Most hilariously stupid car article ever. .

I was led to this travesty of journalism by an article on Jalopnik. Having read it, I think we have the all-time troll team captain here....

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find any three consecutive sentences in this article that are actually correct.

Wow!

You can't fix stupid

The converter takes regular exhaust, mixes it with excess gasoline sent in by the fuel pump so it can burn, and burns it, thus eliminating most pollutants.

Wha?

The pistons pump oil into the crankshaft? I need to un-read that

I browsed through the comments over there and they at least recognized the article for what it is.

I think is written rather tongue in cheek.

spitfirebill wrote: I think is written rather tongue in cheek.

Go to the home page and read some of the other articles. I'm not so sure about that.

I couldn't get past the title.

A good display of "common sense" vs. science.

You hear some things that seem to make sense, and put it all together to get the wholly wrong answer.

Another thing that sucks- now that the article is out, it will be cited as some kind of example of fact.

I'm going to use that as source material for my new kickstarter fund to finance a completely gasoline free catalytic converter.

If there is going to be one born every minute... it would be wrong not to take advantage. No?

Trans_Maro wrote: The converter takes regular exhaust, mixes it with excess gasoline sent in by the fuel pump so it can burn, and burns it, thus eliminating most pollutants. Wha?

thisiswhatsomepeoplereallybelieve.jpg

alfadriver wrote: Another thing that sucks- now that the article is out, it will be cited as some kind of example of fact.

On the face of it, that's a good thing, because it will help you quickly identify the people who are complete morons. (See also: chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracists)

The only problem would be when they grow in number enough to comprise a voting bloc. Then we're screwed. (See also: [PATIO])

Ian F wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I think is written rather tongue in cheek.

Go to the home page and read some of the other articles. I'm not so sure about that.

I didn't go there. I guess I was giving them too much credit.

That was painful to read.

Knurled wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Another thing that sucks- now that the article is out, it will be cited as some kind of example of fact.

On the face of it, that's a good thing, because it will help you quickly identify the people who are complete morons. (See also: chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracists) The only problem would be when they grow in number enough to comprise a voting bloc. Then we're screwed. (See also: [PATIO])

Except when complete morons find each other and vote for like minded morons

I think the guy who wrote the article needs to find a new mechanic.

Wow, so it sounds like he thinks cars run on some kind of self-powered hydraulic drive? I'm not sure where he thinks the car's fuel is consumed (other than in the catalytic converter which he understands is not a power plant), but he thinks there's some absolute relationship between litres per hour of fuel injected into an engine and throttle position, regardless of the vehicle.

Also he loves power more than Jeremy Clarkson - if you ever need to floor the gas to pass on the highway, your car's underpowered!

Here's the previous champion:

https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/power-belts-self-powered-steam-turbos/68719/page1/

I agree it's a horrendous article. If he does manage to make one point, albeit not very well, it would be that we often create a new problem in our response to solving an existing problem.

I think I've reverse-engineered his theory:

Fuel enters the cylinders and combusts as normal. These are free pistons with no rods. On the back side of those same pistons, is a hydraulic compression chamber. Oil is compressed here and enters the crankshaft, a turbine device sort of like half of a torque converter. The oil spins the crankshaft and this is connected to the engine's output shaft. Boom, power

One more idea: Did anyone consider that maybe this guy's mechanic realizes that he's an idiot? The mechanic does his job properly but also likes to berkeley with him by feeding him a bunch of nonsense at every opportunity, which the other mechanics at the shop find hilarious. Maybe next time he'll teach the guy about turbo encabulators

GameboyRMH wrote: Also he loves power more than Jeremy Clarkson - if you ever need to floor the gas to pass on the highway, your car's underpowered!

I had an argument online with someone (no, really, not making that up) about this. He was complaining about some vehicle being underpowered, "at 70mph it hardly accelerates!" Mind you the person thought an RX-8 was a "momentum car" and he replaced it with a Pontiac G8. At the time, I was driving a car that could only exceed 80mph downhill if you waited long enough, and a 0-60 run in traffic meant WOT shifts at max shiftpoint and you let off halfway through 4th gear.

My counter was a multiple choice question.

If you have an underpowered car, you have wheelspin problems in:
A. 3rd gear
B. 2nd gear
C. 1st gear
D. February
E. None of the above

1988RedT2 wrote: I agree it's a horrendous article. If he does manage to make one point, albeit not very well, it would be that we often create a new problem in our response to solving an existing problem.

Problem: Education is expensive, let's cut funding
New problem: Morons

Not a huge fan of the jalopnik writer usually but you have to admit the opening sentence is amazing.

Every now and then you see an article written about cars from a position of authority, and yet the author seems to have learned about cars from a website written by a sentient hoagie who only knows about cars from what they inferred from the collective writings of Nathan Lane’s dog.

Thanks. I'm now stupider for having read that. I was awarded no points. May God have mercy on my soul.