 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / May 2008Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Pilot on a trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile drive and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want to drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you can help before the car's properly broken in. The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you should avoid any long highway trip. What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put off the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks. On 5/10/2008 1:16 AM Bow Wow spake these words of knowledge: > I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Pilot on a trip > which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile drive [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put > off the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks. The break-in period admonitions still apply; you were told correctly. You can make the trip, but you'll want to vary the RPMs of your engine, which can be annoying and even dangerous to others - because of the unpredictability. If this was my car, I would in fact avoid a long trip until after I had *at least* 1000 miles of variated driving. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen  Signature"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent." -- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis If you have not yet gotten the car, go by the dealer and look at one of the owner"s manuals for that model. There is no problem on taking a long trip that I know of. Of course you vary the speed, which means you may run at 65 for a while then ease off to 55 for another 10 minutes and back up to 65. That doesn't create a danger to other cars. Don't forget, pulling in for gas or food also varies the speed. I don't think you will have any problem with the trip. The last two Hondas I've owned were on long trips immediately after purchase and I never saw any degradation of the cars performance because of that. Enjoy >I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Pilot on a trip >which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile drive [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put >off the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks. > I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Pilot on a trip > which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile drive > and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want > to drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you > can help before the car's properly broken in. A brand new 1975 Ford Pinto, perhaps, but today's cars are machined to higher standards. Taking the truck (the Pilot is a truck, not a car) on a 3000-mile trip is just fine. The only problem you will have is paying for the fuel. > The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which > happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you > should avoid any long highway trip. By whom? > What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put > off the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks. Yes. But, in this case, that's when the truck comes off the dealer lot. Jeff > Taking the truck (the Pilot is a truck, not a car) It's a car. It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a car, it's a car. >> Taking the truck (the Pilot is a truck, not a car) > > It's a car. > > It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a car, > it's a car. You can drive a 18-wheeler like a car if you want. But, it's still a truck. A Pilot meets the safety requirements of a truck, not a car. It is licensed like a truck. It gets gasoline mileage like a truck. It's a truck. Jeff > > It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a car, > > it's a car. > > You can drive a 18-wheeler like a car if you want. But, it's still a > truck. That doesn't make any sense. However, these things that you call "trucks" are used as cars, not as trucks. End of story. >>> It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a car, >>> it's a car. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > End of story. They are classified by the government as trucks, have safety requirements that are different from cars and handle differently than cars. End of story. Jeff >> > It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a >> > car, it's a car. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > End of story. there's a guy who built a semi's tractor into a pickup truck;I bet he calls it a truck even though he uses it as a "car".and US Fedgov considers("classifies") it a "truck",just like the original PT Cruiser. "End of story". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a reference is questionable. SignatureNick > The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a > reference is questionable. I mentioned that in my original post. It's a "light truck",BTW. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a > reference is questionable. They do not. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X >> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a >> reference is questionable. > > They do not. When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for fuel economy.(CAFE) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser; It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE standards.[2] SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a >>> reference is questionable. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE > standards.[2] Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by an idiotic government panel. Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X >>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them >>>> as a reference is questionable. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light truck";the criteria is the government's. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them >>>>>as a reference is questionable. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light > truck";the criteria is the government's. Do you work for Detroit? They gamed the system to save some money. They did the sme thing with safety features like steel beams in doors - left them out of their "light trucks" like at least one minivan that was being marketed as a family car. >>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a >>>> reference is questionable. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a "Truck." But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load bed" is a "Car." SignatureNick >>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them >>>>> as a reference is questionable. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "Truck." But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load > bed" is a "Car." I guess the PT ragtop doesn't count towards Chrysler's truck CAFE. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- FFB1B4.08291210052008@nntp9.usenetserver.com: >> Taking the truck (the Pilot is a truck, not a car) > > It's a car. > > It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a car, > it's a car. I suspect it's classified as a "light truck". Just like the PT Cruiser used to be classified,before they made a ragtop version. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > It's a car. > > > > It's intended to be a car, he drives it like a car, he calls it a car, > > it's a car. > > I suspect it's classified as a "light truck". Classified by whom? The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it. >> > It's a car. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it. No, the only classification that matters is the one the government makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and registration fees. In NY, a Ridgeline is registered Commercial. It has lower safety requirements and higher bumpers than a car. Ergo, it is not a car. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X > In NY, a Ridgeline is registered Commercial. It has lower safety > requirements and higher bumpers than a car. Ergo, it is not a car. Ten years ago maybe that was the required registration class (in NY). Half-ton pick-ups are eligible for Passenger plates these days. >> In NY, a Ridgeline is registered Commercial. It has lower safety >> requirements and higher bumpers than a car. Ergo, it is not a car. > > Ten years ago maybe that was the required registration class (in NY). > Half-ton pick-ups are eligible for Passenger plates these days. But it is not the states that set the safety standards. It is the Federal Gov't. They do require that cars meet different standards than trucks. And they also have different mileage requirements. I remember years ago that Subaru imported the Brat as trucks, so that they could get around some tarrifs, too, rather than import them as cars. Jeff >>>> It's a car. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > In NY, a Ridgeline is registered Commercial. It has lower safety > requirements the federal requirements may be lower, but i think you'll find that the ridgeline meets all requirements, both car and truck. > and higher bumpers than a car. Ergo, it is not a car. > > Classified by whom? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and > registration fees. Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys it. He calls it a car. It's a car. You're apparently one of those types who has to go around talking about everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the store, he didn't walk." "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- 04F114.07112412052008@nntp9.usenetserver.com: >> > Classified by whom? >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and >> registration fees. I suspect the insurance companies also classify it as a truck.And they DO matter. > Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys > it. He calls it a car. It's a car. you're repeating that doens't make it true. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> > Classified by whom? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the > store, he didn't walk." No. If he said he walked, I'd probably say he drove, but I wouldn't care what he drove. If he said he bought a car, and I looked at it and saw a truck, I'd say he bought a truck. There are different laws governing all kinds of things that are different between cars and trucks. There are different insurance rates and registration fees. A truck is not a car any more than a car is a moped. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X
|
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.