waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I am a little confused on all of the models of the 88-89 bonnevilles. I have heard of the LE SE LSE SSE SSEI. Could someone tell me the differences are far as features or performance. I am also curious to know what the book value is for prefereably the 89 model. And how much less than book value can you usually get them for. In other words how much are they in demand this time of year. I have heard that the mid-spring early summer is the best time to buy.
Hi,  My friend's 1983 Toyota Tercel accelerates by itself without using the gas peddel. The repairman said it has a internal leak of air in the carburetor and needs a new carburetor (costs $650). She likes to know if it is possible to fix the problem without replacing the whole carburetor.
In article <C5Fp8B.2Co@megatest.com> alung@megatest.com (Aaron Lung) writes: >If I'm not mistaken, altering the odometer is *illegal*.  Furthermore, >I surmise it'll be tough to alter BMW's odometer if you got at it. >Some of the newer BMW's have electronic odometers making it even >more tamperproof.  On the cars mentioned - 3 series from the late 80's the "electronic" odometer is really a mechanical drum type odometer, that is driven by pulses from a speed sensor on the rear axle.  These pulses are  converted into mechanical pulses that turn the odometer - and speedometer. No way changing or erasing an eprom is going to change the mileage reading.  It also means the odometer is just as easy (or hard) to change as any other mechanical odometer.  On the other hand it is a bit easier to disconnect the speed sensor and run the car with no speedometer or odometer reading...a simple switch will do the job.  It also will disable the speed limiter, which will enable the car to reach it's full speed.  ;-)
tszeto@sneezy.ts.stratus.com (Tommy Szeto) writes:  >Water gradually builds up in the trunk of my friend's 89 Ford Probe.  Every >once in a while we would have to remove the spare and scoop out the water >under the plywood/carpet cover on the trunk.  I would guess this usually happens >after a good thunder storm.  A few Qs:  >1) Is this a common problem?  Yes this is a common problem.  The leaks occur through the seal of the  taillights.  Unfortunately, Ford has this with Most Probes and does not have a recall for it.  Very dissatisfying to say the least.  >2) Where are the drain holes located for the hatch?  There is no drain holes that I know of.  I used a margine tub to drain it Regretably I waited three months as I was short cash and they wouldn't fix it under warrantee.  Then I paid dearly as it messed up my electrical system including a balance/motion sensor which is located near the fuel shutoff in  the trunk.  This resulted in my passive restraints malfunctioning--they would not retract.  So I ended up paying about $200 to have the sensor replaced;  $90 to have the tail lights resealed (they firts replaced the hatch gasket which I insisted was not the problem so they did not charge me for that when I proved to be right.); not to mention the water damage to the  covers to the trunk/spare com partment and algae in the taillights.  very annoying.  Don't let the water problem go--get it fixed or you'll pay more later.  Considering how common a problem it is I hope every one complains to Ford.  >Thanks for any info. >Tom
In article <1993Apr26.150614.27597@westminster.ac.uk> jkjec@westminster.ac.uk (Shazad Barlas) writes: >Hi - now that we have these GATSO photo speed traps here, I was wondering if  >anyone knows if radar detectors are capable of detecting photo cameras? If >not, are there any other devices which will?   	Yup.  Radar detectors that detect Ka band will pick up photo radar as it's reflected from some poor slob ahead of you that just got nailed.  	BTW, many photo radar installations in the southern U.S. became targets for high-powered rifles, or had their lenses "decorated" with cow flop, etc.  Not that I'm advocating destruction of public property, but you get the picture....  Later,
In article <1327@qa1.WichitaKS.NCR.COM> jhart@qa1.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Jim Hart) writes: >In article <1993Mar29.161044.1@uncavx.unca.edu> bwillard@uncavx.unca.edu >writes: >>My TOP 10 list of dumbest automotive concepts ever >> >>10. 1984 Dodge Colt Vista - tachometer only avail. with automatic trans. >>9. Back-up lights on Corvette - they're on the sides of the car! >              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Sure would be interested to know what year(s) this was! >I don't seem to recall ANY car with back-up lights on the sides, much >less any Corvette.  I suppose I could be mis-interpreting what you are >trying to say here.....  Just a quick comment. Backup lights mounted on the side would actually be *extremely* useful for people backing out of parking stalls...  Regards, Charles
In article <1993Apr20.163527.12773@bnr.ca> tcorkum@bnr.ca (Trevor Corkum) writes: >   I was recently thumbing through the 1993 Lemon-Aid New >Car Guide.  What I found was a car would be given a 'Recommended' >under the picture while a few sentences later noting how a >driver and passenger were virtually guaranteed to be killed >in a front end collision.  The most highly recommended small >car (The Civic) has the worst crash rating of all of the small >cars listed.  There were many such cases of 'great' vehicles >where you wouldn't survive an accident.  Is it only me, or is >safety not one of the most important factors when buying a car? >                                                                   IMHO the best way to reduce risk when operating a vehicle is being able to avoid hazards and, for that reason my preferred vehicle is a motorcycle.  When I do use a four wheeler my primary reasons are: it will keep me dry, it will keep me warm, or it will carry more cargo.  If the four wheeler has as much collision protection as the average motorcycle, then it has enough form me.  How do you define safe?  One definition of safe is without risk.  Is   --  Chas                         DoD #7769
In article <C5xtp7.MtB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jmh@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Jeffrey Hoffmeister) writes: |> In article <1993Apr22.192652.3032@virginia.edu> jmm4h@Virginia.EDU ("The Blade Runner") writes: |> >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. |>  |> Jeff |>  |>  |>    What???  I heard there was a new engine slated for the mustang...something like 280hp  (ok, it was from one of their other lines...)...  --
<<I wrote> <Is there a resource available to the consumer comparing all of the makes <and models of automobiles, trucks, vans, etc. for survivability in a <crash of different severities? <... <Also, I've found very little objective data comparing different <vehicles for handling, pick-up, braking, expected maintenance, etc. <I recall years ago Consumer Reports annual buyer's guide was much more <informative in those aspects than it is now.  Thanks to a reply from someone I looked a little further and found what I was looking for.  The April CR magazine has most of the above things. Despite recent articles here the ratings looked pretty good for relative comparison purposes.  Unfortunately the crash test comparisons didn't include half of the cars I'm comparing. Anybody know how '93 Honda Civic hatchbacks and Toyota Tercels fare in an accident?
aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:  >  > In a previous article, dspalme@mke.ab.com (Diane Palme x2617) says: >  > >: nuet_ke@pts.mot.com (KEITH NUETZMAN X3153 P7625) writes: > >: > HELP!!! > >: > my wife has informed me that she wants a convertible for her next car. > >jp@vllyoak.resun.com (Jeff Perry) writes: > >: FYI, just last week the PBS show Motor Week gave the results of what they  > >: thought were the best cars for '93.  In the convertible category, the  >                                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >: Honda Civic del Sol achieved this honor.   > >I own a del Sol and I must vouch for the interior.  I really looks snazzy wh > >the top is off.  I looks a lot better in person than on the television.  (I  > >that Motorweek as well.  Needless to say I was smiling a bit by the time it > >was over ...)  :*) > > > >Watch out for that darned "convertible tan" tho... >  >  > i simply must inquire, how can people honestly consider this car > a "convertible"?  Does Porsche have a patent on the "targa" name? > I mean, convertible to me means "top down", which the del Sol certainly > does NOT do.  It has the center that lifts out.  This is what i would > term a targa(unless Porsches was gonna sue me for doing that).  I know > the rear window rolls down, but i still can hardly consider this car > to be a convertible. >   Yes, however, with the top off and the rear window down this car is more  like a convertible than a coupe.  Think of it as a convertible with an  integrated roll-bar like addition.
In article <1993Apr21.191744.3072@ole.cdac.com> ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate) writes: > >  I am curious about knowing which commericial cars today >have v engines. > >V4 - I don't know of any.  V4s? I don't know of any. I4s and flat4s are abundant.  >V6 - Legend, MR3? MR6?  A whole $h!tload. Minivans, pickups, just about any car above the subcompact/compact range and below the full-size range (with a few exceptions).  I6s are much more rare now; the only one I personally know of that's still in production is the venerable Ford 300CID in the F-series pickups. I think that Jeep's big 6's are also straight sixes, but I'm not a big Jeep person.  >V8 - Don't know of any.  Where are you to not know of V8s? There are Mustangs, Cadillacs, Lincolns, Camaros, Corvettes, Thunderbirds, all real full-size pickups, Crown Vics, Chevy Moby^H^H^H^HCaprice ;-), and even a few Japanese and European vee-hickles with V8s.  V10 - Dodge Viper; Dodge promises a truck with a V10.  >V12 - Jaguar XJS  Don't Ferarri and Lamborghini both use V-12s extensively?  				James
Dear Netters:  I am looking to buy a used Eagle Talon '91 or '91 TSi AWD. Question is that the '91 TSi AWD was mentioned in the April Consumer Reports to a car to avoid!  In particular, the manual transmission, electrical system, and brakes were below par (in both models).  A friend of mine ownes a '90 TSi AWD and he has had 2 brake jobs (pads), one stuck valve, and some clutch/transmission problem, something about sticking/grinding into second gear.  This doesn't seem too bad if one "beats" on his car.  I am willing to suffer reliability--for speed and looks.  Seems you have to pay big buck if you want all three.  Anyway can anyone please let me know how you like your Talon, and any problems you may have had, and if the repairs are worth it.  Thanks for any responses!
In a previous article,  (Eric Youngblood) says:  >In article <Apr19.195700.19699@engr.washington.edu>, eliot@stalfos.engr.washington.edu (eliot) writes:  >[race car stuff deleted]  Back to the F1 stuff for a second, note that the `auto' tranny in F1 _STILL_ shifts at the driver's command, not some preselected schedule.  The driver still controls the shifting, not the transmission.   >|> now, there is no dispute that in production cars, automatics are >|> inherently more lossy than manuals.  that is in theory.  my point all >|> along is that whatever mechanical advantages a manual has over an >|> automatic can very easily be lost by a driver who isn't skillful or  >One thing that gives an automatic an advantage at launch is the fact that >it has a torque converter vs a clutch.  I know this sounds strange but, >a torque converter multiplies the engine output when launching.  It functions           ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ >as a sort of limited Continuously Variable Transmission. Typically you get  >a torque multiplication of 2 to 3 times depending on the stall speed.  I have yet to see a torque multiplier installed on a production automobile.  Such systems do exist, but none are presently installed in production autos that I am aware of.  These are commonly called viscous drive CVTs or fluidic amplifiers.   >Contrasted to a clutch which merely slips when feathered (result is no TQ mult)  What the convertor _does_ allow is for the engine to be closer to its torque peak during the launch before a clutched car can fully engage it's driveline.  Chevy proved it many years ago with the '70 Camaro (ETs and terminal 1/4 mile times were close enough tpo be identical for 4 speed and auto cars).  Note that this is also the major reason that an auto car can get away with fewer gears than a manual, the slip in the convertor makes up for the fewer ratios (and before everyone starts yelling about the proposed 5 sspeed autos soon to be out, note that some manufacturers are using 6 speed manulas now).   >Once past lauch however, the converter begins coupling and the TQ multiplication >effect is reduced, but by then you should be on the cam.  Correct.
> Hello, my name is Russell Wong and I am doing a research project on Henry > Ford and his automobile.  I need information on whether Ford is > partially responsible for all of the car accidents and the depletion of > the ozone layer.  Also, any other additional information will be greatly > appreciated.  Thanks.    >So would Mr. Benz.. -Eh?  >And Mr. Chevy, Mr. Toyokogio, and Mr (Insert Car name here...)   >--- >Dan Reed - blu@cellar.org - Eat Your Pets - Poke Out Your Eyes - Kill Your  >Boss - Burn Down Your House - Move To Elmer NJ - Rip Out Your Nose Hairs With  >A Lead Holder - Use X-Acto Knives For Dental Work - Hit Your Mother.......  People get a life !!!!!!!!!!
A while back I asked for help in defending a traffic ticket I received.  In short:      The ticket was for not stopping at a stop sign. Given the conditions    I could not stop in time and decided instead of sliding right through the    intersection, I would complete my right-turn and avoid a possible accident.    A police cruiser happened to be approaching the intersection from my left    and gave me the ticket.      The officer said "The only reason that you even slowed down in the first    place was that you saw me approaching, otherwise you would have bombed right    through"     I would like to thank all those who responded favorably to my request for  help. To all of those who told me to bite the bullet and pay the fine:  PHGHGHGHGH..   The judge sided with me and decided that in this case "Not stopping" was the  safest thing to do and found me NOT GUILTY.    The officer's statement and my account of the conditions at the time (very   slippery, backed by newpaper weather conditions) were the factors what made   the judge decide on his verdict.     Moral: If you have never been to court before and you think you have a case, 	 go for it. It is a very interesting process, and it is there for 	 your benefit. Exercise your rights.    Trev
In article <Apr21.221608.22391@engr.washington.edu>, eliot@stalfos.engr.washington.edu (eliot) writes: >In article <1993Apr21.204521.21182@ultb.isc.rit.edu> adn6285@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes: >>The sound he describes is common to any older Toyota engine I ever heard. >>I don't know the relevance of his observations about oil changes, my simply >>makes noise. Not all that annoying, mind you. But you hear it well when the >>engine is right behind your left ear :-) > >i think those with 1.6 MR2's would describe the engine as sweet if a >little loud, those with 2.2 MR2's i can't imagine any unbiased person >paying it any compliments.  sounded like my ex-dormmate's rusty chevy >chevette.  with the 1.6 i would want to redline it just for the music, >with the 2.2 i would short shift so that it would shut up..  the new >camry 2.2 features balance shafts.  i guess since the mr2 is getting >the axe, it is too late for them to do anything about this.. > >it is no mystery that the turbo mr2 is "only" 2 liters.. the engineers >had enough integrity to prevent any further abuses.  also, in europe >the MR2 Mk2 non-turbo was also "only" 2 liters.. as usual, the >undiscriminating american market (if it is japanese it *must* be good) >gets the dogs.. to be fair, we also got the turbo, which the europeans
In article <HOLCOMB.93Apr19073907@wgermany.ctron.com> holcomb@ctron.com (Edgar W. Ii Holcomb) writes: >In article <Apr.18.12.24.26.1993.19337@remus.rutgers.edu> wilmott@remus.rutgers.edu (ray wilmott) writes: > >   Hi all. A while back I was asking for info about a few different >   models, the Grand Am being one of them. Response was generally >   favorable; one thing often repeated was "go for the V6 for some >   real power". Point well taken, but...does anybody have any input >   on the 4 cylinders (both the standard OHC, and the "Quad 4")? >Ray, > >The High-Output Quad 4 delivers 175 hp (185 for the WF41 Quad 4), whereas >the 3.1L V6 offered in the Grand Am delivers 140 hp.  I own a Beretta GTZ
Hello everyone,    I have an insurance question.  Allstate insurance  SITUATION: Person wrecks car. Car is drivable to dealer. Person  reports accident (no other cars involved). Driver estimates damage cost  exceedes cost of car. Insurance people claim car is "totalled" because of  exceeding repair costs. Person says "WWHHHAATTTT!!!! But I drove the car here!" and takes it to  another place. Other place estimates 2,101.00 in damage. 2,000 less than the  dealer. One more hitch... The car is registered in Florida but the accident occurred  in Pennsyvania.  QUESTION: Should the insurance recognize and pay for the damages of this,  now fixable, car even though they prematurly declared totalled?  Please respond via E-Mail if you think you know anything about this sort of  thing.   chris@camp.wpic.pitt.edu
In article <1993Apr23.183318.4635@ll.mit.edu> singer@ll.mit.edu (Matthew R. Singer) writes: >Didn't the Saab Sonnett have a V4? I recall someone telling that it was >something like 1/2 of a Ford 289.  Not only the Sonett (correct spelling), but the 95 wagon and 96 sedan used a 1500 cc or 1700 cc V-4 from Ford of Germany.  This particular motor had a 60 degree vee angle, a balance shaft and siamesed exhaust ports.  This motor was later stretched into the V-6 commonly seen in the Capri.  The V-4 could make pretty reasonable power for its size.  But in the Saab, it made too much torque for the transmission, which had been designed for a 3-cylinder 2-stroke.   -- Chuck Fry, former Sonett III owner
The Devil Reincarnate (ssave@ole.cdac.com) wrote:  :   I am curious about knowing which commericial cars today : have v engines.  : V4 - I don't know of any. : V6 - Legend, MR3? MR6? : V8 - Don't know of any. : V12 - Jaguar XJS   :  Please add to the list.
Well, the Opel deal fell through...  Now i'm looking at a Datsun 240Z for sale in our local buy&sell.  Any previous owners have any experience with these cars?  Besides looking for rust,good compression,low miles, and all the other usual car things one looks for, is there anything special about these cars that I should watch out for?  How about things like handling,performance,mileage,etc.  These cars look hot, to my eyes at least, and bear more than a passing resemblance to the Aston Martin DB4 Zagato(sp?), which has to be one of the most beatiful cars ever made.
In article <1rgvv2$am4@haven.umd.edu>, vadik@cs.umd.edu (Vadim Maslov) wrote: >  >  > Hi, netters >  > I went to "All Tune and Lube" for routine maintenance > and they said I need to change plug wires because > they are original ones and "you driven 70+ K miles on them". > I had a strong suspicion that they just wanted to make money. > Wires had no visible defects and my repair manual doesn't > recommend any scheduled maintenance for them. >  > Is it "plain vanilla" rip off?  > Or there can be some backing behind  > their suggestion to replace wires? >  > I have Ford Taurus 86. >  >  > Vadim Maslov.   I once had a sparking problem with my '65 Mustang, and simply changing the spark plug wires fixed it.
In article <1993Apr22.000337.10096@news.arc.nasa.gov> chung@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Po Sum Chung ACF) writes: >>(Tommy Szeto) writes: >>> Water gradually builds up in the trunk of my friend's 89 Ford Probe.  Every >>> once in a while we would have to remove the spare and scoop out the water >>> under the plywood/carpet cover on the trunk.  I would guess this usually   >>I noticed this is my '89 probe also, when recently cleaning out the back.  I   >>think the water is coming *up* through some rubber stoppered holes beneath the   >>spare.  Mine looked slightly worn, and there was no water or water damage  >I have the same problem with my '90 probe.  The water is definitely not comming >up from the rubber stoppered hole beneath the spare.  I have to remove the >rubber stopper to drain the water.  Seems like a common problem with probe.  There is a known problem with the seals on the taillights of <93 probes. Complain loudly to your dealer and get them to install new seals.  It is a known problem, present on most (if not all) pre-93 Probes, so you  shouldn't have to pay them to fix it.  In my case, they fixed it on my extended warranty (I just had to pay a $50 deductable) (the work was valued at something like $185 with labor and parts).  Having removed the tail lamps myself on other occasions, I think their estimate was fair.
jlong@emcnext2.tamu.edu (James Long) writes:  >In article <1r1crn$27g@transfer.stratus.com> tszeto@sneezy.ts.stratus.com   >(Tommy Szeto) writes: >> Water gradually builds up in the trunk of my friend's 89 Ford Probe.  Every >> once in a while we would have to remove the spare and scoop out the water >> under the plywood/carpet cover on the trunk.  I would guess this usually   >happens >> after a good thunder storm.  A few Qs: >>  >> 1) Is this a common problem? >> 2) Where are the drain holes located for the hatch?  >I noticed this is my '89 probe also, when recently cleaning out the back.  I   >think the water is coming *up* through some rubber stoppered holes beneath the   >spare.  Mine looked slightly worn, and there was no water or water damage above   >the level of the spare area.   >This has taken a low priority since I just found out (while rotating my tires)   >that I have a torn CV boot - ugh!!  I've got an 89 GT.  It has the smoked taillight assembly.  I think this is where the water is getting in.  When I first got it (had it for a month), one of the rear taillights fogged up with moisture.  I took it in to the dealer and they replaced the entire assembly.  It happened to the other one about 3 months later.  This time I happened to look in the spare tire well and noticed water standing in there.  The dealer was more reluctant this time to replace it.  But I convinced them to fix it.  (They must have had to deal with a number of other probes with the same problem.)  I haven't noticed water in the taillamps (or the trunk) for the last 2.5 years, but just last month, the taillamp just fogged up again.  I'm going to try to take it back to get them to fix it again.  I'm real tempted to drill some vent and drain holes in the tops and bottoms of the assembly and forget about it.  This is getting very annoying. (Almost every other `89 GT I've seen has had this problem.)  Vel --  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Vel Natarajan  nataraja@rtsg.mot.com  Motorola Cellular, Arlington Hts IL  --