NYC Taxi

PolicySpy wrote:

> Just continuing:
>
> Chrysler 300
> 3.6 V6
> 19/31 MPG
> 3961 pounds weight

The LX-body Chrysler 300 was/is a rolling abortion. A whale.

The previous LH-body 300m weighed 3600 lbs - and it didn't look like a
Bentley or drive like a submarine. The LH body was designed for either
FWD or RWD, but Daimler killed the LH body and forced Chrysler to design
the LX body to use old and expensive E-class mercedes parts.

The convertible LH-body "300n" model shown at the 2000 Auto Show in
Detroit was a gorgeous car, ready for production with hemi V8 and RWD.
But that production-ready concept car was quickly swept under the carpet
when Daimler forced Chrysler to build the hideous tonka-toy,
fischer-price piece-of-**** known as the LX-body 300C - a car that
weighed as much as the late-60's C-body Chrysler land yachts.

300m's were equipped with 2.7L engines in Europe and used as taxis. I
know - I had several taxi rides in them in Germany and Netherlands back
in 2003 - 2005.

As for having taxis with diesel engines - I don't care how clean-burning
they are, diesel engines emit horrible smell and those cars should be
made with a feedback pipe so that the driver can get a good, strong, and
continuous whiff of the **** that he's forcing other people around him
to breath.

If NYC doesn't already smell bad enough, it will smell like a true
****-hole with diesel-engine taxis.

On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:03:53 AM UTC+8, MoPar Man wrote:
> PolicySpy wrote:
> The LX-body Chrysler 300 was/is a rolling abortion. A whale.
>
>
>
> The previous LH-body 300m weighed 3600 lbs - and it didn't look like a
>
> Bentley or drive like a submarine. The LH body was designed for either
>
> FWD or RWD, but Daimler killed the LH body and forced Chrysler to design
>
> the LX body to use old and expensive E-class mercedes parts.
>

And another thing about 3OOC is the woeful turning circle. The steering
lock is set for AWD and it seems Chrysler are too lazy to tweek it for
RWD.

On 10/19/2013 2:03 PM, MoPar Man wrote:
> As for having taxis with diesel engines - I don't care how clean-burning
> they are, diesel engines emit horrible smell and those cars should be
> made with a feedback pipe so that the driver can get a good, strong, and
> continuous whiff of the **** that he's forcing other people around him
> to breath.
>
> If NYC doesn't already smell bad enough, it will smell like a true
> ****-hole with diesel-engine taxis.

And this is a bad thing in what way?

--
T0m $herm@n

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:00:54 AM UTC+8, Tegger wrote:
>
>
> The primary reason Checker stuck around for so long was that many
>
> municipalities (NYC being one) had regulations which specified that any
>
> vehicle used as a for-hire hack had to be specifically designed for that
>
> purpose. And Checker was the dominant manufacturer of taxi-specific
>
> vehicles.
>
>
>
> During the 1960s and 1970s, these regulations were all eventually repealed,
>
> which was the death-knell for Checker. To make up for the steep decline in
>
> taxi sales, Checker tried to concentrate on sales to the general public,
>
> but Checkers were outmoded and expensive, so the demand was never there.
>

Interestingly the British company that makes London taxis went bust last
year. They had a monopoly making cars that met the strict rules. The regulations were not repealed, it is just that Nissan and Mercedes now make vehicles that met those rules.