Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: So much for Honda reliability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by CalM View Post
    Has anyone actually experienced a timing belt failure that was not brought on by the failing of some other mechanical part?
    I did in a '73 Pinto wagon with 2 Liter engine. About 1/3 of the teeth stripped off, no other parts needed replaced. Don't remember what the mileage was, that was about 39 years ago.
    North Central Arkansas

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by justanengineer View Post
      Why do you need power? Torque is what gets you going from a stop. Ive loaded my lil 2.2L S10 w/1k+ lbs and had no problems merging into Chicago traffic, the stick actually helps by giving me total control over the engine torque output. By revving an engine higher all youre doing is wearing it out faster and wasting gas.

      If you look at a lot of high-end cars and OTR semis you might notice many have big engines and more gears. They need a big displacement engine to get enough torque to run those extra gears (ie. 6th on many cars), which gives them more pulling power. When run slow tho, those extra gears give them the advantage of better fuel economy. Running slow also allows them to last longer, multiple million miles in the case of some semis.
      I'm hoping my sarcasm meter is just out of tune...

      Comment


      • #93
        Why do you need power? Torque is what gets you going from a stop.
        Torque is power, as long as there's some RPM's involved - and RPM's is power - as long as there's some toque involved,
        you simply cannot make any power without both as a combination, and if you want a small sporty nimble fast reacting package then you want to keep your entire drivetrain small and light too, and then just twist it higher in rev's,,, it's how you make a little 3 liter outpower a 6, you rap it out @ twice the rpm's and if you keep the volumetric efficiency up you now have a faster steed because its only about 2/3rds the weight --- you also get to run a lighter transmission,

        there's also efficiencies in not hauling around a bunch of extra unneeded weight, in both displacement/reciprocating and overall vehicle weight...
        big engines better run slow, because their internal loading is just as extreme if not more than engines half their size running twice the R's...

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by radkins View Post
          Which was 15,000 miles PAST the scheduled replacement interval!

          That was a failure due to neglect! The service interval for changing that belt was 60,000 miles and Ford CLEARLY stated that not only in the service schedule but they even went so far as to place a sticker in plain view on the timing cover and on the radiator support! The belt was simple to change and cost about $22 IIRC, I changed a bunch of them and I never saw one fail at under 60,000 miles, most went well in excess of 100,000 miles before breaking at which time the owners would start lambasting Ford for those "cheap unreliable belts" when CLEARLY the owner was at fault!
          Actually it was 25,000 miles PAST the scheduled replacement interval. Had a friend tow me home, and changed the belt. Since I was in there anyway, replaced
          the water pump too. Still driving it.
          Location: Long Island, N.Y.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
            Pop's always used to tell us to hang on in the 390 country squire station wagon
            because he was going to "blow out the cobwebs"
            I once bought a 69 Ford ex-squad-car, Costum 500 I think it was. Ugly instument panel
            shaped like the mouth of that stupid robot - aliegn thing on one of those awfull adult cartoon shows.

            It had a 2 barrel dual-exhaust engine that looked normal as equipt.
            Just said Police Interceptor on the dash board... ? or maybe the air-cleaner?
            It was a terror to drive if I got on it at all.
            No-one believed it only had a two-barrel.
            And I had to open the hood more than once.
            >>Must have been the cam-of-all-cams from Detroit No?<<
            Last edited by Old Hat; 08-14-2014, 07:57 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by justanengineer View Post
              Why do you need power? Torque is what gets you going from a stop.
              Are you actually an engineer? Because you seem to be making arguments AGAINST yourself. Yes, you DO need torque (at low rpm). But the whole problem with small displacement engines is that they deliver very little torque! What actually accelerates a car is power. Getting power out of the engine is a function of Torque and RPM. If you don't have a lot of torque (like a low displacement engine), then you need to compensate by...... increasing RPM! REVing the crap out of the engine!

              Comment


              • #97
                BTW, have we gotten the milage from the OP's car yet?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Royldean View Post
                  Are you actually an engineer? Because you seem to be making arguments AGAINST yourself. Yes, you DO need torque (at low rpm). But the whole problem with small displacement engines is that they deliver very little torque! What actually accelerates a car is power. Getting power out of the engine is a function of Torque and RPM. If you don't have a lot of torque (like a low displacement engine), then you need to compensate by...... increasing RPM! REVing the crap out of the engine!
                  I'm an engineer who designs....wait for it....ENGINES for a living. I also spent awhile teaching combat (military) and high performance (private track) driving.

                  Youre not incorrect btw, my point is that there are plenty of folks like myself who take care of our vehicles and treat them right, who dont rev the piss out of them every chance we get, but yet have plenty of torque at low RPM on the occasions when we need it......all ~100 lb-ft of it. Altho there are advantages in it, most folks really dont need half the engine theyre given, theyre just crap drivers.
                  "I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer -- born under the second law of thermodynamics, steeped in the steam tables, in love with free-body diagrams, transformed by Laplace, and propelled by compressible flow."

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    I think the idea of high revs damaging an engine came from the olden days. When the bottom end of engines rode on soft bearings, long connecting rods and poor oiling systems. Centrifugal force can really build up when you spin up an engine. Short stroke engines can tolerate it better because the center of mass is closer to the rotational center of the crankshaft. It's different for every engine design. Old race cars back in the beginnings of the automobile were powered by huge 27 litre, four cylinder engines. Redline on these engines was something like 800 rpm's. But, there was a reason. The metals and technology wouldn't let them do much else. A good example is right out there in many machinist's shops. Old lathes, with plain or poured spindle bearings. In order for them to last any length of time, and remain somewhat accurate, you would never want to run one much over 1000 rpm. More modern machines, with ball or roller bearing spindles can be run faster, without worrying about damaging them, right? It all goes back to design, and what the engine's intended purpose is. My Suzuki usually turns between 4000rpm and 5000 rpm on the highway, perfectly normal. But, my old Impala is turning 1400 rpm at the same speed. Yes, Boomer has to rev his car to get some power out of it, but, I just have to open the throttle. Sorry, Boomer, but I prefer it my way.


                    By the way......I do wear white socks. (it's easier to match up a pair from the laundry basket.)
                    No good deed goes unpunished.

                    Comment


                    • This is a great comparison and shows in detail what your both talking about,

                      it's of the honda CRX --- they made a model called the "HF" --- it stands for "high fuel"

                      it was an amazing attempt at showing what could be done in the name of efficiency simply by "de-tuning" one of their engines,,,
                      it also shows the massive hit the engine took on overall horsepower as compared to the SI which is approaching double the HP's, BUT --- the HF keeps close to the same torque values at well under half the RPM's and even though it's 100cc's smaller displacement --- and yes they take full advantage of this low-end torque with their final drive gear ratio,,,

                      http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/robspag...2nd/specs.html

                      the end results are simply amazing and I can tell you hands on all the details of both cars because my brother has owned 2 HF's (still has one as his daily grinder) and I have owned one S.I. and one regular model,
                      for one --- on fueleconomy.gov the HF was rated @ 56MPG's and if treated right it will achieve it, in fact my bro's had tankfuls well into the low 60's

                      on the flip side, the vehicle is so far removed from anything to do with performance there is no comparison as to what is the much funner vehicle to drive, in fact the S.I. is what I used to set the speed/time record from colorado to michigan and that's going up against 6 older brothers previous best runs, and if I kept my foot out of it I could still bust into the low 40's ------------- not bad for a car that would do 135mph and the only thing I did from stock is a header and ram air and remove the old muffler and help it flow...
                      Now Im sure I wasn't getting 40mpg+ when I went from canon city colo. to port huron mich. in 18hours 45minutes, but still it was nice to stop the older brothers from yapping their gums even though my parents had moved one hour further away and I still smashed the next closest time by over 1 1/2 hours

                      that being said, im amazed at both these vehicles --- and it's a great comparison as they are about identical weight and body style, I think the HF has a slightly lower CD due to not coming with a PS sideview mirror on some models!

                      but both cars are extremely slippery,

                      even though it's "de-tuned" it's also got a slightly higher compression ratio which will achieve better thermal efficiency,

                      It does go to show you what can be done --- to me this is when honda was at it's best... as far as longevity, both engines will go the miles, one of my CRX was pushing over 400,000 miles and that was with daily beatings of shifting out well past redline, I usually shift just before the rev. limiter kicks in,

                      but one of my bro's HF's also had over 400 thou on it,,, I would have to think just because they are de-tuned the advantage would end up going to them, the HF's also had roller rockers, but at that kind of mileage who really cares? they are both good for sure, no real detrimental effects from RPM's... and yet the engines all have the same bore,,, it is the SI that actually has increased stroke,,,

                      like I said - I don't like the way things are headed in many a way, but - I have hope with direct injection gas or small diesels in the smaller trucks, it might prove to be cool if we can get it across that we still want base models that don't park themselves or apply the brakes for you and such... the general public is now way too stupid enough, they don't need any extra incentives...

                      Edit; there is some kind of advertizing screen that pops up on this site, you have to close it out twice and the page with be full again... sorry bout that.
                      Last edited by A.K. Boomer; 08-14-2014, 06:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • come on guys, torque = twist, horsepower = work done per unit time:

                        HP=Torque x RPM / 5252

                        so HP = torque @ 5252rpm

                        Comment


                        • Or 1 hp = 745.699872 watts, no torque required!

                          I have a 2HP hair dryer - a little torque required.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by justanengineer View Post
                            Youre not incorrect btw, my point is that there are plenty of folks like myself who take care of our vehicles and treat them right, who dont rev the piss out of them every chance we get, but yet have plenty of torque at low RPM on the occasions when we need it......all ~100 lb-ft of it. Altho there are advantages in it, most folks really dont need half the engine theyre given, theyre just crap drivers.
                            If that was your point, it wasn't very well expressed in your previous post. As an engineer, you might make more of an effort to make statements which are in accordance with the laws of physics.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X