Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
08-22-2007, 07:50 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.......
> "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.......
08-22-2007, 08:14 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
<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.
08-22-2007, 08:14 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
<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.
08-22-2007, 08:14 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
<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.
08-22-2007, 10:07 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
08-22-2007, 10:07 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
08-22-2007, 10:07 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
08-23-2007, 10:00 AM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 -
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 -
08-23-2007, 10:00 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 -
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 -
08-23-2007, 03:27 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
08-23-2007, 03:27 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
08-23-2007, 10:27 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:14:41 -0500, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
><Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Henry wrote:
>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.
>
I don't know about less fuel economy. When I was young and foolish, I
made a very smart decision for all the wrong reasons. It still amazes
me, but in 1965 I bought a used 1964 Corvair Mazda. It had manual
everything and a 110 hp, 6 cy boxer engine. And it got almost 30 mpg
at 65 mph and would run over 100 mph.
It was easy to work on, a set of feeler gauges and a timing light
would allow you to do a decent tune-up. Air cooled, so no water pump
or antifreeze. It had two things that I really didn't like, it
required premium gas and, if it rained in the summer and you put the
defroster on, it would get over 100 degrees in the cabin. But, on
zero degree days, you'd have heat in less than a mile from a cold
start.
AND MY BUTT FIT THE SEAT!!!!
It wasn't all a bed of roses back then but I wish I had a car like
that today.
Jack
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000768-0, 08/23/2007
Tested on: 8/23/2007 10:27:05 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
><Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Henry wrote:
>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.
>
I don't know about less fuel economy. When I was young and foolish, I
made a very smart decision for all the wrong reasons. It still amazes
me, but in 1965 I bought a used 1964 Corvair Mazda. It had manual
everything and a 110 hp, 6 cy boxer engine. And it got almost 30 mpg
at 65 mph and would run over 100 mph.
It was easy to work on, a set of feeler gauges and a timing light
would allow you to do a decent tune-up. Air cooled, so no water pump
or antifreeze. It had two things that I really didn't like, it
required premium gas and, if it rained in the summer and you put the
defroster on, it would get over 100 degrees in the cabin. But, on
zero degree days, you'd have heat in less than a mile from a cold
start.
AND MY BUTT FIT THE SEAT!!!!
It wasn't all a bed of roses back then but I wish I had a car like
that today.
Jack
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000768-0, 08/23/2007
Tested on: 8/23/2007 10:27:05 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
08-23-2007, 10:27 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:14:41 -0500, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
><Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Henry wrote:
>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.
>
I don't know about less fuel economy. When I was young and foolish, I
made a very smart decision for all the wrong reasons. It still amazes
me, but in 1965 I bought a used 1964 Corvair Mazda. It had manual
everything and a 110 hp, 6 cy boxer engine. And it got almost 30 mpg
at 65 mph and would run over 100 mph.
It was easy to work on, a set of feeler gauges and a timing light
would allow you to do a decent tune-up. Air cooled, so no water pump
or antifreeze. It had two things that I really didn't like, it
required premium gas and, if it rained in the summer and you put the
defroster on, it would get over 100 degrees in the cabin. But, on
zero degree days, you'd have heat in less than a mile from a cold
start.
AND MY BUTT FIT THE SEAT!!!!
It wasn't all a bed of roses back then but I wish I had a car like
that today.
Jack
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000768-0, 08/23/2007
Tested on: 8/23/2007 10:27:05 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
><Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Henry wrote:
>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.
>
I don't know about less fuel economy. When I was young and foolish, I
made a very smart decision for all the wrong reasons. It still amazes
me, but in 1965 I bought a used 1964 Corvair Mazda. It had manual
everything and a 110 hp, 6 cy boxer engine. And it got almost 30 mpg
at 65 mph and would run over 100 mph.
It was easy to work on, a set of feeler gauges and a timing light
would allow you to do a decent tune-up. Air cooled, so no water pump
or antifreeze. It had two things that I really didn't like, it
required premium gas and, if it rained in the summer and you put the
defroster on, it would get over 100 degrees in the cabin. But, on
zero degree days, you'd have heat in less than a mile from a cold
start.
AND MY BUTT FIT THE SEAT!!!!
It wasn't all a bed of roses back then but I wish I had a car like
that today.
Jack
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000768-0, 08/23/2007
Tested on: 8/23/2007 10:27:05 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
08-24-2007, 01:35 AM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:27:58 -0700, highkm <ic3po@mac.com> wrote:
>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.
That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph.
> 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.
That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight.
> 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.
That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km?
As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to
the EPA by owners at
<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda>
Year 2003 2007 2007 2007
Car Accord Accord Civic Fit
Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4
Tran AT AT MT MT
ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6
range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43
# vehicles 17 13 15 32
So the Fit did OK.
>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.
That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph.
> 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.
That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight.
> 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.
That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km?
As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to
the EPA by owners at
<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda>
Year 2003 2007 2007 2007
Car Accord Accord Civic Fit
Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4
Tran AT AT MT MT
ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6
range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43
# vehicles 17 13 15 32
So the Fit did OK.
08-24-2007, 01:35 AM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:27:58 -0700, highkm <ic3po@mac.com> wrote:
>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.
That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph.
> 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.
That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight.
> 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.
That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km?
As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to
the EPA by owners at
<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda>
Year 2003 2007 2007 2007
Car Accord Accord Civic Fit
Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4
Tran AT AT MT MT
ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6
range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43
# vehicles 17 13 15 32
So the Fit did OK.
>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.
That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph.
> 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.
That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight.
> 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.
That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km?
As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to
the EPA by owners at
<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda>
Year 2003 2007 2007 2007
Car Accord Accord Civic Fit
Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4
Tran AT AT MT MT
ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6
range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43
# vehicles 17 13 15 32
So the Fit did OK.