NoOp Comment: Doesn't sound good folks. Read on.
- posted
19 years ago
NoOp Comment: Doesn't sound good folks. Read on.
Too bad they couldn't just drop the existing GT engine in: same displacement (5.4 liters) and the engineering is already done. That particular engine is probably too expensive to build, I guess. :(
The MPG rating is probably about right. My '03 averages 14 MPG on the mandatory 91 octane gas in rural driving, and I drive it conservatively. Today, a quarter-tank cost me $14.25!
Since I plan to keep my L for a long time (or at least until it's paid off -- another 4-1/2 years), Ford's decision doesn't really affect me personally. As a Ford enthusiast, though, I'm sorry to see that they're apparently dropping the ball. I was also disappointed in their decision to drop the SVT Focus, which really only needed an infusion of torque to make it the perfect pocket rocket.
-- Jim
Looks like my fears about SVT are coming true.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
eclipsed
expense
current
incredible
I have read about the performance car of the future and it is here
Chassis details which are important to me are outlined here
I have never owned a Honda (mostly owned fords) but given current rising fuel prices, american speed limits, traffic volume and road surface conditions this IMO is the best current car I have seen. I will of course keep my 89 5.0 LX vert for torquey (new word) fun but will think seriously about getting this Accord for a daily driver.
Howard
I'd rather pay 10 bucks a gallon than drive that crap. Thats just me though, I know alot of people could drive that and be very happy. Erik D. '94 white lightning '01 white GT
HONDA! I could give a shit, man! Not here to talk about Hondas. I roast a niked Civic per day, on average. It's NOT "the performance car of the future". You're talking about only 255 hp, with the snot rung out of it, and a glorified (but more functional) version of the 4/6/8 Cadillac.
And front wheel drive does not a race car make. Ever. Take your Rally geeks and go. And oh, and all that expensive hardware makes me want to vomit.
Benchmark? Benchmark. That's a very, very strong term. You're slinging some big guns for a family car, pal.
Anyone look at cost / mile? Cost / hp? ANY sort of cost / benefit? Remember, those new hybrid loco mobiles will create more pollution in their manufacture than my old Mustang ever will, with no emissions controls, over even 100,000 miles. Don't believe me? Dip deeper.
Again, is the group titled "honda" in any way?
Do what you want but propagate this story to the rice boy groups. Sorry, don't mean to be harsh (this disclaimer is to avoid offending the exaggerated sensibilities of the RAMFM group), but you're way OT, in the realm of "don't give a shit 'bout your Accord, ricer"
I apologize. I didn't realize this would be such a sensitive subject. I only brought it up because the thread was about SVT's possibly going away and what will be the alternatives. I guess we just lay away lots of spares and hope our cars are not legislated out of existence (if you live in California you know what I mean).
IMO, between fuel prices and CAFE, cars like this (whoever makes them) represent the future of high performance sedans.As a purchaser you will never recover your costs if you rush out to buy one to have the latest thing. But if you need to replace your car then the numbers may make sense.
I also thought the term "ricer" applied to modified/dressed up sports sedans not stock family sedans.
And yes I am shocked, just shocked by the vehemence of your replies. Remember this is USENET guys. :)
Howard
89 LX 5.0 vertMotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.