Here are a couple personal examples.

1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine was
not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted up-to-date
info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.

http://tinyurl.com/5amve

It's just as easy to google modern and accurate info as to rely on old
assumptions then dig up irrelevant stuff.

2. In this thread you accused a poor first-time poster who wanted better
mileage of being a troll (WHY?????) then went off topic. You claimed
"Because most of the TJs we see on the road weigh in at two tons, it's
physically impossible to get better mileage." When I posted a message
directly comparing the Wrangler SEs mileage and power vs. the Honda CR-V (at
similar weights) you said "I've never seen a Honda off road further than a
dirt parking lot, have you?"

Who cares? The OP wondered about the potential to improve MPG in a heavy
vehicle with high drag...and all signs say it's possible to some degree with
modern engines...

http://tinyurl.com/5cw5s

In my experience you get best answers when you mix experience with fresh
research. No offense meant, but then many people don't deserve "TROLL"
messages either.

-John



"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:417D6990.149B15EE@***.net...
> Like what? I was a straight forward rebuttal.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > Maybe not a change in topic i.e. what's on the header but it's a good
> > example of changing the parameters of the subject when they didn't fit
with
> > what you believed...

 

Here are a couple personal examples.

1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine was
not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted up-to-date
info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.

http://tinyurl.com/5amve

It's just as easy to google modern and accurate info as to rely on old
assumptions then dig up irrelevant stuff.

2. In this thread you accused a poor first-time poster who wanted better
mileage of being a troll (WHY?????) then went off topic. You claimed
"Because most of the TJs we see on the road weigh in at two tons, it's
physically impossible to get better mileage." When I posted a message
directly comparing the Wrangler SEs mileage and power vs. the Honda CR-V (at
similar weights) you said "I've never seen a Honda off road further than a
dirt parking lot, have you?"

Who cares? The OP wondered about the potential to improve MPG in a heavy
vehicle with high drag...and all signs say it's possible to some degree with
modern engines...

http://tinyurl.com/5cw5s

In my experience you get best answers when you mix experience with fresh
research. No offense meant, but then many people don't deserve "TROLL"
messages either.

-John



"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:417D6990.149B15EE@***.net...
> Like what? I was a straight forward rebuttal.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > Maybe not a change in topic i.e. what's on the header but it's a good
> > example of changing the parameters of the subject when they didn't fit
with
> > what you believed...

 

First off ...in reply to anyone bashing Bill ...what the hell is the point?
He isn't going to change (hopefully not, imo) and all you are managing to do
is to set him off further. What do you want? You want to drive him off this
forum? Is that it? WTH good is that going to do when you eliminate one of
the most positively-contributing, time-volunteering, resource-collecting,
helpful members of a community that has more of an amalgamated assortment of
vehicle parts under the hood than does a homemade go-kart. I mean ..cmon
....I think most of us require the assistance of some of the "helpers" on
this board now-and-then, and the more possible input, whether it's in
agreement with your views or not, the BETTER.

Talking about troll threads ...this might be the worst one yet. Bill ...if I
were you, I'd discontinue posting in this thread. Those of us who are
*appreciative* and see what's really going on here would rather see you
devote your time elsewhere and see no need for you to back up anything
you've stated in the past. At least I don't anyway.

And just on the topic of MPG for a Jeep. I may not be Jeep-savvy when it
comes to technical stuff but I've never once heard of someone buying a Jeep
because it was good on gas. If that's why you're buying a Jeep, then you
need to do research. They are bricks-on-rollerskates, always have been and
hopefully always will be. That's the look, the style, the functionality.
Sure, there are little tricks here and there to pump out a few more miles,
but for the most part ...they are meant to sludge their way through your
auntie's overgrown flowerpatch in the backyard ...not drive 600km on a tank
of gas.

griffin
'85 CJ-7 in repair

"Generic" <generic@scientist.com> wrote in message
news:417dcb1c$0$87749$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.co m...
> Here are a couple personal examples.
>
> 1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine
was
> not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
> Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted
up-to-date
> info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.

 

First off ...in reply to anyone bashing Bill ...what the hell is the point?
He isn't going to change (hopefully not, imo) and all you are managing to do
is to set him off further. What do you want? You want to drive him off this
forum? Is that it? WTH good is that going to do when you eliminate one of
the most positively-contributing, time-volunteering, resource-collecting,
helpful members of a community that has more of an amalgamated assortment of
vehicle parts under the hood than does a homemade go-kart. I mean ..cmon
....I think most of us require the assistance of some of the "helpers" on
this board now-and-then, and the more possible input, whether it's in
agreement with your views or not, the BETTER.

Talking about troll threads ...this might be the worst one yet. Bill ...if I
were you, I'd discontinue posting in this thread. Those of us who are
*appreciative* and see what's really going on here would rather see you
devote your time elsewhere and see no need for you to back up anything
you've stated in the past. At least I don't anyway.

And just on the topic of MPG for a Jeep. I may not be Jeep-savvy when it
comes to technical stuff but I've never once heard of someone buying a Jeep
because it was good on gas. If that's why you're buying a Jeep, then you
need to do research. They are bricks-on-rollerskates, always have been and
hopefully always will be. That's the look, the style, the functionality.
Sure, there are little tricks here and there to pump out a few more miles,
but for the most part ...they are meant to sludge their way through your
auntie's overgrown flowerpatch in the backyard ...not drive 600km on a tank
of gas.

griffin
'85 CJ-7 in repair

"Generic" <generic@scientist.com> wrote in message
news:417dcb1c$0$87749$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.co m...
> Here are a couple personal examples.
>
> 1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine
was
> not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
> Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted
up-to-date
> info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.

 

First off ...in reply to anyone bashing Bill ...what the hell is the point?
He isn't going to change (hopefully not, imo) and all you are managing to do
is to set him off further. What do you want? You want to drive him off this
forum? Is that it? WTH good is that going to do when you eliminate one of
the most positively-contributing, time-volunteering, resource-collecting,
helpful members of a community that has more of an amalgamated assortment of
vehicle parts under the hood than does a homemade go-kart. I mean ..cmon
....I think most of us require the assistance of some of the "helpers" on
this board now-and-then, and the more possible input, whether it's in
agreement with your views or not, the BETTER.

Talking about troll threads ...this might be the worst one yet. Bill ...if I
were you, I'd discontinue posting in this thread. Those of us who are
*appreciative* and see what's really going on here would rather see you
devote your time elsewhere and see no need for you to back up anything
you've stated in the past. At least I don't anyway.

And just on the topic of MPG for a Jeep. I may not be Jeep-savvy when it
comes to technical stuff but I've never once heard of someone buying a Jeep
because it was good on gas. If that's why you're buying a Jeep, then you
need to do research. They are bricks-on-rollerskates, always have been and
hopefully always will be. That's the look, the style, the functionality.
Sure, there are little tricks here and there to pump out a few more miles,
but for the most part ...they are meant to sludge their way through your
auntie's overgrown flowerpatch in the backyard ...not drive 600km on a tank
of gas.

griffin
'85 CJ-7 in repair

"Generic" <generic@scientist.com> wrote in message
news:417dcb1c$0$87749$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.co m...
> Here are a couple personal examples.
>
> 1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine
was
> not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
> Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted
up-to-date
> info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.

 

I said no such thing, about the new Hemi! The only thing I can find
in that tread that tell us the differences, may this reply from Generic:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ntpservers.com
Get your facts straight!
And what don't you understand from this tread?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ing.google.com
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Generic wrote:
>
> Here are a couple personal examples.
>
> 1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine was
> not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
> Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted up-to-date
> info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5amve
>
> It's just as easy to google modern and accurate info as to rely on old
> assumptions then dig up irrelevant stuff.
>
> 2. In this thread you accused a poor first-time poster who wanted better
> mileage of being a troll (WHY?????) then went off topic. You claimed
> "Because most of the TJs we see on the road weigh in at two tons, it's
> physically impossible to get better mileage." When I posted a message
> directly comparing the Wrangler SEs mileage and power vs. the Honda CR-V (at
> similar weights) you said "I've never seen a Honda off road further than a
> dirt parking lot, have you?"
>
> Who cares? The OP wondered about the potential to improve MPG in a heavy
> vehicle with high drag...and all signs say it's possible to some degree with
> modern engines...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5cw5s
>
> In my experience you get best answers when you mix experience with fresh
> research. No offense meant, but then many people don't deserve "TROLL"
> messages either.
>
> -John

 

I said no such thing, about the new Hemi! The only thing I can find
in that tread that tell us the differences, may this reply from Generic:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ntpservers.com
Get your facts straight!
And what don't you understand from this tread?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ing.google.com
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Generic wrote:
>
> Here are a couple personal examples.
>
> 1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine was
> not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
> Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted up-to-date
> info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5amve
>
> It's just as easy to google modern and accurate info as to rely on old
> assumptions then dig up irrelevant stuff.
>
> 2. In this thread you accused a poor first-time poster who wanted better
> mileage of being a troll (WHY?????) then went off topic. You claimed
> "Because most of the TJs we see on the road weigh in at two tons, it's
> physically impossible to get better mileage." When I posted a message
> directly comparing the Wrangler SEs mileage and power vs. the Honda CR-V (at
> similar weights) you said "I've never seen a Honda off road further than a
> dirt parking lot, have you?"
>
> Who cares? The OP wondered about the potential to improve MPG in a heavy
> vehicle with high drag...and all signs say it's possible to some degree with
> modern engines...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5cw5s
>
> In my experience you get best answers when you mix experience with fresh
> research. No offense meant, but then many people don't deserve "TROLL"
> messages either.
>
> -John

 

I said no such thing, about the new Hemi! The only thing I can find
in that tread that tell us the differences, may this reply from Generic:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ntpservers.com
Get your facts straight!
And what don't you understand from this tread?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ing.google.com
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Generic wrote:
>
> Here are a couple personal examples.
>
> 1. You disputed claims (from me and others) that the new "Hemi" engine was
> not a Hemi at all, and posted links to pages about (irrelevant) ancient
> Hemis and marketing garbage stamped on the heads. When I posted up-to-date
> info you moved on to irrelevant points about performance engines.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5amve
>
> It's just as easy to google modern and accurate info as to rely on old
> assumptions then dig up irrelevant stuff.
>
> 2. In this thread you accused a poor first-time poster who wanted better
> mileage of being a troll (WHY?????) then went off topic. You claimed
> "Because most of the TJs we see on the road weigh in at two tons, it's
> physically impossible to get better mileage." When I posted a message
> directly comparing the Wrangler SEs mileage and power vs. the Honda CR-V (at
> similar weights) you said "I've never seen a Honda off road further than a
> dirt parking lot, have you?"
>
> Who cares? The OP wondered about the potential to improve MPG in a heavy
> vehicle with high drag...and all signs say it's possible to some degree with
> modern engines...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5cw5s
>
> In my experience you get best answers when you mix experience with fresh
> research. No offense meant, but then many people don't deserve "TROLL"
> messages either.
>
> -John

 

Nope, I'm an Irish, Welsh, American, and if a fight is what they
want, then bring it on!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

griffin wrote:
>
> First off ...in reply to anyone bashing Bill ...what the hell is the point?
> He isn't going to change (hopefully not, imo) and all you are managing to do
> is to set him off further. What do you want? You want to drive him off this
> forum? Is that it? WTH good is that going to do when you eliminate one of
> the most positively-contributing, time-volunteering, resource-collecting,
> helpful members of a community that has more of an amalgamated assortment of
> vehicle parts under the hood than does a homemade go-kart. I mean ..cmon
> ...I think most of us require the assistance of some of the "helpers" on
> this board now-and-then, and the more possible input, whether it's in
> agreement with your views or not, the BETTER.
>
> Talking about troll threads ...this might be the worst one yet. Bill ...if I
> were you, I'd discontinue posting in this thread. Those of us who are
> *appreciative* and see what's really going on here would rather see you
> devote your time elsewhere and see no need for you to back up anything
> you've stated in the past. At least I don't anyway.
>
> And just on the topic of MPG for a Jeep. I may not be Jeep-savvy when it
> comes to technical stuff but I've never once heard of someone buying a Jeep
> because it was good on gas. If that's why you're buying a Jeep, then you
> need to do research. They are bricks-on-rollerskates, always have been and
> hopefully always will be. That's the look, the style, the functionality.
> Sure, there are little tricks here and there to pump out a few more miles,
> but for the most part ...they are meant to sludge their way through your
> auntie's overgrown flowerpatch in the backyard ...not drive 600km on a tank
> of gas.
>
> griffin
> '85 CJ-7 in repair

 

Nope, I'm an Irish, Welsh, American, and if a fight is what they
want, then bring it on!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

griffin wrote:
>
> First off ...in reply to anyone bashing Bill ...what the hell is the point?
> He isn't going to change (hopefully not, imo) and all you are managing to do
> is to set him off further. What do you want? You want to drive him off this
> forum? Is that it? WTH good is that going to do when you eliminate one of
> the most positively-contributing, time-volunteering, resource-collecting,
> helpful members of a community that has more of an amalgamated assortment of
> vehicle parts under the hood than does a homemade go-kart. I mean ..cmon
> ...I think most of us require the assistance of some of the "helpers" on
> this board now-and-then, and the more possible input, whether it's in
> agreement with your views or not, the BETTER.
>
> Talking about troll threads ...this might be the worst one yet. Bill ...if I
> were you, I'd discontinue posting in this thread. Those of us who are
> *appreciative* and see what's really going on here would rather see you
> devote your time elsewhere and see no need for you to back up anything
> you've stated in the past. At least I don't anyway.
>
> And just on the topic of MPG for a Jeep. I may not be Jeep-savvy when it
> comes to technical stuff but I've never once heard of someone buying a Jeep
> because it was good on gas. If that's why you're buying a Jeep, then you
> need to do research. They are bricks-on-rollerskates, always have been and
> hopefully always will be. That's the look, the style, the functionality.
> Sure, there are little tricks here and there to pump out a few more miles,
> but for the most part ...they are meant to sludge their way through your
> auntie's overgrown flowerpatch in the backyard ...not drive 600km on a tank
> of gas.
>
> griffin
> '85 CJ-7 in repair