Archives

About six months ago, I was asked to compare the 2000 Insight with the 1988 CRX HF I had. Both are 5-speeds, BTW.

The most significant performance difference is at low speeds, particluarly 1st gear. The CRX HF was almost impossible not to lug from a standstill - it was a high 1st gear. While the 0-60mph acceleration stated for the Insight is just a second quicker, it seems more than that because of the help the Assist does at low speeds. When I test drove the Insight, the low-speed acceleration was the deal-maker. Many a young guy in a truck that wanted to blast by me would find out this low-speed Assist acceleration was not "sissy" at all. :p

Part of the reason for the slower acceleration in the CRX HF is lower rpms for the same speed. I'd be going 60mph or so before the rpms were at 2,000. Mountain climbing was harder - the steep part of I70 just west of Denver (%6 grade) would force me to almost redline it and down shift to 3rd just to maintain 50mph. The Insight could do 65mph, although not effortlessly.

One thing I never understood about the Insight is why the seat levers were moved to the inside - I liked them better on the outside on the CRX. Being left-handed might account for this preference.

I did have a 1986 CRX HF, too. The only thing I want to note is the front bumpers of 1984-1987 CRXs hit dips too easily and was corrected in 1988. If you see an earlier CRX that has taken many dips, the gap between the upper and lower front bumper is often uneven. :(

I have to admit I often drove that 1988 CRX HF more like the pocket rocket Si all too often. In the 12 years and nearly 250,000 miles, it went thru at least three CV boots, a 5-speed transmission replacement at 110,000 miles. Brake pads were replaced at least twice as often as the Insight. If I drove it like I'm driving now and avoided the tune up in 1996 that nearly ruined the engine, it might still be a reliable 50mph+ vehicle at about 350,000 miles.

Mentioned once that I drove it from Dallas to Wichta Falls in 1989 and got 76mpg. It would have been more accurate if I had driven a tankful instead of about 130 or so miles. The mpg could have been as low as 65mpg, but it was a good run for it's time.

The CRX HF was fitted with narrower tires than the CRX DX or CRX Si. They would always be slippery in the rain. The tires for the Insight have never concerned me like this. Keep in mind both cars weigh about 1,800 pounds.

Even considering my treatment of the two cars, the Insight seems to hold up better than the 1988 CRX HF.

It's worth mentioning, since this is cleanMPG.com, that the emissions of the Insight should be far lower than the CRX, even if they got the same fuel economy. In fact does anyone know what emissions level an 88 CRX HF would have been at compared to an Insight?

This is very ballpark, but that 1988 CRX HF effortlessly passed the D/FW emmisions test....until "the tuneup from Hell" in 1996. I had to drive it for five miles to get the NO2 levels low enough to pass after that.

I'd have to go back to the EPA site, but the greenhouse gases were not a lot worse than the Insight, pretty good for a vehicle 12 years older than the Insight.

Looking at www.fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov), the annual estimated greenhouse emissions of a 1988 CRX HF would be 3.5 tons, a CVT Insight 3.3 tons, a 5-speed Insight 3.0 tons.

I was talking about polution, not CO2.

I was talking about polution, not CO2.

So it does not matter how much CO2 goes out the tailpipe since it is not "pollution" in any way shape or form? :confused:

You made the assertion the 1988 CRX HF was so dirty - your turn to put some effort to add some proof with your opinion.

You seem to be a little hard on the CRX HF - why? It would probably rank even today as one of the cleaner vehicles on the road today. Are you going to also suggest krousdb's 1993 Honda Civic Del Sol isn't very clean either?

Six months ago, bluesesshomaru17 asked me to compare the 1988 CRX HF I had with the 2000 Insight. I apologize to him for this tangent. :(

Hi Chuck:

___I can almost bet the 88 CRX HF was not even a LEV (was probably a TLEV) based automobile as it was created back in the day of before the California/US LEV/Tier I specs. The Insight on LS fuel (available everywhere now) is definitely a ULEV and the CRX was never designed for that clean an emissions profile (SMOG related, not GHG) way back when. If someone you know has a CRX HF, have them look for an emissions label under the hood and post what it is. I am not even sure emissions labels were even required before 92/93? Something to look up again sometime later this week :(

PS: I loved the comparison as it was nicely done.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Sorry my last post was a bit hot, but the original purpose of the thread was to give bluesesshomaru17 a comparision, then I get attacked for doing it. :mad: Of course the 2000 Insight is superior all the way around - that's a no-brainer since it came 12 years later.

I'm at a loss to see the harm in comparing the CRX HF and the Insight, then to mention the CRX HF would still be a pretty good vehicle today.

Hi Chuck:

___A TLEV based CRX HF is in many cases still superior to a late model TDI in terms of SMOG related emissions even today so don’t let Brandon’s reply get you worked up. In terms of GHG’s, the CRX HF was the car to own for its day and even today places many hybrids and CI-ICE based automobiles to shame. I only wish I had the chance to experience its subtleties and capabilities as you most certainly did. It must have been a hell of a ride in its day!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Thank you Delta for the write-up.

Brandon may forget how much fuel most cars out there burn, so the amount of pollution per mile driven I would believe to be much less, especially compared to a Hummer, Lamborghini, Maserati, Bugatti, Ferrari, Escalade, vans, etc.

....I must put in my comments here; I bought a brand new CRX HF in Dec of 1986 (1987 model year). This car (1987) was the last of the 1st generation CRX. It was my 2nd car I used for hypermiling. (1980 VW Rabbit Diesel) I put 503,000 miles on my CRX, then sold it in 1999 to a friend. Never had a problem with the car, I just changed the oil. Stock tires were 165/70 13. But I always ran 155 SR 13 for MPG, since they were slightly taller & skinnier.

My CRX HF weighed 1755, nearly 100 lbs lighter than my Insight. This was due to the lack of ABS braking system, power steering, airbags, battery pack, and side impact door beams. Just think of the weight savings, if it had an aluminum body & frame! The 1987 CRX HF had the tallest gearing of any car I've driven. This is mainly due to the final drive ratio of 2.78 to 1. At 55 mph, I think it only turned 1420 rpm.

As you may expect, I only drove highway & freeway trips. The front brake pads lasted 350,000 miles, and then I only replaced then due to a little corrosion. In all those miles, no problems with the engine or tranny. I removed the spare tire, and in it's place welded up an auxillary fuel tank, giving me a total of 25 gallons. At 64 mpg, my range was about 1600 miles.

Interestingly, this car is roughly the same size & shape of my Insight. I would LOVE to see a modern CRX HF, NO IMA, just gas. Made of aluminum. I don't need power steering, electric mirrors, or ABS. Just give me LEAN BURN, light aero wheels, underbody aero covers, and LRR tires. 100 mpg? no problem!!!

Hi Bill:
The 1987 CRX HF had the tallest gearing of any car I've driven. This is mainly due to the final drive ratio of 2.78 to 1. At 55 mph, I think it only turned 1420 rpm!___Good god that is a tall ratio! Why most manufacturers do not use a tall or that tall a ratio for Overdrive in most automobiles is still far beyond my understanding :(

___Thank you for your “Insight” ;) on your own experiences with the CRX HF. What a machine in its day. Although I am at an age when ABS, an ACE body structure, front, side, and side curtains have to be mandatory equipment, I hear you loud and clear when considering the possibilities of a < 2,000 # Honda with a 1.0 or 1.3 L leanburn ICE as well as being completely IMA less for weight reduction and lowering its complexity and cost for the masses to afford. I had a lot of hope riding on the Fit before release but Honda pulled the FE rug out from underneath her with the oversized and ancient 1.5L ICE as well as the short fourth, fifth, and final forcing a ridiculous 3K RPM at a touch above 60 mph.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I'm still at a loss to understand how a website called CLEANmpg can just ignore smog-forming emissions. Why not just call it "JustMPG.com" if all you care about is getting the most miles per gallon? Every year, emissions regs get tighter, and by a large margin. A CRX HF likely puts out about 10 times as much smog-forming polution per mile as the Civic Hybrid, and the CRX only seats a maximum of two adults compared to the 4-5 a Civic can hold. I'm not trying to say the CRX sucks - in fact it's the benchmark of high fuel efficiency transportation for it's day, but they're still gross poluters compared to modern truly clean vehicles.

As for the comments about emissions from Ferraris, Lamborghinis, that's pretty funny considering they sell in statistically insignificant quantities to begin with. Ford sells as many F-series trucks in the USA in one day as Ferrari sells cars worldwide in a year. Of those vehicles, the trucks are probably driven 10 times as many miles a year anyway.

Point still remains that even the Insight is not P-ZEV, which the latest, most modern hybrids are, and in terms of best case emissions per passenger-mile, if we can continue to get people serious about carpooling and such, the current crop of 4-seat hybrids are still excellent in terms of environmental friendliness. There's nothing wrong with paying tribute to the CRX and Insight as those are the vehicles that paved the way for our current clean, high FE champion vehicles, but the fact remains they are obsolete and not on the same level as current vehicles for cleanliness.

As for the super-tall final gearing, I agree that it's frustration not to have that option on any modern cars with manual transmissions other than the Corvette and Pontiac GTO. Then again, many auto transmissions have extremely overdriven final gears, and 90% of vehicles sold these days have an automatic, so....

Hi Brandon:

___Easy now … The Insight in particular is a ULEV on the fuel you or I can purchase from any pump in the country right now. That qualifies it as being cleaner (SMOG emissions wise) then the entire range of automobiles produced by GM, Ford, and DCX! Not every car but over the entire range of automobiles those manufacturers currently supply. The current non-hybrid Civic and non-PZEV Accord are LEV-II’s which are also dirtier. We call ourselves CleanMPG because GHG is an emission effluent just as HC’s, NOx, PM, and CO is. Or maybe Europe and most of Asia has it all wrong? Unlike H2O, CO2 is a consideration as far as exhaust emissions are concerned and it is directly proportional to the amount of gallons consumed over a given distance. I welcome all drivers including someone driving an 05 Toyota Land Cruiser Wagon (the worst SMOG related emitting, non-work vehicle on the road in 05) as long as they begin to push that vehicle for higher FE without the BS. Remember, someone pushing an SUV that is rated for 20 combined to 25 mpg can save more fuel over 15,000 miles then you can by shooting for 60 when you are at 50 yourself over the same. Would I rather see them junk the SUV and purchase a PZEV rated hybrid or other clean and fuel efficient automobile? You bet but that is not in the cards for most so we do what we can.

___About your most modern cars are … statement. Not in IL. and the other 45 non-clean states they aren’t. And the same can be said for California too! Just because you can purchase an Accord in PZEV format does not mean you can pick up a Civic in one unless you are willing to dish out the cash for the HCH. The only PZEV’s I can currently purchase in IL. are hybrid’s and even those are not all PZEV’s here in this state unfortunately :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Well, checking the www.fueleconomy.gov website, the 88 CRX DX 1.5 puts out 5.1 -5.7 (I don't know why there are two different since HF is a selectable car and the 1.6 Si engine is an option in the normal list). I am using the DX because it will be relevant later in this reply.

Now, I am not saying 5.1 is the cleanest, but seeing that they rate 2.9 as BEST and 14.9 as Worst, I would say it is in the 16th percentile (I think the loosely averaged math is right, but I am tired and lazy right now) relative to the chart (well into the green on their color-coded bar) not number of competitors.

I still say if everyone drove a car with these emissions or BETTER, we would all benefit greatly, not everyone can AFFORD a NEW car, or even a used Hybrid/other PZEV, AT-PZEV etc. And to be honest, as much as I want an Insight right now, all the dealerships want a non-refundable deposit (those words scare me), I may just end up taking the deposit money and buying a CRX instead and not have any more payments. I owned a 85 Si and LOVED it which is why I asked Delta to compare in the first place, to help me find what I really want deep inside. I confuse myself a lot because I love cars so much. I have since a child.

Now that I saw the potential of the DX in moderately capable hands, with little effort, if I got a HF whether an 88 2nd gen or a 1st gen (84-87 which comes in at just 1713 lbs http://www.crxsi.com/specs.htm AND has greenhouse gas emissions of 3.6 49 state to 3.9 California www.fueleconomy.gov )

Now, on to the relevancy of the DX ...

05 HCH CVT vs 88 CRX 5-spd poor (jumpy) write-up

I had recently taken a trip to TX from FL with a friend to pick up (and fix) their CRX. On the trip there with shared driving (taking turns sleeping) we averaged around 58 mpg over the 800 + miles. You wouldn't believe how many hills there are on I-10 that have quite a steep grade (esp. in FL), then those darn overpasses that seem to come too often once you get into TX.

On the way back we would fill up at the same time. I was following the CRX in case anything went wrong (which something did). This wasn't ideal for me to maximize mileage, on a short stint (300 miles) we essentially used the same amount of gas. avg 58.6 mpg. And her car needs a little work (valve adjustment and many other things a car with 230000+ miles with an inattentive previous owner would need, and it had been sitting for 6 months) I had to work hard at that mileage because her speeds were between 60-70 mph.

I was told there was a vibration picked up in the CRX from the bumpy LA section of I-10. I figured maybe a tire needed balanced. So we head off again, well their vibration became MUCH worse (I could hear it in my car, and see the suspension shake RR wheel). Speeds had dropped between 45-55 mph. I will say if it wasn't for that tall bridge and other various bridges/overpasses I would have had an amazing average (or if I had a 5-spd myself). I had in the 80s over about 20 miles, then I sunk fast. By the time we reached the next exit (on I-12 shortcut just inside Slidell) I still managed 68.6 mpg over 150 miles. (My figures are estimates, I still need to find the receipts to enter my tanks.)

Turned out that those roller coaster-like bumps ate up her tire and it became out of round and chunks were missing out of the tread. You could see the tire wobble while riding up to the tire shop. Had to sleep in the Wal-Mart lot, got a tire from there for $33, and back on the road. Needless to say she picked up speed again and I slowly watched my mileage drain down. It was still decent until we happened to hit the Tropical Depression on I-10 shortly after entering FL.

Delta, all the flak you give those drivers of big vehicles is ON POINT. I felt my life was in danger several times. I had one truck suddenly appear in my rear view, screeching tires, and slide by me on the rumble strip/side pavement as I swerved into the left lane ... then they pulled back on the highway and sped past me as if nothing happened. I was almost seriously CREAMED.

A few hours later, we passed someone who was going about 40 mph, and I had a semi loaded with cars run up on me without slowing down. Must have been going 90, I had to cut it close to the car I was passing and the truck was quite a ways back when I switched into the lane to pass.

I would follow rather close (sometimes just a foot or two, but always less than a car length) to the CRX when there were a bunch of on ramps as to not get separated, and with traffic and our speed we had to stay in the right hand lane, had a couple people that still wanted to squeeze between us instead of getting behind me (which there was plenty of room for, most others were speeding in the other two lanes).

But other than nearly getting rear-ended, I would say the worst examples of driving unsafely for conditions was through the Tropical depression. I remember hearing on the radio some places were getting around 6+ inches an hour (at least that much, I think some places had more, but flash flood warnings for many counties in GA and N FL.). There were Hummers, Crew cabs, Duallies, SUVs, and semis, FLYING by us. Half of us were driving with our flashers on just to see each other. Very limited visibility. We felt we were pushing it going 40 mph. You would lose taillights at around 1/2 mile, and flashers around a mile or so through the downpour. I couldn't believe semis would risk their cargo, or how many people feel safe driving their trucks so fast.

Needless to say I am not eager to drive that section of highway again. The strangest part it W I-10 is so much better than eastbound.

I was impressed with the mileage of the HCH, and the potential if I wasn't following someone and conditions are right. BTW, I would say I had a/c ON over 80 % of the time. I noticed minimal efficiency losses most of the time from the compressor. My tire pressure was 65 all around.

I was even more impressed with the 88 DX. it was running about 45 psi during the trip, but NO a/c ... needs a charge or something :p

I have to get to bed soon, my uncle is putting Zymol on the car tomorrow for free, he details at Cadillac, can't turn down a free wax!!!

One last thing to add though, I know several people including myself that would love a lightweight stripped down CRX HF current model, Could even look like the 2nd gen's so no new engineering costs. They wouldn't be able to make enough of them if they had the previous price range as well, I figure 7-9k for a HF 9-12k for a DX 12-14k for an Si and maybe do 16-18k for a hopped up SiR with the best of EVERYTHING (K24 motor with K20A2 heads etc). It would kill some of the Civic Si sales though.

Here is a site where they collect petitions to bring back the CRX and send them to Honda

this is the main page
http://wobbe98.tripod.com/start.htm

here is the direct link to the petition
http://wobbe98.tripod.com/div/petition.htm

Maybe, just maybe, if we can get enough people on the bandwagon, and in my idea, mainly those of like mind in these forums to help them with the HF part of it ... we could get a true high-quality, low-cost, high-mileage/fuel-efficient, reliable, unbelievable handling, etc. car in the market once again. Basically get Honda to build our dream car (I personally LOVE 2-seaters, it is all I really need).

sorry for the long message, but I thought this was the most relevant place for most of this. If you want to take the petition part and move it to a more viewable place and/or transfer it to any other forums I think that would be wonderful!!!

Good night all. Sorry for any incoherence. Have fun :D

wow what a story, sounded like a fun but dangerous adventure you had to endure through your CRX. That 68 mpg figure, did you use any FASing when trying to get that number? What were your pressures back then? (or you didn't care back then ;) I dont think I've ever encountered a close call like your semi stories, but then again I drive a lot of city so semis take their time through the streets, well most of them anyway :P

Nice story, something I should look out for when on the highway with semis.

The worst part of my trip down to FL last winter was through
GA past Atlanta and into northern FL, in heavyish rain, and
noting with some degree of terror all the huge vehicles flying
past us with no consideration for conditions whatsoever. And
I was doing 65 or better through all that, and still getting
passed like I was standing still. I was paying attention to the
rear and *trying* to stay out of everyone's way but that was
largely impossible since the trucks in the right lane would sail
up right onto my butt and hang right there until they found a
chance to pass. No emergency maneuvers that I recall, but the
utter lack of following distance through the whole stretch just
amazed me that we didn't see huge pileups all over the place.
.
I think I understand why they have so many horrendous multi-truck
accidents in the foggy valleys of Tennessee... you'd think
they'd *learn* after a while...
.
_H*

Phil,

that was a trip that I had got back from on Monday. I haven't owned my CRX for many years now. The 68 figure was from my HCH CVT 2005, no special tricks, just a sore ankle from exhibiting a lot of foot control :p I even cycled the a/c on and off. I would back off and creep back up to her car, we stopped seldomly, I could have done better actually, but I lost my dedication when I became tired and would catch myself at the 60 mpg mark instead of 70+ very close pedal pressures ...

I was following my friend in her CRX, and I can say she had a little training on increasing mpg in my car on the way to TX, so her figures were very good in the CRX on the way back. Her incentive for maximizing fuel efficiency you may ask? She footed the WHOLE gas bill there and back in my car as well as her car from TX to FL. I am waiting for her to give me the receipts to enter the gallons and miles traveled.

The CRX had broken down when she visited family and left it at their house, asked me to take her to pick it up and help diagnose the problems. It sounded like the alternator when she described it, but it turned out to be the distributor, she is also having a hot-start problem, cranks but doesn't run until it cools down, or it is very hot out, she has to air out the cabin and let it cool down before it starts. I believe it is a solder that has gone bad on the main relay, will be trying to fix that really soon, or just replace it.

I also want to say besides all the semis flying by in the heavy rain, MOST of them were very safe drivers. Just those few that feel their deadline is more important than the safety and lives of others that make it scary. It was the Chevy/Ford/etc light truck drivers that made me worry the most. They would change lanes at last minute when passing, saw several on cell phones, all the while speeding on the interstate in a vehicle not designed for high speed handling situations. I wouldn't say it would be the right thing to do, but I would find it much more acceptable if say a McLaren F1 to a RX-7/Corvette/etc drove by me in a similar fashion. These vehicles are just built more for that purpose, just as I would shake my head at someone off-roading one of them.

Delta,
some people cannot learn from their own mistakes, so I don't suppose seeing others would help them much either. Some people have too much confidence in their driving abilities, others forget they are directing a 1 ton+ machine, capable of killing anything in its path besides maybe a whale. It makes me sick to think about the carelessness and naivety out on the roads, Ignorance may be bliss, but it can also be a killer. Maybe we need an emotional stability test, safety, and IQ tests before issuing driver's licenses. A lot of companies make you take something like this before you can work for them, including temp services and day labor facilities. Just a thought.

Oh, and I was mistaken, I didn't get Zymol or whatever, it was something that began with an X and it said molecular bonding on the bottle and it only available to dealerships. A paint sealer that is guaranteed to work/last for the first 5 years of a new car. Feels very slick, he even applied it to my windows. I got it for free, but he told me to guess how much they usually charged for this treatment, I said 150 ... he said close... they charged someone 1200 the other day to do his car :eek: The car looks beautiful. I wouldn't say it is worth a grand, but I definitely got a good deal :cool: Maybe if I had that kind of money laying around ... or I just put a very expensive paint job on a car. I should have put some on my wheels too ;)

Hi All,

Man I just took the time, and I should say had the time to read this complete Thread. I thought that for a moment that the (Ball-Bats) might come out. But things calmed down and all ended well. Interesting conversation on the cars. I have never owned one but I had considered it in the past Yrs. but always went with the Si's instaed. Gas was not that High-Then. I thought they were kinda sharp looking and being a Honda they would be Reliable as well.

Chuck, you have put some serious miles on cars. :)

Terry

bluesesshomaru17,

I had to wait and get a chance to read this well, but it was quite an oddsey you had! Getting 58mpg would be pretty good on even a CRX HF! If I found one, I can imagine spending money on the paint job, then praying to find a way for ScanGague to work (could be dreaming - since it's a pre-1996 model.)

A couple of years ago on a ski-trip, I had a more extreme (and more disconcerting) encounter than the H2 limo guy that was a bit uneasy at the Scenic View stop story. He was a trucker with a bit of a bad attitude. Some of his big rigs weighed 80,000 pounds - freight train on 18-wheels. He bragged about a couple of times going 95-100mph. :eek: Think one of those times, he ran a car off a two-lane road. :mad: Did not chat too much, as it was obvious it would get nowhere except raise everybody's blood pressure (a couple of GH members a letting on like I would have started a fist fight :rolleyes: ) On the positive side, I learned that some of those big rigs have as many as 20 gears....

I think a lot of people are so used to what they drive, they just don't understand what it's like to drive something totally different. This accounts for part of the big truck problem - sometimes they are not aware of their size.

I'm trying to imaging krousdb getting his hands on a CRX HF, although he came close. :)

There's no way you'd get a ScanGauge to work on the CRX, considering they are not OBD at all, much less OBD-II. What might work is the device krousdb has, depending on how it's wired up. I could swear he said you just need to be able to get it to read the VSS, RPM, and fuel injector pulse width, basically. Those should be pretty basic to plumb wiring for, although at some point it becomes a rather pointless engineering exercise since the Insight is the more advanced, spiritual successor to the CRX HF, and we already know what the Insight is capable of.

I agree that its good to sample a variety of different cars. I personally do not like large vehicles at all. I'm more of a small car guy and although I've driven sedans as big as my sister's Mercedes S600 V12 and trucks as big as her F-250 turbodiesel, I just don't really like them. I don't like their inefficiency, the difficulty in parking lots and on tight windy roads, or the fact they'll never have that nimble feel through the steering wheel as a small, lightweight car. I wish more people would be open-minded about small cars.

I'll never want to drive big vehicles often, nor could I justify it.

When I had the CRX, I bought a kit that was much more involved than ScanGage - had to install a ring of magnets around the transaxel, etc. Never got it installed. :(

Yeah the later version transmissions went to an electronic vehicle speed sensor, rather than the early ones which were mechanical. That would at least solve the problem of determining vehicle speed.