A new random thread

[Tsukiyumi]

Ah, the good old S trucks. You have the V6? That was one of the best engines GM ever made.

Yes, and yes.

Keep oil in it, and it'll run until Doomsday. The older ones had some throttle body issues, but the newer ones corrected it with direct injection.

Mine just has some issues with the transmission. Otherwise, it runs great, for a 17-year old vehicle.

When the S trucks went out of production, it hit central Jersey pretty damned hard - the Linden plant closed.

Well, that sucks ass. Yay, globalization!

[Mikey]

It wasn't globalization. They replaced the Blazer/Jimmy and the S trucks with new designs built in America... just other parts of America.

[Tsukiyumi]

...just other parts of America.

Well, Mexico is Central America. Ah, f*ck it.

[Tyyr]

I thought it was North America?

[Lt. Staplic]

Mexico is part of North America, the myriad of other smaller nations that stretch from Mexico to Venezuela is what composes Central America.

[Reliant121]

I love how predatory your roads seen to be...perhaps its just how we lay them out but there isn't anywhere near the lunacy you seen to suffer from. sure asshole in beamers doing a hundred on the right most lane but that's about it

[Mikey]

...just other parts of America.

Well, Mexico is Central America. Ah, f*ck it.

Well, the S-truck replacement - the Chevy Colorado and the GMC Canyon - ended up being hecho en Mexico, I think, but the original ones (IIRC) had VIN's starting with "1" - which means "built in the U.S. of A." The original Blazer/Jimmy replacement - TrailBlazer/Envoy - were built in the U.S. from start 'til finish. I don't know where the new GMC mid-size SUV is built... if they're smart, it would Oshawa, Ontario - the best auto plant in terms of initial quality of any manufacturer in the world.

[Mikey]

I love how predatory your roads seen to be...perhaps its just how we lay them out but there isn't anywhere near the lunacy you seen to suffer from. sure asshole in beamers doing a hundred on the right most lane but that's about it

Well, #1 - we've got more room than you, and further to go. That means straighter, longer highways.

#2 - we've got more people than you. That means wider highways and more arterial routes.

#3 - our cities are younger than yours, and not a one of them was based around an ancient mott and bailey. That means cities planned on a grid, which in turn means straighter (and thus faster) intra-city roads (except Washington, D.C. That place is a traffic nightmare.) You have modern roads following either ancient Roman roads, which were obviously not built with automotive traffic in mind; or following even older paths, which were built to allow druids to follow ley lines and tap geomantic energy.

#4 - Americans are all about instant gratification. We want to get to our destination 5 minutes before we leave our house. Someone getting in our way and going slowly isn't just a happenstance; it's a personal affront and wilfully malicious on the part of the other driver. (Of course it isn't - I'm just describing th American mindset.) Further, we are staunch believers in time travel; if we leave our house 15 minutes late for an appointment, we can "make it up" by driving faster.

*EDIT* Oh yeah - we also have a lot less mass transit than you - at least, per capita across the nation. We can't just decide to take the train instead of drive. Ex.: I live in suburbia, U.S.A. When my wife goes to Washington this summer to teach a seminar, I'm going to put the kids on the train with me and join her - I can't get enough of the FDR memorial, and I want to take my daughter to the Smithsonian. It's a great way to travel (along the same coast, at least,) and the kids will love it. But I have to drive a half-hour to get to the nearest station. In the metropolises, it's fine - many people in Manhattan, for example, prefer not to deal with the hassle of owning a car at all, because there's no need - but outside of that, there's so much space tht mass transit can't reach.

[Reliant121]

Indeed. A combination of our illogically ancient roads, some of which would probably cause a stroke an average American city driver, plus us being a hellova lot smaller; finally married to our "christian motorist" mindset, coined by Top Gear, in comparison to Americans. Additionally, our growing taste for city cars means that the hairbrained high speed antics just can't happen. I admit I'm no driver, and most city cars can do over 70 no problem but they've been described as "uncomfortable" and "jittery" just below the 70 mark. I dont think the city car was really made for motorway hammering.

[Mikey]

Us Yanks like our big ol' engines. There is a practical side to that, as well - a smaller engine revs higher to maintain the same speed as a larger one - for a driver who puts on a lot of highway miles, the bigger engine will last longer.

[Reliant121]

Indeed, s'why the taxi's are always (for us) larger engines diesels...normally 2.0L i think. Company cars are often smaller size diesels. We seem to have a great affinity with the diesel engine...

[Mikey]

Indeed, s'why the taxi's are always (for us) larger engines diesels...normally 2.0L i think. Company cars are often smaller size diesels. We seem to have a great affinity with the diesel engine...

Well, small diesels should be more popular here. They can last forever, and tend to get excellent economy. The problem is that the engines are more expensive, and diesel fuel is considerably more expensive and rarer than gasoline. Obviously, big diesels are popular for trucks, due to the higher torque, greater efficiency, lack of ignition, and cost-effectiveness in considering the life of the engine - I've seen the real big ones being sold "reconditioned" with upwards of a million miles on them.

[Reliant121]

Diesels here are normally about £500 more than their petrol equivalent but make it up in fuel costs within a year or so. Diesel is only a couple of pence more expensive, if not equal. Thats why we want to replace our Two cars with one Diesel workhorse, especially if Dad gets a new job.

[Mikey]

If that were the case here, they'd be far more popular. As it is, passenger car diesels tend to run $1000 - $3000 more than their gas equivalents, and diesel fuel can range from 50 - 75 cents mroe than gas. Even so, V-dub has seen some limited success with their 1.8 TDi's.

[Reliant121]

A lot of our Eurobox manufacturers have started to try new tactics to make economy and petrol work. The likes of Renault in particular fits a Ridiculously small engine to a fairly large car, the Renault Clio Sport Tourer has a 1.2 engine. But they fit a massive turbo. It retains its economy, but has some kick ass firepower.

The new Skoda Superb's (roughly equal in size to a Ford Taurus I believe) have been fitted with 1.4 engines, but given them a huge turbo for exactly the same effect.