Who Needs a Hybrid???

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2006-09-13, ACAR > wrote:
>
> > added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust
> > and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but
> > that doesn't make it a better car.
>
> Does a buncha feelgood geegaws make it a better car? Electric
> mirrors, power windows, entertainment centers, self dimming
> headlights, seat warmers, rear window washer/wipers, yada yada. All
> that crap adds weight and does nothing to improve perfomance. I'm not
> saying one shouldn't have these things if they want them. That's
> luxury. But, don't knock utility or suplant it with useless weight
> adding crap. The reason old cars (including your porsche) got good
> mileage is because they weren't humping around 800 lbs of frivolous
> crap. My '87 Si (250K mi) still gets 35 mph. Why? It doesn't weigh
> a ton! It only weighs a mere 2/3rds of a ton.
>
> I will make a concession to structural improvements. That's value
> added weight. I dread the possibility of ever getting in a serious
> accident in my beloved hatchback, so I drive like an old lady. I'd
> like the option of buying a car with good structural integrity, but no
> power crap or luxury doodahs. Just good performance and economy. It's
> entirely possible. Toyota is doing it. Why not Honda?
>
> nb



Thanks for the common sense reinforcement.

One of the things that I like about the '83 is that I can actually do
most of the work myself. BTW, the thing that I miss the most is a cup
holder that can accommodate the 24oz cup of coffee in the morning. But
a trip to the local FLAPS should cure that detraction.

I suppose that today's cars are somewhat safer but there still is no
substitute for alert and defensive driving practices. I don't baby my
baby... I constantly travel in the 60-75 mph range and the damned thing
handles so well, well, I'm just confident of accident avoidance. If
someone should plow into me at a traffic light etc. well, I guess my
time will just have come..

JT

AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:38:55 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>
> >AZ Nomad wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:33:20 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
> >>
> >> >AZ Nomad wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:15:53 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> It depends on the car. I had a '76 toyota corona 'wagon' w/out assist whose
> >> >> steering wheel could only be turned while the car was rolling.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you have some bizzare notion that a 3000 lb. car can absolutely need power
> >> >> steering, but a 2000 lb. never needs it? It's only a 30% difference.
> >>
> >> >Why would one turn a steering wheel if one is not going anywhere?
> >>
> >> Parking.
>
> >You still have to move the car to park...
>
> Yes, but it is convenient to move the wheel before proceeding. Otherwise,
> you drive in the wrong direction for a few feet.


A few feet??? Don'tcha mean a few inches??

Have we become so lazy, so intellectually lame and so incapable of
mustering a few ounces of strength to park a freakin' compact car?

I've long suspected that the human race quit evolving a decade or two
ago and is now in the process of devolving.

Your post sorta confirms these suspicions...

JT

With my 98 HX I regularly get 55 mpg, but the hybrid is not bunk
particularly not the
enigne which runs on the much more efficient Atkinson cycle.

jim beam wrote:

> Earle Horton wrote:
>
>> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.
>
>
> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
>
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
>>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>>>
>>> JT
>>
>>
>>

Elle wrote:
>
> "ACAR" > wrote
> > You are not being honest with the group because you are
> > not counting
> > your labor hours in support of the old Civic as a cost.
>
> Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather
> hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given all
> those hours of fun it offers.
>
> That's one big reason why I keep my old '91 Civic: A new car
> would be really boring. I wouldn't learn anything from it,
> except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more
> electronics necessarily means more convenience.


Since I'm officially retired, the sixty hours or so that I spent making
one running car out of two rewarded me as to an increase of my knowledge
of older Hondas and how easy they *were* to work on. The car has
everything I want (with the exception of a proper cup holder to hold my
gigantic morning cup of coffee).

And I think that you'll agree that the engineering in the earlier Honda
cars was a good deal more elegant than those of later years.

"ACAR" is living the life of a sheeple amply brainwashed in "new is
good" vs. "old is bad."

BTW, I'm even toying with the idea of installing a points/condenser
distributor given the pricey cost of replacing an igniter. I often get
50K out of a set of points in my old Studebakers...

JT

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2006-09-15, Elle > wrote:
>
> > Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather
> > hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given all
> > those hours of fun it offers.
>
> Bullcrap. The car is fun. Working on it is a PIA. Am I keeping my
> '87 Si? Hell yes! ...unless I can find a '88-91 Si to replace it.
>
> > That's one big reason why I keep my old '91 Civic: A new car
> > would be really boring.
>
> Testify!
>
> > I wouldn't learn anything from it,
> > except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more
> > electronics necessarily means more convenience.
>
> Thank you.
>
> I do all the work on my Si because 1) I don't trust the scumsucking
> dirtbags charging $70-100/hr, 2) I can. But, it *IS* a PIA! I'm a
> big guy (ok, hefty) and getting to things in such a small car can be
> difficult to say the least. Took me all day to replace the starter
> and I lost 0.37lbs of hide and had to do the whole job by brail.
> Hated every second of it.
>
> Do I love my Si? OK, I'm selling my custom Ford Econoline van, my
> seriously pumped Camero, my '68 BMW R60/2 project bike, and keeping only my HD
> 90" stroker and my Si. I'm saving the HD to trade for a '91 Si. Only
> then will I give up my '87. Fun? Like Big Brother and the Holding
> Company, it's Cheap Thrills!
>
> nb


Replacing a starter in a gen2 is less than an hour's work. Three bolts
as I recall...

Gen 2 and its prececessors are very simple machines. Things started
getting complicated in '84.

JT

On 2006-09-16, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:

> Gen 2 and its prececessors are very simple machines. Things started
> getting complicated in '84.

Evidently. I think my '87 was only two bolts, but getting to 'em....

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote
> Elle wrote:
>>
>> "ACAR" > wrote
>> > You are not being honest with the group because you are
>> > not counting
>> > your labor hours in support of the old Civic as a cost.
>>
>> Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather
>> hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given
>> all
>> those hours of fun it offers.
>>
>> That's one big reason why I keep my old '91 Civic: A new
>> car
>> would be really boring. I wouldn't learn anything from
>> it,
>> except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more
>> electronics necessarily means more convenience.
>
>
> Since I'm officially retired, the sixty hours or so that I
> spent making
> one running car out of two rewarded me as to an increase
> of my knowledge
> of older Hondas and how easy they *were* to work on.

You bet I hear you. I am officially retired, so I now have
the time to savor the learning that goes with car projects.

The car has
> everything I want (with the exception of a proper cup
> holder to hold my
> gigantic morning cup of coffee).
>
> And I think that you'll agree that the engineering in the
> earlier Honda
> cars was a good deal more elegant than those of later
> years.

I wish I had the experience to comment intelligently on
this. So I'll take your word for it. :-)

> "ACAR" is living the life of a sheeple amply brainwashed
> in "new is
> good" vs. "old is bad."
>
> BTW, I'm even toying with the idea of installing a
> points/condenser
> distributor given the pricey cost of replacing an igniter.
> I often get
> 50K out of a set of points in my old Studebakers...

That sounds like an interesting project. Igniters, including
design and compare contrast with points/condensers, have
been discussed at no small length here.

Of course, the notion that one can just pop in a new set of
points every 50k or so for, what, under $10, has a lot of
appeal to me. Cheap reliability. I have no idea when my
igniter is going to die next, though I do plan to watch the
tachometer jump (or whatever Tegger's site now says on
this), since this is said to be a tipoff, and I can kinda
follow the electronics schematics explaining why this
happens.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:58:25 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2006-09-13, ACAR > wrote:
>
>> added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust
>> and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but
>> that doesn't make it a better car.
>
>Does a buncha feelgood geegaws make it a better car? Electric
>mirrors, power windows, entertainment centers, self dimming
>headlights, seat warmers, rear window washer/wipers, yada yada. All
>that crap adds weight and does nothing to improve perfomance. I'm not
>saying one shouldn't have these things if they want them. That's
>luxury. But, don't knock utility or suplant it with useless weight
>adding crap. The reason old cars (including your porsche) got good
>mileage is because they weren't humping around 800 lbs of frivolous
>crap. My '87 Si (250K mi) still gets 35 mph. Why? It doesn't weigh
>a ton! It only weighs a mere 2/3rds of a ton.

Uh, I don't think so. That would be 1333 pounds. My '74 Civic
supposedly weighed 1605 pounds and your '83 is a porker by comparison.
My guess is that your car weighs about 2150 pounds.

Compared to that '74 Civic, my '94 GS-R is about 800 pounds heavier,
about twice as fast to 60 mph, far more durable, much safer and much
more comfortable. And the biggest difference is probably the
handling. The only down side is (was) the initial cost (I bought it
used in '97 for $14K vs $2.5K for the new '74) and milage - 24 vs. 28.
Adjusted for inflation, the cost is about the same. Adjusted for
longevity, the Integra was a much better deal. And, if I could
restrain myself to drive the GS-R no more enthusiastically than was
possible in the Civic, I bet it would get better milage.

>I will make a concession to structural improvements. That's value
>added weight. I dread the possibility of ever getting in a serious
>accident in my beloved hatchback, so I drive like an old lady. I'd
>like the option of buying a car with good structural integrity, but no
>power crap or luxury doodahs. Just good performance and economy. It's
>entirely possible. Toyota is doing it. Why not Honda?

I would just be happy if they would sell more of their cars with
manual transmissions. Face reality, if people are willing to pay a
grand or two for AT, how are you going to convince them to abandon AC
and power door locks?

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2006-09-16, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>
> > Gen 2 and its prececessors are very simple machines. Things started
> > getting complicated in '84.
>
> Evidently. I think my '87 was only two bolts, but getting to 'em....



I haven't changed a starter in a couple of years but IIRC, the '83 had
two main bolts (one of which is partially blind) and a third bolt. But
the starter is in plain view. Honda starters are a pretty durable item
that should last well beyond a 100K prior to needing a rebuild.

As these cars get older, parts generally get cheaper as the dealers
close out their inventories to independents such as those who operate on
eBay. I've bought a couple extra starters (rebuilt) for less than $20.

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> And I think that you'll agree that the engineering in the earlier Honda
> cars was a good deal more elegant than those of later years.

Just a few years prior to your beloved '83, Honda used to attach the
suspension directly to the front fenders/wheel wells; the wheel wells
would rot out allowing the struts to poke up thru the hood and the
engine to rest comfortably on the road.

Then there was the elegant Honda oil screen feature that caused more
than a few Honda engines to go TU due to oil starvation (piston rings
would shave cylinder walls).

There's lots more. Look it up.

>
> "ACAR" is living the life of a sheeple amply brainwashed in "new is
> good" vs. "old is bad."

The oldest car in my garage is only a few years younger than your '83.
It too is a cheap-to-keep ****box. That I'd replace in a second if I
could buy a plug-in Prius today.

You think that '83 has tailpipe emissions similar to a new Fit?
Structurally, your '83 accordion isn't where I'd choose to put my
family. None of that bothers you, eh?