Re: Honda CR-V rotor lifespan
"Ralph" <nospam@thanks.com> wrote in news:431f2795$1_1@news.cybersurf.net:
> The dealership says my sister's rotors must be replaced 'because they're > rusting'. > > The CR-V has 60,000 km on it. Is this normal wear? > > Your expert opinion is invited... thanks, Jack. > > 60K km (40K miles) in how many years? You haven't provided that, and it's crucial. You're obviously in Canada, but I don't know where. Northeastern Canada is the very worst place for brake rust on the planet. The less you drive, the more rust forms, and the sooner they need replacing relative to your mileage. Elmo is right. -- TeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Honda CR-V rotor lifespan
Thanks for your insight.
Location - Ottawa. I think my sister's CR-V is about 2 years old. Thanks again for writing - Jack. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
<Rob> wrote in message news:4dvqh1pinsv24o2bu5vb004dpq8gsd9034@4ax.com... > Just thought this gas mileage story might be worth noting for some > Honda Accord buyers. > > I just took my first long ride with this car this past weekend from > Houston, Texas to Austin, Texas and back. I used cruise control 99 > percent of the time and had 2 adults, 2 teenagers and baggage and air > conditioning 100 percent of the time. I locked in the cruise control > at about 66 or 67 mph (speed limit said 70) and just stayed mostly in > the right lane to allow cars/trucks to pass me. Most of the trip is > hilly terrain and weather was sunny and warm and not much wind. Car > is in excellent shape. > > I was concerned that gas stations would be closed based on news > reports earlier so I wanted to be sure to do this trip on one tank of > gas tho it turned out gas stations were open. I calculated I got 37.5 > mile/gal and I was totally surprised. That's not surprising. I get similar mileage too with mine. Can do Dallas-Houston-Dallas on one tank easy. RAT |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
Well, it sounds like he is coasting a lot and letting his speed drop
when going up hills also. If you really game the system, you will beat the cruise control. After all, you can see what's coming up next, and it can't. It also sounds like he's making his fellow drivers nuts by going 50 mph and getting in their way. Austin traffic is hellacious, and I wouldn't want to be behind this guy so he can save $10 a month. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:11:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >In article <4nh3v2-pso.ln1@new.helps.com>, jdhoward@helps.com wrote: > >> To get that economy, I use no air >> conditioning, no cruise control > >ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control. You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a constant speed, no to do it efficiently. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
In article <jae3i1t4su6d9t906l762eqek64nj8vo48@4ax.com>,
flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote: > >ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control. > > You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing > economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a > constant speed, no to do it efficiently. So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually, and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so be it? |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:21:40 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >In article <jae3i1t4su6d9t906l762eqek64nj8vo48@4ax.com>, > flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote: > >> >ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control. >> >> You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing >> economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a >> constant speed, no to do it efficiently. > >So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually, >and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so >be it? I say up front i ahven't used cruise control in years, except for once last week. My vehicles don't have it, i don't use it. I used it on my wifes work van, a 96 T+C. Before this, my last experiance was with a 03 buick century back in 03 (a rental car). Basically, whenevre it droped below the set speed, it opened the throttle to what felt like 20%, and carried on until the set speed was reached. Personally, i'd fluctuate a bit more, run it 3 or so over, let it run 3 or so under, and repeat. The vehicle seemed to surge as well, as it moved into acceleration mode. and it never went over about 2500rpm, avoiding the peak torque area (which is the most efficient area)) although whether this was more a fact of the cruise control, or the slushbox, i don't know. These large and drequent instances of throttle usage are not efficient However, the wife loves the cruise control. i've asked her to make a not of how far and how much fuel she used in the van today, and when we do the route again, i'lm going to go with her, and drive as i normally do, to compareThat'll be at least a week away though. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
In article <efn3i15adugoiooa593scpffimo9mth3m7@4ax.com>,
flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote: > >So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually, > >and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so > >be it? > > I say up front i ahven't used cruise control in years, except for once > last week. My vehicles don't have it, i don't use it. I used it on my > wifes work van, a 96 T+C. Before this, my last experiance was with a > 03 buick century back in 03 (a rental car). So you're saying you have very little experience with cruise control. I also noticed that you avoided answering my question, so I'll ask it again: So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually, and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so be it? Is that what you're doing when you drive, to avoid the throttle movements that are "inefficient"? |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
In rec.autos.makers.honda Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually, > and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so > be it? My Datsun roadster had a manual throttle lock. I'd get to cruising speed, pull the knob, and there I was... Mechanical Cruise Control. Same thing for a few bucks on motorcycles, some sort of flip-lock on the throttle. http://www.rattlebars.com/mtz/invisible.html On roughly level ground, it worked just fine. A freeway overpass would knock some speed off, and down the other side would overspeed, but overall it was a pretty decent thing. Logically, one might do the same thing with an electronic cruise control. As my Civic starts up a grade, I have two choices: I can let the cruise control maintain the speed, including over 5000 RPM, or I can kill the cruise control. If it's a long grade, I let it run whatever RPM it wants. If it's a minor grade, I kill it. If there was some tolerance, allowing the speed to drop, programmed for a typical overpass, cruise control could be more efficient. People without cruise control are probably losing speed at that point anyway, so they would never notice. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
In article <dft65s$4bs$3@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXX2003X.usenet.us.com
wrote: > My Datsun roadster had a manual throttle lock. I'd get to cruising speed, > pull the knob, and there I was... Mechanical Cruise Control. > > Same thing for a few bucks on motorcycles, some sort of flip-lock on the > throttle. http://www.rattlebars.com/mtz/invisible.html > > On roughly level ground, it worked just fine. A freeway overpass would > knock some speed off, and down the other side would overspeed, but overall > it was a pretty decent thing. > > Logically, one might do the same thing with an electronic cruise control. Oh, I agree. I would like the option to be a throttle lock instead of a cruise lock. And with computers, it ought to be that easy. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:25:55 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >In article <efn3i15adugoiooa593scpffimo9mth3m7@4ax.com>, > flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote: > >> >So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually, >> >and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so >> >be it? >> >> I say up front i ahven't used cruise control in years, except for once >> last week. My vehicles don't have it, i don't use it. I used it on my >> wifes work van, a 96 T+C. Before this, my last experiance was with a >> 03 buick century back in 03 (a rental car). > >So you're saying you have very little experience with cruise control. I'm saying i have limited experiance, but with that, i pay a lot more attention to what its doing - its not something i take for grated, and ignore as a backgroud part of driving' > >I also noticed that you avoided answering my question, so I'll ask it >again: > >So you're keeping your throttle at exactly the same position, manually, >and if you go up or down a hill and your speed changes dramatically, so >be it? no, i'm not. If you read what I said, I vary the cars speed, work with the grade (and with the road thats comming up - something NO cruise control can do) anticipate, etc. Cruise control programming is very simple 10 IF speed<set THEN throttle++ ELSE throttle = 0 20 goto 10 Thats putting how i've seen cruise control operation to be, rendered into 20-odd year old Basic. If the programming is more conplex, then it certainly doesn't come across in the driving experiance. > >Is that what you're doing when you drive, to avoid the throttle >movements that are "inefficient"? To drive efficiently, you must drive smoothly, with no sudden speed changes, and in harmony with the othre road users around you. A cruise control takes no notice of any enviroment except the one its driving over at that second, and has no way of detecting other road users. It in no way attempts to use the engine most efficiently, so HOW can it be driving most efficiently? |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
flobert wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:11:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > > >>In article <4nh3v2-pso.ln1@new.helps.com>, jdhoward@helps.com wrote: >> >> >>>To get that economy, I use no air >>>conditioning, no cruise control >> >>ahem. Your BEST mileage will be when using cruise control. > > > You'd think so, but experimentally, in a lot of different cars doing > economy runs, its not. Cruise control is just to keep the car at a > constant speed, no to do it efficiently. i was kinda disappointed in the mileage my 98 civic CX got going from LA to laughlin nevada and back. if i would have taken it easy and cruised with traffic at 70-75mph, i might have gotten more than my usual 32mpg. but no- i had a lead foot. some of it wasnt my fault.. some grades are so steep i had to drop it into fourth and floor it just to keep at 80mph. 5th gear was useless, the car couldnt keep up. speedo kept dropping, even with it floored. and of course, i had the A/C blasting in that 114 degree desert heat, too. the mojave desert gets damned hot during the day. so to reiterate: thats uphill, several thousand foot climbs (2000-5000 feet at a time), A/C blasting, pedal to the metal in 4th gear, doing 80mph uphill. and the temp gauge stayed below halfway! thank gawd for mobil1 5w30. downside? 25mpg. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
In article <u0q4i1huh7i7rt2oj89sccafur2jipfipr@4ax.com>, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>To drive efficiently, you must drive smoothly, with no sudden speed >changes, and in harmony with the othre road users around you. A cruise >control takes no notice of any enviroment except the one its driving >over at that second, and has no way of detecting other road users. It >in no way attempts to use the engine most efficiently, so HOW can it >be driving most efficiently? I can think of at least one possible way *if* the car is an automatic. It is possible (though I do not know for a fact) that the OEM could factor in the CC in the torque converter (TC) lockup routine. Generally the TC locks up at a certain min rpm and for a range of throttle positions. It might be programmed to note that if CC is engaged, throttle-based drivability concerns will not be as big a deal at lower rpm settings. Thus it might lock it up at non-normal speeds resulting in a more efficient transmission. Anyway, it has been my experience that CC probably beats my mileage. But one factor may be that if I have CC engaged, I'm driving slower than I would otherwise. As to the modulating throttle, I think it is a fallacy that this markedy decreases MPG, unless done so *aggressively*. At least in a manual where the TC doesn't come into play. Contrary to what you might infer from your high school driving instruction, an engine is actually more efficient at higher (but not max) throttle setting. Accelerating doesn't consume more fuel, braking does! (well, accel does, but it just stores it in the kinetic energy of the car where it is available for later use). And yeah, faster driving means higher rpm and air drag. Both of these result in increased frictional losses. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:30:25 -0500, Rob wrote:
>I was concerned that gas stations would be closed based on news >reports earlier so I wanted to be sure to do this trip on one tank of >gas tho it turned out gas stations were open. I calculated I got 37.5 >mile/gal and I was totally surprised. I'm sure it's not a mistake >too. Normally city driving I get around 24 mile/gal. I believe. I get 32-33 per tank doing mostly freeway commuting, some at 80mph, some at 5mph, most somewhere in between, a little city driving at each end. That's by myself, no air, mostly, and with the automatic. Flat route, btw. Been driving a mixed route with a 500 foot rise through the Sepulveda pass recently, ought to measure my mileage again, doesn't seem all that different. J. |
Re: 2003 Honda Accord 4 cyl gas mileage on the highway
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:41:13 GMT, dm@nospam.com (Dave) wrote:
>In article <u0q4i1huh7i7rt2oj89sccafur2jipfipr@4ax.com>, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote: > >>To drive efficiently, you must drive smoothly, with no sudden speed >>changes, and in harmony with the othre road users around you. A cruise >>control takes no notice of any enviroment except the one its driving >>over at that second, and has no way of detecting other road users. It >>in no way attempts to use the engine most efficiently, so HOW can it >>be driving most efficiently? > >I can think of at least one possible way *if* the car is an >automatic. It is possible (though I do not know for a fact) that >the OEM could factor in the CC in the torque converter (TC) lockup >routine. Generally the TC locks up at a certain min rpm and for a >range of throttle positions. It might be programmed to note that if >CC is engaged, throttle-based drivability concerns will not be as >big a deal at lower rpm settings. Thus it might lock it up at >non-normal speeds resulting in a more efficient transmission. > >Anyway, it has been my experience that CC probably beats my mileage. >But one factor may be that if I have CC engaged, I'm driving slower >than I would otherwise. > >As to the modulating throttle, I think it is a fallacy that this >markedy decreases MPG, unless done so *aggressively*. At >least in a manual where the TC doesn't come into play. Contrary to >what you might infer from your high school driving instruction, an >engine is actually more efficient at higher (but not max) throttle >setting. Accelerating doesn't consume more fuel, braking does! >(well, accel does, but it just stores it in the kinetic energy of >the car where it is available for later use). And yeah, faster >driving means higher rpm and air drag. Both of these result in >increased frictional losses. Dunno if this last paragraph was directed at me or not. Engine is most efficient at arond its peak torque area. (at least for non vtec engines) I'm not sure about them, having not had much experiance of them. I personally didn't learn about anything at high school (since i'm not american, and thus never went to one) but what i learnt about cars, i learnt in my teens, working on my fathers rally car, and doing the old economy rally's. Those were fun, slingshotting the car around the peak torque area, and using a saab freewheeling unit in between. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands