1996 Civic HX got better MPG
#1
01-11-2006, 02:47 PM
1996 Civic HX got better MPG
The 1996 Honda Civic HX was getting high miles per gallon with:
CVT 34 city / 38 hwy
5MT 35 city / 43 hwy
AND THAT WAS 10 YEARS AGO!
The Fit over seas in US MPG’s gets about 35 city / 50 hwy. But the US Fit is getting only 33/38. EVEN with the added weight the MPG should be close to what it is getting over seas. It should be close to 32 city / 47 hwy with the added weight for the US model, and with the advancement in engine technology that Honda has made, the MPG should be even a little higher like 32 – 35 city / 47 – 50 hwy.
This is a big let down to all the people that care a lot about fuel economy with the growing concern of higher gas prices. Not to mention that people have been waiting and following the news for the Fit for a long time since it was announced. Their anticipation grew eagerly as the launch date for unveiling the fit became closer and closer. Since Honda kept the specs a secret while people were expecting much more, it is a giant let down. I know several people who had their hearts set on buying a Fit for sure, are now definitely not buying a Fit. They plan on waiting to see if Honda Comes out with a different Fit model that is more fuel efficient like it should be, otherwise they plan on buying something else.
Can you please give a, very good, valid reason for lowering the fuel economy.
CVT 34 city / 38 hwy
5MT 35 city / 43 hwy
AND THAT WAS 10 YEARS AGO!
The Fit over seas in US MPG’s gets about 35 city / 50 hwy. But the US Fit is getting only 33/38. EVEN with the added weight the MPG should be close to what it is getting over seas. It should be close to 32 city / 47 hwy with the added weight for the US model, and with the advancement in engine technology that Honda has made, the MPG should be even a little higher like 32 – 35 city / 47 – 50 hwy.
This is a big let down to all the people that care a lot about fuel economy with the growing concern of higher gas prices. Not to mention that people have been waiting and following the news for the Fit for a long time since it was announced. Their anticipation grew eagerly as the launch date for unveiling the fit became closer and closer. Since Honda kept the specs a secret while people were expecting much more, it is a giant let down. I know several people who had their hearts set on buying a Fit for sure, are now definitely not buying a Fit. They plan on waiting to see if Honda Comes out with a different Fit model that is more fuel efficient like it should be, otherwise they plan on buying something else.
Can you please give a, very good, valid reason for lowering the fuel economy.
#2
01-11-2006, 03:46 PM
so that it would go to 60 in under 12 seconds maybe?! would you want it to be the SLOWEST car in the US?
#4
01-12-2006, 12:57 AM
1996 Civic Coupe HX 0-60 9.4 seconds
1996 Honda Civic Coupe HX drove 0 - 60 mpg in 9.4 and it had 35 mpg city / 43 mpg hwy.
That was 10 years ago! The Fit should be able to do better than that like it is over seas.
That was 10 years ago! The Fit should be able to do better than that like it is over seas.
#6
01-19-2006, 01:46 AM
BSGump, please stop posting the exact same annoying rant in every possible thread/forum of this website. You're acting immature and obsessive, and it's very irritating. If this car pisses you off that much, don't flippin' buy one then OK? Go buy an old Civic HX if that's what you want.
And quit calling people nasty names and going apesh*t if they don't agree with you. How old are you, anyway? Grow up!
And quit calling people nasty names and going apesh*t if they don't agree with you. How old are you, anyway? Grow up!
#9
01-19-2006, 10:45 AM
sl123, look through the forum sometime when you have a free half hour and you'll see the exact same rant, in its entiretey, posted in several different places. And BSGump has called people names and typed angry replies to those who don't agree with him. That's not the purpose of this board.
Disagreeing with someone is fine, but there is no need to post multiple, identical rants all over the place to get your point across. And furthermore, it is possible to disagree with someone and still be respectful and kind. BSgump is neither. Go read for yourself.
Disagreeing with someone is fine, but there is no need to post multiple, identical rants all over the place to get your point across. And furthermore, it is possible to disagree with someone and still be respectful and kind. BSgump is neither. Go read for yourself.
Last edited by crazeditalian; 01-19-2006 at 10:48 AM.
#10
01-19-2006, 06:27 PM
I didn't call people names first
Yo crazedItalian,
Instead of telling people to read the posts to see that I was calling people names, you too, need to read the posts. I only called 2 people a name and that was because they were talking trash and called me names first.
Yes, I agree I did rant a lot about the poor MPG figures for the US Fit in the beginning. HOWEVER, if you read the posts, you would have seen that I also apologized and stated that I was very angry when I first discoved the specs for the Honda Fit.
I do owe an apology to Mav, I am sorry Mav. I did call him a mofo when he replied to my poor MPG rant about the FIT. I remember he stated that 33/38 was best figures from EPA, and I made a comment that the 1996-2005 CIVIC HX got better mpg 34/44.
Mav didn't deserve that, he wasn't talking trash to me, I was just blowing off steam. Once again I am sorry Mav.
But to the others that talked smack first, I am innocent and admit no fault, you'll have to read the posts to find out the truth. Besides, why bother, it's over and done with. Can't we all just get along?
Instead of telling people to read the posts to see that I was calling people names, you too, need to read the posts. I only called 2 people a name and that was because they were talking trash and called me names first.
Yes, I agree I did rant a lot about the poor MPG figures for the US Fit in the beginning. HOWEVER, if you read the posts, you would have seen that I also apologized and stated that I was very angry when I first discoved the specs for the Honda Fit.
I do owe an apology to Mav, I am sorry Mav. I did call him a mofo when he replied to my poor MPG rant about the FIT. I remember he stated that 33/38 was best figures from EPA, and I made a comment that the 1996-2005 CIVIC HX got better mpg 34/44.
Mav didn't deserve that, he wasn't talking trash to me, I was just blowing off steam. Once again I am sorry Mav.
But to the others that talked smack first, I am innocent and admit no fault, you'll have to read the posts to find out the truth. Besides, why bother, it's over and done with. Can't we all just get along?
#11
01-19-2006, 07:43 PM
If I got called a name on here I would not publicly respond.
SOMEBODY has to act like an adult in the situation. If you were called a nasty name on a public post, you should immediately report it to the forum administrator. Administrators have the power to reprimand anyone who posts inappropriate comments or calls other people names, and they have the power to permanently block anyone's ability to access the forum. That is a more adult-like way to handle that don't you think?
SOMEBODY has to act like an adult in the situation. If you were called a nasty name on a public post, you should immediately report it to the forum administrator. Administrators have the power to reprimand anyone who posts inappropriate comments or calls other people names, and they have the power to permanently block anyone's ability to access the forum. That is a more adult-like way to handle that don't you think?
Last edited by crazeditalian; 01-19-2006 at 07:49 PM.
#13
01-23-2006, 01:46 AM
US FIT needs CVT, 1.3L 5 speed, hybrid and/or diesel
I think it would be great if Honda brought a Fit model to America that rivaled the over seas version in fuel economy. The CVT with 1.3L would probably be kinda weak in performance, however some wouldn't mind and would appreciate the great fuel economy. A 5 speed mated with a 1.3 L would get more power and should be adequate unless you like to drag race. A hybrid version especially combined with diesel fuel would really get great fuel economy. Lets hope that Honda comes out with an improved version sometime soon for America.
I would at least like to thank Honda for finally bringing the Fit over, but I will not be purchasing a Honda Fit until improvements are made to the fuel economy. In the mean time I will purchase a Civic HX 5 speed. If there are no changes by 2008, I will buy a Dodge Challenger or some other vehicle that is fun to drive.
I would at least like to thank Honda for finally bringing the Fit over, but I will not be purchasing a Honda Fit until improvements are made to the fuel economy. In the mean time I will purchase a Civic HX 5 speed. If there are no changes by 2008, I will buy a Dodge Challenger or some other vehicle that is fun to drive.
#14
02-25-2006, 08:37 PM
Someone that spends his life on FitFreak.net
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: san francisco, ca, USA
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by bsgump
The 1996 Honda Civic HX was getting high miles per gallon with:
CVT 34 city / 38 hwy
5MT 35 city / 43 hwy
AND THAT WAS 10 YEARS AGO!
The Fit over seas in US MPG’s gets about 35 city / 50 hwy. But the US Fit is getting only 33/38. EVEN with the added weight the MPG should be close to what it is getting over seas. It should be close to 32 city / 47 hwy with the added weight for the US model, and with the advancement in engine technology that Honda has made, the MPG should be even a little higher like 32 – 35 city / 47 – 50 hwy.
This is a big let down to all the people that care a lot about fuel economy with the growing concern of higher gas prices. Not to mention that people have been waiting and following the news for the Fit for a long time since it was announced. Their anticipation grew eagerly as the launch date for unveiling the fit became closer and closer. Since Honda kept the specs a secret while people were expecting much more, it is a giant let down. I know several people who had their hearts set on buying a Fit for sure, are now definitely not buying a Fit. They plan on waiting to see if Honda Comes out with a different Fit model that is more fuel efficient like it should be, otherwise they plan on buying something else.
Can you please give a, very good, valid reason for lowering the fuel economy.
CVT 34 city / 38 hwy
5MT 35 city / 43 hwy
AND THAT WAS 10 YEARS AGO!
The Fit over seas in US MPG’s gets about 35 city / 50 hwy. But the US Fit is getting only 33/38. EVEN with the added weight the MPG should be close to what it is getting over seas. It should be close to 32 city / 47 hwy with the added weight for the US model, and with the advancement in engine technology that Honda has made, the MPG should be even a little higher like 32 – 35 city / 47 – 50 hwy.
This is a big let down to all the people that care a lot about fuel economy with the growing concern of higher gas prices. Not to mention that people have been waiting and following the news for the Fit for a long time since it was announced. Their anticipation grew eagerly as the launch date for unveiling the fit became closer and closer. Since Honda kept the specs a secret while people were expecting much more, it is a giant let down. I know several people who had their hearts set on buying a Fit for sure, are now definitely not buying a Fit. They plan on waiting to see if Honda Comes out with a different Fit model that is more fuel efficient like it should be, otherwise they plan on buying something else.
Can you please give a, very good, valid reason for lowering the fuel economy.
I think it's cuz everyone (nissan, honda, toyota) are preparing for the new EPA system. I desperately HOPE so.
#15
02-26-2006, 01:39 AM
Originally Posted by Gordio
One thing that confuses me is the yaris also gets 38 max. But I was at a car store a few months ago, and the camry said 38 highway. Like the Fit, HOw can the samller yaris also get lower mileage?
I think it's cuz everyone (nissan, honda, toyota) are preparing for the new EPA system. I desperately HOPE so.
I think it's cuz everyone (nissan, honda, toyota) are preparing for the new EPA system. I desperately HOPE so.
So the main benefit for a small car is in the city with lower speed and stop and go driving.
#16
02-26-2006, 02:30 AM
No way in the real world the Camry gets better economy than the Yaris. Yaris beats the Camry hands down on the highway as well as around the city. Who cares about the test lab. When you pull up at the pump and have to fill the thing you haven't been cruising around the lab burning fuel.
If we use the rev argument then a 6 litre V8 SS Commodore must be more fuel efficient on the highway than the 1.5 litre Jazz because its running at lower revs. Damn your telling me now a 300kw car could have given me better economy than this 81kw one.
If we use the rev argument then a 6 litre V8 SS Commodore must be more fuel efficient on the highway than the 1.5 litre Jazz because its running at lower revs. Damn your telling me now a 300kw car could have given me better economy than this 81kw one.
#17
02-26-2006, 10:01 AM
Someone that spends his life on FitFreak.net
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: san francisco, ca, USA
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by vividjazz
No way in the real world the Camry gets better economy than the Yaris. Yaris beats the Camry hands down on the highway as well as around the city. Who cares about the test lab. When you pull up at the pump and have to fill the thing you haven't been cruising around the lab burning fuel.
If we use the rev argument then a 6 litre V8 SS Commodore must be more fuel efficient on the highway than the 1.5 litre Jazz because its running at lower revs. Damn your telling me now a 300kw car could have given me better economy than this 81kw one.
If we use the rev argument then a 6 litre V8 SS Commodore must be more fuel efficient on the highway than the 1.5 litre Jazz because its running at lower revs. Damn your telling me now a 300kw car could have given me better economy than this 81kw one.
#18
02-26-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by vividjazz
...
If we use the rev argument then a 6 litre V8 SS Commodore must be more fuel efficient on the highway than the 1.5 litre Jazz because its running at lower revs. Damn your telling me now a 300kw car could have given me better economy than this 81kw one.
If we use the rev argument then a 6 litre V8 SS Commodore must be more fuel efficient on the highway than the 1.5 litre Jazz because its running at lower revs. Damn your telling me now a 300kw car could have given me better economy than this 81kw one.
#20
04-04-2006, 10:57 AM
Increased safety standards equal heavier cars. That is a difficult obstacle to overcome. BTW....did you ever drive one? Handling was fine, but the torque curve sucked and the interior space isn't even in the same class as this car. There was virtually no aftermarket support for that motor as well. You could rant about the Geo Metro getting better mileage, but would you care to drive one?