84-87 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 _
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@xxx.xxx wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why those years?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@xxx.xxx wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eric wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the mileage is better on the 84-87 than later years?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@xxx.xxx wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do they have fixes for those now?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@xxx.xxx wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.