If it's already a going to be a fun car rather than an economy car, why put an undersized engine in there? Give it an engine with a bit more power from the start, NA, and then all the tunerboys can have fun tweaking and blowing it for more power. It would have more torque so you could bark the rear tires. Maybe even make a convertible option.

EDIT: Damn.... I think I just invented the S2000.

 

There's a piece on it in the current Road & Track along with what Spoon has already done to one.

Rick

 

Sounds like the Spoon is the version Honda should have made.

 

I wonder if the 6 speed would mate to the GE FiT? The only part I like is the idea of an extra gear... some six speed are worth it.. others not. I'm gunna cross my fingers that the 6sp in the CRZ is swapable and worth the effort.

 

Add a turbo to the 1.5? I would not buy it. Turbos generally are expensive and just don't last. Even the lastest from GM, in the Solstice and Cobalt have been having problems. Why spend thousand and then have it go belly up and cost thousands more to fix? If Honda would get its head out of its butt and do it right, the CR-Z would be a nice car to have. This isn't '79 anymore. Performance is expected, and if Honda won't do it, others will.

 

Honda is trying to meet a price point with this car. Sure, they could make something better, but for the money, compared to other hybrids, it probably stacks up favorably and is the best they can do at the moment. When the price of batteries comes down, maybe a larger assist motor can be implemented into the second gen model to give a truly sporty appeal.

I bet it will look pretty cool rolling down the street though, and despite my better judgment, I think it will sell.

 

I guess I question what their goal is. The car is pricey for a small 2 seater. With all of Hondas tech ability, you would think they could get a decent powerplant for it. (One with power) I'd buy one in a minute if it had enough power to be fun. Wouldn't trade the Fit in on it though. Might trade the Solstice.

 

[/quote]

An extra .03g of lateral acceleration is nothing to sneer at, nor the MUCH better braking.

I thought the mention of the Econ/Sport mode switch was interesting... I saw the same in the insight. It has nothing to do with the hybrid drive - it moderates throttle inputs to make it smoother, less abrupt, and less wasteful. You'd think they'd put this in the fit.

I've mentioned it before:

Honda Civic HX, 5MT, 2001:
117 hp engine, 1.7L
31/39 (new EPA ratings, 36/44 with old)
2434 lbs

30/36 w/ CVT, 2504 lbs.

Honda Fit, 5MT, 2010:
27/33
2489

Something is amiss in Honda-Land. I think they intentionally cripple the mileage in their small cars to try and make the hybrids look better. Just a theory. With the mileage on the CR-Z, don't be surprised if they start shipping the Fit a pile of bricks in the spare-tire well.

 

Honda has been building turbocharged cars for the Japanese market for years.... Cars are taxed based on engine displacement and they are boosting tiny little cars with 600cc engines.... I can't think of a car that I would trade my old Fit for.

 

It's 660cc, those 60cc are needed. hahaha Actually an old girlfriend of mine, she was going to buy a new kei vehicle and I talked her into the Subaru Pleo, mostly because it was one of the few kei cars with rear discs and it had a 4cylinder 660cc motor versus 3 cylinder as most are, it also had a supercharger versus turbo of other makes, had a redline of 8400 and it came in a 5MT. It was a fun little car/mini-mini-van whatever. It would top out, well speed-limited to 140km/h, but definitely would do much more than that.

I may have seriously considered the CR-Z instead of the Fit, as they were released about 1 month after finally taking delivery of the Fit, but the big downside for me is the price. It would of cost me about $7000 more on top of the $21000 I paid for the Fit. That is to get it in spec with the Fit. I will say they are better performers without a doubt compared to the Fit and I am basing this on what I saw with my own eyes up at Nikko Circuit. They are much more composed in handling which allows them to attack a corner at a higher speed and that big jump in low-end torque is a big help coming out of a tight corner compared to the lack of torque in the L15 in regular configuration. I seriously wish Honda would have released one without the hybrid add-on, even with just the normal L15A. It would be lighter than the Fit at that point, though the weight distribution would sway back to around the Fit or even a tiny bit more nose heavy with the loss of the batteries in the back. Though maybe not, as the electric motor residing between the block and tranny would also disappear. It would be cheaper though then, maybe priced around the Fit or a tad more. I really want the 6MT and the aluminum front lower arms from it to move over to the Fit and I would be even happier with the Fit.

Definitely won't be trading in as I would not get much for the Fit and then have to still pay all that extra money on top of it.

 

Of note: Turbos of the past were expensive and didn't last. Look at Subaru and Audi, The turbos are not the things to fail in either one of these cars and while Audi has had engine problems in the past, subaru has made rock sold engines for years, with many of them being highly turbo'd. I can't consider comparing Honda engines to the latest from GM. it's like apples and oranges in terms of quality and reliability. Add a turbo to an already unreliable engine and you have potential for disaster. Honda's K23 turbocharged 4cyl in the RDX has been another rock solid engine. As it's geared towards those who would actually use the happy pedal and visit the turbo range (unlike a buick or other old person car - these come with ultra-reliable blinkers for when they are left on for miles), it's had plenty time to fail.

A turbo'd 1.5L makes sense to me in the CR-Z and as a good part of the appeal of the -Z is fuel economy with a pinch of sportiness, I think adding a turbo to the 1.5 would give both camps on the CR-Z what they are looking for; economy and performance.

For whoever asked about the 6sp. From what I've read, while it will swap in to the Fit as they both use the same engine, the gearing for the CR-Z's 6sp is not aimed at a non-IMA engine. It is "geared" towards having that extra torque which means a wimpy little engine (in terms of torque) like a stand-alone L15, would not benefit at all from the 6sp.

Oh and to the OP's Question... No I wouldn't trade. There's no room for a Child Seat.

~SB

 

Liked your last line

My point about undersized engines is it keeps weight down - arguably one reason why the Fit/Jazz drives the way it does (I like your word for it - "fun").

There's no free lunch when it comes to adding power, especially with regard to weight, but a blower and its piping will usually add much less of it compared to a larger-capacity NA engine. You could make a larger-capacity NA engine out of lightweight materials but by the time you're done you might not end up with the cheap and fun powerplant you were looking for because your lightweight materials have already outstripped a reasonable out-the-door SRP.

That's just my take on it. It does have its supporters though, with US people complaining that the ZF1 CR-Z is too heavy.

 

I'd be interested to know if the final 6th gear would lower the RPMs at highway speeds.

Oh and I won't trade my Fit for a CR-Z. No way!

 

Turbo charging always seems to be the accepted form of boost when adding power to a car..... Numerous car manufacturers and kit suppliers are using superchargers since the traction drive Rotrex S/C has been out.... The power delivery you experience with one of them feels like you have 70% more engine under the hood at 10 PSI without the lag and shorter oil change intervals of a turbo or the weight of a larger engine.

 

i would consider it only if it was this one.

 

Nope. If I want to drive a sports car I just get into my ...

 

Doesn't handle really great. Acceleration is the same. Can't hold anything. Looks great for a 2 door... like the old CR-x. But, why? Why didn't Honda come out with a real performer... at least, the sporty crowd would buy it. I can't see the buyer nitch... other than preferred looks. Too bad, I was hoping for more.

 

Yes... it would provide a lower RPM at highway speeds.
The Ratio for the Fit
5MT is .727
5AT is .552
CR-Z 6th is .688

The RPM's would be less but still not that big of a difference.

1st gear is where the problems will lie. if you think the FIT is sluggish off the line now at 3.308, imagine what it would be like at 3.142. 2nd gear is almost identical between the 6MT CR-Z and the 5MT Fit. The extra 22 lb-ft of torque is used to get the CR-Z's additional 150lbs of weight up to speed (2nd gear).

Switching over to the 6mt from the CR-Z would be worse than dropping in the auto trans from the FIT. The 5AT in the FIT has a better gear ratio at crusing speed.

I was hoping for a better scenario as I'd love to have a quieter car at 60mph but to lose acceleration down low where the fit really needs it, is a killer... especially when the rpm's won't change that much at the top end.

It's a shame.

I wonder if there would be a performance increase in the CR-Z if you put in the 5MT from the FIT.

~SB

 

So, that shows the baseline torque curve in a GD3. Not a GE8, but close enough for gummint work, as torque largely correlates with engine displacement.

Note how weak the torque is below about 3K RPM. That electric motor, while it isn't adding much to the overall horsepower (as its torque drops off at higher RPMs, where the multiplication of engine speed and torque would calculate as more horsepower), that 122 lb-ft of torque is available at 1000-1500 RPM. Ever driven a GEM car... unless they apply DBW nannies, it'll jump like a raped pig.

 

I can't imagine this car sharing the same sales lot with a fit hybrid?

I don't get it.