OT - What are you doing right now?

Botch

Ozzie_Isaac said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Norlan on the left, Murano glass on the right.  The Norlan glass is nice, but the level of quality is not close to the Murano piece. Wouldn't necessarily expect it to be, but I thought it would be closer.  We'll see how it does with the spirits.

Nice crisp edge on the Murano there. Cheers John. 

Do edges, glass, crystal change the flavor of spirits?

I was a member of a serious winetasting club here in Ogden, until my weekend job took up too much time.  
We had many discussions, and I've read a lot of articles/essays/tomes on wineglasses.  There are some things that make sense to me, others that do not.
A champagne flute is tall and narrow, which captures the aroma/humidity of popping champaign bubbles in a narrow space, allowing your nose to appreciate both (and "the nose" is a huge part of winetasting (or, really, any other tasting).  
A red-wine glass is much flatter than one for white wine, which exposes more of the surface of the wine to air.  Red wine requires a "breathing" after opening, white wine does not; so this design makes sense, on the surface.  However, if the red wine is properly decanted/aired before serving, this extra exposure to air won't be necessary.  Conversely, serving white wine in a wider red-wine glass, shouldn't make a difference.
There is a newer style of wine-glass, both in red and white, that have flattened bottoms of the bowl, and eschew the stem and base altogether.  These are fine for dinner parties (where the glass spends the majority of the time sitting on the table), in fact preferable as they are slightly less likely to be spilled, being so short.  However, they are less preferable for cocktail parties, where guests are usually standing around, holding their glasses; the idea is to hold the glass by the stem (or base), holding the glass by the bowl allows your body heat to warm the wine, not good!  Human body temp is 98 F; red wine should be around 60 F and whites, 54 F (refrigerator-cold white wines are too cold!)  
Finally, let's talk Reidel wineglasses.  They sell a different style of wineglass for virtually every style of grape (nice marketing idea).  Their idea is that the angle of the top of the glass "aims" the wine at the proper angle onto your tongue, hitting the ideal area of your tongue for maximum experience.  This sorta makes sense until you realize that the angle of the glass, to your lips, changes about 90 degrees from full to empty.  
I do own a pair of Reidel port glasses, and they have very sharp rim edges.  I really like this, as opposed to the fire-polished, bulbous round edges of my previous port glasses ("Libbey's" brand, from Target!).  This is more a preference of my lips, I doubt that it changes the taste of the port/wine at all.  YMMV.  
 
Sorry, may have babbled a bit long there...  

bgebrent

nolaegghead said:

Botch said:

What does "ambulatory" mean?  

Beats me.

I cancelled my interwebs years ago and don't own a dictionary.

We all hope to be ambulatory, or ambiguous.

Ozzie_Isaac

Botch said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Norlan on the left, Murano glass on the right.  The Norlan glass is nice, but the level of quality is not close to the Murano piece. Wouldn't necessarily expect it to be, but I thought it would be closer.  We'll see how it does with the spirits.

Nice crisp edge on the Murano there. Cheers John. 

Do edges, glass, crystal change the flavor of spirits?

I was a member of a serious winetasting club here in Ogden, until my weekend job took up too much time.  
We had many discussions, and I've read a lot of articles/essays/tomes on wineglasses.  There are some things that make sense to me, others that do not.
A champagne flute is tall and narrow, which captures the aroma/humidity of popping champaign bubbles in a narrow space, allowing your nose to appreciate both (and "the nose" is a huge part of winetasting (or, really, any other tasting).  
A red-wine glass is much flatter than one for white wine, which exposes more of the surface of the wine to air.  Red wine requires a "breathing" after opening, white wine does not; so this design makes sense, on the surface.  However, if the red wine is properly decanted/aired before serving, this extra exposure to air won't be necessary.  Conversely, serving white wine in a wider red-wine glass, shouldn't make a difference.
There is a newer style of wine-glass, both in red and white, that have flattened bottoms of the bowl, and eschew the stem and base altogether.  These are fine for dinner parties (where the glass spends the majority of the time sitting on the table), in fact preferable as they are slightly less likely to be spilled, being so short.  However, they are less preferable for cocktail parties, where guests are usually standing around, holding their glasses; the idea is to hold the glass by the stem (or base), holding the glass by the bowl allows your body heat to warm the wine, not good!  Human body temp is 98 F; red wine should be around 60 F and whites, 54 F (refrigerator-cold white wines are too cold!)  
Finally, let's talk Reidel wineglasses.  They sell a different style of wineglass for virtually every style of grape (nice marketing idea).  Their idea is that the angle of the top of the glass "aims" the wine at the proper angle onto your tongue, hitting the ideal area of your tongue for maximum experience.  This sorta makes sense until you realize that the angle of the glass, to your lips, changes about 90 degrees from full to empty.  
I do own a pair of Reidel port glasses, and they have very sharp rim edges.  I really like this, as opposed to the fire-polished, bulbous round edges of my previous port glasses ("Libbey's" brand, from Target!).  This is more a preference of my lips, I doubt that it changes the taste of the port/wine at all.  YMMV.  
 
Sorry, may have babbled a bit long there...  

Thank you for taking the time to type that!  Very interesting read.  I have white, red, and champaign glasses.  Will have to try the same wine in all three to see if I can tell a difference.

nolaegghead

Just helped my buddy adjust the timing on his daughter's car.  (2005 MB C230 - crappiest engine, Kompressor 4-cyl, MB ever made).  The timing jumped on the intake cam.  The cam gear wore down for some reason on the intake camshaft.  Bent all the intake valves.  Pulled off the head, replaced valves (I welded a tool made from a c-clamp to install the valve retainers, etc, bla bla bla)  Anyway, I don't know why I bother to post here other than it's cathartic.  He's in reassembly mode.  He put it together a link off (timing chain off).  I pointed this out to him, he fixed and is putting together at 4AM in front of his house across the street with an impending storm rolling in. 

Don't meant to toot my own horn, but I'm f*cking good with mechanical stuff.  Also pretty hammered.  God bless.

500

Lighting the Egg

Eoin

nolaegghead said:

Just helped my buddy adjust the timing on his daughter's car.  (2005 MB C230 - crappiest engine, Kompressor 4-cyl, MB ever made).  The timing jumped on the intake cam.  The cam gear wore down for some reason on the intake camshaft.  Bent all the intake valves.  Pulled off the head, replaced valves (I welded a tool made from a c-clamp to install the valve retainers, etc, bla bla bla)  Anyway, I don't know why I bother to post here other than it's cathartic.  He's in reassembly mode.  He put it together a link off (timing chain off).  I pointed this out to him, he fixed and is putting together at 4AM in front of his house across the street with an impending storm rolling in. 

Don't meant to toot my own horn, but I'm f*cking good with mechanical stuff.  Also pretty hammered.  God bless.

Fixing stuff can be frustrating but is ultimately satisfying.

YukonRon

nolaegghead said:

Just helped my buddy adjust the timing on his daughter's car.  (2005 MB C230 - crappiest engine, Kompressor 4-cyl, MB ever made).  The timing jumped on the intake cam.  The cam gear wore down for some reason on the intake camshaft.  Bent all the intake valves.  Pulled off the head, replaced valves (I welded a tool made from a c-clamp to install the valve retainers, etc, bla bla bla)  Anyway, I don't know why I bother to post here other than it's cathartic.  He's in reassembly mode.  He put it together a link off (timing chain off).  I pointed this out to him, he fixed and is putting together at 4AM in front of his house across the street with an impending storm rolling in. 

Don't meant to toot my own horn, but I'm f*cking good with mechanical stuff.  Also pretty hammered.  God bless.

A friend of mine came to the States from Germany, and was astonished at how we revere the Mercedes Benz. He admitted they are nice cars, usually starting at the 5 series going up, but generally thinks of the others as rubbish haulers for the trucks, and taxicabs for cars.
Different perspective.

northGAcock

nolaegghead said:

Guy shot himself.  So eventually they'll get the bridge opened again.

Ha....they may name the bridge after him.

DoubleEgger

YukonRon said:

nolaegghead said:

Just helped my buddy adjust the timing on his daughter's car.  (2005 MB C230 - crappiest engine, Kompressor 4-cyl, MB ever made).  The timing jumped on the intake cam.  The cam gear wore down for some reason on the intake camshaft.  Bent all the intake valves.  Pulled off the head, replaced valves (I welded a tool made from a c-clamp to install the valve retainers, etc, bla bla bla)  Anyway, I don't know why I bother to post here other than it's cathartic.  He's in reassembly mode.  He put it together a link off (timing chain off).  I pointed this out to him, he fixed and is putting together at 4AM in front of his house across the street with an impending storm rolling in. 

Don't meant to toot my own horn, but I'm f*cking good with mechanical stuff.  Also pretty hammered.  God bless.

A friend of mine came to the States from Germany, and was astonished at how we revere the Mercedes Benz. He admitted they are nice cars, usually starting at the 5 series going up, but generally thinks of the others as rubbish haulers for the trucks, and taxicabs for cars.
Different perspective.

Yup. The BMW 7 series is the king of the Autobahn. I was running 230kph in an Audi and those 7s would come flying past me like I was sitting still. The pecking order is definitely BMW, Audi, and then MB 

Eoin

MB also had a period of crappy quality from the late 90s for about 10 years and their reputation suffered for it.

A fast BMW is a great daily driver.

YukonRon

DoubleEgger said:

YukonRon said:

nolaegghead said:

Just helped my buddy adjust the timing on his daughter's car.  (2005 MB C230 - crappiest engine, Kompressor 4-cyl, MB ever made).  The timing jumped on the intake cam.  The cam gear wore down for some reason on the intake camshaft.  Bent all the intake valves.  Pulled off the head, replaced valves (I welded a tool made from a c-clamp to install the valve retainers, etc, bla bla bla)  Anyway, I don't know why I bother to post here other than it's cathartic.  He's in reassembly mode.  He put it together a link off (timing chain off).  I pointed this out to him, he fixed and is putting together at 4AM in front of his house across the street with an impending storm rolling in. 

Don't meant to toot my own horn, but I'm f*cking good with mechanical stuff.  Also pretty hammered.  God bless.

A friend of mine came to the States from Germany, and was astonished at how we revere the Mercedes Benz. He admitted they are nice cars, usually starting at the 5 series going up, but generally thinks of the others as rubbish haulers for the trucks, and taxicabs for cars.
Different perspective.

Yup. The BMW 7 series is the king of the Autobahn. I was running 230kph in an Audi and those 7s would come flying past me like I was sitting still. The pecking order is definitely BMW, Audi, and then MB 

I almost bought an old Porsche Gaia, similar to the one James Dean bit the big one in, during my last trip in Germany for €20,000.00.
Drove it on the 'bahn while talking to My Beautiful Wife on the cell. She convinced me not to buy it. It was a pretty sweet ride. Not much to it, but fun as heck to drive.

Eoin

Crazy golf followed by ice cream.

theyolksonyou

Eoin said:

Crazy golf followed by ice cream.

A crazy round of golf, or is crazy golf the same as putt putt? (goony golf)

Eoin

theyolksonyou said:

Eoin said:

Crazy golf followed by ice cream.

A crazy round of golf, or is crazy golf the same as putt putt? (goony golf)

If we tried actual golf it would be crazy, but this is just the stuff with the silly obstacles. Local farm that has an ice cream place, golf all farm themed.

HofstraJet

Botch said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Norlan on the left, Murano glass on the right.  The Norlan glass is nice, but the level of quality is not close to the Murano piece. Wouldn't necessarily expect it to be, but I thought it would be closer.  We'll see how it does with the spirits.

Nice crisp edge on the Murano there. Cheers John. 

Do edges, glass, crystal change the flavor of spirits?

I was a member of a serious winetasting club here in Ogden, until my weekend job took up too much time.  
We had many discussions, and I've read a lot of articles/essays/tomes on wineglasses.  There are some things that make sense to me, others that do not.
A champagne flute is tall and narrow, which captures the aroma/humidity of popping champaign bubbles in a narrow space, allowing your nose to appreciate both (and "the nose" is a huge part of winetasting (or, really, any other tasting).  
A red-wine glass is much flatter than one for white wine, which exposes more of the surface of the wine to air.  Red wine requires a "breathing" after opening, white wine does not; so this design makes sense, on the surface.  However, if the red wine is properly decanted/aired before serving, this extra exposure to air won't be necessary.  Conversely, serving white wine in a wider red-wine glass, shouldn't make a difference.
There is a newer style of wine-glass, both in red and white, that have flattened bottoms of the bowl, and eschew the stem and base altogether.  These are fine for dinner parties (where the glass spends the majority of the time sitting on the table), in fact preferable as they are slightly less likely to be spilled, being so short.  However, they are less preferable for cocktail parties, where guests are usually standing around, holding their glasses; the idea is to hold the glass by the stem (or base), holding the glass by the bowl allows your body heat to warm the wine, not good!  Human body temp is 98 F; red wine should be around 60 F and whites, 54 F (refrigerator-cold white wines are too cold!)  
Finally, let's talk Reidel wineglasses.  They sell a different style of wineglass for virtually every style of grape (nice marketing idea).  Their idea is that the angle of the top of the glass "aims" the wine at the proper angle onto your tongue, hitting the ideal area of your tongue for maximum experience.  This sorta makes sense until you realize that the angle of the glass, to your lips, changes about 90 degrees from full to empty.  
I do own a pair of Reidel port glasses, and they have very sharp rim edges.  I really like this, as opposed to the fire-polished, bulbous round edges of my previous port glasses ("Libbey's" brand, from Target!).  This is more a preference of my lips, I doubt that it changes the taste of the port/wine at all.  YMMV.  
 
Sorry, may have babbled a bit long there...  

A few comments on this:

I agree that everyone serves white wines and Champagnes too cold and red wines too warm. Pet peeve of mine - when I used to buy wine in restaurants, I would put the bottle of red in the ice bucket before decanting if it was too warm - got dirty looks from the somm, but who cares - he should have served it at the proper temp. And that's one of the many reasons I never purchase wine at restaurants - always go to corkage-friendly places now.

I disagree about glasses not making a difference in how a wine tastes. I fully agree that Riedel is the Monster Cable of the wine world and glasses for every grape is marketing genius appealing to those with more money than sense. However, the general difference in design of flutes, white wine glasses, Port glasses, Sauternes glasses, and red wine glasses definitely make a difference.

I find Champagne flutes to be too restrictive to get the flavor of the wine (I can neither get my nose in there nor swirl) and saucer-type glasses to be just plain dumb and useless.  I either use my Les Impitoyables glass (shown below) or a white wine glass (heck, I've used the generic red wine glass at restaurants instead of a flute). There are so many wonderful aromas in good Champagne that are lost in a small bowl glass.  Next time you have a good vintage Champagne at the proper temp (see above), pour some into a flute and pour some into a larger bowl glass. Let me know which you prefer.  Do the same for a good white wine using a white wine glass and red wine glass - they are two different wines. And yes, bubbles will dissipate faster in a wide bowl, but how long does it really take to drink a glass of Champagne?






As for breathing, many white wines definitely need air and benefit greatly from it (not decanting-level, but breathing in the glass).  You are doing yourself a disservice if you don't let some of them develop in the glass. That's why white Burgundy glasses have a wide bowl - so they can breathe. And most white Burgundy wines are made from chardonnay, so the same rule applies to good chardonnays from other regions as well.

And finally, I too like the Riedel Port glasses for vintage Port and their Sauternes glasses for Sauternes/dessert wines. Some of their stuff works, but different glasses for every grape is just insanity.

HofstraJet

theyolksonyou said:

Eoin said:

Crazy golf followed by ice cream.

A crazy round of golf, or is crazy golf the same as putt putt? (goony golf)

Mini golf where I come from.

theyolksonyou

HofstraJet said:

theyolksonyou said:

Eoin said:

Crazy golf followed by ice cream.

A crazy round of golf, or is crazy golf the same as putt putt? (goony golf)

Mini golf where I come from.

Yeah, that too. I think putt putt is actually a franchise name. Mini golf slipped my mind. 

YukonRon

HofstraJet said:

Botch said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Norlan on the left, Murano glass on the right.  The Norlan glass is nice, but the level of quality is not close to the Murano piece. Wouldn't necessarily expect it to be, but I thought it would be closer.  We'll see how it does with the spirits.

Nice crisp edge on the Murano there. Cheers John. 

Do edges, glass, crystal change the flavor of spirits?

I was a member of a serious winetasting club here in Ogden, until my weekend job took up too much time.  
We had many discussions, and I've read a lot of articles/essays/tomes on wineglasses.  There are some things that make sense to me, others that do not.
A champagne flute is tall and narrow, which captures the aroma/humidity of popping champaign bubbles in a narrow space, allowing your nose to appreciate both (and "the nose" is a huge part of winetasting (or, really, any other tasting).  
A red-wine glass is much flatter than one for white wine, which exposes more of the surface of the wine to air.  Red wine requires a "breathing" after opening, white wine does not; so this design makes sense, on the surface.  However, if the red wine is properly decanted/aired before serving, this extra exposure to air won't be necessary.  Conversely, serving white wine in a wider red-wine glass, shouldn't make a difference.
There is a newer style of wine-glass, both in red and white, that have flattened bottoms of the bowl, and eschew the stem and base altogether.  These are fine for dinner parties (where the glass spends the majority of the time sitting on the table), in fact preferable as they are slightly less likely to be spilled, being so short.  However, they are less preferable for cocktail parties, where guests are usually standing around, holding their glasses; the idea is to hold the glass by the stem (or base), holding the glass by the bowl allows your body heat to warm the wine, not good!  Human body temp is 98 F; red wine should be around 60 F and whites, 54 F (refrigerator-cold white wines are too cold!)  
Finally, let's talk Reidel wineglasses.  They sell a different style of wineglass for virtually every style of grape (nice marketing idea).  Their idea is that the angle of the top of the glass "aims" the wine at the proper angle onto your tongue, hitting the ideal area of your tongue for maximum experience.  This sorta makes sense until you realize that the angle of the glass, to your lips, changes about 90 degrees from full to empty.  
I do own a pair of Reidel port glasses, and they have very sharp rim edges.  I really like this, as opposed to the fire-polished, bulbous round edges of my previous port glasses ("Libbey's" brand, from Target!).  This is more a preference of my lips, I doubt that it changes the taste of the port/wine at all.  YMMV.  
 
Sorry, may have babbled a bit long there...  

A few comments on this:

I agree that everyone serves white wines and Champagnes too cold and red wines too warm. Pet peeve of mine - when I used to buy wine in restaurants, I would put the bottle of red in the ice bucket before decanting if it was too warm - got dirty looks from the somm, but who cares - he should have served it at the proper temp. And that's one of the many reasons I never purchase wine at restaurants - always go to corkage-friendly places now.

I disagree about glasses not making a difference in how a wine tastes. I fully agree that Riedel is the Monster Cable of the wine world and glasses for every grape is marketing genius appealing to those with more money than sense. However, the general difference in design of flutes, white wine glasses, Port glasses, Sauternes glasses, and red wine glasses definitely make a difference.

I find Champagne flutes to be too restrictive to get the flavor of the wine (I can neither get my nose in there nor swirl) and saucer-type glasses to be just plain dumb and useless.  I either use my Les Impitoyables glass (shown below) or a white wine glass (heck, I've used the generic red wine glass at restaurants instead of a flute). There are so many wonderful aromas in good Champagne that are lost in a small bowl glass.  Next time you have a good vintage Champagne at the proper temp (see above), pour some into a flute and pour some into a larger bowl glass. Let me know which you prefer.  Do the same for a good white wine using a white wine glass and red wine glass - they are two different wines. And yes, bubbles will dissipate faster in a wide bowl, but how long does it really take to drink a glass of Champagne?






As for breathing, many white wines definitely need air and benefit greatly from it (not decanting-level, but breathing in the glass).  You are doing yourself a disservice if you don't let some of them develop in the glass. That's why white Burgundy glasses have a wide bowl - so they can breathe. And most white Burgundy wines are made from chardonnay, so the same rule applies to good chardonnays from other regions as well.

And finally, I too like the Riedel Port glasses for vintage Port and their Sauternes glasses for Sauternes/dessert wines. Some of their stuff works, but different glasses for every grape is just insanity.

Plastic Red Dixie cups for me.

Eoin

@YukonRon I often drink wine from a tumbler, the whole glass shape thing seems too much like hard work to me.

Eoin

theyolksonyou said:

HofstraJet said:

theyolksonyou said:

Eoin said:

Crazy golf followed by ice cream.

A crazy round of golf, or is crazy golf the same as putt putt? (goony golf)

Mini golf where I come from.

Yeah, that too. I think putt putt is actually a franchise name. Mini golf slipped my mind. 

You can see one of the holes in the picture at the top of this page. http://www.daisymadeicecream.co.uk/about-us.html

This is the favourite of our autistic son who hugs the plastic cow while we play. We're everyones' favourite family when we're out. 

JohnnyTarheel

Grandsons wanted "white steak" for lunch... so I obliged!!

HofstraJet

nolaegghead

Eoin said:

MB also had a period of crappy quality from the late 90s for about 10 years and their reputation suffered for it.

A fast BMW is a great daily driver.

They did.  The made some crap 4-cylinders, including this one.  The timing chain is about as strong as a bicycle chain.  One of my brothers is a MB mechanic and told me this engine is terrible.   Mercedes finally decided to scrap the 4s and go to v6 for their base on their low end models around 2006.  Then later they went back to a new 4.

Diatribe: in the movement to go to low displacement/high output efficient engines, there's been a general trend in many manufacturer's engine designs to small, forced induction, low compression engines. 

They're light, efficient, and run on a razor's edge of blowing up.  The computer adjusts all the engine parameters many times a second to keep performance up, prevent predetonation and excessive boost from destroying the engine.  When something goes wrong, you can easily get engine damage, so the computer measures many different parameters to stay in the safe zone.  Problem is, these engines aren't like the simple naturally inducted old engines where you can get 250 plus thousand miles.  They are designed to last for 100, 150k, minimally past the warranty period.  And this is with high tech alloys, forged con rods, etc.  VW/Audi/Porsche/Ford(ecoboost), etc all do this. 

Nothing wrong with this, but the bean counters that cut every corner to save a penny fight with the engineers and the compromise is - you get engines that are prone to catastrophic failure earlier than previous generations of engine. 

So buyer beware on high mileage cars of this "ilk".   Change your oil earlier than the recommended mileage and use the best oil.  Always go with a 0W-xx viscosity if you can.  Synthetic is superior.

Eoin

nolaegghead said:

Eoin said:

MB also had a period of crappy quality from the late 90s for about 10 years and their reputation suffered for it.

A fast BMW is a great daily driver.

They did.  The made some crap 4-cylinders, including this one.  The timing chain is about as strong as a bicycle chain.  One of my brothers is a MB mechanic and told me this engine is terrible.   Mercedes finally decided to scrap the 4s and go to v6 for their base on their low end models around 2006.  Then later they went back to a new 4.

Diatribe: in the movement to go to low displacement/high output efficient engines, there's been a general trend in many manufacturer's engine designs to small, forced induction, low compression engines. 

They're light, efficient, and run on a razor's edge of blowing up.  The computer adjusts all the engine parameters many times a second to keep performance up, prevent predetonation and excessive boost from destroying the engine.  When something goes wrong, you can easily get engine damage, so the computer measures many different parameters to stay in the safe zone.  Problem is, these engines aren't like the simple naturally inducted old engines where you can get 250 plus thousand miles.  They are designed to last for 100, 150k, minimally past the warranty period.  And this is with high tech alloys, forged con rods, etc.  VW/Audi/Porsche/Ford(ecoboost), etc all do this. 

Nothing wrong with this, but the bean counters that cut every corner to save a penny fight with the engineers and the compromise is - you get engines that are prone to catastrophic failure earlier than previous generations of engine. 

So buyer beware on high mileage cars of this "ilk".   Change your oil earlier than the recommended mileage and use the best oil.  Always go with a 0W-xx viscosity if you can.  Synthetic is superior.

There are some silly power outputs from small engines these days, the manufacturers probably bank on them not actually being used hard for long periods.

theyolksonyou

nolaegghead

The newer version of my car is a good example.  I have a Cayman S - 290HP, 235FP torque, 3.4 L H6, naturally aspirated.  The new model is a 2.5L H2 turbo. 350HP, 305 torque.  Same EPA mileage.  I don't have a problem with this, Porsche engineers overbuild for abuse, but you wouldn't believe the moaning and groaning about moving away from the H6 design.  This car is a beast and superior performance on paper, but the jury is out on reliability and it doesn't have that classic Porsche sound and response.

Legume

Well, now I'm waiting for my F150 3.5 ecoboost to 'splode.

Seriously though, I tend to agree.  I don't expect this engine to go high mileage, I have 90k now and my mileage has been slowly slipping since about 60k.  It's a daily driver for me, mostly work from home now and only tow once per year, so I don't put much on it.  Ford now recommends replacing plugs every 60k because the added pressure seems to be f'n them up.  I'll probably buy a travel trailer in a couple of years and won't want to rely on this to drag it up and down mountains.  Probably end up going diesel even though I won't buy a heavy trailer.

lousubcap

@theyolksonyou -  now that is a great snap-back to reality right there.  Great looking bark.  Enjoy the rest of the cook and follow-on eats. A banquet awaits.

Eoin

The old Cayman S had great reviews but the new model doesn't, especially because the engine is a bit underwhelming in the fun stakes.

6 cylinders always sounds good too, straight 6 BMW is a favourite of mine.

nolaegghead

Legume said:

Well, now I'm waiting for my F150 3.5 ecoboost to 'splode.

Seriously though, I tend to agree.  I don't expect this engine to go high mileage, I have 90k now and my mileage has been slowly slipping since about 60k.  It's a daily driver for me, mostly work from home now and only tow once per year, so I don't put much on it.  Ford now recommends replacing plugs every 60k because the added pressure seems to be f'n them up.  I'll probably buy a travel trailer in a couple of years and won't want to rely on this to drag it up and down mountains.  Probably end up going diesel even though I won't buy a heavy trailer.

I wouldn't worry about it.  Change your oil frequently.   The older naturally aspirated engines had much lower cylinder pressures and you could get away with a lazy oil change schedule.  The high performance forced induction engines are really testing the material science of their engineering.  Yeah, I wouldn't buy an ecoboost with 160k on it.  It's worn out.  That's not to say you can't get 250k out of it.  If you take care of it.