Recent posts

#11

General Discussion / Re: 1960 New 2 to engine hoist

Last post by Cadman-iac - Yesterday at 06:29:35 PM

What I really want to know is why this is in the Cars For Sale thread?

Maybe he's hinting that if he can't get the engine out, it's time to sell?

Rick

#12

General Discussion / Re: Why Did I Receive This???

Last post by gkhashem - Yesterday at 06:12:22 PM

I suggested this in a message to a board member here but got no response and I will not name them. So much for directors being responsive.

I suggested a forum membership of say $10, which only is a membership to the forum. However I am sure the cry babies will complain about $10.

And if they did, it would confirm my prior assertion that some people are just plain cheap.

#13

General Discussion / Re: 1960 New 2 to engine hoist

Last post by Clewisiii - Yesterday at 06:10:46 PM

My friend had to buy a larger size lift just for the reach yo pull his engine from his 66.

#14

General Discussion / Re: Why Did I Receive This???

Last post by Big Fins - Yesterday at 05:52:02 PM

Then I'm blind. I see a name, region and CLC Member number on all of 'Carfreak's' posts



SPashukewich
Motor City
CLC Number: 5125

#15

General Discussion / Re: The Real cost of operating...

Last post by Cadillac Jack 82 - Yesterday at 05:46:16 PM

EVs are just a trendy way of saying I can be in the in crowd.  Electric cars have been tried before.  Granted the tech wasnt there but try to drive an EV if the grid fails, or an EMP hits, etc.  ICE will run on all types of crap provided it has the same reactive force as gasoline.  EVs without a grid are useless as tits on a bull.  Hydrogen...now thats worth looking into!

#16

General Discussion / Re: 1960 New 2 to engine hoist

Last post by Big Fins - Yesterday at 05:43:03 PM

What I really want to know is why this is in the Cars For Sale thread?

General or Tech would be the better for it.

["A username is required for registration and is the default displayed name. It can be any unoffensive name the member chooses that is not already in use."]

#17

General Discussion / Re: Why Did I Receive This???

Last post by Jason Edge - Yesterday at 05:41:47 PM

Who are you?  I thought there was a rule about 5 years ago that everyone needed a name in their sign on or footer. It might be of your own volition but since we don't know who Carfreak is that doesn't help much. It's frustrating to some when Lars would not say "I was the one who placed this motion to the board for vote" even though he is an Admin on this forum.  Now we get a person referencing themself as Carfreak saying "I'm a board member and I voted for the change".

Bryan, Here is yet another benefit of retricting access to the CLC forums to CLC Members --> we were able to relax the strict name requirement. By requiring the CLC #, you or anyone can check or CLC Director, or use the online Member Website, to confirm who any  member is by their CLC #.

Here is the Forum Rule change regarding the Forum Name that was posted May 1:

"A username is required for registration and is the default displayed name.  It can be any unoffensive name the member chooses that is not already in use."

In this day and age where many value their privacy, this allows users that do not want to publicly post their name, the option of using whatever they like as a username. If you want to use ILUVTHECLC that could be your username, while the required CLC # allows your fellow CLC members to know who you are. I call that a Win-Win!

#18

General Discussion / Re: Why Did I Receive This???

Last post by Bryan J Moran - Yesterday at 05:05:34 PM

As a Director and outspoken member of the Board, I voted to approve the new Policy.

Trust when I state this was of my own volition & not influenced by others' actions.

Who are you?  I thought there was a rule about 5 years ago that everyone needed a name in their sign on or footer. It might be of your own volition but since we don't know who Carfreak is that doesn't help much. It's frustrating to some when Lars would not say "I was the one who placed this motion to the board for vote" even though he is an Admin on this forum.  Now we get a person referencing themself as Carfreak saying "I'm a board member and I voted for the change".

#19

General Discussion / Re: The Real cost of operating...

Last post by Cadman-iac - Yesterday at 04:48:35 PM

That brings up other issues.

One of having so much acceleration amongst most other vehicles on the road that if not sensibly used, problems can occur.

Plus, when towing trailers, one has to be aware of what they are doing. 

Having all this power is not good for the inexperienced drivers that want to show off to their friends, then they complain that they are getting range anxiety because they don't realise that they have to suffer the loss of range because they are needlessly pushing the limits.

Bruce.

Something else that affects the cost of new cars, regardless of how they are powered, is how much they have to "protect" the driver and passengers (and others on the road) from themselves because driver education is not taught by anyone anymore.
The legislation that has been enacted by our government is just adding more to the price tag of each vehicle.
It used to be that you would learn how to drive before you received a license, and yes, there's always been a risk involved with traveling in a motor vehicle, which was assumed by you when you got into the car.
You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Unfortunately, today that risk is exponentially higher because of people who don't know how to drive, as they rely on the systems that have been legislated into these vehicles to try and overcome their stupidity. Cars that can stop themselves, or keep itself in a lane, or whatever other things that will make up for the driver's lack of attention or skill. And also Unfortunately, the technology is not as good as it needs to be in order to keep us safe from these idiots.
Legal costs are skyrocketing because of accidents. Everyone is looking for something to blame other than the idiot behind the wheel that caused it in the first place, due to inexperience, distraction or whatever.
As Bruce and Carl have said, the acceleration of these electric cars is phenomenal, and people who don't know how to drive a regular car, sure as hell aren't going to be able to handle one of these.
Remember when you took responsibility for your own life when you got behind the wheel, and it was generally accepted that if you crashed, you were somewhat at fault for not being able to avoid it?
Today's legal system doesn't seem to want to accept this position, they are always looking for someone with deep pockets to go after. Which is just another reason why legislation has been enacted to force automakers to design out the "idiot" factor.

I know I sound old fashioned, or out of touch with today, but I believe that we should make affordable cars that are dependable and not made of plastic, that can be rebuilt if and when it wears out.
If you drive a vehicle, you accept that risk.
We're all, (most of us anyway) old enough to remember when that's how it was.

I didn't intend to go off on a tangent here, I apologize for that.

Rick
  Edit: Carl, I was unaware of exactly how crude oil was broken down and distributed for different uses. I see my mistake here.
 Ya gotta admit that it would have been nice if it only worked that way though.
 Thanks for clarifying that and correcting me on it.
 I'd still like to see less plastic in cars, only because metal lasts sooo  much longer.

#20

General Discussion / Re: The Real cost of operating...

Last post by Clewisiii - Yesterday at 04:37:40 PM

Unfortunately Oil for plastic and fuel does not work that way. Oil goes into a distillation tower where it is separated by its molecular weight. There is a certain band of weight that can be used for fuel, Then there are bands that separate out into the different grades of raw chemicals used for plastics and other things. The bottom of the distillation tower is what is used for Asphalt. The prices we currently pay is at an equilibrium with the volumes of raw materials that exit that distillation tower. If you need more ABS resin it does not divert oil away from Gas. We would need to pump more oil and the gas becomes a byproduct that may then reduce in price.

Now if we were to have a drastic reduction in the amount of fuel we need for transportation. If that reduces the amount of oil pumped then that is less raw material for Asphalt and plastic resins. If we need plastic at the same rate then we would still pump the same amount of oil but fuel grades would be a waste byproduct. We could reprocess into new things. As long as we do not burn it we do not release the carbon.

I was on a research project that looked at using waste molasses from processing sugar beets as an organic carbon source to make plastic. The project started in Italy where they were actually pumping the waste molasses directly to a land fill. So the raw material was free for them to process into plastic. We wanted to replicate the process in Michigan since we have a large sugar beet processing operation here. The problem is for America this is not a waste product. We have already found other uses, so as a commodity waste molasses was in the hundreds of dollars a ton. Oil for plastic is much cheaper at that rate. Side note the company in Italy was also involved in some form of scam and was shut down and investigated.