I think it is all inaccurate data, Just like what I was looking at 20 minutes ago at a chart for oil temp breakdown.
Castrol pitted their oil against other leading 5w-30 oils and their chart clearly tells that their oils breakdown at a higher temp than the others. But what they are comparing is their Syntec Oil to leading blends and conventional oils. Woah, big mistake.. That's like comparing apples and oranges. Not one of the other oils they used as competition was a full synthetic oil, but theirs was..
Same goes for the MPG rating above. It shows that the CRX Gets an EPA rating much better than any of today's cars, but it also is comparing The Rating of the CRX's EPA rating, and Today's EPA rating, which are totally different.
Now your talking about what the EPA thought it would get with todays ratings and achieve a 51. I wanna see actual tests! Do the math all you want, but the only real way to know is do real tests. You can talk about what you've calculated the removal of your roof racks, new Cam, Or Kammback, grille block, or even pizza cutter wheel covers will make your fuel economy jump, but without real tests, you can't say it's totally logical. Those mods may only make half of what you calculated.
Not bagging in anyway on the CRX HF, it's an amazing vehicle that I wished I owned. But It just seems like these people were trying to make it seem worse than it is.
My mom owns a 2007 Dodge Caliber R/T and It's a decently sized vehicle with a wheelbase of 103.7. It scored an NHTSA 5 star crash test rating ALL ACROSS THE BOARD except roll over resistance, which achieved 4 stars, and standard features such as anti-lock brakes, side curtain airbags, smart passenger airbag, fog lights and the Manual tranny version gets 31 mpg (old EPA) with a 2.4L I4. The 1.8L I4 could probably boast some higher MPG's with a Manual Tranny if you eco-drive and not Ameri-drive.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...-caliber-3.htm