is hybrid better than normal car?

i call bullshit. i keep fuel records of all my cars, and the best
you'll get out of the ex is maybe 45, on a good day, flat road,
following wind, skinny tires, 55mph. the hx can do that, if it's been
well maintained, but not the ex.

actually, it is.

yes, and economy has declined since then.

no, heavier. remember your 95 ex? you check the weight of that and
compare it to earlier generations.

more bullshit - you evidently haven't driven a prius.

 

i call bullshit.[/QUOTE]

yeah, me too.

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless
the engine was off.

 

you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos.
or you can't do math.

take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth.

oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling
2200rpm.

 

you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos.
or you can't do math.

take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth.

oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling
2200rpm.[/QUOTE]

he's GOT to understand he's talking to people who DRIVE these cars, and
know what they do.

2200rpm in fifth on my 92 Si (same engine/trans as EX) was nowhere near
highway speeds. In fifth gear I was (this is from memory) at least
3000rpm, maybe 3300rpm, on the highway--minimum.

I got 35 on the highway without much trouble, but that was about it. I
think one time, trying, I got to 41--in good weather, no AC, no hills,
taking it very easy.

55? Not on your life.

 

Weight is not a criterion for the definition, therefore you can't say
"it doesn't fit the defintion".

So what if it "just squeaks in"? There have to be limits; either it
fits within those limits, or it doesn't.

You appear to be saying that "yeah, well, it's at the lower end of those
size limits, plus it doesn't weigh as much as what a traditional midsize
car always has, therefore it's not really midsize".

In other words, you disagree with the criteria that define "midsize".[/QUOTE]


In other words, I think that *most people* would disagree with the
definition, so their perceptions of what is and isn't a "midsize" car
matter. My whole point is that the Prius isn't a fantastically efficient
middle-sized car; it's a very efficient compact car with lots of
interior space.

 

yeah, me too.

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless
the engine was off.[/QUOTE]


Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average
36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer.
Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6
liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary.

 

Yes, US miles per gallon.

Difference between my Gen II and a '92 (Gen IV) is weight and horsepower.

JT

 

he's GOT to understand he's talking to people who DRIVE these cars, and
know what they do.

2200rpm in fifth on my 92 Si (same engine/trans as EX) was nowhere near
highway speeds. In fifth gear I was (this is from memory) at least
3000rpm, maybe 3300rpm, on the highway--minimum.

I got 35 on the highway without much trouble, but that was about it. I
think one time, trying, I got to 41--in good weather, no AC, no hills,
taking it very easy.

55? Not on your life.[/QUOTE]


Man, you guys give shade tree mechanics a bad name. First, the Si
and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
drivetrain: my Ca.-spec car can barely get out of its own way in third,
and it *does* turn at 2200 RPM at 55mph in 5th. In fact, both 5th *and*
4th gears are overdrives. It's rated at about 126HP, IIRC, and that's
only if you rev it near the redline. The Si has to be putting out more
power, and certainly has lower gearing as well, or it too is a slow car.
Second, reports of 37mpg per tankful with this generation Civic are very
common, including the ones with automatics. You boys just don't know how
to drive for economy. Your brains are concentrated in one foot.

 

Yes, they did.

"Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to
tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.

 

From motortrend.com:

95 Civic Si:
1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
cylinder
Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm

95 Civic EX Sedan:
1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
cylinder
Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200
rpm

Looks pretty close to me...

 

indeed. and from:
http://www.knology.net/~jediklc/gearratiosdseries.htm
we can scroll down and see that gear ratios are the same unless it's a
hatchback/del sol - differentiation is by body style, not engine or trim
designation.

 

hehehehe Identical engines and transmissions.

Or maybe the OP thought Honda threw a bunch of money at completely
different engines/transmissions for different trim lines of their lowest
priced, loss leader model....

92-95 Civic--CX/DX (hatch/sedan) and LX (sedan) had the same
drivetrains, Si (hatch) and EX (sedan) had the same (bigger) drivetrains.

93 model saw the coupe, and it got the same trim levels and powertrains
as the corresponding sedan.

VX was its own beastie...

 

55mph in 5th is ~1900 rpm.

 

so, just getting to the middle of the on ramp is 1900rpm.

 

for our friend's 55mph, 2200rpm, "55mpg highway" civic ex, yes.

 

In that case, I'm mistaken about them being different - and
extremely glad I didn't shell out any money for a '95 Si. With the same
power and gearing as my car, it should get excellent gas mileage, and
also get passed by virtually any other "sport" model in its class. As
for the 1900rpm at 55, I'll take your word for it - I must have been
looking at 60mph, which would be about 2200. Note that both cars do
indeed have two overdrives, and imagine what that does to acceleration
on the highway.

Now why exactly are you idiots crowing about this? Instead of
proving that I'm wrong about the tall gearing, you just proved I'm right
about it. I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of
other people), and you apparently can't drive your own cars economically
even when you try. Go have another round of beers.




(...)

 

dude, you allege to have owned the freakin' thing!!! /you/ should be
the one attesting to accuracy, not "taking anybody's word for it". if
you don't /know/ the facts, you're just a bullshitter.

what a surprise.

it's got overdrive but no shift lever stopping you from shifting to a
ratio where you can get more power??? that's freakin' funny dude!

dude, hondas are not geared tall. 99 corolla is ~1900 rpm at 55mph

er, you /do/ know that you can't just gear your way into fuel economy
don't you? otherwise we'd all be driving cars geared for 500rpm at
90mph giving 70mpg.

 

What happened to your story about 55mpg?

Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.

 

we have done the math. and it shows you to be a bullshitter.

whether that's because you're delusional, or simply too damned lazy to
check your facts is the only thing left open to debate.

 

No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do.[/QUOTE]

Which, as those of us who have actually owned those vehicles know, is
utter bullshit.