Last post on Aug 19, 2008 at 8:02 PM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic CRX, Honda Civic, Honda Civic del Sol, Concept Cars, Hybrid Cars, Coupe, Hatchback, Sedan
#148 of 187 Re: need to bring back the CRX [pkomma]
Jun 02, 2008 (11:07 am)
is the CRX the one that got over 40 mpg?
why hasn't honda brought this car back?
I have a friend who thinks there is some conspiracy by big oil as to the reason Honda killed the high milege CRX.
#149 of 187 Who Killed the CRX?
Jun 03, 2008 (3:11 pm)
It wasn't OPEC. Congress killed the CRX, and every other lightweight, fuel efficient car, by legislating airbags, ABS, side impact beams, and every other safety device they could think of.
This coincided with an explosion in consumer buying power during the 1990s, which created a demand for more luxury features (meaning more weight), even on traditional economy cars. Honda Civics and Ford Escorts suddenly offered power windows, power seats, cruise control, etc.
Now cars weigh 50% more than they used to, and get worse fuel economy as a result. But on the bright side, they are safer, and more comfortable to drive.
#150 of 187 Re: Who Killed the CRX? [1stpik]
Jul 14, 2008 (10:04 am)
I pulled out an old news paper add from the 80's where a used CRX is advertised.
The owner claims to get 60 mpg!
You're telling me that this 1.3 litre engine couldn't get say 40 mpg with today's safety standards? There have been trade offs with using Aluminum in the frame, so I'm not sure I buy your argument that it's merely safety standards killing us in fuel effeciency. I mean, how much does an airbag weigh? or a side beam in the door? It all doesn't add up to me.
An electric window doesn't weigh much more than one you have to manually crank.
It doesn't take carbon fibre to reduce the weight of a vehicle that was built in the 80's.
#151 of 187 Re: Who Killed the CRX? [aspesisteve]
Jul 14, 2008 (9:15 pm)
The 60 mpg claim is bogus. The old CRX (the super-efficient model HF) got 37/47 mpg. That's from the EPA website fueleconomy.gov which lists all makes and models back to the early 80s.
37/47 is certainly good, but as you said, that was from a 1.3 litre engine propelling a 1700 lb. car. Today's Honda Civic has a 1.8 litre engine propelling a 2600 lb. car. It gets 26/34 mpg, which is not bad for 50% more engine displacement and 50% more weight.
So you're correct, it's not just safety equipment weight, it's also bigger engines contributing to lower fuel economy.
#152 of 187 Re: Who Killed the CRX? [1stpik]
Jul 15, 2008 (9:27 am)
I wonder how much of the 900 lbs weight gain is in the engine?
and I also wonder how today's civic would perform with a 1.3 ltre engine?
17 years have gone by and all I've seen is a race for greater horsepower.
- yes cars are safer and more plush
Honda and Toyota have always offered a great 4 cyl option with the option of upgrading to the ample if not excessive 6 cyl because everyone wanted to go 0-60 in under 10 seconds. Now I wonder if they might offer the lower powered higher fuel economy model?
Jul 15, 2008 (11:53 am)
60 mpg was doable. The EPA took 22% off of their hwy numbers back then. To get the measured hwy mileage multiply 47 x 1.28 and Guess what - 60 mpg.
Jul 15, 2008 (1:42 pm)
ahh thanks for the input.
actually the EPA estimates were 41 city and 50 hwy
So, what's your guess as to why Honda doesn''t replicate this car with an airbag, abs and side impact beams?
It would be alot more appealing to me over the Smart car.
#155 of 187 Re: Who Killed the CRX? [aspesisteve]
Jul 16, 2008 (4:49 am)
"I also wonder how today's civic would perform with a 1.3 ltre engine?"
I can answer that. It performs a little slow, but okay.
I have a Civic Hybrid, which uses a 1.3 litre gasoline engine along with a 20 hp electric motor. The engine shuts off automatically when the car stops, and the hybrid battery keeps the electric system going while the engine is off.
On a hot summer day, waiting at a railroad crossing for a train to pass, the A/C can run down that battery in about 4 minutes. When that happens, the electric motor assist ceases, and the car is powered only by the 1.3 litre engine until the battery recharges itself.
It runs fine in that condition, but it's a bit slow -- kind of like a compact car from the early 80s.
#156 of 187 Re: - [aspesisteve]
Jul 16, 2008 (5:06 am)
"actually the EPA estimates were 41 city and 50 hwy"
Those were the old EPA numbers. The revised ones are 37/47. The fueleconomy.gov link you provided actually lists the '89 CRX HF twice -- once with the old ratings, and once with the new ones.
The old numbers were based on a maximum speed of 55 mph, a maximum rate of acceleration of 3 mph per second, and no air conditioning use, or stop-and-go traffic. That same testing method gave the Toyota Prius numbers of 51 city and 60 hwy until this year. Now the Prius and every other car gets a "real world" test. Consequently, all EPA numbers have dropped, including the Prius to 48/45.
"why Honda doesn''t replicate this car with an airbag, abs and side impact beams?"
The Honda Insight two-seater hybrid was nearly identical to the old CRX. They discontinued that model a few years ago in favor of the Civic Hybrid.
However, they'll release the new CRZ either next year or in 2010. It's supposed to replicate the looks and efficiency of the Insight, but offer more day-to-day practicality.
Jul 16, 2008 (9:26 am)
"the epa took 22% off of their hwy numbers back then"
where did you find this info?
Your telling me the epa estimates were conservative while 1stpik says the numbers were based on old epa estimates that were too generous.
1stpik's info seems to have more credibility to me eventhough I'd like nothing more than conclude there is a conspriacy.
btw: the website I provided said the 89 CRX HF had a 1.5 litre engine?? is that incorrect?