Personally I think this is a really interesting discussion. I am an engineer at Honda R&D near Columbus, OH. At my location, there are over a thousand white collar workers, mostly technical. Within a hundred mile radius of me, there are a 4 Honda assembly plants, employing around 10,000 people. At other sites in the US and Canada, there are probably another 15,000 workers. Each of these plants is turning out thousands of new Hondas per day. Nearly every Honda/Acura sold in the US (by volume) is made in the US. The engines, transmissions, every major component. Furthermore, Honda actually *exports* cars from the US, something that the Big 3 can barely talk about. Sure, there are niche cars like the S2000 roadster that are 100% Japanese, but that is a tiny part of our market. I think these are pretty impressive numbers, especially if you consider that Honda is only something like the 7th largest market share in the US. Its been here since 1979, I'd wager that in those 27 years Honda has contributed significantly to Americans and their way of life. There are a lot of secure $25/hr plus full benefits jobs available in Ohio because of Honda. The US auto industry lost their way in the oil crises. They haven't been able to turn it around since then. They concentrate too much on short-sighted markets like giant fuel-guzzling SUVs. Its not that the Big 3 makes bad cars, its that they make cars that aren't in demand. Compare a Focus to a Civic. A Taurus to an Accord. Sure, those Fords might last 200k miles, but I'd much rather spend that time in a nice Accord than a hard plastic Taurus. I would rather support the thousands of American workers who build Hondas than support a few suits in Detroit and drive a Mexican Dodge. That said, my garage: 1980 Lawn Boy 7229 1996 Stihl trimmer 1997 Honda Accord (shocking, right?) 2002 Triumph Speed Triple (mc) 1976 Honda CB400F (mc) 1976 Suzuki GT550 2-stroke (mc) 1948 Johnson Sea Horse (outboard) 1949 Evinrude Zephyr (outboard)

All my life I had been a 'Buy American/Buy Union Made' guy. Also a devout customer of the Ford Motor Company. However, this summer all of that changed. I ordered a brand new Ford truck, and after waiting 8 weeks, was given the shaft by the dealer and Ford Motor Company. I was so incenced that I went out the next day and bought a new Honda Ridgeline truck and have been extremely pleased with it. And next year I am going to get rid of DW's 2 year old Focus and I'm getting her a Honda car. I don't own any Honda OPE 'yet', but I will definitely check them out next time I'm in the market.

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.

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?