Volvokiller

I'm going to tend to agree with Ilya. I do not visit VS as much as I used to. From my point of view, the forums are overrun with posts about projectors and hids, how dark my tint should be, and Butt tickler threads of god knows what. At any given time there are multiple posts about putting 16ts on LPTs, speedtuning chips, where can I find a 19t, etc.... I also don't really like the way the site is run from an administrative standpoint. While I respect Charles' right to do what he wants with his site, I think it turns off some people, myself included. A good example of this is the for sale section. I don't like having to pay a supporting member fee to use certain features of the forum. Supporting the site should either be mandatory to sign up, or completely optional. Making me be a supporting member to use the for sale feature only turns me away. I don't think I am a cheap-jerk either. I've spent money on my cars and I've given money to Turbobricks over the years because they don't ask for it, or require it to use the forums to their full extent. Perhaps I'm just getting grumpy in my old age (28). I do love Volvo's, what they stand for, and the fact that they are different. But the juvenile attitude here leaves me with the wrong taste in my mouth.

The mirror is calling. You can't touch me.

Oh yeah, I forgot. I mean, I think you blew an intercooler hose when you tried to pass me. Yeah, that's better. :lol:

Don't lie you just suck at shifting. :lol:

Ya RLY Non-highway, through 1st and 2nd gear. I'm sure he'd leave me from a 50 roll.... Must be those heavy pegs :ph34r:

Where in the hell do you NW guys get all your $$? Are they giving it away up there? :lol:

I've had the 16t on my car for a year now. 15k miles, and no problems. IPD ECU for a 13g and still pig rich. At 12 lbs, Greg couldn't pull on me yesterday :P

Quite an impressive build. Us T-Brickers have been following the car for years. Regarding the powerplant - I was under the impression that the B204 was available in Italian markets in 740's only. A factory 2.0L 16v turbo designed to meet Italian regulations regarding engine size. I doubt he's still using a 2.0L block... do you know for sure Mike? Most 16vT builds use at least a B21/3E block, especially in Europe.

Perhaps not on a 97. People have used 16ts and T5 ecus on 98 lpts. There should be no issues.

FWIW - I ran both 315cc and 350cc injectors on my car with a wideband reader. The AFR's didn't change at all. Both still provided too much fuel under boost - a function of the ECU (IPD/TME) no doubt. However, duty cycle is an important variable in injector performance. An injector running at 80% is providing a much more uniform spray than one running 100%. I went with the 350's in my car.

Sweet. I touched it. Suck it everyone! Well, accept for Chuck. He's obviously touched it too.

I'm going to guess that it's not Volvo NA that's backing this year. Either way, I wish them the best of luck for 2006. Hopefully a different set of decision makers is in place for this season.

That trunklid is from the Volvo sponsored S60 challenge series cars. They have nothing in common with the SPEED WC S60 GT cars. Atspeed has a buch of bodywork from these challenge cars laying around for some reason.

You'll find no argument with me there. However the basic beleif strucuture amongst all Christian faiths is pretty consistant.

I was born into a Catholic family. I went to Catholic elementary school, high school, and got a scholarship to a Catholic university. I've taken every religion class there is from 1st grade to advanced theology. I went to church every Sunday for the first 20 years of my life. I've read or heard nearly every passage in the bible. Perhaps I misspoke before, there ISN'T anything you can tell me right now to change my belief that God is a human fabricatation, that the Bible was written by man to use to his historical advantage, and that although Jesus was a historical person, he is not the Son of God. I am comfortable in the life I have lead so far that I will be accountable for all of my actions, seperate from my beliefs when "judgement day" comes. When I speak of the religious formula I am taking a broad look at all religions that exist in the world. Most have the same characteristics that comprise the formula. One is having an almighty power, be it singular or plural. Another is the belief that this higher power spawned the human race. A third is the existance of writings supposedly from this higher power that instruct humans how to live, and gives a history of their ancestors. You refererance the game Operator in relation to how the Bible wasn't constructed. Some reasearch shows that infact, much of the old testament was recorded through spoken word for many years. Also, the New Testament was assembled three hundred years after the death of Christ. Thats like you gathering writngs and telling the story of Joe the Pilgrim tomorrow. I'm telling you, if a concerted effort was made by our government today to turn Benjamin Franklin into a divine figure in 2000 years it would be hard to dispute.

I'm not sure we are looking at the same point. I'm not saying Christians today should be condemned becasue the Isrealites held slaves. I agree that you cannot hold people acountable today for the actions of their forefathers. What I am saying/trying to say is that since the actions of the ancestoral Isrealites were supposedly endorsed by God - ie written in the Bible, it stands to reason that either God was wrong or he changeds his mind based on the custom of the time - hardly Godlike. Not until after I posted. So let me see if I get what you are saying. God allows man free will. Original sin, Adam and Eve, etc. So since the Isrealites wanted to enslave neighboring people and have a King, God says ok, but doesn't agree with it. Now it seems to me reading the passages about having slaves that if this is the inspired word of God then he IS endorsing the use of slaves, even outlining the guidelines for which one can obtain and keep them. Isn't it more likely that man created this wording so that they seemed just in their actions? I'm tiring of this conversation, not becasue I feel I am right and you are wrong just that I think much gets lost in the translation from ideas to words to keyboard. There isn't much you can say that will make me believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God as opposed to a book created by Man to guide early Jews in their beliefs. The fact that nearly every major religion has some version of a book inspired by Divinity leads me to conclude that it is part of the religious formula.

Wow, you really cut to the core. I guess I'm undereducated and have low intellegence because I used a lol smiley. I was only commenting on the fact that you contradicted two major beliefs in Christianity with one post! Allow me. 1. The Bible is inspired by God and considered God's Word. 2. God is omnipotent and infallible. So if the Word of God condones slavery of other peoples from surronding nations, yet Christians today think slavery of others is wrong. Something doesn't gel. Either the Word of God is wrong, or Christians today are wrong. No? You go on to say that no Christians would condone slavery yet you cannot hold the belief that our US ancestors who kept slaves were immoral. OF COURSE YOU CAN. Slavery of another no matter how nice you are, no matter how much respect you show, no matter if and when you release them is still WRONG. Disagree? Just becasue the custom is accepted doesn't mean the custom is moral. This whole question of slavery points out the glaring concept (in my mind) that the Bible was constructed by man to incorporate God in his (man's) ideal, along with his (man's) beliefs and customs. Please refer me to my other simple minded posts. I thought I made coherent and valid arguments.

So the writings "instructed by God through the Holy Spirit" were wrong? So God was wrong? Interesting. So maybe its ok to have slaves so long as we treat them nice and let them go after 7 years? I don't think so. You've dug quite a hole for your argument.

Hey, something I can actually answer! As a Biology student, this kind of stuff was very interesting to me. Species evolve from one another through genetic mutation. When a positive genetic mutation proliferates through a given species it is often because it is beneficial to survival. Not all the time, however is it necessary to survival. Lets start with the hypothetical first ape. Over thousands of generations, mutations have occured and caused the proliferation of the different species - monkeys, baboons, apes, gorillas, humans, etc. Each is different, but they are not mutually exclusive. Just becasue monkeys are smaller, and have longer arms and legs doesn't mean they will be killed off, it means they thrive in the jungle swinging from tree to tree. Just because Gorillas are large and cumbersome doesn't mean they become extinct, it means they continue to live in their own way. With humans, you may have heard of the gradual progression through Cro-magnon and Neandrathal stages. Basically the theory is that as the human brain began to develop and distinguish itself from the ape brain, apes with these mutations began to evolve into humans as we know today. The reason the Cro-magnon and Neandrathals didn't survive is simply that the population wasn't strong enough to maintain itself. The most common misconception about Darwins principle is that ONLY the strongest survive. Its not quite that simple. Each species that exists today does so becasue it has discoverd its niche in the world. Each time cells divide there are mutations. Some cause the death of the organism, some have no effect, some create positive changes. You just don't notice the evolution until you look at a large scale - ie thousands of years. I'll have to read up on it but my initial recollections are that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain documents mostly from BEFORE the time of Christ. I don't think the scrolls contained any gospels or writings of Jesus' apostles. Again, this is all recollection so I could be wrong.

A very nice point. I've never heard of it argued from that angle before. Very interesting. I'm not discounting that the New Testament Gospels weren't written by people that knew Christ. I also understand that they were originally written close to his death. However, after hundreds of years, the likelihood of the stories being altered changes greatly, especially when you look at the corresponding rise of power the Church experienced. Why not juice up the stories of a guy who lived three Hundered years ago. Do you think if a concerted effort was put forth by people in power to take Benjamin Franklin and give him god-like divinity because of his many discoveries now, that in the year 2300 it would be easy to refute? How bout in the year 4000? We could turn Franklinism into the next Christianity.

Well done. I heart black. When's it leaving AtSpeed? I'd like to see it before it heads down to FL. Chris

This is about as flawed logic as you can get. Do you know how insignificant 100 years is when looking at the history of planet Earth? Evolution and change isn't linear. You can't look at the sun shrinking 2ft in 2 hours and then apply it back thousands of years. Who's to say the sun wasn't shrinking 10,000 years ago? What if it was growing 100,000 years ago? You just don't know. What you're proposing is like turning on Monday Night football last night, watching the Eagles complete a pass, consider that the trend of the night, and shutting it off and going to sleep. Who won? Oh the Eagles were completing passes so they muct have won. Oh wait, they lost 42-0. Also, you say that according to your sun formula that 250,000 years ago life couldn't have existed on this planet. What about bone and rock samples that have been carbon dated far older than that? And Carbon dating IS a much more linear method of time tracking than the size of a star.

If you are going to claim broad generalizations that the bible "sort of" got right as proof that it is inspired truth by God, then you also need to look at the historical context that the bible was created in. You are aware that the modern bible as we know it was comprised about 300 years after Christs death. Think about that, THREE HUNDRED YEARS. Its been argued that the development of the Christ Resurrection story was created to fuel persuasion to the Christian Faith around the same time that the Church had enormous oppurtunity to grab political power in the Roman Empire. As it turns out, this is exactly what historically happened. Around the time that the bible came to be, the Church grew powerful both in numbers and in political influence. Who's to say that political influence didn't sculpt the stories in the bible to their favor. Think anyone was alive 300 years later to refute or confirm the stories?

I'm with JC. Viggen than is. Not the other guy. Historically, many things can be proven. Jesus was a real person, the places he went were real, the people he knew were real. To go from there to "The Son of God" is a HUGE leap as far as I'm convinced. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools and universities and all I've learned has lead me away from religion. People have been "inventing" religion and religious beliefs from the dawn of time. They can't all be right can they? There are thousands of religions in the world and each person believes his or her religion is the ultimate truth. I beleve, much as Kevin said, that people create an idea of God, or Allah, or whatever to comfort them in knowing that someday they are going to die. Others need the idea of a higher power to get them through tough times. Thats fine and dandy by me, I just don't subscribe. My biggest problem with SOME religious people is their belief that you must believe in God to be a good person. I take large offense with this outlook. I can live a good life independent of belief in God, and my not believing in whatever it is that you do does not make me any less of a person. I especially hate when social and politcal issues become clouded with religious beliefs. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, and the right to be free from imposed religious beliefs.

Not likely. The cages are top notch. Well, unless you aren't wearing a harness. Then you'll definitely die.