it in full, but is hard to imagine anybody related to cars, that could attempt to compare the reliability, comfort, safety and durability of 60's Chrysler with a 2016 Honda Accord for example ( I have both) need to ride in a new car fast.

It is simple evolution, is like comparing a 1936 Brough Superior SS100 (worth abouth cuater million dollars) with a 2018 CBR1000RR (worth about 16K). Some things got worst of course, but new vehicles are not even in the same league with old dinosaurs.


Sid the crash was real and took engineers decades to learn of to make the metal bend and absorb the impact, as they took them years to perfect the uni-body construction. I love my Imperial and my New yorker, but I would not feel safe crashing in any of them.

Chrysler was proud of their "safety" dash pads, so that show us how much they knew.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
GregCon
Posted 2018-06-02 8:03 AM (#564401 - in reply to #564389)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 2394
2000100100100252525
Location: Houston
The day I, a man, could no longer walk into a Chrysler dealer and drive out in a shiny new Sebring convertible, I knew the end was near. lol.

Today, only two models bear the Chrysler name - the 300 and the Pacifica. So there's not much left to can. A lot of us can remember when the Chrysler name meant you were driving something that was a cut above. Today I doubt the average person even knows what a Chrysler is.

As the Doctor notes, practically everything that wore the Chrysler name after the mid 70's was an embarrassment.

I own a 'new' Challenger and have another new one on order, so I like them well enough. But the entire company is long gone...it has German and Italian DNA by now and is more or less a corporate mutt.
By this point it's just a formality whether they do or don't announce it.

As for all the inane safety comments above....that's really a modern car vs. old car discussion that has nothing to do with Chrysler per se. I certainly would hope that any product would improve over 60 years of technology and R&D efforts within a multi- billion dollar industry.. Yawn.


Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-02 9:26 AM (#564407 - in reply to #564389)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
hemidenis - 2018-06-01 8:48 PM

This is a long thread to read it in full, but is hard to imagine anybody related to cars, that could attempt to compare the reliability, comfort, safety and durability of 60's Chrysler with a 2016 Honda Accord for example ( I have both) need to ride in a new car fast.



Have you actually read my comment about reliabilty above? The cars of today won't be around in 60 years. Nothing is more reliable than a late 50s/60s Mopar (IF YOU KNOW HOW TO TREAT/SERVICE THEM) simply because there is not much that can break. As I said, the people are the problem, not the cars.
Honda, my brother once owned one a civic coupe with V-Tec engine. It quit after 8 years.
BTW, the new company car I'm driving just had a timing belt roller replaced at 28k miles.

I've driven my brothers Mercedes CLS which is several classes above a Honda Accord. I feel more comfortable and relaxed in my plain, cheap 60 Fury. Okay, maybe I'm born at the wrong time and just share the feelings of people way back when. I don't listen to the radio, don't watch new Movies, I also hate todays architecture, PC'ness, the "new society" with gay marriages and child adoption, multiple genders, etc. and before I die I burry my 60 Fury.

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-02 10:20 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
drosera88
Posted 2018-06-02 10:32 AM (#564411 - in reply to #564407)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Elite Veteran

Posts: 1001
1000
Location: San Antonio TX

1960fury - 2018-06-02 8:26 AM The cars of today won't be around in 60 years. Nothing is more reliable than a late 50s/60s Mopar (IF YOU KNOW HOW TO TREAT/SERVICE THEM) simply because there is not much that can break.

Yeah, you gotta practically be a computer tech to work on today's cars. Don't get me wrong, things like GPS and sattelite radio are great, but the way they are being so deeply integrated into cars makes it a nightmare to troubleshoot when something goes wrong or breaks and depending on how they are integrated, you sometimes have a problem with one system that manifests in other systems too. Aside from the electronics, cramming all that into a car give you no room to work when you have to replace something.

There is one thing I want to add to the safety debate though. With cars as safe as they are now-a-days during a collision, there is a huge unintentional side-effect to to this added safety: complacency. I think people are, and will continue, to become worse drivers simply because they don't see much risk in getting into crashes. Hell, there are a lot of cars now that can use cruise control in traffic, park themselves, tell you if there is a car in your blind spot, have back up cameras (now a mandatory feature in the US on new vehicles), and in some limited cases can even drive themselves. All these features are good and do save lives, but it's troubling to see so many people depending on tech rather than themselves to prevent crashes. All it takes is one of  those systems to fail without them knowing it and BAM, they just ran someone over because they were depending on their car to stop for them instead of themselves.

This extends to maintanence too. It started with the 'idiot light,' that little light on the dash that told you something was wrong with the car. Yes, that light has saved countless engines from failure, but it's also conditioned people into not checking thier fluids and not paying attention to what their car is doing or the noises it is making because they think the car will tell them when something is wrong. A burnt out bulb is all it takes to disable one of these lights, and without that, some drivers would be none the wiser to a serious mechanical issue that could leave them stranded or even kill someone if it fails. It doesn't help that mechanics can be overly dependent on these things as well, and it's also quite a lot of information for a mechanic to keep up with when more and more features are added each year to new cars. 



Edited by drosera88 2018-06-02 10:35 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-02 10:42 AM (#564412 - in reply to #564411)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
drosera88 - 2018-06-02 10:32 AM

All these features are good and do save lives,


So it seems. In the LONG run this way of thinking, with these feature a part of it, to separate humans from nature, it's laws of physics, self responsibility and the welfare society thinking is going to be the demise of mankind.

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-02 11:59 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
mikes2nd
Posted 2018-06-02 11:25 AM (#564414 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler


Expert

Posts: 3056
200010002525
yeesh lay off the political crap...


Chrysler survived today... but they are going electric...

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2018/06/01...
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-02 11:27 AM (#564415 - in reply to #564412)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
Sid and Miles are spot on. This safety talk is a larger matter of complacency
than doo-dads and widgets. The level of "stunt drivers" today is 100x what it
was when I began driving 40 years ago. It is absurd. The problem IS NOT the
cars. It is the attitude of the drivers, or in a more general sense, the attitude
of society that safety can be foisted off as the "responsibility" of a machine,
rather than personal responsibility for ourselves and those around us.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
drosera88
Posted 2018-06-02 12:28 PM (#564417 - in reply to #564414)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Elite Veteran

Posts: 1001
1000
Location: San Antonio TX

mikes2nd - 2018-06-02 10:25 AM Chrysler survived today... but they are going electric... https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2018/06/01...

Suddenly! It's 2022! 

I didn't expect them to go electric considering that we're still 5-15 years from an electric car that can be competitive price-wise with the cheapest gasoline vehicles on the market and not just be an oversized golf cart (remember GEM cars?). Then again, 'Chrysler' is the high end for Mopar ever since Imperial kicked it. Whatever the case, I still think that going electric is too little, too late for any sort of a comeback especially with Tesla already having a strong foothold in the US luxury electric car market. On top of that, Chrysler is still working via traditional dealers which are an expensive middle man for the consumer; Tesla basically sells direct to the consumer which brings the cost down substantially (though still not enough to make it cheap enough for most people). My guess is that Fiat just sees electrification as convienient so they can use common components across all their brands since electrification is being practically forced onto European consumers by the EU. They probably don't care too much about Chrysler and don't stand to lose a whole lot if electrifying the brand fails to save it since they will only be selling rebadged Fiats anyways. 

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-02 2:21 PM (#564419 - in reply to #564417)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
You know, we find ourselves in a weird paradigm that follows a human
nature desire for consistency ....

Finned Mopars were a one-time thing and represented a pretty good
time for most Americans in an optimistic, almost playful period that is
reflected in the styles of the time. The company pulled off another high
point a decade later with the muscle car boom. But things changed in
ways beyond the control of carmakers and the world of style and vehicles
has been in a steady decline of function and gimicks over style ever since ....
IF you buy into the notion that the fin era was a pinnacle of "good", by
which all other times should be judged.

But we have this subconscious desire to cling to names and brands, as
if the name itself has some connection to the object WE hold dear. And
this is not only delusional, it leads us to a place like where we are here,
a little "upset" that the name "Chrysler" might be altered or done away
with. I have never understood the brand loyalty thing beyond what is
good vs. the crap a brand will sometimes build and sell. Where Chrysler
Corp went in the early 50's, early 60's, and after 1970 are good examples
of low points for a company that was hitting it out of the park just "moments"
before.

I got over this lament of loss early on, considering what the 1962-70 DeSotos
might have looked like. I am glad the corp axed the marque when they did
and DeSoto died with dignity, still wearing fins. But a 52 DeSoto ? Could not
care less. Ugly car. A bear to drive. The loyalty is to the specific product,
not the name. With Chrysler, it has been nearly 50 years since they built a
car as exciting as a 57 New Yorker or a 69 Dodge R/T. Anything that might
have put a blip on the radar either steals from earlier ideas, or caters to the
Tupperware ideals of automotive nuevo-think.

I don't like where this world is going. People die, people crash cars, people
do stupid stuff. What we have done to ourselves in the delusional idea that
we can alter nature through engineering is pathetic. Most cars today still get
crap fuel economy, the drivers now think they are invincible and drive like
morons, and we do it all in shapeless, ugly turds that reflect the shapeless,
ugly world we seem to think is "awesome".

We are pathetic. And we did this to ourselves.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
ttotired
Posted 2018-06-02 5:55 PM (#564427 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 8263
5000200010001001002525
Location: Perth Australia
Electric cars are the way of the future.

More and more vehicle manufacturers are producing electric or hybrid vehicles

Cars such as ours are dinosaurs and will become much less common on the roads as fossil fuels (and the vegetable "equivalents) become rarer (less demand) and much more expensive (less demand)

I don't think its that far away either if you look at the development of the automobile from conception to today. The technology is here now, but still with room for more improvement/refinement

The only thing stopping full on mass production of fully electric cars is the lack of infrastructure, which also affects the effective range of these vehicles. Once the range issues are sorted, then it will make your head spin how fast the electric cars take over the fuel driven engine powered cars in new car sales.

I do wonder if hybrids will survive as "long haul" vehicles (range problem solved) but I doubt it, maybe in the short term, but the fuel issue will still be there.

As for our gas guzzlers, they will become a luxury to drive as fuel prices gradually increase (less demand and higher taxes applied) (not sure if its the same in other countries but here in Australia the Gov have taxed cigarettes to the point that they are practically un affordable. I bring this up as an illustration of what they do once they get on the "its bad for whatever" bandwagon) so to save our cars from being static museum relics there are 2 ways to go, either follow the main stream and convert to electric drive or learn how to make fuel.

I don't believe the ultra high price for fuel and the reduction in actual fuel outlets will happen in my lifetime, but I do think it will in my grand daughters.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Lancer Mike
Posted 2018-06-02 5:58 PM (#564428 - in reply to #564419)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50002000100050025
Location: The Mile High City

Good grief, Doc!  The world's not that bad.  You just need a Martini and a happy pill!  

 

Just kidding, friend

 

 

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-02 8:24 PM (#564431 - in reply to #564428)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
Mikey,

MY world isn't that bad, but I surround myself with old and cool
and delude myself that vinyl siding doesn't exist. But the reality
is, like our cars, I am a dinosaur, as are probably most who will
read this.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
LostDeere59
Posted 2018-06-02 9:26 PM (#564433 - in reply to #564427)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 322
100100100
Location: Hilltown, PA

ttotired - 2018-06-02 5:55 PM

Electric cars are the way of the future. This is an assumtion based on current political and social factors, not economic or technology advancements. Remember when 8-tracks, Super-8, and even DVD's were the "way of the future"?

More and more vehicle manufacturers are producing electric or hybrid vehicles Only because this allows them to continue to manufacture and market profitable non-electric vehciles.

Cars such as ours are dinosaurs and will become much less common on the roads as fossil fuels (and the vegetable "equivalents) become rarer (less demand) and much more expensive (less demand) Industry experts predict vehicle attrition will drive fuel prices down for quite some time as those industries invested in fossil fuels compete to stay in business. Eventually prices will rise, but most likely still be below current prices. In any event the important thing is to recognize the vehicle attrition will drive loss of fossil fuel availability - not the other way around.

I don't think its that far away either if you look at the development of the automobile from conception to today. The technology is here now, but still with room for more improvement/refinement Untrue. Industry experts predict fossil fueled vehciles will continue to be an important part of the vehcile fleet for the foreseeable future, and well beyond our childrens lifetimes. Consider the horse - while technologically inferior to the car, truck, and tractor for over 100 years, the population of horses, and profitability and scale of the industries that serve them, has not substantially diminished since the advent of the internal combustion engine.

The only thing stopping full on mass production of fully electric cars is the lack of infrastructure, which also affects the effective range of these vehicles. Once the range issues are sorted, then it will make your head spin how fast the electric cars take over the fuel driven engine powered cars in new car sales. Also untrue. Electric vehciles, and their hybrid siblings, are an infant technology released too early. They lack the range, dependability, and versatility that will be needed to supplant the internal combustion engine, and will continue to do so unless miracles occur in battery technology and all related technologies. To put it bluntly, they suck from a tech standpoint. And I live with their suckdom every day so I feel qualified to make this statement.

I do wonder if hybrids will survive as "long haul" vehicles (range problem solved) but I doubt it, maybe in the short term, but the fuel issue will still be there. If anything might be considered the "way of the future" it'll be hybrids, at least short term. Even so, don't get too excited - they still suffer the smae tech issues as full electrics, and depending on configuration can be even worse. Imagine being told your perfectly good gas engine car won't start because your HV hybrid battery is defective - and the dealer only replacement will cost a mere $10,858.00, plus another thou or so to do the replacement. Seen it happen.

As for our gas guzzlers, they will become a luxury to drive as fuel prices gradually increase (less demand and higher taxes applied) (not sure if its the same in other countries but here in Australia the Gov have taxed cigarettes to the point that they are practically un affordable. I bring this up as an illustration of what they do once they get on the "its bad for whatever" bandwagon) so to save our cars from being static museum relics there are 2 ways to go, either follow the main stream and convert to electric drive or learn how to make fuel. This is just alarmist. See above.

I don't believe the ultra high price for fuel and the reduction in actual fuel outlets will happen in my lifetime, but I do think it will in my grand daughters. Maybe. Probably not.

 

 

I work on electics and hybrids every day. They are an un-ready technology being pushed to market by factors other than being a solution to a problem - well, any real problem other than politics. I also read about them - industry publications, company publications, etc. And I have contact with the engineers driving the technology. So take it or leave it - these are the realities of electification.

 

 

Gregg

Top of the page Bottom of the page
drosera88
Posted 2018-06-02 11:30 PM (#564438 - in reply to #564433)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Elite Veteran

Posts: 1001
1000
Location: San Antonio TX

LostDeere59 - 2018-06-02 8:26 PM

ttotired - 2018-06-02 5:55 PM

Electric cars are the way of the future. This is an assumtion based on current political and social factors, not economic or technology advancements. Remember when 8-tracks, Super-8, and even DVD's were the "way of the future"?

More and more vehicle manufacturers are producing electric or hybrid vehicles Only because this allows them to continue to manufacture and market profitable non-electric vehciles.

Cars such as ours are dinosaurs and will become much less common on the roads as fossil fuels (and the vegetable "equivalents) become rarer (less demand) and much more expensive (less demand) Industry experts predict vehicle attrition will drive fuel prices down for quite some time as those industries invested in fossil fuels compete to stay in business. Eventually prices will rise, but most likely still be below current prices. In any event the important thing is to recognize the vehicle attrition will drive loss of fossil fuel availability - not the other way around.

I don't think its that far away either if you look at the development of the automobile from conception to today. The technology is here now, but still with room for more improvement/refinement Untrue. Industry experts predict fossil fueled vehciles will continue to be an important part of the vehcile fleet for the foreseeable future, and well beyond our childrens lifetimes. Consider the horse - while technologically inferior to the car, truck, and tractor for over 100 years, the population of horses, and profitability and scale of the industries that serve them, has not substantially diminished since the advent of the internal combustion engine.

The only thing stopping full on mass production of fully electric cars is the lack of infrastructure, which also affects the effective range of these vehicles. Once the range issues are sorted, then it will make your head spin how fast the electric cars take over the fuel driven engine powered cars in new car sales. Also untrue. Electric vehciles, and their hybrid siblings, are an infant technology released too early. They lack the range, dependability, and versatility that will be needed to supplant the internal combustion engine, and will continue to do so unless miracles occur in battery technology and all related technologies. To put it bluntly, they suck from a tech standpoint. And I live with their suckdom every day so I feel qualified to make this statement.

I do wonder if hybrids will survive as "long haul" vehicles (range problem solved) but I doubt it, maybe in the short term, but the fuel issue will still be there. If anything might be considered the "way of the future" it'll be hybrids, at least short term. Even so, don't get too excited - they still suffer the smae tech issues as full electrics, and depending on configuration can be even worse. Imagine being told your perfectly good gas engine car won't start because your HV hybrid battery is defective - and the dealer only replacement will cost a mere $10,858.00, plus another thou or so to do the replacement. Seen it happen.

As for our gas guzzlers, they will become a luxury to drive as fuel prices gradually increase (less demand and higher taxes applied) (not sure if its the same in other countries but here in Australia the Gov have taxed cigarettes to the point that they are practically un affordable. I bring this up as an illustration of what they do once they get on the "its bad for whatever" bandwagon) so to save our cars from being static museum relics there are 2 ways to go, either follow the main stream and convert to electric drive or learn how to make fuel. This is just alarmist. See above.

I don't believe the ultra high price for fuel and the reduction in actual fuel outlets will happen in my lifetime, but I do think it will in my grand daughters. Maybe. Probably not.

 

 

I work on electics and hybrids every day. They are an un-ready technology being pushed to market by factors other than being a solution to a problem - well, any real problem other than politics. I also read about them - industry publications, company publications, etc. And I have contact with the engineers driving the technology. So take it or leave it - these are the realities of electification.

 

 

Gregg

Yeah, I know someone who worked at a dealership service department and those big rechargable hybrid batteries are extraordinarily expenive to replace and sometimes not worth replacing considering how much the value of the car drops by the time it needs replacement.

The other issue with range isn't as huge, as Tesla manufactures cars that have ranges high enough for most people and road trips if you can plan your trip around the location of charging stations. The main issue with charging though is that even the 'super chargers' still take almost an hour to fully charge the car, which is a huge amount of time compared to 5 or 10 minutes for getting a tank of gas. The home chargers take around like 8 hours I think. 

I have a friend who owns a Nissan Leaf and he loves it! Of course, he lives in San Francisco where gas is rediculously expensive and where a trip for him never really gets anywhere near the max range of the car. EV's are coming, but they are and will be mainly a niche market. They may become very competitive in those niches with gasoline vehicles, but overall the world will still rely on combustion engines for many decades. Fossil fuels are here to stay in some form or another unless something major happens. At least I hope fossil fuels are here stay because my line of work depends on it! 

Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-03 8:07 AM (#564452 - in reply to #564431)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5488
5000100100100100252525
Location: northern germany
Doctor DeSoto - 2018-06-02 8:24 PM

Mikey,

MY world isn't that bad, but I surround myself with old and cool
and delude myself that vinyl siding doesn't exist. But the reality
is, like our cars, I am a dinosaur, as are probably most who will
read this.


I'm with you, but as you know, if you follow this board daily, there are lots of progressive, ignorant, inexperienced Hipsters here, that view our cars as unreliably fair weather toys, basically junk that's just supposed to give them some air of coolness. They actually despise them and the time that is mirrored in these cars. That is why they try to gut them und fill em with new technology. For them its not the cars or the time, it's all about ego.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
mikes2nd
Posted 2018-06-03 9:00 AM (#564457 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler


Expert

Posts: 3056
200010002525
rofl they are the one with the ego? Seriously? lots of hipsters here? lay off the cool aid Francis...

I like Teslas, good car and fast as all hell.

Electric is the future, China and india are going all electric fast, yes they use coal for 75% of their energy generation(changing that fast also to nuclear) but it still generates tons times less pollution than all those polluting cars idling at stop lights. GM and Ford are getting ready for all electric in China. Gm sells more cars in China than the US(for now... I'm sure the trade war may change that, China is already American hating pretty quickly, we certainly haven't stopped buying at Harbor Freight but I do agree some pushback was needed against China, a trade war with Canada is dumb though).

Jaguar... all electric... We have some oil left and don't mind paying Opec and others for some for a while. Now Chrysler moving to all electric...



(https___blogs-images_forbes_com_energyinnovation_files_2018_05_Annual-sales-of-battery-electric-and-plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicles.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments https___blogs-images_forbes_com_energyinnovation_files_2018_05_Annual-sales-of-battery-electric-and-plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicles.jpg (41KB - 13 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-03 3:04 PM (#564488 - in reply to #564457)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
To me, "the war" ended in 1970, when the last semi-justifiable American cars
rolled off the line. Detroit closed the door on building cars and entered a new
chapter of building boring transportation, chintzy copies of old designs, and a
nuevo-think of vehicles that require a 200K machine to diagnos mechanical
systems. So, any sentimentality for the name is so long dead, .... it is a shame
it all went this way, but that ship sailed long ago.

Electric, China, safety, .... who cares ? That is another subject and stuff I
just do not care about like I do the cool, style, history, and times that old cars
represent. I will never own a new car. My oldies will see me through to the
end.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Viper Guy
Posted 2018-06-03 3:36 PM (#564490 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 1255
10001001002525
Location: Branson, MO
I'm not opposed to electric cars/trucks as long as I can go 400 miles or more on a single charge, fully recharge in 15 minutes anywhere along my route just like today's normal filling station with gas or diesel, and run all the accessories anytime and all the time needed. Far fetched? Maybe, but that would make me happy with electric.

Back to the possibility there may be no more Chrysler cars - it would be sad to see Chrysler Corporation without a Chrysler - but, is there really a Chrysler Corporation now???????????????



Edited by Viper Guy 2018-06-03 3:41 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
hemidenis
Posted 2018-06-03 5:04 PM (#564493 - in reply to #564490)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 3577
20001000500252525
Location: Northen Virginia
It is really amazing how many opinions they are in here.
Electrical cars were invented at the turn of the last century, but they had the big disadvantage of batteries stamina, same disadvantage of the modern electrics. Batteries are unpredictable, sometimes they just go bad for no reason letting people down the road, even that the car display was showing 90 miles range. They are hard to recharge fast and if you do it in a fast way the battery life is diminished considerably. I think that electric cars are going to be better but the technologies barriers related to the chemistry of the concept itself can not be overcame.

I was really happy when Honda was really focused in Hydrogen cars. The concept of regular water used to generate Oxygen and Hydrogen which are perfect ingredients for any combustion device, from rockets to a lawnmower, and in the exhaust you have emission free water again.

I always thought that somebody will coming up with a carburetor that generate Hydrogen fast enough for a car to be driven, and the fuel used was tap water...

For now Honda vehicles are working with Hydrogen but not generated by the car, but stored in a tank a concept that looks better than Electric, but more dangerous.

I almost forgot to add that the Hydrogen powered Honda cost 60K and still a hybrid car of Hydrogen and Electric pug in.




Edited by hemidenis 2018-06-03 5:10 PM




(honda.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments honda.jpg (100KB - 13 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-04 12:26 AM (#564512 - in reply to #564493)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
I'd be OK with an alternative fuel vehicle IF it was not styled to look
like an insect or a turd. Cars are all shaped like bugs and turds anymore.
Why does everything have to be so #@! boring and "plastic" ?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Powerflite
Posted 2018-06-04 4:55 PM (#564538 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: RE: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 4739
2000200050010010025
Location: So. California
Don't get me started on Hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel is the biggest scam ever pulled in the auto industry. You are much better off just using the electricity or fossil fuel to begin with rather than suffering additional HUGE loss by converting it to hydrogen first.

Here is a reasonably well written article on it.

https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

These are some of my favorite qoutes:

"The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future"

"But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.” This quote would make a good tagline.

Edited by Powerflite 2018-06-04 5:13 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
LostDeere59
Posted 2018-06-04 8:56 PM (#564546 - in reply to #564538)
Subject: RE: RIP Chrysler



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 322
100100100
Location: Hilltown, PA

Apparently my lack of a doctorate in physics is leading me astray.

Frankly most of that article about hydrogen makes no sense, and even contradicts itself in places.

How is gasoline an "energy source" but hydrogen only an "energy transporter"??

And why does the entire article focus on comparing hydrogen to electricity, instead of hydrogen to fossil fuels - a much more realistic and pertinent comparison??

As a layperson that looks like nothing more than a bunch of fancied up political doubletalk designed to promote someone's own personal agenda, not provide useful information.

And as far as hydrogen goes, BMW invested millions in developing it as a viable alternative/partner technology to fossil fuels, only to discover that the U.S. public, and the residents of northern New Jersey in particular, can't seem to get over the Hindenberg. Even though we've been living with LPG power vehicles on our roads in large numbers for decades.

While just another example of how generally braindead the U.S. consumer is, the irony of it all still amuses me . . . Germans, hydrogen, New Jersey . . . .


Gregg

Top of the page Bottom of the page
hemidenis
Posted 2018-06-04 9:53 PM (#564551 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 3577
20001000500252525
Location: Northen Virginia
First of all Doc, cars will always look like a turd, because a turd shaped object moved better trough the air than a 58 DeSoto. Of course we are not talking about moving trough the air with style which is the way of the 58.

A teardrop shape has the best aerodynamic shape than any other object in the universe, so taking that in account what you have now in the roads are teardrop cars with headlights and doors looking like an Asian guy eyes-headlights.

Nathan, I personally created hydrogen and Oxygen at home using tap water with salt, 2 glasses and 8 AAA batteries in just a few minutes. I created enough that I almost blew a thick glass when I had the bad idea of put a lighter inside of it, but my eyebrows were not that lucky. First thing to came to my mind after such explosion was, "how in the hell I can put this gas in my motorcycle combustion chamber"...

So please tell me any other renewable energy that you can create at home? with basically water. The fossil fuel industry want you to believe that the Hindenburg is what Hydrogen mean...







Edited by hemidenis 2018-06-04 10:00 PM




(electrolysis_sm.jpg)



(18.JPG)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments electrolysis_sm.jpg (17KB - 14 downloads)
Attachments 18.JPG (113KB - 14 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Powerflite
Posted 2018-06-04 10:11 PM (#564555 - in reply to #564546)
Subject: RE: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 4739
2000200050010010025
Location: So. California
How is gasoline an "energy source" but hydrogen only an "energy transporter"??


Because you can't mine Hydrogen from the ground or otherwise get it naturally. You have get it from some other source like natural gas or water and use energy to convert that into hydrogen. So hydrogen acts like a different kind of (inefficient) battery in that sense.

And why does the entire article focus on comparing hydrogen to electricity, instead of hydrogen to fossil fuels - a much more realistic and pertinent comparison??


I don't know why you think one is more realistic than the other. There are many ways to utilize energy. Pick one to do the comparison with. But I see two reasons. Because he states that electricity is the most efficient form of usable energy (currently). It is more efficient to burn the fossil fuel to create electricity in a big plant, to drive your car with, than to burn it directly in your car. Another reason: Most environmentalists envision getting electricity from solar cells or other green means directly, to use to separate the hydrogen from water. These methods don't involve fossil fuels at all.

As a layperson that looks like nothing more than a bunch of fancied up political doubletalk designed to promote someone's own personal agenda, not provide useful information.


I didn't get that at all. Look at one number. If that number is correct, you don't need to even read any other part of it. Take the energy that resides in natural gas (the current major source of hydrogen for these worthless cars) Throw away 75% of that energy to create hydrogen so you can burn it in your "clean" car. Alternatively, take electricity and throw away 75% of that to create the equivalent amount of energy in hydrogen. Absolutely stupid. How did this crap get funded in the first place? The only agenda here is from the original promoters of Hydrogen B.S. pure and simple. This guy is just trying to point out the stupidity of it all. But I guess you are right that the public is unable to grasp a simple conversion efficiency number. Don't get me wrong though, I think the research into hydrogen is potentially useful - for space travel where there is potentially lots of sunlight and a limited amount of mass to throw away. But not for earth travel.

And as far as hydrogen goes, BMW invested millions in developing it as a viable alternative/partner technology to fossil fuels, only to discover that the U.S. public, and the residents of northern New Jersey in particular, can't seem to get over the Hindenberg. Even though we've been living with LPG power vehicles on our roads in large numbers for decades.


The truth of it is that they went headlong into a research area because environmental greenies were throwing money that way without thinking about it or asking the right questions, and they just decided to hold out their hands to catch some of it. But in the end there was a lot of tax money that was utterly wasted on this idiocy. It is true that BMW saw hydrogen as a possible large scale battery that the electricity could be stored with during minimal use times. But the reality is this earth doesn't have the resources to be throwing away 75% of its energy just to do it. If you want to use natural gas as your energy source - burn the natural gas either in a large electrical generator or directly. Don't throw it away creating hydrogen!!! If you want to use the energy in electricity to power your car - put that in your car's battery and use it directly. Don't throw away 75% of it to make idiotic hydrogen!!!

P.S. I did warn you not to get me started.

Edited by Powerflite 2018-06-04 10:50 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
firedome
Posted 2018-06-05 1:45 PM (#564601 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert

Posts: 2947
200050010010010010025
Location: NY & VT
Back to the '59 Chev vs new Chev staged crash - that '59 had the horrible GM "X" frame design that Oldsmobile smartly rejected for safety reasons for their own Perimeter + center X double frame, a much stronger design. The X frame cars would notoriously break completely in half in severe side impacts and was abandoned by the early '60s. If that test had used an Olds or Mopar or other better designed car it may have produced quite different results in an Old vs New comparison! Interesting that they chose THE worst possible example, in order to prove their pre-conceived notion!

Edited by firedome 2018-06-05 2:53 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Sonoramic60
Posted 2018-06-05 2:36 PM (#564606 - in reply to #564601)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler


Elite Veteran

Posts: 1178
1000100252525
Lads --
A lot of this comes down to what purpose you have in mind for your vehicle. If you like to sit in an air-conditioned easy chair, listening to acid rock or rap coming from some app source, with little care as to what your particular transportation looks like, believing the computer generated safety equipment will save you from the ravages of the savages, and getting jollies from all sorts of touchscreen bells and whistles (ever notice the effect of dirty little fingers on them?), then you can truly love your 2018 Honda, Acura, or Lexus. Of course, the operative words there are "truly love" which is an emotion that few modern vehicles can generate in me. Without a doubt they are economical, safe, and comfortable transportation, but that's all they are to me -- transportation!
If you like to drive an automobile, a real automobile, and being able to actually be able to drive it and not merely be transported by it, you probably look to cars such as those of the Forward Look. If you have fun polishing those immense expanses of sheet metal, chrome, and stainless steel and enjoy being seen in a car, not a vehicle, that is distinctive, you're into FLK stuff. If you like to "bang the gears" on a mountain road or get the wind in your hair when all the hardtop's windows are down, you want a FLK. If you love to blast those "tuners" with their souped up lawn mowers, you're might be in some kind of FLK muscle. If you appreciate the classic appeal of a Stutz Bearcat, or a Dusenberg, or a Pierce Silver Arrow, you want a FLK rather than a wind tunnel, computer styled (and named) vehicle.
As for me, I love bugs in my teeth, engine roar in my ears, and burning rubber stench in my nose. That's why I cherish my '57 Chrysler 300C, my '60 Fury SonoRamic, my '65 Fuelie Vette, and my '65 Sport Fury 426/4-speed. I can't imagine anyone cherishing a Volvo.
Joe Godec
Top of the page Bottom of the page
ttotired
Posted 2018-06-05 6:59 PM (#564637 - in reply to #564282)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



Expert 5K+

Posts: 8263
5000200010001001002525
Location: Perth Australia
Hey lost deere, thanks for the school teacher corrections made to my post

These were and are my opinions and I saw nothing in your corrections that would alter them as all you have stated are your opinions on facts as you see them

Now, onto hydrogen. We have hydrogen powered busses here, I don't work on them, but they seemed to operate fine (as in driving about, as for efficiency, I don't think so). I tried to do the hydrogen conversion myself and it did work, but as said, its to inefficient to try and use in an "on board" situation. In an on board use, you would need to produce enough energy to supply the power to extract the hydrogen as well as propel the vehicle, this is perpetual motion and then some. It would still need to be re fuelled, be it with a fossil fuel or an electrical re charge.

I am not a greeny or a hipster or whatever you want to call it, but I am a realist, fossil fuels are not an infinite resource and will eventually run low and become to expensive to use for personal transportation. Electric vehicles will be the "norm" and as I said before, once the infrastructure is there, their range problems will be largely overcome.
Batteries are a problem, but a problem being worked on. Lithium-ion batteries in their various forms have already revolutionised the electronics world and barring to many more failures (Samsung phones spontaneously combusting) battery technology will improve, increasing range and power even more

As for evolution of the cars timeframe, look at what has happened in the life of cars so far, or planes, or trains ect and if you throw a world war in there (provided we survive it) it will happen even faster as war always ramps up invention and innovation

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-06 1:19 AM (#564655 - in reply to #564551)
Subject: Re: RIP Chrysler



50005000500050002000100100
Location: Parts Unknown
hemidenis - 2018-06-05 6:53 PM

First of all Doc, cars will always look like a turd, because a turd shaped object moved better trough the air than a 58 DeSoto. Of course we are not talking about moving trough the air with style which is the way of the 58.


======================================

You hit the nail on the head, Denis. But here's the rub ....

Stand on any corner, anywhere, and watch the assclowns stomp their
foot into the pedal. I do A LOT of driving running between my jobs and
picking up materials, etc. I cannot go 60 seconds on the road anywhere
without seeing drivers being wontonly wasteful of fuel, yet somehow we
are supposed to believe that the general public "demands" better fuel
economy through aerodynamic body sculpting ? As I see it, Americans
don't give two sh!ts about that, the evidence is in how they drive.

As I see it, the whole exercise is just another sham to allow manufacturers
max profits for the high few, selling less car to a brain dead public.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread



(Delete all cookies set by this site)