On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:02:40 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Jim" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
m...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:32:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It had posi-traction and you could break lose in first and second?

He must have had the "HO" option. :-)



Boy, now that's a knee-slapper, W'hine.

My Aero Willys had a lovely back seat, in which it was easy to get laid.
That, to a high school sophomore, was a tad more interesting than spinning
tires on pavement. Hell, it's more interesting to me now.

Those were the days. Well at least you have your memories.

This thread, from about 8:30 this morning, sure resembles Chuck's Island.

The God of Posts has been busy all day - must have been slow over at
Chuck's.

On Jul 14, 7:42*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:02:40 -0400, John H.



wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Jim" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:32:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It had posi-traction and you could break lose in first and second?

He must have had the "HO" option. * :-)

Boy, now that's a knee-slapper, W'hine.

My Aero Willys had a lovely back seat, in which it was easy to get laid.
That, to a high school sophomore, was a tad more interesting than spinning
tires on pavement. Hell, it's more interesting to me now.

Those were the days. Well at least you have your memories.

This thread, from about 8:30 this morning, sure resembles Chuck's Island..

The God of Posts has been busy all day - must have been slow over at
Chuck's.

And enjoying every minute proving you wrong once again.

Eh?

On Jul 14, 7:42*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:02:40 -0400, John H.



wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Jim" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:32:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It had posi-traction and you could break lose in first and second?

He must have had the "HO" option. * :-)

Boy, now that's a knee-slapper, W'hine.

My Aero Willys had a lovely back seat, in which it was easy to get laid.
That, to a high school sophomore, was a tad more interesting than spinning
tires on pavement. Hell, it's more interesting to me now.

Those were the days. Well at least you have your memories.

This thread, from about 8:30 this morning, sure resembles Chuck's Island..

The God of Posts has been busy all day - must have been slow over at
Chuck's.

http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2008-0...now_it_all.wav

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure I "get" the photo...are you referring to the tire marks?
I could do that with my 65 hp, 1953 Aero-Willys and, in fact, frequently
did, in first and second gear, but not third gear.




It had posi-traction and you could break lose in first and second?

Eisboch



WAFA narcissism - caught again.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:46:00 -0400, hk wrote:


Boy, now that's a knee-slapper, W'hine.

WAFA

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news

"DK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
In these days of high fuel prices and being "green", I love it when
people smugly comment about how my 911 TT must be "terrible"
in terms of gas mileage.

Today, for kicks, I reset the car computer that calculates MPG as I
entered
onto a limited access highway heading back from the Cape.
I drove for approximately 35 minutes, at speeds ranging from 60 -75 mph,
mostly 65-70 mph. I didn't do anything special in terms of driving
techniques ... just drove normally.

At the end of the 35 minutes, the computer calculated mileage display
read "28.9 mpg".
My "normal" average of combined around town and highway driving is
usually about
20-21 mpg unless I have done some sustained "spirited" driving.

Not bad, all things considered, and the look on people's faces when I
tell
them what it gets for mileage is usually one of disbelief.

It really is an amazing car, given 445hp, it's performance and it's fuel
economy.
I should drive it all the time.

Eisboch



I'd be very happy with 20mpg. My X5 4.8 has horrible gas mileage - 18
average. We did order the Z4 3.0si - not as a replacement - and it is
advertised as 18/27. It will be interesting to see what the real number
is.

I think the Porsche's advantage is light weight, aerodynamics and an
engine that is basically loafing along at 75 mph.
It isn't even breathing hard, the turbos aren't doing anything and it's
operating at a fraction of it's capability.

Eisboch


Looking at new car for SWMBO. Liked the Acura MDX, and find out mileage is
12-18 mpg. Looking at a Saturn Vue Hybrid, but waiting until the 09's come
out to see if they are better. Supposedly different hybrid scheme. Coming
back from Oakland last night the Diesel truck got 17.3. Some freeway, some
hill driving.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:46:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:10:45 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

My 'Vette is an entirely different story. When I took the blower off
and downsized from twin 950 Holleys to single ...

My 69 bone stock 350/350 would get about 24-25 if you could keep those
fat assed quadrajet secondaries closed.

~~ snerk ~~

Damn straight. :)

My 1964 stock 375 hp FI coupe got about 17 on the freeway when I first
bought it and before converting to a full fledged race car.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:22:15 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Her Navigator calls for "high test"
(91 octane).

We put 100 000 miles on ours, all with the cheapstuff.

Casady

I was once given the keys to a 911 Targa and allowed to drive it around
a mall parking lot for a test drive. I wouldn't have cared it it got 5
MPG, I was in love with that car and would have lived with what ever
the milaeage came to. Unfortunately, I had just bought another car and
wasn't able to take on 2 cars, so the opportunity eluded me.

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:22:15 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Her Navigator calls for "high test"
(91 octane).

We put 100 000 miles on ours, all with the cheapstuff.

Casady


I'll mention that to her.

She has a "thing" for Navigators. This one is her third one. I remember
the first one (I think a '01 model) was absolutely horrible to drive IMO.
Sloppy handling and no power. It felt like it needed a bow thruster just to
turn a sharp corner. When she decided to trade that one in, I convinced her
to at least try the Caddy version of that vehicle. I forget what it was
called, but it turned out it was just as soft and mushy as the original
Navigator .... maybe even worse.

But Ford obviously redesigned the suspension in the later models because her
second and current versions actually handle decently, ride well and have
much more ummmph to them for a large vehicle. But, they still get terrible
mileage. Problem is, she needs something of that size to carry all her
horse equipment and junk around.

Eisboch