If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
2007 Civic Odometer - switch between km & miles?
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
2007 Civic Odometer - switch between km & miles?
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
2007 Civic Odometer - switch between km & miles?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
steering rack loose on Plymouth Reliant '88 model orig. 60,000 miles on odometer | [email protected] | Dodge | 1 | April 25th 06 04:51 AM |
I want to run my civic to 1,000,000 miles - please help! | [email protected] | Honda | 9 | November 22nd 05 02:02 AM |
93 Honda Civic Needs Repairs 234,000 miles | [email protected] | Honda | 0 | May 21st 05 04:53 PM |
Honda Civic 270,000 Miles! | Randolph | Honda | 6 | April 20th 05 06:51 AM |
odometer swap to be larger km, not miles? | Brendan Kehoe | Audi | 1 | January 24th 05 12:43 PM |