Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Gunslinger wrote: I used to think I was "doing my part" by taking the bus or riding my bike. Ha hah what a fool I was. If you are driving a high MPG car or ride a bike because it saves you money, good for you. It's the right thing to do. If you are doing it because it's "good for the planet" you are kidding yourself. You just saved more gas for the guy in the Hummer, which I'm sure he appreciates.

This is, without doubt, the biggest problem. Even if you get a lot of people saving fuel, you reduce demand and lowers prices and just make it cheaper for the people who use the fuel to excess to do it cheaper. I think this is one of the reasons you need government to push for standards and in this case higher standards such as higher mpg. Otherwise people abuse things. Of course, our laws don't affect the vehicles elsewhere, but for other countries the cost of fuel is so prohibitive in the first place that they seek being efficient out of economic survival.

It is a pisser though when you see a giganto vehicle with one person on it commuting to work. At least there are only 2000 or so Hummers left to be sold new and then there will be no more, I believe.

I don't really know how my little YBR125 fairs with emission standards... I've been told by loads of people that it fairs pretty well, though.

I really ought to check...

jmillheiser wrote: The main reason why that 92 civic gets better milage than a 2010 fit is weight, that civic is probably almost 1000lbs lighter than the newer fit. Newer crash test standards requiring stiffer structure, airbags, and the general desire for quieter, more comfortable cars with more ammenities has driven vehicle weight up considerably.

This is not true. The 1992 Civic weighted about 2100 to 2200 pounds while the Fit weights about 2400 to 2500 pounds. The delta is about 300 pounds not 1000 pounds. Yes this is a factor in the mileage but the real culprit is horsepower. Horsepower(or lack of) is the reason why the econoboxes used to get 50+ mpg back in the 70s, 80s, and the early 90s.

The reason the 1992 Civic got great mileage was the lack of HP.

Here are the gas mileage with the 5 speed stick and three different engine options in the 1992 Civic.

1.5L 92 HP: 47 city/56 highway
1.5L 102 HP: 34 city/40 highway
1.6L 125 HP: 29 city/35 highway

You can clearly see how the gas milege goes down drastically with the increase in HP.

The average buyer today considers HP far more important than gas mileage. It's not unusual to see a grandma driving a 305 HP Acura TL where back in the early 1990s, it would have been unheard of for a non-car-enthusiast to drive such a powerful car.

Also many companies including Honda no longer builds fuel efficient manual trannys. Manuals are built and sold to people that want performance, not gas mileage. Thus the gearing is much more aggressive now on the manuals than it is on the automatics. If you check out the gas mileage on Hondas and Acuras, you will see that the automatic actually gets better mileage than the stick.

That is really a nice thing saving mother earth but I guess it wouldn't be applicable to a racing motorbikes because it is more fun to see when there is speed. Unless they will figure out a substitute in it.

Link removed by moderator.

HYPERR wrote:
The reason the 1992 Civic got great mileage was the lack of HP.

Here are the gas mileage with the 5 speed stick and three different engine options in the 1992 Civic.

1.5L 92 HP: 47 city/56 highway
1.5L 102 HP: 34 city/40 highway
1.6L 125 HP: 29 city/35 highway

You can clearly see how the gas milege goes down drastically with the increase in HP.

The average buyer today considers HP far more important than gas mileage. It's not unusual to see a grandma driving a 305 HP Acura TL where back in the early 1990s, it would have been unheard of for a non-car-enthusiast to drive such a powerful car.

Also many companies including Honda no longer builds fuel efficient manual trannys. Manuals are built and sold to people that want performance, not gas mileage. Thus the gearing is much more aggressive now on the manuals than it is on the automatics. If you check out the gas mileage on Hondas and Acuras, you will see that the automatic actually gets better mileage than the stick.

Mine must have been the 102 hp engine, although I'm not sure, as I thought my sticker was 36/40. I have noticed lately that the manual transmissions are not getting the mpg that I would expect.

I think the 92 hp one was the hatchback, but I'm not 100% sure. The 125 hp was the EX that I wished I could get and didn't have the dough for.

Also, some of the automatic transmissions are benefiting from better computer control of when to change gears instead of the purely mechanical transmissions of the past.

I always thought the CVT would be the end-all of transmissions. Always in the right gear for any speed. I guess not.

edited to add: Yeah, whats the deal with the hp. I used to dream of having a Mustang with 200 hp (was it that low) and now people have that no problem in the most sedate of cars. Of course a lot of those vehicles are big and heavy as all hell.

HYPERR wrote:
many companies including Honda no longer builds fuel efficient manual trannys.

this is getting a bit to serious and technical, so ...

I thought I'd point out that tranny's aren't made, they're born that way!

RhadamYgg wrote:

HYPERR wrote:
The reason the 1992 Civic got great mileage was the lack of HP.

Here are the gas mileage with the 5 speed stick and three different engine options in the 1992 Civic.

1.5L 92 HP: 47 city/56 highway
1.5L 102 HP: 34 city/40 highway
1.6L 125 HP: 29 city/35 highway

You can clearly see how the gas milege goes down drastically with the increase in HP.

The average buyer today considers HP far more important than gas mileage. It's not unusual to see a grandma driving a 305 HP Acura TL where back in the early 1990s, it would have been unheard of for a non-car-enthusiast to drive such a powerful car.

Also many companies including Honda no longer builds fuel efficient manual trannys. Manuals are built and sold to people that want performance, not gas mileage. Thus the gearing is much more aggressive now on the manuals than it is on the automatics. If you check out the gas mileage on Hondas and Acuras, you will see that the automatic actually gets better mileage than the stick.

Mine must have been the 102 hp engine, although I'm not sure, as I thought my sticker was 36/40. I have noticed lately that the manual transmissions are not getting the mpg that I would expect.

I think the 92 hp one was the hatchback, but I'm not 100% sure. The 125 hp was the EX that I wished I could get and didn't have the dough for.

Also, some of the automatic transmissions are benefiting from better computer control of when to change gears instead of the purely mechanical transmissions of the past.

I always thought the CVT would be the end-all of transmissions. Always in the right gear for any speed. I guess not.

edited to add: Yeah, whats the deal with the hp. I used to dream of having a Mustang with 200 hp (was it that low) and now people have that no problem in the most sedate of cars. Of course a lot of those vehicles are big and heavy as all hell.

We are quietly going through a muscle car era like they did in the 1960s through the early 1970s where HP just kept increasing every year. HP peaked out in the early 70s with big block V8s putting out 450HP+ gross. Then HP just died in the mid 1970s to the early 1980s due to new emission regulations producing arguably the worst cars Detroit ever built. Ferraris and Porsches were barely putting out 200 HP net and some American V8s were putting out as low as 100 HP net! I think the 5 Liter Mustang with the 2 barrel carb( ) putting out about 150 HP or so brought back the "muscle car" era in the early to mid 1980s. You must be talking about the mid to late 1980s when Mustangs GT and IROC Camaros were putting out barely over 200HPs and were considered powerhouses.

HYPERR wrote:

RhadamYgg wrote:

HYPERR wrote:
The reason the 1992 Civic got great mileage was the lack of HP.

Here are the gas mileage with the 5 speed stick and three different engine options in the 1992 Civic.

1.5L 92 HP: 47 city/56 highway
1.5L 102 HP: 34 city/40 highway
1.6L 125 HP: 29 city/35 highway

You can clearly see how the gas milege goes down drastically with the increase in HP.

The average buyer today considers HP far more important than gas mileage. It's not unusual to see a grandma driving a 305 HP Acura TL where back in the early 1990s, it would have been unheard of for a non-car-enthusiast to drive such a powerful car.

Also many companies including Honda no longer builds fuel efficient manual trannys. Manuals are built and sold to people that want performance, not gas mileage. Thus the gearing is much more aggressive now on the manuals than it is on the automatics. If you check out the gas mileage on Hondas and Acuras, you will see that the automatic actually gets better mileage than the stick.

Mine must have been the 102 hp engine, although I'm not sure, as I thought my sticker was 36/40. I have noticed lately that the manual transmissions are not getting the mpg that I would expect.

I think the 92 hp one was the hatchback, but I'm not 100% sure. The 125 hp was the EX that I wished I could get and didn't have the dough for.

Also, some of the automatic transmissions are benefiting from better computer control of when to change gears instead of the purely mechanical transmissions of the past.

I always thought the CVT would be the end-all of transmissions. Always in the right gear for any speed. I guess not.

edited to add: Yeah, whats the deal with the hp. I used to dream of having a Mustang with 200 hp (was it that low) and now people have that no problem in the most sedate of cars. Of course a lot of those vehicles are big and heavy as all hell.

We are quietly going through a muscle car era like they did in the 1960s through the early 1970s where HP just kept increasing every year. HP peaked out in the early 70s with big block V8s putting out 450HP+ gross. Then HP just died in the mid 1970s to the early 1980s due to new emission regulations producing arguably the worst cars Detroit ever built. Ferraris and Porsches were barely putting out 200 HP net and some American V8s were putting out as low as 100 HP net! I think the 5 Liter Mustang with the 2 barrel carb( ) putting out about 150 HP or so brought back the "muscle car" era in the early to mid 1980s. You must be talking about the mid to late 1980s when Mustangs GT and IROC Camaros were putting out barely over 200HPs and were considered powerhouses.

That is exactly the era I'm talking about. Mustangs that looked like escorts on steroids... Weirdly, I liked them, but that was probably just the impression.

Fox body stangs have got to be the ugliest stangs ever devised by Ford engineers... haha
Well except for the possible exception of the Mustang II.

It's honestly amazing that a high horsepower car can still get such good mileage. If my uncle drives his GT500 Shelby carefully he can easily get over 25 MPG with it. That's a 500 HP supercharged 4.6L V8 pushing a lot of weight down the road. Especially because it's a convertible!
Now consider that my Camry is a 4 banger and isn't pushing nearly the horsepower or weight (122 hp stock). And I get about 5 MPG better if driving in the same manner.

Wrider wrote:Fox body stangs have got to be the ugliest stangs ever devised by Ford engineers... haha
Well except for the possible exception of the Mustang II.

It's honestly amazing that a high horsepower car can still get such good mileage. If my uncle drives his GT500 Shelby carefully he can easily get over 25 MPG with it. That's a 500 HP supercharged 4.6L V8 pushing a lot of weight down the road. Especially because it's a convertible!
Now consider that my Camry is a 4 banger and isn't pushing nearly the horsepower or weight (122 hp stock). And I get about 5 MPG better if driving in the same manner.

yeah but hit the gas pedal on that GT and say goodbye to the gas lol.