First new car I owned was a was a 85 Dodge Colt E. I too did everything in this car One of the more memorable ones was a ski trip to Stowe Vermont with two buddies on the 12 hr drive. Thats three adults (sort of) Three sets of skies on the roof, and luggage for five days. The trip was a Blast, but I do recall the car trying to go up the long steep hills, and not being able to maintain forth or third gear, and then having to shift into second, all the while tractor trailers were on my butt blaring there horn! Is what your doing possible? Yes, and if it floats your boat to be a minimalists then good for you, but personally I need the big cooler, inflatable mattress, stove, lanternā¦etc, and something bigger then a pup tent. Oh yeah the satellite TV sounds like a great idea.
Ah, well, minimalist is all relative. Compared to me, my brother is the minimalist and I pack an absurd amount of gear to camp. He is a backpacker. Thatās minimalist. No car. Not even a tent sometimes.
It all depends on how much stuff you choose to haul. On non-camping trips, we could (and did) do just fine with the space underneath the hatch of a first generation Mazda RX-7.
Get the manual. It will help compensate for the extra weight the car will be carrying. If you need to speed up in hurry for some reason, youāll be glad that you can drop it down a gear yourself, instead of dealing with the lag from the automatic transmission.
Iām glad to hear that someone besides me thinks a manual transmission is fun. Go for it.
Iāve always driven a stick, and have always lived in a rural area. If I had to drive in city traffic (stop and go) with any frequency, Iād get an automatic. I too find a stick more fun, but it gets old real fast in stop and go. Automatics used to carry big price, performance, mileage, and maintenance penalties compared to manuals, but now the difference is fairly small (except perhaps for maintenance/repair costs).
Seriously, though, Iād get a Civic with a manual. In the interests of wedded bliss, Iāve never really pushed the transmission issue very far. My wife prefers an automatic, and for the two cars we presently have ('96 Maxima, '02 Escape), an auto was the right choice. But for my old 1990 VW GLI, well, you couldnāt get that with an automatic, and it would have been horrible if you could.
Also, if I lived in hilly SF (as opposed to flat Sacramento), Iād always opt for the slushbox.
What Iād do is go to fueleconomy.gov and compare the mileage with the Fit and the Civic, and for fun, compare it with the Accord, too. I think youāll find all three of them are at 35 plus or minus a couple mpg on the highway. Kayaks on a Civic is probably too much to ask. Seriously.
As for 40 sheets of plywood, well, if itās rough on a Jettaā¦
Iām not great at comparing these, but for those of you who are, what say? Accord had less horsepower (? though stat doesnāt give @rpm) and it carried this stuff. It had more torque (? or did it? it doesnāt mention @rpm). How to read engine stats? I dunnoā¦
You need to open your mind a bit to other vehicles. You honestly sound like someone who has made up their mind already and just want everyone else to agree with you. If the 92 Accord did the job adequately and you are hung up on Honda, buy the closest thing to it you can find. Sounds like a Civic. The Fit is only adequate for minimal transportation at the highest level of economy. Donāt buy a pickup truck to do the job of a Mack road tractor. It doesnāt work. A Tonka toy wonāt do as a cement mixer. You also must remember that there are other people on the road and if you overload a vehicle, you endanger everyone around you. Get the vehicle to match the job or have two vehicles. It is just that simple. Look at some other choices with an open mind and donāt put the burden of a bad decision on everyone else.
Those are harsh words. You are right ā I aim to buy a Honda. However, I have absolutely no intention of making a bad decision. I thought it was pretty clear that I was leaning towards the Civic and had given up the idea of the Fit. Iām not sure why you even mentioned it.
The car specs, in my mind, indicate that the new Civic and the '92 Accord are quite similar. A few naysayers were saying that the Civic was inadequate. I figured that they were wrong 1) because most people havenāt done what weāve already done twice without endangering anyoneās life and 2) most Americans seem to prefer more car than is necessary for the job.
However, just in case the naysayers were right, I kept coming back with data so that they could compare real numbers rather than imagined capabilities of the vehicles.
A Civic is a great idea and hauls a lot of stuff. We have a manual and itās really peppy. We get 38 mpg on the road when fully loaded (and we can really load a car when we are off for a week of hiking, etc) and 36 in town, but thatās without a lot of stop and go.
Real data would be the manufacture load rating of both vehicle, and roof (not the roof rack). If you can stay within those limits your good, if not then you need to purchase a vehicle that will. Its that simple.
OK, guys, hereās a photo of said kayaks & bikes on the '92 Accord. http://picā¦9486141362 Do you still think itās too much for a Civic?
My only issue is with the weight. For most vehicles, the weight capacity of roof-top mounted cargo is 100 pounds. For some it is as high as 110 pounds. If you can do what you want without exceeding the weight capacity of your chosen car, go for it.
One of the more memorable ones was a ski trip to Stowe Vermont with two buddies on the 12 hr drive. Thats three adults (sort of) Three sets of skies on the roof, and luggage for five days. The trip was a Blast, but I do recall the car trying to go up the long steep hills, and not being able to maintain forth or third gear, and then having to shift into second, all the while tractor trailers were on my butt blaring there horn! Is what your doing possible? Yes, and if it floats your boat to be a minimalists then good for you, but personally I need the big cooler, inflatable mattress, stove, lanternā¦etc, and something bigger then a pup tent. Oh yeah the satellite TV sounds like a great idea.