Chevy Engine shakeup...

retard.

you're completely delusional as well as stooopid. but i've pointed that out before.

You can't read your own cites:

Speaking of the bombing of Japan:

"The firebombing campaign was designed by Gen. Curtis LeMay, who came up with the idea of using the new high-altitude B-29 bombers to drop clusters of incendiary bombs at low altitude (5,000 feet) where anti-aircraft guns were ineffective. McNamara was a 29-year-old lieutenant colonel, one of a group of brilliant statistical planners recruited from Harvard, serving under LeMay.

In the film, McNamara tells how his group improved the efficiency of bombing of Germany by statistical analysis proving that the 17 per cent rate of aborted missions was due to fear, not to the stated reasons, such as mechanical failure or sickness He also claims a part in statistical analysis showing that hitting Japanese cities with India-based bombers refueled in China was not feasible.

McNamara.s intellectual contribution to the subsequent firebombing of Japan from Pacific island bases is not spelled out in his comments to Morris, but he does say that when LeMay served under him in the Kennedy administration, the old general commented that if Japan had won the war they both would have been charged for acting like war criminals. "

So you take an article that says McNamara showed a particular method of bombing Japan would -NOT- work and translate that into him being responsible for the bombing of japan. You just can't read worth a damn. Either that or you are really stretching to save face, again.

the amount of name calling and similar that a person does, the greater their ignorance.

the cite refutes that. the words you've just quoted;

"McNamara?s intellectual contribution to the subsequent firebombing of Japan from Pacific island bases is not spelled out in his comments to Morris, but he does say that when LeMay served under him in the Kennedy administration, the old general commented that if Japan had won the war they both would have been charged for acting like war criminals."

refute that.

evidently you don't understand what you read.

"man stands in front of neighbor's bathroom window with pants around ankles, penis in hand, and accuses person in shower of spying on him..."

utterly retarded and utterly bizarre.

You're having logic difficulties again Mr. Beam. Show historical proof, not inferences from someone's statement that may or may not have any truth behind it. A statement that may have been made for political purposes at the time. Furthermore if you had proof all that would do is show that McNamara made a statistical analysis that LeMay found useful. LeMay was still the one that bombed Japan. McNamara was the one that bombed Vietnam.

Which is all besides the point because you still believe myth when it comes to the Pinto case.

The more grotesque you become the greater your underlying ignorance must be.

Shot, yes. Missing, no.

NO MIDDLE BEARING?

a) ALMOST ZERO oil pressure.

the rest of the crank was stiff enough

b) MAYBE. For a few seconds, anyway. No, it was not, and never will be stiff enough, except maybe at an idle, with no load. Look up bending stiffness. You will be surprised how little it takes to deform that crank enough so that the main bearing surface will deform enough to hit the main cap. A couple of hits, and goodbye crank.

but the symptoms were

Yes, but not after 12 months/12,000 miles. THAT engine story is inconceivable.

Exactly, which is why I am positive Jim Beam has never done auto repair for a living. He appears to have no practical experience, except possibly with oil changes. For this sort of thing to go undetected beyond the warranty term would require a new car warranty of about 5 minutes.

Well, how much oil pressure is enough?

I had a 96 S10 2.2 OHV for a long time. It got to the point where i had ZERO oil pressure at idle, and it would maybe get up to 10/20 at higher RPM. Did my research. Bad cam bearings. Ran it that way for a couple of years. Finally, a lifter collapsed and turned a 4 cylinder dog into a 3 cylinder boat anchor. It would still start and run and drive. Ended up selling it running as is. I know a couple of others that have the same issue with 2.2. Another dude is still driving his S10 that way.

Trust me, i did every trick in the book. 50W oil. additives. new oil sender. It just kept running. And i never really had a knocking rod sound. This is a true story on my truck, not some made up internet blog.

My point is that no one is going to drive a new car with the oil light coming on at idle. There would probably also be noise and vibration that no owner would put up with. I don't see how it could even get past the pre-delivery inspection, unless maybe Jim Beam was doing it.

where does the "probably" come into the definitive argument you're trying to make? everything you say is merely suppositional. this isn't a balance issue and it's not a rod issue that you're probably more familiar with. see previous post.

my buddy's isuzu was the same way. but no matter - if people don't want to "believe", they won't. it speaks more to them having just enough experience to have them of one mindset, and not enough to have seen a wider spectrum of what can happen.

"don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!"

mirror, mirror...

missing, yes. not shot.

at idle, exactly as described. but it rose with rpm's. i didn't bother checking oil passages, but if an engine can be assembled without a bearing, it can just as easily be not cleaned of drilling swarf which will keep oil pressure high.

no dude, cranks don't break just like that. and the crank bridge across a bearing isn't necessarily a disaster. afterall, there are three bearing straight 6's out that so that's THREE pistons on one bridge.

one bearing missing between two isn't necessarily a disaster. and main bearings don't knock like rod bearings.

so running a 6-cylinder crank with only three bearings is inconceivable too? depending on your experience of course.

In other words you don't have any historical proof what so ever. You screwed up and rather than manning up to your error you searched the web until you found something. The problem is that something is really nothing because it is entirely inference based on a statement made many years after the fact.

Mr. Beam, to understand how polite I have been to you, you might want to behave in this manner to someone in person. See how they react.

wow and this asshole claims to have seen it more than once - how stupid he must think we are

Earlier, lesser powered engines, with lower BMEP, were commonly designed to have fewer main bearings, but also, relative to their produced torque, much beefier crankshafts than contemporary units. Three wheeled vehicles commonly and successfully travel the highways and byways, but not if they were designed to have four. I seriously doubt that there either ever has been, or could be, a documented case of the existence of a working prime mover, with a missing main bearing cap, shell or a portion thereof, continuing to survive through a warranty period without experiencing catastrophic failure. The presentation of so much as a single, verifiable, contradictory example would suffice to prove me wrong.

not everybody is stupid. some are merely closed minded and others insufficiently experienced. a smaller group are both.

Why don't you share your automotive repair experience with us?

that has to be sarcasm. because it sure ain't any other kind of wit.

I think he already has. All of it.

nate