waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
seningen@maserati.ross.com (Mike Seningen) > 85 Mph speedos -- esp. the electronic ones. > > The digital dash of the 87 cougars with the large analog clock in > the middle of the dash -- everything was digital except the stinking clock?    The funny thing about the digital dash (87 T-bird) with the 85mph speedo  limit was that if you pressed the button to convert to kilometers it would  read all the way up to 187kph.  At this point the stock anemic 302 would get  short of breath.  This of course was equivalent to about 116mph (hehe).I bet  I really coulda confused this thing if I'd toyed with the engine and rolled the stupid thing (the digits were limited to 199).     I've gotta agree with ya on the analog clock w/digital dash though.  My girlfriend had a '85 TurboCoupe with a digital clock and analog gauges/radio. Go figure...   usenet@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu (Usenet Administrator) > I love the keyless entry on my T-Bird; it's great for those times that > I had to stop to put air in my tires. I could get out and lock the door > with the engine running while I ran around to air up the tire. It also    I had a great feature on my T-bird....  I could pull the key out and  leave the ignition on.  This scared the hell out of me the first time it happened but I kinda grew to like it.  Musta been a bad key copy or  something.  Mark Novakovic
>sure sounds like they got a ringer.  the 325is i drove was definitely >faster than that.  if you want to quote numbers, my AW AutoFile shows >0-60 in 7.4, 1/4 mile in 15.9.  it quotes Car and Driver's figures >of 6.9 and 15.3.  oh, BTW, these numbers are for the 325i.  Car and Driver rated the 325is (1988) at 7.2 0-60 , 1/4 at 15.2 (after 30k miles) last time I checked 8#}.  Automobile magazine rated new 325is 1/4 mile@16.2.  Gee , aint quotiin funner than the dickens!  Sounds like we need a race.  I'll let you have the newer version.  Can someone out there lend me a 1988 325is for a day 8-].  I wont hurt it, I promise.  >i don't know how the addition of variable valve timing for 1993 affects it. >but don't take my word for it.  go drive it.
In article Dxp@lut.fi, jahonen@cc.lut.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes: >kissane@black.Berkeley.EDU (John G. Kissane) writes: > >>As a matter of interest does anyone know why autos are so popular in the US while  >>here in Europe they are rare??? Just wondering..... >>--  > >Many cars sold here in Finland are *small* and *cheap* cars (at least when >compared to other cars --- note that we have over 120 % car tax). > >And you couldn't expect a good auto mated to a 1.3 L engine? > >Most of the bigger cars are, however, sold with autos. >   I would guess the high price of gas in Europe (compared to the US) has always favoured 4-cylinder manuals.  small engines with autos are a real bore...  But why not turn the question around, why are automatics so common in the US?  My guess is that when they tried to couple manuals to the torque-rich V8's in the sixties the clutches turned out as real killers you had to  use both feet to depress, and that this has just lived on.  And also, an automatic with a V8 engine can be real fun to drive.  Markus   __________________________________________________________________________    _    _     _     ____              _________           / |  / |   / |   /   / /  /  /   / /         /  | /  |  /__|  /___/ /--|  /   / /___     '75 Chevy Camaro 350/TH350 /   |/   | /   | /   | /   | /___/ ____/     '87 Peugout 205 1.4/4-speed
In article <1993Apr5.213032.26844@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes: >In article <1pq6bl$9rj@news.ysu.edu> ak296@yfn.ysu.edu (John R. Daker) writes: >>Has anybody noticed that Toyota has an uncanny knack for designing horrible >>ugly station wagons?  Tercels, Corollas, Camrys.  Have their designers no >>aesthetic sense at all? >>--  >The new Camry Wagon may just be even uglier than my Tercel.   :-)  toyota has cornered the market on ugly station wagons. after seeing the new camry sedan, i had thought toyota would finally turn out something nice-looking.  the new camry station wagon bears a strong resemblance to a hearse, and a weird looking one at that.
jcorry@erasure_sl.cc.emory.edu (Jeremy Corry) writes:  >new 300 series Mercedes Benz wagon... >Particularly, I would like to hear about power (manual t. only)... >Any comparisons between the Saab 9000 line and the Mercedes would be helpful.  If a manual transmission is a "must have", then the M-B 300TE is not in the running.  You cannot get a manual transmission in that car in North America.  It seems that buyers here (or, maybe more accurately, the distributors) are not interested in manual trannies.  The '93 300 line comes with a 217 hp engine.  All earlier years are 177 hp. I have an '87 300E, with a "mere" 177 hp and auto tranny, and I find that it has sufficient power for any normal driving situation.  More is always nice, but I can't complain.  I test drove a Saab 900 CSE last fall.  Here are my impressions:  1) Awesome power, especially over 3500rpm, when the turbo really comes on. 2) If you get on the power really hard in a tight corner, the front-wheel    drive causes it to understeer heavily, and then viciously "hook" into    the corner.  Not a desirable handling trait, but common in powerful    front drive cars.  (The CSE is 200hp.  Mercedes is rear-drive, so it    does not have this problem.) 3) Huge interior and cargo space. 4) The most "rubbery" shifter I have ever encountered.  I drove a 5spd.  It    was absolutely numb.  You might be able to get used to it - I don't know.    I also didn't like its location, which was too far down, and too far right.    From the shifter's position, I got the impression that Saab really designed    the car for an automatic. 5) It was rather noisy:  Engine buzz, rattles, and creaks.  (Mercedes does    not exhibit these characteristics.)  You should also check out the new BMW 525 "touring".  This is a wagon version of the 525i.  It fits into the class with the 300TE and Saabs.
I'm thinking of buying a new Dodge Intrepid - Has anyone had any experiences that they'd like to share?  Thanks.
--   : I want only two things from this world, a 58 Plymouth and a small  :   : OPEC nation with which to fuel it.  This would be a good and just  :  : thing.  Car Smashers can just go home and sulk.                    :  :        Jacques Brouillette ---  Manufacturing Engineering          :
I've had my Subaru Liberty 4WD station wagon for about 8 months now. Saying I'm happy with it would be an understatement!  Just great. Well built, handles beautifully, plenty of power. I've only had if 'off tar' once. Did a trip over the mountains on a narrow, windy dirt road, often _very dodgey_ in parts. The Subaru did it with ease. I havent had so much fun driving a car for years!  Any other owners out there?
In <C5pn2p.L44@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, Operator writes: }Crazy question: "Anyone ever wonder how birds can drop a load on a car }going over 65 MPH" ?   } }I took a non-stop trip, got shitted on FOUR times (every time hitting the  }windshield, not even the open sunroof!  Guess we have conscientious birds ;) }Was going 75 MPH. } }  I used to have a '67 Galaxie convertible, was sitting at a light waiting for it to turn green. It turned green, but I hesitated a little (sleeping I guess) and a bird bombed me, it landed directly in front of me at eye level, I guess the bird miscalculated and thought I was going to take off right away.  And I'm still trying to figure out the one I got under my rear bumper as well ?!?!?! Was the bird flying up and doing fancy acrobatics at my car and decided to drop one while executing a perfect loop??  --  --------------------------------------------------------------------------   TT030   |'87 Mustang GT         |George Kirkaldie    |||    |Pioneer, Audio Control |gkirkaldie@sanity.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca    |||    |Phoenix Gold, Kicker   |   / | \   |Flowmaster, Motorsport |Cambridge, Ontario, Canada A T A R I |                       |
In a previous article, lusky@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan R. Lusky) says:  >In article <93112.103631LRR105@psuvm.psu.edu> <LRR105@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: >I'm not familiar with the trannies used in Winston Cup, but in the trans-am >cars I've played with the  transmissions were the racing variety, with >dog clutches instead of sychros.  In a transmission with dog clutches, the >gears are always  engaged with each other and moving the dog clutches >engages the gears to the shafts.  Motorcycle transmissions are the same way. >Shifting without the clutch on a transmission with syncros can and will cause >transmission damage, the only question being how long it  takesto grenade >something (for the trans in my 87  Pulsar SE, it was  about 3-5k miles, but >it had a weak  tranny in the first place).  just out of curiosity, how is this "dog clutch" any different from a synchro transmission.  What you described SOUNDS the same to me.  In fact, what little i've studied on trannies, the instructor referred to the synchros as "dogs" and said they were synonymous.  The gears are always meshed in a synchronized gearbox, and you slip the synchro gears back and forth by shifting. Or at least, that is what i was taught.  Explain, por favour?
In article <C5yBo4.E5I@vcd.hp.com> dmunroe@vcd.hp.com (Dave Gauge) writes: >If you had free reign to design your own instrument cluster, which >gauges would you choose to have beyond the basic set?  Oil Pressure, Oil Temperature Coolant Temperature Manifold Vacuum Ammeter, Voltmeter  Fuel Pressure [maybe] (Problematic, since you either need an electronic sensor/gauge pair or you have to mount the damn thing outside the car)  In addition, it'd be nice to have a big red idiot light 'Check Guages' connected to Oil pressure, Oil Temp, Coolant Temp, Ammeter & Voltmeter.  With heaps of guages, it's hard to look at them all all the time.  In the case of oil pressure, for example, you want to know right away if your oil pump goes bad, unlike coolant temperature, a minute or two of 0 oil pressure would be A Very Bad Thing(tm).  Adam
In article 5276@unisql.UUCP, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes: >In article <C5r43y.F0D@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> marshatt@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Zauberer) writes: >>I guess I wasn't clear enough here. I said the roads WERE designed for  >>speeds of 80 or so and still be safe. The current 55-65 will add a saftey >>margin. > >	They were designed for speeds of upwards of 80 - I forget the >exact spec - but for military vehicles.  That's 80 in a 1958 Dodge  >Powerwagon.  Not 80 in a 1993 Ford Taurus. > > > >
With the popularity of minivans, the market room for station wagons is  squeezed out. They are not as comfortable as sedan, and don't carry as  much as the minivans.   This is not to say nobody wants the wagon anymore. But the demand is certainly hampered by the minivan, and may not be economical to build a product for.  Jason Chen
Just a quick note on the nwe shape MR2s in the UK....   When they first came out here, there were 3 models. The base model had an  auto box and engine from the CAMRY 2.0 !!! Well I recentyl found out that this  model is no longer profitable for Toyota and have since scraped it. I've also noticed that auto MR2s have depreciated a lot more than the next model up...
From article <1993Apr16.162950.25849@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, by markm@bigfoot.sps.mot.com (Mark Monninger):  > This kind of behavior is what I was shocked by in my 'experience'. For   > crying out loud, how do these turkeys think they can talk to customers   > this way and still stay in business? Again, I don't expect sales people to   > bow, scrape, and grovel in my presence but I sure don't expect to be   > abused either. I was very surprised by the way the sales people talked to   > me and in other 'negotiating' sessions I overheard in neighboring sales   > cubicles. Evidently, their success rate is high enough that they continue   > to do business this way. There must be a lot of people out there who are   > easy to intimidate. >   A couple of months ago I went to a dealership to test drive a car.  Afterwards, we sat down to discuss prices.  I explained that I wanted a car just like the one I drove, but in a different color.  He said he could get one exactly like I wanted from the dealer network within a day.  We then negotiated a price and signed the deal.  Next day, I get a call.  He explains that they goofed, and they had neglected to take into account a price increase. (The last price increase had occurred over 4 months prior to my visit.)  If I still wanted the car, I would have to fork over another $700.  As an alternative, they would honor the price if I bought the car I test drove (which had been sitting around for  6 months and had a few miles on it). I said goodbye.  This was a good example of how they can lowball you and still cover their butts.  It's too bad more people don't demand honesty or these types of dealers would no longer be in business.    The next dealership I went to was straightforward and honest.  First thing the salesman said was, "Lets's see what you have for dealer cost and work out how much profit I should make."  The deal went through with no problems.
PENINSULA CRUISERS THIRD ANNUAL AUTOFAIRE  WHAT:  CAR SHOW (FOR ANY AND ALL TYPES OF VEHICLES INCLUDING PEDAL CARS) WHERE:  KENAI MALL, KENAI, ALASKA WHEN:  MAY 14, 15, & 16, 1993 WHO: PENINSULA CRUISERS CAR CLUB, KENAI, AK (907-283-4979) WHY:  PROCEEDS OF THIS EVENT TO BENEFIT THE COOPER LANDING AMBULANCE CORPS.  GENERAL:  THIS CAR SHOW IS OPEN TO ALL TYPES OF CARS, TRUCKS, MOTORCYCLES,            FACTORY AND MODIFIED, MILD TO WILD, ANTIQUE, SPECIAL INTERESTS,                  RACE, DRAG, MUDDERS, HI-PO, OR JUST PLAIN  UGLY :)  THIS IS A FUN EVENT, INTENDED FOR THE OCCASSIONAL GEAR-HEAD TO THE MOST SERIOUS GEAR-SLAMMER.  WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS MANY ENTRANTS AS POSSIBLE,  BUT PLEASE CONTACT US FOR SPACE AVAILABILITY ( FIRST COME FIRST SERVE)  P.S.  ALL OUT OF TOWN ENTRANTS CAN STAY RIGHT NEXT DOOR AT THE          KENAI MERRIT INN FOR A SPECIAL RATE OF $60 A NIGHT          (SINGLE OR DOUBLE OCCUPANCY) CALL THE MERIT @         907-283-6131  IF YOU'D LIKE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION, YOU CAN CONTACT ME AT THE  ADDRESSES BELOW.
In article <Apr24.180313.21646@engr.washington.edu>, eliot@lanmola.engr.washington.edu (eliot) writes: | In article <1993Apr24.150653.8115@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser) writes: | >Examples: | > | >Ferrari's 512TR is a flat 12 boxer. | >Porsche's 911 is a flat 6. | >Subaru's Impreza is a flat 4. |  | i think you got it the other way round: the Ferrari flat 12 is a 180 | degree v12 and not a "true" boxer, while the subaru and porsche are | true boxers.  don't know about the vw bug though, but i suspect that | it is also a true boxer. |  | eliot  Are you serious?  The auto that had a lot to do with bringing the term "boxer" to the popular forefront was the Ferrari 512 Berlinetta Boxer or the 512BB. Had a 5 liter, opposed 12 cylinder engine.
& >I'm not familiar with the trannies used in Winston Cup, but in the trans-am & >cars I've played with the  transmissions were the racing variety, with & >dog clutches instead of sychros.  In a transmission with dog clutches, the & >gears are always  engaged with each other and moving the dog clutches & >engages the gears to the shafts.  Motorcycle transmissions are the same way. & >Shifting without the clutch on a transmission with syncros can and will cause & >transmission damage, the only question being how long it  takesto grenade & >something (for the trans in my 87  Pulsar SE, it was  about 3-5k miles, but & >it had a weak  tranny in the first place). &  & just out of curiosity, how is this "dog clutch" any different from a synchro & transmission.  What you described SOUNDS the same to me.  In fact, what little & i've studied on trannies, the instructor referred to the synchros as "dogs" & and said they were synonymous.  The gears are always meshed in a synchronized & gearbox, and you slip the synchro gears back and forth by shifting. Or at least, & that is what i was taught.  Explain, por favour?  Motorcycle transmissions don't have synchros.  The engagment dogs are very corse and sloppy.  There are maybe 6-10 teeth (dogs) on the side of the gears that engage the next gear over as the forks slide the gears back and forth.  To shift:  start to apply pressure at the same time the clutch is pulled (the clutch is a hand lever) and shift quickly.  If  you try a slow lazy shift it will grind, you just have to pop it into the next gear before it has a chance to grind.  There isn't a neutral between gears (obviously there is, but you can't select it with the shifter) so double clutching is not a possibility.  "speed shifting" (which is what I have always heard "clutchless shifting" called) works pretty well for upshifts with some practice, but I usually use the clutch-especially for the lower gears.  I think auto (as in automobile) trannys are similar, except that the engagment dogs are very fine, with no slop.  And the addition of syncho rings.  The gear teeth are always engaged in auto transmissions that are synchronized, but may not be in non-synchro gears (reverse and sometimes first).
In article <2820016@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>, hovnania@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Paul Hovnanian) wrote: >  > Based on my experience with a '79 FJ40 ( the hard-top jeep-style model ) I  > would definitely give a new model consideration if I were in the market. The > older models are VERY well built. Unless Toyota lost its mind, I would > assume, until  proven otherwise, that the newer models have inherited some > if not all of the qualities of their ancestors. >  > Two major differences in the running gear (that I'm aware of) need study. > My '79 has a solid front axle housing whereas the newer models have > independant front suspension. The solid axle is theoretically stronger and   The new Cruisers DO NOT have independent suspension in the front.  They still run a straight axle, but with coils.  The 4Runner is the one with independent front.  The Cruisers have incredible wheel travel with this system.   > more reliable than the newer model, but only experience will tell. The > independant front suspension is, no doubt, a compromise made to satisfy > the typical user, who will never need a real utility vehicle. The second > difference is the type of transfer case used on the newer models. I'm > not sure, but I think Tioyota went to a full-time 4WD or all-wheel drive > system. The older Landcruisers have a "lock-up" type. Both have their > advantages and disadvantages. >  The 91-up Cruiser does have full time 4WD, but the center diff locks in low range.  My brother has a 91 and is an incredibly sturdy vehicle which has done all the 4+ trails in Moab without a tow.  The 93 and later is even better with the bigger engine and locking diffs.
if you want to annoy geico, call them up...give fake name...but real car  specs..get a quote and then tell them they are more expensive than your  current state farm/allstate insurance.  they will still send you quote etc. then you can tear up their quote and stuff it in the prepaid return  envelope and mail it back to them.  actually they were $12 more than my current state farm rates.
In article <C5uFLH.4p4@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> markg@sr.hp.com (Mark Goldsworthy) writes: >I just bought an Altima (and like it very much) and yes there is a >little Stanza logo ever so discretely placed on the trunk. The Altima is >emblazoned in big silver letters, but the itsy-bitsy Stanza is shunted >to the far left of the trunk lid. You can only see it if you get up >close to the car and know where to look. It is very inconspicuous. > >In fact my first clue that this was a Stanza was that the owners manual >called the car a Nissan Stanza Altima. > >Anybody know *why* Nissan did it this way?  To avoid paperwork associated with re-certification as a brand new car, etc. So for ad purposes it's a brand new nameplate, for paperwork it's still a Stanza.  Spiros
In article <1993Apr5.234729.100387@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> daz1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DEMOSTHENIS A. ZEPPOS) writes: >In article <3mwF2B1w165w@njcc.wisdom.bubble.org>, jonc@njcc.wisdom.bubble.org (J >on Cochran) writes: >>> >     I'd like to add the Beretta GTZ as a car which will kick GS-R butt >>> >anyday, and it's a lot cheaper to boot  Comparing the GTZ and GSR is apples to oranges, somewhat like a Mustang 5.0 and a CRX, both have very different ways of doing things and ought to appeal to different buyers, i.e., I don't think an Acura owner would be seen dead in a Chevy dealership or vice versa.  [stuff deleted]  >are all -weather XGTV4, not to mention that the Integra rides alot better than  No Integra I have seen comes with all-season tires.  The GTZ does come with much bigger 16" wheels.  >along with the Integra, and the car does that with small 14 inch tires that >Your acceleartion times also vary, magazine to magazine >Road & Track and Car& Driver have the GS-R at 6.8 to 8.0 for Road and Track.  The C+D figures are almost certainly bogus and based on a hot prototype supplied by Acura. The MT figures are more plausible.  >Also Quarter mile times vary from 15.4 to 16.1 16.1 sounds reasonable, probably faster than regular Integras.  >>     So, the Beretta can out handle the Integra and it can certainly keep >>up with it in acceleration.  And the Beretta probably has a higher top >>speed due to the horsepower advantage (160/117 (hp/torque) for the >>Integra vs. 180/160 for the Beretta). >***You always believe those exact numbers, why don't you drive a GS-R, and see >for your self, while the GS-R has a low 117 torqye, its high gearing over a 8000  The GSR gearing is horrible for day to day driving. It needs a 6 speed box more than any other modern car. Essentially 5th in a regualr Integra equals 4th in the GSR, and the regular Integras are very buzzy at speed.  >rpm make up for the difference (still wouldn't call it a torque moster though!) > >>Considering you save almost $3,000 dollars for the Beretta, and the Quad4 >>is a reliable engine, it doesn't make sense to get the Integra as a  The only person I knew with a GTZ had it bought back by GM as a lemon. It was a piecve of junk, but very quick for FWD.  >Quad 4 reliable, yeah, what's your definition of reliable- if that's reliable, >then its safe to say that integra engines in general are near perfect  The only GSR owner I know had the engine throw a rod with less than 5k miles, a rare screw up by Honda. Both the GTZ and GSR are flawed cars. The performance enthusiasts would take the GTZ and the CR purchase would be the GSR.
jmh@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Jeffrey Hoffmeister) writes:  > In article <1993Apr22.192652.3032@virginia.edu> jmm4h@Virginia.EDU ("The Blad > >I just have got to remind all of you that this is it!  Yes, > >that's right, somtime this fall, Ford (the granddaddy of cars) > >will be introducing an all-new, mega-cool > >way-too-fast-for-Accord-drivers Mustang.  It's supposed to be > >100% streamlined, looking similar to the Mach III concept car > >Ford came out with around January.  I can't wait.  Anyone out > >there hear anything about it recently? >  >  > If everything I've read is correct, Ford is doing nothing but "re- > skinning" the existing Mustang, with MINOR suspension modifications. > And the pictures I've seen indicate they didn't do a very good job > of it.   >  > The "new" mustang, is nothing but a re-cycle of a 20 year old car. >  >  >   I just saw a picture of the '94 Mustang in Popular Mechanics - what  a disappointment after being bombarded with pictures of the Mach III...