Brady

Here's my project from the last week. I recently started a new job working from home. I had wanted to upgrade to dual monitors at home for a while, so that was the motivation that finally pushed me forward to take on the project. My challenges: I have a USB Docking Station on my personal laptop. Then I got another laptop from my new employer, and I wanted to use them both on real monitors without connecting and disconnecting cables all the time. I also didn't want two laptops sitting on a desk surface eating up a lot of space. I had an old 6 drawer dresser next to my old desk. The desk was too narrow for dual monitors, and the dresser was too wide for the space to allow a wider desk. A new wider desk was non negotiable. Replacing the dresser was a compromise solution. Ended up buying a desk from Ikea, and begrudgingly bought a dresser from the same collection to match. The desk is solid, the dresser is ... typical Ikea. At least it was only $200? I bought some new monitors and started playing with the setup. I was going to have laptops to the left of the monitors at first, but started to find reasons that to the right might be a better configuration. I also wanted a shelf above the desk for bookshelf speakers and my printer, like my old setup. I also knew that I wanted to somehow stack the laptops above each other when docked. I went back to the Ikea well for the shelf. But after I started to look at the option of using closed end brackets for the shelf, I was inspired to stack the laptops on shelves and open up a little more desk space entirely. I cut down the shelving to the appropriate lengths. I also knew I wanted some bias lighting under the main shelf and behind the monitors, so I continued to fund the Swedes with some LED strips. I didn't want the leds to shine in my face, so I bought a 1/2" x 3/4" strip of pine and stained it to match the rest of the furniture and shelving and used that as a shield for the lighting. I still have a little cable management to tend to, but happy to have my office set up and working well now. Also working on recovering the speaker grilles. Attached are the obvious before and after pics.

FFS ... I'm agreeing with you, you dolt

"Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk" And has the same file naming structure as an iPhone (not that it's a unique naming structure), and same aspect ratio as the iPhone camera. And I'll gladly direct it to you for sharing it. Put on your big boy undies and accept a little fair criticism.

I agree. I don't understand the fascination with trying to reproduce the spectrum of daylight. I do appreciate full spectrum lights in winter months (or generally gray areas), but your eyes do better in low light with warmer temperatures. I don't think the more accurate color spectrum is helpful unless you just have brighter lights.

IBMustangComments Guessing you sold it to someone local?

That's why I said probably not more cost effective. I'm no expert on tuning, but those who are have said that when running premium regularly, the car isn't *pulling* any timing, and see better mileage. I am personally doubtful that you'd see enough of an increase in mileage to account for the difference in cost (around here, premium is about 20% more expensive than regular). But I can see the argument for better overall engine life. The value of that is certainly debatable. BUT, with the Ascent running a 2.4T, the case for higher octane is a bit stronger than on the 2.5 NA motor.

Not a bad plan. Plenty of people with 2.5i Outbacks have reported better mileage with premium. Probably not more cost effective overall, but that's hard to measure against the what-ifs of total engine life.

All documentation online has indicated either "regular" gas or "87". And that's what the comparable EcoBoost motors they benchmarked against are using. i would be shocked if SIA didn't stick to that at this point.

Or possibly not rated at all for towing. Maybe the hitch comes standard on the other models, but not the base.

But then he'd have to trade the Legacy for a 90's Single Cab.

I once asked my stepdad a similar question when he was VP of ... something ... at a C-Store Chain. It depends on what the local refineries use. His was the only company in Minnesota that consistently offered 93, and it was because they could get it from their local Koch refinery. They stopped offering it when Koch stopped wanting to do it. Ultimately, the cost of putting more premium in the premium got to be enough to make it cost prohibitive. But it's also a weird thing that depending on what's going on in general, those components will go up and down in price over time, so it may be a trend that swings the other way again in the future. Above all, since most automotive manufacturers just call for 91 for their premium fuel rated cars, the Stations and Refineries aren't always incentivized to do anything higher.

Living in Colorado has its perks!

It's not a disagreement about renting vs. buying. It's a disagreement about whether your primary residence is an "investment."

So, first of all, you didn't "make" money on the 20% gift. That gift is a gift. It's not your investment. So then you're still at 35,000. But on your 80,000 loan, if you've paid $15,000 in mortgage payments, you've also paid over $5,000 in interest to the bank, so your 15,000 of mortgage payments is only 10,000 equity. Great, you're up $45,000. You're going to pay off 32,000 in student loans which is going to save you some interest on your student loans. Now you've got $13,000 cash and you'll be able to put that money saved each month toward a down payment on a house. Which will now cost you even more than it did before, because you've probably given up a couple years renting while you save. Ultimately, the house didn't do much for you. It just shifted money around in the years you paid for the house and then saved for a new house.

I'm not saying that Renting is better than ownership, just that ownership isn't an "investment". You generally don't get to keep the money you "make". As in, it doesn't generally pay for anything. My point is you hear people say things like "I really want to sell my house because it's gained so much value!" Great. Now what? Oh right, you need to buy another house. It's not an investment. It's just a better use of money than rent in most markets.

It's that you're basically only $20K ahead. Because unless you choose to rent, you don't get to keep the $35K. You'll put it into to another house that ALSO increased by $35K in value between the time you bought your home, and the time you sold it. So you aren't actually $35K ahead ... you're $35K even. So no, you're not losing anything, but you aren't really gaining anything either. Second properties and rental homes/investment properties ... those are investments, because in the end, you can sell it and not NEED to redistribute the money into a new place to live.

All you really made on that house is the 20% you saved by a family member gifting you a discount. I don't understand how people go on believing your home is an investment. If you buy a rental property or a second home, that's an investment. But the home you live in is very rarely an investment unless you severely downsize, move to a much cheaper housing market, or go live in the woods. One way or another, you need a home, and selling your home just means you roll the money over into the next home.

Even compared to cars built in the mid 2000's. 2006 Civic SI (back then, that was the fast one). 0-60 = 7.3 Seconds 2018 Civic EX (These days, that's the slow one). 0-60 = 7.3 Seconds And if you follow that comparison across the board, it's pretty damn consistent 2004 Camry Solara SE V6 (Coupe) - 6.6 Seconds 2018 Camry V6 (Sedan) - 5.8 Seconds 2007 Elantra SE - 7.8 Seconds 2017 Elantra ECO - 7.8 Seconds 2006 Fusion SEL - 7.3 Seconds 2017 Fusion Ti AWD - 6.9 Seconds And I'm trying my best to find quickest car available in the given earlier years vs. Average car for the later years. All this despite that the cars have gotten bigger, heavier, with more govt. mandated safety nannies and more stringent CAFE requirements and in most cases Fuel Economy improving.

Uh ... share the comparisons! Because that sounds like it should be good in the segment it's sitting in except for the Explorer with the 3.5 Liter Twin Turbo. No?

So what browser DOESN'T it work in???

And that the EZ is a nearly 20 year old platform. It would cost more money to develop a new platform for a more modern 6 cylinder motor. It's probably much cheaper for Subaru to continue developing variations of the same 4 cylinder platform.

Everything I've seen indicates it will run 87 octane pump. Somewhere in this thread there was a translated Subaru of Japan page that specifically called out 87 AKI fuel, which is US 87 pump octane.

I don't understand why some people are stuck on a cylinder count instead of actual performance. Personally, I don't want anything other than a carbureted cast iron push rod V8. And if it has more than 4 gears, I don't want it! Oh, and Bias Ply tires are just fine!

You have no idea how much time I've spent debating this theory in my head. I suspect that the net effect is no change to top speed, but it might take longer to get there.

Not really. Very few cars can run enough boost take advantage of higher octane at higher altitudes. Not unless it's pretty well modified. One quirk of altitude is some guys even run E-85 without upgrading injectors. There just isn't enough air density to mix with the fuel. And another way to look at it is the compressor (be it a turbo or supercharger) can only compress as much air as is available to it, and the wastegate operates relative to ambient air pressure, so in Denver, the mean air pressure is about .82 atmospheres or about 12.1 psi vs 1 atm. or 14.7 at sea level. So you'd have to run about 2.5 psi higher in a turbo to get the same power output, but it's also going to be running less efficiently. This was an interesting discussion when I had a compression test about 3 years ago. The guys at the shop were telling me the motor was in rough shape because the cylinders tested 95, 95, 95, 92 but said they should be at least 110 or something per manufacturer. But even they didn't understand that the local air pressure would have an impact on that. I did a little research, said don't machine the heads (or whatever it was they were going to do), had them swap injectors and replace o-rings, and here I am about 3 years later and it's never tripped another CEL for misfire. Think of it this way, if you were compression testing your motor in a vacuum, what would the gauge read after turning it over a few times?