http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
alt.autos.nissan@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Deceptive Car Names Investigated - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/d65ac75bdbab44ba?hl=en
* 2000 Pathfinder - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/d9e4e3c1f05223d9?hl=en
* Consumer Reports: No to Chevy SUV, Ford crossovers, MyFord Touch - 3
messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/c904e51c1dd93e99?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Deceptive Car Names Investigated
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/d65ac75bdbab44ba?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 5 2011 7:10 pm
From: Hachiroku ハチロク
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:51:05 -0500, Rob wrote:
> hope you never have to put timing chains in one..........ugh!
I had my first experience with belts a year or two ago with a Subaru 1.8.
I had never done a belt before, so it says something as to how easy Soobs
are to work on!
>
>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:EHTUo.24093$v27.23155@newsfe22.iad...
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:40:22 -0500, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> just don't put Bridgestone's on your "Exploder"
>>
>> Touche!
>> I am a Jap car fan, but I was working for a guy who sold Fords, and I
>> came to LOVE the Explorer. And I HATE SUVs!!!! It's just a nice, capable
>> little truck.
>>
>> My band had a gig 80 miles from home, so I 'borrowed' one with a 5 speed
>> trans and 125,000 miles on it. We put my big bass amp in it, the guitar
>> player's amp, and the entire PA, and I got 27MPG average for the 160
>> mile round trip.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>> news:i4OUo.20738$2G7.1259@newsfe13.iad...
>>>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 07:16:52 -0500, Rob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Isn't this becoming a bit of a Pantomime?"
>>>>>
>>>>> some folks are making it an escalade!
>>>>
>>>> I think this thread is starting to Avalanche...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "DAS" <nobody@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ifupud$5em$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> "Robert Higgins" <robert@nospam.bogus> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:chq3i61hv6tbk37brf4ud3828eq41titje@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:54:47 -0500, in rec.autos.driving Hachiroku
>>>>>>> ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:42:07 -0800, Irwell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:25:03 -0500, Hachiroku ???? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:41:41 +0000, stellman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/01/2011 08:42 AM, sctvguy1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:19:00 -0400, Wes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like "Land Cruiser", "Pickup Truck" and "Toyota Van"? I guess
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the really creative guys were off sick when they brain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stormed those deeply meaningful monikers.... :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Land Cruiser was an old Studebaker name.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> your just larking around
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tell ya, this guy's got eyes like a Hawk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lada, lada, lada!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think we'd be able to reach an accord here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of Yugo to hell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't this becoming a bit of a Pantomime?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2000 Pathfinder
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/d9e4e3c1f05223d9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 6 2011 8:20 am
From: "e.z. ryder"
In article <c33Vo.18013$ge2.2846@newsfe07.iad>,
"Keith" <so_oke3004@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm going to look at a 2000 Pathinder SE. It has 185,000 Km. Asking price
> $6,000 (Cdn).
> Are there any inherent problems to look for?
> For example, I currently have a 93 Pathfinder. They had a problem with the
> frame rusting and of course the manifold bolt breaking, which were a problem
> with Pathfinders & Maxima around that model year.
>
> Thanks,
> Keith
The knock sensor on the V6 is a very failure-prone item and very
expensive to replace since it is under the intake manifold which must be
removed to gain access. (Google "Nissan knock sensor" for more info).
There is also a problem with the sealant on the pipe attached to the
thermostat housing that results in a very slow leak of coolant and
produces a smell of coolant when the engine is hot. There is a Nissan
service bulletin of this which replaces the sealant with a conventional
gasket. This is also not a simple repair and requires a lot of
disassembly to get to the part.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 6 2011 3:35 pm
From: "Keith"
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm going to look at a 2000 Pathinder SE. It has 185,000 Km. Asking price
>> $6,000 (Cdn).
>> Are there any inherent problems to look for?
>> For example, I currently have a 93 Pathfinder. They had a problem with
>> the
>> frame rusting and of course the manifold bolt breaking, which were a
>> problem
>> with Pathfinders & Maxima around that model year.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Keith
>
> The knock sensor on the V6 is a very failure-prone item and very
> expensive to replace since it is under the intake manifold which must be
> removed to gain access. (Google "Nissan knock sensor" for more info).
> There is also a problem with the sealant on the pipe attached to the
> thermostat housing that results in a very slow leak of coolant and
> produces a smell of coolant when the engine is hot. There is a Nissan
> service bulletin of this which replaces the sealant with a conventional
> gasket. This is also not a simple repair and requires a lot of
> disassembly to get to the part.
>
Hmmm. Thanks for this. With 185Km om it maybe I can pray this has already
been fixed & dealt with. I took a quick look at the truck today. Looks
decent for its age. I'll check it better Saturday.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Consumer Reports: No to Chevy SUV, Ford crossovers, MyFord Touch
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/c904e51c1dd93e99?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 6 2011 5:07 pm
From: Student Mechanic
In the same issue CU talks about hydoplaning and how to avoid
it. Yet they failed to recognize one very important point:
Choose front wheel drive over rear drive for the reason that
FWD is self limiting under planing conditions as a result of
differential gear behavior that always equalizes torque to both
driven axles. At the point of hydroplaning, one wheel planes,
riding on a film of water, torque is greatly reduced
(practically to zero lbs-ft) and the Opposite Wheel is relieved
of propulsive torque and freewheels. Vehicle speed cannot
increase; in fact, it actually slows and steering is maintained
by the continued road contact by the none-hydroplaning wheel.
This phenomenum usually occurs at between 55 and 65 mph when the
road is flooded by 1/4 inch or more. Conversely, with RWD, the
car will continue to pick up speed because the rear tires run in
the cleared tracts of the front tires. When both fronts
hydroplane, directional control is lost and a crash is imminent.
Beware of pickups, RWD passenger cars and SUVs for use as family
passenger vehicles.
I learned all this in Auto Shop II from a really smart teacher
who dropped out of engineering school to "turn them bolts and
nuts."
Student Mechanic, age 17
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 6 2011 6:04 pm
From: Nate Nagel
On 01/06/2011 08:07 PM, Student Mechanic wrote:
> In the same issue CU talks about hydoplaning and how to avoid
> it. Yet they failed to recognize one very important point:
>
> Choose front wheel drive over rear drive for the reason that
> FWD is self limiting under planing conditions as a result of
> differential gear behavior that always equalizes torque to both
> driven axles. At the point of hydroplaning, one wheel planes,
> riding on a film of water, torque is greatly reduced
> (practically to zero lbs-ft) and the Opposite Wheel is relieved
> of propulsive torque and freewheels. Vehicle speed cannot
> increase; in fact, it actually slows and steering is maintained
> by the continued road contact by the none-hydroplaning wheel.
> This phenomenum usually occurs at between 55 and 65 mph when the
> road is flooded by 1/4 inch or more. Conversely, with RWD, the
> car will continue to pick up speed because the rear tires run in
> the cleared tracts of the front tires. When both fronts
> hydroplane, directional control is lost and a crash is imminent.
> Beware of pickups, RWD passenger cars and SUVs for use as family
> passenger vehicles.
>
> I learned all this in Auto Shop II from a really smart teacher
> who dropped out of engineering school to "turn them bolts and
> nuts."
>
> Student Mechanic, age 17
>
OK, so that is one advantage to FWD... but there are plenty of valid
reasons why a driver would prefer RWD... personally I learned to drive
on RWD vehicles and to this day find them easier to control in low
traction situations, despite "common knowledge" being that FWD is easier
to drive...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 6 2011 7:39 pm
From: Irwell
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:04:55 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 08:07 PM, Student Mechanic wrote:
>> In the same issue CU talks about hydoplaning and how to avoid
>> it. Yet they failed to recognize one very important point:
>>
>> Choose front wheel drive over rear drive for the reason that
>> FWD is self limiting under planing conditions as a result of
>> differential gear behavior that always equalizes torque to both
>> driven axles. At the point of hydroplaning, one wheel planes,
>> riding on a film of water, torque is greatly reduced
>> (practically to zero lbs-ft) and the Opposite Wheel is relieved
>> of propulsive torque and freewheels. Vehicle speed cannot
>> increase; in fact, it actually slows and steering is maintained
>> by the continued road contact by the none-hydroplaning wheel.
>> This phenomenum usually occurs at between 55 and 65 mph when the
>> road is flooded by 1/4 inch or more. Conversely, with RWD, the
>> car will continue to pick up speed because the rear tires run in
>> the cleared tracts of the front tires. When both fronts
>> hydroplane, directional control is lost and a crash is imminent.
>> Beware of pickups, RWD passenger cars and SUVs for use as family
>> passenger vehicles.
>>
>> I learned all this in Auto Shop II from a really smart teacher
>> who dropped out of engineering school to "turn them bolts and
>> nuts."
>>
>> Student Mechanic, age 17
>>
>
> OK, so that is one advantage to FWD... but there are plenty of valid
> reasons why a driver would prefer RWD... personally I learned to drive
> on RWD vehicles and to this day find them easier to control in low
> traction situations, despite "common knowledge" being that FWD is easier
> to drive...
>
> nate
When push comes to shove pulling is better.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.autos.nissan"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.autos.nissan+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment