[Xist]

This 1994 Civic hatchback is for sale in Show Low for $1,100 and I am trying to determine what submodel it is.

It is an autotragic. Wikipedia suggests that CXes only came with manuals in the U.S., while it was an option in Canada, eh. It also says:

The 1995 CDM CX models (sometimes colloquially referred to as the "CX-Plus") added the rear wiper/washer as a standard feature, and could be ordered with side mouldings and manual passenger-side mirror.

It has all of those! The rear wiper was an option before, but mouldings and side mirror weren't?

There are three paragraphs describing the engine, but nothing that would be in the pictures. There is only a Honda badge on the back.

No license plate! Why isn't there a license plate?!

Anyway, Wikipedia says "The D15Z1 engine was considered revolutionary for its day.[citation needed] To this day, the VX remains a favorite of Hypermilers.[citation needed]"

Who has a citation?! Shall I take a poll?

The next paragraph is interesting:

One of the few rocks Honda left unturned in search of better fuel economy was increasing the final drive ratio of the VX, usually expressed as the number of engine revolutions per mile in the transmission's top gear. Since the ratio of the VX is identical to the CX, despite the engine's greater power, low end torque, and the car's lower coefficient of drag the use of a higher final drive ratio would have resulted in a drivable car, with even higher fuel economy. The lower than necessary final drive ratio results in a vehicle that is remarkably quick off the line, for one that can get 50 MPG on the highway. A higher ratio could have been accomplished by transmission modifications, such as an overdrive top gear, a dual range transmission, or simply by using larger diameter wheels, in conjunction with a wide ratio transmission, so there would be sufficient torque on the driving wheels in first gear.

Originally Posted by Mr. Genius Man

Balto put a VX gearbox in an HX and could not undo it fast enough, fifth gear was too low, and it was wrong for lean burn.

If a VX transmission was too low for an HX, wouldn't a higher gear be too low for a VX? Civic transmission swapping

Wikipedia says the VX had a tachometer. This doesn't. It definitely doesn't have VX wheels, but I am sure that many non-VXes have them, while many VXes don't.

The VX has aerodynamic underbody panels and had some aluminum componenst, while the other submodels used steel.

The CX and VX have shift lights.

Edit: Those were only available with a manual.

The standard model was the more powerful DX, with a 102 hp (76 kW) 1.5 L D15B7 engine, manual passenger side mirror (after 1992), tilt steering, intermittent wipers, side mouldings, rear wiper/washer, and rear cargo shelf as standard equipment. Despite the higher horsepower powerplant, the DX returns real-world mileage of 38 city / 45 hwy.

The passenger window is manual and broken.

The EPA shows 2 ratings for the VX, without a discernible difference. So does Wikipedia.

Wikipedia gives one number without specifying the transmission. I am sure that would now be around 31/40, while every one of us should easily meet or beat the original 38/45, but was that for the manual or automatic?

Edmunds says 29/36, but still doesn't specify the transmission.

Fuelly says that 6 owners of 1994 DX hatchbacks reported between 18 and 39 MPG, averaging 29.67 MPG, but still not differentiating between transmissions.

How the heck do you get 18?!

I can only guess that it is heavily un-ecomodded. Throwing out his noise it averages 32 MPG.

There is a table saying the CX was only available with an automatic in Canada, the VX was only available with a manual, and while there wasn't any doubt that this wasn't an Si, that was also only available with a manual, so if it was initially sold in the U.S., and it had an autotragic, it is a DX.