(Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
> for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
> with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>
Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
its front bumper.
Mike
news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
> for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
> with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>
Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
its front bumper.
Mike
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
> that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
> series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
> manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
> running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
> responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>
I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
is relative....
Mike
news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
> that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
> series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
> manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
> running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
> responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>
I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
is relative....
Mike
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
> that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
> series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
> manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
> running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
> responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>
I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
is relative....
Mike
news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
> that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
> series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
> manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
> running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
> responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>
I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
is relative....
Mike
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
> that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
> series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
> manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
> running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
> responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>
I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
is relative....
Mike
news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
> that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
> series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
> manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
> running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
> responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>
I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
is relative....
Mike
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
> news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
>>that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
>>series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
>>manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
>>running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
>>responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>>
>
>
> I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
> 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
> is relative....
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I had a '71 145 for a while: rusty body but the best suspension I'd
even driven. No, it wasn't a powerhouse, but I still think they should
have done what they did with the P1800, and put a higher final gearing
on the 4 speeds... Another interssting factoid: the 4 speed P1800S was
faster than the 5 speed, precisely because they had a higher final
gearing, and would redline at 120 in 4th. The 5 speed would top out at
about 110 in 4th, and go no faster in O/D.
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
> news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
>>that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
>>series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
>>manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
>>running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
>>responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>>
>
>
> I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
> 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
> is relative....
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I had a '71 145 for a while: rusty body but the best suspension I'd
even driven. No, it wasn't a powerhouse, but I still think they should
have done what they did with the P1800, and put a higher final gearing
on the 4 speeds... Another interssting factoid: the 4 speed P1800S was
faster than the 5 speed, precisely because they had a higher final
gearing, and would redline at 120 in 4th. The 5 speed would top out at
about 110 in 4th, and go no faster in O/D.
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
> news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
>>that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
>>series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
>>manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
>>running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
>>responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>>
>
>
> I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
> 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
> is relative....
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I had a '71 145 for a while: rusty body but the best suspension I'd
even driven. No, it wasn't a powerhouse, but I still think they should
have done what they did with the P1800, and put a higher final gearing
on the 4 speeds... Another interssting factoid: the 4 speed P1800S was
faster than the 5 speed, precisely because they had a higher final
gearing, and would redline at 120 in 4th. The 5 speed would top out at
about 110 in 4th, and go no faster in O/D.
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
> news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
>>that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
>>series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
>>manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
>>running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
>>responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>>
>
>
> I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
> 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
> is relative....
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I had a '71 145 for a while: rusty body but the best suspension I'd
even driven. No, it wasn't a powerhouse, but I still think they should
have done what they did with the P1800, and put a higher final gearing
on the 4 speeds... Another interssting factoid: the 4 speed P1800S was
faster than the 5 speed, precisely because they had a higher final
gearing, and would redline at 120 in 4th. The 5 speed would top out at
about 110 in 4th, and go no faster in O/D.
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
> news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
>>that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
>>series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
>>manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
>>running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
>>responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>>
>
>
> I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
> 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
> is relative....
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I had a '71 145 for a while: rusty body but the best suspension I'd
even driven. No, it wasn't a powerhouse, but I still think they should
have done what they did with the P1800, and put a higher final gearing
on the 4 speeds... Another interssting factoid: the 4 speed P1800S was
faster than the 5 speed, precisely because they had a higher final
gearing, and would redline at 120 in 4th. The 5 speed would top out at
about 110 in 4th, and go no faster in O/D.
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
> news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08...
>
>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one
>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for
>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at
>>that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140
>>series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the
>>manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be
>>running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be
>>responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
>>
>
>
> I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around
> 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness
> is relative....
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I had a '71 145 for a while: rusty body but the best suspension I'd
even driven. No, it wasn't a powerhouse, but I still think they should
have done what they did with the P1800, and put a higher final gearing
on the 4 speeds... Another interssting factoid: the 4 speed P1800S was
faster than the 5 speed, precisely because they had a higher final
gearing, and would redline at 120 in 4th. The 5 speed would top out at
about 110 in 4th, and go no faster in O/D.
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>>for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>>with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and was
glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to replace
a mounting bracket or two.
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>>for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>>with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and was
glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to replace
a mounting bracket or two.
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>>for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>>with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and was
glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to replace
a mounting bracket or two.
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>>for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>>with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and was
glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to replace
a mounting bracket or two.
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>>for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>>with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and was
glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to replace
a mounting bracket or two.
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>>for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>>with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and was
glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to replace
a mounting bracket or two.
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: '86 Civic Si for Sale
Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:03:25 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>
>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHOA! Very Nice!
>>>
>>>If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested! Right now
>>>I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.
>>>
>>>I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!
>>>
>>>And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
>>>used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
>>>ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A somewhat similar '86 was up on Ebay last month: nicer body but
>>original clutch, which must be worn. It was also the least desirable color
>>- white. The bidding stopped at $2500, the reserve not met. I may go that
>>route, and put up a 'buy it now' price of $1995. People don't seem to
>>appreciate these cars enough around here. Anyway, if anyone here wants to
>>buy it and restore it, or at least treat it gently, I'm flexible on the
>>price, as long as it's cash. The biggest problem with the car is a
>>driver's side rainwater leak that the dealers could never even find, much
>>less fix...
>>
>> I'm still amazed that this 91HP car would outdrag the 125 HP EX
>>Sedan I replaced it with.
>
>
>
> If I ever get a real job again...
>
> Can I fit a matress in it?
Maybe a kid's mattress. I've tried to sleep in the car, and it's
about 1' too short.
>
> I have an '85 Corolla GTS (I'd like to put them up against each other...)
I think the GTS would win. 16 valves and, what, 120HP? vs 12 valves
and 91HP, in a body only slightly heavier. But with the set of
Bridgestones I ran for 9 years, I think my car would have won in the
corners.
> an '88 Supra
> an '89 Mazda 626
> an '89 Subaru GL Hatch
> and an '05 Scion tC.
>
> I got told "One more friggin car, and it better be something you can
> *sleep* in!"
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:03:25 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>
>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHOA! Very Nice!
>>>
>>>If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested! Right now
>>>I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.
>>>
>>>I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!
>>>
>>>And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
>>>used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
>>>ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A somewhat similar '86 was up on Ebay last month: nicer body but
>>original clutch, which must be worn. It was also the least desirable color
>>- white. The bidding stopped at $2500, the reserve not met. I may go that
>>route, and put up a 'buy it now' price of $1995. People don't seem to
>>appreciate these cars enough around here. Anyway, if anyone here wants to
>>buy it and restore it, or at least treat it gently, I'm flexible on the
>>price, as long as it's cash. The biggest problem with the car is a
>>driver's side rainwater leak that the dealers could never even find, much
>>less fix...
>>
>> I'm still amazed that this 91HP car would outdrag the 125 HP EX
>>Sedan I replaced it with.
>
>
>
> If I ever get a real job again...
>
> Can I fit a matress in it?
Maybe a kid's mattress. I've tried to sleep in the car, and it's
about 1' too short.
>
> I have an '85 Corolla GTS (I'd like to put them up against each other...)
I think the GTS would win. 16 valves and, what, 120HP? vs 12 valves
and 91HP, in a body only slightly heavier. But with the set of
Bridgestones I ran for 9 years, I think my car would have won in the
corners.
> an '88 Supra
> an '89 Mazda 626
> an '89 Subaru GL Hatch
> and an '05 Scion tC.
>
> I got told "One more friggin car, and it better be something you can
> *sleep* in!"
>
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: '86 Civic Si for Sale
Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:03:25 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>
>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHOA! Very Nice!
>>>
>>>If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested! Right now
>>>I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.
>>>
>>>I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!
>>>
>>>And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
>>>used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
>>>ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A somewhat similar '86 was up on Ebay last month: nicer body but
>>original clutch, which must be worn. It was also the least desirable color
>>- white. The bidding stopped at $2500, the reserve not met. I may go that
>>route, and put up a 'buy it now' price of $1995. People don't seem to
>>appreciate these cars enough around here. Anyway, if anyone here wants to
>>buy it and restore it, or at least treat it gently, I'm flexible on the
>>price, as long as it's cash. The biggest problem with the car is a
>>driver's side rainwater leak that the dealers could never even find, much
>>less fix...
>>
>> I'm still amazed that this 91HP car would outdrag the 125 HP EX
>>Sedan I replaced it with.
>
>
>
> If I ever get a real job again...
>
> Can I fit a matress in it?
Maybe a kid's mattress. I've tried to sleep in the car, and it's
about 1' too short.
>
> I have an '85 Corolla GTS (I'd like to put them up against each other...)
I think the GTS would win. 16 valves and, what, 120HP? vs 12 valves
and 91HP, in a body only slightly heavier. But with the set of
Bridgestones I ran for 9 years, I think my car would have won in the
corners.
> an '88 Supra
> an '89 Mazda 626
> an '89 Subaru GL Hatch
> and an '05 Scion tC.
>
> I got told "One more friggin car, and it better be something you can
> *sleep* in!"
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:03:25 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>
>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHOA! Very Nice!
>>>
>>>If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested! Right now
>>>I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.
>>>
>>>I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!
>>>
>>>And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
>>>used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
>>>ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A somewhat similar '86 was up on Ebay last month: nicer body but
>>original clutch, which must be worn. It was also the least desirable color
>>- white. The bidding stopped at $2500, the reserve not met. I may go that
>>route, and put up a 'buy it now' price of $1995. People don't seem to
>>appreciate these cars enough around here. Anyway, if anyone here wants to
>>buy it and restore it, or at least treat it gently, I'm flexible on the
>>price, as long as it's cash. The biggest problem with the car is a
>>driver's side rainwater leak that the dealers could never even find, much
>>less fix...
>>
>> I'm still amazed that this 91HP car would outdrag the 125 HP EX
>>Sedan I replaced it with.
>
>
>
> If I ever get a real job again...
>
> Can I fit a matress in it?
Maybe a kid's mattress. I've tried to sleep in the car, and it's
about 1' too short.
>
> I have an '85 Corolla GTS (I'd like to put them up against each other...)
I think the GTS would win. 16 valves and, what, 120HP? vs 12 valves
and 91HP, in a body only slightly heavier. But with the set of
Bridgestones I ran for 9 years, I think my car would have won in the
corners.
> an '88 Supra
> an '89 Mazda 626
> an '89 Subaru GL Hatch
> and an '05 Scion tC.
>
> I got told "One more friggin car, and it better be something you can
> *sleep* in!"
>
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: '86 Civic Si for Sale
Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:03:25 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>
>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHOA! Very Nice!
>>>
>>>If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested! Right now
>>>I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.
>>>
>>>I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!
>>>
>>>And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
>>>used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
>>>ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A somewhat similar '86 was up on Ebay last month: nicer body but
>>original clutch, which must be worn. It was also the least desirable color
>>- white. The bidding stopped at $2500, the reserve not met. I may go that
>>route, and put up a 'buy it now' price of $1995. People don't seem to
>>appreciate these cars enough around here. Anyway, if anyone here wants to
>>buy it and restore it, or at least treat it gently, I'm flexible on the
>>price, as long as it's cash. The biggest problem with the car is a
>>driver's side rainwater leak that the dealers could never even find, much
>>less fix...
>>
>> I'm still amazed that this 91HP car would outdrag the 125 HP EX
>>Sedan I replaced it with.
>
>
>
> If I ever get a real job again...
>
> Can I fit a matress in it?
Maybe a kid's mattress. I've tried to sleep in the car, and it's
about 1' too short.
>
> I have an '85 Corolla GTS (I'd like to put them up against each other...)
I think the GTS would win. 16 valves and, what, 120HP? vs 12 valves
and 91HP, in a body only slightly heavier. But with the set of
Bridgestones I ran for 9 years, I think my car would have won in the
corners.
> an '88 Supra
> an '89 Mazda 626
> an '89 Subaru GL Hatch
> and an '05 Scion tC.
>
> I got told "One more friggin car, and it better be something you can
> *sleep* in!"
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:03:25 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>
>
>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHOA! Very Nice!
>>>
>>>If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested! Right now
>>>I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.
>>>
>>>I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!
>>>
>>>And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and
>>>used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto
>>>ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A somewhat similar '86 was up on Ebay last month: nicer body but
>>original clutch, which must be worn. It was also the least desirable color
>>- white. The bidding stopped at $2500, the reserve not met. I may go that
>>route, and put up a 'buy it now' price of $1995. People don't seem to
>>appreciate these cars enough around here. Anyway, if anyone here wants to
>>buy it and restore it, or at least treat it gently, I'm flexible on the
>>price, as long as it's cash. The biggest problem with the car is a
>>driver's side rainwater leak that the dealers could never even find, much
>>less fix...
>>
>> I'm still amazed that this 91HP car would outdrag the 125 HP EX
>>Sedan I replaced it with.
>
>
>
> If I ever get a real job again...
>
> Can I fit a matress in it?
Maybe a kid's mattress. I've tried to sleep in the car, and it's
about 1' too short.
>
> I have an '85 Corolla GTS (I'd like to put them up against each other...)
I think the GTS would win. 16 valves and, what, 120HP? vs 12 valves
and 91HP, in a body only slightly heavier. But with the set of
Bridgestones I ran for 9 years, I think my car would have won in the
corners.
> an '88 Supra
> an '89 Mazda 626
> an '89 Subaru GL Hatch
> and an '05 Scion tC.
>
> I got told "One more friggin car, and it better be something you can
> *sleep* in!"
>
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>> for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>> with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are
the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of
impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10.
that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and
bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are
completely unyielding.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards,
but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars have
anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. maybe
perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement
pointless" is the deal with the hp.
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>> for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>> with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are
the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of
impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10.
that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and
bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are
completely unyielding.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards,
but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars have
anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. maybe
perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement
pointless" is the deal with the hp.
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>> for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>> with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are
the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of
impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10.
that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and
bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are
completely unyielding.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards,
but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars have
anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. maybe
perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement
pointless" is the deal with the hp.
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't
>> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue
>> for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced,
>> with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue.
>>
>
> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low
> speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest
> have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I
> can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph.
you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are
the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of
impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10.
that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and
bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are
completely unyielding.
>
> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers
> are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually
> passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are
> notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it
> brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers
> its front bumper.
that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards,
but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars have
anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. maybe
perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement
pointless" is the deal with the hp.