Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
> Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:hZomi.4158$225.3840@trndny03...
>>
>>> I was at a gas station/convenience store getting a cuppa and flirting
>>> with
>>> the 20 year olds behind the counter when a Fit came in. At fisrt I
>>> thought
>>> it was an Si and then saw the 4 doors.
>>>
>>> "Nice Car"
>>>
>>> "Honda lied"
>>>
>>> "How so?"
>>>
>>> The guy had driven from Connecticut to near the Vt border at highway
>>> speeds, a trip of 75 miles, and had to put in 2.76 gallons of gas.
>>>
>>> 75/2.76=27.17 MPG HUH?! I get 21 MPG overall with an older Supra that
>>> isn't quite running 100% and has a marginal AT besides!
>>>
>>> I said jokinigly that he should keep his foot out of it! He said he
>>> barely
>>> gets over 30 MPG overall, and since this is his first real trip with the
>>> car he expected to at least be in the high 30's. It wasn't that warm and
>>> he didn't have the AC one when he pulled in for gas.
>>>
>>> Now, with an '87 Corolla Carb'd on a 95 degree day, I got 45 MPG at
>>> 75 MPH
>>> with the AC on full blast, back in the day!
>>>
>>> He also said when it's cold he barely makes it to 28 MPG...
>>
>>
>> Well, since we are talking anecdotal mileage, I should report that so
>> far I have averaged 35.69 MPH with just over 1065 miles. I have a Fit
>> Sport 5 speed manual transmission. I'm always conscious of driving
>> for economy, and I try to time the stoplight, whenever possible and
>> practical. I am more than satisfield with my mileage, but it would be
>> less if I drove with a heavy foot. Consumer Reports averaged 34 MPH
>> overall with their 5 speed.
>>
>> Robert A. Cunningham
>>
>>
>>
>
> I drove a Fit, and it seemed like an OK, car, but the Civic LX
> *automatic* parked next to it was rated at 40mpg highway, while the 5
> speed Fit I drove was rated at 36. I think it's short gearing at fault.
> Ironically, my '95 Civic EX has gearing that is way too tall, but at
> least it gets great mileage...

you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what
rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>JXStern wrote:
><snip for clarity>
>> Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better
>> mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.
>
>they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop
>serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles
>in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets,
>5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.

I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as
repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender
damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of
components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear
quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that
would be totalled in today's steel technology.

I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
weight up than safety. Maybe they can line the seats of a light
weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.

The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!

J.

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>JXStern wrote:
><snip for clarity>
>> Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better
>> mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.
>
>they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop
>serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles
>in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets,
>5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.

I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as
repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender
damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of
components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear
quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that
would be totalled in today's steel technology.

I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
weight up than safety. Maybe they can line the seats of a light
weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.

The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!

J.

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>JXStern wrote:
><snip for clarity>
>> Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better
>> mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.
>
>they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop
>serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles
>in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets,
>5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.

I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as
repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender
damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of
components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear
quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that
would be totalled in today's steel technology.

I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
weight up than safety. Maybe they can line the seats of a light
weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.

The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!

J.

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

JXStern wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> JXStern wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better
>>> mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.
>> they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop
>> serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles
>> in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets,
>> 5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.
>
> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as
> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender
> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of
> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear
> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that
> would be totalled in today's steel technology.

that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is
"good for america"!

>
> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
> weight up than safety.

popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".

> Maybe they can line the seats of a light
> weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.
>
> The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!
>
> J.
>

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

JXStern wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> JXStern wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better
>>> mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.
>> they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop
>> serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles
>> in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets,
>> 5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.
>
> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as
> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender
> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of
> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear
> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that
> would be totalled in today's steel technology.

that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is
"good for america"!

>
> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
> weight up than safety.

popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".

> Maybe they can line the seats of a light
> weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.
>
> The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!
>
> J.
>

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

JXStern wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> JXStern wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better
>>> mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.
>> they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop
>> serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles
>> in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets,
>> 5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.
>
> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as
> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender
> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of
> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear
> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that
> would be totalled in today's steel technology.

that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is
"good for america"!

>
> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
> weight up than safety.

popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".

> Maybe they can line the seats of a light
> weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.
>
> The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!
>
> J.
>

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is "good
> for america"!
>

I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions
were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile,
expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and,
man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working
in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long
for the bumpers to get their failing grade.

Mike

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is "good
> for america"!
>

I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions
were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile,
expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and,
man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working
in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long
for the bumpers to get their failing grade.

Mike

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is "good
> for america"!
>

I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions
were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile,
expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and,
man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working
in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long
for the bumpers to get their failing grade.

Mike

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is "good
>> for america"!
>>
>
> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions
> were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile,
> expensive piece to repair.

i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in
a 10mph collision?


> I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and,
> man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working
> in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long
> for the bumpers to get their failing grade.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is "good
>> for america"!
>>
>
> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions
> were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile,
> expensive piece to repair.

i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in
a 10mph collision?


> I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and,
> man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working
> in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long
> for the bumpers to get their failing grade.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is "good
>> for america"!
>>
>
> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions
> were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile,
> expensive piece to repair.

i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in
a 10mph collision?


> I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and,
> man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working
> in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long
> for the bumpers to get their failing grade.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
>>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
>>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is
>>> "good for america"!
>>>
>>
>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
>> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
>> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of
>> collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another
>> fragile, expensive piece to repair.
>
> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a
> 10mph collision?
>

Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw
had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of
today's bumpers.

The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over
those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.

Mike

Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
>>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
>>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is
>>> "good for america"!
>>>
>>
>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
>> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
>> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of
>> collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another
>> fragile, expensive piece to repair.
>
> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a
> 10mph collision?
>

Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw
had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of
today's bumpers.

The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over
those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.

Mike