Search results

that's expensive! Even the days of silk tubular tires don't compare. But yeah, studded fat bike tires are next level "niche market"--add the Canadian juice on top of that and you're spending a lot of money. Before the days of readily available studs, we would make our own with sheet metal...

I didn't. My parents were really old when they had me, and are both products of the Great Depression. The lessons of my childhood have been with me my entire life. I think there's a balance here. The experiences you had destroying your 240SX are part of who you are--no sense regretting it...

Yes, ETRO standards have just been updated. You can check out the details here: http://engineerstalk.mavic.com/en/the-right-tyre-width-on-the-right-rim-width/ Note the chart is for tubeless. With tubes, pressure can be about 15% higher. The measurements are inner rim width. You can put a...

I mean, it DOES apply--but in a negative way! Yeah, it really comes down to economies of scale. The average bike tire mold costs about 25K USD, and with fat bikes you're amortizing that over a lot fewer tires... It's not the whole story though. They're using about 4 times the amount of raw...

This being bitog and all, I'm surprised folks would be using such an expensive detail spray! I've been using Optimum No Rinse in a 1/16 ratio, mixed with tap water. I actually like it better than the Megs Interior Detail Spray, particularly on coated leather. Comes out to $.50 for a 32 oz...

You're fine running as wide a tire as the frame will allow. Pretty sure that's a single-wall rim, so the more tire protection, the better!

The Exhilarate seems to perform at the top of the heap: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=259 It's also the best performing UHP tire in Consumer's Reports testing as well. Hard to think they both got it wrong. It seems they hit a winner on this one.

It has variable valve timing and valve lift, and I think it does actually use Miller Cycle during part of its operation. If you look at real-time fuel economy, it does jump quite a bit based on pretty small throttle inputs. There's some interesting info on the B46 version of it here...

Those are big V8's though. 2500 is low for a 4 cylinder. My 5 cylinder Jetta wagon as ~3,300 at 80mph before I swapped a taller 5th gear in there... While I'm a big fan of the tall highway gearing, it's pretty easy to get going pretty fast--too fast. I think my MK1 GTI was would have been...

The X1 is 2150 rpm at 80mph. The CX-5 reservce looks to be right at 2,600. I mean, that's still reasonably low for 80mph, but no doubt that's a limitation of having 6 speeds.

Just wanted to comment on this here. A few years ago when I was in China, I noticed the cab driver accelerating on an empty highway up to 100kph on an empty highway, and then slamming on the brakes...repeatedly... didn't think much of it. After the 3rd or 4th cab ride, it hit me..."red light...

I'm not sure why you say that, but having driven a couple of the ZF8HP's mated to BMW 4 cylinders, back-to-back with the X1, I just don't see much of a difference (longitudinal, haven't driven the new ZF sideways box in the newest X1's). Shift times seem very similar. Yes, the Aisin feels...

Yeah, it's worth mentioning that I've done this same drive dozens of times, so I know what to expect fuel economy wise--which is why I was so startled by the numbers. -My '88 Camry Wagon (one of the best wagons ever), 2.0L with TALL geared 5 speed MT: about 34 mph (but, going slower, thing...

not trying to get political here, but if you believe in not wasting resources for no reason, you are by definition an environmentalist. This isn't something that should be politicized, nor something for which you should apologize. It saddens me that people have to make this sort of disclaimer...

My R "requires" 92 octane. Half of my driving is in CA, where you can't even get 92 octane... I bought it because 1) I'm pretty sure it'll still run fine on 91, 2) in close to a million miles of lifetime driving, I'm only seen 1 or 2 filling stations in the US that don't have at last 89 octane...

wow...so there is some secret sauce in the B48 engine... The 42mpg doesn't surprise me at all based on the X1. A .23 drag coefficient is incredible, it's lighter and has 2 drive wheels.

I doubt they're much different in their real octane requirements. The CX-5 turbo recommends 93, after all. Since there is no 87 in Germany, I'm not surprised that they have 89 "required". Some though I bet that if you run 87 in there for a few tanks, it won't blow up.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/you-people-worry-way-too-much-about-oil.157140/page-2 Looks like he was just past the half-way point for his OCI! Granted, the FB engines are different than the EJ engines--and then there's a timing chain involved vs. a belt; but these boxers just...

Yeah, like most (not all) turbo engines it requires premium (91 recommended, 89 required). I filled up with 92 in WA, and 91 in California. The delta isn't much in California (30 cents), but it's huge in WA. I've seen 92 or 93 for 70 cent a gallon higher up there. I may try 89 on the trip back...

I've taken I-5 the whole way twice. Once my Eurovan broke down, and the other time my Jetta Wagon was totaled by a guy turning left in front of me. I decided to write off that section of I-5 south of Williams. Bad juju.... The drive this way is actually a good bit more pleasant as well, even if...