2376
<<
Message Index
>>
2378
Number: 2377
From: "Tom S." <tkm654@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: 22k 1990 asc ebay
Body:
That crap all over the engine bay is a type of rustproofer I've seen
up here in MN and in other rustbelt states. Most of the idiots
working at that level of the service dept have yet to figure out
that engine compartments rarely rust from the inside on Fords of
this platform design and so they figure "Hey let's just spray this
crap all over the place so it looks like we are doing our job".
I bought a new Ranger FX4 back in Nov and got "free" rustproofing
and the dumbasses sprayed that crap inside the PLASTIC hood. Go
figure.
Tom S.
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "Sandy Block" <cigarsandy@c...>
wrote:
> Allright - I went down to the garage to check "the artifact" ~
> THAT ebay car's engine is 100% correct !!!!! There is not a
single
> retouched item there! My 1990 has 2,056 miles, and never been out
of
> my ownership, it's 100% original and the 2 of them match 100%.
> Further, I checked the ebay car's option installation from
factory, &
> it also has the Illuminated Keyless Entry System, so it hass ALL
the
> toys on it! Only 13 of the 65 1990s had ALL the toyzz on them.
This
> ebay car is 1 of them.
> If I win the lottery tonight......it's is SOLD!! It's a SANDY car
> all the way!!!
> It's a GEM !
>
>
>
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "Sandy Block" <cigarsandy@c...>
> wrote:
> > Okay. I missed all of this - out all day.
> >
> > 1. The top is 100% correct & original. It's the style top used
in
> > 89 & 90.
> >
> > 2. I scanned the photos for 15 minutes. I cannot find a single
> > thing wrong on the car (excluding engine....next). The interior
> > (note, it has the Whistler built in Radar) is flawless, likewise
> the
> > body & roof.
> >
> > 3. I'd wanna talk to the owner regarding the date on the photos
&
> > the condition NOW.
> >
> > 4. It is VIN 132915, making it the 2nd from the last unit made
for
> > 1990. (132854 thru 132918). The dash plaque of # 280 is in
error
> > (as so many are). It should really be # 296.
> >
> > 5. The engine looks odd to me. I printed the photo and am
going
> > down to compared it to my car. Will post results within 30
minutes.
> >
> > 6. History of car:- I found the car 7 years ago in OHIO, so
> there's
> > agood chance it might still be the original owner. In 1996 the
car
> > had 13,000 miles on it. So, the mileage is more than likely
> legit.
> > 13,000 when it was 6 years old would stand to reason the be
23,000
> at
> > 13 years old, right?
> >
> > 7. Off to check engine. Whatever....I would want to know what
all
> > that slop gold color is for..... Will post agin, soon!
> >
> >
> >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "jdawg" <jdawg@e...> wrote:
> > > its also a MCLA"RON"!!!!
> > > O is nowhere near E on a keyboard. lol
> > > jdawg
> > > it is however a '90, 33rd of '90 at that. how many were like
it
> > of
> > > the 65 sandy, do tell.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "jdawg" <jdawg@e...> wrote:
> > > > my camera has the correct time and date, i never set it or
> know
> > > of
> > > > a setting, it corrects for daylight savings and all????
> > > > the engine compartment looks like they coated it with spray
> glue
> > > > then drove through a dust storm. the top is not factory.
it
> has
> > > > seams front to back on the top and diagonal seams on the
> sides.
> > a
> > > > true top is one piece on the very top and has no seam on the
> > > side.
> > > > 23,000 miles??????
> > > > jdawg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, tasmaniac1
<no_reply@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Mike,
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if that were the case with a standard digital
camera
> > > > > wouldn't he be changing the date on a daily basis, even
with
> a
> > > > > lithium battery? Back up batterries should last at least 3-
5
> > > years
> > > > > for a date time group. Given the benefit of doubt if I
were
> the
> > > > > person, unselect the date insertion to cause less
confusion
> or
> > > > > scrutiny. I'd still suggest newer pictures if anyone is
> > > interested.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nick
> > > > >
> > > > >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "negusm" <negusm@y...>
> wrote:
> > > > > > The date on the pics doesn't mean much. Some cameras
reset
> > > the
> > > > > date
> > > > > > when you change or run out of batteries. He should have
> > > stated
> > > > it
> > > > > in
> > > > > > his add though if that was the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, tasmaniac1
> <no_reply@y...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Just looks dirty on the sides under the hood. What
gets
> me
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > pictures are almost 3 1/2 years old. What does it look
> like
> > > > now?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Nick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "negusm"
<negusm@y...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
> > > > > > > > ViewItem&item=2411691571&category=6236
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it me or is the engine compartment a bit odd?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Mike