Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mazda Protege5



  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    You wrote:
    "Anyway, my 2003 P5 has 8500 miles and runs sweet except for some minor tire feathering."

    My understanding is that tire feathering is generally attributable to two causes:

    (1) Lots of hard cornering, and then it's normal. (Why not? It's fun, and is what this splendid go-kart with five doors was made for, right? Just watch out for the Enforcers! ;-)

    (2) Wheel alignment problems, and then it's not normal.

    You might wish to investigate and make sure your feathering is not due to #2 lest you erase your tires prematurely and needlessly.

    Whenever I wonder if someone has been really pressing on, flinging his car around a lot, I just lightly brush my hand over the tire tread surfaces. You can feel the feathering with your eyes closed, you don't even need to see it. Something to consider when examining a used car for sale.

    Hope this has been helpful. :-)
  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    You wrote:
    "... so I decided to trade it in. I got an 04 Camry."

    I'll miss your quiet, clever wit.

    Enjoy your new Camry, a nice car. :-)
  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    You wrote:
    "Ever since new, it's hard to keep smooth when not accelerating in 1st -- we get the "jumps" like you describe when backing off the accelerator in low gear."

    Yep. True of our 2002 P5, too. I've been buying new cars since '68, all manual gearboxes (sticks, or trannies for those saying, "Huh?" I'm old. ;-), and not one has ever been as sensitive to throttle tip-in as our P5.

    Now, many cars have been a bit sensitive at low speeds in parking lots, for example, especially in the summer months with the AC turned on. They'd surge a bit as the AC cycled on or off. But this P5 is rather more touchy.

    The only driving solution is to mutter "sumbitch!" and declutch. Then re-engage the clutch and move along. Alternatively, one might floor the throttle, which would also clear up the problem, but this is a poor strategy in crowded parking lots.

    I can't remember for sure (I'm old, remember?), but I think I read that the fuel injector spray pattern may not be optimal and is the culprit here. I thought they rectified that in later models.
  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    You wrote:
    "Has anyone kept track of longterm fuel mileage?"


    Miles: 12,888
    Gallons: 446.2

    Miles Per Gallon: 28.88

    Note: Mostly highway/Interstate driving at 60-70 mph. A small percentage of the miles done with two kayaks with kayak rack on the roof.
  • isseyvooisseyvoo Posts: 121
    Actually my '01 Oldsmobile Alero 5 sp. can easily be driven in bumper to bumper traffic without the jerkiness I experience in our '03 Pro 5. Even my '92 Chevy Cavalier 5 sp. does better. Don't get me wrong, I love our little Mazda, but it is definitely more twitchy than normal in 1st. I would choose to take the Mazda when driving in any conditions other than heavy low-speed traffic and highway cruising. In those instances I would take my Olds first because of the smoother clutch/tranny and the higher top gearing, respectively.
  • mdaffronmdaffron Posts: 4,421
    Or two, actually.

    American cars are built for comfort first, driveability second. Those cushy motor mounts in your Olds are probably absorbing the same jerk you're feeling in your Protege. (The Chevy, which also is tuned for American buttocks, is probably doing the same thing.)

    I remember hearing once, on Car Talk on NPR, a guy complaining about an automatic transmission that jerked more than the owner would like as it shifted. But it came down to the fact that a jerking transmission is one that is tight and is engaging with very little "slippage" as it does so. Transmissions that shift like butter are usually using some slippage to do so, and in the long run you'll pay by replacing that clutch or automatic tranny sooner. I prefer jerkiness to a poorly designed transmission.

    One last thing from a fellow 5-speed owner -- If you're moving, even slowly, you really should be in second gear as long as you're not coming to a stop.

  • - My 2003(.5) has auto and gets around 23 mpg in winter and 28-32 in summer here in far northern IL. The tire feathering at 8500 miles is the same as it was at 4000 miles. I drive very easily, and the dealer, of course, denies that there's a problem. Yes, you can feel it with your fingertips on the outside row of tread.They said to take it to a Dunlop dealer and complain. I'll bet it is an alignment problem, too. What a fun car, though! Always gets lots of looks and positive comments!
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    Hi kauai215!

    MPG: 28.88 Miles: 12,888 Gallons: 446.2

    Pretty impressive numbers; I'm glad to know I'm not the only spreadsheet fiend. Do you own an automatic or manual? Does the rack affect your mileage much?

    You mention 60-70 mph which in the Canadian world is around 100-120 km. Have you ever taken it beyond this? I normally cruise the highway at 120 and have been known to pass at 130 (which scares the heck out of my wife). Yesterday, I took it up to 140 on a deserted stretch and that baby sang that zoom-zoom tune sweetly.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    Hi jimmcknight:

    "My 2003(.5) has auto and gets around 23 mpg in winter and 28-32 in summer here in far northern IL. The tire feathering at 8500 miles is the same as it was at 4000 miles. I drive very easily, and the dealer, of course, denies that there's a problem."

    Are you ready to run the gauntlet of questions?
    Here they are:

    1. Where does the tire feathering occur?
    - Likely the front tires, right?
    - Driver/Passenger side?

    2. Do you have your tires rotated regularly?
    - at least once a year?

    3. Does the steering veer to the side or do
    you feel an unusual vibration?

    and finally

    4. Have you travelled to Montreal or have you experienced the killer pothole?
    - Montreal is known for its car-eating roads, esp. in the spring after a good winter thaw. A glorious city but best viewed after the road crews get a chance to patch up Mother Nature's handiwork
  • pappy55pappy55 Posts: 41
    since 10/30/03-

    odo: 10,632
    avg mpg: 29.83
    worst mpg: 26 (first tank)
    best mpg: 36
  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    Hi autonomous,

    “Singing babies!” LOL. I like that. :-)

    Actually, I don’t maintain my fuel figures in a spreadsheet, although that would make sense and maybe someday I’ll get around to doing that. I just keep a small spiral-bound pocket notebook in the glovebox in which I faithfully record all refueling data from the day I take delivery of the new car until the day I sell it. This takes less than a minute to do after refueling. From time to time I total up the figures on my printing calculator and record them in this same notebook. (That way I don’t have to start from scratch each time.) When I saw your question, I went out to the car, got the book, and updated it for you and the others.

    There’s nothing much unusual about our driving, so I’d expect most people would average right around the same figures we do if they were to drive in a similar manner.

    You wrote:
    “You mention 60-70 mph which in the Canadian world is around 100-120 km. Have you ever taken it beyond this?”

    Heavens yes! <laughing>

    Both out of necessity (read survival) as well as for pleasure in appropriate venues.

    In the left lane during commute hours on the Interstate, 85 mph is commonplace. In fact, unless you&#146;re prepared to pick it up to that pace, you&#146;d best take care about venturing out into the left lane lest you be trampled to death so to speak. ;-)

    Although it&#146;s been decades since I last drove in Toronto during morning rush hour (on trips to Mosport for races), my recollection is that that crowd hustles right along, too, just like here in the Milwaukee, WI, metro area.

    I recall not long ago while traveling home around mid-afternoon on the Interstate outside Madison, WI, and I was hustling right along, just keeping pace, moving with the flow out in the left lane at 85 mph, and watching my mirrors for the faster guys and thinking that this was quicker than Milwaukee for this time of day, and damned if I don&#146;t see some bloody great commercial big-rig trucks barreling down on me at a good clip. Remember, I&#146;m doing 85 mph. And they&#146;re catching me fast. I moved right over at the soonest opportunity and they roared on by. Goodness.

    Basically, I&#146;m not keen on maintaining close quarters with big-rigs at those speeds. In fact, I always maneuver for a big space-cushion around me whenever possible, seeking to stay two seconds back of the guy in front of me, and hoping for a &#147;good one&#148; who&#146;ll do the same for me on my rear bumper. (Remember, it&#146;s _time_, not distance, that&#146;s the key to a safe following distance. :-)

    Not the place for your wife, I wouldn&#146;t think, if she is inclined to start screaming around 130 kph (81 mph). To be fair, I should note that I&#146;m a _terrible_ passenger; I scream in fear at the slightest provocation when I&#146;m a passenger. Say &#147;Hi&#148; to your wife from me. ;-)

    And as to pleasure? I&#146;ve seen 95 mph or so on the straights on certain select twisty country roads. I prefer to keep it below 100 mph. I&#146;m very picky about where I do that sort of driving, though. There just aren&#146;t many places where I can drive at those speeds in safety without jeopardizing my fellow motorists. I have strict ethical ideas about that sort of thing, which consequently constrain me to more &#147;appropriate&#148; speeds.

    Why am I so &#147;fussy?&#148; Because my mistake, should I make one, shouldn&#146;t cost you and your lovely family their lives as you come towards me from the other direction. Right?

    Safe as I am (he says smugly), your wife would probably feel better not riding with me! <laughing>

    &#147;Safety fast.&#148; (An old sportscar commercial slogan. MG, I think. Have I mentioned I&#146;m old? ;-)
  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    Forgot to answer your other questions.

    Our P5 is a manual; we never buy automatics.

    I can't say for sure, but the kayak rack with saddles for two kayaks probably costs 1-2 mpg because of increased drag. It's hard to say for sure. I remove it if I don't think I'll use it for awhile, and intend to drive much outside of town; it won't matter much at 25 mph in town.
  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    You wrote:
    "The tire feathering at 8500 miles is the same as it was at 4000 miles. I drive very easily, and the dealer, of course, denies that there's a problem."

    No! Really? What a surprise! ;-)

    It's not true. Don't believe it.

    If you drive &#147;like a grown-up,&#148; whatever that might mean (I suspect I may not qualify ;-), you will not feather your tires. Period. Not unless there&#146;s an alignment problem.

    My tires have never been feathered in ordinary driving except when there&#146;s been an alignment problem, which is usually easily corrected.

    You wrote:
    &#147;Yes, you can feel it with your fingertips on the outside row of tread.&#148;

    Yep. That&#146;s what I figured.

    Your problem is that your car has got 8500 miles on it now. I think you&#146;re going to need to pay for an alignment. I recommend it. You see, as Autonomous has alluded to, one nasty bounce through a big pothole can knock your wheel alignment off. You ever watch people park? They&#146;re crazed. One bounce off the concrete curbstone will knock your wheels out of alignment. And so on. . .

    That&#146;s normal &#147;wear and tear.&#148; Do not bang your front wheels on things. Get off the brakes when traversing a bump. Never, ever, brake over railroad tracks. And so on. . .

    The dealer should level with you. Don&#146;t hold your breath waiting, though; you&#146;ll turn blue. <sigh>

    What you describe is almost certainly the result of excessive toe-in. Even if it&#146;s not, the solution will involve adjusting the toe anyway. So, I&#146;d start with that. But how will you know that was the fix? Rotate the tires, putting unfeathered tires up front; then check them daily for feathering. You&#146;re now at a good mileage for tire rotation anyway.

    I follow this pattern: fronts straight back, and rears crossed over to the front. Repeat at appropriate intervals. This will result in each tire being mounted at every position in its life. These OEM Dunlops appear to have relatively short life, so I&#146;d rotate more often than less.

    You wrote:
    &#147;They said to take it to a Dunlop dealer and complain.&#148;

    I&#146;ll bet they did. The Dunlop people will laugh at you. Don&#146;t waste your time. It&#146;s not Dunlop&#146;s fault. That&#146;s just silly to suggest it even _could_ be.

    The interesting question that arises is: Is your dealer incompetent, or a lying cheat. Probably both, alas.

    Although, to be fair, I don&#146;t believe you&#146;re entitled to a free alignment at this mileage. Now, if you had complained at 4000 miles, too, then I&#146;d say you might have a case. It&#146;s a difficult call, because you could have &#147;tweaked&#148; the front end parking your car one mile away from the dealership after taking delivery, and it wouldn&#146;t be their fault, the manufacturer&#146;s, or anyone&#146;s but your own. Do you see the problem?

    Tire treads become feathered as a consequence of spending lots of time going sideways. With excessive toe-in your tires are being dragged ever so slightly sideways down every straight. They&#146;re pigeon-toed. Does this make sense to you? I can elaborate if needed.

    You wrote:
    &#147;I'll bet it is an alignment problem, too. &#147;

    And you&#146;d win! Because you&#146;re right! Now, if only you could get the dealership personnel to actually bet money. ;-)

    Your problem is a common one. Lots of readers would appreciate confirmation. When you get it fixed, post the solution for them, won&#146;t you? They don&#146;t know me from the mayor&#146;s dog. :-)

    You wrote:
    &#147;What a fun car, though! Always gets lots of looks and positive comments! &#147;


    I hope my lengthy (as usual) response has helped you to understand the problem, and eased your mind about whether you should spend the money for a wheel alignment. It&#146;s the right thing to do. And the sooner the better, because you&#146;re dragging those front tires sideways every mile you drive. You&#146;re erasing them.
  • - Many thanks for great responses to tire feathering problems! Sounds like an alignment is in order, regardless of who pays for it. These tires were rotated front-to-back when I took off the snow tires this spring, and it's the left side tires that have the problem. It makes sense now that the front tire is being "dragged" and causing the problem. Thanks!
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    What a great group!


    Thanks pappy55 for your contribution and as kauai215 says "I&#146;d expect most people would average right around the same figures we do"
    Pat yourselves on the back for buying a great car that has a decent fuel rating! If there are others who have numbers that match or differ, share!

    On to the next part of the Pro5 story! How many of you have checked your tach as you zoom along.
    Assuming a straight road (that is, no hills)
    what is the RPM for the following speeds. Unfortunately, since I don't have my spreadsheet on hand (kauai215's notebook has a distinct advantage here) I'll send you my numbers soon to compare. So for example at 60 mph I recollect the Pro5 reaches 3200 RPM. Don't do this on a busy interstate!

    So ...
    Idling @ ____ RPM
    40 mph @ ____ RPM
    45 mph @ ____ RPM
    50 mph @ ____ RPM
    55 mph @ ____ RPM
    60 mph @ ____ RPM
    65 mph @ ____ RPM
    70 mph @ ____ RPM
    75 mph @ ____ RPM
    80 mph @ ____ RPM
    85 mph @ ____ RPM
    90 mph @ ____ RPM
    95 mph @ ____ RPM
    100mph @ ____ RPM (Gasp!)

  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    You wrote:
    &#147;What a great group!&#148;

    Folks with the good judgment to buy a P5 tend to be good people, I reckon. We&#146;re a self-selecting group. :-)

    You wrote:
    &#147;Pat yourselves on the back for buying a great car that has a decent fuel rating!&#148;

    Especially these days with escalating fuel prices. Makes us glad we resisted the impulse to buy something far less fuel-efficient that might be returning 15 mpg or so. (No, not an SUV. Something more like an SVT -- Cobra, that is. Power is addictive, don&#146;t let anyone tell you otherwise. ;-)

    About the RPM question: I&#146;ll check again to note the exact figure, but I think 70 mph is in the low 3000s, 3200 maybe. That&#146;s in 5th gear, of course. Your chart didn&#146;t specify the gears.

    I&#146;m curious why you ask about this. In a locked system, such as a manual transmission car with a given set of wheels and tires, every P5 (identical to mine) will be turning exactly the same engine rpms at any given speed, all things being equal. Tiny differences might arise due to different tire inflation pressures (and ambient temperatures, which will, in turn, alter the tire pressures +-), but otherwise rpm will be locked into a &#147;formula.&#148; All of our cars are the same, or should be.

    Are you experiencing a problem? Apart from clutch slippage (not good), if you&#146;ve got a manual gearbox, your rpms at any given speed should be identical to mine, unless some other mechanical component is different such as gear ratios or anything else that would effectively change the ratio.

    Hills would make no difference, whether uphill, downhill, or on the flats. It must be so. (Or I&#146;m really confused, which is always a possibility. ;-)

    But I understand why one might at first think hills matter -- it seems reasonable to think hills might. (Think about your experience riding a bicycle: If speed remains constant, and you haven&#146;t changed gears, then your pedal rpms must be identical for any given speed, hill or not. Right? :-) If it isn&#146;t, then you&#146;ve got slipping somewhere in the system, and the only place that comes to mind is the clutch. That would be a problem and would call for attention.

    Extending your thought to another issue: My 2002 (early build) P5 seems to do about 68 mph on the stopwatch when the speedometer is reading 70 mph. I&#146;m thinking Mazda put the lower profile tires on the P5 and didn&#146;t bother to recalibrate the speedometer from the regular Protégé sedan. I don&#146;t know, just musing. My salesman suggested that the shop could recalibrate speedometers. Is this true? I never heard of such a thing, but since it&#146;s all electronic and governed by a computer chip, it seems reasonable. No doubt, the fee would be prohibitive, but I&#146;m just curious if it can be done electronically by simply reprogramming an element in the computer system.
  • - I was surprised to see that my odometer was registering a bit short on the highway. Using the mile markers as a guide, my odo registered almost exactly 98 miles when it was 100 miles according to the signs. I thought maybe the opposite would be true with the low-profile tires. I guess that means I'll only be showing 98,000 miles when it will actually be 100,000! Of course, as tires wear they get smaller, so they'll go through more revs in a mile.
  • kauai215kauai215 Posts: 190
    You wrote:
    "Of course, as tires wear they get smaller, so they'll go through more revs in a mile."

    I never stopped to think about that. You're absolutely right. In fact, if they go from, say, 10/32 to 2/32, they've worn 1/4", which would be a difference of 1/2" in diameter. (I'm too lazy to go look up what that would mean in rev/mi on the tire sites for this tire, but maybe I'll get 'round to it later.)

    But my timing over "measured" miles via those mile markers you refer to, suggest my wheels/tires are already smaller despite being only a bit worn.

    Logic would suggest my odometer would read high, not low... as yours has.

    I'm scratching my head in puzzlement. How about you? :-)
  • - I wonder if there's a difference between the auto and the manual transmissions - would that matter if there were different final drive ratios? My car is automatic and only a few thousand miles on the Dunlops. Curiously, my snows are 205/50R-16 and are also about 2% slow on registering the miles.
  • There could certainly be a difference in speedo calibration between the auto and manual transmission cars. Whether there is, or not, I don&#146;t know. Any difference in gear ratios would affect rpms at a given road speed, but I&#146;d think the manufacturer would properly calibrate the speedometer/odometer to each model car.

    I wonder how accurate the road mileage markers are over long distances? It may be that they are reasonably accurate from marker to marker, but over 100 miles, perhaps cumulative error creeps in. I have no idea, just speculating.

    I have noted that if I take repetitive splits on my stopwatch at each mile marker, there is more variation than I would have expected, certainly more than seems reasonably attributable to timing errors. I&#146;ve always been able to regularly hand time cars at races to within 0.1 or even .01 seconds of the official timing. Yet, sometimes my times are a full second different between Interstate mileage markers. At 60 mph, one second equates to 88 feet. This inconsistency is why I take multiple splits, and then average them when checking my speedometer calibration.

    I generally don&#146;t push the speed limits much anymore; it&#146;s too stressful, not to mention distracting, trying to watch for and anticipate every place an Enforcer with a radar might be hiding in wait for me. (Radar spoiled the game.) He could be just out of sight over every brow, around every blind bend, or up behind every bridge abutment, back up out of sight along an entry ramp, or even, as I observed recently, behind the concrete wall up on a bridge overpass aiming his radar unit down onto oncoming traffic -- those weasels are everywhere.

    It&#146;s about a twenty mile drive from downtown to our village. At 69 mph (where I set my cruise control), I cover that distance in 17:23; no Enforcer is going to trouble me at 4 mph over the 65 mph limit. At 80 mph one would cover 20 miles in 15:00 minutes -- assuming no extra time spent "in discussion" with an Enforcer at the roadside. ;-)

    The 2:23 extra minutes saved is hardly worth the aggravation, not to mention the risk of a hefty ticket and subsequent insurance rate increase. I&#146;d save 4:46 over 40 miles -- still not worth it. It&#146;s much easier to just leave 5 minutes earlier if time is important. I cannot think of many occasions when saving 2:23, or even 4:46, is important to me. Knowing how my speedometer is calibrated keeps me &#147;safe&#148; on the Interstate.

    I do miss the early seventies when radar was not a threat, and an Enforcer had to catch me and pace me (and if he could do that, I _deserved_ a ticket for inattention!), and I could safely cruise at 90-100 mph on trips in my Boss 302 along empty stretches of Midwest Interstate. I recall one sunny early morning cruising peacefully at 95 mph on largely empty Interstate heading down to the Indy 500, and having a nice Porsche 911 pass me. We nodded to one another and gave the thumbs-up sign. Ah, the Good Old Days. <sigh>

    What were we talking about? Oh, yes. . .

    Your 205/50 tires are nominally larger diameter than the OEM 195/50s. Arguably, there should be a difference in odometer readings between the two different sizes of tires.

    The tire size issue interests me because when I replace the OEM tires on my P5, I anticipate getting a slightly larger tire, either a 205/50 or 205/55. A slightly larger diameter tire would bring my speedometer into better calibration, I think. The wider tire gives me a better selection to choose from and, my principal reason, should give me a slightly improved ride. I love my P5 on smooth roads, but it&#146;s a wee bit too harsh-riding on rough roads.
  • The following tach readings are all in 5th gear in a 2002 P5 with manual transmission:

    50 mph: 2300 rpm
    60 mph: 2800 rpm
    70 mph: 3250 rpm

    While the tach gauge does not permit precision readings, it appears that in 5th gear there's about a 500 rpm change for each 10 mph change.

    Are these readings different on your automatic-equipped P5?
  • - I should have written it down the other day when I was on the interstate, but I'm thinking around 3150 @ 70 mph with auto. I'll have to check again.
     - I saw a P5 with 205/55R-16 tires in the lot at Wal-Mart last summer, and it looked good. I'll bet it rides nicer, but the speedo and odo must be off several percent. I might go with that size when I replace the Dunlops, because I'm more interested in a less-jittery ride on bad roads than I am in cornering at breakneck speeds.
     - My snows are Pirelli Snowsport 210, 205/50R-16, and they are considerably wider than the stock Dunlops. I know you're supposed to have narrower snow tires, but they look great and still perform amazingly well, even on ice. I suppose most any true snow and ice tire would be better than the Dunlops in winter!
  • - With auto, approx.:

           60 mph @ 2650 rpm

           70 mph @ 3150 rpm

    Interesting that the auto 4-speed would turn fewer rpm than the 5-speed manual.
  • mdaffronmdaffron Posts: 4,421
    "Interesting that the auto 4-speed would turn fewer rpm than the 5-speed manual."

    Same thing with the 2000 Proteges with the 1.8-liter engine. I have a 2000 ES 5-speed; a good friend has a 2000 ES auto. My engine's turning about 200K faster at 70 in fifth than his is in overdrive. We did a side-by-side on the interstate one day after we bought the cars.

  • mazdafunmazdafun Posts: 2,329
    My wife's '03 gets 28-29mpg in mostly stop-n-go highway traffic with occasional non-stop-n-go freeway driving.

    Pretty good, IMO, considering her typical commute.

    Of course, my '99 LX gets 32mpg in mostly local traffic (but her 2.0 trumps my 1.6L in oomph). :)

    Both are AT-equipped.
  • - I think I read here a while back that the P5 brakes needed a pin lubed to prevent calipers from sticking. Does anyone know where these pins are, what they look like, and how to lube them? I'm getting nervous with winter weather not too far off! Thanks.
  • reitrofreitrof Posts: 122
    Hi jimmcknight,

    There are 2 large pin/bolts that are on each caliper. They have allen heads on them, I forget the size. They need to be lubed with special brake grease when you change the pads. Not a big job. They are on the top and bottom of each caliper. Can't miss them. They hold the caliper in place.
  • Hello, I have a 2003 P5 and I'm very happy with it. Would anyone know where I could buy a service manual for it? I usually try and do my own maint; brakes, plugs and whatever else I can do. But of course I need the proper torque's and all that.

  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    Hi all,
       Here are my numbers for my P5 2002 AUTOMATIC.
    The table shows the speed in kilometres (KM/HR)
    followed by the tach reading (RPM). The mph
    is for conversion from KM/HR.
    Example: 50 km/hr @ 1450 rpm

            KM/HR @ RPM
    31 mph 50 1450 rpm
    37 mph 60 1600 rpm
    43 mph 70 1800 rpm
    49 mph 80 2200 rpm
    56 mph 90 2400 rpm
    62 mph 100 2700 rpm
    68 mph 110 3000 rpm
    74 mph 120 3200 rpm
    80 mph 130 3500 rpm
    86 mph 140 3800 rpm

    Comparable to kauai215's 2002 P5 with MANUAL:
    50 mph: 2300 rpm
    60 mph: 2800 rpm
    70 mph: 3250 rpm
  • -Thanks, reitrof. If the brakes are O.K., should you lube those pins or wait till you change the pads?
This discussion has been closed.