CRX vs. Gen 1 vs. Gen 2 vs. CRZ

[jerrydelrey]

Originally Posted by crxbart

Well if it is performance you want. This is a vid from back in 06 when I first did the K swap. The other car had slicks, which is why I got schooled out of the hole. Had to run partial throttle until the end of third gear to keep traction with the Falken Azenis. Slicks could put me deep into the 12's, or high 11's. We shall see this spring. Combined with the other mods. I've gotten 35mpg out of it too, but it's really hard to play nice with that much fun at your disposal, so I usually only get around 25mpg. This was a completely internally stock K20A type-R with intake, header, exhaust, and K-Pro ECU.

crx Video by kraig - Myspace Video

Yep, it would be nice if they came out with a CRZ Si, that can do high 12's, low 13's, and get 35 mpg.

[Cobb]

Wow..... Just reading up on vtec, reverse vtec and single vs dual vtec, etc it was just an idea I had that seems plausable. The Si already has a vtec light so that could easily be switched to an economy vs not efficient driving and its triggered based on rpms and or use of WOT.

Maybe Ill remove the valve cover in the i2 and see if its possible it could have several grinds for what I am speaking of?

[olrowdy01]

Originally Posted by theaveng

When the 1988 CRx HF was sold, the NOx allowance was ten times higher than it is now. Which means if Honda tried to rebadge & sell it as a 2013 car, it would be outputting too much NOx. It would not pass. Just like any old 70s or 80s car would not pass modern 2013 standards.

And perhaps not even the G1 Insight?

Since no one else has pointed this out I thought I ought to offer this more detailed rebuttal.

First off:
What are the 1987 and 2013 requirements? You have presented a straw man with no data. I haven't been able to find the data that you must have (1987 vs 2013). The U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol, but did not ratify it. Therefore we do not have to meet those requirements. Even so, not all states have the same limits. And it seems that congress (as usual) is still arguing about new emissions etc which seem to be chiefly to increase the fleet fuel mileage.

The chart [below] is a partial screen shot of "VehicleEfficienciesII.xls" which is on this site somewhere but I can't find it right now to give a link to the whole chart. I basically wanted to show the CRX vs Insight emission results though.

Please note that the chart appears to show the results based on 2008 specifications. The G2 CRX was first sold in 1987, 21 years before the chart was prepared. The Insight was first sold in the USA in 2000, 8 years before the chart was prepared. IF your statement is correct, does this mean the Insight might also not pass the emission specs it wasn't designed to meet?

Typically the CRX-HF emission numbers on the chart are <10% of the Insight numbers. And in regard to the NOx emission the CRX-HF is within 6.4% of the Insight NOx emissions. Furthermore the Insight is 5.87 times less than the NOx requirement in affect in 2008 and the CRX-HF is 5.49 times less than the requirement.

The CRX does not have a NOx cat which could be fitted to a new CRX to further reduce the NOx emissions, perhaps even below the Insight level.

One conclusion from all this:
If the CRX-Hf can't pass the modern specs (especially so with minor changes) then you ought to include the Insight in your list of bad 1970 - 1980s cars since the Insight is not even 10% better than the CRX-HF as shown on the emissions chart.