The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:20:34 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho

But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 4:28:56 PM UTC-8, slow eddy once again lied to this group.

slow eddy lies snipped

slow eddy is a life long loser who has spent the majority of his life writing worthless ad copy for pay for play advertising driven machining rags.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:41:14 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 4:28:56 PM UTC-8, slow eddy once again lied to this group.

slow eddy lies snipped

Ed's accurate, documentabnle facts restored.

But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.

slow eddy is a life long loser who has spent the majority of his life writing worthless ad copy for pay for play advertising driven machining rags.

What happened to your claims about those pushrod engines, Banquer?
What happened to your claim that the "tiny" engines (3.5 liter) in the
GT40's competitors were "wimps"?

Your new, favorite Ford has a 3.5 liter engine, Banquer. You really
are a fraud.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:51:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy lied some mo

More slow eddy lies snipped

Nothing to respond to.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:38:31 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:51:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy lied some mo

More slow eddy lies snipped

Ed's accurate, documentabnle facts restored.

But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.

slow eddy is a life long loser who has spent the majority of his life writing worthless ad copy for pay for play advertising driven machining rags.

What happened to your claims about those pushrod engines, Banquer?
What happened to your claim that the "tiny" engines (3.5 liter) in the
GT40's competitors were "wimps"?

Your new, favorite Ford has a 3.5 liter engine, Banquer. You really
are a fraud.


Nothing to respond to.

You keep snipping out the good parts, Jon. You must find it
embarrassing to confront the many stupid, reckless and ignorant things
you've said over the years. And there's such a library to choose from!

Don't be so thin-skinned, Banquer. If you have any value here at all,
it's entertainment, and most of that comes from recalling things
you've said, and contrasting them with your latest enthusiasms. Get
over it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 5:56:57 AM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to show how desperate he is to cover up for the fact that he's a life long failu

Typical slow eddy lies and bull**** snipped

Nothing to respond to.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:34:17 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 5:56:57 AM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to show how desperate he is to cover up for the fact that he's a life long failu

Typical slow eddy lies and bull**** snipped

Nothing to respond to.

Crapped out again, eh, Jon? Your snarly and snarky posts always seem
to leave you holding the bag. Unlike your little friends on LinkedIn,
you can't control the conversation here.

You should know this by now. This is not your kind of place.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:06:28 AM UTC-8, slow eddy lied some more because he usual lies, that attempt to cover up his massive incompetence, never work

The usual slow eddy lies snipped

Time to write some more worthless pay for play ad copy, bitch.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:20:45 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:06:28 AM UTC-8, slow eddy lied some more because he usual lies, that attempt to cover up his massive incompetence, never work

The usual slow eddy lies snipped

Time to write some more worthless pay for play ad copy, bitch.

"Bitch"? Oh, Jon is getting frustrated and is dragging out his
bottom-of-the-barrel slurs.

Jeez, Jon, you used to have a lot more staying power.

So, how much are they paying you to write slander these days, Jon? You
must be playing the CAD/CAM companies off against each other, taking
money to slander their competitors.

Or are you not making anything at all? Are they just satisfied to keep
you as a gullible sucker, giving them a platform to post sales copy,
which you dutifully pass along as if it's objective analysis?

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:28:44 AM UTC-8, slow eddy lied again like he always does when I point out what he is:

More slow eddy lies snipped

It's so easy to rattle slow eddies cage. All it takes is pointing out the truth about how he's spent most of his life working as a pay for play ad copy writer for worthless advertising based rags.

Nothing to respond to.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:26:27 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:28:44 AM UTC-8, slow eddy lied again like he always does when I point out what he is:

More slow eddy lies snipped

It's so easy to rattle slow eddies cage. All it takes is pointing out the truth about how he's spent most of his life working as a pay for play ad copy writer for worthless advertising based rags.

Nothing to respond to.

That isn't a cage you're hearing, Jon. It's the doors you've locked
behind yourself by being a self-aggrandizing and abusive jerk for so
many years, compounded by incidents like this one:

=============================================

UPDATE -- July 8, 2007 -- I had to close this blog post to further
comments and to remove the personal attacks between Jon and some other
newsgroups readers. Before the interview, I made an agreement with Jon
about the style of the interview and the way to handle it. Jon didn’t
respect our agreement, posting comments under fake names. Jon’s
authentic and fake comments are all posted from the same IP address,
72.199.251.224. I can now see that my trust in Jon was misplaced. --
Franco Folini, Novedge blog

=============================================

Your credibility is utterly destroyed, but it pales by comparison to
the disgust you've produced in so many people who once tried to be
tolerant of your opinions.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:20:34 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho

But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.



Ed, I am no fan of banqueer but he does have a point.
To make the same amount of power in a cam in block pushrod engine as an
OHC design takes some serious engineering and advanced controls.

Take a look at the new 'Vette ZO-6
Direct injection, active cylinder control, VVT, supercharged and a dry
sump to make a 6.2L turn out 650HP & 650 lb-ft
That is serious engineering to make that in an engine with a 5 year 100K
warranty!
2hp per cube in a production engine ain't bad.

--
Steve W.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:40:30 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:20:34 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho

But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.



Ed, I am no fan of banqueer but he does have a point.

Actually, Steve, that wasn't the "point" he was making at the time. We
were discussing racing engines, and Jon claimed to be working for
someone who was building NASCAR engines. He was belittling F1 engines.
At that time, pushrod NASCAR engines, 358 cu. in. and producing up to
900 hp, were making about 2.5 hp/cu. in., while F1 engines, normally
aspirated 3-liter (183 cu. in.) engines running on pump gasoline and
producing up to 950 hp (2005), made 5.2 hp/cu. in. Still, in the face
of that, he claimed that pushrod engines were "more advanced."

To make the same amount of power in a cam in block pushrod engine as an
OHC design takes some serious engineering and advanced controls.

Actually, given equal sophistication, the DOHC designs still produce
more power. Chevy's chief of engineering says that the new Corvette
would make 10% more power with DOHC.

But that doesn't mean it's better for the application. In a street
engine, if you need 10% more horsepower, you can just make the engine
10% bigger g. The new Corvette is 5 or 6 inches lower because it
doesn't have overhead cams -- an important issue for a sleek,
front-engined sports car. And it's cheaper to build and to maintain.


Take a look at the new 'Vette ZO-6
Direct injection, active cylinder control, VVT, supercharged and a dry
sump to make a 6.2L turn out 650HP & 650 lb-ft
That is serious engineering to make that in an engine with a 5 year 100K
warranty!
2hp per cube in a production engine ain't bad.

Right. But the new Ford GT makes over 600 hp on 3.5L -- with DOHC.
It's making almost twice as much horsepower per cubic inch, versus the
pushrod ZO6 Corvette.

Jonny Bonkers doesn't have a "reasonable" mode. He goes goes all-in,
like a bipolar nutcase (which I think he is), and makes ridiculous
statements. Pushrod engines are in no way "more advanced" than DOHC.
They can be good, they can be practical, and they can put out a lot of
power. But in racing, or, in the case of smaller engines for the
street, they just can't compete in terms of power, cubic-inch for
cubic-inch, or efficiency. That's why they're all but gone.

BTW, when he was talking about how "advanced" those NASCAR engines
were, I couldn't help but think where F1 was a decade earlier -- 1,350
hp on 91 cu. in. -- roughly 15 hp/cu. in., on pump gasoline.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, Steve W. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:20:34 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho

But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.



Ed, I am no fan of banqueer but he does have a point.
To make the same amount of power in a cam in block pushrod engine as an
OHC design takes some serious engineering and advanced controls.

Take a look at the new 'Vette ZO-6
Direct injection, active cylinder control, VVT, supercharged and a dry
sump to make a 6.2L turn out 650HP & 650 lb-ft
That is serious engineering to make that in an engine with a 5 year 100K
warranty!
2hp per cube in a production engine ain't bad.

--
Steve W.

Too funny. Steve Weasel prefers a lying bull****ter like slow eddy but has to admit I'm right. :)

slow eddy has spent most of his life writing worthless ad copy. I've spent the last 2 decades working in and for modern, high-tech, machining job shops. My CADCAM skills and knowledge are recognized worldwide. See my LinkedIn profile.

NHRA drag racing engines use push rods and supposedly produce 8,000 horsepower in top fuel and funny car. When it comes to horsepower, there is no better value than a push rod engine. Unfortunately, a loser and a liar like slow eddy can't deal with this kind of reality because he's never evolved from his Bermuda shorts SCCA days.

slow eddy is a blowhard who has never done anything worthwhile in his entire life.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 1:35:08 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to lie because lying is what slow eddy does best:

The usual slow eddy lies snipped

Even my critics know slow eddy is full of ****. Some even realize slow eddy is my bitch and that I can easily jerk his chain and rattle his cage. Not hard to do because slow eddy is a world class bull****er who has never done anything notable in his entire life.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:50:02 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-8, Steve W. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:20:34 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho

But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.



Ed, I am no fan of banqueer but he does have a point.
To make the same amount of power in a cam in block pushrod engine as an
OHC design takes some serious engineering and advanced controls.

Take a look at the new 'Vette ZO-6
Direct injection, active cylinder control, VVT, supercharged and a dry
sump to make a 6.2L turn out 650HP & 650 lb-ft
That is serious engineering to make that in an engine with a 5 year 100K
warranty!
2hp per cube in a production engine ain't bad.

--
Steve W.

Too funny. Steve Weasel prefers a lying bull****ter like slow eddy but has to admit I'm right. :)

slow eddy has spent most of his life writing worthless ad copy. I've spent the last 2 decades working in and for modern, high-tech, machining job shops. My CADCAM skills and knowledge are recognized worldwide. See my LinkedIn profile.

....and can't hold a job...


NHRA drag racing engines use push rods and supposedly produce 8,000 horsepower in top fuel and funny car.

.....for about 700 revolutions, until it needs a complete rebuild...


When it comes to horsepower, there is no better value than a push rod engine.

....you're full of crap....

Unfortunately, a loser and a liar like slow eddy...

....who works for a living, and who never lies on Usenet...

... can't deal with this kind of reality because he's never evolved from his Bermuda shorts SCCA days...

...while Jon has evolved from a wfie-beater to a full-time fraud...is
that progress?


slow eddy is a blowhard who has never done anything worthwhile in his entire life.

Jonny Bonkers, the Barcalounger racer, has just done an amazing
flip-flop, telling us how wonderful the new Ford GT is...while it has
dual overhead cams and has a "wimpy" 3.5 liters of displacement, which
are exactly the things he's made fun of for years.

If Jon could only hear himself talking, he'd probably cry.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 3:27:40 PM UTC-8, slow eddy kept lying because when cornered and nailed to the wall that's all he's capable of:

More slow eddy lies snipped

Nothing to respond to.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:40:33 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 3:27:40 PM UTC-8, slow eddy kept lying because when cornered and nailed to the wall that's all he's capable of:

More slow eddy lies snipped

Nothing to respond to.

Jon has shot his wad. 'Back to LinkedIn for you, Jon. You still have
them snowed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 4:14:33 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to make excuses for why his LinkedIn profile has so few endorsements and why he has so few connections:

slow eddy lame excuses and usual lies snipped

Nothing to respond to.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:18:13 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 4:14:33 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to make excuses for why his LinkedIn profile has so few endorsements and why he has so few connections:

slow eddy lame excuses and usual lies snipped

Nothing to respond to.

....because he can't.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to show that I own him.

snip

Nothing to respond to.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:41:58 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to show that I own him.

snip

Nothing to respond to.

sigh ...how soon they forget...

[Jon Banquer replying to Ed Huntress]:
Ed,
The newsgroup badly needs someone who is as articulate as you are.
Keep me on my toes and correct me where ever you think it's
appropriate,as I respect what you have to say based on what you have
already posted. I will certainly take the time to think about whatever
correction, advice, etc. you post. - Jon Banquer - Jun 23, 2002
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....I/t2qa5vNd-rQJ

You betcha, Jon!

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried a meaningless, out of context quote and failed miserably:

Snipped, meaningless, out of context quote

Nothing to respond to.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:36:47 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:28:32 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried a meaningless, out of context quote and failed miserably:

Snipped, meaningless, out of context quote

Nothing to respond to.

You can run from your words, Jon, but you can't hide. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:11:20 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to run from the fact that he frequently gets it wrong:

slow eddy nonsense snipped

Nothing to respond to.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:34:45 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:11:20 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to run from the fact that he frequently gets it wrong:

slow eddy nonsense snipped

Nothing to respond to.

You can run from your words, but you can't hide.

....and they will haunt you wherever you troll, Banquer. Google is your
enemy. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:23:55 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried the same lame tactics he always tires and once again failed miserably.

slow eddy worthless nonsense snipped.


Nothing to respond to, bitch. :)

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:40:30 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:20:34 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho
But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.


Ed, I am no fan of banqueer but he does have a point.

Actually, Steve, that wasn't the "point" he was making at the time. We
were discussing racing engines, and Jon claimed to be working for
someone who was building NASCAR engines. He was belittling F1 engines.
At that time, pushrod NASCAR engines, 358 cu. in. and producing up to
900 hp, were making about 2.5 hp/cu. in., while F1 engines, normally
aspirated 3-liter (183 cu. in.) engines running on pump gasoline and
producing up to 950 hp (2005), made 5.2 hp/cu. in. Still, in the face
of that, he claimed that pushrod engines were "more advanced."

AAHH Didn't dig back to that.


To make the same amount of power in a cam in block pushrod engine as an
OHC design takes some serious engineering and advanced controls.

Actually, given equal sophistication, the DOHC designs still produce
more power. Chevy's chief of engineering says that the new Corvette
would make 10% more power with DOHC.

But that doesn't mean it's better for the application. In a street
engine, if you need 10% more horsepower, you can just make the engine
10% bigger g. The new Corvette is 5 or 6 inches lower because it
doesn't have overhead cams -- an important issue for a sleek,
front-engined sports car. And it's cheaper to build and to maintain.

True


Take a look at the new 'Vette ZO-6
Direct injection, active cylinder control, VVT, supercharged and a dry
sump to make a 6.2L turn out 650HP & 650 lb-ft
That is serious engineering to make that in an engine with a 5 year 100K
warranty!
2hp per cube in a production engine ain't bad.

Right. But the new Ford GT makes over 600 hp on 3.5L -- with DOHC.
It's making almost twice as much horsepower per cubic inch, versus the
pushrod ZO6 Corvette.

Jonny Bonkers doesn't have a "reasonable" mode. He goes goes all-in,
like a bipolar nutcase (which I think he is), and makes ridiculous
statements. Pushrod engines are in no way "more advanced" than DOHC.
They can be good, they can be practical, and they can put out a lot of
power. But in racing, or, in the case of smaller engines for the
street, they just can't compete in terms of power, cubic-inch for
cubic-inch, or efficiency. That's why they're all but gone.

BTW, when he was talking about how "advanced" those NASCAR engines
were, I couldn't help but think where F1 was a decade earlier -- 1,350
hp on 91 cu. in. -- roughly 15 hp/cu. in., on pump gasoline.


NASCAR has never been a hotbed of technological improvement. Take a look
at the current cars, all cookie cutter bred with only decals making them
different. They turned the whole thing into IROC. I gave up watching it
after Dale died and the changes started.


--
Steve W.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:13:09 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:40:30 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:20:34 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

The car that makes slow eddy cry hysterically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXg-CeVNxho
But Jon, it has dual overhead cams! How crude! Banquer always says
that pushrods are "more advanced"!

What a fraud you are, Banquer.


Ed, I am no fan of banqueer but he does have a point.

Actually, Steve, that wasn't the "point" he was making at the time. We
were discussing racing engines, and Jon claimed to be working for
someone who was building NASCAR engines. He was belittling F1 engines.
At that time, pushrod NASCAR engines, 358 cu. in. and producing up to
900 hp, were making about 2.5 hp/cu. in., while F1 engines, normally
aspirated 3-liter (183 cu. in.) engines running on pump gasoline and
producing up to 950 hp (2005), made 5.2 hp/cu. in. Still, in the face
of that, he claimed that pushrod engines were "more advanced."

AAHH Didn't dig back to that.


To make the same amount of power in a cam in block pushrod engine as an
OHC design takes some serious engineering and advanced controls.

Actually, given equal sophistication, the DOHC designs still produce
more power. Chevy's chief of engineering says that the new Corvette
would make 10% more power with DOHC.

But that doesn't mean it's better for the application. In a street
engine, if you need 10% more horsepower, you can just make the engine
10% bigger g. The new Corvette is 5 or 6 inches lower because it
doesn't have overhead cams -- an important issue for a sleek,
front-engined sports car. And it's cheaper to build and to maintain.

True


Take a look at the new 'Vette ZO-6
Direct injection, active cylinder control, VVT, supercharged and a dry
sump to make a 6.2L turn out 650HP & 650 lb-ft
That is serious engineering to make that in an engine with a 5 year 100K
warranty!
2hp per cube in a production engine ain't bad.

Right. But the new Ford GT makes over 600 hp on 3.5L -- with DOHC.
It's making almost twice as much horsepower per cubic inch, versus the
pushrod ZO6 Corvette.

Jonny Bonkers doesn't have a "reasonable" mode. He goes goes all-in,
like a bipolar nutcase (which I think he is), and makes ridiculous
statements. Pushrod engines are in no way "more advanced" than DOHC.
They can be good, they can be practical, and they can put out a lot of
power. But in racing, or, in the case of smaller engines for the
street, they just can't compete in terms of power, cubic-inch for
cubic-inch, or efficiency. That's why they're all but gone.

BTW, when he was talking about how "advanced" those NASCAR engines
were, I couldn't help but think where F1 was a decade earlier -- 1,350
hp on 91 cu. in. -- roughly 15 hp/cu. in., on pump gasoline.


NASCAR has never been a hotbed of technological improvement. Take a look
at the current cars, all cookie cutter bred with only decals making them
different. They turned the whole thing into IROC. I gave up watching it
after Dale died and the changes started.

Yeah, that's when I lost interest, too. After the switch to FWD and
smaller engines in production cars, NASCAR had a real dilemma. They
decided to freeze the technology at around 1968 level, g with big
V8s and tube frames, coil-over suspension, etc., and to make the sport
purely a competition between drivers and teams. They started making a
big deal out of drivers' personalities and attitudes, to promote
loyalties away from manufacturers and toward the drivers.

That's OK, and it was a smart move on their part. But it really didn't
interest me much. I missed the competition among engines and
manufacturers.

I wasn't happy with F1 at the time, either, when aerodynamics made the
cars look something like Transformers from Hell. Bizarre engines with
freakish horsepower outputs; cornering that made them look like they
were on rails; and electronics that would challenge a fighter plane
turned them into high-speed computers on wheels.

sigh That's progress.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 1:13:09 AM UTC-8, Steve W. wrote:

AAHH Didn't dig back to that.


Anyone who takes what slow eddy says as the gospel is a fool.

Start digging, bitch.