1. Autos
Send to a Friend via Email

Your suggestion is on its way!

An email with a link to:


was emailed to:

Thanks for sharing About.com with others!

Discuss in my forum

Aaron Gold

What ever happened to the 50 MPG Honda?

By May 12, 2006

Follow me on:

Honda CRX HFKenyon Sandy from New Jersey writes:

What ever happened to the high mileage Hondas of just a few years ago? The special engines that delivered around 38 city and 52 highway. They were not hybrids and were very peppy. All of the sudden we’re supposed to get excited about a car that gets 40 MPG? I don’t think so.

Also, I was reading the reviews of the Volkswagen TDIs (turbodiesels) – why are they getting 42 mpg highway now, when my 2002 TDI Beetle got 48 to 49 on the highway?

Well, Kenyon, the Hondas of the mid-to-late 80s weren't saddled with the weight of dual airbags, anti-intrusion door beams, etc. The highest-MPG Honda was the two-seat CRX HF. In 1989 it had a 62 HP engine, manual transmission only, needed 12 secs to go 0-60, and EPA estimates were 49 MPG city/52 MPG highway. The 4-door Civic sedan for that year had a more useable 92 hp and room for four; its EPA estimates were 31 city/34 highway.

Now, compare that to the modern-day Civic sedan, which is bigger, has heavy bits like A/C, antilock brakes, side airbags, power windows, etc. as standard, and goes 0-60 in around 8 secs for the manual and 9.5 for the automatic. Considering all that, 30 city/40 highway really is pretty darn good, don't you think?

As for the turbodiesel VWs: Some time in the last couple of years VW added catalytic converters, which are supposed to shave off a couple of MPG. I drove last year's Jetta TDI and an '05 Civic Hybrid back to back and averaged 46 MPG in both. If you ask me, diesel is the way to go. It has much more economy and performance potential than hybrids. Thanks for the email, Kenyon.-- Aaron Gold
May 12, 2006 at 11:47 am
(1) KEVIN says:


May 12, 2006 at 4:06 pm
(2) Brian says:

It is possible. My 92 Honda Civic VX was rated at 3.9 L/100Km or 72mpg in Canada (sorry, you’ll have to convert to US gallons). I never usually got better than about 50, but I came really close a couple of times during long drives sticking to secondary roads instead of the main highway. Problem was the thing was geared so high, I had to shift to third and turn off the A/C to climb anything more than a moderate hill. [Ed. note: 72 MPG Imperial is about 60 MPG US, 59 MPG Imp. is about 41.6 MPG US. -- Aaron]

May 12, 2006 at 7:59 pm
(3) Bryan W says:

Count me in that group of former Honda owners. I had one of the original ’86 (1st generation) CRX HF’s. I never got less than 45 mpg driving around town and typically got 55 mpg on the highway driving back and forth to college, for which it seemed to be perfectly designed.

It wouldn’t do 0-60 in 12 seconds (closer to 14), but that’s because of the huge gaps in gear ratios from the 5-speed manual. 1st gear topped out at a reasonable 32 mph, but 2nd gear went all the way up to around 70 mph. These ratios prevented even the most aggressive drivers from getting low mileage.

The car was very light though (less than 1900 lbs), so the 58 hp wasn’t as bad as it sounds by modern standards. That would be the equivalent of about 90 hp for today’s sub-compacts.

I’m as confused as Kenyon Sandy though. I don’t understand why after billions of dollars of research to develop the most technologically advanced hybrid engines that we have today that only run on gasoline a part of the time, still only get 50 mpg on a good day. That’s ridiculous. And you can’t blame it on weight. I would occasionally haul 500 lbs of people and cargo in my old CRX and would still get over 45 mpg.

I think it has a lot to do with valve timing. The sub-compact manufacturers put a lot of effort into timing those tiny engines to get as much power and instantaneous torque as possible, and the mileague suffers. I average about 21 mpg in my WRX, but when I use the “economy mode” engine mapping from Cobb Tuning’s AccessPort computer, I can EASILY increase my mileage to 26 mpg, even as high as 28 mpg with very conservative driving. That’s a whopping 25% increase just by altering the computer with the push of a button!

May 13, 2006 at 2:47 am
(4) Alan P. says:

You want great Honda Civic or Accord mileage? Read my post just added in the sites forum, in the Japanese/Asian folder. They just arent marketed here. Which is equally true of other makes sold here, whether GM, Ford or Toyota.

May 14, 2006 at 2:26 am
(5) Alan P. says:

I need to correct myself (comment #4), my post in this sites forum is in the folder titled “Technology, New/Changing” and is titled (in part) – Hondas Great Mileage…
There you will find a great Honda Civic (and Accord) that gets really great mileage along with performance. Trouble is we cannot buy it.

Forum Sysop

September 30, 2006 at 8:40 am
(6) vicemna72 says:

well,i have the last honda crx1991,came off the line in dec 91,then they made the 1992 crx/delsol,1.5 dx 16 valve auto,i’d say from full to a half of tank of gas i can travel up 190 miles on a good day,thats minding the speed limit and traffic,super peppey a lotof get up and go very adgile,now the car has mods and you can hear it three blocks away,when coming up on people on the highway people look over there shoulder and they think it is a big truck barreling down on them ,it might be small but she carries a big bite!

April 9, 2007 at 2:45 pm
(7) Lisa says:

I’ve wondered about this myself, especially as I will be in the market for a new car within the next year. I had a 92 Honda Civic hatchback (I think it was the DX model) with manual transmission. Even with air conditioner use in the summers, I had that car for 8 years and I tracked the mileage against every tank of gas I put in the car, and I never once got less than 42 mpg. Without a/c use I frequently got over 45 mpg, even when it was approaching 100,000 miles. I’m sad to say I traded it in for a Saturn 4-door SL2 that has never gotten above 30 mpg. Of the non-hybrid bunch, it now looks as though the Fit is the best Honda option. Given their long history of emphasis on fuel economy, I just can’t understand why Honda of all companies isn’t driven to produce a higher-mpg car for sale in the US. I’d buy a hybrid in a minute, but they’re really out of my price range. I’m in the Fit price range (back in the day, my 92 Honda was in that range too!!) and really can’t swing the cost of a hybrid.

May 19, 2007 at 6:45 pm
(8) Erik says:

I owned a 1989 CRX HF and usually got 40-55 mpg. This was with over 100,000 miles on the engine. I admit that you could not have hard accelerations and needed to travel at a steady speed to achieve 55mpg but it could do it. I also had a 1984 CRX (also with over 100K on the engine)and you could run it hard and still achieve at least 40mpg. I agree, we should not be satisfied with 40mpg from hybrids (for a $10k premium added to the price tag) when we had much better options 20 years ago. Honda is probably still selling these cars elsewhere but the demand in the US has been SUV’s up until about 3 years ago and now you see a lot of new Hummers and Pickup trucks on the road. I guess some people are unaffected by the cost of fuel. My question is why doesn’t the US market have the options available in Europe like single passenger cars? It seems like the market is flooded with automobiles that the average person cannot afford. Also, what is it going to take to bring back cars like the CRX?

June 17, 2007 at 12:21 pm
(9) SB says:

Cars are heavier now?! The variety of alternative lighter materials, some of which are being used , but many that are not, make that argument a bad excuse. Also, how many people or even families need two vehicles that can transport 4 people? 95% of the people I see commuting, even driving anywhere, are alone. And they’d still have room for one more person with a CRX! Bring back the CRX and we can all have a 2nd car that gets 55mpg! Let’s here it for late 80′s technology!

June 21, 2007 at 3:06 pm
(10) arby says:

To vicemna72: People are looking around because they’re wondering who’s the IDIOT with the loud car.

June 21, 2007 at 8:22 pm
(11) gkulz says:

I nearly bought a civic in 93 after watching their “progress” since 88, but settled on a Geo Metro XFI. LOVE that car. I averaged 55 mph for many years and just tallied my last two years of driving which averaged out at 49.7 miles per gallon!!! WHY oh WHY can’t we produce cars like that and the Crx now! I’m getting an AVERAGE miles per gallon higher than the lame hybrids out there. And my car is 15 years old. When will americans start using their heads and remember the 70′s gas shortages? When will we realize that we need to DO something to stop global warming? If all the SUV drivers would purchase 15 year old Geo’s, we’d drop our consumption of oil nearly two thirds. Oh utopia, where art thou? :)

July 5, 2007 at 10:23 pm
(12) Jedi says:

I had wondered for many years why the average corporate mpg keeps declining, I mean cars used to do better. 1984 crx’s with a 1.3 engine rated 70mpg! 1995 Geo Metro’s with 3 cylinder engines still get 50 mpg! (both models have been discontinued) Europeans get a lot of diesel options we don’t etc.. Over the years I have come to understand that the answer is not as simple as the 100 year old engine we still use or the increasing additions such as airbags and anti collision doodads. It’s P O L I T I C S ! the US government and it’s politicians LOVE taxes, ANY taxes including FUEL taxes… and the mafias that run the U.S. ensure that their candidates get that tax money by intimidating the automakers into producing gas guzzlers. That’s the bottom line, it’s the 21st century and we still can’t get 30 mpg out of a sub compact??? B S !

July 7, 2007 at 10:39 am
(13) devon says:

When the manufacturers produce the cars they build what the consumer demand is. consumer demand has not been for the 30mpg+ cars. there is an increasing market for it now, but car production is usually behind by about 3 years. the consumer wants power and comfort. the consumer is the person with money who can go out and purchase a brand new car, and the people who actually have money do not really care about gas prices. Gas prices are just a couple of extra dollars out of their pockets. if the U.S. mandated more standards, such as california does, there would be more fuel efficient vehicles. so for people like me who do like better gas mileage, buy older cars like the 93 civic i have and get great 40mpg+ mileage. (by the way my civic has 130 hp. and gets 45+mpg, because of extra mods) GO GREEN GET A DIESEL AND CONVERT YOUR CAR TO USE VEGE OIL. HAHA

July 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm
(14) Jedi says:

Bull****! The manufacturers build gas PIGS on purpose and not because that’s what we really want. That 1984 CRX I mentioned was popular cheap transportation. It was the Reagan Administration which decided it was TOO popular and slapped import tarriffs to stop fuel effient cars from coming in. tTTHEN the a******s convinced gullible americans that small cars just aren’t safe and trucks and SUV’s are cool! You can’t tell me nobody ever wanted to get 50mpg out of their cars! Gas was just so “cheap” that people – with their short memories- forgot the way things were. AND EPA emmisions regulations are tailored to prevent efficient engines. Doesn’t it make more sense to use less in the first place rather than burn it and waste it in the catalyst????
I myself have ALWAYS wanted a 50mpg car but waited and waited and it was never produced. So I am indeed shopping for one of those OLD 50 mpg cars!!!!!!!!!

July 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm
(15) Jedi says:

If you believe that there are no 50 mpg cars because “nobody wanted them” then you are a fool. You probably also believe that current gas prices are a result of supply and demand? Think, the internal combustion engine in our cars hasn’t been changed significantly in over 100 years! Why? Yet, we can go to the moon and back whatwasitnow? 40 years ago? and the rocket engines on the space shuttle are 100 times more powerful and fuel efficient than those that got us to the moon. Why have car engines then remained the same, even gotten LESS efficient and choked with smog equipment?? why change the status quo when taxes were just rolling in from all the gasoline? So let’s keep letting them use more gasoline all the time. Explain why the government time and again since the 70′s has backed down from more strict CAFE fuel economy requirements?? (cause they love taxes and guzzlers bring more taxes) and electric cars are not on the roads and our government is fighting it -notice they are trying to find ANY OTHER MEANS to fuel a vehicle that THEY CAN TAX? A car that runs on hydrogen from a pump can just as easily run on water from a tap! and an electric car that gets it’s power from a fuel cell fueled at a pump can just as easily be plugged into ANY outlet. Obviously anything that is not taxable is not “feasable” for a reason. DUH. They want our money!

September 2, 2007 at 12:05 am
(16) Jason Root says:

I have to say I agree with the sentiments here about how Hybrids aren’t as efficient as the CRX HFs, Metro XFIs and Civic VX HBs of the ’80s and ’90s and have found similar posts on the internet elsewhere on how much a disgrace it is.

I have also noticed how the fuel economy of cars over the last two decades keeps declining. I wanted a 50pmg car but I had the budget of $2500 (not $23,000) so I sought out a Honda Civic VX Hatchback and now am enjoying a 1993 model year that gets 50+mpg with plenty of power! In fact I think I may achieve as much as 60mpg from my first full tank with this car and it has over 175,000 miles on it! And I don’t even have the right tires on it.

November 30, 2007 at 12:07 pm
(17) gnusman53 says:

Sadly, Ford had a 42mpg car in the US that sold well….(Ford Fiesta)….aqnd I got as high as 49.897mpg with it on the freeway….

My 1994 Geo Metro got up to 54mpg on the highway…and my 1999 Chevy Metro has gotten up to 53mpg (it has AC)…

Yet Chevy thinks a car now getting 30 mpg is excellent mileage?????

Chevy plays at high mileage cars (the triplets) but does diddly…..

I will not even consider buying an American car in the future unless it gets more than 40+mpg…

January 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm
(18) Kenyon Sandy says:

Well, some time ago I started this mayhem and, I’m glad to see it got some attention.

I would correct Jedi that the CRXs sold until the Clinton Administration when they stopped – green Gore could have kept them here, but he was busy buying his Maserati.

Anyway, we CAN produce a consistent 60 to 70+ MPG car with the use of plugin hybrid tecnology and solar recharging panels and we MUST or we will witness our earth becoming very sick, very soon as China explodes industrially.

I’m awaiting the “blue motion” VW…..why isn’t that being sold here….clean and efficient?

January 17, 2008 at 1:01 am
(19) Chris Taylor Jr says:

Hybrids are a crock. a CON on the american people. Do you know when a Prius will pay itself back in gas savings over a 1 or 2 year old Efficient car? NEVER. When that Prius chokes dead even if it lasted 200,000 miles it would STILL have cost you more than the alternative.

The ONLY viable answer is PURE EV’s all electric cars. Efficient models (ie not sports cars) cost about $1 in electricity to go 100 miles. Thats it. thats equivalent to 300mpg at todays gas prices. With the advent of NANO SOLAR at $1 a watt if they get to the public at that price a $500 solar panel on your roof tied into the GRID (ie you sell your E back to the utility) will be enough to 100% offset the E usages costs of an EV for 90% of us a $800 solar panel should cover 99% of us. That means the car would cost you NOTHING to drive EVER AGAIN not one red cent AND be 100% clean NO carbon or emission footprint AT ALL since your solar panel would generate MORE power each month than your car would use each month.

SO why don’t we have EV’s ? thats easy. GM sold out to Texaco Chevron Bought Texaco and they are holding and sitting on the patent for the EV1 etc.. battery packs. Large Form Factor NIMH’s. Its a controlling patent meaning no one can make similar batteries without violating the patent and Chevron REFUSES to license the tech to anyone for EV use or to anyone where the resulting batteries MIGHT be convertible to EV usage. Cute ehh?

THAT is the only reason we do not have EV’s RIGHT NOW. Think about that for a while.

January 19, 2008 at 11:23 pm
(20) L3rr says:

Lol. I just slapped a 1994 honda civic VX engine, equipped with V-Tec E, into a 1991 civic hatchback. After installing a after market header, a drop in K&N air filter to the stock airbox, and reprogramming V-tec E to 4000 rpm instead of 2500 rpm I am averaging over 60mpg highway. I may not have all the safety features of a prius, but I don’t look like an Al Gore supporter when I drive my car. I also get better fuel economy than a prius and I ONLY SPENT $2,000.00 DOLLARS U.S. I did none of the work myself on this car.

January 20, 2008 at 1:54 pm
(21) Mike says:

I bought a barely used ’94 Civic LX with a manual back in ’95. It was a great car for mileage so in ’04 I bought a new Civic EX manual thinking that I’d be able to get near the 40mpg average that my old Civic got. Unfortunately Honda had regeared the new Civic for low speed power (and good mileage if you don’t go beyond the 45mph that the EPA did their estimates at). At freeway speeds- 75mph- the engine was turning over at nearly 4000rpm. It was noisy and, worse yet, inefficient. I was averaging 32mpg. The last straw was a tank where I got only 26mpg because of a headwind so I sold it. There are dozens of cars that do better or as well as that and are nicer and heavier cars. The 94 and the 04 models were very similar in most respects but the gearing made all the difference. There was no industrial or governmental conspiracy behind my poor mileage; just Honda Motor Corp. respoding to the horsepower wars with a transmission geared for power rather than mileage.

March 10, 2008 at 10:17 pm
(22) Jim says:

I too owned a CRX-HF in the late 80′s. If I can remember the window sticker said 52 City and 58 Highway – I was getting over 65mpg on the highway…and yes it was a dog – I remember climbing the WV mountains in 3rd gear just to get to the top but I also remember that it was so well designed that I was going 70mph down the other side in neutral (because 5th gear was holding me back). I would disagree with the article above and the sentence “Considering all that, 30 city/40 highway really is pretty darn good, don’t you think?”.

No, I really don’t think that ‘is pretty darn good’. You have just taken away my option to have a light car, that will carry only two passengers and a vehicle that will go from 0-60 in more like 15 sec.

Call me kooky but these non-luxeries should be available for the ones that want them – like me and every other person that needs a work car or an efficient way to mitigate current fuel costs.

March 17, 2008 at 3:59 am
(23) mpgliers says:

to every 1 saying u get 45- 55 mpg in your 92 civic, your full of it!!!!
why lie about that its sounds so stupid!
factory specs for 92 civics all say 30-35mpg.

March 20, 2008 at 7:00 pm
(24) Robert harris says:

I have an old 1991 honda civic DX 4 door. It has a rebuilt 1.5cc engine.
It has plenty of power, and a 5 speed.
In the city, I plan for lights,coast and just used 1.71 gallons to go 103 miles. I got 60 MPG, mostly in city and some hiway.

March 25, 2008 at 12:45 am
(25) Bonsai Pushki says:

Even the Metro’s efficiency degraded. My 1987 Chevy Sprint, purchased in 1990 with 40,000 mile: I measured mpg with precision possibly 100 times. With great frequency achieved over 60 mpg. With very careful open highway driving up to 78 mpg was achieved. I had a skeptical witness monitor my full measurement procedure and he became a believer in eye witness to a 77 mpg road trip.

5 years ago I bought a 1999 metro, 45,000, very excellent condition. Same size engine/tranny. Actually smaller and lighter weight than my 1987 was. The 1999 is not more powerful than the 87. Nor is it faster. The 1999 has the appearance of being more aero dynamic. After about 50 or 75 careful mpg measurements, it seems to be impossible to achieve more than 51 mpg. After extensive experience and fairly scientific observation, it is clear to me that the 1999 is not nearly as efficient as the 1987. Effciency has only continued to degrade since 1999 as some of you have noticed.

In view of this, what others have said, and a hundred other careful observations, the issue appears not only disgraceful, but insidious. This is certainly one powerful lynch pin for squeezing the life and strength from an economy. Though the power and wealth of our leaders and their associates has been escalating immensely as a result of this and other oil related issues, those horrible terrorists must nevertheless be finding a most ironic and kindred spirit of laughter and victory celebration with our leaders and corporate powers who conduct whole sale wreckage on the fabric of our economy with thinly veiled rhetoric and contemptuous disregard for anything but obsessive amassment of greed and power for their elite.

April 22, 2008 at 11:07 pm
(26) Randy W. says:

mpgliers what Big Oil lobbyists do you work for? Older excellent mpg vehicles still exist out there. And if you know how to properly maintain your car it can be done.

April 27, 2008 at 9:23 pm
(27) FilthyRich says:

I found a 1992 Honda Civic VX with 170K miles on it for $2500. The EPA mileage is 55/48 and I’m getting about 45 mpg highway. My 1992 Saab 900 gets about 33 mpg highway with the top UP (30 mpg top down). If you look at the EPA mileage charts on their website, you will see the constant lowering of fuel mileage across the board from the 1980′s to present. Good luck trying to find a ’92-’95 Honda VX because people that have them aren’t selling!

Watch “Who Killed the Electric Car” for a real shocker. The politicians and the corporate auto/oil executives who own them are enjoying the status quo, reaping $BILLIONS in profits. Don’t look for this to change any time soon.

May 3, 2008 at 11:50 am
(28) Joey says:

“”It was the Reagan Administration which decided it was TOO popular and slapped import tarriffs to stop fuel effient cars from coming in”"

That’s BS. First of all it was quotas not tariffs and it was done to reduce the size of the US-Japan trade deficit and yes help GM, but it had nothing directly to do with MPG as there were US cars that got decent MPG back in the early 1980s….Why are liberals still so upset with President Ronald Reagan. Was defeating communism that much of a sin for them??

May 3, 2008 at 11:55 am
(29) Joey says:

“”Watch “Who Killed the Electric Car” for a real shocker. The politicians and the corporate auto/oil executives who own them are enjoying the status quo, reaping $BILLIONS in profits. Don’t look for this to change any time soon.”"

Electric cars arent viable except for limited city driving. Ill galdly buy one when I can 1) drive 300-400 miles on a single charge and then 2) recharge in 15 minutes or less.

Also how you generate the electricity also maatters. If the electricity used was generated by buring coal or oil, there is little benefit. electricty would have to be generated by nuclear power, to be both clean and help the US be energy “independent”

July 10, 2008 at 8:13 am
(30) Ray Erker says:

The only reason I beleive that they don’t make more efficient vehicles is because as soon as a better design comes out the oil companies will force the sale of the design out of the hands of the developer to keep it off the market so they can sell more oil at inflated prices. Our economy is ruled by the rich and it is easier to control the masses of people if you can keep them poor. I don’t care what the so called experts say, big oil is corrupt. Even when the governments say they will look into why fuel prices are so high and come back a month later saying the oil companies are not doing anything wrong, more than likely after the oil companies just donated a couple of million to their party. Corruption breeds corruption.

July 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm
(31) Tannis Hudson says:

I’m reminded of the motion picture “Tucker”, where a new automotive idea is suppressed by “the powers to be”. So – every time I hear of an automotive idea that somehow faded away, I just considerate that car or idea was “TUCKERED”..After all – in order for big business to stay “big”, they need to continue to spread their lobbyists money so that congress makes the right decisions for us lowly tax payers…..

July 12, 2008 at 10:50 pm
(32) bigfoot says:

joey claims that evs should be powered by nuclear power (“clean and good for economy”).Sorry joey, nuclear power is niether. Solar power is both. PV works. The sun comes up every day.

July 15, 2008 at 10:55 am
(33) Mike in Minn says:

Well….the Earth turns every day. Exposure to the sun varies by location as does viability in terms of solar as a power source.
Plus some would likely protest the big footprint of a solar power plant. Wind power is another source that some don’t like because they don’t like to see the generators. Eventually we need to realize that there is no perfect power source and that some folks would only be happy if we all lived in caves and wore loin cloths-just so long as the loin cloth production facility was made of vapor and located on the moon.

July 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm
(34) abenaqui says:

Purchased my first Honda CRX in Dec 1983, an ’84 CRX 1.3 for $6,199 + a few small options. Drove it for 20 years and over 300,000 mi. It averaged 54 MPG lifetime and 61 MPG Highway up here in the NH Hills. Kept a detailed expense record. A lifetime operating cost of $0.0425 (4-1/4 cents) per mile! Can you beat that for value? I never walked home, either.
Still driving them, too. Numbers 5 & 6 are in the yard, 1986 1.5 and 1986 HF. Keeping Road Cancer out of them is the only issue here.

September 9, 2008 at 10:56 am
(35) danewkid says:

My answer to this problem was to locate a 92-95 Honda Civic CX or VX, with the tall-geared manual tranny and aerodynamic hatchback body style. I did find a rust free 95 CX down in Virginia this summer. It cost 2K, has 193,000 miles on it and I have done nothing to it (yet) to improve performance. I have run it for about 4,000 miles now, and my worst milage was 38mpg commuting and hauling heavy stuff all week in stop and go traffic with the AC on the whole time. It averages about 40mpg with everyday driving, and will get 45 mpg on long trips. I recently bought a VX engine (the VTEC-E) and plan on swapping that in over the Winter, effectively turning my car into a VX, which another blogger here was correctly indicating are hard to find. For me, the search was worth it, as I expect to get better performance and even better milage with this engine; probably close to 50 mpg, and all for well under $3K by the time I am done. Every time I see a Prius on the NY Thruway, I just smile, and think about the twenty grand I kept in my pocket for other things, like saving up for a diesel electric Honda Fit. Prolly be too old to drive by then…

November 15, 2008 at 1:51 am
(36) Jay says:

Bring back the Honda VX. Great gas mileage, roomy and dependable.
40 to 50 mpg


February 16, 2009 at 3:50 pm
(37) Camillus says:

I had a, ’87 HF – I had weeks when I logged 60MPG on Rt. 80 as my commuter work car – I was attentive to keeping track of mileage… this was one of the best cars for that function.

March 9, 2009 at 6:19 am
(38) Peg Cadigan says:

I have a 1992 Honda VX but serious damage to the driver’s side made too costly to fix. The engine with only 32,000 miles on it is sitting in my barn. Can’t bear to throw it away since at the time I had it checked and it’s supposedly okay. But after all this time and a lot of pigeon and bat doo-doo, I guess I should. It feels like disposing of a Da Vinci painting that got dirty.

May 30, 2009 at 12:04 am
(39) L505 says:

“Lol. I just slapped a 1994 honda civic VX engine, equipped with V-Tec E, into a 1991 civic hatchback. After installing a after market header, a drop in K&N air filter to the stock airbox”

Uhm, duh bullwinkle, how does installing a performance header and a performance K&N filter *improve* mileage?

June 2, 2009 at 8:51 pm
(40) Chuck says:

Yeah, I had a 94 Civic VX with 92 HP, dual airbags, and air conditioning. It’s EPA fuel rating was 51 city/54 highway. That was better than any production 2008 model car (including every hybrid) available in the United States, probably 2009 also, though the new Prius finally claims to have gotten back to a combined 50+ MPG. This car (Honda Civic VX with VTEC-E) was first available in Japan in 1990, thats almost 20 years ago, with efficiency which still hasn’t really been duplicated in NA (save the original hybrid Insight). Why? So we could have reinforced doors? Why can the Feudral Government mandate that Honda make cars that have certain safety features, but not at least the efficiency that they did the year before, or 20 years before for that matter. Which is a bigger problem, the 300 out of 300,000,000 Americans that would be seriously injured without those extra safety features (and their weight) or the 300,000,000 people who are going to have to force their way to higher ground because ice keeps melting into the oceans because the people that run the world are determined to get every penny for every drop of oil by making sure it gets burned as inefficiently as possible. Give me a break, to me, this is proof positive of one of the worst massive conspiracies, do the math, every major auto manufacturer bows to OPEC when it comes down to it. Just like the EV1, which got between 150-300 miles on an overnight 120v charge with NMHd batteries in 1996, and GM’s 2011 Volt is probably going to get 40 miles on a charge of Lithium Ion batteries 15 years later, I thought Lithium Ion batteries were generally supposed to be 10 times more efficient than Nickel Metal Hydride, not 1/10th as effecient…Go ‘F’ yourself Illuminati.

June 21, 2009 at 5:24 pm
(41) Matthew L says:

I have a 1993 Nissan stanza Altima this car gets 40 to 44 highway miles and 26 city, I just went on a trip to Canada to Montreal back to Florida to Deland Fla, and my average was 39 mpgs, so its far better then most new cars out there and the Engine is a 2.4L KA24DE Engine. its not a hybrid. its a older car.

July 5, 2009 at 9:48 pm
(42) Greg says:

I currently own a ’93 Honda Civic VX.. 320,000 miles… I can get over 40 mpg, rated 55mpg, but with a bad o2 sensor, its not running up to par.. IT HAS AN AIRBAG. I have read time and time again of people getting 65 mpg with this car. What is stopping Honda from re-release this car? I can smoke the tires with this old thing! Seriously, I can leave rubber on the pavement. Imagine this engine in the insight’s aluminum chassis? Imagine this drive train in a newer light weight body? What is stopping them from this idea? Is it the big oil companies?

July 29, 2009 at 2:46 am
(43) trent von says:

A friend of mine bought one of those 1984 Honda CRX HF’s. We drove from Sacramento, CA to Wendover, NV. (600+ miles) on 1 Tank of gas during the summer of 84′. We were exhausted, non-stop the whole way, the gas station was more for us than the car, but we filled its little 10 gallon tank anyways.
I’ve been keeping an eye out for one as a rebuild project lately, but I don’t think anyone who has one is willing to part with it!
I do remember the whole Reagan thing, 1985 came around and no more 1.3 engine CRX’s. in the U.S., however they were still available in Japan and elsewhere.

August 11, 2009 at 12:55 pm
(44) Jow Blow says:

You condesending bastard!!

Many of us asked the question what happened to the 50- 60 mpg cars not in the 80′s but in this decade.
I can only conjecture that you work for the car companies. Well good luck> Its logic like yours that is putting the car compaies out of business.
You reap your own arrogance.

February 14, 2010 at 5:16 pm
(45) VAL says:


March 28, 2010 at 11:24 am
(46) Lloyd Charlier says:

My first car out of college in 1985 was a brand new CRX HF which I drove to Texas from Pennsylvania for my new engineering job in Dallas. In the five years I had it, it never once required repairs of any kind and never got less than 42MPG (one time getting 63MPG!). I purchased it new from a dealer for ~$6300 and, 5 years later, sold it for $4800 in cash (I advertised it for $4500 but was offered $300 extra to one-up the first bidder). Best car I ever owned – wish I never sold it…

April 25, 2010 at 7:31 pm
(47) PJ Cook says:

I had the FIRST Honda CRX 1.3 and it DID get 51 City/67 Hwy and was not really a bad performer. Sticking to the conspiracy theory that it as TOO GOOD for the Oil Industry and was gone in less than a year and replaced with the 1.5 that got much less mileage. Too bad, we were headed in the right direction and no expensive hybrid. It was under $8500 with Air, Rear window louvers and a few other options.

May 15, 2010 at 8:57 pm
(48) Keith says:

The 1984 Honda CRX DX with a 1348cc engine is still the highest rated EPA highway mileage car in automotive history… including the later CRX HF’s and all of the hybrids since. I drove a new one for 12 years and often got more than 70 MPG. I now own another one (now 26 years old and an antique)which I am restoring. It is white with blue interior… anyone have any parts for it?

June 2, 2010 at 12:11 am
(49) Joan Neer says:

I have been choosing high mpg my whole car purchasing life-starting with the original beetle. And still the US market doesn’t give me that option. I would buy American made, if they would make it. I would love to have a Honda CRX – or something comparable.
Why don’t I have that choice?

June 26, 2010 at 2:15 am
(50) Ryan says:

For those concerned…..
The biggest issue with creating a new car that is in the realm of the Civic VX (concerning mpg) is NOx. Or, oxides of nitrogen- part of the greenhouse gasses. It is kept in check just as much as carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons.
The trick that honda pulled off with the V-tec E engine, was the lean burn burn mode. It could lean out the fuel mixture beyond 20:1 afr under light load conditions.

Car manufacturers have to strictly adhere to 14.7:1 afr at this point in order to meet the current epa emission standards.
For the sceptics pointing fingers at this, look across the pond at the many small diesel cars (see VW lupo 1.2 TDI), and remember that diesels produce elevated levels of NOx- Not acceptable to our EPA’s standards.

September 19, 2010 at 4:56 am
(51) Maynard says:

I had a 1984 Honda CRX new and it got 62 MPG at 55 MPH with A/C on. I put 260,000 miles on that car before the motor gave out and I was still getting 50 MPG HWY at 65 MPH. Why can’t we get that now????

October 10, 2010 at 9:09 pm
(52) Terry63 says:

I have a 96 Honda Civic DX manual

I get 35 to 40 MPG depending on where and how I drive AC or not. I have seating for 4 a trunk and power to drive in traffic. This car has 185000 miles plus. I run Royal purple oil in engin and transmission not sure if that helps or not. When I had the timing belt changed it lost power my mechanic said he would see if he had made a timing error. He had to change timing off of factory marks to get power back. Has anyone had simalar experence.

November 18, 2010 at 6:12 pm
(53) Arthur Oberheim says:

In the mid-90s, I scored a 1989 CRX Si. Massachusetts & NH winters beat the heck out of her, but that car could move! It seemed the harder I threw that car into the S turns coming out of Boston, the firmer she sat right down & flattened out. Taking those turns after the Tobin Bridge at 75, 80 mph was nothing for that little car—and mileage that knocked your socks off. I got upper 30s mixed, low 40s highway, with averages around 38 for the life of the car. Even when I lived up in Northern Vermont, I put a set of studded snows on her & she put all the 4wd vehicles to shame. There was nowhere we couldn’t go.

Aaron, I take your point—today’s cars are heavier, with bigger engines, perhaps slightly better acceleration, with many more safety features. But for those of us who are long-time Honda owners (my first new car was a 2001 Civic EX Couple—underwhelming & disappointing) are frustrated, I think, by the lack of a truly Honda Honda. We recall the days when Honda didn’t compromise. Where’s the double-wishbone suspension all around that was hallmark of Honda? To be very picky, how could Honda go with red rear turn indicators when yellow is so much easier to see & therefore so much safer? Where’s the fantastically low coefficient of drag? Where’s Honda’s leap into the turbo diesel world, where they could have power and efficiency?

The Honda that brought us the Civic CVCC & the CRX & the S2000 would not have given us the lackluster Insight we have. They would have outdone Toyota. And the CR-Z? Honda is trying to make me feel good that 20 YEARS after they killed the CRX I’m supposed to plunk down $25,000 for a HYBRID that gets worse mileage in Sport mode, arguably regular driving mode too, than my CRX actually got? I bought my CRX used for $5000. 93,000 miles on her. Is Honda kidding?

I’m just sayin’.

December 3, 2010 at 4:51 pm
(54) daveo says:

1980 vw rabbitt diesel 50 mpg and peppy….where are they now?

December 30, 2010 at 11:24 am
(55) Nurk says:

L505 – Spend 5 minutes Googling “Improving Combustion Engine Efficiency” before continuing to sound like an ignorant fool.

mpgliers – Why the hate and doubt? What makes more sense… dozens of people are telling true stories about cars they actually bought and drove, or that you know better about people you’ve never met and cars you’ve never owned?

January 26, 2011 at 12:08 pm
(56) dyna4 says:

I will add to the CRX HF comments. I had a 1989 Honda CRX HF that had well over 100,000 miles on it. Loaded down with luggage etc, I still made one of my final trips (before I sold it), from Battleboro, NC to St. Augustine FL on ONE tank of gas. That is 522 miles and 8 1/2 plus hrs of driving, never filling up, and getting approximately 52.2 mpg.!! While I will give some (albeit very small room) for weight differences in modern cars, there is also this thing called “progress”, that should even out that factor. It is more than obvious that the ability to re-produce these cars, with potentially even higher mpg’s, is out there, however Gov’t/Big business is too caught up in the “I won’t get mine” mentality to let it happen. And it is unfortunate because we are ruining this planet and will continue to do so until one day, these individuals say “whoopS!” and by then it is too late. One can only hope that by then we will have developed some technology to live on another planet, or find another one that will support us, and then we can go there and start ruining that planet (sarcasm).

March 18, 2011 at 8:52 pm
(57) wesley says:

Well the truth of the matter is the government bought the patent of the engine from Honda and they claim they are looking for a way to come up with an engine that gets good gas mileage yea ok tell us another one!!! They bought the patent so they could make money on gas!!! All that talk about all the other accessories making the car heavier and getting poor gas mileage is BULL!!! The problem is that they have to go around all the legal issue’s and can’t use the designs of the 60mpg engine they created yrs ago and that’s the real reason!!! Its not the car companies fault its our governments fault!!! I mean stop and think about it for a minute we are in a depression and they want the poor and middle class to pull us out of it when they give the rich all the tax breaks they can think of!!! What’s wrong with that picture?

April 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm
(58) cabdriver says:

I hate when people talk about things & act like they know what they are talkin’ about. There has been safety side-rails in doors since at least the late ’70s. I guess there were too many regulations for BP too! They changed the EPA “test-loop” to more accurately reflect real-world conditions, a year or 3 ago. After folks complained about not getting the mileage on the stickers, that the government put on after the last “Gas Crisis”.

April 30, 2011 at 12:08 am
(59) Jim says:

Today there is two Honda’s 1 for the usa market and 1 for the Japan market. Anything for the usa market gets crap mpg and anything for japan market gets 60-89 mpg (2011) for Toyota,Nissan,Mazda,and Honda.

Go to Japan on the Internet and looky see what Japan is driving…yeah…make ya mad as xxxx too!

It seems someone is making all imports conform to the usa crappy mpg standards or want you to buy a very expensive electric car….hmmmm.

In the late 70′s Hawawii was the only state that Japan High mpg cars were allowed to be imported to and they all got around 50-60 mpg.

Something sound fishy ? Did I say late 70′s ?

Yeah. I did. Someone made them high mpg cars go away and you can’t have one.

Think about it. Who runs this country and have
the laws written for them.

Get the laws changed.

Kick out the Republicans and Democrats and get a new party in that will write and change the laws for the
people and not for the big corporations.

There is no politics to everyone getting screwed.


May 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm
(60) OD says:

Cheer up.Venezuela sells it’s gas to it’s people for —- get this—-.08 cents per gallon.Can you imagine 8 cents per gallon in the USA,everybody would be much wealthier.

June 30, 2011 at 7:53 pm
(61) Jake Davis says:

Our government has tightened emissions on our vehicles over the years due to Lobiests. However, the United States uses a flawed measures method.

Current U.S.
Test Criteria Quantified in Emissions Per Volume of Exhaust
Encourages vehicle manufacturers to increase exhaust VOLUME

Other Countries
Test Criteria Quantified in Emissions Per Distance
Encourages decrease in actual output of Emissions

The result, in order to pass the emissions test, auto makers are simply changing the chip to burn more fuel to create more exhaust volume and thus “water down” the PPM of the final exhaust.

Many vehicles used air pumps to add air into the exhaust to “water down” the PPM but our Government put a stop to that. Now manufactures just clean burn more fuel to reduce the power burn emissions ratio.

July 13, 2011 at 12:37 pm
(62) Dave-pl says:

I’m thrilled to hear people with the same opinions I have about older cars. I have a 1990 Honda Civic that still gets 50 mpg, and am trying to keep it running long as possible. No way would I want to spend a lot on a bigger car with poorer gas mileage. I don’t care about luxury features, air bags, etc, and would rather take my chances driving a lighter car, in order to live on a more green planet.
New cars seem too high as well, which wastes space and cuts down on gas mileage.

September 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm
(63) Adam says:

I just wanted to say that my wife’s 01 Civic window sticker read 28 city 35hwy and we rarely ever see it go below 35mpg. On our trip to Georgia and back we hit 39-41mpg with every tank. Sure it’s not as good as our 88 Civic Hatchback was, which always hit 40 or above, but it weighs almost 1000lbs more and we have the safety of airbags and abs, and the added comfort of A/C, power steering, power windows, heck the thing is loaded. Not to mention it has bigger, heavier wheels and a trunkload of subwoofers and amplifiers. I do agree that I’m surprised that the auto manufacturers are bragging about 35mpg now 10 years later, and 23 years later than the hatchback, but we are trading our fuel mileage for more safety and convenience features.

March 15, 2012 at 10:20 pm
(64) D Lightning says:

Gotta throw in the ’95 Civic HX. I drove one of these for a short time (wasn’t mine), and it got over 42mpg, and the performance was equal to the Civic EX model. With only minor improvement, its not unreasonable to expect ALL Civics made after ’95 to get over 45mpg. Where are the improvements? All I see is mandated safety garbage and unwanted computer controls ruining our current cars. I certainly smell corporate malfeasance.

April 30, 2012 at 10:45 am
(65) james braselton says:

hi there you think 40 or 50 mpg vw hybride tdi will achive 261 mpg 300 mpg 400 mpg 450 mpg 500 mpg and a there are 3,000 mpg cars going be releaseed for only $25,000

June 11, 2012 at 9:30 pm
(66) greg says:

I laugh at this review.. I have a 92 civic vx….
it has an air bag. (although it is only on the drivers side). It has door reinforcement bars (I know because last week, the door latch broke, and my arm was resting on it as I fixed the latch). I had 3 100+ pound stage speakers in back, 2 stands for those speakers, 5 tripods, 3 hd cameras, 2 regular digital cameras, 4 computers, sound mixer, mic, case of water, 5lb bag o ice, snacks for the road, 1- 300+ lb person, 1 – 200+lb person, and luggage.. lets say, the back end was hanging a tad low.. 439 miles on 8.7 gallons.. oh, and I have AC…. don’t tell me they cant make a car that has weight that can do 50 mpg w/o hybrid.. this was with driving mostly 65-70 mph interstate and downtown minneapolis city traffic.

Normal daily driving, I have been getting 45-48 mpg and that is with me and a lead foot when in town. – also I don’t have the under the bumper cover on, so I am even less aerodynamic… nor do I have the under the door covers on.. so even less efficiency….

in a nutshell.. it’s baloney that they can’t make an efficient car.

June 17, 2012 at 5:12 pm
(67) Mark says:

Good article….Amazing that you are still getting commets on it six years later. Let’s talk Honda CRX. I bought two brand new HF’s, one an 88 and then traded in on an 89′ since I liked it so much. I was commuting from Tucson to Phoenix and would easily turn 64-68 mpg depending on how I would drive. That’s was about $1.28 on my commute one way as gas was only .85 cents a gallon. At that price, I used to drive Phoenix to San Diego for $5.50 and to Salt Lake for $10.00. The most I ever pulled out of it was from Jerome, AZ to Phoenix turning 70.1MPG. I didn’t even know what hypermiling was. If I tried I’m guessing I could have pulled closer to 80-85 mpg on that trip as it was mostly downhill. The cars were perfect especially since it was a two seater with a hatch. I could haul a lot of things with no problem. Great little vehicle. Too bad they’ve all been tuned in to tuner cars.

June 17, 2012 at 5:12 pm
(68) Mark says:

Good article….Amazing that you are still getting commets on it six years later. Let’s talk Honda CRX. I bought two brand new HF’s, one an 88 and then traded in on an 89′ since I liked it so much. I was commuting from Tucson to Phoenix and would easily turn 64-68 mpg depending on how I would drive. That’s was about $1.28 on my commute one way as gas was only .85 cents a gallon. At that price, I used to drive Phoenix to San Diego for $5.50 and to Salt Lake for $10.00. The most I ever pulled out of it was from Jerome, AZ to Phoenix turning 70.1MPG. I didn’t even know what hypermiling was. If I tried I’m guessing I could have pulled closer to 80-85 mpg on that trip as it was mostly downhill. The cars were perfect especially since it was a two seater with a hatch. I could haul a lot of things with no problem. Great little vehicle. Too bad they’ve all been tuned in to tuner cars.

September 15, 2012 at 7:24 pm
(69) Agus155 says:

Anyone mention that if they would make efficient cars, rich people that own the oil would not make as much money…. So unless we stop buying those v8′s they will keep on making them and cashing out. Its all politics

October 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm
(70) gavin says:

obviously oil companies are running a monopoly not allowing vehicle developers to create fuel efficient cars for ONE reason. WE CONSUME MORE GAS WHICH MAKES THE OIL COMPANIES MORE MONEY… like you have to be a complete fucking moron not to see what is going on. its fucking appalling how dimwitted some people are. SOURCE: google 1993 honda civic, then google 2012 honda civic or top fuel efficient cars of 2012………..check the MPG…. how bizarre…..

December 20, 2012 at 5:06 pm
(71) Katmmss says:

I owned a VW Rabbit Diesel, got 50mpg highway and 40mpg city. I now have a 2001 Honda Civic 5spd manual, have gotten 40mpg since I bought it 4 yrs ago, now suddenly gpm is dropping, 35 last month, 28 this month. Don’t know why.

January 28, 2013 at 11:30 pm
(72) Greg says:

The ability of the engine to enter lean burn mode is what resulted in the exceptional mpg. Lean burn results in higher NOx emissions. These no longer meet EPA guidelines and will fail a smog if they enter lean burn during the sustained rpm test. So you can blame the govt for your reduced mpg even today.

January 29, 2013 at 11:30 pm
(73) Paul says:

Here’s my little blurb. 94 Civic hatchback, 300k+ miles, bone stock, burns a little oil, factory A/C… 50+ MPG all day long. Hybrid? Nah, I’ll pass. My car is cheaper to insure, as cheap to ‘fill up’, just as obnoxiously noisey, and is ‘backyard mechanic’ friendly when she gets sick.

February 9, 2013 at 8:35 pm
(74) Sturdy says:

you missed the point. The cars sold outside of the USA get 60-70 mpg. While EPA standards may be lower, how much of a pollution factor difference is it? Does burning less fuel equate to less pollution? We need a grass roots movement to be able to purchase high mpg vehicles that the rest of the world has!

April 5, 2013 at 8:29 am
(75) Jamie says:

I have this exact car and it has A/C. It doesn’t work, being that it’s 24 years old now, all the seals and lines leak.

But anyway, it is all controlled by good old Uncle Sam and the U.S. Govt.

June 4, 2013 at 4:11 pm
(76) Marc says:

Hybrid? No good. Bought a 07 Honda Civic Hybrid, new in 2007

Window sticker read 49/51

COMPLETE Crock….the best that car has seen was 45 mpg and there was driving 45 mph on level land….most of the time, it’s low/mid 30s. Put the AC on and mid/high 20s.

Forgot to mention that I asked for the window sticker to be removed whole and it wasn’t.

P.S there’s a lawsuit…for which we’ll get $250.00.

The dealership kept saying that they care wouldn’t get the 49/51 until it had at least 20K miles on it….really!?!

With a 1300cc engine and the weight of the car, you have to really put your foot into it to keep up with traffic, otherwise, you’re holding up traffic in that vehicle.

WHY OH WHY did I get rid of my 92 Geo Metro, which goes high 40s/low 50s (no AC no auto trans, but LOTS of great gas mileage).

June 6, 2013 at 9:03 pm
(77) Lawrence Rhodes says:

I had all the fuel efficient Honda Civics of the 80′s and 90′s. The first was the 1982 HondaCivic FE 1,300cc with air conditioning. 55mpg. The next was the 1994 Honda Civic VX 1,500cc 52mpg. Just bought a 1993 Honda Civic CX which gets close to 50mpg. The Civic VX HB is an ULEV very clean and moderately powerful civic. The CX is a strippie and doesn’t get quite the mileage of the VX. No air. The VX has airbags and air conditioning. All these cars weigh around 2000 pounds. That is why they get such great mileage. Unless the major manufacturers embrace carbon fiber you not see these great mileages in a non hybrid.

September 24, 2013 at 8:13 am
(78) frankens says:

Driving daily a 92 honda civic vx… 361,000 miles.. Body about to fall apart from rust… STILL getting 43-47mpg. 96 ford explorer – cant afford the gas to drive it – sits in the driveway.

October 7, 2013 at 12:40 pm
(79) Mark says:

Emissions control modules is where I see fuel mileage going. Emission standards are higher which makes you take more of a hit to fuel mileage.

December 17, 2013 at 8:57 am
(80) genegenre says:

It’s back… it’s called the HF and I believe you really can get over 50mpg with it. I am modifying my 2012 Civic Natural Gas bit by bit to be more like the HF and I am doing several controlled fuel mileage tests as I go to see what each mod actually improves he mpges. I run a 430 mile courier route M-F throughout western PA (hilly). My over all average with the Civic NG stock and not in econ mode is 47.4mpge (at $1.90 per gallon btw). These are recorded mileages only on days when there is no excessive wind or rain etc. to help control the dependent variables. My goal is to average 55mpge. I am in the middle of the “with econ mode on” test. Seems to help maybe 1 mpge. Tires at max psi. Will switch out to michelin energy saver LRR tires eventually. Buying HF wheels as well. covering the hole under the car where the gas tank would go if it were a gasoline Civic (fuel cylinder is in between the back seat and trunk). That should help underbelly drag. Then Its adding a rear wing and then body skirt from the HF. Then I am creating my own removable rear wheel well covers likely out of thick gauge plastic. Lastly, if that doesn’t do it, I will continually drop my speed (current average 58-60mph for 35%, 68-70mph 45%, below 55mph 20%).

When I did several tests runs replacing the 68-70 (45% of my miles) with more 58-60mph I was able to get fairly consistently over 50 mpg maxing once at 53.6 for the day — obviously I’m measuring what I put into the tank against the trip bc the dash read out is actually 2-5% lower. So either I am being charged less than I am actually filling or getting pretty damn good mileage in a car that cost 21k with all the rebates from Honda and the 1k back from the state of PA. Driving 110k miles a year, I am saving about $5000 annually over my previous car, a 2000 Beetle Tdi. I got the same mileage with that car but of course $3.80 vs $1.90 a gallon.


February 22, 2014 at 8:20 pm
(81) JimmyCreek says:

I purchased a new 1995 Civic VX in April of 1995. I got stellar mileage prior to the addition of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MtBE) and/or ethanol to gasoline later that year. I have always gotten at least 48 mpg in all around driving in Maine. I still own the car, which has more than 300,000 miles on it (actual mileage is unknown due to a broken odometer). The only real problem I have had with the vehicle is rust. It is now a constant and pervasive problem that requires more and more effort to keep the car road worthy.

P.S. The car has two airbags, no air conditioning, but does have an aftermarket cruise control.

March 25, 2014 at 9:14 pm
(82) GrumpyOne says:

I have an ’83 Honda Civic 1300 FE that was rated at 42mpg city and 55mpg highway in real live testing.

But now government mandates discourages innovation so we are at where we are at…

April 20, 2014 at 1:57 am
(83) Dave says:

I have a 91 CRX HF. Once I got 62 mpg by going 65 mph from San Diego to Kings Canyon NP. I got in the 50s mpg all the time and in the 40s around town.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.