Honda Car Forum

"Yoda" <yoda@Dagobah.net> wrote in message
news:2008033110253916807-yoda@Dagobahnet...
> On 2008-03-29 19:35:01 -0500, " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net>
> said:
>
>>
>> "Yoda" <yoda@Dagobah.net> wrote in message
>> news:2008032822302716807-yoda@Dagobahnet...
>>> On 2008-03-28 21:56:31 -0500, " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that
>>>>> car,
>>>>> then.
>>>>>
>>>> Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20%
>>>> highway.
>>>
>>> He may have a point - unless he's driving totally leadfooted the whole
>>> time, which is a possibility, he should be doing better than that. My
>>> rsx,
>>> which is almost totally leadfooted city driving gets around 25 mpg.
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------
>>> I only talk like that in the movies
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. No, he doesn't have a lead foot. My other son does and redline it
>> all the time on his 98 GSR and still gets 32mpg. (80% highway, 20% city)
>> Go
>> figure!
>>
>> Anyway taking the Civic Si to the dealer on a recall and have them look
>> at
>> the gas consumption too.
>
> It could be something as minor as underinflated tires - I was having
> exceptionally bad mileage for a while, and although they looked fine, one
> of the tires was about 8 lbs low, which was causing my mileage to drop to
> an average of 22 mpg. So if there are several in this state, you could get
> down to 18 pretty quickly...
> --
> -----------------------------
> I only talk like that in the movies
>

Tire pressure should be ok as it was checked a month ago. (It was low but
that was before the bad mileage was noticed, will check pressure again) Car
is in the dealer now and they said nothing could be done about the bad
mileage unless the check engine light comes on.

"ACAR" <dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49f6088a-7acc-4a71-bcda-5d99b23a93d4@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 28, 9:56 pm, Russell Lombardo <rll_...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an
>> NSX
>> or any supercar is not reasonable. A Corvette uses 50-year old
>> technology,
>> a pushrod engine, I thin it still has rear leaf springs!, snip
>
> yet the 2008 Corvette gets around a track pretty well for half the
> price of a NSX.
>

Corvette still use brute force? In the old days (1970s) I see the Corvette
leaving the Lotus Europa in the dust on a straight runway but the Europa
catches up on the curves. The Lotus has only about 130hp 4 banger and gets
close to 40mpg vs. a huge block V8 on the Corvette.



> some define supercar by the specifications
> others define it by performance
>

On Mar 31, 1:15 pm, " Frank" <norep...@nothome.net> wrote:
>
> Corvette still use brute force? In the old days (1970s) I see the Corvette
> leaving the Lotus Europa in the dust on a straight runway but the Europa
> catches up on the curves. The Lotus has only about 130hp 4 banger and gets
> close to 40mpg vs. a huge block V8 on the Corvette.
>
>
Here's a quote from an August 2007 Car & Driver article; comparison of
various sports cars at Virgina Int. Raceway

"LL2: 2007 Chevrolet Corvette - Feature
The Lightning Lap, 2007

There were several surprises in this class--and the biggest was the
astonishing performance of the base Corvette equipped with the Z51
package. The Vette was a returnee to VIR because we experienced a data
problem with its quickest lap last year. We had to publish its second-
quickest lap time (3:09.3) then, which we didn't think represented the
car's capabilities.

Those suspicions were dead on, because this time around the Z51 blazed
around the course in 3:03.6, nearly six seconds quicker. That time
bests those of the Audi R8 and Porsche 911 Turbo, cars that cost more
than twice as much as the Z51's base price. As we've learned,
Corvettes are lap dogs when it comes to obeying commands from the
helm, and they have wonderful fade-free brakes and benefit from a
smooth 400-hp V-8. But they initially feel spooky, partly because the
steering is a bit numb. Once a driver learns to trust the Vette's
chassis, the Chevy can embarrass almost any other car on the track,
even if it isn't as confidence inspiring as a Porsche 911. "

On Mar 28, 9:56*pm, Russell Lombardo <rll_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I guess it's good that more people don't comprehend the value of supercars
> like the NSX -- I couldn't have afforded one. *Of course, now that I have
> one, let the prices increase!
>

Oh, people comprehend.
There's some other reason the NSX is priced like a used car and not a
Ferrari.

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:35:01 -0700, " Frank"
<noreplay@nothome.net> wrote:

>
>"Yoda" <yoda@Dagobah.net> wrote in message
>news:2008032822302716807-yoda@Dagobahnet...
>> On 2008-03-28 21:56:31 -0500, " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net>
>> said:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that
>>>> car,
>>>> then.
>>>>
>>> Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20%
>>> highway.
>>
>> He may have a point - unless he's driving totally leadfooted the whole
>> time, which is a possibility, he should be doing better than that. My rsx,
>> which is almost totally leadfooted city driving gets around 25 mpg.
>> --
>> -----------------------------
>> I only talk like that in the movies
>>
>
>Thanks. No, he doesn't have a lead foot. My other son does and redline it
>all the time on his 98 GSR and still gets 32mpg. (80% highway, 20% city) Go
>figure!
>
>Anyway taking the Civic Si to the dealer on a recall and have them look at
>the gas consumption too.

My 94 GSR gets about 22 in city driving driven very hard. The Si
would be heavier, and has about the same power. Still 18 seems pretty
low.

"Russell Lombardo" <rll_mac@cox.net> wrote in message
news:C412EFC4.22FC%rll_mac@cox.net...
>I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an NSX
> or any supercar is not reasonable. A Corvette uses 50-year old
> technology,
> a pushrod engine, I thin it still has rear leaf springs!, it is plastic
> inside -- an interior similar to a Chevette. I looked at Corvettes and
> walked away thinking how could they sell these things. They are simply
> inferior to a supercar in every conceivable way. They are manufactured on
> an assembly line.
>
> Of course, Corvettes are noisy and relatively quick in a straight line,
> but
> at high speed, like all pushrod engines, they run out of power. My NSX
> would rev much higher, but the rev limiter limits rpm to a bit over 8000,
> and it is pulling even harder once the VTEC kicks in at around 6000 rpm.
> If
> you have never driven a true supercar, you may think a front-engine car is
> impressive. One drive in a mid-engine true supercar and your opinion will
> be forever changed.
>
> There was a test done by one of the car magazines that tested several cars
> including the NSX and Corvette, as well as the 911, and jokingly a Camaro.
> The test was 0 to 150 mph to 0. The only car that beat the NSX was a
> Viper.
> Nothing else beat the NSX. It is a true supercar, holding its value as no
> new Corvette does. I have owned my NSX for 5 1/2 years now, and it is
> worth
> at least as much as I paid for it. It has never been in the rain, and of
> course, never in snow. This is not much of a hardship here in California
> as
> it only rains perhaps 10-20 days per year.
>
> I guess it's good that more people don't comprehend the value of supercars
> like the NSX -- I couldn't have afforded one. Of course, now that I have
> one, let the prices increase!
>
> I will post the 0-150-0 in a new post.
>
> - Russ in SB
I owned a couple of Vettes about 35 years ago. Today, they have become
relatively more expensive than the old models -- I guess technology and so
forth increased the cost. My 71 454 4 speed roadster with a/c cost $6,100
back in 71. Those dollars today considering inflation equal around $33k or
so. You sure can't buy a new Vette today for that today. Of course, one
buy a S 2000 for that.

Waiving the right to remain silent, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> said:

> I owned a couple of Vettes about 35 years ago. Today, they have become
> relatively more expensive than the old models -- I guess technology and
> so forth increased the cost. My 71 454 4 speed roadster with a/c cost
> $6,100 back in 71. Those dollars today considering inflation equal
> around $33k or so. You sure can't buy a new Vette today for that today.
> Of course, one buy a S 2000 for that.

I owned a new 76 Corvette, and it was not their best year. They were
severely underpowered during that era. Had it for 9 years, and sold it for
about $1,500 less than what I paid.

Held its value surprisingly well for one which wasn't very well liked.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."