Any guesses on '83 Civic mpg?
 

About a year ago I picked up a '83 Civic dx 1.5L hatchback with a bad transmission, found a transmission from a '83 civic FE.
The Honda Civic FE had a 1300cc engine with peek torque of 68 ft.lbs @ 4,000rpm, Civic DX's engine is 1500cc with 77 ft. lbs @ 3,000rpm, my figures show that with the FE tranny my 60mph 5th gear engine speed should then drop from 2,500rpm to 2,200rpm, other then the higher geared tranny, the Civic Hatchback FE would have things like an additional fuel cut off solenoid on it, and the fuel cut off kicks in at lower engine speeds while coasting in gear, the ignition timing is the same, valves open and close at the same crank rotation, carburetors have the same venturi openings altho they have different model numbers, I think just different jets, but over all they didn't seem to be drastically different, the DX weighs only 84 pounds more then the FE, so a total of 1,867 pounds curb weight, with a 1500cc engine that puts out 63hp@5,000rpm (compare to 60hp@5,500 of the 1.3L FE) and seats 5 where the FE only had seat belts for 4.

So as soon as I can get this car out of the shed (mud, snow is in the way) and get new tires on it I plan to start using it, if mileage good enough, and if I like how the car feels I'm thinking I might sell the VX, this cvcc car has almost no rust, and fewer miles, but is also 9 years older, only reason for not doing that is that I don't want to drive the cvcc in the salt.

I'll throw down a guess of 37 mpg, :)

The way you drive? 33.7mpg. ;)

well, after it's sat for almost a year and a half with very little use I filled up the tank and started to drive this car, first tank was 39.5mpg, 60 miles of that was with 4 people in the car the rest as just around town, just driving like normal, took about 100 miles before it started to smooth out and run better, 2nd tank looks like it might be better mileage, I'll know in a few weeks.

Hi Ryland,
I am very interested in how your car does. I have access to a 78 CVCC Accord that needs a bit of work but ran well the last time it was used. I went to 3geez - Powered by vBulletin and they reported around 30mpg is common with these cars driven normally. One person posted they get around 39mpg doing mostly highway.
I am trying to decide if its worth fixing and licensing based on MPG. It would be a fun car but I'm not sure if it can beat my neon significantly.
Ian

EPA Est
 

EPA est on the 85 1.3 were 32 city 38 hwy

The "1500" (1488cc) EM CVCC motor was rated at 34 City/47 Hwy. I'm guessing with the taller gearing of the 1300 trans., you could do even better than that (and look cool doing it:)) The "FE" was rated at 41/55.

IIRC, the EW, even the 1.3, was a different animal from the from the 2nd gen EM motors.

I had a '78 Hondamatic that delivered 30mpg in spite of a fuel pump leak. I drove it like a man possessed; I'm certain you can do better.

Had one of those new
 

I know this is an old thread but when I found it I had to chime in. I bought a 1983 Civic FE new in 1983. The sticker claimed a remarkable mileage EPA. I found it to be accurate. I achieved as high as 70 mpg on the highway, and it was great around town. When I sold the car years later to a friend, he felt compelled to stop for fuel after a couple of weeks of driving just because he didn't believe it had gone that far on a tank.

I was just wondering to myself why now, after 30 years of automotive technology, can we only barely achieve numbers like that with a turbo diesel.

Pop averaged 39.5 MPG in his 77 Accord with the 1.5 engine (CVCC) driving up and down US 1 in the Florida Keys for the American Cancer Society. I rebuilt the car with 12k miles on it and he bought it and drove it 50k miles, traded it in for a total of $1200 in depreciation. That Accord weighed right at 2k pounds.

regards
Mech