HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: esl_manager@gimme.uh.edu ()
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: warm up a car in winter again: anyone can tell me where i can read something regarding this? my wife is stubborn!!! (women!!!!!!)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:10:43 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: na
Reply-To: esl_manager@gimme.uh.edu ()
NNTP-Posting-Host: gimme.cc.uh.edu

In article <C0Hy96.K5M@news.iastate.edu>, rdu@iastate.edu (Runqing Du) writes:
|> Newsgroups: rec.autos
Runqing Du wrote:
|> 
|> I need something solid to change my wife's mind from warming up our
|> car too long. Could someone please tell me where i can find some
|> written proof that excessive idling is harmfull to the car and you
|> can warm up your car by driving mildly at the beginning. It's hard to
|> change a person's mind if this person happens to be your wife and a
|> believer of first learning!!!!!!!!
|> 
What is excessive idling in your opinion? I guess idling till the
temperature-meter moves slightly away from the original coldest point is
OK, don't you think so? Another way to judge is when the the RPM of the
engine goes down to your regular warm engine idling speed.

I don't see anything wrong if she is doing just that. But, of course, if
she keeps the car idling for 30 minutes or more, it pushing it a little.
I guess 10 to 15 minutes warming up time is OK. Maybe others have some
opinions about that.

--
Arthur Yeo
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: dwjz@bnr.ca (Doug Zolmer)
Subject: Multivalve/cylinder engines
Reply-To: dwjz@bnr.ca (Doug Zolmer)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:12:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.173818.23327@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, mark@wdc.sps.mot.com (Mark Shaw) writes:
|> In article <Jan07.011324.12511@engr.washington.edu>, eliot@stalfos.engr.washington.edu (eliot) writes:
|> |> it is amusing to note that during this time honda was a keen advocate
|> |> of the 3 valve head, designed mostly with good emissions in mind, but
|> |> then found out quickly that the number crazy public only cared who had
|> |> more valves regardless of whether it was better or not.  they finally
|> |> succumbed.  the motivation behind 4 valve heads used in the corolla
|> |> and camry is for good emissions performance rather than hot rod
|> |> performance.  that is a far less well known advantage of 4 valve
|> |> heads.
|> 
|> I think you have it reversed here.  The 4-valve engine does not impart any
|> special emissions value in closed-loop systems.  What it does do is burn
|> fuel more efficiently so that you can get the equivalent more power from
|> a smaller (and thus bascially less pollutant) engine.   The net effect may
|> be lower pollution for same power from a 4-valve versus a 2-valve.  If the
|> Corolla and Camby need 4-valves to meet emissions requirements, then their
|> fuel management system is lacking refinement.
|> 

Actually, Honda got the best of both worlds in their VTEC designs.  They have
two basic VTEC engine types: those with variable valve timing on only the
intake valves (Civic), and those with variable valve timing on both the 
intake and exhaust valves (NSX and Integra GS-R).

In the case of the Civics, with the engine running at less than approx. 
5000 rpm, the engine is acting like a _3_ valve per cylinder engine.  Only
one of the intake valves actually opens, and it opens in such a way as to
induce a vortex of air and fuel into the cylinder, mixing it better.  This
allows for a cleaner burn which gives slightly more power and good emissions
performance.  As engine rpms increase, the one valve opens more until
at higher than approx. 5000 rpm, both intake valves open.

Since I hardly ever take the engine above around 4500 rpm, I'm really
driving the equivalent of a 12 valve engine.

|> 
|> Mark

-- 
dwjz@bnr.ca    Disclaimer: my opinions only  
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Dealer prep
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:03:40 GMT

In article <1ikehfINN77b@armory.centerline.com> chapman@centerline.com writes:
>
>>
>>The whole process was insulting to me - the fact that we'd done our
>>homework well just seemed to incense the hell out of them.  But
>>the biggest B.S. was that high dealer prep; isn't that just pretty
>>much an "add on" these days to jack up profit?
>Have them itemize the dealer-prep if you think it is too high. In most
>cases it is not *that* bad, once you know what they have to do.
>                                  |
>                    Scott Chapman | chapman@centerline.com

i don't care what they have to do...that is part of their cost of doing 
business.  i'm not going to pay them to fill out paperwork or to drive to
their bank to deposit my check.  dealer prep is a scam period!  and if 
the car comes with something wrong...that is for the dealer and factory to
work out...i don't have to pay the cost of it!
From: tvervaek@col.hp.com (Tom Vervaeke)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Jeep Gear Ratios
Date: 5 Jan 1993 22:08:47 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchub21.cs.itc.hp.com


I have a 1991 Jeep Wrangler 4L. It came with 215/75 R15 Goodyear tires.
After much pondering I decided I would like larger tires to get a little
more ground clearance. I have installed BF Goodrich All Terrain TA's
sized 30 x 9.5. They aren't the real huge tires seen on some old CJ's,
but they are larger.  The car rides fine, and turns fine, but I do have
a slight problem.

The larger tire circumference (I should measure it) has changed the gear
ratios of the differentials. I no longer have the acceleration or power
to make it up large hills without shifting down an extra gear. I forgot
to take that into consideration. What I need to do is change the
differentials.

I called the local killer 4x4 shop. They can make me happy - but it will
cost right around $700 for parts and labor.  This involves installing
near gearing for both the front and rear differentials, and the labor.
The product recommended was Dana. This will now also give me
posi-traction which I did not get as an option on my Jeep when I bought
it.  The owner says he has a chart that compares tire circumferences and
original gear ratios to give me what I want. In fact, he claims he can
recommend several, either right on, a little higher or a little lower
than original.  He said Dana is a good company and posi-traction is
definitely recommended.

Any comments? Does the price sound good? Is Dana a good company? ANy
thing else I should think of? By the way, many folks here at HP have
used this company (Predator 4-WD - Colorado Springs, CO) and all have
had positive experiences.

Also, the owner says my original gear ratio will be stamped on the cover
of my front differential and should be 3.08 or 3.31 if I have the 6
cylinder. Has anyone else with a Wrangler (also called YJ) looked? I'd
be interested to find out.

Thanks in advance. Reply here or email. I'll summarize.


( ___ )------------------------------------------------------------( ___ )
 | / | Tom Vervaeke           Email:tom_vervaeke@hp0800.desk.hp.com | \ |
 | / | Technology Specialist  Snail: 1900 Garden of the Gods Rd.    | \ |
 | / | Hewlett Packard Co.           Colorado Springs, CO 80901     | \ |
 | / | Colorado Springs, CO   Voice    : 719-590-2133               | \ |
 | / | USA                    Fax      : 719-590-2117               | \ |
 | / |--------------------------------------------------------------| \ |
 | / | Quote of the week...                                         | \ |
 |___|           Quote deleted do to lack of creativity !!!         |___|
(_____)------------------------------------------------------------(_____)
   ^                                                                  ^

Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
From: norcott_bill@tandem.com (Bill Norcott)
Subject: Re: What is the resonable oil comsumption?
Reply-To: norcott_bill@tandem.com (Bill Norcott)
Organization: Tandem Computers, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:18:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194333.24745@osf.org>, kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:
|> I've got a turbocharged Ford 2.3L I4 that seems to use a lot of oil, I
|> haven't measured it, but I'd figure about a qt. every Kmi or so (I've got
|> a nice light that tells me when I'm down a quart). I've always attributed
|> this to my habit of slowing with the transmission (== high rpm downshifts,
|> which == lotsa vacuum, which == oil sucked down the valve guides). My plug
|> thread ends have some burnt oil on them, but the tips and electrodes are
|> *always* clean ('cuz I drive like Bobby Rahal- no fouling here :-), and
|> there's no oil smoke on startup or grease in the pipe, either.
|> 
|> Anyone else with this experience?
|> 

I have the non-turbo Ford 2.3L HSC engine with CFI.  The car (1987
Topaz with 84,000 miles) uses less than 1/2 quart between oil changes.
We have put around 9500 miles on it in a year.  The car is just driven
locally by my wife who does not go fast.  I change the oil and filter
every couple of months or 2,000 miles.

I read somewhere if you go 65 MPH you consume three times the oil as 
when you go 45.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------|
Bill Norcott			GUARDIAN POSIX project
Tandem Computers, Inc.		
10600 N. Tantau Avenue		PHONE:  (408) 285-3253
Cupertino, CA   95014		EMAIL: norcott_bill@tandem.com
From: wen-king@cs.caltech.edu (Wen-King Su)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Mini-van or utility vehicle...4WD vs gas mileage
Date: 4 Jan 1993 17:50:25 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: neptune.cs.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan4.154057.9264@igor.tamri.com> viviana@igor.tamri.com (Vivian Aldridge) writes:
>
<Hi,
>I'm in the market for a new vehicle, but can't seem to find
<what I am looking for. I am looking for a utility vehicle
<or mini-van that has a four wheel option meaning when I
<drive in mild weather I can can use two wheel drive and
<when I am driving in the the snow, I can switch to  four
<wheel drive.
<
<My other big concern is gas mileage. 15-18 miles per
<gallon is not a spec I can live with. Are there any
<vehicles that at least make 25 miles per gallon?
<
<I'm also looking for a shorter vehicle as opposed to
<a large vehicle. I live in San Francisco and parking
<is difficult there if one owns a large car or truck.

I am looking to buy a new car with similar characteristics as well.  I
am currently considering the Mitsubishi Exp LRV.  It gets MPG in the mid
20's, and it is shorter than an Accord.  It does have AWD, though it is
permanently engaged. I am in the process of gathering more information
for this car. There is a review of it in Motor Trend, March 92, but I
havn't been able to locate a copy in the library. You can find the same
car marketed as Plymoth Colt Vista and Eagle Summit Wagon.  I hope this
helps. 
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: ann@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Ann Farny)
Subject: Re:  Saturn SL2:  the REAL test drive..
Reply-To: ann@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:29:28 GMT


In October, I purchased a `93 Saturn SL1, unable to afford the SL2.
I just love it.  It is a 5-speed stick and seems to be just as quick
as the SL2 automatic I test drove.  I've been reading all this talk
about engine noise and lifting my eyebrows.  What engine noise?  Of
course, I just drive normally.  I'm not into fast take-offs or driving
incredibly fast or revving the engine to its max or anything.

I love my beautiful blue Saturn and there was no question in my mind
that it was the car I wanted.
-- 
ann
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: fascetti@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com (ISVAX  7740 FASCETTI      64010)
Subject: Re: AMIGO Information
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.
Distribution: usa
Date:  6 Jan 1993 13:51 PDT  

In article <1993Jan5.060332.3802@schbbs.mot.com>, ACUS05@waccvm.corp.mot.com (Paul Anderson) writes...
> 
>I have been looking at the smaller 4X4's for a runabout vehicle.  It
>will probably end up to be a vehicle left at the vacation home.
> 
>Ever since it first came out, I have been intrigued by the looks of the
>Amigo.  I have yet to test drive one.
> 
>If anyone has experiences, flames or whatever on the Amigo, I would
>appreciate them.
> 
>Thanks for the help.
> 
>*============================================================================*
>*                                *    __________                             *
>* Paul Anderson                  *   /          \___   Exceptional Vehicles  *
>*   ACUS05@WACCVM.CORP.MOT.COM   *  __Range_Rover__        are for         *
>*                                *     (_)      (_)    Exceptional People|   *
>*============================================================================*
I own a 1990 Amigo with about 30,000 miles. It's a 2WD.
I've been very happy with it so far.  The only problem 
I've had has been squeaky (sp?) rear brakes.  

The only options I got on mine (I have the S, not the
XS) were the stereo, power steering, and the 2.6 Liter
engine.

I read someone asking about hardtops.  I've noticed a few
Amigo's around with hardtops, but I did not know they were
an option when I bought mine.  I like having the soft top
because I have it off the entire summer and since i live
in an apartment, it's easy to store (folded-up under my
bed).  The only problem I've had with having an open 
vehicle is that on several occasions I've found empty
beer cans which had been tossed into the back.

The soft top takes a few minutes to get on and off, but seems
fairly sturdy ( I've ripped it a little bit on the corners on 
the inside fold where it tends to hang-up if you're not careful
when you open the tailgate.  I have not had any problems with
it leaking.

If you are concerned with it's off-roading capability, I
believe it was reviewed in Offroad Magazine in either late
'89 or the first part of `90. I think they were testing a 
2.6 liter 4WD on the Rubicon Trail.  I think the main jist
of the article was that they were happy with it's 
performance, especially if you consider the price.

if you have any other questions, please let me know.


mike
From: rkim@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Suro)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Before Buying Japanese.
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:41:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

>
>>    Yup.  Dunno if it was due to the recent Japan bashing but Taurus
>>    just won the sales contest.  If you want an example of a GOOD
>>    US-made car, I'd check out the Taurus, Seville STS, Mark VIII
>>    and a few others....   These are world-class automobiles. 
>

This I read in Motor Trend:

'92 CADILLAC STS
(Long Term Update)

"We've racked up over 20,000 miles on our long-term Seville.  It
still gets down the road with plenty of horsepower and offers a
comfortable ride on long trips.  On the down side, the STS suffers
from the same ailments as last time - the door rattle and
cold-weather front end squeak - although it's been to see the doctor
twice for regular checkups, at $30.94 a pop.  A new malady is
sealing fluid leaking from the rear window frames, a problem other
Seville owners have confirmed."  (Jan 1993 issue, Pg. 115)

So you pay 40 grand and get rattles?  And then you fix it and you
get leaky window seals?

If I want rattles, I'll buy a Chevy Cavalier or a Toyota Tercel and
keep my savings - 30 grand.

-- 
Robert W. Kim                            rkim@ucsd.edu
University of California, San Diego.     suro@ucsd.edu
"I'd love to go out with you, but I'm teaching my ferret to yodel." 
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
From: ingram@sequent.com (Bill Ingram)
Subject: Re: Red Line MTL
Keywords: Red Line
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 17:34:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.162311.25995@hubcap.clemson.edu> jayc@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jay Crawford) writes:
>I'd like to change the gear box oil in my Saab 900 to something that will 
>make it shift a bit smoother and hopefully reduce wear-and-tear.  I have
>heard Red Line MTL is a good product.  Does anyone have any good/bad    
>experiences with Red Line they can share with me? Also, where's a good place to mail order it?  Thanks.
>
>-- 
>Jay Crawford          
>jayc@hubcap.clemson.edu

 Jay, I have nothing but praise for the MT 90, the 90w MTL.
Call Redline direct @ 1-800-624-7958

Bill
From: bill@kepler.ucsd.edu (Bill Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Tracker/Sidekick or Samurai: Cheap, Reliable and Safe 4x4's?
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:41:50
Organization: Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.ucsd.edu

We're moving to the mountains, and we need a vehicle for the snow -
most people there (N. New Mexico) say a 4x4 is a necessity.  We'd like
to get a new vehicle, but don't have a lot to spend. After perusing
Consumer Reports, Money Magazine and the Car Book, we've come up with
the following.

Sidekick/Tracker:
  Pros: Cheap, Good mileage, Reliable, Low Complaint index, Tolerable
ride (in test drive). We've gotten a good quote on a new 92 Sidekick:
$9995.
  Cons: Poor Safety record (only have the 91 data, anybody got
anything for the 92's?), Samurai Cheaper.

Samurai:
  Pros: Cheaper Still. Better crash performance (again, 91 data).
  Cons: Consumer Reports says they tip easily - is this true? Bad
reputation, High complaint index.

Any comments and/or suggestions? I think the price we've got on the
Sidekick is pretty good, I'm tempted to jump at it. Is this the best
way to go if we're interested in economy - or would we be better off
getting a used 4WD truck, which is bigger and safer?

How serious are the safety issues - are these things deathtraps? It's
scary to think we might be putting our lives on the line to save a few
measly bucks. 

Much thanks in advance.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Bill Reynolds        | Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
bill@kepler.ucsd.edu |                                  -Bullwinkle
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Geo Prizm vs. Honda Civic
Keywords: honda, geo
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:51:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.204651.27398@Princeton.EDU>, janaka@space.cadet.hq (Space Cadet) writes:
> I am considering buying a small 4-door car in the $11,000 price range with a 
> 5-speed manual transmission and air conditioning.
> 
> Should I look futher than the Geo Prizm LSi or Honda Civic DX? I want a car that
> will be relaible in the long term.
> 

There are lots of good cars in this category.  If you're going to look at the
Prizm you may as well also look at the Toyota Corolla.  You should be able
to get a Saturn SL with a.c. for that price, although you'll have to order it.
The Mazda 323/Prodegy is a good car.  

> 
> ---
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | jwithana@phoenix.princeton.edu                      janaka@ee.princeton.edu |
> | mjw@clarity.princeton.edu      JWITHANA@PUCC.bitnet       bt283@po.cwru.edu |
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>
From: tquinn@heartland.bradley.edu (Terry Quinn)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: LH: Should I or Shouldn't I?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 07:10:25 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Reply-To: tquinn@heartland.bradley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu



> >HERE, HERE, Tom!!  
> > 
> >It is about time that close-minded, unpatriotic, _EXCLUSIVELY_ 
> >import car owners were called what they are!   
> 
> Why when somebody claims that American cars are better they always
> have to say these PATRIOTIC things within the same breath. 
> Can't American cars stand on their own behalf? Is this the strongest
> argument they have for why American cars are better? 
> 
> Just an observation.
 
 
> 
> I had a Honda Accord, bought new, that was the worse lemon I ever
> had.  And it was made in Japan.
> 
> When I say that the jury is out on the LH, what on earth does
> patriotism have to do with it?
 
 
Note above that I said "exclusively" and tried to emphasize that 
as much as possible in my post.  I have met with people who said 
that they would NOT EVEN CONSIDER buying a U.S. manufactured 
automobile, for ANY reason.  For those people, it won't matter 
whether "American cars stand on their own behalf" or not.
 
I agree that any product, including American products, should be 
judged against the market's quality standard.  I personally 
believe that domestic content, because of its positive 
contributions to our economy (employment, tax base, capital 
ownership) should be just ONE of the factors that are considered 
in a purchase decision.  I do have difficulty, however, with 
people who categorically reject American products without 
evaluating them, then return home to enjoy the standard of living 
afforded by this country, oblivious to what this may mean to our 
children.
 

--
                                    Terry Quinn
                                     Germantown Hills, IL
                                      tquinn@heartland.bradley.edu
from Compuserve . . .                  >INTERNET: tquinn@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: alc@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Al Chang)
Subject: Re: Any opinions on mini-vans?
Organization: Grumman Corporation
	<ALC.93Jan11132456@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:33:24 GMT

In article <ALC.93Jan11132456@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM> alc@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Al Chang) writes:

...

   Based on insurance Injury/collision loss ratings:

			   overall severe  collision
			   injury  injury
   Plymouth Grand Voyager  56      48      55
   Voyager                 66      58      59
   Chevy Astro             70      69      54
   Mazda MPV               75      75      89
   Ford Aerostar           77      80      64
   Ford Taurus             68      ?       88
   Toyota Camry wagon      67      65      70
   Volvo 740/760 SW        44              99
   Caprice(no sep. sw rate)37              63

   This was published for 1988-90 vehicles, and they are based on
   payouts.

   Collision is cost to repair. Evalute for yourself. FYI, the chryslers
   does not have air bags.

   Al

Forgot to say:
The lower the number the better. 
<70 substantially better the average
80-120 average
>130 Substantially worse than average.

Al
-- 
******************************************************************************
Al Chang (516)346-6757,  FAX: (516)575-0965, email: alc@calvin.grumman.com
Grumman Data Systems, 111 Stewart Avenue, MS D12/25, Bethpage, New York 11714
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: garyh@sco.COM (< Gary H >)
Subject: Re: Before Buying Japanese.
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 23:50:41 GMT


In article <184748@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>
{ reply to japan bashing deleted }
>
>  It's ALWAYS easy to lie to yourself and try to blame someone else
>  for your stupidity, but in the long run it's counter-productive.
>  If it wasn't Japan, it would be someone else.   


Also, why not bash the Germans for their fine cars like the Mercedes, BMWs,
and VWs? Why not bash every CO that makes great cars and stand by shitty
for some unknown reason (pride?).  Hmmmm............. ( time to put on my
flame suit 8-)).

Gary
-- 
|^^^^^^|            _Yo_Man_____________________________
|      |          /            garyh@sco.com             \
|  _  _|        /             uunet!sco!garyh              \
| (o)(o)      /             425  Encinal Street              \
@      _)   /          Santa Cruz, California  95061          |
 | ,___|   /   W: [408] 457-0195 x7765 / Fax: [408] 429-1887 /
 |   /     \_______________________________________________/
/____\            The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO), Inc.