Well, to be honest, I bought it used with nearly half that on it already. But even so, you're right, I rode that car hard and put it away wet. Probably the most reliable car I've ever owned.
When it comes to extra weight, I've found that a couple bags of pretty much anything in the hatch helps a lot in snow. Rice, flour, pea gravel, sand... doesn't really matter much what's in the bags.
Bah, that's nothing. I had to walk without FEET, because they hadn't been invented yet. Moving around on bloody stumps in subzero weather all year really takes it out of you.
Ah, but what if the engine moved due to a broken mount, and that put the fan into the radiator, and bits of flying fan broke the pulley? It's easy to check, and it would suck bigtime to replace everything and have the same thing happen a week later.
Ha! That's what we tell foreigners, anyway. ;)
Seriously, though, we have a history of building, and, for that matter, staffing, whatever size navy we need when we need it, instead of keeping it around in peacetime.
Well, considering that FWD was started over a century ago, technically that's true. However, mass adoption in the USA wasn't until the mid 70s, due to changes in fuel economy requirements. Prior to that, there was only the Toronado in the mid-60s, and that wasn't exactly a huge hit. I'm old...
Err... Canada doesn't have *any* aircraft carriers. Hell, I think our navy consists of a dozen icebreakers and 4 submarines, and I'm pretty sure a couple of those subs are landlocked in an amusement park on the prairies somewhere.
Shit, now I'm starting to feel really old. I bought my first Supra in... lemme think... dammit, must have been the early 90's. It was after the first marriage crumbled like ice re-entering the atmosphere, so probably '92. Six more Mk2s followed, then my old Mk3, then this car. So that would...
I don't understand the British navy's apparent fear of nuclear power either. For a country that's had one of the world's premier navies since ... well, since navies, they sure are falling behind.
As I recall, that's the year difference - pre 98 vs post 89, and is what was supposed to be responsible for the higher HP rating on the post 89. Note this line in the specs and year changes thread:
Horsepower up to 232hp (from 230hp), torque up to 254ft-lbs (from 246ft-lbs)
The no engines, generators, or pumps bit is a bit of a deal killer for anyone that isn't just planning to melt it for the scrap. :(
Even if the engines were still there... any clue what it costs to power one of these for any length of time? Doesn't matter whether it's nuclear or diesel, it'll...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.