55mpg Non-Hybrid Honda Civic!

Oooooo, oooooooo, Mr Kotter, I think I know the answer.....

 

Well, actually, I do want to correct ignorance when I see it, butt I too am smarter than the average bear. (most of the time)

 

Debatable!

 

80s k cars used to get 35mpg pretty easily.
I saw someone driving a yugo the other day. I cant imagine maintaining a car like that for 20yrs...lol.
In the early 90s.... cell phones cost more than a used Yugo...hehe.

Ive had pretty good luck with vehicles and getting my $$$ back out of them.
Of course I only bought two new 4 wheeled vehicles in the past 20yrs. About 16 2 wheeled. Everything else has been used.

 

K cars sucked! My dad had one. I never like them much. Okay for straight away but in turns the suspension was squimish and the tires squeal like pigs.

K cars, how our governmen saved Chrysler. (Good thing this thread was brought to the Dungeon)

 

You sure are a killjoy sometimes.

 

1. 2002 Volkswagen Jetta 4 cylinder 42 city / 49 hwy

2. Jetta Gets Top Crash Safety Rating

 

2002 is not 1980

49 is not 55

Except maybe in Canada?

 

My "new" runaround car is a 1994 Geo Metro with a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine, and 5 speed trans. This car is actually a Suzuki Swift built in Canada. During the summer, with the A/C on I'm getting about 40 to 43 mpg. With no A/C it will get about 48 to 53. It's a hoot to drive. Pulling a long hill in 5th gear with the A/C on it will very slowly lose speed until I turn off the A/C then it feels like you just gassed it. ZOOM!! Well, not really, since it only has 55 hp.

 

"Smart USA has no plans to offer a diesel-powered version of its Fortwo micro car in the United States, the division's president said Wednesday.

Dave Schembri of Smart USA said the gasoline alternative has not been in its plans because strict regulations in the U.S. would make it difficult to sell a diesel car in all 50 states."

whether or not the EPA specificly regulates it they have made it difficult enough that the manufacturer isn't investing the capital to get it here.

So I probably did make a false blanket statement but it is a direct result of regulation.

 

Which means CARB.

 

I saw a Chevette in a parking lot today (yes, I guess there is one still still running) and I thought to myself, "Jeez I could buy that and drive it instead of my gas guzzlin truck."


Somebody shoot me.

 

I was working with Honda back when they were still making HF's. Yes, they got great fuel milage, but they were underpowered. A lot of people bought them for the fuel milage, but after 6,000-7,000 miles many were traded in for more powerful cars. These cars were only putting out about 60 horsepower.
In comparison, the VTEC-E Civic, introduced in 1992, made over 90 horsepower with almost the same milage. I didn't see too many of these sold. I guess the problem was that the upscale Civic models were more desirable and sold better.

 

Would you dare to put Papa's daughter in that car?

 

Good point. Papa would jihad my ass.

 

The same time you injected the safety issue of driving an old car or getting better gas mileage.

Seems to me a certain brand of motorcycle ALSO has a reputation of breaking in half when coming into contact with other objects...you know, the brand you are so very familiar with, not to mention the fact that ANY contact on a street motorcycle could kill you, while you're trying to save on gas by riding one.

Sorry you didn't get the connection. Sometimes it's lonely out here in left field.

Besides, it's my thread and I can say what I want!

 

I thought the thread was about how manufacturers' claims of current cars being fuel efficient are misleading.

Nope. But 49 is quite close and it doesn't break in half in a crash. So it's not really fair to say it's an either-or choice.

 

Not exactly, but it did veer off in that direction.

 

I started this thread because I remembered from my childhood manufacturers claims that certain cars could achieve 50+ mpg. I did a quick google search and found corroborating information to that affect. Now, a rating of 35 mpg is considered exceptional.

I just find it ironic that in todays world of high tech and high energy costs, we can't seem to accomplish what was accomplished 28 years ago.

Now we need electric or "hybrid" technology to achieve similar mileage numbers. Granted the cars are safer which translates to heavier, and there are higher pollution restrictions.

I just think with all the advancements in technologies the manufacturers should be able to achieve much higher fuel efficiencies while keeping costs in line.

There must be some underlying reason/s is what I originally implied. All else aside.