Eric Peters Automobiles http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/ en Thu, 17 May 2012 23:33:53 GMT vBulletin 60 http://epautos.com/forum/images/misc/rss.jpg Eric Peters Automobiles http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/ Next generation Astras to be built in the UK. http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18103&goto=newpost Thu, 17 May 2012 11:22:25 GMT The UK economy looks likely to receive a big boost today with news that GM are to make a big investment a Vauxhall car plant, creating many more new... The UK economy looks likely to receive a big boost today with news that GM are to make a big investment a Vauxhall car plant, creating many more new jobs and adding an extra production shift.

GM is expected to announce that the next generation of its (Vauxhall) Astra model will be built at the firm's factory in Ellesmere Port on Merseyside, guaranteeing the future of the plant for many years.

There have, up to now been some severe doubts about further investment in the Ellesmere plant, by GM, leading to worries about the security of the jobs of the Ellesmere workers.

Vauxhall workers have voted by 94% in favour of a new pay and conditions deal. The new agreement has cleared the way for new investment at the Ellesmere Port plant, according to Press Association sources.

As I believe that the biggest rivals Vauxhall were up against were the German (Opel?) car producing plants I think this is a big 'thumbs up' for the dedication and quality of the British car manufacturing workforce - something that has been long recognised by the Japanese car manufacturers. I hope the new deal goes through.

Ken. ]]> Automotive News Ken http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18103 Car Ripped In Half http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18102&goto=newpost Thu, 17 May 2012 03:15:56 GMT http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=434_1337174119 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=434_1337174119 ]]> Video clips dBrong http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18102 Drop vehicle inspections on new cars? http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18101&goto=newpost Wed, 16 May 2012 20:51:21 GMT Nope. Not in North Carolina where a proposal to delay mandatory inspections until a vehicle is 3 years old was defeated in the legislature. ... Nope. Not in North Carolina where a proposal to delay mandatory inspections until a vehicle is 3 years old was defeated in the legislature. Primarily by a coalition of the garage owners who make money off the legally required inspections.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/...squelches.html

Chip H. ]]> Motor Mouth chiph http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18101 2012 Mini Coupe http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18100&goto=newpost Tue, 15 May 2012 13:03:29 GMT Who doesn't like the original Mini? It's cute, but not girly. Sporty - but not overbearingly macho. A six foot man can drive it - and not look (or feel) silly driving it. So can his five-foot-five daughter. Or her 65-year-old grandmother.



The Mini is also inexpensive - around $19k to start, which is cheap for a new car. And it's very fuel efficient: Almost 40 MPG on the highway. It has a pleasantly spacious - even practical - interior for such a small-on-the-outside car. It is easy to drive, fun to drive - and affordable to drive.


In a very real sense, the modern Mini is more like the old VW Beetle than anything else on the road ( including the New Beetle - which is too big, too thirsty, too expensive and probably too sporty, too.)


Well, what about this new two-seater Mini coupe?


Has it got the Mini mojo, too?


WHAT IT IS

The Mini coupe is a two-seat version of the regular Mini - the nomenclature being a tad confusing since both cars have two doors for passengers and a hatch in the back for accessing the cargo area. So technically speaking, they're both hatchback coupes.



The coupe differs from the regular Mini from the tops of the doors up. It has a steeply raked windshield and its roof sits about an inch lower than the regular Mini's. It also has unique bits such as a Porsche-like rear airfoil that deploys automatically at 50 MPH.


Like the regular Mini, the coupe is available as a hardtop or convertible and in standard, turbocharged S or even-more-turbocharged John Cooper Works (JCW) versions. Base price for the hardtop coupe is $21,300. A JCW coupe lists for $31,200. The convertible starts at $24,530 and tops out at a $34,500 for the JCW version.


WHAT'S NEW FOR 2012

The two-seater version of the Mini is all-new.


WHAT'S GOOD

Same great gas mileage as regular Mini.


A different look than the regular Mini.


WHAT'S NOT SO GOOD

Same performance as the regular Mini, in spite of the much more aggressive looks.


Much less room inside than the regular Mini.


Diminished view of what's outside and all around you due to to the lowered roofline and thick C pillars.


UNDER THE HOOD



The Mini coupe has the same drivetrain options as the regular Mini - and this could be a problem for Mini with this model, which is built around its sportier-than-normal image.


As in the regular Mini, the coupe's standard engine is a 1.6 liter, 122 hp four cylinder paired with either a a six-speed manual or (optionally) a six-speed automatic.


There is a significant difference in performance between the manual and automatic-equipped Mini coupe: The six-speed stick version can do the 0-60 run in a sprightly 8.2 seconds; the automatic is more than one full second slower, solidly in the mid nines. That's not a bad number for the regular Mini - which doesn't present itself as a sporty car as much as a fun-minded economy car. But in the aggressive-looking coupe, it's disappointing. Just my 50 cents, but if I'd been in charge at Mini, I'd have given the Mini coupe a few more oats - and better acceleration - than the regular Mini.


Same issue with the S and JCW versions of the coupe. They're not borderline slow - the turbocharged S, with 181 hp, gets to 60 in a presentably quick 6.4-6.7 seconds (even with the automatic). And the JCW version - which gets a higher-boost version of the 1.6 engine jacked-up to 208 hp, is capable of getting to 60 in just over six seconds flat with the six-speed manual.


These are good numbers - but they're also the same numbers as the regular Mini.


Which isn't surprising, given the engines are identical. Even the curb weight is identical - or nearly so. The hardtop Mini coupe is actually a bit heavier than the standard Mini. It specs out at 2,557 lbs. vs. 2,535 lbs. for the regular Mini hardtop.


Gas mileage is also virtually identical: The base coupe with 1.6 engine and six-speed stick gets 29 city, 37 highway. Even the high-performance JCW manages a very respectable 25 city, 33 highway.


One fly in the pie, though. All the Mini's engines - including the base non-turbo 1.6 engine - require premium fuel.


ON THE ROAD


If you've driven the regular Mini, then you already know how the Mini coupe drives. Acceleration and handling is indistinguishable. Both are as agile as a greased trout in a cold stream - and just as capable of darting around obstacles and passing through what in almost any other car would be an impossibly small space. Parking is point-and-click easy; in - and out. No backing in, then out - then in and out again. You will have room left over in your garage, too.


The major difference between the two is visibility. In the regular Mini, you've got an almost panoramic view all around, thanks to the high glass that envelopes you. This makes the car easy to drive fast in traffic without second guessing. You know where you are - and you know where other cars are. It also makes the regular Mini's cabin feel even roomier than it is. Like the original 1960s Mini, it's a small car that even very big people can drive - comfortably.


But the coupe is a different story. The windshield is much more steeply raked - and the roofline about an inch lower. So far, no problems. Even very tall people (like me - I'm 6 ft. 3) still fit inside with room to spare, including airpsace between the top of my head and the Mini's ceiling. Forward visibility is still ok, too - although not as expansive as in the regular Mini.



The problem comes when you turn your head to see what's coming down the road before pulling into traffic. Because much of what you'll see is the Mini coupe's passenger seat headrest (to your right) which almost entirely occludes the tiny rear quarter window. The unusually shaped roofline conspires to make matters worse. It tapers backward and then just behind the driver's door, each side of it begins to extend down several inches, kind of like a baseball batter's helmet, as the leading edge of the molded-in roof spoiler sprouts toward the back of the car. It looks neat from the outside, but the downside is that from inside the car, you won't see much to your sides. The view behind is also compromised. You learn to use your mirrors - and your front seat passenger - to confirm what's coming.


Have him or her lean out the window and look - before you leap.


AT THE CURB

The Mini coupe looks smaller than the regular Mini but both are exactly the same length (146.6 inches) and share the same wheelbase (97.1 inches). The only significant dimensional difference between the two is height. The regular Mini stands 55.4 inches - the coupe, 54.3 inches.
I've mentioned the sharp-angle windshield and "batter's helmet" roof. You also get an automatic-deploying rear spoiler that pops up whenever your speed hits 50 MPH. Its job is to provide additional downforce on the car's rear end, to aid traction and stability.



The inside is similar to the standard Mini: Same large centrally-mounted dial-type speedo, tachometer mounted on the steering wheel in the driver's line-of-sight, old-timey Limey-style toggle switches to operate the power windows and other functions. Behind the driver and front-seat passenger are molded "speed cones" that taper back to the cargo area. Which is a decently usable, if not over-large, space.


The back hatch opens low and wide, maximizing access to the available space. But, there is much less space (just 7 cubic feet) than in the regular Mini, which has more than triple the available real estate at 24 cubic feet with its back seats folded down.


Like the regular Mini, the coupe can be highly customized with dealer-available accessories, including custom graphic packages.



THE REST

I understand why Mini added to the coupe to the mix. The regular Mini has been around for ten years - can you believe it? - and like any other automaker, Mini knows that newness keeps people interested. And, the Mini has always had a sporty character - even if it started out as an economy-minded car. '60s-era Minis were almost immediately hopped-up for better performance - and the S and JCW versions of the current Mini are popular with buyers. It's a reasonable step to add a more obviously enthusiast-minded Mini to the lineup. Even the absence of back seats in the coupe is not-unreasonable, given that the back seats in the regular Mini are not fit for people anyhow.


So, the basic idea seems sound to me.


But I'm not so sure about the execution. The coupe should at least be lighter than the regular Mini. That all by itself would have given it a performance edge. Failing that, the coupe could use some extra horses - not necessarily a stampede of them. But enough, at least, to put some daylight between it and the regular Mini. That's what Fiat did with the Abarth version of the 500 - which gets a unique-to-that-model turbocharged engine and much-improved performance over the regular Fiat 500.


If it'd been my call, the base coupe would have come with the regular Mini Cooper S model's upgraded suspension and wheel/tire package, plus at maybe 10-20 more hp out of the non-turbo 1.6 liter engine. A free flow exhaust and some tuning should be all that's needed to get there. The coupe S should have 200 hp - and be almost as quick as a JCW regular Mini.


And the JCW coupe ought to be quicker still. Cutting its curb weight by 200 pounds would do the trick.


THE BOTTOM LINE



Absent better performance, one wonders (well, I wonder) how many people will put up with the coupe's compromises without the compensation of better-than-standard Mini performance.


I guess we'll see!


Throw it in the Woods? ]]> New Car/Truck Reviews Eric http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18100 Why new cars are getting useless. http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18099&goto=newpost Mon, 14 May 2012 23:53:28 GMT Eric, I know this is where you post new car reviews. However, I've been looking at new cars as used ones are almost as expensive as new ones and don't have the warranty coverage.

I've pretty well decided I won't buy GM. Between the OnStar tracking you, whether you subscribe or not, and then selling your information (that's why I don't use Facebook either) and just plain poor design, I don't want the hassle. 4 hours to change a headlight?

Right now, I don't know about Ram trucks, but Chryslers cars are off the list too. There again, poor design. I maintain my cars. That means I change the oil regularly and check transmission level as well as the battery electrolyte. Mopars cars are now like BMW's and Isuzu's. Sealed transmission. Yeah right, spring a leak and you can't fill it yourself. No thanks. The battery? A few of them are in the trunk but most of them, like the 200/Avenger twins still have it under the right front fender. I don't want to pull the car apart to check my battery. That's like the video here about taking the front of an '08 Malibu apart to replace a headlight bulb.

So far, the best car I've seen is the Nissan Versa 1.8 hatchback. Plenty of room, reasonable tires that will work on the "ahem" roads around here and a reasonably price with good value for the money. For a chea....er....thrifty person like me to consider a new car, it has to be a good value. ]]> New Car/Truck Reviews grouch http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18099 Do you know why I pulled you over? http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18097&goto=newpost Mon, 14 May 2012 01:56:03 GMT Image: http://i.imgur.com/A0BZc.png ]]> Motor Mouth chiph http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18097 Learned how to drive a manual yesterday! Now searching for a 5-spd to buy. http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18096&goto=newpost Sat, 12 May 2012 14:31:00 GMT >>>>>>>>>>I LOVE MAKING THESE KINDS OF THREADS!<<<<<<<<<<< ...]]> It's so much more fun! So hopefully this summer I'll be buying a car with a manual.

>>>>>>>>>>>I LOVE MAKING THESE KINDS OF THREADS!<<<<<<<<<<<

What cars are best with a manual? What are your suggestions on what you think I should get?

In my area, Ford Mustangs and VW Jettas are the most common cars with a five speed.

Requirements:
-Not an SUV or a truck.
-I don't really want a compact (IE: Jetta), but would settle for one.
-Less than 5,000$.
-No Hondas.

I really like the 2000-2004 Subaru Legacy GT. I'd be happy with a 'Stang, or Mazda 626 too.

I'd like your input and experiences! Thanks! ]]> Motor Mouth Brandonjin http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18096 High paid idiots http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18095&goto=newpost Fri, 11 May 2012 15:58:58 GMT I did a little work in advertising back in the 70's but quit as I prefer to like myself. Lots of money to be made there, but it draws people who aren't really good at anything. Watch this BBC news report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=2G1O7scAYE8 ]]> Video clips grouch http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18095 Neighbors telling thier guests to park in front of my house. http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18094&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 17:18:11 GMT Instead of in front of thier own house. It's getting pretty annoying. What would any of you do? ]]> Motor Mouth Brandonjin http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18094 No More Yessiring http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18093&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 12:18:11 GMT It is an act of civility to be respectful toward others - but it's an act of cringing servility to call a cop "sir." It degrades the speaker and it elevates the recipient of the honorific beyond his station. A cop is just a guy (or a he-gal) wearing a uniform designed to intimidate and the hardware to back it up. To call this enforcer "sir" is of a piece with a field hand circa 1840 doing the same as he inquires, oh-so-deferentially, of massa.



The "yes, sir" bowing and scraping one routinely sees during episodes of fascist porn such as the TV shop, Cops is atrocious. Hulking, buzz-cut Officer 82nd Airborne stuffed inside his flak jacket and BDUs has pulled over some hapless motorist and is unctuously lecturing his captive prey about such things as the luscious goodness of seat belt laws or the Great Evil of possessing an arbitrarily illegal drug. The prey has assumed the position - meekly nodding and yes-sirring. Agreeing with all that Officer 82nd Airborne tells him.


Or at least, pretending to. In precisely the same way that striped apes on the chain gang would yes boss the guy on the horse cradling the Remington 870.


Once upon a time, citizens didn't behave like stripe apes or prison inmates in the presence of a mere cop. The attitude was best expressed by the character Paulie in the Rocky movies: "I don't sweat you," Paulie told Clubber Lang.


Citizens in a free country bound by the rule of law ought not to sweat cops, either.


Unfortunately, they have to - chiefly because the country is no longer free and the law is no longer on their side. Cops have been empowered to do almost anything - and can get away with doing almost anything. Hence, the fear. And the fearful Yes sirring. But this only encourages them. You've accepted your status as their plaything. Made it clear you will tolerate anything - are guilty, ipso facto, of everything. Stop resisting!

Yes, sir!

This is dangerous, both on the individual as well as the societal level - for the same reason that deferring to bullies on the playground is dangerous. It emboldens them - and it conditions you to accept being bullied.



Let's equalize things a bit, try to get them back on an even keel. Cops are still - in theory, at least - mere public servants. Typically, they are guys in their 20s or 30s who just barely got out of high school - or just barely into Turnpike Tech. They are not "heroes." They are not the Boss of you - or me, either. They are government workers with badges and guns. That's all. And certainly, nothing more - unless they have done something to earn being regarded more highly. Manning "safety" checkpoints and radar guns ain't that, either.


Civility enjoins respectful adress: Hello, officer. Fine. But not Yes, sir. You are probably a grown adult. Probably older than the cop who has cornered you. The only occasion when Yesssir is appropriate is when addressing one's superior in age - or one's superior in rank, if you are in the military. A 50-year-old woman addressing a 24-year-old kid in a blue or black uniform as "sir" is a species of vileness formerly confined to the nations and places Americans once thought of as the opposite of what it used to be like here.


The tragedy is we've grown accustomed to fearing Officer 82nd Airborne - and have been conditioned to behave in his presence like a quaking raw recruit in the spittle-breeze of his drill field exhortations.


No wonder they treat us accordingly.



The time has come to man (and woman) up. It is necessary to comply with their (cough) "lawful orders." It would be foolish to call Officer 82nd Airborne a pig or a thug - even though he may very well be. Think this, perhaps. Do not do this. But do not call him Sir, either. Officer will suffice. Once. Upon first addressing him. Speak to him in a calm voice, as a citizen entitled to respectful treatment by a public servant - not a serf in the presence of lord.


When he begins his lecture about wearing seat belts, hold up your hand and tell him - calmly - that you disagree. Or just aren't interested. You understand what the law is. But you disagree with the law - and only obey it under duress. Also, that the law does not require you to listen to a speech touting the merits of said law.


If you are really bold, you might ask the officer whether he believes it ought to be a criminal offense to eat foods that are "not good for you." Or to be "overweight" (something many cops are personally knowledgeable about). If he agrees, follow up by asking him why it should be a matter for law enforcement whether you wear a seatbelt... . This may unsettle him.
Or at least, might get him to thinking.


If you are really, really bold, you might tell the officer that ordinary people are losing respect for cops because of the way they're treating citizens. That while they may Submit and Obey, in their hearts and minds they increasingly fear the police. That they do not feel safe when they see a cop. This, too, may possibly start the wheels turning - among the few with wheels capable of turning.


If enough of us quit yes sirring and grew a pair, maybe the cops would once again respect us.


And perhaps, treat us accordingly once again.


Throw it in the Woods? ]]> Motor Mouth Eric http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18093 <![CDATA[Stuff That's Gone Away]]> http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18092&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 12:11:57 GMT I guess everyone gets to that point in life where they start to say, "I remember when... . " Here's some from me:



* Economy cars were rear-wheel-drive -

Today, only a handful of cars - most of them high-end cars - are rear wheel drive. But back in the day - the '60s, '70s and into the '80s - most cars were rear-wheel-drive and that included most economy cars. Pintos, Vegas, Chevettes - even imports like the Datsun B210 and of course, the old Beetle - were burnout-capable (assuming there was a little black ice on the pavement). Vegas - and even Chevettes - were popular as sleeper hot rod projects and bracket racers, because of their RWD layout. Stuff a big V-8 into a Vega (or a V-6 into a Chevette) and you had an M80 on wheels - and for cheap, too. That's the other thing about RWD econo-cars: Their mechanicals were the essence of simplicity, which made them genuinely economical in a way that modern economy cars aren't. No CV joints to fuss with. You had a solid beam axle that would outlast the car instead. A pair of shocks - $40 for the pair - instead of $200 for a set of struts. True, you usually only got a gas gauge and a speedometer and a dial-control one speaker AM/FM radio - but you also didn't get a $300 a month payment for the next five years. I miss that. And being able to spin the rear tires, too.


* White-lettered tires -

I just put a set of factory-correct raised white letter tires on one of my old bikes. But you never see white lettered tires on cars anymore. They've gone the way of whitewall tires. It's all blackwall now - and so, tires all look just the same. Which is a shame. Tires used to be a signature element of a given car's look. Anyone who remembers Firestone Wide Ovals or the BF Goodrich Radial TA will know what I mean. The style of the lettering - and the name of the tire itself, boldy called out - added something to the car that's absent today. Goodyear Wingfoots with the cool checkered flag. The Eagle GT. Even the el-cheapos they used to sell at places like Pep Boys were fun. I remember buying a set of Revenger HP tires for my old Camaro back in the late '80s. They were the perfect accessory for the primered rear quarter panels and glass pack'd exhaust.


* Air shocks -

This one'll take you back. Well, it takes me back. The leaf-sprung muscle cars of the '60s and '70s tended to sag in the tail after ten years or so - which was right around the time my generation (Generation X) got their hands on them as their first/high-school cars in the early '80s. One of the first things many of us did was to go to local auto parts store and buy a set of Gabriel Hi-Jacker air shocks to give the car the proper nose down, ass up attitude. It looked cool - but transferred too much weight onto the already worn-out, overburdened front end while simultaneously unloading the already too-light rear end. Already marginal handling and braking was thereby rendered downright catastrophic in the event of sudden inputs. You learned to drive carefully - and preferably, in straight lines only. The best part, though, was when the air line to the shocks frayed or came loose and they lost air pressure. Instant low-rider! At least, partially. Now, instead of looking down at the pavement, you looked up at the sky. It made for fun times. If you weren't there, you'll never know!



* Buying a stereo for your car -

I guess people still do this - but it's not as default standard as it once was. This is good - or bad - depending on your point-of-view. For the past two decades at least, factory stereos have been both pretty good and pretty thoroughly integrated into the dashboard. It's not like it was once, when radios were all more or less shaped the same and interchangeable - which also made them attractive targets for thievery, incidentally. You don't see much car stereo theft anymore - because most factory stereos only fit the make/model of car they came in - and removing them is no easy thing, even if you could use the thing in another car. Still, I had some good times going to the car stereo place to window shop - and spent some (mostly) enjoyable hours putting in a new rig in my car or a friend's car. It was a way to customize your machine - and make it something uniquely yours. We've lost that - and I miss it.


* Affordable gas -

My god, it was not all that long ago that one could fill up the 21 gallon tank of a V-8 muscle car for about $25. Which made it feasible for even a high school kid to own a V-8 muscle car. My high school parking lot was filled with SS Chevelles, cruddy but still running GTOs, 289 Hi Po Mustangs and a plethora of Camaros. The richer kids had new Mustangs and Camaros. IROC-Zs and "5.0" GTs. A part-time, after-school job at McDonalds at the then-minimum wage of about $3.35 an hour was sufficient to keep the motors running. Gas is still cheap today - but thanks to Fed funny money, it takes more dollars to buy. If you use the current price of regular unleaded - about $4 a gallon - as the measure, we've been impoverished by more than 50 percent since the mid-1980s. The same 21 gallons of gas now costs about $84 - too rich for most middle-aged wage slaves, let alone a 17-year-old working part time as a fry chef.



We had some good times. Maybe someday, we will again.


Throw it in the Woods ]]> Motor Mouth Eric http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18092 Tasers Airport and Random Searches http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18091&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 11:51:54 GMT Welcome to All :) I am concerned about the Police Usage of Tasers and think that the Usage should be Restricted if Not Abolished alltogether... Welcome to All :)

I am concerned about the Police Usage of Tasers and think that the Usage should be Restricted if Not Abolished alltogether through I would prefer that they were Abolished alltogether .

Police have a Right to Protection but Trouble is with Tasers they can Harm People who have Not Directly Threatened a Police Officer

The Security at Airports has gone Over the Top and Airport Searches which are Degrading to Human Dignity in Officers being able to touch a person all over should be Abolished as they uphold Security without this Affront to Human Dignity

As for Random Searches by Police on People in the Street they should be Abolished as it should only be for a Very Good Reason that Police Search People

Security and Police Duties has to be Balanced with the Needs of Civil Liberty and Human Dignity

Free 12 ]]> What happened to our liberty? Free12 http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18091 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18090&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 11:10:46 GMT The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 is Fundamentally Flawed and in Need of Improvement for Clarity of Definition and... The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 is Fundamentally Flawed and in Need of Improvement for Clarity of Definition and Human Rights.

The Definition of what is " To Impede or Disrupt the Orderly Conduct of Government Business or Official Functions " can be Defined as

1) For Someone who is Not a Government Official or Member of Staff to Commit Malicious Damage to Computers , Telephones and Filecases Not Accidental.

2) For Someone who is Not a Government Official or Member of Staff to Physically Assault without Prior Provocation and Not in Self Defence a Member of Staff or Government Official.

3) For Someone who is Not a Government Official or Member of Staff to Graffitti orCommit other Act of Vandalism including Urination or Defecation upon Federal Restricted Buildings where such Conduct is Avoidable.

4) For Someone who is Not a Government Official or Member of Staff to Intimidate Staff and Government Officials.

It is Not Peaceful Protest Silent Protest Holding a Peaceful Vigil Protest or Shouting Slogans ( Non Violent ) Nor Questioning Police or the Conduct of the Administration or Official Opposition .

It is Not Asking to Speak to an Government Official about a Matter of Government Policy or Express a Concern by the Respective Enquirer about Political Matters particularly Government Policy.

It is Not handing in a Petition or Letter to the President of the United States The Vice President of the United States of America other cabinet members Senators or Congressmen .

1) " Knowingly Enters or Remains in any Restricted Building or Grounds without Lawful Authority to do so " is defined as Climbing the Fence of the White House or Official Residence of the Vice President of the United States of America and remaining without Prior Permission or without a Prior Invitation in Writing to Enter from the President of the United States of America Vice President of the United States of America or Senior White House Official.



This would Not Apply to the Grounds of the United States Congress which is Open to the Public or going to Congress Public Enquiry Areas.

" Knowingly , And with the Intent to Impede or Disrupt the Orderly Conduct of Government Business or Official Functions , Obstructs or Impedes Ingress or Egress to or from any Restricted Building of Grounds " Shall be defined any Member of the Public Not a Police Officer Member of Staff or Government Official who

1) Blocks the Movement of Vehicle Traffic to and from the White House and Official Residence of the Vice President of the United States of America as well as Individuals walking into the Grounds and Leaving the Grounds.

2) Behaves in an Unruly Manner such as Throwing anything at Vehicles and People going to and from the White House and Official Residence of the Vice President of the United States of America including Paint and Food.

" Proximity " is Defined as Immediately outside the White House and Official Residence of the Vice President of the United States of America to the Pavement Only but Allows the Right to Peaceful Non Violent Political Protest.

The Burning of Flags and Placards and Throwing anything at the Presidents Residence and Official Residence of the Vice President of the United States of America is Prohibited as Contrary to Good Conduct.

1) For Bad Behaviour With A Weapon or Firearm carried and any Body being Intentionally Injured as a Result the Penalty shall be 3 Years with Time Off for Good Conduct through if anyone dies because of Assault then of course it will be Regarded as Murder or Manslaughter .

2) For Bad Behaviour With No Weapon or Firearm carried and No Body being Intentionally Injured as a Result the Penalty shall be a Choice between 20 Days in Jail or 100 Hours Community Service a Fine of 20 Dollars and a Police Caution.

" Knowingly " only allows the Defence of Ignorance of the Law to those who are Genuinely Ignorant or Suffer Mental Health Problems but a False Claim of Ignorance of the Law will be Regarded as Perjury.

1 The Term " Restricted Building or Grounds " means any Posted, Cordoned Off, Or clearly marked Restricted

C ) " Of a Building or Grounds so Restricted in conjunction with an Event Designated as a Special Event of National Significance " Shall only Apply to the In Auguration of the President of the United States of America at the Congress Grounds and Buildings on that Particular Day otherwise the Right of People to Demonstrate in the Grounds of Congress shall be Upheld as 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech.

1) The Term " Restricted Buildings or Grounds " means any Posted, Cordoned Off, or Clearly Marked Restricted Area Section ( B ) Of a Building or Grounds where the President or other Person Protected by the Secret Service is or will be Temporarily Visiting " is Repealed thus Allowing for the Right of Responsible Public Protest Through ( A ) Of the White House or its Grounds , Or the Vice President's Official Residence or its Ground will Remain for the Security of Both The President of the United States of America and Vice President of the United States of America taking into Account the Right to Public Protest on the Pavement outside both the White House and the Official Residence of the Vice President .

2) The Term " Other Person Protected by the Secret Service " shall be taken to mean
Only the Members of Cabinet whose Names shall be Posted for Public Inspection outside the White House and this shall be there for their Protection Not to Interfere with the Right to Civil Public Protest.

These Improvements to The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act are there to Provide Specific Clarity to Uphold the Dignity of the White House and Official Residence of the Vice President of the United States of America and to Balance this Need with the Right of Ordinary People to Exercise their Human Right to Political
Protest in a Manner and to present Petitions and Letters to The President of the United States of America The Vice President of the United States of America Members of Cabinet Senators and Congressmen. ]]> What happened to our liberty? Free12 http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18090 2012 Volvo XC60 http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18089&goto=newpost Wed, 09 May 2012 14:22:37 GMT Safety still sells - problem is, everyone's selling it - not just Volvo.


That's why Volvo's gone sporty to an extent that's truly startling in the context of Volvos-gone-by.


A quick reference to put the matter in context:


In the late '70s, Volvo built cars like the 240 wagon - a big, slow, slab-sided (and rear-wheel-drive) tank. Under its hood, a 2.1 liter engine whelping out an enfeebled 100 hp - 123 if you chose to upgrade to fuel injection. It was very safe indeed - because you had to really work hard to build enough speed to hurt yourself.


That sort of safety doesn't sell anymore.


Even Volvo drivers demand speed these days - safely applied, of course. Which is why Volvo sells models like the '12 XC60, a compact FWD/AWD sportwagon that packs a minimum of 240 hp. That's in the base version. Choose the T6 and kick it up to 300 - 325 in the T6 R Design.


Back in 1978, that would have been considered most un-Volvo.


But it's change I can believe in.


How about you?


WHAT IT IS

The XC60 is Volvo's compact FWD/AWD crossover wagon - with two rows of seats and room for five. It's available in 3.2 and T6 and T6 R Design versions. With a base price of $33,300 - $43,700 for a top-of-the-line R Design - the XC60 is several notches higher up the food chain than most otherwise similar - but not status-branded - compact crossovers. Its price puts it squarely in the entry-luxury segment and in competition with models such as the Mercedes GLK ($35,880-$37,880), Audi Q5 ($35,600-$43,00) and BMW X3 ($37,100-$42,700).


WHAT'S NEW

The major functional update for 2012 is the up-rated 325 hp engine in the R Design version of the XC60. A Dynamic ride and handling package is also available optionally with T6 and R Design models.


Volvo has displayed a concept car plug-in hybrid version of the XC60 - but for the moment, it's still just a concept.


WHAT'S GOOD

Quicker acceleration in a 2012 Volvo than in any mid-late '70s-era muscle car.


Base model's a good deal relative to the more expensive Benz GLK, Audi Q5 and BMW X3.


Gee-whiz technology, including a heartbeat monitor that can detect intruders in the car and a City Safe collision avoidance system that automatically slows/stops the car if sensors detect something (or someone) looming in your path.


Simple, easy-to-follow gauges.


WHAT'S NOT SO GOOD

Base 3.2 is a little too slow - for $33k.


R Design is quick - but costly (my test car crested $52k).


Not-so-easy-to-use infotainment controls.


UNDER THE HOOD

The XC60 3.2 comes standard with a 3.2 liter, 240 hp in-line six. You can go FWD or (optionally) AWD but the only transmission choice is a six-speed automatic.


This version of the XC60 needs about 9 seconds to reach 60 - slow for the class and slow for the price. The Benz GLK 350, for example, is almost two full seconds quicker - a difference you can definitely feel and a difference that makes a difference when you need to merge with fast-moving traffic or get around a slow-mover ahead of you.


The Audi Q5 gets to 60 in about 6.8 seconds with its standard engine.
Gas mileage with the 3.2 liter engine is also mediocre: 19 city, 25 highway. It's about the same as the Q5, X3 and GLK - but those models are all much snappier performers.


But, you have the option of stepping up to the T6, which is equipped with a 3.0 liter turbo straight six that produces 300 hp - enough to notch the 0-60 time down to about 7 seconds flat and catch up with the Benz GLK and Q5.


However, the BMW X3 with its optional turbocharged 3.0 liter engine is still the quickest - by a wide margin - of all these models. It gets to 60 in about 5.6 seconds.


Volvo offers one more underhood upgrade - the R Design. This gets you another 25 hp (325 total) and into the high sixes, 0-60. Interestingly, the R Design is the most powerful - on paper - of all the models in this class. But it's not the quickest, because it's also among the heaviest. An R Design weighs 4,236 lbs. - massive bulk for what is technically a compact-sized (in its class) vehicle. A similar-size Benz GLK weighs nearly 300 lbs. less. The Q5, about 200 lbs. less. The X3, about 120 lbs. less.
But the bulk has a benefit: The XC60 is the highest-scoring vehicle in its class - across the board - earning a perfect 5 star rating in frontal and side-impact crash testing as well the highest-possible rating in the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety's frontal offset, side impact and roof crush tests.


You also don't pay a mileage penalty - or at least, not much. The T6 manages to almost match the base 3.2's EPA mileage figures, posting 17 city, 23 highway. Also, all the XC's engines burn regular unleaded - including the high-performance engines in the T6 and R Design.


The standard X3 engine (as well as its optional engine) demands premium.


Ditto the Benz GLK and Q5.


ON THE ROAD

I remember when Volvo was synonymous with slow. And I mean really slow - not slow by modern standards. As in 15 seconds to 60; struggling hard to top 80.

That kind of slow.


Not anymore.


The T6 R Design I spent a week with is quicker - and pulls harder - than most muscle cars did, back in the day. It may not be quite as quick as the hot rod X3, but it's still silly fast for the realities of the American road (and American traffic law). If anything, it's frustratingly quick for American roads. All this power - and no real use for it. Well, there is one use for it. The T6 and R Design have the oats to claw their way into thick-packed traffic scrums and pull expeditiously around the Addled going even slower than the slowed down speed limits of early 21st century America.


My beef is with the base 3.2 XC60, which needs either to lose weight or have some hp bestowed upon it. There's too wide a gap in performance between the not-quick-enough 3.2 and the more-than-quick-enough T6 and R Design. A 9 second to 60 run puts the $33k XC 3.2 in the same company as $17k economy cars - some of which are actually quicker. I'd be unhappy, having paid $33k for an XC60 3.2, to be outgunned and out-run by cars that cost half as much.


Also: I encountered some slightly strange - "stepped" - brake pedal feel in my R Design test car. As I applied foot pressure to the pedal, sometimes, it felt like there was a slight drop in line pressure - pedal travel seemed to increase briefly, then firmed up. The brakes themselves work excellently; but the feel of them was unusual. I suspect it has to do with the XC60's very sophisticated City Safe (and pedestrian-avoidance) collision-avoidance system, which has the ability to engage the brakes automatically if sensors detect an object (a person, a tree or another car, etc.) in the XC's path.


No faulting the XC's handling, which is tenacious and (as with the power in the T6) several notches above the realistically usable by most American drivers on most American roads. The upshot is the ease - the effortlessness - with which a vehicle such as this can be driven at realistic (legal) road speeds. The change in driving dynamics between say the early '90s - when SUVs first became big-sellers - and now, in crossovers such as the XC60 - is startling. These new-breed crossovers handle as well as sports cars did back in the '90s. And do not ride like trucks - like the first generation of truck-based crossovers did.


The only downside is we can't really make use of all this capability.


But it's nice to know it's there.


AT THE CURB

Another obvious parking brake 180 from Volvos of old is the not-boxy design of the XC60. It is every bit the looker that older Volvos weren't.



This is a necessary development for the reason mentioned earlier: Safety is no longer a Volvo exclusive. Most people want more. Safety - and something else. Like sexiness, or at least, stylishness. The XC60 certainly has that: sleekly tapered nose, fast windshield, almost-flush roofrails, prominent dual exhaust (T6 R Design). It is more sportwagony than the SUV-looking GLK and X3. Closer, aesthetically, to the A5. But still very recognizably a Volvo - just a modern one.


The Volvo-ness shows up in things like the very high doors, which are shoulder height at the base of the glass (sitting inside), so as to put thick steel rather than thin glass between the occupants and potential T-bone intruders. The back seats also can be ordered with built-in child safety seats - another nod to Volvo-ness.


One area where function does follow form is back seat access. The entry well is narrow, with a large portion of the rear wheelhouse intruding forward into the space for climbing in and out. While headroom in the second row is very good, even for very tall people (39.5 inches) legroom (36.4 inches) can be tight for the taller.


The dash layout is a paradigm of Swedish simplicity: Two large gauges - 160 MPH speedo and 8,000 RPM tach - with handsome cobalt blue facings. The "floating" center stack, trimmed with stainless steel, cants slightly left, toward the driver - and has a very useful hidden storage cubby behind it. Less user-friendly is the LCD display - which is small - and the multi-function buttons for the infotainment system.


THE REST

Volvo seems to be managing the not-easy task of sexing up its vehicles without abandoning the qualities that make a Volvo a Volvo - of appealing to long-term Volvo buyers as well as new prospects.


The main problem with this vehicle, to my mind, is the price. My XC60 T6 R Design stickered out at $52,675 - a pile of money. Also a lot more money than a Benz GLK350 4-Matic ($37,880), BMW xDrive 35i ($42,700) or Audi Q5 3.2 Quattro ($43,300).


Now, to be fair, my tested-out T6 R Design had everything - including the $4,450 Platinum package, which adds heated front and rear seats, rain-sensing wipers with heated windshield washer nozzles, adaptive cruise control, the pedestrian detection system with full automatic-braking, lane departure warning and several other items on top of that. Comparably optioned-up, the X3, GLK and Q5 can also crest $50k.


My point is that $50k is a startling sum to spend on what is, after all, ostensibly a compact entry-luxury crossover SUV.


To my mind, the $33k-ish XC60 3.2 makes the most sense. It is considerably nicer than non-luxury branded crossovers in the mid-high $20k range - but not priced so much higher than the non-luxury-branded stuff that you wonder how come it's not quicker - or that much nicer.


THE BOTTOM LINE

Volvo's come a long way, baby.


Throw it in the Woods? ]]> New Car/Truck Reviews Eric http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18089 Cadwell Park CRMC meeting, May 6 2012. http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18088&goto=newpost Tue, 08 May 2012 13:06:17 GMT *_CLASSIC RACING MOTORCYCLE CLUB (CRMC) CADWELL PARK MAY 6 2012._* Each year I go to watch my friend, Ian, racing his classic machinery at the...
CLASSIC RACING MOTORCYCLE CLUB (CRMC) CADWELL PARK MAY 6 2012.

Each year I go to watch my friend, Ian, racing his classic machinery at the CRMC meeting at Cadwell Park, usually the meeting is on the last August Bank Holiday. This year it was held early on the 6th and 7th May 2012. I decided to go on the 6th as the weather forecast for the 7th was a bit grim.

It was not the best of days, I woke up to thick grey skies, dumping heavy rain, moving in and a bitterly cold Northerly wind. Warm clothes were the order of the day I thought. In hindsight I should have opted for ‘very’ warm clothes.

Forsaking the ‘bike I went to Cadwell in the Toyota. A good choice as the rain and I arrived there at about the same time. Quite a few races were extensively delayed. By lunchtime the programme was way behind schedule. Of those riders that had been able to get out on the track, there had been many ‘fallers’ due to cold tires, continuing rain and standing water on the track.

After an early break for lunch the weather cleared somewhat and racing started in earnest. It was not the best of days for Ian as due to technical problems he was starting from the back of the grid rather than his usual position near or in the front row. However with both ‘bikes now running he was soon carving his way through the pack and gained some creditable positions.

This season Ian, with his dad's assistance, is running two ‘bikes, a red 900 Seeley Weslake Triumph and their immaculately prepared yellow 500 Seeley Matchless G50. His other two 'bikes a 500 Weslake Triumph and a 350 Ducati are not being raced this year. He runs as number 54 and I’ve put a few static and action photos below. The two guys with him in the static shots are his Dad, (Larry) and Daryl, Ian's friend, mechanic and all round good guy.


For the last hour and a bit, until racing stopped, the weather was fine and sunny. The meeting continues on the 7th but, once again, the weather report is doom and gloom. Such is life.

Ken.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg CRMC12_11.jpg (94.8 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_12.jpg (93.3 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_13.jpg (93.5 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_14.jpg (98.0 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_15.jpg (60.7 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_16.jpg (80.7 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_17.jpg (69.6 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_18.jpg (54.8 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_19.jpg (99.0 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_20.jpg (94.9 KB)
File Type: jpg CRMC12_21.jpg (90.5 KB)
]]> On Two Wheels Ken http://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18088