4.3L V6 emissions (second try)

Question:

I suggest retarding the timing, popping in some Platinum plugs, and replacing the oil with SAE50, or if you’re not into that, some diesel 15W40. Also put in a new air filter. Generally, with all engines there are 3 main components to worry about: spark, fuel, and air. Make sure that the car is getting all three without any restrictions and you’ll pass an emissions test, as long at your cat is functioning alright. The reason for the heavier oil is that if your rings are beginning to wear down, it’ll stop further wear by providing a "curtain" that prevents metal to metal contact despite the increase in play. It also won’t seep into the combustion chamber quite so easily. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> of getting some more helpful answers.  This time I have the data to > post. > The car has 226,000 miles or so. > At around 19x,000 miles the car got a new catalytic converter becuase > the old one plugged up and the car’s performance dropped dramatically > and suddenly.  We had this around 160,000 miles on an ‘86 thunderbird so > this seems par for things.  BTW, the Thunderbird went 245,000 miles > before it was driven to be donated away, and was running strong.  Mobile > One is good stuff… > At 205,000 miles in fall 1998  the data was: > HC  0.26           state limit   2.00 > CO  2.2             state limit   30 > NOx  .5             state limit   3.0 > At around 220,000 miles in fall 2000 the car failed.  I had a new O2 > sensor installed, new plugs, pcv valve, air filter and retested.  The > car passed but it is clear from the readings that something was > deteriorating. > HC  .7332         state limit 1.80 > CO  19.38         state limit  19.38 > NOx  1.16         state limit  2.8 > At 226,000 miles it failed emissions under a different test last month: > 15 MPH > HC 105             state limit  108 > CO  .062           state limit   .61 > NOx 1389        state limit    823        *fail > 25MHP > HC  137            state limit  105        *fail > CO  .12             state limit  .64 > NOx 1457         state limit  750         *fail > I’ve read that high NOx is caused by catalyst failure or EGR circuit > failure.  I also read that the 4.3L engine (comments I read are about > the GMC Jimmy, so probably most versions) has issues with the EGR valve > and possiblly the EGR passage in the intake plugging up.  So, I’m > thinking the EGR system is the most likely suspect. > On the GMC Jimmy, I read that there is a new engine computer prom that > opens the EGR wide open periodically to keep it clear.  Is there such a > prom available on the ‘86 model year for chevy/pontiac or was this > specific to the Jimmy later on? > Does anyone agree that the EGR circuit is the issue, or should I be > looking elsewhere?  The check engine lamp used to come on after an hour > of freeway driving before the new O2 sensor was replaced.  It used to > ping slightly under light load and high speed, also suggesting an EGR > problem or a carbon build up in the cylinders. > I’d like to hear opinons and experiences concerning the use of Sea Foam > cleaner  or Mopar combustion chamber cleaner for cleaning out the carbon > deposits. > I’d like to know if the EGR passages in the intake can be properly > cleaned without removing and replacing the manifold. > I’d be very interested in peoples advice who have experience specific to > this engine.  Generalities such as flush the oil with kerosene don’t > help much.  I’ve already got a Dodge 225 /six that burns a quart per 500 > miles after I used that commercial "engine flush" product years ago. > It’s bad stuff. > Thanks all, and lets not attach the trolls.  ;-)

Response:

I have a 4.3L truck.  I had many problems with this engine (abused by previous owner), some of the problems I found were: PVC port was plugged, as well as gunk in the TPS area.  Remove the throttle body, &  remove the TPS. You will now have access to clean out all ports.  I use laquer thinner to clean all parts, then use compressed air for blow-out. Good-luck.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I suggest retarding the timing, popping in some Platinum plugs, and > replacing the oil with SAE50, or if you’re not into that, some diesel 15W40. > Also put in a new air filter. Generally, with all engines there are 3 main > components to worry about: spark, fuel, and air. Make sure that the car is > getting all three without any restrictions and you’ll pass an emissions > test, as long at your cat is functioning alright. > The reason for the heavier oil is that if your rings are beginning to wear > down, it’ll stop further wear by providing a "curtain" that prevents metal > to metal contact despite the increase in play. It also won’t seep into the > combustion chamber quite so easily. > of getting some more helpful answers.  This time I have the data to > post. > The car has 226,000 miles or so. > At around 19x,000 miles the car got a new catalytic converter becuase > the old one plugged up and the car’s performance dropped dramatically > and suddenly.  We had this around 160,000 miles on an ‘86 thunderbird so > this seems par for things.  BTW, the Thunderbird went 245,000 miles > before it was driven to be donated away, and was running strong.  Mobile > One is good stuff… > At 205,000 miles in fall 1998  the data was: > HC  0.26           state limit   2.00 > CO  2.2             state limit   30 > NOx  .5             state limit   3.0 > At around 220,000 miles in fall 2000 the car failed.  I had a new O2 > sensor installed, new plugs, pcv valve, air filter and retested.  The > car passed but it is clear from the readings that something was > deteriorating. > HC  .7332         state limit 1.80 > CO  19.38         state limit  19.38 > NOx  1.16         state limit  2.8 > At 226,000 miles it failed emissions under a different test last month: > 15 MPH > HC 105             state limit  108 > CO  .062           state limit   .61 > NOx 1389        state limit    823        *fail > 25MHP > HC  137            state limit  105        *fail > CO  .12             state limit  .64 > NOx 1457         state limit  750         *fail > I’ve read that high NOx is caused by catalyst failure or EGR circuit > failure.  I also read that the 4.3L engine (comments I read are about > the GMC Jimmy, so probably most versions) has issues with the EGR valve > and possiblly the EGR passage in the intake plugging up.  So, I’m > thinking the EGR system is the most likely suspect. > On the GMC Jimmy, I read that there is a new engine computer prom that > opens the EGR wide open periodically to keep it clear.  Is there such a > prom available on the ‘86 model year for chevy/pontiac or was this > specific to the Jimmy later on? > Does anyone agree that the EGR circuit is the issue, or should I be > looking elsewhere?  The check engine lamp used to come on after an hour > of freeway driving before the new O2 sensor was replaced.  It used to > ping slightly under light load and high speed, also suggesting an EGR > problem or a carbon build up in the cylinders. > I’d like to hear opinons and experiences concerning the use of Sea Foam > cleaner  or Mopar combustion chamber cleaner for cleaning out the carbon > deposits. > I’d like to know if the EGR passages in the intake can be properly > cleaned without removing and replacing the manifold. > I’d be very interested in peoples advice who have experience specific to > this engine.  Generalities such as flush the oil with kerosene don’t > help much.  I’ve already got a Dodge 225 /six that burns a quart per 500 > miles after I used that commercial "engine flush" product years ago. > It’s bad stuff. > Thanks all, and lets not attach the trolls.  ;-)

Response:

It seems like my question deteriorated into a bunch of personal attacks and advice that the engine was trashed.  I rather doubt the engine went from running well to having a nasty case of blow by during the last ten percent of it’s use.  The engine has been maintained with regular oil and filter changes with mobile one.  So,  I’d like to ask again in hopes of getting some more helpful answers.  This time I have the data to post. The car has 226,000 miles or so. At around 19x,000 miles the car got a new catalytic converter becuase the old one plugged up and the car’s performance dropped dramatically and suddenly.  We had this around 160,000 miles on an ‘86 thunderbird so this seems par for things.  BTW, the Thunderbird went 245,000 miles before it was driven to be donated away, and was running strong.  Mobile One is good stuff… At 205,000 miles in fall 1998  the data was: HC  0.26           state limit   2.00 CO  2.2             state limit   30 NOx  .5             state limit   3.0 At around 220,000 miles in fall 2000 the car failed.  I had a new O2 sensor installed, new plugs, pcv valve, air filter and retested.  The car passed but it is clear from the readings that something was deteriorating. HC  .7332         state limit 1.80 CO  19.38         state limit  19.38 NOx  1.16         state limit  2.8 At 226,000 miles it failed emissions under a different test last month: 15 MPH HC 105             state limit  108 CO  .062           state limit   .61 NOx 1389        state limit    823        *fail 25MHP HC  137            state limit  105        *fail CO  .12             state limit  .64 NOx 1457         state limit  750         *fail I’ve read that high NOx is caused by catalyst failure or EGR circuit failure.  I also read that the 4.3L engine (comments I read are about the GMC Jimmy, so probably most versions) has issues with the EGR valve and possiblly the EGR passage in the intake plugging up.  So, I’m thinking the EGR system is the most likely suspect. On the GMC Jimmy, I read that there is a new engine computer prom that opens the EGR wide open periodically to keep it clear.  Is there such a prom available on the ‘86 model year for chevy/pontiac or was this specific to the Jimmy later on? Does anyone agree that the EGR circuit is the issue, or should I be looking elsewhere?  The check engine lamp used to come on after an hour of freeway driving before the new O2 sensor was replaced.  It used to ping slightly under light load and high speed, also suggesting an EGR problem or a carbon build up in the cylinders. I’d like to hear opinons and experiences concerning the use of Sea Foam cleaner  or Mopar combustion chamber cleaner for cleaning out the carbon deposits. I’d like to know if the EGR passages in the intake can be properly cleaned without removing and replacing the manifold. I’d be very interested in peoples advice who have experience specific to this engine.  Generalities such as flush the oil with kerosene don’t help much.  I’ve already got a Dodge 225 /six that burns a quart per 500 miles after I used that commercial "engine flush" product years ago. It’s bad stuff. Thanks all, and lets not attach the trolls.  ;-)

Response:

I can’t help with specifics, but from basics — EGR is utilized to lower combustion chamber temperature in order to control the production of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Given that the NOx  reading seems SO high, and your earlier research on the weakness with the 4.3, I think you are correct in pursuing that as the most likely culprit. I’m told that EGR failure will also lead to troubles with mixture control that may be more than can be dealt with by the O2 feedback, so it might also explain the elevated HC readings.  If that has been the case, it is also possible that your catalyst has been ‘muddied’ making it less effective too. Unfortunately, I don’t think you can completely rule out something like a broken piston ring, though I would think you’d have other symptoms in that case. Wish I could help more, hopefully you’ll get specific assistance this time, it IS out there. Sorry your request got ploughed under by the trolls, I know how that feels. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It seems like my question deteriorated into a bunch of personal attacks > and advice that the engine was trashed.  I rather doubt the engine went > from running well to having a nasty case of blow by during the last ten > percent of it’s use.  The engine has been maintained with regular oil > and filter changes with mobile one.  So,  I’d like to ask again in hopes > of getting some more helpful answers.  This time I have the data to > post. > The car has 226,000 miles or so. > At around 19x,000 miles the car got a new catalytic converter becuase > the old one plugged up and the car’s performance dropped dramatically > and suddenly.  We had this around 160,000 miles on an ‘86 thunderbird so > this seems par for things.  BTW, the Thunderbird went 245,000 miles > before it was driven to be donated away, and was running strong.  Mobile > One is good stuff… > At 205,000 miles in fall 1998  the data was: > HC  0.26           state limit   2.00 > CO  2.2             state limit   30 > NOx  .5             state limit   3.0 > At around 220,000 miles in fall 2000 the car failed.  I had a new O2 > sensor installed, new plugs, pcv valve, air filter and retested.  The > car passed but it is clear from the readings that something was > deteriorating. > HC  .7332         state limit 1.80 > CO  19.38         state limit  19.38 > NOx  1.16         state limit  2.8 > At 226,000 miles it failed emissions under a different test last month: > 15 MPH > HC 105             state limit  108 > CO  .062           state limit   .61 > NOx 1389        state limit    823        *fail > 25MHP > HC  137            state limit  105        *fail > CO  .12             state limit  .64 > NOx 1457         state limit  750         *fail > I’ve read that high NOx is caused by catalyst failure or EGR circuit > failure.  I also read that the 4.3L engine (comments I read are about > the GMC Jimmy, so probably most versions) has issues with the EGR valve > and possiblly the EGR passage in the intake plugging up.  So, I’m > thinking the EGR system is the most likely suspect. > On the GMC Jimmy, I read that there is a new engine computer prom that > opens the EGR wide open periodically to keep it clear.  Is there such a > prom available on the ‘86 model year for chevy/pontiac or was this > specific to the Jimmy later on? > Does anyone agree that the EGR circuit is the issue, or should I be > looking elsewhere?  The check engine lamp used to come on after an hour > of freeway driving before the new O2 sensor was replaced.  It used to > ping slightly under light load and high speed, also suggesting an EGR > problem or a carbon build up in the cylinders. > I’d like to hear opinons and experiences concerning the use of Sea Foam > cleaner  or Mopar combustion chamber cleaner for cleaning out the carbon > deposits. > I’d like to know if the EGR passages in the intake can be properly > cleaned without removing and replacing the manifold. > I’d be very interested in peoples advice who have experience specific to > this engine.  Generalities such as flush the oil with kerosene don’t > help much.  I’ve already got a Dodge 225 /six that burns a quart per 500 > miles after I used that commercial "engine flush" product years ago. > It’s bad stuff. > Thanks all, and lets not attach the trolls.  ;-)

Response:

Delco Fan Clutch HELL

Question:

> Short version: > Can anyone please refer me to the proper Delco heavy duty (for towing) > fan clutch part number that is *available* for an ‘86 4wd GMC Suburban > w/350 & A/C . My parts suppliers are baffled.

I’m afraid I don’t have the PN, but I do have the exact fan clutch you’re looking for installed on my 454 Chevy. It’s fantastic. I would say you are on the right track looking for this fan clutch. It uses a silicon viscous fluid coupling that is _very_ effective. When the engine requires a bit of cooling, the fan comes on so hard it sucks my shirtails up against the grill! When cooling isn’t required, it freewheels, consuming no power and creating no noise. I believe all you need to do is look up the PN for a late-model Chevy 454 truck BEFORE the serpentine belt reverse rotation was introduced. I don’t know the year serpentine belts came along, but a decent counterman should be able to do this for you no problem. Just buy the part for one year earlier. – Lifespeed

Response:

Short version: Can anyone please refer me to the proper Delco heavy duty (for towing) fan clutch part number that is *available* for an ‘86 4wd GMC Suburban w/350 & A/C . My parts suppliers are baffled. Long version: I’ve been working to set up my to prepare it for towing a travel trailer without overheating (yes, I wish I had a 450 but …). I’ve installed a fan assisted tranny cooler and am now working on the engine cooling. I’m having a 3 row dimple tube radiator build up and George at the shop suggestes the only way to go is to put in a "Delco heavy duty fan clutch with a 7 blade fan" to improve air flow. He further stated – "stay away from the aftermarket stuff" – He’s been there and done that and said experience taught him Delco makes the better units – "you’ll pay more for ‘em but they’re worth it" he said. So….I went to my local GM dealer and asked for the heavy duty fan clutch for my 350. He told me he thought it was Delco p/n 15-4545. He said it was a special order which if it turned out to be the wrong part, was my tough luck – I didn’t order it. . Next, I went to my favorite auto parts store where they tried to find the same part – no luck. To make matters worse, their computer part ID system for Delco was a complete puzzle. The part numbers did not specify the fan clutch’s performance specs. but instead identified their application based on the mark stamped on the old unit (which of course, I don’t want to replace but instead, want to upgrade). This was of no help and I now have no idea what clutch to purchase. Can anyone please help ? Please, no aftermarket recommendations – I’ve already purchased, installed, and returned a Flex – a – Lite HD clutch unit that was unsatisfactory (minimum fan RPM was 30% of water pump shaft speed when cold – loud, power sapping, wife hated it) Thanks in advance for any help and sorry in hindsight, for the long, wordy post. Joe.

Response:

My God, man, where do you live, purgatory?  I’ve known people to pull some pretty heavy loads across the southwest during the summer and have fewer headaches. Unless you’re taxing your powerplant with unforgivable gear ratios or trying to pull a load of rocks out of a canyon, what you’ve done thus far should get you there. Unless you have some latent, chronic overheating problem whose borderline existence does not exhibit itself until pushed, your mods should work. If not, do not think that all aftermarket equipment is created equal! Removing BTU’s is just a matter of winning the war against heat. And fans do NOT have to be loud!

Response:

>My God, man, where do you live, purgatory?

No, but I drive through there regularly … > I’ve known people to pull some >pretty heavy loads across the southwest during the summer and have fewer >headaches.

My only headache seems to be my inability to find the correct part number for the available, stock, GM, Delco, heavy duty, fan clutch recommended for a 4wd ‘86 Suburban w/350 and AC. So far, no luck. Can you help? >Unless you’re taxing your powerplant with unforgivable gear >ratios or trying to pull a load of rocks out of a canyon, what you’ve done >thus far should get you there.

Having a fan on the engine might be nice. >Unless you have some latent, chronic >overheating problem whose borderline existence does not exhibit itself until >pushed, your mods should work.

I think the underlying latent chronic problem may be an underpowered power plant. >If not, do not think that all aftermarket >equipment is created equal!

Most likely true but I’m not inclined to test them all. Logic tells me George is right in his advice to go back to the primary source for reliability. >Removing BTU’s is just a matter of winning the >war against heat.

Philosophy is OK but a fan clutch part number would be better. >And fans do NOT have to be loud!

This is one of the guiding principal in my search for the Delco part. Fans should only be loud when they are moving air because the engine requires cooling. The Flex-a Lite after market unit I bought made my stock 5 blade loud all the time and it palably sapped power; ie: it never disengaged enough to freewheel. When I spoke to the Flex-a-Lite tech guy, he said it never disengaged below 30% of the water pump shaft speed. That was a sub optimal situation and my decision was to try to go back to the factory for their recommended Delco part.

Response:

Rear brakes won't wear out

Question:

I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he still has the origional rear brakes too. Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" Anyone else have this problem?

Response:

> I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

Myself, no. I don’t have any of them newfangled trucks. Mine are all 70’s era disc/drum. OTOH, I gather that later model trucks, particularly Burbs, had very similar troubles, due to either or both of rapidly-wearing front pads, and/or a crappy proportioning valve. For some years (newer, though, I think) there’s a TSB about using the mondo heavy duty front pads and a new p-valve. If yours has some variety of ABS, I’d be suspicious of it, or the p-valve, preventing much pressure from going to the rears. Also note that, assuming you mostly brake whilst going forward and not in reverse, the front brakes tend to wear more anyway. (Though 100K miles is likely farther than they should go if they’re being used — A — http://www.slosh.com http://www.blazerchalet.com

Response:

are the self-adjusters working ?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

Response:

> are the self-adjusters working ?

ALL?  I’d use a dial-micrometer to measure the width now and then after another 3k to verify that they’re actually working <g> Doc – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

Response:

The self adjusters require some effort to adjust; many of us do not back up our vehicles hard enough to activate the self adjusting mechanism.  I used to do my Suburban on a regular basis, not necessary now that my teenagers drive it.  They back up faster and hit the brakes harder than my wife and I do.  True story. In  quiet spot, back up a little quickly, then hit the brakes hard.  Pull forward, hit the brakes to center the shoes, then repeat the backward portion one more time; the adjusters will only go one tooth on the star wheel per activation.  Check your parking brake before and after, you should have more parking brake if the adjustment is tighter (less travel of the parking brake cable to activate the brake shoes).  I started using this technique with 1984 Chevy 24′ motorhome chassis, still use it on my 97 Chevy 2500 HD. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > are the self-adjusters working ? > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

Response:

I have 136,000 miles on my current ‘95 Chevy pick-up.  I replaced the original front pads at 122,000 miles, and the original back shoes still have over 50% usable pad left on them. Do I think there’s anything wrong with them? – No, the truck stops fine and within specs.  How can I be sure the rears are working? – When I had the fronts replaced I also had the rears cleaned and adjusted, and there was plenty of accumulated brake dust in the drum telling me that the rears were doing their job.  I’ll be the first to admit I don’t carry much if anything in the bed all the time so I suspect the rears don’t do much work, but I’m sure they are doing their fair share.  It’s been a very long time since I’ve activated the ABS so I don’t believe that is part of the issue. I honestly wish that all the brakes on the vehicles I have owned over the years would have given me the same service as the brakes on my current Chevy. Cheers – Jonathan — Acta Non Verba – Deeds Not Words Lieutenant Jonathan Race, EMS Supervisor Orange County (FL) Fire-Rescue Department

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > are the self-adjusters working ? > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

I have a 1990 1/2 P.U. Auto 2wd. and i have gone over 100,000 K’s on the rears that where installed by GM 5 yrs ago. I am about to replace my 3 set of fronts. I don’t personal think there is any problem with that ratio. I am guessing that your front brakes handle about 75% of your braking!!

Response:

"Dave" wrote > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

Yeah, most GM owners of trucks from that era.  And your friend is not getting a dumb answer…there is nothing wrong with your rear brakes "as they were designed by GM". Now, I will agree with you that there is something wrong with GM brakes…has been for some years now.  It’s pretty sad when you see vehicles going through 5 sets of front brakes and the rears are hardly worn at all…..as you have noticed.  The TSB mentioned by others addresses some of the problem, but it’s mostly for Suburban style vehicles. The new style trucks are much better.  Other then some problems with clearance between the rear wheels and rear brake calipers…..I’m seeing some trucks with 150,000 kilometres on them and the front brakes still have over 50% left. Ian

Response:

Hey Doc..I have 150K on my rear brakes and they don’t seem to wear either. 92 S10.  I noticed they don’t have the opening on the drum to manually adjust them like the older models did. I assume I’ve waited too long to change them and now my drums are grooved. What’s the trick on getting the drum off now? Lannie

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> are the self-adjusters working ? at > ALL?  I’d use a dial-micrometer to measure the width now and then after > another 3k to verify that they’re actually working <g> > Doc > > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > > still has the origional rear brakes too. > > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > > Anyone else have this problem?

Response:

> Hey Doc..I have 150K on my rear brakes and they don’t seem to wear either. > 92 S10.  I noticed they don’t have the opening on the drum to manually > adjust them like the older models did. > I assume I’ve waited too long to change them and now my drums are grooved. > What’s the trick on getting the drum off now? > Lannie

Lannie, There are three methods I use to get grooved drums off depending on how badly stuck they are.  One is brute strength, one is brute force <g> and the other is more of a finesse approach. 1)  Brute Strength.  Using a meaty cold chisel <or other long, heavy object> as a pry bar, work your way around the drum, sticking the pry between the drum and backing plate.  If yer’ lucky it’ll eventually "pop" and you’ll be able to get it off.  This method requires new hardware <springs, clips, etc> to be installed as they’ll get wrecked as you’re prying it off.  I always replace the hardware with the shoes anyways as it’s cheap insurance. 2)  Brute force.  Using a 3-arm jaw-style puller, have it at and it WILL come off.  Put the ends of the puller arms in the space between the drum and backing plate, the center  puller spindle on the rear-wheel hub, and just tighten the puller bolt until it pops off.  This will also wreck the hardware. 3)  Finesse.  Although your backing plates don’t have an opening for the self-adjusters, there <should> be a few spots with punch-outs.  Knocking out the punch-out<s> will give you access to the self adjuster release clip and star wheel where you can back the shoes way off until the drum literally slides off.  Good luck picking the right punch out on the first try! <g> Rubber plugs for the holes are available at most autoparts stores. If I’m working on one of my trucks, I use methods 1 or 2, when working on someone elses’ vehicle I use the finesse approach. Hope this helps, Doc P.S.  A few good whacks with a 3-5 lb sledge prior to attempting methods 1 or 2 will sometimes free the shoes up enough to make yer’ life a little more pleasant.

Response:

With the mileage I have on this thing, I think replacing everything at this point is a good idea anyway. I’ll start with step 1.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hey Doc..I have 150K on my rear brakes and they don’t seem to wear either. > 92 S10.  I noticed they don’t have the opening on the drum to manually > adjust them like the older models did. > I assume I’ve waited too long to change them and now my drums are grooved. > What’s the trick on getting the drum off now? > Lannie > Lannie, > There are three methods I use to get grooved drums off depending on how > badly stuck they are.  One is brute strength, one is brute force <g> and the > other is more of a finesse approach. > 1)  Brute Strength.  Using a meaty cold chisel <or other long, heavy object> > as a pry bar, work your way around the drum, sticking the pry between the > drum and backing plate.  If yer’ lucky it’ll eventually "pop" and you’ll be > able to get it off.  This method requires new hardware <springs, clips, etc> > to be installed as they’ll get wrecked as you’re prying it off.  I always > replace the hardware with the shoes anyways as it’s cheap insurance. > 2)  Brute force.  Using a 3-arm jaw-style puller, have it at and it WILL > come off.  Put the ends of the puller arms in the space between the drum and > backing plate, the center  puller spindle on the rear-wheel hub, and just > tighten the puller bolt until it pops off.  This will also wreck the > hardware. > 3)  Finesse.  Although your backing plates don’t have an opening for the > self-adjusters, there <should> be a few spots with punch-outs.  Knocking out > the punch-out<s> will give you access to the self adjuster release clip and > star wheel where you can back the shoes way off until the drum literally > slides off.  Good luck picking the right punch out on the first try! <g> > Rubber plugs for the holes are available at most autoparts stores. > If I’m working on one of my trucks, I use methods 1 or 2, when working on > someone elses’ vehicle I use the finesse approach. > Hope this helps, > Doc > P.S.  A few good whacks with a 3-5 lb sledge prior to attempting methods 1 > or 2 will sometimes free the shoes up enough to make yer’ life a little more > pleasant.

Response:

>I have 150K on my rear brakes and they don’t seem to wear either. >92 S10.  I noticed they don’t have the opening on the drum to manually >adjust them like the older models did. >I assume I’ve waited too long to change them and now my drums are grooved. >What’s the trick on getting the drum off now?

I would cut the back of the hold down pins off, and then pull.

Response:

>I have 150K on my rear brakes and they don’t seem to wear either. >92 S10.  I noticed they don’t have the opening on the drum to manually >adjust them like the older models did. >I assume I’ve waited too long to change them and now my drums are grooved. >What’s the trick on getting the drum off now? > I would cut the back of the hold down pins off, and then pull.

Just curious, how does one go about cutting the back of hold-down pins off with the drum in place and no openings on the drum or the backing plate? Regards, Doc

Response:

Jack up the rear, start the truck, Push on pedal while looking at rear

Response:

I use a pair of diagonal cutters, The pins go in the back of the plate and through the shoes, look like a nail head.  You should always be able to see them.

Response:

I have a 92 sierra also and i just passed 160,000.  At 150,000 I took both assemblies appart to check cause I needed new brakes and found that one of my drums had rust on the inside from the shoes not touching at all.  After cleaning all the moving parts and adding a new pair of shoes I can slide on the ice quite nicely now.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Dave" wrote > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem? > Yeah, most GM owners of trucks from that era.  And your > friend is not getting a dumb answer…there is nothing wrong > with your rear brakes "as they were designed by GM". > Now, I will agree with you that there is something wrong > with GM brakes…has been for some years now.  It’s pretty > sad when you see vehicles going through 5 sets of front > brakes and the rears are hardly worn at all…..as you have > noticed.  The TSB mentioned by others addresses some > of the problem, but it’s mostly for Suburban style vehicles. > The new style trucks are much better.  Other then some > problems with clearance between the rear wheels and > rear brake calipers…..I’m seeing some trucks with 150,000 > kilometres on them and the front brakes still have over > 50% left. > Ian

Response:

Front brakes tend to lock early in the wet causing ABS to activate (dangerous in heavy traffic bin there and done that) I replaced the rear shoes on our Suburban after My wife tagged someone due to above condition. I went to a brake "reliner" and have much better overall brake balance since with less tendency for the front brakes to lock and ABS to activate. The 2nd set of front pads are close to worn out in 4.5 years and 60,000 km ,granted truck was used as momstaxi with high brake cycles/km. One should see longer life with lower brake cycle/ km though parts are cheap and wear is expected anyway. Rolf

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Dave" wrote > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem? > Yeah, most GM owners of trucks from that era.  And your > friend is not getting a dumb answer…there is nothing wrong > with your rear brakes "as they were designed by GM". > Now, I will agree with you that there is something wrong > with GM brakes…has been for some years now.  It’s pretty > sad when you see vehicles going through 5 sets of front > brakes and the rears are hardly worn at all…..as you have > noticed.  The TSB mentioned by others addresses some > of the problem, but it’s mostly for Suburban style vehicles. > The new style trucks are much better.  Other then some > problems with clearance between the rear wheels and > rear brake calipers…..I’m seeing some trucks with 150,000 > kilometres on them and the front brakes still have over > 50% left. > Ian

Response:

must be nice for brakes to last that long…lol.. i have a 97 z71 truck has 70,000 miles on it and front pads have been replaced 4-5 times already and need a new set again. rears have never been touched.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Front brakes tend to lock early in the wet causing ABS to activate > (dangerous in heavy traffic bin there and done that) > I replaced the rear shoes on our Suburban after My wife tagged someone due > to above condition. > I went to a brake "reliner" and have much better overall brake balance since > with less tendency for the front brakes to lock and ABS to activate. > The 2nd set of front pads are close to worn out in 4.5 years and 60,000 km > ,granted truck was used as momstaxi with high brake cycles/km. > One should see longer life with lower brake cycle/ km though parts are cheap > and wear is expected anyway. > Rolf > "Dave" wrote > > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > > still has the origional rear brakes too. > > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > > Anyone else have this problem? > Yeah, most GM owners of trucks from that era.  And your > friend is not getting a dumb answer…there is nothing wrong > with your rear brakes "as they were designed by GM". > Now, I will agree with you that there is something wrong > with GM brakes…has been for some years now.  It’s pretty > sad when you see vehicles going through 5 sets of front > brakes and the rears are hardly worn at all…..as you have > noticed.  The TSB mentioned by others addresses some > of the problem, but it’s mostly for Suburban style vehicles. > The new style trucks are much better.  Other then some > problems with clearance between the rear wheels and > rear brake calipers…..I’m seeing some trucks with 150,000 > kilometres on them and the front brakes still have over > 50% left. > Ian

Response:

thats 60000 km or aprox. 37500 mi.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> must be nice for brakes to last that long…lol.. i have a 97 z71 truck has > 70,000 miles on it and front pads have been replaced 4-5 times already and > need a new set again. rears have never been touched. > Front brakes tend to lock early in the wet causing ABS to activate > (dangerous in heavy traffic bin there and done that) > I replaced the rear shoes on our Suburban after My wife tagged someone due > to above condition. > I went to a brake "reliner" and have much better overall brake balance > since > with less tendency for the front brakes to lock and ABS to activate. > The 2nd set of front pads are close to worn out in 4.5 years and 60,000 km > ,granted truck was used as momstaxi with high brake cycles/km. > One should see longer life with lower brake cycle/ km though parts are > cheap > and wear is expected anyway. > Rolf > > "Dave" wrote > > > I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > > > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > > > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > > > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > > > still has the origional rear brakes too. > > > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > > > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > > > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > > > Anyone else have this problem? > > Yeah, most GM owners of trucks from that era.  And your > > friend is not getting a dumb answer…there is nothing wrong > > with your rear brakes "as they were designed by GM". > > Now, I will agree with you that there is something wrong > > with GM brakes…has been for some years now.  It’s pretty > > sad when you see vehicles going through 5 sets of front > > brakes and the rears are hardly worn at all…..as you have > > noticed.  The TSB mentioned by others addresses some > > of the problem, but it’s mostly for Suburban style vehicles. > > The new style trucks are much better.  Other then some > > problems with clearance between the rear wheels and > > rear brake calipers…..I’m seeing some trucks with 150,000 > > kilometres on them and the front brakes still have over > > 50% left. > > Ian

Response:

gm truck self adjusters in the rear drums are not good. even if you use the parking brake regulararly, it does not self adjust well.. you can manually do it [take tire, drum off and roll the star wheel] which works best, or get some speed driving backwards and tromp on the brakes good and hard, this will also adjust the brakes too, but not as well — nick leinonen markham, ontario, canada http://community.webshots.com/user/nickleinonen .

are the self-adjusters working ?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve got a ‘92 Sierra.  I have 91,000 miles and I’m still on the > origional rear brakes.  I Keep checking them, and they still have a > ton of pad left.  I changed the fronts at 60,000. > a friend at work has the same truck (‘93) with 150,000 miles, and he > still has the origional rear brakes too. > Does this tell you something about GMC brakes.  THE REARS DON’T WORK! > He has had his to the shop a few times asking about them, and he gets > the same dumb answers… "there’s nothing wrong with your brakes" > Anyone else have this problem?

Response:

Oil Life Monitor reset

Question:

My new 2002 Envoy has an Oil Life Monitor built into it. To reset the thing, ignition switch to run, accell. pedal to the floor three times within 5 seconds, then the "Change Oil" light is supposed to flash to indicate the monitor has been reset. I changed oil before the "Change Oil" light came on and want to reset the monitor. I do the procedure yet the oil light does not flash. I talked to my dealer and the service advisor says it will not flash if the oil light hasn’t set. Is this true? No mention of this anywhere in the service manual or owners manual. Doesn’t seem right, how do you know if the system go reset or not? Has anyone else experienced this? Is the guy right or should I find another dealer to correct a problem? How can I tell if I reset the monitor or not? Thanks Paul P

Response:

I change my 2001 Sierra before the light comes on and do the same reset process…the change oil light flashes indicating the system has reset itself. -Dick-

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My new 2002 Envoy has an Oil Life Monitor built into it. To reset the thing, > ignition switch to run, accell. pedal to the floor three times within 5 > seconds, then the "Change Oil" light is supposed to flash to indicate the > monitor has been reset. > I changed oil before the "Change Oil" light came on and want to reset the > monitor. I do the procedure yet the oil light does not flash. I talked to my > dealer and the service advisor says it will not flash if the oil light > hasn’t set. Is this true? No mention of this anywhere in the service manual > or owners manual. Doesn’t seem right, how do you know if the system go reset > or not? > Has anyone else experienced this? Is the guy right or should I find another > dealer to correct a problem? How can I tell if I reset the monitor or not? > Thanks > Paul P

Response:

Looking for info on Small Pick-Ups

Question:

>Sorry, but Ford Rangers don’t use Mitsus, drive a Hyundai if you want a >Mitsu tranny.  The transmissions are Mazda transmissions (and they have >a lously reputation compared to the Ford trannies). >-Ken >1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8 – Fordnatic

 It depends upon the year- my ‘87 Ranger has a MITSUBISHI FM-145 5 spd. trans- I know because 5th gear failed at 80k miles- a characteristic of a poor design- my last FORD-  H. Snyder

Response:

[a lot snipped] :       The only Mazda part (and the only Mazda design) is the 5-spd : transmission in the 4-cyl Ranger.  Yes, those are Ford plants.  Unlike : those tiny pickups (Courier, et. al.) from the 70’s the Ranger is all : Ford’s, the S10 is all Chevrolet’s (not Isuzu’s), and the Dakota is all : Chryco’s. :       Yes, that means that the Japanese are now buying American made : and designed trucks to re-badge and sell.  Congrats to Ford and GM for : making an excellent product. Well, actually, the only "imported" pickup sold in the US now is the T-100.  Seems like a small 25% tarrif on trucks pretty much killed the import business a few years back. —     |   Pat Brown                      Hewlett-Packard Company          |     |                                  Research & Development           |     |   Phone:     (707)-577-4434      1400 Fountaingrove Parkway 4US-V |     |   Fax:       (707)-577-5433      Santa Rosa, CA             95403 |

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger >Um…sorry, it’s the other way around. >Rex (However, Mazda DID make the Ford Courier…what a piece >     of crap…) > My ‘96 Ford Ranger is built in Kentucky. I recently scoped out a > Mazda B3000 in a parking lot. It has the same interior as my > Ranger and also appears to have the same sheetmetal. Different > badges and trim. Don’t know anything about engines in Mazda > pickups, though, so don’t know what else may be the same. > Others have said that they are "the same," but I don’t know exactly > what that actually means. The 5-speed tranny in my truck is made > by Mazda, because it says so in my owners manual.

 Interesting. On the same token, the Dodge D50 and the Mitsubishi pickup are the same.  Most all parts interchange(I think the labels are the only ones that don’t due to different holes)…  Looking for an engine to stuff into my 86 mitsu 2.0L… — Wayne, AKA Blackie! http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/4625 http://www.frontiernet.net/~blackie

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [a lot snipped] > :  The only Mazda part (and the only Mazda design) is the 5-spd > : transmission in the 4-cyl Ranger.  Yes, those are Ford plants.  Unlike > : those tiny pickups (Courier, et. al.) from the 70’s the Ranger is all > : Ford’s, the S10 is all Chevrolet’s (not Isuzu’s), and the Dakota is all > : Chryco’s. > :  Yes, that means that the Japanese are now buying American made > : and designed trucks to re-badge and sell.  Congrats to Ford and GM for > : making an excellent product. > Well, actually, the only "imported" pickup sold in the US now is the > T-100.  Seems like a small 25% tarrif on trucks pretty much killed the > import business a few years back.

Well, no. The 25% tariff has been around for a long time. In the early days of Japanes pickups in the U.S., it was circumvented by importing trucks without beds, which were attached in California. As market and economic conditions changed, Nissan and Toyota built assembly plants in the U.S., and Mazda and Isuzu switched to selling re-badged versions of U.S. trucks (Ford and GM, respectively.) Notice how well the 25% tariff has protected the U.S. heavy truck industry. – Mercedes owns Freightliner, and soon will own Ford’s North American   heavy truck business. – Volvo owns White, and so is joint owner of GM’s White-GMC subsidiary. – Renault (or is it FIAT?) owns a major part of Mack. – GM sells rebadged Isuzu cab-over medium trucks. Some are built in a   GM plant, but GM is talking about selling it to Isuzu. — -Stephen H. Westin The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford’s.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The ford rangers have mitsubishi transmissions and some mazda parts on >them. Its more cost effective to use existing parts than to re-invent >the wheel. They are built in ford plants. > Sorry, but Ford Rangers don’t use Mitsus, drive a Hyundai if you want a > Mitsu tranny.  The transmissions are Mazda transmissions (and they have > a lously reputation compared to the Ford trannies). > -Ken > 1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8 – Fordnatic > Check out the free Ford Truck Enthusiasts Web Site/Email List. > Questions, answers, discussion… 656 members and growing. > now at http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/fordtrucks > Cole’s Law: Thinly Sliced Cabbage.

I can’t confirm the bad reputation, but yes the trannies are mazda and they have been for a number of years.  I had a 93 Ranger, the first year of the new style and put 48,000 miles on mine with no problems. Doug — Doug & Tammy Stephens Paris, Idaho

Response:

> >The ford rangers have mitsubishi transmissions and some mazda parts > The Ranger uses a Mazda tranny. No mitsubishi parts were harmed in the > making of the Ranger.

Some Ranger’s used the Mazda tranny and some used the Mitsubishi. It’s right in the Haynes manual and Chilton manual. Mine (1988) has the Mazda 5-speed. — Joe Bateman Joe’s 4xFun Page – http://www.geocities.com/Baja/8059

Response:

>-snip- >Blah Blah Blah…You want advice? Buy a ‘92-93 Dodge Dakota Club Cab with >the 5.2 litre V8…yes V8…gas milage is ok as long as you keep your >foot out of it, has plenty of power, and for a truck…it rides like a >Caddy and handles like no truck you’ve seen before. >Most Caddys ride like a bloated waterbed on wheels with no handling.

Have you driven some of the newer Caddies?  Even the Fleetwood bloatmobile is not bad.  The STS series cars DO handle remarkably well, even when compared to the big models from Europe and Japan.  I had the opportunity to throw an STS Seville with the Northstar V8 around on some twisty roads about a year ago.  I was amazed. And I am not a GM fan for the most part. David Mann Kodiak Services Company Lighting Design and Specification pwp.value.net/kodiak for details Opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Response:

The ford rangers have mitsubishi transmissions and some mazda parts on them. Its more cost effective to use existing parts than to re-invent the wheel. They are built in ford plants.

Response:

>The ford rangers have mitsubishi transmissions and some mazda parts on >them. Its more cost effective to use existing parts than to re-invent >the wheel. They are built in ford plants.

Uhhh, wrong! All you had to do was to look two post up! The Ranger uses a Mazda tranny. No mitsubishi parts were harmed in the making of the Ranger.

Response:

>The ford rangers have mitsubishi transmissions and some mazda parts on >them. Its more cost effective to use existing parts than to re-invent >the wheel. They are built in ford plants.

Sorry, but Ford Rangers don’t use Mitsus, drive a Hyundai if you want a Mitsu tranny.  The transmissions are Mazda transmissions (and they have a lously reputation compared to the Ford trannies). -Ken 1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8 – Fordnatic Check out the free Ford Truck Enthusiasts Web Site/Email List. Questions, answers, discussion… 656 members and growing. now at http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/fordtrucks Cole’s Law: Thinly Sliced Cabbage.

Response:

> P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

        They most certainly do NOT. Brad Sloan Clemson University Clemson, SC

Response:

<snip> > P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

Rangers are made in Louisville, KY  Twin Cities, MN and Edison, NJ. Mazdas are made in Edison, NJ, only.  I do believe this is a Ford plant, not a Mazda plant, although I guess it could be a joint venture. But what about KY and MN?  Are those Mazda plants that only make Ford Rangers??? I don’t think so.  Some of the parts are Mazda, and some of the design is Mazda, but Ford does the manufacturing. — — Allen Kirby                     AT&T ITS Production Services

Response:

> <snip> > P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger > Rangers are made in Louisville, KY  Twin Cities, MN and Edison, NJ. > Mazdas are made in Edison, NJ, only.  I do believe this is a Ford > plant, not a Mazda plant, although I guess it could be a joint venture. > But what about KY and MN?  Are those Mazda plants that only make > Ford Rangers??? I don’t think so.  Some of the parts are Mazda, and > some of the design is Mazda, but Ford does the manufacturing.

        The only Mazda part (and the only Mazda design) is the 5-spd transmission in the 4-cyl Ranger.  Yes, those are Ford plants.  Unlike those tiny pickups (Courier, et. al.) from the 70’s the Ranger is all Ford’s, the S10 is all Chevrolet’s (not Isuzu’s), and the Dakota is all Chryco’s.         Yes, that means that the Japanese are now buying American made and designed trucks to re-badge and sell.  Congrats to Ford and GM for making an excellent product. Brad Sloan Clemson University Clemson, SC

Response:

> > P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger >         They most certainly do NOT. > Brad Sloan > Clemson University > Clemson, SC

Correct Brad.  Ford makes the Mazda pickup (virtually identical to the Ranger).  Mazda used to make Ford’s small pickup the "Courier" from the 70’s till the Ranger came out in 84? Arch.

Response:

> P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

Um…sorry, it’s the other way around. Rex (However, Mazda DID make the Ford Courier…what a piece      of crap…)

Response:

>> P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger >Um…sorry, it’s the other way around. >Rex (However, Mazda DID make the Ford Courier…what a piece >     of crap…)

My ‘96 Ford Ranger is built in Kentucky. I recently scoped out a Mazda B3000 in a parking lot. It has the same interior as my Ranger and also appears to have the same sheetmetal. Different badges and trim. Don’t know anything about engines in Mazda pickups, though, so don’t know what else may be the same. Others have said that they are "the same," but I don’t know exactly what that actually means. The 5-speed tranny in my truck is made by Mazda, because it says so in my owners manual. I’ve owned two Mazdas at different times in the past and both were good, dependable cars. The RX-7 got lousy mileage but was trouble free, even at 160K miles on the clock. I sold it because I needed something that carried more than two people and I got tired of the gas mileage when my commute went to 70 miles a day. The GLC was a good car, but I sold it when we needed more room for my son’s long legs. I like my Ranger. It has the 2.3L engine and gets advertised mileage. I tend to keep cars and drive the life out of them before I sell them, so I hope this truck is a keeper. So far, so good. Mike

Response:

-snip- >Blah Blah Blah…You want advice? Buy a ‘92-93 Dodge Dakota Club Cab with >the 5.2 litre V8…yes V8…gas milage is ok as long as you keep your >foot out of it, has plenty of power, and for a truck…it rides like a >Caddy and handles like no truck you’ve seen before.

Most Caddys ride like a bloated waterbed on wheels with no handling. >P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

Get your facts straight.  Ford makes the Mazda pickup, Mazda does *not* make the Ford Ranger. -Ken 1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8 – Fordnatic Check out the free Ford Truck Enthusiasts Web Site/Email List. Questions, answers, discussion… 656 members and growing. now at http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/fordtrucks Spelling flames are lame. – Cole’s Law: Thinly Sliced Cabbage.

Response:

Damn…pick on BAD HEMI will ya? LOL As the ancient chinese man once said, "we all make mistakes sometimes" LAST ONE BY ME

Response:

> Damn…pick on BAD HEMI will ya? LOL > As the ancient chinese man once said, "we all make mistakes sometimes" > LAST ONE BY ME

        We all make them, Mr. Hemi (and I’ve been known to make quite a few…), don’t worry about it.  Thanks for being a good sport. Brad Sloan Clemson University Clemson, SC

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Path: news1.stny.lrun.com!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!news.eecs.umich.edu!new s > c.hp.com!hpax!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: rec.autos.4×4,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers. ford.explorer,rec.autos.marketplace,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech > Organization: Americas Integration Center > Lines: 24 > NNTP-Posting-Host: as738591.cup.hp.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) > Xref: news1.stny.lrun.com rec.autos.4×4:81530 rec.autos.driving:179547 rec.autos.makers.chrysler:46396

rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer:12887 rec.autos.marketp – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > > very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > > you may have with regard to different trucks. > >      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > > so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > > maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > > are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > > Canadian ($3500 US). > >      Any Ideas? > >      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any > > good/bad experiences with this truck? > I have an 86 B2000 with the extended cab.  It’s been solid, and has a > good ride.  It gets 20MPG around town, and about 30 on the highway. > Maintenance has been battery, lights, brakes, and tires.  The extended > cab is comfortable.  The front suspension uses torsion bars, so a lot of > the low riders around here drive Mazdas because they’re easy to lower. > Good pickups for CDN$5000 are: > Ford Ranger with 4 cyl 2.3l and 5-speed manual, get fuel injection if > affordable. 89-94s are almost identical mechanically except sheetmetal. > Problems: Rust under doors and wheel wells in bed.  Very reliable other than > that.  Will last for may years.  Good conusmer reports ratings.  Aviod > automatics (I’d avoid any automatic as they are for lazt drivers, but these > have some problems in some years).  Great truck if someon ehasn’t delapidated > it first.  Same as Mazda B2300-4000 from 93 to 98, Ford makes for Mazda. > Chevrolet S-10 (85-92) (mysteriously similar to the GMC S-15 and its later > schizto relation the Sonoma, like we all don’t know its the same truck) with > 2.5l and 5-speed.  Problems:  Paint peeling (you’ll know when you see it) , > steering linkage wears out, RUST. > Dodge Dakota: 91 or newer with Magnum 2.5l 4-cyl & 5-speed.  Good all around > truck.  Older Dakotas are very ineffiecient and trouble prone although 3.9l > 6-cyl and 5-speed not bad, but lousy mileage. > Toyota Hilux:  IF maintained, will run forever.  however, only the glass will > holding the body together.  Rust, rust, & rust.  The domestic trucks have > better bodies despite their rust problems too. > Nissan Hardbody: same as Toyota. > If you need more power, buy a sports car, as trucks handle like crap, so why > get a lot of power?  you can’t put the power down in the corners. > You can’t go wrong with a truck that has a good body and maintenace. > The more simple the truck, the more reliable they are. > Undercoat the bed and cab, change oil, gearbox, & rearendm and filters, plugs, > etc. > Replace the shocks to get rid of the Buick ride. > You’ll be on your way. > If you live in Canada, use synthetic 5W-30 to start it in the winter eaier. > good luck eh.

Blah Blah Blah…You want advice? Buy a ‘92-93 Dodge Dakota Club Cab with the 5.2 litre V8…yes V8…gas milage is ok as long as you keep your foot out of it, has plenty of power, and for a truck…it rides like a Caddy and handles like no truck you’ve seen before. P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > you may have with regard to different trucks. >      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > Canadian ($3500 US). >      Any Ideas? >      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any > good/bad experiences with this truck?

I have an 86 B2000 with the extended cab.  It’s been solid, and has a good ride.  It gets 20MPG around town, and about 30 on the highway. Maintenance has been battery, lights, brakes, and tires.  The extended cab is comfortable.  The front suspension uses torsion bars, so a lot of the low riders around here drive Mazdas because they’re easy to lower.

Response:

> Path: news1.stny.lrun.com!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!news.eecs.umich.edu!new s.radio.cz!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.ne t!Sprint!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.s

c.hp.com!hpax!not-for-mail – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Newsgroups: rec.autos.4×4,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers. ford.explorer,rec.autos.marketplace,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech > Organization: Americas Integration Center > Lines: 24 > NNTP-Posting-Host: as738591.cup.hp.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) > Xref: news1.stny.lrun.com rec.autos.4×4:81530 rec.autos.driving:179547 rec.autos.makers.chrysler:46396 rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer:12887 rec.autos.marketplace:83585 rec.autos.misc:133202 rec.autos.tech:235979 >      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > you may have with regard to different trucks. >      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > Canadian ($3500 US). >      Any Ideas? >      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any > good/bad experiences with this truck? > I have an 86 B2000 with the extended cab.  It’s been solid, and has a > good ride.  It gets 20MPG around town, and about 30 on the highway. > Maintenance has been battery, lights, brakes, and tires.  The extended > cab is comfortable.  The front suspension uses torsion bars, so a lot of > the low riders around here drive Mazdas because they’re easy to lower.

Good pickups for CDN$5000 are: Ford Ranger with 4 cyl 2.3l and 5-speed manual, get fuel injection if affordable. 89-94s are almost identical mechanically except sheetmetal.   Problems: Rust under doors and wheel wells in bed.  Very reliable other than that.  Will last for may years.  Good conusmer reports ratings.  Aviod automatics (I’d avoid any automatic as they are for lazt drivers, but these have some problems in some years).  Great truck if someon ehasn’t delapidated it first.  Same as Mazda B2300-4000 from 93 to 98, Ford makes for Mazda. Chevrolet S-10 (85-92) (mysteriously similar to the GMC S-15 and its later schizto relation the Sonoma, like we all don’t know its the same truck) with 2.5l and 5-speed.  Problems:  Paint peeling (you’ll know when you see it) , steering linkage wears out, RUST. Dodge Dakota: 91 or newer with Magnum 2.5l 4-cyl & 5-speed.  Good all around truck.  Older Dakotas are very ineffiecient and trouble prone although 3.9l 6-cyl and 5-speed not bad, but lousy mileage. Toyota Hilux:  IF maintained, will run forever.  however, only the glass will holding the body together.  Rust, rust, & rust.  The domestic trucks have better bodies despite their rust problems too. Nissan Hardbody: same as Toyota. If you need more power, buy a sports car, as trucks handle like crap, so why get a lot of power?  you can’t put the power down in the corners. You can’t go wrong with a truck that has a good body and maintenace. The more simple the truck, the more reliable they are. Undercoat the bed and cab, change oil, gearbox, & rearendm and filters, plugs, etc. Replace the shocks to get rid of the Buick ride. You’ll be on your way. If you live in Canada, use synthetic 5W-30 to start it in the winter eaier. good luck eh.

Response:

:      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be : very interested in any recommendations or warnings that : you may have with regard to different trucks. :      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, : so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low : maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment : are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 : Canadian ($3500 US). :      Any Ideas? Chevy S-10s or GMC S-15s. Very cheap in the used market Replacement parts very available and usually cheap. Most 82-93 body parts are interchangeable (a 93 fender will fit an 82) Standard coil springs up front, leafs in the rear suspension (no torsion bars) Unless you have air bag suspension (doable), it’s gonna ride like a truck. Don’t expect a Cadillac ride. My 93 S-10 gets about 25 hwy and 20 city with the 4.3 v6 and 4sp auto trans. (course you gotta keep your foot out of it ) —

Response:

> :      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > : very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > : you may have with regard to different trucks. > :      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > : so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > : maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > : are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > : Canadian ($3500 US). > :      Any Ideas?

  I’ve had a 1987 Dodge Ram 50 (a.k.a. Mitsubishi Mighty Max) since 1991, when I purchased it for $3000 US with 30000 miles on it.  I currently have 105000 miles on it, and the only non-standard maintenance I’ve ever had to do was an exhaust pipe replacement at about 60k.  Yet another bulletproof Japanese truck.  Fuel economy is about 25-28 mpg.   BTW, my brother is on his third Toyota truck.  The first two are still in good working order with over 200k miles each.   As far as comfort, they all ride like the small trucks they are, but you get used to it.  TINSTAAFL. — Allen Johnson PP-ASEL To respond, remove the NOSPAM. from my return address. "Don’t take life too serious, son, it ain’t nohow permanent."  Walt Kelly, "Pogo"

Response:

     I am in the market for a small pickup and would be very interested in any recommendations or warnings that you may have with regard to different trucks.      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 Canadian ($3500 US).      Any Ideas?      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any good/bad experiences with this truck?      Any other info, pertinent web sites, or other input would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Dave.      David Lloyd:      Campus Computer Store:              (519) 661-3727                                          University of Western Ontario

Response:

> >altavoz: How about if i write slow and use big letters ? >The cost of Datsun parts are the same as FORD/CHEVY/CHRY ! > Now that we are stuck on a comparison of Jap vs USA , you probably >didnt notice my comparisom of one poorly made US car against another >did you ?  FORD IS CRAP , Chevy is only slightly better crap . Like 1 >and 2 on scale of 10 . Honda is 9 > Damn!  Another Hondachero on the loose!

That’s right, Ford copied the Hondachero to create the Ranchero back in the early 60’s.  Honda has always built the best small pick-ups (Big ones too — just look at sales figures for the Honda F150 and Honda Ram). Arch.

Response:

> P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

Um…sorry, it’s the other way around. Rex (However, Mazda DID make the Ford Courier…what a piece      of crap…)

Response:

>> P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger >Um…sorry, it’s the other way around. >Rex (However, Mazda DID make the Ford Courier…what a piece >     of crap…)

My ‘96 Ford Ranger is built in Kentucky. I recently scoped out a Mazda B3000 in a parking lot. It has the same interior as my Ranger and also appears to have the same sheetmetal. Different badges and trim. Don’t know anything about engines in Mazda pickups, though, so don’t know what else may be the same. Others have said that they are "the same," but I don’t know exactly what that actually means. The 5-speed tranny in my truck is made by Mazda, because it says so in my owners manual. I’ve owned two Mazdas at different times in the past and both were good, dependable cars. The RX-7 got lousy mileage but was trouble free, even at 160K miles on the clock. I sold it because I needed something that carried more than two people and I got tired of the gas mileage when my commute went to 70 miles a day. The GLC was a good car, but I sold it when we needed more room for my son’s long legs. I like my Ranger. It has the 2.3L engine and gets advertised mileage. I tend to keep cars and drive the life out of them before I sell them, so I hope this truck is a keeper. So far, so good. Mike

Response:

> > P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger >         They most certainly do NOT. > Brad Sloan > Clemson University > Clemson, SC

Correct Brad.  Ford makes the Mazda pickup (virtually identical to the Ranger).  Mazda used to make Ford’s small pickup the "Courier" from the 70’s till the Ranger came out in 84? Arch.

Response:

> > altavoz: I had to laugh for 20 minutes before i posted this . > I saw a 79 Datsun ? rear axle with it’s huge tapered roller bearing [snip] > JAPS do . Was told of Ford 300-6 " stump puller , beats Chevy" > HMMMMM Chev 250-6 235 lbs at 1600 RPM , Ford needs 300 inches

        Is this how much the engine weighs?   >   I am pissed cause they go to bed with govt and prevent ppl

> like me from competeing with them .

>         Huh? > altavoz: How about if i write slow and use big letters ?

        I say again:  Huh? > The cost of Datsun parts are the same as FORD/CHEVY/CHRY ! >  Now that we are stuck on a comparison of Jap vs USA , you probably > didnt notice my comparisom of one poorly made US car against another > did you ?  FORD IS CRAP , Chevy is only slightly better crap . Like 1 > and 2 on scale of 10 . Honda is 9

        And when did Honda begin production of "Small Pick Ups?" (see below) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bob: > Then again the topic is small pickups

Response:

> <snip> > P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger > Rangers are made in Louisville, KY  Twin Cities, MN and Edison, NJ. > Mazdas are made in Edison, NJ, only.  I do believe this is a Ford > plant, not a Mazda plant, although I guess it could be a joint venture. > But what about KY and MN?  Are those Mazda plants that only make > Ford Rangers??? I don’t think so.  Some of the parts are Mazda, and > some of the design is Mazda, but Ford does the manufacturing.

        The only Mazda part (and the only Mazda design) is the 5-spd transmission in the 4-cyl Ranger.  Yes, those are Ford plants.  Unlike those tiny pickups (Courier, et. al.) from the 70’s the Ranger is all Ford’s, the S10 is all Chevrolet’s (not Isuzu’s), and the Dakota is all Chryco’s.         Yes, that means that the Japanese are now buying American made and designed trucks to re-badge and sell.  Congrats to Ford and GM for making an excellent product. Brad Sloan Clemson University Clemson, SC

Response:

> P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

        They most certainly do NOT. Brad Sloan Clemson University Clemson, SC

Response:

<snip> > P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

Rangers are made in Louisville, KY  Twin Cities, MN and Edison, NJ. Mazdas are made in Edison, NJ, only.  I do believe this is a Ford plant, not a Mazda plant, although I guess it could be a joint venture. But what about KY and MN?  Are those Mazda plants that only make Ford Rangers??? I don’t think so.  Some of the parts are Mazda, and some of the design is Mazda, but Ford does the manufacturing. — — Allen Kirby                     AT&T ITS Production Services

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Path: news1.stny.lrun.com!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!news.eecs.umich.edu!new s > c.hp.com!hpax!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: rec.autos.4×4,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers. ford.explorer,rec.autos.marketplace,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech > Organization: Americas Integration Center > Lines: 24 > NNTP-Posting-Host: as738591.cup.hp.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) > Xref: news1.stny.lrun.com rec.autos.4×4:81530 rec.autos.driving:179547 rec.autos.makers.chrysler:46396

rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer:12887 rec.autos.marketp – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > > very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > > you may have with regard to different trucks. > >      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > > so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > > maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > > are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > > Canadian ($3500 US). > >      Any Ideas? > >      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any > > good/bad experiences with this truck? > I have an 86 B2000 with the extended cab.  It’s been solid, and has a > good ride.  It gets 20MPG around town, and about 30 on the highway. > Maintenance has been battery, lights, brakes, and tires.  The extended > cab is comfortable.  The front suspension uses torsion bars, so a lot of > the low riders around here drive Mazdas because they’re easy to lower. > Good pickups for CDN$5000 are: > Ford Ranger with 4 cyl 2.3l and 5-speed manual, get fuel injection if > affordable. 89-94s are almost identical mechanically except sheetmetal. > Problems: Rust under doors and wheel wells in bed.  Very reliable other than > that.  Will last for may years.  Good conusmer reports ratings.  Aviod > automatics (I’d avoid any automatic as they are for lazt drivers, but these > have some problems in some years).  Great truck if someon ehasn’t delapidated > it first.  Same as Mazda B2300-4000 from 93 to 98, Ford makes for Mazda. > Chevrolet S-10 (85-92) (mysteriously similar to the GMC S-15 and its later > schizto relation the Sonoma, like we all don’t know its the same truck) with > 2.5l and 5-speed.  Problems:  Paint peeling (you’ll know when you see it) , > steering linkage wears out, RUST. > Dodge Dakota: 91 or newer with Magnum 2.5l 4-cyl & 5-speed.  Good all around > truck.  Older Dakotas are very ineffiecient and trouble prone although 3.9l > 6-cyl and 5-speed not bad, but lousy mileage. > Toyota Hilux:  IF maintained, will run forever.  however, only the glass will > holding the body together.  Rust, rust, & rust.  The domestic trucks have > better bodies despite their rust problems too. > Nissan Hardbody: same as Toyota. > If you need more power, buy a sports car, as trucks handle like crap, so why > get a lot of power?  you can’t put the power down in the corners. > You can’t go wrong with a truck that has a good body and maintenace. > The more simple the truck, the more reliable they are. > Undercoat the bed and cab, change oil, gearbox, & rearendm and filters, plugs, > etc. > Replace the shocks to get rid of the Buick ride. > You’ll be on your way. > If you live in Canada, use synthetic 5W-30 to start it in the winter eaier. > good luck eh.

Blah Blah Blah…You want advice? Buy a ‘92-93 Dodge Dakota Club Cab with the 5.2 litre V8…yes V8…gas milage is ok as long as you keep your foot out of it, has plenty of power, and for a truck…it rides like a Caddy and handles like no truck you’ve seen before. P.S. MAZDA makes the Ford Ranger

Response:

>altavoz: How about if i write slow and use big letters ? >The cost of Datsun parts are the same as FORD/CHEVY/CHRY ! > Now that we are stuck on a comparison of Jap vs USA , you probably >didnt notice my comparisom of one poorly made US car against another >did you ?  FORD IS CRAP , Chevy is only slightly better crap . Like 1 >and 2 on scale of 10 . Honda is 9

Damn!  Another Hondachero on the loose!

Response:

> Path: news1.stny.lrun.com!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!news.eecs.umich.edu!new s.radio.cz!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.ne t!Sprint!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.s

c.hp.com!hpax!not-for-mail – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Newsgroups: rec.autos.4×4,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers. ford.explorer,rec.autos.marketplace,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech > Organization: Americas Integration Center > Lines: 24 > NNTP-Posting-Host: as738591.cup.hp.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) > Xref: news1.stny.lrun.com rec.autos.4×4:81530 rec.autos.driving:179547 rec.autos.makers.chrysler:46396 rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer:12887 rec.autos.marketplace:83585 rec.autos.misc:133202 rec.autos.tech:235979 >      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > you may have with regard to different trucks. >      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > Canadian ($3500 US). >      Any Ideas? >      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any > good/bad experiences with this truck? > I have an 86 B2000 with the extended cab.  It’s been solid, and has a > good ride.  It gets 20MPG around town, and about 30 on the highway. > Maintenance has been battery, lights, brakes, and tires.  The extended > cab is comfortable.  The front suspension uses torsion bars, so a lot of > the low riders around here drive Mazdas because they’re easy to lower.

Good pickups for CDN$5000 are: Ford Ranger with 4 cyl 2.3l and 5-speed manual, get fuel injection if affordable. 89-94s are almost identical mechanically except sheetmetal.   Problems: Rust under doors and wheel wells in bed.  Very reliable other than that.  Will last for may years.  Good conusmer reports ratings.  Aviod automatics (I’d avoid any automatic as they are for lazt drivers, but these have some problems in some years).  Great truck if someon ehasn’t delapidated it first.  Same as Mazda B2300-4000 from 93 to 98, Ford makes for Mazda. Chevrolet S-10 (85-92) (mysteriously similar to the GMC S-15 and its later schizto relation the Sonoma, like we all don’t know its the same truck) with 2.5l and 5-speed.  Problems:  Paint peeling (you’ll know when you see it) , steering linkage wears out, RUST. Dodge Dakota: 91 or newer with Magnum 2.5l 4-cyl & 5-speed.  Good all around truck.  Older Dakotas are very ineffiecient and trouble prone although 3.9l 6-cyl and 5-speed not bad, but lousy mileage. Toyota Hilux:  IF maintained, will run forever.  however, only the glass will holding the body together.  Rust, rust, & rust.  The domestic trucks have better bodies despite their rust problems too. Nissan Hardbody: same as Toyota. If you need more power, buy a sports car, as trucks handle like crap, so why get a lot of power?  you can’t put the power down in the corners. You can’t go wrong with a truck that has a good body and maintenace. The more simple the truck, the more reliable they are. Undercoat the bed and cab, change oil, gearbox, & rearendm and filters, plugs, etc. Replace the shocks to get rid of the Buick ride. You’ll be on your way. If you live in Canada, use synthetic 5W-30 to start it in the winter eaier. good luck eh.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Bob: Had a 1976 Datsun, parts were expensive, gas milage poor.  Had much > fewer problems with my 1984 F150.  (both bought new). > Then again the topic is small pickups, brother in law had poor luck with > his Ford Ranger. > altavoz: I had to laugh for 20 minutes before i posted this . > I saw a 79 Datsun ? rear axle with it’s huge tapered roller bearing > and i know that Chevy has corupted others ( Chysler ? Ford ?) > to use the axle as a bearing ( no inner race ). I will never own > a piece of shit american car til they make them right . The > JAPS do . Was told of Ford 300-6 " stump puller , beats Chevy" > HMMMMM Chev 250-6 235 lbs at 1600 RPM , Ford needs 300 inches > to do same work ….The chev gets higher HP as it gets above 1600. >   I am pissed cause they go to bed with govt and prevent ppl > like me from competeing with them .

        Huh? Brad Sloan Clemson University Clemson, SC altavoz: How about if i write slow and use big letters ? The cost of Datsun parts are the same as FORD/CHEVY/CHRY !  Now that we are stuck on a comparison of Jap vs USA , you probably didnt notice my comparisom of one poorly made US car against another did you ?  FORD IS CRAP , Chevy is only slightly better crap . Like 1 and 2 on scale of 10 . Honda is 9

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> :      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be >> : very interested in any recommendations or warnings that >> : you may have with regard to different trucks. >> :      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, >> : so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low >> : maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment >> : are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > I bought a 1986.5 Nissan Hardbody 4×2 (2.4L Z24, 5spd) new in 1986.  It now > has 203,000 miles on it.  Other than friction surfaces, the only parts I’ve > had to replace are the transmission countershaft bearing, muffler, u-joints, > and parking brake cables.  Oil consumption is zero.  Fuel economy was > initially 25-28 mpg city, 29-32 highway but has gradually declined to 21-23 > city, 28-30 highway.  The standard bench seat is plenty comfortable.  On a > road trip, I have to remind myself to stop every couple hours or so. > —– > Steve > Woodinville, Washington USA > 26 May 1997, 1131 PDT

Most small foreign pickups are pretty much bullet proof, Toyotas, mazdas, Nissans and even Isuzus are good little trucks, personally I like the 87- 92 Mazda’s, got one at work, it’s a reg cab, but seems a bit bigger inside than the Toyotas, Nissans and Isuzus.. Also we have literaly tried to kill that thing, and it still keeps on running good at just over 100,000 hard miles with little regular maintaince. In this catagory it’s just up to your taste, they are all basically equal in power , MPG’s and longivity. I would’s buy a small domestic pickup, 1982-1993 S10’s are junk, 1983 to 1989 Rangers are Junk too.  Dodge D-50’s are good because Mitsibishi made them. Hope you find the right one!!!! Tekoa

Response:

>> :      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > : very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > : you may have with regard to different trucks. > :      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > : so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > : maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > : are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000

I bought a 1986.5 Nissan Hardbody 4×2 (2.4L Z24, 5spd) new in 1986.  It now has 203,000 miles on it.  Other than friction surfaces, the only parts I’ve had to replace are the transmission countershaft bearing, muffler, u-joints, and parking brake cables.  Oil consumption is zero.  Fuel economy was initially 25-28 mpg city, 29-32 highway but has gradually declined to 21-23 city, 28-30 highway.  The standard bench seat is plenty comfortable.  On a road trip, I have to remind myself to stop every couple hours or so. —– Steve Woodinville, Washington USA 26 May 1997, 1131 PDT

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > you may have with regard to different trucks. >      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > Canadian ($3500 US). >      Any Ideas? >      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any > good/bad experiences with this truck?

I have an 86 B2000 with the extended cab.  It’s been solid, and has a good ride.  It gets 20MPG around town, and about 30 on the highway. Maintenance has been battery, lights, brakes, and tires.  The extended cab is comfortable.  The front suspension uses torsion bars, so a lot of the low riders around here drive Mazdas because they’re easy to lower.

Response:

> :      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be > : very interested in any recommendations or warnings that > : you may have with regard to different trucks. > :      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, > : so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low > : maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment > : are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 > : Canadian ($3500 US). > :      Any Ideas?

  I’ve had a 1987 Dodge Ram 50 (a.k.a. Mitsubishi Mighty Max) since 1991, when I purchased it for $3000 US with 30000 miles on it.  I currently have 105000 miles on it, and the only non-standard maintenance I’ve ever had to do was an exhaust pipe replacement at about 60k.  Yet another bulletproof Japanese truck.  Fuel economy is about 25-28 mpg.   BTW, my brother is on his third Toyota truck.  The first two are still in good working order with over 200k miles each.   As far as comfort, they all ride like the small trucks they are, but you get used to it.  TINSTAAFL. — Allen Johnson PP-ASEL To respond, remove the NOSPAM. from my return address. "Don’t take life too serious, son, it ain’t nohow permanent."  Walt Kelly, "Pogo"

Response:

Bob: Had a 1976 Datsun, parts were expensive, gas milage poor.  Had much fewer problems with my 1984 F150.  (both bought new). Then again the topic is small pickups, brother in law had poor luck with his Ford Ranger. altavoz: I had to laugh for 20 minutes before i posted this . I saw a 79 Datsun ? rear axle with it’s huge tapered roller bearing and i know that Chevy has corupted others ( Chysler ? Ford ?) to use the axle as a bearing ( no inner race ). I will never own a piece of shit american car til they make them right . The JAPS do . Was told of Ford 300-6 " stump puller , beats Chevy" HMMMMM Chev 250-6 235 lbs at 1600 RPM , Ford needs 300 inches to do same work ….The chev gets higher HP as it gets above 1600.   I am pissed cause they go to bed with govt and prevent ppl like me from competeing with them .

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Bob: Had a 1976 Datsun, parts were expensive, gas milage poor.  Had much > fewer problems with my 1984 F150.  (both bought new). > Then again the topic is small pickups, brother in law had poor luck with > his Ford Ranger. > altavoz: I had to laugh for 20 minutes before i posted this . > I saw a 79 Datsun ? rear axle with it’s huge tapered roller bearing > and i know that Chevy has corupted others ( Chysler ? Ford ?) > to use the axle as a bearing ( no inner race ). I will never own > a piece of shit american car til they make them right . The > JAPS do . Was told of Ford 300-6 " stump puller , beats Chevy" > HMMMMM Chev 250-6 235 lbs at 1600 RPM , Ford needs 300 inches > to do same work ….The chev gets higher HP as it gets above 1600. >   I am pissed cause they go to bed with govt and prevent ppl > like me from competeing with them .

        Huh? Brad Sloan Clemson University Clemson, SC

Response:

Had a 1976 Datsun, parts were expensive, gas milage poor.  Had much fewer problems with my 1984 F150.  (both bought new). Then again the topic is small pickups, brother in law had poor luck with his Ford Ranger. — "They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary  safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".  - Benjamin Franklin (1759)  Robert Prehn           Lucent Technologies  (303) 538-4554         11900 North Pecos                         Westminster, Co  80234

Response:

I own a 1983 Toyota PU and it has never given me any trouble. I thoroughly enjoy it, and would wager that the best USED small trucks on the market are Toyota. They are usually pretty inexpensive (I got mine for $2500 US), they last forever, and they get reasonable mileage (Mine gets 24 MPG on avg. with a carb). I’m sure my next truck will be Toyota. Probably more info than you need. Ahh, well. — Lumpthar of the Lumpy People                    Jeff Underwood                                                 350437 Ga Tech Station "Anything that does not kill you will come back and try harder at a later date."–ME!

Response:

Own a Jap PU and you’ll never touch another Ford,Chevy !

Response:

:      I am in the market for a small pickup and would be : very interested in any recommendations or warnings that : you may have with regard to different trucks. :      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, : so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low : maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment : are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 : Canadian ($3500 US). :      Any Ideas? Chevy S-10s or GMC S-15s. Very cheap in the used market Replacement parts very available and usually cheap. Most 82-93 body parts are interchangeable (a 93 fender will fit an 82) Standard coil springs up front, leafs in the rear suspension (no torsion bars) Unless you have air bag suspension (doable), it’s gonna ride like a truck. Don’t expect a Cadillac ride. My 93 S-10 gets about 25 hwy and 20 city with the 4.3 v6 and 4sp auto trans. (course you gotta keep your foot out of it ) —

Response:

> Well, there really are no BAD choices in the small pickup arena, just > degrees of good.  The biggest thing to watch out for in your price range, > especially being in Canada like you are (I assume you are), is body rust > and rot.  With that said, the Mazda B2200 is a fine choice.

Um, you can’t buy a new B2200; the current model is the B2300, I believe, and is a Ranger derivative made in Edison, New Jersey. <snip> — -Stephen H. Westin The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford’s.

Response:

Well, there really are no BAD choices in the small pickup arena, just degrees of good.  The biggest thing to watch out for in your price range, especially being in Canada like you are (I assume you are), is body rust and rot.  With that said, the Mazda B2200 is a fine choice.  You’ll find that the American makes (Chevy S10 and Ford Ranger) are usually a little more better equipped than Japanese makes – I don’t know if that’s important to you or not.  The Toyota and Nissan pickups are usually more refined and have an overall better build quality than most other small pickups.  The Mitsubishi, Isuzu, and Mazda are usually somewhat spartan and not equipped with many frills, but would make good choices nonetheless if you don’t mind being a little low-buck.  If you’d like info on any particular small pickup, feel free to e-mail back, and I’ll see what I can dig up for you.

Response:

     I am in the market for a small pickup and would be very interested in any recommendations or warnings that you may have with regard to different trucks.      The vehicle would be my main form of transportation, so comfort and fuel economy are important. Low maintenance bills, longevity and a low initial investment are also important. I am looking to spend about $5000 Canadian ($3500 US).      Any Ideas?      I have been looking at 1990 Mazda B2200s. Any good/bad experiences with this truck?      Any other info, pertinent web sites, or other input would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Dave.      David Lloyd:      Campus Computer Store:              (519) 661-3727                                          University of Western Ontario

Response:

What does battery light indicate?

Question:

Steve, that may be true in some areas. Where I live, there are big signs in the parking lots of the auto parts stores that forbid doing repair work in the lots. It is a zoning thing. I’ve always found it better to do the repair back home in my garage, where I have everything that I need. Then, once it is repaired, I can drive back to the auto parts store as a test-drive of the repair. —Bob Gross—

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> True statement, I myself have done the diagnosis before the rushing out an > buying an alternator, but after 2 or three times it’s just easier to drive > right to the parts store when you see the battery light come on. There were > a few times I just saw the light, drove to the local auto parts store, > walked in, bought an alternator walked out to the car, grabbed my 19MM, 13MM > and 10MM wrenches out of the trunk, and changed the alternator in the > parking lot in about 5 minutes. The good thing is: you can get your core > credit right away. > Steve

Response:

They have those signs at the parts stores in my area too.  We also have highway signs that say "Speed Limit 65", "No Travelling in Breakdown Lane", "No Turn on Red" etc.  Apparently all these signs are installed just to keep sign makers busy as most if not all go unheeded and violaters go unpunished. — "Opportunities are spawned from crisis"

Steve, that may be true in some areas. Where I live, there are big signs in the parking lots of the auto parts stores that forbid doing repair work in the lots. It is a zoning thing.

Response:

The charge indicator light will come on any time the alternators output voltage is less than the battery voltage. Sounds like it is working correctly in both instances. Connect a simple volt meter to the battery terminals and run the engine up past a fast idle – the volt meter should read 13.6 to 14.3 volts or so if the alternator is charging properly. — "Opportunities are spawned from crisis"

1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the battery light indicating? Barry

Response:

On some GM vehicles of that era, you can "blow out" some of the sections of the alternator (actually the rectifiers) and the alternator will then have reduced output. It still works, but not fully. With a good test system, you can spot that in voltage and current. —Bob Gross— – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The charge indicator light will come on any time the alternators output > voltage is less than the battery voltage. > Sounds like it is working correctly in both instances. > Connect a simple volt meter to the battery terminals and run the engine up > past a fast idle – the volt meter should read 13.6 to 14.3 volts or so if > the alternator is charging properly. > — > "Opportunities are spawned from crisis" > 1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and > runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was > indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. > I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of > the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the > battery light indicating? > Barry

Response:

On mid-late 80’s vehicles a GM (Delco) Alternator, the internal voltage regulator is controlled by three diodes.  Diode faults are generally the cause of alternator failure.  Only ONE of the diodes controls the battery light.  If that is not the one that faults, then you will have reduced output until your battery goes dead.  The only way to find it is an charging system checkout. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > On some GM vehicles of that era, you can "blow out" some of the sections of > the alternator (actually the rectifiers) and the alternator will then have > reduced output. It still works, but not fully. With a good test system, you > can spot that in voltage and current. > —Bob Gross— > The charge indicator light will come on any time the alternators output > voltage is less than the battery voltage. > Sounds like it is working correctly in both instances. > Connect a simple volt meter to the battery terminals and run the engine up > past a fast idle – the volt meter should read 13.6 to 14.3 volts or so if > the alternator is charging properly. > — > "Opportunities are spawned from crisis" > 1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and > runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was > indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. > I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of > the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the > battery light indicating? > Barry

Response:

Yes, I had one rectifer section fail (with a "snap" sound) and the alternator still worked so-so. Then I had a second section fail, and it still worked just a little. It could not power up headlights and run the car, but the car would run if I used no lights or accessories at all. Obviously, that alternator got replaced a day later. I did not need any charging system check to see what was going on. —Bob Gross— – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On mid-late 80’s vehicles a GM (Delco) Alternator, the internal voltage > regulator is controlled by three diodes.  Diode faults are generally the cause > of alternator failure.  Only ONE of the diodes controls the battery light. If > that is not the one that faults, then you will have reduced output until your > battery goes dead.  The only way to find it is an charging system checkout. > On some GM vehicles of that era, you can "blow out" some of the sections of > the alternator (actually the rectifiers) and the alternator will then have > reduced output. It still works, but not fully. With a good test system, you > can spot that in voltage and current.

Response:

True statement, I myself have done the diagnosis before the rushing out an buying an alternator, but after 2 or three times it’s just easier to drive right to the parts store when you see the battery light come on. There were a few times I just saw the light, drove to the local auto parts store, walked in, bought an alternator walked out to the car, grabbed my 19MM, 13MM and 10MM wrenches out of the trunk, and changed the alternator in the parking lot in about 5 minutes. The good thing is: you can get your core credit right away. Steve

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> SM, > I just wanted to make sure he didn’t rush out and spend the money without > thorough diagnosis. > I could have written that better. > GW > I have to disagree with Geoff’s statistic, "9 out of ten times that means > the alternator is bad." When it comes to GM products, when the battery light > comes on, you can be 99.99% sure it’s the alternator. > Steve > 3 cars, 1992 Lumina 3.1 (5 alternators in 8 years), 1995 Z34 3.4 (2 > alternators in 3 weeks), 1988 Z24 2.8 (4 alternators in 4 years)……. > > >1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and > > >runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was > > >indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. > > >I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of > > >the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the > > >battery light indicating? > > >Barry > — > or click on

Response:

It indicates low voltage in the charging system.  9 out of 10 times that means the alternator is bad. The rest of the time it’s a wiring problem.  (loose, dirty, chafed….) GW – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > 1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and > runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was > indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. > I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of > the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the > battery light indicating? > Barry

Response:

1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the battery light indicating? Barry

Response:

SM, I just wanted to make sure he didn’t rush out and spend the money without thorough diagnosis. I could have written that better. GW – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I have to disagree with Geoff’s statistic, "9 out of ten times that means > the alternator is bad." When it comes to GM products, when the battery light > comes on, you can be 99.99% sure it’s the alternator. > Steve > 3 cars, 1992 Lumina 3.1 (5 alternators in 8 years), 1995 Z34 3.4 (2 > alternators in 3 weeks), 1988 Z24 2.8 (4 alternators in 4 years)……. > >1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and > >runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was > >indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. > >I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of > >the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the > >battery light indicating? > >Barry

– or click on

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and >runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was >indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. >I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of >the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the >battery light indicating? >Barry

Response:

I have to disagree with Geoff’s statistic, "9 out of ten times that means the alternator is bad." When it comes to GM products, when the battery light comes on, you can be 99.99% sure it’s the alternator. Steve 3 cars, 1992 Lumina 3.1 (5 alternators in 8 years), 1995 Z34 3.4 (2 alternators in 3 weeks), 1988 Z24 2.8 (4 alternators in 4 years)……. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->1989 GMC Safari. Would not start. Replaced starter. Vehicle starts and >runs. I have a voltage indicator on the instrument panel. It was >indicating in the yellow and the battery dummy light was illuminated. >I replaced the battery. Now the voltage when running is just out of >the yellow range but the battery light is still on. What is the >battery light indicating? >Barry

Response:

BUY AMERICAN YOU WANNABE JAP FAGS

Question:

Hey I can’t win all the way around.. Most of the stuff is made in Malaysia, or Malta.. I have had CPU’s that are made in the USA though. They do exist, just in more limited quantities than the Malaysia. I can’t control the overall downline of every component.  However, I can control where the final product is assembled.. 30 bucks was worth it for the sticker. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi, > Look at the board and see how may chips are made in the U.S.A. starting > with cpu chip. > Tony > > Not entirely, my motherboard was made by Supermicro-USA… I paid the price > > difference (30 bucks) to get the USA version instead of the Taiwan > > version.  The difference is a sticker on the board, but ‘theoretically’ an > > American is getting paid ‘an honest days pay’ to make the board instead of > > getting sweatshopped. > How much does the American get paid to put those stickers on the Taiwanese > board anyway?  Sounds like something I might want to get into. > —

Response:

>IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN

How about if you just move?  Far, far away…

Response:

> Nintendo? eww!!! > PlayStation rules!!!

PlayStation? eww!! Nintendo rules!!! *ahem* This has been the obligatory reply to a 13-year-old fool who more than likely thinks gaming is "mad kewl". — Jen

Response:

> Not entirely, my motherboard was made by Supermicro-USA… I paid the price > difference (30 bucks) to get the USA version instead of the Taiwan > version.  The difference is a sticker on the board, but ‘theoretically’ an > American is getting paid ‘an honest days pay’ to make the board instead of > getting sweatshopped.

How much does the American get paid to put those stickers on the Taiwanese board anyway?  Sounds like something I might want to get into. —

Response:

Hi, Look at the board and see how may chips are made in the U.S.A. starting with cpu chip. Tony – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Not entirely, my motherboard was made by Supermicro-USA… I paid the price > difference (30 bucks) to get the USA version instead of the Taiwan > version.  The difference is a sticker on the board, but ‘theoretically’ an > American is getting paid ‘an honest days pay’ to make the board instead of > getting sweatshopped. > How much does the American get paid to put those stickers on the Taiwanese > board anyway?  Sounds like something I might want to get into. > —

Response:

Well see I’d hope that they don’t do that.. because then I’d sue.. I believe you need to be licensed in order to promote "made in the USA" on your items. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Not entirely, my motherboard was made by Supermicro-USA… I paid the price > difference (30 bucks) to get the USA version instead of the Taiwan > version.  The difference is a sticker on the board, but ‘theoretically’ an > American is getting paid ‘an honest days pay’ to make the board instead of > getting sweatshopped. > How much does the American get paid to put those stickers on the Taiwanese > board anyway?  Sounds like something I might want to get into. > —

Response:

My Nissan Truck was made in Shelbyville TN and the Honda here was made in Marysville OH I don’t know what you’re talking about.. They’re made by American Honda Motor Company and Nissan Motor of America.. The ‘home office’ is in Asia, but several of the vehicle designs here are engineered in the USA.. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > x-no-archive: yes > I won’t give up my guns! > I like the Welfare here! > > IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > > — > > Pstokely > > Before you buy. > — > Texas Pete > "Don’t Mess with Texas"

Response:

Sounds like *you* must be very familiar with "going Japanese". >IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN

Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re not psychotic" – Who, me??

Response:

If GM buys its parts from the cheapest suppliers around the world and assembles them here (not always) is it still American? Still fightin’ WW2, eh, bunkey? p.s. and what’s wrong with Japanese fags…are American fags better? > IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > — > Pstokely > Before you buy.

Before you buy.

Response:

> My Nissan Truck was made in Shelbyville TN > and the Honda here was made in Marysville OH > I don’t know what you’re talking about.. They’re made by American Honda > Motor Company and Nissan Motor of America.. > The ‘home office’ is in Asia, but several of the vehicle designs here > are engineered in the USA..

Like the guy has a greater than grade 3 education and has any idea what the word "engineered" means. —

Response:

Actually about 10 years ago the EPA had to change the definition of American Made for their regs because no GM, Ford or Chrysler met the definition. Only the Honda Accord.  Their dismay was, to call a car American based upon American Made parts they had to call almost as Japanese cars American as from the big three. Duane Emerick 97 Astro  107,xxx miles Best Truck we ever had 89 Camry  377,xxx miles  (Made in Japan)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > — > Pstokely > Before you buy.

Response:

I don’t have any idea what the fellow drives (if anything?), but unless it’s really really old, I bet that removing all the parts not made in America would render it unable to get out of his driveway. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Actually about 10 years ago the EPA had to change the definition of American > Made for their regs because no GM, Ford or Chrysler met the definition. Only > the Honda Accord.  Their dismay was, to call a car American based upon > American Made parts they had to call almost as Japanese cars American as > from the big three. > Duane Emerick > 97 Astro  107,xxx miles Best Truck we ever had > 89 Camry  377,xxx miles  (Made in Japan) > IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > — > Pstokely > Before you buy.

– George http://people.delphi.com/gmcc

Response:

> If GM buys its parts from the cheapest suppliers around the world and > assembles them here (not always) is it still American?

   Wasn’t it just yesterday that this same troll posted why you should buy Japanese cars in alt.autos.gm?  This guy is probably sitting back laughing right now at how big the arguments get every time he makes a three line post with even fewer I.Q. points put into it.  Best thing to do is to ignore him when he does this.

Response:

>IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN

Are you still trying to find Idiotsville on your map?

Response:

striking back will just encourage the cretin to keep posting =P Natalie, a grown up

Response:

> I don’t have any idea what the fellow drives (if anything?), but > unless it’s really really old, I bet that removing all the parts not > made in America would render it unable to get out of his driveway.

Sounds like a CRYsler right out of the box. —

Response:

buy american? what do you mean? most GM vehicles are made in Canada or Mexico. some Honda and Toyota vehicles are made in the USA. compact discs were created by Sony and Phillips. american cartoons are animated in asia. the computer you are using to type this stupid troll post was made in some foreign country. the list goes on and on. — rich – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > — > Pstokely

Response:

I think he’s cellular engineering gone bad.. So maybe they explained it to him in the psych ward — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My Nissan Truck was made in Shelbyville TN > and the Honda here was made in Marysville OH > I don’t know what you’re talking about.. They’re made by American Honda > Motor Company and Nissan Motor of America.. > The ‘home office’ is in Asia, but several of the vehicle designs here > are engineered in the USA.. > Like the guy has a greater than grade 3 education and has any idea what the > word "engineered" means. > —

Response:

Not entirely, my motherboard was made by Supermicro-USA… I paid the price difference (30 bucks) to get the USA version instead of the Taiwan version.  The difference is a sticker on the board, but ‘theoretically’ an American is getting paid ‘an honest days pay’ to make the board instead of getting sweatshopped. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > buy american? what do you mean? most GM vehicles are made in Canada or > Mexico. some Honda and Toyota vehicles are made in the USA. compact > discs were created by Sony and Phillips. american cartoons are animated > in asia. the computer you are using to type this stupid troll post was > made in some foreign country. the list goes on and on. > — > rich > IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > — > Pstokely

Response:

> striking back will just encourage the cretin to keep posting

Actually, they stopped posting. It’s just you all that are dragging to thread on. For those of you who are not members of alt.games.nintendo.pokemon, Friday, October 13th, was what’s know as "Troll’s Day" in AGNP. The first one started as a joke among disguised regulars, but some "trolls" took it too seriously and are bent on making a better one. Pstokely, or as we call him "Cletus", is a half rate "troll" with half rate "troll" friends. He just happens to be racism scum and doesn’t like American cars. So, as long as you all just stop posting the thread with disappear with all other messages, and if you want to continue debating, stop cross posting into groups that don’t want to hear about it (i.e. alt.games.nintendo.pokemon).

Response:

I think those GE products is made in china I guess next tiem you want to buy one of those go live in china

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My Nissan Truck was made in Shelbyville TN > and the Honda here was made in Marysville OH > I don’t know what you’re talking about.. They’re made by American Honda > Motor Company and Nissan Motor of America.. > The ‘home office’ is in Asia, but several of the vehicle designs here > are engineered in the USA.. > Like the guy has a greater than grade 3 education and has any idea what the > word "engineered" means. > —

Response:

Nintendo? eww!!! PlayStation rules!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> striking back will just encourage the cretin to keep posting > Actually, they stopped posting. It’s just you all that are dragging to > thread on. > For those of you who are not members of alt.games.nintendo.pokemon, > Friday, October 13th, was what’s know as "Troll’s Day" in AGNP. The > first one started as a joke among disguised regulars, but some "trolls" > took it too seriously and are bent on making a better one. Pstokely, or > as we call him "Cletus", is a half rate "troll" with half rate "troll" > friends. He just happens to be racism scum and doesn’t like American > cars. > So, as long as you all just stop posting the thread with disappear with > all other messages, and if you want to continue debating, stop cross > posting into groups that don’t want to hear about it (i.e. > alt.games.nintendo.pokemon).

Response:

IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN — Pstokely Before you buy.

Response:

I like the Welfare here! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > — > Pstokely > Before you buy.

Response:

ME TOO! I like unlimited food stamp and free internet access. Why go anywhere else? > I like the Welfare here! > IF YOU WANNA BE JAPANESE, MOVE TO JAPAN > — > Pstokely > Before you buy.

– Located in S. California. We specialized in fresh and marine, cichlid, tank set up, and services. Information, pictures and aquarium supply also available here. Home on the web http://www.paps2000.com

Response:

Parking brake problem

Question:

Fuse?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 1978 Chevy truck and my brake light does not come on either.  The > bulb works.  I have look for a switch and wires and can’t find any either. > Maybe someone can help me too with this too  Thanks!! > Yeah, DRL on a 76 GMC truck. The way to test the bulb is to look at it > when the > key is in the start posotion (crankng) Bulb should light. If the bulb > doesn’t > light, its burned out. To find the switch , look for wires around the > e-brake > pedal. There will only be one wire, and the switch will ground it out when > activated. > Jeff G. > > > > I have a 76 GMC truck with the foot activated parking brake system. > > > > When the brake is applied the brake light does not come on.  I have > > > > looked for a switch but have not found one.  Is there a switch and > > > where > > > > would it be? > > switch activates a lap is under the lever of the pedal of the system, > but it > > most likely is not a problem here, the bulb will probably be… > > do you have DRL? if so try this: > > turn off the engine, activate the parking brake, then turn the engine > on, if > > the DRL is off then the switch must be okay > > strat with a bulb > > hth > > regards > > Fox > > — > > Marek (Fox

Is GM DeAD?!?!

Question:

I haved to say, I like the ancient GM cars of the past…..I like the current C5, the maro, and bird, but other than that, GM seems to make nothing but crap. Where is that long gone enthusiasm for cars that GM once had? Where is that Image of a hot V-8 under the hood of a lightwieght car that they once made? Where is the good handling, peppy car they once made? What is GM smoking? Why is it that today ALL the major manufactuors make cars that are exciting, and fun to drive(not all of the cars are, but they make an option to get one) while GM proceeds to kill off it’s last 2 out of 3 fun to drive cars? WHF!!! I’m hopeing some braindead GM supervisor will see this post, or hear word of it, maybe I can start a movement, who knows, but why is it all GM wants to make no adays are SUV’s, and family cars? Does managment think that it creates a warm, family oriented arua around GM? Hell no!! It makes them seem weak, and boring! GM, PLease bring back- Fiero-reincarnate it to be a miata/mr2spyder fighter, give it a V6, make it reliable, make it fun! This would help image MUCH more than family cars! GTO-not the stupid design you previewed at car shows, that thing sucked as bad as the aztec does! make it real, Give it POWER, give it handling, show us what all these years of experience building cars can do! Monte Carlo- make it RWD, big engine, show us what you got! Keep The F-bodys!!!!- make them lighter, make them handle well, give them a short shifter! keep the Ls1, bump it up higher though. and most of all, lower the price. Grand national- Of all the best cars you’vbe made, you’ve killed everyone except 3. Bring this one back and lets see what buicks can do! Please kill- Aztec!!!- this thing is THE UGLYIEST CAR EVER!!! DID you really get a positive reaction from the public? I can’t believe you did! GM, stop embarrasing yourself. PLease stop thinking sports ars are only for the rich people, that new cadillac is just a really expensive failure! It might look cool, and be cool, but it’s gonna fail because it’s  way over priced for it’s crowd. Please bring integrity, and fun back to domestic cars GM! Bryan Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

I left GM for Ford for just this reason.  I’m sorry but there’s at least 10 years of cleanup before the "ole boys" are gone and some new blood creates cars that are exciting.  GM is still a dinosaur that won’t move without the decision of 47 different commitees.  I have always been a GM guy, but I’m sorry, its time to get on board with a winner (at least career-wise.)  Don’t bother questioning the old guard at GM, that only brings trouble.  Bring good ideas to Ford and your career is well on its way.  I thought moving to Ford would bring more of the same corporate BS, but in reality GM is a company from the 50’s, thats living in the 50’s and getting its ass kicked by the Ford of the 2000’s.  I have been a GM guy all my life, my dream at 7 years old was to work for GM…  Man how things change when you see the insides. Why is it that today ALL the major manufactuors make – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> cars that are exciting, and fun to drive(not all of the cars > are, but they make an option to get one) while GM proceeds to > kill off it’s last 2 out of 3 fun to drive cars? WHF!!! I’m > hopeing some braindead GM supervisor will see this post, or hear > word of it, maybe I can start a movement, who knows, but why is > it all GM wants to make no adays are SUV’s, and family cars? > Does managment think that it creates a warm, family oriented > arua around GM? Hell no!! It makes them seem weak, and boring!

Response:

Where is the Impala SS???  The Caprice will even do for that matter.  When the LeSabre with a V6 is all that GM has for a full-size sedan….How about a V-10!?!  That 8.1L would have looked good with 2 extra cylinders in the block, but no, I got a look at the meaner looking F-250 with a V-10 and have my next truck in mind. The 80’s style Monte’s would be nice. Kill Saturn!  Kill the Bravada and Silhouette while they are at it. I really like GM…performance wise….but outside of the Vette/F-bods right now, there’s really not much too look kindly upon.  Ford’s soapbox cars don’t help themselves out, either, though.

Response:

>I left GM for Ford for just this reason.  I’m sorry but there’s at least 10 >years of cleanup before the "ole boys" are gone and some new blood creates >cars that are exciting.  GM is still a dinosaur that won’t move without the >decision of 47 different commitees.  I have always been a GM guy, but I’m >sorry, its time to get on board with a winner (at least

career-wise.)  Don’t – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->bother questioning the old guard at GM, that only brings trouble.  Bring >good ideas to Ford and your career is well on its way.  I thought moving to >Ford would bring more of the same corporate BS, but in reality GM is a >company from the 50’s, thats living in the 50’s and getting its ass kicked >by the Ford of the 2000’s.  I have been a GM guy all my life, my dream at 7 >years old was to work for GM…  Man how things change when you see the >insides. >Why is it that today ALL the major manufactuors make > cars that are exciting, and fun to drive(not all of the cars > are, but they make an option to get one) while GM proceeds to > kill off it’s last 2 out of 3 fun to drive cars? WHF!!! I’m > hopeing some braindead GM supervisor will see this post, or hear > word of it, maybe I can start a movement, who knows, but why is > it all GM wants to make no adays are SUV’s, and family cars? > Does managment think that it creates a warm, family oriented > arua around GM? Hell no!! It makes them seem weak, and boring!

Well seeing companies from the inside is something I’ll never see, I do purchase many, many cars for a credit union’s members and I have to say that every product I see from Ford is every bit as boring, ugly, and unreliable as it is thought GM cars are. I am a steadfast GM devotee, and I agree, they drop the ball with every new car.  I have a 1994 Caprice Classic which I think is one of the best cars to every come out of Chevrolet.  The proved they could put the new good ideas (ABS, airbags, V8 with fuel injection) with the old, proven ideas (big, save, comfortable car) for an astounding price.  As my car nears 90K miles, I am sad/furious that GM dropped the line and I have no car to trade in for.  I have already decided that when this car needs an overhaul, it will get it. And thanks to another good GM quality, the parts will be cheap, available and I will have many choices about which way to go when I decide to put a "little more kick" under the hood. I am disgusted with the Pontiac Aztec, the blind devotion to FWD platforms, and the unfortunate SUV craze that is making all the companies go crazy. I am of firm belief that those who know automobiles will quell the idea that we all need a giant 4X4 that gets 16MPG. Any vehicle that gets that type of milege should be a huge four door American car with a 500 HP V8 under the hood. Sorry for the rambling, but I’ll sleep better tonight…. ZAD Supercharger Heaven Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Don’t worry, I sleept better last  night after finally releasing my rage about GM. I figured you people would have to listen because you wouldn’t know what I was saying until it was too late. All my GM friends won’t hear a word about how boring GM has gotten. BTW, all other cool GM cars such as that impala are welcome too with my list of stuff GM should make. Also, am I alone in saying I would most deffinatly own a "new" fiero if it were reliable, mid engine, 6 speed, 2 seat, V8? (LS1 ?!) Maybe even a turbo 6? (hey! GM could share the turbo 6 when they bring the grand national back! I should be on that commitee! I’ve already got better ideas….hehehe) Burnup Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

>I haved to say, I like the ancient GM cars of the past…..I >like the current C5, the maro, and bird, but other than that, GM >seems to make nothing but crap. Where is that long gone >enthusiasm for cars that GM once had? Where is that Image of a >hot V-8 under the hood

   I have a 1999 Suburban with the V-8.  It is just like the cars of old.  It is fun to drive. — # If HMOs ran the post office, 44.3 million Americans would get no mail. # #       Phono FAQ: http://www.pagesz.net/~henryj/phono.htm.              # # Support Medicare for All Ages.  Urban Myth FAQ under development.      # # Support Cygnet Horns for Edison Firesides-george conklin,  KB4NCI      #  

Response:

I dont know if i would like GM making another car called the Grand National. Maybe they should just let that one rest as a classic.  But I am all for another turbocharged V6, that would definetly be cool. The original Grand National engine with out the turbo made around 140 horse and around 185 lb-ft of tourque if I remember right, and the modern Series II 231 V6 makes over 200 horsepower, so if they lowered the compression ratio a bit, and put on a decent turbo the engine would probably make around 300+ horsepower and 400+ lb-ft tourque.  That would be cool

Response:

First of all i don’t know what you are talking about ford cars and not boring you are crazy they look stupid, no power and also look boring.  I will put any GM engine against any one that ford makes.. Gm has always had more power.  They looked at a V10, wasn’t it worth it when they can make a V8 that is just as strong and get better gas mileage.  I have to agree that some of there new cars are boring.  However look at the toyota camry-ugly, slow, expensive for what you get-but number one selling car in america. So that’s what they did with the impala, you may not like it but it is selling well and so is the new monte.  Also the impala SS is coming back with the 5.7liter.  Unfortunately it will be fwd.  But as for Cadillacc they are going back to rear wheel drive and will be a very viable contender.  You may not like the new aztec, but everyone i know loves the way all the other pontiacs look.  If i had the money i would own a bonneville SSEi.  There isn’t a sports sedan Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Don’t worry, I sleept better last  night after finally releasing >my rage about GM. I figured you people would have to listen >because you wouldn’t know what I was saying until it was too >late. All my GM friends won’t hear a word about how boring GM >has gotten. >BTW, all other cool GM cars such as that impala are welcome too >with my list of stuff GM should make. >Also, am I alone in saying I would most deffinatly own a "new" >fiero if it were reliable, mid engine, 6 speed, 2 seat, V8? >(LS1 ?!) Maybe even a turbo 6? (hey! GM could share the turbo 6 >when they bring the grand national back! I should be on that >commitee! I’ve already got better ideas….hehehe) >Burnup

Well, I don’t  like small cars, but if there was a full-size V8 RWD car, I’d be trading up right now.. instead I’m just trying to figure out how to shoe-horn an LS1 into my ‘94 Caprice…. Regards, bro ZAD Supercharger Heaven Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Don’t worry, I sleept better last  night after finally releasing >my rage about GM. I figured you people would have to listen >because you wouldn’t know what I was saying until it was too >late. All my GM friends won’t hear a word about how boring GM >has gotten. >BTW, all other cool GM cars such as that impala are welcome too >with my list of stuff GM should make. >Also, am I alone in saying I would most deffinatly own a "new" >fiero if it were reliable, mid engine, 6 speed, 2 seat, V8? >(LS1 ?!) Maybe even a turbo 6? (hey! GM could share the turbo 6 >when they bring the grand national back! I should be on that >commitee! I’ve already got better ideas….hehehe) >Burnup > Well, I don’t  like small cars, but if there was a full-size V8 > RWD car, I’d be trading up right now.. instead I’m just trying to > figure out how to shoe-horn an LS1 into my ‘94 Caprice…. > Regards, bro

God bless you, Zora.  I proudly own a 1983 Buick LeSabre- one of the last true, good, God-fearing, red-meat-eating, rear-wheel-driven cars GM ever made.  I was on the road playing with my band earlier this week when the water pump went out on the car.  I had it towed to Bill Copps Pontiac-Cadillac-GMC where they replaced the pump the same day and had me back on the road that evening.  During the day I got a rental Grand Am. When I sat in the driver’s seat I had to scrunch down and lean to the right to get my head in under the curve of the roof!  My knees were up against the dashboard even with the seat all the way back!  I hated it! It only served as a sad reminder of the road American car buyers have been lead down- many people actually *LIKE* that kind of car.  And to think that Pontiac, the same name that once stood for performance like the old Firebird and GTO, is now turning out moderately styled commuter crap under their once noble nameplate makes me sick!  Give me a large 5500lb V8 RWD sedan any day of the week!  I want a car with a front bench seat!  I want Cadillacs with tail fins!  I want Buicks built with 350s!  I want Oldsmobiles that would make my grandparents proud to show off to their friends.  I want the old, reliable GM that was once so successful that they were nearly busted up by the feds.  General Motors should hang their heads in shame and pray to the gods of Fisher Body for salvation. — – This space for rent. "Better shoot low sheriff, I think she’s ridin’ a Shetland."      -Bob Wills

Response:

there you go! That’s what I’m talking about!! Release the anger, it’ll help as a theraputic aid thing…….I stil think a rear engine V8 for around 20,000 from GM would be the baddest car on the road……Also, the large cars you mention wouldn’t have to be that heavy any more with all the new advances in frame rigity an stuff……maybe they could make a car that big, get decent gas mileage, and be super powerful. (somewhat along the lines of the Z-28’s I suppose, only a bigger body, that was roomeir) Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Gotta have lots of cubes.
— For NG please reply to group only.
High Sierra
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > there you go! That’s what I’m talking about!! Release the anger,
> it’ll help as a theraputic aid thing…….I stil think a rear
> engine V8 for around 20,000 from GM would be the baddest car on
> the road……Also, the large cars you mention wouldn’t have to
> be that heavy any more with all the new advances in frame rigity
> an stuff……maybe they could make a car that big, get decent
> gas mileage, and be super powerful. (somewhat along the lines of
> the Z-28’s I suppose, only a bigger body, that was roomeir)
> Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com

Response:

I have to disagree.  While GM isn’t on the cutting edge of automotive technology (have to go German to get that),  Ford isn’t any better.  I recently bought 2 new cars.  My brother who works for Ford said he could get them for me on his empoloyee discount.  I looked at what Ford had to offer and found nothing any fresher or more innovative than anything GM offered.  I ended up buying an Impala LS and a Camaro Z28.  I’m perfectly happy with both of these cars. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying GM can’t show some improvement.  I’d love to see a V8 under the hood of the Impala, and a more modern design for the Camaro.  I’d also love to see them stop pouring time and effort into SUVs.  I’d love to see some of the innovation from the early and mid 60s that gave us such daring designs as the Corvair, the GTO, and the Toronado.  But until that happens, don’t sound the death knell for GM yet.  After all, they ARE in business to make a profit and they have to go where the market leads, and right now it’s SUVs and SUV derivatives, not high performance or high technology passenger cars. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I left GM for Ford for just this reason.  I’m sorry but there’s at least 10 > years of cleanup before the "ole boys" are gone and some new blood creates > cars that are exciting.  GM is still a dinosaur that won’t move without the > decision of 47 different commitees.  I have always been a GM guy, but I’m > sorry, its time to get on board with a winner (at least career-wise.)  Don’t > bother questioning the old guard at GM, that only brings trouble.  Bring > good ideas to Ford and your career is well on its way.  I thought moving to > Ford would bring more of the same corporate BS, but in reality GM is a > company from the 50’s, thats living in the 50’s and getting its ass kicked > by the Ford of the 2000’s.  I have been a GM guy all my life, my dream at 7 > years old was to work for GM…  Man how things change when you see the > insides.

Response:

Well, I meant is GM dead, because if you look at people on the road, you will have a VERY hard time finding young people driving GM’s. They are either driving a mustang, a chysler, or import vehicle. I think that GM doesn’t realize that in order to ensure success in the fututre they are going to have to hook young people at an early age, much like they did the current generation that grew up with 60’s muscle cars. It pretty much is true that the cars we drive when we are young are the cars that we will chase and love for the rest of our lives. Right now I forsee Honda, Toyota, Ford, and chrysler as the "nig" companys in the next ten years. Anyone realize how popular HOnda’s are amonst younger people nowadays? Even if they don’t want to make it look stupid with body kits and whatnot, they do want them. Toyota is attracting young people with cars that attract poeple with their sporty images like the celica, Mr2, supra……Whether or not the young people get these cars or not, it creates an image for the company. Chrysler has already created that image with the viper, and their "different" image. Ford has continued to have that image with the Mustang being almost "trendy" today. Further more, whether anyone here likes it, the Focus has continued to pull young people toward Ford. What on the market has GM made to lure us younger people? So, remeber, while companys DO have to follow the market trend, they must also have the forsight to see what the next market trend Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >GM is not dead yet, but it is in critical condition. For the first time in >my lifetime, I see about 3 fords on the road now for every chevy. And with >crystler getting alot of attention with the new dodge trucks, and PT >cruiser, I can easily forsee GM falling to last place among the big three >within ten years if they don’t get off there butts. >There styling sucks, the only decent sports car they have is the corvette >(which I love, but who the hell can afford to drop $60,000 for one?) They >need to take a hint from ford. Look at how many mustangs are on the road >now. You know why? Because they look cool. They have a retro musclecar >styling that stands out from the crowd, unlike the wedge shaped mashed >potato bland camaro. If they would design a decent looking camaro with a >strong performing 350 for under $27,000, they would have instant success. >The only GM vehicles that I really like is the new Venture (I bought a 98) >and the new Impala. Everything else is the same old s**t. >They have the mentality that people will buy anything they make simply >because there is a bowtie on the grill. I have always been partial to GM >vehicles, but I am hard pressed to find one I like anymore. If they want >to stay on top, they better get it in gear and make something exciting >quick before they lose an entire generation. > I haved to say, I like the ancient GM cars of the past…..I > like the current C5, the maro, and bird, but other than that, GM > seems to make nothing but crap. Where is that long gone > enthusiasm for cars that GM once had? Where is that Image of a > hot V-8 under the hood of a lightwieght car that they once made? > Where is the good handling, peppy car they once made? What is GM > smoking? Why is it that today ALL the major manufactuors make > cars that are exciting, and fun to drive(not all of the cars > are, but they make an option to get one) while GM proceeds to > kill off it’s last 2 out of 3 fun to drive cars? WHF!!! I’m > hopeing some braindead GM supervisor will see this post, or hear > word of it, maybe I can start a movement, who knows, but why is > it all GM wants to make no adays are SUV’s, and family cars? > Does managment think that it creates a warm, family oriented > arua around GM? Hell no!! It makes them seem weak, and boring! > GM, PLease bring back- > Fiero-reincarnate it to be a miata/mr2spyder fighter, give it a > V6, make it reliable, make it fun! This would help image MUCH > more than family cars! > GTO-not the stupid design you previewed at car shows, that thing > sucked as bad as the aztec does! make it real, Give it POWER, > give it handling, show us what all these years of experience > building cars can do! > Monte Carlo- make it RWD, big engine, show us what you got! > Keep The F-bodys!!!!- make them lighter, make them handle well, > give them a short shifter! keep the Ls1, bump it up higher > though. and most of all, lower the price. > Grand national- Of all the best cars you’vbe made, you’ve killed > everyone except 3. Bring this one back and lets see what buicks > can do! > Please kill- > Aztec!!!- this thing is THE UGLYIEST CAR EVER!!! DID you really > get a positive reaction from the public? I can’t believe you > did! GM, stop embarrasing yourself. > PLease stop thinking sports ars are only for the rich people, > that new cadillac is just a really expensive failure! It might > look cool, and be cool, but it’s gonna fail because it’s  way > over priced for it’s crowd. > Please bring integrity, and fun back to domestic cars GM! > Bryan > Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. > Up to 100 minutes free! > http://www.keen.com >– >See ya!!! >Danman

I have issues with your comments but generally agree.  I purchase cars for a credit union and its members (so fun spending other people’s money) and drive a LOT of cars.  The Mustang outsells the Z-28 2:1 at least.  But I’ve driven both of them. And the Z-28 is quicker, faster, gets better milage – you name it.  The problem with GM is their marketing.  They just flat can’t market their damn cars.  Now, most of what they churn out nowadays is FWD garbage, but the Z-28 and the Corvette both have to be #1 in bang for the buck compared to any car.  In my opinion. And the Camaro desperately needs a cosmetic change.  The powertrain is bad to the bone, though. God, it feels good to rip on the General.  But don’t get me wrong, I won’t have anything else parked in my garage.  If that means I’m stuck trying to find used mid-90’s Caprices for a few years so be it.  I’ll embrace it fully and finally go get my 1962 Impala coupe that I’ve been dreaming about. ZAD Supercharger Heaven Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

GM is not dead yet, but it is in critical condition. For the first time in my lifetime, I see about 3 fords on the road now for every chevy. And with crystler getting alot of attention with the new dodge trucks, and PT cruiser, I can easily forsee GM falling to last place among the big three within ten years if they don’t get off there butts. There styling sucks, the only decent sports car they have is the corvette (which I love, but who the hell can afford to drop $60,000 for one?) They need to take a hint from ford. Look at how many mustangs are on the road now. You know why? Because they look cool. They have a retro musclecar styling that stands out from the crowd, unlike the wedge shaped mashed potato bland camaro. If they would design a decent looking camaro with a strong performing 350 for under $27,000, they would have instant success. The only GM vehicles that I really like is the new Venture (I bought a 98) and the new Impala. Everything else is the same old s**t. They have the mentality that people will buy anything they make simply because there is a bowtie on the grill. I have always been partial to GM vehicles, but I am hard pressed to find one I like anymore. If they want to stay on top, they better get it in gear and make something exciting quick before they lose an entire generation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I haved to say, I like the ancient GM cars of the past…..I > like the current C5, the maro, and bird, but other than that, GM > seems to make nothing but crap. Where is that long gone > enthusiasm for cars that GM once had? Where is that Image of a > hot V-8 under the hood of a lightwieght car that they once made? > Where is the good handling, peppy car they once made? What is GM > smoking? Why is it that today ALL the major manufactuors make > cars that are exciting, and fun to drive(not all of the cars > are, but they make an option to get one) while GM proceeds to > kill off it’s last 2 out of 3 fun to drive cars? WHF!!! I’m > hopeing some braindead GM supervisor will see this post, or hear > word of it, maybe I can start a movement, who knows, but why is > it all GM wants to make no adays are SUV’s, and family cars? > Does managment think that it creates a warm, family oriented > arua around GM? Hell no!! It makes them seem weak, and boring! > GM, PLease bring back- > Fiero-reincarnate it to be a miata/mr2spyder fighter, give it a > V6, make it reliable, make it fun! This would help image MUCH > more than family cars! > GTO-not the stupid design you previewed at car shows, that thing > sucked as bad as the aztec does! make it real, Give it POWER, > give it handling, show us what all these years of experience > building cars can do! > Monte Carlo- make it RWD, big engine, show us what you got! > Keep The F-bodys!!!!- make them lighter, make them handle well, > give them a short shifter! keep the Ls1, bump it up higher > though. and most of all, lower the price. > Grand national- Of all the best cars you’vbe made, you’ve killed > everyone except 3. Bring this one back and lets see what buicks > can do! > Please kill- > Aztec!!!- this thing is THE UGLYIEST CAR EVER!!! DID you really > get a positive reaction from the public? I can’t believe you > did! GM, stop embarrasing yourself. > PLease stop thinking sports ars are only for the rich people, > that new cadillac is just a really expensive failure! It might > look cool, and be cool, but it’s gonna fail because it’s  way > over priced for it’s crowd. > Please bring integrity, and fun back to domestic cars GM! > Bryan > Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. > Up to 100 minutes free! > http://www.keen.com

– See ya!!! Danman

Response:

I’m not downing the camaro, nor the corvette. For that matter, the firbird either. SOrry if that’s how it comes across to everyone. I am downing everything BUT those cars. I love thoses 3 cars! I just want GM to make even more cars that I could choose from. I want fun, fast, and all around great cars. I want another 2 seater from the general. I want it to be cheaper though. I want more RWD cars, another turbo car, over all, a more spirited, funner, less family car oriented GM. More cars that I will see at my local drag strip, and my local autoX. Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

>GM is not dead yet, but it is in critical condition. For the first time in >my lifetime, I see about 3 fords on the road now for every chevy. And with

Ya thats a conclusive statistical analysis. >crystler getting alot of attention with the new dodge trucks, and PT >cruiser, I can easily forsee GM falling to last place among the big three >within ten years if they don’t get off there butts. >There styling sucks, the only decent sports car they have is the corvette

Apparently this thread should be subtitled "Add your comments if you like muscle cars and/or RWD" >(which I love, but who the hell can afford to drop $60,000 for one?) They >need to take a hint from ford. Look at how many mustangs are on the road >now. You know why? Because they look cool. They have a retro musclecar

No accounting for taste. >styling that stands out from the crowd, unlike the wedge shaped mashed >potato bland camaro. If they would design a decent looking camaro with a >strong performing 350 for under $27,000, they would have instant success.

I agree they should invest in the F-car body.  Maybe they’d sell more and not have to discontinue them. >The only GM vehicles that I really like is the new Venture (I bought a 98) >and the new Impala. Everything else is the same old s**t.

Hmmm how soon we forget.  Grand Prix – bland? Intrigue – bland? Bonneville – bland?  Come on – one thing you CANNOT accuse GM of being is reserved in the styling department.  Just because every single car that rolls off the assembly line cannot be a concept car does not mean they are old shit. >They have the mentality that people will buy anything they make simply >because there is a bowtie on the grill. I have always been partial to GM >vehicles, but I am hard pressed to find one I like anymore. If they want >to stay on top, they better get it in gear and make something exciting >quick before they lose an entire generation.

And you can knock the shit out of the Aztec (maybe the Rendezvous will appeal to you better – oh no its FWD/AWD) but old shit it is not! Give GM points for that one.  And the Crysler comes out with Prowler and PT cruiser and they are wonderful to all but the Aztec is somehow a dog?  No way.  It is a well designed SUV that will appeal to many. It doesn’t have to appeal to everybody.  What vehicle can?  The all new 2001 Camelion? Don’t get me wrong – you raise some valid points but don’t keep thinking GM is a stick in the mud, rest on yer laurels company.  It isn’t.  And I don’t need to be an insider or ex-president of Design at GM to say that. Sean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I haved to say, I like the ancient GM cars of the past…..I > like the current C5, the maro, and bird, but other than that, GM > seems to make nothing but crap. Where is that long gone > enthusiasm for cars that GM once had? Where is that Image of a > hot V-8 under the hood of a lightwieght car that they once made? > Where is the good handling, peppy car they once made? What is GM > smoking? Why is it that today ALL the major manufactuors make > cars that are exciting, and fun to drive(not all of the cars > are, but they make an option to get one) while GM proceeds to > kill off it’s last 2 out of 3 fun to drive cars? WHF!!! I’m > hopeing some braindead GM supervisor will see this post, or hear > word of it, maybe I can start a movement, who knows, but why is > it all GM wants to make no adays are SUV’s, and family cars? > Does managment think that it creates a warm, family oriented > arua around GM? Hell no!! It makes them seem weak, and boring! > GM, PLease bring back- > Fiero-reincarnate it to be a miata/mr2spyder fighter, give it a > V6, make it reliable, make it fun! This would help image MUCH > more than family cars! > GTO-not the stupid design you previewed at car shows, that thing > sucked as bad as the aztec does! make it real, Give it POWER, > give it handling, show us what all these years of experience > building cars can do! > Monte Carlo- make it RWD, big engine, show us what you got! > Keep The F-bodys!!!!- make them lighter, make them handle well, > give them a short shifter! keep the Ls1, bump it up higher > though. and most of all, lower the price. > Grand national- Of all the best cars you’vbe made, you’ve killed > everyone except 3. Bring this one back and lets see what buicks > can do! > Please kill- > Aztec!!!- this thing is THE UGLYIEST CAR EVER!!! DID you really > get a positive reaction from the public? I can’t believe you > did! GM, stop embarrasing yourself. > PLease stop thinking sports ars are only for the rich people, > that new cadillac is just a really expensive failure! It might > look cool, and be cool, but it’s gonna fail because it’s  way > over priced for it’s crowd. > Please bring integrity, and fun back to domestic cars GM! > Bryan > Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. > Up to 100 minutes free! > http://www.keen.com >– >See ya!!! >Danman

Response:

The 231 is the 3.8L right?  You can already get it with a supercharger… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I dont know if i would like GM making another car called the Grand National. > Maybe they should just let that one rest as a classic.  But I am all for > another turbocharged V6, that would definetly be cool. > The original Grand National engine with out the turbo made around 140 horse > and around 185 lb-ft of tourque if I remember right, and the modern Series > II 231 V6 makes over 200 horsepower, so if they lowered the compression > ratio a bit, and put on a decent turbo the engine would probably make around > 300+ horsepower and 400+ lb-ft tourque.  That would be cool

Response:

Anybody who thinks the mustang looks good has a problem..Have you ever looked at one close up.  Their cheaply made, they have plastic where vents should be. If you get leather the backseat is not. The radio sucks and a grandprix GTP can almost beat it.  You may not like GM style but I sorry to say all car makers have ugly cars right now.  The celica is a joke, the new dodge stratus two door is just a eclipse with different body panels. All with cramped interiors.  The aztec is suppose to be different, the show car looked better, but you have to style for the masses. As for all the young kids buying these little honda’s and toyota’s is because the insurance companies made it impossible for them to afford what many of us did in 70’s.  They can soup them and still pay for an economy car.  Most would love to own a camaro or mustang.  Even with all the mods its still cheaper than the insurance on real sports car. Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Heh… Right on Brother… Damnable insurance companies..  Although, it’s hard to own almost anything but a japanese import at my age… For my GMC Sonoma, I’m paying $3400/year insurance.  And, for no reason other than I’m 18. On another note, I guess there’s a reason the Mustang Convertible is… "Canada’s Lowest Price Convertible" eh?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Anybody who thinks the mustang looks good has a problem..Have you > ever looked at one close up.  Their cheaply made, they have > plastic where vents should be. If you get leather the backseat is > not. The radio sucks and a grandprix GTP can almost beat it.  You > may not like GM style but I sorry to say all car makers have ugly > cars right now.  The celica is a joke, the new dodge stratus two > door is just a eclipse with different body panels. All with > cramped interiors.  The aztec is suppose to be different, the > show car looked better, but you have to style for the masses. As > for all the young kids buying these little honda’s and toyota’s > is because the insurance companies made it impossible for them to > afford what many of us did in 70’s.  They can soup them and still > pay for an economy car.  Most would love to own a camaro or > mustang.  Even with all the mods its still cheaper than the > insurance on real sports car. > Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. > Up to 100 minutes free! > http://www.keen.com

Response:

>Anybody who thinks the mustang looks good has a problem..Have you >ever looked at one close up.

They are better now that they were in the late 80’s…. when from the front you couldn’t tell if it was a Mustang or a Taurus. >If you get leather the backseat is >not.

The GT Convertible with leather that I drove had leather in the backseat.  Unless it is vinyl, but I couldn’t tell. The radio sucks and a grandprix GTP can almost beat it.  You >may not like GM style but I sorry to say all car makers have ugly >cars right now.  The celica is a joke, the new dodge stratus two >door is just a eclipse with different body panels. All with >cramped interiors.  The aztec is suppose to be different, the >show car looked better, but you have to style for the masses. As >for all the young kids buying these little honda’s and toyota’s >is because the insurance companies made it impossible for them to >afford what many of us did in 70’s.  They can soup them and still >pay for an economy car.  Most would love to own a camaro or >mustang.  Even with all the mods its still cheaper than the >insurance on real sports car.

Despite my remarks above, I am NOT a Ford fan.  In fact, I’d never own one.  I agree that insurance companies are a major factor in the shitgrinders the kids have to drive nowadays. I am here to say, "Be patient!  I am 27 and married and pay $210 a month for three cars, full coverage.  A 1998 Saturn SL2, a 1994 Chevy Caprice Classic, and a 1978 Z28. ZAD Supercharger Heaven Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

month……. Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

Well, it is unfortunate that this is turning into a forum on insurance, as the GM bashing was working very well for me. Although, now after following and posting to the thread for a week or so, I still think GM offers the best value if you choose your vehicle carefully. This has been a most refreshing thread. ZAD Supercharger Heaven Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

Response:

I was quoted 2,972 a year for my ‘91 S10..simple because I’m 16…I was going to buy my sisters ‘82 Camaro..but being that it has a 350..I cant afford the insurance..

Response:

2000 Sierra Headlights

Question:

I believe it works on the trucks built after a certain date.  It was apparently not a feature on the original 2000’s.  There is some type of cutoff for most GM cars…it’s like an undocumented Microsoft secret… Ken.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> O.K. I have a 2000 GMC. 1500 Z71. Ext. Cab. > I pushed the dome, button 4 times and the lights go off. According to the > O.M. they will reset if you, push the button again, or turn the key of then > on again. > I was told this doe’s not work on all GMC. trucks, it depends where it was > built. > O.K.  I tried pushing the Dome Override switch 4 times within 6 seconds to > see if I could get my headlights to turn off, they didn’t.  I’ve asked the > dealer and GMC and they both said they didn’t know of any headlight > override.  Does this override only work on Chevrolets or does it work on > GMCs too? > Thank you, > Gabriel

Response:

I would thank it works the same as the 98’s. Push the emergency brake pedal down one click and see if they go out? Greg

Response:

O.K. I have a 2000 GMC. 1500 Z71. Ext. Cab. I pushed the dome, button 4 times and the lights go off. According to the O.M. they will reset if you, push the button again, or turn the key of then on again. I was told this doe’s not work on all GMC. trucks, it depends where it was built.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> O.K.  I tried pushing the Dome Override switch 4 times within 6 seconds to > see if I could get my headlights to turn off, they didn’t.  I’ve asked the > dealer and GMC and they both said they didn’t know of any headlight > override.  Does this override only work on Chevrolets or does it work on > GMCs too? > Thank you, > Gabriel

Response:

Neil for this one. http://206.139.32.21/ls1forum/Forum27/HTML/000201.html i have fairly small hands, with good dexterity and it took me about 40 minutes to do this.  i went with solution one.  you’ll understand when open the page.     one trick though…..without removing the dash (like in solution 2) you’ll find it difficult to hold the wire to attach the resister.  i used a string, looped around the connector, to apply enough tnesion to the wire as to be able to get my left hand in there and plug in the resister….  just a tip, worked for me !!! good luck GASly Fayetteville, NC Airborne

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> O.K.  I tried pushing the Dome Override switch 4 times within 6 seconds to > see if I could get my headlights to turn off, they didn’t.  I’ve asked the > dealer and GMC and they both said they didn’t know of any headlight > override.  Does this override only work on Chevrolets or does it work on > GMCs too? > Thank you, > Gabriel

Response:

O.K.  I tried pushing the Dome Override switch 4 times within 6 seconds to see if I could get my headlights to turn off, they didn’t.  I’ve asked the dealer and GMC and they both said they didn’t know of any headlight override.  Does this override only work on Chevrolets or does it work on GMCs too? Thank you, Gabriel

Response:

Here is what I have heard on this…I do not know if it is valid, but perhaps a start anyway…Some people have noticed that it works on their 2000s, some say it does not. Here is how you can tell: If your truck was built in Indiana, (11th digit of VIN is "Z") then your 2000 truck has it. If built in Canada (11th digit is "1") and your truck was built after the beginning of August, then you have it. If built in Michigan (11th digit is "E") after mid-august, then you have it. So if your 2000 truck doesn’t have it, it was probably built in Canada or Michigan and built before the dates I mentioned."  I previously owned a 95 GMC Sierra and noticed that it was built in Canada.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> O.K.  I tried pushing the Dome Override switch 4 times within 6 seconds to > see if I could get my headlights to turn off, they didn’t.  I’ve asked the > dealer and GMC and they both said they didn’t know of any headlight > override.  Does this override only work on Chevrolets or does it work on > GMCs too? > Thank you, > Gabriel

Response: