Re: New cars are shit

Jimmy Cincinnati /

So what is moral behavior?

Take away the comforts and all those wonderful religious people surely wouldn't devolve into bad people... No way!!

It was the religious leaders that plotted to kill Jesus... religion is bad, thats why i wouldnt encourage you to be religious i would encourage you to actually read and follow what jesus says. If you do, you will not find where he says to harm others, war, steal, cheat, mislead, etc...

Great commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Wasnt this about new cars???

Re: New cars are shit

Angry Hipster /

How does one love the Lord?? I can't love something that I'm certain doesn't exist.

Re: New cars are shit

Jimmy Cincinnati /

How does one love the Lord?? I can't love something that I'm certain doesn't exist.

If you wanted to know him, you would make an effort and would find him. The reality is you dont want to love/know him so your not seeking. There is depth to this stuff. I like the truth you find when you read into the word. Its said the truth will set you free, and i dont think its in the way you expect it to.

Re: New cars are shit

i remember when this thread was about new cars vs. old cars.

Re: New cars are shit

Angry Hipster /

The old cars win. Now we are moving on to future of mankind and the universe in which we live.

Exciting times!

Re: New cars are shit

What would Jesus drive? As a carpenter I'd imagine something super antique, or a Morgan.... He rode an ass into Jerusalem. Maybe a '70s Impala? I want to say there's a verse in Revelations that says something about him returning in his Triumph? That could have been a mistranslation and meant on his Triumph.

I bet Paul would drive a Prius.

Re: New cars are shit

Angry Hipster /

Jesus ascended into heaven like Neo at the end of The Matrix. He has no need for a car.

Re: New cars are shit

> Thomas Davis Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> The old cars win. Now we are moving on to future of mankind and the

> universe in which we live.

>

> Exciting times!

>

> Thomas TPRF Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> What would Jesus drive? As a carpenter I'd imagine something super

> antique, or a Morgan.... He rode an ass into Jerusalem. Maybe a '70s

> Impala? I want to say there's a verse in Revelations that says

> something about him returning in his Triumph? That could have been a

> mistranslation and meant on his Triumph.

>

> I bet Paul would drive a Prius.

apparently, the only things you have been paying attention to since this thread began (both about cars and about dogmatism) have been exactly what you've already been programmed to believe.(edited)

Re: New cars are shit

kevin Smellaflange /

Joseph would have driven a woody...and when his son took it out..it would suddenly never need a tune-up, the gas gauge would be o.k, water level would be fine...he would come back w/his 12 friends, that would hang around with the cool guy.

Jesus would have had a sense of humor.

Re: New cars are shit

Jimmy Cincinnati /

No a debate, he was a honda man.

Re: New cars are shit

> A Zed Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Thomas Davis Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > The old cars win. Now we are moving on to future of mankind and the

>

> > universe in which we live.

>

> >

>

> > Exciting times!

>

> >

>

> > Thomas TPRF Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > What would Jesus drive? As a carpenter I'd imagine something super

>

> > antique, or a Morgan.... He rode an ass into Jerusalem. Maybe a '70s

>

> > Impala? I want to say there's a verse in Revelations that says

>

> > something about him returning in his Triumph? That could have been a

>

> > mistranslation and meant on his Triumph.

>

> >

>

> > I bet Paul would drive a Prius.

>

> apparently, the only things you have been paying attention to since this

> thread began (both about cars and about dogmatism) have been exactly

> what you've already been programmed to believe.

Please tell me what I’ve been programmed to believe.

Re: New cars are shit

> Thomas TPRF Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Please tell me what I’ve been programmed to believe.

i don't have to. you've already made that quite clear.

Re: New cars are shit

> Brent Eaton Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Joseph would have driven a woody...and when his son took it out..it

> would suddenly never need a tune-up, the gas gauge would be o.k, water

> level would be fine...he would come back w/his 12 friends, that would

> hang around with the cool guy.

>

> Jesus would have had a sense of humor.

Big crew cab truck with a utility bed and ladder rack, gun rack in the window for fishing poles.

Re: New cars are shit

> A Zed Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Thomas TPRF Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > Please tell me what I’ve been programmed to believe.

>

> i don't have to. you've already made that quite clear.

Lol, I’m a contrarian but I tip my hat to you. I haven’t a clue as to what point you’re trying to make.

Re: New cars are shit

> > i don't have to. you've already made that quite clear.

>

> Lol, I’m a contrarian but I tip my hat to you. I haven’t a clue as to

> what point you’re trying to make.

Thomas, K-evil is AZed. He is a troll of the first water. If you think YOU'RE a contrarian, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. LOL!

Re: New cars are shit

> Thomas TPRF Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > A Zed Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Thomas TPRF Wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> >

>

> > > Please tell me what I’ve been programmed to believe.

>

> >

>

> > i don't have to. you've already made that quite clear.

>

> Lol, I’m a contrarian but I tip my hat to you. I haven’t a clue as to

> what point you’re trying to make.

>

> A Zed Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> apparently, the only things you have been paying attention to since this

> thread began (both about cars and about dogmatism) have been exactly

> what you've already been programmed to believe.

seems as though we've come full cirle on this one, thomas.(edited)

Re: New cars are shit

> Jimmy Cincinnati Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> No a debate, he was a honda man.

>

> https://i.imgur.com/tEwBe.jpg?fb

LMFAO! :)

Re: New cars are shit

Jimmy Cincinnati /

Now, with all that said i hope everyone on here has a great weekend!

Re: New cars are shit

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > > i don't have to. you've already made that quite clear.

>

> >

>

> > Lol, I’m a contrarian but I tip my hat to you. I haven’t a clue as to

>

> > what point you’re trying to make.

>

> Thomas, K-evil is AZed. He is a troll of the first water. If you think

> YOU'RE a contrarian, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. LOL!

Yeah, but a successful troll gets a rise out of someone. I’m trying to figure out if he’s a non-English speaker trying to communicate through an automatic translator or someone left their laptop open in the Alzheimer’s ward.

Re: New cars are shit

> Thomas TPRF Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Don Ohio Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > > > i don't have to. you've already made that quite clear.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Lol, I’m a contrarian but I tip my hat to you. I haven’t a clue as

> to

>

> >

>

> > > what point you’re trying to make.

>

> >

>

> > Thomas, K-evil is AZed. He is a troll of the first water. If you think

>

> > YOU'RE a contrarian, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. LOL!

>

> Yeah, but a successful troll gets a rise out of someone. I’m trying to

> figure out if he’s a non-English speaker trying to communicate through

> an automatic translator or someone left their laptop open in the

> Alzheimer’s ward.

No, K-evil always spoke `CURSIVE'. LOL!

Re: New cars are shit

thomas, let's get back to the original topic that you brought up...

please tell us what an accomplished automobile mechanic you are, but how you can't navigate anything that was built post-1990.(edited)

Re: New cars are shit

I finally figured at least part of your incohesive arguements.

Did you know that Thomas is not that uncommon of a given name?

Re: New cars are shit

Angry Hipster /

I don't know how accomplished I am. I grew up living above my father's automotive shop. I grew up and worked there for years. I am accomplished in that I have repaired many cars and as they became more modern they became more troublesome.

Working on old cars is regular work I can tolerate, but working under the dash or the cramped engine bays of todays cars; no way!! I just sucks, and if you don't believe me try and report back.

Re: New cars are shit

i've never met a professional mechanic that has ever claimed that old technology is better than new technology as far as cars go.

perhaps back in the malaise era, this argument could have been backed up.

it cannot be supported today.

granted, old cars are easier in many ways to work on than older cars (and more difficult in other ways), but new technology is inarguably better (though a few folks on here seem to have a problem understanding this simple concept).

i am not a mechanic by trade. the closest i have come to that was working briefly as a mechanic's helper a few years back. that said, i'm not so arrogant to claim i know anything (like some know-it-alls on here continuous claim, on this and other topics).

i am however astute enough to connect the dots.

my '18 transit connect requires the oil to be changed every 10,000 miles, and the spark plugs every 100,000.

my '64 rambler 330 needs to have the valves adjusted, and the head re-torqued every 4,000 miles. granted, it takes 20 minutes, but electronic ignition, hydraulic lifters, and fuel injection > points, solid lifters, and carburetors.

the less margin for error means the components last longer.

i don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this.

Re: New cars are shit

Overpriced Parts /

> A Zed Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> i've never met a professional mechanic that has ever claimed that old

> technology is better than new technology as far as cars go.

>

> perhaps back in the malaise era, this argument could have been backed

> up.

>

> it cannot be supported today.

>

> granted, old cars are easier in many ways to work on than older cars

> (and more difficult in other ways), but new technology is inarguably

> better (though a few folks on here seem to have a problem understanding

> this simple concept).

>

> i am not a mechanic by trade. the closest i have come to that was

> working briefly as a mechanic's helper a few years back. that said, i'm

> not so arrogant to claim i know anything (like some know-it-alls on here

> continuous claim, on this and other topics).

>

> i am however astute enough to connect the dots.

>

> my '18 transit connect requires the oil to be changed every 10,000

> miles, and the spark plugs every 100,000.

>

> my '64 rambler 330 needs to have the valves adjusted, and the head

> re-torqued every 4,000 miles. granted, it takes 20 minutes, but

> electronic ignition, hydraulic lifters, and fuel injection > points,

> solid lifters, and carburetors.

>

> the less margin for error means the components last longer.

>

> i don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this.

You don’t need a quarter million dollar machine to diagnose a old vehicle! yes you have to do maintenance more frequently but I rather work on a car or engine more frequently intervals then buy a machine that cost a quarter million dollars to diagnose a engine pthat only needs plugs is dumb!

And everybody who believes having machine that cost a quarter million dollars or more for less maintenance intervals is dumb too cause I do maintenance and or check everything on cars or bikes before the maintenance is due anyway and most times plugs that were supposed to be changed at 100,000 miles are better changed at 50,000 miles so all that extended mi is stupid anyway, four spark plugs is cheap way cheaper than a $250,000 machine

Re: New cars are shit

Angry Hipster /

You see Zed keeping a car over a length of time is what the old stuff was good for. Do the maintenance, do some repairs, even engine if need be. It's not that bad.

After 20 years the modern car will be a shit show versus the even older type 1970s car.

Re: New cars are shit

K-evil said: ` my '64 rambler 330 needs to have the valves adjusted, and the head re-torqued every 4,000 miles. granted, it takes 20 minutes, but electronic ignition, hydraulic lifters, and fuel injection > points, solid lifters, and carburetors.

Ramblers aren't one of the great old cars, but...…………….you have another problem if you need to re-torque a head gasket after the initial re-torquing when gasket is changed.

Electronic ignition can be put on the old engines. Just like mopeds....LOL!

The oil change intervals can be extended on the old cars....WHY? Because of the better quality oils and filters today.

Trade yer Rambler.they weren't very good cars in the 60s.

Re: New cars are shit

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Ramblers aren't one of the great old cars, but...…………….

> Trade yer Rambler.they weren't very good cars in the 60s.

AMC cars from the '60's were just as reliable and long-lived as cars made by the big 3, and the 195.6 OHV engine is a tank of an engine, not unlike the slant-6, or ford and chevy's inlines.

there was however a design flaw on the 195.6 OHV (which was basically a side-valve engine fitted with an OHV head). as long as the maintenance is performed, the engines will last for decades. one can remedy this flaw by replacing the head bolts with studs, thus making re-torquing the head unnecessary.

it's a common myth (mostly based on hearsay from folks who have never actually owned one, and who erroneously believe they know much more than they do about them in specific, and about cars in general) that ramblers weren't very good cars. their build quality was just as good as cars from the big 3, were done so on a much tighter budget, and in many ways, were light-years ahead.

they were the first US manufacturer to offer a dual-pot master cylinder, which was a pretty big safety innovation that even cadillacs didn't offer until later. nash (before the birth of AMC) was the first US car manufacturer to offer seat belts, and pioneered the unibody construction, later adopted by chrysler.

the 199/232 I-6s that replaced the 195.6 (which was a holdover from the nash days) are just as bullet-proof as a mopar slant-6s, ford 240/300s, or chevy 194/235s, and they're based on the same platform that jeep used for their 258/4.0 engines that ran forever up until the mid-90's.

while the big 3 were focused on making big gas-guzzlers (a term coined by then CEO george romney), AMC was making reliable, economy cars that routinely won the mobil economy run with their thrifty rambler americans. they faired better than their closest rival, the ford falcon.

the engines were all made in-house, the transmissions were made by borg-warner, and the manuals came with an optional overdrive (as did fords on a much smaller scale) until 1969, or shortly thereafter. rear diffs were made by dana.

that said, ramblers were in fact one of the great old cars. they just weren't (and still are not) appreciated as such.

the nice thing is that you can pick up a running '65 classic 2-door hardtop w/ a V-8 for about $2-3k. a running, comparable chevelle or satellite would run you upwards to $15K.

that worked out for me, as i got my wagon for about 1/4 of what i would have paid for a falcon or a chevy II.

i'm glad there are misinformed people who believe they know more than they actually do, and that erroneously label ramblers as not [being] very good cars. this allows the people who know better and who like them to be able to afford them.(edited)

Re: New cars are shit

Yer delusional, K-evil. Ford made an INFERIOR tranny JUST FOR the Rambler.

I got two words for your inferior choice of an old, mixed parts made by other manufacturers car.

Ring and Trunion………….look it up.

Re: New cars are shit

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Yer delusional, K-evil. Ford made an INFERIOR tranny JUST FOR the

> Rambler.

borg-warner made the transmissions that most of the 1960's ramblers used.

borg-warner also made some transmissions that fords used, and they were the same ones that were installed in ramblers.

ford didn't make transmissions for AMC cars. the later AMC automatics were sourced from chrysler.

>

> I got two words for your inferior choice of an old, mixed parts made by

> y other manufacturers car.

>

> Ring and Trunion………….look it up.

that's 3 words--the first one is an incorrect reference, the third one is spelled wrong, and none relate to any AMC drivelines of the 1960's (though they did use trunnions on some front suspensions, and chrysler made a ball and trunnion driveline).

i'm thinking that you're either thinking of ball and trunnion or a trunnion ring.

there's no ring and trunion, buddy.(edited)

Want to reply to this thread?

We'd love to have you join the discussion, but first you'll need to login (or create an account).