In the fall of 1983, Honda dropped a bombshell. The new generation of Civics were not only all-new and highly advanced, but there were four complete unique and distinct bodies. Nobody had ever done something like this before. It was an automotive milestone. And one of those four was something utterly unique and unexpected: a two seat sports coupe; essentially a fixed-roof sports car, at a highly affordable price. It was simply the best combination of performance, handling, quality, economy and price then and perhaps ever.
Having just found this CRX survivor on the street as well as having Road and Track’s review at hand, I’ll combine the two together for a combination CC/Vintage Review. This car deserves all the accolades that both I and R&T can muster. Starting with the first words in their review: “Mind-boggling. Simply mind-boggling”.
The cover didn’t mince its words, pointing out that the CRX was faster in the slalom and skidpad than the vastly more expensive Lotus Turbo Esprit.
I’ll let R&T take you through their quite extensive write-up of the new generation of mind-boggling Civics. But the first step is to acknowledge what a breakthrough car the CRX was, as there really hadn’t been anything like it. Well, sure, there were plenty of two-seat sporty coupes based on passenger car underpinnings, like the Karmann-Ghia and such. But they tended to be more sporty in appearance than actual fact, unless one spent what it took to get into more serious sporting brands. But the CRX started at $6,000 ($15k adjusted), which made it a genuine entry-level car and as such a screaming deal.
As to the CRX’s design inspiration, here it is: the 1970 Alfa Romeo Junior Zagato, one of the most desirable variants of the classic 105/115 series Alfa Romeos. Of course it was RWD and, but it was all about being a lithe and rambunctious sports coupe with some pioneering wedge shape styling. A brilliant car to emulate, although like all 105/115 Alfas, it sat a bit too high.
This didn’t just happen randomly; the designer of the CRX owned a Junior Zagato.
Honda’s ability to execute four distinct cars, each one tailored specifically for its intended job, was perhaps their biggest breakthrough yet. The base CRX came with an economy-optimized 1.3 L that yielded the highest EPA numbers (51, old, unadjusted) of any car at the time, including diesels. Yet it was still a lively and fun car to drive.
But obviously it was the 1.5 L version that got all the attention. And this generation of Civic engines were all-new too, with a new lighter aluminum block and head. Unfortunately, fuel injection would have to wait a bit longer, as it was just too expensive. But drievability was excellent with the three-barrel Keihin carb. And of course the controls were all in the usual Honda manner, including the light and accurate shifter.
Suspension was all-new too, with struts on the front sprung by torsion bars, to allow a lower hood line, and a new twist (literally) on a twist beam rear axle, articulated to prevent it from twisting like a spring, the opposite as used by the VW Golf and so many others.
I’ve already sung my praises to the exceptionally space-efficient wagon, which soon sprouted AWD to make it even more compelling. We had a new 1984 wagon for about a year, a short-term lease, and it was a revelation. And it explains why I drive an xB today, its spiritual successor. This and the Tercel 4WD wagon were also the progenitors of the CUV. As a lover of space-efficient and tall vehicles, this was made to order for me.
We’ve also had our love fest with the hatchback here. It’s not quite as compelling to me personally, but that’s only relatively speaking, as the wagon and the CRX are the ones that speak to me most eloquently.
That leaves the four door sedan, the most conventional and least seductive of the quartet. Of course it was superb, for its intended mission, but just a bit too…normal for me. And we’ve yet to give it its own moment of fame here at CC, probably for that reason.
Which brings us back to the CRX, the most surprising member of the family. Obviously it wasn’t designed as a sports car from the ground up, and Honda had done that before with its brilliant little S500/600/800, the closest thing there ever was to a sports bike with four wheels. Honda would pick up that utterly uncompromising RWD format with the S2000 soon enough, but in the meantime, the CRX did a fantastic job as a stand-in.
Not surprisingly, given its FWD, front weight bias (62/38% with driver) and modest little tires (175/70R13), there was inevitably going to be some understeer. But it didn’t hamper the CRX’s ability to scoot through the slalom at 64 mph and provide gobs of driving pleasure. “Tossable understeer” is how R&T put it. Only the brakes were considered average, as everything else was decidedly superior.
Here’s R&T’s comprehensive stats. It’s all in the numbers, as well as in the driving pleasure.
The CRX 1.5 as tested was $6600 ($16.5k adjusted). Of course for some 40% more you could get the equally new Pontiac Fiero, with its throbbing Iron Duke four and a 3.5 quart oil pan that guaranteed its life was going to be mercifully cut short. And the CRX topped the Fiero in every metric, a second faster to 60 (10.1 to 10.9), and a full four seconds faster to 80. 50% better fuel economy, significantly faster through the slalom. The only thing the Fiero had on the CRX was a 105 mph top speed compared to 103.
Which one would you have spent your hard-earned dollars on in 1984? And keep for several years? Or decades, which in the case of the CRX would have been mostly a non-issue, as these Civics proved themselves to be reliable and long-lived, like this well-used example on the street. This is not someone’s project car; it’s just cheap wheels. And mighty fun ones at that.
I had two CRXs. an 85 and an 88 si. I liked the 85 better. I hit my head on the door frame of the si. Never did in the 85. Granted I am 6’5″ but didn’t get the second generation having less headroom! Wish I hadn’t sold the ’85.
Great to see this morning. I had memorable CRX experiences with this generation, in 1986 or so. A high school AP history teacher had a new CRX HF. He was very, very tall, and I was always amazed to see him driving around town in that thing. To 16 year old me, he seemed ancient too, and that seemed like such a “cool” car for an old man. I now realize he was probably my age now, or younger, at the time. Sigh. And a girlfriend of sorts, who was a little older and out working, had a new 1.5 like this one for her first car. It was so much fun to drive, just completely different from anything else. So light, so low to the ground.
Neat to read this review in retrospect, knowing what a strong influence this car had on Honda’s future development. By making a car that was cheap, fun and economical to drive/own, Honda cemented itself as a brand of choice for a big chunk of younger carbuyers at the time. And whether or not they actually bought CRX’s, the car’s excellent reputation even further helped the brand’s image.
I had forgotten some of the details here, like the plastic fenders, too.
Given this article’s effusive praise of the CRX, I thought it might be fun to see R&T’s first glimpse of the CRX, from four months earlier. The design guess (especially in the rear) was somewhat far off, but the press did have an inkling that this would be quite an interesting car. This was in the Aug. ’83 edition — Jack Yamaguchi ran a second, more detailed piece (mentioned in Paul’s featured article) in the October magazine as well.
Oh, and I apologize for the fuzzy image here, I just took a quick cellphone picture of it… don’t have time to scan it right now.
One of the best and most fun cars I ever had the pleasure of driving. Sometimes I wonder if I should find me one again, but the clean first gen cars are getting expensive!
I will never forget that two page spread ad with the red/grey CRX. I got a car magazine for the bus trip to boy scout camp, and just stared at that car. Even better, 2 years later my older brother bought a loaded all red CRX Si – with the opening roof. I got to steal it for many dates….I can never repay him for that favor. That car was so fun to drive in traffic, zipping between lights. Not a great highway car, though – I think it spun like 3500 at 70mph. Got a little tiring.
The wagon should look a bit like a cross between a telephone booth and a glass wigwam – so short and tall and the sides all leaning in towards the roof – but it didn’t. It looked architectural, and exudes a quiet, unaffected classiness to this day. I have been whizzed along winding roads in one by an exuberant driver, and it was alarmingly good for so stirkingly practical a thing.
The three door is arguably Honda’s best design, so perfectly formed is it. Even the sedan has a crisp BMW-esque vibe.
The engines were all the lug at 2500rpm-all-the-way or fling-it-to-6K+ Honda long-strokers of the time, and all perfect. Gearchange felt rwd-good, and I thought the minimalist interior in all of them the knees of the bees. What a collection, with only a rather short-travel ride to bring them down one notch from perfection.
We got the CRX in the next gen, the best looker for it with its Espada glass rear, and it had the high-rev injected 1.6 standard. I used occasionally to borrow one for short trips from a middle-aged lady co-worker, and, with her waiver, flog it hard. The tiny high-class little shoe – perhaps a glass slipper at back? – was indeed mind-boggling fun. And they still look very sweet today.
Which means in this case, a thing of joy is a beauty forever.
Close one eye, open up the CRX’s hatch until it’s flat and level with the roof, fill in the gaps with glass and you get close to the shooting-brake-style hatchback model.
I loved the shooting brake styling of the hatchback. When I was shopping for an economy hatchback in ’89 (I wound up with a Dodge Omni, which I COAL’d) I looked at the “standard” (I.e. stripped out) Civic. It had an MSRP a few hundred less than the Omni, but they were flying off the lots as soon as they came in, causing the “Honda Tax” that allowed dealers to sell ABOVE MSRP, and MoPar was deeply discounting the Omni/Horizon twins.
And the base Honda truly was stripped out. I don’t remember all the details, but I know it was only a 4-speed – and not much else. By comparison the Omni was “loaded” (not hardly, but comparatively) and was $1500 less out-the-door than the Civic.
As I’ve written here before, this is the one car I wish I’d never sold. Mine had been abused unmercifully before I got it but it still ran and drove like a top.
This is a pretty great design. If I ever win the lotto I think I’d have one in my collection.
There’s a 1984 CRX in very good condition on Cars & Bids right now. Price is reasonable but that probably won’t be the case for too much longer:
https://carsandbids.com/auctions/98mBOmjd/1984-honda-civic-crx
I was in the market for a second car in the fall of ’85 after using a ’79 ‘Vette (which I had purchased new upon graduating college) as my sole ride. I had fixated on the hatchback of this generation Civic ever since seeing one in ’84, in the parking lot of an appliance store, as I was walking in to buy my first solo color TV and wondering how I’d fit it in the ‘Vette. That Honda struck me then, and still does, as the most nearly perfect car design I’ve ever seen.
So, when I went shopping a year later, I knew just what I wanted. While I loved the CRX, I could not see owning two two-seaters, and so went for a red ’86 Si hatchback. It was not long after I picked it up (after waiting three months and paying the $800 “Honda Tax”), that I realized I should sell the Corvette, since the Honda was so much more fun to throw around and superior to the Corvette in every way except for 0-60; with respect to which I quickly learned the truth of the old saying that with sports cars, it’s much more about handling than sheer speed. Which means that when I sold the Corvette not too long afterwards, I kind of wished I’d gone for the CRX after all.
To this day and as I’ve said before, that Civic remains in my memory, the all-around best car I’ve ever owned.
Thanks for this great coverage. I ended my brief Honda ownership (previous generation Civic hatchback) just as these versions were launched. This was the period where I started accumulating multiple motorcycles for fun and daily use, and a pickup truck for when I needed 4 wheels, a roof, and cargo room. Though I did take a few test drives. But I was fortunate to spend a lot of time behind the wheel of friends’ wagons and hatchbacks from this generation; I had one friend with a CRX but never drove it. These really were outstanding cars. Great handling – in the feel, not just the numbers – and good performance, roomy, great visibility, excellent fuel economy, I could go on. And yes, despite the complexity of the emissions controls, at least when new, the drivability and flexibility over a broad rpm range was excellent. Almost 40 years later, some of my most memorable high speed backroad drives were in these Civics. And yes, even in the wagon. I‘ve had no experience with newer Honda’s, so to me this is peak Honda. Perhaps not a coincidence that these followed the 1979-1983 DOHC 4 cylinder 750’s and 900’s, which I would nominate as peak Honda performance street bikes.
Wife at the time bought an 86 civic si.
Great car.
Just wish it had a little more suspension travel. and that’s a pretty minor complaint
These were the start of what I loved about some Hondas, lightweight, nimble, built like a jeweled watch. It still drives my desires to this day.
I had the fortune of riding both generations of CRX over the years in the United States. The first one driven by my work colleague was fun to ride and shockingly roomy (almost like the first generation Prelude). The second one was test drive and felt more focused and fit the two-seat formula better.
I would consider the second generation my favourite of all. I didn’t realise something so trivial: CRX was used exclusively for the US and Canadian markets while CR-X was used elsewhere and in Japan.
If I recalled, the escalating insurance premium killed the second generation CRX. The “successor” was a dreadful CR-X del Sol (now named simply as del Sol), repurposed as a “fun car” in similar vein as 1964 Mustang. The “spiritual successor” was a bizarre CR-Z. My old classmate owned one and gave me a ride. I couldn’t find anything to like about CR-Z.
The CR-Z will always take top spot of “Most Disappointing New Car” in my memories. It just seem to do well at anything, much less any of the things the CRX was good at. Maybe it would be better now, now that more automakers have figured out how to wring power with the economy of the hybrid design.
There were a handful of CRXs that were converted to convertibles that received a lot of positive attention in the car magazines of the time and I suspect that they provided a lot of the inspiration for the del Sol. The del Sol was decent idea, but it probably should have been a variation of the original CRX idea. An addition to the CRX hatchback, instead of a replacement for it.
Before the del Sol came out, Mazda had released the Miata and, while it cost more, it was arguably better looking and better handling than the del Sol and it sucked up the sales that might have otherwise gone to a convertible CRX, (the del Sol). The CRX Hatchback idea had unfortunately been abandoned.
The original 2-seat Honda Insight seemed to have been inspired by high MPG CRX 1300 and later CRX HF models, but as such it had limited market appeal. The later CR-Z was stylish, but decidedly “meh” in terms of performance, handling and gas mileage. Honda lost the thread.
The closest I came to a CR-X (!) was my first 4 wheeled Honda: a base ’88 HB. Despite the small (74-75 hp IIRC) and 4 spd on skinny lil weenies it WAS a fun car to drive! Had it not developed iron oxide cancer I most likely would have kept that car.
The gas mileage was 40+ (Hwy) and it certainly pleased my jaded eyes to look at the exterior design. I added (dealer installed) A/C and a AM/FM “stereo” tape deck…..living LARGE!! With all 4 of us in the car it definitely got S L O W, but with just me……FUN!
Of all the 4 wheeled Honda’s I’ve now owned the ’88 HB is definitely my favorite! 🙂 DFO
This brings back memories. I was in college at the time, and was driving a 1977 Civic CVCC hatchback, which was a great car. I wanted a Civic hatchback but could not afford one.
This collection of new Civics really did raise the bar for small cars. The AMC/Renault Alliance had been the big deal for 1983 (and it initially sold well), but the Civic and front-wheel-drive Corolla sent it reeling back to Kenosha (or France).
I still love the hatchback, although today I’d go for a CRX. But all of these cars have completely disappeared from around here.
my first new car
the owner’s manual said “Civic Coupe”
Honda offered a/c coupon two years later for 1/2 off and got it installed
sold it w/ 190,000 on it, clutch never needed adjustment – people fought for it before the ad ever hit the paper
this yellow one looks like the 1.3, cheaper wheels
and no spoiler
I recall seeing a Civic back around that time with the hatchback open and a tiny tailgate folded down to the open position. Am I imagining that? Or was maybe it was a different model or make?
I believe that was the later “EG” Civic hatchback 92-94:
https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4474895095_ddc4266e22.jpg
That’s iit, a low budget tiny motorhome, complete with a place to sit and a workspace to make breakfast. The front passenger seat might have to come out to make room for a proper bed.
There was a lot of perfect for this car. The market was ready for a fun two seater. The new Civic was perfect for this task. Honda had the perfect reputation for building it. The design was perfect as well. Unlike the MR2 and the Fiero, the CRX was familiar and affordable. It gave the perfect blend of practicality and sport. There was practical room under the hatch, yet it felt like a sports car.
The price the CRX was sold for gave a perfect profit to Honda. Thanks to its perfect design, Honda still made money. Unlike the MR2 and the Fiero, Honda didn’t have to create an entirely new car without flexibility. Thanks to its design and engineering, the cost of the CRX was folded into the entire Civic line. Both Toyota and GM spent millions but had to have their cars return their company’s investments on their own.
It was a great car, and it was beatened to smithereens as well. No one parked this car and let it just sit. It was a well loved toy – loved to death. Finding a good one, if it exists at all, will cost a lot of loot.
I just wish it was an American car. We needed to have kept that money, jobs and success here instead of overseas.
These were great cars! They raised the bar for small cars. They were well-made.
I think as good as these were, the next generation, starting in 1986, was even better!
However, the low MSRP is a little deceptive, as many, if not most, of these were sold with dealer mark-ups.
For $16,500 in 2020 adjusted $USD, this was a lot of fun car for comparatively little money. I wish Honda would have done something similar with the Fit.
the CR-X weighed like 1700 lbs and felt fast and handled well because of it
the Fit isn’t “fit” by comparison, it’s very heavy due to safety build
Eric:
Honda bikes, generators, cars, scooters rarely sold then at MSRP. Honda was at its innovation-plateau then. I remember as a teen in the 1980s, our local Honda Dealerships would get a truckload or two of new Honda cars…2-3 weeks later…one or two would be left….just 1970s/1980s American/Japanese,etc. used cars left to look at or buy.
My parents bought be a (fully loaded) spanking New 1986 Honda Elite 150 Scooter…..3 years later, we put it in the newspaper, we got $3,000 for it, almost double what they paid for it new.
Like all good things, Honda became complacent in the Late 90s (set in-stone for up-coming Platform offerings) and began serving-up offerings just slightly better than the competition.
I was studying graphic design at this time, and Hondas and Toyotas were becoming extremely popular with those in design, marketing, and advertising. These were a huge contributing reason. Design people loved them. Along with the Mac Plus. 🙂
This was a great group of cars, I had the 4 dr sedan, my brother ran two of the Tall Boys, used on rural mail carrier routes, daughter-in-law had the CRX and a friend owned the hatchback. All great cars. The CRX’s and hatchbacks are still kicking butt at autocross.
Look what just turned up at one of our local car clubs, one of only 14 in the UK apparently. My first experience of the CC effect.
This generation of Civic forever changed my perception of Honda.
Looking at what passes for a Civic today, I think they need to get back to their roots. Lock up the stylists and let the engineers design the car. They did such a great job here.
I can assure you the stylists “designed” these cars, and all Hondas back to the beginning. I even pointed out in the post that the stylist who did the CRX owned an Alfa Junior Zagato. This generation of Civics was leading edge design at the time.
I shudder to think of the results if any car company ever let the engineers style the cars.
When these came out, all my friends gushed about it, especially the CRX. This series of Civic was, at the time, one of the best engineered cars in the world. Honda cars were better than anything of that era, except the Golf maybe.
Much has been said that Honda has lost its roots and this is partially true. Problem is that consumers had had enough of junk cars and demanded, and received better. Honda still makes a fine product, but it’s not way better like it used to be. In fact, the reason I bought a Golf instead of a Civic Hatchback was the styling and outward visibility.
Marvelous cars, the whole lineup, but the CRX was brilliant. I can’t believe I’m beating Pete to the punch but I own two of these little things that I’ve held onto for well over three decades now, the first an ’86 CRX Si in the black that was so elusive on the dealer lots of the day…
As well as a Mugen version with the wide fenders as seen in the Road and Track article picture…
My first brand new car was an ’89 CRX. What a blast that car was to drive. I kept it for 16 years, by which time it had mostly rusted into the ground. That CRX made me into a life long Honda loyalist. I sometimes think about getting a Miata as a modern version of low power lightweight fun.
Once again Paul and I agree on a car.
I test-drove a used first-gen CRX in the early ’90s, and it was a revelation. Ultimately, I decided I needed a back seat and the price was more than I wanted to pay (for its condition), so I didn’t purchase it, but seemed like a little “space capsule”. It was little, low, smooth, very responsive, and super-fun – even during my minutes-long test-drive.
It made a believer out of me, and I actually remember having dreams at night around that time about piloting a car like this one. The thing it lacked was truly exciting styling. They looked nice enough, don’t get me wrong. But even in the lead-off photo, put your thumb over the roof and sloping rear panel and it could be a slightly more angular Geo Metro.
The Fiero and MR2, aesthetically, have more of what it takes, but I also realize that their looks and proportions necessarily reduce the utility that the CRX brought to the table. There would be no way to give a car like the CRX looks in a class with those other two cars without compromising what made the CRX such an all-round great car. Stated another way, even if the Fiero had it all together from an engineering standpoint, the packaging of the CRX still would have made it superior.
I remember being beguiled by the CRX when it first came out, but I was single with the occasional need to carry passengers and I was afraid to make the commitment to a pure 2 seat car. In the years since, one of these would have been a great commuter/3rd car but in my rust-generating climate, these have been quite scarce for many years.
I owned an ’86 CRX, the plain middle-line model with the 75-hp 1.5 liter engine and 5-speed and it was a delight. I paid full sticker price for it, but felt lucky because most of the dealers in the state were charging “additional dealer markup” and I managed to avoid that. In the fall of 1985 it cost approximately $7,500 with air and an AM/FM Stereo Cassette Player.
When the air kicked in, it was like it two of the cylinders quit working. It wasn’t that noticeably when cruising down the interstate, but very annoying when driving in city traffic. The gas mileage was great, and while not a fast car, the performance was adequate and the handling was very good. It was a fun car to own and drive for the almost 20 years that I owned it and the more than 200,000 miles that I put on it.
Thanks for the article.
Old Hondas are quite fun. I have a 1984 Civic 1,3 5-speed as a daily to work and to the supermarket. A great car.
A buddy had a 1991 CRX VTEC, that car was a blast. Though, it was very tail-happy/oversteering for a fwd coupe – the CRX requires a skilled driver to be driven fast.
I ordered an ’84 CRX 1.5 sight unseen from the Honda dealership on Rt 88 in Lakewood NJ.
No US dealership had one to test drive, and they had to contact Honda North America to get the numbers to write up the contract.
Knew I wanted it from the R&T mag test.