|
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
wrote in message ... Phantman wrote: I've always wondered why the designers didn't just get the cooling water through the bottom of the boat like any normal straight inboard setup. Jim wrote: I suspect that the engineers felt it unnecessary to reinvent a proven design JamesGangNC wrote: The inside water pumps are basically the same design rubber vaned pumps. All of them will self prime if needed and the distance is not far. Jim wrote: I don't think the internal pumps are self priming. I would consider changing my mind on that if I could see some proof. Phantman wrote: Are you familiar with inboards? I don't mean sterndrives. I mean proven design straight inboards that have been around since long before sterndrives were dreamed up (and still common everywhere). They get their raw water through the boat's bottom via a thru hull fitting. Whether or not they use a standard automotive pump or a special marine design that's self priming, I'm not sure. But whatever it is, it sure looks like a standard auto water pump and bolts right into place. Jim wrote: Rick, the pump under discussion is the raw water pump that brings water into the boat, not the circulating pump. Well, lets get on the same page then. My question was, "why wouldn't the designer of a sterndrive use the same less complex method of cooling water intake that Inboards have always used (and still use). It's a time tested and proven design, no hauling the boat for impeller maintenance, and less expensive to build. I see no advantage to their more complex, more difficult to maintain design. That's not to say it doesn't work at all, obviously it does. But it's one of several complexities of standard sterndrive design that could easily be simplified imho. Rick Who knows why they designed the IO the way they did. I don't know if it's more complex. The main difference is the IO makes 2 90 degree power train turns vs the outboards 1 turn. Cheaper to build, maybe? Less work and expense for the boat builder(no bronze thru hull, screen, hoses, sea strainer, etc.) How would you simplify the design of the IO? |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
Phantman wrote:
I've always wondered why the designers didn't just get the cooling water through the bottom of the boat like any normal straight inboard setup. Jim wrote: I suspect that the engineers felt it unnecessary to reinvent a proven design JamesGangNC wrote: The inside water pumps are basically the same design rubber vaned pumps. All of them will self prime if needed and the distance is not far. Jim wrote: I don't think the internal pumps are self priming. I would consider changing my mind on that if I could see some proof. Phantman wrote: Are you familiar with inboards? I don't mean sterndrives. I mean proven design straight inboards that have been around since long before sterndrives were dreamed up (and still common everywhere). They get their raw water through the boat's bottom via a thru hull fitting. Whether or not they use a standard automotive pump or a special marine design that's self priming, I'm not sure. But whatever it is, it sure looks like a standard auto water pump and bolts right into place. Jim wrote: Rick, the pump under discussion is the raw water pump that brings water into the boat, not the circulating pump. Phantman wrote: Well, lets get on the same page then. My question was, "why wouldn't the designer of a sterndrive use the same less complex method of cooling water intake that Inboards have always used (and still use). It's a time tested and proven design, no hauling the boat for impeller maintenance, and less expensive to build. I see no advantage to their more complex, more difficult to maintain design. That's not to say it doesn't work at all, obviously it does. But it's one of several complexities of standard sterndrive design that could easily be simplified imho. Jim wrote: Who knows why they designed the IO the way they did. I don't know if it's more complex. The main difference is the IO makes 2 90 degree power train turns vs the outboards 1 turn. Cheaper to build, maybe? Less work and expense for the boat builder(no bronze thru hull, screen, hoses, sea strainer, etc.) How would you simplify the design of the IO? Most importantly, I would eliminate the boots. All of them. Which means I would have to start over from scratch with a design. This forum probably isn't the place to get into that. But eliminating the outboard impeller and transom intake system would be a step in the right direction as far as I can tell. I've asked this same question of mechanics, engineers and some fairly knowledgable people, but so far I haven't found anyone that can explain why the outboard impeller is a better idea. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thought about it though, including whoever designed the I/O in the first place. I wish I knew what he was thinkin'. Rick |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
wrote in message
... Phantman wrote: I've always wondered why the designers didn't just get the cooling water through the bottom of the boat like any normal straight inboard setup. Jim wrote: I suspect that the engineers felt it unnecessary to reinvent a proven design JamesGangNC wrote: The inside water pumps are basically the same design rubber vaned pumps. All of them will self prime if needed and the distance is not far. Jim wrote: I don't think the internal pumps are self priming. I would consider changing my mind on that if I could see some proof. Phantman wrote: Are you familiar with inboards? I don't mean sterndrives. I mean proven design straight inboards that have been around since long before sterndrives were dreamed up (and still common everywhere). They get their raw water through the boat's bottom via a thru hull fitting. Whether or not they use a standard automotive pump or a special marine design that's self priming, I'm not sure. But whatever it is, it sure looks like a standard auto water pump and bolts right into place. Jim wrote: Rick, the pump under discussion is the raw water pump that brings water into the boat, not the circulating pump. Phantman wrote: Well, lets get on the same page then. My question was, "why wouldn't the designer of a sterndrive use the same less complex method of cooling water intake that Inboards have always used (and still use). It's a time tested and proven design, no hauling the boat for impeller maintenance, and less expensive to build. I see no advantage to their more complex, more difficult to maintain design. That's not to say it doesn't work at all, obviously it does. But it's one of several complexities of standard sterndrive design that could easily be simplified imho. Jim wrote: Who knows why they designed the IO the way they did. I don't know if it's more complex. The main difference is the IO makes 2 90 degree power train turns vs the outboards 1 turn. Cheaper to build, maybe? Less work and expense for the boat builder(no bronze thru hull, screen, hoses, sea strainer, etc.) How would you simplify the design of the IO? Most importantly, I would eliminate the boots. All of them. Which means I would have to start over from scratch with a design. This forum probably isn't the place to get into that. But eliminating the outboard impeller and transom intake system would be a step in the right direction as far as I can tell. I've asked this same question of mechanics, engineers and some fairly knowledgable people, but so far I haven't found anyone that can explain why the outboard impeller is a better idea. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thought about it though, including whoever designed the I/O in the first place. I wish I knew what he was thinkin'. Rick Staright inboards also have a raw water pump. It is just mounted on the engine block and driven by a belt like the other accessories. I think you are confused about how inboard engine boat cooling systems work. All of them have a pump that supplies water from the outside. It is a rubber vaned. In merc alphas it's on the outboard leg. On the rest it's usually mounted on the front lower side of the engine. The impeller needs to be replaced from time to time because if wear. They also have the conventional automotive type recirculating water pump mounted on the upper front of the engine. The thermostat is more complicated on a boat. Rather than simply blocking the water it switches the paths. When the engine is cold the thermostat allows water in but causes it to continually circulate inside the block. That circulation is done by the original automotive pump that is mounted on the front of the engine. The rest of the water supplied by the raw water pump is diverted to the exhaust system. When the engine is hot the water from the raw water pump goes into the engine and then goes to the exhaust. That way no matter what the position of the thermostat new water is always going to the exhaust. The original design is because the early i/os really did use the lower half of an outboard. Early big merc outboards actually have some parts that are interchangeable with the early i/o legs. As to the reason, it let them build a boat with some of the advantages of an outboards but without the finicky, easily damaged, aluminum 2 stroke engines. Instead they used cheaper existing automotive cast iron blocks. The automotive block is engineered with a lot of excess strength. It can stand more abuse or lack of care than an aluminum 2 stroke. Outboard engines run a lot closer to many of the theoretical limits of the engine. That lets them have a much better hp/weight ratio. But it also means that mistakes and problems don't have to push them far before they break. Outboards are much better for trailering and the ability to trim the prop position and use the prop for steering are advantages over straight inboards. Those are the features that they were trying to leverage with i/os. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
jamesgangnc wrote:
The original design is because the early i/os really did use the lower half of an outboard. Early big merc outboards actually have some parts that are interchangeable with the early i/o legs. As to the reason, it let them build a boat with some of the advantages of an outboards but without the finicky, easily damaged, aluminum 2 stroke engines. I/O's came about mainly because auto engine makers provided cheap engines that could be mated, sort of, with a lower unit assembly that delivered higher horsepower at a lower price than the outboards of the day. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"HK" wrote in message
. .. jamesgangnc wrote: The original design is because the early i/os really did use the lower half of an outboard. Early big merc outboards actually have some parts that are interchangeable with the early i/o legs. As to the reason, it let them build a boat with some of the advantages of an outboards but without the finicky, easily damaged, aluminum 2 stroke engines. I/O's came about mainly because auto engine makers provided cheap engines that could be mated, sort of, with a lower unit assembly that delivered higher horsepower at a lower price than the outboards of the day. And they still are one of the most popular consumer boat configurations sold today. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"jamesgangnc" wrote:
I think you are confused about how inboard engine boat cooling systems work. No, I'm not confused. I've owned and maintained a number of inboards. Moreso than I/Os. Both gasoline and diesel. I'm apparently just not communicating my thoughts very well. All of them have a pump that supplies water from the outside. And you can maintain them without hauling the boat in half the time and half the effort of an I/O. On the rest it's usually mounted on the front lower side of the engine. Good idea. No impeller in the leg at all? All of mine had an impeller in the lower outdrive except one with it on the top. As to the reason, it let them build a boat with some of the advantages of an outboards but without the finicky, easily damaged, aluminum 2 stroke engines. And with a lot more power to push much larger boats. Outboards didn't have nearly the HP back then as they have now. I think the basic idea for the I/O was valid and sound. I just don't think the designers put enough thought outside their box. They could have built a much less complex and more maintenace free system. One with something more than rubber boots between it and sinking. But they didn't and the market responded by demanding huge outboards. Which it now has. I'm not saying I/Os are a bad idea. I'm saying they could have been less complex which usually means better. Rick |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
jamesgangnc wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. jamesgangnc wrote: The original design is because the early i/os really did use the lower half of an outboard. Early big merc outboards actually have some parts that are interchangeable with the early i/o legs. As to the reason, it let them build a boat with some of the advantages of an outboards but without the finicky, easily damaged, aluminum 2 stroke engines. I/O's came about mainly because auto engine makers provided cheap engines that could be mated, sort of, with a lower unit assembly that delivered higher horsepower at a lower price than the outboards of the day. And they still are one of the most popular consumer boat configurations sold today. Yawn. McDonalds probably still sells the most burgers...doesn't mean they are any good. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Apr 24, 9:22*am, wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote: I think you are confused about how inboard engine boat cooling systems work. No, I'm not confused. I've owned and maintained a number of inboards. Moreso than I/Os. Both gasoline and diesel. *I'm apparently just not communicating my thoughts very well. All of them have a pump that supplies water from the outside. And you can maintain them without hauling the boat in half the time and half the effort of an I/O. On the rest it's usually mounted on the front lower side of the engine. Good idea. No impeller in the leg at all? All of mine had an impeller in the lower outdrive except one with it on the top. As to the reason, it let them build a boat with some of the advantages of an outboards but without the finicky, easily damaged, aluminum 2 stroke engines. And with a lot more power to push much larger boats. Outboards didn't have nearly the HP back then as they have now. I think the basic idea for the I/O was valid and sound. I just don't think the designers put enough thought outside their box. They could have built a much less complex and more maintenace free system. One with something more than rubber boots between it and sinking. But they didn't and the market responded by demanding huge outboards. Which it now has. I'm not saying I/Os are a bad idea. I'm saying they could have been less complex which usually means better. Rick Your earlier post "Whether or not they use a standard automotive pump or a special marine design that's self priming, I'm not sure." lead me to think you didn't understand. Because they all use both pumps. The difference between the alphas and the bravo/volvo/trs/etc drives is that the alphas continue to use the raw water pump in the leg while the others used a belt driven raw water pump on the engine. And you'll get no arguement out of me that the raw water pump in the engine compartment is way better and much easier to service. I was only discussing how it got where it is. The orginal merc drive went through several minor design improvements to give us the 2nd generation alpha we have today. And engineering wise it is still not even close to state of the art. But it works and has proven to be a pretty reliable platform. Volume made it extremely cheap at the bulk level. That kept it around. Merc as well as others have designed much better outdrives. They simply cost more and many consumers don't appreciate the difference therefore consumers don't want to pay the difference. That volume is changing and more modern i/os are a bigger part of the market now. I'm not saying the i/o is "better" that the other two propulsion solutions. All 3 have their pros and cons. How those factor in also depends on the application. In some situations the i/o pros make it attractive. And there really isn't a real higher risk of sinking because the i/o has a rubber boot coupling the drive to the exterior prop assembly. The i/o is far more likely to survive a high speed hard strike to the drive train without compromising the hull integrity that a conventional inboard. The i/o absorbes most of the force in the gear train and typically destroys props, gears, and couplings. The i/o physical unit is typically kicked up rather than sheared off the transom. On a conventional inboard usually the prop shaft is ripped out or severely bent and there is frequently compromise to the rear lower hull or stuffing box. Of course the outboard installation will also kick up and often can stand anything up to and including being ripped clean off the back without compromising hull integrity. I don't think the hp difference was all that great, merc had some pretty big inline 4s and 6s early in the outboard game. While they did not match the hp of the early small block v8 engines if you factor in the weight difference they were pretty powerful engines. Inboards with automotive engines already predated i/os. So the larger boats did not need i/os. Outboards simply don't attract a significant part of the consumer base. Never have. It's all about what sells first and engineering is always second to that. That's not unique to boats, that is true in everything. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
JamesGangNC wrote:
And there really isn't a real higher risk of sinking because the i/o has a rubber boot coupling the drive to the exterior prop assembly. I'd get rid of that one too lol! On a conventional inboard usually the prop shaft is ripped out or severely bent and there is frequently compromise to the rear lower hull or stuffing box. An unprotected prop is like playing Russian Roulette where I live with sandbars, oyster reefs, shallow water etc. A keel under the prop means everything, and I mean all the way to the rudder. You don't see that often with trailerable boats. Shamrock is one exception but I don't think their keel protects the rudder either. I'd have to go looksee. A Tunnel is another way to go. But the least fuel efficient boat I've ever owned was a Penn Yann Tunnel Drive. It was great for bumping along on shallow sandy bottoms but the prop was small and Gawd that sucker drank fuel. I don't think the hp difference was all that great, merc had some pretty big inline 4s and 6s early in the outboard game. My first I/O was a 225hp OMC in a 1971 23' Seabird. Back then, nobody built an outboard transom into boats that size. I think the largest outboard you could buy was maybe 125-130hp and even on a smaller boat, it would drink twice the fuel of a 225hp I/O. I used to pass outboard boats everywhere I went. Waaaay later on, after O/Bs became more powerful, guys began repowering boats like mine by bolting an O/B bracket onto them. I eventually sold my Seabird as is but a friend of mine still has one just like it that he repowered. He claims the improvement in speed and handling is like night and day. Not to mention the weight loss for trailering. Inboards with automotive engines already predated i/os. So the larger boats did not need i/os. They did if they were trailerable and liked the kick up advantages of an outboard. And we're talking about a different era here. Back then, a 23', 5200 lb boat was considered a BIG trailerable boat. Rick |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Apr 24, 11:56*am, wrote:
JamesGangNC wrote: And there really isn't a real higher risk of sinking because the i/o has a rubber boot coupling the drive to the exterior prop assembly. I'd get rid of that one too lol! On a conventional inboard usually the prop shaft is ripped out or severely bent and there is frequently compromise to the rear lower hull or stuffing box. An unprotected prop is like playing Russian Roulette where I live with sandbars, oyster reefs, shallow water etc. *A keel under the prop means everything, and I mean all the way to the rudder. You don't see that often with trailerable boats. Shamrock is one exception but I don't think their keel protects the rudder either. I'd have to go looksee. A Tunnel is another way to go. But the least fuel efficient boat I've ever owned was a Penn Yann Tunnel Drive. It was great for bumping along on shallow sandy bottoms but the prop was small and Gawd that sucker drank fuel. I don't think the hp difference was all that great, merc had some pretty big inline 4s and 6s early in the outboard game. My first I/O was a 225hp OMC in a 1971 23' Seabird. Back then, nobody built an outboard transom into boats that size. I think the largest outboard you could buy was maybe 125-130hp and even on a smaller boat, it would drink twice the fuel of a 225hp I/O. *I used to pass outboard boats everywhere I went. *Waaaay later on, after O/Bs became more powerful, guys began repowering boats like mine by bolting an O/B bracket onto them. I eventually sold my Seabird as is but a friend of mine still has one just like it that he repowered. He claims the improvement in speed and handling is like night and day. Not to mention the weight loss for trailering. Inboards with automotive engines already predated i/os. *So the larger boats did not need i/os. They did if they were trailerable and liked the kick up advantages of an outboard. And we're talking about a different era here. Back then, a 23', 5200 lb *boat was considered a BIG trailerable boat. Rick That's why you're not designing boat propousion systems. Pay close attention. Boats with i/o drives are not sinking because of a failure inthe rubber boot onthe coupling. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
JamesGangNC wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:56*am, wrote: JamesGangNC wrote: And there really isn't a real higher risk of sinking because the i/o has a rubber boot coupling the drive to the exterior prop assembly. I'd get rid of that one too lol! On a conventional inboard usually the prop shaft is ripped out or severely bent and there is frequently compromise to the rear lower hull or stuffing box. An unprotected prop is like playing Russian Roulette where I live with sandbars, oyster reefs, shallow water etc. *A keel under the prop means everything, and I mean all the way to the rudder. You don't see that often with trailerable boats. Shamrock is one exception but I don't think their keel protects the rudder either. I'd have to go looksee. A Tunnel is another way to go. But the least fuel efficient boat I've ever owned was a Penn Yann Tunnel Drive. It was great for bumping along on shallow sandy bottoms but the prop was small and Gawd that sucker drank fuel. I don't think the hp difference was all that great, merc had some pretty big inline 4s and 6s early in the outboard game. My first I/O was a 225hp OMC in a 1971 23' Seabird. Back then, nobody built an outboard transom into boats that size. I think the largest outboard you could buy was maybe 125-130hp and even on a smaller boat, it would drink twice the fuel of a 225hp I/O. *I used to pass outboard boats everywhere I went. *Waaaay later on, after O/Bs became more powerful, guys began repowering boats like mine by bolting an O/B bracket onto them. I eventually sold my Seabird as is but a friend of mine still has one just like it that he repowered. He claims the improvement in speed and handling is like night and day. Not to mention the weight loss for trailering. Inboards with automotive engines already predated i/os. *So the larger boats did not need i/os. They did if they were trailerable and liked the kick up advantages of an outboard. And we're talking about a different era here. Back then, a 23', 5200 lb *boat was considered a BIG trailerable boat. Rick That's why you're not designing boat propousion systems. Pay close attention. Boats with i/o drives are not sinking because of a failure inthe rubber boot onthe coupling. I personally know of two. I've heard and read from reliable sources about others. Boats sink for all sorts of reasons. I can't imagine why you would think failure of a boot isn't one of them. Rick |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
Jim Rojas wrote:
I didn't like the older OMC stern drives because it had that over sized boot on the transom. Those could really get you in trouble quickly if they gave way. I had one of those. And yes, it was a concern in the back of my mind but I never had a problem with it. The advantage though, was it was right out in the open and easy to inspect. Any problem with cracking or deterioration would be noticable right away. Both of the boats that I saw sunk with my own two eyes were Mercruisers, in their slips, left unattended. Both sinkings could have been easily prevented with regular inspection but... just didn't happen. I don't know why. To much trouble I guess. Rick |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
I spray all my rubber boots & hoses inside and out with the blue liquid
UV protected tire shine stuff. Mobile detailers & upscale car washing facilities use the same stuff. I don't know the actual brand name, but this stuff costs about $25 a gallon. I will find out the brand name and post it later. I live in Florida, so any unprotected rubber will dry rot in the sun within a few short years. Ever since I started using this stuff, all the rubber on my car, boat, and trailers all shine like new. It seriously protects without breaking down the rubber like other products do. You can even spray this stuff on faded boat paint, and she comes back like new. It lasts a long time. No rubbing, no buffing. The key is to let it penetrate the paint for about a week or two for best results. Forget that super expensive gelcoat rejuvenator stuff. This liquid stuff seals it really well. I also sprayed the boat cover with it, and the water still rolls right off a year later. Jim Rojas lid wrote: Jim Rojas wrote: I didn't like the older OMC stern drives because it had that over sized boot on the transom. Those could really get you in trouble quickly if they gave way. I had one of those. And yes, it was a concern in the back of my mind but I never had a problem with it. The advantage though, was it was right out in the open and easy to inspect. Any problem with cracking or deterioration would be noticable right away. Both of the boats that I saw sunk with my own two eyes were Mercruisers, in their slips, left unattended. Both sinkings could have been easily prevented with regular inspection but... just didn't happen. I don't know why. To much trouble I guess. Rick |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Apr 26, 12:32*pm, wrote:
Jim Rojas wrote: I didn't like the older OMC stern drives because it had that over sized boot on the transom. Those could really get you in trouble quickly if they gave way. I had one of those. And yes, it was a concern in the back of my mind but I never had a problem with it. The advantage though, was it was right out in the open and easy to inspect. Any problem with cracking or deterioration would be noticable right away. Both of the boats that I saw sunk with my own two eyes were Mercruisers, in their slips, left unattended. Both sinkings could have been easily prevented with regular inspection but... just didn't happen. I don't know why. To much trouble I guess. Rick Lots of boats sink in their slips. Just because they had mercs doesn't mean that they sank because of the boot on the drive. You saw the failed boot? Or you "heard" about from someone who "heard" about it, etc. The boot very seldom fails just sitting unless they are old and the drive is left tilted up. Which you are not supposed to do. Anyone that leaves an i/o in a slip is not too smart anyway. Especially salt water. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
Phantman wrote:
Both of the boats that I saw sunk with my own two eyes were Mercruisers, in their slips, left unattended. Both sinkings could have been easily prevented with regular inspection but... just didn't happen. I don't know why. To much trouble I guess. JamesGangNC wrote: Lots of boats sink in their slips. Just because they had mercs doesn't mean that they sank because of the boot on the drive. You saw the failed boot? I'm a skeptic myself but I'm not sure why you're having such dificulty believing this ;-) Yes, in fact I saw the boot and talked with the owner of one, talked with the mechanic doing the rebuild on the other. And yes I've seen boats sunk in their slips due to 100 other reasons. Everything from a split hose attached to an open seacock to a transom blown off due to fumes in the bilge when a charger kicked on. The boot very seldom fails just sitting unless they are old and the drive is left tilted up. I don't know where your experience is but mine is southern salt water and this sort of thing isn't all that uncommon here. Seems everything in this marine environment gets old before its time. Anyone that leaves an i/o in a slip is not too smart anyway. Especially salt water. 100% agreed. And that's been my point from square one. I wouldn't say the same for an inboard or an outboard. Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
wrote in message ... On Apr 26, 12:32 pm, wrote: Jim Rojas wrote: I didn't like the older OMC stern drives because it had that over sized boot on the transom. Those could really get you in trouble quickly if they gave way. I had one of those. And yes, it was a concern in the back of my mind but I never had a problem with it. The advantage though, was it was right out in the open and easy to inspect. Any problem with cracking or deterioration would be noticable right away. Both of the boats that I saw sunk with my own two eyes were Mercruisers, in their slips, left unattended. Both sinkings could have been easily prevented with regular inspection but... just didn't happen. I don't know why. To much trouble I guess. Rick Lots of boats sink in their slips. Just because they had mercs doesn't mean that they sank because of the boot on the drive. You saw the failed boot? Or you "heard" about from someone who "heard" about it, etc. The boot very seldom fails just sitting unless they are old and the drive is left tilted up. Which you are not supposed to do. Anyone that leaves an i/o in a slip is not too smart anyway. Especially salt water. We have had a couple of boats sink locally because of holes in boots. But all those I know of were because the muskrats chewed the hole in the boot. The Sacramento Delta has a thriving population of the little buggers. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Apr 26, 2:17*pm, wrote:
Phantman wrote: Both of the boats that I saw sunk with my own two eyes were Mercruisers, in their slips, left unattended. Both sinkings could have been easily prevented with regular inspection but... just didn't happen. I don't know why. To much trouble I guess. JamesGangNC wrote: Lots of boats sink in their slips. *Just because they had mercs doesn't mean that they sank because of the boot on the drive. *You saw the failed boot? I'm a skeptic myself but I'm not sure why you're having such dificulty believing this ;-) *Yes, in fact I saw the boot and talked with the owner of one, talked with the mechanic doing the rebuild on the other. And yes I've seen boats sunk in their slips due to 100 other reasons. Everything from a split hose attached to an open seacock to a transom blown off due to fumes in the bilge when a charger kicked on. The boot very seldom fails just sitting unless they are old and the drive is left tilted up. I don't know where your experience is but mine is southern salt water and this sort of thing isn't all that uncommon here. Seems everything in this marine environment gets old before its time. Anyone that leaves an i/o in a slip is not too smart anyway. Especially salt water. 100% agreed. *And that's been my point from square one. I wouldn't say the same for an inboard or an outboard. Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
|
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"John H." wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, -- John *H* (Not the other one!) Storing vehicles in driveways is prohibited by many cities and counties, not to mention gated communities and deed restricted properties. We have boats and RVs in our neighborhood, but they are parked as discretely as possible to avoid distracting neighbors views. My county's codes prohibit storing in front of the front facade of the house. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
I'm not particularly familiar with the wake forest area so I can't make any
specific recomendations. I do know that around here a lot of neighborhoods have various restrictions on boats and rvs outside. My boat lives in the garage so that hasn't been an issue for me. (Actually ours does allow it but only if the boat or rv is not visible from the street OR any of the neighboring lots but since these are 1/3 acre lots that's impossible to meet.) A number of other ones near me allow it only if the boat or rv is behind the front line of the house. That usually means extending the driveway down the garage side. The older ones tend to have less. It's about impossible to make a lot of changes to the convenants once a they are in place. But you know what to watch for. There has been a lot of newer development in north wake county and wake forest. One of the developers tried to get permission to build a marina on that end of the lake and was shot down resoundly. There is a lot of concern now about the recreational load in the lake because it is also a water supply. Lake access is poor close to the dam. The marina is on the durham end and the biggest ramps are at rt 50. There is a couple more ramps about half way to the dam but they are smaller. So if wake forest appeals be prepared to drive a bit further to get to a ramp on falls. Falls has been low before. We have droughts once or twice every 10 years or so. I still used the lake but kept down towards the dam end. Jordam was only down a few feet so if you are worried you might look over in chatam county. Jordan is also a lot bigger than falls. Gaston is controlled and never goes down but it is a bit over developed. Kerr fluctuates wildly sometimes but it is only lightly developed. Everything near them is rural or small town. Property on those lakes has seen a rapid rise in cost lately even though the national market is soft. It started over in Charlotte 10 years ago or so on their big lake but seems to be starting here as well. I have a small house on kerr and it has gone up almost 50% in 7 years. And that is based on actual recent sales nearby. I was surprised because I expecting nothing on the lake to sell for a while given the way the rest of the market is acting. In the past vacation property was one of the first things hit when the general real estate market had a downturn. Mayeb it's different this time because the problems are mainly with marginal loans and that's more in the starter home arena. "John H." wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, -- John *H* (Not the other one!) |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:19:06 -0400, "jamesgangnc" wrote:
I'm not particularly familiar with the wake forest area so I can't make any specific recomendations. I do know that around here a lot of neighborhoods have various restrictions on boats and rvs outside. My boat lives in the garage so that hasn't been an issue for me. (Actually ours does allow it but only if the boat or rv is not visible from the street OR any of the neighboring lots but since these are 1/3 acre lots that's impossible to meet.) A number of other ones near me allow it only if the boat or rv is behind the front line of the house. That usually means extending the driveway down the garage side. The older ones tend to have less. It's about impossible to make a lot of changes to the convenants once a they are in place. But you know what to watch for. There has been a lot of newer development in north wake county and wake forest. One of the developers tried to get permission to build a marina on that end of the lake and was shot down resoundly. There is a lot of concern now about the recreational load in the lake because it is also a water supply. Lake access is poor close to the dam. The marina is on the durham end and the biggest ramps are at rt 50. There is a couple more ramps about half way to the dam but they are smaller. So if wake forest appeals be prepared to drive a bit further to get to a ramp on falls. Falls has been low before. We have droughts once or twice every 10 years or so. I still used the lake but kept down towards the dam end. Jordam was only down a few feet so if you are worried you might look over in chatam county. Jordan is also a lot bigger than falls. Gaston is controlled and never goes down but it is a bit over developed. Kerr fluctuates wildly sometimes but it is only lightly developed. Everything near them is rural or small town. Property on those lakes has seen a rapid rise in cost lately even though the national market is soft. It started over in Charlotte 10 years ago or so on their big lake but seems to be starting here as well. I have a small house on kerr and it has gone up almost 50% in 7 years. And that is based on actual recent sales nearby. I was surprised because I expecting nothing on the lake to sell for a while given the way the rest of the market is acting. In the past vacation property was one of the first things hit when the general real estate market had a downturn. Mayeb it's different this time because the problems are mainly with marginal loans and that's more in the starter home arena. Thanks for all the info. I'm wanting to stay to the northeast of Raleigh, just 'cause I've got family in Richmond. I'm thinking of the Purnell area by Wake Forest, but I've not been down to look at houses yet. I'll probably have to find a place without all the covenants, etc. I wouldn't mind pouring a pad next to a garage though. I really appreciate your response. Thanks. -- John *H* (Not the other one!) |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
John H. wrote:
I'm wanting to stay to the northeast of Raleigh, just 'cause I've got family in Richmond. I'm thinking of the Purnell area by Wake Forest, but I've not been down to look at houses yet. I'll probably have to find a place without all the covenants, etc. I wouldn't mind pouring a pad next to a garage though. I really appreciate your response. Thanks. Don't forget that front porch...you'll need a spot on which to store your broken refrigerators and to sit when you play the banjo. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: I'm wanting to stay to the northeast of Raleigh, just 'cause I've got family in Richmond. I'm thinking of the Purnell area by Wake Forest, but I've not been down to look at houses yet. I'll probably have to find a place without all the covenants, etc. I wouldn't mind pouring a pad next to a garage though. I really appreciate your response. Thanks. Don't forget that front porch...you'll need a spot on which to store your broken refrigerators and to sit when you play the banjo. Maybe JohnH & Smithers can get a little band going... http://www.bigsmithband.com/ |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Apr 28, 11:38*am, HK wrote:
John H. wrote: I'm wanting to stay to the northeast of Raleigh, just 'cause I've got family in Richmond. *I'm thinking of the Purnell area by Wake Forest, but I've not been down to look at houses yet. I'll probably have to find a place without all the covenants, etc. I wouldn't mind pouring a pad next to a garage though. I really appreciate your response. Thanks. Don't forget that front porch...you'll need a spot on which to store your broken refrigerators and to sit when you play the banjo. Once again, Harry is showing his ignorance....... |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Apr 28, 11:38*am, HK wrote:
John H. wrote: I'm wanting to stay to the northeast of Raleigh, just 'cause I've got family in Richmond. *I'm thinking of the Purnell area by Wake Forest, but I've not been down to look at houses yet. I'll probably have to find a place without all the covenants, etc. I wouldn't mind pouring a pad next to a garage though. I really appreciate your response. Thanks. Don't forget that front porch...you'll need a spot on which to store your broken refrigerators and to sit when you play the banjo. Didn't you know that is a sign of affluence? Means you have a better appliance inside. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
|
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC You seem very familiar with trailer parks for some reason. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC You seem very familiar with trailer parks for some reason. It's a trick I learned from Reggie: when you don't know **** from shoepolish, google it up. I'm not too familiar with North Carolina. I've been to the OBX, and I drive through it on the way to Florida. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
|
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Apr 28, 1:59*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. *Raleigh area. *Trailer boating in the local lakes. *Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, *Ponderosa Mobile Home Park *(919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC *G *Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC *Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC You seem very familiar with trailer parks for some reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Some more of his culture and refinement. By the way, he's already starting to be a condescending ass over at Chuck's too. Only a matter of time. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"HK" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC You seem very familiar with trailer parks for some reason. It's a trick I learned from Reggie: when you don't know **** from shoepolish, google it up. I'm not too familiar with North Carolina. I've been to the OBX, and I drive through it on the way to Florida. Actually, you are a bunch of ignorant. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC You seem very familiar with trailer parks for some reason. It's a trick I learned from Reggie: when you don't know **** from shoepolish, google it up. I'm not too familiar with North Carolina. I've been to the OBX, and I drive through it on the way to Florida. Actually, you are a bunch of ignorant. Now that you are in your dotage, you have time to enroll in ESOL classes. You should consider doing so. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
HK wrote:
John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC How narcissistic of you, Harry! You are a one-trick pony and a sad pony at that. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:42:47 -0400, DK wrote:
HK wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC How narcissistic of you, Harry! You are a one-trick pony and a sad pony at that. And easily ignored. Give it a shot. -- John *H* (Not the other one!) |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"John H." wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:42:47 -0400, DK wrote: HK wrote: John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC How narcissistic of you, Harry! You are a one-trick pony and a sad pony at that. And easily ignored. Give it a shot. -- John *H* (Not the other one!) John, Your quoting the idiots is not helping me to ignore them. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"HK" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Rick PS... just noticed the NC on your name. Is that for North Carolina, I presume? Yep, North Carolina. Raleigh area. Trailer boating in the local lakes. Mostly Falls when I'm home but I have a house on Kerr as well. James, I'm planning to move to the Wake Forest area sometime next spring. I drove by Falls Lake, on I-85, a week ago and the water level seems to be up to norm. Is it? I'm looking forward to boating on Falls Lake, so the 9' drop in level last summer was a downer. Had me looking over towards the Kerr or Gaston area. But, I also play golf, so the Wake Forest area is more of a draw. If you're familiar with the area, what are some decent places to live around the Wake Forest area. I'd like a place where I can put my boat in the driveway if I so desire! Thanks, Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (919) 556-5840 10729 Ponderosa Service Rd, Wake Forest, NC G Cooley's Mobile Home Park (919) 556-3575 7620 Halifax Rd, Youngsville, NC Country Road Mobile Home Park (919) 494-2582 665 Mount Olivet Church Rd, Franklinton, NC Hunt's Mobile Home Park (919) 875-9003 4720 Fox Fern Ln, Raleigh, NC Acres-Space Mobile Home Park (919) 266-4389 103 Cliffview Dr, Knightdale, NC You seem very familiar with trailer parks for some reason. It's a trick I learned from Reggie: when you don't know **** from shoepolish, google it up. I'm not too familiar with North Carolina. I've been to the OBX, and I drive through it on the way to Florida. Actually, you are a bunch of ignorant. Now that you are in your dotage, you have time to enroll in ESOL classes. You should consider doing so. Maybe you should. Then you could actually write. You are still a bunch of ignorant. |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... Maybe you should. Then you could actually write. You are still a bunch of ignorant. Huh? bunch of "ignorant" what???? That sentence doesn't meet the standards of the Queens English. http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/.../adjectve.html |
Mercruiser Carb Conversion
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... Maybe you should. Then you could actually write. You are still a bunch of ignorant. Huh? bunch of "ignorant" what???? That sentence doesn't meet the standards of the Queens English. http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/.../adjectve.html You are also a bunch of ignorant. Get with program. Learn a little slang. Then maybe you can communicate with your son and figure out why after going to college, he can not leave the nest. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com