That average has been raised by the car's shrinkage
Just like the transition from muscle cars to Japanese imports in the early 70's?
The typical passenger car of today, a 2012 Honda Accord puts out 180 horses from a 2.4 litre engine and the 3.5 litre 270 ponies. A 1972 Roadrunner with a 440 only put out 280 horses. Half the size of the engine and the same horsepower. I'll agree on the "fixability" of the old engines, but if I was going to crash into a Ford F150 I'd rather be in the Honda Accord than the Roadrunner.
BTW---My everyday driver is only a 6 cycliner (diesel), puts out 350 hp and 650 ft lbs of torque. It weighs over 8000 pounds and gets about 17 mpg. This was impossible 30 years ago.
<< <i>Lets not forget the inflation in automobile fuel economy....almost 25 mpg now, up 20% since 2008. >>
I have a 2003 Caddy Northstar engine with only 66K miles that gets 34 MPG on the interstate. >>
I'd like to see that. I've owned three 1996-2002 model year V-8 Lincolns and Caddies and could never exceed 26 mpg on the most optimistic of highway drives. When I communted 50 miles per day for 20 years, the best I ever got on that 1996 Lincoln (265 hp) was about 26 mpg. And that engine didn't leak oil and got me to 230,000 miles when it was time to sell it. What makes the Northstar get better mileage when the hp is higher? Does it have an 8 cyl.to 6 cyl kick down mode? I love these cars though the one drawback is the air suspension system that almost always fails early in life. My next low mileage used car purchase will probably be a more simpler V8 such as a 2006-2011 Crown Vic or Grand Marquis. But I'm also considering trying a V8 hemi Chrysler/Dodge sedan/4 door from that era when the prices come down enough. The big trunks and back seats in these Fords and Mercs make them almost as good as a small pickup truck for hauling stuff. I wonder if Cohodk is considering those new 2 seater "half-cars" in the national mileage average? That's not a apples vs. oranges comparison. As each one of them comes on the road and another older big V8 4 door leaves, up goes the mileage. I guess when our cars drive themselves on pre-guided tracks then we won't need the crash protection of larger cars. Until them, I'm in the big V8.
<< <i>That average has been raised by the car's shrinkage
Just like the transition from muscle cars to Japanese imports in the early 70's?
The typical passenger car of today, a 2012 Honda Accord puts out 180 horses from a 2.4 litre engine and the 3.5 litre 270 ponies. A 1972 Roadrunner with a 440 only put out 280 horses. Half the size of the engine and the same horsepower. I'll agree on the "fixability" of the old engines, but if I was going to crash into a Ford F150 I'd rather be in the Honda Accord than the Roadrunner.
BTW---My everyday driver is only a 6 cycliner (diesel), puts out 350 hp and 650 ft lbs of torque. It weighs over 8000 pounds and gets about 17 mpg. This was impossible 30 years ago. >>
I've owned effectively 7 roadrunners ('68 GTX, two '69 GTX's, 2 - '69 RR's, 1- 69 Super Bee, 1 - 70 Dodge Coronet R/T) during the 1990-2005 period. Those cars have huge front ends with a strong crumple zone made of very thick metal plus a very large K frame with 383/440 engine. That won't get crumpled. Isn't the Honda at least 1/2 plastic up front. Yeah, I'll give you the air bags. If the same technology on the honda (better breathing intake and exhaust, fuel injection vs. carb, better voltage/spark input and control (add an MSD), better plugs and plug wires, etc. were put on the standard '69 RR that gross 335 hp would probably jump closer to 375-425. The majority of those old muscle cars out there today do get upgraded in the basic systems to perform far better than they did 30 years ago. And there is really no cost diffference to restore those cars with a stock engine setup or go with a restified/improved version. Let's not even bring the '1972 RR into the discussion as that was the first year of heavy smog components on the muscle cars. That was caveman technology and those cars were pigs. They also went from gross to net hp ratings from 1971 to 1972 so that has to be considered when comparing the before/after years. They also lower the compression ratio of the engines from 10.1 down to around 8.8 to 9.2. And comparing diesel to gas cars....not a fair comparison either (compression ratio's are far different). What is the 6 cyl diesel you are driving? I'm a little skeptical of those numbers...though I have to say I know little about automotive diesel engines. I know a decent amount about CAT 936-980 front end loaders.
<< <i>Yes roadrunner, im including all cars. Just like average fuel economy has ALWAYS been calculated. That 1/2 car get compiled with my Dodge 3500 dually. >>
Like I said apples vs. oranges. How many daily driver American cars were 4 bangers back in the 1960's? It was basically a 6 or an 8 for most people. Now the 4's are prevalent while 8's head off into obscurity other than in Vette's and trucks.
I just looked up the CAT 966 wheel loader we used at our plant. That's 53,000 lbs. with 267 hp on a 568 ci. inline 6 turbo charged diesel generating 1000 ft-lbs of torque. At first glance, I'm not sure how your V6 truck engine gets more hp and torque in the same general range. It might be that this engine is rated at a "slow" 1800-2200 rpm. 25 tonnes at 23 mph top speed.
Those cars have huge front ends with a strong crumple zone made of very thick metal plus a very large K frame with 383/440 engine. That won't get crumpled.
Which is exactly why YOU will get crumpled. Dont forget, objects INSIDE the car are moving just as fast as the outside. If you dont slow down the outside then the inside crashed at the same speed. It is irrefutable that todays cars are much safer than in 1970. I used a Honda Accord and Roadrunner as both are about the same size and power.
In 2012, 34,000 people died in automobile accidents. In 1970, 52,000. This despite "smaller cars that crumple" and 3x more miles driven.
<< <i>Yes roadrunner, im including all cars. Just like average fuel economy has ALWAYS been calculated. That 1/2 car get compiled with my Dodge 3500 dually. >>
Like I said apples vs. oranges.
I just looked up the CAT 966 wheel loader we used at our plant. That's 53,000 lbs. with 267 hp on a 568 ci. inline 6 turbo charged diesel generating 1000 ft-lbs of torque. At first glance, I'm not sure how your V6 truck engine gets more hp and torque in the same general range. It might be that this engine is rated at a "slow" 1800-2200 rpm. >>
Actually my other truck, a 2012 Chevy 3500 dually with the V-8 Duramax is almost 400 HP and generates 750 pounds of torque. It weighs 7500 pounds and is faster than my old 1998 Jeep with a 5.9 which weighed about 4400. I can burn the tires on the Chevy. Its a beast.
<< <i>Those cars have huge front ends with a strong crumple zone made of very thick metal plus a very large K frame with 383/440 engine. That won't get crumpled.
Which is exactly why YOU will get crumpled. Dont forget, objects INSIDE the car are moving just as fast as the outside. If you dont slow down the outside then the inside crashed at the same speed. It is irrefutable that todays cars are much safer than in 1970. I used a Honda Accord and Roadrunner as both are about the same size and power.
In 2012, 34,000 people died in automobile accidents. In 1970, 52,000. This despite "smaller cars that crumple" and 3x more miles driven. >>
Honda and RR are hardly the same size. Maybe in weight. Certainly not in length and width. No one is disputing car safety from 1969 to 2014. And by not crumpling I was suggesting that the the engine compartment will not end up in your lap like the Honda will in a 40-60 mph head on collision. The RR engine compt. will crumple as numerous high speed accident photos will attest to. It just won't crumple into a complete mess like a Honda. Only the air bag may save your life in that car. I don't know what year RR or Honda you drove but there's not much comparison on torque between a '69 stock RR and your 2014 V6 Honda (non-turbo). If you're trying to bring the smog-infested 400 and 360 1972-1979 RR's into the mix....it's apples vs. oranges once again. Those were pigs. Go out and test drive someone's properly tuned '69-'70 RR, GTX, R/T, or Super Bee. The torque on those will push you into your seat (375 ft-lbs). And for $150 more back in 1969 you could have added a 6 barrel intake/carbs on your RR - good for another 75-100 ft-lbs of torque (490-525 ft-lbs net). Try one of those against your Honda - even a turbo....from a dead stop. I don't see any typical V6 Honda passenger cars with any decent torque ratings.....and we're not talking NSX's here. And those ratings from 1969 tend to be underrated since they were were trying to keep the insurance premiums down under key levels where the prices would jump.
It was basically a 6 or an 8 for most people. Now the 4's are prevalent while 8's head off into obscurity other than in Vette's and trucks.
This is apples to oranges argument. The number of cylinders is irrelevant. The same energy is generated pushing the same weight of vehicle. How many more 5000 pound vehicles are there on the road today than in 1970? If we can get the same performance from a 6 that we used to from an 8, then why even build 8's anymore?
The discussion is about fuel economy. The 6's of today are vastly more efficient than 6's of yesteryear. And there were A LOT of 4 cylinder engines in the 70's, thankfully those 4's are much more powerful than 40 years ago.
The BMW X5 is a 5000 pound SUV with a 6 cylinder engine (183 cu. in.) that puts out 300 HP and goes 0-60 in under 7 seconds. Thats faster than a Roadrunner with a 383--engine twice as big and weighing 1500 pounds less.
Honda and RR are hardly the same size. Maybe in weight. Certainly not in length and width
The 1970 RR was 203 long and 79 wide. A 2012 Accord is 195 long and 73 wide. Not much difference. A 1970 barracuda was 187 long and 75 wide. A 1970 Mach 1 was 187 and 72? Better comparison?
And the engine of a 2012 Accord will not end up in your lap, but you will end up in the engine of the RR. People died, A LOT, in simple collisions with trees with the older cars. Today people walk away...and the car even calls for help by itself.
The number of cylinders is particularly relevant.....especially when it comes to ci displacement and torque. You keep on turning back the discussion to mileage and we're talking about power. I'm still waiting to see that V6 Honda put out the same torque off the line (ie power) vs. a 383-4v RR (425 ft lbs) or 440-6 barrel RR (500+ ft-bls). Even using net ratings and a 20% reduction, the hottest V6 Honda touring sedan at 278 hp/252 ft-lbs of torque is no match for the old muscle cars....nevermind the more anemic 181 hp that most of the V6's come with. There were no anemic RR's in 1968-1971.
Let me know where there's a Honda passenger car bought by your typical J6P that puts out the torque of those original RR's. The 6 barrel RR listed above was a 5.6 second car in the 0-60. It would crush your diesel off the line as well as in the quarter mile. It would probably be a race vs. the std 383 RR. But since we're comparing a luxury SUV vs. a J6P roadrunner that was about the cheapest 4v sedan you could buy back then a comparison to stepped up 440-6 and 426 ci cars is more applicable. And it's frankly no contest. To say that your BMX has more power than those guys is absurd. They netted out at over 400 lbs. of net torque. Even the lowly RR 383 nets out around 340 net torque which would take the far heavier BNX (5000 lbs vs. 3450 lbs RR). Weight is weight and torque is torque. No way that +1500 lb SUV with 90 lbs less torque out runs a 383 '1969 Roadunner. You can quote all the BMX and Honda specs you like, simple physics and mathematics says otherwise. I don't disagree that today's cars are superior. But to say your Hondas have more "power" than these old beasts that were cheap passenger cars is just wrong. If your BMX is not turbo powered explain to me the physics of how FAR less torque at the rear wheels and far more weight leads to a faster car.
People walk away today because of seat belts and air bags....don't read a lot more into than that. Those old cars also were terrible at taking turns and handling in general. The tires were like rocks and had little grip on the road. Imagine what those cars would do with today's handling systems, tires, etc. I drove most of my cars with the old F-70 14" red lines. Yeah, they sucked. But, the car was still powerful as heck. The requirement for shoulder belts wasn't even mandatory until January 1969. I'm sure most people died prior to the that in collisions from lacking that simple option. Most drivers who took these cars to the limit back then were ill-trained to do so. At least today's cars are more forgiving in handling, stability, etc. before they give it up. Seat belts and air bags in a '69 roadrunner and it would take the front end collision nearly as well as your Honda, which from the photos looks to be 1-2 foot shorter from forward of the windshield (ie less area to crumple before the driver gets crumpled). The air bag is what cushions nearly all of our bodily organs' descent from 60 mph to 0. Your guts are still going to be clocked no matter what though. Yes, in a front end collsion I'll take the Honda with an air bag. Off the line in a 0-60 race in any of those vehicles you mentioned I'll take the '69-'71 RR/GTX 440-6....with "old" torque.
When quoting those old 0-60 times there's much inaccuracy between years, vehicles, etc. This was hand timing by Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. You have some very slow and very fast times posted for vehicles of the same power rating. The factory provided cars had so much variability in tuning, rear end ratios, tires, and drivers to make a lot of these numbers meaningless. But if you take an average of the typical muscle cars from 1968 to 1971 it's clear that most times in these 340-454 ci engine cars was under 7 seconds for 0-60. With the best of all conditions some made it to the mid-5's. Of greater accuracy are the quarter miles times. Look at the '69 Dodge 383-4v SBee (5.5 sec on 3.55 gears) vs the 440-6v (6.3 sec on 4.10 gears). That 's one incredibly fast 383 RR/SBee base model vs. a sluggo 440-6 car. One driver had to be drunk while the other was on meth...or maybe it was the guys with the stop watches that were "impaired."
Another source quotes this for factory fresh/tested 1970 RR's: 383ci/335hp/425ft-lb: .0-60 in 7.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 15.0 sec @ 96 mph AND 426 ci hemi/425 hp: 0-60 in 5.3 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.49 sec @ 105 mph. Now that has to be about the slowest possible RR ever leaving the factory (the same 7.1 sec you quoted earlier). The hemi at 5.3 seconds is probably close to unachievable to 99% of drivers. That's almost too good to be true for 0-60. I'd toss those both out. The 5.5-6.8 range was more typical of 335-450 hp big block cars of that period.
To get this thread back on track. There is almost nothing similar to today's hot cars vs. those in 1969 other than 4 rubber tires. Still, torque ruled the day back then and those cars still measure up today....and then some. In fact I got into those cars in 1992 when it was quite apparent that they were hp/torque bargains compared to what the automakers had put out from 1972-1992 (ie slugs). It was shameful that cars from 25 years earlier were faster and more generally more powerful than V8's in 1992. At least over the next 20 years they have done much better for themselves as horsepower was no longer a 4 letter word hated by insurance companies and enviromaniacs.
Torque in 1969 is the same torque today. The larger "net" number tends to be the car making more power....regardless of weight, size, # of cylinders, turbo-equipped, etc. That's apples to apples. And I approve 'dem apples.
<< <i>Yes roadrunner, im including all cars. Just like average fuel economy has ALWAYS been calculated. That 1/2 car get compiled with my Dodge 3500 dually. >>
Like I said apples vs. oranges.
I just looked up the CAT 966 wheel loader we used at our plant. That's 53,000 lbs. with 267 hp on a 568 ci. inline 6 turbo charged diesel generating 1000 ft-lbs of torque. At first glance, I'm not sure how your V6 truck engine gets more hp and torque in the same general range. It might be that this engine is rated at a "slow" 1800-2200 rpm. >>
Actually my other truck, a 2012 Chevy 3500 dually with the V-8 Duramax is almost 400 HP and generates 750 pounds of torque. It weighs 7500 pounds and is faster than my old 1998 Jeep with a 5.9 which weighed about 4400. I can burn the tires on the Chevy. Its a beast. >>
cohodk: What are you towing with your 1 ton monster trucks? Do you have 5th wheels in the bed? Trucks like that are beasts made to tow huge loads (up to 25,000 pounds or so). I'm picturing something like this loaded with 1,000 oz silver bars.
<< <i>price is reality, everything else is your bias... >>
Tell me why, in the past 150 years, the price of Silver absolutely went through the floor, and why it belongs there. (((it really doesnt matter right now)))
Show me where my analysis went awry. "price is reality" is worthless, in that respect. >>
((( because right now if anyone has silver to sell, they will get right now price, its a tad over $20)))
any silver bought over 20 or so is a losing position, immaterial of what happened in 4bc, 1100, 1200, 1776, 1812, whatever date/year u use, thus that is reality...
<< <i>RR, you contested my claims of better average mile per gallon. So I provide proof, yet you say "so what, wheres the torque?"
My 8000 pound truck gets better mileage than almost car in 1970, and you say "apples to orange"? >>
I don't recall contesting your claim about average miles per gallon. It's common knowledge that mpg in the 1964-1971 muscle car era basically stunk. Even my Grandma's 1964 Buick Wildcat (400 ci 4 v 330 hp) was lucky if it got 14 mpg. The "discussion" went all over the map from mpg, safety, power, speed, etc. I'm sure your truck gets better mileage than most cars in 1970. My point was that I think you're underestimating the power of those earlier cars by a wide margin. Today's car's are more efficient and can ride rings around those old muscle cars....but at the same time today's car's are often heavier and slower than the old muscle cars.
Sorry u have it wrong... What u state is not reality, it may be defined as fact, but is not current reality... The current reality u live in may predispose u to think the past is now... It isn't... Also god forbid u might not see in your lifetime what your bias tells u...
U state your position of silver = savings ... Then state it's not all or nothing... That does not compute, as once again you are assuming you will be able to sell at certain higher price points... That is pure speculation, again based on your bias...
I speculate that silver is very underpriced. It may, and probably will go lower in the short term, but my bias (opinion) says much higher in the long term. I too use silver as a place to park savings. It rewarded me the last time it peaked and I cashed in and I am confident it will repeat itself, probably on many more occasions. The more the better.
<< <i>Why is the current price so low? Did you even take the time to read and consider my analysis?... >>
I am not smart enough to tell you what the correct price is for an ounce of Silver. When it was under $5, some were yelling "sell" and when it was near $50, some yelled "buy".
When I try to value and asset, any asset, the first thing I look at is the cost of production. Not simple to do, but it gives you a ballpark. If it cost say $13 to get an ounce of silver out of the ground, then current pricing is about right. If it cost $30, then you are correct and silver is under priced at the current level.
During the insane housing bubble of a decade ago, folks were giving every excuse why an old 1500 home should be worth $275k. As they speculated, the home builders were rapidly buying up desert land and frantically building more of these sky is the limit units. Of course supply met up with demand and combined with corrupted financing, the market tanked to below real value.
Tulip bulbs used to be worth quite a bit per capita also, why are they priced so low? And at one time human labor was rewarded with a bucket of salt. Now we throw that salt on the roads and drive over it.
1) The global psyche cares less about silver than almost any time in recorded history. This will continue to deteriorate as the Yuan strengthens as a global currency, sending more Chinese out of the market. If India gets its inflation under control, same thing there.
2) the variety of stores of wealth available for purchase has multiplied considerably. housing, other currencies, collectibles, bitcoins, stocks, bonds, derivatives, whatever - lots of options, and they're available to anyone.
3) governments are more stable globally. this is especially true if you take 'the long view', esp. pre-westphalia
4) storage problems. really rich people would rather store gold than Ag. in big amounts, it's bulky.
5) rate of return. last I checked, a bar never paid a dividend. most investors like compound interest.
6) difficulty in use as a medium of exchange.
7) perception that it's only for a SHTF scenario. true or not, if that is the underlying belief in the value of Ag, when an economy improves, demand will diminish.
and I'm long Ag now. I'd imagine those short have even more reasons.
<< <i>(5) rate of return. last I checked, a bar never paid a dividend. most investors like compound interest. >>
Many consider a lack of counterparty risk to be a great dividend. Compound interest expections need to include future value of the basis. Does no good to get 1% return if the holding looses more than 1% value.
<< <i>So no one can give me any good reason(s) why the price of Silver is so low compared to historical values. >>
silver is undervalued because temporary deflation has demand focusing on cash. Richard Russell is correct. Silver is the buy of the century. The dash to cash will be short lived.
<< <i>P.S. Since I don't want to "lose credibility as someone who says just 'buy buy buy' and never 'sell sell sell'", I'd like to offer this for consideration. I've gone on record saying that "I'll continue to trade available FRNs for physical Silver, because it is the bargain of a lifetime", and I still believe that to be a true statement. What price do I consider selling it at? Obviously I'd like to analyse the data and economic factors in context at the time, but at a minimum, it would be the inflation-adjusted all-time high price of $1130 (set back in 1477). So now you know what I believe, and more importantly, why I believe it. >>
So no one can give me any good reason(s) why the price of Silver is so low compared to historical values, and no one has any critic or comments on my analysis. Silver is one of, if not the, most valuable element in the world, has thousands of years of history as a store of value, and you want to crack jokes about Bread and Tulips.
I'll take that as both an "ignore", and a "ridicule"....
They say that an Attorney should never ask a witness a question that he doesn't already know the answer to, and I believe that to be a wise practice. Should you choose to reply, you may be stepping into a trap - right, cohodk?
Thank you, gentlemen. You've been a big help. >>
Well, you're obviously smarter than the market and all the individuals. Why waste your time, you should be living the life of Riley!
<< <i> Many consider a lack of counterparty risk to be a great dividend. Compound interest expections need to include future value of the basis. Does no good to get 1% return if the holding looses more than 1% value. >>
I would call an investment's lack of counterparty risk to be great insurance (which silver is good at), not a great dividend. Also, it's always good to remember that physical carries its own risks (theft, loss), and expenses (safes, insurance, selling / buying fees) that are often not considered or simply explained away as irrelevant. No investment is entirely risk free.
What I do wonder, however, is if the general speed of global markets means that 'grand cycles' of price spikes and floors will now take place in spans of years instead of decades. If the former, then silver could see a nice bump in the coming years. If the latter, I'll buy all WRM's Ag at 13 when he throws in the towel at the 'rigged system.'
One problem with silver....quite different from gold, is how much of the 50 BILL or so ounces mined over history are still above ground? You will get some of the perma bulls like Ted Butler saying it's less than 1 BILL oz left. Others might say a couple billion ounces. I've seen a reasonable estimate showing it should be from 18B to 24B ounces remaining. My own gut feel says 5-10 BILL ounces. The actual amount makes all the difference in the world on how much silver should be worth.
Silver has been used effectively as money many times. If fiat money collapses as it should since trust has been broken worldwide, there's no reason that demand for silver couldn't take a major jump.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>One problem with silver....quite different from gold, is how much of the 50 BILL or so ounces mined over history are still above ground? You will get some of the perma bulls like Ted Butler saying it's less than 1 BILL oz left. Others might say a couple billion ounces. I've seen a reasonable estimate showing it should be from 18B to 24B ounces remaining. My own gut feel says 5-10 BILL ounces. The actual amount makes all the difference in the world on how much silver should be worth. >>
Heh, if silver ( or gold for that matter) was so special, then why is ist formed into innumerable stupid crap rounds and collectible bars? Browse ebay or apmex or mcm and see all the stuff thats priced at a bit of a premium that may as well not be made of silver since it will never get melted.
Browse ebay or apmex or mcm and see all the stuff thats priced at a bit of a premium that may as well not be made of silver since it will never get melted.
This does seem to discount the theory that there isn't enough silver in the world that it couldn't be used as money. Balderash! It's been used as circulating money more times than any other medium.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i> Heh, if silver ( or gold for that matter) was so special, then why is it formed into innumerable stupid crap rounds and collectible bars? Browse ebay or apmex or mcm and see all the stuff thats priced at a bit of a premium that may as well not be made of silver since it will never get melted. >>
You may as well include crap or stupid silver/gold jewelry into that mix as well. And the reason is Joe, Jane, Jian, and Jawahar 6Pack can't afford 100-1000 oz bars of gold/silver. So they slowly accumulate stupid coins, bars and jewelry instead. Whatever is on Ebay pales to the amount of silver and gold contained in the world. There are over 2 MILL "stupid" 400 oz good delivery gold bars out there - not held by any J6P. And tens of millions 100-1000 oz bars. Keeping the metals in these "stupid" forms makes them easier to keep track of, safeguard and store. A large amount of scrap silver and bullion jewelry, coins, and bars do get recycled all the time to make into fresh items including larger good delivery bars. People living and dying keep this recycling process going.....as do the miners that bring up 2800 tonnes of gold and 1 BILL oz of silver every year.
Is it possible that silver was highly valued 700 years ago because there really wasnt that much silver coinage in circulation? As it became widely available to more and more of the population its value dropped?
black pepper was also once used as currency, and 99% of the pepper ever produced is now gone. Gone! I'm stockpiling in my cupboard, and am dumping all these frnnnnnnns in my pocket to get more. I'm not crazy or anything, so I will sell at only half of historical highs. It has to get back there, that's just economics.
Comments
Just like the transition from muscle cars to Japanese imports in the early 70's?
The typical passenger car of today, a 2012 Honda Accord puts out 180 horses from a 2.4 litre engine and the 3.5 litre 270 ponies. A 1972 Roadrunner with a 440 only put out 280 horses. Half the size of the engine and the same horsepower. I'll agree on the "fixability" of the old engines, but if I was going to crash into a Ford F150 I'd rather be in the Honda Accord than the Roadrunner.
BTW---My everyday driver is only a 6 cycliner (diesel), puts out 350 hp and 650 ft lbs of torque. It weighs over 8000 pounds and gets about 17 mpg. This was impossible 30 years ago.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Lets not forget the inflation in automobile fuel economy....almost 25 mpg now, up 20% since 2008. >>
I have a 2003 Caddy Northstar engine with only 66K miles that gets 34 MPG on the interstate. >>
I'd like to see that. I've owned three 1996-2002 model year V-8 Lincolns and Caddies and could never exceed 26 mpg on the most optimistic of highway drives. When I communted 50 miles per day for 20 years, the best I ever
got on that 1996 Lincoln (265 hp) was about 26 mpg. And that engine didn't leak oil and got me to 230,000 miles when it was time to sell it. What makes the Northstar get better mileage when the hp is higher? Does it have an
8 cyl.to 6 cyl kick down mode? I love these cars though the one drawback is the air suspension system that almost always fails early in life. My next low mileage used car purchase will probably be a more simpler V8 such as a
2006-2011 Crown Vic or Grand Marquis. But I'm also considering trying a V8 hemi Chrysler/Dodge sedan/4 door from that era when the prices come down enough. The big trunks and back seats in these Fords and Mercs make
them almost as good as a small pickup truck for hauling stuff. I wonder if Cohodk is considering those new 2 seater "half-cars" in the national mileage average? That's not a apples vs. oranges comparison. As each one of them
comes on the road and another older big V8 4 door leaves, up goes the mileage. I guess when our cars drive themselves on pre-guided tracks then we won't need the crash protection of larger cars. Until them, I'm in the big V8.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Lets not forget the inflation in automobile fuel economy....almost 25 mpg now, up 20% since 2008. >>
I have a 2003 Caddy Northstar engine with only 66K miles that gets 34 MPG on the interstate. >>
Only 6000 miles per year? You gotta get out more.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>That average has been raised by the car's shrinkage
Just like the transition from muscle cars to Japanese imports in the early 70's?
The typical passenger car of today, a 2012 Honda Accord puts out 180 horses from a 2.4 litre engine and the 3.5 litre 270 ponies. A 1972 Roadrunner with a 440 only put out 280 horses. Half the size of the engine and the same horsepower. I'll agree on the "fixability" of the old engines, but if I was going to crash into a Ford F150 I'd rather be in the Honda Accord than the Roadrunner.
BTW---My everyday driver is only a 6 cycliner (diesel), puts out 350 hp and 650 ft lbs of torque. It weighs over 8000 pounds and gets about 17 mpg. This was impossible 30 years ago. >>
I've owned effectively 7 roadrunners ('68 GTX, two '69 GTX's, 2 - '69 RR's, 1- 69 Super Bee, 1 - 70 Dodge Coronet R/T) during the 1990-2005 period. Those cars have huge front ends with a strong crumple zone made of very thick metal plus a very large K frame with 383/440 engine. That won't get crumpled. Isn't the Honda at least 1/2 plastic up front. Yeah, I'll give you the air bags. If the same technology on the honda (better breathing intake and exhaust, fuel injection vs. carb, better voltage/spark input and control (add an MSD), better plugs and plug wires, etc. were put on the standard '69 RR that gross 335 hp would probably jump closer to 375-425. The majority of those old muscle cars out there today do get upgraded in the basic systems to perform far better than they did 30 years ago. And there is really no cost diffference to restore those cars with a stock engine setup or go with a restified/improved version. Let's not even bring the '1972 RR into the discussion as that was the first year of heavy smog components on the muscle cars. That was caveman technology and those cars were pigs. They also went from gross to net hp ratings from 1971 to 1972 so that has to be considered when comparing the before/after years. They also lower the compression ratio of the engines from 10.1 down to around 8.8 to 9.2. And comparing diesel to gas cars....not a fair comparison either (compression ratio's are far different). What is the 6 cyl diesel you are driving? I'm a little skeptical of those numbers...though I have to say I know little about automotive diesel engines. I know a decent amount about CAT 936-980 front end loaders.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Yes roadrunner, im including all cars. Just like average fuel economy has ALWAYS been calculated. That 1/2 car get compiled with my Dodge 3500 dually. >>
Like I said apples vs. oranges. How many daily driver American cars were 4 bangers back in the 1960's? It was basically a 6 or an 8 for most people. Now the 4's are prevalent while 8's head off into obscurity other than in
Vette's and trucks.
I just looked up the CAT 966 wheel loader we used at our plant. That's 53,000 lbs. with 267 hp on a 568 ci. inline 6 turbo charged diesel generating 1000 ft-lbs of torque. At first glance, I'm not sure how your V6 truck
engine gets more hp and torque in the same general range. It might be that this engine is rated at a "slow" 1800-2200 rpm. 25 tonnes at 23 mph top speed.
Which is exactly why YOU will get crumpled. Dont forget, objects INSIDE the car are moving just as fast as the outside. If you dont slow down the outside then the inside crashed at the same speed. It is irrefutable that todays cars are much safer than in 1970. I used a Honda Accord and Roadrunner as both are about the same size and power.
In 2012, 34,000 people died in automobile accidents. In 1970, 52,000. This despite "smaller cars that crumple" and 3x more miles driven.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes roadrunner, im including all cars. Just like average fuel economy has ALWAYS been calculated. That 1/2 car get compiled with my Dodge 3500 dually. >>
Like I said apples vs. oranges.
I just looked up the CAT 966 wheel loader we used at our plant. That's 53,000 lbs. with 267 hp on a 568 ci. inline 6 turbo charged diesel generating 1000 ft-lbs of torque. At first glance, I'm not sure how your V6 truck
engine gets more hp and torque in the same general range. It might be that this engine is rated at a "slow" 1800-2200 rpm. >>
Actually my other truck, a 2012 Chevy 3500 dually with the V-8 Duramax is almost 400 HP and generates 750 pounds of torque. It weighs 7500 pounds and is faster than my old 1998 Jeep with a 5.9 which weighed about 4400. I can burn the tires on the Chevy. Its a beast.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Those cars have huge front ends with a strong crumple zone made of very thick metal plus a very large K frame with 383/440 engine. That won't get crumpled.
Which is exactly why YOU will get crumpled. Dont forget, objects INSIDE the car are moving just as fast as the outside. If you dont slow down the outside then the inside crashed at the same speed. It is irrefutable that todays cars are much safer than in 1970. I used a Honda Accord and Roadrunner as both are about the same size and power.
In 2012, 34,000 people died in automobile accidents. In 1970, 52,000. This despite "smaller cars that crumple" and 3x more miles driven. >>
Honda and RR are hardly the same size. Maybe in weight. Certainly not in length and width. No one is disputing car safety from 1969 to 2014. And by not crumpling I was suggesting that the the engine compartment will not
end up in your lap like the Honda will in a 40-60 mph head on collision. The RR engine compt. will crumple as numerous high speed accident photos will attest to. It just won't crumple into a complete mess like a Honda. Only
the air bag may save your life in that car. I don't know what year RR or Honda you drove but there's not much comparison on torque between a '69 stock RR and your 2014 V6 Honda (non-turbo). If you're trying to bring the
smog-infested 400 and 360 1972-1979 RR's into the mix....it's apples vs. oranges once again. Those were pigs. Go out and test drive someone's properly tuned '69-'70 RR, GTX, R/T, or Super Bee. The torque on those will push
you into your seat (375 ft-lbs). And for $150 more back in 1969 you could have added a 6 barrel intake/carbs on your RR - good for another 75-100 ft-lbs of torque (490-525 ft-lbs net). Try one of those against your Honda -
even a turbo....from a dead stop. I don't see any typical V6 Honda passenger cars with any decent torque ratings.....and we're not talking NSX's here. And those ratings from 1969 tend to be underrated since they were were
trying to keep the insurance premiums down under key levels where the prices would jump.
Vette's and trucks.
This is apples to oranges argument. The number of cylinders is irrelevant. The same energy is generated pushing the same weight of vehicle. How many more 5000 pound vehicles are there on the road today than in 1970? If we can get the same performance from a 6 that we used to from an 8, then why even build 8's anymore?
The discussion is about fuel economy. The 6's of today are vastly more efficient than 6's of yesteryear. And there were A LOT of 4 cylinder engines in the 70's, thankfully those 4's are much more powerful than 40 years ago.
The BMW X5 is a 5000 pound SUV with a 6 cylinder engine (183 cu. in.) that puts out 300 HP and goes 0-60 in under 7 seconds. Thats faster than a Roadrunner with a 383--engine twice as big and weighing 1500 pounds less.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The 1970 RR was 203 long and 79 wide. A 2012 Accord is 195 long and 73 wide. Not much difference. A 1970 barracuda was 187 long and 75 wide. A 1970 Mach 1 was 187 and 72? Better comparison?
And the engine of a 2012 Accord will not end up in your lap, but you will end up in the engine of the RR. People died, A LOT, in simple collisions with trees with the older cars. Today people walk away...and the car even calls for help by itself.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
put out the same torque off the line (ie power) vs. a 383-4v RR (425 ft lbs) or 440-6 barrel RR (500+ ft-bls). Even using net ratings and a 20% reduction, the hottest V6 Honda touring sedan at 278 hp/252 ft-lbs of torque is
no match for the old muscle cars....nevermind the more anemic 181 hp that most of the V6's come with. There were no anemic RR's in 1968-1971.
Let me know where there's a Honda passenger car bought by your typical J6P that puts out the torque of those original RR's. The 6 barrel RR listed above was a 5.6 second car in the 0-60. It would crush your diesel off the
line as well as in the quarter mile. It would probably be a race vs. the std 383 RR. But since we're comparing a luxury SUV vs. a J6P roadrunner that was about the cheapest 4v sedan you could buy back then a comparison to
stepped up 440-6 and 426 ci cars is more applicable. And it's frankly no contest. To say that your BMX has more power than those guys is absurd. They netted out at over 400 lbs. of net torque. Even the lowly RR 383 nets
out around 340 net torque which would take the far heavier BNX (5000 lbs vs. 3450 lbs RR). Weight is weight and torque is torque. No way that +1500 lb SUV with 90 lbs less torque out runs a 383 '1969 Roadunner. You can
quote all the BMX and Honda specs you like, simple physics and mathematics says otherwise. I don't disagree that today's cars are superior. But to say your Hondas have more "power" than these old beasts that were cheap
passenger cars is just wrong. If your BMX is not turbo powered explain to me the physics of how FAR less torque at the rear wheels and far more weight leads to a faster car.
People walk away today because of seat belts and air bags....don't read a lot more into than that. Those old cars also were terrible at taking turns and handling in general. The tires were like rocks and had little grip on the road.
Imagine what those cars would do with today's handling systems, tires, etc. I drove most of my cars with the old F-70 14" red lines. Yeah, they sucked. But, the car was still powerful as heck. The requirement for shoulder
belts wasn't even mandatory until January 1969. I'm sure most people died prior to the that in collisions from lacking that simple option. Most drivers who took these cars to the limit back then were ill-trained to do so. At least
today's cars are more forgiving in handling, stability, etc. before they give it up. Seat belts and air bags in a '69 roadrunner and it would take the front end collision nearly as well as your Honda, which from the photos looks to be
1-2 foot shorter from forward of the windshield (ie less area to crumple before the driver gets crumpled). The air bag is what cushions nearly all of our bodily organs' descent from 60 mph to 0. Your guts are still going to
be clocked no matter what though. Yes, in a front end collsion I'll take the Honda with an air bag. Off the line in a 0-60 race in any of those vehicles you mentioned I'll take the '69-'71 RR/GTX 440-6....with "old" torque.
When quoting those old 0-60 times there's much inaccuracy between years, vehicles, etc. This was hand timing by Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. You have some very slow and very fast times posted for vehicles of the
same power rating. The factory provided cars had so much variability in tuning, rear end ratios, tires, and drivers to make a lot of these numbers meaningless. But if you take an average of the typical muscle cars from 1968 to
1971 it's clear that most times in these 340-454 ci engine cars was under 7 seconds for 0-60. With the best of all conditions some made it to the mid-5's. Of greater accuracy are the quarter miles times. Look at the '69
Dodge 383-4v SBee (5.5 sec on 3.55 gears) vs the 440-6v (6.3 sec on 4.10 gears). That 's one incredibly fast 383 RR/SBee base model vs. a sluggo 440-6 car. One driver had to be drunk while the other was on meth...or
maybe it was the guys with the stop watches that were "impaired."
Another source quotes this for factory fresh/tested 1970 RR's: 383ci/335hp/425ft-lb: .0-60 in 7.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 15.0 sec @ 96 mph AND 426 ci hemi/425 hp: 0-60 in 5.3 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.49 sec @ 105 mph. Now that
has to be about the slowest possible RR ever leaving the factory (the same 7.1 sec you quoted earlier). The hemi at 5.3 seconds is probably close to unachievable to 99% of drivers. That's almost too good to be true for 0-60.
I'd toss those both out. The 5.5-6.8 range was more typical of 335-450 hp big block cars of that period.
To get this thread back on track. There is almost nothing similar to today's hot cars vs. those in 1969 other than 4 rubber tires. Still, torque ruled the day back then and those cars still measure up today....and then some. In fact
I got into those cars in 1992 when it was quite apparent that they were hp/torque bargains compared to what the automakers had put out from 1972-1992 (ie slugs). It was shameful that cars from 25 years earlier were faster
and more generally more powerful than V8's in 1992. At least over the next 20 years they have done much better for themselves as horsepower was no longer a 4 letter word hated by insurance companies and enviromaniacs.
Torque in 1969 is the same torque today. The larger "net" number tends to be the car making more power....regardless of weight, size, # of cylinders, turbo-equipped, etc. That's apples to apples. And I approve 'dem apples.
However, I'll take the 66 Vette in RR's list.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
My 8000 pound truck gets better mileage than almost car in 1970, and you say "apples to orange"?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes roadrunner, im including all cars. Just like average fuel economy has ALWAYS been calculated. That 1/2 car get compiled with my Dodge 3500 dually. >>
Like I said apples vs. oranges.
I just looked up the CAT 966 wheel loader we used at our plant. That's 53,000 lbs. with 267 hp on a 568 ci. inline 6 turbo charged diesel generating 1000 ft-lbs of torque. At first glance, I'm not sure how your V6 truck
engine gets more hp and torque in the same general range. It might be that this engine is rated at a "slow" 1800-2200 rpm. >>
Actually my other truck, a 2012 Chevy 3500 dually with the V-8 Duramax is almost 400 HP and generates 750 pounds of torque. It weighs 7500 pounds and is faster than my old 1998 Jeep with a 5.9 which weighed about 4400. I can burn the tires on the Chevy. Its a beast. >>
cohodk: What are you towing with your 1 ton monster trucks? Do you have 5th wheels in the bed? Trucks like that are beasts made to tow huge loads (up to 25,000 pounds or so). I'm picturing something like this loaded with 1,000 oz silver bars.
<< <i>I don't see where I indicated that "we are all doomed" and I never posted anything regarding the banker deaths? >>
Forum has a couple of interpreters who like to take what you said and turn it into what they think you said so that they can argue with themselves.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>price is reality, everything else is your bias... >>
Tell me why, in the past 150 years, the price of Silver absolutely went through the floor, and why it belongs there. (((it really doesnt matter right now)))
Show me where my analysis went awry. "price is reality" is worthless, in that respect. >>
((( because right now if anyone has silver to sell, they will get right now price, its a tad over $20)))
any silver bought over 20 or so is a losing position, immaterial of what happened in 4bc, 1100, 1200, 1776, 1812, whatever date/year u use, thus that is reality...
<< <i>RR, you contested my claims of better average mile per gallon. So I provide proof, yet you say "so what, wheres the torque?"
My 8000 pound truck gets better mileage than almost car in 1970, and you say "apples to orange"? >>
I don't recall contesting your claim about average miles per gallon. It's common knowledge that mpg in the 1964-1971 muscle car era basically stunk. Even my Grandma's 1964 Buick Wildcat (400 ci 4 v 330 hp) was lucky if it got
14 mpg. The "discussion" went all over the map from mpg, safety, power, speed, etc. I'm sure your truck gets better mileage than most cars in 1970. My point was that I think you're underestimating the power of those earlier
cars by a wide margin. Today's car's are more efficient and can ride rings around those old muscle cars....but at the same time today's car's are often heavier and slower than the old muscle cars.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Van Halen......
SWEET X2.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
What u state is not reality, it may be defined as fact, but is not current reality...
The current reality u live in may predispose u to think the past is now... It isn't...
Also god forbid u might not see in your lifetime what your bias tells u...
U state your position of silver = savings ...
Then state it's not all or nothing...
That does not compute, as once again you are assuming you will be able to sell at certain higher price points...
That is pure speculation, again based on your bias...
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Van Halen......
>>
That's pretty sweet. I might have misjudged you, anybody who owns 2 one ton diesel trucks must have some tricks up their sleeve.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
do your analysis for a loaf of bread. it "should be worth" at least a thousand FRNs per loaf.
but it ain't
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>it's not the dark ages nor the middle ages anymore.
do your analysis for a loaf of bread. it "should be worth" at least a thousand FRNs per loaf.
but it ain't >>
classic...
<< <i>Why is the current price so low? Did you even take the time to read and consider my analysis?... >>
I am not smart enough to tell you what the correct price is for an ounce of Silver. When it was under $5, some were yelling "sell" and when it was near $50, some yelled "buy".
When I try to value and asset, any asset, the first thing I look at is the cost of production. Not simple to do, but it gives you a ballpark. If it cost say $13 to get an ounce of silver out of the ground, then current pricing is about right. If it cost $30, then you are correct and silver is under priced at the current level.
During the insane housing bubble of a decade ago, folks were giving every excuse why an old 1500 home should be worth $275k. As they speculated, the home builders were rapidly buying up desert land and frantically building more of these sky is the limit units. Of course supply met up with demand and combined with corrupted financing, the market tanked to below real value.
Equities and PM's are no different.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
1) The global psyche cares less about silver than almost any time in recorded history. This will continue to deteriorate as the Yuan strengthens as a global currency, sending more Chinese out of the market. If India gets its inflation under control, same thing there.
2) the variety of stores of wealth available for purchase has multiplied considerably. housing, other currencies, collectibles, bitcoins, stocks, bonds, derivatives, whatever - lots of options, and they're available to anyone.
3) governments are more stable globally. this is especially true if you take 'the long view', esp. pre-westphalia
4) storage problems. really rich people would rather store gold than Ag. in big amounts, it's bulky.
5) rate of return. last I checked, a bar never paid a dividend. most investors like compound interest.
6) difficulty in use as a medium of exchange.
7) perception that it's only for a SHTF scenario. true or not, if that is the underlying belief in the value of Ag, when an economy improves, demand will diminish.
and I'm long Ag now. I'd imagine those short have even more reasons.
edit to fix typos
<< <i>(5) rate of return. last I checked, a bar never paid a dividend. most investors like compound interest. >>
Many consider a lack of counterparty risk to be a great dividend. Compound interest expections need to include future value of the basis. Does no good to get 1% return if the holding looses more than 1% value.
<< <i>So no one can give me any good reason(s) why the price of Silver is so low compared to historical values. >>
silver is undervalued because temporary deflation has demand focusing on cash. Richard Russell is correct. Silver is the buy of the century. The dash to cash will be short lived.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>P.S. Since I don't want to "lose credibility as someone who says just 'buy buy buy' and never 'sell sell sell'", I'd like to offer this for consideration. I've gone on record saying that "I'll continue to trade available FRNs for physical Silver, because it is the bargain of a lifetime", and I still believe that to be a true statement. What price do I consider selling it at? Obviously I'd like to analyse the data and economic factors in context at the time, but at a minimum, it would be the inflation-adjusted all-time high price of $1130 (set back in 1477). So now you know what I believe, and more importantly, why I believe it. >>
Richard Russell "Silver is the Greatest Buy in the World Today" KWN 19 March 14
So no one can give me any good reason(s) why the price of Silver is so low compared to historical values, and no one has any critic or comments on my analysis. Silver is one of, if not the, most valuable element in the world, has thousands of years of history as a store of value, and you want to crack jokes about Bread and Tulips.
I'll take that as both an "ignore", and a "ridicule"....
They say that an Attorney should never ask a witness a question that he doesn't already know the answer to, and I believe that to be a wise practice. Should you choose to reply, you may be stepping into a trap - right, cohodk?
Thank you, gentlemen. You've been a big help. >>
Well, you're obviously smarter than the market and all the individuals.
Why waste your time, you should be living the life of Riley!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i> Many consider a lack of counterparty risk to be a great dividend. Compound interest expections need to include future value of the basis. Does no good to get 1% return if the holding looses more than 1% value. >>
I would call an investment's lack of counterparty risk to be great insurance (which silver is good at), not a great dividend. Also, it's always good to remember that physical carries its own risks (theft, loss), and expenses (safes, insurance, selling / buying fees) that are often not considered or simply explained away as irrelevant. No investment is entirely risk free.
What I do wonder, however, is if the general speed of global markets means that 'grand cycles' of price spikes and floors will now take place in spans of years instead of decades. If the former, then silver could see a nice bump in the coming years. If the latter, I'll buy all WRM's Ag at 13 when he throws in the towel at the 'rigged system.'
Silver apparently has been losing relative value for 700 years. You think that's going to change in your lifetime?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>WRM...your question should not be why is silver so low now, but why was it so high then?
Silver apparently has been losing relative value for 700 years. You think that's going to change in your lifetime? >>
Why it was so high then IS why it will do it again. Thank you for presenting the correct question.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>I would be very interested to know why silver was highly valued in 1427 and when those conditions will be repeated. >>
Looking at activities in the Ukraine, N Korea and Syria, it sadly may be sooner that we would like to think.
Most silver came from central Europe in 1427 . Maybe it was running low? Columbus helped add to the supply half a century later
Others might say a couple billion ounces. I've seen a reasonable estimate showing it should be from 18B to 24B ounces remaining. My own gut feel says 5-10 BILL ounces. The actual amount makes all the difference in
the world on how much silver should be worth.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>One problem with silver....quite different from gold, is how much of the 50 BILL or so ounces mined over history are still above ground? You will get some of the perma bulls like Ted Butler saying it's less than 1 BILL oz left.
Others might say a couple billion ounces. I've seen a reasonable estimate showing it should be from 18B to 24B ounces remaining. My own gut feel says 5-10 BILL ounces. The actual amount makes all the difference in
the world on how much silver should be worth. >>
Heh, if silver ( or gold for that matter) was so special, then why is ist formed into innumerable stupid crap rounds and collectible bars?
Browse ebay or apmex or mcm and see all the stuff thats priced at a bit of a premium that may as well not be made of silver since it will never get melted.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
This does seem to discount the theory that there isn't enough silver in the world that it couldn't be used as money. Balderash! It's been used as circulating money more times than any other medium.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i> Heh, if silver ( or gold for that matter) was so special, then why is it formed into innumerable stupid crap rounds and collectible bars?
Browse ebay or apmex or mcm and see all the stuff thats priced at a bit of a premium that may as well not be made of silver since it will never get melted. >>
You may as well include crap or stupid silver/gold jewelry into that mix as well. And the reason is Joe, Jane, Jian, and Jawahar 6Pack can't afford 100-1000 oz bars of gold/silver. So they slowly accumulate stupid coins, bars and jewelry instead. Whatever is on Ebay pales to the amount of silver and gold contained in the world. There are over 2 MILL "stupid" 400 oz good delivery gold bars out there - not held by any J6P. And tens of millions 100-1000 oz bars. Keeping the metals in these "stupid" forms makes them easier to keep track of, safeguard and store. A large amount of scrap silver and bullion jewelry, coins, and bars do get recycled all the time to make into fresh items including larger good delivery bars. People living and dying keep this recycling process going.....as do the miners that bring up 2800 tonnes of gold and 1 BILL oz of silver every year.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear