Honda Car Forum

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

> In article <1fsWc.10984$3O3.4282@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Oh - it also gets 27mpg highway. 3500lbs, 210HP, and still
>>gets small car highway mileage.
>
>
> Small cars should get significantly better than 27mpg.

Yet most don't - they have maybe 50-60hp less and weigh a
thousand pounds less, plus have half the displacement, and
maybe get 35mpg highway. GM builds the most fuel eficient
engines for the power and displacement of anyone other than
maybe the V6 in the Camry/Avalon.

>The Vibe - yeah - you can't
>get a better value for $20K Can.

Is the Vibe/Matrix REALLY that good?

What features abt it are so good?

Just curious....

I own a 2000 Mazda Protege ES and altho its been a
great little car.... cant haul a THING in it. hence
looking at a hatchback style vehicle but something with
as good of gas milage as the Protege.

me6@privacy.net wrote:

>>The Vibe - yeah - you can't
>>get a better value for $20K Can.
>
>
> Is the Vibe/Matrix REALLY that good?
>
> What features abt it are so good?
>
> Just curious....
>
> I own a 2000 Mazda Protege ES and altho its been a
> great little car.... cant haul a THING in it. hence
> looking at a hatchback style vehicle but something with
> as good of gas milage as the Protege.

It's a Corolla engine and underbody with a Subaru
Forester type body on it. The seats fold flat
as a truck bed and it has tie-down points everywhere.
The entire rear cargo area is also covered in tough
but attractive plastic coating, kind of like how the Element
is - but not ugly like the Element.

Actually useable to haul construction supplies and
so on, and then it converts back into a family car.
Half minivan, half stationwagon. It is the most
ergonomically friendly car as far as useability in a
wide variety of situations other than maybe a Forester.

But it costs barely more than a Corolla. The AWD
is kind of flaky, but the FWD version is great. I like
the Vibe a bit more as the rear hach has a bit more clearance
and GM has some nice interior touches that make it feel more
like a Buick or Camry inside. It also comes with foglights
and other goodies which most econoboxes don't offer.

It feels to the Corolla like the Scion Tc feels to the Celica.
It's obviously marketed as a better, more useable version of the
older design. I'd be amazed if they didn't drop the Corolla
entirely in a couple of years due to the Scion and Martix overlap.

God I wish they offered the Scion here ...I wanna TDrive one of those soooo
bad before I buy my C.Sport.

griffin
'97 Corolla SD
'85 Jeep CJ7

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BrLWc.32330$9Y6.22248@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
>
>
> me6@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>The Vibe - yeah - you can't
> >>get a better value for $20K Can.
> >
> >
> > Is the Vibe/Matrix REALLY that good?
> >
> > What features abt it are so good?
> >
> > Just curious....
> >
> > I own a 2000 Mazda Protege ES and altho its been a
> > great little car.... cant haul a THING in it. hence
> > looking at a hatchback style vehicle but something with
> > as good of gas milage as the Protege.
>
> It's a Corolla engine and underbody with a Subaru
> Forester type body on it. The seats fold flat
> as a truck bed and it has tie-down points everywhere.
> The entire rear cargo area is also covered in tough
> but attractive plastic coating, kind of like how the Element
> is - but not ugly like the Element.
>
> Actually useable to haul construction supplies and
> so on, and then it converts back into a family car.
> Half minivan, half stationwagon. It is the most
> ergonomically friendly car as far as useability in a
> wide variety of situations other than maybe a Forester.
>
> But it costs barely more than a Corolla. The AWD
> is kind of flaky, but the FWD version is great. I like
> the Vibe a bit more as the rear hach has a bit more clearance
> and GM has some nice interior touches that make it feel more
> like a Buick or Camry inside. It also comes with foglights
> and other goodies which most econoboxes don't offer.
>
> It feels to the Corolla like the Scion Tc feels to the Celica.
> It's obviously marketed as a better, more useable version of the
> older design. I'd be amazed if they didn't drop the Corolla
> entirely in a couple of years due to the Scion and Martix overlap.
>

In article <TzBWc.11450$3O3.9288@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
>> In article <1fsWc.10984$3O3.4282@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
>> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh - it also gets 27mpg highway. 3500lbs, 210HP, and still
>>>gets small car highway mileage.
>>
>> Small cars should get significantly better than 27mpg.
>
>Yet most don't - they have maybe 50-60hp less and weigh a
>thousand pounds less, plus have half the displacement, and
>maybe get 35mpg highway.

All of the small cars that I've driven for more than one tank of
fuel got more than 35mpg. A small non-sporty car that only got
27mpg would be pretty poor in fuel economy for that type of car.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Ya, my '97 Corolla SD gets an average of 37mpg city with a bit of highway
....note: this is imperial gallons (so roughly 44mpg US).

"Timothy J. Lee" <remove22@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cgggp1$11a$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> In article <TzBWc.11450$3O3.9288@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1fsWc.10984$3O3.4282@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
> >> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Oh - it also gets 27mpg highway. 3500lbs, 210HP, and still
> >>>gets small car highway mileage.
> >>
> >> Small cars should get significantly better than 27mpg.
> >
> >Yet most don't - they have maybe 50-60hp less and weigh a
> >thousand pounds less, plus have half the displacement, and
> >maybe get 35mpg highway.
>
> All of the small cars that I've driven for more than one tank of
> fuel got more than 35mpg. A small non-sporty car that only got
> 27mpg would be pretty poor in fuel economy for that type of car.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Timothy J. Lee
> Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
> No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

In rec.autos.makers.honda griffin <gryffy@delthisshaw.ca> wrote:
> Ya, my '97 Corolla SD gets an average of 37mpg city with a bit of highway
> ...note: this is imperial gallons (so roughly 44mpg US).

Isn't that backwards? Imperial 37mpg is 30mpg US.

I thought it was IG * 1.2 = USG? I checked and it said the same thing here:
http://gocanada.about.com/cs/miscsho...pgal2usgal.htm

Altho be I could dyslexic severely just. ;p

<dold@Comparison.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:cggikd$fan$2@blue.rahul.net...
> In rec.autos.makers.honda griffin <gryffy@delthisshaw.ca> wrote:
> > Ya, my '97 Corolla SD gets an average of 37mpg city with a bit of
highway
> > ...note: this is imperial gallons (so roughly 44mpg US).
>
> Isn't that backwards? Imperial 37mpg is 30mpg US.
>

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:30:04 GMT, "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca>
wrote:

>I thought it was IG * 1.2 = USG? I checked and it said the same thing here:
>http://gocanada.about.com/cs/miscsho...pgal2usgal.htm
>
>Altho be I could dyslexic severely just. ;p
>
><dold@Comparison.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
>news:cggikd$fan$2@blue.rahul.net...
>> In rec.autos.makers.honda griffin <gryffy@delthisshaw.ca> wrote:
>> > Ya, my '97 Corolla SD gets an average of 37mpg city with a bit of
>highway
>> > ...note: this is imperial gallons (so roughly 44mpg US).
>>
>> Isn't that backwards? Imperial 37mpg is 30mpg US.
>>

An Imperial gallon is bigger than a puny U.S. gallon. The conversion
factor is 1.2009499. To convert from IG to US, multiply by that
factor. To convert MPG (in IG) to MPG (in US), divide by that factor.

This assumes we are talking U.S. statute miles, and not U.K. admiralty
miles or such.

Now converting dollars/gallon from the U.S. system to the Can. one,
that is more difficult.

H.

Oh right ...miles over gallons means it's a division. Yep ...I'm dumb.

Thanks for clearing that up.

"Harry Cox" <Cox@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:cmrni0l4p634tk4f4n2gf5tf4628e97876@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:30:04 GMT, "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >I thought it was IG * 1.2 = USG? I checked and it said the same thing
here:
> >http://gocanada.about.com/cs/miscsho...pgal2usgal.htm
> >
> >Altho be I could dyslexic severely just. ;p
> >
> ><dold@Comparison.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
> >news:cggikd$fan$2@blue.rahul.net...
> >> In rec.autos.makers.honda griffin <gryffy@delthisshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> > Ya, my '97 Corolla SD gets an average of 37mpg city with a bit of
> >highway
> >> > ...note: this is imperial gallons (so roughly 44mpg US).
> >>
> >> Isn't that backwards? Imperial 37mpg is 30mpg US.
> >>
>
> An Imperial gallon is bigger than a puny U.S. gallon. The conversion
> factor is 1.2009499. To convert from IG to US, multiply by that
> factor. To convert MPG (in IG) to MPG (in US), divide by that factor.
>
> This assumes we are talking U.S. statute miles, and not U.K. admiralty
> miles or such.
>
> Now converting dollars/gallon from the U.S. system to the Can. one,
> that is more difficult.
>
> H.