 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / May 2007How good is the Civic Si in snow?
Hello, Before I consider any and all Hondas for my next car, I have to know about snow traction. I live in New England and that is a fact of life. I understand that you can get the Civic Si with the standard M&S tires instead of the summer only. I know the car has 6spd MT and ABS/EBD/VSA and traction control, but I am a little concerned by the fact that the car is lower and has lower profile tires. Someone I know has a Hyundai Tiburon with the 17" rims and they said its not good in snow, so I was wondering if this is also true for the Si? I had a 2002 Civic Ex with Auto, and it was okay, not great, but with snow tires added later on it was decent. Has anyone used the 2006-2007 Civic Si in the snow? Thanks, Al > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Al Like with any car, just put winter tires on it and you will be fine. But note that you cannot drive an Si as aggressively with winter tires as with the regular tires. The new civics do have very low ground clearance. If you plan on driving through anything more than a couple inches I don't think it would be advised.  SignatureBlackGT2000 http://www.automotiveforums.com >The new civics do have very low ground clearance. If you plan on >driving through anything more than a couple inches I don't think it >would be advised. If you drive it in the city, I doubt there will be much problem as long as you have good snow tires. I drive my GS-R in pretty heavy snow and it does better than about 90% of the cars out there. Good snow tires make a world of difference. Thanks, I kind of thought that would help. I have been told that a manual is better in the snow than without, but never tested it to see if that is true. Another thing I wanted to know about is the premium gas requirement for the Si. How set in stone is this? I am curious because its really just a 2.0 4 cyl and i cant figure out why they require premium for it and if I used regular unleaded what would happen? Thanks, Al >>The new civics do have very low ground clearance. If you plan on >>driving through anything more than a couple inches I don't think it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > snow and it does better than about 90% of the cars out there. Good > snow tires make a world of difference. > Thanks, I kind of thought that would help. I have been told that a > manual is better in the snow than without, but never tested it to see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the Si. How set in stone is this? I am curious because its really > just a 2.0 4 cyl ...with a compression ratio of 11:1. It's the compression ratio that primarily determines octane requirement, not the number of cylinders or the displacement. This engine probably also has a fairly aggressive spark timing curve. > and i cant figure out why they require premium for it > and if I used regular unleaded what would happen? From that car's Owner's Manual: "Your vehicle is designed to operate on premium unleaded gasoline with a pump octane number of 91 or higher. Use of a lower octane gasoline can cause occasional metallic knocking noises in the engine and will result in decreased engine performance. Use of a gasoline with a pump octane number less than 87 can lead to engine damage." SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Thanks, I kind of thought that would help. I have been told that a manual is > better in the snow than without, but never tested it to see if that is true. > > Another thing I wanted to know about is the premium gas requirement for the > Si. How set in stone is this? I am curious because its really just a 2.0 4 > cyl just a 2.0 4 cyl??? it puts out 100hp per liter!!! a crown vic takes 4.6 liters to get the same 200 hp. now, given the math, which motor is more likely to need the high octane gas??? > and i cant figure out why they require premium for it and if I used > regular unleaded what would happen? high compression requires high octane to prevent detonation. > Thanks, > Al [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> snow and it does better than about 90% of the cars out there. Good >> snow tires make a world of difference. > just a 2.0 4 cyl??? it puts out 100hp per liter!!! a crown vic takes 4.6 > liters to get the same 200 hp. now, given the math, which motor is more > likely to need the high octane gas??? Well I agree thats a lot of HP, its almost like the equivalent of a 520 HP if it were a V8, so were talking Lamborghini category for HP output in a sense. > high compression requires high octane to prevent detonation. My point is that the accord has 9.7:1 and the civic has 10.5:1 which is pretty close and they don't require premium. Where I live Premium gas is usually .22 cents more than regular unleaded and usually the gas ranges are 87, 89, and 93 octane. So as long as I use at least 87 octane i wouldnt hurt the engine just the performance? I'm just curious. I guess its not a big deal really. It amounts to $3.00 more per tankful than getting regular. So thats $45.00 instead of $42.00 per tank where I live at this point. Thanks, Al >> just a 2.0 4 cyl??? it puts out 100hp per liter!!! a crown vic takes 4.6 >> liters to get the same 200 hp. now, given the math, which motor is more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My point is that the accord has 9.7:1 and the civic has 10.5:1 which is > pretty close in ignition terms, that's quite a jump. > and they don't require premium. Where I live Premium gas is > usually .22 cents more than regular unleaded and usually the gas ranges are > 87, 89, and 93 octane. lucky you! best we can get here in ca is 91 R+M. > So as long as I use at least 87 octane i wouldnt hurt the engine just the > performance? I'm just curious. I guess its not a big deal really. It amounts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Al the si motor ignition map is set for the slower burning premium gas, not more detonation-prone regular. it's supposed to have an anti-knock sensor which should prevent detonation at lower rpm's, but at higher rpm's, mechanical engine noise tends to defeat the sensor acoustics, so it's ignored. on that basis, i'd use premium. besides, premium has a slightly higher calorific value, so some of your increased cost should be offset by better mpg's. > So as long as I use at least 87 octane i wouldnt hurt the engine just the > performance? I'm just curious. I guess its not a big deal really. It amounts > to $3.00 more per tankful than getting regular. So thats $45.00 instead of > $42.00 per tank where I live at this point. I would not consistently run anything except what Honda recommends. My Audi uses premium and I will sometimes throw a tank of mid-grade in it (2 premium to one mid-grade) and it's fine. My wife mistakenly filled it with regular and it was terrible - performance and gas mileage both dropped. If you really want to run regular, perhaps you should consider a less-stressed version of the Civic. I mean, why would you buy yhe higher-performance version if you're not going to put the gas it requires in it?? Dan D '07 Ody EX Central NJ USA >> So as long as I use at least 87 octane i wouldnt hurt the engine just the >> performance? I'm just curious. I guess its not a big deal really. It [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > buy yhe higher-performance version if you're not going to put the gas > it requires in it?? No sh.t. Not to mention that (at least on mine) the gauge shows E after about 11 Gallons, so the differential per fill-up is under $3. It doesn't seem worth it to cheap out for a lousy 3 bucks... > > just a 2.0 4 cyl??? it puts out 100hp per liter!!! a crown vic takes 4.6 > > liters to get the same 200 hp. now, given the math, which motor is more [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Thanks, > Al Once you start getting over 10:1, 10.1:1 you're definitely entering premium gas territory, depending on efficiency of engine cooling, combustion chamber design, etc. 10.5:1 is actually pretty impressive compression for a street car nowadays. > Before I consider any and all Hondas for my next car, I have to know about > snow traction. It was some years ago, but there was a news announcement about how front-wheel drive cars compared with 4WD vehicles when driving snow covered streets. Some university had done an extensive comparison. Basically, it said 4WD trucks and cars have no real advantage over front-wheel drive vehicles in the snow. So, as far as capability, a Honda Si should do just fine. As for tires, I recommend Michelin. I had MX4's on my Si and they were the best tires I ever rode on. But, I never experienced snow until I recently when I went through 2 snow storms across 4 states in a Toyota pickup with Michelin LTX M/S tires. I never lost traction for one second with those tires. Snow, snow on ice, bare ice, whatever.... I would have never believed it if I hadn't experienced it myself. Even braking on bare ice would not break the traction of those tires. Un-bee-leeeeve-able! Well, LTX is a truck tire, but Michelin makes a sport snow tire, the Pilot XGT H4 and if they say it has "excellent" snow traction, I believe them. Check it out for yourself: http://michelinman.com/overview/pilot_xgt_h4/98.html nb notbob Wrote: > > Before I consider any and all Hondas for my next car, I have to know > about [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > nb I would agree that an AWD/4WD car or truck would not stop better in the snow than a FWD car, but the 4wd/awd would certainly get better traction in snow during any acceleration even very slow acceleration. SignatureBlackGT2000 http://www.automotiveforums.com > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > tires added later on it was decent. Has anyone used the 2006-2007 Civic Si > in the snow? I live in Buffalo, and have the 06 Si (no traction control) using the all-season tires. It was OK, but can be a bit tough to get started moving... This winter I will be using a set of good snow tires, which should make it work just fine. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Al It has limited slip, doesn't it? I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires, it sucked bad in snow (in CT). Sith snow tires, marginal improvement. With Japanese junkyard limited slip trans and snow tires, i (literally!) drive circles around the stuck SUVs in the parking lot. Ground clearance vs depth of snow is an issue, but in the semi- civilized land of CT, at least for the last few years, it's only been a mild issue, like once a winter (not including when the car is walled in 3 feet of snow by the plows when parked on the street). > It has limited slip, doesn't it? > I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a mild issue, like once a winter (not including when the car is walled > in 3 feet of snow by the plows when parked on the street). Thanks for all your repsonses everyone. I agree that saving 3.00 for a tank and loosing performance would be silly. I was just curious. I know the 07 Si's have traction control and limited slip and ABS/EBD/VSA so I am sure it will be fine. I just never drove a car with the lower profile 215/45VR 17's before and I just wanted to make sure that wouldnt cause a problem. Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW Scirocco and a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never drove either in the snow. I was wondering if driving a manual trans in the snow is any different? Thanks, Al >> It has limited slip, doesn't it? >> I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >will be fine. I just never drove a car with the lower profile 215/45VR 17's >before and I just wanted to make sure that wouldnt cause a problem. If you are expecting serious snow, you will probably want to buy smaller wheels and snow tires with higher profile and narrower tread (i.e. a -1 conversion or even -2 if the stock setup is extreme.) Not only will they be much better in the snow, but then you can go with dedicated summer tires instead of compromising with all-season tires. >Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW Scirocco and >a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never drove either in the >snow. I was wondering if driving a manual trans in the snow is any >different? It is easier because you have more control. You can easily start in a higher gear, slip the clutch, shift earlier and more gently as needed for conditions. Of course this depends on the skill of the driver. >Thanks, >Al >>> It has limited slip, doesn't it? >>> I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > only will they be much better in the snow, but then you can go with > dedicated summer tires instead of compromising with all-season tires. Superb advice -- for snow. If your winter (like mine) has only intermittent snow, but lots of cold and ice, you should get ice tires instead. And in that case tread width is less of an issue. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Get the Dodge Caliber srt-4 .Its compact ,has good ground clearance. 300 Hp. And will blow the doors off the civic si. 28mpg highway > Get the Dodge Caliber srt-4 .Its compact ,has good ground clearance. > 300 Hp. And will blow the doors off the civic si. 28mpg highway Yeah, but it's a Crapsler... so it's proven crap. Next! > Get the Dodge Caliber srt-4 .Its compact ,has good ground clearance. > 300 Hp. And will blow the doors off the civic si. 28mpg highway Nice looking car, and good numbers, but you'd have to be a f.cking loon to buy a Chrysler product of any kind. My last 3 Dodges went through a total of 5 trannys and 2 engines, with a total of about 350,000 miles between them (only one made it over 100K before I finally got smart and ditched it). I'll stick with the Si. In 5 years, the car will still run, and the resale value will be leagues beyond that of the Caliber... Resale value right? You mean like what all the commercials are saying right now...ah such cows follow the herd. My del sol isnt worth sh.t right now and its only got 60k miles on it. Honda is overrated > Resale value right? You mean like what all the commercials are saying > right now...ah such cows follow the herd. My del sol isnt worth sh.t > right now and its only got 60k miles on it. Honda is overrated Learn to quote, trollboy... I said: Nice looking car, and good numbers, but you'd have to be a f.cking loon to buy a Chrysler product of any kind. My last 3 Dodges went through a total of 5 trannys and 2 engines, with a total of about 350,000 miles between them (only one made it over 100K before I finally got smart and ditched it). I'll stick with the Si. In 5 years, the car will still run, and the resale value will be leagues beyond that of the Caliber... And I meant every word of it. Honda's resale values are the highest on the market. Your del sol isn't worth sh.t because you treated it like sh.t. They are not nearly as desirable as other Hondas, but they still get a decent price around here... >> It has limited slip, doesn't it? >> I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with the lower profile 215/45VR 17's before and I just wanted to make > sure that wouldnt cause a problem. Low-profile tires are more susceptible to feathering, problems from incorrect inflation, and alignment issues. Keep your tire pressures to exactly that specified on the sticker in the car. Do not just put 32# like you've always done. > Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW > Scirocco and a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never > drove either in the snow. I was wondering if driving a manual trans in > the snow is any different? Very much so. I much prefer a manual in snow. But like anything else, you have to LEARN (or get taught) how to use its advantages. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW Scirocco and > a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never drove either in the > snow. I was wondering if driving a manual trans in the snow is any > different? A manual allows you to rock the car when stuck, but I find the control of power much better with an auto. I have slightly more yrs experience with a stick shift, but I'll take an auto for snow driving because I can apply the power very gently. Be sure to get ABS brakes. >> Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW Scirocco >> and a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never drove either in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > auto for snow driving because I can apply the power very gently. > Be sure to get ABS brakes. You can apply the power even more gently with a stick, once you are proficient with it. I have driven auto's all my life. The 06 Si is my first stick, and after one winter, I much prefer it to an auto. Put it in second, slowly let out the clutch, apply gas as needed, and roll right out. > You can apply the power even more gently with a stick, once you are > proficient with it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Put it in second, slowly let out the clutch, apply gas as needed, and roll > right out. So the fact that a manual trans rolls back is a benefit in getting out of snow? In New England where I am, we get our usual 6-8 inch snow storms, sometimes less sometimes a little more. Mostly we get frigid weather like 0-20 degrees F and freezing rain and ice storms. I know the car has ABS and traction control which will help in getting out of snow on a straight line when going from a stop I would think. If I decided to get snow tires, could I get 215/60HR 17's and still be okay even though the car comes with 215/45VR 17's? I dont think the 60HR would hit the wheel well or throw things off that much do you? That way I can just keep the same wheels. My 1990 Miata was driven once in icy weather now that I remember and at the time I was a novice with manuals. I think there may have been 4" on the ground and I got stuck getting out of my driveway so I had to leave the car home and get a ride from my father. I learned to drive a stick in 1990, so the 1981 VW was bought after that and it was used. Also does anyone know what power shifting means? I heard about this when driving a shift, what about double clutching? I would like to learn more about driving a stick, because even now at 41 I am still a novice not being exposed to manuals that much. Thanks, Al >> You can apply the power even more gently with a stick, once you are >> proficient with it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >traction control which will help in getting out of snow on a straight line >when going from a stop I would think. You can rock the car by shifting between 2nd and reverse. It's in the manual or at least it used to be. You aren't going to be driving on unplowed roads with 6-8" of snow of them. Most cars are going to get stuck in that. If they are doing a half-way decent job of plowing the roads, you should be OK. >If I decided to get snow tires, could I get 215/60HR 17's and still be okay >even though the car comes with 215/45VR 17's? I dont think the 60HR would >hit the wheel well or throw things off that much do you? That way I can just >keep the same wheels. You should contact the Tire Rack - they can give you solid advice. I think a -1 conversion would be better. >My 1990 Miata was driven once in icy weather now that I remember and at the >time I was a novice with manuals. I think there may have been 4" on the >ground and I got stuck getting out of my driveway so I had to leave the car >home and get a ride from my father. I learned to drive a stick in 1990, so >the 1981 VW was bought after that and it was used. I suspect the tires were more of a factor than the transmission. >Also does anyone know what power shifting means? I heard about this when >driving a shift, what about double clutching? I would like to learn more >about driving a stick, because even now at 41 I am still a novice not being >exposed to manuals that much. Power shifting means not lifting off the throttle when you shift. Now that you know what it is, forget about it. Double clutching is a better way of downshifting than the method you are using. Shift into neutral, let out the clutch, rev the engine a little higher than you expect it to be in the lower gear, put in the clutch, shift into the lower gear, release the clutch as you take up power with the throttle. This is smoother and less stress on the transmission. It sounds cumbersome and clumsy, but with practice it can be done very quickly and smoothly. When you have that mastered, we can tell you about heel-and-toe braking. > Double clutching is a better way of downshifting than the method you > are using. Shift into neutral, let out the clutch, rev the engine a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can be done very quickly and smoothly. When you have that mastered, > we can tell you about heel-and-toe braking. Ok thanks for the advise and information. I'll keep that in mind. I know the basics of shifting but not all the special techniques. I remember a few times on my miata i made the mistake of downshifting from 5 to 2 instead of 5 to 4 because I brought the shifter down and to the left one notch too many. >> Double clutching is a better way of downshifting than the method you >> are using. Shift into neutral, let out the clutch, rev the engine a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >5 to 4 because I brought the shifter down and to the left one notch too >many. Ouch. Try not to do that. It can be hard on the hood when pieces of the engine hit it. > So the fact that a manual trans rolls back is a benefit in getting out of > snow? In New England where I am, we get our usual 6-8 inch snow storms, > sometimes less sometimes a little more. Mostly we get frigid weather like > 0-20 degrees F and freezing rain and ice storms. I know the car has ABS and > traction control which will help in getting out of snow on a straight line > when going from a stop I would think. I haven't had much experiece myself with traction control, but being a passenger in an Odyssey with it, it sure seems like a miracle. As I said before, I got sour on the ABS in the snow, though. > If I decided to get snow tires, could I get 215/60HR 17's and still be okay > even though the car comes with 215/45VR 17's? I dont think the 60HR would > hit the wheel well or throw things off that much do you? That way I can just > keep the same wheels. Sometimes, you actually do have to be careful; my long lamented Plymouth Sapporo had to take snow tires one step less wide than the regular tires, because there was just that much more sticking out from the tread that it would contact things. At least, that's what the manual said. Might not have applied to all snow tires brands, of course. If you are going to get snow tires, might as well get a set of rims to mount them on; otherwise you'll be spending cash and time having the tires swapped on the rims twice a year. > If you are going to get snow tires, might as well get a set of > rims to mount them on; otherwise you'll be spending cash and time > having the tires swapped on the rims twice a year. Depends on where you buy them. It's easier to haul and store just the tires than the tires/rims at switchout time. If they don't charge you for the switch (NTW didn't), consider that. > Put it in second, slowly let out the clutch, apply gas as needed, and roll > right out. Excellent point; starting in second with gentle clutch for minimal force applied to the snow. > > It has limited slip, doesn't it? > > I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Thanks, > Al I like it. My aforementioned 92 civic has antilock brakes, and they get confused in loose snow and fight any effort to slow the car. Keeping it in first gear allows the engine to slow the car, which proves that the antilock brakes are confused. I suppose with a good automatic, you could do similar, but I don't know how much engine braking at low speeds you can do with the torque converter. >> > It has limited slip, doesn't it? >> > I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >automatic, you could do similar, but I don't know how much engine >braking at low speeds you can do with the torque converter. I remember R&T did a test on cars with ALB engaged and disengaged some years ago. Disabling the ALB generally produced longer stopping and less control... until they got to glare ice. They really had a slick track because without ALB it took about 300 feet to stop from 30mph (as best as I can recall.) With the ALB engaged, the stopping distance went to 600 feet. > without ALB it took about 300 feet to stop from 30mph > (as best as I can recall.) With the ALB engaged, the stopping > distance went to 600 feet. ...but without ALB there was zero control, but with ALB the driver had control. It's not about only the stopping distance. 600 feet but I steered away from the scene of the accident beats 300 feet but I slammed into the accident. >> without ALB it took about 300 feet to stop from 30mph >> (as best as I can recall.) With the ALB engaged, the stopping >> distance went to 600 feet. > > ...but without ALB there was zero control, but with ALB the driver had > control. Zero control? You don't have to stand on the brake, just brake enough. I get plenty of opportunities to drive in ice and snow and have never had a problem. > It's not about only the stopping distance. 600 feet but I steered away > from the scene of the accident beats 300 feet but I slammed into the > accident. If you have enough traction to stop in 300 feet vs. 600 feet, then you have enough traction to turn out. People get into trouble because they don't know how to stop and then end up locking their wheels, and there goes control. To tell you the truth, the 1990 Mazda Miata that I had (bought new at the time) was my first car with a manual transmission. My father had a 1978 Fiat Pininfarina Azura and an 1988 Alfa Romeo Spider Quadrofolio that I had driven once or twice prior, but the Miata was my real learning car. I learned on it and still the clutch lasted me till 75,000 miles. When I would shift I would always bring the rpms to 4000-4500 which I considered to be a good shifting point for any gear. My father used to also shift at high rpms. A couple of things I was wondering if they are safe for the clutch and transmission: 1. Is it okay to hold the car with the clutch and accelerator on a steep hill to prevent roll back? 2. Is it okay to ride the clutch while coasting down a hill in tight city traffic as long as the clutch is in all the way? 3. Is there a reason why some people downshift and REV the engine just after they shift and before they let out the clutch as opposed to just clutching, shifting and letting out the clutch? 4. What about if you are in third gear and you coast to a stop and put in the clutch and then put it in first without going to second gear first? Thanks, Al > To tell you the truth, the 1990 Mazda Miata that I had (bought new at the > time) was my first car with a manual transmission. My father had a 1978 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1. Is it okay to hold the car with the clutch and accelerator on a steep > hill to prevent roll back? No. > 2. Is it okay to ride the clutch while coasting down a hill in tight city > traffic as long as the clutch is in all the way? It's not the best. You are either riding the brakes or using what we used to call "Georgia overdrive". > 3. Is there a reason why some people downshift and REV the engine > just after they shift and before they let out the clutch as opposed to > just clutching, shifting and letting out the clutch? Yes. It is because they don't want to be thrown violently towards the windshield as they let out the clutch on an engine that is running too slow for the gear selected. > 4. What about if you are in third gear and you coast to a stop and put in > the clutch and then put it in first without going to second gear first? That is just fine. Shifting third, second, first while you are sitting still is a waste of time. Sometimes I do 4-2 to decelerate while approaching a light. Saludos, Earle > To tell you the truth, the 1990 Mazda Miata that I had (bought new at the > time) was my first car with a manual transmission. My father had a 1978 Fiat [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1. Is it okay to hold the car with the clutch and accelerator on a steep > hill to prevent roll back? In doing so, you are having the clutch disk rubbing continuously against the pressure plate. That is a lot of wear. If you hold the car with the brakes, it is static - nothing is moving, and there is no wear. So, the answer is NO. > 2. Is it okay to ride the clutch while coasting down a hill in tight city > traffic as long as the clutch is in all the way? While the clutch pedal is depressed, the clutch is being held apart by the throwout bearing, so there will be some wear (not a lot). However, you have less control than if you kept it in gear, so I don't know why you would want to do this. I have heard that in some jurisdictions, it is illegal, and in others, it could cause you to fail a driver's test. > 3. Is there a reason why some people downshift and REV the engine just after > they shift and before they let out the clutch as opposed to just clutching, > shifting and letting out the clutch? Matching engine speed to transmission speed makes for a smoother downshift and less stress on the synchronizers. I do it if driving aggressively. > 4. What about if you are in third gear and you coast to a stop and put in > the clutch and then put it in first without going to second gear first? No problem. Much more common though is forcing the transmission into first before the car is stopped which is very hard on the first-gear synchro. In regards to shift speed, a fixed speed doesn't make much sense. If driving for economy, you want to shift up as soon as possible. On level ground and with a modern car in North America, that might be as low as 1,000 rpm. Uphill, or with a peaky engine, it would be higher. As long as the engine pulls smoothly (no 'lugging'), you are fine. If driving for performance (max acceleration), you want to be shifting close to redline (once the engine is warm). Dan (This account is not used for email.) >> 1. Is it okay to hold the car with the clutch and accelerator on a steep >> hill to prevent roll back? > In doing so, you are having the clutch disk rubbing continuously against > the pressure plate. That is a lot of wear. If you hold the car with the > brakes, it is static - nothing is moving, and there is no wear. So, the > answer is NO. Well to tell you the truth I did this a few time, but not that often. Only in extreme hills. I guess you could also use the emergency brake in case some doofus is right on your tail and you don't want to hit them rolling back. >> 2. Is it okay to ride the clutch while coasting down a hill in tight city >> traffic as long as the clutch is in all the way? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would want to do this. I have heard that in some jurisdictions, it is > illegal, and in others, it could cause you to fail a driver's test. Well I don't think we have laws about that in my state, and I already have a license so it wouldnt really pertain to me. You only need to get a license on an automatic and then you can drive a shift car with the same license. >> 3. Is there a reason why some people downshift and REV the engine just >> after [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and > less stress on the synchronizers. I do it if driving aggressively. Okay that makes sense. >> 4. What about if you are in third gear and you coast to a stop and put in >> the clutch and then put it in first without going to second gear first? > > No problem. Much more common though is forcing the transmission into first > before the car is stopped which is very hard on the first-gear synchro. I think i did that a few times and in the process ground the gears a little. I guess I wasnt aware that going into 1st gear was only for when you were already stopped. > In regards to shift speed, a fixed speed doesn't make much sense. If > driving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (max acceleration), you want to be shifting close to redline (once the > engine is warm). Yes alot of times I did shift early, which for me was 3000 rpms, but in some occasions i shifted at 4500 rpms for a little performance. I don't think I went beyond 5000 rpms. I have a friend and he has a 2004 PT Cruiser with a 5 speed manual and he always shifts at 2000 rpms or so. Its drives me nuts, but he says that his car would act badly if he drove it like a performance car! Al we all know what a great investment a car is these days. Its better than Gold!! I mean if i bought an Si right now. It would be worth 2 times as much , soon as I drive it off the lot. YAY advertising!! > we all know what a great investment a car is these days. Its better than > Gold!! I mean if i bought an Si right now. It would be worth 2 times as > much , soon as I drive it off the lot. YAY advertising!! If you bought an Si and drove it off the lot for $22,000.00 in the US it would be worth about $19,000.00 but not less than that. I can tell you that I owned American cars and so did my family, but I can also tell you that NO one in my family owns american cars anymore. We all drive Honda, Nissan and Hyundai now...we've learned our lesson! Dodge has crappy autos/trucks?? hmm BULLSHIT http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/ram-heavy-duty.html HONDA MADE IN AMERICA, was your Honda born here? http://www.ohio.honda.com/ohio/facts.cfm > HONDA MADE IN AMERICA, was your Honda born here? > > http://www.ohio.honda.com/ohio/facts.cfm Mine was born in Ontario Canada. The tranny is from Japan... > Dodge has crappy autos/trucks?? hmm BULLSHIT > http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/ram-heavy-duty.html What does that have to do with anything? They make nice looking cars with all kinds of features. None of them are worth sh.t when the transmission falls apart at 40k, or the engine blows at 90k. I would buy nothing but Chrysler products if they maintained their style and physical design, but also incorporated Honda's and Toyota's reliability standards... A car that won't move from the driveway holds little value to me... NISSAN made in Britain? EXPORTS TO JAPAN? hmmm http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/070517/1/48mx0.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070517/bs_afp/britainjapanauto I was a car salesman and my dad is still a car salesman . TRust me your 22k Si aint worth 19k off the lot. they would 'make you' think your getting that on trade but your not. Hey Tomboy ..so you say your family all drives foreign cars including hyundai? Did you know that the 'world engine' was jointly manufactured by Hyundai for the upcoming DODGE CALIBER SRT-4?? In fact it was designed by 3 auto makers Mitsubishi/Chrysler & Hyundai. http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html >Hey Tomboy ..so you say your family all drives foreign cars including >hyundai? Did you know that the 'world engine' was jointly manufactured >by Hyundai for the upcoming DODGE CALIBER SRT-4?? In fact it was >designed by 3 auto makers Mitsubishi/Chrysler & Hyundai. Thanks for the warning. >> Hey Tomboy ..so you say your family all drives foreign cars including >> hyundai? Did you know that the 'world engine' was jointly manufactured >> by Hyundai for the upcoming DODGE CALIBER SRT-4?? In fact it was >> designed by 3 auto makers Mitsubishi/Chrysler & Hyundai. > > Thanks for the warning. why are you feeding a troll? >> we all know what a great investment a car is these days. Its better than >> Gold!! I mean if i bought an Si right now. It would be worth 2 times as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that NO one in my family owns american cars anymore. We all drive Honda, > Nissan and Hyundai now...we've learned our lesson! Probably more than that. My Si is almost a year old now, looks like the day I drove it off the lot, has 17k on it. Private party value is 18,800. Trade Value is 17,502. As has been said repeatedly, Hondas retain their value better than ANY other brand. And there is a reason. People know that a Honda is reliable. They do not give that trust to any of the American cars anymore, simply because the American companies violated that trust. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.