alpert@nanook.DEC (12/01/84)
> > All this "blow your doors off" business is getting a little boring. We all > know that the Muscle car era produced big and fast V8s and that everyone who > has one thinks theirs is the fastest, but I'm getting tired of hearing the > same tune ("My car is faster than yours is..." sung to your favorite dog food > commercial)... How about "My car is slower than yours is..."? I own a 1970 Subaru 360 (360cc, 2 cyl, two-cycle) and I doubt that anyone out there has anything slower, unless there are any BMW Isetta owners out there. (As we all know, the Isetta is the only decent car BMW ever made, their current models are junk.) How about it, let't hear from the owners of 360's, Isettas, Goggomobiles, Messerschmitts (sp?), and other fine machines. Let's show these multi-cylinder snobs what *real* cars are like! Bob Alpert ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpert P.S. For all you Chevy Super Sport owners: "cc" means "cubic centimeters".
lrd@drusd.UUCP (DuBroffLR) (12/03/84)
SLOW? I have a good entry in the "my car is slower than yours" competition. Try a 3150 lb. Mercedes Benz 4-cylinder diesel (62 HP) in the Colorado mountains.
johnbl@tekig5.UUCP (John Blankenagel) (12/03/84)
You want to talk about slow cars, I once had a real slow one. I owned a Fiat 850 spider with a 900 cc enging. I used to pull up to stop lights next to VW bugs and take off for all the little car was worth with speed shifting and the whole works. The VW would always walk away from me and they never even knew they were racing. That is slow!!! John Blankenagel
res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (12/04/84)
My nominee for Slowest Car honors is ... Ford's Pinto Pony MPG of several years ago. I do not know the specs on it, but my '69 Cougar just as it came off of the assembly line with a 351 V8 would take off from a light at IDLE faster than the MPG could accellerate. This comment is derived from my experiences riding the brake whilest waiting for the Pinto ahead of me to crawl up to a speed that allowed my to put my foot on the gas. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res
rsg@cbscc.UUCP (Bob Garmise) (12/05/84)
Let me tell you about slow! I owned, and drove (the two are not necessarily connected), a Honda Coupe for 5 (count them: 1 2 3 4 5) years! The Honda Coupes only came out in 1972 in the USofA. It had a 600 cc, air cooled, transverse mounted, engine. It was the original four-in-the-firewall model. The only two add-on options were: lighter and AM radio. I bought the stripped down version. Although the speedometer was labeled to 85, that was wishful thinking. Top speed: 65 with the wind, downhill, at 0 gravity. It did zero to 60 in 2.5 hours. But it did get 40 mpg in town and 50 mpg on the road. It had room for 4 as long as the two in the back didn't have legs or arms. Cute little car. They just don't make them like that anymore...thank goodness! ...bob garmise...at&t bell labs, columbus...
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (12/10/84)
Is this the little car that had a back window that looked like a face-mask from a scuba diver? mikey at trsvax
dswankii@uok.UUCP (12/10/84)
I used to drive a 1961 VW bus with the 35 horse motor. In town it wasn't too bad but if you needed to get over 40 mph you were in trouble. As far as quick goes, with 35 HP you time it in the quarter with a calender. A great car for snow and ice, it didn't have enough oomph to get you in trouble. David Swank II University of Oklahoma ctvax!uokvax!uok!dswankii
jimd@hp-pcd.UUCP (jimd) (12/11/84)
My entry for a slow car: 1984 Audi 5000 !! I looked at the Audi when I was shopping for a car, and was *very* impressed with what I saw - nice car!!! The salesman asked if I would like to drive it, so off we went. The car was *painfully* underpowered - seemed incapable of reasonable acceleration rates. When a Cadillac Seville (with a *tiny* 3.9L V-8 and almost twice the weight) can beat an Audi 5000, you know you've got a problem. The Caddy is a slug! Needless to say, I was quite disappointed, as I would have bought the car otherwise! Jim Donnelly hp-pcd!jimd
bees@drutx.UUCP (DavisRB) (12/12/84)
--
I had the same impression test driving the BMW 318i... underpowered!
Ray Davis
AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
{ihnp4, houxe, stcvax!ihnp4}!drutx!bees, (303)538-3991sth@rayssd.UUCP (12/13/84)
Well, I had a slow car too, by the way. The absolute WORST CAR ever made
in the good ol' USA. I had a 1973, automatic Vega that had survived 80000
miles in the Bronx, NY. It was a horror, God rest its soul. I will never
buy another American car because I am still holding the grudge....
Steve Hirsch, {allegra, decvax!brunix, ccieng5}!rayssd!sth
Raytheon Co, Submarine Signal Div., Portsmouth, RIhawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (12/13/84)
>I used to drive a 1961 VW bus with the 35 horse motor.
Will you people never stop exaggerating about your powerful engines? :-)
35 horsies, indeed!
We all know that the 1200 engine only had 34. :-)
rickbae@fisher.UUCP (Shiva the Destroyer) (12/14/84)
OK - you want to hear slow....
My pride and joy is my 1968 Datsun 510 station wagon.
This awesome high-performance driving machine has the
famous Datsun L-16 Aluminum DOHC 96HP engine in it. This
engine worked just fine, in the little Datsun convertible
it was designed for, but in my wagon I have a 0-69 time of 19.6
seconds (downhill with the wind).
This vehicle now has 227k miles on it, and is mostly held
together with duct-tape and coat-hangers. But it's paid for,
and it runs... sometimes.
--
Brian A. Ehrmantraut
Ad Maioram Gloriam Hasturi!
UUCP: {allegra, astrovax, princeton, twg} !fisher!bae
BELL: (609) 452-8991 / (609) 734-7761
USnail: 184 Little Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544jacques@gcc-opus.ARPA (Jacques Hugon) (12/14/84)
[Heat my dust] I am afraid I have to submit my entry for the slowest (and worst) car of all times. My mother owned for years a ''Fiat 500'' (500cc) in its 'station-wagon' version. Not only is the car by itself terrible, but in that version it is simply horrendous. I remember having to get out of the car with my family 1/4 mile before home, because we lived up a gentle hill, and the car just couldn't make it. The biggest thrill I ever had was reaching 35mph with it once, and still that was going downhill in Neutral, while throwing outside the upholstery to make it lighter, and hiding ourselves under the dashboard to gain penetration (:-)))). I am so glad they don't make them like they used to.... -jh
jhillis@ihuxx.UUCP (Jeffrey Hillis) (12/14/84)
My canidate for the worlds slowest car is my old '66 Saab. This
was an 850cc, 3 cyclinder, 2 stroke. The only thing that allowed
any acceleration at all was the fact that you could rev it to
>2 million rpm. It also had freewheel; if you took your foot off
the gas, the engine and transmission disconnected and the car
would coast (freewheel) until you gave it gas again. I owned
that car for ten years and sold it for 100 dollars more than I
paid for it. Of course, I did have to rebuild the engine once:
I replaced 3 of the 4 moving parts.
Ah, the good old days
Jeff Hillishaapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (12/16/84)
>> I used to drive a 1961 VW bus with the 35 horse motor. > Will you people never stop exaggerating about your powerful engines? :-) > 35 horsies, indeed! > We all know that the 1200 engine only had 34. :-) > rick Actually, you're both wrong. The first production 1200's came with 25 hp motors (these are now worth a fortune -- extremely rare in good condition). This was upgraded to a 36 hp engine, and subsequently to 40 horsepower. The 1300s, 1500s and 1600s had bigger powerhouses yet... :-) These are all, by the way, SAE Gross horsepower. To get SAE Net (which is the way it's measured today), subtract about 20% (in the case of a Beetle). So you'd be driving around with a grand total of 20 horse. Wow! (but, it didn't use much gas did it?). \/ \/\/ \tom watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Q: How long will a VW run on the fuel a 747 uses in an hour? A: Twice around the world. Q: How long will a 747 run on the fuel a VW uses in an hour? A: Cough! [I know, these are *old*...]
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (12/20/84)
> Q: How long will a VW run on the fuel a 747 uses in an hour? > A: Twice around the world. > > watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Umm, lessee ... 25 Kmiles x 2 = 50,000 miles if you use 25 mpg for easy figuring, you get about 2,000 gallons/hour, or 33 gallons per minute. Now, there are 8 pints per gallon, and according to Mom, 'a pint a pound the world around', so that makes 16,000 pounds of fuel every hour. (266 lbs/min). Anyway, I know that a 747 can fly for at least 12 hours without refueling because I was on once that did so. If I multiply 12 hours by 8 tons per hour, does that mean that a 747 can hold over 96 *_TONS_* of fuel? Awesome. This got to be fun, so I did some more calculations: @ 2 K-gals/hour and 500 mph, the fuel efficiency rating of a 747 would be: 500 miles/2000 gallons = 0.25 mile per gallon. (Of course, these estimates should be used for comparison only. Your actual mileage may vary. |-) {Particularly during takeoff} Anyone know the mileage of the Space Shuttle? First 100 miles, I mean? Also, I'm looking for a larger fuel tank for the V-Dub -- is there a scrap yard that carries old 747 tanks? -- Gary Benson ms232e -*- John Fluke Mfg Co -*- Box C9090 -*- Everett WA 98206 USA {microsoft,allegra,ssc-vax,sun,sb1}{decvax,ihnp4,tektronix!uw-beaver}!fluke!inc giventheappropriatetechnology,ifyouleftyesterdayat1200baudyoucouldbeonsaturnnow
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (12/26/84)
> > Anyway, I know that a 747 can fly for at least 12 hours without refueling > because I was on once that did so. If I multiply 12 hours by 8 tons per > hour, does that mean that a 747 can hold over 96 *_TONS_* of fuel? Awesome. > > This got to be fun, so I did some more calculations: When I worked in the airline industry the 747s usually took off at the gross weight of 750,000 pounds (375 tons), and the world record was held by a 747 that lifted off at 820,000 pounds. (The C-5A has only managed 802,000 pounds). I don't remember exact numbers, but the empty aircraft (minus fuel and cargo) weighs about 350,000 pounds, a load of passengers with baggage weighs about 75,000 pounds, fuel load is commonly 250,000 - 300,000 pounds, and you fill whatever ACL (Allowable Cabin Load) you have left with mail or overnight packages. Mike Gray, BTL, WHippany
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (12/27/84)
In article <487@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) writes: > > >> Q: How long will a VW run on the fuel a 747 uses in an hour? >> A: Twice around the world. >> >> watmath!watdcsu!haapanen > > [some calculations] > so that makes 16,000 pounds of fuel every hour. (266 lbs/min). > >Anyway, I know that a 747 can fly for at least 12 hours without refueling >because I was on once that did so. If I multiply 12 hours by 8 tons per >hour, does that mean that a 747 can hold over 96 *_TONS_* of fuel? Awesome. Well, you should allow for the fact that the fuel that a "747 uses in an hour" used in the figure above is probably "average" fuel consumption, which is probably higher than that during the long-range flight you were on - maximum range comes at lower fuel flows than maximum speed. Though I don't have actual figures here, 96 tons of fuel doesn't seem unreasonable - the heaviest versions of the 747 have a takeoff weight in the range of 400 tons. > >This got to be fun, so I did some more calculations: > > @ 2 K-gals/hour and 500 mph, the fuel efficiency rating of a 747 would be: > >500 miles/2000 gallons = 0.25 mile per gallon. ok, but calculate this in terms of passenger-miles per gallon, and then contrast with your favourite economy car - the 747 probably still loses, but not that badly. > >Also, I'm looking for a larger fuel tank for the V-Dub -- is there a scrap >yard that carries old 747 tanks? > Sorry, I suspect they just seal off sections of the wing and use those for the main tanks. I don't think it would be easy to retrofit a 747 wing to a VW - it would become impossible to handle in crosswinds...
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (12/29/84)
When I flew to Austria a while back on Lufthansa, they had a booklet at the ticket counter with the specs on all their fleet. It had date of maintainence, first flight, captain of first flight, etc. It even had stuff like serial number (just in case I wanted to trace a stolen 747) and so on. Anyway, it listed the 747 I was on and gave stuff like the model number of the engines (They were GE) and their average fuel consumption which in this case was 4004 gallons per hour. I don't know how they averaged this, but I remember at the time that nothing else in the booklet was even close. They also had some cost projections on their fleet, but not by individual plane. They indicated that the 747SP was their most profitable plane. As to the weight, I seem to remember that although a 747 can take off over 750,000 it cant land at much over 550,000. mikey at trsvax
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (01/07/85)
This last weekend's edition of the PBS program "Newton's Apple" had a special on the shuttle and the astronaut training program. They mentioned the "transporter" which moves the completely-assembled spacecraft & boosters from the Vehicle Assembly Building to the launch pad had a "mileage" rating of 35 feet per gallon of fuel (diesel, I believe). (I believe that this is the heaviest moving vehicle on earth, by the way.) Worse than a Caddy with a hole in the tank... Will
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (01/09/85)
> This last weekend's edition of the PBS program "Newton's Apple" had a > special on the shuttle and the astronaut training program. They mentioned > the "transporter" which moves the completely-assembled spacecraft & > boosters from the Vehicle Assembly Building to the launch pad had a > "mileage" rating of 35 feet per gallon of fuel (diesel, I believe). > (I believe that this is the heaviest moving vehicle on earth, by the way.) The 'Crawler-Transporter' has a maximum speed (unloaded) of 2 mph, and a loaded speed of 1 mph. It is powered by two 2750 horsepower diesel engines, which drive generators that provide electrical power to the 16 traction motors. The CT weighs 3000 tons, and the pad and Shuttle weigh 5500 tons. Thus the moving weight is 8500 tons. This may be the largest land vehicle, but is puny compared to oil tankers and offshore drilling platforms. The oil tankers mass 400000 tons loaded. Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder