Seems ridiculous to me that it only gets 40 to 45 mpg. About 30 years ago when the original Civics came out, didn't they get 50 mpg and they were slightly bigger? What's up with the lack of forward progress of more efficient gas engines??
Funny, I remember those first Honda cars (looked like half of a car, or somewhat like a mini-Gremlin).
Back when I worked in a repair shop, we had a customer that brought his in for repairs, and it was tiny.
Not very practical for driving the family around in.
I think this is the only problem I have with it..I wouldn't be able to fit my kids in it... it's tight enough in the fj... I have a Suburban as a daily driver... and well I only have to fill it up once a week..granted it's got a large tank.. and it's $135 to fill her up..at least I'm not going to the gas station every other day as I would with the fj.
__________________
THE BLACK SHEEP SHEPERD...
Lulululululululu!!!
-Athena (The virgin patron of Athens...)
____________________________________
We're easily amused.................
upgrade #1, xm radio, trd, CAI
powertank with air tools~Fabfour front and rear bumper/bulldog winch~Suspension-OME 3" lift, front 886~ rear 896 (heavies)~system-3 JL 10" subs multi surround speakers~Gobi Rack with 3 sets of PIAA's~35/10.5/r16 swampers SSR's (bodymount chop)~Rasta skid plates~Icon rear LCA's~Wet Okole seat covers~fender flares removed http://www.toyotatrailteams.com/?section=2.4.8882 http://rasta4x4usa.com/fjcruiser.aspx Fa~jay~jay's Build Thread:http://www.fjccentral.com/showthread...referrerid=378
THE EPA LAWS FOR ONE. I'm slightly younger compared to other guys on the forums however I know you can squeeze an instant 5mpg by removing your catalytic converter and a few more by going back to leaded fuels.
*DISCLAIMER* Removal of a catalytic converter is illegal, and I'm 99% sure leaded gas is as well on public roads. Do not attempt to make your engine more gas efficient no matter how tempting it may be!
But hey I mean 25% efficiency engines are great because they make less pollution per volume. Funny thing about this is you make more pollution to burn all the extra fuel needed to go the same distance. Cars actually used to get better mileage. I think the real question here ought to be: What exactly is the EPA fighting for here again?
Younger, probably. Technically ignorant, definitely. This is not a personal attack on you, but rather the old wive's tale that pulling your catalytic converter off will yield magic powers. THat was true in 1974, when cat cons were first required, as us "old" guys know. But modern engines are designed with the emissions systems as integrated parts of the entire unit, and have a far less dramatic effect on performance and mileage. In fact, most vehicles will lose gas mileage by disabling the emissions control systems. Engines, including the emissions systems,are far moreefficient than they have ever been - just look at the HP / Gas mileage being pulled out of small 4 cyl motors, or the monster numbers from modern V-8s - these ain't your grandfather's engines...
__________________
" I'm not aware of too many things, but I know what I know, if you know what I mean..."
"Your enthusiasm for the subject borders on the interesting..."
Seems ridiculous to me that it only gets 40 to 45 mpg. About 30 years ago when the original Civics came out, didn't they get 50 mpg and they were slightly bigger? What's up with the lack of forward progress of more efficient gas engines??
X2 Your right. While I think this is a "neat" looking little car, I find it sickening how inefficient these small vehicles really are. You want me to explain ? OK. The Smartcar gets what 40mpg and is limited to two people and a bag of groceries. For how small they are and the small amount of "work" they are capable, they are terribly inefficient. A Mini when driven carefully can carry four people and/or some actual cargo and get nearly as good of mileage. The 1980s Chevy Cavaliers, Ford Escorts, and Dodge Omnis (which were the vehicles littering college campuses when I was in school) were all capable of getting upper 30s and could all carry four people and/or some cargo. They were all built light, had low power, and few luxuries.
Today, everyone expects a sh1tload of useless power, power everything, airbags out the a$$, and enough mass to take on a F350 in a demolition derby. Engines are actually better today but everything else more than overcome that additional efficiency.
I wish I still had my 88 hp 1984 Cavalier hatchback which would average 34-35 on the highway and would sometimes get 37-38 even when filled with college "stuff".
BTW, I am shopping for a Mini or Mini Clubman . . . but it will be with the 118hp stock engine. In a vehicle that size, anything more is just not necessary.
__________________
2008 Sandstorm, AR Teflon Chamber, Nitto Terra Grappler 285/70/17, OME/Toytec lift, BudBuilts, MPAC, Exp One w/Superwinch 9000s, Viair 450, Dual batteries, AllPro lower links
Visit the Woodsman http://www.fjcruiserforums.com/galle...m/IMG_0854.JPG
I am the Woodsman, the four-wheelin', tree-farmin', custom-furniture-makin' son-of-a-b:tch descendant of Olaf "The Woodcutter" Ingjaldsson.
I spoke with a guy that was driving a "smart car". You can replace one panel if it gets damaged or all of them if you decide to change the color. I think he said it was around $900 for all new panels but it may have been cheaper. I actually thought it was a cool looking car. Would I own one? I dought it.
and a few more by going back to leaded fuels.
Funny thing about this is you make more pollution to burn all the extra fuel needed to go the same distance. Cars actually used to get better mileage. I think the real question here ought to be: What exactly is the EPA fighting for here again?
Thank you AmityFJ!
Linear Mode
