Under The Hood Question
 

Well, the wife decided to hit the woman in front of her with the driver side
of our 96' GC Laredo 4.0L 169K, hood wrinkled along with the fender, lens
busted up but still working. My question, does anyone have a link to a
picture for under the hood. I'm afraid to pop the hood as I might not get it
closed again. I think there's a canister in that area. Next question, if
there is a canister there what does it do exactly and can the vehicle
operate without it? Thanks in advance for all replies..

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Edward R. Wojciechowski JR wrote:

> Well, the wife decided to hit the woman in front of her with the driver
> side of our 96’ GC Laredo 4.0L 169K, hood wrinkled along with the
> fender, lens busted up but still working.

What do you plan to do for the poor sap your woman ran into?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Edward R. Wojciechowski JR wrote:

> Well, the wife decided to hit the woman in front of her with the driver
> side of our 96’ GC Laredo 4.0L 169K, hood wrinkled along with the
> fender, lens busted up but still working.

What do you plan to do for the poor sap your woman ran into?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Edward R. Wojciechowski JR wrote:

> Well, the wife decided to hit the woman in front of her with the driver
> side of our 96’ GC Laredo 4.0L 169K, hood wrinkled along with the
> fender, lens busted up but still working.

What do you plan to do for the poor sap your woman ran into?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Yes, don't worry about the canister. If the car has less than 250,000 miles on it, everything will be fine, except for slightly less gas mileage. Also, your tires will wear a bit faster now that the cannister is damaged.

Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the lady that your wife hit ?


Good luck on all of this, and just keep that hood closed. A sharp mechanic will be able to change the oil from the bottom of the car from now on.


--James--

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Yes, don't worry about the canister. If the car has less than 250,000 miles on it, everything will be fine, except for slightly less gas mileage. Also, your tires will wear a bit faster now that the cannister is damaged.

Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the lady that your wife hit ?


Good luck on all of this, and just keep that hood closed. A sharp mechanic will be able to change the oil from the bottom of the car from now on.


--James--

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Yes, don't worry about the canister. If the car has less than 250,000 miles on it, everything will be fine, except for slightly less gas mileage. Also, your tires will wear a bit faster now that the cannister is damaged.

Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the lady that your wife hit ?


Good luck on all of this, and just keep that hood closed. A sharp mechanic will be able to change the oil from the bottom of the car from now on.


--James--

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

James wrote:

> *Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the
> lady that your wife hit ?*

Perhaps the wife should offer apologies, then find her checkbook and
take financial responsibility for the property she damaged and the
people she has injured, instead of giving the money to a
lawyer...wouldn't you say, James?

I'm curious, James: would your tone change a bit if your wife, daughter
or son were killed in the wreck that this idiot caused?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

James wrote:

> *Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the
> lady that your wife hit ?*

Perhaps the wife should offer apologies, then find her checkbook and
take financial responsibility for the property she damaged and the
people she has injured, instead of giving the money to a
lawyer...wouldn't you say, James?

I'm curious, James: would your tone change a bit if your wife, daughter
or son were killed in the wreck that this idiot caused?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

James wrote:

> *Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the
> lady that your wife hit ?*

Perhaps the wife should offer apologies, then find her checkbook and
take financial responsibility for the property she damaged and the
people she has injured, instead of giving the money to a
lawyer...wouldn't you say, James?

I'm curious, James: would your tone change a bit if your wife, daughter
or son were killed in the wreck that this idiot caused?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?

---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....

Talk about a pair of losers....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Outatime wrote:
>
> James wrote:
>
> > *Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the
> > lady that your wife hit ?*
>
> Perhaps the wife should offer apologies, then find her checkbook and
> take financial responsibility for the property she damaged and the
> people she has injured, instead of giving the money to a
> lawyer...wouldn't you say, James?
>
> I'm curious, James: would your tone change a bit if your wife, daughter
> or son were killed in the wreck that this idiot caused?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?

---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....

Talk about a pair of losers....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Outatime wrote:
>
> James wrote:
>
> > *Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the
> > lady that your wife hit ?*
>
> Perhaps the wife should offer apologies, then find her checkbook and
> take financial responsibility for the property she damaged and the
> people she has injured, instead of giving the money to a
> lawyer...wouldn't you say, James?
>
> I'm curious, James: would your tone change a bit if your wife, daughter
> or son were killed in the wreck that this idiot caused?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?

---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....

Talk about a pair of losers....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Outatime wrote:
>
> James wrote:
>
> > *Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the
> > lady that your wife hit ?*
>
> Perhaps the wife should offer apologies, then find her checkbook and
> take financial responsibility for the property she damaged and the
> people she has injured, instead of giving the money to a
> lawyer...wouldn't you say, James?
>
> I'm curious, James: would your tone change a bit if your wife, daughter
> or son were killed in the wreck that this idiot caused?

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Mike Romain wrote:
> So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
>
> ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
>
> Talk about a pair of losers....

I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.

Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.

I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)

So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
efforts. Don't want to end up on the ass-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
like you own a brain. It's that simple.

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Mike Romain wrote:
> So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
>
> ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
>
> Talk about a pair of losers....

I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.

Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.

I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)

So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
efforts. Don't want to end up on the ass-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
like you own a brain. It's that simple.

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Mike Romain wrote:
> So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
>
> ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
>
> Talk about a pair of losers....

I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.

Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.

I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)

So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
efforts. Don't want to end up on the ass-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
like you own a brain. It's that simple.

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Hey, take it easy fellows...... perhaps you should read my post just once
more (pasted below), and you will readily see that my entire post was in
jest...

Surely you experts know that a damaged cannister will not cause excessive
tire wear......

Man, you guys can get WAY too serious in here. We are not talking about
lawsuits and injuries here, the entire thing is a joke. Get a life !!!!


--James--

-------------------------------------

Yes, don't worry about the canister. If the car has less than 250,000
miles on it, everything will be fine, except for slightly less gas mileage.
Also, your tires will wear a bit faster now that the cannister is damaged.

Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the lady
that your wife hit ?


Good luck on all of this, and just keep that hood closed. A sharp mechanic
will be able to change the oil from the bottom of the car from now on.


--James--

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Hey, take it easy fellows...... perhaps you should read my post just once
more (pasted below), and you will readily see that my entire post was in
jest...

Surely you experts know that a damaged cannister will not cause excessive
tire wear......

Man, you guys can get WAY too serious in here. We are not talking about
lawsuits and injuries here, the entire thing is a joke. Get a life !!!!


--James--

-------------------------------------

Yes, don't worry about the canister. If the car has less than 250,000
miles on it, everything will be fine, except for slightly less gas mileage.
Also, your tires will wear a bit faster now that the cannister is damaged.

Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the lady
that your wife hit ?


Good luck on all of this, and just keep that hood closed. A sharp mechanic
will be able to change the oil from the bottom of the car from now on.


--James--

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Hey, take it easy fellows...... perhaps you should read my post just once
more (pasted below), and you will readily see that my entire post was in
jest...

Surely you experts know that a damaged cannister will not cause excessive
tire wear......

Man, you guys can get WAY too serious in here. We are not talking about
lawsuits and injuries here, the entire thing is a joke. Get a life !!!!


--James--

-------------------------------------

Yes, don't worry about the canister. If the car has less than 250,000
miles on it, everything will be fine, except for slightly less gas mileage.
Also, your tires will wear a bit faster now that the cannister is damaged.

Have you hired a lawyer yet to defend the action to be brought by the lady
that your wife hit ?


Good luck on all of this, and just keep that hood closed. A sharp mechanic
will be able to change the oil from the bottom of the car from now on.


--James--

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Outatime wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
> >
> > ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> > some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
> >
> > Talk about a pair of losers....
>
> I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
> suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
> this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.
>
> Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
> exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
> car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
> death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
> filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
> nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.
>
> I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
> butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
> his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
> last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
> condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
> the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)
>
> So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
> giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
> damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
> efforts. Don't want to end up on the ass-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
> like you own a brain. It's that simple.

You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

Mike

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Outatime wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
> >
> > ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> > some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
> >
> > Talk about a pair of losers....
>
> I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
> suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
> this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.
>
> Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
> exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
> car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
> death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
> filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
> nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.
>
> I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
> butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
> his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
> last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
> condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
> the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)
>
> So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
> giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
> damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
> efforts. Don't want to end up on the ass-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
> like you own a brain. It's that simple.

You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

Mike

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Outatime wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > So I take it neither of you two jokers have ever been in an accident?
> >
> > ---- happens and you two are waaaaayyyyy out in left field attacking
> > some poor guy with 'No' facts at hand....
> >
> > Talk about a pair of losers....
>
> I disagree, Mike. Fact: a woman rear-ends another vehicle. This moron
> suggests she retain a lawyer to fend off collection efforts. I think
> this is scuzzy behavior, and anyone who defends it is way off base.
>
> Ten years ago in Sacramento, a female doctor with a blood alcohol level
> exceeding 0.20 drives up the wrong way onto a freeway offramp, hitting a
> car head-on, killing all 4 kids inside. All 4 families file wrongful
> death suits, and rightfully so. She lawyers up, waits until all 4 have
> filed, then drops a Chapter 7 on the whole mess and WALKS AWAY like
> nothing ever happened. Truly the pinnacle of scuzzy behavior.
>
> I've never been charged with causing an accident. I've been on the
> butt-end of several, and every single time, the clod who caused it tries
> his/her damndest to snake out of their financial responsibility. The
> last moron who did this ended up facing me in Superior Court; I took his
> condo, car, and his 401-k to satisfy the judgement. (No, he didn't feel
> the need to bother carrying liability insurance.)
>
> So, don't preach to me about '---- happens.' I want to see someone
> giddy with apology while pulling out the checkbook to take care of the
> damages for a change, instead hiring lawyers to block collection
> efforts. Don't want to end up on the ass-end of a lawsuit? Then drive
> like you own a brain. It's that simple.

You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

Mike

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Mike Romain wrote:

> You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
> absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.
>
> I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
> up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
> system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
> companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

LOL. Methinks the OP was a troll, and James has a twisted sense of
humor. And you're right: insurance companies love no-fault, which
basically translates into no-pay.

My solution: drink heavily.

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Mike Romain wrote:

> You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
> absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.
>
> I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
> up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
> system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
> companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

LOL. Methinks the OP was a troll, and James has a twisted sense of
humor. And you're right: insurance companies love no-fault, which
basically translates into no-pay.

My solution: drink heavily.

Re: Under The Hood Question
 

Mike Romain wrote:

> You two are going on like the OP and his wife are sleazebags with
> absolutely no evidence that 'I' have seen to back that up.
>
> I don't disagree with what you are saying, I am currently really messed
> up due to a careless driver. He even had insurance, but our 'no fault'
> system is basically broken and requires lawyers to sue. The insurance
> companies won't offer anything serious in compensation short of a trial.

LOL. Methinks the OP was a troll, and James has a twisted sense of
humor. And you're right: insurance companies love no-fault, which
basically translates into no-pay.

My solution: drink heavily.