7/21/14 9:54 AM

Just can't wait to see what surprises are in store for us. With age comes cynicism. ;) Or is it with experience? ;O

Accident 6/9. My guess of 5 weeks was off. Tomorrow will be 6 since the tow truck took it to the body shop.

Last time I saw it at the body shop I could walk into the back of it. I hope they put all the back drive suspension back together right, sigh...

Will miss the Prius fuel economy. ;)

[speeeling of finally fixed, finally...]

Last edited by Sparky on 7/27/14 2:33 PM; edited 2 times in total

7/22/14 7:27 PM

So much for that. They totally missed the roof damage. Another week now.

I love that I work for them, and the guy I discussed the roof damage with weeks ago probably forgot about it. I would fire him, myself...

7/23/14 1:30 AM

Well, at least it's another week to give that rental a thorough workout.

7/23/14 8:18 AM

It is going to be like getting a new car again it has been so long a while. Wife hates the Prius, I like the thing. But my little car tolerance went up once I got used to the Del Sol I guess. But hard not to appreciate 47-49 MPH. Her AWD Equinox averages 22-3.

7/25/14 7:32 PM

No joke about it being like getting a new car. I picked it up and then picked up Elaine at work. When she got in it, she actually said " this isn't my car, is it?: looking around feverishly at the interior and dash. LOL

Look good so far....



Invoice not counting the 1390.00 car rental coat was just over $10k FWIW

7/26/14 11:37 AM

Honda Cr-z. One of the better/sportier looking hybrids, IMHO

7/26/14 1:09 PM

CR-Z seems to get less avg MPG than my Del Sol. According to fueleconomy.gov.

I guess I will put some parts in the old gal when the time comes. And it is coming, now @ 234k. ;)

7/27/14 10:11 AM

How correct you are. taking a look at the mpgs, it is rather surprising how little improvement there is with the hybrid cr-z. If I remember correctly the original cr-z got better mileage than the current hybrid version.

7/27/14 10:36 AM

The 2011 CR-Z has same size 1.5L engine, and gets what my Del Sol gets almost exactly. According to that .gov site, and some users claim more.

Not sure if that is v-tec or even hybrid, still googling.

I know that it does not take too much high RPM V-Tec use to lower it significantly. But it goes pretty quick when you do. And this is just the small Single OH Cam 15Z motor I think.

A guy at the bike shop I worked at when I got here had a CRV with a DOHC 2.2 liter stuffed into his with all sorts of intake and exhaust mods that was so fast I could not believe it. No fuel economy to speak of though.

EDIT:
So all CR-Zs are hybrids, I wondered.
"by a 1.5-liter SOHC i-VTEC petrol engine in association with Honda's IMA (Integrated Motor Assist) with a nickel-metal hydride battery pack"

7/27/14 11:37 AM

That's SOOOO 2010!

7/27/14 11:42 AM

yes, it was for the 2010 model the text I coppied. The 21014 list Li-ion batteries. Not sure beyond more googling when it went to those over previous. I guess all the hybrid followed this path...

7/29/14 5:33 AM

...that 2010 was just a lucky guess!

11/17/14 8:04 PM

I stumbled upon this link today, http://www.cars.com/geo/metro/1995/consumer-reviews/ .

It makes me wonder what a modern day design Geo Metro would get for fuel economy notably without a hybrid engine. I believe the gains in fuel economy over the past couple decades for gas powered engines has been due to the ability to extract more energy from gasoline. I recall reading fairly recently that modern engines use only 30% or so of gas's (potential) energy.

11/17/14 8:28 PM

My 20 year old Del Sol is 38ish on the hwy if you stay out of the v-tec.


My Fiat 850 probably leaked more fuel down the throttle than it used running. Not really, but you gt the point. That was 40 years ago and was 15 years old then.

It used very little gas with an 850CC motor and 15% of it weight oxidized back into the air. ;)

11/18/14 5:55 AM

My favorite car ever was a 1991 Honda Civic Wagon (FWD, not the more popular 4WD version)--I may be wrong on the year, but it was the last year they made them, anyway.

Remembering that the Civic of 23 years ago was considerably smaller than the modern Civic (more like the Fit), that thing was capacious for moving large items and easily got 40 MPG on the highway with two adults and two children.

I attribute much of this to its very low coefficient of drag...which also led to enough people drafting when we drove between upstate NY and DC that I installed a brake light toggle switch. It was unnerving to have cars climbing my rear bumper.

Sadly, the thing gave up the ghost after 15 years, largely due to rust. My father had insisted that I have the car undercoated, I gave in, but after a few years it rusted at the holes the undercoating place had drilled...it had other problems, but I would have happily repaired those if the thing hadn't looked like Swiss cheese in too many places.

11/18/14 11:18 AM

Today's cars are heavier.

There's more standard equipment and luxuries, e.g. power everything.

Need to score high on the crash tests, e.g airbags + more crumple area + stronger frames and doors etc.

Cars are larger nearly every generation. People are getting larger.

Sandiway

11/18/14 11:33 AM

This is absolutely true. The Civic Wagon? Crank-up windows. Manual transmission. Door panels that didn't feel like they were 2' thick. Etc. Just try and find something like that today. True, it was also in the last generation of cars sans airbags. And it had (IIRC) nary a single cup holder.

I really, really, really liked that car. I'm a fraction of an inch below 6', but I could wear a hat and still sit comfortably upright in it. The windshield went down to there , and so did the hood. It had the best view of the road (and everything else) of any car I've ever driven.

My spouse and I went cross-country with three children in the back seat (one infant in a baby seat, plus 5- and 3-year-olds). Plenty of room for everything we needed for camping in the huge "wayback" compartment.

I miss it. Compared to that car, everything else is just a bun on a plate. Or worse.

11/18/14 12:18 PM

My Del Sol panels are so thin I can knuckle a permanent dent without even hurting myself. It has so many small dents in it, it is not even funny.

Seems like every time I look at it there is more.

I recall my old RX7 we put an IMSA body kit on was the same. dented if you looked at it wrong. ;)

11/18/14 12:27 PM

I wasn't referring to the skin, which was a little light, but adequate. Rather, the fact that the American cars I tried before buying the Civic had thick, thick doors, while the Civic's felt reasonable. Since they had to meet the same standards, I assume that was because (a) the Civic had crank rather than power windows and (b) that the Civic had thinner but stronger beams in its doors (I don't know, just guessing on that one). It sure was fun to drive.

11/18/14 1:22 PM

True about the weight increasing, which is due to consumers wanting more powerful vehicles.

Per a recent NOVA program, "Car of The Future", it noted, "Since 1985, average vehicle weight has increased 1,000 pounds. Horsepower has almost doubled....
...JOSEPH B. WHITE (Wall Street Journal): If you look anywhere in the world, not just the United States, you look anywhere in the world, people will buy the most horsepower they can afford. There's something kind of primal and elemental about having a powerful machine at your beck and call and at your command. The car companies know this; they're selling emotion. If we just needed an appliance to get from A to B, we'd all be driving around in Toyota Corollas."
http://video.pbs.org/program/nova/episodes/?page=9

11/18/14 2:23 PM

I remember pickup up a Nissan Stanza back in 1982. It went from 0-60 in about 9.6 secs, about the same as the BMW 2002. So it was not a laggard.

Nowadays, it would be considered slow as molasses. Do we really need sub 7 0-60s? I don't think so.

11/18/14 3:15 PM

And BTW, regarding the work that was done for the $10k+ on the Equinox, zero residual thus far. Glad we had it done at a good shop...

11/18/14 3:28 PM

I also had an '82 Stanza, hatch, I'd be happy to drive it today. Great car. It said Datsun on one side, Nissan on the other. Unfortunately it imploded just over 100k miles.

The other old car I've had that I'd love to drive today (in good condition) is my '65 Peugeot 404 wagon, 3 on the tree.

Every once in awhile I scan the Saabnet classifieds for a 96, but I'm not nuts enough (nor enough of a car guy) to actually buy one.

Actually my A4 Avant is pretty much a perfect car for me, but I'd still enjoy cruising one of the above.

11/18/14 4:50 PM

Only 100k on the odometer?

NO way I would drive that, I won't put up with a car that won't do 200K or better. Something most cars can do these days with proper care.

11/18/14 10:46 PM

I miss some of those simple old cars. My 85 Honda Civic hatchback had decent performance with a five speed, and got 42 miles to the gallon regularly. No power windows, cruise, stability control, ABS, or air. Just a car.

Dan is misremembering the old Peugeot. They all had four on the tree, not three, but until the late 60's it was a three speed pattern with fourth tacked on above second. Peugeots were great oddball cars, in which almost everything worked differently (and often backwards) from other cars. Drastically underpowered on the straightaway, a 404 could blow away nearly anything on wheels when you hit the curves - one of the most perfectly neutral steering vehicles I've ever driven.