Geeto67

the original "sledgehammer" was just one car Callaway built to run over 250mph (254 as driven by John Lingenfelter). It featured the Callaway aerobody which was the aerodynamics kit used to make the car stable at over 230mph. Although officially called the Callaway aerobody (even the one used on the actual sledgehammer) nobody called them aerobodys - everyone, including the people who owned them, called thw twin turbo cars with the aerobody kit the sledgehammer, even though callaway only called the one car the sledgehammer. the funky lights were changes to the aerobody accommodate the zr1 style rear bumper chevy used post 1991.

To put the achievement in perspective the callaway sledgehammer was the world record holder for top speed for a street driven vehicle @ 254.76 from 1988 to 1999, an achievement which was set at the ohio transportation research center in East Liberty, Ohio.

To put this in perspective the record setting sledgehammer made 898 hp and 772 ft lbs of torque. The actual twin turbo street cars made between 390 and 403 hp (depending on year) and were capable out of the box of 187mph. Reeves did build the sledgehammer using one of his "production" twin turbo corvettes (number 51 of 1988 production to be exact) and was pretty close to a production unit but I don't think he sold the 898hp setup to anyone else. by 1990 the ZR1 had come out and cut into callaway sales.

in 1994 one of my father's friend's took me for a ride in his callaway aerobody twin turbo car. It was pretty amazing. I was used to the monster pull of dad's 1990 Zr1 out of the hole but the TT L98 was more of a rush forward than a kick in the pants. That aerobody though - it was what the zr1 was missing because it stood out, and although it looks a little dated now (esp in teal) there is no mistaking it for anything else.

BTW...the Lingenfelter Suburban is still way better than this callaway silverado:

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/lingenfelter-gmc-suburban-imbedded-photo-357706-s-cd-gallery.jpg

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/267321/lingenfelter-gmc-suburban-photo-357575-s-429x262.jpg

605 cubic inches - 6300lbs - 4.7 seconds 0-60.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/lingenfelter-gmc-suburban-archived-specialty-file

never heard of Callaway before....

Seriously?!? The Callaway Sledgehammer was legendary in the 1990's. Company has been around since the 1970's when Reeves was still tuning e21 bmws and adding superchargers. In the 1980's, his twin turbo corvettes (which could be purchased through Chevy dealers) was the only way to get a close to 400hp American sports car with a warranty.

seriously though this car, the sledgehammer, was on the cover of like every major car mag in the early-mid 1990s:

http://bangshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/callaway-b2k.jpg

http://turbo-nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/callaway_c4_twin-turbo_sledgehammer_corvette-turbo-nation-6.jpg

So I saw one of these the other day on 270 and was baffled by it but it might be a good option:

http://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/646346361/overview/

Since Suzuki went tits up, the resale on these things are generally in the toilet. Not that it was all that great to begin with but I think the idea of owning a vehicle by an obsolete mfg scares people. Here is the thing though - they are literally re-badged Nissan frontiers. I mean even the interior pattern is the same, the only thing different are the body panels. Supposedly they can be serviced at Nissan dealerships - they are built in the same Tennessee factory as the Frontier, and all the important stuff is Nissan. They seem to be trading a few thousand dollars less than a comparable year Frontier with more mileage so....might be worth checking out?

I was going to suggest an XTerra. They can be had for around 2K. They are absolute dogs, but can tow 5K. (at least the auto can). That said, you may find a Frontier but they wont be as cheap. I dont think they made that many in comparison.

Didn't they make a "supercharged" Xterra? maybe that one is not such a dog?

I get how prices can flex before winter, but they still seem retarded... if gas was $4/gal and they all lost 20% value. Id still think over $3k for a 11/12 year old truck pushing 300k is retarded... It would be like spending $3k to buy a bunch of problems.

My father got 150+ miles out of every one of his 1989-1999 Suburbans and Tahoes (3 in total). The tahoe is still running strong at over 200K miles. the only thing you have to watch out for on trucks with the 700-R4 trans is that the trans will usually grenade somewhere north of 125K miles. On the Tahoe it was at 140, on the last suburban it was 138K. The rear went in the tahoe too eventually but that was a 2 door sport that saw heavy off road use plus towing a car trailer with 1967 A-bodies on it several times. Other than that, the rusty brake lines, and the usual dash electronics problem if you keep on the oil changes every 3K miles like it was a religion that chevy 350 will keep running to 500,000 easily (and I have seen many that have done it). So I kind of understand why those trucks will keep holding value well into very high mileage territory. I mean the rest of the truck is 1990's GM and will probably fall apart around that chassis, and if you are within walking distance of an autozone and a hammer you can keep it running longer than you probably should. I am pretty sure that '99 tahoe will continue to be his beach and dog truck for another 200K, unless GM magically starts making 2 door tahoes again.

if you can find a manual trans 1500 pickup that has been maintained then the only problems you are buying into are replacing brake lines every 10 years, not being able to read your gauges, and doors that sag on their hinges because GM still thinks bronze is a viable hinge material.

Hey yenner,

I get it, you are illerate. I'm sorry my writing is making you extremely self conscious of the fact but there are some great adult education programs that can get you back on track. It's not to late to get your life turned around. You can do it buddy!!!

I do think it's funny how he talked about all the "rich kids" getting cars their parents bought for him...and then goes on to say how his dad ordered a nicely-equipped VW Fox!

I think he meant to say his dad covered the cost of the upgrade from the basic white one to the silver one, not that his dad had paid for the whole car. His writing is not the greatest so I don't always know what he is trying to say, but such is the nature of fast and cheap internet content.

At 17 I bought my only new car - the 1995 jeep wrangler I am still driving today. Technically it was my 4th car, but only the second that was legally registered and insured. My first was a Buick Skylark that had a blown transmission that my dad abandoned in our backyard in Queens. It hadn't run since 1985 when he bought the VW Rabbit Diesel but he said if I got it running I could have it. I packed that turbine 200 full of sawdust, showed him it could back down the alley and pull forward he gave me the keys. When the frame rail rusted through and broke a month later he junked it and gave me the $500 he got for it which I immediately put into a 1967 SS396 Chevelle roller.

In NY you can't get your license till you are 17 (Cinderella licenses at 16 but the paperwork is a pain) so once I got the chevelle running I couldn't register it or insure it. A drunk driver wrecked it when it was parked on the street and my dad was relieved because he was tired of talking to the neighbors about their missing license plates.

the Day I got my license he gave me his 1987 Jeep Cherokee 2 door Laredo. He had bought it new with a 5 speed, A/C 6 way manual seats, and an AM radio. Weird. I paid all gas, insurance, and registration. It had been hit in the door and not fixed well so the rain got in on the drivers side and after I put the Studebaker supercharger on it - it went from mildly shabby to ragged out in no time. When I traded it for the 1995 Wrangler I was shocked the dealer gave us $2K for it with 140k miles.

Which brings me to my 1995 wrangler. Never mind that it is rare in that it is an SE with the 3.55 gears, factory air conditioning, and towing package, or that it was the last new YJ sold on Long Island that was not a Canadian import. But every time I think about getting rid of it I think about how much fun I have had with that car, how much of my life has been tied up in it. Last year at a moment of weakness one of my old high school buddies put it best: "who would you be without your jeep"? Who indeed.

Though there was not much room to move on new Toyotas?

I think it depends on how many loafers and khaki's you have in your closet.

if you want to just get rid of excess - hold dinner parties, give the produce away to friends, send some to your relatives.

the moment you want to start taking money for them it becomes a business and then you need to do a cost analysis as to whether it is worth your time. Even if you are selling at the farmer's market you should be doing it through an LLC as you can still be sued if your food becomes contaminated and makes people sick. Without the corp structure you can be sued personally for your assets, with it you can't. It's not complicated, and other than keeping accounting and filing a tax return on what you report sold it's not complicated or expensive for the piece of mind. your company doesn't even have to make money and you can be paid in produce. Even if you sell to restaurants they can sue you for tainted food as you are their supplier. It's the CYA move.

what are you driving currently? didn't you get rid of a really nice Audi S4 because it was too much car for a daily?

If you like the car and it checks out, do it. Hot rods are one thing but they get tiresome and your 240 sounds like it is at that point. It can continue to be a money pit or you can have different fun.

It's a take on an old lawyer joke:

"Not all lawyers are dishonest crooks but the 99% are sure giving the 1% a bad name"

Obviously the number of crazy right wing dingbats gun owners waiting in their bunkers for "obummer" to come take their guns is not very large but they certainly are making a whole lot of noise (mostly because crazy is entertaining).

Clearly If I have to explain it it wasn't a very good joke. Like I said this board doesn't always get my sense of humor.

Clay,

just to be helpful the standards we used to use for crediting Photographers was:

Copyright <name of Photographer>, <year> under each image. If there was a home website the URL was provided as well. We wouldn't use the registered copyright symbol unless it was known that the photo was registered (all art has immediate copyright at the time of its creation but registering it entitles it to the mark).

I know we had some IRL conversations about social media publishing so thought this might help as it seems to be the professional common courtesy.

Not every dude with a safe full of firearms is some backwoods tool daydreaming fantasies about thwarting a robbery or shooting military personnel when Obama starts shipping us into internment camps.

The 49% who are aren't doing the 51% who aren't any favors though.

And why does CR's self-proclaimed law scholar think its in place? Hunting rights? Self defense? Formation of a National Guard?

I wouldn't be stupid enough to presume why it is in place with any kind of certainty - there are literally hundreds of more learned people than you or I that literally debate what was meant when it was written.

If you want a good glimpse of how deep this rabbit hole goes here is a pretty good article from Duke's law school's website:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

it is by no means the only one, but it is meant to give you an idea of just how little you think you know about why this thing exists in the first place.

Whatever the intent was at the time - that was the purpose of the law.

What ever you think the purpose is now, that is not the intention but the twisting of 200 years of the amendment to men's will and agendas. Granted as the above article points out there may have been disagreement even then among the drafters as to whether it meant to physically carry or just own.

Remember in the context of the constitution as a whole it was never the framers intent to be a fixed document - it was always meant to be a living document that changed with the will and the needs of the people, and as such they provided a mechanism for that change. Considering that the 2nd amendment has not changed in 200+ years but the meaning and enforcement has, well I would say we are doing a piss poor job of living up to the framers expectations (or at very least we are cheating the system which is common in politics). The constitution is not some precious document that needs to be defended to the death as intact - its a basic "law of the land" for the people and as the people change and the landscape changes so does the law. To put this in context the most recent changes to the constitution happened in 1992 - well with in most of our lifetimes.

does that answer your question? I have a better question for you - since you seem to know exactly why it was written, what's the name of the current theory of intent that the supreme court uses in deciding 2nd amendment cases? I will even make it multiple choice...is it:

a) The individual Right Theory

b) the collective rights Theory

c) Social Contact Theory

d) Natural Law Theory

I get that it is fresh from the camera and unedited but that blue gray sky in this pic is just screaming at me:

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj84/crms3er/P1010296%20copy%20web_zpsxjkw8m34.jpg

I think there is actually some interesting cloud patterns buried under the haze and you have potential to really make it pop. I guess I am just sensitive because I deal with it so much in my own work. When I get home tonight I'll post up some of my pics to show you what I mean. I am also pretty sure the monitor I am looking at these on is making it worse as well.

What troubles me is that the common citizen has no idea how I interpret the 2A and it's reasons in a modern context in my head and then live by it

Fixed it for you. I am pretty sure whatever you have going on in your head as to "why it is in place" is probably different from the constitutional Law scholars that...you know...debate the merits of constitutional amendments for a living and all.

FIFY because Kerry tried but was unsuccessful.

Clearly my humor is lost on this crowd

Human Nature is what makes so many people opinionated about guns. The way this world is going its 2nd nature to always be crazy.

fixed it for you:thumbup:

but a guns aren't not the problem, it's the people using them and this story is a case in point where the court acknowledged the dude needed help in their own documents but our system is set up that even knowing that we still allow him to buy a gun just as you or I would. Start by fixing that before you try and hurt those of us who aren't nut jobs. it's right up there with the guy who has 9 DUI's and is likely driving to buy beer right now.

 

In terms of convenience, and news worthiness, explosive are a much more effective means to do a mass killing. next up....apply an extra Tax on fertilizer and ban all potential bomb making components.

I don't think anybody in this discussion will disagree with the premise that the people using them are the problem, the question isn't whether a gun is inherently dangerous, it is how to regulate access to a specific group of people.

The moment you take the concept of regulating access to the item in question off the table you are no longer committed to a solution for the existing problem we are trying to solve. A real solution to this issue is probably going to take a mixture of regulation of behavior and regulation restricting access and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

I take personal exception to people who talk about "separating the gun from the person" because 1) it presupposes whatever legitimate right you have to use is as important if not more than protecting people from being shot to death, 2) it requires both elements to commit this specific act, you can't regulate one side to this equation to make up for the shortcomings on the other side. but that position is basically "leave my gun alone and fix the other side" which is counter productive.

So we really don't care about people dying... we just want to make sure it's not caused by a firearm.

 

Check.

I don't think anybody said that, nor do I think that is how anybody intended it to be read. But good for you for putting the extra dash of crazy this thread needed.

Fun graphic.

 

 

Let's take guns out of the equation though and just look at intentional homicide rate.

 

In that case the US falls down to #111. So 110 countries with a higher homicide rate.

 

How can that be possible without them having all the evil guns though?? :no:

 

I think you just proved his point - in the US it's way more convenient to use a gun than not to hence more gun related violence.