HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Followup-To: rec.autos
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:21:00 GMT

In article <16555@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, humblepie@UCDAVIS (Johny Hankyspank!) writes...
> 
>	In reply to Eric Huppertz, next time you need to toss a can and have 
>the choice of either a trash can or recycle bin, shove it up your ass.
>Really! 
>	Think of another form of economics.  For instance, the removal of all 
>your garbage for a year may cost one man week, but by recycling it will 
>definitely take more time, say two man weeks.- More jobs!  Economy.
>	Plus it doesn't matter if the stuff is never recycled - which a lot of
>cans 

NOT TRUE.  There is a major Alcoa alumnum rolling mill in nearby Maryville.
There are really two plants: the first is the rolling mill, and the second
provides the ingots/pigs.  Guess where a majority of their raw Al comes
from?  Boxcars and trucks full of seriously mashed cans.  I have toured
the facilities & could probably run some numbers on how many cities worth
of cans are going there (note: this is not the only Alcoa plant that recycles
aluminum).  

RE: mixed metals.  Answer: industrial processes can seperate metal.  It's
at least two-hundred year old technology.

You see, electricity (part of ANOTHER seperation process when dealing
with raw buaxite) represents about 60% of the cost of aluminum.  If you
recycle, you can pretty much skip that step, 'cause you're not dealing
with raw bauxite.  There is an increadible economic advantage to swirling
in some melted down cans into your process.

See your at the recycling center....


>aren't since the tops of a can are made from a more ductile aluminum
>alloy than 
>the tops, you can't lump all the metal and make a complete can.  So what
>the 
>companies do is just refine more aluminum in third world countries where 
>hydroelectric power in third world countries.  Maybe by recycling we will
>not
>exploit these resources anymore.  The bottom line of recycling right now
>is how 
>much the deposit is, i.e., what would you throw away? a nickel, dime,
>quarter or dollar? 
>	Also, it sounds like you have the birth given right to throw away 
>whatever you please, but (in keeping with tha automobile topic) even 50 
>years ago, yes the time of your parents, the curbside garbage pick-up was
>very 
>costly and the word of the day was reduce your trash (as in reduce,
>reuse, but 
>not recycle).  Abuse your right not, but your time will come, and you can
>your grand
>children that you once lived in a time where unlimited trash removal was
>your god.
> 
>P.S. -Here of the new beer? - Called Quail Ale - because there's no head
>on it.
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: front disc brake question
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:22:10 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

>>	When I rotate the tires on my 1989 Ford Taurus GL (6-cyl 3.0liter)
>>I noticed that the front brake pads are now about 1.5 mm (millimeter) thick,
>>while a new pad is 4 to 5 mm thick.

Sounds like time for new brake pads, alright...

>>	I told that to a garage (non-dealership), and they told me that
>>it would cost me $85.00 to get the front pad replaced, because they also
>>have to turn the drum, 

Rotor, actually.  Drums on the rear, disks on the front on this car.
(Turning is applicable to both.)

>>even though I told them the drums do not seem to
>>be scratched. No they have not looked at the brake mechanism, but they
>>insist that the drums have to be turned anyway.

This is kind of a religious issue with some mechanics.  I personally
don't care to turn or discard rotors that don't have anything in
particular wrong with them.  However, this car is prone to warping its 
rotors (and in general has puny brakes) so they may be anticipating the
trouble they know they'll probably discover.

>    Replacements are about as cheap as turning, BTW.

Not on the Taurus.  My new rotors scared the daylights out of $40 each,
whereas turning is $10-15 each.  However, making them thinner proved to 
be an impermanent solution to the warpage problem :) and the machinist 
told me that on most of today's cars, the rotors can be turned only once, 
if that.  Worth trying if the problem is minor.

If it makes you feel any better, a friend of mine who drives a Bring
Money, Wilhelm 535i is on his third set of rotors at 70 000 miles.
Rotors add to that infamous "unsprung weight" which the suspension 
guys are always trying to reduce, and light, good rotors require cubic
money to fabricate -- hence the light, bad rotor ubiquitous today.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: 6870500@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Need Help for Uneven Acceleration 1984 Mustang
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 22:05:04 GMT

I have a 1984 Mustang 4 Cyl that has a new re-manufactured engine.
The engine is strong with no oil use at all in several months.
The engine has had all ignition wires, plugs, rotor and cap replaced
twice (just to be sure) and the engine still has uneven acceleration.
The engine idles just fine...even and smooth but when pulling away from
stop signs and running at 55 MPH it still does not run smooth.
The milage is 20.5 and should have all around average of 24.5...
The symptoms are the same cold or hot...Got some good ideas.
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: tbigham@shearson.com (Tim Bigham)
Subject: Caring for Leather Seats
Organization: Lehman Brothers, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:25:36 GMT


I would like some recommendations for leather care products to clean and 
preserve seats. I've heard on the net to avoid Armour All as this tends to
dry leather with prolonged use. If anyone has had positive experiences with
a particular product or method, please post or email a response.

Thanks in advance,
-Tim
--
Timothy J. Bigham			| All opinions expressed above are my own
Lehman Brothers, Inc.			| and should not be construed as those of 
AMEX Tower, World Financial Center	| my employer.
New York, N.Y. 				|
From: mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Honda Civic Bashing continues...
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:50:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

I have a VX that gets an honest 55 mpg and cost me less than 9 k (through
an auto broker). Top that, Detroit!

Mike
 
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: eliot@lanmola.engr.washington.edu (eliot)
Subject: Re: BMW 325i question
Organization: clearer than blir
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:41:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.040837.27897@qiclab.scn.rain.com> al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep03.173704.29667@bmerh85.bnr.ca> seymour@bnr.ca (Jeffrey Seymour) writes:
>>Does anyone know how much torque a 1986-1991 BMW 325i has?  I know the 325 and 325e have 121 hp & 170 lb-ft, and that the 325i has 168 hp.

>the 1988 "straight" 325
>is rated for 127 hp, due to the use of the 325i fuel management system
>AND the dual exhaust from the 325i models.  The use of the Motronic 1.1
>system on that year only actually made the rated power at 4800 rpm where
>the 325i was rated for 167 hp at 5800 rpm. 

The 325 models from that era actually had two completely different
engines.  It wasn't just a simple chip or exhaust difference.  The hot
engine in the 325i is higher revving, more thirsty and far more
sporty.  It displaced 2.5 liters.  The "proper" engine for a BMW, IMO.
The less powerful one was BMW's attempt to cater to the yuppie crowd,
where its low revving nature and abundant torque made it ideal for
automatic transmissions and its associated status conscious owners.
At least BMW tried hard to make it economical and it is quite
economical for a 2.7 liter 6.  They did this by using lighter (and
therefore weaker) valve gear, among other things.

>I also
>wonder what power the 2700 cc engine could put out at 5800 rpm...as when 
>happens if the control chip is excahnged for a performance optimised chip?

I would stay away from chipping up the rev limit of the 2.7 eta
engine.  It's never meant to be high revving or high performance.  But
if you are curious about what margins BMW built into the valve gear,
be my guest.  :-)

If you want a sporty BMW, I recommend simply trading up for a 325i.
(or in the case of the older 5 series, the 535i or M5)  No point
flogging a dead horse.


eliot

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: CPB004@email.comm.mot.com (Philip Bush)
Subject: Re: Re: Police Tauri
Organization: Motorola, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:26:18 GMT
Followup-To: rec.autos

In article <14291@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
wrote:
> 
> In article <7740211@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, rjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Schneider) 
> writes:
> > It claimed that the HP for the automatic version
> > 	(also due out in 1993) would still be 200, but, made no claims for
> > 	the manual version.
> 
> Horsepower on the current SHO is 220 HP with 200 lb-ft of torque.
> so can it still be 200 hp?
> 
> 
> Tom Pickett 
> tpickett@auspex.com
> SHO  GOZE

I saw the 1993 SHO automatics at the SHO National Convention in Peoria in
July.
They will be sold with 3.2 liter motors that put out 220HP, but 215 ft-lbs
of torque (if memory serves correctly). The manual tranny cars will be sold
as
they are now, with the 3.0 liter.  The reason for this is the manual tranny
has got it's hands full handling the torque from the 3.0, and they weren't 
about to redesign it for the higher torque from the 3.2.  I don't know why
they didn't add anything to the HP spec.

Ford was supposed to have a meeting around the first of August to make the
final decision about selling the automatics in the 93's.

/===============================================================\
| Philip Bush                      | "Don't ask for permission, |
| Motorola, Inc.                   |  ask for forgiveness."     |
| Email: CPB004@email.comm.mot.com |   - Guy Kawasaki           |
| Phone: (708) 576-3175            |                            |
\===============================================================/
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: alubiw@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Anna Lubiw)
Subject: Honda civic crash tests
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:26:11 GMT

The '91 Honda civic rates poorly in crash tests, but the '92 has a re-designed 
body.  Does any one have information on crash tests for the '92 civic?

Anna Lubiw
From: dmarshal@Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM (Dave Marshall)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Honda Accord: Big American Car??
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:08:59 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Reston, VA

I thought I'd provide an aside related to a previous comment about the
'91 Civic's being bigger than the '87 Accord.

The '92 Accord is so big [how big is it?] that I am able to very comfortably
drive around in mine - all 6'7" of me (200 cm to you metric types).  The
only adjustment I made was that I have the seat back reclined one notch.
My only minor bitches are that I can see a little bit of the clock's LEDs
reflected in the windshield and that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to look at the
cruise control button to see whether its light is on.  I have to try to set
it to see whether it's on.

Compare that to some of the so-called American "mid-sizes."  When I tried to
drive one in San Diego this year, I nearly lost use of my leg after half-
skewering it on some of the dash's very sharp corners.
-- 
                                           Dave Marshall
                                           dmarshal@stars.reston.unisys.com

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: HumVee 4 Sale??
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 07:25:51 GMT

beng@microsoft.com (Ben Goetter) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.060216.2769@mr.med.ge.com> bednarek@picard.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971) writes:
>| 
>| Does anyone know the price range of the civilian versions?

>They start at c. $40K and go to about $55K, or $58K with winch, brush
>guard, et cetera.  Seems comparable to a Lexus or Range Rover.

Lexus? Bah...I've seen one <got to ride in it>. It was the place/hardtop.
About 60K...not fast off time line, rode solid, treated any obsticle like it
was just a piece of paper laying in the road...even a 20" wall! I was
impressed..not real comfortable on the inside...the seats were
nothing to brag about, nor the dash, but it is a Humvee! A kick
ass piece of American machinery that does what it is made to do...drive
and drive...

I think the # for AMGeneral is 18004HUMVEE.
--
Generic Signature:
Marshal Perlman - Huntington Beach - California - USA - Earth - Milky Way
yaW ykliM - htraE - ASU - ainrofilaC - hcaeB notgnitnuH - namlreP lahsraM
                                                        :erutangiS cireneG
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Subject: Re: Solidity = Safety ?
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:28:14 GMT

nathanc@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nathan Chan) writes:
>From reading several auto magazines recently as well as word-of-mouth,
>I'm under the impression that German cars (especially Mercedes) have
>a reputation for solid construction and workmanship. In addition to being
>a virtue in itself, it seems to me that this would imply increased safety
>and survivability in case of an accident. However, crash test data in
>Consumer Reports shows that the Mercedes 190E only offers mediocre
>crash protection in a frontal barrier crash (even with a driver's airbag),
>precisely because the rigid body structure did not crumple much, and
>therefore more of the impact force was transferred to the occupants.

>What is the consensus on the net? Is rigid construction a good thing?

The answer is that it depends.

Completely solid construction isn't good in high-speed single car
accidents.  The car body stops dead and the passengers inside absorb
all the force, leading to greater injuries.  A properly designed car
that's not so solid will distribute impact energies, lessening the
amount of force applied to the people inside.  This is the whole idea
behind crumple zones.

Most car accidents, however, are not high-speed single car accidents
but rather involve two or more cars at fairly low speeds.  In these
kinds of accidents solid construction has two benefits: 1) external
objects (such as the other car) will not crush the passenger
compartment (and hence the passengers), and 2) the solid car will not
be as badly damaged, increasing the likelihood that it can be repaired
rather than replaced.

This stuff has been known for a long time, and you can see it in car
construction.  Most cars have a sturdy passenger compartment to
protect the passengers in multicar collisions, but have weaker
external construction to better dissipate impact energy.  This is a
compromise because cars need to be safe in a variety of collision
types.

Different auto makers weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the
techniques differently.  Most European auto makers build sturdier cars
that withstand common collisions very well.  This helps avoid
high-speed accidents as well, since a sturdier car will generally
handle better, and is very good at protecting both the passengers and
the car in common low-speed multicar collisions.  Most American and
Japanese auto makers have energy-absorbing frames rather than rigid
frames, partially because it's cheaper to build them that way.  In
high-speed accidents, such as those simulated by the frontal barrier
crash, these cars do fairly well.  Unfortunately these cars get badly
damaged in common accidents and can be less safe in the more common
low-speed collisions.

Which construction technique is better depends on what kind of driving
you do.  If you're driving around in traffic most of the time, you
want a sturdy car.  If you're driving around on the highway most of
the time, you want a "weaker" energy-absorbing car.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: front disc brake question
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:14:57 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Originator: daemon@sword.eng.pyramid.com

In article <3360181@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> quan@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Suu Quan) writes:
>
>	Need your comments :
>	When I rotate the tires on my 1989 Ford Taurus GL (6-cyl 3.0liter)
>I noticed that the front brake pads are now about 1.5 mm (millimeter) thick,
>while a new pad is 4 to 5 mm thick.
>
>	I told that to a garage (non-dealership), and they told me that
>it would cost me $85.00 to get the front pad replaced, because they also
>have to turn the drum, even though I told them the drums do not seem to
>be scratched. No they have not looked at the brake mechanism, but they
>insist that the drums have to be turned anyway.
>
    It MAY be necessary and it may not.  Some shops just do it as a
    matter of course (and profits).  Some shops actually inspect the
    rotors for grooves, uneven wear, etc.  Find one of those.

    You can do a quick and dirty check, just run a thumbnail over
    the rotor (NOT after driving.....they get hot).  If your nail
    snags or you feel ridges, I'd have them turned or replaced.
    Replacements are about as cheap as turning, BTW.


    Depending on how many miles you have on the car, how many times
    the pads have been replaced, and whether or not the rotors have
    been turned already, you should be able to get a better idea...


>	What do you think ? about the turning and the price ?

    The price isn't that bad.   It's not a bad idea to have the
    front wheel bearings checked and packed at the same time if you
    DO have the rotors turned.
From: leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence LEONG)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Best type of wipers?
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:17:41 GMT
Organization: HP Singapore

In rec.autos, PNCSPPC@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU writes:

|I've never been happy with how well my windshield wipers work.  I've tried
|several different brands (standard single blade) over the past few years,
|but that didn't seem to make much of a difference.  Since I have to get my
|car inspected soon, and I need new wiper blades, I thought I might try once
|more to solve this problem.  Do the "European-style" double wipers work any
|better than single-blade wipers?  Also, has anyone tried the new
|"triple-blade" wipers that supposedly never wear out?  Since my Usenet
|newsgroup access is variable I'd appreciate replies by e-mail.  Thanks.
|
|Phil Calvert
| 
|<Bitnet: pncsppc@ncsuvax / Internet: pncsppc@ccvax1.cc.ncsu.edu>

I have double wipers, and IMHO they're not worth the money.  The channel
between blades allows the water to runout and you get large gobs of water
still running across your windscreen.  Also, at the extremes, the blade kind
of lifts off slightly and leaves gobs of dirty water -- most annoying when its
infront of you.  Worse still, this dirty water then dries to form large dirty
stains.  Stay away from these double blades.  I've found the Bosch blades the
best so far.  A pair actually lasted me 2.5 years.  It was still wiping clean,
but I had to junk them 'cos the blade edge started to tear.  YMMV.

lawrence
From: erich.lim@cutting.hou.tx.us (Erich Lim) 
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: RE: HONDA CIVIC BASHING C
Date: 29 Aug 92 15:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: erich.lim@cutting.hou.tx.us (Erich Lim) 

-> >I just test drove a 1992 BMW 318i this morning and found it to be a
-> >nice car but excessively noisy.  There was an annoying amount of
-> wind >noise on the driver's side just above the outside mirror.
->
-> Drive another one.  Did you look at the rubber door seal there?  Was
-> it okay?  Or was it missing/torn/damaged?
->
-> >For 24,000 dollars, I expect dead silence in the
-> >interior.
->
-> You sound as though what you really want is a Cadillac or a Buick.
-> Anything european will probably not suit you (short of a Rolls or
-> maybe a Jag).  The idea with most _sporting_ vehicles is that you are
-> a participant the the _sport_ of driving.  And that means wind noise
-> and motor noise and feel in the steering, etc.
->
-> >I own an 1988 Honda Civic.  First impression of the BMW?  It's not
-> >twice as good as my civic, yet it's twice the price.
->
-> You obviously have not priced the current line of Civics with
-> equivalent options...

 Al, I agree with you, people think that for the price of BMW's, MB's,
Jag's, and Porsche's they should be big, fast, comfortable, no maintance
needed, and silent.  That's just a sterotype (some people are pretty
ignorant).  Honda's are EXPENSIVE, a top of the line CIVIC costs
$16,000!!  That's ridiculous and they always advertise them for $11,000.
 Yeah, no power anything, no A/C, no radio, etc.  Top of the line Accord
costs $20,000 loaded, Prelude costs $24,000 (Si 4ws loaded), top of the
line Integra GS-R costs $22,000.  The prices of Honda's are getting out
of hand and I don't see how they can be affordable and cheap anymore.
Even the 1991 models were quite a bit cheaper than the 92's.  Oh well,
for all the people "FLAMING" me for my opinion on money spent on BMW's
over Honda's,  put an end to it.  Or, I'll be flaming you also.


Erich Lim
From: dlou@ZAPRUDER.UCSD.EDU (Dennis Lou)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: HONDA CIVIC BASHING C
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:24:26 GMT
Reply-To: dlou@ece.ucsd.edu
Organization: University of California, San Diego


In article <1992Aug27.220249.18714@midway.uchicago.edu>, epc1@quads.uchicago.edu (Merlin) writes:
|> In article <9058.74.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> erich.lim@cutting.hou.tx.us (Erich Lim)  writes:
|> > I agree 100% with you on spending a couple of thousand more and getting
|> >a European or a BMW.  
|> >For a little more, it's worth the money for a European and the prestige
|> 								^^^^^^^^
|> >of a BMW.  I have a BMW 524td (1985) and an Acura Integra GS (1991),  I
|> >turn more heads driving that old 4-door sedan Bimmer than I get with my
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >clean and shiny 3dr hatchback Integra. 
|> 
|> >workmanship on the Bimmer far exceeds the one on the Lexus and they're
|> >built better.  Sure, the Lexus is faster, more space, more comfortable,
|> >and is supposed to have no maintance problems.  For the price of a Q45,
|> >I would rather get a MB 300e, BMW 535i, or a  Jaguar XJ6.
|> >
|> 
|> Some of us are not interested in "impressing" and "turning other people's
|> head".  I, for one, do the things that I do because I want to do
|> it.  I, and most of the people I respect, do not care for the opinions 
|> and admirations of others if this admiration is based on the type
|> of car I drive and how I'm dressed and how much money I flaunt.

The heads you turn are usually those of the local police and/or highway
patrol.

I thought today's latest buzzword was "stealth"!
:-)


-- 
Dennis Lou             || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?"
dlou@ucsd.edu          || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
[backbone]!ucsd!dlou   |+====================================================
dlou@ucsd.BITNET       |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.