Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Port Royal, South Carolina

Port Royal, SC Car Consumer Discussions

Re: joseo [joseo]

by deskman on Fri Dec 07 07:57:01 PST 2007

Mack in naples you need to work for merc,bmw or caddy. naples is a ok car town .low volume ,big gross leases or mini cash deals. my parents live in port royal area of naples.if your ever in town let me know we can meet for a refreshment on 5th ave. Deskman

Re: And I do Wear a Watch [laurasdada]

by lexusguy on Tue Feb 12 21:20:13 PST 2008

Cars and watches, I appreciate 'em both for their artistry and technology. I've always been a watch guy I'm much the same. I don't have a big collection of watches, just two that I really like, and I'd definitely rather wear nothing than a cheap-o quartz. I just recently retired my everyday Zenith Class for a new Port Royal Open. To me Zenith is the perfect work watch, I don't know of anything that goes better with a nice suit. For nights out with the missus, I wear my Jaeger Lecoultre Reverso. I find Rolex to be a bit cliche and boring. It's the go to brand for people who know nothing about watches, and just want something expensive. Not trying to offend anyone on this board that might have one, but they definitely aren't for me.

55 & All That...PaukenSchlag

by douglasr on Wed Feb 06 12:48:16 PST 2008

...for the record: between December 18, 1941 and August 31, 1942 GrossAdmiral Erich Raeder's U-Boat task force began attacking American shipping from NewFoundland to the Carribean and the Gulf of Mexico. 184 patrols of 104 Type Vii and 80 Type IX U-Boats sank 609 ships comprising 3,122,456 tons of allied shipping, for an average killrate of 3.3@16,969 tons. The attack force was part of Raeder's Operation Drumbeat called "PaukenSchlag", directed to show the Bohemian Corporal what the U-Boat force could do with limited forces. Only 44 U-Boats were patrolling the Atlantic off America's coast in December 1941. Raeder withdrew the bulk of his attack force after August 1942 for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that U-Boat Enigma codes were not safe from decoding by Bletchley Park. The British (and American's) often knew what orders the U-Boat's had before the prospective "Kaptain's" knew them. It did not stop them from effectively sinking many American and Allied ships, easily lighted up against the coast-line. Admiral Earnest Joseph King was Chief of the Atlantic Fleet until December 20, 1941, effectively being promoted by President Roosevelt to the newly created position of CominCH, Commander, essentially America's "First Sea Lord", which became effective in time for the Arcadia Naval Conference where Britain and America plotted strategy together to defeat the German Naval Operations in the Atlantic. His replacement was Admiral Royal E. Ingersol, with Admiral Adolphus Andrews as Commander of Eastern Sea Frontier. King was not liked but respected and it was said that he: 'shaved with a blow-torch'. King remained in command, and also as Chief of Naval Operations from March 1942 until 1945. As late as July 27/28 1943 German U-Boats were still able to assail the East Coast of the United States. KaptainLeutnant Herbert Werner's U505 and Seigmann's U-230 proceed past the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay: "Siegmann tuned the bow of his boat into the shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Surprisingly not a single enemy vessel was there to stop us as the lights of Norfolk became clearly visible on port. The American sailors must have been at a big party that night; as we passed the Naval Base, the silhouette of the illuminated city rose sharply against the dark sky." So the German's were very adept until the tide of battle changed in 1943 at attacking our shipping, irrespective of whomever was Commander of the American Eastern Seaboard Frontier. The 55 Mph Speed limit was as effective in saving fuel/lives as Admiral Ingersol's campaign to stop U-Boat attacks against the Eastern Seaboard. I well remember when the speed limit dropped from 65 to 55 the first time round. Awful. It caused more accidents that it spared because people bunched up unnecessarily, driving at speeds they were not comfortable with. Plus the increased time-to-destination added an opportunity cost of incalcuable dimension because it took you that much longer to get where you were going. Safe driving, good driving technique, and common sense have more to do with saving lives than the initial speed at which you are driving. Flow of traffic and density is just as important as the speed at which you are traveling. Driving 10 mph slower on the interstate will actually cost more than driving 65, in lost time, increased traffic density and higher accident risk. I spent many an hour on the I-95 in frustration as operational speeds dropped to 45-50mph when traffic density got thick enough...you HAD to break the law to get anywhere!. If you did that, then you also ran the risk of a much slower driver pulling into the left-hand lane when you least expected it. Bad situation all round. I found in asking, that people who advocate 55 are not the ones most effected by it, and spend few miles on the road that frequent users. I routinely have driven 100 miles a day to get to work, so a 10-15mph slow-down on the interstate means a lost 30 minutes each way to work, more fuel consumed, and much uneeded aggrivation. My work also took me to Europe, where I drove between Paris and Brussels. Sane traffic laws and regulation made it easy to cruise safely at 85mph on the AutoRoutes National and AutoBahnen than the same drive distance-wise in America. European's of course, pay heavily for the priveledge of driving, a licence costing $1,500 to obtain with obligatory 1 year apprentice training (in England required to have an "L" on your license plates, for "Learner"). Speed comes at a price though, they have surveylance and GATSO cameras and fines in Germany for tail-gating which we do not have here. So speed per se is not the issue: driver training and proper social etticate behind the wheel is. Nor will going slower save fuel: you'll consume more, and conversely increase the amount of CO/2 displaced into the air, because we will be behind the wheel longer to get where we are going. We've been down this path before, it was stupid then and is stupid now. The arguments then, as now, just so much a "Paukenschlag" advocated by those least effected by it. Leave the speed limits well enough alone. Lower the limits, and some of us might end up like a lot of American shipping off the coast of America in 1942: Sunk!. DouglasR Sources: 'Iron Coffins', by Capt. Herbert A. Werner, Holt-Rinehardt & Winston, NY, 1969; 'Hitler's U-Boat War' Clay Blair, Random House, NY 1996)

Re: Camry Audio System [stlpike07]

by wingfield1 on Tue Mar 13 01:33:42 PDT 2007

I was originally sent to a car stereo store. It was there that I purchased the receiver and kit to be able to listen to XM through the standard radio. It does work except the display is virtually useless...it is difficult to even tell what station your tuned into. More than that, scrolling through channels is laborious to say the least and the radio will not hold any pre-sets once you power the vehicle off...needless to say, this is a royal pain. This sort of arrangement was unacceptable, so I decided to splurge for the JBL. Apparently you cannot simply pull one out and replace it with the JBL unit...I believe the console openings, etc. are completely different and that is where the problem lies. My guess is the JBL unit and the navigation unit can be "exchanged" but neither can be with the standard. Its a real shame as satellite radio is my "hot button" so to speak. I'm trying to downplay this with my wife as the car was a gift but I'm very disappointed. At this time, the only options I see are either to live with this inferior arrangement or go back to an external XM receiver similar to what I had in my previous car, which I swore I would never do. The sound is marginal to say the least and the interior look is spoiled.

Re: plug 80's Walkman into the aux input port? [sebring95]

by rorr on Thu Sep 21 12:40:10 PDT 2006

Well, to be fair to hansienna, from what I understand he wants a cassette player because he has a collection of books on tape (BTW - I've never listened to a book on tape, but usually when I read a book I don't really have any desire to reread it for several years. Is it different with books on tape? :confuse:) So, from that standpoint, it might be a bit more difficult to simply 'replace' his cassette collection with CD's. And ripping music and stuff from CD's to mp3 certainly can be pretty quick (I can typically rip a 60 minute album to mp3's in about 5 minutes). But converting analog sources (stuff on cassettes or vinyl albums) CAN'T be done (AFAIK) any faster than normal playback speed. And somehow I doubt hansienna wants to go through the hassle of playing ALL those tapes, at normal playback speed, into a computer for conversion to mp3s. I went through this awhile ago with my collection of cassettes and vinyl; it was a royal PITA to play back the albums, one track at a time (to get the individual .wav files). But at least now I'm able to listen to stuff I haven't listened to in YEARS in my car.....

Re: Off-topic [brightness04]

by rockylee on Sat Sep 16 03:59:48 PDT 2006

Glad we are starting to agree on something Yeah it's nice when we can agree. ;) The USDollar is sinking because of protectionism policies and the threat of further protectionism policies. Foreigners have been willing to take dollar in exchange for the good that they give us because there had been an implied promise that with dollar they can buy just about anthing under the sun. That changed when our Congress stopped the UAE from buying some port handling facility and the Chinese from buying an oil company. I'm not debating whether either one of them carries real national security concern . . . but the simple fact that the two Congressional interventions came as quite a shocker to the dollar-holding rest of the world that the promisary notes are not redeemable for everything under the sun. Well president Bush, well actually his cronies are still selling off control of infrastructure to foreign country's. They just went from ports to the Military. No biggie, right ? Further threat of protectionism dampens the enthusiasm of foreigners holding dollars even more. Since dollar is not something they can use in their own country, they will have to go through two sets of transactions, buying goods on the international market, then selling back home, to convert dollar into local currency . . . If the US is to impose tariffs, the action will guarantee to invoke retaliatory tariffs by other countries . brightness, as smart as you are you act like they are holding the best cards. WE the United States, hold the Royal Flush, not them. ;) We were the only nation, and currently could once again be the only nation that is self supportive. We can make everything we need and the rest of the world would go down the crapper if we didn't trade. They depend on us, not the other way around. ;) which would very much likely to make foreign holders of dollar pay twice over on those tarrifs as they convern their dollar holdings . . . not to mention the risk of currrency control disallowing dollar outflow or inflow by the US altogehter. And that's a bad thing. The rest of the world owes us trillions, and we could tell them it's time to pay up or be taken over. ;) When dollar is worth less, everything goes up in price in the US. When that happens, eventually wage go up. You and I have lived most of our lives in a period of relative price stability, but double digit inflation was common when we were born. $10k was a CEO salary back in 1970, and the price of a single family home was around $20k in some of the most expensive national markets The 70's were good times for my family. The 80's had some good and bad years for my family. My mom at GE, made $13 something an hour in 1985. Dad I think made $15 or $16 as a job setter, but got laid-off for a small while. the same house is probably worth close to $1 million today. Obviously, as you can see, someone who took out a mortgage of $20k at 6.5%and bought that house, even if at 60-year terms (it did not exist back then), would have done very very well. We had a small house and then mom, and dad, baught a new one in the country in a small town at the time. Now it's grown into a city. Both of my parents regret buying a home that today is worth over $200K today. Dad, said he could afford it but back then he said he wasn't willing to spread himself that thin because of being laid-off twice at GM. The game was played out between the 6.5% fixed nominal interest and the 12% plus real inflation . . . in other words, the borrower was making 5.5% every year by holding that loan (i.e. doubling in real equity every 12 years or so, per rule of 72). Meanwhile, any saver was getting wiped out by the same inflation at the same 12% a year rate (minus whatever small per centage the bank gave on saving accounts). That's why I said, massive inflation would be a bail out for deep-in-debt borrowers at the expense of creditors and savers. Protectionism would achieve exactly that. Well as a free marketeer, don't you believe in a correction to get things out of whack, back in line with reality ? ;) You and I being smart enough to not over spend would reap the benefits of a real-estate correction, wouldn't we ? However the downside would be the auto-industry and just about most everything else would have to be corrected to a true market value. It's good for the savy consumer, but not good for the sellers. Rocky