Abused Rental Cars

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Wow, you sound like a saskatchewan native, or did you recently move there? Good on you for fixing the car.


I'd have a tough time leaving any car alone if it's sitting in my garage with a problem I know about!

Yeah, I'm Saskatchewan born, and have remained here during most of my life.

I agree that driving a car hard isn't inherently abusive. You can care about a piece of mechanical equipment and still use it to its full potential.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Wow, you sound like a saskatchewan native, or did you recently move there? Good on you for fixing the car.


I'd have a tough time leaving any car alone if it's sitting in my garage with a problem I know about!

Yeah, I'm Saskatchewan born, and have remained here during most of my life.

I agree that driving a car hard isn't inherently abusive. You can care about a piece of mechanical equipment and still use it to its full potential.

Within reason, perhaps. But it's what the individual decides what is 'full potential' that gets foggy. For instance, my last performanc car was a Mustang GT. It was built to go fast and had lots of 'potential'. Now if I loaned that car to a friend for a day I would NOT expect him to care for MY vehicle by taking it to it's full 'potential'. That could involve burnouts, full throttle burts, and/or high speed driving over 100mph.
To me, that would be abusive of not only the vehicle.....but way out of line with a vehicle that isn't owned by them.
Point is thus.....if it isn't YOURS, take good care of it.

 

[IndyIan]

It's funny what you get used too. Is WO bouncing off the rev limiter for a second or two abusive? Guys do it all the time in autocross when an up and downshift would waste time. I'm sure its not great for the engine but it doesn't seem to matter that much.
My sister in law co-drove my car at the last autocross and once I got her not to keep trying to turn the steering wheel when it was at full lock I didn't have much worry about it. Her first couple runs were hard on the front tires with alot of understeer but that was it for damage.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Within reason, perhaps. But it's what the individual decides what is 'full potential' that gets foggy. For instance, my last performanc car was a Mustang GT. It was built to go fast and had lots of 'potential'. Now if I loaned that car to a friend for a day I would NOT expect him to care for MY vehicle by taking it to it's full 'potential'. That could involve burnouts, full throttle burts, and/or high speed driving over 100mph.
To me, that would be abusive of not only the vehicle.....but way out of line with a vehicle that isn't owned by them.
Point is thus.....if it isn't YOURS, take good care of it.


To me, that's more abusive of a friendship than it is of the car. If they started powershifting, that's a different story! But I agree that if someone does you a favor and lends you a vehicle, you should avoid doing anything that reduces the life of any parts on the vehicle more than necessary, even if the owner drives that way himself. However, when you rent a car, you're paying good money for use of a portion of the life of a vehicle. I wouldn't do anything that intentionally damages the vehicle, or anything that I wouldn't do to my own vehicle, but if I have to accelerate into traffic, there's a good chance that I'll occasionally do it at full throttle even when it's not necessary. However, most of the time I'm driving for mileage. I don't even have any interest in driving beyond the speed limit on the highway or freeway, and I hate using my brakes, or even downshifting, to stop for red lights.

I just don't think driving fast or using WOT are abusive to a stock vehicle; it's within the limits of their design. Burnouts are certainly abusive to the tires and have never interested me at all, but I don't think using wheelspin to accelerate is abusive. It's just the way to accelerate fastest in most vehicles, and I've never been able to notice any tire wear from the occasional second or so of wheel spin. My tires still have like-new tread, despite many instances where I got a good whiff of my tires as I was accelerating. Better that then slipping the clutch, IMO. But all those things certainly do add more wear than driving the same distance at a leisurely pace.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Within reason, perhaps. But it's what the individual decides what is 'full potential' that gets foggy. For instance, my last performanc car was a Mustang GT. It was built to go fast and had lots of 'potential'. Now if I loaned that car to a friend for a day I would NOT expect him to care for MY vehicle by taking it to it's full 'potential'. That could involve burnouts, full throttle burts, and/or high speed driving over 100mph.
To me, that would be abusive of not only the vehicle.....but way out of line with a vehicle that isn't owned by them.
Point is thus.....if it isn't YOURS, take good care of it.


To me, that's more abusive of a friendship than it is of the car. If they started powershifting, that's a different story! But I agree that if someone does you a favor and lends you a vehicle, you should avoid doing anything that reduces the life of any parts on the vehicle more than necessary, even if the owner drives that way himself. However, when you rent a car, you're paying good money for use of a portion of the life of a vehicle. I wouldn't do anything that intentionally damages the vehicle, or anything that I wouldn't do to my own vehicle, but if I have to accelerate into traffic, there's a good chance that I'll occasionally do it at full throttle even when it's not necessary. However, most of the time I'm driving for mileage. I don't even have any interest in driving beyond the speed limit on the highway or freeway, and I hate using my brakes, or even downshifting, to stop for red lights.

I just don't think driving fast or using WOT are abusive to a stock vehicle; it's within the limits of their design. Burnouts are certainly abusive to the tires and have never interested me at all, but I don't think using wheelspin to accelerate is abusive. It's just the way to accelerate fastest in most vehicles, and I've never been able to notice any tire wear from the occasional second or so of wheel spin. My tires still have like-new tread, despite many instances where I got a good whiff of my tires as I was accelerating. Better that then slipping the clutch, IMO. But all those things certainly do add more wear than driving the same distance at a leisurely pace.

I think we agree more than not. I understand and really don't have an issue with what you would do with a rental.
It's all good, as they say.

 

[mstrjon32]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
I just don't think driving fast or using WOT are abusive to a stock vehicle; it's within the limits of their design. Burnouts are certainly abusive to the tires and have never interested me at all, but I don't think using wheelspin to accelerate is abusive.


I treat rental cars as a treat my own cars. I frequently go WOT in my own cars (sold my last car with 194K running great after literally thousands and thousands of WOT pulls onto the highway) and don't consider that even remotely "abusive."

Now on the other hand, one-wheel burn outs are abusive. 'Parking' an automatic transmission vehicle without setting the parking brake before putting the car into park both dangerous and abusive. Driving with low oil or air pressure is abusive.

Full throttle isn't. If it wasn't made to go that fast the pedal wouldn't go down that far.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: mstrjon32
Originally Posted By: rpn453
I just don't think driving fast or using WOT are abusive to a stock vehicle; it's within the limits of their design. Burnouts are certainly abusive to the tires and have never interested me at all, but I don't think using wheelspin to accelerate is abusive.


I treat rental cars as a treat my own cars. I frequently go WOT in my own cars (sold my last car with 194K running great after literally thousands and thousands of WOT pulls onto the highway) and don't consider that even remotely "abusive."

Now on the other hand, one-wheel burn outs are abusive. 'Parking' an automatic transmission vehicle without setting the parking brake before putting the car into park both dangerous and abusive. Driving with low oil or air pressure is abusive.

Full throttle isn't. If it wasn't made to go that fast the pedal wouldn't go down that far.

I've got to disagree. While an occasional full throttle run isn't particularly abusive, especially while doing it from speeds already above 40mph or so, doing so from lower speeds certainly is. Stresses on the entire driveline/transmission and every other mechanical association become magnified. This produces more wear, and thus.....the vehicle will not last as long. Your average passenger vehicle IS NOT designed to be operated at full throttle for more than the occasional emergency or serious need.
Look at it this way....two used cars are for sale, both are identical in every way including fluid changes. One fella says, 'yes, I drive this car at full throttle nearly every time I pass somebody or get on the highway ramp...after all, the gas pedal DOES go all the way to the floor for a reason'......or the other fella that says, 'I drove this car very conservatively....never flooring unless I had to, you could say I babied it'. Now....being honest here, all things being equal, what car would you be an intelligent person to buy??
My point really all boils down to this (again)....if it ISN'T YOUR CAR, drive it with care and consideration. An occasional full throttle burst (rarely needed in all my years of driving in the Seattle area) is fine....but more than that would be abusive for a vehicle you're only renting. Remember....it IS NOT your vehicle and YOU CAME TO THEM for something YOU DIDN'T HAVE. The responsibility of care IS ON YOU.
Ok, I've rambled on enough.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Your average passenger vehicle IS NOT designed to be operated at full throttle for more than the occasional emergency or serious need.


If true, the average passenger vehicle is poorly designed, IMO. My only related experience is this: '87 Grand Am 2.5L automatic, purchased at 120k miles, killed by oncoming bad driver at 200k miles while still running very well, with thousands of full throttle applications including stop light launches to highway passes, full throttle downshifts at various speeds, and hundreds of 30 second or longer runs at full throttle up mountain grades. Sure, it only had 98 hp and 138 lb-ft, but don't they use stronger components in more powerful vehicles?

 

[brianl703]

Really? It's interesting that my Saab 93 is designed so that it goes into boost (map reads higher than 14.7PSI) during normal acceleration from a stop. (Taller gearing does that). A normally aspirated engine at WOT gets a map reading no higher than roughly 14.7PSI (normal atmospheric pressure)..so you could consider what my Saab 93 is doing when it's in boost as being MORE than WOT. The intake manifold pressure is certainly higher.

Of course...maybe my Saab 93 isn't the average passenger vehicle.

My old car, I would go WOT on that at least once every few days, and it's got 225K on it--I drove it for 100K of those miles. (It still has the original clutch!)

There is this misconception that going WOT is bad for a vehicle.

I'll tell you what's bad for a vehicle--pulling into traffic while driving like a slowpoke. That tends to be rough on the paint job. If you have to go WOT to merge safely onto the highway, then DO IT. Otherwise, take the bus and let a professional handle it.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Really? It's interesting that my Saab 93 is designed so that it goes into boost (map reads higher than 14.7PSI) during normal acceleration from a stop. (Taller gearing does that). A normally aspirated engine at WOT gets a map reading no higher than roughly 14.7PSI (normal atmospheric pressure)..so you could consider what my Saab 93 is doing when it's in boost as being MORE than WOT. The intake manifold pressure is certainly higher.

Of course...maybe my Saab 93 isn't the average passenger vehicle.

My old car, I would go WOT on that at least once every few days, and it's got 225K on it--I drove it for 100K of those miles. (It still has the original clutch!)

There is this misconception that going WOT is bad for a vehicle.

I'll tell you what's bad for a vehicle--pulling into traffic while driving like a slowpoke. That tends to be rough on the paint job. If you have to go WOT to merge safely onto the highway, then DO IT. Otherwise, take the bus and let a professional handle it.



Any reasonable person could assume that going 'WOT' creates more wear on an engine. To think otherwise would be to disregard mechanics and engineering facts. For the sake of not being repetitive about something so obvious, I'll refrain from going further on that particular matter and leave it up to the individuals common sense...or lack of.
Now, the matter of merging in traffic. I would suggest that if one finds it common to need to go 'WOT' when they enter the traffic flow.....perhaps they need to look before merging and find an available merge point instead of being foolish and punching it to get ahead of the next car. I have rarely needed to go 'WOT' when merging....and even when I do it's an even more rare occasion where I need more than 3/4 throttle. Does this make me a 'slowpoke'.....or just somebody that knows how to merge properly? To assume that a person is slow simply because they don't floor it to merge, is simply without thought. Besides my friend, I can't stand slow mergers that cause interuption of traffic flow just as much as the dangerous fools that feel the need to force themselves in front of everybody by going 'WOT'.

 

[brianl703]

Quote:
Any reasonable person could assume that going 'WOT' creates more wear on an engine.


Yes, it does. Does it create enough additional wear on an engine to make a difference? I personally have NEVER junked a car because the engine failed. Many of the engine failures I AM familiar with had *much less* to do with going WOT too often and *much more* to do with being run low on oil and/or the oil not being changed, timing belt failures from not being changed per schedule (causing extensive engine damage), and of course let's not forget cooling system failures resulting in overheating that damages the engine.

Given all that, I'm not sure that going to WOT causes enough wear to really matter in the final analysis.

Can you point me to an example of an engine you believe wore out or failed do to going WOT too often?

This reluctance to go WOT, by the way, reminds me of how the Japanese automakers had to rig the gas pedal so that pushing it 1/4 of the way down would open the throttle 1/2 of the way down.

Wonder why they had to do that.

BTW, the need to use WOT while merging (or anything else) is inversely proportional to the size of the engine(it also depends upon traffic volumes and the length of the acceleration lane, among other things). Perhaps some people feel that they should buy a V8 so they don't need to strain a 4-banger by making it work too hard.

Then again, some put a turbo on a 4-banger and make it work harder than that V8...and it lasts just as long.

Incidentally, I would rather WOT than slow anyone behind me down while merging. That's courtesy.

 

[brianl703]

In fact, I think going WOT on a regular basis is GOOD for an engine.

 

[ViragoBry]

It must be. I drove the h-e-l-l out of my 93 Sundance since the day I drove it off the showroom and it was the most trouble-free car I ever owned.

 

[brianl703]

Then you hear about those cars driven only to church on Sunday that fail spectacularly when they are pushed to WOT...

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Quote:
Any reasonable person could assume that going 'WOT' creates more wear on an engine.


Yes, it does. Does it create enough additional wear on an engine to make a difference? I personally have NEVER junked a car because the engine failed. Many of the engine failures I AM familiar with had *much less* to do with going WOT too often and *much more* to do with being run low on oil and/or the oil not being changed, timing belt failures from not being changed per schedule (causing extensive engine damage), and of course let's not forget cooling system failures resulting in overheating that damages the engine.

Given all that, I'm not sure that going to WOT causes enough wear to really matter in the final analysis.

Can you point me to an example of an engine you believe wore out or failed do to going WOT too often?

This reluctance to go WOT, by the way, reminds me of how the Japanese automakers had to rig the gas pedal so that pushing it 1/4 of the way down would open the throttle 1/2 of the way down.

Wonder why they had to do that.

BTW, the need to use WOT while merging (or anything else) is inversely proportional to the size of the engine(it also depends upon traffic volumes and the length of the acceleration lane, among other things). Perhaps some people feel that they should buy a V8 so they don't need to strain a 4-banger by making it work too hard.

Then again, some put a turbo on a 4-banger and make it work harder than that V8...and it lasts just as long.

Incidentally, I would rather WOT than slow anyone behind me down while merging. That's courtesy.

Firstly, you never answered my question posted earlier about which used car you would by....all things being equal. Without answering that question...the point of the discourse between you and I is useless.

 

[andrewg]

Brian...another point I want to make is your false assumption that I drive slow or impede traffic. I do nothing of the kind. More to the point is why anybody with any driving skill AT ALL would find it common for them to floor it as they merge. The whole point of a MERGE is to blend INTO the traffic flow....not impede it NOR force your way in by going WOT. And I also NEVER stated that going WOT is always a bad thing. However, driving any vehicle on a daily basis while practicing a WOT driving habit is. Simple common sense.

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
More to the point is why anybody with any driving skill AT ALL would find it common for them to floor it as they merge. The whole point of a MERGE is to blend INTO the traffic flow....not impede it NOR force your way in by going WOT.


It really depends on the car. In my old Tercel, for instance, I had to drive a pretty much half throttle on city streets and WOT merging onto the freeway all the time. EDIT: 0-60 in 14 seconds + short, curvy onramps will do that to you...

I will agree that most "modern" cars are plenty powerful and my example is a bit outdated, but I don't see how you can make this kind of judgment without adding context about type of car and type of traffic encountered.

 

[brianl703]

I think I'd rather buy the car where the guy was being honest about how he drove it, figuring that he's being honest about everything else.

The other guy who claims he drove it gently, well, there's no way to prove it, one way or the other, which is true for any other claim he makes about the car which is not backed by documentation.

But this is a useless hypothetical because it never happens in the real world.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Brian...another point I want to make is your false assumption that I drive slow or impede traffic. I do nothing of the kind.


I never made that assumption about you. For all I know you have a 260HP V8 that accelerates harder at 1/2 throttle than a 4-banger does at full throttle.

Quote:
More to the point is why anybody with any driving skill AT ALL would find it common for them to floor it as they merge.


Because they have a car with a small engine and they are trying to merge onto a highway such as I95 with heavy traffic without making everyone else slow down.

Yes, believe it or not, it may be necessary to use more throttle during acceleration when you have a car with a smaller engine!


Quote:
The whole point of a MERGE is to blend INTO the traffic flow....not impede it NOR force your way in by going WOT.


The whole point of a merge is to put your car into a gap large enough to accommodate it without forcing anyone else to speed up or slow down.

If that involves going WOT, then so be it.


Quote:
And I also NEVER stated that going WOT is always a bad thing. However, driving any vehicle on a daily basis while practicing a WOT driving habit is. Simple common sense.


Maybe you'd better quantify how much you think is "too much".

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: rationull
I don't see how you can make this kind of judgment without adding context about type of car and type of traffic encountered.


Neither can I.

Hey, maybe the on-ramps are plenty long wherever he lives, and maybe traffic is plenty light wherever he lives, but that's not the case for much of the eastern 3rd of the country, particularly around the mid-atlantic states which is where *I* do *MY* driving.