1.8t really puts out 170hp?!
Ben
on why they went a lower-torque route than other chips -- neuspeed claims a
15% increase, which bumps the 1.8t's 155 lb/ft up to ~180; seriously lower
than giac's 238 lb/ft chip, for example.
the tech told me two things: first, their opinion is more boost (theirs is
14.7psi) is a high detonation risk, and second, that the 1.8t actually puts
out 170hp (and presumably more torque than 155), and that VW underrates it
so the VR6 still sells. was this guy stoned, or what? every 1.8t test i've
seen puts its HP pretty much dead-on at 150.
has anyone tested the neuspeed chip? and what about the others.. has
anyone's giac-1.8t exploded? neuspeed didn't even have dyno results to fax
me -- the only reasons i'm still interested is their reputation, and that
there may be some truth to the detonation risk.
Ben
RCAKASUPES
>out 170hp (and presumably more
The 2001 audi 1.8t a4 has 170hp.
Josh
switching to a Garrett when they already had a Neuspeed chip, and are very
happy they did.
~ Josh
'90 -VW Jetta Gli 2.0-16v ( Econo~Porsche )
"No, you cant drive it!"
Marc Warden
There was a recent car mag issue which tested a GTi and based on its
performance and compared to another car (or cars) with more HP (claimed) the
author expressed some belief that VW underrated the 1.8l turbo-charged engine's
HP and maybe torque.
Wouldn't it be interesting to learn that the engine in the GTi and the Audi
were the same but just 'rated' differently on paper?
Sincerely,
MarcW. (Mildly interesting...)
Scott
chip mods.
Scott
"RCAKASUPES" <rcaka...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001016174300...@ng-xb1.aol.com...
> >1.8t actually puts
> >out 170hp (and presumably more
>
John Rutledge
John
Jim <twol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39EB9BC0...@hotmail.com...
> Can you name the mag?
Jim
Marc Warden wrote:
Can you name the mag?
Bob Roberts
Bob
"Ben" <_ptol...@island.net> wrote in message
news:8sfof...@enews3.newsguy.com...
CHRIS86VW
>
and Eurpean car, since they are from teh same publisher.
chris
chris86vw@aol
CHRIS86VW
>were the same but just 'rated' differently on paper?
Well it depends what car you are talknig about form Audi or VW but other then
the 225 HP TT they are all virtually mechanically teh same. I forget exactly
what is differnt about the 225 off the top of my head but it is pistons rods,
crank sometihgn liek that, not sure, I checked part numbers one day at work and
forget now, i believe it was just pistons though.
As for the rest except for differences between longitudinal and transverse
mountings they are all physically the same thing with different chip tunig,
make sure you bring that up at yoru dearl if they ever give you a hard time for
having a chip, VW/audi built into the car a margin for them to tune it and you
are just followign in there foot steps. Note the 225 HP veriosn has lower CR
and has two ICs so dont' try and pass off 225 as safe, it is most likely bu tin
there minds it is not as they added extra precautiuons.
chris
chris86vw@aol
Eric Fahlgren
>
> >1.8t actually puts
> >out 170hp (and presumably more
>
And the TT has a 225 hp version, too.
--
Eric Fahlgren Mechanical Dynamics, Inc
ef...@adams.com Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
George C. Mantis
>
> RCAKASUPES wrote:
> >
> > >1.8t actually puts
> > >out 170hp (and presumably more
> >
> > The 2001 audi 1.8t a4 has 170hp.
>
> And the TT has a 225 hp version, too.
>
Yes, but that's using a larger turbo on the 1.8T.
--
· George C. Mantis · "Aaaaaahhhhh!"
· · · | · "What? What's burning?"
· · - + - "We are!" "You're right!
· · · | · Aaaaaahhhhh!"
www.ASDL.gatech.edu · -Alien: Resurrection
Marc Warden
I'm not sure, but it might have been Car (a UK publication) or pehaps Automobile (a
USA publication) or even European Car as someone else suggested.
Since I've become interested in a getting a VW I've been trying to catch up and learn
whatever I can about the cars and have been reading and rereading articles or reviews
of the cars, though if I can't remember any better what I read why bother...
Anyhow, I'll see if I can dig up the magazine and find the article and quote magazine
and page number and in fact maybe I can quote the pertinent sentence or two from the
article.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Qwibble
My God I Want One
"George C. Mantis" <gm...@asdl.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:39EC58B9...@asdl.gatech.edu...
> Eric Fahlgren wrote:
> >
> > RCAKASUPES wrote:
> > >
> > > >1.8t actually puts
> > > >out 170hp (and presumably more
> > >
Marc Warden
Here is the info:
The magazine is european car and the issue is July 2000.
The article is titled:
Face-to-Face: Civic Si vs. GTI 1.8T
and it starts on page 74.
The pertinent sentences from the 1st paragraph on page 75 are:
The GTI is the clear winner in the power game in this contest. Its power is more
usable and easier to access than the Si. This makes quick driving an effortless
breeze. On paper the difference certainly isn't easy to discern, but put both cars on
a dyno and the facts are cleared up in a hurry. The bottom line is simple: Volkswagon
underrates considerably the output of its 1.8t. It made 153 hp at the wheels-- more
power than the engine is rated for at the flywheel. I can only guess VW rated the
1.8t this conservatively to protect sales of its top-of-the-line VR6 model. After
all, would you pony up the extra cash for a VR6 if you knew the 1.8 made nearly the
same power?
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Marc Warden
Yes, here is the info:
Jim
guys. This muddles my decision process a little. I was leaning (heavily) towards the VR6
thinking that bigger is always better and matched mod-for-mod, the VR6 will always have
more power. If they are equal from the get go, that $4,000 will come in handy!!!!
Marc Warden wrote:
Marc Warden
> Thanks for looking up the article Marc. I'm one of those "must-see-it-to-believe-it"
> guys. This muddles my decision process a little. I was leaning (heavily) towards the VR6
> thinking that bigger is always better and matched mod-for-mod, the VR6 will always have
> more power. If they are equal from the get go, that $4,000 will come in handy!!!!
>
> Marc Warden wrote:
>
> > Jim wrote:
> >
> > Yes, here is the info:
> >
> > The magazine is european car and the issue is July 2000.
> >
> > The article is titled:
> >
> > Face-to-Face: Civic Si vs. GTI 1.8T
> >
> > and it starts on page 74.
> >
> > The pertinent sentences from the 1st paragraph on page 75 are:
> >
> > The GTI is the clear winner in the power game in this contest. Its power is more
> > usable and easier to access than the Si. This makes quick driving an effortless
> > breeze. On paper the difference certainly isn't easy to discern, but put both cars on
> >
> > a dyno and the facts are cleared up in a hurry. The bottom line is simple: Volkswagon
> >
> > underrates considerably the output of its 1.8t. It made 153 hp at the wheels-- more
> > power than the engine is rated for at the flywheel. I can only guess VW rated the
> > 1.8t this conservatively to protect sales of its top-of-the-line VR6 model. After
> > all, would you pony up the extra cash for a VR6 if you knew the 1.8 made nearly the
> > same power?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > MarcW.
$4000 diff for the VR6 vs. the 1.8T? Well, that would make up my mind for me...
VW is really attaching a premium for the VR6 over the 1.8T, too much in my opinion.
Rule of thumb is to get the car with the bigger engine, because even though the bigger
engine will not get quite as good mileage (though in some cases the difference is slight --
1/2mpg), the bigger engine doesn't have to work as hard as the smaller engine.
Also, the car with the bigger engine is nicer to drive because one doesn't have to always
keep the engine on the cam to get the car from point A to point B. (In this article I
mentioned above, the author says something to the effect we buy HP, but we drive torque, the
point being a engine wiht high torque is a easier, more pleasurable car to drive.)
But at a $4000 premium, I don't know. I'd have to drive both cars and I mean really give
them a good test drive not a full throttle drive, but a drive to see how they handled real
world situations, merging into freeway traffic, climb any grades around, deal with a stiff
head wind, passing on the highway, etc.
A friend bought a new Toyota (this was a few years ago) and it was a very nice car but it
didn't have the ooomph (the thing was very underpowered) and he ended up trading it in on a
new Golf. He owned VWs before the Toyota and was sorry he strayed...
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Scott
"Marc Warden" <marc....@att.net> wrote in message
news:39EF87C7...@att.net...
...
> Also, the car with the bigger engine is nicer to drive because one doesn't
have to always
> keep the engine on the cam to get the car from point A to point B. (In
this article I
> mentioned above, the author says something to the effect we buy HP, but we
drive torque, the
> point being a engine wiht high torque is a easier, more pleasurable car to
drive.)
The thing is...
I've driven both and the 1.8t is just more FUN. The 6 just feels heavy,
takes a while to rev up, etc. The 1.8t has a touch of turbo lag, but once it
hits the power band it is all smiles. It is geared so that once you get into
the power band you stay there through subsequent shifts. I'd really like to
try a chipped 1.8t to see what it is like.
Scott
Marc Warden
The 1.8T is more fun than and $4000 cheaper than the VR6? What are you waiting
for?
Unless the 1.8T lacks (or lacked) the grunt, I'd buy the 1.8T engine. While I'm
not quite taken with that cam belt design, I think the 1.8T is a more modern
engine. I like the fact it doesn't require an air pump to help it meet
emissions, while the VR6 does.
(I would like to see VW go to an all aluminum engine, block and head....)
The new VR6, the one with 4 valve (or is it 5 valve?) head(s), I think (when it
becomes available here in the USA) will be a very nice engine, much more modern
in its design.
But until then (and my opinion is proved (or disproved) by having the engine
available to test, compare against the old one) with the choice the 1.8T or the
old VR6 plus $4000, well, you know...
Sincerely,
MarcW.
CHRIS86VW
>I'm
The 1.8T feels much peepier and the VR6 feels stronger stock. Chip both and the
1.8T still feels peppier and stronger now. I have a VR6 passat and highly
modded 1.8T Jetta. the jetta with a chip blows teh doors off the Passat. My
brother also has a 97 GTI VR6 now chipped and while strong feeling lacks the
throw you in the seat kick of my 1.8t.
>While I'm
>not quite taken with that cam belt design, I think the 1.8T is a more modern
>engine. I like the fact it doesn't require an air pump to help it meet
>emissions, while the VR6 does.
As for the timing belt as a tech I see no problem with it at all, just watch it
when it gets near the recommended change interval and you should have no
problems. Timing chains while have fewer problems can have things go wrong and
tend to be more of a pain if anyint major needs to be done like pull the head.
I have neve really been to concerned as to what each car has I just accept it
and do what I have to do with each car I have.
as for the air pump, All new VWs, and I am pretty sure every car has a
secondary air pump, it is part of OBD II which is required on all cars in the
US. Every car has to have something that functions in the same way. It is there
to lower emissions further not make it pass.
>(I would like to see VW go to an all aluminum engine, block and head....)
>
Why so that it is harder to do things like turbo and nitrous on a stock block?
VW is dong just fine with there indestructable motors, I have seen VW motors
run till they locked with no oil, pour 4 qts in start it up and whithin 5
minutes it is purring like it was before the moron started it without the oil.
>But until then (and my opinion is proved (or disproved) by having the engine
>available to test, compare against the old one) with the choice the 1.8T or
>the
>old VR6 plus $4000, well, you know...
>
The new head sees some gains, but so what I am a turbo guy, it will be nice if
we ever see it here. As for the 4K difference, you ahve to remember this is
only on the GTI and with that you get more then just an engine, you get
leather, wood, 16s, a whole bunch of stuff, not that it may all be wanted but
you get what you pay for there. in a Jetta the difference is only 1500 bucks.
chris
chris86vw@aol
Marc Warden
According to the VW site, the 1.8T doesn't have or require an air pump. My info is
the 'new' VR6 doesn't come with one. Don't know about the old (?) 1.8l
non-turbocharged engine.
Outside of VW, I know of at least several USA brand engines that do not require an
air pump, these engines being a newer generation of engine, designed to conform to
not only the current emissions laws in effect, but the ones supposedly scheduled to
take effect 1 or more years into the future.
Based on this, my impression is that an air pump equipped engine denotes an engine
of an older design, with the air pump being a band aid to prolong the engine's
useful life in the face of every increasing emissions standards.
As for the all aluminum engine, it doesn't make engine mods harder (per se) or (if
properly designed) any less robust than one with a cast iron block and aluminum
head(s).
My desire for an all aluminum engine (block and head(s)) is that there is less of a
problem with engine corrosion and cooling system problems when the block and head
are made from the same materials.
The coolant has be to formulated to help counter the chemical reactions that can
and do occur when dissimular metals are in close and direct contact.
Better is if the engine block and head(s) are all the same material, either all
cast iron, or all aluminum.
However, VW is not the only auto(engine)maker to mix engine block and head
materials.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
CHRIS86VW
>info is
>the 'new' VR6 doesn't come with one. Don't know about the old (?) 1.8l
>non-turbocharged engine.
As a VW tech and probably one of the people in the US with teh most work done
to a 1.8T jetta, I can assure you there is an air pump on this motor, and that
there is also one on the VR6. Look at the airbox, see tha tlittel hose that
comes off teh left side and goes down to the front of the engione, guess what
that is the air pump. Also whenver I work on a car, as I do MILs all day long
I have to set readiness, guess waht one step is checking secondary air. whic
his guess what teh air pump, to do that you go to 01/04/077 with a scan tool if
you still doubt me.. I also changed one on a Passat 1.8t last week because it
sounded like a helipcopter taking off. They all defintly have air pumps.
I do believe that VW left it off ther site and taht would explain why they left
it out on the setp for setting readiness on teh new cars and made my life a
living hell the other day when I could not set readiness as per tehre
direction, why they left out that step. So they may be convinced it is not
there but they srue are.
chris
chris86vw@aol
Marc Warden
At a VW web site (www.vw.com/gti/engspec.htm#tech) the complete specs for the GTI
GSL 1.8T and the GTI GLX 2.8L VR6 are given.
Scrolling down a page or so to the section 'emissions' looking across I see under
the 1.8T engine
OBD II, LEV, 3-way catalytic converter with two oxygen sensors (up- and downstream)
Under the VR6 engine:
OBD II, LEV, 3-way catalytic converter with two oxygen sensors (upstream- and
downstream), secondary air injection pump, onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
(Interesting that both engines are labeled/classified as 'LEV' -- I had thought the
1.8T would qualify for ELEV status... Maybe this LEV status does indicate an air
pump would be part of the emissions equipment?)
Now just because the VW site indicates the 1.8T doesn't come with an air pump
doesn't mean it doesn't come with an air pump. Web pages are not gospel.
Have you serviced any of the 2001 GTIs with the 1.8T engine? Have you seen an air
pump on any of these engines?
If you have, then of course my understanding based on the info from the above named
web site (and another web site, but which is probably derived from the info on the
VW web site) is wrong.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
CHRIS86VW
will try and check tomorrow.
chirs
chris86vw@aol
VR6 1992 GTi
has one, and I think I recall reading 150hp....she's got a ND Stage 2 kit on it
though...somewhere around 200... and it's quick....:) Damn women and their
cars....
Mike
I seem to recall the actual dyno sheets telling a different story. Something
like it put out about 150 to the wheels.
Mike
http://www.geocities.com/vwmikel/
Andrew B.
>like it put out about 150 to the wheels.
The actual dyno sheet for what? The ND Stage 2 kit? or the stock 1.8T Beetle?
or the 1.8T motor?
-andrew-
'89 16v GTI
Oo=\x/=oO
Ned Hodgson
against the Civic Si. The engine is rated by VW at 150hp, However, in
their dyno tests, SCC found that the GTI puts out only one HP less at the
wheels than the Civic, which is rated at 160HP. The general line of thought
was that VW underrated the engine to keep it from infringing on the sales of
the costlier VR6. So, while the 1.8T is not quite pumping out 170HP, it is
definitely more powerful than rated, by 8-10HP.
Of course, you can't chip the Civic to 197HP for $400. GTIs do that quite
well. Just ask Garrett. http://www.giacusa.com
Nedstar1
'00 GTI 1.8T
Andrew B. <hood...@aol.comblahblah> wrote in message
news:20001028032054...@ng-df1.aol.com...
Kevin Collins
> I read about this in Sport Compact Car, when they put the GTI GLS 1.8T up
> against the Civic Si. The engine is rated by VW at 150hp, However, in
> their dyno tests, SCC found that the GTI puts out only one HP less at the
> wheels than the Civic, which is rated at 160HP. The general line of thought
> was that VW underrated the engine to keep it from infringing on the sales of
> the costlier VR6. So, while the 1.8T is not quite pumping out 170HP, it is
> definitely more powerful than rated, by 8-10HP.
And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.
More reponsible journalism by the fine folks at EC.. not!
Sure, THAT example may have been up 8-10 hp.. the next one may have been
down by that much. It's called production tolerance. If they sourced the
car directly from VW (likely), then it was probably hand-picked for them,
and it would be far less than surprising if VW gave them a "ringer".
--
Kevin Collins
'86.5 16V 2.0
'00 Passat GLS 1.8T
Ned Hodgson
to it, of course, and it's not written for the technical crowd, but they
cover a broad spectrum of cars, and the writing isn't bad, so I read it when
I come across it. Anyhow, I should have made the same distinction you did -
in this case, the engine came out looking good. I've heard about production
tolerances, but I would be very suprised if VW was allowing a power variance
that high (8-10?) to go uncorrected.
Garrett, a chip maker and tuner for VW's and others, shows a dyno for the
1.8T dead on at 150HP. Wouldn't you think they sourced their car from VW as
well?
All bickering aside, I'm just glad I get to drive one.
Nedstar1
'00 GTI 1.8T
Kevin Collins <kcol...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:39FFC124...@socal.rr.com...
CHRIS86VW
>to it, of course, and it's not written for the technical crowd, but they
>cover a broad spectrum of cars, and the writing isn't bad, so I read it when
>I come across it. Anyhow, I should have made the same distinction you did -
>in this case, the engine came out looking good. I've heard about production
>tolerances, but I would be very suprised if VW was allowing a power variance
>that high (8-10?) to go uncorrected.
>
>Garrett, a chip maker and tuner for VW's and others, shows a dyno for the
>1.8T dead on at 150HP. Wouldn't you think they sourced their car from VW as
>well?
>
>All bickering aside, I'm just glad I get to drive one.
>
None of teh cars are sourced from VW. The CarS ion EC are three different cars
taht eblong to the tuners, when they did that chip comparison, the main reason
being taht all three tuners use differnt forms of chipping, different style
sockets or no socket at all. So it is sort of hard to get a good comparison
from there
As for GIACs test cars, tehy use real peoples cars, I am testing the AWE KO4
kit on my jetta right now.
chris
chris86vw@aol
Jeff Kershner Jr
Jeff
www.vwrep.com
CHRIS86VW <chri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001101235729...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
Stuart Hall
Marc Warden <marc....@att.net> wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> underrates considerably the output of its 1.8t. It made 153 hp at
the wheels-- more
> power than the engine is rated for at the flywheel. I can only guess
VW rated the
> 1.8t this conservatively to protect sales of its top-of-the-line VR6
model. After
> all, would you pony up the extra cash for a VR6 if you knew the 1.8
made nearly the
> same power?
>
Maybe because EC made a mistake. The same article in SCC rated the
engine as 143hp. I think there is a letter in this month's magazine
with an apology for the misprint.
stuart
--
Stuart Hall
Connecticut, USA
DeSlot slot car timing systems: http://DeSlot.sourceforge.net
Personal web pages: http://stuarthall.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Phil Kerschner
-Phil Kerschner
"Jeff Kershner Jr" <jeff...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8tt8vv$a71$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Kevin Collins
> I don't really have a problem with the folks at EC and SCC. It's got bias
> to it, of course, and it's not written for the technical crowd, but they
> cover a broad spectrum of cars, and the writing isn't bad, so I read it when
> I come across it. Anyhow, I should have made the same distinction you did -
> in this case, the engine came out looking good. I've heard about production
> tolerances, but I would be very suprised if VW was allowing a power variance
> that high (8-10?) to go uncorrected.
I still think it was just a hand-picked car putting out exceptional power.
Nothing more.
> Garrett, a chip maker and tuner for VW's and others, shows a dyno for the
> 1.8T dead on at 150HP. Wouldn't you think they sourced their car from VW as
> well?
Nope. Garrett Lim is a medical student who does the GIAC thing as a hobby,
more or less. Any car he tests his chips on comes from customers or pals,
certainly NOT sourced from VWoA, who would never condone his activities.
Ned Hodgson
> Ned Hodgson wrote:
>
> > I don't really have a problem with the folks at EC and SCC. It's got
bias
> > to it, of course, and it's not written for the technical crowd, but they
> > cover a broad spectrum of cars, and the writing isn't bad, so I read it
when
> > I come across it. Anyhow, I should have made the same distinction you
did -
> > in this case, the engine came out looking good. I've heard about
production
> > tolerances, but I would be very suprised if VW was allowing a power
variance
> > that high (8-10?) to go uncorrected.
>
> I still think it was just a hand-picked car putting out exceptional power.
> Nothing more.
Would you suspect that Honda similarly stacked this deck? I'm inclined to
think VW's engine is underrated , but just from a seat of the pants reading.
It stands to reason, and makes good business snese, to dleiver a top-shelf
example of your car for road/performance testing, especially with car
magazines. Regardless of these circumstances, the power potential of the
1.8T for the money is very hard to beat. Yes, a VR6 is faster stock, but
the same amount of performance investment, puts the 1.8T well into and past
VR6 country.
I've driven the VR6, and iot's no slouch - a totally different ride. No
drive by wire, no turbo rush, just lots and lots of head wrenching torque.
I liked it, but the same car with the 1.8T is a better, IMHO, ride. The
front isn't as heavy, the power is well matched to the car, it twists a
little easier. . . Well, my vote is cast.
>
> > Garrett, a chip maker and tuner for VW's and others, shows a dyno for
the
> > 1.8T dead on at 150HP. Wouldn't you think they sourced their car from
VW as
> > well?
>
> Nope. Garrett Lim is a medical student who does the GIAC thing as a
hobby,
> more or less. Any car he tests his chips on comes from customers or pals,
> certainly NOT sourced from VWoA, who would never condone his activities.
Say, do you think an A4 1.8T chip will drop into a GTI? I've been
wondering.
Nedstar1
Scott
the A4 with that same 1.8t engine. It's enough to make me think about a VR6.
I look forward to the rest of the Project A4 articles to see what happens
when they start adding mods to support the chips.
Scott
"Ned Hodgson" <ne...@madrivercanoe.com> wrote in message
news:8ucc63$fo3s$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Marc Warden
But one must assume that Honda also supplied a ringer and the comparison is valid.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Kevin Collins
> But one must assume that Honda also supplied a ringer and the comparison is
valid.
Why? While they certainly had the opportunity do so, doesn't mean they
automatically would..
Edward Hodgson
Earlier in this thread, you assert that VW almost certainly suplied a ringer
for performance testing. Allow me to quote you:
<<<begin excerpt>>>
"And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.
More reponsible journalism by the fine folks at EC.. not!
Sure, THAT example may have been up 8-10 hp..(sic) the next one may have
been down by that much. It's called production tolerance. If they sourced
the
car directly from VW (likely), then it was probably hand-picked for them,
and it would be far less than surprising if VW gave them a "ringer".(sic)
--
Kevin Collins
'86.5 16V 2.0
'00 Passat GLS 1.8T"
<<<end excerpt>>>
Then, a few days later, you say that Honda did not necessarily supply a
ringer for THEIR performance tests. Again with the quotes:
<<<begin excerpt>>>
<<<end excerpt>>>
What up with this? You own two VWs yourself, and you malign the company's
reputation out here on the worldwide web, while promoting a main competitor
of VW's. I used to drive a Honda, and it was a pretty good car, but
compared to my GTI, it was a buzzy, tinny, insubstantial and underpowered
little gocart. (It was a '90 Civic Si.)
You ought to go down to the Honda dealership and drive the same car that
your Passat's cost could have gotten you there, and then maybe you'd
appreciate what you've got a bit more.
Maybe.
Nedstar1
'00 GTI 1.8T
"Kevin Collins" <kcol...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3A0E2A63...@socal.rr.com...