warranty not honored because I was speeding?
David
power train warranty because I was speeding.
Their computer says I was going 84mph at 9500rpm.
I'm wondering what you think of this. Is it fair or common practice for
them to not honor a warranty in such circumstances?
David
WickeddollŽ
"David" <none> wrote in message news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
Depends on how far over the limit you were going, and for how long. It makes
sense, as the warranty is supposed to cover *normal* use, which speeding is
not.
Just for you own safety and others, I hope you'll slow down.
Natalie
Art
a bunch of crap.
"David" <none> wrote in message news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
Derek Clarke
what is the red line in the celica?
my Corolla's red line is 6500 RPM, and I got a speeding ticket for doing
84MPH in a 50MPH zone...
"David" <none> wrote in message news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
HachiRoku
But what about states where there is no speed limit? That means I'm going
to pay about $22,000 for a car that can't go 85 MPH!
I expect this kind of crap from GM!
My God, in '87 I went about 1/3 of the way across Ontario at 125 MPH in my
'85 Corolla! 200,000 miles later...
Did I ever mention the fact that I think Toyota's quality is slipping, and
that their customer service has gone from real support to blowing
customers off?
Sounds to me like Toyota is starting to build Junk, and they *KNOW* it!
David
oncoming traffic, and a car that is capable of going 155mph, for safety
sake, I'm not going to pass them at 55mph. It would take minutes to get by
them at only 1mph difference, resulting in a head on collision.
Passing faster is safer when there is oncoming traffic, but that topic is
not what I want to discuss, so I'd like to ask anyone who is critical of me
going 84 while passing to please refrain from responding.
I want to talk technical and legal issues. In a car that is capable of
going 155mph, is it reasonable for them to void the warranty if I'm going
84? If so, why do they make the car capable of going 155mph? The car
failed when I was only at about half its full speed.
HachiRoku
> 84? If the spedometer goes over 84 mph tell them to fix the damn car. What
> a bunch of crap.
Hey, Art, I just reread his post, and missed something I didn't pay
attention to before...
*9500* RPM! Holy crap! It's not a Formula One car!
David, did you *really* overrev to 9500 rippems? If you did, then I'm
afraid it *may* be on you!
HachiRoku
Yeah, but were you really going along at 9500 RPM???? Makes a *big*
difference! I didn't notice that the first time I read your post!
David
"Derek Clarke" <nospam.dereknos...@shaw.ca.nospam> wrote in
message news:fiWSc.89810$J06.53288@pd7tw2no...
> what gear were you in to be at 9500 RPM??
> what is the red line in the celica?
Redline is around 8000rpm, with the ignition cut-off at about 8200 or 8400.
Its a six speed manual, and I think I was in 4th shifting to 5th. My local
dealer is telling me it was in 3rd to hit that high of an rpm. I think it
blew up when I was still in 4th gear.
My old 92 celica would not have let me shift wrong, because of that built in
resistance that is present when the car is moving at the wrong speed for the
gear. If the new celica allows that to happen, isn't Toyota partially
responsible for the consequences because the design change allows any gear
to be selected no matter what speed the car is traveling.
WickeddollŽ
"HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw WickeddollŽ wrote:
>
> >
> > "David" <none> wrote in message
news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> My Celica engine blew up and the local dealer says Toyota may not honor
the
> >> power train warranty because I was speeding.
> >>
> >> Their computer says I was going 84mph at 9500rpm.
> >>
> >> I'm wondering what you think of this. Is it fair or common practice for
> >> them to not honor a warranty in such circumstances?
> >>
> >> David
> >
> > Depends on how far over the limit you were going, and for how long. It
makes
> > sense, as the warranty is supposed to cover *normal* use, which speeding
is
> > not.
> >
> > Just for you own safety and others, I hope you'll slow down.
> >
> > Natalie
>
> But what about states where there is no speed limit? That means I'm going
> to pay about $22,000 for a car that can't go 85 MPH!
What state is that? I've never heard of that in the US
>
> I expect this kind of crap from GM!
Don't drive like a maniac
>
> My God, in '87 I went about 1/3 of the way across Ontario at 125 MPH in my
> '85 Corolla! 200,000 miles later...
You are a scary guy
>
> Did I ever mention the fact that I think Toyota's quality is slipping, and
> that their customer service has gone from real support to blowing
> customers off?
>
Yeah, you mentioned that
> Sounds to me like Toyota is starting to build Junk, and they *KNOW* it!
:-P
Most of us don't drive like raped apes.
Natalie
WickeddollŽ
"David" <none> wrote in message news:10hodcr...@corp.supernews.com...
> Let me explain that I was passing a car that was going about 54mph. With
> oncoming traffic, and a car that is capable of going 155mph, for safety
> sake, I'm not going to pass them at 55mph. It would take minutes to get by
> them at only 1mph difference, resulting in a head on collision.
>
> Passing faster is safer when there is oncoming traffic, but that topic is
> not what I want to discuss, so I'd like to ask anyone who is critical of me
> going 84 while passing to please refrain from responding.
Sorry, but that's a reflex. I did respond to your 'real' question
>
> I want to talk technical and legal issues. In a car that is capable of
> going 155mph, is it reasonable for them to void the warranty if I'm going
> 84? If so, why do they make the car capable of going 155mph? The car
> failed when I was only at about half its full speed.
>
>
But you're in the US, right? They may be able to stick you with it, cuz that
speed is not legal here. Or maybe in some states it is.
That seems to be awfully high RPMs, though. Maybe you can make a case for
that fact that the car over-revs?
Good luck
Natalie
HachiRoku
>
> "HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
>> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw Wickeddoll® wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "David" <none> wrote in message
> news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> My Celica engine blew up and the local dealer says Toyota may not honor
> the
>> >> power train warranty because I was speeding.
>> >>
>> >> Their computer says I was going 84mph at 9500rpm.
>> >>
>> >> I'm wondering what you think of this. Is it fair or common practice for
>> >> them to not honor a warranty in such circumstances?
>> >>
>> >> David
>> >
>> > Depends on how far over the limit you were going, and for how long. It
> makes
>> > sense, as the warranty is supposed to cover *normal* use, which speeding
> is
>> > not.
>> >
>> > Just for you own safety and others, I hope you'll slow down.
>> >
>> > Natalie
>>
>> But what about states where there is no speed limit? That means I'm going
>> to pay about $22,000 for a car that can't go 85 MPH!
>
> What state is that? I've never heard of that in the US
I think it's Montana. They can nail you for 'Speed greater than conditions
allow', including weather, traffic, coyotes, etc, but there is no posted
speed limit!
>>
>> I expect this kind of crap from GM!
>
> Don't drive like a maniac
Um, where's the fun in that? (No, I have to agree with you. It's usually
when somone's doing something *stupid* that they screw up, and maybe take
someone out...)
>>
>> My God, in '87 I went about 1/3 of the way across Ontario at 125 MPH in my
>> '85 Corolla! 200,000 miles later...
>
> You are a scary guy
Had my wife with me. Just sat there enjoying it. We were on our way to
Toronto to see her sister, and a Volvo and a Prelude went flying by us. I
wanted to make time. The *really* scary part...we were in some traffic
(not a lot) and they were walking away from me. (PS: at 128, the froont
end felt like it was lifting, so I backed down...back to 125. Hey, I was a
lot younger and *Invinceable*!
>>
>> Did I ever mention the fact that I think Toyota's quality is slipping, and
>> that their customer service has gone from real support to blowing
>> customers off?
>>
> Yeah, you mentioned that
>
>> Sounds to me like Toyota is starting to build Junk, and they *KNOW* it!
>
> :-P
>
> Most of us don't drive like raped apes.
>
> Natalie
C'mon, Nat...once in a while, on a clear, straight road, you don't open up
that Corolla FX just a *little* bit more than the signs say you should?
Seems to me I remember you saying something about never telling the car's
new driver something about that... ;)
However, 84 in a 55 *might* be a little excessive....
WickeddollŽ
"HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
>
> >
> > "HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
> >>
> >> I expect this kind of crap from GM!
> >
> > Don't drive like a maniac
>
> Um, where's the fun in that? (No, I have to agree with you. It's usually
> when somone's doing something *stupid* that they screw up, and maybe take
> someone out...)
>
> >>
> >> My God, in '87 I went about 1/3 of the way across Ontario at 125 MPH in
my
> >> '85 Corolla! 200,000 miles later...
> >
> > You are a scary guy
>
> Had my wife with me. Just sat there enjoying it. We were on our way to
> Toronto to see her sister, and a Volvo and a Prelude went flying by us. I
> wanted to make time. The *really* scary part...we were in some traffic
> (not a lot) and they were walking away from me. (PS: at 128, the froont
> end felt like it was lifting, so I backed down...back to 125. Hey, I was a
> lot younger and *Invinceable*!
>
> >>
> >> Did I ever mention the fact that I think Toyota's quality is slipping,
and
> >> that their customer service has gone from real support to blowing
> >> customers off?
> >>
> > Yeah, you mentioned that
> >
> >> Sounds to me like Toyota is starting to build Junk, and they *KNOW* it!
> >
> > :-P
> >
> > Most of us don't drive like raped apes.
> >
> > Natalie
>
> C'mon, Nat...once in a while, on a clear, straight road, you don't open up
> that Corolla FX just a *little* bit more than the signs say you should?
> Seems to me I remember you saying something about never telling the car's
> new driver something about that... ;)
>
> However, 84 in a 55 *might* be a little excessive....
Might? Feh.
Nope, I never peel out at ludicrous speed. And I don't drive the FX anyway.
My son does.
:-)
Natalie, Echo driver, bay-bee
Joseph Betz
Dave,
Which warranty do you have? What year Celica is it? I have a 2000 gt.
What dose your insurance company say? You have any mods on it?
~~Joe
Art
pre-blowing. Maybe the rpm's jumped when the compression was gone.
"HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
David
> Which warranty do you have? What year Celica is it? I have a 2000 gt.
> What dose your insurance company say? You have any mods on it?
> ~~Joe
Its a 2001 Celica GTS 6 speed manual with no modifications. I think its
still under the factory 60,000 mile warranty since it has less than 60,000
miles on it.
If its not covered with that warranty, the Certified Used Car warranty is
good until 100,000 miles and expires sometime in 2007.
Why should I tell my insurance compay? Does insurance typically cover break
downs?
max-i...@comcast.net
On 12-Aug-2004, "David" <none> wrote:
> Redline is around 8000rpm, with the ignition cut-off at about 8200 or
> 8400.
> Its a six speed manual, and I think I was in 4th shifting to 5th. My
> local
> dealer is telling me it was in 3rd to hit that high of an rpm. I think it
> blew up when I was still in 4th gear.
>
> My old 92 celica would not have let me shift wrong, because of that built
> in
> resistance that is present when the car is moving at the wrong speed for
> the
> gear. If the new celica allows that to happen, isn't Toyota partially
> responsible for the consequences because the design change allows any gear
> to be selected no matter what speed the car is traveling.
The difference betwen 8000 and 9500 is considerable. YOU overrevved it. And
as far as the shifter goes, Toyota is responsible for a driver not being
able to shift properly? You don't even know what gear you were in when it
blew.
--
Every day is a good day- it's just that some are better than others.
jor
exceeded the limitations of the engine, not speed but RPMs. I haven't
checked to be certain but I can't believe the Celica's red line is that
high. If that's the case I guess your goose is cooked. If the red line
really is that high then I would think Toyota would have to do the repair
under warranty.
jor
"David" <none> wrote in message news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
Philip®
Ya know .... I'm sure what I'm about to say won't be comforting.
There is a redline on your tachometer. However you managed to exceed
it IS of you own doing ... be that a missed shift or overspeeding
down a grade in a lower gear.
You bought this one, were I the arbiter in this claim.
--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
Philip®
LOOK.... BOTH you (Wicked and Hachi .. and any others who get/got
distracted with the 85 MPH speed)
The guy was caught red handed NOT only by BLOWING UP his engine (the
85 mph is not relevant), his car's ECU recorded the incident turning
9,500 RPM. How much he went over redline and how long does not
matter. ZERO TOLERANCE.
You can drive 130 mph .... and so long as you don't blow the engine,
your driving speed is not going to cost Toyota a warranty claim.
They could care less how fast you drive so long as doing so does not
result in ventilating the engine block with internal parts. But when
you blow an engine by miss-shifting even at 50 mph which results in
scattering the motor ... Toyota is on solid ground in denying your
claim for an engine.
Joseph Betz
Its a 2001 Celica GTS 6 speed manual with no modifications. I think its
still under the factory 60,000 mile warranty since it has less than
60,000 miles on it.
If its not covered with that warranty, the Certified Used Car warranty
is good until 100,000 miles and expires sometime in 2007.
Why should I tell my insurance compay? Does insurance typically cover
break downs?
Dave,
I don't think that the 60k will, but the certified should. Some
insurance place's (if full covrage) cover motor repair.
Hey ya want to sell me your hatck back cover? My Celica is missing
it's!
~~Joe
.
C. E. White
First of all - do you really think your Celica can go 155
mph? If so, I think you need to seek professional help.
If you actually cranked the engine up to 9500 rpm, that is
the problem. That is way past the red line for that engine.
Toyota would be well within it rights to deny warranty
coverage for such abuse. In other words, it is not the
vechicle's speed that is the problem, it is the fact that
you over reved the engine. I don't see how you could rev in
to 9500 unless you floored it with the clutch in, or you
were on a long downhill run in the wrong gear. I suppose you
could use the lack of an effective rev limiter as an
arguement against Toyota when you are trying to get the
engine fixed under warranty.
Ed
FanJet
It's amazing this thread has gone on as long as this. Well, maybe not,
considering some of the OT posts. So, stock Celicas can't reach 155 MPH -
even downhill with a tailwind. Toyota is pissed because the OP over-revved
the engine. Nobody gives a crap how fast he was going. Rev limiters have NO
effect during downshifts. My guess is he missed a 5-4 or 6-4 downshift and
actually nailed 2nd whilst popping the clutch. It's happed to others and
I've heard that Toyota has helped in some cases but they certainly aren't
required to do anything. Time to save up for a transaxle, learn how to shift
and quit bitching - not necessarily in that order.
Tegger®
news:m8YSc.19740$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> The guy was caught red handed NOT only by BLOWING UP his engine (the
> 85 mph is not relevant), his car's ECU recorded the incident turning
> 9,500 RPM.
Interesting that you are the ONLY ONE to have picked up on the over-rev
condition.
> They could care less how fast you drive so long as doing so does not
> result in ventilating the engine block with internal parts. But when
> you blow an engine by miss-shifting even at 50 mph which results in
> scattering the motor ... Toyota is on solid ground in denying your
> claim for an engine.
I figure "David" was going from 4th to 5th at 85mph and hit 3rd by mistake.
And instead of smoothly releasing the clutch, which would have told him
something was wrong as the revs rocketed up, he dumped the clutch hard.
KA-POW!
--
TeGGeR®
How to find anything on the Internet:
www.google.com
or in Usenet Groups:
www.groups.google.com
Google is your friend. Learn how to use it,
but don't buy their overpriced stock!
C. E. White
He did say he was passing a car - which indicates
acceleration. It is still possible to accidentally downshift
instead of upshift in this situation, put that would be very
noticeable and you'd think he know if he did that. It is his
engine which blew, not the transaxle.
Ed
Tegger®
news:10hodcr...@corp.supernews.com:
> Let me explain that I was passing a car that was going about 54mph.
Car speed is unimportant.
You missed a shift and over-revved your motor. End of story.
Now you want to get somebody else to pay for your mistake.
Next time buy an automatic. That way the machinery will protect you from
your incompetence.
Philip®
Joe: The Toyota Warranty specifically states it does not cover
anything that is determined to be .... abuse. This is clearly ...
abuse. I would only guess any afterthought warranty is similar.
Philip®
> In article <PgWSc.14896$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Art" <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> 84? If the spedometer goes over 84 mph tell them to fix the damn
>> car. What a bunch of crap.
>
>
> the
> engine speed at 9500 rpm may be. I'm more curious how they got
> that information from the computer? How's it stored?
May? MAY? Do you have any concept of how excessive the piston speed
of that engine is at 9,500 rpm with its stroke of 3.35"? 5,304 feet
per second. That's quite strenuous for an aluminum piston.
Now ... how does ANY computer store data. Volatile memory or a mini
disk drive. Keep in mind the ECU has it's own power backup capacitor
that lasts quite a long time ... so just disconnecting the battery
cable isn't going to erase volatile memory.
Philip®
> David wrote:
>>
>> Let me explain that I was passing a car that was going about
>> 54mph. With oncoming traffic, and a car that is capable of going
>> 155mph, for safety sake, I'm not going to pass them at 55mph. It
>> would take minutes to get by them at only 1mph difference,
>> resulting in a head on collision.
>>
>> Passing faster is safer when there is oncoming traffic, but that
>> topic is not what I want to discuss, so I'd like to ask anyone
>> who is critical of me going 84 while passing to please refrain
>> from responding.
>>
>> I want to talk technical and legal issues. In a car that is
>> capable of going 155mph, is it reasonable for them to void the
>> warranty if I'm going 84? If so, why do they make the car
>> capable of going 155mph? The car failed when I was only at about
>> half its full speed.
YOU DON"T GET IT. The 84 mph is NOT the ISSUE. Your vehicle speed
is only an incidental bit of data.
> First of all - do you really think your Celica can go 155
> mph? If so, I think you need to seek professional help.
CE White and I agree! There is also a speed governor in your ECU
which prevents exceeding the speed of the tires orginally fitted to
that car.
> If you actually cranked the engine up to 9500 rpm, that is
> the problem. That is way past the red line for that engine.
> Toyota would be well within it rights to deny warranty
> coverage for such abuse. In other words, it is not the
> vechicle's speed that is the problem, it is the fact that
> you over reved the engine. I don't see how you could rev in
> to 9500 unless you floored it with the clutch in, or you
> were on a long downhill run in the wrong gear. I suppose you
> could use the lack of an effective rev limiter as an
> arguement against Toyota when you are trying to get the
> engine fixed under warranty.
>
> Ed
Ed: What this gentleman did can be done with ANY stick shift
transmission that does not have electronic shift gate inhibitors. He
could be near redline in 3rd gear and then accidentally select 2nd
instead of 4th gear. The ECU can do nothing but cut the fuel and
ignition once the engine (driven by the car's momentum) passes
redline. This appears to be what happened. Driver error. Not a
faulty mechanism. Driver pay.
Philip®
> "Philip®" <1chip-...@earthlink.net.invalid> muttered darkly in
> news:m8YSc.19740$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>> The guy was caught red handed NOT only by BLOWING UP his engine
>> (the 85 mph is not relevant), his car's ECU recorded the incident
>> turning 9,500 RPM.
>
>
>
> Interesting that you are the ONLY ONE to have picked up on the
> over-rev condition.
> TeGGeR®
Retired trucker ... remember? LOL
BigJo...@mailcity.com
could not safely turn that fast the RPM's would
have been limited at least 500 RPM lower. By the way
the engine in my car only runs at about 3,000 RPM's to
do 100 MPH.
mike hunt
Philip®
Natalie, you're out of your arena. While you will probably not
respond, I'm going to make a few points clear to other readers.
1) you cannot over rev an engine with a "RPM Limiter." Even in
NEUTRAL. The ECU will start cutting fuel and retarding ignition
timing the moment the car engine exceeds its redline.
2) you CAN FORCE the engine to exceed its governed redline by using
the energy and momentum of car's weight to drive the engine HIGHER
than the rev limiter using the transmission.
3) doing number 2 (which is a double entendre) that results in
exploding the engine comes under the ABUSE umbrella in any Owners
Manual. Over revving is usually not >specifically< identified
because there are so many ways to abuse an engine that to do so would
require several more pages and probably give some knuckheads ideas.
That the ECU recorded this event is ... wonderful.
Philip®
--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
Art wrote:
> 84? If the spedometer goes over 84 mph tell them to fix the damn
> car. What a bunch of crap.
>
>
> "David" <none> wrote in message
> news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
Philip®
in this thread.
Engine rpm cannot increase as parts are flying out the side of the
block. Where's the increased force necessary to increase rpms coming
from? Support your case or ... shut up.
--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
Philip®
> "Derek Clarke" <nospam.dereknos...@shaw.ca.nospam>
> wrote in message news:fiWSc.89810$J06.53288@pd7tw2no...
>> what gear were you in to be at 9500 RPM??
>> what is the red line in the celica?
>
> Redline is around 8000rpm, with the ignition cut-off at about 8200
> or 8400. Its a six speed manual, and I think I was in 4th shifting
> to 5th.
Well OBVIOUS to the intelligencia here, you mistook 3rd for 5th.
Have you not noticed the angular shift gate pattern in the Celica ...
which is different from the straight forward/back pattern in your old
Celica?
> My local dealer is telling me it was in 3rd to hit that
> high of an rpm. I think it blew up when I was still in 4th gear.
The engine could NOT have exploded at 9,500 rpm in 4th gear because
the RPM Limiter would not let you reach that RPM. Your limit is what
... 7,800?
It's all I can do to *not* take a personal swipe a you.
> My old 92 celica would not have let me shift wrong, because of
> that built in resistance that is present when the car is moving at
> the wrong speed for the gear. If the new celica allows that to
> happen, isn't Toyota partially responsible for the consequences
> because the design change allows any gear to be selected no matter
> what speed the car is traveling.
No. That's akin to saying that it's Toyota's fault for your
inability to operate a 6 speed irrespective of the fact that all your
previous vehicles have been 4 speeds (just an example). The
overwhelming vast majority of late model Celica owners out there with
the XRS/6 speed model haven't trashed their engines the way you have.
The shift gate spacing and gate inhibitors are different in this gear
box and it seems that under stress ... you goofed. Own it.
Philip®
flash to this audience.
The XRS Celica engine is electronically limited to approx 7,800.
Obviously the 5,300 foot per minute piston speed (3.37 stroke at
9,500 rpm) is excessive. Most light weight production pistons with
10:1 compression are stabil up to 4,700 feet per minute.
--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
BigJo...@mailcity.com wrote:
> Your dealer is full of crap. If Toyota believed your engine
> could not safely turn that fast the RPM's would
> have been limited at least 500 RPM lower.
>
Philip®
> In article <xy4Tc.21029$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> loses all it's data when power is turned off. I get them mixed up
> too.
>
> Some computers in special applications still use core memory, but
> not likely in this application. This car electronics is more
> secret than some of the military stuff.
>
> Dale
> --
I did not get the two mixed up. IF there is a micro drive in the
ECU, that data is there until overwritten. If (more likely) the max
RPM data is stored in a volitile memory, then it will disappear only
after the supply capacitor / battery dies. This is not the same
memory chip that us used by the OBD-II diagnostics to record emission
failures.
Dave Ddd
84 mph was not what killed your can. it was 9500 rpm. my god if you were
in top gear you would have been going over 200mph.you had to be in 3rd.
you can drive a car all day long at 85 or 90 mph and it wont hurt a
thing but anything over 6000 rpm your asking for bad things to happen.
you should know that.
Tegger®
>
> Ed: What this gentleman did can be done with ANY stick shift
> transmission that does not have electronic shift gate inhibitors. He
> could be near redline in 3rd gear and then accidentally select 2nd
> instead of 4th gear.
It's probably worse than that, even.
In order to force the lever into 2nd at such an elevated car speed, he
would had to have yanked really hard on the lever to overcome the balk
rings. The lever would have strongly resisted going into that gear.
So not only did he miss a shift and dump the clutch, he also wasn't paying
attention to the warning the balk rings were giving him.
Joseph Oberlander
TeggerŽ wrote:
> I figure "David" was going from 4th to 5th at 85mph and hit 3rd by mistake.
>
> And instead of smoothly releasing the clutch, which would have told him
> something was wrong as the revs rocketed up, he dumped the clutch hard.
> KA-POW!
Still, I'd take a manual over an automatic anyday. Of course,
WHY you would *downshift* at 85mph instead of using the brakes...
Unless he wanted to go faster, in which case I have no pity -
100mph+ speeds aren't responsible outside of a racetrack.
You go that fast, be good enough to NOT miss shifts. Either
that or get an automatic.
You'll note that racing the engine or poor maintainence
are 90% of the reasons a car has a blow engine - so he's
likely trashing the poor car in numerous other ways. My
father, grandfather, uncles, and so on - must be over
a hundred cars we've owned between us over the years
and so far, not one has blown an engine.(though we've had ones
completely fail and loose cylinders due to age/mileage)
BigJo...@mailcity.com
every post even though he does not not know
what the subject happens to be.
What are you trying to say, that you think the Toyota engineers
do not know the limits of their engine, get serious. What I said
was the dealer is full of crap since there is no way the driver
could run it over the limiter RPM setting UNLESS their was a
problem and therefore it has to be covered under the warranty.
mike hunt
Tegger®
news:411D19E5...@mailcity.com:
> Everyone in this NG knows Phillp likes to jump in half cocked on
> every post even though he does not not know
> what the subject happens to be.
>
> What are you trying to say, that you think the Toyota engineers
> do not know the limits of their engine, get serious. What I said
> was the dealer is full of crap since there is no way the driver
> could run it over the limiter RPM setting UNLESS their was a
> problem and therefore it has to be covered under the warranty.
"Mike", if anyone is going off "half cocked", it's you. You obviously have
zero understanding of manual transmissions.
If the car is travelling at 85mph and you manage to force the gear lever
into a gear meant for a far lower speed and then release the clutch, the
car's road wheels will drag the engine's innards up to over-rev territory
with NO fuel required at all.
On a dry road, the car's own inertia/momentum will ensure the engine speeds
up before the car is dragged down to a slower speed.
I know a girl who blew up her Camaro's engine just this way. She was racing
some guy, missed the shift and poked a connecting rod big end through the
side of the block. Lotsa oil all over the place.
--
TeGGeRŽ
Tegger®
>> Dave,
>> Which warranty do you have? What year Celica is it? I have a 2000
>> gt.
>> What dose your insurance company say? You have any mods on it?
>> ~~Joe
>
>
> Its a 2001 Celica GTS 6 speed manual with no modifications. I think
> its still under the factory 60,000 mile warranty since it has less
> than 60,000 miles on it.
I suggest you sell this car, as it is clearly beyond your powers of
mastery.
May I further suggest that you purchase a bicycle, or perhaps a ten year-
old Cavalier with an automatic transmission. Either will be far less
expensive to repair the next time you have a brain cramp.
Tegger®
>
> Now ... how does ANY computer store data. Volatile memory or a mini
> disk drive. Keep in mind the ECU has it's own power backup capacitor
> that lasts quite a long time ... so just disconnecting the battery
> cable isn't going to erase volatile memory.
I'd guess they're using NVRAM, such as found in your computer's BIOS (and
your car's computer's BIOS). That stuff is more expensive than dynamic RAM,
but keeps its settings even if there is no source of power.
Once written to, it has a fixed state until written to again.
--
TeGGeR®
Derek Clarke
I just replied to the OP so it is much further down, especially now.
"Tegger®" <teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns95445DE27AD...@207.14.113.17...
Ilene...@mailcity.com
I was racing cars when you were still $#iting yellow. ;)
mike hunt
"Tegger®" wrote:
>
> BigJo...@mailcity.com muttered darkly in
> news:411D19E5...@mailcity.com:
>
> > Everyone in this NG knows Phillp likes to jump in half cocked on
> > every post even though he does not not know
> > what the subject happens to be.
> >
> > What are you trying to say, that you think the Toyota engineers
> > do not know the limits of their engine, get serious. What I said
> > was the dealer is full of crap since there is no way the driver
> > could run it over the limiter RPM setting UNLESS their was a
> > problem and therefore it has to be covered under the warranty.
>
> "Mike", if anyone is going off "half cocked", it's you. You obviously have
> zero understanding of manual transmissions.
>
> If the car is travelling at 85mph and you manage to force the gear lever
> into a gear meant for a far lower speed and then release the clutch, the
> car's road wheels will drag the engine's innards up to over-rev territory
> with NO fuel required at all.
>
> On a dry road, the car's own inertia/momentum will ensure the engine speeds
> up before the car is dragged down to a slower speed.
>
> I know a girl who blew up her Camaro's engine just this way. She was racing
> some guy, missed the shift and poked a connecting rod big end through the
> side of the block. Lotsa oil all over the place.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
Ilene...@mailcity.com
never brake down. ;)
mike hunt
"Tegger®" wrote:
>
> "David" <none> muttered darkly in
> news:10hoi97...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >> Dave,
> >> Which warranty do you have? What year Celica is it? I have a 2000
> >> gt.
> >> What dose your insurance company say? You have any mods on it?
> >> ~~Joe
> >
> >
> > Its a 2001 Celica GTS 6 speed manual with no modifications. I think
> > its still under the factory 60,000 mile warranty since it has less
> > than 60,000 miles on it.
>
> I suggest you sell this car, as it is clearly beyond your powers of
> mastery.
>
> May I further suggest that you purchase a bicycle, or perhaps a ten year-
> old Cavalier with an automatic transmission. Either will be far less
> expensive to repair the next time you have a brain cramp.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
Fx199
>From: HachiRoku Tru...@ae86.GTS
>Date: 8/12/2004 10:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS>
>
>I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw WickeddollŽ wrote:
>
>>
>> "David" <none> wrote in message news:10hoart...@corp.supernews.com...
>the
>>> power train warranty because I was speeding.
>>>
>>> Their computer says I was going 84mph at 9500rpm.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering what you think of this. Is it fair or common practice for
>>> them to not honor a warranty in such circumstances?
>>>
>>> David
>>
>makes
>> sense, as the warranty is supposed to cover *normal* use, which speeding is
>> not.
>>
>> Just for you own safety and others, I hope you'll slow down.
>>
>> Natalie
>
>But what about states where there is no speed limit? That means I'm going
>to pay about $22,000 for a car that can't go 85 MPH!
>
>I expect this kind of crap from GM!
>
>My God, in '87 I went about 1/3 of the way across Ontario at 125 MPH in my
>'85 Corolla! 200,000 miles later...
>
>Did I ever mention the fact that I think Toyota's quality is slipping, and
>that their customer service has gone from real support to blowing
>customers off?
>
>Sounds to me like Toyota is starting to build Junk, and they *KNOW* it!
Doesn't sound like you like GM much either...SOUR GRAPES
Fx199
>Date: 8/13/2004 12:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <m8YSc.19740$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
>HachiRoku wrote:
>distracted with the 85 MPH speed)
>
>The guy was caught red handed NOT only by BLOWING UP his engine (the
>85 mph is not relevant), his car's ECU recorded the incident turning
>matter. ZERO TOLERANCE.
>
>You can drive 130 mph .... and so long as you don't blow the engine,
>your driving speed is not going to cost Toyota a warranty claim.
>They could care less how fast you drive so long as doing so does not
>result in ventilating the engine block with internal parts. But when
>you blow an engine by miss-shifting even at 50 mph which results in
>scattering the motor ... Toyota is on solid ground in denying your
>claim for an engine.
>
>- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
Only logical.
Fx199
>> 9,500 RPM.
>
>
>
>condition.
>
I know, don't you hate that ;-D
WickeddollŽ
"Fx199" <fx...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040813190415...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Good gawd, I agree with Philip - I'll just go slit my wrists now
:-P
Natalie
FanJet
> FanJet wrote:
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> David wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With oncoming traffic, and a car that is capable of going 155mph,
>>>> for safety sake, I'm not going to pass them at 55mph. It would
>>>> take minutes to get by them at only 1mph difference, resulting in
>>>> a head on collision.
>>>>
>>>> Passing faster is safer when there is oncoming traffic, but that
>>>> topic is not what I want to discuss, so I'd like to ask anyone who
>>>> is critical of me going 84 while passing to please refrain from
>>>> responding.
>>>>
>>>> capable of going 155mph, is it reasonable for them to void the
>>>> warranty if I'm going 84? If so, why do they make the car capable
>>>> of going 155mph? The car failed when I was only at about half its
>>>> full speed.
>>>
>>> mph? If so, I think you need to seek professional help.
>>>
>>> the problem. That is way past the red line for that engine.
>>> Toyota would be well within it rights to deny warranty
>>> coverage for such abuse. In other words, it is not the
>>> vechicle's speed that is the problem, it is the fact that
>>> you over reved the engine. I don't see how you could rev in
>>> to 9500 unless you floored it with the clutch in, or you
>>> were on a long downhill run in the wrong gear. I suppose you
>>> could use the lack of an effective rev limiter as an
>>> arguement against Toyota when you are trying to get the
>>> engine fixed under warranty.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> not, considering some of the OT posts. So, stock Celicas can't reach
>> 155 MPH - even downhill with a tailwind. Toyota is pissed because
>> the OP over-revved the engine. Nobody gives a crap how fast he was
>> going. Rev limiters have NO effect during downshifts. My guess is he
>> missed a 5-4 or 6-4 downshift and actually nailed 2nd whilst popping
>> the clutch. It's happed to others and I've heard that Toyota has
>> helped in some cases but they certainly aren't required to do
>> anything. Time to save up for a transaxle, learn how to shift and
>> quit bitching - not necessarily in that order.
>
> He did say he was passing a car - which indicates
> acceleration. It is still possible to accidentally downshift
> instead of upshift in this situation, put that would be very
> noticeable and you'd think he know if he did that. It is his
> engine which blew, not the transaxle.
>
> Ed
Well, if he was trying to accelerate rapidly, he would be downshifting, not
up-shifting, especially in a no-torque Celica. The Celica is a FWD car. I
can assure you that when the engine starting spitting parts, many of them
wound-up in/on/through the transmission since they're bolted together. He
should be looking for a transaxle and figuring out how to pay for it.
HachiRoku
> If the engine blew how can anyone be absolutely sure of the rpm's
> pre-blowing. Maybe the rpm's jumped when the compression was gone.
>
>
> "HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
>> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw Art wrote:
>>
>> > 84? If the spedometer goes over 84 mph tell them to fix the damn car.
> What
>> > a bunch of crap.
>>
>> Hey, Art, I just reread his post, and missed something I didn't pay
>> attention to before...
>>
>> *9500* RPM! Holy crap! It's not a Formula One car!
>>
>> David, did you *really* overrev to 9500 rippems? If you did, then I'm
>> afraid it *may* be on you!
I'm actually having doubts as to whether this engine really hit 9500.
Seems near impossible, unless Dude *really* screwed up! (sounds like he
may have...)
HachiRoku
>>Subject: Re: warranty not honored because I was speeding?
>>From: HachiRoku Tru...@ae86.GTS
>>Date: 8/12/2004 10:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS>
>>
Nope. Number 1 Toyota fan. GM has long been a one-owner car. Buy one, run
it for 3-4 years, and trade for a new one. Those people generally have no
problems with them. The next person? Loose interior panels, knobs
loosening and falling off, etc. If I can't have a Toy, I'll buy a Ford
next.
But I have noticed people are having a lot of probelms with newer Toyotas,
more than I have ever heard of before. And I have been driving Toys for a
*loooooong* time.
PS: Google Hachiroku....
HachiRoku
> LOOK.... BOTH you (Wicked and Hachi .. and any others who get/got
> distracted with the 85 MPH speed)
>
> The guy was caught red handed NOT only by BLOWING UP his engine (the
> 85 mph is not relevant), his car's ECU recorded the incident turning
> 9,500 RPM. How much he went over redline and how long does not
> matter. ZERO TOLERANCE.
>
> You can drive 130 mph .... and so long as you don't blow the engine,
> your driving speed is not going to cost Toyota a warranty claim.
> They could care less how fast you drive so long as doing so does not
> result in ventilating the engine block with internal parts. But when
> you blow an engine by miss-shifting even at 50 mph which results in
> scattering the motor ... Toyota is on solid ground in denying your
> claim for an engine.
> --
>
> - Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
See my second post in this thread....
"I don't know how ya's done it, but I know ya's done it!"
Fx199
>it for 3-4 years, and trade for a new one. Those people generally have no
Whatever...turning over 200k soon...original alternator , trans, etc in an
S-10...just lucky right?
Heard of honda owners doing much more and getting rid of much much sooner for
reliability LOL
Tegger®
news:411D330C...@mailcity.com:
> Get real, 85 MPH will never 'drag' the engine up to 9K, period.
Wanna bet?
--
TeGGeRŽ
Art
problem that makes the dashboard warning lights for ABS and No VSC lite up
on occassion. Sometimes they turn off by themselves and sometimes they just
reset when I turn off and restart the car. Who can say for sure that the
computer had the right speed or RPM saved. Toyota electronics is crap.
"Philip®" <1chip-...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:lY4Tc.19782$9Y6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Art: Shut up.
> --
>
> - Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
>
>
> Art wrote:
> > 84? If the spedometer goes over 84 mph tell them to fix the damn
> > car. What a bunch of crap.
> >
> >
Art
<Ilene...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:411D3395...@mailcity.com...
> Ya that's right. It HAD to be his fault, Toyotas
> never brake down. ;)
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> "TeggerŽ" wrote:
> >
> > "David" <none> muttered darkly in
> > news:10hoi97...@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> > >> Dave,
> > >> Which warranty do you have? What year Celica is it? I have a 2000
> > >> gt.
> > >> What dose your insurance company say? You have any mods on it?
> > >> ~~Joe
> > >
> > >
> > > Its a 2001 Celica GTS 6 speed manual with no modifications. I think
> > > its still under the factory 60,000 mile warranty since it has less
> > > than 60,000 miles on it.
> >
> > I suggest you sell this car, as it is clearly beyond your powers of
> > mastery.
> >
> > May I further suggest that you purchase a bicycle, or perhaps a ten
year-
> > old Cavalier with an automatic transmission. Either will be far less
> > expensive to repair the next time you have a brain cramp.
> >
> > --
> > TeGGeRŽ
Imminent Vengeance
>>Nope. Number 1 Toyota fan. GM has long been a one-owner car. Buy one,
>>run it for 3-4 years, and trade for a new one. Those people generally
>>have no
>
> Whatever...turning over 200k soon...original alternator , trans, etc in
> an S-10...just lucky right?
What year is your S-10? I heard that the more recent models (1994 and
later) were utter crap. Even their newer full size trucks are crap now.
If your original alternator is a Delco, then yes, you are VERY lucky there.
Delco alternators are notorious for frying very prematurely. My father had
a Grand Prix that went through 4 Delco alternators in less than 100,000
miles. He now drives a Corolla.
> Heard of honda owners doing much more and getting rid of much much
> sooner for reliability LOL
>
I would say that these owners you heard about are only few. Yes, a handful
of recent V6-powered Hondas have had auto tranny problems. But unlike the
big 3, for example, at least Honda admitted to it and either extended the
warranty (for 4-speed autos) or issued a recall (for 5-speed autos). Beyond
that issue, Honda ranks about the same as (if not slightly behind) Toyota in
long-term mechanical quality--near the top even despite recent quality dips.
Rich Lockyer
>My Celica engine blew up and the local dealer says Toyota may not honor the
>power train warranty because I was speeding.
>
>Their computer says I was going 84mph at 9500rpm.
>
>I'm wondering what you think of this. Is it fair or common practice for
>them to not honor a warranty in such circumstances?
I don't think "speeding" was the proper word for him to use.
84mph is certainly no big deal, and not a reason to void the warranty.
9500rpm certainly IS a reason to void the warranty.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
HachiRoku
1983 Tercel 4WD wagon...209,000, no smoke, starts runs steers stops...all
very well. Body repainted 2 years ago.(by yours truly)
1985 Corolla GTS...rusty rockers, 259,837, near mint except for the
rockers.
1985 Celica GTS...257,000. Bought from a kid with a junkyard engine in it.
Getting new engine right now. No rust at all, near mint condition.
1986 Camry...the baby of the bunch...74,000, near immaculate condition.
All except the Celica: No major problems, very few minor problems, hardly
any squeaks, rattle groans, except for the Tercel, and these are minor.
Interior panels in excellent condition, windows, doors, etc open and close
like new. None of them smoke *at all* except the Celica.
Four prime examples of the best Japan has to offer.
Prior victims:
1980 Corolla SR-5. 224,000 traded for 1900 less than paid. Near mint.
Traded for 85 Corolls
1987 Corolla sedan. Wife got sick of 5 speed. Traded for 88 Honda. Sold
last summer w/198,000, one rust spot.
1978 Corolla 1200...never knew, somebody ran a red when it had 50K on it.
1984 Corolla 1200...lost track at 180,000, 95,000 put there by me.
1981 Monte Carlo. I liked it, it hated me...after our first 8 months
together.
Yeah, there are others that can do it, but in what condition? There are a
few, some are American. But your average American car with that many
years/miles on it?
I have an '85 Olds Ciera Quad 4 5 sp for sale on my lot. First $250 takes
it. I'll also sell my Tercel wagon for $175. The Olds has 139,000 and is a
rattle wreck. The Tercel has squeaks and groans, but driving it you can
tell it was a well made car. The Tercel is going to last a *lot* longer
than the Olds.
I also have a '92 Grand Voyager I am keeping for myself. It runs well, is
in *slightly* better shape than the '83 Tercel, and has 229,000. But I
think the engine was overhauled/replaced at about 175K. But the paint is
peeling off and there were a *lot* of body rattles.
Nah...I've had all kinds of cars. *NOBODY* makes cars like Toyota! Honda
comes very close. Who else? VW? *UGH!* Nice design, lousy excecution.
Volvo? How much for parts? Saab? HAHAHA! Mercedes. Yeah, Toyota
quality..How Much??!! BMW, See VW. Nissan? I don't have that much patience.
You wanna talk Ford, we'll talk T-bird or Taurus, but no 3.8L
I will admit, I did entertain swapping a Tercel '95 for a '94 Buick Park
Ave Ultra, 2nd owner, well maintained, supercharged, 108K, *very* nice
car. But, 1. The Tercel was worth MORE, and it gets 45 MPG!!!
Next stop, Celica GTS, before they stop importing them...
ma_twain
automatically. :-)
Ilene...@mailcity.com wrote:
> Ya that's right. It HAD to be his fault, Toyotas
> never brake down. ;)
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> "TeggerŽ" wrote:
>
>>"David" <none> muttered darkly in
>>news:10hoi97...@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>>>Dave,
>>>> Which warranty do you have? What year Celica is it? I have a 2000
>>>> gt.
>>>>What dose your insurance company say? You have any mods on it?
>>>>~~Joe
>>>>
>>>
>>>Its a 2001 Celica GTS 6 speed manual with no modifications. I think
>>>its still under the factory 60,000 mile warranty since it has less
>>>than 60,000 miles on it.
>>>
>>I suggest you sell this car, as it is clearly beyond your powers of
>>mastery.
>>
>>May I further suggest that you purchase a bicycle, or perhaps a ten year-
>>old Cavalier with an automatic transmission. Either will be far less
>>expensive to repair the next time you have a brain cramp.
>>
>>--
>>TeGGeRŽ
Philip®
> TeggerŽ wrote:
>
>> I figure "David" was going from 4th to 5th at 85mph and hit 3rd
>> by mistake.
>>
>> And instead of smoothly releasing the clutch, which would have
>> told him something was wrong as the revs rocketed up, he dumped
>> the clutch hard. KA-POW!
>
> Still, I'd take a manual over an automatic anyday. Of course,
> WHY you would *downshift* at 85mph instead of using the brakes...
> Unless he wanted to go faster, in which case I have no pity -
> 100mph+ speeds aren't responsible outside of a racetrack.
Joey ... go back to sleep.
Philip®
What you said then and what you say now indicate we woke you up
abruptly.
There are a COUPLE of ways to exceed the RPM limiter. Smell the
coffee yet? You're idea of "a problem" is so far out in Michael
Jackson's Never Never Land ... that only you can describe where you
are.
Kindly shut off the computer and forget this ever happened.
Philip®
sticking down thru the floorboards had the biggest engine" (Fred
Flintstone)
--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
>> TeGGeRŽ
Philip®
RPMs up to 9,500 to enhance their braking.
--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
Philip®
--
- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
>>> TeGGeR®
Philip®
Centrifugal force throws fragraments radially from the crankshaft.
The transaxle is not in that plane.
Next, can either of you find the passage where the O/P said it was
his transaxle that blew?
Two clueless visitors in Never Never Land.
Philip®
The admissions are: The dealer's read of ECU memory registered 9,500
rpm. The engine is destroyed. The vehicle at which this destructino
occured is 85 mph (which is only relevant for the sake of distracting
the simple minded).
The dude really screwed up. ;-)
Philip®
Why? Does it contain a fold out of Wickeddoll by the swimming pool?
Philip®
Daniel M. Dreifus
> Do you have any concept of how excessive the piston speed
> of that engine is at 9,500 rpm with its stroke of 3.35"? 5,304 feet
> per second. That's quite strenuous for an aluminum piston.
I agree that it's the engine speed not the road speed that was the
problem, and that 9,500 is way over red line, but looks like your
numbers may be off.
By your number that piston speed would be apx. one mile per second.
Sounds like a stretch, literally and figuratively :-)
If the piston goes up and down for each revolution, that's 6.7"
travel, or apx. .56 feet.
9500 revolutions per minute would be 158.33 revolutions per second.
Let's use round numbers. 160 revolutions per second times six tenths
of a foot per second equals ninety six feet per second - almost one
hundred feet per second, but not one mile per second.
Should be 5304 feet per minute, not per second.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/piston-speed.php
HachiRoku
> MikeHunt ... go back to sleep.
>
> What you said then and what you say now indicate we woke you up
> abruptly.
>
> There are a COUPLE of ways to exceed the RPM limiter. Smell the
> coffee yet? You're idea of "a problem" is so far out in Michael
> Jackson's Never Never Land ... that only you can describe where you
> are.
>
> Kindly shut off the computer and forget this ever happened.
Phillip: Doesn't Play Well With Others... ;)
HachiRoku
It seems to me, that at that speed, dumping the clutch (or whatever
happened to toast his engine) would cause the rear end to, well, not lock
up, but (oh,shit, nevermind, I'm showing my age again! In my mind, *all*
sports cars are RWD. I keep forgetting the new ones are FWD!)
HachiRoku
"Damn, son, I'd like to see that!"
ron
you plan on driving sustained speeds of over 100, to inflate the tires to 35
psi. It might be at 4000 rpm then course its not a rally car like some
think stock Celica's are.
So I agree with the consensus, if you were winding over 9000 rpm at 84, you
just bought an engine - its this kind of abuse that caused automakers to
install non-erasable memory in the 'puters
Philip®
> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw PhilipŽ wrote:
>> The admissions are: (a)The dealer's read of ECU memory registered
>> 9,500 rpm. (b) The engine is destroyed. (c)The vehicle speed at
>> which this destruction occured is 85 mph (which is only relevant
for
>> the sake of distracting the simple minded).
>>
>> The dude really screwed up. ;-)
>
>
> It seems to me, that at that speed, dumping the clutch (or whatever
> happened to toast his engine) would cause the rear end to, well,
> not lock up, but (oh,shit, nevermind, I'm showing my age again! In
> my mind, *all* sports cars are RWD. I keep forgetting the new ones
> are FWD!)
"Hachi" ... IT DOES NOT matter the vehicle speed. The ECU registered
a maximum engine rpm of 9,500. Case closed, court adjourned.
--
-Philip
"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm
not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
-
Albert Farkminster
Philip®
> "Philip®" <1chip-...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<xy4Tc.21029$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> Do you have any concept of how excessive the piston speed
>> of that engine is at 9,500 rpm with its stroke of 3.35"? 5,304
>> feet
>> per second. That's quite strenuous for an aluminum piston.
>
> I agree that it's the engine speed not the road speed that was the
> problem, and that 9,500 is way over red line, but looks like your
> numbers may be off.
Feet per MINUTE. Brain fart. Thank you for sniffing. ;-)
Philip®
I don't play with others as well as you play with yourself. ;-)
HachiRoku
<Snip!>
>>> Kindly shut off the computer and forget this ever happened.
>>
>>
>> Phillip: Doesn't Play Well With Others... ;)
>
>
> I don't play with others as well as you play with yourself. ;-)
Ohhhh....Touche!
Wait, you've been peeking in my window again, eh?!
HachiRoku
> HachiRoku wrote:
>> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw Philip® wrote:
>>> The admissions are: (a)The dealer's read of ECU memory registered
>>> 9,500 rpm. (b) The engine is destroyed. (c)The vehicle speed at
>>> which this destruction occured is 85 mph (which is only relevant
> for
>>> the sake of distracting the simple minded).
>>>
>>> The dude really screwed up. ;-)
>>
>>
>> It seems to me, that at that speed, dumping the clutch (or whatever
>> happened to toast his engine) would cause the rear end to, well,
>> not lock up, but (oh,shit, nevermind, I'm showing my age again! In
>> my mind, *all* sports cars are RWD. I keep forgetting the new ones
>> are FWD!)
>
>
> "Hachi" ... IT DOES NOT matter the vehicle speed. The ECU registered
> a maximum engine rpm of 9,500. Case closed, court adjourned.
Yeah...I acknowledged that 2,572 posts ago. I just can't figure out *how*
he hit 9500! (I also noticed it seems he's been spanked out of existance
from the group!)
I'm just trying to get a handle on *how*! Man, that must have been a
serious screw up!
What I was leading to was that, at the speed he was going, if he had
dropped the clutch in the wrong gear, the ass end of the car would
probably start fishtailing, but that doesn't happen with FWD. In this
case, I'm surprised he didn't got through the windshield!! All my Rice
Rockets are RWD. The econoboxes are FWD.
One way to find out: Hey, Dave! How *DID* you do it??!!
Bruce L. Bergman
>I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw Philip® wrote:
>> "Hachi" ... IT DOES NOT matter the vehicle speed. The ECU registered
>> a maximum engine rpm of 9,500. Case closed, court adjourned.
>
>Yeah...I acknowledged that 2,572 posts ago. I just can't figure out *how*
>he hit 9500! (I also noticed it seems he's been spanked out of existance
>from the group!)
>
>I'm just trying to get a handle on *how*! Man, that must have been a
>serious screw up!
It's simple enough - he wanted fifth, and grabbed third by mistake.
Let the clutch out and the engine RPM's head for the moon, pushed by
the drivetrain from road momentum. Even if you catch it and get the
clutch back out almost immediately, you still face the possibility
that you zinged the engine. (Depends on how fast you were going at
the time, of course.)
I've managed to mis-shift in other stick cars during normal
semi-spirited driving (going quick, but not shifting at redline) - The
tranny went into gear in the wrong slot but didn't "feel right" going
in, and luckily the alarm bells went off in my head and were
recognized before I released the clutch.
If that's the car (the OP) with the six-speed, it has some odd shift
gates, if you are not paying attention it's easy to screw up. And you
can get past the synchro balk rings if the phases of the moon are just
right - and everything inside the transmission is spinning nice and
fast because you were on the gas hard before the upshift and slid the
clutch out a fraction of a second early.
MDT_Tech Rick had a customer a while back who was repeatedly zinging
his engines and bringing it back to the dealer for a fresh one, he
simply would NOT learn - and when they started charging him for
engines after checking the ECU, the fool (IMNSHO) zinged it AGAIN but
was caught trying to clear the ECU memory first.
Smart people only need to be taught that expensive lesson once, and
it sticks for life. (Or they hear about someone /else/ learning that
lesson and decide to not get themselves in the same mess.) But dumb
people need constant negative reinforcement.
--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.
FanJet
> FanJet wrote:
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> He did say he was passing a car - which indicates
>>> acceleration. It is still possible to accidentally downshift
>>> instead of upshift in this situation, put that would be very
>>> noticeable and you'd think he know if he did that. It is his
>>> engine which blew, not the transaxle.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> Well, if he was trying to accelerate rapidly, he would be
>> downshifting, not up-shifting, especially in a no-torque Celica.
>> The Celica is a FWD car. I can assure you that when the engine
>> starting spitting parts, many of them wound-up in/on/through the
>> transmission since they're bolted together. He should be looking
>> for a transaxle and figuring out how to pay for it.
>
>
> Centrifugal force throws fragraments radially from the crankshaft.
> The transaxle is not in that plane.
Significance?
> Next, can either of you find the passage where the O/P said it was
> his transaxle that blew?
The OP, like you to a somewhat, though severely limited lesser extent,
don't have a clue as to what happened or why. The proof is in the thread.
> Two clueless visitors in Never Never Land.
The latter's correct. Better than your average.
> - Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM
LOL
Philip®
> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw PhilipŽ wrote:
>
> <Snip!>
>
>>>> Kindly shut off the computer and forget this ever happened.
>>>
>>>
>>> Phillip: Doesn't Play Well With Others... ;)
>>
>>
>> I don't play with others as well as you play with yourself. ;-)
>
>
> Ohhhh....Touche!
>
> Wait, you've been peeking in my window again, eh?!
Remember that free standing public toilet built out of one-way glass
you used? It ceases to be "one-way" the moment anyone is seated.
EVERYBODY saw. LOL
Philip®
> "PhilipŽ" <1chip-...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:_CjTc.21655$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> FanJet wrote:
>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>> He did say he was passing a car - which indicates
>>>> acceleration. It is still possible to accidentally downshift
>>>> instead of upshift in this situation, put that would be very
>>>> noticeable and you'd think he know if he did that. It is his
>>>> engine which blew, not the transaxle.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> Well, if he was trying to accelerate rapidly, he would be
>>> downshifting, not up-shifting, especially in a no-torque Celica.
>>> The Celica is a FWD car. I can assure you that when the engine
>>> starting spitting parts, many of them wound-up in/on/through the
>>> transmission since they're bolted together. He should be looking
>>> for a transaxle and figuring out how to pay for it.
>>
>>
>> Centrifugal force throws fragraments radially from the crankshaft.
>> The transaxle is not in that plane.
>
> Significance?
Shrapnel exiting the crankcase does not aim for the transaxle. The
exception would be the likes of a Ford Taurus where the transmission
is alongside the engine block. Make sense now?
>> Next, can either of you find the passage where the O/P said it was
>> his transaxle that blew?
>
> The OP, like you to a somewhat, though severely limited lesser
> extent, don't have a clue as to what happened or why. The proof is
> in the thread.
Oh yes "we" do have a clue. At or close to engine redline, the
transmission was successfully shifted and the clutch released in the
next LOWER gear. That is the one known fact based on data provided
by the O/P.
FanJet ... there is about 12% of the population who will reliably
fail to draw a correct conclusion when given a set of facts. They
read in all sorts of other fabricated "facts" that were not
presented. Put yourself in that group for this discussion.
--
Philip®
PhilipŽ wrote:
>SNIP<
> FanJet ... there is about 12% of the population who will reliably
> fail to draw an *INcorrect* conclusion when given a set of facts.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw Art wrote:
>
> > If the engine blew how can anyone be absolutely sure of the rpm's
> > pre-blowing. Maybe the rpm's jumped when the compression was gone.
> >
> >
> > "HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
> >> I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw Art wrote:
> >>
> >> > 84? If the spedometer goes over 84 mph tell them to fix the damn
car.
> > What
> >> > a bunch of crap.
> >>
> >> Hey, Art, I just reread his post, and missed something I didn't pay
> >> attention to before...
> >>
> >> *9500* RPM! Holy crap! It's not a Formula One car!
> >>
> >> David, did you *really* overrev to 9500 rippems? If you did, then I'm
> >> afraid it *may* be on you!
>
> I'm actually having doubts as to whether this engine really hit 9500.
> Seems near impossible, unless Dude *really* screwed up! (sounds like he
> may have...)
What is red line? 6500? If so, a momentary overrev to 9500 probably
wouldn't lunch things, but who know how fast the engine was actually
spinning when it came apart.
Seems to me that the ECU wouldn't let the engine rev that high, so the only
way that this could happen is with a mistaken downshift. 84MPH would
probably be redline in 3rd, so a missed shift to 2nd rather than 4th would
really overrev things, particularly if the driver was overly focused on
acceleration and didn't recognize the warning signs for a second or two.
George
HachiRoku
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:26:58 GMT, HachiRoku <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>>I *couldn't* believe my eyes when I saw Philip® wrote:
>
>>> "Hachi" ... IT DOES NOT matter the vehicle speed. The ECU registered
>>> a maximum engine rpm of 9,500. Case closed, court adjourned.
>>
>>Yeah...I acknowledged that 2,572 posts ago. I just can't figure out *how*
>>he hit 9500! (I also noticed it seems he's been spanked out of existance
>>from the group!)
>>
>>I'm just trying to get a handle on *how*! Man, that must have been a
>>serious screw up!
<Snip>
>
> Smart people only need to be taught that expensive lesson once, and
> it sticks for life. (Or they hear about someone /else/ learning that
> lesson and decide to not get themselves in the same mess.) But dumb
> people need constant negative reinforcement.
>
> --<< Bruce >>--
Like hitting the dog on the nose with the paper? ;)
Scott in Florida
LOL...yup...like that...
but...it depends on what kind of dog...
Scott in Florida
C. E. White
Philip,
Go read my post - I never claimed his transaxle blew. To the
contrary, I pointed out that it was "his engine which blew,
not the transaxle."
Ed
C. E. White
FanJet wrote:
>
> C. E. White wrote:
> > FanJet wrote:
> >>
> >> C. E. White wrote:
> >>> David wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me explain that I was passing a car that was going about 54mph.
> >>>> With oncoming traffic, and a car that is capable of going 155mph,
> >>>> for safety sake, I'm not going to pass them at 55mph. It would
> >>>> take minutes to get by them at only 1mph difference, resulting in
> >>>> a head on collision.
> >>>>
> >>>> Passing faster is safer when there is oncoming traffic, but that
> >>>> topic is not what I want to discuss, so I'd like to ask anyone who
> >>>> is critical of me going 84 while passing to please refrain from
> >>>> responding.
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to talk technical and legal issues. In a car that is
> >>>> capable of going 155mph, is it reasonable for them to void the
> >>>> warranty if I'm going 84? If so, why do they make the car capable
> >>>> of going 155mph? The car failed when I was only at about half its
> >>>> full speed.
> >>>
> >>> First of all - do you really think your Celica can go 155
> >>> mph? If so, I think you need to seek professional help.
> >>>
> >>> If you actually cranked the engine up to 9500 rpm, that is
> >>> the problem. That is way past the red line for that engine.
> >>> Toyota would be well within it rights to deny warranty
> >>> coverage for such abuse. In other words, it is not the
> >>> vechicle's speed that is the problem, it is the fact that
> >>> you over reved the engine. I don't see how you could rev in
> >>> to 9500 unless you floored it with the clutch in, or you
> >>> were on a long downhill run in the wrong gear. I suppose you
> >>> could use the lack of an effective rev limiter as an
> >>> arguement against Toyota when you are trying to get the
> >>> engine fixed under warranty.
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>
> >> It's amazing this thread has gone on as long as this. Well, maybe
> >> not, considering some of the OT posts. So, stock Celicas can't reach
> >> 155 MPH - even downhill with a tailwind. Toyota is pissed because
> >> the OP over-revved the engine. Nobody gives a crap how fast he was
> >> going. Rev limiters have NO effect during downshifts. My guess is he
> >> missed a 5-4 or 6-4 downshift and actually nailed 2nd whilst popping
> >> the clutch. It's happed to others and I've heard that Toyota has
> >> helped in some cases but they certainly aren't required to do
> >> anything. Time to save up for a transaxle, learn how to shift and
> >> quit bitching - not necessarily in that order.
> >
> > He did say he was passing a car - which indicates
> > acceleration. It is still possible to accidentally downshift
> > instead of upshift in this situation, put that would be very
> > noticeable and you'd think he know if he did that. It is his
> > engine which blew, not the transaxle.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Well, if he was trying to accelerate rapidly, he would be downshifting, not
> up-shifting, especially in a no-torque Celica. The Celica is a FWD car. I
> can assure you that when the engine starting spitting parts, many of them
> wound-up in/on/through the transmission since they're bolted together. He
> should be looking for a transaxle and figuring out how to pay for it.
When I accelerate, as I reach the red line in a particular
gear, I shift to the next higher gear. My assumption is that
the original poster may have accidentally shifted down,
instead of shifting up (shifted to 2nd rather than 4th, or
something similar). I agree that when you first decide to
accelerate rapidly, you would downshift to a lower gear.
However, when this happens, the engine is most likely in the
lower rpm band (you know 2000-3000 rpm) and downshifting to
the lower gear is exactly what you want and won't over speed
the engine. However, once you are accelerating rapidly -
when you approach the redline and shift to the next higher
gear, if you miss shift and accidentally shift down instead
of up, you can definitely over speed the engine. This is the
scenario I was referring to - not the initial downshift.
Ed
FanJet
news:UILTc.583$3O3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> FanJet wrote:
>> "Philip®" <1chip-...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:_CjTc.21655$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> FanJet wrote:
>>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>>> He did say he was passing a car - which indicates
>>>>> acceleration. It is still possible to accidentally downshift
>>>>> instead of upshift in this situation, put that would be very
>>>>> noticeable and you'd think he know if he did that. It is his
>>>>> engine which blew, not the transaxle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> Well, if he was trying to accelerate rapidly, he would be
>>>> downshifting, not up-shifting, especially in a no-torque Celica.
>>>> The Celica is a FWD car. I can assure you that when the engine
>>>> starting spitting parts, many of them wound-up in/on/through the
>>>> transmission since they're bolted together. He should be looking
>>>> for a transaxle and figuring out how to pay for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Centrifugal force throws fragraments radially from the crankshaft.
>>> The transaxle is not in that plane.
>>
>> Significance?
>
> Shrapnel exiting the crankcase does not aim for the transaxle. The
> exception would be the likes of a Ford Taurus where the transmission
> is alongside the engine block. Make sense now?
Like it or not, trajectories can't be described in such as simplistic
manner.
>>> Next, can either of you find the passage where the O/P said it was
>>> his transaxle that blew?
>>
>> The OP, like you to a somewhat, though severely limited lesser
>> extent, don't have a clue as to what happened or why. The proof is
>> in the thread.
>
> Oh yes "we" do have a clue. At or close to engine redline, the
> transmission was successfully shifted and the clutch released in the
> next LOWER gear. That is the one known fact based on data provided
> by the O/P.
If you do, you'd be aware that the OP most likely missed a 5-4 downshift to
2nd which, of course, over-revved the transaxle as well as the engine.
> FanJet ... there is about 12% of the population who will reliably
> fail to draw a correct conclusion when given a set of facts. They
> read in all sorts of other fabricated "facts" that were not
> presented. Put yourself in that group for this discussion.
Two many viewings of 'Clueless' will cause this. Try to cut back.
Nick Trounson
news:2o2tu2F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
> >
> > >
> > > "HachiRoku" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2004.08.13....@ae86.GTS...
> >
> > I think it's Montana. They can nail you for 'Speed greater than
conditions
> > allow', including weather, traffic, coyotes, etc, but there is no posted
> > speed limit!
> >
> Hmmm another scary thing about that state...
Sounds gay to me.
> > >>
> > >> I expect this kind of crap from GM!
Hachi, watch it. :-P
> > >
> > > Don't drive like a maniac
> >
> > Um, where's the fun in that? (No, I have to agree with you. It's usually
> > when somone's doing something *stupid* that they screw up, and maybe
take
> > someone out...)
> >
> yup
Heh, reminds me of a friend who drives like a retardo. Driving at 160kmh in
his Skyline Turbo... and a carload of hooligans in an '87 Ford XF Falcon
*tried* flying past. Old V8 vs modern six-pot turbo. The turbo won. And both
cars freakin near went off the road. Driving like a silly bastard doesn't
get anybody anywhere fast, once you calculate in the time it takes to cut
you out of your new steel cage, stabilize you, get you to the hospital...
> > >>
> > >> My God, in '87 I went about 1/3 of the way across Ontario at 125 MPH
in
> my
> > >> '85 Corolla! 200,000 miles later...
> > >
> > > You are a scary guy
> >
> > Had my wife with me. Just sat there enjoying it. We were on our way to
> > Toronto to see her sister, and a Volvo and a Prelude went flying by us.
I
> > wanted to make time. The *really* scary part...we were in some traffic
> > (not a lot) and they were walking away from me. (PS: at 128, the froont
> > end felt like it was lifting, so I backed down...back to 125. Hey, I was
a
> > lot younger and *Invinceable*!
> >
> Famous last words...
I am young but I'm sure as hell not invinceable. In fact I'm damn lucky to
be alive - one foot forward or back on that pole and it wouldn't have just
been the Fiero that got smushed.
> > >>
> > >> Did I ever mention the fact that I think Toyota's quality is
slipping,
> and
> > >> that their customer service has gone from real support to blowing
> > >> customers off?
> > >>
> > > Yeah, you mentioned that
> > >
> > >> Sounds to me like Toyota is starting to build Junk, and they *KNOW*
it!
> > >
> > > :-P
> > >
> > > Most of us don't drive like raped apes.
> > >
> > > Natalie
> >
> > C'mon, Nat...once in a while, on a clear, straight road, you don't open
up
> > that Corolla FX just a *little* bit more than the signs say you should?
> > Seems to me I remember you saying something about never telling the
car's
> > new driver something about that... ;)
> >
> > However, 84 in a 55 *might* be a little excessive....
>
> Might? Feh.
>
> Nope, I never peel out at ludicrous speed. And I don't drive the FX
anyway.
> My son does.
>
> :-)
>
> Natalie, Echo driver, bay-bee
>
>
I bet you did! I don't know *ANYBODY* with a Toyota 4A-GE who doesn't open
the taps every once in a while. They're soooo good when they're pulling too,
smooth as silk.
I just can't really cane the 2T-GE, with the strangling carburettors,
restrictive exhaust and poxy short geared T-40, 95mph is the absolute best
it'll do. And that's at redline.
Nick.
Nick Trounson
news:v7bUc.16$Pd2....@monger.newsread.com...
It's too many for starters.
I totally understand what Philip meant. Crankshaft is turning radially. Bits
break and fly off, they go radially too. And at 10kRPM, that's gonna mean
the centrifugal force will throw them through the side of the block.
The transaxle in a Celica is BEHIND the block.
He was driving a Celica, not a Honda. 9500RPM is ridiculous, no wonder
Toyota told him to go east.
Nick.
HachiRoku
Yeah, man, ya know that snarling Rotweiler down on the corner? I'll show
*him* what for.
Ohhhh.....girls' swimming! Gotta go!!!
HachiRoku
>> > >>
>> > >> I expect this kind of crap from GM!
>
> Hachi, watch it. :-P
I was referring to the way they handle customer complaints.
Back in the late 70's/early 80's they had a car called the Chevette. Did
you get that one down there. It was supposed to be a Jap-fighting
econobox, but it turned out to be a oil-burning, smoking piece of crap (I
actually saw one Friday..and not in bad shape, either...and not blowing
billowing clouds of oil smoke!)
It had a small automatic transmission.
A friend of mine had a 6 cyl. Oldsmobile. Much larger car, more powerful
engine. Guess what it had for a transmission? He replaced three of them on
his own dime! (the car was 3 years old!!!!)
They were putting these trannys in Cadillacs! It was a three speed nothing
automatic, meant for a 108 HP motor.
GM denied they were a problem. It wasn't until 60 Minutes got on their
case that they fessed up and started paying for them. I told my friend to
get his money back from GM and he wasn't interested!
GM denies there are a *lot* of screw-ups like this. They are the worst.
Ford has had their moments, and Chrysler almost went out of being because
of crappy cars they couldn't afford to fix! But the General is definitely
the worst when it comes to denial.
Rolled a Volvo 1800ES being an idiot once. Close...
She just had the FX. That had the SOHC carb model. The 4AGE came in in the
FX-16. I beeve that's what she said. Right, Nat?
> I just can't really cane the 2T-GE, with the strangling carburettors,
> restrictive exhaust and poxy short geared T-40, 95mph is the absolute best
> it'll do. And that's at redline.
I had a TE70 (?) Coupe. Good for about 100. That was about it. Had it
there once for about 10 minutes.
> Nick.
Philip®
Did I single you out for this error? No. Touchie aren't 'we?'