1991 Honda CRX HF 1.5 liter from North America
Next milestone: 1 million miles
Rust at rear quarter panel on both sides; I repaired it myself. Rust on hood; I had to weld in steel to replace a hole that developed from underside of hood.
Brakes; new brakes at 120,000, then 223,000, then at 340,000, then at 450,000, then at 570,000, then at 630,000.
New mufflers at 230,000, and finally a stainless steel muffler system at 340,000. Muffler system still looks new at over 600,000.
Replaced distributor at 367,000 miles.
Required timing belt and water pump at 100,000 intervals.
Radiator developed leak at around 450,000 miles; replaced.
New struts and shocks at 225,000 miles, then new again at 500,000 miles.
New drive shafts at 200,000 and at 450,000 miles. CV boots cracked.
Seats replaced at 300,000 miles. Extreme wear on the side bolster on driver seat. Because car sits so low, entering it causes me to rub against the side of the seat wearing it out pretty quickly. The fabric on the side of the seat does not last very long at all.
Had to replace the windshield at 500,000. Too many rock chips and speckles made driving into the sun very hazardous.
Car was repainted at 500,000 miles as the paint was fading and chipped.
I bought this car new in 1991 at a cost of $9,500. It has A/C, 5 speed manual and not much else.
I love the Honda CRX HF.
It was my second new car and I wanted something to get great mileage and still be kind of sporty.
It handles very well (for having 13 inch 70 series tires).
The CRX HF does not have very good performance and has a hard time driving in the mountains. The 1.5 liter motor is very weak, but it is perfect for city driving and for flat highway driving. The gearing is very high, so I have to downshift going up hills. It was designed for one thing and that is Miles Per Gallon and that is what it does very well.
The CRX HF has a 10.5 gallon tank and gets over 550 miles on a tank; the most efficient car I have ever owned.
Finding a CRX HF in stock form nowadays is very hard, because kids buy them used, and tear out the motor and put in higher performance motors.
The car is very light and makes a great base for a high performance street machine rocket.
Comfort is good for such a small car. Tight suspension makes for a somewhat bumpy ride on bad roads but overall, a very comfortable car for what it is. I really sit low in a CRX; I am lower than most Corvettes.
Good points: Mileage. Comfort in a small package. Reliability. Low tire wear. Tires really last a long time on such a light car. I can fix just about anything on this car. Easy to work on. Ergonomics. Very well laid out. Lots of aftermarket stuff available if you are so inclined. Lots of room in the back. I can haul just about anything that I need because of all the room.
Bad points: Rust. Rust and rust. I have to keep guard all the time about rust. I can do bodywork so it is not a big problem but a problem none the less. Low power and high gearing makes for great mileage but poor performance on hilly roads.
My CRX HF averages about 52 MPG on the highway and almost that good in the city. If I hypermile, then I can get up to 90 MPG by following behind a truck on the highway. I made it from northern Ohio to Florida on one tank by following trucks to block the wind. It beats almost every hybrid car for MPG and it is 18 years old! Why can't car makers build a car like this again?
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 24th October, 2008
24th Oct 2008, 13:38
I agree, why can't we make this kind of MPG in a 2009 model?
The main reason is the added weight of saftey features demanded by our government. Let the consumer decide... free market? Awesome car!
24th Oct 2008, 15:58
"It beats almost every hybrid car for MPG and it is 18 years old! Why can't car makers build cars like this again?"
Because the government mandated that NOX emissions be reduced, thereby requiring increased exhaust gas recirculation to lower combustion temperatures to meet the new standard.
The result: decreased combustion efficiency, decreased fuel economy, increased hydrocarbon emissions, and increased CO2 emissions.
In addition to the above, they also mandated that fuel volatility, of all things, be reduced, compounding the fuel economy and CO2 emissions problems.
Got to love politicians and EPA activists who know nothing about engineering making uninformed technical decisions that we all get strapped with. You can thank them for cars today not being able to get the MPG's of those 20+ years ago.