I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up the
mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the
American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up
the mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving
the American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.

Sorry to hear about a good car getting lost Keith. I'll encourage you to
take a second look at what's available today though. That Cavalier was
indeed a very good car, but there are many offerings from Kia, Hyundai,
Mitsubishi, and maybe the American manufacturers that will provide you a
great deal of satisfaction. No - they won't be the same car, but they won't
be as bad as you are fearing, either. They'll have some attributes that you
Cavalier didn't have to boot.

The Cavalier was indeed a great car - but, it was not at all the ultimate
car. You can find a replacement.

--

-Mike-

On 05/07/2012 08:54 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up the mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the hills.

DeLurk

Keith -

I used to travel extensively and rented cars all over the US and Europe.
Now, rental cars are the most abused cars on the planet so you can
tell pretty quickly what brands hold up. For my money, the Honda
Accord is the best car (made in the US, BTW) in the category. I have
driven both the 4- and 6-cylinder models, and owned the V6. They are
superbly screwed together, run like a top, and with 20K rental
miles on them, they still were rattle free and ran fine.

BTW, the only difference I noticed between the 4- and 6-cylinder
models was the kick getting from 0-60. Around town and at highway
speeds, I found them remarkably similar. So, if mileage is an
issue, I would not hesitate to recommend the 4.

ReLurk

P.S. We've also owned several Acuras - Honda's luxury brand. They
are also terrific, though at a higher price point.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 5/7/2012 8:54 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up the
mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the
American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.

My son has a similar equipped 05 Cavalier which he got new. He gets 39
mgh in the highway and 32 in town.

Anyway good car for an entry level vehicle.

If you want reliable and several steps up and still affordable look at
Honda and Toyota.

On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:54:19 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up the
mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the
American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.


You should be able to find another 2002 Cavalier around someplace. Might
take a bit of looking, but sure there are some out there. 2002 is not
really that old. Not as old as the 1967-69 Celica ST that I have been
looking for.

Paul T.

On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:54:19 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up the
mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the
American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.

Sorry to hear about your car totaled, but thee are plenty that can
replace it.

My Sonata V-6 gets that mileage and with 250 HP has plenty of zip. I
just got back from a 2400 mile vacation and averaged 28 mpg with
speeds up to 85 mph. Some flat, some hilly. Far more comfortable
that a Cavalier and easier to get in and out of.

I've driven cars in Europe (Smart Forfor, Citroen CV-4) that could out
run a Cavalier and got over 40 mpg and climbed very steep hills.

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:54:19 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up the
mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the
American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.

I rented a Kia Elantra a few years ago and it got 33mpg at 100mph,
during my trip to the San Francisco Bay Area. They're built in the
USA, in downtown Bama. I was impressed with the car.
http://tinyurl.com/7ed2ed7

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:06:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:54:19 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

I lost my car. I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with 5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. It had the torque to go up the
mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the
American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.

I rented a Kia Elantra a few years ago and it got 33mpg at 100mph,
during my trip to the San Francisco Bay Area. They're built in the
USA, in downtown Bama. I was impressed with the car.
http://tinyurl.com/7ed2ed7

Oops. I misspelled "Hyundai" there, didn't I? sigh

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On May 8, 12:06*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:54:19 -0400, Keith Nuttle









wrote:
I lost my car. *I had a 2002 Cavalier Z-24 2 door coupe with *5 speed
manual that got 28 city and 30 highway. *It had the torque to go up the
mountains on the West Virginia turnpike at 70 and not bog down, as
today's Automobiles.

It got total last Thursday, and I have been looking for a replacement.

There is no car to replace it. *All are larger, have less power, weigh
more and get less gas mileage. *Is that what the liberal have been
talking about for the last 10 years when they say they are improving the
American Automobiles?

PS I had just driven through West Virgina turnpike the day before the
wreck, and watch today's cars bog down about 10 to 16 mph going up the
hills.

I rented a Kia Elantra a few years ago and it got 33mpg at 100mph,
during my trip to the San Francisco Bay Area. *They're built in the
USA, in downtown Bama. *I was impressed with the car.http://tinyurl.com/7ed2ed7

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Seneca

Hyundai certainly woke up to the challenge to build a car which could
compete with Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
They're now almost up to the Subaru quality standard. The new Impreza
gets fabulous mileage. 36 MPG (US) and starts at $17,500 in the US.
Very safe, very high trade-in value, very reliable. AWD.
For 20 grand? Nothing to talk about.

On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:


Hyundai certainly woke up to the challenge to build a car which could
compete with Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
They're now almost up to the Subaru quality standard.

Not many years ago I used to laugh at people buying Hyundai. Remember
the early ones? Easily spotted with the lack of paint on the roof and
hood from the sun exposure. Then they got better

I'm on my second Sonata and thinking about a third if the right deal
comes along. Both have been perfect with no warranty issues. You
won't find a body seam that is not perfect and the metallic paint
glistens in the sun. Built right here in the USA too.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:


Hyundai certainly woke up to the challenge to build a car which could
compete with Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
They're now almost up to the Subaru quality standard.

Not many years ago I used to laugh at people buying Hyundai. Remember
the early ones? Easily spotted with the lack of paint on the roof and
hood from the sun exposure. Then they got better

I'm on my second Sonata and thinking about a third if the right deal
comes along. Both have been perfect with no warranty issues. You
won't find a body seam that is not perfect and the metallic paint
glistens in the sun. Built right here in the USA too.

Echo that! Both my wife and I have owned Sonatas - I still own mine (2006).
Hers was an 04 and it began the inevitable decay of NY winters, but it was a
flawless car while she drove it. This time around we got her a Kia, which
seems to be the same build quality as the Hyundai, now that Hyundai owns
Kia. Time will tell, but all signs are very positive right now. I was a
died in the wool GM guy for decades, but I have never owned a car that was
as maintenance free as these Hyundais.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:


Hyundai certainly woke up to the challenge to build a car which could
compete with Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
They're now almost up to the Subaru quality standard.

Not many years ago I used to laugh at people buying Hyundai. Remember
the early ones? Easily spotted with the lack of paint on the roof and
hood from the sun exposure. Then they got better

I'm on my second Sonata and thinking about a third if the right deal
comes along. Both have been perfect with no warranty issues. You
won't find a body seam that is not perfect and the metallic paint
glistens in the sun. Built right here in the USA too.

Echo that! Both my wife and I have owned Sonatas - I still own mine (2006).
Hers was an 04 and it began the inevitable decay of NY winters, but it was a
flawless car while she drove it. This time around we got her a Kia, which
seems to be the same build quality as the Hyundai, now that Hyundai owns
Kia. Time will tell, but all signs are very positive right now. I was a
died in the wool GM guy for decades, but I have never owned a car that was
as maintenance free as these Hyundais.


I have never owned a Kia, but you can't beat them for looks.

--
G.W. Ross

The Lab called... Your brain is ready!

G.W. Ross wrote:


I have never owned a Kia, but you can't beat them for looks.

I agree. My wife wanted to downsize from the Sonata, so we originally went
looking at Hyundai Elantras. I was aware of the Kias and was open to them,
but had not really looked very hard at them. I did a bunch of research and
decided that they would be a safe consideration, so we added the Forte to
the list. We did look at Sonatas and the sister Kia, but she was pretty
resolved that she wanted a smaller car. I did not like the lines of the
Elantra, nor did she, so the Forte really started to look good to us. Drove
it and I was quite impressed. Short wheel base (though not really all that
much shorter than my 06 Sonata), but it rolled very smoothly down the road,
without the overly harsh feel of short wheelbase cars. Little 4 cyl (2.0L I
believe), with a 5 speed automatic. Excellent acceleration from a stop, and
more importantly... excellent passing acceleration without that typical US
economy car feel of it about to blow up. Huge trunk. Comfortable seats -
not a Buick of course, but comfortable all the same. Holds the road like it
had a vacuum cleaner underneath it. Tons of extras inside, including USB
and built in Bluetooth that works great. The car wants to put itself into
OD all of the time - even at 35 mph. That concerned me a bit at first, but
it pays off. It gets over 30 around town and over 40 on the highway. If
you need downshift power, it is quite quick and smooth in getting out of OD
and into a capable gear.


--

-Mike-

On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The
car I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled) could
maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

On Thu, 10 May 2012 12:59:16 -0400, knuttle wrote:

Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

Our old '91 Astrovan got 15mpg. City, highway, prairie, or mountain.
Never towed with it. You're either lucky or optimistic.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

knuttle wrote:


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The
car I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled)
could maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my
Chevy Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch
of highway and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

You are aware, aren't you, that you can still keep that car? The insurance
company will deduct the salvage value of the car from your payout, and you
can have it fixed. Don't know if that's practical, but if it is, then it is
a very real option to you. You get a salvage title for the car, fix it (not
necessarily in that order), and go on your merry way. I have done that
before, and it is sometimes the best way to go.

--

-Mike-

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2012 12:59:16 -0400, knuttle wrote:

Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of
highway and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

Our old '91 Astrovan got 15mpg. City, highway, prairie, or mountain.
Never towed with it. You're either lucky or optimistic.

I would have been surprised at an Astro van getting 18-19 pulling a boat
myself (unless it was a skiff), but I've never owned one, so that was just
surprise on my part.

--

-Mike-

On 5/10/2012 11:59 AM, knuttle wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The car
I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled) could
maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

Part of the reason that your vehicle did so well in the mountains
compared to other vehicles is the computer fuel mixture setting.
Vehicles originally sold to customers in mountainous regions have
different proms in the computer and or different jets in the carbonated
cars. It is a matter of having that adjustment made for the higher
altitudes.

On 5/10/2012 3:37 PM, Leon wrote:
....

... It is a matter of having that adjustment made for the higher
altitudes.

OP was talking about WVA mountains for Pete's sake. There isn't a point
over about 3400 ft on I-77. The tallest point in the state can't be 5000.

We're 2900 ft here in W KS w/ the western edge of the state at 3500 to
nearly 4000. Hardly "high elevation".

--

On 5/10/2012 1:37 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/10/2012 11:59 AM, knuttle wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The car
I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled) could
maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

Part of the reason that your vehicle did so well in the mountains
compared to other vehicles is the computer fuel mixture setting.
Vehicles originally sold to customers in mountainous regions have
different proms in the computer and or different jets in the carbonated
cars. It is a matter of having that adjustment made for the higher
altitudes.

is that true? people buy cars in one place and move to another all the
time. dealers move cars around between dealers, and i'd be amazed that
they swap proms.

On 5/10/2012 4:39 PM, chaniarts wrote:
....

is that true? people buy cars in one place and move to another all the
time. dealers move cars around between dealers, and i'd be amazed that
they swap proms.

I think not any more, anyway; perhaps there was a time in the early
introduction of computer-controlled ignitions when there were some
changes. The only ones I'm aware of had to do w/ places like CA w/
specific emission controls requirements, though.

In the olden days of carbureted engines it was necessary to readjust
idle for high elevations but that wouldn't really be terribly necessary
until above 6000 ft or higher and then generally only for permanent
change in locale; rarely couldn't "get by" w/o it. Of course, if you're
starting from even lower, the change is greater.

I can recall many, many years ago driving w/ parents to the top of Mt
Evans, CO, (nearly 14000 ft) and in the parking lot there the car had so
little power it could barely back itself out of a parking spot in a
nearly level lot.

http://www.mountevans.com/

BTW, really cool place; take the time to do it if you're ever in the
area--well worth it.

--

On 5/10/2012 4:05 PM, dpb wrote:
On 5/10/2012 3:37 PM, Leon wrote:
...

... It is a matter of having that adjustment made for the higher
altitudes.

OP was talking about WVA mountains for Pete's sake. There isn't a point
over about 3400 ft on I-77. The tallest point in the state can't be 5000.

We're 2900 ft here in W KS w/ the western edge of the state at 3500 to
nearly 4000. Hardly "high elevation".

--



Try to keep up. :!) I responded to him on his response to Larry
mentioning the Canadian Rockies. Those are more than foot hills.

On 5/9/2012 7:51 AM, G.W. Ross wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:


Hyundai certainly woke up to the challenge to build a car which could
compete with Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
They're now almost up to the Subaru quality standard.

Not many years ago I used to laugh at people buying Hyundai. Remember
the early ones? Easily spotted with the lack of paint on the roof and
hood from the sun exposure. Then they got better

I'm on my second Sonata and thinking about a third if the right deal
comes along. Both have been perfect with no warranty issues. You
won't find a body seam that is not perfect and the metallic paint
glistens in the sun. Built right here in the USA too.

Echo that! Both my wife and I have owned Sonatas - I still own mine
(2006).
Hers was an 04 and it began the inevitable decay of NY winters, but it
was a
flawless car while she drove it. This time around we got her a Kia, which
seems to be the same build quality as the Hyundai, now that Hyundai owns
Kia. Time will tell, but all signs are very positive right now. I was a
died in the wool GM guy for decades, but I have never owned a car that
was
as maintenance free as these Hyundais.


I have never owned a Kia, but you can't beat them for looks.


Nah! I like my 2008 MKZ. I expect to get a 1013. Gorgeous!

On 5/10/2012 5:52 PM, dpb wrote:
On 5/10/2012 4:39 PM, chaniarts wrote:
...

is that true? people buy cars in one place and move to another all the
time. dealers move cars around between dealers, and i'd be amazed that
they swap proms.

I have been out of the automotive business for q20 or so years but there
are still plenty of cars that need that adjustment.



I think not any more, anyway; perhaps there was a time in the early
introduction of computer-controlled ignitions when there were some
changes. The only ones I'm aware of had to do w/ places like CA w/
specific emission controls requirements, though.


In the olden days of carbureted engines it was necessary to readjust
idle for high elevations but that wouldn't really be terribly necessary
until above 6000 ft or higher and then generally only for permanent
change in locale; rarely couldn't "get by" w/o it. Of course, if you're
starting from even lower, the change is greater.

Idle had nothing to do with it. The vehicles idled just fine, fuel
mixtures were changed with jet exchanges and or prom changes, if you
wanted to remedy the situation.




I can recall many, many years ago driving w/ parents to the top of Mt
Evans, CO, (nearly 14000 ft) and in the parking lot there the car had so
little power it could barely back itself out of a parking spot in a
nearly level lot.

Been there done that, but Rockey Mountain NP.

My favorite place is between Silverton and Ouray.

On 5/10/2012 1:07 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 12:59:16 -0400, knuttle wrote:

Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

Our old '91 Astrovan got 15mpg. City, highway, prairie, or mountain.
Never towed with it. You're either lucky or optimistic.

I have a 2005 Astro the last of the line. I have a book in the glove
compartment where I record every fill-up and all service.

I was disappointed as my 1994 Safari GMC Van got better than that. I
was compulsive then and recorded everything then.

On 5/10/2012 3:52 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
knuttle wrote:


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The
car I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled)
could maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my
Chevy Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch
of highway and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

You are aware, aren't you, that you can still keep that car? The insurance
company will deduct the salvage value of the car from your payout, and you
can have it fixed. Don't know if that's practical, but if it is, then it is
a very real option to you. You get a salvage title for the car, fix it (not
necessarily in that order), and go on your merry way. I have done that
before, and it is sometimes the best way to go.

I thought about that, BUT ........... On the Cavalier there is a 3 X 4
channel that runs across the front of the car that connects the right
wheel frame to the left. So while the car was hit at the front fender
this channel was ripped from the front of the car.

If it had been sheet metal and plastic, I may have considered that
option. Having that channel ripped from the front, brought into
question motor mounts, basic alignment, etc.

On 5/10/2012 5:05 PM, dpb wrote:
On 5/10/2012 3:37 PM, Leon wrote:
...

... It is a matter of having that adjustment made for the higher
altitudes.

OP was talking about WVA mountains for Pete's sake. There isn't a point
over about 3400 ft on I-77. The tallest point in the state can't be 5000.

We're 2900 ft here in W KS w/ the western edge of the state at 3500 to
nearly 4000. Hardly "high elevation".

--


When driving in the mountains it is not necessarily the elevation but
the grade. Given elevation effects the fuel ratios as the air is thinner.

On 5/10/2012 7:25 PM, Leon wrote:
....

Idle had nothing to do with it....

Indeed; I can't believe I wrote that; certainly wasn't what was intended.

I've not found any reference to dealer-swap PROMs for curing altitude
sickness which makes me think it isn't/wasn't the common cure.

I recall working on some of the GM MC6809 firmware while still at uni
for the SAE competition and there were some data tables already stored
in there that were switchable if need be by a software machination but
no PROM switch. That was clear back in the late 60s; can't imagine it
didn't get much more sophisticated than that very quickly and leave the
actual need to swap anything out behind ages ago...

Carbs may have had jets changed out if mixture couldn't compensate enough...

--

On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:52:30 -0500, dpb wrote:




I can recall many, many years ago driving w/ parents to the top of Mt
Evans, CO, (nearly 14000 ft) and in the parking lot there the car had so
little power it could barely back itself out of a parking spot in a
nearly level lot.

http://www.mountevans.com/

BTW, really cool place; take the time to do it if you're ever in the
area--well worth it.

Just put it on my "to do" list. I do want to get out that way and
this just adds to the reasons to go.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/10/2012 3:52 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
knuttle wrote:


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The car
I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was
totaled) could maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the
mountains. Even my Chevy Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat
in that same stretch of highway and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

You are aware, aren't you, that you can still keep that car? The
insurance company will deduct the salvage value of the car from your
payout, and you can have it fixed. Don't know if that's practical,
but if it is, then it is a very real option to you. You get a
salvage title for the car, fix it (not necessarily in that order),
and go on your merry way. I have done that before, and it is
sometimes the best way to go.
I thought about that, BUT ........... On the Cavalier there is a 3 X 4
channel that runs across the front of the car that connects the right
wheel frame to the left. So while the car was hit at the front fender
this channel was ripped from the front of the car.

If it had been sheet metal and plastic, I may have considered that
option. Having that channel ripped from the front, brought into
question motor mounts, basic alignment, etc.

I agree - not worth the repair cost and effort. I had misread something you
said earlier that caused me to think they totaled it more because of its age
than because of the damage. My mistake.

--

-Mike-

On 5/10/2012 8:07 PM, dpb wrote:
On 5/10/2012 7:25 PM, Leon wrote:
...

Idle had nothing to do with it....

Indeed; I can't believe I wrote that; certainly wasn't what was intended.

Well to give you some credit, when switching out jets it is not much
much more effort to adjust the idle while you have the sir cleaner off.



I've not found any reference to dealer-swap PROMs for curing altitude
sickness which makes me think it isn't/wasn't the common cure.


I recall working on some of the GM MC6809 firmware while still at uni
for the SAE competition and there were some data tables already stored
in there that were switchable if need be by a software machination but
no PROM switch. That was clear back in the late 60s; can't imagine it
didn't get much more sophisticated than that very quickly and leave the
actual need to swap anything out behind ages ago...

I am/was refering to the early to mid 80's when computers were first
widely used in most all GM vehicles. I was the parts manager and later
the service sales manager for an Olds dealer in the 80's, prom swaps was
not at all uncommon. There was basically no reprogramming going on in
the dealerships other than changing the prom and or resetting the ECM.
There were location specific factory bulletins that indicated a prom
swap if the vehicle was not normally operated in a location that it was
originally shipped to.

On 5/10/2012 10:59 AM, knuttle wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The car
I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled) could
maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

The 4.3L V6 that GM produces won't get 18-19 MPG even if it's downhill
all the way.

Just my personal experience.

On 5/10/2012 6:25 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/10/2012 5:52 PM, dpb wrote:
On 5/10/2012 4:39 PM, chaniarts wrote:
...

is that true? people buy cars in one place and move to another all the
time. dealers move cars around between dealers, and i'd be amazed that
they swap proms.

I have been out of the automotive business for q20 or so years but there
are still plenty of cars that need that adjustment.



I think not any more, anyway; perhaps there was a time in the early
introduction of computer-controlled ignitions when there were some
changes. The only ones I'm aware of had to do w/ places like CA w/
specific emission controls requirements, though.


In the olden days of carbureted engines it was necessary to readjust
idle for high elevations but that wouldn't really be terribly necessary
until above 6000 ft or higher and then generally only for permanent
change in locale; rarely couldn't "get by" w/o it. Of course, if you're
starting from even lower, the change is greater.

Idle had nothing to do with it. The vehicles idled just fine, fuel
mixtures were changed with jet exchanges and or prom changes, if you
wanted to remedy the situation.




I can recall many, many years ago driving w/ parents to the top of Mt
Evans, CO, (nearly 14000 ft) and in the parking lot there the car had so
little power it could barely back itself out of a parking spot in a
nearly level lot.

Been there done that, but Rockey Mountain NP.

My favorite place is between Silverton and Ouray.


On US-550 over Red Mountain pass pulling a 27' travel trailer with a
2009 Ford F250 Super Duty.

On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:45:02 -0600, Max wrote:

On 5/10/2012 10:59 AM, knuttle wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The car
I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled) could
maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

The 4.3L V6 that GM produces won't get 18-19 MPG even if it's downhill
all the way.

Just my personal experience.
Somebody else is getting better mileage on a PT with the pedal to
the metal than in easy cruising!!! Everbody said I was crazy when I
reported 35+ MPG on 2 tanks chasing the tail off the thing through the
hills of new brunswick and maine/vermont while getting less than 20 at
the speed limit coasting out the 401 from Toronto to Montreal.

On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:49:32 -0600, Max wrote:

On 5/10/2012 6:25 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/10/2012 5:52 PM, dpb wrote:
On 5/10/2012 4:39 PM, chaniarts wrote:
...

is that true? people buy cars in one place and move to another all the
time. dealers move cars around between dealers, and i'd be amazed that
they swap proms.

I have been out of the automotive business for q20 or so years but there
are still plenty of cars that need that adjustment.



I think not any more, anyway; perhaps there was a time in the early
introduction of computer-controlled ignitions when there were some
changes. The only ones I'm aware of had to do w/ places like CA w/
specific emission controls requirements, though.


In the olden days of carbureted engines it was necessary to readjust
idle for high elevations but that wouldn't really be terribly necessary
until above 6000 ft or higher and then generally only for permanent
change in locale; rarely couldn't "get by" w/o it. Of course, if you're
starting from even lower, the change is greater.

Idle had nothing to do with it. The vehicles idled just fine, fuel
mixtures were changed with jet exchanges and or prom changes, if you
wanted to remedy the situation.


Just adjusting the idle MIXTURE could often get you by - it richens
the bottom end enough to make the engine run and resond better, but
does not get the full power back at higher speeds.



I can recall many, many years ago driving w/ parents to the top of Mt
Evans, CO, (nearly 14000 ft) and in the parking lot there the car had so
little power it could barely back itself out of a parking spot in a
nearly level lot.

Been there done that, but Rockey Mountain NP.

My favorite place is between Silverton and Ouray.


On US-550 over Red Mountain pass pulling a 27' travel trailer with a
2009 Ford F250 Super Duty.


Pulled 17 foot Bonair to the west coast with 3.0 liter Aerostar,
never below 50mph even on 4th of july pass, or is it called
independence pass - can't remember. LONG STEEP SUCKER!!!!

On 5/11/2012 8:45 PM, Max wrote:
On 5/10/2012 10:59 AM, knuttle wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The car
I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled) could
maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

The 4.3L V6 that GM produces won't get 18-19 MPG even if it's downhill
all the way.

Just my personal experience.

The gas mileage depends on the rear end ratio. I believe the same
transmission is in all of the Astro/GMC Safari Vans with the same gear
ratios. The standard Rear axle ratio, was 3.42 but there was an
optional 3.73 ratio. Makes a difference in gas mileage.

On 5/11/2012 8:30 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/11/2012 8:45 PM, Max wrote:
On 5/10/2012 10:59 AM, knuttle wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:17:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Those car bogging down on hills are driver inattention. They have to
push on the right pedal to make it go faster.

Agreed. We took a trip through the Canadian Rockies a few years back
and
even on the steepest grades I could maintain 40-50 miles per hour in
a 4
cylinder, non-turbo 2006 PT Cruiser.

Got about 29mpg doing it as well - I was surprised as around town is
about 18-19.


That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in the next car I buy. The car
I lost (Since my original post I was informed it was totaled) could
maintain 70 mph in the steepest part of the mountains. Even my Chevy
Astro van can maintain 60 pulling a boat in that same stretch of highway
and still get 18 to 19 mpg.

The 4.3L V6 that GM produces won't get 18-19 MPG even if it's downhill
all the way.

Just my personal experience.

The gas mileage depends on the rear end ratio. I believe the same
transmission is in all of the Astro/GMC Safari Vans with the same gear
ratios. The standard Rear axle ratio, was 3.42 but there was an optional
3.73 ratio. Makes a difference in gas mileage.

Did I ever tell you about the 14.5 lb. brook trout I caught?

On 5/11/2012 10:59 PM, Max wrote:
On 5/11/2012 8:30 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/11/2012 8:45 PM, Max wrote:
On 5/10/2012 10:59 AM, knuttle wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:56 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
e.

The gas mileage depends on the rear end ratio. I believe the same
transmission is in all of the Astro/GMC Safari Vans with the same gear
ratios. The standard Rear axle ratio, was 3.42 but there was an optional
3.73 ratio. Makes a difference in gas mileage.

Did I ever tell you about the 14.5 lb. brook trout I caught?

Glad to hear about it ;-)