'96 Legacy Outback

jim beam wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 08:42 AM, weelliott wrote:
>> Perhaps I have been brainwashed and am drinking the koolaid. I am with
>> you on the fact that cars can be, and should be, designed to be stable
>> enough to not roll over if they have a flat. I think that I put more
>> weight on the influence of the ratio of CG height to track width than
>> you do. I think we can both agree that it would be more challenging to
>> produce a vehicle with the ratio like the explorer had, and also a
>> nearly zero propensity to roll over. I think we disagree in how
>> challenging that would be. I am under the impression that you think it
>> is easier than I think it is. Perhaps I am accepting the ratio that
>> they went with too easily by justifying it with claims that lowering
>> the vehicle makes it less off-road-worthy. Maybe that is one of the
>> things that you'd change in the design change necessary to have made
>> that vehicle acceptable. I don't know. I think we are nitpicking
>> points now, and the others are probably sick of reading it.
>
> it's not hard to design for stability - it simply costs a little more
> money to implement. just like designing to prevent cabin crush is just
> a matter of spending a buck or so on the extra material.
>
> the selling price of the vehicle was ~$30k regardless of suspension, so
> frod did their famous cost/benefit analysis of lawsuit payouts vs.
> projected profitability and decided they'd rather kill a few people and
> pay out to the families of the bereaved who had an aggressive enough
> lawyer rather than make less money manufacturing a vehicle they knew
> would not be a problem. it's only when congress started to pussy-foot
> about with "investigation" that frod decided to change their game. they
> did two things - fire nasser, the guy whose decision it was, and bring
> out the 93 exploder with the updated rear suspension in the middle of
> 92. yeah, frod knew /exactly/ what they were doing, they just decided
> to kill people rather than make safe but less profitable vehicles.
>
>
>>
>>> they're popularly termed "magnesium", but you'll more likely find
>>> they're an aluminum alloy with some magnesium content - just for
>>> corrosion resistance if nothing else - magnesium oxidizes very rapidly.
>>> � and if it had reached auto-ignition temperature, you wouldn't have
>>> molten metal on the driveway, you'd have a smoking crater.
>>
>> It was a magnesium alloy engine. You are right that there is Al in
>> there. However, the particular alloy used by Porsche and VW was AS21,
>
> well, those characters may be cast into a block, but i'd need convincing
> that it's an alloy number and not a coincidence for the model number. if
> i saw "a48" in a cast iron block, it's a big leap to assume it's
> specific to the gray iron casting alloy, even though there is one.
>
>
>> which is about 97% Mg, and less than 2% Al. In my admittedly limited
>> experience, I've seen that most Mg alloys have less than 10% Al. One
>> of my professors used to be the president of SAE, and when I told him
>> the story about the Porsche going up he commented that it was rare for
>> the old VW engines to go up in flames like that, but posited that it
>> may have been easier if it were very clean. I didn't ask for a
>> clarification on that reasoning, but I'm sure that since the engine
>> had just been rebuilt, it was clean. Perhaps gunk insulates well
>> enough to keep temps down? I don't know.
>
> those engines "go up" all the time because of the gas leak problem, but
> it's /extremely/ rare for auto-ignition of the actual metal to occur. i
> doubt it happened.
>
>
>>
>> The fire department came and tried water, but that didn't work. They
>> then said that they couldn't put it out since they didn't have the
>> foam necessary for the situation. In the end, all they could do was
>> shoot water at the tree that it was parked near to prevent the tree
>> from going up in flames. The tree still lost all its leaves on that
>> side all the way up. (70 to 80 feet)
>
> sounds like a gas fire. you use foam for gas fires - water spreads the
> flames.
>
>
>>
>> When all was said and done there was a piece of metal embedded in the
>> driveway. I could see how you might have read what I typed earlier as
>> a molten puddle formed on the driveway. Let me clarify. The hot
>> asphalt was soft enough that a random metal part of uncertain
>> metalurgy sank into the driveway and once the car was towed away and
>> the part revealed, it didn't want to move again. It was pretty well
>> embedded into the driveway.
>>
>> Have a good one,
>> Bill
>
>


http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/a...ible-to-fight/



--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

jim beam wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 08:42 AM, weelliott wrote:
>> Perhaps I have been brainwashed and am drinking the koolaid. I am with
>> you on the fact that cars can be, and should be, designed to be stable
>> enough to not roll over if they have a flat. I think that I put more
>> weight on the influence of the ratio of CG height to track width than
>> you do. I think we can both agree that it would be more challenging to
>> produce a vehicle with the ratio like the explorer had, and also a
>> nearly zero propensity to roll over. I think we disagree in how
>> challenging that would be. I am under the impression that you think it
>> is easier than I think it is. Perhaps I am accepting the ratio that
>> they went with too easily by justifying it with claims that lowering
>> the vehicle makes it less off-road-worthy. Maybe that is one of the
>> things that you'd change in the design change necessary to have made
>> that vehicle acceptable. I don't know. I think we are nitpicking
>> points now, and the others are probably sick of reading it.
>
> it's not hard to design for stability - it simply costs a little more
> money to implement. just like designing to prevent cabin crush is just
> a matter of spending a buck or so on the extra material.
>
> the selling price of the vehicle was ~$30k regardless of suspension, so
> frod did their famous cost/benefit analysis of lawsuit payouts vs.
> projected profitability and decided they'd rather kill a few people and
> pay out to the families of the bereaved who had an aggressive enough
> lawyer rather than make less money manufacturing a vehicle they knew
> would not be a problem. it's only when congress started to pussy-foot
> about with "investigation" that frod decided to change their game. they
> did two things - fire nasser, the guy whose decision it was, and bring
> out the 93 exploder with the updated rear suspension in the middle of
> 92. yeah, frod knew /exactly/ what they were doing, they just decided
> to kill people rather than make safe but less profitable vehicles.
>
>
>>
>>> they're popularly termed "magnesium", but you'll more likely find
>>> they're an aluminum alloy with some magnesium content - just for
>>> corrosion resistance if nothing else - magnesium oxidizes very rapidly.
>>> � and if it had reached auto-ignition temperature, you wouldn't have
>>> molten metal on the driveway, you'd have a smoking crater.
>>
>> It was a magnesium alloy engine. You are right that there is Al in
>> there. However, the particular alloy used by Porsche and VW was AS21,
>
> well, those characters may be cast into a block, but i'd need convincing
> that it's an alloy number and not a coincidence for the model number. if
> i saw "a48" in a cast iron block, it's a big leap to assume it's
> specific to the gray iron casting alloy, even though there is one.
>
>
>> which is about 97% Mg, and less than 2% Al. In my admittedly limited
>> experience, I've seen that most Mg alloys have less than 10% Al. One
>> of my professors used to be the president of SAE, and when I told him
>> the story about the Porsche going up he commented that it was rare for
>> the old VW engines to go up in flames like that, but posited that it
>> may have been easier if it were very clean. I didn't ask for a
>> clarification on that reasoning, but I'm sure that since the engine
>> had just been rebuilt, it was clean. Perhaps gunk insulates well
>> enough to keep temps down? I don't know.
>
> those engines "go up" all the time because of the gas leak problem, but
> it's /extremely/ rare for auto-ignition of the actual metal to occur. i
> doubt it happened.
>
>
>>
>> The fire department came and tried water, but that didn't work. They
>> then said that they couldn't put it out since they didn't have the
>> foam necessary for the situation. In the end, all they could do was
>> shoot water at the tree that it was parked near to prevent the tree
>> from going up in flames. The tree still lost all its leaves on that
>> side all the way up. (70 to 80 feet)
>
> sounds like a gas fire. you use foam for gas fires - water spreads the
> flames.
>
>
>>
>> When all was said and done there was a piece of metal embedded in the
>> driveway. I could see how you might have read what I typed earlier as
>> a molten puddle formed on the driveway. Let me clarify. The hot
>> asphalt was soft enough that a random metal part of uncertain
>> metalurgy sank into the driveway and once the car was towed away and
>> the part revealed, it didn't want to move again. It was pretty well
>> embedded into the driveway.
>>
>> Have a good one,
>> Bill
>
>

Here's a better link
http://wn.com/Magnesium%27s_reaction...n_vehicle_fire

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

jim beam wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 08:42 AM, weelliott wrote:
>> Perhaps I have been brainwashed and am drinking the koolaid. I am
>> with you on the fact that cars can be, and should be, designed to
>> be stable enough to not roll over if they have a flat. I think that
>> I put more weight on the influence of the ratio of CG height to
>> track width than you do. I think we can both agree that it would be
>> more challenging to produce a vehicle with the ratio like the
>> explorer had, and also a nearly zero propensity to roll over. I
>> think we disagree in how challenging that would be. I am under the
>> impression that you think it is easier than I think it is. Perhaps
>> I am accepting the ratio that they went with too easily by
>> justifying it with claims that lowering the vehicle makes it less
>> off-road-worthy. Maybe that is one of the things that you'd change
>> in the design change necessary to have made that vehicle
>> acceptable. I don't know. I think we are nitpicking points now, and
>> the others are probably sick of reading it.
>
> it's not hard to design for stability - it simply costs a little more
> money to implement. just like designing to prevent cabin crush is
> just a matter of spending a buck or so on the extra material.
>
> the selling price of the vehicle was ~$30k regardless of suspension,
> so frod did their famous cost/benefit analysis of lawsuit payouts vs.
> projected profitability and decided they'd rather kill a few people
> and pay out to the families of the bereaved who had an aggressive
> enough lawyer rather than make less money manufacturing a vehicle
> they knew would not be a problem. it's only when congress started to
> pussy-foot about with "investigation" that frod decided to change
> their game. they did two things - fire nasser, the guy whose
> decision it was, and bring out the 93 exploder with the updated rear
> suspension in the middle of 92. yeah, frod knew /exactly/ what they
> were doing, they just decided to kill people rather than make safe
> but less profitable vehicles.
>
>
>>
>>> they're popularly termed "magnesium", but you'll more likely find
>>> they're an aluminum alloy with some magnesium content - just for
>>> corrosion resistance if nothing else - magnesium oxidizes very
>>> rapidly. ? and if it had reached auto-ignition temperature, you
>>> wouldn't have molten metal on the driveway, you'd have a smoking
>>> crater.
>>
>> It was a magnesium alloy engine. You are right that there is Al in
>> there. However, the particular alloy used by Porsche and VW was
>> AS21,
>
> well, those characters may be cast into a block, but i'd need
> convincing that it's an alloy number and not a coincidence for the
> model number. if i saw "a48" in a cast iron block, it's a big leap to
> assume it's specific to the gray iron casting alloy, even though
> there is one.
>
>
>> which is about 97% Mg, and less than 2% Al. In my admittedly
>> limited experience, I've seen that most Mg alloys have less than
>> 10% Al. One of my professors used to be the president of SAE, and
>> when I told him the story about the Porsche going up he commented
>> that it was rare for the old VW engines to go up in flames like
>> that, but posited that it may have been easier if it were very
>> clean. I didn't ask for a clarification on that reasoning, but I'm
>> sure that since the engine had just been rebuilt, it was clean.
>> Perhaps gunk insulates well enough to keep temps down? I don't
>> know.
>
> those engines "go up" all the time because of the gas leak problem,
> but it's /extremely/ rare for auto-ignition of the actual metal to
> occur. i doubt it happened.

Happens all the time. Most of the newer vehicles have magnesium alloy
parts that will ignite.
VERY easy to tell what is burning because it burns bright white and if
you dump water on it the fire will actually get worse.

>
>
>>
>> The fire department came and tried water, but that didn't work.
>> They then said that they couldn't put it out since they didn't have
>> the foam necessary for the situation. In the end, all they could
>> do was shoot water at the tree that it was parked near to prevent
>> the tree from going up in flames. The tree still lost all its
>> leaves on that side all the way up. (70 to 80 feet)
>
> sounds like a gas fire. you use foam for gas fires - water spreads
> the flames.

Depends on how much gas and how you apply the water. If you use a solid
stream nozzle the fuel and fire will get pushed around. If you use a
good nozzle with fog you can put out most fuel fires real quick.

>
>
>>
>> When all was said and done there was a piece of metal embedded in
>> the driveway. I could see how you might have read what I typed
>> earlier as a molten puddle formed on the driveway. Let me clarify.
>> The hot asphalt was soft enough that a random metal part of
>> uncertain metalurgy sank into the driveway and once the car was
>> towed away and the part revealed, it didn't want to move again. It
>> was pretty well embedded into the driveway.
>>
>> Have a good one, Bill
>

The pavement damage happens quite a bit at vehicle fires. Vehicle fires
on newer vehicle get a LOT hotter than on older vehicles, all the
plastics really crank up the heat. However many newer ones do have
magnesium alloys that burn.

We had a Ford P/U about 6 months ago and the mount casting on the front
of the block caught. This was on a dirt road and when we got the fire
out there was a nice puddle of aluminum in the road. Only parts of the
truck left was the box and back half of the cab.

--
Steve W.

> > ... of my professors used to be the president of SAE, and when I told him
> > the story about the Porsche going up he commented that it was rare for
> > the old VW engines to go up in flames like that, but posited that it
> > may have been easier if it were very clean. I didn't ask for a
> > clarification on that reasoning, but I'm sure that since the engine
> > had just been rebuilt, it was clean. Perhaps gunk insulates well
> > enough to keep temps down? I don't know.
>
> those engines "go up" all the time because of the gas leak problem, but
> it's /extremely/ rare for auto-ignition of the actual metal to occur. *i
> doubt it happened.

When I said, "go up in flames like that.", I meant a real magnesium
fire. He was saying that it was rare the magnesium caught fire, but it
was easier for it to happen if the block was clean. Don't know the
reasoning on this one though.