mjc13

I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both
deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and
each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was
Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86
not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better
fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry
wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be
noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.

I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
won't change the silly gearing...

jim beam

mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and took
> it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous car
> (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low and
> mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP hatchback.
> It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both deserve
> criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and each of the
> gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was Honda
> thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86 not
> only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better fuel
> economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry wagon
> in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be noted
> that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>
> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
> won't change the silly gearing...

check the weight difference between the two vehicles - the 95 is
/significantly/ heavier. then compare power to weight ratios and you'll
have your answer. that's one of the reasons i sold my 2000 and kept a 89.

that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune properly. good
plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve lash set correct, ignition
timing, timing belt not loose, etc. lots of little things add up.

jim beam

mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and took
> it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous car
> (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low and
> mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP hatchback.
> It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both deserve
> criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and each of the
> gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was Honda
> thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86 not
> only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better fuel
> economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry wagon
> in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be noted
> that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>
> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
> won't change the silly gearing...

check the weight difference between the two vehicles - the 95 is
/significantly/ heavier. then compare power to weight ratios and you'll
have your answer. that's one of the reasons i sold my 2000 and kept a 89.

that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune properly. good
plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve lash set correct, ignition
timing, timing belt not loose, etc. lots of little things add up.

jim beam

mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and took
> it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous car
> (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low and
> mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP hatchback.
> It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both deserve
> criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and each of the
> gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was Honda
> thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86 not
> only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better fuel
> economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry wagon
> in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be noted
> that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>
> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
> won't change the silly gearing...

check the weight difference between the two vehicles - the 95 is
/significantly/ heavier. then compare power to weight ratios and you'll
have your answer. that's one of the reasons i sold my 2000 and kept a 89.

that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune properly. good
plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve lash set correct, ignition
timing, timing belt not loose, etc. lots of little things add up.

mjc13

jim beam wrote:
> mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>> and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although
>> both deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all,
>> and each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What
>> was Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them:
>> the '86 not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much
>> better fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our
>> '95 Camry wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it
>> should be noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an
>> automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is,
>> that won't change the silly gearing...
>
>
> check the weight difference between the two vehicles - the 95 is
> /significantly/ heavier. then compare power to weight ratios and you'll
> have your answer. that's one of the reasons i sold my 2000 and kept a 89.

I figured that, but unless the '95 is more than 30% heavier, it
doesn't make power where it's usable, for no good reason. I'm sure that
in a drag race with both engines redlined, the V-TEC would win. In
everyday driving, however, the little 1.5 Si is *much* more fun, and
quite a bit quicker.


>
> that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune properly. good
> plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve lash set correct, ignition
> timing, timing belt not loose, etc. lots of little things add up.

It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things as needed,
but wasn't proactive. Still, the car starts and runs fine. The only
thing that seems off is a low idle - about 500 RPM. I'm hoping it's the
air filter. The timing belt isn't due until next year, so I'm hoping I
can make due with a tuneup. But then I'm also hoping I can replace the
broken left headlight without dropping the bumper, so I guess I'm just a
wild-eyed optimist!

mjc13

jim beam wrote:
> mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>> and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although
>> both deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all,
>> and each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What
>> was Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them:
>> the '86 not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much
>> better fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our
>> '95 Camry wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it
>> should be noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an
>> automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is,
>> that won't change the silly gearing...
>
>
> check the weight difference between the two vehicles - the 95 is
> /significantly/ heavier. then compare power to weight ratios and you'll
> have your answer. that's one of the reasons i sold my 2000 and kept a 89.

I figured that, but unless the '95 is more than 30% heavier, it
doesn't make power where it's usable, for no good reason. I'm sure that
in a drag race with both engines redlined, the V-TEC would win. In
everyday driving, however, the little 1.5 Si is *much* more fun, and
quite a bit quicker.


>
> that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune properly. good
> plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve lash set correct, ignition
> timing, timing belt not loose, etc. lots of little things add up.

It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things as needed,
but wasn't proactive. Still, the car starts and runs fine. The only
thing that seems off is a low idle - about 500 RPM. I'm hoping it's the
air filter. The timing belt isn't due until next year, so I'm hoping I
can make due with a tuneup. But then I'm also hoping I can replace the
broken left headlight without dropping the bumper, so I guess I'm just a
wild-eyed optimist!

mjc13

jim beam wrote:
> mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>> and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although
>> both deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all,
>> and each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What
>> was Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them:
>> the '86 not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much
>> better fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our
>> '95 Camry wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it
>> should be noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an
>> automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is,
>> that won't change the silly gearing...
>
>
> check the weight difference between the two vehicles - the 95 is
> /significantly/ heavier. then compare power to weight ratios and you'll
> have your answer. that's one of the reasons i sold my 2000 and kept a 89.

I figured that, but unless the '95 is more than 30% heavier, it
doesn't make power where it's usable, for no good reason. I'm sure that
in a drag race with both engines redlined, the V-TEC would win. In
everyday driving, however, the little 1.5 Si is *much* more fun, and
quite a bit quicker.


>
> that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune properly. good
> plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve lash set correct, ignition
> timing, timing belt not loose, etc. lots of little things add up.

It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things as needed,
but wasn't proactive. Still, the car starts and runs fine. The only
thing that seems off is a low idle - about 500 RPM. I'm hoping it's the
air filter. The timing belt isn't due until next year, so I'm hoping I
can make due with a tuneup. But then I'm also hoping I can replace the
broken left headlight without dropping the bumper, so I guess I'm just a
wild-eyed optimist!

Elle

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>
> jim beam wrote:

>> that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune
>> properly. good plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve
>> lash set correct, ignition timing, timing belt not loose,
>> etc. lots of little things add up.
>
> It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things
> as needed, but wasn't proactive.

The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose malfunction
can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's filthy and/or
full of waxy buildup, you may have found the main cause of
the poor mileage.

Elle

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>
> jim beam wrote:

>> that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune
>> properly. good plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve
>> lash set correct, ignition timing, timing belt not loose,
>> etc. lots of little things add up.
>
> It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things
> as needed, but wasn't proactive.

The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose malfunction
can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's filthy and/or
full of waxy buildup, you may have found the main cause of
the poor mileage.

Elle

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>
> jim beam wrote:

>> that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune
>> properly. good plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve
>> lash set correct, ignition timing, timing belt not loose,
>> etc. lots of little things add up.
>
> It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things
> as needed, but wasn't proactive.

The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose malfunction
can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's filthy and/or
full of waxy buildup, you may have found the main cause of
the poor mileage.

mjc13

Elle wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>>that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune
>>>properly. good plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve
>>>lash set correct, ignition timing, timing belt not loose,
>>>etc. lots of little things add up.
>>
>> It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things
>>as needed, but wasn't proactive.
>
>
> The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
> PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
> carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose malfunction
> can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's filthy and/or
> full of waxy buildup, you may have found the main cause of
> the poor mileage.
>
>

Thanks. I'll do that today, if I can get the part. Do I have
to go OEM or can I get one at an auto parts store?

mjc13

Elle wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>>that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune
>>>properly. good plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve
>>>lash set correct, ignition timing, timing belt not loose,
>>>etc. lots of little things add up.
>>
>> It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things
>>as needed, but wasn't proactive.
>
>
> The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
> PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
> carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose malfunction
> can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's filthy and/or
> full of waxy buildup, you may have found the main cause of
> the poor mileage.
>
>

Thanks. I'll do that today, if I can get the part. Do I have
to go OEM or can I get one at an auto parts store?

mjc13

Elle wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>>that said, you need to make sure the 95 is in tune
>>>properly. good plugs, oil, filters, plug leads, valve
>>>lash set correct, ignition timing, timing belt not loose,
>>>etc. lots of little things add up.
>>
>> It probably needs all of that - the owner fixed things
>>as needed, but wasn't proactive.
>
>
> The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
> PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
> carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose malfunction
> can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's filthy and/or
> full of waxy buildup, you may have found the main cause of
> the poor mileage.
>
>

Thanks. I'll do that today, if I can get the part. Do I have
to go OEM or can I get one at an auto parts store?

Elle

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote
>> The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
>> PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
>> carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose
>> malfunction can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's
>> filthy and/or full of waxy buildup, you may have found
>> the main cause of the poor mileage.
>
> Thanks. I'll do that today, if I can get the part. Do I
> have
> to go OEM or can I get one at an auto parts store?

I would buy one OEM. It should run under $25 at the dealer.
Or buy one online for around $17 total using the resources
at http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id9.html. If you
have to wait for the delivery of the online order, then
meanwhile just clean the old PCV valve, maybe in advance
doing the check on it described at the online service manual
site mentioned in my other recent post to you, to see if the
old PCV valve seems to be working, more or less. Chilton's
may also give this test.

The test will not tell if the PCV valve is working
optimally, but it will indicate, more or less, if the valve
has failed completely.

I replaced the original PCV valve on my 91 Civic in 1993
after about 140k miles (not knowing any better prior to this
date). It was chock full of waxy buildup. Fuel mileage shot
up.

By the way, ignition parts such as plugs, wires, distributor
cap, coil, and igniter should be OEM, too. They pay for
themselves in my experience, via longer life.

Elle

"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote
>> The very first thing I would do is remove and inspect the
>> PCV valve, then either discard it or clean with
>> carburetor/PCV cleaner. It's a cheap part whose
>> malfunction can drastically affect fuel mileage. If it's
>> filthy and/or full of waxy buildup, you may have found
>> the main cause of the poor mileage.
>
> Thanks. I'll do that today, if I can get the part. Do I
> have
> to go OEM or can I get one at an auto parts store?

I would buy one OEM. It should run under $25 at the dealer.
Or buy one online for around $17 total using the resources
at http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id9.html. If you
have to wait for the delivery of the online order, then
meanwhile just clean the old PCV valve, maybe in advance
doing the check on it described at the online service manual
site mentioned in my other recent post to you, to see if the
old PCV valve seems to be working, more or less. Chilton's
may also give this test.

The test will not tell if the PCV valve is working
optimally, but it will indicate, more or less, if the valve
has failed completely.

I replaced the original PCV valve on my 91 Civic in 1993
after about 140k miles (not knowing any better prior to this
date). It was chock full of waxy buildup. Fuel mileage shot
up.

By the way, ignition parts such as plugs, wires, distributor
cap, coil, and igniter should be OEM, too. They pay for
themselves in my experience, via longer life.