Bert Robbins wrote:
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*.


Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
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*.


Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.


Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an
error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
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*.


Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.


Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an
error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.

I only attack idiots and childish acting fools who are too dumb to
figure out that I'm not Kevin.

Bert Robbins wrote:
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.

This is classic!! How funny. Let's see, we've got Bert, who blindly and
ignorantly calls me Kevin every post, saying that *I* don't know when
to let things go!!! How stupid can it get, folks?

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

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*.



Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.


Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an
error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.


Do you, out of the blue, attack people and call them names?
quote... "Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots
of the newsgroup"

basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

basskisser wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:GIydnZjkqrpnzEPZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@giganews .com...

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.


This is classic!! How funny. Let's see, we've got Bert, who blindly and
ignorantly calls me Kevin every post, saying that *I* don't know when
to let things go!!! How stupid can it get, folks?


Something tell me Bertram is just getting started. Stay tuned folks,
it's cheap entertainment!

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

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*.



Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.


Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an
error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.


Do you, out of the blue, attack people and call them names?
quote... "Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots
of the newsgroup"

He's just as childish and petty as JimH!~

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

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*.



Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.


Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find
an error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.


Do you, out of the blue, attack people and call them names?
quote... "Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of
the newsgroup"

I'm just letting you know that you are sinking into Kevin's class. As
other has said, you are better than that.

Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

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.


This is classic!! How funny. Let's see, we've got Bert, who blindly and
ignorantly calls me Kevin every post, saying that *I* don't know when
to let things go!!! How stupid can it get, folks?


Something tell me Bertram is just getting started. Stay tuned folks,
it's cheap entertainment!

It's Berton! At least I don't sit around all day long posting to this
newsgroup like some of you.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

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.



This is classic!! How funny. Let's see, we've got Bert, who blindly and
ignorantly calls me Kevin every post, saying that *I* don't know when
to let things go!!! How stupid can it get, folks?


Something tell me Bertram is just getting started. Stay tuned folks,
it's cheap entertainment!


It's Berton! At least I don't sit around all day long posting to this
newsgroup like some of you.


Yeah...I guess you just ignore my posts and "let things just
do by"................ whatever the hell that means.