2002 Corolla plugs
in [Toyota]
|
From: Ray O on 12 Jul 2010 01:02 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9DB1A07BBB49BJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9DAC953E5E9AEJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote : >>> >>> >>>> The cover plate is supposed to make the engine look as high tech as it >>>> actually is, and it helps keep water from splashing on the coils. >>>> >>>> Having a coil for each cylinder or a waste spark system eliminates the >>>> need for a distributor which needs periodic replacement of the cap and >>>> rotor, needs adjustment, and which becomes a possible source or > trouble >>>> as the engine accumulated mileage. >>> >>> And here I was just wondering if it was time to do all that. :) >>> >>>> Distributor assemblies are pretty >>>> expensive, they are a potential source of oil leaks, and they create >>>> drag on the engine. >>> >>> Well this car, weighing less than the 93 Corolla wagon, only gets about > 3 >>> MPG more, on average, so something didn't work out so well there. >> >> I'd bet that the '02 has a larger displacement engine with better >> performance than the '93 while getting slightly better fuel economy. > > Nope. Both are 1.8L engines, but I assume the 93, being a wagon, weighs > more. The 02 gets a few MPG more than the 93. My foot is the same on both, > I'm a light footed driver. But I woulda thought the 02 would get more than > 3 mPG more. > > When we first got the 02, the first tankful got me 34 MPG if I recall, but > then it started going down some, to the 29-30 range ( could be the AC in > warmer weather now ). > > But since finding this low oil problem ( last post - the oil had gone > below > the bottom of the dipstick ) in the 02, and getting the oil and filter > changed, the MPG seems to be going up again. I cant for the life of me > figure out WHY. How could oil affect MPG a lot? > >>>> Having individual coils allows the ECM to more >>>> precisely control spark timing and duration, which improves fuel > economy >>>> and lowers emissions. >>> >>> Hard to see that, given my real life MPG experience with this car now. >> >> If you are getting 3 MPG better with a larger engine and a heavy foot, > I'd >> say you were doing well. > > No, engines are both 1.8L, same foot. But I hear the 02 is a completely > redsigned, more efficient engine ( you guys said ) so I'd expect more than > 3 MPG more with the 02 when the 93 is a wagon? > >>>> A coil per cylinder is actually a pretty simple setup, it cleans up the >>>> engine compartment, and is a pretty reliable system. >>> >>> But they say to be careful because the connectors are fragile? >> >> Just be sure to release the locks before trying to pry the coil off. > > I'm an ET. > >>> >>> Do the transmissions of the 2002 Corollas tend to develop problems? I've >>> noticed a slight sound from it, when turning corners sometimes. >>> >> >> 2002 Corolla transmissions are not known for developing problems. Sounds >> when turning corneres are generally not caused by the transmission. More >> likely causes are wheel bearings, CV joints, and ball joints. > > Very low oil. <sigh> > > > -- > - Jane Galt A 1993 Corolla Wagon with an automatic transmission has a curb weight of 2,403 lbs and its 1.8 liter engine developed 115 hp and 115 ft-lbs torque. A 2992 Corolla LE sedan with an automatic transmission has a curb weight of 2,520 lbs, and its 1.8 liter engine developed 125 hp and 125 ft-lbs of torque. So, the newer Corolla weighs more, has more horsepower and torque, and gets better fuel economy, even with a neglected engine - any fuel economy improvement is a pretty good deal. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
From: Clive on 12 Jul 2010 05:08 In message <i1e88r$cfi$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Ray O <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> writes >A 2992 Corolla LE sedan with an automatic transmission has a curb weight of >2,520 lbs, and its 1.8 liter engine developed 125 hp and 125 ft-lbs of >torque. A car 992 years in the future? -- Clive
From: Jane Galt on 13 Jul 2010 02:25 nm5k(a)wt.net wrote : > On Jul 10, 4:46�pm, Jane Galt <Jan...(a)gulch.xyz> wrote: > >> >> Nope. Both are 1.8L engines, but I assume the 93, being a wagon, weighs >> more. The 02 gets a few MPG more than the 93. My foot is the same on both > , >> I'm a light footed driver. But I woulda thought the 02 would get more tha > n >> 3 mPG more. > > I don't think there would be a huge difference. But also it will vary > to > the type of driving, and also things like how much air is in the > tires, > are the tires a low rolling resistance tire? And yes, even the oil > can > have an effect. > I have the same 1.8 L in an 05 Corolla, and it uses energy saving oil, > "5w-30", of which I use Castrol Syntec, and the car has low rolling > resistance tires which is how it came from the factory. Hadnt heard of those before. Also didn't know that synth oil saved enough in MPG to cover the extra cost of the oil. > And I keep the pressure at 32 psi or so. > The MPG will vary a good bit. City driving with the A/C on? > Maybe 30 or a little higher if not a lot of stops. On the highway, I > can get up to about 43 mpg doing 65 mph with the cruise on. I was all thrilled to get cruise in this 2002 but have since noticed that it drives far more aggressively than I do. When it hits a slight hill, it floors the throttle and downshifts many times when I would feel no need to, to maintain the same speed. Not good for MPG's. > A couple less if I do 70 mph. But it's pretty much a 40 mpg car > on the road unless you drive like speed racer. > I noticed on a Toll turnpike at a legal 75 mph, I'd get 37-38 mpg > with the A/C on. Well we have lots of steep hills here, not flat like TX. :) > But at night in TX, I can only do 65 mph. When I refill during my > trip, it almost always calculates out to about 43 mpg at 65 mph. > BTW, I wouldn't expect the older wagon to be much heavier. > In general the Corollas of a few years back were slightly smaller > than the 2000's models. The wagon is quite a bit bigger, so I was expecting more difference. -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 13 Jul 2010 02:26 "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote : > > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9DB19F5AE41C5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> >> wrote >> : >> >>>> >>>> Do the transmissions of the 2002 Corollas tend to develop problems? >>>> I've noticed a slight sound from it, when turning corners sometimes. >>> >>> As Ray says, sounds are hard to diagnose. What kind of a sound is it? >>> Do you know what a bad CV joint sounds like? >> >> Actually found the problem. We bought the car used a few months ago, >> with 114,700 miles. I took it to the mechanic to look at first. Dont >> know if he checked the oil ( they since fired the guy from this shop, >> for missing things >> like this ) but I assumed that any car broker selling a used car, and >> the way >> they had this detailed, would have new oil in it too. >> >> May have been a wrong assumption. They just checked, now at 118k miles >> and the oil was below the bottom of the dipstick, which was why the >> light was coming on at times and we were hearing slight rattling sounds >> when braking hard, accelerating hard or turning corners hard. >> >> The problem is, the car passed emissions by about half the standard >> allowed, >> doesnt smoke and there's no oil in the driveway. SO either the previous >> owner >> didn't change it in a long time and the broker didn't check it, or we >> got a >> problem. My mechanic says he checked it on the rack and it looks like >> some kind of plate on the back of the engine may have a slightly leaky >> seal, but >> it's not a head gasket or anything. >> >> I'm guessing the previous owner just quit changing it for awhile. >> <sigh> >> >> But my mechanic ( I QUIT dealing with Midas and now have an honest >> neighborhood mechanic ) said to bring it back in next week. He wiped >> that plate area clean and wants to see if it gets oil on it again. >> >> Are there any characteristic oil leaks in the 2002 Corollas, anyone >> know? >> >> >> -- >> - Jane Galt > > Engine oil seals are more likely to leak if oil changes are neglected. > Fuel economy will suffer from low or old oil. That appears to be the case. Some dork previous owner. No other explanation for why it would be that low. But we'll check it again soon. -- - Jane Galt
From: nm5k on 13 Jul 2010 04:34
On Jul 13, 1:25 am, Jane Galt <Jan...(a)gulch.xyz> wrote: > > Also didn't know that synth oil saved enough in MPG to cover the extra cost > of the oil. It's probably not drastic. The main reason I use the synth blend is insurance against the dreaded gelling. That's not supposed to be a real issue on mine, being as it supposedly has the re-designed head, but I'd rather be on the safer side. It's good oil for city use, which is actually rougher than highway. > > > And I keep the pressure at 32 psi or so. > > The MPG will vary a good bit. City driving with the A/C on? > > Maybe 30 or a little higher if not a lot of stops. On the highway, I > > can get up to about 43 mpg doing 65 mph with the cruise on. > > I was all thrilled to get cruise in this 2002 but have since noticed that > it drives far more aggressively than I do. When it hits a slight hill, it > floors the throttle and downshifts many times when I would feel no need to, > to maintain the same speed. Not good for MPG's. Mine does that too. I just manually keep the throttle up with my foot when I come to hills. If you keep the throttle up, it won't think it needs to downshift and will stay in higher gears. It's the cruise control that is making it think it needs to downshift. Not the tranny, and how it see's the load. So if you bypass the cruise with the foot on hills, it won't go through all that histrionic downshifting.. Which BTW, bugs the heck out of me when there is no real need for it. > > > A couple less if I do 70 mph. But it's pretty much a 40 mpg car > > on the road unless you drive like speed racer. > > I noticed on a Toll turnpike at a legal 75 mph, I'd get 37-38 mpg > > with the A/C on. > > Well we have lots of steep hills here, not flat like TX. :) That was in Oklahoma, which actually is pretty hilly in some places. Plenty of grades steep enough to cause downshiftitus. :/ But I don't normally take the turnpike. That was a one shot trip down to east TX. I normally take US 75/69 up to where I go. "Houston to Dallas to Eufaula OK area" Just under an 8 hour run if doing the speed limit at night. It's 450 miles which takes just at one tank of gas each way I think. I always stop and top off In Anna TX, which is maybe 50?? miles or so north of Dallas, and I'll have a half tank, and it usually takes me appx 6.7 gallons to top off. At that is at the 290 mile point. 43.2 mpg.. And that's fully loaded up with camping junk, chain saws, lawn mower, etc.. It seems to do about as good loaded down as it does fairly empty. And the A/C doesn't really make too much difference either. I do about as good in the summer with it on as I do in the winter with it off, and the windows up. Must be a fairly low drag compressor. If I make the trip in the day, which I often do coming back, I can do 70 the whole way, and I'll get 40-41 mpg or so.. |