We can seriously ignore his "commentary". Honda went on to sell many excellent cars that people what to own. I"m on my second honda and would seriously consider another in the future. Meanwhile. Gm went bankrupt, ford had to pawn there blue oval logo just to keep out of bankruptcy and Chrysler is now part of ..Fiat. Yeah, who is laughing now.
"This is not the most attractively designed car around." Maybe not, but 34 years later and people still seek this car out. I'd say it's aged better than most cars of its day.
Has he ever looked at any other car built that year? Griping about plastic panels when American cars still had plastic wood panels? This was easily one of the top five best looking cars sold that year
@@noone4700 7th gen is amongst the worst,d17 was crap besides COP ign K20A3 was a disappointment when A2 would've been the obv choice to compete. They got rid of a double wishbone setup and dropped McPhersons in.The body's weren't sealed right and they rotted to shit. Have an EP3 currently BTW lol,kinda fell in my lap.
Truthfully, if you are seeking them out for looks, you are probably one of the few. Most people want these cars, but it because they are extremely light with great handling and are easy to work on and modify.
Only 1800 pounds and 54mpg with great handling! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I remember test driving a CRX in 1984, and it was a blast to drive. No new car can touch the CRX.
@@cyotacorolla1489 You've obviously never owned one therefore you will never know the truth. A Miata is not capable of getting anywhere near that gas mileage. We're talking about a 1.3 l engine in a very small car that was built by Honda for efficiency. Not Mazda's attempt at a sports car. Two different animals. I owned a brand spanking new one in 1987 I know it for a fact.
@@cyotacorolla1489 How many NEW Honda Civics, Or Toyota Corollas have you owned? Not someone's used shitbox that's ready for the compactor, blowing Blue Smoke. I'm talking about a brand new car, that's broken in properly and maintained at the dealership. That's where I'm coming from.
Hey moron, I was simply stating that miatas dont get anywhere near the mpg that a early crx would. I have owned both. Now change your tampon and get off your high horse.@@Mr.Robert1
Not my first car, but my first "new" car was a 1987 Honda Civic 4-door automatic. At that time air conditioning was optional, the radio was optional, even the mirror on the passenger side was optional. I also went with wheel covers not included, floor mats not included and I decided to have them put in a pop-up not a moonroof but a sunroof. I did not buy this car for the gas mileage, I bought it because I wanted a new car that fit my budget. Total price out the door, including all the accessories, tax, tags, title, whatever else you can think of came to a nice even $10,000. I kept this car for 350 thousand miles had absolutely no trouble at all, the only reason I traded it in was I got tired of looking at it. This is what got me hooked on Honda. My very next car was a 1991 Honda Accord LX to this day I am driving a Honda Accord. I tried other brands along the years. Nissan, Hyundai, General Motors, Ford Mustang GT. I always came back to the Honda dealership. I did have one Toyota Camry also brand-spanking-new it was a very nice accessory to get from point A to point B not very exciting to drive to say the least. There you have it, Honda gets my vote as best value for the money if you want a car that's going to be dependable, inexpensive to maintain and give you at least 10 years trouble free service. I've heard stories of people that have had trouble, they've always been used cars. Put two and two together, something that somebody sold because they were obviously having trouble with it. Not all the time but that's what I found when I came across people that were bad-mouthing Honda or Toyota. Always somebody's used headache.
OH HELL YAH!!! When Honda made cars people wanted and could afford. Honda, no one wanted your hybrid CRZ hence the shitty sales numbers. Remake a CRX in todays world, 40mpg and start it around 17k and you will have an instant winner!! Could even do an Si Model with around 180hp for the younger crowd and they would fly off of the lots!!! I miss those days, Honda used to be king, now they are just dull boxes on the road;(
Actually there's no need for a CRX replacement. Honda's Fit already fits the niche. Americans today do not want cars that are too small. Americans are fatter and we tend to consolidate our trips in the car more, so need more space when we do take the car out. Carpooling is more common for commuters, and young people with limited incomes are starting families earlier, with no ability to have a second car. Older people retiring (a huge segment not to be ignored) are disposing of their luxury vehicles because they don't need to commute anymore and want to lower the cost of ownership of such for budgetary reasons yet still have a practical car. Flying today is so much more of a pain than it was in the 80s/90s so road tripping is more common, which requires more space. Hence, why cars like the Fit, Fiesta, Versa, Yaris, are the top sellers.
oldtwins yeah, but the Fit looks out of proportion & THERE'S NO 2 DOOR!! & the headlites are too big & will yellow & scratch. The ones on the CRX are recessed & small & made of GLASS - hee hee. $10 to replace. The ONLY "affordable" 2 door car TODAY is the Yaris. Blah! I should have bought the Accent when it was a cute 2 door for $10,000! Yes there is a 2 door accent TODAY , the i20, but they reFUSE to bring it here! Same with fiesta & mazda 2!!
+Rich V, AFAIK the '14-16 MY Yaris 3-door Liftback (imported from France, but US-spec) is NOT AVAILABLE Stateside, but it is in Puerto Rico & USVI (the least expensive European-built car over here, of all things...). The only Yaris's available Stateside are the 5-door Liftback and the Scion iA (sold in PR/USVI as the Yaris Sedán and made in a Mexican Mazda factory from a Mazda platform and engine). The title of "the most affordable 2/3 door in America" is fought between 2 cars that are NOT "basic transportation": the Mexican (soon to be Polish for US-spec)-built Fiat 500 and the diminutive French-built and Mercedes-owned Smart ForTwo. So no "really affordable 2-door"; in America... (people don't buy 'em unless they are sports cars and even then in the limited amounts afforded on that category) Also, we in Puerto Rico have ditched for years the notion of putting "Honda" and "affordable" in the same sentence. Hondas have been for years more expensive than most of its' mass-market competitors and it's even acknowledged in their local slogan "Clase y Más" (Class & More). In that note the CR-Z is supposed to be the CR-X successor, but Honda has never opted to put anything on it but a "green" gas/electric regular hybrid, unlike the CR-X that had both "green" and "performance" variants. The CR-X had a "devious" interior in which, in other markets, a rear shelf/seat was put in the back, whether Honda opted to not to add it for US-spec cars and make longer seat rails to flexitize what room was available. A 6'7" (2.0m) basketball player of my hometown team had one, the seat was that long... But you had to almost lay in it because of its' very low profile.
+Acc0rd79 I like the CR-Z... yes it doesn't do anything really good but it's jsut a cool little bugger XD also you guys know that the replacement "the Type-R based one" will cost like 35k right? and people call the hybrid we have now expensive... i mean sure it'll probably preform better but you lose your cheap cool car in the process...
+ScottaHemi, Honda hasn't built a cheap (for its' market niche) car for the USDM since the '90s. We in the Island do expect that ANY Honda (starting with the $18K or so Fit 5-door hatch, even as is assembled in MX, but don't pass the labor savings...) would be at least +$2K over a similarly equipped Toyota or Nissan (or pretty much any mass-market Japanese-based brand). That's why they're advertised as "CLASE Y MAS" or class and more... Oh, and the ~ 290hp R's (haven't heard of any plans for a CR-Z with the engine, just the UK-imported 5-door Civic hatch) will be MORE EXPENSIVE than either the similarly outputted VW Golf R or the even more powerful (350hp, 2.3L) Ford Focus RS, but less than either version of the outgoing ~ 290hp Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X, if there's any consolation (the Civic is also the only FWD-only member of this "super hot hatch group", the rest have MANDATORY AWD systems).
@Steve Silvas I used to drive around California in one of these with my two rottweilers in the trunk one day when I was buying some Hooch at the liquor store they got out and killed the owners chimpanzee
My first brand new car was the 1985 Honda CRX si...and a total pleasure to drive. I always found the want to take it out for a drive and put 60,000 miles on it in a mere six months! I loved that car. The engine would idle...and you had no idea the engine was on. Someone once said mid-state in MO at a gas station, "You have to put gas in that?". A true pocket rocket. Mine was white/grey mix, blue interior. It also had a non-lockable center dash storage area. A car I will always remember as one of my favorites.
It wasn't ahead of it's time at all, but I'm not sure why they didn't like the styling. As a teen in this era I remember this being thought of by everyone as a really good looking car. But it was hardly "ahead of it's time" - it was just an 80s car.
@Kenneth Klauss Listen closely to how John Davis narrates this segment, I'd swear he was ordered to say these things whether he wanted to or not, something else was going on with this review. I wonder if payola was going on to his bosses at MPT back then. It's possible.
I have a great long term memory. The Honda car commercial was. "Honda, we make it simple" The motorcycle advertisement at that time was, "Follow the leader, he's on a Honda ".
These things rust terribly. The plastics were just body panels. Under the plastics they rust really badly. I'm lucky. My 85 Si's been a California car it's entire life and has no rust at all, but the same conditions that saved it from rust have destroyed the body plastics.
I absolutely love how he talked about the engine compartment being so cramped and everything stuck in there with very little room to work on anything and very little room to work on your own changing belts and everything because by today's cars standards that little CRX is the easiest damn thing I have ever worked on in myEntire 50 years of mechanic work. God I wish they would make them easy to work on likeThat again
I had an 84 CRX for years and loved it. Never had a problem with it and I was more interested in just having reliable transportation than going 0-60mph in 5 seconds. Wish they still made cars like this!!
Looking back, it was a daring design. The high back end (well, low to today's standards). I owned an 84 right when they came out and lost count of the times people remarked on the original design.
still loving my 89 with a 92 Si engine, car has over 350,000 on it, engine around 200G. A few small upgrades- shocks, springs, brake lines, strut tower bars. Love the way it handles, easy to work on, and have owned it for 20 years.
The gas mileage seems a bit high. They didn't mention the HF version of the CRX, which they didn't call it that yet in '84, running a 1.3 engine with high gearing. My mother had a brand new '85 CRX HF (just like this blue one) with a new 1.5 litre (both ran carburetors), same gearing as before. It would get 50+ mpg on the highway, where the year before with the smaller 1.3 got around 53, 54 mpg. highway if my memory serves right? It takes a mindful driver to get these numbers, one that knows their gearbox. My mothers '85 topped out at 111 mph for me one night on a speed run, still climbing in 3rd gear, nearing 6000 rpm before I had to back off.
I own a 1986 CRX, and I am here to refute all the negative things MotorWeek said about the CRX. 1. The seat cushions are firm, supportive and comfortable 2. I actually like the placement of the heat a/c controls. You can see them just fine through the hole in the steering wheel. 3. The car does not look like a beached whale, it is actually a beautiful and simple design. 4. I can change my spark plugs with no problems at all. 5. The belts are not hard to change. 6. The torsion bars work great and the ride is not harsh at all. 7. The reason the back of the car spun out, is because the driver jerked the steering wheel to the right as he is braking. Watch @ 4:58.
I miss my 84. My first car. Drove it 900 miles in 1996 using nothing more than an ashtray filled with 1 and 2 dollar Canadian coins. Plus she’d rip! Loved that car.
I had an 89 HF CRX and without a doubt it was the best car I've ever owned. Tons of fun with a pop up sunroof and the gas mileage was insane - I drove from Philly to Boston on less than 2/3 tank of gas. You have to buy a hybrid to get that kind of gas mileage these days I think, and the car wouldn't be nearly as fun :)
I don't know if the 1.3L tested here was the HF model. I know the HF model did not have a pass. sideview mirror, no clock, & smaller tires. It did have a different trans that had taller gearing.
These cars would blow the doors off of any 1984 Ford Escort or Chevy Chevette never mind the fact that they were 4X as reliable and better on fuel, too.
+john doe You misconstrued what I said. Don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. In fact I'm quite sure I know a great deal more than you. Scdevon's comment of "...blowing the doors off..." is what I was commenting on. These cars were not fast. The Si's were, a little bit. I don't debate reliability, agility, gas mileage, etc. Almost any car can do a 100 mph, doesn't make the car "fast".
+dbc1dc The CRXsi models were real rocket ships. You could LOSE a 1980s Chevy Chevette or a Ford Escort (The American equivalents of these cars) in the rear view mirror. They were faster and more reliable by a wide margin. It wasn't even close.
I was lucky enough to be just out of high school and working at a Honda store back when this car debuted at the beginning of Honda's "Golden Years" these things were really great compared to any other competitive vehicles you could buy at the time, they were simple, but well designed, with great attention to detail, built with very high quality, and super reliable and cheap to maintain. I got to drive hundreds of these brand new, lots of fun. The late 80s Accords, Civics and Preludes were also fantastic.
@watershed44 oh you’re lucky you got to see all those cool 1980’s Hondas. Question. Did you ever get to see one of the first 1984 CRX’s in the US in person. There’s a red one in the junkyard, built July of 83, with serial number 00276. 276th red 1.5L 1984 model CRX made. Pretty rare. Have you ever seen an ultra-low serial number like this on a 1st gen CRX?
@@Blakecryderman7244 I wasn't too focused on VINs, but I would believe that most of the lowest production number vehicles for the USA ended up on the west coast, since they were shipped from Japan and arrived in the Port of LA first more than likely. My store was located in the far western Philadelphia suburbs. We did get a fair amount of the rarer Civic HF and CRX HF vehicles though! They were still pretty good to drive and got crazy MPG numbers back in the day, you'd be hard pressed to find any economy car made in the entire world gas or diesel that got better overall numbers today!
Car and Driver took one of these and modified it with 2 engines, one in the front, one in the back, making it 4 wheel drive. They called it the CRX Squared. I wonder whatever happened to it.
My 89 was a car I should’ve never sold. My HF model taught me how to drive with momentum and carry speed and the gas mileage was amazing. I once drove from philly to Boston on a tad more than 3/4 tank. So much fun to drive
I remember in the late 80s there's being a rumor that Honda had a standing offer that they'd give anyone that could flip one of these $10,000. As a stupid kid I remember thinking wow, I should get one of these and try to flip it to get $10,000.
Heh, a blind, deaf, cripple could change the timing belt on one of these in 40 min tops! Also, how about the vision? The CRX is the one that started it all. Definitely the stepping stone for sports cars of the future. At least the 90's
+Scott G I had a 93 Festiva 5 speed which I bought new and it got 46 ++ 48 on the highway with the skinny 145 x12 tires. I still think 54 IS AN EXAGGERATION but I do agree new cars barely break 30 mpg in REAL life driving. I have a 2009 Accent SE and I get about 30 mixed but that's mostly highway, I have gotten almost 35 strictly highway, still a far cry from the Festiva
A little car with big personality, even if it wasn't the most powerful little coupe on the market at the time. Honda made some real good cars back in the day.
It's great to love a car that much. I still stare on the rare occasion I see a CRX. My buddy had one in college, but he hit a deer and totaled it. :( I just got a Fiesta ST, and I think I feel like that about it, too. Just love it, and I plan to keep it as long as I can.
Thanks for uploading! =) Another car I have been in love with for all these years from the first time I saw one. If there were some way to put the 2nd gen double wishbones under one of these, we would have CRX perfection! (Especially an '86 or '87 Si.) I had a few disagreements with some of the comments in the review. Since I'm so grateful just to see this, I will keep them to myself.
Wow, these guys really went out of their way to be critical of this car. As for the torsion bar suspension......torsion bars don't behave any differently than coil springs. Coil springs are just torsion bars wound into a spiral to make them fit into a particular suspension design. Just because you drove some car in the past that had torsion bars and you didn't like something about it doesn't mean it's the fault of the torsion bars. I've driven many cars with coil springs that rode or handled poorly but I don't blame that on coil springs in general. My 69 Simca had torsion bars front and rear and it rode awesomely ( was a POS in most other ways though).
I can remember sitting in one of these at the Northeast Auto show back in the day and thinking that my golf clubs were not going to fit in the back - that's how small it seemed though seating positions were generous because you were stretched out in the classics sports car manner. I opted for a brand new Escort GT instead followed by many many regrets!
Should have never sold my 89 HF. I once drive from Philadelphia to Boston on three quarters of a tank lol. The most fun I ever had driving a car. The little 70hp engine taught me how to momentum drive and use what I had which translated directly into my later years racing rallies.
I think it's funny how in 2015, the motoring press is all over hybrids and the mileage they get---guess they forgot that Honda did it first way back in the 80's, and without an electric motor assist.
Well. Lightweight cars from back then helped with the mpg, now car are full of more tech and stuff. I bet if they still made theses super lightweight car with todays tech it can maybe get 150mpg easy, but will crumple like a tin can in an accident.
It's simple issues involved. That was a 1713 lb vehicle. It had good aerodynamics at the expense of a low dropping rear hatch compromising storage space. No insulation to speak of. Today's high mpg vehicles have monstrous interior volume compared to this, library quiet, and safety - today would be A grade while this would get an F-. Just nothing comparable.
@@oldtwinsna8347 Some of that is true, but it's also today's automotive engineers being lazy instead of truly innovative. Today's cars are heavy, because they use a ton of steel---this is because they're too lazy to design proper crash protection, so they just throw more metal at the problem. But it doesn't have to be that way. Today's Miata weighs only 2,300 lbs, yet meets all safety standards---that's real engineering
@countdown2xstacy I really wonder about this review. Notice how John Davis sounds truly odd as he narrates this review. Almost like he doesn't want to be saying these things but was ordered to. I think something more was going on here...payola to his bosses at MPT? Possible.
Actually, before I got my Hyundai, I daily drove a gutted first-generation Miata for over 2 years. No carpet, no ABS, no radio, no power steering, no power windows, no A/C, no heat, no airbags, nothing. And I didn't complain. Give me the safety levels of the 80s. We need more people to die anyway. Natural selection worked when we let it work. Now we don't, so we're seeing an overpopulation problem brewing...
54 was low? This was stellar fuel economy for any vehicle of its time. And to think it’s future brother the CRZ couldn’t even come close to those numbers!
The CRX is the only Honda I ever liked besides the mid '70s Civic. I never owned one however. I actually owned a 1976 Civic. It was a yellow one with a manual transmission.
They have the CR-V now, and or the HR-V now. If I'm correct I remember hearing about the CR-V this enlarged box is based off this old design. I know you're comment is very old I'm quite possibly out of my mind trying to reply to it.
Just checked again. My gen 1 87 crx si had a "rod shift" linkage to the gearbox, not cable shiftier. I believe this was true for all gen 1 manual crx's. Better shift feel.
ahahah...but they forgot to mention ..little crowded under the hood but you will never have to fix anything thats the best part about Honda.. Motorweek...
The shifter in these did not use a cable linkage, it was a solid rod linkage, which made the action super solid and precise. Honda's current shifters use cables and simply do not compare. The clutch in these cars did use a cable.
I gave this a like but i dislike the review. No one i know EVER had anything bad to say about this car. These Hondas were awesome even better than the boring crap we have today. Who cares about ECO-ASSIST, a feature on some current Hondas that i have hardly ever use.
Had one same color. 1985 HF. Was a great car for pizza delivery. Loved the handling too. But the crap mechanic we took it messed up the heads and it had to go. Such is life.
Had one, an 85 , it did make me feel Over confident. I passed 3 cars with a bus coming but knew the bus was going kinda slow because I know where they turn onto the road from, but I cut it close. These lil cars can zip around really good imo.
1984: this is not the most attractively styled car around
2019: woah dude, this thing is so RAD!!
I always thought the crx was a sharp looking little car.
Opinion
We can seriously ignore his "commentary". Honda went on to sell many excellent cars that people what to own. I"m on my second honda and would seriously consider another in the future. Meanwhile. Gm went bankrupt, ford had to pawn there blue oval logo just to keep out of bankruptcy and Chrysler is now part of ..Fiat. Yeah, who is laughing now.
The second generation CRX (1988-1991) was FAR more attractive.
@@matthewstorm5188 Strongly disagree, this thing looks like a tough, sprightly little hatchback. The later ones lose their aggression imo
"This is not the most attractively designed car around." Maybe not, but 34 years later and people still seek this car out. I'd say it's aged better than most cars of its day.
Has he ever looked at any other car built that year? Griping about plastic panels when American cars still had plastic wood panels? This was easily one of the top five best looking cars sold that year
This is probably the best gen Honda has produced, besides 2001-2005
@@noone4700 7th gen is amongst the worst,d17 was crap besides COP ign K20A3 was a disappointment when A2 would've been the obv choice to compete. They got rid of a double wishbone setup and dropped McPhersons in.The body's weren't sealed right and they rotted to shit. Have an EP3 currently BTW lol,kinda fell in my lap.
I have one and I think it’s goddamn beautiful
Truthfully, if you are seeking them out for looks, you are probably one of the few. Most people want these cars, but it because they are extremely light with great handling and are easy to work on and modify.
Only 1800 pounds and 54mpg with great handling! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I remember test driving a CRX in 1984, and it was a blast to drive. No new car can touch the CRX.
Mazda MX-5 previously the Miata, tons of fun. I can think of more.
@@Mr.Robert1 ya like a miata can get anywhere near 54mpg.... dream on
@@cyotacorolla1489
You've obviously never owned one therefore you will never know the truth. A Miata is not capable of getting anywhere near that gas mileage. We're talking about a 1.3 l engine in a very small car that was built by Honda for efficiency. Not Mazda's attempt at a sports car. Two different animals. I owned a brand spanking new one in 1987 I know it for a fact.
@@cyotacorolla1489
How many NEW Honda Civics, Or Toyota Corollas have you owned? Not someone's used shitbox that's ready for the compactor, blowing Blue Smoke. I'm talking about a brand new car, that's broken in properly and maintained at the dealership. That's where I'm coming from.
Hey moron, I was simply stating that miatas dont get anywhere near the mpg that a early crx would. I have owned both. Now change your tampon and get off your high horse.@@Mr.Robert1
Not my first car, but my first "new" car was a 1987 Honda Civic 4-door automatic. At that time air conditioning was optional, the radio was optional, even the mirror on the passenger side was optional. I also went with wheel covers not included, floor mats not included and I decided to have them put in a pop-up not a moonroof but a sunroof. I did not buy this car for the gas mileage, I bought it because I wanted a new car that fit my budget. Total price out the door, including all the accessories, tax, tags, title, whatever else you can think of came to a nice even $10,000. I kept this car for 350 thousand miles had absolutely no trouble at all, the only reason I traded it in was I got tired of looking at it. This is what got me hooked on Honda. My very next car was a 1991 Honda Accord LX to this day I am driving a Honda Accord. I tried other brands along the years. Nissan, Hyundai, General Motors, Ford Mustang GT. I always came back to the Honda dealership. I did have one Toyota Camry also brand-spanking-new it was a very nice accessory to get from point A to point B not very exciting to drive to say the least. There you have it, Honda gets my vote as best value for the money if you want a car that's going to be dependable, inexpensive to maintain and give you at least 10 years trouble free service. I've heard stories of people that have had trouble, they've always been used cars. Put two and two together, something that somebody sold because they were obviously having trouble with it. Not all the time but that's what I found when I came across people that were bad-mouthing Honda or Toyota. Always somebody's used headache.
OH HELL YAH!!! When Honda made cars people wanted and could afford. Honda, no one wanted your hybrid CRZ hence the shitty sales numbers. Remake a CRX in todays world, 40mpg and start it around 17k and you will have an instant winner!! Could even do an Si Model with around 180hp for the younger crowd and they would fly off of the lots!!! I miss those days, Honda used to be king, now they are just dull boxes on the road;(
Actually there's no need for a CRX replacement. Honda's Fit already fits the niche. Americans today do not want cars that are too small. Americans are fatter and we tend to consolidate our trips in the car more, so need more space when we do take the car out. Carpooling is more common for commuters, and young people with limited incomes are starting families earlier, with no ability to have a second car. Older people retiring (a huge segment not to be ignored) are disposing of their luxury vehicles because they don't need to commute anymore and want to lower the cost of ownership of such for budgetary reasons yet still have a practical car. Flying today is so much more of a pain than it was in the 80s/90s so road tripping is more common, which requires more space. Hence, why cars like the Fit, Fiesta, Versa, Yaris, are the top sellers.
oldtwins yeah, but the Fit looks out of proportion & THERE'S NO 2 DOOR!!
& the headlites are too big & will yellow & scratch. The ones on the CRX are recessed & small & made of GLASS - hee hee. $10 to replace.
The ONLY "affordable" 2 door car TODAY is the Yaris. Blah! I should have bought the Accent when it was a cute 2 door for $10,000! Yes there is a 2 door accent TODAY , the i20, but they reFUSE to bring it here! Same with fiesta & mazda 2!!
+Rich V, AFAIK the '14-16 MY Yaris 3-door Liftback (imported from France, but US-spec) is NOT AVAILABLE Stateside, but it is in Puerto Rico & USVI (the least expensive European-built car over here, of all things...). The only Yaris's available Stateside are the 5-door Liftback and the Scion iA (sold in PR/USVI as the Yaris Sedán and made in a Mexican Mazda factory from a Mazda platform and engine).
The title of "the most affordable 2/3 door in America" is fought between 2 cars that are NOT "basic transportation": the Mexican (soon to be Polish for US-spec)-built Fiat 500 and the diminutive French-built and Mercedes-owned Smart ForTwo.
So no "really affordable 2-door"; in America... (people don't buy 'em unless they are sports cars and even then in the limited amounts afforded on that category)
Also, we in Puerto Rico have ditched for years the notion of putting "Honda" and "affordable" in the same sentence. Hondas have been for years more expensive than most of its' mass-market competitors and it's even acknowledged in their local slogan "Clase y Más" (Class & More). In that note the CR-Z is supposed to be the CR-X successor, but Honda has never opted to put anything on it but a "green" gas/electric regular hybrid, unlike the CR-X that had both "green" and "performance" variants.
The CR-X had a "devious" interior in which, in other markets, a rear shelf/seat was put in the back, whether Honda opted to not to add it for US-spec cars and make longer seat rails to flexitize what room was available. A 6'7" (2.0m) basketball player of my hometown team had one, the seat was that long... But you had to almost lay in it because of its' very low profile.
+Acc0rd79 I like the CR-Z... yes it doesn't do anything really good but it's jsut a cool little bugger XD
also you guys know that the replacement "the Type-R based one" will cost like 35k right? and people call the hybrid we have now expensive... i mean sure it'll probably preform better but you lose your cheap cool car in the process...
+ScottaHemi, Honda hasn't built a cheap (for its' market niche) car for the USDM since the '90s. We in the Island do expect that ANY Honda (starting with the $18K or so Fit 5-door hatch, even as is assembled in MX, but don't pass the labor savings...) would be at least +$2K over a similarly equipped Toyota or Nissan (or pretty much any mass-market Japanese-based brand). That's why they're advertised as "CLASE Y MAS" or class and more...
Oh, and the ~ 290hp R's (haven't heard of any plans for a CR-Z with the engine, just the UK-imported 5-door Civic hatch) will be MORE EXPENSIVE than either the similarly outputted VW Golf R or the even more powerful (350hp, 2.3L) Ford Focus RS, but less than either version of the outgoing ~ 290hp Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X, if there's any consolation (the Civic is also the only FWD-only member of this "super hot hatch group", the rest have MANDATORY AWD systems).
There were so many of these on the road back in the day. Especially in blue.
One of the best cars EVER!
@Steve Silvas I used to drive around California in one of these with my two rottweilers in the trunk one day when I was buying some Hooch at the liquor store they got out and killed the owners chimpanzee
My first brand new car was the 1985 Honda CRX si...and a total pleasure to drive. I always found the want to take it out for a drive and put 60,000 miles on it in a mere six months! I loved that car. The engine would idle...and you had no idea the engine was on. Someone once said mid-state in MO at a gas station, "You have to put gas in that?". A true pocket rocket. Mine was white/grey mix, blue interior. It also had a non-lockable center dash storage area. A car I will always remember as one of my favorites.
Styling is way ahead of its time on this car! Shame MotorWeek for badmouthing its looks!
It wasn't ahead of it's time at all, but I'm not sure why they didn't like the styling. As a teen in this era I remember this being thought of by everyone as a really good looking car. But it was hardly "ahead of it's time" - it was just an 80s car.
@Kenneth Klauss
Listen closely to how John Davis narrates this segment, I'd swear he was ordered to say these things whether he wanted to or not, something else was going on with this review. I wonder if payola was going on to his bosses at MPT back then. It's possible.
The drag coefficient of that "beached whale" is better than most cars on the road today..
yea this was before honda paid critics , so the truth was just told.
@WilLiam Farmer
Sounded more like Ford or Chevy paid John to criticize Honda.
haha, been diggin this retro series
keep em coming
I do , too 😀
I have a great long term memory. The Honda car commercial was. "Honda, we make it simple" The motorcycle advertisement at that time was, "Follow the leader, he's on a Honda ".
I had one of these in blue, same year. Loved it. I wish I still had it.
Me too!
Nostalgia listening to when we cared about changing plugs and doing our own service
1984: "We applaud them for using plastic on the front fenders."
2020: "What do you hate most about your 1st gen?" "The plastic fenders."
NO RUST...LESS WEIGHT. THAT WAS THERE objective lightweight small Dependable engine great car affordable
These things rust terribly. The plastics were just body panels. Under the plastics they rust really badly. I'm lucky. My 85 Si's been a California car it's entire life and has no rust at all, but the same conditions that saved it from rust have destroyed the body plastics.
Guess people have started to like its looks over time. Now it's appreciated as one of the best looking cars of the 80s :p
it's still hideous. the second gen is a different car altogether, much nicer. The mk1 is ugly af.
Its an opinion of a few people
It’s those rocker panels that make it ugly
I lived with an 85 for over a decade. It was an amazing, fun, cool, reliable, and efficient vehicle. Wish I had one in my garage.
I absolutely love how he talked about the engine compartment being so cramped and everything stuck in there with very little room to work on anything and very little room to work on your own changing belts and everything because by today's cars standards that little CRX is the easiest damn thing I have ever worked on in myEntire 50 years of mechanic work. God I wish they would make them easy to work on likeThat again
Had a CRX HF in the early 2000s.. LOVED IT!! I could carry so much stuff in the back and the gas mileage was AWESOME!!
Still have my 91 CRX HF. 240,00 miles . No Oil Burn. Great Compression. Light Body. No Squeaks.
Rust?
I had an 84 CRX for years and loved it. Never had a problem with it and I was more interested in just having reliable transportation than going 0-60mph in 5 seconds. Wish they still made cars like this!!
0-60 IN 5 SECONDS IN YOUR DREAMS ! I HAD A NEW 1987, GREAT CAR. YES IT WAS FUN2DRIVE ANYTHING BUT FAST.
I have a special spot in my heart for the CRX. I learnt how to drive stick in an '88 CRX. Had it hopping like a bunny.
i had '85 crx si 1.6. best darn fun little coup.
I don't think I've ever gotten redder in the face mad while watching Motorweek than when Jonn Davis was bashing the beloved CRX's looks.
Looking back, it was a daring design. The high back end (well, low to today's standards). I owned an 84 right when they came out and lost count of the times people remarked on the original design.
still loving my 89 with a 92 Si engine, car has over 350,000 on it, engine around 200G. A few small upgrades- shocks, springs, brake lines, strut tower bars. Love the way it handles, easy to work on, and have owned it for 20 years.
My first car at the age of 17 was. 1986 Honda CRX HF. Great little car that took loads of abuse from me and just kept running.
A retro-styled, compact run-about that’s both sporty and fuel efficient! I was born in the wrong decade.
The gas mileage seems a bit high. They didn't mention the HF version of the CRX, which they didn't call it that yet in '84, running a 1.3 engine with high gearing. My mother had a brand new '85 CRX HF (just like this blue one) with a new 1.5 litre (both ran carburetors), same gearing as before. It would get 50+ mpg on the highway, where the year before with the smaller 1.3 got around 53, 54 mpg. highway if my memory serves right? It takes a mindful driver to get these numbers, one that knows their gearbox. My mothers '85 topped out at 111 mph for me one night on a speed run, still climbing in 3rd gear, nearing 6000 rpm before I had to back off.
I own a 1986 CRX, and I am here to refute all the negative things MotorWeek said about the CRX.
1. The seat cushions are firm, supportive and comfortable
2. I actually like the placement of the heat a/c controls. You can see them just fine through the hole in the steering wheel.
3. The car does not look like a beached whale, it is actually a beautiful and simple design.
4. I can change my spark plugs with no problems at all.
5. The belts are not hard to change.
6. The torsion bars work great and the ride is not harsh at all.
7. The reason the back of the car spun out, is because the driver jerked the steering wheel to the right as he is braking. Watch @ 4:58.
+CRX EW2 I owned an 87 CRX DX. I loved that car! Miss it terribly.
FUCK ANY KIND OF CRITICISM, THIS IS THE MOST PERFECT VEHICLE IN THE UNIVERSE.
Honestly I think he was just making up stuff to criticize the CRX with so it didn’t sound like a Honda love letter.
@@exxusdrugstore300
Not perfect. But still a good car
@@samlung2724 For sure, but that doesn't mean it needs excused for any kind of fault
Thank you so much for honoring my request from the Si upload!!!!!! I forgot just much I wanted one back in the day.
I miss my 84. My first car.
Drove it 900 miles in 1996 using nothing more than an ashtray filled with 1 and 2 dollar Canadian coins.
Plus she’d rip! Loved that car.
1987 Civic here my first new car I love every mile 350000 trouble-free miles then I got Honda Accord LX the beginning of my Honda addiction.
Such a great looking little car, in my opinion! I'd love to take one for a spin if I could just find one!
Thanks motor week... The retro series. Is great
I had an 89 HF CRX and without a doubt it was the best car I've ever owned. Tons of fun with a pop up sunroof and the gas mileage was insane - I drove from Philly to Boston on less than 2/3 tank of gas. You have to buy a hybrid to get that kind of gas mileage these days I think, and the car wouldn't be nearly as fun :)
I don't know if the 1.3L tested here was the HF model. I know the HF model did not have a pass. sideview mirror, no clock, & smaller tires. It did have a different trans that had taller gearing.
These cars would blow the doors off of any 1984 Ford Escort or Chevy Chevette never mind the fact that they were 4X as reliable and better on fuel, too.
+scdevon Lol, you do realize that isn't saying much?
+john doe You misconstrued what I said. Don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. In fact I'm quite sure I know a great deal more than you. Scdevon's comment of "...blowing the doors off..." is what I was commenting on. These cars were not fast. The Si's were, a little bit. I don't debate reliability, agility, gas mileage, etc. Almost any car can do a 100 mph, doesn't make the car "fast".
+dbc1dc
The CRXsi models were real rocket ships. You could LOSE a 1980s Chevy Chevette or a Ford Escort (The American equivalents of these cars) in the rear view mirror. They were faster and more reliable by a wide margin. It wasn't even close.
+scdevon i dunno with a bit of shoehorning you could probably sneak a 350 under the hood of the chevette and destroy the world ;)
@@dbc1dc i beat a buddys 80s rx7 and 80s monte carlo SS with a 305. alas he had 4 guys in it and i was solo :) but it was hella of a win !
Love the Mullet on the guy showing the interior, and I had tweed slacks like that back in the 80's to.
I was lucky enough to be just out of high school and working at a Honda store back when this car debuted at the beginning of Honda's "Golden Years" these things were really great compared to any other competitive vehicles you could buy at the time, they were simple, but well designed, with great attention to detail, built with very high quality, and super reliable and cheap to maintain. I got to drive hundreds of these brand new, lots of fun.
The late 80s Accords, Civics and Preludes were also fantastic.
@watershed44 oh you’re lucky you got to see all those cool 1980’s Hondas. Question. Did you ever get to see one of the first 1984 CRX’s in the US in person. There’s a red one in the junkyard, built July of 83, with serial number 00276. 276th red 1.5L 1984 model CRX made. Pretty rare. Have you ever seen an ultra-low serial number like this on a 1st gen CRX?
@@Blakecryderman7244 I wasn't too focused on VINs, but I would believe that most of the lowest production number vehicles for the USA ended up on the west coast, since they were shipped from Japan and arrived in the Port of LA first more than likely. My store was located in the far western Philadelphia suburbs. We did get a fair amount of the rarer Civic HF and CRX HF vehicles though! They were still pretty good to drive and got crazy MPG numbers back in the day, you'd be hard pressed to find any economy car made in the entire world gas or diesel that got better overall numbers today!
Car and Driver took one of these and modified it with 2 engines, one in the front, one in the back, making it 4 wheel drive. They called it the CRX Squared. I wonder whatever happened to it.
My 89 was a car I should’ve never sold. My HF model taught me how to drive with momentum and carry speed and the gas mileage was amazing. I once drove from philly to Boston on a tad more than 3/4 tank. So much fun to drive
Wow! The Blista Compact looks even better in real life. "Tommy Vercetti is an innocent man!" - Ken Rosenberg
I drove one of these, I loved it.
I remember in the late 80s there's being a rumor that Honda had a standing offer that they'd give anyone that could flip one of these $10,000. As a stupid kid I remember thinking wow, I should get one of these and try to flip it to get $10,000.
Heh, a blind, deaf, cripple could change the timing belt on one of these in 40 min tops!
Also, how about the vision? The CRX is the one that started it all. Definitely the stepping stone for sports cars of the future. At least the 90's
The CR-X was a great little car, especially by early mid-80s standards.
54 MPG?????????????????????????????????????????????
+jim dandy Yep....better than cars get today. I had a 1982 Civic that was in the high 40's.
+Scott G I had a 93 Festiva 5 speed which I bought new and it got 46 ++ 48 on the highway with the skinny 145 x12 tires. I still think 54 IS AN EXAGGERATION but I do agree new cars barely break 30 mpg in REAL life driving. I have a 2009 Accent SE and I get about 30 mixed but that's mostly highway, I have gotten almost 35 strictly highway, still a far cry from the Festiva
This.
It also crumples like a soda can upon impact with anything and everything. It's impact rating at all sides is dungotfuckedup.
I doubt that, the CVCC was pretty ahead of it's time.
They were not that bad.
A little car with big personality, even if it wasn't the most powerful little coupe on the market at the time. Honda made some real good cars back in the day.
I still love mine after almost 10 years of ownership and surely won't let her go
It's great to love a car that much. I still stare on the rare occasion I see a CRX. My buddy had one in college, but he hit a deer and totaled it. :( I just got a Fiesta ST, and I think I feel like that about it, too. Just love it, and I plan to keep it as long as I can.
Honda could still do if it weren't for cafe standards and all those ridiculous safety requirements we have in the States.
Wow, 54 MPG On a carburetor engine.
If you know what to do and the road you're able to manage even more. I've seen numbers up to 59 and more.
Thanks for uploading! =)
Another car I have been in love with for all these years from the first time I saw one.
If there were some way to put the 2nd gen double wishbones under one of these, we would have CRX perfection! (Especially an '86 or '87 Si.)
I had a few disagreements with some of the comments in the review. Since I'm so grateful just to see this, I will keep them to myself.
Wow, these guys really went out of their way to be critical of this car. As for the torsion bar suspension......torsion bars don't behave any differently than coil springs. Coil springs are just torsion bars wound into a spiral to make them fit into a particular suspension design. Just because you drove some car in the past that had torsion bars and you didn't like something about it doesn't mean it's the fault of the torsion bars. I've driven many cars with coil springs that rode or handled poorly but I don't blame that on coil springs in general. My 69 Simca had torsion bars front and rear and it rode awesomely ( was a POS in most other ways though).
I can remember sitting in one of these at the Northeast Auto show back in the day and thinking that my golf clubs were not going to fit in the back - that's how small it seemed though seating positions were generous because you were stretched out in the classics sports car manner. I opted for a brand new Escort GT instead followed by many many regrets!
If you only went with the Honda you would have been a very happy man talkin from many years of experience
“Often useless up shift indicator” 😂 true true
Should have never sold my 89 HF. I once drive from Philadelphia to Boston on three quarters of a tank lol. The most fun I ever had driving a car. The little 70hp engine taught me how to momentum drive and use what I had which translated directly into my later years racing rallies.
I like how they complain about access to the engine but every car today it's almost impossible to work on engine at all
I had 2 of these back in the day. Both were great cars for me
This car was revolutionary for imports.
Motor Trend Import Car Of The Year 1984.
Not the most attractive car
Me: It's beautiful. :0
Especially the Mugen CR-X
cause the modern cars sucks in terms of appearance.
@@marshallmather2638 ok boomer
Just kidding lol
I think it's funny how in 2015, the motoring press is all over hybrids and the mileage they get---guess they forgot that Honda did it first way back in the 80's, and without an electric motor assist.
Well. Lightweight cars from back then helped with the mpg, now car are full of more tech and stuff. I bet if they still made theses super lightweight car with todays tech it can maybe get 150mpg easy, but will crumple like a tin can in an accident.
It's simple issues involved. That was a 1713 lb vehicle. It had good aerodynamics at the expense of a low dropping rear hatch compromising storage space. No insulation to speak of. Today's high mpg vehicles have monstrous interior volume compared to this, library quiet, and safety - today would be A grade while this would get an F-. Just nothing comparable.
@@oldtwinsna8347 Some of that is true, but it's also today's automotive engineers being lazy instead of truly innovative. Today's cars are heavy, because they use a ton of steel---this is because they're too lazy to design proper crash protection, so they just throw more metal at the problem. But it doesn't have to be that way. Today's Miata weighs only 2,300 lbs, yet meets all safety standards---that's real engineering
My first car. Loved it!
My first car was a '84 Civic Sedan with everything but the automatic transmission and I'll take another one any day of the week and twice on Sundays!
This car became a classic.
Such a negative review of an awesome little car! Motorweek typically loves every car they review...I don't get the hate for this spunky little coupe.
Frank Burns it slept with his wife.
Frank Burns
I was thinking the same thing
Very negative review
@countdown2xstacy
I really wonder about this review. Notice how John Davis sounds truly odd as he narrates this review. Almost like he doesn't want to be saying these things but was ordered to. I think something more was going on here...payola to his bosses at MPT? Possible.
1) It was the 1st year the car was available in the US
2) It was Japanese. There was a lot of hate for Japanese cars back then.
They hated Honda and the Japanese brands early on. But they were eventually won over. Mostly, it seemed like jealousy.
I'd take one of these any time before a modern car. These old cars have proper ruggedness and a feel when driving.
Funny how in 30 years we still can't match the mpg of cars like these. I smell a conspiracy...
Skoda130 safety level was fine when u had safer/smarter drivers back then
Just wait until Ford comes out with 1.0L Hyboost engine , look it up on Google u will be amazed
Even the later CRX HF models could get 50 mpg and they hit 60 in under 10 seconds.
GT6SuzukaTimeTrials that was the old EPA scale for MPG. Its more realistic at 45mpg.
Actually, before I got my Hyundai, I daily drove a gutted first-generation Miata for over 2 years. No carpet, no ABS, no radio, no power steering, no power windows, no A/C, no heat, no airbags, nothing. And I didn't complain. Give me the safety levels of the 80s. We need more people to die anyway. Natural selection worked when we let it work. Now we don't, so we're seeing an overpopulation problem brewing...
54 was low? This was stellar fuel economy for any vehicle of its time. And to think it’s future brother the CRZ couldn’t even come close to those numbers!
Still wish I could get one of these.
If only you could go back in time and buy one off the showroom floor
Darn, my 800 pound, '14 Can Am Spyder could only dream about those mileage numbers!! I average about 32 mpg.
This was Honda's little pocket racer, it was a nice little car, for shame for Motorweek to badmouth it.
Growing up my dad had a white one and a Black one and an 86 accord. Of course he had chrome rims and ground affects kits on both
I have the 1984 1.3 crx. I sure do love it but parts do not exist any more.
The CRX is the only Honda I ever liked besides the mid '70s Civic. I never owned one however. I actually owned a 1976 Civic. It was a yellow one with a manual transmission.
I have heard a rumor that Honda does plan on re-releasing the CRZ in non-hybrid form. I am hoping so... Great review, the CRX is a classic...
They have the CR-V now, and or the HR-V now. If I'm correct I remember hearing about the CR-V this enlarged box is based off this old design. I know you're comment is very old I'm quite possibly out of my mind trying to reply to it.
So much roasting. If only they knew what cars would be like in the modern day.
The CRX Si was a nifty little car!!!
Just checked again. My gen 1 87 crx si had a "rod shift" linkage to the gearbox, not cable shiftier. I believe this was true for all gen 1 manual crx's. Better shift feel.
Lol my brother had one like that even the color is the same one time we drove his crx from L.A. to SF on one tank of gas which it was over 500 miles.
Funny how the Fiero got such high marks compared to the CRX. I guess the marketplace was the final judge.
First gen Honda CRX was a study in exterior automotive design, the quintessential two door hatchback.
I agree. They took a chance and were rewarded.
One thing motorweek didn't comment on was reliability. They would push american junk over dependable japanese reliability.
CRX was the essence of Honda,too bad we can't have cars like that anymore
HOW DO THESE OLD HONDA CRX SI CARS COMPARE TO THE NEW 2022 HONDA CIVIC SI CARS WHICH APPEAR TO ALL BE 4 DOORS.
Dope AF! Just picked up an 86 HF! 😁
No complaints about acceleration 0-60 in 11.2 seconds 5:10.
Let the ricer era begin
Hopefully the next CR-Z will be more like this.
Mustang SVO sitting at the side of the test track. Nice!
ahahah...but they forgot to mention ..little crowded under the hood but you will never have to fix anything thats the best part about Honda.. Motorweek...
It’s the “Blista Compact” from GTA Vice City
The shifter in these did not use a cable linkage, it was a solid rod linkage, which made the action super solid and precise. Honda's current shifters use cables and simply do not compare.
The clutch in these cars did use a cable.
I gave this a like but i dislike the review. No one i know EVER had anything bad to say about this car. These Hondas were awesome even better than the boring crap we have today. Who cares about ECO-ASSIST, a feature on some current Hondas that i have hardly ever use.
Looking back it was the golden age of cars. Modern enough to last and before all the shit they pack on them today.
A beached whale without a tail? Ouch John!!! I love the way this car looks!
+qmto The following gen did look much, MUCH better though : )
Rumor has it car thieves will, and have, completely disagree with EVERYTHING John Davis has said against this car.
I would buy one of those now !
I had mine in red. It was such a great car. I have not owned a Honda auto since, but am leaning toward a new Honda Passport.
I fucking love it, I have a 90. I need a 1st gen
Had one same color. 1985 HF. Was a great car for pizza delivery. Loved the handling too. But the crap mechanic we took it messed up the heads and it had to go. Such is life.
I had the blue ‘85 CRX and loved it! ❤ 🚙
I'd love to own a first-gen Si and second-gen SiR.
Had one, an 85 , it did make me feel Over confident. I passed 3 cars with a bus coming but knew the bus was going kinda slow because I know where they turn onto the road from, but I cut it close. These lil cars can zip around really good imo.
I love that BIC still makes the same lighter, 36 years later