38 replies to this topic

[Lord_ZED]

I got 44mpg once (about 5.3 l/100km). I did 100 km whit averge speed 90km/h at 5 gear. I still can't belive it.

[xThexHeadx]

What were you doing in Denver? (let alone Casper...)

Kirk

I live in Casper

I made a trip down to Denver to get some parts from my old '94 hatch. Mainly the stereo system and the HX rims

[Ryland]

Yes.

The HF was sold and marketed as the 'high mileage' champ.  The DX and later Si were the 'performance' cars.

The HF was engineered with tradeoffs for better mileage, giving up performance.

First - it had a 1300cc motor instead of 1500cc like the DX and Si. 

Second - it had taller, skinny tires for lower rolling resistance.

Third - it had a taller final drive and 4 speeds instead of 5 to reduce tranny weight and cut mechanical (friction) losses.

Fourth - it had solid front rotors and aluminum rear drums to reduce unsprung weight.

Fifth - It had a lighter rear axle, no rear sway bar and no passenger mirror to save weight and reduce aero drag.

There are probably other minor details.

my 87 HF was a 1.5L with 5-speed.

and there are MANY others.

HF pistons have 2 rings (1 compression, 1 oil - lower friction).
HF has thinner, lighter rods.
HF has roller rockers.
CVCC (duh)

i am sure there are others i can't think of right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It also has:
Aluminum air filter pan insted of steal.
1.5L engine has the same exaust header as the 1.3 so it doesn't have an air pump to the Cat, no O2 sensor
plastic valve cover, as was already stated (rather light, bolts around the edge, insted of those two studs in the center)
alot of the weight saving is in the engine compartment, so if you get an HF thinking that you can keep that saved weight with a Teg engine, you might be sadly mistaken.
And I'm not sure what years had roller rockers... but my '85 didn't seem to when I adjusted the rocker clearance... would be sweet, but it's not there.

[rextec]

i got 50mpg, not once but twice freeway driving in my b18b1 powered 2g crx with jdm sir tranny!!! i could NOT believe it. it just doesnt make any sense but i did do it twice and i was driving somewhat conservativley.

[3gencivic]

my city for the civics are 22-29 the highway is diff on the cars.

1500S without carb mod gets 30-45 depending on how i drive
1500S with carb mod gets 40-56 again depending on driving
yes thats right it was the mission race meet i got 56 with the carb mod

the si only one run on highway so far and didnt get a reading.

[viper]

The best I ever got with my Si was 39mpg on the highway, some bumper to bumper, mostly 70-75 (and sometimes faster). Normal driving I get 28-32. It doesn't seem to matter how I drive it.

[OVNi_CIVIC]

I just got back from a 2200 mile trip in my crx and averaged 47 mpg

[Drazon]

My '87 CRX Si doesn't seem to get as high of milage in the winter. It doesn't have any A/C. The gas gauge isn't very accurate once I get down to 1/8 of a tank, and it didn't used to do that. Before I put 17x7 wheels (slightly heavier than the stock alloys) with 205/40 series tires, I was getting about 320-350 miles per tank (about 10 gallons based on refueling) The new wheels/tires haven't really altered that figure. With those tires every 100 miles is actually 104.5 miles as its throwing off the speedo and odometer/tripmeter.

Maybe she needs a valve tune up because I used to get an almost solid 40mpg several years ago. The ECU isn't showing any codes.

Edited by Drazon, 11 February 2005 - 10:19 PM.

[87MugenProCR-X]

my city for the civics are 22-29 the highway is diff on the cars.

1500S without carb mod gets 30-45 depending on how i drive
1500S with carb mod gets 40-56 again depending on driving
yes thats right it was the mission race meet i got 56 with the carb mod

the si only one run on highway so far and didnt get a reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which carb mod are you talking about? The modification the secondaries? I always thought that would lower your mpg. Could you give me some more info. Thats interesting.

Julian