I would like to install oversized front rotors/brakes on a 2002 Ford
Taurus SEL. The car has great sized brakes as it is, but for mountain
driving with a carload of passengers it's a bit edgy even with the
transmission out of overdrive.
Does this aftermarket part exist? I realize it's probably only
available as a part for the SHO, if it's for the SHO will it be
interchangeable? I tried looking for it on google without much luck.
The rotors are vented only they still seem to heat up. Rear rotors are
out of the question as it won't make much of a difference.
Frankly, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles racing team in IMSA
discovered that the SHO brakes *also* sucked. A story is below. There
is probably something you could stick in there that would work better,
but it might also be cheaper to buy a different car.
One of the TMNT drivers came to our Honda team the following year and
told us how he was braking for Turn One at Watkins Glen when he heard
Randy Pobst go by in one of our Preludes and *upshift*! It was then he
decided he was driving thr wrong car. =:^O
(Been there; done that)
So it looks like it's hopeless than.
I enjoy the ride and feel of a "car" rather than the tall, wobbly
uncontrolled feel of a truck or SUV.
On the other hand I still want a car that can tow. I'd like one with
strong brakes, RWD or AWD, manual transmission, and great gas/diesel
I would rather have just ONE car. I would rather just have ONE
insurance to pay. Why should I purchase a car plus a truck for the
utility? All I need is ONE vehicle that can do everything that I need
it to do. Why is that so much to ask for?
Also I don't want to have to RENT a truck every time I need the
utility. I don't like renting anything other than an apartment, plus
renting trucks gets very expensive.
Maybe I'm living in the wrong era. I have only read and heard about
times when cars were heavy body on frame designs, RWD with V8 and were
all capable of towing.
I wonder what that must have been like. Living in a time when cars can
do a lot more than haul 4 or 5 people and maybe some light baggage in
Anyone from that era care to share?
Nah, I really don't like how everyone has to have several motorized
vehicles. Several motorcycles I don't mind though but I have seen so
many go way overboard with cars and trucks.
If everyone in the United States keeps this up, there will eventually
be several times more cars and trucks than there are people living in
this country and how can that possibly be a good thing?
I'm a nature lover yet I don't consider myself a tree hugger and/or an
environmentalist. Yet bear in mind that if every one of those 100
million cars in North America spilled a single drop of oil on the
highway, that would equate 100 million drops of motor oil flushing down
the storm drains and into all of our oceans, rivers, lakes, and
aquifers. Tell me something, do you want motor oil mixed into your tap
water every time you want to drink water or take a bath/shower?
I think we'll run out of oil before tat happens. In any case, the cops
apparently feel safe at ANY speed, under ANY conditions in a Crown
Victoria. It's RWD, got a frame and civilians, driving them reasonably,
report decent MPG. Maybe you could try one of those?
Nuts. I have a Cougar, a Cutlass, a Sentra, a Lincoln, two Yamahas, a
Suzuki, a Honda, a Dodge Ram, a firetruck and a Watchamacallit (has to be
seen to be believed), none of them is leaking anything anywhere. It doesn't
hurt anyone but me to own that many vehicles- the insurance is ridiculous.
The other gentleman has a point- one should not be required to carry
liability insurance on every single vehicle. It would make far more sense to
simply have one's *license* contingent with a liability policy. Poor drivers
would have to pay more and they wouldn't be able to fudge the system by
registering a vehicle in someone else's name (who has a better record). No
insurance, no license. The economic penalties would be applied squarely
where they belong- on the bad drivers.
I agree, but that system could only go so far. If something happens to
your car while it is parked & the driver who hit you got away (or it was
something else, like a tree limb fell on your car) nobody was driving,
so Comprehensive & Collision would have to remain attached to the car.
And even for liability, if the parking brake wasn't set and your car
rolls down the hill & hits somebody, who pays? Legally it would be the
last person who drove the car, but finding out who it was is non-trivial.
This is the insurance industry's explanation for why insurance is
attached to the car. Still, I agree, it would make more sense for
drivers to carry their own liability coverage, but car owners would need
their own coverage anyway.
Good points. Yes, comprehensive would have to remain with the vehicle, since
it would be the vehicle itself that is being insured. A SMALL liability
on the vehicle for freak accidents such as you describe should be relatively
inexpensive. Statisticly (sp?) how often do things like that happen?
I actually carry extra liability coverage, in amounts of five to ten times
the minimums...but that extra coverage only costs less than five
dollars per year per vehicle.
Taking your points into account, my suggestion is still do-able and far
more equitable than the current system in those areas where coverage
A nationwide mandatory liability policy on licenses would be a good thing.
I think there are still some states where it is possible to carry no
coverage at all
on the vehicle.
According to California's DMV, 40% of drivers in some areas (example:
Rancho Cordova, a fairly well-off suburb of Sacramento) have no
insurance, and another 40% have only the minimum (15/30/5, the lowest
in the country). I take two lessons from this:
1) Carry the highest uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage you can
afford, because there's a good chance you'll need it if you get hit.
2) Carry enough liability coverage to protect your assets. You
wouldn't believe how many people I talk to who own houses worth $300k
or even 500k, but carry the minimum coverage. If you make the 11:00
news -- and somebody does, at least once a week just in the Sacramento
area -- who's going to wind up owning that house?
But back to your proposal. I like the idea of having the DMV enforce
coverage, but you don't need to attach the insurance to the license
to accomplish that. Many states -- NV, for one -- attach it to the
car registration. If you let your insurance lapse, the DMV wants your
plates back -- and any cop who runs the plate number will find it
flagged as expired. They have a much higher compliance rate than we.
Absolutely. I was going to cut back my coverage from $500k...but it turned
out that the extra cost was only a few dollars per year (less than $5)-
definitely worth it. I don't worry about a lawsuit taking my property, I set
up a trust to hold the real estate so it provides a level of insulation from
that sort of thing (among other advantages).
That is precisely the thing I'd like to change. I live in such a state and
must pay full premiums on every single vehicle for that reason. It is unfair
and inequitable to be required to carry seperate policies on each vehicle
when a single policy on the license would provide the necessary protection.
There are people with poor driving records who register their vehicle(s) in
the names of others with better records in order NOT to pay the high
premiums they ought to be paying as a consequence of their propensity to
cause damage. (In some areas rates are calculated, at least in part, based
on the address of the place of garaging, and it is not uncommon for people
to fudge the system by reporting an address of a friend or relative who
lives in an area where the rates are cheaper.) These are flaws in the system
that could be rectified by my proposal. By attaching the major portion of
coverage to the license, high-risk drivers would be forced to pay their own
freight, and if they could not find (or afford to pay for) coverage
appropriate to their risk level then they would not be allowed to drive.
This would be beneficial in either reducing the number of high-risk drivers
on the road and/or putting the cost of the damage they cause on the persons
In the vast majority of cases it is the driver and not the vehicle which is
responsible for damages, it is a rare thing indeed for a vehicle to start
itself up and drive off to cause an accident. (All humor-impared people can
see me later for an explanation and complementary dope-slap.) At current
count I own eleven vehicles (I think), but I can drive only one at a time.
Why should I be required to carry full liability policies on vehicles that
are not being driven? (Obviously, fleet owners who have many employees
driving their vehicles would not be eligible for this type of program,
though I should think that their costs could also be reduced by putting the
majority of responsibility on the drivers themselves.) Why should you or I
or anyone else have to shoulder the costs of the damages caused by Joe
The more I think about this the more irate I become. It's time for a change.
How much do you need to tow? The '92 BMW 535 I just bought is supposedly
able to tow 3700lbs, which should be sufficient for most needs. It has
good brakes, RWD with LSD and traction control, manual transmission, and
decent mileage. According to the trip computer the previous owner
averaged 20.4 MPG.
It's a BMW and so it will by default cost big bucks to purchase used.
It will also cost an arm and a leg to insure and to repair once
anything goes awry.
Does it have a high compression engine? Does it require 92 octane
gasoline? Gas or diesel?
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.