1988 Honda Accord won't idle when warmed up

ACAR wrote:
> On Jan 27, 12:47 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
> wrote:
> snip
>
>>> this is a good thing - fuel injection is much more reliable. detroit
>>> would never have made this move without legislation, and we're all much
>>> better off as a result.
>> Poppycock!
>>
>> In the olde dayz, when things were simple, carbed cars were easy to work
>> on and a helluva lot less 'xpensive to work on.
>
> I can vouch for that. I used to have a photo of a buddy and me
> standing on the fender of a pickup, ****ing onto a frozen carburetor
> to de-ice it. After several such applications (good thing our group of
> five had several thermos' filled with coffee) we were successful and
> were able to drive back into Prudhoe Bay.

ah, icing... forgotten about that!


>
>> That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After
>> that milestone, things REALLY got complicated.
>>
>> JT
>
> While lots of early fuel injectors were not especially reliable the
> new ones are. I gotta agree with the folks who propose that current
> fuel injection systems are very reliable (especially if you stick to
> Top Tier gasolines).
>
> JT is right that when a fuel injection system goes TU the fix can
> often be expensive and difficult to diagnose.

although usually the injection system itself does the diagnosis for you.
"obd" as in obd0, obdII, etc., stand for "on board diagnostic". it's
exceedingly rare for the computer to go "tu" - on a honda at any rate.


> Of course, the same
> could be said for any number of systems built into today's cars.

On Jan 28, 8:41 am, jim beam > wrote:
snip

> although usually the injection system itself does the diagnosis for you.
> "obd" as in obd0, obdII, etc., stand for "on board diagnostic".

just there, you sound exactly like a dealership service writer-
as they prepare to replace $1750 worth of stuff to clear a code;
that may have been thrown by a corroded connection.

Tegger wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
>
>> again, detroit [or anybody else] would never have made this move [into
>> the mainstream] without legislation. and the result is better
>> reliability.
>
> You originally and specifically said "detroit would never have made this
> move without legislation".
>
> I demonstrated that Detroit had been tinkering (and installing) for several
> decades before there was any forcible conversion to injection.
>
> The Japanese waited until pretty much the last minute, when they then had
> no choice, when emissions regs forced them to convert.
>
> Fuel injection has several important advantages over carburetion, notably
> much better driveability and efficiency. I submit that fuel injection would
> eventually have become commonplace in North America even in the absence of
> regulations.

Hm, what would have compelled Detroit to make such a big change? The
last 30 or so years have demonstrated abundantly Detroit's
disinclination for such, even in the face of superior products from
foreign manufacturers and dwindling market share & profits, which is
supposed to be the primo driver of change in a for profit company.

If they had their way they'd still be cranking out carbureted V-8's.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

<snip>

> Poppycock!
>
> In the olde dayz, when things were simple, carbed cars were easy to work
> on and a helluva lot less 'xpensive to work on.
>
> That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After
> that milestone, things REALLY got complicated.

So would you prefer a 1919 model if it were available? Complication
isn't by definition bad, but the early years of new technology can be
difficult as it gets its field trials. As for me, I'll take Pgm-FI, ABS,
modern tires, etc., any day. My only problem with modern Hondas (other
makes as well) is that they're so quiet and stable I can easily be doing
80 instead of 60. In times not so long ago, i.e., my lifetime, it was
obvious when you were going faster.

ACAR wrote:

> On Jan 27, 12:47 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
> wrote:
> snip
>
>
>>>this is a good thing - fuel injection is much more reliable. detroit
>>>would never have made this move without legislation, and we're all much
>>>better off as a result.
>>
>>Poppycock!
>>
>>In the olde dayz, when things were simple, carbed cars were easy to work
>>on and a helluva lot less 'xpensive to work on.
>
>
> I can vouch for that. I used to have a photo of a buddy and me
> standing on the fender of a pickup, ****ing onto a frozen carburetor
> to de-ice it. After several such applications (good thing our group of
> five had several thermos' filled with coffee) we were successful and
> were able to drive back into Prudhoe Bay.
>
>

I'm prepping my '55 Studebaker President for occasional driving and am
in the final stages of of replacing the native 6 volt components
consisting of the heater and defroster motors. At the same time, I was
looking for a convenient way to connect the electric fuel pump and
there's just no where to do so easily under the hood. The wiring is so
simple that it is really elegant. I'm just gonna hafta reach in and
connect it to the ignition switch accessory terminal.

The only vacuum line on the entire car is to the distributor advance.


>>That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After
>>that milestone, things REALLY got complicated.
>>
>>JT
>
>
> While lots of early fuel injectors were not especially reliable the
> new ones are. I gotta agree with the folks who propose that current
> fuel injection systems are very reliable (especially if you stick to
> Top Tier gasolines).
>
> JT is right that when a fuel injection system goes TU the fix can
> often be expensive and difficult to diagnose. Of course, the same
> could be said for any number of systems built into today's cars.


Yep... In my twisted upside down view of the world, I refuse to own any
car that has a "check engine" light. Thus, the '83 Honda is the last
year not to have any of the "guess what's wrong" nonsense.

JT

(Who believes that 'puters belong on laps or desktops, no in carz...)

ACAR wrote:

> On Jan 28, 8:41 am, jim beam > wrote:
> snip
>
>
>>although usually the injection system itself does the diagnosis for you.
>> "obd" as in obd0, obdII, etc., stand for "on board diagnostic".
>
>
> just there, you sound exactly like a dealership service writer-
> as they prepare to replace $1750 worth of stuff to clear a code;
> that may have been thrown by a corroded connection.
>

<chuckle>

Just today, I dragged my '83 Civic up the road to fix an annoying
problem of it wanting to stall out whenever I put the lights on or ran
any accessory except for the radio.

After a couple of hours of tracking down the fault, it turned out to be
two vacuum lines misconnected.

Now, I can drive at night without having to fiddle with the gas pedal
when stopped for lights etc.

I luv that little toidbox!

JT

Tony Harding wrote:

> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Poppycock!
>>
>> In the olde dayz, when things were simple, carbed cars were easy to
>> work on and a helluva lot less 'xpensive to work on.
>>
>> That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After
>> that milestone, things REALLY got complicated.
>
>
> So would you prefer a 1919 model if it were available? Complication
> isn't by definition bad, but the early years of new technology can be
> difficult as it gets its field trials. As for me, I'll take Pgm-FI, ABS,
> modern tires, etc., any day. My only problem with modern Hondas (other
> makes as well) is that they're so quiet and stable I can easily be doing
> 80 instead of 60. In times not so long ago, i.e., my lifetime, it was
> obvious when you were going faster.


You can keep your "modern" stuff and I'll continue to prefer the
simplicity of the late 1950's and early 1960's.

BTW, my ol' Avant would do around 160 and it was solid as a rock and it
went exactly where you pointed it.

And, my old cars are appreciating...

JT

On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 12:47 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
> > wrote:
> > snip
>
> >>>this is a good thing - fuel injection is much more reliable. detroit
> >>>would never have made this move without legislation, and we're all much
> >>>better off as a result.
>
> >>Poppycock!
>
> >>In the olde dayz, when things were simple, carbed cars were easy to work
> >>on and a helluva lot less 'xpensive to work on.
>
> > I can vouch for that. I used to have a photo of a buddy and me
> > standing on the fender of a pickup, ****ing onto a frozen carburetor
> > to de-ice it. After several such applications (good thing our group of
> > five had several thermos' filled with coffee) we were successful and
> > were able to drive back into Prudhoe Bay.
>
> I'm prepping my '55 Studebaker President for occasional driving and am
> in the final stages of of replacing the native 6 volt components
> consisting of the heater and defroster motors. At the same time, I was
> looking for a convenient way to connect the electric fuel pump and
> there's just no where to do so easily under the hood. The wiring is so
> simple that it is really elegant. I'm just gonna hafta reach in and
> connect it to the ignition switch accessory terminal.
>
> The only vacuum line on the entire car is to the distributor advance.
>
> >>That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After
> >>that milestone, things REALLY got complicated.
>
> >>JT
>
> > While lots of early fuel injectors were not especially reliable the
> > new ones are. I gotta agree with the folks who propose that current
> > fuel injection systems are very reliable (especially if you stick to
> > Top Tier gasolines).
>
> > JT is right that when a fuel injection system goes TU the fix can
> > often be expensive and difficult to diagnose. Of course, the same
> > could be said for any number of systems built into today's cars.
>
> Yep... In my twisted upside down view of the world, I refuse to own any
> car that has a "check engine" light. Thus, the '83 Honda is the last
> year not to have any of the "guess what's wrong" nonsense.
>
> JT
>
> (Who believes that 'puters belong on laps or desktops, no in carz...)

i drive industrial vehicles at work and i realise that most of the
engines in these vehicles are diesel-powered, oil-cooled, no
computers, compact in size and yet puts out decent power with good
fuel efficiency, they can take a good abuse and yet requires virtually
no maintenance, other than scheduled oil and filter changes...

corporate america knows what's best for them.. but us consumers are
f*cked... haha

wrote in
:

> On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
> wrote:

>
> i drive industrial vehicles at work and i realise that most of the
> engines in these vehicles are diesel-powered, oil-cooled, no
> computers, compact in size and yet puts out decent power with good
> fuel efficiency, they can take a good abuse and yet requires virtually
> no maintenance, other than scheduled oil and filter changes...



And none but the barest governmental diktats.


>
> corporate america knows what's best for them.. but us consumers are
> f*cked... haha



"Corporate America" had cars getting ever /simpler/ for the consumer over
the decades.

It's the government that's to blame for complexity, specifically the EPA
and NHTSA. You can call what they do good, bad or indifferent, but it is
undeniable that their mandates have introduced enormous and hugely
expensive complication into cars.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger wrote:
> wrote in
> :
>
>> On Jan 29, 7:05 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
>> wrote:
>
>> i drive industrial vehicles at work and i realise that most of the
>> engines in these vehicles are diesel-powered, oil-cooled, no
>> computers, compact in size and yet puts out decent power with good
>> fuel efficiency, they can take a good abuse and yet requires virtually
>> no maintenance, other than scheduled oil and filter changes...
>
>
>
> And none but the barest governmental diktats.
>
>
>> corporate america knows what's best for them.. but us consumers are
>> f*cked... haha
>
>
>
> "Corporate America" had cars getting ever /simpler/ for the consumer over
> the decades.
>
> It's the government that's to blame for complexity, specifically the EPA
> and NHTSA. You can call what they do good, bad or indifferent, but it is
> undeniable that their mandates have introduced enormous and hugely
> expensive complication into cars.
>
>

a lot of this "complication" is not that expensive. well, it is at the
consumer end, but not for the manufacturers. at their kind of volume
levels, a complete fuel injection package, with catalyst and all
sensors, is probably less than $500. that's not exactly a significant
burden on a vehicle retailing for over $15k.