Since were so damn far off topic here anyway, let me set the record straight.
The Key to this whole off topic BS:
The scenario there was simply that two of the direct contributors to the 2004 build directly replied to me stating some factual, hard evidence type things about him and the methods employed in that build. And guess what? Those reputable parties were WRONG. So what the hell was I to do? Of course I was pissed. Read that thread. I had ZERO doubt about the facts that were presented.
I do not buy into the onus being on me to call him when he was the one with the issues with what I posted - *items posted based upon things presented to me as fact*. Which I did not appreciate - on both counts.
Looks great when you beg and plead - hell, he should have called me IN PRIVATE if he wanted to set the record straight, as well as tell me what actually happened. Again, when I hear two things from two different people involved with & about that build - virtually "I was there" type comments....baby, you can usually take it to the bank.
Little did I know that they were assumptions......
Stuck with a $20,000 rebuild project on a vehicle with a year old engine. ON TOP of a $42,000 car. Bad information presented as fact. Above all, trying to figure out what the hell happened to an engine down on power, and with multiple problems that two parties decided to present fact-based comments on.
Add it up........
3.4L, SC heads, 964 cams, B&B headers, K27 HF ZC turbo, Ruf IC. WUR & RPM switch, IA fuel head, Zork, G50/50 5 speed. 438 RWHP / 413 RWTQ -
"930 is the wild slut you sleep with who tries to kill you every time you "get it on" - Quote by Gabe
Movie: 930 on the dyno
Last edited by Craig 930 RS; 11-21-2006 at 09:33 AM..