OT: 1984 Honda CRX 1.5 - 67 mpg Options

[Qarl]

In 1984, Honda's CRX 1.5 hatchback made an astonishing 67 mpg highway, and 51 mpg in the city.

Yet, 20 years later they cannot do any better.

Why?

Emissions, HP???

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...articleId=68272

[McMark]

The current Hybrids always hit me as lack-luster.

Conspiracy Theorists, start your engines! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Rrrockhound]

The current Hybrids always hit me as lack-luster.

Conspiracy Theorists, start your engines! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Don't need any conspiracy theories. It's simple. That 84 Honda didn't have to carry around 17" wheels, A/C, power everything, 36 airbags, and run the quarter in 16 sec. or less.

[BigDBass]

Conspiracy Theorists, start your engines

I would, but I can't afford enough gas to start my SUV!

[jim912928]

My dad has an 85 CRX...he still get's that mileage and it has over 200k miles on it. Of course it's alittle lighter then new (alittle rust..lol).

[grantsfo]

In 1984, Honda's CRX 1.5 hatchback made an astonishing 67 mpg highway, and 51 mpg in the city.

Yet, 20 years later they cannot do any better.

Why?

Emissions, HP???

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...articleId=68272

Lets put this in perspective. It was a weak little 60 hp 1.3 that powered a 1700lb CRX HF not a 1.5 liter. The HF did 0-60 in 13 seconds! Those were also the days when you could fudge on your claimed EPA mileage. 51 city and 67 highway was pushing it and not attainable in real life. And the mileage claim for this car was all over the place as the one I had was rated at 49 cty/54 hwy.

Now the Civic hybrid is bigger than the Accord of the 1980's. Its new 1.3 liter engine makes almost twice as much HP as the 1.3 that powered the 1984 CRX HF 20 years ago. The Civic Hybrid is rated at 49 cty and 51 hwy. The new Civic also carries all the new safety garb. The early 80's CRX was pretty much a coffin on wheels.

The recently discontinued Honda Insight made better 61 cty and 66 hwy and it was very much like a modern day CRX.

[lapuwali]

This is one of those "don't get me started" topics. The Honda CVCC did better than 45mpg WITH A CARB back in the 1970s.

Cars now have to carry around so much CRAP in the way of doodads that they all weigh 3000lbs or more now, partly from sound deadening, mostly from crash test requirements. The 1st gen CRX weighed 1800lbs. The 2nd gen cars weighed 2100lbs. All that weight requires a lot of torque to get it moving, so small engines are barely capable. Plus, everyone expects even minimalist cars to have the same level of performance as a hot sports car from the 1970s (or better).

Meanwhile, given modern engine controls, it would be quite possible to make a CRX today that used a variable valve timing and direct injection with a 1.0L engine that had the same performance as the 1.5 did in 1984, but got 60+ mpg.

Hybrids caught the imagination of the public and the lawmakers, so now the Civic hybrid doesn't do any better than 50mpg. The CA lawmakers passed a law allowing hybrids to use the HOV lane, even if they don't even get the same mileage as a run of the mill European A-class car like a VW Lupo (which isn't a hybrid, and costs far less than a hybrid).

Since it's likely gas will stay expensive here, I think it's likely we'll finally see VW try to import B-class cars like the Polo, and perhaps the French will try to return to the US with some of their excellent A and B class cars, which all get great mileage. Perhaps even FIAT will try, gasping, to re-enter the US market with some of their small cars.

The Europeans, however, are as crazy about Diesels as the US is about hybrids. The US EPA hates Diesels (because they can't pull their heads out of their asses and see what the current Euro emissions standards are), and push hybrids instead, figuring that electric technology is always the answer, and hope that everyone will eventually be fooled into going all-electric, so all of the emissions can be moved out of the cars and into the powerplants, which are shielded by powerful lobbies from actually having to do anything about their emissions.

Perhaps the Koreans will see the light, realize that low-cost, high-mileage, low-emissions spark ignition gasoline engines are very possible with current technology, stuff one into a small two-seater, and sell them by the thousands.

That enough of a rant?

[grantsfo]

The Europeans, however, are as crazy about Diesels as the US is about hybrids. The US EPA hates Diesels (because they can't pull their heads out of their asses and see what the current Euro emissions standards are), and push hybrids instead, figuring that electric technology is always the answer, and hope that everyone will eventually be fooled into going all-electric, so all of the emissions can be moved out of the cars and into the powerplants, which are shielded by powerful lobbies from actually having to do anything about their emissions.

Perhaps the Koreans will see the light, realize that low-cost, high-mileage, low-emissions spark ignition gasoline engines are very possible with current technology, stuff one into a small two-seater, and sell them by the thousands.

That enough of a rant?

Lack of diesels in the US is probably due more to California Air Resource Board (CARB) not allowing diesels into the biggest US market. That all changes next year with clean diesel being allowed by CARB. We will likely see a flood of clean diesel cars come to the US over the next few years. So much for conspiracy theories. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[BigDBass]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)
Keep ranting. This is great stuff!

[BMartin914]

The Europeans, however, are as crazy about Diesels as the US is about hybrids. The US EPA hates Diesels (because they can't pull their heads out of their asses and see what the current Euro emissions standards are), and push hybrids instead, figuring that electric technology is always the answer, and hope that everyone will eventually be fooled into going all-electric, so all of the emissions can be moved out of the cars and into the powerplants, which are shielded by powerful lobbies from actually having to do anything about their emissions.

Perhaps the Koreans will see the light, realize that low-cost, high-mileage, low-emissions spark ignition gasoline engines are very possible with current technology, stuff one into a small two-seater, and sell them by the thousands.

That enough of a rant?

Lack of diesels in the US is probably due more to California Air Resource Board (CARB) not allowing diesels into the biggest US market. That all changes next year with clean diesel being allowed by CARB. We will likely see a flood of clean diesel cars come to the US over the next few years. So much for conspiracy theories. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[DBCooper]

During this last month I had a Skoda (!) Octavia turbo diesel (with the VW engine). Nice car, good power, lots of torque, easy to drive, and I got up to 59 MPG. Not when I was having fun, but when cruising. It was even nicer, I thought, than the Passat TDI I had the month before. Point is that both of those cars weigh more, ran their air conditioning, cruised at 80 mph, and were a heck of a lot more pleasant than that Honda econo-box. There's been progress made, for sure.

[drive-ability]

The cars are light, efficient and get great gas mileage until you put two typical Americans (Huge Fat) in it, then the fuel mileage is cut in half (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

[Dr Evil]

I am a bio-diesel wanna be. That is why I have Unkle Tyrone, my 75 MBZ. I am kinda pissed that the TDI stuff can not even be sold in some states.

Diesel must be worser than gas because you can see it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/jerkit.gif)

[alpha434]

Anyone ever look into vaporic gasoline carburation, or laser ignition.

[Elliot_Cannon]

Speaking of electric cars. Where are they? I used to see them all the time in So. Cal. and now they're all gone. Where are they? I want one. The Hilton hotel in Ontario California even had a recharging station.
Elliot

[MattR]

All EV1s sold by Saturn were on Lease, and they were all collected by GM when the lease was up. They're sitting in a huge lot right now collecting dust. They were an experiment.

My take: a 65 mpg car would not sell. Such cars are loud, boring, slow, dont have creature comforts, and (most importantly) dont yield a big profit for the automakers. A big car with lots of options and a big sticker price will make more money per car then a cheaper alternative. Lee Iococa makes a really good description of it in his autobiography. Its basically the reason companies like Cadillac are in business.

[zymurgist]

My take: a 65 mpg car would not sell. Such cars are loud, boring, slow, dont have creature comforts, and (most importantly) dont yield a big profit for the automakers. A big car with lots of options and a big sticker price will make more money per car then a cheaper alternative. Lee Iococa makes a really good description of it in his autobiography. Its basically the reason companies like Cadillac are in business.

Precisely. Companies like GM make a token nod to the small, fuel-efficient market, but only in entry-level cars. I drive a long way to work so I need the fuel efficiency, but I would like to go upmarket a little bit... specifically, better sound deadening, better seats (lumbar support - don't care about leather though), etc.

Honda seems to "get it" with the new Civic, but as a result a buyer will pay over $20K for a well-equipped example as opposed to a $15K bare bones Chevy Cobalt with none of the stuff that makes you want to sit in the car for an hour at a time. GM figures that it can sell Tahoes, Impalas, and LaCrosses all day and make bigger margins on them (and those models are indeed selling well).

[zymurgist]

Any love for the dearly departed Toyota MR-2 Spyder? As far as I could figure, it was as close as any manufacturer can come to building a 914 in today's marketplace (emissions & safety regulations).

[grantsfo]

Any love for the dearly departed Toyota MR-2 Spyder? As far as I could figure, it was as close as any manufacturer can come to building a 914 in today's marketplace (emissions & safety regulations).

You can always get the Brit version AKA the Lotus Elise (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Back in the day the 914 had similar pricing to the Elise if you were to take inflation into consideration.

[lapuwali]

I disagree that a small basic car would not sell. People assume that because such cars simply aren't available here. People who want basic cars buy used. There are LOTS of 20 year old Corollas on the road in California.

I would bet good money that if Renault sold the Clio and the Twingo here, there would be a waiting list for the cars. The Twingo is cute as well as fuel efficient, and young girls will line up around the block to get them, just as they did for the new Beetle. The Clio is a GREAT car (drove one from Barcelona to Milan and back) for it's price and size range. In France, it was only $9000 new in 1998.

The Ford Ka would likely sell well here, being another example of a neat looking car with few frills.

Renault designed a cheap car to be built in Romania, to replace the locally produced Dacia (itself a copy of an old Renault model). They offered the car in Western Europe, and couldn't build them fast enough. The offering price was something like $7000 new in 2002.

Fast is not a requirement for many people. The Scion Shoebox is pretty slow, but they've far outsold their sales predictions, and they sold a lot more to older buyers than they expected. Distinctive looking sells, as long as its combined with some measure of practicality. The Shoebox and the PT Cruiser (another huge seller) have lots of room inside, neither one is fast, and both were cheap.

A sub-$15,000 non-hybrid car that looked interesting and got 65+ mpg would sell as a second car, or as a car to send the kid off to college in.