 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / February 20081988 Honda Accord won't idle when warmed up
On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out of gear (manual trans) as I approached a stop. It restarted but, would not idle unless I held my foot on the accelerator and kept it at about 1000 rpms. When it's cold, it idles fine but as soon as it warms up you can watch the rpms drop and it will die. Restart and hold the accelerator and its fine. I've read that it could be clogged fuel filter(s) or something to do with the carb. I don't have the money to take to someone to have it fixed so, I'll have to do it myself and I don't have the money to replace this and that. BTW it's carburated not fuel injected. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks > On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out > of gear (manual trans) as I approached a stop. It restarted but, would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't have the money to replace this and that. BTW it's carburated > not fuel injected. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks check all your vacuum hoses. > On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out > of gear (manual trans) as I approached a stop. It restarted but, would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't have the money to replace this and that. BTW it's carburated > not fuel injected. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks -------------------- I think it depends on the flow of HOT coolant to set some of the carburetor's controls. Fill your reservoir to the MAX mark three days in a row and see if your troubles go away. 'Curly' PCV Valve? Bg On Jan 23, 5:31 pm, kdavis1...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: > On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out > of gear (manual trans) as I approached a stop. It restarted but, would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't have the money to replace this and that. BTW it's carburated > not fuel injected. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks When the engine is cold, it runs at higher rpm until the Fast Idle Unloader pulls the fast idle cam. From what i understand, in 86-89 accord carbureted, the FIU is controled by a thermo valve. It seems to be working, changing idle speed as the engine temp changes . The problem is that now the FIU has pulled the cam, then the idle speed depends on the throttle stop screw and throttle cable (TC). A TC hardly needs adjustment but the throttle stop screw is susceptible to shocks and vibrations if not secured properly. I would suggest an adjustment of this item. No tools required ( tool-free style screw) If you can get the desired idle speed after adjusting this, then make sure that the throttle cable has enough free play (deflection) If all fail, then you may need to take a look at the idle mixture screw, but that should be best let to a shop. > On Jan 23, 5:31 pm, kdavis1...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: >> On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > If all fail, then you may need to take a look at the idle mixture > screw, but that should be best let to a shop. Could be that... Could also simply be plugged idle jets. The throttle plate is held slightly open when cold, then is allowed to close as the engine reaches full op temperature. This means the idle jets don't control idle until the throttle is fully closed, which is just about the time the car stalls. When the OP holds the throttle open, he is shutting down the idle jet and using other fuel delivery paths, which are not blocked. If plugged jets are in fact the problem, some compressed air down the idle speed screw hole should cure that fairly cheaply. Clean the gum and sediment out of the float bowl as well.  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>On Jan 23, 5:31 pm, kdavis1...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > idle speed screw hole should cure that fairly cheaply. Clean the gum and > sediment out of the float bowl as well. Or... (This is a shot in the dark here), it could be a malfunctioning idle cutoff valve. JT > It restarted but, would not idle unless I held my foot on the accelerator > and kept it at about I had a similar problem with my '88 carbureted accord. I would be driving in stop and go traffic and the engine would just cut out on me. I could always restart it but like your problem, I would have to keep it revved up a bit to keep it going. I changed the fuel pump, cleaned and checked everything I could think of. Finally, I was testing the "primary slow mixture cut-off solenoid valve" on the back of the carburetor. It's held in with one screw. It has one wire that energizes the solenoid, and it gets its ground from the connection to the carburetor. Turned out that over time (17+ years then, 20 now) the grounding went bad or oxidized to the point of failure. I simply scratched up the surfaces on the solenoid and carburetor with sandpaper and no more problem. I have put this solution out there before, but it can't hurt to post it again. I hope it helps save a few nice old carbed accords! :) dan >> It restarted but, would not idle unless I held my foot on the accelerator > > and kept it at about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > dan For the OP, this ground problem could be ruled out by simply using a lead from a VOM meter. By taking the sharp pointy end of the lead, and getting a good connection on the slow mixture valve (at its bracket where the hold down screw is), and connecting the other end of the lead to the battery negative post, the car would idle, if the ground was the culprit. A helper would be needed to hold the engine speed up, to prevent stalling. With a good connection, the helper lets off the gas pedal, and the engine would then idle. With a manual trans carb Accord, the normal operation of this valve can be felt while driving (its subtle). The valve is suppose to close (no fuel supply to the idle circuit) above 15 MPH/24 [Km/h] (approximately 1700 rpm in second gear). Coast down from 2500 rpm, in second gear, to about 1200 RPM and you can feel the valve open (fuel supplied to the idle circuit) at approximately 1700 rpm. The deceleration from 2500 (or above) down to when the valve opens, is very consistent. When the valve opens (idle circuit now receiving fuel) the deceleration is less (engine receiving a fuel mixture from the idle circuit and providing a little power). A switch on the clutch pedal overrides the fuel cut off (opens the valve) when shifting gears. > > For the OP, this ground problem could be ruled out by simply using > a lead from a VOM meter. By taking the sharp pointy end of the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > A switch on the clutch pedal overrides the fuel cut off (opens the valve) > when shifting gears. Gee, I should have thought of opening the hood in stop and go traffic, jumping out and jambing a lead from a VOM meter into the "slow mixture valve", which I was careful to call the "primary slow mixture cut-off solenoid valve" as in the factory service manual, IN TRAFFIC. It was INTERMITTENT! Meaning it would happen when the car was warm, and when I would least expect it to happen. As the OP said, it only happens when the car is warmed up, or in other words, in TRAFFIC! It's an intermittent ground. They don't like to do bad things when you're watching. I think it is actually a poor design. But that's moot since no Honda has had a carburetor for at least 15 years? (?). dan > Gee, I should have thought of opening the hood in stop and go traffic, > jumping out and jambing a lead from a VOM meter into the "slow mixture > valve", which I was careful to call the "primary slow mixture cut-off > solenoid valve" as in the factory service manual, IN TRAFFIC. You could simply put the front end up on stands, you know. M.A. Stewart has some pretty good advice. I'd forgot about that solenoid, not having much experience with feedback carbs. > It was > INTERMITTENT! Meaning it would happen when the car was warm, and when [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think it is actually a poor design. But that's moot since no Honda > has had a carburetor for at least 15 years? (?). Sure it's a poor design. All feedback carbs are poor designs. And your friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated bizarre and unnatural complications into what used to be a very simple device. The EPA is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since 1989. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated bizarre and > unnatural complications into what used to be a very simple device. that's a bad thing. however... > The EPA > is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since 1989. this is a good thing - fuel injection is much more reliable. detroit would never have made this move without legislation, and we're all much better off as a result. > detroit > would never have made this move without legislation, Detroit attempted fuel injection as early as 1957 (Corvette), making repeated assaults throughout the decades leading up to the total changeover to computerized injection around 1989. The 1976 Cadillac Sedan DeVille had TBI injection. Hemmings magazine (Oct/07) reports it was "a bit lean at idle" but otherwise worked well. Huge cost ruled it out for lesser models, and it was phased out later on due to complications having to do with the then-crude control system. The 1982 Chrysler Imperial originally had injection, but all of them were recalled, again due to control problems and retrofitted with a carburetor. Hemmings recently covered this one as well, but I can't find that issue just now. Ford began installing Bosch-derived TBI injection in some models as early as 1980. The domestics and the Germans (Bosch L-Jetronic) were far in the vanguard over the years, well ahead of the Japanese. The Japanese were content to timidly produce what worked well and did not result in lost sales on account of poor reliability, accounting for their late entry into the fuel injection club. Toyota's MR-2 was one of the first port-injected Japanese cars, appearing in late 1984 with a copy of Bosch's L-Jetronic system. Honda dutifully followed the other Japanese makers in slowly introducing injection in the mid-'80s on selected models, but held off where they could, as long as they could, to keep costs down. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> detroit >> would never have made this move without legislation, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > injection in the mid-'80s on selected models, but held off where they > could, as long as they could, to keep costs down. again, detroit [or anybody else] would never have made this move [into the mainstream] without legislation. and the result is better reliability. sure, plenty of people had messed about with gasoline injection - the nazi fighter plane, the me109, or variants of it, had fuel injection back in ww2. but since injection's gone mainstream because of law, costs have gone down due to volume, and reliability has gone up for consumers. it's a win for both sides. > again, detroit [or anybody else] would never have made this move [into > the mainstream] without legislation. and the result is better > reliability. You originally and specifically said "detroit would never have made this move without legislation". I demonstrated that Detroit had been tinkering (and installing) for several decades before there was any forcible conversion to injection. The Japanese waited until pretty much the last minute, when they then had no choice, when emissions regs forced them to convert. Fuel injection has several important advantages over carburetion, notably much better driveability and efficiency. I submit that fuel injection would eventually have become commonplace in North America even in the absence of regulations. The traditional primary difficulties for fuel injection were cost and control. Cheap computing power eventually solved both of those, but by then the regulations were on the march. So we'll never know now... SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> again, detroit [or anybody else] would never have made this move [into >> the mainstream] without legislation. and the result is better [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > eventually have become commonplace in North America even in the absence of > regulations. Hm, what would have compelled Detroit to make such a big change? The last 30 or so years have demonstrated abundantly Detroit's disinclination for such, even in the face of superior products from foreign manufacturers and dwindling market share & profits, which is supposed to be the primo driver of change in a for profit company. If they had their way they'd still be cranking out carbureted V-8's. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > would never have made this move without legislation, and we're all much > better off as a result. Poppycock! In the olde dayz, when things were simple, carbed cars were easy to work on and a helluva lot less 'xpensive to work on. That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After that milestone, things REALLY got complicated. JT >>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After > that milestone, things REALLY got complicated. poppycock yourself. as a guy that can strip, clean, repair and calibrate pretty much any carb you care to put in front of me, i'll take electronic injection any day. for regular form and function, carbs just can't compete. the only exception i'd give you in that is racing - a pair of dcoe40 weber's at full throttle are quite excellent. On Jan 27, 12:47 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: snip > > this is a good thing - fuel injection is much more reliable. detroit > > would never have made this move without legislation, and we're all much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In the olde dayz, when things were simple, carbed cars were easy to work > on and a helluva lot less 'xpensive to work on. I can vouch for that. I used to have a photo of a buddy and me standing on the fender of a pickup, pissing onto a frozen carburetor to de-ice it. After several such applications (good thing our group of five had several thermos' filled with coffee) we were successful and were able to drive back into Prudhoe Bay. > That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After > that milestone, things REALLY got complicated. > > JT While lots of early fuel injectors were not especially reliable the new ones are. I gotta agree with the folks who propose that current fuel injection systems are very reliable (especially if you stick to Top Tier gasolines). JT is right that when a fuel injection system goes TU the fix can often be expensive and difficult to diagnose. Of course, the same could be said for any number of systems built into today's cars. > On Jan 27, 12:47 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > five had several thermos' filled with coffee) we were successful and > were able to drive back into Prudhoe Bay. ah, icing... forgotten about that! >> That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After >> that milestone, things REALLY got complicated. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > JT is right that when a fuel injection system goes TU the fix can > often be expensive and difficult to diagnose. although usually the injection system itself does the diagnosis for you. "obd" as in obd0, obdII, etc., stand for "on board diagnostic". it's exceedingly rare for the computer to go "tu" - on a honda at any rate. > Of course, the same > could be said for any number of systems built into today's cars. snip > although usually the injection system itself does the diagnosis for you. > "obd" as in obd0, obdII, etc., stand for "on board diagnostic". just there, you sound exactly like a dealership service writer- as they prepare to replace $1750 worth of stuff to clear a code; that may have been thrown by a corroded connection. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as they prepare to replace $1750 worth of stuff to clear a code; > that may have been thrown by a corroded connection. <chuckle> Just today, I dragged my '83 Civic up the road to fix an annoying problem of it wanting to stall out whenever I put the lights on or ran any accessory except for the radio. After a couple of hours of tracking down the fault, it turned out to be two vacuum lines misconnected. Now, I can drive at night without having to fiddle with the gas pedal when stopped for lights etc. I luv that little toidbox! JT > On Jan 27, 12:47 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > five had several thermos' filled with coffee) we were successful and > were able to drive back into Prudhoe Bay. I'm prepping my '55 Studebaker President for occasional driving and am in the final stages of of replacing the native 6 volt components consisting of the heater and defroster motors. At the same time, I was looking for a convenient way to connect the electric fuel pump and there's just no where to do so easily under the hood. The wiring is so simple that it is really elegant. I'm just gonna hafta reach in and connect it to the ignition switch accessory terminal. The only vacuum line on the entire car is to the distributor advance. >>That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After >>that milestone, things REALLY got complicated. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > often be expensive and difficult to diagnose. Of course, the same > could be said for any number of systems built into today's cars. Yep... In my twisted upside down view of the world, I refuse to own any car that has a "check engine" light. Thus, the '83 Honda is the last year not to have any of the "guess what's wrong" nonsense. JT (Who believes that 'puters belong on laps or desktops, no in carz...) On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > On Jan 27, 12:47 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > (Who believes that 'puters belong on laps or desktops, no in carz...) i drive industrial vehicles at work and i realise that most of the engines in these vehicles are diesel-powered, oil-cooled, no computers, compact in size and yet puts out decent power with good fuel efficiency, they can take a good abuse and yet requires virtually no maintenance, other than scheduled oil and filter changes... corporate america knows what's best for them.. but us consumers are f*cked... haha > On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > wrote: > i drive industrial vehicles at work and i realise that most of the > engines in these vehicles are diesel-powered, oil-cooled, no > computers, compact in size and yet puts out decent power with good > fuel efficiency, they can take a good abuse and yet requires virtually > no maintenance, other than scheduled oil and filter changes... And none but the barest governmental diktats. > corporate america knows what's best for them.. but us consumers are > f*cked... haha "Corporate America" had cars getting ever /simpler/ for the consumer over the decades. It's the government that's to blame for complexity, specifically the EPA and NHTSA. You can call what they do good, bad or indifferent, but it is undeniable that their mandates have introduced enormous and hugely expensive complication into cars. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > undeniable that their mandates have introduced enormous and hugely > expensive complication into cars. a lot of this "complication" is not that expensive. well, it is at the consumer end, but not for the manufacturers. at their kind of volume levels, a complete fuel injection package, with catalyst and all sensors, is probably less than $500. that's not exactly a significant burden on a vehicle retailing for over $15k. >>> On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > sensors, is probably less than $500. that's not exactly a significant > burden on a vehicle retailing for over $15k. Guess again, Detroit's cost to produce an entire V8 engine was $150 in the late 60's/early 70's (I'm remembering this from an old Car & Driver article), so $500 just for the FI system is decidedly non trivial. >>>> On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the late 60's/early 70's (I'm remembering this from an old Car & Driver > article), so $500 just for the FI system is decidedly non trivial. that might be a useful comparison if you used this century's money values, not last. <snip> >>> a lot of this "complication" is not that expensive. well, it is at >>> the consumer end, but not for the manufacturers. at their kind of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that might be a useful comparison if you used this century's money > values, not last. <ignoring the snark factor> Not too hard to adjust the dollars - suppose the $150 in 1970 dollars is $500 in 2008 dollars, it's still a very significant cost factor. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > suppose the $150 in 1970 dollars is $500 in 2008 dollars, it's still a > very significant cost factor. $150 1970 dollars is about $1,500 in today's money. It has been estimated (forget where I read this; might have been Forbes) that the cost of meeting the myriad regulations and mandates adds up to many thousands of dollars per car. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that the cost of meeting the myriad regulations and mandates adds up to > many thousands of dollars per car. retail, not wholesale. listening to detroit bleating about costs is like listening to the riaa say they're incurring $1.5M loss for the copying of one cd. >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that the cost of meeting the myriad regulations and mandates adds up to > many thousands of dollars per car. Don't fret too much... They, (the guv'ment), still has not insisted that onboard porta potties be provided for each vehicle manufactured. After all, they do have thangs like airpressure checks etc. How friggin' lazy have we gotten? <grrrr> JT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > $150 1970 dollars is about $1,500 in today's money. Even at $1,500, the incremental cost of $500 is a big deal. (Thanks for looking it up, BTW) >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Even at $1,500, the incremental cost of $500 is a big deal. (Thanks for > looking it up, BTW) on a $15k+ car??? that's 3%. and that cost, for the manufacturer, is more than recouped by fewer returns under warranty. for the consumer, it's significantly greater as it allows almost total avoidance of all that b.s. tune-up rip-off we used to endure. >>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > it's significantly greater as it allows almost total avoidance of all > that b.s. tune-up rip-off we used to endure. I disagree - auto manufacturers are very cost sensitive and that's an enormous incremental cost (for the engine, not the entire car). <snip> > Poppycock! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After > that milestone, things REALLY got complicated. So would you prefer a 1919 model if it were available? Complication isn't by definition bad, but the early years of new technology can be difficult as it gets its field trials. As for me, I'll take Pgm-FI, ABS, modern tires, etc., any day. My only problem with modern Hondas (other makes as well) is that they're so quiet and stable I can easily be doing 80 instead of 60. In times not so long ago, i.e., my lifetime, it was obvious when you were going faster. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 80 instead of 60. In times not so long ago, i.e., my lifetime, it was > obvious when you were going faster. You can keep your "modern" stuff and I'll continue to prefer the simplicity of the late 1950's and early 1960's. BTW, my ol' Avant would do around 160 and it was solid as a rock and it went exactly where you pointed it. And, my old cars are appreciating... JT > Sure it's a poor design. All feedback carbs are poor designs. And your > friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated bizarre and > unnatural complications into what used to be a very simple device. The EPA > is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since 1989. Don't get me started. Don't get me started. Don't get me started. Don't get me started. Don't get me started. JT (Who would love to find real EN1 and EM1 engines...) kdavis1056@tampabay.rr.com wrote in news:91389d4b-0f01-490f-9ad9-a0d047302a84 @c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out > of gear (manual trans) as I approached a stop. It restarted but, would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't have the money to replace this and that. BTW it's carburated > not fuel injected. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks This is not a carb problem, but a 'pre-heated air' delivery problem. Check and repair the vacuum line to the air diversion damper in the air intake. The carb needs 100+ deg F air in the Winter. Pre-heated air from the exhaust manifold prevents frost and ice build up and might boost your mpg a touch. This happened on my '87 years ago and a five minute fix was all that was needed. Good luck. The EGR valve is stuck open. > On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out > of gear (manual trans) as I approached a stop. It restarted but, would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't have the money to replace this and that. BTW it's carburated > not fuel injected. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks |
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
|
©2009 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.