Rock_Steady

Daytona?

Good plan! I think you'll appreciate it more when it's a weekend car. I once had an ST185 GT-four that i drove everyday to work. it was standard, then i rebuilt it into a track slag with a shed load of power/stripped out and dear Jesus, that was heavy going as a daily. Not doing that again. I think i had water pump failure, alternator failure, timing issues -luckily the 3S-GTE is a non interference engine - then ignition issues, blown turbo. It went on and on.

Black was a common colour for the ST205, there's a fella round my way whose got a red ST05 like Col. He's got mat gold TE37s on his, looks really nice.

(Clears up vomit from looking at the 4- door R34) Now, (wiping mouth) that front light looks American to me...

Probably a couple of months, got everything else just waiting for a piston and con-rod set to come over from the states and i'm more or less ready to rock!

thunderbird? EDIT No i take that back.... forget i even mentioned it

You only live once eroll!! My dad did say to me once " if you have always wanted a particular car and never got round to owning one, you'll always wonder with a hint of regret ". He wasn't wrong. I don't regret buying my Pulsar for one second now. it's currently having a complete rebuild to which i'm starting to see the end of the tunnel. Really looking forward to getting it back on the road. If you've always wanted an S14, go for it and represent!

Very

Audi? WAIT!, judging by those exhausts, i'd say.........

This^... this is what i've done. sold my Z and got into a early 90s jap bucket. Lots of creaks and groans -even though it has been welded and strengthened, plus there is literally nothing in it except the seats and some fire extinguishers - and i did think at one point " oh lord, what have i done " BUT! and its a big BUT, a KIM Kardashian BUT. The performance and rawness off the car, the smell of high octane fuel in the cabin, the whine of the turbo, the exclusivity of the car. I truly love it.

Yeah, over revving just buckles the valves in the end and you get terrific misfire or worse. I'm having the head reconditioned along with new valves and the like so i can rev the conkers off it.!

SR20s are unreliable??? Where on earth did you hear that? Gearbox perhaps but, the engine? No... no definitely not. I'll grant you the every engine has its weaknesses . I suppose in the case of the SR20DET it's the ring-lands but only when you've been pushing your luck with power and not had it mapped so, it's to be expected eventually. Other than that, it's a pretty solid unit. I speak with experience from having an S13 many many years ago and currently have a Pulsar GTIR mapped with 330 hp. Abused it for a year like that with standard internals and it never missed a beat. The Pulsar engine is a bit of a step up in reliability in terms of the SR20 variants as there are slight differences.

Audi? WAIT!, judging by those exhausts, i'd say......... it's a Tesla!!

Shiny shine shiny!! Lovely

With what little respect i have left, i'm going to decline. Mostly because i think if intelligent life landed a craft on your front lawn you'd conclude that it was made by god in flat heaven. i could give you an answer but you're not going to believe it anyway as it is quite unbelievable. I'm not here to persuade you to believe otherwise. I'm not interested in trying to. It was never my intention. In the beginning it seemed interesting what we were talking about, now it's just turned into a one -up-man-ship contest in contexts that just don't float these days. I can't entertain it any longer.

None of us have any evidence. Stop asking for evidence that you know no one really has a hard copy of that's stamped by a credible body, that you'll just sh*t on anyway. We're on a car forum not a council of congress of highly decorated military or congressmen that are gagging to give disclosure to the short sighted. It's an utter waste of time. It's obvious that you've made up your mind about what you believe and that's o.k. but don't ask stupid questions like "What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?" what are you expecting given that you can't get your head around the law of possibility of life somewhere else? A response like "Oh hold on, i just remembered, i've had this UAP or UFO collecting dust in my garage next to my Pulsar, i knew it would come in handy one-day, now i can prove davey_83 wrong once and for all." It's the same as me asking you " Prove god exists, i want hard evidence, show me." You can't. No one can and you know that, just as much as you know that no one -that we know of- can prove the existence of life somewhere else........yet. Stop playing silly buggers and grow up a bit.

FFS Davey, really? You think we're alone? This is where i bow out. Flat earth, misinformation with evolution and now that we're alone. Davey, i think you were born at the wrong time. Possibly a few centuries too late. Come on mate, wake up for the last corner before you crash.

In a nutshell, no, we are not the only planet to sustain life IMO. That's just a basis on the law of probability and a smattering of other things. Not because i have evidence before anyone chimes in with that.

O.k. I'll take that on board. I have misunderstood davey's issue. In that case, i apologise to davey and i'll leave it at that. davey, i apologise. i also apologise if my manner is somewhat, in ya face in my posts.

"We have zero evidence for the types of pond bacteria that would have been seen on earth billions of years ago, that they claim started life on earth. Science has faked elements of evolution and been caught out," The tone of this smacks a bit of " Ha! you tried to fool us but you got busted!!" No,... no, i really don't think so. So, where did you read, hear or study at great length and detail that gave you the credibility to casually make such statements that leads you to the said conclusion.

i think the word "fake" is being used out of context here. Fake suggests that "they" who ever they are, know the truth but haven't told us. That what they have done is given us a turd and told us it's a mars bar. To deceive us to their own ends. To which i can't see how that may be in their favour. And i don't think it's because scientists are on a quest to discredit religion. I don't believe that's the case. I think it's more of a case of, " this is what we think is true based on what we know at the moment" then, of course, what usually happens is, there's a discovery that blows that out of the water and then is replaced by the new theory, based on what we know at that time. Basically we get updated as the scientific community does.

But Davey, Jamaicans are not another species. Plus there are a fair few white Jamaicans too if your mention of "species" is in reference to the stereo-typical view that Jamaicans have to be black.

No one can prove it's fake anymore than they can prove it's not.You can't prove there is a god, or something divine or benevolent anymore than i can disprove it. So if this is all we have , then we need to agree to disagree. Moot subject Davey, moot subject.

i suppose i'll have to grant you that much.

I get your point Davey but, NASA is hardly a credible source. Most of us have just spent the last couple of months slagging them off on this very thread. Including you, to some degree. I can see you'll question information from a source when it suits you or doesn't support your point, and then use the very same source later on when it does. At least try to be consistent.