HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fec@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (f.e.carey)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
Subject: 57 Ford
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:06:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>In article <1992Oct5.155105.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asdch@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>>	That '57 ford truck I earlier inquired about has the original flat-head
>>V-8.  I would appreciate any opinions on this engine in terms of worth or 
>
>Huh? Are you sure that this is a '57, and that it's a flathead? If so, it's
>not the original engine. Ford replaced the flathead with the Y block engine
>in '53 as I recall (help me out here, Ford experts).


Something is most certainly fishy here.  The last U.S. Ford with a flathead
was 1953 as noted above.   Is it possible that the Canadian
Fords kept the flathead longer?   As the owner is in Alaska, this may
be an explanation.  Canadian flatheads also used aluminum heads
(unexplainably) which were sought after by the hotrodders.

We could collectively try to help figure out what this 57 is?  The US-made
flatheads from 49 thru 53 were marked 8BA on the heads and had the
distributor on the front right side up high.  It was driven via a 90-degree
connection off the front of the cam.  Water hose connections to the
8BA heads were at the front.  1932 to 1948 flatheads had the distributor
down low in front - inside the fanbelt loop.  It was a direct drive off
the front of the cam (and a pain to service).  1937 to 1948 flatheads 
had the water hose connections centered on the top edge of each head.  
Mercury engines were very similar to Fords.  Lincoln flatheads were quite 
different.  I don't know much about them except that they are physicallly 
larger and use a different head bolt configuration - possibly more than 24
per head.

Car makers in general and Ford in particular have done weird things
over the years.  The Model-A engine was refined and used in industrial
applications until the early forties.  By this time it had full
pressure oiling, a counter-balanced crankshaft, and numerous other
improvements.  Is it possible that this 57 truck is not a pickup as we've 
assumed but a tractor, forklift, military, airport service 
vehicle, or some such non-highway vehicle and that the flathead was
kept in production for these special cases?

Frank Carey at Bell Labs
From: brooks@mcnc.org (Ted Brooks)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
Subject: Re: '66 Chevy heads vs. unleaded gas
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:48:21 GMT
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC

In article <1992Oct2.232209.728@moxie.hou.tx.us> hackney@moxie.hou.tx.us (Greg Hackney) writes:
>
>I have a '66 Chevy 327 engine that I'd like to keep as
>original as practical.
>
>What are the options for converting it to use unleaded gasoline?
>
>--
This is a subject that is wide open for debate. The current logic is that
pre '70 or so valves & seats will wear and recede into the head if unleaded
gas is used. The logic continues that one may need to replace the valves,
valve seats, and possibly valve guides to convert. 

Opinions differ widely on this topic. I have read several articles and talked
with local machine shops as to their recommendations. Most suggest doing
some or all of the above mentioned conversion, although most say it's only 
required on the exhaust valves, not the intakes. One racing machine shop
said "it depends", that he'd rather see how hard the existing valves and seats
were before recommending anything.

Others say it might not be required at all, especially if you don't run it
real hard. They point to the fact that Amoco (formerly American Oil) gas
was unleaded for years, and apparently didn't tear up valves too badly. I
don't know if there's anything else they used to lubricate the valves.

Other than that, if the octane's high enough not to knock, you're set. If
you're not up for doing a fairly expensive (relatively speaking) valve job,
I'd use one of the lead substitutes and not worry about it. (I've also
heard people say a quart of motor oil or transmission fluid in the gas will
work as well as the commercial lead substitutes, but don't hold me to it.)
 
Ted Brooks
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect    |
| those of my employer. Advice is free, but you get what you pay for.  |
|                               ________                               |
|                         _____|  1955  |_______                       |
|                        /      Chevrolet      /                       |
|                       /______  BelAir  _____/                        |
|                              |________|                              |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
Subject: Re: 1969 Mercedes Benz questions
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:31:14 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA

Hi.  I recently bought a '69 Benz 280S.  What have I got in terms of motor?
I was told that it has the "66 24hr of Lemans racing motor".  From looking,
the car has 2 4BBL carbs and is an in-line 6 cylinder engine.

Anybody out there a mercedes expert???

Since you're probably curious, I paid $3500 for the car.  Its a california black
plate car & I'll be the third owner.  The car has 189K miles and is a high #2
or low #1 car.  From checking the price guides, it looks like I got a pretty good
deal...  the guides show a value of $8000 - $11000.

I'm going to be driving it coast-to-coast next week & I was wondering if anybody
had any pointer as to the spare parts (belts, hoses, etc) to carry along.

thanks --- hans
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
From: TX_WAYNE@rrivax.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Johnson)
Subject: emissions
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
Organization: Robarts Research Institute
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:35:20 GMT


I have to confess that I no very little about how emissions stuff works,
and there's probably a reason that this can't be done, but I'll ask anyways...

I can see how doing something like installing an EGR system or an air pump
would be rather difficult on an older engine, but there must be some modern
emissions controls systems that could be retroffitted onto an older car to
reduce their emissions.  Would it be practical to add a catalytic converter
and one of the new TBI systems Holley sells to an older car?  And, if so,
how much of an emissions reduction would you see?  Would it be substantial
enough to make it worthwile?  I'd suspect you'd see an increase in fuel
mileage and throttle response from the injection system as a bonus as
well...

It used to be that everybody yanked out their converters because they
caused backpressure which affected your mileage and performance, and so
they could run leaded gas, but leaded gas has almost completely vanished,
and the newer converters are much more free-flowing, right?

(Yes? No? Maybe?)


Wayne Johnson              |       '73 Dodge Challenger Rallye
Database Programmer        |--------------------------------------------------  
Robarts Research Institute | "What a terrible thing to have lost ones mind.
London, Ontario, Canada    |  Or not to have a mind at all.  How true that is."
"w.johnson@ctrg.rri.uwo.ca"|  - Vice President Dan Quayle speaking to the 
                           |            United Negro College Fund
From: miller@FS1.cam.nist.gov (Bruce R. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
Subject: Re: Old Car Emissions (Update)
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:09:41 GMT
Organization: NIST - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory


In article <1992Sep24.010610.23141@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, Mark Shaw writes:
> ...
> where he is)... what Kevin defined as type-A hobby vehicles or type-B
> everyday transportation dogs. We also have a diversity about what is of
> value historically.  

[seems like as good a place as any to comment]
As someone else has said, type-b dogs provide parts for type-a babies!
But, we shouldn't overlook the fact that many type-B dogs really are
dogs, but they are Paid for and the people who own and drive them, and in
many cases have no alterternative transportation,  will be suffering in
a very real way from bans on old cars, or whatever.  They cant afford a
new car, until it `creates a job' for them.

..
> some answers.  Someone politely asked where did I find all this info?  Well,
> I got my engineering degree (EE) from General Motors Institute in the
> late 60's and worked for GM for about 10 years.  
>		...		.  In '71 I even wrote a editorial
> to "Automotive Industries" to complain about the misleading test method (%)
> that was used for emissions and how it was penalizing the move to smaller
> engines (I even caught some flak for that one!). 
> ....
> A good statistical source is the MVMA "Motor Vehicles Facts & Figures" 
> published by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc., 7430 Second Avenue,
> Suite 300, Detroit, MI, 48202, (313) 872-4311.  

Thanks for the information, and I will try to get ahold of this book.
But... It's just what I was afraid of.
I really dont know how to take information thats produced by people who
have a distinct financial interest in the outcome.

I certainly dont want to accuse any of the manufacturers of lying, but
there are many ways that the data can become skewed, from selection,
from the experiment design (perhaps the experiment was initially set up
to measure something else), etc. When they have such a significant
interest in the outcome, I worry that they may overlook contradictory
evidence.
And you have to admit that US auto manufacturers, and GM in particular,
have, shall we say,  missed out on the Big Picture until recently.

> local library.  It is full of great facts on number of cars by year,
> emissions tests, CAFE, sales, manufacturing, etc.   I found this

Considering that these same manufacturers are part of a (different?)
organization which is fighting CAFE tooth & nail, I do wonder what kind
of information they present!

And, (throwing my hands up in frustated disgust) after flaming _this_
source of data, I have to wonder "who else in the world, besides the
manufacturers, would know enough to provide it?"
Ugh..

> Here are the pending issues (someone please add, if I missed yours):
> 
> 1)  Alternate fuels: diesel, propane, natural gas, methanol....
> 2)  Conversion of old cars to new engines (factory or otherwise)...

We're not allowed to talk about these; check the charter :>

.
Well, again thanks
bruce
miller@cam.nist.gov
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
From: lott@egr.msu.edu (Jennifer Lott)
Subject: test, sorry 
Organization: Case Center, Michigan State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:36:38 GMT

test

jl
From: brooks@mcnc.org (Ted Brooks)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
Subject: Re: WWW radials available?
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:50:08 GMT
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC

In article <1992Sep30.092304.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>Does anyone know if WWW radials are being manufactured?  My car has
>bias-ply Firestone 404s (L78-15) and I'd like to switch them for radials,
>but I love the look of WWW on a fifties car.

Possibly. The three best places to find WWW are  Coker Tire of Chattanooga,
TN, Lucas Automotive (no relation to the British electrical mfr) and the
Sears Roebuck mail order catalog. Coker & Lucas both manufacture repro WWW
tires, and replacement WWW tires. Don't recall if any are radials, though.
(Sears, of course, buys their tires from someone else.)

Don't have the 800 #s handy but, as always, check in Hemmings, or email me
if you can't find it.
 
Ted Brooks
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect    |
| those of my employer. Advice is free, but you get what you pay for.  |
|                               ________                               |
|                         _____|  1955  |_______                       |
|                        /      Chevrolet      /                       |
|                       /______  BelAir  _____/                        |
|                              |________|                              |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
From: adrake@bluemoon.rn.com (Andy Drake)
Subject: Misc.
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 20:07:06 EDT

Anyone, anyone know anything about a Ford Fiesta club? Anyone have one of 
these relly fun cars? Thanks,

                        -Andy

 This is from
     adrake@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
From: jbc@linus.mitre.org (John B. Campbell)
Subject: Selling '53 Plymouth - need realism on asking price
Organization: Research Computer Facility, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:58:07 GMT

I have a '53 Plymouth 2-door in my carport that I once though I'd
restore
but now believe it's time to sell.

It is not running, is rusty, has bad interior.  I think I can
invest the time to get the engine alive and make it able to
at least move down the street.  I am not under any illusions
or emotional attachment, although I did buy the car new.

My question is: Just for the satisfaction, I'd like to sell
it for what I paid new :  something like $1,824 (have the
invoice at home.)

Is that realistic?  If not, what is?  Zero?  Should I
try Hemmings or do their readers scorn such vehicles?
  

--
****************************************************************
*                                      *                       *
* John B. Campbell                     *   This space          *
* MITRE Corporation                    *                       *
* Bedford, MA 01730                    *   intentionally       *
* (617)271-3434                        *                       *
* <jbc@mitre.org>                      *   blank.              *
*                                      *                       *
****************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
From: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Subject: Charter?
Reply-To: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:48:15 GMT



Uh-oh.  Where can I find this charter?  Maybe someone would send it
to me.  I enjoy this newsgroup because the information is useful, the
conversation is interesting, and there isn't the hysteria found in so
many other newsgroups.  People who read and contribute to this group
are interested in getting or sharing information, not posting sophomoric
flames.  It's a good thing, because I'm guilty.  I admit it.  I'm
(choke) MODIFYING my '53 Ford.  There.  It's out.  In my ignorance I've
even posted articles to this group in which I talk about it.

I promise I won't talk about those -- ahem -- modifications -- anymore.

But I don't want to remain ignorant.  Someone please send me the
charter before I admit to doing something even worse than modification.
(While I'm getting all this off my chest, let me say that some of my
less drastic modification plans include installing seat belts, modernizing
the brakes, and installing an alternator.)


Mike Lynch
mdl@oscar.bellcore.com


Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: the cable bill
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:11:46 GMT


so, did it pass or what?  is bush-the-liar going to veto it?  did he?
does he know what cable is?
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: re: Censorship (was Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 01:10:33 PDT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

Isn't there an alt.censorship newsgroup for this sort of thing?

While the idea of encoding bits for assisting in program selection is
relevant to a cable discussion, is this really a place for a discussion
of the philosophy of censorship?

A.Lizard
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Cable Bill becomes law
Organization: Bush Bushwacked
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:08:00 GMT

Score 35-1  Bush Veto did not hold.

It took four years, but George Bush Finally looses a veto.

Senate vote  74-25
House vote   308-114

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:08:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.223803.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> jgarson@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>Let me get this straight-> Are we arguing about the evils of corporate control
>in Americans' lives and attacking someone who thinks its wrong!!!??? 

What do you mean by "corporate control"?  If I don't like the products and 
services a coproration offers me, I can stop using them or switch to 
another supplier, or provide my own substitutes.  If there is a government-
enforced monopoly, I have much fewer choices.  If you are so opposed to
monopolistic policies, why do you want to have the government impose a monopoly?

>The way I
>see it your anti-communist rhetiric does not change the fact that big companies
>are using arbitrary 'choices' and delivering the same mediocrity across the
>board! 

Do you think that corporate choices about products are "arbitrary"?  Do you
really think that the general quality of products in the US is low?  According
to what standard do you measure that quality?  Do you not consider price to
be a part of the quality of a product?  Do you think that a competative
product of higher quality will not generally make more money for the 
company selling it?  If so, do you really think that malevolent businessmen
are just being nasty and lowering product quality for no reason?  It sounds like
you just have an irrational hatred for big business.  Have you considered 
psychotherapy?

>At least in the former USSR they knew they were being screwed by the big
>guy! 

Aaaahhhh, so the poor dumb American masses are too stupid to know how bad off
they are!  It's a good thing that you are around to force them to do what's
REALLY in their best interest!

>You pay to watch ads on tv for shit instead of waiting in line-and if you
>think you avoid lines in the US you have another Stop-n-Shop comin'!

What's your gripe?  You don't like watching TV?  Don't.  You don't like 
shopping?  Stay home.  If you want to interact with other people, you have to
get used to the idea that sometimes people might not act exactly as you wish
they would.  To try to "solve" this problem by establishing a big-brother
government is pure childishness.

--Brian
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: re: cable censorship (was Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 19
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 23:53:36 PDT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

As for proof that pornography causes anyone other than Ted Bundy
to commit rape and murder, I actually read the President's Commission
Report on Pornography (if title is munched, my copy of that book is
in storage about 20 miles from here)... and despite the desperate
effort by these people to find evidence of that sort, other than
the odd (VERY odd) anecdotes, the scientific evidence was noticeably
lacking. 

Personally, it is my opinion that Bundy simply wanted some favorable
media coverage... perhaps something that would make it more likely
that his execution would be put off, so he decided to say that "the
Devil in the form of pornographers made me do it."

Good thing it failed.
A.Lizard
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Gore Blasts Bush Veto Of Cable Bill
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:20:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.002648.11653@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>
>Here is a press release from the Clinton/Gore Campaign
>
> Gore Blasts Bush Veto Of Cable Bill
>
>   ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Oct. 3 -- Once again, George Bush 
>is trashing consumers to take care of his rich friends in 
>the big cable companies, Sen. Al Gore (D-Tenn.) said today.
>   Campaigning in New Mexico when the White House announced
>thr President's veto of the cable bill that would protect
>consumers from skyrocketing cable television rates, a bill
>Gore helped write and pass.
>   "George Bush has vetoed the most important consumer
>legislation of the year all to protect his rich friends in

:sarcasm_on.

Great.  I guess it's now time to pass the 27th amendment to the
United States Consitution that guarantees the right to cheap cable
television.

:sarcasm_off.

It's truly hard to believe that with a national deficit as high as
ours is and with a host of social ills plaguing the country, the *one*
issue the Congress has been able to override Bush's veto on is
CABLE TELEVISION.  

I don't much care for the local cable franchise, but it really is the
city's job to properly stipulate and enforce the conditions of the
franchise, not the federal government.

Maybe the public *is* as dumb as the so-called elitists say they are.

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Free market censorship (Was Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:28:24 PDT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

First, it is time to break this conversation down to a set of different
threads identified by title. Hitting the list feature and finding
that ALL the posts have the same title and that there are multiple
conversations going on is ridiculous.

As for the idea of different rating groups posting effectively electronic
reviews of video programming encoded, say, in the VIR of each video
program and a black box to lock out, say, programming that the Traditional
Values Coalition (Jack Decker, are you telling us that THEY don't exist
either? Tell that to one of our city councilmen, I am posting from Concord,
that councilman is a TVC member) or the NAACP finds offensive... I can
live with that free market approach to censorship... besides, it might
also be able to program a box of that sort so that I can view ONLY
programming that the TVC or (name your least favorite group likely
to write up program ratings) finds offensive. Which might make for some
interesting TV viewing.

That box can be built fairly easily. The mechanics of adding that
review coding onto mass distibution media depend on several factors,
but I think that ... it's a detail problem. Off hand, I would guess
that the box would cost about $100 in initial production, with the
cost dropping to about $25 in mass production. 

As for bypassing the box, I suspect that these boxes can be bypassed
no matter WHAT is done, at least what can be done cost-effectively.
Or, it might be possible to build a box that would be virtually impossible
to bypass. At $1000 a piece. 

That doesn't worry me, if a young person is sufficiently clever to
get around the box, that person probably can access XXX video by
any number of other means. Intelligence in opposition to censorship
will find a way if sufficiently determined, as witness the ways people
got around censorship in the former Soviet Union. I'm not really interested
in this at a personal level except as a new marketing niche, I don't
see any kind of great holy imperative to protect people from sex and
nudity.

By the way, while the Moral Majority is dead and unlamented, the TVC
and other groups like it DO exist, and are far more dangerous to
civil liberties than the Moral Majority ever was.
A.Lizard
Xref: sparky alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:463 rec.video.cable-tv:1698 misc.consumers:17446