Hondaguy, that's all I've ever heard about these cars is their fuel efficiency and how wonderfully they handle. I agree totally with you. I don't think the CRX's are near as dangerous as some. I ordered a CRX as my first car when I was in high school. I wasn't afraid of one then and I'm not afraid of one now.
its doable under the right circumstances. I drove a friends 2000 celica gts, rated at 28 mpg highway. if i went 60 mph, it does 32 mpg, but if i cruised at 40 mph at 6th gear, i can get it at 55 mpg all day long. this is on the scangauge II.
also, I would not want to be in a CRX even if its 60 mpg. its really dangerous, no airbags, super light, etc. its alright if cars around are small cars, but there is too many suv's on the road. if its a small car i would at least get something with side airbags
I have not posted since Dec 08. However i just bought a 2003 Hyundai Elantra with a automatic trans. At 40 mph i was taching 1400 rpm. At 60 mph tach was reading 2400 rpm. With the skills i developed since 08 i know i could get 40 mpg or higher out of that car. I got it for my daughter. It does have side air bags and a good sized trunk. EPA was 33 Hwy/24 city. I still get 45+ out of my 95 Mazda Protege with out really trying. There are less trucks to draft now so getting over 50 would be a challenge. I may keep a log and post for the Mazda again. EOC is the word.
The Si has short gears 4.27:1 final drive so the engine spins faster, this is why it gets the worst milage of all he CRXs. The DX has a 3.88:1 final so it should get better milage. The best for milage gearing is the HF with 2.97:1 (federal) and tall over drives in 4th and 5th.
My CRX Si is getting a dx trans not for the milage so much but the fact that 65 mph can be seen in 2nd gear. I use mine for autocross and if I don't have to shift to third I'm quicker.