1991 Honda CRX VTEC from UK and Ireland - Comments

The rear brakes seem to wear a lot quicker than the front.

Sun roof has come out of the runners.

Leather seats are starting to rip and wear.

This is a very quick car, standard 0-60 7.2 seconds. With a few modifications, you can achieve 6 seconds like mine.

I have raced RS Turbos, GT Turbos and have never lost a race.

I doubt you have never lost a race and you haven't raced my fiesta rs turbo it made this guys vtec look like it was going backwards with the 200bhp from my rs turbo.

If you've beaten rs turbo's (I'm talking cossie developed engined cars) like escort rs2000 then you've either raced someone who wasn't racing you or the rs had engine trouble, cossie's develop around 200 bhp standard, and a bucket load more torque than the tiny 1.6 crx engine does, not in this world are you going to beat a cosworth rs if the driver is racing you! 160 bhp against ~200bhp with a lot more torque and better power to weight ratio, nope!

Face it the crx is quick, but don't get over optimistic, there are far too many cars that will beat it hands down.

Raziel.

A totally standard CRX will have a hard time beating many turbo petrol cars. For example, a standard Escort RS Turbo would be easy to beat, as it's a poorly engineered car with terrible FI engine management. A standard Renault 5 Turbo, about the same performance so it would be down to the nut behind the steering wheel as to who wins. Sierra/Escort Cosworth - not unless it/driver has a problem of some kind.

I have a lot of respect for the Cosworth built and tuned Fords, as they have come out with a very high output engine that's also pretty reliable. But, the comparison isn't fair. Until you compare a turbocharged b16 (the CRX 1.6 VTEC engine) to the Cossie engine. Both are non-standard/special builds of/around an engine which wasn't originally designed to be turbocharged.

The b16 in 6-8psi boost with the proper components built on, and mapped properly, will reach about 240-250bhp and 150ft/lb of torque. Without changing a single internal engine component (b16 engines are extraordinarily durable; but for more than 8psi forged internals and Darton sleeves are advisable). This translates to 1/4 mile times of around 13.5 seconds, 0-60 times just under 5sec, and top speed runs of up to 150mph. The car is also 250/275kg lighter than an Escort/Sierra Cosworth, and has far lower transmission losses than 4/rwd as it's front wheel drive (a limited slip diff is very successful for improving launch grip, which came on some CRX's).

I know there are builds of Cossie's with better times than this, but without spending more than the £2-3k budget it would cost to successfully turbo a b16 CRX, I doubt. And the b16 is still 400cc down on the Cosworth engine, which makes the comparison all the more impressive.

If you were comparing a tuned crx to a cossie than yes it will beat it, but in standard form, not gonna happen!

For what it would cost you to get a CRX turbocharged, mapped and putting out 250 bhp, you could have a properly set up, reliable Cosworth from a reputable tuner knocking out well over 300 bhp, yet still capable of idling for long periods in traffic, and ambling around town. This engine will be making 300 lb/ft (or thereabouts) at just a few thousand RPM, and will pull hard through the vast majority of its rev range. Granted the Cosworth engine is heavier and not as "elegant" in engineering terms as the CRX's, but it has a bulletproof bottom end, and is considerably detuned in standard road trim. It also has a superb record in motorsport.

As for the lower transmission losses of FWD versus RWD and 4WD, this is true, but unfortunately rendered totally irrelevant by the inherent hopelessness of front wheel drive in providing any decent traction under hard acceleration, and out of slow corners, especially if the road surface is less than perfect. Then you have torque steer, power understeer and all manner of other horrible things that the driver of a RWD/4WD car doesn't even need to think about. Plus of course the inherent weight distribution implications of hanging an engine and gearbox transversely across the front axle line.

The CRX is what it is - a fast, reliable, technologically innovative coupe. It is not however a Cosworth beater in standard form, and however much you spend tweaking it, throwing the same kind of money at an equivalent Cosworth will get you even more performance, and better driveability.

One problem the cossie is a ford!

When things are receding in your rear view mirror at the rate they tend to when you drive a Cosworth, it's not really much of a problem at all.

Besides which, Honda's image is hardly the stuff of wet dreams.

I fail to see where he said that he had beaten any cosworth, if you read it properly it says "RS TURBOS".

Plus comparing a fwd car to a 4wd car in terms of 1/4 mile racing is totally unfair because of traction and why major events have different classes.

All that aside the crx vtec is a wonderful piece of engineering and the vtec engines ARE stuff of wet dreams i. e S2000 240bhp from a NA 2.0litre and still totally reliable.

No-one builds 4 pot NA engines like Honda.

Unless all of you misread, he was talking about the Ford Escort RS Turbo, which has a 1.6 liter cvh engine turbocharged engine. and yes, i´ve seen more than one Rs Turbo being beaten by a CRX. power to weight ratio ring any bells? i´m not saying the RS Turbo is a bad car, I actually love it, but right now I drive a CRX and I wouldn´t trade it in for 10 RST´s! why? reliability as compared to the Honda, fuel economy, and better looks, not to mention the fact that it is Japanese! if you don´t believe anything you just read, do some research and you may be surprised!

Honda make one of the best engines in the world, no ford engine would be able to compete, honda is just in a total different league.

Honda VTEC's are very good engines for high reving and producing high BHP without turbo, great if you like that sort of power delivery. Personally I like the sort of power you get from a turbo engine, preferably a 2.0 turbo, you get the high BHP, but also the torque you can't get in a VTEC.

Just sold by beloved Honda Integra Type R turbo. The b18c engine produced 197bhp out the factory... big turbo, a few mods here and there, and I was running 320bhp in a car that weighs only 1060kgs... Cosworths ate my dust.

And before you go saying yeah, but tune a Cosworth the same blah blah blah, Honda turbos can exceed 800bhp.

I owned an Evo 7 and now own an Impreza P1, but the CRX was the best car I have owned to date. In standard forms would easily beat GT and RS Turbos.

If you have one, don't sell it cos it's the biggest mistake I ever made!

Hi, I've just sold my Starlet ep82, and just before I sold it I pulled up at the lights next to a CRX 1.6 vtech, and expected a real good race. I'd heard so much about them!! He revved up and I got well excited LOL, but soon as lights went green I was gone! He was giving it some but really was no match.. it done better than most cars! My GT Turbo was running 165bhp though..

I own a CRX VTi (VTEC),'90. with B16A1 engine, and I have to say that I totally disagree with a lot of things written here. First of all, Ford is a company that made the GT40, that took a lot of wins, and was a great car (but it was made for the track...), so I respect them a lot. From the other side, we have the NSX (3.2l V6 VTEC), S 2000 (2.0l I4 VTEC), Itegra (1.8l I4 VTEC), Prelude (2.2l I4 VTEC), Accord (same engine as the Prelude's), CRX (1.6l I4 VTEC)...all with 4 valves per cylinder and very high output power and torque. And all of that without a turbocharger. Find a Ford that meets any of this specs, and then we are going to race. O.K.?