Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...



Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)



Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch





I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php

Eisboch

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php

Eisboch


That guy can certainly put some power into his peddling! Maybe a slick road
surface helped................;-)

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php

Eisboch


That guy can certainly put some power into his peddling! Maybe a slick
road surface helped................;-)


Damn spell check..........'pedaling'.........not 'peddling'. ;-)

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...



Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)



Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch





I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)

Grow up and act like a man.

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

JimH wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:10:02 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:28:44 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Breaker ..... Breaker.....

How 'bout it Chuckster .....

Got yer ears on good buddy ???

Breaker ..... Breaker ..."

Breaker Breaker Eisboch...

Got two Smokey's hangin' a 10-35 working a 10-36 eastbound at the 174
and a 10-50 at the 152 westbound.

10-4?


Good copy, good buddy.

Just came back from a long ride over to Carver in the General Lee. The new
engine is really running good. Came back via the new section of Rt. 44
and
out of the blue I got a state trooper coming up behind me, lights flashing
and gaining fast. I wasn't speeding, so I figured he must have had a
problem with the glass pacs. He pulled up beside me, gave a big grin,
thumbs up and took off.

I really wish they wouldn't do that.

10-99

10-4.

How much do you want to bet the car is on the cop's DVD or tape and
when he get's back to the station, you are going to be the star?


Yep. ;-) And I can understand how frustrating that can be for him when
all he wants is a nice relaxing ride in the car. Who needs that sort of BS
scare?

Jim, what happened to you calling him all kinds of childish names and
petty insults because he has things you don't?

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

Eisboch wrote:
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..


I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php


I wonder how many calories you burn drifting a bicycle for 10 minutes?

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)


Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch




I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)

Grow up and act like a man.


Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by.

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)


Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very
short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models
and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's
an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed
had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios
and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in
engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can
outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger
R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high
output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true
of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch




I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)

Grow up and act like a man.


Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by.

Kevin wouldn't know the definition of a "man" if it bitch slapped him in the
head.

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...


Grow up and act like a man.


this is definitely cute

mk5000

"Where do I go from here? How do I get the machine to boot into Mac
OS? Does anyone have a clue as to what I should do next?
Andrei, check if you have a spare one else I'll have to take Ken up
on his offer and have him ship me one. "--Simran Dayal