1991 Honda CRX Reviews - Page 2 of 11

1991 Honda CRX DX 1.6L from North America

Model year1991
Year of manufacture1990
First year of ownership2008
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 1.6L Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired80000 miles
Most recent distance86000 miles
Previous carHonda CRX

Summary:

Best car ever

Faults:

Caliper went recently, 230,000 on the body.

Driver seat wore a small hole on the side of the back rest.

General Comments:

I LOVE my CRX. It is a 1991 DX.

It had 226,000 miles on the body when I got it. Minor body work was done. I believe it was in an accident previously.

The guy I bought it from replaced the front axle and swapped the original 1.5L with a D16y7 motor, which I couldn't be happier with (unless it was turbo ;-) ).

It is very compact, short and wide, which gives excellent handling. I have had no engine trouble whatsoever. Very little maintenance is needed. I have owned it for over a year and only had to replace a ball joint and a caliper.

I have put 6,000 on it only driving it in spring and summer. I really couldn't be happier with this car. Anyone who is looking to get one shouldn't even think twice. With just an exhaust you could keep up with most 6 cylinder cars. I am very conservative when I drive it because I would be devastated if I wrecked it or blew the engine, although sometimes you just gotta have fun.

I am selling it very soon only because I am moving to where there is a lot of snow, and it is too much of a pain owning two cars, especially in New York State.

I can't believe how nice the interior is especially for the year. Seriously one of the best cars ever made in my opinion and many others'. Very stylish and sporty in looks and handling. Great on gas, exceptionally dependable. If I had the time, I would drive across the country for the rest of my life in it.

I wish Honda would do what Chrysler did with the Challenger and come back with a new one resembling the old one. The new Civics are nice and all, but they would really have to go back to the original style if they were to make a new CRX. I love the rear end. It is sexyyyy. I would think Honda would come up with a cooler new front end if re-manufactured.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st November, 2009

1991 Honda CRX DX 1.5 from North America

Model year1991
Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership2008
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 1.5 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.5 / 10
Distance when acquired109000 miles
Most recent distance113000 miles
Previous carNissan Maxima

Summary:

Fast, reliable, cheap

Faults:

The car does have the typical Honda rust on the rear quarters and behind the rear bumper on the lower corners. There is an aftermarket fiberglass patch panel available for this that lets you repair the rust without welding, but I've not got around to doing this yet.

Burns a little oil on start-up due to old valve seals.

Oil pan gasket seeps some and could use replacement.

Driver's side seat bolster is moderately worn from entry/exit.

Rear trailing arm bushings in need of replacement.

1-2 shift fork is worn, causing 2->3 upshifts to grind at high RPMs.

A/C compressor is shot.

General Comments:

I bought this car from its second owner for $2000. He'd used it to commute to and from work during the summers and left it parked through the school year, thus the low mileage for a 17-year-old car. It does still have many of the issues of an older car; gaskets and bushings dry out with age, and so it does burn a bit of oil and squeak on the bumps in the road.

Far and away the largest issue with the car is the transmission. These were the weak points in Civics of this vintage; the shift fork for first and second will often wear or bend with age and abuse. When this happens, second gear will not fully disengage on a shift to third gear and the transmission will sometimes grind. The effect is only pronounced at fairly high RPMs, so it's something I'm willing to live with.

Other than that, the car has been great from a reliability standpoint. It's never failed to start, runs smoothly for a four-banger, and hasn't required repairs for anything that wasn't my fault.

It's unreasonably sporty for a car that's only got 92 horsepower and regularly gets 40MPG. It's lightweight, nimble, and fairly peppy. There's a reason these cars are popular with autocrossers.

The only place where it falls short is in the interior. It may be awfully fun to drive, but in terms of interior quality it still looks the part of an early-90's economy car. It's well laid-out and the seats are good, but it's all plastic and fabric. That's not a big deal to me, but some might not like it. It's also only got two seats, which can be a hindrance sometimes, but it's also got a ton of cargo space thanks to the hatchback layout and lack of rear seats. I moved most of my stuff except for my bed and furniture in mine, and had room for more if I needed it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th November, 2008

Average review marks: 8.3 / 10, based on 40 reviews