A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Antique cars
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

2000 AD version of a 1976 Civic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 20th 08, 03:22 AM posted to rec.autos.antique
Stude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default 2000 AD version of a 1976 Civic

One used car that passed through my hands years ago which would be
ideal for me now was a 1976 Honda Civic.
I'm looking for a small, reliable hatchback and wonder what car maade
five or so years ago woyuld fill the bill. The Civic hatchbacks around
here got fitted with fart pipes and are not what I'm after.
Any engine / tranny combo will do. Reliaility rates high as I live in
a condo and noise / odor of repairs pe my garage. I've done a lot with
my 1964 Studebaker, but it's all been quite repairs - no hammering.
Ads
  #2  
Old May 20th 08, 01:30 PM posted to rec.autos.antique
Otto Skorzeny[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 2000 AD version of a 1976 Civic


I bought a 1977 Honda Civic in 1985 for $500. I was in college at the
time and driving a 1968 Camaro. My Camaro got about 11mpg. Of course
my lead foot didn't do anything to conserve fuel.

The Civic was in perfect shape except for a minor tune up and new
brake pads. All that cost me less than $25. It got 35mpg. That was
great! I still say it was one of the best cars I've ever owned. I'd
like to have one today but you never see those models anymore. I liked
the primitive nature of the car.

I'll try to think of a good economy car of more recent vintage. The
probelem is, all the Jap cars of the '70s got bigger and more
luxurious in the 80s and 90s. The fuel mileage went down into the low
to mid 20s.

My girlfriend's 1991 Toyota Camry gets about 23mpg on the highway. My
1956 Cadillac Coupe de Ville gets 18mpg on the highway. Believe me,
the 5 mile per gallon difference is well worth the trade off on a trip
to Florida. You cannot get comfortable in those little cars.

Forrest
  #3  
Old May 22nd 08, 12:18 AM posted to rec.autos.antique
Paul E. Schoen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 2000 AD version of a 1976 Civic


"Otto Skorzeny" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bought a 1977 Honda Civic in 1985 for $500. I was in college at the
> time and driving a 1968 Camaro. My Camaro got about 11mpg. Of course
> my lead foot didn't do anything to conserve fuel.
>
> The Civic was in perfect shape except for a minor tune up and new
> brake pads. All that cost me less than $25. It got 35mpg. That was
> great! I still say it was one of the best cars I've ever owned. I'd
> like to have one today but you never see those models anymore. I liked
> the primitive nature of the car.
>
> I'll try to think of a good economy car of more recent vintage. The
> probelem is, all the Jap cars of the '70s got bigger and more
> luxurious in the 80s and 90s. The fuel mileage went down into the low
> to mid 20s.
>
> My girlfriend's 1991 Toyota Camry gets about 23mpg on the highway. My
> 1956 Cadillac Coupe de Ville gets 18mpg on the highway. Believe me,
> the 5 mile per gallon difference is well worth the trade off on a trip
> to Florida. You cannot get comfortable in those little cars.
>
> Forrest


My 1997 Saturn SW1 wagon averages 34 MPG, and it has been very reliable. I
also had a 1998 Saturn SL1 sedan, with 5 speed manual tranny and manual
steering, and it averaged about 38 MPG, and peaked at 46 MPG on a highway
trip, but it got totaled by my drunk neighbor while it was parked in my
driveway. I'm probably going to buy another used Saturn, as my SW1 has
176,000 miles and has multiple problems. I'll probably get an older model
(1997-2001). I think newer ones (post 2nd Gulf War) succumbed to horsepower
escalation and no longer get as good fuel economy.

My "other car" is a 1989 Toyota 4WD pickup, which still gets about 23 MPG
average. I can't understand why Detroit can't make new cars, trucks, and
SUVs that do even better, unless they really are in cahoots with oil
companies to use up fossil fuels as quickly as possible to boost profits.
Even my big old 1966 Econoline van with a 1961 high compression 6 cylinder
200 CuIn Fairlane engine got over 20 MPG!

Paul


  #4  
Old May 22nd 08, 04:39 AM posted to rec.autos.antique
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default 2000 AD version of a 1976 Civic

Paul E. Schoen wrote:

> I can't understand why Detroit can't make new cars, trucks, and
> SUVs that do even better,


Oh, they can. The problem goes back a long way and is complicated, but it boils
down to this.

Improvements in efficiency have been made over the years, but the manufacturers
have a vested interest in continuing to make the same engines they've been
making. So, to go back a long way, instead of replacing the 302 CID V-8 with a
more efficient engine, Ford elected to modify the 302 to make it more efficient.
That gave you a V-8 which produced more power and burned about as much gas.

So, marketing was tasked with the job of making Amercans want more power, not
better economy. That has worked so well that you won't see a commercial that
brags about fuel economy, but most brag about power (can you say "zoom-zoom"?).
And you've got an SUV used primarily to carry kids to school that has more
horsepower than the most powerful '66 Mustang had.

Couple that with the fact that it has become uneconomical to offer customers
much in the way of engine options, and the fact that American manufacturers
dropped the lower powered engine options in this reduction, and you're stuck.

The result is that, anytime the subject comes up, the spokespeople for American
manufacturers start talking about the "next generation engines", which will do
much better in 5 years or so. In fact, though, all they have to do is start
pulling engines off the Escort line and sticking them in Econoline vans. Anyone
who thinks that's silly should ponder the fact that the original E-100 came
stock with 65 horsepower. And the owners liked that. (I owned one of these and
wish I still had it.)

But that's not going to happen. Ford, Chevy, and (especially) Dodge are locked
into the paradigm of "more power." We can only hope that Toyota and their ilk go
back to their roots.

George Patterson
Decisions are made by people who have time, not by people who have talent.
Talented people are too busy fixing problems created by people who make
decisions.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pockets - Not all polos have pockets. Men's corporate polo shirtsusually come in a pocket version as well as a non-pocket version. Whicheveryou choose, you will find that there are tops out there that will provide youwith the options you need and fin [email protected] Technology 0 April 19th 08 09:32 PM
2000 Civic battery my name is Honda 5 December 25th 06 04:05 PM
2000 civic? shawn Honda 9 April 19th 06 07:20 AM
2000 civic ex teaka Honda 1 September 25th 05 01:27 AM
2000 Civic DX BE Honda 5 February 1st 05 12:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.