1985 Honda Civic CRX
Perfect.
If I had to describe my blue 1985 Civic CRX in one word, that would be it.
I bought it sight-unseen from a dealer my father knew. I took delivery one Saturday morning and drove to my parents' house to show it to Mom and my sister, taking the shortcut through the park so I could play with my new toy on the twisty part in the gorge between the old mill and the goldfish pond.
By the time I got to the house, I was thinking to myself, "This is perfect! It's like Honda read my mind. Someone finally built the car I've always wanted!"
That CRX was perfect. Completely, absolutely perfect. The most perfect car I had ever owned, driven, ridden in, or even looked at from ten yards away.
Let me explain what made it so perfect.
As it says in my official Car Lust biography, I learned to drive "on a succession of pathetic mid-70s domestic cars." To be specific, I learned to drive in a '67 Le Mans (not quite a '70s car, I know), a '73 Catalina, and a '76 Ford LTD. Not long after I got my license, my father acquired a '74 Vega.
I learned very quickly that I do not like bigger cars--and so I ended up preferring the Vega over Dad's large-barges. The Vega was small and light and had no power steering, which helped me to appreciate road feel and maneuverability. Being a Vega, it also taught me to appreciate build quality and durability--which it lacked completely. In fact, every car we had had in this period its share of quality-control problems, the Monza Wagon which replaced the Vega being the worst offender of a very bad lot.
I didn't like the rococo Elvis-in-Vegas look, with the opera windows and the vinyl roof and hood ornament and the faux-chrome plastic trim all over the dashboard--like you had in, say, the LTD. I'd always wanted a clean-lined space-age Car Of The Future. The Starship Enterprise didn't have a hood ornament or a vinyl roof, why should I have to put up with that nonsense?
Since we lived in Northeast Ohio, my first winter as a driver was a crash course (metaphorically speaking) in the practical skills necessary to get RWD Detroit iron through the snow. I remember counter-steering frantically to keep the car in its lane whenever the rear end broke traction. (The Le Mans was especially prone to this.) I also noticed that the folks around me in Rabbits and Civics were having a lot less trouble. I began to think that this newfangled "front wheel drive" might be something I wanted.
The last car I had before the CRX was a decommissioned Ohio State Highway Patrol Plymouth Fury with a 440 Interceptor under the hood. It was too big and used too much gas, and it had mediocre bench seats and full sensory deprivation steering gear--but it also had decent throttle response and brute roadholding grip. Lots of brute roadholding grip. Oh, man, could it corner!
I had looked at the Rabbit GTI in the fall of 1983, but it was priced just out of my reach. I'd kind of resigned myself to just living with the Fury for the forseeable future, and then I got a call from a friend of mine I usually call "Perk." Perk has an honest-to-Colin-Chapman Lotus Elan S4 in his garage, and he's forgotten more about performance cars than I'll ever know. On matters automotive, I trust him completely.
Perk called because he'd just gotten home from a visit to his local Honda dealer, where he'd test-driven the new CRX. He was as enthusiastic about it as he'd ever been about anything. "You should get one," he kept saying. "It's exactly what you want."
There was no Honda dealer in the town where I was living, but I investigated the CRX as best I could. It looked good on paper. Car & Driver liked it. Motor Trend liked it. Road & Track liked it. The MSRP was just barely within reach, but I could swing it. I mentioned it to Dad, Dad called his dealer friend and set up the transaction, I pulled my car money out of savings and drove up to my old hometown with checkbook in hand.
I got as much CRX as I could afford. That meant settling for the base ("DX") model instead of the fuel-injected air-superiority version, and passing up the opportunity to get dealer-installed AC and fancy alloy wheels. The DX model had a carbureted 1.5-liter engine making a mere 76 horsepower--but since those 76 ponies only had 1,819 pounds of car to tug on, the straight-line performance was better than you might think. The car magazines clocked it at 10.1 seconds 0-60, which doesn't sound all that great until you realize that it was the equal of the contemporary Rabbit GTI, completely outclassed the competing 2M4 Fiero and EXP, and trailed the much more muscular Cavalier Z24 by less than half a second.
It felt even faster than it was, thanks in part to a low seating position which put your rump down close to the road, and in part to a smooth clutch and a 5-speed transmission that fit the engine perfectly. I quickly developed an optimum 0-60 dash technique--cue up Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers' "Refugee" in the cassette deck, drop the hammer on the first chorus, shift in time with the music, and sing along at the top of your lungs. Trust me, if you shifted every time Tom Petty changed guitar chords, the tach needle would be right there in the powerband where you wanted it.
Once you were up to cruising speed, the fun was only starting. If you simply read the specifications, the suspension doesn't sound all that exciting: MacPherson struts and vented discs up front, but a beam axle and drum brakes in the rear. Sure, there were sway bars, and it had rack and pinion steering, but a beam axle? They're kidding, right?
They weren't kidding. It may not have been a fully independent suspension or all-disc brakes, but you couldn't tell by how it handled. It took curves gracefully, and the more curves the journey had, the more fun you had. I had an eight-mile one-way daily commute over country roads at that time, and in the CRX it was the highlight of my workday.
As for build quality, it was a Honda. 'Nuff said.
Oh, and fuel economy? 32 MPG combined city and highway. On a long trip with mostly freeway driving, it broke 40 MPG easily. (The lighter "HF" version, which was optimized for fuel economy, did over 50 MPG in highway driving.)
The CRX wasn't drop-dead beautiful--I thought the Fiero had it beat in the styling department--but it was pleasant to look at. It had a touch of the Giorgetto Giugiaro creased-and-folded look, with just enough curvature to balance that out. It was comfortably into my desired Car Of The Future territory, but it didn't draw a lot of attention to itself--which allowed me to surprise a few 4-cylinder Fieros in the stoplight grand prix.
Inside, the layout of the gauges and controls--what the aviation guys call "cockpit integration"--was superb, the best I had ever seen. I had some long-legged basketball-playing friends who occasionally bummed a ride from me, and they fit comfortably in the passenger seat. The cargo area was simply cavernous. The only thing "wrong" with it was that it was a two-seater (though it was sold as a 2+2 in Europe and Japan), which was really no disadvantage until I started a family.
My CRX served me faithfully through five trouble-free years until it was totaled in a wreck on a rainy night. It's a tribute to the lightweight CRX's structural engineering that I walked away uninjured. Had it not been destroyed, I would have had to get rid of it within a couple of years, as soon as the kids started coming along, due to the absence of a back seat.
The 1985 model year was the last year for the "original" CRX. Beginning in 1986, Honda replaced the recessed headlights with flush-mounted units, which to my mind took away some of the character. The second generation CRX, which was introduced in 1988, added flared wheel arches and general curviness to the bodywork, and adopted a sophisticated double-wishbone suspension that makes it a tuners' favorite to this day. The second-gen is a "better" car by every objective measure, but I can't warm up to it. Call me old-school, or just old-fashioned, but I prefer the original.
First-generation CRXs are relatively rare these days. I did see one in the wild last summer, while we were driving through Pittsburgh. It was a white DX, an '84 or '85 with recessed headlights, stock wheels and hubcaps, no dents, no rust. Beautiful.
The driver looked content, as well he should have been. He was driving the perfect car.
The vintage advertising illustration at the top, and the scale drawing, came from the image gallery at The CRX Page. The other photos came from the "Readers' Rides" gallery at Honda Tuning magazine's website. The blue '85 belongs to "relic85" and the red one to "Sgt. Pepper." (If either of you ever want to sell your CRXs, let me know.)
--Cookie the Dog's Owner
Chris Hafner on December 04, 2008 at 08:13 AM
Bravo! Even if the car was an unremarkable, uninteresting hulk, this profession of love would be moving. But the it isn't - the CRX is a demonstration of how light weight and a hatchback can make a car that is simultaneously practical, efficient, and a blast to drive.
Until about five years ago, I've always preferred the second-generation CRX - there's something about it that evokes F1 cars for me, for some reason. The first-gen seemed a little dowdier, a little more basic.
Nowadays, I prefer the first-gen CRX for exactly that reason. It's so simply and so *right.* And I'm with you on the recessed headlights, Cookie - I have the same preference with the 1986 and earlier Saab 900. Flush headlights have the potential to rob character from these cars.
I see a few of these around Seattle, but they are invariably trashed. No doubt there are nice ones still around, but they're certainly not obvious.
By the way, while I've been in lust with the 440 Fury for some time, I'm surprised that it was such a monster of roadholding. Is that tongue-in-cheek, or does the Fury have moves that belie its gigantic proportions?
Steaming Pile on December 04, 2008 at 08:43 AM
Aw, man. Twice we came about THIS close to owning one. The second time, it was with a baby in tow, bit it was still hard to convince Mom not to get the two-seater HF. The first time, I actually got to test drive one, and man, was that a blast! 60 MPH in third gear, zipping around corners, weaving around traffic like a pro. They don't make cars like that anymore, and it's a shame because I could tell from the fifteen minutes I sat behind the wheel this car was dead-on perfect. I don't remember why I decided against it - it was probably money.
That Car Guy on December 04, 2008 at 09:05 AM
There's something about Honda styling that makes me like their previous cars over their new ones... the new Accord is my favorite example. When I first saw the "Hold On Tight To Your Dreams" ads promoting the current body style, I was underwhelmed at best.
Same with Civics. I like the new 2-door, but the current 4-door just looks too much like a Saturn for me to EVER consider one, even though I'd prefer a 4-door vehicle since there's a back seat. The tiny A-pillar windows and swooped up lower body lines look like the 1990s GM APV minivan designers did it. Part faux space ship, part car, they can keep it.
The CRXs were and are FUN cars! Rarely do handling, styling, practicality, zoom, and FUN come together in a car. A CRX might make that perfect second car for local hauls and getting around. I prefer RWD since I don't live in the Snow Belt, but I might could make that concession for a FUN car.
Great article, Cookie... I hope you find another CRX.
epilonious on December 04, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I dunno... the CRX strikes me as one of those cars where if you got a nice one in really good condition, you would hate it, or at least all your friends would hate it and you wouldn't be able to convince them to take it along for weekend rides... because it was a car that was perfect /at the time/.
Nowadays it's going to be an example of nicer-than-you-thought engineering of about two generations ago, which will be outclassed in handling, power, safety, and general smoothness by a modern-day Chevy Aveo.
I have sort of had the long-standing opportunity to buy a friends 1987 Mercedes 560SL, but after taking a few friends for a ride in it, I realized I wouldn't be able to, because it's sort of a squeaky, smelly, boat full of aging and expensive german parts that made some people feel a bit sick with the floaty suspension and bouncy seats.
Now I am thinking I will just stick with the car I've got and perhaps get something sporty and fun and modern when my current car goes kaput at least (I am hoping) 8 years from now.
That all being said... a carlust is a mighty powerful and personal thing, and I would still take a ride or a test-drive in an old CRX if given the opportunity. I just wouldn't want to own it.
Rob the SVX Guy on December 04, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Epilonious: Not sure about this version, but a second generation CRX with it's 4 wheel double wishbone suspension is LIGHT YEARS ahead of a Chevy Aveo, which is a Daewoo btw. It isn't in the same league.
Cookie: Great article.... I've looked into getting one of these a few times, but the lack of double wishbone suspension kinda turned me off a bit. The biggest turn off, however, is the engine. Yes, it's a honda, but it's also old. If it was an EFI model, sure, fine, go for it, but a carb'd honda engine from that era is just infuriatingly complex. I know because I own an 89 Accord LX with a carb'd A20. The nightmare of vacuum sensors and the medusa-like tangle of vacuum lines running all over the place is just freaking IMPOSSIBLE to troubleshoot. That's why I ripped it all out and replaced it with a Weber. :)
Cookie the Dog's Owner on December 04, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Chris: I'm not being tongue-in-cheek. The Fury police package had big, grippy tires and was sway-barred to within an inch of its life, so it held the road like nobody's business. It wasn't all that agile, mind you, and the no-feel power steering didn't help, but once you got it aimed into the curve properly, it stayed pointed where you'd pointed it.
Rob: The first-gen CRX has a D-series motor, and I understand it's a relatively simple matter to swap in a fuel-injected D-motor from an early Integra (125 HP or so). Or you could just hold out for the top-of-the-line CRX Si (90 HP in the '85-'87 version).
[Comment Spammer] on December 04, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I've heard a lot of good things about the CRX. How does it compare to other models when it comes to gas mileage though?
Rob the SVX guy on December 04, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Cookie: If it's anything like my accord, swapping from carb to EFI is anything BUT easy. In the accord, the entire wiring harness, meaning every wire in the car from the front seats forward needs to be swapped. This necessitates removing your entire dash, seats, carpet, and disassembling basically the whole interior down a complete shell. Plus a new fuel tank with fuel pressure regulator, and a bunch of other small nit picky things.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on December 04, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Rob: I looked at my CRX motor-swap sources again, and it turns out we're both right. It's a *mechanically* simple proposition to put an Integra engine (or the rare but coveted JDM ZC "Browntop") in a first-gen CRX because the motor mounts and all are exactly the same. It's *electrically* complex because it requires a new wiring harness due to the switch from carb to MPFI.
Rob the SVX guy on December 04, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Sure. Putting in the other engine is easy, just like it is in my accord, but getting it to actually work is extremely time consuming.
Shawn on December 04, 2008 at 03:55 PM
A friend of mine in high school had a red '90 CRX Si. It was nicknamed "CR-SEX" (juvenile, but we were). For some odd reason, my favorite feature was the continuation of the rear glass underneath the body line of the hatch for increased visibility. Fun car to ride around in for sure and he really appreciated it as his first car.
Anthony Cagle on December 04, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Y'know, the only experience I've had with these is that I lived next to a middle-aged lady who owned one and she just.loved.it. Said she'd always wanted something like it and she finally bought one and couldn't have been happier. At the time I thought "Huh? A dorky little Honda?" but I can now see the attraction.
I definitely like the look of 1Gs. It looks nicely clean; needs nothing more and nothing less.
Personally, my favorite Civic years are the mid-late '90s, which I ought to do a Lust on; I don't have one, but my Spousal Unit does (a 1997) and it's just this perfect, reliable, functional commuter car (and unbelievably dull; but that's the point, I guess). Still, I like the styling.
I'll always think of these mid-80s models as the classic archetypal Hondas though.
Rob the SVX guy on December 05, 2008 at 05:18 AM
About the little rear glass area, I've always wanted to mount a scrolling LED panel there, with a slideout keyboard in the glovebox so I could communicate with other drivers. I'd probably get shot, but oh man. Just think about it for a minute. :)
Cookie the Dog's Owner on December 05, 2008 at 05:36 AM
BTW, that little glass area is only found on the second-gen CRX.
Mochi Mochi on December 05, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Oh man. I'm away for a day and look what happens. Cookie you nailed this one. What a great article and tribute to your relationship with the CRX.
I nearly bought one of the first gen CRXs. I was a hare's breath away from selling my old BMW for one. I'd read the same reviews and had the same lust for the car. I put one on order. In the end "friends" dissuaded me based on size and, of all things, crash test statistics. I know i would have loved this car had i gotten it. As it was, fate put me into the next generation of civic and that started a different and wonderful car lust.
I consider the civics (all the variants) from the mid-80s onward to be really complete thoughts about what a great car can be. They have a sense of rationality, excellence, and character - yet they are humble and friendly about it. The civics/crxs of this generation are like the first great novel of a great writer or the first masterwork of a great artist. The later works may advance in some significant way, but the first great work lives on in its own rough and perhaps naive brilliance. there's so much that is it so right about this generation of the CRX.
my personal connection with this generation of the civic started with a black 87 Civic Si. I was never the sole owner of that car, but contributed to its purchase and ultimately spent a lot of time in it. It lived through 19 winters in the northeast and ran perfectly until the end. That car confirmed for me what a great car the civic was, and how i should have purchased that CRX. A year later i purchased my first civic. A silver 88DX. That car solidified my love of civics and the 2nd gen crx. My feelings about the CRX are that both generations are wonderful. There was a huge shift in the civic experience when the macphersons and beam axel were replaced with wishbones. In terms of ultimate handling the later generations were able to significantly improve performance. But that in no way takes away from the 1st gen, the pre-88's, They stand as a beautiful and complete vision - humble masterpieces.
Interesting that you mention the europa. We can look at the work of Lotus and say that the more recent designs are "better", but going back to any of the older cars, they stand on their own with their light weight and simplicity - brilliant cars. its the same with the CRX. that first gen was just so good, so right, so well executed.
I really enjoyed your description of the car experiences you had before the CRX. They really reminded me of my own. Bench seats. Big American cars. Snowy roads. The whole experience of driving was so different back then. The cars were so different. Cars like the 83 Rabbit GTI and Civic/CRX were part of a huge shift. These small practical cars reinvented driving and set a new standard for automotive design.
As to the Aveo. I've driven them recently. They are great little cars. But there's a huge difference between driving an Aveo and an 85 Civic, there's even more difference when it come to an 85 CRX. And as good a car as the Aveo is, and it really is a good little car with a roomy interior, the experience of driving an 85-87 Civic/CRX is still vastly superior. That difference only widens with the generations that followed. Civics/CRXs were able to be "driver's cars" in the same way that a Lotus has always been a driver's cars. The difference is that Honda made a more democratic more accessible version of a driver's car, and wrapped it in a funky kind of practicality and japanese space-age inspired design.
Happily, I still get to see a lot of first and second generation civics and crxs. Like Shawn and Rob both pointed out I'm also a fan of the glass on the 2nd gen hatch, which got picked up in the Insight. The HF CRX was an incredible car. All the civics of these years got gas milage that shame today's cars. And the HF pushed fuel economy into the hybrid range. I once set myself a challenge to extract the best gas milage i could in my old 88 DX and was able to consistently achieve between 50 and 55 mpg on highway driving. I've not been able to achieve those kinds of figures with my 91Si, but that's a different car and i just have to drive it differently. Still it delivers amazing economy even at high speeds.
Thank you for a really great article.
needless on December 05, 2008 at 11:02 AM
One of the Big 3 should build a copy of this car today. Give it away as a premium when you buy a truck or a van or a luxo barge.
Use the little bugger for going back and forth to work and the biggie when you think you have to.
Mochi Mochi on December 05, 2008 at 02:21 PM
needless: "One of the Big 3 should build a copy of this car today..."
Right on! I've been advocating the return of 80s and 90's hondas as away of fixing what's wrong with the automotive industry. Do they listen?
Honda on the other hand does seem to be listening or thinking. I understand that there are plans for a CRZ, a new hybrid version of the CRX.
One other thing about the civic and crx. They are cars that make one happy - really happy. Cars that people end up loving.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on December 05, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Mochi: 'CRXs were able to be "driver's cars" in the same way that a Lotus has always been a driver's cars. The difference is that Honda made a more democratic more accessible version of a driver's car, and wrapped it in a funky kind of practicality and Japanese space-age inspired design.'
Don't forget reliability. The Lotus requires you to become your own mechanic (as my Lotus-owning friend has done) or subsidize your friendly local garage, and not many people are able or willing to do that. The Honda just runs. At 100k, you're barely out of the break-in period.
Mochi Mochi on December 05, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Reliability!!! Dead on Cookie. When i got my 91Si it had 116,000 miles. I considered it to be a brand new car. One thing, i've said it before and i'll say it again (and again and again), if you've got an old civic and you want that new civic reliability, always use Honda OEM parts... or else you might as well just buy that Lotus and fund you local garage:) EVERY non-OEM part i've put into my Civic has failed. Eery OEM replacement has lasted.
Gavin on December 06, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Never had a CRX, but while living in NC in 2004, I needed a hoopty to get to and from work while my wife drove the other car. I found a relitively rust free '85 Civic DX 3-door hatch with 87k for just $400. Man, was that car a fun ride! The simplicity of a carb 4 cylinder engine, crank windows, no AC and perfect visibility all round. I had to sell it before we moved to Boston six months later. The 1st person to look at it bought it for the full asking price of $550...
Rob the SVX guy on December 06, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Mochi, Cookie... agreed with all comments, but I think you're forgetting about the Accord and the Prelude. They all shared double wishbone suspensions, and they all shared similar styling. I like the civic, don't get me wrong, but I like the accord better. It has a nicer interior, and it's only marginally bigger. The CRX is great, but the space really is a constraint in some cases, and in stock from, the Prelude outperforms all of the other hondas of this vintage. Anyway, they're all fantastic cars. Without them, I don't think Honda would be in the position it is in today, though I do wish they'd head back this direction. The new accord is HUGE. It's a freakin boat. None of the new hondas really do it for me, except MAYBE the FIT, but even that is rather large by comparison.
djkenny on December 06, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Gavin, I recently sold my deceased grandfather's Gold DX hatch with Ice Cold AC...had it not been an Automatic and "Gold"...I am sure I would have kept it.
40k on the engine and chassis. It was a motor home tow carwith 80k on the clock...half being pulled by 2 different Winnebego's they had over 20 years.
It did run perfectly and smoothly, built solid as well. However, the steering provided little feedback and the auto sucked more power than I was willing to deal with. It was a numb feeling car.
The Sprint Turbo and GTI 16v I had won in the "which cars am I going to keep struggle" I had while owning the Honda for a year.
The $3250 I got for the Civic meant it only lost 7 grand of it's value in 20 years. Not a bad return.
Cannot say I had much affection for it as it was nearly character and soul free...but it was made well and got over 38 mpg on the highway. I dont think I am Honda people.
djkenny on December 06, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Gavin, I recently sold my deceased grandfather's Gold DX hatch with Ice Cold AC...had it not been an Automatic and "Gold"...I am sure I would have kept it.
40k on the engine and chassis. It was a motor home tow carwith 80k on the clock...half being pulled by 2 different Winnebego's they had over 20 years.
It did run perfectly and smoothly, built solid as well. However, the steering provided little feedback and the auto sucked more power than I was willing to deal with. It was a numb feeling car.
The Sprint Turbo and GTI 16v I had won in the "which cars am I going to keep struggle" I had while owning the Honda for a year.
The $3250 I got for the Civic meant it only lost 7 grand of it's value in 20 years. Not a bad return.
Cannot say I had much affection for it as it was nearly character and soul free...but it was made well and got over 38 mpg on the highway. I dont think I am Honda people.
jdwhitlock on December 06, 2008 at 05:35 PM
A "perfect" black '86 CRX Si was my first car. Drove it across the country twice between Navy assignments. I have a photo somewhere of a 22yr old me with a shit eating grin on my face, leaning against the CRX, with the Grand Tetons in the background. It met an untimely death when a drunk in a pickup rear-ended it while parked on the road in Key West FL on Halloween night, 1992. R.I.P.
Gavin on December 06, 2008 at 05:58 PM
djkenny, mine was gold too! I agree that it was not the most exciting car out there, but the combination of shear size, visibility and 'back-to-basics-ness' endeared me to it. A car where you don't give a crap what people think of you. The best part was the NASA sticker on the rear bumper.
Come to think of it, judging by Cookie's description, mine must have been an '86 because it has the flush headlamps. Here's a photo:
http://flickr.com/photos/27361359@N07/3088450588/