Terrible Fuel-Efficiency - 2003 Accord

See, i didn't know that. then again, i'm not now, nor have i ever
been, an MOT inspector. not exactly 'totally' wrong either, i was
write on the era, and many other things, just one small area i was
misinformed, by someone who should have known.

If you believe there to ahve been an error and to ahve been failed for
a reason unwarrented, you can appeal. If it had been a major rewire
job on my passenger-side fog light, and not just a blown bulb, then
who knows, i might have Then again, it isa light, and really, if you
have it, you should have it working. Where I was, Liverpool, is right
on the coast, so we often had bad fog and mist in the autumn/winter.
Better to be safe than sorry. Nor was it really a fail, more a case of
'the bulbs gone, 2 quid for a pair, and i'll slap it in for you, since
you don't have any in the car' about the same cost as halfords, did it
during the test, was the right size, and i use the same bulb elsewhere
anyway. Its only a fail when its written down on the sheet. Was
Niovember too, that i remember well, since it had missed its MOT
because i was freezing my arse off in Vegas for 2 weeks (and me, being
silly, throught vegas never got cold, and only packed summer things,
was below freezing most of the time, and i was working outside)

 

Yeah, i tend to get a bit frothy at the mouth when i see sloppy
thinking touted as fact. Comes from my nature i guess. and my father,
who as a rally driver, and mechanical engineer, often tried and forced
me into arguments just be sure i know my stuff. He was a hard bastard,
but he really drummed into me how to make a complete and concise
argument, which should bend to your opoonants view as much as is
reasonable, in order to prove how silly it is. This is something i do
a lot of. Since part of my job involves prototyping vehicles, for
various uses, safety systems are where my priority lies, mainly in
overestimating them - Half the time, i'm the one inside (if i won't
ride it, its not safe enough)

not at any kind of grade, no. one of the worst of that length that i
do quite regularly, is the 0.85mile one 9about what, 1.2km) which
averages a 1in16, just north of atlanta. We've both given examples of
a steeper one, but much shorter (some 0.3km only). You are someone
who's had real wold practical experiance with heavy braking, hills and
fade, or lackthereof.

Yep, brakes dissipate lots of heat when the vehicle is in motion -
something we deliberately removed from the calculations, primarally
because i have no way to measure, but also because it leans to Jim's
side (see above)

Here i'm not too sure. We agree that about the only use being in gear
has, is accelerating, or 'driving out' of a situation. Avalanches,
yes, not situations you'll see on either cost of the US though, where
we are. If it were really that important to accelerate, I'd be
changine gears anyway, for a lower one, for better acceleration, if a
tornado is comming (a more common risk over here at least, 4rth or 3rd
would be a better gear to aceclerate in, than the 5th gear i'd be in
for the cruise down the hill.

i wouldn't say its unpredictable, or 'less concentrating' though. When
keeping the momentum up, you end up glacing at the speedo, yes, (but
isn't that the point of all those speed cameras, to make you watch
your speedo!) but putting it into gear from neutral is no more
involved than just changing gear, after all, in a manual car, part of
changing gear is 'coasting'. Eratic speeds don't match either, since i
will put it into gear to keep my speed to a point i set myself at.
i'll aim to keep that speed above that minimum regardless. downhill
you'll be going faster, not slower, so you'll be leaving those brake
riders, or engine brakers behind. (assuming of course, they don't
either coast, or accelerate down the hill themselves).

I've fuond that only a few palces actually BAN coasting, or at least
make it a ticketable offence. Many others frown on it, the same way
corsing your hands on the wheel, or changing gear ina corner is fornw
upon. Of course, there is something i've been longing to say, but have
avoided it hoping someone else would. Automatic hgearboxes, in the
main, do not offer any form of engine braking at hgiher speeds, in
higher gears. Lock them into 2, or ! and they will, but regular D,
nope.
"Many automatic transmissions use overrunning or one-way mechanical
clutches to transmit power through the transmission. These devices
make upshifts smooth because only one clutch has to apply during a
shift instead of one applying and another releasing (the overrunning
clutch releases automatically). The disadvantage of overrunning
clutches is that they can only transfer torque one way so they provide
no engine braking."
(source http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/030806.htm - the
very first link ona google search for "Automatic transmission"
"Engine braking" You'd have to manually shift an automatic box to a
non-overdrive situation, to a gear with engine braking. Maybe you
didn't understand how the civic was coasting. (lovely overdrive, which
is neutral). The van has no such lovelyness (being a crappy american
slushbox) but since i've uprated the brakes anyway, to the point
where, if needed, under normal use any one wheel will function to slow
the vehicle under normal loading on its own (since on occasion, i take
it right upto its mgvw, with all the hills and stop-starts here for
deer and such, i don't like to take chances with substandard parts,
like jim does 9after all, he uses cheap pads, and had them burn outt o
nothing ona short 1 in 7.5 grade, at low speed)

Oh dear, its gotten another long post again (sorry, i'm a windbag) but
i hope you get my intent.

 

Just for the record, I have an '03 Toyota Corolla that was bothering me for some
time until I finally realised that it downshifts from overdrive when the brakes
are applied (fairly hard) going downhill. I haven't determined exactly why it
does it (that, the parameters of when it happens), but it definately does
downshift.

 

Hello,
I just wanted to let people know that plan to coast their vehicles down
hill that it causes more WEAR on the transmissions. It also causes more
WEAR on the clutch. In other words, if you two people have the same type
of cars, the person that coasts down the hills is more likely to have to
have the transmission or clutch repaired or replaced than the other person
that did NOT coast down hills.
Jason

 

You said this early as well, and then, as now, you gave nothing to
back it up.

 

Murphy's Law and common sense. The more that a transmission or clutch is
used, the more likely it is to develop problems. That's one of reasons
that most people trade in or sell their cars after they are three or four
years old.
They know that those older cars will have more problems than a new cars
will have.

 

Hmm ... I still think you understate the usefullness of being in gear. A
car looses certain handling characteristics when out of gear too - hard to
explain, but from trying both, it certainly feels less surefooted without
drive.

When you change gear, you really don't coast - you momentarily interrupt
drive. If you stay out of gear, it takes time to react, grab the knob, get
it in gear (you'll probably miss if you panic) and drive away. Much better
to be in gear in the first place. Sometimes just a small bit of throttle is
needed to minimise risk - not quite the live/die evasive action scenario you
refer to.

I get what you're saying, and you're defending against an opinion that goes
too far the other way, but I still don't think you should coast - it's kinda
lazy driving. That in conjunction to the points above to me means you could
be slightly (not a lot, but a little) more likely to suffer misfortune than
if you didn't.

So to sum up, I agree and disagree with you both, on separate points ;p





a

 

While that is literally true, I'm not so sure it's particularly relevant.
In the scheme of things, clutches take a lot of wear. How many times you
change isn't nearly as important as how often you pull away in 1st/2nd and
how badly you change gear!

Also, new cars have problems because they're new and unproven, which can
often equal the problems of older cars - particularly on reliable models.





a

 

Hello,
Those cars don't develop problems due to WEAR. They develop problems due
to other problems. New cars are covered by warranties. The issue in this
case is the extra WEAR that is caused by over use of the clutch and
transmissions. If people want to do it--just don't be shocked when you
have to spend several thousand dollars replacing the clutch or
transmission.
Jason

 

Dont it for years, in mainly older cars. Only in one have i had to
replace transmissions/clutches - my 89 mg metro twin turbo, snapped
clutch cable, and once i also overfilled the engine with oil a bit -
those engines are real finicky, as the oil is also shared with the
gearbox. it seeped out and into the clutch itself. took about an hour
or twos work, to clean the oil off the plates, a few hundred miles of
driving,a nd it was good as new.

i think you minsunderstand just whats going on. In coasting, the
cluthc is used to disengage the transmission, as it would be in
changing gear. it is then left out of gear, meaning that the wheel
side is going at the road wheel speed, as is ormal, so no difference
in wear there, and the engine side is going at the engine speed, which
is lower, thus LESS wear there. Struggling to see how this increases
wear myself...

 

Hello,
I drove a dump truck one summer and learned from one of the other drivers
on the construction crew that the engine could be used to slow down a
loaded dump truck while going down hill. I use the engine in my Honda
Accord to slow down the car when going down grades. I have a question for
you: How often did you have brake problems as a result of making use of
your brakes (instead of engine) while going down grades.
Jason

 

Precicely zero. Why? simple
I don't coast down steep grades. Where engine braking is important,
and usefull, iuse it. where its not, i don't.i'm in control of the
car, i am allowed to pick and choose when i want to coast.

 

One word - depreciation!! Why would you buy a new car and see its value
halve in 3 years (or worse)? Who cares about replacing the odd clutch
compared to loosing maybe £3000 a year in depreciation for your average £20k
car?

Most expensive thing I've ever had happen to me is when the distributor
bearings exploded on my old Civic. Managed to limp to my local garage as it
happens, so now towing needed. About £600 in repairs IIRC. Tyres and
brakes are what I land up spending big money on most regularly - and that
wouldn't matter a damn no matter how old the car!




a

 

Ahhh ... sense(ish) at last!

However I still disagree and I never ever coast in my car unless I'm about
25m away from lights or I'm slowly moving down a car park ramp, a few cars
at a time! I can't help but think you're all missing the point though.
What's with all this braking/coasting? Accelerate down the damn hill and
quit pussying around!! That'll put some real heat in your brakes when you
need them!!!




a

 

too true - i used to burn through tyres in my old 340, and my mg metro
- i'd be lucky if a pair of rears for the volvo, or fronts for the
metro lasted 3000 miles. only replaced the brakes once on the volvo -
and i still have the scars on my shin from that 3 day job, back in jan
2002.

 

The V6 is really not that fuel efficient.