HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 23 Dec 1992 19:35:34 EST
From: Merv <IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Plexiglass or other lightweight windows
 <1992Dec23.172716.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>


In article <1992Dec23.172716.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
fmpend01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu says:
>
>In article <1haaicINNnmi@network.ucsd.edu>, Giulia Leadfoot
><judy@nepac.ucsd.edu> writes:
>>
>> Hi - I'm new to netnews and am interested in your ideas on replacing glass
>> rear windows (i.e., non-flat panel) with a lightweight substitute that can
>> be molded to fit....
>> Something obtainable, not prohibitively expensive, reasonably
>> scratch-resistant (or
>> treatable), and moldable (with heat guns?)....
>> Got any ideas out there?  Thanks!
>I can't recommend plexiglass for anything that is going to be out in the
>elements for any period. Plexi will yellow due to ultra violet exposure.
>It also scratches easily and becomes more brittle with age. Polycarbonate
>is more durable and can be ordered with a scratch resistant coating. But
>it can be a bear to work with. It doesn't take to heating unless you are
>very carefull. Get it too hot and you'll have a bunch of small bubbles in
>your window. Nothing really beats glass.
>Butch.
>
I'm going to have to disagree with Butch, Lexan, when using the same
thickness as the original glass, will be lighter and undetectable.
It does scratch easily, but since you have to have glass on the street,
the only place you would use it is at the track where you would
take decent care of the car anyhow  (ie. storing the car, keeping clean
etc..)
One thing to watch for with Lexan is that it will scratch if you
wipe it while it is dry.  Be sure to have it wet when you clean it.
-Merv
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   CHRISTIAN E. MURRAY         |         \ ALLEY          /E           |
|   120 FOURTH ST.              |         E\              /C            |
|   BANGOR, ME  04401           |          N\            /I             |
|          (207) 945-6994       |           G\          /V              |
|                               |            I\        /R               |
|   MERV@GANDALF.UMCS.MAINE.EDU |             N\      /E                |
|   IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU     |              E\____/S                 |
|   IO10702@MAINE.BITNET        |                                       |
|                               |                                       |
|                               |      SPECIALIZING IN HIGH PERFORMACE  |
|                               |                   MOPAR               |
|                               |       ENGINE BUILDING AND HEAD WORK   |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 24 Dec 1992 12:23:40 EST
From: Merv <IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Plexiglass or other lightweight windows
 <92358.193534IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
 <1992Dec24.144423.2722@walter.bellcore.com>

In article <1992Dec24.144423.2722@walter.bellcore.com>,
tld@moon.base.bellcore.com (Terry Davidson) says:
>
>The discussion about various window materials is all well and fine...
>
>BUT - check your state/province/whatever laws *before* replacing your
>glass with something else...  Here in New Jersey, the only place non-glass
>windows can be used is the sunroof.  *ALL* other windows *must* be automotive
>(I.E. safety) glass.  I know - I had a camper shell (cap to east-coasters)
>on my truck that had laminated *California* legal plastic windows.  No go
>here in NJ....  one reason given is *toxic fumes when burning*.  Great.
>As if the plastic is the only thing that gives off toxic fumes when a
>vehicle goes up in flames....
>
When I referred to Lexan, I also stated that it is not a legal
replacement for glass in most states, if any.  I was referring
to it for strip and not the street.
-Merv
*************************************************************************
**  CHRISTIAN E. MURRAY      *    1955 F-100   472 CADDY POWERED       **
**  120 FOURTH ST.           *    1963 DODGE 330  MAX WEDGE POWERED    **
**  BANGOR, ME  04401        *    1963 PLYMOUTH BELVEDERE WAGON        **
**         (207) 945-6994    *           SOON TO BE 514 POWERED        **
**                           **** 1973 CHARGER  318 POWERED            **
**  MERV@GANDALF.UMCS.MAINE.EDU *            (AND PROUD OF IT)         **
**  IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU     *                                      **
**  IO10702@MAINE.BITNET        *                MO POWER TO YA        **
**                              *                                      **
*************************************************************************
From: mcostell@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Malcolm G. Costello)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Pontiac GTO vs. Ferrari GTO
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:24:53 GMT
Reply-To: mcostell@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Malcolm G. Costello)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.autos.rod-n-custom, neal@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Neal Howard) writes:
xIn article <1992Dec17.192855.45729@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2huxsilent@kuhub.cc.ukan
xs.edu writes:
x>I have no idea where the original term GTO came from so I won't even try to
x>speculate.  But I do know what it is currently used for.  The IMSA uses the
x
xGrand Turismo Omoligatto ?? (not too sure about the "O" word but it's some
xItalian word that sounds something like that)
x
I think you're right about the Omoligatto. I think it had something
to do with a racing class. You had to build a certain number of similar
vehicles to be allowed to race in that class. The English word is
homologize, to make the same. Anything less than the required number
and you had to race in a more open class with the "one offs".
;)
Isn't that similar to why Chrysler had to build street versions of
the Superbird and Daytona, to be allowed to run them in NASCAR?
;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mack Costello <mcostell@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Code 65.1 (formerly 1720.1)
David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock Division Hq. NSWC    ___/-\____
Bethesda, MD 20084-5000   Phone (301) 227-2431          (__________>|

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: xxkozak@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GEORGE KOZAK)
Subject: Re: Horsepower calculations?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: horsepower
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:36 EST  

In article <1992Dec21.210236.564469@locus.com>, rich@locus.com writes...
>In article <7694@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak) writes:
>|> xxkozak@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GEORGE KOZAK) writes:
>|>>                                 3
>|>>                 HP = 200 (WT/ET  )         (WT divided by ET cubed)
>|> 
>|>>     Where WT = total weight of car, driver, etc. in pounds.
>|>>           ET = 1/4 mile Elapsed Time in seconds.
>|> 
> 
>    I have trouble with any formula for Horse Power based on ET.
>    Surely, it must be a minimum number.  After all, how many of us
>    have "perfect traction".  Let me make a few "strange" examples...

     You're exactly right, Rich.  Getting your HP numbers from the ET
assumes a "perfect" run.  There are too many variables that affect ET
to get an accurate HP reading from any given run.  However, a series
of runs averaged out can give comparison numbers.  
> 
> 
>    The formulas (and charts) that I saw and used (years ago) were
>    based on Top Speed through the traps....  Again, only an
>    approximation, and only a measure of what horsepower you were
>    using when you went through the traps... Unfortunately, I have no
>    idea where my copy of the formula is... sorry.... flames to
>    /dev/null...

     The equation that you may have missed in the original post was...
                                           .333
                 SPEED = 10 + [ 221 (HP/WT)    ]

     By substituting various HP's at a given weight, the observed speed
can be calculated.  Or you can rearrange the equation to solve for HP.
     This equation assumes the car "hooks up" at some point and the driver
 doesn't lift in the traps.  Initial traction and shift points aren't
 important with this one.  Both equations assume the run is not aborted.

> 
> 
>-- 
>Rich Silva
>Locus Computing Corporation		   rich@LOCUS.COM
>		  {uunet,ucivax,trwrb}!lcc!rich
>       {randvax,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-se!lcc!rich
> 
     George Kozak
     Kozak Racing


Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: fmpend01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Plexiglass or other lightweight windows
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:27:16 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1haaicINNnmi@network.ucsd.edu>, Giulia Leadfoot <judy@nepac.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
> Hi - I'm new to netnews and am interested in your ideas on replacing glass
> rear windows (i.e., non-flat panel) with a lightweight substitute that can
> be molded to fit....
> Something obtainable, not prohibitively expensive, reasonably
> scratch-resistant (or
> treatable), and moldable (with heat guns?)....  
> Got any ideas out there?  Thanks!
I can't recommend plexiglass for anything that is going to be out in the	
elements for any period. Plexi will yellow due to ultra violet exposure.
It also scratches easily and becomes more brittle with age. Polycarbonate	
is more durable and can be ordered with a scratch resistant coating. But
it can be a bear to work with. It doesn't take to heating unless you are
very carefull. Get it too hot and you'll have a bunch of small bubbles in
your window. Nothing really beats glass.
Butch.
 
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: rich@devnet.la.locus.com (Rich Silva)
Subject: Re: Horsepower calculations?
Keywords: horsepower
Reply-To: rich@locus.com
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:02:36 GMT

In article <7694@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak) writes:
|> xxkozak@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GEORGE KOZAK) writes:
|>>                                 3
|>>                 HP = 200 (WT/ET  )         (WT divided by ET cubed)
|> 
|>>     Where WT = total weight of car, driver, etc. in pounds.
|>>           ET = 1/4 mile Elapsed Time in seconds.
|> 

    I have trouble with any formula for Horse Power based on ET.
    Surely, it must be a minimum number.  After all, how many of us
    have "perfect traction".  Let me make a few "strange" examples...

    Suppose some funny car winds it up, lets fly.... Screams for about
    60 feet, blows the 'charger, then coasts the rest of the way....
    E.T... 10+ seconds at probably 150+..... You're gonna tell me that
    he only made around 200 HP? (200x1000/10^3) before he blew up?

    Suppose, I only have 3.89 gears, I manage to stay hooked up, but
    only make it through the traps shortly after finding 4th.  So in
    the traps, I'm only making 6500rpm using a redline of 7000.  I
    certainly didnt use all my horsepower... and with a few changes
    (maybe some higher gears, maybe a different shift point)...  I
    could reduce the ET...  Now, I didnt change the engine at all...
    But these horsepower numbers will change...

    What about the guy that never gets hooked up.... Smoking tires all
    the way down the track?

    The formulas (and charts) that I saw and used (years ago) were
    based on Top Speed through the traps....  Again, only an
    approximation, and only a measure of what horsepower you were
    using when you went through the traps... Unfortunately, I have no
    idea where my copy of the formula is... sorry.... flames to
    /dev/null...


-- 
Rich Silva
Locus Computing Corporation		   rich@LOCUS.COM
		  {uunet,ucivax,trwrb}!lcc!rich
       {randvax,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-se!lcc!rich

Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: hackney@moxie.hou.tx.us (Greg Hackney)
Subject: Re: Future of the Vette
Organization: Home
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:54:02 GMT

greg@redeye.EBay.Sun.COM (greg) writes:

> Who cares?  Vettes suck.
> Greg

I've got 100 friends who say you are wrong. Quite a few
also work at Sun, one who has 4 of them.
--
Greg Hackney ( ~400HP '77 L-82 Vette)
Moderator-The Corvette Mailing List

Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: xxkozak@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GEORGE KOZAK)
Subject: Re: Horsepower calculations?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: horsepower
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 21 Dec 1992 14:58 EST  

In article <7694@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak) writes...
>xxkozak@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GEORGE KOZAK) writes:
>>                                 3
>>                 HP = 200 (WT/ET  )         (WT divided by ET cubed)
> 
>>     Where WT = total weight of car, driver, etc. in pounds.
>>           ET = 1/4 mile Elapsed Time in seconds.
> 
>I tried this equation out with some road test figures, and with 1/4 mile
>times obtained by me and my friends.  The results were usually very accurate.
>The only car it failed for was the Sierra Cosworth.  This car has 204bhp,
>weighs about 3000lbs with 2 passengers and can do a 1/4 in 14.5.  Perhaps
>it is faster than expected because of the torque from the turbo ?
> 
>Ian.
>-- 
>Ian Crocker 					ian@cyborg.bt.co.uk
    Yes, the equation doesn't work too well with the turbocharged motors.
The turbo skews the HP curve the same ways that a supercharger or Nitrous
oxide would.  Those devices don't help much at the starting line, but add
significantly to the MPH at the finish line.  The ET ends up looking too
slow for the speed.
    George
From: ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Horsepower calculations?
Keywords: horsepower
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:46:42 GMT
Organization: large

xxkozak@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GEORGE KOZAK) writes:
>                                 3
>                 HP = 200 (WT/ET  )         (WT divided by ET cubed)

>     Where WT = total weight of car, driver, etc. in pounds.
>           ET = 1/4 mile Elapsed Time in seconds.

I tried this equation out with some road test figures, and with 1/4 mile
times obtained by me and my friends.  The results were usually very accurate.
The only car it failed for was the Sierra Cosworth.  This car has 204bhp,
weighs about 3000lbs with 2 passengers and can do a 1/4 in 14.5.  Perhaps
it is faster than expected because of the torque from the turbo ?

Ian.
-- 
Ian Crocker 					ian@cyborg.bt.co.uk
From: hackney@moxie.hou.tx.us (Greg Hackney)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: TH350 transmisison stall speed
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:52:25 GMT
Organization: Home


I have a '77 Vette with a hopped up smallblock engine and
a TH350 transmission. Unfortunately I don't know all the exact
rebuild details as it was done several owners ago.

I do know that the TH350 was rebuilt and a shift kit of some
sort put it it. When shifting either automatically or manually, it
immediately bangs the gears into place.

It all works desireably, except that it seems to have an almost zero
stall speed. It has major forward creep even at 500RPM, which is about
as low as I can get it with the rough idle cam in it. Even at that RPM,
it revs back up to about 1200 RPM when placing it back into park.
There is an annoying drive train jolt when going from park
into drive, or from drive into reverse, etc.

As a result of the low stall speed, the gas mileage is probably
better, but it is a dog off the line. It is difficult to even
break the tires loose off the line (soft Goodyear Eagle GT+4 255x60x15
with a 3.55 posi.) But is great in a rolling stomp race.

I guess my question to the net is: Is there any stall speed adjustment
on the TH350, or is it entirely a torque converter function?

I've had my eye on a B&M torque converter that says it's for a TH350,
and has a higher stall speed. However it says it's not for transmissions
with automatic lock-up. How do I determine if my TH350 has auto-lockup
or not?
--
Greg Hackney
hackney@moxie.hou.tx.us
From: Giulia Leadfoot <judy@nepac.ucsd.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Plexiglass or other lightweight windows
Date: 23 Dec 1992 18:18:52 GMT
Organization: scripps inst. of oceanography
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.ucsd.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
X-XXMessage-ID: <A75DED8C76031B32@alfa.ucsd.edu>
X-XXDate: Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:18:52 GMT


Hi - I'm new to netnews and am interested in your ideas on replacing glass
rear windows (i.e., non-flat panel) with a lightweight substitute that can
be molded to fit....
Something obtainable, not prohibitively expensive, reasonably
scratch-resistant (or
treatable), and moldable (with heat guns?)....  
Got any ideas out there?  Thanks!
From: jhaines@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jason Haines)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Plexiglass or other lightweight windows
Date: 26 Dec 92 05:21:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


	People have mentioned the illegality of non-safety glass
windows in their states.  How do convertibles with plastic
rear windows pass?  Also, some kit cars and "super-cars"
use plastic side windows (the F40 comes to mind).


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason R. Haines		     University of Pennsylvania (SEAS & Wharton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Red '90 Mustang LX 5.0    /     Blue '71 Rotary Powered Datsun 510
(Recycle your toner cartridges)	           (^^^^^FOR SALE^^^^^)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: looper@cco.caltech.edu (Mark D. Looper)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Pontiac GTO vs. Ferrari GTO
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:37:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

looper@cco.caltech.edu (Mark D. Looper) writes:

>paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Pete Paraska) writes:

>>Omoligatto (sp?) is the Italian word for Homologation (sp?), which roughly 
>>means something like "You have to make and sell _X_ of these to race it".  
>>_X_ was something like 500 for NASCAR in the 60's.

>If I am not mistaken, the Italian word is "omologato"; you got the English
>spelling right.  There was a glorious article a couple of years back in,
>I think, _Car_and_Driver_ on "The Ten Best Muscle Cars" by a "mercenary"
>in the HP wars of the '60's; among others, it talked about some of the cars
>that hit the mass market only because of '60's NASCAR homologation rules--the
>427 Hemi intermediates top his list, and I don't think I'm betraying my Chevy
>roots by agreeing with him.

>--Mark Looper
>(Fat ol' smallblock '70 Caprice, vaporware '64 Chevelle)

Hell--did I actually say "427 Hemi"?  I meant 426...  My Cheviness is showing.
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: mattern@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Duane Mattern (Sverdrup))
Subject: WANTED: used solenoid actuated Fuel Injector
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Dec 1992 12:29 EST  

I'm looking for a used solenoid actuated fuel injector.  The
junk yards that I've been to won't sell them separate from the
engines.  Anyone know where I can get one,...on the cheap?
I know I can get a new injector from the Ford dealership
for about $84+tax, but I wanted to pay a lot less.

Duane Mattern
Sverdrup @ NASA Lewis, M/S 77-1, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH
(216)433-8186	(mattern@mars.lerc.nasa.gov)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: hhelanto@vipunen.hut.fi (Henri R Helanto)
Subject: Re: Future of the Vette
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:36:36 GMT

In <1h6a8bINNfrc@male.EBay.Sun.COM> greg@redeye.EBay.Sun.COM (greg) writes:

>Who cares?  Vettes suck.

	The only thing in this world that compares to your lack of
	intelligence is your lack of intelligence.

>Greg

	Who cares?  Greg sucks.



	
-- 
Henri Helanto - SysOp
hhelanto@vipunen.hut.fi m40176m@puukko.hut.fi
Call MyBBS (+358-0-485067/485068/485968/485918/488139, 24h) !
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: kts@csulb.edu (Ken Sumida)
Subject: Subframe for F & X body....
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 08:46:14 GMT


Hi to All:

I have a simple question regarding subframe dimention of 1970-81 Camaro and 75
and up Nova.  How much they differ on critical dimentions such as width of
subframe mount holes, upper & lower A-arm positions, sway bar mount, etc, etc.
I heard that 75 & Up Nova uses same subframe from 67-69 Camaro....
Does anybody has info on this?

Thanks! & Merry Christmas

kts@csulb.edu
From: paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Pete Paraska)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Pontiac GTO vs. Ferrari GTO
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:41:42 GMT
Organization: David Taylor Model Basin

In article <BzMJuz.AA0@cmptrc.lonestar.org> neal@cmptrc.lonestar.org
 (Neal Howard) writes:
>>I have no idea where the original term GTO came from so I won't even try to
>>speculate.  But I do know what it is currently used for.  The IMSA uses the
>
>Grand Turismo Omoligatto ?? (not too sure about the "O" word but it's some
>Italian word that sounds something like that)

Omoligatto (sp?) is the Italian word for Homologation (sp?), which roughly 
means something like "You have to make and sell _X_ of these to race it".  
_X_ was something like 500 for NASCAR in the 60's.

Pete
|////////////////////////////////////////////////|
| Pete Paraska       (paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil) |
| David Taylor Model Basin, CARDEROCKDIV         |
|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|
From: greg@redeye.EBay.Sun.COM (greg)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Future of the Vette
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:48:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redeye.ebay.sun.com

In article <1992Dec17.194001.45730@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2huxsilent@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>My local newspaper (the Kansas City Star) had an interesting article about the
>future of the Corvette.  It seems that GM has appointed a new head to the
>Corvette department.  According to the article GM is considering closing the
>Corvette Bowling Green plant and producing the next generation Vette on the
>F-Body in Quebec.  As of now GM has not made a decision but it appears that
>this is what the new department head wants.  Not that I have any major
>arguements against GM doing this.  Let's be honest, the mid-80's Vette looked
>like a two seat Firebird with a more powerful engine.  
>My question is this:  If GM does this will they ditch the 4-wheel independent
>suspension on the Vette or will this mean that all of the F-bodys will get
>4-wheel independent suspension (which they have needed for a while)?
>The article in the paper was not very informative, they were more caught up
>with the history of the new department head.
>
>Just Curious ( of course curiousity killed the cat, or is that Vette?)


Who cares?  Vettes suck.

Greg
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom