Honda Car Forum

My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
41.2 mpg for mixed driving...

JT

My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.

Earle

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:45077D67.E0A299AE@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>
> JT

Earle Horton wrote:
> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.

that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
/huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.

>
> Earle
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
> news:45077D67.E0A299AE@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>>
>> JT
>
>

You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.

Earle

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:CPudnRCOIZv9HJrYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.
>
> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
>
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
> > news:45077D67.E0A299AE@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
> >> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
> >> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
> >>
> >> JT
> >
> >

Earle Horton wrote:
> You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.

no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in
/exactly/ the most efficient ratio.

>
> Earle
>
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:CPudnRCOIZv9HJrYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.
>> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
>> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
>>
>>> Earle
>>>
>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45077D67.E0A299AE@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>>>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
>>>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>>>>
>>>> JT
>>>
>
>

In article <6P2dnTM3ia1fGZrYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> Earle Horton wrote:
> > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.
>
> no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in
> /exactly/ the most efficient ratio.

Based on all the stupid things that the 5 speed 2005 HAH transmission
does, I wouldn't count on it. Honda's transmission programming is
_really_ bad. Accelerate a little bit and it shifts from 3rd (3 cyl) to
4th (6 cyl + IMA) then 2nd (6 cyl) then 3rd (6 cyl) and back to 4th (3
cyl + IMA). 96/97 Civic HX CVT transmissions had a lot of software
performance problems too.

If I could convert my HAH to a 5 speed manual, I'd be making a service
appointment now. I'm always in the right gear because I know what I'm
doing next.


> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> > news:CPudnRCOIZv9HJrYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> >> Earle Horton wrote:
> >>> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.
> >> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
> >> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
> >>
> >>> Earle
> >>>
> >>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:45077D67.E0A299AE@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
> >>>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
> >>>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
> >>>>
> >>>> JT
> >>>
> >
> >

In article <45077D67.E0A299AE@GrumpyvilleNOT.com>,
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote:

> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>
> JT

My 94 Lexus ES--a very comfortable car, fully paid for of course--gets
me 29mpg on the highway.

Let's see, vs. paying $25K for a new car that gets 38mpg....the payback
time is a LONG, LONG time...

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
> In article <6P2dnTM3ia1fGZrYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > Earle Horton wrote:
> > > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.
> >
> > no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in
> > /exactly/ the most efficient ratio.
>
> Based on all the stupid things that the 5 speed 2005 HAH transmission
> does, I wouldn't count on it. Honda's transmission programming is
> _really_ bad. Accelerate a little bit and it shifts from 3rd (3 cyl) to
> 4th (6 cyl + IMA) then 2nd (6 cyl) then 3rd (6 cyl) and back to 4th (3
> cyl + IMA). 96/97 Civic HX CVT transmissions had a lot of software
> performance problems too.
>
> If I could convert my HAH to a 5 speed manual, I'd be making a service
> appointment now. I'm always in the right gear because I know what I'm
> doing next.
>
>


My point would be (and I know nothing about your car except assume that
it's some sort of automatic) should a repair become necessary, it won't
be cheap which can quickly wipe out any accumulated fuel savings. Ah
kin feel yer pain!

Based on your statement, and Honda's record for automatics there is
probably reason for concern in that respect.

That said, most folks cannot do what I did. Bought the '83 and an
earlier gen2 parts car for $200 and made a good runner from the two. So
far, my total investment is under $1K for a vehicle with just over 100K
total miles. Being that I'm mechanically handy, retired with some time
on my hands and frugal in nature, I think that the effort in $$$ and
time was well worth it. Felt real good to have traveled 300 miles and
unable to put $20 worth of gas into the car.

Now, a hybrid is usually in the $20K + range and it is difficult for me
to comprehend it as being economical transportation. Putting pencil to
paper just doesn't work...

JT

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
> In article <45077D67.E0A299AE@GrumpyvilleNOT.com>,
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote:
>
> > My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
> > 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
> >
> > JT
>
> My 94 Lexus ES--a very comfortable car, fully paid for of course--gets
> me 29mpg on the highway.
>
> Let's see, vs. paying $25K for a new car that gets 38mpg....the payback
> time is a LONG, LONG time...



Ain't that the truth!

I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the
mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new
latest high tech econobox is going to get.

Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which
are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile?

When I finally got the FE back on the road in early May, the mileage was
in the low 30's and after nearly 2K, it has crept up to 40+. I will
admit that I've spent some time with the car learning and tweaking this
'n that but it has paid off. It still is not exactly right, (It's
idling too fast), but it's getting closer to the road test achievements
in the early 1980's.

And I love the handling. Damned thing is just plain glued to the road!

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
snip
>
> I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the
> mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new
> latest high tech econobox is going to get.
>
> Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which
> are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile?
>
snip

Come on, you're driving a shitbox. If you need to compare your '83
Civic to a modern hybrid how about figuring in the value of a hybrid's
added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust
and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but
that doesn't make it a better car.

Like the old Civic was anything to brag about - our '72 VW/Porsche 914
got 35 mpg at 85 mph, 30 mpg at 95 mph and handled considerably better
than anything Honda produced until the 1990s. But compared to a modern
sports car the old 914 is also a shitbox.