kdufresne

Why is it that the FIT is outfitted with an engine design that relatively speaking isn't getting better gas mileage? 1976 was the first year of the Accord. It was powered by a 1.6 liter inline-4 with 68 horsepower. The original fuel economy was 46 mpg highway, but with a Weber carburetor kit, it could go as high as 80 mpg with 80 horsepower. I remember driving cars in the 1970s- Hondas, Toyotas, Bugs- that all had these tiny little engines. They were reliable, cheap to run, fun, and got you where you needed to go. The Honda Insight hybrid and its gas powered twin are Honda's most fuel efficient cars- but the consumer is expected to pay a premium price for this fuel efficiency. When one considers that Honda technology is 30 years downstream from the 1976 Accord it is suprising that consumers aren't being offered a more fuel efficient vehicle at a more economical price.

cocknconnor

weight, power and emissions regs.

743power

ignorance is bliss

99% of the general car buying population doesn't know/care about these things, so car manufacturer's can get away with it.

Conversely, it is hard to compare the two. The 1.5 in the fit make 40 hp more than the accord, albeit it with EFI and 16 valves. It also drives an a/c compressor and p/s pump and propels a car that is quite a bit heavier.

UCLA.lion

you serious?

i want a POS 1976 accord now.

jetydosa

I like how you plagerized this webpage:
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~wstef/hist.html

I had an 81 Accord (same gen as the 76) and it didnt get anything close to 46mpg. I got about 33-35mpg. Yeah, bring back carbs! Its ridiculous to compare of a 1976 car to a 2006 one, the new car is light years ahead of the old one in safety, equipment levels, and refinement.

Also, your $3995 Accord w/o A/C, ABS, zero airbags, AM/FM radio would be just about $14,000 in 2006 dollars. Right about the same as the Fit eh?

Welcome to Honda-Tech.

efficiencyJunkie

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jetydosa &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I like how you plagerized this webpage:
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~wstef/hist.html

I had an 81 Accord (same gen as the 76) and it didnt get anything close to 46mpg. I got about 33-35mpg. Yeah, bring back carbs! Its ridiculous to compare of a 1976 car to a 2006 one, the new car is light years ahead of the old one in safety, equipment levels, and refinement.

Also, your $3995 Accord w/o A/C, ABS, zero airbags, AM/FM radio would be just about $14,000 in 2006 dollars. Right about the same as the Fit eh?

Welcome to Honda-Tech.</TD></TR></TABLE>

haha, that was harsh.

kdufresne

I politely disagree with your statement that the FIT is "lightyears" ahead of the 1976 Accord. Honda turns out quality, reliable vehicles- no argument there, but when one considers a 30 time line ? Look at product development and innovation in other consumer market sectors over a 30 year period. Has the auto industry kept pace? I owned a 1988 Honda CRX HF and it got 50 mpg and ran for ten years. What happened to that technology? (This is not a rhetorical snarky question. If you know the answer I'd really like to hear it.)

PS : I own a Honda Element now, but I appreciate the FIT's rear seat configuration options. I previously owned a 1996 Honda Civic hatchback and ended up taking out the passenger side front seat.

Thirty-Nine

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 743power &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ignorance is bliss

99% of the general car buying population doesn't know/care about these things, so car manufacturer's can get away with it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Bingo; you hit the nail on the head.

However, you should add the word "American" after the word "general." There are much more fuel effican engines offered in the Fit/Jazz in other parts of the world. But, I assume that Honda realizes that Americans seem to value power over economy, so they don't offer the gas-sipping DSI engine in the US.

jetydosa

I tell you what happened to that technology. It was improved upon. Todays motors make more hp from the same engine size, while running cleaner, and requiring less maintenance. Relaiblity has been maintained while improving all other aspects of engine design.

The "problem" is, that consumers has demanded "nicer" cars with more ameneties, while the govt has required better crashworthiness (also a consumer demand)..thus weight is increased. This is why more or less avg fuel economy is the ~ same (sometimes better, sometimes worse) than cars from the 80s. However you are driving a car with a more powerful engine, many more amenties (the HF was definitely a "stripper"), MUCH improved crashworthiness (Ill take my odds in an accident in an multiple-airbag and ABS equipped Fit over the quasi-coffin-like CRX anyday) all the while having more space and still comparable fuel economy.

The ironic thing is , given all of this my daily driver in 2006 is exactly the same as it was 15 years ago. A CRX Si. LOL

fewToMany

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ikayto &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you serious?

i want a POS 1976 accord now. </TD></TR></TABLE>

LOL

sloweredcivic

i think we should be given the option of a much more fuel effecient engines but the american oil companies will never let that happen they would lose to much money

Thirty-Nine

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sloweredcivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i think we should be given the option of a much more fuel effecient engines but the american oil companies will never let that happen they would lose to much money</TD></TR></TABLE>

The problem is, if no one opts for the more fuel-efficant engines, the car companies lose lots of money. However, if the option isn't there, how do they know they won't sell? It's kind of a circular problem.

sloweredcivic

i think that if the option was there i would take it cause i could care less about my dd

Random

80mpg out of a 76 Accord?

Prove it.

99CivicSiBrian

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kdufresne &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I politely disagree with your statement that the FIT is "lightyears" ahead of the 1976 Accord. Honda turns out quality, reliable vehicles- no argument there, but when one considers a 30 time line ? Look at product development and innovation in other consumer market sectors over a 30 year period. Has the auto industry kept pace? I owned a 1988 Honda CRX HF and it got 50 mpg and ran for ten years. What happened to that technology? (This is not a rhetorical snarky question. If you know the answer I'd really like to hear it.)

PS : I own a Honda Element now, but I appreciate the FIT's rear seat configuration options. I previously owned a 1996 Honda Civic hatchback and ended up taking out the passenger side front seat. </TD></TR></TABLE>

What you say is true, the old Honda's are awesome, but imagine trying to introduce one now and get it to pass all the crash tests. People want airbags and pedestrian safety and all that ****. Seems like it'd be hard to get back to that.
B

efficiencyJunkie

I have a problem seeing a 76 accord modified to get 80 mpg.

If anyone has one that did it, that would change my mind.