Pop N Wood

Open your mind and actually research the issue. Uday pulled young girls off of school yards. His own teachers were afraid of him. He did what ever he wanted. One of the few times he saw any repercussions was the time he beat his father's food taster to death, and Daddy had him jailed and tortured. My point about Africa isn't just that we lost troops there, it is that there is only so much we can do. The dead troops are just proof positive that we tried. Are you honestly saying we should invade half a dozen African nations? What is it you expect from the US? And I will tell you again. Please, don't believe me in any of this. Look it all up for yourself.

The rape rooms are not propaganda. They are an established fact. Do a little web research if you don't believe the common sources. Saddam would arrest the families of his adversaries and have their daughters repeatedly raped in front of them as a form of torture. And he video taped most of it, so you can't say it didn't happen. Then somewhere in this process he would immerse the adversary is a vat of acid, removing all of his skin, before letting him go. But please, don't believe me. Make an effort to verify these facts. The history channel did a series on Saddam and his sons. All I can say is it lends new meaning to the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Those guys did what ever they wanted. They had no one to answer to. On the plus side, Uday had a warehouse with over a 1000 exotic cars. Most of them Ferrari's. Saddam got so mad at Uday that he had it burned to the ground. And all of this while the country was under “UN sanctionsâ€. Oh, and they talked about Uday heading up the Iraqi Olympic committee. Vince Lombardi should have had such motivational tools available to him. But all this controversy about WMD just shows what sheeple most Americans are. If the only knowledge you have about the reasons for that war came out of the pre-war sound bites, then you are truly an ill informed individual who is overly susceptible to media manipulation. If you read the newspapers in the 12 years between the two wars, you would realize we were bombing that country on almost a daily basis. This was done at the direction of the almighty UN to enforce the no fly zones. What was being done to the people of Iraq in that time was absolutely criminal. Totally indefensible. Saddam didn't care. He rebuilt the palaces, his sons bought Ferraris. The French and Russians did not care, because they were getting rich off the black market trading with Iraq. Remember the UN's oil for food program? Suppose to allow Iraq to sell oil for humanitarian needs? Ever hear about how much money was left in that account because Saddam had no desire to use it to mitigate his people's suffering. To me that war was either "chit or get off the pot" time. There can be absolutely no question what an evil person Saddam was so don’t even try going there. Whether it was our place to remove him is just another instance of the age old question “Am I my brother’s keeper?â€. To say we went into Iraq for monetary gain is ludicrous give the current state of affairs. To say we went in there for oil is true to a degree in that oil is money and money is power. It can make a mad man a world menace. And don’t even bring up the Africa issue. We left too many dead Americans in Somalia to say the US doesn't try to help the less fortunate. How much oil was in Bosnia? How many dead Marines did we lose in Lebanon, back when we thought our mere presence was all that was needed to make a difference. Look at the current events in Sudan. We are doing what we can but you have to be smart enough and learn from past mistakes TO KEEP FROM REPEATING THEM. There are some situations that not even the US military can fix. And another thing. The US gets blasted at the world AIDS conference. Never mind the fact that US contributes more to international AIDS relief THEN ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED! If you are going to be critical of US policies and try to assign motives, then at least make some effort to intelligently research the issue first.

Smokey Yunick did just what you said. Said he was racing at some track where the normal engine rotation torqued the car to the wrong side (can't remember if it was the inboard or outboard side). Said he ground the cam backward, flipped the rear diff upside down (if I remember right) and used engine torque to help balance the car. Said he never got caught. Same book said they once changed the rules limiting gas tank size. He got so pissed, that he ran enough fuel line to hold an extra 5 gallons. Racing secrets of the pros! And yes, multi engine boats as well as airplanes use counter rotating screws/props to prevent the "paddle wheel" effect from constantly trying to turn the craft. Most ships have variable pitch screws that allow the ship to go backwards simply by reversing the pitch. Didn't someone on here once say that diesels can run just as well backwards as forwards?

Read the whole site. He talks about that. Apparently the law only prohibits "fraudulently" defacing money. As in trying to pass it off as something else. He says even the feds have to admit it isn't illegal. Even talks about the penny smashing machines being legal. Also it only gets smaller in diameter, but it gets thicker. Hence the density is the same because the volume is the same.

Can't answer your question because I haven't used such a device. But in the current edition of Engines magazine they installed a vacuum system on the crankcase and picked up an additional 15 HP. I have never heard of such a system, but that is not a bad power gain.

I have said it before in other threads. Quoting something from a Hollywood movie doesn't do much to enhance your credibility. I will take that statement one step further and say anyone who quotes or claims to have actually learned anything from a Micheal Moore film probably isn't worth talking to. Try reading a newspaper on a daily basis and you will see that nothing he presents is new information. Even Osama's family has publicly taken exception to the incorrect information in that moronic film. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5538722/ It is amazing how lazy people can be. Don't think it is biased propoganda? Ask people who know how to recognize it when they see it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3923385.stm

Think that guy has a girl friend? How you you like to live next door to the guy with his own EMP machine? TV reception must be a beach.

How can it need a "new floorpan" and not have any rust? What made the floor pan go bad? Hard to believe a Macco paint job lasted 20 years, but if it truely has then you don't have to worry about them having painted over rust. It would have bubbled to the surface by now. Try to verify the date of the paint job and check carefully for areas which may have been "touched up" since the original job. Could be hiding more than you think. Some other things don't add up. Can't believe he had to have the engine and trans rebuilt at only 80,000 miles. IMO for the typical L6 you can put another 1 in front of that number. Oh, may be nitpicking but with a dealer installed AC, no front spoiler and non-factory paint it is technically not "100% original". I assume the reason for wanting to swap is to get the more collecible 240 vs. 280. But 240's with auto's sell for considerably less than the manuals and a 72 is not all that rare or collectable. I say stick with the known problems (and the V8). Body work is expensive and time consuming. Suspension work is easy and quick.

Would I use it? You would have a hard time getting me out of there. Needs a glass commode too.

Bet doing the Autometer in the first place doesn't sound as expensive anymore Whoda thunk.

If your brakes feel mushy, then that means you need to fix what you have, not upgrade. You may need new brake lines, since that is usually what swells and flexes with pressure. Consider getting some stainless steel brake lines. That will have the added benefit of forcing you to change out the brake fluid. Be forewarned, SS lines will make your brake pedal feel like you are stepping on a brick. It will be solid. I would also check your vacuum booster. Make sure there are no leaks and that it is providing the proper assist. A bigger master cylinder (usually larger diameter) will increase the amount pedal effort needed to stop. But on my 240 that made a positive difference in braking. A bigger MC will provide a larger volume of fluid before bottoming out. You should upgrade the MC if you go to larger calipers. Bigger calipers are nice, but they are not going to help with a mushy pedal. They will only help (arguably) to delay the onset of fade from overheating the brake parts. Not something your should see on the street (if the rest of the system is in good shape). Many feel a vented rotor or brake ducting will do a better job then the Toyo 4x4 calipers with a solid rotor. Beyond all that there have been several good suggestions on brake pads in the archives. But that won't do you any good if the rest of your system needs rebuilding.

Mirrors are a subject of much personal choice. I ended up going with a set of MSA mirrors that mount to the window frame, primarily because they don't get knocked out of adjustment by every goofball passing by your parked car. Many people don't like the "squarish" look of the MSA units, but they are solid and always where I want them. IMO mirrors on a street car are one thing that has to be functional. Nothing worse than having to roll down the passenger's window and adjust the side view every time you get in the car. Or worse yet trying to change lanes and only seeing your back seat. Good looks are secondary.

Amen, brother!

Even a straight piece of wire has some "resistance" to current flow. If current (amperage) is flowing though that wire, then you will be able to measure a voltage drop across it. The voltage drop is equal to the resistance (in ohms) times the current in amps. Normally the resistance of a piece of wire is small enough that the voltage drop is not important. But if you try to pump enough current through a wire, then the voltage drop can become significant. That is why you use great big cables to hook up the starter, but small ones for say dash lights. What you were probably sensing was the current flow charging the battery. The alternator is grounded to the engine, then through the battery cables from the starter to the negative battery post. With charging current going from the alternator to the battery, you will see a slight voltage drop from the engine ground to the battery ground. If the battery is being charged (drawing current), then it will be slightly more positive than the engine ground. (Conversely the engine will be slightly more negative than the battery). The more drained the battery is, the more current it will draw hence the larger the voltage difference. The voltage drop will probably be slightly different every time you measure it. The voltage readings you are measuring are really small. They are consistent with what I would expect so I say don't worry about it. Just make sure you always measure the voltages where the manual says you should.

Those wheels are pretty classic Z car attire from the early 90's. Have a set just like them. The do show a lot of fender well with 50 series tires. Nice, classic Z!!

Once had a conversation about that very same topic with a half dozen park police. But, in my defense, it was in an empty portion of a stadium parking lot.

The weak point in an R200 is the spider gears. You have proved that those are the first to fail. You need an LSD of some type. Spinning just one wheel is what that gives the spider gears a work out. Many have said the LSD types, whether it is a quiaffe or otherwise, hold up much better for just this reason. Since you have 3 broken R200's, why not try welding up the broke spider gears and swapping that in for hard running track days?

jmortensen I thought the same thing as you! A 30-06 will penetrate most body armor. Even the cops buy into the misinformation concerning "assault weapons". But a 223 is still a good choice for making an accurate head shot from a safer distance. It is also a pretty easy gun to shoot accurately, so I don't fully agree with your comments about outfitting patrol cars with them. Also I can't see being too critical of a bunch of cops who went toe to toe with those two maniacs like they did. Brave bunch of boys. And a head shot seems pretty easy at the range, but like you said I have never tried to shoot at a moving target that was shooting back at me.

Sounds like you have the right attitude to keep it from happening again. Sorry to hear about your troubles. On the bright side, I'll bet you made the cop's day.

You might also try adding a chin pan. The real early Z's suffered some overheating problems because turbulence underneath the car prevented a smooth flow of air through the radiator. Datsun's solution was to bolt a sheet metal pan between the frame rails directly behind the radiator. MSA still carries them. Many have said engine timing can also affect overheating. So your ideas about tuning issues are not out of the question. Guess I would try what scumdog says, then the chin pan, then maybe install an oxygen sensor in the exhaust to help with tuning.

OK, still not hearing me. Patrick Purdy did not have a fully auto weapon. You are proving my point concerning gun laws. Banning automatic weapons is a solution in search of a problem. Right now it is legal for a responsible American to buy and own a fully automatic weapon. The laws and licensing are very strict. The statistic I referenced show that this has not been a problem. And yet if you ask the average anti-gun person they will cry in disbelieve that they aren't totally illegal. Check out the prices of a fully auto weapon. Because of the existing laws a legal M16 sells for over $12,000. And yet somehow you want stricter laws. Why? And yes, there is a reason cops carry shot guns and not assault rifles. There are few things more lethal in an urban environment. M16 rounds are not legal for hunting deer in most states, yet shotguns are. Why? Insufficient stopping power. Too great a chance of only wounding the animal instead of killing him (among other things). Assault weapons are actually designed to wound and not kill. Why? Because on a battlefield a wounded man takes on the average 10 support people to evacuate and treat. Dead men take care of themselves. Trying to ban one type of gun because it is “more dangerous†than another IMO shows and incredible degree of ignorance concerning the root of the problem. One thing you have to understand. Most gun control groups lobbying congress are not after reasonable restrictions that do not infringe upon honest people’s rights. They are out to ban all guns. That is why people like me fight any and all new gun laws. They are a means to an end. What is a reasonable level of restrictions? Good question. I would say something considerably less than we have today. BTW, off topic but I came across this and found it rather humerous. [/img] Sorry. The text got lost. The caption says "Beacuse if you cooperate, they might not hurt you" http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/

IMO one of the more aggravating aspects of gun laws is people gravitate toward laws that “just seem to make sense†without bothering to see if they are at all founded in reality. Assault gun bans fall in this category (I noticed Subdermal conveniently ignored my statements about Patrick Purdy). Even Clinton’s own commission studying the issue stated categorically that the US does not have a problem with assault weapons. One of the most common round used in domestic shootings is a 25 auto. And yet anti gunners focus a lot of their energies on assault weapons. Why? Lack of understanding? Or is it just because they are trying to appeal to people’s emotions rather than logic? Maybe something else? Subdermal, take the time to actually read what I wrote before you begin mentally formulating a response. The statistics I stated where not trying to justify anything but instead are an attempt to shed some light on the problem. IMO how can we begin to address the problem if we don’t understand the basic question? Look at the gun laws and statistics on the countries I cited. Why does the US have such a high death rate compared to other countries, some of which actually require homeowners to own fully automatic weapons as part of the national militia? The problem in the US runs deeper than just more laws. Also reread my statements regarding fully automatic weapons. Only 1 legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime. This means stolen or otherwise. Do a web search if you don’t trust the link I posted. The facts will support me on this. And yes, a 22 rifle in the hands of a crack addict is infinitely more dangerous than an MP5 in the hands of a SWAT team member. What is the point of banning one over the other? As far as what is an acceptable risk? Well this will forever be a subject of disagreement. Like all other things, you have to weight the cost against the benefit. Probably the overwhelming majority of Americans have no contact with guns and thus see no positive benefit from them. People in rural areas generally have a different perspectives. It is too easy in America today to think we no longer need an armed populace. If you don't see any benefit, then any cost is too high. All I can say to that is pick up a newspaper and read about some of the atrocities that are occurring throughout the world today. Sift though the military history section of your local Barnes and Nobles. The world is not always a nice place. But my single biggest complaint concerning attempted gun bans is people trying to pretend the second amendment does mean what it says. Licensing, safety courses, magazine limits, purchase limits, arduous paperwork requirements (sound familiar?). These are all just steps towards a defacto ban.

Oh. And an M16 may not do much against a tank, but it will sure do a number on the crew when they get out the refuel the pig. Small arms may not stop the invading army, but they sure can make the cost of occupation too high to bear. Need any current examples of this? Ask the Bosnian Muslims (the ones that are left) what they think of the gun control policies of the former Yugoslav state. Didn't serve them well in preventing the genocide that was attempted against them. Unfortunately mankind has yet to outgrow it's need for firearms. They are as pertanent today as during Hamilton's time.

Assuming there is a causal relationship between gun laws and crime rate. This is a common oversimplification on the part of most anti-gun people. Gun crime is much more closely tied to demographics that gun laws. Look at the statistics and gun laws of countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico and compare them to the US. It is the attitudes and background of the people that make guns more dangerous in some countries than others. As for laws banning specific types of guns I have to ask you what good such "feel good" laws do? You are assuming one type of gun is more dangerous than another. Once again, it is the mind set of the person carrying the weapon that makes it a threat. Take the case of Patrick Purdy, the guy who shot up the Stockton school yard with an SKS carbine (note to all: an AK-47 is fully automatic. If it is not fully auto it is NOT an AK-47). Simply fact of the matter given the range at which he shot all those Asian kids (and why just the Asian kids?) the result would have been much more tragic had he used a common shotgun rather than an assault rifle. The reason we NRA types are against such laws (besides the fact they don't really accomplish anything) is the potential for abuse. Gun ownership tests can (and often are) abused in the same manner as the old Jim Crow laws governing voting. Oh, and as for statistics. In the US less than one tenth of one percent of all legally sold handguns are ever used in the commission of a felony. The average American has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than victimized by a hand gun. Since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 requiring a license to own a fully automatic weapon, only 1 legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in the commission of a crime (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html). And that crime was committed by a POLICE OFFICER. And finally, in the US over 50% of all hand gun murders are committed by young black males shooting other young black males. Perhaps we should channel our energies into understanding that statistic. Maybe if we address some of the problems facing urban youth we could sit back and talk about those crazy Canadians and THEIR statistically higher gun death rate. Alexander Hamilton had it right. The unarmed populous is at the mercy of the government in power. Think about that quote when you try and read into what the founding fathers were thinking. And one last thing. As for need in today's society? I know I sure felt better knowing I had the means to protect myself and my family during the Rodney King riots then the guy trusting the non-existent police. It is nice to trust the system but better yet to have a back up plan.

Not always true. I witnessed something exactly like this and stopped. From my statements the cop wrote up the person who slammed on the brakes for an unsafe lane change and reckless driving. Thank you. Made my point. People think that rear end accidents are always the guy in back's fault. This is true if there is no other evidence. But if a witness sees you do something stupid, you are in trouble. Especially with all the hype about aggressive driving these days. I once T boned a woman who turned left in front of me when I clearly had the green light. We were in heavy traffic, it was raining and I was in an unloaded pickup truck so my options were limited. Must have been a hundred witnesses but none of them stopped to give a statement. Somehow or the other, the woman managed to convince an arbitrator that I saw her but failed to take evasive action. The accident got judged MY fault and my insurance had to pay her. The ruling was so bizarre that even my insurance company told me they didn't consider it my fault and did not raise my rates even with the $18K in damages they paid out. Sometimes there is the way you think things should work out and the way they actually turn out. Best to avoid the trouble in the first place. Also if your insurance company ever says they want to take an accident to arbitration, just say NO. There is more than a passing coincidence between the words " arbitration " and "arbitrary".