But older cars are better than todays cars, NOT

Those early Civics were almost that light, but they were NOT CVCC yet. The CVCC version that arrived a few years later was a bit longer and significantly heavier, although the body was otherwise mostly the same.

Much of that Honey Bee ad stretched the truth, except the section about its serviceability.

Circa 1974 engines were a sad low point in efficiency and power, especially for GM. Comparable late-60s versions would blow them away in both horsepower and mpg---emissions aside.

Lots of exaggeration and fuzzy memories in this thread!

 

ROCKROHAR
Gotta say I do love that little berkley
Watched the video
wow-it doesn't really sound like a 2 stroke-is that the 2 stroke motor??
Well it has been a long time since I heard anything but a 2 stroke weed whip
and it isn't very smokey??
Yeah love that little car-
the weight-who knows-but it was cool

Oh is that your Cougar- 351 i guess??
When I was in high school about 1966-I would hitch hike home(50 miles)
very frequently I would hitch a ride with a guy who had a Torino(think it was a mercury equivalent of one of the cheaper Fords-but not cheap))
pretty sure it was a 390-not a 351-but he would scare the heck out of me-slapping that AT console lever-hitting it-gunning up to 90-100 mph
surprisingly good brakes-not sure why??
Forget which Torino is was-but it was the "sporty model"
The Mercury's were always pricier than the fords-and much pricier than the Plymouths and dodges(which were always the best bang for the buck)
The Chevys-Chevelle etc-with SBC or BB were always a lot more expensive than any 383 Mopar(even a 327 or 350-4 barrel) cost more than a 440 MOPAR)

Anyway that Cougar brought to mind that Torino-fast car-maybe it was a 351-? It was quick-comfortable front seat too

 

Yep memory is tricky-not like video-
Oh yeah 1974-1979 was the absolute low point performance
The Turbo Porche-pricy car-maybe $25000 back them when most cars were under $5000-was about the only "quick car"
The HUGE V-8s-like the Trans Am 455?? were rated at just 200 or so HP-
my poor 1980 318 D100 long bed arrived with a permanent off idle stumble(150 hp)
The Chevy 350's were rated maybe 175 hp-on a good day
It took EI EFI and air sensors O2 sensors and computer controls to finally bring back performance-and mpThe perfect amount of fuel for every load-perfect ignition advance-near perfect emissions
and the compression returned in late 1960's 10/1 common 1975 maybe 8.5/1 now the SBC 5.3 must be 9.5/1 maybe more in a Corvette
The HP 350 vs current 327 DOUBLED to much more than the most powerful muscle car era 350(they were rated differently-the ratings changed-downward-a lot- about 1972 or so (330 hp became 250 hp overnight)
Well that is how I remember it

 

GM , for maybe a century ,until recently.

 

I post information to benefit others. Life is tough enough for everyone, without having others twist truth. Once a person sees how to try and subject others and practices this to appear right, anyone who follows this example can not remain objective.
A law based on principle truth stands the test of time! A product developed from the 1800's or recently understood today, only a fool would belittle historic an endearing design since the car driven today is an inspiration of that concept. To do so, undermines the very reason this forum exists and it's members, shows itself to be based on bigotry and biased opinion. Personally I don't enter into any agreements with such people or throw my pearls before swine (value) because they trample it into the mud and turn around to rip you open to slander, as seen here. Leaders did the same to Jesus, Galileo and many other innocent men. Anyone who assumes this position that does this has no other way to silence the truth. By deleting the posted case laws that was already written for anyone to win in court, reveals he could cares less about anyone else rights will betray not only himself for his own grandiose opinions, can't be trusted. After all, he's has announced that he is the Supreme Judge here who interprets according to his own whim.
In court, the only way to keep a crooked judge straight is hire your own court reporter and object to anything he rules against you, or you can not appeal his ruling.
What is the goal of legal writing? Impress the judge? Confuse the opponent? Or, win the case? In law, the goal is to win, which case law follows that objective, as with the case laws I posted here!
Every word, spoken in the courtroom or written on paper filed with the clerk and served on the other side, must aim toward a specific goal.
Any words not aimed at the goal must go! Legal writing is NOT "story-telling"!
Every word has a purpose.
Most of what I've seen from pro se (people who represent themselves) and many attorneys read more like a long-winded story is how people normally speak.
Any word that does nothing to achieve the goal (which is winning, by the way) must go. Say what needs saying and stop! Aim every word at your goal.
You don't need a "novelist's eye" or a "bartender's ear", like Jimmy Buffett.
You're assembling the parts of a powerful winning engine.
If someone here want this research or to learn more about this, write to johnnyrockrohar@yahoo.com since truth is hidden here from you.

 

Conspiracy Theory BS will and is removed immediately as this was.

 

many cars built as far back as 1900 got 50- 80 mpg.
here's is just a few recent 100 mpg gas vehicles.

 

It's worth mentioning that IIHS is a standalone entity with no affiliation with Uncle Sam. In fact, I refer to IIHS as the "Insurance Prostitute for Highway Safety" because they are fully funded by insurance companies and therefore are bound to do whatever the insurance companies want. That being said, the numbers are authentic and reproducable (as has been demonstrated in the past) and are published to educate the public.

Fuel economy isn't tied so strictly to size anymore. The 2018 Chevy Spark and 2018 Toyota Camry have very similar EPA numbers but one is about 50% heavier than the other. But both have their place in the market. The Spark is 2/3 the weight of the Camry, and it's 2/3 the price. The cost-per-pound is about the same, so it's up to the buyer to decide what best fits their needs. Cars smaller than the Spark, Mirage and Versa have existed over the years and all have failed. The law of diminishing returns kicks in and a car that carries half as many passengers is the same price and has the same EPA rating. Unless you need to park it in a shipping container, why bother with the tinier car?

 

77 mpg 43 mph just set CC and point-AC blasting-
In 1980 no sober human-involved in auto manufacturing-would have made that guess
In fact the Big3 when asked-usually claimed even TINY improvements to safety mpg would double the price of cars
Now we have a comfortable 4 passenger-fat USA sized humans-car that would get 77 mpg on a leisurely 43 mph trip-
Perhaps the altitude helped a little (if it was level-climbing sure wouldn't)

Amazing-77 mpg 43 mph- with 4 USA SIZED occupants.
Never saw that coming in 1971-
had the 1969 Corolla SW-1700 lbs-no ac no radio- with 4 5 gallon Jerry cans filled with gas in the back
Baton Rouge to Denver-maybe 20- mpg at WOT 82 mph indicated-death trap without the gasoline
cross TX -then panhandle TX middle of nowhere cutting up to Raton NM from Amarillo up to Colo
Yep that Prius could have held an honest 100 mph- and still got 25 mpg-safer than the Corolla at any speed too
Did that trip once in 20 actual hours-1300 miles I think-WOT no sleep-ate on the fly-
Heck I could have done it in 14 hrs with the Prius


Rockrohar-what is the actual fuel-energy source- for the WATER powered car??

 

These cars posted are examples, not meant to be compared to any one car, but in capabilities. No, I don't like the Elio, but just as the wikispeed car is available with all the same features as a Prius, it cost much less, besides being better in crash tests. Check it out on youtube or their wikispeed website. No I don't like their body styles, but I can put my own on!
Next, trying to use (photo of the '59 Chevy), or even the Pinto that exploded upon rear impact, was known to be bad designs. MAXX is correct about what these insurance companies really are! Their reports, charts with stats should never be used as a basis to support insurance claims, just as they once had charts showing people who wore blue jeans have more accidence or the one they started in the '90's that your credit score indicates what kind of driver a person is, then demanding your SS#! Remember, even your town and police departments are corporations! As I've said, I've been in a lot of accidents that I dealt directly with many different insurance companies. In many instances, even though the police report ticketed the other person, they tried to blame me. After agreeing to pay me, wanted to give me a couple grand. I had to threaten to hire an attorney, (which would run the bill way up) or pay me $40K now! Profit and loss is all they are concerned about, not people's safety! A week later they paid. As Reagan stated, when people hear government or corporations say they want to help, people get very suspicious and say, No thanks!"
If not, you should already know the 5 corporate conglomerates own all the different brand insurance companies, besides all of the media including Hollywood, all major food companies, medical and drug companies, etc. that fund political campaigns selling it to the voters while working in concert! Trump got elected on this point alone! Do you believe they are independent? NOT!
If you had thoroughly read the case law research I posted, it becomes obvious the commercial corporate laws purposely tries to impose laws to change public opinions and then try to make then law, which are based on maritime open seas laws used in the judicial courts today. If you are not familiar, these laws once controlled pirates docking foreign shores with stolen goods instead of the common laws of the land. Common laws still rules, as the US constitutional Republic laws was written are still enforceable if you haven't waived those rights as you have here, by doing, as your sold to believing their lies. If you have, these laws protect only the corporation and you will be found guilty if the corporation can profit off you.
I used to sell fire alarms for a big corporation in the 80's and show edited dramatized gory fire disaster photos of babies and whole families burnt to death pasted in from war zones, to motivate families that cared about their family to buy. Insurance companies offered discounts to motivate sales on both ends. Even though it was a slim chance this could have happened, I quit selling the lies. This sounds like Wayne's similar question, maybe he really believes this lie, especially if he bought the car. The general public buys it, just as the trillion dollar bank bail out for corporate greed was sold to save people's savings! Greed sells Fear!
The computerized precise fuel injection only maximizes what the cylinder capacity can hold and burn at or close to 14-15 parts of air to 1 part of gas nothing more or it's a waste of fuel. A carburetor also does the same, if properly tuned, since the engine is naturally aspirated it only draws what the stroke allows. This doesn't negate the power to weight ratio for better fuel efficiency only the expense. Ask any engineer at MIT.
Stanley Myers water car sounded like a hokes to me, even though I understood the hydrogen splitting from oxygen and burning principles with the video charts and testimonials, until I built a hydrogen generator, testing it by fitting it to several vehicles. It instantly doubled fuel economy. (aluminum plates work best, but must be replaced often) I fitted it to my cougar in C. America and drove back to the US, cut the fuel expense in half. The engine runs much cooler with much more noticeable power climbing the steep mountains through Attilan by the Gulf of Mexico, as the car was loaded down with about 1000 lbs. filling the trunk, back seat above the rear window and the front passenger seat.
Pemex gas was a dollar cheaper per gallon than the US, but not as good. It took me 36 hours from Guatemala straight through Mexico driving 100+ mph slowing down only through towns and villages, until about 5 miles from Texas, where I pulled over and passed out for a couple hours before meeting up with the border patrol. I would never attempt this trip in a Prius. The trumbles on Mexico highways to slow traffic down in towns are so high that they will destroy the better handling low profile tires on large rims. With a lower car for better center of gravity will bottom out on the newer cars ripping out exhaust systems, breaking struts and shocks off. Be forewarned before you drive your Prius down there, buy and older car!

 

I guess I'd like Rock to win in some way, just because I do prefer classic cars. Objectively there's few good reasons for this, but subjectively they just have a pull and a personality that's been sanitized from today's cars. My little Honda tries with a plucky chassis and an engine that's endearingly willing to be revved out for all its 106hp, but yeah, it's nothing I look back at as I walk from the car to my front door. The wife's van is about as good a long-distance vehicle as you could get - stable, quiet, powerful, remarkable FE for something as big as it is - but it's similarly functional with nothing that ties me to it.

But nothing gives me the tinglies that I felt every single day when I was DDing my Mustangs, or the feelings I get when I think about tooling around in a rat rod or vintage kustom wagon. I'm also not tied to modern conveniences and can count on two hands the number of times I've used AC in the car in the last five years (when it's just me riding, that is). I just have a strong visceral connection to the looks and sounds and smells of vintage automobiles that no logical argument has yet supplanted.

 

When I was 16-17, me and my friends buy old 1950-60 cars for $10-$20 bucks in and around Brooksville, Florida woods ,where there was nothing to do for fun and run our own demolition derby, ramming each other's car, sliding into trees at 35-49 mph.
An old Nash was obliterated, just kept running, even though the radiator had lost all the water. After cooling, it started right back up!
None of us died or got hurt. Since then, I was hit from behind in a limo I was driving around O'Hare in Chicago by a guy in a Toyota driving 80 mph. I had just taken my foot off the brake or he might have come through my back window. I thought he was dead, but a lady cop shoved him on his rib cage with her foot and he groaned. She said over her radio, "another one carried away driving fast in a little car." In court, the state prosecutor put his hand on my shoulder and said, "this man was on his job, when this guy for no reason, hit him at a high rate of speed." The judge looked at the man who looked like a mummy all wrapped up, said, "Mr Blong Xlong, do you have anything to say for yourself?" He said, "sep." The judge asked, "Do we need an interpretor?", The Prosecutor quickly responded, "I think he said sleep, your Honor!" The judge said, "GUITY!" I was also hit from the rear in another accident in a 1987 Olds at about 50 mph. While I had whip lash, no other injuries for either vehicle. Yet I did have a head on in a 1967 Plymouth Valiant when I was driving about 45 mph. An elderly old man sitting in a 1990 Pontiac Bonniville on the oncoming traffic lane wanting to turn left in front of me, had one foot on the brake and one on the gas, accidently let his foot slip off the brake. The impact estimated his speed at impact was 28- 30 mph. A comparable 75 mph impact. His vehicle ended up in the ditch as both air bags deployed, since his wife was in the front seat, both were knocked out unconscious. My elbow went through the side door glass window with a couple broken ribs. No air bags or seat belt, yet the whole front end of the car was smeared off the body. There are more, but to spare you the details, I'm living proof that your questions are unfounded based on the insurance charts. I've had friends go through much worse accidents in Volkswagons and full size 1959-'1970 cars at 100+ mph still walking today. One friend from England had a head on with a full size van on his motorcycle, flipping him in the air and landing on the van's roof, still racing around today in Florida with his 1970 Challenger. Do you want to die?

 

We tested a Civic CVCC in '75, the first model year for them in the USA. Its actual weight was 1800 pounds. Loaded with 450 pounds of people, test gear, and simulated luggage, its 53-hp engine managed 0-60 in 19 seconds flat---kinda slowish even for its day---and 40.5 mpg at 55 mph.. (A first-year 4-speed Rabbit tested at the same time scored 14.5 seconds and 33.5 mpg.)

Honda's CVCC engines were ballyhooed as innovative, because they could meet '75 emissions standards without resorting to a catalytic converter (which most cars had, starting that year) or EGR. However, they sacrificed power, weren't remarkably durable, and probably were expensive to manufacture, so they disappeared within a few years.

Your Honey Bee ad had to cover the fact Nissan was still clinging to obsolescent cheap tech with its rear-drive small cars and iron pushrod engine.

Equating pollution of '50s and '70s cars isn't exactly fair, assuming they were or are in good condition. Most of the earlier gross HC and CO emissions were gone by the 70s, especially late 70s. As I'm sure you'll recall, 1950s vehicles didn't even have PCV systems. Early '60s ones didn't either, except in California.