Highway Trip Blog

A blog about roadworthy classics on America's old highways.

Blooper

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 05 March 2013
in General Subjects

Neighbor Interrupts Video http://highwaytripbooks.com/

Hits: 346 0 Comments
0 votes

Thoughts on Automobile Marketing

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 28 February 2013
in General Subjects

When I was going to college back in the Dark Ages, “Marketing” was one of my core study areas as a Business Management major. Back then, and I have no idea what they’re teaching now, Marketing consisted of five related but distinct business activities. They were:

• Sales

• Advertising

• Market Research

• Product Management

• Brand Management

Within these legitimate business functions, a few giants have made their mark on the American automobile industry and, in turn, American culture.

The origins of American “Muscle Cars” are cloudy, because so many automotive things were happening in the 1940s and early 1950s, but evidence of something quite new can be found.

Some believe the 1949 Oldsmobile 88 started it all with a “Rocket V-8” engine installed in the base model Oldsmobile chassis it shared with Chevrolet. In the days when the best Ford could do was the valve-in-head “Flathead” V-8 design from 1932, that big overhead-valve Oldsmobile engine in the light Olds/Chevy body was like something from outer space.

Others feel Chrysler’s Virgil Exner got it all started in 1955 with the “Letter series” 300 models. Chrysler’s stodgy post-war image was now a thing of the past. Exner’s designs would be industry leaders for the next decade. About this time, some Chrysler cars had the first factory engines to produce 1 horsepower per cubic inch of engine displacement. The powerful and beautifully designed (and engineered) Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth products made quite an impression at the time. Many consider the ’55 to ’65 Chrysler products classics today.

Having survived previous ownership of a 340 hp 1962 Corvette Roadster, Zora Arkus-Duntov also comes to mind. Duntov was a Product Engineer who made his mark by coming up with the concept of the Chevrolet Corvette. He did his work under the “Product Management” segment of Marketing. He believed there were potential buyers who preferred a high performance American sports car, rather than one of those strange foreign types with funny names (Porsche 912?) that required a different set of socket wrenches, and gave the American car enthusiast market exactly what it wanted.

Another Marketing type who made his mark in the “Muscle Car” era was John DeLorean. Most in our younger generation probably associates him with the car, a Hollywood studio-modified DeLorean sports car, in the “Back to The Future” movie series. The DeLorean was, in its own way, revolutionary in design, but it was not what DeLorean had in mind with his original concept for a high-performance car.

John DeLorean made his major mark on the automotive world, and pop culture, when he was a Product Manager in the Pontiac Division of General Motors back in the ‘50s and ‘60s.

DeLorean started with an otherwise plain and unassuming (remember the 1949 Oldsmobile?) Pontiac Tempest two-door sedan, shoe-horned a high performance 389 cubic inch V-8 under the hood, mated the engine to a close-ratio 4-speed manual transmission, beefed up the chassis and suspension and the result was the legendary Pontiac GTO.

Tens of thousands of GTOs were sold all over the world. While John DeLorean didn’t invent the “Muscle Car”, he came very close to perfecting the concept. Go shopping for a 1964 GTO today and you’ll see what I mean.

Also in the early ‘60s at Ford, the Ford Division’s young General Manager, a former Ford Product Manager, had his own ideas. Under his visionary leadership, Ford quickly (about 18 months) rolled out a new model that was light, “sporty”, fun to drive and economical (about 80% of the parts were from Ford’s Falcon and Fairlane) to build. Enter Lee Iacocca’s Ford Mustang in April of 1964 and, like Duntov’s Corvette, you can still buy a new one today.

All this happened many years ago. But the work of innovative automotive Product Engineering and Marketing types like Duntov, Exner, DeLorean and Iacocca has left their mark on America’s ongoing love affair with high performance automobiles.

If you are fortunate enough to own one of their creations, I suggest you enjoy it on a regular basis, take very good care of it and hold on to it.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 269 0 Comments
0 votes

U.S. National Energy Policy? - Part 3

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 20 February 2013
in General Subjects

In the two earlier installments of this trilogy, I suggested we adopt a single grade of automotive gasoline for automobiles and light trucks.

For clarity, I suggest we classify “automobiles and light trucks” as passenger or commercial vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Restriction (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

But there are a lot more vehicles on our streets and highways than cars and light trucks.

We have large (GVWR 80,000 pounds) tractor/trailer combinations, busses, vans, delivery trucks, fire trucks, tow trucks, stationary equipment (generators, pumps, etc.), and so on. Off the road there are diesel powered railroad locomotives of various types and sizes. They all require fuel of some type and all run on internal combustion engines of various types and sizes.

What about airplanes? There are big ones and small ones powered by one or more internal combustion reciprocating (piston) engines and jet (gas turbine) engines in a multitude of shapes and sizes.

Wow. This is getting complicated! Perhaps it might be easier to show, and hopefully simplify, all this information on a table?

alt

It won’t happen overnight, but I think a worthy goal contained in an overall National Energy Policy should be, to the maximum extent possible, to minimize the different types of fuels we need for various mobile and stationery power applications.

It is logical to assume that Pareto’s Law (the “80-20 Rule”) would apply here, since 80% of the fuel consumption will be made by 20% of the possible users of that particular type of fuel.

Outside the very broad categories on the table above, would be such things as automotive nitro-methane, automotive alcohol and high Octane leaded racing fuels, heavy “bunker” oil for large marine engines, specialty fuels (JP-5, JP-6, etc.) military gas turbine fuels, and so on.

According to the Pareto principle, these and other specialty fuel consumers might constitute about 80% of the user categories, but represent only about 20% (or much less) of the actual fuel volume consumed.

Many years ago, when electricity was being developed as an industrial and consumer product, a great technological argument raged, with powerful proponents on each side.

Some, led by Thomas A. Edison, the inventor of the light bulb and many other things, felt Direct Current (DC) technology should be the standard for our nation and the world. Others, led by Nikola Tesla, believed with equal fervor that Alternating Current (AC) was the preferred form of electrical energy for commercial purposes. Tesla won the argument and the rest is history.

A similar situation exists with something as large and as important as a National Energy Policy for the United States in the 21st Century.

Fossil fuels are not the only part of if, but they are and will likely remain a huge part of it. Just like the years-long arguments between Edison and Tesla over electricity, what we ultimately do as a nation with fossil fuels remains to be seen. But the sooner we resolve how our nation is going to deal with our total energy situation, including what we use to power our cars, trucks, airplanes, and other transportation equipment, the better off we, and the rest of the world, will be.

If you have not already developed and shared your thoughts on this subject with your two U.S. Senators and one Member of Congress of Congress, I suggest you do so.

If you send your letter promptly, you just might get an incomprehensible written response you can put in your pocket or purse for when you vote this November.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 245 0 Comments
0 votes

U.S. National Energy Policy? - Part 2

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Monday, 18 February 2013
in General Subjects

Recalling information presented in Part 1 of this trilogy on our U.S. National Energy Policy, we experienced our first modern Arab Oil Embargo from June to September of 1967. We experienced a second Arab Oil Embargo from October of 1973 to March of 1974.

Since then we have been subject to world oil market manipulation by an international oil cartel called the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries – OPEC.

The day before I began writing this missive, I paid $4.35 per gallon for 87 Octane unleaded regular fuel. 89 and 91 Octane grades were about $4.45 and $4.55 per gallon, respectively.

Why do we have three grades of gasoline? Apparently someone other than “free market forces” decided some years ago that we needed 3 grades of unleaded gasoline and, since we still have three grades of unleaded gasoline, it looks like they got away with it.

So now, in addition to my having a choice of two other grades of gasoline that I don’t need in my car, gas stations all across the country must have not one but, in most cases, three underground tanks to store the 3 different grades of gasoline.

The gas station’s gasoline supplier must have a fuel tanker trailer for each grade of gasoline so one grade does not contaminate the other two. So, instead of having one tanker trailer, the supplier must have three different trailers, or make some other arrangement to achieve that equivalency, to carry all three grades of automobile fuel to the gas stations they supply.

Go further back in the supply chain to the refinery. There are processing costs associated with refining the three grades of gasoline.

Refinery processes being what they are, let’s stipulate that it’s easier and more efficient (less costly) for the refinery to produce a single grade of unleaded fuel than three different grades of unleaded automobile fuel.

45 years after the 1967 Arab Oil Embargo, I am amazed that we have not converted to a single grade of automotive gasoline, and developed compatible standards so automobile manufacturers can design and build automobiles and light trucks that run on this single grade of fuel for optimum engine performance.

I know of no compelling reason, other than current government Regulations to the contrary, that free market forces and some common sense cannot:

1. Encourage all U.S. gasoline refiners to produce a single grade of unleaded automotive fuel and

2. Encourage all automobile and light truck manufacturers to produce vehicles that will perform satisfactorily on that single grade of automobile gasoline.

But wait. There’s more!

Did you know that, in many parts of the U.S., there are “summer blend” and “winter blend” gasolines? Well, there are.

So we can take everything presented above about the costs of having three current grades of unleaded automobile fuels and multiply that by two blends of unleaded automobile fuels in certain parts of the U.S. Now some (but not all) refineries must produce not three but six fuel blends per year.

Tanker trailers must carry those six fuel blends to many gas stations and gas station owners must have storage tanks capable of keeping not only the three grades of gasoline from contaminating one another but the two blends of the three grades of gasoline from contaminating one another.

All of this regulatory mirth and merriment comes at a price, and that price is paid either directly or indirectly by the American consumer because we don’t have a rational National Energy Policy.

This final point was presented in Part 1 of this Article trilogy, and this writer believes it’s important enough to repeat here:

If you have not already developed and shared your thoughts on this subject with your two U.S. Senators and one Member of Congress of Congress, I suggest you do so.

If you send your letter promptly, you just might get an incomprehensible written response you can put in your pocket or purse for when you vote this November.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 232 0 Comments
0 votes

U.S. National Energy Policy? - Part 1

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 13 February 2013
in General Subjects

In June of 1967, I was on the verge of graduating from college. That’s when the 1967 Arab Oil Embargo brought the energy crisis crashing into my life. I remember it well. It all had to do with political and military events in the Middle East about which I knew little and, at the time, could have cared less.

That naive condition lasted only until my family had to pay more for gasoline for our three (I lived at home and both my parents worked) automobiles. That made it personal.

Until the Embargo officially ended in September of 1967 I vaguely remember some contemporary talk about economic risks associated with our national dependence on overseas supplies of crude oil. If our elected officials did anything serious about reducing our dependence on overseas sources of oil, I don’t remember what they did.

Fast forward to October of 1973. That was when our national leaders, about whom I didn’t pay all that much attention at the time, apparently did something that made some people in the Middle East very unhappy. Their collective unhappiness prompted what we know today as the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.

The very personal local manifestation of that regional unhappiness was skyrocketing gas prices and long lines to buy fuel for our gas-hungry American cars until the Embargo officially ended in March of 1974.

I was six years older then, and remember lots of talk about the U.S. becoming “energy independent” but I don’t recall anything done to make that happen.

Just like in 1967, there was a lot of talk and little action.

I write this in May of 2012. June of 1967 was almost 45 years ago. October of 1973 was 39 years ago. To say that we’ve had plenty of time to develop an effective national energy policy could be the understatement of the decade.

Just last week, I paid $4.25 a gallon for 87 Octane unleaded fuel for my 8 year old Korean compact sedan with a manual transmission. That sentence is loaded with things that should not have been said.

In 1967 and again in 1973, and to a significant extent even after all these years, perceptive, or merely lucky, owners of the VW Bug and similar economy cars had their purchase decisions richly rewarded. Their owners were, on a relative basis, merely inconvenienced.

At the time, there was a national hue and cry about a “National Energy Policy” that would enhance our national security, keep fuel prices under control and help us reduce our national dependence on foreign oil supplies.

Fast forward to 2012 (today) and how far have we come?

Sadly, to say we’ve not made very much progress puts the best possible spin on a dismal situation.

A harsh critic of what we’re doing, or not doing, might argue persuasively that we are economically killing ourselves by a self-inflicted death of a thousand cuts.

The so-called “Middle East Peace Process” seems to be going nowhere and instability reigns supreme in the major oil-producing regions of the world.

Concurrent to all this carefully planned (contrary to what some alleged experts say) chaos, the U.S. government’s de facto policy seems to encourage the transfer as many American dollars out of the U.S. as humanly possible, amid talk in some circles about “redistribution of (our) wealth” on a global scale. (For more information on that, just enter “United Nations Agenda 21” in your Internet browser, and get ready for some shocking reading.)

If today’s fuel prices and chaos in the Middle East is the best we can do 45 years after the first Arab Oil Embargo, it sounds to this author very much like an intentional absence of a constructive U.S. national energy policy.

The question then becomes, “How could our national government do such a thing?”

That’s easy to answer. American voters have turned the Federal Government asylum over to the lunatics, and we’re paying a frightful price for it.

If you have not already developed and shared your thoughts on this subject with your two U.S. Senators and one Member of Congress of Congress, I suggest you do so.

If you tell them you want a pro-American national energy policy and you want it now, and send your letter promptly, you just might get an incomprehensible written response that you can put in your pocket or purse to read again before you vote this November.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 293 0 Comments
0 votes

Liquid Cooled or Air cooled?

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 12 February 2013
in General Subjects

In any discussion on advantages or disadvantages of how to cool an internal combustion engine, the “air versus water” arguments make themselves known fairly soon. This is important, too, because something must be done to keep an internal combustion engine from destroying itself with the heat it generates.

For the sake of brevity, let’s focus here on passenger cars because they are most familiar to us. But the discussion could easily extend to non-jet aircraft engines, heavy trucks, busses, diesel locomotives, race cars, special purpose vehicles of all types, stationary power (generators, etc.), water vessels of all kinds, etc. That’s hard to do in less than 800 words!

Since I own and drive my 1969 Porsche 912 and a very different 1989 Lincoln Town Car, I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. Liquid-cooled and air-cooled passenger car engines have their own devoted followers and relative strong points:

Lighter engine/vehicle weight

Air-cooled engines are usually based on magnesium-alloy engine cases, cylinder heads, timing gear/camshaft covers and the like. Steel or cast iron doing the same job will be heavier. Air- cooled engines don’t need a radiator or engine block filled with a liquid coolant. Nor do air-cooled engines have a second layer of metal for the water jacket, through which the liquid coolant passes.

Fewer components

Air –cooled engines don’t have liquid filled radiators, thermostats, radiator hoses, heater hoses and water pumps. Rear-engined Volkswagens and Porsches have a single transaxle. They don’t have a heavy drive shaft or conventional separate rear end.

Excellent extreme weather tolerance

While extreme hot or cold weather takes a toll on automotive batteries, air-cooled engines tend to handle weather extremes very well. First, there’s no water in the cooling system to freeze. Engine oil must be suited to the situation, of course. It may get really viscous, but it usually won’t freeze solid.

Noise

Because mechanical components of an air-cooled engine are, literally, hanging out in the breeze, they tend to do a lot of clicking and clacking. Many moving liquid-cooled engine components are covered to some extent by the water jacket and the liquid coolant circulating inside the engine block and cylinder heads. This difference is clearly seen in motorcycle and aircraft engines. Mechanical noise (not engine exhaust) is mostly evaluated by the ears of the beholder.

Heat

To sustain highway speeds for hours, or just tooting around in town, any internal combustion engine will generate a lot of heat.

Dr. Porsche figured out how to deal with that by using a belt-driven fan to pump large amounts of outside air over as many of the metal (heat conducting) surfaces of the engine as possible. His handiwork was effective and became the stuff of automotive legend.

Likewise, the large and tilted liquid-coolant radiator of the Chevrolet Corvette has been precisely engineered to remove excess heat from its liquid-cooled V-8 engine through an efficient “metal to liquid to air” heat transfer process.

Fuel Economy

Generally speaking, air-cooled cars are small and light with smaller engines powering them. Lighter cars can be made with smaller engines. The total package weighs less than a large car powered by a large engine. The effect of vehicle weight, or relative lack thereof, on fuel economy is direct, measurable and sometimes profound.

There are, of course, many small and very economical liquid-cooled cars. But I don’t know of any large automobiles powered by air-cooled engines.

Engine Tidbits:

In WWII, some very large and very heavy American tanks were powered by an air-cooled, 9 cylinder radial aircraft engine adapted to armored vehicle service. As far as I know, they were successful until replaced by newer equipment with liquid-cooled diesel engines.

The legendary Ford GT40 (so named because it was only 40 inches tall) was powered by a race modified liquid-cooled Ford V-8 passenger car engine. It beat the best the automotive world had to offer at LeMans in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, an impressive performance indeed.

On the other hand, Porsche’s air-cooled 917 won at LeMans in 1970 and 1971. One of the tiny Porsches was clocked in competition on the Le Mans race circuit at an incredible 246 mph.

In summary, both passenger car engine cooling techniques work. Each presents its own set of relative advantages and disadvantages. Know what they are, take your pick and enjoy the ride!

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 387 0 Comments
0 votes

Thoughts on Income Tax Rates

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 05 February 2013
in General Subjects

There’s been a lot of talk lately about income tax rates. Much of that talk has been only half true, intentionally misleading or just wrong.

One person on one side of the argument presents information to support his or her position, expecting the viewer, reader or listener to accept the information as a sound argument based on fact and, therefore, correct.

Another person on the other side of the argument does likewise.

Both arguments come from respectable sources and are well presented.

In order to confirm what has been presented to form a personal opinion, a prudent person learns what’s behind the information just seen, read or heard.

For example, some people have been recently criticized for paying a lower income tax rate than an hourly factory worker or salaried office worker. Okay. But that’s not the whole story.

Many wealthy people who plan their personal portfolios well are not breaking any laws. In fact they are doing exactly what our laws encourage them to do. They don’t work for wages. They invest. They also know that investments involve risk, sometimes substantial risk. That known risk is why our government establishes different tax rates for different kinds of income.

Wages are taxed at up to 35%.

Dividends and capital gains distributions are taxed at up to 28%.

Well, some people say, often loudly, that’s not FAIR! So if it’s not “fair” why do we have different income tax rates, with a multitude of variants, in our Tax Code? We have different tax rates because the Congress we elect every two years puts them there!

For brevity, let’s stipulate (whether you agree or not) that there is a valid and direct relationship between economic risk and reward.

Keeping your cash under the mattress doesn’t involve any investment risk. In exchange for no risk and no income from that money upon which an income tax might be due, there’s no income and no income tax.

A wage earner pays the previously mentioned regular income tax rate on wages. This wage earner doesn’t take much risk to earn that money, except the possibility of a layoff or something happening where he works that would prevent him from working.

The employee comes to work, does what is expected in a safe and proper manner. But the financial risk associated with doing that for a living is fairly low and the income tax rate is higher to recognize the wage earner’s relative lack of risk.

Some people are wage earners and investors – hybrids in the context of this discussion. Some income may be wages taxed at up to 35% and some income may be dividends or capital gains taxed at up to 28%. Therefore, some things presented above and below may apply to this combination worker/investor.

The pure investor can invest for current income, upon which the income tax rate is lower than the income tax rate paid by the typical wage earner. Our lawmakers have made the dividend income rate lower because investor’s money is usually at higher risk. An investment can lose value, sometimes significant value or end up being worth nothing. That’s a high risk!

If a person has $1,000,000 to invest in a junk bond fund that averages a 6% dividend yield, that cool million will yield about $60,000 a year in dividends – taxed at the lower dividend rate because $1,000,000 of the “dividend income” investor’s money is at risk.

Investors with even more to invest, let’s say $20,000,000, and don’t want to pay income taxes on dividends, can invest their money in companies that don’t pay cash dividends (there are lots of them) and try to make their money as stock traders seeking to, “Buy low and sell high.”

Any money made on those trades is considered a capital gain and taxed at a rate lower than regular wages because this hypothetical “capital gains” investor has $20,000,000 of his or her own money risk.

So, could someone have a substantial income from capital gains only and pay a 15% tax rate on that income? Yes. And, assuming everything is correctly reported, doing so is perfectly legal.

Paying a lower tax rate on investment income is exactly how the tax code gives people an incentive to invest their money in productive assets to help build our economy and our nation.

The simple fact is that the combination of government-sanctioned risk encouragement and personal freedom has created more jobs and more wealth for more people in the United States of America than any other nation on earth.

My personal experience leads me to believe that people who have a hard time getting their mind around different income tax rates are either unable to understand, or unwilling to accept, Capitalism.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 378 0 Comments
0 votes

Why Are Foreign Products So Inexpensive ?

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 30 January 2013
in General Subjects

This easy question prompts an easy answer. They aren’t.

They just seem inexpensive because various U.S. governmental and social policies have conspired to create the perfect storm of competition for U.S. domestic products.

Like all great things, it’s really very simple. We are simply pricing ourselves out of world markets.

We’ve heard a lot lately about local, state and national “budget shortfalls.” That’s what spending more than you take in is called these days. The politically correct answer, of course, is not to cut spending (and offend a carefully developed constituency) but to increase taxes to cover the excessive spending. Voodoo Economics.

The same principle applies to “cheap foreign products”. Let me present my ideas of the four main reasons why the costs of American products are too high!

Government Regulations

Contrary to what I believe is the original intent of the Commerce Clause (to make trade “regular” rather than to restrict it) Government regulates (restricts) just about everything American producers make. Compliance with those regulations is often very costly. That cost must be included in the cost of the product. Who pays the cost? American consumers. Look at the plethora of local, county, state and federal government agencies that issue Regulations. The list (EPA, OSHA, MSHA, FAA, FTC, CPSC, ad nauseum) and their regulatory burden boggles the objective mind.

Many Regulations require compliance, or proof of compliance even if the business is already in compliance. Compliance actions, even certifying that the business is already in compliance, cost money. Business costs, and consumer prices, go up.

Energy Costs

We’ve been talking about “energy independence” since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. I was there. I heard it and saw it.

Powerful skeptics said at the time, and other powerful skeptics still say, the U.S. can’t become energy independent overnight. Nobody said we could. But that shouldn’t mean we can’t start!

I write this in 2012. The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo was 39 years ago, and we’re still dangerously dependent on imported oil. Our federal government seems to block or restrict development of U.S. domestic fossil fuel assets at every turn. Business costs, and consumer prices, go up.

Nuclear energy? A 1979 movie and concurrent political pressure did the U.S. nuclear power industry no favors. We’ve basically stopped building nuclear power plants. Other countries get very large percentages of their electricity from nuclear power, but not us. We burn more expensive coal, natural gas or fuel oil. Business costs, and consumer prices, go up.

Union Contracts

I’m not anti-union. I’m just suggesting that union contracts in general add costs to most everything mined, made, processed, grown or shipped within the U.S.

It’s not just union manufacturers, either. They and non-union firms receive and ship many of their products on trucks and trains driven and maintained by union drivers and mechanics.

If either a union or non-union firm needs maintenance on their building, or build a new building, chances are pretty good that union workers will build, wire, plumb and otherwise finish the new building, at union pay scales with union benefits.

As a matter of fact, the federal Davis-Bacon Act, which requires public agencies to pay the “prevailing wage” for new construction labor is an expensive legislative concession to unions. Business (or government) costs, and consumer prices, taxes or deficits go up.

Summary

Next time you go to a discount retailer, find a dress shirt made in Viet Nam or Guatemala or wherever. Look at the price tag and consider how the shirt was made and shipped to the U.S. so it could be sold at a modest profit, for that price.

Then compare the discount store dress shirt to a similar U.S. made department store dress shirt for three times the price.

Wake up America. We have found the “cheap foreign competition” enemy and it is us.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 317 0 Comments
0 votes

Engine oil cooler 01

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 04 December 2012
in General Subjects

Explains external cooler
Hits: 391 0 Comments
0 votes

Car Show Overview 01

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 04 December 2012
in General Subjects

March 2012 Car Show I
Hits: 395 0 Comments
0 votes

US Rt 12 Ruins 03

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 04 December 2012
in General Subjects
Hits: 377 0 Comments
0 votes

US Rt 12 Ruins 02

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 04 December 2012
in General Subjects
Hits: 385 0 Comments
0 votes

1934 Gas Station, Coalinga CA 01

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 27 November 2012
in General Subjects

Restored 1934 gas station 01

Hits: 397 0 Comments
0 votes

Fully Restored (1934) Richfield Gas Station 01

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 27 November 2012
in General Subjects

A community effort in Coalinga, California (central California west of I-10) has resulted in the complete restoration of a Richfield gas station built in 1934.  It is now part of a permanent automotive museum in downtown Coalinga, and very much worth seeing.

Hits: 338 0 Comments
0 votes

Patton Museum - Intro & Displays

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 27 November 2012
in General Subjects

Outdoor video visit

Hits: 374 0 Comments
0 votes

External Transmission Fluid Filter

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 27 November 2012
in General Subjects

Clean Fluid Beats Dirty Fluid

Hits: 414 0 Comments
0 votes

Former Pennsylvania U.S. Route 322 Bridge Site, , Part 1

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 07 November 2012
in General Subjects
"

What happens to a former U.S. Highway after it has been decommissioned or, in this case, by-passed. The roadway becomes someone's driveway and, with no bridge, it becomes a dead-end road to nowhere.

"
Tags: Untagged
Hits: 239 0 Comments
0 votes

Former Pennsylvania U.S. Route 322 Bridge Site, Part 3

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 07 November 2012
in General Subjects
"

A closer look at the once scenic natural spring adjacent to U.S. Route 322 in western Pennsylvania. The Clarion River bridge has been replaced with a modern bridge nearby and the former highway is now little more than a parking lot. But the brave little natural spring just keeps doing what natural springs do.

"
Tags: Untagged
Hits: 297 0 Comments
0 votes

Highway History - U.S. Route 20, Part 3

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 07 November 2012
in General Subjects
"

Highway history on U.S. Route 20 east of Hessville, Ohio - Part 3. This is a rare look at early U.S. Highway construction techniques and how they grow and change, in this case one layer at a time.

"
Tags: Untagged
Hits: 272 0 Comments
0 votes

Highway History - U.S. Route 20, Part 4

Posted by Michael Newlon
Michael Newlon
Travel with me and my 1969 Porsche, and the new Lincoln Town Car project, as I t
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 07 November 2012
in General Subjects
"

Highway history on U.S. Route 20 east of Hessville, Ohio - Part 4

"
Tags: Untagged
Hits: 244 0 Comments
0 votes