Top Communist Admits: Communist Party ‘Utilizes’ the Democratic Party – a Lesson for

[Pogo]

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

That is untrue.

But this:

The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.

As James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" stated; " We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

that is right off the KKK's platform. item 1.

http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

Actually, the land was dedicated to Christ on a Virginia beach centuries before it even became a nation. Trying to say that the KKK came up with that idea makes you a world class jackass.....not as if it were ever in question.

You agree with the KKK though, correct? Quit trying to dodge the issue.

No, the KKK has more in common with your kind, racists that they are. I agree with the Virginia Beach dedication of the New World to the gospel of Christ.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

And here I am trying really hard to care who copied who and failing MISERABLY.

 

[paperview]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

That is untrue.

But this:

The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.

As James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" stated; " We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

that is right off the KKK's platform. item 1.

http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

I've no doubt the slug who gets a woodie over assassinating Lincoln is KKK.

Read enough of his posts to convince me.

 

[Redfish]

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

I did not "give up". I defeated your arguments and stepped aside. When GM came up with the Corvair they were clearly trying to copy the successful rear engine, air cooled design of the VW. NO, corvairs did not look like VWs. No one ever said that they did. But the mechanical design was basically the same. An air cooled, rear mounted, opposed 4 cylinder engine with rear wheel drive and a gas tank in the front.

The rest of your rant, is basically bullshit. Air cooled engines work fine in lawn mowers, motorcycles, and some small airplanes. Beyond that liquid cooling is far superior in every way.

 

[Preacher]

And the Koch brothers utilize the republican party to advance their idea for a corporate state.

nope, thats Soros and the dems.

You're an idiot...

Koch brothers plan to spend more than political parties

Every American should be concerned about the Koch brothers' announcement to spend close to $1 billion on the 2016 campaign. That amount will exceed the combined amount that both the Democratic and Republican parties spent in 2012. It will give these two brothers the unprecedented advertising power of a third political party and the ability to pick and choose individual candidates.

Directing their vast sums of money for a specific candidate or aiming it against their opponent, the Kochs will be able to dictate the choice for voters. The two Kochs, ranked fifth and sixth richest men in America, could conceivably buy all the total advertising time of every television and radio station in America leading up to the 2016 campaign.

more

have the Kochs and Soros violated any laws? Sorry if our guys have more money than your guys.

sour grapes much?

Paying off SCJ so they rule that a company is a person and can literally BUY elections...can it be proven? Sure if someone was crazy enough to go up against the power of the Koch brothers and the SC.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And the Koch brothers utilize the republican party to advance their idea for a corporate state.

nope, thats Soros and the dems.

You're an idiot...

Koch brothers plan to spend more than political parties

Every American should be concerned about the Koch brothers' announcement to spend close to $1 billion on the 2016 campaign. That amount will exceed the combined amount that both the Democratic and Republican parties spent in 2012. It will give these two brothers the unprecedented advertising power of a third political party and the ability to pick and choose individual candidates.

Directing their vast sums of money for a specific candidate or aiming it against their opponent, the Kochs will be able to dictate the choice for voters. The two Kochs, ranked fifth and sixth richest men in America, could conceivably buy all the total advertising time of every television and radio station in America leading up to the 2016 campaign.

more

have the Kochs and Soros violated any laws? Sorry if our guys have more money than your guys.

sour grapes much?

Paying off SCJ so they rule that a company is a person and can literally BUY elections...can it be proven? Sure if someone was crazy enough to go up against the power of the Koch brothers and the SC.

Wow, the Koch brothers must be gods in your minds, all powerful and a force to be reckoned with. How pathetic you Leftwats are! They are nothing more than private individuals who contribute to political causes, much like many rich Leftists do. I don't hear you talk about billionaire Michael Bloomberg with his manipulations of the political process by donating millions to promote gun control.

You people truly make me laugh. Scared of the Koch brothers. What children you are!

 

[Pogo]

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

I did not "give up". I defeated your arguments and stepped aside. When GM came up with the Corvair they were clearly trying to copy the successful rear engine, air cooled design of the VW. NO, corvairs did not look like VWs. No one ever said that they did. But the mechanical design was basically the same. An air cooled, rear mounted, opposed 4 cylinder engine with rear wheel drive and a gas tank in the front.

The rest of your rant, is basically bullshit. Air cooled engines work fine in lawn mowers, motorcycles, and some small airplanes. Beyond that liquid cooling is far superior in every way.

No dood, you never MADE an argument in the first place. The fact that one more air-cooled rear-engined car comes out after decades of others doesn't mean you can pick one at random -- and not even the original, nor most recent -- and declare it a "copy".

Nobody in 1960 thought, "wow, I was thinking of getting a VW but now here's the Corvair". Nobody made that silly comparison in 1960 and nobody made it now except you, and you can't support it. If Corvair "copied" anybody it copied the Falcons and Valiants and Comets and Lancers who all came out at the same time to copy the American and the Lark. Corvair no more "copied" the rear engine design from VW than Lancer "copied" the front engine design from the Rambler American. Same body of evidence. Correlation is not causation.

The Corvairs and Comets and Valiants were if anything copying the successes of Rambler's American and Studebaker's Lark which were already holding their own in what was then a "small" car market -- and by "small" we truly mean not "small" but "not as grotesquely ginormous" by comparison. Those previous cars may have "copied" the idea of "smaller is better" to find a market niche, but they didn't copy it from Volkswagen --- VW was simply a practical European car, which were already selling in Europe and to some extent here -- I can remember Simca, Renault, Morris, Hillman and a few others around at the time as imports; they had their audience.

VW didn't invent that idea; it was simply the European approach (and most of the world's approach-- WE were the odd one out with our huge barges). It simply made sense especially in postwar-ravaged Europe to make a car small, practical and economical. You can't just declare by fiat (hee hee, I kill me) that "C is a 'copy' of V" just because V is a popular icon or the most successful at it based on what the engine design was. Nor did Corvair ever market it that way.

 

[Redfish]

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

I did not "give up". I defeated your arguments and stepped aside. When GM came up with the Corvair they were clearly trying to copy the successful rear engine, air cooled design of the VW. NO, corvairs did not look like VWs. No one ever said that they did. But the mechanical design was basically the same. An air cooled, rear mounted, opposed 4 cylinder engine with rear wheel drive and a gas tank in the front.

The rest of your rant, is basically bullshit. Air cooled engines work fine in lawn mowers, motorcycles, and some small airplanes. Beyond that liquid cooling is far superior in every way.

No dood, you never MADE an argument in the first place. The fact that one more air-cooled rear-engined car comes out after decades of others doesn't mean you can pick one at random -- and not even the original, nor most recent -- and declare it a "copy".

Nobody in 1960 thought, "wow, I was thinking of getting a VW but now here's the Corvair". Nobody made that silly comparison in 1960 and nobody made it now except you, and you can't support it. If Corvair "copied" anybody it copied the Falcons and Valiants and Comets and Lancers who all came out at the same time to copy the American and the Lark. Corvair no more "copied" the rear engine design from VW than Lancer "copied" the front engine design from the Rambler American. Same body of evidence. Correlation is not causation.

The Corvairs and Comets and Valiants were if anything copying the successes of Rambler's American and Studebaker's Lark which were already holding their own in what was then a "small" car market -- and by "small" we truly mean not "small" but "not as grotesquely ginormous" by comparison. Those previous cars may have "copied" the idea of "smaller is better" to find a market niche, but they didn't copy it from Volkswagen --- VW was simply a practical European car, which were already selling in Europe and to some extent here -- I can remember Simca, Renault, Morris, Hillman and a few others around at the time as imports; they had their audience.

VW didn't invent that idea; it was simply the European approach (and most of the world's approach-- WE were the odd one out with our huge barges). It simply made sense especially in postwar-ravaged Europe to make a car small, practical and economical. You can't just declare by fiat (hee hee, I kill me) that "C is a 'copy' of V" just because V is a popular icon or the most successful at it based on what the engine design was. Nor did Corvair ever market it that way.

my only response to you is:------------------------------YOU ARE AN IDIOT. nothing in your last post is true.

what is true, and I was very involved in cars at that time, is that GM was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the VW by making a car that had the same basic characteristics. They failed. End of story.

 

[Pogo]

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

I did not "give up". I defeated your arguments and stepped aside. When GM came up with the Corvair they were clearly trying to copy the successful rear engine, air cooled design of the VW. NO, corvairs did not look like VWs. No one ever said that they did. But the mechanical design was basically the same. An air cooled, rear mounted, opposed 4 cylinder engine with rear wheel drive and a gas tank in the front.

The rest of your rant, is basically bullshit. Air cooled engines work fine in lawn mowers, motorcycles, and some small airplanes. Beyond that liquid cooling is far superior in every way.

No dood, you never MADE an argument in the first place. The fact that one more air-cooled rear-engined car comes out after decades of others doesn't mean you can pick one at random -- and not even the original, nor most recent -- and declare it a "copy".

Nobody in 1960 thought, "wow, I was thinking of getting a VW but now here's the Corvair". Nobody made that silly comparison in 1960 and nobody made it now except you, and you can't support it. If Corvair "copied" anybody it copied the Falcons and Valiants and Comets and Lancers who all came out at the same time to copy the American and the Lark. Corvair no more "copied" the rear engine design from VW than Lancer "copied" the front engine design from the Rambler American. Same body of evidence. Correlation is not causation.

The Corvairs and Comets and Valiants were if anything copying the successes of Rambler's American and Studebaker's Lark which were already holding their own in what was then a "small" car market -- and by "small" we truly mean not "small" but "not as grotesquely ginormous" by comparison. Those previous cars may have "copied" the idea of "smaller is better" to find a market niche, but they didn't copy it from Volkswagen --- VW was simply a practical European car, which were already selling in Europe and to some extent here -- I can remember Simca, Renault, Morris, Hillman and a few others around at the time as imports; they had their audience.

VW didn't invent that idea; it was simply the European approach (and most of the world's approach-- WE were the odd one out with our huge barges). It simply made sense especially in postwar-ravaged Europe to make a car small, practical and economical. You can't just declare by fiat (hee hee, I kill me) that "C is a 'copy' of V" just because V is a popular icon or the most successful at it based on what the engine design was. Nor did Corvair ever market it that way.

my only response to you is:------------------------------YOU ARE AN IDIOT. nothing in your last post is true.

what is true, and I was very involved in cars at that time, is that GM was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the VW by making a car that had the same basic characteristics. They failed. End of story.

So was I, and that's why I engaged on this. What you're proposing here is revisionist bullshit with no basis. Nobody -- not GM, not Corvair, not the buying public -- conflated the Corvair with the VW. Ever.

 

[Redfish]

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

I did not "give up". I defeated your arguments and stepped aside. When GM came up with the Corvair they were clearly trying to copy the successful rear engine, air cooled design of the VW. NO, corvairs did not look like VWs. No one ever said that they did. But the mechanical design was basically the same. An air cooled, rear mounted, opposed 4 cylinder engine with rear wheel drive and a gas tank in the front.

The rest of your rant, is basically bullshit. Air cooled engines work fine in lawn mowers, motorcycles, and some small airplanes. Beyond that liquid cooling is far superior in every way.

No dood, you never MADE an argument in the first place. The fact that one more air-cooled rear-engined car comes out after decades of others doesn't mean you can pick one at random -- and not even the original, nor most recent -- and declare it a "copy".

Nobody in 1960 thought, "wow, I was thinking of getting a VW but now here's the Corvair". Nobody made that silly comparison in 1960 and nobody made it now except you, and you can't support it. If Corvair "copied" anybody it copied the Falcons and Valiants and Comets and Lancers who all came out at the same time to copy the American and the Lark. Corvair no more "copied" the rear engine design from VW than Lancer "copied" the front engine design from the Rambler American. Same body of evidence. Correlation is not causation.

The Corvairs and Comets and Valiants were if anything copying the successes of Rambler's American and Studebaker's Lark which were already holding their own in what was then a "small" car market -- and by "small" we truly mean not "small" but "not as grotesquely ginormous" by comparison. Those previous cars may have "copied" the idea of "smaller is better" to find a market niche, but they didn't copy it from Volkswagen --- VW was simply a practical European car, which were already selling in Europe and to some extent here -- I can remember Simca, Renault, Morris, Hillman and a few others around at the time as imports; they had their audience.

VW didn't invent that idea; it was simply the European approach (and most of the world's approach-- WE were the odd one out with our huge barges). It simply made sense especially in postwar-ravaged Europe to make a car small, practical and economical. You can't just declare by fiat (hee hee, I kill me) that "C is a 'copy' of V" just because V is a popular icon or the most successful at it based on what the engine design was. Nor did Corvair ever market it that way.

my only response to you is:------------------------------YOU ARE AN IDIOT. nothing in your last post is true.

what is true, and I was very involved in cars at that time, is that GM was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the VW by making a car that had the same basic characteristics. They failed. End of story.

So was I, and that's why I engaged on this. What you're proposing here is revisionist bullshit with no basis. Nobody -- not GM, not Corvair, not the buying public -- conflated the Corvair with the VW. Ever.

you are assuming that I am calling it a "carbon copy". Thats not what it was, it was a US made car with the same basic characteristics as the VW. Rear air cooled 4 cylinder opposed engine, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. NO, they did not look alike, but mechanically they were very similar.

Are you trying to say that GM would have created the Corvair if VW never existed? Thats really a strech.

 

[Pogo]

There were no "aerodynamics" considerations in the driving speeds of 1887 (when Benz experimented with it) or the 1920s (when GM and Tatra both tried it out and the latter put it into production). What you've made a case for here is the question of where an air cooled engine is more advantageously mounted. That was never the question.

Look, you and Finger-boy are continuing this for no other purpose than to argue. Redfish, who floated the absurdity that Corvair "copied" VW, has finally given up his absurdity in the face of logic. Which means, ironically, that Finger Boy won that argument, yet continues to argue with the guy who handed him victory.

Some people. SMH.

I did not "give up". I defeated your arguments and stepped aside. When GM came up with the Corvair they were clearly trying to copy the successful rear engine, air cooled design of the VW. NO, corvairs did not look like VWs. No one ever said that they did. But the mechanical design was basically the same. An air cooled, rear mounted, opposed 4 cylinder engine with rear wheel drive and a gas tank in the front.

The rest of your rant, is basically bullshit. Air cooled engines work fine in lawn mowers, motorcycles, and some small airplanes. Beyond that liquid cooling is far superior in every way.

No dood, you never MADE an argument in the first place. The fact that one more air-cooled rear-engined car comes out after decades of others doesn't mean you can pick one at random -- and not even the original, nor most recent -- and declare it a "copy".

Nobody in 1960 thought, "wow, I was thinking of getting a VW but now here's the Corvair". Nobody made that silly comparison in 1960 and nobody made it now except you, and you can't support it. If Corvair "copied" anybody it copied the Falcons and Valiants and Comets and Lancers who all came out at the same time to copy the American and the Lark. Corvair no more "copied" the rear engine design from VW than Lancer "copied" the front engine design from the Rambler American. Same body of evidence. Correlation is not causation.

The Corvairs and Comets and Valiants were if anything copying the successes of Rambler's American and Studebaker's Lark which were already holding their own in what was then a "small" car market -- and by "small" we truly mean not "small" but "not as grotesquely ginormous" by comparison. Those previous cars may have "copied" the idea of "smaller is better" to find a market niche, but they didn't copy it from Volkswagen --- VW was simply a practical European car, which were already selling in Europe and to some extent here -- I can remember Simca, Renault, Morris, Hillman and a few others around at the time as imports; they had their audience.

VW didn't invent that idea; it was simply the European approach (and most of the world's approach-- WE were the odd one out with our huge barges). It simply made sense especially in postwar-ravaged Europe to make a car small, practical and economical. You can't just declare by fiat (hee hee, I kill me) that "C is a 'copy' of V" just because V is a popular icon or the most successful at it based on what the engine design was. Nor did Corvair ever market it that way.

my only response to you is:------------------------------YOU ARE AN IDIOT. nothing in your last post is true.

what is true, and I was very involved in cars at that time, is that GM was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the VW by making a car that had the same basic characteristics. They failed. End of story.

So was I, and that's why I engaged on this. What you're proposing here is revisionist bullshit with no basis. Nobody -- not GM, not Corvair, not the buying public -- conflated the Corvair with the VW. Ever.

you are assuming that I am calling it a "carbon copy". Thats not what it was, it was a US made car with the same basic characteristics as the VW. Rear air cooled 4 cylinder opposed engine, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. NO, they did not look alike, but mechanically they were very similar.

Are you trying to say that GM would have created the Corvair if VW never existed? Thats really a strech.

GM wouldn't have created the Corvair if the concept of a saleable small(er) car hadn't existed.
---but that doesn't mean it was "copying" VW. If that's the case, what was Valiant copying? What were the Comet and the Foul-Coon and the F-85 and the Lancer "copying"? What were the Americans and Larks "copying"? What was the Nash Metropolitan a "copy" of.

There was a cool car. My aunt had one.

Go ahead, find me an ad from 1960 exhorting people to buy a Corvair because it's an American VW.

 

[Pogo]

Corvair magazine ad, 1959 (for upcoming 1960 model):

​

Lots of reference to the engine, the flat floor, fuel economy, and splashed all over with the then-new term "compact car", even juxtaposed with room for "6 passengers" (people were smaller then) -- implying it's put back there to save room. Not a word about Beetles, Germans, VWs, in fact describing the engine as if it's an entirely new concept and not a rehash of something the public already knows.

This is making the statement, "everybody's coming out with 'compact cars' but ours is different".

 

[Redfish]

I did not "give up". I defeated your arguments and stepped aside. When GM came up with the Corvair they were clearly trying to copy the successful rear engine, air cooled design of the VW. NO, corvairs did not look like VWs. No one ever said that they did. But the mechanical design was basically the same. An air cooled, rear mounted, opposed 4 cylinder engine with rear wheel drive and a gas tank in the front.

The rest of your rant, is basically bullshit. Air cooled engines work fine in lawn mowers, motorcycles, and some small airplanes. Beyond that liquid cooling is far superior in every way.

No dood, you never MADE an argument in the first place. The fact that one more air-cooled rear-engined car comes out after decades of others doesn't mean you can pick one at random -- and not even the original, nor most recent -- and declare it a "copy".

Nobody in 1960 thought, "wow, I was thinking of getting a VW but now here's the Corvair". Nobody made that silly comparison in 1960 and nobody made it now except you, and you can't support it. If Corvair "copied" anybody it copied the Falcons and Valiants and Comets and Lancers who all came out at the same time to copy the American and the Lark. Corvair no more "copied" the rear engine design from VW than Lancer "copied" the front engine design from the Rambler American. Same body of evidence. Correlation is not causation.

The Corvairs and Comets and Valiants were if anything copying the successes of Rambler's American and Studebaker's Lark which were already holding their own in what was then a "small" car market -- and by "small" we truly mean not "small" but "not as grotesquely ginormous" by comparison. Those previous cars may have "copied" the idea of "smaller is better" to find a market niche, but they didn't copy it from Volkswagen --- VW was simply a practical European car, which were already selling in Europe and to some extent here -- I can remember Simca, Renault, Morris, Hillman and a few others around at the time as imports; they had their audience.

VW didn't invent that idea; it was simply the European approach (and most of the world's approach-- WE were the odd one out with our huge barges). It simply made sense especially in postwar-ravaged Europe to make a car small, practical and economical. You can't just declare by fiat (hee hee, I kill me) that "C is a 'copy' of V" just because V is a popular icon or the most successful at it based on what the engine design was. Nor did Corvair ever market it that way.

my only response to you is:------------------------------YOU ARE AN IDIOT. nothing in your last post is true.

what is true, and I was very involved in cars at that time, is that GM was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the VW by making a car that had the same basic characteristics. They failed. End of story.

So was I, and that's why I engaged on this. What you're proposing here is revisionist bullshit with no basis. Nobody -- not GM, not Corvair, not the buying public -- conflated the Corvair with the VW. Ever.

you are assuming that I am calling it a "carbon copy". Thats not what it was, it was a US made car with the same basic characteristics as the VW. Rear air cooled 4 cylinder opposed engine, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. NO, they did not look alike, but mechanically they were very similar.

Are you trying to say that GM would have created the Corvair if VW never existed? Thats really a strech.

GM wouldn't have created the Corvair if the concept of a saleable small(er) car hadn't existed.
---but that doesn't mean it was "copying" VW. If that's the case, what was Valiant copying? What were the Comet and the Foul-Coon and the F-85 and the Lancer "copying"? What were the Americans and Larks "copying"? What was the Nash Metropolitan a "copy" of.

There was a cool car. My aunt had one.

Go ahead, find me an ad from 1960 exhorting people to buy a Corvair because it's an American VW.

of course they did not say that in the ads. Why would they?

The others you listed were GM, Ford, and Chrysler's attempt to make small cars. Oh, and where did they get the idea that americans would be interested in small cars? Now, think, really carefully. Where were small cars mass produced first? Can you say Opel, Fiat, Citroen, MG, Austin Healy, English ford, toyota, datsun, honda?.

When those small european and Japanese cars began to sell in the US, the US car industry decided it needed to compete for that market.

This is not rocket science, its history.

 

[Pogo]

No dood, you never MADE an argument in the first place. The fact that one more air-cooled rear-engined car comes out after decades of others doesn't mean you can pick one at random -- and not even the original, nor most recent -- and declare it a "copy".

Nobody in 1960 thought, "wow, I was thinking of getting a VW but now here's the Corvair". Nobody made that silly comparison in 1960 and nobody made it now except you, and you can't support it. If Corvair "copied" anybody it copied the Falcons and Valiants and Comets and Lancers who all came out at the same time to copy the American and the Lark. Corvair no more "copied" the rear engine design from VW than Lancer "copied" the front engine design from the Rambler American. Same body of evidence. Correlation is not causation.

The Corvairs and Comets and Valiants were if anything copying the successes of Rambler's American and Studebaker's Lark which were already holding their own in what was then a "small" car market -- and by "small" we truly mean not "small" but "not as grotesquely ginormous" by comparison. Those previous cars may have "copied" the idea of "smaller is better" to find a market niche, but they didn't copy it from Volkswagen --- VW was simply a practical European car, which were already selling in Europe and to some extent here -- I can remember Simca, Renault, Morris, Hillman and a few others around at the time as imports; they had their audience.

VW didn't invent that idea; it was simply the European approach (and most of the world's approach-- WE were the odd one out with our huge barges). It simply made sense especially in postwar-ravaged Europe to make a car small, practical and economical. You can't just declare by fiat (hee hee, I kill me) that "C is a 'copy' of V" just because V is a popular icon or the most successful at it based on what the engine design was. Nor did Corvair ever market it that way.

my only response to you is:------------------------------YOU ARE AN IDIOT. nothing in your last post is true.

what is true, and I was very involved in cars at that time, is that GM was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the VW by making a car that had the same basic characteristics. They failed. End of story.

So was I, and that's why I engaged on this. What you're proposing here is revisionist bullshit with no basis. Nobody -- not GM, not Corvair, not the buying public -- conflated the Corvair with the VW. Ever.

you are assuming that I am calling it a "carbon copy". Thats not what it was, it was a US made car with the same basic characteristics as the VW. Rear air cooled 4 cylinder opposed engine, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. NO, they did not look alike, but mechanically they were very similar.

Are you trying to say that GM would have created the Corvair if VW never existed? Thats really a strech.

GM wouldn't have created the Corvair if the concept of a saleable small(er) car hadn't existed.
---but that doesn't mean it was "copying" VW. If that's the case, what was Valiant copying? What were the Comet and the Foul-Coon and the F-85 and the Lancer "copying"? What were the Americans and Larks "copying"? What was the Nash Metropolitan a "copy" of.

There was a cool car. My aunt had one.

Go ahead, find me an ad from 1960 exhorting people to buy a Corvair because it's an American VW.

of course they did not say that in the ads. Why would they?

The others you listed were GM, Ford, and Chrysler's attempt to make small cars. Oh, and where did they get the idea that americans would be interested in small cars? Now, think, really carefully. Where were small cars mass produced first? Can you say Opel, Fiat, Citroen, MG, Austin Healy, English ford, toyota, datsun, honda?.

When those small european and Japanese cars began to sell in the US, the US car industry decided it needed to compete for that market.

This is not rocket science, its history.

That's what I've been saying the whole time, dood.
So why did you keep singling out VW?

 

[Redfish]

my only response to you is:------------------------------YOU ARE AN IDIOT. nothing in your last post is true.

what is true, and I was very involved in cars at that time, is that GM was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the VW by making a car that had the same basic characteristics. They failed. End of story.

So was I, and that's why I engaged on this. What you're proposing here is revisionist bullshit with no basis. Nobody -- not GM, not Corvair, not the buying public -- conflated the Corvair with the VW. Ever.

you are assuming that I am calling it a "carbon copy". Thats not what it was, it was a US made car with the same basic characteristics as the VW. Rear air cooled 4 cylinder opposed engine, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. NO, they did not look alike, but mechanically they were very similar.

Are you trying to say that GM would have created the Corvair if VW never existed? Thats really a strech.

GM wouldn't have created the Corvair if the concept of a saleable small(er) car hadn't existed.
---but that doesn't mean it was "copying" VW. If that's the case, what was Valiant copying? What were the Comet and the Foul-Coon and the F-85 and the Lancer "copying"? What were the Americans and Larks "copying"? What was the Nash Metropolitan a "copy" of.

There was a cool car. My aunt had one.

Go ahead, find me an ad from 1960 exhorting people to buy a Corvair because it's an American VW.

of course they did not say that in the ads. Why would they?

The others you listed were GM, Ford, and Chrysler's attempt to make small cars. Oh, and where did they get the idea that americans would be interested in small cars? Now, think, really carefully. Where were small cars mass produced first? Can you say Opel, Fiat, Citroen, MG, Austin Healy, English ford, toyota, datsun, honda?.

When those small european and Japanese cars began to sell in the US, the US car industry decided it needed to compete for that market.

This is not rocket science, its history.

That's what I've been saying the whole time, dood.
So why did you keep singling out VW?

because the corvair was more like the VW than any other european or japanese car. Duh------------

 

[Pogo]

So was I, and that's why I engaged on this. What you're proposing here is revisionist bullshit with no basis. Nobody -- not GM, not Corvair, not the buying public -- conflated the Corvair with the VW. Ever.

you are assuming that I am calling it a "carbon copy". Thats not what it was, it was a US made car with the same basic characteristics as the VW. Rear air cooled 4 cylinder opposed engine, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. NO, they did not look alike, but mechanically they were very similar.

Are you trying to say that GM would have created the Corvair if VW never existed? Thats really a strech.

GM wouldn't have created the Corvair if the concept of a saleable small(er) car hadn't existed.
---but that doesn't mean it was "copying" VW. If that's the case, what was Valiant copying? What were the Comet and the Foul-Coon and the F-85 and the Lancer "copying"? What were the Americans and Larks "copying"? What was the Nash Metropolitan a "copy" of.

There was a cool car. My aunt had one.

Go ahead, find me an ad from 1960 exhorting people to buy a Corvair because it's an American VW.

of course they did not say that in the ads. Why would they?

The others you listed were GM, Ford, and Chrysler's attempt to make small cars. Oh, and where did they get the idea that americans would be interested in small cars? Now, think, really carefully. Where were small cars mass produced first? Can you say Opel, Fiat, Citroen, MG, Austin Healy, English ford, toyota, datsun, honda?.

When those small european and Japanese cars began to sell in the US, the US car industry decided it needed to compete for that market.

This is not rocket science, its history.

That's what I've been saying the whole time, dood.
So why did you keep singling out VW?

because the corvair was more like the VW than any other european or japanese car. Duh------------

Bolshoi. It was a lot more like a Valiant than it was like a Minx.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that where you stick the engine makes it a whole different animal.

 

[Redfish]

you are assuming that I am calling it a "carbon copy". Thats not what it was, it was a US made car with the same basic characteristics as the VW. Rear air cooled 4 cylinder opposed engine, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. NO, they did not look alike, but mechanically they were very similar.

Are you trying to say that GM would have created the Corvair if VW never existed? Thats really a strech.

GM wouldn't have created the Corvair if the concept of a saleable small(er) car hadn't existed.
---but that doesn't mean it was "copying" VW. If that's the case, what was Valiant copying? What were the Comet and the Foul-Coon and the F-85 and the Lancer "copying"? What were the Americans and Larks "copying"? What was the Nash Metropolitan a "copy" of.

There was a cool car. My aunt had one.

Go ahead, find me an ad from 1960 exhorting people to buy a Corvair because it's an American VW.

of course they did not say that in the ads. Why would they?

The others you listed were GM, Ford, and Chrysler's attempt to make small cars. Oh, and where did they get the idea that americans would be interested in small cars? Now, think, really carefully. Where were small cars mass produced first? Can you say Opel, Fiat, Citroen, MG, Austin Healy, English ford, toyota, datsun, honda?.

When those small european and Japanese cars began to sell in the US, the US car industry decided it needed to compete for that market.

This is not rocket science, its history.

That's what I've been saying the whole time, dood.
So why did you keep singling out VW?

because the corvair was more like the VW than any other european or japanese car. Duh------------

Bolshoi. It was a lot more like a Valiant than it was like a Minx.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that where you stick the engine makes it a whole different animal.

Are you stuck on stupid? Air cooled, rear engine, opposed 4 cylinder, rear wheel drive, gas tank in front. Which other small american car had those characteristics? which other european or japanese car had those characteristics? NONE. Only the VW and the Corvair, and the VW came first.

Damn, man, take your meds you are really losing it.

 

[Pogo]

 

[Redfish]

yeah, dig your hole and jump in. or hop in on your pogo stick,