Hide Tide at Honda
06-11-2008, 05:29 PM
#11
Registered User
Originally Posted by jvils,Jun 11 2008, 05:58 AM
That was enough to vault it ahead of Chrysler for the month and put it in fourth place in North American sales.
06-11-2008, 06:13 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chrsyler sells a wider line up of vehicles if you think about. And let's not forget some people love domestic just like some people will only buy foreign or japanese.
Not to mention people who might just want to save a buck or two. (Point A to Point B.)
Not to mention people who might just want to save a buck or two. (Point A to Point B.)
06-12-2008, 04:53 AM
#13
Originally Posted by dombey,Jun 11 2008, 05:59 PM
this is exactly why I don't rock a civic...I get 25 mpg in my s... maybe I just don't get on the gas as much as some people...but man, 5 mpg isn't much of a reward for trading down from an s to a civic.
If I drove the Civic, I'd get better gas mileage since I drive longer distances to and from work. The car is barely warmed up before my wife shuts it off again, so it really does drag down fuel economy and she still gets 30 mpg.
Don't forget that our Civic was $17K ($18.6K OTD after TTL and dealer fees) to buy brand new.
That's WAY cheaper than a new S2000 and cheaper than most used ones unless you're going 2002 or older. So you're saving on the car AND on gas, not just on gas.
06-12-2008, 05:48 AM
#14
Moderator
Yes, but a Civic is not a S2000. Even an Si, while closer, is not an S2000.
Fwiw, I get 25 mpg in my S driving normally, on 225/255 RE050As. My next tires will be 215/245s to get back the 10% mpg I lost when I went bigger.
Keep your air filter clean and your tires properly inflated, and you'll see good mpg.
Fwiw, I get 25 mpg in my S driving normally, on 225/255 RE050As. My next tires will be 215/245s to get back the 10% mpg I lost when I went bigger.
Keep your air filter clean and your tires properly inflated, and you'll see good mpg.
06-12-2008, 06:09 AM
#15
I wonder if I'd see an apparent improvement if I went back to 245s...? I didn't notice a real change when I put on the 255s but I usually only put a half tank in the car so the change wouldn't show up very well, I don't think. I prefer to fill up more and have the car weigh less.
06-12-2008, 06:35 AM
#16
Moderator
The 225/255 is too much tire for the car imo - you can't break traction until you're at a very high threshold and steering response is slower. It was good for auto-x, but as gas is going up, I can deal with lower traction on a one-day even for better mpg daily.
06-12-2008, 08:00 AM
#17
I do know that the 255s are tougher to break loose, especially in hot weather with the Falken RT-615s on the back. I still have 215s in front, though, and I'd prefer to bump them up a bit to balance the car better. It tends to push rather that oversteer now but the fronts are starting to get somewhat worn as well....
06-12-2008, 08:09 AM
#18
Moderator
I had 215/255 before the 225 fronts, and there was a ton of push - the fronts couldn't keep up and were as bald as the rears when I was done with them. 225 restored the balance, but the car is almost too glued down now.
06-12-2008, 09:02 AM
#19
I find a less grippy car is more "fun", even though it doesn't have quite the performance envelope. I just don't like to give up steering response with softer sidewalls, else I would go with some all-seasons or even some cheap summer tires.
I have more fun with nearly-bald rear tires on the car than with broken in, decently treaded tires.
I have more fun with nearly-bald rear tires on the car than with broken in, decently treaded tires.
lmao, thats good stuff