 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / January 2006hondas are for loosers
I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description of any potential car I buy. The max. torque should be available at a low RPM. And of couse the max. torque should be as high as possible. The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP. Hondas are good to save fuel -- because of they provide their max. torque at a too high RPM. This means that the car has less available power at normal RPMs. Best example is the 2006 Acura RSX -- the one with 201HP -- max. torque at 7000RPM and it is 140ft-pd. This engine is not the product of an engineer -- this is an accident. The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque at 1800RPM -- this is an engine made for driving. Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP on the Acura (207/140*200) -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi knows what is available at 2000RPM. At least we're not losers. At least we're not losers. Yeah, that's what we all buy cars for - the torque curve. Please people, don't feed trolls. It only encourages them. I agree that there are other aspects to buying a car. But don't tell me you're ignoring the amounts of HP a given car has. My point is that you cannot just compare HP to know how agile a car will respond. > Yeah, that's what we all buy cars for - the torque curve. > > Please people, don't feed trolls. It only encourages them. > I agree that there are other aspects to buying a car. > But don't tell me you're ignoring the amounts of HP a given car has. > My point is that you cannot just compare HP to know how agile a car will > respond. HP per pound curb weight, basically. everyone knows japanese engines are made to rev and can handle it. >I agree that there are other aspects to buying a car. > But don't tell me you're ignoring the amounts of HP a given car has. > My point is that you cannot just compare HP to know how agile a car will > respond. The original post and the subject line did much more than just make this point and is an indefensible over-generalized assumption about Honda owners and the readers of this group. Most people who buy cars don't have a clue about the HP/Torque relationship. More Honda owners likely understand it than those that buy other cars. Most people who know much about cars and post on this group understand exactly why Honda engineers design the cars the way that they do. If you want poorer reliability, poorer fuel economy, and more low rpm torque, get the VW. My Ody's torque curve is fine with me. Beat the hell out of the competitors when I bought it and better mileage, too. Like I said, if you like the trade offs, buy something else. No need to insult people who DO understand. Leonard | don't tell me you're ignoring the amounts of HP a given car has. HP is often irrelevant to *cars with auto gearboxes, e.g. in a speed limit of 110 kph ( radar detectors are illegal here ), an SM4 ( on 205/65R15 tyres with axle height of 30.2 cm, combined gear ratio of 3.1323 )'s engine in top gear must not spin >3025 rpm. Only on germany's autobahn will HP be relevant to *. VW's 2ws is inferior to japanese ( incl honda )'s 4ws. Looks like you never expereinced 4ws. [i] 1 can corner hard without a nose-dive ; only a slight sideward tilt towards outer edge of road curve will happen, because all 4 tyres can turn to change car's direction, i.e. nearly twice as much tyre grip. 1 needs not slow down as much, & lose / waste momentum. [ii] esp useful in a city like Sydney ( australia ) whose city centre's road lanes are just 7' wide ( approx, I could not stop to measure them ) : over curves all 2ws cars ( trucks are worse )' tails inevitably cut into other lanes, 1's car will be scratched / dented unless 1 carefully avoids these cutting-in`s, i.e. 1 must not drive into busy curves. 4ws vehicles need not cut into other lanes ( their tails can follow road curves ), should be charged lower rd tax for their tighter use of narrow lanes ( enable fstr traffic flow ). [iii] a narrow gap ( on a curve rd / path ) impassable to a 2ws car can be passable to a 4ws car of similar size. The same with a short parking space, or a 3 point turn to reverse car's direction. 4ws saves time, this is what cars are for in the 1st place. > I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. "hondas are for loosers"? "Loose" as in "not tight"? as in you're not wrapped so tight? > I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. > Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi > knows what is available at 2000RPM. Crush!! It's Really You!!! You're ALIVE! --Gene > In article <kmeyf.8809$dW3.2952@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, junk18843 > Crush!! It's Really You!!! You're ALIVE! LOL! Anyone remember this?... Greasy Crush © http://www.geocities.com/greasycrush/ The answer to Crush's VTEC Reality Check http://www.geocities.com/greasycrush/realitycheck.htm -- Mark '99 Civic Si > --Gene > I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. > Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description of > any potential car I buy. > The max. torque should be available at a low RPM. then buy a ram with a cummins diesel. 400 ft/lb torque at under 2000rpm. sweet! > And of couse the max. torque should be as high as possible. > The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at 1800RPM > -- this is an engine made for driving. and for burning a quart of oil every thousand miles :) normal, according to VWoA. > Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP on > the Acura (207/140*200) > -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi > knows what is available at 2000RPM. >> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. >> Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then buy a ram with a cummins diesel. 400 ft/lb torque at under 2000rpm. > sweet! but I dislike diesel engines >> The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of >> torque at 1800RPM >> -- this is an engine made for driving. > > and for burning a quart of oil every thousand miles :) my VW GTI 1.8T does not consume any oil -- I never had to add oil until now. Of course the engine is still quite new -- 30kmiles. My brother drow my last car (Seat Ibiza Gti (VW engine)) until 125kmiles before he sold it and he never reported that the car was consuming oil. >I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. >Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description of >any potential car I buy. >The max. torque should be available at a low RPM. >And of couse the max. torque should be as high as possible. How about 340 lb.-ft. at 1300 rpm? Here ya go: http://tinyurl.com/csukp >The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP. As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot pounds of torque at 5252 rpm. >>The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP. > > As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot > pounds of torque at 5252 rpm. this is a sign of a castrated engine. I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late. >>>The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >this is a sign of a castrated engine. >I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late. So, let me get this straight... Any engine that develops horsepower equal to ft-lbs torque at 5252 rpm is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you. >>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot >>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the > relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you. any engine that gets the max. torque point at an RPM higher than 4000 is a castrated engine -- usually the lowested RPM point for which max. torque is available is mentioned. Of course it is helpful if this max. torque is available over as broad range as possible. E.g. the 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops max. torque between 1800RPM and 4800RPM. The 1.8 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops max. torque betwen 1950RPM and 5000RPM. For both only the smaller values of the RPM are mentioned. >>>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot >>>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and 5000RPM. > For both only the smaller values of the RPM are mentioned. Honda engines have a very flat torque curve, standard, SOHC vtec, and DOHC ivtec. Of course the driver actually has to know how to drive. Honda matches its gear ratios and transmissions to the final drive where what you consider weak torque more than gets the job done. BTW, if you dislike Hondas so much, why are you here? Oh, I'm sorry, that's a definition of a troll.  SignatureKent Finnell From the Music City USA >>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot >>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the > relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you. I'm a Electrical Engineer -- I studied enough physics so I know about the relationship between torque and HP. Torque*RPM = power. Of course there is some fudgefactor to get from pd*ft/min to HP. Would be easier if we would deal with metric units like in europe (Torque in Nm and Power in kW = 1000Nm/s). If you want to be provocative, at least try not to broadcast in the thread that you are an idiot (i.e., learn to spell). At first, I thought that his slpel chekker was broken but then, you cain't use 'em for the subject line. Well maybe circuitously... <G> JT > If you want to be provocative, at least try not to broadcast in the > thread that you are an idiot (i.e., learn to spell). leck mich am Arsch > If you want to be provocative, at least try not to broadcast in the > thread that you are an idiot (i.e., learn to spell). my wife has a honda (99). she bought it used and uses it to drive to work every day. it's very dependable. after reading your post, she is going to trade it. she has always been very concerned about torque. I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description of any potential car I buy. The max. torque should be available at a low RPM. And of couse the max. torque should be as high as possible. The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP. Hondas are good to save fuel -- because of they provide their max. torque at a too high RPM. This means that the car has less available power at normal RPMs. Best example is the 2006 Acura RSX -- the one with 201HP -- max. torque at 7000RPM and it is 140ft-pd. This engine is not the product of an engineer -- this is an accident. The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque at 1800RPM -- this is an engine made for driving. Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP on the Acura (207/140*200) -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi knows what is available at 2000RPM. I nether met a woman which would care much about the power of a car -- but there may be exceptions. I posted this mostly so that people pay attention to such issues. There are people buying a honda/acura as a sporty car. HP is not everything -- one can castrate the engine like Honda is usually doing it. > my wife has a honda (99). she bought it used and uses it to drive to work > every day. it's very dependable. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi > knows what is available at 2000RPM. > I nether met a woman which would care much about the power of a car -- but > there may be exceptions. > I posted this mostly so that people pay attention to such issues. > There are people buying a honda/acura as a sporty car. > HP is not everything -- one can castrate the engine like Honda is usually > doing it. Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight. HP-to-weight ratio will give you an overall indication of a car's performance. Look at car rag 0-60 and 1/4m times and see if they don't reflect hp-to-weight ratio. I've also seen hp-to-weight ratios being used to compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference to torque. For example: http://www.ultimateresourceguides.com/content/index.html) And Honda doesn’t "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless it's force fed)? For example, my '99 Civic Si... http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20001.jpg http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20004.jpg http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20007.jpg http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20010.jpg ...has the same torque output as say...a base MINI (both 1.6L, both 111 ft-lbs.). Now I don't know the mechanics of any of this, but I do know from personal experience having driven a lot of rentals the past few years while traveling for work, that a nice torquey engine (especially a V6 [usually a 3.4L or 3.8L in my case]) will pull extra weight easier than my Civic. That is, I'd rather drive a new 4-clyinder Malibu (yes, I really like GM's current line of Ecotec 4-clyinder engines) over my Civic if I had to regularly haul a carload of passengers. And that's with an automatic transmission vs. my Civic's 5-speed. But I hardly ever have a carload of passengers, usually just my skinny wife of 18 years. I also don't have a lot of heavy stereo equipment (added only a small amp and replaced speakers with after-market). Thus I personally have no problem with low torque output nor my torque-to-weight ratio. I'm not saying that I could do 0-60 in the low 7's nor the 1/4m in the high 15's as did all of the professional magazine drivers with a new '99 Si, but it's still quick enough for me. And practical as well, provided I'm not using it to car pool. My Civic (purchased new, VERY well maintained and never modified) is about to be semi-retired though, as we're about to buy a new Saturn VUE (with the Honda 3.5L). Then one day, when I can afford to, I'll replace my Civic with a new Mustang GT - 320 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm! Now THAT'S torque worth bragging about, and for only ~25k! P.S. If you want more torque in a 4-cylinder Honda engine, the CR-V has 160 ft-lbs. @ 3600 rpm (more torque than the S2000). But I'll keep my 111 ft-lbs. @ 7000 rpm for my application. And I'm sure you're not going to see many original S2000 owners (153 ft-lbs. @ 7500 rpm) swapping their out their engines for the CR-V's 2.4L power plant either. ;-) -- Mark '99 Civic Si > Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference to > torque. I think that HP-to-weight ratio is meaningless -- when are you actually driving at such RPMs? It is more important how much HP are available at 2000-4000RPM -- this is where I use my engine every day. Power=torque*rotary-speed This is the reason why I'm looking at the torque description of the car (including the weight of course). > And Honda doesn't "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower > displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless > it's force fed)? Honda produces castrated engines. Look at the 244HP V6 engine: http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/honda_accordcoupe_exv65spdatwnavxmradio_2006/1810 0/style_specs.html;_ylt=As20MgV1jQVYOev_Crf9c6p1eb8F It has max. torque only at 5000RPM -- and the max. torque is only 211ft-pd -- this is nearly the same amount like the 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi. Who knows how much is avilable at 2000RPM -- certainly less. Thus this 240HP engine is less agile than the 200HP 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi. The 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops 207ft-pd between 1800RPM and 4800RPM -- this engine is made for driving. > I think that HP-to-weight ratio is meaningless -- when are you actually > driving at such RPMs? I just drove an 06 Civic Si. The answer to your question is, "pretty much all the time". > > Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I think that HP-to-weight ratio is meaningless... Then I guess it's you against the rest of world. ;-) > -- when are you actually > driving at such RPMs? Let's be specific. What RPMs? Judging by the rentals I've driven which included a tach, I'd say I'm turning around 1k-2k more rpms in my Civic in normal traffic. Is this a problem for you? It might be a problem for me if I constantly had to turn these higher rpms with those other engines. But you must consider that my 1.6L was DESIGNED to rev all the way to 8k rpms (limiter at 8,200 rpms) and it does so quickly and willingly. As I like to say, my 1.6L is as smooth as Crown Royal but with less kick. ;-) So those higher rpms aren't even noticeable to me unless I'm looking at my tach. 6,500+ rpms is noticeable though due to a deeper and louder exhaust note. But I only rev that high when I want to have fun, which admittedly is far less today as I’m nearing 40 than it was when I owned a brand new '89 CRX Si in my early 20's. I have one fault with my car, which I'm assuming has been resolved with new Civic Si since it has a 6-speed... And that is that I'm turning 4,400 rpms at 80 mph (usually my maximum hwy speed [~10 mph over the given limit]). Why do I have a problem turning 4,400 rpms at 80 mph? Noise? Nope. I have a bone stock car (compliments to Honda for keeping it quiet - not even audible at idle) plus an interior Dynamat job (mainly for better low-power stereo efficiency). The problem is that my hwy mileage is hardly any better than my city mileage, about 26 - 28 mpg (according to my wife). Another gear would certainly get me better hwy mileage, yes? Consider that my Civics’ top gear acceleration times are actually lower than the 6-speed C5 Corvette... C5 Corvette: top gear acceleration times ---------------------------------- 30-50 mph: 11.6 secs 50-70 mph: 11.7 secs '99 Civic Si: top gear acceleration times ---------------------------------- 30-50 mph: 10.3 secs 50-70 mph: 11.3 secs <Note: these numbers were taken from a thread on this newsgroup dated March 16, 2001 entitled "Some real world facts about Vtec". The links from this thread no longer work but the numbers are not disputed.> While these numbers have no value whatsoever regarding overall performance, it does indicate how GM gets 30 mpg hwy from the LS1 AND that Honda could have probably lowered cruising rpms in my Si (by using another gear?). Am I understanding this correctly? But again, I assume this problem is fixed with the new 6-speed Civic Si (along with the new Si having a better hp and torque-to-weight ratio). If you have a problem turning a few more rpms than what you consider to be normal, then I assume your engine isn't designed to do it. > It is more important how much HP are available at 2000-4000RPM -- this is > where I use my engine every day. And I'm sure this is where *your* engine was designed to be used every day. ;-) > Power=torque*rotary-speed > This is the reason why I'm looking at the torque description of the car > (including the weight of course). You're looking at what's on paper, right? Why not forget what's on paper and take test drives? When I test drove my Civic, I had both my wife and a salesman in the car. I can't say that I was overly impressed with acceleration (compared to an earlier '99 Mustang GT test drive) but it was certainly adequate, especially for an ~$18k loaded Civic. Here's something else for you to consider... I test drove the other '99 Civic coupe models. I certainly felt a difference in power and acceleration along the Civic line, although the only real difference with each car was hp, not torque. In fact, the Si had the worse torque-to-weight ratio of any of the '99 Civic coupes I test drove, yet it felt the quickest to me. No doubt this was due to having a higher hp (as is reflected in published 0-60 and 1/4m times for different Civic models). BTW, the '02 Civic Si received a nice bump in torque over the '99-'00. The result? A poorer performing car with dismal sales. > > And Honda doesn't "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower > > displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless > > it's force fed)? > > Honda produces castrated engines. > Look at the 244HP V6 engine: http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/honda_accordcoupe_exv65spdatwnavxmradio_2006/1810 0/style_specs.html;_ylt=As20MgV1jQVYOev_Crf9c6p1eb8F > It has max. torque only at 5000RPM -- and the max. torque is only 211ft-pd Let's compare, say...the Accord and the Pontiac G6... According to Edmunds... 2006 Pontiac G6 ============ 3.5L 201 hp @ 5600 rpm 222 ft-lbs. @ 3200 rpm Curb Weight: 3415 lbs. 2006 Honda Accord ============== 3.0L 244 hp @ 6250 rpm 211 ft-lbs. @ 5000 rpm Curb Weight: 3364 lbs. Find some 0-60 and 1/4m times for these cars and see if they don't reflect hp-to-weight ratios (not counting Accord's 6-speed manual). But I'll give you this. Having an automatic in both while carrying 5 passengers might be easier for the G6 in everyday traffic. But even under these conditions, I don't think it would be enough to negate the extra 43 hp in the Accord in a race, although you could argue that under these conditions the G6 might be more practical. I'd still bet my hard earned cash on the extra 43 hp though. > -- this is nearly the same amount like the 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW > and Audi. So you want to compare a force-fed engine? Nothing against VW but how much would a turbo VW cost? Wouldn't you be much better off with a new ~$25k Mustang GT for some torque worth bragging about (if that's your thing)? That new Mustang sure is sweet looking IMO, inside and out. Awesome interior in the GT, IMO. I've gone from hating Mustangs to loving them with the '05. > Who knows how much is avilable at 2000RPM -- certainly less. > Thus this 240HP engine is less agile than the 200HP 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW > and Audi. An engine being agile? I don't understand what you mean. When I think of agility I think of handling, something the GTI couldn't match against the Civic Si when R&T compared the '99 Civic Si vs. the '99 Golf GTI GLX(?). The Golf whipped the Civic in 0-60 and 1/4m though, but that's what two more cylinders and at least 5 extra grand will get you (wasn't really a fair comparison, IMO). So I wouldn't call the GTI a great bang-for-the-buck performer. Very nice car (I've always liked VWs, except for the new Jetta/Toyota styling) but the GTI has become a soft pig over the years. Has this been rectified since '99? If you want more info, I'll dig up that 1999 R&T article. I wonder if the '06 Civic Si and '06 Golf GTI will be in a new shootout? > The 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops 207ft-pd between > 1800RPM and 4800RPM > -- this engine is made for driving. You don't drive an engine, you drive a car. ;-) You need to be a little more specific. For starters, what's the car's weight and price? -- Mark '99 Civic Si Frank, you know what I love best about my Honda? With the exception of an O2 sensor which had to be replaced recently, along with relatively expensive regular maintenance (i.e. just had the 90k mile servicing done at Honda), it's been a GREAT car and I haven't had a car note in a couple of years! I hope I have the same success with my upcoming Saturn and Ford, and that you do as well with your VW. ;-) -- Mark '99 Civic Si > I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. > Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi > knows what is available at 2000RPM. Let me see. I guess the ideal was my old 71 454 Vette I owned 35 years ago or so. With 365 hp at 4800 rpm and 500 ft lbs of torque at 3200 it was like a tractor. Heck, you could let the clutch out at idle without even giving it the gas and it would chug away. Lousy gas mileage, though. On the other hand, I guess my 01 Prelude with its 200 hp I4 is not made for driving -- too peaky I suppose and not enough torque at 1500 rpm. Despite the advice -- I'll stick with my Prelude. > Let me see. I guess the ideal was my old 71 454 Vette I owned 35 years > ago [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > too peaky I suppose and not enough torque at 1500 rpm. Despite the > advice -- I'll stick with my Prelude. I prefer an engine where the gas-mileage depends on my driving behaviour. I dislike an engine where the gas-mileage is kind of build in by being castrated. Gas-mileage ought to be measured with identical acceleration -- only then it is a real comparision. > The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque > at 1800RPM [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi > knows what is available at 2000RPM. also keep in mind, your compairing a turbo engine (that needs premium gas I might add) to a N/A engine that uses regular. If torque is all your going to talk about, why didn't you get a TDI? > I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. <snipped> Hi, Prank, thanks for contributing. >> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. > > <snipped> > > Hi, Prank, thanks for contributing. heh. i owned a VW once. it was a learning experience. granted, it WAS 10 years old when i got it. but i ended up replacing just about every subsystem over the 7 years i had it. radiator, water pump, starter, alternator, batteries, hoses, wires, exhaust systems. engine lasted 1 year before it needed a rebuild. but hey- it was $3000, and a convertible. final straw was the windshield gasket leaked, causing water to flood the fusebox. lots of weird electrical problems started. took out all the relays, and they *sloshed*. so yeah- traded that in for a brand new civic. going on 8 years now with just one oxygen sensor. but damn- that new toyota yaris looks good! On 1/17/06 11:17 PM, in article N6KdnUyf1t_zUlDeRVn-rQ@comcast.com, >>> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > but damn- that new toyota yaris looks good! This all sounds familiar. Learning experience is a good description of it. I had a VW Rabbit Diesel from new. Worked great for about two years, then stuff just started happening. It turned out that the main ground in the engine compartment was deftly mounted directly below the drip hole in the battery pan. This was the same car that, in one last act of revenge for having ever been built, snapped its timing belt 8 miles from the Mazda dealer on the way to turn it in in trade for a new truck. I did get ten problem free years out of the Mazda truck. >>> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > but damn- that new toyota yaris looks good! Seen the Fit yet? Amazing interior space in such a small vehicle and the "Magic Seats" look like real winner. 1500cc, 109 hp VTEC engine. SignatureKent Finnell From the Music City USA >> but damn- that new toyota yaris looks good! > > Seen the Fit yet? Amazing interior space in such a small vehicle and the > "Magic Seats" look like real winner. 1500cc, 109 hp VTEC engine. not yet. i was disappointed it wasnt at the LA international auto show. the yaris was, which i had no idea about. im familiar with the fit/jazz, and im willing to wait it out til later this year. what i REALLY want is a small hatch with a lot of "luxury" features, especially a sunroof. yaris? no sunroof :( no hurry- the 98 CX stil operates flawlessly. |
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.