 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 20052006 Hondas
I just read over at www.vtec.net about the 06 Accord 6MT sedan, the vigorous trim lines for 06 Civic and with the Jazz coming, I think Honda is making some cool moves for 06! Pretty cool, huh. > I just read over at www.vtec.net about the 06 Accord 6MT sedan, the vigorous > trim lines for 06 Civic and with the Jazz coming, I think Honda is making > some cool moves for 06! Pretty cool, huh. I reached for the Jazz link first thing and came to this remarkably researched article: http://asia.vtec.net/Reviews/JazzVtec/index.html The 1.5 Liter VTEC Jazz is rated (and getting, according to the reviewer) 47 mpg. Mighty sweet. You didn't happen to notice any official word at this site as to when the Jazz will be available in the U.S., did you? > You didn't happen to notice any official word at this site as to when the > Jazz will be available in the U.S., did you? Nah, only the "Introduction" in 2006 from the model matrix. I googled and found this though, that car looks happy doesnt it?? http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=73&t=282439 There is a whole forum dedicated to the Honda Fit and Jazz at: http://FitFreak.net Check it out.  SignatureFaceYogurt Discussions from http://fitfreak.net hey all just go through here for all latest honda models . http://www.andersondirect.com > > You didn't happen to notice any official word at this site as to when the > > Jazz will be available in the U.S., did you? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=73&t=282439 Yes. The post about the Japanese guys filming the commercial in Florida about the Honda Fit (and how it was _not_ coming to the U.S. soon(!)) was funny, too. :-) > The post about the Japanese guys filming the commercial in Florida about the > Honda Fit (and how it was _not_ coming to the U.S. soon(!)) was funny, too. > :-) They SHOULD bring it to North America, as it would be formidable competition for the Toyota Echo. The Chevy Aveo, for example, cannot match the Echo for quality and fuel economy like the Fit/Jazz can. >>The post about the Japanese guys filming the commercial in Florida about the >>Honda Fit (and how it was _not_ coming to the U.S. soon(!)) was funny, too. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the Toyota Echo. The Chevy Aveo, for example, cannot match the Echo for > quality and fuel economy like the Fit/Jazz can. eh, the echo (IMO) is fugly. tall and narrow, with what look like tiny wheels. the scions (A&B) are based on the echo platform/drivetrain, but have proper 15" wheels. as for the aveo? id boycott them merely for the fact its a daewoo. GM bought em and shut down their NA operations, then brought the cars back under their own nameplates. > The post about the Japanese guys filming the commercial in Florida about the > Honda Fit (and how it was _not_ coming to the U.S. soon(!)) was funny, too. > :-) hahaha... toosmall, toosmall, hahaha....! um, right. they see how the scions are doing, as well as the mini cooper. theyd be retarded NOT to release it here while theres a demand. ackshully, they shoulda brought it here a couple years ago but they probably wanted to see how scion was going to do. > Elle wrote: > > The post about the Japanese guys filming the commercial in Florida about the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > shoulda brought it here a couple years ago but they probably wanted to > see how scion was going to do. Really. 50 mpg. Baby. One of the posters later in the thread does claim the Fit is coming to the U.S. about 2006. Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell in the U.S. soon, anyway? One can only speculate. I just looked at all the photos at the site. Get a load of that engine compartment! In article <p1Bze.5224$8f7.1310@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell in the >U.S. soon, anyway? One can only speculate. The car in the pictures had right hand drive. Why would they film a commercial in Miami for a car with right hand drive to show in the US? SignatureMike Iglesias Email: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926 Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069 "Mike Iglesias" <iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu> wrote e wrote > >Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell in the > >U.S. soon, anyway? One can only speculate. > > The car in the pictures had right hand drive. Why would they film a > commercial in Miami for a car with right hand drive to show in the US? Why would they haul the Fit all the way to Florida when they can use computer technology to make the thing look like it's anywhere? I reckon it's all part of a greater Ponzi scheme. Just as long as I get my little 1.5 Liter Fit/Jazz/Echo/Scion engine for around $12k in five years or whenever the hood release cable on my 91 Civic finally snaps and I spend two or more days getting the hood to pop. Then I'll have a $250 car for someone else. > "Mike Iglesias" <iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu> wrote > e wrote [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>The car in the pictures had right hand drive. Why would they film a >>commercial in Miami for a car with right hand drive to show in the US? they can flip the image if they want. > Why would they haul the Fit all the way to Florida when they can use > computer technology to make the thing look like it's anywhere? > > I reckon it's all part of a greater Ponzi scheme. itll be here. they might not have RHD models available for the commercial. i dunno what hand drive the poster that saw em driving around torrance had. ima wait. > Just as long as I get my little 1.5 Liter Fit/Jazz/Echo/Scion engine for > around $12k in five years or whenever the hood release cable on my 91 Civic > finally snaps and I spend two or more days getting the hood to pop. Then > I'll have a $250 car for someone else. hood pins, nascar styleee. "SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote E wrote > > Just as long as I get my little 1.5 Liter Fit/Jazz/Echo/Scion engine for > > around $12k in five years or whenever the hood release cable on my 91 Civic > > finally snaps and I spend two or more days getting the hood to pop. Then > > I'll have a $250 car for someone else. > > > hood pins, nascar styleee. Ha ha ha.... Never underestimate the resourcefulness of the posters at rec.honda :-) > "Mike Iglesias" <iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu> wrote > e wrote [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > finally snaps and I spend two or more days getting the hood to pop. Then > I'll have a $250 car for someone else. come on elle! that cable's /easy/ to replace. i replaced mine courtesy of a junk yard. less than $5. it's worth it for piece of mind. even if it does snap, just remove the front bumper and reach from underneath. /then/ you can replace it! only 4 bolts hold the bumper on. Perhaps they were *not* filming a USA commercial? Perhaps it was a commerical for Japan? > In article <p1Bze.5224$8f7.1310@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The car in the pictures had right hand drive. Why would they film a > commercial in Miami for a car with right hand drive to show in the US? > Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell in the > U.S. soon, anyway? One can only speculate. > > I just looked at all the photos at the site. Get a load of that engine > compartment! They ARE going to make it available, but only the 1.5 with all the luxury options. Read: 13-14K. Not a super frugal car at that price, but then again, it does have ABS standard and other features that most small cars like it(and they need things like ABS the most) just don't have. That's why the Mini is selling so well - you can customize it and get it in full luxury trim if you want - your econobox doesn't have to have second class or third class components unless you want a basic stripped-down model. This little car is going to sell like crazy. I tried the Mini and it was nice, but it was a bit too small and overpriced. 80% of the Mini with a more useable cargo area? Sign me up. They're going to sell a million of them to car rental agencies and for deliveries and so on alone. I still see little Geo Metros and Echos and the like running around doing this - a Honda version that's new? No-brainer. And, no, none of the ads in Japan are done overseas - the only reason they would possibly film in Florida is for a N. American release. They of course aren't allowed to say anything unless they like to be unemployed, so they of course deny it until the day it comes out. Apple Computer is famous for the same sort of thing - no info until it hits the streets. My only gripe is that the 1.2 isn't available as a base model. $10-11K with stickshift. Beep Beep :) "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote About the Honda Fit/Jazz: > They ARE going to make it available, but only the 1.5 with all > the luxury options. Read: 13-14K. Not a super frugal car at that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > say anything unless they like to be unemployed, so they > of course deny it until the day it comes out. Huh. > Apple Computer > is famous for the same sort of thing - no info until it > hits the streets. > > My only gripe is that the 1.2 isn't available as a > base model. $10-11K with stickshift. Beep Beep :) Ha ha. I was at my new Honda dealer's parts department today to check on some prices and asked about the Fit and Jazz. The guy said with confidence that they were supposed to be here (at his dealer's or at least on sale in the U.S.) by last month but that got moved to January or a bit later in 2006. > Ha ha. > > I was at my new Honda dealer's parts department today to check on some > prices and asked about the Fit and Jazz. The guy said with confidence that > they were supposed to be here (at his dealer's or at least on sale in the > U.S.) by last month but that got moved to January or a bit later in 2006. dealer lackeys generally dont know sh.t. they like to THINK they do, and want people to believe em. new model intros are usually in september, but if theyre putting it off, then that kinda sucks. > Elle wrote: > > I was at my new Honda dealer's parts department today to check on some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > dealer lackeys generally dont know sh.t. Yes, but the guy was so precise that I thought this worth mentioning. With the other anecdotes people are sharing, and if forced to bet, I'd bet the Jazz/Fit will be here by at least 2007. > they like to THINK they do, and > want people to believe em. new model intros are usually in september, > but if theyre putting it off, then that kinda sucks. No idea. The salesmen at this same dealership a few months ago said they'd never even heard of the Jazz. So I'm taking the parts guy's comment as "progress" of some kind. Then again it seems to me parts and service people tend to be way more knowledgeable about what's coming next. I too don't think I'd be happy with a 1.2 or maybe even 1.3 Liter car engine, unless everyone in the U.S. drove cars under 2 L. One needs a certain amount of power to stay maneuverable, and so feel safe, in tricky situations. 1.4 Liter might work. > One needs a > certain amount of power to stay maneuverable, and so feel safe, in tricky > situations. no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being in a usable band. Some big-engined SUVs have a lower power/weight ratio than smaller-engined, smaller cars. They're harder to drive out of the way in a tricky situation than a smaller car with a smaller engine but a better power/weight ratio (and a smaller mass to move through the inertia and a lower center of gravity). > "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being > in a usable band. One needs a certain amount of power, period. Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will depend on vehicle specifics. > > no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being > > in a usable band. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will > depend on vehicle specifics. right, like weight. Which goes back to what I said: one needs a certain amount of power for the weight one is pulling around. One needs a certain power/weight ratio. Put a 100hp motorcycle against a 100hp Civic and see what happens. It's all about power to weight ratio. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote E wrote > > > no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being > > > in a usable band. > > > > One needs a certain amount of power, period. > It's all about power to weight ratio. It's all about understanding English. > > > One needs a certain amount of power, period. > > > It's all about power to weight ratio. > > It's all about understanding English. Are you implying that I don't understand English? The problem is that you don't understand simple physics. You need a certain amount of power FOR THE WEIGHT. An absolute rating of power is meaningless. It's the power to weight ratio that's meaningful. Plainly, you're an idiot. >>>One needs a >>>certain amount of power to stay maneuverable, and so feel safe, in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will > depend on vehicle specifics. We're talking about maybe 8-10HP difference but 7-8mpg. > Elle wrote: snip drivel > > Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will > > depend on vehicle specifics. > > We're talking about maybe 8-10HP difference but 7-8mpg. We're talking about 80-83 hp for the 1.4L Fit and 1.3L Jazz (that's what a few sites said, anyway) vs. 92 hp for my 1.5L Civic. This is over 10% difference. My 1.5L Civic battles to get up to 80 mph, on the rare occasions when surrounding traffic warrants going this high. From experience driving it, I estimate its optimal mpg occurs closer to 50 mph. Without further investigation (e.g. the Fit could be significantly lighter than the Civic, so its acceleration may turn out to be better), I remain concerned that I would notice the lack of power. Of course, one could adjust to it, but as long as much bigger engines are on the road (for similar size vehicles), I am not sure I would be comfortable with even less acceleration capability. > We're talking about 80-83 hp for the 1.4L Fit and 1.3L Jazz (that's what a > few sites said, anyway) vs. 92 hp for my 1.5L Civic. This is over 10% > difference. But how much does the Fit/Jazz weigh, and how much does your Civic weigh? You keep focusing on the raw power without any context. 80hp on a motorcycle is WAY better than 92hp on your Civic. Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue? > Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue? I don't. Why do you keep failing to either read my posts or understand English? Jerk. > > Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue? > > I don't. Why do you keep failing to either read my posts or understand > English? You do. You focus on horsepower. Weight is inconsequential to you. >>>Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue? >> >>I don't. Why do you keep failing to either read my posts or understand >>English? > > You do. You focus on horsepower. Weight is inconsequential to you. He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure. All that matters is torque. Period. All the rest is gearing and how hard you rev it. And Honda engines love to rev. Definately not a Buick :) "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote snip > He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure. > All that matters is torque. Period. Bullshit. Period. > "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote > snip [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bullshit. Period. will you kids please grow up? > "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote > snip [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bullshit. Period. HP = T*N/5252 Where T = Torque (lbft) N = Speed (rpm) Where did that 5252 come from???? A:The 5252 is a made up synthetic number. You do the math. > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Where did that 5252 come from???? The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian). It is a "unity conversion factor," in the same way that 12 inches/foot and 1.34 hp / kw are both "unity conversion factors," as in length, inches = (length, feet) * 12 power, hp = (power, kw) * 1.34 >>>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote >>>snip [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian). Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and how fast you are reving the engine. People have it backwards. They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is and it's really nearly useless in determining that. Of course, people do the same thing in audio - they honestly think that how many "watts" the receiver is rated for determines which one is better. >>>>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote >>>>snip [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >how many "watts" the receiver is rated for determines which >one is better. "Better" is a broad characterization which may include many factors including subjective ones. However, when it comes to the ability of an engine to do work (such as accelerating a car) power is the primary determinant. If you have an engine that produces 10000 ft*lb at 10 rpm but won't turn any faster, you are goining to be very slow even though you have lots of torque. You will get beaten by a car of identical weight with 100 hp at 10,000 rpm every time. He will blow your doors off, even though he might have peak torque of less than 1% of your engine. orque alone doesn't matter. It's power that moves the car. Sorry. > If you have an engine that produces 10000 ft*lb at 10 rpm but won't > turn any faster, you are goining to be very slow even though you have > lots of torque. You will get beaten by a car of identical weight with > 100 hp at 10,000 rpm every time. He will blow your doors off, even > though he might have peak torque of less than 1% of your engine. > orque alone doesn't matter. It's power that moves the car. Sorry. Except that it only takes about 40-50hp to maintain 70mph. That one car can do 140 and the other only 100mph really means nothing. (It's not as drastic as you imply for automobiles) > Elle wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and > how fast you are reving the engine. You just changed your claim above that, "All that matters is torque. Period." > People have it backwards. > They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful an engine is. The thread speaks for itself. I withdraw. > Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful > an engine is. Yet this is as meaningless as "watts" are in audio. That it is commonly accepted as such is meaningless. Torque is how powerful the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate ratios or add another gear to the transmission. >> Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful >> an engine is. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate >ratios or add another gear to the transmission. Elle is right, horsepower is the only unit that makes sense to use. For example, the typical civic needs 70HP to do 100mph and 90HP to do 110mph. Try to use torque to describe the same and write half a page of meaningless equations. -- Leon "Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote snip > Elle is right, horsepower is the only unit that makes sense to use. > For example, the typical civic needs 70HP to do 100mph and 90HP to do > 110mph. Try to use torque to describe the same and write half a page > of meaningless equations. Hey, where'd you get the numbers? I'm not disputing them; I'm just curious. I remember researching the horsepower for cruising (ya know, normal speeds), and I think it was around 20 to 30 hp. But as big an issue is how well a car accelerates. That's when the horsepower becomes an important metric and crude measure of how well a car will accelerate. Torque and RPM certainly both have their place in discussions of what one wants an engine to do, but I'd never dismiss hp the way Joseph chooses to do. For now, anyway. >"Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote >snip [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >wants an engine to do, but I'd never dismiss hp the way Joseph chooses to >do. For now, anyway. http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/topspeed.htm Extremely accurate calculations, I've verified them against various FWD cars. -- Leon > <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote: > >"Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > >Hey, where'd you get the numbers? I'm not disputing them; I'm just curious. > http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/topspeed.htm Nice! Thanks. > snip drivel > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > few sites said, anyway) vs. 92 hp for my 1.5L Civic. This is over 10% > difference. Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz What a Civic does is immaterial. The 1.2l Jazz gets 7-8mph better highway mileage than the 1.4 version for hardly any difference in power. "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> > > snip drivel > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz What a Civic > does is immaterial. Bullshit. I raised the point ONLY to compare the Jazz and Fit to my Civic. RTFP. > Bullshit. I raised the point ONLY to compare the Jazz and Fit to my Civic. And you compared the engine horsepower of those cars, without regard to each car's mass. >>Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz What a Civic >>does is immaterial. > > Bullshit. I raised the point ONLY to compare the Jazz and Fit to my Civic. My original post about this point was comparing the U.S. version and lamentinhg that we couldn't get the 1.2 as it was much more efficient for a paltry amount of loss in power. > Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz whats the diff between the fit and the jazz? >> Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz > > whats the diff between the fit and the jazz? JUst the name. In the U.K., they sell a version with a tuned for maximum efficiency 1.2l engine. 60mpg highway and about 50mpg overall efficiency. No hybrid nonsense and it's not a tin can Smart Car or Mini, either. it official guys from the president and CEO of Honda Japan. The FIT is coming to the US! Details in the NEWS section of FitFreak.net http://FitFreak.net Signaturemilkylog Discussions from http://fitfreak.net > it official guys from the president and CEO of Honda Japan. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://FitFreak.net Nice. Any authoritative word on the MSRP of this car in the U.S.? Also, what kind of interior will be offered? I'm seeking a rough match to my current 91 Honda Civic LX's velour-ish interior. I don't want any Toyota Echo-ey plastic on the inside. >>it official guys from the president and CEO of Honda Japan. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm seeking a rough match to my current 91 Honda Civic LX's velour-ish > interior. I don't want any Toyota Echo-ey plastic on the inside. I'm going to be SO bummed if they don;t give us the 1.2 with basic trim as a low-priced option. A 110HP version would only get 40mpg highway. I'd rather get 60mpg highway and take a couple more seconds getting up to speed. > A 110HP version would > only get 40mpg highway. Can't be, the 06 Civic get more that 40 mpg. >> it official guys from the president and CEO of Honda Japan. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I'm seeking a rough match to my current 91 Honda Civic LX's velour-ish >interior. I don't want any Toyota Echo-ey plastic on the inside. My friend's wife bought the recently restyled Jazz with the L-series 1.4 i-Dsi engine (8V, twin spark plug), I'm not sure but something like 80-85HP. Gets better mileage than my 95 civic, the interior is smaller but you sit taller, does not look sporty. The car is manual (I've heard that the CVT is great), European specs, was a bit over >14k ($16.5k), power windows, locks, mirrors, remote, a/c, air-bags, abs. You can buy similar Hyundais for 11-12k. I drove it once at night, the temperature gauge has a visible C when the engine is cold, there is a big b&w lcd screen (amber) on the dash with a huge knob that controls the radio and the (auto fan, auto temp) a/c. There is a super-lock feature with either the remote or the key, when you lock the door with key if you keep turned all the way for a second or two, you activate super-lock, that is you can only unlock the door with the key (or remote), not from inside the car, even if someone breaks a window he/she cannot unlock the door. -- Leon "Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote snip > My friend's wife bought the recently restyled Jazz with the L-series > 1.4 i-Dsi engine (8V, twin spark plug), I'm not sure but something > like 80-85HP. Gets better mileage than my 95 civic, the interior is > smaller but you sit taller, does not look sporty. The car is manual > (I've heard that the CVT is great), European specs, was a bit over > ?14k ($16.5k), power windows, locks, mirrors, That's the ticket. My 91 Civic LX has the above. Sounds promising. Hopefully w/o air conditioning and with a manual transmission, I could get it for around $12k. > remote, a/c, air-bags, abs. I wish I could skip the air bags and anti-lock brakes. > You can buy similar Hyundais for ?11-12k. I am not ready to "convert" to the Hyundai school. > it official guys from the president and CEO of Honda Japan. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://FitFreak.net i figured. >> Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell >> in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that most small cars like it(and they need things like ABS the most) > just don't have. hm. sunroof? > That's why the Mini is selling so well - you can customize it > and get it in full luxury trim if you want - your econobox > doesn't have to have second class or third class components > unless you want a basic stripped-down model. yup. i wish they offered those options on the 96-00 hatches. but nooooo. > This little car is going to sell like crazy. I tried the Mini > and it was nice, but it was a bit too small and overpriced. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Metros and Echos and the like running around doing this - a > Honda version that's new? No-brainer. absolutely. i dont think itll convert any peeps that already bought a small scion, mini, or new beetle. but if theyd get the word out, it might get people to at least wait, which is what im doing. im in no hurry to buy a new car, but id like to know all my options. > And, no, none of the ads in Japan are done overseas - the > only reason they would possibly film in Florida is for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My only gripe is that the 1.2 isn't available as a > base model. $10-11K with stickshift. Beep Beep :) yeah, well. my 1.6 is adequate, but its not an enthusiast motor. i dunno if id wanna be hitting the 15 north to vegas thru the mtns from LA in a 1.2l >>> Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell >>> in the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > if id wanna be hitting the 15 north to vegas thru the mtns from LA in a > 1.2l hit the rpm's mike. when i lived in europe, i had several small motored cars, 1100, 850, even a 2 cylinder 600cc, and it taught me a whole different way of driving. hondas are built for rpm's and pull /real/ well if you get the revs up near the red. i would have no hesitation with 1.2l in a car that size & weight. on the subject of different driving style, when i was selling my crx, test drivers would floor the gas at 2500 rpm & complain that it was not pulling hard enough. but if you did that at 4000 rpm, it would take off - almost literally - but it seemed impossible to pursuade them to go there! i guess if you're used to a big motor with low end grunt, it's hard to transition, but rpm's are your friend. hondas have high red lines and rev limiters. you can't hurt them. > The 1.5 Liter VTEC Jazz is rated (and getting, according to the reviewer) 47 > mpg. Mighty sweet. My 04 civic get 43 mpg on the hwy during the Summer. The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine. The 7 speed CVT in the Jazz is kind of neat. Check out this Top Fuel Turbo Kit for the FIT. If they bring the FIT here to the US, we'll have an incredible amount of aftermarket goodies available from Japan right away. http://fitfreak.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=14 SignatureFaceYogurt Discussions from http://fitfreak.net > The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine. I read that the new 1.8L engine is an i-VTEC unit. Does anybody know if this means that it will be chain-driven like the Accord's i-VTEC? >>The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine. > > I read that the new 1.8L engine is an i-VTEC unit. Does anybody know if > this means that it will be chain-driven like the Accord's i-VTEC? hope so. sucks having to replace a timing belt as regular maintenance. > > The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine. > > I read that the new 1.8L engine is an i-VTEC unit. Does anybody know if > this means that it will be chain-driven like the Accord's i-VTEC? Look at it for yourself. http://world.honda.com/news/2005/4050705_a_1.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.