New Lincoln Navigator
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
the Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80 away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's competition.

Quite a price tag though. Starts at $76K. $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators. She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.





Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5 liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.

It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.


I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.


I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past. Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma. The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression. You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves. Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.





You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
the Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80 away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's competition.

Quite a price tag though. Starts at $76K. $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators. She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.





Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5 liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.

It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.


I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.


I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past. Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma. The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression. You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves. Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.





You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.


===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:46:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition including
theÂ* Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80Â* away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed transmission,
Â*6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's competition.

Quite a price tag though.Â* Starts at $76K.Â* $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators.Â* She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.





Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5 liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6? With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.

It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.


I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of powering a
three ton car with a small engine.


I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I don't
think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of those of the
past. Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't think the
Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma. The twin turbo makes
it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent reputation for
longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression. You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves. Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K to
200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.


My 97 Honda Prelude says it has 101k or so on it but I know the speedo
was tricked up so I am betting 160-170. I missed one 10,000 bump
because the ice pick job screwed up the pawl that flips it over. Then
it started working. (I may have missed two)
This thing has been run hard the whole time, It cruises at close to
4000 PM on the interstate and I wind it up pretty tight going through
the gears (6k+) if I am getting out into moving traffic.
It still does not burn any oil. I am horrible about oil changes (one
every year or 2) and I still never have to add any.
This thing may actually be old enough to drink if it was an early
model year car.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:05:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I think your thinking is obsolete. Most of the newer vehicles today
have a V-6 (even pickup trucks) with many transmission gears instead of
the old 3 or 4 with maybe an overdrive. The old adage of "there's no
replacement for displacement" has been retired.

Another factor comparing the old 60's, 70's era V8 to modern engines.
A big block V8 in the 60's was designed and geared to produce the most
HP and torque fairly low on the RPM curve. Modern engines are designed
to produce max HP and torque much higher. There's a benefit to that in
that it doesn't "lug" under a heavy load.

My Canyon is rated at 308 HP but it's at 6,800 RPM. Max torque is 275
lb ft at 4,000 RPM. I think the engine in the '67 GTO I had would fly
apart at 6,800 RPM unless it was specially rebuilt for racing or something.

Another feature in modern engines is variable valve timing that
optimizes engine performance for it's load.


That valve timing trick in my Prelude really makes a difference. It
kicks in at 5k RPM and it is like the secondaries opening on the old
Quadrajet carb.
I agree the RPMs on these engines are nothing like the 60s.
My 327 350HP in my 76 Chevelle (called 325) was redlined at around
6000 RPM and at that speed the valves floated, it started burping and
you slowed back down. With the 456 rear end, that was about 105 MPH
but you could get it in around a quarter mile. (the point)
It was another car that ran at 4000+ RPM on the beltway but it came
apart in 43,000 miles. Mr Goodwrench fixed it on warranty.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
the Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80 away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's competition.

Quite a price tag though. Starts at $76K. $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators. She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.





Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5 liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.

It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.


I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.


I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past. Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma. The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression. You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves. Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.





You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

They only have to go 500 miles tho ;-)

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:27:58 -0400,
wrote:

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

Twin BorgWarner 6758 turbochargers

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those lit
Off topic and boring


--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

The difference you can actually measure the performance of these new
HO gauge engines. It is not like just trying to describe what
something sounds like to you.
I agree the "Bose sound" is not necessary correct sound but Bose fans
swear by it. I still have 2 big Sansui speakers in the tiki bar and I
think they sound better than the Bose my wife has in the new room but
she likes the Bose sound more than the thumping base from those old
"leisure suit days" speakers.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective. Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok. Your brain replaces what is missing. You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude. Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/1/2018 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

The difference you can actually measure the performance of these new
HO gauge engines. It is not like just trying to describe what
something sounds like to you.
I agree the "Bose sound" is not necessary correct sound but Bose fans
swear by it. I still have 2 big Sansui speakers in the tiki bar and I
think they sound better than the Bose my wife has in the new room but
she likes the Bose sound more than the thumping base from those old
"leisure suit days" speakers.



I once had a complete 4 channel, "Quadraphonic" Sansui system with four
large speakers, two Sansui stereo amps, a Sansui 4 channel
processor/decoder and a Teac 4 channel tape deck. Quadraphonic was the
fore-runner to surround sound but was plagued by different recording
standards and lack of pre-recorded material. Enoch Light released a few
tapes and 4 channel encoded vinyls back in the 70's.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/1/2018 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

The difference you can actually measure the performance of these new
HO gauge engines. It is not like just trying to describe what
something sounds like to you.
I agree the "Bose sound" is not necessary correct sound but Bose fans
swear by it. I still have 2 big Sansui speakers in the tiki bar and I
think they sound better than the Bose my wife has in the new room but
she likes the Bose sound more than the thumping base from those old
"leisure suit days" speakers.



I have a pair of 80's vintage Bose 901's and the Bose Equalizer that
goes with them. I don't use them anymore but they are still in great
shape (speaker surrounds are not rotted, etc.) Properly set up they
still sound very good, especially if you add a subwoofer at very low volume.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
the Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80 away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's competition.

Quite a price tag though. Starts at $76K. $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators. She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.





Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5 liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.

It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.


I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.


I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past. Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma. The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression. You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves. Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.





You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

They only have to go 500 miles tho ;-)


Just like a top fuel dragster only has to turn about 1000 revolutions
between rebuilds. Each quarter mile.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

That's really pertinent in a discussion of engine performance.

Anything to toot your tooter though, eh Haareee.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 12:22:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

The difference you can actually measure the performance of these new
HO gauge engines. It is not like just trying to describe what
something sounds like to you.
I agree the "Bose sound" is not necessary correct sound but Bose fans
swear by it. I still have 2 big Sansui speakers in the tiki bar and I
think they sound better than the Bose my wife has in the new room but
she likes the Bose sound more than the thumping base from those old
"leisure suit days" speakers.

Hooked up to my computer, the Bose Lifestyle system makes great sound!

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective. Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok. Your brain replaces what is missing. You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude. Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective. Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok. Your brain replaces what is missing. You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude. Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD's but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and yourÂ* expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective.Â* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.Â* Your brain replaces what is missing.Â*Â* You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.Â* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD'sÂ* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo. :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

....especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your* expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective.* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.* Your brain replaces what is missing.** You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD's* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo. :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and yourÂ* expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective.Â* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.Â* Your brain replaces what is missing.Â*Â* You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.Â* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD'sÂ* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo. :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 14:31:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your* expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective.* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.* Your brain replaces what is missing.** You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD's* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo. :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.


Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

1:31 PMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.

.....

I’m not high brow much but I can appreciate a bunch of it. Way more than my wife can stand.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 14:29:35 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:


1:31 PMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.

....

I’m not high brow much but I can appreciate a bunch of it. Way more than my wife can stand.

But you don't try to impress people by throwing names around!

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/18 2:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter
engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213
Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you
hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of
Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen
him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD
around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different
speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the
cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and yourÂ* expectation of what "good" music reproduction
sounds
like is very subjective.Â* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so
if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.Â* Your brain replaces what is missing.Â*Â* You just can't
do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the
difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.Â* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically
recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but
the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD'sÂ* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo.Â* :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.



The Barber of Seville and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro were the
musical theater of their times, and those comic operas and others had
great appeal to the masses, even those with no formal education. The
same was true of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas.

Incidently, both the Rossini work and Mozart's were based on works by
the same playwright and the main protagonists are as a result named
Figaro.

You might like these version of Figaro's Barber of Seville aria...with a
translation.

My taste for enjoying opera is limited. I like a lot of the comic operas
for their great music and really silly plots. Many of the "tragic"
operas put me to sleep. :)

New Lincoln Navigator
 

wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
the Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80 away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's competition.

Quite a price tag though. Starts at $76K. $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators. She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.




Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5 liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.
It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.

I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.

I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past. Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma. The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression. You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves. Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.




You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!
Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


"The current, fourth-generation *IndyCar* formula was presented in 2012.
The *engines* are now 2.2-liter twin turbo V-6's putting out estimated
550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used. They are limited to
12,000 rpm. *Engines* are currently supplied by Chevrolet and Honda."

New Lincoln Navigator
 

New Lincoln Navigator
 

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/2018 7:31 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/2/18 2:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter
engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213
Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of
sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large,
horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you
hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of
Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've
seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD
around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different
speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small
speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and yourÂ* expectation of what "good" music reproduction
sounds
like is very subjective.Â* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so
if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.Â* Your brain replaces what is missing.Â*Â* You just can't
do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the
difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.Â* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically
recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a
helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record
music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround
but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD'sÂ* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this
month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo.Â* :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.



The Barber of Seville and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro were the
musical theater of their times, and those comic operas and others had
great appeal to the masses, even those with no formal education. The
same was true of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas.

Incidently, both the Rossini work and Mozart's were based on works by
the same playwright and the main protagonists are as a result named Figaro.

You might like these version of Figaro's Barber of Seville aria...with a
translation.

My taste for enjoying opera is limited. I like a lot of the comic operas
for their great music and really silly plots. Many of the "tragic"
operas put me to sleep.Â* :)


Well, enjoy your evening. I just don't have any appreciation for opera
in general but I certainly don't fault those who do. If there's a story
being told I'd rather just read it.

The most "high brow" I get is a few visit to Symphony Hall in Boston
once in a great while and to be honest, I am more awed by the
unbelievable acoustics there. Blows me away. We both (meaning Mrs.E.
and I) enjoy the Boston Pops and try to see them every year or so. It's
usually a fun take and we are friends with someone who performs with the
Pops.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/2018 7:39 PM, Alex wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln
Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
theÂ* Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80Â* away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
Â*Â* 6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's
competition.

Quite a price tag though.Â* Starts at $76K.Â* $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators.Â* She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.




Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5
liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.
It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.

I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.

I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past.Â* Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma.Â* The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression.Â* You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves.Â* Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.




You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!
Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


"The current, fourth-generation *IndyCar* formula was presented in 2012.
The *engines* are now 2.2-liter twin turbo V-6's putting out estimated
550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used. They are limited to
12,000 rpm. *Engines* are currently supplied by Chevrolet and Honda."


I knew someone in Florida who had a Porsche 911 turbo that he installed
a variable boost control on it. Crazy fast but I'll bet it wouldn't
last long if he kept the boost setting too high, too often.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/2018 7:44 PM, Alex wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!
They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.


My SUV has 269 ci (4.4L) and will run 0-60 in 4.7 seconds with twin
turbos.Â* It's just under 5100 lbs.Â* Amazing power for a heavy vehicle.



I think we'll probably see more and more turbos as stock items and
engines will continue to get smaller in displacement. They have become
very reliable and a turbo with modest boost yields a lot of HP for cheap
money while increasing MPG overall.

Nice thing about a turbo is that if you don't "get on it" all the time,
you really aren't stressing the engine much.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:52:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/2/2018 7:39 PM, Alex wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln
Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
theÂ* Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80Â* away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
Â*Â* 6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's
competition.

Quite a price tag though.Â* Starts at $76K.Â* $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators.Â* She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.




Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5
liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.
It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.

I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.

I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past.Â* Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma.Â* The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression.Â* You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves.Â* Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.




You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!
Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


"The current, fourth-generation *IndyCar* formula was presented in 2012.
The *engines* are now 2.2-liter twin turbo V-6's putting out estimated
550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used. They are limited to
12,000 rpm. *Engines* are currently supplied by Chevrolet and Honda."


I knew someone in Florida who had a Porsche 911 turbo that he installed
a variable boost control on it. Crazy fast but I'll bet it wouldn't
last long if he kept the boost setting too high, too often.


Some of the boys down in Everglades are running nitrous systems on
their air boats. If they "hit the button" a lot it does scrub expected
hours off the engine but it will pop them off a hump they get stuck
on. With the price of nitrous, it is a pretty expensive hobby. That
stuff was 3 or 4 bucks a pound 20 years ago. (with an account.)

New Lincoln Navigator
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/2/18 2:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter
engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213
Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you
hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of
Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen
him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD
around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different
speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the
cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and yourÂ* expectation of what "good" music reproduction
sounds
like is very subjective.Â* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so
if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.Â* Your brain replaces what is missing.Â*Â* You just can't
do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the
difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.Â* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically
recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but
the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD'sÂ* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo.Â* :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.



The Barber of Seville and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro were the
musical theater of their times, and those comic operas and others had
great appeal to the masses, even those with no formal education. The
same was true of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas.

Incidently, both the Rossini work and Mozart's were based on works by
the same playwright and the main protagonists are as a result named
Figaro.

You might like these version of Figaro's Barber of Seville aria...with a
translation.

My taste for enjoying opera is limited. I like a lot of the comic operas
for their great music and really silly plots. Many of the "tragic"
operas put me to sleep. :)



Most of the operas and operettas were the soap operas of the time.
Nothing highbrow about a big bunch of them. Especially Gilbert and
Sullivan.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/2018 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:52:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/2/2018 7:39 PM, Alex wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln
Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
theÂ* Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80Â* away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
Â*Â* 6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's
competition.

Quite a price tag though.Â* Starts at $76K.Â* $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators.Â* She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.




Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5
liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.
It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.

I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.

I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past.Â* Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma.Â* The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression.Â* You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves.Â* Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.




You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!
Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


"The current, fourth-generation *IndyCar* formula was presented in 2012.
The *engines* are now 2.2-liter twin turbo V-6's putting out estimated
550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used. They are limited to
12,000 rpm. *Engines* are currently supplied by Chevrolet and Honda."


I knew someone in Florida who had a Porsche 911 turbo that he installed
a variable boost control on it. Crazy fast but I'll bet it wouldn't
last long if he kept the boost setting too high, too often.


Some of the boys down in Everglades are running nitrous systems on
their air boats. If they "hit the button" a lot it does scrub expected
hours off the engine but it will pop them off a hump they get stuck
on. With the price of nitrous, it is a pretty expensive hobby. That
stuff was 3 or 4 bucks a pound 20 years ago. (with an account.)



My wife's uncle (used to teach diesel mechanics in a Jr. College) has a
early 70's Monte Carlo that he has been "building up" over several
years. 350 ci small block puts out 560 HP as tested on the dynamometer
running gas. But, he also installed a nitrous oxide tank in the trunk
with lines, remotely actuated valves and a switch in the car.

He took me for a ride in the thing which was impressive just running on
gas and then hit the nitro switch. Holy Crap!

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:49:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/2/2018 7:31 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/2/18 2:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter
engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213
Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of
sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large,
horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you
hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of
Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've
seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD
around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different
speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small
speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your* expectation of what "good" music reproduction
sounds
like is very subjective.* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so
if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.* Your brain replaces what is missing.** You just can't
do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the
difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically
recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a
helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record
music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround
but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD's* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this
month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo.* :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.



The Barber of Seville and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro were the
musical theater of their times, and those comic operas and others had
great appeal to the masses, even those with no formal education. The
same was true of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas.

Incidently, both the Rossini work and Mozart's were based on works by
the same playwright and the main protagonists are as a result named Figaro.

You might like these version of Figaro's Barber of Seville aria...with a
translation.

My taste for enjoying opera is limited. I like a lot of the comic operas
for their great music and really silly plots. Many of the "tragic"
operas put me to sleep.* :)


Well, enjoy your evening. I just don't have any appreciation for opera
in general but I certainly don't fault those who do. If there's a story
being told I'd rather just read it.

The most "high brow" I get is a few visit to Symphony Hall in Boston
once in a great while and to be honest, I am more awed by the
unbelievable acoustics there. Blows me away. We both (meaning Mrs.E.
and I) enjoy the Boston Pops and try to see them every year or so. It's
usually a fun take and we are friends with someone who performs with the
Pops.

My mom was a huge fan of the Boston Pops. We boys grew up listening to their records. Never been
there, but they provided a lot of enjoyment. Of course, this was back when Arthur Fiedler was
conducting. Probably way, way too low-brow for Harry.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/3/2018 7:56 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:49:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/2/2018 7:31 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/2/18 2:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter
engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213
Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of
sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large,
horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you
hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of
Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've
seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD
around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different
speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small
speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and yourÂ* expectation of what "good" music reproduction
sounds
like is very subjective.Â* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so
if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.Â* Your brain replaces what is missing.Â*Â* You just can't
do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the
difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.Â* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically
recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a
helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record
music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround
but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD'sÂ* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this
month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo.Â* :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

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

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.



The Barber of Seville and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro were the
musical theater of their times, and those comic operas and others had
great appeal to the masses, even those with no formal education. The
same was true of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas.

Incidently, both the Rossini work and Mozart's were based on works by
the same playwright and the main protagonists are as a result named Figaro.

You might like these version of Figaro's Barber of Seville aria...with a
translation.

My taste for enjoying opera is limited. I like a lot of the comic operas
for their great music and really silly plots. Many of the "tragic"
operas put me to sleep.Â* :)


Well, enjoy your evening. I just don't have any appreciation for opera
in general but I certainly don't fault those who do. If there's a story
being told I'd rather just read it.

The most "high brow" I get is a few visit to Symphony Hall in Boston
once in a great while and to be honest, I am more awed by the
unbelievable acoustics there. Blows me away. We both (meaning Mrs.E.
and I) enjoy the Boston Pops and try to see them every year or so. It's
usually a fun take and we are friends with someone who performs with the
Pops.

My mom was a huge fan of the Boston Pops. We boys grew up listening to their records. Never been
there, but they provided a lot of enjoyment. Of course, this was back when Arthur Fiedler was
conducting. Probably way, way too low-brow for Harry.



We have a friend, Amanda Carr, who we met when I had the guitar shop.
She is also a realtor and handled the sale of our house two years ago.

She performed a couple of times at the shop in concerts I arranged.
She also performs occasionally with the both the Boston Pops and the
full Boston Symphony Orchestra. Through her we also met the guy and
became friends with who plays guitar for both the Pops and the full
orchestra. He came to our house and played for over an hour at one
of the open houses when we had the house on the market.

We get together once and a while when she's not busy entertaining. I
arranged for her to perform at an elderly day care facility that I drove
for for a year. She's the salt of the earth, has nothing bad to say
about anyone and will do anything she can to help people.

Here's a video of her with the Pops on New Year's eve in 2017 and
another with a few members of the Pops at a less formal performance
singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeDxUE6iVUw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCjZw5wnW24

New Lincoln Navigator
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:52:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/2/2018 7:39 PM, Alex wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln
Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
theÂ* Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80Â* away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
Â*Â* 6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's
competition.

Quite a price tag though.Â* Starts at $76K.Â* $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators.Â* She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.




Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5
liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.
It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.

I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.

I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past.Â* Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma.Â* The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression.Â* You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves.Â* Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.




You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!
Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


"The current, fourth-generation *IndyCar* formula was presented in 2012.
The *engines* are now 2.2-liter twin turbo V-6's putting out estimated
550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used. They are limited to
12,000 rpm. *Engines* are currently supplied by Chevrolet and Honda."


I knew someone in Florida who had a Porsche 911 turbo that he installed
a variable boost control on it. Crazy fast but I'll bet it wouldn't
last long if he kept the boost setting too high, too often.


Some of the boys down in Everglades are running nitrous systems on
their air boats. If they "hit the button" a lot it does scrub expected
hours off the engine but it will pop them off a hump they get stuck
on. With the price of nitrous, it is a pretty expensive hobby. That
stuff was 3 or 4 bucks a pound 20 years ago. (with an account.)



My wife's uncle (used to teach diesel mechanics in a Jr. College) has a
early 70's Monte Carlo that he has been "building up" over several
years. 350 ci small block puts out 560 HP as tested on the dynamometer
running gas. But, he also installed a nitrous oxide tank in the trunk
with lines, remotely actuated valves and a switch in the car.

He took me for a ride in the thing which was impressive just running on
gas and then hit the nitro switch. Holy Crap!


Oh, that’s nothing. I had a ‘49 Jeep station wagon when I was 17 that once
got up to 41 mph going down Fountain Street from under the Parkway bridge
at the Woodbridge line to the light at the bottom of that long steep hill.
Fortunately the light was green because the brakes on that big double
shoebox sucked, too. :) it had a four cylinder engine of about 60 hp. Or
less. Lots of air drag.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 07:26:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Some of the boys down in Everglades are running nitrous systems on
their air boats. If they "hit the button" a lot it does scrub expected
hours off the engine but it will pop them off a hump they get stuck
on. With the price of nitrous, it is a pretty expensive hobby. That
stuff was 3 or 4 bucks a pound 20 years ago. (with an account.)



My wife's uncle (used to teach diesel mechanics in a Jr. College) has a
early 70's Monte Carlo that he has been "building up" over several
years. 350 ci small block puts out 560 HP as tested on the dynamometer
running gas. But, he also installed a nitrous oxide tank in the trunk
with lines, remotely actuated valves and a switch in the car.

He took me for a ride in the thing which was impressive just running on
gas and then hit the nitro switch. Holy Crap!


The physics of nitrous is pretty interesting. First it is injected as
a liquid so it has a significant cooling effect on the air coming in
and concentrates that charge. They are also introducing more fuel so
the charge starts off very rich as it goes over TDC and you have a
smoky fire going on in there. When the temperature gets up around 500f
(something like that) the nitrous comes apart releasing pure O2 into
that smoky fire, right in the power stroke where you want a big bang.
Some proponents even say this is not really that bad for the engine
but they don't seem to last as long. It may be because those guys are
really beating the hell out of them anyway.