2012 Civic - 7500 mile scheduled maintenance?

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

jim beam wrote in news:jig76p$ge$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

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.

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.

Yah. New Civics are much larger and faster, but with that weight they do not deliver the same mileage.

J.

Jim Yanik wrote in news:XnsA00690399B8ADjyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I hope that you don't migrate from usenet completely Tegger. Your posts are the primary reason that I come to read this group.

Beemers are motorcycles.

The cars are bimmers.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in news:elmop- snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Amazing how many folks get that mixed up.

"~misfit~" wrote in news:jiju5t$9mu$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

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.