Jeep Toad
09-04-2006, 11:48 AM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
Jeep Liberty (Libby) is a relatively new model and the prices probably
haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem with
the front ball joints as well.
You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of repairs &
restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a barely
running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will include
your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on some
also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them had
the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than the
full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may be
without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult to
tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in Neutral,
ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97 there
was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road capability.
Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the front
bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the Cherokee's
unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs. That
and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock for is
actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a body-on-frame,
but most RV's won't know the difference.
"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...
>
> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5 or
> Libby (whatever that is).
> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
> and the tires are useable?
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer
haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem with
the front ball joints as well.
You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of repairs &
restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a barely
running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will include
your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on some
also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them had
the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than the
full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may be
without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult to
tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in Neutral,
ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97 there
was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road capability.
Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the front
bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the Cherokee's
unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs. That
and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock for is
actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a body-on-frame,
but most RV's won't know the difference.
"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...
>
> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5 or
> Libby (whatever that is).
> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
> and the tires are useable?
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer
09-04-2006, 11:48 AM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
Jeep Liberty (Libby) is a relatively new model and the prices probably
haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem with
the front ball joints as well.
You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of repairs &
restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a barely
running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will include
your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on some
also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them had
the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than the
full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may be
without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult to
tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in Neutral,
ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97 there
was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road capability.
Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the front
bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the Cherokee's
unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs. That
and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock for is
actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a body-on-frame,
but most RV's won't know the difference.
"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...
>
> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5 or
> Libby (whatever that is).
> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
> and the tires are useable?
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer
haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem with
the front ball joints as well.
You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of repairs &
restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a barely
running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will include
your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on some
also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them had
the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than the
full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may be
without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult to
tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in Neutral,
ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97 there
was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road capability.
Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the front
bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the Cherokee's
unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs. That
and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock for is
actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a body-on-frame,
but most RV's won't know the difference.
"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...
>
> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5 or
> Libby (whatever that is).
> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
> and the tires are useable?
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer
09-04-2006, 11:48 AM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
Jeep Liberty (Libby) is a relatively new model and the prices probably
haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem with
the front ball joints as well.
You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of repairs &
restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a barely
running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will include
your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on some
also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them had
the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than the
full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may be
without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult to
tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in Neutral,
ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97 there
was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road capability.
Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the front
bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the Cherokee's
unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs. That
and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock for is
actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a body-on-frame,
but most RV's won't know the difference.
"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...
>
> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5 or
> Libby (whatever that is).
> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
> and the tires are useable?
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer
haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem with
the front ball joints as well.
You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of repairs &
restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a barely
running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will include
your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on some
also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them had
the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than the
full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may be
without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult to
tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in Neutral,
ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97 there
was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road capability.
Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the front
bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the Cherokee's
unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs. That
and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock for is
actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a body-on-frame,
but most RV's won't know the difference.
"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...
>
> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5 or
> Libby (whatever that is).
> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
> and the tires are useable?
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer
09-04-2006, 11:50 AM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
Yeah, so he's going to find a mechanically peferct CJ -5 for cheap that
won't need a ton of body work because the sheetmetal will be gone. Riiiight.
Get some rest this holiday Bill, sound like you need it.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44FBE46D.91C6C39C@***.net...
> Really don't you replace parts as needed? You know my car is a
> mechanically perfect '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg with
> 350,000 miles and the heads have never been apart.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is going
>> to
>> need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
won't need a ton of body work because the sheetmetal will be gone. Riiiight.
Get some rest this holiday Bill, sound like you need it.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44FBE46D.91C6C39C@***.net...
> Really don't you replace parts as needed? You know my car is a
> mechanically perfect '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg with
> 350,000 miles and the heads have never been apart.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is going
>> to
>> need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
09-04-2006, 11:50 AM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
Yeah, so he's going to find a mechanically peferct CJ -5 for cheap that
won't need a ton of body work because the sheetmetal will be gone. Riiiight.
Get some rest this holiday Bill, sound like you need it.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44FBE46D.91C6C39C@***.net...
> Really don't you replace parts as needed? You know my car is a
> mechanically perfect '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg with
> 350,000 miles and the heads have never been apart.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is going
>> to
>> need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
won't need a ton of body work because the sheetmetal will be gone. Riiiight.
Get some rest this holiday Bill, sound like you need it.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44FBE46D.91C6C39C@***.net...
> Really don't you replace parts as needed? You know my car is a
> mechanically perfect '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg with
> 350,000 miles and the heads have never been apart.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is going
>> to
>> need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
09-04-2006, 11:50 AM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
Yeah, so he's going to find a mechanically peferct CJ -5 for cheap that
won't need a ton of body work because the sheetmetal will be gone. Riiiight.
Get some rest this holiday Bill, sound like you need it.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44FBE46D.91C6C39C@***.net...
> Really don't you replace parts as needed? You know my car is a
> mechanically perfect '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg with
> 350,000 miles and the heads have never been apart.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is going
>> to
>> need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
won't need a ton of body work because the sheetmetal will be gone. Riiiight.
Get some rest this holiday Bill, sound like you need it.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44FBE46D.91C6C39C@***.net...
> Really don't you replace parts as needed? You know my car is a
> mechanically perfect '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg with
> 350,000 miles and the heads have never been apart.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is going
>> to
>> need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
09-04-2006, 07:21 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
I think you missed the point again. Commercial trucks, must last
several million miles and be cost effective. Get it now?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>
> --
> Simon
several million miles and be cost effective. Get it now?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>
> --
> Simon
09-04-2006, 07:21 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
I think you missed the point again. Commercial trucks, must last
several million miles and be cost effective. Get it now?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>
> --
> Simon
several million miles and be cost effective. Get it now?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>
> --
> Simon
09-04-2006, 07:21 PM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
I think you missed the point again. Commercial trucks, must last
several million miles and be cost effective. Get it now?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>
> --
> Simon
several million miles and be cost effective. Get it now?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>
> --
> Simon
09-04-2006, 07:22 PM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Toad
We may lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> You don't have to remind me, Simon... :-)
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> You don't have to remind me, Simon... :-)
