stangguy

The difference is that I filed a I-130 and both of you filed a I-129f. If our cases were finished at the NVC at the same time, you would get an interview 1 month out if you wanted because you schedule the interview through the embassy website and pick the date. The embassy then tells you whether or not that date is available. For me I get an interview 2 months out because the NVC schedules the interview and apparently doesn't have a complte idea of the available dates. So I used the interview request form Immigrant Visa/Fiancé(e) Visa Appointment Request (OF-169) for Tokyo on the embassy website to ask for an earlier date. You will use the same form to schedule your visa interview.

A complete revamp of the immigration systemm cannot be accomplished by only changing USCIS. USCIS are only the first step and the very last step in the process. They only check that you are eligible to apply for a visa and they are the ones that control adjustment of status/citizenship. It is the state department that has the real control over immigration. They tell you what paperwork you need and when to send it in. They are also the ones that deicde if you get the visa or not. The state department decides if an immigrant comes to America not USCIS.

It appears they have changed the formatting. Formatted as EXP05JUN2009A works up until June 5th. Formatted as EXP 09 JUN 2009A works for the dates after that.

I just recieved the interview appointment letter from the NVC today. It is scheduled for the 17th of August. I plan on requesting a date in July, in part because I have seen that the K1/K3 visa interviews seem to get scheduled only 1 month out when scheduled at the embassy, but also becasue my wife is pregnant. Has anyone had success geting their CR1/IR1 interview moved up?

I just wanted to say that today the embassy sent me a reply and they rescheduled the interview for July 13th. So the answer to my question is that yes, they will move the date up.

I used this place to translate my documents for the visa application. Japanese Language Center. However, if you have time and a basic familiarity with the japanese language you could transcribe it over into an electronic format and then use a machine translator like this. World Lingo I used it as a translator for the documents also and with some understanding of how differences are of certain phrases works it is okay. However, I wouldn't use it to translate documents into Japanese.

The children are U.S. Citizens [ this is the legal problem that needs to be addressed. in few other countries is place of birth determinant. usually it is citizenship of parents that is determinant]

blah, blah, blah, blah...

This is your view, namely that children born in the US should not be granted US citizenship. It is certainly your right to pursue the Constitutional amendment that such a change would require. Petition for it, write your Congressman, write letters to the editor, run for office yourself. All fine and good.

Until that day, the law is clear - children born in the US are USCs.

This is not an insignificant matter to me personally.

My own US Citizenship derives from this fact. I was born in the US to parents who were legally, but temporarily, here. My father was completing his postdoc at a research institute in the US and shortly after I was born my parents returned to Canada and I with them. My parents are not American. My brother and sister, both born in Canada, are not American. You have your rights to speak out regarding immigration. So do I, and so do all US citizens, regardless of whether they obtained citizenship at birth or through naturalization.

I treasure my US citizenship, yet at the same time I recognize that it is mine through an accident of birth. Had I been born in Canada as were my brother and sister, I would not have this status. Nonetheless, I am every bit as much an American as you are. You, too, are American through the circumstances which gave you this status.

Actually, the Constitution desn't grant birthright citizenship to babies born in the US. The legislative history of the provision that has been erroneously interpreted shows clearly that the amendment was limited to granting US citizenship to freed slaves in the states, not children of anyone who happens to be born here. American Indians had to win their citizenship in court because the amendment referred to did not include them, only Black slaves.

Birthright citizenship has been repealed in other countries and that can and should happen here. It is the NEGLECT of our representatives that allows this mistake to compound the negative effects of illegal immigration. Citizens born of parents who were US citizens have not come by their citizenship in the same way that children of non-citizens did, and it is possible that, in the future, children of non-citizens may not be allowed that birthright again.

You are incorrect Sofiyaa. In United States V. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Supreme Court held that "a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth." because of the 14th ammendment.

The cases of American Indians are different because they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus the 14th ammendment did not apply to them.

Here is an interesting tidbit, not all people born on US soil are US citizens. There is is a provision in the citizenship statutes that excludes children born to foreign diplomats. Presumably because foreign diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction.

Thought I doubt it will ever happen, a similar exception could be written into the laws for children of of people holding no legal status in the US. It would require a lot of concessions such as not requiring illegal aliens to register for the selective service and not being able to hold them in US prisons, amongst others. The best way to do it would probably be along the lines of the aggreements in place with foreign diplomatic instutions or US Status of Forces agreements.

I guarantee it is not the timing belt. The timing belt controls the relation between the camshaft and the crankshaft if it was to fail or slip it would be a catastrophic failure and the car would not run. Timing belts are also toothed so they don't whine when the slip.

It could however be one of the accesory belts or the transmission if it is an automatic. A whine during early accleration is a typical symptom of a slipping belt or a hydraulic pump that is low on fluid. The two most common hydraulic pumps in a car are the power steering pump and the pump inside the automatic transmission. The belt could be worn out but I would wager a guess that the belt is simply not tight enough. The tension in the accesory belts become relaxed as they age because they stretch. Usually the tensioning pulley can accomodate this, but I wouldn't be suprised that a cheap Korean car like the Aveo(real name Daewoo Kalos) wouldn't have a properly function tensioning system.

Another, though less likely possiblity is that one of the bearings for the fan, ac pump, or tension pully is worn. However, this is usually due to an overtightened belt and doesn't typically stop at different accelerations only changes pitch and volume.

Because you don't seem to be able to diagnose the problem yourself, take the car to the repair shop. Just make sure it is doing the whine when you get there and does it in front of the tech or else they might not fix it.

Medical Doctors are licensed. Therefore, they must follow an ethical code in order to be able to practice medicine. After spending so many years in school, it would be ashame to have the license revoked. So, I m 100% comfortable to reveal my body in front of the doctor.

On the other hand, I would not trust Japanese doctors one bit. They may have secret surveillance cameras everywhere.

In April I accompanied my wife to a pregnancy checkup in Japan. While my wife got ready by climbing on the examination table and lowering her pants to cover with a sheet, the nurse made me wait in the hallway. When they were ready to do the ultrasound the nurse came and got me. Neither my wife nor me understood why I had to wait in the hall.

In my own naked in front of the doctor experience, when I was 14, I had some unusuall swelling in the testicular region. I had to take off my pants and cover with a sheet while waiting for the docotr. The nurse took a quick look at me down there to check things out then went and got two more nurses to come take a look. I'm not sure what they were doing because you couldn't really see the swelling.

I just recieved the interview appointment letter from the NVC today. It is scheduled for the 17th of August. I plan on requesting a date in July, in part because I have seen that the K1/K3 visa interviews seem to get scheduled only 1 month out when scheduled at the embassy, but also becasue my wife is pregnant. Has anyone had success geting their CR1/IR1 interview moved up?

For my wife it took 4 days to get her police certificate. However, from what I have seen of other Japan filers it is dependent on the local authorities, up to 2 weeks. As far as recieving it early, the risk is that it expires. I don't remember how recent the certificate needs to be but it was either 6 months or 1 year. Along with that Japan requires proof that a police certificate is needed for something before they will issue it. For my wife that was simply showing them a copy of the NOA2, but again it is dependent on the police department handling the request. I have heard that some places require a letter from the embassy in order to get the police certificate. Even for my wife there was some hesitation to issue it. One officer said it wasn't sufficient but checked with another officer who said it was and ultimately they allowed her to turn in the paperwork to get the certificate.

It would seem to me, the energy is take to accelerate an elect. car could be offset partially by recapturing it when braking.

We have all had or seen the little hand cranked generators or the ones that ride on a bicycle wheel, why not use a clutch to engage a simple on-board generator each time you step on the brake.

Rather than the brake grab a disc (disc brakes) the clutch engages, putting drag on the car... the more pressure applied to the break peddle ....the more the clutch engages the generator (creating more drag) to help recharge the battery.

Certainly there would be standard breaks as well if the break peddle pressure reached a certain point.

Right now it takes a tremendous amount of wasted energy... to stop a car, seems like that negative... could be harnessed.

- Of course long trips on an interstate (with little braking) would not see much benefit.

I'm sure I am not the first person to consider this concept... and maybe someone is using it already.

aren't they?

Maybe an in-house Engineer can poke holes in the idea.

Ps Don't mention this idea to Al-Gore... he will swear it was his.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic but that is pretty much exactly how hybirds work. However, the clutch isn't neccesary as the braking can be controlled by the generators connection to the battery. An open circiut on the generator produces no resistance while closing the circuit to charge the battery causes a charge and resistance to be generated.

NickD, you are right about the losses involved in converting the energy. There are losses everywhere and generating the energy at the point of use is best. And usually converting sources is a bad idea, like from combusting a fuel to create rotational energy to drive a generator that creates electricity to drive a motor to create rotational energy. However, with an internal combustion engine which is the most efficient way to burn a fuel and convert it into rotational energy at best we are 45% efficient. However, their efficiency changes at different speeds. That is one of the biggest reasons for adding extra gears to transmissions. Because of the variability of efficiency with speed it is actually more efficient to run the engine at one speed and use it to turn a generator to create electricity that in turn is used to turn electric motors. Large freight locomotives have been doing this since the 1920's and all diesel submarines are of this design. THe upcoming series hybrids are of this design and are likely to be the most efficient vehicles we see. Someone just needs to dump the gasoline engine for a diesel and 100 mpg full size sedan would be a reality somewhere other than in the lab.

I got 14/20, but I'm too young to know this stuff.

That's not too shabby, if you were born after 1970 or so.

You did get #16, right??

Anyone who cannot name the Beatles should be immediately taken out and shot.

I'm 12 years younger than that. Yeah, I got the beattles right. It was #1, thought it was Flintstone vitamins, 4. I was thinking the Waltons, and I don't remember any of the names other than John Boy 6. I had no clue, 13. again not a clue, 15. I knew it was a woman just didn't know her name, and 17. again not a clue.

I got 14/20, but I'm too young to know this stuff.

It doesn't make a great deal of sense though.

1) It doesn't say whether the guy lived/grew up in Africa or was just born there. I don't know about anyone else - but I wouldn't lay claim to a label of origin unless I had lived in the country for a time or if my parents were from there.

2) The phrase "African American" has a different context in this country - and its a label given to people who have never set foot in Africa, or indeed - who might not be from there at all but have no way of tracing their specific origins.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the abuse suffered by the guy is wrong in the extreme - but I think its reasonable to wonder why the guy would be apparently clueless about the contextual meaning of the phrase, and indeed of how sensitive racial issues are. The guy lives in Newark for God's sake!

The implied definition you are giving would mean Obama is not "African-American". But because his father is Kenyan and he is black it is okay to call him "African-American". The guy in this story was born and likely raised in Mozambique making him more African than Obama.

It is completely believable that he was suspended for making the statement that he is a "white, african, american" in a cultural diveristy class. That type of statement would be considered "conduct unbecoming of a student' in many places. The arrogance of some people in the "education" community is asstounding. People are very protective of their predertmined views of race and ethnic identity and won't let it be challenged if they have the ability to do so.

And this type of response isn't rare. White African-American boy not 'black' enough for award Also, there was a similar incident I believe in Colorado where a white african boy won a scholarship for african-americans but it was later revoked when they found out he was white.

Thomas is probably the justice that most supports a limitation of federal power with respect to the commerce clause. He doesn't believe in the "dormant commerce" clause and thinks only things directly involved in commerce can be regulated. He strongly supports going back to the interpretation that earilier courts held where manufacturing, mining, and production are not commerce. In Gonzales vs. Raich he wrote a dissenting opinion saying that private production of marijuana for personal use could not be regulated by the federal government.

It is law, it was signed by the governor on April 15. It will see a challenge sooner or later because of the subject matter. If it isn't challenged by the federal government soon I would expect every "red" state and a few "blue" states to pass similar legislation and possibly extend the topic to other areas including drugs. The way the the bill is written mirrors the dissenting opinion of It would be a case involving a state, giving the supreme court original jurisdiction so I would expect quick resolution. However, a challenge might be delayed because of Souter's retirement. Souter is one of the current justices that has a very liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. If he was to be replaced by someone with a more "constitutionalist" stance on the clause the federal government could lose significant power.

They knowingly wrote the law stating that it only pertained to firearms, munitions, and accesories manufactured in Montana for sale and use in Montana. That seeks to preempt any authority the federal government would have via the interstate commerce clause. You have to establish that the federal government has no authority before you can argue that you have authority under the 9th and 10th ammendment. The interstate commerce clause is the only source of authority for the federal government over firearms and many other things and the federal courts acknowledes this. Stating the relevance of the 9th and 10th ammendment doesn't make the interstate commerce clause any less powerful it just shows that you have authority where the federal government doesn't. In this case it is probably a way to say that yes, the federal firearms laws are valid, but they don't apply to everything.

While there are several old precendents that would deem this state law in violation of the the congressional commerce powers, the current make up of the supreme court includes 5 justices that aren't all that supportive of those precedents.

Unfortunately there is allready court precendent covering this area. Because large production in Montana of the firearms that would be covered under the Federal Firearms act could potentially cross state lines, the entire law could be ruled invalid because of the "dormant commerce clause" which essentially means that state or local regulations can't conflict with congressional interstate commerce power. However, several members of the current court are adverse to the way the interstate commerce clause has been used as a blanket to allow regulation of several different things that aren't directly commerce related. Justice Alito even challenged the applicablity of the commerce clause to the Federal Firearms Act as an appelate judge. So should this be challeneged by the federal government it will be an interesting thing to see.

The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law

Text of the legislation: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

According to this it has received 3rd reading but is not yet law.

According to this it already has been signed by the Governor and is law.

In any event, the constitutional basis of the legislation is an activist interpretation of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. This is on very shaky legal ground since mainstream interpretation of these amendments has historically ceded to Congress the right to make any law they wish that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution - and that includes gun control legislation. If it does become law it is almost certainly going to be challenged on constitutional grounds and I would lay odds it gets overturned. Still, it would make for a very good Supreme court case should it eventually get that far and be put on the docket. Definitely one to keep an eye on.

The 9th and 10th ammendments aren't the important issues with this legislation, it is the interstate commerce clause of the constititution. The interstate commerce clause is what gives congress much of the power it currently exerts over firearms. The Federal Firearm's act of 1934 derives all of its power from the interstate commerce clause. Also interesting is that the interstate commerce clause is also the source for the power behind the civil rights act. Without the interstate commerce clause the civil rights act would have no impact on private business.

The big deal is that while it may not be any more virulent than other flu viruses going around this season, there is no vaccine to prevent infection with this virus. Vaccines are typically developed based on the strains that show potential to early on cause widespread infection several months before flu season. Because this strain was not identified early on as a potential candidate no vaccine was developed. There is no protection other than not coming in contact with it or hoping your immune system is strong enough to fight off the initial attack. Many people take this approach anyway so it doesn't matter to them, I'm one of them. However many of those that get vaccinated are usually at high risk for infection or a high potential for mortality. Because they don't have that protection against this virus the numbers that could potentially die are higher.

I looked into trying to opt out of SSI when I started working. Unfortunately unless you are certain categories of clergy or railroad worker you can't. I didn't realize that there used to be an exemption for government workers.

Does anyone have experience with filiing the affidavit of support and having filed an extension for the previous years taxes?

I have a copy of my current Tax Account transcripct that shows I filed an extension for 2008 taxes, but that is all it shows regarding 2008, as well as Tax Return transcripts for 2007 and 2006. What did you you put on the form where it asked for your 2008 adjusted gross income? I ask because it specifically mentions that it should come from your form 1040 and I obviously haven't filed my 1040 yet.

I have my w-2 for 2008 and am wondering if I should include it as proof of my 2008 income. I have seen that the NVC doesn't like you to include the w-2 if you don't have a completed return but I would like to send my w-2 as proof of last years income. I want to do this instead of sending my pay stubs or an employment letter because they might raise flags. Eventhough, I make well above the income requirements my pay stubs make it look like I have very erratic income. This is because I missed a fair amount of work during the last 8 months because I was visiting my wife overseas. The employment letter would also seem a little strange as it would indicate a 50% increase in income over last year even though I am with the same company and I haven't recieved a raise since early last year. Also, after reading the section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act, it says that they use the 3 most recent taxable years. Because the extension makes me exempt to file until October, it could be construed that they could use 2005 income data which would be really bad for me because it is only around $4,000 because I was still in University and only worked during the summer.

Thanks for any help.

My NVC case number was generated on the 24th and on the 28th the AVR changed to say that the DS-3032 and AOS bill had been generated and sent. I then overnighted the ds-3032 on the 29th and today the AVR changed to say that it was entered on the 30th.

1. 2010 Toyota Prius | 50 mpg (51 city, 48 highway)
2. 2010 Honda Insight | 41 mpg (40 city, 43 highway)
3. 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid | 39 mpg (41 city, 36 highway)
4. 2009 VW Jetta SportWagen TDI | 34 mpg (30 city, 41 hwy)
5. 2009 MINI Cooper | 32 mpg (28 city, 37 highway)
6. 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid | 32 mpg (34 city, 31 highway)
7. 2009 Honda Fit | 31 mpg (28 city, 34 highway)
8. 2009 BMW 335d | 27 mpg (23 city/36 highway)
9. 2009 Toyota Highlander Hybrid | 26 mpg (27 city, 25 highway)
10. 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid | 21 mpg (21 city, 22 hwy)

My old 1984 five speed Honda Accord would fit nicely in there, 46 mpg on the highway, and 33 in the city, not a poker either with 0-60 times in ten seconds. 2004 five speed Cavalier ain't half bad either with 42 mpg on the highway, but drops to 30 mpg in normal city driving. Won't count the Dan Ryan in Chicago when you creep at 2-3 mph with constant stop and go driving, EPA should do their mileage tests on that road. Especially with hybrids, those batteries would be dead weight with that kind of driving.

They should also specify the kind of gas they are using in their test, I lose 5-7 mpg with that stupid ethanol ####### and even more with so-called oxygenated winter gas where I was paying $4.30 per gallon for 20% air added to the gas. The old gas use to be 120,000 BTU per US gallon, that has dropped down to as far as 91,000 BTU's.

It's all BS with our energy evaluation with our government and they should toss in the maintenance cost if your batteries go dead, Toyota lists out the battery pack in the Prius at $7,000.00 but has been known only to charge their customers $3,000.00 as a good will policy. Plus all of the additional electrical problems you can run into and the added initial cost of these vehicles.

Then you have to learn how to drive these hybrids, if you see a stop sign a mile ahead, time to take your foot off the gas and use the dynamic braking to charge up the battery so you conserved about 50% of that braking energy to take off again. If you do this on a highway, may have a semi parked in your exhaust pipe. But 99% of the drivers fly up to a stop sign and slam on the brakes, no gains there. And absolutely impossible to drive this way in the city, 50 zillion horns would be blasting your ears off and talk about the getting the finger.

A more effective means would be to get rid of the traffic lights and the stop signs, our roads have not been kept up with the ever increasing traffic demands.

I'm not sure where you got your values for the new engergy of gasoline, but an E15 mix, or gasoline that is 15% by weight ethanol should have an energy content of about 110,000 BTU per US gallon. Pure Ethanol has an energy content of 84,000 BTU per US gallon.

The fuel economy change that you list is a bit high, but if it is for your 1984 Accord it is believable because it would have a very poor engine control system that could not adjust for the use of blended fuels. Most modern vehicles should see closer to a 7% loss in economy because their engine management can better adjust for strange fuel mixtures and air conditions. As far as oxygenated winter mix gasoline, I'm not sure what is required in the midwest. But recently on the west coast all winter mix gasoline is E15 so it is pretty much the same year round energy wise. This is because MTBE was banned in California and mixing batches with MTBE for the other states isn't cost effective so all stations now have to use ethanol as the oxygenate because it is the only one available.

Driving methods do make a big difference in fuel economy and that is why the EPA adjusted their measurment methods in 2008. Also, the method that gets the best efficiency out of a hybrid will also get the best efficiency out of a non-hybrid. Also, you will still see benefits from a hybrid when making sudden stops because there is still the same amount of energy to be recovered. But a quick start will instantly require the use of the gasoline engine and quickly uses up the stored energy from the batteries.

The reason that the manufactureres haven't been able to greatly advance the fuel efficiency of the vehicles is because of the ####### and performance people want, the tougher crash safety standards, and the tougher emissions requirements. The first two have greatly increased the weight of cars while also making the engines biased towards more power over lower fuel consumption. The more stringent emissions standards also increases fuel consumption.

A big hindrance to reducing fuel consumption of engines is the restriction on NOx emmisions. You might have heard that 14.7 is the "ideal" air to fuel ratio for gasoline engines. It is actually far from ideal. It is actually the ratio of air mass to gasoline mass that theoretically allows all of the oxygen and gasoline to combine and be burnt and is more appropriately called the stoichiometric ratio. For the most power out of the engine you would want it to be close to 12, while for the most fuel efficient you want it around 18 or higher. An air fuel mixture with a higher than stoichiometeric ratio is called "lean". Because of emissions regulations almost all engines are designed to operate near the stoichiometric ratio.

For the same engine this could mean a decrease in fuel consumption of 18% or more at a given speed by running in a lean condition. Most automotive manufacturers have used some sort of "lean burn" technology in the past. The Civic VX is one of those older "lean burn" vehicles. However, a byproduct of burning things in a lean condition is the production of NOx compounds. With increased NOx restrictions "lean burn" engines have become more difficult to produce and require a more complex method of fuel and emissions control than regular fuel injected vehicles. Most of the "direct injection" gasoline engines are "lean burn" but can only operate in that area when engine is at a constant speed under low load because NOx emiisions increase when lean mixtures are burnt under high load. Also, most drivers want considerably more power when they push the pedal down becasue they are trying to get up to speed quickly, and the most effective way to do this is to increase the amount of fuel consumed by the engine.

You also need to be mindful that fuel economy measuring methods have changed twice, once in 1985 and again in 2008. Both times EPA mileage numbers for a given vehicle decreased. What this means is your 1995 Civic VX rated at 47/51 would now be rated at 39/46. It is still good but when you think about the other things that have changed it isn't great, especially when it is a specialty vehicle meant to get good fuel economy.

1995 Honda Civic VX

Curb Weight 2,100lbf

1.5l engine 92Hp

47mpg/51mpg (39mpg/46mpg EPA corrected values for pre-2008 vehicle)

1995 Honda Civic DX Sedan

Curb Weight 2,300lbf

1.5l engine 102Hp

34mpg/40mpg (29mpg/36mpg EPA corrected values for pre-2008 vehicle)

2009 Honda Civic Sedan

Curb Weight 2,600lbf

1.8l engine 140 Hp

26mpg/34mpg

If we adjust the power of the 2009 Civic down to the same power level as the 1995 Civic we can adjust the fuel consumption up by the same ratio and the engine size down. This is okay as an estimate because power output is inversely proportional to fuel consumption. You can also adust both fuel consumption and power by engine size because power and fuel consumption are directly proportional to engine size. Another though less accurate way to compare them would be to adjust the weight of the vehicle because during acceleration the amount of fuel required is directly proportion to vehicle weight. This is less acurate because only a portion of the EPA mileage test is done under acceleration. It will be even less accurate for the highway numbers because less of this test involves acceleration. The following adjustments were done to compare the 2009 Civic to the 1995 Civic DX. I did this because they have comparable technology in their engines with both being standard gasoline engines which makes the comparisons that I did more meaningful.

2009 Honda Civic (numbers adjusted to match engine power of 1995 Civic DX)

1.3l engine 102Hp

36mpg/47mpg

2009 Honda Civic (numbers adjusted to match engine size of 1995 Civic DX)

1.5l engine 117Hp

31mpg/41mpg

2009 Honda Civic (numbers adjusted to match highway fuel economy of 1995 Civic DX)

1.7l engine 132Hp

28mpg/36mpg

2009 Honda Civic (numbers adjusted to match weight of 1995 Civic DX)

Curb Weight 2,300 lbf

124Hp

29mpg/38mpg

What these comparisons show is that efficiency has increased since 1995. If we look at engine size the Civic has increased its fuel economy by 7% city and 14% highway while increasing power by 15%. This is notable because it means they are producing more power while consuming less fuel; a double bounus. If we look at engine power the Civic has increased its fuel economy by 24% city and 31% highway while decreasing engine size by 13%. If you look at the numbers adjusted for weight it shows a potential bias towards more power. I would have liked to find acceleration times because that would give us a definitive idea of whether the extra power output was for quicker acceleration or to overcome the heavier weight and increased electrical power requirements of the newer car. However, I doubt the extra power is purely for overcoming weight and additional electronics because the weight change was minimal and most cars from the mid 90's have similar electrical systems to those made now.

For those wondering, I have a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering. I focused on thermal/fluid systems which is the core background for those designing engines and other energy conversion devices. During my last two years in University I worked on the engine for a student designed and built race car, studiying a lot of the intricacies that make a more powerful engine and those same things can also make a more fuel efficient engine. Even though I wasn't fortunate enough to go into the automotive field after graduation, I keep track of current developments in the field because it is soemthing that I really enjoy.