And the nice thing about it is under the hood doesn't look that intresting. My only dislike (so far) is where the air filter is mounted. Looks like behind the left REAR wheel.
the whole turbo is under the rear end!! i don't like it... too much piping from the turbo to the intake. seems like an ok turbo system but its not even intercooled, booh hisss. too much money for a simple kit. sorry i just don't like it, would rather custom fab one for the same price with intercooler.
jack
Supposedly (and I'm a huge skeptic) the pipe from the rear, because it has to travel all the way back to the throttle body acts as an intercooler. But if it's at 5 psi at the throttle body, what kind of pressure does it have to generate at the turbo to get 5 psi 10 feet downstream (more or less 10 feet...I'm thinking more) at the TB. And my concern would be spending the 4 grand and then dropping the turbo etc on the highway. Like those electric exhaust cutouts, that work and then either fall off, rust off or burn off. Also, water infuilrtation. The intake is at the rear, under the car. It has to take in water on a rainy day.
The saving grace is you don't have to rework the exhaust manifolds, only the muffler. But it does seem like a lot of piping that has the potential to get scraped, fall off, etc.
4 guys garage is doing a show on it on Dec. 30th.Jack C> the whole turbo is under the rear end!! i don't like it... too much piping
intercooler.
All the tubing is the intercooler!
Refinish King
Which channel is Four Guys Garage on?
Thank you.
Refinish King
DOH!
Sorry. Meant Two Guys Garage.
I'll let it slide this time!
LOL
I really believed you!
Refinish King
Law 230 (1982).
Iraq is Moot It's not about Iraq or weapons of mass destruction It's about corporate empire and America's function in the new world order:
America on the top, a "first among equals" The world under our boot-
- a Pax Romana sequel called "America first."
Or some other road less traveled by the combat boot's sole A shared security A lesser role on a road that may be harder
than one on which we give all directions but one where corporate interests are tempered by dissention and people come first.
It's not about Iraq Saddam or the bomb It's about McDonalds versus the Imam lucre or culture
Unilatateral Empire or global democracy "Liberating Iraq"? Complete hypocrisy Liberation by vulture.
On September 25, 1997, ABC used its news magazine program 20/20 to take an unusual journalistic step. In the first segment of the program, Peter Jennings took pains to discredit documents that had been about to be used by its own contracted reporter for an upcoming show scheduled for broadcast. The contracted reporter was Seymour Hersh.
is that if the reader looks at a map of the world, the United States government has its military, paramilitary, and covert forces converging upon and/or threatening almost every country in the world that possesses significant quantities of oil or natural gas, as well as their transportation supply-lines and the latter's choke-points. Many of these energy-resource-rich countries just happen to be Muslim. That is what Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" was really all about.32 Our clash, their civilization. After September 11th, Bush Jr. himself proudly boasted that he was going on a Crusade. Certainly that is the way the Muslim world sees it. Remaking "world order" in America's imperialist image, while fomenting world disorder in the process. In this relentless quest and insatiable lust for oil and gas around the world, the United States Power Elite is now in the process of destroying the entirety of the international legal order that had been established by a predecessor elitist generation running the United States government in the aftermath of and in reaction to the genocidal horrors of the Second World War.33 Including and especially the United Nations Charter, as well as the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, inter alia. All of which had heretofore been the bedrock upon which the entirety of the post-World War II international legal order rested.34 Nazi Ideology
Iraq had been continuously and illegally bombed by the United States and the United Kingdom since the end of the Bush Sr. Gulf War in 1991 under the pretext of enforcing unauthorized and clearly illegal no-fly zones.35 But in order to accomplish their objective of seizin
on the assassination conspiracy, the cinching piece of the puzzle, would be "a reel of tape of Oswald getting briefed by Giancana" (Anson p. 120). With what serious people have learned about Oswald today, through work by Phil Melanson, John Newman, and John Armstrong, this is preposterous. The Blakey-Davis whim about the Mafia hiring a "hit man" who couldn't hit the side of a barn and used a $12.95 bolt action rifle to do the job, went out the window when the HSCA closed down. But "crack" reporter Hersh still buys into it. As he does the idea that Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy, proven by the fact that he wrote a blurb praising Dan Moldea's 1995 whitewash of that case.
Behind all the sordid details of these articles there is a bigger picture to be outlined. One of the main parts of it is the increasing ascendancy of tabloid journalism into the major media outlets, and with it, its concomitant attachment to the lives of celebrities. More often than not, that translates into the endless search for sleaze and s
" The suggestion in the last sentence is that everything else is not. Or, at least, the diary's destruction is all she knows for a fact.
If Mary's own sister is not forthright, then who among the rest is? Don't rely on Rosenbaum to find out. He is a friend of both Angleton and the Post. Consider the man who helped him write his
1976 Mary Meyer piece, one Philip Nobile. When I interviewed Deborah Davis about the attempted censorship of her book, which exposed the Post's ties to the CIA, she told me that her troubles began with a whispering campaign to her publisher. The whisperer was Rosenbaum's partner Nobile. When that wasn't enough, Nobile talked to Alexander Cockburn of the Village Voice. Cockburn printed the rumors that her book was unfounded and that she had cried in her publishers' office when challenged on this. Both accounts were untrue. But Cockburn was not an unbiased observer.As Nobile must have known, his live-in girlfriend at the time was Kay Graham's daughter. It is odd that Rosenbaum would choose to write on such a controversial subject with someone who seems to be such a friend to the Post. Related to that, in his 1991 reflections on the 1976 article, and in the article itself, he tries to insinuate that these people - Bradlee, the Truitts, the Angletons - are actually friends of Kennedy. In addition, Rosenbaum and others never seemed to ask why those involved all seemed so eager to violate Mary's privacy by reading the diary.
In no version I have read was that ever part of Mary's instructions. And Angleton, the man who the Truitts seem to side with against Bradlee, supposedly went through them like an archiv
American Power Elite are more than happy to send the children of poor Blacks, Latinos and Whites off to kill and be killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Just like their elitist predecessors did a generation ago in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Class warfare indeed. Finally, in September 2002 the Bush Jr. administration adopted and officially approved "the National Security Strategy of the United States," that was transmitted to the U.S. Congress as a declaration of official policy by the United States of America, fully embracing this reprehensible, criminal, and Nazi doctrine of preventive warfare.38 I will not waste the reader's precious time here analyzing this criminal document in extenso. But it reads like a Nazi war planning document that could have been introduced into evidence before the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Certainly its most odious language is: ". . . we recognize that our best defense is a good offense. . ." In other words, the United States government has publicly admitted in an official government document that it is now prepared to wage offensive warfare against its chosen adversaries around the world irrespective of the requirements of the United Nations Charter, the Kellogg-B
they grew up but it was Teddy who insisted that the family put the thing to rest.
Evidently, Teddy wanted to preserve his career in the political arena and knew that any airing of the case would jeopardize it. Which was probably true. Under those circumstances, the Kennedys can't even protect themselves.
This is understandable in human terms. But the compromise allows the likes of Reeves, de Toledano, and Hersh to take the field with confidence. The Kennedys are silent; they won't sue; it must be true. As a corollary, this shows that the old adage about history being written by the victors stands. In this upside down milieu, all the Kennedys' sworn enemies can talk to any cheapjack writer with a hefty advance and recycle another thrashing. Mobsters and those in their employ, CIA officers and their assets, rabid right-wingers et. al. Escorted by these writers, they now do their dances over the graves of the two men they hated most in life and can now revile in death. There is something Orwellian about this of course.
The converse of this thesis is also true. The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left's intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.) The image of JFK on national television giving hell to the steel companies; of Kennedy staking out his policy for detente at American University; of RFK grilling Sam Giancana and Jimmy Hoffa; of Bobby going through the personn
" biographies. Anti-Kennedy tracts were not new. But these new works differed from the earlier ones in that they owed their genesis and their styles to the events of the mid-seventies that had brought major parts of the establishment (specifically, the CIA and the GOP) so much grief. In fact we will deal with some of the earlier ones later. For now, let us examine this new pedigree and show how it fits into the movement outlined above.
Looking for Mr. Kennedy (And Not Finding Him)
The first anti-Kennedy book in this brood, although not quite a perfect fit into the genre, is The Search for JFK, by Joan and Clay Blair Jr. The book appeared in 1976, right after Watergate and the Church Committee hearings. In the book's foreword, the authors are frank about what instigated their work:
During Watergate (which revealed to us the real character of President Richard M. Nixon-as opposed to the manufactured Madison Avenue image), our thoughts turned to Jack Kennedy....Like other journalists, we were captivated by what was then called the "Kennedy mystique" and the excitement of "the New Frontier." Now we began to wonder. Behind the image, what was Jack really like? Could one, at this early date, cut through the cotton candy and find the real man? (p. 10)
In several ways, this is a revealing passage. First of all, the authors apparently accept the Washington Post version of Watergate-i.e. that Nixon, and only Nixon, was responsible for that whole range of malfeasance and that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein got to the bottom of it. Second, it seems to me to be a curious leap from the politically misunderstood shenanigans of Watergate to the formative years of John Kennedy's college prep days and early adulthood, which is what this book is about. It takes JFK from his days at the exclusive Choate School in Connecticut to his first term as a congressman i.e. from about
1934 through 1Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required