Old economy cars Videos

+Byteblock you'll be kind of surprised :D

+Michael Flatman renember back in 83 you still had a good selection of 4 speed cars

+TheCarArchives yeah, but 6 gears is slowly becoming the norm now

+Michael Flatman you still find cars new with a 5-speed :D

+The Star of China "Blue Monday" by New Order.

+TheObso1337 New Order - Blue Monday

+pierrelarouge Especially now, but still it is better than it was.

+ZemplinTemplar Yep Poland is so good that they all moved to the UK....

+M ST My father owned a 1972 BMW Bavaria E3 in 1980-1987 the same that Jacke Kennedy Onasis owned and I come from Communist country and Im middle class. The bias against communism is very strong and the capitalist Zionist will throw all their media and educational systems against communism because it represents an enemy to their Slavery Empires built on the sweat of other people. People need to understand that car culture doesnt exist in communism. They built cars to be more durable and an average communist could give a fuck how much cylinders his car had or did he had heating on the windshield. Also  public transport was cheap as fuck back then so lots of people DIDNT WANT TO OWN CARS. Literally didnt want to go to all that paperwork and chose to spend their money on something else. What was important was if the car can get you from point A to point B. What was more important is that there was no homeless people in communism and everything was cheap as fuck. All those pictures you see about empty shelves was after 1985  when Gorbatchev sold communism for personal gain and his reformes that deliberately destroyed communism. IM not saying that communism is gonnabe better for France or USA-but it was better than Eastern Europe for majority of people than capitalism is today. In capitalism once the people who were middle class now are poor and only few got the benefits of capitalism mainly doing illegal stuf in the 90's  while the rest became poor. 

+Lasse Riise In 1991 Poland already wasn't politically socialist country since 2 years and economically since 3. And yes, even in socialist times, some people could buy car without waiting (including brand new Audis) and not everyone had to be from nomenclature to do this, as there was small capitalist sector of small private companies even back then.

+Lasse Riise 10 yrs waiting? Thats stupid propaganda. You could buy a car whenever you wanted if you had the cash.

+Lasse Riise Most of these sedans visible in the video, which you confuse with Ladas, are in fact Polish made Polski Fiats 125p.

+Marc Law Sad that it's gone now!

Good mileage!

+Doug T Sure, that might happen occasionally but then you report it and order another car. Problem solved.

Because people don't take care of the vehicles they own, why would they take care of one they rent? You will call a car and find some drunk passed out in the backseat covered in vomit. I think it is much more likely instead of everyone in the family having a Chevy, you buy one family Cadillac and it is running around town taking the family wherever it needs to go.

this is not lane splitting retard

+RetSquid In the recorded video? No. ;) Either way, earlier up you had asked someone to cite any law/case etc,. So I figured I would give you a link from a law firm about just this.

+JimmyDB -Didn't you see that deer/child/dog/car....!??!?

+RetSquid Just for fun, here is a bit... https://jimcorleylaw.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/slam-brakes-on-tailgating-criminal-charge-prevent-accident-injury-recovery/

+Lee Darklighter doubtful. i saw a deer. shouldn't have been tailgating me.and no accident would have occurred.

Either way once little Johnny comes into the courtroom with his legs mangled it'd be over for your hypothetical case.

+Lee Darklighter I'm assuming you mean to message me.  Where I'm from this likely wouldnt go to a jury but be heard by a single judge. Depending on the severity it would likely be a provoncial court matter rather than a federal court matter. Also a jury can be exceptionally dumb but it doesn't matter when dealing with burden of proof. 

You guys are over estimating the competence of the jury.

+RetSquid  Agreed. The lawyer wouldnt even have to be good to do that. 

+Hoghs Nope, I'm in the U.S.  No lawyer could prove I didn't see it.  He could just prove some others don't remember seeing it.

+RetSquid I think people underestimate the burden of proof a lot. That was one quick deer! Any good lawyer would eviscerate any "witness" who claims there was no deer and he braked for spite. There would be a million ways to discredit those witnesses. Im assuming you are from Canada to?

+Lee Darklighter I doubt it.  Didn't you see the deer I was breaking to avoid?

+RetSquid Well it may not be your fault that that guy hit you but it would be determined that all the other people that crashed and died as a result of your slamming on brakes would be your fault. You would be sued, tried, convicted  and sentenced on multiple counts of vehicular manslaughter. Serving those sentences consecutively. A few years would pass and maybe you'd come up for parole for good behavior but families would attend the hearing and oppose your release. You'd go back to jail and most likely die there at the tender age (what's the median living age these days?) 81 or so.

In Canada no matter what the reason you should have left space. The guy breaking on purpose if that's the case would receive a ticket for reckless driving but the guy in the back will still 100% be at fault.

It was Cody Smith V. The Garner Law Firm. In Houston tx, back in 2013. Idk where they keep the info but I'm sure you know where to find it with your insistence on citing it. Obviously you've never been the subject of a lawsuit but you try to forget about it asap so excuse me if I don't have all of the details.

How do I cite the case? Please tell me because I would love to prove you wrong I can tell you assume I'm lying and I thinks it's hilarious.

+C Smith Cite the case.

When you goto court your looking for a judgement by a judge, each case is different. If cases were clean cut then we wouldn't have a need for judges, just lawyers. I had to pay $5k for brake checking someone. A cop happened to see it and made a report saying I did it on purpose. I don't care if the law "says" this or that will happen, because I KNOW what happened to me.

+C Smith Go ahead and post the law that supports your claim.  I have never seen anything to suggest that the following vehicle is not at fault.

Well I know from experience, that that is not always the judgement.

+C Smith I think they will dicide like all other accidents, that the person hitting me was following too close to stop in time.

That's not the case. It can be proven that you hit your brakes excessively to purposely cause your vehicles to come into contact, it's called vehicular assault. You'll get slapped with that charge before the insurance companies decide who's fault it is. Then who do you think they'll decide upon?

+John Ryan Lewis Nope, it would be his fault for following too close, the fault is always with the person running into the back of someone.

In that case, technically no. You just admitted it was your fault.

Too bad they don't mention any fuel economy numbers.

Cool cars, cool video, nice time to drive cars

*RESULTS* They did 10 runs down a 1 mile track, 5 dirty 5 clean. The dirty car did worse than the clean car,getting 24mpg. The clean got 26. BUSTED Next they tested if the golf ball effect that the dirt was suppose to have works on a car. they covered a car in clay and smoothed it down so that it was the same shape as the car body. They did the same test as before, 5 runs smooth, and 5 with golfball dimples. Smooth-26mpg, Dimpled-29mpg. So a golfball surface is better than a smooth one =]

u people that believe in these 'gas saver' devices ever heard of hyper miling? im doing that now even though my o2 sensor is bad an i get 18/24 mpg (that about how much the car gets normally) . imagine how much i would get once i fix that thing. how do you get it? 1 seafoam out the car 2 clean the car inside and out 3 use all of the hypermiling tactics possible (i do everything that doesnt require modifications - tire pressure, tun off engine at red light, etc) car: 2001 kia optima se v6

I'm not saying that putting dimples on a race car would be against the rules. I'm just saying that free dragless downforce (from ground effects) is against the rules, and thus the kind of downforce that you can get will come from a trade-off with drag. My point is that putting dimples on a race car will probably lower both drag AND downforce. It may be that the ratio of drag to downforce lost by dimpling is not as good of a tradeoff as engineers can get with other means, like wings.

Your brain needs some work, because I'm not even talking about the dimpled car. I'm comparing the stock, dirty, and clay. Stock 26mpg, dirty, 24mpg, clay 26mpg. So you're saying that extra weight doesn't affect mpg at all? Explain to me how dirt reduces mpg, but clay increases it, allowing you to carry more while consuming the same amount of gas. How can they get an accurate read from only 1 mile of driving? Did they start the car filled to the same level with gas each time?

Ground effect is banned, but chassis texture, as far as I know, isn't even covered in the regulations. It wouldn't "dirty" the car. It would cause the air to hug the car longer before it spits. it's why airliners have winglets now. With a conventional smooth chassis, the air separates into layers much sooner. The golf ball texture actually keeps the air closer and doesn't allow the air to split until it's BEHIND the chassis. Reducing drag on the body. That's how this works.

I gotta believe some guy made a joke about how his car gets better MPG when it is dirty just because he had some doink telling him his car needed a bath. I do this to my brother all the time. He is so litteral and it takes him days or weeks to get a joke. Sometimes NEVER!!!! I guess I agreed with him (when he was 2 years old) that he was probably adopted and he hates me for it to this day because he thought I was serious! I was a 4 year old stand up comedian!!!!

A car only an inch "wider" is not going to produce significantly more drag. The shape has more to do with creating or reducing drag than the size. It's a basic principle in auto racing like Formula 1 and Indycar. The weight would cause more drag than the SLIGHTLY larger surface area. the reduction in drag generated by the dimpled texture is more than enough to offset the weight by reducing drag. The Clean car did 26mpg, the dimpled car got 29!

@girlyanimeboy Thats really interesting, though I'm a bit surprised by the amount of improved mileage. I would have predicted the dirt not to make any significant difference (if anything the added weight would be worse), and I would have not have expected it to act 'dimpled', but the idea of dimpling a car would make the fuel efficiency improve by that much is really interesting. Makes one think carmakers should look at this - seriously :)

Wrong. It's the reason Ground Effect down force was so sought after until rules stifled it's development. Ground Effects are the best way to create A LOT of down force with almost no drag. Today Formula 1 cars create a lot of down force using only their wings, with creates A LOT of drag, and prevents cars from passing. it's the reason the KER and DRS systems were introduced. To increase passing power and reduce drag to pass respectively.

What? Down force causes drag? lol You do realize that extra weight = downward force right? That doesn't increase drag, that increases traction. But added weight decreases acceleration as well, which is why they created those fins to increase the down force without as much decrease in acceleration. Cars are built low to also decrease lift caused by air passing under the car, which also increases/maintains the amount of down force.

This is stupid.... They CAN'T POSSIBLY believe that there is any validity to this "myth" (as if this is a real myth) ANYONE with any sense would know this is complete crap. ANYONE who has flew on a plane and sees how meticulous they are about keeping the outside of the plane clean not just for safety but for FUEL EFFICIENCY... Some of these "myths" are really just an insult to the intelligence of their viewers....

@girlyanimeboy Thats really interesting, though I'm a bit surprised by the amount of improved mileage. I would have predicted the dirt not to make any significant difference, and I would have not have expected it to act 'dimpled', but the idea of dimpling a car would make the fuel efficiency improve by that much is really interesting. Makes one think carmakers should look at this - seriously :)

i disagree with all of you, have you physical proof that this "myth" is false/true? than you have no right to make these statements, yes they are opinoins (parden my spelling), but if you have not ran tests testing this you will not know the outcome, some myths have acctually been proven to be true so don't count it to being wrong is all i'm saying.

But the inch wider and added weight from the clay produced higher mpg than the dirty car? 1 mile isn't nearly enough distance to cancel out the extra gas burned to get the clay car up to speed. What speed did they run the tests at, because that changes things too. That would mean their clay car had less wind resistance than the stock car.

The car used more fuel to get up to speed because of the added weight of the clay but once up to speed the reduction in drag increased it's mileage.. A car with it's body panels textured as such would not have that handicap of extra weight and would be even more fuel efficient. Critical thinking skills seem to need some work there, sir.

Why the hell would you want to increase lift on the rear of your car...pretty much all cars designed for fast acceleration and high speed are rear wheel drive. If you increase lift on the rear of the car, your tires will no longer be pushed against the road, and you'll lose traction...and you won't be able to go as fast...