The Last Really Good Chrysler Product

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ...
|
| Oh yes - I know, Art, how in a parallel universe in which the PoTUS was
| Gore or Kerry for the last 4 years the Islamists are all just peace and
| love, 9/11 never happened, flu shots are abounding, women still can't
| vote in Afghanistan, Afghanistan no longer produces poppies as the raw
| materials for it's biggest export, Kofi Anan's son stopped making
| under-the-table deals with France and Germany in the Oil for Food
| program which was their motivation for blocking the taking out of Sadam,
| Sadam quit offering and paying suicide bomber/murderers' families for
| their loving acts against innocents, the DNC recalled it's policy of
| routing out voter fraud wherever they could find it and, where it didn't
| exist, to plant the idea that it did anyway in the minds of the public,
| everyone is covered by free cradle-to-grave health insurance while taxes
| have dropped to their lowest levels ever and the national debt has been
| wiped out, industry is being punished by disincentives to keep
| production in the U.S. yet they are magically doubling the size of all
| their U.S. production facilities every year, genocide was prevented by
| the UN in Sudan, U.S. unemployment figures match the double-digit
| numbers of France and Germany, and Al Franken and James Carville both
| have viable radio talk shows.
|
| I just can't wait for the Kerry Utopian society in which we need to pass
| the Global Approval Test before we take appropriate action in light of
| the Oil for Food stuff and absolute appalling UN inaction in Sudan (I
| guess they're waiting once again for the U.S. to go in and try to fix it
| so we get the blame for any and all problems and the other countries can
| continue to profit from the situation). Yes - we want a guy as
| President who met with the Viet Cong in Paris while the war was still
| going on - Yeah - that's my man for President! What a joke.
|
| Bill Putney
| (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
| adddress with the letter 'x')
|

Well stated...

041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted:

> Bill Putney > wrote in message >...
>> Ted Azito wrote:
>>
>>> My uncle...
>>>
>>> Yes, he's a peckerwood...
>>
>> Please define "peckerwood". Is it like "redneck"? Or is it like art,
>> i.e., hard to define, and you just know it when you see it.
>>
>>
> Yes and yes.

Speaking of "peckerwood"...

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~dpopov/BigWoody.jpg

041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted:

> Bill Putney > wrote in message >...
>> Ted Azito wrote:
>>
>>> My uncle...
>>>
>>> Yes, he's a peckerwood...
>>
>> Please define "peckerwood". Is it like "redneck"? Or is it like art,
>> i.e., hard to define, and you just know it when you see it.
>>
>>
> Yes and yes.

Speaking of "peckerwood"...

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~dpopov/BigWoody.jpg

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
. umich.edu...
|
| On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Joe wrote:
|
| > He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25% of
| > the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of our
| > standard of living, where's the extra energy going to come from? Anybody
| > got any ideas? China's economy is growing at about 10% a year or so.
|
| And the worst part is, it doesn't have to be this way. We could
| simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preserve and multiply
| American jobs and greatly retard the increase of oil prices.
|
| All we'd have to do is quit buying from China.
|
|

People like their cheap products...so your solution isn't really viable. Even
if we could get people in the USA to "buy-in" to that solution, you won't get
the rest of the world to.

Actually Bush's energy plan had a very well balanced approach of tax incentives
for development of alternative and renewable fuels for the long term as well as
improving the supply of domestic energy to deal with the shorter term issues
(that have only gotten worse since). However, the democrats zeroed in on the
small piece they didn't like (the domestic supply piece) so it never saw the
light of day in Congress. We'd be in a little better spot now (both in the
short term and working on the long term) if it had been passed.

At one time the plan was available as a PDF file on the Whitehouse site...I
read it. It was a very good well-rounded and comprehensive plan that had
something in it for everyone. Hydrogen vehicle research/development tax
breaks? Yep! Solar, wind and geothermal energy tax incentives? Yep!
Drilling in Alaska? Yep! Oh wait...that last issue killed the whole thing!
Sad, ain't it?

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
. umich.edu...
|
| On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Joe wrote:
|
| > He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25% of
| > the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of our
| > standard of living, where's the extra energy going to come from? Anybody
| > got any ideas? China's economy is growing at about 10% a year or so.
|
| And the worst part is, it doesn't have to be this way. We could
| simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preserve and multiply
| American jobs and greatly retard the increase of oil prices.
|
| All we'd have to do is quit buying from China.
|
|

People like their cheap products...so your solution isn't really viable. Even
if we could get people in the USA to "buy-in" to that solution, you won't get
the rest of the world to.

Actually Bush's energy plan had a very well balanced approach of tax incentives
for development of alternative and renewable fuels for the long term as well as
improving the supply of domestic energy to deal with the shorter term issues
(that have only gotten worse since). However, the democrats zeroed in on the
small piece they didn't like (the domestic supply piece) so it never saw the
light of day in Congress. We'd be in a little better spot now (both in the
short term and working on the long term) if it had been passed.

At one time the plan was available as a PDF file on the Whitehouse site...I
read it. It was a very good well-rounded and comprehensive plan that had
something in it for everyone. Hydrogen vehicle research/development tax
breaks? Yep! Solar, wind and geothermal energy tax incentives? Yep!
Drilling in Alaska? Yep! Oh wait...that last issue killed the whole thing!
Sad, ain't it?

"indago" > wrote in message
...
| 041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted:
|
| > Bill Putney > wrote in message
>...
| >> Ted Azito wrote:
| >>
| >>> My uncle...
| >>>
| >>> Yes, he's a peckerwood...
| >>
| >> Please define "peckerwood". Is it like "redneck"? Or is it like art,
| >> i.e., hard to define, and you just know it when you see it.
| >>
| >>
| > Yes and yes.
|
| Speaking of "peckerwood"...
|
| http://www.arches.uga.edu/~dpopov/BigWoody.jpg
|

Yikes!

"indago" > wrote in message
...
| 041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted:
|
| > Bill Putney > wrote in message
>...
| >> Ted Azito wrote:
| >>
| >>> My uncle...
| >>>
| >>> Yes, he's a peckerwood...
| >>
| >> Please define "peckerwood". Is it like "redneck"? Or is it like art,
| >> i.e., hard to define, and you just know it when you see it.
| >>
| >>
| > Yes and yes.
|
| Speaking of "peckerwood"...
|
| http://www.arches.uga.edu/~dpopov/BigWoody.jpg
|

Yikes!

On 23 Oct 2004 15:01:00 -0700, (Ted Azito)
wrote:

>> ...FOUR main bearings located well above the pan rail, each of which the
>> same size as those found in Chrysler's big-block V8s,
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> and all of which
>> support a forged steel crankshaft (on engines built between '60 and
>> mid-'76; engines after mid-'76 have a nodular iron crank, which isn't as
>> sexy but is plenty strong enough for all non-race purposes). There's no
>> "despite" about it -- it was and is considerably more than adequate.
>>
>> > With three sidedrafts and tube header exhaust they would be pretty
>> > swank.
>>
>> For certain definitions of "swank", sure, I guess.
>>
>
>
>>
>> > As I remember, the Nissan SD33 was sold by Chrysler as a "Chrysler
>> > Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover)
>> > and it had a standard Mopar bolt pattern.
>>
>> Doubtful but possible. The factory installed a few of these turds into
>> Dodge D100 pickups in '78-'79.
>>
>> > One of the old Valiants with the trunk lid reminiscent of a Westinghouse
>> > 45 washer would make a good host for one of these great engines
>>
>> Such a swap would be very much akin to entering a church, climbing atop
>> the altar, dropping trou and taking a dump.
>
> I believe you are errant.
>
> The Dodge _vans_ were briefly sold with Mits, not Nissan, engines. I
>don't know about the trucks. It would surprise me to learn they put
>Mitses in the vans and Nissans in the trucks-on second thought nothing
>Mopar did surprises me really. I will check this out.
>
> The SD Nissans are very tough, durable engines with reasonable torque
>and are simple to work on, and weight is about the same as a /6. Why
>you think that makes them "turds" is a mystery. I have seen ones
>(actually SD22s which are the four cylinder variant-same cylinder
>kits, valves, pushrods, et al) that have rolled 55,000 hours in ground
>support equipment using only raw Jet A for fuel and Aeroshell for oil.
>They were getting tough to start in the cold and a little smoky but
>they were probably superb cores-no cracks. I'm very fond of these
>powerplants. Those that were cared for at all well are still powering
>IH Scouts.
>
> They are not high horsepower and naturally aspirated ones will smoke
>a little sometimes. Power to weight isn't superb, but we weren't
>talking about flying one anyway. (If that were the criteria we'd all
>go Subaru, which has replaced tha aircooled VW and various Fords as
>the car engine most often seen hanging off firewalls at Oshkosh.) No
>one is flying any engine Mopar per se ever built, however the current
>production Mercedes diesel four is the core of the certificated
>Thielert TAE 125 aircraft engine package...


There was a plane built in 1936 with a plymouth flathead engine. This
was a PRODUCTION plane.

On 23 Oct 2004 15:01:00 -0700, (Ted Azito)
wrote:

>> ...FOUR main bearings located well above the pan rail, each of which the
>> same size as those found in Chrysler's big-block V8s,
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> and all of which
>> support a forged steel crankshaft (on engines built between '60 and
>> mid-'76; engines after mid-'76 have a nodular iron crank, which isn't as
>> sexy but is plenty strong enough for all non-race purposes). There's no
>> "despite" about it -- it was and is considerably more than adequate.
>>
>> > With three sidedrafts and tube header exhaust they would be pretty
>> > swank.
>>
>> For certain definitions of "swank", sure, I guess.
>>
>
>
>>
>> > As I remember, the Nissan SD33 was sold by Chrysler as a "Chrysler
>> > Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover)
>> > and it had a standard Mopar bolt pattern.
>>
>> Doubtful but possible. The factory installed a few of these turds into
>> Dodge D100 pickups in '78-'79.
>>
>> > One of the old Valiants with the trunk lid reminiscent of a Westinghouse
>> > 45 washer would make a good host for one of these great engines
>>
>> Such a swap would be very much akin to entering a church, climbing atop
>> the altar, dropping trou and taking a dump.
>
> I believe you are errant.
>
> The Dodge _vans_ were briefly sold with Mits, not Nissan, engines. I
>don't know about the trucks. It would surprise me to learn they put
>Mitses in the vans and Nissans in the trucks-on second thought nothing
>Mopar did surprises me really. I will check this out.
>
> The SD Nissans are very tough, durable engines with reasonable torque
>and are simple to work on, and weight is about the same as a /6. Why
>you think that makes them "turds" is a mystery. I have seen ones
>(actually SD22s which are the four cylinder variant-same cylinder
>kits, valves, pushrods, et al) that have rolled 55,000 hours in ground
>support equipment using only raw Jet A for fuel and Aeroshell for oil.
>They were getting tough to start in the cold and a little smoky but
>they were probably superb cores-no cracks. I'm very fond of these
>powerplants. Those that were cared for at all well are still powering
>IH Scouts.
>
> They are not high horsepower and naturally aspirated ones will smoke
>a little sometimes. Power to weight isn't superb, but we weren't
>talking about flying one anyway. (If that were the criteria we'd all
>go Subaru, which has replaced tha aircooled VW and various Fords as
>the car engine most often seen hanging off firewalls at Oshkosh.) No
>one is flying any engine Mopar per se ever built, however the current
>production Mercedes diesel four is the core of the certificated
>Thielert TAE 125 aircraft engine package...


There was a plane built in 1936 with a plymouth flathead engine. This
was a PRODUCTION plane.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

>>> He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25%
>>> of the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of
>>> our standard of living, where's the extra energy going to come from?
>>> Anybody got any ideas? China's economy is growing at about 10% a year
>>> or so.

>> And the worst part is, it doesn't have to be this way. We could
>> simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preserve and multiply
>> American jobs and greatly retard the increase of oil prices. All we'd
>> have to do is quit buying from China.

> People like their cheap products...so your solution isn't really viable.

One doesn't follow from the other. What people like or dislike doesn't
affect the viability of the solution, just its conceptual popularity.
People are stupidly shortsighted; what else is new?

> Even if we could get people in the USA to "buy-in" to that solution, you
> won't get the rest of the world to.

Wouldn't need to; the US is China's biggest export market.

> Actually Bush's energy plan had a very well balanced approach of

....of cutting down old-growth and cutting down new-growth and warring for
oil and burning rocks^h^h^h^h^hdirt^h^h^h^hcoal, yes.

> At one time the plan was available as a PDF file on the Whitehouse site...I
> read it.

I'd have to remain very skeptical that Mr. Bush would come up with a very
well balanced approach to energy policy unless I read the primary
document. Still got the PDF?

(BTW, why have you got your newsreader set to use the | character rather
than the > character for quoted text? The > character is the standard, and
many newsreaders don't handle | well.)