waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg) writes:  >In rec.autos, jmh@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Jeffrey Hoffmeister) writes: >>My suggestion, stay where you are, or shop around but STAY AWAY from Geico!  >I strongly agree with Jeff.  Here's my horror story.  Many years back, >I switched to Geico from State Farm to save some $$$$.  I have a relatively >new sports car, for which we covered with liability, collision, and >comprehensive.  With this make of car, new models came out in January, >not September like other makes.  The car was purchased in August of >that year.  >We also had a much older clunker for which we only wanted liability.   >Low and behold, a vandal slashed the roof of the sports car and we put  >in a claim.  This was in October - still the current model year for >the car.   A new top, with installation was $135.  We had $50 deductible >so we should have gotten $85.  You had to go to Geico's local office >to have an adjuster see the car, unlike State Farm that sent the adjusters >to the shop or your place.  He said, "Since the car is now one year >old, we'll depreciate the top by $50, so you'll get $35 on the claim. >This will also count as an accident against you, so your rate may increase."  >The hassle continued.  Then we got a letter from Geico, saying "Claim >denied - your policy on this car doesn't cover this."  I then learned >that their records had the full coverage (collision, etc.) on our old >clunker, and only had liability for this new car!!!!  They mixed up >our cars in their records.  I fixed the top myself with some carpet >thread and dropped my claim.  They still charged me with an "accident!" >I cancelled my policy and switched to another company.  >The coup de gras came when they sent me a bill for an additional balance >due for the difference in collision/comprehensive cost between my sports >car and my clunker!!!  I returned the bill unpaid with a nastygram, >plus explicity directions to perform recto-cranial insertion!!!! >Haven't heard from them since.  >   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion. >  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil >========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======   	Good for you.  I am convinced that someone should start a boycott  against GEICO.  Any takers?
In rec.autos, dennis@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Dennis Schloeman) writes: xSorry to repost this again so soon, but xthe information from my earlier post was xdeleted from our system. > xI am looking for information concerning x"sprayed-on" bedliners for pickup trucks. xA company here does it using polyurethene xbut they've only been around for 9 months xso there's not much of a track record here. xIs the sprayed-on bedliner any good?  How xwell do they hold up over the years?  Any xinfo would be appreciated. x xThanks. x xDennis Do you have a Ziebart dealer in your area? They've offered spray on bed liners around here for several years. If you do, see what kind of a warranty they have. ( Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who has gotten one so I can't help you there.) Also ask if they can give you a list of references. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mack Costello <mcostell@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Code 65.1 (formerly 1720.1) David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock Division Hq. NSWC    ___/-\____ Bethesda, MD 20084-5000   Phone (301) 227-2431          (__________>|
In a previous article, eliot@lanmola.engr.washington.edu (eliot) says:  >In article <1r1vofINN871@usenet.pa.dec.com> tomacj@opco.enet.dec.com (THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO !!!) writes: >>	Are there any MR2 owners or motor-head gurus out there, that know why >>my MR2's engine sounds noisy? The MR2's engine is noisy at the best of times,  >>but not even a nice nose - it's one of those very ugly noises.  > >assuming yours is a non turbo MR2, the gruffness is characteristic of >a large inline 4 that doesn't have balance shafts.  i guess toyota >didn't care about "little" details like that when they can brag about >the mid engine configuration and the flashy styling. > >myself, i automatically cross out any car from consideration (or >recommendation) which has an inline 4 larger than 2 liters and no >balance shafts..  it is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind if you >ever want a halfway decent engine.   > >if the noise really bugs you, there is nothing else that you can do >except to sell it and get a V6. > > >eliot  nice theory.  too bad the MR2's never came with a four cylinder over 2.0 liters.  More like 1.6.  Or did they? were the nonturbo MR2II's  2.2 or some such?  I also understand that anyone using balancing shafts on four cylinders, must pay SAAB a royalty for using their patented design..like Porsche's 3.0 I4...
Any truth to the rumor of an AWD 3-series for '94?  I believe this info was published in either Popular Science or AutoWeek a couple of months ago.    Also, a friend told me that BMW used to make an AWD 325 called the 325ix.  I'd appreciate any info about this car too.  Thanks..    Thanks.
In <1993Apr23.132214.6755@cs.tulane.edu> finnegan@nrlssc.navy.mil writes:  >In article <Apr22.202724.24131@engr.washington.edu> >eliot@stalfos.engr.washington.edu (eliot) writes: >> >>the subarus all use 180 degree vees in their engines..  :-) >> >> >>eliot  >Wouldn't that make them an I4?  Or would they  >really be an _4 (henceforth referred to as >"underscore 4")?  horizontally opposed 4. or 'boxer' great idea, actually.. smooth running; low center of gravity.. also used in some honda gullwings, corvairs, porsches (others?) ...  >Kenneth >finnegan@nrlssc.navy.mil
I have a 1986 Acura Integra 5 speed with 95,000 miles on it. It is positively the worst car I have ever owned. I had an 83 Prelude that had 160k miles on it when I sold it, and it was still going strong .  This is with religious attention to maintenance such as oil changes etc. Both cars were driven in exactly the same manner..    1. It has gone through two clutches (which are underrated.)   2. 3 sets of tires (really eats tires in the front even with careful align)   3. All struts started leaking about 25-30k miles   4. Windshield wiper motor burned up (service note on this one)   5. Seek stop working on radio about 20k miles   6. Two timing belts.   7. Constant error signals from computer.    8. And finally. A rod bearing went out on the No. 1 piston seriously damaging      the crankshaft, contaminating the engine etc. When the overhaul was done      last week it required new crankshaft, one new cam shaft (has two) because      the camshaft shattered when they tried to mill it. The camshaft took 4      weeks to get because it is on national back order.        Everything on the engine is unique to the 1986 year. They went to a new      design in 87. Parts are very expensive.
In article <185900001@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, jimb@hpindda.cup.hp.com (James Bruder) writes: |> anyone else experiencing a similar problem? |>  |> This concerns the clutch on a 92 Honda Accord 5 speed. When the clutch |> is first used in the morning, about the first 4 miles of shifting, there |> is a significant amount of clutch chatter until things warm up.  Then the |> clutch shifts smoothly.  This chatter started when I moved to the San  |> Francisco Bay area from a low-humidity environment.  The dealer stated |> that this is known to happen since Honda changed from an asbestos to |> non-asbestos clutch material.  No remedy!! Seems that moisture on clutch |> surface causes slipping until the moisture evaporates. |>  |> Any comments out there?  The clutch on my '92 Honda Civic EX-V (EX in the U.S.) does this too. It's annoying.  Now that I think about, it _is_ worse when the humidity is high.  The dealer also claims there's nothing they can do since the clutch is  a "self-adjusting hydraulic design".  Yeah, right.
In article <1993Apr19.230010.4937@cactus.org>, boyle@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes... >In article <C5r43y.F0D@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> marshatt@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Zauberer) writes: >>In article <5265@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes: >>>> >>>> Remember roads in America are NOT designed for speeds above 80 meaning they >>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>would be safe at 55-65. Roads like the Autobahn are smoother, straiter, >>>>wider and slightly banked.  >>> >>>	Well, that's news.  Before 1975 the speed limit on Texas highways >>>was 75.  The speed limit on the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) was 70.  There >>>were no speed limits in Nevada or Montana. >> >>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. >> >  >Actually, the roads were designated as safe at 80 when they were built >in the 1950's taking into account the kinds of cars then available. The >number would be much higher today because the cars, tires and just about >everything else has imprivoved a lot. >  >  I believe the interstates were origionally funded as part of a national  defense plan etc.  The  requirements were to move heavy army trucks at  70mph.  Still its amazing in Germany you can have cars traveling 155 mph and 65 mph  on the same 3 to 4 lane road.  Around Washington DC they can't keep traffic  flowing at 55.
A question for any high-mileage Audi owners out there: I am interested in buying a 1989 Audi 5000S for $5500 Cdn.  The reason the car is selling for so little is that is has 155000 km on it (just under 100000 mi.).  The car's owner claims the car is in good condition.  My question is: how reliable are Audi 5000s with mileage that high?  Would it be worthwhile for me to buy the car?  Any problem areas that I should look out for?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Post responses and/or e-mail me.  Thanks  Steve Hui
In article <0w2Z2B1w164w@cellar.org> blu@cellar.org (Dan Reed) writes: >Fact is, I just leave the valet key in my glovebox for whenever  >I need it...    That will make it easy for a car thief. Saves him/her the trouble of popping your ignition!
I have a 86 chevy sprint with a/c and 4doors. It's odometer turned 90k and the sensor light started blinking. I went to the dealer and he said it was a maintenance light saying I need to change the Oxygen sensor. He said, It is to be changed every 30k, but since I bought the car when it had 77k, I don't know if the same thing happened at 30k and 60k.  He quoted $198 for the part and $50 to install it. The part cost $30 outside, but the mechanic I went to could not fix it saying the sensor is placed too deep in the engine parts. He suggested I wait till it malfunctions before I do anything.  If anyone out there owns a chevy sprint, I want to know how they got their Oxygen sensors changed. Also, did you face any problem with fixing it without the dealer's help. Also, what are the results of the oxygen sensor malfunction.    Any help would be greatly apprecisted    Thanks       Nagesh
In article <13269@news.duke.edu> klg@mookie.mc.duke.edu (Kim Greer) writes: > >  I was wondering if anyone can shed any light on just how it is that these >electronic odometers remember the total elapsed mileage?  What kind of >memory is stable/reliable enough, non-volatile enough and independent enough >(of outside battery power) to last say, 10 years or more, in the life of a >vehicle?  I'm amazed that anything like this could be expected to work for >this length of time (especially in light of all the gizmos I work with that >are doing good to work for 2 months without breaking down somehow). > MK48T02 from thomsom.  It has a timekeeper (clock) and 512 bytes of NVRAM which has a lithium battery backup.  The battery has a life of ~10 years of poweroff operation.  Installed in a car it could be left powered on continuously and not draw much current.  The battery would only be used when your auto battery was dead or had been removed.  >Side question:  how about the legal ramifications of selling a used car with >a replaced odometer that starts over at 0 miles, after say 100/200/300K >actual miles.  Looks like fraud would be fairly easy - for the price of a >new odometer, you can say it has however many miles you want to tell the >buyer it has.  In California they have a line on the transfer of ownership form which states that the odometer mileage is correct.  If incorrect you are required to  fill in what you know (or guesstimate) to be the correct mileage.  If you lie on this form and are caught you can be prosecuted and the buyer can sue you for the value of the mileage differential.
It did it again.  This morning, my 88 Ford Ranger was idling at 10,000 RPM. Ok, so I exaggerated a little, but it was idling very fast.  It has a 2 liter carburated engine in it, and no blipping of the throttle would cause the idle to drop back to normal (I don't think the linkage is stuck). What can I do to fix this problem?  This has been a problem from time to time, but has straightened itself out - until now.  I don't have a tach, but by gauging by the sound of the engine, it is idling about twice as fast as it should be.  This is down from what it was idling at when I pulled up at a stop light.  Many thanks for any suggestions.   - les
W >>will NOT do work on internal engine components of the SHO engine.  This W > W >Good thing, too. W > W >At about 25K miles my cam sensor went south.  2 different Ford W >dealers tried 5 or 6 different "fixes", none of which worked.  Finally W >I took it down the street to the local mechanic.  This guy reads the W >code off the engine computer, says "Bad cam sensor", and fixes it in  W >an hour...  A friend of mine had some sensors damaged by flood waters, Ford denys any sensors are registering bad.  He and his father did the short a circut via paper clip method (not sure of the exact technique), and read the codes off the "service engine" light flashes generated from this.  Came up with the  damaged sensors, went back to Ford, and TOLD them what was wrong.  They fixed the car after that.  What a bunch of bozos.
hhd0@harvey.gte.com (Horace Dediu) writes:  >In article <nataraja.735341980@opal12>, nataraja@rtsg.mot.com (Kumaravel Natarajan) writes: >|> I heard the diesels are considered cleaner-burning than >|> gas engines because the emit less of: Carbon Monoxide, >|> Hydrocarbons, and Oxides of Nitrogen.  (CO, HC, NOX). >|>  >|> But they can put out a lot of particulate matter.  I heard >|> something about legislation being discussed to "clean up >|> diesel emissions".  Is there anything in the works to >|> install "scrubbers" for diesels?  How about the feasibility >|> of installing them on trucks and cars?  Would it be any >|> different than a catylitic converter?  I'd assume easier, >|> since we're removing particulate matter instead of converting >|> gasses.  Let's hear people's opinions...  >This really bugs me.  The emissions of diesels are the cleanest of any vechicle, >but they are considered so polluting that they are banned in passenger cars >in California.  What a bunch of crap.  Diesel is the fuel of choice for  >enviromental benefit in Europe while here it's illegal for the same reason. > >The particulates are nothing but carbon.  They are just an annoyance at worst. >Nothing beats the diesel cycle for efficiency and emissions, torque or engine >durability.  It's also cheaper.  Just to clear things up (as to why I posted the question that way)... I was debating with a co-worker about diesels.  I claimed they were cleaner-burning than gas engines.  He said the extra "junk" put out by them was offset by the savings in greenhouse gasses.   I made all the SAME claims you did.  But, one question of his was what about the carbon?  I said it was harmless, but he wanted to know how to get rid of it.  I suggested scrubbers.  (I figured it would be no harder or more expensive to install than "cats".)  Does there exist any designs for a scrubber?  (I'd like to know just to answer his final question.)  I convinced him that diesels are cleaner otherwise.  BTW, (I named my subject "Dirty Diesels" because I knew it would get a reaction out of people who knew they were cleaner than gas engines and that they'd read it...) --  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Vel Natarajan  nataraja@rtsg.mot.com  Motorola Cellular, Arlington Hts IL  --
Go with the Mercedes, if you can afford it.  I think the 300 wagon starts around 50k, although it could be 60k.  There is no comparison with any of the other cars listed.
In article <1993Apr27.021456.7594@slcs.slb.com>   dcd@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) writes: > 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-$300??), offer them that price and stick to   > >it. >  > Whoa!  Watch your terminology.  "Dealer invoice" is *not* "dealer cost". > ...  That's probably true but it's the closest to it that you're going to get.   The actual dealer cost depends on a lot of things and even the dealer   probably doesn't know exactly what it will be until all the factory    kick-backs, incentives, etc. are paid and that often depends on his volume   at the end of the month/quarter/whatever. It might be a funny munber but   it's all you have to start with, except the sticker, and anyone who pays   sticker price is really being ripped off.
Is there anyone out there in NetLand that has/has had one of these?   Can someone give me a non-Consumer Reports review (or point me to a source) ???   Thanks Scott  ----------------------- sdexter@ucrengr.ucr.edu 	Computer Science Undergraduate, 	University of California, Riverside 	Internet :  138.23.166.21  sdexter@technet1.shl.com          	 Facilities Engineer, 	 SHL SystemHouse, Inc. ,Technology Network          Internet : 192.75.61.2
In article <C5LIw2.CAx@news.rich.bnr.ca> Peon w/o Email (Eric Youngblood) writes: >In article <1qn2lo$c9s@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman) writes: >The big disadvantage of automatics is the ~10% HP they consume that never >gets to the wheels.  In this respect they are at a disadvantage to a manual.  only when the torque converter is not locked up.  there are autos out there with converter lock up in 2nd, 3rd and 4th gears.  >Dont forget that now that new 6 speed manual trannys are available the drive >train is more optimally geared to get the most out of the engine.  rare.. so are 5 speed autos.. but very real.  >Bottom line is both manuals and automatics have vastly improved.  i think that automatics have advanced far more than manuals. especially in shift intelligence.  i say that a smart automatic is better than the majority of drivers in terms of being in the right gear at the right time, which to me is more important than torque converter losses.  >I prefer the stick for fun and the auto for traffic.  who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?  a well designed shifter will easily facilitate manual, clutchless shifts.  i am referring to the much copied mercedes jagged gate.  the only department where you lose out is in the number of ratios available, and of course the converter losses..  if ayrton senna can drive a racecar with fully automatic transmission, it can't be half bad..  :-)
In article <34544@oasys.dt.navy.mil> glouie@oasys.dt.navy.mil (George Louie) writes: >In rec.autos, nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans) writes: >>Ashtrays and cigarette lighters.  These should be an *option*. > >Why make it an option.  You can use the ashtray to store coins and other >small things which come in handy. Use the cigarette lighter as an electrical >outlet for all types of handy gadgets (CD players, vacuum cleaners, >flashlights, etc.)  I don't want to pay extra for these things and if >you don't use them, they don't hurt you.  I use the ashtray to keep change and other items in. I converted the  cigarette lighter into a volume control knob for my in trunk subwoofer!   > > >George >>--                                                    .                                                    /                 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!
I used to drive a truck a few years back. I once rode with an old codger that had been driving for about 30 yrs. The only time he would use the clutch was to get the truck moving. He could shift that 13 speed lightning quick, up or down, without the slightest rake of a gear. He was as smooth as silk. It was the most amazing shifting demonstration I've ever seen! Having said all that I  still don't know why anyone would want to shift a synchronized tranny without a clutch? Why do it?
In article <C5yDwp.6G0@ncube.com> bob@ncube.com (Bob Kehoe) writes: > >Curiously (and consider these are test >vehicles), I found the Mercury higher >in build quality than the Nissan. > This is very curious being that they are both built by Mercury in the very same factory.  Steve
In article <1993Apr26.154428.17764@colorado.edu> Jerry Bowman, bowmanj@csn.org writes: >          What car are we talking about? If its Camaro, Chevelle,GTO, >    Nova, Etc. there are a bunch of places to get them.   A 68 Corvette but, I don't want to put Corvette seats in it.  The original  seats are in exc. shape but they are uncomfortable as hell.  I'm going to  store those and find a set to drive in.  I have all the Vette catalogs but  I'm looking for a more generic type seat.  I can modify the brackets but   cushion height and overall width are a concern.  I've looked through some  local boneyards without success.  I would just like to find a pair of   cheapo's to use this summer.
In article <NEILSON.93Apr15135919@seoul.mpr.ca> neilson@seoul.mpr.ca (Robert Neilson) writes: >[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 > >You do have the power Steve. You *can* do it. Why don't you? Why don't you >go shoot some kids who are tossing rocks onto cars? Make sure you do a good >job though - don't miss - 'cause like they have big rocks - and take it from >me - those kids are mean.  	As a stong self-defense advocate, you're 'statement', does littel but irk me.  Of course shooting someone because they throw a rock at your car is out of the question, but what if they disabled your car with their rock and then wanted to come kill/rape/rob/beat/ or otherwise harm you, your wife, kids?   	I think you would like the power to defend yourself in this situation, wouldn't you?  Or is it that you value the lives of such rock throwers more than your own or those of your family?   	Don't think it couldn't happen to you.  From the sounds of it here it has happened to a few people.    	Please do not misunderstand.  The only justification for using deadly force on someone, is that if you don't, it will mean your own  death or grave bodily harm.  I am far far away from supporting vilante justice or anything like that..  	Oh, and if you mean to be funny, please add the appropriate :-) 	 Followups to talk.politics.guns please...  we're getting a bit off track here....
Yeah, it seems toyota has always had a problem with those 2.2's and sound. I know the celicas with em were pretty noisey, and the MR2s were no exception. Now, about large displacement 4s with bad noise.. I have a 90 Grand Am H.O. quad 4, and it sounds really good, almost like a larger 6.. Now, Toyota is coming out with an all-new Celica next year and the Mr2... well who knows..