On Jun 5, 3:45*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate Nagel wrote:



On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.
Just like replaced K&T

Discussing this is like trying to explain to a friend why he needed to
replace all his galvanized water lines. the flow was terrible he
proclaimed he was patient.

leaks esclated over time, he finally gave up and replumbed after 18
patches, there was little galvanized remaing by that time.

he still claims it was better than copper.

he is now in the same situation with cast iron drain pipes.

he applies epoxy and clamps over patches claiming all is fine. his
house smells of sewer.

but his roof is 35 years old he tars leaks every spring and fall

Almost as pointless as getting some folks to punctuate, spell, and
capitalize properly.

On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:08�am, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

� did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. �What a waste, I've driven cars that looked worse
than the one they destroyed.



the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... �and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. �A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. �Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. �Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. �I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. Not so much with a newer car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jun 5, 3:53�pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:





On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate �wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. �If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. �Not so much with a newer car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

On 06/05/2010 09:37 PM, wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:53�pm, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:





On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate �wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. �If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. �Not so much with a newer car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Not the latter, but I do the former all the time.

Which is, of course, not what we're talking about. Most "old" cars
still in daily use are only 15-20 years old at most.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 6/5/2010 9:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:37 PM, wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:53�pm, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:





On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate �wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's
Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked
worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point
belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of
people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. �If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. �Not so much with a newer
car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to
reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Not the latter, but I do the former all the time.

Which is, of course, not what we're talking about. Most "old" cars still
in daily use are only 15-20 years old at most.

nate


Ihave a 50+ year old truck and i really don't remember the last time it
NEEDED a part. Hmmmmm.....

steve



--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Jun 6, 10:07�am, Steve Barker wrote:
On 6/5/2010 9:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:





On 06/05/2010 09:37 PM, wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:53 pm, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's
Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked
worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point
belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today.. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of
people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. Not so much with a newer
car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to
reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Not the latter, but I do the former all the time.

Which is, of course, not what we're talking about. Most "old" cars still
in daily use are only 15-20 years old at most.

nate

Ihave a 50+ year old truck and i really don't remember the last time it
NEEDED a part. �Hmmmmm.....

steve

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

my best friend has a 66 jeep and 68 impala. he cant take either
vehicle more than 100 miles from home free towing because parts and
service arent easily available.

truly older vehicles broke more, but were far easier to fix

Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/04/2010 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:30�pm, wrote:
"J wrote in message

...





bud-- wrote:

The K&T I have run across has insulation that is in good condition
after
all these years. The exception is at light fixtures, where the heat of
the lamp, or especially a ballast, has raised the electrical
insulation
temperature far beyond what was intended. The same problem happens
with
BX, and other wiring.

K&T is actually still in the NEC (article 394 - with very limited use)
and is intended to be concealed (some exceptions in attics).

The refeed I have seen is to put a j-box near the knobs and run wires
into a box with "loom" over the wire from the knob to inside the box.
RBM's picture show loom. I have seen the loom just go through a
knockout
(preferable both wires through the same knockout). The K&T is spliced
inside the box to Romex, or some other wiring system.

The house my grandfather owned has a pair of light switches inside the
front door. �They still work fine after nearly 90 years. �By
coincidence
my other grandfather, 1,000 miles away, invented those switches.

I might want to replace the K&T to the two ceiling lights but not to
the
switches. �(It's an exterior wall, and anyway I don't want to tamper
with
the switches.)

Using "loom" to run K&T into a j-box could be just the thing for me. �I
imagine the material shouldn't crumble or support a flame. �Where
could I
find loom material?

Strangely, on jobs where I've removed K&T wiring, the loom is in
terrible
shape, completely dried out and brittle, unlike the wire which in most
cases, is in near perfect condition. As Bud mentions, it's usually
only bad
where it's been installed in or near fixtures that got very hot.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well ultimately everyone here will find out which way things go at
home resale time. and certinally no one should ever buy a new vehicle
to get a safer one. who needs seat belts? air bags? etc?

If you're not a ****ty driver, buying a new car just to get a safer one
is a spectacularly bad deal. Most of the best bang-for-your-buck safety
improvements were made mandatory long before most of the cars still on
the road today were built - I'm talking late 60's, early 70's here.

That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate


Last year my 91 Stang was t-boned by a 97 Chevy Blazer (the other ran
the red at a high speed). The Stang only came equipped with one driver's
side air bag in the steering wheel. The airbag did not deploying as the
impact was from the side. As a result of the accident I had to be
extricated from the car and suffered three fractures to my pelvis, two
broken ribs, a haemothorax on my left lung, and all the soft tissue
damage that goes along with those injuries.

If my vehicle had side air bags I probably would have suffered less
major injuries.

This accident had nothing to do with my driving skills only bad luck/
timing.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:37:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 5, 3:53?pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:





On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate ?wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. ?If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. ?Not so much with a newer car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Model-T parts are easy to come by. Originals aren't so easy but parts for
them are still being made.

On Jun 6, 4:33�pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:37:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:





On Jun 5, 3:53?pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate ?wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today.. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. ?If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. ?Not so much with a newer car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Model-T parts are easy to come by. �Originals aren't so easy but parts for
them are still being made.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you ever ride in one of those, its like riding in a western wagon,
nearly no suspension.

On 6/6/2010 3:23 PM spake thus:

On Jun 6, 4:33�pm, "
wrote:

Model-T parts are easy to come by. �Originals aren't so easy but parts for
them are still being made.- Hide quoted text -

you ever ride in one of those, its like riding in a western wagon,
nearly no suspension.

Yeah, I guess anyone who has a Model T is an idiot who should just drive
it to the nearest junkyard and have it crushed, right?

Sheesh.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 6, 4:33?pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:37:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:





On Jun 5, 3:53?pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate ?wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. ?If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. ?Not so much with a newer car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Model-T parts are easy to come by. ?Originals aren't so easy but parts for
them are still being made.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you ever ride in one of those, its like riding in a western wagon,
nearly no suspension.

That may be, but they certainly fit the criteria and parts are easy to come
by.

On 06/06/2010 10:07 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 6/5/2010 9:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:37 PM, wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:53�pm, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:





On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate �wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's
Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked
worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver
would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point
belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell
curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers
today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base
brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of
people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that
buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. �If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. �Not so much with a newer
car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to
reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Not the latter, but I do the former all the time.

Which is, of course, not what we're talking about. Most "old" cars still
in daily use are only 15-20 years old at most.

nate


Ihave a 50+ year old truck and i really don't remember the last time it
NEEDED a part. Hmmmmm.....

steve



Well, I have a friend that buys and sells old cars and sometimes I do
work for him... e.g. today I was cleaning/painting dash parts for an
Avanti that we're going to try to get a new wiring harness into next
weekend...

On the upside, when I *do* need parts, the experience lets me go right
to where I need to go with the first email or phone call

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 06/06/2010 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Jun 6, 10:07�am, Steve wrote:
On 6/5/2010 9:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:





On 06/05/2010 09:37 PM, wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:53 pm, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's
Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked
worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point
belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of
people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. Not so much with a newer
car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to
reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Not the latter, but I do the former all the time.

Which is, of course, not what we're talking about. Most "old" cars still
in daily use are only 15-20 years old at most.

nate

Ihave a 50+ year old truck and i really don't remember the last time it
NEEDED a part. �Hmmmmm.....

steve

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

my best friend has a 66 jeep and 68 impala. he cant take either
vehicle more than 100 miles from home free towing because parts and
service arent easily available.

truly older vehicles broke more, but were far easier to fix

What model Jeep? I might be willing to take that old, unreliable POS
off his hands

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 06/06/2010 02:38 PM, wrote:
On Jun 6, 11:45�am, Ned wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/04/2010 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:30 pm, wrote:
"J wrote in message

...

bud-- wrote:

The K&T I have run across has insulation that is in good condition
after
all these years. The exception is at light fixtures, where the heat of
the lamp, or especially a ballast, has raised the electrical
insulation
temperature far beyond what was intended. The same problem happens
with
BX, and other wiring.

K&T is actually still in the NEC (article 394 - with very limited use)
and is intended to be concealed (some exceptions in attics).

The refeed I have seen is to put a j-box near the knobs and run wires
into a box with "loom" over the wire from the knob to inside the box.
RBM's picture show loom. I have seen the loom just go through a
knockout
(preferable both wires through the same knockout). The K&T is spliced
inside the box to Romex, or some other wiring system.

The house my grandfather owned has a pair of light switches inside the
front door. They still work fine after nearly 90 years. By
coincidence
my other grandfather, 1,000 miles away, invented those switches.

I might want to replace the K&T to the two ceiling lights but not to
the
switches. (It's an exterior wall, and anyway I don't want to tamper
with
the switches.)

Using "loom" to run K&T into a j-box could be just the thing for me. I
imagine the material shouldn't crumble or support a flame. Where
could I
find loom material?

Strangely, on jobs where I've removed K&T wiring, the loom is in
terrible
shape, completely dried out and brittle, unlike the wire which in most
cases, is in near perfect condition. As Bud mentions, it's usually
only bad
where it's been installed in or near fixtures that got very hot.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well ultimately everyone here will find out which way things go at
home resale time. and certinally no one should ever buy a new vehicle
to get a safer one. who needs seat belts? air bags? etc?

If you're not a ****ty driver, buying a new car just to get a safer one
is a spectacularly bad deal. Most of the best bang-for-your-buck safety
improvements were made mandatory long before most of the cars still on
the road today were built - I'm talking late 60's, early 70's here.

That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

Last year my 91 Stang was t-boned by a 97 Chevy Blazer (the other ran
the red at a high speed). The Stang only came equipped with one driver's
side air bag in the steering wheel. The airbag did not deploying as the
impact was from the side. As a result of the accident I had to be
extricated from the car and suffered three fractures to my pelvis, two
broken ribs, a haemothorax on my left lung, and all the soft tissue
damage that goes along with those injuries.

If my vehicle had side air bags I probably would have suffered less
major injuries.

This accident had nothing to do with my driving skills only bad luck/
timing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

a newer vehicle with side curtain airbags would of likely completely
protected you

who can say? Yes this is one instance where a newer vehicle might have
helped, but I don't see the point of going deeply into debt just to have
a newer vehicle when the odds are against something like that happening.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

the big problem with a really old vehicle say over 25 to 30 years.

if your on a trip a newer vehicle can likely be fixed fast, and your
back on your waybut 25 years old few vehicles last that long at least
around pittsburgh, so the mechanic may not be familiar with the
vehicle and parts more of a hassle.

if our on a trip a newere vehicle will be easier to get fixed fast.

and service on everything today is all about speed

On Jun 6, 11:12*pm, " wrote:
the big problem with a really old vehicle say over 25 to 30 years.

if your on a trip a newer vehicle can likely be fixed fast, and your
back on your waybut 25 years old few vehicles last that long at least
around pittsburgh, so the mechanic may not be familiar with the
vehicle and parts more of a hassle.

if our on a trip a newere vehicle will be easier to get fixed fast.

and service on everything today is all about speed

In my experience, parts pretty much always have to be ordered "from
the warehouse" no matter what. there's just too many different makes,
models,a nd years, no parts store is going to carry everything for
every car.

With a truly old vehicle, and again, 25 years is still pushing it for
those actually still in service as a daily driver, but for really old
cars like my '55 if I were going to take it on a long trip, I'd
probably pack a box in the trunk with a spare fuel pump, water pump,
and other easily replaced items just in case, as they are inexpensive
enough for older cars that it's no trouble to stock them in your
garage for eventualities. With a newer car that would likely be cost
prohibitive.

nate