Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
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...
> 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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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...
> 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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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...
> 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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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???
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???
Guest
Posts: n/a
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???
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???
Guest
Posts: n/a
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???
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???
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>
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
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>
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
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>
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
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
