1982 Honda Civic FE
Created February 26, 2005, at 10:31 am by Anonymous
Hi,
I am often disappointed to see the new hybrid MPG ratings. My 82 Civic FE got 55 MPG on the highway on regular gas. Factor in 23 years of R and D, a world fuel crisis and a few holes in the ozone and it makes you wonder why Honda and everyone else arent producing 80 MPG cars right now.
I really miss that car.
Patrick
advertisement
Free Email Newsletter Sign-up
All the latest news in a free and engaging bundle. Totally free!
Hi Patrick,
I can only agree. Your observation is definitely a challenge to those who hold up the Prius or similar as the final word in efficiency. Granted, the Prius is a bit larger, but that doesn't explain away the 20 years. Let's see if someone on this board has a good response to this.
A quick google search reveals that the 1982 Civic had a whopping 67 horsepower. The EPA test doesn't care if it takes you 30 seconds to reach 45mph (where a large percentage of the highway test is) or another 30 seconds to go from 45 to 55mph where about half the highway test is run.
Also, good luck driving 55mph on any US highway!! The horrible aerodynamics of the 82 Civic means that it's fuel efficiency will drop like a rock at speeds above 50-55mph or so. Sadly, that's probably about as fast as you'd want to go anyway since it's built like a tin can and is basically a rolling deathtrap.
I owned a 1988 Civic, which is TWO generations after the 82. I considered that car incredibly unsafe, so I can't even imagine driving an 82 in modern times. I'd consider sky diving to be safer than driving an 82 Civic on today's roads.
To top it all off though, the 82 Civic was curburated and probably put out about 500 times as much polution as even the regular old 115hp Civic HX that you can buy at any dealer now, rated at 43mpg on the highway. The Civic Hybrid probably puts out as much polution in 100,000 miles as the 82 Civic did in 1000 miles.
With regards to the EPA test, check out this article:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/page.cfm?pageID=1474
Here's some snipets:
"The EPA highway cycle assumes an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph. Many state highway speed limits are set at or above 65 mph."
"Assuming very gentle acceleration and braking—the maximum acceleration rate in the EPA test cycles is 3.3 mph per second, about the same as going from zero to 60 mph in about 18 seconds. The average new car or truck can accelerate nearly twice as fast.7 While most consumers don’t use all the power in their vehicle, EPA data shows that people accelerate as fast as 15 mph per second, nearly 5 times the EPA tests."
Shoot, I hit enter on accident and submitted the post before I could put up the best quote:
"In the 1980s, the EPA acknowledged that fuel economy tests were flawed and developed a band-aid to compensate. As a result, EPA reduces fuel economy results by 10% in the city and 22% for the highway, and reports these “adjusted” values to consumers. For the typical vehicle, this cuts the combined city/highway fuel economy by about 15% below the test results."
What that means is that the 1982 Civic results were before they started applying the adjustment. The 1982 Civic was rated at 42/55. Using the 10% and 22% reductions, this means that to compare to a modern test score, the 82 Civic in all it's 67 horsepower rattletrap glory would be rated at 38/43. Guess what? The larger, safer, more comfortable, faster 2001-2005 Civic HX is rated at 36/43. What that tells me is that although cars are now far safer, faster, and more comfortable, they still get just as good gas mileage.
I can live with less acceleration and a smaller car. I still don't think that they are pushing the limits of conventional IC engines. I am so happy that hybrid tech is beginning to surface in the US mainstream over the last 5 or so years but wouldn't it be great if all the non-hybrid vehicles were getting twice their current MPG? I really don't remember the 82 Civic as being a rattletrap or dangerous except for its small size. In fact, I thought it handled quite nicely with its struts and rack and pinion steering. And my drumset still fit in the car with me. I was driving 35 to 45 K a year then.
PS: my next vehicle is a Dahon folding bike.
Well I owned my 88 Civic from 2000 to 2004, concurrent with the ownership of my 97 Civic. When you go directly back and forth from a modern economy car (if I can call an 8 year old Civic modern) and the 88, it really highlights the differences between old and new.
A lot of the time I feel like my 97 Civic rides great and is very solid, then I jump in my roommates 2004 Nissan 350Z and all of a sudden my 97 Civic feels like a flimsy piece of crap with no brakes. You kind of have to drive vehicles back to back to get the best perspective on their differences.
At any rate, the fact that Insight sales have dropped off to just 500 units sold in all of 2004 compared to 25,000 or 35,000 something Prius' sold should tell you a bit about how willing most consumers are to buy a car with 70 horsepower (the Insight has 73) even if it does get 70mpg. I commend Honda for still offering the Insight year after year, but you can't blame them if they stop offering it next year because there's virtually no buyers for it at all.
I thinkk the Insight VS. Prius sales war is being won by the Prius due to seating capacity. Honda's Hybrid Civic must be selling although I thought the HX made more sen$e at this time.
Does anyone know how long the battery units are supposed to last, how long are they under warranty and how much do they cost to replace?
Civics back in the 70's and 80's were strictly economy cars with very lightweight design. They had small engines and only weighed about 1800 pounds or so. They wouldn't sell today because they had horrible crash test ratings by today's standards.
A Honda Insight weighs about the same as these early Civics, and it gets about the same mileage and better performance. And they are actually safer than the older Civics and Corollas.
Volkswagen has a Lupo economy car, 4 seats, and it weighs about as much as the Insight. The diesel engine version can get about 80-90 miles per gallon on a highway. They are also aluminum bodied, just like the Insight, though they do have curtain airbags. They probably would not fare well in US crash test, though.
The original Civic also came out at a time when 55 mph was the norm. I see people driving 50 miles per hour on 35 mile per hour zones all the time now days, even faster on bigger roads. It used to be you didn't need a car with very good acceleration. Sometimes I wish we went back to those days.
On the topic of 80mpg cars, the Audi equivilent of the Lupo is the Audi A2 1.2 TDi, which is a "3 liter" car. Over in Germany that means it uses 3 liters per 100km driven, which is about 78mpg. That's with the official government test too. Many owners have been able to get the 80-90mpg like you're talking about. It's a VERY good looking car too!
http://www.autoworld.com/news/audi/a2-1.2.htm
With only a 0.25 drag coefficient, it's a very slippery shape, and it looks like a smaller version of the Prius. Being an Audi, I'm sure it's also very safe too. If I had a choice between the A2 or an Insight, I'd probably go for the A2.
Thanks for the helpful info. I can't wait for this "three litre" design to infect the US market.
as a owner new from the dealer of a calif 1982 honda FE i can say i drove it many times over 100 mph up and down the coast hwy enjoying 40 plus mpg and most often closer to 50 mpg i sold it with 145 mechanically maintained miles and it started and ran like a sewing machine
The Toyota Echo and Corolla get incredible fuel economy and are LEV's. I hate when people say that the hybrids get better fuel economy in the city than on the because of regenerative braking. Its the lower speeds that give better mileage, thermodynamics says that with conservation of energy, re-gnerative braking won't give back as much energy as if you simply maintained the same speed, albeit a slower city speed. My Uncle gave me an Oldsmobile stationwagon which is 20/29 MPG city/highway. I which I could drop in another GM powerplant and increase fuel economy. I hardly ever drive it. I walk, ride my bike and take public transit.
The Toyota Echo and Corolla get incredible fuel economy and are LEV's. I bet further work with those vehicle would go farther for cheaper. My fathers 2001 corolla goes farther on a tank of gas than I've ever experiencd. I hate when people say that the hybrids get better fuel economy in the city than on the highway and say that it is because of regenerative braking. Its the lower speeds that give better mileage. Due to the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy tells you that re-generative braking won't give back as much energy as if you simply maintained the same speed, albeit a slower city speed. My Uncle gave me an Oldsmobile stationwagon which is 20/29 MPG city/highway. I wish I could drop in another GM powerplant and increase fuel economy. I hardly ever drive it. I walk, ride my bike and take public transit.
Opps. I made many spelling mistakes in my original post. Could someone erase that one? Thanx :)
If you think the Audi is impressive, then how about a car that gets 235mpg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW_1-litre_car
If I could afford it, I'd buy this in a heartbeat/
"At any rate, the fact that Insight sales have dropped off to just 500 units sold in all of 2004 compared to 25,000 or 35,000 something Prius' sold should tell you a bit about how willing most consumers are to buy a car with 70 horsepower (the Insight has 73) even if it does get 70mpg. "
Well up here the new Smart two-seater is taking the country by storm. It has a small 799 cc direct-injection diesel engine that pumps out 40 hp.
It's rated for 4.6 l/100 km in the city, and 3.7 l/100 km on the highway (51 mpg city, 64 mpg highway).
You could argue that it serves exactly the same market at the Insight, but up here in Canada Insight sales are sluggish as well.
Price might be a factor: $26500 CDN for the Insight, $16700 for the Smart ForTwo. Either car is really only suitable as a commuter or around-town runabout. For $26500 you can get Jetta GLS TDI that is an economical family sedan.
Again I come to my main argument against hybrids: economics. Most middle-income families really want to save money. A $26500 two-seater won't accomplish that!
Mike
Well the world has certainly changed since these comments were made. I live in Marlborough, New Zealand and have just bought a used 1982 Civic with only 90,000 kms. I paid about $1,000 US for it. My wife and I are enviromentally conscious and tight with money, since wages in NZ are very low. If Honda wants to help the enviroment lower their damn prices. Gas prices here are at about $4.00 U.S. here now. The U.S. is in for a rude awakening in the near future, unless Bush gets off his butt and starts looking seriously at alternative fuels.
It has been proven that cars like the Echo, and any others get better gas mileage overall when you combine city and highway driving. I live in a small town, Blenheim and commute daily 25 kms, until they make them economical, it's just not worth it for poor people.
I am tired of hearing all of the bragging about the fuel efficiency (mpg) of the hybrids. I am a physicist and am very familiar with the law of conservation of energy. This means that the total energy output of any machine is equal to the total energy input. That energy output includes so called "wasted energy". This wasted energy is usually manifested as heat.
In the case of the hybrid, there is wasted energy in the following "machines":
Engine converts chemical to mechanical
Alternator converts mechanical to electrical
Batteries (charging) convert electrical to chemical
Batteries (discharging) convert chemical to elect.
Electric motor converts electrical to mechanical
These are five "machines", each having wasted energy.
In the case of the conventional automobile only the first of those five occurs: The engine converts chemical energy to mechanical energy. This means that there is LESS "lost energy" in the conventional automobile.
I contend that you could take a hybrid automobile and remove the roughly 70 kg. of alternator/batteries/electric motor (and control equipment) and have a vehicle that would have greater fuel efficiency (use the same, small engine that is in the hybrid). The reasons are (a) less wasted energy and (b) less mass of vehicle. The only thing that you would have to accept is that you would not have the high rate of acceleration of the hybrid because you would not be able to "borrow" energy from the batteries during the acceleration phase of the driving cycle. Once you get up to road speed, however, the fuel efficiency would be greater in the non-hybrid than in the hybrid. I do not mention regenerative braking because that has very little significance for the average type of highway driving.
Americans may soon have to "bite the bullet" and give up their "performance" expectations in favor of mileage results.
I had also intended to present one other negative aspect of the hybrid:
We are all familiar with the environmental problem caused by all of the worn out tires. What kind of environment disaster is in the offing when the "worn out" battery packs from the hybrids need to be disposed? Most of us are familiar with the service life of rechargeable "batteries". (I put batteries in quotes because what we have become accustomed to call "batteries" should really be called electical cells. A battery is defined as two or more cells connected to act as one unit.)
I had an 1983 Honda Civic 1300 FE with a 5 speed manual transmission and it was rated for 59MPG highway and forty something city. I bought it new. I don't think I ever got less than forty MPG and once we tested it at 55 mph (the speed limit then) on a road trip and got right at 60MPG. It was amazing how good the gas mileage was. As for power, it was lacking, but it went zero to 60 in about 16 seconds (nothing was that fast back then...even the sports cars). It was do 90 mph with no problem (except up a steep hill) and easily cruised at 70 mph. The acceleration did not drop off abruptly between 55 mpg and 70 mpg. It was a great car that I drove in college and out for a few years. I had over 100,000 miles on it and it never gave me any problem.
A lot of energy is wasted scrubbing the emissions of the newer cars. Additionally, the newer safety standards require the cars to be a lot heavier. This also reduces the gas mileage.
Hybrids are nice in that they aren't as badly affected by weight as pure Internal Combustion Engines and they allow for lower emissions as well.
Hello Folks:
I came upon this post due to its title and felt that it needed an infusion of actual facts. After reading Mr. Photosmith’s critique of the 1982 Honda Civic 1300FE, I am compelled to return to the original subject and add the following:
My experience with this particular vehicle goes beyond “a quick google search”. I purchased Civic 1300FE new in September 1982 and have driven it regularly ever since. It currently has well over 200,000 miles on the odometer. I am a mechanical engineer (PE) with a passion for automobiles and the design and history of I.C. engines.
Point A:
Photosmith derides this car for having a “whopping 67 horsepower.” He also says, “good luck driving 55 on any US highway… since it’s built like a tin can and is basically a rolling deathtrap.”
This is 67 horsepower in a car weighing 1795 lbs, resulting in a power to weight ratio of 26.8 lbs/hp. For a modern comparison, the 2007 Civic Hybrid has a power to weight ratio of 26.1 lbs/hp. The ’82 was no pedal car. Contemporary road tests resulted in 0-60 times of approximately 11.8 seconds. The 2007 Civic Hybrid tested by Car and Driver gave a 0-60 time of 10.8 (full charge), and 12.3 (part charge).
With only suspension and tire modifications, I have used my ’82 FE to compete in Autocross events on pavement and ice, and run TSD rallies with decent results. Currenty living on the Colorado Front Range, I have driven it (quickly) up Pikes Peak, Mt. Evans, and Trail Ridge Road – some of the most demanding roads in the country. By no means did this car ever delay a following vehicle. As for safety, the 1982 Honda was as safe, or safer, than any other car in its class at the time. One has to consider that in 1982 many of the cars that shared the road were of similar size. There were far fewer behemoths out there like the Ford Excretion, Cadillac Escalard, and myriad of Dually Diesels to deal with. For those of us who have owned or driven some of the other manufacturers’ cars of that time, the Civic was a revelation in handling and stability (even at 90 mph). Mine still is. I feel safe driving it to work the majority of days and on the odd occasion I’ll drive my ’87 Porsche.
Point B:
Photosmith states, “the 82 Civic was curburated and probably put out about 500 times as much pollution as even the regular old 115hp Civic HX that you can buy at any dealer now…”
The ’82 utilized Honda’s CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion) engine which was one of the most clean-burning carbureted engines ever developed for automotive applications. These engines allowed Honda to sell cars in the US until 1981 without installing a catalytic converter. One method that the EPA currently uses to compare vehicle emissions is Tons of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The EPA’s website fueleconomy.gov covers cars back to 1985. If one looks-up a 1985 Civic HF (mechanically similar to the ’82 FE), they will find that this car produces 4.3 tons of greenhouse gases per year. The 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid produces 4.4 tons per year. I think Mr. Photosmith may be the one blowing smoke here.
Point C:
With regards to the actual gas mileage of the ’82 Civic FE, Mr. Photosmith states, “The 1982 Civic was rated at 42/55. Using the 10% and 22% reductions, this means that to compare to a modern test score, the 82 Civic in all it's 67 horsepower rattletrap glory would be rated at 38/43”.
Regardless of the EPA’s testing standard, the gas mileage that I got with this car was spot on with the window sticker. I regularly got 42 mpg on my commute to work, and on long highway trips, I saw exactly 55 mpg. Sometimes on hilly or windy trips I got a disappointing 50 mpg. I concede, now that the car is 25 years old I see 38-39 mpg on my work commute, which is ten miles of stop and start driving. Not bad for a 25 year old car. And as far as being a “rattletrap”, my Porsche has more rattles than the Civic.
So, in closing, I have to agree with the original posts of Patrick and AEman. With the technology that is currently available, gas mileage should be higher than what we are currently seeing with the hybrids on the market. The engineering company that I work for (which is very environmentally responsible) owns only hybrid company cars. I am amazed at their size, their weight, and the amount of creature-comfort fluff packed into these vehicles. If the public wants really great gas mileage, they should take a lesson from the older cars (like the Civic FE) and learn to do without satellite navigation, talking dashboards, power locks and windows, multiple cup holder, etc. All that weight adds-up.
Cheers, Neil
I was really pleased to read the above. My ownership of an '83 Civic FE came in 2005 when I found two Civics in the back lot of a local auto repair shop. One, (the FE), had evidently blown a head gasket some ten years prior judging from the 1994 inspections sticker. The second was a plain '81 Civic that had met its end in a collision. It was the intention of the shop owner to make a "good" car out of the two but he just never got around to do so.
I bought both for $200. The engine in the wrecked '81 test ran fine so I did a swap using all of the FE's original accessories. It's been on the road for nearly two years and I average about 42 mpg in mixed driving. I'm sure that this would go up 4 or 5 mpg if it had the advanced engine features of the '82/83 models.
I love that little car and it sure beats car payments and big gas bills from the oil companies!
Back in the mid early 80's I bought a used 1982 Civic HB with about 17k miles. It would never get less the 37mpg no matter how hard I drove it, and on long trips it would average in the low to mid 40's.
I got rid of it when it had 110k miles - wish I had it now......the MPG is so dissappointing on the current line up of fuel efficient cars today, doubly so considering the technological advancements in the last 25 years.
I ordered and bought new and had the civic FE in 1982 about $8000 ran it up and down the coast of CA driving it 100mph plus in the 80.s accident free, handled beautiful and lucky as they were known to break legs in accidents, Ive crawled out from under my wreaked 76 MG Midget spun out my AMC Matador, put 145 K miles only changed the oil and clutch tires brakes no problems and got 50 plus mpg highway in my civic, it started and ran like a sewing maching when i sold it for $800 in 88. I could put my Lawn mower edger weed eater and my 100 lb German Shepard in it and was one of the best car I ever owned
The new 82 Civic FE that I bought for my wife would go 70 mph all day long with the AC on. The best gas mileage I ever got was 48 MPG in West Texas going 55 MPH. Oh, it didn't have a lot of steam going up hills. But, it could pull out on an expressway with the best of them. It was incredibly quite and easy to maintain. I want to buy another one. It was as good as anything available today.
I owned a Civic FE that was purchased new in 1983. I still say this every time I think about gas prices and EXPENSIVE new cars. It was THE BEST CAR, that I have EVER owned, in the last 25 years, (this includes three Hondas, three Fords, and a Hyundai).
On a trip to Ohio, from Mississippi, we actually hit 64 mpg! My husband and I actually thought that the gas gauge was broken! We got to Ohio on one tank of gas. When we moved from Mississippi, to NJ, we towed a full sized U-Haul trailer, filled with furnishings and the like, and she ran like a charm. The only problem that we ever had with the car, was also on a trip to Ohio, where the snow and ice got through the grill, and froze up the engine. When the engine was "thawed", a simple piece for cardboard took care of that. The ONLY reason it was traded in, was because it was not practical for putting kids in the back, (it was a two door car, and it was hard to get them in and out).
My question is this though: If I could buy a car in 1982, that got such incredible gas mileage, why in this day and age, is there NOTHING offered to the US people, other than expensive hybrids? They say that the American people would never buy it [the little fuel efficient cars], because we want "MORE". But, we don't ever have the OPTION of buying a car like the Civic FE any more. In the year 2008, we should be able to purchase a car that gets incredible, (80 to 100 mpg) gas mileage. Just comparing the 25 year difference, doesn't make sense to me. Why was there such a HUGE step backwards to gas guzzling cars of the 60's and 70's? I mean this IS 2008! Seriously, if I can talk to a person anywhere in the world on a phone no bigger than a stick of gum, why can't technology keep up the pace with engines.
And finally, what happened during the late 80's, early 90's, that turned around the "gas crisis" of then? As a young child, I remember the gas lines of the 70's waiting in HUGE lines for a $5.00 limit of gas. I also remember that when we got that little Honda, the gas mileage was the biggest factor of the purchase.
Why did we as a nation, start using the big SUV's and not worry about gas anymore? It's like one decade was really bad for gas, (hence why they offered small cars with great gas mileage), then it seems like over night, Explorers and the like were covering our highways. What the heck happened? Can somebody PLEASE tell me this.
I also owned an 82 honda civic and at the time I was going to school traveling every day on the highway. I drove at 80 - 100 KPH and averaged 40- 45 MPG - I was religious about testing this. On long trips I would do 110 - 120 KPH - One time I even drove the car for even 5 min at 155 kph. It was not a race car, it was not a luxury car, it was a Practical car and for someone on limited income it was excellent.
Why after over 20 years can the car manufacturers not start production on a car that matched this. I think they can but they have decided not to. However this is going to change very quickly - because the price of oil going up is going to short the amount of money people have to spend on travel - which means car payments etc will need to be less which means cars will need to cheaper. The good thing is that means also smaller.
Maybe the next decade advertisers will advertise less horse power instead of more horse power. WOW 68 HP could become a reality!
Safety and pollution controls, in addition to the desire for more power have killed the lightweight small car. Its sad but the physics of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) dictates that you unfortunately need to make a choice whether you want a tank that will protect you or good fuel economy. Additionally, it has been shown that you can clean up the emissions of an ICE, it just wastes a good deal of energy to do so.
This is why the electric drivetrain in a hybrid is so good since it improves fuel economy without increasing pollution and it reduces the fuel economy penalty of a heavy vehicle through regenerative braking and more efficient acceleration.
The electric drivetrain can allow more torque for acceleration with minimal fuel economy impact but none of today's wimpy hybrids take advantage of this. The Tesla Roadster, of course, demonstrates this attribute of an electric motor but it's not a hybrid.
I had a '92 Honda Civic DX 4 door with automatic transmission and AC. I drove about 30,000 miles per year (mostly highway miles) for work back then and I would consistently average 39 - 42 mpg with regular unleaded. That car had something like 97 hp and drove nice. It had a driver's side airbag too. There seem to be lots of them still on the road today. On top of everything, it was an econo car, which meant it was inexpensive to buy 16 years ago.
Honda would do well to build a car like that again. I would buy a new one for my 65 mile a day commute.
the battery units lose their warranty after 100k miles the problem is that they cost up to 4k which is the same value of the car
Actually the early 80's CVCC Hondas were about the cleanest carberated cars made not quite a LEV but many times cleaner than the cars of the 70's. My 1984 Accord at 150000 miles was still below 5ppm HC and the CO and NOx and other readings were always very low until I tested it in 2002. It failed until I treated the carb with carb cleaner then it was as low as before. I drove 2500 miles a year at that point and suspect that is one of the reasons the carb gummed up.
I also bought a 1983 1300FE and found it to be THE BEST CAR I have ever owned. If I could buy another today, I would.
I kept meticulous records of every fill-up and got 55 mpg on the highway (46 mpg in the city) -- real mpg, not bastardized epa numbers. I cringe when I hear car companies advertizing their fabulous "30 highway-mpg" numbers.
When I went to get my emmisions tested (mid 80s), the person testing the car told me that I had to turn my engine on and let it idle. It was on. The emmisions were so low the tester could not believe the car was running!!
It was, in fact, the safest car in its class when I bought it. The fact that it loses in safety to the Abrhams tanks being driven around today is not a poor reflection on it, rather on a short-sighted society who will be pining in the not too distant future, "Where is my cheap gas? Why isn't the government doing something to get me cheap gas? I want, I want, I want..."
Yes, I too had to help push it uphill, but it was worth it -- to me, to America, to the world.
My friend had a Civic FE back in the mid 80's . I had a Nissan Stanza, he loved it got way better fuel economy than I did. By the way he could also chirp his tires when shifting from first to second. The car was fun and I would buy one today if I could.
I also had the very same Honda Civic. It was awesome! I remember only filling up once a month. As far as power, you could jack rabbit that sucker with now problem. It was a lot of fun. I drove it to Florida doing a cool 75 miles per hour with no issue. Steady and smooth. Its a Honda! Great through the Mountains. It was a five speed and 0 to 60 was no problem. It is close to the power of a current Civic LX. They companies have us so snowed that even I forgot about the amazing gas mileage and performance of that car. I now drive an Infiniti that gets 25 miles per gallon, what a waste.
I have to agree that this was one of the best cars I have ever owned as well.
I only wish that today's auto makers could come up with something with those high of standards.
This thread reminds of an article I just recently wrote for the Examiner.
My friend Kyle is the author of the site and I occasionally write some articles for him.
Read on..
I’m sure this subject has been covered by others with much more educated minds than mine, but with the price of gas I want to throw in my two cents.
Thirty-six years ago in 1972 Honda released its first small car here in the U.S. market. The Honda Civic with its 1169cc four-cylinder engine that put out roughly 50 horsepower in a car that weighed about 1500 lbs. These cars were regularly getting 40 miles per gallon.
In 1985 Honda also released the CRX HF (High Fuel Economy) version with a 1500cc engine with 58 horsepower that was getting 52 mpg.
Let’s also throw in a few other “classic” cars from the same era that were pulling down some fairly comparable mpg figures. Do you remember the Mazda GLC, Dodge Colt and the Ford Fiesta? They were all listed as getting in the low 40 mpg range (all gas engine cars, no diesels).
Now for 2008, the Honda Civic is listed as achieving 34 mpg with an 1800cc engine that puts out 140 horsepower. There is quite a large handful of other cars (Scion XD, Pontiac Vibe, Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent and Ford Focus to name a few) that are listed as achieving mpg numbers in the low to mid 30’s with engines from 1.6 to 2.0 liter and horsepower figures from 110 -140 range. It seems that if we want a car with mpg numbers in the 40’s we have to look at purchasing one of the new hybrid automobiles.
Automotive technology has come a long way since 1972, especially if you look at the horsepower numbers of the current automobiles and don’t take this wrong, horsepower is nice - there is still a thrill to be had in a sprint from 0 – 60 in 7 seconds or less.
Automobile manufacturers have invested a ton of money and time to get this type of performance from today’s engines. They also have had to meet much stricter emission standards so it is obvious that the technology advances must be incredible.
So, with that being said, why is it that we had cars reaching 40 plus mpg thirty-six years ago and now to get that kind of gas mileage in your car you have to buy a hybrid? You would think that with the amount of technology available today that higher fuel economy is achievable without having to go hybrid?
If the fuel economy numbers would have advanced at the same rate as horsepower figures have, we could conceivably have cars that would be getting around 80 mpg. What are manufacturers doing to help increase the economy of their cars? Where will we be in the next 30 years?
At today’s fuel prices would you be willing to forgo having a little 4-cylinder engine in your car cranking out 140 horsepower, for a car that gets even 60 mpg?
I welcome your comments or car questions at my auto web site: www.DriveTheBestBook.com.
I had an 82 civic FE and I drove it like I stole it. It always got 40mpg. Sure it didn't have alot of power but it was enough to go anywhere. It was alot stonger than my 66 bug with it's 30hp engine.
Have you ever owned one? I have an 83 civic S It moves nimble and fast to 50 mph cruises 75-80 easy on the hwy..
Post a new comment