I Love How Truck Computing Worked
From Alex:
Dear Charles,
I have this odd feeling the reason you bought the iPad is because
your Intel Mac was now quite quaint. And also that replacing it with an
up-to-date MacBook Pro 13-inch would bankrupt you at this moment. My
problem is that it may be a couple of years before my college tasks are
iPad-friendly, and I feel let down. I needed you to remain a happy
13-inch aluminum unibody laptop user. Please tell me when Lion comes
out you will buy the upgraded Early 2011 MacBook Pro so I will know I'm
not the only person who prefers truck computing to car computing.
I love how truck computing worked, until Apple decided it was too
old hat. I can't afford to upgrade all my Macs to Lion, let alone
totally replace everything I bought to help me. Yet Apple
expects me to do that - shoot what I bought in the foot in terms of
fitness for school or option B is to replace what I have that used
to work with one of two replacements that don't. This depressed me
enough that I wound up buying Windows 7 for my MacBook Pro and iMac,
but that doesn't satisfy either.
I love truck computing, and I need it too. Apple turned an as loyal
as justification and finances would permit customer into a frustrated
and disappointed customer, and I am not very likely to buy Apple
products anymore.
Why did this have to happen?
Sincere thoughts and kind regards,
Alex
Hi Alex,
Some great observations here, and we're pretty much
singing from the same hymn book. I love truck computing too, and if
nothing else, buying the iPad has made me appreciate my wonderful
Late 2008 Aluminum
MacBook even more than I did, and I already considered it pretty
well above reproach other than the lack of FireWire.
Actually, I bought the iPad to a considerable degree
of curiosity. It's one thing to play around with someone else's machine
or a store demo for a few minutes, and quite another to live with it
day-to-day. I wasn't feeling the love based on occasional dabbling, so
I decided to dive in. I guess it was a necessary exercise, and
educational, although an expensive lesson given the amount of practical
use I will probably get from the iPad. I'm now kicking myself a bit for
not waiting for the next 11.6" MacBook Air, which is rumored to be
getting a price drop to $899.
On the other hand, that wouldn't have addressed the
need for having an iOS machine for professional purposes. I needed a
new iPod anyway after my ancient 2001 original iPod died, and the iPad
at least makes a very decent iPod substitute.
I don't know how many Macs you have, but probably one
OS X 10.7 Lion $30 upgrade fee will cover your fleet, if you decide you
really want to have all your machines running Lion. I have two
partitions on my MacBook, and whatever I decide, one of them will
continue to have Snow Leopard installed.
As for why this had to happen, I suppose that the
incredible popularity of the iPad with consumers speaks for itself.
Apparently Steve Jobs tapped into a need or desire that a lot of people
didn't know they had until the iPad materialized. I have a good friend
who used to be the CEO of a software development company and who never
gave Macintosh computers a sideways glance, but he just raves at how
much he loves his iPad. Personally, as I related in the column, I still
just don't get it, but I guess we have to chalk it up to different
strokes.
Charles
Thanks a lot. Our biggest problems with upgrading to Lion are
bandwidth usage cap-related followed by "If my Intel Macs are supposed
to become giant iPads, then why not buy a real iPad, except for the
fact that my college hasn't adjusted to the iPad, thus leaving me in a
spot where I need the effective functionality of Snow Leopard plus
Windows 7 (since my current college still insists on PCs, except for a
very few courses of study that require far more artistic capability
than I possess.
Good to hear that it was your job that made you get it. I feel like
I might not have to go to a mental hospital now. :-)
Sincerely,
Alex
Your iPad Review
From Lee:
Charles,
...you are the last person I would expect that
would actually like using an iPad.
I've owned an iPad since the day they were released last year. I've
recommended the device to dozens of people, and I'm currently working
on a concept to add a class using iPads to my kids' school. Given that,
you are the last person I would expect that would actually like using
an iPad.
If you were a customer of mine, I would have strongly cautioned you
to give serious consideration of what you might actually want to do
with the iPad. I've been reading your column for years, and I've even
corresponded with you in the past. Given the body of work available,
it's clear you determine the usefulness of a device by the ease at
which it will integrate into your workflow. Suggesting an iPad for you
is akin to suggesting a fish would enjoy swimming in the Sahara. And,
with 11-year-old laptops, you are not really ready to change your
workflow to fit the device. With an iPad, you must be open to that
requirement.
To me, the iPad is simply a resource for data I have curated with my
desktop. My job doesn't require typing significantly, but does require
access to data that I've accumulated over the years. I carry it with me
everywhere, and use it for consuming RSS feeds, accessing my Evernote and
Dropbox
accounts, and clipping information
to my Evernote account. Email responses are limited to a paragraph or
two at most. I don't believe the iPad was ever meant to be a laptop or
desktop replacement for a power user with serious writing
requirements.
The iPad isn't the "best" device for all people. But, for me, it has
provided a simple means to read a book, maintain my serious addiction
to RSS feeds (which I consume articles at the rate of 25k a month), a
portfolio for my pictures, and an email reader that doesn't cause eye
strain (like my phone frequently does). While I can use a couple of
different applications to remote into a customer computer, it's not
something I do very often, but I appreciate the ability. My favorite
feature of the iPad isn't even the software; it's the crisp screen and
the 10+ hour battery life. Not to mention the fact that it weighs 1.5
pounds. Given the fact that I might help 3-4 customers in a day; not
having to lug around a 6+ pound laptop, and charger, is a huge
plus.
So, if you really want to find out what the iPad can do for you, try
using it for something fun, not work related. Maybe then you will find
a use for it. And then, you might find a way to integrate it into your
work flow in a way that you haven't even imagined.
If not, well, I'm looking to purchase another iPad or two for my
children. :-)
Lee
Hi Lee,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments and observations,
and I'm flattered that you have me cased so accurately. Indeed,
computers are primarily a work tool for me.
I also don't dispute in the slightest that a lot of
people have found the iPad an ideal device for them, and I have no
quarrel with that.
What does perturb me is the prospect of the "truck
computing" qualities of the traditional Mac OS experience being
displaced and subsumed by iOS ways of doing things, which for my
purposes would be a big step down in terms of functionality and
efficiency.
Buying the iPad was a more an exercise in curiosity
than filling any perceived need. I wanted to find out whether there was
something about it that I hadn't twigged to vicariously. As it turns
out, there isn't, at least so far as I've been able to discover as
yet.
That said, I am making an effort to keep my work
habits and tools as up-to-date as I can without substantially
compromising efficiency. The curtain is undeniably falling on the to
11-year-old Pismos, and
in an effort to squeeze a bit more service life out of them, I've
stopped using Classic Mode and switched OS X native applications, but
even some of them are Carbon apps, so their future is murky. My 2-1/2
year old Unibody MacBook running OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard remains
a joy. At this point I think I can safely say that it's the best
computer I've ever owned, although I'm highly skeptical that it will
have the astonishing long service life that the Pismo PowerBooks have
provided.
Perhaps I'll find a niche for the iPad with increased
familiarity and iOS proficiency, but you're right, as a work tool and
production platform, it's crippled compared to even a modest Mac.
Charles
About Your iPad Experience
From Donald,
Good afternoon, Charles.
I just wanted to drop a quick note about your recent LEM article on
your iPad experience. I'm sure you're going to hear this from many
others, but it looks, from your article, that you're really expecting
way too much from it. Even Apple realises that the iPad is
primarily a consumption device and not a creation device.
I actually sold my MacBook Pro to buy my iPad (and coincidentally, I
wound up giving my iPhone to my son, although it had nothing to do with
my iPad purchase) and find that I don't miss either device one little
bit. My primary use of the iPad (and my iPhone before it, not counting
actually using it as a phone) is for Bible study/reading, and for this
it absolutely excels. I use
Laridian's PocketBible and
Olive Tree's Bible Reader with my iPad, which I do take to church
instead of a paper Bible, and find that these programs function
exceptionally well for mobile use - far better than the small screen
iPhone version did.
But aside from that, as a consumption device, I find it marvelous. I
can steam videos and music from my iTunes library using Home Sharing,
and I actually carry my entire Aperture library on my iPad synched from
iTunes (of course, my library is small, and I'd never dream of editing
photos on the iPad). I even use it for light document editing using
Pages and
Documents-to-Go in conjunction with
Dropbox
and/or iDisk.
I think the key is realising that the iPad is not a Mac! Think of it
as a subset of OS X and recognise that within its limitations, there
really is a lot you can accomplish. Although I don't use my Macs
in anywhere near the manner you do (how in the world do you keep up
with so many open tabs?) I also realise that some tasks really are
better just done on a "real" computer.
I should also mention, that like you, I have a severe aversion to
smeary screens, so I use a Targus Stylus and a nifty Kensington
keyboard case for those times I need a keyboard (and it's a pretty good
case to boot).
It'll be interesting to see how you adapt to using an iPad, but the
key really is to realise that it's an adjunct to your Mac and not a
"real" Mac!
Stay well and God bless.
Don
Hi Don,
I really didn't know what to expect, although I
confess that I had hoped I would like the iPad better than I do so far.
Given the way things are going, I figured that I needed to find out for
myself.
It sounds like the iPad fits your portable computing
needs superbly, and good on it for that. I don't doubt that there is
much one can accomplish on an iPad with perseverance and increased
proficiency that comes from regular and frequent use, but for me it
seems a bit like setting your hair afire and then putting it out with a
hammer. The Mac is just so much slicker for almost everything I do with
computers.
The flipside of your tabs query is that I find it hard
to imagine how people get along without browser tabs, which have
revolutionized my use of browsers (not to mention Spaces). I usually have 10 or a
dozen or more projects on the go simultaneously, so multitasking and
multiple workspaces make life so much better.
The thing that has surprised me most about the iPad is
that from my perspective, aside from the obvious attributes of small
size, light weight, instant wakeup, and long battery life, the
advantages of which I don't dispute in contexts where they shine, I
haven't yet found anything I do with computers, including content
consumption, that I find superior on the tablet compared with on the
Mac.
I must get one of those tablet stylus thingies. I'm
told that they also make text selection a lot easier and more precise
as well as helping to minimize the screen smearing.
Charles
Thank you for your response, Charles.
BTW, I did run into a program yesterday that may address your issue
with tabs in Safari on the iPad. It's a browser called
Terra and may be just what you need. I've not played with it much,
because I did just discover it yesterday, but it's free and worth a
look.
Blessings,
Don
Hi Don,
I'll definitely check out Terra.
Thanks!
Charles
Lion on MacBook Air and Mac OS Performance
Historically
From Stephen:
Dear Mr. Moore,
My main question is about the performance of current Apple hardware
with the new OS. I've been very conscious of buying my current computer
in the shadow of a major update: I bought a MacBook Air 11" (1.4 GHz, 64
GB) a week or so after its release due to a perfect storm of computer
failure and a final-year undergraduate dissertation. I literally went
to the shop the morning after my old computer gave up the ghost (a bad
fall down stairs in my bag), applied my backup, and was back to work by
the afternoon. I think that in itself is quite a good point in Apple's
favour, because I did not expect to be sitting back in front of my
notes so quickly. One of my concerns about the shift to online shopping
is that there's fewer and fewer ways to rush out and grab something you
need quickly after the previous one falls down the stairs. Apple can
add "panicking students with deadlines" to their retail strategy.
I'm very happy with what I can get done with Snow Leopard and have
been trying to get a sense of how Lion will compare with the previous
version to do an informed upgrade. I hit the forums and found strident
claims that Mac OS only ever gets faster, even on the same hardware,
when it upgrades, which my marketing sensor dismissed as too good to be
true (if each OS update really made your computer faster, why would you
ever buy a new one?). However, one particular claim seems slightly more
credible to me and stated straight off:
- 10.2 Jaguar was way
faster on the same hardware than 10.1 Puma.
- 10.3 Panther was way
faster one the same hardware than 10.2 Jaguar.
- 10.4 Tiger was way
faster on the same hardware than 10.3 Panther.
These assertions seem extremely verifiable and, if true, very
impressive. My experience of Mac OS is 7.5 - 8 and Mac OS X 10.2 -
10.6, so I wasn't around for the Puma -> Jaguar -> Panther ->
Tiger -> Leopard upgrades, but it occurred to me that LEM absolutely
was. Could you please comment on that? The extreme case particularly
interests me: Do Macs run faster with Tiger than Puma?
NDAs on solid information about Lion aside, my gut tells me that
there's nothing in Lion that's going to drag down the performance of a
computer quite as new and spritely as the MacBook Air but, because it
is the low-end model, it's a bit of a concern for me. If it's going to
slow it down, I'll just delay upgrading until it's necessary for me,
because using Snow Leopard is hardly a trial.
I'm a long time LEM fan and wish you the best of success for the
future.
Yours,
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
Sorry to hear about your computer accident, but you
got a nice one to replace it, and, as you say, getting up and running
again on a Mac is pretty simple if you have a reasonably up-to-date
backup to work from.
I agree with your concern about online shopping. I do
a lot of it (and not just for computer related stuff) because I live
out in the boonies, but I generally prefer to buy locally and support
local businesses if there is no cost penalty. I just bought my iPad 2 from the local (50 miles)
dealer.
As for your question about Mac OS version upgrades
being typically faster than the preceding build, in terms of experience
with the examples you cite, I can affirm that OS X 10.2 Jaguar was
significantly faster than 10.1 Puma, and I found the difference even
more dramatic when I upgraded from Jaguar to OS X 10.3 Panther (in
those instances on a 500 MHz G3 PowerBook Pismo). However, I wouldn't
say that OS X 10.4 Tiger was generally that much faster than
Panther in my experience, even with an upgrade to a 550 MHz G4
processor on the Pismo that was done around the same time, although the
exact sequence of events it eludes me in the haze of time. If someone
had asked me, I would've said there was little if any different
speedwise with that upgrade, although I never did any time testing for
comparison.
I also didn't notice any notable speed up when I
upgraded from Tiger to OS X 10.5
Leopard on my 1.33
GHz PowerBook G4, and Leopard might actually have been a little
slower, although there wasn't much in the difference. The same goes for
upgrading from Leopard to OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard on my 2.0 GHz
aluminum MacBook, and if there is any difference in that instance, I
would say that performance has diminished slightly with Snow Leopard,
and stability significantly.
However, given that OS X 10.7 Lion will be jettisoning
even more legacy code with the termination of Rosetta and so forth, I
would speculate that there is a reasonably good chance of Lion being
faster than Snow Leopard on current machines capable of supporting it.
I expect your MacBook Air will run just fine.
Thanks for reading, and best wishes to you as
well,
Charles
MacBook Air or iPad with Keyboard Case?
From Robert:
MacBook Air or iPad with keyboard case? Yeah, that's a tough choice.
In my opinion, the external keyboard for the iPad is necessary. Maybe
it depends on how badly you want a touchscreen.
I did buy one of the base model 11" MacBook Air refurbs myself a few
months ago and am happy with that plus the iPod touch. If I carry a
briefcase with me, I'll take the MacBook Air, and if I want to go out
leaving my hands free, I'll put the iPod in my pocket.
Thanks
Bob
Moore's iPad Adventure, Part 1
From Bob:
The iPad requires a mental adjustment - you have to stop thinking
about what it is not.
It's not a desktop or laptop replacement, but it has it's own
strengths.
Bob
Hi Bob,
I don't dispute what you say. However, the iPad would
be a lot more practically useful, at least to me, if basic stuff like
copying and pasting weren't so lame.
Charles
The Future of Tex-Edit Plus on the Mac
From Mac:
Hi Charles,
Re: The Future of Tex-Edit
Plus on the Mac
I too am a slow-adopter. Still happily using Eudora (on OS X
10.5.8), and I have just noted that I have something over 5k flies in
Tex-Edit Plus. A great many of these contain graphics in their resource
forks, so if Tom does not upgrade TEP, then I'll eventually be looking
for an easy way to convert those files to RTFD.
I will be very interested to hear about any thoughts or leads you
may have on that subject.
With thanks,
- Mac
Hi Mac,
I don't have really any more light shed on this than
what I mentioned in the article. Tex-Edit Plus will save documents as
RTF files, but not RTFD
unfortunately. You could try opening your Tex-Edit Plus documents that
contain graphics in other text editors like Apples TextEdit, but I
wouldn't doubt that you've already tried that and not achieved
success.
Let's hope that Tom Bender comes through with a
Cocoa-based rewrite of Tex-Edit Plus.
Charles
Hi Charles,
Thanks for these comments. I'll write to Tom with my best
encouragements.
Tex-Edit files open as plain text in almost anything, but any
formatting and included graphics are lost. So the best kludge I can
think of is a script to batch process Tex-Edit files into PDFs. Not at
all the same as the originals, but still a lot less work than
reconstructing the same layouts as RTFD.
I've not tried VINC, but still have an
old WallStreet running
OS 8.5, and it probably has a version of DataViz's now defunct
MacLinkPlus, so those may be a couple of options too.
Sigh. "Progress."
- Mac
Of Cars and Trucks, iPads and Macs
From Stephen:
Charles:
I read with interest your Low End Mac article "Of Cars and Trucks,
iPads and Macs" and have a few observations and comments. A bit long
winded, perhaps.
<rant>
I live in coastal Alaska, which has a lot of similarities to
Maritime Canada. Here big trucks reign supreme. But as a closet
greenie, I just kind of scratch my head at the big truck mania. I got
rid of my Ford F-150 years ago. The best it ever did was 17 MPG,
driving downhill on a windy day.
Now we have a Honda Fit (Jazz to all you outside the US). The other
day I pulled up to the gas station (where gas is currently $4.55), and
there was a Big Ford Pickup on the other side of the pump. The truck
guy started making comments about the little car. I told him we fill it
up every 10 days, and then it's only 7-8 gallons. He put $100 of gas in
his truck, which he does every 3 days, then complains about the high
price of gas. This is a personal transportation device, mind you, not a
work truck. All I can do is scratch my head in wonder at that kind of
waste, and why folks are so eager to give so many of their hard earned
sheckels to make oil companies and executives richer when they could
surely use the money for better things.
And on the work front, I don't care how hard Ford advertises, you
just aren't going to get many crab pots on the back of an F-350. And it
would blow out the suspension if you put your drag gear (trawl to the
rest of the world, especially writers from the lower 48!) on the
back.
</rant>
I do look fondly back at some of the old rigs I've had over the
years. I was really partial to Willys Jeeps and Volvos.
For a while I drove a 1952 M38-A1 Jeep. For those of you unfamiliar
with this beast, it is a military model, Air Force to be exact. So it
had a 24 volt electrical system like all the old airplanes had. Two 12
volt batteries in series. Couldn't go over 45 MPH, but put it in 4
wheel low range, and you couldn't stop it. Even with the wimpy little 4
banger F-head engine. But it took a quart of oil every 100 miles so I
traded it for a shotgun.
My favorite Volvo was a 1972 145-E. It was one of the first with the
Bosch electronic fuel injection. It would get 26-32 MPG back in 1972. I
don't understand with all the new technology why passenger cars today
don't do much better. Anyways, it was rear wheel drive but had
incredible traction, I remember pulling a buddie's Subaru out of a
ditch when we were a bit further off the road then we should have been
. . . Ah the Good Olde Daze!
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
I enjoyed reading your observations and comments. I
tend to get a bit prolix myself when I'm talking about cars.
The current Ford F-150s get a lot better gas mileage
than the older ones did. Ford engines in general, I guess. I have a
2000 Mercury Grand Marquis with a 4.6 L V-8 that gets astonishingly
good gas mileage for the size of it. The official EPA rating for
highway is I think 34 (Imperial) miles per gallon, and in my experience
it matches that if you keep a reasonably light right foot. My wife's
Toyota Camry doesn't do much better.
The smallest Honda is also known as the Fit here in
Canada. Great little car with an amazing amount of room inside for the
size of it outside. I tend to like my cars either really big or really
small. Our current winter beater is a 1991 Corolla with a five speed
manual. We paid 300 bucks for it; spent about another 500 getting it
roadworthy, and it never missed a beat in daily driver service all last
winter. Has about 300,000 km on it.
We call them draggers here in Nova Scotia too. Funny
you should mention blowing out a truck's rear suspension hauling
fishing gear. I recall encountering a brand-new Dodge pickup on the
Eastern shore number seven highway one night back in 1973 that had been
grossly overloaded with a big capstan winch off some sort of large
offshore fishing vessel and had hit a major whoop-de-doo frost heave,
and the rear axle housing had collapsed like a banana, bringing
everything to a grinding stop.
I've never owned a Jeep or a Volvo, although my
half-brother had a real Army surplus World War II vintage Willys Jeep
when I was a kid that was very cool - probably very similar to your old
'52 model, and I've admired Volvos - my favorites being the old
humpback PV 444 and 544 models that looked a bit like a '40 Ford, and
the 122S that replaced them.
I one time had an English Bedford Van
that used so much oil (a lot of it was running out of bad rear main
bearing seal) that I just carried gallon jugs of crankcase drainings
courtesy of the local garage and could pop open the engine housing,
which was between the driver and passenger seats, and dump oil in
without getting out of the truck. The coolest thing about the Bedford
Van was that it had sliding front doors that you could leave open while
cruising down the highway - the next best thing to a convertible on a
summer day. No seatbelts then, either.
The good old days indeed!
Charles
Charles:
Somehow your Bedford story reminded me of the crazy guy across the
street when I was but a wee laddie in suburban New Jersey. He was an
ex-Air Force fighter pilot. He still flew weekends with the National
Guard out of Fort Dix. He was working as a pilot for Mohawk Airlines,
remember them?
When he was stationed in France, he bought a Renault Dauphine and
brought it back to the States on his return. Same thing, he just poured
oil into the thing. Then the starter motor went out. The old Renaults
had a hole in the bumper and came with a starting crank. So he used to
hand crank his Renault to start it!
Wish I had that option with the Fit, but the engine is probably too
high compression and tight.
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
I think I have a vague recollection of there being a
Mohawk Airlines. I don't think they ever flew into Atlantic Canada,
however.
As for that old Renault Dauphine and its hand crank, I
owned 17 assorted Farina-styled Austin Cambridges and Morris Oxfords,
of model years 1959 to 1967. I always considered the '61's the best of
the bunch, but I digress. Anyway, these cars also came with a hand
crank, or "starting handle" as it was referred to in the owner's
manual, as standard equipment, complete with a crank hole in the front
bumper and a set of one-way dogs on the engine's crank pulley. The
starting handle actually worked surprisingly well and got a fair amount
of use. A good stiff third of a turn was all it would take to light the
engine if there were no hard starting issues. I also found it helpful
on very cold winter mornings to take a few turns with the hand crank
with the ignition turned off before taking a crack at it with the
electric starter. It would virtually guarantee a start if the battery
was dead. It was also fun to use the crank with an audience in parking
lots and such. Another handy use for the hand crank was for turning the
engine when you were adjusting the valve clearance or setting the
ignition timing, which on that British Motors B Series engine was done
statically with a feeler gauge and 12 volt test light rather than
dynamically with a strobe and dwell meter. A lot more convenient than
tugging on the fan belt with the spark plugs removed or sticking a
screwdriver in the number one spark plug hole to determine what you
hoped was top dead center.
Another interesting trivia tidbit, the Austin/Morris B
Series engine/transmission combo was a simple drop-in replacement for
corresponding MGB and MGA components, being the same block, albeit with
lower compression and a much milder camshaft, but still a low-budget
fix if your MG's engine was knackered and you were short on funds.
However it was necessary to hacksaw the crank dog off the crank pulley
in order to clear the steering rack.
When British Motors Corporation pioneered the
transition to transverse engines and front-wheel-drive with the Mini,
and the larger 1100/1300/Austin America and 1800 series, they still
used the old A and B Series engines that dated back to the early 1950s
but just rotated them 90°, but of course it was no longer possible
to insert a crank handle. The company literature at the time seemed
somewhat apologetic about this, and suggested as an alternative for
manual starting that one could jack one front wheel clear of the
ground, then put the transmission in top-gear and give the front wheel
a healthy rotational tug. I never actually tried this. The odds of
hurting yourself seemed substantially higher than when using a proper
handcrank (although with the latter, it was wise to remember to keep
one some on the same side of the handle as your fingers in case of
kickback, and I did get whacked in the wrist one time when starting a
car whose crank dogs were rusted up a bit and sticky), and of course it
was a lot more inconvenient.
Charles
Charles:
Ah yes, the old Austins. I'm really surprised that Volkswagen never
picked up on the hand crank idea. The crazy guy across the street
replaced his Renault with a cabriolet Beetle.
Boats are almost (maybe more so) fun than cars. We recently had an
old 38' wooden double-ender with the original 1946 Chrysler Crown gas
engine. The thing was so well worn, there was absolutely no friction
left in the thing. It also had a hand crank, but we never could get it
to roll over that way. It was a big six banger, all the valves in the
block. You'd adjust them with a feeler gauge, then have to "fine tune"
them with a stethoscope. It had an updraft carburetor, which means it
was hanging down on the side of the engine, and would dump gas into the
bilge and blow you sky high if you weren't careful.
And all the Jimmy (GM) diesels. Like the 6-71 that has a hose go bad
and spray raw salt water into the air intake. I was running the boat
from the bridge and heard the engine just very gradually slowing down.
Went down in the engine room, saw the problem, fixed it, ran another 8
hours to port. Needless to say the engine was toast, but it got us
home!
I think I stopped working on my own cars with the coming of the
transverse engines and electronics. My hands are just too big.
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
Yes, the old VW flat four would've been an excellent
candidate for use with a starting handle.
I like boats too, but am a sailor, and the biggest
auxiliary engine I've ever owned was a 9.8 hp Mercury outboard. I did
live aboard an 85-foot ferrocement schooner for a while, and it had a
big six-cylinder inline Caterpillar diesel that had originally seen
duty as a backup engine for a electrical utility power plant. I have a
vague and possibly faulty recollection they put out some 250 hp. The
vessel also had to dedicated electrical generators powered by three
cylinder Ruston diesels that were made in India.
However, I'm definitely familiar with those old
Chrysler flathead sixes in cars, albeit with downdraft carburetors, and
I do recall seeing them in the odd boat, although General Motors six
cylinders were the most popular boat engines in these parts until
diesels took over the market. John Deere is the popular choice locally,
although there was a big Ford six-cylinder diesel that sold relatively
well in the 1970s and 80s when I was in the boat and marine equipment
business. GM diesels are rare in marine applications on this coast, but
the Chevy 292 gas Inline 6 was once the most popular boat engine by
far.
I found that a lot of the pleasure goes out of working
on cars with transverse engines. I have relatively slim and and long
fingers, but I still find stuff hard to access. Of course, it's no
cakewalk on most cars these days, what with all the electronics and
emissions control plumbing and so forth cluttering up the under hood
area.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
