The "Doctor Killer"

1978 Porsche 911 Turbo

Speaking of cars with turbos. 

There was one car in the 1970s that got a reputation as the "doctor killer" because doctors (who could afford them) would buy the car and then wreak them. 

It was 1974 and Porsche brought to market the 911 Turbo. 

The 911 was an old design even in 1974. The engine was in the back behind the rear wheels. It has an air-cooled flat (also called boxer) 6-cylinder engine with a turbocharger added. That gave it 261 horsepower which for 1974 was impressive (the Corvette had 210 hp). But it has a flaw. As Car and Driver put it:

[T]urbo lag as long as a coffee break. Mash the throttle at 3000 rpm, and the boost gauge plays dead until the tach reaches 4000. Then you enjoy a chiropractic neck adjustment until the wham peters out at 6000 rpm.

So why did it kill doctors? First of all, it cost $34,150 MSRP. That's $171,260 in today's dollars. So it wasn't exactly available to the average car driver. You needed the income of, say, a doctor.

The unskilled or unexperienced driver would go into a corner slow and upon exit mash the gas pedal. And here comes that turbo lag (the time it takes the turbo to spool up and start adding boost). Then, with the front wheels still steering through the corner (or pointing any direction other than straight), the engine would hit 4,000 rpm, the turbo boost would kick in causing the rear tires to break loose and, with the engine hanging out the back like a pendulum, make the car oversteer harshly. The driver would lose control and slide, often into a tree or rock or barrier or some other solid object. It's a small car, no airbags in those days (people didn't tend to wear seatbelts, either) and so it would kill its driver.

Now days, the Porsche 911 Turbo (which costs $200,000 plus), makes 572 horsepower (or, if you pay more, 640) has all wheel drive and electronic nannies to keep you on the road. It doesn't even have a manual transmission option.

But for a while there, the 911 Turbo had a bad reputation for killing its well-off drivers. 

 

The First U.S. Production Car with a Turbo

Google has started putting suggested stories below the search bar. I generally ignore them as click-bait, but one caught my eye. It was about the first American production car with a turbocharger. (For a short description of what a turbocharger is and how it works, scroll to the end of this.)

I thought maybe a Buick Grand National or the Ford Mustang SVO. Both of those cars were from the 1980s.

But no, it was a lot earlier than either of those vehicles. According to this article, it was an Oldsmobile made in 1962. Called the "Jetfire Turbo Rocket V8," it had a 215 cubic inch (3.5 liter) V8, which is small by today's standards. Unfortunately, it required a "Turbo Rocket Fluid," which was a mix of water and methanol, injected into the pistons to keep the gasoline from detonating early under turbo pressures. This can cause engine knocking which can damage your engine.

Despite all this, it only made 215 horsepower and 300 ft-pound of torque. Perhaps because the V8 was so small. These days, strapping a turbo onto a V8 should get you 400 horsepower, at least.

I'm wondering what the second production car to have a turbocharger was. A quick Google search indicates that it might be the Porsche 911 Turbo introduced in 1974, twelve years after the Jetfire.

Does this surprise you like it did me? I had no idea the first turbocharger was that long ago. Let me know in the comments below.

Does Everyone Need Algebra?

The jibe is that very few people ever use algebra in their lives. And I'm sure it's true. In Washington State, to graduate high school you need three math credits. And one of those credits is with Algebra I or something called "Integrated Math I." No idea what that is. And most college degrees require some algebra. 

According to the State of Washington, Integrated Math 1 is "a first-year high school math course, typically taken in 9th grade, which provides a foundation in linear equations, inequalities, functions, graphs, and systems of equations." So not algebra, but there is some usefulness there.

I'm seriously wondering if we need to teach algebra to most high school and college kids.

Believe me, I'm all for math. Everyone needs to know the basics.  You likely get all of that by 8th grade. The only reason to study algebra, in my opinion, is so that you can study calculus. And you study calculus because God speaks calculus. Algebra kind of simulates the world. Calculus comes a lot closer. (Differential equations comes even closer.) If you want to be an engineer or scientist, you're going to have to learn math.

I also wonder how many kids drop out of high school or college because of math requirements?

Maybe we should put kids in high school on two tracks: vocational and college bound. We desperately need more kids learning trades and not everyone needs to go to college. In the college-bound track, they learn algebra. In the trades track, they learn the math they need to succeed.

What do you think? Is algebra needed for most people? Let me know in the comments below.

How Old is "Old"?

Old Faithful Inn

I was recently watching the charming movie Fisherman's Friends on Amazon Prime (it's free with limited ads if you have Prime and is worth watching) and in the movie there's a tiny traffic jam when a BMW from London can't get past a local driving a small Citroën. The local says that street designers in "the 17th century" hadn't planned on cars the size of the BMW.

That got me thinking that the town where the movie is set and was filmed, Port Isaac, Cornwall, in the UK must be a very old town. At least the 17th century old.

And that reminded me of something that happened to me as a teenager when I lived in Southeast Idaho in the late 1970s. My father had a business gentlemen come visit for some reason. He was from Ireland and because he was staying over the weekend, we took him to Yellowstone National Park which was about 135 miles away.

Side note: my family went to Yellowstone Park at least once a year because it was so close; a little more than a two-hour drive away. So I was very familiar with the park.

The gentleman and I went into Old Faithful Inn (of course we went to see Old Faithful) and he asked me how old was the building. I didn't know so I suggested asking a park ranger. The ranger said it was built in 1904. And I said "That's old" and the man from Ireland said with a chuckle "That's not old."

But I grew up in Southeast Idaho where "old" buildings were about 50 years old. So to my perspective, 1904 was old. But this man was from Ireland where the local church might be 500 years old. Or the streets designed in the 1600s. 

Those of us living in the Western US, which was only settled in the 1800s, have a totally different outlook on what is old than Europeans do. 

What do you think is old? Does where you live skew your ideas of "old"? Let me know in the comments below.

I Really Like Finding Nemo

The other day I was flipping channels and I found Finding Nemo. And I stopped and watched it even though it was about half-way through and I could watch it without commercials and in 4K UHD on Disney+.

And I realized that I really like that movie. In my list of 100 favorite movies, I put it at 30. It's since been demoted to 31 due to Oppenheimer being added to the list at #26. 

Why do I put what is essentially a kids' animated movie from 2003 so high on my list of favorites? Because the computer animation is beautiful and makes you think you're underwater. It's simultaneously funny and touching. The turtles are hilarious (especially Squirt) as are the seagulls but for different reasons. And some jokes are for adults only, including a reference to The Shining. 

Like most of Pixar's early films, the writing and story telling are amazing. Marlin is the nervous and over-protective father who finds his courage. Nemo is the son who learns his father really loves him. And Dori finds friendship and accomplishment.

Sometimes when I'm bored, I'll turn on Finding Nemo on Disney+ just to enjoy it again.

If you haven't seen it (avoiding it as a "kids' movie"?), I strongly recommend you do. It's available for streaming on Disney+. Or it's on cable occasionally. Check it out and find Finding Nemo. You won't be disappointed.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

Manual Transmissions are Going Away

There are times I miss having a manual transmission in one of my cars. I'm at the age where I don't want a stick shift in my daily driver, but it would be fun to have a sporty car with a manual transmission for weekends. I haven't had that since I sold my Corvette years ago. 

When you're rowing your own gears, you're more involved in the vehicle. And it's more challenging to pick the right gear for coming out of a corner, for example. It's fun.

A while back I wrote about the disappearance of manual transmissions. But it's worse than I thought.

On a recent weekend I browsed the internet for used cars. My criteria were they be sporty and have a manual transmission. And I learned something: manual transmissions are rare. Almost every car I looked at has an automatic transmission. I was looking at used Mustangs, Camaros, and C7 Corvettes mostly. I did find one Bullitt Mustang with a manual but they wanted a lot for it (not that I was going to buy it). And some old BMWs (they didn't even have cup holders). I did happen across a 2016 Camaro SS with a manual transmission. I seriously thought about buying it. It being 70 miles away helped me not purchase it. But that was a unique car, it seems.

So I did a little research. According to this article, only 2.4% of new cars are sold with a manual transmission as of 2020. Even high-end sports cars such as Lamborghini and Ferrari don't have manuals even as an option. And the latest iteration of the Corvette, the C8, isn't available with a manual.

According to this article, only 18% of Americans can drive a stick shift. That amazes me.

Of course, with electric cars, there's no transmission at all. Toyota has made an EV with a fake manual. But that's more of a novelty than a real manual transmission.

Maybe I'd better buy a car with a manual transmission while I still can.

Anora

Last weekend I watched three movies: The Hunt for Red October, The Untouchables, and Anora, which was quite a contrast to the other two movies. The Hunt for Red October is #30 on my top 100 movies and The Untouchables is #56. So obviously, I like them. Then I decided to watch Anora.

SPOILER ALERT: I'm going to give away some of the plot of Anora.

Anora won the Best Picture Oscar so I was curious to see it. Having watched it, I'm not sure why it won although there were some fine performances by the actors.

The story is about a Russian oligarch's son marrying a stripper/prostitute (Anora) and his parents' reaction to that. 

There is a lot of yelling and screaming and F-bombs. According to the Internet Movie Database, there are 479 F-words. In a 139 minutes movie, that's 3.44 F-words per minute. There is also a lot of graphic nudity and a little violence but nothing gory. 

I didn't get it. Why did this movie win Best Picture? The acting was good but the story was just shallow: boy meets stripper, boy marries stripper, parents freak out. The one interesting thing was the cocky way the son acted before his parents arrived from Russia and then how he became timid and meek with his mother (who was obviously in charge of the marriage).

Have you seen Anora? What did you think? Did you enjoy it? Let me know in the comments below.

The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.