The roots of this cult following are not difficult to discern — the Honda CRX was a car of definite but specific appeal. By that, we don’t mean that the CRX didn’t have virtues: It had sprightly performance, particularly with the injected engines, and it was nimble, fuel efficient, and reasonably commodious, with a decent repair record. However, the same could be said of the contemporary three-door Civic hatchbacks, which were also substantially more practical. The CRX’s promise as a cheap urban commuter car was also somewhat compromised by a fairly demanding maintenance schedule (failing to keep the oil and filter regularly changed, the valve clearances properly adjusted, and the timing belt periodically replaced could have expensive consequences) and, for many buyers, high insurance rates.
The author is partial to the late (1990–1991) second-generation Honda CRX, but for some fans, the lighter 1986–1987 EA models are the peak years; they were certainly the bestsellers. (author photo)
Ultimately, the Honda CRX was the fulfillment of the promise of the early Civic hatchback, a car for anyone who had ever been entertained by an old Civic CVCC and wondered what it could do with a firmer suspension and a bit more power. The old CRX epitomized the spirit that used to define Honda as an automotive brand: It was clever, well-built, economical, and more fun than you would expect from looking at it, with occasional flashes of genuine inspiration. If you had never tried or resolutely disliked the breed, the CRX wasn’t likely to convince you; it was a Honda for people who loved Hondas. Add to that the fact that Honda has yet to create a direct replacement, and it’s little surprise that the old CRX has a loyal fan following.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
In the interests of full disclosure, while your author has never owned a CRX, he has owned both a Honda Accord and Honda Prelude of the same approximate vintage. (He hasn’t owned a Miata either, but does own a Mazda3 and years ago was compensated by a Mazda marketing agency for participating in a couple of owner focus groups related to that model.) Also, the author previously did some temp work for a locally headquartered electric car company, although that employment relationship ended approximately a year before this article was written and that company had no involvement with or connection to this article.
NOTES ON SOURCES
Our sources on the origins of the Civic and CRX (including the Ballade) included David Traver Adolphus, “The 1984-1987 Honda CRX: Great buy and future classic,” Road & Track 30 April 2013, www.roadandtrack. com, accessed 14 November 2013; American Honda, “CRX: [U.S. brochure], c. 1988, and “1993 Civic del Sol” [U.S. brochure], c. September 1992; Tony Assenza, “Honda Civic CRX: Still lovely after all these miles?” Motor Trend Vol. 37, No. 4 (April 1985), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987 (Brooklands Road Test Books), ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 1988): 59; Automobiles 1959 (Tokyo: Motors Trade Association of Japan, 1959); “Auto Test: Honda Civic CRX,” Autocar 5 May 1984, reprinted in ibid, pp. 26–30; “AutoTest: Honda Quintet,” Autocar 29 August 1981: 16–21; “Auto Test: Triumph Acclaim HL,” Autocar 24 October 1981: 36–41; “Baby Boomer,” Road & Track Vol. 37, No. 11 (July 1986), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 78–79; “Baby Bullet,” What Car? September 1984, reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 37–39; “Battling Tops (Pocket Rockets),” Road & Track Vol. 42, No. 6 (February 1991), reprinted in Road & Track Road Test Annual 1992 (May 1992): 10–16; “bdb,” “Honda Verno? Clio? Primo?” Honda Prelude Forum, 5–6 May 2003, www.preludeonline. com/ f28/ honda-verno-clio-primo-104578/, 11 December 2013; Patrick Bedard, “Preview: Acura Integra and Legend,” Car and Driver Vol. 31, No. 9 (March 1986): 56–61; “Brief Test: Honda Civic CRX 1.6i-16,” Motor 17 May 1986: 18–21; Peter Bohr, “Used Car Classic: 1984-1991 Honda CRX,” Road & Track Vol. 46, No. 10 (June 1995): 158–162; Greg Brown, “1985 Honda CRX Si: A sophomore with veteran moves,” Motor Trend Vol. 37, No. 3 (March 1985), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 44–45; Rich Ceppos, “Honda CRX Si: The thin-wallet Ferrari,” Car and Driver Vol. 35, No. 11 (May 1990): 48–49, and “The Specialty File: Jackson Racing Honda CRX Si,” Car and Driver Vol. 31, No. 1 (July 1985): 115–116; Don Chaikin, “40something,” Popular Mechanics Vol. 168, No. 2 (February 1991): 40–43; crxcollectibles. com, last accessed 23 December 2013; Dorothy Clendenin and Kim Reynolds, “Civic Pride,” Road & Track Vol. 40, No. 3 (November 1987): 57–61; Mike Covello, ed. Standard Catalog of Imported Cars 1946–2002, Second Edition (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2001); Csaba Csere, “Honda Civic Wagon,” Car and Driver Vol. 30, No. 2 (August 1984): 85–92, and “Life with CRX,” Car and Driver Vol. 31, No. 5 (November 1985), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 65–67; Jim Dunne, “Three Gas-Saving Little Imports,” Popular Science Vol. 207, No. 6 (December 1975): 34–44; Environmental Protection Agency, “Progress in the Implementation of Motor Vehicle Emission Standards Through June 1974, Report to Congress,” June 1974, and www. FuelEconomy. gov, last accessed 23 December 2013; Don Fuller, “Driving Impression: Acura Integra GS-R,” Motor Trend Vol. 44, No. 4 (April 1992): 56–58; “Giant Test: Alfa Sprint Veloce -v- VW Scirocco GL -v- Honda Prelude Executive,” CAR November 1982: 96–102; “Giant Test: Honda CRX -v- Toyota Corolla GT Coupe -v- Volkswagen Scirocco GL,” CAR June 1984: 108–117; “Giant Test: Raising the roof: Honda CRX VTi -v- Mazda MX-5 -v- Peugeot 205 1.9 CTI -v- Toyota MR2 T-Bar,” CAR July 1992: 96–105; “Giant Test: VW Jetta GL -v- Triumph Acclaim HLS -v- Renault 18GTL,” CAR January 1982: 60–68, 96; Larry Griffin, “The New Honda Accords: Dynamite, merely dynamite,” Car and Driver Vol. 27, No. 7 (January 1982): 68-69; Guide to Motor Industry of Japan 1967 Edition (Tokyo: Japan Motor Industrial Federation, Inc., 1967); Guide to the Motor Industry of Japan 1990 (Tokyo: Japan Motor Industrial Federation, Inc., 1990); Bill Hartford, “Imports & Motorsports,” Popular Mechanics Vol. 153, No. 6 (June 1980): 42, and “Imports & Motorsports,” Popular Mechanics Vol. 154, No. 6 (December 1980): 42; Richard Homan, “Honda CR-X del Sol,” Road & Track Vol. 43, No. 9 (May 1992): 72; Honda Automoviles [Spain], “CRX” [Spanish brochure], c. 1995; “Honda Ballade returns,” io Motoring, 3 December 2010, www.iol. co.za, accessed 10 December 2013; “Honda Civic CRX,” Autocar 20 January 1988: 36-41; “Honda Civic CRX,” Road & Track Vol. 35, No. 4 (December 1983), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 20–24; “Honda Civic CRX,” Road & Track Buyer’s Guide 1984, reprinted in ibid, p. 39; “Honda Civic CRX Coupé (Motor Road Test 15/84),” Motor 7 April 1984: 10–15; “Honda Civic 1.4GL (The Autocar Road Test),” Autocar 11 November 1987: 28–34; “Honda CR-X,” Sports Car World October 1983, reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 11, 25; “Honda CRX 16-Valve,” Road & Track Vol. 36, No. 11 (July 1985), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 64; “Honda CR-Z coupe road test review,” Autocar, www.autocar. co.uk, accessed 24 December 2013; “Honda CR-Z hybrid (2010) CAR review,” CAR 19 May 2010, www.carmagazine. co.uk, accessed 24 December 2013; Honda Deutschland, “Honda CRX del Sol” [German brochure], c. 1997, “Das Automobile-Programm 1990” [German brochure], c. 1990, and “VTEC: Civic & CRX” [German brochure], c. 1990; “Honda Jazz (Motor Road Test No. 31/84),” Motor 30 June 1984: 24–27; Honda Motor Co., Ltd., [“Civic and CR-X series released with enhanced equipment; Civic 3-door and CR-X equipped with Honda-exclusive VTEC engine”], [Japanese press release], 21 September 1989; [“Civic 1500 equipped with new CVCC-II engine, Honda-Matic overdrive added”], [Japanese press release], 31 July 1980; “CRX” [Dutch brochure], c. 1990, “CR-Z Press Information,” 25 February 2010; [“CVCC-II engine added to Civic 1300; Honda-Matic overdrive also adopted; two new sunroofs for Quint”], [Japanese press release], 10 June 1980; “[Cyber Sports] CR-X” [Japanese brochure], c. 1988, [“Elegantly styled Honda Quint Integra with standard DOHC engine goes on sale”], [Japanese press release], 19 February 1985; [“Extra equipment for Civic and CR-X series”], [Japanese press release], 3 August 1988; “Fact Book: Accord CVCC 4door Saloon,” 14 October 1977; “Fact Book: Ballade Sports CR-X (product information),” 23 June 1983; “Fact Book: Civic & Ballade,” 22 September 1983; “Fact Book: Civic & CRX (product information),” 9 September 1987; “Fact Book: City,” 20 September 1982; “Fact Book: Civic/Civic Ferio,” 10 September 1991; “Fact Book: Civic 4Door Sedan,” 10 September 1980; “Fact Book: CR-X del Sol,” 27 February 1992; “Fact Book: Honda Accord CVCC,” 7 May 1976; “Fact Book: Honda Accord Saloon/Hatchback/1600•1800,” 22 September 1981; “Fact Book: Honda Civic,” 11 July 1972; “Fact Book: Honda Civic CVCC,” 12 December 1973; “Fact Book: Honda Quint,” 13 February 1980; “Fact Book: New Trend Car: Civic,” 18 July 1979; “Fact Book: Prelude,” 24 November 1978; [“FF compact cars in Civic/Ballade series equipped with new DOHC 16-valve engine”], [Japanese press release], 24 October 1984; [“FF high-owner car: Honda Vigor 1800 series: comfortable new model released through Verno stores”], [Japanese press release], 22 September 1981; [“Four-door Honda Civic Si launched; equipped with compact, high-performance DOHC 16-valve engine”], [Japanese press release], 22 February 1985; [“Full model change for CR-X: Launch of new CR-X del Sol, an innovative concept that can be enjoyed as a closed coupe or an open car”], [Japanese press release], 27 February 1992; [“Honda introduces many new proprietary technologies with launch of FF specialty car: new Prelude”], [Japanese press release], 25 November 1982; [“Lightweight FF Sports Car: Honda Ballade Sports CR-X launched”], [Japanese press release], 23 June 1983; [“New Civic and CR-X launched”], [Japanese press release], 9 September 1987; [“New Civic CVCC launched; conforms to ’51 Showa emissions standards”], [Japanese press release], 20 August 1975; [“New FF Compact Civic Ballade series released”], [Japanese press release], 22 September 1983; [“New model: Honda Ballade FF four-door notchback sedan”], [Japanese press release], 26 August 1980; [“New model: Honda Civic FF four-door notchback sedan”], [Japanese press release], 10 September 1980; [“New passenger car: five-door Honda Quint hatchback”], [Japanese press release], 13 February 1980; [“New model: Honda Civic FF four-door notchback sedan”], [Japanese press release], 10 September 1980; [“New models: Honda Civic CVCC, Honda Civic 1500 four-door”], [Japanese press release], 12 December 1973; “Press Information: Civic 20th Anniversary Thanks 1972~1992,” July 1992; “Verno ’81” [Japanese brochure V-K3-102], 1981, [“Redesigned Civic and Civic Ferio Full Model Change”], [Japanese press release], 4 September 1995; [“Sporty-type two-door fixed coupe: Honda Prelude launched”], [Japanese press release], 24 November 197; [“World’s first NA (normally aspirated) engine to achieve 100 horsepower per liter: new engine fitted to sporty-formal Honda Integra; full model change introduced”], [Japanese press release], 19 April 1989; and [“World’s first simultaneous four-wheel/two-wheel launch: Honda City and trunk-mounted Honda MotoCompo bike,”], [Japanese press release], 29 October 1981; Honda UK Ltd., “CRX” [British brochure 84/1/89], c. January 1989, and “The Range” [British brochure], c. 1992; Ben Hsu, Classic Japanese Performance Cars (North Branch, MN: CarTech, 2013); Yasushi Ishiwatari, “Honda del Sol: The new CRX bulks up, loses its top, and now looks like a ‘specialty’ car,” Car and Driver Vol. 37, No. 12 (June 1992): 37–39; “Japanese Domestic Market CR-X Resource,” www.cr-x. org, last accessed 20 December 2013; Jikayōsha All Album: Buyer’s Guide 1987 Cars February 1987; Michael Jordan, “Road Test: Honda City, Car and Driver Vol. 28, No. 2 (August 1982): 45–51; Erik Johnson, “2011 Honda CR-Z Hybrid,” Car and Driver June 2010, www.caranddriver. com, accessed 24 December 2013; Jeff Karr, “Bang for the Buck,” Motor Trend Vol. 46, No. 8 (August 1994): 36–59; David Knowles, MG: The Untold Story (Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1997); Douglass Kott, “Ford Probe GT: Contender or Nolo Contendre?” Road & Track Vol. 44, No. 1 (September 1992): 74–85; Brian Long, Acura NSX: Honda’s Supercar (Dorchester, England: Veloce Publishing, 2006); Annamaria Lösch, ed., World Cars 1979 (Rome: L’Editrice dell’Automobile LEA/New York: Herald Books, 1979); Art Markum, “Debut,” Cars and Car Conversions June 1986, reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 77; Hideki Maru, Tetsuro Mitsui, and Takeomi Miyoshi, assignors to Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, U.S. Patent No. 4,458,917A, “Suspension Apparatus,” filed 1 February 1982, issued 10 July 1984; Mike McCarthy, “Fun, Fun, Fun … (Road Test: Honda CRX 1.6i-16),” Autosport 4 December 1986, reprinted in ibid, pp. 84–85; Dan McCosh, “’88 Honda Civic: a bench mark gets better,” Popular Science Vol. 231, No. 5 (November 1987): 101, 128, and “SSSSSSpirited two-seaters,” Popular Science Vol. 232, No. 6 (June 1988): 34–40; Mark J. McCourt, “Buyer’s Guide: 1985-1987 Honda Civic CRX Si,” Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car #21 (May 2007): 74–79; “Motor Long Term Test: Honda Civic CRX,” Motor 1 December 1984, reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 40–43; Bob Nagy, “Owner Survey: Honda CRX,” Motor Trend Vol. 37, No. 12 (December 1985), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 68–69, 79, and “Honda Civic del Sol Si: An open and shut case for fun,” Motor Trend Vol. 44, No. 9 (September 1992): 67–70;; New car price guide, 5 November 1993, Car and Driver [Japanese edition] 10 December 1993: 220–229; Paul Niedermeyer, “Curbside Classic: 1980 – 1983 Honda Civic (gen2) – The Best Small Car By Unanimous Consent,” Curbside Classic, 15 December 2013, www.curbsideclassic. com/ curbside-classics-asian/ curbside-classic- 1980-1983-honda-civic-gen2- the-best- small-car-by-unanimous-consent/, accessed 16 December 2013; Jan P. Norbye and Jim Dunne, “Honda’s New CVCC Car Engine Meets ’75 Emissions Standards NOW,” Popular Science Vol. 202, No. 4 (April 1973): 79–81; Martin Padgett, Jr., “Honda CR-X del Sol: The toys of summer,” Car and Driver Vol. 37, No. 11 (May 1992): 40; John Phillips III, “1990 Import Cars: Charting the Changes,” Car and Driver Vol. 35, No. 5 (November 1989): 64–69; “Power Toy (Special Test: Honda CRX 1.6i-16),” What Car? August 1986, reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 80–82; Productioncars.com, Book of Automobile Production and Sales Figures, 1945-2005 (N.p.: 2006); Kevin Radley, “Stress Relief,” Motor 16 March 1985, reprinted in ibid, pp. 46–47; “Return Match (Road Test: Honda CRX Coupe 1.6i-16),” Autocar 18 June 1986, reprinted in ibid, pp. 70–76; Kim Reynolds, “Honda Civic del Sol Si,” Road & Track Vol. 44, No. 3 (November 1992): 76–80; “Road Test: Honda Ballade EXi,” Motor 24 January 1987: 10–15; “Road Test: Honda Civic 1.3 Deluxe,” Motor 2 June 1984: 22–25; “Road Test: Rover 213SE,” Motor 21 July 1984: 11–15; Sue Rowe, “Red for Go (Running Report),” Motor 10 January 1987, reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 83; Masaaki Sato, The Honda Myth: The Genius and His Wake (New York: Vertical, Inc., 2006); Don Sherman, “Honda Civic CRX,” Car and Driver Vol. 28, No. 6 (December 1983), reprinted in ibid, pp. 5–10, and “Honda Civic 1500GL,” Car and Driver Vol. 26, No. 8 (February 1980): 79–84; Kevin Smith, “Short Take: Honda Civic del Sol VTEC,” Car and Driver Vol. 39, No. 8 (February 1994): 112–113; “Synchronicity,” Car and Driver Vol. 30, No. 11 (May 1985), reprinted in ibid, pp. 48–54, John Stein et al, “Sports Cars for the Real World,” Automobile March 1987, reprinted in ibid, pp. 86–97; Matthew L. Stone, Modern Sports and GT Cars Under $20K (Illustrated Buyer’s Guide) (St. Paul, MN: MBI Publishing Company, 2001); “Super Brats (Giant Test: Peugeot 205 GTi -v- Renault 5GT Turbo -v- Honda CRX 1.6i-16),” CAR August 1986: 132–139; “Super Synchronicity,” Car and Driver Vol. 31, No. 4 (October 1985), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 60–63; Kevin Smith, “Eleven for Thirteen,” Car and Driver Vol. 35, No. 12 (June 1990): 46–69, and “1984 Honda CRX,” Motor Trend Vol. 35, No. 12 (December 1983), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 12–19; “Star Road Test: Honda Civic,” Motor 29 March 1980, reprinted in Motor Road Tests 1980: 176–181; “Supertest: Flash in Japan: Honda CRX,” Drive April 1985, reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 55–58; Tony Swan, “Honda Civic CRX Si,” Road & Track Vol. 39, No. 6 (February 1987), reprinted in ibid, pp. 98–100, and “Twos for the Money,” Popular Mechanics Vol. 165, No. 4 (April 1988): 53–57; “Test Extra: Honda Civic Sport,” Autocar 27 October 1982: 62–65; “Test Extra: Honda Civic 1.6i-VT,” Autocar & Motor 20 March 1991: 56–59; Jonathan Thompson, “Even Better Without a Roof!” Road & Track Vol. 35, No. 11 (July 1984), reprinted in Honda CRX 1983-1987: 32–36; Eiji Toyoda, Toyota: Fifty Years in Motion (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1987); Toyota Motor Corporation, “A 75-Year History through Text,” 75 Years of Toyota, 2012, www.toyota-global. com, accessed 21 January 2014; “2013 Honda CR-Z Refresh Confirmed for U.S.,” Car and Driver November 2012, www.caranddriver. com, accessed 24 December 2013; U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation & Air Quality, www.fueleconomy.gov, accessed 24 December 2013; “Variations on an Eastern Theme (Road Test: Honda Ballade EX),” Autocar 14 January 1987: 28–34; Mark Wan, “Honda City (Jazz) (1981),” AutoZine, n.d., www.autozine. org/ Archive/ Honda/ classic/ City.html, last accessed 20 December 2013, “Honda CRX (1983),” AutoZine, n.d., www.autozine. org/ Archive/ Honda/ classic/ CRX.html, last accessed 28 November 2013, “Honda CR-Z,” AutoZine, 22 April 2010, www.autozine. org/ Archive/ Honda/ new/ CRZ.html, last accessed 24 December 2013, and “Honda Insight,” AutoZine, 12 June 2009, www.autozine. org/ Archive/ Honda/ new/ Insight_Mk2.html, last accessed 24 December 2013; and Ben Whitworth, “Honda CR-Z (2011) long-term test review, CAR 31 January 2012, www.carmagazine. co.uk, accessed 24 December 2013.
The online dictionary Jisho (jisho.org) was also a big help in deciphering Japanese-language information.
Some historical exchange rate data for the dollar and European currencies came from Lawrence H. Officer, “Exchange Rates Between the United States Dollar and Forty-one Currencies” (2011, MeasuringWorth, https://www.measuringworth.org/exchangeglobal/, used with permission). Exchange rate values cited in the text represent the approximate dollar equivalent of prices in non-U.S. currencies, not contemporary U.S. suggested retail prices, which are cited separately. Please note that all equivalencies cited herein are approximate and provided solely for the reader’s general reference — this is an automotive history, not a treatise on currency trading or the value of money, and nothing in this article should be taken as financial advice of any kind!
RELATED ARTICLES
- Bridging the Gap: The Honda / Acura Legend and Rover 800
- Cheap and Cheerful: The European Ford Capri
- Five by Five: The Renault 5 and the Mid-Engine Renault 5 Turbo
- Tiny and Triumphant: The Original Morris / Austin Mini
- Party Downsize: The Ford Fiesta Mk1 and Mk2
- Rabbit Rocket: The Volkswagen Golf GTI and Rabbit GTI
- RX-Rated: Mazda’s Early Rotary Cars, Part 1
- RX-Rated: Mazda’s Early Rotary Cars, Part 2
- Thunder and Lightning, Part 1: The Toyota Corolla Levin and Sprinter Trueno
- Thunder and Lightning, Part 2: The AE86 Toyota Corolla Levin/Sprinter Trueno
- Upwardly Mobile: The Lexus LS400 and the Birth of the Japanese Luxury Brands
Great article about a model I’ve always found compelling. And look at the list of sources – the depth of research is what really sets this site apart.
I think it can be argued that Honda replaced the CRX/Del Sol with the Insight MK I. While it never had any sporting aspirations, it did fill the same basic role as the CRX HF in that it was a small, light, extremely fuel-efficient 2 seat commuter car. To this day it still holds the title of the most fuel-efficient gasoline powered car ever sold in the US market. While it was a flawed vehicle (due to battery life issues), it was still a better effort than the CR-Z at filling the sporty commuter car role. As far as the CR-Z goes, I don’t see how it is an improvement over the same product had it just been fitted with the drivetrain from the Fit/Jazz. It would have been lighter, within 2-4MPG of the hybrid system and far cheaper to produce and buy.
There is certainly a case to be made for the Mk1 Insight as the next-generation CRX, although in that case more than CRX HF than the Si or VTEC editions. You could have fun with an Insight, but it was not a sporty car in any quantitative way other than having only two seats. The original Insight was also more of a sui generis piece like the NSX; the Mk1 Insight had a bespoke (and very expensive) chassis and engine where the CRX, even the del Sol, was a Civic derivative.
The CR-Z is, to my eyes, a neat-looking car that tries to do two quite different things at once and ends up not being great at either of them. You have a point about the powertrain; the CR-Z is more fuel efficient than the Fit on the EPA cycle, but not dramatically so (the difference between a five-speed Fit 1.5 and a CR-Z six-speed is about 17%) and if you subtracted the added weight of the IMA system and battery (something between 110 and 150 lb, if it’s comparable to the Jazz Hybrid) it would probably be a wash. On the other hand, that would itself leave people searching for the point, since you could always just buy a Fit/Jazz, add your own suspension tweaks (which at this point Honda dealers might even sell you — I haven’t looked recently), and come out ahead in just about everything but looks.
Of course, if Honda had really wanted to cheer up the faithful, they could pull the hybrid gear and battery pack from the CR-Z and install the K20 engine. They wouldn’t win any fuel economy prizes that way, but they could probably have matched the old CRX Si (27 mpg combined on the post-2008 cycle, compared to 24 mpg for the last of the previous generation 2-liter Civic Si) and there would be a lot less moaning about the old car being better.
I think the bottom line is that Honda appears to be really stung by the fact that Toyota has made the Prius practically synonymous with hybrid cars while a lot of Honda hybrids have gone nowhere commercially. Honda keeps looking for a space in that niche they can call their own (the sporty hybrid, the cheaper hybrid) and so far they haven’t found it.
“You could always just buy a Fit” pretty well sums up my thoughts on most new cars under $50k. I might add “and a motorcycle”.
“Of course, if Honda had really wanted to cheer up the faithful, they could pull the hybrid gear and battery pack from the CR-Z and install the K20 engine.”
Sweet Jesus man, it is cruel and unusual to even discuss something so easily do-able and yet so thoroughly un-fulfilled; especially considering the audience is made up of almost nothing but gear-heads. Somehow, the notion feels even more tantalizingly realistic when hearing you say it. Alas, the possibility exists only in the world of engine swaps for now and, I fear, the indefinite future :(
There seem to be a lot of these common-sense type solutions kicking around that plenty of automakers have been picking up as of late. I mean, good god, just look at Ford, Hyundai, or even Toyota with the bold-move FRS/BRZ platform and even a looming collaboration with BMW. If you can’t beat ’em, coerce ’em into helping you build something that doesn’t suck. At least they’re doing <b>something</b> to inject some vitality into the brand.
Honda, on the other hand, seems to be sitting on their hands. The Acura brand is a great example. It has made money for them in the past, but now it withers on the vine with more than one of their models falling seriously short of sales projections in recent years. The cars have good tech, Honda’s SH-AWD drivetrain is among the best in the business. Yet somehow the final package they’ve been putting together has been falling short. The RLX is, objectively, a perfectly decent sedan in its price range, but <b>nobody</b> has bought the thing.
It seems to come back to Honda’s corporate culture. They just don’t do U-turns. They’ve been incredibly dedicated to the parrot-face family-resemblance front grille. Nobody likes it. Nobody <i>ever</i> liked it, but that doesn’t matter to them. This is what they planned and they’re doing it, period. Over at Toyota, Akio Toyoda has been wreaking havoc, changing all manner of product plans. So far, his efforts appear to have yielded entirely positive results. They’ve gained hugely renewed consumer interest in the brand and yet none of their “core customers” are abandoning their 2014 Camry buying plans just because Akio has pushed to build a few interesting cars. All is well for them. Sadly, it seems such is not the case over at Honda.
I deeply want to continue being a Honda fan. Some of my greatest automotive experiences have occurred in or around one of their cars. However, hardly anything in their 2014 lineup sparks my interest. I’d <i>love</i> to be driving a Honda, but I recently scooped of a ’10 Hyundai Genesis Coupe fresh off a trade-in instead. Powerful V6 engine, 6 speed manual, RWD, and all for way less than $20K even though the thing still had 30K miles of warranty left on it.
And the thing that really irritates me is how much better my car would be if it were a Honda. Honda could *easily* build a car just like the Genesis Coupe. Only if Honda made it, its engine would be more powerful, more fuel efficient, and more refined. Its interior would be made up of much higher quality materials to make a more quiet and comfortable cabin. The gearshift would be a nearly-orgasmic joy to operate rather than merely adequate. It wouldn’t have such an absurdly small amount of front bump travel. Its handling would be snappy, agile, and precise. Its ride quality would be supple with perfect damping. Its steering would feel tingly and wonderful and perfectly weighted.
Alas, it would have been $6K-8K more expensive and-OMG I WOULD NOT HAVE CARED! <i>AT! ALL!</i> I would <i>so</i> prefer to own a Honda-built version of my Genesis Coupe.
Honda! Hooondaaa! Please! Please just build *one* proper enthusiast’s car?! With no hybridized whatever? Just wheels and a meaty engine and some seats and perfectly ergonomic controls and every other exquisite, driver-focused quality that we all *know* you can build into a car.
Aaron Severson has penned an ode, yet another lovingly detailed history of an incredible strain of automobile. It is truly baffling to read it to its end and then consider what Honda’s product tree looks like right now. What a shame.
It should be said that however much the recent Civic and Accord models have been lambasted by the enthusiast press, both have been selling quite well in the U.S., so they seem to be going over okay with consumers.
As for the hybrids, the last time I checked, the Prius was by a healthy margin the bestselling car in Japan by a substantial margin and it and the Aqua (the car sold here as the Prius C) account for a substantial portion of ALL cars sold in Japan right now. By contrast, Honda has had a lot of difficulty carving out a piece of that market; Toyota has really branded itself as the hybrid company at this point, which has left Honda trying to maneuver around them.
Also, Honda today is in a very different position than it was when the original CRX was developed. Back then, Honda was just barely edging out Mazda for fourth place in Japan during a period when the Japanese economy was really starting to boom and the auto industry (after some sluggish years in the mid-seventies) was taking off. Those are the kind of conditions that seem to inspired companies to produce their best products — periods in which there’s obviously money to be made (and thus more incentive to take expensive chances), but where the company isn’t so far out in front that they second-guess themselves to death try to hang onto their established market share.
Today, Honda is I think still No. 2 in the Japanese industry, having displaced Nissan, and one of the top-selling automotive brands in the U.S., but the Japanese economy has been rocky for some time — the earthquake certainly didn’t help — and the auto industry in general is in a weird and uneasy place for everyone but the high-end German brands. Those are the sort of conditions that discourage companies from taking chances; there’s a lot to lose and not necessarily a lot to gain.
When I first heard of it, I was really hoping that the Scion iQ was going to pick up where the CRX left off…tiny, nimble, quirky, efficient, and unapologetic about styling. Sadly, it appears to have been a flop in the U.S. at least.
So what is the CRX’s closest successor? The MINI products are a little too form-over-function, the MX-5 is too expensive, we (U.S.) got the wrong Smart, the MR2 Spyder was apparently not as fun as it looks, etc.
I’m calling out the Mazda2…and the Fit, of course.
Well, neither the Fit or Mazda2 is really the same sort of car. The Fit/Jazz is in size and purpose basically a cleverer, modernized version of the EA Civic Shuttle/Wagon five-door. (The Fit is about 3.5 inches shorter, but 2 inches wider and about an inch and a half taller.) The 2/Demio is a supermini like the Fiesta that shares its platform. Neither the Fit nor the 2 is particularly sporty — which is not to say they’re bad to drive because they’re not, but being fun to drive is really not their primary mission.
Of the various smaller hot hatches, I would say the closest direct comparison is probably the Suzuki Swift Sport three-door, not sold here. If you want to be technical, it’s closer to the EA Civic Si than the CRX, but the Swift Sport is about as close to a “back to basics” small sporty car as you’ll find these days.
I’d like to know why Honda was able to make money offering such a wide range of Civic variations back in the ’80’s. Heck, they even offered 3 versions of the CRX (CRX, CRXhf and CRXsi). Plus the Civic hatch, the 4-door Civic and the Civic Wagon.
Now it’s 2-door, 4-door or hit the highway.
Same with most of all the other car companies.
Back in the ’60’s you could get a full-size Chevy in 4-door sedan, 4-door hardtop, 2-door sedan, 2-door hardtop, station wagon and convertible. Most if not all in Caprice, Impala, Biscayne and 210 variants.
Maybe the car companies would sell some more cars if they gave us some choice.
Well, Honda does offer a Civic hatchback and a wagon/MPV (the Stream), just not in the U.S. Conversely, the Civic three-box sedan and two-door coupe aren’t sold in Europe. In both cases, the reason is that in the past three generations or so, interest in hatchbacks and small wagons in the U.S. has been minimal, while European buyers have a similar feeling about notchback sedans and coupes.
I remember my CRX HF. I was very unemployed and budget pressure for quiete a while and I remember how great my Honda was. A buck or two per week for fuel and it will take me anywhere. I even think it got me to up 70 miles per gallon in some instances. A great small car besides very spacious in the back. Yeah! very slow on the take off but once on the road it felt like a roller skates. I wish Honda will bring this one back.
Great article (you keep spoiling us, Aaron!). I owned a ’77 Civic CVCC and an ’85 CRX and the CRX was such a quantum leap over the Civic. Maybe that’s not a fair comparison given eight years of progress separating them, but the ’77 was such a piece of crap I swore I’d never own another Honda, so when I broke that rule and bought the CRX it was so good it more than evened the score. I figured I’d quit while I was ahead and have yet to buy another Honda (as if I could even afford a new(er) one…
I had a 90 Si with a b16 and IHE, brake upgrades.
at 50 years old I had a fast! fun, and reliable car that I drove every day.
God, the fun I had with that car…
Purchased a new 1987 CRX-Si in July of ’87, last of the original generation. Loved the way it drove. Installed a Jackson Racing suspension kit on the car and it handled like it was on rails.
The first and second generation CRX cars were some of the best handling of all time. Light weight, great handling and excellent power to weight ratio for their day made these car instant classics.
Great article! Well written and probably the only one so far which captures the fact the CR-X Ballade Sports started its existence in 1983… Although the first month of production was May 1983 (not late 1983 as written). Chassis numbers started as AF1
The 1.6l DOHC CR-X did come out in 1984 but again as a Ballade Sports with the chassis number AS100 whilst the Si model on 1986 had the chassis number AS110.
To the author: I own a 1983 cr-x ballade sports which was early build number 29 and also a 1.6 1984
Ballade sports with the chassis AS100. I also have a parts book which shows the models if you’d like that for reference. Thanks.
By introduction, I’m referring to the public announcement rather than the start of production, which for obvious reasons would have been somewhat earlier. Honda announced the new model on 23 June 1983 and according to their press release, the car went on sale through Honda Verno stores on the first day of July.
I didn’t mean to imply that the JDM Si was not still a Ballade Sports CR-X, which it was (as can be seen by the identification on the back of the black car), and have amended the text a bit to make that clearer. The main issue was that it can get tricky to describe cars sold in distinct versions under different names without making the text very cumbersome…
<cite>The factory estimated a top speed of 124 mph (200 km/h) for the 1.5i, which was wildly optimistic</cite>
I have an ’84 1.5 I purchased new from a dealer in AZ. The best I ever got out of it was 105. 124 is is wildly optimistic.
The factory figure was for the more powerful Japanese-market injected engine. The car you had was the less-powerful carbureted U.S. 1.5; I don’t know if Honda ever released estimated figures for that version, although your 105 mph result is quite consistent with the independent U.S. tests.
Either way, 124 mph was optimistic. The JDM 1.5i had probably just about the same net output as the later U.S. CRX Si (i.e., about 92 hp SAE net), which didn’t get close to that speed without aftermarket help. Even the European injected cars, which were almost certainly more powerful than the JDM version (no catalytic converter or EGR), couldn’t manage 120 mph in independent tests, much less 124.
The photo of the S800 brought a tear! I owned an S600 Coupe (essentially the same car as the S800) and drove it for 18 years in and around Vancouver. With its 9500 RPM red line, what a hoot that car was! Still have the original (and incredibly detailed) shop manual for the S600, as well as one for the S800.
THANKS for writing such a thorough and interesting history of the CRX! I truly enjoyed it!
My sister’s first car (in ’88) was a very gently-used ’85 CRX (1.5) with only 34k miles on it. It was red with an after-market pop-up sunroof and oh-so-80s rear-window louvers that rattled constantly. Questionable accessories aside, it was still a blast to drive. Just a few weeks later, her best friend got a dark blue ’85 model, but with the dreadful 3-speed automatic.
In 1990, shortly before I turned 16, my sister graduated high school and my dad bought her an ’86 Nissan 300ZX from a friend. Even though I always loved her ’85 CRX, I wasn’t thrilled to get my big sister’s hand-me-downs. But if I didn’t take the CRX, it was very likely that I’d be getting my mom’s ’77 Cutlass Supreme….so I took the CRX! =)
Four months later, I lost control in a curve and put it into the guard rail at 70mph+. I walked away with just a few bumps and bruises, but the CRX wasn’t so lucky. I replaced it with a white ’86 CRX Si and kept it for almost two years, until I graduated high school in 01/1993.
I went thru a series of Integras, Accords, a Prelude and even a Legend over the years. In 1999, when my daily driver was a ’94 Legend GS, I ran across a deal on a black ’90 CRX Si that I couldn’t pass up. It was pretty tired with just over 200k miles on the clock, but it was still fun for to play with for a couple of years until the head gasket blew.
For the record, I hated the del Sol, but the current CR-Z could have some potential! Screw the hybrid crap, borrow the powertrain from the Civic Si and I’ll be first in line to buy one!
I suspect the CR-Z won’t be around much longer. I saw news the other day that the Insight on which it’s based has ceased production, and since CR-Z sales have never been great, I have to assume there isn’t a strong business case for continuing the CR-Z much longer. If it had become a cult favorite, keeping it might make sense as a goodwill-building gesture, but the people who might have made the CR-Z that kind of success have largely turned up their noses at it.
Excellent article. I owned an 87 CRX DX for a few years and still own a 1997 Del Sol VTEC (bought new, but sadly the rust belt is about to claim another victim), but noticed you claimed the suspension didn’t change between the second generation CRX and the Del Sol. The Del Sol inherited the same suspension used in the same generation Civics (which is why most of the parts I’ve been buying lately are Civic parts), which is a true double wishbone up front and a trailing arm multilink arrangement in the rear. It is a funny looking double wishbone, I’ll grant you, with the two wishbones connected by an extended hub (Honda calls it a knuckle). There are some exploded parts diagrams of the suspension on OEM parts sites if you want to verify my statement (assuming Majestic Honda hasn’t yanked the Del Sol from their online parts catalog). I’ve been toying with the idea of replacing the Sol with a CRZ but for some reason the insurance rates for one in my neck of the woods are outrageous – I can insure a Pontiac Solstice GXP for less. Now if only I could afford the GXP… and the maintenance…
I wasn’t trying to imply that suspensions were identical or interchangeable, but that they were substantially similar in layout. However, you’re quite right about the lower wishbone change — I’d missed that when I was looking at the itty-bitty diagrams in the del Sol press kit. One could argue (as I imagine Honda engineers would have) that a wishbone formed by two links is still functionally a wishbone; it sort of comes down to how picky you want to be. In any case, I’ve amended the text on that and to better describe the extended steering knuckles, which are shared by both generations.
Agreed, though I think they’d need to be really picky indeed to argue that a lower control arm that consists of two pieces bolted together and attached to a single ball joint at the bottom of the knuckle isn’t a wishbone. It could have just as easily been a solid piece (indeed, some aftermarket arms did just that) with two horizontal pivot mounts on the car side connecting to a ball joint on the knuckle side. I don’t fault you for scratching your head at the diagrams, I just stared at one now and had to puzzle through what was what, and I’ve held the arms in my hands before. The steering tie rods almost look like they should be a load bearing piece. And I’m sorry, I didnt mean to infer that they would be interchangeable either, just that the design had changed between 88-91 and 92-95. Thanks again for the informative article. Oh, and if you haven’t read “The Honda Myth” before I can’t recommend it more highly… It’s a really compelling story about Honda’s history.
My dilemma with the diagrams was that I originally looked only at the del Sol press kit, which has only one very small image of the front suspension — and that from an angle where the lower wishbone is completely hidden behind the knuckle. I went back and looked up the press kit for the Civic line, which had a more complete set of illustrations from several angles. (I assume since the del Sol followed on the heels of the other Civics, Honda didn’t see the need to belabor the point.)
It’s sort of interesting that they went back to a solid lower wishbone. A lot of times automakers go the other direction, principally because creating a “wishbone” of several links gives you more flexibility in tailoring bushing compliance in different directions. I suppose it might have been a cost-saving thing, since by that point the Japanese economy was a mess and Honda was fighting to hold the line on export prices. It might also have just been an about-face in terms of philosophy for any number of reasons — I really don’t know.
I have read the Masaaki Sato book, which was fascinating. There was a lot of stuff about Honda’s early history I really hadn’t known and it gave me a new perspective on some things, like the proposed auto industry consolidation that prompted Honda (and Mazda) to get into the passenger car business in the first place.
I remember when the CRX first debuted here in North America. I was 10 yrs old at the time, and I thought it was the ugliest thing Honda had produced. I thought the Civic was better looking than the CRX. As time went on, I saw it as more of a cute little runabout for a single person to commute to and from work, or a couple who only needs one car. I like it more than the more recent Honda CRZ.
Hi, excellent article as always. From a European perspective I would like to add that the CRX (certainly the first generation) is conceptually and stylistically similar to the Alfa Romeo Sprint, based on the Alfasud. Certainly the second generation Sprint is very similar to the first generation CRX. At the time, the CRX was considered something of a spiritual successor to the Sprint, much like the MX5 is considered a spiritual successor to many British roadsters. The main difference being, of course, that in the Japanese reinterpretations of these concepts, you actually stood a pretty good chance of completing your journey without ending up by the wayside with a smoking car.
There are famous stories about the Alfasud and its (even by Italian standards) terrible reliability: its factory was an attempt at economically developing southern Italy (the Mezzogiorno), but the workers were accustomed to agricultural labour instead of industrial labour and often went on strike while the unpainted bodyworks of new cars rusted outside – before they even made it to the showroom… These bodies were then gingerly used to build new cars whenever the strike was (momentarily) resolved.
I would grant that the ‘sud Sprint is the sort of car Honda’s R&D people would probably have examined and would likely have appreciated from a dynamic perspective, although I don’t see a stylistic resemblance beyond a certain stubbiness and the cropped Kamm tail, which of course is an aerodynamic feature that predated both cars. (Kamm-effect tails are very common on small cars because it’s challenging to achieve even a quasi-teardrop shape that still has room for human occupants.) The Sprint to my eyes looks more like the Mk1 Scirocco — as I recall, Giugiaro did both — and I don’t see much of either in the Honda except insofar as the Scirocco, the Sprint, and the CRX were all coupes based on cut-down C-segment family cars. In that line, there’s also the Peugeot 104 coupe, which I mentioned in a separate article. Again, I assume Honda R&D was cognizant of all of these, but there’s no one precedent that screams of being an obvious conceptual inspiration.
As I study more about the Japanese auto industry, I become increasingly frustrated with the Western assumption that everything Japanese is a copy or knockoff, superior or not, of some European or American original. There are of course cases where that was true, but the U.S. industry did its share of borrowing, particularly stylistically, and yet for all the bad things European or British critics have said about Detroit (gaudy, vulgar, uncultured — choose your epithet), one seldom hears similar accusations made of American cars, even the ones that have been consciously and sometimes clumsily patterned after Japanese or German models. Nissan did of course build Austins under license once, but then so did BMW. In any case, if one wants to point out that the Datsun 240Z looks like the adolescent result of a late-night liaison between a SII E-type and a Ferrari 275GTB/4, or that the first Lexus LS400 bore a more than passing resemblance to a W126 S-Class, I won’t argue, but the notion that all Japanese cars are somehow categorically a reinterpretation of some European concept is awfully reductive.
The Alfasud is a fascinating car and an interesting story of its own that to tell properly would require a more nuanced grasp of Italian labor issues in the ’60s and ’70s than I presently can claim. The ‘sud was a political response to the enormous northerly migration that had been taking place in Italy since the late ’50s, which in U.S. terms was loosely comparable to the combined population of Kentucky, South Carolina, and West Virginia showing up in the greater New York area within the space of about a decade, looking for work, housing, and schools. As with many other politically driven efforts to establish industrial sites in economically depressed areas, the Alfasud project underestimated the considerable logistical and organizational problems of building a factory far from a nation’s existing industrial base and infrastructure. There’s probably a good book to be written about the whole affair, although it would be a worthy thesis project for some graduate student in labor history, industrial relations, or business administration.
Excellent points, and I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the CRX was a knockoff. In fact, I was at a car spotting age when it came out and recall the general consensus being that people were happy that at least <em>somebody</em> cared enough about the concept to develop such a car, as Europe’s car industry – and certainly anything owned by Fiat – fell into a lethargy concerning specialty cars, instead betting the house on hot hatches. With quite some success, it must be said. The CRX made sure that, together with the VW GTI’s, Honda usurped much of the classy, affordable and sporty image that Alfa once owned – at least in Europe. That was the point I tried to convey: both the CRX a and the MX5 are continuations of concepts that European manufacturers no longer cared about, often markedly improved. That doesn’t make them knockoffs but rather like chapters in a continuing story that many people (including me) are very grateful for, since it provides much extra color to an automotive world that tends toward beige.
To continue on your assessment of the Japanese car industry, I haven’t your depth of knowledge, but I always believed that Honda found its distinctive style in the early eighties – the generation before the CRX, in fact my dad owned a 2nd gen Civic and I have fond memories of it, if not of the interior space it provided. A style that has waxed and waned through the years (I’m sure you’re aware that European Civics of recent vintage are considerably more “daring” than those for other continents, with decidedly mixed results). Other Japanese marquee were not far behind, if at all. Of course, we didn’t get the Datsun 510 in Europe, so the CRX a was probably one of the first Japanese cars to get an emotional reaction in our neck of the woods.
Functionally, I think what happened to the European specialty car market was that cars like the Golf GTI demonstrated that automakers could snare most if not all of the same buyers and create a comparable fan base with a much more modest tooling investment. The eternal struggle with specialty cars is that even if you have a bone-stock chassis and running gear, the body costs as much to tool as a family car’s, the resulting product sells in smaller numbers, and it can easily price itself out of the market if the price is too high. That’s why you ended up with cars like the Mk3 Capri and late MGB, which sold well enough to keep them alive with an occasional de minimis warming-over, but not well enough to bother redesigning or creating from scratch. The hot hatch is a much less risky bet because unless you’re doing something REALLY extreme (e.g., the ’90s Escort Cosworth), the tooling costs are modest.
The Japanese eventually ran into a similar problem a decade or so later, after the bubble burst, which was compounded by the weak dollar driving up exchange rates and prices for U.S. exports. In the ’80s, the home market was healthy enough to absorb a variety of interesting indulgences not sold elsewhere (including a surprising fad for four-door hardtops, which will be covered in an upcoming story), but the Japanese market sagged in the ’90s and never really perked up in any sustained way. (Looking at JDM new car sales by model now is rather sobering.) So, the only really unique models the home market can support by itself are not sporty specialty cars, but minicars, which are sustained by a series of regulatory loopholes that don’t exist in the U.S. or E.U.
I think the Japanese automakers in Europe are suffering from an unfortunate catch-22: to capture European buyers’ respect, the Japanese really need products that are more specifically tailored to European tastes, but existing and past efforts in that direction have had very mixed results, as you say, and such dubious prospects don’t exactly encourage companies to make a big additional investment!
I know the 510 Bluebird was sold in some European markets, if not the U.K. I say this because not long ago I was looking through some old Norwegian brochures for it! Export strategies are sometimes a little mystifying.
The 510 Bluebird was sold in the UK as the Datsun 1400 or 1600, depending on engine displacement. Of course, we got only the 1600 engine in the States.
Thanks! I knew some later Bluebirds were sold in the U.K. (even retaining the Bluebird name, in some cases), but I wasn’t positive about the 510 generation.
“The initial price for the CR-X Si was ¥1,503,000 (about $6,300), roughly £200,000 (about $850) more than a CR-X 1.5i.”
Boy, the Pound really took a beating in the ’80s, didn’t it? ;)
Oops! Yes, that would be some pretty serious markup. Luckily, it was just a typo and easily fixed.
This article is freaking deep. Excellent work!! Definitely gonna keep on browsing through this site.
I’m a bit late to the party but I have a 84 with a weber carborated 1.3 anyways my question is regarding the aftermarket digital dashboard. I was wondering where one might go about finding one.
I’m afraid I can’t help with parts or modifications — I haven’t the foggiest. I suppose it might be possible to mail-order the pieces for the JDM digital dash, but I really don’t know how available something like that might be at this late date.
i have a 85 and one 87 (soch 101hp/dohc 130bhp) but pretty much everything on these cars are hard or impossible to come by so take care of that old girl ;D
I can imagine. I once had a third-generation Prelude that at that time was approaching the end of its factory parts availability window. (It wasn’t past it, but it was getting there.) Even then, parts took quite a while to arrive and were always sourced from one specific warehouse, which I once joked to my mechanic must have been located somewhere deep in the Andes, accessible only by burro.
I don’t think that’s a problem specific to these cars or to Honda, but rather endemic to moderately priced economy and family cars that are typically driven to death and discarded rather than preserved.
Hi. In the article, you wrote that the claimed drag coefficient for del Sol SiR/VTi was 0.40. Can you tell me, what is the source of this information? I was browsing, trying to find del Sol’s drag coefficient and depending on site, it was said that it is either: 0.35, 0.35-37 or 0.42, so there are some significant differences between these values. I’m currently looking into del Sol’s aerodynamics, and it would be very interesting for me to have a reliable reference value of drag coefficient for a stock del Sol.
The 0.40 Cd figure came out of the specifications in a CAR Giant Test in July 1992. The Japanese press kit’s otherwise comprehensive specifications don’t quote a Cd — curious, since they did for both the two previous generations — nor do any of the brochures I’ve checked. U.S. brochures brag about the aerodynamics, but also decline to state a figure. Judging by what the manufacturer data DOES say, it appears the priorities were minimizing lift and top-off turbulence rather than reducing drag.
It’s entirely possible that the 0.40 Cd figure is an average value, since with a car like the del Sol, the aerodynamics would naturally differ depending on whether the roof panel is on or off; the average of 0.37 and 0.42 would be 0.395, which one might round up to 0.40. Looking at the car, 0.37 for the wide-tired SiR/VTi/VTEC with the roof in place and 0.42 with it off sounds reasonable, with the 0.35 perhaps applying to a buttoned-up base car with narrower tires. I’m afraid I don’t have anything more authoritative than that, though!
Thanks a lot for the reply and your efforts to find out the answer, I really appreciate it!
No problem. I was curious about it myself — the press info for the first generation included not only Cd, but CdA figures; the second generation had Cd and not CdA; the del Sol listed neither. It’s hard not to assume that the reason the figures were omitted was that they didn’t look terribly impressive.
I think that these figures look OK when you compare them with similar type of cars (open roof). However, in comparison with the 2nd generation CRX, they do look pretty bad, and I agree that they wouldn’t be a good selling point.
On the other hand, second generation supposed to have a better Cd and CdA than the first one, so there was no reason to conceal CdA there. Maybe, at some point they also changed their policy about the data that could be released to the press.
Frontal area isn’t all that common in official specifications, admittedly, and including a single figure for models with different combinations of features that would affect the total raises some questions about how it’s calculated. (Ditto Cd, but that’s another can of worms.) I doubt it was a policy decision so much as whoever on the product team was responsible for putting together information to hand off to the communications office either not having those figures handy or not including them for whatever reason. Honda had fairly recently gotten some flack, at least from the American press, for the CB Accord being less aerodynamic than the CA in the interests of a more upscale, conservative look, so it’s possible some senior engineers were touchy about that — I really don’t know.
As far as the CRX goes, my strong suspicion is that the 2nd-generation car’s CdA was either unchanged or a bit worse than before. The Cd was lower, but with the increased width (by 50mm, not insignificant), the frontal area was certainly greater, and I don’t think the Cd was enough lower to compensate. Looking at European tests of the first- and second-generation 1.6i-16, with the twin-cam ZC engine, there’s no improvement at all in 0-100 mph acceleration or top speed, which doesn’t suggest a net aerodynamic improvement considering that the gearing and power were about the same. (With the ZC, the second-generation uncatalyzed cars had a bit more power, but I wouldn’t expect 5 PS to make a noticeable difference at speeds over 120 mph.)