Back firing thru intake
From : david m st onge
Q: friend of mine has his 2001 cracked as well. from the glovebox to the windshield and speedometer to the windshield. i thought this was a problem of cars in the 70s and 80s. surprised to see it still occurring so soon on 2000 year vehicles. b .
Replies:
From : clyde
hmm you never did prove i was a failure but everytime you post your insecurity shows. yes i did. i doubt that the grass cutting buisness ever existed and if it did and you were really givng your family that much money and they were still trying to collect welfare that shows what kind of stock you come from. as for the other two both failures were yours for both signing an idiotic contract and the other for not planning ahead. whether you believe or not that i had a lawn service doesnt matter your word has less than zero value for truthfulness. as for the others fine believe what ever your little mind can handle. i hope someday you find yourself in the same situtations. that doesnt sound very christian like of you. but i doubt you will learn from it. i doubt that i would ever let it happen. the incident with the post from my sis-in-law no but good point and not even 24 hrs after attacking me for doing the same thing lol. i guess that its ok when you do it though. the difference was i retracted the post and actually learned a bit from the incident. you still argued yours was right. no i didnt and you know it. i actually said the same thing that you did that i got it froma trusted source and didnt check it. that is far from defending it or saying that i was right. and you were the first one to start crap with me about it saying that i dont believe in accuracy and you do and then less than 24 hrs later do the same damn thing. retraction or not you still did it and we all saw it and it wouldnt have mattered at all if you didnt complain about someone else doing it first lol. are you dredging up about that incident with roy that everyone would forget if you didnt keep dragging it up troll. but then troublemaking is your entire life and joy isnt it wuss lol yep thats the one and why should we forget it. if you were everything that you claim to be then it never should have happened. hell you followed him around posting crap sorta like you tries to do to me. the difference is that i have no problem stooping down to your level while roy did. if you dont want me to bring it up then stop trying to make yourself out to be better than me because history says it aint so. lol history says im better than you when im at my worst and youre just a little idiotic troll. only in that tiny little mind of yours. btw this is the first time i ever brought the topic of that incident up. the last 3 or twenty times has always been you throwing in my face little boy. 3 or twenty huh. is this more of that fuzzy math of yours again you also said that you would never bring it up again and here it is. i guess that makes you a liar as well. come on tom is that all the better you can do come on see if you can find more to make yourself look like a childish ass. its so funny watching you kicking your heels against the floor like a baby having a temper tantrum. lol now that would be you. every post we are in turns into a crying match started by you. trying to spin out by changing the subject troll what subject would that be come on you show us even better what an immature brain dead little idiot you are. youre such a pathetic little crybaby. you havent had the maturity to even comment on the ford website that proves you were wrong about the k$n filters. lol what for. when i do comment you complain when i dont you complain anyway. make up your mind already. i did notice that ford rated k&n as one of the highest flowing filters and iirc said you could see a few extra hp with it in a high performance engine. they even said that economically it could be better because of its reusable nature. and nothing about them destroying an engine. there is that better. so if you really looked at it at all and i doubt you did how did you miss the evidence that said k$n filters pass more dirt which means more wear. i know it doesnt say anything about destroying an engine but it does say the engine will wear faster really where exactly does it say that which is what i have said all along. you are the one that keeps throwing out the destroying word. no i didnt that would be shade tree and max. i said that the up to 1% extra dirt would probably have no measurable effect on the motor. you quit the conversation about turbos as soon as you found out i had proof of what i said. what i did no such thing. unlike you i am busy sometimes but i did respond. yeah you answered with spin and drivel. wheres the proof the caps dont flow enough tom btw several folks are running them successfully. lol yea as cheap bovs not replacements for a wastegate. where is the flow rate for these caps what controlls the turbine speed without a wastegate what would cause the wastegate to become unseated during accelleration and cause turbo lag perhaps you call this drivel because
From : steve lusardi
mopaman wrote tonight i reprogrammed the truck for the improved performance for 87 octane changed the speed limit to 140 mph careful dewd- they dont test nopars for anything over 75. -- yrs. ike thats usually when the fords start smokin the hemi is just getting a little above 2000 rpms. i talked to a guy today that has an f250 making about 550hp & 700ft/lbs. he said it will run a sub-10sec 1/4 mile. a. .
From : david m st onge
chrysler technical service bulletin 05-003-04 brake shudder glenn hi i have a 2003 dodge ram 1500 reg cab 4x2 17 inch wheels and 28000 miles on it. while applying the brake i get a slight jerk in the front. buddy of mine said it could be the brakes are going out but i thought they usually have a device on the pads that will squeek when the brakes are starting to go out. thanks for any advice john .
From : tux in a ram
its not meaningless. i dont want any part of the us drilled. as budd has so dubbed me nimby. not in my back yard and not in yours either. it is meaningless because you still use products daily made from oil. most people that take the view you do do not actively search out petroleum based product alternatives or do without. nimby fits but since you still use so many petrol products the not in yours either quip is hyocritical at best. frankly miles the thing that is meaningless here to me is your close minded opinion of this subject. you know the reason that people dont search out alternatives there isnt any viable alternatives. thats exactly the point of this entire discussion. im not trying shut down the oil companies or say that you cant drive your gas guzzler. *if* there were more alternatives i firmly believe that most people would choose the selection that is better for the environment. i would ... and i bet you would too. see there youre a lefty in the making. you need to research the exact area in question. ; i have. the awr is a very large area. the area in question is just the north shore part of it. that area is almost entirely barren and void of trees. it is the north shore area that is in question. i have family in alaska know it very well. even if the oil companies could guarentee that no damage would be done .... its unncessary to drill it at all! ill address this further below. during migration that is true. they do not live there only migrate through the area. the planned operations in the area would not disrupt that just as the alaska pipeline does not disrupt the wildlife. sorry i completely disagree for all the reasons i have already said. what damage everything we do as a consumer damages something. did you not just contradict yourself here or at the very least answer your own question huh what tax $s were going to be used to set up shop its not the gov. that wants to set up shop. two things ... 1 bush stands to profit from drilling alaska. you do realize that bushs tax returns which show the companies he is invested in are public record dont you perhaps you should look at it 2 the government stands to profit from drilling alaska. im sure they will levy some stupid ass tax on it ... not to mention ... whos going to guard the pipeline your views are rather left. i am a conservative and on the right and dang proud of it. why do liberals and lefties hate being called what they are just because someone isnt as right close minded in my opinion as you does not mean they are liberal or left. rock on. you know there are *some* republicans that believe we shouldnt drill the us either. if you do not wish to drill then please quit using anything made of petroleum base products. you want it then we have to drill. geez you are so totalitarian. last i read u.s. oil comprises less than 5% of what we use. we can survive just fine without drilling here! craig c. .
From : david m st onge
gm now selling the i5 -- dudlee & debbie brennfoerder edgar ne 68935 geoff wrote daniel j. stern wrote date tue 12 oct 2004 125658 -0400 from daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys subject new jeep grand chicory yeah its got a hemi in it. fine and dandy. problem is its uggggglee! looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current dodge durango. taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went on the chevrolet equinox until someone at chevrolet said clear taillights! no! dude! we totally have to do clear taillights! ptewph. the ones ive seen on the road have made me think that perhaps theyre trying to recapture some of the xj cherokees fans. to me it looks boxier and the lines are cleaner and straighter more reminiscent of the xj than the wj. this is so especially when viewed from behind. the wrap-around taillights suck i agree. otoh i like the round headlamps and how they integrate the shape into the leading edge of the hood. boo! on the v6 replacing the i6; suv engines ought to have low-end grunt. that i6 was an institution and it deserved to be updated rather than discarded. yes funny how gm went from a v-6 back to an i6. looks like gm got it right vs. chrysler this time. matt .
From : tkctnc
on mon 11 oct 2004 maxpower wrote yes i undestand there isnt that engine in the van that ram 250 may have omitted the other 0 making it a ram 2500. oh come *on*. theres no such thing as a 1996 ram 2500 van. thats why i say post it all to get the best answer thats a good policy but just admit you made an error and let it go. .