C-MURDER Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Mik, read all the magazine articles you want, I've driven one numerous times, they handle like no other car I've ever been in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikAnchovy Posted April 17, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Hey C-MURDER, although I've never driven a CRX Si, I've certainly felt their handling. My uncle bought his in '91, he sold it to my aunt in '93, and she sold it three years ago. I've spend many hours in a certain white '90 CRX Si. They're amazingly tight little cars. Man, you gave me an idea... my aunt's in town for the week. I'm gonna get her to drive my NX and ask her how it compared to her old CRX... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotusGT1 Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 I'd take the Golf GTi. FYI, half of the cars listed aren't hot hatches....f.e. the MR2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MURDER Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Man the feel you get of the road with no power steering is amazing. It's un-matched by any car I've ever driven in. Like the article you gave said, the shifting is very smooth, I could shift with my pinky if I wanted. And the car reaches it's 6.5k redline with ease. But me personally, I would take a NX2000 over a Si if given the pick, only because there are other CRX' in my town but NO NX's, and because I wanna out-run my friend in his CRX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan_Michael Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 The pulsar would rock Kiwi....beat all of the cars up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris V. Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Funny that the CRX was considered under-tired. Since pretty much none of them will be (or should be) on their stock tires, the results are meaningless to what you would see driving one now. Tires are a wear item, so they have to be changed sooner or later. When they are, all bets are off as to how the car performed stock... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xzotyqar Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 my choice was the CRX as i've always liked my ol' 85 however, i understand the last model year in N.Am for the MR2 had its chassis all sorted out, and was suppose to be the best of the bunch (especially the turbo version; not counted) i think if turbos were included, i'd pick the MR2 over the NX or Eclipse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikAnchovy Posted April 18, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 C-Murder, I understand the fun of unassisted steering... that's what the Hondamatic had. It's amazingly precise and gives a feel like nothing else. Having said that, some amount of assist is still nice, and you can still preserve an amount of road feel with power assist. My NX has pretty decent road feel (not on par with the Hondamatic, mind you...), yet doesn't strain the arms while parralel parking. Chris, I certainly hope that few 4th gen Civic/CRX Sis are running around on the stock treads! Probably a few are still running around on the stock 14 x 5.5" or 14 x 6" rims though, which still kinda limits them to 185/60 or 195/60 tires though. Same with my car... 14 x 6"s, and unless you want to pay $70/tire minimum for either a Potenza RE72 or a Dunlop SP Sport 9000 (one of two high-performance street tires that comes in 195/55), you have to run 185/60s. Smallish stock tires aren't a BIG deal, but they're still a bit of a detriment to performance next to cars that were equipped with, or that can accomodate bigger rubber on the stock rims. And of course, although I'm not speaking out of experience, the article's comments about understeer and a soft feel would probably hold true even with a tire- or wheel/tire-upgrade. Lotus, there's only one non-hot-hatch car in the group, the MR2 . I put it in because Gimpy had one in his comparison, it matches in quite nicely with the performance of the other cars in the group, and I wanted to show how far the cars (and the segment) of Gimpy's comparison had progressed from the early/mid '80s to the early '90s. If you don't think the MR2's an appropriate choice, then please don't vote for it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimpyben Posted April 21, 2001 Report Share Posted April 21, 2001 I don't see how the CRX, can be considered soft, it's one of the harshest cars I've ever driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2001 Report Share Posted April 21, 2001 Wouldnt the saab spg fit in this comparo, it was around in the early 90'sm its a hatch too. It was the fastest 900 turbo. 0-60 in 8.2 seconds 1/4 in 16.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MURDER Posted April 21, 2001 Report Share Posted April 21, 2001 I dunno, the Saab is about 3300 pounds, I'm not quite sure it fits in with the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2001 Report Share Posted April 21, 2001 true, but if we were looking at hatches of the early 90's it would fit. How does it compare to the others in 0-60? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.