Comments on: MPG Wars: 1989 Honda CRX HF vs. 2009 Toyota Prius

By: another james

another james — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:42:18 +0000

the car pictured is an 84 CRX HF, not an 89. please get your pictures right if you are going to go on and on about a car. the 1.3 HF was rated at 67 MPG HIGHWAY. with a 3 barrel carburetor!! i bought one at 250k miles and rebuilt the carb and had no problem getting to 80-90 mph on the highway. and i will never sit in the back of a prius again, id rather climb in the hatch of a CRX. the prius was just as cramped…

By: another james

another james — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:39:27 +0000

whoops ok so they do but the top gear i saw had a v10 jag averaging 40 MPG

By: another james

another james — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:37:56 +0000

that was a v10 twin turbo diesel not a v6. does jag even have a twin turbo diesel v6?

By: James

James — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:38:38 +0000

I think there is more to it than just weight. If anyone has ever watched Top Gear on BBC, they have done field studies on mpg where they would take a few cars including the Jaguar XJ6 TDVI (which is a 6 cylinder twin turboed diesel) on a 750 mile trip. The plan was to use only one tank of fuel of roughly 22 gallons. thats an average of 34 miles. Thats incredible out of a twin turbo!!! Bring that car to America, I assure you it wont produce that great of mph! If you even compare other cars in Europe that are brought to America with different engine options, you will see that Europe has cars with 50 mpg on a normal engine (including a Subaru Impreza) when we are lucky to even reach 30 mpg in America. Its not just the weight! Its also the regulations that America puts on their cars! Dont mislead your readers!! Do some homework before printing!

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:58:44 +0000

Greetings, I’ve been a driver of a 1988 Accord for the past six years. Before that I drove a 1989 Accord up to 316000 miles with only minor hitches later in life. Both were LXi models, which sport a 2500 lb weight with a full tank of fuel, a 1200 watt amplifier, a 12″ sub in a sealed box, college books for 4 classes, a Krammer stratocaster, and my fat a** sitting in it (plus all the wrappers from meals over the past year). Out of the box fuel economy from my experience was averaging 34 MPG on my 58-mile round trip daily commute. I still drive the 1988 and it’s been a real honey of a car. All the extra weight you were referring to (airbags, ABS, traction ctl) makes up for the lack of attention one pays to the road when using the rest of the extra weight you were referring to (cup holders for starbucks, center consoles for DVD’s, DVD player to keep the kids from singing traveling songs, power adjustable seats) and result in the fewer injuries from the likely higher quantity of accidents associated with these “amenities”. We really need to reconsider what we need in an automobile. I am not knocking the hybrid technology – I owned a 2004 Prius, and as far as I’m concerned it was one of the best automobiles I’ve ever driven – I just am wondering how well that technology would perform without all the extra junk, height and width. Keep the shape and lose some drag by reducing its cross section. Reduce weight by keeping only the necessities. The prius transmission is very simple and soundly designed – now you can make it smaller and lighter, along with the engine, and still have as peppy a car and all the while further improve on fuel economy. We need to get back to necessities…thanks for a great read.

By: keith

keith — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:22:14 +0000

The problem is the government! They love making laws and thats what they’ve done here. The safety laws cause so much extra weight the mileage goes down. I would never buy a new car now days. I drive a 1993 Geo Metro. It has a 1.0L Suzuki engine and gets 45 in the city and 50 on the highway! The other day I saw a really nice looking Honda CRX and am interested in getting one now. I think the HTSA should only give ratings and advisements to the public about cars not laws telling us what we can or cant drive. WE can make our own decision.

By: Patricia Jones

Patricia Jones — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:46:15 +0000

I had a Honda CRX-HF. I am not sure which year I purchased it either 1984 or 1985. It had a 16 valve engine. I got 80mpg going 80mph driving between ST Louis and Denver on
I-70. I bought it because it was advertised 63mpg Hwy. I put over 230,000 miles on it and only had to change tires and 3 headlamps and of course oil changes. It was the BEST car I ever had. I am one of those who believe in the conspiracy theory. When I talked to Honda they said it’s pick up 0-60 was too slow. So they discontinued the engine. I don’t think so– It was too good of a car for that. AND the car was stolen from me by a Ford Deaqler in Chicago, I took another car for a test drive and when I got back to the dealers’ lot (decided to keep my CRX_HF) my car was gone off the lot nowhere to be seen. Of course I complained and all they said they could do is fire the salesman.

By: jer

jer — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:32:58 +0000

I have an 89 crx and you are 100% right. Honda builds cars to last and I LOVE MY LITTLE RED BEAUTY.

By: jer

jer — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:31:02 +0000

I would put my 1989 Honda CRX up against ANY car today in terms of MPG and fun factor in driving. I own many cars (duramax diesel 2500hd, expediton, colorado, taurus, F350, corvette, kia minivan, dodge 1500, dakota). Yet I LOVE my little CRX and drive it 99% of the time. Apparently others do as well since I am CONSTANTLY asked if I want to sell (even notes on my window while parked). You really think a new Prius (with all the safety ammenties claimed) would help you survive against a “normal” car head on collision. NO IT WOULDN’T nor would a little cheap car nowadays. BUT…. Few crashes are car vs car. Most are lost control and hitting other items such as road signs, personal property etc and most are at low speeds. These tests are biased to try to fool consumers into buying high priced CHEAP ass cars. I paid 500 for my little beauty and unless you can bring me a HUGE wad of cash I will never sell my little sweetie.

By: peter

peter — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 04:42:46 +0000

That is nonsense. Two cars with the same engine, driving down the road. It is obvious that the lighter car will get better mpg, as it has less mass to propel, therefore its engine does not have to work as hard, therefore it needs less fuel.
I have a 91 C R X and I love it. It handles great, rides comfortably, is a blast to drive and gets amazing fuel economy
It has 190,000 miles and still has original clutch. Reliability is rock solid.
Honda still hasn’t made a car that comes close.