"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
news:OCHei.12520$M%4.5471@trndny08:

> william1977@gmail.com wrote:
>> I would also do a compression test when you change out you spark
>> plugs. If you have lo compression that will decrease power a mileage.
>> I just got a 95 EX and besides a short ram intake it is stock and my
>> car scoots right along, It's not as quick as my 90 Integra but it
>> moves.
>>
>>
>
> Low compression should be accompanied by other symptoms, like
> smoking. I'm not seeing any. And the gearing is definitely too high: I
> can easily compare tachometer readings with my Civic Si. I hope that the
> compression is ok, but if I change the plugs myself, I'll test it.
>

stock wheels/tires or custom with a larger rolling diameter?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>>took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>>car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>>and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>>hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both
>>deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and
>>each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was
>>Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86
>>not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better
>>fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry
>>wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be
>>noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
>>won't change the silly gearing...
>
>
> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si. Back in the day, the
> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.
> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution and almost for mileage and
> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!
>
> J.
>

If it turns out to be the gearing, I might consider going from 65 to
55 height tires. More likely, I'll sell it in the Fall, and try a
Corolla. That would be ironic, going from a Civic EX to a Toyota four in
order to get decent performance and better fuel economy...

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>>took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>>car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>>and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>>hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both
>>deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and
>>each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was
>>Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86
>>not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better
>>fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry
>>wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be
>>noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
>>won't change the silly gearing...
>
>
> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si. Back in the day, the
> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.
> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution and almost for mileage and
> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!
>
> J.
>

If it turns out to be the gearing, I might consider going from 65 to
55 height tires. More likely, I'll sell it in the Fall, and try a
Corolla. That would be ironic, going from a Civic EX to a Toyota four in
order to get decent performance and better fuel economy...

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>>took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>>car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>>and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>>hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both
>>deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and
>>each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was
>>Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86
>>not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better
>>fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry
>>wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be
>>noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
>>won't change the silly gearing...
>
>
> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si. Back in the day, the
> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.
> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution and almost for mileage and
> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!
>
> J.
>

If it turns out to be the gearing, I might consider going from 65 to
55 height tires. More likely, I'll sell it in the Fall, and try a
Corolla. That would be ironic, going from a Civic EX to a Toyota four in
order to get decent performance and better fuel economy...

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>> and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both
>> deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and
>> each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was
>> Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86
>> not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better
>> fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry
>> wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be
>> noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
>> won't change the silly gearing...
>
> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si.

the si is more powerful, but it's not just the cam.

> Back in the day, the
> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.

the bug is /not/ fast off the line. it's not high revving either. the
rabbit was though.

> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution

no.

> and almost for mileage and
> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!

honda engines are among the most high revving of any stock engines on
the market, even today. and all the action is at their top end. don't
know where you got your info, but it's not very current.

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>> and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both
>> deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and
>> each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was
>> Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86
>> not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better
>> fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry
>> wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be
>> noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
>> won't change the silly gearing...
>
> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si.

the si is more powerful, but it's not just the cam.

> Back in the day, the
> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.

the bug is /not/ fast off the line. it's not high revving either. the
rabbit was though.

> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution

no.

> and almost for mileage and
> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!

honda engines are among the most high revving of any stock engines on
the market, even today. and all the action is at their top end. don't
know where you got your info, but it's not very current.

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little low
>> and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although both
>> deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all, and
>> each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What was
>> Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them: the '86
>> not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much better
>> fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our '95 Camry
>> wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And it should be
>> noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an automatic.
>>
>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is, that
>> won't change the silly gearing...
>
> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si.

the si is more powerful, but it's not just the cam.

> Back in the day, the
> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.

the bug is /not/ fast off the line. it's not high revving either. the
rabbit was though.

> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution

no.

> and almost for mileage and
> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!

honda engines are among the most high revving of any stock engines on
the market, even today. and all the action is at their top end. don't
know where you got your info, but it's not very current.

 

jim beam wrote:
> JXStern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
>> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little
>>> low and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although
>>> both deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all,
>>> and each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What
>>> was Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them:
>>> the '86 not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much
>>> better fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our
>>> '95 Camry wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And
>>> it should be noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an
>>> automatic.
>>>
>>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is,
>>> that won't change the silly gearing...
>>
>>
>> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
>> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
>> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si.
>
>
> the si is more powerful, but it's not just the cam.
>
>> Back in the day, the
>> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
>> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.
>
>
> the bug is /not/ fast off the line. it's not high revving either. the
> rabbit was though.
>
>> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
>> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution
>
>
> no.
>
>> and almost for mileage and
>> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!
>
>
> honda engines are among the most high revving of any stock engines on
> the market, even today. and all the action is at their top end. don't
> know where you got your info, but it's not very current.


He may not have all the partulars correct, but he's right in that
the EX engine only performs well when made to scream. That doesn't make
sense for the intended use. And while the Beetle wasn't *fast* off the
line, it didn't feel like you were starting off in second, either...

 

jim beam wrote:
> JXStern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
>> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little
>>> low and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although
>>> both deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all,
>>> and each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What
>>> was Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them:
>>> the '86 not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much
>>> better fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our
>>> '95 Camry wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And
>>> it should be noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an
>>> automatic.
>>>
>>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is,
>>> that won't change the silly gearing...
>>
>>
>> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
>> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
>> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si.
>
>
> the si is more powerful, but it's not just the cam.
>
>> Back in the day, the
>> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
>> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.
>
>
> the bug is /not/ fast off the line. it's not high revving either. the
> rabbit was though.
>
>> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
>> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution
>
>
> no.
>
>> and almost for mileage and
>> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!
>
>
> honda engines are among the most high revving of any stock engines on
> the market, even today. and all the action is at their top end. don't
> know where you got your info, but it's not very current.


He may not have all the partulars correct, but he's right in that
the EX engine only performs well when made to scream. That doesn't make
sense for the intended use. And while the Beetle wasn't *fast* off the
line, it didn't feel like you were starting off in second, either...

 

jim beam wrote:
> JXStern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:19 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
>> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I just put my newly acquired '95 EX sedan on the road today, and
>>> took it on a fairly long trip, mostly on long back roads. My previous
>>> car (still for sale) is an '86 Civic Si. I am struck by how little
>>> low and mid-range power this 125HP sedan has, compared with my 91HP
>>> hatchback. It seems to be as much gearing as power curve, although
>>> both deserve criticism: the engine makes little low end power at all,
>>> and each of the gears feels like the next higher one on the '86. What
>>> was Honda thinking? If it was fuel economy, I've got news for them:
>>> the '86 not only has more power in normal driving - it also gets much
>>> better fuel economy. I figure this EX is running about even with our
>>> '95 Camry wagon in fuel economy: mid to high twenties, overall. And
>>> it should be noted that the EX is a 5 speed, while the wagon is an
>>> automatic.
>>>
>>> I'm really hoping the air filter is plugged, but even if it is,
>>> that won't change the silly gearing...
>>
>>
>> I think you've got all the factors there, the 125hp rating is only on
>> the cam, otherwise, especially at low RPM, the EX is tuned more to
>> economy and low pollution, compared to an Si.
>
>
> the si is more powerful, but it's not just the cam.
>
>> Back in the day, the
>> tradition of Euro sports cars was tiny engines with high revs and
>> short gearing so that even your 56hp VW bug was fast off the line.
>
>
> the bug is /not/ fast off the line. it's not high revving either. the
> rabbit was though.
>
>> Modern Honda engines just couldn't be more different. Lugging the
>> engine at low RPM is optimal for pollution
>
>
> no.
>
>> and almost for mileage and
>> the computer prevents knocking, so there ya go!
>
>
> honda engines are among the most high revving of any stock engines on
> the market, even today. and all the action is at their top end. don't
> know where you got your info, but it's not very current.


He may not have all the partulars correct, but he's right in that
the EX engine only performs well when made to scream. That doesn't make
sense for the intended use. And while the Beetle wasn't *fast* off the
line, it didn't feel like you were starting off in second, either...