Show someone a picture of a Honda CRX, and inevitably, their response will be: “Why doesn’t anyone make something like that anymore?” I’ve heard it said untold times, and the question is fair enough; the CRX was a unique package in its day, and folks still bemoan its passing. When I showed a Mini Coupe here a while back, the response was rather tepid. But the similarities are all too obvious: Both are almost exactly the same length, seat two, have gobs of storage space behind the seats and are, of course, known most of all for their almost unparalleled ability to put smiles on their driver’s face. Looks? Ask your parents what they thought about the CRX when it first came out. One difference: In adjusted terms, the Mini costs a fair a bit more.
The last line pretty much said it all. The CRX was rather crude cheap fun especially for the younger folks and especially after they reached the second owners. Cars today, like the Mini, are far more sophisticated and, while there are performance options for the cars, they are not cheap. There simply isn’t much on the market new today that lends itself to the same kind of utter projecability as the Civic and CRXs used to be.
I hope that is a convertible, because whatever design that mess it on the roof of he Mini I sure hope that it opens.
Not a convertible. Backwards cap bro edition, back seat delete.
I imagine the MINI is quite a bit heavier, too. But it sure is a lot uglier.
Uglier, and no doubt much safer as well. The 1980s CRX would rate extremely poorly if tested to today’s crash standards.
I agree – the mini is ugly.
My father-in-law had a silver Si – that he loved – until he was hit from behind by a dump truck loaded with gravel – he walked away – but that was the end of the CRX – with the insurance money he went out and bought an Acura Integra.
Interesting you would say that; most original CRX owners traded up quite soon. It was the second owners that made it into a cult car.
I hear so much about the CRX now and I think it is because it is emblematic of youth, that thing we can never recapture. I doubt many would be sold were it brought back today, witness the CRZ.
My father-in-law always liked small sporty cars – when he came home with the CRX my mother-in-law didn’t talk to him for a month!
After the CRX he bought a red Acura Integra RSX – which was stolen from a mall parking lot a few years after he bought – found abandoned in Newark, NJ – with some damage – the stereo was ripped out and the door panels were damaged – but he had it all fixed and continued to drive it.
The Integra was the most stolen car in most areas in its heyday. Dropping the engine into a Civic or CRX was the hot swap of that era.
Agreed with Craig, the last line prevents the two from being really comparable, despite the physical similarities. The CRX was a cheap and cheerful car that almost anyone could afford, while the Mini Coupe is expensive for a small car and intentionally exclusive. Any 20-something with decent credit could (and did) own a CRX, while Mini Coupe owners that I have seen seem to be well paid 30+ year old professionals.
Can’t agree with you on this one, Paul. The CRX was cheap, basic transportation for people who didn’t need more than two seats that just happened to be fun to drive because it was a Honda. The idea wasn’t unique to Honda — the Ford EXP beat it to market, for example — but it was the best execution of this concept.
The Mini Coupe is yet another cynical attempt by BMW to milk Mini’s brand equity to sell a few more cars to people with more money than taste.
So what’s today’s cheap, basic transportation? A stripper Versa, perhaps, but that rolling appliance comes without the fun-to-drive aspect. The Mazda 2, Fiesta, Spark and Fit are heavier and plusher than the CRX was (and they not only have back seats, they have rear doors), but they’re pretty decent choices for someone looking for small, affordable and fun to drive. I don’t think anyone is cross-shopping those cars against a Mini.
Or maybe just the sartorial successor to Gilligan.
Genius.
The MINI “Little Buddy” – well done!
Clubman AWD is the Captain…
Wow! those photos remind me of those commercials a few years ago when a plate of food was placed next to a person who resembled that particular offering in looks and dress!
Last week I actually saw one of these minis at our next door neighbor’s house. Really weird in person. There was not one of these at our auto show, because I wanted to see how difficult it would be for me to get in and out of it.
May Maynard G. Krebs live forever!
For me, the modern day successor to the late and lamented CRX would be the Honda CRZ. The flat roof, abrupt tail, it has all the styling cues of the original in a modern shape. Too bad it was saddled with a hybrid drive system. I think without it, Honda could have recaptured some of the folks who bought the original and remember it fondly. Complicating things with the hybrid drive had to be a turn off to many potential buyers.
On another front, I saw much of the CRX in the first Honda Insight. The same flat roof and Kamm tail. Single lamp headlight front end. But again, there goes that hybrid technology to deal with…..
This Mini Coupe does nothing for me. I picture a Delaware Bay Horseshoe Crab mating with a Mini Cooper to come up with something this dreadfully ugly….
I highly doubt that; the market has changed too much. The average buyer is now much older than twenty-five years ago and most wouldn’t even fit in a CRX, or even a CRZ. The first CRX models were hardly powerhouses, for that matter, it was the relatively low price that sold them. Initially they were marketed as commuter cars, it was only when guys started racing them the Si models came out and they were not cheap. The CRX was the right car at the right time but it’s not the right car for now.
We all like to reminisce, though. I still look for RZ350’s on Craigslist, knowing full well that at my age I could never contort my body enough to ride one.
I am gonna have to disagree with some of that… people were fat in the 80s and 90s too, those people didn’t buy a CRX then and wouldn’t buy a CRZ now. That car was never marketed to the “average” buyer, just like the CRZ is not now. Average people buy Accords.
The CRX was initially a commuter car but fairly soon they became extremely popular with young buyers. The HF was always there for the hypermilers (and I have seen some incredibly LARGE people driving those too!), but the DX and Si were a lot of young people’s first new car. They were not expensive, IIRC the Si was around $10-11k and very popular. The DX once you added AC was around $9-10k.
But I agree, they sold on price first, then style. If the CRZ was sold for $14-16k they wouldn’t be able to keep them in stock. For $22k they are just too high for what you get.
True, we had large people in the ’80s and ’90s.
But I can promise you that, on average, the 80 million Baby Boomers to whom the original CRX was marketed are larger today, and/or need more than two seats.
The two subsequent generations that are old enough to drive are generally seen as not as self indulgent as Boomers, or not as into new automobiles. Millennials/Gen Ys in particular tend to prefer having more friends in the vehicle, for which a two-seater becomes impractical. And everything I’ve read suggests that, on average, the younger generations are taller and heavier than Boomers.
Michael, I too found the Insight reminiscent of the CRX and thought it was a fairly decent-looking car. I don’t see myself picking one of those up for fifty bucks at a wrecker auction in ten years though. Your last comment sums it up quite nicely 🙂
Canucklehead, I was very surprised how roomy the CRX is inside. I’m 5′ 11″ (mostly arms & legs) and it’s one of the few cars that I cannot drive with the seat in its rearmost position. From my perspective, the car’s interior space feels very open and airy despite the slightly elevated beltline.
Getting in and out of the sucker is not as fun as it’s so low to the ground (and I’m getting older).
The average buyer’s length hasn’t changed a lot in the last quarter century but that buyer’s girth has indeed increased. Most would need a sky-hook to get out of a CRX.
I sometimes forget about that “other dimension”!
I think the MINI Hardtop is a nice evolution of the original Mini design; the Coupe, Roadster (isn’t this a Roadster?) and especially Countryman are indeed BMW ploys to milk the brand as much as possible. (The Clubman at least has an ancestor in the original Mini lineup.)
I’ve seen new MINIs range from around $19K for a basic Hardtop to over $52K for a tarted-up “Goodwood” Edition, so there is a spread of affordability. Not in the same league as the cheap-and-cheerful (and sincerely both!) CRX, but then what is these days?
Nope, the Mini Coupe is a more expensive version of its parent car instead of a lighter cheaper version like the CRX, plus the backwards baseball cap roofline is a massive turnoff.
While it has 4 seats, the Scion Tc seems like the closest modern equivalent to the old Civics.
That top car is some kind of ugly! I think the above CRX is a ’90 or ’91 model. I never cared for imports much but always did find the ’88-’91 CRX to be a sharp looking vehicle.
I picked up my ’88 CRX DX for $51 at an impound auction 10-12 years ago with the intention of hauling it to the Pull-a-Part down the road for a quick $30 profit…but after hooking it up, I caved and decided to add it to the field-o-cars instead. I dropped by the Honda dealer on the way home and they cut me an ignition key using the code on the trunk lock cylinder. My $8 gamble on the key paid off as the car fired right up when I put a battery in it.
Other than a banged up LR quarter panel, it looks identical to the above example, patina and all. Despite being abused for 208K miles, the car felt nimble and light as a feather and it erased the heavy prejudice I always had toward foreign cars.
The valvetrain was never adjusted and is completely worn out yet my little car delivered a consistent 40mpg when I drove it regularly. It is a non A/C 5-speed car which makes underhood accessibility good although I rarely had to do anything to it.
Other than a few main power relays, starters, and ignition switches (always replaced with used parts), I’ve had very little trouble out of it. It handles great and is a lot of fun to drive with its 13 inch tires ($40 each new). Despite being a two-seater, space utilization is fantastic. I was able to stuff a Harbor Freight Sandblasting Cabinet in the back & haul it home — (it’s about the size of a washing machine).
My work commute is 35 miles each way & it should be my daily driver instead of this goofy blue 4-cylinder Fiero which manages maybe 24mpg.
I don’t know about you, Junqueboi, but I think ferrin’ cars are just a flash in the pan. They’ll never catch on in our driving conditions.
I grew up hating foreign cars. Our neighbors across the street traded their brown late 70’s New Yorker in on a new brown Corolla sedan in ’81….it ruined a certain 10-year old’s bedroom window view.
The CRX experience opened my eyes 20 years later.
I still hated Toyotas because…well, why not….
Then a coworker sold me his ’98 4-cylinder Camry he ran out of oil for $300 a few years ago & I figured I could drop a junkyard engine in it & make a buck off of it. Removing and installing the engine in that car was an enlightening experience.
The tolerances were so precise and everything fit together perfectly. No adjustments, starter shims, retaping wiring harnesses, etc. Hmm. The next six months of driving the car to work forced me to grow up and realize that I was the one sniffing glue.
My Tennesee-built Camry had 199K on its body and 134K on its junkyard engine yet had only one very minor rattle from the rear strut bushings (I think). The car easily cruised at 80mph without strain, “gear hunting”, wind noise, etc… was it really just a four-cylinder?
My wife drives a ’96 Odyssey van (4-cylinder) which now has well over 200K on its original drivetrain and has carried seven people and luggage on several extended freeway trips without missing a beat averaging 75mph. I hate driving it but will be the first to say it is an incredible incredible vehicle and I’m thankful that she has something so nice to drive.
Up until last year, Mr. GM-hugger and his wife were both driving their Hondas to work.. 🙂
I have some pictures in the can of a 1st generation Ody which I (as a former enthusiastic owner) cannot wait to write up. Is yours that metallic beige that 96% of them seemed to be? 🙂
My wife’s car is that dark green. The color itself is beautiful but not on one of these things! It and a very similar blue are by far the most popular colors in NC.
I don’t have a pic of hers handy but I do have a pic of our blue ’97 that some moron hauled across the scales at my favorite scrapyard hangout. The yard does not sell vehicles but after some creative begging and planet alignment, I was able to buy it for $850 outright. I was going to keep it for parts but it’s too clean and the transmission is still good. It’s at the high school now getting its head redone (blown head gasket). I still can’t believe someone junked that van: the A/C still blew cold..
My wife promised it to someone else (bah!) which ruined my plans to put a 5-speed in it. Some guy actually did put a 5-speed in his Odyssey Van and it was pretty much a bolt-in affair. There’s even a video of it out there on YouTube with him driving it: awesome!
Oh hey, there’s my CRX back there hiding..
Here’s my wife’s van, the day we drove it home from the DWI Seized Auction several years ago. Nothing but the best for her! She got rear-ended in Atlanta and insurance covered the repair which included a used hatch. The rip-off bodyshop that repaired it wanted an additional $1,100 to repair the dented RR door so we decided to keep the dent.
It looks almost exactly like unit #2 but the colors are slightly different.
When we started getting Japanese stuff in our shop, we had much the same impression. Toyotas especially are very well thought out cars; everything is logical and well placed.
Alas, it was such cars that hastened the end of our business, too.
Only beef I have with Hondas re maintenance is, they always place their engine oil filters facing the firewall (so far as I’ve seen). That means using jack stands or ramps, & rolling underneath. I’m too old for that now, so I just take it to the Honda specialist for oil changes. Toyota is much nicer; theirs have been right up front.
The Camrys are built in Kentucky.
I would love to get my hands on an R-body New Yorker. I would even take a St. Regis or a Newport in a pinch but I really want a NY Fifth Avenue. They came out during the darkest days of Chrysler, sold moderately well their first year but tanked after that. They got heavy use as cop and fleet cars, but have just about vanished from the roads now. I see more 81-83 Imperials in my circles than I do any R-bodies.
I am sure going from a late 70s New Yorker to a Corolla was a huge change.
Count me as another R body New Yorker fan. At the time, I thought it was the only downsized luxury car that was really successful at pulling off the concept completely. Unfortunately, at its launch, the car was a quality disaster. The 1980 and 81 models were pretty good cars, but their sales were awful due to 1) the 79s reputation, 2) Chrysler’s near death and 3) record high fuel prices. I caught a glimpse of a really nice 2 tone green 79 NY recently. It was the first one I had seen in ages. Personally, I would prefer one of these over an 81-83 Imperial.
I also liked the later R body cars a lot but I haven’t seen one in captivity in years.
If you look closely, that picture was taken in Canada, specifically in Quebec.
Well, I would like to have an R-body like this to complement my Imperial but the Imperial is a good size. Like my Eldorado its big, has classic lines, but not too much overhang in the front and back like the sedans like these making it easier to enjoy.
While I prefer Cadillacs as my favorite marque, I will say this, Chrysler could put together a baroque interior if there ever was one. Their over the top interiors started in the fifties and continued all the way until Iacocca stepped back in he early 1990s. As late as 1995, you could get a Chrysler LeBaron sedan, albeit small, with an interior that was almost as plush as this.
It’s not a New Yorker, but this rare 360-equipped Newport was for sale on ebay about a month or two ago.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hartog/8301833388/
Oops.. Tennesee…Kentucky….I get them mixed up all the time…
The mini coupe looks like somone put an ill fitting toupee on an bald guy. I guess its good that you cant see it from the drivers seat
So why did Honda go from CRX to CRZ?
I suppose CRY is not a good name for a car.
Yeah, and they couldn’t go the other way toward CRV….
Those BMW Minis are far from cheap they bleed you hard for a BMW here they are greatly overpriced and while BMW thanked themselves mightily here after the Mini diesel economy run proved it was the most economical car sold here.What BMW failed to mention they buy the diesel powertrain from Peugeot because they KNOW how to do a diesel FWD and BMW dont have a clue. Those CRX rusted like mad here or got riced and crashed due to poor driver skills in a typical Honda tin box, there are very few left.
I think the eventual successor to the CRX will come out of left field (like the CRX really did). A cheap two door hot hatch. Think the versa is too heavy and the yaris too slow. I doubt if a good CRX successor can be sold here anymore. Something from India or Eastern Europe may already qualify.
To get the bang for the buck today would need a turbo. 50mpg means that big brother has legislated a true successor out of the picture.
The other issue is all the small hatchbacks are too tall now, the Mini is a notable exception. That is also a point of difference for the CRZ
When I first heard about the Scion iQ, I thought it could meet CRXpectations. But it turned out to be rather homely and Toyota-y, and handle funny due to its Smart-esque proportions. Too bad, perhaps next time…
From a marketing perspective, the difference I see with the neo-Beetle, neo-Mini, & neo-500 is, the originals were intended as basic transportation, whereas the re-spins are too expensive & impractical for that, and might fulfill the same “Look at me!” role as, say, ’70s personal luxury cars.
OTOH, it is fair to say the Mini, esp. its powerful versions, comes across as a minimalist pocket-rocket, as stated above.
Well, ironically, many of the same people who are buying these retro small cars are the same ones that remember the original ones when new. I know of more than one 50s+ ladies driving new Beetles that drove the old ones.
I have both… My current daily is a 2000 TDI NB that I bought new when I got to the point where maintenance on my ’64 was causing problems with getting to client meetings on time. The NB is about to be succeeded by a ’13 TDI Beetle convertible, and if I can make enough time this spring and summer, I’ll have my ’62 and ’63 Type I Beetles back on the road, too.
My ’64 was very tossable (within the limits of the swing axle suspension) and I have missed driving it. The NB is very nimble (especially with the suspension upgrades I made last year) but in a very different way from the old Beetle – it’s not got that light feeling… As I tell folks, the only thing the two have in common is the logo.
We had both ’89 and ’90 Honda 3-door hatches, one of which was a base model with no air – it was a hoot to drive. Had a friend who had a CRX of the same vintage, and it was basically the exact same car from the driver seat forward.
Who decided to put quad beams on that Civic?
My brother bought it from us with 165K on the odo, and then ran into an Expedition. The S-10 quads were $10 each at the junkyard vs. $65 each for Honda lenses…
Wow Paul, normally we think alike (eg looking forward to the arrival of the FWD Escort in the US, and then being oh so disappointed) but I couldn’t agree less here. I can’t see any relationship, spiritual or otherwise between these cars. Others have already posted their witty perspectives but I had to chime in also. CRX: sporty, cheap, reliable, attractive. Mini Roadster (??): none of those.
I simply don’t get the roof design on the Mini coupe. I have tried looking at it in a lot of ways, but it still looks to me like what you would get if you tried to build a roof and some windows out of random pieces of sheetmetal and glass found in a junkyard.
Could be worse…
The price difference is a pretty significant differentiation between the two cars. The MSRP of a 1985 CRX varied between about $12-15k in 2013 dollars. That difference is substantial, and places the CRX into a different class from today’s MINI.
But in addition to the pricing, I would guess — and I am guessing, perhaps someone could confirm this — that the CRX was based upon a generic (small) family car platform, while the MINI is based on something purpose-built for that line. In other words, the CRX should have been largely an exercise in parts/ R&D sharing (extending a generic mainstream volume platform into a new niche), which allowed it to be priced more cheaply and marketed it very differently to a higher volume, lower-priced buyer pool.
I don’t see anything on the market today, including the CR-Z, that seems to me to be a direct CRX successor. There isn’t much demand these days for a low-cost sporty compact two-seater hatch. The Fiat 500 sort of comes close, but without Honda’s anvil-like reliability.
Well that is pretty much what the Fiero was based around which brought its price down to a very reasonable level. The CRX was basically a Civic with a fastback and being so simple you could ‘play’ with it without too much trouble.
I always thought the delSol was the successor to the CRX, at least on paper, even if it was a bit of a departure (and more expensive).
I believe it looks more like the true spiritual successor to the Nash Metropolitan.
Well, no, it’s not the spiritual successor- Because it’s ugly!
I made a stronger argument against the Mini Coupe the last time it made an appearance, (something about how the design abandons the principles that guided Mini development) but I feel like making a totally emotional argument today.
I could also make the emotional argument that the Mini Coupe is the spiritual succesor to the Honda Civic Del Sol- Because it’s ugly!
Like it or not, the Fit is the closest thing to a CRX you can find today.
The Mini Coupe is expensive and ugly, the answer to a question nobody ever asked. It will be remembered along the lines of the AMC Pacer and Gremlin – collectible to a few out of sheer bizarreness, but mostly remembered as a “what were they thinking?” exercise.
Edit: Yes, the Mini Coupe is sort of like a Metropolitan…
Well I wouldn’t go that far, but a CRX type car it is not. The Mini is popular with a lot of 30s-50s ladies with professional type jobs. Sort of like upscale Beetle buyers. Or better yet, to go along with the VW Cabriolet story from a few weeks ago, buyers of those cars that make more money.
As far as future collectability who knows who even knows about anything made in the last 20 years…
I generally like the other Mini models – heck, I even have a soft spot for the much-maligned Countryman and Paceman. (AWD+turbo+small size+rally suspension tuning=hell yeah!)
But the 2-seater Coupe – just why did they have to mutilate the poor Cooper?
Whenever I see one of these Minis I think of this:
(pic from google images)
No. Don’t be silly.
One major difference is the Honda CRX was based on the reliable Honda Civic design. According to JD Power Mini ranks near the bottom in reliability. I personally thought that Honda had excellent mechanicals, but had bodies that rusted too quickly, which is probably why I don’t see too many older Hondas on the road in areas with snow.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/driveon/2013/02/13/auto-study-dependable-gm-toyota-lincoln/1914527/
I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned the Hyundai Veloster… it is the spiritual successor to the CRX. Small, inexpensive, odd yet squat and sporty. I agree with the other posters… the mini is one fugly car!
That car was extensively discussed a week or two ago in a thread about the Mercedes S Class since the car was parked between two Volester.
The biggest issue with a successor to the CRX is there are so few very simple and inexpensive cars out now.
To me, the true successor to the CRX was the 1st generation Honda Insight. My reasons are that both cars were light when new and still are, both cars were meant to be uber fuel efficient, both were considered to be fun-to-drive, etc.
Citrus Yellow FTW