On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:14:36 -0700, plenty560 wrote:

> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org


These did too:

http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1971/image/a71lfp10.jpg

http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2lifevan.jpg

http://www.geocities.jp/poohtibitama/ex2step.jpg

 

Henry wrote:
> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>
> My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and
> its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in
> western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly
> busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power
> steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course,
> air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.
>

I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power.

It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The
lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars
with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue.

Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well.


> That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic
> converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto
> transmission got 30mpg on the highway.
>
> Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold
> up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>

Wrong again.

The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got
nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one!


> It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the
> last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent...

Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user
friendly with regard to maintennace.

Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land...

JT

 

Henry wrote:
> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>
> My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and
> its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in
> western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly
> busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power
> steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course,
> air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.
>

I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power.

It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The
lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars
with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue.

Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well.


> That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic
> converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto
> transmission got 30mpg on the highway.
>
> Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold
> up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>

Wrong again.

The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got
nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one!


> It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the
> last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent...

Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user
friendly with regard to maintennace.

Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land...

JT

 

Henry wrote:
> plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>
> My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre engine, and
> its performance with more than one person aboard made it truly unsafe in
> western traffic. The gearing was such that the driver was constantly
> busy clutching and shifting, and there was no power brakes or power
> steering, so operator functions became a serious distraction. Of course,
> air conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.
>

I'm not aware of the 1200 having safety issues due to the lack of power.

It was an economy car that measured up to the manufacturer's claims. The
lack of power steering, (It did have power brakes as is with most cars
with disk brakes), on a car so light is also a non issue.

Oh, A/C was indeed an option as well.


> That model was not available in California, and did not have a catalytic
> converter. Further, according to the ad, the version with auto
> transmission got 30mpg on the highway.
>
> Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would not hold
> up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>

Wrong again.

The 1200 evolved into the 1300 CVCC of which the '82/83 models got
nearly 60 mpg highway and 43 mpg in town. I know, I have one!


> It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved in the
> last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's equivalent...

Yeah, cars have gotten bigger and get worse mileage and are not user
friendly with regard to maintennace.

Yep, enjoy your trip in fantasy land...

JT

 

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:54:30 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>
>My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre
>engine, and its performance with more than one person aboard
>made it truly unsafe in western traffic. The gearing was such
>that the driver was constantly busy clutching and shifting, and
>there was no power brakes or power steering, so operator
>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air
>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.

I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed
most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty
gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had
two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't
need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it.
It had 12" wheels.

I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare
occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg.

Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed
33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine
performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe
17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in
the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the
Civic was great for its time.

>That model was not available in California, and did not have a
>catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version
>with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway.

Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called
a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two
manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978.

>Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would
>not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>
>It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved
>in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's
>equivalent...

 

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:54:30 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>
>My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre
>engine, and its performance with more than one person aboard
>made it truly unsafe in western traffic. The gearing was such
>that the driver was constantly busy clutching and shifting, and
>there was no power brakes or power steering, so operator
>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air
>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.

I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed
most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty
gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had
two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't
need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it.
It had 12" wheels.

I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare
occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg.

Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed
33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine
performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe
17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in
the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the
Civic was great for its time.

>That model was not available in California, and did not have a
>catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version
>with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway.

Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called
a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two
manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978.

>Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would
>not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>
>It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved
>in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's
>equivalent...

 

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:54:30 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>plenty560@yahoo.com wrote:
>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>
>My niece drove that car in school. It sported a 1.2 litre
>engine, and its performance with more than one person aboard
>made it truly unsafe in western traffic. The gearing was such
>that the driver was constantly busy clutching and shifting, and
>there was no power brakes or power steering, so operator
>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air
>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.

I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed
most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty
gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had
two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't
need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it.
It had 12" wheels.

I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare
occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg.

Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed
33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine
performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe
17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in
the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the
Civic was great for its time.

>That model was not available in California, and did not have a
>catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version
>with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway.

Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called
a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two
manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978.

>Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would
>not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>
>It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved
>in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's
>equivalent...

 

my buddy had an 83 civic with Hondamatic. It took my 98 civic 5-spd to
school on more than one occasion. Did better on fuel too.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air
>>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.
>
>I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed
>most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty
>gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had
>two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't
>need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it.
>It had 12" wheels.
>
>I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare
>occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg.
>
>Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed
>33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine
>performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe
>17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in
>the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the
>Civic was great for its time.
>
>>That model was not available in California, and did not have a
>>catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version
>>with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway.
>
>Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called
>a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two
>manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978.
>
>>Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would
>>not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>>
>>It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved
>>in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's
>>equivalent...

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200708/1

 

my buddy had an 83 civic with Hondamatic. It took my 98 civic 5-spd to
school on more than one occasion. Did better on fuel too.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air
>>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.
>
>I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed
>most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty
>gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had
>two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't
>need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it.
>It had 12" wheels.
>
>I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare
>occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg.
>
>Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed
>33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine
>performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe
>17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in
>the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the
>Civic was great for its time.
>
>>That model was not available in California, and did not have a
>>catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version
>>with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway.
>
>Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called
>a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two
>manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978.
>
>>Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would
>>not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>>
>>It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved
>>in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's
>>equivalent...

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200708/1

 

my buddy had an 83 civic with Hondamatic. It took my 98 civic 5-spd to
school on more than one occasion. Did better on fuel too.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> See the 1978 ad via http://Muvy.org
>>
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>functions became a serious distraction. Of course, air
>>conditioning was a matter of cranking down the windows.
>
>I drove a '74 Civic I got new until 1980. It actually outperformed
>most economy cars of its time, at least partly due to its sporty
>gearing. I once beat a Gremlin V6 in a drag race to 70 mph and I had
>two 6 foot friends with me. It did have power brakes and it didn't
>need power steering. Understeered like a SOB though if you pushed it.
>It had 12" wheels.
>
>I drove it very hard and I only got over 30 mpg on very rare
>occasions. OTOH, this was at a time when big cars got 12 mpg.
>
>Put it in perspective. Compared to my '94 GS-R, the '74 Civic weighed
>33% less, had less than 30% of the horsepower, had erratic engine
>performance due to carburetor and primitive ignition, and went maybe
>17% farther on a gallon of gas in the Summer and not at all better in
>the Winter. The Integra is a far better car in every way, but the
>Civic was great for its time.
>
>>That model was not available in California, and did not have a
>>catalytic converter. Further, according to the ad, the version
>>with auto transmission got 30mpg on the highway.
>
>Someone mentioned the manual choke. In 1974 the automatic was called
>a Hondamatic transmission and it had a torque converter and two
>manually selected gears. I bet that was still in use in 1978.
>
>>Honda (among the best of all car makers, in my opinion) would
>>not hold up that 1.2L '78 as an example of its engineering prowess.
>>
>>It's truly a wonderful example of how far technology has moved
>>in the last thirty years. The Honda Fit is, I suppose, today's
>>equivalent...

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200708/1

 

"Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net...

> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because
> he's lonesome???
>
>
He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just
the National Enquirer beat.

Mike

 

"Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net...

> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because
> he's lonesome???
>
>
He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just
the National Enquirer beat.

Mike

 

"Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net...

> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because
> he's lonesome???
>
>
He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just
the National Enquirer beat.

Mike

 

Michael Pardee wrote on 8/22/07 7:20 PM:

> "Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net...
>
>> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because
>> he's lonesome???
>>
>>
> He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just
> the National Enquirer beat.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've noticed that since they've closed the "institutions", there are more of
these OT cross-posters everyday.......
Most of them are the "political whackos" who devote their lives trying to
make up catchy derogatory titles for anyone who disagrees with them.......

 

Michael Pardee wrote on 8/22/07 7:20 PM:

> "Blash" <blash1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C2F0BC1C.78F79%blash1@comcast.net...
>
>> What stock is this relevant to OR does the author cross-post just because
>> he's lonesome???
>>
>>
> He's spammed car groups for a few months now. Never anything useful - just
> the National Enquirer beat.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I've noticed that since they've closed the "institutions", there are more of
these OT cross-posters everyday.......
Most of them are the "political whackos" who devote their lives trying to
make up catchy derogatory titles for anyone who disagrees with them.......