There is a decent chance that, by the time you read this, one or both of the cars I’m about to show you may be sold. If that happens, I apologize. As of this writing, however, both are miraculously still available. They’re cars that rarely come up for sale these days, especially at this price and in this condition.
On Friday, we looked at a couple of cars that were nowhere near as sought-after. Well, one was an OK car, but vastly overpriced, and the other was a full-on Monet. Something about that tacky yellow lump of an AMC appealed to a majority of you, though, giving the Pride of Kenosha a decisive win.
You all can have it. I’ll take its, um, challenger – the Mitsubishi with the famous Dodge name. Sure, it’s expensive and slow, but apart from the name, it’s not trying to be something it’s not. That “AMX” just reminds me of those guys who peaked in high school and are still bragging about their football triumphs while they’re trying to sell you new carpeting.
Once upon a time, the classified ads were thick with sporty little Japanese compacts, simple and fun cars that could be bought for cheap and wouldn’t put you on a first-name basis with tow truck drivers. But because they were cheap, and fun, and kinda sporty, young drivers snapped them up and did horrible things to them. Suddenly they were all mere millimeters off the ground, making obnoxious fart noises at everyone in traffic through “mufflers” that seemed designed to do the exact opposite, and being driven in terribly antisocial ways. Finding stock examples of such cars got harder and harder.
Oh, they’re still out there, if you’re willing to pay a premium at an online auction site. But once in a while, if you’re lucky, a bargain comes along. Neither of these are really screaming deals, but they both feel fairly priced to me, which is about as good as you’re going to get these days. Let’s check them out.
1991 Honda CRX HF – $3,250
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5 liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Vancouver, WA
Odometer reading: 272,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but idles a little weird
Who doesn’t love the CRX? Honda’s little two-seat Civic has been charming drivers ever since its introduction in 1984. It’s simple and lightweight, and even the frugal HF version is fun to chuck around. And somehow, the second one got even better, which is a trick usually reserved for Sigourney Weaver movies. It’s not often you find a stock second-generation CRX these days for any sort of a reasonable price, especially with a manual transmission. As expected, it’s got a bazillion miles on it, but it has held up well.
This is the HF model, tuned for fuel efficiency rather than performance. Its little 1.5 liter engine makes only 72 horsepower, but it’s a lightweight car, so it’s more sprightly than you’d imagine. Because the HF was the lightest and plainest CRX, it was a favorite of the street-racing crowd, and a whole lot of these engines got yanked out in favor of something more powerful. It’s nice to see that this one is still in there, doing its thing. It runs and drives well, but the seller says it idles unevenly; they suspect a vacuum leak, though lots of other things can cause idle issues. It does have a new clutch, driveaxles, brake master cylinder, battery, and more.
It’s as threadbare as you’d imagine for the mileage, but it’s all there, and it’s all stock. Well, almost; the seller says it has a short-throw shifter, but everything else is original, including the steering wheel. I don’t see a stereo, but that’s easily remedied. Clean it up, and throw on some seat covers – I think those hibiscus-pattern ones would look good in here – and don’t worry about it too much.
The paint is faded, but I don’t see any glaring body damage, and it shouldn’t be rusty. It’s the stock ride height, which is nice to see, but it does have aftermarket wheels, and that’s definitely not the stock muffler. Hopefully it’s not too offensive-sounding.
1991 Toyota Corolla GT-S – $3,900
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6 liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: San Jose, CA
Odometer reading: 171,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Now, before you get too excited, let’s clear something up: This car is front-wheel-drive. The previous generation of Corolla coupe was rear-wheel-drive, and famous for it, but don’t expect to try any drifting shenanigans with this one – unless you steal a couple of trays from the school cafeteria, stick ’em under the rear wheels, and set the parking brake. (Does anybody still do that?)
Don’t despair, though; driven by the “wrong” wheels as it may be, this car has the goods. It’s powered by Toyota’s rev-happy 4A-GE four-cylinder, good for 135 horsepower, and a five-speed stick. It doesn’t sound like a lot these days, but you have to remember how light cars this age are. It’s plenty. We don’t get much information about this car in the ad, and what is there is in Spanish, but they do say it’s in excellent condition and has current tags.
This photo, and a photo of the back seat, are the only glimpses we get at the interior, but it looks promising. There’s some wear on the steering wheel, but the seats look fine from what I can see. You can just barely see it in this photo, but this car also features the absolute best HVAC controls anybody ever designed. Toyota’s “four sliders and a button for AC” system is the gold standard; you don’t need anything more complex, and once you learn it, you can operate it without looking, and that’s how controls like that should be.
It’s not quite perfect outside, but it’s really, really nice. It looks good in white, too, as a lot of slightly special Japanese cars from this era do. And it’s got pop-up headlights, which will never not be cool. It is a little worrying, though, that they’re up in every photo. Hopefully they both go down as well.
Neither of these cars were particularly rare when they were new, but now that there are so few left in stock condition like these, they’re sure to turn heads. And I doubt either of them will be on the market for long, so if you want one, get moving. Assuming they’re both still available by the time you read this, which ad are you answering?
Easily the Corolla. Now if the CRX was a si with the same mileage it might have been a more difficult decision.
I’m more of a hatchback guy, but that Corolla wins.
Oh man, I saw a really clean red Corolla GT-S in Hackensack, NJ last night. It looked ever so slightly lowered and had an aftermarket exhaust, but it wasn’t a fart can. Impressive.
Toyota for sure.
While I think these are good controls, I still prefer the dials instead.
Pop up headlights for the win
Oh I want both! But the rolla is in much better shape for just a little more money
Man I really want that corolla
The Toyota is just too clean to ignore, especially at that price.
I like old Civics – the first new car I bought was a 1994 Civic, and it was an excellent runabout. But that enormous tailpipe thing puts me off this one. I take it as a giveaway sign that someone has done more unwise, boy-racer things to this car. And in any case the Toyota just looks much nicer overall, so I voted for it. Somewhat tangentially: why do people use photos of cars standing on grass when they are trying to sell them? It’s a quite common practice, but to me it always conveys an impression that the car has been abandoned.
While it’s more expensive, the Corolla is far nicer all around. Frankly, I think it’s better looking than the CRX as well, and having more power will be helpful where I live.
The CRX never did it for me. Toyota today.
The choice might come down to which one has the *less* annoying seatbelts.
The Honda might have the motorized kind that’s supposed to be kept buckled in; looks like it’s been unbuckled which takes a little effort since the release button is a bit harder to use than a regular one. And IIRC the Toyota may not have the motorized kind but it does have the weird two-piece arrangement where the shoulder belt is connected to the door frame and is thusly automatic if kept buckled in on the other end but you have to manually click the lap belt in place yourself.
A friend still has her 1990 Corolla SR-5 notchback coupe which is extremely similar to the one for sale down to the white body color and the interior colors & fabrics but, alas, it is not a GT-S. She bought it new and drove it daily until about a decade ago when she acquired a used Lexus four-door sedan so she could easily chauffeur her elderly parents around. She still drives the SR-5 occasionally; it runs just fine with just under 300k miles on it.
’91 CRX HF has non-motorized seatbelts. I know because I “daily” one that just cracked 200K.
Today is a very rare “both” day for me. But rules are rules, so had to limit my choice to the GT-S.
Picked the Toyota for the pop-up headlights and lower miles. Also, digging the lines and it looks good in white.
That CRX has the same drivetrain as my 89 Civic wagon. Make sure you check the valve lash or you’ll end up burning an exhaust valve like I did.
My fave HVAC controls are 3 dials (fan, temp, position) and an AC button.
“And it’s got pop-up headlights, which will never not be cool.”
False. Pop up headlights are terrible. That is a “feature” I will never miss. Good riddance.
I still voted for the Toyota, though. This car looks very nice. I like that the interior appears to be in good condition, although some areas look like they could use a cleaning. Overall, I don’t see a lot to criticize about this car, aside from the stupid headlights.
I like the CRX and prefer it over the Toyota, but given the similar price tags and very dissimilar conditions, I had to vote for the Corolla.
CLEAN Corolla vs. ratty CRX?
No contest.
Corolla. Even though I like the CRX better – If I were shopping for one, I’d be looking very specifically for a 1st gen blue w/gray in the mintiest condition possible.
The muffler and aftermarket wheels on this one – plus the scruffiness – indicate that it’s been driven as if it were an Si in a chase scene. No thanks.
My older brother has a first gen in blue w/grey, but it ain’t exactly mint. Younger brother drove it into the rear wheels of a semi tractor that ran a stop sign.
Fortunately it was in town and low speed so the damage wasn’t catastrophic, but given the weight disparity, the CRX suffered way more than the semi.
He’s kept it all these years, and is hoping/dreaming of restoring it after retirement.
Tough call, but I went for the Toyota because the GT-S is more desirable than an HF. With that said, I like them both.
A rust-free non-destroyed CRX? If that wasn’t almost as far away from me as it could be in the continental US I would go get it right now.
Seat covers never look good in anything. Go to a junkyard and pull some DC2 seats and just swap them over. It’s almost as straightforward a swap as C5/C6/C7 seats in a C4 are. Probably cost you less money than seat covers too.
That Corolla is as close to a Toyota Prelude as you’re ever gonna get.
That’s the one for me.
Never thought I’d say this — not what you’d call a Toyota fan — but I’ll take the Corolla. Same money, fewer miles, looks to be in better shape overall.
The CRX HF may have been the hot ticket for tuners, but being poverty-spec (no A/C), long-geared IIRC and low-power it’s just hot now.
If this were a top-spec Civic, I’d probably go for it. This one, no.
“Who doesn’t love the CRX?” Generally, Me. That was weird time, 2 seat economy cars were all over. the Ford EXP was perhaps the worst, though CRX was at least economical if not really sporty in my mind. Both of these lumps are no go for me, but If I had to buy one, Corrolla I guess.
The HF was the least desirable CRX, and the GT-S was the most desirable Corolla. I went with the Toyota.
As the base for a project, the HF was the most desirable.
Drop in a ZC motor / trans and you have a competent machine with equal length axles that got rid of torque steer (although the Honda 4 cylinders of the time didn’t make torque steer a huge problem).
I believe all the second-gen CRXs had equal-length axles. Other than potentially the price, I don’t see why the HF would be any better than any other CRX. For anyone else, other than hyper-milers, the HF has a significant performance penalty.
Not paying a premium for parts you’ll just rip-out or replace is pretty-much it. All about performance/$$$
Fair enough. But once you get to a 35-year-old car with well over 200,000 miles on the clock, the price difference between an HF and other trims isn’t likely to account for much. And for the 99% of buyers who aren’t going to do an engine swap, the HF isn’t nearly as desirable.
You’re right. I assumed you were referring to the historical preference for the HF over a higher spec for the tuner crowd, my comment held a lot more water in a 90’s/2000’s tuner context…
I love the CRX and remember wanting one when I was learning to drive and in college. They generally demanded a premium, but less so for the HF. It was a great economy car, but it just felt a bit sad for a young kid who wanted something sporty and dreamed of the Si. I’d still take one now, however!
I’ve liked hot hatches since before I knew that’s what they’re called and the CRX was always near the top of the list in its heyday. TBH, I never really cared for non-hatch Civics. They just never really did it for me.
My favorite Civic is still the 4th-gen Si. They were just such a perfect fun to drive daily. The 5th-gen was cool too, mainly for the split rear hatch/tailgate.
The DX was the least desirable CRX. And that’s as a guy who’s owned 4 of them and still has one. Yes, you can (and I did) upgrade the engine, but you’re missing the nice door cards, sunroof, etc. I got lucky and found the door cards, but short of paying someone thousands of dollars, I’m never getting a sunroof, and those cars can use them because even if they had AC, not too many of them have AC that still works.
The HF gave you options. Keep it stock and laugh during every gas panic as the dipshits in brodozers offer you stupid money to get in on your 50-ish mpg, or upgrade it and get better p/w ratio because it’s the lightest starting point.
Either way, the CRX is the most practical of the two fun cars. You can get an amazing amount of crap into that hatch, which is helpful when you go to car meets that involve camping. I always much prefer taking the CRX to trips like that than the MR2. The MR2 is great, but a small tent, a sleeping bag and your clothes max out the trunk and you have to settle for a tiny cooler that fits in the passenger seat.
Yes, good luck finding anybody to deal with those R12 systems.
Converting to 134a isn’t ruinously expensive, so there are options but you often end up converting and then discovering all that old plumbing is pretty leaky. And then you often conclude it just isn’t worth bothering to try and fix all the leaks so you can keep refrigerant for more than a month or two.
Of course, that calculus might change as summers keep getting hotter.
Why would you need anybody? R12 is readily available on Craigslist (I have 16lbs squirrelled away for a rainy day), and A/C work is stupid easy to do with a small investment in the right tools. It’s not rocket surgery.
No shop in my area will touch R12 systems as they don’t have the recovery and storage to deal with it. It’s not stuff you just let into the atmosphere unless you really don’t give a shit.
By the time you are messing with it, it’s already in the atmosphere – otherwise, why would you be?
And it’s not a problem where I am, it just costs more if you want a shop to do it. Which as I said, is really not necessary. A/C work is not rocket surgery. Learn a new skill and save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.
Its pretty easy to convert them. My 1992 Lexus SC300 had ice cold r12 until a line developed a leak. Put dye in system, find leaky line, replace leaky line. Recharge with r134a, it was just as cold as the r12 and didnt give me any issues the next 4 summers I had that car. Shop charged me $150 to do that. I was lucky that it wasnt the compressor shelling out, cause then you gotta replace EVERYTHING due to bits of metal all in the system.
Trust me theyd rather fix the r12 a/c in your old Honda or Corolla vs something like an Ecoboost Ford Explorer. You can get to everything without tearing half the car apart
Now this was a tough decision. Going with the Toyota today, but wouldn’t complain about the Honda either.
One of my good friends in high school had a CRX and it was my dream car for along time. But damn that gen and body style Corolla is an awfully good looking and timeless design. I miss pop-up headlights.
Am I the only one a little disappointed that the CRX HF doesn’t have its original impossibly skinny tailpipe?
Starting Monday off with a very difficult decision.
On one hand, (one of) my grail cars: a CRX. It’s the correct generation with the correct transmission. It’s my favorite color. It is a bit shagged, however. I have a tendency to not leave things the way I find them, so the urge to sink more money into this thing and doing an RRC-style CRX restoration is strong. Complete with engine swap; probably a K-series.
The Corolla, on the other hand, is in much better shape overall, judging from the pictures. Lower miles. Don’t love white for a car color, but it is fitting for the JDM-look. Love the pop-up headlights. There wouldn’t be a lot to fiddle with, which may end up being a good thing.
Do I want to do more work and put a grail car in my garage? Or do I want something possibly turn-key and have a fun little coupe?
If both isn’t an option, gimme the CRX. I’m a glutton for punishment.
Just go with pain. The CRX will be a someday it will be a finished go kart. I went with the Corolla entirely due to the pop up headlights and my ownership of a 94 Del Sol in unmodded condition, save for changing out the 13’s for 14’s. I know….a travesty.