2012 Civic - 7500 mile scheduled maintenance?

Page 3 of 3  


Ah, how youth so fondly remembers the high mainenance ones...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Flatlander" wrote in message wrote:

Not to mention there was always a puddle under the radiator...
I was stationed (USAF) at Laredo AFB at the time -- in Summer you could not make it past the 3rd traffic light without overheating. If you put in a higher pressure radiator cap (9lbs) you risked leaking freeze plugs. Great on the road though. The Jag weighed around 2500 lbs -- less than a Civic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/26/2012 12:09 PM, tww1491 wrote:

modern civic - the older ones can be lighter than that.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe the 2012 Civics weigh 2600-2800 lbs.(still kinda fat to me...)
the 1979 weighed 2166 lbs, the 1981 weighed 2160 lbs. according to Wiki.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yah. New Civics are much larger and faster, but with that weight they do not deliver the same mileage.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.

It's impossible to legally build them that light anymore for the US market. Equipment and structural laws require the addition of too much material.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/27/2012 03:31 PM, Tegger wrote:

no, there's no stipulation on weight whatsoever. the only regulations are wrt crash "safety". manufacturers get leaned on to make their cars heavy, but they could just as easily make the same crash grade with lighter cars if they used composites [saturn, 84/87 crx], aluminum [lotus, honda nsx] etc.
and as i keep on repeating, if manufacturers fitted cars with full tubular safety cages, 6-point belts and occupants wore helmets, cars could be much lighter and safer at the same time. think 1600lb indy car wiping out at close to 200mph and the driver walking away.

they don't actually require material, they require crash performance. kinda. see above.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd think the S2000 could beat most of those cars around virtually any road track, though the Vette might beat it (and your kidneys) out by sheer power. The TR4's had great panache for the time, but road performance compared to modern engineering, hah.
Saw someone driving a perfect MG-A down the boulevard the other day, I stopped and watched and sighed for days gone by. It sounded good and moved well. Maybe the engine has been replaced.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"JRStern" wrote in message wrote:

I'd think the S2000 could beat most of those cars around virtually any road track, though the Vette might beat it (and your kidneys) out by sheer power. The TR4's had great panache for the time, but road performance compared to modern engineering, hah.
Saw someone driving a perfect MG-A down the boulevard the other day, I stopped and watched and sighed for days gone by. It sounded good and moved well. Maybe the engine has been replaced.
J. My brother had a MGA as well as a TR3 -- drove both; the TR was the better car with it's 100 hp Standard Vanguard engine. The car that surprised me was a 1953 XK120 belonging to a friend circa 1965. Drove like a truck with its big steering wheel and the 160 hp DOHC 6 seemed anemic -- but I was used to the XKE. The Moss "crash box" was the same as you found in the E though. The Vettes -- a 1969 base 350 4 speed with nothing on it drove and handled quite well -- a decent autocross machine; the 71 454 ploughed badly -- was only good for grand touring at best. Brute torque though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My high school friend got an MG Midget for graduation back in the day, omg. Partially on my advice, versus a Datsun 1600 - which in retrospect would have been far superior! I eventually ended up with a Fiat 1600 coupe, which for the time was a pretty nice deal, and oh those black vinyl seats.
Love those old Jags with the front fenders like two giant paws ... but of course, mechanically, blech. The 1960s 3.2 (was it?) sedans were perhaps the prettiest cars they ever made, before something bloated them up to supertanker size. They drove - OK, I guess.
But the engineering of everything is just miles better today, it's like comparing the Wright Brothers plane to an F-16.
Still, I'm finding my 2010 Accord rather bloated and boring, not half the fun my 1987 Accord was, even if today's engineering is much better even than that period, for the most part. May have to go look at the new beemer 3's. Actually, my friend just traded down from Accord to Civic and seems to like it better, and the current Civics are already bigger than the 1987 Accord.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Beemers are motorcycles.
The cars are bimmers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Amazing how many folks get that mixed up.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"JRStern" wrote in message wrote:

My high school friend got an MG Midget for graduation back in the day, omg. Partially on my advice, versus a Datsun 1600 - which in retrospect would have been far superior! I eventually ended up with a Fiat 1600 coupe, which for the time was a pretty nice deal, and oh those black vinyl seats.
Love those old Jags with the front fenders like two giant paws ... but of course, mechanically, blech. The 1960s 3.2 (was it?) sedans were perhaps the prettiest cars they ever made, before something bloated them up to supertanker size. They drove - OK, I guess.
But the engineering of everything is just miles better today, it's like comparing the Wright Brothers plane to an F-16.
Still, I'm finding my 2010 Accord rather bloated and boring, not half the fun my 1987 Accord was, even if today's engineering is much better even than that period, for the most part. May have to go look at the new beemer 3's. Actually, my friend just traded down from Accord to Civic and seems to like it better, and the current Civics are already bigger than the 1987 Accord.
I agree with you on the Accord. I have kept my 06 I4 coupe for that reason; the new coupe looks ungainly to say the least. In fact not much in the current Honda line-up does much for me except perhaps the Fit. Hyundai and Kia seem to be on the right track. As far as Fiats go, I saw a new 500 the other day - not surprising since Fiat is running Chrysler.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:21:49 -0600, Peabody

What exactly did the letter say?
My dealer sends out letters that basically say, "Hey based on a guestimate we think you may need service about now". For a new car with no record they probably send it out at some average number like 7500. Once you go in they prorate that by your actual observed mileage, or maybe a six month calendar period - if that's not already factored by the mileage minder.
Just what everyone says - when the minder says go, best to go. You can check the manual for what is scheduled, and that's a good thing to do because otherwise dealer may try to load up a bunch of crap. My dealer does. I even give them a little slack, another $50 or so on a minor checkup once a year keeps them happy and I guess it's a cost of doing business, but much more than that and I tell them to please stick to the schedule and I'll just risk it. Small risk there while the car is under warranty.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.