To nin7xbam: I wasn't expecting 50, but I expected to be better than 40, comfortably. As I said already, my 1990 did get better than 40MPG, even when I drove at 80MPH...and it was an automatic. I have also previously owned a 1986 CRX HF and you are right; those are the fuel economy champs in the Honda lineup. If I drove it a steady 40-45 mph on the road, I could squeeze just barely better than 65 mpg out of it. On my usual somewhat daring mountain trips to/from work (I lived in the Colorado high country at that time), I saw regularly about 55-58MPG. But I also owned, for a time, a 1980 Civic CVCC 1.3L, a two-door hatchback. The penalty with that car was that it was very slow, but it rewarded with fuel economy never worse than about 45, and a few times, better than 50. So, some of my research is actual measurements from Civics I have owned in the past. As far as comparing weight, etc, between cars, here's how it compares between the new 1997 and the old 1990: 1990 engine: 1.5L, 92HP, throttle-body injection 1997 engine: 1.6L, 106HP, multi-point fuel injection 1990 weight: 2480 pounds 1997 weight: 2438 pounds 1990 EPA estimate: 31/34 MPG (actually got 38/44) 1997 EPA estimate: 29/35 MPG (actually getting 33/38) So we see that the 1997 actually weighs LESS than the 1990, but not by much. I do think the exterior of the car has grown, so it's probably having to push a lot more wind out of the way. I was expecting to do better than the 1990 since my '97 had a manual trans. Also, the EPA estimate for the 1997 is slightly higher than for the 1990 on the highway, but I'm doing worse. As far as maintenance, yes, I had it to a mechanic. Shortly after the purchase, it was time for the routine timing belt/water pump replacement (gadzooks that is one EXPENSIVE routine maintenance!!!) and as long as he had it, I asked him to check over all other items that could impact economy or performance. He replaced the air filter, and tested the O2 sensor and pressure under load of the exhaust. It only has 115,000 miles on it, and I've certainly never had Honda problems that young. My 1990 had 125k when I bought it and 240k when I sold it; my 1980 1.3L and 1986 CRX were similarly "vintaged" when I owned them. Now that I think about it, it's probably been 30 years since I have owned a car with less than 100k on the clock. It's just not a spooky amount of miles with today's improved-reliability cars. I do not like "extra toys", fortunately the LX really doesn't have that many. The only annoying toys are the power windows and door locks. The windows are making crunchy noises as they go up and down; the dealer confirms that they do have to replace those motors on occasion. Thankfully, it is devoid of built-in cell phones, remote CD players, power/heated seats, has simple plain steel wheels and is overall a nicely dumbed-down car. When I look at the things that I've had to repair/replace in my cars as they approach 300,000 miles, a tremendous amount of it is "the toys". Engines/trans these days just don't wear out any more. In terms of power, my '97 seems to be about equal to a 1990 with 5 speed. In fact the 1990 that I tried recently is better at high speeds, this possibly due to the smaller wind resistance. I think the '97, due to the MPFI gets a bit more low-end torque, so it feels faster off the line, but for safety, you want the power at high speeds for safe passing. Low-end torque is good for impressing the gang as you peel out of the Dairy Queen, something that has not crossed my mind since I had my 1969 Z-28 in the 70s. I bought a Civic because I wanted a very simple car and very high gas mileage. The '97 is no barn-burner when it comes to acceleration, but there's just a little to spare (at least at sea level - at altitude, it's probably a real dog) and I would happily give it up in exchange for 10 more MPG. I think this is just a reflection of the American desire for more, more, bigger, bigger, more complicated. If a manufacturer actually made their newer models get BETTER fuel economy, the buying public would hate them because they were slower.

Probably because our cost of living is the highest in Canada. Our provincial income tax is 37% our federal tax is 18%. I seem to recall in 82 our flat rate was $10.50 per hour and the labour rate was $32.00, maybe $30.00 ? Barry and myself were trimmers, you know what they are, and were offered a garranty of 6 hours a day flat rate. We both refused because you have to stay there 8 hour to collect. If there is nothing in my stall i go home even if it's 2 in the afternoon. We both threatened to quit one afternoon and go to work for Ford. We got our flat rate up to $12.75. That is $25,500.00 in a 200 work day year. I remember those Master Technician exams. Every tech participated in those. I have a drawer full from Ford,G.M. Chrysler, and Toyota. No offence but they didn't mean much. They didn't increase your wages. Our average labour rate now is between $85.00 to $105.00 per hour. If you go to a Specialest dealer like B.M.W. , or Jaguar it is about $150.00 to $200.00 per hour. Now that is the place to work. I'ts usually straight time and if your good and don't mine night mares you write your own ticket. I remember working For Canadian Tire in the 70s making $15,000 - $20,000 a year. We were payed half of the labour rate plus commision on parts. It was good. Just a follow up on customers in our stalls. That was an absolte NO,NO. The insurance company took a very dim view of that. If my customer was waiting for his car i could go and bring him to his car if i had questions. I had to escort him to and from his car. Now that you mention it. I remember working for Dominion Motors ( ford ). The service shop was on the second floor. A horrible place to work. Hot as hell and you froze in the winter. Everything was done on the floor. No lifts. That was 1975. They payed $8.50 an hour just to get someone to work for them. They were the highest paying dealer in the city. Seems no one wants to pay any more to keep their guys. My nephew started out last month on the grease rack for Ford. They are only paying him $12.00 per hour straight time. He wants to go into diesle mechanics. They only pay $15.00 per hour for first year appentice. No wonder no one wants to work anymore. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a smart mouth. You don't servive up here very long at $15.00 per hour with our cost of living. Here is an example. An A.C. tech on a commercial job or roof top makes $47.17 per hour. An industrial A.C. tech. on a 20 ton chiller makes $52.73 per hour. If you bring your home computer into a shop for servicing or virus removal it's $90.00 per hour. If you bring in a brake rotor for turning it's $30.00 each. $22.00 for a new one. Spin balance a tire is $18.00 each plus weights. In 1992 i was being payed $27.00 per hour installing gas pipe in new homes and i was the low man on the pole. Just a little F.Y.I. on this side of the border. Have a good one.

We ended up with the Honda Civic EX. We looked again at the Corolla, but they checked and told us there wasn't a white Corolla in a 5 state area with ABS and side airbags. They said they had never seen one at all with stability control. ??? We had an offer of a white Honda LX without side airbags for $15,200 with 1.9% interest. There was no white LX with sidebags anywhere in the state. We almost took the one without the sidebags, but we really want the side airbags. They didn't have a white EX with sidebags, but they found one at a dealer 300 miles away. They wanted $400. over invoice. Too much I though and we left after 3 hours. They called me at home and knocked $100. off. Still too much. They called back and offered invoice. I took it. They are still of course getting a dealers holdback and I am sure there is more. The EX also has ABS brakes, sunroof, and a few extra bell and whistles. We are paying $17,475 with 1.9%. I hope this is fair. What do you think?

The taxonomy is SE > EX > LX > DX, with the DX being the least expensive and having the fewest features. The LX adds appearance and comfort features (like body-colored mirrors, a nicer radio, cruise control), and the EX adds to the LX some performance features (four-wheel disk brakes) and some more luxury items (moonroof, more speakers). The SE designation, I think, floats. It's not a factory choice this year anyway. There also is a Civic GX, which is powered by natural (G)as. As for what the designations stand for, DX for Deluxe may be correct. But I hate the idea that "deluxe" is the baseline (and, in fact, the least "deluxe" model they sell). It's kind of like the term "full-size" (as in "full-size car") -- like somebody ordained that this is how big a car should be (or what equipment it should have in it) and that everything else is some sort of deviation. Ick.