|
is hybrid better than normal car?
is hybrid better than normal car?
|
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:10:49 +0800, Patrina <moonr@tm.net.my> wrote:
>is hybrid better than normal car? Yes. What is the criteria that would make it better? |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:10:49 +0800, Patrina <moonr@tm.net.my> wrote: > >> is hybrid better than normal car? > > Yes. What is the criteria that would make it better? What's normal? |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
News <News@Group.Name> wrote in news:vdCdnfDvQK6_
467WnZ2dnUVZ_qBi4p2d@speakeasy.net: > dgk wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:10:49 +0800, Patrina <moonr@tm.net.my> wrote: >> >>> is hybrid better than normal car? >> >> Yes. What is the criteria that would make it better? > > > What's normal? > The opposite of abnormal, of course. And abnormal is the opposite of normal. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in news:m3v6j5lpog5d727a2o4m9vid2smmr16pl6@
4ax.com: > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:10:49 +0800, Patrina <moonr@tm.net.my> wrote: > >>is hybrid better than normal car? > > Yes. What is the criteria that would make it better? It's not better for saving money, that's for sure. Hybrids are an awfully expensive way to save money. Forbes Magazine's Jerry Flint has calculated in the current issue that a Prius will take 12 years to break-even compared to a Corolla. And a Lexus RX450h will take 7 years to break-even compared to the non-hybrid version. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <Xns9CEB6E05C5AF1tegger@208.90.168.18>,
Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote: > Forbes Magazine's Jerry > Flint has calculated in the current issue that a Prius will take 12 years > to break-even compared to a Corolla. ....unless you need some feature of the Prius that's not in the Corolla...like the extra room...in which case, buying the Corolla is a $15K waste of money. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Patrina wrote:
> is hybrid better than normal car? It depends on your situation. If you do mainly city driving but need a family-sized car, a hybrid is better. If you drive mostly in the city and don't mind owning a very small car, a subcompact is a better buy. If you drive mostly highway miles a hybrid is not worth the extra cost, because it's advantage comes from recovering and storing the energy lost during lots of slowing and stopping. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <rqXYm.74756$de6.54438@newsfe21.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > If > you drive mostly highway miles a hybrid is not worth the extra cost, > because it's advantage comes from recovering and storing the energy lost > during lots of slowing and stopping. except, try to find a modern car of similar size and comfort as the Prius that gets 50+ mpg. There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car of similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on the highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/25/2009 04:55 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<rqXYm.74756$de6.54438@newsfe21.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >> If >> you drive mostly highway miles a hybrid is not worth the extra cost, >> because it's advantage comes from recovering and storing the energy lost >> during lots of slowing and stopping. > > except, try to find a modern car of similar size and comfort as the > Prius that gets 50+ mpg. > > There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car of > similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on the > highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. i was going to respond to leftie, but you've pointed out what i was going to say. reason is the prius's cvt. it's a great system. the civic hx used to have it and can get very good freeway gas mileage - high 40's. many euro and asian market vehicles have cvt, but they're extraordinarily scarce here, and gas consumption correspondingly higher. "part of our great american gas guzzler conspiracy". |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <rqXYm.74756$de6.54438@newsfe21.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >> If >> you drive mostly highway miles a hybrid is not worth the extra cost, >> because it's advantage comes from recovering and storing the energy lost >> during lots of slowing and stopping. > > except, try to find a modern car of similar size and comfort as the > Prius that gets 50+ mpg. > > There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car of > similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on the > highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. No, but there are cars of similar size that will get 40mpg highway and are substantially cheaper (like a Jetta diesel), so there is no payback of the difference. I support using hybrids. I just don't want people mislead about the advantages. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <dw4Zm.2757$pA1.482@newsfe17.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > > There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car of > > similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on the > > highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. > > > No, but there are cars of similar size that will get 40mpg highway > and are substantially cheaper (like a Jetta diesel), so there is no > payback of the difference. Have you ever owned a VW? 'Nuff said. They're absolute pieces of junk. I wouldn't drive one if you gave it to me and paid for all gas, maintenance, insurance, and repairs. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Leftie wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> In article <dw4Zm.2757$pA1.482@newsfe17.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> >> wrote: >> >>>> There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car >>>> of similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on >>>> the highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. >>> >>> No, but there are cars of similar size that will get 40mpg >>> highway and are substantially cheaper (like a Jetta diesel), so there >>> is no payback of the difference. >> >> Have you ever owned a VW? >> >> 'Nuff said. They're absolute pieces of junk. I wouldn't drive one if >> you gave it to me and paid for all gas, maintenance, insurance, and >> repairs. > > > Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but > gets 55mpg on the highway. It isn't rocket science: cars got better fuel > economy in the '80's, before they started to make them larger and faster > than necessary. The Prius is in some ways just a return to '80's design > philosophy: efficiency and quality over acceleration. I can attest to that. My '83 Civic FE got low 40's city and 55+ highway in real tests and my current one has an '81 engine (which is substantially different than the '83) but uses the tall gears of the FE and even with today's lousy gas gets in the mid to high 40mpg range highway. Best part is the complexity compared to today's tin is greatly simplified. Most of it is "old school" and easy to maintain/repair. JT |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
jim beam wrote:
> On 12/25/2009 04:55 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> In article<rqXYm.74756$de6.54438@newsfe21.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net> >> wrote: >> >>> If >>> you drive mostly highway miles a hybrid is not worth the extra cost, >>> because it's advantage comes from recovering and storing the energy lost >>> during lots of slowing and stopping. >> >> except, try to find a modern car of similar size and comfort as the >> Prius that gets 50+ mpg. >> >> There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car of >> similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on the >> highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. > > i was going to respond to leftie, but you've pointed out what i was > going to say. reason is the prius's cvt. it's a great system. the > civic hx used to have it and can get very good freeway gas mileage - > high 40's. > > many euro and asian market vehicles have cvt, but they're > extraordinarily scarce here, and gas consumption correspondingly higher. > "part of our great american gas guzzler conspiracy". > You can get CVT transmissions on Nissans here. Keep in mind too that the Prius isn't really a midsize car: it qualifies as one because they managed to stretch the interior space out just enough to earn the designation. The same could be done with a non-hybrid. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <dw4Zm.2757$pA1.482@newsfe17.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >>> There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car of >>> similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on the >>> highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. >> >> No, but there are cars of similar size that will get 40mpg highway >> and are substantially cheaper (like a Jetta diesel), so there is no >> payback of the difference. > > Have you ever owned a VW? > > 'Nuff said. They're absolute pieces of junk. I wouldn't drive one if > you gave it to me and paid for all gas, maintenance, insurance, and > repairs. Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but gets 55mpg on the highway. It isn't rocket science: cars got better fuel economy in the '80's, before they started to make them larger and faster than necessary. The Prius is in some ways just a return to '80's design philosophy: efficiency and quality over acceleration. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <SGgZm.57281$ZF3.48390@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but > gets 55mpg on the highway. US miles per US gallon? I had a 92 Civic that got 35mpg on the highway; several years into owning that, I discovered that the speedeometer was wrong, and as a result the odometer was wrong. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <NEgZm.57280$ZF3.16311@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > Keep in mind too that > the Prius isn't really a midsize car: it qualifies as one because they > managed to stretch the interior space out just enough to earn the > designation. So, keep in mind that the Prius isn't really a midsize car; it qualifies as one only because it fits the size criteria for a midsize car??? What are you smoking? It fits the criteria for a midsize car, therefore it's a midsize car. What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Economically, generally no.
I compute the number of years it would take to pay off the difference between hybrid and non-bybrid economy car. With my habits I'd save 150 gallons a year. Thats a payoff of $400 to $600 per year or 6-10 years for the price difference. The Prius III in two years is supposed have better economics. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <isqZm.84450$Wd1.8248@newsfe15.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > > What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize > > cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the > > manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize. > > > No, I'm saying that it's lighter than a typical midsize car. Weight is not a criterion for the definition, therefore you can't say "it doesn't fit the defintion". > Did you > know that the defining criterion is interior room and nothing else? It > just squeaks in with enough interior space to be defined as "midsize." So what if it "just squeaks in"? There have to be limits; either it fits within those limits, or it doesn't. You appear to be saying that "yeah, well, it's at the lower end of those size limits, plus it doesn't weigh as much as what a traditional midsize car always has, therefore it's not really midsize". In other words, you disagree with the criteria that define "midsize". |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <SGgZm.57281$ZF3.48390@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but >> gets 55mpg on the highway. > > US miles per US gallon? > > I had a 92 Civic that got 35mpg on the highway; several years into > owning that, I discovered that the speedeometer was wrong, and as a > result the odometer was wrong. Yes, US MPG, and the speedometer is within 1.5MPH. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <NEgZm.57280$ZF3.16311@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >> Keep in mind too that >> the Prius isn't really a midsize car: it qualifies as one because they >> managed to stretch the interior space out just enough to earn the >> designation. > > So, keep in mind that the Prius isn't really a midsize car; it qualifies > as one only because it fits the size criteria for a midsize car??? > > What are you smoking? It fits the criteria for a midsize car, therefore > it's a midsize car. > > What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize > cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the > manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize. No, I'm saying that it's lighter than a typical midsize car. Did you know that the defining criterion is interior room and nothing else? It just squeaks in with enough interior space to be defined as "midsize." IIRC, the old Volvo 240, with its larger size but smaller interior, was a "compact." |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/25/2009 09:53 PM, Leftie wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> In article <dw4Zm.2757$pA1.482@newsfe17.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> >> wrote: >> >>>> There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car >>>> of similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on >>>> the highway, or anywhere near 50mpg. >>> >>> No, but there are cars of similar size that will get 40mpg highway >>> and are substantially cheaper (like a Jetta diesel), so there is no >>> payback of the difference. >> >> Have you ever owned a VW? >> >> 'Nuff said. They're absolute pieces of junk. I wouldn't drive one if >> you gave it to me and paid for all gas, maintenance, insurance, and >> repairs. > > > Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but gets > 55mpg on the highway. i call bullshit. i keep fuel records of all my cars, and the best you'll get out of the ex is maybe 45, on a good day, flat road, following wind, skinny tires, 55mph. the hx can do that, if it's been well maintained, but not the ex. > It isn't rocket science: actually, it is. > cars got better fuel > economy in the '80's, yes, and economy has declined since then. > before they started to make them larger and faster > than necessary. no, heavier. remember your 95 ex? you check the weight of that and compare it to earlier generations. > The Prius is in some ways just a return to '80's design > philosophy: efficiency and quality over acceleration. more bullshit - you evidently haven't driven a prius. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <VsidnfLbwa3RzqvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but gets > > 55mpg on the highway. > > i call bullshit. yeah, me too. On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless the engine was off. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/26/2009 04:22 PM, Leftie wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> In article <VsidnfLbwa3RzqvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d@speakeasy.net> , >> jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>>> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but >>>> gets >>>> 55mpg on the highway. >>> i call bullshit. >> >> yeah, me too. >> >> On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. >> >> My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless >> the engine was off. > > > Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average > 36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer. > Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6 > liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary. you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos. or you can't do math. take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth. oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling 2200rpm. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <WLadnaN235RrAavWnZ2dnUVZ_rVi4p2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average > > 36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer. > > Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6 > > liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary. > > you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos. > or you can't do math. > > take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth. > > oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling > 2200rpm. he's GOT to understand he's talking to people who DRIVE these cars, and know what they do. 2200rpm in fifth on my 92 Si (same engine/trans as EX) was nowhere near highway speeds. In fifth gear I was (this is from memory) at least 3000rpm, maybe 3300rpm, on the highway--minimum. I got 35 on the highway without much trouble, but that was about it. I think one time, trying, I got to 41--in good weather, no AC, no hills, taking it very easy. 55? Not on your life. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <isqZm.84450$Wd1.8248@newsfe15.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >>> What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize >>> cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the >>> manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize. >> >> No, I'm saying that it's lighter than a typical midsize car. > > Weight is not a criterion for the definition, therefore you can't say > "it doesn't fit the defintion". > > >> Did you >> know that the defining criterion is interior room and nothing else? It >> just squeaks in with enough interior space to be defined as "midsize." > > So what if it "just squeaks in"? There have to be limits; either it > fits within those limits, or it doesn't. > > You appear to be saying that "yeah, well, it's at the lower end of those > size limits, plus it doesn't weigh as much as what a traditional midsize > car always has, therefore it's not really midsize". > > In other words, you disagree with the criteria that define "midsize". In other words, I think that *most people* would disagree with the definition, so their perceptions of what is and isn't a "midsize" car matter. My whole point is that the Prius isn't a fantastically efficient middle-sized car; it's a very efficient compact car with lots of interior space. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <VsidnfLbwa3RzqvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d@speakeasy.net> , > jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but gets >>> 55mpg on the highway. >> i call bullshit. > > yeah, me too. > > On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. > > My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless > the engine was off. Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average 36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer. Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6 liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <SGgZm.57281$ZF3.48390@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but >> gets 55mpg on the highway. > > US miles per US gallon? > > I had a 92 Civic that got 35mpg on the highway; several years into > owning that, I discovered that the speedeometer was wrong, and as a > result the odometer was wrong. Yes, US miles per gallon. Difference between my Gen II and a '92 (Gen IV) is weight and horsepower. JT |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WLadnaN235RrAavWnZ2dnUVZ_rVi4p2d@speakeasy.net> , > jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>> Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average >>> 36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer. >>> Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6 >>> liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary. >> you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos. >> or you can't do math. >> >> take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth. >> >> oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling >> 2200rpm. > > he's GOT to understand he's talking to people who DRIVE these cars, and > know what they do. > > 2200rpm in fifth on my 92 Si (same engine/trans as EX) was nowhere near > highway speeds. In fifth gear I was (this is from memory) at least > 3000rpm, maybe 3300rpm, on the highway--minimum. > > I got 35 on the highway without much trouble, but that was about it. I > think one time, trying, I got to 41--in good weather, no AC, no hills, > taking it very easy. > > 55? Not on your life. Man, you guys give shade tree mechanics a bad name. First, the Si and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same drivetrain: my Ca.-spec car can barely get out of its own way in third, and it *does* turn at 2200 RPM at 55mph in 5th. In fact, both 5th *and* 4th gears are overdrives. It's rated at about 126HP, IIRC, and that's only if you rev it near the redline. The Si has to be putting out more power, and certainly has lower gearing as well, or it too is a slow car. Second, reports of 37mpg per tankful with this generation Civic are very common, including the ones with automatics. You boys just don't know how to drive for economy. Your brains are concentrated in one foot. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > First, the Si > and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same > drivetrain: Yes, they did. "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > wrote: > >> First, the Si >> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same >> drivetrain: > > Yes, they did. > > "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to > tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual. From motortrend.com: 95 Civic Si: 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per cylinder Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm 95 Civic EX Sedan: 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per cylinder Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200 rpm Looks pretty close to me... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/27/2009 07:40 AM, Joe wrote:
> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net> >> wrote: >> >>> First, the Si >>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same >>> drivetrain: >> >> Yes, they did. >> >> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to >> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual. > > From motortrend.com: > > 95 Civic Si: > 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, > 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per > cylinder > Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm > > 95 Civic EX Sedan: > 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, > 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per > cylinder > Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200 > rpm > > Looks pretty close to me... > > indeed. and from: http://www.knology.net/~jediklc/gearratiosdseries.htm we can scroll down and see that gear ratios are the same unless it's a hatchback/del sol - differentiation is by body style, not engine or trim designation. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: > On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > > In article <FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> > > wrote: > > > >> First, the Si > >> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same > >> drivetrain: > > > > Yes, they did. > > > > "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to > > tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual. > > From motortrend.com: > > 95 Civic Si: > 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, > 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per > cylinder > Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm > > 95 Civic EX Sedan: > 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, > 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per > cylinder > Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200 > rpm > > Looks pretty close to me... hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions. Or maybe the OP thought Honda threw a bunch of money at completely different engines/transmissions for different trim lines of their lowest priced, loss leader model.... 92-95 Civic--CX/DX (hatch/sedan) and LX (sedan) had the same drivetrains, Si (hatch) and EX (sedan) had the same (bigger) drivetrains. 93 model saw the coupe, and it got the same trim levels and powertrains as the corresponding sedan. VX was its own beastie... |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/27/2009 08:01 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local> , > Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >>> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> First, the Si >>>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same >>>> drivetrain: >>> >>> Yes, they did. >>> >>> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to >>> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual. >> >> From motortrend.com: >> >> 95 Civic Si: >> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, >> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per >> cylinder >> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm >> >> 95 Civic EX Sedan: >> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, >> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per >> cylinder >> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200 >> rpm >> >> Looks pretty close to me... > > hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions. 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm. > > Or maybe the OP thought Honda threw a bunch of money at completely > different engines/transmissions for different trim lines of their lowest > priced, loss leader model.... > > 92-95 Civic--CX/DX (hatch/sedan) and LX (sedan) had the same > drivetrains, Si (hatch) and EX (sedan) had the same (bigger) drivetrains. > > 93 model saw the coupe, and it got the same trim levels and powertrains > as the corresponding sedan. > > VX was its own beastie... |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <dfCdnTUDKeFKCqrWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: > 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm. so, just getting to the middle of the on ramp is 1900rpm. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/27/2009 09:31 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<dfCdnTUDKeFKCqrWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>, > jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm. > > so, just getting to the middle of the on ramp is 1900rpm. for our friend's 55mph, 2200rpm, "55mpg highway" civic ex, yes. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
jim beam wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 08:01 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> In article<slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local> , >> Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >>>> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> First, the Si >>>>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same >>>>> drivetrain: >>>> >>>> Yes, they did. >>>> >>>> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to >>>> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual. >>> >>> From motortrend.com: >>> >>> 95 Civic Si: >>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, >>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per >>> cylinder >>> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm >>> >>> 95 Civic EX Sedan: >>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, >>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per >>> cylinder >>> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200 >>> rpm >>> >>> Looks pretty close to me... >> >> hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions. > > 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm. In that case, I'm mistaken about them being different - and extremely glad I didn't shell out any money for a '95 Si. With the same power and gearing as my car, it should get excellent gas mileage, and also get passed by virtually any other "sport" model in its class. As for the 1900rpm at 55, I'll take your word for it - I must have been looking at 60mph, which would be about 2200. Note that both cars do indeed have two overdrives, and imagine what that does to acceleration on the highway. Now why exactly are you idiots crowing about this? Instead of proving that I'm wrong about the tall gearing, you just proved I'm right about it. I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of other people), and you apparently can't drive your own cars economically even when you try. Go have another round of beers. (...) |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/27/2009 04:16 PM, Leftie wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> On 12/27/2009 08:01 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> In article<slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local> , >>> Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >>>>> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> First, the Si >>>>>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same >>>>>> drivetrain: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, they did. >>>>> >>>>> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and >>>>> try to >>>>> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual. >>>> >>>> From motortrend.com: >>>> >>>> 95 Civic Si: >>>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, >>>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per >>>> cylinder >>>> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm >>>> >>>> 95 Civic EX Sedan: >>>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore, >>>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per >>>> cylinder >>>> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200 >>>> rpm >>>> >>>> Looks pretty close to me... >>> >>> hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions. >> >> 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm. > > > In that case, I'm mistaken about them being different - and extremely > glad I didn't shell out any money for a '95 Si. With the same power and > gearing as my car, it should get excellent gas mileage, and also get > passed by virtually any other "sport" model in its class. As for the > 1900rpm at 55, I'll take your word for it dude, you allege to have owned the freakin' thing!!! /you/ should be the one attesting to accuracy, not "taking anybody's word for it". if you don't /know/ the facts, you're just a bullshitter. > - I must have been looking at > 60mph, which would be about 2200. what a surprise. > Note that both cars do indeed have two > overdrives, and imagine what that does to acceleration on the highway. it's got overdrive but no shift lever stopping you from shifting to a ratio where you can get more power??? that's freakin' funny dude! > > Now why exactly are you idiots crowing about this? Instead of proving > that I'm wrong about the tall gearing, dude, hondas are not geared tall. 99 corolla is ~1900 rpm at 55mph > you just proved I'm right about > it. I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of other > people), and you apparently can't drive your own cars economically even > when you try. Go have another round of beers. er, you /do/ know that you can't just gear your way into fuel economy don't you? otherwise we'd all be driving cars geared for 500rpm at 90mph giving 70mpg. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of > other people), What happened to your story about 55mpg? Suddenly the story changes. Interesting. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
On 12/27/2009 07:00 PM, Leftie wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> In article <gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> >> wrote: >> >>> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of other >>> people), >> >> What happened to your story about 55mpg? >> >> Suddenly the story changes. Interesting. > > > No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. I drive in the city > about 1/3 of the time. Do the math. we have done the math. and it shows you to be a bullshitter. whether that's because you're delusional, or simply too damned lazy to check your facts is the only thing left open to debate. |
Re: is hybrid better than normal car?
In article <DkUZm.69892$DC2.12807@newsfe02.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote: > >> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of > >> other people), > > > > What happened to your story about 55mpg? > > > > Suddenly the story changes. Interesting. > > > No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. Which, as those of us who have actually owned those vehicles know, is utter bullshit. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands