2002 Corolla plugs
in [Toyota]
|
From: Jane Galt on 13 Jul 2010 22:02 nm5k(a)wt.net wrote : > 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 co > st >> 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 t > o, >> 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. Yeah I see that. > 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. Yeah but this is the Denver area. If I gotta take over on every hill, I may as well not use the cruise. And the tranny, speaking of that, is apparently electronically shifted? It slams when it shifts, unless I'm EXTREMELY light on the gas. Would that they'd done a nice smooth hydrualic tranny. By the way, I looked into those Low Rolling Resistance Tires today at Costco. The guy said they get maybe 1 MPG better mileage and it looks like they cost $165 EACH. <shudder!> I think that's about double what regular all season radials cost. NO thanks! -- - Jane Galt
From: nm5k on 14 Jul 2010 00:09 On Jul 13, 9:02 pm, Jane Galt <Jan...(a)gulch.xyz> wrote: > And the tranny, speaking of that, is apparently electronically shifted? It > slams when it shifts, unless I'm EXTREMELY light on the gas. > > Would that they'd done a nice smooth hydrualic tranny. Mine is totally smooth.. No slams on shifts. > > By the way, I looked into those Low Rolling Resistance Tires today at > Costco. The guy said they get maybe 1 MPG better mileage and it looks like > they cost $165 EACH. <shudder!> I think that's about double what regular > all season radials cost. NO thanks! It's usually at least 2 mpg difference. And they don't have to cost that much. Many are about the same price as the regular tires. IE: the factory tire on mine was the Goodyear Integrity, which is low rolling resistance. It's about a $100 tire if you buy local. The Goodyear Fuel Max Accutread is actually a bit cheaper than the OEM tire in some cases. And there are a few others that are low rolling resistance but don't cost too much. I calculated it out, and they will pay for themselves over the life of the tire, vs a standard rolling resistance tire. But another plus, is most of those are fairly light tires, so you have less weight. Which makes the car seem a bit peppier on takeoffs, etc. I'm at 57+k miles and still on the factory tires.. But not for much longer.. They are getting thin, and both the front tires have leaks now, so I have to air them up every once in a while. Which gets old.. I'll be getting new ones pretty soon. I'm still trying to decide what I want.. But I'm kind of leaning to the Goodyear Fuel Max tires. They have pretty good reviews so far. Everyone seems to hate the OEM Integrity tires. They aren't very good in the rain, but other than that no real issues..
From: Ray O on 16 Jul 2010 00:40 "Clive" <clive(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:PkWJZhB1ttOMFwJ3(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk... > In message <i1e88r$cfi$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Ray O > <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> writes >>A 2992 Corolla LE sedan with an automatic transmission has a curb weight >>of >>2,520 lbs, and its 1.8 liter engine developed 125 hp and 125 ft-lbs of >>torque. > A car 992 years in the future? > -- > Clive > Oops! my bad -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
From: Ray O on 16 Jul 2010 00:44 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9DB4CBF2BE0B2JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > nm5k(a)wt.net wrote : > <snipped> > And the tranny, speaking of that, is apparently electronically shifted? It > slams when it shifts, unless I'm EXTREMELY light on the gas. > > Would that they'd done a nice smooth hydrualic tranny. Shift shock or harshness doesn't have anything to do with whether it is electronically shifted or shifted by transmission pressure. The transmisison has accumulators that act like shock absorbers to lessen shift shock, but a transmission that shifts crisply will generally have a longer life and better fuel economy. The effect of the accumulators on an automatic transmission is kind of like slippinng the clutch on a manual transmission - the friction surfaces slip more so there is more wear. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
From: Ray O on 16 Jul 2010 00:46
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9DB449685743JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9DB19F5AE41C5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$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 Unfortunately, that doesn't bode well for engine longevity. Get the next couple of oil changes done a little early, like 3,000 miles with a good quality, name brand oil. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |