I need help i have a 1979 Mazda Rx7 and when it runs it has smoke coming out of exhaust, so i'm thinking it could be oil leaking onto the exhaust manifold. But the Rx7 has a rotary engine so it doesn't have a head gasket so what would I replace? I know some people have said that it would have to be the apex seal but i'm not sure
If it's really leaking like a head gasket you might need to get the main triangle spinny piston thing replaced. They tend to get worn down and rub the edges off on the block, leading to issues.
WTF france ? This fucking government start to piss me off, 2 month ago the same version was only cost 30 000€ with their fucking pollution stuff the car cost 10 k more than before. This was the Only real SUV you could get for a descent price in France. We gonna buy our fucking cars in USA if it's keep on going. Look, the same Jeep in better cost 10 fucking thousand less than in France I mean, we would pay the fucking Chevrolet camaro 40 000 € 40 000 FUCKING EUROS. In USA the same car cost 27 000 $ THIS IS THE FUCKING SAME CAR
2 factors to consider. The US price is before taxes. The french price also reflects increased costs in importing the vehicle.
Also don't forget that the US muscle car market is far more competitive and that dealers can get discounts when buying cars in bulk.
You're not gonna say to me the US people pay 20 000 $ of taxes ? More seriously, in all case, if we would import cars from the US, we would payed taxs... In big city you have to put this on your cars : In big If you have the last colors, you can't drive in city. By example I can't drive my VW golf II in most city because it's an old diesel... But not because she reject to much CO2, no, because she is old (Logic uh ?) Now if we buy a car/ imported it, we would need to pay a tax in fonction of this : ("Taux" means rate) If you have a car which rejects more than they want, you can pay up to 6000 € It's why the Wrangler cost now so much. Don't think it's for help the environment, it's just for get more money...
The reason for that is because Paris has been having smog issues recently. This is because levels of small particulates in the air are often above dangerous levels. Diesel engines emit a lot of pollution compared to Petrol cars, this is because Petrol is a more refined fuel than Diesel. A large quantity of the smog is caused by the particulates emitted by Diesel engines, as well as older cars that were highly polluting when and/or are highly polluting now. By preventing these vehicles from driving within the city it is hoped that smog levels will be reduced. Equally reducing emissions on a country wide basis is also no bad thing either. I vaguely remember some stuff about people who live in areas with such pollution are far more likely to develop asthma amongst other issues but I haven't been keeping up to date on that sort of stuff, so that correlation may or may not have been disproved. I have no idea. It is highly likely they will be making money from this, but it's your government so supposedly the money will be spent on you anyway. Whether it is in a way you approve of is another matter though by the looks of things.
Diesels for short trips in which the engine doesnt get up to temperature and the particulate filter doesnt function effectively are incredibly dirty. EU emissions tests are on a warm engine which somewhat distorts the performance a diesel gets in city driving.
I know, I know, But what I also know is before they put catalytic converter on cars, the carbon particulats was bigger, and not dangerous for the human, now, because they are smaller, you can inhale it ... Also, in France, they like say that the diesel polluted when they are more sell than Petrol one, and strangly, when this is the Petrol cars which is more sell than the Diesel one they find something which is polluted in the Petrol cars. Strange uh ? Yeah the Diesel cars polluted, yeah the petrol cars pollutted. What they want is people get electric cars, sure, but when the not-recyclable batterys of them would be every where, what they gonna do ?
Diesel cars emit far more particulates than Petrol ones. This isn't on a whole population basis, if you get 1 equivalent Petrol engine and 1 Diesel one the diesel one will emit more of these particulates. However it is quite funny that the French government was heavily subsidising diesel cars not all that long ago (hence why they became popular) and now they are having to try and get people to move back over to Petrol again. Also, currently Tesla states:
In hindsight it is stupid, yes. But on the other hand they didn't really know any better back then due to lack of good research. Hence what they were doing made sense at the time. Progress tends to be 2 steps forward 1 step back a lot of the time. But its still progress at the end of the day. Just as an aside, this guy was a total legend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. He was essentially a walking environmental disaster, since he played a major part in the creation of Leaded Gas and CFC's. 'Murica
I've been driving the 07 to school this week. I don't like not having a dashcam. It's not really a protection or proof in an accident thing, it's more of a not being able to rewatch and dissect interesting things that happen thing. Like this morning I accidentally pulled out in front of someone cause they blended right in with the ridiculous amount of dew on my passenger's side window. In hindsight I should have cleaned the window off, but I'd still like to see the video of it. Helps me learn from my mistakes I guess.
This is why smaller government is a good thing. We don't know everything. We don't even know what we don't know. Think of all the foods and drinks that have been alternately declared "good for you" and then "bad for you", sometimes multiple times each. The government trying to step in and steer markets and preferences through subsidies, punitive taxes, heavy-handed regulations, etc. are as likely to make things worse as they are to make things better. Think of the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy laws that were passed over here after OPEC threw a hissy fit. If Bob Lutz is to be believed, CAFE led almost directly to the shockingly poor quality, performance, and reliability of American cars during the late 1970s and 1980s. What happened was, the sudden legally-mandated influence on fuel economy forced the manufacturers to reengineer and rebuild their entire lineups, on rather short notice, around smaller sizes and transverse-FWD layouts. The problem here was, while they were struggling to explore this new territory, some of their best engineers were running for the exits, taking their knowledge and experience with them. Lutz's preferred "solution", levying extortionate gas taxes to raise pump prices and thus encourage people to drive wimpier cars, wouldn't have been much better; not only would it have clobbered everyone (especially owners of older, pre-CAFE cars, but the damage wouldn't have been limited to them by any means) at the pump and possibly caused an even worse automotive wimpification that CAFE did, it would have caused the prices of consumer goods to go flying into the stratosphere as well, probably never to return. It would have been worse than CAFE and probably any other solution imaginable short of banning cars.
Tesla has decided that the P90d isn't powerful enough. https://www.tesla.com/blog/new-tesla-model-s-now-quickest-production-car-world Model S P100d does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds.
I would rather the government step in to steer things rather than having nothing happen because people keep drinking up the marketing. I don't think smaller governments would be of benefit, rather more transparent governments that can be held accountable for being bribed. Although the US system is essentially built around bribing anyway. But I think fixing that would solve a lot of issues. Since the US government seems to primarily serve big business rather than the public because big business pays better bribes. Not everyone needs a 5l v8. You can blame the government all you like for how crap US cars were at the time, but the rest of the world seemed to manage without cars anywhere near as awful as some of the US ones of that period. Which may even suggest that the US government was too slow to enact the efficiency laws allowing the rest of the world to get ahead, then the US manufacturers could never catch up (until they were bought by fiat [and others]). I also doubt that engineering teams were running for the exits. As for the last paragraph, I think it would have resulted in people using their cars less and using other transport options more. Perhaps leading to a better public transport system at more reasonable prices (due to high utilization).
My current car if anyone is interested, Brought for $3,000 rebuilt the top end on the motor $-1500 insured for market value of $12,000
All you've managed to do here is hit on the other good reason to strictly limit the powers of a central government. One size absolutely does not fit all. Public transit, electric cars, gutless <2L I4s, etc. can work just fine in large cities, but out there in those big wide open spaces between cities, the spaces that the liberals mock as "flyover country" or don't realize exist (hence all the angst about urban sprawl), it doesn't work so much. I'm a bit close to this, as I usually have less than $300 of disposable income at any given moment and Alaska has a lot of those wide open spaces. Yeah, biking to work every day when work is about 10 miles away and the temperatures can be anywhere from well below freezing to unbearably hot depending on the season sure sounds like fun - not! Electric cars, meanwhile, are right out because of the massive distance between population centers. A Tesla might be able to get from Anchorage to Glennallen on a full charge during the summer, but then you'll be stuck in that nowhereville overnight and it'll probably be another full charge to get to Fairbanks if you make it at all. Now the smaller and less-powerful cars of Europe which were the original subject of discussion don't necessarily have these kinds of problems, but there I just have to come right out and ask it: on what grounds would you condemn those of lesser means to such a bleak automotive fate? What makes you conflate "don't need" with "shouldn't have"? And who do you think should decide who "needs" a bigger engine? To say that the running costs of more powerful cars should be artificially jacked up to reduce demand for them, in the process putting them completely out of reach for the lower classes, indicates far too much trust for one's supposed betters.
