I only "look" stoopid.goglio704 wrote:???goglio704 wrote:
Philip,
Did you ever own a 350 diesel? I suspect if you had with your knowledge and mechanical ability, it would have exceeded its reputation.

Moderators: goglio704, Nissan_Ranger, kassim503
I only "look" stoopid.goglio704 wrote:???goglio704 wrote:
Philip,
Did you ever own a 350 diesel? I suspect if you had with your knowledge and mechanical ability, it would have exceeded its reputation.
As much of Europe has done, nuclear power is going to have to triumph over Big Oil in the USA for municipal power generation. After that happens, large scale hydrogen production can happen. China has 25 new nuclear plants in the planning & building.glenlloyd wrote:And finally, the diesel can burn bio fuel as it sits now, and is very clean doing that. I'm not confident that E85 is an effective solution and I'm almost sure hydrogen isn't. I'm waiting to see what type of longevity we get from the E85 engines.
steve a
probably true Philipphilip wrote:As much of Europe has done, nuclear power is going to have to triump over Big Oil in the USA for municipal power generation. After that happens, large scale hydrogen production can happen. China has 25 new nuclear plants in the planning & building.
I am aware of this project but the light at the end of the hydrogen tunnel is a lot further off then it is at the end of the bio fuel tunnel. And as Al has mentioned the infrastructure necessary to support the widespread implementation and use of bio fuel is already in place. I don't see hydrogen in widespread use until after I'm dead and gone. I do see our reliance on non-US petroleum as a critical problem right now, from both a financial and environmental standpoint.philip wrote:You might research the hydrogen refueling station program that Air Products has been engaged in for years.
While the Corvair has its weak points -- and not withstanding Ralph Nader's techinal writing ability in the 1960's -- I will argue that the Corvair was quite a decent car in its day, and that it was marketing, and the public demand for muscle cars from the Big Three, that killed it off in the marketplace.philip wrote:GM will never live down Corvair ... Vega ...
I have a friend out near Hemet who found a 1962 in decent running shape (low mileage too) and the interior is original. It had been parked under a BIG tree for many years with the windows up. Paid $1800. No gas heater though. BUT ... there is another gent in his neighborhood who has a '61 and it does have the gasoline heater under the hood on the right side (he says). The area is a junk magnet I guess.asavage wrote:SNIP- If my life situation changed and I could keep cars under cover, I'd definitely buy another one -- probably a Lakewood (1961-2), as they're rare and a Wagon.
Factory gasoline furnace heater in all US-sold 1960 Corvairs! (Optional '61-4). I used to have four of them, used them as complicated gasoline space heaters, great for thawing out pipes under the house
philip wrote:I only "look" stoopid.goglio704 wrote:???goglio704 wrote:
Philip,
Did you ever own a 350 diesel? I suspect if you had with your knowledge and mechanical ability, it would have exceeded its reputation.
Yes. But you guys answered my question, so please, continue the debate. Corvairs, gas heaters (which I am actually quite interested in for the 914) and GM diesels, it's all great!philip wrote:
(has this thread drifted much?)
The platform formed by the folded seatback was pretty high. You'd have to be an exhibitionist to get nekkid back there. I'd stick with the front buckets. Since the '62 I had was AT (PowerGlide), the shifter was part of the instrument panel (not column shift, not floor shift: dash shift). Corvairs have flat floors or at most a 1" rise for the tunnel that housed the various control cables (accel rod, clutch cable, shifter rod). Nice not to have to fight a tall tunnel.moose60 wrote:Yeah... Instruments...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest