in Saudi they leave wreaks on the side of the road. or use to.

joking, yes...but just seeing a junkyard along particular bad stretches of the road might 'brighten' drivers? nothing like the feathers of death's wings stroking the forehead to induce serious contemplation.

Nice. I was gaming since Atari 2600 and arcade games at maybe 5? And then my gaming mojos started to go down like a decade ago. These days, I just play Uno, Junkyard, etc. in IRC. Ha.

BTW, you can play these TI99/4A and other systems' games in MAME these days since MESS merged over a year ago.

Now I'm not 100% sure here, but I get the impression that 0-60 times weren't a major consideration in this engine swap. He sourced everything out of a junkyard he runs and built the car for next to nothing.

I did like the idea, from the comments, of chroming the part of the engine above the hood to make it look like a big blower

(bonus pic - http://jalopnik.com/holy-shit-this-car-lives-right-around-the-corner-from-m-1759322236 )

Hmm... filmed in a junkyard... with a truck that looked well past its sell-by date. Upvote

Junkyard Turbo Chevy Datsun 240Z Autocross Thrash - Roadkill has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Dyno-Tuning the Draguar has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Release The Draguar! Building a Blown Jaguar Rat Rod has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Bane steals Bruce Wayne's Corvette Collection by mistake has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Drone video of the Corvette Sinkhole has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Thanks sir! My roommate told me that he was pretty fast. I finally witnessed it today in the mini junkyard. He was chasing falling leaves that were being blown around by the wind while I was snapping some pictures with the new camera. Damn he is fast! I need to do a vid of his quickness.

Yes. It gives its all until it has torn itself apart. But I guess it comes down to an end like this, being donated until it's used up, or sitting in a junkyard for eternity. Maybe this could be looked at as some sort of warrior's death even though the brain is suggesting that it's a sick form of machine torture, a sacrifice for the sake of novelty.

One of my first cars was a hand-me-down Toyota Camry that my parents bought close to the first year they were made. I remember that before it became my car, it broke its timing chain causing it to be dead in the water and required a tow to fix. I don't think that caused any collateral damage when it happened, it just died. Seems like that is likely to mean that it wasn't an "interference engine"?

It seems like having a non-"interfering" engine would be a very desirable thing, to limit the potential damage caused by a broken timing belt/chain. Why isn't that standard design? Takes up too much physical space? I remember when the hood of a car used to have a whole lot of cubic area of air/empty space inside, and now it seems like everything is designed to jam pack in there and fill it to the brim. Or is there some other major engineering or design challenge that makes that difficult/impossible?

Not to sound like a viral ad, but that early Toyota Camry served me real well. My family got 220,000 miles out of it before a CV joint died that it wasn't trivial to find a replacement for. We ended up handing it over to a junkyard at that point since we couldn't track down the part. A local Mexican handyman bought it from the junkyard and either found the part or homebrewed some other solution, and for all I know it could well still be running and up into the 300k+ miles.

The question with global warming to me is, are we even capable of reducing emissions and would we still be able to afford to feed ourselves if we did to the level it would require to reverse it.

Can't stand to read much on it because it's usually non-quantified changes they tell everyone to make, and you have to wade through all the nuts discussing it on both sides. There's almost no "practicality-tempered view" in everything that comes out.

IE
If we all are expected to take public transport, are they going to build public transport, is it going to be so restrictive as to be worthless? Or so costly as to be useless?

If we all are expected to get electric cars, how will we pay for them? How long do current one's last? If it's less than 10 years, how is it cost effective in both the monetary and environmental sense to replace a car that often?

Why do we have manufacturing laws that allow companies to pump out stuff that breaks and is too costly to repair creating a system of replacing whatever every 1-3 years? I've had these microwaves, the POSes don't even last 5 years, where my grandmother had one from the 80s that still works today. Granted it takes forever to nuke something, but good lord, not even getting a 5 year average out of microwaves is piss. And then we have cell phones, those things get replaced more than underwear by some people. Computers have mostly slowed down, where you don't need a new computer every 3-5 years to do simple things.....but you know we got a load of tube monitors and old computers just sitting wherever or shipped wherever because there is nothing to be done with them in the US...charities won't even take OLD machines most the time.

And is the environment impact greater importing things from China or manufacturing them here so they travel less distance and hopefully have better environment protections and more efficiency in place? It's certainly more economically sound, in the short term at least, to ship everything from China. But if we're going to do global warming fixes and this is one.......it would be a huge boon to the US population to actually have an abundance of jobs return. PLUS they can hopefully be told they have to make no planned obsolete cheap-shit products to fill the junkyards and landfills and require a new one to be made like is currently going on.

Got a fridge a few years back, it is craptacular compared to the fridge it replaced that was like 10-15 years old. Sure it keeps food cold, but it's ice maker sucks, it's been "repaired" at least twice and it still sucks. And again, the grandmother's fridge...no ice maker, but it still works to this day and it's an 80s model.

None of this can be productive. Like cash for clunkers......was it really productive destroying that many cars when you'd just have to make new ones to fill that gap? And the people who have old cars and couldn't afford to get new ones?....they still have old cars, perhaps worse than if they had bought one of those clunkers. They were purposefully destroying the motors in those cash for clunker cars by running the motors without oil until they froze, that is not good for the environment and has no productive worth.

When they start to explain things in terms you can look at your own house and property and say, you know...that does need replaced and it'll be so much better because it's guaranteed to perform better and not need replacing for 5-10 years with regular maintenance due the new standards.

For around $2 you could order a new lens shroud.

Or you could turn your $3000 camera and $2000 lens into a jerry-rigged, junkyard camera.

Hipsters......

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Homophobic, Iowa, school' to 'Homophobic, dunkerton, Iowa, school, junkyard prophet, bradlee dean' - edited by xxovercastxx

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.

another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.
Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.
I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.


Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.

I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

It's still all about the missing link, which has never been found. You have a lot of theory and speculation, but you would be surprised how much science takes on faith about evolution, and these discoveries. Entire societies have been fabricated from the find of a single tooth! Or an armbone..but there is no real proof, which is why science still desperately searches for the missing link that they'll never find.

I'll get back to you on the information question because I need to read through the articles..but even if there was some process for it, how do you get from inanimate material to life? Here's a quote:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747

it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.






>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.


>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.