57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago

[usbseawolf2000]

After reading the first few paragraphs, I was steaming. I kept reading and I thought the author did a very nice job researching and got the truth out.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/auto...ion=2007121916

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Car makers are confident they can meet new government rules calling for a national fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. But it will take a big technological push, they say.

You might wonder why, since twenty years ago the car that got the best mileage in the nation was a real techno-wimp compared to what's on the road today. It wasn't even a hybrid. But it got better fuel economy than any car sold now - even the Toyota Prius.

Looking back at the 1987 Honda Civic CRX shows us why cars use so much more gas today and about the trade-offs we've had to make.

The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving. Today, the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid Civic you can buy gets an EPA-estimated 34 mpg on the highway. Even today's Honda Civic Hybrid can't match it, achieving EPA-estimated highway mileage of just 45 mpg. The Toyota Prius, today's fuel mileage champ, gets 46 mpg on the highway.

[nerfer]

Yep, that sounds about right. I didn't realize the HF version had that good of mileage, or I would have bought one (used). As it was, I bought a 1987 Nissan Sentra E (the economy, or base version). It had A/C (I bought it in Texas) but that was it. No power seats, power windows, power locks, power steering or power brakes. 5-speed stick shift. Weighed less than 2000 pounds, I think it had 77 HP, but it was a four-door. I don't remember if it had ABS, but certainly no airbags. Basic stereo with AM/FM/cassette, probably two speakers. I don't remember any cupholders.

Bottom line: It got about 35 mpg in mixed driving, and if I was careful on the highway it would get 40 mpg on long trips. My only car till now that could get 40 mpg, and I've always had fuel economy in mind when buying a car. I didn't know back then to pump up the tire pressure or block the grill or even replace the thermostat that was stuck open and always cooling the engine until I finally couldn't handle the lack of heat one winter.

Engines have become remarkably better and more efficient over time (HP per gallon and per engine volume), but that increased power has been used to add luxury to cars instead of making cars go farther on a gallon. I like roll-up windows instead of power windows, but it's almost impossible to find them nowadays. Manual transmission seems to be following suit.

[Jonnycat26]

Originally Posted by usbseawolf2000

Looking back at the 1987 Honda Civic CRX shows us why cars use so much more gas today and about the trade-offs we've had to make.

Keep in mind that the CRX was a 2 seater, and nowhere near as heavy as a modern car. A blast to drive, except in the high mileage HF form, but probably a deathtrap if you were to be in any sort of accident.

I don't know quite why you'd be steaming mad tho... the author was a bit off base to compare a 62 horsepower 2 seater CRX HF to a modern Civic... Drop 2 seats out of a Civic, drop 60 horsepower, and it'd probably achieve about the same mileage... question is, who would buy it?

[usbseawolf2000]

Originally Posted by Jonnycat26

I don't know quite why you'd be steaming mad tho...

Cuz he was comparing MPG of the 2 seater to a mid-size Prius along with pre-2008 EPA number to the new EPA numbers.

[Jonnycat26]

Originally Posted by usbseawolf2000

Cuz he was comparing MPG of the 2 seater to a mid-size Prius along with pre-2008 EPA number to the new EPA numbers.

In that case, I'd agree... a better comparison would have been the HF to the late and great Insight.

[qbee42]

I drove a Honda CR-X for a lot of years and loved it. I had the big engine: 1.5l - woo hoo big power! Even with the 1.5, it went like a scalded cat. The Honda Insight is essentially a hybrid version of the old HF CR-X, with a few more modern touches. A stock CR-X like mine would beat a stock Corvette through a slalom course; it drove the vette drivers nuts. As the other posters have noted, it was a tiny two seater with a good amount of space under the hatch. There were no safety features other than seat belts; any sort of an accident and you were going to die. Even so, I did love that little car.

Tom

[SureValla]

this article states MPG that are incorrect.

if you look on fueleconomy.gov the new numbers are:
48 hwy
40 city.

the old numbers are
54 hwy
49 city

but still amazing

other cars in 1985 that got good milage:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/19/...mpg-cars-1985/

[excuseMeButt]

Originally Posted by SureValla

this article states MPG that are incorrect.

if you look on fueleconomy.gov the new numbers are:
48 hwy
40 city.

the old numbers are
54 hwy
49 city

but still amazing

other cars in 1985 that got good milage:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/19/...mpg-cars-1985/

You are so smart! It looks like the Prius is the gas mizer in this dual.

~buttster