crx = win

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/diy-modified-honda-crx-hf-118-mpg-chang-ho-kim.php?dcitc=th_rss

win win win

ohh and its got a hell of a chin...

Looks like a natural for Mr. Leno's collection....

Stealthtercel wrote: Looks like a natural for Mr. Leno's collection....

http://instantrimshot.com/

how does the radiator get fresh air??

They could have removed the wiperblades, and taped over the door handle (the door is taped closed anyway). I also see Si wheels, they would have been much better off with Insight wheels. Oh, and the exterior mirrors should have been removed.

Now why would someone try to turn a CRX into a 1st gen Insight on purpose?

Just read the article, he could have gone for some underbody aero work as well. 118mpg aint bad though!

xci_ed6 wrote: Just read the article, he could have gone for some underbody aero work as well. 118mpg aint bad though!

my point exactly...

Wow 118 mpg, that is damn impressive!

CLNSC3 wrote: Wow 118 mpg, that is damn impressive!

But, but, my P71 gets 23!

Interesting!

He ran snow tires for low rolling resistance (not what I would have expected). No tail modifications (area where lots of drag is claimed to live). No smoothing of the undercariage.

Really, he didn't do much at all. Which makes it quite interesting, imo.

I wonder how much and what kind of driving stragies were employed ... and how much it played into the total MPG number?? Add a draft partner, burn and coast, never touch the brakes (important to handle) etc.

remove the clutch switch and drive it on the starter till the battery dies?

Love it.

how are snow tires low rolling resistance, they are about the softest compound available this side of R.

littleturquoiseb wrote: I wonder how much and what kind of driving stragies were employed ... and how much it played into the total MPG number?? Add a draft partner, burn and coast, never touch the brakes (important to handle) etc.

I would guess all of the above, plus shutting down the motor and coasting.

The snow tire were a new Nokian(sp) tire just out. He is a dealer. The deflector on the front was open at the bottom to allow air to the radiator. The course had some hills that were nice for coasting and a good handling car helped as there were some sharp curves whilst coasting. I taped up the front of my ZX2/SR, put 10psi more air in the tires and got 59.09 mpg.

Jay Leno must be real fuel efficient...

I love that he said he "added lightness". Our kind of guy.

does taping really do that much to increase MPG?

How about something more permanant..like silicone the gaps and razor blade it so it opens?

So, is it good or bad that my CRX HF now has a B16A?

clear packing tape would have looked better... and yes, I am sure he would have seen closer to 125/130mpg with underbody aero (though, I guess that nose cone took care of a lot of that. you do not need underbody aero when no air gets down there) and some work to the Kamm tail

Am I the only one who wants to see what mileage would be in a real world situation, ie commuting to work?

Where turning off the car and coasting, etc isn't really an option?

David S. Wallens wrote: So, is it good or bad that my CRX HF now has a B16A?

bad. IMHO.

z31maniac wrote: Am I the only one who wants to see what mileage would be in a real world situation, ie commuting to work? Where turning off the car and coasting, etc isn't really an option?

I drive 80 miles/day round trip. Roughly 25% of that is coasting with the car shutoff.

poopshovel wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: So, is it good or bad that my CRX HF now has a B16A?

bad. IMHO.

But a few years ago it was the hot setup. I was behind an HF during the drive home yesterday. I'm guessing it wasn't stock, either.