 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / January 2006V6 vs V8
I'm a new Dakota owner, and I've been searching the web, and reading news groups about my new truck.. One thing I notice is that V8 owners are really down on teh V6 trucks, yet the V6 owners seem to really love their trucks. So I'm just wondering, why do the V8 guys dislike the V6, is it really a bad motor? Or is it just the typical my motor is bigger than yours so it must be better attitude? I test drove the V8 and the V6, and chose the V6 because of gas milage, and it also still felt pretty beefy. I don't tow, and I don't plan on towing, and mostly I'll use the truck for hauling light loads to the dumps, or picking up 'do it your self' supplies at the local home depot. I guess it bothers me to see people talk down about the truck I chose, when there really is no reason for it. Anyways, happy holidays! -Steve  Signature---- "Knowing others is wisdom, knowing your self is Enlightenment." -- Lao-Tzu It sounds to me like you studied your needs and bought accordingly. I see nothing wrong in your choice. Enjoy. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > I'm a new Dakota owner, and I've been searching the web, and reading news > groups about my new truck.. One thing I notice is that V8 owners are really [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "Knowing others is wisdom, knowing your self is Enlightenment." > -- Lao-Tzu > I'm a new Dakota owner, and I've been searching the web, and reading news > groups about my new truck.. One thing I notice is that V8 owners are > really > down on teh V6 trucks, yet the V6 owners seem to really love their trucks. as a previous v6 owner, and a friends has a v8 the gas consumption isn't that much different. >From: linuxnut linuxnut@sonic.net >I guess it bothers me to see people talk down about the truck I chose, when >there really is no reason for it. > >Anyways, happy holidays! > >-Steve Steve, if you're old enough to buy a truck, you should be old enough to understand that it isn't the truck they are talking down about. It is YOU. You are obviously a "sensitive" guy so go have yourself a good cry before Santa comes. "Ninebal310" Congrats, you have won the a.shole of the year award! >>I guess it bothers me to see people talk down about the truck I chose, >>when [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Santa > comes. >From: "dick" >"Ninebal310" > Congrats, you have won the a.shole of the year award! When are you going to send me the award? is it cash? I like cash. Hey! I may be an a.shole, but your a REAL Dick. :-) Hank i had a 95 dakota v6 it got 15 to 19 mpg sold it and bought a 93 dakota v8 it gets 16 to 20 mpg booth 4x4 same truck v6 is good but i like the v8 better much faster . chuck : Steve, if you're old enough to buy a truck, you should be old enough to : understand that it isn't the truck they are talking down about. It is YOU. You : are obviously a "sensitive" guy so go have yourself a good cry before Santa : comes. Funny guy.. real funny guy. -Steve Signature---- "Knowing others is wisdom, knowing your self is Enlightenment." -- Lao-Tzu > >From: linuxnut linuxnut@sonic.net > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are obviously a "sensitive" guy so go have yourself a good cry before Santa > comes. LOL, what an a.shole. And people talk about me. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >From: "TBone" >LOL, what an a.shole. And people talk about me. I don't like being an a.shole. It is just that I am sick of whinny-ass-wipes complaining about what other people think of them. Who really cares what others think anyway? He probably doesn't smoke cigars when he gambles, can't make a decision without his wife/girlfriend over-ruling his decision and hasa a small dick with no balls. Now he comes here pleading "don't pick on me because I drive a V-6". Does anybody really give a sh.t what he drives, or what I drive for that matter? Hank <~~~thinks he should sell the V-6 and buy some balls. :>From: "TBone" :>LOL, what an a.shole. And people talk about me. : I don't like being an a.shole. It is just that I am sick of whinny-ass-wipes : complaining about what other people think of them. Who really cares what others [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : drive a V-6". Does anybody really give a sh.t what he drives, or what I drive : for that matter? : Hank <~~~thinks he should sell the V-6 and buy some balls. 1) I don't smoke, 2) I make my own decisions, no one over rules them. 3) My dick is big enough, I don't need a V8 to prove it.. Same with my balls 4) I wasn't pleading to have people not pick on me. I can hold my own. You are just to stupid to understand the nature of my post. So Hank, you red neck mother f.cker, you want me to prove any of this? You have gone beyond a.shole status in my book, and graduated to mean a.s mother f.cker. I hope you enjoy your new title. It's people like you that gets their a.ses kicked and then wonder why the next day. I'm done talk to you and reading your crap, and it's people like you that make me glad that there are kill files on this news client. -Steve Signature---- "Knowing others is wisdom, knowing your self is Enlightenment." -- Lao-Tzu > I'm a new Dakota owner, and I've been searching the web, and reading news > groups about my new truck.. One thing I notice is that V8 owners are really [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I guess it bothers me to see people talk down about the truck I chose, when > there really is no reason for it. You buy what suits your own particular needs. I drive where there are alot of steep mountain grades. The V8 doesn't struggle as hard. I also tow so the V8 works better for me. As far as mpg goes I have not seen that the V6 gets all that much better in the Rams. Don't know about the Dakotas. >You buy what suits your own particular needs. I drive where there are >alot of steep mountain grades. The V8 doesn't struggle as hard. I also >tow so the V8 works better for me. As far as mpg goes I have not seen >that the V6 gets all that much better in the Rams. Don't know about the >Dakotas. from what I've seen, Miles, the v-6 gets about 1 mpg better than the 4.7L... My guess is that in town it might get a bit more that the 8, but on grades, etc., I'd think that the v-6 would be working harder and using more gas? I think most of the gripes about the V6 have to do with the older 3.9 L, which was really a dog compared to the 4.7L. The newer 3.7 L is a good running and relatively economical engine. The power output is only about 15 HP different between the 3.7L and 4.7L now, although the 4.7 does have much more torque. If they didn't discount my 4.7L 2004 QC leftover so much, I probably would have waited for the 2005 with a 3.7L. I had the 3.7 in a 2002 Ram regular cab, and it worked fine. That's a fairly large truck compared to the Dakota, so it should work even better with the Dakota. If you need the max tow rating, then the 4.7L is best, otherwise you can save yourself some money on initial purchase and fuel by getting the 3.7L. JPH > I'm a new Dakota owner, and I've been searching the web, and reading news > groups about my new truck.. One thing I notice is that V8 owners are really [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -Steve > It appears that you purchased your truck in accordance to your needs and for that, you should not feel bad. I do not like V6, four cycle motors, for pure engineering reasons. Try to work out a balanced firing order in a V configuration? You will realize that there isn't one. You may think that a 120 degree crank and a 60 degree V is the right answer. It is for a two stroke, but not a 4 stroke, reguardless of the V angle. The commonly used offset is 90 degrees and there are no common rod journals as in a V8. The rod journals have an offset. This puts a great deal of stress on the blocks main bearings, crankshaft and lower end bearings. Add to that, the rod journal offset and you have a substantially weaker motor. The beneficiary of this is the manufacturer in space allocation. That is why you primarily see them in the smaller vehicles. The manufacturers could also build V8s in a similar size, but that would involve the use of parts that could only be used in that engine. You see, another savings the manufacturer realizes, is the common use of the V8 parts in the V6, as the bore and stroke of both motors are usually the same. You as the end consumer, end up paying for benefits you don't receive. There is more, I could go into the generation and damping of secondary harmonics, tortional vibration on the crank, main bearing support space etc., but in the end 6 cylinder motors should be inline. Steve > I'm a new Dakota owner, and I've been searching the web, and reading news > groups about my new truck.. One thing I notice is that V8 owners are [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -Steve I beg to differ with you, Steve. Apparently, you've never driven a Mitsubishi built V-6 like the one in my LeBaron (also used Montero 4X4). It's a 90 degree, 3.0 V-6 with a 120 degree crank, four-stroke engine that rivals my old slant sixes for smoothness ( if you couldn't get a slant six to run smooth, put down your wrenches and find a new profession). The cylinders are numbered: 1 3 5 waterpump end driver's side 2 4 6 And the firing order is 1-2-3-4-5-6 If this engine were any smoother, it'd have to be an electric motor and that's from idle to 6000 rpm. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > It appears that you purchased your truck in accordance to your needs and for > that, you should not feel bad. I do not like V6, four cycle motors, for pure [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > "Knowing others is wisdom, knowing your self is Enlightenment." > > -- Lao-Tzu Budd, You didn't understand my reply. I didn't say they vibrated. I said they were a poor, weak excuse for a motor design. You can balance anything, even a V6. Do they have only 4 main bearings? Yes. Do they compromise the cross sectional area of the crank journal with rod journal offset? Yes. Do they suffer from exceptional, unnecessary tortional crank stress? Yes. Does a V8 have the same faults? No. Are they as reliable as a V8? Certainly not! Once the new car warrantee expires, who own this extra risk? The consumer! Its your dime, make your choice. Do your own survey, compare head gasket failures. In a shop that I frequent, I have observed a more than 2 to 1 for the V6 over V8s and the customer base is 4 V8s for every V6. Steve udd Cochran" <mr-d150@citlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message news:u6Xvd.8052$qg6.1661@news01.roc.ny... >I beg to differ with you, Steve. > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] >> > "Knowing others is wisdom, knowing your self is Enlightenment." >> > -- Lao-Tzu > Budd, > You didn't understand my reply. I didn't say they vibrated. I said they were > a poor, weak excuse for a motor design. I understood what you wrote down . . And you are still wrong. They are as good as any design. In fact, the 3.9 V-6 used by Mopar is an LA block with two cylinders removed. Yeah, that LA block is a terrible design. > You can balance anything, even a V6. Yep, so? A V-8 is a bad choice for balancing due to secondary harmonics. Did you know the Slant Six really doesn't need a harmonic balancer? > Do they have only 4 main bearings? Yes. As does the Slant Six, which is far more durable than GM and Ford 7 main inlines. Did you know the main bearings on the forged crank engine are the same size as the B-RB engines? > Do they compromise the cross > sectional area of the crank journal with rod journal offset? Yes. And your proof is? > Do they > suffer from exceptional, unnecessary tortional crank stress? Yes. Does a V8 > have the same faults? No. Are they as reliable as a V8? Certainly not! Once > the new car warrantee expires, who own this extra risk? The consumer! Its > your dime, make your choice. Do your own survey, compare head gasket > failures. And how were those engines treated? My LeBaron just got done with two 1000 mile trips in less than a month and didn't use a drop of oil. It purred like a kitten towing around 1000 pounds back from Phoenix to Moab UT and still delivered excellent fuel economy . . at just under 90,000 miles on the odometer. I have a freind in Canon City CO that is wanting my oldest son to help overhaul the V-6 in his Ford Ranger Four-by at 130,000 miles. I kew of a GMC odd fire v-6 in a half ton truck with 238,000 on it and never been torn down > In a shop that I frequent, I have observed a more than 2 to 1 for > the V6 over V8s and the customer base is 4 V8s for every V6. In a shop you frequent . . . .ah . . now we find out your area of expertise. Have you ever been inside an engine in your life? or do you consider the word of a half-trained tech to be gospel? Who owns those V-6's? Ricer wanna be's that run the heck out of them but don't know how to check the oil? Ya just blew any credibilty on this topic right out of the water. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". Budd, You have obviously taken my reply personally and for that I apologize. No insult was intended. However, for your information, I am a mechanical and an electronic engineer, I have been building engines from the age of 15. I am now 60. I have owned 3 machine shops, been partner is 2 race engine building concerns. My current passion is high performance diesels. I have built them mostly for marine use, but I just completed a design in partnership with another of an aircraft diesel for light aircraft. The prototype is now undergoing certification tests. This particular shop that I frequent is owned by a friend who has been a racer for many years. I have been building his race engines for 15 years. I am more than qualified to have an opinion. You do not have to accept it, but if you are wise, you should pay attention. Your example of the Mopar LA block amplifies my point that the advantage of the V6 is held by the manufacturer. Yes the bearings are interchangable as are the rods, pistons cam bearings cam drive etc. As far as secondary harmonics, they are not an issue in any 90 degree V8. In point of fact they are smoothest of all designs. You never see a balance shaft in a V8, but you do for V6s (Lincoln/Mercury) for exactly that reason. The Mopar slant 6 was one of weakest inlines ever made and they had 5 main bearings, not 4 as opposed to 7 for most others. (Power was very low for their displacement for good reason) Just to straighten you out on Harmonic Balancers, their reason for existance is for damping torsional vibration of the crank, not secondary harmonics. (In line engines do not suffer from this issue) On offset rod journals, they are used on all 90 degree V6 engines. Take one apart and see for yourself. 60 degree V6 engines do not offset the rod journal, but they really suffer from secondaries. That is why Detroit changed to 90 degree engines. Buick had many, many lawsuits after they first introduced the V6 engine (It was a 60 degree motor) because of block, crank and main web failures. That is why they now use 90 degree cranks. Steve I am very happy for you that your experience with V6s has been so successful. Others have not been so happy with theirs >> Budd, >> You didn't understand my reply. I didn't say they vibrated. I said they [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > Budd, > You have obviously taken my reply personally and for that I apologize. No [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > his race engines for 15 years. I am more than qualified to have an opinion. > You do not have to accept it, but if you are wise, you should pay attention. You dare tell me to pay attention? I'm only three years younger than you and you're not my dad or brother. Back off. Try paying attention yourself. And yes, I take all my posts personally, they are my words and I'm responsible for them . . aren't you responsible for what you write? Btw, wallpaper listings do not impress me. As for the claimed engine experience, I can back up my work history with engines with records from employers . . . you? > Your example of the Mopar LA block amplifies my point that the advantage of > the V6 is held by the manufacturer. Yes the bearings are interchangable as > are the rods, pistons cam bearings cam drive etc. As far as secondary > harmonics, they are not an issue in any 90 degree V8. In point of fact they > are smoothest of all designs. You never see a balance shaft in a V8, but you > do for V6s (Lincoln/Mercury) for exactly that reason. A V-8 does have secondary vibrations which cause the harmonic torsions in the crank. You should have studied automotive engineering if you want to argue engine design. Btw, Ford screwed around with what would work until it didn't . .really sound engineering. > The Mopar slant 6 was one of weakest inlines ever made and they had 5 main > bearings, not 4 as opposed to 7 for most others. (Power was very low for > their displacement for good reason) ROTFLMBO!!!! Ya wanna tell the older engineers at Mercedes that? They'll laugh you off the planet considering in 1960 they declared it to be the best engineered engine in the world. It was originally designed to last 200,000 miles in a die-cast aluminum construction, when Mopar decided to go with high nickle cast iron, the basic design was kept and the engineering was now overkill. I, personally, have put over 340,000 on one and put all standard size parts in another at 133,000 miles. The old Ramchargers racing team, made up of Mopar engineers, successfully campaigned one in the 60's, Doug Dutra has built one that runs in the 13's at last report . . on 194 cubic inches. Shall I go on? You don't know diddly about those engines. The forged crank, for example, has the highest rod journal overlap, the largest total bearing areas and the most torsional rigidity of any gas six cylinder inline, including the over-rated seven main engines. > Just to straighten you out on Harmonic Balancers, their reason for existance > is for damping torsional vibration of the crank, not secondary harmonics. > (In line engines do not suffer from this issue) And what are the main sources of secondary harmonics? Torsional vibrations. That's the reason for the rubber or elastomer mounting for the outer ring. > On offset rod journals, they are used on all 90 degree V6 engines. Take one > apart and see for yourself. 60 degree V6 engines do not offset the rod > journal, but they really suffer from secondaries. That is why Detroit > changed to 90 degree engines. Buick had many, many lawsuits after they first > introduced the V6 engine (It was a 60 degree motor) because of block, crank > and main web failures. That is why they now use 90 degree cranks. Wrong. Buick's first V-6 was a 90 degree engine back in the 60's, but they didn't get the firing order worked out to give a smooth idle. GM has made some 60 degree V-6's but I don't remember any getting into production. Not all V-6's are split journal ( your offset rod journal). My 3.0 is a three throw, 120 degrees between throws, single journal per throw, 90 degree iron block engine with single overhead cams built by Mitsubishi. It's the base engine for the twin turbo engine Mitsu used in it's hi-po designs and in it's V-6 trucks. Pretty darn flexible design, I'd say. One problem the Ford V-6's had was a 72 degree block . .to fit the narrow engine bay. Detroit stayed with 90 degree blocks because it was cheaper than changing the tooling from the V-8s. Plain and cheaper. > Steve > > I am very happy for you that your experience with V6s has been so > successful. Others have not been so happy with theirs I know many that are happy with them, and I know of a bunch of ricer wanna be's that keep blowing their engines up. If you hang out at that shop so much, didn't you notice who tears up the most engines? Budd > A V-8 does have secondary vibrations which cause the harmonic torsions in > the crank. You should have studied automotive engineering if you want to > argue engine design. Btw, Ford screwed around with what would work until > it > didn't . .really sound engineering. For the other readers of this thread. Budd like many, misunderstands the difference between Tortional Vibration and Secondary Vibration. Tortional vibration is rotational by definition. It is the coiling and uncoiling of the crankshaft like a spring while rotating. This is caused by the crank wanting to accellerate at clyinder ignition time and decelerating upon compression. The resonance point is where the torsional deflection and reflection speed is at the same frequency as crank speed. This creates a sypathetic pumping action on the crankshaft that causes metal fatigue and ultimately fracture. A Harmonic Balancer does not eliminate this tendency. Instead, it shifts the point of resonance outside of the operating speed of the engine. On the other hand, Secondary Vibration is a vibration that occurs at 1/2 or double the crankshaft speed by definition. These vibrations are caused by the reciprocating components in an engine. In the case of V6 and inline 3 cylinder engines, there are 3 clyinders operating in a common plane in which 2 pistons are traveling in one direction and 1 piston is traveling in the other direction, which is a clear imbalance. This imbalance imparts a rocking motion to the whole engine assembly at 1/2 crank speed. Only the use of a balance shaft, running at 1/2 crank speed, which is out of balance in the opposite direction, will cancel out this vibration to the external observer. However, the stresses of these vibrations still exist internally to the engine assembly and take their toll. A V8 is inherently balanced because 2 pistons are moving in one direction within the reciprocating plane and 2 others are moving in the opposite direction in a balanced state. I hope this tidbit of automotive engineering clears up this misunderstanding. Steve > > A V-8 does have secondary vibrations which cause the harmonic torsions in > > the crank. You should have studied automotive engineering if you want to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Instead, it shifts the point of resonance outside of the operating speed of > the engine. Where did I deny this as true? I said the Ford engineers (a loose terminology) screwed around with a design till is was scewed up, the 72 degree V-6. There's no way to balance it without a balance shaft. > On the other hand, Secondary Vibration is a vibration that occurs at 1/2 or > double the crankshaft speed by definition. These vibrations are caused by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > observer. However, the stresses of these vibrations still exist internally > to the engine assembly and take their toll. A 90 degree V-6 has it's throws arrainged at 120 degree intervals, also a balanced arraingement. The counterwerights reduce, or elminate the secondary vibrations. Torsional vibration can cause engine vibration as well. I had an engine brought to me that shook like mad until it was found the owner, instead of replacing the harmonic balancer, had the outer ring welded to the inner hub. You goofed again. > A V8 is inherently balanced because 2 pistons are moving in one direction > within the reciprocating plane and 2 others are moving in the opposite > direction in a balanced state. I hope this tidbit of automotive engineering > clears up this misunderstanding. So, explain why any V-8 engine is so much smoother after a blueprint and balance if it's so naturally balanced as you state? What is the formula for balancing an engine? The only misunderstanding is yours. Btw, your inflated ego is showing. Budd > Budd, > You have obviously taken my reply personally and for that I apologize. No [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Steve Nice to see a sensible and well mannered post for a change. Your credentials and experience sounds well qualified to assist all of those in this group. At this point I'm impressed........... Jerry Sorry, Jerry, but his lack of knowledge on many points does not impress me. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > > Budd, > > You have obviously taken my reply personally and for that I apologize. No [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Jerry >Sorry, Jerry, but his lack of knowledge on many points does not impress me. you're not having a good day, Budd.. you take your meds? I'm having a great day, but Steve apparently knows less than he claims if he doesn't know the truth about the Slant Sixes. Also, much of his other info is dead wrong or just plain biased. V-8's, for example, have an inherent problem with getting a dead smooth idle...the firing order itself. He, for some reason, overlooks that little fact. And as you know, I am never impressed by people that wave degrees around like a newsboy hawking papers. Show me real knowledge of the topic and I'll listen. Steve didn't. Merry Christmas. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > >Sorry, Jerry, but his lack of knowledge on many points does not impress me. > > you're not having a good day, Budd.. you take your meds? >I'm having a great day, but Steve apparently knows less than he claims if he >doesn't know the truth about the Slant Sixes. Also, much of his other info [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Merry Christmas. it's only a newsgroup, Budd... don't take it so seriously.. not every comment is a personal attack on you.. try to relax and enjoy it for what it is.. a bunch of guys bs'ing and sharing info.. He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. I'm just trying to educate him. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > >I'm having a great day, but Steve apparently knows less than he claims if he > >doesn't know the truth about the Slant Sixes. Also, much of his other info [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > try to relax and enjoy it for what it is.. a bunch of guys bs'ing and > sharing info.. > He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed > ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. That's very interesting Budd ................ maybe you might explain the difference between Steves "supposed experience" and your "supposed experience" and how we mortals, in a news group, can tell the difference in a typed post that is submitted here. BTW, he never said he had a ELECTRICAL engineering degree. He never even mentioned degree though I assume he has a few. Did you even read his post.............. Blowing your own horn all the time doesn't make a person a professional or even knowledgeable. I still think his post was well written and polite. I for one appreciated it for a change. You can think as you please. Jerry 12/16/04 2:48 P.M. Second sentence states he's a mechanical and electrical engineer or did it come from cracker jacks? Whatever. Fine. I'm just trying to prevent another T-Bone in the group. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > > He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed > > ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jerry > 12/16/04 2:48 P.M. Second sentence states he's a mechanical and electrical > engineer No it doesn't for Christ's sake. Learn to read Budd. > Whatever. Fine. I'm just trying to prevent another T-Bone in the group. With these kind of moronic statements you can kiss my a.s. Wake up and smell the coffee Budd .......... just because I or no one else has said anything to you doesn't mean you're not the second biggest troll of a cry baby around here. While I'm at it, if you think because no one has called you out with your stupid pissing contests with tbone, that it means they support you actions, then you are sadly fooling only yourself. Another T-Bone my a.s........... only thing that comes close to that description would be you. If you had any sense at all you would understand what mac was really trying to tell you. Jerry >> 12/16/04 2:48 P.M. Second sentence states he's a mechanical and >> electrical [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jerry Ah Jerry, what ya doin'?? Roy >>>12/16/04 2:48 P.M. Second sentence states he's a mechanical and >>>electrical [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Roy I know, I know.........but damn, a person gets tired of it after awhile. Don't think I'd have said anything back to him if it hadn't been for that stupid last line. Maybe I should be like Denny and just go shoot something... :) Jerry >>>>12/16/04 2:48 P.M. Second sentence states he's a mechanical and >>>>electrical [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Jerry Well don't shoot a damned bowling ball, it'll just piss ya off....... <VBG> And cost ya a couple of lunches... Denny > Well don't shoot a damned bowling ball, it'll just piss ya off....... > <VBG> > > And cost ya a couple of lunches... I'll keep that in mind. Speaking of "cost ya", you see Rugers new Super Redhawk in 454 Casull with only a 2 1/2 inch barrel. Says it packs a wallop and I'm sure it does but to whom or what...... check it out. http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/rgrRH/ Jerry >> Well don't shoot a damned bowling ball, it'll just piss ya off....... >> <VBG> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Jerry umm... anything you point it at... within 5 feet, would be my guess.. after 5 or 6 feet, you might as well just close your eyes and shoot.. *g* >>> Well don't shoot a damned bowling ball, it'll just piss ya off....... >>> <VBG> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > after 5 or 6 feet, you might as well just close your eyes and shoot.. > *g* That sucker looks like fun!! <BG> And I'm guessing you got the range accuracy about right too. I did notice they were only comparing it to other .44/.45 caliber rounds and not the .50 s&w. If you want another handful, check out the model 500 in the 4" or 8 3/8" barrel on the s&w site. I think both will bring a grin to your teeth. Denny >>>> Well don't shoot a damned bowling ball, it'll just piss ya off....... >>>> <VBG> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > handful, check out the model 500 in the 4" or 8 3/8" barrel on the s&w > site. I think both will bring a grin to your teeth. That sucker looks like it might brake your friggin' wrist!! But it would be fun to fire. To big for concealed carry though imho. Roy aka P W (for one more day) <G> Hey!! Ya want Miami straight up?? <BFG> > Denny >>>>> Well don't shoot a damned bowling ball, it'll just piss ya off....... >>>>> <VBG> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That sucker looks like it might brake your friggin' wrist!! But it would > be fun to fire. To big for concealed carry though imho. Puss..... <BG> > Roy aka P W (for one more day) <G> I caught those couple o times you slipped up but I'm being a nice guy. You know, tis the season...... > Hey!! Ya want Miami straight up?? <BFG> I'll take Miame to loose....... Denny >> Roy aka P W (for one more day) <G> > > I caught those couple o times you slipped up but I'm being a nice guy. You > know, tis the season...... I think you're being overly reasonable... I don't remember anything in the original bet where it was stated he could abbreviate his signature. IMO, "P.W." just doesn't cut it :) >>> Roy aka P W (for one more day) <G> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the original bet where it was stated he could abbreviate his signature. > IMO, "P.W." just doesn't cut it :) Bitch, bitch, bitch, never cut a guy any friggin' slack. Okay. Pudgy friggin Wudgy<GBMFG> >>>> Roy aka P W (for one more day) <G> >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pudgy friggin Wudgy<GBMFG> Now that is more like it!!!!!!!!!! <VBG> Denny >>>>> Roy aka P W (for one more day) <G> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Denny Aaarrrrggggg >>>>>> Roy aka P W (for one more day) <G> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > Aaarrrrggggg Looks like you forgot to sign your name there again Pudge........... Denny >>>>12/16/04 2:48 P.M. Second sentence states he's a mechanical and >>>>electrical [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Jerry There ya go.... <G> Roy Whatever you decide, Jerry. I'd rather we remain friends. My only reasoning is that this group was once a lot better source of information than it is now and I was only trying to maintain some quality here. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > > 12/16/04 2:48 P.M. Second sentence states he's a mechanical and electrical > > engineer [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jerry >He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed >ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. > >I'm just trying to educate him. Budd, you know better than that.. How can you explain or teach anything and expect it to be listened too, when you're in someone's face challenging them? Just chill, Budd.. you're a better person then that.. >>He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed >>ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just chill, Budd.. you're a better person then that.. Bro.. I don't get it. All people have to do is ignore t bone. Most all are in agreement that he is a a.shole, so why deal with it? Admittedly, he can piss ya off, I've been a second away from engaging him in a number of threads lately, but that's his game. Why play it? Ya know who I actually feel bad for? His family, especially his kids. It has gotta suck listening to that crap 24/7. Roy aka P W >>>He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed >>>ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Roy aka P W dunno what T has to do with it, bro.. It says "just chill, Budd.. put your reading glasses on, ya ol' fart.. *eg* >>>>He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed >>>>ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > dunno what T has to do with it, bro.. It says "just chill, Budd.. > put your reading glasses on, ya ol' fart.. *eg* Force of habit I guess. >>>>>He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed >>>>>ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >Force of habit I guess. no problem, bro.. we all have our "senior moments"... hope you have a white Christmas.... and that we DON'T.... >>>>>>He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed >>>>>>ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > no problem, bro.. we all have our "senior moments"... hope you have a > white Christmas.... and that we DON'T.... This is what the friggin' rabbit doesn't see, we got another 4" of snow today. Cold though, 10 above right now. Roy >>>>>>>He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his >>>>>>>claimed [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Roy Friggin rabbit huh..... You sure are testy after loosing a fair and square bet.. <G> Weather channel is calling for 4-6 on wednesday with wind on thursday to pile it up. It's about time....... Put 45807 in for the zip and take a look at weather.com friggin rabbit OK, I'll be a good boy and shut up. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > >He is spouting considerable erroneous information based on his claimed > >ELECTRICAL engineering degree and supposed experience. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just chill, Budd.. you're a better person then that.. > OK, I'll be a good boy and shut up. No, not shut up, ignore. <G> Roy aka P W > -- > Budd [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> Just chill, Budd.. you're a better person then that.. Well, ya know, that's what putting him in "Coventry" meant, but that didn't seem to work well. I don't know anymore. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > > OK, I'll be a good boy and shut up. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >> > >> Just chill, Budd.. you're a better person then that.. Please list those many points, and indicate where he's wrong. > Sorry, Jerry, but his lack of knowledge on many points does not impress me. > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] >> >>Jerry Please read my replies to him. I covered the primary points in them. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > Please list those many points, and indicate where he's wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > >> > >>Jerry > Sorry, Jerry, but his lack of knowledge on many points does not impress me. That's your opinion and only YOUR opinion. I have no reason to doubt the man and certainly no reason to be rude to a polite and well written response from him. I'm sure he takes your claim of knowledge with a grain of salt also............... Jerry Yes, my opinion based on many years of engine repair experience, and not just my gut reaction. Compound that with the erroneous info, though a search of any good Mopar site would reveal the errors without my intervention. -- Budd What's the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver? One goes "Whack, Darn" and the other goes "Darn, Whack". > > Sorry, Jerry, but his lack of knowledge on many points does not impress me. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jerry Steve, Save yourself the trouble. This is just the way Budd is. If you challenge him or disagree with him in any way, he will respond like a wounded angry child. He even does this to his friends. Your best bet would be to simply ignore his replies. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Budd, > You didn't understand my reply. I didn't say they vibrated. I said [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > shop that I frequent, I have observed a more than 2 to 1 for the V6 > over V8s and the customer base is 4 V8s for every V6. Steve I had an '88 Dodge Ram d150 with the V6 (basically a 318ci with 2 cylinders lopped off). It ran great but the body was rough, so I sold it for $100 more than I paid for it and bought a cream puff '87 Ram D150 with a slant 6. This second truck had 80K miles and was garaged since new, no rust, very, very clean and nice. The slant 6 was fine for the hauling and towing I had to do, but that V6 sure was smoother. Well, I guess it's a moot point since you can't even get an inline engine in a Dodge full size truck anymore. > I had an '88 Dodge Ram d150 with the V6 (basically a 318ci with 2 > cylinders lopped off). It ran great but the body was rough, so I sold [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > guess it's a moot point since you can't even get an inline engine in a > Dodge full size truck anymore. Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... > > I had an '88 Dodge Ram d150 with the V6 (basically a 318ci with 2 > > cylinders lopped off). It ran great but the body was rough, so I sold [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... naww wouldnt want to tell him bout my lil 6 cyl. I'm curious as to why the slant six didn't idle / run smooth. Every one that I had ran smooth enough to make you wonder if it was running or not. Budd >> I had an '88 Dodge Ram d150 with the V6 (basically a 318ci with 2 >> cylinders lopped off). It ran great but the body was rough, so I sold [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the argument was about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a proud owner of an '04 CTD. Of course that also excludes the slant six as well. On another note, the slant six also had a nuch weaker bottom end in comparison to the GM and Ford equivelents. (5 vs 7 main bearings) This however was not an issue at stock power levels. As for not seeing inline engines as much as before, I am afraid it is because of packaging restraints created by today's compact body styles. Steve >> I had an '88 Dodge Ram d150 with the V6 (basically a 318ci with 2 >> cylinders lopped off). It ran great but the body was rough, so I sold [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... There was nothing weaker about the bottom end of a slant six. It long stroke with a small bore required a different main bearing arrangement to keep engine compact. It had less bearing but the ones it had were very healthy and sturdy and nothing cheap in their design at all. The old slant six is likely the most durable 6 ever built and emmsions killed it off, not bad design. I owned a few slant 6's of the 60's era in the early to mid 70's and they were fine smooth engines and powerfull for their size too. Back it 74 when I was redeploying to another base in my 66 Cornet with a slant 6 I ran it across about all of Oklahoma at 90 MPH plus in summer heat with no problems. One fine motor. > Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the argument was > about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a proud owner of an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >>Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com > Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the argument was > about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a proud owner of an > '04 CTD. Of course that also excludes the slant six as well. On another > note, the slant six also had a nuch weaker bottom end in comparison to the > GM and Ford equivelents. (5 vs 7 main bearings) This however was not an > issue at stock power levels. > Steve Many years ago a friend that I raced with decided to play with a slant six. He found some article about a "hyper pac" and ended up with a multiple carb sleeper that he beat the crap out of for a couple of years. Never a problem with the lower end on that engine or actually any slant six that I remember. As far as a s/six, my wife's 05 envoy has one in it. I believe it is rated at 265 HP, a fairly snappy engine. Roy >>> I had an '88 Dodge Ram d150 with the V6 (basically a 318ci with 2 >>> cylinders lopped off). It ran great but the body was rough, so I sold [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... >> Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the argument was >> about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a proud owner of an >> '04 CTD. Of course that also excludes the slant six as well. On another >> note, the slant six also had a nuch weaker bottom end in comparison to the >> GM and Ford equivelents. (5 vs 7 main bearings) This however was not an >> issue at stock power levels. > Steve I'll agree about the "leaning tower of power" being a STRONG engine. I consistently revved my '63 170 over 6 thousand RPM, where it delivered 206 HP (dyno verified) to the rear wheels through a torqueflite. This was not a weekend racer, but an everyday street driven engine. It was still going strong at almost 200,000 miles on the original stock bottom end when I sold it. The '69 225 would not rev much over 5 grand, and was not nearly as highly tuned, but I drove that Dart across Montana at 104 MPH back in 1972. >>> Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the >>> argument was about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > highly tuned, but I drove that Dart across Montana at 104 MPH back in > 1972. Well, the slant 6 in my Ram wasn't that unsmooth. It was alright I guess; it ran great (esp. after replacing the plugged up cat converter). Besides the '87 Ram D150 with a slant 6, I also have owned a '64 Dart 170 with a \6 bought from the original owner in '95 for $700 with 90k miles and ran wonderfully and just had a faded paint job. I should have kept it and painted it instead of selling it. Stupid, stupid mistake. I also have owned a '72 Plymouth Volare that I bought at a charity auction for $300. That was a wonderful car -- 70k miles, white 4 door, plain jane low option car that was unmolested. It had no carpet, plain small hubcaps (original), radio delete (it still had the plastic cover that Chrysler put on cars that didn't come with a radio) but it did have the auto tranny (the only option it had). Driving the '72 Volare 4 door was like driving some sort of municipal or gov't car or an unmarked detective's car or something. It ran perfectly after a full tuneup, but the cylinder head cracked while my sister was borrowing it. I gave a mechanic "friend" of mine $1000 to install a rebuilt head (that he could get for $200 from an acquaintance of his) and while it was apart, do a ring job/rod bearing job, change gaskets, flush the tranny, etc.. But instead of doing it that way, he just tore the head off of an old Duster in his friend's junkyard and put that in my Volare and then he just pocketed (stole) the $1000, without doing any additional work on the Volare (rings, bearings, etc.). The Volare ran like crap after he worked on it and had coolant/oil mixing. I was pissed and never did get that money back from him. I sold the Volare, in disgust. But I'd like to pick up another '70's Dart or Volare 4 door or even an Aspen. Ya know, it's funny that, years ago, engineers from the current owners of Mopar (Diamler / Mercedes) don't agree that the /6 lower end is weak . . in 1960 they said the entire engine was the best engine ever designed. And it was the most produced of all the Mopar mills Now, having personally taken 3 slant sixes over 100,000 miles myself (160K, 350K and 285 K), I think you're full of bull about the weak lower end. By the way, a inline six is about the same length (except for the slant six which is about as long as a V-8) as a V-10, give or take a couple inches. And a whole lot narrower. Budd > Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the argument was > about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a proud owner of an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... > Ya know, it's funny that, years ago, engineers from the current owners of > Mopar (Diamler / Mercedes) don't agree that the /6 lower end is weak . . in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now, having personally taken 3 slant sixes over 100,000 miles myself (160K, > 350K and 285 K), I think you're full of bull about the weak lower end. my 86 d100 had the slant in it and when i sold it, it had 300k on to my knoledge the original motor. dude that bought it passed me on the highway the other day. still driving it and still with a grin on his face. -chris > By the way, a inline six is about the same length (except for the slant six > which is about as long as a V-8) as a V-10, give or take a couple inches. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >> > >> Now for the flames!!!!! Educate him Ctd owners... > my 86 d100 had the slant in it and when i sold it, it had 300k on to my > knoledge the original motor. dude that bought it passed me on the highway > the other day. still driving it and still with a grin on his face. > > -chris Ah, he finally got it broken in. Darn near as bad as a Cummins on break-in. I got worried, for no reason of course, about my first /6 so I overhauled it at 166,000 miles. It had been a well maintained car owned by a vacuum cleaner salesman and when I miked the journals there was less than 1/2 of 1/1000 of an inch wear. Bore didn't even have a ridge, so I honed them, popped in new rings, bearings, timing set and a rebuiilt milled head (0.090"). Then I installed a low restriction exhaust and rejetted the carb (the big BBS single) and started kicking some 2 barrel V-8 butt. Budd >> my 86 d100 had the slant in it and when i sold it, it had 300k on to my >> knoledge the original motor. dude that bought it passed me on the highway [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Budd I remember a friend had one in 3 different valiants... kept wearing out the cars but that engine just wouldn't die.. mac Please remove splinters before emailing > > my 86 d100 had the slant in it and when i sold it, it had 300k on to my > > knoledge the original motor. dude that bought it passed me on the highway [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Budd yea we loved the truck and had not a minutes problem out of the engine. but we needed something a little bigger and more family friendly so we sold it and bought the 99 v10 (what a differnce in mileage). >yea we loved the truck and had not a minutes problem out of the engine. but >we needed something a little bigger and more family friendly so we sold it >and bought the 99 v10 (what a differnce in mileage). you mean going from MPG to GPM? *g* mac Please remove splinters before emailing > >yea we loved the truck and had not a minutes problem out of the engine. but > >we needed something a little bigger and more family friendly so we sold it > >and bought the 99 v10 (what a differnce in mileage). > > > you mean going from MPG to GPM? *g* thats about the size of it....but it was fun =) last ride to the dealer to trade the v10 in on the 05 ctd my brother in law rode with. floored it from rolling start @ 70 scared the sh*t out of him! LOL > mac > > Please remove splinters before emailing >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:28:42 -0500, "Christopher Thompson" ><kf4drr@alltel.net> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >rode with. floored it from rolling start @ 70 scared the sh*t out of him! >LOL which moved faster, the gas gauge or the tach?? mac Please remove splinters before emailing the tach was fastest. mph and fuel matched speeds in diff directions *grin* Signature-Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango > > >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:28:42 -0500, "Christopher Thompson" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Please remove splinters before emailing >the tach was fastest. mph and fuel matched speeds in diff directions *grin* yeah, I had an old Vett like that... burned a lot of gas to go a mile in a hurry, but you damn sure had fun going that mile.. *g* mac Please remove splinters before emailing >Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the argument was >about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a proud owner of an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >today's compact body styles. >Steve I think that the popularity of front wheel drive is a big factor in the development of the v-6, also.. kind of hard to mount an inline six sideways.. *g* mac Please remove splinters before emailing >>Since I am the original poster of that reply (6 mos ago), the argument was >>about a V6 design, not an inline design and I am also a proud owner of an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Please remove splinters before emailing A very good point too! Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" > <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > sideways.. > *g* It coulda fit in a Pacer.... Denny >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" >> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It coulda fit in a Pacer.... That'd be the all time fugly car. Roy > Denny >> It coulda fit in a Pacer.... > > That'd be the all time fugly car. > > Roy AMC did produce the "All Time Fugly Car" but it wasn't the Pacer. It was the Matador. Photo: http://tinyurl.com/8c8z5 SignatureKen >>> I think that the popularity of front wheel drive is a big factor in the >>> development of the v-6, also.. kind of hard to mount an inline six [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Roy I remember it as the all time rip off... The ads on tv wee shot from almost underneath it and at an angle to make it look like a low, wide sports car... then, when you saw one on the street, it looked totally different... and bugly.. mac Please remove splinters before emailing Only if it were built to take seats that _you_ are comfortable in . . . . VBG Budd >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" >> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Denny >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" >> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Denny But not between the front wheels. The way they installed the 232 and 258 was miserable enough!!! And the 304??? Definitely NOT designed to be worked on! >>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" >>> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 258 was miserable enough!!! And the 304??? Definitely NOT designed to > be worked on! You're just pissed you couldn't get the valve cover off.... <VBG> I don't think I ever saw a 304 in one of them. Denny >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" >>>> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Denny It was to accomodate the 304 that the 78 and up Pacers got the raised hood/square grille. The car was originally slated for a Wankel. A dealer in the Northern states was installing 401 HOs in them, along with the old Gremlin. > >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" > >>>> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > A dealer in the Northern states was installing 401 HOs in them, along > with the old Gremlin. a wankel? shoot i thought mazda was the only ones crazy enough to use that desighn! *grin* > > >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" > > >>>> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > a wankel? shoot i thought mazda was the only ones crazy enough to use that > design! *grin* A 3-rotor Wankel went 9.85 @ 133.41mph: http://www.dragracecentral.com/DRCStory.asp?ID=108082 They certainly have my respect! As for the Pacer, they (sort-of) became cool when Wayne's World was released. =) IMO, it's not the ugliest AMC... the aware would have to go to the Matador or Gremlin. Bryan > > > >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" > > > >>>> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > go to the Matador or Gremlin. > Bryan oh they have my respect, for the same reasons. but i also worked with the guys in the mazda shop for a while and they WOULD NOT take a rx7 on a test drive without a fire extengisher. LOL >> > >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" >> > >>>> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >go to the Matador or Gremlin. >Bryan You mean Dick Teagues Matador coupe. The sedans and wagons were actually pretty classy. GM was working on the Wankel, and it would have gone in a CORVETTE if it had come to be. The same engine was originally slated for the Pacer. The Pacer was supposed to receive a twin rotor Wankel that GM was supposed to put in the Vega although I think it was supposed to be upsized to a 3 or 4 rotor version to handle the higher curb weight. Budd >>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:22:13 +0100, "Steve Lusardi" >>> <stevenospam@lusardi.de> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 258 was miserable enough!!! And the 304??? Definitely NOT designed to > be worked on! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message