|
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 |
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.
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. > I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > 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. > Wrong again. The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > 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... Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user friendly with regard to maintennace. Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... JT |
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. > I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > 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. > Wrong again. The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > 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... Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user friendly with regard to maintennace. Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... JT |
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. > I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > 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. > Wrong again. The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > 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... Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user friendly with regard to maintennace. Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... JT |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:54:30 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> 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. I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it. It had 12" wheels. I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg. Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed 33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe 17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the Civic was great for its time. >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. Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978. >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.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:54:30 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> 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. I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it. It had 12" wheels. I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg. Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed 33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe 17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the Civic was great for its time. >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. Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978. >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.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:54:30 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> 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. I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it. It had 12" wheels. I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg. Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed 33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe 17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the Civic was great for its time. >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. Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978. >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.
my buddy had an 83 civic with Hondamatic. It took my 98 civic 5-spd to
school on more than one occasion. Did better on fuel too. Gordon McGrew wrote: >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> >[quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air >>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. > >I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed >most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty >gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had >two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't >need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it. >It had 12" wheels. > >I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare >occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg. > >Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed >33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine >performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe >17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in >the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the >Civic was great for its time. > >>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. > >Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called >a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two >manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978. > >>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... -- Message posted via CarKB.com http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200708/1 |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
my buddy had an 83 civic with Hondamatic. It took my 98 civic 5-spd to
school on more than one occasion. Did better on fuel too. Gordon McGrew wrote: >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> >[quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air >>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. > >I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed >most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty >gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had >two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't >need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it. >It had 12" wheels. > >I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare >occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg. > >Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed >33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine >performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe >17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in >the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the >Civic was great for its time. > >>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. > >Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called >a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two >manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978. > >>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... -- Message posted via CarKB.com http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200708/1 |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
my buddy had an 83 civic with Hondamatic. It took my 98 civic 5-spd to
school on more than one occasion. Did better on fuel too. Gordon McGrew wrote: >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> >[quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air >>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. > >I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed >most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty >gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had >two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't >need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it. >It had 12" wheels. > >I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare >occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg. > >Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed >33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine >performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe >17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in >the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the >Civic was great for its time. > >>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. > >Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called >a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two >manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978. > >>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... -- Message posted via CarKB.com http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200708/1 |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
"Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net... > What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because > he's lonesome??? > > He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just the National Enquirer beat. Mike |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
"Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net... > What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because > he's lonesome??? > > He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just the National Enquirer beat. Mike |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
"Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net... > What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because > he's lonesome??? > > He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just the National Enquirer beat. Mike |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Michael Pardee wrote on 8/22/07 7:20 PM:
> "Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net... > >> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because >> he's lonesome??? >> >> > He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just > the National Enquirer beat. > > Mike > > > I've noticed that since they've closed the "institutions", there are more of these OT cross-posters everyday....... Most of them are the "political whackos" who devote their lives trying to make up catchy derogatory titles for anyone who disagrees with them....... |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Michael Pardee wrote on 8/22/07 7:20 PM:
> "Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net... > >> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because >> he's lonesome??? >> >> > He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just > the National Enquirer beat. > > Mike > > > I've noticed that since they've closed the "institutions", there are more of these OT cross-posters everyday....... Most of them are the "political whackos" who devote their lives trying to make up catchy derogatory titles for anyone who disagrees with them....... |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Michael Pardee wrote on 8/22/07 7:20 PM:
> "Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net... > >> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because >> he's lonesome??? >> >> > He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just > the National Enquirer beat. > > Mike > > > I've noticed that since they've closed the "institutions", there are more of these OT cross-posters everyday....... Most of them are the "political whackos" who devote their lives trying to make up catchy derogatory titles for anyone who disagrees with them....... |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >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. >> > >I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. > >It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The >lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars >with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. > >Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > > >> 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. >> > >Wrong again. > >The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got >nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > > >> 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... > >Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user >friendly with regard to maintennace. > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had already gotten a lot better by 1983. Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly come off the SUV rose. |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >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. >> > >I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. > >It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The >lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars >with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. > >Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > > >> 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. >> > >Wrong again. > >The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got >nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > > >> 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... > >Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user >friendly with regard to maintennace. > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had already gotten a lot better by 1983. Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly come off the SUV rose. |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >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. >> > >I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. > >It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The >lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars >with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. > >Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > > >> 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. >> > >Wrong again. > >The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got >nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > > >> 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... > >Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user >friendly with regard to maintennace. > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had already gotten a lot better by 1983. Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly come off the SUV rose. |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Gordon McGrew wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >> >>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. >>> >> >>I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. >> >>It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The >>lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars >>with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. >> >>Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. >> >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >>Wrong again. >> >>The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got >>nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! >> >> >> >>>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... >> >>Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user >>friendly with regard to maintennace. >> >>Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... > > > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. > My first Honda was a '76 CVCC and I regularly got in the high 30's mpg on trips. Never less than 30 mpg and it was great in the snow, (I lived in RI at the time). Finally had to take it off the road in the late 1980's becuase of terminal rust. Mechanicals were fine at 160K. > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had > already gotten a lot better by 1983. > > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly > come off the SUV rose. > > The generation 2 Civics were bigger and in the US, all were CVCC. In fact the 1300 was simply the old 1200 block with a CVCC head. In '82 & '83, the FE (Fuel Efficient) had super thin rings and other attributes that yields better than 40 mpg in town and near 60 mpg on the highway. And don't let the thin (1mm top, 1.2mm 2nd) fool you, those cars if maintained properly would easily go 300K without major repairs. JT |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Gordon McGrew wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >> >>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. >>> >> >>I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. >> >>It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The >>lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars >>with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. >> >>Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. >> >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >>Wrong again. >> >>The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got >>nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! >> >> >> >>>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... >> >>Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user >>friendly with regard to maintennace. >> >>Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... > > > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. > My first Honda was a '76 CVCC and I regularly got in the high 30's mpg on trips. Never less than 30 mpg and it was great in the snow, (I lived in RI at the time). Finally had to take it off the road in the late 1980's becuase of terminal rust. Mechanicals were fine at 160K. > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had > already gotten a lot better by 1983. > > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly > come off the SUV rose. > > The generation 2 Civics were bigger and in the US, all were CVCC. In fact the 1300 was simply the old 1200 block with a CVCC head. In '82 & '83, the FE (Fuel Efficient) had super thin rings and other attributes that yields better than 40 mpg in town and near 60 mpg on the highway. And don't let the thin (1mm top, 1.2mm 2nd) fool you, those cars if maintained properly would easily go 300K without major repairs. JT |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Gordon McGrew wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >> >>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. >>> >> >>I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. >> >>It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The >>lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars >>with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. >> >>Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. >> >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >>Wrong again. >> >>The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got >>nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! >> >> >> >>>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... >> >>Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user >>friendly with regard to maintennace. >> >>Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... > > > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. > My first Honda was a '76 CVCC and I regularly got in the high 30's mpg on trips. Never less than 30 mpg and it was great in the snow, (I lived in RI at the time). Finally had to take it off the road in the late 1980's becuase of terminal rust. Mechanicals were fine at 160K. > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had > already gotten a lot better by 1983. > > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly > come off the SUV rose. > > The generation 2 Civics were bigger and in the US, all were CVCC. In fact the 1300 was simply the old 1200 block with a CVCC head. In '82 & '83, the FE (Fuel Efficient) had super thin rings and other attributes that yields better than 40 mpg in town and near 60 mpg on the highway. And don't let the thin (1mm top, 1.2mm 2nd) fool you, those cars if maintained properly would easily go 300K without major repairs. JT |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated
5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg highway when driven a constant 65 mph - a truly great combination of utility and economy. I averaged 27 mpg in the city, a bit better than my current 2006 Scion tC. I don't think cars have come very far at all in the last 20 years economy-wise. On Aug 22, 8:14 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > > > > > > <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >Henry wrote: > >> plenty...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> See the 1978 ad viahttp://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. > > >I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. > > >It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The > >lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars > >with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. > > >Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > > >> 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. > > >Wrong again. > > >The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got > >nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > > >> 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... > > >Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user > >friendly with regard to maintennace. > > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... > > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. > > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had > already gotten a lot better by 1983. > > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly > come off the SUV rose.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated
5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg highway when driven a constant 65 mph - a truly great combination of utility and economy. I averaged 27 mpg in the city, a bit better than my current 2006 Scion tC. I don't think cars have come very far at all in the last 20 years economy-wise. On Aug 22, 8:14 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > > > > > > <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > >Henry wrote: > >> plenty...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> See the 1978 ad viahttp://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. > > >I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. > > >It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The > >lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars > >with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. > > >Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > > >> 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. > > >Wrong again. > > >The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got > >nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > > >> 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... > > >Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user > >friendly with regard to maintennace. > > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... > > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. > > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had > already gotten a lot better by 1983. > > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly > come off the SUV rose.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Aug 23, 10:00 am, Mark <bogusmailm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated > 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg > highway when driven a constant 65 mph - a truly great combination of > utility and economy. I averaged 27 mpg in the city, a bit better than > my current 2006 Scion tC. I don't think cars have come very far at > all in the last 20 years economy-wise. > > On Aug 22, 8:14 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > > > <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: > > > >Henry wrote: > > >> plenty...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >>> See the 1978 ad viahttp://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. > > > >I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. > > > >It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The > > >lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars > > >with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. > > > >Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > > > >> 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. > > > >Wrong again. > > > >The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got > > >nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > > > >> 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... > > > >Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user > > >friendly with regard to maintennace. > > > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... > > > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my > > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have > > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. > > > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't > > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy > > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern > > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust > > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had > > already gotten a lot better by 1983. > > > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are > > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater > > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel > > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly > > come off the SUV rose.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I borrowed a new Honda Fit (with a stick) from a buddy for a weekend. I liked the sporty engine feel. However, I got worse milage than on a 2003 4-cyl accord. The Fit needs another gear for highway cruising because I never got better than 6.7 -6.8 L/100Km at 100Km/hr. I am shocked. That's very bad gearing for that car. maybe Honda should have offered a gear option for the buyer. I'd never buy the Fit unless it consumed 5l/100km or less. I read that most people are getting their milage in at 30-40Miles per galon on other honda cars. That's crappy milage. Are they driving with high friction tires, maybe winter tires. I have a higher milage 2003 accord (~ 200,000 miles) and I am getting almost 50Miles per gallon (Canadian gallons) 5.8l/100km at 100Km/hr. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands