Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
>> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair
>> requirements to your
>> '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and
>> '99, but little
>> fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of
>> course.
>>
>> Does this one have VTEC?
>
> It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to
> whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on
> the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking
> for a sizable markup

there are a lot of "private dealers" out there, so here's a tip: call
and say you're interested in "the car". if they ask "which one?",
you've just discovered what you're dealing with.

> as opposed to someone just tired of
> their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what
> others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue
> it.
>
>> Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer.
>> Unless the first
>> one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff,
>> consider your
>> early subjects learning experiences as you work your way
>> towards knowing
>> what's good and what's bad in the particular model you
>> desire.
> snip (for brevity) very good suggestions.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under
> something like "buying used... " Or are they there already?
>
> I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells
> fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job.
> Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new
> driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a
> second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can
> fix on my own.
>
> Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car
> too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to
> throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may
> not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible
> investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun.
> Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win
> on all levels (money-wise and fun).
>
> Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye
> peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-)
>
>

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
>> A '99 will have very similar maintenance and repair
>> requirements to your
>> '91. Honda did a lot of detail updating between '91 and
>> '99, but little
>> fundamental change. Other than airbags and OBD-II of
>> course.
>>
>> Does this one have VTEC?
>
> It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to
> whether it has VTEC. I did not like the tone of the guy on
> the phone--sounded too much like a used car dealer looking
> for a sizable markup

there are a lot of "private dealers" out there, so here's a tip: call
and say you're interested in "the car". if they ask "which one?",
you've just discovered what you're dealing with.

> as opposed to someone just tired of
> their car wanting to sell at around blue book. Plus what
> others said here about the '99 made me not want to pursue
> it.
>
>> Look at lots and lots of cars, both private and dealer.
>> Unless the first
>> one you come across is a stunningly obvious creampuff,
>> consider your
>> early subjects learning experiences as you work your way
>> towards knowing
>> what's good and what's bad in the particular model you
>> desire.
> snip (for brevity) very good suggestions.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> You ought to put these suggestions onto your web site, under
> something like "buying used... " Or are they there already?
>
> I think I am going to price getting the two rear wheel wells
> fixed up on my 91 Civic, and maybe see about a paint job.
> Then I think it would look really good. Maybe buy a new
> driver's seat, too. If the engine conks out, I'll buy a
> second-hand one from Japan. Darn near everything else I can
> fix on my own.
>
> Except that the body looks a little beat, I know this car
> too well, and I like it too much. Plus I see no reason to
> throw upwards of $12k at a new car I will not know well; may
> not be repairable by me; etc. A car is a terrible
> investment, except that for some of us, it buys fun.
> Fortunately most of the fun is in maintaining it. So I win
> on all levels (money-wise and fun).
>
> Meanwhile, like you say, I'll take my time and keep an eye
> peeled for CRX's, since that might be more fun... :-)
>
>

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on
> to our Tercel. I
> went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year.
> The one I
> eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning.
>
> In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has
> been approached in > very greatly protracted leisure. I'm
> NEVER in a hurry. There's always
> another one available somewhere. It's actually easier
> these days, with the
> Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush
> off to the
> convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon
> to catch an
> AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold.

I hear you.

I like what you say here. I am glad I currently have the
reliable wheels to support my amateur addiction and indeed
not be in a hurry.

Priced a paint job today: $1000 or more, and the less
expensive ones look lousy. Guy at the body shop said he
thought my current paint job (the original) looked good and
I'd make it worse by re-painting.

Fixing up the rear wheel wells would cost around $750. But
the guy did not impress me. Bustard literally poked holes in
my work, like it was his car. I think I'll stick with my Pep
Boys plastic/roof cement/black paint/etc. fix and, like I
say above, keep an eye peeled for a CRX.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on
> to our Tercel. I
> went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year.
> The one I
> eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning.
>
> In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has
> been approached in > very greatly protracted leisure. I'm
> NEVER in a hurry. There's always
> another one available somewhere. It's actually easier
> these days, with the
> Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush
> off to the
> convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon
> to catch an
> AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold.

I hear you.

I like what you say here. I am glad I currently have the
reliable wheels to support my amateur addiction and indeed
not be in a hurry.

Priced a paint job today: $1000 or more, and the less
expensive ones look lousy. Guy at the body shop said he
thought my current paint job (the original) looked good and
I'd make it worse by re-painting.

Fixing up the rear wheel wells would cost around $750. But
the guy did not impress me. Bustard literally poked holes in
my work, like it was his car. I think I'll stick with my Pep
Boys plastic/roof cement/black paint/etc. fix and, like I
say above, keep an eye peeled for a CRX.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on
> to our Tercel. I
> went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year.
> The one I
> eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning.
>
> In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has
> been approached in > very greatly protracted leisure. I'm
> NEVER in a hurry. There's always
> another one available somewhere. It's actually easier
> these days, with the
> Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush
> off to the
> convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon
> to catch an
> AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold.

I hear you.

I like what you say here. I am glad I currently have the
reliable wheels to support my amateur addiction and indeed
not be in a hurry.

Priced a paint job today: $1000 or more, and the less
expensive ones look lousy. Guy at the body shop said he
thought my current paint job (the original) looked good and
I'd make it worse by re-painting.

Fixing up the rear wheel wells would cost around $750. But
the guy did not impress me. Bustard literally poked holes in
my work, like it was his car. I think I'll stick with my Pep
Boys plastic/roof cement/black paint/etc. fix and, like I
say above, keep an eye peeled for a CRX.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Yeah, take your time. It took me over a year to latch on
> to our Tercel. I
> went through at least 24 cars in the course of that year.
> The one I
> eventually bought felt right, right from the beginning.
>
> In fact, every used car I've ever bought since 1981 has
> been approached in > very greatly protracted leisure. I'm
> NEVER in a hurry. There's always
> another one available somewhere. It's actually easier
> these days, with the
> Internet. It was more difficult back when you had to rush
> off to the
> convenience store as early as possible Thursday afternoon
> to catch an
> AutoTrader before all the good stuff was sold.

I hear you.

I like what you say here. I am glad I currently have the
reliable wheels to support my amateur addiction and indeed
not be in a hurry.

Priced a paint job today: $1000 or more, and the less
expensive ones look lousy. Guy at the body shop said he
thought my current paint job (the original) looked good and
I'd make it worse by re-painting.

Fixing up the rear wheel wells would cost around $750. But
the guy did not impress me. Bustard literally poked holes in
my work, like it was his car. I think I'll stick with my Pep
Boys plastic/roof cement/black paint/etc. fix and, like I
say above, keep an eye peeled for a CRX.

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Matt Ion wrote:
> Elle wrote:
> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> >
> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> >>
> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
> >>>CRX),
> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> >>>fuel mileage.
> >>
> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> >>economy,it's the
> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> >>Accord.
> >
> >
> > c. 1990:
> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
> >
> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>
> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>

Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
mpg
really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
with
about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
had
it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.
I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
city.
For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.
I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
have
all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
weight.
The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
it in less mpg..
I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
like
real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
decent
stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
consider it.
The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me.
The main reason I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran
across..
When I was looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was
also
looking at toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was
half
decent. One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared
to the recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as
big as
my older 3G accord...
MK

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Matt Ion wrote:
> Elle wrote:
> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> >
> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> >>
> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
> >>>CRX),
> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> >>>fuel mileage.
> >>
> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> >>economy,it's the
> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> >>Accord.
> >
> >
> > c. 1990:
> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
> >
> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>
> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>

Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
mpg
really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
with
about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
had
it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.
I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
city.
For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.
I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
have
all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
weight.
The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
it in less mpg..
I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
like
real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
decent
stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
consider it.
The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me.
The main reason I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran
across..
When I was looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was
also
looking at toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was
half
decent. One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared
to the recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as
big as
my older 3G accord...
MK

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Matt Ion wrote:
> Elle wrote:
> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> >
> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> >>
> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
> >>>CRX),
> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> >>>fuel mileage.
> >>
> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> >>economy,it's the
> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> >>Accord.
> >
> >
> > c. 1990:
> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
> >
> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>
> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>

Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
mpg
really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
with
about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
had
it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.
I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
city.
For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.
I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
have
all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
weight.
The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
it in less mpg..
I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
like
real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
decent
stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
consider it.
The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me.
The main reason I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran
across..
When I was looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was
also
looking at toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was
half
decent. One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared
to the recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as
big as
my older 3G accord...
MK

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Matt Ion wrote:
> Elle wrote:
> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> >
> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> >>
> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
> >>>CRX),
> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> >>>fuel mileage.
> >>
> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> >>economy,it's the
> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> >>Accord.
> >
> >
> > c. 1990:
> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
> >
> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>
> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>

Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
mpg
really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
with
about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
had
it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.
I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
city.
For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.
I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
have
all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
weight.
The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
it in less mpg..
I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
like
real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
decent
stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
consider it.
The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me.
The main reason I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran
across..
When I was looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was
also
looking at toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was
half
decent. One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared
to the recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as
big as
my older 3G accord...
MK

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:13:56 -0800, nm5k wrote:

> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Elle wrote:
>> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
>> >
>> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> >>
>> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> >>>CRX),
>> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> >>>fuel mileage.
>> >>
>> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
>> >>economy,it's the
>> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
>> >>Accord.
>> >
>> >
>> > c. 1990:
>> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
>> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
>> >
>> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
>> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
>> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>>
>> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
>> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
>> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
>> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
>> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>>
>
> Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
> worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
> mpg
> really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
> with
> about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
> had
> it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
> 70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.

It would probably be closer to 34 or so...

> I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
> city.
> For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.

It's pretty much a wash...

> I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
> I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
> have
> all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
> weight.

That doesn't add the weight. I think the increased weight of the newer
models is more due to the better suspension and beefier engines, etc...

> The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
> it in less mpg..
> I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
> like
> real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
> decent
> stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
> consider it.
> The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me. The main reason
> I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran across.. When I was
> looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was also looking at
> toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was half decent.
> One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared to the
> recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as big as my
> older 3G accord...
> MK

The new civics are pretty much the same size as your old accord. But the
new accords get pretty good mileage...

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:13:56 -0800, nm5k wrote:

> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Elle wrote:
>> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
>> >
>> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> >>
>> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> >>>CRX),
>> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> >>>fuel mileage.
>> >>
>> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
>> >>economy,it's the
>> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
>> >>Accord.
>> >
>> >
>> > c. 1990:
>> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
>> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
>> >
>> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
>> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
>> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>>
>> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
>> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
>> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
>> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
>> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>>
>
> Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
> worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
> mpg
> really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
> with
> about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
> had
> it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
> 70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.

It would probably be closer to 34 or so...

> I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
> city.
> For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.

It's pretty much a wash...

> I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
> I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
> have
> all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
> weight.

That doesn't add the weight. I think the increased weight of the newer
models is more due to the better suspension and beefier engines, etc...

> The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
> it in less mpg..
> I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
> like
> real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
> decent
> stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
> consider it.
> The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me. The main reason
> I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran across.. When I was
> looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was also looking at
> toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was half decent.
> One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared to the
> recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as big as my
> older 3G accord...
> MK

The new civics are pretty much the same size as your old accord. But the
new accords get pretty good mileage...

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:13:56 -0800, nm5k wrote:

> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Elle wrote:
>> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
>> >
>> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> >>
>> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> >>>CRX),
>> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> >>>fuel mileage.
>> >>
>> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
>> >>economy,it's the
>> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
>> >>Accord.
>> >
>> >
>> > c. 1990:
>> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
>> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
>> >
>> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
>> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
>> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>>
>> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
>> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
>> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
>> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
>> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>>
>
> Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
> worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
> mpg
> really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
> with
> about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
> had
> it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
> 70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.

It would probably be closer to 34 or so...

> I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
> city.
> For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.

It's pretty much a wash...

> I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
> I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
> have
> all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
> weight.

That doesn't add the weight. I think the increased weight of the newer
models is more due to the better suspension and beefier engines, etc...

> The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
> it in less mpg..
> I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
> like
> real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
> decent
> stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
> consider it.
> The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me. The main reason
> I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran across.. When I was
> looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was also looking at
> toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was half decent.
> One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared to the
> recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as big as my
> older 3G accord...
> MK

The new civics are pretty much the same size as your old accord. But the
new accords get pretty good mileage...

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:13:56 -0800, nm5k wrote:

> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Elle wrote:
>> > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
>> >
>> >>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> >>
>> >>>I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> >>>CRX),
>> >>>'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> >>>fuel mileage.
>> >>
>> >>It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
>> >>economy,it's the
>> >>lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
>> >>Accord.
>> >
>> >
>> > c. 1990:
>> > displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
>> > weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord
>> >
>> > No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
>> > AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
>> > Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.
>>
>> Fuel-per-acceleration costs I don't think end up being that different... you
>> just trade off a bit less power for a bit more economy. Still, I find the 2.0l
>> Accord pretty good on gas - even not running as well as it should, probably
>> needing a ring job, I get a good 500-550km on a 50l tank (works out to around
>> 28-30mpg, I think), mostly city driving (and admittedly, with a lead foot).
>>
>
> Mines seems to vary quite a bit.. The more stop-go the driving , the
> worse mine seems to get. Also, if the a/c is on with city driving, the
> mpg
> really drops.. Maybe 20-22 mpg?? With the a/c off, and mixed driving
> with
> about half on the highway, I seem to get about 27 or so. I've never
> had
> it on an interstate trip yet, so don't know about the mpg at a constant
> 70 mph. I'm guessing it might edge towards 30 or so if I get lucky.

It would probably be closer to 34 or so...

> I think the a/c has a good bit less effect at highway speeds, than
> city.
> For one thing, you cut the wind drag, if the windows are up.

It's pretty much a wash...

> I have the auto tranny which gets a bit less than a manual.
> I don't get near what a light manual civic would get. But... They don't
> have
> all the electric windows, mirrors, etc, etc that adds all that extra
> weight.

That doesn't add the weight. I think the increased weight of the newer
models is more due to the better suspension and beefier engines, etc...

> The accord is a more comfortable car to drive overall, but you pay for
> it in less mpg..
> I'm kinda mixed.. I like the fancier doodads with the accord, but I do
> like
> real high mpg numbers too. If I had someone that wanted to trade a
> decent
> stripped down manual civic for my accord, I'd probably seriously
> consider it.
> The idea of 40's mpg numbers is quite attractive to me. The main reason
> I ended up with an accord, is thats just what I ran across.. When I was
> looking at cars, I wasn't narrowing to hondas only.. Was also looking at
> toyotas, etc also.. I didn't care as long as the mpg was half decent.
> One thing about the 89 accord I have.. It seems small compared to the
> recent year models.. Heck, the newer civics look dang near as big as my
> older 3G accord...
> MK

The new civics are pretty much the same size as your old accord. But the
new accords get pretty good mileage...

Re: Looking at Some Used Hondas
 

Elle wrote:

>> Does this one have VTEC?
>
> It turned out to be a DX, but I have not checked as to
> whether it has VTEC.

DX is the base model, so I would say it does not have VTEC unless the engine
was swapped. My '04 Civic is a mid-level LX and it does not have VTEC.