i rather have this car than any hatch 1990 onwards. who gives a fuck about safety, if your worried about safety don't drive at all!. and these cars have potential once stiffened up, make good rally cars. and the good old 4k. 2k is useless. i used to have one slightly older it went fuckn sweet boost any posers down a hill. when sacked out it handles better than a ferari. haha rambling on sorry guys
The lighter the car the better! they have many adavntages in terms of fuel economy, and also handeling, braking, performance and not to mention their simplicity.
Therefore making them easier to control and responsive.
Car companies should try and reduce weight on their cars rather then having an engine that is going to push a lot of weight!
Chaoticmass, your point is excellent and well made. I'm amused and unimpressed with most of the so-called "economy" cars that are offered now. They are better cars overall, but are not nearly as fuel efficient as the '80s cars. My old '81 Mazda GLC got 24-31 city (in PITTSBURGH, PA) and 27-44 highway. (Your mileage will vary, depending on load, throttle opening, A/C use, and speed.) All the modern cars have "big block" engines for more power and sacrifice fuel economy in the process.
what I really dont get though is why bikes in the 500cc class, that weigh a fraction of the weight of a car, displace a fraction of the air (as they move through it), and have smaller engines (at 500cc) only do 45-50mpg themselves!
Cant motorcycle manufacturers do better than that, considering some small car manufacturers are getting the same fuel millage?
The CBF500: Its no sports bike, its one of the most ecconomical and its excelent value, but its 45mpg (gallon: UK=4.5litres US=3.8litr).
very good comment, i have a gs500 and it consumes the same amount of fuel as my car (1.9 diesel, 1 tonne) that is why bikes need 6000 rpm for 65 mph, but cars need 3000 rpm
I don't know much about bikes, but I think there's two reasons for the fuel mileage. While they do have a smaller aerodynamic frontal area, this is somewhat offset by the likely higher drag coefficient with the rider. Second, the high cruising RPM means higher frictional losses (in the engine and transmission) and more fuel burned in the engine.
they could if they wanted to, but bikes are much more highly tuned than an average car, and rev far higher, they must be drivien much harder to get any sort of speed (though they're designed to cope with this). But their extremely high revving engines need lots of fuel.
well, I believe we will see cars as light as this and even lighter again to save on fuel costs. I have a chevy sprint that weighs just over 1200lbs that can achieve over 45-50mpg.. old technology without the costs of hybrid.
The Toyota Starlet has always been my favorite car! Mine's sucks gas because of the 4AGE and weber carbs, but the original engine does fine by even today's standards.
well of course it would with the larger engine and big carbs, but you didn't do that to it for economy,and i know from driving 4age starlets that it's worth it. They go REALLY well with that engine. Still perfectly usable with the standard engines though if you bear in mind they're a small and pretty old car
Wow, this is a classic car. You will never find one of these in Japan anymore. If you do its all beat up or ragged out! I wish they would make compact rear wheel drive cars but its probably impossible.
I'm preparing the white one for use in Autocross, the other one will remain stock since its in very good condition. There's still a few good ones on the roads here, the climate in the south is more favorable for old cars, but they are still rare. I got lucky to find the ones I have.
They're great fun to drive and are also very cheap to run
yak52aholic 1 year ago
does anyone here by chance know what coilovers will fit a kp61 starlet?
xrobbievx 1 year ago
i rather have this car than any hatch 1990 onwards. who gives a fuck about safety, if your worried about safety don't drive at all!. and these cars have potential once stiffened up, make good rally cars. and the good old 4k. 2k is useless. i used to have one slightly older it went fuckn sweet boost any posers down a hill. when sacked out it handles better than a ferari. haha rambling on sorry guys
bkselect 2 years ago
The lighter the car the better! they have many adavntages in terms of fuel economy, and also handeling, braking, performance and not to mention their simplicity.
Therefore making them easier to control and responsive.
Car companies should try and reduce weight on their cars rather then having an engine that is going to push a lot of weight!
Dimitri0809 2 years ago
Chaoticmass, your point is excellent and well made. I'm amused and unimpressed with most of the so-called "economy" cars that are offered now. They are better cars overall, but are not nearly as fuel efficient as the '80s cars. My old '81 Mazda GLC got 24-31 city (in PITTSBURGH, PA) and 27-44 highway. (Your mileage will vary, depending on load, throttle opening, A/C use, and speed.) All the modern cars have "big block" engines for more power and sacrifice fuel economy in the process.
snowrocket 3 years ago
what I really dont get though is why bikes in the 500cc class, that weigh a fraction of the weight of a car, displace a fraction of the air (as they move through it), and have smaller engines (at 500cc) only do 45-50mpg themselves!
Cant motorcycle manufacturers do better than that, considering some small car manufacturers are getting the same fuel millage?
The CBF500: Its no sports bike, its one of the most ecconomical and its excelent value, but its 45mpg (gallon: UK=4.5litres US=3.8litr).
geoffart 3 years ago
very good comment, i have a gs500 and it consumes the same amount of fuel as my car (1.9 diesel, 1 tonne) that is why bikes need 6000 rpm for 65 mph, but cars need 3000 rpm
tsiailoui 3 years ago
I don't know much about bikes, but I think there's two reasons for the fuel mileage. While they do have a smaller aerodynamic frontal area, this is somewhat offset by the likely higher drag coefficient with the rider. Second, the high cruising RPM means higher frictional losses (in the engine and transmission) and more fuel burned in the engine.
snowrocket 3 years ago
they could if they wanted to, but bikes are much more highly tuned than an average car, and rev far higher, they must be drivien much harder to get any sort of speed (though they're designed to cope with this). But their extremely high revving engines need lots of fuel.
ConRWD 2 years ago
well, I believe we will see cars as light as this and even lighter again to save on fuel costs. I have a chevy sprint that weighs just over 1200lbs that can achieve over 45-50mpg.. old technology without the costs of hybrid.
99cachorro 3 years ago
The Toyota Starlet has always been my favorite car! Mine's sucks gas because of the 4AGE and weber carbs, but the original engine does fine by even today's standards.
vayabroki 3 years ago
well of course it would with the larger engine and big carbs, but you didn't do that to it for economy,and i know from driving 4age starlets that it's worth it. They go REALLY well with that engine. Still perfectly usable with the standard engines though if you bear in mind they're a small and pretty old car
ConRWD 2 years ago
ConRWD - you are correct Sir!
vayabroki 2 years ago
Wow, this is a classic car. You will never find one of these in Japan anymore. If you do its all beat up or ragged out! I wish they would make compact rear wheel drive cars but its probably impossible.
luvdoggystyle 3 years ago 2
I'm preparing the white one for use in Autocross, the other one will remain stock since its in very good condition. There's still a few good ones on the roads here, the climate in the south is more favorable for old cars, but they are still rare. I got lucky to find the ones I have.
Chaoticmass 3 years ago