-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
CRX with NSX motor / Turbo :)
- Thread starter avernaz
- Start date
WOW! Mid 11s! That thing is fast! 
I have been waiting for someone to do that. I have had 4 CRX SIs in the past and always wondered about a NSX engine in the back. The other thing I am waiting for someone to do is take an all-wheel drive civic wagon drivline/rear suspension and fit it in a CRX. That would be great, an all wheel drive CRX. Too much cash for me to try Actually, I thought the car would be faster than 11.06 in the quarter. I mean that's quick, but with a curb weight (normal 1.6 SI) of 2100lbs. and a turbo NSX engine!! Plus that car probably wasn't an SI (didn't see a sunroof). I was figuring at least 10s, problem is probably traction.
John
Actually, I thought the car would be faster than 11.06 in the quarter. I mean that's quick, but with a curb weight (normal 1.6 SI) of 2100lbs. and a turbo NSX engine!! Plus that car probably wasn't an SI (didn't see a sunroof). I was figuring at least 10s, problem is probably traction.John
That car has been around for at least a year, all over the 'net.
No, not really. The Civic 4WD Wagon, as it was last sold in North America in the '88-91 model years, contained the same engine (around 108 hp) as the CRX Si. However, the 4WD system (which included a viscous coupling to engage the rear wheels when the front ones slipped) added almost 300 pounds to the weight of the car, compared with the 2WD version. I think the additional weight would hurt the performance of a CRX more than the extra traction would help.
We had an '88 Civic 4WD Wagon, and even took it to the track a few times. It may not have been the fastest car on the track, but it was the tallest! Here's what it looked like, before it died last year:
jadkar said:
No, not really. The Civic 4WD Wagon, as it was last sold in North America in the '88-91 model years, contained the same engine (around 108 hp) as the CRX Si. However, the 4WD system (which included a viscous coupling to engage the rear wheels when the front ones slipped) added almost 300 pounds to the weight of the car, compared with the 2WD version. I think the additional weight would hurt the performance of a CRX more than the extra traction would help.
We had an '88 Civic 4WD Wagon, and even took it to the track a few times. It may not have been the fastest car on the track, but it was the tallest!
Here's what it looked like, before it died last year:
Was it really 300lbs? I worked for a Honda dealer as a parts guy back in 1993-95 during my big CRX days, a technician and myself printed out every parts diagram for both cars concerning the suspension and drivline. We both figured it was do-able. The biggest problems were rear cross-beam placement (holds the diff.), cable transmission linkage conversion, and that weird 6spd wagon trans. (it had that superlow gear). All the other components looked as though it would take a minimum of fabrication to work in the CRX (some would actually bolt in) As far as weight, with the 108HP engine in my SI I sometimes get wheel hop. I have no idea how these guys are getting traction with 1.8 turbo integra engines pumping 300+ HP. I'm sure the added 300lbs (if it is that much) would be a good trade off. Who really knows, I never had the money nor the balls to rips apart my only ride. I really do wonder if anyone ever tried though.
Actually, while I was editing this I found a link on the specs on the wagons. You were right, the 4wd version was roughly 300lbs more then the 2wd.
Regards,
John
Actually, while I was editing this I found a link on the specs on the wagons. You were right, the 4wd version was roughly 300lbs more then the 2wd.
Regards,
John
I said that the 4WD system added 300 pounds to the weight of the car. Most of that weight was in the 4WD system and in the transmission used (it was a six-speed with a special super-low gear). In all fairness, though, the 108-hp engine was different from the 91-hp engine in the 2WD version, so the difference in engines probably accounted for a small portion of the difference. If so, that portion would not be incremental when installing the drivetrain into a CRX Si, which had the same engine as the 4WD Wagon, but with the regular five-speed transmission.
There already is a 4WD CRX! Someone in Canada installed the CRV trans/drivetrain using an Integra engine. All B series engine/trans' are compatible so it was just a matter of time untill someone did it. I'd love to have 4wd.......Must..stop somewhere. There are some videos of the car floating around the net burning (it's turbo too) all 4 wheels cruising around a makeshift rally track in the snow. Pretty neat.
Last edited:
true said:
There was another one before that. One of the major magazines made a twin-engine CRX by putting an Accord engine in the hatch area. The Accord engine drove the rear wheels, and the engine up front drove the front wheels. So it was 4WD also.
That car was later advertised and re-sold to the public...
That's funny you mention that because in the late 80's Car & Driver (or Road & Track) made a twin engined CRX. It was based on the 1st generation CRX and had twin 1.5s in it. They reported the car did 0-60 in 5 seconds.
Yes, that's the one to which I was referring.
old news! heheh signal auto of japan had that swap done a long long time agoavernaz said:
nsxtasy said:
Strange....I heard they did that with a Saturn too (just recently). So both engines ran at the same time, in unison?? Any idea of all 4 wheels were driven together with a center differential, or was it simply 2 2wheel drive setups? I'd Like to read about that...
In the CRX example both engines ran independently, and the biggest problem they had was getting them both to provide the same throttle. What ended up happening was one engine was always pushing or pulling the other end of the car, they could never get them sync'd up. This was obviously before drive by wire, today they could just have a sensor at the pedal and splice the drive by wire feed into the 2 different engines. But, this was like 1986.
John
John
