[jdmartin]

In my planning for the future I'm thinking of buying one of these things to help commute me back and forth to work. So for anyone who's ever owned one,

1. Are they comfortable?
2. What kind of gas mileage (city/highway) did you experience in real-life?
3. Are they reliable?
4. Are they made well enough to last?

Thanks for the input..

[gnm]

I had a freind who had one for years. He said it was very reliable and absolutely sipped gas. He routinely got 40-50 mpg. But they are kind of small so somewhat "clown car" like if you are a 6 ft+ kind of guy...

-G

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdmartin', '
')
1. Are they comfortable?
2. What kind of gas mileage (city/highway) did you experience in real-life?
3. Are they reliable?
4. Are they made well enough to last?

[Bnjmn]

There are 3 CRX versions
Si - low mpg (as posted - 30-35)
DX- more mpg (I got 40-45)
Hf- most mpg (about 55 mpg)

Odd to think that we had good looking, cheap cars that handled really well, and got 55 mpg way back in the mid-80s. The previous generation of CRXs had an HF as well, that got the same mpg. It makes the modern hybrids look like gas hogs.
The Hf doesn't have much acceleration, but seeing how my miles you can get out of gallon of gas is pretty fun.

Ben

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

When I got married, mid 80's say, my father in law had one of the HF's. I got a chance to run it more than once, and while it didn't have much power, it was nearly as much fun as the Si I bought a few years later. And he did claim 50+ mpg.

But there was a world of difference, power wise, between the Hf and Si. But both were absolute riots for little cars.

[frankthetank]

My dream car!!! I owned a Honda Prelude ('85 with the carbs) and loved the handling so much! Compared to my '99 Ford, it was like night and day (Preludes/CRX are very light) . I once test drove a Si (nice because they are fuel injected) and i still burned rubber in 2 gears and that was with a clutch that was almost gone! My 'lude had the 1.8 while i think CRX's have a 1.6.

I don't get it, why is Honda building them ugly Insights (IMO), when it has a car that can get 50mpg with good looks?

[hunter]

just make sure that it hasn't been modified and a bigger engine installed and it should be good on gas.

the Honda CRX is one of the cars that import enthusiasts have extensively modified finding one these days that has been left alone is very hard to do...

[sysfce2]

I recently bought one and started driving it in January (´87 1.5L carbureted with 260k on it). Some rough back of the napkin calculations gives me approximately 25 ­­­­­­­to 31 MPG (7.4 to 9.4L/100km). Mine is probably a more worse case scenario because I have not done a tune up on it yet (excluding changing the oil of course) and I drive a lot of short trips (5 to 10 minutes) in cold weather (Canada not being the warmest of countries ) so I need to use the manual choke quite a bit. Not to mention the fact I´m migrating from a Trans Am that quit in January so my driving habits could use some improvements for fuel efficiency ... not that a base CRX can be driven like a sports car ...

The seats aren´t too bad as far as economy cars go, at least on short tips, but I´m considering putting the seats out of my other car into it (anyone tried this type of project - suggestions?). The handling is not to bad considering it´s a front wheel drive car, but in the snow it can be somewhat interesting to drive, although managable once you get used to FWD characteristics. The turning radius is one of the great things about these cars, not to mention the parking spaces it can fit into - you can turn within a (wide) two lane road without using the shoulders!
The road/wind noise at high speeds is quite a bit more noticeable than much newer cars too, although no complaints here as I´m used to a V8 with headers and sidepipes... The drive comfort is again, like an economy car, you can feel all the imperfections in the road but again not much different than a (older) sports car (minus the handing of course).

As far as reliability, mine is a 20 year old car with fairly high mileage (although my brother has an ´85 with 330k and is still going strong) so you can´t expect (most) new car reliability. They are a good car compared to many of this vintage though, and the nice thing about them is their simplicity - I was able to drive around for a couple weeks without an accessory belt when my alternator seized up because that IS the only accessory . Mine is also carbureted so the fuel injection complexity is not there, but you do lose fuel efficiency with that. Also with old cars the availability of parts can be a problem, especially with cars this rare. For example the fuel tank is no longer available for the carbureted models (perhaps the fuel leaking from my tank doesn´t help my efficiency numbers either ) but I´m soon going to get it relined unless I find a good parts car before then - once I get the TA back up and running so I have something to drive...
But if you are used to driving old cars and do the maintenance yourself, the CRX will probably be quite reliable and cost effective to run.

As far as longevity, pretty near any car can be made to run for much longer than the current average life - I don´t think I´ve ever had a daily driver vehicle that was newer than 15 years old. But there comes a point when the time/effort/money being put into it is more than the cost of buying a newer vehicle. If you do the maintenance yourself, obviously that point comes a lot later in the life of the car, particularly if like me, you enjoy working on them. And even the problem of most of the rarer parts (not consumeables) can be solved with the purchase of a parts car - the parts you will scrounge off of them will more than pay for it...

I guess in summary, the CRX is hard to beat for cost of operation because the purchase price is so low (about 650 USD for mine), the fuel economy, and driving enjoyment, as well as reliability - that´s why I chose it. The small three cylinders like the Firefly, sprint, swifts, are more economical to run but are more of a tin box feel and driving characteristics (not to mention any last remnants of a ´macho´ feel )
If you´re looking at Hondas though, don´t forget the early ´90s civic hatchbacks - I believe about the ´92/´93 to ´95s. They have VTEC engines that have better fuel economy before the horsepower started going up more, but the initial purchase price will set you back more..

Anyways hope this helps and good luck in your vehicle hunting - and of course, don´t forget about that bicycle either...

[WisJim]

My son has a CRX HF, I think maybe a 1989 or so, with over 188k miles on it. The thing to remember about them is that they are old and they are 2 seaters. He doesn't get the 55mpg hiway that they were supposed to get when they were new, but I am using it now to drive to work when the weather isn't nice enough to make me want to bike, and it gets 30+ in town on short trips. Probably 45 to 50 hiway. As mentioned, most of them have been hotrodded with bigger engines, etc., since they were probably the lightest car Honda made at the time.

Perhaps a better car to look for is a 1992-94 Honda Civic VX, the high mileage version of the 2 door Civic hatchback, rated over 55mpg hiway. My son has one of those too, and that is the car that he uses to drive to work. He often drives 100 to 200 miles, works the week, then drives home, and hauls his tools and sometimes other people in the car, and gets near the rated mileage. That is for a 14 year old car, which at the moment needs some work.

I find the CRX a bit akward to get into, because it is low, and I am 6 ft tall and 225 pounds. He doesn't mind, and he is almost my size, just lighter. There is plenty of legroom in the drivers seat once you are sitting down--I can't put the seat all the way back or I would barely reach the pedals.

They are both quite impressive for cars their age, considering the kind of fuel mileage that is available in brand new cars.

added April 11: Our CRX is an 85--I finally remembered to check.

[importscout]

i had an 89 CRX Si, it was a great car, even the Si's milage is awesome and you benefit from a little more power. Older honda's aren't designed to pass NOX emissions for smog, but this can easily be fixed from a bottle of guaranteed-pass fluid from passsmog.com (or similar websites). Mine had over 120,000 miles on it and still ran great after a new clutch.

One problem: VERY small car, 80's safety technology (no ABS, no airbags), NOT SAFE! I was overlooked by SUVs and trucks many times while they were changing lanes and was nearly squashed so I sold the car.... something to consider...

[JoeCoal]

My old GF drove an '88 CRX HF, and taught me to drive stick in it. She taught me a few other things as well...

We never had to buy gas, or so it seemed. Unfortunately, we went our separate ways, but I can vouch that I drove my 85 Accord Hatchback until 2002 (17 years, 185,000+ miles) with only minimal repairs that were all my fault for blowing off basic maintenance. I still regret getting rid of it, and SOMBODY is probably still driving it...

[turp182]

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi ... technology

[LGW]

Not surprising. The hybrids as of today really are a half hearted solution.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut Toyota Motor Corp.'s Prius, while still the best-selling hybrid in the market, has dropped 3.3% below last year's pace to 22,123 sales for the first three months.

[BrownDog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccord hybrid sales are off 51% from last year, when the model was introduced and was still a novelty because it mates a V-6 engine with Honda's hybrid electric drive system that gives it 253 horsepower, versus 244 in the non-hybrid model.

[Rishabh87]

Yeah, they really missed the point of the hybrid with the Accord. They are selling at as a luxury model at more than 30K. I bet Toyota's new hybrid Camry will sell very well. It is a EPA mileage of 43/37 vs. the 24/33 for the regular Camry. And the price premium versus a comparable 4 cylinder Camry is only about $1500.

In regards to a drop in Prius sales, I bet it is a combination of these things:
1. The recent recall and technical defects which caused the car to "die." The media really blew it out of proportion.
2. A drop in gas prices to in December.
3. More "attractive" looking cars like the Civic Hybrid and SUV hybrids.

Also, have a look at this:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/66260 ... 13mpg.html

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rishabh87', 'A')lso, have a look at this:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/66260 ... 13mpg.html

[Andy]

There is no way that they can get 110 + mpg just relying on engine hybrid technology alone. They will have to use carbon fibre/magnesium/aluminium etc. and streamline the car to the extreme to get those figures and they probably will also have to have plug in capability. I will believe it when I see it. The GM Precept was estimated using efficient fuel cell hybrid power to get 110 mpg.

They will also probably need diesels or fuel cells to help get that figure combined with every trick in the book to squeeze maximum efficiency.

For the person who loves the fact that he drives 400 miles on $25. I get that too in a much simpler, albeit smaller diesel Jetta with no hybrid components whatsoever. On highway, 50 - 54 mpg for a figure of 400 miles on $20 or so. In city, you are slightly better but I still manage 37 mpg for 400 city miles on about $28. I drive about 50:50 city highway coming out to an average of $24 per 400 miles. Diesel is about $2.65 here. last I checked.

[TommyJefferson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'I')f they succeed in this, then there goes all the arguments that deisels are just as efficient.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TommyJefferson', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'I')f they succeed in this, then there goes all the arguments that deisels are just as efficient.