 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / January 200784-87 Honda CRX mileage
I am trying to find out which year and exactly the gas mileage of the CRX that got the great 60? mpg mileage in the middle 80s. Also a place to get mileage info of other cars would be good too. Reply to Redgreen202 at yahoo. -- To reply, remove _ > I am trying to find out which year and exactly the gas mileage of the CRX > that got the great 60? mpg mileage in the middle 80s. Also a place to > get mileage info of other cars would be good too. The CRX HF which was available from '85-7 carbureted and '88-91 fuel injected. However, I don't know the specific mpg associated with each model. If it were my choice, I'd probably go with a '90 or '91. Eric >> I am trying to find out which year and exactly the gas mileage of the CRX >> that got the great 60? mpg mileage in the middle 80s. Also a place to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Eric Why those years? > >> I am trying to find out which year and exactly the gas mileage of the > >> CRX that got the great 60? mpg mileage in the middle 80s. Also a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why those years? I drive an '88 Civic 4 Dr. I prefer the fuel injected system to the feedback carburetors on the '84-7 Civics. It seems more reliable and easier to work on (I've done extensive work on both systems). I would recommend the later years from the '88-91 series since Honda had a few problems with the early years which were solved with design changes in the later years. A few examples off the top of my head include the distributor which was redesigned with better and more reliable pick-up coils, the head lights which were redesigned with air vents so that they don't accumulate condensation inside, the spot welds on the pedal clusters of the early years also have a tendency to break apart, and the rear suspension lower control arms which were redesigned to be solid steel instead of pressed and formed sheet metal (however the latter point might be argued by some folks since the solid arms have a large lower strut bushing which tends to be problematic and the strut bushing is included with the struts on the early years). Eric > the spot welds on the pedal clusters of the early years also have a > tendency to break apart After rereading my post I realized that this statement was not clear. It was intended to describe the '84-7 Civics and NOT the early years of the '88-91 Civics which is implied in my earlier post. Eric >> >> I am trying to find out which year and exactly the gas mileage of the >> >> CRX that got the great 60? mpg mileage in the middle 80s. Also a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Eric But the mileage is better on the 84-87 than later years? > But the mileage is better on the 84-87 than later years? As I stated in my first response, I don't know the specific mpg for each of the model years. I can tell you that my '88 Civic DX 4 dr typically gets between 37 and 41 mpg with about 2/3 or so of my driving being freeway miles. This mileage is typical of what other people have reported on this newsgroup for this model (for example, search at groups.google.com for Elle's old posts). Given this information, I would imagine that the CRX HF's mileage would be even higher since practically the whole car has been lightened to obtain H_igh F_uel efficiency. There's a trade off though. One of the most noticeable to me when driving these cars is that the level of road noise is much higher than other Civics due to there being less noise insulation. However, if you're one of those people who always drive around with the stereo on 11 than that might not matter much. Eric >>xxx@xxx.xxx wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >>Eric We have an '87 CRX. If you live anywhere that it gets cold, I wouldn't buy one of those on a bet due to the fact that it's carbureted. Get one of the fuel injected models. I haven't kept mileage numbers lately. I'd guess it's getting in the low to mid-30s around town. It's been very reliable with 144K on it now and no major maintenance. We have the standard CRX in which performance is marginal. I would guess the HF is really underpowered. >> >> I am trying to find out which year and exactly the gas mileage of the >> >> CRX that got the great 60? mpg mileage in the middle 80s. Also a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >which tends to be problematic and the strut bushing is included with the >struts on the early years). Do they have fixes for those now? > Do they have fixes for those now? I believe that my prior post clearly describes the fixes (though the control arm bushing design still persists though most problems can be avoided by using antiseize compound on the lower strut bolt, indeed I can't think of a suspension bolt that shouldn't be reinstalled with antiseize). Eric |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.