You own a Fit, right? Well on paper would a 2,500 lb car with a 106 ft lbs of torque make you salivate, yeah, me neither. According to the Fit brochure, a Fit Sport with manual trans and navi weighs 2,534 lbs. This CR-Z is supposed to weigh 2,670 lbs, a difference of 136 lbs. I think the extra 22 ft lbs of torque will be more than enough to compensate for the weight gain.

Again, just like the Fit this CR-Z isn't about straight line speed. It's about being able to get fantastic gas mileage while driving a sporty car that is actually fun to drive and practical/reliable all at the same time. Gee, that sounds exactly like the mission statement of the Fit. The added bonus is all the nice stuff you get that can't be had on a Fit, such as rear disc brakes, 6-speed manual, HID auto on/off lights, auto climate control, 360 watt sound system, exterior temp gauge etc.

I think this car is going to sell very well, as I'm sure there are plenty of people like myself who have shied away from hybrids because of how un-fun they are to drive. I'm all for reliability, fuel economy, and practicality, but I also need to enjoy the car I'm driving. That ain't happening in a Prius, Insight, hybrid Camry, hybrid Altima, hybrid Fusion etc.

 

Hey, I think I get your hint, this should go in the other car related discussions, right? Well the mods are free to move it any time.

 

Correct, this is the general consensus shared by many honda employees. This is going to be a fairly expensive vehicle that will need battery replacement every 5-8 years. At $2500+ battery replacement will largely negate the mediocre increase in fuel effeciency. I ran some numbers on cost/year comparing the CRZ to my CB7 accord and even with several grand in parts into my car it is cheaper to stick with my car rather than buy a CRZ.

That being said, it does look interesting, it is nice to see a compact coupe type hybrid. However, it seems to fall short of expectations. Will I buy one? Probably not, fuel effecient non hybrid cars are still the answer IMO. If you want to, have at it, it looks like it would be a fun little car. Just make sure you do your research and realize what hybrids really cost.

 

there shouldn't be anything to move. everything that has been discussed in this thread, has already been discussed.

 

Thank you! Finally someone else who sees through the hybrid haze. Anyone who thinks the internal combustion engine has no more legs left to squeeze out more power AND fuel efficiency, don't give engineers any credit. 20 years ago, you would have been laughed out of the room if you told a mechanic that "One day, engines will be able to offer more than 70hp/litre normally aspirated, AND have better fuel economy than to day.

 

Oh I see, I know for a fact NO ONE has ever posted something thas has been discussed prior. I appreciate you looking out for the interests of the forum members, but why don't you leave that job to the moderators of this site. If they want to move this thread, merge it with the other 2011 CR-Z discussion, or even delete because it's already been posted than so be it. But that's their job, not yours.

This thread is slightly different than the other CR-Z thread because I'm not just discussing the CR-Z but I'm comparing it to my Fit, so in a way this is GE related.

 

An ICE will never be able to recapture braking heat/energy and convert it back into gasoline. As such, hybrid systems of various forms (battery, flywheel, etc) increase the overall efficiency by recapturing otherwise wasted energy. Of course the payback period can be calculated/argued, but I always wonder what the payback period of an automatic transmission or the Sport option is.

 

If you're doing it for economy, never (Sport option). If you're doing it because you like the tech and it makes you feel good, immediately.

Hybrid technology is no different I guess. It's just that the CR-Z doesn't do it very well.

 

DGS pretty much hit it on the nose with the strong points of the new CR-Z. On the street, peak HP is way less important than torque. Step on the Fit's accelerator, and not much happens below 4000 rpm because it makes only 106 ft-pds of torque; with a 25% boost from the electric drive, the CR-Z is going to feel a lot peppier without dropping two or three gears to accelerate. The main complaint of most car enthusiasts about the Insight and Prius is that they are so damned boring to drive. Now Honda introduces a hybrid that is likely to be a little more fun, and we complain about it not delivery >40 mpg. The EPA mileage figures seem in line with the likely performance of the CR-Z, although it is surprising that city mileage is so much lower than highway, which is the opposite of most hybrids, but that may be an artifact of the EPA test cycle, and real world city/highway mileage may be closer.

From pre-release photos, I'm not a fan of the big nose (at least compared with the concept version), but it may look better in the flesh next summer. Like the Insight, I still don't like the big C pillars, and limited rear visibility with the steeply raked rear window. Stylistically, the CR-Z looks more like it should be the second-generation Insight than the actual Insight -- especially from the rear. But then, what would Honda have called the Insight? Maybe the Primus, since it looks like such a Prius clone.

I'll be surprised if the top of the line CR-Z comes in under $25,000 -- certainly not out the door, with delivery, tax and tag fees.

I'll probably take one out for a test drive this summer, just to see what it's like, and I suspect it will be the first hybrid I have ever enjoyed driving.

 

the lower mpg is due to 6spd manual. The CVT's city EPA is consistent with its highway. Which raises the question: why would anyone want a hybrid without a CVT to provide regenerative braking? If you're going to render the batteries less useful you might as well get a non-hybrid.

link
- Preliminary EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, CVT (City/Highway/Combined): 36/38/37 miles per gallon
- Preliminary EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, MT (City/Highway/Combined): 31/37/33 miles per gallon

 

Went back to visit the turbo Aveo thread.

It appears the same GM 1.4L turbo ecotec will be in the new Cruze.

With a factory tune it provides 138hp, 148lbft torque, 40mpg highway from a 1.4L powerplant!

I'm sure it's de-tuned for economy and to save the freaking drivetrain. My experience with GM's 2L turbo ecotec is they soon provided a factory tune boosting output by more than 10%. There are many 3rd party tunes available for a few hundred dollars that do much better.

I mean really; what is Honda smoking?

link

 

I went to the Detriot Auto show this year. Here are some pics of the car in discussion. The CR-Z looks wise didn't impress me. Reminded me of the original Insight size wise. But I bet the drive would be nice and smooth. This thing is tiny inside. Two people and that's it. I couldn't even go grocery shopping in that thing.
Just as an observation... Fogs look the same as the Fit









Here is your Aveo RS that you were talking about. Sharp car...small like the Fit but with some power. Just wonder what the price tag would be and if it would actually hold up.