"Noddy" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47e7c5c0$0$74068$c30e37c6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Daryl Walford" <dwalford@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:13ueuvkf3k1d6be@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> I considered buying one but after his comment I changed my mind.
>> A well set up dedicated gas Falcon could have been a huge seller so its
>> got me stuffed why Ford did such a half arsed job on it.
>
> They were worried about engine failures.
>
> They had a few damaged engines during initial testing where the engines
> backfired and bent a few rods (they must be ****ing pissweak rods if a
gas
> backfire will bend one, but anyway :), but they wanted to get a
dedicated
> gas vehicle onto the market. As much as they liked to brag about "not
> making taxi's anymore" when the BA was first released, they still make a
> taxi pack model available under the counter.
>
> Problem was they spent all of 28 bucks on the gas equipment, and it's
> rank.
>
> To get the things to run *reasonably* reliably they have to set it as
> conservative as buggery, and as a result the engine's power output takes
a
> *massive* hit. They put a green rocker cover on the Egas engine to make
it
> look pretty, but the only difference between it and the regular petrol
> engine is that it uses the slightly stronger XR-6 connecting rods to try
> to avoid damage if a backfire occurs.
>
> They *could* have built a nice engine with characteristics to suit the
gas
> perfectly, but they didn't, and the result is an under-performing car
that
> isn't all that popular.
Noddy, I am confused. Without igniting your normal verbal abuse back at
me,
can you explain something to me? If the other dudes on your side in this
discussion are mechanics, whilst you on the other hand are retired for
some
years now, how do you know what you say is true? Why do you have to
explain
to them what the problem is? (taking into account if they are fully
qualified mechanics, shouldn't they know this?).
Roger
|
