On Nov 27, 11:41 am, Ralph wrote:


Try to stay on topic, John.

The topic being what. I thought this topic was about tools.

Your name is Ralph and the topic is Toyota oil filters.
Get with the program!

B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
I think you'll find that most
SUV drivers are _not_ self employed.

All you need is a part time gig to deduct the expenses for that
business.

Most people I know who have jobs don't have "part time gigs", but many
of them drive SUVs.

Further, most SUVs do not weigh
6000 pounds.

Gross weight, not light weight. Lots of SUV's and quad cab pickups
gross over 3 tons.

Check out his list:

http://www.alphaleasing.com/businessaspects/over6000gvwr.asp

Maybe I should start a "part time gig".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
So get the laws changed so that station wagons and old-style
luxury
cars aren't unduly penalized and you'll see SUVs mostly go away.

The laws did change, either this year or in tax year 2006. I seem
to
remember hearing that a Section 179 truck depreciation deduction
went
to 10000 pounds GVW.

I don't own anything that qualifies right now, so I', not
positive.

Huh? What, exactly, does a tax deduction on business use of a
motor
vehicle have to do with the fuel economy laws?


The generous tax deduction for business owned vehicles (which
includes
just about every consultant, small business and contract employee
like
real estate agents) was for a time only available to vehicles with
over a 6,000 lb. gross vehicle weight (vehicle plus full load).
Hummers, Expeditions and the like qualified while normal passenger
vehicles did not. Thus a large number of folks were given a tax
break only if they bought a monster truck instead of a passenger
vehicle. The deduction allowed for a full write off in the year of
purchase.

You can read all about it he

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz...20030403b1.asp

What I see there is not the whole story. There are 9 million self
employed, there are 37 million SUVs on the road, so even if every
self-employed person drove one that would only be a quarter of the
total, and that leaves aside the vans and pickups that bring the total
to over 90 million. Thus that tax may be a factor, but it's a long,
long way from the major reason for their popularity. In fact I
wouldn't buy one to get a tax deduction unless the tax deduction came
to an amount greater than the difference in purchase price between
that and something smaller that met my needs.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ralph wrote:
dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If
you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is
no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh? I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might
buy ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...

Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations --
whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the
noise of their changes as to make no discernible difference.

Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When
they become so, then they'll take off.

--
When does it become viably economical? When the oil companies are
squeezing the last drops out of the ground and charging us $50 a
gallon for gas?

It becomes economically viable when somebody can figure out how to
produce something else and get it to the consumer at a price point
less than that that is being charged for the current fuels. As to
what that price point will be, I'm not a professional energy industry
analyst--any number I came up with would be about as valid as rolling
a set of dice.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

rolling eyes

Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all
teenager?

I've seen Hillary Clinton do it to Bush. It's a typical reaction
to
a statement so far off the wall that one has trouble figuring out
how to _start_ educating the person making it.


You just might not be so much smarter, better informed and more
deeply
educated than other people as you may think.

There are many people who are much smarter, better informed, and more
deeply educated than I am. You do not appear to be among them.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ralph wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Nova wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Remember the same thing. I think "pot metal" was reference to
a
very low grade of metal casting that would neither weld, braze,
nor
glue well after it was made.


Also known as white metal. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_metal

Well, that's what wiki says. I remember looking at a car once and
being told "please don't lean on that door, the hinges are white
metal". The car was a Ferrari 250GTO and the "white metal" was an
expensive aluminum alloy, not cheap zinc.

But, apparently just as good as the dinky toy made of pot "white"
metal.

The purpose of a 250 GTO was to win races, not to prop up overweight
teenagers. Every part on it was as strong and as heavy as it needed
to be and no stronger and no heavier. The hinges needed to hold up
the door. They did that.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"todd" wrote in message
. ..
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I
typically get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.
If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.

I'll have to pay more attention the next time I see a drag race with the
alcohol funny cars. I could swear I see them moving down the strip with
all that filler in the tank.


Yeah, check their gas mileage also while you are at it. If you have not
noticed that is what I am complaining about.

"John Horner" wrote in message
news:YOX2j.9957$Mr.1352@trnddc04...
B A R R Y wrote:
John Horner wrote:

It is called an anti-drainback valve and most oil filter incorporate
one. Without it your engine would take longer to build oil pressure at
start up, which is a bad thing.


The valve is not present in the correct Toyota oil filter.


Not according to Toyota!

"An anti-drainback valve, which prevents oil from draining out of the
engine and into the oil pan, helping to protect your engine from increased
wear during cold starts."

http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/deal...ilfilters.html


I think that feature is a general one that does not apply to all filters on
all vehicles. Not all same brand filters operate the same. If genuine
Toyota top located filters empty out there would be no check valve
preventing this.
Besides that, the statement is probably worded wrong. I do not know of a
common automotive engine that oil does not naturally flow from the engine
into the oil pan during operation. The oil goes into the filter before
returning to the engine. They probably meant to say that some filters check
valves prevent oil from draining from the filter back into the oil pan. The
filter does take some time to refill if empty.

"Leon" wrote in message
. net...



Yeah, check their gas mileage also while you are at it. If you have not
noticed that is what I am complaining about.

3
Additionally, if they ran gasoline on those supercharged engines with those
compression ratios the heads would probably blow right off.

On Nov 27, 11:46 am, John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

rolling eyes

Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all teenager?

I've seen Hillary Clinton do it to Bush. It's a typical reaction to a
statement so far off the wall that one has trouble figuring out how to
_start_ educating the person making it.

You just might not be so much smarter, better informed and more deeply
educated than other people as you may think.

Come on, John, if the smartest woman in Washington can do it, why not
the smartest man on the Internet?

His problem was that the facts, with which he might "educate" us,
simply weren't on his side.

I guess now we'll both be accused of whining.

John Martin

Leon wrote:
"todd" wrote in message
. ..
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I
typically get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.
If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.
I'll have to pay more attention the next time I see a drag race with the
alcohol funny cars. I could swear I see them moving down the strip with
all that filler in the tank.


Yeah, check their gas mileage also while you are at it. If you have not
noticed that is what I am complaining about.


Damn, Leon - your probably using too much nitrous ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous

John Horner wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
John Horner wrote:

It is called an anti-drainback valve and most oil filter incorporate
one. Without it your engine would take longer to build oil pressure
at start up, which is a bad thing.


The valve is not present in the correct Toyota oil filter.


Not according to Toyota!

"An anti-drainback valve, which prevents oil from draining out of the
engine and into the oil pan, helping to protect your engine from
increased wear during cold starts."

I always change my own oil. I always use the Toyota OEM filter
specifically listed for my 2005 Tacoma. The filter is mounted gasket
down, on _top_ of the engine (the highest point in the oil system). I
drive the truck on the ramps, drop the drain plug, and by the time I
get back to the filter, there's nothing left in it but a few drops.

Frank's aftermarket filter is still full, on the same engine.

Interpret that however you wish. G

J. Clarke wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
I think you'll find that most
SUV drivers are _not_ self employed.
All you need is a part time gig to deduct the expenses for that
business.

Most people I know who have jobs don't have "part time gigs", but many
of them drive SUVs.

There's no law that says you have to have one to drive an SUV. G

However, lots of jobs that may look like employees, because they work
often at the same place, like real estate agents, hair dressers, nurses,
doctors, sales people, financial planners, flight instructors, exotic
dancers, etc... are actually paid as sub-contractors and entitled to
business expense deductions.

Some of the part-time gigs that allow people to deduct expenses can
include musicians, tutors and private teachers, artists, Tupperware and
Pampered Chef party organizers, personal trainers, lawn mowing,
handymen, woodworkers, tax preparers...

The point is that extremely favorable tax treatment (sometimes, very
loosely applied and not caught by the IRS) steered lots of folks from
cars to large vehicles.

Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I
typically get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.
Alcohol does not have the specific energy on a volume basis of gasoline,
true. That's not the same thing at all as a net negative energy balance.

If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.
If it "burns" it contributes...there's that doggone thermodynamics stuff
again for ya'...

...

Yes it burns but if it contributes 10% of what gasoline does and delivers
less for more cost what have you accomplished?

It contributes roughly 80% on a specific volume basis and costs now are
equivalent or less. Retail pricing, market access and distribution,
are, otoh, still issues.

--

Ralph wrote:
dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If you are
talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it would
still run out, just might take a little longer. There is no level of
consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever. Might be the
great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to transition to a
different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with, huh?
I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might buy
ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...

Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations -- whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the noise
of their changes as to make no discernible difference.

Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When
they become so, then they'll take off.

--
When does it become viably economical? When the oil companies are
squeezing the last drops out of the ground and charging us $50 a gallon
for gas?

When alternative production and distribution costs are such that the
inconvenience of switching to other sources is accepted by consumers.

At one time whale oil was the primary source of residential lighting.
We transitioned then to more abundant sources. We'll do it again.

--

J. Clarke wrote:
John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

rolling eyes

Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all teenager?

I've seen Hillary Clinton do it to Bush. It's a typical reaction to a
statement so far off the wall that one has trouble figuring out how to
_start_ educating the person making it.

It's also a typical reaction of many when presented w/ truths which
don't coincide w/ personal agendas and their own set of near-religious
beliefs...

--

B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
I think you'll find that most
SUV drivers are _not_ self employed.
All you need is a part time gig to deduct the expenses for that
business.

Most people I know who have jobs don't have "part time gigs", but
many of them drive SUVs.

There's no law that says you have to have one to drive an SUV. G

However, lots of jobs that may look like employees, because they
work
often at the same place, like real estate agents, hair dressers,
nurses, doctors, sales people, financial planners, flight
instructors, exotic dancers, etc... are actually paid as
sub-contractors and entitled to business expense deductions.

I've never met a nurse who was paid as a sub-contractor. In fact I
suspect their union would go ballistic over it.

Some of the part-time gigs that allow people to deduct expenses can
include musicians, tutors and private teachers, artists, Tupperware
and Pampered Chef party organizers, personal trainers, lawn mowing,
handymen, woodworkers, tax preparers...

The point is that extremely favorable tax treatment (sometimes, very
loosely applied and not caught by the IRS) steered lots of folks
from
cars to large vehicles.

Which accounts for at most a quarter of the sales of SUVs.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

John Martin wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:46 am, John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

rolling eyes

Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all
teenager?

I've seen Hillary Clinton do it to Bush. It's a typical reaction
to a statement so far off the wall that one has trouble figuring
out how to _start_ educating the person making it.

You just might not be so much smarter, better informed and more
deeply educated than other people as you may think.

Come on, John, if the smartest woman in Washington can do it, why
not
the smartest man on the Internet?

I'm sorry, but the post from Stephen Hawking has not made it to my
server. Would you be kind enough to quote it?

His problem was that the facts, with which he might "educate" us,
simply weren't on his side.

Which facts, that the Chinese don't adhere to American notions of
morality? Or that they have a far greater population density than the
US, making reduction of their population a societal priority? Or
what?

I guess now we'll both be accused of whining.

No, you I'm going to accuse of being too chicken to debate me
directly.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

rolling eyes

Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all
teenager?

I've seen Hillary Clinton do it to Bush. It's a typical reaction
to
a statement so far off the wall that one has trouble figuring out
how to _start_ educating the person making it.

It's also a typical reaction of many when presented w/ truths which
don't coincide w/ personal agendas and their own set of
near-religious
beliefs...

It's true that Hillary's eye-rolling seemed to me to be inappropriate
at the time. In retrospect though . . .

In this case though, whatever one thinks of China, their efforts to
get their population under control without marching people into gas
chambers would seem to be making the best of a bad situation.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

I've never met a nurse who was paid as a sub-contractor. In fact I
suspect their union would go ballistic over it.

There are lots of different types of nurses.

A specific example is a friend of mine is a nurse who specializes in
cardiac (ex:// angioplasty) operations. He'll do a several month
contract at Hartford Hospital, do one or two at Yale, go back to
Hartford... He takes summers off to fly his r/c planes. He's not in a
union, and totally self-employed.

Private duty, in-home care nurses, are quite often sub-contractors to
shift some of the extreme liability away from the agencies.


Which accounts for at most a quarter of the sales of SUVs.

I only attempt to point out one factor. Style is probably the biggest
driver in vehicle sales.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:


Damn, Leon - your probably using too much nitrous ;-)


If I was, I'd be having more fun and so would the car. LOL

"mac davis" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:15:46 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:




Or, they could have designed a real diesel engine and had a lot less
problems..


That too. ;~) Even after all those years it was in production it was always
changing and getting no better.

J. Clarke wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
I think you'll find that most
SUV drivers are _not_ self employed.
All you need is a part time gig to deduct the expenses for that
business.
Most people I know who have jobs don't have "part time gigs", but
many of them drive SUVs.
There's no law that says you have to have one to drive an SUV. G

However, lots of jobs that may look like employees, because they
work
often at the same place, like real estate agents, hair dressers,
nurses, doctors, sales people, financial planners, flight
instructors, exotic dancers, etc... are actually paid as
sub-contractors and entitled to business expense deductions.

I've never met a nurse who was paid as a sub-contractor. In fact I
suspect their union would go ballistic over it.

Never ran across home-care nurses or other similar subcontracted areas?
I suspect you're thinking of on-floor hospital nurses only -- there
are many others as well. And here, at least, they're non-union even in
the hospital altho they're not considered subcontractors, of course.

....

The point is that extremely favorable tax treatment (sometimes, very
loosely applied and not caught by the IRS) steered lots of folks
from
cars to large vehicles.

Which accounts for at most a quarter of the sales of SUVs.

I wouldn't be too sure of that w/o more data than I have (or care to
research), but the general assumption of tax law being a driver to the
mix of vehicles is certainly true.

--

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:55:06 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

Gasoline is not going to run out. But there needs to be
alternatives/competition to bring the price back in line.

Gas is a natural resource, there's only so much out there and
eventually we won't be able to find any more. That's like saying
we'll all be able to keep working with wood when we cut down all the
trees.

B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I've never met a nurse who was paid as a sub-contractor. In fact I
suspect their union would go ballistic over it.

There are lots of different types of nurses.

A specific example is a friend of mine is a nurse who specializes in
cardiac (ex:// angioplasty) operations. He'll do a several month
contract at Hartford Hospital, do one or two at Yale, go back to
Hartford... He takes summers off to fly his r/c planes. He's not
in a union, and totally self-employed.

Private duty, in-home care nurses, are quite often sub-contractors
to
shift some of the extreme liability away from the agencies.


Which accounts for at most a quarter of the sales of SUVs.

I only attempt to point out one factor. Style is probably the
biggest
driver in vehicle sales.

I don't think that style was ever the reason that people bought
station wagons. It might be the reason they bought one in preference
to another but not the reason that they bought one in preference to a
sedan.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
....

In this case though, whatever one thinks of China, their efforts to
get their population under control without marching people into gas
chambers would seem to be making the best of a bad situation.

For some appropriate definition of "best", I suppose...

It would seem to be essentially the equivalent, however, for the victim
so pretty sure I don't think it a very promising comparison.

--

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:13:39 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.
But I do think electrical solutions are the way to go, either through
electrolysis to make hydrogen or by charging nano-technology battery-
like packs. The source for this magic electrical juice would be a
variety of generation devices, with the base-loads carried by a
renewed approach to nuclear plants. What-the-hell, the distribution
network is in place already. I anticipate some serious progress coming
out of France in fusion development.

The only problem with that is the recharge time. Currently, battery
technology doesn't allow for enough use between charges, nor a fast
enough charge time. Having to charge your battery for 8 horus for
every 4-5 hours of use will never work and the things are so
ridiculously heavy that exchanging them at a station is unworkable.

That whole bio-diesel 'fata morgana' is plain silly.

I agree that it's just not reached an efficiency that's worthwhile yet
but it's a growing technology and one that's feasibly renewable.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:54:42 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Not to mention that fuels with alcohol have a negative effect on the engine.
Alcohol attracts water and water does not settle out like it does in normal
gasoline. The higher the alcohol content, the more likely it is to get
fuel contamination.

That only applies to current engines though. If someone could build a
high-temp ceramic engine, just to make up an example, water wouldn't
be a problem at all.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:29:02 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:58:32 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:
Or jumping the border.

not worth it.. they can make more in Mexico at a good job than in the States
picking grapes..

Tell that to the 12-20 million illegals that are here then. Please
invite them to go the hell home.

Brian Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:29:02 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:58:32 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:
Or jumping the border.

not worth it.. they can make more in Mexico at a good job than in the States
picking grapes..

Tell that to the 12-20 million illegals that are here then. Please
invite them to go the hell home.

Yeah, the key phrase before was "in Mexico at a good job" -- there are
sadly few of those available given the population and very little
effort, it seems, by the government to resolve the issue except by
dumping their excess on their northern neighbor.

Then again, it's essentially impossible to find a native-born
"'Murricun" who'll actually show up to work in many labor-intensive
areas while we pay who knows how many millions to stay on welfare...

The system is terribly broke and seemingly irretrievably so unless and
until there becomes a watershed change in overall opinion at more than
the scattered grassroots level.

--

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:55:06 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

Gasoline is not going to run out. But there needs to be
alternatives/competition to bring the price back in line.

Gas is a natural resource, there's only so much out there and
eventually we won't be able to find any more. That's like saying
we'll all be able to keep working with wood when we cut down all the
trees.

True but I suspect we have only tapped 10-15% of the supply and that is the
"gravy". I doubt our grandkids, grand kids will see an end to oil.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:54:42 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Not to mention that fuels with alcohol have a negative effect on the
engine.
Alcohol attracts water and water does not settle out like it does in
normal
gasoline. The higher the alcohol content, the more likely it is to get
fuel contamination.

That only applies to current engines though. If someone could build a
high-temp ceramic engine, just to make up an example, water wouldn't
be a problem at all.

Up to a point, since it does not burn and because it does not compress it
could cause engine damage from tolerances that are too small. Very small
amounts of water in diesel fuel can cause broken pistons and bent connection
rods in a diesel engine. I suspect that a very good filtration system that
could remove the water from the alcohol would be needed.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:13:39 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

Snip


The only problem with that is the recharge time. Currently, battery
technology doesn't allow for enough use between charges, nor a fast
enough charge time. Having to charge your battery for 8 horus for
every 4-5 hours of use will never work and the things are so
ridiculously heavy that exchanging them at a station is unworkable.

Take a look at www.zapworld.com They are claiming that the technology is
here now. Crusing range of 350 miles, 1 cent per mile energy cost, recharge
time in as little as 10 minutes, and loads of hp.
IIRC DeWalt is getting similar results from their latest batteries.

Unfortunately I can see the oil companies buying this company out and
shutting the whole thing down.

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...

In this case though, whatever one thinks of China, their efforts to
get their population under control without marching people into gas
chambers would seem to be making the best of a bad situation.

For some appropriate definition of "best", I suppose...

It would seem to be essentially the equivalent, however, for the victim
so pretty sure I don't think it a very promising comparison.


The US has 1 to 1.5 million casualties to Roe vs Wade every year - 48
million since it became law. I don't believe they were volunteers.

"Leon" wrote in message
. net...

"todd" wrote in message
. ..
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I
typically get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.
If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.

I'll have to pay more attention the next time I see a drag race with the
alcohol funny cars. I could swear I see them moving down the strip with
all that filler in the tank.


Yeah, check their gas mileage also while you are at it. If you have not
noticed that is what I am complaining about.

So all those cars burning E85 should be getting, what, 4 mpg? Give it up.

todd

Leon wrote:
"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:54:42 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Not to mention that fuels with alcohol have a negative effect on the
engine.
Alcohol attracts water and water does not settle out like it does in
normal
gasoline. The higher the alcohol content, the more likely it is to get
fuel contamination.
That only applies to current engines though. If someone could build a
high-temp ceramic engine, just to make up an example, water wouldn't
be a problem at all.

Up to a point, since it does not burn and because it does not compress it
could cause engine damage from tolerances that are too small. Very small
amounts of water in diesel fuel can cause broken pistons and bent connection
rods in a diesel engine. I suspect that a very good filtration system that
could remove the water from the alcohol would be needed.

Filtration doesn't work for solutions...

--

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
t...

I only attempt to point out one factor. Style is probably the biggest
driver in vehicle sales.


Yep, sitting straight up is a good thing, and some people are long enough to
have to recline to drive cars like the wife's. Then there's the nice
all-wheel capability in my Escape that gets me over unplowed areas like the
three miles to the ambulance garage. It's also able to pull a trailer and
500 BF of wood back from vacation, and responds straight ahead when two
wheels are in slush and two on pavement or any other combination I've found.

Of course it's 22 mpg only with the V6, and no tax advantage at all, but
it's safe, roomy and comfortable.

Have you noticed all the "me too" foreign SUVs that have appeared since the
Explorer set the pace?

Leon wrote:
"John Horner" wrote in message
news:YOX2j.9957$Mr.1352@trnddc04...
B A R R Y wrote:
John Horner wrote:
It is called an anti-drainback valve and most oil filter incorporate
one. Without it your engine would take longer to build oil pressure at
start up, which is a bad thing.

The valve is not present in the correct Toyota oil filter.

Not according to Toyota!

"An anti-drainback valve, which prevents oil from draining out of the
engine and into the oil pan, helping to protect your engine from increased
wear during cold starts."

http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/deal...ilfilters.html


I think that feature is a general one that does not apply to all filters on
all vehicles. Not all same brand filters operate the same. If genuine
Toyota top located filters empty out there would be no check valve
preventing this.
Besides that, the statement is probably worded wrong. I do not know of a
common automotive engine that oil does not naturally flow from the engine
into the oil pan during operation. The oil goes into the filter before
returning to the engine. They probably meant to say that some filters check
valves prevent oil from draining from the filter back into the oil pan. The
filter does take some time to refill if empty.



This is way off the woodworking topic, but the function of an
anti-drainback valve is to keep the filter full after the engine is shut
down and oil pressure is no longer generated. It is normally a rubber
flap which acts as a one way valve.

Leon wrote:
"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:13:39 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

Snip

The only problem with that is the recharge time. Currently, battery
technology doesn't allow for enough use between charges, nor a fast
enough charge time. Having to charge your battery for 8 horus for
every 4-5 hours of use will never work and the things are so
ridiculously heavy that exchanging them at a station is unworkable.

Take a look at www.zapworld.com They are claiming that the technology is
here now. Crusing range of 350 miles, 1 cent per mile energy cost, recharge
time in as little as 10 minutes, and loads of hp.
IIRC DeWalt is getting similar results from their latest batteries.

Unfortunately I can see the oil companies buying this company out and
shutting the whole thing down.




ZAP is well known as a company which is 95% hype, 5% substance. The
actual products they are selling are generic Chinese electric scooters
and low speed three wheel electric vehicles which are little more than
golf carts. Why three wheels you might ask? Well, so that for safety
regulation purposes they are considered motor cycles.

On Nov 27, 2:08 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


I've never met a nurse who was paid as a sub-contractor. In fact I
suspect their union would go ballistic over it.

I have met dozens upon dozens. Here and in Michigan.
Not all nurses belong to unions.
Many travel to people's homes for in-home care.

Your claim that you never met any, seems suspect.