EDWINV00SI

OWNED! lmao

fleabag

Well you were saying that time is lost on the "cheap" automatics because of slow shifting and I was saying it was going to be slow regardless. When I was writing that post, I forgot that on high end cars, the pumping losses of the transmission are a smaller percentage of total power so the loss in time is not likely 2 seconds but is less. I was thinking in terms of cars that get 0-60 in 8 seconds for M/T and 0-60 in 10 seconds for A/T. A BMW 5 series wagon with a V8 only does like a half second less on the A/T than the M/T and while that's a big deal in performance loss as you get down to the lower digits, in terms of absolute seconds, it's not much at all. It's not that the high end A/T shift SO MUCH BETTER, it's just that the performance loss is a smaller fraction of total power compared to cars with less power.

good example of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_5_S...rmance_figures

I'm reading the service manual and for 1984 they call it a Hondamatic but for 1987 (same generation no less) they just call it automatic transmission. But even if they called it a Hondamatic, it certainly bares no resemblance to the 70s 2 speed Hondamatic which had a "unique" way of shifting.. The "Hondamatic" in the 1981 civic according to edmunds was already a 3 speed and since the Hondamatic 2 speed was of a unique design, it couldn't be ported over to the 3-speed so they had to scrap it entirely and go the traditional route when they made the 3-speed "hondamatic" transmission. I think they just carried over that name to make people comfortable and dropped it when it either reminded people of a slow crappy transmission or because it wasn't accurate or necessary.

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/history.html


Hate to break it to you but 5 stars is 5 stars. A car that gets 5 stars in the 70s is a 5 star vehicle today. NHTSA hasn't changed its procedures since the test has been created, only added new tests such as the side impact test. Now just because those vehicles are 5 star rated, doesn't mean they'd fare well in a IIHS Offset crash test (1995+) nor in a side impact test conducted by the NHTSA or the IIHS. The only difference with today's standards is that a few minor things are required and thanks to the obama administration, a lot more EXPENSIVE things will be mandated come 2012 or 2014. However the funny thing is, they can't mandate a vehicle get a 5 star rating. not that they need to since a "good rating" by the IIHS or "5 star" by the NHSTA is a selling point. A car can be sold with all the necessary federal requirements for a vehicle TODAY and still get a 1 star rating which means a 45% chance or greater of serious injury in a 35mph crash into a wall.

Blue-Civic-Hybrid

iTrader: (1)

Are you serious? A 5 star car from the 70's will be a 5 star crash rated car here in the present day? So all this technology, ACE frame technology, metallurgy, crumple zones, and AIRBAGS, are nothing?

You sir, are living in a very bad dream or are so completely full of yourself that you actually believe the garbage spewing from your mouth. No car from the 70's, even if it got 10 stars in a crash test, will even be safer than a modern day car today.

94EG8

I can't remember the exact details about it, because I was about 12 when we got rid of that car, but I know it did require some manual shifting, I don't remember if it was a plain old semi automatic setup where you had to shift for every gear, or if you just had to manually downshift to pass.

fleabag

Nope, that's actually pretty common regardless of being a Honda or not. Older automatics would only down-shift if the Vacuum in the manifold went to zero, and because of that, they were slow to down-shift when conditions called for it. So... most people would pre-empt that by telling the transmission to down-shift right before they needed it. I know because I too remember this behavior and after reading the service manual of some older automatics, it makes sense. Newer automatics go by throttle position or how quickly the throttle is pressed and even newer ones shift according to various other sensors that can detect an incline, etc. The newer ones obviously negate the need to pre-empt the transmission in down-shifting.

fleabag

Yes.... Two things... 1. You're implying getting that 5 star rating wasn't possible without all the above... That's not true.. Example? The Volvo 240 from the mid 70s all the way till 1993 2. what you're not considering is that the 5 star rating is in a specific crash scenario, one we've been doing for many decades.

The point of the increase in crash safety is the following: 1. Improving crash safety in OTHER, TESTED/UNTESTED scenarios as a selling point or 2. Maintaining a good crash safety while saving money. The Volvo 240 and the '84 Toyota Corolla both are around 5 star rated without the usage of airbags.. Why? Because both have HUGE engine bays (i.e. "crumple zones") that allow good dissipation of crash energy and henceforth give a good 5 star crash rating.. The only thing required to get a "5 star rating" is to have a HIC (Head Injury Criterion) and chest compression below a given amount.. They DO measure femur load but it doesn't count against the score which is important because a 5 star rated car could save your skull but leave you crippled while a 2 star rated car has a high chance of killing your brain or breaking ribs but leaving your body for the most part intact. Airbags are in ALL cars because they were MANDATED, under the assumption of improving crash safety. To me, they're irrelevant because it's the score that matters, not the technology.

However the media loved them to death and so they were mandated regardless of need. Liberals have had a hard-on for airbags since their inception but Reagan held them off for about a decade before Bush in 1990 mandated them to be installed in all cars or they could opt for "passive restraints" (automatic seatbelts). But by the time Clinton became president, he just said **** it, make airbags mandatory in ALL CARS AND TRUCKS by the year 1998 and so it became law.. What you may not be aware of is that airbags from the 1970s all the way at the very earliest, 1998, were designed to protect an unbelted passenger. There is some arguing going on right now in deciding whether these "advanced airbags" (uses sensor in seat to determine weight) are actually helping or hurting compared to the older system that had a bit more "punch" to it... (pun intended)

To put these facts into terms you can understand, understand this. In 1979, in a crash scenario at 35mph into flat wall, if a car caused a load below 40gs chest compression and 300 HIC, then that car will definitely be a 5 star rated car.. This HAS NOT CHANGED.. It's not like they conduct the test at 45mph nowadays or anything like that, it's 30mph (NHTSA minimum) or 35mph. They've obviously determined that getting numbers lower than mentioned above would mean a very low risk of serious injury while numbers higher would mean a steady increase in likelihood of serious injury.

Another thing, some cars may be 5 star rated like those in the mid 90s but when tested on the IIHS crash scenario (Insurance Institute of Highway Safety) the car will fail spectacularly. Why? Because the IIHS tests at 40mph and it's an offset crash test with the entire vehicle crash energy being dissipated on ONLY 40% of the front end of the vehicle. They started doing this test around 1995 and what it did was expose cars that tested well on the govt. crash test but did fair ok or did very poorly on the IIHS test.. Probably because they weren't designed with an offset crash test in mind since the test hadn't existed yet.

Do you not understand that it's pretty uncommon for people to do something unless there is an incentive? You can be assured today that if it's tested for, manufacturers are going to scramble over getting the highest score. No test, no care.. Can't blame them really..


It's very common to have your reaction but the fact of the matter is, the tests don't change, the only thing that changes is what tests they DO. If you want to complain about anything, complain about why they do crash testing at 35mph when nearly every damned car made in the 2000s gets a 5 star rating, making the rating system worthless... I can only imagine crash testing at 60mph.. now that would be something! lol..

bad-monkey

have you driven it?

i bet motor trend has.

mustclime

Great thread...On a side note, Grassroots Motorsports Mag just compaired the base Mini, The Mazda2 and the CRZ in an autocross comparo and they were rated in that order. They discribed the CRZ as having very soft springs and poorly chosen damper rates... So If you plan on running in HS ( H stock class), the crz is not the car to have....Guess its not that sporty afterall.

bad-monkey

i haven't driven it yet.

but looking at the design as a whole, the rear suspension design, and the general trend of half *** cars that honda is putting out, i wouldn't be surprised if it was.

SHG_EasyE

Modify an old CRX or civic to pass current crash tests and see what kind of mileage you get. Let alone the fact that those old car's construction and comfort would be unnacceptable in todays market by current standards. Things change, cars get heavier and more complicated. Just a part of life.

Also, this test can only be taken with a grain of salt. Without having a standard tire installed on all the cars there is no way to truly compare their results.

TsunamiZC

You are not making any new points, you are simply repeating what you said in your first post.

The tire issue is moot, Honda chose those tires. If you take the tires out of the equation and give the test vehicles something equal, what exactly have you proven then ?

The flaw is the car, not the tires. I'm sure if the CRZ weighed less and was able to attain fuel efficiency that wasnt so subpar (for a hybrid) they could have afforded to use a sportier tire and we probably wouldnt be having this diiscussion right now.

Critics are harping on the use of the rear torsion beam, but the same type torsion beam is used in the Honda Fit, and tests have been positive in that regards. The Fit isnt quick, but its nimble, lightweight, easy to toss around, generally fun to drive.
The rear torsion beam is not world beating technology, but lets be honest, is the CRZ ever going to have world beating power ? The suspension will manage just fine.

Its flaws are its weight, the lack of power to make up for such weight.

I really like the concept of the CRZ, I still want one. If they can make some improvements i'd look forward to purchasing a next generation one, but Honda didnt give their full effort to the CRZ and it shows.

fleabag

It would probably do the same or better. You're not considering that those 50mpg cars had a 0-60 of around 12 seconds+. There really aren't that many "regulations" that would make the car weigh significantly more, just more expensive which are two different things. Also if they used an aluminum chassis, then all bets would be off because then it would weigh even less.

k20EP3

Have you seen any pictures of their cars up in the air?? They completely trashed everything stock and redid everything from scratch. They basically had to fix every little thing Honda did wrong.

wolfy47

for all the people complaining about the tires on the CRZ being the cause of the bad handling...have they taken in to consideration that the prius and the insight arnt sports cars yet they didnt make the list...i really dont think that those cars would come with better performance tires than a "sports" car

aseraj2

Top Gear said it all!

unibody

This list is pure B.S. I'm sure we could all come up with a quick list of 10 vehicles that handle worse than the CR-Z.

There is a reason rags like Moron Trend are losing money, and bogus articles like this to fan the flames are not making things better for them.

mustclime

This thread is like watching monkeys in the zoo through poop at each other.....as for me, I am waiting on the mini cooper-s coupe comming out this summer....2400lbs, no backseat, 1.6 leter turbo making 175 hp and a suspension that was designed to handle....







I have to admit that it is not as pretty as crz but if given the option of using a big sharp Bowie knife and a pretty little dagger in a knife fight, I will take the bowie every time.

unibody

Yes, that MINI is HOT.
But like most MINIs, it will get very pricey fast, and be as unreliable as Jeep, Land Rover, and VW.

It's too bad Honda isn't selling a "SPORT" version of the CR-Z.

efHondefender

I'm glad it's a piece of junk that nobody desires. That way in 5 years I'll be able to pull one out of the auction for next to nothing, drop a k-series in it, and get rid of all the heavy hybrid garbage.

aemciv

are those top two shots of the mini from a video game? forza motorsports?

mustclime

yup

As for minis braking down all the time....that was the case with the first couple years....Remember, bmw opened a brand new factory in the uk( the austen mini had not been made for a couple years) to make the mini and a new factory in south america to make the drivetrain....took them a couple years to get people trained to make cars....Anyone knows not to buy the first year a car is released or you will have issues....