Had Colts ( 1.4 Ltr. , 1.5 Ltr. ) , a Champ ( 1.6 Ltr. ) and an '92 Eagle Summit ( 1.5 Ltr. ) . All had plenty of zip for the road . Favorite was the 1.6 Ltr. of the of the '82 Plymouth CHAMP . It also had the twin-stick which was a 4 speed manual with the shifter of Economy or Power mode ( lower gear ratio ) . Most were manuals . They were from '80 to '92 .
New Mitsubishi Mirage?
- Thread starter NibbanaBanana
- Start date
Had Colts ( 1.4 Ltr. , 1.5 Ltr. ) , a Champ ( 1.6 Ltr. ) and an '92 Eagle Summit ( 1.5 Ltr. ) . All had plenty of zip for the road . Favorite was the 1.6 Ltr. of the of the '82 Plymouth CHAMP . It also had the twin-stick which was a 4 speed manual with the shifter of Economy or Power mode ( lower gear ratio ) . Most were manuals . They were from '80 to '92 .
I was told a 90s Taurus size car only need 30hp to cruise at highway. The rest is for acceleration. People used to be ok with 10s 0-60 but now everyone wants below 6s and now EV spoils them with 3-4s.
With hybrid these days you don't need to compromise. A 1.8 Atkinson can get you about 1.4 Carnot like power, which is probably about 90-110 hp, and with the right battery and electric motors would get you 55mpg.
The only thing you get from those 1.6L econobox from the 90s made new today is the cheaper purchase price. You are paying 18k new instead of 28k new hybrid, and your mpg drop from 40s to 30s. In the long term you are not saving money, and in the long term you are also paying for more insurance because the buyer pool are binned as low income low networth low credit high risk. Is it fair? Nope, but that's the reality we are living in.
JHZR2
Staff member
I remember that! The MCA Jet and the dual range manual.
Was purchased by the owner for under $200 and had the clutch replaced for less than $250 . I think it had below 90,000 miles and went on for 40,000+ more miles of hard driving with lots of stop and go . The body went 
. The engine and 4 speed manual transmission w/ the twin stick were good . It's my 2nd favorite all time car . 1st favorite is the '86 CHEVORLET Nova ( Corolla ) 4 door liftback with the 1.6 Ltr. and 3 speed auto . That went on for over 260,00 miles of harsh driving . The 4 speed manual with the twin-stick of the '82 CHAMP was great in high amounts of snow when in POWER mode that lowered the gear ratio . Had 13" COOPER winter tires w/ studs that helped .
. The engine and 4 speed manual transmission w/ the twin stick were good . It's my 2nd favorite all time car . 1st favorite is the '86 CHEVORLET Nova ( Corolla ) 4 door liftback with the 1.6 Ltr. and 3 speed auto . That went on for over 260,00 miles of harsh driving . The 4 speed manual with the twin-stick of the '82 CHAMP was great in high amounts of snow when in POWER mode that lowered the gear ratio . Had 13" COOPER winter tires w/ studs that helped .
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Yes, the 10s vs 6s is pure stupidity and things could be much more efficient if vehicles were optimized for economy with that 10s type acceleration in mind. Alas some folks can’t figure out how to accelerate on a road without going WOT and slamming on their vehicle.
Econoboxes used to deliver nearly 50 mpg. Given how far we have come with engine output and efficiency of operation, I don’t think your assessment of MPGs or cost is correct. There’s no reason why something that is cheaper and less complex than a hybrid, and gets similar MPGs couldn’t be offered. And I’m a huge hybrid fan. Turning off the engine in lieu of idling is a real savings, as is an electric boost. It’s just that it can be handled other ways for smaller cars.
You made a good point about insurance. As an owner of a lot of cars, I abhor the insurance industry. Not that my rates are particularly high, but because they could be lower for the total risk I present. But insurance is what has done in the ability for most folks to own a low emissions, low power, high economy runabout. Buying it isn’t an issue. It can either last forever, and/or you buy used. And running one vehicle vs another offsets the wear and tear on the other one. It’s the recurring insurance cost that is insane. Often priced in a two driver home almost as if you have three vehicles out on the road at the same time. The “multi-vehicle” discount is a joke. It’s all a ripoff.
The 50mpg day is gone because we cannot lean burn anymore, and people will not buy manual. 40mpg is more realistic.
JHZR2
Staff member
Technology has also evolved. If we can get 30 mpg with far higher power engines than decades before, if they were tuned for lower power/higher economy, it could be viable.
Frankly, avoiding diesel and lean burn because of CA’s NOx problem is also stupid.
+2
I have a Honda Fit and judging by its instantaneous MPG readout on the dash, it rewards a light foot. The trans is quick to downshift if I feel the need to race away from a red light, or zoom right up to the speed limit as soon as I reach the edge of town, but that comes with a huge hit in gas mileage. If I can tread lightly on the gas pedal and keep it from downshifting, the MPG is fantastic. But in a world full of 300 HP SUVs, it takes a patient man to resist the temptation to mash the pedal just to keep up. To everyone else on the road, they see a silver Fit and assume it's an old man going out to buy lottery tickets, so they KNOW it's going to be slow. I may as well live up to the stereotype.
Similar threads
