Who Needs a Hybrid???

My ancient '83 Civic just runs better and better. Today's fill up -
41.2 mpg for mixed driving...

JT

 

My 1999 HX, "special" low emissions, high mileage model, gets 40-45 mpg.

Earle

 

that hx, with cvt, is a wonder, the cvt part particularly - it makes a
/huge/ difference. "hybrid" is bunk.

 

You mis-spelled "junk". I got the stick shift.

Earle

 

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.

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.

 

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...

 

My point would be (and I know nothing about your car except assume that
it's some sort of automatic) should a repair become necessary, it won't
be cheap which can quickly wipe out any accumulated fuel savings. Ah
kin feel yer pain!

Based on your statement, and Honda's record for automatics there is
probably reason for concern in that respect.

That said, most folks cannot do what I did. Bought the '83 and an
earlier gen2 parts car for $200 and made a good runner from the two. So
far, my total investment is under $1K for a vehicle with just over 100K
total miles. Being that I'm mechanically handy, retired with some time
on my hands and frugal in nature, I think that the effort in $$$ and
time was well worth it. Felt real good to have traveled 300 miles and
unable to put $20 worth of gas into the car.

Now, a hybrid is usually in the $20K + range and it is difficult for me
to comprehend it as being economical transportation. Putting pencil to
paper just doesn't work...

JT

 

Ain't that the truth!

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?

When I finally got the FE back on the road in early May, the mileage was
in the low 30's and after nearly 2K, it has crept up to 40+. I will
admit that I've spent some time with the car learning and tweaking this
'n that but it has paid off. It still is not exactly right, (It's
idling too fast), but it's getting closer to the road test achievements
in the early 1980's.

And I love the handling. Damned thing is just plain glued to the road!

JT

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
snip

snip

Come on, you're driving a shitbox. 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 shitbox.

 

when is someone going to mention the crx hf? incredible fuel economy,
good handling.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

.. More money left over to give to charities.