Why is the LS pushrod V8 so good? Because the LS pushrod V8 is the best bang for the buck unlike the expensive, wimpy, overhead CAM motors that slow eddy the lying, fraud keeps hyping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmbbuSq9m0

slow eddy pretends to be an expert in just about everything. slow eddy is a worthless Pay 4 Play ad copy writer who works for the kind of advertising based rags that machinists and CADCAM programmers are rejected more and and more.

slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

Why is the LS pushrod V8 so good? Because the LS pushrod V8 is the best bang for the buck...

"Bang for the buck?" That's what *I* said. YOU said it was the most
"ADVANCED."

Let me refresh your twisted, psychopathic memory, Bonkers. YOU said
that pushrod engines are more "advanced" than OHC. I said that
pushrods are cost-effective and can be very practical for ordinary
applications, but are definitely *not* more advanced -- which is why
virtually every manufacturer (including Chevy) uses OHC for their
newer engines.

"Winegarden [Sam Winegarden, who was GM's chief engineer for
small-block V-8s until a couple of years ago] says, 'We've been able
to meet the performance requirements by using more displacement. Two
more valves per cylinder would get us another 10 percent in total
valve area.'"

"A modern engine is a dizzying array of compromises as designers
strive to meet power, cost, reliability, and emissions demands. The
Vette V-8 would ultimately have more power if it had four valves per
cylinder..."

That's the guy who's probably the world's greatest proponent of
pushrod engines.

So OHC engines cost more to build, yet nearly all new engines are OHC.
Why do you suppose that is, Bonkers? Wherever they're allowed, nearly
all racing engines are OHC, except in the handicap classes like IMSA
Prototype, and in NASCAR, where they're required for nostalgia's sake.
But most OHC manufacturers aren't building racing engines -- they
aren't even trying to get the last bit of horsepower. Has it crossed
your mind that maybe there are other reasons they're building the more
expensive OHC engines?

...unlike the expensive, wimpy, overhead CAM motors that slow eddy the lying, fraud keeps hyping.

You're an idiot. The entire automotive engine-design world is
dominated by OHC engines, and you keep digging this same old hole
deeper and deeper. You think that shouting and slandering is a
substitute for knowing what your'e talking about.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmbbuSq9m0

slow eddy pretends to be an expert in just about everything. slow eddy is a worthless Pay 4 Play ad copy writer who works for the kind of advertising based rags that machinists and CADCAM programmers are rejected more and and more.

Your jealousy is showing, Bonkers. How many "members" do you have
again? You're up to 3,200 now? How many views do you have? And how
much are you paid? I have an average of over 35,000/month, and they
pay me decently. I've never taken pay from an advertiser for editorial
in my life, you slandering nutjob.


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 7:36:04 PM UTC-7, slow eddy failed:

More slow eddy lies trying to cover up the FACT that he's a liar and a fraud snipped

Nothing to respond to.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:54:39 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 7:36:04 PM UTC-7, slow eddy failed:

More slow eddy lies trying to cover up the FACT that he's a liar and a fraud snipped

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

--
Ed Huntress


Nothing to respond to.

Of course not. I've just nailed you to the wall and you have no way to
respond without embarrassing yourself.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied:


A "lie" to Bonkers, of course, is something that's true but which
would embarrass him if he acknowledged it.

What an interesting lump of mammalian tissue you are, Bonkers. You
seem to incorporate multiple personality disorders within a rotund
little sphere. It would take psychologist to untangle them all.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:15:53 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied and failed again:

Snipped the delusional ramblings of a Pay 4 Play ad copy writer that pretends to be an expert in everything.

slow eddy is a fraud.

On 10/5/2015 10:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You're an idiot. The entire automotive engine-design world is
dominated by OHC engines, and you keep digging this same old hole
deeper and deeper. You think that shouting and slandering is a
substitute for knowing what your'e talking about.


Yet 4-rotor Wankels make everything else look like a paperweight right
up to the time they gulp all the fuel and then crap out. I had an RX-7
that was the funnest car EVER!

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:18:13 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/5/2015 10:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You're an idiot. The entire automotive engine-design world is
dominated by OHC engines, and you keep digging this same old hole
deeper and deeper. You think that shouting and slandering is a
substitute for knowing what your'e talking about.


Yet 4-rotor Wankels make everything else look like a paperweight right
up to the time they gulp all the fuel and then crap out. I had an RX-7
that was the funnest car EVER!

Great engine. Wrong century. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:18:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner tried to seem knowledgeable and failed:

Yet 4-rotor Wankels make everything else look like a paperweight right
up to the time they gulp all the fuel and then crap out. I had an RX-7
that was the funnest car EVER!

With a fat, drunken, lying, slob like you in the car 12 rotors is minimum to even compete with a Yugo:

https://www.facebook.com/12rotor

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:18:13 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/5/2015 10:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You're an idiot. The entire automotive engine-design world is
dominated by OHC engines, and you keep digging this same old hole
deeper and deeper. You think that shouting and slandering is a
substitute for knowing what your'e talking about.


Yet 4-rotor Wankels make everything else look like a paperweight right
up to the time they gulp all the fuel and then crap out. I had an RX-7
that was the funnest car EVER!

Mine was a '70 AMC Javelin. DAYUM, I miss that rocket. After I
rebuilt the 390, it was putting out 425+ horsies and 425+ ft/lb of
torque. My only mod was the mild cam. That thing'd git-n-****.

--
Canadian: An unarmed American with healthcare.

On 10/6/2015 12:27 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:18:13 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/5/2015 10:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You're an idiot. The entire automotive engine-design world is
dominated by OHC engines, and you keep digging this same old hole
deeper and deeper. You think that shouting and slandering is a
substitute for knowing what your'e talking about.


Yet 4-rotor Wankels make everything else look like a paperweight right
up to the time they gulp all the fuel and then crap out. I had an RX-7
that was the funnest car EVER!

Great engine. Wrong century. g


Nobody has gotten them really, really right but every once in a while I
see a new development, just enough to keep the thing alive but still
some technical hurtle or another to overcome.

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:56:47 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/6/2015 12:27 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:18:13 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/5/2015 10:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You're an idiot. The entire automotive engine-design world is
dominated by OHC engines, and you keep digging this same old hole
deeper and deeper. You think that shouting and slandering is a
substitute for knowing what your'e talking about.


Yet 4-rotor Wankels make everything else look like a paperweight right
up to the time they gulp all the fuel and then crap out. I had an RX-7
that was the funnest car EVER!

Great engine. Wrong century. g


Nobody has gotten them really, really right but every once in a while I
see a new development, just enough to keep the thing alive but still
some technical hurtle or another to overcome.

Thanks genius. This is yet another one of your "fact filled" posts. Time to go back to porking your sister you lying, fat, drunken, slob:

http://neme-s.org/Oshkosh_2007/Ohio_Brush/DSC02534.JPG

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-7, Larry Jackass wrote:

Mine was a '70 AMC Javelin. DAYUM, I miss that rocket. After I
rebuilt the 390, it was putting out 425+ horsies and 425+ ft/lb of
torque. My only mod was the mild cam. That thing'd git-n-****.

--
Canadian: An unarmed American with healthcare.


Everyone at Cruisin' Grand was laughing their ass off at Larry Jackass it was such a piece of ****.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:35:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

Why is the LS pushrod V8 so good? Because the LS pushrod V8 is the best
bang for the buck...

"Bang for the buck?" That's what *I* said. YOU said it was the most
"ADVANCED."

Let me refresh your twisted, psychopathic memory, Bonkers. YOU said that
pushrod engines are more "advanced" than OHC. I said that pushrods are
cost-effective and can be very practical for ordinary applications, but
are definitely *not* more advanced -- which is why virtually every
manufacturer (including Chevy) uses OHC for their newer engines.

"Winegarden [Sam Winegarden, who was GM's chief engineer for small-block
V-8s until a couple of years ago] says, 'We've been able to meet the
performance requirements by using more displacement. Two more valves per
cylinder would get us another 10 percent in total valve area.'"

"A modern engine is a dizzying array of compromises as designers strive
to meet power, cost, reliability, and emissions demands. The Vette V-8
would ultimately have more power if it had four valves per cylinder..."

That's the guy who's probably the world's greatest proponent of pushrod
engines.

So OHC engines cost more to build, yet nearly all new engines are OHC.
Why do you suppose that is, Bonkers? Wherever they're allowed, nearly
all racing engines are OHC, except in the handicap classes like IMSA
Prototype, and in NASCAR, where they're required for nostalgia's sake.
But most OHC manufacturers aren't building racing engines -- they aren't
even trying to get the last bit of horsepower. Has it crossed your mind
that maybe there are other reasons they're building the more expensive
OHC engines?

...unlike the expensive, wimpy, overhead CAM motors that slow eddy the
lying, fraud keeps hyping.

You're an idiot. The entire automotive engine-design world is dominated
by OHC engines, and you keep digging this same old hole deeper and
deeper. You think that shouting and slandering is a substitute for
knowing what your'e talking about.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmbbuSq9m0

slow eddy pretends to be an expert in just about everything. slow eddy
is a worthless Pay 4 Play ad copy writer who works for the kind of
advertising based rags that machinists and CADCAM programmers are
rejected more and and more.

Your jealousy is showing, Bonkers. How many "members" do you have again?
You're up to 3,200 now? How many views do you have? And how much are you
paid? I have an average of over 35,000/month, and they pay me decently.
I've never taken pay from an advertiser for editorial in my life, you
slandering nutjob.


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

--
www.wescottdesign.com

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:37:47 PM UTC-7, Tim Wescott wrote:

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

Because slow eddy is even dumber than you are ****face Von Clownstick.

If you have half a brain you would realize I own slow eddy because he's a liar and a fraud.

On 10/6/2015 3:18 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

Yet 4-rotor Wankels make everything else look like a paperweight right
up to the time they gulp all the fuel and then crap out. I had an RX-7
that was the funnest car EVER!

Here's one that would be fun to drive...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB1Wrv0SiyQ
Action really begins at about 7 minutes in.


Jon

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:37:44 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:35:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

That's a good question, but I tried ignoring him for a few months, and
Jon Boy just used that as an opportunity to up the ante on his slander
and insults, and to pour it on.

You have to keep slapping him back down into his rathole. It doesn't
stop him, but it slows him down a bit. If you don't, he keeps crawling
up and then he gnaws at your ankles.

'Sorry for the noise it causes, Tim. I hope you can just ignore it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:46:19 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:37:47 PM UTC-7, Tim Wescott wrote:

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

Because slow eddy is even dumber than you are ****face Von Clownstick.

If you have half a brain you would realize I own slow eddy because he's a liar and a fraud.

You probably don't even own your own socks, Bonkers. How's that job at
the fast-food joint? Did they fire you yet?

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:26:38 AM UTC-7, slow eddy the lying fraud failed:

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:22:40 AM UTC-7, slow eddy the lying fraud failed again:

On 10/6/2015 8:22 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:37:44 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:35:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

That's a good question, but I tried ignoring him for a few months, and
Jon Boy just used that as an opportunity to up the ante on his slander
and insults, and to pour it on.

You have to keep slapping him back down into his rathole. It doesn't
stop him, but it slows him down a bit. If you don't, he keeps crawling
up and then he gnaws at your ankles.

'Sorry for the noise it causes, Tim. I hope you can just ignore it.



And, calling him an asshole in an insult to assholes everywhere!

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:35:53 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/6/2015 8:22 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:37:44 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:35:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

That's a good question, but I tried ignoring him for a few months, and
Jon Boy just used that as an opportunity to up the ante on his slander
and insults, and to pour it on.

You have to keep slapping him back down into his rathole. It doesn't
stop him, but it slows him down a bit. If you don't, he keeps crawling
up and then he gnaws at your ankles.

'Sorry for the noise it causes, Tim. I hope you can just ignore it.



And, calling him an asshole in an insult to assholes everywhere!

Right. Finding appropriate words to describe Bonkers is difficult.
He's such a target-rich collection of personality disorders and
character flaws!

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:35:57 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:

And, calling him an asshole in an insult to assholes everywhere!

Sit down and shut up you fat, lying, drunken, slob:

http://neme-s.org/Oshkosh_2007/Ohio_Brush/DSC02543.JPG

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:24:04 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied and failed:

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:43:24 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:35:57 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:

And, calling him an asshole in an insult to assholes everywhere!

Sit down and shut up you fat, lying, drunken, slob:

That should be "Sit down and shut up you fat, lying, drunken slob."

When you have a series of adjectives that precede a noun, you don't
place a comma before the noun.

I know you're aspiring to write professionally and I just thought
you'd like to know.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:49:59 PM UTC-7, slow eddy tired to cover up the fact that he's a liar and a fraud but failed:

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 15:44:12 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:49:59 PM UTC-7, slow eddy tired to cover up the fact that he's a liar and a fraud but failed:

g Jonny, Jonny, if you're going to be a slanderer and project your
own failings onto others, don't compound it with illiteracy. It takes
the edge off of your tenability.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, slow eddy continued to fail because he's both a liar and a fraud:

On 10/6/2015 5:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:35:53 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/6/2015 8:22 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:37:44 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:35:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

That's a good question, but I tried ignoring him for a few months, and
Jon Boy just used that as an opportunity to up the ante on his slander
and insults, and to pour it on.

You have to keep slapping him back down into his rathole. It doesn't
stop him, but it slows him down a bit. If you don't, he keeps crawling
up and then he gnaws at your ankles.

'Sorry for the noise it causes, Tim. I hope you can just ignore it.



And, calling him an asshole in an insult to assholes everywhere!

Right. Finding appropriate words to describe Bonkers is difficult.
He's such a target-rich collection of personality disorders and
character flaws!


Like I've said before, he should be pitied but it's so hard to do. It's
like feeling sorry for your neighbor's dog because the neighbor beats
him but whenever the dog gets loose he comes over and ****s in your
vegetable garden.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 20:57:58 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/6/2015 5:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:35:53 -0400, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/6/2015 8:22 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:37:44 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:35:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

That's a good question, but I tried ignoring him for a few months, and
Jon Boy just used that as an opportunity to up the ante on his slander
and insults, and to pour it on.

You have to keep slapping him back down into his rathole. It doesn't
stop him, but it slows him down a bit. If you don't, he keeps crawling
up and then he gnaws at your ankles.

'Sorry for the noise it causes, Tim. I hope you can just ignore it.



And, calling him an asshole in an insult to assholes everywhere!

Right. Finding appropriate words to describe Bonkers is difficult.
He's such a target-rich collection of personality disorders and
character flaws!


Like I've said before, he should be pitied but it's so hard to do. It's
like feeling sorry for your neighbor's dog because the neighbor beats
him but whenever the dog gets loose he comes over and ****s in your
vegetable garden.

Good analogy.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:58:02 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wasted this groups time with bull****:

Snip

Q: How soon before a fat, drunken, lying, slob like you can stop taking up space on this plant?

A: Not soon enough

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:11:52 PM UTC-7, slow eddy failed:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:22:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:37:44 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:35:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:


slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

Projecting again, eh, Bonkers?

Why do you even bother responding to this wahoo?

That's a good question, but I tried ignoring him for a few months, and
Jon Boy just used that as an opportunity to up the ante on his slander
and insults, and to pour it on.

You have to keep slapping him back down into his rathole. It doesn't
stop him, but it slows him down a bit. If you don't, he keeps crawling
up and then he gnaws at your ankles.

'Sorry for the noise it causes, Tim. I hope you can just ignore it.

I just ignore such people and figure that if anyone in my audience can't
figure it out then I didn't want 'em anyway.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-7, Tim Wescott wrote:

I just ignore such people and figure that if anyone in my audience can't
figure it out then I didn't want 'em anyway.

slow eddy is much to insecure to do this. He knows I've got his number and that I know he's a worthless, lying, fraud.

It's so easy to use a piece of **** like slow eddy and I do.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 8:26:57 PM UTC-7, Tim Wescott wrote:

I just ignore such people and figure that if anyone in my audience can't
figure it out then I didn't want 'em anyway.

slow eddy is much to insecure to do this. He knows I've got his number and that I know he's a worthless, lying, fraud.

It's so easy to use a piece of **** like slow eddy and I do.

Aw, Jonny...are you saying you don't mean all those nice things you
say about me? That it's all an act?

I'm Soooo heartbroken.... d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:49:15 AM UTC-7, slow eddy failed:

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:04:05 PM UTC-7, jon_banquer wrote:
Why is the LS pushrod V8 so good? Because the LS pushrod V8 is the best bang for the buck unlike the expensive, wimpy, overhead CAM motors that slow eddy the lying, fraud keeps hyping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmbbuSq9m0

slow eddy pretends to be an expert in just about everything. slow eddy is a worthless Pay 4 Play ad copy writer who works for the kind of advertising based rags that machinists and CADCAM programmers are rejected more and and more.

slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

The truth has sent slow eddy over the deep end. :)

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:02:33 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:04:05 PM UTC-7, jon_banquer wrote:
Why is the LS pushrod V8 so good? Because the LS pushrod V8 is the best bang for the buck unlike the expensive, wimpy, overhead CAM motors that slow eddy the lying, fraud keeps hyping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmbbuSq9m0

slow eddy pretends to be an expert in just about everything. slow eddy is a worthless Pay 4 Play ad copy writer who works for the kind of advertising based rags that machinists and CADCAM programmers are rejected more and and more.

slow eddy is a lying fraud and a blowhard.

The truth has sent slow eddy over the deep end. :)

Jeez, Jonny, are you trying to get some more mileage out of your old
retreads? ggg!

--
Ed Huntress

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 2:34:49 PM UTC-7, slow eddy failed: