snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > SLC

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1041  
Old 14 November 2017, 05:19 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
My understanding of fuel economy was that you get better MPG with highway driving. For example, my car's MPG for city driving is ~22mpg; highway driving is anywhere from 25-29 MPG. [I drive an '08 Outback.]
It depends on vehicle design, and it tends to be reversed with hybrid vehicles. Hybrids capture braking and "deceleration" energy and feed it back into the system. Driving for long periods at steady speeds doesn't allow as much of that, and the vehicle consumes more fuel in those circumstances.
  #1042  
Old 14 November 2017, 05:49 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
Another potentially stupid car question. Or set of questions, I guess

When I start my truck, I put one foot on the clutch and one foot on the brake (I have to have the foot on the clutch, or it won't start). Lately, when I do that and the temperature is below around 40F, nothing happens. Nada. No click, no endless whirr, nothing. So far, when I've moved the brake foot to the gas pedal, the truck starts.

A) Have I been doing it wrong all these years? Have I always been supposed to put my feet on the clutch and gas, rather than the clutch and brake?
or
2) Is my starter dying?

Seaboe
1. Modern vehicles don't need any gas pedal to start, and more often than not giving them gas makes them not start.
B. You can't have "been doing it wrong all these years" since it has worked all these years. (Besides brake + clutch is just common sense even if your car doesn't have ignition interlocks requiring it.)
III. As other suggested, might be a bad interlock switch but that seems unlikely. It sounds like only the clutch is required to satisfy the safety interlocks so what you do with the other foot shouldn't matter unless the switch has literally moved several inches.
4. Best WAG is that you battery is going bad. When you foot is on the brake your brake lights are all on. Perhaps that is just enough drain on the battery to keep it from starting. It is also possible that it is a combination of a weak battery and a marginal starter solenoid.
e. Sometimes a bad starter solenoid can be diagnosed with a hammer or other large heavy hard object. When nothing happens (no clicks or whirling noise) open the hood and smack the starter motor a couple times. If the truck now starts the solenoid is going bad (it is sticking and wracking it with something heavy unsticks it temporarily).
vi. A bad brake interlock switch is also possible. It could be that when you move your other foot you jiggle the switch enough to get it working again.
  #1043  
Old 14 November 2017, 05:52 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
Theft then would only apply to the one burger you prepared for yourself.
In the dream I paid for my own food as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
I wonder if GenYus could claim that the restaurant in fact owes him wages for the work he did on their behalf.
I could claim it, but I'm pretty sure a contract that was never expressed and only one side knew existed is not enforceable.
  #1044  
Old 14 November 2017, 06:19 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 14,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
This may or may not be a stupid question. It's worth finding out. My vehicle is 18 years old with 265,000 miles. I am beginning to think about what to look for when I want to replace it. Here is my wish list:

1. All-wheel drive
2. Hybrid (or spectacularly good mileage for its class)
3. With the back seats (if any) folded down, a minimum of 68" between the back of the front seat and the tail gate. 72" would be even better.

Does such a vehicle even exist?

Seaboe
Getting back to this, I don't know why I didn't think of this before (probably because when you said all-wheel drive my mind immediately went to SUVs/crossovers), but if cargo space is important to you you might also want to look at a minivan. I was just having a discussion elsewhere last week about how when I worked at a grocery store in college and had to load things into peoples' vehicles, I was surprised how little usable interior space the traditional truck-based SUVs (Explorers, Blazers, etc.) had. On the other hand minivans make very efficient used of their space and have loads of space for cargo (My parents were able to haul a couch in the back of their Voyager and get the hatch closed). I know Dodge has offered the Caravan with all-wheel drive in the past, and they get pretty good mileage for their size, especially compared to a truck.
  #1045  
Old 14 November 2017, 06:31 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,460
Default

In the 2018 Subaru Forester, the cargo area long dimension with seats down is 71.9" according to Car and Driver.

Also, Subaru is supposed to be coming out with a larger SUV in 2018--the Ascent. It will be an 8 passenger vehicle, so likely pretty big cargo area with the seats down. I'm looking forward to checking that one out.

We need to have a 3 row vehicle, and we like the have an AWD vehicle. Currently, we have a Mazda5 van and a Subaru Legacy sedan. We'd like to combine the AWD and 3-row capabilities into one vehicle, and then switch out the Legacy for a higher fuel efficiency car for my commute. (I also deeply miss having a manual transmission, so I've got my eye on a Mazda3. The Legacy is no fun at all for me.)
  #1046  
Old 14 November 2017, 08:11 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,527
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
4. Best WAG is that you battery is going bad.
You know, looking back on some other events of the summer, I think this might very well be the problem. Thanks.

I'm taking notes about the cars mentioned in reference to the other problem. Keep 'em coming!

I love this board.

Seaboe
  #1047  
Old 14 November 2017, 08:44 PM
Gibbie's Avatar
Gibbie Gibbie is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 8,501
Default

Can vouch for minivans having more room than SUVs. We got a Toyota Sienna two years ago and simply love it. Lots of room, handles well and has a lot of giddyup and go. Why yes, I have caught myself doing 95 in a minivan. Plus buying a Toyota means you'll drive it for decades. You can easily get another 265k then some on it. (And they're built in Princeton IN, about 20 miles from me! By my friends!)
  #1048  
Old 14 November 2017, 09:13 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 14,742
Driver

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbie View Post
Lots of room, handles well and has a lot of giddyup and go.
I was reading an article recently about why Chrysler's minivans were so successful in the 1980s and 90s and why it took so long for any other company (including Toyota) to come up with a vehicle that was competitive with them. From the beginning, Chrysler's vans had a ton of space, yet they drove like cars. Ford and GM responded with basically downsized traditional vans that handled like trucks. The Toyota Van of the 1980s was basically a Japanese delivery van with seats in it. It wasn't until probably the late 1990s that anyone else was able to successfully copy Chrysler's formula of lots of space with car-like handling.
  #1049  
Old 14 November 2017, 09:26 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,514
Default

Was it lack of desire to do a complete redesign and retool that kept the others from duplicating it? Because, AIUI, the success of Chrysler's minivan was mainly because they made it FWD, allowing them to lower the floor and therefor make the entire thing less tall with still the same amount of room. That shouldn't have been a big hurdle technology-wise but it would have required a lot of rework. From what I know of GM in the 80's and 90's they didn't want to change anything except superficial details.
  #1050  
Old 14 November 2017, 09:44 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 14,742
Default

Or just hubris on the part of GM. "Surely Chrysler only built their small van on a slightly longer K-car platform because that was all they had. But that couldn't be what people actually want. We think they actually want a 'real' van, only smaller."
  #1051  
Old 14 November 2017, 09:58 PM
iskinner's Avatar
iskinner iskinner is offline
 
Join Date: 06 May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 291
Default

There where economic reasons as well. Until sometime in the 90's there where different federal requirements for "cars" versus "trucks" in regards to fuel efficiency, safety equipment etc. The idea being that trucks where only interesting to business that needed their capabilities, not to average American families.

These where distinguished by the body frame the vehicle was built on. I.E. an SUV or Minivan built on a car frame had to follow the car rules, while such vehicles built on the truck frame could follow the more lax truck rules. Surprise, vehicles built on truck frames tended to handle like, well, trucks.
  #1052  
Old 14 November 2017, 11:15 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 14,742
Default

I had thought the Chrysler minivans were classified as trucks in the beginning, even though they were built on a car platform. My parents had one the first model year they came out, and I remember them being slightly disappointed that it didn't come with headrests. Apparently it wasn't required to have them because it was classified as a truck. Or that's what the salesman told them. Which I guess kind of makes this a FOAF story. Or maybe the rules changed later on.
  #1053  
Old 15 November 2017, 12:21 AM
Gibbie's Avatar
Gibbie Gibbie is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 8,501
Default

Our first minivan was a Dodge Caravan. We looked at the latest model this go around and they had changed the design enough that it was no longer comfortable. The fold flat middle row came at the cost of front passenger leg room (the seat wouldn't go back as far as we liked. It sat different and the sightlines were different. We didn't even test drive it, because sitting in it we knew it wasn't going to work. So they had a great thing, and ruined it.
  #1054  
Old 15 November 2017, 12:30 AM
DrRocket's Avatar
DrRocket DrRocket is offline
 
Join Date: 03 February 2006
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 2,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
Ford and GM responded with basically downsized traditional vans that handled like trucks.
The first generation of GM minivans (Chevrolet Lumina APV, Oldsmobile Silhouette and Pontiac Trans Sport) were front wheel drive composite plastic bodied vans that had quite a bit of space. Trust me when I say they were not based on the traditional rear wheel drive GM van. I owned a 1990 Silhouette that I liked quite a bit and put a LOT of miles on. It handled very well. Not truck like at all IMHO. I think what put most people off of them was the "dustbuster" appearance of the first generation. (Which, again, I happened to like.)
  #1055  
Old 15 November 2017, 12:37 AM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 14,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
The first generation of GM minivans (Chevrolet Lumina APV, Oldsmobile Silhouette and Pontiac Trans Sport) were front wheel drive composite plastic bodied vans that had quite a bit of space. Trust me when I say they were not based on the traditional rear wheel drive GM van.
I was actually talking about the Chevy Astro and GMC Safari, which IIRC were marketed as minivans at the time.
  #1056  
Old 15 November 2017, 12:39 AM
DrRocket's Avatar
DrRocket DrRocket is offline
 
Join Date: 03 February 2006
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 2,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
I was actually talking about the Chevy Astro and GMC Safari, which IIRC were marketed as minivans at the time.
I'd forgotten about those. You are right. They were marketed as minivans, and were AWD IIRC, with a traditional engine/drivetrain layout.

I test drove one before I bought the Olds, and yes, they did feature more truck-like handling. It's why I bought the Olds.

IMO, the Astro was a bit of an afterthought, and I consider the other three to be GM's primary minivan models.

They were called the "U" platform, and they're still being made and sold in China as Buicks.
  #1057  
Old 15 November 2017, 06:42 AM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 7,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
I could claim it, but I'm pretty sure a contract that was never expressed and only one side knew existed is not enforceable.
Under German law, your acting in the kitchen could be considered negotiorum gestio. In that case, you could claim your expenses, including a reasonable price for your time.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid questions WildaBeast SLC 1005 03 February 2015 11:10 PM
Stupid questions MisterGrey SLC 1002 05 October 2014 07:25 AM
Stupid questions JoeBentley SLC 999 28 November 2013 11:52 PM
Stupid questions DawnStorm SLC 1002 25 July 2013 06:38 PM
Stupid questions Die Capacitrix SLC 1001 20 May 2013 07:11 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.