A moment of ranting

So Honda finally fixed the 2005 Accord Hybrid's flashing engine light
and the neck-snapping lurch at start. I have replaced the toy stereo
system with a simple and clean sounding one. I have given up hope of
averaging more than 25 MPH in my expensive hybrid. I've learned to
downshift manually when need acceleration with better than a two second
response time. I finally have a car I can live with, right? No.

Today I'm changing the oil and decide to rotate the tires while I have
the jack out. The lug nuts on the driver's side rear wheel are
unusually loose but it looks OK. I do the 15K mile inspections and
notice unprotected ABS wiring near the wheels. When it comes time to
put the wheel on, the bolts feel very soft on the wheel that was a
little slack. I could make over a full turn after the initial
resistance. I take the wheel off and make sure there's no crud in
there. It's clean. I put the wheel back on and it's still very soft.
One bolt goes two revolutions after resisting, which really can't be
good. I begin to remove the tire again and a bolt snaps off! Damn!
Now I have to convince a dealership that I was in fact using nothing but
the included tire iron and my bare hands, and I wasn't trying to torque
the crap out of the bolts. I'm sure they'll tell me that the
unprotected wiring is normal too.

I really regret selling my 97 Civic HX and purchasing a HAH.

That's the end of my rant, at least until a rock or a bit of road debris
smashes the ABS wiring.

You're story illustrates a good but overlooked point in this guy's tired
old spongy gray matter.

New is not necessarily better.

The hybrid in its present form is hardly better than the Civics of the
early 1980's where some models got 40 mpg (city) and 50+ mph (highway).
They were simpler, cheaper, and just as long lasting as today's
offerings. And they were strictly gas burners.

Hybrids won't come into their own until battery technology advances to
efficient plug in charging to supplement the internal combustion engine.

I hope that you take your dealer to task for the lug nuts/bolts. With
regard to mileage... You're simply a victim to the politically correct
mantra that often can be compared to the biggest lie of all..

Good Luck!

JT




Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
> So Honda finally fixed the 2005 Accord Hybrid's flashing engine light
> and the neck-snapping lurch at start. I have replaced the toy stereo
> system with a simple and clean sounding one. I have given up hope of
> averaging more than 25 MPH in my expensive hybrid. I've learned to
> downshift manually when need acceleration with better than a two second
> response time. I finally have a car I can live with, right? No.
>
> Today I'm changing the oil and decide to rotate the tires while I have
> the jack out. The lug nuts on the driver's side rear wheel are
> unusually loose but it looks OK. I do the 15K mile inspections and
> notice unprotected ABS wiring near the wheels. When it comes time to
> put the wheel on, the bolts feel very soft on the wheel that was a
> little slack. I could make over a full turn after the initial
> resistance. I take the wheel off and make sure there's no crud in
> there. It's clean. I put the wheel back on and it's still very soft.
> One bolt goes two revolutions after resisting, which really can't be
> good. I begin to remove the tire again and a bolt snaps off! Damn!
> Now I have to convince a dealership that I was in fact using nothing but
> the included tire iron and my bare hands, and I wasn't trying to torque
> the crap out of the bolts. I'm sure they'll tell me that the
> unprotected wiring is normal too.
>
> I really regret selling my 97 Civic HX and purchasing a HAH.
>
> That's the end of my rant, at least until a rock or a bit of road debris
> smashes the ABS wiring.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> The hybrid in its present form is hardly better than the Civics of the
> early 1980's where some models got 40 mpg (city) and 50+ mph (highway).
> They were simpler, cheaper, and just as long lasting as today's
> offerings. And they were strictly gas burners.

You omit that the Civics of the early '80s were not anywhere near as
safe as the current crop of Civics. Nor were they as roomy or
comfortable or powerful.

Wikipedia has this to say about the old engine:

"The EM displaced 1.5 L (1487 cc) and was an SOHC 8-valve CVCC engine.
Early versions produced 52 hp (39 kW) @ 5000 rpm and 68 ft.lbf (92 Nm)
@ 3000 rpm, while later ones upped the output to 63 hp (47 kW) @ 5000
rpm and 77 ft.lbf (104 Nm) @ 3000rpm. All used a 3 barrel carburetor.

* EM1
o 1980 Honda Civic, 52 hp (39 kW)
o 1981-1983 Honda Civic, 63 hp (47 kW)"

The 2006 gas 1.8 L produces 140 HP and delivers 30/38 mpg in a vastly
superior car. The 1.3 L hybrid produces 110 HP and delivers 50/50 in
the same vastly superior car.

Hardly better? The engines were simplier and cheaper, I'll grant you
that.

>
> Hybrids won't come into their own until battery technology advances to
> efficient plug in charging to supplement the internal combustion engine.

Some EEs have modified their Priuses to do this. Voids the warranty, of
course.
http://calcars.org/priusplus.html
Saw some numbers that say recharging at residential, off-peak rates is
the equivalent of less than $0.50/gallon. Perhaps your wish will be
granted in a few years. But I suspect the big energy corporations are
doing all they can to prevent this and instead impose some more
expensive alternative.

wrote in
oups.com:

> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>> The hybrid in its present form is hardly better than the Civics of
>> the early 1980's where some models got 40 mpg (city) and 50+ mph
>> (highway). They were simpler, cheaper, and just as long lasting as
>> today's offerings. And they were strictly gas burners.
>
> You omit that the Civics of the early '80s were not anywhere near as
> safe as the current crop of Civics. Nor were they as roomy or
> comfortable or powerful.
>
> Wikipedia has this to say about the old engine:
>
> "The EM displaced 1.5 L (1487 cc) and was an SOHC 8-valve CVCC engine.
> Early versions produced 52 hp (39 kW) @ 5000 rpm and 68 ft.lbf (92 Nm)
> @ 3000 rpm, while later ones upped the output to 63 hp (47 kW) @ 5000
> rpm and 77 ft.lbf (104 Nm) @ 3000rpm. All used a 3 barrel carburetor.
>
> * EM1
> o 1980 Honda Civic, 52 hp (39 kW)
> o 1981-1983 Honda Civic, 63 hp (47 kW)"
>
> The 2006 gas 1.8 L produces 140 HP and delivers 30/38 mpg in a vastly
> superior car. The 1.3 L hybrid produces 110 HP and delivers 50/50 in
> the same vastly superior car.
>
> Hardly better? The engines were simplier and cheaper, I'll grant you
> that.
>
>

I'll give you that the new cars are safer than the old ones. The new
ones though weigh 5-800lbs more than the old ones so they NEED large
engines to motivate them.

Original poster wasn't looking back to the '80's. He's saying his '97 HX
was better than the hybrid and I totally agree with him on that. Easier
to maintain, the same or better mileage. Perhaps not quite as safe but,
it has driver and passenger airbags and the upgraded side impact
protection required on all newer cars. The suspension on all civics
newer than 2001 is inferior to that of the older civics. Honda cut costs
by switching to struts but, that didn't make the suspension better.

In the middle years, 2001-2005 Honda had lost it's way. It was a company
run by bean counters. With the new Civic and Civic SI, I hope they're
going back to their roots.

Dufus Systems wrote:
>
>
> Original poster wasn't looking back to the '80's.

Yeah, but I was replying to Grumpy.
The OP is correct.

snip The suspension on all civics
> newer than 2001 is inferior to that of the older civics. Honda cut costs
> by switching to struts but, that didn't make the suspension better.
>
Struts don't necessarily make a suspension worse (eg BMW, Porsche) but
I agree that Honda's previous Civics weren't fun to drive.

> In the middle years, 2001-2005 Honda had lost it's way. It was a company
> run by bean counters. With the new Civic and Civic SI, I hope they're
> going back to their roots.

I think Honda cars have suffered so Honda could invest in light trucks.
I agree that the new Civic line is excellent. Probably the best value
Honda/Acura offers although low-end Accords also offer excellent value,
IMHO.

wrote in news:1140806342.518140.79040
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Dufus Systems wrote:
> I think Honda cars have suffered so Honda could invest in light trucks.
> I agree that the new Civic line is excellent. Probably the best value
> Honda/Acura offers although low-end Accords also offer excellent value,
> IMHO.
>

I agree with you on the truck thing. The problem with Honda is their trucks
just aren't that great. My wife has an MDX and sure, it's fine on trips
but, it's a soulless vehicle which, I would never buy again now that I've
owned one. The handling is squirly. The ride mediocre at best. My F150 and
the previous Expedition's I've owned were altogether better at being an SUV
than the MDX is. The AWD system on my last Expedition was superior to that
in the MDX. Supposedly the MDX is AWD but, I have yet to notice any torque
transfer to the back. In slick conditions it just pushes badly
(understeers).

I've looked long and hard at the Ridgeline too. I've been conditioned by my
Civic to look kindly on Honda's. It's ugly and as a truck, it's a failure.
The one thing I need in a truck is a big bed. The Ridgeline bed is tiny.
It's overpriced for what you get too. Probably explains why the local Honda
dealer can't give them away.

Dufus Systems wrote:

> I agree with you on the truck thing. The problem with Honda is their trucks
> just aren't that great.

Turn them over and you'll see an Odyssey minivan.

> It's overpriced for what you get too. Probably explains why the local Honda
> dealer can't give them away.

Blasphemy!
Can you believe that POS won truck of the year?
Can you believe that Honda let the NSX, Prelude, S2000, CRX, etc.
languish or die so they could build it?

Hey, what do you know? Another moment of ranting!

wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >
> >
> > The hybrid in its present form is hardly better than the Civics of the
> > early 1980's where some models got 40 mpg (city) and 50+ mph (highway).
> > They were simpler, cheaper, and just as long lasting as today's
> > offerings. And they were strictly gas burners.
>
> You omit that the Civics of the early '80s were not anywhere near as
> safe as the current crop of Civics. Nor were they as roomy or
> comfortable or powerful.
>
> Wikipedia has this to say about the old engine:
>
> "The EM displaced 1.5 L (1487 cc) and was an SOHC 8-valve CVCC engine.
> Early versions produced 52 hp (39 kW) @ 5000 rpm and 68 ft.lbf (92 Nm)
> @ 3000 rpm, while later ones upped the output to 63 hp (47 kW) @ 5000
> rpm and 77 ft.lbf (104 Nm) @ 3000rpm. All used a 3 barrel carburetor.
>
> * EM1
> o 1980 Honda Civic, 52 hp (39 kW)
> o 1981-1983 Honda Civic, 63 hp (47 kW)"
>
> The 2006 gas 1.8 L produces 140 HP and delivers 30/38 mpg in a vastly
> superior car. The 1.3 L hybrid produces 110 HP and delivers 50/50 in
> the same vastly superior car.
>
> Hardly better? The engines were simplier and cheaper, I'll grant you
> that.
>
> >
> > Hybrids won't come into their own until battery technology advances to
> > efficient plug in charging to supplement the internal combustion engine.
>
> Some EEs have modified their Priuses to do this. Voids the warranty, of
> course.
> http://calcars.org/priusplus.html
> Saw some numbers that say recharging at residential, off-peak rates is
> the equivalent of less than $0.50/gallon. Perhaps your wish will be
> granted in a few years. But I suspect the big energy corporations are
> doing all they can to prevent this and instead impose some more
> expensive alternative.



I'll take the higher gas mileage of the old version any day and accept
personal responsibility for the *lack* of safety features of today's
cars that simply contribute to defeat natural selection of the dumbed
down mooing masses...

JT

Dufus Systems wrote:
>
> wrote in news:1140806342.518140.79040
> @i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Dufus Systems wrote:
> > I think Honda cars have suffered so Honda could invest in light trucks.
> > I agree that the new Civic line is excellent. Probably the best value
> > Honda/Acura offers although low-end Accords also offer excellent value,
> > IMHO.
> >
>
> I agree with you on the truck thing. The problem with Honda is their trucks
> just aren't that great. My wife has an MDX and sure, it's fine on trips
> but, it's a soulless vehicle which, I would never buy again now that I've
> owned one. The handling is squirly. The ride mediocre at best. My F150 and
> the previous Expedition's I've owned were altogether better at being an SUV
> than the MDX is. The AWD system on my last Expedition was superior to that
> in the MDX. Supposedly the MDX is AWD but, I have yet to notice any torque
> transfer to the back. In slick conditions it just pushes badly
> (understeers).
>
> I've looked long and hard at the Ridgeline too. I've been conditioned by my
> Civic to look kindly on Honda's. It's ugly and as a truck, it's a failure.
> The one thing I need in a truck is a big bed. The Ridgeline bed is tiny.
> It's overpriced for what you get too. Probably explains why the local Honda
> dealer can't give them away.



If you cannot lay a 4x8 sheet of plywood in the bed, it ain't a
worthwhile truck...

JT

On 2/24/06 11:59 AM, in article
, "Dufus Systems"
> wrote:

> wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The hybrid in its present form is hardly better than the Civics of
>>> the early 1980's where some models got 40 mpg (city) and 50+ mph
>>> (highway). They were simpler, cheaper, and just as long lasting as
>>> today's offerings. And they were strictly gas burners.
>>
>> You omit that the Civics of the early '80s were not anywhere near as
>> safe as the current crop of Civics. Nor were they as roomy or
>> comfortable or powerful.
>>
>> Wikipedia has this to say about the old engine:
>>
>> "The EM displaced 1.5 L (1487 cc) and was an SOHC 8-valve CVCC engine.
>> Early versions produced 52 hp (39 kW) @ 5000 rpm and 68 ft.lbf (92 Nm)
>> @ 3000 rpm, while later ones upped the output to 63 hp (47 kW) @ 5000
>> rpm and 77 ft.lbf (104 Nm) @ 3000rpm. All used a 3 barrel carburetor.
>>
>> * EM1
>> o 1980 Honda Civic, 52 hp (39 kW)
>> o 1981-1983 Honda Civic, 63 hp (47 kW)"
>>
>> The 2006 gas 1.8 L produces 140 HP and delivers 30/38 mpg in a vastly
>> superior car. The 1.3 L hybrid produces 110 HP and delivers 50/50 in
>> the same vastly superior car.
>>
>> Hardly better? The engines were simplier and cheaper, I'll grant you
>> that.
>>
>>
>
> I'll give you that the new cars are safer than the old ones. The new
> ones though weigh 5-800lbs more than the old ones so they NEED large
> engines to motivate them.
>
> Original poster wasn't looking back to the '80's. He's saying his '97 HX
> was better than the hybrid and I totally agree with him on that. Easier
> to maintain, the same or better mileage. Perhaps not quite as safe but,
> it has driver and passenger airbags and the upgraded side impact
> protection required on all newer cars. The suspension on all civics
> newer than 2001 is inferior to that of the older civics. Honda cut costs
> by switching to struts but, that didn't make the suspension better.
>
> In the middle years, 2001-2005 Honda had lost it's way. It was a company
> run by bean counters. With the new Civic and Civic SI, I hope they're
> going back to their roots.
>
>

Back to their roots? That would be motorcycles and CVCC cars.