+0
Hi all,
Could you please check for grammar and style mistakes?

----------------------
When I was about ten, I remember my farther had a ZAZ 968M. It's englne's max power was about 40 hp, and the car easily run as fast as 130 km/h when not heavily loaded with people or weight. With four people inside, it accelerated up to 120 km/h. The ignition was set a bit forward, and the fuel level (mixture richness) in the carb fine tuned.

Also, when just bought, the ZAZ was droven very gently: not faster than 60 km/h, and very slowly up slants. That lasted for the first 3000 km. Then, we rode another 1000 km with a limit of 70 km/h and so on. As the result of the accurate running in, the engine was in perfect condition.

So, I just don't understand your suspiction about the car's specs...

Also, our older ZAZ with a 28 hp engine reached a maximim of 103 km/h, the specs giving 98.
----------------------

Thanks in advance.
Comments  
Hi,

I've tried to keep your words, but I've made some changes.

Cars in N. America are built today not to need running in.

Best wishes, Clive

When I was about ten, I remember my farther had a ZAZ 968M. It had about about 40 hp, and it easily went as fast as 130 km/h when not heavily loaded. With four people inside, it accelerated up to 120 km/h. The ignition was set a bit forward, and the fuel level (mixture richness) in the carb was fine tuned.

Also, when it was new, the ZAZ was driven very gently: not faster than 60 km/h, and very slowly up hills. That lasted for the first 3000 km. Then, we drove another 1000 km with a limit of 70 km/h, and so on. As the result of this careful running in, the engine was in perfect condition.

So, I just don't understand your suspiction about the car's specs...

Also, our former ZAZ with a 28 hp engine reached a maximim of 103 km/h, better than the 98 in the specs.
In addition to what Clive said:

...I remember my farther (father)

...I just don't understand your suspiction (suspicion)

Also, our former ZAZ with a 28 hp engine reached a maximim (maximum)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thank you very much, Clive and Nef!

Those stupid it's/its, run/ran, droven/driven mistakes! I made them through thoughtlessness. Sorry for swamping you with them.

When posting this, I got a reply from Nef where she gave an even closer-to-the-original version and thus resolved most of the questions I wanted to ask Jim.

Only a few remain:

What's the problem with «up slants»?
«Loaded with people...» — it sounds abusive and that the problem. Am I right?

To add to the confusion, Nef edited her post, having removed the corrected version.

Nef, is that version ok or have you changed your mind?

EDIT:
«Cars in N. America are built today not to need running in.»
Probably due to a great power reserve. Such an engine will rarely run at full, am I right?
Hi,

What's the problem with «up slants»? On roads, we usually talk about hills, or perhaps inclines.


«Loaded with people...» — it sounds abusive and that the problem. Am I right? No, you're not. There's nothing abusive about this. It just seems enough to say 'heavily loaded', but you could say 'with four people', you can say that.

Best wishes, Clive
Thank you very much, and sorry for calling you Jim.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Ant_222Thank you very much, and sorry for calling you Jim.
The only post I want to show now is the one with the three spelling corrections. At the time I posted, I hadn't seen Clive's earlier post. I think my earlier post was OK in terms of content, but it was not needed! I apologize for the confusion.

Clive and I both use North American English, and "up slants" doesn't seem to be a common phrase here. (I'd never heard it.) "Up hills" is used a lot. People in other places may say "up slants" instead of, or in addition to, "up hills".

Good luck with the car!

Hi,

Thank you very much, and sorry for calling you Jim. Don't worry about it, Fred, that's OK.

Best wishes again, Clive