Anyone here car nuts?

Post Reply New Topic

It is not too difficult. Once the technique is learnt it is easy. My dad had an automatic car which on the odd occasion I would borrow. When I used to work on the railway I found on the way to work I would prefer a manual every time. I was lively and awake on the way to work, a mnual was brill. On the way home when I was worn out and tired, an automatic was better. More relaxing.

A manual car (Once the driver is used to it) generally gives better acceleration and gas milage. A small engined car always tends to perform better as a manual. However, if one has a very powerful car with a big powerful engine (For example 300 brake horsepower). The reason for this is the clutchplates won't last too long with very powerful engines and the automatic gearboxes have a bit more "Give" to them, so are less likely to have issues.

Also when towing, automatic cars need a device to stop the gearbox fluid from overheating. All this really needs is a scoop to collect cool air and direct it to the bottom of the gearbox.

if i were rich i would have a different car for each day of the week-
sunday=1975 AMC pacer DL
monday=1970 VW karmann ghia
tuesday=1971 citroen DS
wednesday=1993 cadillac sedan de ville
thursday=2014 chevy impala ls with modifications to the wheels/tires for a softer ride
friday=buick encore
saturday=honda helix scooter
these are in addition to my present car, a '97 honda crv with 75k on the odo. i am a BIG FAN of the "magic carpet" ride over rough roads with busted pavement, which is why i like the old caddies and citroens the best as they floated over that stuff like it was nothing. the floaty caddy ride of old was relaxing, sorta like being in a boat on the water. so quiet and serene. all of those cars 'cept for the honda are tuned for a nice soft ride.

My brother had a Cadallac Fleetwood for a couple of years. 7,500cc engine. When they drove it up here, It only just fit round the corners. Was scraping the sides of the hedges on the outsides and the inside of the corners. Manynof our roads it would not be able to go on though. Too wide.

I have read the Bronco is coming back.

have you ever been in a car that was better at filtering out rough and broken pavement?

I didn't get to go in it, but it was a car that after getting out of it, it would continue bouncing. I had a diesel Citroen Xantia once which had hydraulic suspension. I quite liked the ride some of the larger Volvos had because they were soft but would handle well too, especially the 9 series. The later front wheel drive cars were sadly lacking... I had a non turbo 2.5 8 valve petrol and a turbo 2.3 T5 version both beinb 7 seat estate cars. Both would shred front tyres. I found the T5, despite its good write ups to be not as impressive as the Volvo 740 GLT that I once had with its Porsche designed twin cam 4 cylinder 2.3 petrol engine. That was quick. Much quicker then the T5 despite on paper having less horsepower. The problem with the T5 was that it could not get the traction to the wheels despite having traction control (Which was actually dangerous on that car, as it meant instead of one front wheel spinning, both front wheels span and one would drift sideways across a road. Front tyres would dissapear in 2000 miles. 4000 miles if one was light footed).
The best all round Volvos I had were the Volvo 131 (Way advanced in its day and quick too for an old car with good handling), the 360GLT 3 door hatchback.. Wow, what a car, Quick and powerful for its small size and the Porsche engineered suspension on the GLT's meant drifting was so precise... It just goes where you put it! I wheelspun mine from a standing start in 3rd gear. Once on a standing start the rear wheels gripped and the front came up, and then "Bang"... it came back down. It had an aluminium driveshaft on the GLT which made the car a very quick revver, and the rear mounted gearbox with a front engine gave it such a nice balance... In its day it was just a slight bit quicker accelerating then the BMW 5 series with a 2.8 engine in it. I often had the double look from cars in front when they put their foot down while in the outer lane of a duel carriageway. They would look once and think "I will out accelerate this little car" and then look a second time as I still would be there behind them... Only two cars ever out accelerated it when I had it. One was a 2.5 twin turbo Porsche 928 and the other surprized even me. A 3 letre Renault leguna.
The 7 series and especially the later 9 series with either a 2.3 twin cam engine or a 2.8 (Later 3 letre) V6 (Actually the same engine as in the Renault) are the ones to go for, and failing that a single cam 2.3 turbo version. The 9 series had the handling fixed, as tne 7 series could be a handful. They just welded in some small stiffening brackets. Problem fixed!

^^^which of all those cars, would you say could best filter out and smooth over the roughest bumpiest busted pavement roadways?

Volvo 7 or 9 series. Here in the UK we are not allowed to drive on the pavements though. The pedestrians tend not to like it.

Some small cars I've owned or my Dad has owned (And I've driven) which have been great offroad cars with soft suspension are the early Renault 5's and the 954cc version of the Citroen AX which are both front wheel drive French cars designed to go down the French cobbled streets. I live on a steep hill and whe I owned the first AX, I was driving up a 1 in 4 hill to get home on a sheet of snow that had turned to ice for a few weeks until it finally thawed. The only time it disn't make it puzzled me. It had done it before. Why not now? I forgot. I had three sacks of coal in the boot which were probably heavier then its engine! The whole car weighed 640kg. Downhills were a bit hairy though. Narrow tyres with no antilock brakes. Put it in first gear... engine revving was the pnly practical form of braking.... It was a case of going round the corners without going sideways and hoping nothing came the other way (Unlikely as not a lot could get up the hill except a few small lightweight cars and some 4 wheel drives as not all four wheel drive cars made it. I eas surprized to see an elderly lady make it in her little front wheel drive car which I think was a little diesel. The other things that made it were tractors... And here is a surprizing one... The milk tanker lorry. The postmen couldn't get up here for 2 weeks. The milk tanker had double rear wheels on rhe single axle and had the weight of milk in the rear which must have made a big difference. I doubt it would have made it if it had been empty. It surprized me to hear some 4wd's didn't make it and yet a few little front wheel drives like my Citroen AX did. Strange eh?
My dads old 3 wheelers were good in snow. Reliant Regals and Reliant Robins. They were very lightweight cars as they had to comply to be classed as a tricycle. I think 400kg or less? Can't remember. Nippy little things and not as bad as people made them out to be. There was a technique in driving them. If you came of a motorbike (Most drove them because they had motorbike licences and didn't have a car licence) and then learnt in a 3 wheeler or if you went direct to driving a 3 wheeler you were fine as you soon picked up the technique on how to drive them, but if you came out of an ordinary 4 wheel car and tried to drive one you could end up in trouble if you tried to drive them as a car. With a skilled driver you could take them round bends at high speed. Put it this way, My Dads old Reliant Robin was my first car when I passed my test to drive a car (Never passed a motorbike test). The car was a little worn out by the time I had it, but it worked fine. Just had to hold it in second gear when going downhills as it would pop out of gear due to a high milage gearbox. I then had a Fiat Fiorino 4 wheeled van type of car. It was based on the Fiat 127. I was driving home from a long journey and I tried to make a certain corner as my Dad used to take it many times in the 3 wheelers and I went straight up on 2 wheels. I drifted across the road on 2 wheels and it was a good job the next corner went the other way so I could make it come back on all 4 wheels! People who criticize those 3 wheelers don't know how to drive them.

Last edited by Mountain Goat on 06 Jul 2019, 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

i sense a mutual language divided by an ocean phenom going on here by pavement i mean road surface. i don't know what it means in the mother country. curious about the volvos being tuned softly over there, in amuuurica they are among the most stiff-riding cars, no cush at all over the bumps.

The newer front wheel drive Volvos tend to be stiff. It was the big older rear wheel drive Volvos which were nice and soft. Like driving armchairs.
Here in the UK the pavements are the bits that people walk on at the sides of the road.

we call 'em "sidewalks" here. what do you call the automobile traffic road surface over there?

Roads. Haha. I was puzzled.. I was thinking "You drive on the pavements?" (Sidewalks to you!) "That's why you need soft suspension!"

we call 'em roads or roadways, but the tarmac/asphalt road surface we refer to as pavement. we pave the roads with asphalt, and call it pavement except for airports where we call it tarmac.

We just call it tarmac.
It was funny when the "I am not a robot" rhing came on and it said to click on the crosswalks. I was thinking "What's a crosswalk?" I know now. They are those white squares or rectangles on the roads.

A robot is a traffic light in South Africa.

in GB, instead of saying horsepower and torque, they say kilowatts and nanowebers.