Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hans L

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 18
I complained to Photobucket last month about the change/charge for third-party hosting.  They understood my situation and granted me Third-Party hosting rights at my current yearly subscription rate (less than $40/yr).   

Hope they start to understand most are not going to pay $399/yr for Third Party Hosting. 

Site Comments/Discussion / Re: problems...BIG time!
« on: November 11, 2017, 06:21:18 PM »
Good news - I sent Photobucket an email stating my disappointment with their new policy regarding 3rd party hosting and the new exorbitant fees - here's their response:
Moss (Photobucket Support)
Nov 9, 3:00 PM MST

Hello Hans,

Thank you for reaching out to us about this. In regards to the email you received, we have decided to make an exception for your account. You will be able to stay on your current Plus 20 subscription and will not need to upgrade your account at this time.

As stated in our current Terms of Use, you will continue to be grandfathered into 3rd Party Hosting capabilities until the end of December 2018 or when your subscription ends in 2019, whichever comes last.

We apologize for the confusion and any inconvenience this may have caused. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this.


and the email I sent:

Sebastian -

This is extremely disappointing news as it appears in order to retain "3rd Party Hosting" feature, my annual fees will increase from $35/yr to $399 - that's insane!!   I barely use 20GB of storage and I use "3rd Party Hosting" for less than 50 images per year on hobbyist forums (like   I do not use it for any commercial or revenue generating purposes at all.

What options do I have?  Can Photobucket create a new plan that limits the number of images that can be classified as "3rd Party Hosting"?

If not, I'll need to seek a more affordable, competitive alternative.   Again, this is very disappointing and this feels like extortion by Photobucket.

Please advise what options other than the Plus 500 you can offer.


Hans Littooy
San Diego, CA

Site Comments/Discussion / Re: problems...BIG time!
« on: November 08, 2017, 03:56:19 PM »
Thanks hggr69!   I'll check them out.  Yeah, I agree - if Photobucket doesn't change their policy on 3rd policy hosting, they will become a niche player at best. 

Site Comments/Discussion / Re: problems...BIG time!
« on: November 08, 2017, 02:48:43 AM »
I just got the email yesterday from Photobucket saying my account (Plus20) will not longer be offered and I'll need to upgrade to another plan within 30 days.

However, it appears only the $400/yr plan will continue to permit 3rd party hosting (the ability to copy the link from PB and have the image presented on sites like here vs a link sending the user back to Photobucket). 

Has anybody found a more competitive offering??



Originality / Re: 69 Z/28 Water Pump Pulley Real or Repro
« on: September 25, 2017, 08:47:34 PM »
Here's the pulley off my Z - sorry, not the best quality image.   Hope this helps.

Originality / Re: M22
« on: September 22, 2017, 05:39:56 PM »
Appears LA changed the VIN stamp location later in the '69 model year.  Mine was stamped on the side by the Trans ID stamp.

Amazing that cars like that are still out there!   Look forwarding to hearing more about it. 

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Caveat Emptor..block stamp
« on: July 30, 2017, 10:50:18 PM »
What's up with the 140 mph speedo?

Originality / Re: Power steering pump restoration
« on: July 07, 2017, 04:03:28 AM »
I had Rick Nelson, from Muscle Car and Design restore the PS pump, reservoir, and pulley for my Z.  He does a phenomenal job, but not cheap..he might be able to repair the dent as well.

Hans, as you did such a good job of photographing the undisturbed underside of the hose retainer clip where the attaching bolt came in contact, did you also happen to photograph the underside of the bolt which would likely have remnants of its original finish?

I wish I had!!   Unfortunately not....I scanned all the pics I took and didn't see that one....As all the other fuel line and brake line screws were phosphate, I can't remember why I went with zinc for the brake hose screw.   My assumption is I must have tagged it that way when I bagged and tagged all the fasteners.    But I easily be wrong with my assumptions.  Wish I could be more conclusive....

Lloyd - OK, the screw is PN 3958062.  Per AMK, page 116, it appears its available in both phosphate and zinc.   I re-used all the original fasteners whenever possible and inspected them as best I could for original finish.    For the most part, I had almost all of the fuel and brake line clip screws (PN 3958062's) phosphate'd but chose to have those two zinc plated.    Other than that's what I observed at the time, I don't remember why or have other references.

Here's some links from photobucket for these screws:

Fasteners after clean-up, before plating:

Brake line clips pre-and post clean-up, plating, and installation:

Great photos Hans, they are convincing, many thanks. Are you confident the attaching bolt was plated and not originally phosphated?

Thanks Lloyd.   Regarding the attaching bolt - I'd have to check.  I thought I cross-referenced the AMK catalog after I inspected it.   

Why is the upper ball joint painted?

Yep, I know.....I've started to remove the paint of one side....mistakes happen!  But hey, at least I had them riveted in!

And a clearer picture of the clip's date code "C".   My car was assembled 04B, so I'm assuming the "C" is for March but could be a supplier ID as well.  Not sure.

Lloyd - I couldn't imagine you using a reproduction clip!

Anyway, here's a pre-plating image of one of the clips.   My reasoning was that as the metal ring on the rubber brake line was plated originally, I concluded the clip probably was as well...nothing conclusive though. 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 18