Speaking of cars...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
My lovely wife informed me the other day that she "really likes" the new
little Mustangs and might want to buy one.

She's looking at a 2007 "V6 Premium," with the 4 liter V6, 5-speed auto,
and anti-lock brakes with traction control, and a bunch of other
accessories. Our local dealer is more than willing to "make a deal."

Any thoughts about this vehicle as an "everyday car?" Most of my wife's
driving is suburban, with very few trips of more than, say, 50 miles.

I drove such a vehicle recently and thought the power-brakes-handling
were more than adequate. Any ideas about gas mileage, reliability, that
sort of thing?

I'd prefer she buy a new top of the line Toyota, but she wants something
sportier.

Wimmins!


Nephew bought a 2005 rag top GT version of that car. Now he's trying to
find the money to buy a 'beater' to use during our long winter while the
Mustang sleeps in his dad's garage.
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...nvertible.html

Speaking of cars...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
My lovely wife informed me the other day that she "really likes" the new
little Mustangs and might want to buy one.

She's looking at a 2007 "V6 Premium," with the 4 liter V6, 5-speed auto,
and anti-lock brakes with traction control, and a bunch of other
accessories. Our local dealer is more than willing to "make a deal."

Any thoughts about this vehicle as an "everyday car?" Most of my wife's
driving is suburban, with very few trips of more than, say, 50 miles.

I drove such a vehicle recently and thought the power-brakes-handling
were more than adequate. Any ideas about gas mileage, reliability, that
sort of thing?

I'd prefer she buy a new top of the line Toyota, but she wants something
sportier.

Wimmins!


Nephew bought a 2005 rag top GT version of that car. Now he's trying to
find the money to buy a 'beater' to use during our long winter while the
Mustang sleeps in his dad's garage.
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...nvertible.html

The NY State Police put their away for the winter, too, unless there's
absolutely no snow on the roads or median turnarounds. Even fancy tires
won't help that car deal with snow.

Speaking of cars...
 

Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

I'm partial to turbocharged inline-4s myself but they're a lot less common.

Of course domestic cars tend to kinda self destruct around 10 years or
100K miles anyway so as long as you plan on replacing it before then you
probably won't run into big problems with the major systems.

Speaking of cars...
 

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...



Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the compact
shape?


There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...



Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the compact
shape?

I'm partial to turbocharged inline-4s myself but they're a lot less
common.

Of course domestic cars tend to kinda self destruct around 10 years or
100K miles anyway so as long as you plan on replacing it before then you
probably won't run into big problems with the major systems.

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever. Nothing
like the cars of the past...........

Speaking of cars...
 

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever. Nothing
like the cars of the past...........



Improving dramatically, but it'll take a while to lose the old
reputation. One of my cars just hit 280K and runs like a top, I spend a
lot less time fiddling with it than friends with much lower mileage
domestic cars, though granted they were much cheaper cars when new as well.

Speaking of cars...
 

I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.



Doesn't do much good to try and talk a woman into anything when it comes
to cars. Based on my own experience, I'd offer her my advice, then let
her make her own decision, it's her car afterall and if you talk her
into something else you're sure to hear every little nag she has about
it for as long as she owns it and maybe longer. It isn't easy but I've
gotten a lot closer to accepting that the average person is not a
gearhead like me, they don't know or care what goes on under the hood,
and pick a car almost exclusively based on how it looks. Completely
opposite from myself but whatever.

Speaking of cars...
 

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:oYTXg.33$kG5.13@trndny07...



I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.



Doesn't do much good to try and talk a woman into anything when it comes
to cars. Based on my own experience, I'd offer her my advice, then let her
make her own decision, it's her car afterall and if you talk her into
something else you're sure to hear every little nag she has about it for
as long as she owns it and maybe longer. It isn't easy but I've gotten a
lot closer to accepting that the average person is not a gearhead like me,
they don't know or care what goes on under the hood, and pick a car almost
exclusively based on how it looks. Completely opposite from myself but
whatever.

Mrs.E. sent me out to get her a car a couple of years ago while we were in
Florida. She had a small car and was getting intimidated by large trucks. I
asked her what she wanted and she told me to "surprise" her ... she just
wanted something a little bit bigger and with room to carry stuff.

So, I bought her a BMW X5. She hated it. She backed it into my truck,
backed it into my boat trailer and backed it into a tree. Then she got
backed into by a Federal Express semi and that was the end of it.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

James Sweet wrote:


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

I'm partial to turbocharged inline-4s myself but they're a lot less common.

Of course domestic cars tend to kinda self destruct around 10 years or
100K miles anyway so as long as you plan on replacing it before then you
probably won't run into big problems with the major systems.

You mean like my Jeep Cherokee, with well over a quarter million miles?

Speaking of cars...
 

Of course domestic cars tend to kinda self destruct around 10 years or
100K miles anyway so as long as you plan on replacing it before then you
probably won't run into big problems with the major systems.


You mean like my Jeep Cherokee, with well over a quarter million miles?



Tend to, not 100% do. A friend of mine has one of those and it seems to
be holding up alright, it's a real bitch to work on under the hood and I
don't like the way it drives (but hey it's a truck afterall) but the
inline 6 seems to be a robust motor and the body and trim has held
together so far.

Speaking of cars...
 

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:34:32 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:




Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

I'm partial to turbocharged inline-4s myself but they're a lot less common.

Of course domestic cars tend to kinda self destruct around 10 years or
100K miles anyway so as long as you plan on replacing it before then you
probably won't run into big problems with the major systems.

Not sure about the V6 engines but most of the inline 6's were
long-stroke torque engines.
It's been awhile since I wrenched for a living so it's probably
different now.
Mark E. Williams

Speaking of cars...
 

"James Sweet" wrote in message news:IDTXg.24 Of
course domestic cars tend to kinda self destruct around 10 years or 100K
miles anyway.

Interesting. I'd like to see some real numbers that support that statement;
do you have them? I don't think it's difficult to get well over 100,000
miles out of any modern vehicle if regular maintenance is done. Oh yeah,
boats too.

Speaking of cars...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.

That would be very nice -- an appropriate car for a medical doctor.

Speaking of cars...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:oYTXg.33$kG5.13@trndny07...



I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.



Doesn't do much good to try and talk a woman into anything when it comes
to cars. Based on my own experience, I'd offer her my advice, then let
her make her own decision, it's her car afterall and if you talk her into
something else you're sure to hear every little nag she has about it for
as long as she owns it and maybe longer. It isn't easy but I've gotten a
lot closer to accepting that the average person is not a gearhead like
me, they don't know or care what goes on under the hood, and pick a car
almost exclusively based on how it looks. Completely opposite from myself
but whatever.

Mrs.E. sent me out to get her a car a couple of years ago while we were in
Florida. She had a small car and was getting intimidated by large trucks.
I asked her what she wanted and she told me to "surprise" her ... she just
wanted something a little bit bigger and with room to carry stuff.

So, I bought her a BMW X5. She hated it. She backed it into my truck,
backed it into my boat trailer and backed it into a tree. Then she got
backed into by a Federal Express semi and that was the end of it.

Eisboch


Never drove the M5, but looks like it is one of those cars where the
visibility to the back sux.

Speaking of cars...
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


So, I bought her a BMW X5. She hated it. She backed it into my truck,
backed it into my boat trailer and backed it into a tree. Then she got
backed into by a Federal Express semi and that was the end of it.

Eisboch


Never drove the M5, but looks like it is one of those cars where the
visibility to the back sux.


It does. Bad blind spots. Other than that, it's a great vechicle except it
shares a common BMW problem. There are so many electronic devices running
even with the engine off that the batteries go dead if you don't drive them
for a month or so.
They should supply a battery maintainer with every BMW or build them into
the car and tell you to plug it in if you are going on vacation.

Maybe this is true with all cars now-a-days ... I don't know. My F-350
Powerstroke can sit for months and it always starts, but it has two, big
honkin' batteries in it.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:30:15 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


So, I bought her a BMW X5. She hated it. She backed it into my truck,
backed it into my boat trailer and backed it into a tree. Then she got
backed into by a Federal Express semi and that was the end of it.

Eisboch


Never drove the M5, but looks like it is one of those cars where the
visibility to the back sux.


It does. Bad blind spots. Other than that, it's a great vechicle except it
shares a common BMW problem. There are so many electronic devices running
even with the engine off that the batteries go dead if you don't drive them
for a month or so.
They should supply a battery maintainer with every BMW or build them into
the car and tell you to plug it in if you are going on vacation.

Maybe this is true with all cars now-a-days ... I don't know. My F-350
Powerstroke can sit for months and it always starts, but it has two, big
honkin' batteries in it.

Eisboch



I'm not sure what you mean by continuing to rave. They write up a test
comparison of a set of vehicles, medium family sedans, for example. One car
comes out on top, or maybe there's a tie. Then, the next month, they're
rating something else. They've never, in my experience, continued to rave
about an auto after posting that year's test results.

Now for a serious topic: Which floorplan did you get on your Plateau?
Here's a site with the current floorplans. (Although you'll have to click
on models and then floorplans to see them.

http://www.pleasureway.com/

Also, if you don't mind, why did you choose the floorplan you did? Having
had yours for a while, what options would you not have bought or wish you
would have bought?

Thanks.

Speaking of cars...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Now for a serious topic: Which floorplan did you get on your Plateau?
Here's a site with the current floorplans. (Although you'll have to click
on models and then floorplans to see them.

http://www.pleasureway.com/

Also, if you don't mind, why did you choose the floorplan you did? Having
had yours for a while, what options would you not have bought or wish you
would have bought?

Thanks.

We have the TS floorplan. (middle one). We liked it because the couch/bed
can be made up as one large, almost king-sized bed or two twin-sized. When
not a bed this configuration provides two additional seats besides the
couch. The T3 looks interesting but it was not available when we got ours.
The only drawback I can see is the third seat takes away more of the limited
storage area.

If I were buying again I'd check for the availablilty of a diesel generator
rather than the propane one. We don't use it that often, but obviously the
diesel would have more fuel capacity. Everything else, I'd leave as is.
Ours has the remote camera, awning, and a few other options. Oh ... the
"entertainment center" in the rear consists of a LCD flat screen monitor/TV
and a CD/DVD player. It would be nice if it also had radio. The radio
mounted in the dash is not all that great.

These things are set up nice, but storage space is very limited compared to
bigger motorhomes. There's enough room to carry stuff for a long weekend,
but that's about it. Then again, it's not much bigger than driving a pickup
truck, so going to the food store for supplies isn't a big deal. We bought
a small Haulmark trailer that I have modified and set up to carry more
"stuff" in the event we go anywhere for any extended amount of time.

We haven't used it a lot, although we did go camping with the rest of the
family last weekend and had a good time. The nights were cold but the
furnace had no difficulty keeping the camper warm. Oh ... I also bought a
1.5" thick memory foam topper for the bed. Makes all the difference in the
world. The regular "egg crate" type topper is not the same. I also just
discovered that it has adjustable air bladders in the rear suspension. The
air fill lines are located just below the trailer hitch, one on each side.
I have to read up on them. Truth is, I haven't read "any" of the owner's
manual yet.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

William Bruce wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.

That would be very nice -- an appropriate car for a medical doctor.



Are we going to stir up the Dr. Dr. pot again?

Speaking of cars...
 

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:56:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

Now for a serious topic: Which floorplan did you get on your Plateau?
Here's a site with the current floorplans. (Although you'll have to click
on models and then floorplans to see them.

http://www.pleasureway.com/

Also, if you don't mind, why did you choose the floorplan you did? Having
had yours for a while, what options would you not have bought or wish you
would have bought?

Thanks.

We have the TS floorplan. (middle one). We liked it because the couch/bed
can be made up as one large, almost king-sized bed or two twin-sized. When
not a bed this configuration provides two additional seats besides the
couch. The T3 looks interesting but it was not available when we got ours.
The only drawback I can see is the third seat takes away more of the limited
storage area.

If I were buying again I'd check for the availablilty of a diesel generator
rather than the propane one. We don't use it that often, but obviously the
diesel would have more fuel capacity. Everything else, I'd leave as is.
Ours has the remote camera, awning, and a few other options. Oh ... the
"entertainment center" in the rear consists of a LCD flat screen monitor/TV
and a CD/DVD player. It would be nice if it also had radio. The radio
mounted in the dash is not all that great.

These things are set up nice, but storage space is very limited compared to
bigger motorhomes. There's enough room to carry stuff for a long weekend,
but that's about it. Then again, it's not much bigger than driving a pickup
truck, so going to the food store for supplies isn't a big deal. We bought
a small Haulmark trailer that I have modified and set up to carry more
"stuff" in the event we go anywhere for any extended amount of time.

We haven't used it a lot, although we did go camping with the rest of the
family last weekend and had a good time. The nights were cold but the
furnace had no difficulty keeping the camper warm. Oh ... I also bought a
1.5" thick memory foam topper for the bed. Makes all the difference in the
world. The regular "egg crate" type topper is not the same. I also just
discovered that it has adjustable air bladders in the rear suspension. The
air fill lines are located just below the trailer hitch, one on each side.
I have to read up on them. Truth is, I haven't read "any" of the owner's
manual yet.

Eisboch


Is yours the same as the one in the 360 virtual tour? It looks as though
the electric sofa bed comes with seat belts, so would provide seating for a
few more people.

Mercedes is making a Sprinter with a higher roof this year. I wonder if
PleasureWay will use it for future motor homes. I'm not wild about the 72"
interior standing room, being 75.5" inches tall.

Speaking of cars...
 

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:12:21 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:

William Bruce wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.

That would be very nice -- an appropriate car for a medical doctor.



Are we going to stir up the Dr. Dr. pot again?

No.

Speaking of cars...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Is yours the same as the one in the 360 virtual tour? It looks as though
the electric sofa bed comes with seat belts, so would provide seating for
a
few more people.

Mercedes is making a Sprinter with a higher roof this year. I wonder if
PleasureWay will use it for future motor homes. I'm not wild about the 72"
interior standing room, being 75.5" inches tall.

Ours looks identical to the 360 tour except it does not have the third chair
up front.
The counter top extends further (where the chair is) and there are
additional storage compartments below it. The house battery is located in
the bottom section. Other than that ... it's the same, including the
colors.

The couch *does* have seat belts .... either for two or three people, I
can't remember.
That's why I wouldn't bother with the third chair up forward. The passenger
seat swivels completely around to face the rear of the rig. The driver's
seat does not.

You would have a height problem. I am just under 6' and my head clears
everything except the air conditioning system that sticks down a couple of
inches below the roof. If you are the long legged type, you need to make
sure the driver's seat goes back far enough for you. On ours I am
comfortable, leg wise, only with the seat adjusted back as far as it will
go.

I noticed they now mount the TV on a swivel so you can see it from the
front. Ours is permanently mounted in an angled enclosure, viewable from
the rear couch only.
I also understand they are introducing a couple of new engine options ... a
V6 gasser and a larger, V6 diesel. So far, the little 2.6L, 5 cylinder
Mercedes diesel in ours has been very adequate for the job, even towing the
trailer and gets great mileage.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:43:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .


Is yours the same as the one in the 360 virtual tour? It looks as though
the electric sofa bed comes with seat belts, so would provide seating for
a
few more people.

Mercedes is making a Sprinter with a higher roof this year. I wonder if
PleasureWay will use it for future motor homes. I'm not wild about the 72"
interior standing room, being 75.5" inches tall.

Ours looks identical to the 360 tour except it does not have the third chair
up front.
The counter top extends further (where the chair is) and there are
additional storage compartments below it. The house battery is located in
the bottom section. Other than that ... it's the same, including the
colors.

The couch *does* have seat belts .... either for two or three people, I
can't remember.
That's why I wouldn't bother with the third chair up forward. The passenger
seat swivels completely around to face the rear of the rig. The driver's
seat does not.

You would have a height problem. I am just under 6' and my head clears
everything except the air conditioning system that sticks down a couple of
inches below the roof. If you are the long legged type, you need to make
sure the driver's seat goes back far enough for you. On ours I am
comfortable, leg wise, only with the seat adjusted back as far as it will
go.

I noticed they now mount the TV on a swivel so you can see it from the
front. Ours is permanently mounted in an angled enclosure, viewable from
the rear couch only.
I also understand they are introducing a couple of new engine options ... a
V6 gasser and a larger, V6 diesel. So far, the little 2.6L, 5 cylinder
Mercedes diesel in ours has been very adequate for the job, even towing the
trailer and gets great mileage.

Eisboch


We'll see if they import the high roof model.

Thanks much for the time taken to answer questions. I appreciate it.

Speaking of cars...
 

James Sweet wrote:

Of course domestic cars tend to kinda self destruct around 10 years or
100K miles anyway so as long as you plan on replacing it before then you
probably won't run into big problems with the major systems.


You mean like my Jeep Cherokee, with well over a quarter million miles?



Tend to, not 100% do. A friend of mine has one of those and it seems to
be holding up alright, it's a real bitch to work on under the hood and I
don't like the way it drives (but hey it's a truck afterall) but the
inline 6 seems to be a robust motor and the body and trim has held
together so far.

I know of about 10 Cherokees around here, all with about the same
amount of mileage, and all are still going strong. It does ride and
drive like a truck, for sure. As far as under the hood, it's one of the
simplest to work on that I've seen since cars were huge. Everything is
right there in front of you.... I had to replace the water pump once,
took about an hour.

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the compact
shape?



There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for
even firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Speaking of cars...
 

"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Eisboch wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?



There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob

Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the 225
ci slant six from Chrysler ...

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

wrote in message
...

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever.
Nothing
like the cars of the past...........


I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Tom Francis penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:53:14 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

There was nothing to compare to the old Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth in
line 220 cui slant six.

It is my belief that certain engines are timeless. Whether it's
because of design, confluence of engineering ideas or just plain old
design luck, certain engines are always good, efficient and bullet
proof.

220 cui slant six
383 cui V8
283 cui V8
220 cui International straight six

etc., etc., etc.

The slant six was a 225 cu in...


don't forget the Chevy 250/292 engines.

Here's hoping that you, in time, will add the 5 cylinder GM's to this
discussion....


5 cylinder GM? What was that? BTW - the slant six started out as a 170
something ci.
When they increased it to the 225 ci it was called the "Super Six".

You can tell you're getting old when this stuff means anything to you ......

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Tom Francis wrote:


It is my belief that certain engines are timeless. Whether it's
because of design, confluence of engineering ideas or just plain old
design luck, certain engines are always good, efficient and bullet
proof.

220 cui slant six
383 cui V8
283 cui V8
220 cui International straight six


The Chrysler 318ci had quite a run. When they finally stopped production a
few years back it had set a record as being the oldest design production
engine still in production.
IIRC the first version was introduced in 1958. There were 3 or 4 versions
of it over the years and it was finally retired in or about 2002.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Eisboch wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...

Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?


There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.
An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob

Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the 225
ci slant six from Chrysler ...

First time I looked under the hood of a Dodge Dart I thought the motor
mounts had broken.

Speaking of cars...
 

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:32:41 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Tom Francis penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:53:14 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K
miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever.
Nothing
like the cars of the past...........


I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

There was nothing to compare to the old Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth in
line 220 cui slant six.

It is my belief that certain engines are timeless. Whether it's
because of design, confluence of engineering ideas or just plain old
design luck, certain engines are always good, efficient and bullet
proof.

220 cui slant six
383 cui V8
283 cui V8
220 cui International straight six

etc., etc., etc.

The slant six was a 225 cu in...

yeah - my fingers got all bollixed up.

don't forget the Chevy 250/292 engines.

Here's hoping that you, in time, will add the 5 cylinder GM's to this
discussion....

heh - er...huh?

Now I remember them. They were the straight 6 engines that burned up
valves.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...

Eisboch wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?



There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob


Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the 225
ci slant six from Chrysler ...

Eisboch


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Speaking of cars...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...

Eisboch wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?



There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob


Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the
225 ci slant six from Chrysler ...

Eisboch
That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

That's "Aspirin", not Aspen.

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.

Speaking of cars...
 

Bert Robbins wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Eisboch wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...

Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?


There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.
An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob

Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the 225
ci slant six from Chrysler ...

First time I looked under the hood of a Dodge Dart I thought the motor
mounts had broken.

Figures.......

Speaking of cars...
 

Tom Francis wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:32:41 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Tom Francis penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:53:14 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever.
Nothing
like the cars of the past...........


I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

There was nothing to compare to the old Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth in
line 220 cui slant six.

It is my belief that certain engines are timeless. Whether it's
because of design, confluence of engineering ideas or just plain old
design luck, certain engines are always good, efficient and bullet
proof.

220 cui slant six
383 cui V8
283 cui V8
220 cui International straight six

etc., etc., etc.

The slant six was a 225 cu in...

yeah - my fingers got all bollixed up.

don't forget the Chevy 250/292 engines.

Here's hoping that you, in time, will add the 5 cylinder GM's to this
discussion....

heh - er...huh?

New Chevy Colorado has the 5 clylinder engine as an option, for one....

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


The problem is you have it backwards. A typical Nissan V6 engine
(3.3-liter SOHC 12-valve) has a bore of 3.602 inches and a stroke of
3.268 inches. This is called "over square" and is typical of high reving,
low torque engines.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not less as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up?

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


The problem is you have it backwards. A typical Nissan V6 engine
(3.3-liter SOHC 12-valve) has a bore of 3.602 inches and a stroke of
3.268 inches. This is called "over square" and is typical of high reving,
low torque engines.

Eisboch

With the Nissan, yes. but not typically. 170 slant six had a bore of
3.40 inches and a stroke of 3.125.

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not less as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is relative to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?