Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

13113123143163171028

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    No, it's not the level of shift bud. The RPMs drop LOWER THAN TYPICAL when coasting downhill after tapping the throttle. I STILL don't think y'all are getting it...

    It's not that the tranny is holding a high gear longer, it's that the engine is running lower RPMs than the gear ratios specify when under those conditions i mentioned previously. 60MPH at 1,500 RPM in my 4-cyl Accord which is 500 lower than it runs when running normally. I took a video tonight of it in my 2006 EX 4-cyl Auto. You can see it runs 1,200 RPM at over 50 MPH. This is not a typical gear ratio (it should be at 1700 RPM).

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=5dsg7h3-kMY
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The engine will go all the way down to almost idle speed while in gear.

    I meant to add, that my Accord will drop from fifth to fourth gear by 35MPH at the very slowest, sometimes sooner. At that point, in 4th gear, its still only running 1,500RPM
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Because you are going downhill, the car can be traveling faster than the engine is pushing it. In this instance the rpm will be lower than the speed would normally indicate on flat ground. Most automatic transmissions will not do this, from my experience. Most automatics will effectively engine brake, even in top gear. The torque converter is probably not locked, when this happens, since the wheels are allowed to travel faster than the engine rpms suggest.

    Does that sound even close Grad?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It ALMOST goes over my head, and it almost makes sense, but the fact that there is a noticeable drop in RPM (300-500 within a second sometimes) instead of just a big increase in speed. The speed may never change, but the RPMs do. It happens on off-ramps all the time; trying to slow down, I can barely carress the throttle once and send the RPMs down by 500 or so. They hover at 1,000 from 50-35MPH until it finally downshifts to 4th, sending revs back to normal range.

    I think I've come off as rude; I'm not trying to be, just trying to come up with an answer to this phoenomenon. If I've been short with anyone, I do apologize. Y'all have done nothing but try and help! :)

    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?

    The next time I'm on a long bridge, I'll try it. Hills do not exist around here. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Sometimes, a hill isn't necessary. Decelerating from 60+ MPH coasting, then tapping the gas quickly only to coast again, can cause this sometimes as well.
  • I am glad you found a vehicle that meets your needs. I do find it intriguing though that after being such a fan of Toyota or Honda, you bought a German make. It was very interesting to see the vehicles you were considering.
    I think the vehicle attributes I hold dear are very different from the ones that you were seeking and I have a better understanding of where you were coming from.

    In looking for a small/midsize wagon, did you look at the Legacy at all?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?

    I've been trying, but the proper conditions have not occured for me yet.

    Did you see the discussion on fuel use (or lack thereof) when coasting in gear vs. in neutral on the "future of the manual transmission" discussion? I don't know if that has any connection to what you are seeing, but a minimum rpm figure of about 1500 came up in that unresolved discussion...so I wonder if there is any connection.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Probably not. 1,500 RPM occurs at 50 MPH. At different speeds, the RPM drops differently. Today, on my way to school, I managed to make the (1996) car do this at 65MPH (it dropped to about 2,000RPM, when at that speed it should be right at 2,500-2,600).
  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    I don't know if anyone's posted this link to an AutoWeek overview of the new Accord. If it's already been posted, I apologize.

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071017/FREE/310170003/1532/- FREE
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?

    Yes. It seems to disengage torque converter when coasting below certain speed. As I slowed down from 60 to about 35 mph, the engine rpm and wheel speed matched (about 1800 rpm). Beyond that point, it felt more like shifting into neutral. A very light tap and the rpm would again match the speed.
  • dsiriasdsirias Posts: 34
    Somebody told me that the Mazdaspeed6 requires 93 octane and that even 91 hurts performance a lot. Well you can't get 93 in CA, only 91!. If this former is true, why would Mazda do this? Is that why the Mazdaspeed 6 is in the showroom forever? Something is wriong because the all wheel drive is a really good thing, and this car should be selling.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the fact that it is choosy about its gas is really a function of the turbocharging that allows the 270HP in the first place. It is very common and almost universally true that turbo/supercharged engines require premium gas, the higher the octane the better. The VW 200hp 2.0 is also an engine that 'suffers' from an appetite for octane. IMO, the illogical difficulty Mazda seems to have selling the Speed6 (it is being discontinued for 08 apparently) has less to do with the fuel issue (as I expect most buyers could handle the 20 cents/gal in exchange for the 60 extra (over the V6) ponies and better overall FE - but more to do with price, it is still relatively pricey, even despite some rather deep discounting. That all said, however, it is a fun car to drive with that stick, and genuinely does offer something different in this class.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    That was a most unflattering review of the 2008 Accord. It makes me even happier than my wife and I bought a new 2007 V6 SEL AWD Fusion on Dec. 4 last year. Except for poor in-city gas mileage (14.8 mpg), it has been a most satisfactory car for 10-plus months and 4,900 miles.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    IMO, the illogical difficulty Mazda seems to have selling the Speed6 (it is being discontinued for 08 apparently) has less to do with the fuel issue (as I expect most buyers could handle the 20 cents/gal in exchange for the 60 extra (over the V6) ponies and better overall FE - but more to do with price, it is still relatively pricey, even despite some rather deep discounting

    The price was not the reason the Mazdaspeed6 had issues selling, it was marketing. First, they built a performance vehicle, with an adult feel, appealing to the mature (non EVO/Sti buyer) buyer that was looking at the BMW 3 series, Audi A4, and Legacy GT. Not only did Mazda build a car that was a great performer, it had better driving dynamics then all too. However, they made this vehicle in only a 6-speed manual. Great for the enthusiast, bad for the rest of the potential customers. How many BMW 3 series and Audi A4's do you see in a stick? Not many. So, since this vehicle was out performed by the EVO and STi, the enthusiast crowd opted for the later, not the MS6.

    The MS6 was only going into production for 2 year's, with a total production number of 10-12K unts in NA. Mazda planned this, it was not due to lack of sales that they abandoned the vehicle.

    My brother and best friend both own one, and it is one heck of a vehicle. It's fast, handles great, and has a great feel inside with great build quality.

    Overall, it was a great vehicle, but was marketed toward the wrong people. The Mazdaspeed3 has been marketed to the young buyer, and has been selling like hot cakes.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    OK I'll bite on most of this - except I don't think that it is conceiveable that those young buyers out there are ever going to view a Mazda6 in the same way they do a Evo/Sti/GTI. Those cars (the Evo etc) much more competitive instead to the Speed3, the Speed6 simply too large and the Mazda6 is generally perceived as a Camcord alternate - in any case a different and probably more mature buyer. And sure all mfgrs. will end up justifying their 'mistakes' with a 'planned' 2 year production run - wonder what would have happened if the car had sold well.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    And sure all mfgrs. will end up justifying their 'mistakes' with a 'planned' 2 year production run - wonder what would have happened if the car had sold well.

    I went to the Mazdaspeed6 drive event 2 months before the vehicle went on sale in the U.S., and it was then that Mazda told us of their plans. There has never been any Mazdaspeed vehicle to run longer then 2 years. Never did they ever plan from the start to build more then 12K units. Never. Maybe if it was a huge hit, they might have considered it, but, that's doubtful.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    except I don't think that it is concieveable that those young buyers out there are ever going to view a Mazda6 in the same way they do a Evo/Sti/GTI.

    I never said anyone would. The vehicle was marketed toward the BMW 325Xi, Audi A4 Quattro, and Legacy GT. Mazda never intended to compete with the EVO/STi crowd.

    Here is an quote from the Mazdaspeed6 Drive Event work book: "In comparison, the Mazdaspeed6 is targeted at a true performance enthusiasts who see their cars as an exciting form of self expression. These buyers tend to be married men in their late thirties and early forties. They are financially comfortable college graduates in successful professions at work and with young families at home." Does that sound like an EVO/STi buyer to you? Nope. At the end of the book is a comparison with the Mazdaspeed6 to the Audi A4 Quattro 2.0T/3.0T, BMW 325xi/330xi, and Subaru Legacy GT
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    " it had better driving dynamics then all too."

    I am going to challenge you on the assertion the MS6 has better driving dynamics than the 3 series. The STi is a no nonsense car that devours all comers. Adjustable differential, water cooler intercooler, upgradeable ECU etc. The MS6 has more luxury than the STI but less performance. I'd prefer the STI and I'm not a boy racer.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    and the MS6 is not larger than any A4 or 3 series ever was and is not hampered by the 'family sedan' image? Of course it is, and maybe Mazda's mistake. Sans the MS6, Mazda plays very poorly in the HP wars these days almost making 'zoom-zoom' a joke. Maybe if Ford will let them have enough 3.5s they can get back in the right neighborhood, but if this will be the case, won't Ford recognize that there would be no reason for us to buy a Fusion.
Sign In or Register to comment.