The 1989 Honda CRX-HF got 50 MPG highway, that's in-fucking-credible. More than twice the fuel economy of my venerable '89 740 GL. Then again, the Volvo is more akin to a tank and I'd rather be in it in an accident than the CRX. Still it amazes me the fuel economy discrepancy here. What' I'm getting at is that it's next to impossible to buy gas cars today, in the same size segment that even approach 50 MPG. Now let's be clear, that's US gallons we're talking, not that imperial BS that's so often quoted. To clear things up, it gets 4.7 L/100 Km highway, 5.7 city. That's amazing. If you go on the EPA's fuel economy site, this thing outstrips the 2008 Civic sedan and the hybrid civic as well. I would imagine that increasing car weight from safety features, noise dampening would account for some of the discrepancy. Presumably there more sophisticated emissions control units on the end, dropping the efficiency of the engines on the newer Honda's. There are no doubt more bells and whistles inside the modern cars...but it's something to consider that we were building cars that efficient, basically 20 years ago.
This whole rant stems from a Wired article, what car would make the best apocalypse-mobile.
They chose the 1980 Honda CRX HF for it's amazning Fuel Economy and reliability.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/what-is-the-ult.html
This whole rant stems from a Wired article, what car would make the best apocalypse-mobile.
They chose the 1980 Honda CRX HF for it's amazning Fuel Economy and reliability.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/what-is-the-ult.html
No comments:
Post a Comment