2007 Civic Odometer - switch between km & miles?

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. 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.


--
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

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.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:09:15 -0800, 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.

The current Civic Si is pretty damned hard to roll over, too, and is about
as controlled as you can get.

I don't mind the weight of it. It performs well, corners phenomenally,
and has a good road feel. The suspension is excellent, so far.

I have to admit, I never felt very safe in the older small cars. They
just didn't have enough metal for me. When I was 18, I was driving a 77
Impala. Not a looker, by any means, but nearly indestructible. I dumped
it because of gas prices.

I am a much better driver now, though, and would enjoy the HF for work,
since I drive a lot (almost 15k on my Si since July) and I work at night,
when there is little traffic.

While side-impact isn't as bad as much of the media makes it out to be
these days, I still feel better having my kids protected with the air bags
than I do with a paltry ultra-light steel or aluminum shell...

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. 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. 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. 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. 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:


--
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

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...

Tegger wrote:

>>
>>Yeah, the one clearly labeled as MPH/Km/H
>
>
>
>
> In any case, the OP's big issue is going to be Daytime Running Lights,
>

The US EX comes standard with DRL. Not sure about the other models.

Robert Barr > wrote in news:mvuEh.1714$jx3.20
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Tegger wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Yeah, the one clearly labeled as MPH/Km/H
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In any case, the OP's big issue is going to be Daytime Running Lights,
>>
>
> The US EX comes standard with DRL.
>



That's interesting.

Can you turn them off if you want?

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:48:10 +0000, Tegger wrote:

> Robert Barr > wrote in news:mvuEh.1714$jx3.20
> @newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, the one clearly labeled as MPH/Km/H
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In any case, the OP's big issue is going to be Daytime Running Lights,
>>>
>>
>> The US EX comes standard with DRL.
>>
>
>
>
> That's interesting.
>
> Can you turn them off if you want?
>

The Si comes with them, too, and no, there is no switch for them.

I suppose you could disable them with proper knowledge, but I don't see a
reason why. I kinda like having them. They reduce insurance rates, and
they keep me from getting a ticket if I leave the house and forget to turn
on the Headlights at dusk... ;-)

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. 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.

Also, why was my example not apples to apples? The car does have a
different suspension, but it is standard from the factory. Two factory
vehicles compared is basically apples to apples in my eyes. Am I
misunderstanding?


--
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

>>
>>That's interesting.
>>
>>Can you turn them off if you want?
>>
>
>
> The Si comes with them, too, and no, there is no switch for them.
>
> I suppose you could disable them with proper knowledge, but I don't see a
> reason why. I kinda like having them.

Same here. In Illinois, it's the law that you must run headlights
whenever you use your wipers. I'm pretty good about remembering (and in
most cases, on dark days, I'll be one of the first drivers out there to
run with headlights, no matter what the law is). Sometimes I forget,
though, and the DRL's would keep me from getting a ticket.

What's more likely is that a cop will pass me in the rain with no
headlights and the wipers going...

They reduce insurance rates, and
> they keep me from getting a ticket if I leave the house and forget to turn
> on the Headlights at dusk... ;-)