waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr15.111910.1@bronco.fnal.gov> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick 'Open VMS 4ever' Colombo) writes: > >I don't know about trains, but I've saw a sign on the back of a >Greyhound bus that warns you that your radar detector may be set off. >It doesn't explain why, but it does set off my radar detector.  Because Greyhound has apparently gotten around to installing their RADAR collision-prevention system. They use RADAR to monitor how close other vehicles are and how fast their relative speeds are, and signals a warning to the driver if they're coming up on something too fast or are getting too close.  This is all I remember from the news reports a few months back; at the time, they were only talking about the possibility of installing the system. (They didn't mention how it worked in bumper-to-bumper traffic, or how it discriminated between a Camaro approaching at 120mph and ye olde bridge support in the median being approached  at 60mph on a curve.)  I do recall something about progressive stages of warnings, from flashing lights to audible warnings--ie, it goes from a red "Too close" light to hysterically screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!"  :-)  				James
I am in the market to buy a used car. I am particularly interested in the Pontiac Bonneville. My budget is between 7- 8 thousand. Would I be able to afford an 88 or 89. What engines were available at this time. I know they didn't redesign until the 1992 model year. How is the reliability of past models. I would appreciate any advice or information.
In article <C5L86z.E73@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> rdb1@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ronald.j.deblock..jr) writes: >Yes, I saw a 200 Turbo Quattro wagon on I-287 in NJ on Monday.  I thought >Audi stopped selling wagons in the US after the 5000.  This is exactly the >type of vehicle I would like to own.  I bet its price is 4-5 times my >car budget.  think again!!  thanks to 60 minutes (tick tick tick), used 200 quattros are bargains.. '89s go for about $15K, '90s go for perhaps 1 or 2K more, the 20 valve 91's are quite a bit more because of an enormous hp and torque gain.. i think they go for about $23 to $25K if you can find one.  i have seen quite a lot of '89-'90 200 quattros (not that many wagons though) at the dealer lot.. they use very high quality paint and the entire car is zinc galvanized, so it will never rust.  in short, typically a 4 yr old 200 looks no more older than a 1 year old and the 5 bangers are bullet proof engines.  200K out of one is not rare, even for a turbo, which is watercooled for the 200s.  then there are aftermarket chips that you can buy to bump up turbo boost...  if you are into luxo-gizmos.. the cars are loaded with just about everything too..  the price of parts is a different story though...
In article <1qmq7tINN9l@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: >Another user recently requested info about the Shadow/Sundance >cars, but I haven't seen any public responses. > >What are people's experiences with these cars? > >Daryl > they are pretty much junk, stay away from them.  they will be replaced next year with all new models.
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. >We live in South Fla., so we are definitely in the right are for one. >My wife has mentioned the Miata, but I think it is too small. >I would like to wait for the new Mustangs ( Dec. '93 I think). >Anyone have any opinions on any/all convertibles in a reasonable price range.  >                                           Thanx  	The Olds Supreme Convertible got high marks in C/D's recent test, if you can get by the stupid body moldings and stuff.  The Saab 900 ragtop may be out of your range, but its a good choice.  Is there a new F-car convertible? The Nissan 240SX convertible is a nice car also... Those immediately come to  mind...
In article <185900002@hpindda.cup.hp.com> jimb@hpindda.cup.hp.com (James Bruder) writes:   > From: jimb@hpindda.cup.hp.com (James Bruder) > Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 23:08:56 GMT > Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA > Path: eclipse!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpcss01!hpindda!jimb > Newsgroups: rec.autos > References: <185900001@hpindda.cup.hp.com> > Lines: 16 >  > It's nice to know that I'm not alone out there when it comes to clutch, etc > problems on late model Hondas.  If I get a few more supportive responses > I will take them to my local Honda dealer or maybe send them to the regional > rep in Southern Calif. for their input on the problem.  Maybe some group > pressure from Honda owners can be placed on Honda to find a solution, such > as a retrofit of the clutch??  >  > Or, maybe I'll just sell the blasted vehicle and go back to driving my 10 > year old pick-up which was (now fixed) having clutch problems and caused me > to look for what I thought would be a trouble-free solution. Ya sure. Not > to put down Honda or anything - the Accord has performed flawlessly in all > other areas for its 16,000 miles. >  > As it is said "out of all this something will develop!" >  > Later folks.  Not alone at all. My old 83 Accord (now in the hands of a sibling) has a much better engagement of the clutch. Even the old 84 Civic we keep as a beater  feels better in this aspect. Note that these are cars with 250,000 kms and 140,000 kms respectively. My 90 Prelude blows both of them away in every  respect except smooth clutch engagement. Of course the Kawasaki is the best of the bunch but I need more than 2 wheels most of the time.  The Prelude has had a dud clutch from day 1, and after three years and 67,000 kms is no better. Best of luck and feel free to add this to your collection.
wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes: >>Compare either to the Porsche 911 and you tell me which was designed  >	Oh, right.  Only 120,000 dollar cars should be driven fast. >They drive goddamn Rabbits at 120 MPH in Europe, pal, and I reckon >a Taurus is at least as capable as a Rabbit.  My whole point was not to say that the cars *couldn't* go that fast, but that they *shouldn't* go that fast.  A family sedan designed to be operable at 85mph doesn't suddenly become operable at 130mph because you added some plastic aero effects, slightly wider tires, and a much larger engine.  That's what the SHO is -- a slightly modified family sedan with a powerful engine.  They didn't even bother improving the *brakes.*  The Mustang is essentially the same deal as the SHO -- a big power plant stuck in a mid-size sedan, with almost no other modifications. I have real-life experience with the Mustang -- it handles like a brick (except when you're invoking oversteer, of course, something I personally avoid doing on the highway) and stopping power is inadequate even from 80mph.  Lots of accelleration -- but the rest of the car is not up to par.  I picked the Porsche example because they are designed with speed in mind.  It didn't have to be the 911 -- it could have been the much cheaper 944 or one of several Mercedes or Audi models.  All of these cars are fairly expensive -- but so are the parts that make them drivable at high speed.  This should be elementary.  There are a few things to keep in mind about Europe, since you brought it up.  My Autobahn knowledge is admittedly second-hand, but I believe the following to be true:  1. Drivers are much better disciplined in Europe than they are here. 2. The roads comprising the Autobahn are much better designed than    they are here, and usually include animal fences.  This makes them    far more predictable than most US highways. 3. Not all of Europe is the Autobahn.  Most places in Europe have    speed limits that aren't out-of-line with what we used to have in    the US -- if my friends weren't lying to me they're typically not    much higher than 120km/h.  I strongly suspect you won't find a lot of Rabbit owners doing 120mph (nearly 200km/h) on the Autobahn, but I could be wrong.  Some people have no respect for their own lives.  >>You certainly haven't convinced me.  >	Of course not.  "Speeding-is-bad.  Speeding-is-illegal.  >I-will-not-speed.  I-love-Big-Brother."  You had your mind made up >already.  If you think so you sure don't pay attention to my postings.
In article <93Apr16.185044.18431@acs.ucalgary.ca> parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes: >The idea here is to list pointless options. You know, stuff you >get on a car that has no earthly use? > > >1) Power windows  I like my power windows. I think they're worth it.  However, cruise control is a pretty dumb option. What's the point? If you're on a long trip, you floor the gas and keep your eyes on the rear-view mirror for cops, right?  Power seats are pretty dumb too, unless you're unlucky enough to have to share your car. Otherwise, you'd just adjust it once and just leave it like that.
I'm having an interesting problem with my girlfriend's car.  Before I delve into its innards, I thought I'd check "net.wisdom" on the subject. :)  It's a 1985 Buick Skyhawk (I know...I know) 2.0l EFI 4-banger auto 35k miles  When I drive tha car long enough to get it hot (especially at highways speeds) the transmission has this nasty habit of getting "stuck" in 3rd gear.  As a result, when you stop for a light the motor stalls.  Putting the car in park, and waiting for 30-60 seconds before restarting sometimes allows the transmission to "reset" and go back into 1st.  Otherwise, it just stalls when put in drive.    My thoughts:  Either it the 3rd gear band is binding and getting stuck when it gets hot (not so likely) or perhaps the lock-up converter is not disengaging properly (seems likely).  The least likely (keeping fingers crossed) is that some critical vacuum hose has broken/cracked and this behaviour is due to lack of vaccuum somewhere (as used to happen with old modulator valves).  My background is that my father owns a service station and I worked there on and off from 10-19 years of age.  Please feel free to be as technical as you want. :)  I'd appreciate hearing any tips/suggestions/offers of free beer. <grin>  Skoal,
Could someone explain how to make sense of drag coefficients (i.e Cd) mentioned in magazines.  I understand that lower numbers signify better aerodynamics but what does this mean in the real world.  Is there a way to calculate new top speeds(assuming the car is not rev limited at top speed) or mileage benefits if a identical car had the Cd reduced from .34 to .33.
> 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.   Drivel.  I received delivery of my '93 Trans Am 7 weeks after I  ordered (promised 6-8 weeks), and paid $400 over dealer invoice,  which is a $1425 discount off of MSRP.  I only have about 370  miles on it, but so far no problems, and it seems very well put  together.  By the way, first year production will be about 60,000  cars.  Dealers would like you to think there is a shortage, but  considering they only sold about 90,000 F bodies last year and the  new model was introduced mid-year, that is not going to create a  shortage.  GM planning on ramping to about 160,000 F bodies next  year (according to a WSJ article).   Several people have mentioned seeing a photo of the '94 Mustang in  Popular Mechanics.  I saw a photo of it in Motor Trend January  1993 issue (p30).  Direct side on view.  Although they described  it as a "seriously handsome car with broad shoulders," I thought  it looked pretty boring in that view.  Roofline reminded me of a  Toyota Celica (yuch!).  Description of mechanicals same as has  been reported from the PM article.
In article <1993Apr2.135926.1@skcla.monsanto.com>, mas@skcla.monsanto.com writes: |> I read an article in the 3/25 Chicago Tribune stating that Chrysler is |> having problems addressing the demand for the 3.5L engine for it's LH |> cars.  Can anyone post how long they are waiting for an ordered car or |> how long they have been told they'll have to wait?? |>  |> Thanks! |>  |> John Mas |>  |>  |> E-Mail Address     ::     MAS@SKCLA.MONSANTO.COM |>  I ordered an Intrepid ES on Jan 25th and haven't seen it yet.  I called a couple of weeks ago and was told 2-3 more weeks.  It's probably time to call again.
In article <1993Apr19.164451.3744@news.eng.convex.com>, Dave Dodson <dodson@convex.COM> writes: > Is it worthwhile to get an alarm system on a new car? >  > What features are important? >  > What features are unimportant?  That is a question that can only be answered by yourself and where you live.  If you live in a place where crime is apparent, then it might be a good idea to get one simply as a deterrent.  However, if a professional thief wants your vehicle, its as good as gone no matter what you do.  But to slow down any thieves it would be a good idea to get the basic options.  That would be:  1)	ignition kill or fuel cut-off 2)	a flashing red LED  These two are basic to a decent alarm system.   To slow down the criminal some more, get a steering wheel lock. That should be sufficient to persuade the thief to find an easier target. But, then there's always car-jacking.   Why is life so confusing? I hope I helped somewhat.
In the EC, the Corrado VR6 is rated as 'best handling car this side of a  968'. As it goes, I just read an article in 'Autocar & Motor' comparing the  VR6 to a Ford Probe (later to be launched in the UK).... The VR6 is more powerful (even more so coz its 2.9 instead of 2.8 in the EC) and more fun to drive etc etc... but the Probe has a slightly smoother engine (thanx Mazda MX6!)...
gwm@spl1.spl.loral.com (Gary W. Mahan) writes: >>Why should a good driver be terrified at 130mph? The only thing I fear >>going at 130 are drivers, who switch to the left lane without using >>either rear-view-mirror or flashers. Doing 130 to 150 ain't a rush >>for me, but it's fun and I get where I want to go much faster.  >In defense of the drivers, who are in the right lane.  Here in the states, people simply do not expect when they are driving to be overtaken at a speed differential of 50+mph.  I don't think this is because they are stupid (of course, there are exceptions), they are just programmed because of the 55mph limit. Do you (in the states) when you look in the rear-view ALWAYS calculate future  positions of cars based on a 50+ speed differential.   >Dont get me wrong, I love to drive in the left lane fast but when I overtake >cars who are on the right, I slow down a tad bit. If I were to rely on the judgement of the other car, to recognize the speed differential, I would be the stupid one.   >BTW, If no one else is around, then GO FOR IT!.
In article <1qmcih$dhs@armory.centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes: >boyle@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes: >>The quality of autobahns is something of a myth. The road surface >>isn't much different to a typical TX freeway. They are better >>in terms of lighting, safety, signs, roadmarkings etc. > >They light the highways in Texas?  Funny, everywhere else I've been >they only light 'em at junctions.  Sorry, by "they" I meant autobahns, not US freeways.  > >I won't even get into how much road markings vary between states and >localities except to say that there are some areas where markings are >essentially nonexistant. > >>>than most of the roads here. A dip in the asphalt that you test your >>>shocks on at 60 will kill you at 130. Don't get me wrong, I love to > >>It would have to be quite severe. I don't recall any US freeway, >>without road damage warnings, that i would regard as unsafe >>at 130 in any decent, well damped car. > >I suspect you have very limited experience -- US freeways vary >dramatically, particularly between states.  I can name a number of >interstate highways in various parts of the country where 130 would be >very optimistic in any car.  Well, I've driven in every state but Alaska, and drive about 60k per year. I take long cross country trips any chance I get - its fun for me and I can get reimbursment. My job allows me to drive rather than fly. Not to labor the point, but I've driven just about every freewayin the US, Germany, UK and France plus some in Mexico, which was surpisingly good.  > >I'm not sure what you call "quite severe" in terms of road deviations >but I suspect every single bridge junction on I84 through CT would be >considered so.  They're hard to take at 85mph.  That's not the only >interstate I've seen with such deviations, but it's one I drive >frequently.  Yes, but as a %age of the total freeway in the US?  All you have to do in this case is mark the hazard, advising people to slow to 85 or so.   > >Texas is pretty much an edge-case -- you can't assume that everywhere >has roads in such good condition, such flat terrain, and such  Texas freeways are varied, sometimes a good surface. Mostly flat. But, I5 in CA is comparable and hilly.  >wide-open spaces.  It just ain't so. > Given the absence of other traffic and car built for 130 (e.g. 535)  most US freeways are just fine. The problem is other road users and cops.  >jim frost >jimf@centerline.com
In a previous article, dh3q+@andrew.cmu.edu ("Daniel U. Holbrook") says:  >>i'm guessing, but i believe in the twenties we probably drove mostly down >>cattle trails and in wagon ruts.  I am fairly sure that placement of the  >>steering wheel was pretty much arbitrary to the company at that time..... > >By the 1920s, there was a very active "good roads" movement, which had >its origins actually in the 1890s during the bicycle craze, picked up >steam in the teens (witness the Linclon Highway Association, 1912 or so, >and the US highway support act (real name: something different) in 1916 >that first pledged federal aid to states and counties to build decent >roads. Also, the experience of widespread use of trucks for domestic >transport during WW 1 convinced the government that good raods were >crucial to our national defense.  Anyway, by the 20s there were plenty >of good roads, at least around urban areas, and they were rapidly >expanding into the countryside.  This was the era, after all, of the >first auto touring fad, the motel, the auto camp ground, etc. Two good >books on the subject spring to mind - Warren Belasco "America on the >Road" (title may not be exact - author is) and another called "The Devil >Wagon in God's Country" author I forget.  Also, any of John Flink's  or >John Bell Rae's auto histories.  i'm sorry, as i have never heard of any of this.  Guess they don't think it's important enough for a classroom, and i was going on what i've seen in pics.(some movies--real nice scource there, huh?)  I just always  recall thinking that GOOD roads of asphalt didn't come around til the Interstate Hiway Act, or whatever they called it(60's?), and that wood and cobblestone roads were fairly rare up through the depression, except in overpopulated places like England and US cities.  Obviously netwisdom says i am wrong.  >As to placement of the steering wheel being arbitrary, by the early >teens there were virtually no American cars that did not have the wheel >on the left.  In the early days, cars had the wheel on the left, on the >right, and even in the middle, as well as sometimes having a tiller >instead of a wheel.  This was standardized fairly early on, though I >don't know why.  i knew it was almost always done, but i knew of no reason that it might not be done the other way by DeSoto for their car.  Seems like they had some other deviations from the norm too, at times :-)  >Dan >dh3q@andrew.cmu.edu >Carnegie Mellon University >Applied History > >"World history strides on from catastrophe to catastrophe, whether we >can comprehend and prove it or not." >               Oswald Spengler
In rec.autos, grahamt@phantom.gatech.edu (Graham E. Thomas) writes:  >What we currently know as the 240sx, is known elsewhere as a 200sx. > >-- >Graham E. Thomas                  *  blah blah blah blah blah  This is kind of interesting.  I always assumed that the 240SX was named because of the 2.4 liter engine which it uses.  Likewise for the 200SX which uses a 2.0 liter engine.  Isn't this true?
If you had free reign to design your own instrument cluster, which gauges would you choose to have beyond the basic set?  I consider the basic set to be:  	- tach  	- coolant temp (or cylinder head temp for air-cooled engines) 	- oil pressure 	- amps  	- speedo 	- fuel  others that are nice to have:  	- volts (maybe this should be in the basic set) 	- vacuum/boost  I can think of a few others, but what are your ideas and why?
In article <C5uI6u.Ao0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jmh@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Jeffrey Hoffmeister) writes: >In article <1993Apr21.171811.25933@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes: >> >>In article <66758@mimsy.umd.edu> davew@cs.umd.edu (David G. Wonnacott) writes: >>>I'm considering switching to Geico insurance, but have heard that >>>they do not assign a specific agent for each policy or claim.  I was >>>worried that this might be a real pain when you make a claim.  I have >>>also heard that they try to get rid of you if you have an accident. >> >>I've read in this group that Geico has funded the purchasing of radar >>guns by police depts (I'm not sure where). > > >Geico has purchased radar guns in several states, I know they have done >it here in CT. > >I have also heard horror stories about people that have been insured by Geico >for years and then had 1 accident and were immediately dropped.  And once >you've been dropped by any insruance company you become labled a high >risk, and end up forking out 3 or 4 times what you should be for insurance.  This must vary from state to state, because our old company Kemper wanted to drop me (keeping my wife) or tripple our premium because i had 1 ticket. Only 2 points for 10 mph over speed limit.  Well i called Geico, and they insured both my wife and i for less then we were previously paying Kemper.  Generally i hate the whole insurance game. I realize that it is necessary but the way that a person can get dicked around doesn't make any sense.  One good thing about Geico is that everything can be handled over the phone.   > >My suggestion, stay where you are, or shop around but STAY AWAY from Geico! > >Jeff > >                                                    .                                                    /                 Larry                            __/    _______/_                  keys@csmes.ncsl.nist.gov       /                  \                                          _____     __     _____    \------- ===             ----------- / ____/   /  /   /__  __/              \          /     ___    /  / ___   /  /      / /    ____          |         |    /      \/ /__ /  | /  /__  __/ /__ /       \      /          /___         \_______/ /_____/ /______/            ====OO             \       /                           \       /                          -            1990 2.0 16v           -          ---------------- FAHRVERGNUGEN FOREVER! --------------------                         The fact that I need to explain it to you indicates             that you probably wouldn't understand anyway!