> Yeah, I agree. I'm amazed at the fuel consumption levels a modern
> computer-controlled ignition system and fuel injection system can deliver.

Me too - my car has 180 BHP, yet when I drive carefully my record is 960 km 
on a single 50 litre tank!  To me that is just amazing, a car I had that was 
20 years older had only 60 BHP and could do only 400 km on a tank (probably 
a bit smaller tank as well though).

> I vividly remember vacations as a child, when we went down to the coast 
> and
> my dad had to manually adjust timing on the old Ford we had once we were 
> at
> sea level to prevent "pinging" when accelerating. And the joys of Saturday
> afternoon carburettor cleaning, blowing out a jet (NEVER use a wire to
> clean a jet!) etc. etc.

I think the biggest improvement is that today, even if you haven't used your 
car for 2 weeks and it's -15 degrees outside, you can turn the key and the 
engine will fire up perfectly within a second and then idle smoothly.  My 
dad had a car (actually he still has it) that has no choke at all, not even 
a manual one, starting that is a PITA unless you are very good friends with 
the accelerator pedal - and it won't idle at all until warmed up fully, so 
you need some tricks with your feet when in traffic to stop it stalling!

> I wonder... I'm guessing that the RAF radar was a bit more powerful than
> you'd get a hand-held "speedcam" like unit to be.

I wonder how long the "pulse" of radar would need to be - the engine could 
charge up a big capacitor to discharge in a roof mounted dish - hmm maybe 
not that sounds a bit too much James Bond :-)

Post a reply to this message