Common misconceptions - Page 6

burnz · 13-11-2010, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dylancox

The engine went bang, not the supercharger.

tomato/tamato, it failed full stop.
so that means oz cant build a performance car...

dylancox · 13-11-2010, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

tomato/tamato, it failed full stop.
so that means oz cant build a performance car...

Um.. Isn't the Ford F6 Typhoon an Australian built performance car or am I missing something? With T*RD it was more of Australians trying too hard to extract performance out of second-rate, economy-tuned technology (2GR-FE V6, FE stands for Fuel Economy in Toyota tech speak) the Japanese lovingly bestowed on our small market.

baboon · 13-11-2010, 04:39 AM

For I-6 B-series cars, accelerator flat to the floor whilst cranking over is supposed to reset cam phasers?

Is this true or not? I'd like to know because I can only find reference in the manual to disabling injectors on start up?

prydey · 13-11-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dylancox

Um.. Isn't the Ford F6 Typhoon an Australian built performance car or am I missing something?

yes, you are missing something. you maybe haven't been following the thread from the start. it is all about 'misconceptions' after all. someone suggested daewoo proved korea couldn't build decent cars so using that analogy (tar everything with same brush) the failed trd means australia can't make performance cars. something like that.

pay attention

fmc351 · 13-11-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

yes, you are missing something. you maybe haven't been following the thread from the start. it is all about 'misconceptions' after all. someone suggested daewoo proved korea couldn't build decent cars so using that analogy (tar everything with same brush) the failed trd means australia can't make performance cars. something like that.

pay attention

So youre saying you prefer Korean cars to ....

4Vman · 13-11-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV8U

Lets hope the Prodrive/Harrop Union works better on a Ford Hmm...

LOL Zing!

388cube_edxr8 · 13-11-2010, 11:02 AM

Common misconception - we can all share the road.

Unless your vehicle has an engine, bugger off. Before you get all uppity and have a tantrum, try this. Take your pick of any road you like. Any one at all. Now track down the traffic engineer responsible for it and ask him if it was designed with lycra in mind.

Obviously, cycle lanes are a different story. Or they would be, if they actually got used.

geckoGT · 13-11-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dylancox

Um.. Isn't the Ford F6 Typhoon an Australian built performance car or am I missing something? With T*RD it was more of Australians trying too hard to extract performance out of second-rate, economy-tuned technology (2GR-FE V6, FE stands for Fuel Economy in Toyota tech speak) the Japanese lovingly bestowed on our small market.

Trying to extract performance out of a second rate economy tuned technology, is that the same second rate economy tuned tech that easily out accelerated both the commodore and the falcon at the time?

That toyota was no slouch, even the cops here that use it say they have some punch for a family car.

And no I have no desire to go into the "but it's a FWD" thing. The statement was it has no performance, which seems is a misconception.

xy500 · 13-11-2010, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Common misconception - we can all share the road.

Unless your vehicle has an engine, bugger off. Before you get all uppity and have a tantrum, try this. Take your pick of any road you like. Any one at all. Now track down the traffic engineer responsible for it and ask him if it was designed with lycra in mind.

Obviously, cycle lanes are a different story. Or they would be, if they actually got used.

think about how many cyclist use the road compared to motorists and you'll see why roads aren't designed for cyclists. No point spending millions on a minority.

why do cyclists always have to wear lycra? there are plenty of other more comfortable outfits you could wear while cycling, i guess its the same with all the sheep wearing skins while playing football.

geckoGT · 13-11-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Common misconception - we can all share the road.

Unless your vehicle has an engine, bugger off. Before you get all uppity and have a tantrum, try this. Take your pick of any road you like. Any one at all. Now track down the traffic engineer responsible for it and ask him if it was designed with lycra in mind.

Obviously, cycle lanes are a different story. Or they would be, if they actually got used.

You have to be kidding, just because you have no interest in cycling does not mean they have no rights on the road. The simple fact is they do, society allows that as do the road laws.

So I would suggest you get used to it, or you could choose not to use the road.

I ride and I drive professionally, it is rare that a cyclist annoys me but it is frequent that motorists annoy me, review the gripes here and 99% apply to motorists and not cyclists. So if I was forced to choose one or the other, get rid of motorists as they cause more problems.

Cooper69S · 13-11-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You have to be kidding, just because you have no interest in cycling does not mean they have no rights on the road. The simple fact is they do, society allows that as do the road laws.

So I would suggest you get used to it, or you could choose not to use the road.

I ride and I drive professionally, it is rare that a cyclist annoys me but it is frequent that motorists annoy me, review the gripes here and 99% apply to motorists and not cyclists. So if I was forced to choose one or the other, get rid of motorists as they cause more problems.

tragically, a cyclist (apparently well known and respected in the local cycling community) was killed riding home from work last week - as I drove past the scene I saw a pair of legs on the side of the road with someone sitting over him pumping his chest trying to revive him. This highway has had 6 fatalities in the past 6 months.

The thing is this highway is considered to have lanes that are too narrow, so there's a big upgrade planned over the next couple of years. there's no sealed shoulder for most of it (at least not enough to ride on) so cyclists, and there's a few of these crazy

guys that often ride to work at Worsley refinery - would have to be 40-50km each way including a very long steep hill - ride on the road rather than the shoulder - its not like they're going to ride in the gravel on their fancy road bike with 120psi tyres...

On a couple of occasions, I've been in a line of cars travelling home when the front car has seen the cyclist ahead, but swerves around at the last moment, leaving the following cars with little time to react. I thought at the time that a cyclist is going to get hit one of these days and apparently that is the exact circumstance of the bloke being killed last week.

So while I agree that there isn't (and shouldn't be) any legal reason to stop cyclists using the road, I question the wisdom of putting your life at risk just to "prove a point". You can argue that the fault lies with the bloke who swerved around at the last minute for not allowing time for the others to react, or you can blame the one who hit the cyclist for not leaving enough room to respond to unforseen hazards (2 second rule???), but being able to blame someone else is small consolation after you've been killed

Ben73 · 13-11-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I ride and I drive professionally, it is rare that a cyclist annoys me but it is frequent that motorists annoy me,.

Yeah but how many cars on on the road compared to cyclists. Of course you see more idiots in cars.
I believe that cyclists have a much higher % of idiots amongst them, but still obviously more stupid people in cars.

I ride bike...... off the road though. The reason I don't ride on the road is because I don't like delaying car drivers and making everyone slow down when attempting to overtake me.

So much more enjoyable on a dirt track in the bush then having cars trucks and buses passing 3 inch next to you.

motorcycles4eva · 13-11-2010, 04:46 PM

if you have a fly in your car whilst you're travelling at 100km/h, it does not mean the fly is flying at 100km/h..
and barista's that don't drink coffee don't allways make a good coffee...
thats my 2cents worth..

fmc351 · 13-11-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Common misconception - we can all share the road.

And cars too, the road should only be for trucks.

Cooper69S · 13-11-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motorcycles4eva

and barista's that don't drink coffee don't allways make a good coffee...
thats my 2cents worth..

haha for sure. I'd go further and say relatively few baristas that DO drink coffee make a good coffee. I personally find it shameful that an amateur with cheap equipment can make better coffee at home than probably 50% of cafes even with their expensive equipment and so called "baristas". Spend a bit more on a midrange home machine and grinder and you'll be getting better coffee than probably 90% of cafes. the difference is that other 10% are the passionate ones who actually care about the quality of their product rather than just cranking out stale burnt underextracted grannycinos. I suppose the same could be said of any industry - many don't have a passion for excellence they just want the cash...

flappist · 13-11-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I ride and I drive professionally,

Pig's freckle..... I have seen you drive......

**Revolver** · 13-11-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Pig's freckle..... I have seen you drive......

A genuine LOL flappist.

Airmon · 13-11-2010, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motorcycles4eva

if you have a fly in your car whilst you're travelling at 100km/h, it does not mean the fly is flying at 100km/h..

All depends on your point of view.

**Falcon Coupe** · 13-11-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

Oh dear, I didn't mean to but it looks like i've

I was aiming for a bit of interesting insight on various cars/models/engines that most of us might have the wrong information on (or not have any at all). I did not intend for it to become another speeding/road rules thread.

Anyway, carry on gentlemen/ladies!

Can't expect much different really, with so many members having personal agendas up their sleeve it's almost impossible for anything to stay on topic and useful on the forum of late.
The idea for the thread is great, it's a shame one has to wade through so much dribble to find facts.

I had bit of a cleanup and suggest this thread stay on topic. Any budding comedians or trolls can expect warning points/ negative rep from me.

For the benefit of those who struggle with reading and comprehension I shall re post the OP:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

The purpose of this thread is to clear up numerous widely believed misconceptions in the realm of automotive transport (more specifically cars).

flappist · 13-11-2010, 08:53 PM

A couple of appropriate ones...

Muscle cars must be V8s

If you own a fast modded car and are a car enthusiast you are an above average driver.......

ST · 13-11-2010, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Muscle cars must be V8s

That is the best of the thread, most members on here will still defend that misconception. What is the absolute definition of a muscle car? Is there one?

EDIT: Also thanks Falcon Coupe for getting it back on track.

Mr Hardware · 13-11-2010, 11:46 PM

That the character on the left is frankenstein, when in fact the character on the right is frankenstein and the one on the left is frankenstein's creation

Bad Bird · 13-11-2010, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

That is the best of the thread, most members on here will still defend that misconception .

A muscle car is a 1960s or 70s midsize car with a large V8. That is a pretty good standard definition.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...finition.shtml

I know a lot of people abide by that definition.

burnz · 14-11-2010, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

A couple of appropriate ones...

Muscle cars must be V8s

If you own a fast modded car and are a car enthusiast you are an above average driver.......

i consider the LC~LJ torrie a m'car.

and as for enthusiast, look no further than the pub...a myriad of threads on how to drive..so yes i agree.

ST · 14-11-2010, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

A muscle car is a 1960s or 70s midsize car with a large V8. That is a pretty good standard definition.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...finition.shtml

I know a lot of people abide by that definition.

So the E49 Charger does not count then?

Bad Bird · 14-11-2010, 12:26 AM

Strictly, I'd call it a Pony Car. Like a 65 Mustang. I'd also be fine with it being called a muscle car, because I'm not that ****.

I'm more a stickler for the vintage. To me, muscle cars are from a bygone era. Why can't excellent cars like the F6 just stand in their own right?

mrbaxr6t · 14-11-2010, 12:54 AM

I thought the whole idea of a muscle car was an ordinary run of the mill car that somebody has increased the power of to insane tyre shredding levels, knowing the car is overpowered for the chassis it goes onsale anyway....

gtfpv · 14-11-2010, 12:57 AM

the condom was invented for misconception !!!!!

Rev28K · 14-11-2010, 01:13 AM

Mark Webber will be lucky to win a race or two, but he will never be a contender for the F1 drivers championship. Our media only supports him because he's an Aussie.

(Hope you do well on Sunday Mark!!!)

Rev28K · 14-11-2010, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

That the character on the left is frankenstein, when in fact the character on the right is frankenstein and the one on the left is frankenstein's creation

I'm reading that at the moment. No sign of Igor the assistant, a brain from a murderer or a lightning strikespark of life yet.