In article <jej1h1pvs8536rkrh3ir0s620jgusu27ua@4ax.com>, flobert
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:55:09 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <qLLPe.33012$jr4.27306@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk >, "al"
> ><[ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jason-2608051312430001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >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.
>
> 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

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:01:53 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <jej1h1pvs8536rkrh3ir0s620jgusu27ua@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:55:09 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qLLPe.33012$jr4.27306@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk >, "al"
>> ><[ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jason-2608051312430001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> 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.

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.

>Jason

 

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-2708050955100001@pm4-broad-7.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
> 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
>

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

 

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:fpr1h112itlthpgnl9lauqf5ljql709a4c@4ax.com...
> 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.
>

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 ing around!! That'll put some real heat in your brakes when you
need them!!!




a

 

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:13:21 GMT, "al"
<[ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:jason-2708050955100001@pm4-broad-7.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>> 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
>>
>
>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!

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.

>
>
>
>
>a
>

 

The V6 is really not that fuel efficient.
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:NeadnX3G0ZnGoZjeRVn-pA@speakeasy.net...
> Drewaffe wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I just purchased a 2003 Honda Accord LX Sedan Automatic and moved to
>> Colorado Springs.
>>
>> Loaded down with all of my personal belongings, I got 32mpg during the
>> 770 mile drive from Dallas. This was fine with me.
>>
>> During the first few weeks that I was here, my driving was evenly split
>> between city, small highway (55mph) and mountain driving. I averaged
>> 24mpg.
>>
>> Determined to do better, I committed to keep the TAC under 3,000 for
>> the entire volume of gas in the newly-filled tank. I just filled it up
>> last night and did the calculation. 22mpg.
>>
>> My eyes are crossing...
>>
>> Almost all of my driving for this past tank has been city driving. I
>> have not been an A/C fiend, and I shift into Neutral and coast downhill
>> rather than let the engine do it. I take my time getting places and I
>> don't jackrabbit starts or stops.
>>
>> What am I doing wrong? Or does Colorado just suck? Is my expectation
>> of 25mpg city driving unreasonable?
>>
> you're in reformulated gas territory, which probably means lower calorie
> content for your gas and therefore lower mileage.
>