Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <xaOdnZQaOJz_TiHYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:LMPuh.474974$Fi1.65926@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of
>>>>> what exactly is in it???
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And does it matter now, if it wasn't a problem all those years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it were me... I wouldn't even admit it!
>>>
>>> <G>
>>>
>>> JT
>>>
>>>
>> the thing i find interesting is the fact that it's clearly not been an
>> issue all this time. i've just got myself another crx, 1990 dx, and it
>> absolutely flies. i'm sure that upgrading from 2pfi to 4pfi would
>> improve performance further, but i wonder how much difference there is
>> between a "good" d15 and a "not so good" d16. since there's always
>> variance in output from engine to engine - speculating, you could
>> therefore argue that the difference could be approaching that of the
>> variance "noise".
>
> Well, JT's got a point, but now that I've already opened my virtual
> mouth, the cat's out of the bag. Now that I think back on it, I had
> indications it was a 1.5L after comments from the shops who did timing
> belt changes at 60K and 115K, but they never mentioned the engine number
> stamped on the block or the possibility that it wasn't the original
> engine. And it's really not as big of a deal as I probably made it
> sound, especially since I've been considering a swap anyway for quite
> some time.
>
> The D15 in the DX is rated at 90hp, and the D16 in the Si is rated at
> 110hp. My car's not exactly sluggish, and the current engine runs well,
> but that's still a pretty healthy amount of power to be giving away,
> especially in such a light car.
>
> Oh, and JT, this one's for you:
>
> http://www.houston-imports.com/forum...d.php?t=351953
>
> Too bad an engine swap is even being discussed - I'd leave it exactly as
> is. Actually, the $3200 he spent on paint would've paid for one hell of
> a mechanical restoration, plus a "normal" paint job.
>
> Dave
>
>


Heh heh... I have '82 and '83 1300 hatchbacks. Maybe I should pimp 'em
out for "big" bucks!

JT

(Could I shoe horn a V6 in one of them thar' suckahs???)

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <xaOdnZQaOJz_TiHYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:LMPuh.474974$Fi1.65926@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of
>>>>> what exactly is in it???
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And does it matter now, if it wasn't a problem all those years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it were me... I wouldn't even admit it!
>>>
>>> <G>
>>>
>>> JT
>>>
>>>
>> the thing i find interesting is the fact that it's clearly not been an
>> issue all this time. i've just got myself another crx, 1990 dx, and it
>> absolutely flies. i'm sure that upgrading from 2pfi to 4pfi would
>> improve performance further, but i wonder how much difference there is
>> between a "good" d15 and a "not so good" d16. since there's always
>> variance in output from engine to engine - speculating, you could
>> therefore argue that the difference could be approaching that of the
>> variance "noise".
>
> Well, JT's got a point, but now that I've already opened my virtual
> mouth, the cat's out of the bag. Now that I think back on it, I had
> indications it was a 1.5L after comments from the shops who did timing
> belt changes at 60K and 115K, but they never mentioned the engine number
> stamped on the block or the possibility that it wasn't the original
> engine. And it's really not as big of a deal as I probably made it
> sound, especially since I've been considering a swap anyway for quite
> some time.
>
> The D15 in the DX is rated at 90hp, and the D16 in the Si is rated at
> 110hp. My car's not exactly sluggish, and the current engine runs well,
> but that's still a pretty healthy amount of power to be giving away,
> especially in such a light car.
>
> Oh, and JT, this one's for you:
>
> http://www.houston-imports.com/forum...d.php?t=351953
>
> Too bad an engine swap is even being discussed - I'd leave it exactly as
> is. Actually, the $3200 he spent on paint would've paid for one hell of
> a mechanical restoration, plus a "normal" paint job.
>
> Dave
>
>


Heh heh... I have '82 and '83 1300 hatchbacks. Maybe I should pimp 'em
out for "big" bucks!

JT

(Could I shoe horn a V6 in one of them thar' suckahs???)

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
<snip>
> Definitely. I've never been too happy with the stock brakes with the
> current engine, so I'd probably do a brake upgrade at the same time as
> the engine swap.

do you use oem pads or aftermarket? my experience with aftermarket pads
is very poor - bad wear, bad fade, poor stopping power... now i use oem
and am very happy. and this opinion was recently re-reinforced by my
new crx that has aftermarket pads - just doesn't stop like it should.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
<snip>
> Definitely. I've never been too happy with the stock brakes with the
> current engine, so I'd probably do a brake upgrade at the same time as
> the engine swap.

do you use oem pads or aftermarket? my experience with aftermarket pads
is very poor - bad wear, bad fade, poor stopping power... now i use oem
and am very happy. and this opinion was recently re-reinforced by my
new crx that has aftermarket pads - just doesn't stop like it should.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
<snip>
> Definitely. I've never been too happy with the stock brakes with the
> current engine, so I'd probably do a brake upgrade at the same time as
> the engine swap.

do you use oem pads or aftermarket? my experience with aftermarket pads
is very poor - bad wear, bad fade, poor stopping power... now i use oem
and am very happy. and this opinion was recently re-reinforced by my
new crx that has aftermarket pads - just doesn't stop like it should.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
<snip>
> Definitely. I've never been too happy with the stock brakes with the
> current engine, so I'd probably do a brake upgrade at the same time as
> the engine swap.

do you use oem pads or aftermarket? my experience with aftermarket pads
is very poor - bad wear, bad fade, poor stopping power... now i use oem
and am very happy. and this opinion was recently re-reinforced by my
new crx that has aftermarket pads - just doesn't stop like it should.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <xaOdnZQaOJz_TiHYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:LMPuh.474974$Fi1.65926@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of
>>>>> what exactly is in it???
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And does it matter now, if it wasn't a problem all those years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it were me... I wouldn't even admit it!
>>>
>>> <G>
>>>
>>> JT
>>>
>>>
>> the thing i find interesting is the fact that it's clearly not been an
>> issue all this time. i've just got myself another crx, 1990 dx, and it
>> absolutely flies. i'm sure that upgrading from 2pfi to 4pfi would
>> improve performance further, but i wonder how much difference there is
>> between a "good" d15 and a "not so good" d16. since there's always
>> variance in output from engine to engine - speculating, you could
>> therefore argue that the difference could be approaching that of the
>> variance "noise".
>
> Well, JT's got a point, but now that I've already opened my virtual
> mouth, the cat's out of the bag. Now that I think back on it, I had
> indications it was a 1.5L after comments from the shops who did timing
> belt changes at 60K and 115K, but they never mentioned the engine number
> stamped on the block or the possibility that it wasn't the original
> engine. And it's really not as big of a deal as I probably made it
> sound, especially since I've been considering a swap anyway for quite
> some time.
>
> The D15 in the DX is rated at 90hp, and the D16 in the Si is rated at
> 110hp. My car's not exactly sluggish, and the current engine runs well,
> but that's still a pretty healthy amount of power to be giving away,
> especially in such a light car.
>
> Oh, and JT, this one's for you:
>
> http://www.houston-imports.com/forum...d.php?t=351953
>
> Too bad an engine swap is even being discussed - I'd leave it exactly as
> is. Actually, the $3200 he spent on paint would've paid for one hell of
> a mechanical restoration, plus a "normal" paint job.
>
> Dave
>
>
that's insane. don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful thing, but i want a
car that goes - that means goes fast, stops fast, and pulls g's when
cornering. the old cvcc's are just not on a par with the 88-91's in any
way.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <xaOdnZQaOJz_TiHYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:LMPuh.474974$Fi1.65926@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of
>>>>> what exactly is in it???
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And does it matter now, if it wasn't a problem all those years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it were me... I wouldn't even admit it!
>>>
>>> <G>
>>>
>>> JT
>>>
>>>
>> the thing i find interesting is the fact that it's clearly not been an
>> issue all this time. i've just got myself another crx, 1990 dx, and it
>> absolutely flies. i'm sure that upgrading from 2pfi to 4pfi would
>> improve performance further, but i wonder how much difference there is
>> between a "good" d15 and a "not so good" d16. since there's always
>> variance in output from engine to engine - speculating, you could
>> therefore argue that the difference could be approaching that of the
>> variance "noise".
>
> Well, JT's got a point, but now that I've already opened my virtual
> mouth, the cat's out of the bag. Now that I think back on it, I had
> indications it was a 1.5L after comments from the shops who did timing
> belt changes at 60K and 115K, but they never mentioned the engine number
> stamped on the block or the possibility that it wasn't the original
> engine. And it's really not as big of a deal as I probably made it
> sound, especially since I've been considering a swap anyway for quite
> some time.
>
> The D15 in the DX is rated at 90hp, and the D16 in the Si is rated at
> 110hp. My car's not exactly sluggish, and the current engine runs well,
> but that's still a pretty healthy amount of power to be giving away,
> especially in such a light car.
>
> Oh, and JT, this one's for you:
>
> http://www.houston-imports.com/forum...d.php?t=351953
>
> Too bad an engine swap is even being discussed - I'd leave it exactly as
> is. Actually, the $3200 he spent on paint would've paid for one hell of
> a mechanical restoration, plus a "normal" paint job.
>
> Dave
>
>
that's insane. don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful thing, but i want a
car that goes - that means goes fast, stops fast, and pulls g's when
cornering. the old cvcc's are just not on a par with the 88-91's in any
way.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <xaOdnZQaOJz_TiHYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:LMPuh.474974$Fi1.65926@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of
>>>>> what exactly is in it???
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And does it matter now, if it wasn't a problem all those years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it were me... I wouldn't even admit it!
>>>
>>> <G>
>>>
>>> JT
>>>
>>>
>> the thing i find interesting is the fact that it's clearly not been an
>> issue all this time. i've just got myself another crx, 1990 dx, and it
>> absolutely flies. i'm sure that upgrading from 2pfi to 4pfi would
>> improve performance further, but i wonder how much difference there is
>> between a "good" d15 and a "not so good" d16. since there's always
>> variance in output from engine to engine - speculating, you could
>> therefore argue that the difference could be approaching that of the
>> variance "noise".
>
> Well, JT's got a point, but now that I've already opened my virtual
> mouth, the cat's out of the bag. Now that I think back on it, I had
> indications it was a 1.5L after comments from the shops who did timing
> belt changes at 60K and 115K, but they never mentioned the engine number
> stamped on the block or the possibility that it wasn't the original
> engine. And it's really not as big of a deal as I probably made it
> sound, especially since I've been considering a swap anyway for quite
> some time.
>
> The D15 in the DX is rated at 90hp, and the D16 in the Si is rated at
> 110hp. My car's not exactly sluggish, and the current engine runs well,
> but that's still a pretty healthy amount of power to be giving away,
> especially in such a light car.
>
> Oh, and JT, this one's for you:
>
> http://www.houston-imports.com/forum...d.php?t=351953
>
> Too bad an engine swap is even being discussed - I'd leave it exactly as
> is. Actually, the $3200 he spent on paint would've paid for one hell of
> a mechanical restoration, plus a "normal" paint job.
>
> Dave
>
>
that's insane. don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful thing, but i want a
car that goes - that means goes fast, stops fast, and pulls g's when
cornering. the old cvcc's are just not on a par with the 88-91's in any
way.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <xaOdnZQaOJz_TiHYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:LMPuh.474974$Fi1.65926@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of
>>>>> what exactly is in it???
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And does it matter now, if it wasn't a problem all those years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it were me... I wouldn't even admit it!
>>>
>>> <G>
>>>
>>> JT
>>>
>>>
>> the thing i find interesting is the fact that it's clearly not been an
>> issue all this time. i've just got myself another crx, 1990 dx, and it
>> absolutely flies. i'm sure that upgrading from 2pfi to 4pfi would
>> improve performance further, but i wonder how much difference there is
>> between a "good" d15 and a "not so good" d16. since there's always
>> variance in output from engine to engine - speculating, you could
>> therefore argue that the difference could be approaching that of the
>> variance "noise".
>
> Well, JT's got a point, but now that I've already opened my virtual
> mouth, the cat's out of the bag. Now that I think back on it, I had
> indications it was a 1.5L after comments from the shops who did timing
> belt changes at 60K and 115K, but they never mentioned the engine number
> stamped on the block or the possibility that it wasn't the original
> engine. And it's really not as big of a deal as I probably made it
> sound, especially since I've been considering a swap anyway for quite
> some time.
>
> The D15 in the DX is rated at 90hp, and the D16 in the Si is rated at
> 110hp. My car's not exactly sluggish, and the current engine runs well,
> but that's still a pretty healthy amount of power to be giving away,
> especially in such a light car.
>
> Oh, and JT, this one's for you:
>
> http://www.houston-imports.com/forum...d.php?t=351953
>
> Too bad an engine swap is even being discussed - I'd leave it exactly as
> is. Actually, the $3200 he spent on paint would've paid for one hell of
> a mechanical restoration, plus a "normal" paint job.
>
> Dave
>
>
that's insane. don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful thing, but i want a
car that goes - that means goes fast, stops fast, and pulls g's when
cornering. the old cvcc's are just not on a par with the 88-91's in any
way.

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <ZoGdnRoF9ZzK0SHYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> E. Meyer wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RvudnSzq1OSWAibYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> E Meyer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>>>>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>>>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>>>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>>>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>>>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>>>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>>>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>>>>> day.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>>>>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>>>>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove
>>>>> it
>>>>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>>>>> bought
>>>>> it? Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at
>>>>> $704.
>>>>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>>>>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>>>>
>>>> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale at
>>>> $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring off
>>>> the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i don't
>>>> care /what/ edmunds say.
>>> I can't speak for San Francisco, but around here (Dallas area) I have found
>>> the Edmunds numbers to be a maximum you can only aspire to. You did notice
>>> that it is the trade-in value, not suggested retail? My experience has been
>>> if you drive into a dealer with a 17 year old car of any type or pedigree,
>>> the offer will be about $50.
>>>
>>>
>> yeah, and all the service techs take them home to sell on the private
>> market for a good deal more. except the crx's - they keep those. the
>> dealer near where i live always has a bunch of crx's out the back where
>> the staff park.
>
> I've seen CRX shells, with no motor or trans, sell for more than $700.
> Trade-in values are always ridiculously low, but I can't imagine many
> CRX owners trying to trade them in at a dealer vs. a private sale.
> Anyone who doesn't think $1500-2000 for a generally clean, unmodified
> 88-91 CRX is easily attainable isn't familiar with how much in demand
> these cars still are. A really nice one that's been well-maintained by
> an original owner will sell for considerably more.
>
> Dave
>
no kidding. i just paid $1k for an unmodded crx - one lady owner from
new. 105k miles. immaculate inside. 100% stock [apart from the brake
pads]. never crashed. paint's not so great, but it's all stock. i've
only had it a week, but already i've had two people offer to buy it!

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <ZoGdnRoF9ZzK0SHYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> E. Meyer wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RvudnSzq1OSWAibYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> E Meyer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>>>>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>>>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>>>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>>>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>>>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>>>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>>>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>>>>> day.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>>>>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>>>>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove
>>>>> it
>>>>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>>>>> bought
>>>>> it? Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at
>>>>> $704.
>>>>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>>>>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>>>>
>>>> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale at
>>>> $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring off
>>>> the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i don't
>>>> care /what/ edmunds say.
>>> I can't speak for San Francisco, but around here (Dallas area) I have found
>>> the Edmunds numbers to be a maximum you can only aspire to. You did notice
>>> that it is the trade-in value, not suggested retail? My experience has been
>>> if you drive into a dealer with a 17 year old car of any type or pedigree,
>>> the offer will be about $50.
>>>
>>>
>> yeah, and all the service techs take them home to sell on the private
>> market for a good deal more. except the crx's - they keep those. the
>> dealer near where i live always has a bunch of crx's out the back where
>> the staff park.
>
> I've seen CRX shells, with no motor or trans, sell for more than $700.
> Trade-in values are always ridiculously low, but I can't imagine many
> CRX owners trying to trade them in at a dealer vs. a private sale.
> Anyone who doesn't think $1500-2000 for a generally clean, unmodified
> 88-91 CRX is easily attainable isn't familiar with how much in demand
> these cars still are. A really nice one that's been well-maintained by
> an original owner will sell for considerably more.
>
> Dave
>
no kidding. i just paid $1k for an unmodded crx - one lady owner from
new. 105k miles. immaculate inside. 100% stock [apart from the brake
pads]. never crashed. paint's not so great, but it's all stock. i've
only had it a week, but already i've had two people offer to buy it!

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <ZoGdnRoF9ZzK0SHYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> E. Meyer wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RvudnSzq1OSWAibYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> E Meyer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>>>>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>>>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>>>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>>>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>>>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>>>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>>>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>>>>> day.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>>>>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>>>>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove
>>>>> it
>>>>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>>>>> bought
>>>>> it? Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at
>>>>> $704.
>>>>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>>>>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>>>>
>>>> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale at
>>>> $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring off
>>>> the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i don't
>>>> care /what/ edmunds say.
>>> I can't speak for San Francisco, but around here (Dallas area) I have found
>>> the Edmunds numbers to be a maximum you can only aspire to. You did notice
>>> that it is the trade-in value, not suggested retail? My experience has been
>>> if you drive into a dealer with a 17 year old car of any type or pedigree,
>>> the offer will be about $50.
>>>
>>>
>> yeah, and all the service techs take them home to sell on the private
>> market for a good deal more. except the crx's - they keep those. the
>> dealer near where i live always has a bunch of crx's out the back where
>> the staff park.
>
> I've seen CRX shells, with no motor or trans, sell for more than $700.
> Trade-in values are always ridiculously low, but I can't imagine many
> CRX owners trying to trade them in at a dealer vs. a private sale.
> Anyone who doesn't think $1500-2000 for a generally clean, unmodified
> 88-91 CRX is easily attainable isn't familiar with how much in demand
> these cars still are. A really nice one that's been well-maintained by
> an original owner will sell for considerably more.
>
> Dave
>
no kidding. i just paid $1k for an unmodded crx - one lady owner from
new. 105k miles. immaculate inside. 100% stock [apart from the brake
pads]. never crashed. paint's not so great, but it's all stock. i've
only had it a week, but already i've had two people offer to buy it!

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article <ZoGdnRoF9ZzK0SHYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
>> E. Meyer wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RvudnSzq1OSWAibYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> E Meyer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>>>>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>>>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>>>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>>>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>>>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>>>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>>>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>>>>> day.
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>>>>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>>>>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove
>>>>> it
>>>>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>>>>> bought
>>>>> it? Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at
>>>>> $704.
>>>>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>>>>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>>>>
>>>> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale at
>>>> $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring off
>>>> the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i don't
>>>> care /what/ edmunds say.
>>> I can't speak for San Francisco, but around here (Dallas area) I have found
>>> the Edmunds numbers to be a maximum you can only aspire to. You did notice
>>> that it is the trade-in value, not suggested retail? My experience has been
>>> if you drive into a dealer with a 17 year old car of any type or pedigree,
>>> the offer will be about $50.
>>>
>>>
>> yeah, and all the service techs take them home to sell on the private
>> market for a good deal more. except the crx's - they keep those. the
>> dealer near where i live always has a bunch of crx's out the back where
>> the staff park.
>
> I've seen CRX shells, with no motor or trans, sell for more than $700.
> Trade-in values are always ridiculously low, but I can't imagine many
> CRX owners trying to trade them in at a dealer vs. a private sale.
> Anyone who doesn't think $1500-2000 for a generally clean, unmodified
> 88-91 CRX is easily attainable isn't familiar with how much in demand
> these cars still are. A really nice one that's been well-maintained by
> an original owner will sell for considerably more.
>
> Dave
>
no kidding. i just paid $1k for an unmodded crx - one lady owner from
new. 105k miles. immaculate inside. 100% stock [apart from the brake
pads]. never crashed. paint's not so great, but it's all stock. i've
only had it a week, but already i've had two people offer to buy it!

Re: My Si has a DX motor!
 

In article <7LydnYzHAcbkHiDYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
spamvortex@bad.example.net says...
> Dave Garrett wrote:

> <snip>
> > Definitely. I've never been too happy with the stock brakes with the
> > current engine, so I'd probably do a brake upgrade at the same time as
> > the engine swap.
>
> do you use oem pads or aftermarket? my experience with aftermarket pads
> is very poor - bad wear, bad fade, poor stopping power... now i use oem
> and am very happy. and this opinion was recently re-reinforced by my
> new crx that has aftermarket pads - just doesn't stop like it should.

I've used both in the past, but I just had the brakes redone several
weeks ago, and OEM pads were used. Had to have the brake booster
replaced last year when it failed catastrophically (that was exciting,
as it happened on the freeway), and the master cylinder was replaced
prior to that. I'm thinking about installing braided stainless lines to
see if that improves things, but will probably wind up converting to
'teg brakes sooner or later.

Dave