Fuel Guage
Woodside64
when I purchased it. All checked out fine when I had the car checked by my
mechanic.
One problem I have found now, and I don't see how the mechanic could have found
this out, is that after you fill the gas tank up full and start to drive, the
fuel guage reads empty after only going 250 miles on the highway. When I went
to fill up for some more gas, the car would only take 6.4 gallons. The fuel
guage then read full again. The same thing happened again. I also noticed
that when the guage gets near empty it seems to move back and forth toward the
1/4 tank marker.
Is the fuel guage defective ?
Is it the sending unit at the tank ?
Could it be some wire shorting ?
I hope you can offer some suggestions. Thank You.
Charlie
Harry Crawford King III
Woodside64 <woods...@aol.com> wrote:
>fuel guage reads empty after only going 250 miles on the highway. When I went
>to fill up for some more gas, the car would only take 6.4 gallons. The fuel
Charlie,
I think that that is a feature found in many new cars, or I should say
modern cars. Other smarter folks (sorry, Steve, that doesn't include you)
might can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that is a safety
feature. Well, sort of. The reason is that newer cars have electric fuel
pumps. If you run the tank dry, you screw up the fuel pump pretty badly.
Well, you have to replace it most of hte time. So, in order to lessen the
chance that you will inadvertantantly run out of gas, the guages have been
set up to read "Empty" before they are. In your case, it seems a bit
extreme, but it may be the same principle.
Harry
--
Harry Crawford King III
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gtd845a
Internet: gtd...@prism.gatech.edu
Josh Bardwell
Harry Crawford King III <gtd...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>I think that that is a feature found in many new cars, or I should say
>modern cars. Other smarter folks (sorry, Steve, that doesn't include you)
>might can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that is a safety
I can never decide if that "run an injected car out of gas and ruin the pump"
rumor is true or just an urban myth. I went too long between fill-ups once and
couldn't get the car to start the next morning until I put some gas from the
lawn mower can into the tank.
My fuel gauge points right at the "E" with about 2 gallons to spare, and I can
run it down to a little below the E and have a gallon to spare. When I fill
up, I usually put in between 10 and 11 gallons. 6 gallons sounds a little
extreme -- you should be at about 1/2 tank there.
My suggestion: Measure your mileage, compute about how far you can drive before
you're low on gas, and use the trip odometer until you can get the gas gauge
fixed. For me, the magic number is 280 miles, although I've gone as far as
330 before (that was when it wouldn't start the next day!).
J
--
Joshua Bardwell | "Always remember to never forget:
jo...@cc.gatech.edu | The places you've gone,
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6234b | The people you've met."
| - TCJ
Harry Crawford King III
Josh Bardwell <gt6...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>I can never decide if that "run an injected car out of gas and ruin the pump"
>rumor is true or just an urban myth. I went too long between fill-ups once and
>couldn't get the car to start the next morning until I put some gas from the
>lawn mower can into the tank.
Josh,
I had a friend run out of gas right at the toll booth on 400. We had to
put a few gallons in teh tank for the car to start. I think (since it
worked) that you have to have a certain amount of fuel in the tank for the
pickup to work. The first 1.5 gallons did nothing. We tried 1.5 more,
and it worked fine.
And he didn't ruin the fuel pump, but I have read and heard that you can.
Oh yeah. I don't think that the out of gas thing applies to fuelie cars
over carbureted cars. I think it is the electric pump.
GETSPLAT
fill from empty. So from what you described you do have a problem. Ed ( SAP )
Jarrod Frates
says...
> I had a friend run out of gas right at the toll booth on 400. We had to
> put a few gallons in teh tank for the car to start. I think (since it
> worked) that you have to have a certain amount of fuel in the tank for the
> pickup to work. The first 1.5 gallons did nothing. We tried 1.5 more,
> and it worked fine.
I once ran out of fuel about 300 feet from the gas station. I added
about a quart, and it started after letting it turn over a few times. I
then got to the station and filled it up with about 12 gallons.
> And he didn't ruin the fuel pump, but I have read and heard that you can.
The lack of gas doesn't do it; it's the sediments and other solids that
will mess with it. Most modern gas tanks don't have much of a problem
with this, although after a while they will build up anyway. IIRC, there
is a filter between the tank and the pump for just this reason. I know
that on my bug, when I replaced the mechanical pump with an electric (OT:
something I STRONGLY suggest for those bug owners out there), I added a
fuel filter ahead of it, and it is amazing how much stuff it captures
after a thousand miles. (OT again: Got a cool clear one, like my
distributor cap. Good for quick visual diagnostics.)
> Oh yeah. I don't think that the out of gas thing applies to fuelie cars
> over carbureted cars. I think it is the electric pump.
Any kind of pump can get clogged up; the electric ones may be more
sensitive, however.
Fusion
Wanda Hill
>
> I just bought a Saturn SL92 for my daughter for college. It had 87,000 miles
> when I purchased it. All checked out fine when I had the car checked by my
> mechanic.
> One problem I have found now, and I don't see how the mechanic could have found
> this out, is that after you fill the gas tank up full and start to drive, the
> to fill up for some more gas, the car would only take 6.4 gallons. The fuel
> that when the guage gets near empty it seems to move back and forth toward the
> 1/4 tank marker.
>
> Is the fuel guage defective ?
> Is it the sending unit at the tank ?
> Could it be some wire shorting ?
>
> I hope you can offer some suggestions. Thank You.
>
> Charlie
If the gas pump clicks off around 6.4 (and I'm sure there's a sensor in
the car's tank to let you know you've filled tank to capacity), then I'd
guess the gauge is faulty. I'm not a mechanic, but I'd put an analogy of
a spring that's too loose & unreliable. OTOH, if it was too tight, the
gauge would hardly go down at all, and you might be at risk for running
out of gas quicker than expected.
BTW, I've often tanked up when I was at 1/8 mark, and I'd fit only about
8 gallons--in a tank that's supposed to hold 12.2.
OK, now I'll step aside & listen to mechanic-types enlighten the both of
us.
Wanda
(not-the-mechanic)
Woodside64
Harry - too extreme
Joshua - too risky and complicated for a teenage college freshman
Ed - having it checked out
Fusion - stay away from those fuel tanks
wanda - thanks
KC
<6piks8$c...@acmez.gatech.edu>...
> My fuel gauge points right at the "E" with about 2 gallons to spare, and
I can
> run it down to a little below the E and have a gallon to spare. When I
fill
> up, I usually put in between 10 and 11 gallons
Josh, I own a '98 SL2 and your numbers are right on the money, as far as my
experience goes.
> My suggestion: Measure your mileage, compute about how far you can drive
before
> you're low on gas, and use the trip odometer until you can get the gas
gauge
> fixed. For me, the magic number is 280 miles, although I've gone as far
as
> 330 before (that was when it wouldn't start the next day!).
>
The longest I've ever gone between fillups is 305 miles (I have an
automatic). Usually, my girlfriend freaks out if the car is on 1/4 tank,
but that time, even I was sweating it.
--
Ken Coia
kc...@intap.net
"Some people never have anything
except ideas. Go do it." -Anonymous
tho...@spam.ham
> The longest I've ever gone between fillups is 305 miles (I have an
> automatic).
So do I. It's also a TwinCam, and I've managed 460 miles between
fill-ups. Once. During an experiment. But I've gone over 305 miles
on numerous occasions.
Zipster200
>So do I. It's also a TwinCam, and I've managed 460 miles between
>fill-ups. Once. During an experiment. But I've gone over 305 miles
>on numerous occasions.
THOLEN!! You're BACK!!!
Steven M. Scharf
>> And he didn't ruin the fuel pump, but I have read and heard that you can.
>
>The lack of gas doesn't do it; it's the sediments and other solids that
>will mess with it.
The fuel cools the electric fuel pump. Running out of fuel can cause
the fuel pump to overheat because it will no longer be submerged.
Once may not do much damage, but don't do it repeatedly.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which
everybody had decided not to see. Ayn Rand
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Crawford King III
>>will mess with it.
>
>The fuel cools the electric fuel pump. Running out of fuel can cause
>the fuel pump to overheat because it will no longer be submerged.
>Once may not do much damage, but don't do it repeatedly.
For once Steve gets something close to right. The fuel actually
lubricates teh pump (kind of like ingine oil). But, he is right in that
can cause the pump to fail.
Paul W. Henne
>Ken Coia writes:
>
>> The longest I've ever gone between fillups is 305 miles (I have an
>> automatic).
>
>fill-ups. Once. During an experiment. But I've gone over 305 miles
>on numerous occasions.
I average 340-360 miles per tank with my '92 SL2 (144,000 miles). Yes, it
usually involves going way below the "E". I use both the trip odometer
and the fuel gauge. I have never let it go more than 370, and have never
run out of gas [sound of knocking on wood].
Dave, 460 is a mighty high number. Could you give us more details of the
experiment that allowed you to do this?
Paul
--
Paul W. Henne <p...@clark.net> "Good judgement comes from experience;
and experience, well, that comes from bad judgement." - Anonymous
Alex Wiecek
I've gone 460 miles on numerous occassions on my 92 SL1 (standard).
I do a lot of highway driving, commuting to and back from work about 35
miles each way. I've done that for the past 7 years so I've had a lot of
opportunities to perform numerous experiments. Basically the idea is
this:
keep your RPM between 2 and 2.5 K, optimal setting is between 2 and 2.2
K.
No speeding (up here in Canada speed limit is 65 mph) try to keep your
speed
at around 55 mph (I couldn't go any lower or I'd get a ticket for
traffic
obstruction). No sudden acceleration. Keep your tire pressure in spec.
Usually I can tell if I'm doing good by the time the fuel gauge shows
dead middle, if the trip odometer says 250 miles I'm well on track.
Hope this helps somewhat.
Alex
--
("`-/")_.-'"``-._
. . `; -._ )-;-,_`)
(v_,)' _ )`-.\ ``-'
_.- _..-_/ / ((.'
((,.-' ((,/
Alex Wiecek - CEO of FUBAR Electronics
Email : mag...@ionsys.com
Web Page : http://web.ionsys.com/~magnum/longwave/longwave.htm
tho...@spam.ham
>> Ken Coia writes:
>>> The longest I've ever gone between fillups is 305 miles (I have an
>>> automatic).
>> So do I. It's also a TwinCam, and I've managed 460 miles between
>> fill-ups. Once. During an experiment. But I've gone over 305 miles
>> on numerous occasions.
> I average 340-360 miles per tank with my '92 SL2 (144,000 miles). Yes, it
> usually involves going way below the "E". I use both the trip odometer
> and the fuel gauge. I have never let it go more than 370, and have never
> run out of gas [sound of knocking on wood].
>
> Dave, 460 is a mighty high number. Could you give us more details of the
> experiment that allowed you to do this?
Actually, it was 467 miles from fill-up to fill-up. The 460 figure
corresponds to when the fuel gauge hit E, at which point I have 1.94
gallons left, so I could have gone about 540 miles before running
out of gas.
I've referred to the experiment here previously. It was triggered by
a weekend drive along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, where the
posted speed limit is mostly 45 mph. The car went 165 miles on the
first quarter tank, and the first quarter tank is 3.47 gallons, based
on the average over the life of the car (with an uncertainty of a few
hundredths of a gallon). That represents mileage of 47.5 mpg, with an
uncertainty of about 3 mpg, because I record the quarter-tank points
only to the nearest 5 miles (and even that can be tricky if driving
around sharp curves, uphill, and downhill, in which case I go for an
average value rounded to the nearest 5 miles).
I wanted to know if that was a fluke, so I took the opportunity to
drive at different speeds as I crossed the country, the speed limits
being generally lower in the east. I found that mileage dropped
2.5 mpg for every increase of 5 mph in speed. When I managed 467
miles on a tank, I was going 50 mph for the entire tank (except for
small towns along the way) and got 42 mpg. That was the lowest speed
for which I did an entire tank. The 45 mph Grand Canyon trip was only
a quarter tank, but the expected mileage for a steady 45 mph would be
44.5 mpg, based on the above result, and it's consistent with the
actual result to within the error of the measurement.
At a steady speed of 55 mph, I managed just under 40 mpg. At 60 mph,
mileage was down to 37 mpg.
And as you should expect, when I did an entire tank at a steady speed
of 75 mph, I got only about 30 mpg. The EPA highway estimate of 34 mpg
appears to be valid for a steady speed of about 65 mph.
I don't think enough people appreciate how much speed affects mileage.
Zipster200
>Actually, it was 467 miles from fill-up to fill-up. The 460 figure
>corresponds to when the fuel gauge hit E, at which point I have 1.94
>gallons left, so I could have gone about 540 miles before running
>out of gas.
>I've referred to the experiment here previously. It was triggered by
>a weekend drive along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon
<snipped>
My god. BTW, Tholen, while working your computations,
did you happen to notice the Grand Canyon?
Zipster
Awed By the Power of Anal Retention
Mark B.
> When I managed 467 miles on a tank, I was going 50 mph for the
Wow! That's *sure* to get ya elected to the LLB Hall Of Fame.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| brindle | "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more |
| @ | freedom and democracy. But that could change." |
| chesco.com | -Dan Quayle |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
tho...@spam.ham
>> When I managed 467 miles on a tank, I was going 50 mph for the
>> entire tank ....
> Wow! That's *sure* to get ya elected to the LLB Hall Of Fame.
Illogical, given that the majority of that segment was on two-lane
highways.
Frank Yang
>>
>>> The longest I've ever gone between fillups is 305 miles (I have an
>>> automatic).
>>
>>So do I. It's also a TwinCam, and I've managed 460 miles between
>>fill-ups. Once. During an experiment. But I've gone over 305 miles
>>on numerous occasions.
>
>I average 340-360 miles per tank with my '92 SL2 (144,000 miles). Yes, it
>usually involves going way below the "E". I use both the trip odometer
>and the fuel gauge. I have never let it go more than 370, and have never
>run out of gas [sound of knocking on wood].
>
>Dave, 460 is a mighty high number. Could you give us more details of the
>experiment that allowed you to do this?
>
460 is high, but not impossible. It involves casual, stable speed on the
freeway and following trucks. I once got 490 miles out of 10 gallons in
Tennessee (49 mpg.) I was going from Nashville to Memphis, ran some short
trips to the Graceland, Tunica, MS and Arkansas, then back to Nashville. With
my luck, I was following a caravan of 18-wheelers along the way, going at only
63-64 mph with cruise on. (Speed limit: 70) I gave up passing since there
were so many of them.
My usual highway getaway is about 40-44 mpg, city weekend drive is about 32.
My last few days in heavy rush hour with full A/C: pathetic 23 mpg. :-(
- Frank ('95 SL1)
Craig
retard.
tho...@spam.ham wrote in article <6pu7an$e...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
Darin Johnson
> My god. BTW, Tholen, while working your computations,
> did you happen to notice the Grand Canyon?
I was concerned he might have gone over the edge while calculating
figures...
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Darin Johnson
> With my luck, I was following a caravan of 18-wheelers along the
> way, going at only 63-64 mph with cruise on. (Speed limit: 70) I
> gave up passing since there were so many of them.
See http://www.discovery.com/area/skinnyon/skinnyon971212/skinnyon.html
Basically, you have to be really really close to a truck to get any
mileage effect.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Wanda Hill
Darin,
Heheheh, you can't guess how funny that sounds--"he might have gone over
the edge...." LOL!!!!
Wanda
(retreatin' to my other writin' <g>)
tho...@spam.ham
>> Mark B. writes:
>>>> When I managed 467 miles on a tank, I was going 50 mph for the
>>>> entire tank ....
>>> Wow! That's *sure* to get ya elected to the LLB Hall Of Fame.
>> Illogical, given that the majority of that segment was on two-lane
>> highways.
> Illogical, given that you live and Hawaii and can't drive across the ocean,
Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about driving across the ocean.
"..live and Hawaii..."???
> retard.
How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't figured out how cars get to
Hawaii in the first place, given that there are no automobile manufacturers
here.
tho...@spam.ham
> Zipster200 writes:
>> My god. BTW, Tholen, while working your computations,
>> did you happen to notice the Grand Canyon?
> I was concerned he might have gone over the edge while calculating
> figures...
The figures were calculated *after* the driving had been done. Do you
have anything useful to contribute?
Alain Southiere
> 460 is high, but not impossible. It involves casual, stable speed on the
> freeway and following trucks. I once got 490 miles out of 10 gallons in
> Tennessee (49 mpg.) I was going from Nashville to Memphis, ran some short
> trips to the Graceland, Tunica, MS and Arkansas, then back to Nashville. With
> my luck, I was following a caravan of 18-wheelers along the way, going at only
> 63-64 mph with cruise on. (Speed limit: 70) I gave up passing since there
> were so many of them.
I wouldn't even go that far. With my 1994 auto SL2, I
once got a bit over 500 between fill-ups and there was
about 1 gallon left in the tanks. This was when on vacation,
so we were two in the car and the trunk completely full of
camping gear !
We were not that carefull about our driving and
conditions were not necessarely the best for fuel
economy. These 500+ miles were done mostly on 2
lanes rural highway (55 mph speed limit, usually)
and a bit of interstate (55-65 mph speed limit; it
was 3 years ago). At least half was also in the
Adirondack mountain range, not necessarely the
best place for fuel economy :-) We mostly
followed the posted speed limit, with occasional
outbursts up to 75 mph for passing.
[...]
--
Alain Southiere | If fifty million people
Software developer | say a stupid thing, it is
als...@cam.org | still a stupid thing.
http://www.cam.org/~alsouth |
ICQ #16373525 | - Anatole France
Talk
Darin Johnson wrote:
> > With my luck, I was following a caravan of 18-wheelers along the
> > way, going at only 63-64 mph with cruise on. (Speed limit: 70) I
> > gave up passing since there were so many of them.
>
> Basically, you have to be really really close to a truck to get any
> mileage effect.
I've done it on my way from Cleveland, Ohio to Ok city, ok. 75mph areas.
lots of trucks. Keep the cb runnign though, they feel the draft, and they
get angry if your there to long. =)
Talk
Paul W. Henne
> Paul W. Henne writes:
>
> >> Ken Coia writes:
>
> >>> The longest I've ever gone between fillups is 305 miles (I have an
> >>> automatic).
>
> >> So do I. It's also a TwinCam, and I've managed 460 miles between
> >> fill-ups. Once. During an experiment. But I've gone over 305 miles
> >> on numerous occasions.
>
> > I average 340-360 miles per tank with my '92 SL2 (144,000 miles). Yes, it
> > usually involves going way below the "E". I use both the trip odometer
> > and the fuel gauge. I have never let it go more than 370, and have never
> > run out of gas [sound of knocking on wood].
> >
> > Dave, 460 is a mighty high number. Could you give us more details of the
> > experiment that allowed you to do this?
>
> corresponds to when the fuel gauge hit E, at which point I have 1.94
> gallons left, so I could have gone about 540 miles before running
> out of gas.
>
> I've referred to the experiment here previously. It was triggered by
I wonder how much covering my headlight openings so they are perfectly
flush with the body would affect mileage? Perhaps I'll try an experiment
with some clear plastic...
Paul
--
Paul W. Henne
> > >
> > >> The longest I've ever gone between fillups is 305 miles (I have an
> > >> automatic).
> > >
> > >So do I. It's also a TwinCam, and I've managed 460 miles between
> > >fill-ups. Once. During an experiment. But I've gone over 305 miles
> > >on numerous occasions.
> >
> > I average 340-360 miles per tank with my '92 SL2 (144,000 miles). Yes, it
> > usually involves going way below the "E". I use both the trip odometer
> > and the fuel gauge. I have never let it go more than 370, and have never
> > run out of gas [sound of knocking on wood].
> >
> > Dave, 460 is a mighty high number. Could you give us more details of the
> > experiment that allowed you to do this?
> >
> > --
> > Paul W. Henne <p...@clark.net> "Good judgement comes from experience;
> > and experience, well, that comes from bad judgement." - Anonymous
>
Ah, yes, but Dave said he has a TwinCam!
Paul
> I do a lot of highway driving, commuting to and back from work about 35
> miles each way. I've done that for the past 7 years so I've had a lot of
> opportunities to perform numerous experiments. Basically the idea is
> this:
> keep your RPM between 2 and 2.5 K, optimal setting is between 2 and 2.2
> K.
> No speeding (up here in Canada speed limit is 65 mph) try to keep your
> speed
> at around 55 mph (I couldn't go any lower or I'd get a ticket for
> traffic
> obstruction). No sudden acceleration. Keep your tire pressure in spec.
> Usually I can tell if I'm doing good by the time the fuel gauge shows
> dead middle, if the trip odometer says 250 miles I'm well on track.
> Hope this helps somewhat.
>
> Alex
Paul W. Henne
Why, Dave, I found an extreme amount of humor in BOTH of these posts, to be
quite honest! I found them *quite* useful in lifting my spirits, which
have not been the best lately. Of course, since humor is so subjective,
I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. =+)
tho...@spam.ham
>> Darin Johnson writes:
>>> Zipster200 writes:
>>>> My god. BTW, Tholen, while working your computations,
>>>> did you happen to notice the Grand Canyon?
>>> I was concerned he might have gone over the edge while calculating
>>> figures...
>> The figures were calculated *after* the driving had been done. Do you
>> have anything useful to contribute?
> Why, Dave, I found an extreme amount of humor in BOTH of these posts, to be
> quite honest!
Where?
> I found them *quite* useful in lifting my spirits, which
> have not been the best lately.
Why?
> Of course, since humor is so subjective,
> I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. =+)
As Kirk said when he discovered the tribble liked Baris, "Well, there's
no accounting for taste."
Kirk Kohnen
Yup! And all they have to do is briefly stomp on their brakes to register their
displeasure. You'll bash in the front of your car, and it won't hurt the back
of their trailer one bit. They won't even stop even if they do notice.
Buy your own gas -- it's much cheaper!
--
Success often comes only on the heels of repeated failure.
Consider, for example, the relative obscurity of Preparations A through G...
Zipster200
>As Kirk said when he discovered the tribble liked Baris,
>"Well, there's no accounting for taste."
There encompasses Dave's foray into dynamic theater.
BTW, Dave, I think you misspelled "bare ass."
Frank Yang
>
>>
>> At a steady speed of 55 mph, I managed just under 40 mpg. At 60 mph,
>> mileage was down to 37 mpg.
>>
>> And as you should expect, when I did an entire tank at a steady speed
>> of 75 mph, I got only about 30 mpg. The EPA highway estimate of 34 mpg
>> appears to be valid for a steady speed of about 65 mph.
>>
>> I don't think enough people appreciate how much speed affects mileage.
>
>I wonder how much covering my headlight openings so they are perfectly
>flush with the body would affect mileage? Perhaps I'll try an experiment
>with some clear plastic...
>
Paul:
I've been looking for the same headlamp covers you mentioned. The popular GTC
covers don't work since they are not flush with the front end. Let me know if
you can find a workable solution. Thanks.
Such thing would reduce snow accumulation near the headlamps as well.
Woodside64
The original inquiry of theFUEL GUAGE was to see if anyone has had any
mechanical or electrical problems with their guages, not how many mpg you get.
Charlie
Zipster200
>A faulty fuel GAUGE wow could life be that simple??? of
>course not... and I must throw my $0.02 in for 19 MPG!!!
>actually this tank worked out to 19.43!!! getting better...
>maybe she's redeeming herself
Ya know... I for one would appreciate it if you could find
something better to do on this newsgroup than to
release long, pathetic whines like a mange-ridden
cat being fucked on a fence.
Weren't you going to by a Toyota and go away?
Quit procrastinating!
Zipster
Your Success Coach
Wanda Hill
>
<snip>
> A faulty fuel GAUGE wow could life be that simple??? of course not... and I must throw my $0.02 in for 19 MPG!!!!!!!!!! actually this tank worked out to 19.43!!! getting better... maybe she's redeeming herself LOL
===========================================
Imo, it's not the gauge that's your problem, it's the fact that you're
having to tank up so often to get squeeze out the same number of miles
that most of us get. Again, I think your car's consuming an inordinate
amount of gas for a Saturn. I believe it's got to be something faulty in
the process of conversion from fuel to output (mechanic-types, please
forgive me for nontechie interpretation) or some leakage from faulty
sealing (could be from one or more defect). 19.43 mpg is still
unacceptable.
If it were my car, I'd be sure to get good answers and acceptable
resolution, whether I have to take it to a different Saturn dealership,
an independent mechanic, write to Corporate, or combination of any of
those. (Don't put up w/the kind of bs I think you've been getting from
your current dealer.)
Wanda
Chris A. Epler
> 97 V8 Wrote:
>>A faulty fuel GAUGE wow could life be that simple??? of
Anyone notice that all throughout the 1999 Saturn manual they spell it Gage
and Gages? ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris A. Epler - K4UNX - ESInet System Admin - (804) 974-7308
Linux - Operating System for a GNU Generation - http://www.linux.org
99 SL2m MRd AC SP CC ABS TC AU+++ F PW PL KE T2N SR L NG
Frank Yang
>
>Woodside64 <woods...@aol.com> wrote:
>: The original inquiry of theFUEL GUAGE was to see if anyone has had any
>: mechanical or electrical problems with their guages, not how many mpg you
>:get.
>:
>: Charlie
>A faulty fuel GAUGE wow could life be that simple??? of course not... and I
>must throw my $0.02 in for 19 MPG!!!!!!!!!! actually this tank worked out
>to 19.43!!! getting better... maybe she's redeeming herself LOL
>
19 MPG is extremely low. It may be that the engine is running a rich fuel mix
at all times. One possible cause is a faulty temp sensor, making the computer
believe that the engine is cold and give it a rich mix to warm up.
In any case, have a mechanic check the car.
Frank Yang
>
>and Gages? ...
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Chris A. Epler - K4UNX - ESInet System Admin - (804) 974-7308
>Linux - Operating System for a GNU Generation - http://www.linux.org
>99 SL2m MRd AC SP CC ABS TC AU+++ F PW PL KE T2N SR L NG
They spelled it "Gage" as well in my 1995 owner's manual. Anyone got a
dictionary?
Chris A. Epler
>>and Gages? ...
> They spelled it "Gage" as well in my 1995 owner's manual. Anyone got a
> dictionary?
1. gage \'ga-j\ n [ME, fr. MF, of Gmc origin; akin to OHG wetti pledge -
more at WEDM 1: a token of defiance; specif : a glove or cap cast on the
ground to be taken up by an opponent as a pledge of combat 2: something
deposited as a pledge of performance
I think I need to write to Saturn...
'97 V8 SC1
Zipster200 <zipst...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808090845...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
: Ya know... I for one would appreciate it if you could find
: something better to do on this newsgroup than to
: release long, pathetic whines like a mange-ridden
: cat being fucked on a fence.
: Weren't you going to by a Toyota and go away?
NO SINCE WE STILL HAVE A SATURN... AND ACTUALLY GOING TO GET ANOTHER, A SC2
IN A COUPLE OF DAYS... SO LEARN TO LIVE WITH ME!!!
: Quit procrastinating!
BITE ME
: Zipster
: Your Success Coach
tho...@spam.ham
> [attribution missing]
>> [attribution missing]
>>> Anyone notice that all throughout the 1999 Saturn manual they spell it Gage
>>> and Gages? ...
>> They spelled it "Gage" as well in my 1995 owner's manual. Anyone got a
>> dictionary?
> 1. gage \'ga-j\ n [ME, fr. MF, of Gmc origin; akin to OHG wetti pledge -
> more at WEDM 1: a token of defiance; specif : a glove or cap cast on the
> ground to be taken up by an opponent as a pledge of combat 2: something
> deposited as a pledge of performance
>
> I think I need to write to Saturn...
Don't.
GM's been using that spelling for years.
Does your dictionary go on to offer:
2 gage vt 1 archaic : PLEDGE 2 archaic : STAKE, RISK
3 gage var of GAUGE
4 gage n : GREENGAGE
Note the entry labeled "3".
Chris A. Epler
> Chris A. Epler writes:
> GM's been using that spelling for years.
> Does your dictionary go on to offer:
> 3 gage var of GAUGE
Didn't catch that, but it does seem a bit odd. Anyhow, they said they'd
look into "fixing" that...was the first time I'd seen it spelt that way.
Zipster200
>DON'T READ MY POSTS THEN!!!!!!!!!
I CAN READ YOUR POSTS WHENEVER I WANT TO!!!
>Zipster200 <zipst...@aol.com> wrote...
>: Ya know... I for one would appreciate it if you could find
>: something better to do on this newsgroup than to
>: release long, pathetic whines like a mange-ridden
>: cat being fucked on a fence.
>NICE LANGUAGE
NO. IT WAS A JRUGGED SIMILIE!
>(isn't that against AOL TOS agreement???)
WHAT AM I, YOUR COMPUTER CONSULTANT?!!!!!
READ THE TOS YOURSELF, SMARTY PANTS!!!!!!!!!!
>: Weren't you going to by a Toyota and go away?
>NO SINCE WE STILL HAVE A SATURN... AND ACTUALLY GOING TO
>GET ANOTHER, A SC2 IN A COUPLE OF DAYS... SO LEARN TO
>LIVE WITH ME!!!
THEN WHAT WAS THE LOAD OF CRAP ABOUT YOU HAVING TO
SELL YOUR SATURN AND GO TO ANOTHER BRAND?
CAN'T YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND, MISSY?
OR DO YOU JUST LIKE TO HERE YOURSELF BRAY?
>: Quit procrastinating!
>BITE ME
NICE LANGUAGE! NOW YOU GO TO YOUR ROOM AND
COMPOSE YOUR APOLOGY, MISSY!
YOU HEAR?!!!
Zipster
YOU HEAR?!!!
pjones
: tho...@spam.ham wrote:
:> Chris A. Epler writes:
:> GM's been using that spelling for years.
:> Does your dictionary go on to offer:
:> 3 gage var of GAUGE
: Didn't catch that, but it does seem a bit odd. Anyhow, they said they'd
: look into "fixing" that...was the first time I'd seen it spelt that way.
Don't know if this is the reason, but ...
Several years ago (many?) GM has a plan that employees who would
suggest ways to save money would be given a small amount of cash
($500?) if their suggestion was implemented.
One of the greatest suggestions ever was to eliminate uneeded letters
from certain words, thereby saving the company gazillions of dollars
on both ink (and eventually) paper.
I know that it sounds far-fetched and that there is a joke that
is passed around via email (and paper in the dark ages) where
this is explored fully by elimation of the vowels and 'f'
replacing 'ph', etc, but it is true! The only example that I
recall from working at the GM tech center is the word 'employe'.
Yep, that's right, no need for two 'e's on the end.
So, maybe, just maybe, this is some sort of holdovr. ;-)
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Chris A. Epler - K4UNX - ESInet System Admin - (804) 974-7308
: Linux - Operating System for a GNU Generation - http://www.linux.org
: 99 SL2m MRd AC SP CC ABS TC AU+++ F PW PL KE T2N SR L NG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Jones
pjo...@dnaco.net
http://wwww.dnaco.net/~pjones
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Hill
<snip>
>
> 2 gage vt 1 archaic : PLEDGE 2 archaic : STAKE, RISK
>
> Note the entry labeled "3".
Not a good reason to keep it as gage. The term gauge (not gage, nor
guage--as the subject header contains) is the technically correct word
to convey the meaning in the context of fuel gauge (noun):
2 c
an instrument with a graduated scale or dial for measuring or indicating
quanity
(from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary)
In the case of fuel guage, we're measuring gasoline. Although gage does
have a connection to gauge, the first definition for gage is as Chris
posted earlier:
"1. gage \'ga-j\ n [ME, fr. MF, of Gmc origin; akin to OHG wetti pledge
-
more at WEDM 1: a token of defiance; specif : a glove or cap cast on the
ground to be taken up by an opponent as a pledge of combat 2: something
deposited as a pledge of performance"
It's just better to use the word that was intended rather than a
derivative or colloquialism or lower-level variant. (Odd to me that gage
definition invokes image of a gauntlet. They aren't related words,
however.)
Speaking for myself, I'd have Saturn change "gage" to "gauge," but only
for future documentation releases.
Wanda
(tech writer)
Frank Yang
>
>Chris A. Epler <cep...@Stormhaven.org> wrote:
>: tho...@spam.ham wrote:
>:> Chris A. Epler writes:
>
>:> GM's been using that spelling for years.
>:> Does your dictionary go on to offer:
>:> 3 gage var of GAUGE
>
>: Didn't catch that, but it does seem a bit odd. Anyhow, they said they'd
>: look into "fixing" that...was the first time I'd seen it spelt that way.
>
>Don't know if this is the reason, but ...
>Several years ago (many?) GM has a plan that employees who would
>suggest ways to save money would be given a small amount of cash
>($500?) if their suggestion was implemented.
>
>One of the greatest suggestions ever was to eliminate uneeded letters
>from certain words, thereby saving the company gazillions of dollars
>on both ink (and eventually) paper.
>
>I know that it sounds far-fetched and that there is a joke that
>is passed around via email (and paper in the dark ages) where
>this is explored fully by elimation of the vowels and 'f'
>replacing 'ph', etc, but it is true! The only example that I
>recall from working at the GM tech center is the word 'employe'.
>Yep, that's right, no need for two 'e's on the end.
>
>So, maybe, just maybe, this is some sort of holdovr. ;-)
No, I don't think not printing a letter "u" can save much. The suggestion to
use black side mirrors instead of painted ones did save Saturn a bunch.
pjones
: In article <6qplbq$6mp$1...@news5.ispnews.com>, pjo...@dnaco.net says...
I don't think it could save much money, either. But evidentally
using employe instead of employee warranted enough savings to be
used company wide. Pretty dumb idea actually, but they actually
did.
Like I said, the 'gage' thing is probably a misprint, but since
Saturn is part of GM, don't discount the possibility that some
old GMer now working for our new kind of car company spelt it the
old kind of beheomoth car company kind of way.
--
Woodside64
about a faulty fuel GUAGE, the only answers I get back are some cat sitting on
a fence or why GUAGE is not spelled correctly.
TRhanks for nothing.
Charlie
Jody Malinosky
cross-referenced to each other and can be used interchangably. Why do I
know this? Because the new Corvettes have a switch on the dashboard for
the heads-up display that is labeled "Gages". Thought it was strange, but
its in the Dictionary as interchangable. (var of GAUGE)
As to the original question, there is a TSB on the fuel tank sensor not
reading the fuel properly, thus you can run out of gas even though the
gauge (this is the spelling I prefer) may read 1/8 to 1/4 tank left. I'm
not sure if this is what you meant, but I hope this helps.
*****
Jody E. Malinosky
jemal...@ucdavis.edu
*****
pjones (pjo...@dnaco.net) wrote something similar to:
! Frank Yang <us03...@mindspring.YEEHAW.com> wrote:
! : In article <6qplbq$6mp$1...@news5.ispnews.com>, pjo...@dnaco.net says...
! :>
! :>Chris A. Epler <cep...@Stormhaven.org> wrote:
! :>: tho...@spam.ham wrote:
! :>:> Chris A. Epler writes:
! :>
! :>:> GM's been using that spelling for years.
! :>:> Does your dictionary go on to offer:
! :>:> 3 gage var of GAUGE
! :>
! :>: Didn't catch that, but it does seem a bit odd. Anyhow, they said they'd
! :>: look into "fixing" that...was the first time I'd seen it spelt that way.
! :>
! :>Don't know if this is the reason, but ...
! :>Several years ago (many?) GM has a plan that employees who would
! :>suggest ways to save money would be given a small amount of cash
! :>($500?) if their suggestion was implemented.
! :>
! :>One of the greatest suggestions ever was to eliminate uneeded letters
! :>from certain words, thereby saving the company gazillions of dollars
! :>on both ink (and eventually) paper.
! :>
! :>I know that it sounds far-fetched and that there is a joke that
! :>is passed around via email (and paper in the dark ages) where
! :>this is explored fully by elimation of the vowels and 'f'
! :>replacing 'ph', etc, but it is true! The only example that I
! :>recall from working at the GM tech center is the word 'employe'.
! :>Yep, that's right, no need for two 'e's on the end.
! :>
! :>So, maybe, just maybe, this is some sort of holdovr. ;-)
!
!
! : No, I don't think not printing a letter "u" can save much. The suggestion to
! : use black side mirrors instead of painted ones did save Saturn a bunch.
!
! : - Frank ('95 SL1)
!
! I don't think it could save much money, either. But evidentally
! using employe instead of employee warranted enough savings to be
! used company wide. Pretty dumb idea actually, but they actually
! did.
!
! Like I said, the 'gage' thing is probably a misprint, but since
! Saturn is part of GM, don't discount the possibility that some
! old GMer now working for our new kind of car company spelt it the
! old kind of beheomoth car company kind of way.
!
! --
! -------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Phil Jones
! pjo...@dnaco.net
! http://wwww.dnaco.net/~pjones
! -------------------------------------------------------------------------
! "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
! safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
! -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris A. Epler
> You all seem to really have no lives. When someone asks a serious question
> about a faulty fuel GUAGE, the only answers I get back are some cat sitting on
> a fence or why GUAGE is not spelled correctly.
It's called a thread. Threads decompose if you don't apply zaino's on
it..ah, but I decompose...
Basically the mention of a gauge spurred my memory of the spelling of 'gage'
in the manual, which of course was completely related to Saturns which is
what this newsgroups is all about. I'm sorry that noone responded
intelligently to your posting, but that happens sometimes.
> TRhanks for nothing.
*shrug* Get what you pay for? *shrug*
Wanda Hill
> Wanda Hill writes:
> > <snip>
> >> 2 gage vt 1 archaic : PLEDGE 2 archaic : STAKE, RISK
> >> 3 gage var of GAUGE
> >> 4 gage n : GREENGAGE
> >> Note the entry labeled "3".
>
============================================
> > Not a good reason to keep it as gage.
> Do you have a better reason to change it?
Yes. Gauge, as a measuring instrument, is a more correct noun than gage,
a token of defiance or something deposited as a pledge of performance.
> > The term gauge (not gage, nor guage--as the subject header contains) is the technically correct word to convey the meaning in the context of fuel gauge (noun):
> I don't disagree that "gauge" is the technically correct word. I'm simply noting that "gage" is a valid spelling variation on the word "gauge". If "gauge" is technically correct, then "gage" is also technically correct, because they are the same word with two different spellings. Sort of like "color" and "colour", though in this case I don't know if the origin of the different spelling has anything to do with nationality.
I agree that color and colour are technically alike, despite differences
in preferences for spelling depending on nationality. However, gage and
gauge do not mean the same thing. For example, it would not be
technically correct to refer to a "token of defiance or something
deposited as a pledge of performance" as a gauge.
Entymologically, gauge and gage are different words.
> > It's just better to use the word that was intended
> "Gage" was intended. As I noted, GM has been using that spelling for years. I noticed it in the manual for my previous GM car, a 1980 model.
I seriously doubt that the original writer intended to insert a noun
(gage) that primarily means "token of defiance or something deposited as
a pledge of performance" when the noun gauge is more succinct in meaning
"an instrument with a graduated scale or dial for measuring or
indicating quanity." Just because the spelling has existed as a
tradition since 1980 doesn't make it correct. The writer who wrote gage
instead of gauge and the editor who let gage stay instead of changing it
to gauge slipped.
> > rather than a derivative or colloquialism or lower-level variant.
>
> You're presupposing that "gage" is a derivative, colloquialism, or lower-level variant. There is no such indication in my dictionary. It simply notes "gage" as a variant on "gauge".
Yes, gage is a lower-level variant of gauge, as gauge doesn't appear as
a primary or even secondary definition of gage. Yes, there are
hierarchies in dictionary definitions.
Wanda
tho...@spam.ham
> <snip>
>> 2 gage vt 1 archaic : PLEDGE 2 archaic : STAKE, RISK
>> 3 gage var of GAUGE
>> 4 gage n : GREENGAGE
>>
>> Note the entry labeled "3".
> ============================================
> Not a good reason to keep it as gage.
Do you have a better reason to change it?
> The term gauge (not gage, nor
> guage--as the subject header contains) is the technically correct word
> to convey the meaning in the context of fuel gauge (noun):
I don't disagree that "gauge" is the technically correct word. I'm
simply noting that "gage" is a valid spelling variation on the word
"gauge". If "gauge" is technically correct, then "gage" is also
technically correct, because they are the same word with two different
spellings. Sort of like "color" and "colour", though in this case I
don't know if the origin of the different spelling has anything to do
with nationality.
> It's just better to use the word that was intended
"Gage" was intended. As I noted, GM has been using that spelling for
years. I noticed it in the manual for my previous GM car, a 1980 model.
> rather than a derivative or colloquialism or lower-level variant.
tho...@spam.ham
> Like I said, the 'gage' thing is probably a misprint,
Given that my dictionary lists it as a valid spelling, you'd be
hard-pressed to explain how it could be a misprint.
> but since Saturn is part of GM, don't discount the possibility that
> some old GMer now working for our new kind of car company spelt it
> the old kind of beheomoth car company kind of way.
It's also Webster's kind of way.
tho...@spam.ham
> You all seem to really have no lives.
How ironic, coming from someone who took the time to post the complaint.
> When someone asks a serious question about a faulty fuel GUAGE, the
> only answers I get back are some cat sitting on a fence or why GUAGE
> is not spelled correctly.
On the contrary, there have been more responses than on just those two
topics.
Zipster200
>TRhanks for nothing.
You are wrelcome.
Kirk Kohnen
Wanda Hill wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Wanda Hill writes:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > >> 2 gage vt 1 archaic : PLEDGE 2 archaic : STAKE, RISK
> > >> 3 gage var of GAUGE
> > >> 4 gage n : GREENGAGE
>
> > >> Note the entry labeled "3".
> >
> ============================================
> > > Not a good reason to keep it as gage.
>
> > Do you have a better reason to change it?
>
> Yes. Gauge, as a measuring instrument, is a more correct noun than gage,
> a token of defiance or something deposited as a pledge of performance.
>
> > > The term gauge (not gage, nor guage--as the subject header contains) is the technically correct word to convey the meaning in the context of fuel gauge (noun):
>
> > I don't disagree that "gauge" is the technically correct word. I'm simply noting that "gage" is a valid spelling variation on the word "gauge". If "gauge" is technically correct, then "gage" is also technically correct, because they are the same word with two different spellings. Sort of like "color" and "colour", though in this case I don't know if the origin of the different spelling has anything to do with nationality.
Does it occur to either of you that "gage" is a token of GM's defiance of the English language? Or that a fuel gage is a pledge of the car's performance?
(I'm ducking -- it's hard for me to gage what your responses will be...)
NerveGas
> >must throw my $0.02 in for 19 MPG!!!!!!!!!! actually this tank worked out
> >to 19.43!!! getting better... maybe she's redeeming herself LOL
> >
>
> 19 MPG is extremely low. It may be that the engine is running a rich fuel mix
> at all times. One possible cause is a faulty temp sensor, making the computer
> believe that the engine is cold and give it a rich mix to warm up.
DEFINITELY low. My 95 SL2 automatic averaged 24, and my 98 SC2 stick
averages 28, and that's in higher altitudes where mileage is lower (>
5000 fet).
steve
--
----------------------------------------
Domain name for replying is "inconnect".
----------------------------------------
tho...@spam.ham
>>> <snip>
>>>> 2 gage vt 1 archaic : PLEDGE 2 archaic : STAKE, RISK
>>>> 3 gage var of GAUGE
>>>> 4 gage n : GREENGAGE
>>>>
>>>> Note the entry labeled "3".
> ============================================
>>> Not a good reason to keep it as gage.
>> Do you have a better reason to change it?
> Yes. Gauge, as a measuring instrument, is a more correct noun than gage,
> a token of defiance or something deposited as a pledge of performance.
But "gage" *is* a measuring instrument, and is therefore just as correct
as "gauge". I thought I made that perfectly clear already.
>>> The term gauge (not gage, nor guage--as the subject header contains)
>>> is the technically correct word to convey the meaning in the context
>>> of fuel gauge (noun):
>> I don't disagree that "gauge" is the technically correct word. I'm
>> simply noting that "gage" is a valid spelling variation on the word
>> "gauge". If "gauge" is technically correct, then "gage" is also
>> technically correct, because they are the same word with two different
>> spellings. Sort of like "color" and "colour", though in this case I
>> don't know if the origin of the different spelling has anything to do
>> with nationality.
> I agree that color and colour are technically alike, despite differences
> in preferences for spelling depending on nationality. However, gage and
> gauge do not mean the same thing.
Yes they do, according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. I thought
I made that perfectly clear already.
> For example, it would not be technically correct to refer to a "token of
> defiance or something deposited as a pledge of performance" as a gauge.
Irrelevant, given that "gage" is indeed a measuring instrument, therefore
your analogy is inappropriate.
> Entymologically, gauge and gage are different words.
Not according to my dictionary. On what basis do you make your claim?
>>> It's just better to use the word that was intended
>> "Gage" was intended. As I noted, GM has been using that spelling for
>> years. I noticed it in the manual for my previous GM car, a 1980 model.
> I seriously doubt that the original writer intended to insert a noun
> (gage) that primarily means "token of defiance or something deposited as
> a pledge of performance"
On what basis do you claim that that is its primary meaning?
> when the noun gauge is more succinct in meaning "an instrument with a
> graduated scale or dial for measuring or indicating quanity."
"Gage" has the same meaning and is therefore equally succinct.
> Just because the spelling has existed as a tradition since 1980
On what basis do you claim 1980? The dictionary showing "gage" as a
variant of "gauge" carries a 1973 copyright date, so such usage
predates the writing of the manual for my previous GM car.
> doesn't make it correct.
Its existence in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary does make it
correct.
> The writer who wrote gage instead of gauge and the editor who let gage
> stay instead of changing it to gauge slipped.
Balderdash. Perhaps they're more aware of the existence of spelling
variations than you are.
>>> rather than a derivative or colloquialism or lower-level variant.
>> You're presupposing that "gage" is a derivative, colloquialism, or
>> lower-level variant. There is no such indication in my dictionary.
>> It simply notes "gage" as a variant on "gauge".
> Yes, gage is a lower-level variant of gauge,
All you did was repeat the claim, but offered nothing to substantiate it.
> as gauge doesn't appear as a primary or even secondary definition of
> gage.
Irrelevant. Is it incorrect to use "go" to refer to an Oriental game,
just because the dictionary has that as the fourth entry?
> Yes, there are hierarchies in dictionary definitions.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim. For example, "father" has two
entries in my dictionary, one as a noun, the other as a verb. Are
you going to complain when somebody says he fathered a child simply
because the definition is "secondary" in the definition hierarchy?
Zipster200
Your attempt at assimilating the Tholen Drone will FAIL!!!
Tholen Drone IS, and always WILL be, one of US.
This thread will be DEFEATED as we DEFEATED the LLB thread!
Abandon your argument, and leave this thread,
or you will be assimilated.
Resistance IS futile!
Collectively,
The Collective
Delta Quadrant
Wanda Hill
his point of view today.
==================================================
Thank you for expressing your POV. You have your opinion; I have mine.
Good day, Dave.
Wanda
Wanda Hill
>
> Attention Wanda Unit,
>
> Your attempt at assimilating the Tholen Drone will FAIL!!!
On what basis do you make your claim?
> Tholen Drone IS, and always WILL be, one of US.
Balderdash!
> This thread will be DEFEATED as we DEFEATED the LLB thread!
Irrelevant, as I have not mentioned LLB.
> Abandon your argument, and leave this thread,
> or you will be assimilated.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
> Resistance IS futile!
Typical invective!
> Collectively,
> The Collective
> Delta Quadrant
Wanda
(another temp <g>)
tho...@spam.ham
> Wanda Hill wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Wanda Hill writes:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 2 gage vt 1 archaic : PLEDGE 2 archaic : STAKE, RISK
>>>>> 3 gage var of GAUGE
>>>>> 4 gage n : GREENGAGE
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the entry labeled "3".
>> ============================================
>>>> Not a good reason to keep it as gage.
>>> Do you have a better reason to change it?
>> Yes. Gauge, as a measuring instrument, is a more correct noun than gage,
>> a token of defiance or something deposited as a pledge of performance.
>>>> The term gauge (not gage, nor guage--as the subject header contains)
>>>> is the technically correct word to convey the meaning in the context
>>>> of fuel gauge (noun):
>>> I don't disagree that "gauge" is the technically correct word. I'm
>>> simply noting that "gage" is a valid spelling variation on the word
>>> "gauge". If "gauge" is technically correct, then "gage" is also
>>> technically correct, because they are the same word with two different
>>> spellings. Sort of like "color" and "colour", though in this case I
>>> don't know if the origin of the different spelling has anything to do
>>> with nationality.
> Does it occur to either of you that "gage" is a token of GM's defiance
> of the English language?
On what basis do you make that claim?
> Or that a fuel gage is a pledge of the car's performance?
How can an inanimate object make a pledge?
> (I'm ducking -- it's hard for me to gage what your responses will be...)
Shouldn't be.
tho...@spam.ham
> his point of view today.
On the contrary, I wrote about Webster's "point of view".
> ==================================================
> Thank you for expressing your POV.
It was Webster's "point of view", not mine.
> You have your opinion;
Irrelevant, given that no opinion of mine was involved. I simply
noted what Webster's had to say about it.
> I have mine.
Sure sounded to me like statements of fact.
Kirk Kohnen
tho...@spam.ham wrote:
Having worked for a former GM subsidiary, I've seen first hand how they've
taken common spellings (e. g., employee) and converted them to their less
commonly used form (e. g., employe). When they've been told that they're using
a strange spelling, they effectively state: "It's how WE'RE going to spell it
-- deal with it."
> > Or that a fuel gage is a pledge of the car's performance?
>
> How can an inanimate object make a pledge?
A pledge is a promise of future performance. In this case, if a fuel gage
reads above empty, it is a pledge that there is enough fuel still in the car
for it to operate (note: This is not strictly the case with Saturns -- there's
a TSB out indicating that some Saturns don't take their pledge seriously).
To date, my fuel gage's pledge has been far more reliable than the marriage
pledge made by my ex.
> > (I'm ducking -- it's hard for me to gage what your responses will be...)
>
> Shouldn't be.
I've got to agree with you one this one -- it really wasn't hard to gage what
your response would be.
P.S. Congrats on your discovery of Tholen's rock.
tho...@spam.ham
> Zipster200 wrote:
>> Attention Wanda Unit,
>>
>> Your attempt at assimilating the Tholen Drone will FAIL!!!
> On what basis do you make your claim?
I'd also like to know.
>> Tholen Drone IS, and always WILL be, one of US.
> Balderdash!
Agreed.
>> This thread will be DEFEATED as we DEFEATED the LLB thread!
> Irrelevant, as I have not mentioned LLB.
Neither have I.
>> Abandon your argument, and leave this thread,
>> or you will be assimilated.
> Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Indeed.
>> Resistance IS futile!
> Typical invective!
Illogical.
>> Collectively,
>> The Collective
>> Delta Quadrant
> Wanda
> (another temp <g>)
Temp?
tho...@spam.ham
>>> Wanda Hill wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> Wanda Hill writes:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>> ============================================
Assuming that they were converted, rather than being written that way to
begin with, how does a conversion from one valid English language spelling
to another valid English language spelling represent "defiance of the
English language"?
> When they've been told that they're using a strange spelling,
Who is calling them "strange"? They're in the dictionary.
> they effectively state: "It's how WE'RE going to spell it -- deal with
> it."
It looks like you're dealing with it by calling it "defiance of the
English language" when in fact it's part of the English language and
therefore not in defiance at all.
>>> Or that a fuel gage is a pledge of the car's performance?
>> How can an inanimate object make a pledge?
> A pledge is a promise of future performance.
How can an inanimate object make a promise of future performance?
> In this case, if a fuel gage reads above empty, it is a pledge that there
> is enough fuel still in the car for it to operate
It's an indication, not a pledge. An inanimate object can't make a
pledge.
> (note: This is not strictly the case with Saturns -- there's a TSB out
> indicating that some Saturns don't take their pledge seriously).
It's not even a pledge, so why should something that can't be done be
taken seriously?
> To date, my fuel gage's pledge has been far more reliable than the marriage
> pledge made by my ex.
Impossible, given that a fuel gage can't make a pledge.
>>> (I'm ducking -- it's hard for me to gage what your responses will be...)
>> Shouldn't be.
> I've got to agree with you one this one -- it really wasn't hard to gage what
> your response would be.
Nor was it hard to gage your response.
> P.S. Congrats on your discovery of Tholen's rock.
Which one might that be?
Zipster200
>Temp?
Your confusion is justified. The Wanda Unit is now a Drone and a
member of The Collective.
"Temp" is simply a feeble slang word for that designation.
Allow this to be a LESSON to ALL inefficient subspecies!
Confronting the Tholen Drone is a CHALLENGE to The
Collective and you WILL be assimilated!
If you don't believe it, TRY US!!
Zipster Drone
In Order to Form a More Perfect Delta Quadrant