In reply to Jaynen:
No. Haven't worked for 2 years. New car would involve trading in my Dakota. Money from my bank requires them to see the car to get the money, which is a TMFPITA.
Wiki, if you can stand to read it, says 1Z/AHU.
In reply to Jaynen:
No. Haven't worked for 2 years. New car would involve trading in my Dakota. Money from my bank requires them to see the car to get the money, which is a TMFPITA.
Wiki, if you can stand to read it, says 1Z/AHU.
Hmm your bank kind of stinks then. Both credit unions I have been with will do 100% loans 0 down, for an amount then you just bring them the title
Anybody know how difficult finding a replacement motor for a Honda Fit would be?
I found one locally that the guy is willing to move on, maybe $3500 for a 5spd 2008 with 245k.
As long as it didn't have rust I wouldn't worry about it too much, but 245k is a lot for a gas engine.
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Rupert: Hondas? No. They don't agree with my body proportions. Too bad I don't have $2500.http://charlestonwv.craigslist.org/cto/3830980001.html
Wow... that's a pretty good price if the other side looks as good. AHU motors are good too. Pretty much the same as the ALH. The B4 is much roomier than the Jetta, which may or may not be important. Tons of rear seat leg room. The interior design is a bit dated compared to the Mk IV, but that probably won't matter too much. It'll probably need (or is overdue for) a timing belt soon, which may account for the low price.
They don't agree with my body proportions.
The biggest people ive had sit in the driver's seat of my insight were 6'7 and 6'8 and they both fit well enough to not hate it. But, neither was very wide.
But i am constantly running into cars that feel way more cramped than my Insight even though they are much bigger on the outside. Most recent one was a ranger. 
Vigo wrote:They don't agree with my body proportions.The biggest people ive had sit in the driver's seat of my insight were 6'7 and 6'8 and they both fit well enough to not hate it. But, neither was very wide. But i am constantly running into cars that feel way more cramped than my Insight even though they are much bigger on the outside. Most recent one was a ranger.
I'm 6' and wide, so I am not a Japanese-sized tester. On the flip side, I like and fit in Rangers no problem. Only problems I am having now is the high window moldings and not being able to find decent left arm resting positions anymore.
Ian F wrote:Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Rupert: Hondas? No. They don't agree with my body proportions. Too bad I don't have $2500.Wow... that's a pretty good price if the other side looks as good. AHU motors are good too. Pretty much the same as the ALH. The B4 is much roomier than the Jetta, which may or may not be important. Tons of rear seat leg room. The interior design is a bit dated compared to the Mk IV, but that probably won't matter too much. It'll probably need (or is overdue for) a timing belt soon, which may account for the low price.
I wish 5 speed b5 passat TDI wagons were not such unicorns they are only sold by dedicated TDI "restoration" places for way to much money. ALH motor, 25? gallon fuel tank, built in germany and on the largest chassis the passat has seen up until the brand new North America/China only model 1300 miles on a tank of gas I could go all month
Im 6' as well and i fit in the front of nearly every car ever made. Height is not an issue until you get very far from the 'norm', but width causes issues with seats in small cars, or at least that's been my observation. I have over 6" of headroom left in my Insight and my seat is a few clicks forward of all the way back, but if i gained another 20-30 lbs i would hate the seats.
people keep bringing up the CRX forgetting that since that cars milage was recorded that MPG ratings have changed. I think they get the equivalent of a modern 35mpg and not 50 iirc. There was ridiculous numbers that thing was quoted for. Still very good mpgs though.
I never failed to get better fuel economy than the old numbers; the new numbers are silly low unless you have to run ethanol fuel.
oldopelguy wrote: I never failed to get better fuel economy than the old numbers; the new numbers are silly low unless you beat the everliving hell out of it every second the key is on.
FTFY
I think they get the equivalent of a modern 35mpg and not 50 iirc. There was ridiculous numbers that thing was quoted for. Still very good mpgs though.
My 85 hf got 43 on e10. I think SI's would get 35 under the same circumstances. Some people with SI's still claim to see 40 but i have my doubts that they actually drive as fast as we do here in Texas. 75+ on highway.
You'll need to log in to post.
