My wife couldn't believe they charged more for the chrome wheels on the P5. She thinks they look really cheap. I don't like them at all either. My car had them, but I had the dealer swap them with another car on the lot.
a friend has a Cavalier, their first new car, very cheap interior materials. Ride and power is the pits. I noticed alot of road noise and rattles. Very small interior, no head room. Probably, IMO the worst econobox on the road. I see alot of very young(early 20s) women driving Cavaliers.
Most of my driving lessons last year were in a Cavalier. Aside from the fact that the seat belt was WAY too tight, I never really did figure out what to do with my left leg/foot (and I'm only 5'3"). There was almost no leg room.
While the dealer was breaking...I mean fixing...my car a couple of weeks ago, I got the privilege of driving a Cav for the day. After I started it up for the first time, I almost jumped out and ran after the car rental lady. "Wait," I was going to say, "This car sounds like it's going to explode!" I gave it a couple of minutes, and then decided that's what it probably was supposed to sound like. VERY grabby brakes, very bad on corners.
Made me appreciate the Pro that much more when I got it back.
And no, I'm not trying to start a big Cav vs. Pro debate. I'm sure if anyone here owns a Cavalier, theirs is the best car that was ever manufactured. It's certainly not the car for me, however.
Well, this is rapidly turning into Roadside Cafe...and since I've seen the kinds of things you folks talk about over there, I'm going to steer us delicately back on topic.
This is the probably the most stupid question ever, but that never stopped me before.
I've been reading here and there about people with 5-speeds using brakes to slow down versus letting the engine (transmission?) doing the work. Consensus seems to be that brakes are preferable.
What about with an automatic transmission? I know that the two are fundamentally different, so maybe (probably) this doesn't even apply. But just in case it does, what's the verdict?
Yeah, the Cafe tends to be more like seaside pub. Bunch of sailors in there...hehehe.
As far as engine braking, I tend to do it out of habit. I like to keep the engine wound up and ready to launch out of a turn or from a rolling stop.
It didn't seem to have an adverse effect on engines or clutches. My last high-miler was my 87 Jetta that I sold in great condition with 187k miles. Since then I haven't kept my cars quite as long so I couldn't tell you if it hurt them.
Dale: Anyone who uses their clutch to slow down their car is just looking for maintance problems alot sooner. Brakes are used to slow down a car, not the tranny. Only under extreme conditions...snowy roads, very steep down grades etc. do I ever use the clutch to slow down. Basically use the clutch to slow down your car only when you need to have control due to the hazardous road conditions. When I was younger some of my friends downshifted all the time and kept the clutch engaged at stop lights, and needed to replace their clutch often.
With Auto trannys you can throw it into 2nd under hazardous conditions. The best advice is drive your car under control at all times and leave plenty of distance between you and the other bozos on the road. All of this is my .02 and only my opinion, some may disagree.
Surprised me how quickly they came in. A little history. I ordered the Mazda MP3 rear speakers for my 2001 ES. Well, it turns out they are Kenwood eXcelon KFC-X698s. These go for $199 from Crutchfield. Mazda list price is $155. I got them from mazdadiscountparts.com for $138.20. I feel like I got very lucky. I thought I was going to get ripped off buying them through Mazda, but apparently I saved about $60! I'll post pics when I have them installed, probably Thursday.
Maybe i read your email wrong, but i don't understand what you mean when you refer to "using the clutch" to brake. If you are talking about utilizing the gears (downshifting with a manual) to slow down a car, I fail to see how that affects the clutch other than the second or so it takes to downshift. There is absolutely nothing wrong with downshifting to slow down a car. This is the whole concept of having a manual transmission as opposed to a computer controlled automatic.
Look, i could write a lot here about how what you said made no sense, but you did say it was your opinion so i won't flame you to infinity and beyond. I'm thinking that maybe some of your friends blew out their clutches because of the way they shifted and utilized the clutch as opposed to downshifting....
I've only ever driven one automatic, but I wouldn't recommend downshifting with it unless it is for an emergency situation.... Certainly not for everyday braking purposes.
Tim, There are plenty of people who do say that it puts undue stress on the motor and clutch. I think it's a waste to argue it.
Personally, I have not had a problem doing that and prefer the extra measure of caution and performance that it affords. As soon as I experience otherwise, I'll change my habits.
See, I knew I didn't explain it right...that's why I used that example in my follow-up post.
Gandalf: I would never throw an automatic car into 2nd gear just to slow it down...I save 2nd for the snow.
PJD: I've been trying to do a little more coasting vs. hitting the brake, but then I read that stuff about the manual transmission, and wondered if I was doing the right thing. But it seems I really am comparing apples and oranges, so I'll just be quiet now. Thanks for the feedback!
Sorry to disagree! For every day driving down shifting isn't the best method to promote longer life of your clutch. For race car drivers and conditions I mentioned in my previous post downshifting is a great way to control your car. I've been driving a stick for almost 30 years and never needed a new clutch. I drove 5 speeds to have control when I wanted to upshift, not the computer do it for me. Like I said earlier, you and some may disagree. I'm talking about extending the life of your clutch. Everytime you depress than clutch it wears, just like the brakes...brakes are alot cheaper. I hate to beat a dead horse and pick nits, so I'm done. This MY opinion. Everyone has their own driving style, you drive the way it suits you. Pjd58
Before buying my new 2002 Pro LX w/autoT I had owned five Cavaliers in a row ('84, '87, '89, '92 and '96 which is still my second car). I enjoyed them all, had no problems at all to speak of, '92 and '96 did not have rust problems of the earlier Cavs. I've always had autoT cars since the time I suffered a severe ankle sprain and realized I would absolutely not have been able to drive if I had had to use a clutch.
So far I have admired the Protege's finish, interior arrangements, interior roominess, but it's too early for me to comment on driving qualities. I would, however, like to know whether or not all Pros with autoT jerk going from 1st to second and noticeably shift from 2nd to 3rd?
My '96 Cavalier shifts from 1st to 2nd without being felt at all, and the shift from 2nd to 3rd is just barely noticeable.
I will agree with you that harshly downshifting to slow down the car is very harsh on both the clutch and engine. I'm referring however to dropping into 2nd gear when you are in 4th or 5th doing 80 to 100km/hr....
When I drive auto, I use O/D and/or D2 to slow down w/out touching the brakes. Once you're under 15 km/h (9-10mph), you can downshift to D1 and have a COMPLETE stop w/out touching the brakes! It works well, but very few people seem to know how to use it. They just get ABS and jam the brakes while hoping the sky won't fall and they won't hit the car in fron of them.
When I drive 5spd (once every 2 mths, but it wil chahge in May), sometimes I just leave it in gear and brake and put it in N when it's almost stopped and some other times I find myself downshifting, then braking (usually from high speeds to very slow speeds).
Depends what I feel like. I don't think it will damage the clutch. You will damage it if you can't shift or attempt to race every car at a stop light. THAT will wear out your clutch faster.
In Canada we have the chrome trunk horizontal line for 02. We finally got the side colured mirrors for the ES for 02; previous 01 was black.
In Canada the LX did not have pw, etc. Only the ES carries the power options (pw, pwr dr, remote keyless entry, pwr mirrors).
We only have the base SE, mid-trim LX 2.0, the ES (w/out alloys - just 15" steel on Poortenzas, unless you opt for the GT package, w/out sunroof or spoiler).
My uncle used to race and rebuild cars more or less for a living, and he's always maintained that if you know what you're doing when you downshift, it won't put undue wear on the clutch. But there's nothing wrong with popping the car into neutral and just braking, either.
Personally, I do some of both. If I'm positive I'm going to have to come to a full stop and start from 1st gear anyway, I usually coast & brake. But if I'm coming up to a light that I think might change before I make it to a full stop, I'll downshift so I can accelerate out better.
...actually this just clasifies as more of an annoyance. When the car is cold (just started), I get a little bit of a jerk in first gear, sometimes second if my letting out the clutch is a little to slow. This happend after I was at a redlight on a very, very steep incline with a car behind me. I was to lazy to use the e-brake so I gunned it a little too hard causing a rather large slap (probably the cluth plate against the flywheel). I attribute this to the fact that I was starting to roll backwards a little. I dumped the clutch at about 3000 RPM. Moral of the story...ride the clutch or use the e-brake.
By the way, you guys are crazy. Like 150 posts since late last night when I was on here. It takes forever just to skim over these!
I really don't see the harm in downshifting, especially if you're rev matching or double clutching. If you're doing it right, I don't think the wear is any different than shifting using the synchros. I think the real in downshifting occurs when you are at a high rpm and downshift w/out matching the rpms because you place a huge load suddenly on the engine.
I usually use a combination of engine braking and using the brakes when coming to a stop. Engine braking is extremely valuable when trying to stop on sheer ice. Forget ABS in those cases! Engine braking will allow you to come to slow down and come to a stop much sooner than just jamming on the brakes (w/ or w/out ABS) in those instances.
BTW, Here's to making this group #1 in Townhall!!!
I'm considering to buy a used Protege. as my limited budget, can't go newer than 1997. I was searching here in Edmunds but they don't have that old car's information. :-( what's the differences all those Pro from 1994 to 1997 and, in your opinion, what year is better? I just come to US for study and don't know anything about those cars so any comment will be helpful. Thanks
Dale: Why are you always recommending group hugs? Not enough love in your life? Not that I don't mind hugs, mind you -- but my wife's about to get Internet access at work -- and I -- well, you know, I --
Drove my 19 miles to work this morning in rain and fog. Those new Dunlops made the trip routine instead of a both-hands-white-knuckled-on-the-steering-wheel-gritting-my-teeth adventure.
Had Spyro Gyra's "Morning Dance" in the CD player and all was right with the world.
Click on Model Info and scroll down to the history section. I believe the '97s are also referred to as "second generation." I think first gens first came out for the 1990 model year. The third (and current) gen came out for the 1999 model year. Each gen had mid-life tweaks.
Other models I might recommend in a similar class: Subaru Impreza, Toyota Corolla/Chevy Prizm, Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra, Toyota Tercel, Toyota Echo. All have good reliability histories (although every model has its "lemons") and are fuel-efficient, inexpensive to operate and insure (well, depending on the particular trim level and mods).
My Pro5 has the 36" wide, rap-video-ready chrome Mazda logo in the front grill. It's a bit too big for my tastes. I plan on painting it a satin black this summer so it blends in with the rest of the grill.
Well, let's due the definition in reverse. Smooth would not be the engine that Mazda placed into the 00- Protege. A shame, because the car as developed, deserves better. That Mazda unlike everyone else does not expext or demand its buyers to pony up more money to get a better suspension or engine by buying a higher trim level is fantastic. This alone puts the other manufacturers to shame.
That about sums it up.
If nothing else, you all have convinced me that it is better to simply use the list to address problems we are experiencing with our cars. It seems to be good for that and there appears to be a few genuinely knowledgeable people who are happy to assist.
Since opinions that seem to not pay homage to the best econobox out there are frowned upon, I'll just reserve them to myself. Although, I thought that was more of an attitude one would receive from the Honda Lovers group. I did plunk the money down to buy the car, so I do not consider it to be a piece of crap. The engine, however, is the single weakest link in this car. Should it be improved, or perhaps replaced by Mazda, depending upon the replacement, the car would be that much more ahead of the competition. When the car as a whole is as good as the Protege has become, weaknesses are either glossed over due to the quality of the whole, or stand out. To me, the engine's harshness as higher RPM is a weakness.
But,I suppose the extent of the cold in Canada is more appropriate a discussion topic. Well, that and things like, warming up here...going to wash the car...drove home with the sunroof open...did 110mph the other day.
And I checked this morning, A Boxster S is still a few dollars over the Protege ES. Damn.
Comments
I just happend to like the stereo better in the DX than my 2001 ES. It was crap!
Where the heck have you been? Hope everything's okay.
Or did you just suddenly get a life, unlike the rest of us?
--Dale
Pjd58
Most of my driving lessons last year were in a Cavalier. Aside from the fact that the seat belt was WAY too tight, I never really did figure out what to do with my left leg/foot (and I'm only 5'3"). There was almost no leg room.
While the dealer was breaking...I mean fixing...my car a couple of weeks ago, I got the privilege of driving a Cav for the day. After I started it up for the first time, I almost jumped out and ran after the car rental lady. "Wait," I was going to say, "This car sounds like it's going to explode!" I gave it a couple of minutes, and then decided that's what it probably was supposed to sound like. VERY grabby brakes, very bad on corners.
Made me appreciate the Pro that much more when I got it back.
And no, I'm not trying to start a big Cav vs. Pro debate. I'm sure if anyone here owns a Cavalier, theirs is the best car that was ever manufactured. It's certainly not the car for me, however.
--Dale
ROFL!!!!
(Um, not sure if you'll be #1 tomorrow, but my sense is that you are neck and neck with Infiniti G35 - where maybe they don't have jobs either!)
What options should I be looking for?
Super squish suspension
Ultra no pad seats
Body gaps like W Virginian teeth
Leaks like a tin roof
Every West Virginian out there is getting ready to pelt you with their ultra no pad seats...
This is the probably the most stupid question ever, but that never stopped me before.
I've been reading here and there about people with 5-speeds using brakes to slow down versus letting the engine (transmission?) doing the work. Consensus seems to be that brakes are preferable.
What about with an automatic transmission? I know that the two are fundamentally different, so maybe (probably) this doesn't even apply. But just in case it does, what's the verdict?
--Dale
As far as engine braking, I tend to do it out of habit. I like to keep the engine wound up and ready to launch out of a turn or from a rolling stop.
It didn't seem to have an adverse effect on engines or clutches. My last high-miler was my 87 Jetta that I sold in great condition with 187k miles. Since then I haven't kept my cars quite as long so I couldn't tell you if it hurt them.
Dale: Anyone who uses their clutch to slow down their car is just looking for maintance problems alot sooner. Brakes are used to slow down a car, not the tranny. Only under extreme conditions...snowy roads, very steep down grades etc. do I ever use the clutch to slow down. Basically use the clutch to slow down your car only when you need to have control due to the hazardous road conditions. When I was younger some of my friends downshifted all the time and kept the clutch engaged at stop lights, and needed to replace their clutch often.
With Auto trannys you can throw it into 2nd under hazardous conditions. The best advice is drive your car under control at all times and leave plenty of distance between you and the other bozos on the road.
All of this is my .02 and only my opinion, some may disagree.
Pjd58
Thanks for your prompt replies, but I'm still a little confused.
So I'm in stop-and-go traffic, auto tranny, and cars up ahead are starting to slow down.
Do I:
A) Immediately begin a slow brake
Take my foot off the gas and coast for as long as I can before gently braking
Again, I know it's a stupid question, but that's me...pretty damned clueless:)
And congrats on your speakers, Boggse.
Maybe i read your email wrong, but i don't understand what you mean when you refer to "using the clutch" to brake. If you are talking about utilizing the gears (downshifting with a manual) to slow down a car, I fail to see how that affects the clutch other than the second or so it takes to downshift. There is absolutely nothing wrong with downshifting to slow down a car. This is the whole concept of having a manual transmission as opposed to a computer controlled automatic.
Look, i could write a lot here about how what you said made no sense, but you did say it was your opinion so i won't flame you to infinity and beyond. I'm thinking that maybe some of your friends blew out their clutches because of the way they shifted and utilized the clutch as opposed to downshifting....
Pjd58
There are plenty of people who do say that it puts undue stress on the motor and clutch. I think it's a waste to argue it.
Personally, I have not had a problem doing that and prefer the extra measure of caution and performance that it affords. As soon as I experience otherwise, I'll change my habits.
Gandalf: I would never throw an automatic car into 2nd gear just to slow it down...I save 2nd for the snow.
PJD: I've been trying to do a little more coasting vs. hitting the brake, but then I read that stuff about the manual transmission, and wondered if I was doing the right thing. But it seems I really am comparing apples and oranges, so I'll just be quiet now. Thanks for the feedback!
--Dale
Pjd58
So far I have admired the Protege's finish, interior arrangements, interior roominess, but it's too early for me to comment on driving qualities. I would, however, like to know whether or not all Pros with autoT jerk going from 1st to second and noticeably shift from 2nd to 3rd?
My '96 Cavalier shifts from 1st to 2nd without being felt at all, and the shift from 2nd to 3rd is just barely noticeable.
I will agree with you that harshly downshifting to slow down the car is very harsh on both the clutch and engine. I'm referring however to dropping into 2nd gear when you are in 4th or 5th doing 80 to 100km/hr....
anyway, let's put this to rest.
Pjd58
By the way, How is your new windshield?
Pjd58
Wind noise and rattles.
Ain't life grand?
Pjd58
I'll try to get around to it soon...maybe during my spring break next month.
When I drive 5spd (once every 2 mths, but it wil chahge in May), sometimes I just leave it in gear and brake and put it in N when it's almost stopped and some other times I find myself downshifting, then braking (usually from high speeds to very slow speeds).
Depends what I feel like. I don't think it will damage the clutch. You will damage it if you can't shift or attempt to race every car at a stop light. THAT will wear out your clutch faster.
Dinu
In Canada the LX did not have pw, etc. Only the ES carries the power options (pw, pwr dr, remote keyless entry, pwr mirrors).
We only have the base SE, mid-trim LX 2.0, the ES (w/out alloys - just 15" steel on Poortenzas, unless you opt for the GT package, w/out sunroof or spoiler).
Does that help Meade?
Dinu
BTW: WE WILL BE #1!!!
go Protege!
Personally, I do some of both. If I'm positive I'm going to have to come to a full stop and start from 1st gear anyway, I usually coast & brake. But if I'm coming up to a light that I think might change before I make it to a full stop, I'll downshift so I can accelerate out better.
YMMV.
By the way, you guys are crazy. Like 150 posts since late last night when I was on here. It takes forever just to skim over these!
I usually use a combination of engine braking and using the brakes when coming to a stop. Engine braking is extremely valuable when trying to stop on sheer ice. Forget ABS in those cases! Engine braking will allow you to come to slow down and come to a stop much sooner than just jamming on the brakes (w/ or w/out ABS) in those instances.
BTW, Here's to making this group #1 in Townhall!!!
p.s. : recommend any other car??? let me know!!
Kyrie09: I don't know anything about those 94-97 PROs.
Ashu: Can you help on this one please?
I would recommend Civics from that yr (had to say it), but they'll be much more expensive than PROs.
Dinu
Dale: Why are you always recommending group hugs? Not enough love in your life? Not that I don't mind hugs, mind you -- but my wife's about to get Internet access at work -- and I -- well, you know, I --
You know.
Meade
Had Spyro Gyra's "Morning Dance" in the CD player and all was right with the world.
Meade
http://web2.iadfw.net/emann/protegefaq/
Click on Model Info and scroll down to the history section. I believe the '97s are also referred to as "second generation." I think first gens first came out for the 1990 model year. The third (and current) gen came out for the 1999 model year. Each gen had mid-life tweaks.
Other models I might recommend in a similar class: Subaru Impreza, Toyota Corolla/Chevy Prizm, Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra, Toyota Tercel, Toyota Echo. All have good reliability histories (although every model has its "lemons") and are fuel-efficient, inexpensive to operate and insure (well, depending on the particular trim level and mods).
http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0203/13/b03-439093.htm
That about sums it up.
If nothing else, you all have convinced me that it is better to simply use the list to address problems we are experiencing with our cars. It seems to be good for that and there appears to be a few genuinely knowledgeable people who are happy to assist.
Since opinions that seem to not pay homage to the best econobox out there are frowned upon, I'll just reserve them to myself. Although, I thought that was more of an attitude one would receive from the Honda Lovers group. I did plunk the money down to buy the car, so I do not consider it to be a piece of crap. The engine, however, is the single weakest link in this car. Should it be improved, or perhaps replaced by Mazda, depending upon the replacement, the car would be that much more ahead of the competition. When the car as a whole is as good as the Protege has become, weaknesses are either glossed over due to the quality of the whole, or stand out. To me, the engine's harshness as higher RPM is a weakness.
But,I suppose the extent of the cold in Canada is more appropriate a discussion topic. Well, that and things like, warming up here...going to wash the car...drove home with the sunroof open...did 110mph the other day.
And I checked this morning, A Boxster S is still a few dollars over the Protege ES. Damn.
Ron B.
If your wife gets suspicious, just tell her I'm a guy. THAT should keep her guessing!
--Dale