Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Honda and Acura
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2009, 12:51 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,286 posts, read 87,491,164 times
Reputation: 55564

Advertisements

bek your prior driving habits were hurting OPEC and chevron and DC was taking a lot of heat bek of it. things are better now, keep driving that hummer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2009, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,557,330 times
Reputation: 8075
these are four cylinder models
Honda Accord 09-3408 89-2595 (manual)
Toyota Camry 09-3307 89-2811 (auto)
Nissan Altima 09-3189 89-2770 (manual)
Chevy Malibu 09-3415 89-2595 (manual)
Mazda6 09-3309 89-2670 (manual)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2010, 08:49 PM
 
3,111 posts, read 8,060,775 times
Reputation: 4274
I would buy an old CRX to drive on a daily basis. Can't beat that kind of gas mileage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2010, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,841,780 times
Reputation: 7801
Obviously some sort of a conspiracy ...where's Jesse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2010, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Ohio
780 posts, read 2,928,371 times
Reputation: 638
Digging up a thread this old is a conspiracy on its own ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2010, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Harrison, OH
910 posts, read 1,678,350 times
Reputation: 383
VW diesels are where its at for good mileage and quality. I'd take one over a Pruis anytime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2010, 04:00 PM
 
4,923 posts, read 11,198,803 times
Reputation: 3321
Yeah, an old thread, but it got me wondering something...

Just scanning through it, quite a number of people responded that a car in the late '80s early '90s didn't have the safety equipment then that they do today as a way of explaining why a car then could get around 50 mpg.

Can anyone tell me a real fundamental, weight-causing difference between now and then? That wasn't exactly ancient history, and other than airbags and anti-lock brakes, what else was there that would add so much weight to cause mpg to drop? I don't see airbags and anti-lock brakes as real heavyweight causes. Many of the other safety features since then (anti-yaw, anti-burnout, etc.) are essentially computer chip/fuel injector issues and again, not real heavyweights.

Right now, I'm kinda doubting that's the cause...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2010, 04:28 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,889,697 times
Reputation: 2519
The weight isn't safety features as much as comfort features...

Funny thing is,from what I just read,the CRX and the Prius are both 'average' when it comes to safety,even though the Prius has airbags,ABS,traction control,etc.

http://www.ridelust.com/mpg-wars-198...-toyota-prius/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2010, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,557,330 times
Reputation: 8075
Safety is more than just airbags and anti-lock brakes. It's also about strength of the body's structure. Since the 80s, a major safety focus was on the passenger compartment remaining virtually intack after an offset crash, one of the most common types of accidents on the road, as well as side impact crashes (or T-boned). The cage was ever strengthened over the years and now includes roll over safety meaning if the car ends up on it's roof, the roof will not cave in and kill the passengers. All of this means more and more steel and more and more weight. I have a 2003 Malibu, a design that first debuted in 1997. It's about 3,000 lbs and is considered a midsize sedan. Today's compact sedans weigh about as much or more than my Malibu and is probably safer in a crash. My aunt's Dodge Avenger (the current generation) was in an offset crash with a full size Dodge Ram truck and she (in her mid 60s) suffered a broken collar bone and walked away from the crash. There was a news video back in the 1980s regarding the crash safety of the CRX put out by the insurance institute. One of the test they did was back the vehicle at 5mph into a steel post. Most vehicles suffered minor damage. With the CRX, the post left a perfect indention in the back body of the car and was several thousands of dollars of damage. Because the CRX was so small and light, if hit from the rear, the car would go flying forward more than the average vehicle of it's day. A side impact or offset crash was very dangerous with this vehicle and others of it's class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinem View Post
Yeah, an old thread, but it got me wondering something...

Just scanning through it, quite a number of people responded that a car in the late '80s early '90s didn't have the safety equipment then that they do today as a way of explaining why a car then could get around 50 mpg.

Can anyone tell me a real fundamental, weight-causing difference between now and then? That wasn't exactly ancient history, and other than airbags and anti-lock brakes, what else was there that would add so much weight to cause mpg to drop? I don't see airbags and anti-lock brakes as real heavyweight causes. Many of the other safety features since then (anti-yaw, anti-burnout, etc.) are essentially computer chip/fuel injector issues and again, not real heavyweights.

Right now, I'm kinda doubting that's the cause...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2010, 07:29 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,557,330 times
Reputation: 8075
Go to page 4 of the pdf. below to see photos of the CRX damage I mentioned earlier.
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr2402.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Honda and Acura

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top