http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
alt.autos.nissan@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Toyota drags down new-vehicle quality average; Ford leads Detroit 3 gains, J.
D. Power says - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/10f50e549945325d?hl=en
* Engine Temperature Problem? 1999 Sentra 2.0 - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/54a063b2d0a4fdd0?hl=en
* OT: Toyota's chief test driver dies behind wheel of LFA in Germany - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/638f12263f63f7d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Toyota drags down new-vehicle quality average; Ford leads Detroit 3
gains, J.D. Power says
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/10f50e549945325d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 21 2010 8:21 pm
From: Gordon McGrew
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:54:32 -0400, dr_jeff <utz@msu.edu> wrote:
>Ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:22:37 -0400, dr_jeff <utz@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If every manufactured product had a 2% failure range, then the space
>>> shuttle would never have gotten off the ground, because it is made from
>>> hundreds of thousands of components.
>>>
>> That is 2% for the total system. Richard Feynman predicted that the
>> space shuttle would have that sort of failure. He was proved correct
>> when they have crashed in about 1 in 50 missions.
>
>Look at how many missions were delayed because of problems with the
>computers, motors, fuel leaks, etc. It is far higher than 2% of the
>missions.
>
>Jeff
Exactly. 2% was the catastrophic failure rate. And that was 2% of
all missions, not 2% of all shuttles. Fully 40% of the shuttles were
lost.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Engine Temperature Problem? 1999 Sentra 2.0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/54a063b2d0a4fdd0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 23 2010 12:46 pm
From: "DanielleOM"
Just wondering if I have a problem or not.
Normally I see my temperature gauge at approximately the 8 o'clock positon.
While driving at highway speed 65 mph this afternoon I saw the gauge move
just shy of the 9 o'clock position. I also noticed some preignition sounds
while accelerating.
I quickly opened the windows, turned the heater on the gauge quickly moved
back to the 8 o'clock position.
After getting a little warm myself I turned the AC back on and closely
watched the gauge. It did seem to stabilize at that position just shy of 9
o'clock.
I also noted the temperature gauge returned to the 8 o'clock postion when I
got of the highway and was moving at 35 mph. (with ac running)
Think there's anything to be concerned about? Memory must be going. Can't
remember where it stabilized at last summer.
Thanks
Danielle
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 23 2010 2:02 pm
From: "E. Meyer"
On 6/23/10 2:46 PM, in article hvtoba$lp$1@news.eternal-september.org,
"DanielleOM" <danielle.e@reply.to.group.com> wrote:
>
>
> Just wondering if I have a problem or not.
>
> Normally I see my temperature gauge at approximately the 8 o'clock positon.
>
> While driving at highway speed 65 mph this afternoon I saw the gauge move
> just shy of the 9 o'clock position. I also noticed some preignition sounds
> while accelerating.
>
> I quickly opened the windows, turned the heater on the gauge quickly moved
> back to the 8 o'clock position.
>
> After getting a little warm myself I turned the AC back on and closely
> watched the gauge. It did seem to stabilize at that position just shy of 9
> o'clock.
>
> I also noted the temperature gauge returned to the 8 o'clock postion when I
> got of the highway and was moving at 35 mph. (with ac running)
>
>
> Think there's anything to be concerned about? Memory must be going. Can't
> remember where it stabilized at last summer.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Danielle
>
Its not a reason for concern if it moves a little but stays in the normal
temperature range. If it never moved before, you need to check the
radiator.
First thing in the morning before you first start the car (you don't want to
be doing this when the engine is hot), check that the fluid level in the
overflow tank is between the "min" & "max" level (there are marks on the
side of the tank). If not, add 50% mix of antifreeze & water to get it to
the max level. Then open the radiator cap and look in there. It should be
completely filled to the top, no air space. If its not, add 50% antifreeze
mix in there as well.
If the radiator was low, then you need to start paying attention to it to
see if it is losing coolant on a regular basis or was just a one time event
No comments:
Post a Comment