|12-20-2012 11:21 PM|
|VOLDAR||Thank you guys for the info. As I said, I didn't know of any gas car capable of 50+ MPG in real city traffic, without hypermiling, of course.|
|12-20-2012 08:22 PM|
My ex-wife had a 1981 Civic 2 dr hatchback with the 1.5L and a 3 speed automatic transmission. Had about 64 hp. Used to get 40+ mpg on the hwy. But geez was that thing underpowered. 0-60 mph was ..... eventually. Top speed was 85 mph.
Yeah new cars are much heavier. And safer.
|12-20-2012 12:34 PM|
|Slo86GT||It's true. Some SOHC turbo guys doing highway runs look for them for the long gearing.|
|12-20-2012 12:11 PM|
|12-20-2012 11:54 AM|
Your statements are valid, I agree. It was a toy car compared to cars now. The car made the best use of archaic tech. 8 valve four cylinder in the earliest models 12 valve later, 1.5 liters, 1800 lb curb weight, and a carburetor, or later very very choked down MultiPoint-FI.
But the original reply was to "No gas car at 50mpg". Maybe not current, but these did it, and did it real world, even after the changes to the window sticker reporting.
The CRX's had no VTEC. They were simply choked down intake tracts to increase efficiency, and decrease the amount of fuel guzzling abuse the owner could impose.
The VTEC-e (efficiency) engines did not appear until 1992 when the hatchback VX came out. It was amazing. Lightweight wheels, 92~ hp, and a manual trans only. Only got high 30's in the MPG department, but was a great platform and actually felt like a real car.
In 1996 the HX is now a coupe with either an 5 speed manual or CVT transmission with a similar high efficiency VTECe engine.
|12-20-2012 11:46 AM|
I can shed a little more light on that, the "HF" Civic's and CRX's had a completely different drivetrain , they used a special 1.5 3valve VTEC-E (the "E" being a very different design than the regular VTEC systems of the day). Whereas the regular VTEC was designed to adjust timing and lift for power, the "E" system was for economy only(lots of overlap to reburn exhaust gases)... they used a small 1.5 motor, that got a measly 60hp (the regular 1.6EFI motors in the other civics were around 91hp by comparison), and had an aggressive EGR system that reburned the spent gas over and over again making it quite the gas mizer. These cars were pathetically slow, even though they wieghed less than 2300lbs. They also used special lighter wheels (they had expensive forged aluminum wheels and hard LRR type tires). I think their may have even been some underbody plastic covers (completely covering the lower side of the engine and car) as well. (back then, no cars had the undertrays like they do today. It wasn't a very "fun" car to drive, but, they were quite amazing on gas... LOL.
|12-20-2012 10:41 AM|
The only light the wikipedia page sheds on it is that the HF version weighed about 150 lbs less than the regular version, which since the regular version weighed only 1,865 lbs is a substantial reduction.
Of course those cars all weighed so little back then due to a lack of any safety features or creature comforts, that's how they stood a chance of getting reasonable mileage despite a lack of direct injection and other technical goodies.
Which leads us to the fact that you may have gotten close or in some limited cases even better mileage than the '12 Focus in your 25-year-old compact but you would've been toast in any sort of accident whereas the Focus will keep you relatively safe as shown by several posts on this site.
|12-20-2012 09:53 AM|
Compare Old and New EPA MPG Estimates
1987 Honda Civic CRX HF
New MPG tests are more realistic
42 City 46 Combined 51 Hwy
52 City 54 Combined 57 Hwy
|12-20-2012 07:44 AM|
|12-20-2012 01:34 AM|
I stayed in the far right lane and kept my speed between 52 and 57 mph, letting the car slow down as it went up nearly imperceptible inclines and gliding as much as possible. My MPGs stayed around 45 MPG.
Perhaps it's my 18" Titanium wheels and 5-speed transmission. An SFE might do better.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|