First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the new kitchen table.
Larry
On 1/4/2017 7:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 6:29 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>> Upgrading to 200A won't help you one bit. You are not tripping your
>>> main breaker, so it is not being over loaded. It does no good at all
>>> to deliver more current to your house than you are drawing.
>
>>> Jut don't waste your money upgrading a service entrance that does
>>> not nee upgrading. Any electrician that tells you this will fix
>>> your problem is just lying to you in order to take your money.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's a good idea for a few reasons.
>> Start adding tools to the shop that have the potential of all running at
>> once and you can overload a 100amp service quickly. The shop could
>> have a table saw, dust collector, air compressor, lights, chargers,
>> window air conditioner, mini-fridge, lights, shop-vac, all running at
>> the same time, while in the house at the same time, you can have the
>> whole-house AC running, a turkey in the oven on 400°, 3 pots on the
>> stove, microwave on, washer and dryer both running, water heater heating
>> water, someone using a hair dryer and curling iron, bunch of lights and
>> TVs on and more. I just described a typical Saturday afternoon in many
>> homes. All these things going at the same time is not uncommon and
>> could easily exceed 100amp service.
>>
>> Upgrading to 200amps is a good idea for most any home, for the reasons
>> stated above and more. The average family uses a lot more electricity
>> than they used to. One of the first things you'll see listed on a home
>> inspection when buying/selling a home is if the electric service is only
>> 100amp. If he ever intends on selling the house, the upgrade isn't
>> wasted money.
>
> You really have to assess the particular needs. For me, 200A would be
> waste. I don't have central AC, I don't have an electric range. I
> never run more than one power tool at a time. I don't think I've ever
> pulled more than 50A at a given time.
Agreed. I have been using a 150 amp service since 1981, I have never
tripped the main breaker and that house was all electric.
On occasion I tripped the breaker on a 15 amp circuit in my old shop but
that was with a 3 hp router running for 2 hours straight, a fan, a DC
and lighting.
The electric dryer and either the TS, Planer, or BS ran on the same 240
volt circuit at the same time with no problem.
Today our newer home has a 150 amp service box and I had a dedicated 240
volt and a dedicated 120 volt 20 amp added before the house was built.
I have 3 machines that run on 240 volt but never at the same time.
The new house has gas so my demand is even lower than the previous 30
years. Furnace and water heater and range now run on gas.
For me I have plenty, someone else may need more one day.
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 7:05:40 PM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/5/17 5:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 11:57:33 AM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
> >>
> >> There are no breakers to move when installing a new sub-panel.
> >
> >
> > ??? To install a sub panel you have to "move" a new/additional 220
> > amp breaker into the main panel. New breaker. You may have to use
> > some of those double up breakers to make space for the new 220
> > breaker feeding the sub panel. So you would be moving those
> > breakers.
> >
>
> I think there's some misunderstanding of what we're talking about.
>
> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage.
> This can come off the main feed into the house.
> I'm not sure what a 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
Maybe some misunderstanding. How about a 60 amp 220 volt breaker in the main panel to feed the sub panel.
>
> But it really doesn't matter anyway, because it's semantics since every
> situation is different.
> The labor/price I quoted was from a real electrician doing a real job,
> similar to the one I suggested to the OP. I wasn't submitting a bid or
> giving him an exact quote for the job. I was simply giving advice and a
> real world example to help him decide. As usual in here, everybody has
> to jump in and bitch about every little aspect of everything everyone
> says.
>
>
> --
>
> -MIKE-
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
> [email protected]
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:57:29 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 1/4/17 9:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:31:43 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/4/17 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:49:08 -0600, -MIKE-
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>>>>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good
>>>>>>>> advice. The breaker box is located in the garage and
>>>>>>>> there is no clear, open route to the basement and on to
>>>>>>>> the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add
>>>>>>>> a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the
>>>>>>>> shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose
>>>>>>>> the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new
>>>>>>>> meter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to
>>>>>>>> completing the new kitchen table.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in
>>>>>>> the shop area. That would make it super easy for you to run
>>>>>>> extra circuits/outlets in the shop whenever you wanted. If
>>>>>>> you ever decided to wire your saw for 220 or add a 220 dust
>>>>>>> collector, etc., you would have to run the wire all the way
>>>>>>> back to the garage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your
>>>>>> situation and current course of action. Bite the bullet and
>>>>>> run the sub-panel to the shop vs. the two circuits you
>>>>>> propose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the
>>>>>> meter can at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage
>>>>>> and installed a 100A panel there. Lights in the shop are
>>>>>> separate circuit. Garage lights are on two separate circuits
>>>>>> (one of which also has the door opener) and wall outlets in
>>>>>> garage and shop are two separate circuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I
>>>>>> still have room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I
>>>>>> can add more if needed (but don't see that happening).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
>>>>>> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses. Running one
>>>>> piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever, over
>>>>> to the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two
>>>>> lengths of 12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than
>>>>> one length of #6 (probably what he'll need to go to
>>>>> sub-panel).
>>>>
>>>> #8 is good for 40A, IIRC. That's enough for any one man shop.
>>>> It's a *lot* easier to work with. #6 is a right PITA. It will
>>>> be more costly to run either than a couple of 12s. Actually, he
>>>> could get away with one 12-3, for two circuits.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, #6-3 w/Ground Romex is 6x the cost, per foot, as 12-2
>>>> w/ground.
>>>
>>> That wasn't really the pertinent point I was trying to make.
>>
>> The labor cost for one #6 will be much higher, too. That stuff is a
>> PITA to work with.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another
>>>>> $100 bucks for an electrician who's already there. From there,
>>>>> he can run his own wiring in the shop to save money.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're way low on your estimates.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ask the electrician who quoted that to me when we were spec'ing out
>>> a 200amp breaker box change over. He said installing the other
>>> panel wouldn't be more than another hour and a half labor on top of
>>> everything else he was doing. He charges $60/hr.
>>
>> Just moving the breakers will take a lot more than a couple of
>> hours. It's more like an 8-12 hour job. Then there's the dicking
>> around with the power company and inspectors, and all that rot. It's
>> not a simple task. I've seen quotes well above $1000 for just a
>> panel swap.
>>
>
>There are no breakers to move when installing a new sub-panel. But you
>know what, I'll tell my electrician he has it all wrong and he should
>call you.
Sorry, I thougt we were talking about replacing the panel with a 200A
service. I agree, a sub shoud only take an hour or two (give or take
a bunch of sheetrock).
400 cycles was invented for Airplanes. Smaller transformers.
28 cycles was invented for ships. It was never implemented. Large
transformers were ok - they were ballast. The 28 cycle was dangerous
to the human body. It entered the body on a body short.
My dad lost the marrow in one of his arms when he was bumped into a 28
hz generator. His arm went out in front to protect his fall and across
two buss bars. Two burn holes and it goes to the center. He was
working on Naval Radar and other Naval power needs.
60 cycle / Hz is skin effect. So it is far safer. Consider 28 with
left arm to right leg - burn a heart out. 60 hz stops the lungs typically.
Martin
On 1/7/2017 10:29 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:YPydndGe9p2PjuzFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> Cars used to have 6 volt systems but switched to 12 volt so that the
>> cables could be smaller.
>
> Sort of. The real reason it was done was because tetra-ethyl
> lead was invented.
>
> (Tetra-ethyl lead allows higher octane gasoline. Higher octane
> gasoline allows higher compression engines. Higher compression
> engines require more power from the starter motor to get them
> started, which requires more current from the battery. During
> the 1950's compression ratios went from ~6:1 to ~9:1, which
> became a problem for both the battery and the cables. Hence
> the switch to 12 volt electrical systems.)
>
> John
>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:18:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/4/2017 7:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 6:29 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>>> Upgrading to 200A won't help you one bit. You are not tripping your
>>>> main breaker, so it is not being over loaded. It does no good at all
>>>> to deliver more current to your house than you are drawing.
>>
>>>> Jut don't waste your money upgrading a service entrance that does
>>>> not nee upgrading. Any electrician that tells you this will fix
>>>> your problem is just lying to you in order to take your money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's a good idea for a few reasons.
>>> Start adding tools to the shop that have the potential of all running at
>>> once and you can overload a 100amp service quickly. The shop could
>>> have a table saw, dust collector, air compressor, lights, chargers,
>>> window air conditioner, mini-fridge, lights, shop-vac, all running at
>>> the same time, while in the house at the same time, you can have the
>>> whole-house AC running, a turkey in the oven on 400°, 3 pots on the
>>> stove, microwave on, washer and dryer both running, water heater heating
>>> water, someone using a hair dryer and curling iron, bunch of lights and
>>> TVs on and more. I just described a typical Saturday afternoon in many
>>> homes. All these things going at the same time is not uncommon and
>>> could easily exceed 100amp service.
>>>
>>> Upgrading to 200amps is a good idea for most any home, for the reasons
>>> stated above and more. The average family uses a lot more electricity
>>> than they used to. One of the first things you'll see listed on a home
>>> inspection when buying/selling a home is if the electric service is only
>>> 100amp. If he ever intends on selling the house, the upgrade isn't
>>> wasted money.
>>
>> You really have to assess the particular needs. For me, 200A would be
>> waste. I don't have central AC, I don't have an electric range. I
>> never run more than one power tool at a time. I don't think I've ever
>> pulled more than 50A at a given time.
>
>
>Agreed. I have been using a 150 amp service since 1981, I have never
>tripped the main breaker and that house was all electric.
I haven't trippen a main on any of my houses. I don't believe I've
heard of anyone who has. I have two 150A panels, each with 40 breaker
position, in an unfinished basement. No problems with power in this
house. ;-)
>
>On occasion I tripped the breaker on a 15 amp circuit in my old shop but
>that was with a 3 hp router running for 2 hours straight, a fan, a DC
>and lighting.
>The electric dryer and either the TS, Planer, or BS ran on the same 240
>volt circuit at the same time with no problem.
>
>
>Today our newer home has a 150 amp service box and I had a dedicated 240
>volt and a dedicated 120 volt 20 amp added before the house was built.
I would have run a sub. My last house had a 200A main but it was
full, so I added a sub right next to it, moved to circuits from the
house over to the sub, then used those spaces for a breaker to the sub
(right next to the main).
>I have 3 machines that run on 240 volt but never at the same time.
>The new house has gas so my demand is even lower than the previous 30
>years. Furnace and water heater and range now run on gas.
>
>For me I have plenty, someone else may need more one day.
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-5, Gramps' shop wrote:
> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>
> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the new kitchen table.
>
> Larry
Sounds like a great plan. Lights on a non-power tool circuit, I assume?
Now finish up that table so you'll have a nice place to sit while you
write out those checks. ;-)
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:19:46 PM UTC-6, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> > I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the shop area.
> > That would make it super easy for you to run extra circuits/outlets in
> >
> > Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>
> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your situation and
> current course of action. Bite the bullet and run the sub-panel to the
> shop vs. the two circuits you propose.
> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new "starting
> point" is simply a "no-brainer">
Agreed. My shop has a sub panel. Five breakers for 220 lines - 2 saws, air compressor, planer, bandsaw.
A sub panel would facilitate any upgrades you may plan/anticipate for the future, like installing a frig to reduce your trips to the kitchen for a beer.
See far right (i.e., the frig, not the sub panel... a nice addition to the shop "tools") - https://www.flickr.com/photos/43836144@N04/21327266842/in/photostream
Sonny
On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
>> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to
>> do:
>>
>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm
>> guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try
>> to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>
>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the
>> new kitchen table.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the shop area.
> That would make it super easy for you to run extra circuits/outlets in
> the shop whenever you wanted. If you ever decided to wire your saw for
> 220 or add a 220 dust collector, etc., you would have to run the wire
> all the way back to the garage.
>
> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your situation and
current course of action. Bite the bullet and run the sub-panel to the
shop vs. the two circuits you propose.
When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the meter can
at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage and installed a 100A
panel there. Lights in the shop are separate circuit. Garage lights
are on two separate circuits (one of which also has the door opener) and
wall outlets in garage and shop are two separate circuit.
Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I still have
room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I can add more if needed
(but don't see that happening).
Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new "starting
point" is simply a "no-brainer">
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:59:04 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:13 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage.
>> >> This can come off the main feed into the house.
>> >> I'm not sure what a 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
>> >
>> > I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then space
>> > has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least that's how I
>> > read it.
>>
>>
>> Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
>
>Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure those are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the numbers used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use it? Why does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house, but the outlet says 115 volts.
It could also be 132 Vac so that would be 264.
Just as long as it works does not matter what you call it.
On 1/4/2017 3:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>>>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
>>>> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going
>>>> to do:
>>>>
>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>>>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility
>>>> will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing
>>>> the new kitchen table.
>>>>
[snip]
>>
>> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
>> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>>
>
> The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses.
> Running one piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever,
> over to the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two lengths of
> 12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than one length of #6
> (probably what he'll need to go to sub-panel).
>
> Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another $100 bucks
> for an electrician who's already there. From there, he can run his own
> wiring in the shop to save money.
GMTA! Unless Larry is clairvoyant, there's no telling what he may wish
to include in the shop at some future date. Given that the cost of
installing a sub-panel is likely within spitting distance of simply
ensuring that he has an adequate electric supply to the shop for NOW he
definitely should "Go big or go home!" ;)
Any changes necessary down the road will be child's play for the average
handyman who can read and understand the relevant portions of NEC.
Agree with everyone else about running a subpanel instead of the couple cir=
cuits. I have a 100 amp panel in the garage. I used a 60 amp breaker to p=
ut a subpanel in the basement. I installed a lot of circuits and lights an=
d two 220 plugs in the basement. Had to use some of the double breakers to=
make room in the main panel for the subpanel breaker.
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 19:05:36 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 1/5/17 5:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 11:57:33 AM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>
>>> There are no breakers to move when installing a new sub-panel.
>>
>>
>> ??? To install a sub panel you have to "move" a new/additional 220
>> amp breaker into the main panel. New breaker. You may have to use
>> some of those double up breakers to make space for the new 220
>> breaker feeding the sub panel. So you would be moving those
>> breakers.
>>
>
>I think there's some misunderstanding of what we're talking about.
>
>I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage.
>This can come off the main feed into the house.
>I'm not sure what a 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then space
has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least that's how I
read it.
>
>But it really doesn't matter anyway, because it's semantics since every
>situation is different.
>The labor/price I quoted was from a real electrician doing a real job,
>similar to the one I suggested to the OP. I wasn't submitting a bid or
>giving him an exact quote for the job. I was simply giving advice and a
>real world example to help him decide. As usual in here, everybody has
>to jump in and bitch about every little aspect of everything everyone
>says.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>@googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>says...
>>
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>> >
>> > Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>> > products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>
>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>
>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>
>Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>
>The machine I'm using now most people would
>consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>
>High end TV sets these days are typically
>Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>together in China.
I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
On 1/15/2017 10:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <1vun7clelp069qts7q5s3e0o21k459rekc@
> 4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>>>
>>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>>>
>>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>>>
>>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>>>
>>> The machine I'm using now most people would
>>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>>>
>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>>> together in China.
>>
>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>
> Best Buy lists 4K TVs from Sony, Sharp, and
> Toshiba--all well known Japanese brands. Where
> the Japanese make them I have no idea.
>
IIRC Sony TV's were/are made in North America.
In article <tj137c5ichkht409ofdgc3chl6k8jdapil@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 18:00:48 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
> >On 1/7/2017 5:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
> >>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
> >>
> >> About 10-15 years ago. The purpose was to save weight in the wiring
> >> and starter. It would have caused all sorts of other grief, though.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Here we go, spend millions and pass onto the consumer to save the
> >consumer a couple of gallons of gasoline every year.
>
> File your complaint with Obama.
Won't get there before he's gone.
In article <1vun7clelp069qts7q5s3e0o21k459rekc@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
> >@googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >>
> >> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
> >> > products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
> >>
> >> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
> >>
> >> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
> >
> >Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
> >you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
> >
> >The machine I'm using now most people would
> >consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
> >except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
> >US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
> >
> >High end TV sets these days are typically
> >Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
> >together in China.
>
> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
Best Buy lists 4K TVs from Sony, Sharp, and
Toshiba--all well known Japanese brands. Where
the Japanese make them I have no idea.
On 1/15/2017 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>>
>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>>
>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>>
>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>>
>> The machine I'm using now most people would
>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>>
>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>> together in China.
>
> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>
Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
years.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 18:00:48 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/7/2017 5:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>>
>> About 10-15 years ago. The purpose was to save weight in the wiring
>> and starter. It would have caused all sorts of other grief, though.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>
>
>Here we go, spend millions and pass onto the consumer to save the
>consumer a couple of gallons of gasoline every year.
File your complaint with Obama.
On 08 Jan 2017 20:25:28 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:7vadnaMfj97Q6u_FnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/7/2017 10:09 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>> Just wait - 56v is coming to auto. Local switchers for voltages.
>>> Martin
>>
>>
>> Thinking about this more, The hybrids and especially the all electrics
>> ,like Tesla, have much much higher voltage.
>>
>
>Not only that, but they've got DUAL VOLTAGE! Just wait until the
>marketers get ahold of that. (Dear marketers, if you want to use that,
>please contact me for terms and conditions.)
>
>I'm wondering when we'll get rid of the awful cigarette lighter power
>plug design and go with something better suited for the purpose like
>Anderson Powerpoles.
More likely, they'll be replaced by USB connectors.
On 1/7/2017 6:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 18:00:48 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2017 5:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>>>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>>>
>>> About 10-15 years ago. The purpose was to save weight in the wiring
>>> and starter. It would have caused all sorts of other grief, though.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here we go, spend millions and pass onto the consumer to save the
>> consumer a couple of gallons of gasoline every year.
>
> File your complaint with Obama.
>
LOL Done! He and the like are out'a here.
On 1/6/2017 1:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:13 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage. This can
>>>> come off the main feed into the house. I'm not sure what a
>>>> 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
>>>
>>> I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then
>>> space has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least
>>> that's how I read it.
>>
>>
>> Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
>
> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure
> those are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the
> numbers used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use
> it? Why does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house,
> but the outlet says 115 volts.
>
IIRC it was 110/220, now it is 120/240 in the USA. Why that changed I
do not know unless it was to be able to save on the gauge of cables and
wires. And most home electrical devices will run on slightly less than
and or slightly higher than the stated voltage.
Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage.
>> This can come off the main feed into the house.
>> I'm not sure what a 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
>
> I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then space
> has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least that's how I
> read it.
Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
>> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure those
>> are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the numbers
>> used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use it? Why
>> does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house, but the
>> outlet says 115 volts.
>
> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
quite a bight many miles away.
When Tesla
> and General Electric developed AC systems, they picked 120V
> as the "household" voltage, but because 110 was already in
> the public conciousness, people continued to call it 110V.
>
> 115V comes about because the utility is allowed 5% tolerance
> for line loss, and 115 just sounds better than 114 (which is
> what 120 less 5% would be).
>
> 220V and 240V are the same story - Edison used 220V in his
> first DC systems, and GE used 240 when they introduced AC.
>
> 230V is a different animal - that's a 3 phase voltage in the
> US. It's the standard household voltage in the EU, so if
> you see something marked 230/240 it's probably intended for
> sale in the EU and US.
>
> John
>
On 1/4/2017 6:29 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> Upgrading to 200A won't help you one bit. You are not tripping your
>> main breaker, so it is not being over loaded. It does no good at all
>> to deliver more current to your house than you are drawing.
>> Jut don't waste your money upgrading a service entrance that does
>> not nee upgrading. Any electrician that tells you this will fix
>> your problem is just lying to you in order to take your money.
>>
>
> I think it's a good idea for a few reasons.
> Start adding tools to the shop that have the potential of all running at
> once and you can overload a 100amp service quickly. The shop could
> have a table saw, dust collector, air compressor, lights, chargers,
> window air conditioner, mini-fridge, lights, shop-vac, all running at
> the same time, while in the house at the same time, you can have the
> whole-house AC running, a turkey in the oven on 400°, 3 pots on the
> stove, microwave on, washer and dryer both running, water heater heating
> water, someone using a hair dryer and curling iron, bunch of lights and
> TVs on and more. I just described a typical Saturday afternoon in many
> homes. All these things going at the same time is not uncommon and
> could easily exceed 100amp service.
>
> Upgrading to 200amps is a good idea for most any home, for the reasons
> stated above and more. The average family uses a lot more electricity
> than they used to. One of the first things you'll see listed on a home
> inspection when buying/selling a home is if the electric service is only
> 100amp. If he ever intends on selling the house, the upgrade isn't
> wasted money.
You really have to assess the particular needs. For me, 200A would be
waste. I don't have central AC, I don't have an electric range. I
never run more than one power tool at a time. I don't think I've ever
pulled more than 50A at a given time.
Am I using more electricity than ever? I have more items, but my newer
refrigerators use half the power than the old ones. My flat screen TV
uses about a quarter of the old one.
Typical use for a month at my house is 750 KW, peak in summer about
830Kw. How about you?
"Gramps' shop" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am
> going to do:
>
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
Not enough IMHO.
If you're hiring an electrician anyway, have him run one 240V 60A circuit feeding a subpanel
in the shop. That way, you'll have 240V available in the shop if you ever need it, and more
than one 20A circuit at 120V.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure those
> are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the numbers
> used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use it? Why
> does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house, but the
> outlet says 115 volts.
It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
longer understood, that was considered "safe"). When Tesla
and General Electric developed AC systems, they picked 120V
as the "household" voltage, but because 110 was already in
the public conciousness, people continued to call it 110V.
115V comes about because the utility is allowed 5% tolerance
for line loss, and 115 just sounds better than 114 (which is
what 120 less 5% would be).
220V and 240V are the same story - Edison used 220V in his
first DC systems, and GE used 240 when they introduced AC.
230V is a different animal - that's a 3 phase voltage in the
US. It's the standard household voltage in the EU, so if
you see something marked 230/240 it's probably intended for
sale in the EU and US.
John
In article <csun7c961tnlhlq5hob62fouhbpfcutqek@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 08:20:09 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <tj137c5ichkht409ofdgc3chl6k8jdapil@
> >4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 18:00:48 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 1/7/2017 5:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
> >> >>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
> >> >>
> >> >> About 10-15 years ago. The purpose was to save weight in the wiring
> >> >> and starter. It would have caused all sorts of other grief, though.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Here we go, spend millions and pass onto the consumer to save the
> >> >consumer a couple of gallons of gasoline every year.
> >>
> >> File your complaint with Obama.
> >
> >Won't get there before he's gone.
>
> Obama's CAFE standards may not be around long, either.
One hopes not--I'm getting sick of this
government war on personal transportation.
Safer and better gas mileage fine, but Obama was
trying to repeal the laws of physics.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 08:20:09 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <tj137c5ichkht409ofdgc3chl6k8jdapil@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 18:00:48 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/7/2017 5:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>> >>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>> >>
>> >> About 10-15 years ago. The purpose was to save weight in the wiring
>> >> and starter. It would have caused all sorts of other grief, though.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Here we go, spend millions and pass onto the consumer to save the
>> >consumer a couple of gallons of gasoline every year.
>>
>> File your complaint with Obama.
>
>Won't get there before he's gone.
Obama's CAFE standards may not be around long, either.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>
> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
> quite a bight many miles away.
AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
different utilities use various distribution voltages).
Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
John
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:YPydndGe9p2PjuzFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
> Cars used to have 6 volt systems but switched to 12 volt so that the
> cables could be smaller.
Sort of. The real reason it was done was because tetra-ethyl
lead was invented.
(Tetra-ethyl lead allows higher octane gasoline. Higher octane
gasoline allows higher compression engines. Higher compression
engines require more power from the starter motor to get them
started, which requires more current from the battery. During
the 1950's compression ratios went from ~6:1 to ~9:1, which
became a problem for both the battery and the cables. Hence
the switch to 12 volt electrical systems.)
John
On 1/4/2017 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service.
Hey, look! ... a wRec electrical thread to jump in with another opinion.
What -MIKE- originally said ... think SUB-PANEL!
When spending the money to upgrade your home's electrical service to a
more modern 200A, the addition of a sub panel (60A is ideal) to your
shop is the most cost effective time to do it; and would add utility for
both your home, your shop, and you.
Just like you can't have too many clamps, a serious Normite woodworker
requires a sub panel in his shop PERIOD, end of story.
... it's 240v ...
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
https://www.facebook.com/eWoodShop-206166666122228
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/7/2017 9:25 AM, Brewster wrote:
> On 1/6/17 2:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>> quite a bight many miles away.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually no different. There is consideration of switching some high
> voltage lines to DC partially because for the same peak voltage the
> wires can carry significantly more power.
That may be now but back then the DC simply did not have the range that
AC did.
Cars used to have 6 volt systems but switched to 12 volt so that the
cables could be smaller.
>
> A big reason for the switch from DC to AC is the ability to efficiently
> reduce the voltage at point of use, allowing the distribution lines to
> run at higher voltage with the exponentially lower power losses.
>
>
> -BR
>
On 1/4/2017 5:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Gramps' shop wrote:
>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route
>> to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>>
>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a dedicated
>> 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm guessing $1200
>> to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to hit me up for
>> the cost of a new meter.
>>
>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the
>> new kitchen table.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
> Upgrading to 200A won't help you one bit. You are not tripping your
> main breaker, so it is not being over loaded. It does no good at all to
> deliver more current to your house than you are drawing.
>
> Go back to your original plan of putting a 20A breaker in the circuit as
> long as you have 12ga wire in that branch circuit.
>
> Jut don't waste your money upgrading a service entrance that does not
> nee upgrading. Any electrician that tells you this will fix your
> problem is just lying to you in order to take your money.
>
>
Mike Marlow ... how the hell are you...???
--
Jeff
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I remember 110 being standard then moving to 115.
Then 117 and then 120. In some places 125 and 130 is common.
It all is the expanding current / power use on the far end
of the power house. Same copper increase the voltage and more power.
All you have to do is change a tap at the transmitter and downflow is
automatically changed by ratio.
Martin
On 1/6/2017 2:52 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/6/2017 1:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:13 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage. This can
>>>>> come off the main feed into the house. I'm not sure what a
>>>>> 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then
>>>> space has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least
>>>> that's how I read it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
>>
>> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
>> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure
>> those are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the
>> numbers used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use
>> it? Why does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house,
>> but the outlet says 115 volts.
>>
>
>
>
> IIRC it was 110/220, now it is 120/240 in the USA. Why that changed I
> do not know unless it was to be able to save on the gauge of cables and
> wires. And most home electrical devices will run on slightly less than
> and or slightly higher than the stated voltage.
>
> Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:31:52 PM UTC-6, Gramps' shop wrote:
> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker b=
ox is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the baseme=
nt and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>=20
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a dedicated 20 =
amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $150=
0 for this and I suppose the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of =
a new meter.
>=20
> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the new =
kitchen table.
>=20
> Larry
I agree with Mike and Unquestionably. In fact that is the setup I have. T=
hat subpanel just makes life soooooooo much easier, but get one with at lea=
st 8 breakers spaces in it. =20
One change I would make to their suggestions, I would run 100A to the shop.=
That way you have plenty of power if you wind up adding something that li=
kes it amps. Also, depending on both where you live and your comfort level=
, you can do the wiring of the shop yourself and save a lot. Also, dependi=
ng on where you live, the power company may not require a new meter. If yo=
u are aerial to the house (vs buried cable), they may run the heavier servi=
ce to your house at no cost.
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:13 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
> On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> >> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage.
> >> This can come off the main feed into the house.
> >> I'm not sure what a 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
> >
> > I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then space
> > has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least that's how I
> > read it.
>=20
>=20
> Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into the 220=
-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure those are all ide=
ntical and interchangeable, but why are all the numbers used interchangeabl=
y? Why don't we pick one number and use it? Why does everyone talk about =
120 volt outlets in their house, but the outlet says 115 volts.
On 1/15/2017 11:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <Jt2dncYN5Pz20uHFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 1/15/2017 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:00:34 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2017 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>>>>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>>>>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>>>>>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The machine I'm using now most people would
>>>>>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>>>>>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>>>>>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>>>>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>>>>>> together in China.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
>>>>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
>>> (and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
>>> lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
>>> stuff seems to be surviving.
>>>
>>
>> http://shop.panasonic.com/tvs
>
> Try to buy a TV off that site and see what
> happens. The only things listed are HDMI cables
> and replacement remotes.
>
>
How about here.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Panasonic-TC-50CX400U-50-4K-Ultra-HD-2160p-60Hz-LED-Smart-HDTV/50688460?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&adid=22222222227038984091&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=90377667632&wl4=pla-182527606592&wl5=9061128&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=50688460&wl13=&veh=sem
https://www.google.com/shopping/product/17049060337345698228?lsf=seller:6136318,store:6276579967503930014&prds=oid:2855891575484560267&q=panasonic+tv&hl=en&ei=e918WNSgEYjJmAGyt5iwBQ&lsft=gclid:Cj0KEQiA-_HDBRD2lomhoufc1JkBEiQA0TVMmjSAt8KwRQxauBHiqQw6dZ-su_PHA6ZEwnpU5bIDQzkaAlkp8P8HAQ
But maybe not soon,
If you've been looking to buy a Panasonic TV but have had a hard time
finding one, here's why: The company, which has struggled in the U.S.
television business since it exited the plasma TV business back in 2014,
has quietly stopped selling sets here as it ponders its future in the
industry.
Panasonic sets are still on sale at a few retailers, including Walmart,
but most models are listed as unavailable on the Panasonic website.
However, if you do find one, you should have no qualms about buying it.
Panasonic TVs have typically done well in Consumer Reports' TV tests,
and the company says it will continue to provide service and parts for
the sets it sells and honor any warranties.
A Panasonic spokesperson said the company could return to the U.S.
market in the near future, and it continues to sell TVs in other parts
of the world, including Canada, Europe, and Asia.
The company was notably quiet about new TVs during the CES trade show
back in January. At that time, the company indicated it would have both
a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray player and a 4K OLED TV this year, but so far
neither has made it to the U.S. market.
On 1/15/2017 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:00:34 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>>>>
>>>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>>>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>>>>
>>>> The machine I'm using now most people would
>>>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>>>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>>>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>>>>
>>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>>>> together in China.
>>>
>>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
>>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
>> years.
>
> No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
> (and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
> lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
> stuff seems to be surviving.
>
http://shop.panasonic.com/tvs
In article <Jt2dncYN5Pz20uHFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/15/2017 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:00:34 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/15/2017 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
> >>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
> >>>> says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
> >>>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
> >>>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
> >>>>
> >>>> The machine I'm using now most people would
> >>>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
> >>>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
> >>>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
> >>>>
> >>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
> >>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
> >>>> together in China.
> >>>
> >>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
> >>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
> >> years.
> >
> > No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
> > (and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
> > lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
> > stuff seems to be surviving.
> >
>
> http://shop.panasonic.com/tvs
Try to buy a TV off that site and see what
happens. The only things listed are HDMI cables
and replacement remotes.
In article <paKdnW8356WFzuHFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/15/2017 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>
> >>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
> >>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
> >>>> together in China.
> >>>
> >>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
> >>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
> >> years.
> >
> > No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
> > (and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
> > lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
> > stuff seems to be surviving.
> >
>
>
> Oops...
>
> Well it seems they are still selling TV's for now anyway.
>
> https://www.panasonic.com/nz/consumer/tvs-home-theatre-and-audio/viera-televisions.html
In New Zealand.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:00:34 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/15/2017 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>>>
>>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>>>
>>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>>>
>>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>>>
>>> The machine I'm using now most people would
>>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>>>
>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>>> together in China.
>>
>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>>
>
>
>Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
>years.
No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
(and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
stuff seems to be surviving.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:48:18 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> Consider the cable sizes. For a given power, the higher voltage is
>> smaller copper and thus lower weight.
>
>If you already have 350v on board where's the
>benefit for 48?
As opposed to 12? None. As opposed to 350V, only? A lot!
>
>And for a non-hybrid what percentage of the
>weight of the vehicle is electrical wiring? And
>of that weight, how much is copper conductors
>and how much is connectors, insulation, mounting
>brackets, and whatnot?
It's quite a lot of weight and all (expensive) copper.
>And even the people trying to sell 48v don't
>claim that it will do away with 12v--48v is
>going to be an _additional_ electrical system.
I never heard 48V being proposed for hybrids but I have for IC cars.
Of course there won't be all three. I highly doubt that 48V will ever
be common.
On 1/15/2017 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>>>> together in China.
>>>
>>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
>>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
>> years.
>
> No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
> (and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
> lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
> stuff seems to be surviving.
>
Oops...
Well it seems they are still selling TV's for now anyway.
https://www.panasonic.com/nz/consumer/tvs-home-theatre-and-audio/viera-televisions.html
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 11:57:33 AM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
>=20
> There are no breakers to move when installing a new sub-panel.
??? To install a sub panel you have to "move" a new/additional 220 amp bre=
aker into the main panel. New breaker. You may have to use some of those =
double up breakers to make space for the new 220 breaker feeding the sub pa=
nel. So you would be moving those breakers.
On 1/7/2017 5:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>
> About 10-15 years ago. The purpose was to save weight in the wiring
> and starter. It would have caused all sorts of other grief, though.
>>
>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>
> Exactly.
>
Here we go, spend millions and pass onto the consumer to save the
consumer a couple of gallons of gasoline every year.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:39:52 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/7/2017 10:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>>>
>>>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>>>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>>>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>>>> quite a bight many miles away.
>>>
>>> AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
>>> transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
>>> generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
>>> same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
>>> outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
>>> different utilities use various distribution voltages).
>>>
>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>
>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>> solved.
>>
>
>
>When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
About 10-15 years ago. The purpose was to save weight in the wiring
and starter. It would have caused all sorts of other grief, though.
>
>I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
Exactly.
On 1/6/2017 3:52 PM, Leon wrote:
> Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
Unless is is 480
I read the explanation once but still don't get 277 volts from 2 legs of
3 phase.
The nominal 120 was decided as the standard for north America but I'm
not sure when. Voltages were 110, 115, 117 in different places some
years ago.
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:31:43 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 1/4/17 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:49:08 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice.
>>>>>> The breaker box is located in the garage and there is no
>>>>>> clear, open route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's
>>>>>> what I am going to do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>>>>>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>>>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the
>>>>>> utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to
>>>>>> completing the new kitchen table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the
>>>>> shop area. That would make it super easy for you to run extra
>>>>> circuits/outlets in the shop whenever you wanted. If you ever
>>>>> decided to wire your saw for 220 or add a 220 dust collector,
>>>>> etc., you would have to run the wire all the way back to the
>>>>> garage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>>>>
>>>> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your
>>>> situation and current course of action. Bite the bullet and run
>>>> the sub-panel to the shop vs. the two circuits you propose.
>>>>
>>>> When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the
>>>> meter can at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage and
>>>> installed a 100A panel there. Lights in the shop are separate
>>>> circuit. Garage lights are on two separate circuits (one of
>>>> which also has the door opener) and wall outlets in garage and
>>>> shop are two separate circuit.
>>>>
>>>> Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I still
>>>> have room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I can add
>>>> more if needed (but don't see that happening).
>>>>
>>>> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
>>>> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>>>>
>>>
>>> The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses. Running one
>>> piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever, over to
>>> the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two lengths of
>>> 12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than one length of
>>> #6 (probably what he'll need to go to sub-panel).
>>
>> #8 is good for 40A, IIRC. That's enough for any one man shop. It's
>> a *lot* easier to work with. #6 is a right PITA. It will be more
>> costly to run either than a couple of 12s. Actually, he could get
>> away with one 12-3, for two circuits.
>>
>> BTW, #6-3 w/Ground Romex is 6x the cost, per foot, as 12-2 w/ground.
>
>That wasn't really the pertinent point I was trying to make.
The labor cost for one #6 will be much higher, too. That stuff is a
PITA to work with.
>
>
>>>
>>> Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another $100
>>> bucks for an electrician who's already there. From there, he can
>>> run his own wiring in the shop to save money.
>>
>> I think you're way low on your estimates.
>>
>
>Ask the electrician who quoted that to me when we were spec'ing out a
>200amp breaker box change over. He said installing the other panel
>wouldn't be more than another hour and a half labor on top of everything
>else he was doing. He charges $60/hr.
Just moving the breakers will take a lot more than a couple of hours.
It's more like an 8-12 hour job. Then there's the dicking around with
the power company and inspectors, and all that rot. It's not a simple
task. I've seen quotes well above $1000 for just a panel swap.
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:31:49 -0800 (PST), "Gramps' shop"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>
>Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
It's very unlikely that the power company will charge you anything to
upgrade to 200A. I'm guessing that $1200 is well short of what it'll
cost, though. If you don't need the 200A service for other things, a
sub-panel would be the way to go. A sub-panel in the basement would
be ideal.
>In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the new kitchen table.
>
>Larry
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:30:07 -0700, "Bob La Londe" <[email protected]>
wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:43:14 -0700, "Bob La Londe" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Gramps' shop" <[email protected]>
>>>Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:31 AM
>>>Subject: TS Circuit -- Part 2
>>>
>>>
>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker
>>>> box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the
>>>> basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>>>>
>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service.
>>>
>>>Good call if you don't know how to do that yourself, or your local
>>>building
>>>department won't let you.
>>>
>>>> Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>>
>>>NO! NO! NO! Run a 100 amp circuit to the basement and install a 100 amp
>>>sub panel. Something capable of atleast 6 circuits. If you use Square D
>>>then you have the capability to use compact breakers and double the number
>>>of circuits if you need to later. Regardless, putting a sub panel in your
>>>basement allows you to add stuff much easier in the future.
>>
>> The size of the sub depends on the service entrance. If he only has a
>> 100A entrance, a 100A sub is going to be a problem. Also, if he's
>> going to the bother to put in a sub, use one with at least 20
>> circuits. The difference in cost is pocket change. I wouldn't put in
>> more than a 40A or 60A sub, tops. There's nothing a homeowner is
>> likely to use that will take that much. The capapbility of lots of
>> circuits is important, though.
>>>
>>>The total cost will probably only be a few hundred dollars more, but the
>>>future flexibility will be an order of magnitude more.
>>>
>>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try
>>>> to
>>>> hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>
>>>Get a quote so you aren't guessing.
>>
>> +1 (I think he's low)
>
>I think we are mostly on the same page here. We just disagree about the
>details.
>
Probably talking past each other. It happens when threads get
convoluted.
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:49:08 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>>>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
>>>> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going
>>>> to do:
>>>>
>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>>>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility
>>>> will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing
>>>> the new kitchen table.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the shop
>>> area. That would make it super easy for you to run extra
>>> circuits/outlets in the shop whenever you wanted. If you ever
>>> decided to wire your saw for 220 or add a 220 dust collector, etc.,
>>> you would have to run the wire all the way back to the garage.
>>>
>>> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>>
>> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your situation
>> and current course of action. Bite the bullet and run the sub-panel
>> to the shop vs. the two circuits you propose.
>>
>> When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the meter
>> can at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage and installed
>> a 100A panel there. Lights in the shop are separate circuit. Garage
>> lights are on two separate circuits (one of which also has the door
>> opener) and wall outlets in garage and shop are two separate
>> circuit.
>>
>> Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I still have
>> room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I can add more if
>> needed (but don't see that happening).
>>
>> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
>> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>>
>
>The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses.
>Running one piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever,
>over to the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two lengths of
>12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than one length of #6
>(probably what he'll need to go to sub-panel).
#8 is good for 40A, IIRC. That's enough for any one man shop. It's a
*lot* easier to work with. #6 is a right PITA. It will be more
costly to run either than a couple of 12s. Actually, he could get
away with one 12-3, for two circuits.
BTW, #6-3 w/Ground Romex is 6x the cost, per foot, as 12-2 w/ground.
>
>Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another $100 bucks
>for an electrician who's already there. From there, he can run his own
>wiring in the shop to save money.
I think you're way low on your estimates.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:06:19 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2017 3:52 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
>
>Unless is is 480
>
>I read the explanation once but still don't get 277 volts from 2 legs of
>3 phase.
It's the opposite. 277V is a single phase of a 480V phase-to-phase
system. This is entirely different than a 120V system (a transformer
is required to get there).
https://ctlsys.com/electrical_service_types_and_voltages/
>
>The nominal 120 was decided as the standard for north America but I'm
>not sure when. Voltages were 110, 115, 117 in different places some
>years ago.
Yes, I'd forgotten 117V.
On 1/7/2017 10:29 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:YPydndGe9p2PjuzFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> Cars used to have 6 volt systems but switched to 12 volt so that the
>> cables could be smaller.
>
> Sort of. The real reason it was done was because tetra-ethyl
> lead was invented.
>
> (Tetra-ethyl lead allows higher octane gasoline. Higher octane
> gasoline allows higher compression engines. Higher compression
> engines require more power from the starter motor to get them
> started, which requires more current from the battery. During
> the 1950's compression ratios went from ~6:1 to ~9:1, which
> became a problem for both the battery and the cables. Hence
> the switch to 12 volt electrical systems.)
>
> John
>
Not sure I follow.
Both lead and higher octane fuels reduce precognition knock. Lead did
not allow higher octane, it boosted the octane. Lead's main feature was
that it lubricated the valves, boosting octane was a perk. Hence in the
early 70's when unleaded fuel was introduced only vehicles with modern
engines could run unleaded fuel with out damage to the valve train.
Knock is caused by a number of reasons, compression being only one of
them. Hotter running engines also create more compression and running
more advance on the spark timing will cause an engine to run hotter.
In the early 80's American built vehicles had relatively low compression
ratio engines, in the 6's, and engine knock was a constant problem.
Enter the computers and knock sensors to retard the ignition timing.
On 1/4/2017 1:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>
> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the new kitchen table.
>
> Larry
>
If you are going to have an electrician come in and do the work, the
major part of the cost will be labor. It takes no longer to fish a wire
for a 20 amp circuit than it does an 15 amp circuit So you may as well
put in two 20 amp circuits and be prepared for the new Joiner that your
wife is getting you for your birthday, ;-)
On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to
> do:
>
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm
> guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try
> to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>
> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the
> new kitchen table.
>
> Larry
>
I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the shop area.
That would make it super easy for you to run extra circuits/outlets in
the shop whenever you wanted. If you ever decided to wire your saw for
220 or add a 220 dust collector, etc., you would have to run the wire
all the way back to the garage.
Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:15:58 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage.
>>> This can come off the main feed into the house.
>>> I'm not sure what a 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
>>
>> I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then space
>> has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least that's how I
>> read it.
>
>
>Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
<g> Most people confuse the two. ;-)
On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
>>> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going
>>> to do:
>>>
>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility
>>> will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing
>>> the new kitchen table.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the shop
>> area. That would make it super easy for you to run extra
>> circuits/outlets in the shop whenever you wanted. If you ever
>> decided to wire your saw for 220 or add a 220 dust collector, etc.,
>> you would have to run the wire all the way back to the garage.
>>
>> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>
> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your situation
> and current course of action. Bite the bullet and run the sub-panel
> to the shop vs. the two circuits you propose.
>
> When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the meter
> can at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage and installed
> a 100A panel there. Lights in the shop are separate circuit. Garage
> lights are on two separate circuits (one of which also has the door
> opener) and wall outlets in garage and shop are two separate
> circuit.
>
> Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I still have
> room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I can add more if
> needed (but don't see that happening).
>
> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>
The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses.
Running one piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever,
over to the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two lengths of
12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than one length of #6
(probably what he'll need to go to sub-panel).
Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another $100 bucks
for an electrician who's already there. From there, he can run his own
wiring in the shop to save money.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>
> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian=20
> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is e=
xcluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying Europ=
ean. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hung=
ary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is pr=
obably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consi=
der the best of the best quality.
On 1/9/2017 2:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>
>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>
> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian.
> Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of
> like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But
> Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same
> quality?
Ok, Samsung, Hyundai, Genesis, Powermatic Is that close enough for you? ;~)
>
> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on
> is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not
> what I consider the best of the best quality.
>
Well you get what you pay for. If you don't buy the best that a country
offers you are ignorant to what is available.
In article <cfe219e3-fffb-4c22-b101-
[email protected]>, russellseaton1
@yahoo.com says...
>
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:26:45 PM UTC-6, Spalted Walt wrote:
> >
> > SawStop
> > https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
>
> Completely unrelated to the electrical discussion in this thread. But I am shocked by the picture of the SawStop motor. Made in Taiwan. On another forum I read people are always talking about how wonderful and professional and heavy duty their SawStop saws are. I would never have guessed they use an Asian motor. Foolishly assumed a US company would use a Marathon, Baldor, Leeson motor. I looked on their website and it says this:
>
> "The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has made SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.
>
> SawStop is a privately owned company based in Tualatin, Oregon, just south of Portland. We are proud to be 100% U.S. owned and engineered."
>
> Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA. I guess its just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety device on it. Kind of like the current Jet, General, Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are all Asian made saws designed to resemble the original American made Unisaw and 66 saws from many decades ago. I'm not too confident in the quality and reliability of Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia together. Not sure I would
trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
The Japanese made a cult of quality.
The Chinese and Taiwanese not so much. They can
make stuff as good as any Japanese or American
company. The key word is _can_. The trouble is
that they'll make the cheapest thing that meets
the letter of the contract, so it's up to the
purchaser to specify exactly what they are to
make in sufficient detail that they meet the
required quality standards.
Sawstop doesn't pretend that their saws are
American made. That doesn't mean that they are
poorly made or of low quality--Gass is an
aggressive lawyer by training and experience so
it's a fair bet that the contracts are airtight.
Of course one can hope that he spends the rest
of his life in a Chinese court trying to
convince them to get his supplier to take the
fall for some famous pianist or some such
cutting his finger off (not that I wish ill on
pianists, just on Gass).
In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
@googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
> >
> > Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
> > products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>
> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>
> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
The machine I'm using now most people would
consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
High end TV sets these days are typically
Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
together in China.
Is there a class of machine that is foreign and others are local ? Or
are you looking at foreign made for foreign markets ?
I looked at the 3hp 230v and 13 amps.
Martin
On 1/8/2017 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:26:45 PM UTC-6, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>
>> SawStop
>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
>
> Completely unrelated to the electrical discussion in this thread. But I am shocked by the picture of the SawStop motor. Made in Taiwan. On another forum I read people are always talking about how wonderful and professional and heavy duty their SawStop saws are. I would never have guessed they use an Asian motor. Foolishly assumed a US company would use a Marathon, Baldor, Leeson motor. I looked on their website and it says this:
>
> "The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has made SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.
>
> SawStop is a privately owned company based in Tualatin, Oregon, just south of Portland. We are proud to be 100% U.S. owned and engineered."
>
> Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA. I guess its just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety device on it. Kind of like the current Jet, General, Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are all Asian made saws designed to resemble the original American made Unisaw and 66 saws from many decades ago. I'm not too confident in the quality and reliability of Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia together. Not sure I would trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
>
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:52:52 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>>Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
>
> It's often called that but it is 480V.
Now let's really confuse everyone by talking about the
difference between RMS voltages and P-P voltages :-)
John
On 1/8/2017 3:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA. I guess its just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety device on it. Kind of like the current Jet, General, Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are all Asian made saws designed to resemble the original American made Unisaw and 66 saws from many decades ago. I'm not too confident in the quality and reliability of Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia together. Not sure I would trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
>
That's a broad statement. Yes, some junk comes from China but look
around you. Asia takes in a lot of countries. Who has been making the
best camera equipment, sound equipment and some medical devices and
equipment for the past few dozen years?
I've been in my industry for 46 years. We've bought tooling from the
US, Germany, Austria, Italy. The best is now coming from China at 2/3
the price and half the lead time.
On 1/7/2017 6:26 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>
>> 230V is a different animal - that's a 3 phase voltage in the
>> US.
>
> Not necessarily, my Unisaw is 3hp single phase, 60HZ, 230V as are
> these and countless others:
>
> SawStop
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
>
> Jet
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/nl7owop.jpg
>
Motor rating. You are probably getting 240 across the wires.
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:26:45 PM UTC-6, Spalted Walt wrote:
>
> SawStop
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
Completely unrelated to the electrical discussion in this thread. But I am=
shocked by the picture of the SawStop motor. Made in Taiwan. On another =
forum I read people are always talking about how wonderful and professional=
and heavy duty their SawStop saws are. I would never have guessed they us=
e an Asian motor. Foolishly assumed a US company would use a Marathon, Bal=
dor, Leeson motor. I looked on their website and it says this:
"The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has made =
SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.
SawStop is a privately owned company based in Tualatin, Oregon, just south =
of Portland. We are proud to be 100% U.S. owned and engineered."
Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA. I guess its =
just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety device on it. Kind o=
f like the current Jet, General, Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are =
all Asian made saws designed to resemble the original American made Unisaw =
and 66 saws from many decades ago. I'm not too confident in the quality an=
d reliability of Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia togeth=
er. Not sure I would trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I =
needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
On 1/8/2017 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:26:45 PM UTC-6, Spalted Walt
> wrote:
>>
>> SawStop https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
>
> Completely unrelated to the electrical discussion in this thread.
> But I am shocked by the picture of the SawStop motor. Made in
> Taiwan. On another forum I read people are always talking about how
> wonderful and professional and heavy duty their SawStop saws are. I
> would never have guessed they use an Asian motor. Foolishly assumed
> a US company would use a Marathon, Baldor, Leeson motor. I looked on
> their website and it says this:
>
> "The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has
> made SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.
>
> SawStop is a privately owned company based in Tualatin, Oregon, just
> south of Portland. We are proud to be 100% U.S. owned and
> engineered."
>
> Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA.
Did you think differently? American automobiles are built elsewhere
too. Some Buicks are built in China and only sold here.
I
> guess its just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety
> device on it. Kind of like the current Jet, General, Delta,
> Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are all Asian made saws designed to
> resemble the original American made Unisaw and 66 saws from many
> decades ago.
Not like those saws at all. The internals are totally different than
the brands you listed above. It looks nothing like the others saws on
the inside. The trunion slides straight up and down on two large steel
dowels.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558850/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558766/in/dateposted-public/
Those gears for tilt and raising the trunion are an inch and a half in
diameter.
chttps://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8680321455/in/dateposted-public/
I'm not too confident in the quality and reliability of
> Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia together. Not
> sure I would trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I
> needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
>
Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 08:51:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/15/2017 11:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <Jt2dncYN5Pz20uHFnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 1/15/2017 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:00:34 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/15/2017 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>>>>>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>>>>>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>>>>>>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The machine I'm using now most people would
>>>>>>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>>>>>>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>>>>>>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>>>>>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>>>>>>> together in China.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
>>>>>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
>>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
>>>> (and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
>>>> lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
>>>> stuff seems to be surviving.
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://shop.panasonic.com/tvs
>>
>> Try to buy a TV off that site and see what
>> happens. The only things listed are HDMI cables
>> and replacement remotes.
>>
>>
>How about here.
>
>https://www.walmart.com/ip/Panasonic-TC-50CX400U-50-4K-Ultra-HD-2160p-60Hz-LED-Smart-HDTV/50688460?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&adid=22222222227038984091&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=90377667632&wl4=pla-182527606592&wl5=9061128&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=50688460&wl13=&veh=sem
>
>https://www.google.com/shopping/product/17049060337345698228?lsf=seller:6136318,store:6276579967503930014&prds=oid:2855891575484560267&q=panasonic+tv&hl=en&ei=e918WNSgEYjJmAGyt5iwBQ&lsft=gclid:Cj0KEQiA-_HDBRD2lomhoufc1JkBEiQA0TVMmjSAt8KwRQxauBHiqQw6dZ-su_PHA6ZEwnpU5bIDQzkaAlkp8P8HAQ
>
>But maybe not soon,
>
>If you've been looking to buy a Panasonic TV but have had a hard time
>finding one, here's why: The company, which has struggled in the U.S.
>television business since it exited the plasma TV business back in 2014,
>has quietly stopped selling sets here as it ponders its future in the
>industry.
>
>Panasonic sets are still on sale at a few retailers, including Walmart,
>but most models are listed as unavailable on the Panasonic website.
>However, if you do find one, you should have no qualms about buying it.
>Panasonic TVs have typically done well in Consumer Reports' TV tests,
>and the company says it will continue to provide service and parts for
>the sets it sells and honor any warranties.
>
>A Panasonic spokesperson said the company could return to the U.S.
>market in the near future, and it continues to sell TVs in other parts
>of the world, including Canada, Europe, and Asia.
"Spokespersons" never talk in absolutes.
>
>The company was notably quiet about new TVs during the CES trade show
>back in January. At that time, the company indicated it would have both
>a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray player and a 4K OLED TV this year, but so far
>neither has made it to the U.S. market.
Or anywhere else. They are out of the consumer TV market. Losing
nine or ten zeros (a year) will make a company think about the markets
they're going to service and the one's they're not.
On 1/6/2017 10:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:52:52 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2017 1:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:13 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage. This can
>>>>>> come off the main feed into the house. I'm not sure what a
>>>>>> 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then
>>>>> space has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least
>>>>> that's how I read it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
>>>
>>> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
>>> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure
>>> those are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the
>>> numbers used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use
>>> it? Why does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house,
>>> but the outlet says 115 volts.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IIRC it was 110/220, now it is 120/240 in the USA. Why that changed I
>> do not know unless it was to be able to save on the gauge of cables and
>> wires. And most home electrical devices will run on slightly less than
>> and or slightly higher than the stated voltage.
>
> Yup, I don't remember when it changed but it was 115/230V at some
> point between those two standards.
>>
>> Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
>
> It's often called that but it is 480V.
LOL 480 it is!
>
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
> > the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure those
> > are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the numbers
> > used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use it? Why
> > does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house, but the
> > outlet says 115 volts.
>
> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
> longer understood, that was considered "safe"). When Tesla
> and General Electric developed AC systems, they picked 120V
> as the "household" voltage, but because 110 was already in
> the public conciousness, people continued to call it 110V.
>
> 115V comes about because the utility is allowed 5% tolerance
> for line loss, and 115 just sounds better than 114 (which is
> what 120 less 5% would be).
>
110V is a legacy term left over from the war of currents that
Tesla/Westinghouse won.
115V comes from the 'design side', equipment is normally designed to
run on 115V ±10%
120V comes from the 'supply side', under standard conditions electrical
utilities deliver electricity at 120V ±5%
http://i.imgur.com/7tkZ2mm.jpg
>
> 230V is a different animal - that's a 3 phase voltage in the
> US.
Not necessarily, my Unisaw is 3hp single phase, 60HZ, 230V as are
these and countless others:
SawStop
https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
Jet
https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/nl7owop.jpg
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:43:21 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/15/2017 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:00:34 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/2017 4:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <4b1f4437-036f-4dac-91ca-3970e01de917
>>>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>>>>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guessing everyone but you knew what I meant when I wrote Asian. Japan is excluded. China and similar countries are Asian. Kind of like saying European. Some think Germany and Switzerland. But Turkey and Slovakia and Hungary and Poland are European too. Same quality?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have many Chinese products. Or Asian. The computer I am typing on is probably Chinese. TV too. They seem to be OK quality. But not what I consider the best of the best quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just about all Intel or AMD based computers are
>>>>> you know, including HP, Apple, and formerly IBM.
>>>>>
>>>>> The machine I'm using now most people would
>>>>> consider to be fairly high end--all Chinese
>>>>> except the CPU and chipset which were made in a
>>>>> US fab and then packaged somewhere offshore.
>>>>>
>>>>> High end TV sets these days are typically
>>>>> Japanese or Korean although they may be screwed
>>>>> together in China.
>>>>
>>>> I was going to ask if any are Japanese anymore but I guess Sony is
>>>> still around. The other name brands are all Korean.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Panasonic...Power tool and probably some TV's, at least in the last few
>>> years.
>>
>> No consumer televisions. Though they invented the IPS LCD display
>> (and much of the rest of he technology), they bet big on plasma. And
>> lost. Panasonic is in transistion to all B-to-B, though the kitchen
>> stuff seems to be surviving.
>>
>
>http://shop.panasonic.com/tvs
>
Where are the TVs?
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:52:52 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/6/2017 1:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:13 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2017 8:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage. This can
>>>>> come off the main feed into the house. I'm not sure what a
>>>>> 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> I think he means 220V breaker. If the main panel is full, then
>>>> space has to be made for the breaker feeding the sub. At least
>>>> that's how I read it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe even he meant 240 volt.
>>
>> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
>> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure
>> those are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the
>> numbers used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use
>> it? Why does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house,
>> but the outlet says 115 volts.
>>
>
>
>
>IIRC it was 110/220, now it is 120/240 in the USA. Why that changed I
>do not know unless it was to be able to save on the gauge of cables and
>wires. And most home electrical devices will run on slightly less than
>and or slightly higher than the stated voltage.
Yup, I don't remember when it changed but it was 115/230V at some
point between those two standards.
>
>Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
It's often called that but it is 480V.
Gramps' shop wrote:
> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>
> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing the new kitchen table.
>
> Larry
>
Upgrading to 200A won't help you one bit. You are not tripping your
main breaker, so it is not being over loaded. It does no good at all to
deliver more current to your house than you are drawing.
Go back to your original plan of putting a 20A breaker in the circuit as
long as you have 12ga wire in that branch circuit.
Jut don't waste your money upgrading a service entrance that does not
nee upgrading. Any electrician that tells you this will fix your
problem is just lying to you in order to take your money.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 1/4/17 4:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Gramps' shop wrote:
>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
>> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going
>> to do:
>>
>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm
>> guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try
>> to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>
>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing
>> the new kitchen table.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
> Upgrading to 200A won't help you one bit. You are not tripping your
> main breaker, so it is not being over loaded. It does no good at all
> to deliver more current to your house than you are drawing.
>
I think in his original post he said he was out of space for breakers.
Sure, you can use double breakers, but I still haven't met an
electrician who likes those things. :-)
> Go back to your original plan of putting a 20A breaker in the circuit
> as long as you have 12ga wire in that branch circuit.
>
> Jut don't waste your money upgrading a service entrance that does
> not nee upgrading. Any electrician that tells you this will fix
> your problem is just lying to you in order to take your money.
>
I think it's a good idea for a few reasons.
Start adding tools to the shop that have the potential of all running at
once and you can overload a 100amp service quickly. The shop could
have a table saw, dust collector, air compressor, lights, chargers,
window air conditioner, mini-fridge, lights, shop-vac, all running at
the same time, while in the house at the same time, you can have the
whole-house AC running, a turkey in the oven on 400°, 3 pots on the
stove, microwave on, washer and dryer both running, water heater heating
water, someone using a hair dryer and curling iron, bunch of lights and
TVs on and more. I just described a typical Saturday afternoon in many
homes. All these things going at the same time is not uncommon and
could easily exceed 100amp service.
Upgrading to 200amps is a good idea for most any home, for the reasons
stated above and more. The average family uses a lot more electricity
than they used to. One of the first things you'll see listed on a home
inspection when buying/selling a home is if the electric service is only
100amp. If he ever intends on selling the house, the upgrade isn't
wasted money.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/4/2017 4:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>>>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
>>>> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going
>>>> to do:
>>>>
>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>>>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility
>>>> will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing
>>>> the new kitchen table.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the shop
>>> area. That would make it super easy for you to run extra
>>> circuits/outlets in the shop whenever you wanted. If you ever
>>> decided to wire your saw for 220 or add a 220 dust collector, etc.,
>>> you would have to run the wire all the way back to the garage.
>>>
>>> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>>
>> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your situation
>> and current course of action. Bite the bullet and run the sub-panel
>> to the shop vs. the two circuits you propose.
>>
>> When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the meter
>> can at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage and installed
>> a 100A panel there. Lights in the shop are separate circuit. Garage
>> lights are on two separate circuits (one of which also has the door
>> opener) and wall outlets in garage and shop are two separate
>> circuit.
>>
>> Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I still have
>> room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I can add more if
>> needed (but don't see that happening).
>>
>> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
>> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>>
>
> The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses.
> Running one piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever,
> over to the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two lengths of
> 12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than one length of #6
> (probably what he'll need to go to sub-panel).
>
> Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another $100 bucks
> for an electrician who's already there. From there, he can run his own
> wiring in the shop to save money.
>
>
What ever he does he must make sure that the installation meets the
current building code for the community where the building is located.
As I found out a couple of years ago, even the installation of a simple
circuit may require a building permit.
While a building permit if required is a pain in the you know where, it
can save you a tremendous amount of hassle if you sell your home or if
there is a insurance claim in that area where the work occurred.
"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/4/17 4:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Gramps' shop wrote:
>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The
>>> breaker box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open
>>> route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going
>>> to do:
>>>
>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop. I'm
>>> guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try
>>> to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to completing
>>> the new kitchen table.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>
>> Upgrading to 200A won't help you one bit. You are not tripping your
>> main breaker, so it is not being over loaded. It does no good at all
>> to deliver more current to your house than you are drawing.
>>
>
> I think in his original post he said he was out of space for breakers.
> Sure, you can use double breakers, but I still haven't met an
> electrician who likes those things. :-)
>
>
>> Go back to your original plan of putting a 20A breaker in the circuit
>> as long as you have 12ga wire in that branch circuit.
>>
>> Jut don't waste your money upgrading a service entrance that does
>> not nee upgrading. Any electrician that tells you this will fix
>> your problem is just lying to you in order to take your money.
>>
>
> I think it's a good idea for a few reasons.
> Start adding tools to the shop that have the potential of all running at
> once and you can overload a 100amp service quickly. The shop could
> have a table saw, dust collector, air compressor, lights, chargers,
> window air conditioner, mini-fridge, lights, shop-vac, all running at
> the same time, while in the house at the same time, you can have the
> whole-house AC running, a turkey in the oven on 400°, 3 pots on the
> stove, microwave on, washer and dryer both running, water heater heating
> water, someone using a hair dryer and curling iron, bunch of lights and
> TVs on and more. I just described a typical Saturday afternoon in many
> homes. All these things going at the same time is not uncommon and
> could easily exceed 100amp service.
Mike, we are completely on the same page on that one.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gramps' shop" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:31 AM
Subject: TS Circuit -- Part 2
> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker
> box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the
> basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>
> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service.
Good call if you don't know how to do that yourself, or your local building
department won't let you.
> Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
NO! NO! NO! Run a 100 amp circuit to the basement and install a 100 amp
sub panel. Something capable of atleast 6 circuits. If you use Square D
then you have the capability to use compact breakers and double the number
of circuits if you need to later. Regardless, putting a sub panel in your
basement allows you to add stuff much easier in the future.
The total cost will probably only be a few hundred dollars more, but the
future flexibility will be an order of magnitude more.
> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to
> hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
Get a quote so you aren't guessing.
On 1/4/17 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:49:08 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice.
>>>>> The breaker box is located in the garage and there is no
>>>>> clear, open route to the basement and on to the shop. Here's
>>>>> what I am going to do:
>>>>>
>>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add a
>>>>> dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the
>>>>> utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to
>>>>> completing the new kitchen table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in the
>>>> shop area. That would make it super easy for you to run extra
>>>> circuits/outlets in the shop whenever you wanted. If you ever
>>>> decided to wire your saw for 220 or add a 220 dust collector,
>>>> etc., you would have to run the wire all the way back to the
>>>> garage.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>>>
>>> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your
>>> situation and current course of action. Bite the bullet and run
>>> the sub-panel to the shop vs. the two circuits you propose.
>>>
>>> When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the
>>> meter can at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage and
>>> installed a 100A panel there. Lights in the shop are separate
>>> circuit. Garage lights are on two separate circuits (one of
>>> which also has the door opener) and wall outlets in garage and
>>> shop are two separate circuit.
>>>
>>> Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I still
>>> have room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I can add
>>> more if needed (but don't see that happening).
>>>
>>> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
>>> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>>>
>>
>> The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses. Running one
>> piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever, over to
>> the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two lengths of
>> 12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than one length of
>> #6 (probably what he'll need to go to sub-panel).
>
> #8 is good for 40A, IIRC. That's enough for any one man shop. It's
> a *lot* easier to work with. #6 is a right PITA. It will be more
> costly to run either than a couple of 12s. Actually, he could get
> away with one 12-3, for two circuits.
>
> BTW, #6-3 w/Ground Romex is 6x the cost, per foot, as 12-2 w/ground.
That wasn't really the pertinent point I was trying to make.
>>
>> Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another $100
>> bucks for an electrician who's already there. From there, he can
>> run his own wiring in the shop to save money.
>
> I think you're way low on your estimates.
>
Ask the electrician who quoted that to me when we were spec'ing out a
200amp breaker box change over. He said installing the other panel
wouldn't be more than another hour and a half labor on top of everything
else he was doing. He charges $60/hr.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>
>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>> solved.
>>
>
>
> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>
> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>
>
Coming soon, evidently
Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
Delphis vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
when a vehicle slows down.
Read more:
http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
Consider the cable sizes. For a given power, the higher voltage is
smaller copper and thus lower weight.
Martin
On 1/15/2017 7:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>>>
>>>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>>>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>>>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>>>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>>>> solved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Coming soon, evidently
>>
>>
>> Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
>> electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
>> Delphi?s vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
>> strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
>> when a vehicle slows down.
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
>
> And when you can buy a car that says "Delphi
> Motors" on the front then the industry will give
> a crap what bullshit "Delphi" is trying to sell.
>
> Bolt runs on 350v, Volt runs on 360, Tesla runs
> on 375. All have 12v subsystems to support
> various accessories. The notion that 48v is of
> some great advantage in building hybrids and
> electrics has little contact with reality.
>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:34:29 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>
>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>
>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>
>>
>>You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>
>>Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>always a day late and a dollar short.
>>
>>I wonder how they will advertise that!
>
>Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
>dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
into it.
On 1/21/2017 11:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
>> dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
>
> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>
> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
> into it.
>
There is a learning curve. Having worked with aluminum tooling for the
past 47 years I don't see it as a problem, it is easily repaired. It
was not that long ago shops bitched about them foreign cars with metric
bolts. Local garage could not fix them.
On 1/21/2017 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:34:29 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>
>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>
>>>
>>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>>
>>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>>>
>>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>
>> Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
>> dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
>
> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
Yes but aluminum is not a foreign material, It has been used on vehicles
for decades, just not this much. Hoods are an item that are aluminum on
some vehicles and GM was using aluminum on the bumper reinforcement bars
as far back as the late 70's.
I recall our body shop manager talking about the difficulties and the
need for special welding equipment to handle the aluminum, that was in 1984.
>
> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
> into it.
>
While the Chevy commercial indicates the little tool box tearing a hole
in the Ford bed, I do not see a problem with that. And I am not sure I
believe that, the thin walled tool box did not seem to have any damage
at all, surely the corner that pierced the aluminum bed should show some
damage.
That damaged bed is not going to rust so there is no need for a bed
liner to prevent damage from turning into a rusted bed.
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:51:51 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
> solved.
At full charging rate, the terminals would be well over 52V; what I remember, the
auto buzz was about '42V', which is a 36V battery and allowance for
overvoltage during heavy charging.
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a2198/4226979/>
Changing standards can be an engineering nightmare, because so many
decisions have already been optimized for 12V. There aren't 'too many
problems' so much as too many decisions to be remade.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>
>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>> quite a bight many miles away.
>
>AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
>transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
>generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
>same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
>outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
>different utilities use various distribution voltages).
>
>Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>
Whether AC or DC is safer was Edison's point when he electrocuted an
elephant with AC. But DC was a dead by then.
On 1/7/2017 5:58 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/7/2017 1:32 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>>>
>>>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>>>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>>>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>>>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>>>> solved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive
>>> business.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Coming soon, evidently
>>
>>
>> Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
>> electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
>> Delphis vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
>> strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
>> when a vehicle slows down.
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
>>
>>
>>
>
> Jeez even more reason to "NOT" do work on your car yourself, especially
> electrical.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:7vadnaMfj97Q6u_FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
> On 1/7/2017 10:09 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> Just wait - 56v is coming to auto. Local switchers for voltages.
>> Martin
>
>
> Thinking about this more, The hybrids and especially the all electrics
> ,like Tesla, have much much higher voltage.
>
Not only that, but they've got DUAL VOLTAGE! Just wait until the
marketers get ahold of that. (Dear marketers, if you want to use that,
please contact me for terms and conditions.)
I'm wondering when we'll get rid of the awful cigarette lighter power
plug design and go with something better suited for the purpose like
Anderson Powerpoles.
Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:A92dnc2hrtp3fu_FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
>
>
> The Anderson connectors look to be more of a connector intended to be
> left in tact, ie. most electrical connections in vehicles. They may be
> a PIA to hook an accessory up to on a daily basis.
>
> The ones I saw look more like a more secure version of the old
> automotive spade connectors.
>
They're rated for 10,000 connect/disconnect cycles, and take
approximately 3 lbs of force to do so. For a 2-position PowerPole block,
the force rating is probably true. For a larger block, it's a little
harder.
https://powerwerx.com/anderson-powerpole-connectors-15amp-unassembled
One of the problems we constantly experience with cigarette lighter plugs
is they come out so easily. PowerPoles still connect and disconnect
readily, but won't come apart with a tiny tug on the power cable.
I haven't ever tried them with something heavy hanging off the end like a
power converter, so I don't know how they'd handle that situation.
Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/7/2017 6:26 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 230V is a different animal - that's a 3 phase voltage in the
> >> US.
> >
> > Not necessarily, my Unisaw is 3hp single phase, 60HZ, 230V as are
> > these and countless others:
> >
> > SawStop
> > https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
> >
> > Jet
> > https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/nl7owop.jpg
> >
>
> Motor rating.
Obviously.
> You are probably getting 240 across the wires.
The point is a designation of 230V being exclusively "a 3 phase
voltage in the US" is wrong.
On 1/7/2017 1:32 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>>
>>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>>> solved.
>>>
>>
>>
>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>>
>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>>
>>
>
> Coming soon, evidently
>
>
> Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
> electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
> Delphis vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
> strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
> when a vehicle slows down.
>
> Read more:
> http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
>
>
Jeez even more reason to do work on you car yourself, especially
electrical. I recall electrical being so touchy in the early 80's that
factory standards called to replace a broken wire, like to a signal
lamp, with the complete socket and wires that came with the socket.
shortening or lengthening the existing broken wire would set off error
codes. I'm clueless how one determined if the new pigtail would shorten
or lengthen the run being observed by the ECM.
On 1/8/2017 2:25 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:7vadnaMfj97Q6u_FnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> On 1/7/2017 10:09 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>> Just wait - 56v is coming to auto. Local switchers for voltages.
>>> Martin
>>
>>
>> Thinking about this more, The hybrids and especially the all electrics
>> ,like Tesla, have much much higher voltage.
>>
>
> Not only that, but they've got DUAL VOLTAGE! Just wait until the
> marketers get ahold of that. (Dear marketers, if you want to use that,
> please contact me for terms and conditions.)
>
> I'm wondering when we'll get rid of the awful cigarette lighter power
> plug design and go with something better suited for the purpose like
> Anderson Powerpoles.
>
> Puckdropper
>
The Anderson connectors look to be more of a connector intended to be
left in tact, ie. most electrical connections in vehicles. They may be
a PIA to hook an accessory up to on a daily basis.
The ones I saw look more like a more secure version of the old
automotive spade connectors.
On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>
>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>> just arm waving.
>>>
>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>
>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>> reengineer to make that happen.
>
> That's true, but will having two different
> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
> 48v actually save those few cents?
Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
rig what they have to work.
I recall Oldsmobiles Diesel engines. They had the worst fuel filter
system ever until the last year of production. Then they added a
water/fuel separator.
>
> I'm sorry, Leon, but this is clearly some vendor
> of 48v equipment trying to sell his stuff.
That is probably true too, and likely a division of that corporation
trying to pull it's weight.
>
>> Many vehicle recalls are to undo what
>> saving a few cents during manufacturing caused to be problematic.
>> Probably with out exception the G body GM vehicles from 1978 on had a
>> campaign to replace every every rear control arm bolt, both sides. The
>> cost of the replacement bolt kit, 2 bolts and 2 lock nuts, $1.35.
>> Every G body vehicle that came into our shop automatically had these
>> bolts replaced if it had not already been done. It was about a 15
>> minute procedure that we often never told the customer about.
>
> According to the recall the issue was lack of
> corrosion resistance in a specially hardened
> bolt and the replacements were actually weaker
> than the originals but had more corrosion
> resistance. Doesn't sound like a case of
> cheaping out to me. There are such, like the
> Pinto, but I don't think you've picked one.
I think 90% of all recalls is a case of the manufacturer cutting some
kind of corner. And that corner cutting could simply be not enough
product testing before committing.
On 1/21/2017 8:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Hoods often get replaced because the labor to repair outweighs the labor
>> and cost of the part replace, aluminum or steel, but not always, a stray
>> golf ball ding, probably cheaper to repair. Any bolt on panel is going
>> to be less expensive, labor wise, than one that an integral part of the
>> body. If a quarter panel is damaged, steel or aluminum, it is going to
>> be less expensive to repair with the assumption that the damage is less
>> expensive to repair than to replace a quarter panel, which is quite
>> expensive labor wise and seldom done.
>
> A steel panel will be much less susceptible to parking lot dings and
> way easier to pop out.
Perhaps. but not guaranteed. It depends where the panel is hit and
whether it stretches or not.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 20:40:46 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/21/2017 6:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>Snip
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>>>>>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>>>>>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes but aluminum is not a foreign material, It has been used on vehicles
>>>>> for decades, just not this much. Hoods are an item that are aluminum on
>>>>> some vehicles and GM was using aluminum on the bumper reinforcement bars
>>>>> as far back as the late 70's.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, SHMBO's Mustang has an aluminum hood. You don't fix it, just
>>>> unbolt it and bolt a new one on. That's going to get expensive for a
>>>> bed, just bacuse you dumped a load of rocks in it. Minor
>>>> fender-benders will get expensive.
>>>
>>> It was less expensive to replace her hood but this is not true in all
>>> cases. All minor fender benders are expensive. Paint work is
>>> expensive. If a rubber bumper/facia is involved you can count on $2K +
>>
>> But fender benders are far more likely to bend fenders than hoods. If
>> you've bent a hood, you're probably in the $10K territory.
>
>Hoods get damaged for a number of reasons and not always from a
>collision. Some one sits on the hood and dents it or the hinges do not
>bend properly and the hood bends at the hinge, more of a problem when
>hoods did not have prop rods or pneumatic pistons.
Aluminum makes a great butt rest, I'm sure.
>
>Hoods often get replaced because the labor to repair outweighs the labor
>and cost of the part replace, aluminum or steel, but not always, a stray
>golf ball ding, probably cheaper to repair. Any bolt on panel is going
>to be less expensive, labor wise, than one that an integral part of the
>body. If a quarter panel is damaged, steel or aluminum, it is going to
>be less expensive to repair with the assumption that the damage is less
>expensive to repair than to replace a quarter panel, which is quite
>expensive labor wise and seldom done.
A steel panel will be much less susceptible to parking lot dings and
way easier to pop out.
>
>>
>>> I'm not saying that aluminum is less or equally as expensive to repair,
>>> just that it can be repaired by your corner BS.
>>
>> By replacing parts.
>
>Sometimes. Ask your local body shop how often they replace a dented
>quarter panel over repairing it. Quarter panels have to be cut away
>from floor pans, roof panels, and door jams. Then the new panel is
>fitted to the opening and welded in place. Less honorable body shops
>will charge you for all of this but not replace the sail panel, the
>upper section of the panel that connects to the roof panel, to save time
>and effort.
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall our body shop manager talking about the difficulties and the
>>>>> need for special welding equipment to handle the aluminum, that was in 1984.
>>>>
>>>> ...and skills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>>>>>> into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While the Chevy commercial indicates the little tool box tearing a hole
>>>>> in the Ford bed, I do not see a problem with that. And I am not sure I
>>>>> believe that, the thin walled tool box did not seem to have any damage
>>>>> at all, surely the corner that pierced the aluminum bed should show some
>>>>> damage.
>>>>>
>>>>> That damaged bed is not going to rust so there is no need for a bed
>>>>> liner to prevent damage from turning into a rusted bed.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps. I'd put one (spray-) in anyway, unless it won't stick to the
>>>> Aluminum, of course.
>>>
>>> Spray-on bed liners stick to paint for the most part, it really does not
>>> matter what is under the paint.
>>>
>>> And spray on bed liners do not prevent damage other than scratches in
>>> the paint and surface rust. A spray on bed liner offers no help with
>>> the same type damage shown in the Chevy commercial.
>>
>> They also keep stuff from sliding around, saving the surface.
>
>Well yeah, their primary function. ;~)
>
>
>
>>>
>>> I currently have a Toyota branded slip in bed liner, I thought I wanted
>>> to get rid of it and go with a spray on again but 10 years later it is
>>> still doing fine. ;~)
>>>
>>> I had a spray-on on my Silverado. It looked like black wrinkle paint.
>>> And held up well to wear. AND it stayed cool in the dead of summer, it
>>> never go hot. BUT it seemed to evaporate... it slowly disappeared/
>>> became thin, and not from abrasion. It simply developed thin spots
>>> between the wrinkle high spots and the paint began to appear again.
>>> These spots seemed be where it had the most sun exposure. BUT it did
>>> last 10 years.
>>
>> Didn't have that problem on my '00 Ranger. The liner looked brand new
>> when I got id of it (in '13). Did it again on my '13 150. I put a
>> tonneau cover on it last summer (out of sight out of mind), so the
>> liner isn't exposed to the elements anymore.
>
>I am absolutely certain that different spray on liners have different
>expected life spans, including how think it goes on.
>Mine still worked like new, but after about 8 years you could just see
>the green paint in some of the low spots after 10 years in the sun.
>
>Had it been twice as thick it may have not exposed the paint so soon.
>
>
>
On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>> Battery cables are not thin.
>
> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
> just arm waving.
>
> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
reengineer to make that happen. Many vehicle recalls are to undo what
saving a few cents during manufacturing caused to be problematic.
Probably with out exception the G body GM vehicles from 1978 on had a
campaign to replace every every rear control arm bolt, both sides. The
cost of the replacement bolt kit, 2 bolts and 2 lock nuts, $1.35.
Every G body vehicle that came into our shop automatically had these
bolts replaced if it had not already been done. It was about a 15
minute procedure that we often never told the customer about.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:56:21 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/21/2017 10:37 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:16:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/2017 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:34:29 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>>>>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>>>>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
>>>>> dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
>>>>
>>>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>>>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>>>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>>>
>>> Yes but aluminum is not a foreign material, It has been used on vehicles
>>> for decades, just not this much. Hoods are an item that are aluminum on
>>> some vehicles and GM was using aluminum on the bumper reinforcement bars
>>> as far back as the late 70's.
>>
>> Sure, SHMBO's Mustang has an aluminum hood. You don't fix it, just
>> unbolt it and bolt a new one on. That's going to get expensive for a
>> bed, just bacuse you dumped a load of rocks in it. Minor
>> fender-benders will get expensive.
>
>It was less expensive to replace her hood but this is not true in all
>cases. All minor fender benders are expensive. Paint work is
>expensive. If a rubber bumper/facia is involved you can count on $2K +
But fender benders are far more likely to bend fenders than hoods. If
you've bent a hood, you're probably in the $10K territory.
>I'm not saying that aluminum is less or equally as expensive to repair,
>just that it can be repaired by your corner BS.
By replacing parts.
>>>
>>> I recall our body shop manager talking about the difficulties and the
>>> need for special welding equipment to handle the aluminum, that was in 1984.
>>
>> ...and skills.
>>>>
>>>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>>>> into it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While the Chevy commercial indicates the little tool box tearing a hole
>>> in the Ford bed, I do not see a problem with that. And I am not sure I
>>> believe that, the thin walled tool box did not seem to have any damage
>>> at all, surely the corner that pierced the aluminum bed should show some
>>> damage.
>>>
>>> That damaged bed is not going to rust so there is no need for a bed
>>> liner to prevent damage from turning into a rusted bed.
>>
>> Perhaps. I'd put one (spray-) in anyway, unless it won't stick to the
>> Aluminum, of course.
>
>Spray-on bed liners stick to paint for the most part, it really does not
>matter what is under the paint.
>
>And spray on bed liners do not prevent damage other than scratches in
>the paint and surface rust. A spray on bed liner offers no help with
>the same type damage shown in the Chevy commercial.
They also keep stuff from sliding around, saving the surface.
>
>I currently have a Toyota branded slip in bed liner, I thought I wanted
>to get rid of it and go with a spray on again but 10 years later it is
>still doing fine. ;~)
>
>I had a spray-on on my Silverado. It looked like black wrinkle paint.
>And held up well to wear. AND it stayed cool in the dead of summer, it
>never go hot. BUT it seemed to evaporate... it slowly disappeared/
>became thin, and not from abrasion. It simply developed thin spots
>between the wrinkle high spots and the paint began to appear again.
>These spots seemed be where it had the most sun exposure. BUT it did
>last 10 years.
Didn't have that problem on my '00 Ranger. The liner looked brand new
when I got id of it (in '13). Did it again on my '13 150. I put a
tonneau cover on it last summer (out of sight out of mind), so the
liner isn't exposed to the elements anymore.
>
>
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 17:16:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/21/2017 2:57 PM, Markem wrote:
>Snip
>
>
>>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>>>
>>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>>> into it.
>>
>> Audi has been putting out aluminum cars for awhile, so the body shops
>> to fix an aluminum car or truck are around. As far as protecting the
>> bed, a nice piece of vinyl should do.
>>
>
>I did not realize Audi was using the much aluminum but thinking back,
>probably VW too. Wa had a 2000 Passat and it got a ding in the parking
>lot on the passengers finder just over the wheel opening. I did not
>notice the bent sheet metal until I heard the tire rubbing wite the
>slightest bump. I stopped on the side of the road and easily pulled it
>back with one hand on my first pull. Probably an Aluminum fender.
Nascar fix, did you lose a lap?
On 1/21/2017 6:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Snip
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>>>>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>>>>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>>>>
>>>> Yes but aluminum is not a foreign material, It has been used on vehicles
>>>> for decades, just not this much. Hoods are an item that are aluminum on
>>>> some vehicles and GM was using aluminum on the bumper reinforcement bars
>>>> as far back as the late 70's.
>>>
>>> Sure, SHMBO's Mustang has an aluminum hood. You don't fix it, just
>>> unbolt it and bolt a new one on. That's going to get expensive for a
>>> bed, just bacuse you dumped a load of rocks in it. Minor
>>> fender-benders will get expensive.
>>
>> It was less expensive to replace her hood but this is not true in all
>> cases. All minor fender benders are expensive. Paint work is
>> expensive. If a rubber bumper/facia is involved you can count on $2K +
>
> But fender benders are far more likely to bend fenders than hoods. If
> you've bent a hood, you're probably in the $10K territory.
Hoods get damaged for a number of reasons and not always from a
collision. Some one sits on the hood and dents it or the hinges do not
bend properly and the hood bends at the hinge, more of a problem when
hoods did not have prop rods or pneumatic pistons.
Hoods often get replaced because the labor to repair outweighs the labor
and cost of the part replace, aluminum or steel, but not always, a stray
golf ball ding, probably cheaper to repair. Any bolt on panel is going
to be less expensive, labor wise, than one that an integral part of the
body. If a quarter panel is damaged, steel or aluminum, it is going to
be less expensive to repair with the assumption that the damage is less
expensive to repair than to replace a quarter panel, which is quite
expensive labor wise and seldom done.
>
>> I'm not saying that aluminum is less or equally as expensive to repair,
>> just that it can be repaired by your corner BS.
>
> By replacing parts.
Sometimes. Ask your local body shop how often they replace a dented
quarter panel over repairing it. Quarter panels have to be cut away
from floor pans, roof panels, and door jams. Then the new panel is
fitted to the opening and welded in place. Less honorable body shops
will charge you for all of this but not replace the sail panel, the
upper section of the panel that connects to the roof panel, to save time
and effort.
>>>>
>>>> I recall our body shop manager talking about the difficulties and the
>>>> need for special welding equipment to handle the aluminum, that was in 1984.
>>>
>>> ...and skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>>>>> into it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While the Chevy commercial indicates the little tool box tearing a hole
>>>> in the Ford bed, I do not see a problem with that. And I am not sure I
>>>> believe that, the thin walled tool box did not seem to have any damage
>>>> at all, surely the corner that pierced the aluminum bed should show some
>>>> damage.
>>>>
>>>> That damaged bed is not going to rust so there is no need for a bed
>>>> liner to prevent damage from turning into a rusted bed.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. I'd put one (spray-) in anyway, unless it won't stick to the
>>> Aluminum, of course.
>>
>> Spray-on bed liners stick to paint for the most part, it really does not
>> matter what is under the paint.
>>
>> And spray on bed liners do not prevent damage other than scratches in
>> the paint and surface rust. A spray on bed liner offers no help with
>> the same type damage shown in the Chevy commercial.
>
> They also keep stuff from sliding around, saving the surface.
Well yeah, their primary function. ;~)
>>
>> I currently have a Toyota branded slip in bed liner, I thought I wanted
>> to get rid of it and go with a spray on again but 10 years later it is
>> still doing fine. ;~)
>>
>> I had a spray-on on my Silverado. It looked like black wrinkle paint.
>> And held up well to wear. AND it stayed cool in the dead of summer, it
>> never go hot. BUT it seemed to evaporate... it slowly disappeared/
>> became thin, and not from abrasion. It simply developed thin spots
>> between the wrinkle high spots and the paint began to appear again.
>> These spots seemed be where it had the most sun exposure. BUT it did
>> last 10 years.
>
> Didn't have that problem on my '00 Ranger. The liner looked brand new
> when I got id of it (in '13). Did it again on my '13 150. I put a
> tonneau cover on it last summer (out of sight out of mind), so the
> liner isn't exposed to the elements anymore.
I am absolutely certain that different spray on liners have different
expected life spans, including how think it goes on.
Mine still worked like new, but after about 8 years you could just see
the green paint in some of the low spots after 10 years in the sun.
Had it been twice as thick it may have not exposed the paint so soon.
On 1/21/2017 6:25 PM, Markem wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 17:16:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2017 2:57 PM, Markem wrote:
>> Snip
>>
>>
>>>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>>>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>>>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>>>>
>>>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>>>> into it.
>>>
>>> Audi has been putting out aluminum cars for awhile, so the body shops
>>> to fix an aluminum car or truck are around. As far as protecting the
>>> bed, a nice piece of vinyl should do.
>>>
>>
>> I did not realize Audi was using the much aluminum but thinking back,
>> probably VW too. Wa had a 2000 Passat and it got a ding in the parking
>> lot on the passengers finder just over the wheel opening. I did not
>> notice the bent sheet metal until I heard the tire rubbing wite the
>> slightest bump. I stopped on the side of the road and easily pulled it
>> back with one hand on my first pull. Probably an Aluminum fender.
>
> Nascar fix, did you lose a lap?
>
Did not even get winded! LOL
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:21:39 -0600, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:23:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 7:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>>>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Ford made a huge mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>>>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>>>>
>>>> Dumb. They're going to chase people to the Japanese trucks.
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>>>
>>>> Ford is comming out with a brand new F150 next year (don't know if
>>>> it's AL). This model didn't last long.
>>>>
>>> It is a refresh, I think the aluminum is going to stick.
>>>
>>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
>>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>>
>> The Japanese trucks were a good $15K-$20K more than I paid for my
>> F150. Not close to competetive.
>>
>
>A lot of that has to do with dealer stock. I always get pricing by
>building online. I only see about 10% difference when comparing that way.
>I was looking at Ford and GMC/Chevrolet in 07 and was thoroughly discussed
>and ready to wait another year. We decided to check Toyota at the end of
>the day and the test drive was what put me back in the mood an we bought
>that day.
Nope. It didn't matter. The book prices were that much different, as
close to equivalent options as possible. Acutally, the out-the-door
price difference was even bigger (special deals with the manufacturers
- "X-Plan").
Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
Being a heavy metal it is a major cost. Battery cables are not thin.
It is the whole ball of wax to consider. And modules don't run on 350v.
Likely there are various voltages already. Proper power is a complex
subject. It isn't just weight or voltage.
This is getting far from wood working and should limit itself.
Martin
On 1/16/2017 11:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Consider the cable sizes. For a given power, the higher voltage is
>> smaller copper and thus lower weight.
>
> If you already have 350v on board where's the
> benefit for 48?
>
> And for a non-hybrid what percentage of the
> weight of the vehicle is electrical wiring? And
> of that weight, how much is copper conductors
> and how much is connectors, insulation, mounting
> brackets, and whatnot?
>
> And even the people trying to sell 48v don't
> claim that it will do away with 12v--48v is
> going to be an _additional_ electrical system.
>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 1/15/2017 7:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>>>>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>>>>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>>>>>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>>>>>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>>>>>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>>>>>> solved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>>>>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Coming soon, evidently
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
>>>> electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
>>>> Delphi?s vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
>>>> strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
>>>> when a vehicle slows down.
>>>>
>>>> Read more:
>>>> http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
>>>
>>> And when you can buy a car that says "Delphi
>>> Motors" on the front then the industry will give
>>> a crap what bullshit "Delphi" is trying to sell.
>>>
>>> Bolt runs on 350v, Volt runs on 360, Tesla runs
>>> on 375. All have 12v subsystems to support
>>> various accessories. The notion that 48v is of
>>> some great advantage in building hybrids and
>>> electrics has little contact with reality.
>>>
>
>
On 1/21/2017 10:37 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:16:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2017 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:34:29 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>>>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>>>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>>>
>>>> Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
>>>> dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
>>>
>>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>>
>> Yes but aluminum is not a foreign material, It has been used on vehicles
>> for decades, just not this much. Hoods are an item that are aluminum on
>> some vehicles and GM was using aluminum on the bumper reinforcement bars
>> as far back as the late 70's.
>
> Sure, SHMBO's Mustang has an aluminum hood. You don't fix it, just
> unbolt it and bolt a new one on. That's going to get expensive for a
> bed, just bacuse you dumped a load of rocks in it. Minor
> fender-benders will get expensive.
It was less expensive to replace her hood but this is not true in all
cases. All minor fender benders are expensive. Paint work is
expensive. If a rubber bumper/facia is involved you can count on $2K +
I'm not saying that aluminum is less or equally as expensive to repair,
just that it can be repaired by your corner BS.
>>
>> I recall our body shop manager talking about the difficulties and the
>> need for special welding equipment to handle the aluminum, that was in 1984.
>
> ...and skills.
>>>
>>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>>> into it.
>>>
>>
>> While the Chevy commercial indicates the little tool box tearing a hole
>> in the Ford bed, I do not see a problem with that. And I am not sure I
>> believe that, the thin walled tool box did not seem to have any damage
>> at all, surely the corner that pierced the aluminum bed should show some
>> damage.
>>
>> That damaged bed is not going to rust so there is no need for a bed
>> liner to prevent damage from turning into a rusted bed.
>
> Perhaps. I'd put one (spray-) in anyway, unless it won't stick to the
> Aluminum, of course.
Spray-on bed liners stick to paint for the most part, it really does not
matter what is under the paint.
And spray on bed liners do not prevent damage other than scratches in
the paint and surface rust. A spray on bed liner offers no help with
the same type damage shown in the Chevy commercial.
I currently have a Toyota branded slip in bed liner, I thought I wanted
to get rid of it and go with a spray on again but 10 years later it is
still doing fine. ;~)
I had a spray-on on my Silverado. It looked like black wrinkle paint.
And held up well to wear. AND it stayed cool in the dead of summer, it
never go hot. BUT it seemed to evaporate... it slowly disappeared/
became thin, and not from abrasion. It simply developed thin spots
between the wrinkle high spots and the paint began to appear again.
These spots seemed be where it had the most sun exposure. BUT it did
last 10 years.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:16:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/21/2017 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:34:29 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>>>
>>>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>>
>>> Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
>>> dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
>>
>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>
>Yes but aluminum is not a foreign material, It has been used on vehicles
>for decades, just not this much. Hoods are an item that are aluminum on
>some vehicles and GM was using aluminum on the bumper reinforcement bars
>as far back as the late 70's.
Sure, SHMBO's Mustang has an aluminum hood. You don't fix it, just
unbolt it and bolt a new one on. That's going to get expensive for a
bed, just bacuse you dumped a load of rocks in it. Minor
fender-benders will get expensive.
>
>I recall our body shop manager talking about the difficulties and the
>need for special welding equipment to handle the aluminum, that was in 1984.
...and skills.
>>
>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>> into it.
>>
>
>While the Chevy commercial indicates the little tool box tearing a hole
>in the Ford bed, I do not see a problem with that. And I am not sure I
>believe that, the thin walled tool box did not seem to have any damage
>at all, surely the corner that pierced the aluminum bed should show some
>damage.
>
>That damaged bed is not going to rust so there is no need for a bed
>liner to prevent damage from turning into a rusted bed.
Perhaps. I'd put one (spray-) in anyway, unless it won't stick to the
Aluminum, of course.
>
>
>
Just wait - 56v is coming to auto. Local switchers for voltages.
Martin
On 1/7/2017 10:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>>
>>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>>> quite a bight many miles away.
>>
>> AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
>> transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
>> generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
>> same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
>> outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
>> different utilities use various distribution voltages).
>>
>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>
> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
> solved.
>
Actually they have that figured.
Run a small, high voltage wire to under the dash. Attach through fuse
and confuse customer with odd numbering. Take the fuses line to a power
block - contains a switcher in a block (swap out) and the block produces
5, 6, 12, 14, 28v..... have three or so blocks of different colors and
they produce various voltages - e.g. for back seat of the drivers - for
the local computer / game console. Another to the xxx for USB and other
charging. It can supply high current or simply reference voltages.
Just modules to plug and play. Kinda like large fist size or thinner -
power pack. Even supply the 12v socket.
Might have to supply a 12V to high voltage for the boost a battery....
(switcher use in reverse).
Martin
On 1/8/2017 2:59 AM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:51:51 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>> solved.
>
> At full charging rate, the terminals would be well over 52V; what I remember, the
> auto buzz was about '42V', which is a 36V battery and allowance for
> overvoltage during heavy charging.
>
> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a2198/4226979/>
>
> Changing standards can be an engineering nightmare, because so many
> decisions have already been optimized for 12V. There aren't 'too many
> problems' so much as too many decisions to be remade.
>
In article <%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> >>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
> >>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
> >>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
> >>
> >> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
> >> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
> >> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
> >> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
> >> solved.
> >>
> >
> >
> > When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
> > I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
> >
> > I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
> >
> >
>
> Coming soon, evidently
>
>
> Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
> electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
> Delphi?s vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
> strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
> when a vehicle slows down.
>
> Read more:
> http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
And when you can buy a car that says "Delphi
Motors" on the front then the industry will give
a crap what bullshit "Delphi" is trying to sell.
Bolt runs on 350v, Volt runs on 360, Tesla runs
on 375. All have 12v subsystems to support
various accessories. The notion that 48v is of
some great advantage in building hybrids and
electrics has little contact with reality.
On 1/21/2017 7:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/21/2017 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>>> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>>> about.
>>
>> Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
>> getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
>> the Focus.
>>
>
> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big V-8.
>
The vast majority of big v8's make it to 150K with out some repair. You
hear of some that do but the ones you dont't hear about typically don't.
;~)
When working for Oldsmobile we had a new Cutlass, rear wheel drive, come
into the shop. The complaint was oil consumption. So we topped off the
oil and checked a week later. I do not recall the level but we
immediately put the vehicle in the shop and began tearing down the
engine. This was the old Buick design 3.8 V6.
Long story short, and we got the factory rep into the shop ASAP part way
through removing the pistons, the engine was assembled with no oil rings
on the pistons.
Regardless of how strong you feel that a metal is, if it is not
engineered and built correctly it is not going to run long enough to
make you proud. ;~)
On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
>>> used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
>>> '60s.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No not maintenance.
>
> So what repair do you believe to be needed for
> ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?
>
>
If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
least one or 2 valve jobs too.
I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
ventilation.
Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
moved cross country. It was never the same after that.
On 1/20/2017 10:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
I drove GM cars for years as did my father and brother. Every one had
to go back to the dealer for adjustments. The last one was falling apart
in five years. I switched to Korean cars 10 years ago. After nearly
60k miles one had to go back for a minor repair under warranty.
On 1/21/2017 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember that the government requires that all
>>> cars sold in the US pass emissions for 50,000
>>> miles with any repairs to emission systems in
>>> that time paid by the manufacturer. Since just
>>> about everything in the engine is emissions
>>> related they pretty much are forced to make them
>>> reliable over that period. If they can stay
>>> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
>>> pretty durable.
>>
>> One would hope but cheap gas with no detergents or bad gas can fowl
>> plugs and clog injectors, and that is not covered after the 5 year or
>> 50K limitation of coverage.
>
> Geez, you gotta be a kid if you think that
> fouled plugs after 50,000 miles is a sign of
> "lack of durability".
No, I did not say that, I simply stated that plugs and injectors can be
damaged with poor gas. You said that if it lasts 50K it will likely not
fail. These are wear items and go bad eventually. FWIW I have not
changed plugs in my last 4 vehicles and all have had mileage closer to
100K than 50K. And despite the 5 or 50K emissions warranty he was past
the 5 year mark. But something beyond a manufacturers control is not
covered by the emission warranty if proof is evident. Vehicles come new
with a bumper to bumper warranty these days but that does not cover
break downs due to products that do not meet factory specs.
>
> And I haven't had any problems with injectors on
> my Jeep in 20 years, despite using the cheapest
> gas I can find most of the time.
That does not mean anything, my BIL had to have the injectors, and fuel
pumps replaced before 50K because of bad/cheap gas. He always filled up
at the same station. That was on an Accord and a Crown Vic.
>
>>> The thing that worries me is the government-
>>> forced trend to smaller and smaller engines with
>>> blowers to get the necessary power.
>>>
>>
>> The government is forcing better gas mileage. The manufacturer chooses
>> the best way for them to achieve that. The Hybrids seem to be a popular
>> alternative.
>
> Physics is physics. You aren't going to get 50
> mpg out of an ironblock 427, not no way, not no
> how.
Did anyone say that you would? You are blowing this out of proportion.
And FWIW the same was said about getting 30+ MPG out of an engine
producing in excess of 150 hp.
>
>> We will see how the turbo and supercharged engines hold up long term.
>
> Yes we will.
>
>> But that said, my wife's 2012 Camry V6 gets an average of 25 MPG in town
>> and 32 on the highway and it has 268 HP. There is no need for more
>> power than that. It pulls quite strongly and quickly up to 100 MPH. I
>> understand that its top speed is governor limited to 130 MPH.
>
> So? When you're getting that 268 out of a turbo
> 3 cylinder get back to me. 25 MPG is not enough
> in the modern world. Mr. Obama's standards
> require 60 mpg. My motorcycle won't do that.
>
Well he is gone now, not to worry.
FWIW engine size does not dictate mileage or power, that is a
misconception that seemed to be true in the 70's but is no longer true.
Where there is a will there is a way.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>
>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>
>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>> rig what they have to work.
>>
>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>
>
>You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>
>Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>always a day late and a dollar short.
>
>I wonder how they will advertise that!
Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
On 1/20/2017 7:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>
>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>
>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>
>>
>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>
> Yup. Ford made a huge mistake.
>>
>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>
> Dumb. They're going to chase people to the Japanese trucks.
>
>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>
> Ford is comming out with a brand new F150 next year (don't know if
> it's AL). This model didn't last long.
>
It is a refresh, I think the aluminum is going to stick.
Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
On 1/21/2017 9:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <M5ednRFuFKGzvRnFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 8:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The vast majority of big v8's make it to 150K with out some repair. You
>>> hear of some that do but the ones you dont't hear about typically don't.
>>> ;~)
>>
>>
>> should have said do not make it to 150K with out some repair.
>
> If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
> used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
> '60s.
>
>
No not maintenance.
On 1/21/2017 2:43 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/21/2017 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>
>> ... Mr. Obama's standards require 60 mpg. ...
>
> Odds are pretty good I think those'll get backed off here
> shortly...perhaps not, but I'm guessing likely.
>
>
Yeah, probably by Tuesday. Some new regs have already been halted.
On 1/21/2017 9:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <t_CdnWV2jYcRixnFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
>>>> warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
>>>> probably good to go.
>>>
>>> That is not what I stated. What I stated was
>>> that if the engine was good enough to make it to
>>> that point without having a wrench turned on it
>>> it has to be a pretty decent design.
>>
>> As the pissing contest goes on,,,
>>
>> this is exactly what you said,
>>
>> Since just
>> about everything in the engine is emissions
>> related they pretty much are forced to make them
>> reliable over that period. If they can stay
>> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
>> pretty durable.
>>
>>
>> Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
>> Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
>> This can happen at any point in an engines life.
>>
>> Perhaps we are saying the same but in a
>> different way.
>
> At this point you're just being argumentative to
> be argumentative, a habit that you don't seem
> aware of.
Pot, Kettle
>
>>>>> I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a
>> car
>>>>> that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
>>>>> years. I know from long experience that
>>>>> normally aspirated iron block engines will do
>>>>> that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
>>>>> aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
>>>>> but producing the same power will last nearly as
>>>>> long.
>>>>
>>>> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>>>> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
>>> getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
>>> the Focus.
>>
>> Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
>> comments.
>> I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
>> on the Ecoboost.
>>
>> But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
>> produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
>> Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
>> 3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.
>
> So? Smaller engines get better mileage--that's
> physics.
>
> How long does that engine last though?
Apparently with Toyota in excess of 150K.
>
>> Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
>> time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
>> produced in the early 70's.
>> The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.
>
> Yeah, I had a non-turbo aluminum block Toyota
> that went through three engines in 30,000 miles.
> Sorry, but Toyota isn't any paragon of
> durability.
Well some people take better care of their vehicles than others, and
there is a lemon in every basket. But you would be hard pressed to find
a more reliable longer lasting vehicle than Toyota when comparing apples
to apples.
>
> However lasting longer than a Vega engine which
> had an iron head on an aluminum block, a recipe
> for failure, isn't anything to brag about.
Is any one bragging?
>
>> And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are aluminum, even in cast iron
>> block engines.
>
> So what?
The "aluminum", in the piston, that you are so afraid to admit to being
a good material takes more punishment than any cast iron block. It is
exposed to tremendous heat and absorbs direct hit explosions billions of
times during its life cycle.
>
>> Technology in metallurgy has come a very long way.
>
> And maybe it's come a long enough way that the
> tiny little high-revving turbowonders that the
> government is forcing automakers to use today
> will last the same 300+ thousand miles as the
> ironblocks. When they've been around long
> enough to accumulate 300,000 miles get back to
> me.
>
Shall I get back to you now? It is already happening on a daily basis.
Commercial turbo charged diesel engines. You done see them here but
they are India.
> You seem to have a childlike faith in engineers.
No, I have experience with dealing with engines as a profession.
> I am one, and I know that we are not gods, our
> shit stinks, and we can't walk on water.
> Physics places limits on what engineers can do.
> When you make something smaller and lighter for
> the same power output with the same
> thermodynamic cycle, something has to give.
> Either the cost goes through the roof or
> durability suffers.
Well that is what they have been saying for decades and the limit has
not yet been reached. Open your eyes.
To you I say, as I told my son a time or two. Can't never could do
anything.
On 1/21/2017 8:29 AM, G. Ross wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> On 01/20/2017 11:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2017 10:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of
>>>> the
>>>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>>>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>>>
>>> I drove GM cars for years as did my father and brother. Every one had to
>>> go back to the dealer for adjustments. The last one was falling apart in
>>> five years. I switched to Korean cars 10 years ago. After nearly 60k
>>> miles one had to go back for a minor repair under warranty.
>>
>> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
>> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
>> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
>> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
>> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>>
> Last spring a roofer was re-roofing my house. One of his crew called
> and said they were having problems with one of his trucks. He said, "I
> can't imagine what could be wrong--it only has 350 thousand miles on
> it". It was a Chevy.
>
I had a friend that put 250K on a Suburban. He had to use fuel additives
to get it to pass emission inspections and it looked like Fred Sanfords
vehicle. ;~)
They all will last, regardless of brand, if you continue to repair what
breaks.
On 1/21/2017 8:00 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 11:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/20/2017 10:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
>>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>>
>> I drove GM cars for years as did my father and brother. Every one had to
>> go back to the dealer for adjustments. The last one was falling apart in
>> five years. I switched to Korean cars 10 years ago. After nearly 60k
>> miles one had to go back for a minor repair under warranty.
>
> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>
If only they would build them like the use'ta.
On 1/21/2017 9:00 AM, dpb wrote:
>
> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>
In '58 the cars were built by car men, not accountants. They had
fixable problems. My 2001 LeSabre had many expensive problems.
Replaced the tranny once. Climate control would give you heat from one
side, cooling from the other. I guess I should not complain as it was
switchable. There is a long list of other things. I gave the car away
and the new owner ditched it after a few months too.
All my GM cars were sold for next to nothing or junked. My Hyundais all
went onto the dealer's lot for sale. I'm now driving a Genesis with the
Ultra package. Better than any of my previous cars including a Mercedes.
I'd rather buy American owned and built but you get poor quality and
poor warranty.
In article <P-idnSODuIBnEB7FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 10:17 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 1/21/2017 9:00 AM, dpb wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
> >> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
> >> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
> >> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
> >> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
> >>
> >
> > In '58 the cars were built by car men, not accountants. They had
> > fixable problems. My 2001 LeSabre had many expensive problems. Replaced
> > the tranny once. Climate control would give you heat from one side,
> > cooling from the other. I guess I should not complain as it was
> > switchable. There is a long list of other things. I gave the car away
> > and the new owner ditched it after a few months too.
> >
> > All my GM cars were sold for next to nothing or junked. My Hyundais all
> > went onto the dealer's lot for sale. I'm now driving a Genesis with the
> > Ultra package. Better than any of my previous cars including a Mercedes.
> >
> > I'd rather buy American owned and built but you get poor quality and
> > poor warranty.
>
>
> For a while I was not sure American built would be dependable but our
> 2012 Camrey and my 08 Tundra are American built and with the
> dependability and lack of even little things going wrong has pretty much
> turned me off to alternatives.
>
> I really like the looks of the Ford trucks but I know that more repair
> bills are pretty much a given. Not saying that I will not have future
> problems with another Toyota but problems with Toyota's are less.
>
> I have strongly considered Hyundai but they don't offer trucks and the
> vehicles don't quite fit what we are looking for.
Remember that the government requires that all
cars sold in the US pass emissions for 50,000
miles with any repairs to emission systems in
that time paid by the manufacturer. Since just
about everything in the engine is emissions
related they pretty much are forced to make them
reliable over that period. If they can stay
tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
pretty durable.
The thing that worries me is the government-
forced trend to smaller and smaller engines with
blowers to get the necessary power.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:10:54 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <t_CdnWV2jYcRixnFnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>says...
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >> I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
>> >> warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
>> >> probably good to go.
>> >
>> > That is not what I stated. What I stated was
>> > that if the engine was good enough to make it to
>> > that point without having a wrench turned on it
>> > it has to be a pretty decent design.
>>
>> As the pissing contest goes on,,,
>>
>> this is exactly what you said,
>>
>> Since just
>> about everything in the engine is emissions
>> related they pretty much are forced to make them
>> reliable over that period. If they can stay
>> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
>> pretty durable.
>>
>>
>> Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
>> Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
>> This can happen at any point in an engines life.
>>
>> Perhaps we are saying the same but in a
>> different way.
>
>At this point you're just being argumentative to
>be argumentative, a habit that you don't seem
>aware of.
>
>> >>> I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a
>> car
>> >>> that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
>> >>> years. I know from long experience that
>> >>> normally aspirated iron block engines will do
>> >>> that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
>> >>> aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
>> >>> but producing the same power will last nearly as
>> >>> long.
>> >>
>> >> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>> >> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>> >> about.
>> >
>> > Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
>> > getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
>> > the Focus.
>>
>> Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
>> comments.
>> I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
>> on the Ecoboost.
>>
>> But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
>> produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
>> Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
>> 3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.
>
>So? Smaller engines get better mileage--that's
>physics.
>
>How long does that engine last though?
>
>> Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
>> time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
>> produced in the early 70's.
>> The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.
>
>Yeah, I had a non-turbo aluminum block Toyota
>that went through three engines in 30,000 miles.
>Sorry, but Toyota isn't any paragon of
>durability.
>
>However lasting longer than a Vega engine which
>had an iron head on an aluminum block, a recipe
>for failure, isn't anything to brag about.
>
>> And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are aluminum, even in cast iron
>> block engines.
>
>So what?
>
>> Technology in metallurgy has come a very long way.
>
>And maybe it's come a long enough way that the
>tiny little high-revving turbowonders that the
>government is forcing automakers to use today
>will last the same 300+ thousand miles as the
>ironblocks. When they've been around long
>enough to accumulate 300,000 miles get back to
>me.
>
>You seem to have a childlike faith in engineers.
>I am one, and I know that we are not gods, our
>shit stinks, and we can't walk on water.
>Physics places limits on what engineers can do.
>When you make something smaller and lighter for
>the same power output with the same
>thermodynamic cycle, something has to give.
>Either the cost goes through the roof or
>durability suffers.
Right. At least half of engineering is economics. It not only has to
work but it also has to be affordable/marketable.
On 1/21/2017 9:23 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <M5ednRZuFKF3ghnFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 8:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
>>>>> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
>>>>> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
>>>>> V-8.
>>>>
>>>> Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
>>>> engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
>>>> "Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
>>>> also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
>>>> with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
>>>> than an entry-level Corvette though.
>>>
>>> The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
>>> particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
>>> heavy, though (partularly the convertible).
>>>
>>> The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
>>> 302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.
>>
>>
>> Here is one for you, I kinda got into an acceleration contest on the
>> freeway with my son. I was driving my wife's 2012 V6 Camrey, and she
>> was in the car. It went from about 45 mph getting on the freeway to
>> about 90.
>> He could not keep up. 84 Corvette 350, in pristine condition for a 30
>> year old vehicle.
>
> Reasonable. They weigh about the same and the
> Camry has 60 more horsepower.
Yes! plus a load more torque.
>
>> Top speed would have been another matter. He does not like to be
>> reminded. LOL
>
> Might not. Mine topped out at about 145. I
> understand that officially a 2012 V6 Camry was
> good for 143.
I read 130, governor limited. To tell you the truth I think Toyota may
be stating a specific under rated hp much like Chevrolet did in the 60's.
On 1/21/2017 8:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
>>> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
>>> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
>>> V-8.
>>
>> Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
>> engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
>> "Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
>> also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
>> with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
>> than an entry-level Corvette though.
>
> The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
> particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
> heavy, though (partularly the convertible).
>
> The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
> 302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.
Here is one for you, I kinda got into an acceleration contest on the
freeway with my son. I was driving my wife's 2012 V6 Camrey, and she
was in the car. It went from about 45 mph getting on the freeway to
about 90.
He could not keep up. 84 Corvette 350, in pristine condition for a 30
year old vehicle.
Top speed would have been another matter. He does not like to be
reminded. LOL
In article <M5ednRZuFKF3ghnFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 8:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
> >>> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
> >>> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
> >>> V-8.
> >>
> >> Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
> >> engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
> >> "Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
> >> also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
> >> with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
> >> than an entry-level Corvette though.
> >
> > The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
> > particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
> > heavy, though (partularly the convertible).
> >
> > The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
> > 302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.
>
>
> Here is one for you, I kinda got into an acceleration contest on the
> freeway with my son. I was driving my wife's 2012 V6 Camrey, and she
> was in the car. It went from about 45 mph getting on the freeway to
> about 90.
> He could not keep up. 84 Corvette 350, in pristine condition for a 30
> year old vehicle.
Reasonable. They weigh about the same and the
Camry has 60 more horsepower.
> Top speed would have been another matter. He does not like to be
> reminded. LOL
Might not. Mine topped out at about 145. I
understand that officially a 2012 V6 Camry was
good for 143.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:32:58 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>> >> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>> >> about.
>> >
>> > Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
>> > getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
>> > the Focus.
>> >
>>
>> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
>> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
>> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
>> V-8.
>
>Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
>engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
>"Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
>also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
>with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
>than an entry-level Corvette though.
The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
heavy, though (partularly the convertible).
The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.
On 2017-01-21 9:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:32:58 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On 1/21/2017 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>>>>> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
>>>> getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
>>>> the Focus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
>>> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
>>> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
>>> V-8.
>>
>> Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
>> engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
>> "Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
>> also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
>> with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
>> than an entry-level Corvette though.
>
> The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
> particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
> heavy, though (partularly the convertible).
>
> The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
> 302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.
>
The 6 is being discontinued, just 4 and 8 cylinder variants for next year.
--
Froz....
In article <x6qdnbSses_xPx7FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 11:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <P-idnSODuIBnEB7FnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/21/2017 10:17 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 1/21/2017 9:00 AM, dpb wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
> >>>> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
> >>>> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
> >>>> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
> >>>> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> In '58 the cars were built by car men, not accountants. They had
> >>> fixable problems. My 2001 LeSabre had many expensive problems. Replaced
> >>> the tranny once. Climate control would give you heat from one side,
> >>> cooling from the other. I guess I should not complain as it was
> >>> switchable. There is a long list of other things. I gave the car away
> >>> and the new owner ditched it after a few months too.
> >>>
> >>> All my GM cars were sold for next to nothing or junked. My Hyundais all
> >>> went onto the dealer's lot for sale. I'm now driving a Genesis with the
> >>> Ultra package. Better than any of my previous cars including a Mercedes.
> >>>
> >>> I'd rather buy American owned and built but you get poor quality and
> >>> poor warranty.
> >>
> >>
> >> For a while I was not sure American built would be dependable but our
> >> 2012 Camrey and my 08 Tundra are American built and with the
> >> dependability and lack of even little things going wrong has pretty much
> >> turned me off to alternatives.
> >>
> >> I really like the looks of the Ford trucks but I know that more repair
> >> bills are pretty much a given. Not saying that I will not have future
> >> problems with another Toyota but problems with Toyota's are less.
> >>
> >> I have strongly considered Hyundai but they don't offer trucks and the
> >> vehicles don't quite fit what we are looking for.
> >
> > Remember that the government requires that all
> > cars sold in the US pass emissions for 50,000
> > miles with any repairs to emission systems in
> > that time paid by the manufacturer. Since just
> > about everything in the engine is emissions
> > related they pretty much are forced to make them
> > reliable over that period. If they can stay
> > tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
> > pretty durable.
>
> One would hope but cheap gas with no detergents or bad gas can fowl
> plugs and clog injectors, and that is not covered after the 5 year or
> 50K limitation of coverage.
Geez, you gotta be a kid if you think that
fouled plugs after 50,000 miles is a sign of
"lack of durability".
And I haven't had any problems with injectors on
my Jeep in 20 years, despite using the cheapest
gas I can find most of the time.
> > The thing that worries me is the government-
> > forced trend to smaller and smaller engines with
> > blowers to get the necessary power.
> >
>
> The government is forcing better gas mileage. The manufacturer chooses
> the best way for them to achieve that. The Hybrids seem to be a popular
> alternative.
Physics is physics. You aren't going to get 50
mpg out of an ironblock 427, not no way, not no
how.
> We will see how the turbo and supercharged engines hold up long term.
Yes we will.
> But that said, my wife's 2012 Camry V6 gets an average of 25 MPG in town
> and 32 on the highway and it has 268 HP. There is no need for more
> power than that. It pulls quite strongly and quickly up to 100 MPH. I
> understand that its top speed is governor limited to 130 MPH.
So? When you're getting that 268 out of a turbo
3 cylinder get back to me. 25 MPG is not enough
in the modern world. Mr. Obama's standards
require 60 mpg. My motorcycle won't do that.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:00:38 -0500, FrozenNorth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2017-01-21 9:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:32:58 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/21/2017 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>>>>>> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
>>>>> getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
>>>>> the Focus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
>>>> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
>>>> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
>>>> V-8.
>>>
>>> Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
>>> engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
>>> "Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
>>> also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
>>> with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
>>> than an entry-level Corvette though.
>>
>> The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
>> particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
>> heavy, though (partularly the convertible).
>>
>> The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
>> 302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.
>>
>The 6 is being discontinued, just 4 and 8 cylinder variants for next year.
That's a definite bummer. I don't trust the eco-boost engine. I've
had my fill of turbos.
In article <6didnUG_qbObXB7FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> Remember that the government requires that all
> >>> cars sold in the US pass emissions for 50,000
> >>> miles with any repairs to emission systems in
> >>> that time paid by the manufacturer. Since just
> >>> about everything in the engine is emissions
> >>> related they pretty much are forced to make them
> >>> reliable over that period. If they can stay
> >>> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
> >>> pretty durable.
> >>
> >> One would hope but cheap gas with no detergents or bad gas can fowl
> >> plugs and clog injectors, and that is not covered after the 5 year or
> >> 50K limitation of coverage.
> >
> > Geez, you gotta be a kid if you think that
> > fouled plugs after 50,000 miles is a sign of
> > "lack of durability".
>
> No, I did not say that, I simply stated that plugs and injectors can be
> damaged with poor gas. You said that if it lasts 50K it will likely not
> fail. These are wear items and go bad eventually. FWIW I have not
> changed plugs in my last 4 vehicles and all have had mileage closer to
> 100K than 50K. And despite the 5 or 50K emissions warranty he was past
> the 5 year mark. But something beyond a manufacturers control is not
> covered by the emission warranty if proof is evident. Vehicles come new
> with a bumper to bumper warranty these days but that does not cover
> break downs due to products that do not meet factory specs.
>
> >
> > And I haven't had any problems with injectors on
> > my Jeep in 20 years, despite using the cheapest
> > gas I can find most of the time.
>
> That does not mean anything, my BIL had to have the injectors, and fuel
> pumps replaced before 50K because of bad/cheap gas. He always filled up
> at the same station. That was on an Accord and a Crown Vic.
>
>
>
> >
> >>> The thing that worries me is the government-
> >>> forced trend to smaller and smaller engines with
> >>> blowers to get the necessary power.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The government is forcing better gas mileage. The manufacturer chooses
> >> the best way for them to achieve that. The Hybrids seem to be a popular
> >> alternative.
> >
> > Physics is physics. You aren't going to get 50
> > mpg out of an ironblock 427, not no way, not no
> > how.
>
> Did anyone say that you would? You are blowing this out of proportion.
> And FWIW the same was said about getting 30+ MPG out of an engine
> producing in excess of 150 hp.
>
>
>
> >
> >> We will see how the turbo and supercharged engines hold up long term.
> >
> > Yes we will.
> >
> >> But that said, my wife's 2012 Camry V6 gets an average of 25 MPG in town
> >> and 32 on the highway and it has 268 HP. There is no need for more
> >> power than that. It pulls quite strongly and quickly up to 100 MPH. I
> >> understand that its top speed is governor limited to 130 MPH.
> >
> > So? When you're getting that 268 out of a turbo
> > 3 cylinder get back to me. 25 MPG is not enough
> > in the modern world. Mr. Obama's standards
> > require 60 mpg. My motorcycle won't do that.
> >
>
> Well he is gone now, not to worry.
>
> FWIW engine size does not dictate mileage or power, that is a
> misconception that seemed to be true in the 70's but is no longer true.
>
> Where there is a will there is a way.
This is not productive because you are not
addressing the points raised, you are twisting
them to suit your worldview.
I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a car
that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
years. I know from long experience that
normally aspirated iron block engines will do
that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
but producing the same power will last nearly as
long.
Now, maybe you have extensive experience as a
mechanic with the longevity of massively boosted
high RPM 3 cylinder engines in cars, if so
please share.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 2:43 PM, dpb wrote:
> > On 01/21/2017 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> ... Mr. Obama's standards require 60 mpg. ...
> >
> > Odds are pretty good I think those'll get backed off here
> > shortly...perhaps not, but I'm guessing likely.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, probably by Tuesday. Some new regs have already been halted.
One hopes that at least some sanity comes out of
this.
In article <ddSdnTmkPIvLcx7FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 3:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <6didnUG_qbObXB7FnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/21/2017 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remember that the government requires that all
> >>>>> cars sold in the US pass emissions for 50,000
> >>>>> miles with any repairs to emission systems in
> >>>>> that time paid by the manufacturer. Since just
> >>>>> about everything in the engine is emissions
> >>>>> related they pretty much are forced to make them
> >>>>> reliable over that period. If they can stay
> >>>>> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
> >>>>> pretty durable.
> >>>>
> >>>> One would hope but cheap gas with no detergents or bad gas can fowl
> >>>> plugs and clog injectors, and that is not covered after the 5 year or
> >>>> 50K limitation of coverage.
> >>>
> >>> Geez, you gotta be a kid if you think that
> >>> fouled plugs after 50,000 miles is a sign of
> >>> "lack of durability".
> >>
> >> No, I did not say that, I simply stated that plugs and injectors can be
> >> damaged with poor gas. You said that if it lasts 50K it will likely not
> >> fail. These are wear items and go bad eventually. FWIW I have not
> >> changed plugs in my last 4 vehicles and all have had mileage closer to
> >> 100K than 50K. And despite the 5 or 50K emissions warranty he was past
> >> the 5 year mark. But something beyond a manufacturers control is not
> >> covered by the emission warranty if proof is evident. Vehicles come new
> >> with a bumper to bumper warranty these days but that does not cover
> >> break downs due to products that do not meet factory specs.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> And I haven't had any problems with injectors on
> >>> my Jeep in 20 years, despite using the cheapest
> >>> gas I can find most of the time.
> >>
> >> That does not mean anything, my BIL had to have the injectors, and fuel
> >> pumps replaced before 50K because of bad/cheap gas. He always filled up
> >> at the same station. That was on an Accord and a Crown Vic.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>> The thing that worries me is the government-
> >>>>> forced trend to smaller and smaller engines with
> >>>>> blowers to get the necessary power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The government is forcing better gas mileage. The manufacturer chooses
> >>>> the best way for them to achieve that. The Hybrids seem to be a popular
> >>>> alternative.
> >>>
> >>> Physics is physics. You aren't going to get 50
> >>> mpg out of an ironblock 427, not no way, not no
> >>> how.
> >>
> >> Did anyone say that you would? You are blowing this out of proportion.
> >> And FWIW the same was said about getting 30+ MPG out of an engine
> >> producing in excess of 150 hp.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> We will see how the turbo and supercharged engines hold up long term.
> >>>
> >>> Yes we will.
> >>>
> >>>> But that said, my wife's 2012 Camry V6 gets an average of 25 MPG in town
> >>>> and 32 on the highway and it has 268 HP. There is no need for more
> >>>> power than that. It pulls quite strongly and quickly up to 100 MPH. I
> >>>> understand that its top speed is governor limited to 130 MPH.
> >>>
> >>> So? When you're getting that 268 out of a turbo
> >>> 3 cylinder get back to me. 25 MPG is not enough
> >>> in the modern world. Mr. Obama's standards
> >>> require 60 mpg. My motorcycle won't do that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well he is gone now, not to worry.
> >>
> >> FWIW engine size does not dictate mileage or power, that is a
> >> misconception that seemed to be true in the 70's but is no longer true.
> >>
> >> Where there is a will there is a way.
> >
> > This is not productive because you are not
> > addressing the points raised, you are twisting
> > them to suit your worldview.
>
> I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
> warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
> probably good to go.
That is not what I stated. What I stated was
that if the engine was good enough to make it to
that point without having a wrench turned on it
it has to be a pretty decent design.
> > I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a car
> > that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
> > years. I know from long experience that
> > normally aspirated iron block engines will do
> > that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
> > aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
> > but producing the same power will last nearly as
> > long.
>
> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
> about.
Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
the Focus.
> > Now, maybe you have extensive experience as a
> > mechanic with the longevity of massively boosted
> > high RPM 3 cylinder engines in cars, if so
> > please share.
> >
> >
> I do not have extensive experience as a mechanic although probably much
> more than most people that are not mechanics. I do have extensive
> service management experience where I dealt with the repairs and
> warranty claims and the customers and the factory reps.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
> >> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
> >> about.
> >
> > Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
> > getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
> > the Focus.
> >
>
> My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
> right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
> how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
> V-8.
Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
"Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
than an entry-level Corvette though.
In article <t_CdnWV2jYcRixnFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >> I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
> >> warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
> >> probably good to go.
> >
> > That is not what I stated. What I stated was
> > that if the engine was good enough to make it to
> > that point without having a wrench turned on it
> > it has to be a pretty decent design.
>
> As the pissing contest goes on,,,
>
> this is exactly what you said,
>
> Since just
> about everything in the engine is emissions
> related they pretty much are forced to make them
> reliable over that period. If they can stay
> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
> pretty durable.
>
>
> Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
> Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
> This can happen at any point in an engines life.
>
> Perhaps we are saying the same but in a
> different way.
At this point you're just being argumentative to
be argumentative, a habit that you don't seem
aware of.
> >>> I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a
> car
> >>> that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
> >>> years. I know from long experience that
> >>> normally aspirated iron block engines will do
> >>> that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
> >>> aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
> >>> but producing the same power will last nearly as
> >>> long.
> >>
> >> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
> >> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
> >> about.
> >
> > Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
> > getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
> > the Focus.
>
> Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
> comments.
> I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
> on the Ecoboost.
>
> But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
> produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
> Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
> 3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.
So? Smaller engines get better mileage--that's
physics.
How long does that engine last though?
> Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
> time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
> produced in the early 70's.
> The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.
Yeah, I had a non-turbo aluminum block Toyota
that went through three engines in 30,000 miles.
Sorry, but Toyota isn't any paragon of
durability.
However lasting longer than a Vega engine which
had an iron head on an aluminum block, a recipe
for failure, isn't anything to brag about.
> And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are aluminum, even in cast iron
> block engines.
So what?
> Technology in metallurgy has come a very long way.
And maybe it's come a long enough way that the
tiny little high-revving turbowonders that the
government is forcing automakers to use today
will last the same 300+ thousand miles as the
ironblocks. When they've been around long
enough to accumulate 300,000 miles get back to
me.
You seem to have a childlike faith in engineers.
I am one, and I know that we are not gods, our
shit stinks, and we can't walk on water.
Physics places limits on what engineers can do.
When you make something smaller and lighter for
the same power output with the same
thermodynamic cycle, something has to give.
Either the cost goes through the roof or
durability suffers.
In article <M5ednRFuFKGzvRnFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 8:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> >
> > The vast majority of big v8's make it to 150K with out some repair. You
> > hear of some that do but the ones you dont't hear about typically don't.
> > ;~)
>
>
> should have said do not make it to 150K with out some repair.
If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
'60s.
In article <HdadnRHZwLX9phnFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 9:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <t_CdnWV2jYcRixnFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
> >>>> warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
> >>>> probably good to go.
> >>>
> >>> That is not what I stated. What I stated was
> >>> that if the engine was good enough to make it to
> >>> that point without having a wrench turned on it
> >>> it has to be a pretty decent design.
> >>
> >> As the pissing contest goes on,,,
> >>
> >> this is exactly what you said,
> >>
> >> Since just
> >> about everything in the engine is emissions
> >> related they pretty much are forced to make them
> >> reliable over that period. If they can stay
> >> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
> >> pretty durable.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
> >> Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
> >> This can happen at any point in an engines life.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we are saying the same but in a
> >> different way.
> >
> > At this point you're just being argumentative to
> > be argumentative, a habit that you don't seem
> > aware of.
>
> Pot, Kettle
>
>
>
> >
> >>>>> I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a
> >> car
> >>>>> that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
> >>>>> years. I know from long experience that
> >>>>> normally aspirated iron block engines will do
> >>>>> that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
> >>>>> aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
> >>>>> but producing the same power will last nearly as
> >>>>> long.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
> >>>> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
> >>>> about.
> >>>
> >>> Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
> >>> getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
> >>> the Focus.
> >>
> >> Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
> >> comments.
> >> I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
> >> on the Ecoboost.
> >>
> >> But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
> >> produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
> >> Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
> >> 3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.
> >
> > So? Smaller engines get better mileage--that's
> > physics.
> >
> > How long does that engine last though?
>
> Apparently with Toyota in excess of 150K.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
> >> time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
> >> produced in the early 70's.
> >> The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.
> >
> > Yeah, I had a non-turbo aluminum block Toyota
> > that went through three engines in 30,000 miles.
> > Sorry, but Toyota isn't any paragon of
> > durability.
>
> Well some people take better care of their vehicles than others, and
> there is a lemon in every basket. But you would be hard pressed to find
> a more reliable longer lasting vehicle than Toyota when comparing apples
> to apples.
Leon, that Toyota is the only car I've ever had
that experienced an engine failure. If it was
lack of maintenance then why didn't I get the
same results with every other car I've had?
> > However lasting longer than a Vega engine which
> > had an iron head on an aluminum block, a recipe
> > for failure, isn't anything to brag about.
>
> Is any one bragging?
Are you autistic or something? Have you never
heard that expression before?
> >> And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are
aluminum, even in cast iron
> >> block engines.
> >
> > So what?
>
> The "aluminum", in the piston, that you are so afraid to admit to being
> a good material takes more punishment than any cast iron block. It is
> exposed to tremendous heat and absorbs direct hit explosions billions of
> times during its life cycle.
Leon, you are putting words in my mouth, a bad
habit. I have never said that aluminum wasn't a
"good material". But it works better for some
purposes than others, just as is true of all
other materials. Rubber is a great material for
tires but it's not so good for crankshafts.
Engineers pick the material for the job, we
don't just say "iron good, aluminum bad" and
make everything out of one or the other on
ideological grounds.
Pistons don't have tightly fitted steel rings
sliding up and down them thousands of times a
minute. Cylinder walls do. Put aluminum
pistons in an iron engine and the clearances
tighten as it warms. Put iron pistons in an
aluminum engine and they loosen as it warms.
Pistons are reciprocating mass--the lighter they
are the less stress on the system.
Your "direct exposure to explosions" is only a
tiny part of the engineering picture.
> >> Technology in metallurgy has come a very
long way.
> >
> > And maybe it's come a long enough way that the
> > tiny little high-revving turbowonders that the
> > government is forcing automakers to use today
> > will last the same 300+ thousand miles as the
> > ironblocks. When they've been around long
> > enough to accumulate 300,000 miles get back to
> > me.
> >
> Shall I get back to you now? It is already happening on a daily basis.
> Commercial turbo charged diesel engines. You done see them here but
> they are India.
What planet to you inhabit? Commercial turbo
charged diesel engines were in common use in the
US when I was a small child.
A 13 liter 600 horsepower engine that weighs
more than most cars is not a "tiny little high-
revving turbowonder".
> > You seem to have a childlike faith in
engineers.
>
> No, I have experience with dealing with engines as a profession.
So tell us about your personal experience with
tiny high-revving turbowonders. I asked you do
do that before and you babbled about truck
engines in India. Do you live in India? If not
how do you from your personal experience know
anything about those engines?
And your personal experience clearly does not
extend to commercial truck engines in the US.
> > I am one, and I know that we are not gods, our
> > shit stinks, and we can't walk on water.
> > Physics places limits on what engineers can do.
> > When you make something smaller and lighter for
> > the same power output with the same
> > thermodynamic cycle, something has to give.
> > Either the cost goes through the roof or
> > durability suffers.
>
> Well that is what they have been saying for decades and the limit has
> not yet been reached. Open your eyes.
Nobody but you is on about "limits". Put enough
boost on it and a chainsaw engine could power
New York for about a nanosecond before it self
destructed. You don't seem to grasp the concept
that everything in engineering is a tradeoff.
You can have light, strong, or cheap. Pick two.
> To you I say, as I told my son a time or two. Can't never could do
> anything.
And all the "can" in the world won't stop the
tide.
But that comment clearly marks you as a pointy-
haired boss and not one of the dilberts who
actually has to do the work.
In article <EMSdnQvjFfsuoRnFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/21/2017 9:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <M5ednRFuFKGzvRnFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/21/2017 8:50 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The vast majority of big v8's make it to 150K with out some repair. You
> >>> hear of some that do but the ones you dont't hear about typically don't.
> >>> ;~)
> >>
> >>
> >> should have said do not make it to 150K with out some repair.
> >
> > If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
> > used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
> > '60s.
> >
> >
>
> No not maintenance.
So what repair do you believe to be needed for
ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>> If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
> >>> used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
> >>> '60s.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> No not maintenance.
> >
> > So what repair do you believe to be needed for
> > ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?
> >
> >
>
>
> If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
> least one or 2 valve jobs too.
A '50 Chevy would have had an oil-trough spray
lube system, not fully pressurized, so one would
expect the bearings to die young. The engine
was basically a '20s design.
I'm thinking more of the many American cars sold
in the past 20 years that have gone over
300,000. I suspect that the real change there
is the lubricants--modern lubricants, especially
synthetics, are much much better than what was
available in the '50s.
> I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
> but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
> ventilation.
>
> Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
> moved cross country. It was never the same after that.
In article <nbudnVZhKojjRRnFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/22/2017 9:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >>>> If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
> >>>> used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
> >>>> '60s.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No not maintenance.
> >>
> >> So what repair do you believe to be needed for
> >> ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
> > least one or 2 valve jobs too.
>
>
> It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
> dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines
> had. Chevroley big block engines, in the 60's and early 70's, did not
> really have an inherent cylinder, that was every ones imagination.
What is an "inherent cylinder"?
> Fords recent V8 is not really blowing the spark plugs out of the heads,
> that is the owners imagination.
Aluminum heads.
> GM's v6 and v8 diesel engines did not
> have lifter problems, they are supposed to run like that.
You mean the ones that were designed to be gas
engines and then modified into diesels?
> I stocked 2~3
> complete engines at all times. It was very common to replace complete
> engines. I recall the 3.8 V6 crate engine was less than $1000 so it was
> less expensive to replace than to overhaul. I could get a new engine
> from GM in less than 3 days but kept them in stock for our shop.
>
>
>
> >
> > I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
> > but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
> > ventilation.
> >
> > Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
> > moved cross country. It was never the same after that.
>
>
> It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
> dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines had.
dpb wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 11:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/20/2017 10:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
>>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>>
>> I drove GM cars for years as did my father and brother. Every one had to
>> go back to the dealer for adjustments. The last one was falling apart in
>> five years. I switched to Korean cars 10 years ago. After nearly 60k
>> miles one had to go back for a minor repair under warranty.
>
> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>
Last spring a roofer was re-roofing my house. One of his crew called
and said they were having problems with one of his trucks. He said,
"I can't imagine what could be wrong--it only has 350 thousand miles
on it". It was a Chevy.
--
GW Ross
On 1/21/2017 2:02 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 01/21/2017 9:35 AM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> They all will last, regardless of brand, if you continue to repair what
>> breaks.
>
> I guess I've just been lucky...we've had nothing but Chevy on the
> farmstead since grandfather's first truck (1928) and have never had any
> major engine or transmission repairs on any that I can recall since
> being old enough to know most of what happened since the late-50s/early
> 60s. That'd include something like 20+ pick'em ups and a dozen or so
> medium and heavy duty bobtails.
>
> Personally, I've had almost exclusively GM automobiles and with only the
> single exception of one '84 Olds, I've never had a _major_ repair on any
> of them, either. It had a newly-released transmission that failed
> early, but was warranty replacement and the subsequent went the
> remaining 130K or so put on it.
>
> Folks drove Buick exclusively from 1960 on and there also recall only
> one that ever had any real issues with...one, don't recall the year but
> many years ago, long before the 3.8L cross-mount FWD, would lose the
> water pump after long road trips. Never failed until after returned and
> it had gone back to normal just daily to/from town trips but seemed like
> every time after a really long trip sequence it'd go out. Dad finally
> got made and traded it; the shop mechanic bought it and replaced the
> pump "one more time" and ended up driving it for years and years and
> never replaced it again... :)
>
> Anyways, I'm pretty much happy w/ GM...not enough trouble over 60 yr or
> so to give me any pause whatsoever. Altho I don't like all the gadgetry
> on them or anything new that's not vendor-specific.
>
>
>
No reason to switch brands if you are happy. It delivers what you have
come to expect. And like I mentioned I was GM guy and retired after
selling and servicing GM products for 20+ years. I really got tired of
the politics of dealing with the factory and angry customers coming back
to have the same thing repaired over and over. I first switched to
Isuzu, a brand that we sold, and it was equal to GM in reliability.
Then I/we went to Acura, Honda, and finally Toyota. Higher in price but
very dependable and trouble free compared to the vehicles we have had in
the past.
On 1/21/2017 10:17 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/21/2017 9:00 AM, dpb wrote:
>
>>
>> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
>> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
>> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
>> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
>> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>>
>
> In '58 the cars were built by car men, not accountants. They had
> fixable problems. My 2001 LeSabre had many expensive problems. Replaced
> the tranny once. Climate control would give you heat from one side,
> cooling from the other. I guess I should not complain as it was
> switchable. There is a long list of other things. I gave the car away
> and the new owner ditched it after a few months too.
>
> All my GM cars were sold for next to nothing or junked. My Hyundais all
> went onto the dealer's lot for sale. I'm now driving a Genesis with the
> Ultra package. Better than any of my previous cars including a Mercedes.
>
> I'd rather buy American owned and built but you get poor quality and
> poor warranty.
For a while I was not sure American built would be dependable but our
2012 Camrey and my 08 Tundra are American built and with the
dependability and lack of even little things going wrong has pretty much
turned me off to alternatives.
I really like the looks of the Ford trucks but I know that more repair
bills are pretty much a given. Not saying that I will not have future
problems with another Toyota but problems with Toyota's are less.
I have strongly considered Hyundai but they don't offer trucks and the
vehicles don't quite fit what we are looking for.
On 1/22/2017 4:21 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
>> dream.
>
> Was it that horrible (that you wanted to retire at 40)? Or did you
> aspire to do woodworking instead? I have my own reasons for asking, and
> just like I am choosing not to "put them out there", I understand if you
> would rather not go into this here.
>
> Bill
I worked in almost every aspect of the automotive business. I managed
my first tire store/service center when I was 21. Later I loved
working for the dealership, I was hired to manage the parts department
of a new yet to exist Oldsmobile dealership on my 23rd birthday. I
moved up to Service Sales Manager and later Parts Director of the both
dealerships that we had until I left to fill the GM position of an
AC'Delco wholesale distributor 10 years later. I stayed with that until
I was 40. It was that last position that I retired from. I hated
working for the owners but put up with it the nonsense for about 5 of
the 7 years. It was a father and son business that was quite successful
on a small scale. After I joined we expanded sales greatly but the
volume of business was apparently too much for the father as he was
unable to make the changes to keep up. The son, the one that hired me,
had never really worked for any one other than his father except for
some dealership work when he was in school. They did not understand
diversifying or expanding product lines to include Ford or MoPar. When
I joined they had little to no competition. As competition came in they
were unwilling to change their business plan to adapt. I stayed with
them because of the fantastic retirement plan. They closed the doors
about 18 months after I left.
I was into woodworking at around age 8. Serious woodworking at around
25. And became a sole proprietorship wood working business to satisfy
the government about 20 years ago. Not a living by any stretch of the
imagination but plenty of gravy. ;~)
I would be happy to provide you with any other details privately that
you might be interested in.
On 1/21/2017 10:19 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/21/2017 10:35 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> They all will last, regardless of brand, if you continue to repair what
>> breaks.
>>
>
> True, just that some break more frequently
And repeatedly.
My last GM truck a 97 Silverado, had the water pump replaced two times,
the intake manifold gasket replaced one time, the special heater hose
with a special intake manifold fitting replaced 3 times, alternator one
time, blower motor one time. And that was with less than 70K in a 10
year period.
My 07 Tundra had the brake switch replaced in the first week. I could
not take the shift lever out of park.
It had a leaking water pump that was replaced under the drive train
warranty about 5 years ago. And that is the only major things.
On 1/21/2017 3:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <6didnUG_qbObXB7FnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember that the government requires that all
>>>>> cars sold in the US pass emissions for 50,000
>>>>> miles with any repairs to emission systems in
>>>>> that time paid by the manufacturer. Since just
>>>>> about everything in the engine is emissions
>>>>> related they pretty much are forced to make them
>>>>> reliable over that period. If they can stay
>>>>> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
>>>>> pretty durable.
>>>>
>>>> One would hope but cheap gas with no detergents or bad gas can fowl
>>>> plugs and clog injectors, and that is not covered after the 5 year or
>>>> 50K limitation of coverage.
>>>
>>> Geez, you gotta be a kid if you think that
>>> fouled plugs after 50,000 miles is a sign of
>>> "lack of durability".
>>
>> No, I did not say that, I simply stated that plugs and injectors can be
>> damaged with poor gas. You said that if it lasts 50K it will likely not
>> fail. These are wear items and go bad eventually. FWIW I have not
>> changed plugs in my last 4 vehicles and all have had mileage closer to
>> 100K than 50K. And despite the 5 or 50K emissions warranty he was past
>> the 5 year mark. But something beyond a manufacturers control is not
>> covered by the emission warranty if proof is evident. Vehicles come new
>> with a bumper to bumper warranty these days but that does not cover
>> break downs due to products that do not meet factory specs.
>>
>>>
>>> And I haven't had any problems with injectors on
>>> my Jeep in 20 years, despite using the cheapest
>>> gas I can find most of the time.
>>
>> That does not mean anything, my BIL had to have the injectors, and fuel
>> pumps replaced before 50K because of bad/cheap gas. He always filled up
>> at the same station. That was on an Accord and a Crown Vic.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> The thing that worries me is the government-
>>>>> forced trend to smaller and smaller engines with
>>>>> blowers to get the necessary power.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The government is forcing better gas mileage. The manufacturer chooses
>>>> the best way for them to achieve that. The Hybrids seem to be a popular
>>>> alternative.
>>>
>>> Physics is physics. You aren't going to get 50
>>> mpg out of an ironblock 427, not no way, not no
>>> how.
>>
>> Did anyone say that you would? You are blowing this out of proportion.
>> And FWIW the same was said about getting 30+ MPG out of an engine
>> producing in excess of 150 hp.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> We will see how the turbo and supercharged engines hold up long term.
>>>
>>> Yes we will.
>>>
>>>> But that said, my wife's 2012 Camry V6 gets an average of 25 MPG in town
>>>> and 32 on the highway and it has 268 HP. There is no need for more
>>>> power than that. It pulls quite strongly and quickly up to 100 MPH. I
>>>> understand that its top speed is governor limited to 130 MPH.
>>>
>>> So? When you're getting that 268 out of a turbo
>>> 3 cylinder get back to me. 25 MPG is not enough
>>> in the modern world. Mr. Obama's standards
>>> require 60 mpg. My motorcycle won't do that.
>>>
>>
>> Well he is gone now, not to worry.
>>
>> FWIW engine size does not dictate mileage or power, that is a
>> misconception that seemed to be true in the 70's but is no longer true.
>>
>> Where there is a will there is a way.
>
> This is not productive because you are not
> addressing the points raised, you are twisting
> them to suit your worldview.
I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
probably good to go.
>
> I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a car
> that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
> years. I know from long experience that
> normally aspirated iron block engines will do
> that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
> aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
> but producing the same power will last nearly as
> long.
Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
about.
>
> Now, maybe you have extensive experience as a
> mechanic with the longevity of massively boosted
> high RPM 3 cylinder engines in cars, if so
> please share.
>
>
I do not have extensive experience as a mechanic although probably much
more than most people that are not mechanics. I do have extensive
service management experience where I dealt with the repairs and
warranty claims and the customers and the factory reps.
On 1/21/2017 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>> about.
>
> Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
> getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
> the Focus.
>
My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
V-8.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>
>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>
>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>> rig what they have to work.
>>
>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>
>
>You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>bed to the steel Chevy bed.
Yup. Ford made a huge mistake.
>
>Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>always a day late and a dollar short.
Dumb. They're going to chase people to the Japanese trucks.
>I wonder how they will advertise that!
Ford is comming out with a brand new F150 next year (don't know if
it's AL). This model didn't last long.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:01:27 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/21/2017 2:43 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 01/21/2017 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> ... Mr. Obama's standards require 60 mpg. ...
>>
>> Odds are pretty good I think those'll get backed off here
>> shortly...perhaps not, but I'm guessing likely.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, probably by Tuesday. Some new regs have already been halted.
It'll take a while. The Donald could sign an executive order today
but it would take a year, if then, to change anything. The President
can only direct the appropriate agencies to look into changing
regulations. He can't do it.
On 1/22/2017 9:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>> If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
>>>> used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
>>>> '60s.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No not maintenance.
>>
>> So what repair do you believe to be needed for
>> ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?
>>
>>
>
>
> If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
> least one or 2 valve jobs too.
It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines
had. Chevroley big block engines, in the 60's and early 70's, did not
really have an inherent cylinder, that was every ones imagination.
Fords recent V8 is not really blowing the spark plugs out of the heads,
that is the owners imagination. GM's v6 and v8 diesel engines did not
have lifter problems, they are supposed to run like that. I stocked 2~3
complete engines at all times. It was very common to replace complete
engines. I recall the 3.8 V6 crate engine was less than $1000 so it was
less expensive to replace than to overhaul. I could get a new engine
from GM in less than 3 days but kept them in stock for our shop.
>
> I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
> but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
> ventilation.
>
> Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
> moved cross country. It was never the same after that.
It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines had.
On 01/20/2017 11:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/20/2017 10:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>
> I drove GM cars for years as did my father and brother. Every one had to
> go back to the dealer for adjustments. The last one was falling apart in
> five years. I switched to Korean cars 10 years ago. After nearly 60k
> miles one had to go back for a minor repair under warranty.
I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
On 01/21/2017 8:29 AM, G. Ross wrote:
> dpb wrote:
...
>> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
>> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
>> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
>> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
>> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>>
> Last spring a roofer was re-roofing my house. One of his crew called and
> said they were having problems with one of his trucks. He said, "I can't
> imagine what could be wrong--it only has 350 thousand miles on it". It
> was a Chevy.
No idea on mileage on "Big Blue", one flaw to pick on is the nylon
speedometer gears weren't up to the dirt of SW KS farm use, apparently.
We had three in the '58/'59 year model and each lost speed/odo-meter
at around the 40K mark; I think this one still has 39,998 on it if I
remember correctly... :)
It was never over-the-road truck rather "farm-to-market" where our
farmstead is <10 mi from grain elevators in town. But I've no way to
estimate how many trips it must've made in the years it was one of the
primary haulers before the switchover to large tandems and then later
the tractor-trailer setups. With the advent of such large harvesting
equipment now in use, it seems like a toy that was a big truck back then.
I've thought over the last couple years I should spend a winter and pull
the heads and do rings and a new cam/distributor as it has finally
gotten to where it could use a little TLC although I've so much down
I've run out of room for burning here on the place so have been hauling
to the city location out by the airport which is about a 15-mi round
trip and a few of those (think I've done 10 loads so far, about half of
what there is to dispose of that was already down, _before_ beginning
any pruning up of the remaining crags) has helped it seems as it hadn't
done other than just local on the farmstead chores for a couple of years
now...
--
On 01/21/2017 9:35 AM, Leon wrote:
...
> They all will last, regardless of brand, if you continue to repair what
> breaks.
I guess I've just been lucky...we've had nothing but Chevy on the
farmstead since grandfather's first truck (1928) and have never had any
major engine or transmission repairs on any that I can recall since
being old enough to know most of what happened since the late-50s/early
60s. That'd include something like 20+ pick'em ups and a dozen or so
medium and heavy duty bobtails.
Personally, I've had almost exclusively GM automobiles and with only the
single exception of one '84 Olds, I've never had a _major_ repair on any
of them, either. It had a newly-released transmission that failed
early, but was warranty replacement and the subsequent went the
remaining 130K or so put on it.
Folks drove Buick exclusively from 1960 on and there also recall only
one that ever had any real issues with...one, don't recall the year but
many years ago, long before the 3.8L cross-mount FWD, would lose the
water pump after long road trips. Never failed until after returned and
it had gone back to normal just daily to/from town trips but seemed like
every time after a really long trip sequence it'd go out. Dad finally
got made and traded it; the shop mechanic bought it and replaced the
pump "one more time" and ended up driving it for years and years and
never replaced it again... :)
Anyways, I'm pretty much happy w/ GM...not enough trouble over 60 yr or
so to give me any pause whatsoever. Altho I don't like all the gadgetry
on them or anything new that's not vendor-specific.
Leon wrote:
>
> It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
> dream.
Was it that horrible (that you wanted to retire at 40)? Or did you
aspire to do woodworking instead? I have my own reasons for asking, and
just like I am choosing not to "put them out there", I understand if you
would rather not go into this here.
Bill
On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
>> warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
>> probably good to go.
>
> That is not what I stated. What I stated was
> that if the engine was good enough to make it to
> that point without having a wrench turned on it
> it has to be a pretty decent design.
As the pissing contest goes on,,,
this is exactly what you said,
Since just
about everything in the engine is emissions
related they pretty much are forced to make them
reliable over that period. If they can stay
tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
pretty durable.
Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
This can happen at any point in an engines life.
Perhaps we are saying the same but in a different way.
>
>>> I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a car
>>> that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
>>> years. I know from long experience that
>>> normally aspirated iron block engines will do
>>> that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
>>> aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
>>> but producing the same power will last nearly as
>>> long.
>>
>> Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
>> and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
>> about.
>
> Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
> getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
> the Focus.
Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
comments.
I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
on the Ecoboost.
But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.
Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
produced in the early 70's.
The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.
And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are aluminum, even in cast iron
block engines.
Technology in metallurgy has come a very long way.
On 1/21/2017 11:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <P-idnSODuIBnEB7FnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 10:17 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2017 9:00 AM, dpb wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
>>>> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
>>>> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
>>>> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
>>>> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>>>>
>>>
>>> In '58 the cars were built by car men, not accountants. They had
>>> fixable problems. My 2001 LeSabre had many expensive problems. Replaced
>>> the tranny once. Climate control would give you heat from one side,
>>> cooling from the other. I guess I should not complain as it was
>>> switchable. There is a long list of other things. I gave the car away
>>> and the new owner ditched it after a few months too.
>>>
>>> All my GM cars were sold for next to nothing or junked. My Hyundais all
>>> went onto the dealer's lot for sale. I'm now driving a Genesis with the
>>> Ultra package. Better than any of my previous cars including a Mercedes.
>>>
>>> I'd rather buy American owned and built but you get poor quality and
>>> poor warranty.
>>
>>
>> For a while I was not sure American built would be dependable but our
>> 2012 Camrey and my 08 Tundra are American built and with the
>> dependability and lack of even little things going wrong has pretty much
>> turned me off to alternatives.
>>
>> I really like the looks of the Ford trucks but I know that more repair
>> bills are pretty much a given. Not saying that I will not have future
>> problems with another Toyota but problems with Toyota's are less.
>>
>> I have strongly considered Hyundai but they don't offer trucks and the
>> vehicles don't quite fit what we are looking for.
>
> Remember that the government requires that all
> cars sold in the US pass emissions for 50,000
> miles with any repairs to emission systems in
> that time paid by the manufacturer. Since just
> about everything in the engine is emissions
> related they pretty much are forced to make them
> reliable over that period. If they can stay
> tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
> pretty durable.
One would hope but cheap gas with no detergents or bad gas can fowl
plugs and clog injectors, and that is not covered after the 5 year or
50K limitation of coverage.
>
> The thing that worries me is the government-
> forced trend to smaller and smaller engines with
> blowers to get the necessary power.
>
The government is forcing better gas mileage. The manufacturer chooses
the best way for them to achieve that. The Hybrids seem to be a popular
alternative.
We will see how the turbo and supercharged engines hold up long term.
But that said, my wife's 2012 Camry V6 gets an average of 25 MPG in town
and 32 on the highway and it has 268 HP. There is no need for more
power than that. It pulls quite strongly and quickly up to 100 MPH. I
understand that its top speed is governor limited to 130 MPH.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Consider the cable sizes. For a given power, the higher voltage is
> smaller copper and thus lower weight.
If you already have 350v on board where's the
benefit for 48?
And for a non-hybrid what percentage of the
weight of the vehicle is electrical wiring? And
of that weight, how much is copper conductors
and how much is connectors, insulation, mounting
brackets, and whatnot?
And even the people trying to sell 48v don't
claim that it will do away with 12v--48v is
going to be an _additional_ electrical system.
> Martin
>
> On 1/15/2017 7:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <%[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
> >>>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
> >>>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
> >>>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
> >>>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
> >>>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
> >>>> solved.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
> >>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Coming soon, evidently
> >>
> >>
> >> Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
> >> electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
> >> Delphi?s vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
> >> strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
> >> when a vehicle slows down.
> >>
> >> Read more:
> >> http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
> >
> > And when you can buy a car that says "Delphi
> > Motors" on the front then the industry will give
> > a crap what bullshit "Delphi" is trying to sell.
> >
> > Bolt runs on 350v, Volt runs on 360, Tesla runs
> > on 375. All have 12v subsystems to support
> > various accessories. The notion that 48v is of
> > some great advantage in building hybrids and
> > electrics has little contact with reality.
> >
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:23:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2017 7:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>>
>>> Yup. Ford made a huge mistake.
>>>>
>>>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>>>
>>> Dumb. They're going to chase people to the Japanese trucks.
>>>
>>>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>>
>>> Ford is comming out with a brand new F150 next year (don't know if
>>> it's AL). This model didn't last long.
>>>
>> It is a refresh, I think the aluminum is going to stick.
>>
>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>
> The Japanese trucks were a good $15K-$20K more than I paid for my
> F150. Not close to competetive.
>
A lot of that has to do with dealer stock. I always get pricing by
building online. I only see about 10% difference when comparing that way.
I was looking at Ford and GMC/Chevrolet in 07 and was thoroughly discussed
and ready to wait another year. We decided to check Toyota at the end of
the day and the test drive was what put me back in the mood an we bought
that day.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:23:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/20/2017 7:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>
>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>
>>>
>>> You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>> bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>
>> Yup. Ford made a huge mistake.
>>>
>>> Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>> always a day late and a dollar short.
>>
>> Dumb. They're going to chase people to the Japanese trucks.
>>
>>> I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>
>> Ford is comming out with a brand new F150 next year (don't know if
>> it's AL). This model didn't last long.
>>
>It is a refresh, I think the aluminum is going to stick.
>
>Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
>problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
The Japanese trucks were a good $15K-$20K more than I paid for my
F150. Not close to competetive.
On 1/21/2017 2:57 PM, Markem wrote:
Snip
>> The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>> corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>> difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>>
>> As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>> into it.
>
> Audi has been putting out aluminum cars for awhile, so the body shops
> to fix an aluminum car or truck are around. As far as protecting the
> bed, a nice piece of vinyl should do.
>
I did not realize Audi was using the much aluminum but thinking back,
probably VW too. Wa had a 2000 Passat and it got a ding in the parking
lot on the passengers finder just over the wheel opening. I did not
notice the bent sheet metal until I heard the tire rubbing wite the
slightest bump. I stopped on the side of the road and easily pulled it
back with one hand on my first pull. Probably an Aluminum fender.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 11:05:38 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:34:29 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>>>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>>>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>>>>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>>>>> rig what they have to work.
>>>>
>>>> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
>>>> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>>>>
>>>
>>>You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
>>>bed to the steel Chevy bed.
>>>
>>>Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
>>>always a day late and a dollar short.
>>>
>>>I wonder how they will advertise that!
>>
>>Same way our aluminum is tougher, but I alway wonder why the guy
>>dumping into the Ford jerks the controls?
>
>The problem I have with aluminum is its ability to be repaired by the
>corner body shop. Any idiot can pound steel. AL is a lot more
>difficult. More difficult to paint, too.
>
>As far as tearing up the bed, I'd be warry of dumping a load of gravel
>into it.
Audi has been putting out aluminum cars for awhile, so the body shops
to fix an aluminum car or truck are around. As far as protecting the
bed, a nice piece of vinyl should do.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
> Battery cables are not thin.
So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
just arm waving.
What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
battery cables? What percentage of the weight
of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
How much will that cost and weight be reduced by
going to 48v?
>
> It is the whole ball of wax to consider. And modules don't run on 350v.
They don't run on 48 either unless they are
designed to.
> Likely there are various voltages already. Proper power is a complex
> subject. It isn't just weight or voltage.
Then why are you on about weight and voltage?
> This is getting far from wood working and should limit itself.
Tell that to whoever decided to bring the Church
Of 48v Cars into the discussion.
> On 1/16/2017 11:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> Consider the cable sizes. For a given power, the higher voltage is
> >> smaller copper and thus lower weight.
> >
> > If you already have 350v on board where's the
> > benefit for 48?
> >
> > And for a non-hybrid what percentage of the
> > weight of the vehicle is electrical wiring? And
> > of that weight, how much is copper conductors
> > and how much is connectors, insulation, mounting
> > brackets, and whatnot?
> >
> > And even the people trying to sell 48v don't
> > claim that it will do away with 12v--48v is
> > going to be an _additional_ electrical system.
> >
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> On 1/15/2017 7:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <%[email protected]>,
> >>> [email protected] says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
> >>>>>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
> >>>>>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
> >>>>>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
> >>>>>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
> >>>>>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
> >>>>>> solved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
> >>>>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Coming soon, evidently
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
> >>>> electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
> >>>> Delphi?s vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
> >>>> strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
> >>>> when a vehicle slows down.
> >>>>
> >>>> Read more:
> >>>> http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
> >>>
> >>> And when you can buy a car that says "Delphi
> >>> Motors" on the front then the industry will give
> >>> a crap what bullshit "Delphi" is trying to sell.
> >>>
> >>> Bolt runs on 350v, Volt runs on 360, Tesla runs
> >>> on 375. All have 12v subsystems to support
> >>> various accessories. The notion that 48v is of
> >>> some great advantage in building hybrids and
> >>> electrics has little contact with reality.
> >>>
> >
> >
In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
> >> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
> >> Battery cables are not thin.
> >
> > So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
> > just arm waving.
> >
> > What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
> > battery cables? What percentage of the weight
> > of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>
> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
> reengineer to make that happen.
That's true, but will having two different
electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
48v actually save those few cents?
I'm sorry, Leon, but this is clearly some vendor
of 48v equipment trying to sell his stuff.
> Many vehicle recalls are to undo what
> saving a few cents during manufacturing caused to be problematic.
> Probably with out exception the G body GM vehicles from 1978 on had a
> campaign to replace every every rear control arm bolt, both sides. The
> cost of the replacement bolt kit, 2 bolts and 2 lock nuts, $1.35.
> Every G body vehicle that came into our shop automatically had these
> bolts replaced if it had not already been done. It was about a 15
> minute procedure that we often never told the customer about.
According to the recall the issue was lack of
corrosion resistance in a specially hardened
bolt and the replacements were actually weaker
than the originals but had more corrosion
resistance. Doesn't sound like a case of
cheaping out to me. There are such, like the
Pinto, but I don't think you've picked one.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 09:35:16 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/21/2017 8:29 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> On 01/20/2017 11:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/2017 10:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of
>>>>> the
>>>>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>>>>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>>>>
>>>> I drove GM cars for years as did my father and brother. Every one had to
>>>> go back to the dealer for adjustments. The last one was falling apart in
>>>> five years. I switched to Korean cars 10 years ago. After nearly 60k
>>>> miles one had to go back for a minor repair under warranty.
>>>
>>> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
>>> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
>>> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
>>> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
>>> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>>>
>> Last spring a roofer was re-roofing my house. One of his crew called
>> and said they were having problems with one of his trucks. He said, "I
>> can't imagine what could be wrong--it only has 350 thousand miles on
>> it". It was a Chevy.
>>
>
>I had a friend that put 250K on a Suburban. He had to use fuel additives
>to get it to pass emission inspections and it looked like Fred Sanfords
>vehicle. ;~)
>
>They all will last, regardless of brand, if you continue to repair what
>breaks.
Until you can't. The rear frame, where the wprings connect, rotted
out on my '00 Ranger. There was no fix, well, that anyone would stand
behind with their insurance, anyway. Salt is really tough on
vehicles.
On 1/21/2017 10:13 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 09:35:16 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2017 8:29 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>> On 01/20/2017 11:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/2017 10:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
>>>>>> soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.
>>>>>
>>>>> I drove GM cars for years as did my father and brother. Every one had to
>>>>> go back to the dealer for adjustments. The last one was falling apart in
>>>>> five years. I switched to Korean cars 10 years ago. After nearly 60k
>>>>> miles one had to go back for a minor repair under warranty.
>>>>
>>>> I know "everybody" likes to bash on something, but otoh, after the big
>>>> ice storm I got out the '58 Chebby C60 grain truck that's not had a
>>>> major repair needed in its now 59th yr of use...and while it's not been
>>>> used as much in recent years as was when new (first 20 yr or so :) ),
>>>> it's still in the rotation as the seed tender during planting season...
>>>>
>>> Last spring a roofer was re-roofing my house. One of his crew called
>>> and said they were having problems with one of his trucks. He said, "I
>>> can't imagine what could be wrong--it only has 350 thousand miles on
>>> it". It was a Chevy.
>>>
>>
>> I had a friend that put 250K on a Suburban. He had to use fuel additives
>> to get it to pass emission inspections and it looked like Fred Sanfords
>> vehicle. ;~)
>>
>> They all will last, regardless of brand, if you continue to repair what
>> breaks.
>
> Until you can't. The rear frame, where the wprings connect, rotted
> out on my '00 Ranger. There was no fix, well, that anyone would stand
> behind with their insurance, anyway. Salt is really tough on
> vehicles.
>
Frames are replaceable and costly to do so. There does come a point that
it makes sense to buy new.
On 1/8/2017 2:59 AM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 8:51:51 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>> solved.
>
> At full charging rate, the terminals would be well over 52V; what I remember, the
> auto buzz was about '42V', which is a 36V battery and allowance for
> overvoltage during heavy charging.
That is pretty common with any battery. 12 volt batteries, when fully
charged, have about 13.2 volts. In the industry it is called a surface
charge. That extra 1.2 volts dissipates pretty quickly after initial
use. Basically the cells in an automotive type battery can have 2.2
volts with a surface charge.
Now with the new lithium batteries I am clueless as to how much more
voltage they can carry.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>
>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>> quite a bight many miles away.
>
>AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
>transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
>generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
>same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
>outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
>different utilities use various distribution voltages).
>
>Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
"Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
solved.
On 1/7/2017 10:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>>
>>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>>> quite a bight many miles away.
>>
>> AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
>> transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
>> generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
>> same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
>> outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
>> different utilities use various distribution voltages).
>>
>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>
> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
> solved.
>
When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>
>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>
>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>
>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>
>> That's true, but will having two different
>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>
>Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>rig what they have to work.
That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
>>>>>> Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
>>>>>> Battery cables are not thin.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
>>>>> just arm waving.
>>>>>
>>>>> What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
>>>>> battery cables? What percentage of the weight
>>>>> of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?
>>>>
>>>> It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
>>>> two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
>>>> reengineer to make that happen.
>>>
>>> That's true, but will having two different
>>> electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
>>> 48v actually save those few cents?
>>
>> Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
>> little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
>> rig what they have to work.
>
> That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
> would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).
>
You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
bed to the steel Chevy bed.
Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
always a day late and a dollar short.
I wonder how they will advertise that!
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:31:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:52:52 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>>Oddly I think 440 volt is still normal
>>
>> It's often called that but it is 480V.
>
>Now let's really confuse everyone by talking about the
>difference between RMS voltages and P-P voltages :-)
Just multiply peak by .707.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 08:25:12 -0700, Brewster <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/17 2:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>> quite a bight many miles away.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually no different. There is consideration of switching some high
>voltage lines to DC partially because for the same peak voltage the
>wires can carry significantly more power.
No, that's not the reason. High voltage DC transmission doesn't have
inductive, skn effect or (the same) corona losses. AC has the
advantage of cheap transformation from one voltage to another.
>
>A big reason for the switch from DC to AC is the ability to efficiently
>reduce the voltage at point of use, allowing the distribution lines to
>run at higher voltage with the exponentially lower power losses.
The issue at hand is distribution. AC is much easier to transform, so
higher distribution voltages are possible.
On 1/4/17 9:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:31:43 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/17 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:49:08 -0600, -MIKE-
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/4/17 3:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2017 1:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/17 12:31 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
>>>>>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good
>>>>>>> advice. The breaker box is located in the garage and
>>>>>>> there is no clear, open route to the basement and on to
>>>>>>> the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service. Add
>>>>>>> a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the
>>>>>>> shop. I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose
>>>>>>> the utility will try to hit me up for the cost of a new
>>>>>>> meter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the meantime, I'm done ripping the maple and on to
>>>>>>> completing the new kitchen table.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't cost much more to have a 40-60amp sub-panel in
>>>>>> the shop area. That would make it super easy for you to run
>>>>>> extra circuits/outlets in the shop whenever you wanted. If
>>>>>> you ever decided to wire your saw for 220 or add a 220 dust
>>>>>> collector, etc., you would have to run the wire all the way
>>>>>> back to the garage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either way, upgrading the house to 200amp is a good call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry, Mike's suggestion is the best I've seen for your
>>>>> situation and current course of action. Bite the bullet and
>>>>> run the sub-panel to the shop vs. the two circuits you
>>>>> propose.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I built my shop and detached garage, we ran UF from the
>>>>> meter can at the house (which has a 200A panel) to the garage
>>>>> and installed a 100A panel there. Lights in the shop are
>>>>> separate circuit. Garage lights are on two separate circuits
>>>>> (one of which also has the door opener) and wall outlets in
>>>>> garage and shop are two separate circuit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shop and garage have a total of three 220v circuits and I
>>>>> still have room in the panel (and easy enough access) that I
>>>>> can add more if needed (but don't see that happening).
>>>>>
>>>>> Going the subpanel route for shop and giving yourself a new
>>>>> "starting point" is simply a "no-brainer">
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The copper and labor are the two biggest expenses. Running one
>>>> piece of wire through the walls, ceiling, attic, whatever, over
>>>> to the shop is going to be easier than running two. Two
>>>> lengths of 12gauge romex aren't going to be be much less than
>>>> one length of #6 (probably what he'll need to go to
>>>> sub-panel).
>>>
>>> #8 is good for 40A, IIRC. That's enough for any one man shop.
>>> It's a *lot* easier to work with. #6 is a right PITA. It will
>>> be more costly to run either than a couple of 12s. Actually, he
>>> could get away with one 12-3, for two circuits.
>>>
>>> BTW, #6-3 w/Ground Romex is 6x the cost, per foot, as 12-2
>>> w/ground.
>>
>> That wasn't really the pertinent point I was trying to make.
>
> The labor cost for one #6 will be much higher, too. That stuff is a
> PITA to work with.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Then the labor to install the sub-panel is probably another
>>>> $100 bucks for an electrician who's already there. From there,
>>>> he can run his own wiring in the shop to save money.
>>>
>>> I think you're way low on your estimates.
>>>
>>
>> Ask the electrician who quoted that to me when we were spec'ing out
>> a 200amp breaker box change over. He said installing the other
>> panel wouldn't be more than another hour and a half labor on top of
>> everything else he was doing. He charges $60/hr.
>
> Just moving the breakers will take a lot more than a couple of
> hours. It's more like an 8-12 hour job. Then there's the dicking
> around with the power company and inspectors, and all that rot. It's
> not a simple task. I've seen quotes well above $1000 for just a
> panel swap.
>
There are no breakers to move when installing a new sub-panel. But you
know what, I'll tell my electrician he has it all wrong and he should
call you.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:45:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/8/2017 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:26:45 PM UTC-6, Spalted Walt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> SawStop https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
>>
>> Completely unrelated to the electrical discussion in this thread.
>> But I am shocked by the picture of the SawStop motor. Made in
>> Taiwan. On another forum I read people are always talking about how
>> wonderful and professional and heavy duty their SawStop saws are. I
>> would never have guessed they use an Asian motor. Foolishly assumed
>> a US company would use a Marathon, Baldor, Leeson motor. I looked on
>> their website and it says this:
>>
>> "The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has
>> made SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.
>>
>> SawStop is a privately owned company based in Tualatin, Oregon, just
>> south of Portland. We are proud to be 100% U.S. owned and
>> engineered."
>>
>> Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA.
>
>Did you think differently? American automobiles are built elsewhere
>too. Some Buicks are built in China and only sold here.
Hmm. Are you comparing SawStop to a Buick? ;-)
>
>
> I
>> guess its just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety
>> device on it. Kind of like the current Jet, General, Delta,
>> Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are all Asian made saws designed to
>> resemble the original American made Unisaw and 66 saws from many
>> decades ago.
>
>Not like those saws at all. The internals are totally different than
>the brands you listed above. It looks nothing like the others saws on
>the inside. The trunion slides straight up and down on two large steel
>dowels.
>
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558850/in/dateposted-public/
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558766/in/dateposted-public/
>
>Those gears for tilt and raising the trunion are an inch and a half in
>diameter.
>
>chttps://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8680321455/in/dateposted-public/
>
>
>
>
> I'm not too confident in the quality and reliability of
>> Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia together. Not
>> sure I would trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I
>> needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
>>
>
>Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
AFAIK, Acura is a NA-only brand (of Honda). They don't sell them in
Japan, anyway.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:33:15 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/7/2017 10:21 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>>
>>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>>> quite a bight many miles away.
>>
>> AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
>> transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
>> generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
>> same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
>> outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
>> different utilities use various distribution voltages).
>
>FWIW I was speaking about the time when electricity was just starting to
>be used in homes. DC was not practical as there had to be way too many
>generation stations. Only the affluent were served in the early days,
>they could afford to have/pay for a DC generation station near by.
>
>The wires out side my home on utility poles are maybe 480 volt NOT forty
>six thousand. Now the voltage on the hi power transmission lines are
>much much higher but they are not near by and they go to transformer
>stations where the voltage is dropped and sent to consumers and still
>more power pole transformers.. The closest transformer station to me is
>8 miles away.
More like eleven thousand (maybe twenty-two thousand).
>
>>
>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>
>> John
>>
On 1/8/2017 4:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:45:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2017 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:26:45 PM UTC-6, Spalted Walt
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SawStop https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
>>>
>>> Completely unrelated to the electrical discussion in this thread.
>>> But I am shocked by the picture of the SawStop motor. Made in
>>> Taiwan. On another forum I read people are always talking about how
>>> wonderful and professional and heavy duty their SawStop saws are. I
>>> would never have guessed they use an Asian motor. Foolishly assumed
>>> a US company would use a Marathon, Baldor, Leeson motor. I looked on
>>> their website and it says this:
>>>
>>> "The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has
>>> made SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.
>>>
>>> SawStop is a privately owned company based in Tualatin, Oregon, just
>>> south of Portland. We are proud to be 100% U.S. owned and
>>> engineered."
>>>
>>> Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA.
>>
>> Did you think differently? American automobiles are built elsewhere
>> too. Some Buicks are built in China and only sold here.
>
> Hmm. Are you comparing SawStop to a Buick? ;-)
Not at all but Buick is getting good ratings these days. Just saying
country of origin does not dictate quality or the lack there of.
>>
>>
>> I
>>> guess its just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety
>>> device on it. Kind of like the current Jet, General, Delta,
>>> Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are all Asian made saws designed to
>>> resemble the original American made Unisaw and 66 saws from many
>>> decades ago.
>>
>> Not like those saws at all. The internals are totally different than
>> the brands you listed above. It looks nothing like the others saws on
>> the inside. The trunion slides straight up and down on two large steel
>> dowels.
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558850/in/dateposted-public/
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558766/in/dateposted-public/
>>
>> Those gears for tilt and raising the trunion are an inch and a half in
>> diameter.
>>
>> chttps://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8680321455/in/dateposted-public/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not too confident in the quality and reliability of
>>> Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia together. Not
>>> sure I would trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I
>>> needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
>>>
>>
>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>
> AFAIK, Acura is a NA-only brand (of Honda). They don't sell them in
> Japan, anyway.
>
Interesting to know! And mostly built here.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:44:46 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
>>[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>>
>>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>>> quite a bight many miles away.
>>
>>AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
>>transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
>>generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
>>same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
>>outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
>>different utilities use various distribution voltages).
>>
>>Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>
>
>Whether AC or DC is safer was Edison's point when he electrocuted an
>elephant with AC. But DC was a dead by then.
Tesla's induction motor put the nail in Edison's DC power coffin.
On 1/5/17 5:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 11:57:33 AM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>> There are no breakers to move when installing a new sub-panel.
>
>
> ??? To install a sub panel you have to "move" a new/additional 220
> amp breaker into the main panel. New breaker. You may have to use
> some of those double up breakers to make space for the new 220
> breaker feeding the sub panel. So you would be moving those
> breakers.
>
I think there's some misunderstanding of what we're talking about.
I suggested the OP put a sub-panel out in his garage.
This can come off the main feed into the house.
I'm not sure what a 220amp breaker is that you mentioned.
But it really doesn't matter anyway, because it's semantics since every
situation is different.
The labor/price I quoted was from a real electrician doing a real job,
similar to the one I suggested to the OP. I wasn't submitting a bid or
giving him an exact quote for the job. I was simply giving advice and a
real world example to help him decide. As usual in here, everybody has
to jump in and bitch about every little aspect of everything everyone
says.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:09:25 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/8/2017 4:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:45:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/8/2017 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:26:45 PM UTC-6, Spalted Walt
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> SawStop https://s3.amazonaws.com/vs-lumberjocks.com/lymffnt.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Completely unrelated to the electrical discussion in this thread.
>>>> But I am shocked by the picture of the SawStop motor. Made in
>>>> Taiwan. On another forum I read people are always talking about how
>>>> wonderful and professional and heavy duty their SawStop saws are. I
>>>> would never have guessed they use an Asian motor. Foolishly assumed
>>>> a US company would use a Marathon, Baldor, Leeson motor. I looked on
>>>> their website and it says this:
>>>>
>>>> "The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has
>>>> made SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.
>>>>
>>>> SawStop is a privately owned company based in Tualatin, Oregon, just
>>>> south of Portland. We are proud to be 100% U.S. owned and
>>>> engineered."
>>>>
>>>> Apparently US owned and engineered does not mean Made in USA.
>>>
>>> Did you think differently? American automobiles are built elsewhere
>>> too. Some Buicks are built in China and only sold here.
>>
>> Hmm. Are you comparing SawStop to a Buick? ;-)
>
>Not at all but Buick is getting good ratings these days. Just saying
>country of origin does not dictate quality or the lack there of.
>
Ick. They were always your grandfather's car and AFAIC still are,
even though I'm alost 65. ;-)
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I
>>>> guess its just another Asian made saw with a US invented safety
>>>> device on it. Kind of like the current Jet, General, Delta,
>>>> Powermatic, Grizzly, etc. saws are all Asian made saws designed to
>>>> resemble the original American made Unisaw and 66 saws from many
>>>> decades ago.
>>>
>>> Not like those saws at all. The internals are totally different than
>>> the brands you listed above. It looks nothing like the others saws on
>>> the inside. The trunion slides straight up and down on two large steel
>>> dowels.
>>>
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558850/in/dateposted-public/
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558766/in/dateposted-public/
>>>
>>> Those gears for tilt and raising the trunion are an inch and a half in
>>> diameter.
>>>
>>> chttps://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8680321455/in/dateposted-public/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not too confident in the quality and reliability of
>>>> Asian products. I don't associate quality and Asia together. Not
>>>> sure I would trust the SawStop safety feature to even work when I
>>>> needed it. A safety saw that cuts your fingers off.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ignorance is bliss I guess, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Acura are Asian
>>> products and pretty much at the top of the hill.
>>
>> AFAIK, Acura is a NA-only brand (of Honda). They don't sell them in
>> Japan, anyway.
>>
>Interesting to know! And mostly built here.
Marysville Ohio (NE of Columbus).
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 14:32:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/7/2017 1:39 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>>> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
>>>> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
>>>> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>>>
>>> "Safe" is considered to be anything less than 52V. There was once
>>> talk about the automotive industry moving to a 48V battery. The
>>> reason for 48V was that it was just below the "safe" limit. Of course
>>> it never happened because it would have caused more problems than it
>>> solved.
>>>
>>
>>
>> When was that talk? No doubt, there is always something in the air but
>> I never read or heard of that back when I was in the automotive business.
>>
>> I'm sure it was intended to help make vehicles lighter in weight.
>>
>>
>
>Coming soon, evidently
It's not. It causes the electronics all sorts of grief and will
increase costs significantly.
>Not every electrical component will switch to 48-volt. Lights, radios,
>electric windows and door locks, for example, would stay 12-volt. And
>Delphis vision is that vehicles with 48-volt systems would also have a
>strong regenerative braking system to capture much of the energy lost
>when a vehicle slows down.
>
>Read more:
>http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-economy#ixzz4V6czYRqB
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:43:14 -0700, "Bob La Londe" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Gramps' shop" <[email protected]>
>>Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:31 AM
>>Subject: TS Circuit -- Part 2
>>
>>
>>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker
>>> box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the
>>> basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>>>
>>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service.
>>
>>Good call if you don't know how to do that yourself, or your local
>>building
>>department won't let you.
>>
>>> Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>>
>>NO! NO! NO! Run a 100 amp circuit to the basement and install a 100 amp
>>sub panel. Something capable of atleast 6 circuits. If you use Square D
>>then you have the capability to use compact breakers and double the number
>>of circuits if you need to later. Regardless, putting a sub panel in your
>>basement allows you to add stuff much easier in the future.
>
> The size of the sub depends on the service entrance. If he only has a
> 100A entrance, a 100A sub is going to be a problem. Also, if he's
> going to the bother to put in a sub, use one with at least 20
> circuits. The difference in cost is pocket change. I wouldn't put in
> more than a 40A or 60A sub, tops. There's nothing a homeowner is
> likely to use that will take that much. The capapbility of lots of
> circuits is important, though.
>>
>>The total cost will probably only be a few hundred dollars more, but the
>>future flexibility will be an order of magnitude more.
>>
>>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try
>>> to
>>> hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>>
>>Get a quote so you aren't guessing.
>
> +1 (I think he's low)
I think we are mostly on the same page here. We just disagree about the
details.
On 1/6/17 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
>> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure those
>> are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the numbers
>> used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use it? Why
>> does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house, but the
>> outlet says 115 volts.
>
> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
> longer understood, that was considered "safe"). When Tesla
> and General Electric developed AC systems, they picked 120V
> as the "household" voltage, but because 110 was already in
> the public conciousness, people continued to call it 110V.
>
> 115V comes about because the utility is allowed 5% tolerance
> for line loss, and 115 just sounds better than 114 (which is
> what 120 less 5% would be).
>
> 220V and 240V are the same story - Edison used 220V in his
> first DC systems, and GE used 240 when they introduced AC.
>
> 230V is a different animal - that's a 3 phase voltage in the
> US. It's the standard household voltage in the EU, so if
> you see something marked 230/240 it's probably intended for
> sale in the EU and US.
>
> John
>
"One ten, one eleven, whatever takes."
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/6/17 2:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
> quite a bight many miles away.
>
>
>
>
Actually no different. There is consideration of switching some high
voltage lines to DC partially because for the same peak voltage the
wires can carry significantly more power.
A big reason for the switch from DC to AC is the ability to efficiently
reduce the voltage at point of use, allowing the distribution lines to
run at higher voltage with the exponentially lower power losses.
-BR
On 01/06/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Not being an officially trained electrician, I've never looked into
>> the 220-230-240 volt or 120-115-110 volt issue. I'm pretty sure those
>> are all identical and interchangeable, but why are all the numbers
>> used interchangeably? Why don't we pick one number and use it? Why
>> does everyone talk about 120 volt outlets in their house, but the
>> outlet says 115 volts.
>
> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
> longer understood, that was considered "safe"). When Tesla
> and General Electric developed AC systems, they picked 120V
> as the "household" voltage, but because 110 was already in
> the public conciousness, people continued to call it 110V.
>
> 115V comes about because the utility is allowed 5% tolerance
> for line loss, and 115 just sounds better than 114 (which is
> what 120 less 5% would be).
>
> 220V and 240V are the same story - Edison used 220V in his
> first DC systems, and GE used 240 when they introduced AC.
>
> 230V is a different animal - that's a 3 phase voltage in the
> US. It's the standard household voltage in the EU, so if
> you see something marked 230/240 it's probably intended for
> sale in the EU and US.
Believe it's more when and what voltages were standardized by what was
to eventually become NERC...the first standards meeting was held in
about 1896(!) and then there were updates to nominal voltages a couple
times thereafter -- but, the public consciousness can't be changed; we
all grow up with whatever it is we hear and then pass it along with only
a few modifying influences gradually adding to the diversity.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>The wires out side my home on utility poles are maybe 480 volt NOT forty
>six thousand. Now the voltage on the hi power transmission lines are
>much much higher but they are not near by and they go to transformer
>stations where the voltage is dropped and sent to consumers and still
>more power pole transformers.. The closest transformer station to me is
>8 miles away.
The transformer that feeds 240v to my domicile has 22kv on the primary side
(fed underground).
On 1/7/2017 10:21 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:Q9idnQchSrQoje3FnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> On 1/6/2017 3:40 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>> It's a variety of historical reasons. 110V is what Edison
>>> originally used for his first DC systems (for reasons no
>>> longer understood, that was considered "safe").
>>
>> Probably considered safe because DC lost voltage quickly the farther
>> from the generator the lines went. IIRC there had to be a generator
>> within a few miles of the consumer. AC on the other hand still had
>> quite a bight many miles away.
>
> AC doesn't have the same losses as DC because it can be
> transferred at a higher voltage. If you sent AC from the
> generating station to your house at 120V you'd have the
> same losses as with DC. The wires on the utility pole
> outside your house are 4600V (or something in that range,
> different utilities use various distribution voltages).
FWIW I was speaking about the time when electricity was just starting to
be used in homes. DC was not practical as there had to be way too many
generation stations. Only the affluent were served in the early days,
they could afford to have/pay for a DC generation station near by.
The wires out side my home on utility poles are maybe 480 volt NOT forty
six thousand. Now the voltage on the hi power transmission lines are
much much higher but they are not near by and they go to transformer
stations where the voltage is dropped and sent to consumers and still
more power pole transformers.. The closest transformer station to me is
8 miles away.
>
> Today "safe" is considered to be around 12V. I can't think
> of any situation where you'd consider 110V to be "safe",
> unless you're comparing it to something like 1200V.
>
> John
>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:43:14 -0700, "Bob La Londe" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gramps' shop" <[email protected]>
>Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:31 AM
>Subject: TS Circuit -- Part 2
>
>
>> First of all, thanks for all the comments and good advice. The breaker
>> box is located in the garage and there is no clear, open route to the
>> basement and on to the shop. Here's what I am going to do:
>>
>> Get an electrician to upgrade me to 200 amp service.
>
>Good call if you don't know how to do that yourself, or your local building
>department won't let you.
>
>> Add a dedicated 20 amp and a dedicated 15 amp circuit to the shop.
>
>NO! NO! NO! Run a 100 amp circuit to the basement and install a 100 amp
>sub panel. Something capable of atleast 6 circuits. If you use Square D
>then you have the capability to use compact breakers and double the number
>of circuits if you need to later. Regardless, putting a sub panel in your
>basement allows you to add stuff much easier in the future.
The size of the sub depends on the service entrance. If he only has a
100A entrance, a 100A sub is going to be a problem. Also, if he's
going to the bother to put in a sub, use one with at least 20
circuits. The difference in cost is pocket change. I wouldn't put in
more than a 40A or 60A sub, tops. There's nothing a homeowner is
likely to use that will take that much. The capapbility of lots of
circuits is important, though.
>
>The total cost will probably only be a few hundred dollars more, but the
>future flexibility will be an order of magnitude more.
>
>> I'm guessing $1200 to $1500 for this and I suppose the utility will try to
>> hit me up for the cost of a new meter.
>
>Get a quote so you aren't guessing.
+1 (I think he's low)
>
>
>
>