|
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Aug 24, 1:35 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:27:58 -0700, highkm <ic...@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. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That's correct 5.8 to 5.9 liters per 100km at 100km/h of highway driving. I drive 400Km per day every day. I get consistently almost 1,100 km per tank. I jam in about 62 - 63 liters. I have just purchased low friction tires and I am hoping that they will provide less resistance than the Nokian i3 that they replace. I have also been informed that I should try using 0w20 synthetic in place of 0w30 synthetic. My target is 1200 km. That way I would fill up at the end of every 3rd day. Cheers. |
Re: Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
On Aug 24, 1:35 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:27:58 -0700, highkm <ic...@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. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That's correct 5.8 to 5.9 liters per 100km at 100km/h of highway driving. I drive 400Km per day every day. I get consistently almost 1,100 km per tank. I jam in about 62 - 63 liters. I have just purchased low friction tires and I am hoping that they will provide less resistance than the Nokian i3 that they replace. I have also been informed that I should try using 0w20 synthetic in place of 0w30 synthetic. My target is 1200 km. That way I would fill up at the end of every 3rd day. Cheers. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands