1988 Honda Accord won't idle when warmed up

dan > wrote in :


>>
>>
> Gee, I should have thought of opening the hood in stop and go traffic,
> jumping out and jambing a lead from a VOM meter into the "slow mixture
> valve", which I was careful to call the "primary slow mixture cut-off
> solenoid valve" as in the factory service manual, IN TRAFFIC.



You could simply put the front end up on stands, you know.

M.A. Stewart has some pretty good advice. I'd forgot about that solenoid,
not having much experience with feedback carbs.



> It was
> INTERMITTENT! Meaning it would happen when the car was warm, and when
> I would least expect it to happen. As the OP said, it only happens
> when the car is warmed up, or in other words, in TRAFFIC!
>
> It's an intermittent ground. They don't like to do bad things when
> you're watching.
>
> I think it is actually a poor design. But that's moot since no Honda
> has had a carburetor for at least 15 years? (?).
>


Sure it's a poor design. All feedback carbs are poor designs. And your
friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated bizarre and
unnatural complications into what used to be a very simple device. The EPA
is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since 1989.


--
Tegger

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

Tegger wrote:
> dan > wrote in :
>
>
>>>
>> Gee, I should have thought of opening the hood in stop and go traffic,
>> jumping out and jambing a lead from a VOM meter into the "slow mixture
>> valve", which I was careful to call the "primary slow mixture cut-off
>> solenoid valve" as in the factory service manual, IN TRAFFIC.
>
>
>
> You could simply put the front end up on stands, you know.
>
> M.A. Stewart has some pretty good advice. I'd forgot about that solenoid,
> not having much experience with feedback carbs.
>
>
>
>> It was
>> INTERMITTENT! Meaning it would happen when the car was warm, and when
>> I would least expect it to happen. As the OP said, it only happens
>> when the car is warmed up, or in other words, in TRAFFIC!
>>
>> It's an intermittent ground. They don't like to do bad things when
>> you're watching.
>>
>> I think it is actually a poor design. But that's moot since no Honda
>> has had a carburetor for at least 15 years? (?).
>>
>
>
> Sure it's a poor design. All feedback carbs are poor designs. And your
> friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated bizarre and
> unnatural complications into what used to be a very simple device.

that's a bad thing. however...


> The EPA
> is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since 1989.

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.

jim beam > wrote in
t:

> detroit
> would never have made this move without legislation,


Detroit attempted fuel injection as early as 1957 (Corvette), making
repeated assaults throughout the decades leading up to the total changeover
to computerized injection around 1989.

The 1976 Cadillac Sedan DeVille had TBI injection. Hemmings magazine
(Oct/07) reports it was "a bit lean at idle" but otherwise worked well.
Huge cost ruled it out for lesser models, and it was phased out later on
due to complications having to do with the then-crude control system.

The 1982 Chrysler Imperial originally had injection, but all of them were
recalled, again due to control problems and retrofitted with a carburetor.
Hemmings recently covered this one as well, but I can't find that issue
just now.

Ford began installing Bosch-derived TBI injection in some models as early
as 1980.

The domestics and the Germans (Bosch L-Jetronic) were far in the vanguard
over the years, well ahead of the Japanese. The Japanese were content to
timidly produce what worked well and did not result in lost sales on
account of poor reliability, accounting for their late entry into the fuel
injection club. Toyota's MR-2 was one of the first port-injected Japanese
cars, appearing in late 1984 with a copy of Bosch's L-Jetronic system.

Honda dutifully followed the other Japanese makers in slowly introducing
injection in the mid-'80s on selected models, but held off where they
could, as long as they could, to keep costs down.



--
Tegger

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

Tegger wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
>> detroit
>> would never have made this move without legislation,
>
>
> Detroit attempted fuel injection as early as 1957 (Corvette), making
> repeated assaults throughout the decades leading up to the total changeover
> to computerized injection around 1989.
>
> The 1976 Cadillac Sedan DeVille had TBI injection. Hemmings magazine
> (Oct/07) reports it was "a bit lean at idle" but otherwise worked well.
> Huge cost ruled it out for lesser models, and it was phased out later on
> due to complications having to do with the then-crude control system.
>
> The 1982 Chrysler Imperial originally had injection, but all of them were
> recalled, again due to control problems and retrofitted with a carburetor.
> Hemmings recently covered this one as well, but I can't find that issue
> just now.
>
> Ford began installing Bosch-derived TBI injection in some models as early
> as 1980.
>
> The domestics and the Germans (Bosch L-Jetronic) were far in the vanguard
> over the years, well ahead of the Japanese. The Japanese were content to
> timidly produce what worked well and did not result in lost sales on
> account of poor reliability, accounting for their late entry into the fuel
> injection club. Toyota's MR-2 was one of the first port-injected Japanese
> cars, appearing in late 1984 with a copy of Bosch's L-Jetronic system.
>
> Honda dutifully followed the other Japanese makers in slowly introducing
> injection in the mid-'80s on selected models, but held off where they
> could, as long as they could, to keep costs down.
>
>
>

again, detroit [or anybody else] would never have made this move [into
the mainstream] without legislation. and the result is better reliability.

sure, plenty of people had messed about with gasoline injection - the
nazi fighter plane, the me109, or variants of it, had fuel injection
back in ww2. but since injection's gone mainstream because of law,
costs have gone down due to volume, and reliability has gone up for
consumers. it's a win for both sides.

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. The traditional primary difficulties for fuel injection were
cost and control. Cheap computing power eventually solved both of those,
but by then the regulations were on the march. So we'll never know now...


--
Tegger

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

Tegger wrote:

> wrote in
> :
>
>
>>On Jan 23, 5:31 pm, wrote:
>>
>>>On the way to work last week, my Accord died on me when I took it out
>>>of gear (manual trans) as I approached a stop. It restarted but,
>>>would not idle unless I held my foot on the accelerator and kept it
>>>at about 1000 rpms. When it's cold, it idles fine but as soon as it
>>>warms up you can watch the rpms drop and it will die. Restart and
>>>hold the accelerator and its fine. I've read that it could be
>>>clogged fuel filter(s) or something to do with the carb. I don't
>>>have the money to take to someone to have it fixed so, I'll have to
>>>do it myself and I don't have the money to replace this and that.
>>>BTW it's carburated not fuel injected. Any help would be
>>>appreciated. Thanks
>>
>>
>>When the engine is cold, it runs at higher rpm until the Fast Idle
>>Unloader pulls the fast idle cam. From what i understand, in 86-89
>>accord carbureted, the FIU is controled by a thermo valve. It seems to
>>be working, changing idle speed as the engine temp changes .
>>
>>The problem is that now the FIU has pulled the cam, then the idle
>>speed depends on the throttle stop screw and throttle cable (TC). A TC
>>hardly needs adjustment but the throttle stop screw is susceptible to
>>shocks and vibrations if not secured properly. I would suggest an
>>adjustment of this item. No tools required ( tool-free style screw)
>>
>>If you can get the desired idle speed after adjusting this, then make
>>sure that the throttle cable has enough free play (deflection)
>>
>>If all fail, then you may need to take a look at the idle mixture
>>screw, but that should be best let to a shop.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Could be that...
>
> Could also simply be plugged idle jets.
>
> The throttle plate is held slightly open when cold, then is allowed to
> close as the engine reaches full op temperature. This means the idle
> jets don't control idle until the throttle is fully closed, which is
> just about the time the car stalls.
>
> When the OP holds the throttle open, he is shutting down the idle jet
> and using other fuel delivery paths, which are not blocked.
>
> If plugged jets are in fact the problem, some compressed air down the
> idle speed screw hole should cure that fairly cheaply. Clean the gum and
> sediment out of the float bowl as well.
>


Or... (This is a shot in the dark here), it could be a malfunctioning
idle cutoff valve.

JT

Tegger wrote:



> Sure it's a poor design. All feedback carbs are poor designs. And your
> friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated bizarre and
> unnatural complications into what used to be a very simple device. The EPA
> is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since 1989.
>
>



Don't get me started.
Don't get me started.
Don't get me started.
Don't get me started.
Don't get me started.

JT

(Who would love to find real EN1 and EM1 engines...)

jim beam wrote:

> Tegger wrote:
>
>> dan > wrote in :
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Gee, I should have thought of opening the hood in stop and go traffic,
>>> jumping out and jambing a lead from a VOM meter into the "slow mixture
>>> valve", which I was careful to call the "primary slow mixture cut-off
>>> solenoid valve" as in the factory service manual, IN TRAFFIC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You could simply put the front end up on stands, you know.
>>
>> M.A. Stewart has some pretty good advice. I'd forgot about that
>> solenoid, not having much experience with feedback carbs.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It was INTERMITTENT! Meaning it would happen when the car was warm,
>>> and when
>>> I would least expect it to happen. As the OP said, it only happens
>>> when the car is warmed up, or in other words, in TRAFFIC!
>>>
>>> It's an intermittent ground. They don't like to do bad things when
>>> you're watching.
>>>
>>> I think it is actually a poor design. But that's moot since no Honda
>>> has had a carburetor for at least 15 years? (?).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sure it's a poor design. All feedback carbs are poor designs. And your
>> friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated bizarre
>> and unnatural complications into what used to be a very simple device.
>
>
> that's a bad thing. however...
>
>
>> The EPA is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since 1989.
>
>
> 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.

That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After
that milestone, things REALLY got complicated.

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>
>>> dan > wrote in :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Gee, I should have thought of opening the hood in stop and go traffic,
>>>> jumping out and jambing a lead from a VOM meter into the "slow mixture
>>>> valve", which I was careful to call the "primary slow mixture
>>>> cut-off solenoid valve" as in the factory service manual, IN TRAFFIC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You could simply put the front end up on stands, you know.
>>>
>>> M.A. Stewart has some pretty good advice. I'd forgot about that
>>> solenoid, not having much experience with feedback carbs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It was INTERMITTENT! Meaning it would happen when the car was warm,
>>>> and when
>>>> I would least expect it to happen. As the OP said, it only happens
>>>> when the car is warmed up, or in other words, in TRAFFIC!
>>>>
>>>> It's an intermittent ground. They don't like to do bad things when
>>>> you're watching.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is actually a poor design. But that's moot since no
>>>> Honda has had a carburetor for at least 15 years? (?).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure it's a poor design. All feedback carbs are poor designs. And
>>> your friendly federal EPA is the felon here, for having mandated
>>> bizarre and unnatural complications into what used to be a very
>>> simple device.
>>
>>
>> that's a bad thing. however...
>>
>>
>>> The EPA is the reason no American/Canadian car has had a carb since
>>> 1989.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> That's exactly why my cutoff date for Honda ownership is 1983. After
> that milestone, things REALLY got complicated.
>

poppycock yourself. as a guy that can strip, clean, repair and
calibrate pretty much any carb you care to put in front of me, i'll take
electronic injection any day. for regular form and function, carbs just
can't compete.

the only exception i'd give you in that is racing - a pair of dcoe40
weber's at full throttle are quite excellent.

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.

>
> 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.