For Real????
- Thread starter Warstud
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: steveh
The high MPG Honda CRX HF was 62HP.
My friend had one; we'd drive it for hours. Mainly to get up to highway speeds....
The high MPG Honda CRX HF was 62HP.
My friend had one; we'd drive it for hours. Mainly to get up to highway speeds....
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
GM touting imported from Japan. Boy didn't that come back and bite them in the [censored].....
Suzuki was under-utilized. Suzuki built a decent rotary at around the same time GM was trying and failing. Suzuki is a great engine builder. Quickest mass produced road vehicle for many many years? A Suzuki. World racing Championships? Suzuki. GM may have actually done more damage to Suzuki. I wonder what the US market might have gotten if not limited to the Swift, Sidekick, and Esteem for so many years.
Subaru was under-utilized too.
Isuzu assisted in the development of the Duramax diesel.
Daewoo, while not Japanese has provided a lot of design and development for GM.
And legendary GM designer Larry Shinoda is Japanese/American. Okay, he was born in the USA but made some beautiful cars
Assisted? I think Isuzu pretty much built it.
Why did you mention Subaru? I didn't think they were part of the GM "Japanese brands collection" at any point?
Yes, Shinoda did some work for Ford as well. Very talented man.
It is just a tad funny now to see GM arguing they are better than the Japanese when back then they were bragging about using Japanese technology, LOL!
I remember they had a Honda-powered Saturn as well in recent years.
I just think this all plays into the cornucopia of wrong that led to GM's slide into failure and ultimate bankruptcy.
"We are better than Honda!" and then use a Honda engine in your own vehicle...... Re-brand a Toyota Matrix as a Pontiac? The consumer isn't completely retarded. Especially when GM was far from the media favorite. This stuff wasn't staying hidden.
They build a world-class car like the Corvette. A world-class engine like the LS7. And then a re-badged Toyota is one of their most reliable vehicles. There's really no excuse there and I'm not sure what they were thinking. I guess these are all just examples of what was so wrong at GM with the mismanagement and infallible mindset that carried on and on until the bubble burst.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
GM touting imported from Japan. Boy didn't that come back and bite them in the [censored].....
Suzuki was under-utilized. Suzuki built a decent rotary at around the same time GM was trying and failing. Suzuki is a great engine builder. Quickest mass produced road vehicle for many many years? A Suzuki. World racing Championships? Suzuki. GM may have actually done more damage to Suzuki. I wonder what the US market might have gotten if not limited to the Swift, Sidekick, and Esteem for so many years.
Subaru was under-utilized too.
Isuzu assisted in the development of the Duramax diesel.
Daewoo, while not Japanese has provided a lot of design and development for GM.
And legendary GM designer Larry Shinoda is Japanese/American. Okay, he was born in the USA but made some beautiful cars
Assisted? I think Isuzu pretty much built it.
Why did you mention Subaru? I didn't think they were part of the GM "Japanese brands collection" at any point?
Yes, Shinoda did some work for Ford as well. Very talented man.
It is just a tad funny now to see GM arguing they are better than the Japanese when back then they were bragging about using Japanese technology, LOL!
I remember they had a Honda-powered Saturn as well in recent years.
I just think this all plays into the cornucopia of wrong that led to GM's slide into failure and ultimate bankruptcy.
"We are better than Honda!" and then use a Honda engine in your own vehicle...... Re-brand a Toyota Matrix as a Pontiac? The consumer isn't completely retarded. Especially when GM was far from the media favorite. This stuff wasn't staying hidden.
They build a world-class car like the Corvette. A world-class engine like the LS7. And then a re-badged Toyota is one of their most reliable vehicles. There's really no excuse there and I'm not sure what they were thinking. I guess these are all just examples of what was so wrong at GM with the mismanagement and infallible mindset that carried on and on until the bubble burst.
When the 1991 Ford Escort came out they talked about how it was a Mazda 323. Not on the body, and not with the old 1.9 engine. Maybe the Mazda automatics got the Ford slushbox? Maybe they shared suspension bits? Both were decent cars regardless.
It would be interesting to see a salesman dismiss or highlight the Japanese portion of such-and-such a car not knowing if the customer thinks its a plus or not.
It's just as well they moved away from this sort of bragging at the corporate level, but still funny how local car salesmen bring the topic up.
Nobody has yet mentioned our now very strict NOx standards mean cars have to run richer? Guess I'll stick that out there...
It would be interesting to see a salesman dismiss or highlight the Japanese portion of such-and-such a car not knowing if the customer thinks its a plus or not.
It's just as well they moved away from this sort of bragging at the corporate level, but still funny how local car salesmen bring the topic up.
Nobody has yet mentioned our now very strict NOx standards mean cars have to run richer? Guess I'll stick that out there...
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I remember they had a Honda-powered Saturn as well in recent years.
I just think this all plays into the cornucopia of wrong that led to GM's slide into failure and ultimate bankruptcy.
"We are better than Honda!" and then use a Honda engine in your own vehicle.....
they used a honda 3.5 V6 in the saturn VUE ONLY for 4years. from wikipedia:
honda engine in VUE
so, it was a TRADE. honda needed a diesel, and GM needed a place to stick the honda engine so they gave it to saturn.
AND it was made in Ohio, lolz...
I remember they had a Honda-powered Saturn as well in recent years.
I just think this all plays into the cornucopia of wrong that led to GM's slide into failure and ultimate bankruptcy.
"We are better than Honda!" and then use a Honda engine in your own vehicle.....
they used a honda 3.5 V6 in the saturn VUE ONLY for 4years. from wikipedia:
honda engine in VUE
so, it was a TRADE. honda needed a diesel, and GM needed a place to stick the honda engine so they gave it to saturn.
AND it was made in Ohio, lolz...
Kestas
Staff member
I'm sure weight has a lot to do with it.
From memory:
1970 Vega - 1700 lbs
1985 Omni - 2100 lbs
1980 Crown Vic - 3500 lbs
2002 Volvo S40 - 3700 lbs
2008 Mercedes SLK 350 - 4700 lbs
1995 Mercedes E320 - 4900 lbs
I went to the Auto Show and the best I could see was 40 mpg hwy from some econobox.
Ditto on NOX regulations.
From memory:
1970 Vega - 1700 lbs
1985 Omni - 2100 lbs
1980 Crown Vic - 3500 lbs
2002 Volvo S40 - 3700 lbs
2008 Mercedes SLK 350 - 4700 lbs
1995 Mercedes E320 - 4900 lbs
I went to the Auto Show and the best I could see was 40 mpg hwy from some econobox.
Ditto on NOX regulations.
X3 on the running rich. I am still amazed how rich the average newer car runs stock! I see A/F ratios of 10-11 to one in many different vehicles in good running condition.
Sorry, the Vega was not 1700 pounds even in their wildest dreams... more like 2100-2200 pounds depending on trim level.
The only reason cars are WAY heavier than the old days is safety regs. Consumers then want more equipment standard, so that adds even more.
Sorry, the Vega was not 1700 pounds even in their wildest dreams... more like 2100-2200 pounds depending on trim level.
The only reason cars are WAY heavier than the old days is safety regs. Consumers then want more equipment standard, so that adds even more.
Originally Posted By: Warstud
Anyone notice the 84 Civic that got 67 MPG?
We had a 1983 Civic "1300FE" where the "FE" stood for "fuel efficient" - it was the smallest motor teamed with a 5-speed, in an era when many cars were still coming with 4-speeds. It had no options, no AC, etc so it was pretty light. It would do 50-something MPG on the highway and one tankful coming back from Michigan we got 63 MPG.
Anyone notice the 84 Civic that got 67 MPG?
We had a 1983 Civic "1300FE" where the "FE" stood for "fuel efficient" - it was the smallest motor teamed with a 5-speed, in an era when many cars were still coming with 4-speeds. It had no options, no AC, etc so it was pretty light. It would do 50-something MPG on the highway and one tankful coming back from Michigan we got 63 MPG.
Eljefino brings up a very good point about running richer. The late 80s through the mid - late 90s were the peak of efficiency. Cars were just starting to gain weight, things like lean burn were possible within emissions regulations, etc.
Take a look at the Aerocivic. Areomodded 92 Civic with a lean burn engine, gets about 100 mpg at 55. Still pulls around 50mpg at 90mph! If people's standards weren't so annoyingly high as far as appearance and such, and Americans would accept small diesels, it would be a very different story.
Take a look at the Aerocivic. Areomodded 92 Civic with a lean burn engine, gets about 100 mpg at 55. Still pulls around 50mpg at 90mph! If people's standards weren't so annoyingly high as far as appearance and such, and Americans would accept small diesels, it would be a very different story.
I think it is more of a testament as already stated that today they can build a car that gets similar fuel economy as deathly tin cans of yore but actually save your life in a crash.
Personally, I'll take safety over fuel economy any & every time.
Personally, I'll take safety over fuel economy any & every time.
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
I think it is more of a testament as already stated that today they can build a car that gets similar fuel economy as deathly tin cans of yore but actually save your life in a crash.
This is how I look at it also. I think it's a huge achievement that cars of today are far quieter, far cleaner, far safer, often far faster. Because they're far quieter/cleaner/safer, they're usually also far heavier.
And despite all this, fuel economy hasn't really gone down much. If you look at the CAFE, fuel economy has gone up and down slightly over the past decade or two, but it's mostly remained pretty flat.
I don't think automotive engineers get near the credit they deserve.
I think it is more of a testament as already stated that today they can build a car that gets similar fuel economy as deathly tin cans of yore but actually save your life in a crash.
This is how I look at it also. I think it's a huge achievement that cars of today are far quieter, far cleaner, far safer, often far faster. Because they're far quieter/cleaner/safer, they're usually also far heavier.
And despite all this, fuel economy hasn't really gone down much. If you look at the CAFE, fuel economy has gone up and down slightly over the past decade or two, but it's mostly remained pretty flat.
I don't think automotive engineers get near the credit they deserve.
I don't entirely agree that older economy cars were less safe than modern ones.
I had a 1986 Civic Hatchback 1.5/5-speed. Very simple, light 'tinny' car, if you will. A guy in a Ford Taurus ran a stop sign, and I went right into him at 25mph.
Front of the car crumpled up like a tin can, but the passenger compartment was still completely intact. Only injusry I got was a badly bruised knee from hitting the door as the car was flung sideways.
An earlier poster said people wouldn't buy this kind of car if they brought it back - smart people would, but 'look at me' gadget-crazy folks wouldn't......
I had a 1986 Civic Hatchback 1.5/5-speed. Very simple, light 'tinny' car, if you will. A guy in a Ford Taurus ran a stop sign, and I went right into him at 25mph.
Front of the car crumpled up like a tin can, but the passenger compartment was still completely intact. Only injusry I got was a badly bruised knee from hitting the door as the car was flung sideways.
An earlier poster said people wouldn't buy this kind of car if they brought it back - smart people would, but 'look at me' gadget-crazy folks wouldn't......
Quote:
I just think this all plays into the cornucopia of wrong that led to GM's slide into failure and ultimate bankruptcy.
"We are better than Honda!" and then use a Honda engine in your own vehicle...... Re-brand a Toyota Matrix as a Pontiac? The consumer isn't completely retarded. Especially when GM was far from the media favorite. This stuff wasn't staying hidden.
It's funny. GM had open and full access to Toyota's production techniques through NUMMI. Didn't utilize it. "We're GM...we're too good to take lessons from Toyota."
If GM had utilized Opel and Isuzu properly at the time, and Suzuki and Subaru later on, the road to #1 for Toyota would have been MUCH more difficult. Perhaps the Vega would not be best known for consuming vast quantities of oil. Maybe people would look back and think, "yeah I had a '76 Corolla...it was no Vega but it got pretty good fuel economy"
I just think this all plays into the cornucopia of wrong that led to GM's slide into failure and ultimate bankruptcy.
"We are better than Honda!" and then use a Honda engine in your own vehicle...... Re-brand a Toyota Matrix as a Pontiac? The consumer isn't completely retarded. Especially when GM was far from the media favorite. This stuff wasn't staying hidden.
It's funny. GM had open and full access to Toyota's production techniques through NUMMI. Didn't utilize it. "We're GM...we're too good to take lessons from Toyota."
If GM had utilized Opel and Isuzu properly at the time, and Suzuki and Subaru later on, the road to #1 for Toyota would have been MUCH more difficult. Perhaps the Vega would not be best known for consuming vast quantities of oil. Maybe people would look back and think, "yeah I had a '76 Corolla...it was no Vega but it got pretty good fuel economy"
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I don't entirely agree that older economy cars were less safe than modern ones.
I had a 1986 Civic Hatchback 1.5/5-speed. Very simple, light 'tinny' car, if you will. A guy in a Ford Taurus ran a stop sign, and I went right into him at 25mph.
Front of the car crumpled up like a tin can, but the passenger compartment was still completely intact. Only injusry I got was a badly bruised knee from hitting the door as the car was flung sideways.
An earlier poster said people wouldn't buy this kind of car if they brought it back - smart people would, but 'look at me' gadget-crazy folks wouldn't......
If it would been reversed you'd be lucky not to die or what if it was a head-on.
Even smart people don't wear their seat belts and because of this that is why cars now are safer than before. They have to design everything under the assumption that a person is not wearing their seat belt upfront and has to survive. Doesn't matter if it is Civic or Suburban hitting you. That fact that weight and safety has increased but fuel economy hasn't dropped is the real winner.
I don't entirely agree that older economy cars were less safe than modern ones.
I had a 1986 Civic Hatchback 1.5/5-speed. Very simple, light 'tinny' car, if you will. A guy in a Ford Taurus ran a stop sign, and I went right into him at 25mph.
Front of the car crumpled up like a tin can, but the passenger compartment was still completely intact. Only injusry I got was a badly bruised knee from hitting the door as the car was flung sideways.
An earlier poster said people wouldn't buy this kind of car if they brought it back - smart people would, but 'look at me' gadget-crazy folks wouldn't......
If it would been reversed you'd be lucky not to die or what if it was a head-on.
Even smart people don't wear their seat belts and because of this that is why cars now are safer than before. They have to design everything under the assumption that a person is not wearing their seat belt upfront and has to survive. Doesn't matter if it is Civic or Suburban hitting you. That fact that weight and safety has increased but fuel economy hasn't dropped is the real winner.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
This doesn't make any sense - fuel economy HAS gone down - that's what this post is all about!
Fuel economy hasn't gone down:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/Oct2010_Summary_Report.pdf
Looking at passenger cars, which are the topic of this thread, you can see (on the 5th page of the PDF) that CAFE increased steadily through about 1988. Between 1988 and about 2000, it remained essentially flat, at around 28-29 mpg. Beginning in around 2000, it started to again steadily climb.
What's interesting (page 6) is that import CAFE dramatically fell beginning in 1982, to a low in 2000, and then rapidly climbed from then on (hybrids, probably). However, domestic CAFE has continued to climb since the program started, with a few years where it slid slightly. For a few years, notably even after 2000, domestic CAFE was higher than import CAFE.
Note that on page 7, almost all manufacturers have domestic production (DP) and imported production (IP) reportedly separately, so I don't believe domestic/import means an American or Japanese HQ'd company.
This doesn't make any sense - fuel economy HAS gone down - that's what this post is all about!
Fuel economy hasn't gone down:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/Oct2010_Summary_Report.pdf
Looking at passenger cars, which are the topic of this thread, you can see (on the 5th page of the PDF) that CAFE increased steadily through about 1988. Between 1988 and about 2000, it remained essentially flat, at around 28-29 mpg. Beginning in around 2000, it started to again steadily climb.
What's interesting (page 6) is that import CAFE dramatically fell beginning in 1982, to a low in 2000, and then rapidly climbed from then on (hybrids, probably). However, domestic CAFE has continued to climb since the program started, with a few years where it slid slightly. For a few years, notably even after 2000, domestic CAFE was higher than import CAFE.
Note that on page 7, almost all manufacturers have domestic production (DP) and imported production (IP) reportedly separately, so I don't believe domestic/import means an American or Japanese HQ'd company.
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: addyguy
This doesn't make any sense - fuel economy HAS gone down - that's what this post is all about!
Fuel economy hasn't gone down:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/Oct2010_Summary_Report.pdf
Looking at passenger cars, which are the topic of this thread, you can see (on the 5th page of the PDF) that CAFE increased steadily through about 1988. Between 1988 and about 2000, it remained essentially flat, at around 28-29 mpg. Beginning in around 2000, it started to again steadily climb.
Those trends simply mirror the inflation-adjusted cost of gasoline, and the public's response to that cost with their automotive buying habits, not the efficiency of vehicles. The average fuel economy will always go up when people start buying small cars.
Fuel economy increased through 1988 because people responded to the second oil crisis which sent fuel costs sky high. They bought small cars.
Between 1988 and 2000, gas prices were relatively flat. The SUV craze kicked in.
Since 2000, gas prices have steadily climbed upward.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
This doesn't make any sense - fuel economy HAS gone down - that's what this post is all about!
Fuel economy hasn't gone down:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/Oct2010_Summary_Report.pdf
Looking at passenger cars, which are the topic of this thread, you can see (on the 5th page of the PDF) that CAFE increased steadily through about 1988. Between 1988 and about 2000, it remained essentially flat, at around 28-29 mpg. Beginning in around 2000, it started to again steadily climb.
Those trends simply mirror the inflation-adjusted cost of gasoline, and the public's response to that cost with their automotive buying habits, not the efficiency of vehicles. The average fuel economy will always go up when people start buying small cars.
Fuel economy increased through 1988 because people responded to the second oil crisis which sent fuel costs sky high. They bought small cars.
Between 1988 and 2000, gas prices were relatively flat. The SUV craze kicked in.
Since 2000, gas prices have steadily climbed upward.
Corporate Average Fuel economy has gone up. Individual economy of the small car has gone down.
The CRX hf and Chevrolet Sprint post numbers that would embarass most Smart fortwo drivers. To add insult to injury both of those cars are more than 2 seconds faster to 60mph
The CRX hf and Chevrolet Sprint post numbers that would embarass most Smart fortwo drivers. To add insult to injury both of those cars are more than 2 seconds faster to 60mph
Quote:
Corporate Average Fuel economy has gone up. Individual economy of the small car has gone down.
Correct. Thank you for pointing this out.
Corporate Average Fuel economy has gone up. Individual economy of the small car has gone down.
Correct. Thank you for pointing this out.
- Status
Similar threads
