HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: To all American fast car owners....
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:57:22 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

karl@isgtec.com (Karl Sewlochan) writes:

> : Corvette buyers are in a different class; they want refinement, handling an
> : performance and yet they are loyal. Also, they are wise with their purchase
> : the Corvette has a higher resale value than any American cars. If performan
> : is the only issue here, one can buy a brand new Mustang GT with the price
> : of a used Vette and blows away almost any cars on the road. Lotsa bang for
> : the buck but just look at the resale value of a used Mustang GT.
> 
> Refinement?  Corvette?  I don't think so.  Let me be clear.  The
> vette is a great performer, no question about it.  But "refinement"
> and "aesthetics" (the digital dash) are not two words I'd
> use to describe it.

Everything is relative; the 'Vette may not have the fanatical
engineering found in a Porsche, or the styling of a Ferrari, but for the
money, it's a hell of a beautiful, fast, well-styled car that's a real
pleasure to drive.


--
4x4 owners do it in the mud. And snow. And dirt. And rocks. Kinky, huh?
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: I'll have a PBJ please.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:52:52 GMT

In article <5a3ZXB4w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>
>> In article <s6VqXB2w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) w
>> >Having worked for an insurance company, I can tell you in no uncertain
>> >terms that private car insurance is not profitable at all; most
>> >companies sell it only because it is required if they wish to sell
>> >other, more profitable lines, within the same state.
>> 
>> question: when you say "not profitable at all, does that include
>> the money they make by investing the premiums collected?
>
>I mean not profitable in the sense that often the premiums are not
>enough to cover claims; any profits from investing the premiums are
>minimal, and not worth the effort involved with having to handle
>the consumer market.
>
>
oh...so that is why all the insurance companies went out of business years 
ago...they just lost too much money.
>--
>4x4 owners do it in the mud. And snow. And dirt. And rocks. Kinky, huh?
From: jeff@eng.umd.edu (Jeffrey Frey)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Radar ACCURACY/PRECISION
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:43:40 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: paxsuna.eng.umd.edu


Does anyone have any information on typical specs for police
radar MEASUREMENT TOLERANCES, i.e., what is their precision?
An answer might be something like they can read to 2MPH +/-10%,
or whatever the numbers read.  Also, anyone know how they drift
with temperature?

Sources for the information would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Jeff


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: dtasman@NMSU.edu (Dan Tasman)
Subject: Re: Carlights in Norway
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:51:56 GMT

audunds@dhhalden.no (AUDUN DJUV STIANSEN) writes:

: 	In my (and many others) opinion, driving with the lights on all day 
: and night, summer and winter is the best solution. It helps a lot if you 
: for example meet a car, and you have the sun right into your eyes, and as 
: usual, a very dirty and scratched front-screen. I guess you know how it's 
: like. The same rules are in practise in Sweden and a lot of other North-
: European contries. I don't know how things are in USA, but I guess there are 
: different rules in different states.

In New York State, you must have your lights on if you have your windshield  
wipers on, day or night.  This is assuming it's raining outside, and visibility  
is somewhat reduced.  IMHO, a good idea.

In New Mexico, you cannot turn your lights on until two or three hours after  
dusk.  When the lights are on, you must have one light burnt out or you must  
use your high beams.  :) 

--
   Dan Tasman                                  dtasman@dante.nmsu.edu
                                                molson@rever.nmsu.edu
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   "I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree
    Indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."
                                                           Ogden Nash
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton)
Subject: Re: Carlights in Norway
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:37:08 GMT

In article <audunds.1.727890513@dhhalden.no> audunds@dhhalden.no (AUDUN DJUV STIANSEN) writes:
>	In my (and many others) opinion, driving with the lights on all day 
>and night, summer and winter is the best solution. It helps a lot if you 
>for example meet a car, and you have the sun right into your eyes, and as 
>usual, a very dirty and scratched front-screen. I guess you know how it's 
>like. The same rules are in practise in Sweden and a lot of other North-
>European contries. I don't know how things are in USA, but I guess there are 
>different rules in different states.

We have the same system in Canada, and you're right, it really is the best
solution. All new cars have had to have daytime running lights since November,
1989, and when I drive a car that doesn't have automatic lights, I turn them
on myself.

-- Brent
morton@artifis.gaul.csd.uwo.ca

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: fog lamps
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:30:46 GMT

In <1993Jan25.215055.17522@colorado.edu> bowmanj@csn.org (Jerry Bowman) writes:

>      How many damned times do you hane to be told ?  WHEN  ADJUSTED 

>   PROPERLY THEY DO NOT BLIND ON COMING DRIVERS!  GOT IT NOW ?

Apparently, the people you really need to convince are the ones
looking at your lights.  They seem to have misinterpreted the
light as glare.  Maybe if you explain it to them their eyes will
react differently and they won't object to the glare enough to
flash their high beams at you.  

(Remember, that's where this started, someone being tired of 
getting high-beams flashed in his face all the time.  That's a sign 
people in a position to know think his lights are glaring in their 
eyes.)  

I assume of course you aren't using these in wet weather?  You do
understand that a low-mounted light pointed down at a wet surface
reflects up in the face of oncoming drivers, right?  That's one
problem with people claiming that any wattage of light is fine as
long as the beam has a sharp cutoff -- it assumes no significant
reflective glare, which simply isn't true in many conditions.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: jcross@aud.alcatel.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Police transmitter detectors
Keywords: Radar
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:19:31 GMT
Distribution: rec.autos.driving

Several years ago, I used to see adds for a little box folks were
selling that would detect any police in a 2~3 mile range. It
worked on the simple priciple that the highway patrol folks had
a radio transmiter in their cars that they left on most~all the
time. I don't recall why the X-mit device existed or why it was left
on, but that's not really important. What is important is, does
anyone know if & where you can get on of these nifty little things?
I'm sure someone could make one (if they know the proper frequences)
but I'm not all that into electronics (try to stay w/ Software.)
Are they still effective or did the cops just start switching off
the transmitter once they realized what they were doing.

Anyway help would be appreciated...

-Jeff
From: hovnania@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Paul Hovnanian)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:39:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Illegal Radar Jammers -- Legal for a ham?
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

>While, however, our license grants us the ability to transmit within these
>frequency bands, it does not allow us to cause malicious, intentional 
>interference with other services, such as shortwave stations, with which
>we share the 40 meter (7 MHz) band.  Similarly, it would be completely 
>illegal for a ham to intentionally jam traffic radar.  The fine for doing
>so would probably be even more severe than simply jamming with no license, 
>as hams KNOW as part of their licensing examinations that malicious, inten-
>tional interference is a BIG no-no.
>
>Of course, if you were to accidentally jam radar while legally using the 
>10 GHz band, that would probably be OK in that you would be using the band
>for a legitimate purpose, and the license does allow you to do so.
>
>Hope I was of some help.
>
>73,
>
>Scott NF3I  Amateur Radio Extra Class Operator
>
>----------
Question: What are the legal consequenses of using a PASSIVE ECM system?
By this, I mean a device capable of modulating a reflection without  
transmitting any signal itself. Traffic law-wise I would guess that the
interference with a police officer conducting his duties would be viewed
in the same light as a transmitter, but what about the federal regs?




       	       _  !	    !       /   /     /
	     /   /    / /   /      /   /     /
    	     ___/      __  /      /   /     /
  	   /   	    /     /      /   /     /
  	  / 	   /     /      /   /     /
 	__/ 	 __/   __/    ____,'   ______/		
				
		Paul Hovnanian
		==============
		hovnania@atc.boeing.com

		[Standard disclaimers apply]
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Escort DSP:  Why keep it after buying a Stalker-aware detector?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:45:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.183835.910@skitzo.dseg.ti.com> dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (Eric Dittman) writes:
>I have an Escort DSP that I really like, but unfortunately both
>the Richardson and Plano police now have Stalker.  I think I'll
>probably buy a Passport 3200, since it is available, unlike the
>Valentine 1.
>
>When I was requesting information on the Passport 3200, I mentioned
>to the phone rep. that I'd probably sell my Escort DSP, and she
>suggested that I keep the DSP.  Now, what use would the DSP be to
>me if I have the Passport 3200?  Sure the DSP is more accurate on
>X-and K-bands, but apparently not by much, but the DSP doesn't see
>the Stalker.  I didn't think about her comment on the DSP until
>after I hung up, so I'm curious as to why I should keep the DSP.
>Any ideas?

Are you sure the 3200s availability is that much better than the V1?  I had to
wait about as long for my 3200 as I did for the V1.  Also, stalker mode on the
3200 can get quite annoying around Dallas.  I typically had the wide-band
switch off because of the numerous Ka false alarms that I was receiving.  The
V1 is MUCH better at filtering out a lot of the junk.  


******************************************************************************
Mike Serafin             serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com       Texas Instruments
DoD #0742  AMA #671922  HOG #0565502                            Dallas, Texas
1967 Firebird 326              1982 Honda CM250C
1969 Barracuda Formula 340S    1993 H-D FLHS 
1988 Ford F250 4x4             1964 Cessna 310I
1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee
******************************************************************************

>
>(BTW, is anyone else having trouble saying Escort instead of Cincinnati
> Microwave when referring to the company?)
>-- 
>Eric Dittman                  Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
>dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com    (214) 480-7304
>Disclaimer:  Not even my opinions.  I found them by the side of the road.


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: fog lamps
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:54:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.170831.8474@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>In a previous article tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) spake...
>>
>>[stuff deleted]
>>i know that my fog lamps don't produce much additional glare
>>compared to my regular low beams, since they are aimed fairly low.
>>but i'm getting tired of being flashed whenever i use my fog lamps
>>and i thought about changing them to amber.  are there any
>>replacement bulbs that would do this?
>>
>
>Turn 'em off. These damn fog lights are nothing but a glaring pain in the ass
>to other drivers on the road (Amber or otherwise) especially since people who
>have them seem to drive with 'em on weather or not there's fog. If there IS
>fog, then please, use the lights (as they were meant). Otherwise get used to
>other drivers flashing their brights at you. Sorry, but I really hate these
>lights (as much as those blinding strobe lights that some cars use as turn
>signals).
>-- 

Fog lamps, when they are set up properly should not produce additional glare.
I have installed several sets on various vehicles, and always, the beams are
adjusted so that at 25ft they project just below the actual height of the
lamps.  They are pretty much useless, if they are adjusted any higher, as they
will just through glare back in the drivers face.  And yes, I keep them on even
in no fog.  So flash away, I'll just flash back.

******************************************************************************
Mike Serafin             serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com       Texas Instruments
DoD #0742  AMA #671922  HOG #0565502                            Dallas, Texas
1967 Firebird 326              1982 Honda CM250C
1969 Barracuda Formula 340S    1993 H-D FLHS 
1988 Ford F250 4x4             1964 Cessna 310I
1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee
******************************************************************************
From: mikesteg@syclone.detroit.sgi.com (Mike Stegbauer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Headlights and driving lights
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:48:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <bob1.727649295@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
|> In <1jkqoqINNe2u@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <bob1.727557964@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
|> 
|> >>Didn't work. While your tactic is OK when they are coming at you,
|> >>what do you do when they are in the lane beside you? I use my side
|> >>mirrors, but they don't have a night setting :-(.
|> 
|> >You could try using your side mirrors in 'assault' mode--  set them to
|> >reflect the high beams right back at the offender.  Doesn't work at
|> >all with convex mirrors, though.

I find that the supplied visor mirror works well for vehicles behind me... and I can always
get in front of them... it seems that if done properly, I can cause a vehicle to stay back
an extra 50 or 100 feet.

|> 
|> Tried that but the motorized mirrors on my Probe will not swing far
|> enough. I did think about a remote control on the hatchback and a
|> light seeking .50 cal machine gun, but that's probably illegal.

Yeah, but who's going to pull you over?

I was toying with the idea of a low power light seeking laser. I don't think it would
be very difficult, it would probably scare the hell out of those people, but it would
probably get tickets too.

Any serious interest?
Make that a light seeking low power laser.

|> 
|> >-- 
|> >Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
|> >Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
|> >Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
|> >(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
|> 
|> I wonder if the insurance statistics would show an increase in night
|> time accidents since these new *stylist dictated* weird headlights
|> started appearing. It is rather obvious that many of them are poorly
|> designed (Ford and Honda, are you listening?), and also do a poor
|> job of lighting the road ahead. I would be willing to bet the
|> numbers would show a pronounced increase.
|> 
|> Bob
From: dlubell@.engr.trinity.edu (Daniel R. Lubell)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Police transmitter detectors
Keywords: Radar
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:19:43 GMT
Distribution: rec.autos.driving
Organization: Trinity University

:
|> In article <1508@fozzy.UUCP> jcross@aud.alcatel.com writes:  
|> >Several years ago, I used to see adds for a little box folks were
|> >selling that would detect any police in a 2~3 mile range. It
|> >worked on the simple priciple that the highway patrol folks had
|> >a radio transmiter in their cars that they left on most~all the
|> >time. I don't recall why the X-mit device existed or why it was left
|> >on, but that's not really important. What is important is, does
|> >anyone know if & where you can get on of these nifty little things?
|> >I'm sure someone could make one (if they know the proper frequences)
|> >but I'm not all that into electronics (try to stay w/ Software.)
|> >Are they still effective or did the cops just start switching off
|> >the transmitter once they realized what they were do

I think you mean the CHIPS detector sold out of some company in Calif.  Check old 
Road and Tracks and you might find the number back there.  The signal they picked up was
the repeater from cop portable radios to their cars that connected them to the
radio system they used.  There was some problem aboout it not being usable in all
states.  They detector might also require a radar detector to be fully useful.
From: tkpowell@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Terry Powell)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: fog lamps
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:58:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc.

In article <1993Jan21.085305.14965@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
->
->i have a '90 acura integra which has fog lamps.
->the fog lamps have clear lenses and are mounted
->next to the headlamps.  this past weekend, up
->in the reno area, i was driving with my fog lamps on
->(the better to see the surface of the road and through
->the snow).  a lot of oncoming drivers thought i had
->my brights on and flashed me, to which i replied by flashing
->my own brights.
->
->i know that my fog lamps don't produce much additional glare
->compared to my regular low beams, since they are aimed fairly low.
->but i'm getting tired of being flashed whenever i use my fog lamps
->and i thought about changing them to amber.  are there any
->replacement bulbs that would do this?

I have same car and same problem.  I quit using them as I don't really
think they do much good and its obvious they annoy other drivers.

-- 

Terry Powell       Email - Terry.K.Powell@tek.com       Portland,Or
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: No such thing as a Free Car Wash
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:46:44 GMT
Organization: Chevron


 I filled up at a new Chevron station today and they have this
 new "brushless" car wash.  When I asked for the number, the
 attendant told me it would cost $1 - $5.  When I asked what
 happened to the free wash with a fillup, the attendant said
 not for these new fangled washes.  

 Then the attendant said that ALL major oil companies were
 going to start charging for ALL car washes real soon!

 What?!  NO MORE FREE CAR WASHES!!!   Eat me!!!

 Has anybody else heard about this?


 BTW, about that new "brushless" car wash - it SUCKS!!!
 I demanded my $1 back but didn't get it!

 TRAVIS
From: wrob@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Lexus Commercials
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:45:40 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1k6kp3INN454@eagle.natinst.com> davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) writes:
>In the goofy vein I liked the Joe Isuzu ad where he fires a bullet at target
>a mile or something away, then goofs around for awhile, jumps in his car,
>zooms past the bullet the camera is following in flight, jumps out of the
>car, holds up a target in front of face, and finally catching the bullet in
>his teeth.  I can't remember what he said or what car he was driving, but
>the sheer absurdity of this add made Isuzu stick in my mind.  Which may have
>been all they were trying to do anyway since I think they weren't too well
>known at the time.

I really like that series of adverts.  They were definitely zany.  BTW:  I 
think he said, "And kids, don't try this at home."
 RWW.

-- 
Robert W. "What!?! I've-been-tying-my-shoelaces-backwards-all-my-life?" Wong Jr.
wrob@unixg.ubc.ca (ASCII only)
From: krothman@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ken Rothman)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Worst Car Award
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:33:56 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University

zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (John Grabowski) writes:


>I'd like to conduct an informal poll here: what do the gentle readers of this
>group think is the WORST car being made today???  (And why?)  It must be a 
>car still being manufactured, so a 1975 Dodge Dart doesn't count.  :-)

>This should generate some healthy debate...


>John
>zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My least favorite car these days has got to be the Chevy Caprice
(and the Buick Roadmaster and the Cadillac Fleetwood)

The design is just completely IRRESPONSIBLE.

Ken

 
*******************************************************************************
* Ken Rothman * krothman@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu * st891075@pip.cc.brandeis.edu *
*      rothman@binah.cc.brandeis.edu * hico2!kadath!krothman@att.att.com      *
*******************************************************************************
* "Save the whales.  Shoot the seals.  They eat all the fish." - Cheech       *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: bsmg9810@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bhaskar S.Manda)
Subject: Re: Worst Car Award
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:26:26 GMT

nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:

>Ken Rothman <krothman.727987654@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> writes:
>> With all the advances in aerodynamics and ergonomics in design in the past ten
>> years (mostly on the part of European and Japanese makers), this beast is an
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Apparently the Ford Taurus had little influence on the shape of cars today.
>In my opinion there is no car that has had a greater influence on the vast
>improvements of aerodynamics than the Taurus.

>-- 
>William R. Nau

Before we go overboard on this, recall that even the Eagle Premier
has a drag coefficient that bests that of the Ford Taurus. 
Speaking subjectively, I think the Taurus ranks right up there with the
Caprices and Roadmasters, surpassed only by the Sable in ughness. Atleast
the Caprice looks impressive or at least deterring as a cop car.
The profile of the Taurus, especially the lines of the rear doors, is the
mark of a design team in an unholy hurry.
Well anyway, the first thing I said here is not subjective.

Bhaskar

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: bmoss@grinch.sim.es.com (Brent "Woody" Moss)
Subject: Re: Opinion on 1993 Ford Ranger 4x4
Keywords: 17foot boot 
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 22:28:07 GMT

I'd like to see ANY truck pull a 17-foot boot !