carguy3j

www.tirerack.com has numerous 16" aluminum rims to choose from, between 90-120ea. 15" are even a little less.

To njpilot: I'm curious why you hate the Rezound? I have a brand new one that I have had for almost a year, but never activated it. It was just as Verizon discontinued it, and I spent days demanding they move mountains to find me one somewhere in their inventory. Once I mentioned cancelling my account enough times, I got one. I thought it had very good reviews?

Who said it has to be one or the other? It's not called anti-torque. The purpose is to prevent parts from "seizing" together over time, via corrosion at the interface of two metal surfaces. Torque has nothing to do with. Actually, that's sort of backwards. DRY threads are a good way to get INACCURATE torque readings. Proper torqueing is not really about the "twisting" force your measuring/feeling. Its really a question of proper STRETCH of the bolt material, which applies pre-load, and clamping force. Dry threads have increased friction, possiblyb leading to "galling" of the metal-to-metal surfaces. Micro- welds are even possible in extremem circumstances. These things all lead to incorrect torque readings, where it APPEARS a bolt is torqued properly, because the wrench is "seeing" the selected rotational resistance, but the bolt has not been properly stretched. This is also the whole premise/benefit to studs instead of bolts. The studs are only installed finger tight, and then the nut provideds a direct clamping load, instead of "twist". You'll find a much lower recommended torque setting, in applications where studs are substituted for bolts (heads). Any "critical" part that needs to be torqued, needs to be lubricated. Not that anti-seize is the best lube, but it also provides corrosion "welding" protection. I've had to beat wheels off of rotors and hubs, because the last guy didn't use anti-seize. Its like those commercials for the hot sauce, with the little old lady: "Anti-seize. I put that sh!t on everything!"

+1,000,000 For this, as well as their automotive/emissions regulations. How can these clowns say/write/rule any of this with a straight face? Talk about circular logic..... They can be banned because they "are not in common use", except they aren't in common use because they were unconstitutionally banned previously. So, if someone designs/invents some new type of firearm, it illegal since it is not in common use, or is "dangerous and UNUSUAL", until what? Enough people own/possess illegally for it to become common or "usual"? What is so hard to understand about the 2nd amendment? It is actually VERY simple; despite thousands and thousands of pages of convoluted "interpretations" and "rulings". The second amendment is NOT there to ensure the ability to put holes in paper for recreational purposes, or even to harvest deer/ducks for dinner; although that certainly would have been a legitimate concern in 1776. Plain and simple. The 2nd amendment is intended to ensure that the people have, at all times, the ability to forcibly remove the government from power, if the people so determine it to be necessary. The very reason that the government wants to limit/restrict gun ownership, is EXACTLY why the 2A exists. It was INTENDED that the government ALWAYS be fearful of the wrath of the people, in order to "regulate" and moderate its actions. The things the government is doing, in the area of gun rights, the whole domestic spying thing,etc... is EXACTLY the types of things that firearms possession by the people is supposed to prevent. The founding fathers would have found it to be eminently reasonable, and morally right, for the people to have already risen up and staged a second revolution by now. There is no doubt in my mind; if Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.... were here now, we'd have already had the 2nd revolution- years (maybe decades) ago. We are so far beyond the level of what the King did to the colonies, its not even funny.

I'm no fan of Valley either, plus they are basically no bigger then a really long driveway.... As for Roxbury, I've known them nearly 20 years, and I got tired of their attitude. They act like they are doing customers a favor by doing business with them. Even employees who start out nice guys end up being "infected" with the Roxbury attitude. On top of that, their prices are usually way too high. I did just remember another good place though... C&H Salvage, in Campbell Hall, NY. They are expensive, but they have a good reputation for selling quality used motors.

Yeah. I think they were close to $1,000 "list price", although we were allowed to negoitiate. I think the new name is Aerus, not aero.

I have a possibly stupid question....... What if a.) it had a "real" pistol grip, b.) it was really, really short (actual "pistol" length), and c.) never, ever came with or had installed a buttstock? In other words, can you have an actual "pistol"/handgun that simply happens to fire shotgun shells? I know there is the Tuarus "judge" line that fires .410, but what about an actual shotgun "action" but in pistol size, or a semi auto handgun chambered in a shotgun shell?

Well, if you're willing to spend the money, an Electrolux is one of the best you can buy.I think they might have changed the name to "Aero" or something. I tried selling them for a little while, years ago. I think I sold one or two my whole time. I was very impressed with how they worked, but most of the people they sent me to couldn't afford them. IF, I had plenty of money to spare, and I wanted the best vacuum I could buy, it would be them. The carpet shampooer was pretty good too, but also pricey.

www.car-part.com This is the "outsider''s link to the Hollander parts interchange system the junkyards use. I used to have one or two I could recommend, but they eventually ended up screwing me over like most of the rest. The auto salvage industry is rife with unsavory, "gruff", and/or just plain douchebag type people. The only one that I would still endorse would be Newton Auto Salvage, in Newton, NJ The owner seems like a decent guy. However, its a very small yard, so whatever they sell you will likely come from somewhere else. Try craigslist. I've seen a bunch of Subaru parts/parts cars lately.

Most won't. The problem is, it only takes one. Once that happens, NJ can declare that they exist, and the law kicks in. Really, Bloomberg's group could just buy a small struggling manufacturer, or start their own, for the sole purpose of making a commercially available "smart gun". They wouldn't need to care about profit, success, or even long term liability. The "company" wouldn't be intended to succeed or survive, only to be around long enough to "start" the clock on the smart gun law.

Technically, couldn't a governor do a couple of things? A.) Direct the AG and head of the NJSP to not enforce it (ie, make it a "low priority"), once it becomes operative. (If they refuse to "obey", remind them that they both serve "at the pleasure of the governor". B.) Automatically grant pre-emptive pardons and expungements for anyone who gets charged/convicted, by an "uppity" prosecutor disobeying A.) C.) Grant said pardons for any retailer charged/convicted of selling firearms without a lic, provided that the license was revoked solely for violating this silly "smart gun" law and selling "dumb" guns after some deadline. Assuming that B.) and C.) were in effect, it would be pretty stupid for any prosecutor to even bother wasting resources on charges/trials/conviction that will be meaningless, and "erased" the instant the judges's gavel hits the bench, due to pardon/expungement. Now, of course this would require a governor with some balls, and I don't mean the kind served with spaghetti, so it is unlikely.

Actually, you can do a "criminal history check" on yourself. http://www.njsp.org/about/serv_chrc.html I don't think this would include non-criminal mental health issues, and/or civil commitments though.For that, you would probably have to check with each county you have lived in, individually, to find out what the process is to obtain your records, if any.

A Dremmel, various cutoff wheels and grinding bits, and LOTS of patience?

Noooo Kitty-Kitty!!! Thaaaats my pancakes!

Unfortunately it is a disease that is continuing to spread rapidly. Its like the political/legislative equivalent of MRSA. It has quickly become resistant to even the strongest of treatments: Justi-cillian Freedo-cillian Libert-a-can All no longer effective . Our last bastion of hope is the mighty Constitution-ox-a-cillian, but even that has only limited effectiveness.

I'm a little confused on this. I don't mean to be insensitive or anything like that in any way. I'm just a little confused on what you're trying to say. Is she an "anti"? If so, I would think her experience with the Nazis would be a perfect example of why citizens SHOULD be armed, rather then be any sort of justification for gun control. I mean, I doubt that the SS would have applied for the FPID, or have been even remotely concerned with adhering to mag capacity limits or bans on certain "named" models.

Naw. He just wishes that the "caabs ahhh heere", so he could check outta 'dis 'tread.

Oh... I thought, at least with handgun ammo, that many states required at least a drivers license; and that if your DL was "out-of-state" (especially NJ, NY, CA), they would either refuse the sale or make you jump through all kinds of hoops. I guess I am mistaken. Maybe I'm thinking of internet/mail order purchases?

I also think that would be ok, but I know "Bob" would not be able to buy ammo, in NJ, for that handgun, without his FPID card. Would he still be able to go to PA, and buy handgun ammo there, with his NJ DL and no NJ FPID?

i fixed it faw u bro.. Yous can thanks me lata!

LOL!!! Did you see the new episode last night? Dr. Nick's head was sewn to Dr. HIbbard's shoulder. Does that mean the pt's get double billed, or will they get a 2 docs-for-the price of-1 discount?

This type of arrangement is probably fine for minor injuries/illness and preventative care, as many "urgent care" places are popping up all over the place. Many of them of have fairly reasonable "cash" prices on a "menu" of common and basic problems. However, they are not a substitute for an ER, in a serious or life threatening emergency. Many of them are also not willing to be your "regular" doctor. They will see you once or twice, and then insist that you follow up with a primary care doctor. The problem IS the "big" medical events and true emergencies, as well as long term complicated illness. Ironically, in the most expensive of circumstances, negotiating isn't really feasible. Of course you can haggle and try to lower the bill after the fact; but the greatest success there comes with the ability to pay a substantial lump sum. As far as ObamaCare goes, yes it is clearly a failure from the start, as it was probably meant to be. There are really only two viable ways of handling healthcare. 1.) Those who can afford it, get it; and those who can't.... Well, that's life, and it ain't always fair (or long, or fun, happy, and pain free) OR 2.) If you are of the mindset that letting anyone "fall through the cracks" is not acceptable, period; well then the only possibly workable solution is a single payer, government provided free healthcare. I say this as someone who is currently making such a small amount of income that I will likely qualify for the Medicaid expansion in NJ, yet I refuse to participate in this unconstitutional joke. I will also refuse/ignore the fine. As yet another example of this law being INTENDED to fail, they put a very easy loophole in it. Sure, if you don't have insurance, the IRS "fines" you. EXCEPT, the law specifically (not an accidental omission) prohibits the IRS from using any of the usual means of forcibly collecting this so-called" tax" (as per the supreme idiots court). They can NOT garnish wages, seize or place liens on any property or bank accounts, nor do you face any criminal penalties. The ONLY thing the IRS is allowed to do is offset any refund due, by the amount of your "fine". Simple, adjust your withholding so you have no refund due, and instead owe a small amount. As a bonus, you'll avoid giving the government an interest free loan on YOUR money, all year. Further, as someone is almost always against anything having to do with more government, nonetheless,in this case, I see single-payer as the only reasonable solution, assuming that we do in fact intend to provide healthcare for "all". I'm not sure we should do that, but if we are going to, then keeping insurance companies in the middle of it is just plain stupid. "Insurance" works on the principle that not everyone buying it will need it. That is how the insurance company makes its money. But, there is a value to the consumer, in that the risk of a huge catastrophic expenditure is greater then the fairly small cost of insurance (such as homeowners, car insurance,etc...). However, that business model simply can;t work, in the case of healthcare, absent some amount of fraud or other "funny business" on the part of the insurance company; or prohibitively high premiums, or both. EVERYONE; every single customer, will eventually need to use the insurance. The idea of "health insurance", for routine preventative care, or common illness/injury, is nothing but pure insanity. Yes, I could see the feasibility of "catastrophic only" policy, as that is something that only a relatively small portion of the policy holder pool will ever experience. Normally, I'm all for capitalism and the free market. But in this case, health insurance adds little or nothing of value, and merely adds another layer of profit onto the costs to the end user and society. This is without the ObamaFailCare. Now, with these "exchanges" and "credits",etc..., all it is is a gigantic give-away of tax dollars to the insurance companies. They provide very little value, for a disproportionately huge payday. Sure, they may have some "administrative" competencies. Ok, so we can hire/contract them, at commercially reasonable rates, to provide administrative services ONLY. There is no reason they should have any "profits" based on how much/how little of the premiums they do or do not spend on care.

Ethanol isn't the problem. What is is: A.) The politics/subsidies B.) How WE are making ethanol. Brazil does quite well with ethanol derived from sugar cane. Our problem is in diverting corn from food production. Once we are able to make it, on a commercial level, from other bio-mass like switch grass or wood pulp, then it will be much more viable. That technology is getting close. Also, ethanol makes MORE power, not less; when used correctly.

That makes sense. Ethanol has a slightly lower BTU content then gasoline. However, it also has a richer stoichiometrc ratio. The increased volume results in a net increase in power production, but at the cost of greater fuel consumption. The increased fuel consumption can be offset somewhat by designing the engine from the ground up to take advantage of the ethanol; with higher compression ratios for instance. The stoich for straight ethanol is 9:1. Gasoline is 14.7:1 The stoich for a 10% ethanol blend is 14.1:1, slightly richer then straight gas. Similarily, max power afr is also going to be a little richer.

Probably not a good idea to run in a lawnmower, unless you consider it disposable. The fuel metering and ignition timing are rather crude, and more or less fixed at parameters optimized for regular 89 octane. Running high octane fuel will not end well. I blew up two lawnmowers running them on race gas. They ran really strong for awhile, cutting tall and/or wet grass like never before, until they both launched a rod out of the block. Big kaboom. That may still be the case with some small engine stuff, but the big names have now taken steps to use ethanol resistant parts, as the auto manufacturers did a long time ago. The bigger issue is ethanol's propensity to absorb moisture. It does have some advantages (cooler combustion temps, higher octane then gas which allows for higher compression and increased timing, richer stoichiometric ratio allowing for higher power output), assuming the engine and supporting systems are designed to accommodate it. There good reasons to stick to "regular" in unsophisticated small engines that are designed for it. However, higher octane fuel does NOT burn hotter. That is a misconception. The octane rating is, literally, a measurement of a specific fuel's ability to resist detonation in a standardized 1 cylinder test engine ("detonation" being an uncontrolled explosion, as opposed to he desired "controlled" burn) Higher octane fuels have a slower flame front speed. They burn slower, not hotter. Now, its possible that higher combustion temps, poor driveabilty, and/or higher engine temps could result if high octane fuel is used in an engine not designed or "setup" for it. Higher octane fuel does NOT "make" more power. Rather, it "allows" for the use of other things that do, such as higher compression, increased boost, increased ignition timing, etc...