Who Needs a Hybrid???

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article > ,
> jim beam > wrote:
>
>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>> You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.
>> no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in
>> /exactly/ the most efficient ratio.
>
> Based on all the stupid things that the 5 speed 2005 HAH transmission
> does, I wouldn't count on it. Honda's transmission programming is
> _really_ bad. Accelerate a little bit and it shifts from 3rd (3 cyl) to
> 4th (6 cyl + IMA) then 2nd (6 cyl) then 3rd (6 cyl) and back to 4th (3
> cyl + IMA). 96/97 Civic HX CVT transmissions had a lot of software
> performance problems too.

you definitely have a point - but that's not an engineering problem as
such - it comes from exactly the same place that gives us the hybrid,
which in turn comes from the same kind of place as hondas with red rear
turn signals and hondas with twin tail pipes fed by a single input -
marketing.

regarding cvt, that's also going down the same road. on the fit, i
understand cvt's are being sold as "7 speed" transmissions because they
have 7 "lurches" built into what would otherwise be a perfectly smooth
transitionless system. why? because the marketing droids are running
the show and one of them drove a cvt for 5 minutes and thought there was
something wrong because it "wasn't shifting right" - because they didn't
understand how a cvt works or understand its advantages. in reality,
cvt is an excellent system. it's different and takes about 10 minutes
to get used to it, but it gives great economy, great performance out of
a small engine, and has proven to be reliable. if only honda would hand
the reins back to the people that built the company in the first place,
the engineers, we wouldn't have this kind of persistent anti-consumer
"dumbing down" and "follow the other sheep" mentality we see today.

>
> If I could convert my HAH to a 5 speed manual, I'd be making a service
> appointment now. I'm always in the right gear because I know what I'm
> doing next.
>
>
>>> Earle
>>>
>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>>> t...
>>>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.
>>>> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
>>>> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
>>>>
>>>>> Earle
>>>>>
>>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
>>>>>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JT
>>>

My wife's 2005 HAH gets 27 mpg in stop and go (mostly stopped) commuter
traffic. Plus she get the power seats, navigation, autoclimate control and
other stuff that keeps her happy. It has the best repair record of any
Honda according to Consumer Reports (still made in Japan) and for around
$1100 we bought the Honda care zero deductible 8 year/120k mile service
agreement. Downsides include poor headlights (low) and electric ac weak
when car isn't moving in 95 degree weather. Also electric steering is way
too light and poor centering feel. People spend thousands on sound systems
for their car. Why not spend it on cleaner air and better gas mileage
instead. Just different priorities. Car was paid for with cash. If you
cannot pay cash for a new car pay cash for a used one.




"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>
>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>>
>> JT
>
> My 94 Lexus ES--a very comfortable car, fully paid for of course--gets
> me 29mpg on the highway.
>
> Let's see, vs. paying $25K for a new car that gets 38mpg....the payback
> time is a LONG, LONG time...
>

ACAR wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> snip
> >
> > I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the
> > mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new
> > latest high tech econobox is going to get.
> >
> > Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which
> > are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile?
> >
> snip
>
> Come on, you're driving a ****box. If you need to compare your '83
> Civic to a modern hybrid how about figuring in the value of a hybrid's
> added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust
> and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but
> that doesn't make it a better car.
>
> Like the old Civic was anything to brag about - our '72 VW/Porsche 914
> got 35 mpg at 85 mph, 30 mpg at 95 mph and handled considerably better
> than anything Honda produced until the 1990s. But compared to a modern
> sports car the old 914 is also a ****box.



Good to see that the sheeple are out there and closely in step...

JT

Whatever. It's an automatic, isn't it, with a torque converter? The manual
I got with the HX recommends changing the fluid in the cvt every 15,000
miles, which says to me that it is a transmission that is continuously
wearing itself out as you use it. And that will be Honda Genuine
Transmission Fluid too. I don' need no stinkin' automatic, thanks. You can
pry the stick shift from my cold, dead hands.

Cheers,

Earle

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.
>
> no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in
> /exactly/ the most efficient ratio.
>
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "jim beam" > wrote in message
> > t...
> >> Earle Horton wrote:
> >>> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45
mpg.
> >> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
> >> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
> >>
> >>> Earle
> >>>
> >>> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
> >>>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
> >>>>
> >>>> JT
> >>>
> >
> >

I kind of like an automatic but not in a Honda... At least in a late
(post 1990) Honda.

OTOH, all but one of my vintage cars have automatics. But these are
virtually bullet proof and if needed, an overhaul is quick and cheap.

Technology has advantages so long as it functions. Repairs to computer
controlled components are almost always expensive and beyond the reach
of a "do it your self" effort.

You hit the mark pretty well...

JT




Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Whatever. It's an automatic, isn't it, with a torque converter? The manual
> I got with the HX recommends changing the fluid in the cvt every 15,000
> miles, which says to me that it is a transmission that is continuously
> wearing itself out as you use it. And that will be Honda Genuine
> Transmission Fluid too. I don' need no stinkin' automatic, thanks. You can
> pry the stick shift from my cold, dead hands.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Earle
>
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
> > Earle Horton wrote:
> > > You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.
> >
> > no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in
> > /exactly/ the most efficient ratio.
> >
> > >
> > > Earle
> > >
> > > "jim beam" > wrote in message
> > > t...
> > >> Earle Horton wrote:
> > >>> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45
> mpg.
> > >> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
> > >> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
> > >>
> > >>> Earle
> > >>>
> > >>> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
> > >>> ...
> > >>>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
> > >>>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> JT
> > >>>
> > >
> > >

Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
> I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the
> mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new
> latest high tech econobox is going to get.

> Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which
> are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile?

I'm having a hard time comparing the current costs of a salvaged 1983 car
verses a 2006 car.

Costs are one thing, features are another. Appearance is another.
Mix well, select the blend you like.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
> > I kind of chuckle when I read of people who post here wondering what the
> > mileage, (and they're splitting hairs at that), that their brandy new
> > latest high tech econobox is going to get.
>
> > Add up the payments, insurance and scheduled maintenance, (some of which
> > are pricey as well), and what is the *real* cost per mile?
>
> I'm having a hard time comparing the current costs of a salvaged 1983 car
> verses a 2006 car.
>
> Costs are one thing, features are another. Appearance is another.
> Mix well, select the blend you like.
>
> --
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5



Current Investment
• Less than $1K total investment + my sweat equity
• Breezed through inspection
• Consumables such as gas & oil

Features:
• A/C
• Simpler components reasonably easy to reach/work on
• No friggin' power steering
• Used look = Less attraction to thieves etc.
\ • Goes down the road 70-80 mph nicely
• 42+ MPG

Advantages:
• No payments
• Low insurance
• Generally cheap parts

JT

Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm having a hard time comparing the current costs of a salvaged 1983 car
> > verses a 2006 car.

> Current Investment
> ? Less than $1K total investment + my sweat equity
> Features:
> ? A/C
> ? Simpler components reasonably easy to reach/work on
> ? No friggin' power steering
> ? Used look = Less attraction to thieves etc.
> ? Goes down the road 70-80 mph nicely

A friend who did an extreme amount of driving became convinced that the
best dollar value was a used taxicab. They didn't look very good, which is
one of the features you listed. They had A/C, and power steering, don't
know why you wouldn't want that, unless you consider it a potential repair
problem.

If something bad happened, he just parked it in front of a wrecking yard if
it was still drivable, and bought another one.

I don't think he ever even changed oil.

> ? 42+ MPG

Probably not, but he had less invested than you, and no sweat equity.
I think he comes out ahead.

No worries about collision insurance, or the loss of a prized vehicle.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote
> Current Investment
> . Less than $1K total investment + my sweat equity
> . Breezed through inspection
> . Consumables such as gas & oil
>
> Features:
> . A/C

Bum.

;-)

> . Simpler components reasonably easy to reach/work on
> . No friggin' power steering
> . Used look = Less attraction to thieves etc.
> \ . Goes down the road 70-80 mph nicely
> . 42+ MPG
>
> Advantages:
> . No payments
> . Low insurance
> . Generally cheap parts


.. More money left over to give to charities. :-)

Earle Horton wrote:
> Whatever. It's an automatic, isn't it, with a torque converter?

no, it's cvt, continuously variable transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...e_transmission

> The manual
> I got with the HX recommends changing the fluid in the cvt every 15,000
> miles, which says to me that it is a transmission that is continuously
> wearing itself out as you use it. And that will be Honda Genuine
> Transmission Fluid too. I don' need no stinkin' automatic, thanks. You can
> pry the stick shift from my cold, dead hands.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Earle
>
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>> You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.
>> no i didn't. the cvt will give you better mileage - it's always in
>> /exactly/ the most efficient ratio.
>>
>>> Earle
>>>
>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>>> t...
>>>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>> My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45
> mpg.
>>>> that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
>>>> /huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.
>>>>
>>>>> Earle
>>>>>
>>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
>>>>>> 41.2 mpg for mixed driving...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JT
>>>
>
>