Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Honda Civic: Future Models

1234568

Comments

  • VTEC.NET has tons of info on new Hybrid models that Honda is planning to come out with in the near future
  • aspesisteveaspesisteve Posts: 833
    is the CRX the one that got over 40 mpg?

    why hasn't honda brought this car back?

    I have a friend who thinks there is some conspiracy by big oil as to the reason Honda killed the high milege CRX.

    any thoughts?
  • 1stpik1stpik Posts: 495
    It wasn't OPEC. Congress killed the CRX, and every other lightweight, fuel efficient car, by legislating airbags, ABS, side impact beams, and every other safety device they could think of.

    This coincided with an explosion in consumer buying power during the 1990s, which created a demand for more luxury features (meaning more weight), even on traditional economy cars. Honda Civics and Ford Escorts suddenly offered power windows, power seats, cruise control, etc.

    Now cars weigh 50% more than they used to, and get worse fuel economy as a result. But on the bright side, they are safer, and more comfortable to drive.
    .
  • aspesisteveaspesisteve Posts: 833
    I pulled out an old news paper add from the 80's where a used CRX is advertised.

    The owner claims to get 60 mpg!

    You're telling me that this 1.3 litre engine couldn't get say 40 mpg with today's safety standards? There have been trade offs with using Aluminum in the frame, so I'm not sure I buy your argument that it's merely safety standards killing us in fuel effeciency. I mean, how much does an airbag weigh? or a side beam in the door? It all doesn't add up to me.

    An electric window doesn't weigh much more than one you have to manually crank.

    It doesn't take carbon fibre to reduce the weight of a vehicle that was built in the 80's.
  • 1stpik1stpik Posts: 495
    The 60 mpg claim is bogus. The old CRX (the super-efficient model HF) got 37/47 mpg. That's from the EPA website fueleconomy.gov which lists all makes and models back to the early 80s.

    37/47 is certainly good, but as you said, that was from a 1.3 litre engine propelling a 1700 lb. car. Today's Honda Civic has a 1.8 litre engine propelling a 2600 lb. car. It gets 26/34 mpg, which is not bad for 50% more engine displacement and 50% more weight.

    So you're correct, it's not just safety equipment weight, it's also bigger engines contributing to lower fuel economy.
  • aspesisteveaspesisteve Posts: 833
    I wonder how much of the 900 lbs weight gain is in the engine?

    and I also wonder how today's civic would perform with a 1.3 ltre engine?

    17 years have gone by and all I've seen is a race for greater horsepower.
    - yes cars are safer and more plush

    Honda and Toyota have always offered a great 4 cyl option with the option of upgrading to the ample if not excessive 6 cyl because everyone wanted to go 0-60 in under 10 seconds. Now I wonder if they might offer the lower powered higher fuel economy model?
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,407
    60 mpg was doable. The EPA took 22% off of their hwy numbers back then. To get the measured hwy mileage multiply 47 x 1.28 and Guess what - 60 mpg.
  • aspesisteveaspesisteve Posts: 833
    ahh thanks for the input.

    actually the EPA estimates were 41 city and 50 hwy

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml

    So, what's your guess as to why Honda doesn''t replicate this car with an airbag, abs and side impact beams?

    It would be alot more appealing to me over the Smart car.
  • 1stpik1stpik Posts: 495
    "I also wonder how today's civic would perform with a 1.3 ltre engine?"

    I can answer that. It performs a little slow, but okay.

    I have a Civic Hybrid, which uses a 1.3 litre gasoline engine along with a 20 hp electric motor. The engine shuts off automatically when the car stops, and the hybrid battery keeps the electric system going while the engine is off.

    On a hot summer day, waiting at a railroad crossing for a train to pass, the A/C can run down that battery in about 4 minutes. When that happens, the electric motor assist ceases, and the car is powered only by the 1.3 litre engine until the battery recharges itself.

    It runs fine in that condition, but it's a bit slow -- kind of like a compact car from the early 80s.
  • 1stpik1stpik Posts: 495
    "actually the EPA estimates were 41 city and 50 hwy"

    Those were the old EPA numbers. The revised ones are 37/47. The fueleconomy.gov link you provided actually lists the '89 CRX HF twice -- once with the old ratings, and once with the new ones.

    The old numbers were based on a maximum speed of 55 mph, a maximum rate of acceleration of 3 mph per second, and no air conditioning use, or stop-and-go traffic. That same testing method gave the Toyota Prius numbers of 51 city and 60 hwy until this year. Now the Prius and every other car gets a "real world" test. Consequently, all EPA numbers have dropped, including the Prius to 48/45.

    "why Honda doesn''t replicate this car with an airbag, abs and side impact beams?"

    The Honda Insight two-seater hybrid was nearly identical to the old CRX. They discontinued that model a few years ago in favor of the Civic Hybrid.

    However, they'll release the new CRZ either next year or in 2010. It's supposed to replicate the looks and efficiency of the Insight, but offer more day-to-day practicality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-Z

    .
  • aspesisteveaspesisteve Posts: 833
    "the epa took 22% off of their hwy numbers back then"

    where did you find this info?

    Your telling me the epa estimates were conservative while 1stpik says the numbers were based on old epa estimates that were too generous.

    1stpik's info seems to have more credibility to me eventhough I'd like nothing more than conclude there is a conspriacy.

    btw: the website I provided said the 89 CRX HF had a 1.5 litre engine?? is that incorrect?
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,407
    Look at the EPA website. They explain everything. The EPA dumbed their numbers down once in the 80's and a second time for 2008.

    The current numbers are absurdly low to make up for some complainers who don't know how to drive for good mileage.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,585
    stop comparing it to the Civic. The Fit is the closest thing to the old Civic (1980s generation).

    Today's Civic is about the size of that era's Accord. So no wonder the new one weighs 900 pounds more!

    And it isn't just the safety stuff. It is also the insulation, etc. that gives it a better, more quiet ride. And of course, the bigger size!

    I had an '85ish CIvic hatch at one point. No idea about weight, but probably about 2,000. 1.5L I think, and moved just fine with a stick.

    ALso had a Colt with 68 HP (that was doggy) and a 323 with 82 hp. That car, with a stick, was pretty quick, and just fine on the highway (all sticks). The 323 probably also was barely over 2K lbs.

    Funny thing though, my 2005 Accord 5 speed gets almost the same highway (real world) mileage as the 323 did. Not quite the same around town, but not too far off.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • aspesisteveaspesisteve Posts: 833
    I'm not debating that the latest version of the Civic is larger and heavier than the CRX of 1989, I'm debating why Honda or any car manufacturer can't replicate the fuel efficiency of the '89 CRX unless they strap an expensive hybrid system on the car.

    It's absurd to use isulation in today's car as a reason for the gas milege drop off. For all the weight in safety that's added to today's cars, shouldn't there be more efficient engines, better aerodynamics, lighter stronger frame materials?

    I've seen way too much focus on horsepower and 0-60 mph measurements in the past 15 years. that's the beauty of higher fuel prices - people are focused more on fuel efficiency now.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,585
    cars are more efficient. It's just that they took the efficiency and added bigger engines with more HP (and of course better 0-60 in most cases), in bigger cars, while keeping FE relatively constant.

    sure they could put smaller engines in downsized cars, but the public hasn't been interested.

    Use the Fit as an example. They could easily put out a 1.3L version with better MPG, but would anyone want to buy something so "underpowered", even though it could easily have ~100HP?

    also, all the real light great mileage cars from back then (80s) were manuals, another hard sell today.

    so, the makers could do it, they just didn't, since it isn't what people want to buy.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • aspesisteveaspesisteve Posts: 833
    "Use the Fit as an example. They could easily put out a 1.3L version with better MPG, but would anyone want to buy something so "underpowered", even though it could easily have ~100HP? "

    in todays world? Yes! I think the people on the waiting list for hybrids would prove that. There's also been reports on how these older "under powered" vehicles are a hot item on the used car market.

    I am glad to hear you write that it could easily be done. What I don't understand, is why isn't it being done!

    McDonalds could make their food more healthy, but the masses seem to like it the way it is. That doesn't make it healthy for people or the planet - it just caters to an addiction of comfort. The same thing is going on with car makers. They have alot of say in shapping what people desire through marketing. I'd like to think that higher fuel prices will tilt the balance between consumption and comfort towards less consumption.
  • nwngnwng Posts: 664
    cause we as a nation, are hp crazy!
  • rv65rv65 Posts: 1,074
    Not much changes. Nav models get bluetooth but non nav doesn't get bluetooth like the 08 accord. Honda will probably make an accessory one for non nav models. iPod enabled USB port is on all EX/EX-L models. The Hybrid has a leather option. The USB port can play usb thumb drives or usb storage devices. A sport based LX trim will also be avaliable. There is also a VP trim that is a DX with radio and AC. Si's get foglights. Maybe the EX/EX-L sedans get the 350W Si Sedan/EX-Si Coupe stereo. The steering wheel in the 09 is the same as the coupe. Hope this helps.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    Do you know on which trims VSA will be available? I just saw a preview in C/D that said it would be on the hybrid, but didn't mention any other trims that would have VSA.
  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    Do you know on which trims VSA will be available? I just saw a preview in C/D that said it would be on the hybrid, but didn't mention any other trims that would have VSA.

    I guess it goes without saying that the 2009 Civic Si will have VSC, since my 2008 has it.
Sign In or Register to comment.