Okay, so I finally read up on the specs of this car and I have to admit it's looking pretty damn good. Here are some of the things that stand out for me on the top-line EX model:

1. Rear disc brakes
2. 122 hp, but more importantly 128 ft lbs torque
3. Fuel economy estimates by Honda are 31/37 for manual trans.
4. 6-speed manual!
5. Vehicle stability assist (standard, no need to buy a nav to get it)
6. Automatic climate control
7. HID headlights with auto on/off and fog lights
8. 360 watt sound system
9. Bluetooth with steering wheel controls (navi is an option)
10. Outside temp gauge
11. Length x Width x Height = 160.6 x 68.5 x 54.9 and 95.8 inch wheelbase.
12. Sport tuned suspension (but still uses rear torsion beam and 16" wheels)

Of course it also has the standard stuff like tilt/telescoping steering wheel, security system with remote entry, cruise control, AUX and USB interfaces etc. I'm really digging these specs, a lot. I love the Fit for it's simplicity and honesty, but let's be real, I bought the car for four reasons: Honda reliability, fun to drive, fuel efficient, and very practical hatchback space. This new CR-Z brings all of that and then some at a higher price than the Fit of course. The real test will be a drive, but at this stage in the game I am very interested in this car and I'll just leave it at that.

Hits showrooms this summer, I'll be there. Make mine an EX model with navigation, manual trans, and in a blackberry pearl type color...

 

a hybrid with bad gas mileage, disguised as a sports car.

i'm not sure i'm sold on this concept.

 

idk.. i'd like it if it had a smaller nose.

 

31/37 is "bad" gas mileage? Sorry, that is not bad gas mileage by any stretch. I guess for a hybrid it's not the best, but the mission statement of this car is more about sport than fuel economy, excellent fuel economy is just a nice by product. Plus as we all know Honda usually beats the EPA fuel economy ratings by a lot. The Fit is rated at 27/33 and how many people on this board do much better than that every day? Plus what other hybrid out there can be had with a manual transmission, oh yeah, that's right, none!

I think in every way this is the spiritual successor to the original CR-Z. Maybe you're not old enough to remember, but the original CR-Z was a small, lightweight, fuel efficient, extremely fun to drive little car. It wasn't about horsepower it was just a fun little car with excellent handling. It was sporty looking but it was hardly a sports car. The same thing with this new model, it's not a sports car but it will probably be a blast to drive.

I bet this CR-Z turns out to be more fun to drive than the Fit.

 

valid point. in fact that's exactly what i have read since first seeing this thread.

i have to get it into my head that a hybrid designed to be sporty and to look like a sports car without actually being a sports car is a legit segment.

 

The nose is so big because of the damn pedestrian crap. I do wish they could have sloped it down more so it doesn't have such a large beak, but to me it still looks pretty good. I'm more curious if the 6MT it is coming with will be mateable to the L15 in the Fit.

I would like to have one, but I can only have 2 cars here and my 2nd one is going to end up being another 3 letter with a hyphen designator Honda.

 

Uh, I think you mean spiritual successor to the CR-X

And yes, as a hybrid, getting the same gas mileage as a gas engine, IS crappy, so what's the point? To make the greenies happy? Everyone can go on on about about hybrids, but I'm just not sold, considering, just like ever other rechargable battery format out there, these have to be replaced when they can no longer hold a charge, and these batteries are not cheap to replace.

Personally, offer it with a variation of the current Civic Si engine, and a full independent rear suspension and then we can talk true spiritual successor to the original CR-X.

Oh Honda, why have thou forsaken us!!

 

As stated. the CR-Z will most surely do better than the epa estimates if driven correctly. My Fit is averaging 37mpg combined and is rated for just over 30. I think we can expect to see 40+mpg on average with the CR-Z. to be honest, 37mpg is pretty good and is definitely not crappy. Expectations of the original insight and Prius MPG estimates are pointless and is like expecting a VeggieBurger to taste like Sirloin, unrealistic. Honda uses IMA technology with a small motor so differences in economy aren't going to be huge like with a Prius VS Corola. As far as battery technology, rechargeables can last for a LONG time. I still have a number of Rechargable AA's that are 10 years old and running strong. There are also a number of 1st gen Insight and Prius out on the road; saw an Insight yesterday.

Greenies? ok... I lean a little more towards the green side of things but, This car is going to help move Honda towards the new CAFE standards. These new CAFE standards are good for everyone as pollution levels will not increase at the same rate anymore, average fuel consumption will drop, and cars will progress technologically. Why anyone would think this isn't a good thing is beyond me. (help keep the price of gas down so we can keep gas flowing into my FIL's 69 GT500)

As for the K20 in a CR-Z? Too much front weight bias. I'd think an R18 would be a good choice though for an "SI" model. 140hp with an additional 10 from an IMA... That would definitely move the CR-Z. The CR-Z is a successor to the X. The CR-X was not highly powered at all but a fun, tossable car. The Z should be the same in the fact that it will be a fun car to drive. Is it a pocket rocket? no. is it going to be as economical as a Prius? No. It also won't be as anemic or numb to drive either. With a CVT or 6Sp, it should be as economical or fun to drive as the driver chooses.

Power/Performance expectations have gotten way too high as today's 4Cy sedans are outperforming sports cars of 20 years ago.

~SB

 

it's threads like this that make me love this forum.

every cr-z site has everyone complaining about high 30mpg numbers and 122hp rating. No one even thinks about the fact that the most powereful US spec cr-x only had 108hp! Honda is already beating that. Yes, the fact remains that you could essentially be getting about the same numbers as far as fuel efficiency and power go from a 91 crx, but you're giving up A LOT, bluetooth, stock hid's, 6-spd, auto climate control, 360w sound system, etc... and, come on, it's a honda. If you wanna stick a different power plant in it, give hasport about 3 months to make the brackets and do it yourself. Anyhow, I'm very excited to see so many people on here thinking about it this way. If you want even more power, buy a civic. if you want better fuel economy, buy an insight. this car is for the people that want both, and are excited about the progress coming to hybrids. I can't wait to get my hands on one.

 

Honda seems to hate forced induction, otherwise I think they would have/should have used it in this application. Coupled with a stingy 4cyl they'd have mpg in this range with a lot more power and a lot less weight and complexity. Factory turbos and superchargers are very reliable these days and have the best of both worlds in terms of economy and power.

This seems like a hybrid that won't appeal to hybrid enthusiasts, and a sports car that won't appeal to sports car enthusiasts. Its price and lack of utility will not appeal to the econo-box enthusiasts and its tech will remove it from the hands of tuners and technophobes.

I'm a card carrying greenie and technophile; hybrids don't do it for me. A plug in hybrid would, but not at the 40k price tag the Chevy Volt is coming out with.

Who exactly are they marketing this to?

 

I think the number of people who are actually interested in the CR-Z in this thread outnumbers what I've seen on all other general car forums & enthusiast forums put together.

All it's going to come down to is the price point. If it competes with the Fit/Civic it MIGHT sell, but if it comes with a hybrid premium and competes with the (price range of) new Toyobaru cars and Toyota hybrid-sports division coming up, then it's going to be a major flop.

 

A turbo mated to the L15 wouldn't produce as much power as many people think. The L15 has a Higher compression than most engines of it's size which is why it achieves 117hp naturally aspirated. To be useful in a turbo setup, you'd have to drop the compression (reduce Power), then add power back in using the turbo and in doing so, your gains wouldn't be that high. The aftermarket turbo available (soon?) for the fit I believe is pushing 25hp more? (and that is with the current compression ratio). A stock turbo would be mated to an engine with lower compression and result in probably a 15-20 +/- hp gain over what the fit currently has (for reliability). The CR-Z is already 5+ over the fit at 122hp and a turbo'd L15 would probably be around 135hp. - not much of a difference unless you dropped some weight. you think the CR-Z is laughed at now... Might as well drop an R18 from a civic with 140hp in there.

Honda uses a turbo in the RDX currently and is pushing 240hp out of it's K23 and the K24 in the TSX (Bored out K23) has 205hp Naturally aspirated. (only 35hp more; of note, the K24 is a DOHC iVTEC engine while the L15 is a SOHC iVTEC engine. Turbos will produce more power on a DOHC setup than SOHC.)

There's no reason the CR-Z has to have so much power to be fun. Look at the Mini Cooper. It has 118hp and is a blast to drive. As long as the balance is good and the handling is tight, the CR-Z as it stands should be quite enjoyable.

~SB

 

The CRX si weighted just under 2200lb. The CR-Z is almost 2700lb. Once the battery is depleted (it doesn't take long, if going all out), you no longer have 122HP. The extra HP increase doesn't mean much if it has to push another 500lb.

I think Jeremy Clarkson described it the best: "organic tofu dressed as a juicy steak"

 

I would have replied but specboy and jnesselroad said everything I would have said, so nothing to add to their excellent posts.

I will just say I'm excited and intrigued about this car but I will reserve further driving judgement until getting behind the wheel of one. I think Honda was very smart to tap into a market segment that no one else has, and that is to make a sporty, fun-to-drive hybrid. You mention the word "hybrid" when talking about a car and most people think "fuel efficient penalty box." I mean does anyone buy a Prius because it's fun to drive? This CR-Z looks like an honest attempt by Honda to make a hybrid that is fun to drive and I have no problem. The specs are looking good though, so a few reviews and a test drive will tell more.

I say anyone judging this car one way or another to just wait until it's out first. Especially the people complaining about the early gas mileage estimates (they are estimates by the way from Honda, not the EPA) because we all know Honda four cylinders routinely trounce the EPA estimates. The Fit is rated at 30 mpg combined, I've been getting 37 mpg since the day I bought this car a year ago (as well as many other users here). I have no doubt in my mind the 31/37 estimates for the CR-Z will be very low in real world driving. I bet this car gets an EASY 40 plus on the highway.

Will I trade my Fit in for it, I don't know, but this is the first car that has put the thought into my head since buying it. A hatchback that gets better gas mileage, is more fun to drive, has more features, is lightweight (yes, I know it's heavier than the Fit, but 2,670 is still a light car for all the tech it has), and has the Honda reliability sounds like a good deal to me.

 

Same here...that schnoz just has to go I think. Also the styling seems to have turned a little worse vs. the second concept incarnation.

Otherwise I don't have anything major to bicker about.

 

Well, I like it. I don't care if it's a hybrid or not. It's got good torque, and that comes from the hybrid drive. Styling is good, and mileage, though less than what most of us get with a Fit, is still rated better than the Fit is. I would expect better real world numbers than what is now posted. As far as forced air, I will wait and see how long the new crop last. I have been flying turbo aircraft for a number of years, and they just are not as reliable in the long run. I suspect the cars will be the same.
My problem is what I have heard about price. Around $30 k. For that, I would put a few more bucks in and buy a Mustang GT ragtop.

 

From everything I have seen I think it is going to be a pretty disappointing car.

But who knows, I will reserve my judgment until I get a chance to test drive one.

 

shrug.

GM gets 173HP/167lbft torque from its normally aspirated 2.4L. From their LNF 2.0L factory turbo they make 260hp and 260lbft. Minor tweaking with a factory tune (under warranty) boosts it to 290hp and 325lbft. In a 2,800 lb car it gets 27 around town and over 30 on the highway. I'm talking around 22lbs of boost at sea level. YMMV.

I'm kinda sold on turbos. I think if Honda did it right they'd get the same percentage increases from a 1.5. But then I'm no automotive engineer. Maybe there is something preventing this in that size engine.

Either way, 122hp/128lbft in a 2,700lb 2 seater hybrid doesn't make me salivate.

 

You heard wrong. This car is going to slot in-between the Insight and the Civic Hybrid. I would say a Fully loaded model tops out at $25,000.

I agree, the beak does look a little extreme in pictures, but I'm going to wait to see what it looks like in 3D before passing judgment. Some cars just don't photograph well.

 

Other Car Related Discussions

and.......

Reposted!