> Unless they’ve been specifically trained with PowerApps, most software developers would find it extremely unintuitive to build with, making it hard to apply classic coding skills or iterate quickly.
I had a friend who had a Honda (edit: actually, Toyota iirc) for ~15 years that didn’t know it had oil; So when they sold it and was asked how often the oil was changed, the potential buyer was met with a quizzical look. Tires and gasoline and window washer fluid was its maintenance.
I coworker of my mother some 20-25 years ago bought a new car. Drove it until it stopped and refused to go further. Called some road service who upon inspecting it announced that she had run out of gas. She was surprised, "Cars still need to be refueled??!!".
I find that a bit hard to believe. Someone in that family knew and took care of it sometimes.
The longest I've seen a used car go without an oil change was 40k miles and it was changed when it started making noise instantly on startup. That was basically 90k to 130k. Sure 0 to 40k would go a bit better.. but not 15 years of typical driving.
Between carbon blowby, gasoline dilution, oil burning at the rings/cylinder walls even if minimal, no car is making it 15 years if the person drives more than 5k miles a year IMO.
Unless they were driving very very low miles per year, they are simply incorrect. A car isn't making it over 100k miles without an oil change IMO, even a Toyota.
Similar to how this person went most of a lifetime without noticing and wondering what oil change businesses, advertisements, coupons, etc were for... They also didn't notice someone in their household or a service provider of some kind (brakes, tires, idk) changing their oil.
On older heavy equipment of low value and high difficulty servicing (think like a forklift or skid steer) it's not uncommon to replace the coolant with oil to mitigate a head gasket issue and simply drain some oil and add to the coolant on some semblance of a schedule.
One of my favorite tractors was the old Oil Pull's which were designed for oil in the radiator. (they were a gas engine, but designed to run on "tractor fuel" which is closer to diesel than gasoline - in order to work the engine had to be very hot)
It's of course possible to design engines to be oil cooled, though water-glycol tends to be preferred due to about twice the specific heat capacity, meaning smaller coolant channels, radiators, and fans are required.
I don't think it occurred to anyone in 1905 that a water/glycol mix might be good. They either used straight water with a warning to drain the engine when you shut down in cold weather so it didn't freeze, or they used oil. My 1939 tractor has instructions to start the engine and then pour water in the radiator when it is below freezing.
Not in 1905, no. I believe water-glycol mixes became widely used in the 1920'ies. But without glycol, water is an even better heat transfer agent. Shame about the freezing thing, though.
Is it specific heat that we care about, or rate of heat transfer?
Specific heat matters a bit, but if you make your coolant take twice the energy to change 1 degree, the same thing happens on the radiator side and you must release twice the heat to cool 1 degree.
Rate of heat transfer in general if probably more important.
Well, it gets really complex. Yes, specific heat matters, but as you say so does the heat transfer coefficient. And the viscosity. And is the flow laminar or turbulent? Etc.
But, turns out water is just very very good also when you take these other factors into account. Compared to oil, it has, as mentioned, much higher specific heat, it has higher heat conductivity, it has lower viscosity which means less pumping power and more likely to see turbulent flow which helps with mixing.
In the case of the oil pull tractor they needed to run the tractor much hotter than water boils - even if they had known modern antifreeze it still boils too hot. They also didn't know to make modern radiators - they usee very large radiators to make up for lack of surface area. (They also used exhaust to pull air through the radiator instead of a fan). All in all a very ingenious design - but there is good reason they don't make them like that anymore. (My 1939 is a lot more modern - and it lacks electric start)
I was gobsmacked when they announced for DOHC head, is there some context I am missing as to why this makes sense for them to make as a heritage part?
I absolutely love the heritage program. It's a love letter to its past and current enthusiasts and I hope it also makes business sense, so that it continues.
I'm disappointed you went with FI, the L28 is wonderful, if I was you I'd be tempted to swap the EFI for carbs, I expect the carbs for the L's 24 and 26 would suit?
Any word on how much the Nismo head will be, the OS Giken one is absolutely eye-watering.
The estimation for the Nismo head is ~$25k for just the head, not sure if that price included the valve train as well... Derrick's head is ballpark the same cost.
There is one more company in japan JMC,that is making heads as well, they have a recast of the N42 heads w/ better machining.
https://party-k.co.jp/used/index-3536.html
I have a 260z with round-top SUs from my 240z with L26, its not bad, it's a single click to get that engine running, even after sitting for a long time.
On the carb setup, I find the fuel smell to be a bit overwhelming, to the point where I don't want to drive the car as much because the passengers reek of fuel when they get out. I cant even run a shitty CAT on the exhaust because it would get destroyed by the carb. This is probably also due to leaks in the body gaskets...
I think it's really just the turbo that I want, I cant get smoked by these civics :(
Similar experience with a 2010 Honda Odyssey, drove it for 10 years and never saw a crack even though I'm sure it took a beating.
Then we got a 2022 Passport and I swear every single trip has a new crack or chip. I was surprisingly fortunate to be talked into the windshield warranty as the sales guy has been through this exact thing and replacing these windshields with assistive tech is expensive. That warranty has already paid for itself and more including once full windshield replacement.
Huh, odd. I have a car with assistive controls and they also tried to talk me into this warranty but I declined. They mentioned replacement would require extra money.
I did end up getting a windshield replacement shortly after purchase (like 6 months into ownership a rock came out of a truck and hit my windshield). I got it replaced for the normal $100-$200 not from the dealership and the vision system has had no issues.
The table from the report shows that the tools do crack the window but don't break it. Which is probably the main difference between old glass and the newer layered glass? If you crack an outer layer it is no longer usable, but you can't escape through it.
Laminated glass does not prevent routine stone chip events – if a tiny fragment of the stone becomes wedged in the outer ply or at the laminate interface at a tension point and, coupled with the temperature difference (inside the cabin vs ambient), cabin pressure and body flex that often place higher tensile stress lower on the windscreen, the crack can start propagating very quickly.
That was my experience earlier in the year: I was driving alongside a large fuel tanker on a city road when a tiny stone chip, probably thrown up from under the tanker’s tyres, struck the front windscreen. It took about an 1 ½ hour for the initially invisible crack to spread into an irreparable 30 cm one – effectively right in front of my eyes – and the windscreen had to be replaced. Lesson learned: do not drive anywhere near large trucks or fuel tankers or maintain a larger distance.
But the laminated glass will prevent the structural collapse of the windshield and will also prevent the occupants from being showered with glass shards. It is also more likely that the windshield will withstand an impact from a large stone, leaving a localised and static crack that can be repaired with resin.
> ...and will also prevent the occupants from being showered with glass shards.
Hasn't it been the case for a long time now that glass in automobiles is coated so that it breaks into small, generally-square fragments, rather than shards?
I've never smashed a window myself, but every couple of months, I see the remains of a window smashing on the sidewalk... it's always a pile of small, generally-square fragments.
My memory tells me that this design was mandated long ago because folks would get shards embedded in them effectively forever. One of my parents related a story that one of the parents up the tree would irregularly have to extract migrating glass shards breaking through the skin of his face that had been embedded during an automobile accident many years prior. But, perhaps that story is bullshit and completely fabricated, IDK.
That's tempered glass which breaks into the safer fragments. Still not completely safe obviously, especially if stuff is getting thrown around violently in an accident. The bigger safety case for laminated glass though is since it sticks together your body or limbs can't fly out through it in a rollover accident (even if belted can happen on the sides). There's also some fringe benefits: noise isolation, UV protection, and supposedly more annoying for thieves.
Usually the glass companies force you to pay it. For “safety”. It’s just a “you have a nice car so we’re gonna charge you more” fee.
I’ll probably be doing my own windshield on my Tesla to avoid this. Safelight has decent prices but whacks you with a huge fee for pressing “calibrate” in the service menu, which is user accessible.
Hold up you can calibrate it yourself? I was under the impression you need additional hardware jigs to align cameras to fixed points, similar to a steering alignment.
Sounds just like Sharepoint.
reply