Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic: Future Models
185 messages, Last post on Aug 19, 2008 at 7:02 PM
You are in the Honda Civic Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: aspesisteve (Jul 15, 2008 12:42 pm) Those were the old EPA numbers. The revised ones are 37/47. The fueleconomy.gov link you provided actually lists the '89 CRX HF twice -- once with the old ratings, and once with the new ones. The old numbers were based on a maximum speed of 55 mph, a maximum rate of acceleration of 3 mph per second, and no air conditioning use, or stop-and-go traffic. That same testing method gave the Toyota Prius numbers of 51 city and 60 hwy until this year. Now the Prius and every other car gets a "real world" test. Consequently, all EPA numbers have dropped, including the Prius to 48/45. "why Honda doesn''t replicate this car with an airbag, abs and side impact beams?" The Honda Insight two-seater hybrid was nearly identical to the old CRX. They discontinued that model a few years ago in favor of the Civic Hybrid. However, they'll release the new CRZ either next year or in 2010. It's supposed to replicate the looks and efficiency of the Insight, but offer more day-to-day practicality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-Z . |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dudleyr (Jul 15, 2008 10:53 am) where did you find this info? Your telling me the epa estimates were conservative while 1stpik says the numbers were based on old epa estimates that were too generous. 1stpik's info seems to have more credibility to me eventhough I'd like nothing more than conclude there is a conspriacy. btw: the website I provided said the 89 CRX HF had a 1.5 litre engine?? is that incorrect? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml |
|
|
Look at the EPA website. They explain everything. The EPA dumbed their numbers down once in the 80's and a second time for 2008. The current numbers are absurdly low to make up for some complainers who don't know how to drive for good mileage. |
|
|
stop comparing it to the Civic. The Fit is the closest thing to the old Civic (1980s generation). Today's Civic is about the size of that era's Accord. So no wonder the new one weighs 900 pounds more! And it isn't just the safety stuff. It is also the insulation, etc. that gives it a better, more quiet ride. And of course, the bigger size! I had an '85ish CIvic hatch at one point. No idea about weight, but probably about 2,000. 1.5L I think, and moved just fine with a stick. ALso had a Colt with 68 HP (that was doggy) and a 323 with 82 hp. That car, with a stick, was pretty quick, and just fine on the highway (all sticks). The 323 probably also was barely over 2K lbs. Funny thing though, my 2005 Accord 5 speed gets almost the same highway (real world) mileage as the 323 did. Not quite the same around town, but not too far off.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stickguy (Jul 18, 2008 7:58 pm) It's absurd to use isulation in today's car as a reason for the gas milege drop off. For all the weight in safety that's added to today's cars, shouldn't there be more efficient engines, better aerodynamics, lighter stronger frame materials? I've seen way too much focus on horsepower and 0-60 mph measurements in the past 15 years. that's the beauty of higher fuel prices - people are focused more on fuel efficiency now. |
|
|
cars are more efficient. It's just that they took the efficiency and added bigger engines with more HP (and of course better 0-60 in most cases), in bigger cars, while keeping FE relatively constant. sure they could put smaller engines in downsized cars, but the public hasn't been interested. Use the Fit as an example. They could easily put out a 1.3L version with better MPG, but would anyone want to buy something so "underpowered", even though it could easily have ~100HP? also, all the real light great mileage cars from back then (80s) were manuals, another hard sell today. so, the makers could do it, they just didn't, since it isn't what people want to buy.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stickguy (Jul 19, 2008 9:21 am) in todays world? Yes! I think the people on the waiting list for hybrids would prove that. There's also been reports on how these older "under powered" vehicles are a hot item on the used car market. I am glad to hear you write that it could easily be done. What I don't understand, is why isn't it being done! McDonalds could make their food more healthy, but the masses seem to like it the way it is. That doesn't make it healthy for people or the planet - it just caters to an addiction of comfort. The same thing is going on with car makers. They have alot of say in shapping what people desire through marketing. I'd like to think that higher fuel prices will tilt the balance between consumption and comfort towards less consumption.
|
|
|
Replying to: aspesisteve (Jul 22, 2008 6:30 am) |
|
Not much changes. Nav models get bluetooth but non nav doesn't get bluetooth like the 08 accord. Honda will probably make an accessory one for non nav models. iPod enabled USB port is on all EX/EX-L models. The Hybrid has a leather option. The USB port can play usb thumb drives or usb storage devices. A sport based LX trim will also be avaliable. There is also a VP trim that is a DX with radio and AC. Si's get foglights. Maybe the EX/EX-L sedans get the 350W Si Sedan/EX-Si Coupe stereo. The steering wheel in the 09 is the same as the coupe. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Replying to: rv65 (Jul 27, 2008 7:00 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic: Future Models
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
1991 Honda Civic CRX
2011 Honda Civic
1997 Honda Civic del Sol
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
