![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:42 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
My ‘93 Sentra SE-R and my dad’s girlfriend’s ‘91 CRX HF.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:45 |
|
72 horsepower never felt like so much fun than in a CRX HF. A friend had a ‘90 back in about 2000 and I drove it all the time because he was a drunk.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:47 |
|
dat 60 mpg tho
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:49 |
|
Someone remind Toyota and Honda that they can in fact have both fuel economy and fun in one package.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:54 |
|
Absolutely. Although I think you have to throw the NHTSA in there too. I imagine that the CRX, for instance, would do quite poor in current crash tests.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:54 |
|
Honda tried recently at least. And failed.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:56 |
|
all the modern safety regulations got in the way of fun.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:57 |
|
The added weight of crash resistance and such things kinda kills that. Then again the new Miata is within 100 lbs of the original so obviously it’s SOMEHOW possible.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:58 |
|
They did, but so did consumer expectations. I bet NVH in that CRX even when new would make a modern Mirage feel like a luxury car.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 08:59 |
|
The new Miata is within 100 lbs of the original - with power steering, power windows, and AC standard. They can do it.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:00 |
|
They didn’t try.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:13 |
|
I want that CRX. I had an 85 and that thing was a blast. Even with the automatic and whopping 58 horsepower, that was the most fun I’ve ever had on four wheels. It was like driving around a go cart everywhere.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:14 |
|
My Honda Fit is 2700lbs and gets 35mpg, 30 if I do a whole tank of City driving. it has about the same power as an early 90's civic Si. But cosidering the Fit is a bigger, potentially more useful car, I’d say that’s not bad. And it really is fun to drive, not quite the go cart feeling of a CRX, or 4th gen civic because of its height, but close.
Also the newer fit is 100lbs lighter and more powerful. Still kinda wish we had just spent the money and bought a new one.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:23 |
|
Fun is not a word I would ever use to describe driving the Fit. It’s not close to an early 90s Honda by any stretch of the imagination, and it’s not because of the height. You just described a car that’s almost 700 lbs heavier than an early 90s Civic hatch with roughly the same functionality, lower gas mileage, and a torsion beam rear suspension.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:25 |
|
Cars are getting lighter due to new advances in chassis design, they just keep getting bigger too.(tpcouh cough “the newer Civic is as big as a 97 Accord” cough cough).
the other problem smaller cars now feel smaller . In my old 91 civic you don’t feel like your in a small car because the A Pillars are only and in hand a half thick, he window sills are lower than your shoulder.. You’re surrounded by glass so it feels spacious. In a new car the same size, you’d have thicker doors, a bigger dashboard, higher window sills, and thicker pillars, which all add up to feeling like your in a cage.
What Mr. Regular said about the NA Miata is also true about old Hondas. “This is a park bench, not a prison.”
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:36 |
|
But it’s toss able, and responsive like an old Civic. It does handle pretty good actually. I wish I could try one out with a manual, but even with a paddle shifted slush box it does what you want it too. And functionality wise, it I can Fit, waaaay more stuff the the back of our second gen Fit. Not to mention it had four doors, and a useable back seat.
For example in my 91 I had a tough time fitting two BMX bikes in the back. In the Fit, I can load up two mountain bikes and a weeks worth of camping gear without breaking a sweat. The fit might not be that much longer than a 4thgen Wagovan though, but it'll still a foot and a half taller, and the tall roof not only allows you too fit more stuff in it, it also makes loading and unloading much easier.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:42 |
|
I’ve never owned a Fit, but two friends have them and I’ve driven them on road trips and I’ve owned a few early 90s Hondas. I really don’t feel the similarities you do.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 09:48 |
|
it gets down to about 40 when you play near redline the whole time.
We used to run the curvy country roads in the Charlotte area back then and despite its lack of power, 2200 lbs with a fat dude (me) and his skinny friend (will) would mostly keep up with our crazy friends in their Integras and Neon R/Ts
Of course his HX wheels probably helped a bit.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 11:47 |
|
And the Mitsubishi Mirage is 2018 lbs in ES manual trim.
Make it not suck to drive, drop the roof, shorten the wheelbase... and you’d actually have something lighter than a CR-X today.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 11:48 |
|
Exactly. There’s no excuse for Honda and Toyota being unable to build a decent small car.
![]() 08/23/2016 at 11:58 |
|
The silly thing with that is... a Prius c, which is a bigger car (but in the same chassis size class), is 200+ lbs lighter, while still being a hybrid, with a lower tech battery, with the same engine displacement, and with a heavier type of transmission.
IIRC, the (European) Yaris Hybrid is 100 lbs lighter yet than the Prius c.
And, that Toyota hybrid powertrain will blow the CR-Z away on fuel economy, whether the CR-Z is manual or CVT. (That’s not to say that the Toyota powertrain would be well-matched to the CR-Z’s mission... but it would be well-matched to a CR-Z HF’s mission, if Honda tried that!)
Yes, the Prius c is awful, and way down on system power compared to the CR-Z, but the Prius c’s awfulness puts the CR-Z’s utter failure into perspective. The CR-Z, objectively, is a far worse car than the Prius c even if it’s nicer to drive, because it’s far less successful at its objectives (it’s not cheap, it’s not efficient, it’s not sporty) than the Prius c is at its objectives (being cheapish and efficient, although with no sporting pretensions).
![]() 08/23/2016 at 23:23 |
|
LHD = not JDM. Sorry