Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
People swap in crate engines all the time. I keep running across posts like this one where people ask if it's feasible to swap a transmission out for a manual. The usual answer is to buy a car with a manual.
Any chance that it will ever be economically feasible to swap out for a manual?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Drums require practically no maintenance in my experience. And I'm afraid to tackle the rear disks on my Outback because of the parking brake stuff in there.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
And your experience and my experience vary greatly. I've done dozens of brake jobs on a wide range of vehicles and I can tell you drums SUCK! You need special tools and it takes at least twice as long. Just thinking about fighting those damned springs in there is making me hyperventilate. :sick:
Oh, and drums can have e-brakes, too.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
There are some behavior habits than can mitigate that, and by a lot.
the last couple of Accord generations (I think it impacts Civics too, but not as sure) have been notorious for eating rear brakes, way faster than fronts.
I had to replace the rears on my 2005 at ~40K, while the fronts were barely worn, and at this point (60K) the rear pads are about even with the fronts again.
many people weren't even getting 20K out of them.
In my case, a sticky caliper I think caused some of the problem (one of the RR pads was abnormally worn). I think crappy designed calipers + cheesey little pads and an undersized system combine to chew up the rears.
I am used to thinking of rear pads on a FWD street driven car as practically lifetime parts!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
So for example, it makes absolutely no sense to save a few cents/dollars (disc vs drums, assumption drums are cheaper and more durable) and piss off customers, while having to provide free of charge to discounted brake jobs !!! It really is not worth both the difference and the logistical chain needed to support more line item parts than... less parts. So I guess what they are saying (by me looking at what they have operatively done) is it DOES make sense. I know you know this but logistical decisions are normally multiple decades type decisions.
I'm about done with all of that except oil changes and rotations (not that I ever did much of it anyway).
OT, I'm listening to internet radio (KSUA in FBX, Wes) while typing this and the station suddenly began playing a race track "melody". Very amusing. Can even hear the shift points.
The idea would be to only use rear braking until/unless impending rear wheelslip/skid is detected, in which case front braking would instantly be brought online. The second override to both front and rear braking would be if a preset level, "high" level, of brake fluid pressure were reached.
Sort of an idea parallel to the way today's FWD HSD, hybrid systems work. With these ONLY front braking, regenerative front braking, is used initially. The transition to both front and rear braking, inclusion of frictional braking, will result, "A", if impending front wheelslip/skid is detected. Or "B", if the level of braking required exceeds that which regenerative braking alone can provide.
Is it possible that the industry is already using "my" technique? That's the only explanation that I can come up with, think up, for front frictional brake pads outlasting the rears.
The ramp tests whether the car can use one wheel to power up that ramp (so up to 3 wheels are on rollers at any given time).
At 2:23 listen to the narrator.
At 5:00 watch the driver let the Subbie slide back so it's slightly on the tractive surface and then use that tractive surface to accelerate over the "4 wheels on ice" simulation section.
The ramps used by BMW/Mercedes are supposedly set up differently.
I'd love to see another Edmunds Live event, like the one they hosted in 2000, that tested a whole class of crossovers/SUVs back-to-back.
I don't now remember the "gizmo's" brake pressure trigger limit. I replaced the one on our T&C 2 years ago in trying to trouble shoot, unsuccessfully so, the lack of good braking at the front. Practically impossible to brake hard enough to activate ABS even on a wet asphalt surface. Vehicle seems to just "drift" to a stop with hard, SEVERE, braking.
Yes, that's more likely to have been the parking brake "equalizer". The "other" gizmo is mounted forward and above the driver's side rear wheel.
Hm, just noticed that the new Beetle comes in a 5 speed option, at least in the gas version. 6-speed automatic available, and gets the same 22 city, but the MT gets 31 highway, while the AT gets 29. (The diesel gets 29/33).
Maybe later.
"..new Beetle....."
FWD/manual..
So I would imagine it makes use of VW's new technique to prevent loss of directional control arising from inadvertent front wheelslip/skid due to a too aggressive compression braking downshift.
Don't fear the brake job. Its just like regular drums...you ratchet that little wheel thing a few times to release the pads from the drum and then it pulls off (or you persuade it with a BFH). The pads looked fine an the springs all looked fine so I put the new rotor with the inset drum hat back on. Then you just tweak that little star adjuster thing through the sight hole until the parking brake works again.
The worst brake job is replacing the front rotors on a 90-96 Accord. They press fit the rotor onto the hub so its basically impossible to get off, not to mention requiring pulling the axle nut and everything else out. The easiest brakes were probably the Contour's. Four wheel disks - could do the whole car and bleed it with speed bleeders in under an hour, including putting it on jack-stands.
All of these cars were sticks. So were the Galant, 2 Civics, an Isuzu Impulse. So far I have successfully avoided an automatic.
(On many modern vehicles which are not driven aggressively, owners will find the rear pads/rotors wearing faster than the front. Another contributor to some vehicles'/driver's quicker wear for rear brakes is they are often much smaller than the fronts.)
by the way, your idea for the Corvette with a V6 was funny to me but probably less funny to GM marketeers due recent low sales #s. A 1980s Supra might be the ideal car for you. I can't recall a Toyota I've liked since the Supra, but I sure did like/respect Supra aka Stupra.
(But for now, why isn't the current vette's 30 mpg on the highway with the V8 good enough for you, man? that mpg is at about 75 mph too. be there, aloha!)
My '01 Porsche C4's BEST hwy mpg is ~26, <25 on the Autobahn when new.
30 mpg in a OLD, low technology BIG IRON V8....?
Not buying that.
Basically the engineers at GM seem to think that 25 mpg is fine and that any gains should be into extra HP instead of extra fuel economy.
To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy with a 175HP V8 if it got 40mpg.
EPA sez the 2011 vette (430 hp) does 26 highway.
A smallish multi-mode I4, (West)/Otto/Atkinson/Miller modes, could probably produce more WOT HP than that and still get 40, maybe even (DFI) 50 MPG.
Base/native compression ratio for Otto mode of 17:1. Low cylinder charges, charging, idle and low, flatlander, cruising speeds.
E/VVT-i shifting of intake valve closing timing into Atkinson cycle for moderate engine loads/loading, effective CR of 13-14:1.
WOT, Miller cycle, additional shifting of intake valve closing timing to further reduce CR, ~10:1, effective CR back up to 15:1 with intercooled BOOST.
Toyota already uses E/VVT-i to shift the RX and HL HSD ICE to/from Otto/Atkinson modes.
Above technique would also require a positive displacement SC with spin/boost rate controlled independent of engine RPM. HSD's CVT/PSD could be used for that. No throttle plate required.
It's entirely possible to tune a big engine to operate at lower revs. That's the whole "trick" behind a diesel. It's not the fuel so much as the fact that the engine runs at significantly lower RPMs. It can get away with it due to better torque, but there's no reason a similar designed gasoline powered engine couldn't pull off most of the same trick with 1-2 more cylinders and the same displacement.
The real issue is that everyone is worshiping HP in a race not too dissimilar to CPU speeds a few years back. All while completely ignoring the fact that normal drivers don't need 300+hp in their cars to just get around town.
But.
The pumping losses increase accordingly.
Diesels, with no intake manifold vacuum, do not incur pumping losses except during engine compression braking. BIG gain there.
"..Because of their compression..."
How does that relate to a discussion of V8s vs I4. Isn't it true in both cases the more compression the better...? 12-13:1, even 14:1, has now become the standard with the use of DFI.
Will ANY manufacturer's engine NOT adopt DFI..??
"..and how hard they have to rev.."
And just how often does that need arise in our common, everyday, world..?
Any gasser tuner will tell you: to get 25 hp and 45 # ft takes a lot of work. (lot being an understatement, MASSIVE is more like it) . So at the risk of leaving out the details, so most folks wont fall asleep or have glazed over eyes, the bottom line is @ 75 mph and minus- app 450 #'s, the 04 Civic can cruise a shorter day @ 75 mph and it might get 38-40 mpg. Since it has a 13.2 gal tank, call it 520 miles. The Jetta TDI can cruise a longer day @ 75 mph with bursts to 80/85 mph and post 59 mpg even as it is app 450#'s HEAVIER. It does have a 14.5 gal tank (but like/like 13 gals) call it 767 miles.
Explain, please.
In fact, practically speaking a lot of folks do inadvertently LET the rear brakes do the majority of the braking (aka initially), if the ratio of rear brake pads and rotors wearing quicker are any indications. Other than generating massively more rear brake and rotor changes $$$$$$, it is hard to see the utility, especially if one does not know how or can't mitigate the faster rear brake issue. So for example this issue is not covered or described in the owners manuals.
Nothing beats the laws of physics, during braking the vehicle's "weigh" shifts forward, giving the front brakes the higher stopping ability, responsibility, due to this "weight" bias.
So I find it rather hard to accept a complete turnaround, RECENT turnaround, a greater than 4:1 change, absent some sort of reasonable explanation.
Wouldn't those folks, out of necessaty, need to find a way to reverse the laws of physics....?
Or make use of the rear implemented e-brake on a regular basis...?
"..if the ratio of rear brake pads and rotor wearing quicker are any indications.."
Ah, the RUB...!
The other factor that deserves mention in the case of a front transmission, drive and engine example; most of the weight and motivation is on the front end. So for example, static weight distribution is normally something like 60 F /40 R. transitions (i.e, braking etc.,, CAN shift most of the weight and motivation to the fronts along the order of 80/20. So as one can see, on the face of it, the actual results defies the "logic" somewhat.
And just how often does that need arise in our common, everyday, world..?
Truthfully, not often at all. So you have engines that are geared for higher rpms lugging along. More pollution, more wear, and poor MPG.
03 TDI has 90 hp. 3825 rpm
04 Civic has 115hp. 6100 rpm
38% difference in RPMs, or just about the difference in MPG.
It really is just about that simple. RPMs x weight gives you a good idea of highway MPG.
The issue is that the engines are geared and tuned for maximum HP at silly high rpms and so as a result, the average person has to use a lot more gas to get the car to keep up with traffic. ie - in the real world, to keep up with traffic, you press as hard as you have to to go the same speed as you are used to/need to. Only Prius drivers accelerate like there's an egg on the accelerator instead. :mad:
Case in point. I'm driving an old Park Avenue right now. It weighs 4000lbs, more or less, and is huge and heavy. I get 30mpg highway on it with careful driving techniques. If I drove this way in a Civic, I'd get blown off the road or pulled over. But because of the car's gearing and supercharger (fills in the low-end nicely), I can hypermill the thing slowly and still just keep up with traffic. 10-20% throttle actually keeps up with traffic. If I drive it like there's a rev-limiter at 2000rpm, I get 30mpg.
My last 4 cylinder vehicle I had to rev to 3500rpm constantly to keep up with traffic. I got 17mpg as a result of the vastly quicker speeds people drive now. It also weighed 4000lbs. (4x4 truck)
3500rpm/2000rpm = 1.75x17mpg=29.75mpg. Exactly what I get in the Park Avenue. Imagine that
Yes, "on the face of it", is what warrants digging deeper.
"...defies the "logic" somewhat..."
"logic" based firmly on the laws of physics.
When we find a way to overcome those the trip to Mars will become common.
How much "weight" gets shifted to the front is the result of initial speed and the level of braking force, 80/20 is probably too low.
Lugging, LUGGING, LUGGING..??!!
NOT, nay, loafing along would be a much more proper term.
Lugging would indicate, or mean, pretty poor gear ratio selection on the part of factory engineering. Most new I4s now have the same 6(10) speed gearboxes as larger displacement engines, just different ratios at each "notch".
And then you have I4s with CVT's that truly "loaf". With a CVT the engine power producing capability at any RPM can be perfectly matched to/with speed, acceleration, and/or road conditions.
Current "knowledge" does not explain this seeming disparity.
I remember teasing my friend with her '86 325e because it had like a 4500 rpm redline and better still, they got a 528e automatic. What a dog.
My '07 4 cylinder Accord gets well in the 30s at extra legal highway speeds, doesn't seem nervous and will usually do what I as if I downshift. The car is pretty dull, but I will give it credit for good fuel economy and effectiveness at transporting kids.