How is it that my formerly good running 89' civic 4dr was able to get 40 mpg hauling all my college stuff from california to michigan, but we're supposed to be impressed that nearly 20 years later, the major car companies Nat aspir'd cars are boasting 35 mpg.....on the Aveo, Fit, Yaris etc.
Is it all the new safety regulations...pedestrial safe, mandated 4 airbags, anti lock brakes etc.? Does that crap add that much weight? funny thing too....I looked at a 93 Accord and its the same size as a 2008 civic. Huh? Do they just keep making the cars bigger and with more room to win awards, but then they have to introduce a new subcompact. Are we going to see a 2020 Honda fit thats the size of the current civic?
end rant.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
so drive your 89 civic... problem solved
Cars wiegh more and make more power than they did in the 80's, so 35mpg while weighing about 1000 lbs. more and making atleast 40 more horses is still impressive.
If your looking for a legitimate answer....
Technology is also the downfall of the MPG, now days ABS, power windows, power steering, traction control, sunroofs, more powerful stereos, etc.. are pretty much standard now days and all of them add weight. Not to mention everything safety related... the air bags, the actual metal bumpers inside the bumper covers etc.. are all things that have changed over the years, performance has changed, big wheels and useless body parts liek wings and what not are trendy and add weight, seats that feel like a small plywood board with a newspaper on it is no longer considered ok. Plus throw in emessions standars and regulations that are much more strict now days and things just aren't how they were.
Any company could put a small 50hp1.2L in a 2 door small hatch with nothing power, doors and body panels paper thin, a lawn chair bolted to the floor, and no audio at all getting 50-60 mpg easy but its not going to happen. Good gas mileage doesn't matter if you can't sell the cars, nowdays you have to have alot of @!#$ thats not needed just to sell a car. People expect ALOT more out of a car now then they used to and everything is alot more regulated.
deftonesfan817(martin edmonds) wrote:Cars wiegh more and make more power than they did in the 80's, so 35mpg while weighing about 1000 lbs. more and making atleast 40 more horses is still impressive.
thats exactly right
So my 08 Fit and your 89 civic get the same gas milage.... but mine handles better, stops better, more versitle, more cargo room, more passenger room, more comfortable, power options, infinitely safer, and I can listen to my Ipod threw a nice stereo when I plug it into by one of the many nice big cup holders.... thats why its a "big deal". You get a @!#$ load more and still keep the good gas mileage.
Also the way the EPA rates cars has changed for 2008, every car is rated lower for 08 then 07 and even then its just a number. I can get 39 mpg out of my fit in stop and go short trips without touching the highway.
not to mention all the emmissions crap on cars now days. my old '87 buick lesabre got 30 mpg easily with its 3.5l v6 (or something like that). cars now are so bogged down with low emmission technology that their gas milage goes way down.
I saw a commercial for the new Honda Pilot the other day where the guy says that it gets "like 25 miles per gallon". I took my 1988 Olds Cutlass with a 307 V8 and a carb to Toronto about 7 years ago and averaged 25-26 mpg.
The high MPG cars always existed in the background after the 70's gas crisis. It's just that american cars kept getting bigger until in the early 2000's a 12mpg SUV was the norm. Now people are in culture shock.
But in general I see the OPs point. My OHV cav got a max of 42mpg on a straight highway trip and never really got below 32mpg. The eco cav averages 34 mpg and I drive it how I want to. What kind of technology is in a cav? Lol - NONE. We should legitimately have 50+ mpg cars with reliable powerplants and ~150hp these days, but we don't.
Yes I laugh when I drive by a kia, hyundai, honda, toyota ect. lot and see big banners heralding 30+ mpg - im not impressed
Hey retard, your "
89' civic 4dr" at the very most did 29/35 with a 1.5L manual and at the worst did 23/29 with a automatic and yhea with a whopping 92 HP to boot too.
All of the cars you've mentioned are more powerful, at or more fuel efficient, safer, bigger in order to fit all the fat assed Americans, and quicker.
Thanks for bringing stupidity to the table, this thread and your train of thought is void.
Have any doubts on the comparisons? Consult here.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Thank- you and have a wonderful day.
///end thread.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
ScottaWhite wrote:How is it that my formerly good running 89' civic 4dr was able to get 40 mpg hauling all my college stuff from california to michigan, but we're supposed to be impressed that nearly 20 years later, the major car companies Nat aspir'd cars are boasting 35 mpg.....on the Aveo, Fit, Yaris etc.
Is it all the new safety regulations...pedestrial safe, mandated 4 airbags, anti lock brakes etc.? Does that crap add that much weight? funny thing too....I looked at a 93 Accord and its the same size as a 2008 civic. Huh? Do they just keep making the cars bigger and with more room to win awards, but then they have to introduce a new subcompact. Are we going to see a 2020 Honda fit thats the size of the current civic?
end rant.
Instead of bitching about it in a car forum, bitch about it to the car-buying public.
The mileage you get depends far more on how you drive than what size the power plant is. My Altima with the 3.5L engine will get as low as 18MPG if I'm on it all the time or as high as 40 MPG if I use Cruise control. My Altima also is a fair bit larger than your civic. If you want to up gas mileage, don't look at the engines first, look at the twits behind the steering wheel.
Oh, the Fit is due to become the size of the Pilot by 2020.
38.5 MPG out of a 2.4 in a 98 Cavalier. Now your Honduh doesnt seem so impressive does it?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Hey retard, your "89' civic 4dr" at the very most did 29/35 with a 1.5L manual and at the worst did 23/29 with a automatic and yhea with a whopping 92 HP to boot too.
All of the cars you've mentioned are more powerful, at or more fuel efficient, safer, bigger in order to fit all the fat assed Americans, and quicker.
Thanks for bringing stupidity to the table, this thread and your train of thought is void.
Have any doubts on the comparisons? Consult here.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Thank- you and have a wonderful day.
///end thread.
That's basically what I said
Emissions. My honda CRX HF would get 44 beating the piss out of it and avg 46 any other time. My friend's 92 civic VX is getting 49 with him driving it, previous owner got 52 or so out of it. It will get as low as 41 if you constantly redline it. It only has 102 hp or so, but it drives really well. Not under powered like my crx was, and great handling.
The problem is emissions. Those late 80's and early 90's hondas (the high fuel models HF and VX with E-tech, the HX, Insight, and Hybrid) had wideband 02 sensors that read from 12:1 to 22:1 AFR and allowed them to run in lean burn configuration at around 19:1. The problem is they released too much NOx emissions when running that lean so the government wants cars to run around 14:1 so the catalytic convertors could keep up. His car has extra cats to try to compensate for the emissions. Another side note, His car easily gets high 40 mpg's, but his factory WB 02 sensor is $330 from autozone. OUCH! Now the only way to get a lean burn is to get a hybrid civic or insight . The hybrid power cuts the extra emissions down.
This is what i have read up for the big difference in the cars from honda in the 88-00s (high fuel models). It may not be accurate. Just what i have been reading in to.
2004 Cavalier. Razzi. (Sold)
1998 Corvette. Some mods.
1992 Typhoon. Lots of mods.
1994 Civic VX 44MPG
Except that Mr. Goody just has to stop by and see what I'm going to say. Retard....I drive the car not you. People talk about their cav getting 38 on the freeway and driven for long stretches, it'll happen. I was getting about 435 miles per tank of gas on my long trip from California. (when not in the mountains). So I know what I'm talking about. We all know those fuel numbers aren't accurate. (you know those little white window stickers)
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
The window sticker, the fueleconomy.gov site, they're both BS. The only mileage you KNOW you will get is what you get behind the wheel of the car you're driving. Arguing about it is pointless. The fueleconomy.gov site says my car gets 37 mpg highway, and 28 city. It gets an average of at least 40, and does 33-36 in the city. So that's a total pile of BS.
2010 Honda Fit LX
ScottaWhite wrote:Except that Mr. Goody just has to stop by and see what I'm going to say. Retard....I drive the car not you. People talk about their cav getting 38 on the freeway and driven for long stretches, it'll happen. I was getting about 435 miles per tank of gas on my long trip from California. (when not in the mountains). So I know what I'm talking about. We all know those fuel numbers aren't accurate. (you know those little white window stickers)
.
That is all fine and dandy, but you was comparing on what (YOU) did to what the new cars do through the EPA, which is why I pointed what your car did to through the EPA.
Compare things correctly next time.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
ScottaWhite wrote:Except that Mr. Goody just has to stop by and see what I'm going to say. Retard....I drive the car not you. People talk about their cav getting 38 on the freeway and driven for long stretches, it'll happen. I was getting about 435 miles per tank of gas on my long trip from California. (when not in the mountains). So I know what I'm talking about. We all know those fuel numbers aren't accurate. (you know those little white window stickers)
.
They're completely accurate when you catch on to the fact that they're averages, and are done in a controlled (temp/humidity/throttle program) environment.
38MPG when you're talking about a car that's about 2000 pounds, versus a car that's 2600 pounds...
BTW, You're hardly in a position to be calling someone a retard. Play nice.
The safety standards make the cars heavier because they have to stand up to all the soccer mom cunts driving huge ass SUVs killing everyone else, other countries dont have this problem
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
I love this site. All the equal-opportunity racism you need.
Racism? I don't see it. I changed the oil fouled plugs a couple of weeks ago. My next tank of gas netted me 342 miles. (11gallons)
My next tank delivered 371. Only thing different I did the second time around was to drive 60-62 mph on the freeway, and ease off the throttle at take off. That's combined city/highway mileage. About 230 in the city.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
i get good mileage in my 02 cavy with a ecotec. best was 40mpg on the hwy. and it looks hell of lot better then a yaris a micro machine fit. you will never catch me in a yaris/fit/aveo. hate to see them in a crash. Where i live i would rather hit a deer and be safe in my gas guzzling ford explorer then a soda can car.
same with them damn idiots on scooters. then things arnt supposed to go on roads over 25mph, damn morons are out on 40mph roads and intersections. state trooper told me if it is under 50cc you dont need a liscense and cant go on roads over 25. wait and see, you will hear of more people getting run over on them damn things.
no reason there cant be better mileage out of them small $hit boxs.
I get over 36mpg mixed driving in my large (according to the US EPA) Sonata and about 650 miles a tank.
Jake wrote: you will never catch me in a yaris/fit/aveo. hate to see them in a crash. Where i live i would rather hit a deer and be safe in my gas guzzling ford explorer then a soda can car.
Do you just flat out make @!#$ up based on nothing or do you just decide to ignore FACTS?
I did plenty of research on the Honda Fit before I bought one...
2002 Chevy Cavalier Crash test ratings... (out of 5 stars)
Frontal impact drivers side - 3 stars
Frontal impact passenger side - 4 stars
Side impact front occupant - 1 star
Side impact rear occupant - 2 stars
2008 Honda Fit Crash test ratings... (out of 5 stars)
Frontal impact drivers side - 5 stars
Frontal impact passenger side - 5 stars
Side impact front occupant - 5 star
Side impact rear occupant - 3 stars
And since you seem to think your Ford Exploder is so much safer...
2004 Ford Explorer Crash test ratings.... (out of 5 stars)
Frontal impact drivers side - 4 stars
Frontal impact passenger side - 5 stars
Side impact front occupant - 5 star
Side impact rear occupant - 5 stars
Look at that.... if your driving the Explorer and you hit a deer (or something bigger) your less safe then you would be driving the Fit.... the only way your better off in the Explorer is back seat passengers when you get t-boned.... and the Cavalier is the "soda can car" not the Fit. Plus my Fit still gets better gas millage then both your explorer and your cav.
if you do better with visuals then written facts...
Here's a Honda Fit that managed to get tangled up between a guard rail and a big truck on the highway...
notice how the passenger compartment is completely untouched, hell the doors didn't even ripple
everyone died because the car crumpled like a soda can
At least get your facts straight if your gonna talk @!#$...
