Jerry McG

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message news:2i7ud6Fjs08nU1@uni-\

> The former owner got it from her Granny <

Granny got the best of this deal...

<and painted it >

Of course, it was made at Westmoreland where VW used no paint unless it was
guaranteed to fail....

< used it for local trips.>

The only safe thing to do, except your neighbors will laugh at you behind
your back. Sorta like owning a vintage Citroen and driviung it wearing a
disguise...

<I put 80K on it in 3 years.>

...between repairs.

< Replaced the normal stuff, waterpump,
> T-belt and related seals, Cv Boots, Brakes, rear wheel brngs, alt,
> windshield rubber (leaked water into electrical panel), but that's all
> normal for it's age.<

That was "normal" at 30k miles!

> The little sucker is slow, but it's a perfect companion to my gas guzzling
Jeepster.<

Have you aske dthe Jeepster what it thinks of this relationship??

Paul Calman

You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
like your Jeep.
Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
blower might work.
That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
--
Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

Paul Calman

You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
like your Jeep.
Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
blower might work.
That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
--
Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

Paul Calman

You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
like your Jeep.
Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
blower might work.
That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
--
Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

Paul Calman

You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
like your Jeep.
Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
blower might work.
That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
--
Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

Jerry McG

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
news:2i9579Fk4ummU1@uni-berlin.de...
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, <

I was a VW Master Registered Technician from 1978 - 1982, whereupon I became
a District Service Manager for VWoA. I these capacities I was forced to
daily examine the corpses of these things, no, make that look up their
keesters. I MORE than figured them out, I knew the poor bastards on the
inside that "engineered" 'em and said their daily Mea Culpas...it was A DOG
of a powerplant and everyone knew it.

< but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. >

I guarantee it smokes...

<Even if it did, a little smoke at 50 MPG would still produce less
pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. >

Smoke is smoke, stinking diesel smoke is abominable.

< Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. >

It may be economical, it's still a POS!

<Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is based upon a
'feeling', rather than facts. >

No, my hatred of these things is based upon experience with thousands of
th3em and is by now PATHOLOGICAL. It's
based upon years of daily IN-YOUR-FACE "facts", such as replacing the 200th
short block because the water jacket cracked internally, or explaining to
some poor consumer (who'd believed the Company's marketing BS) why the
rattling pile of junk was not only NOT getting 50+ MPG as he was promised,
but further, wouldn't go faster than 60 mph in a headwind. Much less
say with a straight face per the COmpany line that it was normal for the the
body to be shaken to pieces by the
powertrain; "that's normal with a diesel"...sheesh, FACTS? I got plenty 'o
facts where these things are concerned!

<Most of these vehicles lived out their engineered lifespan, or died of poor
maintenance. >

If they didn't rust into a pile of red slag & dust within 5 years,
they rattled themselves into the boneyard soon after when the poor third or
fourth owner found out a new injection pump was going to cost twice what the
pile of crap was worth.

< They were not meant to last this long, and had flaws, any company's
cheapest vehicle does, just like your Jeep.>

Those things had more defects per hundred than any vehicle on the road at
that time, look up the old JD Power IQS studies from the period. Try
explaining that to the dealers or the customers, or better yet, to the
Better Business Bureau Arbitration Boards! VW bought the pieces of junk back
by the huindreds each year. Straight to the scrap heap they went.

The BEST was when they put that damn engine in the Vanagon around '83. WHOA,
Instant buy-back! In the Southwest the oil got so corrupted and over heated
in the things it would turn into a ball of latex in the oil pan. A new
engine very 30k miles was common.

> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. <

It's not only a bad idea, it's an abomination!

< Do you think that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel?
>

"Oh, Taxi, Taxi, please take me to Moab. Don't mind the stink, you greenies,
I'm getting great mileage!!!!"

<My smokey little 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without
ever having the head or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for
burning oil at 874,000 miles. >

Proving how some people will endlessly suffer with anything!

< I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct injected
diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style blower
might work.>

We'll let you have all of them!

> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.<

Take it as you will. May I remind you that Jane Fonda's appearance in the
1979 movie "The China Syndrome", in which she drove a diesel Rabbit, not
only fooled thousnds of politically correct consumers into buying those
clattering, smoke belching road-turtles, she also helped destroy the nuclear
power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been good
for the country!

Jerry McG

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
news:2i9579Fk4ummU1@uni-berlin.de...
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, <

I was a VW Master Registered Technician from 1978 - 1982, whereupon I became
a District Service Manager for VWoA. I these capacities I was forced to
daily examine the corpses of these things, no, make that look up their
keesters. I MORE than figured them out, I knew the poor bastards on the
inside that "engineered" 'em and said their daily Mea Culpas...it was A DOG
of a powerplant and everyone knew it.

< but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. >

I guarantee it smokes...

<Even if it did, a little smoke at 50 MPG would still produce less
pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. >

Smoke is smoke, stinking diesel smoke is abominable.

< Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. >

It may be economical, it's still a POS!

<Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is based upon a
'feeling', rather than facts. >

No, my hatred of these things is based upon experience with thousands of
th3em and is by now PATHOLOGICAL. It's
based upon years of daily IN-YOUR-FACE "facts", such as replacing the 200th
short block because the water jacket cracked internally, or explaining to
some poor consumer (who'd believed the Company's marketing BS) why the
rattling pile of junk was not only NOT getting 50+ MPG as he was promised,
but further, wouldn't go faster than 60 mph in a headwind. Much less
say with a straight face per the COmpany line that it was normal for the the
body to be shaken to pieces by the
powertrain; "that's normal with a diesel"...sheesh, FACTS? I got plenty 'o
facts where these things are concerned!

<Most of these vehicles lived out their engineered lifespan, or died of poor
maintenance. >

If they didn't rust into a pile of red slag & dust within 5 years,
they rattled themselves into the boneyard soon after when the poor third or
fourth owner found out a new injection pump was going to cost twice what the
pile of crap was worth.

< They were not meant to last this long, and had flaws, any company's
cheapest vehicle does, just like your Jeep.>

Those things had more defects per hundred than any vehicle on the road at
that time, look up the old JD Power IQS studies from the period. Try
explaining that to the dealers or the customers, or better yet, to the
Better Business Bureau Arbitration Boards! VW bought the pieces of junk back
by the huindreds each year. Straight to the scrap heap they went.

The BEST was when they put that damn engine in the Vanagon around '83. WHOA,
Instant buy-back! In the Southwest the oil got so corrupted and over heated
in the things it would turn into a ball of latex in the oil pan. A new
engine very 30k miles was common.

> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. <

It's not only a bad idea, it's an abomination!

< Do you think that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel?
>

"Oh, Taxi, Taxi, please take me to Moab. Don't mind the stink, you greenies,
I'm getting great mileage!!!!"

<My smokey little 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without
ever having the head or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for
burning oil at 874,000 miles. >

Proving how some people will endlessly suffer with anything!

< I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct injected
diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style blower
might work.>

We'll let you have all of them!

> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.<

Take it as you will. May I remind you that Jane Fonda's appearance in the
1979 movie "The China Syndrome", in which she drove a diesel Rabbit, not
only fooled thousnds of politically correct consumers into buying those
clattering, smoke belching road-turtles, she also helped destroy the nuclear
power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been good
for the country!

Jerry McG

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
news:2i9579Fk4ummU1@uni-berlin.de...
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, <

I was a VW Master Registered Technician from 1978 - 1982, whereupon I became
a District Service Manager for VWoA. I these capacities I was forced to
daily examine the corpses of these things, no, make that look up their
keesters. I MORE than figured them out, I knew the poor bastards on the
inside that "engineered" 'em and said their daily Mea Culpas...it was A DOG
of a powerplant and everyone knew it.

< but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. >

I guarantee it smokes...

<Even if it did, a little smoke at 50 MPG would still produce less
pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. >

Smoke is smoke, stinking diesel smoke is abominable.

< Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. >

It may be economical, it's still a POS!

<Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is based upon a
'feeling', rather than facts. >

No, my hatred of these things is based upon experience with thousands of
th3em and is by now PATHOLOGICAL. It's
based upon years of daily IN-YOUR-FACE "facts", such as replacing the 200th
short block because the water jacket cracked internally, or explaining to
some poor consumer (who'd believed the Company's marketing BS) why the
rattling pile of junk was not only NOT getting 50+ MPG as he was promised,
but further, wouldn't go faster than 60 mph in a headwind. Much less
say with a straight face per the COmpany line that it was normal for the the
body to be shaken to pieces by the
powertrain; "that's normal with a diesel"...sheesh, FACTS? I got plenty 'o
facts where these things are concerned!

<Most of these vehicles lived out their engineered lifespan, or died of poor
maintenance. >

If they didn't rust into a pile of red slag & dust within 5 years,
they rattled themselves into the boneyard soon after when the poor third or
fourth owner found out a new injection pump was going to cost twice what the
pile of crap was worth.

< They were not meant to last this long, and had flaws, any company's
cheapest vehicle does, just like your Jeep.>

Those things had more defects per hundred than any vehicle on the road at
that time, look up the old JD Power IQS studies from the period. Try
explaining that to the dealers or the customers, or better yet, to the
Better Business Bureau Arbitration Boards! VW bought the pieces of junk back
by the huindreds each year. Straight to the scrap heap they went.

The BEST was when they put that damn engine in the Vanagon around '83. WHOA,
Instant buy-back! In the Southwest the oil got so corrupted and over heated
in the things it would turn into a ball of latex in the oil pan. A new
engine very 30k miles was common.

> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. <

It's not only a bad idea, it's an abomination!

< Do you think that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel?
>

"Oh, Taxi, Taxi, please take me to Moab. Don't mind the stink, you greenies,
I'm getting great mileage!!!!"

<My smokey little 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without
ever having the head or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for
burning oil at 874,000 miles. >

Proving how some people will endlessly suffer with anything!

< I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct injected
diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style blower
might work.>

We'll let you have all of them!

> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.<

Take it as you will. May I remind you that Jane Fonda's appearance in the
1979 movie "The China Syndrome", in which she drove a diesel Rabbit, not
only fooled thousnds of politically correct consumers into buying those
clattering, smoke belching road-turtles, she also helped destroy the nuclear
power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been good
for the country!

Jerry McG

"Paul Calman" <spam@trap.com> wrote in message
news:2i9579Fk4ummU1@uni-berlin.de...
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, <

I was a VW Master Registered Technician from 1978 - 1982, whereupon I became
a District Service Manager for VWoA. I these capacities I was forced to
daily examine the corpses of these things, no, make that look up their
keesters. I MORE than figured them out, I knew the poor bastards on the
inside that "engineered" 'em and said their daily Mea Culpas...it was A DOG
of a powerplant and everyone knew it.

< but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. >

I guarantee it smokes...

<Even if it did, a little smoke at 50 MPG would still produce less
pollutants than transparent exhaust at
25MPG. >

Smoke is smoke, stinking diesel smoke is abominable.

< Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
economical vehicle. >

It may be economical, it's still a POS!

<Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is based upon a
'feeling', rather than facts. >

No, my hatred of these things is based upon experience with thousands of
th3em and is by now PATHOLOGICAL. It's
based upon years of daily IN-YOUR-FACE "facts", such as replacing the 200th
short block because the water jacket cracked internally, or explaining to
some poor consumer (who'd believed the Company's marketing BS) why the
rattling pile of junk was not only NOT getting 50+ MPG as he was promised,
but further, wouldn't go faster than 60 mph in a headwind. Much less
say with a straight face per the COmpany line that it was normal for the the
body to be shaken to pieces by the
powertrain; "that's normal with a diesel"...sheesh, FACTS? I got plenty 'o
facts where these things are concerned!

<Most of these vehicles lived out their engineered lifespan, or died of poor
maintenance. >

If they didn't rust into a pile of red slag & dust within 5 years,
they rattled themselves into the boneyard soon after when the poor third or
fourth owner found out a new injection pump was going to cost twice what the
pile of crap was worth.

< They were not meant to last this long, and had flaws, any company's
cheapest vehicle does, just like your Jeep.>

Those things had more defects per hundred than any vehicle on the road at
that time, look up the old JD Power IQS studies from the period. Try
explaining that to the dealers or the customers, or better yet, to the
Better Business Bureau Arbitration Boards! VW bought the pieces of junk back
by the huindreds each year. Straight to the scrap heap they went.

The BEST was when they put that damn engine in the Vanagon around '83. WHOA,
Instant buy-back! In the Southwest the oil got so corrupted and over heated
in the things it would turn into a ball of latex in the oil pan. A new
engine very 30k miles was common.

> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. <

It's not only a bad idea, it's an abomination!

< Do you think that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel?
>

"Oh, Taxi, Taxi, please take me to Moab. Don't mind the stink, you greenies,
I'm getting great mileage!!!!"

<My smokey little 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without
ever having the head or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for
burning oil at 874,000 miles. >

Proving how some people will endlessly suffer with anything!

< I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct injected
diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style blower
might work.>

We'll let you have all of them!

> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.<

Take it as you will. May I remind you that Jane Fonda's appearance in the
1979 movie "The China Syndrome", in which she drove a diesel Rabbit, not
only fooled thousnds of politically correct consumers into buying those
clattering, smoke belching road-turtles, she also helped destroy the nuclear
power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been good
for the country!

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

An attempt to clean diesel pollution:
http://www.hjs.com/hjs_englisch/aktuelles12.htm

"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> https://www.wviz.org/features/0519saf_future_car.asp
> http://pbshawaii.org/index_home_file...4/saf_cars.pdf
>
> > I hope everyone gets a chance to watch "future car" that was on
> > last night on Public Broadcasting Station, narrated by Allan Alda, he
> > gets an honest opinion from all the hybrid prototype manufacturers,
> > diesel will always be too dirty for California, even with it's gigantic
> > after burner catalytic converter. The gasoline engine, battery,
> > generator, motor, hybrids that in reality get about 35 of their 60 MPG
> > advertised. The Hydrogen internal combustion engine storage tank is far
> > too explosive. Storage battery, just changes the place where the
> > pollution was generated. Daimler is working on an platform that
> > chemically turns hydrogen into electricity without storage batteries to
> > drive electric motors, which is twenty years away, until then the
> > contentious is gasoline is the most efficient, cleanest fuel available.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/