'05 Dodge Stratus 2.4L ~ ~

Anyone know how many alemite / zertz grease fittings / plugs - to be
removed) - are located on this car that requires lubrication with a
grease gun?

Chilton / Haynes repair / service manuals for this model car are not out
yet, or on the shelves,

how long does one have to wait for a current model book to appear on the
shelf?

is it necessary to grease the steering rods / ball joints on this model
car?

what brand of chassis grease is recommended for better service /
performance? and, which is better regular or synthetic for this
application?

mho
vƒe

wrote:
> Anyone know how many alemite / zertz grease fittings / plugs - to be
> removed) - are located on this car that requires lubrication with a
> grease gun?
>
> Chilton / Haynes repair / service manuals for this model car are not out
> yet, or on the shelves,
>
> how long does one have to wait for a current model book to appear on the
> shelf?
>
> is it necessary to grease the steering rods / ball joints on this model
> car?
>
> what brand of chassis grease is recommended for better service /
> performance? and, which is better regular or synthetic for this
> application?
>
> mho
> vƒe
>

Google, It's a miracle.

http://www.books4cars.com/search~fin...~offset~-1.htm

Not cheap at $170.
For less I would imagine you could jack the car up and take a look for
some grease fittings in the usual spots (tie rod ends, ball joints, etc).

>nospam sez look for the plugs in the >usual spots.
====
Well, ok, but in the meantime - here is a
quick question you might have an answer for,

why do I only get 15 miles per gallon for city driving, when the epa
posted mileage is 22?

mho
vƒe

wrote:
> >nospam sez look for the plugs in the >usual spots.
> ====
> Well, ok, but in the meantime - here is a
> quick question you might have an answer for,
>
> why do I only get 15 miles per gallon for city driving, when the epa
> posted mileage is 22?
>
> mho
> vƒe

Google isn't a miracle, it's a necessity:

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/

>Google isn't a miracle it's a necessity
==
agree, but neither google or the epa in general terms is going to
address the case in point.

there is too much difference between the estimated, and real figures.
there has to be a definitive explanation, a remedy for the problem.

mho
vƒe

wrote:

> agree, but neither google or the epa in general terms is going to
> address the case in point.
> there is too much difference between the estimated, and real figures.
> there has to be a definitive explanation, a remedy for the problem.

While some people get MORE mpg than the epa claims they should get,
most vehicles get less. A lot less. I think it was a "PRIMETIME" or a
"20/20" show that tested a Jeep vehicle rated at 22 mpg and the actual
figures were 11 mpg. Still, you should be getting more on your
particular vehicle.

On 6 May 2006 11:34:22 -0700, "Kruse" > wrote:

>
wrote:
>
>> agree, but neither google or the epa in general terms is going to
>> address the case in point.
>> there is too much difference between the estimated, and real figures.
>> there has to be a definitive explanation, a remedy for the problem.
>
>While some people get MORE mpg than the epa claims they should get,
>most vehicles get less. A lot less. I think it was a "PRIMETIME" or a
>"20/20" show that tested a Jeep vehicle rated at 22 mpg and the actual
>figures were 11 mpg. Still, you should be getting more on your
>particular vehicle.

It's all about moving weight around.
My car weights 3800 lb, add 18 gallons of fuel, you've got 2 tons.

Otoh, I weigh 200 lb. 1/20th of the vehicle weight.

What we're really doing is moving the VEHICLE WEIGHT around...up
hills, overcoming friction, throwing out 70+% of the fuel BTU's on
engine heat, and there's us in the passenger compartment...almost an
afterthought.

There is no WAY to improve gas mileage in the sense that you _have_ to
move this weight around, and overcome aerodynamic drag. It is easier
if you think of a car as just a cubic block of
steel/iron/plastic/slag. Or just a rock.

If it has a MASS of such and such, and you have to do X amount of
*work* to move it from point A to point B, forget about *magical
numbers.* Until the laws of Physics change.

If you want to know how much economy your vehicle is going to give
you, think weight and aerodynamics. Forget the sticker on the
window...it is a Ruse.

Lg

I don't know Larry, my last 3 GM cars/trucks have all met hwy mileage
estimates at least in mild weather.
"Lawrence Glickman" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 May 2006 11:34:22 -0700, "Kruse" > wrote:
>
>>
wrote:
>>
>>> agree, but neither google or the epa in general terms is going to
>>> address the case in point.
>>> there is too much difference between the estimated, and real figures.
>>> there has to be a definitive explanation, a remedy for the problem.
>>
>>While some people get MORE mpg than the epa claims they should get,
>>most vehicles get less. A lot less. I think it was a "PRIMETIME" or a
>>"20/20" show that tested a Jeep vehicle rated at 22 mpg and the actual
>>figures were 11 mpg. Still, you should be getting more on your
>>particular vehicle.
>
> It's all about moving weight around.
> My car weights 3800 lb, add 18 gallons of fuel, you've got 2 tons.
>
> Otoh, I weigh 200 lb. 1/20th of the vehicle weight.
>
> What we're really doing is moving the VEHICLE WEIGHT around...up
> hills, overcoming friction, throwing out 70+% of the fuel BTU's on
> engine heat, and there's us in the passenger compartment...almost an
> afterthought.
>
> There is no WAY to improve gas mileage in the sense that you _have_ to
> move this weight around, and overcome aerodynamic drag. It is easier
> if you think of a car as just a cubic block of
> steel/iron/plastic/slag. Or just a rock.
>
> If it has a MASS of such and such, and you have to do X amount of
> *work* to move it from point A to point B, forget about *magical
> numbers.* Until the laws of Physics change.
>
> If you want to know how much economy your vehicle is going to give
> you, think weight and aerodynamics. Forget the sticker on the
> window...it is a Ruse.
>
> Lg
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

sorry, but the commenters so far - are missing the point i've tried to
make. this is a mechanical or electronic problem.

I posted on a less than normal temperature reading for this car, earlier
on.

if the operating temp is lacking, then the gas combustion is inadequate,
resulting in less mpg. true or false?

might be all wet, but then again it might just be something that simple.

I'll be going to the dealership next week for professional help. I'll
let you know, stay tuned in.

mho
vƒe

On Sat, 6 May 2006 17:00:12 -0400, "Shep" >
wrote:

>I don't know Larry, my last 3 GM cars/trucks have all met hwy mileage
>estimates at least in mild weather.

Shep, it's all Physics 101. Acceleration of Mass X from zero to Y mph
in Z seconds. Moving 2 tons up a hill, i.e. elevating that 2 tons, or
in effect, Lifting it, whatever the height of the hill is. There
isn't any magic to it, except you've got a frictional component in
there along with aerodynamic drag.

Depending on your acceleration demands ( how hard you push down on the
gas pedal ), you can watch the amount of WORK being done right in
front of your eyes if you keep tabs on the fuel tank gauge.

Hwy mileage estimates are easy, because it is presumed you're doing
the predictable speed limit, and they know the coefficient of
aerodynamic drag at that speed. They know what gear the vehicle will
be in. All very predictable, since they're not taking into account
stop and go driving, just a state of steady cruise.

If you want economy, get a lighweight vehicle. The trade off is,
you'll die in it if you hit a squirrel crossing the road. And
handling a light vehicle in a strong wind is a complete PITA. And
you'll most likely feel every pebble in the road that you run over.

I traded in economy for comfort, and am not sorry for my decision.
And I am not surprised *they* can predict, with reasonable accuracy,
HIGHWAY cruising mileage. It's all the other stuff that's going to
empty your tank. Like for example you know that 1.5 ton truck you're
driving? Put a 1.5 ton load in the back and get back to me on the
mpg.

Lg

>"Lawrence Glickman" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 6 May 2006 11:34:22 -0700, "Kruse" > wrote:
>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> agree, but neither google or the epa in general terms is going to
>>>> address the case in point.
>>>> there is too much difference between the estimated, and real figures.
>>>> there has to be a definitive explanation, a remedy for the problem.
>>>
>>>While some people get MORE mpg than the epa claims they should get,
>>>most vehicles get less. A lot less. I think it was a "PRIMETIME" or a
>>>"20/20" show that tested a Jeep vehicle rated at 22 mpg and the actual
>>>figures were 11 mpg. Still, you should be getting more on your
>>>particular vehicle.
>>
>> It's all about moving weight around.
>> My car weights 3800 lb, add 18 gallons of fuel, you've got 2 tons.
>>
>> Otoh, I weigh 200 lb. 1/20th of the vehicle weight.
>>
>> What we're really doing is moving the VEHICLE WEIGHT around...up
>> hills, overcoming friction, throwing out 70+% of the fuel BTU's on
>> engine heat, and there's us in the passenger compartment...almost an
>> afterthought.
>>
>> There is no WAY to improve gas mileage in the sense that you _have_ to
>> move this weight around, and overcome aerodynamic drag. It is easier
>> if you think of a car as just a cubic block of
>> steel/iron/plastic/slag. Or just a rock.
>>
>> If it has a MASS of such and such, and you have to do X amount of
>> *work* to move it from point A to point B, forget about *magical
>> numbers.* Until the laws of Physics change.
>>
>> If you want to know how much economy your vehicle is going to give
>> you, think weight and aerodynamics. Forget the sticker on the
>> window...it is a Ruse.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----