On Aug 24, 1:35 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:27:58 -0700, highkm <ic...@mac.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 23, 10:00 am, Mark <bogusmailm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated
> >> 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg
> >> highway when driven a constant 65 mph - a truly great combination of
> >> utility and economy. I averaged 27 mpg in the city, a bit better than
> >> my current 2006 Scion tC. I don't think cars have come very far at
> >> all in the last 20 years economy-wise.
>
> >> On Aug 22, 8:14 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
>
> >> > <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >Henry wrote:
> >> > >> plenty...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > >>> See the 1978 ad viahttp://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...
>
> >> > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my
> >> > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have
> >> > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe.
>
> >> > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't
> >> > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy
> >> > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern
> >> > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust
> >> > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had
> >> > already gotten a lot better by 1983.
>
> >> > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are
> >> > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater
> >> > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel
> >> > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly
> >> > come off the SUV rose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I borrowed a new Honda Fit (with a stick) from a buddy for a weekend.
> >I liked the sporty engine feel. However, I got worse milage than on a
> >2003 4-cyl accord. The Fit needs another gear for highway cruising
> >because I never got better than 6.7 -6.8 L/100Km at 100Km/hr.
>
> That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph.
>
> > I am
> >shocked. That's very bad gearing for that car. maybe Honda should have
> >offered a gear option for the buyer. I'd never buy the Fit unless it
> >consumed 5l/100km or less.
>
> That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight.
>
> > I read that most people are getting their
> >milage in at 30-40Miles per galon on other honda cars. That's crappy
> >milage. Are they driving with high friction tires, maybe winter tires.
> >I have a higher milage 2003 accord (~ 200,000 miles) and I am getting
> >almost 50Miles per gallon (Canadian gallons) 5.8l/100km at 100Km/hr.
>
> That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km?
>
> As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to
> the EPA by owners at
>
> <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda>
>
> Year 2003 2007 2007 2007
> Car Accord Accord Civic Fit
> Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4
> Tran AT AT MT MT
>
> ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6
> range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43
> # vehicles 17 13 15 32
>
> So the Fit did OK. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's correct 5.8 to 5.9 liters per 100km at 100km/h of highway
driving. I drive 400Km per day every day. I get consistently almost
1,100 km per tank. I jam in about 62 - 63 liters. I have just
purchased low friction tires and I am hoping that they will provide
less resistance than the Nokian i3 that they replace. I have also been
informed that I should try using 0w20 synthetic in place of 0w30
synthetic. My target is 1200 km. That way I would fill up at the end
of every 3rd day. Cheers.

 

On Aug 24, 1:35 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:27:58 -0700, highkm <ic...@mac.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 23, 10:00 am, Mark <bogusmailm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My 87 Camry (2L 16V 4-cyl automatic, 115 HP) weighed 2800 lbs, seated
> >> 5 comfortably, had plenty of power, and would get over 40-44 mpg
> >> highway when driven a constant 65 mph - a truly great combination of
> >> utility and economy. I averaged 27 mpg in the city, a bit better than
> >> my current 2006 Scion tC. I don't think cars have come very far at
> >> all in the last 20 years economy-wise.
>
> >> On Aug 22, 8:14 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:08:49 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
>
> >> > <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >Henry wrote:
> >> > >> plenty...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > >>> See the 1978 ad viahttp://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...
>
> >> > I wouldn't call it fantasy land. I never owned an '82/83 Civic but my
> >> > '74 Civic and my '80 Accord seldom got over 30 mpg. Of course, I have
> >> > a heavy foot, but I never saw mileage close to what you describe.
>
> >> > I haven't driven the Fit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't
> >> > better my G1 Civic in just about every way. (The old Civics were easy
> >> > to work on, but they needed more maintenance and repair than a modern
> >> > Honda.) Where do you live that your Civic hasn't turned to dust? Rust
> >> > proofing has to be the biggest improvement of all, although they had
> >> > already gotten a lot better by 1983.
>
> >> > Cars in general are a lot better over the last 25 years. They are
> >> > also a lot more complex and are generally biased more toward greater
> >> > horsepower and higher weight (for various purposes) than toward fuel
> >> > economy. That may be changing in the future. The bloom has certainly
> >> > come off the SUV rose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I borrowed a new Honda Fit (with a stick) from a buddy for a weekend.
> >I liked the sporty engine feel. However, I got worse milage than on a
> >2003 4-cyl accord. The Fit needs another gear for highway cruising
> >because I never got better than 6.7 -6.8 L/100Km at 100Km/hr.
>
> That's about 35.5 mpg at 63 mph.
>
> > I am
> >shocked. That's very bad gearing for that car. maybe Honda should have
> >offered a gear option for the buyer. I'd never buy the Fit unless it
> >consumed 5l/100km or less.
>
> That's about 48 mpg. Sounds more like an Insight.
>
> > I read that most people are getting their
> >milage in at 30-40Miles per galon on other honda cars. That's crappy
> >milage. Are they driving with high friction tires, maybe winter tires.
> >I have a higher milage 2003 accord (~ 200,000 miles) and I am getting
> >almost 50Miles per gallon (Canadian gallons) 5.8l/100km at 100Km/hr.
>
> That is 41 mpg. I thought you got 6.8L/100 Km?
>
> As a reality check, here are real world mileage figures submitted to
> the EPA by owners at
>
> <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Honda>
>
> Year 2003 2007 2007 2007
> Car Accord Accord Civic Fit
> Eng. 2.4L 4 2.4L 4 1.8L 4 1.5L 4
> Tran AT AT MT MT
>
> ave mpg 28.4 23.6 31.3 35.6
> range 22-37 15-29 23-38 28-43
> # vehicles 17 13 15 32
>
> So the Fit did OK. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's correct 5.8 to 5.9 liters per 100km at 100km/h of highway
driving. I drive 400Km per day every day. I get consistently almost
1,100 km per tank. I jam in about 62 - 63 liters. I have just
purchased low friction tires and I am hoping that they will provide
less resistance than the Nokian i3 that they replace. I have also been
informed that I should try using 0w20 synthetic in place of 0w30
synthetic. My target is 1200 km. That way I would fill up at the end
of every 3rd day. Cheers.