New Guy! Recommendations for a Pre-1996 fuel efficient car? - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > The Pub > General Discussion (Off-Topic)
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-28-2006, 08:23 PM   #11
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
Built like a tank? You know

Built like a tank? You know the 88 hf only weighed 100 pounds more than the 85 and only a few pounds more than the 87? They didn't even come with sound proofing material and they had low duty aluminum bumper reinforcements.
__________________

SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2006, 08:44 PM   #12
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_Ryland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,325
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to GasSavers_Ryland
this is just what I have

this is just what I have been told by people who owned them and ran them in to things, or had them run in to, one friends was run in to at least 6 times, once totaling the other car, and is still on the road and looks pretty good for it's history.
__________________

GasSavers_Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2006, 08:48 PM   #13
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
Haha, that's the first time

Haha, that's the first time I've ever heard of a crx being involved in any accident and not getting totalled. I hope I get that lucky. Personally I except to die in my first wreck, but I guess that's all for the best.
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 12:18 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
How about a late 1960s

How about a late 1960s Triumph Spitfire? You'll get upwards of 40 mpg, and they're quite sexy.
The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 01:30 AM   #15
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 270
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to molecule
i left my '99 metro for a

i left my '99 metro for a '94 vx
more power, better economy,much more fun...safer...
she still calls me sometimes...i just put them on the phone with each other and let them duke it out...
i'm not getting in the middle of all that nonsense
__________________
BE ZEITGEISTED
molecule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 07:32 AM   #16
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13
Country: United States
Thanks Guys for all the

Thanks Guys for all the responses! Now that I have an idea on what to look for, I found the following info on the Civic CX/VX/DX/SI model specifications and differences. I posted it in case it may be valuable to anybody else.


Quote:
1992 Honda Civic: Weights of each vehicle STOCK
These cars were weighed BONE STOCK.

Bone Stock means:

No A/C - was NOT std. on any hatchback in 1992.
No radio - again radios were NOT std. on ANY hatches in 1992.
Only Si had 2 mirrors std. Add the weight of a mirror if you got 2 on your CX/VX/DX.
ONLY the Si had powersteering - the DX auto did too, but I didn't list that one. I listed the manual, which had no p/s.
Stock wheels. VX had lightweight 13'' alloys, CX/DX had 13'' steels, Si had heaviest 14'' steelies with wheel covers

CX hatchback: 2094lbs.
VX hatchback: 2094lbs.
DX hatchback: 2178lbs.
Si hatchback: 2326lbs.

So you see that the DX is 84lbs. more than the CX/VX. Here's why:

Bigger fuel tank - tank is steel, so bigger = heavier 11.9 gal vs 10 on cx/vx
Rear wiper/washer
More tar - DX has more tar than the CX/VX.
Side moldings - plastic, but still weighs more than the non-existent side moldings on the CX/VX
Rear cargo cover std. it weighs something, right?


Honda Civic Specifications
1992-1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Type : Aluminum Block and Head
Valvetrain: Sohc 4 valve/cyl.

Displacement
97 cu in./1590cc (EX, Si)
91.1 cu in/1493cc (DX, LX, VX, CX)

Bore x Stroke
2.95 x 3.54 in./75.0 x 90.0 mm (EX, Si)
2.95 x 3.33 in./75.0 x 84.5 mm (DX, LX, VX, CX)

Compression Ratio
9.2:1 (EX, Si, DX, LX)
9.3:1 (VX)
9.1:1 (CX)

Horsepower (SAE)
125 bhp @ 6600 rpm (EX, Si)
102 bhp @ 5900 rpm (DX, LX)
92 bhp @ 5500 rpm (VX)
70 bhp @ 5000 rpm (CX)

Bhp/Liter
78.1 (EX, Si)
68.0 (DX, LX)
61.3 (VX)
46.7 (CX)

Torque
106 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm (EX, Si)
98 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm (DX, LX)
97 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm (VX)
91 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm (CX)

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
Hatchback
CX, VX: 3,055 lbs
DX M/T: 3,090 lbs
DX A/T: 3,210 lbs
Si: 3,270 lbs
Si w/ ABS: 3,305 lbs

Brakes
Front
10.3 in vented disc
Rear
9.4 in disc w/ABS (EX Sedan, Si Hatchback, EXa Coupe, Available on LX)
7.9 in drums (DX, LX)
7.1 in drums (VX, CX)
Assist type vacuum

Wheels
Pressed steel, 14 x 5J (EX, Si)
Pressed steel, 13 x 5 (DX, LX, CX)
Alloy, 13 x 4.5 (VX)

Steering
Rack & Pinion
Power Assist (EX, Si, LX, DX Sedan, DX Coupe w/ Auto transmission) Manual (DX Coupe w/Manual transmission)
Overall ratio
17.5:1 (Power)
19.0:1 (Manual)
Turns, lock to lock
3.58 (Power)
3.88 (Manual)

Suspension
Front
Upper A-arms, lower L-arms, coil springs, tube shocks
21.0 mm anti-roll bar (EX, Si, LX)
Rear
Trailing arms on upper & lower lateral links, compensating links, coil springs, tube shocks
13.0 mm anti-roll bar (EX Sedan)

CX Hatchback Key Features:
1.5 Liter, 70-hp, 8-Valve Engine, P165/70 R13 All-Season Tires, Rear Window Defroster with Timer, Hatch-Open Warning Light, Remote Fuel Filler Door Release, Remote Hatch Release, Passenger Assist Handle, Dual Manual Remote-Operated Mirrors

DX Hatchback Key Features:
1.5 Liter, 102-hp, 16-Valve Engine, Available 4-Speed Automatic Transmission with Power Steering, P175/70 R13 All-Season Tires, Adjustable Steering Column, Removable Cargo Area Cover, 2-Speed/Intermittent Windshield Wipers, Rear Window Wiper/Washer, Remote Fuel Filler Door Release, Remote Hatch Release, Dual Manual Remote-Operated Mirrors

VX Hatchback Key Features:
1.5 Liter, 92-hp, 16-Valve VTEC-E Engine, Lightweight 13" Alloy Wheels, P165/70 R13 All-Season Tires, Chin Spoiler, Tachometer, Dual Manual Remote-Operated Mirrors

Si Hatchback Key Features:
1.6 Liter, 125-hp, 16-Valve VTEC Engine, Power Steering, 4-Wheel Disc Brakes, 14" Wheels with Full Wheel Covers, P185/60 R14 All-Season Tires, Power Moonroof with Tilt Feature, AM/FM High-Power Stereo Cassette, Cruise Control, Rear Window Wiper/ Washer, Tachometer, Adjustable Steering Column, Removable Cargo Area Cover, 2-Speed/ Intermittent Windshield Wipers, Body-Colored Dual Power Mirrors

Tranny info added:
Civic DX
1st 3.25
2nd 1.762
3rd 1.172
4th 0.909
5th 0.702
FD 4.058

Civic VX
1st 3.25
2nd 1.161
3rd 1.066
4th 0.853
4th 0.75
FD 3.25

Civic CX
1st 3.25
2nd 1.762
3rd 1.172
4th 0.909
5th 0.702
FD 3.888

1992-1995 Civics:

CX - 70hp, 1.5L 8-valve non-VTEC ****box engine
VX - 92hp 1.5L VTEC-E 16-valve engine
DX - 102hp 1.5L 16-valve non-VTEC engine
Si - 125hp 16-valve 1.6L VTEC engine

Also all 1992 Civics are pre-wired for VTEC regardless of trim. After that from 1993-1995 only the Si and VX are pre-wired for VTEC. CX and DX are not from 1993-1995.
kozaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 07:37 AM   #17
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13
Country: United States
Re: 1988-1991 CRX HF 1-2k,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVOboy
1988-1991 CRX HF 1-2k, 1992-1995 Civic VX (or CX, less cool though) 2-3k.

I vote for CRX HF if you wanna do tons of work and come out with a better result
What does the Tons of Work include? And what advantage will the end result of 88-91 CRX HF have over a 92-95 Civic VX?
kozaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 08:33 AM   #18
Registered Member
 
krousdb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,480
Country: United States
Location: Raleigh, NC
Re: Thanks Guys for all the

Quote:
Originally Posted by kozaz

Tranny info added:
Civic DX
1st 3.25
2nd 1.762
3rd 1.172
4th 0.909
5th 0.702
FD 4.058

Civic VX
1st 3.25
2nd 1.161
3rd 1.066
4th 0.853
4th 0.75
FD 3.25

Civic CX
1st 3.25
2nd 1.762
3rd 1.172
4th 0.909
5th 0.702
FD 3.888

OK, there is some conflicting info here. I have two links that show that the CX and VX have the same FD of 3.25.

http://www.knology.net/~jediklc/

and

http://thenew.gamesbbs.com/~dmoore/tranny.htm

The info provided above shows the CX as 3.88 FD, which according to my linked sources was for the Si, not the CX. Can someone tell me which is correct? I'm not interested in a CX tranny swap if Im only going to go from 4.06 to 3.88 FD.
__________________


krousdb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 09:32 AM   #19
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
Re: 1988-1991 CRX HF 1-2k,

Quote:
Originally Posted by kozaz
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVOboy
1988-1991 CRX HF 1-2k, 1992-1995 Civic VX (or CX, less cool though) 2-3k.

I vote for CRX HF if you wanna do tons of work and come out with a better result
What does the Tons of Work include? And what advantage will the end result of 88-91 CRX HF have over a 92-95 Civic VX?
Older CRX HF's are usually in worse shape and require a little bit more work. To make it a real gas mileage monster you'll need to swap out the engine and swap in a d15z1 engine. This includes the ECU, distributor, etc. This isn't totally needed toget you over 50mpg, but it will get you over 60mpg.

The CRX HF is also smaller, lighter (the 88 CRX HF was in the range of 1800lbs), and only has two seats. The VX is a four seater and has a more modern interior.
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 11:03 AM   #20
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
Also, the crx has a much

Also, the crx has a much lower coefficient of drag than other hondas.

Dan, 3.25 is correct for the cx final drive, the final drive for my 5 speed will be 2.95,
__________________

SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incorrect Milage Calcuatlion PatM Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-17-2009 08:21 PM
New cars don't get along with fuelly mlocklear Fuelly Web Support and Community News 5 06-13-2009 04:27 AM
All Licensed Drivers terrapin Fuelly Web Support and Community News 0 08-07-2008 10:49 AM
Condensator orevgym General Fuel Topics 0 07-23-2006 11:25 AM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.