http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda?hl=en
rec.autos.makers.honda@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Read this before you buy - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/509c248b3bd0a9ab?hl=en
* 1998 V-6 Accord EGR valve dismantle/disassembly. - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/46a9908d1e11231c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Read this before you buy
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/509c248b3bd0a9ab?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 13 2010 9:07 pm
From: jim beam
On 10/13/2010 08:39 PM, Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:30:36 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/2010 05:10 AM, ACAR wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 8:46?am, Tom Adams<tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> ESC is considered to be the greatest advance in safety since the
>>>> seatbelt. ?It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
>>>> optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
>>>
>>> check the hype re. ABS
>>> it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the
>>> seatbelt...
>>
>> indeed.
>>
>> e.s.c. hype somehow completely misses the fact that since the exploder
>> fiasco, not only frod but many other suv manufacturers have transitioned
>> to lower vehicles with wider wheel bases and even more importantly,
>> independent rear suspension. with that and mandatory driver skid
>> training, you could do without e.s.c. tpms and abs too.
>>
>> an interesting abs quote:
>>
>> "Risk compensation
>>
>> Anti-lock brakes are the subject of some experiments centred around risk
>> compensation theory, which asserts that drivers adapt to the safety
>> benefit of ABS by driving more aggressively. In a Munich study, half a
>> fleet of taxicabs was equipped with anti-lock brakes, while the other
>> half had conventional brake systems. The crash rate was substantially
>> the same for both types of cab, and Wilde concludes this was due to
>> drivers of ABS-equipped cabs taking more risks, assuming that ABS would
>> take care of them, while the non-ABS drivers drove more carefully since
>> ABS would not be there to help in case of a dangerous situation. A
>> similar study was carried out in Oslo, with similar results."
>>
>>from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system
>
> We should also consider the alternate theory that ABS doesn't do shit.
> Oh yeah, theoretically it provides greater control when braking, but
> in the real world I don't think it has ever been shown to reduce
> accidents.
abs is great for my grandmother. her reactions are so slow, and her
vehicle control so poor, anything that stops her locking the wheels and
drifting off into oblivion is going to be an improvement.
similarly, it's great for planes where the systems react slow and
there's no feedback for the pilot, trains where the the systems react
slow and there's no feedback for the driver, and trucks, well, you get
the idea.
cars though, it really depends on the driver. and the road conditions.
if it's snowy or muddy, i don't want abs. it it's icy, and i'm only
driving in straight lines, i probably do. if it's rainy, maybe i do,
maybe i don't. if it's dry, i definitely don't.
and finally, don't forget, the dirty little secret of modern "crash
safe" cars is that because they're so much heavier, you just can't
control or stop the things like you can a lighter car - they're getting
up there with trucks and trains. "crash safe" also means "crash likely".
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 14 2010 2:31 am
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
In article <gZWdndRJuNtkHCvRnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> abs is great for my grandmother. her reactions are so slow, and her
> vehicle control so poor, anything that stops her locking the wheels and
> drifting off into oblivion is going to be an improvement.
She has to know to steer while she's braking, which I doubt she does.
She would just hang onto the wheel for dear life and let the car go
straight into the obstacle ahead.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 14 2010 6:33 am
From: Dillon Pyron
Thus spake ACAR <dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com> :
>On Sep 30, 8:46 am, Tom Adams <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ESC is considered to be the greatest advance in safety since the
>> seatbelt. It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
>> optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
>
>check the hype re. ABS
>it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the
>seatbelt...
Same with DRL. Note that collissions that were supposed to be
prevented by DRL have returned to about the same (using the miles
driven quanitier) as 2 years prior to the major use. Motorcycles
don't seem to be any more immune to getting whacked by "us" even
though they all have headlights on.
The highmount brakelight doesn't seem to have reduced rear end
collisions.
Stupid people adapt stupid behavior to suit conditions. Highmount
brakelight? Just get used to it. ABS? Start driving into situations
where it won't help. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (thank you, Mr.
Brenner)
--
- dillon I am not invalid
Toby (Tri-Umph That's the Sweet Truth)
March 1998 - June 2010
What a dog. What a dog!
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 14 2010 7:36 am
From: jim beam
On 10/14/2010 02:31 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<gZWdndRJuNtkHCvRnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> abs is great for my grandmother. her reactions are so slow, and her
>> vehicle control so poor, anything that stops her locking the wheels and
>> drifting off into oblivion is going to be an improvement.
>
> She has to know to steer while she's braking, which I doubt she does.
> She would just hang onto the wheel for dear life and let the car go
> straight into the obstacle ahead.
which is what she's done. but cars are generally ok in front-rear
collisions. it's pretty much impossible to offer equivalent protection
for side impacts.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 14 2010 7:47 am
From: jim beam
On 10/14/2010 06:33 AM, Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Thus spake ACAR<dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com> :
>
>> On Sep 30, 8:46�am, Tom Adams<tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ESC is considered to be the greatest advance in safety since the
>>> seatbelt. �It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
>>> optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
>>
>> check the hype re. ABS
>> it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the
>> seatbelt...
>
> Same with DRL. Note that collissions that were supposed to be
> prevented by DRL have returned to about the same (using the miles
> driven quanitier) as 2 years prior to the major use.
i know i sound like a crazy whack-job, but drl's are courtesy of our
friends in the oil business, not based on safety research.
drl's run at ~80W. fuel conversion is ~30%. that's an extra 260W worth
of gasoline required every time you switch on your car. multiply that
by the ~135,000,000 cars on the road, and suddenly, you're selling a lot
more gasoline.
oh, and let's ignore the nimrods who, because they have drl's and can
see the road, albeit dimly, don't think to turn on their lights at night
now.
> Motorcycles
> don't seem to be any more immune to getting whacked by "us" even
> though they all have headlights on.
>
> The highmount brakelight doesn't seem to have reduced rear end
> collisions.
but it means people can drive with two bulbs out, not just one!
>
> Stupid people adapt stupid behavior to suit conditions. Highmount
> brakelight? Just get used to it. ABS? Start driving into situations
> where it won't help. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (thank you, Mr.
> Brenner)
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 14 2010 8:31 am
From: "Howard Lester"
"jim beam" wrote
> i know i sound like a crazy whack-job, but drl's are courtesy of our
> friends in the oil business, not based on safety research.
Oncoming cars that are dark in color I have trouble seeing initially unless
their headlights (or "parking" lights) are on. Dark cars tend to blend in
with the background and/or the gray road surface. I spot light colored cars
at a distance much more easily -- DRL's or not. My current and previous two
cars are white -- I like to be seen!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 1998 V-6 Accord EGR valve dismantle/disassembly.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/46a9908d1e11231c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 14 2010 6:38 am
From: Dillon Pyron
Thus spake jim beam <me@privacy.net> :
>On 10/09/2010 12:41 AM, Meatman wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 2:36?pm, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2010 12:02 AM, Meatman wrote:
>>>
>>>> '98 Accord EX V-6. ?Code PO401 - insufficient EGR flow. ?TSB/retrofit
>>>> exists for this involving drilling-over EGR port in plenum, installing
>>>> sleeve, etc. ?Done that part. ?Here's the rest: ?I removed and began
>>>> DISASSEMBLING the EGR valve itself. ?Yes, you read correctly. ?I
>>>> removed the 3(or 4?) small bolts and nuts that hold the metal mounting
>>>> base to the upper electrical part in an attempt to COMPLETELY
>>>> diassemble the valve into 2 basic pieces. ?However the metal plunger/
>>>> bypass ass'y connects the two portions and there is a high-heat metal-
>>>> foil gasket in between...now damaged, obviously. ?I either need to get
>>>> this bitch all the way apart (I can't seem to) and replace the gasket
>>>> OR find a suitable RTV (copper?) OR just replace the whole valve.
>>>> Obviously I would like to reverse my disassembly and repair/replace
>>>> the gasket. ?So let's run with that. ?Thanks. ?Kevin.
>>>
>>> i'd cut your time losses and just get a new valve from a junkyard.
>>>
>>> egr valves can run very hot - the rtv gasket stuff won't cope. ?they
>>> don't usually need much more than a good internal scraping to get the
>>> soot out. ?you can do this without the disassembly you've done. ?just
>>> use some vacuum hose connected to the diaphragm opener to suck open the
>>> valve pintle, then you can use a needle to remove the accumulation.
>>>
>>> --
>>> nomina rutrum rutrum
>>
>> Fair enough. Now, how do I tear this thing down?
>
>you don't. its assembly is a one-way process. once the plunger is in,
>you can't get it out without breaking stuff. and since you can't get it
>out, now the gasket is broken, that egr valve is shot.
I would think that if the TSB came out any prior to 2008 Honda would
have to carry the part. CARB requires that sort of nonsense.
Emissions related recalls and TSBs for cars less than 10 years old are
supposed to be supplies the part for 5 years after the recall or at
the 10 year mark, whichever is later.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
Toby (Tri-Umph That's the Sweet Truth)
March 1998 - June 2010
What a dog. What a dog!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 14 2010 7:56 am
From: jim beam
On 10/14/2010 06:38 AM, Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Thus spake jim beam<me@privacy.net> :
>
>> On 10/09/2010 12:41 AM, Meatman wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 2:36?pm, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/08/2010 12:02 AM, Meatman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> '98 Accord EX V-6. ?Code PO401 - insufficient EGR flow. ?TSB/retrofit
>>>>> exists for this involving drilling-over EGR port in plenum, installing
>>>>> sleeve, etc. ?Done that part. ?Here's the rest: ?I removed and began
>>>>> DISASSEMBLING the EGR valve itself. ?Yes, you read correctly. ?I
>>>>> removed the 3(or 4?) small bolts and nuts that hold the metal mounting
>>>>> base to the upper electrical part in an attempt to COMPLETELY
>>>>> diassemble the valve into 2 basic pieces. ?However the metal plunger/
>>>>> bypass ass'y connects the two portions and there is a high-heat metal-
>>>>> foil gasket in between...now damaged, obviously. ?I either need to get
>>>>> this bitch all the way apart (I can't seem to) and replace the gasket
>>>>> OR find a suitable RTV (copper?) OR just replace the whole valve.
>>>>> Obviously I would like to reverse my disassembly and repair/replace
>>>>> the gasket. ?So let's run with that. ?Thanks. ?Kevin.
>>>>
>>>> i'd cut your time losses and just get a new valve from a junkyard.
>>>>
>>>> egr valves can run very hot - the rtv gasket stuff won't cope. ?they
>>>> don't usually need much more than a good internal scraping to get the
>>>> soot out. ?you can do this without the disassembly you've done. ?just
>>>> use some vacuum hose connected to the diaphragm opener to suck open the
>>>> valve pintle, then you can use a needle to remove the accumulation.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> nomina rutrum rutrum
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Now, how do I tear this thing down?
>>
>> you don't. its assembly is a one-way process. once the plunger is in,
>> you can't get it out without breaking stuff. and since you can't get it
>> out, now the gasket is broken, that egr valve is shot.
>
> I would think that if the TSB came out any prior to 2008 Honda would
> have to carry the part.
they /do/ carry the part - the whole assembly. availability is not the
issue, it was whether it could be disassembled, and it can't.
> CARB requires that sort of nonsense.
> Emissions related recalls and TSBs for cars less than 10 years old are
> supposed to be supplies the part for 5 years after the recall or at
> the 10 year mark, whichever is later.
whatever. i personally have no issues with carb as long as the rules
aren't retroactively changed - which they recently were. now, my 89
civic, which was federally legal up until 2009, has to have a
carb-certified catalyst that meets 2006 or newer emissions.
show me the individual who thought that one up and i'll show you someone
who had shares in the only catalytic converter manufacturer that
happened to have product ready for the new certification.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.autos.makers.honda"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.autos.makers.honda+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment