Automotive Myths, Lore, and other incorrectness

Seeing "Mrs Oldtin's new ride" reminded me of one.

Porsche 928 is more aerodynamic going backward, than it is going forward.

Anti-stance wrote: ^^^This. Its a special model Mustang just like the SRT4 is a special model Neon. The difference between a Chevy 1500 regular cab short bed truck and a Chevy 1500 extended cab long bed truck is greater than the difference of a Neon and a Neon SRT4 but it is still considered a Chevy 1500 truck. It seems only fanboys seem to get upset when someone calls it a Neon. Maybe we should drop the Dodge part too.

There is a large difference - the Chevy 1500 extended cab and regular cab are not sold as different models.

Most of the parts between a K1500 and a K2500 interchange, too, but they are different models. Dig now?

Guess it depends what year you bought. Apparently Dodge even conceded in 2005 that their denial program wouldn't work. 95% of the public, 50% or more of the people on the SRT boards, Dodge in 2005, and I believe it is in fact a Neon.

Here's the SRT forum's debate on the matter:

Neon SRT4

Some people care entirely too much about that sort of thing.

My contribution to the myths and incorrectedness:

"You should downshift to save your brake pads."

Right, 'cause a clutch is so much easier to swap than brake pads!

If you put a ford motor in a chevy and a chevy in a ford they BOTH go faster.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

dculberson wrote: Some people care entirely too much about that sort of thing.

You're right, I think it is lame that someone that drives a really fast Neon SRT4 is ashamed to say its a Neon and will even argue with a parts jockey over it.

Oh and thread contribution:

The old theory that Fords must suck because their name is easy to turn into a slanderous acronym. Found On Roadside Dead

Followup on the Rollie Free bathing suit Vincent photo:

Alain DeCadenet's column in the latest issue of Classic and Sports Car (British equivalent of CMS, sort-of), June 2012 issue, page 39, tells the whole story. DeCad has a Black Shadow.

Curmudgeon wrote:

Will wrote:

B430 wrote: If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?

Of course not. But that's not what we're talking about. A GT500 is still a Mustang, no matter what engine it has, and to claim it's not a Mustang is just silly.

That's the basis for all the hell raising about 'clone' muscle cars, like that Boss 302 Mustang cowl that was on eBay a few years back. Theoretically, you could splice that into a regular Mustang shell and legally have a 'real' Boss 302 Mustang. Old page dealing with the clone Boss issue: http://www.boss302.com/rogues.htm

That made me laugh because if I have a data plate off (name an aircraft) I could literally rebuild the entire aircraft around it provided it was done to the correct specifications. I can see with high priced collectible cars why you'd want to be careful.

Also I haven't seen this yet: Only female secretaries drive Miatas. Or Miatas are "chick" cars.

The0retical wrote: Also I haven't seen this yet: Only female secretaries drive Miatas. Or Miatas are "chick" cars.

Or male hairdressers.

My Miata begs to differ...

The0retical wrote: Also I haven't seen this yet: Only female secretaries drive Miatas. Or Miatas are "chick" cars.

It can't be a myth if it's true.

dculberson wrote: Right, 'cause a clutch is so much easier to swap than brake pads!

How much wear does downshifting put on a clutch?

Re: Neon/SRT-4... That's very interesting. Whether it's a Neon or its own model depends on what year it is.

Anti-stance wrote: You're right, I think it is lame that someone that drives a really fast Neon SRT4 is ashamed to say its a Neon and will even argue with a parts jockey over it.

It depends on if you've encountered issues ordering parts.

"Need a (blank) for an '86 Quantum Syncro."

"(....) I can get it tomorrow, it's ($)."

"Did it ask Syncro or not?"

"Um."

"Did it ask if it's AWD or not?"

"(...) They didn't make an AWD model."

(rage)

If the Taco Bell reject at the counter clicks in "Neon" and it doesn't ask questions like turbo/non-turbo, or base/RT/SRT-4, he's going to assume that there's no difference. Assuming that he even knows that there's going to be a difference. All he knows parts-wise is what the computer says there is to know, and if he starts off with a wrong model/year then he's going to look up the wrong parts.

(Not all parts guys are Taco Bell rejects. Some are damned knowledgeable, and they're the ones I generally deal with)

Another interesting point - according to C/D's research, 55% of all Golfs sold last year were TDIs. (Or maybe it was 45%... either way, LARGE) This, of course, is not counting the GTI because it's not counted as a Golf.

B430 wrote: My point was if I made a bet that a neon couldn't run 10s on a stock block and you "proved" me wrong with a vid of a srt4 there is no way I would pay up, srt4 is not a neon. We all know it has a neon body, but other than the body and most of the interior is anything else the same? If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?

buuuuut it was established it was an nsrt4 when i was talking about it. its just quicker to type neon. and it is basically a neon.
it was made even clearer that it was an srt4 when I told him it was running an improved turbo, manifold, cams, and 35psi with water/meth.

The0retical wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

Will wrote:

B430 wrote: If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?

Of course not. But that's not what we're talking about. A GT500 is still a Mustang, no matter what engine it has, and to claim it's not a Mustang is just silly.

That's the basis for all the hell raising about 'clone' muscle cars, like that Boss 302 Mustang cowl that was on eBay a few years back. Theoretically, you could splice that into a regular Mustang shell and legally have a 'real' Boss 302 Mustang. Old page dealing with the clone Boss issue: http://www.boss302.com/rogues.htm

That made me laugh because if I have a data plate off (name an aircraft) I could literally rebuild the entire aircraft around it provided it was done to the correct specifications. I can see with high priced collectible cars why you'd want to be careful. Also I haven't seen this yet: Only female secretaries drive Miatas. Or Miatas are "chick" cars.

I once climbed into a Cessna, don't recall the model but it was the smallest tricycle gear (as opposed to taildragger), maybe a 172? Anyway, there was a ragged piece of paper all yellow etc taped to the instument panel with some numbers and crap on it, I asked what it was. It seems the plane originally had a 150HP engine which was replaced with a 180HP engine and the FAA or whoever required that modification's information to be posted on the plane, and that's how he did it. He said it had passed whatever FAA inspection was needed.

Knurled wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: You're right, I think it is lame that someone that drives a really fast Neon SRT4 is ashamed to say its a Neon and will even argue with a parts jockey over it.

It depends on if you've encountered issues ordering parts. "Need a (blank) for an '86 Quantum Syncro." "(....) I can get it tomorrow, it's ($)." "Did it ask Syncro or not?" "Um." "Did it ask if it's AWD or not?" "(...) They didn't make an AWD model." (*rage*)

I guess I was looking more at it as a blow-off valve king, that is driving a SRT4, gets all upset because the dude behind the counter asks if it is a Neon. BOV king takes it as "SWAT just came into my house, disrespected my whole family" style of FATF insult. Instead of just saying, "Yeah, its a Neon SRT4(emphasising SRT4)." Same goes for a Viper SRT10 or ACR or Golf/GTI. I always put emphasis on things that are commonly mistaken. I never seemed to have a problem ordering parts on my old Jetta Ecodiesel E36 M3bucket. Never seemed to get gasser parts for it, but then again I didn't go to McParts stores either.

Oh OT: I had a physics teacher tell us in class that wider tires wouldn't grip more than narrow tires. Even saying that a bigger contact patch wouldnt matter. Say what?

My favorite I just traded in my ( old paid for 15 mpg truck) on a new car that gets 30mpg, with these gas prices I'm goin to save a ton of money!

Heavy cars handle better than light cars.

What the heck guys how did we get this far without

" you're lucky that 100 shot of nos didn't blow the welds off the intake!"

and you're lucky the floor pans are still in!

at school I had an instructor explain how to find out which bucket to install to move valve lash into spec completely backwards. I tried arguing it with him, as it was a question on lab final, but eventually gave in and did it his way, which was wrong. I then went to one of the dozen race engine building instructors in the school and confirmed that I was right, just to satisfy myself. Didn't push the issue with the instructor though.
iirc the question was "what bucket do you need to install to make the valve lash .012"?" this clearly means that .012 is the spec, so I plugged it into the stupid formula, even though its easy enough to do in your head.
His way was, for some reason, solving for the spec? Made no sense.
Was told that there was a similarly bass ackward question on the engine ASE as well.

Anti-stance wrote: I never seemed to have a problem ordering parts on my old Jetta Ecodiesel E36 M3bucket. Never seemed to get gasser parts for it, but then again I didn't go to McParts stores either.

A regular customer of ours goes to a different shop for brakes because "they're cheaper". He has an. A3-chassis Jetta TDI. The parts hanger consistently puts solid 9.4 rotors on the car, which is supposed to have vented 10.1 rotors. Yes, the pads touch after they are about half worn. Yes, I have pictures somewhere.

Here is what I assume happens.

"I need pads and rotors for a Jetta."

"8-valve or 16-valve?"

"(looks at engine) 8-valve."

The first time I saw this, we told him to go back and have the brakes re-done because THE PADS WERE TOUCHING and, you know, the other guy (i assume human, and not a shaved chimpanzee flinging poop and wrenches and stuff. Giving benefit of the doubt, here) screwed up. So, he went back, 30k later we see the car again, the pads and rotors had been replaced with the wrong parts again.

Oh OT: I had a physics teacher tell us in class that wider tires wouldn't grip more than narrow tires. Even saying that a bigger contact patch wouldnt matter. Say what?

That's easy. The physics teacher is assuming that tires work by friction, and not by mechanical traction. There we go with another problem caused by one false assumption early on in the process.

That's the same assumption that says that no car can ever run quicker than a 9-second quarter mile. If tires worked purely by friction, this would be true.

If you want to see tires that work purely by friction, drive in sub-40f temps on high performance summer tires...

icaneat50eggs wrote: What the heck guys how did we get this far without " you're lucky that 100 shot of nos didn't blow the welds off the intake!"

Or blow out your floor boards!

Knurled wrote: A regular customer of ours goes to a different shop for brakes because "they're cheaper". He has an. A3-chassis Jetta TDI. The parts hanger consistently puts solid 9.4 rotors on the car, which is supposed to have vented 10.1 rotors. Yes, the pads touch after they are about half worn. Yes, I have pictures somewhere.

Was there even an A3 that came with 9.4s? Did the guy not know what year the car was? One more question, did he have a nasally voice, an obscene mullet, and a confederate flag sticker on said Jetta?

Anti-stance wrote:

dculberson wrote: Some people care entirely too much about that sort of thing.

You're right, I think it is lame that someone that drives a really fast Neon SRT4 is ashamed to say its a Neon and will even argue with a parts jockey over it. Oh and thread contribution: The old theory that Fords must suck because their name is easy to turn into a slanderous acronym. Found On Roadside Dead

Chews Heads, Eats Valves, Races Only Little Electric Trains.

Anti-stance wrote:

Knurled wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: You're right, I think it is lame that someone that drives a really fast Neon SRT4 is ashamed to say its a Neon and will even argue with a parts jockey over it.

It depends on if you've encountered issues ordering parts. "Need a (blank) for an '86 Quantum Syncro." "(....) I can get it tomorrow, it's ($)." "Did it ask Syncro or not?" "Um." "Did it ask if it's AWD or not?" "(...) They didn't make an AWD model." (*rage*)

I guess I was looking more at it as a blow-off valve king, that is driving a SRT4, gets all upset because the dude behind the counter asks if it is a Neon. BOV king takes it as "SWAT just came into my house, disrespected my whole family" style of FATF insult. Instead of just saying, "Yeah, its a Neon SRT4(emphasising SRT4)." Same goes for a Viper SRT10 or ACR or Golf/GTI. I always put emphasis on things that are commonly mistaken. I never seemed to have a problem ordering parts on my old Jetta Ecodiesel E36 M3bucket. Never seemed to get gasser parts for it, but then again I didn't go to McParts stores either. Oh OT: I had a physics teacher tell us in class that wider tires wouldn't grip more than narrow tires. Even saying that a bigger contact patch wouldnt matter. Say what?

there are even car forums where people will will argue this point about the wider tires. i shut one guy up by telling him who drove same car as me and not modified as much to come over and ill prove it. sure enough he did. get in his car do a huge burnout. get in my car try to do one and well ya couldnt do it. then go up to 45 mph slam on the brakes. abs kicks in on his. mine nope..... hmmmm wow guess i have more traction. maybe its the 185's versus 225's

every engineering student is taught that area doesn't change friction force....

Just saying.