2007 Civic Odometer - switch between km & miles?

BlackGT2000 wrote:
> jim beam Wrote:
>> BlackGT2000 wrote:
>>> jim beam Wrote:
>>>> BlackGT2000 wrote:
>>>>> jim beam Wrote:
>>>>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:16:22 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:33:17 +0000, Tegger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Joe LaVigne > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:17:19 +0000, who wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> . com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bucky" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the new Civics only have a digital speedometer,
>>>>>>>>>>>> UGH! Those difficult to read ones.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen a speedometer that was so easy to read.
>>>> They
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> placed high on the dash, and they are stable 3-digit
>> readouts.
>>>>>>>>>> Then they've improved since the ones they had in the '80s.
>>>>>> Remember those
>>>>>>>>>> "Atari" dashboards?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I almost feel guilty saying it, but in the 80's and early
>> 90's,
>>>> I
>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>> despised Hondas. I didn't like they way they looked as all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now I am in my mid-30's, and I would LOVE to get ahold of a
>> CRX
>>>>>> HF... ;-)
>>>>>>>> why the hf and not the si?
>>>>>>> I already have my toy, the 06 Si. I want a second car to use
>> for
>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>> and for that I want the massive Fuel Efficiency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CRX Si is much better than my Civic Si in that arena, but
>> the
>>>> HF
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> about as good as you get...
>>>>>> so true about the hf! shames the hybrids imo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regarding the si's, the huge weight increases in cars over the
>> last
>>>>>> few
>>>>>> years fundamentally ruins any chance of any recent vehicle being
>>>> able
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> touch the older cars on economy. performance is mediocre too if
>>>> you
>>>>>> look at power/weight ratios. the irony in all this is that the
>>>> modern
>>>>>> cars are heavier for supposed "safety" reasons, but the dirty
>>>> little
>>>>>> secret is that these heavier vehicles [up to 50% heavier] still
>>>> have
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same amount of rubber on the road as ever before and can't
>> maneuver
>>>> as
>>>>>> safely or stop as safely as a result of all that extra mass. i
>>>> don't
>>>>>> think real safety can be confined to the supposed need withstand
>>>> some
>>>>>> contrived side impact test - i think true safety is big picture -
>>>> and
>>>>>> that includes not getting into accidents in the first place.
>> i've
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> to a lot of junk yards and seen a lot of wrecks. the only crash
>>>>>> scenarios that worry me are head-ons and rollovers. based on the
>>>>>> wrecks
>>>>>> i've seen, i'd say the crx is one of the safest vehicles out
>> there
>>>> -
>>>>>> impossible to roll unless you flip it over an embankment, /very/
>>>>>> strong
>>>>>> if rollover /does/ occur, and superb in head-ons.
>>>>> Some of this makes sense, but its not all quite right. Cars today
>>>> do
>>>>> have wider tires than most cars did in the 80s and early 90s.
>> Even
>>>>> though they weigh more they generally have better brakes and can
>>>> corner
>>>>> quite well. I am sure if you looked up the factory spec, the new
>>>> cars
>>>>> would out corner the old ones, even given the extra bulk.
>>>> i disagree because it's not that simple. yes, tires are wider, but
>>>> that's largely because modern cars use macpherson struts - the only
>>>> way
>>>> to give that suspension adequate cornering /is/ to go for bigger
>>>> tires.
>>>> a strict apples-to-apples comparison is taking the 2000 civic and
>> the
>>>> 89 civic, which both have the same suspension and huge weight
>>>> difference, then comparing them. i've owned both so am very
>> familiar
>>>> with their handling. the 2000 is slower into the corners, and
>> won't
>>>> stop as quickly - using the same wheels and tires for both cars.
>> the
>>>> brake pedal feels better because it has a bigger servo, but that's
>> not
>>>> the same thing.
>>>>
>>>>> Safety is a
>>>>> big picture kind of thing, but in reality accidents happen and
>>>> thanks
>>>>> to all the heavy safety equipment that is in todays cars,
>> accidents
>>>> are
>>>>> much more survivable today than they were 15-20 years ago. If I
>> were
>>>> to
>>>>> be in an accident with a 1990 CRX in my 2007 civic, there is no
>> doubt
>>>> in
>>>>> my mind that I would have a better chance of being OK than the
>> driver
>>>> of
>>>>> the CRX. Think about this, what about the amount of SUVs on the
>>>> road
>>>>> today, The CRX was not designed with these monsters in mind. I
>>>> would
>>>>> not want to be a CRX driver in any kind of collision with an SUV,
>>>> being
>>>>> small and quick on your feet will not get you out of an accident
>> most
>>>> of
>>>>> the time, remember people usually don't know its going to happen
>>>> until
>>>>> it already has.
>>>> you have a point about accidents not being anticipated, but again,
>>>> it's
>>>> not that simple. according to the bosch automotive handbook, 48%
>> of
>>>> accidents are front end collisions. [30.6% side and 18.5% rear.
>>>> balance is rollover and "other".] that means for the largest
>>>> proportion, it's me running into something. therefore, for my
>> front
>>>> end, the only thing that would worry me about running into an suv
>> is
>>>> if
>>>> it's raised. if the bumpers are at a legal height, i'm not worried
>>>> because, as i said before, i've seen a lot of smashed hondas, and
>> they
>>>> do just fine. if i got hit by an suv in my rear, again, hondas
>> behave
>>>> pretty well. side impact is the only debatable issue because the
>>>> limited deformation zone makes is hard to protect occupants in any
>>>> type
>>>> of vehicle.
>>> I guess my point was a more strict apples to apples comparison where
>> 2
>>> cars off the showroom floor 90 and 07 are compared.
>> but it's not "apples to apples" because the suspension is different!
>>
>>> I don't like
>>> comparing cars with aftermarket parts because it makes the comparo
>> hard
>>> to do, and it would have to exclude the majority of people who buy
>> the
>>> cars and leave the car stock.
>> my cars /are/ stock. i used the same stock wheels for these
>> comparisons.
>>
>>> Also, in regards to the actual impact, I
>>> don't even think it would be a fair comparison between an older
>> honda
>>> and a new one. You are correct about the front end crash tests
>> being
>>> pretty good on the older hondas, but they are not as good as the new
>>> ones. Also, there is so much extra safety equipment in the new
>> cars,
>>> that it really can be said that the car is built around the safety
>>> equipment. Time has shown that the older hondas are certainly great
>>> cars (especially when compared to their contemporaries) but the
>> company
>>> certainly has come a long way when it comes to safety, even given
>> the
>>> weight increase. Also, in regards to the 48% of crashes being head
>>> on, that means that you have better odds of being hit from one of
>> the
>>> sides or the rear. You would have less than a 50/50 shot of being
>> hit
>>> in your "safe" zone.
>> front or rear is "safe". sides are impossible to make safe, unless
>> you
>> don't mind having doors 3' thick and some weird seatbelt assembly that
>> holds you back from the sides of the vehicle like a traditional
>> seatbelt
>> holds you off the steering wheel.
>>
>>> Bear in mind all the times that "the accident
>>> wasn't my fault", this implies that you were hit, and by most
>>> descriptions this is usually not head on. That means nearly every
>> time
>>> that you are hit (most likely in a way that you can not avoid, being
>> the
>>> victim). A quick, maneuverable car is not really a reliable way to
>>> prevent an accident, because 9 times out of 10 its driver error not
>> the
>>> car.
>> pretty much by definition, almost /all/ accidents are driver error.
>> if
>> i hit someone in the rear because my car takes more distance to stop,
>> it's still my fault, but having a lighter car with a shorter stopping
>> distance means i'm much more likely to avoid accident statistics
>> completely.
>>
>>> To say a good offense is a good defense would not ring true in a
>>> driving situation....... here it would be correct to say that a good
>>> defense is a good defense.:2cents:
>> so drive a tank! and make sure you can't be thrown against the
>> insides
>> of the vehicle in an accident. and wear a helmet.
>>
>> actually, since cars would be significantly safer if we did wear
>> helmets, why not do that rather than endlessly increase the oil we buy
>> from a bunch of rag heads by having heavier and heavier vehicles? oh,
>> wait...
>
>
> I don't know man, the facts seem pretty clear to me. I can't find any
> specs on a stock CRX (for example) that prove it to have any better
> performance (specifically braking/skidpad) than a stock modern civic.
> I don't think that its braking/cornering prowess can be used as an
> example of superior safety.

eh? you don't think better braking is safer? likewise cornering?

> Not only that but the new cars are tested
> higher in all categories of safety. There is really no reasonable
> argument to say the contrary.

where does braking or cornering figure in impact testing?

>
> Also, why was my example not apples to apples?

because the suspension is different.

> The car does have a
> different suspension, but it is standard from the factory.

eh? so a vette and a geo metro are the same because they're both from a
g.m. factory?

> Two factory
> vehicles compared is basically apples to apples in my eyes. Am I
> misunderstanding?

no disrespect, but i think you are, yes.

jim beam Wrote:
> BlackGT2000 wrote:
> > jim beam Wrote:
> >> BlackGT2000 wrote:
> >>> jim beam Wrote:
> >>>> BlackGT2000 wrote:
> >>>>> jim beam Wrote:
> >>>>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:16:22 -0800, jim beam wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:33:17 +0000, Tegger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Joe LaVigne > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:17:19 +0000, who wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>> . com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Bucky" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the new Civics only have a digital speedometer,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> UGH! Those difficult to read ones.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen a speedometer that was so easy to read.
> >>>> They
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> placed high on the dash, and they are stable 3-digit
> >> readouts.
> >>>>>>>>>> Then they've improved since the ones they had in the '80s.
> >>>>>> Remember those
> >>>>>>>>>> "Atari" dashboards?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I almost feel guilty saying it, but in the 80's and early
> >> 90's,
> >>>> I
> >>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>> despised Hondas. I didn't like they way they looked as all.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now I am in my mid-30's, and I would LOVE to get ahold of a
> >> CRX
> >>>>>> HF... ;-)
> >>>>>>>> why the hf and not the si?
> >>>>>>> I already have my toy, the 06 Si. I want a second car to use
> >> for
> >>>>>> work,
> >>>>>>> and for that I want the massive Fuel Efficiency.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The CRX Si is much better than my Civic Si in that arena, but
> >> the
> >>>> HF
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> about as good as you get...
> >>>>>> so true about the hf! shames the hybrids imo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> regarding the si's, the huge weight increases in cars over the
> >> last
> >>>>>> few
> >>>>>> years fundamentally ruins any chance of any recent vehicle
> being
> >>>> able
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> touch the older cars on economy. performance is mediocre too
> if
> >>>> you
> >>>>>> look at power/weight ratios. the irony in all this is that the
> >>>> modern
> >>>>>> cars are heavier for supposed "safety" reasons, but the dirty
> >>>> little
> >>>>>> secret is that these heavier vehicles [up to 50% heavier] still
> >>>> have
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> same amount of rubber on the road as ever before and can't
> >> maneuver
> >>>> as
> >>>>>> safely or stop as safely as a result of all that extra mass. i
> >>>> don't
> >>>>>> think real safety can be confined to the supposed need
> withstand
> >>>> some
> >>>>>> contrived side impact test - i think true safety is big picture
> -
> >>>> and
> >>>>>> that includes not getting into accidents in the first place.
> >> i've
> >>>>>> been
> >>>>>> to a lot of junk yards and seen a lot of wrecks. the only
> crash
> >>>>>> scenarios that worry me are head-ons and rollovers. based on
> the
> >>>>>> wrecks
> >>>>>> i've seen, i'd say the crx is one of the safest vehicles out
> >> there
> >>>> -
> >>>>>> impossible to roll unless you flip it over an embankment,
> /very/
> >>>>>> strong
> >>>>>> if rollover /does/ occur, and superb in head-ons.
> >>>>> Some of this makes sense, but its not all quite right. Cars
> today
> >>>> do
> >>>>> have wider tires than most cars did in the 80s and early 90s.
> >> Even
> >>>>> though they weigh more they generally have better brakes and can
> >>>> corner
> >>>>> quite well. I am sure if you looked up the factory spec, the new
> >>>> cars
> >>>>> would out corner the old ones, even given the extra bulk.
> >>>> i disagree because it's not that simple. yes, tires are wider,
> but
> >>>> that's largely because modern cars use macpherson struts - the
> only
> >>>> way
> >>>> to give that suspension adequate cornering /is/ to go for bigger
> >>>> tires.
> >>>> a strict apples-to-apples comparison is taking the 2000 civic and
> >> the
> >>>> 89 civic, which both have the same suspension and huge weight
> >>>> difference, then comparing them. i've owned both so am very
> >> familiar
> >>>> with their handling. the 2000 is slower into the corners, and
> >> won't
> >>>> stop as quickly - using the same wheels and tires for both cars.
> >> the
> >>>> brake pedal feels better because it has a bigger servo, but
> that's
> >> not
> >>>> the same thing.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Safety is a
> >>>>> big picture kind of thing, but in reality accidents happen and
> >>>> thanks
> >>>>> to all the heavy safety equipment that is in todays cars,
> >> accidents
> >>>> are
> >>>>> much more survivable today than they were 15-20 years ago. If I
> >> were
> >>>> to
> >>>>> be in an accident with a 1990 CRX in my 2007 civic, there is no
> >> doubt
> >>>> in
> >>>>> my mind that I would have a better chance of being OK than the
> >> driver
> >>>> of
> >>>>> the CRX. Think about this, what about the amount of SUVs on the
> >>>> road
> >>>>> today, The CRX was not designed with these monsters in mind. I
> >>>> would
> >>>>> not want to be a CRX driver in any kind of collision with an
> SUV,
> >>>> being
> >>>>> small and quick on your feet will not get you out of an accident
> >> most
> >>>> of
> >>>>> the time, remember people usually don't know its going to happen
> >>>> until
> >>>>> it already has.
> >>>> you have a point about accidents not being anticipated, but
> again,
> >>>> it's
> >>>> not that simple. according to the bosch automotive handbook, 48%
> >> of
> >>>> accidents are front end collisions. [30.6% side and 18.5% rear.
> >>>> balance is rollover and "other".] that means for the largest
> >>>> proportion, it's me running into something. therefore, for my
> >> front
> >>>> end, the only thing that would worry me about running into an suv
> >> is
> >>>> if
> >>>> it's raised. if the bumpers are at a legal height, i'm not
> worried
> >>>> because, as i said before, i've seen a lot of smashed hondas, and
> >> they
> >>>> do just fine. if i got hit by an suv in my rear, again, hondas
> >> behave
> >>>> pretty well. side impact is the only debatable issue because the
> >>>> limited deformation zone makes is hard to protect occupants in
> any
> >>>> type
> >>>> of vehicle.
> >>> I guess my point was a more strict apples to apples comparison
> where
> >> 2
> >>> cars off the showroom floor 90 and 07 are compared.
> >> but it's not "apples to apples" because the suspension is
> different!
> >>
> >>> I don't like
> >>> comparing cars with aftermarket parts because it makes the comparo
> >> hard
> >>> to do, and it would have to exclude the majority of people who buy
> >> the
> >>> cars and leave the car stock.
> >> my cars /are/ stock. i used the same stock wheels for these
> >> comparisons.
> >>
> >>> Also, in regards to the actual impact, I
> >>> don't even think it would be a fair comparison between an older
> >> honda
> >>> and a new one. You are correct about the front end crash tests
> >> being
> >>> pretty good on the older hondas, but they are not as good as the
> new
> >>> ones. Also, there is so much extra safety equipment in the new
> >> cars,
> >>> that it really can be said that the car is built around the safety
> >>> equipment. Time has shown that the older hondas are certainly
> great
> >>> cars (especially when compared to their contemporaries) but the
> >> company
> >>> certainly has come a long way when it comes to safety, even given
> >> the
> >>> weight increase. Also, in regards to the 48% of crashes being
> head
> >>> on, that means that you have better odds of being hit from one of
> >> the
> >>> sides or the rear. You would have less than a 50/50 shot of being
> >> hit
> >>> in your "safe" zone.
> >> front or rear is "safe". sides are impossible to make safe, unless
> >> you
> >> don't mind having doors 3' thick and some weird seatbelt assembly
> that
> >> holds you back from the sides of the vehicle like a traditional
> >> seatbelt
> >> holds you off the steering wheel.
> >>
> >>> Bear in mind all the times that "the accident
> >>> wasn't my fault", this implies that you were hit, and by most
> >>> descriptions this is usually not head on. That means nearly every
> >> time
> >>> that you are hit (most likely in a way that you can not avoid,
> being
> >> the
> >>> victim). A quick, maneuverable car is not really a reliable way
> to
> >>> prevent an accident, because 9 times out of 10 its driver error
> not
> >> the
> >>> car.
> >> pretty much by definition, almost /all/ accidents are driver error.
> >> if
> >> i hit someone in the rear because my car takes more distance to
> stop,
> >> it's still my fault, but having a lighter car with a shorter
> stopping
> >> distance means i'm much more likely to avoid accident statistics
> >> completely.
> >>
> >>> To say a good offense is a good defense would not ring true in a
> >>> driving situation....... here it would be correct to say that a
> good
> >>> defense is a good defense.:2cents:
> >> so drive a tank! and make sure you can't be thrown against the
> >> insides
> >> of the vehicle in an accident. and wear a helmet.
> >>
> >> actually, since cars would be significantly safer if we did wear
> >> helmets, why not do that rather than endlessly increase the oil we
> buy
> >> from a bunch of rag heads by having heavier and heavier vehicles?
> oh,
> >> wait...
> >
> >
> > I don't know man, the facts seem pretty clear to me. I can't find
> any
> > specs on a stock CRX (for example) that prove it to have any better
> > performance (specifically braking/skidpad) than a stock modern
> civic.
> > I don't think that its braking/cornering prowess can be used as an
> > example of superior safety.
>
> eh? you don't think better braking is safer? likewise cornering?
>
> > Not only that but the new cars are tested
> > higher in all categories of safety. There is really no reasonable
> > argument to say the contrary.
>
> where does braking or cornering figure in impact testing?
>
> >
> > Also, why was my example not apples to apples?
>
> because the suspension is different.
>
> > The car does have a
> > different suspension, but it is standard from the factory.
>
> eh? so a vette and a geo metro are the same because they're both from
> a
> g.m. factory?
>
> > Two factory
> > vehicles compared is basically apples to apples in my eyes. Am I
> > misunderstanding?
>
> no disrespect, but i think you are, yes.


No disrespect taken, its a friendly discussion here. I am just saying
that a 2007 does in fact corner as well as a 90 CRX and does in fact
brake as well. The car is heavier but it has not shown to hinder it in
cornering/braking. Tires and suspension aside, the figures are about
equal. I don't see where the suspension matters, given that they both
are accomplishing the same performance. Even neglecting all the other
safety equipment/safer structure, where is the advantage of the older
car?


--
BlackGT2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackGT2000's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=336868
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=676379

http://www.automotiveforums.com

BlackGT2000 wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>
> No disrespect taken, its a friendly discussion here. I am just saying
> that a 2007 does in fact corner as well as a 90 CRX and does in fact
> brake as well. The car is heavier but it has not shown to hinder it in
> cornering/braking. Tires and suspension aside, the figures are about
> equal. I don't see where the suspension matters, given that they both
> are accomplishing the same performance. Even neglecting all the other
> safety equipment/safer structure, where is the advantage of the older
> car?
>
>

i can't answer those questions without repeating myself.

I feel I have reached the same point. Perhaps something is lost when
its written word rather than voice. Oh well.


--
BlackGT2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackGT2000's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=336868
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=676379

http://www.automotiveforums.com