Buying a 2008 Honda Civic Coupe 5 speed.

LX. Whatever.

i'd trade my car for a fucking new civic in a heartbeat. fucking fuck.

Aristotle wrote:i'd trade my car for a fucking new civic in a heartbeat. fucking fuck.

I'm surprised at how much car you get for a little over 20 K. I'm definitely happy with the choice. Could have also gone with a new or used Impreza too, but I've got no complaints with the Civic.

why you aint post no pics man fuck

Aristotle wrote:why you aint post no pics man fuck

No digital camera man. fffuck.

The g/f might be getting me one for my birthday though, so they'll come, eventually.

use hers!

Aristotle wrote:use hers!

I'm not in Edmonton right now!! haha!

dunnas wrote:

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Turbofrog wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Turbofrog wrote:There's no such thing as a Canadian gallon.

Imperial. :<_<:

But no one actually uses miles per Imperial gallon, certainly not in Canada. All the other reasonable countries in the world are on to liters, and the Americans use bigger gallons.

Not according to Honda Canada which puts both miles per Imperial gallons and liters per 100 kms on their window stickers.

when you think of it, l/100km is pretty silly. . . the netherlands use a far more interesting, and, compared to the rest of the world, more logical, manner of speaking. . . km/l. . . i use it too, nowadays, since it's more practical . . .

Yeah, L/100km's is stupid.

I'd much prefer Km/L but my last 2 cars have both displayed L/100km for me so I make do with that.

I disagree entirely. They convey fuel economy rather than fuel consumption, which is what you really want to know. And it's not a linear relationship converting the two, because one is the inverse of the other.

The difference in the amount of fuel burned between a 15 mpg vehicle and a 20 mpg vehicle is almost the same as between a 30 mpg vehicle and a 60 mpg vehicle. How intuitive is that?

Turbofrog wrote:
The difference in the amount of fuel burned between a 15 mpg vehicle and a 20 mpg vehicle is almost the same as between a 30 mpg vehicle and a 60 mpg vehicle. How intuitive is that?

Why is that?

30mpg = 7.86L/100km
60mpg = 3.93L/100km
= 3.93L difference per 100km

15mpg = 15.73L/100km
20mpg = 11.80L/100km
= 3.93L difference per 100km


I don't know why I bothered translating to km first.

It makes complete sense when you think about it, but it's still a little mind bending.

it's completely logical. mainly cause with the higher mpgs the differences are more important than with the lower ones . .

Ascona wrote:it's completely logical. mainly cause with the higher mpgs the differences are more important than with the lower ones . .

But it's also totally stupid, because it means you can't just say "oh yeah, this car gets 5 mpg more than the competitor," and expect it to mean anything. With L/100km, you know exactly how much gas you're going to burn, and you can make an accurate apples-to-apples comparison between vehicles using the same units.

oh man you crackpots are at it again.

Aristotle wrote:oh man you crackpots are at it again.

They ruined my topic dude. RUINED IT. RUEINED IT.

srsly

OMG now I don't feel like Australia is so stupid for using L/100km! It's MPG that's the stupid measurement. The one and only seemingly less logical metric unit actually turns out to be more useful than the one and only seemingly sensible imperial measurement.

You really are doing some serious catch up reading aren't you.

he's still searching for the "happy birthday swerve" thread, which we didn't make :)

haha, I actually saw it was his birthday on one of my visits to the old AF last week

I don't be starting birthday threads though.

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:better than nothing, i suppose.




is it red?

It's black. It's a perfectly good car. The stick shift is great, clutch feels good, handling is wonderful. And it gets 52 miles per Canadian gallon.

Good on ya Wally. Honda make arguably the best manual transmissions for FWD cars around. I think 52 mpg thing is a bit of an embelishment though. I'd expect you will get closer to 40 mpg if you drive normal on hwy and probably 30 mpg in city. But meh maybe it will better if you drive like a granny.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:better than nothing, i suppose.




is it red?

It's black. It's a perfectly good car. The stick shift is great, clutch feels good, handling is wonderful. And it gets 52 miles per Canadian gallon.

Good on ya Wally. Honda make arguably the best manual transmissions for FWD cars around. I think 52 mpg thing is a bit of an embelishment though. I'd expect you will get closer to 40 mpg if you drive normal on hwy and probably 30 mpg in city. But meh maybe it will better if you drive like a granny.

Well I got from Lethbridge to Edmonton with just over 1/2 of a 50 L tank left. I think I'm hitting 52 mpg, at least measured with Imperial Gallons.

Assuming that I used 24 L, which is probably about right, I supposedly got 0.047 L / Km, which is 4.7 L/100km - pretty phenomenal. Even if I used exactly 1/2 of the tank, I'm still looking at 4.9 L / 100 km. If i take the more liberal, but probably more accurate figure I got 60.1 mpg on the way up here, if I use the more conservative figure, I got 57.6 mpg.

For the record, in Canadian measurements, Honda suggests average, highway fuel economy for the Civic LX is 5.4 l/100 km, which is 52 mpg flat.

Also, not to brag, but after a week and a half of in town driving, I've still got between a third and a quarter of a tank left. I haven't driven much, of course. Maybe 100 extra km.

i went through half a tank driving to and from the near town, today. hmz.

Nice.

You should build the old wally wagon into an ice racer

Wally you said it was a Honda.
http://ja-games.co.uk/toy-store/d-459745265-John_Deere_Toy_Book___Wally_Wagon.php

Still in Lethbridge? I'll take a picture of the fancy new car for ya.

Ascona wrote:he's still searching for the "happy birthday swerve" thread, which we didn't make :)