crazy280

Mainly Pparaska. Just sounded that way, maybe he didn't mean it that way. It's hard to tell on a text forum. Sorry.

If it's down to the 300zxtt or the Camaro, I'd get the Z. They accelerate about the same, and are both easy and cheap to get plenty of HP from, but the Z handles much better, and is more reliable. Also, I don't think there was a nonturbo '93+ rx7.

JKDGabe, is that what the "JKD" in your screen-name refers to?

1) The 1500 dead soldiers, and the soldiers dying in Iraq every day are no less honorable than any other soldier in our history. But their deaths were avoidable. How come everytime someone says "we should preserve the lives of our soldiers" a republican accuses that person of "dishonoring the troops". Wierd... 2) I'm hardly a pacifist. I stand my ground and I believe in fighting for what is right (and unfortunately this has led to a few street fights I'm NOT proud of). However, I try to be a good christian, and the teachings of Christ are what guides my conscience. 3) I'm not letting my "feelings" blind my thoughts. I am a very logical thinker. I simply did not want to have to repost all the arguements I've made, and others have made, in past threads regarding the Iraq war. Quick summary: Republicans always try to defend the war by stating the positive results of it. They are basing that argument on the belief that war was the only way to go about getting those results, which is false. And since I try to be a good Christian, I would have chosen the less bloody alternative. There are numerous threads on this site about the same topic, I'm not trying to restart that argument. 4) You keep mentioning random deaths around the world- maybe you missed the point. Our government did not kill those people, or send them to die. Our government DID declare war preemptively on Iraq, resulting in thousands of deaths, and an insurgancy sure to cause thousands more. It is arguable whether or not to blame our government for the murders Saddam committed, since we were the ones who put him in power originally. However, our government chose the bloody path to take him out. Like it or not, that's a cloud.

I've never driven the Insight, but it sounds like when you stop, it shuts off the engine instead of letting it idle, since it's attatched to the motor directly. The Prius has the motor next to the engine, and can run solely on the motor, solely on the engine, or both, and can display battery level, mileage, etc, in the dash/screen display.

I know plenty of people die everyday around the world, but the deaths I'm talking about are as a result of our government's actions, you know? If we can prevent it, I think we should, my values tell me to preserve human life. But since we're already in this mess, we have to clean it up, which means more big-hearted American soldiers are going to die, as well as brave Iraqi/coalition fighters, and innocent civilians. I wouldn't say "senseless deaths" exactly; maybe "avoidable deaths". I guess it's offset partially by the removal of Saddam (a mass murderer), but we still caused a lot of deaths over there and it's hard to get that "feel good" state of mind with such a cloud over my head. Again, just my oppinion...

Hey, I was trying to be funny there guys. But seriously, the Republicans raised more money than the Democrats in the last presidential election, like they usually do. I watched the head finance guys from the two parties give speaches on C-Span. A common point made was that Republicans get more contributions from wealthy citizens than Democrats do, which is how they raise more money than Dems, and which is why Dems end up taking more "soft money" contributions. All partisan-politics aside, I'm glad the Iraqis have their freedom (well, no more Saddam at least). I agree with Pparaska that we should have done it another way, but at least they can vote now, and I really hope we are successful with the rest of the mission. It is nice to hear positive news about Iraq, admist all of the mayhem. It seems like every day I hear "Three American soldiers were killed today by a car bombing in Iraq" or some variation of that. It's awfully depressing, and I wish our government would have chosen a better route. I can definately appreciate the positive aspects of this war, but it's hard to be happy when our soldiers keep dying (and some of my friends are in the military). Just my oppinion, take it for what it's worth.

You might think that the media is slanted, but I doubt its the owners. The owners are megarich businessmen, who must cater to the big businesses who place ads in their media source, thereby paying their salaries. The megarich, and big businesses, support the "right" 99% of the time, because, as Charles Barkely once said "they take care of the rich" lol.

Guys, chill. I think what Phil is trying to say is that polls are only as accurate as the pollsters. I was always taught that when reading polls, if possible, you should always have access to: A) the question as it was asked the raw data C) who was asked, and D) who was asking. That way you could take into consideration whether it was the "KKK" conducting a poll on "race relations". It's not that they are outright lying, but any organization with an agenda is going to promote evidence that is supportive of that agenda. For example, you could word a poll question differently, and get strikingly different results. Or you could ask a different test group and get completely different results. I always laugh when reading polls about abortion from "Women's Right to Choose" groups and "Right to Life" groups. The two polls are completely different, because one used a question similar to "is killing babies ok?" and the other used a question similar to "does a mother have the right to choose?". I think Phil's point is not that this IRI group is lying, but that you should keep in mind what they're all about, you know?

Well yeah, that makes sense.

Pop n wood, I don't mean any harm by saying this, but it sounds like you got some mixed info about hybrids. There are more than one type of hybrid currently produced. The Honda Insight is different in design than the Toyota Prius, for example. There was a great article in "Motor Trend" or one of those mainstream car mags a while back about this very subject, and they hashed it all out in an easy to understand manner. Someone on this site must have a subscription to that magazine. Anyone? Anyhow, my neighbor recently bought a Prius, and the engine isn't even on most of the time- its usually the electric motor working, and regenerating during breaking. Great car, good bottom-end, and she says she gets about 42 mpg. Wierd too, because when you turn it on, it's silent. The first time I ever drove one of these things, I was turning the key going "what's the matter?" then I realized it was already on! I go to San Francisco a lot and they have electric-car charging-stations in some of the big parking garages. So people are commuting in electric-only cars, I guess. But I don't know of any being produced other than those strange looking trike/bubble things. Also, my understanding is that the environmental groups want ZEV's, but they are also the reason manufacturers are making hybrids. The manufacturers did NOT do it voluntarily (except Toyota and Honda). The current legislation says a certain percentage of all vehicles from any manufacturer must be hybrid, and another percentage must be zev, within some given date, like 20XX (in California). And most of the manufacturers fought it until just recently. That's what I remember reading, I could be wrong though...

Honestly, in that situation, I don't think the valvetrain design would make a huge impact. The only thing really wearing out in those circumstances are the valves and guides, which would wear out the same with either configuration. But it's funny you mentioned Honda, because they don't use ohv on any of their newer cars, to my knowledge, even cars that fit your criteria. Even GM and Dodge/Chrysler (the last to really hold on to ohv) are retooling for ohc/dohc on most of their cars (except the performance beasts like 'vette/viper/hemis - awsome cars that aren't really about reliability). Why would they be phasing out ohv on their daily drivers if it were more reliable? This was just my train of thought, and I'm no engineer, so I could be wrong. Edit: sorry, not trying to hijack this thread...

I don't mean to be arguementative here, but I think dohc is less prone to fail, especially if you're revving the engine. The whole valvetrain is much smoother, and generates less friction and heat. I'm not knocking pushrod engines, they're still one of the best performance options, I'm just clarifying.

LOL nice!

I agree, I think they should use a more realistic test. Even if it's mostly for comparison, they should still let us compare real numbers instead of inflated ones. I want to know what I'm buying (well...I couldn't afford a new car anyhow, go figure ). I think the trend that cars keep getting bigger and heavier and heavier and heavier has something to do with the stagnant mpg numbers in modern cars. I mean, the newer "beetle" weighs like 2900 lbs, hello that's almost double the original car, and the new "mini cooper" weighs HOW much? Geeez. Also, I keep hearing people mention that hybrids don't get as great of mileage as they should, like they should be record shattering or something. The point of hybrids is to be slightly more fuel efficient, but DRASTICALLY cleaner burning. Hence the PZEV classification (partial zero emissions vehicle). Although there is a correlation between the two, gas mileage and emissions are not always together like you'd think. For example, diesels get excellent MPG because they are more efficient than a gasoline engine can ever be (can't remember the formula, sorry), but they are also nasty polluters.

Man, I am all for cleaning up the air and everything, but this is not the way to do it. WE shouldn't be penalized like this. All this stupid red-tape, backdoor legislation, taxpayer dollars down the drain just for supposedly "cleaning up the air". What they should be doing is spending all that time/money/effort/resources in getting hydrogen gas-stations going (like I've said before), instead of punishing car-hobbyists like ourselves. They could just mandate that all cars must burn hydrogen by 20XX, and then slowly roll in the hydrogen stations and roll out the gasoline stations, while discounting the cost of upgrading to different, hydrogen-setup carbs/injection. If our cars burnt hydrogen instead of gasoline (yes, I said BURNT hydrogen, not "fuel cells"), just think of the advantages. No air-quality crisis (at least not in regards to cars). Much less of an oil crisis, less reliance on foreign resources. Saves us money b/c we don't have to pay for smog tests. Saves manufacturers money b/c they don't have to manufacture, test, etc, expensive smog devices on their new cars. Saves us these damn roadside headaches, and we would be free to hotrod to our hearts content. Oh well, it'll probably never happen.

Okay, well I was confused because the FAQ page says you can.

I posted a thread in "troubleshooting", and now the "edit" page for the thread has no delete option. Can I delete my thread, and if so, how?

Easy way to get around the autosave is to buy a second memory card for backup. I bought a used ps2 8mb card for $5.99 from the local gametrade shop. I copied my gt4 game file onto both cards from the ps2 "browser" menu. Now I can just buy any car and mess with it, and when I'm done I just overwrite my backup file onto the card that has been "autosaved" to restore my game to how I wanted it. BTW: Anyone find an s30 other than the g-nose yet? I heard there was supposed to be a Z432R in there somewhere. I haven't found anything yet. Anyone?

I am dying to go buy this game! I'm completely hooked to GT3, and I bought a used copy of GT2 just so I could race an S30, even though its the G-nose edition. So does GT4 have the regular, non-G-nose, S30?

JohnC, While your posts can be really informative and very interesting from time to time, you gotta stop with the 7-mile long ones, you're killing me man Why don't I invest all of my money? I'm a college student - I don't have any money! And why would I want to profit from the war? I just denounced war profiteers in the previous post. And any money being invested is going into my Z anyway By the way, the oil industry had its most profitable year EVER last year. Stocks don't ALWAYS indicate a firm's well being. Now, it's decieving to quote weapons inspections from 1998 as cause for another seige on Iraq. Directly prior to the latest war, Hans Blix (sp?) said in public that the inspections were going well. Then we find no weapons/programs/etc. after we invade. Secondly, many Al Quaida operatives were from Saudi Arabia, a country which also still holds public beheadings as well as other inhumane treatment of citizens. Why was Iraq the prime target, for all of the reasons you listed? Why not Iran, which is guilty of most, if not all, of the same charges (more so for some- they actually DO have a weapons program and ties to Al Quaida)? Iraqi Liberation Act: "Promoting a democracy" in Iraq, this does not necessarily mean through war. Bringing a democracy could have happened without war, at the very least without us invading them. Way "back in the day" America fought for its own democracy (albeit with some help from France- but not by invasion) and Iraq could have too, with time. If there was no time, then wait- oh crap, there's no time to invade Iran, North Korea, etc. lets go to war right now with them too! (j/k) And please, don't patronise me with that "jewish conspiracy" crap. Like I said, ITS NOT A CONSPIRACY. Its just business as usual. This is how businesses operate in a "modern, global economy". Large corporations have the money and power (via lobbying, candidate endorsements and contributions, etc.) to change and sway policies that could in effect change the market/regulations/laws/tarrifs/you-name-it, to their advantage. Its the latest evolution of free market systems. As for Pop'N'Wood's comments: I don't know if you misinterpreted me when I said "who put Bush in office". I was talking about who paid for his campaign, not some black-box voting conspiracy (that's a whole 'nother topic ). Presidential politics (most politics actually) these days is all about money. You can't really run these days without millions of dollars, and typically he who has more wins (take the re-election of Bush for example) Bush's biggest contributors were companies in the energy business, so one could say they were the ones who put him in office. If Kerry had won, then it would be fair to say that Unions, etc, put him in office. Anyone who says its not about money is fooling themselves- or incredibly naive. That goes for business, too. It has always been about money, and it always will be. And the employees don't make the decisions- its the board. And they are filthy rich. And the sons and daughters of the filthy rich never have to go to war if they don't want to (ahem, Bush, Cheney; actually most of the administration never fought). And business school's infatuation with "the bottom line"? I didn't have to go to business school to know that IT IS all about the bottom line. JMortensen- What? I never said Bush made up the WMD evidence. I was disappointed in the vote to go to war, and also for Kerry's lame excuse for his vote. If you must know, I wanted Dean to win the primary (why did he make that lame "yeeeeaah"?). Then, during the main elections I contributed like $50 (wow, big spender! lol) to the DNC and Kerry campaign. But recently I wrote a letter to the DNC and JohnKerry.com telling them that I will not support them anymore, financially and otherwise, until they start to represent me properly (for example, by voting against something like the Iraq war). I'm not the only democrat who needs to see some heavier hitting over there in Washington... Great, now I made a 7-mile long post. Sorry, but I felt I had to defend my prior statements. Anyways, I wasn't trying to change the original topic. **My whole point originally was that the 9/11 conspiracy theories were too far fetched to be believed** but people got hung up on the other part of my post. Maybe anyone who wants to discuss these other topics should just IM me?

Theoretically a rotary should be more reliable than a piston engine. There's far fewer moving parts and the whole assembly operates much smoother (less NVH, etc.) than any piston engine. The first thing to go is usually the apex seals. I guess the high heat of the turbo is what kills the later models.

It is not an unproven assumption that powerful people are capable of (and have motive to do) bad things. And often this is the simplest explanation. For example: I'm more likely to believe that there is profit for the energy and defense industries (who put our current administration in office) in invading Iraq, rather than to believe it had anything to do with protecting us after 9/11, when there was no real link between Al Quaida and Sadaam, and no WMD's in Iraq. Especially after the admin's justification for war keeps changing. It's a more simple explanation However, it would be a real stretch of the mind to think that the administration setup the whole 9/11 catastrophe, etc. That would be far less simple, and likewise far less believable.

Hey, I'm a liberal and I own a Winchester .22 rifle painted cammo with a scope. I used to have a p90 Ruger (.45) but it cost too much for ammo. Guns are fun for target practice.