|
Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
|
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway. Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway. Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway. Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Henry wrote:
> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote: >> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> > > > My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and > its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in > western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly > busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power > steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, > air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. > > That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic > converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto > transmission got 30mpg on the highway. > > Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold > up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. > > It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the > last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... I would think not. The Fit has 109 HP and air conditioning. It's mileage is 34/28 though. Jeff |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Henry wrote:
> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote: >> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> > > > My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and > its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in > western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly > busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power > steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, > air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. > > That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic > converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto > transmission got 30mpg on the highway. > > Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold > up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. > > It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the > last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... I would think not. The Fit has 109 HP and air conditioning. It's mileage is 34/28 though. Jeff |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Henry wrote:
> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote: >> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> > > > My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and > its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in > western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly > busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power > steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, > air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. > > That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic > converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto > transmission got 30mpg on the highway. > > Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold > up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. > > It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the > last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... I would think not. The Fit has 109 HP and air conditioning. It's mileage is 34/28 though. Jeff |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
in article RpHyi.4513$z83.3452@trndny09, Jeff at kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
wrote on 8/21/07 3:54 PM: > Henry wrote: >> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote: >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >>> >> >> >> My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and >> its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in >> western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly >> busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power >> steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, >> air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. >> >> That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic >> converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto >> transmission got 30mpg on the highway. >> >> Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold >> up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. >> >> It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the >> last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... > > I would think not. The Fit has 109 HP and air conditioning. > > It's mileage is 34/28 though. > > Jeff What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because he's lonesome??? |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
in article RpHyi.4513$z83.3452@trndny09, Jeff at kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
wrote on 8/21/07 3:54 PM: > Henry wrote: >> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote: >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >>> >> >> >> My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and >> its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in >> western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly >> busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power >> steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, >> air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. >> >> That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic >> converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto >> transmission got 30mpg on the highway. >> >> Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold >> up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. >> >> It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the >> last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... > > I would think not. The Fit has 109 HP and air conditioning. > > It's mileage is 34/28 though. > > Jeff What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because he's lonesome??? |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
in article RpHyi.4513$z83.3452@trndny09, Jeff at kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
wrote on 8/21/07 3:54 PM: > Henry wrote: >> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote: >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >>> >> >> >> My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and >> its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in >> western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly >> busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power >> steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, >> air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. >> >> That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic >> converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto >> transmission got 30mpg on the highway. >> >> Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold >> up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. >> >> It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the >> last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... > > I would think not. The Fit has 109 HP and air conditioning. > > It's mileage is 34/28 though. > > Jeff What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because he's lonesome??? |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
I bought one of these used in 1982. It was a fun little death trap to go
back and forth to work in. Had a manual choke too.....only car I ever owned that had a manual choke. The milage was around 30 or so. Not bad considering the drive was about 10 miles each way with at least 10 red lights. Before that I was driving a 72 Malibu 350 V8 that got arounf 12 Mph, so after a little accident I decide to go small. Eventually the cross member under the engine rusted through, making the front end slop a little squirely, so I gave it to a kid needing a car who worked in my brother-in-law's body shop. He bought a new cross member wholesale and drove it good as new after that. At the time, the body shop prices for dealer parts were 20-30% what the cost for private parties like me. I once went to the dealer in the 70s for an lower front end A-frame (only cam with lower ball joint installed). My price was $125. I declined, and mentioned it to my brother-in-law at a birthday party a couple of weeks later. He got it for me for abot $30. <plenty560@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1187712876.876674.309040@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com... > See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
I bought one of these used in 1982. It was a fun little death trap to go
back and forth to work in. Had a manual choke too.....only car I ever owned that had a manual choke. The milage was around 30 or so. Not bad considering the drive was about 10 miles each way with at least 10 red lights. Before that I was driving a 72 Malibu 350 V8 that got arounf 12 Mph, so after a little accident I decide to go small. Eventually the cross member under the engine rusted through, making the front end slop a little squirely, so I gave it to a kid needing a car who worked in my brother-in-law's body shop. He bought a new cross member wholesale and drove it good as new after that. At the time, the body shop prices for dealer parts were 20-30% what the cost for private parties like me. I once went to the dealer in the 70s for an lower front end A-frame (only cam with lower ball joint installed). My price was $125. I declined, and mentioned it to my brother-in-law at a birthday party a couple of weeks later. He got it for me for abot $30. <plenty560@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1187712876.876674.309040@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com... > See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
I bought one of these used in 1982. It was a fun little death trap to go
back and forth to work in. Had a manual choke too.....only car I ever owned that had a manual choke. The milage was around 30 or so. Not bad considering the drive was about 10 miles each way with at least 10 red lights. Before that I was driving a 72 Malibu 350 V8 that got arounf 12 Mph, so after a little accident I decide to go small. Eventually the cross member under the engine rusted through, making the front end slop a little squirely, so I gave it to a kid needing a car who worked in my brother-in-law's body shop. He bought a new cross member wholesale and drove it good as new after that. At the time, the body shop prices for dealer parts were 20-30% what the cost for private parties like me. I once went to the dealer in the 70s for an lower front end A-frame (only cam with lower ball joint installed). My price was $125. I declined, and mentioned it to my brother-in-law at a birthday party a couple of weeks later. He got it for me for abot $30. <plenty560@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1187712876.876674.309040@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com... > See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:14:36 -0700, plenty560 wrote:
> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org These did too: http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1971/image/a71lfp10.jpg http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2lifevan.jpg http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2step.jpg |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:14:36 -0700, plenty560 wrote:
> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org These did too: http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1971/image/a71lfp10.jpg http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2lifevan.jpg http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2step.jpg |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands