2377
<<
Message Index
>>
2379
Number: 2378
From: "Sandy Block" <cigarsandy@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:38 pm
Subject: Re: 22k 1990 asc ebay
Body:
Is this stuff removeable ???
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "Tom S." <tkm654@c...> wrote:
> 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