$20,000 gift for new car

[theholycow]

Well, what you posted supports it quite strongly, but it's also only half of the story. Check out the ratios in the transmission, especially high gear.

4.333 is a very short ratio, 3.065 is pretty tall. Assuming you have the same transmission, the 4.333 ratio will result in higher RPM.

[FrugalFloyd]

The 2011 Elantra specs are pretty spotty. Here's what I think they are:

2011 Elantra AT final drive ratio 3.065 X 6th gear 0.778 = 2.38
2011 Elantra MT final drive ratio 4.333 X 6th gear 0.633 = 2.74

That's a 15% gearing difference between the AT and MT versions. If the AT turns 2000 rpm to go a particular speed, the MT has to turn 2300 rpm to go the same speed.

[theholycow]

That's not too awful. Others tend to be more severe. It helps that they put a decent 6th gear in the MT, even better than the one in the auto.

[FrugalFloyd]

My MT xB suffers a similar 15% compared to the AT xB. The MT version of my wife's '06 AT Elantra also has a 15% gearing disadvantage. My MT Sentra only had a 4% gearing disadvantage to its AT counterpart.

My xB is a buzz-bomb, churning 2600 rpm at 55 mph, and 3000 rpm at 60. The 2011 MT Elantra's OA 2.74 top gear ratio shouldn't be that bad, compared to my MT xB's 3.53. The AT xB's OA top gear ratio is 2.91 by comparison, and the AT '06 Elantra has an OA 2.68 ratio.

[IndyFetch]

My '99 Civic Si was around 3300-3350 @ 60 mph. I got used to it after a while, but I don't think I could go back.

[imzjustplayin]

Why are your parents concerned about your Civic CX? Just because it has a lot of miles on it, doesn't make it any less safe. If you're having issues with the car and you still like the vehicle, just fix the thing. The car has excellent crash test marks and its side impact scores is nothing to scoff at. The 90s civics really are the perfect car which is why I bought my '98 Civic last year. Buying a new car isn't going to necessarily mean more reliability as newer cars have more finicky and sensitive computers. Old computers are nearly almost always more robust than newer ones because they couldn't use as small of a micron process and therefore they were more expensive at the time.

There is a reason why NASA still uses Intel 486 processors in space, it's because the newer processors are on smaller micron processes and are affected by cosmic radiation.

If I were you, and you still like the vehicle, I'd take a few thousand and just spruce up the vehicle so it's like a new car again.

I'm suspicious of your parent's intentions but if they think they're getting a significantly safer vehicle, I have to say they'll be disappointed. The crush zone of newer vehicles is shorter and they compensate for that with supposedly more advanced airbags which at this point are in dispute with the NHTSA as to whether they're working as effectively as they should be. The Civic is rated around 4-5 stars and "acceptable" by the IIHS. To give you an idea, "good" is the highest IIHS rating, the equivalent of "5 stars" by the NHTSA, "acceptable" = 4 stars, "average"= 3 stars, "below average" = 2 stars and "poor" = 1 stars. However, keep in mind the IIHS test is newer and is an offset crash test so it's more severe. Some cars are 5 star rated (full front width of car) but will get a "poor" rating on the IIHS test because they weren't designed with offset crash testing in mind. The way they rate cars hasn't changed since their inception which is why nearly every car made today gets 4-5 stars, acceptable-good, while cars 20-30 years ago, only a handful got a 4-5 star rating or a "poor - average" rating. IIHS testing was first conducted in 1995 while the NHTSA testing has been going since 1979.


Finally, any civic you buy today is going to get worse fuel economy than your current car unless you buy the Prius. The car you have is fine and the most logical and cost effective thing you can do to your car is to give it a nice refresh. $20K to buy a car when the car you have is suitable is just throwing money away.

Reading some of your posts, I see that you've noticed that most fuel efficient cars today are "buzzy".. They do that so people don't have to downshift while cruising on the highway, problem is that makes them noisy and it wastes lots of fuel. The civic you have is going to be much quieter because of the taller ratios it has. Nearly all the new fuel efficient cars today are "buzzy" because of the reason above. If they paired these cars with a taller transmission, 50mpg would be a cakewalk in these cars.

[FrugalFloyd]

As a parent, the obvious answer is reliability. That's what a car with 588k miles lacks, what new cars have, and what I want my kid driving in on his 160 mile daily commute. Modern cars' comfort, safety, etc. are added bonuses. Patching the old beater does not improve the current situation any more than slapping a band aid on a damaged knee.

IJP is wrong in so many ways. The buzz-bomb cars are a few sporty manual transmission models like the Fit and Yaris, not "most fuel efficient cars today."

For fuel economy, the 1998 Civic barely beats the 2011 Civic (only by 1 mpg in ciy and combined EPA - highway is the same 34 mpg), but it falls far short of the 2011 Elantra's 40 mpg highway, 2 mpg better city, and 3 mpg better combined ratings. Plus, all the modern competition is quieter, more comfortable, and more refined than the old CX. Even the outdated Corolla, riding on a 6 year old platform, beats the '98 CX on city, highway, and combined EPA ratings.

Last, the '98 CX had a 4.058 final drive ratio and a .702 5th gear ratio, for an overall 2.85 overall top gear ratio. That makes it buzzier than the 2011 Elantra's 2.74.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

As a parent, the obvious answer is reliability. That's what a car with 588k miles lacks, what new cars have, and what I want my kid driving in on his 160 mile daily commute. Modern cars' comfort, safety, etc. are added bonuses. Patching the old beater does not improve the current situation any more than slapping a band aid on a damaged knee.

Patching? How is spending a few grand on an older car be considered "patching"? There are only so many things that can go wrong with a car and if the car has never been in a wreck, all you're doing is replacing wear items. If you're doing the work yourself, you could fully restore a car with just $1000.

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

For fuel economy, the 1998 Civic barely beats the 2011 Civic (only by 1 mpg in ciy and combined EPA - highway is the same 34 mpg), but it falls far short of the 2011 Elantra's 40 mpg highway, 2 mpg better city, and 3 mpg better combined ratings. Plus, all the modern competition is quieter, more comfortable, and more refined than the old CX. Even the outdated Corolla, riding on a 6 year old platform, beats the '98 CX on city, highway, and combined EPA ratings.

I'm not 100% of the reason why, but I think the civics of the 90s with their taller ratios simply got better fuel economy in real world driving than the newer civics, even though the newer ones are only 1mpg less in the EPA test cycle. The OP's civic is an excellent candidate for a transmission swap if he so desired to do so which would boost his fuel economy significantly.

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Last, the '98 CX had a 4.058 final drive ratio and a .702 5th gear ratio, for an overall 2.85 overall top gear ratio. That makes it buzzier than the 2011 Elantra's 2.74.

As for the '98 Cx gear ratio, funny thing, it actually has a final drive of 3.772 just like the Civic HX making it "less buzzy" than the manual transmission DX/LX civics with their 4.058 final drive. I'm not sure why this isn't reflected in the EPA test cycle but it'd be useful if the OP could confirm the RPM his car is running at because a taller final drive I'd imagine would have some sort of an effect on the EPA fuel economy numbers if they actually tested for it. However OP choose to have an EX transmission in his civic, if he put in a CX transmission like he should, he'd be getting much better fuel economy numbers than he is getting right now. If I were in the OP's position, I'd rather save the $20K and use it for something far more useful than a depreciating asset like a car.

[trollbait]

There is a reason why NASA still uses Intel 486 processors in space, it's because the newer processors are on smaller micron processes and are affected by cosmic radiation.

NASA has upgraded to pentiums in the past few years. I thought the reason for using old stuff was product history, and they simply don't trust electronics they haven't been around for at least a decade. Better to use something with an extended history so all the quirks and issues are own before shooting it off into space where you can't fix it if it goes wrong.

If I were in the OP's position, I'd rather save the $20K and use it for something far more useful than a depreciating asset like a car.

I think most of us would have far better uses for $20k, but it sounds like the OP isn't getting $20k, he's getting a new car.

It isn't just the mileage on the car, it's the age of it in the Rust Belt. 12 years of driving through salt slush is going to add to the regular wear items needed. The Pennsylvania roads also don't help.

[schuylkill]

The reason I'm keeping the EX tranny is reliability, it still pulls a ton. I like to work on my car but not when stressed out because I don't have a backup car and that is exactly what happens when doing major work with a short time frame. I won't get money, just a car. An Elantra mt with air (something I don't have now) for $16,600 or thereabouts I feel is a good deal. I will be keeping the cx for winter and to keep the miles down somewhat on my new car. At 60 mph I am at 2550 rpm (ultra-gauge, no tach on the cx.) I also have a 1991 LX which my sons drive. (129k right now.)