Honda Car Forum

Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
news:lkmn83tk4enof0pie0mtc8k6j2917inicu@4ax.com:

>
>>
>>Get an 02 EX. That's the last year of that generation, and that was a
>>fantastic car.
>
> Thanks. I will investigate that possibility.
>

Just be aware that fours of that vintage still had a timing belt and the
one you get may soon be due for a belt change.

Ed wrote:
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
> news:lkmn83tk4enof0pie0mtc8k6j2917inicu@4ax.com:
>
>>> Get an 02 EX. That's the last year of that generation, and that was a
>>> fantastic car.
>> Thanks. I will investigate that possibility.
>>
>
> Just be aware that fours of that vintage still had a timing belt and the
> one you get may soon be due for a belt change.
>
i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't
remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're
suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development
teams.

On Jul 9, 12:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
..
>
> i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't
> remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're
> suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development
> teams.

not trying to start an argument... i think the actual car make and
model is what determines whether the chain is more of a PITA than the
belt or vice-versa. :~)>

i am pretty sure the chains are coming back in fashion is because of
their increased longevity. this is only a guess on my part, of
course. i do know the chain in my honda is loud, but it sounds cool!

bob z.

bob zee wrote:
> On Jul 9, 12:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> .
>> i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't
>> remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're
>> suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development
>> teams.
>
> not trying to start an argument... i think the actual car make and
> model is what determines whether the chain is more of a PITA than the
> belt or vice-versa. :~)>
>
> i am pretty sure the chains are coming back in fashion is because of
> their increased longevity. this is only a guess on my part, of
> course. i do know the chain in my honda is loud, but it sounds cool!
>
> bob z.
>
belts don't stretch and therefore offer much better long term precision
for valve timing. besides, you only need to change a belt every 100,000
miles!!!

"bob zee" <bobzee1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183984389.069031.206000@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 9, 12:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> .
>>
>> i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't
>> remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're
>> suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development
>> teams.
>
> not trying to start an argument... i think the actual car make and
> model is what determines whether the chain is more of a PITA than the
> belt or vice-versa. :~)>
>
> i am pretty sure the chains are coming back in fashion is because of
> their increased longevity. this is only a guess on my part, of
> course. i do know the chain in my honda is loud, but it sounds cool!
>
> bob z.
>
>
I think that's the case. I don't know what the difference is, but I recall
when chains had a shorter service life than belts do today. My Prius has a
chain and there is no recommended service interval for the chain; in the
Prius forums I frequent there are several people who have passed the 200K
mile mark and I have yet to hear of chain problems. In contrast, the '84
Dodge 600 I had with a Mitsubishi engine was not worth repairing when the
timing and balance chains needed to be replaced around 100K. One of them was
chewing on the chain cover. First step: remove engine to allow access to the
timing chain cover.

Mike

bob zee wrote:

> On Jul 9, 12:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> .
>>
>> i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't
>> remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're
>> suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development
>> teams.
>
> not trying to start an argument... i think the actual car make and
> model is what determines whether the chain is more of a PITA than the
> belt or vice-versa. :~)>
>
> i am pretty sure the chains are coming back in fashion is because of
> their increased longevity. this is only a guess on my part, of
> course. i do know the chain in my honda is loud, but it sounds cool!
>
> bob z.

I agree that it does depend on the manufacturer. Toyota 4-bangers have had
chains for about 10 years now, and I am not aware of any problems with
those. On the other hand, I've heard of some 1st-gen Ford Escorts whose
timing belts broke well within the specified interval.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:53:34 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <yDVii.28160$xk5.26728@edtnps82>, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on a road
>> >>> trip, AC on full blast, going through the mountains.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Nothing wrong - mine is a 5 speed.
>> >>
>> >> You're 35mpg is horse shit, though.
>> >
>> >
>> > How so? I get almost 30mpg out of an '01 V6 with automatic.
>> >
>>
>> How so? Because I don't believe his story, that's how so. Just because
>> you *almost* get 30 mpg (what's *almost* 30mpg? 25? 29? 22? What?) doesn't
>> mean jack in relation to someone else getting X+ mpg with their car.
>
>Sure it does. If an 01 V6 automatic trans car gets 30, it's well within
>his realm of believability that a 4 cylinder manual trans car gets 35 in
>the same circumstances.

Heck, last year with a 4cyl auto Accord, I got 37 mpg highway driving
doing about 73mph average on a 2 hour plus trip. About a year later
doing the same trip I got about 34 mpg with same car (less load in
car ). Both cases I used cruise control.

And if no one believes me, I don't care. I only point it out because
35 is possible.

High Tech Misfit wrote:
> bob zee wrote:
>
>> On Jul 9, 12:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> .
>>> i'd take the belt over a chain any day. /any/ day!!! young pups don't
>>> remember the pita that loose chains can be - perhaps that's why they're
>>> suddenly back in fashion - the old farts are retiring from development
>>> teams.
>> not trying to start an argument... i think the actual car make and
>> model is what determines whether the chain is more of a PITA than the
>> belt or vice-versa. :~)>
>>
>> i am pretty sure the chains are coming back in fashion is because of
>> their increased longevity. this is only a guess on my part, of
>> course. i do know the chain in my honda is loud, but it sounds cool!
>>
>> bob z.
>
> I agree that it does depend on the manufacturer. Toyota 4-bangers have had
> chains for about 10 years now, and I am not aware of any problems with
> those. On the other hand, I've heard of some 1st-gen Ford Escorts whose
> timing belts broke well within the specified interval.

I'll third that one... my dad bought an '81 Dodge pickup brand new, with
a chain-timed Slant 6 (incredible, indestructible engine)... retired it
in '87 wth 450,000+km. Timing chain was so stretched it was constantly
rubbing on the inside of its cover, but it just kept on going, never a
problem with it.

My '80 GLC had a chain as well... its eventual death by chain slippage
was my own stupid fault for not tensioning it properly after a
head-gasket change.

Conversely, my three '87 Accords have never had timing belt problems...
put well over 300,000km on my first one with only changing the belt
once, and even that was only because I had to change the water pump anyway.

"a" <a@a.ca> wrote in message
news:iYUii.21769$tB5.3923@edtnps90...
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <_FRii.14820$Io4.11389@edtnps89>, a <a@a.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have an '02 4cyl and, while a great trouble free car,
>>> it's a dog in terms of power...
>>
>> I had an 00 Accord 4 cylinder, and it was a fantastic car
>> with PLENTY of power.
>>
>> 'Course, I outfitted mine properly: with a manual
>> transmission.
>>
>> In addition, that baby got 35mpg in the dead of summer on
>> a road trip, AC on full blast, going through the
>> mountains.
>>
>
> Nothing wrong - mine is a 5 speed.
>
> You're 35mpg is horse shit, though.

fueleconomy.gov suggests it is within the realm of
possibility, IMO. See especially the individuals' reports on
what they're getting for the 2000 Accord.

Furthermore, fueleconomy.gov says my 91 Civic (5-speed
manual tranny, no A/C, 1.5 liter engine) should get 28/33
mpg, with three individuals reporting they get 34-39 mpg .
Year-round my Civic averages 40 mpg, ranging from about
38-47 mpg, depending on whether I am driving around the
'burbs or on the highway. I do not do much city driving. On
the highway, with many tanks of gas etc. used for data, the
car gets about 45 mpg driving at about 65 mph.