Hemi Challenger

Tony D wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s?
>>>>> The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was
>>>>> the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis
>>>>> alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod
>>>>> motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the
>>>>> Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year
>>>>> until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and
>>>>> SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines
>>>>> in production cars much sooner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>
>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines
>>> or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then
>>> the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually demand
>>> them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest
>>> never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things would probably
>>> have turned out differently.
>>
>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>
>
> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.

....and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in
the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development
might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would
be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The
fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the
piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't
necessarily make it the best design.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:36:02 -0500, WindsorFox
> wrote:

>Tony D wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
>> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those
>cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove
>it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is
>an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine
>http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm
>
>Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft
And HORRENDOUS fuel consumption. Even a turbine chopper uses more
fuel than a piston engined one - just cheaper fuel. Not sure it
ballances out.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>>>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s?
>>>>>> The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It
>>>>>> was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the
>>>>>> Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push
>>>>>> rod motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run
>>>>>> in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that
>>>>>> year until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder
>>>>>> what we would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the
>>>>>> turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines
>>>> or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then
>>>> the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually
>>>> demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but
>>>> interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things
>>>> would probably have turned out differently.
>>>
>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>> passenger cars.
>
> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in
> the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development
> might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would
> be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The
> fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the
> piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't
> necessarily make it the best design.

Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:36:02 -0500, WindsorFox
> > wrote:
>
>> Tony D wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>
>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
>>> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.
>>>
>> I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those
>> cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove
>> it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is
>> an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine
>> http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm
>>
>> Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft
> And HORRENDOUS fuel consumption. Even a turbine chopper uses more
> fuel than a piston engined one - just cheaper fuel. Not sure it
> ballances out.
>

I didn't look at any of that info and didn't even think about it.
I'll have to see if there are any consumption listings for the GM thing.

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Tony D wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that
>>>>>>> OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had
>>>>>>> in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best engines of
>>>>>>> that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it
>>>>>>> was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable
>>>>>>> to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me of the only
>>>>>>> turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the
>>>>>>> entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with two
>>>>>>> laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if
>>>>>>> they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I
>>>>>>> think we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine
>>>>> back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and
>>>>> actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road
>>>>> briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines
>>>>> run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>
>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>>> passenger cars.
>>
>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
>> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back
>> in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of
>> development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine
>> engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in
>> airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline.
>> Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles today
>> doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>
> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.

A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford
>>>>>>>> had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best
>>>>>>>> engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned
>>>>>>>> because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it
>>>>>>>> too durable to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me
>>>>>>>> of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched
>>>>>>>> slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox
>>>>>>>> failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in
>>>>>>>> today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC
>>>>>>>> engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines in
>>>>>>>> production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised
>>>>>>> us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on
>>>>>>> the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and
>>>>>>> losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine
>>>>>> back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and
>>>>>> actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road
>>>>>> briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines
>>>>>> run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>>>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>>>> passenger cars.
>>>
>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
>>> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back
>>> in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of
>>> development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine
>>> engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in
>>> airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline.
>>> Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles
>>> today doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>>
>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>
> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.

That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
oil you change out? P

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best
>>>>>>>>> engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned
>>>>>>>>> because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it
>>>>>>>>> too durable to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me
>>>>>>>>> of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched
>>>>>>>>> slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox
>>>>>>>>> failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in
>>>>>>>>> today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC
>>>>>>>>> engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines
>>>>>>>>> in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised
>>>>>>>> us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on
>>>>>>>> the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and
>>>>>>>> losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine
>>>>>>> back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and
>>>>>>> actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road
>>>>>>> briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines
>>>>>>> run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>>>>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>>>>> passenger cars.
>>>>
>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
>>>> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle
>>>> back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of
>>>> development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a
>>>> turbine engine would be in a production car considering how long
>>>> they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive
>>>> that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the most common in
>>>> automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>>>
>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>
>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>
> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
> oil you change out? P

I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the oil/filter
in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>>>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s?
>>>>>> The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It
>>>>>> was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the
>>>>>> Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push
>>>>>> rod motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run
>>>>>> in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that
>>>>>> year until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder
>>>>>> what we would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the
>>>>>> turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines
>>>> or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then
>>>> the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually
>>>> demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but
>>>> interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things
>>>> would probably have turned out differently.
>>>
>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>> passenger cars.
>
> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in
> the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development
> might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would
> be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The
> fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the
> piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't
> necessarily make it the best design.

You're right Chrysler had one in the 60s. Must be a huge conspiracy
holding it back.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best
>>>>>>>>>> engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR
>>>>>>>>>> banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design
>>>>>>>>>> made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>>>>>>>>>> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It
>>>>>>>>>> bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until its
>>>>>>>>>> gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>>>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine
>>>>>>>>>> and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC
>>>>>>>>>> engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised
>>>>>>>>> us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts
>>>>>>>>> on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable
>>>>>>>>> and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone
>>>>>>>> turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production
>>>>>>>> cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down
>>>>>>>> that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let
>>>>>>>> the turbines run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would
>>>>>> say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable
>>>>>> for passenger cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger
>>>>> vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50
>>>>> years of development might have brought. Do you realize how
>>>>> durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering
>>>>> how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less
>>>>> expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the
>>>>> most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the
>>>>> best design.
>>>>
>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>
>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>
>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
>> oil you change out? P
>
> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the oil/filter
> in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.

About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT
that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do
you toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that
I'm overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in
the Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change
the full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter.

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> best engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR
>>>>>>>>>>> banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design
>>>>>>>>>>> made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>>>>>>>>>>> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500.
>>>>>>>>>>> It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until
>>>>>>>>>>> its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>>>>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine
>>>>>>>>>>> and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy
>>>>>>>>>> promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the
>>>>>>>>>> inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also
>>>>>>>>> run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone
>>>>>>>>> turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production
>>>>>>>>> cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down
>>>>>>>>> that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let
>>>>>>>>> the turbines run things would probably have turned out
>>>>>>>>> differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would
>>>>>>> say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable
>>>>>>> for passenger cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger
>>>>>> vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50
>>>>>> years of development might have brought. Do you realize how
>>>>>> durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering
>>>>>> how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less
>>>>>> expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the
>>>>>> most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the
>>>>>> best design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>>
>>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>>
>>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
>>> oil you change out? P
>>
>> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the
>> oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.
>
> About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT
> that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do you
> toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that I'm
> overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in the
> Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change the
> full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter.

I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than $40
per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil, leaks no oil
and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and that is as green
as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the
initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor?