On 12/27/2009 07:40 AM, Joe wrote:
> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> First, the Si
>>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
>>> drivetrain:
>>
>> Yes, they did.
>>
>> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to
>> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.
>
> From motortrend.com:
>
> 95 Civic Si:
> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
> cylinder
> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm
>
> 95 Civic EX Sedan:
> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
> cylinder
> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200
> rpm
>
> Looks pretty close to me...
>
>

indeed. and from:
http://www.knology.net/~jediklc/gearratiosdseries.htm
we can scroll down and see that gear ratios are the same unless it's a
hatchback/del sol - differentiation is by body style, not engine or trim
designation.

 

In article <slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:

> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > In article <FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> First, the Si
> >> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
> >> drivetrain:
> >
> > Yes, they did.
> >
> > "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to
> > tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.
>
> From motortrend.com:
>
> 95 Civic Si:
> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
> cylinder
> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm
>
> 95 Civic EX Sedan:
> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
> cylinder
> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200
> rpm
>
> Looks pretty close to me...

hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions.

Or maybe the OP thought Honda threw a bunch of money at completely
different engines/transmissions for different trim lines of their lowest
priced, loss leader model....

92-95 Civic--CX/DX (hatch/sedan) and LX (sedan) had the same
drivetrains, Si (hatch) and EX (sedan) had the same (bigger) drivetrains.

93 model saw the coupe, and it got the same trim levels and powertrains
as the corresponding sedan.

VX was its own beastie...

 

On 12/27/2009 08:01 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local> ,
> Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, the Si
>>>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
>>>> drivetrain:
>>>
>>> Yes, they did.
>>>
>>> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to
>>> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.
>>
>> From motortrend.com:
>>
>> 95 Civic Si:
>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
>> cylinder
>> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm
>>
>> 95 Civic EX Sedan:
>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
>> cylinder
>> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200
>> rpm
>>
>> Looks pretty close to me...
>
> hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions.

55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm.


>
> Or maybe the OP thought Honda threw a bunch of money at completely
> different engines/transmissions for different trim lines of their lowest
> priced, loss leader model....
>
> 92-95 Civic--CX/DX (hatch/sedan) and LX (sedan) had the same
> drivetrains, Si (hatch) and EX (sedan) had the same (bigger) drivetrains.
>
> 93 model saw the coupe, and it got the same trim levels and powertrains
> as the corresponding sedan.
>
> VX was its own beastie...

 

In article <dfCdnTUDKeFKCqrWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm.

so, just getting to the middle of the on ramp is 1900rpm.

 

On 12/27/2009 09:31 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<dfCdnTUDKeFKCqrWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm.
>
> so, just getting to the middle of the on ramp is 1900rpm.

for our friend's 55mph, 2200rpm, "55mpg highway" civic ex, yes.

 

jim beam wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 08:01 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article<slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local> ,
>> Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First, the Si
>>>>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
>>>>> drivetrain:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they did.
>>>>
>>>> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to
>>>> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.
>>>
>>> From motortrend.com:
>>>
>>> 95 Civic Si:
>>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
>>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
>>> cylinder
>>> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm
>>>
>>> 95 Civic EX Sedan:
>>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
>>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
>>> cylinder
>>> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200
>>> rpm
>>>
>>> Looks pretty close to me...
>>
>> hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions.
>
> 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm.


In that case, I'm mistaken about them being different - and
extremely glad I didn't shell out any money for a '95 Si. With the same
power and gearing as my car, it should get excellent gas mileage, and
also get passed by virtually any other "sport" model in its class. As
for the 1900rpm at 55, I'll take your word for it - I must have been
looking at 60mph, which would be about 2200. Note that both cars do
indeed have two overdrives, and imagine what that does to acceleration
on the highway.

Now why exactly are you idiots crowing about this? Instead of
proving that I'm wrong about the tall gearing, you just proved I'm right
about it. I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of
other people), and you apparently can't drive your own cars economically
even when you try. Go have another round of beers.




(...)

 

On 12/27/2009 04:16 PM, Leftie wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> On 12/27/2009 08:01 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article<slrnhjevvt.ef9.joe@barada.griffincs.local> ,
>>> Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the Si
>>>>>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
>>>>>> drivetrain:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, they did.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and
>>>>> try to
>>>>> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.
>>>>
>>>> From motortrend.com:
>>>>
>>>> 95 Civic Si:
>>>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
>>>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
>>>> cylinder
>>>> Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm
>>>>
>>>> 95 Civic EX Sedan:
>>>> 1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
>>>> 90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
>>>> cylinder
>>>> Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200
>>>> rpm
>>>>
>>>> Looks pretty close to me...
>>>
>>> hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions.
>>
>> 55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm.
>
>
> In that case, I'm mistaken about them being different - and extremely
> glad I didn't shell out any money for a '95 Si. With the same power and
> gearing as my car, it should get excellent gas mileage, and also get
> passed by virtually any other "sport" model in its class. As for the
> 1900rpm at 55, I'll take your word for it

dude, you allege to have owned the freakin' thing!!! /you/ should be
the one attesting to accuracy, not "taking anybody's word for it". if
you don't /know/ the facts, you're just a bullshitter.


> - I must have been looking at
> 60mph, which would be about 2200.

what a surprise.


> Note that both cars do indeed have two
> overdrives, and imagine what that does to acceleration on the highway.

it's got overdrive but no shift lever stopping you from shifting to a
ratio where you can get more power??? that's freakin' funny dude!


>
> Now why exactly are you idiots crowing about this? Instead of proving
> that I'm wrong about the tall gearing,

dude, hondas are not geared tall. 99 corolla is ~1900 rpm at 55mph


> you just proved I'm right about
> it. I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of other
> people), and you apparently can't drive your own cars economically even
> when you try. Go have another round of beers.

er, you /do/ know that you can't just gear your way into fuel economy
don't you? otherwise we'd all be driving cars geared for 500rpm at
90mph giving 70mpg.

 

In article <gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote:

> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of
> other people),

What happened to your story about 55mpg?

Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.

 

On 12/27/2009 07:00 PM, Leftie wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of other
>>> people),
>>
>> What happened to your story about 55mpg?
>>
>> Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.
>
>
> No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. I drive in the city
> about 1/3 of the time. Do the math.


we have done the math. and it shows you to be a bullshitter.

whether that's because you're delusional, or simply too damned lazy to
check your facts is the only thing left open to debate.

 

In article <DkUZm.69892$DC2.12807@newsfe02.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote:

> >> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of
> >> other people),
> >
> > What happened to your story about 55mpg?
> >
> > Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.
>
>
> No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do.

Which, as those of us who have actually owned those vehicles know, is
utter bullshit.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of
>> other people),
>
> What happened to your story about 55mpg?
>
> Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.


No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. I drive in the
city about 1/3 of the time. Do the math.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <DkUZm.69892$DC2.12807@newsfe02.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of
>>>> other people),
>>> What happened to your story about 55mpg?
>>>
>>> Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.
>>
>> No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do.
>
> Which, as those of us who have actually owned those vehicles know, is
> utter bullshit.


Think what you want. Maybe you guys weigh 450lbs, or drive with your
brakes on. Whatever. ;-)

 

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:00:18 -0600, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <NEgZm.57280$ZF3.16311@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind too that
>>> the Prius isn't really a midsize car: it qualifies as one because they
>>> managed to stretch the interior space out just enough to earn the
>>> designation.
>>
>> So, keep in mind that the Prius isn't really a midsize car; it qualifies
>> as one only because it fits the size criteria for a midsize car???
>>
>> What are you smoking? It fits the criteria for a midsize car, therefore
>> it's a midsize car.
>>
>> What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize
>> cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the
>> manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize.
>
>
> No, I'm saying that it's lighter than a typical midsize car. Did you
>know that the defining criterion is interior room and nothing else? It
>just squeaks in with enough interior space to be defined as "midsize."
>IIRC, the old Volvo 240, with its larger size but smaller interior, was
>a "compact."

The 2010 Prius has a curb weight of 3042 pounds. That is about 120
pounds more than a 1993 240 Sedan. It is about 200 pounds less than
the 2010 Accord which is defined as a large car.

 

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:00:07 -0600, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of
>>> other people),
>>
>> What happened to your story about 55mpg?
>>
>> Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.
>
>
> No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. I drive in the
>city about 1/3 of the time. Do the math.

OK...

If you are getting 39 mpg overall and burn 3 gallons you have gone 117
miles. 2/3 of those miles on the highway is 78 miles at 55mpg burning
1.41 gal. In the city you traveled 39 miles burning 1.59 gal giving
you 24.5 mpg in the city. Is that what you meant?

 

In article <lsbnj5lqdjp6kovevfu9q8fm4ianv6r827@4ax.com>,
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. I drive in the
> >city about 1/3 of the time. Do the math.
>
> OK...
>
> If you are getting 39 mpg overall and burn 3 gallons you have gone 117
> miles. 2/3 of those miles on the highway is 78 miles at 55mpg burning
> 1.41 gal. In the city you traveled 39 miles burning 1.59 gal giving
> you 24.5 mpg in the city. Is that what you meant?

There is no way he gets 55mpg under any circumstances.

I know, because I had a 92 Civic Si. I had plenty of opportunity to
take it on the road, with zero city/traffic miles between fillups.
41mpg was the highest it would stretch under any circumstances, and
35mpg was its average on the highway under good conditions (good
weather).