waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5J5MI.FMI@news.rich.bnr.ca> Peon w/o Email (Eric Youngblood) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.011805.28485@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, swr2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT WARREN ROSANDER) writes: >|> In article <C5Csux.Fn1@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gdhg8823@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George Hei >|> nz) writes: >|> >After too many years of school I'm finally graduating and getting a real >|> >job.  Of course I am trying to make plans of how to spend all this extra >|> >money.  Right now I have an 89 accord, a good car, but not real sporty & >|> >I was thinking of selling it in about two years and dropping around >|> >$20k on a sports car of some kind.  After thinking about it, I may have a >|> >better idea -- I'll keep the Accord until it drops and buy the car I've >|> >always wanted -- a Corvette Stingray. My reasoning is that $8000 (accord)+ >|> >$8000 (corvette) =$16000 is less than what I would spend anyway. >|> > >|> >Basically, I'm thinking of a late 70's, early 80's for around $7-$10k. >|> >My question is, what are good years to consider (for reliability, looks, >|> >horsepower -- in that order, believe it or not, horsepower is not a main >|> >concern, if I want to go fast, I get on my motorcycle) and what are >|> >good prices? >|> > >|> >Also, what would insurance look like?  I'm male, single, 23 (I might >|> >wait until I'm 25 to get the car = lower insurance). Would the fact that >|> >I mainly drive the other car lower it?  Is there some type of "classic >|> >car" or "rarely driven" insurance class for driving it under 10k miles >|> >per year? >|> > >|>     My dad has a 66 vette and its on what you say 'classic insurance'. >|>     Basically what that means is that it has restricted amount of driving >|>     time, which basically means it cant be used as an every day car and would >|>     probably suit your needs for limited mileage. >|> --  >         In my area, Denver, if you look around alittle you can get an     1984 for 10,000 or less, not much less. You said your not looking     to go fast, they are a really nice car just not real powerful.> >In addition to restricted mileage, many classic insurance carriers also require >that the vehicle be garaged when not in use. > >$0.02 > >Ericy > > >      *---------------------------------+---------------------------* >      | Eric Youngblood                                             | >      | Bell-Northern Research    _                                 | >      | Richardson, Texas 75082 _| ~-                               | >      |                         \,  _}                              | >      |                           \(    +---------------------------| >      |                                 |   Peon w/o Email privs    | >      *---------------------------------+---------------------------*
> >You know, I'm a Ford fan, I must say, so I'm looking forward to the next > >Mustang.  I have faith that it will be a fine product, more desireable > >than the Camaro is now.  You know, that's MHO.   >  > True...thats your opinion. >  > >They beat Ford to the market with the Camaro/Firebird, but really only > >in words.  Production of these vehicles will be limited until the > >end of the year, keeping selling prices above MSRP for the most part > >since there are so many twitching Camaro fans out there.  I wouldn't > >press Ford to hurry the Mustang since the final wait could be worth it. > >Besides, no bow-tie fanatic is gonna buy the Mustang anyway. >  > True again.. I wouldn't take a free Mustang...honest. >  > >The next Mustang will be Ford's highest profile car.  It attracts > >way more attention than the Camaro/Firebird because it's heritage > >is more embedded in the general public.  Don't lie to yourself and > >believe Ford will forfeit that. >  > FYI: they already did. > Too bad that the current Mustang can't even compete with the new > Camaro without using an active imagination. > Right now few cars can compare with the '93 Camaro, Think about it.. > 20,000 for a car that will out perform all but a few exotics. > If you are now swearing at me look at the stats...they don't lie. >  There are NO comparable cars in it's class, certinaly not for its price. >  > >  You know,intelligent, critical spews like, "The Mustang bites, man!"   > Some of you are already beginning.  I predict that the Mustang and Camaro > >will be comparable performers, as usual. > > > I also agree, This subject is one that will never be setteled.... > Except maybe at the  track :-) >  > >Unless the Ford gets the 32v, 300hp Romeo.  You don't seriously believe > >that it was designed for the Mark VIII only, do you? > > > Hey, can you imagine the potential of a MODIFIED LT-1!!!!!!! > Folks in a few years we will surpass the levels of performance  > achieved in the late '60's, thats scary.  You Ford vs Chevy people must live in the planet of Detroit or Droid.  Like they say in the airforce, with enough horsepower anything will fly.  I can put a 32valve V-8 with twin Garret-4s on Yugo and get 7.7sec QM. Thats useless ... Its still a Yugo that will loose any race on a track, or on the street.  Have you Detroit beings compared the ultra-long-throw stick shifts of the 5.0 with the 93 MR2 turbo or 93 RX7 (I ll buy it in 6 mos) ?  Or the Torsen differential of the RX7 compared to the Differential of  the 5.0 that sounds in every hairpin turn ?  And bythe way 5.0 and Camaro both have drums on the rear breaks ... Hello , this is the 90 's ?  Vlasis Theodore Software Engineer
nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans) writes: >Ashtrays and cigarette lighters.  These should be an *option*.  GM, at least, is heading in that direction.  One of the post-sale questions they asked me was if I'd like the choice of a cigarette liter or an accessory plug, and another whether I'd like the choice of an ashtray or a cup holder.  The '93 Geo Storms have the cigarette lighter vs accessory plug option (which did not exist in the '92 I bought) -- I'm not sure about the ash tray vs cup holder.  It's a step in the right direction.  The ashtray does make a convenient change-holder so it's not completely useless.
In article <1993Apr16.162950.25849@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rapw20@email.sps.mot.com writes: > >before you go in. Find out the invoice prices of the car, add a reasonable   >profit for the dealer ($200-$300??), offer them that price and stick to   >it.  Whoa!  Watch your terminology.  "Dealer invoice" is *not* "dealer cost". You'll hear lots of ads screaming "two dollars over dealer invoice!!!" Sounds like a real deal, huh?  No.  You know what the "dealer invoice" (also called factory invoice) is?  It's a piece of paper with numbers on it that the factory sends the dealer.  What do the numbers signify?  Absolutely nothing.  It's a marketing gimmick that the salesman can wave in your face to impress you.  Note that nowhere on the "invoice" does it claim to be the real price of the car, and most ads which mention dealer invoice will end with a very fast, low voice saying something like "invoice may not reflect actual dealer cost".  Actually, I *guarantee* it does not reflect actual dealer cost.
jcksnste@ACF1.NYU.EDU writes:  >Hi All, >  Brand new to the group, so please, no flames!  >Honest opinions on Jeep Cherokee Country (not Sport) v. Ford Explorer.  >My stepfather, who ponders every major decision up to four months AFTER >making it, is looking at one of the two.  Also, please comment on the >importance, if any, between 4WD and 2WD.  We live in Princeton, NJ and >will barely ever take it off road.  We learned with this last winter that >we could really use something with a little more confidence in 20 inches of >snow than an Olds Cutlass Eighty-Eight!!  >All replies appreciated.. he'll be pondering this for a while.  He's already >decided on 6 cyl. over 4, so don't worry about that one..  >Thanks!  >-->Steve    I own a new ford Explorer, I really love it! I drove the Jeep and besides the power I just didn't see spending the money for it! The Jeep was great but I just love the Explorer! I have a 2WD and I got through the blizzard  of 93 just fine! I drove about 400 miles in the worst part of     storm and it never faulterd!     My own Opinion                                       Doug                  i
Joni Ciarletta writes > My Honda Accord just hit the magic 100,000 mile mark and now > all sorts of things are beginning to go bad. The latest problem > I am experiencing is with my brakes.  They still stop the > car fine, but once I am stopped completely, my brake pedal > will sink another 2 or 3 inches all by itself.  If feels really > strange, and I am worried my brakes will quit working one of > these days. >  > I checked my brake fluid, and the reservoir was full, but the > fluid itself looked really dirty (like dirty oil).  I called > my mechanic and he told me I need a new brake master cylinder, > which will cost me a whopping $250-300.  You are not alone.  My '79 Honda Accord with 110,000 miles on it started   showing the same behavior.  I replaced the brake master cylinder myself.  It took about an hour and cost   about $45.  Sure beats paying $300 to have someone else do it!  If I wanted to   rebuild my own master cylinder instead of putting in a rebuilt one, it would   have cost only $20 to $30 for the rebuild kit.  The Honda brake master cylinder is easy to get to.  Two bolts attach it to the   engine compartment.  Two brake lines enter the master cylinder.  The tricky   part was that the brake lines were stuck tight.  My Craftsmen open end wrench   rounded off the bolt heads!  I had to use Vise Grips to loosen those suckers.    Wow!  Best invention since sliced bread.  After that it was very easy.  Bolt   the new part in place, add new brake fluid, and bleed the brakes.
In a previous article, bmoss@grinch.sim.es.com (Brent "Woody" Moss) says:   > >I was worried about someone stealing my oil once also. I finally  >decided to just have my drain plug welded shut. It works great ! >I figure that when I add three or four quarts when the oil light >comes on every month or so that it's just as good or better than >the old wives tale of changing the oil AND filter every 3000 miles. >Works for me, I must say.  >  I did the same thing to my drain plug for the same reasons.  I was wondering how you filled your crankcase though as I welded my hood shut also out of fear that somebody might steal my air-filter.
I don't know if some lemons are out there, but from personal experience My brother's has been trouble free.  Not one single repair, only  regular maintainance.  The only work he had done on it was a result of his stupidity... he stopped suddenly in the middle of a left turn  on a busy intersection, and was rear-ended.  He has a 1989 Plymouth Sundance.  I would recomend it, but I would also like to say that if you can wait about six months, ChryCo is coming out with a new car called the Neon, that is built in the same way as the LH's where. Good luck with your desiscion.
In article <C5yDwp.6G0@ncube.com>, bob@ncube.com (Bob Kehoe) says: > >Either choice is good, but beware that >I did not experience reasonable mileage >with the V6.  Average city driving was ><15mpg, with about 21 avg. on the highway.  My Nissan Quest has been doing 20mpg city, though its first few tanks were more like 17mpg.  The V6 and AT are remarkably smooth. --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny P. Stephens           | Sig file upgrade on backorder.  Will be Distance Learning Technology | here "any day now." Arizona State University     |  Opinions expressed are mine.
Ok, so in my ongoing search for a sport utility, here's the latest;   Toyota 4runner:  	 Small. Small Small Small. The interior of this vehical is impossible 	for a large person. Too bad; it would have been the winner otherwise.  Nissan Pathfinder: 	 	Very low ceiling. My head hit the roof, Fun on bumps, no? Also has 	a cheap-looking interior.  Isuzu Trooper:  	Class act. This is a really, really nice vehical. Very comfortable, 	handled ok. Has really cool grab handles EVERYWHERE. But it's huge, 	and the engine is a bit too small for it's bulk; also the manual shift is  	weird and kind of awkward. I'd buy this if it were $3k cheaper or 10" 	shorter. But at this size and for this price, no. I kept picturing trying to  	park in in San Francisco. No Thanks.   Chevy Blazer:  	Cheap looking. Small. Not as small as the Toyota and Nissan, but still  	too small.  Ford Explorer:  	This is no sports car, and it's certainly not for the serious off roader. 	But it's big enough to be comfortable without being as huge and heavy as the 	trooper. It's engine has plenty of power for everyday driving, though it would 	be nice if it had a *bit* more. The automatic tranny is pretty nice; head and 	shoulders above my '90 mazda MPV. The steering is not as tight as I'd like, 	but it's acceptable. The two door has easy-to-enter back seats (Easier to get 	into, in fact, than the driver's seat of the 4runner!) and with a 10" shorter 	wheelbase and the easier availability of a manual tranny, (Yes, I'm a manual  	shift biggot, I admit it...) it's the one I'm thinking of buying.    	So, that said, is there anyone out there who has one of these and hates it? 	Anyone had any major problems? Heard any horror stories?   	Also, any reason to buy the ford over the mazda Navajo, both being essentially 	the same vehical?   			Thanks-   	-Karl
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION  This is a request for discussion on the creation of a newsgroup concerning Saab cars.  It will allow participaants to exchange information on purchasing, maintaining, repairing, and outfitting Saabs.  Group Name:  	rec.autos.saab  Status:  	Unmoderated  Rationale:  	There may be enough people with Saab cars or interested in 	buying a Saab or interested in knowing more about Saabs for any 	reason to justify such a new newsgroup.  The recent growth of 	the net could improve the turnaround time between posing a 	question and receiving answers from the community.  Discussion:  	Comments on this proposed new newsgroup should be posted to the 	USENET Newsgroup "news.groups".  If the reader is not able to 	do so, comments may be e-mailed to the proposer, at the address 	below.  Voting:  	If no problems arise, voting will start 1 month from the 	posting date of this RFD.  Proposer:  Tommy Reingold          tommy@boole.att.com
In article <34666@oasys.dt.navy.mil> glouie@oasys.dt.navy.mil (George Louie) writes: >coverage.  This also applies to my existing car insurance policy.  Does >anyone understand what the "Limited Tort Option" means.  Will it lower >my rates if I opt to have it, or will it be more expensive if I opt >to have it?  What does it do for me (in layman's terms please)?  Is >it a good deal or should I ignore it?  I'm not the type to sue anyone >at a drop of the hat nor am I the type to report every little ding to  Limited Tort Option will lower your rates. If you choose it, you can't sue others for pain & suffering, but you still can sue for economic loss. So you can sue for your wrecked car and for medical bills, but you can't sue for $1000000 for pain and suffering.  At least, that's how I understand it.
[sorry for the 0 auto content, but ... ]  > That is why low-abiding citizens should have the power to protect themselves > and their property using deadly force if necessary anywhere a threat is  > imminent. > > Steve Heracleous
hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen) writes:   $ The biggest hurdle for automatics (IMHO) is not shifting speed $ per se, but rather the transmission's reaction speed when you $ try to force it to shift manually.   $ [...]  I rented an Oldsmobile Achieva (is that a yuppie name or what?) and a Nissan Stanza.  They both had automatics.  I'm a manual transmission bigot but I have to admit that the transmissions on these cars were better shifters than I am.  And yes, they responded very quickly to kickdown requests.  The Nissan had a tachometer so I was able to figure out which gear I was in.  (The Olds may have also, but I don't remember.)  I believe it shifted all the way down to second at about 50 mph when my foot told it, "No I really want to accelerate quickly."  I would still prefer a manual, but I won't delude myself into thinking that I can out-accelerate a modern automatic.  And I'm very smooth at shifting but certainly not as good as an automatic.
In article <13798@news.duke.edu> infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante) write s:  > >You're actually worried about somebody stealing >your oil?  Ahhh yes, Andrew, we meet again...  ...no, not 'stealing' the oil, just draining it as to leave me stranded.  >C'mon, you think a vandal'll do that?!  Let me guess, you're from Hudson Ohio??  >That's absolutely ridiculous!  Get out and see the world.   "IF" I were the vandal, and I really hated someone, maybe someone who knew something about cars, of course I would look for ANY types of valves I could undo.  Especially, special oil drain plugs, and radiator petcocks.  As well as putting bad things in the gas...  While I would never vandalize someone's car, IF I were to, it would probably be the 'time bomb' approach, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that way...
In a previous article, jkjec@westminster.ac.uk (Shazad Barlas) says:  >The best auto-shifters on the street (AND NOT THE TRACK) are those from  >Porsche... they wont change if you floor the gas during a turn.... a few  >years back a was in a 200SX auto (you guys call it a 240SX [without turbo]) >and was going round a corner.... I floored it and next thing I know I was  >pointing backwards! The other drivers seemed quite amused ;-) > >						....Shaz.... >  You are sure that what you call a 200SX we call a 240?  Just curious.. We also have a nissan predacessor (sp) to the 240 called a 200, which came in turbo and nonturbo.  But i don't think we've ever had a 240 turbo...just curious...(BTW, I'm in the US, if that matters..)
I'm looking for a replacement radio/tape player for a 1984  Toyota Tercel.  Standard off-the-shelf unit is fine, but  every place I've gone to (Service Merchandise, etc.) doesn't  have my car in its model application book.  I want to just  take out the old radio, and slide in the new, with minimal time spent hooking it up and adjusting the dashboard.  If you have put in a new unit in a similar car, I'd like to hear what brand,  how easy it was to do the change, and any other  relevant information.   Please answer via E-mail. Thanks,  Tom Ostrand
In article <1993Apr5.181056.29411@mks.com>, mike@mks.com (Mike Brookbank) writes... >My sister has an MGB.  She has one from the last year they were produced >(1978? 1979?).  Its in very good shape.  I've been bugging her for years  	Last year produced: 1980.  >about selling it.  I've said over and over that she should sell it >before the car is worthless while she maintains that the car may >actually be increasing in value as a result of its limited availability. >  >Which one of us is right?  Are there MGB affectionados out there who are >still willing to pay $6K to 8K for an old MG?  Are there a lot out in the  >market? >--   	Yes, there are still alot of MGBs out there.  The earlier cars (pre  74-1/2) are usually more desirable due to certain things that went with having  chrome bumpers (ride height, generally more power).  The older cars are  appreciating... slowly.  The newer ones seem to be at a stable level at the  moment.  $6 to $8k would require extremely good condition and low miles. If the car is in good shape and regular maintenance is kept up on it, the car  should last for a long time.  There are still plenty of parts sources ouththere.   The MGB is a great, fun little car.  If she is keeping it solely in the hopes  that it is going to appreciate, tell her to sell it.  It is not worth waiting  the time it would take to appreciate to a real profitable level.
I don't think that a transmission fluid change will solve your problem.  Unless you are in an extremely cold climate and using a very heavy weight  fluid.  Follow the manufacturer's recommended oil weight.  Some of the  cars I have had (all standard transmissions 4 or 5 speeds) recommend  changing the transmission fluid at 30,000 miles under normal driving  conditions.  I've gone 100,000 without changing the transmission oil (and  had to replace the transmission bearings!). My older cars used 85 weight  oil whereas my 92 Honda uses 10-30 motor oil (or maybe 30 weight).
cs012055@cs.brown.edu (Hok-Chung Tsang) writes:  >In article <C4vIr5.L3r@shuksan.ds.boeing.com>, fredd@shuksan (Fred Dickey) writes: >|> CarolinaFan@uiuc (cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: >|> : 	 >|> : 	The biggest problem some people seem to be having is that Saturn >|> : Dealers make ~$2K on a car.  I think most will agree with me that the car is >|> : comparably priced with its competitors, that is, they aren't overpriced  >|> : compared to most cars in their class.  I don't understand the point of  >|> : arguing over whether the dealer makes the $2K or not?   >|>  >|> I have never understood what the big deal over dealer profits is either. >|> The only thing that I can figure out is that people believe that if >|> they minimize the dealer profit they will minimize their total out-of-pocket >|> expenses for the car. While this may be true in some cases, I do not >|> believe that it is generally true. I bought a Saturn SL in January of '92. >|> AT THAT TIME, based on studying car prices, I decided that there was >|> no comparable car that was priced as cheaply as the Saturn. Sure, maybe I >|> could have talked the price for some other car to the Saturn price, but >|> my out-of-pocket expenses wouldn't have been any different. What's important >|> to me is how much money I have left after I buy the car. REDUCING DEALER PROFIT >|> IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAVING MONEY! Show me how reducing dealer profit >|> saves me money, and I'll believe that it's important. My experience has >|> been that reducing dealer profit does not necessarily save me money. >|>  >|> Fred   >Say, you bought your Saturn at $13k, with a dealer profit of $2k. >If the dealer profit is $1000, then you would only be paying $12k for >the same car.  So isn't that saving money? 	 	Yes.  But the point is that prices are competetive.  Saturn may well be selling a car intended on giving the dealer a $2000 profit, but  since a comperable Honda with $500 profit is more expensive, it may be well worth it to buy the Saturn.  >Moreover, if Saturn really does reduce the dealer profit margin by $1000,  >then their cars will be even better deals.  Say, if the price of a Saturn was >already $1000 below market average for the class of cars, then after they >reduce the dealer profit, it would be $2000 below market average.  It will:  >1) Attract even more people to buy Saturns because it would SAVE THEM MONEY. >  >2) Force the competitors to lower their prices to survive.  >Now, not only will Saturn owners benefit from a lower dealer profit, even  >the buyers for other cars will pay less.   	Not necessarily.  It seems to me that Saturn salesdroids, who don't  make a commision, whereas their counterparts at other dealerships generally do, make more $$ per hour or whatever.  This means that Saturn doesn't give up the profit to their employees through commision, which IS taken out of per- car profits.  They just pass it along to less pressureing salesmen/women.  >Isn't that saving money?  	Maybe.  Maybe not.  Depends on accounting practices.  I'd rather pay more for dealer service that doesn't cut corners to contain costs...   >$0.02, >doug.  $2/100 CKA '87 (Carolina) Blue Honda Civic DX
aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:    >You are sure that what you call a 200SX we call a 240?  Just curious.. >We also have a nissan predacessor (sp) to the 240 called a 200, which >came in turbo and nonturbo.  But i don't think we've ever had a 240 >turbo...just curious...(BTW, I'm in the US, if that matters..)  >DREW   What we currently know as the 240sx, is known elsewhere as a 200sx.
Dumbest options? Well here in the UK, BMW offer a 'no-smokers' option... It just means they take the fag lighter out.... big deal....  BTW - I just bought a Honda CRX F1..... its neat... did consider an MR2 targa, MX5 (you guys call it Miata?).... but that CRX just one my heart with that  body kit and 8-spokes....