Twin-Engine Honda CRX
Somehow, in the comments thread of the Chevy Z-24 post--I'm not entirely sure how--the conversation turned to Car & Driver's 1985 dual-engined Honda CRX project car. An obscure topic, but an interesting one, especially since I still have that issue (May 1985, if you're curious).
I remembered the project being pretty fascinating, but on re-reading the C/D story, I felt that it deserved a post of its own.
First, to set the stage, let me give the original CRX a quick description. Despite Honda's sober reputation in the larger community, it is no secret to the enthusiast community that Honda likes to bring a little performance sparkle to its foundation of practicality and reliability.
The original CRX was a perfect example. Well before the CRX eventually morphed into the soft, poseur Del Sol, the CRX was, depending on your viewpoint, either the ultimate economy car or a pocket Lotus.
Regular readers Mochi Mochi and Cookie the Dog's Owner know what I'm talking about, but for the others, I'll try to explain this seeming contradiction.
You see, the CRX was the 1980s embodiment of Lotus founder Colin Chapman's obsession with light weight as the key to performance. Weight is the enemy of 
acceleration, braking, handling, fuel efficiency, and even (albeit to a very minor degree) top speed, which is why Chapman built his sports cars and race cars with an obsessive attention to eliminating weight.
The secret to the CRX's combination of fuel efficiency and sprightliness was its Lotus-like light weight. At only 1,850 pounds--unthinkable today--the CRX was able to combine incredibly agile handling with straight-line speed (9.1 seconds 0-60, 16.4-second 1/4-mile time) and fantastic fuel economy (32 mpg).
Not impressed? Well, you should be. Looking at the Road Test Review in the back of this issue, back in 1985 you'd have to drive a penalty-box Chevrolet Sprint to do better than the CRX's 32 mpg.
Meanwhile, it was faster than the '85 version of our Wednesday subject, the Z-24 (9.5/16.9); the Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo (9.2/16.8); the Peugeot 505 Turbo (9.6/17.1); the TVR 280i (9.7/17.5); and the Volkswagen GTI (10.1/17.1). Those were reasonably hot cars at the time, all of them more expensive than the CRX, and none of them approached the CRX's fuel economy.
Still not impressed? Well, let's bake 23 years of technology improvements and computerization into the basic-transportation CRX motif, and compare that '85 CRX to an '08 Honda Fit. The Fit is no faster (9.0/16.8 vs. 9.1/16.4) than the CRX and not meaningfully more efficient (33 mpg vs. 32 mpg). How could this be? Well, the Fit--widely regarded as bizarrely Lilliputian in today's world--weighs in at 2,500 pounds, nearly half again as much as the CRX.
Yes, the Fit seats five, and the CRX only manages two; but it is a tribute to the fundamental rightness of the CRX that it so closely matches a car of similar purpose even after two decades of rapid technological innovation.
Anyway, I'll wrench back (with some effort) to the primary topic of this post--how Car & Driver took that fundamental rightness and turned it on its head by mixing another engine into the stew.
First, the basics. C&D and Racing Beat--which would later become famous for its work with Mazda rotaries--started with a plain-Jane CRX and installed an additional engine in the cargo area. The second engine was identical to the first; both were 1.5-liter, 16-valve inline carbureted four-cylinders, 
making 76 horsepower apiece. So the total, as Cookie the Dog's Owner correctly noted in the Z-24 comments thread, works out to eight cylinders, 32 valves, 152 horsepower, and 168 lb.-ft. of torque.
Along with the second engine came the associated front-wheel running gear replacing what had been the rear wheels--drivetrain, transmission, suspension, brakes, sway bar, and even steering (subsequently locked straight-ahead, prudently enough). So while the CRX didn't sport four-wheel steering, it did have a somewhat ersatz four-wheel drive. Both engines ran through their stock three-speed automatic transmissions.
Among the steps needed to make sure this wacky arrangement didn't go up in smoke were a custom two-inlet and two-outlet radiator; a split cable from the accelerator pedal to control both engines' throttles in unison; a cable to join the both transmissions' shift mechanisms to make sure the same gears were actuated at the same time; and a toggle switch arrangement to allow the standard ignition switch to start both engines (though one at a time).
Problems? Not many. The dual-engined CRX was certainly much heavier than stock (at a still-featherweight 2,450 pounds). The handling was a bit spooky until Racing Beat took a day to tweak toe-in and camber. C/D couldn't figure out how to set the right bias for the rear brakes, which locked up early under the lighter rear load.
Shockingly, in a project this complex, that was it. The car even ran just fine on one engine.
As Cookie the Dog's Owner correctly recalled, nothing was necessary to make the two engines sync up and keep from fighting each other. From the story:
"We're convinced that no such (synchronization) equipment is necessary. The link between the two powerplants (other than the throttle and the shifter cables) is the road. Unless there is tire slippage, both engines run at the same rpm and both transmissions shift simultaneously all by themselves. One engine may be working slightly harder than the other at any given time, but this hasn't yet caused any ill effect."
Of course, the real point was to make the little CRX a giant-killer, and in that goal the project succeeded admirably. Just going by the numbers, the double-engined CRX improved to 8.0 seconds in the 0-60 sprint and 16.0 in the 1/4 mile--this compares favorably with the contemprary Alfa Romeo GTV-6 (8.2/16.1), BMW 635CSi (8.2/16.0), Dodge Shelby Charger (7.8/15.9), and Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am (7.6/15.6).
In C/D's words:
"All in all, the net goodness of our heavy Honda astounds us. It rides, runs, and handles like a normal car. The interior is roomy and remarkably quiet. There is a useful amount of luggage space behind the front seat (briefcase room), over the engine (three-suiter), and in the tail compartment (anything from a golf bag to a weeks' worth of groceries). Fuel economy is in the high twenties if you're cruising on one engine, in the low twenties if you're out hunting for races with both motors champing at the bit."
And really, even if it failed, what an awesome idea.
A couple of somewhat related notes:
- I miss 1985. Don't get me wrong--2008 is a fantastic time for cars--but just look at the cars mentioned on this issue's cover. Porsche 928, Dodge Omni GLH, Isuzu Impulse, Audi Coupe GT, Chevy Camaro, Plymouth Laser, Ford Mustang SVO, Merkur XR4ti, Mitsubishi Starion, Nissan 300ZX, Toyota Supra ... and that's in just one issue. Every one of those cars is either a current or a future Car Lust. Have I ever mentioned that I'm a sucker for 1980s sports coupes? Only a few hundred times, I'm sure.
- My memory is terrible. In the comments thread, I mentioned that I thought one problem with the car was that the two engines didn't drone in quite the same frequency on the freeway. I also thought C/D called the car "Super Synchronicity." Neither of those things were in the article. I'm going to cling to my wounded pride by hoping those two things were worked into the mix in subsequent issues and years when they referred to this car.
- All of the images and text are obviously from Car & Driver and are no doubt under copyright. I'm including them here because I think they're important to tell the story, and because I don't think I'm cannibalizing the magazine's no-doubt brisk sales of May 1985 back issues. Still, to throw the good folks in Ann Arbor a bone, I'm going to put on my cheesy salesman hat for a moment. Click here if you'd like to subscribe!
--Chris H.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 01, 2008 at 07:49 AM
Chris, you made my week!
I had a first-generation '85 CRX in the "DX" trim level: better handling and acceleration than the "HF" (which was optimized for MPG), but not as fancy as the pocket-rocket fuel injected "Si".
The CRX was a happy car: it made me happy when I drove it, and it was happy to be driven.
It was quick for its day, but not as quick as it made you think it was when you were driving it. It could more than hold its own against a Fiero 2M4 or my sister's Ford EXP, but that wasn't a difficult feat. It had an engine that responded instantly when you pushed the go-pedal, and a slick, smooth five-speed that made it fun to row through the gears.
Handling was phenomenal. At the time I bought it, my daily commute included about eight miles of twisty country back road. In the CRX, it became eight miles of absolute fun. It went where you pointed it, agile with just the mildest touch of understeer. If I remember correctly, the lateral Gs were respectable even by today's standards.
Plus, being a Honda, the thing was absolutely bulletproof--change the oil every 3,000 miles and it'll run forever. Try that with a Lotus or a Lancia! (Or even a mid-80s Camaro or Cavalier!)
In the past year, I went shopping for a small performance-type car. I ended up with a Volkswagen GTI, which I find myself describing as "like my CRX, but with 100 more horsepower." That is, in fact, the highest compliment I can pay my GTI or any other car: it drives just like my old CRX.
Robert on March 01, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I owned the all black 1986 Honda CRX si. I loved that car more than any car I have ever owned. It is the reason I have always owned Hondas; Accords, Element and the Odyssey. I was 18 at the time and the car was a pure pocket rocket. I balded the front tires within 3 months from "excessive acceleration" according to local PD. It handled like a dream and cornered like it was on a slot car track. So much fun to drive. I remember the "HF" got around 50MPG back in 1986.
If Honda ever makes a CRX again, in nearly the same body style, I'm buying one.
mochi mochi on March 01, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Great Story - what an amazing concept - and one actually realized!! Cookie Dog is so on target. These cars created "happiness" in their owners - as well as huge loyalty.
Chris, your comments about the Lotus-like attention to weight - or should I say lack there of is one of the things I love about my Civic. The fact that I can roll it around garages and parking lots with the push of one hand testifies to how light these cars are. And that's the hatchback which had a few more pounds of meat than the tiny CRX.
The CRX was always a favorite of mine. I've owned three Civics. An 87 Si, a 91 Si, and tangentially a 96 DX - all hatchbacks. The 87Si (sister of the subject of this car lust) was a fantastic little car much loved and fondly remembered. The 91 Si, as many now know, is my current ride. One of the things that was interesting and not well known was the change in suspension and frame that occurred in 1988. 88 marked a point at which Honda created a truly sophisticated suspension system that I believe took cues from their F1 racing experience. Gone were MacPherson struts. In came graceful light weight control arms. The cars lengthened by about 4 inches and widened ever so slightly. But weight was still held to a minimum. The 1st Gen CRX was a feather that was just a delight. If I could only get my hands on a 2nd Gen SI that has not been slammed into a street rod...
I think one of the most interesting and funny aspect of Civic/CRX history are the devotees and their demographics. Basically Civic owners seem to fall into two categories. Crunchy eco-friendly NPR listeners, and hardcore street racers. Both of these contingents appreciate the bullet proof design and reliability of these tiny feathers.
But I'm with Cookie Dog. These cars make me happy. So in honor of this I'm going to go now and put of few hundred miles on the odometer and enjoy some mountain passes and some stretches of the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH CA Route 1). Have a great Saturday.
notahondaguy on March 01, 2008 at 01:12 PM
i have a honda fit and had an 85 civic wagovan at the same time recently.
this article understates the weird differences and similarities. they are virtually the same size. the 85 civic wagovan had the cvcc emissions system removed (a rats nest of vacuum tubes) and got significantly better real world mileage than the fit does now (the fit is a big disappointment mileage wise). it had comparable acceleration and was more fun to drive in town although it probably didn't really handle as well. nowhere near as comfortable though and the fit is better on the highway.
harpoon on March 01, 2008 at 01:37 PM
Like Robert, I had a 1986 Honda CRX Si -- black. I also loved that car. But in New England, commuting in snow on an 8-lane highway with trucks passing on either side -- well, the lightness was not an advantage. How I wish I had this all-wheel drive version. Why didn't I think of that? I want mine back!
Rob on March 01, 2008 at 02:51 PM
While I appreciate the CRX for what it is, it wasn't ever that fast. Throw in a B-series or something, and then it becomes something special. 0-60 in 9 seconds though? Come on man. You and I both know that isn't very fast. One other thing to mention: The chevy turbo sprint. It was faster than the CRX. :)
Earl Stanley on March 01, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Chris.
The 1985 Honda CRX was the first new car I bought. It was great. Good gas milage and it never let me down. Fun to drive. I let it down by parking it in a flood zone. If not for the high water I am sure it would be running today. Sad to see it damaged. For the price it could not be beat, in my opinion.
Earl
cthulhu on March 01, 2008 at 03:17 PM
I can attest to the overall lightweight nature of Hondas...I've actually push-started my (manual) '95 Accord wagon in a parking structure.
But there are some drawbacks when this goes to extremes. I know someone who was in an accident in a CRX and subsequently insisted on owning a more substantial car.
Emerson on March 01, 2008 at 04:31 PM
I had a CRX and it was the perfect car for me. With the back seat down you could move ANYTHING. I did an apartment move with it and I was constantly amazed what the CRX could fit.
Grisha on March 01, 2008 at 04:57 PM
I miss my beloved 1995 del Sol VTEC. It was a perfect island car (I lived in Hawaii at the time) and made for spectacular drives through the Cascades when I moved to Seattle. It lasted me until last October, having driven all over Oahu and several cross-country trips (Seattle to Norfolk, Norfolk to Pensacola (three times), Pensacola to San Antonio then to Jacksonville) but ultimately I needed something larger, so I traded it for an 07 Accord.
Still, the thing was zippy and could not possibly be considered a "poseur".
RobD on March 01, 2008 at 04:59 PM
The 85 CRX 1.5 was also my first new car. I bought it when I was stationed at NAS Lemoore at Selma Honda(Raisen Capitol of the World). I had to wait 3 months for it, as there was a serious waiting list. I payed $1000 over sticker if I remember correctly but it was totally worth it. Me and my Navy buds would drive over to San Louis Obispo for scuba and chick chasing. There was a killer set of S curves an that highway that were a blast in the CRX. I did lose it once on that road but luckily I came out of the spin still on the pavement. I can’t count the number of times that car got me out of trouble with its handling. With a car that small and light you really had to drive defensively. The only problem I ever had with it was a cracked carburetor mounting plate that took a few trips to the shop to figure out. I sold it with 110K to the son of a co-worker who then somehow drove it without radiator fluid and seized the engine.
NancyJean on March 01, 2008 at 05:32 PM
I loved my little car. It was my first love. $165.64 / month for 4 years. My first stick shift. Can't believe my husband made me get rid of it when we traded up to the Audi A4.
Noah D on March 01, 2008 at 07:36 PM
I owned a used '86 CRX (DX) in the early '90s. It had 50-60K on it when I bought it, and it was wonderful. It was, like NancyJean, my first stick shift, and I adored it. I blew a paycheck and a half on a set of Pirellis, and it would do almost anything I asked it to. I have never owned a car since that I liked as much as that one - okay, granted, they've all been 4-door sedans like the Camry or 323, but still. That car *wanted* to run, it *wanted* to zip around corners.
It died in 1995, when I hit a block-long patch of black ice and slid at 55 mph into two cars that had already wrecked. Despite the damage, it started up again and I drove it off the road and into a parking lot. I still have scars on my shins from that, and a serious love for that car. I will say, without reservation, that it was the finest car I ever owned.
aaronv on March 01, 2008 at 09:58 PM
Never owned a CRX, although a friend did for some years, and loved it. The mid-to-late 1980s were indeed a great time for small, fun cars with Japanese nameplates. If you didn't have a CRX, there was always a Prelude, or you could get similar vehicles from Toyota in the form of the MR2 and the Corolla GT-S (still own a 1988 incarnation of the latter although the body is about shot). Vehicles like these were light, low-built, zippy, tightly sprung, turned on half a dime, and had excellent power-to-weight ratios.
In short, they street legal go-karts.
Thanks to modern crash-worthiness requirements and abundant safety features, vehicles like these will never be built again for the US market, even in the small-car segment. But they were fun while they lasted.
Joe Dement on March 02, 2008 at 04:46 AM
I owned a 1987 Honda CRX HF. That car got an amazing 56-61 miles per gallon and lasted 230,000 miles (I sold at 130,000 miles to a co-worker who drove it another 100,000 miles) with a minimal amount of maintenance. Because of the lack of power, you had to learn how to drive it....when passing another vehicle or on long inclines, etc. What a car. I have driven Hondas (Civics and Preludes) since I was old enough to have a license but the CRX will always be my favorite. It's been 20 years and I am still waiting for a car company to duplicate the fuel mileage, reliability and cost with a 4 cylinder carbureted engine.
steve on March 02, 2008 at 05:32 AM
This is a courtesy comment informing you that your blog is included in The Power Guides Car & Auto Section and new posts will be included in our latest posts widget.
The Power Guides was created to help bloggers with specific interests find other like minded bloggers and to check out the latest posts
from their community
Thanks
Steve
steve on March 02, 2008 at 05:32 AM
This is a courtesy comment informing you that your blog is included in The Power Guides Car & Auto Section and new posts will be included in our latest posts widget.
The Power Guides was created to help bloggers with specific interests find other like minded bloggers and to check out the latest posts
from their community
Thanks
Steve
Kate on March 03, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I had a '90 Honda CRX. I LOVED that car! Polar white white with a blue interior and a manual transmission.*sigh*
I wish Honda would bring them back.
Caser on March 03, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Ha...I still drive an 85 Honda CRX. Of course, I'm a poor college student, but I get 40 MPG on the Interstate at 75 mph during the summer. It's a hell of a car for something 23 years old.
Ron on March 10, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I loved my CRX, and when it got crunched being hit by a semi(!) I replaced it with another. I'm neither an NPR crunchy granola type nor a street racer. I just thought the CRX was a great small car without the fiction of a 'back seat' that was only good for groceries (if that). My dad tried to talk me into an first-year Fiero; I've always been glad that I ignored his advice!
Paul on May 08, 2008 at 07:12 PM
The CRX was so my favorite car and still is. I owned a 1987 CRX, red/silver with the CRX lettering along the bottom of the door panels. This was the first and last car I waxed every weekend. I kept the thing in mint shape! Used to drive it from Toronto to my girlfriend's (now wife) house in Connecticut. The poor car finally saw the end when I blew the timing belt in her and scored the pistons. What an ass I was for not changing the timing belt. I'll miss her badly.
Now and then I get online and try and find out if Honda will ever remake her. I've seen rumors that 2011 might be the year but there's nothing official out there. I own a Jetta 1.8T and while it's a fast car it doesn't provide the "happiness" I had with my CRX.
Long live the CRX!!! May you return to us one day my love! I will definitely buy one no doubt.
Ace on June 11, 2008 at 04:06 PM
I purchased an 86 CRX-Si 2 years ago from the original owner. It is black/black and had 105,000 miles on it when I got it. It is now a summer car only, completely stock (except for removing the front badge) with 142,000 miles on it, and I get hand signals almost dailey from passing cars asking to buy the little beauty.
The down side now = it draws flies; i.e. larger SUVs and pickups that follow too close and charge past you in an attempt to show their muscle.
The up-side = now that smaller cars are in vogue, I get a lot of affirmative nods and thumbs-up. Occasionally other exotic sports cars seem compelled to strut their stuff (several 911's and once even a lime green Lamborgini). When I first got it I was entralled by its performance and agility and put several WRXs, Nissans, and other Hondas and the like in their place, but now I no longer rize to the challenges.
I really enjoy my CRX and Thanks so much for the article. See you on the roads of the Pacific Northwest
Ace
It
Joe on June 13, 2008 at 12:38 PM
SUPER SYNCHRONICITY:
I own it.
Nice to see an article about the favorite car of my small collection. Yes, you are right in that the car was referred to as "super synchronicity" in it's 2nd time featured C & D article. By that time, it had 2 stock 102 HP Accord 12 valver's dropped into it and was much quicker. The car was referred to as CRX2 (raised "2" - as in "the square root of") in the first cover/feature article. That May 1985 C & D issue is the first CRX2 cover. I can't remember which month the 2nd cover with the added Accord engines was, but I think I have a copy of the issue.
Specs.: weight...2700#, 0 - 60...6.5 sec., Qtr. mile...14.5 @ 95 mph, top speed...147. The car accelerates HARD off the line with ZERO wheelspin from any of the 4 wheels - even in the wet. Above about 110 or so, acceleration rate decreases somewhat but it is still pulling hard and in that same speed range, the interior noise approaches that of a fast freight train - becoming louder as speed increases. Since the car does not have A/C, summer driving is only comfortable if you are big on hot saunas. Weight distributiuon is 50/50% and the car can be literally thrown into curves at alarming rates of speed. It just tracks through.
It's Achilles heel are the very small CRX front disc brakes which are also mounted on the rears. WAY under braked.
I have had the car for about 8 - 9 yrs. now and found it at the Zephyrhills, Fl. auto auction - only needing a little engine speed synchronization and the warped brake discs turned. However, soon after I bought it, the fuel cell began to drip under the car. This failure got worse - to the point that I warehoused the car for about 7 yrs. I have just now begun to refurbish the cleaning out of the fuel system, install new fuel bladder/cell, rebuild/upgrade failed brakes (from sitting up) and general clean-up.
The car is amazingly as built and undamaged. I think it is now on at least the 3rd set of rims. It also does not have that little low rear wing spoiler. It has a soft rubber up-turned lip rear spoiler.
I have owned a Sunbeam Tiger, Pantera (23 yrs.), Triumph TR8 and some other - what I call Pocket Rockets, and this car absolutely cannot be driven without causing the driver to go into fits of uncontrollable laughter. It just destroys everything on the street - although there are many performance cars which are capable of outrunning it now. Problem is....they see it as a hopped up economy car and don't realize how immediately quick it is off the line. If they are not paying attention, I have checked out.......
When I get it back to dependable driving condition, my goal is to run some "track days" on some of the big famous road race circuits.
Ex - C & D editor, Don Sherman knows I have the car and would like to buy it back, but since I only got maybe less than 2 yrs. fun out of it before the fuel cell failure, I am very much looking forward to the day I can stick it to the floor on some winding country back roads and also decimate a few of the area "buzz-bombs".
Joe
1 hr. north of Orlando, Fl.
mochi mochi on June 27, 2008 at 06:57 PM
so fantastic Joe !!
mochi mochi on June 27, 2008 at 06:57 PM
oh one more thing - you can upgrade the brake with a big disc brake kit for an Integra.