https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=477477494156fref=nf
Hendrik
who only trawls facebook for the funny stuff
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
That was brutal but a teachable moment for Comedy School.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Hendrik and Fay via Mercedes
mercedes@okiebenz.com wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=477477494156fref=nf
Hendrik
who only trawls facebook for the funny stuff
My only complaint was that it turned 4000 RPM at 80.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Peter Frederick via Mercedes
mercedes@okiebenz.com wrote:
Yup, the 3.5L is the stroker version -- stroke is shorter than the bore
is wide. Turns 6200 rpm, believe it or not, and produces prodigious
On 14/08/2014 10:34 PM, Peter Frederick via Mercedes wrote:
Yup, the 3.5L is the stroker version -- stroke is shorter than the
bore is wide. Turns 6200 rpm, believe it or not, and produces
prodigious horsepower at high rpm. Sort of a dog from standstill,
though, that's why Benz switched to
Go back and drive a car from the '60s. A friend's brother bought a late '60s
Mustang, we went to pick it up for him. Nice car in decent shape but boy did it
ride hard. We've been spoiled by fuel injected engines and multi-link
suspensions. I felt every bump that car went over and it sure felt
Curt wins the prize! Actually, I didn't question what I was seeing at
first, even though the aliasing in the clouds and sky should have been a
dead giveaway (that the original image was not analog). On further thought,
this unicycle mode is clearly impossible; the wing is at a negative angle of
Huuh? You mean 80mph? That's about 128kmh, I think most cars (apart from
the latest ones with 500 gears in the box) would do round about 4k at
128kmh.
Speaking like a general, cars are designed to be efficient round about
90-100kmh, given that is the usual cruising speed in most parts of the
Remember the 3.5 was a stroker motor. Rev limit was 6200 rpm, so 4000
at 80 gives around 125 mph for the top end, which was the design spec
(same for the 4.5L with 3.23 gears and a 5600 rpm limit, or some thing
like that). A real screamer.
No tachometer on the 72 US model, so I don't
Precisely…….
On Aug 15, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Scott Ritchey via Mercedes mercedes@okiebenz.com
wrote:
the wing is at a negative angle of
attack
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change
You meant to say way too fast for the skill of the average American
driver, did you not?
Hendrik
who needs no thanks for this little correction but donations will be
accepted
BTW it seems that the addressing is gone stupid, last couple of my
dribbly list messages have only been addressed to
No, way too fast for the brakes and tires. Remember, radial tires
were a brand new invention then, and modern tires are vastly better
than what we drove on 40 years ago. Also, that W109/109 chassis did
not have anti-dive front suspension geometry, and slamming on the
brakes at speed
Septembah 13. We can eat at no name as Dwight suggests;)
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 14, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes
mercedes@okiebenz.com wrote:
Remind me of the date again, please? Dimitri needs an excuse to invite me
to dinnah.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:10 PM,
12 matches
Mail list logo
