Allpar Forums banner

241 - 260 of 366 Posts

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,570 Posts
That news really doesn't surprise me. It seems that the majority (or at least many) who undergo the procedure end up with results that...over the long run...are less than satisfying.

I knew someone years ago who had the procedure and proceeded to lose about 100 pounds...only to...over the course of time...to slowly see ALL the weight come back, PLUS even more besides. Not only that, but now he has to take a multitude of mineral / vitamin supplements daily to help replace what his body now has difficulty processing / absorbing.

Not long ago, I considered the option of a gastric procedure myself, but made a mental checklist of the positives and negatives, and quickly decided [email protected]%+# NO!
There’s apparently a variety of different procedures with varying degrees of success. I guess if your life depends on it, then it’s worth a shot.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,238 Posts
That's why I didn't get the Aero...turbos are notoriously finicky. I got the Dart GT...it came fully loaded. The only 2 issues that I have had with the car was the trunk randomly popping open when I first bought it, and suspension and tire issues due to our great American road and highway infrastructure.
Haven't had the oil burning issues that other Tigershark 2.4 owners have had.
The only issue with the Dart that for myself I can see is that it is underpowered. The GT gear ratio gets it going quick but on the highway you have to literally floor the 2.4 to get it going.
I don't drive slow, mind you. LOL
That sounds to me as though they did not tune the computer properly, assuming you have an automatic. If it's a manual, downshift ;)

As for turbos being finicky, this was not true with the 2.2/2.5 engines... but yeah, on the 1.4 you're right. Also synthetic oil and premium gas. If you go below premium bad things happen, consistently. I've tried midgrade a few times and every time I do it, without fail, I get a “turbo failure” light and the cruise deactivates until I run it to empty and refill with premium.

That news really doesn't surprise me. It seems that the majority (or at least many) who undergo the procedure end up with results that...over the long run...are less than satisfying.
If diet and exercise are impractical or do not help, gastric surgery does work, keeping it off is indeed the issue. It does work for some but you need discipline and you need to follow the directions exactly. It's a last resort.
(I have not done it. I did something similar, that starts with the letter C, though.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,372 Posts
As for turbos being finicky, this was not true with the 2.2/2.5 engines... but yeah, on the 1.4 you're right. Also synthetic oil and premium gas. If you go below premium bad things happen, consistently. I've tried midgrade a few times and every time I do it, without fail, I get a “turbo failure” light and the cruise deactivates until I run it to empty and refill with premium.
Yes...But as I remember, the turbochargers on those engines had relatively little boost compared to many of today's turbochargers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
LMAO at the ("on-")topicality of the last few posts... Just make sure you don't start talking about Chris' role in the regulation process, taxation of the people, or anything else that might actually affect car design or car ownership - that'd cross a line!

A full-size van-like vehicle would make sense in the market, IMO. Promaster isn't a consideration for anyone other than a fleet buyer. I can't believe it has taken so long to make Grand Wagoneer happen and I think they missed the mark with it. It's far too out of reach for most people. Ram needs a more economical version of that ASAP. Something that can both undercut and outperform Suburban. If they could combine a Ram 1500 and a Pacifica, with the sliding doors and a flat floor between the wheel wells, they'd have a HUGE winner on their hands. A BOF Minivan. I guess they could go with a unibody like the older Ram Van as long as it was more truck-like, AWD/4WD was available, and it offered truck-like capability. Of course they'd probably screw it up by putting way too much "luxury" content in it, so maybe it's for the best...

I'm over this trend of thinking that more computers and more gizmos is luxurious. It's not. And it get old & outdated REALLY QUICKLY. Modern switchgear, for example, is attrocious.

And I'd like to tape the eyelids of the person who determined the brightness of all the IPs wide open for a few hours at night so that they can understand how OVERLY BRIGHT all those things are. I'll be honest, I'm not sure I'm going to consider a "new" vehicle. I think each one they touch they've made worse. Previous Rams were better than new ones (with maybe the exception of the rear seat in the crew cab) and JGW is just too much and over the top. If that's a sign of the JGC redesign to come, they're gonna mess JGC up too... I grow less and less excited about "the future" every day. I really hope the future designs fix a lot of these annoying issues, but I think the folks in charge of the projects are too concerned with adding more junk than making the stuff they offer work well/like it should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
And I'd like to tape the eyelids of the person who determined the brightness of all the IPs wide open for a few hours at night so that they can understand how OVERLY BRIGHT all those things are.
Newest vehicle is our 2009 Malibu, newest vehicle driven was the 2013 Sonic I had for work. So maybe newer cars have solved the issue below.
I personally hate always lit modern IP's. They have to be turned all the way up to be readable in sunlight but they don't automatically dim when it gets dark.
So I have to adjust it every day for daytime and then nighttime. I much prefer my 2001 Cherokee IP where everything is readable in daytime without being lit and the IP dimmer is always where I left it for night.

And they use so much blue lighting which is the worst color at night. There are studies that show LED street lights that are in the blue spectrum make it hard for drivers to see pedestrians.
So why would any IP or screen have any blue?
I personally find it difficult at night to read lit signs that have blue in them. My eyes test just fine for night vision.
As an anecdote when I was in college I made some colored sleeves to put over the florescent bulbs in my dorm room. Red, Blue, Orange and Green.
I found the pale green light to be very comfortable on my eyes. Reading under the pale blue light gave me headaches.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
36,919 Posts
Interesting as every newer car I’ve driven with the illuminated cluster cuts back brightness whenever the headlights are turned on - unless someone has used the dual to turn the instruments on full brightness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
My vision is better than most, which is the problem. My eyes are more sensitive to lights. I typically run my IP in my 2010 Ram at or very near the lowest settings at night. I also dim my phone to it's nearly darkest setting if using it. This habit, combined with my upgraded forward lighting, gives me improved forward vision at night on dark roads. The only real problem with that is on-coming traffic, poorly designed LED signs, and reflective signs that catch too much from the driving lights (which I can somewhat control) - but those are temporary in most cases and I can momentarily divert my eyes to keep my night vision in-tact.

But in my wife's 2015 Charger??? There's no way. I can't escape the glare of the IP and the 8.4 is even worse - it's about 2 "clicks" (of the dimmer switch) higher all the time at night. It actually obscures my vision of the HVAC controls with its glare. It's so annoying...

Modern cars have more and more and more screens, and it's a terrible trend. I don't care if you make the entire screen "black", it's still brighter than having no screen, and that IS a problem at night...

Ever driven a SAAB? They had one of the best IP features I've ever seen - "Night Panel". All the IP lighting is killed except for that of the speedometer, which itself is dimmed quite a bit. Volvo trucks are now copying this - they call it "Night Mode"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=_Z_gbPNKSQk&feature=emb_title
 

·
Virginia Gentleman
Joined
·
14,671 Posts
I found the pale green light to be very comfortable on my eyes.
Very true. Not many people realize that green is the easiest color on the eyes. I worked in a 24 hour data center for quite a few years. There was a reason nearly all the reports generated were on "greenbar" paper.

For IP's I much prefer the gauges to be backlit with a green background. The '06 Ram 1500 has green lighting as well as the two Journey's (2009 & 2010) we had. If I recall correctly so does our '14 Equinox (I don't drive it much so I am not 100% sure).

I test drove a VW Passat in the early 2000's. The gauges were all backlit in red. I didn't care for it.
 

·
Virginia Gentleman
Joined
·
14,671 Posts
Ever driven a SAAB? They had one of the best IP features I've ever seen - "Night Panel". All the IP lighting is killed except for that of the speedometer, which itself is dimmed quite a bit. Volvo trucks are now copying this - they call it "Night Mode"
Understandable, but I would want the fuel gauge, tachometer and temperature gauge lightly illuminated as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,620 Posts
Why don't they just have an app to display the instrument cluster information on a smartphone? That's what a lot of people look at when they're behind the wheel nowadays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Why don't they just have an app to display the instrument cluster information on a smartphone? That's what a lot of people look at when they're behind the wheel nowadays.
Sadly, this is true. It would also be very helpful for back-seat drivers and helicopter parents. I bet it'd be a hit!

Now if only those folks knew there were rules and regulations against that sort of thing (using the phone while driving)! That would stop them, I'm sure!

Of course, the whole using a phone while driving being illegal thing is growing less and less justifiable everyday...

If you recall, the issues that lead to all the regulations around mobile phone use stemmed from smartphones with touch screens. You could text or dial blindfolded with a phone that had real buttons you could feel. Just like you can type on a keyboard or crunch numbers using 10-key without staring at your fingers... But with a touch screen? You're screwed - you're going to have to look at the screen because there is no other feedback available to you. As automakers move more and more controls to screens rather than buttons and switches, you'll see more accidents related to changing the radio station, adjusting the HVAC, or turning on or off some other feature because you'll have to stare at the screen for several seconds.

The 8.4" UConnect system is considered one of the better and easier to use systems out there, but try going from the Navigation screen to the the HVAC, increase the driver temp 2-degrees, decrease the passenger 1-degree, and then turn on the driver's heated seat to the low setting and time yourself doing it using only the screen. That entire time, you'll be looking at the screen, not the road.

Now do the same thing in a car without the 8.4 but the same features (older Rams, JGCs, L-cars, etc.) - ya know, a car where you'll have buttons and switches. Time yourself again. You'll be faster AND you could make those changes without taking your eyes off the road.

Screens should be just that - screens. Displays; not HMIs... Not in cars at least. If using your phone is dangerous and something that needs to be regulated and outlawed, then you cannot justify having the exact same system in place in the dash of the car. Either both should be deregulated or both should be outlawed. They are completely identical.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
36,919 Posts
There are also over rides in the display settings if the radio is too bright or too dark (compared to the dash lights) for anyone’s “above average” vision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
LMAO at the ("on-")topicality of the last few posts... Just make sure you don't start talking about Chris' role in the regulation process, taxation of the people, or anything else that might actually affect car design or car ownership - that'd cross a line!

A full-size van-like vehicle would make sense in the market, IMO. Promaster isn't a consideration for anyone other than a fleet buyer. I can't believe it has taken so long to make Grand Wagoneer happen and I think they missed the mark with it. It's far too out of reach for most people. Ram needs a more economical version of that ASAP. Something that can both undercut and outperform Suburban. If they could combine a Ram 1500 and a Pacifica, with the sliding doors and a flat floor between the wheel wells, they'd have a HUGE winner on their hands. A BOF Minivan. I guess they could go with a unibody like the older Ram Van as long as it was more truck-like, AWD/4WD was available, and it offered truck-like capability. Of course they'd probably screw it up by putting way too much "luxury" content in it, so maybe it's for the best...

I'm over this trend of thinking that more computers and more gizmos is luxurious. It's not. And it get old & outdated REALLY QUICKLY. Modern switchgear, for example, is attrocious.

And I'd like to tape the eyelids of the person who determined the brightness of all the IPs wide open for a few hours at night so that they can understand how OVERLY BRIGHT all those things are. I'll be honest, I'm not sure I'm going to consider a "new" vehicle. I think each one they touch they've made worse. Previous Rams were better than new ones (with maybe the exception of the rear seat in the crew cab) and JGW is just too much and over the top. If that's a sign of the JGC redesign to come, they're gonna mess JGC up too... I grow less and less excited about "the future" every day. I really hope the future designs fix a lot of these annoying issues, but I think the folks in charge of the projects are too concerned with adding more junk than making the stuff they offer work well/like it should.

Quality dropped for the entire industry around 2000ish.

My favourite, least problematic cars were all mid or late 90s cars.

I really miss simple cars. It's gonna cheap used econo boxes (corollas or civics) for my daily from here on out. Got my 440 to build for the pleasure side of cars.

I don't care what anyone makes any more. It's all crap that will be irrepairable for the average guy before it's even paid off.

My money won't be missed though, there are more than enough non-car people out there with lots of money the public doesn't even appear to want good vehicles, manufacturers have zero incentive to make a quality product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
Interesting as every newer car I’ve driven with the illuminated cluster cuts back brightness whenever the headlights are turned on - unless someone has used the dual to turn the instruments on full brightness.
At least on the two Chevy vehicles I mention if you dim the IP for nighttime then during the day with the auto headlights you can't really read things like the radio display, etc. You either have to turn the auto headlights off (no DRL's) or turn the IP dimmer up.

I absolutely hate it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Nah, here's where you see the real answer: No new cars. At least not for us pawns... This is first major step toward regulating the average human out of automobile ownership and loss of their freedom and mobility.

California moves to end sales of new gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035 (at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/23/california-moves-to-end-sales-of-new-gas-powered-cars-and-trucks-by-2035.html )
Can you explain further? I'm not following your line of reasoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Can you explain further? I'm not following your line of reasoning.
The costs and effectiveness of purely electrical vehicles is not and will never match that of ICE-powered vehicles. Furthermore, the cost of EVs and EV ownership is significant. (Don't talk to me about saving a few bucks on your oil changes when you have to spend thousands of dollars up front to have a charger added to your house/garage just to use the thing regularly.) EVs are, and will continue to be, status symbols and virtuous signals for their owners to the rest of the world. The average person will not have one, because the costs for owning one that is practical/useful to that average person will be ASTRONOMICAL. You're not going to replace the family SUV that can run all the kids to their various schools and events and such without SIGNIFICANT COST due to the combination of inherently poor range and large vehicle size. The only way to combat this with a pure EV will be to add MORE BATTERIES which are a huge cost driver... As the cost will be so high to begin with, these models will only be "luxury" versions. Note the current trend even with ICE cars - if a car has expensive technology in it in one area and it moves out of the mainstream market, it get's stuffed with even more tech and "features" that have better margins and help "justify" the higher prices and better appeal to the people who can afford to buy them (See Hellcats, Trackhawk, TRX, Viper, Raptor, Corvette, etc...).

Looks, here's the deal - I'll cut to the chase - there is a SIGNIFICANT portion of the population that doesn't think you or need to be able to move around freely. We are much harder to control and manipulate that way. A hugely significant way in which our freedom of movement is ensured is via the private ownership of an automobile and the readily-available means of operating it. These people know that they CANNOT simply come out and say that you can't own a vehicle, that you aren't free to move around and seek out a better way for yourself and your family, and that you owe it to society to stay put and produce & consume as you are told... Because they cannot do this blatantly, they must do it in other ways. The simplest way is to simply tax and/or raise the costs associated with vehicle ownership. You will be allowed to own a car as long as you can afford it; but you won't be able to afford it. The costs will continue to cascade. I wouldn't be surprised to see California soon tax (or deny) the entrance of non-California-registered (or "compliant") vehicles (THEY ALREADY DO THIS SORT OF THING FOR SEMI TRUCKS!), which will prevent people from registering in other states to avoid their mandates. I wouldn't be surprised to see the gas taxes raised SIGNIFICANTLY, especially once they have data to point to showing a decline in revenue from the loss of fuel consumption via the switch to EVs... I wouldn't be surprised to see an EV-related electrical grid/service tax/fee to pay for improvements to the electrical grid as more and more people demand greater levels of electricity and reliable sources of power generation are taken off-line...

Perhaps you are not aware of the precedent for just such a thing? This isn't some grand conspiracy theory or some phony "what-if" scenario... This has been done before. It's being advocated for right now by a major political group - they are TELLING YOU THEIR PLAY because they know you can't/won't stop it; you don't have the stomach for it. Consider, for an example, the drinking age in the US.

Prior to the passing of the "National Minimum Drinking Age Act", states were free to set their own minimum legal drinking ages without outside influence. Prior to the passing of the 26th Amendment (which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18), most states set their minimums at 21 to match the voting age. If you're old enough and smart enough to vote and mature enough to vote in an election which will decide the future fate of this country, you're old enough to have a drink; at least that was the common sense approach of the time. When the 26th Amendment passed, most states lowered their drinking ages to 18 - again, matching the voting age... The Fed's didn't like this, but the Fed's don't have the constitutional authority to set a minimum drinking age (because ALL POWERS NOT SPECIFICALLY DECREED AS BELONGING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BELONG TO THE STATES). But the Fed's DO have the power to control the distribution of federal funds! And that's just what they did. They strong-armed the states into following along with their wishes by tying their federal highway funds to the state's minimum drinking age... The federal government extorted the states. California is doing the same thing to its people... There are NUMEROUS other cases of just such extortion; welfare, insurance, health care, education, etc... The government takes/demands more and more from some and gives just enough back to others to keep those that would resist muzzled and defeated while propping up those who would fail and fall by the wayside.

I just hope all the Californian's fleeing their once-great home will consider how and why - and at whom's hands - the state was lead astray and will keep that in mind when they participate in society in their new homes/states...
 

·
Virginia Gentleman
Joined
·
14,671 Posts
ALL POWERS NOT SPECIFICALLY DECREED AS BELONGING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BELONG TO THE STATES
FYI - this is defined in the 10th Amendment (last amendment in the Bill of Rights):

From Wiki:

The Tenth Amendment (1791) was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment states that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles or in subsequent constitutional amendments. Any power not listed is, says the Tenth Amendment, left to the states or the people. While there is no specific list of what these "reserved powers" may be, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations, commerce within a state's own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.[80]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
The costs and effectiveness of purely electrical vehicles is not and will never match that of ICE-powered vehicles. Furthermore, the cost of EVs and EV ownership is significant. (Don't talk to me about saving a few bucks on your oil changes when you have to spend thousands of dollars up front to have a charger added to your house/garage just to use the thing regularly.) EVs are, and will continue to be, status symbols and virtuous signals for their owners to the rest of the world. The average person will not have one, because the costs for owning one that is practical/useful to that average person will be ASTRONOMICAL. You're not going to replace the family SUV that can run all the kids to their various schools and events and such without SIGNIFICANT COST due to the combination of inherently poor range and large vehicle size. The only way to combat this with a pure EV will be to add MORE BATTERIES which are a huge cost driver... As the cost will be so high to begin with, these models will only be "luxury" versions. Note the current trend even with ICE cars - if a car has expensive technology in it in one area and it moves out of the mainstream market, it get's stuffed with even more tech and "features" that have better margins and help "justify" the higher prices and better appeal to the people who can afford to buy them (See Hellcats, Trackhawk, TRX, Viper, Raptor, Corvette, etc...).
I'm going to leave the political piece of your post out, not the right venue for that (even though I do agree with some of it). Your comments on range and battery cost perplex me as you seem to assume those are static and the current conditions will remain as-is even in 2035. Manufacturers are making great strides in battery efficiency, energy density, and lowering battery costs. That's going to continue in the future. I think it's bizarre to make such definitive statements this early in the game. Even now, the average cost of a new car in the U.S. is ~$37k which is right around where the new Volkswagen ID4 starts. We have a long way to go but there's no way innovation is going to stand still in the meantime.

Now, I do think the 2035 date is super aggressive but that's why Cali issued this press release. They want to be seen as a leader. They'll adjust if the affordability factor is not there or the state will fail like so many people seem to want it to. Lastly, it's important to highlight that they're not trying to ban ICE models in 2035, just the sale of new ones.
 
241 - 260 of 366 Posts
Top