Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting an end
> >of season 2007-SE.
> > I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is this? And
> > is it good?
> > Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
> >
> > How are the 07's. still well made????
> >
> > Thanks
> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about the
> belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>

Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.

brian
--
If you want to reply to this message by mail, you will
have to change the reply address to beuchaw@beuchaw.net

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <46af3315$0$32538$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Oldtech <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting an end
>>>> of
>>>> season 2007-SE.
>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is this? And
>>>> is
>>>> it good?
>>> The gas pedal is connected not to the engine, but to a computer. Your
>>> foot is telling the computer what you want; the computer is telling the
>>> engine what to do so that you get what you want.
>>>
>> BUT, it runs Microsoft Windows CE, which is known among programmers to
>> have ~15 bugs per hundred lines of code.
>
> No it doesn't.
>

a lot of interior electronics modules do, but the engine management
systems definitely don't.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <46af3315$0$32538$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Oldtech <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting an end
>>>> of
>>>> season 2007-SE.
>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is this? And
>>>> is
>>>> it good?
>>> The gas pedal is connected not to the engine, but to a computer. Your
>>> foot is telling the computer what you want; the computer is telling the
>>> engine what to do so that you get what you want.
>>>
>> BUT, it runs Microsoft Windows CE, which is known among programmers to
>> have ~15 bugs per hundred lines of code.
>
> No it doesn't.
>

a lot of interior electronics modules do, but the engine management
systems definitely don't.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <46af3315$0$32538$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Oldtech <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting an end
>>>> of
>>>> season 2007-SE.
>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is this? And
>>>> is
>>>> it good?
>>> The gas pedal is connected not to the engine, but to a computer. Your
>>> foot is telling the computer what you want; the computer is telling the
>>> engine what to do so that you get what you want.
>>>
>> BUT, it runs Microsoft Windows CE, which is known among programmers to
>> have ~15 bugs per hundred lines of code.
>
> No it doesn't.
>

a lot of interior electronics modules do, but the engine management
systems definitely don't.

 

Brian Beuchaw wrote:
> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting an end
>>> of season 2007-SE.
>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is this? And
>>> is it good?
>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>
>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about the
>> belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>
> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>

and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the vehicle
costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have belts and
just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles between
changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a belt
change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small beer in
comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in comparison to
bad timing costs as well.

 

Brian Beuchaw wrote:
> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting an end
>>> of season 2007-SE.
>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is this? And
>>> is it good?
>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>
>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about the
>> belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>
> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>

and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the vehicle
costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have belts and
just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles between
changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a belt
change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small beer in
comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in comparison to
bad timing costs as well.

 

Brian Beuchaw wrote:
> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting an end
>>> of season 2007-SE.
>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is this? And
>>> is it good?
>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>
>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about the
>> belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>
> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>

and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the vehicle
costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have belts and
just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles between
changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a belt
change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small beer in
comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in comparison to
bad timing costs as well.

 

jim beam wrote:
> Brian Beuchaw wrote:
>> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting
>>>> an end of season 2007-SE.
>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is
>>>> this? And is it good?
>>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>>
>>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about
>>> the belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>>
>> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
>> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>>
>
> and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
> out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the
> vehicle costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have
> belts and just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles
> between changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a
> belt change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small
> beer in comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in
> comparison to bad timing costs as well.

Chains stretch when bathed? I thought oil film prevents any kind of
metal-to-metal contact.

--
Phil

 

jim beam wrote:
> Brian Beuchaw wrote:
>> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting
>>>> an end of season 2007-SE.
>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is
>>>> this? And is it good?
>>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>>
>>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about
>>> the belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>>
>> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
>> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>>
>
> and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
> out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the
> vehicle costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have
> belts and just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles
> between changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a
> belt change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small
> beer in comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in
> comparison to bad timing costs as well.

Chains stretch when bathed? I thought oil film prevents any kind of
metal-to-metal contact.

--
Phil

 

jim beam wrote:
> Brian Beuchaw wrote:
>> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting
>>>> an end of season 2007-SE.
>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is
>>>> this? And is it good?
>>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>>
>>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about
>>> the belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>>
>> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
>> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>>
>
> and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
> out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the
> vehicle costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have
> belts and just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles
> between changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a
> belt change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small
> beer in comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in
> comparison to bad timing costs as well.

Chains stretch when bathed? I thought oil film prevents any kind of
metal-to-metal contact.

--
Phil

 

Phil wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Brian Beuchaw wrote:
>>> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting
>>>>> an end of season 2007-SE.
>>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is
>>>>> this? And is it good?
>>>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>>>
>>>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about
>>>> the belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>>> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
>>> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>>>
>> and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
>> out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the
>> vehicle costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have
>> belts and just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles
>> between changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a
>> belt change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small
>> beer in comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in
>> comparison to bad timing costs as well.
>
> Chains stretch when bathed? I thought oil film prevents any kind of
> metal-to-metal contact.
>

only way to achieve separation is to exceed a certain velocity or to use
forced lube. it's called hydrodynamic lubrication. the sliding parts
of chains are neither forced nor move fast enough. rate of stretch is
not high, but on a long chain run, like you get with overhead cams, you
can get quite a lot of timing drift.

 

Phil wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Brian Beuchaw wrote:
>>> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting
>>>>> an end of season 2007-SE.
>>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is
>>>>> this? And is it good?
>>>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>>>
>>>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about
>>>> the belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>>> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
>>> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>>>
>> and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
>> out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the
>> vehicle costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have
>> belts and just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles
>> between changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a
>> belt change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small
>> beer in comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in
>> comparison to bad timing costs as well.
>
> Chains stretch when bathed? I thought oil film prevents any kind of
> metal-to-metal contact.
>

only way to achieve separation is to exceed a certain velocity or to use
forced lube. it's called hydrodynamic lubrication. the sliding parts
of chains are neither forced nor move fast enough. rate of stretch is
not high, but on a long chain run, like you get with overhead cams, you
can get quite a lot of timing drift.

 

Phil wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Brian Beuchaw wrote:
>>> Andy <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> "Firebird" <firebird@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46ad1115$0$3119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>> I have a 2002 Accord SE, we are thinking of trading in and getting
>>>>> an end of season 2007-SE.
>>>>> I noticed in the sales stuff, Drive by Wire technology. What is
>>>>> this? And is it good?
>>>>> Do the 2007's 2.4 4 cylinder engines perform better then the 02.
>>>>>
>>>>> How are the 07's. still well made????
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> No timing belt, I think it has a chain...don't have to worry about
>>>> the belt snapping, but I suppose the chain can go too!>
>>> Can't speak as to whether it has a chain or belt, but generally
>>> chains last *lots* (tens of thousands of miles) longer than belts.
>>>
>> and it's pointless. chains stretch. when that happens, timing goes
>> out. and when timing's out, fuel efficiency goes down. so the
>> vehicle costs more to run and is more polluting. much better to have
>> belts and just stick to a maintenance schedule. with over 100k miles
>> between changes, it's not like this is a major scheduling problem. if a
>> belt change costs $500, that's 0.5 cents per mile. pretty small
>> beer in comparison to other running costs. pretty small beer in
>> comparison to bad timing costs as well.
>
> Chains stretch when bathed? I thought oil film prevents any kind of
> metal-to-metal contact.
>

only way to achieve separation is to exceed a certain velocity or to use
forced lube. it's called hydrodynamic lubrication. the sliding parts
of chains are neither forced nor move fast enough. rate of stretch is
not high, but on a long chain run, like you get with overhead cams, you
can get quite a lot of timing drift.