Many Fear Financial Hit of Gas Prices By Will Lester (Associated Press) The pinch at the pump is starting to feel more like a punch for a growing number of Americans. With gas prices soaring, almost two-thirds of those surveyed for an AP-AOL poll expect fuel costs will cause them financial hardship in coming months. That was sharply higher than in April, when about half felt that way. Crude oil prices reached a record high of more than $66 a barrel Friday. That’s almost 50 percent higher than a year ago. The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was more than $2.40 per gallon at week’s end, compared with $1.86 a year ago and about $2.21 in April, according to the auto club AAA. The poll conducted for The Associated Press and America Online News found that 64 percent say gas prices will cause money problems for them in the next six months, while 35 percent did not think so. In April, 51 percent expressed concerns about the cost of gas. Those most likely to be worried about the financial impact are people with low incomes, the unemployed and minorities. The AP-AOL survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Aug. 9-11 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Response:

As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real reasons for upward prices on gas: Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand will raise its price: 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, reducing supply, raising prices. 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it’s put on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, prices go up. 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that increase price. 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will come back if the profit is great enough. When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost of that hybrid, I’ll just buy a regular car. Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real > reasons for upward prices on gas: > Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > will raise its price: > 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > reducing supply, raising prices. > 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. > Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it’s put > on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, > prices go up. > 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > increase price. > 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will > be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will > increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will > come back if the profit is great enough. > When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you > and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just > not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost > of that hybrid, I’ll just buy a regular car. > Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

I’m sorry, you can’t post the truth to AGA. You’re fired. Lord Valve Expert

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >reasons for upward prices on gas: >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >will raise its price: >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >reducing supply, raising prices. >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it’s put >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, >prices go up. >3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that >increase price. >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will >come back if the profit is great enough. >When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost >of that hybrid, I’ll just buy a regular car. >Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

Bullshit.  Big oil, backed by Bush and the Saudis wants to fill their private bank accounts on your backs.  And the more bodies expended in Iraq the fewer at home clamoring for jobs that don’t exist because they’ve been parceled out to third world cheap labour pools.  It just makes good economic sense.  Should do wonders for the country’s IQ though.  Anyone crazy enough to voluntarily go fight over there wasn’t providing figures in the higher end of the spectrum anyway. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Lars GotShanked Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca

Response:

>I’ve made the same offer many times. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop >the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it.

Please lead by example Pixie. Zitty spews enough crap for everyone in the squad, including the righties.

Response:

> As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?

He’s the resident. if it happens on his watch it’s his fault (see: Clinton) > Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > will raise its price:

Anything that would decrease the demand (like higher fuel efficiency standards that Bush et al refuse to even think about) would lower the price. > 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > reducing supply, raising prices.

While we in the US go blithely on producing gas guzzlers that eat up gasoline. > 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists.

Nope. It’s down to the greedy bastards that run the oil companies that refuse to invest any of their profits (Exxon 2nd quarter 2005 = $7.64 billion, BP 1st half profits = $10.47 billion, Royal Dutch Shell 2nd quarter = $4.63 billion). not because of "environmentalists". > 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up.

Those terrorists being terrorists because of Bush’s invasion of Iraq (se above). > 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > increase price.

By "environmentalists" you mean "people that enjoy breathing". > 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price.

The Federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is $0.184 per gallon. If you eliminate that it’ll drive the price of a gallon of gas all the way down to…. $2.25 > I’ll just buy a regular car.

Let’s hope it’s an efficient car. > Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > technologies that will power the future

Bullshit. They’re making money hand over fist as it is.

Response:

> >I’ve made the same offer many times. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop >the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it. > Please lead by example

Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it.

Response:

> > >I’ve made the same offer many times. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > >the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it. > Please lead by example > Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it.

since not everyone agrees, pixies doesn’t have to. ergo proctor doctor oh….

Response:

> > Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it. > since not everyone agrees

It ain’t gonna happen until there’s a consensus on the matter.

Response:

>I’m sorry, you can’t post the truth to AGA.

How would you know? The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  

Who’s in control of the Iraqi oilfields? Which administration has ties to the oil companies? The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real > reasons for upward prices on gas: > Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > will raise its price: > 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > reducing supply, raising prices. > 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. > Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it’s put > on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, > prices go up. > 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > increase price. > 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will > be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will > increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will > come back if the profit is great enough. > When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you > and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just > not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost > of that hybrid, I’ll just buy a regular car.

are you aware that you can get an income tax credit wheh you buy a hybrid? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml Vehicles in the table to the right may be eligible for a "clean fuel" deduction of $2,000 if placed in service by the end of 2005. If you purchased the vehicle before 2005, you can claim the deduction by filing an amended tax return for the tax year in which the vehicle was purchased. For your vehicle to qualify, the following requirements must also be met:  Vehicle Make & Model Model Years Ford Escape Hybrid 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid 2003-2005 Honda Insight 2000-2005 Lexus RX 400h 2006 Toyota Highlander 2006 Toyota Prius 2001-2005 * Vehicles approved by IRS as of June 27, 2005. Other hybrids may be approved at a later date. You must purchase the vehicle new and for your own use, not for resale. You must drive it mostly in the United States. The vehicle must meet all federal and state emissions requirements. Government agencies, tax exempt organizations, and foreign entities are not eligible. Other requirements may also apply. If any of these conditions change within 3 years of purchase, you may have to return some of the money saved by the deduction. > Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

45% isn’t enough????

Response:

They are all too small for my family.

Response:

>>>Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop >>the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it. >since not everyone agrees > It ain’t gonna happen until there’s a consensus on the matter.

Spin, Pixie, Spin! Originally, your Pixie Manifesto stated that you would post your bullshit until LV stopped posting conservative articles. Now you have gotten out your crayon and made the latest modification to the Pixie Manifesto to say, *everyone* (in an alt group!) must stop posting *anything* political, or you will continue posting your bullshit. You keep spinning like this and your 64-pack of Crayolas will be scattered all over the cornfield. Pixie spins like an out-of-balance washing machine…lots of pointless noise coming from a furiously wobbling box in the basement. Get out in that cornfield and chase them crows!

Response:

>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >reasons for upward prices on gas: >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >will raise its price: >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >reducing supply, raising prices.

This is true — and a free trade ideology that doesn’t impose environmental and labor standards on this emerging powerhouse has made this runaway consumption economically viable. >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it’s put >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, >prices go up.

This is a "just in time" inventory strategy that actually reduces costs, and refinery problems were a market factor for decades before it became s.o.p. >3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up.

This is where Dumber’nyuh is culpable — the Iraq occupation has vastly increased terrorist activity, and increased terrorist activity in a top (#2 in reserves behind Saudi Arabia) oil producer is a major market factor.   The Iraq insurgency could last for decades, so this factor is essentially permanent, thanks to an idiotic U.S. policy. >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that >increase price.

There’s been no change in this since the days of cheap gasoline before the Iraq invasion — iow, it’s not a factor in the vast increases since then. >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price.

There have been no tax bumps on gasoline given the above timeline — iow, taxation is another non- factor in the current situation. >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will >come back if the profit is great enough.

That’d mean a permanent shift to expensive oil. >When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost >of that hybrid, I’ll just buy a regular car.

That’s the problem — we still can buy a brand-new "regular car!"  The oilmen in White House won’t even tighten CAFE standards, a measure proven to encourage excellent technical advances in fuel economy.   The automotive industry has proven it can steadily improve gas mileage, but it will only do so with a regulatory gun to its head — with oilmen in charge in DC, that’s not going to happen. >Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

Bullshit.  We need a demand side solution, the equivalent of the Apollo program with an ambitious but feasible goal.   That would require the vision of a JFK, not the myopia of a Dumber’nyuh.  The oil industry would rather keep raking in record profits than innovate, and innovation in an extraction industry only serves to further deplete an already dwindling, non- renewable energy resource. We need a two-pronged approach combining mandated fuel economy improvements in the short term and a long-term effort to develop viable alternatives and limit petroleum use to things like lubricants and plastics, not vehicle and power plant fuel.        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

>They are all too small for my family.

What? Big Macs? Levis? Bic pens? The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >reasons for upward prices on gas: >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >will raise its price: >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >reducing supply, raising prices. > This is true — and a free > trade ideology that doesn’t > impose environmental and > labor standards on this > emerging powerhouse has > made this runaway > consumption economically > viable.

We’re supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any standards on them. >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it’s put >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, >prices go up. > This is a "just in time" > inventory strategy that > actually reduces costs, > and refinery problems > were a market factor for > decades before it became > s.o.p.

And its a good procedure IF you have enough refineries to fill in when one goes down.  Right now all the plants are running at 99.9% utilization. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > This is where Dumber’nyuh > is culpable — the Iraq > occupation has vastly > increased terrorist > activity, and increased > terrorist activity in a > top (#2 in reserves behind > Saudi Arabia) oil producer > is a major market factor. > The Iraq insurgency could > last for decades, so this > factor is essentially > permanent, thanks to an > idiotic U.S. policy.

We have not been attacked since 911 and I give George full credit for that, whatever he is doing is working. >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that >increase price. > There’s been no change in > this since the days of > cheap gasoline before the > Iraq invasion — iow, it’s > not a factor in the vast > increases since then.

Yeah, like Ethanol that takes 30% more energy to make than it gives back when you burn it in an engine.  It takes more oil to make Ethanol than it gives back.  Or MTBE which has found its way into groundwater all over Illinois.  I’m in favor of Ethanol because it provides a mrket for Illinois corn and brings a lot of pork barel money to my state, courtesy of our Senator Durbin (democrat).  But I know it’s a boondoggle that just wasts more energy than its worth, but I’ll take the money.  to manufacture 1 gallon of Ethanol you have to burn 1/3 gallon of oil fuels.  But the environmentalists are still in love with their Ethanol. >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > There have been no tax > bumps on gasoline given > the above timeline — iow, > taxation is another non- > factor in the current > situation.

Come to Chicago, you dont know what taxes are. >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will >come back if the profit is great enough. > That’d mean a permanent > shift to expensive oil.

Oil will be our transportation energy for at least the next 30 years, get used to it.  An electric motor will NOT haul a load of meat in a reefer across the country, or a load of steel.  The laws of physics will not allow it.  The batteries would weigh more than the load the truck is hauling. Also to make Hydrogen you have to again crack a lot of petroleum to release it’s hydrogen or make it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost >of that hybrid, I’ll just buy a regular car. > That’s the problem — we > still can buy a brand-new > "regular car!"  The > oilmen in White House > won’t even tighten CAFE > standards, a measure > proven to encourage > excellent technical > advances in fuel economy. > The automotive industry > has proven it can steadily > improve gas mileage, but > it will only do so with a > regulatory gun to its > head — with oilmen in > charge in DC, that’s not > going to happen.

The market should determine this just fine and much more efficiently than a bunch of attorneys. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will. > Bullshit.  We need a demand > side solution, the equivalent > of the Apollo program with an > ambitious but feasible goal. > That would require the vision > of a JFK, not the myopia of a > Dumber’nyuh.  The oil industry > would rather keep raking in > record profits than innovate, > and innovation in an > extraction industry only > serves to further deplete an > already dwindling, non- > renewable energy resource.

Outside acedemia, the oil companies are the ONLY ones doing R&D on alternative energy that will be viable in the marketplace.  One year ago I invested $100K of my own personal retirement money into oil companies, today that money has grown to $165K, I’m happy.  I am taking a risk in this research with my OWN money, I get the corporate report that has the R&D figures on it.  What risk are YOU taking that will actually DO something?  Other than calling out a herd of lawers to somehow solve a problem.  If all Americans would simply buy big oil stock like me, we would be well onto solving energy problems, technology and free markets solve problems, not politicians, lawers and libs. > We need a two-pronged approach > combining mandated fuel economy > improvements in the short term > and a long-term effort to > develop viable alternatives and > limit petroleum use to things > like lubricants and plastics, > not vehicle and power plant > fuel.

The market will demand the economy, my investment risk in oil compny stocks will solve the viable alternatives.  And I’ll make a lot of money to boot. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< > -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Get out in that cornfield and chase them crows!

TOP corn producing states are Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska,  but mainly Illinois and Iowa. This crop is worth $23 billion annually. Good as gold.

Response:

> > Get out in that cornfield and chase them crows! > TOP corn producing states are Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska,  but > mainly Illinois and Iowa. This crop is worth $23 billion annually. > Good as gold.

We have to get our money back from Washington some way, Ethanol is OUR pork no mater how much of an environmental boondoggle it really is.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real > >reasons for upward prices on gas: > >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > >will raise its price: > >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > >reducing supply, raising prices. > This is true — and a free > trade ideology that doesn’t > impose environmental and > labor standards on this > emerging powerhouse has > made this runaway > consumption economically > viable. >We’re supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >standards on them.

That’s what the W.T.O and the Kyoto process were about — but a stupid, luddite shift in U.S. policy opted us out of such efforts. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. > >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it’s put > >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, > >prices go up. > This is a "just in time" > inventory strategy that > actually reduces costs, > and refinery problems > were a market factor for > decades before it became > s.o.p. >And its a good procedure IF you have enough refineries to fill in when >one goes down.  Right now all the plants are running at 99.9% >utilization.

The way to fix that is on the demand side, with conservation and constantly improving vehicle efficiency.  More refineries would be entirely counterproductive because it would encourage consumption, which needs to be reduced. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > This is where Dumber’nyuh > is culpable — the Iraq > occupation has vastly > increased terrorist > activity, and increased > terrorist activity in a > top (#2 in reserves behind > Saudi Arabia) oil producer > is a major market factor. > The Iraq insurgency could > last for decades, so this > factor is essentially > permanent, thanks to an > idiotic U.S. policy. >We have not been attacked since 911 and I give George full credit for >that, whatever he is doing is working.

You’re as much of an idiot as he is.  What makes you think New York is any safer from terrorism than Madrid or London? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > >increase price. > There’s been no change in > this since the days of > cheap gasoline before the > Iraq invasion — iow, it’s > not a factor in the vast > increases since then. >Yeah, like Ethanol that takes 30% more energy to make than it gives >back when you burn it in an engine.  It takes more oil to make Ethanol >than it gives back.  Or MTBE which has found its way into groundwater >all over Illinois.  I’m in favor of Ethanol because it provides a mrket >for Illinois corn and brings a lot of pork barel money to my state, >courtesy of our Senator Durbin (democrat).  But I know it’s a >boondoggle that just wasts more energy than its worth, but I’ll take >the money.  to manufacture 1 gallon of Ethanol you have to burn 1/3 >gallon of oil fuels.  But the environmentalists are still in love with >their Ethanol.

None of those are factors in the current situation and you know it.  Your attempt to distract from what *is* relevant is duly noted. > >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > There have been no tax > bumps on gasoline given > the above timeline — iow, > taxation is another non- > factor in the current > situation. >Come to Chicago, you dont know what taxes are.

I’m from New York, and Chicago is East Jesus, Arkansas by comparison.   Don’t pull rank on me, son — you’ll lose. Yet another attempt to distraction from what’s actually driving the current crisis is noted. > >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will > >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will > >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will > >come back if the profit is great enough. > That’d mean a permanent > shift to expensive oil. >Oil will be our transportation energy for at least the next 30 years, >get used to it.  

That doesn’t mean we can’t work our butts off as a nation to use it more efficiently — and if we had any real leadership in DC that’s exactly what we’d have been challenged to do! >An electric motor will NOT haul a load of meat in a >reefer across the country, or a load of steel.  The laws of physics >will not allow it.  The batteries would weigh more than the load the >truck is hauling. Also to make Hydrogen you have to again crack a lot >of petroleum to release it’s hydrogen or make it.

I’ll settle for the passenger car sector.  Meanwhile, *huge* quanities of exactly the stuff you mention *is* being hauled cross-country by electric motors — look up "locomotive, diesel."  Economically producing hydrogen and building a safe distribution system is indeed a huge undertaking — but an America that triumphed on two gigantic fronts in WWII, went to the moon on a short deadline, and reached space via a entirely private development and test effort can and should be the one to do it.  I want that America back from the clutches of the oilmen, who are plainly thrilled with that status quo and couldn’t care less about who’s hurt by it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you > >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just > >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost > >of that hybrid, I’ll just buy a regular car. > That’s the problem — we > still can buy a brand-new > "regular car!"  The > oilmen in White House > won’t even tighten CAFE > standards, a measure > proven to encourage > excellent technical > advances in fuel economy. > The automotive industry > has proven it can steadily > improve gas mileage, but > it will only do so with a > regulatory gun to its > head — with oilmen in > charge in DC, that’s not > going to happen. >The market should determine this just fine and much more efficiently >than a bunch of attorneys.

Bullshit and you damned well know it — you gave a knee jerk ideological response that has no basis in fact.  The market always trails reality and this problem requires getting out ahead of it! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will. > Bullshit.  We need a demand > side solution, the equivalent > of the Apollo program with an > ambitious but feasible goal. > That would require the vision > of a JFK, not the myopia of a > Dumber’nyuh.  The oil industry > would rather keep raking in > record profits than innovate, > and innovation in an > extraction industry only > serves to further deplete an > already dwindling, non- > renewable energy resource. >Outside acedemia, the oil companies are the ONLY ones doing R&D on >alternative energy that will be viable in the marketplace.  

Right, and they can be trusted to drag their cowboy boots until the crisis becomes a total debacle. >One year >ago I invested $100K of my own personal retirement money into oil >companies, today that money has grown to $165K, I’m happy.  

Well, no wonder you have no problem with $3+/gal. gasoline!  You’ve just disqualified yourself from this discussion — you’re essentially a gambler/vulture raking it in on the suffering of your fellow citizens. >I am taking >a risk in this research with my OWN money, I get the corporate report >that has the R&D figures on it.  

…and of course reports to investors from the oil companies are gospel truth. >What risk are YOU taking that will >actually DO something?  

I work for a living, son.   Gambling favors the house. >Other than calling out a herd of lawers to >somehow solve a problem.  

Historically, thoughtful regulation works — the right would like to suggest otherwise, but history doesn’t lie. >If all Americans would simply buy big oil >stock like me, we would be well onto solving energy problems, >technology and free markets solve problems, not politicians, lawers and >libs.

More bullshit.  American corporations are notorious for shortsightedness — as per the dealer lots full of gas-gulping SUVs.   Without regulation to prod them, industry almost always takes the short cut to quick profits and neglects the future.  The stock market tries to attract naive get-rich- quick amateur gamblers to the detriment of long-term investing, and this is reflected in our current problem with outdated vehicle techology and dubious, dwindling fossil fuel resources. > We need a two-pronged approach > combining mandated fuel economy > improvements in the short term > and a long-term effort to > develop viable alternatives and > limit petroleum use to things > like lubricants and plastics, > not vehicle and power plant > fuel. >The market will demand the economy,

When the people demand the tightened CAFE standards, progress will start to keep pace with the impending crisis.  The market has tremendous inertia when it comes to big durable goods purchases and there’s nothing wrong with the people demanding more progress though their elected representatives.   A gGovernment of, by, and for the people created the legal status of the so- called corporate person, and has the right and duty to regulate its behavior.   Without such restraints, the corporate person is by definition sociopathic, accountable only to the avarice of overpaid executives and … read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>will raise its price: >>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>This is true — and a free >>trade ideology that doesn’t >>impose environmental and >>labor standards on this >>emerging powerhouse has >>made this runaway >>consumption economically >>viable. >We’re supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >standards on them. > That’s what the W.T.O and > the Kyoto process were > about — but a stupid, > luddite shift in U.S. > policy opted us out of > such efforts.

Senate didn’t like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution against any treaty that didn’t schedule developing nations the same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not be ratified. *That’s* why we didn’t ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm? Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt…IIRC so was India, because of their ‘developing nation’ status. If you think that the reason the Senate didn’t like this treaty is because they are ‘luddite’, well, perhaps you should submit that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>>will raise its price: >>>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>>This is true — and a free >>>trade ideology that doesn’t >>>impose environmental and >>>labor standards on this >>>emerging powerhouse has >>>made this runaway >>>consumption economically >>>viable. >>We’re supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >>country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >>standards on them. > That’s what the W.T.O and > the Kyoto process were > about — but a stupid, > luddite shift in U.S. > policy opted us out of > such efforts. >Senate didn’t like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution >against any treaty that didn’t schedule developing nations the >same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part >of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic >step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not >be ratified.

It’s not a matter of that particular treaty — it’s a matter of ongoing and constructive engagement in the process.  I agree the treaty was flawed — as Tony Hwang mentioned a few days ago the lack of environmental control in mainland China is becoming regional health concern, with China’s neighbors as vulnerable as its own people.  As China’s biggest customer, the U.S. has considerable leverage if it stays engaged — but Dumber’nyuh has disengaged, and his free trader ideology has made our country a vast bazaar for foreign goods which are cheap largely because of the lack of environmental and worker safety reguation while American manufacturing shrivels away. >*That’s* why we didn’t ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do >you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm?

Again, that particular treaty was just an initial point in the process of protecting the planet while encouraging sustainable economic growth — what important is not to walk away from the few processes available to influence the Chinese.  One particular document is not the issue, engagement is. >Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact >that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt…IIRC so was >India, because of their ‘developing nation’ status.

That can certainly be revisited, but only if the U.S. remains engaged.  As stated, the treaty had big flaws, but the process is essential.  It’s among the very few available tools for an utterly crucial job that impacts the entire planet. >If you think that the reason the Senate didn’t like this treaty >is because they are ‘luddite’, well, perhaps you should submit >that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, >really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep.

The U.S. Senate is right to be skeptical about that treaty — but we must also see beyond it, to the world we pass on to children.  A treaty is not an end, it is step, however halthing and imperfect it may be, a step is batter than an unteneable and isolated stasis.        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > the political chit-chat then I’d go along with it.

OT Posts for Aug 7th thru 14th Libs Conservatives Zoot     20 John        2 Bruce     6 SOK66   1 Play-on  3 TPS       2 Timepix  1 Elvis       1 Marc      1 Mike      1 So S/N ratio of OT Posts Liberals 35 vs 3 so it’s just over 11 to 1 See ya, John

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>>>will raise its price: >>>>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>>>This is true — and a free >>>>trade ideology that doesn’t >>>>impose environmental and >>>>labor standards on this >>>>emerging powerhouse has >>>>made this runaway >>>>consumption economically >>>>viable. >>>We’re supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >>>country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >>>standards on them. >>That’s what the W.T.O and >>the Kyoto process were >>about — but a stupid, >>luddite shift in U.S. >>policy opted us out of >>such efforts. >Senate didn’t like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution >against any treaty that didn’t schedule developing nations the >same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part >of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic >step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not >be ratified. > It’s not a matter of that > particular treaty

Until somebody called you on it, it sure as shit was. I see, you have learned the "Pixie Spin Cycle". Well, keep on flopping. >*That’s* why we didn’t ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do >you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm? > Again, that particular > treaty

It’s good to see that you too, were against the Kyoto protocol…it was an unfair, bad treaty, and I’m glad you have finally admitted it. >Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact >that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt…IIRC so was >India, because of their ‘developing nation’ status. > That can certainly be > revisited,

And it will be, but you don’t recognize that treaties like these are used to gain advantage economically…but have the political "Leftist Feel-good quotient" necessary for folks like you to run down the U.S. for not ratifying them, until, of course, you are called on it…then you back off to your fig leaf of philosophical nattering. >If you think that the reason the Senate didn’t like this treaty >is because they are ‘luddite’, well, perhaps you should submit >that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, >really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep. > The U.S. Senate is right to > be skeptical about that > treaty

"Skeptical" *nothing*. The Senate rebuked it, and for good measure, passed a resolution *95-0* that says, effectively, *any* treaty like that will not even be considered.   — but we must also > see beyond it,

Well all that is fine, but you should take that tack out of the chute, and not say that *because* we did not sign a particular treaty….that had only the image of "feel-good" politics, that the Senate was "luddite", when, in fact, this treaty was *designed* to negatively affect the U.S. economy, above all. Walk, Quack: Duck. Don’t underestimate politicians’ ability to fool folks like you with the effective equivalent of a Trojan horse. Ask a Senator. Go right ahead and do it. Them’s the *facts*, Brucie.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>>>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>>>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>>>>will raise its price: >>>>>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>>>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>>>>This is true — and a free >>>>>trade ideology that doesn’t >>>>>impose environmental and >>>>>labor standards on this >>>>>emerging powerhouse has >>>>>made this runaway >>>>>consumption economically >>>>>viable. >>>>We’re supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >>>>country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >>>>standards on them. >>>That’s what the W.T.O and >>>the Kyoto process were >>>about — but a stupid, >>>luddite shift in U.S. >>>policy opted us out of >>>such efforts. >>Senate didn’t like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution >>against any treaty that didn’t schedule developing nations the >>same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part >>of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic >>step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not >>be ratified. > It’s not a matter of that > particular treaty >Until somebody called you on it, it sure as shit was. >I see, you have learned the "Pixie Spin Cycle". >Well, keep on flopping.

I’ve always had doubts about the Kyoto treaty — prove otherwise! >>*That’s* why we didn’t ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do >>you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm? > Again, that particular > treaty >It’s good to see that you too, were against the Kyoto >protocol…it was an unfair, bad treaty, and I’m glad >you have finally admitted it.

I’ve never said otherwise, but, that said, we should have signed it as an interim measure and kept up the pressure for better measures. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact >>that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt…IIRC so was >>India, because of their ‘developing nation’ status. > That can certainly be > revisited, >And it will be, but you don’t recognize that treaties like >these are used to gain advantage economically…but have the >political "Leftist Feel-good quotient" necessary for folks >like you to run down the U.S. for not ratifying them, until, >of course, you are called on it…then you back off to your >fig leaf of philosophical nattering.

I still think we and the world would have been better off if the treaty had been signed — the economic advantages enjoyed by China are still there without our ratification, but we have essentially opted out of the process and therebye reduced the chances of future agreements would be more advantageous to us.  The constructive paradigm is, "let’s take this first, flawed step and stay engaged" and not "I’m picking up my marbles and going home because I didn’t immediately get my way." >>If you think that the reason the Senate didn’t like this treaty >>is because they are ‘luddite’, well, perhaps you should submit >>that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, >>really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep. > The U.S. Senate is right to > be skeptical about that > treaty >"Skeptical" *nothing*. The Senate rebuked it, and for good measure, >passed a resolution *95-0* that says, effectively, *any* treaty like >that will not even be considered.

They overdid it and did U.S. manufacturing and the jobs it creates no good whatsoever. >  – but we must also > see beyond it, >Well all that is fine, but you should take that tack out of the >chute, and not say that *because* we did not sign a particular >treaty….that had only the image of "feel-good" politics, that the >Senate was "luddite", when, in fact, this treaty was *designed* to >negatively affect the U.S. economy, above all. Walk, Quack: Duck.

It was (poorly imo) designed to balance the interested of currently-dominant countries with those who want in to the modern, industrialized world — without U.s. participation, a course correction further on down the line is less likely, and therefore U.S. manufacturing, already bleeding jobs like mad, has no effective advocate in the process. >Don’t underestimate politicians’ ability to fool folks like >you with the effective equivalent of a Trojan horse. >Ask a Senator. Go right ahead and do it. >Them’s the *facts*, Brucie.

       Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Yes it does take a long time to get the temp up. I just changed the > therm from a 165 that was in there to the OEM spec 180.

OEM spec is ***194*** not 180!!! 180 would be an aftermarket thermostat. Are you actually using an OEM thermostat? Or not? — TeGGeR

>>Is that why Honda did backflips to reduce rotational mass >everywhere it could in the S2000? > Sure, but they can actually make really significant reductions. > Not just a pound or so, but real weight reduction that only a > factory can manage by careful design.

I think that seven pounds per corner tire+wheel is REAL weight reduction.  Nine pounds would be even more real.  My only real question is whether that last two pounds might be better invested in +1 wheels and more rubber on the road. >I’ve read elsewhere that reductions in rotational mass play out as >more "apparent" horsepower.  I don’t pretend to know myself, >that’s why I ask here, politely. > Yes, that’s true, but again, you’re not going to notice a pound > less.

Not noticing a an additional pound at the margin tells me something.   Not noticing an extra two pounds at the margin tells me something. >> Anyhow, if minimum unsprung weight is a real necessity, go find >> some magnesium wheels and never mind the tires.

I’ve observed up to five pounds difference in tires of the same size spec.  I don’t think that’s nothing.  I think I might notice. >I’d ask you again to FOCUS ON THE QUESTION:  Diminishing returns in >unsprung weight, rotational mass, ride and handling. > You’re way out on the tapering end of that diminishing return.

Thank you.  This is what I suspected, and needed to know. >The question is one of where and when additional investments in one >area don’t generate payoffs that would be more easily attained >elsewhere. > That’s precisely where you’re at.

Again, thank you very much for your input. — — CL. | Charles Lasitter   | Mailing / Shipping | | 401/728-1987       | 14 Cooke St        | | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |

Response:

> I make no pretense of being any kind of expert, but I’ve recently > read a lot of information from people that consider themselves to be > experts, and I’m just looking for feedback from this group as to how > things might apply that I’ve read elsewhere.

eh, youre doing good. i dont think many of us have really thought about the weight of tire/wheel combos too much, pertaining to how much extra power is given and the effects on speedometer readings, etc. you must work in a technical field, right? people with civics know if they want a light factory wheel/tire setup, to get the wheels off an HX. theres no similar "economy" accord, unless you count the hybrid… does that use the same wheels/tires?

Response:

> Please explain how the number of cylinders matter. > It’s really about torque.

Yup. I just wanted to see if halo had anymore clever responses.

Response:

> people with civics know if they want a light factory wheel/tire > setup, to get the wheels off an HX. theres no similar "economy" > accord, unless you count the hybrid… does that use the same > wheels/tires?

What I have found on the Tire Rack is 15×6.5" alloys that weigh in at only 15 pounds for around $75, versus the current steel wheels.  This seems like a good idea if I do nothing else.  And the Kumho tires have also gotten favorable mention here in terms of being a good "bang for the buck". Thanks. — CL. | Charles Lasitter   | Mailing / Shipping | | 401/728-1987       | 14 Cooke St        | | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |

Response:

I am curios as to how YOU  are going to notice any difference of even 7 lbs per wheel in a god damned stock Honda Accord with a 4 cyl motor. If you were geuinely concerned about performance then you wouldn’t have bought a family sedan.  Go go a real sports car if that is what your interested in.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Is that why Honda did backflips to reduce rotational mass >>everywhere it could in the S2000? > Sure, but they can actually make really significant reductions. > Not just a pound or so, but real weight reduction that only a > factory can manage by careful design. > I think that seven pounds per corner tire+wheel is REAL weight > reduction.  Nine pounds would be even more real.  My only real > question is whether that last two pounds might be better invested in > +1 wheels and more rubber on the road. >>I’ve read elsewhere that reductions in rotational mass play out as >>more "apparent" horsepower.  I don’t pretend to know myself, >>that’s why I ask here, politely. > Yes, that’s true, but again, you’re not going to notice a pound > less. > Not noticing a an additional pound at the margin tells me something. > Not noticing an extra two pounds at the margin tells me something. >>> Anyhow, if minimum unsprung weight is a real necessity, go find >>> some magnesium wheels and never mind the tires. > I’ve observed up to five pounds difference in tires of the same size > spec.  I don’t think that’s nothing.  I think I might notice. >>I’d ask you again to FOCUS ON THE QUESTION:  Diminishing returns in >>unsprung weight, rotational mass, ride and handling. > You’re way out on the tapering end of that diminishing return. > Thank you.  This is what I suspected, and needed to know. >>The question is one of where and when additional investments in one >>area don’t generate payoffs that would be more easily attained >>elsewhere. > That’s precisely where you’re at. > Again, thank you very much for your input. > — > — CL. > | Charles Lasitter   | Mailing / Shipping | > | 401/728-1987       | 14 Cooke St        | > | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |

Response:

>I am curios as to how YOU  are going to notice any difference of even 7 lbs >per wheel in a god damned stock Honda Accord with a 4 cyl motor. > If you were geuinely concerned about performance then you wouldn’t have > bought a family sedan.  Go go a real sports car if that is what your > interested in.

Please explain how the number of cylinders matter.

Response:

> I am curios as to how YOU  are going to notice any difference of > even 7 lbs per wheel in a god damned stock Honda Accord with a 4 > cyl motor.

This rotational mass / moment of inertial is not something I dreamed up.  It’s a performance issue of which Honda itself is keenly aware: http://tinyurl.com/4vjgp "… Honda engineers wanted to keep the S2000 powertrain’s entire rotational mass to a minimum, thereby minimizing inertia, and the response time between driver input and vehicle reaction." http://tinyurl.com/4mzwo "As an added benefit, putting lighter wheels on the car can increase your engine’s apparent power. Why? Well the engine has to turn the gearbox and driveshafts, and at the end of that, the wheels and tyres. Heavier wheels and tyres require more torque to get turning, which saps engine power. Lighter wheels and tyres allow more of the engine’s torque to go into getting you going than spinning the wheels. That’s why sports cars have carbon fibre driveshafts and ultra light alloy wheels. > If you were geuinely concerned about performance then you wouldn’t > have bought a family sedan.

I’m very pleased with my purchase.  It’s a fine car that can comfortably seat adults, offering a sportier ride than a Toyota Camry, and I plan to enhance the vehicle’s strong points and enjoy owning it for a very long time. > Go go a real sports car if that is what your interested in.

And so you are … Honda’s good will ambassador to first time Honda buyers? I put a lot of time and effort into composing questions as thoughtfully as possible, and then posting them in forums where they are most relevant, and the worst part of process is not the well intentioned mis-information that is all to common on the internet. It’s jerks like you, who show their ass while offering nothing of value, not even a meaningful critique of the questions posed that helps bring relevant issues more clearly into focus. — CL. | Charles Lasitter   | Mailing / Shipping | | 401/728-1987       | 14 Cooke St        | | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |

Response:

> Please explain how the number of cylinders matter.

It’s really about torque.  Other things being equal, more cylinders and more displacement = more torque. http://tinyurl.com/4mzwo "As an added benefit, putting lighter wheels on the car can increase your engine’s apparent power. Why? Well the engine has to turn the gearbox and driveshafts, and at the end of that, the wheels and tyres. "Heavier wheels and tyres require more torque to get turning, which saps engine power. Lighter wheels and tyres allow more of the engine’s torque to go into getting you going than spinning the wheels. That’s why sports cars have carbon fibre driveshafts and ultra light alloy wheels." I make no pretense of being any kind of expert, but I’ve recently read a lot of information from people that consider themselves to be experts, and I’m just looking for feedback from this group as to how things might apply that I’ve read elsewhere. — CL. | Charles Lasitter   | Mailing / Shipping | | 401/728-1987       | 14 Cooke St        | | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |

Response:

> What for? Are you after good handling while going sideways through > corners on bumpy roads?

In Providence, Rhode Island, it’s the interstates at 70mph … > Unsprung weight is important if you’re racing on bumpy tracks or > rallying in the boondocks. Otherwise chasing after every last > pound is hardly worth it.

Is that why Honda did backflips to reduce rotational mass everywhere it could in the S2000? I’ve read elsewhere that reductions in rotational mass play out as more "apparent" horsepower.  I don’t pretend to know myself, that’s why I ask here, politely. > Anyhow, if minimum unsprung weight is a real necessity, go find > some magnesium wheels and never mind the tires.

I understand that you should be ready to clean and polish them every day, too. I’d ask you again to FOCUS ON THE QUESTION:  Diminishing returns in unsprung weight, rotational mass, ride and handling. The question is one of where and when additional investments in one area don’t generate payoffs that would be more easily attained elsewhere. — CL. | Charles Lasitter   | Mailing / Shipping | | 401/728-1987       | 14 Cooke St        | | Pawtucket RI 02860 | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com |

Response:

>> What for? Are you after good handling while going sideways through > corners on bumpy roads? >In Providence, Rhode Island, it’s the interstates at 70mph …

Unless you’re cornering hard at that speed, unsprung weight won’t count for much. > Unsprung weight is important if you’re racing on bumpy tracks or > rallying in the boondocks. Otherwise chasing after every last > pound is hardly worth it. >Is that why Honda did backflips to reduce rotational mass everywhere >it could in the S2000?

Sure, but they can actually make really significant reductions. Not just a pound or so, but real weight reduction that only a factory can manage by careful design. >I’ve read elsewhere that reductions in rotational mass play out as >more "apparent" horsepower.  I don’t pretend to know myself, that’s >why I ask here, politely.

Yes, that’s true, but again, you’re not going to notice a pound less. > Anyhow, if minimum unsprung weight is a real necessity, go find > some magnesium wheels and never mind the tires. >I understand that you should be ready to clean and polish them every >day, too.

Yes, real mag wheels are a race track thing. They can’t stand up to road salt at all for instance. >I’d ask you again to FOCUS ON THE QUESTION:  Diminishing returns in >unsprung weight, rotational mass, ride and handling.

You’re way out on the tapering end of that diminishing return. >The question is one of where and when additional investments in one >area don’t generate payoffs that would be more easily attained >elsewhere.

That’s precisely where you’re at.

Response:

>I’m already excited about the prospect of new alloys that will shave >seven pounds off the corners, or a pound or two less depending on the >plus sizing factor. >Now I’m seeking advice about diminishing marginal returns as regards >more rubber on the road versus further reducing unsprung weight.

What for? Are you after good handling while going sideways through corners on bumpy roads? Unsprung weight is important if you’re racing on bumpy tracks or rallying in the boondocks. Otherwise chasing after every last pound is hardly worth it. Anyhow, if minimum unsprung weight is a real necessity, go find some magnesium wheels and never mind the tires.

Response:

I’m already excited about the prospect of new alloys that will shave seven pounds off the corners, or a pound or two less depending on the plus sizing factor. Now I’m seeking advice about diminishing marginal returns as regards more rubber on the road versus further reducing unsprung weight. My ‘05 Accord LX 4Cyl 5M came with Michelin’s "CAFE" tires, good for fuel economy but not much else, scoring in the bottom half of most everything in Performance All-Season category.  But they are already fairly light for 205/65 HR15 92H tires, at 21 pounds each.   My challenge is to find the best weight to performace ratio for the tire.  Less unsprung weight means the suspension works better at what it does, including keeping that tire on the pavement where it can do some good.   Goodyear TripleTreds score very high marks for ride and noise comfort, but do they score so well _because_ they’re 5# heavier per tire?  I probably wouldn’t pay that price if I could have a pretty good ride in a less beefy tire. It’s easy enough to improve the wet and dry traction with better compounds.  Improving handling and steering response can be done by brand selection, but sometimes it means reducing the aspect ratio. One challenge I face is figuring out how much of (handling/ride) to buy just by switching tire makers at the same size.  Some tire makers score dramatically better than others in Tire Rack’s ratings, such that just by switching makers, you gain improvements in both areas at the same time.  (But switching to the top rated Turanza tire in the same category adds four pounds!) Then again it’s possible to make improvements in one area by trading off against another. The examples below adjust unsprung weight changes for plus sizing. With example (2) below (Kumho ECSTA HP4 716s), I can get 8/10" more rubber at the OE TIRE weight, while cutting the sidewall by 6/10". Matching the stock tire exactly with option (1) would mean giving back two pounds in exchange for across the board preformance by changing brands. With option (3) you drop one more NET pound, putting you eight pounds lighter overall 22# Steelies + 21# OE Tire = 43# W+Tire 1) 205/65 HR15 92H—38–5—8.1" 2) 215/55 HR16 91H—36–7—8.9" 3) 205/55 HR16 89H—35–8—8.4" 4) 205/60 HR16 91H—36–7—8.2" (16×7 alloys are a pound heavier than 15×7) If they all satisfied your +/- 3% speedo, and the speed rating was OK and the load rating didn’t matter, which would you pick for: Steering response / Handling / Turn-in? Ride comfort? Throttle response / acceleration? Fuel economy? Seems to me that the 19#/8.4" section width might be the sweet spot — but that depends on the diminishing returns theory of rubber on the road vs unsprung weight! (The 65/60/55 differences are probably mild enough to be inoffensive.) Thanks for your thoughts on this. — CL. | Charles Lasitter   | Mailing / Shipping | | 401/728-1987       | 14 Cooke St        | | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |

Response:

sounds like the headgasket probably is bad. an easy way to tell is to do a compression test, both with the engine hot and cold. you can do it yourself pretty easily, the test kit is about $25 at your local parts store and it only requires you to pull your spark plugs and crank the engine for a few seconds for each cylinder. Also there is a test a mechanic can do where they check the bubbles you’re seeing for carbon monoxide, a sure sign it’s coming from the combustion chamber. as long as you’re pulling the head you might as well test the thermostat, you can tie a string to it and drop it in a pot of hot water on the stove, use a candy thermometer or something to verify it opens at the right temp. be advised they START to open at the rated temp, they’re fully open at 20-30F higher. usualy a radiator problem is obvious, IE it leaks or it’s really clogged. while you’re at it, have you checked your water pump?

Response:

Firestone doing something right? I hear it happens sometimes (but people see the Nessy monster too, sometimes): My daughter had her oil done there once. Right after that job, the engine blew by seizing and throwing a rod. When I found the oil plug missing and went there to yell at them, the manager said that "99% of the time those plugs don’t just fall out".. At that time I wasn’t sure what scared me more: that they figure that sometimes plugs are supposed to fall out _OR_ that they actually have statistics on it…. They replaced the engine, after much grumbling and arguing on my part. Firestone may have one or two people at their facilities that actually know what’s going on, but most their mechanics there aren’t, IMO. (or/and they’ve never heard of a torque wrench). Remco .

Response:

My 93 honda civic overheats. I took it to a mechanics(firestone) he did pressure test and said that the thermostat and radiator have to be replaced. I had warrenty for radiator from another mechanic so I took my car back to him to fix the radiator. He said that the overheating is not from thermostat or radiator it is because the head gashead is gone. I am confused! what is really happening to my car. I see bubble coming out in the coolant tank when the engin is on! ENR

Response:

> My 93 honda civic overheats. I took it to a mechanics(firestone) he did > pressure test and said that the thermostat and radiator have to be > replaced. I had warrenty for radiator from another mechanic so I took my > car back to him to fix the radiator. He said that the overheating is not > from thermostat or radiator it is because the head gashead is gone. I am > confused! what is really happening to my car. I see bubble coming out in > the coolant tank when the engin is on! > ENR

Sounds like your head GASKET may have failed, and the engine is blowing bubbles in the coolant. One quick thing to try first if there are no external leaks is to replace the rad cap. If it goes bad, coolant will boil, resulting in similar symptoms to a failed head gasket. Rad caps are cheap. — TeGGeR

>  89 civic. I went to a shop and asked about the leaking. > The man told me it is the engine oil is leaking not coolant. > He said it’s about $400 to fix the timing belt, camshaft seal > and water pump. I asked him it’s bit expensive for 16 yr old car. >  He said that he used a good part and warned me not to use >  cheap made in china stuff. I don’t know if I believe him. > I would like to fix by myself. I can take out the drivebelt. >  My problem is the timing belt and it’s alignment thing. I did read > about timing belt thing from manual and other self-help book but I’m > not smart enough to understand it.  I’m still confused. Do you know any > website article by step by step help?  Photo website could be much > helpful.

$400 bucks is a good price. The Honda dealer will want $650-700. — "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," George Bush, Feb 22 2005 http://www.quantumphilosophy.net/files/clips/TimRyan_Medium.mov http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm "Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" – Slim

Response:

>  89 civic. I went to a shop and asked about the leaking. > The man told me it is the engine oil is leaking not coolant. > He said it’s about $400 to fix the timing belt, camshaft seal > and water pump. I asked him it’s bit expensive for 16 yr old car. >  He said that he used a good part and warned me not to use >  cheap made in china stuff. I don’t know if I believe him. > I would like to fix by myself. I can take out the drivebelt. >  My problem is the timing belt and it’s alignment thing. I did read > about timing belt thing from manual and other self-help book but I’m > not smart enough to understand it.  I’m still confused. Do you know any > website article by step by step help?  Photo website could be much > helpful.

Replacing the timing belt is not a big mental challenge, but the consequences of doing it wrong are grave. If you don’t get the timing right, you could very easily ruin the valve train, as most Honda engines are interference engines. Doing the timing belt yourself is a big pain in the you know where, access is very limited and you have to fight with the crank pulley bolt (torque to 135 lb – ft on my engine, takes a lot more than that to get it loose). I have changed timing belts on other cars, but after reading the shop manual for my Civic I decided it was money well spent to have someone else do it.

Response:

 89 civic. I went to a shop and asked about the leaking. The man told me it is the engine oil is leaking not coolant. He said it’s about $400 to fix the timing belt, camshaft seal and water pump. I asked him it’s bit expensive for 16 yr old car.  He said that he used a good part and warned me not to use  cheap made in china stuff. I don’t know if I believe him. I would like to fix by myself. I can take out the drivebelt.  My problem is the timing belt and it’s alignment thing. I did read about timing belt thing from manual and other self-help book but I’m not smart enough to understand it.  I’m still confused. Do you know any website article by step by step help?  Photo website could be much helpful.

Response:

> 89 civic. I went to a shop and asked about the leaking. > The man told me it is the engine oil is leaking not coolant. > He said it’s about $400 to fix the timing belt, camshaft seal > and water pump. I asked him it’s bit expensive for 16 yr old car. > He said that he used a good part and warned me not to use > cheap made in china stuff. I don’t know if I believe him. > I would like to fix by myself. I can take out the drivebelt. > My problem is the timing belt and it’s alignment thing. I did read > about timing belt thing from manual and other self-help book but I’m > not smart enough to understand it.  I’m still confused. Do you know any > website article by step by step help?  Photo website could be much > helpful.

If you don’t know what you’re doing, take it to somebody else to do it. It is not easy for a beginner. It is the only thing I don’t do to my car as preventive maintenance. $400 is about right if he uses Honda parts and includes the water pump.

Response:

It is especially difficult for someone that doesn’t know the difference between leaking oil or leaking anti freeze……

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 89 civic. I went to a shop and asked about the leaking. > The man told me it is the engine oil is leaking not coolant. > He said it’s about $400 to fix the timing belt, camshaft seal > and water pump. I asked him it’s bit expensive for 16 yr old car. > He said that he used a good part and warned me not to use > cheap made in china stuff. I don’t know if I believe him. > I would like to fix by myself. I can take out the drivebelt. > My problem is the timing belt and it’s alignment thing. I did read > about timing belt thing from manual and other self-help book but I’m > not smart enough to understand it.  I’m still confused. Do you know any > website article by step by step help?  Photo website could be much > helpful. > If you don’t know what you’re doing, take it to somebody else to do it. It > is not easy for a beginner. It is the only thing I don’t do to my car as > preventive maintenance. $400 is about right if he uses Honda parts and > includes the water pump.

Response:

I have a 93 honda civic. I recently changed the timing belt and water pump. Now, it gives knocking shound when I press hard the accelerator. Could anybody help me to understand this problems? Thanks Enr

Response:

Check the cam timing, sounds like your one tooth off.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 93 honda civic. I recently changed the timing belt and water pump. > Now, it gives knocking shound when I press hard the accelerator. Could > anybody help me to understand this problems? > Thanks > Enr

Response:

I have a 93 Honda civic. The temperature meter stays at the regular positions for some time and then moves very fast to the highest level. It happens especially when I drive on highways. What is causing this? thermostat or cooling system or any other problem? Please help!! Thanks Enr

Response:

> I have a 93 Honda civic. The temperature meter stays at the regular > positions for some time and then moves very fast to the highest level. It > happens especially when I drive on highways. What is causing this? > thermostat or cooling system or any other problem? Please help!!

Need more detail: How long on the highway before it starts to overheat? Happens every time? When the needle starts movng up, does it go back down if you turn your interior heater on full blast? Four possibilites right now: 1) Bad thermostat 2) Bad rad cap 3) Blocked rad 4) Fins on rad corroded and falling off. — TeGGeR

Turned out to be the spark plugs being lose like you guys said. It was literally almost all the way out. So I just screwed it back in and it’s smooth now. Thanks a lot! John

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello, > I have a 92 Honda Civic DX Hatch and when looking from the front of the car > back, the left most spark plug vibrates while the car is running. When I > push on top of the spark plug cable right at the valve cover, it seems like > something is hitting the spark plug and it’s jumping up and down. Any idea > what it is and how to fix it? > It’s only doing it on the driver’s side cylinder (most left) and the others > are fine. > Thanks in advance!

Response:

www.sohchonda.com I’m one of the admin’s there. Mostly a performance site. I started on RAMH usenet group 9 years ago when I was using WebTV. I still stick around, just to help.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Turned out to be the spark plugs being lose like you guys said. It was > literally almost all the way out. So I just screwed it back in and it’s > smooth now. > Thanks a lot! > John > Hello, > I have a 92 Honda Civic DX Hatch and when looking from the front of the > car > back, the left most spark plug vibrates while the car is running. When I > push on top of the spark plug cable right at the valve cover, it seems > like > something is hitting the spark plug and it’s jumping up and down. Any idea > what it is and how to fix it? > It’s only doing it on the driver’s side cylinder (most left) and the > others > are fine. > Thanks in advance!

Response:

> Hello, > I have a 92 Honda Civic DX Hatch and when looking from the front of the car > back, the left most spark plug vibrates while the car is running. When I > push on top of the spark plug cable right at the valve cover, it seems like > something is hitting the spark plug and it’s jumping up and down. Any idea > what it is and how to fix it? > It’s only doing it on the driver’s side cylinder (most left) and the others > are fine. > Thanks in advance!

The spark plug is unscrewed or the valve cover gasket there is blown.

Response:

Could it be that the valves need adjustment? I haven’t opened an D series engine yet so I’m not sure what to expect. I know it’s a SOHC so I was thinking the valves could be hitting the spark plug. I’ll go tighten it down now and see if that makes any difference. Thanks!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello, > I have a 92 Honda Civic DX Hatch and when looking from the front of the car > back, the left most spark plug vibrates while the car is running. When I > push on top of the spark plug cable right at the valve cover, it seems like > something is hitting the spark plug and it’s jumping up and down. Any idea > what it is and how to fix it? > It’s only doing it on the driver’s side cylinder (most left) and the others > are fine. > Thanks in advance! > The spark plug is unscrewed or the valve cover gasket there is blown.

Response:

Sounds good. I’ve added your website to my favorites. I just bought the civic with plans to fix it myself in case something fails. Seems like your website would be a great resource for both of us–the civic and I Thanks! John

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> www.sohchonda.com > I’m one of the admin’s there. Mostly a performance site. I started on RAMH > usenet group 9 years ago when I was using WebTV. I still stick around, just > to help. > Turned out to be the spark plugs being lose like you guys said. It was > literally almost all the way out. So I just screwed it back in and it’s > smooth now. > Thanks a lot! > John > > Hello, > > I have a 92 Honda Civic DX Hatch and when looking from the front of the > car > > back, the left most spark plug vibrates while the car is running. When I > > push on top of the spark plug cable right at the valve cover, it seems > like > > something is hitting the spark plug and it’s jumping up and down. Any > idea > > what it is and how to fix it? > > It’s only doing it on the driver’s side cylinder (most left) and the > others > > are fine. > > Thanks in advance!

Response:

Hello, I have a 92 Honda Civic DX Hatch and when looking from the front of the car back, the left most spark plug vibrates while the car is running. When I push on top of the spark plug cable right at the valve cover, it seems like something is hitting the spark plug and it’s jumping up and down. Any idea what it is and how to fix it? It’s only doing it on the driver’s side cylinder (most left) and the others are fine. Thanks in advance!

Response:

Tighten the spark plug.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello, > I have a 92 Honda Civic DX Hatch and when looking from the front of the car > back, the left most spark plug vibrates while the car is running. When I > push on top of the spark plug cable right at the valve cover, it seems like > something is hitting the spark plug and it’s jumping up and down. Any idea > what it is and how to fix it? > It’s only doing it on the driver’s side cylinder (most left) and the others > are fine. > Thanks in advance!

Response:

Check this: http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com/auto/jsp/mws/catdisplay.jsp?input…

Response:

Try http://www.car-part.com or your local U-pull-it junkyard.  No reaon to buy some of those parts you mentioned new.  In fact used ones might be better because at least there is a chance that the fading will match the rest of the interior of your car (I’m specifically referring to the interior plastic pieces you reference in the original post).

Response:

So what you do is order from a Honda dealer that sells parts at or near wholesale online.  I do the same thing with both our Honda and our Jeep Grand Cherokee.  Often the parts are half of what a local dealer wants.  Don’t know how they are able to do that when they are authorized auto dealers, but I don’t ask.  I’m just happy they are willing to do that.  When I get the parts, they come in the regular Honda or Chrysler cartons just like they would at the local dealer. Dick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Welcome to reality. The fact is that many parts on most autos are and >will remain Dealer only items. Why? MONEY. Parts that normally wear out >and are replaced or parts that interchange with more than one model/make >will be sold through parts houses. Parts that do not normally wear out >and are model/make specific won’t be since making/stocking/selling them >will cost more than they will return in profit. >- >Steve Williams > There seems to be many companies and dealers that sell Honda parts > online, but I am looking for one that sells more than just the >standard > stuff. For example, I need a replacement part for my 97 accord that is > a module consisting of a plastic framed piece with the integrated door > handle and power lock switch. I tried ordering it from my local Honda > dealer, but they don’t have it in stock and can’t tell me when it will > arrive. Plus, they won’t give me the actualy Honda part # so I can buy > it somewhere else. > As my accord ages, I am buying more and more replacement components > since I do most of the workd myself and would like to find an online > source, rather than running to the dealer each time and playing these > games. Thanks >—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups >—-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

> There seems to be many companies and dealers that sell Honda parts > online, but I am looking for one that sells more than just the standard > stuff. For example, I need a replacement part for my 97 accord that is > a module consisting of a plastic framed piece with the integrated door > handle and power lock switch. I tried ordering it from my local Honda > dealer, but they don’t have it in stock and can’t tell me when it will > arrive. Plus, they won’t give me the actualy Honda part # so I can buy > it somewhere else. > As my accord ages, I am buying more and more replacement components > since I do most of the workd myself and would like to find an online > source, rather than running to the dealer each time and playing these > games. Thanks

Someone else mentioned http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com. Good store, I have bought from them several times. I only have two complaint: From you place the order until they actually ship the part takes several days, and the part numbers on their site are their internal numbers, not the Honda numbers. Their prices are good, though. Much lower than the local (Northern California) dealer prices. If you want to get Honda part numbers, use your favorite file sharing software and search for "Honda EPC" (Electronic Parts Catalog). With any luck you will find one relevant for your location (North America, Europe, Asia etc.). The software has all the drawings (same as the ones at hondaautomotiveparts) and all the OEM part numbers. — A very modest collection of Honda tech info can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/ng_randolph

Response:

still making 5% ex-parts driver for a local dealership…….

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So what you do is order from a Honda dealer that sells parts at or > near wholesale online.  I do the same thing with both our Honda and > our Jeep Grand Cherokee.  Often the parts are half of what a local > dealer wants.  Don’t know how they are able to do that when they are > authorized auto dealers, but I don’t ask.  I’m just happy they are > willing to do that.  When I get the parts, they come in the regular > Honda or Chrysler cartons just like they would at the local dealer. > Dick >Welcome to reality. The fact is that many parts on most autos are and >will remain Dealer only items. Why? MONEY. Parts that normally wear out >and are replaced or parts that interchange with more than one model/make >will be sold through parts houses. Parts that do not normally wear out >and are model/make specific won’t be since making/stocking/selling them >will cost more than they will return in profit. >- >Steve Williams >> There seems to be many companies and dealers that sell Honda parts >> online, but I am looking for one that sells more than just the >standard >> stuff. For example, I need a replacement part for my 97 accord that is >> a module consisting of a plastic framed piece with the integrated door >> handle and power lock switch. I tried ordering it from my local Honda >> dealer, but they don’t have it in stock and can’t tell me when it will >> arrive. Plus, they won’t give me the actualy Honda part # so I can buy >> it somewhere else. >> As my accord ages, I am buying more and more replacement components >> since I do most of the workd myself and would like to find an online >> source, rather than running to the dealer each time and playing these >> games. Thanks >—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups >—-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

I find the exploded diagrams (appear to be factory) and completeness of: www.hondaautomotiveparts.com and www.slhonda.com to be a tremendous asset for Honda owners.  I’ve been getting parts from Majestic for years with essentially no problems.  I’ve gotten stuff ranging from maintenance parts to a moonroof glass assembly, though once I ordered a bumper skin to which they replied that they would not ship it, too big.  But in reference to your search about the little stuff, they’ll have it but sometimes it’s not cheap, ie. a little plastic cubby in the dash can cost $23!  But I like having the option. Does anybody know of any other OEM parts sites for other manufacturars with the diagrams and granularity??  Particularly Toyota.

Response:

http://www.hparts.com/ http://www.hondrparts.com/ http://www.slhondaparts.com/

Response:

Welcome to reality. The fact is that many parts on most autos are and will remain Dealer only items. Why? MONEY. Parts that normally wear out and are replaced or parts that interchange with more than one model/make will be sold through parts houses. Parts that do not normally wear out and are model/make specific won’t be since making/stocking/selling them will cost more than they will return in profit. – Steve Williams

> There seems to be many companies and dealers that sell Honda parts > online, but I am looking for one that sells more than just the standard > stuff. For example, I need a replacement part for my 97 accord that is > a module consisting of a plastic framed piece with the integrated door > handle and power lock switch. I tried ordering it from my local Honda > dealer, but they don’t have it in stock and can’t tell me when it will > arrive. Plus, they won’t give me the actualy Honda part # so I can buy > it somewhere else. > As my accord ages, I am buying more and more replacement components > since I do most of the workd myself and would like to find an online > source, rather than running to the dealer each time and playing these > games. Thanks

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

There seems to be many companies and dealers that sell Honda parts online, but I am looking for one that sells more than just the standard stuff. For example, I need a replacement part for my 97 accord that is a module consisting of a plastic framed piece with the integrated door handle and power lock switch. I tried ordering it from my local Honda dealer, but they don’t have it in stock and can’t tell me when it will arrive. Plus, they won’t give me the actualy Honda part # so I can buy it somewhere else. As my accord ages, I am buying more and more replacement components since I do most of the workd myself and would like to find an online source, rather than running to the dealer each time and playing these games. Thanks

Response:

In article <6478282f84e92e0e8ba40e04751341f3 > A good friend of mine just informed me that her 5 month old 2005 civic is > making a noise to the front end. When she took it to the local dealership, > she was informed it was a brake issue.  

Maybe just sand in the front disc brakes. While I haven’t had this problem with my 2004 EX Civic, my wife had it in her Subaru Forrester after we took it on a Ski Trip. The "grinding" lasted about a week, then went away. — jerry

Response:

I believe she told me it was a clicking sound, but I’m not sure when it starts or the duration. I will ask her and get back to you.  Thanks for your reply.

Response:

I will try and get you that information.

Response:

> A good friend of mine just informed me that her 5 month old 2005 civic is > making a noise to the front end. When she took it to the local dealership, > she was informed it was a brake issue.

Can you give more details on the noise? Is it a clicking sound when she first starts driving the car each time? If so, then there’s nothing that can be done because it’s not a defect, nor can it be fixed, it’s just an annoying sound.

Response:

> A good friend of mine just informed me that her 5 month old 2005 civic > is making a noise to the front end. When she took it to the local > dealership, she was informed it was a brake issue.  She was told that > this was a problem associated with the Honda Civics for the past > couple years, and it is not covered under the warrantee. She was given > a flyer stating this information.

Can you post or email me a scan of the paper that was given to your friend? — TeGGeR

Hi guys! I’ve seen on previous topics people talking about keyless entry and dome lights while refering to the OEM Radio for the civic. Can anyone please explain me what is about! What do they mean by keyless entry. thanks Blackhill!

Response:

> Hi guys! > I’ve seen on previous topics people talking about > keyless entry and dome lights while refering to the OEM Radio > for the civic. > Can anyone please explain me what is about! > What do they mean by keyless entry.

Keyless entry. You are probably too young to remember the days when you had to actually stick your key in the lock and twist it to unlock your car. Keyless entry is simply having the little remote control on your key chain that allows you to lock and unlock your car remotely. The 1996 through 1998 Honda Civic had the receiver for the keyless entry system built into the OEM stereo, so if you replaced the stereo with an after market unit, the keyless entry system would stop working. The dome light would also stop coming on when you open the doors, since the wire from the door switches was routed through the stereo. If you have a ‘96 – ‘98 Civic and want a new stereo, you do have options. You can leave the old stereo connected and hide it behind the dash, or you can buy an after market keyless entry system also. — A very modest collection of Honda tech info can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/ng_randolph

Response:

> Hi guys! > I’ve seen on previous topics people talking about > keyless entry and dome lights while refering to the OEM Radio > for the civic. > Can anyone please explain me what is about! > What do they mean by keyless entry. > thanks > Blackhill!

In bad neighborhoods, ‘keyless enty’ is a baseball bat thru the side window ‘Curly’

Response:

Thanks Randolph for your answer…. I own a civic 1998 LX in Canada and mine does not has the electric lock doors so I guess I’m ok. Thanks once again.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi guys! > I’ve seen on previous topics people talking about > keyless entry and dome lights while refering to the OEM Radio > for the civic. > Can anyone please explain me what is about! > What do they mean by keyless entry. > Keyless entry. You are probably too young to remember the days when you > had to actually stick your key in the lock and twist it to unlock your > car. Keyless entry is simply having the little remote control on your > key chain that allows you to lock and unlock your car remotely. > The 1996 through 1998 Honda Civic had the receiver for the keyless entry > system built into the OEM stereo, so if you replaced the stereo with an > after market unit, the keyless entry system would stop working. The dome > light would also stop coming on when you open the doors, since the wire > from the door switches was routed through the stereo. > If you have a ‘96 – ‘98 Civic and want a new stereo, you do have > options. You can leave the old stereo connected and hide it behind the > dash, or you can buy an after market keyless entry system also. > — > A very modest collection of Honda tech info can be found at: > http://www.geocities.com/ng_randolph

Response: