Youtube comments of Golden Croc (@GoldenCroc).

  1. 284
  2. 271
  3. 229
  4. 208
  5. 202
  6. 163
  7. 161
  8. 158
  9. 134
  10. 124
  11. 121
  12. 104
  13. 101
  14. 100
  15. 85
  16. 80
  17. 77
  18. 77
  19. 68
  20. 67
  21. 61
  22. 59
  23. 52
  24. 52
  25. 52
  26. 51
  27. 49
  28. 48
  29. 48
  30. 46
  31. 46
  32. 46
  33. 45
  34. 43
  35. 43
  36. 42
  37. 40
  38. 39
  39. 39
  40. 39
  41. 37
  42. 36
  43. 35
  44. 34
  45. 34
  46. 32
  47. 32
  48. 31
  49. 31
  50. 31
  51. 31
  52. 31
  53. 30
  54. 29
  55. 28
  56. 28
  57. 27
  58. 27
  59. 27
  60. 27
  61. 26
  62. 25
  63. 24
  64. 24
  65. 23
  66. 23
  67. 22
  68. 22
  69. 21
  70. 20
  71. 20
  72. 20
  73. 20
  74. 20
  75. 20
  76. 20
  77. 19
  78. 19
  79. 19
  80. 18
  81. 18
  82. 18
  83. 18
  84. 18
  85. 18
  86. 18
  87. 18
  88. 17
  89. 17
  90. 17
  91. 17
  92. 17
  93. 17
  94. 17
  95. 16
  96. 16
  97. 16
  98. 16
  99. 16
  100. 16
  101. 16
  102. 16
  103. 15
  104. 15
  105. 15
  106. 15
  107. 15
  108. 15
  109. 14
  110. 14
  111. 14
  112. 14
  113. 14
  114. 14
  115. 13
  116. 13
  117. 13
  118. 13
  119. 13
  120. 13
  121. 13
  122. 13
  123. 13
  124. 13
  125. 13
  126. 13
  127. 12
  128. 12
  129. 12
  130. 12
  131. 12
  132. 12
  133. 12
  134. 12
  135. 12
  136. 12
  137. 11
  138. 11
  139. 11
  140. 11
  141. 11
  142. 11
  143. 10
  144. 10
  145. 10
  146. 10
  147. 10
  148. 10
  149. 10
  150. 10
  151. 10
  152. 10
  153. 10
  154. 10
  155. 10
  156. 10
  157. 9
  158. 9
  159. 9
  160. 9
  161. 9
  162. 9
  163. 9
  164. 9
  165. 9
  166. 9
  167. 9
  168. 9
  169. 9
  170. 9
  171. 9
  172. 9
  173. 9
  174. 9
  175. 9
  176. 9
  177. 9
  178. 9
  179. 9
  180. 9
  181. 9
  182. 8
  183. 8
  184. 8
  185. 8
  186. 8
  187. 8
  188. 8
  189. 8
  190. 8
  191. 8
  192. 8
  193. 8
  194. 8
  195. 8
  196. 8
  197. 8
  198. 8
  199. 8
  200. 8
  201. 8
  202. 8
  203. 8
  204. 8
  205. 8
  206. 8
  207. 8
  208. 8
  209. 8
  210. 8
  211. 8
  212. 8
  213. 8
  214. 8
  215. 8
  216. 8
  217. 8
  218. 8
  219. 7
  220. 7
  221. 7
  222. 7
  223. 7
  224. 7
  225. 7
  226. 7
  227. 7
  228. 7
  229. 7
  230. 7
  231. 7
  232. 7
  233. 7
  234. 7
  235. 7
  236. 7
  237. 7
  238. 7
  239. 7
  240. 7
  241. 7
  242. 7
  243. 7
  244. 7
  245. 7
  246. 7
  247. 7
  248. 7
  249. 7
  250. 7
  251. 7
  252. 6
  253. 6
  254. 6
  255. 6
  256. 6
  257. 6
  258. 6
  259. 6
  260. 6
  261. 6
  262. 6
  263. 6
  264. 6
  265. 6
  266. 6
  267. 6
  268. 6
  269. 6
  270. 6
  271. 6
  272. 6
  273. 6
  274. 6
  275. 6
  276. 6
  277. 6
  278. 6
  279. 6
  280. 6
  281. 6
  282. 6
  283. 6
  284. 6
  285. 6
  286. 6
  287. 6
  288. 6
  289. 6
  290. 6
  291. 6
  292. 6
  293. 6
  294. 6
  295. 6
  296. 6
  297. 6
  298. 6
  299. 6
  300. 6
  301. 6
  302. 6
  303. 6
  304. 6
  305. 6
  306. 6
  307. 6
  308. 6
  309. 6
  310. 5
  311. 5
  312. 5
  313. 5
  314. 5
  315. 5
  316. 5
  317. 5
  318. 5
  319. 5
  320. 5
  321. 5
  322. 5
  323. 5
  324. 5
  325. 5
  326. 5
  327. 5
  328. 5
  329. 5
  330. 5
  331. 5
  332. 5
  333. 5
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344. 5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. 5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. 5
  390. 4
  391. 4
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 4
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399. 4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 4
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410. 4
  411. 4
  412. 4
  413. 4
  414. 4
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418. 4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. 4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. 4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. 4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 4
  449. 4
  450. 4
  451. 4
  452. 4
  453. 4
  454. 4
  455. 4
  456. 4
  457. 4
  458. 4
  459. 4
  460. 4
  461. 4
  462. 4
  463. 4
  464. 4
  465. 4
  466. 4
  467. 4
  468. 4
  469. 4
  470. 4
  471. 4
  472. 4
  473. 4
  474. 4
  475. 4
  476. 4
  477. 4
  478. 4
  479. 4
  480. 4
  481. 4
  482. 4
  483. 4
  484. 4
  485. 4
  486. 4
  487. 4
  488. 4
  489. 4
  490. 4
  491. 4
  492. 4
  493. 4
  494. 4
  495. 4
  496. 4
  497. 4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500. 4
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. 4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. 4
  515. 4
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. 3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. 3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 3
  744. 3
  745. 3
  746. 3
  747. 3
  748. 3
  749. 3
  750. 3
  751. 3
  752. 3
  753. 3
  754. 3
  755. 3
  756. 3
  757. 3
  758. 3
  759. 3
  760. 3
  761. 3
  762. 3
  763. 3
  764. 3
  765. 3
  766. 3
  767. 3
  768. 3
  769. 3
  770. 3
  771. 3
  772. 3
  773. 3
  774. 3
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807.  @noahmcdaniel4920  As an owner of multiple Cayennes, and have driven multiple Touregs, I am pretty well suited to answer this. If you want a "can do it all" car with no asterisk after, better than almost anything else, even new cars, you need the air suspension. Especially if you got a cayenne. And live with the headaches that may come. You also, if you got a mk2 cayenne that is supposed to "do it all" need the active anti roll bars. Big difference in corners when at high speed, and they presumably can disconnect the sway sway bars in terrain mode as well. Cant say how good it works in terrain, havent really tried it much. Another system that is potentially a huge headache, but makes a big difference for some uses when it works. Toureg has visually more ground clearance, certainly the air sprung version does. Also higher nose and rear, which should mean better angles. It is also softer sprung than a cayenne, no matter air or steel springs. Some of that difference is because of the ride height difference in the different modes, adjust the air ssupension so the have the same wheel travel, and it would be very close, I bet. Personally, I could afford a newer car, but I purposly bought a mk2 (facelift) cayenne in good condition (knock on wood), because I have yet to find a new car at any price that can do the same things it can. If you can accept some small compromises in overall ability, and dont want to spend a lot for maintenance, then by god dont get anything else but a steel sprung V6 touareg or cayenne. Or another car entirely.
    2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945.  @klaspeppar5619  A very good reply, hope you dont mind if I explain some things about what I meant, dont take it the wrong way... Warning, long reply But I think you will find it worthwhile... Yes, 250hp is very believable, no doubt about that. But how is the number 250 reached? Most tuning companys dont have the resources to test engines the way manufacturers does. They also have an incentive to inflate the numbers, and little to no negatives in doing so. Many people will buy the tune that promises the most hp increase. But that also goes for the engine in the Golf of course, since it also is tuned by a tuning company. That doesnt mean the numbers are untrue per se, but that the variations could also potentially be larger. And if your Volvo makes 260 hp, and the Golf 230, that makes a really big difference in the race, but is still well in the variation, I would say even a 15hp swing per car would be, so potentially 225 vs 265 or 255 vs 235. As you say, there is also the condition of the car to factor in. A small leak or almost imperceptible misfire, some less than optimal old fuel, a slightly bad MAF and many other such things can sap 20 hp without being noticable, very true. There is also the definition of what kind of race it would be. Lower weight and power gives an advantage at low speeds, while higher weight and more power gives an advantage in higher speeds, were aerodynamic drag is most important. So it could well be possible to see the lead change several times in the race, as the speed goes up. The comment you made on the cylinders and torque is interesting, as I said dont take this the wrong way... Number of cylinders dont matter. At all. They only matter in in indirect way, as in, can the car produce mpre horsepower because it has more cylinders? If the cars have the same horsepower, it doesnt matter they got 1 cylinder vs 12 cylinders, when it comes to speed and acceleration. Same deal with torque, it matters only in an indirect way, as in can the car produce more horsepower becuase it got more Torque? Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no. But the "peak Torque number" in itself doesnt mean anything when it comes to maximum acceleration. Only "in gear mean horsepower" does, which is a number that is not availible from any manufacturer or tuner as far as I know. Yes, the DSG gives a big advantage, even though it saps sligtly more power and makes the car heavier than a normal box. But at very high speed, where the shifting is a smaller percentage of the time spent acceleratiing, then the advantage goes back to the manual box, for the reasons stated above (less weight and power loss). VAG themselves used a manual box in their Nurburgring lap record attempt with a Golf or was it a Seat leon Cupra, dont remember, but they are more or less the same car anyway. One or the other. Yes, indeed it would be very interesting race, too bad I dont have my old tuned BMW 120d diesel, which could have added an extra dimension. But with only about 215-220hp and more losses since it was rear wheel drive, it would surely lose against both this and your car. I also had a BMW 123d diesel with about 270 horsepower, and that would have also been interesting, maybe it would have been slitghly faster. Currently I have a BMW 335d, but it is tune to waay to much horsepower curerntly for it to be a worthy race for any one of us, though I suppose I could flash the software back to the factory standard of about 285-290 hp, and that would maybe be a bit competitive, since the 335d I have got is very heavy for being a coupe. Hit me up if you are interested, It could be a fun race. Since You own a Volvo and got the name you have, I take it you are based in Sweden just as me, or am I assuming too much?
    2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020.  @gasparinizuzzurro6306  Since you brought it up: I am a physics teacher. Maths as well by the way. I have also studied vehicles and their propulsion systems for soon 30 years (Mostly with reciprocating internal combustion engines) as a hobby on the side, I would like to think I have a pretty good idea. But that, of course, doesnt really matter. What matters is the strength of the argument. This is where you got it what one might call it "backwards" as I said earlier. Understandable of course, I have known plenty of people making the same mistake. They are mostly locked into one mindset favoring this line of thinking, and I would wager you are too, probably taught to you by school or something similar. Please Re-read my post again and think about it some more and hopefully it will become clear, I think you got the potential to understand where your assumptions went wrong. If you still dont see it, Please realise that time as a factor can never be discounted. I would like to give a friendly suggestion of you quoting some acceleration numbers to me from just vehicle mass and max propulsion system torque numbers, which should be easy enough with your line of thinking. You will then see, you wont be able to, because its physically impossible to solve the equation without knowing the "time" component. Hopefully this makes it more clear. In short: You are conflating "active force" (energy conversion, also known as power), working over a time, for "torque". They are not the same. As I said, dont feel bad, there are even people tuning engines for a living that are a bit confused by all this because what has "wrongly" (too simplified) been taught to them and/or force of habit. Cheers.
    2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120.  @willswheels283  This will turn into a bit of a philosophical and long winded discussion, but.... No, I am not sure I could tell either, when driving in a parking lot at 5 mph. But I certainly could when doing any normal speed on a normal road. And the differences would be very obvious when doing 120 mph through a sweeping bend, as this reviewed car was designed to do. On one end of the spectrum we have the person that wouldnt know if someone replaced their car on a parking lot with a completely different model from another manufacturer, as long as it was the same color. On the other side of the spectrum we have a factory test driver which entire job it is to recognise minute differences. If the test driver is 100% and the parking lot person is 0%, I wouldnt put myself above 70-80%, and I am a professional driver that does many miles every year, and as a hobby races cars, boats and bikes. I have sold cars at a pretty big economic loss, just becuase I didnt like the steering feel. Maybe you are a bit closer to the middle of the scale? Nothing to be feel bad about. Now, on the other side of the coin, everything is overhyped. It is also, simultaneously, too despised. Especially on the internet. Strong and polarized opinions gain more traction in the mind of the public, it is just the way humans work, making opinions always gravitate towards the extreme. There is a lot of research about this phenomena. In the end, it is a normal car, like everything else. But there is no doubt that when the E39 debuted it had the best feeling interior quailty and the best driving dynamics of anything in its class. Whether those, sometimes small, differences matter enough for one to care is, as I said, very much up to the individual. Edit: There are also those people that "think" they can notice differences, but dont. They think this because they own one of said cars, and want to have a "team" to root for. They are sports fans, but for cars instead. These are most likely the opinions you have heard, if they are very strong.
    2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326.  @blackwidow7804  Well, yes and no. Its a "byproduct" (<- note the quotes in this and previous comment), in so far in how the number is relevant to acceleration. Therefore, its not really meaningful to mention it when it comes to acceleration, dont you agree? Anyway, I must say you have got most everything right, but as I said before, you and a lot of others have been a bit conditioned to think backwards in this subject. Torque can be said to be a factor, but in itself its utterly meaningless. It needs time added on top to supply any meaningful information about movement and that gives us: Power. Its akin to talking about the size of a house with how many windows it has got. A larger house with more rooms is likely to have more windows, but there is no direct correlation. A smaller house could well have more windows than a larger one.Its the same with torque, no direct correlation to anything to do with speed or acceleration of vehicles. Power, on the other hand, has. Regarding you last statement; Well, I like to believe there are few people that know power, torque etc better than me. Because I am a former physcist and physics teacher, with a keen interest in vehicles since many decades ago. Maybe I will make a youtube video about this subject myself one day, because I find the ones already here a bit lacking. But in the meantime, even though its far from perfect, you can check out this Engineering explained video: https://youtu.be/u-MH4sf5xkY?t=305 You seem to be most of the way there already. Cheers mate.
    2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414.  @TassieLorenzo  I dont know anything at all about how the Adelaide Hills look, but as I said above my perspective was mostly UK roads and to a lesser extent northern european ones. I am a bit curious though, in your example you compare the station wagon (Dont know if the AU verion is the same as here, but my brother has euro spec one. Hes also had both Clio RS and Megane RS before, all of which I have driven, as well as many other similar cars), you note the station wagon is On Eagle F1 and Civic AD08R. Surely AD08R gives a lot better base grip from its compund? I did note in my post that modern cars are "mostly tire limited" on a road with a lot of curves, though not especially hairpin ones, of course.. Light weight is very nice and always preferable, especially for driving involvment. However, talking about pure speed, even in corners, with the correct tires and driving style, I think people underestimate what larger, heavier cars, especially RWD or AWD ones can do these days. The 640d in this reivew might well "feel" like a boat compared to an mx5, but it would keep up with it easily on most uk roads. I drive a bit on the nurburgring sometimes with my, compared to your E46 M3 example, even heavier E92 335d. Its about 120kg or so heavier I would say (1670kg). Now nurburgring is a track that is quite similar, more so in fact than other tracks, to a normal northern european smaller road. I sometimes encounter Old CRXs and similar, with gutted interior and cage and quite a bit of track prep. Nevertheless, my very heavy full interior BMW with all the luxuries and tow hitch etc. can keep just about the same pace, even in corners to them... Thats the power of modern tires and chassis. Or maybe I am just that good of a driver compared to most 😁.Not stock suspension though.
    2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437. 2
  1438. 2
  1439. 2
  1440. 2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. 2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458. 2
  1459. 2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. 2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492. 2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 2
  1507. 2
  1508. 2
  1509. 2
  1510. 2
  1511. 2
  1512. 2
  1513. 2
  1514. 2
  1515. 2
  1516. 2
  1517. 2
  1518. 2
  1519. 2
  1520. 2
  1521. 2
  1522. 2
  1523. 2
  1524. 2
  1525. 2
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536.  @DjNikGnashers  First I want to say that I certainly dont need to have "the last word" in this exchange. That being said, I will adress some things: "Unsporty" cars being de facto faster than cheaper or sometimes even more expensive "sporty" cars is nothing new. There are hundreds of examples through out car history. I will give an example. Have you ever driven something like an old 1960s Cadillac? If you have, then you will know that you will struggle to find anything less sporty, and that includes, no joke, a modern lorry. And they certainly were not marketed as anything resembling sporty at all. Still though, even with high weight and terrible automatic gearboxes, they made an honest 300 bhp, which would blow the doors off any sports car in the price range of an normal income europen man not only in the 1960s, but the 1970s and a good chunk of the 1980s too. In a straight line of course. Certainly nothing but a straight line. And as I said erlier, I would wager a similarly equipped 320d was at least 30% more expensive. That is a lot to some people. Yes, all of those hot hatch et al. cars are just as fast or faster than the VRS. But most of them not eyebrow raisingly so, most of them were in the same ballpark. The "common guy" did percieve all of those cars as fast when they were new, and that includes the VRS. Seems like some of your objection stems from people calling the 320d slow which is of course false and is rooted in their lack of knowledge. If we take the average car sold as a comparison, the 320d was not slow obejectively, it was faster than the average car sold in those years for sure. I am pretty sure even the 318d was. So in summary: The VRS was maybe in the top 5% of cars sold speedwise when launched, if not better. Most people would call that fast or fast-ish. The 320d I am more unsure about, but it certainly was way faster than the average car sold in the UK, expecially the 177ps version with the N47. So most people, if they knew about it would not call it slow either. . A lot of them didnt know though. You should have see the face of the guy in his mildly tuned impreza Gt turbo which I easily passed on track with my remapped 120d I used to have. "I never knew a diesel could do that". In the end, its all in good fun... I prefer to compare it to its contemporaries and to the average car sold, for me that is a more tangible comparison. I do not really believe in such a thing as an objective "fast" or "slow". Its all relative to me, expecially when you have been a part of the drag racing community for a long time as I have. You may not agree and that is perfectly fine. But please dont take any stock in what the average person says, their car knowledge and interest is extremly lacking compared to almost anyone that would watch one of furiosdrivings videos. Nice to talk to you.
    1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589.  @KTMcaptain  Now now, it wasnt my intention to be petty at all, sorry if it came across that way. Thats why I wrote "hairsplitting" about my own comment which is a self deprecating remark. Getting bogged down in semantics is not much fun, the technical details on the other hand is more fun to discuss. Yes of course my comment presupposes everything works mechannically perfectly, snapping an axle shaft is not one of the cases I had in mind. Annyway, there seems to be somewhat of a misunderstanding here. I dont disagree that lockers are much better for terrain driving than a software solution for every car ever made so far, including the one I got. I would much rather have a locking rear diff than the software I got today. No ifs and buts about it. But I found it interesting to discuss if a brake derived solution can match a locker. Theoretically*, I think it can. Or maybe even better, I am not sure, because in that case the wheels doesnt necessarily rotate at the same rate as they have to do with a locker. As for if/when that might be an advantage, I am not sure. I will state again: *This is a theoretical thought experiment about if software using brakes ever could match lockers, which presupposes a lot of computer power, very fast reaction speed of the brakes, much engine power, very good granularity in brake modulation etc. Not a real world availibility of such a thing at all I hope I have made myself sufficiently clear. In any case, the whole reason I replied to your first post, was because the way I read what you had written, I thought that you maybe didnt fully know what a mechanical locker was. I hought that might be the case, because there are a lot of people out there who dont, and mix them up with other forms off smart diffs, e-diffs etc. But it is clear to me now that you do know what a locker is, and how it works mechanically. That is all I wanted assure myself of, grounded in the desire to help increase knowledge if you didnt know. But as I said, it is now clear that you do. Sorry for "butting in" but I cant help myself sometimes, please believe me when I said I did because of well meaning. Anyway, on another note you may be interested to hear that I, on top of my personal car, have driven a lot of all terrain military trucks in my day. Some of which had a sytem fitted that might be called "terrain brake". This is a system where you got an extra pedal on the floor. It is similar in function to "ride" the brakes and is calibrated to make sure the vehicle never moves, no matter how steeply it slopes up or down. Then it is just a matter of using the accelerator pedal to overcome the brakes and you got an easy way to crawl over rocks without jerky motion. OF course you can perform the same function just by kkeping your foot slightly on the brake pedal at all times while crawling, but this takes the modulation out of the equation, since its already pre-set. I think its pretty neat, dont think any street vehicle has a similar function, closest would maybe be the "hill descent control" of many vehicles, but its not really the same in what it can do. Anyway, thats it. Cheers.
    1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648.  @chir0pter  Firstly, I used the common British terminology of giving a car an increase in "mark numbers" even for a facelift. Thats why the facelift may be called mk 2, depending on your outlook. However, I see you are familiar with the internal code names, so I will use them going forward. I currently own a 957 and a 955. I am also pretty familar with Touaregs of the same years, the later ones dont interest me. I can see you are very loyal to your cayenne, and that is all very good, but we have to be honest and admit there are some things a Touareg might do differently or better, even if only marginally, just as there are things a cayenne might do better. Its only fair. I looked at several Touaregs as a possible alternative before I bought my cayennes, and I inspected them thoroughly, including the tires sizes. So, the tire size isnt a factor in the percieved height. But for further clarification, I brought out the spec sheet. I have the Cayenne serivice manual and spec sheet on my computer and have now downloaded the same for the Touareg. With air suspension, the factory spec is: Touareg max ground clearence: 11.8 inch Cayenne max ground clearence: 10.6 inch. so about an inch, as I said. Touareg max front angle: 33 degress Cayenne max front angle: 31.8 degrees. Considering the height, maybe the geometry of the front is about the same? Didnt find any rear angles as of now when skimming through. The Touaregs with air suspension has the exact same damper stiffness modes as the cayenne does. In the end, a cayenne can easily be raised to the same height as a touareg if modified, and the 957 can be had with active anti roll bars, something I dont think the tuareg got, as I said earlier. It is also availible with more powerful engines, and has a bit better/more fun tarmac handling. Thats why I got 2 cayennes in the end.
    1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697.  @andrewwatson5360  Well I am not doing anything with EVs professionally either, I am just a hobbyist. Not enough EVs, nor people for that matter, were I am at (rural Sweden) to make a business out of it. I am just speaking about what can be done. I have been interested in EVs and the technology behind them since I had a electric RC car as a kid, long ago. Havent owned one yet though, theres not any availible that fit my needs and budget. As for cars I do personally own, I am quite picky compared to most people about what I like when it comes to cars, as well as having many needs that have to be fulfilled by one or two cars. They have to be practical, and fun at the same time. I need a tow hitch capable car for example. I have finally found the cars that fullfill those needs and will never sell them, unless forced to by some new law. I do everything on my vehicles myself these days.. Just arent enough trustworthy people around that takes pride in their work. I was too busy so I left a car at the main dealer to fixing an egine misfire problem as well as a loss of power, at a eye wateringly expensive rate per hour (about 200 quid per hour). They couldnt find the fault with it though, because their computer didnt find any error code.... hilarious. Thats when I swore off it for good, even if I had to use time I really didnt have to fix it myself. I like to drive fast, really fast on both tracks and the unlimited parts of autobahn. Cant risk things not being 100%. Anyway, EVs make sense in some perspectives, such as taxis or delivery vehicles used in heavily populated areas, but still see a lot of mileage. Both from a cost and enviromental perspective, thats when they make start to make sense compared to ICE cars. Cheers.
    1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758.  @MrBubblebananas  No, I am actually not contradicting myself if you read my earlier posts and have a modicum of reading comprehension. Its pretty basic english really, how some things can be implied and words can have multiple meanings but maybe its not your native language? Misunderstandings are understandable if that is the case. Anyway, it seems you are arguing for regulations of brakes that are more stringent than currently, since you say "consumer not wanting to pay a premium for brakes that should be standard is not the fault of the consumer", because that would be the only way to ensure this. A valid viewpoint, but I dont agree. You say it "endangers" the consumer, and that can be argued, but I dont agree that is a problem either. They have accepted it themselves after all. We have to draw the line for safety somewhere, or we would all be locked up in airbag equipped rooms wearing indoor helmets. I think the current braking performance level is sufficient, and so does the average consumer, or else they would not buy the car. You do not agree with this. Also a valid viewpoint but I dont agree with it either. Finally, to answer your last paragraph: No, I think current safety level for cars in europe are just fine, because I know that you cant get something for nothing. Everything has a downside, such as increased weight of vehicles which is bad for the enviroment. As I have said in comments above, relative braking performance of cars because of brakes is a so small accident contributor as to be unmeasurable. What would make a big difference, many thousand of times larger, is: Increased driver training. More stringent control of drug/alchol abuse while driving More stringent psychological evaluations My daughter would be very welcome to sit in the car, I know from statistics (I have worked in transport authority accident prevention department) that its the driver that is 99% of the cause of accidents, and I have confidence in my driving. If I hadnt I would let somebody else drive. All this serves in my view is a faulty focus on the wrong issues. Machines are rarely the cause of problems, humans are. Same goes for plane crasches etc. Cheers.
    1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926.  @abdbach379  There may well be a common problem, but not to your extent of problems. I think I would hear more about it if that was the case, the timing chain problems of the N47 were widely reported, a disaster of an engine. Yet I owned 2 cars with that engine that ran for many miles without problems. Its all about the failure percentage, and the widely reported N47 timing chain was likely below 20%. Since it shares a lot with the N57, one would think it might have rod bearing problems as well, but not a peep regarding that. I am not saying it doesnt happen, not at all, but as a percentage of produced engines it must not be extremely high I would think... Here is where your N57 enters the picture. It has to have an atypical defect still present for the bearings to fail that fast/frequently. Atypical in the sense that even if the rod bearings can fail, the surely cant do so three times in 6 months without something else causing it, that isnt a common factory defect. Else it would be one of the worst engines in history and all of europe would be full of them (it isnt, not really). If not the fuel, I can only see a few reasonable answers: 1: Something went wrong when they fixed it the first time that makes the problem come back. 2: Your car has an engined that was somehow wrongly produced already at the factory. (Not a design flaw, but a build one) 3: If you did not own it since new, A previous owner did something to it that resulted in something being "off" in the engine and causing this.
    1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062.  @joshuaszeto  Thats funny. I can admit I failed to take into account the North American market. My comment was based on the european market, and I didnt consider it would be all that different. But in hindsight, it seems pretty obvious it might well be, also when it comes to rims. I will tell you my theory why... American cars are generally larger. Sometimes much larger. The difference in car sizes and weights were larger the further back you go. This means the wheel have to be more sturdy to support the weight. Ameriucan cars also generally uses older technology of the "tried and true" kind. Therefore, it would not surprise me to learn steel rims for the North american market might be made differently, and with older technology that make them heavier. In contrast, aluminium rims of certain price groups are made in the same way just about everywhere. I have lifted many rims myself, though in europe, as I said earlier. steel rims are generally same-ish weight, or a smidgen lighter. Its a small difference, very small. But on average, steel rims are lighter here, so thats my personal experience similar to your lifting one. The "missing article" is interesting, I made a search myself. Indeed you are correct about it not being featured. However, there are a few reasons why that may be: First is the obvious one: Who benefits from such an article? Will it garned a positive reception? Does the journalists themselves even know this could be a question? Secondly: English articles are often US based, and as I said, I have no reason not to trust you, it very well could be as you said in the North American market. Thirdly: All the articles I found, does not quoted tested / weighed comparison numbers. They just throw a few numbers out like "20% lighter". If you are into science and experiments, you know this is a red flag.... Now here comes the kicker. I do have articles about steel rims being lighter, oldest one being from about 1993. I also have comments by people in the business of them saying this (since 1995). And to top it off, I got spec sheets from various manufacturer which states the steel rims are lighter. (These ones are newer, since early 2000s and up) Anyway, regarding the rotational mass, we dont disagree about the physics of it all, just which ones might be lighter in themselves. Lastly, I also dont consider the corrsion could be that heavy to be an issue. You must surely live in one of the worst places for corrosion on earth. My area is considered quite bad, for european standards, and we dont come close to what you say. As I said earlier, it takes several decades here for it to begin being an issue. 99,99...% (some ridiculous number of decimals) of cars are long off the road permanently before steel rim corrosion is an issue here. Anyway, I dont have every article of steel rims at hand, but I have quite good memory and can cite some text from memory from them if you wish. I can also dig up some which manufacturer have released spec sheets which shows "steelies" to be lighter, if you wish. Just say the word. Long post, but this is interesting to me. Cheers mate.
    1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248.  @yannicklucas1836  This post at least shows a bit more effort than most, and for that I applaud you. However, it falls down a bit considering a few factors: 1 and 2nd pagagraph: It can happen, laws arent always followed by law enforcement and relevant authorities. I am sure you dont disagree with this if you think about it, Havent you ever heard of a case of law malpractice from your home country? Never? Well in that case, I would be worried, because that would more than likely mean you are living in a heavily authoritarian state... Its just human to make mistakes. Most nations have several millions of people, so mistakes happen all the time. Last paragraph: Yes I agree it can be a reasonable assumption. Its also quite possible thats not the case at all though. It can be more than likely be because the people that bother to reply dont read properly for whatever reason, such as them not wanting what I write to be true. Yes, it could be seen as a bit condescending, but it is nevertheless 100% true. Note that no one (mostly) really have asked me more about why that is or how, just broadly shouted "No, you are wrong". If I walk into the local football club fan area in the stands and tell them their club is bad at scoring goals compared to another club, do you think I would get many to agree with me, even though I could shove a paper with statistics under their nose showing my point to be true? Of course not, its just human nature to be biased. No suprise the statistics of people being so about their own country is reasonably high on a channel that often compares different countries to the US. Considering the replies I have (mostly) got, the second assumption seems more likely. If you are at least as sowewhat reaonable as this post make you out to be, I am sure you will agree if you think about it with a cool head.
    1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255.  @Bunny_Aoife  Considering the replies I mostly have got, I am not sure at all they do understand outliers.... How can you even take a single instace of a case that has happened a documented of 1 time in recent history as an example when the population of the US is 300+ million? statistically, just about everything can happen, and will, multiple times a day. No matter how unlikely it may seem. I am telling you they could happen, not because the laws arent different, because I agree they often are. But But because If you take the "child endagerment" story for example, the arrest was against the law! But considering the rest of your postm, you seem like a pretty reasonable person, surely you can understand my point that I made from the start about laws and culture being less than interesting when it comes to single cases like this. Law malpractice happens everywhere, all the time, wouldnt you agree? Surely you must have heard of tons of them from you own country as well? As I also said above: "bank robberies are impossible in my country, since they are against the law" With statistics like my first paragraph above, its not about if, its about when.... I ahve also written about more media exposure etc in my first posts above and how it skews perception. As for the last part of your post: I know enough about most countries, more than most people, but thats not really the crux hee, not at all. I also I believe other people just fine. But the simple fact is I just know they havent thought about the statistics and human nature enough before they replied the way the did, or they wouldnt have done so. If you will do the courtesy of doing the same, and truly try to understand what I have written, I am sure you will agree with me.
    1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355.  @gasparinizuzzurro6306  Yes, every "high school student" knows this. Your basics are correct, which is good, but they are just too simplified for what I am saying here, and not applicable. Those students also know other things pertaining to cars that are too simplified in this context, such as how the weight of a vehicle effects tire grip. Or how surface area of a tire effects grip. Or frictionless pulleys etc etc. There are a multitude of simplified concepts people are taught in school. In short, you have likely been taught the "easy" method, and now think it is the correct one in this context. This is the problem with simplifying too much and the teachers not being clear this is a simplified example, people might think it is the final answer. I do not agree with this method of teaching, but it is unfortunately all too common. This means you have conflated lots of things with eachother, unfortunately. It seems you are even somewhat unfamilar what with what power really is. Energy conversion is exactly what power is, it is universal. It is exactly related to the acceleration of cars, or for that matter every object in this universe. The acceleration of a known mass object such as a car can be precisly expressed by stating a power number. An engine torque number, not at all. Not much to add here really, if you wish you can search up tons of articles that explain this and even some youtube videos specifically pertaining to cars about this, though they are rarely as down in the "nitty gritty" as what I have just written. But maybe that is just what you need and my explanation was too abstract. You can get back to my post when you have read and watched those other articles/videos and I am sure it will become clearer. I am sure that all the terms I used are will also easily be understandable in this context then. Until then have a nice day. Get back to me if you wish when you have thought about this some more, though I havent always got the time to write as much as I did today.
    1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435.  @furiousdriving  Well regarding the "sponsored" review its an age old story really, I never feeel that way myself, but its clear a lot of people do, rational or not. Similar to how people love to buy a new TV with a big red "Super SALE!!!" sticker on it for £500, whilst even if they did have a look at it the week prior for the same £500 price, without the sale sticker it wouldnt sell as well. The human brain loves to take shortcuts for "mental work" and stuff that isnt familiar mean one has to think about it, which many people dont like. Sort of a "boring math-class" all over again, albeit on a lower level." *Regarding the bike controls*, I can for sure tell from the video, the controls (brake handle etc) are at very wrong angle, and would be better with the handlebars flipped upside down. You are supposed to have them at the angle that gives your wrist and top of your hand a straight line from your shoulder, so for most people thats about 20-30 degrees downward, not upward as you have them. Having them the current way is very uncomfortable and almost plain dangerous in short reaction time situations becuase of how the badly the wrist needs to be twisted upwards to reach the brakes. Especially when you make the saddle taller (to the correct level as well, with an almost, *but not quite*, straight leg at the bottom of the stroke). Someone at the factory must have mounted it wrong, perhaps other things as well that cant be seen in the video. But dont take my word for it, ask anyone that is used to cycling or a cycle shop and they will tell you the exact same thing. Cheers mate.
    1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589.  @eiji862  276 comments in total, and quite some time and multiple ones of mine later, I am honestly not exactly sure which one you are referring to. Perhaps the one in which a person stated something like "there are laws about this sort of thing"? If that is the one you are talking about, I am not saying at all what you think I am. He can say what he thinks, thats fine. But almost everyone knows about these laws already, so its mostly irrelevant to the discussion. He also, among many others doint the same, wrote it in a way like any law matters in a vacuum. They do, in fact, not. They matter only as long as they are followed and policed. Which was my point, and I have written of it in my other posts: Unless something concrete and substantial will follow, the law is effectively meaningles and might as well not exist. If it wont change reality in any way, it may as well not be there. There is no god ordained thruth that things must happen just because a law is presumably broken. So again, its fine to speak out. By all means. I do it myself all the time. But people were talking about it as "done deal" that she would have consequences of any magnitude coming her way. Not the case at all, in reality. Same as with any laws, its far from a given. Many people throughout history have gotten away with literal murder, after all. And in this case its much less severe, has a very questionable case for evidence and a need to find tangible proof of any one affected. As well as someone willing to pick up the case and put it through a court. All this points to it being less than likely. Thats all. As I have written in my other posts above as well.
    1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742.  @dannyseville2543  Sure they are brave, but warranted, from what I have seen. Not everyone of course, but we are talking generalizations here. Dont know where to find storys about press cars, I just know I have read and heard numerous from as soon as I could read, over 3 decades ago, and they were horrific. My favorite is from the BMW M5 e39 launch in 1999, where over half of the cars had burnt out clutches that had to be replaced after the weekend press launch. Some other examples includes many journalists crashing, both on traffic and on track, Mechanics for manufacturer that have gotten press cars back and read the ECU and discovered hundreds of critical overrevs because of "Moneyshifts". Journalists driving over curbs and dislocating wheels and suspension, ripping of the undertray and oil sump etc etc etc. I am not opposed to EVs myself, on the contrary I have advocated for them since I was a little kid and had an electric RC car I tuned up and modified the battery pack of. My self chosen "graduation work" in highschool over two decades ago was designing a PHEV complete with fuel/electric consumption simulation. Funnily enough it was not accepted because my teacher that evaluated it said such a thing could never possibly come to exist. I understand your problem with the consumption numbers, and it certainly is a big problem if you live in congested places, uk being one of the worst with even the countryside littered with cars making you stop/start quite often. Luckily for me I live in a very sparsly populated part of the world, thats why I can equal or even better the manufacturers numbers almost every time. From what I know, steady state consumption is just about the only fair way of doing pure vehicle consuption numbers. I believe extra urban euro norm speed is 84km/h or something like that. "urban" or city traffic is pretty unquantifiable. In my old car magazines, they quoted consumption at 70, 90 and 110kmh for every car tested. For your user reported numbers, you got spritmonitor.de but such sites attract a certain type of persons, similar to how if you ask men how big their third leg is, the number will be way above average... Its the nature of the beast. Anyway I mostly agree with what you write, is what I want to say, but its not so easy. Cheers.
    1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894.  @anakinskywalker4113  Well, this can certainly be true, but can we really blame the engineering in that case? I will tell you an interesting fact not a lot of people know about: In days gone, the Golf GTI famously used to have twice the number of MOT fails according to statistics as did the normal Golf base model. The GTI was built in the same factory, by the same workes, on the same factory line. Great evidence for an overstressed engine, right? Turns out, none of those increased MOT fails where engine related, but various other components that where identical between both models. People scratched their heads, until they look at the buyer demographic... the base CL model were bought mostly by retirees and similar folks, stickler for correct servicing and changing stuff that was bad in a timely manner. The GTI on the other hand was bought by "boy racer" that couldnt care less but driving the wheels off the car. I am sure you get the moral of this story. A few month ago, I had a discussion with a guy in the youtube comment field that said it was impossible for any diesel engine turbo lasting more than 100k miles, absolutely impossible. He said he was drivetrain engineer. Now, that statement may well have flown in the US, where the general populace dont know much about diesel engines, but since youtube is international, I enlightened him that I oversee the servicing for a fleet of taxis and light buses/trucks, none of which generally had their tubros changed when we sell them, at about 300k miles. Now, dont misunderstand me, I am certainly not comparing you to that guy in any way, I am just saying I am reasonably certain this car would last quite a long time if I would be responsible for the servicing and me or one of my chauffeurs were driving it. I have no sympathy for people driving vehicles into the ground, that kind of sloppy attitude wouldnt be looked at favorably by me. Anyway, you latest post is very reasonable, I mostly concur. Cheers.
    1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992.  @greatbritannialine  You could get a new mobile phone for £10 before lockdown in some places. That is less than many "babys first phone". and the kids toy doesnt even work as a phone! What a total ripoff..... or different things might have different uses and customer bases. In short, you are arguing against things I have never said. I have have been into EV:s since 1992, and I still havent owned one. Doesnt suit my needs. I have written tons of posts in other places and been called an "EV hater" every day to this day, since I have had a realistic image of what they can do. I am as unbiased as it gets when it comes to EVs and ICE vehicles. But none of this is relevant to the post, because its not what I am saying. What I am saying is the car in the video is for those people that want a new vehicle but dont need a vehicle with more than walking/cycling range over a day. Thats it. So why would they get something that they will never use if they have to pay more? Everyone else, should *stay away*. I was pretty clear I thought. The line of thinking of "its a van, it should do van things", is pretty flawed to me. There is no deifined range of a "van", as far as I know. Its just the learned expectation of the word... I dont agree with that kind of thinking, a bit of thinking of what might suit oneself and reading a very short spec sheet (such as the range number) could be reasonably be expected if you are buying a new car, wouldnt you say. If you buy a new car simply because by reading a single word: (Van), you might find yourself trying to cook a meal on your newly bought "babys first stove " and being surprised it doesnt work. In other words, I find the notion of people saying things isnt what they expected when they extremely easliy could have found out what the item could do in reality, seem a bit lazy, to be frank. Cheers mate.
    1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021.  @MrFlazz99  Yes, this in indeed very common since the 1980s in American cars. If I remember correctly the first Dodge Viper for example was geared ridiculously high, with a theoretical top speed of close to 480kmh in top gear, and that was with way lower revs than this Mustang engine as well. So none of this is new in any way. Having a very tall top gear or two highest gears is not a problem at all for the American market where just about no one goes above 250kmh regularly, certainly not back in the 1980-1990s. Since then, it has found its way into more and more cars, with a lot of cars now having very tall top gears. My Porsche cayenne for example is also geared for a theoretical top speed of way more than 400kmh, just as this Mustang. What is a little bit surprising is that they wouldnt make the fifth gear juuuust a little bit taller, but they probably felt the tradeoff in acceleration wasnt worth it for a bit more top speed that as good as no one ever uses. Fair enough, hard to argue with that. Regarding too low gearing for max top speed, It is often found in diesels, just as your clio, since they have more limited revs. My old BMW 123d could hit the revlimiter in top gear already at stock power, and with just a little bit of tuning it was very easy to do so. Funnily enough, the 120d model with less power had higher gearing, and the 118d with less power again had even higher gearing than that. This was probably because BMW assume the customers buying the stronger engines prioritized acceleration vs fuel economy. Cheers.
    1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040.  @chrisalexandersb1748  It is obvious you have put quite a lot of thought into this, and for that I salute you. Very well argued points overall. I have also put quite a lot of thought into performance of electric cars, since the early 1990s with the EV1 in fact. I also happen to be a physicist with an interest in track driving. I have also seen the Top gear episode of Model 3 Performance vs BMW M3 multiple times since it aired. Considering that, I feel qualified to give a few points of my own: "Top Gear" doesnt hate Tesla. Jeremy Clarkson dislikes electric cars. But he was long gone when the M3 vs Model 3 test took place, the new writers of the show actually prefer electric cars. Secondly, if you have seen the test, it is obvious the driver has nowhere near the skills as a track driver to make any comparison between cars totally moot. It really should have been the Stig driving, Or Chris Harris is also suitably skilled, but I am also not sure about his bias. And that is all if we discount the editorial pressures. Do you remember the debacle of earlier Tesla in Top Gear running out of Juice on the track? Same thing there: Sensationalism, bias and a cheap laugh. I wouldnt trust BBC to make an unbiased test no matter what, no way. Its entertainment TV, no more, no less. Lastly, Tracks are very different. The Tesla Benefits from stop-and Go tracks, where its superior low speed acceleration and traction gives a huge benefit. This is all inline with your autocross and other examples you gave. On those tracks, the Model 3 is seconds faster than an F80 generation M3, no doubt or argument about that. When you say nurburgring, I take it that you mean the North loop? I have driven there quite a few times myself, and is quite familiar with it. Not sure what you mean by lack of gearing, only real place that could be an issue as I see it, is the long straight, and that would be a negligable timeloss, unless you mean to say it will accelerate faster at high speed with a higher gearing? It certainly wont reach its top speed of 260kph around any other part of the track. No, around the Nurbrugring The Model 3 is mostly limited by its high weight and overheating of the electric motor, even if that is much better in the model 3 compared to the Model S. The North loop is really the worst case scenrio for Teslas, with its sustained high speeds straights and curves taking its toll. The Model 3 Performance is about as fast as a Golf GTI around, but that is still an enormous step forward compared to an early Model S, which was hard pressed to beat even a Golf GTD Diesel, because of its weight and overheating issues. Track driving on bigger "normal" racetracks is mostly about pulling the most G:s . Compared to an M3, the Model 3 has too soft suspension, bad wheel angles, to weak brakes, is about 150-200kg heavier than an M3, has slower accelration at high speed, and, as you said, has worse standard fitment tires in many markets. Better low speed traction and acceleration can not compensate for these drawbacks around a normal track, where you rarely dip below 80-100 kph. I therefore stand by my statement that on a "normal" larger track where races are reguarly held, the M3 is faster. Its just physics. If we are talking modified cars, all bets are off, of course. That is totally different, since there is no fair way to quantify modifications.
    1
  3041.  @chrisalexandersb1748  With this post, I can see we agree with almost everything. As far as I know, there are no 1/2 mile tracks at all. Dont know if there are any anywhere in the world, usually they use some kind of airstrip. I guess 1/2 is supposed to be a similar test to the standing 0-1000m test, which is often used in european car magazines. I believe the times, but no video footage is unforgivable. No time on the board is also strange. Also, as I am sure you are aware if you have done some track driving is that temperatures alone and such can make a difference of several seconds. Making even the filmed top gear times almost useless. But I have no problem believing it might be a bit faster than an RS6 in the same conditions, which is even heavier and with a much higher center of gravity. Regarding the North loop, I will go even further than you and say that ALL tracks in the world are shorter, and almost everyone is lower average speed. As I said, a worst case scenario compared to autocross. Though, as far as I know, its not the battery that overheats, its the rotor in the rear electric motor (copper windings) mostly. But the slower the track, the less the issue, which as we agree are most of them. If you want to know which car is the fastest from the showroom, it should be run with stock tires. Of you on the other hand want to know which car is the fastest in owners on hands, I agree tires should be free to swap, since it is also a consumable. One can argue with size swap but, in the end it doesnt matter much. Changing springs goes a bit too deep in the modification category I think, if we still want to call it a stock car. Nevertheless, for ordinary road driving, handling doesnt matter. Any car made in the last 30 years can easily cope with all legal speeds in Norway, as you seem to be based. And for track driving I dont think a model 3 is a serious alternative in most of the world for now, because of charging times. Also the weigjtnof a model 3 will be very hard on the brakes. But an M3 isnt much of a track car either, in my book. Its a sporty gt, thats it. Many people think that a model 3 is faster on any track and that simply isnt true, that was what my first reply was based on. As I said, the Model 3 is a very well handling car, more than enough for anyone on the street, and I do mean ANYONE. That includes gentlemen such as Chris Harris, et al. The difference to a M3 is academic, and almost uninteresting. I would rather buy a Model 3 for myself. I just wont be dishonest about it being the best at everything as some (not you!) are. Yes, I am well aware of the Alfas ridiculous stock tires, but that is ok in my book, since they are just that, stock. Other manufacturers can easily offer the same tires as an option if they feel it is unfair.
    1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207.  @TassieLorenzo  If you take note of my quote above you will see it says: "The modern upsizing is almost exclusively done for looks." Key word being "almost", not "entirely". There are lot of other considerations of why you might want to upsize the wheels, the largest one being to fit larger brakes. I can think of a lot of other reasons quite easily, actually. But in the end, they all pale into insignificance compared to the amount of cars that have it just for the looks. How do we know this? Well, I can give two easily understandable examples: 1: Most cars sold are "bread and butter cars" not extreme sportscars like the example above. They are but a miniscule amount of the totalt car production worldwide. Funnily enough, even in the case above of going for fastest laptimes which is very far from what a normal consumer cars is supposed to be about there is questionable merit to what Mr AB-80X writes. I have not seen any real world lap time benefit of larger wheels for contact patch, larger rear than front wheels, or lower sidewalls. Unless I will be presented with data that shows the benefits outweighs the negatives (chiefly weight) of larger wheels than is necessary for fitting the brakes, I get the feeling that MR AB-80X have absorbed a bit too much marketing material. 2: Very few normal cars run the smallest possible wheels that can fit over the calipers, usually only the "poverty spec" version. All in all, with a few exceptions (which fit into the "almost" category, as stated above) its done for looks. Cheers.
    1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 1
  3760. 1
  3761. 1
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. 1