1982 Honda Civic FE

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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 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 :)

"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

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 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.

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

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

I still have an 83 FE that I have owned for five years. I worked on a construction project at Crater Lake a couple of years ago and would make the 400 mile trip from corvallis weekly. I am surprised to see the reports saying it was a slug. It has a great cruising speed of 75 to 80mph. Mine has 221,000 miles and I usually drive like hell and get about 50 mpg on the hwy. I got over forty while trying a hypermile experiment in mixed city/hwy conditions.

My only beef is in its climbing power; I can do 55 up nearly any hill, but it has me doing it in 3rd gear winding the engine well beyond the gas saving zone. I will drive this car until it pukes and then step away satisfied that I bought it used years eariler for $500.00

I think someone hit it on the head when they talked about the crash test results being a primary factor in Honda not producing more like this excellent little car.

I bought an '82 civic wagovan in 2001. It had 104,000 miles on it, cracked paint and no rust. My father-in-law couldn't believe I would spend $1500 on a car like that. I spent $100 on a can of paint and started driving. I sold it last summer with 220,000 miles on it. Still running and driving well.
I want another one soooooooooo bad!
Mine was the heavier wagon with the larger engine. When I sold it, the gas mileage had decreased all the way to 28 miles per gallon mixed driving. My 1998 Volvo sedan is getting about 19 mpg doing the same job. Anyone want to trade a their '82 civic for my '98 volvo S70?

still interested in a 82 Wagovan??

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!!

Still use my 1983 Honda Civic FE.

Road tested summer 2009 and recorded 62 mpg (imp) - rated at 72 mpg.

I acquired a 1983 Civic FE about five years ago and am slowly getting ready to restore it to its former glory. Currently, it has a 1981 engine but the original engine is being made ready. I have driven this car on and off over the past four years and it has no problem going in excess of 90mph and rendering mpg in the mid forties.

Like all Civics of its era, it holds the road like glue. Those that post negative comments about this generation simply don't know what they're talking about.

My hobby in retirement is playing with various Generation II Civics and currently I am driving an '82 Civic DX 1500 automatic that gets about 35mpg in mixed driving. It too handles like a dream and doesn't wait for anyone...

You make some excellent points regarding ancient Civic technology vs. modern plastic-sized cars.

As posted elsewhere, I drive old Gen II Civics everyday. Unlike today's offerings, I can do most maintenance and repairs myself. Add to that compared to the under-the-hood accessibility, no comparison at all! I'm retired but have had no problems changing out axles, engines, gas tanks and a lot of other things.

The best part is a good supply of cheap parts. No expensive computers, "Check Engine Light," ABS, etc.

I'll take the solid road handling characteristics of my ancient Civics over the current tunnel vision toys that are common place now.

Whether I'm driving the '83 FE or the '82 DX 1500 automatic, I can be assured of three things, (1) I know exactly what I have with regard to reliability, (2) It's paid for and (3) I'm stylin'!!! Of course, there is always the '56 Studebaker Hawk that gets tested now and then...

I recently came across an 82 sedan and the head was warped. Just wondering if anyone knows a place where I can Fix it. If I choose to buy it.

Well folks I too did own a 1983 Honda Civic 1300FE. It was my first car purchase and I paid $6500 for it brand new right after graduation from college! It held through an additional several years through my PhD and then onto my first job. I was then as I am now very conservative about burning gas. I actually did get 50+ on the highway and in town I developed the habit of shifting into 5th above 40 mph. I sold the car for $1000 in 1992 when I purchased my second Honda the 1992 Civic VX because of its fuel efficient rating. I still drive this car and it gets me 50+ mpg on the highway. The best I did was 67 mpg on a trip from Bishop, CA to LA (downhill and tail wind). I still own this VX and frankly regret selling the 1300 FE. If I could find one I would
pick it up no questions. Since the 1300 FE I have completely lost my fear of tinkering with cars and I do all of the maintenance on the VX myself. I HAVE NO PLANS TO GIVE THIS ONE UP, considering among several factors my regrets about selling the 1300 FE. Both cars have been a great joy to drive!

Yep I drove my Dad' Civic FE in mid 80s while in high school and it did get 50+ mpg, but it literally would NOT go faster that 70 with pedal all the way to the floor--guess Dad knew i was a speed demon, although even at 55 I'm lucky he didn't have to bury me in this tin can. Was fun to drive though, (at very slow speeds)!

I had a 1982 civic wagon stick shift with 72 hp. It comfortably kept up with traffic and cruised at 70 mph. I could easily burry it past the 85 MPH speedometer limit, but I'm not sure how far past. It was fun to race it in high school. I could take many V8's off the line but usually got beat after about 50 MPH. I got up to 44 MPG at 55 MPH back when that was the max speed limit. The added power in new civics along with all the safety equipment (crumple zones, airbags, bigger wheels, side-impact protection) makes that type of mileage unattainable today. At today's gas prices, give me back my old car.

I also had an 82 civic 1300FE. It was a great car! 3 door hatchback, 5-speed that was butter smooth, really quick and nimble. Averaged 45 mpg on the highway and about 38 combined city/highway. I probably could have gotten better mileage but I have a heavy foot. It was not unsafe in any way! And by the way, the way they rate horsepower today is techobabble BS! That 67 horsepower was actual rubber on the road horsepower. You try to rate any 300 hp vehicle today at the old standards and they'd flop in at about 135!