What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
86 Comments
- StuartGibson, on 10/23/2009, -2/+25Now take that car and add all the airbags, impact bars, strengthened glass and other safety features that are now mandated by law, as well as the "creature comforts" and increased passenger and luggage room that consumers demand and you have cars that are, literally, in the case of the Mk I vs Mk V Golf GTI, twice the weight than earlier models. They need a bigger engine to drag that weight around, which in turn increases the weight of the car further and fuel efficiency for the same level of fun plummets.
Fun and fuel efficient means they need to be light and that is extremely difficult to do in a vehicle that will be pitched at a price affordable to the masses. - samcrut, on 10/23/2009, -5/+24*****. I'm 6'2" and with the seats all the way back, I could barely reach the pedals.
As for groceries, the hatch back was like 5'x4'. That's huge.
The car was more nimble than most so it's easier to avoid accidents, and I think using that "small cars are death traps" excuse is a load of crap.
My CRX never had road noise problems and once I had the rear speakers put in, the stereo in mine sounded phenominal.
You obviously never owned a CRX. I question if you've ever even been in one. My friends declared my '87 CRX a "TARDIS" because it was small on the outside and huge on the inside. - sporkman, on 10/23/2009, -3/+19Man, some people are so naive. Engines are more efficient today than they ever have been. Cars are less fuel efficient because they're heavier. They're heavier because of government mandated safety laws.
If you want good fuel efficiency while sacrificing safety and passenger room go ride a Vespa. - allisonaxe, on 10/23/2009, -4/+19As long as i don't have to look at the ***** nissan cube, i'm happy.
- BossKey, on 10/23/2009, -3/+14Everybody I know that owned a CRX absolutely loved it.
- mike23w, on 10/23/2009, -0/+1085,000 rpm. Does it go Mach 1?
- samcrut, on 10/23/2009, -3/+12WTF is up with the CRX haters in here? Any comment saying you like the CRX has been buried.
- 938MeV, on 10/23/2009, -3/+12What's with the moaning about Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVTs)? They are much more efficient, and don't reduce the enjoyment of driving. Is it that you don't get the jerk when changing gears? Because that's like complaining your cell phone is no fun, because you miss the dialtone. Get over it.
- inactive, on 10/23/2009, -3/+12Cars today are pigs compared to the 80s/90s. I used to constantly get around 42mpg out of my old nissan 200sx (b14) with the ga16 motor. It was slow as hell but I bought it for reliability and gas mileage. I'm still unsure why cars today weigh so much. I understand they are safer and all but that shouldn't account for an extra half ton. I had no idea the CRX was capable of 50mpg either, pretty damn impressive. To bad so many of them were ruined by teenagers.
- skyjumperz, on 10/23/2009, -3/+11FervinsUlterius clearly never owned a CRX. I had an 89 Si for almost 5 years, and in that time NOT ONE person thought it was cramped inside. That car was a model of efficiency in so many different ways.
Made the mistake of leaving it stock for several years, when it had been craving lowering springs all along. Cheap Neuspeed springs + used Tokicos and that CRX was glued to the road, even with cheap tires. Changing lanes in 90mph rush hour traffic? An afterthought.
I'll have to find those pics of it on a dirt road in the rockies. Best car EVER. - srs2000, on 10/23/2009, -0/+7Slight inaccuracy to your statement.
Diesel prices are not always higher everywhere. In Europe the price for diesel is cheaper than unleaded. http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices/
Then the price difference between gasoline and diesel is not large enough to offset the efficiency in the USA. Unloaded 2.54 (avg) to Diesel 2.70 (avg) per gallon for the USA. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.as ... - Dinsdale77, on 10/23/2009, -1/+7Fiat 500 Abarth. BOOM!!
- samcrut, on 10/23/2009, -4/+10 I'll never forgive myself for trading in my '87 CRX. That's the only car I truly loved.
Last month someone dented my current Accord while it was parked. I just said "Huh. That's new." If that happened to my CRX, I would have gone on a rampage. - deanc, on 10/23/2009, -0/+5what about the mazda mx5? (miata).
I dont own a car here in NY but when i llived in Australia i loved driving that car. I think they still make them. - lordmike, on 10/23/2009, -2/+7Dude! The CRX was a sweet car! And it was cheap, too... surprising how little it cost, really.
- StuartGibson, on 10/23/2009, -2/+6A complete airbag module weighs between 5 and 10lbs. My current car has 10 airbags. So that's added probably in the region of 70-80lbs to the weight of the car, just with the airbags. Glass is significantly thicker now, partly for safety reasons and partly because it reduces noise. If you get a high end Merc or BMW the windows are double glazed.
Perhaps if you're a homunculus the CRX is plenty big, but I, at 6'2" had a drive in my friends and, with the seats back as far as they went my knees were touching the steering wheel. Looking further down this thread I'm not the only one.
Weight comparison of the Golf GTI, the quintessential hot hatch:
1984 Mk I - 830kg (1830lb)
2010 Mk VI - 1,376 kg (3,034lbs) - Hazardc, on 10/23/2009, -2/+6There's a local guy that is around 6'5", 300lbs, and had a 500whp built and turbocharged crx
he fit in it just fine. - skyjumperz, on 10/23/2009, -2/+6Drive a CRX. Preferably one with upgraded suspension, but stock engine.
- nicc, on 10/23/2009, -0/+4it's not an accuracy problem.
more expensive? yes, barely. for most of the year I was getting diesel for less than regular and still today diesel is less than mid-grade (my previous car required premium so diesel is much cheaper to me in that aspect!)...
I don't know about you, but paying an extra $.10 - $.15 a gallon to go an extra 200-300+ miles per tank is a more than acceptable tradeoff. - dudefaceguyman, on 10/23/2009, -2/+6Go smash a 2010 honda civic and a 1988 Honda CRX head on, and see which crash dummy is mutilated beyond recognition.
- caramelzappa, on 10/23/2009, -2/+5Adding up is the point. Yea, air bags don't weigh THAT much, neither does power steering, or newer glass, and a handful of other modern necessities for cars, but they add up, and all of those things plus impact bars, roll cages and a generally more rigid chassis means you're car ends up weighing a lot more than it did in the 80's.
- Hazardc, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3actually, the rsx has nothing to do with the crx. the only reason it's called rsx is because acura did away with normal car names.
the rsx is still the "honda integra" elseware in the world. - ModernGeek, on 10/23/2009, -3/+6As a volunteer firefighter of over half a decade, I'd like to chirp in that those safety features in a new car make the difference between a bloody bent up steering wheel that results in massive head trauma, or someone getting an x ray just to make sure that there are no spinal injuries. I hate old cars, because I've seen what they do to people. Even little things like the door latches on newer cars make all the difference in routine vehicle collisions. Gas mileage isn't something we should be aiming for, it's an entire different energy infrastructure (electric + biofuels). Conversation is bunk for the long term. It will happen, and trying to get a few extra miles per gallon by driving an old unsafe car that is going to have more emissions than a newer one isn't going to help anybody.
- srs2000, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3A new corvette will get about 28mpg on the freeway.
- samcrut, on 10/23/2009, -3/+6The CRX was proof that you're wrong.
- caramelzappa, on 10/23/2009, -2/+5The laws don't say things like "Your car must weigh XXXX pounds"
But you do have to have a body that is rigid, and to make it rigid enough for standards, it's going to use more steel and be heavier. Adding airbags ads weight. Making sure the beams that hold your roof in place are strong enough to not collapse if the car rolls makes them heavier, etc etc. All the extra things they add to make your car safer, makes it heavier. - colinmhayes, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3wrong.
- kiwininja, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3CVTs give you less controll than a maual. Therefore manuals are more fun to drive.
- Catchpen, on 10/23/2009, -0/+3Only when you fill it up with primium
- samcrut, on 10/23/2009, -1/+4The price tag difference between the CRX and the S2000 was huge. CRX was seriously affordable. Also, the cabin of the CRX was cavernous compared to the S2000.
- inactive, on 10/23/2009, -2/+5They dont look like Boxes, and you Can buy them today, just not here. I especialy like the Fiat Bravo...Sweet.
http://www.fiat.co.uk/Showroom/#showroom/bravo
The reason you do not have the opportunity to by nice high mileage cars here in the USA is not because of the car companies, They could build them here tomorrow. They build them Today for sale in Europe, Japan and the rest of the world. But only here in the US does the government keep high mileage cars off the market, and they are not doing it to help the auto companies, but to help themselves; at your expense.
Have you ever thought to consider the amount of money that governments receive from fuel taxes? it is hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes you never see, but pay anyway without thinking about it; That's no accident either.
Here are a few of the cars you could by in Europe right now that get 60-80+mpg.
http://www.citroen.co.uk/environment/fuel-economy/
http://www.fiat.co.uk/showroom/?id=15107#showroom/ ...
Or how about a 76mpg Ford... http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Fiesta/FiestaECOnetic
60 to 80 mpg is being done Today...Its just not being done here.
Oil companies make @ .08$ - .10$ cents per/gal on the fuel they produce, States make many times that per gallon with a national average of .62$ per gallon...6 to 8 Times what the the oil companies get in return for producing and delivering the fuel to your favorite station. Put 40.00$ in the tank, and on average 8.00$+ went to the government every time you fill up. And it the get the Cap and Trade pill past, those numbers will double.
Here is the big picture on taxes.
http://www.georgiagasprices.com/Tax_Info.aspx - palehorse864, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3To mess with your head, and because some goof says something cliche and overused like "cool story bro" doesn't mean there's no value for those of us who want to read. He was probably just expecting someone who thinks he/she's funny to submit those three words that everyone else seems to copy/paste.
- allisonaxe, on 10/23/2009, -2/+4cool story br--- wait. if you thought to type that out yourself, why'd you bother hitting submit?
- samcrut, on 10/23/2009, -5/+7Hyperbole much? Have you weighed an air bag module lately? Weighed the difference between 1989 glass and 2009 glass? Pretty sure it's not that different if at all.
I don't know if the old designs had impact bars or roll cages or not so I'll give you that one, but there was no shortage of room inside the CRX and the only creature comfort mine lacked was power windows. Power steering wasn't necessary with the small weight. Mine had A/C and an automatic transmission and the engine 4-cylinder engine was plenty powerful.
Your arguments don't add up. - Haha71687, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2d16 will take a beating
- skyjumperz, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3> yes I got laid in it plenty of times as well
Proof that the CRX was actually very roomy inside. - RedArmy, on 10/23/2009, -5/+7I owned a 1991 white CRX HF just like the one in that picture. So far it's been the best car I've ever driven. Sure, it had no safety features or power anything, but that's what made it so great.
- ZeroVector, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2I stand corrected. Bring it on Escalade!
- Azathothh, on 10/23/2009, -0/+2and you made another one
- p3ngwin, on 10/23/2009, -3/+5if people got better at driving safely instead of insisting we have "safety nets" for our unstable living styles, we wouldn't HAVE to have such inefficient cars that lug around heavy safety equipment. seriously, do we get more accurate and efficient with what we do, or shall we try to advance so fast that we increase the "margin of error" and our accuracy goes to the point of counter-productivity?
i'm reminded of Jerry Seinfeld who noted similar behaviour:
"There are many things we can point to as proof that the human being is not smart.
The helmet is my personal favorite.
The fact that we had to invent the helmet...
Why did we invent the helmet?
Well, because we were participating in many activities that were cracking our heads.
We looked at the situation...
We chose not to avoid these activities
but to just make little plastic hats
so that we can continue our head cracking lifestyles.
The only thing dumber than the helmet, is the helmet law,
the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly
it's not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it's in." - ZeroVector, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3Love my CRX. I just don't want to get hit by some SUV driving douchebag. SUV + CRX = Death
- ZeroVector, on 10/23/2009, -1/+3Agreed. I have to put the seat all the way back in almost any new Honda but yet have to sit forward to reach the pedals in my CRX. As far as cargo, it has more than most sedans currently on the road.
- stompk291, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1unfortunately, the govt regulates so much crap onto our cars, that they are all overweight. at least, alot more than they should be.
- TheDigitalBug, on 10/23/2009, -1/+2Unfortunately, people like to buy crappy overweight cars.
- Zaxcomp, on 10/23/2009, -2/+3Hey srs2000, did you not think anyone would look at the cars you posted? You picked an overpowered V6 model of a car normally powered by an inline 4, then you picked an SUV, then the sports/performance model of the Civic line, then their convertible sports car, then a pick up truck. Shocking that none of those have good gas mileage.
- srs2000, on 10/23/2009, -2/+3I am comparing cars to a corvette.
So.. Why would I NOT pick honda's more sporty cars? The article was about sporty/fun fuel efficient.
So yes.. I picked a v6 accord. I plainly stated every engines cylinder count. I also chose their convertible sports car. Their sporty civic.. and then tossed in some other hondas.
A 4 cyl accord with 190hp / 162tq is showing 29mpg..... For a difference of... NOTHING. That really redeems honda and your point.
If I were trying to be sneaky.. I wouldn't bother posting all of the specs. You have made no point.
Does it anger you that a corvette can get the same MPG on the freeway as cars with 1/3 or 1/4 the power?
Perhaps I should compare the corvette to a Smart fortwo? - srs2000, on 10/23/2009, -2/+3--
nicc
28mpg is NOT fuel efficient.
--
2009
Honda accord V6: 271hp.. 254tq.. 29mpg freeway
Honda crv I4: 166hp.. 161tq.. 26mpg freeway
Honda civic si I4: 197hp.. 139tq.. 29mpg freeway
Honda S2000 I4: 237hp.. 164tq.. 25mpg freeway
Honda rideline V6: 250hp... 247tq.. 20mpg freeway
Corvette 6.2L V8: 430hp.. 424tq.. 27-29mpg freeway
The corvette has massively more power than any of the honda's above.. It has a "dinosaur" pushrod high displacement V8 engine.. and yet it gets comparable or better mileage to the state of the art Honda engines in the cars listed above with tiny displacement engines.
You are a fool if you think that a a corvette getting 28mpg with that much power is not fuel efficient. Why don't you find ANY other car with that much power that comes anywhere near close to that? You won't be able to do it.
Sure.. A corvette getting 28mpg is not fuel efficient compared to a jetta tdi bluemotion. But then again.. a Prius puts out more CO2 than a Jetta BlueMotion.
The corvette's competition gets mid-teens for fuel economy. - ifruit, on 10/23/2009, -0/+1LOL, who the hell is stupid enough to dig you down? Your comment was 100% fact.
- FunnyData, on 10/23/2009, -3/+4The oil companies must be really good at blocking stuff like that
- minutiesabotage, on 10/23/2009, -0/+1Well.....most cars today have between 4 and 6 airbags. Plus the wiring, sensors, and controllers to deploy them properly.
Modern cars are designed with crush zones to dissipate crash energy. To maintain stiffness cars had to have new (heavier) frame/body designs. This requires a bigger engine....no one wants 100 hp in a 3000+ lb. car.
Plus add in the sound damping material nearly every car has....I'd say you could easily account for the increased weight. -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is