CRX vs Smart

There is enough talk across several threads, so why not an article?

Find a bone stock CRX and pit it against a Smart. 0-60, autocross test, real-world MPG, utility (how much crap can you fit in it), cost of ownership, features, safety, etc.

The standard response to something about the Smart is usually "they did that 20 years ago, and did it better", so let us see if that statement holds up.

I'd bet a nickel that even with the B16 swap, David's CRX project would beat a Smart in all of those categories. I bet a bone stock CRX Si would do the same with a similar margin; what it lost in 0-60 it would gain in economy.

The Smart might be safer, though. I don't think David would approve of the test procedures anyhow.

The problem is automakers can't make a car like the CRX anymore. They need to put all the impact beams, airbags, ABS and other crap to save us from imminent doom. Of course more lives could be saved by actually TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO DRIVE......but hey, that would make sense.

My guess is the CRX would wax the Smart in all the performance catagories, but the Smart would be much, much safer, and probably has nicer materials inside.

I am pretty sure there is no way an Si would beat a Smart in a mileage competition. The Si's were pretty good at MPG, but not that good. The HF of course would be a bit different, not sure how it would stack up performance wise though.

It would be an interesting article though. Compare the Smart to the HF. Then as a follow up, swap a latter VX motor into the HF, do some suspension work and add some safety (retractable harness etc) and see what you end up with (cost / performance / economy wise)

I had a crx si.. Good luck getting above 33-35mpg. There was little rpm drop from 5th to 4th.

I should have kept that car............... I really should have.

Really? I used to regularly see 40+ mpg with my 91 Si on the highway, and it had an intake, header and exhaust. I don't know of the top of my head what they were rated, but it was the most frugal car to operate that I've ever owned.
I should have kept mine, too.

It would be an interesting article though. Compare the Smart to the HF. Then as a follow up, swap a latter VX motor into the HF, do some suspension work and add some safety (retractable harness etc) and see what you end up with (cost / performance / economy wise)

I actually considered this for my 86 hatch. NAD in atlanta has a complete VX motor for $300-$400. Funny. I brought this up in the "Smart" thread and got a bunch of "Oh yeah, and I'm sure you look real cool in your 86 Honda-" type responses.

I love comparison articles, and this would be cool.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=7473

thats all I'm saying.. 40mpg out of an Si is tough...........

I must have been very lucky or had a lot of speedometer/odometer error. I used to run from Patuxent River NAS in Maryland to Rochester NY once or twice a month and remember clicking off 40+ every time. It's very highway intensive, but still...I surprised my results weren't closer to normal. Maybe I had a special CVCC commemorative cylinder head.

The independent review at fueleconomy.gov got 37.8, which is in the ballpark at least. If I had gotten 24 mpg at any time (except on track) I'd be bummed.

ohh no.. not another rochester guy..

I got 35mpg with mine, best I could do.. It was ragged out and burning oil....

To compensate for all of the safety factors, you would have to give them equal power to weight ratios. I agree that all the "protection" imposed on vehicles has simply made them heavier and less efficient.

The only other factor would be emissions. The standards for a CRX were more lenient than the ones for the Smart. The CRX would have to, at least, pass California emissions to be close to the Smart.

-Rob

I've been amazed at what conservative driving can do. I can coast in neutral an average of 16.8 miles per round trip from home to work (out of an 80 mile round trip commute.) I do the "right turn, u-turn, right turn" at red lights, and generally don't shift above 3,000 RPM. All of these things combined have gotten me a little less than 5 extra MPG, as well as something to entertain me on the long commute.

rob_lewis wrote: To compensate for all of the safety factors, you would have to give them equal power to weight ratios. I agree that all the "protection" imposed on vehicles has simply made them heavier and less efficient. The only other factor would be emissions. The standards for a CRX were more lenient than the ones for the Smart. The CRX would have to, at least, pass California emissions to be close to the Smart. -Rob

I am not sure you would want to go this far, I think at the heart of it it would still be an old car vs. new car comparison so there is not sense making them perfectly on par. I don't think this should be a "can we build the car today" kind of thing, more of a "what can I do with old stuff that meets or beats the new stuff" kind of thing.

I think updating the safety a bit is reasonable though, since that is one of the primary reason someone might not want to drive an older car (besides the conversion work involved of course).

My 1994 Civic CX with the 1.5L 16 valve motor makes 105hp, runs the quarter in 16.5 seconds, and gets 40US mpg on the highway cruising ay 70mph with 4 somewhat comfortably sitting in it.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm The smart coupe gets 33USMPG city, and 41USMPG highway (AND requires premium). My civic has been "recalculated" to this years standards at 29/36 but the original is 34/40 which is about what I get. And the VX Civic hatch of the same year gets a recalculated 37/45 with the same power as my Civic, or 44/51 with the original estimates.

There is nothing at all special about the Smart except a statement. The diesel model is MUCH more worthwile an endevour, but a diesel VW golf gets the same mileage anyways so whats the point? The fact is that manufacturers do have the technology to give us better gas mileage then they are. There is NO REASON that the Honda Fit cannot have the old VX motor in it and get 40mpg in the city IMO.

ignorant wrote: ohh no.. not another rochester guy..

I've recovered nicely. I left all of my snow shovels up north.

HiTempguy wrote: There is nothing at all special about the Smart except a statement.

actually I think the size is a plus. Being able to park perpandicular to the curb would be sweet in a big city.

How about this comparison?

With a fresh motor and normal-sized tires, I have no problems getting 40mpg hwy. from my Si with bolt-ons.

One more important thing the CRX has over the Smart is that the CRX doesnt look like a tea-cozy with wheels. Call me old-fashioned, but I think cars look better when they are longer than they are tall.

I used to get 37 highway mpg out of my 95 ACR sedan, zero option car when driving between KY and Texas, so I would assume a CRX Si could muster at least 40mpg given the weight/engine size difference...

I get about 35 mpg out of my '86 CRX SI, but I bought it from a close friend who regularly got 40-42 mpg (yes, she logged it, yes, I've checked the logs, yes, the math was correct).

The difference is I've got a lead foot and she drives like a granny. I doubt she ever got it much past 3800 rpm, and I simply don't understand how you drive an SI like that.

My 1st generation CRX Si averaged 37 mpg as I recall.

And, it was probably the most flimsily made car I've ever owned. Lot of fun, but I'd fear for my life colliding with a woodchuck in it.

98 Neon R./T gets 33-35 and hauls a lot more than either above choice.

parker wrote: 98 Neon R./T gets 33-35 and hauls a lot more than either above choice.

Don't underestimate the power of a Honda hatch. As I believe GRM stated in their review of the fit, it has the magical ability to be have more space inside than it takes up outside...

With regard to Honda MPG, I know mine and a lot of others' civic speedos from the 92-95 era can overstate speed up to 10% or more, which would affect odometer readings and therefore MPG. That could turn 35 mpg into as high as 39. Just a small bit to complicate things further.

My old 1986 Civic Si got 33 in town and 44 on the highway. And it was quick, fun, had lots of room, and was reliable. Fantastic car.

Also, the speedomoter in my 1988 Suburban was 3% off, but the odomoter was 8% off (no typo). Don't assume you can correlate speedo error with odomoter error.

David