Originally Posted by lovemysan
Careful there. There are plently of normal people who get good mileage(40mpg) out of there cheap plastic saturns. Saturns are dependable and inexpensive to work on. There are no valve adjustments or timing belts to change. Every car has its quirks I venture to say that cost of ownership is equal between the civic and s-series. My car sold new for $12.2k the PO averaged 34-36mpg all city and kept impeccable records. As for faster hah!. I ran a 10.75 in the eighth mile running my HAI and a half tank of fuel. By my research the only the early HX's could come close. Remember its 2350lbs & 100hp verses 2750lbs and 115hp.
that's why I think the HX is such a good car. It weighs more (safer) has more
power and yes still has better FE! But I don't dispute your arguments for operating costs. I was thinking purely about FE. But the Saturn does have a better power to weight ratio than the HX. Actually I got a figure of 2313lbs curb weight, not 2750.
Old Fueleconomy.gov ratings:
1996 Civic HX
I have nothing against Saturn. I just don't see why it is so common on here--so often touted as a good car - it doesn't seem to me to be anything special - seems random to single it out as a good FE car. But I have heard they are more reliable than some other GM cars. My point simply was, there are dozens of economical cars, why point out the Saturn which isn't particularly FE for its size?
Car mods are overrated. Just gotta adjust that nut behind the wheel for best mpg.
Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.