CRXFi Build Thread (Geo Metro XFi drivetrain in Honda CRX)

[90crxHF]

I want the HF transmission, mainly for the 5th gear...

[Christ]

I just noticed that the track width isn't that much wider than on the CRX... I'd have (and did) guess otherwise, as I noted in the PM.

1.6cm is usually within the stretchable realm for axles, but if you can get the wider ones, that might be an even better fit for you, because they don't like to be stretched beyond a certain point and still function properly.

This is exciting.

[Wonderboy]

Originally Posted by Gasoline Fumes

If you need longer axles, the 1995+ Metros have them. The track is 0.8" wider on the newer cars.

That's actually the measurement I cited, not my XFi's track width. The '95+ track width number was all I could find in my quick search, so the 2nd gen CRX's track (1400mm) is 1.6cm wider than 3rd gen suzukiclones (1384mm). I just figured the track didn't change over those generations

Based on how wiggly axles feel to be, I don't think that 1.6cm/2 is going to be much of a stretch for axles to handle. Does anyone know for sure one way or another that stretching one axle 8mm farther than its used to could cause significant safety or longevity concerns?

90crxHF: If you want that transmission and it's actually still there, I'd be happy to get it for you if you pay for it and its shipping. PM me if you're serious, but I'd be looking locally if I were you. Shipping could get pricey.

[Christ]

8mm = .31 inches. It's within the normal variation for engine mount movement, so I don't see a problem with it.

The one issue that could arise is with suspension travel, but that's not likely either.

Axles tend to have 1" or more of movement in both directions at both ends from center, so there's alot of "wiggle room" in them.

Make sure you check/replace the front suspension bushings on the Civic, though, becuase if you don't, you'll ruin axles on a weekly basis. Ask me how I know... LOL.

The axles that I have that are new in the box are the 5th warranty replacement before I could figure out what the problem was.

[Wonderboy]

The one issue that could arise is with suspension travel, but that's not likely either.

You've ruined my "suspension travel" aspirations. I was going to surprise everyone too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFUiEAPOqBI

[Christ]

LOL. Did you get the PM about the knuckles?

[Wonderboy]

So let's just say I found a gen 1 CRX shell in great condition for sale locally with the right price ... because I did.

I'm trying to compare the benefits of the reduced weight of an oldie (an 86) with its slightly worse aerodynamics and Macpherson struts (vs. the double wishbone suspension of a gen 2 CRX). Can anyone chime in to help me assess how important weight is versus aero + double wishbone suspension (fierce cornering ability is important when trying to conserve kinetic energy around curves). I'm really teetering on this, ever so slightly leaning toward holding out for a gen 2, since I'm not really in much of a hurry.

[moonmonkey]

weight is alot less important if you do alot of highway driving, aero is more important at higher speeds and weight is less important if you dont have to slow way down or stop alot,, it doesnt hurt much at constant speeds,, from my experience's.

[MetroMPG]

The Gen 1 may have a slightly higher Cd (guessing), but I bet it also has a smaller A. CdA is the thing, remember, and it's easier to reduce Cd than A.

Buy it!

[Wonderboy]

According to our handy-dandy Cd list in the Wiki section:
Honda CRX 1984 - 1987 0.32Cd | 18.3sq.ft | 5.84CdA
Honda CRX 1988 - 1991 0.30Cd | 18.6 sq.ft | 5.57CdA
Honda CRX HF 1988 - 1991 0.29Cd | 18.6sq.ft | 5.39CdA

Whipping out the ol' calculator tells me that the Gen1 only has 3.6 sq. inches less frontal area than Gen 2, correct? That wouldn't seem like something to shake a stick at to me - less than a passenger mirror for sure. I'd just as soon assume for this argument that Gen1 and 2 have the same frontal area......decisions!