"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > I was at my new Honda dealer's parts department today to check on some
> > prices and asked about the Fit and Jazz. The guy said with confidence
that
> > they were supposed to be here (at his dealer's or at least on sale in
the
> > U.S.) by last month but that got moved to January or a bit later in
2006.
>
> dealer lackeys generally dont know shit.

Yes, but the guy was so precise that I thought this worth mentioning. With
the other anecdotes people are sharing, and if forced to bet, I'd bet the
Jazz/Fit will be here by at least 2007.

> they like to THINK they do, and
> want people to believe em. new model intros are usually in september,
> but if theyre putting it off, then that kinda sucks.

No idea.

The salesmen at this same dealership a few months ago said they'd never even
heard of the Jazz. So I'm taking the parts guy's comment as "progress" of
some kind.

Then again it seems to me parts and service people tend to be way more
knowledgeable about what's coming next.

I too don't think I'd be happy with a 1.2 or maybe even 1.3 Liter car
engine, unless everyone in the U.S. drove cars under 2 L. One needs a
certain amount of power to stay maneuverable, and so feel safe, in tricky
situations.

1.4 Liter might work.

 

In article <debAe.3301$BK1.2074@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> One needs a
> certain amount of power to stay maneuverable, and so feel safe, in tricky
> situations.

no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being
in a usable band.

Some big-engined SUVs have a lower power/weight ratio than
smaller-engined, smaller cars. They're harder to drive out of the way
in a tricky situation than a smaller car with a smaller engine but a
better power/weight ratio (and a smaller mass to move through the
inertia and a lower center of gravity).

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > One needs a
> > certain amount of power to stay maneuverable, and so feel safe, in
tricky
> > situations.
>
> no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being
> in a usable band.

One needs a certain amount of power, period.

Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will
depend on vehicle specifics.

 

SoCalMike wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Why are they filming a commercial in Miami for a car they won't sell
>>> in the
>>> U.S. soon, anyway? One can only speculate.
>>>
>>> I just looked at all the photos at the site. Get a load of that engine
>>> compartment!
>>
>>
>>
>> They ARE going to make it available, but only the 1.5 with all
>> the luxury options. Read: 13-14K. Not a super frugal car at that
>> price, but then again, it does have ABS standard and other features
>> that most small cars like it(and they need things like ABS the most)
>> just don't have.
>
>
> hm. sunroof?
>
>>
>> That's why the Mini is selling so well - you can customize it
>> and get it in full luxury trim if you want - your econobox
>> doesn't have to have second class or third class components
>> unless you want a basic stripped-down model.
>
>
> yup. i wish they offered those options on the 96-00 hatches. but nooooo.
>
>>
>> This little car is going to sell like crazy. I tried the Mini
>> and it was nice, but it was a bit too small and overpriced.
>> 80% of the Mini with a more useable cargo area? Sign me up.
>> They're going to sell a million of them to car rental agencies
>> and for deliveries and so on alone. I still see little Geo
>> Metros and Echos and the like running around doing this - a
>> Honda version that's new? No-brainer.
>
>
> absolutely. i dont think itll convert any peeps that already bought a
> small scion, mini, or new beetle. but if theyd get the word out, it
> might get people to at least wait, which is what im doing. im in no
> hurry to buy a new car, but id like to know all my options.
>
>>
>> And, no, none of the ads in Japan are done overseas - the
>> only reason they would possibly film in Florida is for
>> a N. American release. They of course aren't allowed to
>> say anything unless they like to be unemployed, so they
>> of course deny it until the day it comes out. Apple Computer
>> is famous for the same sort of thing - no info until it
>> hits the streets.
>>
>> My only gripe is that the 1.2 isn't available as a
>> base model. $10-11K with stickshift. Beep Beep :)
>
>
> yeah, well. my 1.6 is adequate, but its not an enthusiast motor. i dunno
> if id wanna be hitting the 15 north to vegas thru the mtns from LA in a
> 1.2l

hit the rpm's mike. when i lived in europe, i had several small motored
cars, 1100, 850, even a 2 cylinder 600cc, and it taught me a whole
different way of driving. hondas are built for rpm's and pull /real/
well if you get the revs up near the red. i would have no hesitation
with 1.2l in a car that size & weight.

on the subject of different driving style, when i was selling my crx,
test drivers would floor the gas at 2500 rpm & complain that it was not
pulling hard enough. but if you did that at 4000 rpm, it would take off
- almost literally - but it seemed impossible to pursuade them to go
there! i guess if you're used to a big motor with low end grunt, it's
hard to transition, but rpm's are your friend. hondas have high red
lines and rev limiters. you can't hurt them.

 

In article <BjcAe.1610$dU3.907@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> > no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being
> > in a usable band.
>
> One needs a certain amount of power, period.
>
> Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will
> depend on vehicle specifics.

right, like weight.

Which goes back to what I said: one needs a certain amount of power for
the weight one is pulling around. One needs a certain power/weight
ratio.

Put a 100hp motorcycle against a 100hp Civic and see what happens.

It's all about power to weight ratio.

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
E wrote
> > > no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power
being
> > > in a usable band.
> >
> > One needs a certain amount of power, period.

> It's all about power to weight ratio.

It's all about understanding English.

 

In article <RdjAe.6175$8f7.3621@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > One needs a certain amount of power, period.
>
> > It's all about power to weight ratio.
>
> It's all about understanding English.

Are you implying that I don't understand English?

The problem is that you don't understand simple physics.

You need a certain amount of power FOR THE WEIGHT.

An absolute rating of power is meaningless. It's the power to weight
ratio that's meaningful.

Plainly, you're an idiot.

 

Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> The 1.5 Liter VTEC Jazz is rated (and getting, according to the reviewer) 47
> mpg. Mighty sweet.

My 04 civic get 43 mpg on the hwy during the Summer.

The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine.

The 7 speed CVT in the Jazz is kind of neat.

 

Check out this Top Fuel Turbo Kit for the FIT.

If they bring the FIT here to the US, we'll have an incredible amount of aftermarket goodies available from Japan right away.

https://www.fitfreak.net/gallery/thu...s.php?album=14

 

S.S. wrote:
> Bebop wrote:
>
>
>>The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine.
>
>
> I read that the new 1.8L engine is an i-VTEC unit. Does anybody know if
> this means that it will be chain-driven like the Accord's i-VTEC?

hope so. sucks having to replace a timing belt as regular maintenance.

 

Bebop wrote:

> The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine.

I read that the new 1.8L engine is an i-VTEC unit. Does anybody know if
this means that it will be chain-driven like the Accord's i-VTEC?

 

S.S. <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> Bebop wrote:
>
> > The new 06 Civic should get over 40 mpg (hwy) with the new 1.8 engine.
>
> I read that the new 1.8L engine is an i-VTEC unit. Does anybody know if
> this means that it will be chain-driven like the Accord's i-VTEC?

Look at it for yourself.

http://world.honda.com/news/2005/4050705_a_1.html

 

Elle wrote:

> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
>
>> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>One needs a
>>>certain amount of power to stay maneuverable, and so feel safe, in
>
> tricky
>
>>>situations.
>>
>>no, one needs a certain power/weight ratio, along with that power being
>>in a usable band.
>
>
> One needs a certain amount of power, period.
>
> Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will
> depend on vehicle specifics.

We're talking about maybe 8-10HP difference but 7-8mpg.

 

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
snip drivel
> > Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will
> > depend on vehicle specifics.
>
> We're talking about maybe 8-10HP difference but 7-8mpg.

We're talking about 80-83 hp for the 1.4L Fit and 1.3L Jazz (that's what a
few sites said, anyway) vs. 92 hp for my 1.5L Civic. This is over 10%
difference.

My 1.5L Civic battles to get up to 80 mph, on the rare occasions when
surrounding traffic warrants going this high. From experience driving it, I
estimate its optimal mpg occurs closer to 50 mph.

Without further investigation (e.g. the Fit could be significantly lighter
than the Civic, so its acceleration may turn out to be better), I remain
concerned that I would notice the lack of power. Of course, one could adjust
to it, but as long as much bigger engines are on the road (for similar size
vehicles), I am not sure I would be comfortable with even less acceleration
capability.

 

In article <8PVAe.7189$8f7.4475@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> We're talking about 80-83 hp for the 1.4L Fit and 1.3L Jazz (that's what a
> few sites said, anyway) vs. 92 hp for my 1.5L Civic. This is over 10%
> difference.

But how much does the Fit/Jazz weigh, and how much does your Civic weigh?

You keep focusing on the raw power without any context. 80hp on a
motorcycle is WAY better than 92hp on your Civic.

Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue?

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue?


I don't. Why do you keep failing to either read my posts or understand
English?

Jerk.

 

In article <t2WAe.4184$BK1.3306@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> > Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue?
>
>
> I don't. Why do you keep failing to either read my posts or understand
> English?

You do. You focus on horsepower. Weight is inconsequential to you.

 

Elle wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>
> snip drivel
>
>>>Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will
>>>depend on vehicle specifics.
>>
>>We're talking about maybe 8-10HP difference but 7-8mpg.
>
>
> We're talking about 80-83 hp for the 1.4L Fit and 1.3L Jazz (that's what a
> few sites said, anyway) vs. 92 hp for my 1.5L Civic. This is over 10%
> difference.

Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz What a Civic
does is immaterial. The 1.2l Jazz gets 7-8mph better highway
mileage than the 1.4 version for hardly any difference in power.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <t2WAe.4184$BK1.3306@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Why do you keep ignoring the mass issue?
>>
>>
>>I don't. Why do you keep failing to either read my posts or understand
>>English?
>
>
> You do. You focus on horsepower. Weight is inconsequential to you.


He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
All that matters is torque. Period. All the rest is gearing
and how hard you rev it.

And Honda engines love to rev. Definately not a Buick :)

 

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
snip
> He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
> All that matters is torque. Period.

Bullshit. Period.