|
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net: > "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 > > > > One of my neighbors had a rear end collision,and the bumper bar underneath was mounted on crushable spacer brackets;the bar withstood the crash,but the spacers need to be replaced,along with the urethane plastic bumper cover.(that was already removed when I saw the car) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:39:58 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
> The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile, > expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and, > man, were they ugly! But a lot of carmakers, esp the Japanese, responded quickly and designed the *car* around the *bumper*. My 1978 Corolla looked kind of awkward with these big bumpers 'tacked on' to it, the 1980 that replaced it was nice!! |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:39:58 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
> The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile, > expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and, > man, were they ugly! But a lot of carmakers, esp the Japanese, responded quickly and designed the *car* around the *bumper*. My 1978 Corolla looked kind of awkward with these big bumpers 'tacked on' to it, the 1980 that replaced it was nice!! |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:39:58 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
> The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile, > expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and, > man, were they ugly! But a lot of carmakers, esp the Japanese, responded quickly and designed the *car* around the *bumper*. My 1978 Corolla looked kind of awkward with these big bumpers 'tacked on' to it, the 1980 that replaced it was nice!! |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers (was: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>> 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 >> >> >> > My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) Where are you? |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers (was: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>> 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 >> >> >> > My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) Where are you? |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers (was: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>> 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 >> >> >> > My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) Where are you? |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net: > "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. Canada is the only country in the world that has 5mph bumpers (and one of only TWO countries in the world with any sort of bumper standards at all). There are no hydraulic rams anymore, just styrofoam atop a rigidly- mounted steel beam. The rams were too heavy and were a casualty of CAFE- derived weight-saving measures. > > 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. > The whole point of the energy absorbing bumpers was to protect the car's "safety systems" from damage in a collision at that speed. "Safety systems" primarily means the headlights. The automakers were able to have the US standard reduced in the mid-'80s because they were able to show that there wasn't much practical difference in damage between 2.5mph and 5mph bumpers. 2.5mph bumpers were supposed to be able to be less costly to produce and carry less of a weight penalty. Also, rigid bumpers tend to carry more of the stress of the collision to the body shell, meaning damage is more likely to go deeper than just the cosmetic. The old non-impact bumpers tended to keep the damage out at the cosmetic sheet metal. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net: > "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. Canada is the only country in the world that has 5mph bumpers (and one of only TWO countries in the world with any sort of bumper standards at all). There are no hydraulic rams anymore, just styrofoam atop a rigidly- mounted steel beam. The rams were too heavy and were a casualty of CAFE- derived weight-saving measures. > > 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. > The whole point of the energy absorbing bumpers was to protect the car's "safety systems" from damage in a collision at that speed. "Safety systems" primarily means the headlights. The automakers were able to have the US standard reduced in the mid-'80s because they were able to show that there wasn't much practical difference in damage between 2.5mph and 5mph bumpers. 2.5mph bumpers were supposed to be able to be less costly to produce and carry less of a weight penalty. Also, rigid bumpers tend to carry more of the stress of the collision to the body shell, meaning damage is more likely to go deeper than just the cosmetic. The old non-impact bumpers tended to keep the damage out at the cosmetic sheet metal. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net: > "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. Canada is the only country in the world that has 5mph bumpers (and one of only TWO countries in the world with any sort of bumper standards at all). There are no hydraulic rams anymore, just styrofoam atop a rigidly- mounted steel beam. The rams were too heavy and were a casualty of CAFE- derived weight-saving measures. > > 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. > The whole point of the energy absorbing bumpers was to protect the car's "safety systems" from damage in a collision at that speed. "Safety systems" primarily means the headlights. The automakers were able to have the US standard reduced in the mid-'80s because they were able to show that there wasn't much practical difference in damage between 2.5mph and 5mph bumpers. 2.5mph bumpers were supposed to be able to be less costly to produce and carry less of a weight penalty. Also, rigid bumpers tend to carry more of the stress of the collision to the body shell, meaning damage is more likely to go deeper than just the cosmetic. The old non-impact bumpers tended to keep the damage out at the cosmetic sheet metal. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote: > > >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) > > > > Where are you? > Upstate NY. Here's the as: http://albany.craigslist.org/car/345979338.html |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote: > > >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) > > > > Where are you? > Upstate NY. Here's the as: http://albany.craigslist.org/car/345979338.html |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote: > > >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) > > > > Where are you? > Upstate NY. Here's the as: http://albany.craigslist.org/car/345979338.html |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:JYidnT1B84vlXAfbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > 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? Well, I'm not the guy that you posted the question to about the RPMs at 70 MPH, but I purposely ran my Fit up to 70MPH, which is not easy to do on L.A.'s crowded freeways, and the tachometer indicates around 3,400 RPM at 70 MPH. My Fit is a 5 speed manual transmission. Hope this helps. Robert A. Cunningham |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:JYidnT1B84vlXAfbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > 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? Well, I'm not the guy that you posted the question to about the RPMs at 70 MPH, but I purposely ran my Fit up to 70MPH, which is not easy to do on L.A.'s crowded freeways, and the tachometer indicates around 3,400 RPM at 70 MPH. My Fit is a 5 speed manual transmission. Hope this helps. Robert A. Cunningham |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands