Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
>> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
>> that is a part of the package?
>>
>> Still in your 20s I take it?
>
> Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
> to economy.

there are v-tecs that do this, but the si isn't one of them - it's
simply tuned for performance. look at an ex if you're more economy
oriented.

> The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
> sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
> lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
> of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
> city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
> vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
> anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
> likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
> I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
> all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
> past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
> and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
> happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
> possible (like the old folks that we are!).
>

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
>> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
>> that is a part of the package?
>>
>> Still in your 20s I take it?
>
> Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
> to economy.

there are v-tecs that do this, but the si isn't one of them - it's
simply tuned for performance. look at an ex if you're more economy
oriented.

> The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
> sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
> lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
> of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
> city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
> vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
> anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
> likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
> I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
> all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
> past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
> and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
> happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
> possible (like the old folks that we are!).
>

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:

> Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
> to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
> sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
> lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
> of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
> city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
> vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
> anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
> likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
> I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
> all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
> past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
> and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
> happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
> possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Si is a wrong car for trundling along in an unobtrusive and economical
manner.
There are plenty of cars with fscked up gearing.
My 05 Impreza is one of them. You can't have both economy and fun.
Suggest to leave the Si alone and get one of fscked up cars like
the mundane Civic (EX/LX/DX/etc).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:

> Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
> to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
> sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
> lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
> of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
> city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
> vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
> anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
> likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
> I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
> all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
> past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
> and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
> happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
> possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Si is a wrong car for trundling along in an unobtrusive and economical
manner.
There are plenty of cars with fscked up gearing.
My 05 Impreza is one of them. You can't have both economy and fun.
Suggest to leave the Si alone and get one of fscked up cars like
the mundane Civic (EX/LX/DX/etc).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:

> Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
> to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
> sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
> lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
> of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
> city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
> vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
> anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
> likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
> I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
> all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
> past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
> and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
> happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
> possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Si is a wrong car for trundling along in an unobtrusive and economical
manner.
There are plenty of cars with fscked up gearing.
My 05 Impreza is one of them. You can't have both economy and fun.
Suggest to leave the Si alone and get one of fscked up cars like
the mundane Civic (EX/LX/DX/etc).