Took a trip with some homies to the beach. Frankly surpised the s13 made it 5 hour drive. No A/C though so god damn it was hot.
Any other fans of supertourers here caught these pics at a recent revival race, gotta love the liveries and the tucked rear wheels.
Forbes - You probably dont realize, how inefficient internal combustion engines are https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesm...ernal-combustion-engines-are/?sh=3af742462242
Listen up. Now , we gotta talk about this now..... .... because it has gone on the 24H Lemans aannd..... I Wonder what's the next step
RIP Ford Fiesta, I have never seen the absence of you in any area of England (the production of it ended a few days ago I think).
It did end yesterday, but yeah, R.I.P. to a legend, cause of death is those dumb SUVs and crossovers.
Sooooooo Don't know where else to put this information, but here you go If you want a fun road to drive and you are in the Deadwood, South Dakota area try Needles Highway. And if you are already in the area of Needles, try Slyvan Lake road (not the part in the city, but a few miles out). Drove both of these roads today, was a blast. --- Post updated --- I just breezed through this article and... There is enough bullshit in that article to fertilize a 400 acre corn field. Yes, gas powered cars can do around 650 miles on one tank, and that is average, highway miles. Electric cars (with the still "young" technology) can do around 350 highway miles. This is me estimating. So already, gas cars are doing better here. Near the bottom of the article, it state that the "reason gas-powered cars are less efficient" than electric cars is because of heat loss and friction loss, which is fair. What bugs me is that electric cars have the same losses, while only being able to barely break the 400-mile range. What also bugs me is the article does not take into consideration the production emissions of electric cars. Regular gas-powered car production has streamlined greatly since the 60s and 70s, while electric cars are not really "old" enough to even begin streamlining. Electric cars use much more dangerous chemicals to make the batteries, which takes more mining, which uses diesel powered mining machines (escavators, front loaders, etc.). And when that battery is worn out, it goes to the dump, to let its dangerous chemicals leak into the earth, ruinning the ecosystem. Electric cars are doing the opposite of what they were made to do. Sorry for the rant, just trying to give truth about EVs
Hey, I just drove the Needle! It was great. I was last there when I was around 10, so it was really cool. There are also so many old trucks/cars driving around there. I saw at least 15 Squarebody trucks.
Are you sure that you intended to use miles and not kilometers? 650 miles is 1040 km which is a range that at least in europe is reserved for small high efficiency diesel cars and not the average car on the road. Most european petrol cars go between 500 - 650 km with diesels more in the range of 700 - 800 km. Fuel has one large advantage over batteries and that advantage is energy density. In layman's terms, this means that the additional weight and size of a larger fuel tank (that will increases fuel/energy consumption) is comparable unimportant compared to the sheer raw amount of additional energy stored. In english, if you fill up your trunk even with petrol canisters or even carry a petrol filled trailer, you will increase the vehicles range even though you are actually increasing the amount of energy consumed per km. Range for an Internal Combustion Engine vehicle as such is mostly limited by designed tank size and vehicles that are meant for very long range travel simple use larger and larger tanks with is easy because again, the amount of energy stored in fuel is so high that you in general dont run into problems fitting the needed tank to the vehicle. You are confounding fuel consumption in liters (volume) with energy (kWh) consumption. As mentioned above, there is a large amount of chemical energy in a liter of fuel: Petrol: arround 8.7 kWh/L Diesel: arround 10.4 kWh/L So the 50 liter fuel tank of a Vivace like car contains the following amount of chemical energy: Petrol: 50 L X 8.7 kWh/L = 435 kWh Diesel: 50L X 10.4 kWh/L = 520 kWh The 50 kWh battery meanwhile only contains - as the name indicates - 50 kWh. Or only arround 1/10 of the total energy. The chemical energy in the petrol/diesel is real. If you were to use the 50L of petrol/diesel for heating purposes, you could extract most of the stored chemical energy as useful (for home heating) heat. The little problem now is, that in a combustion engine, what we desire is not heat, but movement. Turning heat energy into movement energy like any energy conversion comes with losses. For ICEs, those losses are huge. The 435 kWh of chemical energy in your 50L petrol tank are real.. but only a fraction of that energy ever reaches the wheels of the vehicle. Most of it instead becomes waste heat. So your actual movement range is much shorter than what the tanks chemical energy content would suggest. One can estimate arround 7 L of petrol fuel consumption for the average petrol european car. 7L Petrol X 8.7 kWh/L = 60.9 kWh A average european petrol car consumes arround 61 kWh of energy per 100 km traveled. An average electric vehicle meanwhile consumes only arround 20 kWh of energy per 100 km traveled. One can reasonable say, that a petrol powered car consumes 3 times the amount of energy for the same distance as an electric powered car. But most people dont know that, because in wise foresight, big oil decided that it would be much better if you paid for liters instead of kWh. Yes, a petrol car can have longer range than an EV because it carries such an enormous amount of energy arround with it that it can afford to throw away 2/3 of it and still have competive range. This however doesnt change the fact, that your actual energy consumption is much much higher and this has important repercussions: For economic (producing energy is expensive) but also ecological and climate protection reasons, we have no choice but to reduce our energy consumption to a more sustainable level. This leaves very little place for a machine that is supposed to create movement but mostly creates heat. Not to mention the effect on air quality. The electric drive train even with all the power plant, transmission and charging/discharging losses accounted for, simple gets you much farther for the same amount of energy than any combustion engine ever could. And while the conversion of electrical energy into movement energy is not lossless (no energy conversion is) it is magnitudes lower than for an ICE. For 100 kW (136 HP) of wheel power, a petrol engines produces 200 kW of waste heat. Removing that large amount of heat from the engine costs additional energy = fuel. Failure to do so will kill the engine within minutes as the waste heat will overheat and destroy it. Meanwhile, for 100 kW /136 HP) of wheel power an electric motor as used in most EVs produces only arround 5 kW of waste heat. The cooling capacity needed for an electric motor is 40 times smaller than for a petrol engine of identical power output which means you can get away with a much smaller cooling system which saves both cost and weight. Which is really needed because batteries are still very heavy if you want anything like mainstream range. I am afraid that "trying" is pretty accurate. I mean no disrespect but this is an exceedingly complex topic. A topic that concerns several multi billion dollar industries which all have their vested interests and as such lobby (and sometimes lie) very hard for their bottom line. When the automotive market goes electric... that is devastating news for oil companies because they are loosing a huge amount of customers with that. It also is devastating news for companies that manufacture combustion engines parts. Those companies dont want their business model to die and they will do everything in their power to prevent or at least delay that. By any means. But back to to your arguments: It is correct that the production of an EV consumes more ressources and pollutes more than the production of a similar ICE vehicle. It is however not correct that this is due to lack of streamlined processes. The difference in building an ICE or an EV is relative small and the EV by all means and accounts has fewer parts with actually makes them easier to build. The reason for the higher upfront environmental cost of EVs is simple the battery. However, those higher upfront costs are compensated by much lower environmental costs in operation. The current estimate for a car in germany from credible, science based sources is between 50000 - 70000 km. --> Once an EV has reached 70000 km (43500 miles), it becomes equal with a combustion engine vehicle in terms of negative impact. The moment it continues to drive beyond that, it becomes plain better overall compared to any and all ICE powered vehicles. Almost any car, not destroyed in a crash, will reach that mileage easily. So if you want to reduce the total environmental impact of cars, going electric is the best and fastest way to achieve that. Battery technology is also heavily researched and developed with gains of arround 5 % per year in cost and capacity. Battery technology is moving away from rare and dangerous materials, advances in energy density make it possible to use far less critical materials. Batteries unlike burned fuel which is gone forever can be recycled. With more than 90 % of the material regained. Batteries outlast expectations significantly and are likely to last the lifetime of a vehicle. Batteries actually consist of hundreds of individual cells that can be replaced invididually if the need arises Should the battery really die on you after 10 years, chances are high that you will spend still less on a replacment battery than on all the wear and tear parts and maintainance of an ICE. I also want to point out the rather large hypocrisies in burning 20000 liters of refined oil without giving the slightest damm about anything but getting all concerned about the environment the moment it is about batteries. Some sources: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/conte...20/Fact_check_Batteries_for_electric_cars.pdf https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/policy-briefs/policy_brief_batteries.pdf https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/en/pr...ktroauto-versus-Verbrenner-Kostenanalyse.html https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/en/themen/elektromobilitaet.html Sorry for the wall of text... it is a very complex topic.
I just breezed through this article and... There is enough bullshit in that article to fertilize a 400 acre corn field. Yes, gas powered cars can do around 650 miles on one tank, and that is average, highway miles. Electric cars (with the still "young" technology) can do around 350 highway miles. This is me estimating. So already, gas cars are doing better here. Near the bottom of the article, where it state that the "reason gas-powered cars are less efficient" than electric cars is because of heat loss and friction loss, which is fair. What bugs me is that electric cars have the same losses, while only being able to barely break the 400-mile range. What also bugs me is the article does not take into consideration the production emissions of electric cars. Regular gas-powered car production has streamlined greatly since the 60s and 70s, while electric cars are not really "old" enough to even begin streamlining. Electric cars use much more dangerous chemicals to make the batteries, which takes more mining, which uses diesel powered mining machines (escavators, front loaders, etc.). And when that battery is worn out, it goes to the dump, to let its dangerous chemicals leak into the earth, running the ecosystem. Electric cars are doing the oppo I know some of my points were off, I just get slightly pissed when some office dwelling article writes an "electric cars are better because ___". I know some of my points were off, more of a rant than actual facts, sorry
https://twitter.com/joncoupland/status/1678703422374137856?t=wZGE7dErEBSRqA_toX6iag&s=19 Last ever Ford Fiesta with people who made it
Sometimes it wents fast, sometimes it wents slow. But it always,always went. Until one day, it didn't anymore. Not because it couldn't, not because it wouldn't. But because its job was done. (Excerpt from Ford Fiesta's farewell ad) My math teacher has a blue pre-facelift 6th gen Fiesta.The car even got a hubcap missing.And also,she doesn't care about conditions of her car because she only treat her Fiesta as a A-to-B communting tool,which is the essential properties of the car.But despite all of these,her Fiesta still runs well(Once I've been given a lift home because we live in the same neighbourhood.The engine and transmission sounds great),explaining why British people love this little car so much. But in my country the car stopped production after 6th gen.That was pity.
Second dream car: 1972 AMC Ambassador Brougham Sedan: Regular Car Reviews - YouTube I fucking love the car! Ambassador, from AMC, cubic inches are like 360, Ambassador from AMC, I'll just write all my apologies.
I got my car back from the shop after i got a bigger intercooler fitted and bigger turbo pipes. It also recently got a new suspension from KW fitted recently and it drives like a new car now and handles way better than with lowering springs i had before it. The next mod i will do to it is either a roll cage or a bigger turbo that i get it from the 300hp it has currently to 421hp wich should be plenty fast to drive.
Thanks alot! I recently thought about selling it but i cant find a replacement car since the ones that would be better are so much more expensive that i cant afford them like a m3 or audi rs4
