84-87 Honda CRX mileage

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:09:46 -0800, Eric <say.no DeleteThis @spam.now> wrote:

>xxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
>>
>> 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

Why those years?
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage 

xxx.DeleteThis@xxx.xxx wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:09:46 -0800, Eric <say.no.DeleteThis@spam.now> wrote:
>
> >xxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
>
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage 

Eric wrote:
>
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage 

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:38 -0800, Eric <say.no DeleteThis @spam.now> wrote:

>xxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:09:46 -0800, Eric <say.no DeleteThis @spam.now> wrote:
>>
>> >xxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>> 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

But the mileage is better on the 84-87 than later years?
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage 

xxx RemoveThis @xxx.xxx wrote:

> 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
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage 

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:38 -0800, Eric <say.no RemoveThis @spam.now> wrote:

>xxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:09:46 -0800, Eric <say.no RemoveThis @spam.now> wrote:
>>
>> >xxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>> 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).

Do they have fixes for those now?
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage 

xxx.RemoveThis@xxx.xxx wrote:
>
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage 

Eric <say.no.TakeThisOut@spam.now> wrote:

>>xxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
>>
>>> 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

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.
 >> Stay informed about: 84-87 Honda CRX mileage