porno türk porno rokettube
Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 511

Thread: Shortarse is full of shit!

  1. #81
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 11:13 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Nope, I'm a realist unlike you and your JFK conspiracy theories.

    >
    > Bwahahahahahaha :)
    >
    > This from the bloke who claims that his "predictions"


    I made no such claim of "predictions".

    Is it really necessary to butt in to every conversation and misquote and
    attribute claims to me that I never made in almost every reply?

    We get that you're a hypocrite and terminally dishonest, there is really
    no need to keep proving it.






  2. #82
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:16:06 +1000, D Walford
    <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:


    >The V8's didn't get much better in the XD, I remember needing two tanks
    >of fuel to get from Orbost to Melbourne in a 5.8lt Fairlane, average
    >speed was in excessive of 140kph with frequent overtaking at WOT, the
    >fuel consumption was horrendous but Ford was paying so I didn't care:-)


    I had a ZK Fairlane with the 302, nice highway cruiser but really
    quite gutless for a 5L. Also an unreliable POS of an engine...

    Around the same time, I also had an XE ute with the six, was a pretty
    good workhorse which took a lot of punishment - but the rust was
    unstoppable.

    I think this was where my dalliance with Aussie cars ended.


  3. #83
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 28 Sep 2013 21:39:07 GMT, "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.org> wrote:

    >Jeßus wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:13:13 +1000, Jason James <h6tgf22l@outlook.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Jason NB it's about time we dug-up another controversial subject,
    >> > to do with cars,....thinking,...thinking

    >>
    >>
    >> P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin with?

    >
    >Great idea.
    >
    >Undermined by English design combined with australian workforce
    >militance and the financial strife of th eparent company.
    >
    >P76 ver2.0 would have been awesome had the company lived long enough
    >and sold enough of the things to make it happen.
    >
    >I owned one very briefly, as in bought it, drove it home, removed V8
    >engine and gearbox and then towed it to the dump.


    Yes, nice transplant engine for it's day.

  4. #84
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:16:46 +1000, Noddy <me@wardengineering.com.au>
    wrote:

    >On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >
    >> P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin with?

    >
    >It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or not it
    >was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real difference it
    >had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack & pinion steering, and I
    >certainly don't think that would have been enough to save it if it
    >didn't suffer from it's appalling build quality issues.
    >
    >On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that had
    >been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that going for
    >it :)


    I've never even been in one, let alone driven one... not that I've had
    any direct experience with one, but I thought the alloy V8 was pretty
    good for it's day being light and relatively small?

  5. #85
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:44:15 +1000, Noddy <me@wardengineering.com.au>
    wrote:

    >I never cared for Valiant styling at all, nor 70's Falcons in the day
    >although I must admit that the XA is having some retrospective appeal at
    >the moment. Holdens were a different story though as I always found them
    >to be a great looking car.


    Agree with the external appearance of Holdens - but I never did like
    the interiors of the 1970's and '80 era Holdens. Aesthetically
    displeasing and ergonomics not as good. I always thought Ford was way
    ahead in that department.


  6. #86
    Ext User(Jason James) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 9:41 PM, D Walford wrote:
    >
    >> No doubt about that but the XC basic mechanical package was ok, it was
    >> mostly let down by bodywork and interior quality issues made worse by
    >> being an old design, XD was a major improvement as far as the body and
    >> interior quality, they did rust when they got a lot older but they were
    >> no where near as bad as previous models.

    >
    > They weren't. In fact it took XD's quite a few years to show any signs
    > of rust usually, and they were way better in this regard than the
    > previous models. The mechanical packages were a carry over in the first
    > of the XD's, and I don't think anything changed at all until the Alloy
    > head six came along.
    >
    >> XC was also built in the early days of emission regulation which didn't
    >> help performance or economy

    >
    > Tell me about it. I had an 351 XC GXL that made about as much power as a
    > Mazda 323 while having the thirst of a Tiger Tank :)


    It was one of the more gross tricks from Ford,..I mean 200hp ? From a
    5.9litre 4 bbl ?

    Jason


  7. #87
    Ext User(John_H) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Jason James wrote:
    >Noddy wrote:
    >>
    >> Tell me about it. I had an 351 XC GXL that made about as much power as a
    >> Mazda 323 while having the thirst of a Tiger Tank :)

    >
    >It was one of the more gross tricks from Ford,..I mean 200hp ? From a
    >5.9litre 4 bbl ?


    Why pick on Ford?... I vaguely recollect that Chev 350's sold here in
    the same era (might've been in the Suburban) were claimed as something
    around 150bhp!

    --
    John H

  8. #88
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 5:54 AM, Jeßus wrote:

    > Yes, nice transplant engine for it's day.


    It was okay, but it's only real advantage was it's weight, or lack of
    it. It's biggest problem was the total lack of any after-market support
    which made it difficult to get any decent power out of the things.

    Different story today as they've gained quite a cult following and
    people are making some decent gear for them, but back in the day they
    were really behind the 8 ball compared to any of the American small blocks.




    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  9. #89
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/2013 5:53 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:16:06 +1000, D Walford
    > <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> The V8's didn't get much better in the XD, I remember needing two tanks
    >> of fuel to get from Orbost to Melbourne in a 5.8lt Fairlane, average
    >> speed was in excessive of 140kph with frequent overtaking at WOT, the
    >> fuel consumption was horrendous but Ford was paying so I didn't care:-)

    >
    > I had a ZK Fairlane with the 302, nice highway cruiser but really
    > quite gutless for a 5L. Also an unreliable POS of an engine...
    >
    > Around the same time, I also had an XE ute with the six, was a pretty
    > good workhorse which took a lot of punishment - but the rust was
    > unstoppable.
    >
    > I think this was where my dalliance with Aussie cars ended.
    >

    I had 5 XD's, all but one was a new company cars so no rust, the one I
    owned was a panelvan that had done 100,000km when I bought it.
    There were signs of rust in the plenum chamber and at the bottom of both
    front doors which I treated with fish oil which stopped it completely
    and when I sold it to my nephew about 5yrs/350,000km later there was no
    sign of any more rust.
    I have heard the stories of them rusting badly but didn't experience it
    myself and the only ones I've seen badly rusted were more than 10yrs old.

    --
    Daryl

  10. #90
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 2:06 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > I made no such claim of "predictions".
    >
    > Is it really necessary to butt in to every conversation and misquote and
    > attribute claims to me that I never made in almost every reply?
    >
    > We get that you're a hypocrite and terminally dishonest, there is really
    > no need to keep proving it.


    Man you really need help. Seriously. You've been talking that much shit
    lately that you've totally lost touch with reality.


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  11. #91
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 12:28 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Nothing rediculous about hitting you with historical evidence that you
    > can't refute.


    I hate to break it to you, but some bloke's ****ing blog is *not*
    "historical evidence", and IBM's own "official" timeline has been shown
    to be wrong by a number of people.

    Including yourself :)



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  12. #92
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 12:35 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Seemed particularly prone to rust too. Still, as far as locally produced
    > shite went, it was a fairly decent car.


    What was "decent" about it junior? :)

    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  13. #93
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 6:00 AM, Jeßus wrote:

    > Agree with the external appearance of Holdens - but I never did like
    > the interiors of the 1970's and '80 era Holdens. Aesthetically
    > displeasing and ergonomics not as good. I always thought Ford was way
    > ahead in that department.


    I tend to agree. Holden interiors were pretty average up until around HZ
    where they started to look okay. I think HQ Monaro was probably the most
    garish of the lot which is a shame really as the 2 door HQ was the best
    looking Holden of the 1970's in my opinion.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  14. #94
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 12:39 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Not really, they were bad for rust.


    No they weren't. Again, you're too young to know anything of them until
    they were already old and tired cars.

    > That's not saying much, they were woeful.


    Prove it.


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  15. #95
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 7:15 AM, Jason James wrote:

    > It was one of the more gross tricks from Ford,..I mean 200hp ? From a
    > 5.9litre 4 bbl ?


    It had to meet the emissions requirements of the day Jason, and
    strangling the shit out of it was how they did so.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  16. #96
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 5:56 AM, Jeßus wrote:

    > I've never even been in one, let alone driven one... not that I've had
    > any direct experience with one, but I thought the alloy V8 was pretty
    > good for it's day being light and relatively small?


    I'll say this fort the things. They had *very* comfortable seats :)

    I knew a couple of people who had one. a Mate's dad who had one from
    new, and then a guy I went to school with had one some years later. The
    V8 went okay, but it was only ever the equivalent of a 253 powered
    Holden. Nothing flash at all really. The 6 cylinder was amazingly gutless.

    They had lots of typical "Pommy car" failings, like dash switches that
    would break easily, the heater fan was exposed and would fill up with
    leaves and other crap on a daily basis, window winder handles would fall
    off, and so on. The electrical systems were total shit, and they were a
    bit wallowy in the nose as their strut inserts seemed to go off quicker
    than an early Commodore.

    Brakes/transmission/diff were no different to any of the others (in fact
    they used the same auto as a Falcon), so there was nothing really super
    special about them. In fact more than anything they're one of those
    vehicles that when subjected to the passage of time have become greater
    than what they ever were thanks to fading memories of the people who
    knew them first hand or the imaginings of people who never knew them in
    any way other than what they read about them.

    In 50 years people will probably be thinking that the Magna was a world
    beating car too :)





    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  17. #97
    Ext User(Jason James) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 30/09/13 6:00 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >
    >> Agree with the external appearance of Holdens - but I never did like
    >> the interiors of the 1970's and '80 era Holdens. Aesthetically
    >> displeasing and ergonomics not as good. I always thought Ford was way
    >> ahead in that department.

    >
    > I tend to agree. Holden interiors were pretty average up until around HZ
    > where they started to look okay. I think HQ Monaro was probably the most
    > garish of the lot which is a shame really as the 2 door HQ was the best
    > looking Holden of the 1970's in my opinion.


    They do look good, the Toranas of the same era looked great too. It was
    the red-motor which let the side down in those heavy HQs...173,...less
    than 3 litres to lug that heavy body around,..

    454 HQ, Has a nice ring to it.

    Jason






  18. #98
    Ext User(Jason James) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 30/09/13 12:39 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Not really, they were bad for rust.

    >
    > No they weren't. Again, you're too young to know anything of them until
    > they were already old and tired cars.
    >
    >> That's not saying much, they were woeful.

    >
    > Prove it.


    What was bad for rust, were XDs, my LTD had bog in the rear-guards, and
    the front doors,..plus surface rust from a leaking rear-window in the
    boot. Turned out it had been a coastal car, compressed air rear shocks,
    a large coupling on its towbar, and a worn out slippery diff [clutches
    rooted]

    The FMX trans was in original condition, and except for some slow
    reverse-gear selections, still worked like a champ..


    Jason

  19. #99
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 2:09 PM, Jason James wrote:

    > What was bad for rust, were XDs


    Actually, they weren't compared to previous models. That was Daryl's
    point. They rusted, sure, but they rusted when they got *old* like most
    other cars.

    , my LTD had bog in the rear-guards, and
    > the front doors,..plus surface rust from a leaking rear-window in the
    > boot. Turned out it had been a coastal car, compressed air rear shocks,
    > a large coupling on its towbar, and a worn out slippery diff [clutches
    > rooted]


    I thought your LTD was an older model?



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  20. #100
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 30/09/13 4:14 PM, Jason James wrote:

    > The correct model name was "FC" LTD. It had the RRoyce grille which
    > didnt go to each headlight. The was a 1 1/2"" or 2"" gap each end.
    > The corresponding Falcon was XD.


    Fair enough. I always thought it was an earlier model for some reason.

    > I do however, have a passion for the
    > Landau/LTD with the flip-up head-lights,..P5 I think they called it. I
    > mean they used to wreck the body, just to get the 9" diff out,...****y
    > :-(


    That's about all they were good for. I used to buy as many of those
    Landaus and 351 ZG Fairlanes as I could get my hands on, just to get the
    disk brake nine out of them. In the old days you'd usually buy the car
    for 1500 bucks tops if it was a a real clean one, pull the nine inch out
    of it and flog that for 700 bucks straight away, and put a tin hat in
    the car and flog it off again for what you paid for it.

    > Having said all that,..one other model,...the XB 2-door in black
    > with the shitty Cleveland is another model I can blow my tubes
    > over,...but it 's mandatory you need to fill they huge rear guards up
    > with 8" *min* rims,...and of course a 4V or any Windsor would do,..even
    > a sweeeet 289. Thanx for the chance to rave on aboout Fords :-)


    You can have the XA/B/C coupes all to yourself. Fat overgrown ugly ****s
    of things in my opinion.

    Hated them in their day, and still hate them today.


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •