Another in a series of my reviews that appeared in the online version of African Americans On Wheels, a now defunct automotive magazine that was included as an insert in the Sunday newspapers of major cities.
What I found interesting about this car is that it was Nissan that went all-in on CVTs less than ten years later while Honda is still cautious on which models and trims receive a CVT. Was it because the HX was a slow seller? I’m not sure, but even this early CVT clearly impressed me with its smoothness and improvement in gas mileage. If there was the usual droning under acceleration that seems to be the main complaint of those that drive a car with a CVT, it either wasn’t there or not annoying enough to bother me.
One omission I regret is not stating the fuel economy of the HX in the context of the other models. Checking the revised numbers on fueleconomy.gov, the four-speed automatic in the DX/LX achieved 25 city/33 highway, while the five-speed manual achieved 27/34. The CVT, with a revised 29/35 rating, is very impressive by those measures. However, the HX also employed several other fuel saving changes over the DX/LX, and the five-speed manual HX knocks it out of the park with a revised 30/39.
Prior to the HX, I believe that no one else had attempted to market a CVT in the U.S. since the Subaru Justy. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Ask yourself, “Am I willing to give up a little performance for a major improvement in smoothness and fuel economy?” If the answer is yes, then take a look at the Honda Civic HX, a stylish little coupe with the smoothness of a much larger car and the gas mileage of a much smaller one, but with a small penalty in performance.
The current generation Civic, one of the best-selling compact cars in the country and available in various two, three, and four door configurations, has been around since 1996. While all other Civics are available with a four-speed automatic transmission, the HX Coupe is the only one that offers Honda’s revolutionary Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT).
While the idea has been around for decades, quality and drivability problems in the past have kept the application of CVTs minimal. In a nutshell, rather than the four set ratios of the regular automatic, CVT uses a drive belt connected to two conical pulleys that continuously alter the drive ratios for maximum efficiency as you accelerate. Honda’s version differs in that it includes “S” (Second) and “L” (Low), which gives the driver a higher set of ratios that provide slightly better acceleration and can be used for traction or driving down steep grades. Although not seamless, “shifts” are almost imperceptible and a nice break from the jerking of most regular automatics.
Inside, laid out amongst the well-thought-out interior, is a shifter that looks like any other, with a standard P-R-N-D-S-L layout. Shift into “D” and drive it like you would any other car. Although not lethargic, the Civic HX still accelerates like it’s 20 horsepower short of the advertised 115, and the engine feels strained under hard acceleration. Mileage, however, is an astounding 34 city/39 highway.
Otherwise, the HX Coupe, like all Civics, is nearly perfect. Handling is way above average, and the car overall has a solid feel with good control. The trunk is large, and the rear seats fold for even more space.
In my book, the performance is a small price to pay for the gas mileage, smoothness, and incomparable Honda quality found in the Civic HX.
For more information contact 1-800-33-HONDA ext. 737
SPECIFICATIONS
Type:2-Door Coupe
Engine:115-horsepower, 1.6-liter inline-4
Transmission:Continuously Variable Automatic (CVT)
EPA Mileage:34 city/39 highway
Tested Price:$14,874
Other than the short-lived Plymouth Turismo Miser, was Honda the only manufacturer that consistently offered a high fuel economy version of their cars? Over a decade before this one, I recall Civic FE’s, and later HF’s, with fewer options, smaller tires etc to eke out a few more mpg. I always remember being surprised when I saw people driving the CRX HF … I mean, here was a car that was already a great balance of sporty performance and fuel economy, was it really worth sacrificing the power and handling for slightly lower running costs? This CVT aversion came along at a time when I wasn’t really paying attention; I wonder how well it sold.
I know a couple of people that had these when I was still in San Francisco, bought mainly for the gas mileage. Like most Hondas they seemed to last forever with little love and lots of miles. Those wheels were also extremely light if I remember correctly, something like 12 pounds each? That was the main reason this version got alloys instead of steelies with caps.
Honda generally was out in front with alternate fuel saving tech/variants, around the same time Adam was testing this I was driving/testing the natural gas version as I wrote up here a while back:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/coal-1998-honda-civic-gx-i-was-an-early-car-sharing-study-guinea-pig/
Then the first Hybrid over here (Insight, pre-Prius), and the current Honda lineup has several extremely efficient hybrids as well as the Clarity in all its versions after they kind of lost the plot for a few years there.
Those wheels were also extremely light if I remember correctly…
I didn’t notice that in the pic until you mentioned. This should have also help keep the ride from deteriorating, as the HX weighed about 150 lbs less than the EX*. Sprung-to-unsprung weight ratio on that lightweight a vehicle gets really important.
(*Per the Google.)
I have a 1996 Honda Civic HX. The odometer just rolled over to 397,000. Still gets great gas mileage. Runs great and looks good. Had it repainted last year.
Very impressive! I bet there aren’t many of these left on the road.
I had a 2000 that I got with 80k and took it to 120k or so with no problems. Great for darting around in Boston traffic and averaged about 37 mpg. The cvt did feel like a rubber band but not bad. I loved that car, something about the clean simple styling.
I had utterly forgotten that these had a CVT. Really? Wow. Did I even know that at the time? Scary.
But then it appears the Multimatic had a short and limited life, from 1996-2003 and was only used in the Civic HX and the City, not sold in the US. That makes me feel a bit better. 🙂
Semi-related: I briefly owned a ’01 Honda Insight with a CVT. I also owned a ’00 Insight 5-speed for 13 years. I bought the CVT equipped car to flip and was unimpressed at how agrarian and harsh the transmission felt. I decided to change the CVT fluid to see how that would affect its operation, a pricy gamble as the fluid is apparently made out of refined Lagavulin 16 year old whisky.
The transformation was night and day, I found myself preferring the CVT over the manual, which is heresy to admit. Were the car not needing an IMA battery I’d have kept it. In retrospect, I should’ve as the guy who bought it immediately found a wrecked Insight with a good battery for $500, so a score for him. I probably wouldn’t buy a modern car with a CVT, but that Insight was impressive and exhibited none of the sluggishness of a conventional auto transmission.