US Senate May take away our choices of SUVs, Pickups, and other light trucks!

From : ron

Q: john i have a 99 d 5.2 slt. i just had an abs problem sorted out at the dealer as autozone did not have the special unit to check the abs system. but the associate at the store told me he did have the tool to read conditions like check engine. i dont believe they charge for this either. good luck kr hello i have a 1999 durango 5.9 slt yesterday the check engine light came on. is there a way that i can get the trouble code also is there a list of codes and troubles available on the web. thanks john .

Replies:

From : max340

yep. nosey wrote do you remember the old song about the little nash rambler vbg beep beep .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote aw max . . . just when he finally agreed with a conservative . . . vbg budd he didnt agree with you stupid he used you. jerry oh! i for that vbg shit......... here you go ...... vbg..... feel better -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : the aquilian

supposedly it was a ss dodge with a 413 but i dont remember what the body style was. i remember even less about the specs of the vette other than it was fi and the one the song was talking about. iow they matched what the song said. when you think about the song it is ambiguous as to who the winner actually was but the lyrics never said that the vette ever passed the ss dodge just that it gave it a run for its money. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving 1962 327 fuelie smallblock. according to the background given out about the song the sonoramic 413 was in a 62 fury. budd i was talking about the restored ss dodge that t-bone mentioned having a match race with a corvette. was curious if the ss was a elephant and the corvette a mouse. guess it was in a mopar mag. roy .

From : max340

i have a 20015.9 1500 4+4 with auto trans. with 42000 miles. have never gotten better than 15 miles to gal. this is over the road in town it drops to 10. pulling a 16 ft travel trailer it goes to 8.5. why do i have to drive 300 miles after i unhook trailer to get the milage back to 15 miles to the gal .

From : tbone

max340 wrote i just find it interesting that a republican would be the one who started it. i find no wonder in that a democrat/liberal would want such a redundant thus unnecessary and ultimately impossible to conform to law passed. actual if he wasnt so stupid he would have know a republican is not the sponsor of the bill. then again he seems to rely heavily on non factual information in all his posts. jerry -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : tbone

$2500 denny $2300 -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving $2250 denny why i auta $1800 -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving $1750 denny i think that you two need to get a room - btw ill give you 1500 for it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving wtf!! the witnesss have been tampered with and coerced you have probably threatened cari with a stale clam. kim is probably in fear that youll find your way to the bedroom. gbfg reply from cari. you fibulator! take that from a female teenager i cant believe cari is turning on me already.g reply from kim if you denny were a beached whale it would take greenpeace in a rubber raft to pull you denny off the beach. it would take a whole tugboat to move roys ass back to the water the reason it would take a tugboat is .... well let me put it this way ya cant drive a spike with a tack hammer. i guess its time for sue to put in a few comments!! or is she sitting back in a corner snickering too much to type her comments on this tack hammer will be priceless!!! denny .

From : max340

that is the whole point. are you really this stupid. if the auto-manufacturers want to make huge luxury vehicles then they either need to figure out a way to make them conform to requirements or pay the gas guzzler tax instead of just slapping a suv sticker on them. and what do you think will happen when they change the standards for suv and pickups. we are not going to give up what we want. that is not the american way. the car companies will find away around it. if you have a problem with suvs then blame the government for regulations. they forced the car companies to build them because consumers wanted them. consumer want to feel safe in their vehicles. they want their family to be safe. car companies need to make a profit. it is hard to make a profit if you sell something that the consumer does not want to buy so if you add the regulations you are just going to force people to buy bigger vehicles that dont have to meet the standards. if i have to buy a damn dump truck too drive a big car then thats what i will do. and their are many others like me. government controls do not work because people have a yearning for freedom. the freedom to sell a product that the consumer wants. a freedom to make a profit. a freedom to decide what kind of vehicle is best for you and your family. and if we run out of oil tomorrow i can guarantee you that we will have vehicle that run off other forms of energy. why will we have these vehicles because consumers will demand it. and companies will have to produce them so they can make a profit. if you want cars that get 80 mile to an ear of corn. then consumers need to demand it instead of have the government regulate it. rick .

From : rick

i am attempting to replace my pre-cat oxygen sensor on my 1997 ram however i cannot seem to get to it. has anyone found an easier way to get to the sensor. also for a while my check engine light was reporting too rich/too lean for my post-cat sensor and i never replaced it. eventually the light went off and stayed off. recently my engine began to hesitate when i accelerated and the check engine light came back on. this time the check engine light read that the pre-cat sensor was responding too slow. could this be related to my engine problems aka the sensor failing and reacting thus altering my injecting stream -- --- benjamin taylor --- benjtay@comcast.net .

From : max340

the auto manufacturers could not build the huge luxury cars that people wanted and stay within the car fuel wrong thats why the epa created the cafe regs so manufacturers could build big cars if the market demanded. requirement so they built them anyway changed the body style and called them suvs call them what ya want they get registered as cars. since they have much lower mileage requirements really have ya actually looked at the mpg requirements did ya know that the bush admin is asking nhtsa to boost the mpg from a figure most suvs never see 20.7mpg to an astounding sarcasm 21mpg for 2005 and is that so much lower than the 27mpg for passenger sedans which likely arent getting thta mpg anyway and further are you aware that the epa mpg testing is done at highway speeds which by epa definition are to average 48mph and not to exceed 60mph here you are arguing for more stringent standards when the standards already in place are based on pure fantasy will never be met in reality and have very little to do with the actual speed limits on highways in the united states!!! but please do go on about those loopholes you think are so at fault for this whole bullshit regulation failing. the auto industry is building high profit vehicles to make a high profit not get around some liberal legality. correct they are getting around the legality to make a higher profit very good max. wrong. they are simply building what we want to buy. cafe regs allow them to build whatever they want so long as the corporate average fuel economy hits a certain mark. so if you want the automakers to stop building something you have to get people to stop buying it. they are not getting around any legalities they are following them to the letter. but i did enjoy your bullshit spin on that. many americans are far to self centered and selfish to do that. such as yourself buying a half ton truck you know one of those vehicles that will be affected by the proposed regs to commute if you are so concerned by the use of fuel in the united states sell your truck. others are to stupid to realize that oil is a finite resource prove it. finite in this case is defined by how much we are willing to pay for the resource. at this point there is plenty of proof that not only is there enough oil known to exist that we have enough for the foreseeable future but we also have enough in untapped oil fields to go much further. the really funny part is all those of you who think that the oil is going to dry up in the next few years havent quit driving havent stopped heating your houses and still expect the coffee maker to function in the am. all of this uses oil in some manner. even funnier even the liberal administrations have never committed a significant enough part of the budget to so called alternative energy to take this claimed finite resource a thing of the past. id really like to see your sources on this finite resource. and the faster we use it the faster we will run out. duh. now figure out when well run out and slow the fuck down on the freeway. when gas jumps to $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon people may begin to wise up lol it will never get that high. if it does the cost to explore for more oil will be too high so the dire prediction of destroying the rest of our wilderness will never happen. besides if it got that high the lack of oil would be the least of our worries. to fuel their selfish habits. as if you arent part of the problem you claim exists. lol 1 larger vehicles tend to be safer thus they are not getting around a safety law as much as catering to a market segment. once again you talk out of your ass. their mass requires much more energy to stop and that makes them more dangerous to smaller vehicles on the road talking out my ass ok lets get some facts on the table boner. safety regs that you talk about are not how dangerous one vehicle is to another. safety regs are about keeping the occupants of that vehicle safe. you can twist and spin all ya like but nothing you say will change that. safety regs are about keeping the vehicle occupants safe not about keeping everyone outside the vehicle safe. and to each other when two of them get into an accident. and the more of them that are on the road the greater the chance that the other vehicle involved in the accident will be another suv. wah. go sell your truck you are a hazard to those around you. 2 all vehicles up to an including the half ton pickup truck are already regulated by the feds for mpg. thus no laws are being gotten around. here comes that twisting of facts thing again. yup im glad you warned us. while they may in fact be regulated they do not match the requirements for passenger vehicles and that is exactly what most of the current suvs are now. ok boner more facts the new regs that dear diane wants to inflict on us are not about suvs they a

From : tbone

yea he is pretty easy to spin up lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving mr im better than anyone is losing his cool... meltdown in 30 seconds folks. budd this above all to thine own self be true and it must follow as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man. jerry wrote budd cochran wrote aw max . . . just when he finally agreed with a conservative . . . vbg budd he didnt agree with you stupid he used you. jerry oh! i for that vbg shit......... here you go ...... vbg..... feel better -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : tbone

the us senate is going to vote tuesday july 29 on amendments to the energy bill that could leave you without the pickup trucks and suvs to tow your horses. it only takes 30 seconds to act now and send a note to your senator with a few mouse clicks. snip get a life will ya 80% of suvs are never used to tow anything haul anything heavy go camping or drive over boulders like in the stupid commercials. and statistically its old that they are not any more effective in snow than a mid-size front wheel drive car driven by a halfway decent driver. rather theyre driven by the same crowd of bubble-head customers who 10 years ago thought the minivan was the best thing since sliced bread. youre seeing this as a black & white issue. the fact is most suv owners have absolutely no need for the low end torque and its the gear arrangement thats the primary reason for the poorer gas mileage. if you dont know this you havent shut off the radio and listened to the difference between the shifting pattern of your suv and that of a taurus corolla etc. .

From : doug kanter

that is the whole point. are you really this stupid. no that would be you. oh really well lets read on. the auto-manufacturers want to make huge luxury vehicles then they either need to figure out a way to make them conform to requirements or pay the gas guzzler tax instead of just slapping a suv sticker on them. what you keep failing to comprehend is light trucks which would never be sold as passenger sedans would never be bought by someone seeking a passenger sedan are not being used to get around the rules. already you prove your ignorance. how about the navigator escalade expedition suburban and all of the crew cab 2500s and up series trucks that people buy for no other reason but to carry their family. sorry maxi but once again you are wrong. face it boner the auto makers are simply building what sells. and you bought one. i never said that they didnt have a reason to sell them or use the loophole. i dont use my truck as my primary transportation. i bought it because i needed it at the time and still do. hell i really wanted a convertable but would have had a hard time transporting construction materials and furniture around in it. pickup trucks vans and suvs do not have the same requirements as passenger cars. so what so people have taken it upon themselfs to use them as such. pickups vans and suvs were given some leeway on mileage requirements to have enough power to do their jobs properly and safety issues because their primary purpose was in the utility field and not as passenger vehicles. youve just proven why you need to shut up for a change. no i am just confusing you again imagine that. the problem is that now the industry is building full blown luxury passenger vehicles and is getting around the passenger care mileage requirements by slapping asuv label on them. yeah that free market economy and capitalism stuff sucks doesnt it free market and capitalism have nothing to do with it. the whole purpose of the mileage requirements is to help reduce our dependency on foreign oil you know the real reason that we are now in iraq getting our boys killed. more bullshit. wrong! the reason for the epa mpg regs is to reduce emissions. epa stands for environmental protection agency not evict persian and arabian oil. lol wrong again. emission regulations are used to reduce emissions and improve air quality. lowering dependance on foreign oil will only happen when domestic producers accept lower profits and sell at home. lol remember that free market and capitalism thing that you referred to above. it just aint gonna happen because most americans are just to stupid to force the issue. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

extremists people that want liberals to stop telling them what they should/could drive are extremists tbone wrote thanks. i read it and personally while it does have some valid data it looks much like the typical twisted propaganda that the extremists like to fabricate. .

From : max340

you seem to know an awful lot about the habits of the gay man why is that you seem to be awfully upset about a simple little insult. whats the matter did i hit to close to home there homo. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving budd cochran wrote tbone wrote budd cochran wrote aw max . . . just when he finally agreed with a conservative . . . vbg budd he didnt agree with you stupid he used you. and you know this how think about it budd....... course if you want him for one of your buddies then thats your choice. however be careful as he is always referring to mens dick and other appendages in his posts. why he says he even knows the size of mine. personally i think he just wants to come out of the closet but cant get the door knob out of his ass. jerry -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : tbone

if you want cars that get 80 mile to an ear of corn. then consumers need to demand it instead of have the government regulate it. bingo!!! max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : rick

and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. the primary way for automobile manufacturers to comply with cafe standards is to make smaller cars with lighter designs. but these lighter cars drastically compromise passenger safety. a 1999 study published in usa today -- using data collected in part by the national highway traffic safety administration - found that since 1975 46000 people have died in crashes they otherwise would have survived had they been traveling in bigger heavier cars. do you know of any link to that study i am curious as to how they came to this conclusion and even more curious as to what they were involved with in the collision. it sounds like fuzzy math to me. i heard a report on the radio just a week or so ago that also claimed that automotive deaths increased by about 10% but that serious injuries dropped by about 30%. thats almost as many casualties as we had in the vietnam war! i didnt know that the vietnam war lasted for 24 years like the scope of that study. additionally a separate report by the national academy of sciences issued last august concluded that cafe requirements contribute to as many as 2600 traffic deaths every year. dispite their heavly conservative slant i would like to know what they are basing this on. i went to their web site but couldnt find a link to it there. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

careful tom vbg jerry doesnt handle truth well...unless its his definition of it. unfortunately neither does max as is evident by both of their posts. lol get some truth rather than insult and maybe there would be something to handle. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : rick

yeah it has a nice tree minot is a nice town also dale goo1959@spamcableone.net wrote abuse@aol.com nathan w. collier wrote few tornadoes low humidity mild winters mountains snow millions of acres of national forests less people.....gotta love it! stop already youre killing me! - -- nathan w. collier http//7slotgrille.com try fargo nd! the average income for the state is low but the cost of living here is fantastic! plenty of open spaces lots of lakes for recreation just a few miles over in minnesota. boating snow sledding hunting fishing! low crime very little gang trouble the cops harass the hell out of them and send them back to nc!. we have people from bigger cities come work with us sometimes. the one common thing the are surprised to see is that we leave our hvac service trucks unlocked and with the keys in the ignition most of the time. i was on a job with a factory tech the other day and when it was lunch time we left all our tools laying in the alley and went to eat. he was shocked when everything was right where we left it! greg .

From : tbone

i am planning to buy a new truck this year and looking ahead at changing from a travel trailer to a fifth wheel. i currently have a 97 ram 2500 extended cab long bed. i am looking at the ram 2500/3500 short bed w/ cummins ho. i love the manueverability of the short bed truck. if i purchase a short bed i will equip it with air bags and a slider hitch. i am looking at trailers in the 30 range with a wet weight of around 8600 lbs and a pin weight of about 1350 lbs. im looking to hear from experienced fifth wheel owners concerning the pros and cons of short vs. long bed trucks. thanks for your replies. john in pa. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote it figures that you would bring up that part of your anatomy but i really dont want to hear about your sexual problems. perhaps you should make your sex partners wear rubbers. that might clear up you manhood sperm in your farts problem. unless of course you like it when that happens then never mind. is that where your doorknob thing you fantasize about comes from you sick fuck wow ........... you giving lessons now i really dont think anyone wants to hear about your experiences closet boy. maybe i was wrong and you should just stay in the closet. why the question mark after you sick fuck you trying to make a pass there closet boy. better go find another sand box to play in closet boy because i dont go that route and i know of no one else around here that does except for you. you made the claim that the bill was a bad idea for one. thats true you also took the position that the article was factual and i just refused to believe it. sorry stupid but reading comprehension seems to be another lacking quality you have. i took no such position. i just said you never let facts get in the way of your arguments closet boy. hell i havent even read the article you are crying about stupid. jerry -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : rick

and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. small cars -- those no bigger or heavier than chevrolet cavalier or dodge neon -- comprise 18% of all vehicles on the road according to an analysis of r.l. polk registration data. yet they accounted for 37% of vehicle deaths in 1997 -- 12144 people -- according to latest available government figures .

From : max340

and notice i didnt even mention how styling for vehicles has gone down the drain. ive seen better looking designs thrown away at chainsaw speed carving contests. i concur. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

here is a link to the article http//www.serve.com/commonpurpose//cafeusatoday.html and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. the primary way for automobile manufacturers to comply with cafe standards is to make smaller cars with lighter designs. but these lighter cars drastically compromise passenger safety. a 1999 study published in usa today -- using data collected in part by the national highway traffic safety administration - found that since 1975 46000 people have died in crashes they otherwise would have survived had they been traveling in bigger heavier cars. do you know of any link to that study i am curious as to how they came to this conclusion and even more curious as to what they were involved with in the collision. it sounds like fuzzy math to me. i heard a report on the radio just a week or so ago that also claimed that automotive deaths increased by about 10% but that serious injuries dropped by about 30%. thats almost as many casualties as we had in the vietnam war! i didnt know that the vietnam war lasted for 24 years like the scope of that study. additionally a separate report by the national academy of sciences issued last august concluded that cafe requirements contribute to as many as 2600 traffic deaths every year. dispite their heavly conservative slant i would like to know what they are basing this on. i went to their web site but couldnt find a link to it there. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

i want to be able to fly. i also want a billion dollars. yet i cant fly and am not rich. just because you want something doesnt mean that you will or even should have it. but in this country you have the right to pursue those goals. just as the car companies have the right to sell what ever vehicle they want to and we as the driving public have the right to buy whatever we want to. they forced the car companies to build them because consumers wanted them. lol where are you getting this from. duh the average american auto buyer has always wanted a larger vehicle. when the government stepped in and made smaller cars safer the average american looked at it and said that thing crumples too easy and bought a bigger car. the government sets regulations to protect the society that it governs. which is the problem in a nutshell. government isnt here to protect us its here to serve us. the constitution protects us but only if we uphold its values. while i dont always agree with them i understand where they are comming from. lol consumer want to feel safe in their vehicles. they want their family to be safe. and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. not according to crash tests. bigger vehicles always do better. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. bullshit. acura mdx honda element kia sorento mitsubishi outlander tahoe suburban tracker durango ford escape expedition explorer and a bunch of others all got 4 or 5 star ratings in crash testing. in case you didnt know 5 stars is the best they can do. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. which is why crash testing isnt done as randomly as your lame excuses. crash testing is done at 30-35 mph on all vehicles. your comparison not only is lacking in factual data it lacks situational conditions which could make you absolutely correct or terribly wrong. please do not confuse a yearning for freedom with the typical greed selfishness and hatred for authority found in many americans. indeed this advice would be well used by you. the freedom to sell a product that the consumer wants. but that must be balanced against what is best for the society as a whole. only in a socialist or communist non capitalist economy. a freedom to make a profit. as long as you dont fuck everyone else over doing it. wrong. they can make as much profit as the economic conditions allow them. and if we run out of oil tomorrow i can guarantee you that we will have vehicle that run off other forms of energy. oh really and how are you going to back up this guarantee. because he knows that necessity is the mother of invention and that someone will find the invention to fill the need. i think that you are forgetting about 1 key issue the laws of nature. sometimes things just cant be done regardless of potential profit. bullshit. if the oil runs out car dealers will start trading horse and carriages. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : tbone

im not trying to fight either so whats your problem i screwed up i admitted it. budd redneck tookover hell wrote not argueing about anything you are posting this shit as if it was pure fact without a bit of disclaimer. if you knew it was wrong you could have acknowledged it in your posts other tnan babbling on about sonoramic commandos which was plymouths name for the early long ram engines aw ferget it. the race was according to the info released a grudge match. i goofed on the fury name big deal. yeah its a big deal i thought you were going to claim innocence again .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote well gee jerry . . .better the enemy you know and all that than a self-serving egotistical pinheaded piece of human flotsam that lacks the mature civility to try to resolve issues between himself and another human being. dont you agree after all you even implied that if i didnt meet your personal criteria in the catfish group youd ride my backside there as well. budd youre a lying piece of shit. want to back me down post proof of what you just said. you wont because you cant. just like your constant lying about beekeep now you think you have the go ahead with me. again youre a lying piece of shit. jerry -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : tbone

and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. small cars -- those no bigger or heavier than chevrolet cavalier or dodge neon -- comprise 18% of all vehicles on the road according to an analysis of r.l. polk registration data. yet they accounted for 37% of vehicle deaths in 1997 -- 12144 people -- according to latest available government figures you do realize that these are just meaningless numbers dont you when they simply denote small cars but dont specify economy cars as well they are also including just about every foreign spots car in that mix as well. gee imagine that sports cars getting in more single accidents then typical passenger cars. who would have thought... -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : rick

thanks. i read it and personally while it does have some valid data it looks much like the typical twisted propaganda that the extremists like to fabricate. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving here is a link to the article http//www.serve.com/commonpurpose//cafeusatoday.html and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. the primary way for automobile manufacturers to comply with cafe standards is to make smaller cars with lighter designs. but these lighter cars drastically compromise passenger safety. a 1999 study published in usa today -- using data collected in part by the national highway traffic safety administration - found that since 1975 46000 people have died in crashes they otherwise would have survived had they been traveling in bigger heavier cars. do you know of any link to that study i am curious as to how they came to this conclusion and even more curious as to what they were involved with in the collision. it sounds like fuzzy math to me. i heard a report on the radio just a week or so ago that also claimed that automotive deaths increased by about 10% but that serious injuries dropped by about 30%. thats almost as many casualties as we had in the vietnam war! i didnt know that the vietnam war lasted for 24 years like the scope of that study. additionally a separate report by the national academy of sciences issued last august concluded that cafe requirements contribute to as many as 2600 traffic deaths every year. dispite their heavly conservative slant i would like to know what they are basing this on. i went to their web site but couldnt find a link to it there. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

what model do you have i have a 2000 quad cab dakota with similar problem. the drivers door on mine will unlock manually with the key or with the sliding knob but when i use the power switch all doors except the drivers side work fine. i have power to the actuator but i still have not fully tesed the actuator / latch assembly. my dealer says 70 bucks or so for the assembly. tough bullet to bite just to test it. go to 12volt.com for wiring color codes on mayn vehicles which may help you. let me know if you figure it out! good luck. oddly enough my power door locks operate only the passenger side door lock. both sides only operate the passenger side. the lock still functions manually i can lock it just manually. the lock doesnt work with the driver side door panel off either so there is no obstruction. suggestions ideas -- --- benjamin taylor --- benjtay@comcast.net .

From : max340

tbone wrote you do realize that these are just meaningless numbers dont you translation ........... stop screwing things up with facts. lol you really are a petty little man. you keep trying to act like the big man but constantly resort to these childish attacks. the fact that i can so easily get you to do it really shows how limited your intelligence really is. now puppet boy what facts are you referring to -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

i want to be able to fly. i also want a billion dollars. yet i cant fly and am not rich. just because you want something doesnt mean that you will or even should have it. if you want to fly you can. you will have to go to school and past the exams like you had to do before you got your drivers license but you could fly. i am aware of that and will actually begin doing just that this spring. what i am talking about is being able to fly like superman and that aint ever gonna happen. and if you want to be rich i suggest you quite wanting it and start working for it. i happen to be on my way to become rich and i highly recommend it. good luck but that is still not the instant billion that i want. but you do make a good point. if people insist on buying these gas guzzling vehicles then they should be prepared to pay for it. and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. myths about small cars myths about small cars are strong. here are two of the most common and why they are wrong 1 small cars have a high death rate because they get hit by those big sport-utility vehicles all over the roads. fact in 1997 latest-available government data 56% of small-car fatalities involved only small cars 46% from single-car crashes 10% from small cars running into each other. just 1% of small-car deaths in 1997 involved collisions with midsize and large suvs -- 136 out of 12144 total small-car deaths that year. now this is what i was talking about. the numbers just dont add up. if 46% are from single car crashes 10% from small car running into each other and 1% from midsized and large suvs what accounts for the other 43% what was the percentage of midsized and large suvs on the road in 1997 i would say very small since most of them didnt exist yet. either way it still indicates that 43% of the fatalities were due to collisions with larger vehicles like midsized and large suvs. 2 small cars are necessary because they pollute less than big cars. fact federal regulations impose the same pollution restrictions on all cars big and small. the limits are stated in grams per mile of acceptable pollution not in grams per gallon of fuel burned. thus a large lincoln town car with a v-8 engine cant legally pollute more in a mile or 10 miles or 1000 miles than a tiny chevrolet metro with a three-cylinder engine driven the same distance. again this is full of incomplete information. the regulations are based onthe larger cars not the small ones and if you look at the actual wording it states that a large lincoln town car with a v-8 engine * cant legally * pollute more in a mile or 10 miles or 1000 miles than a tiny chevrolet metro. it doesnt say that the lincoln doesnt polute more just that it legally cant and also does not say which car the regulations are based on imagine that. nobody if forcing anyone to buy anything. people buy what slick marketing tells them to. if you are so concerned about the safety of your family why would you buy a vehicle that doesnt meet the safety standards of others. it sounds more like a status symbol to me. if it is just slick marketing then why dont auto manufactures use slick marketing to sell small cars or electric cars. because the current mentality is bigger is better regardless of reality and as long as gas is cheap why put up with the problems of electrics. and what is the point of regulating suv and pickups if it is not to reduce the number of those vehicles sold that is the purpose. sure from what is available. hell a m1 abrams would be far safer than anything else out there. should we all be driving them if there is a market for them. lol. and if we run out of oil tomorrow i can guarantee you that we will have vehicle that run off other forms of energy. oh really and how are you going to back up this guarantee. i think that you are forgetting about 1 key issue the laws of nature. sometimes things just cant be done regardless of potential profit we already have vehicles that run off other forms of energy. no we dont not the type of vehicles that americans want or in many cases need. we have electric solar and hydrogen powered vehicles. electrics are currently inefficient and problematic. they also have little interior room due to the batteries and an extremely limited range. please direct me to a solar powered car that is useful at all and what are you going to do with it at night. hydrogen powered could work but we dont have the infrastructure to fuel them at this time. but there is not demand for them. of course not. most americans want

From : tbone

tbone wrote thanks. i read it and personally while it does have some valid data it looks much like the typical twisted propaganda that the extremists like to fabricate. translation ......... i cant spin this and it would be to easy for someone to check out my liberal bull shit. jerry. -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : tbone

i want to be able to fly. i also want a billion dollars. yet i cant fly and am not rich. just because you want something doesnt mean that you will or even should have it. but in this country you have the right to pursue those goals. pursuing goals and being gaurenteed them are two very different things. just as the car companies have the right to sell what ever vehicle they want to and we as the driving public have the right to buy whatever we want to. now we both know that is a load of shit. they forced the car companies to build them because consumers wanted them. lol where are you getting this from. duh the average american auto buyer has always wanted a larger vehicle. oh really then why werent the roads filled with ramchargers broncos and blazers through the late seventies and how did the little jap cars gain such a foothold when the government stepped in and made smaller cars safer the average american looked at it and said that thing crumples too easy and bought a bigger car. yea sure. and the japanies cars made their foothold with the gialt cars that they were producing. the government sets regulations to protect the society that it governs. which is the problem in a nutshell. government isnt here to protect us its here to serve us. the constitution protects us but only if we uphold its values. part of serving us is protecting us. the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper with signatures on it and unless something exists to enforce what it says it is useless. while i dont always agree with them i understand where they are comming from. lol consumer want to feel safe in their vehicles. they want their family to be safe. and thinking that an suv will do that is a wifes tale. not according to crash tests. bigger vehicles always do better. yea against smaller ones. they are no safer than any other vehicle and in many cases been proven to be less safe. bullshit. acura mdx honda element kia sorento mitsubishi outlander tahoe suburban tracker durango ford escape expedition explorer and a bunch of others all got 4 or 5 star ratings in crash testing. in case you didnt know 5 stars is the best they can do. the problem is that those crash test are complete bs. how many concrete blocks do you see rolling down the road. sure if you hit a neon with your escalade you will probably do fine but if the next one is against a navigator you will probably do far worse than a neon hitting a stratus. which is why crash testing isnt done as randomly as your lame excuses. crash testing is done at 30-35 mph on all vehicles. against a fixed barrier. not even close to real world. your comparison not only is lacking in factual data it lacks situational conditions which could make you absolutely correct or terribly wrong. pretty much the same as your crash tests. when two vehicles hit each other at speed it is a whole different world then smashing it into a fixed object. please do not confuse a yearning for freedom with the typical greed selfishness and hatred for authority found in many americans. indeed this advice would be well used by you. lol. the freedom to sell a product that the consumer wants. but that must be balanced against what is best for the society as a whole. only in a socialist or communist non capitalist economy. wrong answer max by the very definition of a society. for an english major you sure do have a convienent way of forgetting the definitions of common terms. a freedom to make a profit. as long as you dont fuck everyone else over doing it. wrong. they can make as much profit as the economic conditions allow them. perhaps you have forgotten about price gouging laws. and if we run out of oil tomorrow i can guarantee you that we will have vehicle that run off other forms of energy. oh really and how are you going to back up this guarantee. because he knows that necessity is the mother of invention and that someone will find the invention to fill the need. lol there has been a need to discover a cure for cancer and yet it still doesnt exist. while necessity is the mother of invention not everything can be invented. i think that you are forgetting about 1 key issue the laws of nature. sometimes things just cant be done regardless of potential profit. bullshit. if the oil runs out car dealers will start trading horse and carriages. lol possibly after society collapses and begins to rebuild if it ever does. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

yes i know snowe is a co-sponsor but mush for brains made the comment a republican started the bill well i guess you need to go back and read since i said it was started by a republican which is in fact true. when in fact feinstein started the bill as the sponsor. few sources show all sponsors but the main two are fienstein and snowe. snowe only wears the badge of republican as she jumps on just about every bill the democrats put out so no surprise there. doesnt matter both parties have a hand on this one and both sides need to get a grip on reality. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

thanks. i read it and personally while it does have some valid data it looks much like the typical twisted propaganda that the extremists like to fabricate. lol only in this case its the nhtsa people who are the propaganda spreading extremists. the very same people who you would like to see impose more stringent standards on suvs mpg testing. thats funny...... max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

just because you want something doesnt mean that you will or even should have it. but in this country you have the right to pursue those goals. pursuing goals and being gaurenteed them are two very different things. in your words its not a guarantee thats at stake but whether or not you will be denied it on the basis of doesnt mean that you will or even should have it. just as the car companies have the right to sell what ever vehicle they want to and we as the driving public have the right to buy whatever we want to. now we both know that is a load of shit. its a load of shit only in your mind. anyone in this country can buy any vehicle they want if they have the means to do so. and the car companies can build any vehicle they want if they have the motivation to do so. anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves. duh the average american auto buyer has always wanted a larger vehicle. oh really then why werent the roads filled with ramchargers broncos and blazers through the late seventies flash they were. maybe you needed to take a look around back then. my familys smallest car was a valiant. and how did the little jap cars gain such a foothold due to a gas crisis. once it was over the car buying public went right back to larger cars. part of serving us is protecting us wrong wrong wrong. so wrong it would be impossible to squeeze all the wrongness out of your head and install logic. the only protection the government should provide is national security using armed forces. only a liberal thinks the government should step in to save every schmuck who isnt smart enough to think about consequences. personal responsibility should not be subverted by government intervention. the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper with signatures on it and unless something exists to enforce what it says it is useless. the people themselves enforce it by taking action against the government using the rights it guarantees. you obviously failed government class in high school. not according to crash tests. bigger vehicles always do better. yea against smaller ones. wrong. the crash tests are not vehicle vs. vehicle. again you lack the info you need to open your mouth. the problem is that those crash test are complete bs. how many concrete blocks do you see rolling down the road. lol i see concrete walls around highways all the time. your lame claim is indicative of your lack of knowledge. which is why crash testing isnt done as randomly as your lame excuses. crash testing is done at 30-35 mph on all vehicles. against a fixed barrier. not even close to real world. lol how stupid are you i have to ask because you keep picking the parts of the test that are real world. like fixed barriers and concrete surrounding highways. yet not a word about the test speed which is where the test fails reality. damn an obvious flaw and all you can do is run in circles yipping at the parts of the test that do parallel reality. pretty much the same as your crash tests. when two vehicles hit each other at speed it is a whole different world then smashing it into a fixed object. yup but instead of trying to crash every vehicle into every other vehicle they standardized the test. smart of them to do since testing at the level you think should be done would cost more than national defense or making more dumbass liberal laws. only in a socialist or communist non capitalist economy. wrong answer max by the very definition of a society. sorry society is not defined as everyone doing what is best for everyone else. utopia does not exist. only in a communist or socialist state does the good of everyone else take precedence over the good of the individual. in this republican democracy individuals are guaranteed rights to better themselves unencumbered by anything but the same rights asserted by other individuals. you still dont get it and i doubt you ever will. you just arent open minded enough to realize the bullshit you believe is false. for an english major you sure do have a convienent way of forgetting the definitions of common terms. maybe thats because im not an english major but i do have a dictionary and none of the definitions for society say that everyone works for the common good and less than half say they work together. wrong. they can make as much profit as the economic conditions allow them. perhaps you have forgotten about price gouging laws. there are no price gouging laws. find one and post its source if such a thing exists. lol there has been a need to discover a cure for cancer and yet it still doesnt exist. wrong. several types of cancer are curable. while necessity is the mother of invention not everything can be invented. while true ways to get around the absence of fuel oil exist and you know it. max spam filters why purify an undesired sub

From : max340

what was the percentage of midsized and large suvs on the road in 1997 i would say very small since most of them didnt exist yet. an outright fabrication. chevy suburban blazer s-10blazer tracker tahoe ford bronco bronco ii explorer expedition etc many suvs were around in 1997. either way it still indicates that 43% of the fatalities were due to collisions with larger vehicles like midsized and large suvs. wrong. as rick said the data states that just 1% of small-car deaths in 1997 involved collisions with midsize and large suvs -- 136 out of 12144 total small-car deaths that year. if you insist on beleiving otherwise you have no proof and are again deluding yourself. again this is full of incomplete information. bullshit. the regulations are based on the larger cars not the small ones incorrect. as rick stated the regs are based on distance not the vehicle covering the distance. it doesnt say that the lincoln doesnt polute more just that it legally cant when the car leaves the factory it is legal no matter how you spin it. also does not say which car the regulations are based on imagine that. thats because as rick said the regs are based on distance not the vehicle covering the distance. and what is the point of regulating suv and pickups if it is not to reduce the number of those vehicles sold that is the purpose. then the purpose is unconstitutional and against the laws of free trade as capitalism holds them. we already have vehicles that run off other forms of energy. no we dont not the type of vehicles that americans want or in many cases need. wrong. toyota and honda both have hybrids on the market. furthermore propane has been used extensively as have alcohol and biodiesel. wake up already. you truly are deluding yourself. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance . 222 264927 20030729030808.00758.00000478@mb-m25.aol.com and consumer demand is usually generated by good advertising. bullshit. consumer demand is created by the right product at the right time. well i hear they rent trucks and the stores actually deliver that stuff so youve still got no excuse from the blame you are spreading around. they do now but didnt when i bought mine. bullshit. you didnt buy your truck in 1945. lumber yards have been delivering building materials for at least 50 years. ya know i try really i do to ignore your terrible usage of plurals and word form but it all speaks to how educated you are... or are not. typos thats one thing but dammit its themselves oh get over it max. get over it hell its the biggest laugh of all you claim to be knowledgable you act in a condescending manner towards anyone that disagrees with you. you deny facts with proven sources on a whim and then after all that expect us to believe you have enough education to back your silly bullshit but you cannot even use the language properly. your improper use of words is like the exclaimation point on a joke that uses you as the hapless victim of yourself. itll be fun reading your lame uneducated bullshit replies on the rest of this thread. no need for me to rebut you already look so stupid it would be hard to make you look any more the fool than you alre

From : tbone

max340 wrote well i guess you need to go back and read since i said it was started by a republican which is in fact true. no i dont need to read it again and im not going to argue about it with you. im aware you said this was started by a republican but the fact is feinstein a democrat is the sponsor of the bill and snowe a republican is a co-sponsor who also just happens to be the person that introduced the bill on the floor of the senate for feinstein. now it is called the feinstein-snowe bill. snowe is not the only republican on the bill and yes you are right it is a bad bill. this same bill was introduced by feinstein in the last congress but it died a desirable death. as i said before i dont think it will go anywhere as it hasnt made its way out committee yet. actually this is just a amendment to title 49 us code we both know the guide lines in the present law were a pipe dream of the liberal mind. whats really interesting is the way some throw around the term suv. i can point to several vehicles that wear the title suv that get 25-30 mpg. if all suvs were driven at 55 mph on a flat surface i suspect all would get close to the magic number s.255 wants. jerry .

From : tbone

no people that distort facts and basically lie because they dont like something but have no valid reason for it are extreemists and both sides have them. only in this case the extremists you are bitching about are the same extremists that you want to impose higher mpg standards. oh really then as you like to say got proof funny how one persons extremists are another persons.... well.... extremists. true. ill agree that nhtsa sucks all the way round but for you to dismiss their data as so much crap and in the same thread demand they impose their agenda on suvs is purely hypocritical liberal bullshit. i dismiss their data as crap because frankly it is crap. it is a bunch of disjointed numbers and missing critical information slanted to make you believe what they want you to and even a casual objective look shows that. i guess there was one more thing i could do to make you look foolish.... point at your latest self victimization and laugh mercilessly. then you would be laughing at what you dont understand and that would only be laughing at yourself again. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote lol whats the matter jerry did i upset you again -. just about every paragraph in that article was full of conservative spin that a moron like you would suck right up. grow up dude and get a life. when you going to realize you dont have the ability to upset anyone unless they throw up laughing at you. and yet you still made yourself into a liar and began responding to me again why it that then you can add the childish posts before that when you made your petty attacks by responding to other peoples posts and called me names lol. is this what you call a man of character jerry you dont like the article because it proves youre as moronic liberal liar. if you really believe that then you are actually dumber than even i thought. just about every paragraph in that article is missing key information that would either cement it as fact or show it to be complete bs. i guess that the real question is why is really missing -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote lol you really are a petty little man. you keep trying to act like the big man but constantly resort to these childish attacks. the fact that i can so easily get you to do it really shows how limited your intelligence really is. now puppet boy what facts are you referring to translation ........... ill call him puppet boy but dont pay attention to who is really doing all the dancing. re-translation - i once again cannot answer the simple question asked so i will attempt to throw everyone off with a little reverse spin. and btw the one dancing here is you. now i will ask again what facts are you referring to -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote and yet you still made yourself into a liar and began responding to me again why it that already answered that once stupid. you just didnt like the answer. then you can add the childish posts before that when you made your petty attacks by responding to other peoples posts and called me names you were called names ........ oh no heaven forbid. like you never do that huh. you really are stupid. if you really believe that then you are actually dumber than even i thought. here is where you are proven a liar you dont have the ability to think. just about every paragraph in that article is missing key information that would either cement it as fact or show it to be complete bs. i guess that the real question is why is really missing really whats missing hell why ask you you dont know. you keep demanding facts how about showing a few facts to support what you just said. of course you know if you do then you will be proven the idiot you really are. jerry -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : tbone

on tue 29 jul 2003 183842 gmt jerry jerry1655@earthlink.net wrote ........... but budd i dont know. maybe i missed something during these last 4 years ive been around here. jerry to quote harvick he is what he is. beekeep .

From : tbonetbone

tbone wrote and yet you still made yourself into a liar and began responding to me again why it that already answered that once stupid. you just didnt like the answer. yes jerry i am sure it was a stupid answer but then again that would be fitting. oh thats right you did say that you went back on your word like the classless lying worm that you are. then you can add the childish posts before that when you made your petty attacks by responding to other peoples posts and called me names you were called names ........ oh no heaven forbid. like you never do that huh. you really are stupid. i never said that i didnt or that it bothered me that was another assumption of yours. but i dont claim to be the man of character that you do and then act like a spoild whining child. if you really believe that then you are actually dumber than even i thought. here is where you are proven a liar you dont have the ability to think. no i believe that would be you puppet boy. just about every paragraph in that article is missing key information that would either cement it as fact or show it to be complete bs. i guess that the real question is why is really missing really whats missing hell why ask you you dont know. well just off the top if 56% of the small car fatalities only involved small cars and 1% involved mid to large sized suvs what about the other 43% they claim that the all cars must meet a specific value of pollutants per mile and compared a town car to a cavalier. where is the actual number that must be met and what about the actual outputs of the two example cars he claims that even though fuel reductions were put into place we are still importing more oil than before. fair enough but he never said why or provided figures as to where the consumption is actually going or how many more cars are on the road now as compared to 1995 or any other factual data for that matter. it is this way in just about every paragraph longer than 2 sentences but if you want to post the complete article go ahead. i will enjoy making you look like the classless idiot that you have become. now straighten out your strings and be a good little puppet. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving 995 .

From : tbone

tbone wrote re-translation - i once again cannot answer the simple question asked so i will attempt to throw everyone off with a little reverse spin. and btw the one dancing here is you. now i will ask again what facts are you referring to you are the one claiming missing data in the article. that is correct. what facts are missing. i answered this already in other posts. perhaps you should read them and get your foot out of your mouth. as i said you cant understand or comprehend facts presented and never have facts to support your comments. the problem is jerry that i look at all of the facts before making a decision not just the ones that seem to suppport my argument like you do. when key facts are missing and sentences are worded to allow for escape clauses and to mislead the reader any one with an ounce of intelligence would be suspicious. i know that leaves you out. try another spin stupid. yes jerry this adds so much more clout to your silly arguments lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

budd cochran wrote if i had found where i was lying as you claim i would have posted it and an apology. i found i was correct. well then post what you found that proved you correct. you cant can you. just out of curiosity how do you figure the post arent there since none of the conversation was handled by email it was all done in the group. thats the point numb nuts the posts arent there to support your claim. lol this proves without any doubt that you dont practice what you preach. if you had any conscience or even a modicum of civility it would bother you. it would bother you that in a world filled with bigotrys and hate violence and murder that you are a part of the problem not the answer. yes jerry you make your sigline a complete lie. youre sick. you really need some professional help fast. the latest post i see was at 617 am today. the oldest of the 300 i just downloaded was at 620 am on 6/15/2003. doesnt look so dead to me. now if i could have only downloaded less than say 10 messages for the past month then that would be a dead group. who cares budd so you found 300 posts that were sent to the group over the last few years. want to try and guess how many were posted in this group the last couple years. if anything theres more evidence that you like to lie in wait so you can pounce on my errors. well if i did it would sure be easy pickings. ive tried to reply civilly to some of your posts that i had an interest in only to be if im lucky ignored. then you should have taken the hint and shut up. ok so youve decided for unknown reasons to dislike me. unknown only to you but just for your information the only person i dislike at all in the group is not you. i thought you were trying to stop hate murder and all that other crap one at a time.....what happened change of direction. i still think we could be friends or at least civil. why it doesnt bother me not to be your friend. i could care less one way or the other. jerry -- character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote sadly that was never my intention but seems to be all that jerry is interested in doing. not a valid excuse ........ as valid as any other shut up and it will go away....... same goes for you but you wont. pot kettle black -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

just charge it up with r-134a until the big linesuction is beer can cold and youll be fine. save a beera for me too! - can someone help me understand how to properly read a set of ac guages for 134a each guage has a temp scale on the inside radius of the dial. how do i use this in relation to the outside air ambient temp do you install enough freon so that the high pressure guage temp scale matches the outside air temp any help would be appreciated! .

From : tbone

i was looking for a good diesel. tried a dodge. wouldnt even move my horse trailer. come on its only 50 i said screw this so now im using a 95 f350 diesel with the 4.10 diff and it pulls with no trouble. if your not careful youll forget you have a trailer. i dunno whats up with the whole duramax thing. around where i live everyone has the ford or dodge diesel. on wed 30 jul 2003 211509 -0500 greg o goo1959@spamcableone.net wrote isnt it strange then that i see duramaxs everywhere i go. must be a real good truck if they are selling without any advertising my neighbor works as a mechanic at a gm dealership. i asked him how the duramax engines were holding up. above everyones expectations is what he said. he also added that for a first year out they are doing very well he is seeing very few in the shop compared to what they have sold. he has no reason to lie to me i am not in the market for one! the first year of any vehicle is usually a lemon to a point. apparently not the duramax. now time will tell on their longevity. greg .

From : tbone

only in this case the extremists you are bitching about are the same extremists that you want to impose higher mpg standards. oh really then as you like to say got proof lol yeah nhtsa and uh nhtsa yeah they handle both crash testing and mpg testing and enforcment of regs for both. sorry max wrong again. while the nhtsa may handle both crash testing and mpg they did not write the article that we are talking about. lol you are amusing..... as are you. i dismiss their data as crap because frankly it is crap. well yeah but.... you seemed to like it when it dealt with upping the mpg standards. i am not talking specifically about the nhtsa. i am speaking about the person who wrote the article. perhaps these things were not published for a reason as in not having enough information to come to any valid conclusion. then you would be laughing at what you dont understand and that would only be laughing at yourself again. translation i know you are but what am i well yeah... -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

figures doesnt work on a 99. it works on 00s and up. .

From : tbone

7 yrs on a rebuilt motor probably 125 kms on it. new rad and coolant 3 months age never overheated what is involved in replacing the head gasket walt any suggestions.. ditto - bubbles in coolant usually = blown head gasket. .

From : tbone

not that ive heard but it does sound like you have either contaminant probs with the disk brakes water most likely or youve allowed air to get in low brake fluid level. the first on is the more likely to give the problems you state. you might try giving the from system a good flushing and bleeding. budd texasfireguy wrote im still tryin. it would help if the dealerships one of which is owned by my wifes uncle would admit theres something wrong. i believe the problem is that this is so widespread a problem they dont want to get into it. it cant. thats why you need to get them fixed. budd texasfireguy wrote in my 02 dqc i can stomp on the brakes and the front will grab for a second and then release for a few seconds. this has been the source of more than a few serious scares. i brought it to 3 different 5 star service departments and they all told me it was normal with the rear abs. how in the hell can the rear abs cause the front non-abs brakes to release my 02 dakota has the same problem with the same brake setup. i can 2 foot the brake pedal and the fronts wont lock unless thay are on ice or snow. kevin campbell then you need to have it towed to the shop. you have serious problems if the front disks wont lock. budd dick wrote i only have the std. rear only abs. when i need to stop it doesnt! scary question do you have abs ill bet you do. if you have thats why you cant lock up. budd dick wrote my 97s brakes are dangerous when in a panic stop situation like im sliding on ice. no lockup.i just ordered a master cylinder 15/16 vs 1 on 97 & a booster for 10.5-31 x 15 tires off a 2000 durango. anybody see any problems with this replacement/conversion i noticed in 2000 dodge offered 11 rear drums as an option does anyone here have them on their dakota or have an opinion on converting mine i assume i would have to replace the preportioning valve also anything else besides backing plates w/ shoes etc.& drums cables from doaner truck. i know disc would be better but cost is too high. dick .

From : tbone

for sale flame red 98 dodge ram quad cab 4x4 slt larimie 24 valve cummins with new shell. 114000 miles leather wood real clean check pics at autotrader.com $19000. blue book is $21500. southern california.......909755-3593 .

From : max340

tried a dodge. wouldnt even move my horse trailer. come on its only 50 somehow i dont believe that for a second. and secondly wtf are ya doing pulling a 50 trailer with a less than 12000lbs truck max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

sorry max wrong again. while the nhtsa may handle both crash testing and mpg they did not write the article that we are talking about. interesting i looked at that link rick posted and it says right in the article that the stats were from nhtsa studies. i also see that nhtsa was the organization ordered by the president to pursue tighter mpg regs. funny both mentioned nhtsa. i am not talking specifically about the nhtsa. i am speaking about the person who wrote the article. the person who wrote the article based their conclusions on nhtsa data. perhaps these things were not published for a reason as in not having enough information to come to any valid conclusion. nhtsa publishes all its findings as public information gathered by a public agency. translation i know you are but what am i well yeah... so you admit to gradeschool behavior when confronted with facts max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : tbone

this may be comparing apples to oranges but i have never gotten good gas mileage out of a pickup. all mine were older 34 ton models and it didnt seem to make any difference loaded or unloaded uphill or downhill forewards or backwards coasting or engine off they all got about the same mileage. had everything from a slant 6 to a 400 v8 and inbetween too. i prefered the big blocks because if i was going to get lousy gas mileage i might as well have the power. i had a 67 that i replaced the 318 with a 383 and got better mileage with the 383 than the 318. its a pickup not an economy car phxbrd wrote how does the dealer explain the 11.1 mpg new engine tightness shouldnt matter that much should it i dont like the sound of that... my 2001 5.9l increased about 5mpg from new till about 15k. thats a totally new one for me. ive never heard that and ive always gotten almost exactly what the sticker claimed right from the beginning. am i the only one .