 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 2007Honda car got 47 mpg highway, 37 mpg city ... in 1978.
See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway. Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... >> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the > last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... I would think not. The Fit has 109 HP and air conditioning. It's mileage is 34/28 though. Jeff >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Jeff What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because he's lonesome??? > What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because > he's lonesome??? He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just the National Enquirer beat. Mike Michael Pardee wrote on 8/22/07 7:20 PM: >> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because >> he's lonesome??? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mike I've noticed that since they've closed the "institutions", there are more of these OT cross-posters everyday....... Most of them are the "political whackos" who devote their lives trying to make up catchy derogatory titles for anyone who disagrees with them....... >> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course, > air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power. It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue. Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well. > That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic > converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto > transmission got 30mpg on the highway. > > Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold > up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. Wrong again. The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one! > It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the > last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent... Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user friendly with regard to maintennace. Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... JT >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land... I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had already gotten a lot better by 1983. Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly come off the SUV rose. >>>>See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe. My first Honda was a '76 CVCC and I regularly got in the high 30's mpg on trips. Never less than 30 mpg and it was great in the snow, (I lived in RI at the time). Finally had to take it off the road in the late 1980's becuase of terminal rust. Mechanicals were fine at 160K. > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly > come off the SUV rose. The generation 2 Civics were bigger and in the US, all were CVCC. In fact the 1300 was simply the old 1200 block with a CVCC head. In '82 & '83, the FE (Fuel Efficient) had super thin rings and other attributes that yields better than 40 mpg in town and near 60 mpg on the highway. And don't let the thin (1mm top, 1.2mm 2nd) fool you, those cars if maintained properly would easily go 300K without major repairs. JT My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg highway when driven a constant 65 mph - a truly great combination of utility and economy. I averaged 27 mpg in the city, a bit better than my current 2006 Scion tC. I don't think cars have come very far at all in the last 20 years economy-wise. On Aug 22, 8:14 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated > 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I borrowed a new Honda Fit (with a stick) from a buddy for a weekend. I liked the sporty engine feel. However, I got worse milage than on a 2003 4-cyl accord. The Fit needs another gear for highway cruising because I never got better than 6.7 -6.8 L/100Km at 100Km/hr. I am shocked. That's very bad gearing for that car. maybe Honda should have offered a gear option for the buyer. I'd never buy the Fit unless it consumed 5l/100km or less. I read that most people are getting their milage in at 30-40Miles per galon on other honda cars. That's crappy milage. Are they driving with high friction tires, maybe winter tires. I have a higher milage 2003 accord (~ 200,000 miles) and I am getting almost 50Miles per gallon (Canadian gallons) 5.8l/100km at 100Km/hr. >> My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated >> 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >2003 4-cyl accord. The Fit needs another gear for highway cruising >because I never got better than 6.7 -6.8 L/100Km at 100Km/hr. That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph. > I am >shocked. That's very bad gearing for that car. maybe Honda should have >offered a gear option for the buyer. I'd never buy the Fit unless it >consumed 5l/100km or less. That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight. > I read that most people are getting their >milage in at 30-40Miles per galon on other honda cars. That's crappy >milage. Are they driving with high friction tires, maybe winter tires. >I have a higher milage 2003 accord (~ 200,000 miles) and I am getting >almost 50Miles per gallon (Canadian gallons) 5.8l/100km at 100Km/hr. That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km? As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to the EPA by owners at <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda> Year 2003 2007 2007 2007 Car Accord Accord Civic Fit Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4 Tran AT AT MT MT ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6 range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43 # vehicles 17 13 15 32 So the Fit did OK. On Aug 24, 1:35 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated > >> 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That's correct 5.8 to 5.9 liters per 100km at 100km/h of highway driving. I drive 400Km per day every day. I get consistently almost 1,100 km per tank. I jam in about 62 - 63 liters. I have just purchased low friction tires and I am hoping that they will provide less resistance than the Nokian i3 that they replace. I have also been informed that I should try using 0w20 synthetic in place of 0w30 synthetic. My target is 1200 km. That way I would fill up at the end of every 3rd day. Cheers. >Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are >also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater >horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel >economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly >come off the SUV rose. I don't know about less fuel economy. When I was young and foolish, I made a very smart decision for all the wrong reasons. It still amazes me, but in 1965 I bought a used 1964 Corvair Mazda. It had manual everything and a 110 hp, 6 cy boxer engine. And it got almost 30 mpg at 65 mph and would run over 100 mph. It was easy to work on, a set of feeler gauges and a timing light would allow you to do a decent tune-up. Air cooled, so no water pump or antifreeze. It had two things that I really didn't like, it required premium gas and, if it rained in the summer and you put the defroster on, it would get over 100 degrees in the cabin. But, on zero degree days, you'd have heat in less than a mile from a cold start. AND MY BUTT FIT THE SEAT!!!! It wasn't all a bed of roses back then but I wish I had a car like that today. Jack --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000768-0, 08/23/2007 Tested on: 8/23/2007 10:27:05 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air >conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows. I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it. It had 12" wheels. I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg. Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed 33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe 17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the Civic was great for its time. >That model was not available in California, and did not have a >catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version >with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway. Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978. >Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would >not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess. > >It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved >in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's >equivalent... my buddy had an 83 civic with Hondamatic. It took my 98 civic 5-spd to school on more than one occasion. Did better on fuel too. >>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's >>equivalent... I bought one of these used in 1982. It was a fun little death trap to go back and forth to work in. Had a manual choke too.....only car I ever owned that had a manual choke. The milage was around 30 or so. Not bad considering the drive was about 10 miles each way with at least 10 red lights. Before that I was driving a 72 Malibu 350 V8 that got arounf 12 Mph, so after a little accident I decide to go small. Eventually the cross member under the engine rusted through, making the front end slop a little squirely, so I gave it to a kid needing a car who worked in my brother-in-law's body shop. He bought a new cross member wholesale and drove it good as new after that. At the time, the body shop prices for dealer parts were 20-30% what the cost for private parties like me. I once went to the dealer in the 70s for an lower front end A-frame (only cam with lower ball joint installed). My price was $125. I declined, and mentioned it to my brother-in-law at a birthday party a couple of weeks later. He got it for me for abot $30. > See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:14:36 -0700, plenty560 wrote: > See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org These did too: http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1971/image/a71lfp10.jpg http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2lifevan.jpg http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2step.jpg |
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.