Cars you’ve had?

ESisback

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,147
Reaction score
14,016
1965 El Camino. 327, powerglide. I miss this car.
1967 Camaro, 350, turbo 350 (want to some day convert to manual).
1987 Mustang 5.0 Coupe (fun little car, pretty quick).
Current ride is a 97 Dodge Ram 1500.

71737_1649866850468_2225389_n.jpg
Nice pic!
 

jsb357

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,560
Reaction score
7,265
Compared to other list posted, mine is kind of lame.

I never had an American muscle car and always wanted a Chevelle, Camero, GTO etc.

Despite my post about the 1973 T-Bird it was my parent’s spare car

1973 Mustang Fastback in 1982 (302 not Mach I)

1978 Triumph Spitfire in 1984 (ragtop) you can’t lock a ragtop

1988 Honda CRX (only new car) in 1988 (electrical gremlins after 12 years)

1987 Bronco II in 1999 (2wd decent mileage)

1988 Ford F-150 4X4 in 1999 (10mpg)

2000 Buick Park Avenue in 2009 (luxury and quicker than you would think)

2008 Mustang in 2011 (v6 auto road trip car)

2002 Chevrolet Silverado Z-71 4X4 in 2012 (12mpg work / play truck)

1987 Mercedes 560 SEC in 2016 (weekend cruiser)

1979 Mercedes 300D in 2020 (hobby / tinkering / ticking / rattling / diesel)
 

ESisback

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,147
Reaction score
14,016
Compared to other list posted, mine is kind of lame.

I never had an American muscle car and always wanted a Chevelle, Camero, GTO etc.

Despite my post about the 1973 T-Bird it was my parent’s spare car

1973 Mustang Fastback in 1982 (302 not Mach I)

1978 Triumph Spitfire in 1984 (ragtop) you can’t lock a ragtop

1988 Honda CRX (only new car) in 1988 (electrical gremlins after 12 years)

1987 Bronco II in 1999 (2wd decent mileage)

1988 Ford F-150 4X4 in 1999 (10mpg)

2000 Buick Park Avenue in 2009 (luxury and quicker than you would think)

2008 Mustang in 2011 (v6 auto road trip car)

2002 Chevrolet Silverado Z-71 4X4 in 2012 (12mpg work / play truck)

1987 Mercedes 560 SEC in 2016 (weekend cruiser)

1979 Mercedes 300D in 2020 (hobby / tinkering / ticking / rattling / diesel)
Still a good list. Thanks! I like Buick’s, too!
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
50,238
Reaction score
94,110
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Compared to other list posted, mine is kind of lame.

I never had an American muscle car and always wanted a Chevelle, Camero, GTO etc.

Despite my post about the 1973 T-Bird it was my parent’s spare car

1973 Mustang Fastback in 1982 (302 not Mach I)

1978 Triumph Spitfire in 1984 (ragtop) you can’t lock a ragtop

1988 Honda CRX (only new car) in 1988 (electrical gremlins after 12 years)

1987 Bronco II in 1999 (2wd decent mileage)

1988 Ford F-150 4X4 in 1999 (10mpg)

2000 Buick Park Avenue in 2009 (luxury and quicker than you would think)

2008 Mustang in 2011 (v6 auto road trip car)

2002 Chevrolet Silverado Z-71 4X4 in 2012 (12mpg work / play truck)

1987 Mercedes 560 SEC in 2016 (weekend cruiser)

1979 Mercedes 300D in 2020 (hobby / tinkering / ticking / rattling / diesel)
More fun than my list! lol I loved my Dakota, and liked my Toyota PU, but everything else was/is just a car. Really would love to get a Corvette someday. I learned to drive in a brand new one when I was 15, and fell in love with them. They started making pretty lame for a while, but man did they ever make a comeback! Those mid engine Stingrays are the ****!!!
 

SlammedZero

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,664
Reaction score
40,545
It is my humble opinion that Rotary motors were more dependable that Piston motors. The RX7 i had was a pretty good car.

I tried to redline mine in 5th gear and could not get it there but it kept going faster and faster Mazda even made some trucks and vans with rotary engines in them The rotaries are very dependable engines They have less moving parts to wear out

They're not bad but they do tend to wear their apex seals out pretty frequently and burn oil.
 

SlammedZero

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,664
Reaction score
40,545
Pretty sure Rotary motors do not have heads.

That is correct!

Shows how much I know about rotary motors! I assumed the metal where the exhaust manifold met the rest of the engine.
They're a really unique design. From what I've read, Mazda isn't giving up on the idea either. They're still doing lots of R&D to try and perfect them. As I said earlier, their main weakness is the apex seals. They tend to wear out and it allows oil to burn and you will loose some compression.

A couple benefits of them are that they (under normal operating conditions) run very smoothly, have less moving parts, are more compact and can weigh less, and can rev really high.

Just in case you're not super familiar with how they work, here is a great little video on their design. If you already know how they work, my apologies, you can dismiss the link. Not trying to come across condescending.

 
Last edited:

ESisback

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,147
Reaction score
14,016
That is correct!


They're a really unique design. From what I've read, Mazda isn't giving up on the idea either. They're still doing lots of R&D to try and perfect them. As I said earlier, their main weakness is the apex seals. They tend to wear out and it allows oil to burn and you will loose some compression.

A couple benefits of them are that they (under normal operating conditions) run very smoothly, have less moving parts, are more compact and can weigh less, and can rev really high.

Just in case you're not super familiar with how they work, here is a great little video on their design. If you already know how they work, my apologies, you can dismiss the link. Not trying to come across condescending.


Thanks for the info!
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
50,238
Reaction score
94,110
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
That is correct!


They're a really unique design. From what I've read, Mazda isn't giving up on the idea either. They're still doing lots of R&D to try and perfect them. As I said earlier, their main weakness is the apex seals. They tend to wear out and it allows oil to burn and you will loose some compression.

A couple benefits of them are that they (under normal operating conditions) run very smoothly, have less moving parts, are more compact and can weigh less, and can rev really high.

Just in case you're not super familiar with how they work, here is a great little video on their design. If you already know how they work, my apologies, you can dismiss the link. Not trying to come across condescending.


Ah, there are 2 rotors at opposite angles. I was wondering why there wasn't a lot of off balance shaking.
 

rags747

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,557
Reaction score
8,049
I tried to redline mine in 5th gear and could not get it there but it kept going faster and faster Mazda even made some trucks and vans with rotary engines in them The rotaries are very dependable engines They have less moving parts to wear out
Died due to poor gas mileage and tended to consume more oil.
 
Top