Last post on May 20, 2013 at 10:29 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#9536 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [bpizzuti]
Oct 19, 2012 (3:46 am)
48 MPG required the 5-speed manual version that had a catalytic converter and used new "unleaded" gas, which was 10-15% more expensive than "regular" gas that contained lead. The 5-speed was designed to meet California requirements and hard to find on the east coast.
Mine was the 4-speed manual version that burned "regular" gas and was rated 30/42 instead of 36/48. It made it to 110,000 miles before it went to the great junkyard in the sky.
#9537 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [bpizzuti]
Oct 19, 2012 (10:39 am)
EPA ratings have been downgraded twice since then haven't they? So 48 then was probably about 40 now, meaning you have a wide variety of choices available to you that make the same highway mileage that car did!
Who wants to bet that sales of manual-equipped Accords will go up now that the automatic is a CVT?
#9538 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [nippononly]
Oct 19, 2012 (10:52 am)
Given the Accord's target market, absolutely sales will go up. It's not like they're Mazda...not anymore anyway.
#9539 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [nippononly]
Oct 19, 2012 (12:58 pm)
I think you are right about EPA ratings being downgraded, but I still got 40-42+ mpg vs. EPA 42 on highway drives with my 4 speed B210GX. Best tank was 44.5 as I recall.
Never figured out why my Honda S2000 was only rated 20/25. I would regularly get 30+ on the highway and even managed 34 mpg on one 240 mile trip back from Williamsburg with the top down and my golf clubs in the passenger seat. Not exactly great for aerodynamics.
#9540 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [habitat1]
by kyfdx HOST
Oct 20, 2012 (7:56 am)
When my '82 Accord was newer, I consistently achieved 36 mpg.. in all sorts of driving...
That was a carbuereted 1751 cc, 4 cylinder....
No A/C or P/S, though.. (and, much, much lighter than a modern Accord)
#9541 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [habitat1]
Oct 23, 2012 (12:11 pm)
I recall an article that mentioned the S2000 got much better than stated EPA mpg in the real world, among the top under-rated cars actually.
#9542 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [kyfdx]
Oct 23, 2012 (12:11 pm)
Probably the size of today's Fit, no?
#9543 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [kyfdx]
Oct 23, 2012 (1:58 pm)
Like my old Civic - my first car and still one of the most fun to drive. Manual rack and pinion with great feedback., On a straight stretch of highway I swore I could have closed my eyes and kept her in the middle of the road. Hated to parallel park her though. 5sp of course!
#9544 of 9921 Re: Datsun B210GX [ateixeira]
by kyfdx HOST
Oct 23, 2012 (4:09 pm)
Well.. not inside! lol..
About the size of a mid-'90s Civic hatchback, I'd say... It was my daily driver for 12 years..... just plain wore it out...
#9545 of 9921 gas was different back then too - gave more mpg
Oct 23, 2012 (6:35 pm)
when comparing with ancient vehicle mpg please keep in mind that the gasoline back then was not as much adulterated with lower-energy mpg-robbing crapola.
the ballpark adjustment is +/- 10% accordingly when comparing 70s or 80s mpgs with recent decades reformulated gasoline 1,2..N.
there are 95 versions of reformulated gasoline now. none giving as much mpg as actual gasoline. thankfully the MTBE versions are gone but fwiw those provided better mpg than those using ethanol as oxygenate.
california switched to oxygenated gas in early 1990s. today it's everywhere in USA within 100 miles of cities. in distant rural areas real gasoline was still available last time I drove that far... try it and watch your mpg go up by an easy 10% whether you drive a stickshift or an automatic.
for those of us within 100 miles of cities, one way around the dirty-gasoline nonsense is to trade for a diesel vehicle, cleaner fuel , cleaner burning, less adulteration of the fuel, 50% better mpg.