 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / September 2006Who Needs a Hybrid???
My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... JT My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg. Earle > My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - > 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... > > JT > My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg. that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk. > Earle > >> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - >> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... >> >> JT You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift. Earle > > My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> > >> JT > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift. no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in /exactly/ the most efficient ratio. > Earle > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> >>>> JT > > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift. > > no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in > /exactly/ the most efficient ratio. Based on all the stupid things that the 5 speed 2005 HAH transmission does, I wouldn't count on it. Honda's transmission programming is _really_ bad. Accelerate a little bit and it shifts from 3rd (3 cyl) to 4th (6 cyl + IMA) then 2nd (6 cyl) then 3rd (6 cyl) and back to 4th (3 cyl + IMA). 96/97 Civic HX CVT transmissions had a lot of software performance problems too. If I could convert my HAH to a 5 speed manual, I'd be making a service appointment now. I'm always in the right gear because I know what I'm doing next. > > Earle > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >>>> > >>>> JT > > > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > appointment now. I'm always in the right gear because I know what I'm > doing next. My point would be (and I know nothing about your car except assume that it's some sort of automatic) should a repair become necessary, it won't be cheap which can quickly wipe out any accumulated fuel savings. Ah kin feel yer pain! Based on your statement, and Honda's record for automatics there is probably reason for concern in that respect. That said, most folks cannot do what I did. Bought the '83 and an earlier gen2 parts car for $200 and made a good runner from the two. So far, my total investment is under $1K for a vehicle with just over 100K total miles. Being that I'm mechanically handy, retired with some time on my hands and frugal in nature, I think that the effort in $$$ and time was well worth it. Felt real good to have traveled 300 miles and unable to put $20 worth of gas into the car. Now, a hybrid is usually in the $20K + range and it is difficult for me to comprehend it as being economical transportation. Putting pencil to paper just doesn't work... JT >>> You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift. >> no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cyl + IMA). 96/97 Civic HX CVT transmissions had a lot of software > performance problems too. you definitely have a point - but that's not an engineering problem as such - it comes from exactly the same place that gives us the hybrid, which in turn comes from the same kind of place as hondas with red rear turn signals and hondas with twin tail pipes fed by a single input - marketing. regarding cvt, that's also going down the same road. on the fit, i understand cvt's are being sold as "7 speed" transmissions because they have 7 "lurches" built into what would otherwise be a perfectly smooth transitionless system. why? because the marketing droids are running the show and one of them drove a cvt for 5 minutes and thought there was something wrong because it "wasn't shifting right" - because they didn't understand how a cvt works or understand its advantages. in reality, cvt is an excellent system. it's different and takes about 10 minutes to get used to it, but it gives great economy, great performance out of a small engine, and has proven to be reliable. if only honda would hand the reins back to the people that built the company in the first place, the engineers, we wouldn't have this kind of persistent anti-consumer "dumbing down" and "follow the other sheep" mentality we see today. > If I could convert my HAH to a 5 speed manual, I'd be making a service > appointment now. I'm always in the right gear because I know what I'm [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> JT Whatever. It's an automatic, isn't it, with a torque converter? The manual I got with the HX recommends changing the fluid in the cvt every 15,000 miles, which says to me that it is a transmission that is continuously wearing itself out as you use it. And that will be Honda Genuine Transmission Fluid too. I don' need no stinkin' automatic, thanks. You can pry the stick shift from my cold, dead hands. Cheers, Earle > > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >>>> > >>>> JT I kind of like an automatic but not in a Honda... At least in a late (post 1990) Honda. OTOH, all but one of my vintage cars have automatics. But these are virtually bullet proof and if needed, an overhaul is quick and cheap. Technology has advantages so long as it functions. Repairs to computer controlled components are almost always expensive and beyond the reach of a "do it your self" effort. You hit the mark pretty well... JT > Whatever. It's an automatic, isn't it, with a torque converter? The manual > I got with the HX recommends changing the fluid in the cvt every 15,000 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > >>>> > > >>>> JT > Whatever. It's an automatic, isn't it, with a torque converter? no, it's cvt, continuously variable transmission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission > The manual > I got with the HX recommends changing the fluid in the cvt every 15,000 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> JT With my 98 HX I regularly get 55 mpg, but the hybrid is not bunk particularly not the enigne which runs on the much more efficient Atkinson cycle. >> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> >>> JT > My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - > 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... > > JT My 94 Lexus ES--a very comfortable car, fully paid for of course--gets me 29mpg on the highway. Let's see, vs. paying $25K for a new car that gets 38mpg....the payback time is a LONG, LONG time... > > My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - > > 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Let's see, vs. paying $25K for a new car that gets 38mpg....the payback > time is a LONG, LONG time... Ain't that the truth! I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new latest high tech econobox is going to get. Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile? When I finally got the FE back on the road in early May, the mileage was in the low 30's and after nearly 2K, it has crept up to 40+. I will admit that I've spent some time with the car learning and tweaking this 'n that but it has paid off. It still is not exactly right, (It's idling too fast), but it's getting closer to the road test achievements in the early 1980's. And I love the handling. Damned thing is just plain glued to the road! JT snip > I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the > mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new > latest high tech econobox is going to get. > > Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which > are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile? snip Come on, you're driving a shitbox. If you need to compare your '83 Civic to a modern hybrid how about figuring in the value of a hybrid's added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but that doesn't make it a better car. Like the old Civic was anything to brag about - our '72 VW/Porsche 914 got 35 mpg at 85 mph, 30 mpg at 95 mph and handled considerably better than anything Honda produced until the 1990s. But compared to a modern sports car the old 914 is also a shitbox. > snip >> I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > than anything Honda produced until the 1990s. But compared to a modern > sports car the old 914 is also a shitbox. when is someone going to mention the crx hf? incredible fuel economy, good handling. > snip > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > than anything Honda produced until the 1990s. But compared to a modern > sports car the old 914 is also a shitbox. Good to see that the sheeple are out there and closely in step... JT > added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust > and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but > that doesn't make it a better car. Does a buncha feelgood geegaws make it a better car? Electric mirrors, power windows, entertainment centers, self dimming headlights, seat warmers, rear window washer/wipers, yada yada. All that crap adds weight and does nothing to improve perfomance. I'm not saying one shouldn't have these things if they want them. That's luxury. But, don't knock utility or suplant it with useless weight adding crap. The reason old cars (including your porsche) got good mileage is because they weren't humping around 800 lbs of frivolous crap. My '87 Si (250K mi) still gets 35 mph. Why? It doesn't weigh a ton! It only weighs a mere 2/3rds of a ton. I will make a concession to structural improvements. That's value added weight. I dread the possibility of ever getting in a serious accident in my beloved hatchback, so I drive like an old lady. I'd like the option of buying a car with good structural integrity, but no power crap or luxury doodahs. Just good performance and economy. It's entirely possible. Toyota is doing it. Why not Honda? nb > > added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust > > and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > nb Thanks for the common sense reinforcement. One of the things that I like about the '83 is that I can actually do most of the work myself. BTW, the thing that I miss the most is a cup holder that can accommodate the 24oz cup of coffee in the morning. But a trip to the local FLAPS should cure that detraction. I suppose that today's cars are somewhat safer but there still is no substitute for alert and defensive driving practices. I don't baby my baby... I constantly travel in the 60-75 mph range and the damned thing handles so well, well, I'm just confident of accident avoidance. If someone should plow into me at a traffic light etc. well, I guess my time will just have come.. JT >> added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust >> and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >crap. My '87 Si (250K mi) still gets 35 mph. Why? It doesn't weigh >a ton! It only weighs a mere 2/3rds of a ton. Uh, I don't think so. That would be 1333 pounds. My '74 Civic supposedly weighed 1605 pounds and your '83 is a porker by comparison. My guess is that your car weighs about 2150 pounds. Compared to that '74 Civic, my '94 GS-R is about 800 pounds heavier, about twice as fast to 60 mph, far more durable, much safer and much more comfortable. And the biggest difference is probably the handling. The only down side is (was) the initial cost (I bought it used in '97 for $14K vs $2.5K for the new '74) and milage - 24 vs. 28. Adjusted for inflation, the cost is about the same. Adjusted for longevity, the Integra was a much better deal. And, if I could restrain myself to drive the GS-R no more enthusiastically than was possible in the Civic, I bet it would get better milage. >I will make a concession to structural improvements. That's value >added weight. I dread the possibility of ever getting in a serious >accident in my beloved hatchback, so I drive like an old lady. I'd >like the option of buying a car with good structural integrity, but no >power crap or luxury doodahs. Just good performance and economy. It's >entirely possible. Toyota is doing it. Why not Honda? I would just be happy if they would sell more of their cars with manual transmissions. Face reality, if people are willing to pay a grand or two for AT, how are you going to convince them to abandon AC and power door locks? > Uh, I don't think so. That would be 1333 pounds. My '74 Civic > supposedly weighed 1605 pounds and your '83 is a porker by comparison. > My guess is that your car weighs about 2150 pounds. You are correct. According to my Helms manual, my Si curb weight is almost exactly 1 ton (2055lbs). I think I got that 2/3 ton number on a hybrid/hotrod honda website. Perhaps they were talking about the body alone, minus the powertrain. I can't even find the site anymore. But, the fact remains, less weight means better milage. It's the primary mechanism to increase gas mileage. Electric motors and added wiring are big contributors to weight. Copper is heavy. AC is not so heavy, it being mostly hollow tubing and vessels. Even the compressor is powered off the engine. Plus Honda makes their AC systems very close to optimal. The AC in my black Si is marginal at higher temps. Over 110 deg F ambient, it's all but useless, and this being in perfect working condition. nb > Plus Honda makes their AC systems very > close to optimal. The AC in my black Si is marginal at higher temps. > Over 110 deg F ambient, it's all but useless, and this being in > perfect working condition. That doesn't strike me as being particularly "optimal". But then again, neither does living in 110-degree weather. -- Mike Smith > That doesn't strike me as being particularly "optimal". But then again, > neither does living in 110-degree weather. I guess I meant in the sense of optimum design parameters. IOW, designed to do the minimum required job within the constraints of the overall vehicle, such as power, size, load, etc. I have no doubt the air conditioning power for my car would be adequate for all but one situation: a black exterior, which mine has. That color just absorbs too much radiant heat and overwhelms the AC. I'm sure it would work just fine in a white car. As for the weather, that's not too bad. It's those occasional 115 deg days that kill. I could bake bread in my car. True story: I once left a sixpack of 7UP in the back on a 100+ deg day. Every can blew and the spray turned black against the cream colored liner. nb > > That doesn't strike me as being particularly "optimal". But then again, > > neither does living in 110-degree weather. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > nb I painted my house black with the idea of saving on heating bills. I live in sunny but cold Colorado. It didn't work. The black paint apparently radiates more than it absorbs, and melts most of the snow in my yard. Earle > I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the > mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new > latest high tech econobox is going to get. > Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which > are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile? I'm having a hard time comparing the current costs of a salvaged 1983 car verses a 2006 car. Costs are one thing, features are another. Appearance is another. Mix well, select the blend you like.  Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5 > > I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the > > mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > --- > Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5 Current Investment Less than $1K total investment + my sweat equity Breezed through inspection Consumables such as gas & oil Features: A/C Simpler components reasonably easy to reach/work on No friggin' power steering Used look = Less attraction to thieves etc. \ Goes down the road 70-80 mph nicely 42+ MPG Advantages: No payments Low insurance Generally cheap parts JT > > I'm having a hard time comparing the current costs of a salvaged 1983 car > > verses a 2006 car. > Current Investment > ? Less than $1K total investment + my sweat equity [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ? Used look = Less attraction to thieves etc. > ? Goes down the road 70-80 mph nicely A friend who did an extreme amount of driving became convinced that the best dollar value was a used taxicab. They didn't look very good, which is one of the features you listed. They had A/C, and power steering, don't know why you wouldn't want that, unless you consider it a potential repair problem. If something bad happened, he just parked it in front of a wrecking yard if it was still drivable, and bought another one. I don't think he ever even changed oil. > ? 42+ MPG Probably not, but he had less invested than you, and no sweat equity. I think he comes out ahead. No worries about collision insurance, or the loss of a prized vehicle. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5 > > > I'm having a hard time comparing the current costs of a salvaged 1983 car > > > verses a 2006 car. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > know why you wouldn't want that, unless you consider it a potential repair > problem. If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem. > If something bad happened, he just parked it in front of a wrecking yard if > it was still drivable, and bought another one. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No worries about collision insurance, or the loss of a prized vehicle. Ah, but I do have insurance and a good running gen2 will bring $2,500 any day of the week on eBay, especially one from rust free Texas... JT >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem. It depends on the car. I had a '76 toyota corona 'wagon' w/out assist whose steering wheel could only be turned while the car was rolling. Do you have some bizzare notion that a 3000 lb. car can absolutely need power steering, but a 2000 lb. never needs it? It's only a 30% difference. > >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you have some bizzare notion that a 3000 lb. car can absolutely need power > steering, but a 2000 lb. never needs it? It's only a 30% difference. Why would one turn a steering wheel if one is not going anywhere? JT >> >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Do you have some bizzare notion that a 3000 lb. car can absolutely need power >> steering, but a 2000 lb. never needs it? It's only a 30% difference. >Why would one turn a steering wheel if one is not going anywhere? Parking. > >> >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Parking. You still have to move the car to park... JT >> >> >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Parking. >You still have to move the car to park... Yes, but it is convenient to move the wheel before proceeding. Otherwise, you drive in the wrong direction for a few feet. > >> >> >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yes, but it is convenient to move the wheel before proceeding. Otherwise, > you drive in the wrong direction for a few feet. A few feet??? Don'tcha mean a few inches?? Have we become so lazy, so intellectually lame and so incapable of mustering a few ounces of strength to park a freakin' compact car? I've long suspected that the human race quit evolving a decade or two ago and is now in the process of devolving. Your post sorta confirms these suspicions... JT I had 2 83 tercel 4WD wagons. They did not have power steering. They needed it. They also needed a bigger engine and decent brakes. >>If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious >>problem. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > power > steering, but a 2000 lb. never needs it? It's only a 30% difference. > Current Investment > . Less than $1K total investment + my sweat equity [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Features: > . A/C Bum. ;-) > . Simpler components reasonably easy to reach/work on > . No friggin' power steering [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > . Low insurance > . Generally cheap parts . More money left over to give to charities. :-) > > Current Investment > > . Less than $1K total investment + my sweat equity [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bum. All I had to do to get it going was replace the receiver dryer, flush the evaporator (the condenser is new --- $15 on ebay), add a return line filter to protect the compressor and yep, it took the R-134 and is cool as can be. I love it!!! > ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > . More money left over to give to charities. :-) Especially when charity begins at home... <G> JT (Who is about to spiff up another $200 '82 Civic DX just purchased for a quick eBay turn...) My wife's 2005 HAH gets 27 mpg in stop and go (mostly stopped) commuter traffic. Plus she get the power seats, navigation, autoclimate control and other stuff that keeps her happy. It has the best repair record of any Honda according to Consumer Reports (still made in Japan) and for around $1100 we bought the Honda care zero deductible 8 year/120k mile service agreement. Downsides include poor headlights (low) and electric ac weak when car isn't moving in 95 degree weather. Also electric steering is way too light and poor centering feel. People spend thousands on sound systems for their car. Why not spend it on cleaner air and better gas mileage instead. Just different priorities. Car was paid for with cash. If you cannot pay cash for a new car pay cash for a used one. >> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - >> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Let's see, vs. paying $25K for a new car that gets 38mpg....the payback > time is a LONG, LONG time... My honda hybrid always get atleast 45 mpg, sometimes closer to 50 in the winter. http://www.safelotvegas.com/index.php > My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - > 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... > > JT > My honda hybrid always get atleast 45 mpg, sometimes closer to 50 in > the winter. http://www.safelotvegas.com/index.php > > My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up - > > 41.2 mpg for mixed driving... > > > > JT Tell me your total cost per mile... JT > Tell me your total cost per mile... > > JT Tell me why I should accept your argument that cost/mile is the single most important aspect of driving. > > Tell me your total cost per mile... > > > > JT > > Tell me why I should accept your argument that cost/mile is the single > most important aspect of driving. Since when does a simple question indicate an argument? JT \ > Since when does a simple question indicate an argument? > > JT When you keep repeating it. > > Since when does a simple question indicate an argument? > > > > JT > > > When you keep repeating it. You're not capable of answering it??? JT > > Tell me your total cost per mile... > > > > JT > > Tell me why I should accept your argument that cost/mile is the single > most important aspect of driving. It is when you're talking about comparable cars. For example, Civic hybrid vs non-hybrid, brand new. Average it out over however long you plan to use the car and how many miles you expect to drive it. Total fuel costs, maintenance, insurance, resale value. > > > Tell me your total cost per mile... > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is when you're talking about comparable cars. nonsense. luxury car buyers don't care about cost/mile; nor do sports car buyers, off road vehicle buyers, tow vehicle buyers, etc. a large number of family car buyers put safety or comfort/convenience ahead of cost/mile. very few car buyers will actually work out cost/mile for vehicles under consideration. JT is trying to rationalize driving a shitbox. > > > > Tell me your total cost per mile... > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > JT is trying to rationalize driving a shitbox. Heh heh heh... Just continue to float in your little fantasy world while I divert my dicretionary spending to other wasteful practices such as traveling, antique cars etc. Yep, you're tossin' up a good contention thar... JT > Just continue to float in your little fantasy world while I divert my > dicretionary spending to other wasteful practices such as traveling, > antique cars etc. Apparently my little fantasy world takes into account those whose resources are such that cost/mile doesn't necessarily impact discretionary spending. You know, those who can afford not to drive a shitbox. You are not being honest with the group because you are not counting your labor hours in support of the old Civic as a cost. > You are not being honest with the group because you are > not counting > your labor hours in support of the old Civic as a cost. Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given all those hours of fun it offers. That's one big reason why I keep my old '91 Civic: A new car would be really boring. I wouldn't learn anything from it, except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more electronics necessarily means more convenience. > Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather > hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given all > those hours of fun it offers. Bullcrap. The car is fun. Working on it is a PIA. Am I keeping my '87 Si? Hell yes! ...unless I can find a '88-91 Si to replace it. > That's one big reason why I keep my old '91 Civic: A new car > would be really boring. Testify! > I wouldn't learn anything from it, > except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more > electronics necessarily means more convenience. Thank you. I do all the work on my Si because 1) I don't trust the scumsucking dirtbags charging $70-100/hr, 2) I can. But, it *IS* a PIA! I'm a big guy (ok, hefty) and getting to things in such a small car can be difficult to say the least. Took me all day to replace the starter and I lost 0.37lbs of hide and had to do the whole job by brail. Hated every second of it. Do I love my Si? OK, I'm selling my custom Ford Econoline van, my seriously pumped Camero, my '68 BMW R60/2 project bike, and keeping only my HD 90" stroker and my Si. I'm saving the HD to trade for a '91 Si. Only then will I give up my '87. Fun? Like Big Brother and the Holding Company, it's Cheap Thrills! ;) nb > > Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather > > hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given all [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > nb Replacing a starter in a gen2 is less than an hour's work. Three bolts as I recall... Gen 2 and its prececessors are very simple machines. Things started getting complicated in '84. JT > Gen 2 and its prececessors are very simple machines. Things started > getting complicated in '84. Evidently. I think my '87 was only two bolts, but getting to 'em.... > > Gen 2 and its prececessors are very simple machines. Things started > > getting complicated in '84. > > Evidently. I think my '87 was only two bolts, but getting to 'em.... I haven't changed a starter in a couple of years but IIRC, the '83 had two main bolts (one of which is partially blind) and a third bolt. But the starter is in plain view. Honda starters are a pretty durable item that should last well beyond a 100K prior to needing a rebuild. As these cars get older, parts generally get cheaper as the dealers close out their inventories to independents such as those who operate on eBay. I've bought a couple extra starters (rebuilt) for less than $20. JT > > You are not being honest with the group because you are > > not counting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more > electronics necessarily means more convenience. Since I'm officially retired, the sixty hours or so that I spent making one running car out of two rewarded me as to an increase of my knowledge of older Hondas and how easy they *were* to work on. The car has everything I want (with the exception of a proper cup holder to hold my gigantic morning cup of coffee). And I think that you'll agree that the engineering in the earlier Honda cars was a good deal more elegant than those of later years. "ACAR" is living the life of a sheeple amply brainwashed in "new is good" vs. "old is bad." BTW, I'm even toying with the idea of installing a points/condenser distributor given the pricey cost of replacing an igniter. I often get 50K out of a set of points in my old Studebakers... JT > Elle wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > of my knowledge > of older Hondas and how easy they *were* to work on. You bet I hear you. I am officially retired, so I now have the time to savor the learning that goes with car projects. The car has > everything I want (with the exception of a proper cup > holder to hold my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cars was a good deal more elegant than those of later > years. I wish I had the experience to comment intelligently on this. So I'll take your word for it. :-) > "ACAR" is living the life of a sheeple amply brainwashed > in "new is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I often get > 50K out of a set of points in my old Studebakers... That sounds like an interesting project. Igniters, including design and compare contrast with points/condensers, have been discussed at no small length here. Of course, the notion that one can just pop in a new set of points every 50k or so for, what, under $10, has a lot of appeal to me. Cheap reliability. I have no idea when my igniter is going to die next, though I do plan to watch the tachometer jump (or whatever Tegger's site now says on this), since this is said to be a tipoff, and I can kinda follow the electronics schematics explaining why this happens. > And I think that you'll agree that the engineering in the earlier Honda > cars was a good deal more elegant than those of later years. Just a few years prior to your beloved '83, Honda used to attach the suspension directly to the front fenders/wheel wells; the wheel wells would rot out allowing the struts to poke up thru the hood and the engine to rest comfortably on the road. Then there was the elegant Honda oil screen feature that caused more than a few Honda engines to go TU due to oil starvation (piston rings would shave cylinder walls). There's lots more. Look it up. > "ACAR" is living the life of a sheeple amply brainwashed in "new is > good" vs. "old is bad." The oldest car in my garage is only a few years younger than your '83. It too is a cheap-to-keep shitbox. That I'd replace in a second if I could buy a plug-in Prius today. You think that '83 has tailpipe emissions similar to a new Fit? Structurally, your '83 accordion isn't where I'd choose to put my family. None of that bothers you, eh? > > And I think that you'll agree that the engineering in the earlier Honda > > cars was a good deal more elegant than those of later years. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There's lots more. Look it up. Hmmmmmm, I drove a '76 Civic to 160K with minor repairs until the body rotted out... > > "ACAR" is living the life of a sheeple amply brainwashed in "new is > > good" vs. "old is bad." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Structurally, your '83 accordion isn't where I'd choose to put my > family. None of that bothers you, eh? My old cars range from 1931 through 1964. Sometimes I wonder how I: Survived lead paint Survived a lot of years without seat belts Survived the era of no childproof prescription bottles Survived walking a 1/2 mile to and from a school bus stop ...and other factors too numerous to elaborate. I suppose at some point, all vehicles will be the equivalent of M1 tanks with like increases in weight and consumption of resources to build the damned things. Hell, they are already being weight hogs. I suppose at some point, we will all be injected with the "cure all" mental tonics to ensure conformance with "upgraded" societal standards. I suppose at some point, feeding will be automated as will be sleeping and who know... Procreation too! No thanks. I will continue to provide for myself based on independent rational thought processes. Should disaster strike, my old points 'n condenser vehicles will still run while your will be dead before departure. You are a perfect example of, "Shouldn't the authorities be doing something about the nut behind the wheel?" that is so lacking in today's scheme of things... The ultimate devolving into a textbook sheeple. JT > Hmmmmmm, I drove a '76 Civic to 160K with minor repairs until the body > rotted out... I recall 3/4 of Hondas of that era all had ruined paint right over the battery, caused by the battery above dripping on them during shipment. I also recall a lot of early valve jobs or cam failures, I don't remember which. Maybe 76 was right after that was fixed, but I don't recall the first Honda sedans as being anything to be proud of from a reliability perspective. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5 > > Hmmmmmm, I drove a '76 Civic to 160K with minor repairs until the body > > rotted out... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Maybe 76 was right after that was fixed, but I don't recall the first Honda > sedans as being anything to be proud of from a reliability perspective. I purchased my '76 from the original owner in 1982. It had over 80K and I ran it to 160 K with only minor items such as brakes, one water pump/timing belt and starter rebuild along with a used alternator. It never failed EVER! JT > I suppose at some point, all vehicles will be the equivalent of M1 tanks > with like increases in weight and consumption of resources to build the > damned things. Hell, they are already being weight hogs. Honda Fit weighs in at under 2450 lb., passes all current crash tests and performs much better than your '83. > I suppose at some point, we will all be injected with the "cure all" > mental tonics to ensure conformance with "upgraded" societal standards. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No thanks. I will continue to provide for myself based on independent > rational thought processes. And the above are examples of your rational thought? Have a nice day. > Honda Fit weighs in at under 2450 lb Which is 200 pounds MORE than my 92 Civic Si, which had more power... >> Honda Fit weighs in at under 2450 lb > > Which is 200 pounds MORE than my 92 Civic Si, which had more power... And 400lbs more than my '87 Si. I remember reading the 4th and 5th gen hatchbacks started putting on more and more weight, the only exception being the high mileage vx models. These were prized by racers for their light bodies (probably where I got that misleading curb weight number). Did Si start adding power everything to Si's later on? Mine is all elbow powered. nb > Did Si start adding power everything to Si's > later on? Mine is all elbow powered. My 92 had a power sunroof, but that was it. Manual locks, manual windows. >> Honda Fit weighs in at under 2450 lb > > Which is 200 pounds MORE than my 92 Civic Si, which had more power... Crash your '92 into a Fit and see who wins. Or drive 'em both 500 miles and see which is more comfortable. Not all automotive advancements can be quantified in terms of things like MPG or HP. -- Mike Smith > > Which is 200 pounds MORE than my 92 Civic Si, which had more power... > > Crash your '92 into a Fit and see who wins. Or drive 'em both 500 miles > and see which is more comfortable. The crash I try to avoid, which is why I bought a Civic Si. The comfort thing is no question: the Civic Si. > I suppose at some point, all vehicles will be the equivalent of M1 tanks > with like increases in weight and consumption of resources to build the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I suppose at some point, feeding will be automated as will be sleeping > and who know... Procreation too! I suppose at some point, you'll take off your tinfoil hat and join the human race. -- Mike Smith > > I suppose at some point, all vehicles will be the equivalent of M1 tanks > > with like increases in weight and consumption of resources to build the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > Mike Smith Looks like you *have been* assimilated... JT |
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
|
©2008 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.